Stopping power of swords.

[DdlR]

They've also done ones where the carcass is wrapped in layers like a T shirt and leather jacket, and they seem to go through those pretty easily too. Not sure how they would respond against real armor though. I assume that if armor was easy to cut through they wouldn't bother with it.

Armor works very well indeed, which is why the techniques for fighting in armor (and against an opponent wearing armor) don't rely on trying to cut through it.

[Hackworth]

@ mike321 That's exactly what I mean.

[lklawson]

I've heard that one of the things that makes knife fighting so dangerous (besides the fact that your knife fighting) is the knife's lack of stopping power. Were swords better incapacitating an opponent before he could hit back?

I agree with Bohdi.

Your question is based largely upon assumptions which are not necessarily (or even usually) valid.

I wrote kinda a short "essay" for my students on "stopping power":
The 4 Ways To Stop An Opponent

4 Ways to Stop an Opponent

1) Loss of blood Pressure

a. Damage the heart is the quickest, most certain way but can still take several seconds, particularly if the blood is well oxygenated and the opponent is in adrenalin dump.
b. Cut or sever major arteries and veins. May take longer depending on the size of the artery, if the artery is severed or “merely nicked,” if direct pressure is applied, or if muscle constriction reduces blood loss.
c. Cut or sever minor arteries or veins such as the inner wrist. This may take the longest to cause loss of consciousness.
d. Internal bleeding due to damage to internal organs. This could be very quick or could be very slow but has few visual cues.
e. Thrust for organs

i. Military autopsies tend to support that injuries to internal organs (due to thrusts) are, generally speaking, more certain to damage and more incapacitating or fatal
ii. Thrusts must be deep enough to reach the organ. A too short knife or incomplete thrust may not reach the organ.

f. Cuts for arteries and veins

i. Tend to be near the surface and therefore more accessible.
ii. Skin can be surprisingly resilient and elastic or may “move” during your cut.

g. At least one strike can cause loss of blood pressure: to the neck. This is the classic “Judo Chop” and over-stimulates the vagus nerve which regulates blood pressure.

2) Central Nervous System (CNS) damage

a. A thrust to the brain or chops to the spine can shut down an opponent instantly
b. These are highly sensitive organs and are protected by bone which may be difficult to penetrate
c. These are also, comparatively speaking, small and hard to hit, particularly when an opponent is resisting or even just “moving.”
d. The CNS may be temporarily “disrupted” by blunt force trauma.

3) Structural Damage

a. Broken bones may cause incapacitation of the limb.

i. Incapacitation of a leg may cause

1. Reduced mobility
2. Complete immobility
3. Opponent collapse (falls to the ground)

ii. Incapacitation of an arm may cause

1. Inability to hold a weapon
2. Inability to grapple
3. Inability to strike

b. Damaged joints – similar effects to that of broken bones
c. Severed tendons, ligaments, or muscles – similar effects to that of broken bones
d. Collapsed lung or obstructed breathing

i. May cause reduced aerobic ability
ii. Loss of consciousness
iii. Death

e. Crushed muscle

i. May cause similar effects to that of broken bones
ii. Less reliable, more difficult to achieve, and more difficult to gauge success or extent of injuries

4) Psychological Effects

a. Impressive or intimidating presentation from you

i. Intimidating flourishes (moulinets, navaja flourish, sinawali, etc.)
ii. Loss of an ally or co-opponent
iii. Fierce, determined, angry, or otherwise disconcerting presentation from you

b. Pain
c. Sight of own blood
d. Belief that being injured (stabbed or shot) means that he must fall to the ground and “die.” (i.e.: psychosomatic)
e. These effects are not dependable

i. There are lots of stories about people who didn’t know they were stabbed or shot until after the fight when they say their own blood.

The reason a sword is has more "stopping power" than a knife is because its relative length and mass

1. make it easier to inflict deeper thrusts from further away in order to penetrate organs and sever arteries and veins
2. have a greater probability of damaging the CNS, again from further away
3. make it easier to inflict more structural damage (from further away)
4. look much more intimidating (because it is)

Additionally, some swords can achieve several of these results at once. Lop off a limb and you've created structural damage and vascular damage. However, certain knives can achieve the same effect. You can still take off a hand with a Bowie knife, for instance, and it's pretty common in knife styles to teach a slice to the inner wrist or inner thigh which causes both structural damage to muscles & tendons and vascular damage.

All weapons (and even unarmed) work on the same principles and it doesn't matter if it's a knife, sword ("big knife"), gun, spear, club, or garotte.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

[DerAuslander]

I have never heard anyone refer to anything other than bullets having "stopping power".

[lklawson]

I have never heard anyone refer to anything other than bullets having "stopping power".

I have, but it's been with other sword/knife wonks like me.

In any case, the concept is generally misunderstood. It gets really complex and highly variable when applied to firearms.

Next we'll be talking about "Knock Down Power" ;)

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

[mike321]

I have never heard anyone refer to anything other than bullets having "stopping power".

Guns are orders of magnitude more common than swords so discussion would come up less. I wish I had citation but I read an old rant by a sword fighter against dueling swords. Many of the same issues as modern firearms enthusiasts have. Penetration of weapon, practicality of carry, effectiveness in practical situations. Another interesting note that the sword is very common as a side arm I. Various historical eras. This indicates inferior effectiveness on the battlefield vs other weapons: spear, lance, axe, maul etc.

[lklawson]

Guns are orders of magnitude more common than swords so discussion would come up less. I wish I had citation but I read an old rant by a sword fighter against dueling swords. Many of the same issues as modern firearms enthusiasts have. Penetration of weapon, practicality of carry, effectiveness in practical situations. Another interesting note that the sword is very common as a side arm I. Various historical eras. This indicates inferior effectiveness on the battlefield vs other weapons: spear, lance, axe, maul etc.

Sounds a little like the George Silver rant.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

[mike321]

Sounds a little like the George Silver rant.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

That's the one. Especially the part about multiple rapier thrust wounds vs cutting blows. Thanks for the find. I would put a link in but I am on mobile phone.

[lklawson]

That's the one. Especially the part about multiple rapier thrust wounds vs cutting blows. Thanks for the find. I would put a link in but I am on mobile phone.

http://www.aemma.org/onlineResources...tents_body.htm

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

[Permalost]

Sounds a little like the George Silver rant.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

Even Musashi notes the value of the gun, polearm and bow.