[Craig Johnson]

(there where a couple of posts while I was composing this so sorry if I repeat others points.)

To answer such a question with a yes or no is absolutely possible but I suspect the one I give is not what you expect. It is both, definitively .

Now to apologize for and explain my flippancy . The comments by many of the folks here are quite pertinent and I will try not to repeat their excellent points but do agree. Jean and Jean both gave very good responses and Jean’s pictures illustrate the point I would like to make very, very well. They where exceptional designers of both weapons and armor, they understood the practical aspects of the interaction of combatants of all types armored and unarmored, trained and untrained, single combat and battle far better than we will ever achieve. They worked their designs to the need of the situation they knew would develop for the weapon and the armor.

Thus when we look at sword designs they did design a sword for heavy blows, they where called tucks and where literally sword-like impact weapons. A heavy arming sword would be designed for armored combat but not necessarily for a knock out blow even though it may well be possible with the right conditions. The focus of our modern minds sometimes waivers to the concept of a weapon being more multipurpose than I suspect they would have thought practical.

When we look at the variety and styles of their output I think they would have chosen quite carefully what they wanted to fight with on a given situation and in most cases had a least a couple of choices to meet their needs. They then would use the combative arts they knew to their best ability for the situation and their particulars of armor and weapon.

I am sure this is obvious to all but it is good to keep this in the fore of our minds when we look at these types of questions. They had experience and the best minds of their day working on these issues and they would have found good answers to them. I often have explained to people today that armor is not impervious to attack, but it is good protection. When combined with a smart and well-trained fighter in armor it enhances his abilities and makes his efforts more efficient and a combat more survivable. This would be in the weapon design as well. They are tools to enhance the skills of the fighter.

Another example is the mace, when we look at the mace today people often comment that they are to short, heavy or light as they perceive them. But in period when we look at the design envelope of the weapons left it is obvious that they felt these answered a distinct need in the best way possible. Our challenge is to understand the need they saw correctly to see the usefulness of the weapon as fully as they did.

The result is the total package is what makes it work. The idea that a weapon has an overall advantage or a harness is all protective does not jive with the design and commentary we see from the past. To me the synthesis of all these elements coming together and evolving into what we see is the real amazing thing about these pieces.

I hope this does not sound like blather to folks as it is a way to understanding some of these elements on a new level and in striking ways from what we sometimes get caught up in looking at the specifics.

Also not to mention they do all this with an eye to fashion and the creating IMHO some of the most elegant designs humans have achieved.

An example of a sword designed for knockout potential

[Johan Gemvik]

Thank you Craig, that was probably the best post on the thread so far. Far better than mine.

I was wondering if there were swords like that since you see manuals where you turn the sword around and use the crossguard as a hammer. This one has both pointy crossguard and a mace pommel. We can't really see in the photo, is the blade an Estoc type blade or does it widen to a wider cutting blade?

[Craig Johnson]

Hi Johan

Thanks for the compliment, I was worried it was to high concept

The tuck in the pic has a square sectioned blade. It literally is about .625 inches/16mm at the hilt and tapers to a point along it's entire length. The original is a battle field recovery from the Battle of Tannenberg or Grunwald 1410. It would have been a fearsome thing to be swung at with such a Goliath of a sword.

These are also exceptional when used at the half sword and thrust at your target. I have done this at a few of my Unique Weapons classes at WMA events and the participants are always very impressed with the penetrating power of such a piece. Not to mention it is quite fun!

Best
Craig

[Jean Henri Chandler]

I think the thing which frustrates certain re-enactors is the idea that you have a sword, you should be able to use it... (though they sometimes don't seem to feel the same way about the armor). We know people in period liked swords a lot, and carried them into battle. Therfore they should work just like they do in the rules of the modern combat sport. The fact is that the sword was indeed a useful and popular weapon all through the Medieval and Renaissance periods, but the reaility of how this works is not that two dimensional. A couple of points:

There is more to kit like a helmet than just how thick the metal is. The shape, fit and type (temper etc.) of metal, and the internal padding or suspension are at least equally important.

