why sabre ?

sirupate · 26th March 2005, 07:56 AM

Another great theory, but a wounded enemy can still kill you, easilly

Rivkin · 26th March 2005, 04:07 PM

Actually the same theory is behind M16 and 220 caliber - it's not a weapon to kill, but to wound.

The problem rises when you are confronted by fanatics or someone on drugs - even wounded they'll just keep fighting.

sirupate · 26th March 2005, 04:22 PM

Hello Rivkin,

That is the theory indeed along with the fleshets that were used, and as you say a wounded enemy can still fight

Cheers Simon

Jens Nordlunde · 26th March 2005, 04:33 PM

I think the discussion it very interesting, and it keeps coming up with different intervals.

What makes me wonder is, why the generals, or whoever decided to change the blade types did so, at the time they were in use, they knew the strength and the weakness in both types of blade. Are there not notes somewhere from the time, in which the problem is discussed, so that we, from the notes, can learn which arguments were used for the change?

I agree that a curves sword sounds more logic for the cavalry, but as the costs, changing the swords must have been rather high, there must have been a good reason for the change.

Jens

tom hyle · 26th March 2005, 05:01 PM

The documents probably do still exist somewhere. I remember seeing a reprint of the US Army memo on why they were discontinuing swords; they had an ideal weight for a soldier to carry, and it was sword or shovel; so that wasn't a directly fighting reason at all! My impression concerning the matter is that the idea of the superiority of the thrust and of what they called "scientific fencing" was a heavily dogmatized idea with the European over-culture (still is, too); I do not feel it was accurate/true, but it was a cultural level belief. One imagines lightness to be a consideration as well, but that's just a guess.
A wounded enemy can still be dangerous, but as I've said previously, primarily if he has a puncture wound; a good slash will often/usually sever muscles and actually mechanically disable someone. We've had this discussion at length before; slash vs. thrust; won't someone who can please link it?

Jens Nordlunde · 26th March 2005, 05:12 PM

I have no doubt that the documents discussing this subject excists in bothe America and in Europe - so, why does someone not go out and find them, so we have the evidence for the change, instead the guessing?

Jens

tom hyle · 26th March 2005, 05:43 PM

Go ahead. But the reasons stated by experts may not be entirely in line with the real superiorities/capabilities of the swords, of course; it is important to factor in the forces of cultural dogmatism concerning "scientific fencing"/thrusting superiority. It is important to remember that by the time in which European soldiers were criticising cutting they had evidently forgotten how to cut well (and this is quite noticeable in reading one of their famed swordsmen; Richard burton, whose understanding of the cut was, and I hope the English don't come after me, quite rudimentary.), so any experiments they did might only prove that cutting poorly doesn't equal thrusting well....they were routinely shocked by the cutting power of Tartars, Arabs, etc. (and you can read of this in period accounts) who knew how to cut; maybe they should've gotten carpenters and butchers to train the soldiers to cut; the common working folk in Europe never forgot this, much as they kept using the old style laminated/differentially hardened blades. They seem to have somewhat given up proper sword-cutting when the armour reached its best, and never readopted after guns alleged to make armour obsolete (it's back now, and it's for bullets).
I find that the circularity of the (pardon me) proper cutting motion makes a nice combination with a curved blade, too.....

Jens Nordlunde · 26th March 2005, 09:38 PM

Sorry Tom, we must have misunderstood each other, what I meant was to get the papers from when this was decided, and to see what arguments the commities/generals had for changing the blade types.
Jens

26th March 2005, 05:43 PM	#7
tom hyle Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Houston, TX, USA Posts: 1,254	Go ahead. But the reasons stated by experts may not be entirely in line with the real superiorities/capabilities of the swords, of course; it is important to factor in the forces of cultural dogmatism concerning "scientific fencing"/thrusting superiority. It is important to remember that by the time in which European soldiers were criticising cutting they had evidently forgotten how to cut well (and this is quite noticeable in reading one of their famed swordsmen; Richard burton, whose understanding of the cut was, and I hope the English don't come after me, quite rudimentary.), so any experiments they did might only prove that cutting poorly doesn't equal thrusting well....they were routinely shocked by the cutting power of Tartars, Arabs, etc. (and you can read of this in period accounts) who knew how to cut; maybe they should've gotten carpenters and butchers to train the soldiers to cut; the common working folk in Europe never forgot this, much as they kept using the old style laminated/differentially hardened blades. They seem to have somewhat given up proper sword-cutting when the armour reached its best, and never readopted after guns alleged to make armour obsolete (it's back now, and it's for bullets). I find that the circularity of the (pardon me) proper cutting motion makes a nice combination with a curved blade, too..... Last edited by tom hyle; 26th March 2005 at 06:17 PM.

26th March 2005, 07:56 AM	#1
sirupate Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: England Posts: 373	Another great theory, but a wounded enemy can still kill you, easilly

26th March 2005, 04:07 PM	#2
Rivkin Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 655	Actually the same theory is behind M16 and 220 caliber - it's not a weapon to kill, but to wound. The problem rises when you are confronted by fanatics or someone on drugs - even wounded they'll just keep fighting.

26th March 2005, 04:22 PM	#3
sirupate Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: England Posts: 373	Hello Rivkin, That is the theory indeed along with the fleshets that were used, and as you say a wounded enemy can still fight Cheers Simon

26th March 2005, 04:33 PM	#4
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	I think the discussion it very interesting, and it keeps coming up with different intervals. What makes me wonder is, why the generals, or whoever decided to change the blade types did so, at the time they were in use, they knew the strength and the weakness in both types of blade. Are there not notes somewhere from the time, in which the problem is discussed, so that we, from the notes, can learn which arguments were used for the change? I agree that a curves sword sounds more logic for the cavalry, but as the costs, changing the swords must have been rather high, there must have been a good reason for the change. Jens

26th March 2005, 05:01 PM	#5
tom hyle Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Houston, TX, USA Posts: 1,254	The documents probably do still exist somewhere. I remember seeing a reprint of the US Army memo on why they were discontinuing swords; they had an ideal weight for a soldier to carry, and it was sword or shovel; so that wasn't a directly fighting reason at all! My impression concerning the matter is that the idea of the superiority of the thrust and of what they called "scientific fencing" was a heavily dogmatized idea with the European over-culture (still is, too); I do not feel it was accurate/true, but it was a cultural level belief. One imagines lightness to be a consideration as well, but that's just a guess. A wounded enemy can still be dangerous, but as I've said previously, primarily if he has a puncture wound; a good slash will often/usually sever muscles and actually mechanically disable someone. We've had this discussion at length before; slash vs. thrust; won't someone who can please link it?

26th March 2005, 05:12 PM	#6
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	I have no doubt that the documents discussing this subject excists in bothe America and in Europe - so, why does someone not go out and find them, so we have the evidence for the change, instead the guessing? Jens

26th March 2005, 09:38 PM	#8
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Sorry Tom, we must have misunderstood each other, what I meant was to get the papers from when this was decided, and to see what arguments the commities/generals had for changing the blade types. Jens