posted
That no one ever deals with the nasty side of armored / bladed combat. A very common and effective practice to keep the blades and points of the weapons smeared or covered in human feces. A little nick with a dirty sabre blade and you effectively have killed the poor guy. Most of the weaponry used in european combat wasn't invented to provide a quick kill but to incapicitate you and have you endure a long lingering noisy death. Causing demoralization and the spread of disease.
I have never seen this as an aspect in any book. Does anyone have any knowledge of such?
[This message has been edited by JBSkaggs (edited January 18, 2005).]
posted
I understand that the muskets used during the revolutionary ward by the British (and others) had triangular bladed bayonnettes. The shape of wound produced by this blade resisted healing, therefore increasing the chance of infection and a horrible, painful death.
Posts: 1672 | Registered: Apr 2004
|
I would rank "dirty blades" as more a side-effect than an actual practice. Rust is one of the best ways to retain lethal pathogens on a metal surface. Conversly, efforts to prevent a blade from rusting will tend to remove pathogens and prevent them from accumulating on the metal.
In medieval times, it would have been well known that wounds breed disease, but it would not have been well established that a rusty weapon would be more likely to cause fatal infections. There were people that suspected it, no doubt, but by and large those who lived by the sword tended to be more impressed with the evidence that suggested you were more likely to survive yourself if you took good care of your blade. It was also a good bet in battle that the guy with the rusty sword didn't use it much, so doing something to make your own weapon look dirty was counter-survival most of the time.
Also, it is possible to exaggerate the lethal potential of a "dirty blade" weapon. Remember, most of the pathogens you'll find in human feces were things to which the general population would have at least some immunity. A mere "nick" wouldn't do it, these people got feces in their "nicks" all the time. Given the standards of hygene, a big wound with a clean blade would be a lot more likely to get infected than a small wound with a dirty blade, since both would probably be washed using the same none too clean water and bound with the same dirty rags.
This doesn't mean that rusty blades with "camp mud" on them weren't common, it just means that when you fight a battle in that kind of environment, there isn't a big difference between wounds from "dirty blade" weapons and those from clean bladed weapons. The main difference is that the guy with a clean blade will be more likely to survive the battle for a number of reasons.
posted
we probably all want to read stories that have an air of credibility, no matter how fantastic the tale.
The sword is a weapon often use in fantasy, which often has a medieval flavor, at least through an idealized filter. But I doubt any of us really want to witness an actaul sword fight, or participate in one, or wish to live in medieval times.
My ad-hoc theory is perhaps coating a sword in dung just doens't sound that heroic or nobel.
posted
I always thought the reason for incapacitating wounds is it takes more than one person out of the fight. It also removes the guy who stops to help the wounded and draws resources from the enemy to move and care for the injured.
Posts: 497 | Registered: Jun 2004
|
quote:I understand that the muskets used during the revolutionary [war] by the British (and others) had triangular bladed bayonnettes. The shape of wound produced by this blade resisted healing, therefore increasing the chance of infection and a horrible, painful death
Yeah, Continentials/militia were more afraid of the bayonnette then they were of the musket.
Generally, speaking they could hold their lines, and exchange musket volley, but as soon as the British charged, it was a wrap. Panic ensued.
Two, points here
1.) Continentials/militia didn't have bayonetts of their own. Their muskets were used for hunting and not war
2.) bayonetts were like a foot long. I saw a couple at the Yorktown Battlefield museum, and they were NASTY!!!
So, djvdakota, yeah you're discription is MORE than accurate...
JOHN!!!!
[This message has been edited by JOHN (edited January 19, 2005).]
quote:The sword is a weapon often use in fantasy, which often has a medieval flavor, at least through an idealized filter. But I doubt any of us really want to witness an actaul sword fight, or participate in one
Are you kidding? Do you know how often I've wished that sword-fighting was still socially acceptable?
posted
The Indonesian 'kris' is a wavy, 'flame-bladed knife' with a very narrow neck connecting the handle. They were made of iron, not steel and were to be stuck into a banana tree for some time before use. The reaction between the tree and the iron made a potent poison, a nick could make you ail and more substantial wound would kill you -- to death.
The blade/handle connection was thin so that if you did manage to stick the knife into someone you could snap it off and escape, leaving the opponent/target to a lengthy extraction and an inevitable death. It was more of an assassin's weapon than hand-to-hand I suppose.