The point about striking a punching bag with a sword is a good one. Swords are simply not made to cause blunt trauma. With the exception of estocs like the one depicted above, a much lighter mace or flail can cause many times the bludgeoning damage....

As a general rule, armor worked quite well. I don't know why this is so hard to grasp as a paradigm., but it is starting to become more and more obvious. And we also know that swords were not that good at dealing with top quality armor.

But it was fairly rare for people to wear top quality armor from head to toe. There were always more lightly armored or unarmored men on a battlefield than people in full cap-a-pied armor. If you look closely into those battlefields where there as in fact a lot of full coverage in armor, you will find many weapons designed for armor-piercing like that Tuck from the Battle of Grunwald. But even at Grunwald in 1410 there were many fighters who were either unarmored or partially armored. Someone mentioned the battle of Hastings, most fighters in that battle were not clad in armor 100%, most were probably wearing a hauberk and an open-faced helmet. Against an opponent like that a sword is an excellent weapon, because it's still faster, more agile and more versatile than most explicitly armor-piercing weapons like a mace or a hammer.

If you read through primary source accounts of the kit carried by warriors during the heydey of armor, and remove your blinders a bit (everyone has them including me), you will notice that in fact while the sword was ubquitous, armor defeating weapons such as daggers, maces, hammers, and etc. are also very common. They aren't as romantic as a sword in certain respects, but were nevertheless equally important on the battlefield.

Also on the blunt impact against mail. Take a moment to do some research into the stiffeners, not just various forms of textile but latten, cuir boulli, horn, whalebone and etc. were used usually beneath mail. If you look at paintings from the 13th and 14th Century you will notice aketons worn over armor which are not the kind of thin things we typically see in a re-enactor context these days, but very thick garments.



I think we tend to mentally dismiss the effectiveness of textile armor to absorb blunt trauma for a variety of reasons, but if you have ever handled an old fashioned Baseball catchers vest, which is specifically designed to harmlessly disperse the blunt impact of a 90 mph baseball (which can easily knock someone out) it gives you some idea how well this can in fact work.



It's also worth remembering that catchers masks are designed quite effectively to protect the face from the same impact with little more than some quilted padding and a few steel rods.



J

[Jean Henri Chandler]

[Jean Henri Chandler]

[Aleksei Sosnovski]

[A. Gallo]

Whilst I haven't been yanked off of one side or the fence or another, this thread has turned out pretty interesting.

I can't seem to understand the relevance of the rattan reenactment stuff for nor against the KO argument. Among other factors, the weapons they're using seem to deliver dull thuds rather than traumatic blows, obviously intentionally as a safety precaution. And while a few of those guys were taking it a tad too far, the vast majority seemed to be just having fun and clearly taking some power off their blows when hitting someone in the head, on the back, etc. A lot of playful 1-handed shield bashing and moshpit behavior, not a lot of going in for kills or explicit intention to injure.

The sword Craig posted is very interesting. I can't help but notice though, that some XV, XVIII and other types had similarly thick center portions on them. Did adding edges so dramatically insulate the blow vs armor? Or was the taper on this sword very slight and gave it a staff-like weight distribution?

edit: I didn't see that additional post, I guess the photo doesn't show just HOW thick that blade is. Do you know the weight of this sword/tuck?

[Craig Johnson]

[Eric Meulemans]

I can think of at least one documented incidence of a combatant being knocked unconscious by a sword. While on Guadalcanal in 1942 Walter Stauffer McIlhenny startled a Japanese officer while assaulting his position. The officer, clearly acting in necessary haste, struck a solid blow to McIlhenny's helmet with his katana - still in its scabbard - knocking him out. As he went down, McIllhenny was able to fire off a round, killing the Japanese officer. He awoke on a stretcher with helmet and sword beside him, both of which today reside in the National WWII Museum (formerly the D-Day Museum) in New Orleans, which is where I first came across this interesting tale.



This example goes to show that yes, you can knock out an armoured opponent with a sword, but it's rather like using a screwdriver as a chisel - not a good way to go about things.

