While I cannot claim any particular martial expertise, it seems to me that in using the straight sword for cutting rather than thrusting, in many cases the point would be the focus of the cut in a slashing effect. In fencing resources this was noted as a tearing cut with the point of the sword known as the 'stramazone'. While such 17th c. Italian swordplay technique would clearly not be applicable here in discussion of later combat with heavier swords, it simply seemed worthy of note.
While studying regulation military swords years ago, I found that the key debate in military technology concerning military swords was of course,cut vs. thrust as far as the mortality of the wounds. These debates continued from the 18th century into the 20th! and ironically it was not until the sword was entirely obsolete that the 'ideal sword' was developed. The British M1908 cavalry sabre, followed by the American M1913 Patton sabre of the same basic form apparantly provided the ideal blade for both cut and thrust. These cumbersome, huge swords were actually worn on the saddle, and while the British version saw use in WWI and even as late as the 1930's in India...the American version was not at all popular and never saw combat of any kind.
In use of the sword in battle it was found that unless the sabre wound was an obviously fatal one such as decapitation or massive blood loss and shock from dismemberment, recovery was possible. In the case of the thrust, with the well established lack of proper medical care, sepsis and death were typically mortal in most wounds involving any organs, massive hemorrhaging not withstanding. One of the key problems in many cavalry situations was the poor maintainance of sabres and thier inability to deliver substantial wounds. In many cases the dulled sabres simply delivered bruises and did not cut through heavy uniforms etc. However, during the Napoleonic wars, the British light cavalry M1796 was extremely effective with ghastly effect, and Napoleon declared thier use 'barbaric'. He had ordered his troops to 'give point', and even many of the light cavalry thrusted with thier sabres, again with deadly effect. The heavy cavalry of course carried huge straight swords, whose method of use was clearly established.
The backswords used by troops in the 17th and 18th centuries were intended to both slash and thrust and used by most mounted troops in these times. The cavalry in those times were 'dragoons' and typically dismounted in combat. The blades were heavy and long, for long reach off the huge horses, but as described, could deliver chopping blows quite effectively, but it does not seem rapid movement was involved. The wedge shape of the blade gave extra weight to the back of the blade and gave impetus to the chopping cut, driving the sharpened edge into the application. The false edge or sharpened segment of the back of the blade near the point gave the necessary dynamics for the thrust as well as slashing cuts with the point.
While the argument that thrusting with a sword in a cavalry engagement would clearly cause the rider to become dismounted, it seems to me that in combat the opponents would be essentially immobile at the time of the thrust, as in a melee. The Oriental style of sabre use relied on the fast moving draw cut, with the slashing cut allowing the continuing motion of the rider.
As has been observed, I think most of this depends on the situation. When one considers, in a dramatic situation, virtually anything can become a weapon, and the intensity of its use will determine its effectiveness.
Best regards,
Jim
|