By the way: weren't a lot of the big-blunt swords designed after the development of armor and designed more to bash someone through the mail than slice and dice them? This of course is if you are fighting someone in armor rather than a peasant wielding a pointy stick. Also the graveyard in Göteberg in Sweden, has a mass burial from a viking battle there. Recent excavations have proved that, at least in that battle, bladed weapons were relatively rare and most deadly wounds occured from blunt weapons (including spiked maces) with a much smaller amount attributed to arrows.
They believe that either swords and axes were less well represented as in they were status weapons or that people were more likely to survive one of these wounds, at least until the battle was over.
[This message has been edited by hoptoad (edited January 19, 2005).]
posted
Weren't swords often made of wood at one time? Only the very rich actually had metal weapons. The blades could be honed to become quite sharp, but they were not as sturdy as metal blades.
Posts: 1473 | Registered: Jul 2004
|
posted
Swords intended for lethal use have never been made of wood. You can make an edged club by setting stone or metal barbs into a heavy piece of wood, but it's not a sword. Staff type weapons designed for variable lethality are more common. These can have significant combat advantages over a sword besides being cheaper and more useful. But you don't sharpen them and call them swords. Lances, spears, and such also have a place.
Big swords in medival Europe were mainly for fighting polearms, one of the preferred weapons for taking out heavy armor and cavalry. These swords were heavier and longer so that they could cut a polearm's shaft before the downstroke gained lethal force. Such swords were also employed in a role similar to small, expensive polearms by simply charging in and giving a single downstroke, then switching to a close quarters weapon. And they found other uses as well. But they never seem to have caught on as a primary personal weapon they way they were used in the East. It would be exceptional to find anyone using a really big sword for general melee. They do look great with a full suit of armor, though.
Generally, the early martial arts of Europe were actually martial (military) in origin and outlook, having evolved from formation tactics promulgated by the Romans and other organized militaries. It wasn't until the rapier (and later the foil) came into vogue that a personal martial arts system like those of Asia began to really develop. This means that to a very large extent the type of weapon you carried into battle reflected your role in an army. Most of the more exotic weapons of medieval Europe aren't really designed for general melee purposes and many are almost completely useless outside of a formation battle. This is in contrast to Asia, where most weapons existed to complement the individual skills of their users. Of course there is overlap on both sides, there were formation oriented weapons in the East and personal weapons in the West. And it was a mark of some individuals to use an unusual weapon for personal combat.
In a fantasy world, where you choose to strike that balance is up to you. So is the level of weapons technology. But you should try to be consistent.
posted
There was a Ninja Clan that used Wooden swords, and they were used with such speed as to be lethal. But if they didn't kill or incapacitate their metal sword weilding foe with the first strike then they were sunk.
Posts: 1895 | Registered: Mar 2004
|
posted
Kris blades made their way to Europe to some extent. There were even kris bladed swords that were valued for their light weight--the idea is that you take a straight sword and cut 'notches' out of them at intervals, making it possible to have a lethally long blade without adding the extra weight.
Posts: 1672 | Registered: Apr 2004
|
quote:Weren't there rapiers used in Ireland before the Romans invaded? I'm sure I read something of that nature.
No. Rapiers are thin double edged swords primarilly used for thrusting, they first appeared in the 16th century. I cannot fathom trying to make an "iron" rapier so I am pretty sure the Irish were not using them during the Roman invasion.
posted
The use of wooden swords or boken in medieval japan was one of impoverished armies. In the battle of sekigahara where Musashi started his career, many low ranking samurai and peasantry were issued Oak Swords or wooden swords for financial reasons. The swords were clubs essentially and though they could pummel an opponent to death they really did not have much value as general weapons (as shown by the Army Musashi was in being trashed soundly thru superior weaponry (sword, spear, arrows, and rifles.)
Musashi himself when he became a duelist came to the belief that his mind was his sword and he proved it by dueling with boat oars, sticks, rocks, swords, spears, and open hand.
In reality Musashi was reported to say to Yagyu that if a battalion had fallen to using their swords in defense they were soon to be gone from this world.
As swordsman were not very effective against archers, lance calvary or spear infantry.