[Ken Speed]

Jean Henri Chandler wrote, " I think the idea of knocking people out with swords is a popular fantasy inspired by the rules and culture a of certain very large mostly American re-enactor group which shall remain nameless, partly based on very heavy thick re-enactor swords and partly based on poorly made protective gear, and partly just wishful thinking to mold history and physics to fit their rules and preferred fighting styles rather than the other way around."

I think you're misinterpreting the thrust (pardon the pun) of the discussion. I don't think anyone is arguing that knocking someone out with a sword is terribly likely or something that is or was deliberately attempted particularly often. You're certainly right swords aren't made to be maces, they're made to cut and stab and they're most effective when used for that purpose. My assertion and that of many of the people writing here is that blunt force trauma can't be ignored as a damaging factor. Even if one is not cut with a sword the repeated impacts will cause damage, i don't think that is ignoring physics it is admitting the reality of physiology.

Do you know what causes a knockout? Typically one is knocked out because their brain slams into the wall of their skull to put it bluntly (pun number 2!) Have you ever wondered why boxers have such tremendously developed neck musculature? It is to protect them from spinal injury from a punch. if that's the case how dangerous is it to be struck with a sword weighing a couple pounds that is 30 inches long or longer?

You also used the example of a catcher's mask in another post. and frankly, I find this a very poor comparison. Do you realize that a baseball weighs less than .15 of a kilogram? Well, it does, I looked it up. I'm fairly sure baseballs could bounce off a catcher's mask quite often without causing the catcher all that much trauma. If, however, one were to put a sheet of plywood on the front of the mask and then hit the plywood with a sword weighing 2 or 3 kilograms, you'd be taking the catcher to the emergency ward if he was lucky.

So far in this post we've been addressing knocking someone out but I thought the overall discussion was about taking someone out of the fight not necessarily knocking them out. So blunt force trauma can be particularly damaging to wrists, elbows, shoulders, ankles, knees, and necks, if one of those joints is injured, the injured party is going to be largely incapacitated. If the neck is injured it could easily be fatal. There is, as well, the potential for damaging internal organs.

So while a sword strike may have been meant to be a cut, even though it doesn't cut that doesn't mean that it doesn't do damage.

Someone else mentioned adrenaline providing increased strength and, I suppose, shock resistance for someone being struck. I suppose that is true but the hitter is pumped up on adrenaline too so I would suppose that would even things out.

[Jean Henri Chandler]

[Jean Henri Chandler]

[Jean Henri Chandler]

[Jean Henri Chandler]

[Jean Henri Chandler]

Here is another clip of a recent Polish steel tournament where guy was hit hard enough in the head with a steel sword to knock his mask off but it didn't phase him (or knock him out)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91BbFQHSsl4&feature=related

J

[Jean Henri Chandler]

[Sander Marechal]

I have been hit on the head by heavy sword blows several times (while wearing a steel helm). That was with pretty heavy Czech steel swords (Kovex Ars) hitting me straight from above with a scheitelhau (I suck at defending against these). It didn't knock me out but it did stun me a bit. It took me a second or so to recover but that's about it. One guy in my WMA group got knocked out once when he was hit with a heavy blow from a rubber poleaxe simulator. It left a square dent in his steel helmet. That's the only knockout I know of in my WMA group.

Just some anecdotal evidence.

[Vincent Le Chevalier]

Hello all,

I think it's an interesting debate and I can't say I have a full satisfactory answer... But here is some food for thought.

First some facts. It's not the full mass of a sword (or any such long weapon) that hits the target, but only a fraction of it. This fraction can be measured or computed (the topic of my recent article here). Comparing the full mass of sticks, masses and swords is misleading regarding their true behaviour at impact; rather it's their effective mass at the impact point that must be considered. A one kilogram stick will generally have a lot more of mass at the impact point than a sword of the same weight... I have computed, for many swords that I have measured, the impact mass at a spot on the blade 1/5th of the overall length from the tip (not all impacts happen there of course but I was looking for a representative spot, actual mass will vary depending on the exact spot around that value).

