sinous blades are more cruel ?

[fenlander]

Is it true that a sinous blade causes more damage or makes a wound worse ? It says on wikepedia that the sinous blade such as a keris "danced the wound" making it nore difficult to heal. Therefore these kind of blades were considered cruel by Europeans and that is why they were never popular in Europe but were in Asia.

I think that is doubtful. What do the experts think ?

[Andrew]

I am not an expert, but I do have an opinion. I think no.

Flamboyant blades do have more cutting surface than a straight blade of equal length. However, I have yet to see any compelling evidence that this has any practical effect on inflicted damage.

Perhaps the psychological impact is the primary advantage.

While perhaps not popular in the west, flamboyant blades did exist (two-handed swords and, even some rapiers).

I think they are harder to make than a comparable straight blade, and the absence of any significant advantage makes the effort not worthwhile.

[Bill M]

I had also heard that triangular cross section blades made worse holes.

But I would imagine that a hole in a person is as bad with any shape and the size and placement of the hole would count most.

[fenlander]

Originally Posted by Bill Marsh

I had also heard that triangular cross section blades made worse holes.

But I would imagine that a hole in a person is as bad with any shape and the size and placement of the hole would count most.

Perhaps not.

Maybe a hole from a sinous balde would be harder to close up and more prone to infection etc etc. I was wondering if these blades were made this way to inflict more damage or just to look nicer. Andrew says that he believes it would not make any difference. Then why would anyone bother to forge sinous blades at all. Only for aesthetics ? Perhaps there was a percieved difference in damage infliction? Or was this only on cultural or aesthetic grounds ?

[t_c]

My understanding is that the sharper the blade, the cleaner the cut. A clean cut is more difficult to heal, because there are less "ragged edges". The ragged edges from a duller blade actully help the clotting process because the platelets have a better surface to cling to and close the wound as the blood flows out. The logic is that a smooth surface will make it more difficult for the platelets to cling to the flesh. This loosley applies to triangular and "cross" sectioned bayonets/blades due to the cavernous nature of the wound (less surfaces touch for the platelets to "stich up"). From this logic I would expect that the only difference between a sinuous blade and a straight blade (as far as bodily trauma is concerned) would be the width of the blade creating the wound. I should qualify what I have said so far in that is has been looking at the problem as it relates to thrusts not cuts. When it comes to cuts, I believe that physics dictates that there is more pressure when the coiliding objects are closer to perpendicular than parallel (each little wave acts almost like a wedge in a sense). A sinous blade would have greater forces (but in smaller segments) in a cut due to the fact that the blade is hitting the flesh further from parallel than a straight blade (one constant force) as it's drawn across. This is a generalization, and I really don't know if this logic is completely valid or not, but this is how I've come to understand it. In reality there are a lot of little variables that one would have to consider, but in truth straight and sinous blades probably balance out pretty closely. I'd be curious to hear any arguments for or against this logic (I'm not a doctor or a physicist).

Bill, I agree with you - any hole in a person is bad news, but yes, it comes down to targeting and relative trauma.

My general perspective on sinous blades is that they were developed out of cultural and asthetic reasons. Looking at blades as objects of art, I think sinous blades are beautiful and represent a somewhat greater achievement in craftsmanship over a straight blade, but that's just my own bias. I do think they are less utilitarian though.

[Jim McDougall]

Hi Fenlander,
The dynamics of unusual sword blade elements have been discussed on the forums many times over the years, and the 'sinuous' (wavy, serpentine) blade is one that is quite interesting. It seems that these blades were more attuned to aesthetics and psychological effect more than practical application.
In actuality, the wavy dynamics of the blade are counterproductive to the thrust for both penetration and especially withdrawal of the blade. In the slashing cut, it seems that the shape counteracts a smooth cut and often interrupts or prevents that action.

These blades are of course well known with the keris, and I would certainly defer to the outstanding knowledge base here on that topic, but it seems these wavy blades examples carry a great deal of traditional and religious oriented symbolism. I am uncertain of the actual combat history concerning these blades, and I hope that will be addressed by keris enthusiasts.

In the case of most other applications, for example in India, these blades tend to carry nagan symbolism, and the swords are typically considered either ceremonial or parade weapons. In European history, swords with these blades are often erroneously termed 'flamberge' but also are considered to be mostly aesthetically employed. I believe much of this may derive from the Biblical allusion to the flaming sword etc.
In China, there were serpentine blades as well, but these also seem to have served as court swords intended to impress, perhaps as 'bearing' type swords, which seems the most likely use for swords of this type as they are held upright and unsheathed while in procession.

In WWI, the German Schmidt-Rubin bayonets that had brutal appearing serrated back edges (actually to serve as pioneer type saws) caused a great deal of consternation among allied forces. They believed these were insidiously employed to cause painful and grievous wounds, and in anger would instantly shoot any German soldier carrying them. In reality, these could hardly penetrate with any effect, and the German soldiers would try to get rid of them lest they be found with them. The psychological effect was clear.

In my opinion wavy or serrated blades are unnecessary and probably impair rather than enhance thier effect. The potential for infection from a wound is also irrelevant, as in combat the objective is to eliminate your opponent and prevent him doing the same to you, which he may well do if after you strike you are waiting for him to be overcome by infection
There were debates throughout the use of the sword whether the cut or the thrust was more effective however, and it was generally held that the thrust was typically much more mortal. This of course overlooking the obvious fatal cuts such as decapitation.

All best regards,
Jim

[drdavid]

A clean cut is more difficult to heal, because there are less "ragged edges". The ragged edges from a duller blade actully help the clotting process because the platelets have a better surface to cling to and close the wound as the blood flows out.

I doubt that a surgeon with a sharp scalpel would agree with you on this t_c. A ragged edge tears more as you say but the greater the surface area of damage the greater the blood loss from muscle tissue and the more chance of a partial cut through an artery. Arterial blood loss is really the most dangerous and arteries have coiled smooth muscle around their walls which contracts in an attempt to shut off the artery when it is severed. If you nick the side of an artery however this effect is not apparent and they continue bleeding.

That said a sharp item will generally cut/puncture more deeply than a blunt one, so is more likely to hit something vital.
DrD