Comparing historic injury patterns to strikes in modern Euro

[DWx]

Comparing historic injury patterns to strikes in modern European sword arts

http://www.tameshigiri.ca/2014/06/12/fact-checking-fight-books-comparing-historic-injury-patterns-to-strikes-in-modern-european-sword-arts/

I know not many of us practice Western MA but this is a great read comparing historical data to reconstruction of European and Renaissance weapon styles.

[sensei8]

I'm no proponent of modern European/Western MA, however, I found the article quite interesting as well as informative. The research was epic, imho! Thinking about the broad sword, cumbersome to weild, the collar bone area was 40%, and after that, the head was a feeble second, but an important striking area, which, to me, wasn't surprising.

The data didn't seem to favor other areas, yet, the other striking areas weren't spared, in that, striking with a broadsword was going to cause some damage, and when you looked at the areas of the lower torso, a downed opponent is subjected to blows that would give the head/collar bone area an easy striking area.

In a way, the striking data was similar to many modern MA methodologies by how a MAist can strike at the other areas so that one can strike other chosen targets, like the head, and such. In our brand of Tuite, we strike other less than desired areas so that we can eventually strike other vital areas from set-ups.

I strike the lower leg, for example, so that a more desired target presents itself through the set-ups that I can manipulate and/or damage. We can, for example, attack the legs, as to cause the desired response, and then switch up to the upper torso or the head, in the famous change-up roundhouse kick. Or, attack the knee enough that your opponent drops guard to protect the leg, and then deliver the fatal blow.

Ok, I've babbled enough...Loved the article and I loved the data. Thank for sharing it!

[Zoodles]

I'm no proponent of modern European/Western MA, however, I found the article quite interesting as well as informative. The research was epic, imho! Thinking about the broad sword, cumbersome to weild, the collar bone area was 40%, and after that, the head was a feeble second, but an important striking area, which, to me, wasn't surprising.

/pedantic mode on

The broadsword is a 17th century basket hilted weapon. Any wounds in this study caused by swords would have been caused by longswords, arming swords falchions and Messers. Please note..they are not at all cumbersome, but are extremely agile, and on an inch per inch basis, lighter than Japanese swords. a longsword is 48 inches long, and between 2.5 to 3.5 pounds.

Not to rage at anyone, but we folks in the WMA spend a great deal of time working to undo several centuries worth of stereotyping and incorrect information spread by enlightenment era fencing masters and victorian era historians

/pedantic mode off

I am not surprised at the wound distribution. The fightbooks tell us to strike for the head and torso.

[Hawkmoon]

ye good old piece of history !!

I have to admit I much prefer the tactics of the battlefield, the generals view of war as it were than the 'fighter' and what or how they did stuff...BUT....

The article is a very good read, really worth the few minutes it will take read it and consider and compare the skeletons and the percentage of injury's recorded!

Its not my kind of interest in history, but I must admit it raised a question or two which I really think would be worth a compare etc!

What I would like to see is a like comparison between warriors from different cultures .... worlds apart cultures!

The Samurai, the Chinese swordsman, Roman solider, Egyptian warrior, Turkish warrior and so does warrior who wields the sword of long knife attack the same areas as the medieval warriors of European note?

[sensei8]

One thing about the battlefield, real battlefields, is that they're not fighting for trophies! Battlefield strategies read reveal keen decisions made, some tipped the scales that lead to either sure victory or sound defeat. There were no podiums to stand upon while raising hands with trophies raised high!!

[bushido_man96]

I'm no proponent of modern European/Western MA, however, I found the article quite interesting as well as informative. The research was epic, imho! Thinking about the broad sword, cumbersome to weild, the collar bone area was 40%, and after that, the head was a feeble second, but an important striking area, which, to me, wasn't surprising.

/pedantic mode on

The broadsword is a 17th century basket hilted weapon. Any wounds in this study caused by swords would have been caused by longswords, arming swords falchions and Messers. Please note..they are not at all cumbersome, but are extremely agile, and on an inch per inch basis, lighter than Japanese swords. a longsword is 48 inches long, and between 2.5 to 3.5 pounds.

Not to rage at anyone, but we folks in the WMA spend a great deal of time working to undo several centuries worth of stereotyping and incorrect information spread by enlightenment era fencing masters and victorian era historians

/pedantic mode off

I am not surprised at the wound distribution. The fightbooks tell us to strike for the head and torso.

I agree with you, Zoodles. Many are led to believe that the European versions of swords were unweildy, and only clanged against other swords with them. Just not the case.

I liked reading this study, and seeing how the author used groups of historical researches of combat to correlate the findings. Very good stuff.

[Zaine]

Not to rage at anyone, but we folks in the WMA spend a great deal of time working to undo several centuries worth of stereotyping and incorrect information spread by enlightenment era fencing masters and victorian era historians

Before entering the world of WMA I also stereotyped it as such, but learned quickly that I was wonderfully wrong. Being that I have studied WMA I am also not surprised by the wound distribution. However, I very much enjoyed reading the article and it's always interesting to think about the differences, thanks for sharing!

[Drew]

That was cool, I've also seen that done with Japanese battlefield mass graves.

But what about mortal injuries that didn't cause skeletal trauma? I believe a bunch of the skeletons they have don't have a mark on them, so they are ignoring what are probably a large percentage of arterial cuts and gut stabs. This kind of study always ignores this. One of the only reliable ways to hurt someone wearing both a mail hauberk and a coat of plates (which many of the more wealthy of the losing side were) is to get your sword up under the hauberk and drive it into their inner thigh. Femoral artery severed, exsanguination very shorty thereafter. Another common one is to simply attack the lower leg, which isn't statically protected by the shield. I imagine this is why there are so many skeletons with cut/severed shins from the Battle of Visby, as he mentioned in the article.

[DWx]

That was cool, I've also seen that done with Japanese battlefield mass graves.

But what about mortal injuries that didn't cause skeletal trauma? I believe a bunch of the skeletons they have don't have a mark on them, so they are ignoring what are probably a large percentage of arterial cuts and gut stabs. This kind of study always ignores this. One of the only reliable ways to hurt someone wearing both a mail hauberk and a coat of plates (which many of the more wealthy of the losing side were) is to get your sword up under the hauberk and drive it into their inner thigh. Femoral artery severed, exsanguination very shorty thereafter. Another common one is to simply attack the lower leg, which isn't statically protected by the shield. I imagine this is why there are so many skeletons with cut/severed shins from the Battle of Visby, as he mentioned in the article.

Without knowing too much about WMA that's what I thought. There's got to be a proportion of fighters who died from blood loss or complications from blows which didn't damage the skeleton.

I'd be interested if you've got any sources to Asian battlefields. Or some of the other great armies like Romans or the Mongols. I would imagine different weapons would naturally result in slightly different patterns of injury.

[bushido_man96]

The studies comparing the sword and buckler to the sword and shield were informative, too. The nature of the buckler not covering as much area, and requiring a more active defense, was obvious in the stats.