Roughly all sword have their impact masses between 150g and 300g. The heaviest are my ATrim type XI and a reproduction spatha by Gaël Fabre (290g and 270g). The lighter is my Darwood training rapier. In the middle you find type XVIs at 200-250g, and then type XVs and XVIIIs at 150-200g. For reference, I've got an axe haft straight from the hardware store that is pretty much a stick of 654g, and it has a healthy 277g impact mass. As I said even relatively light sticks can hit a lot heavier than some heavy swords. I don't have accurate data on maces, but I figure a 1kg mace will have a mass distribution such that the impact mass will be very close to 1kg too, which is a lot more than either sticks or swords would ever have. Even A&A Montante trainer is merely at around 400g.

What does mass means at impact point? It means that, for the same energy (which is what you put in the sword), it imparts more momentum. What are the effects of momentum? In a cut, momentum will allow the sword to get deeper I believe. In a blunt impact, it will move also move the target instead of bouncing back. Basically the effects of all impacts will be felt deeper.

I don't know why swords like spathae and riding swords of the age of mail were made to store more momentum than cut&thrust models, but it sure looks like this is made on purpose. You don't need that much punch to cut at unarmoured targets and incapacitate someone. Actually that heavy mass on the blade makes your recovery harder and thus exposes you once you've swung. Yet this does not give so much punch that you'll be able to defeat good armor. What does it give then?

There are two pros that I can think of. First, it will allow you to disturb the structure and guard of your opponent before actually cutting or slicing him. The momentum will move him around a bit, whether applied to his weapons or his body, or force him to use strength to keep his position. In particular, a sword with momentum will be able to blow through a weak parry, which is a situation that might happen more in battle I guess. So this wouldn't be knock-out power so much as knock-aside power.

Second, it might help in defeating weak armor. Not much is needed to prevent a sword from cutting: just mail without padding, or relatively light leather, or relatively light textile. Having more momentum allow you to deal damage through any defence that is not rigid or sufficiently padded. This won't make you win automatically in a duel, but in battle it could mean the difference between quickly dealing with an opponent and yet being able turn to face the next danger, versus having to get into a wrestling situation that takes more time, demands more energy, and exposes you to the other fighters around.

It's true that we don't see many K.O. in HEMA (thankfully!) but we don't see many training swords that reproduce the mass distribution of those heavy-hitting single-handlers either. Actually the best training swords seem to tend to reduce the impact mass now, though I still lack data about that (for example the recent Rawlings synthetic single-handlers are rather at the low end of the impact mass range). This makes perfect sense: for a duel either out of armor or with a very good armor on, momentum won't give you much advantage, it poses an increased safety risk, and the weight even makes the training much harder. And of course everyone is wearing hard protection on the head as well as padding on other exposed body parts. Also, the judging will never really favour "heavy hits" (which again makes perfect sense for duelling out of armor) so developing them is not encouraged.

On the other hand, the SCA heavy fighters might be fighting with sticks that pack more mass at the impact than actual swords no matter what the overall weight is (I don't have enough data about them). This might explain the increased likelihood of knock-downs and the need for heavier protection.

In conclusion, while I don't believe most swords were designed to deal extreme blunt trauma against good armors, I do think that blunt power and the needed mass for it was valued at some point in time, and that forgetting the advantages of momentum gives a truncated vision of the use of these swords...

Regards,

[Craig Shackleton]

I would speculate that swords with more force/mass on impact from the age of mail were designed that way for two reasons that are related, possibly in addition to the reasons stated by Vincent. One is to cut/ overcome shields. The other is kind of the reverse... why not? The additional momentum will carry your swing further, slowing your recovery time, but you defend with your shield, not your sword.

Note that I'm just throwing this out there without looking too closely at the specific examples, so feel free to disregard.

Otherwise, I agree with the assertion made many times above, that while a sword could on occasion knock a person out, it was not something that was aimed for in either sword design or sword technique as there were better options for either.