To point something else out. For those with a romantized view of sword combat. The art of Iaido makes a perfect example of what the sword was for. Today Iaido is practiced as a solo art form to perfect the body and spirit and its mindset is not far from golf. But Iaido was known until the 1800's as the art of murder. Because it was focused on drawing and killing "unsuspecting" victims, willing victims, and assasinations. Such as leaping from the bushes and striking down passersby, killing from a hidden place like a closet or window, killing from under the raised porches as people crossed over or passed by. Of course it was perfected in prison camps practicing the cuts on tied up victims. Many times a swords value was based on how many prisoners it could cut through in one cut.
Many of the respectable families frowned upon Iaido or Iaijutsu as being abnditry system. There was of course similar practices in most military societies including Europe.
posted
The ancient celts of Ireland did invent a rapier type weapon out of bronze and early steel. It was dropped because the celts riveted the blades onto bone or wooden handles which broke off. The modern form of the rapier came as a modification to the court swords of Italy and Florence and spread out into the fashions of the european kingdoms. England had a love hate relationship with the rapier viewing it as both un-english and well damned effective. Captain Hudson (1590) wrote a rather decent treatise on British swordmanship vs. Italian. Even Hudson grudgingly acknowledged Italian Swordmanship (the rapier) as "the perfect science of killing in the duel." He though scoffed at its use in general combat as it took years to master. Much preferring the British cut and thrust swords for mounted and infantry use. Even so the sabre soon arrived and proved it's superiority to the double edged sword as a military weapon in the Napoleonic Wars.
Posts: 451 | Registered: Dec 2004
|
posted
Sabers and other curved blades are superior for cavalry and formation combat, but they don't fare well in advanced individual combat.
Wooden swords (like bokken) were generally intended as training devices (or as props). They were never designed to be used in lethal combat. If you want a lethal wooden weapon, you use a spear, lance, club, staff, etc.
posted
You are correct about the bokken it was not intended as a weapon, but the army was under supplied and under financed. The same thing happens today, poor countries issue non working firearms, or guns without ammunition. So the people they send to be human shields have something that at least makes them look like a soldier.
Concerning the Sabre for dueling, it was not effective against the light sword or rapier and the same holds true for the katana. When the portuguese introduced the thrust method of fencing in the duel to the japanese islands the japanese katana weilders didn't fare well at all.
Back in Europe Napolean ordered the Sabre weilders to use their points in battle rather than the edge. Survivor is of course correct the sabre was mounted calvary weapon. Infantry sabre actually was straight bladed light sword resembling a single edged rapier.
[This message has been edited by JBSkaggs (edited January 20, 2005).]
posted
All this talk about the stuff swords are made of reminded me of the Aztecs' swords (called macuahuitl). They were made of wood with pieces of obsidian along the edges. They were sharper than steel -- its cut is so clean, it's now used in eye surgery.
However, these swords were only mean for slashing. They weren't built to pierce. Thus, Spanish steel eventually took over.
I've always wanted to combine the piercing ability of the long sword with an obsidian blade. I think it would make an interesting and unique weapon inside a fantasy story.
posted
Problem with that is the same problem the Aztecs had, obsidian is very sharp (it's volcanic glass after all) but it is also VERY brittle and smacking it into metal armor and weapons quickly turned the weapon into a club.
Neal Stephensons "Snow Crash" has this crazed eskimo that uses glass knives for the same reason, very good book btw.
posted
Yeah, the Aztec weapon...I'd have a hard time accepting it as a sword. Those things are really not swordy at all, even before you smash the edge off after your first blow.
That does raise the question of what exactly counts as a sword, though.
posted
The germanic peoples actually tried to create flint swords (as a way for poor people to imitate expensive steel) of course the blades were short, beautiful, and nearly worthless as a combat weapon.
A short flint knife is a dangerous weapon indeed. but not a flint sword
posted
But there is an alternative to the sword per se in stone age weaponry. Some cultures carried a scepter that also acted as a miniature spear or round bladed sword. these items were usually formed of wood, bone, bronze, gold, or silver, sometimes the base was a perfectly smooth dowel of one material tipped with a metal or stone point. These weapons functioned very similar to a rapier (minus the cut aspect for edged rapiers)
In egyptian culture these sharpened rods or scepters sometimes doubled as magic wands.
I have seen some ancient bone and wood versions of these rods from a congo region arch. dig which would have slid thru a non armored human torso like a knife thru butter. They were long (upwards of three feet) thin and flexible with ornate carved handles. I believe they used them Roman fashion, thrusting from behind rawhide shields.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
*quickly ducks tomatoes*
