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).]
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.
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.
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).]
Introduction to Historical European Martial Arts
They have some great info in there about swords and wounds.
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?
Answer: Relatively often.
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).]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).]
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.
Neal Stephensons "Snow Crash" has this crazed eskimo that uses glass knives for the same reason, very good book btw.
That does raise the question of what exactly counts as a sword, though.
A short flint knife is a dangerous weapon indeed. but not a flint sword
The dagger idea sounds interesting, though.
[This message has been edited by Keeley (edited January 21, 2005).]
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.