Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Galloglaich" data-source="post: 5372370" data-attributes="member: 77019">I think if swords could stop your heart from impacts you would be seeing a lot of deaths in HEMA right now, there are something like 10 or 12 major tournaments per year currently and most people wear little more protection on the chest than maybe a bit of plastic and the gambeson traditionally worn under a mail coat, some heavy gloves and a fencing mask which is considerably inferior protection (especially on the sides and top of the head) to a real historical military helmet.  Look at the tournament video I posted above, those guys are fighting with steel swords, if the video quality was better you could see the sparks (you can see them quite clearly in some others).  Dozens of people fought over and over in that event, and as you can see they aren't holding back in their cuts.  And yet all they get is a few very minor injuries, bruises and small cuts.   If they were using sharp swords of course there would be arms and legs all over the floor, but the swords are blunts, but realistic like a real sword not some 6 pound re-enactor crow-bar (which I think may be the source of the legend about swords and hydrostatic shock).When using a sword against a fully armored opponent, you use half-swording techniques to thrust-only.  This is what you see in the judicial combat manuals from the era of Plate Armor, of which we have a few dozen surviving.  I don't think any of those manuals depict a sword being used to cut somebody in armor.I think the real advantage of a sword is in cutting unprotected flesh, first and foremost, it's better than an axe or a mace in an even fight because it's very dangerous / unpleasant to grab a sharp blade compared to a wooden haft, and you don't need momentum to cause injuries with a sword.  And yes they are more nimble than other hand-weapons as well.  People don't understand how quickly and easily a sword fight can turn into a wrestling match, the edge and point of a sword helps prevent that.  Of course a blunt sword can break your hand or your forearm or even your skull, but not as easily as you would think.Swords during the heydey of armor were often of the extremely pointy variety (Oakeshott XIV, XV, XVIIII etc.) and this was so you could pierce through gaps in armor with the point, and maybe pierce the armor itself with a half-sword thrust though I've yet to see that done in a test.  But your principle weapon against an armored opponent would be a lance, a halberd, an ahlespeiss, a war-hammer, a mace, or a dagger.A fully armored fighter would only face a certain amount of their peers (fully armored opponents), typically the biggest threat on the battlefield would be from being swarmed larger numbers of lower ranking warriors would would be protected with partial armor or no armor at all.  This is where the sword becomes a truly excellent sidearm and quite literally a lifesaver.But cutting through armor?  Killing armored men with hydrostatic shock?  I really don't think that is realistic.G.</blockquote>

Verification