Hank Reinhardt's The Book of the Sword

by Hank Reinhardt

  In Njal's Saga, the author tells of a warrior, Gunnar, whose home is surrounded by his enemies. A Norwegian visitor with the besiegers volunteers to go see if Gunnar is at home. As he climbs up the side of the cabin Gunnar stabs him with his hewing spear through a chink in the wall. The Easterner falls and walks back to his friends. They ask, "Is Gunnar at home?" and he replies, "As to that I can't say. But his halberd is." He then dies. Now, this is one tough man. One might think he is an exception, but this theme runs throughout the majority of the sagas. But do not think that these people were blind brute barbarians as the movies like to show. Far from it. Egil was one fierce, tough warrior. But his lament over the death of his son can tear out your heart.

  As at Visby, the sagas record blows to the leg. Again in Njal's Saga, Gunnar and another warrior, Kolskegg, try to take a ship. Kolskegg worked his way down one side of it and Gunnar the other. Vanidil came to meet Gunnar but his sword hit Gunnar's shield and stuck there fast. With a hard twist of his shield, Gunnar snapped the sword at the hilt. He struck at Vanidil so quickly that Vanidil didn't have time to defend himself and the sword sliced through both legs.

  Also in Njal's Saga there is the wonderful fight on the ice. This is the one where Skarp-Hedin goes sliding by and before Thrain can put on his helmet Skarp-Hedin crashes his ax on his head so hard that Thrain's back teeth spill out onto the ice. Tjorvi throws his shield into Skarp-Hedin's path, but he dodges it. Tjorvi then hurls a spear at Kari who leaps over the spear and then plunges his sword into Tjorvi's chest, killing him instantly. (Tjorvi doesn't seem to have been very good at throwing things, does he?)

  And speaking of spears, that brings us to puncture wounds.

  PUNCTURE WOUNDS and HOW TO ACHIEVE THEM

  There is a great deal of misinformation about wounds and their effects floating around. Most of this is due to old wives' tales that no one ever questions, and a lot is due to Hollywood and a vast number of fiction writers. If you study the subject, and check out the books on trauma, you are surprised to find out two things, seemingly contradictory: people are easy to kill, and they are also difficult to kill. Another aspect that is very important is the mental attitude of the individual. I have read of people being shot with a small caliber weapon in a nonfatal area, and then dying! Now I realize this is a book on swords, but a shot with a .22 is really not much different than a stab with a small sword. They both make nice small punctures.

  I have been assured that if your leg is cut off below the knee, you can always kneel and fight on one foot! I have been assured that the reason so many stilettos were made with triangular blades was so that the puncture could not be sewn up! (I can testify personally on that one: properly treated puncture wounds are not sewn to begin with.) In short, there is a lot of nonsense out there. So let's deal with some of it.

  One of the most common comments is the deadliness of the puncture wound. "Two inches in the right place is all you need!" The operative words here are "in the right place."

  The rapier and the small sword were quite attractive weapons, and the small sword became a very elegant item of jewelry. No well dressed gentleman in the late 17th century would think of appearing without his small sword, whether he knew how to use it or not! They were considered, and still are today, the deadliest of swords.

  But people do not die as quietly and as easily as they do in the movies. All too many times you will see the villain run through with the hero's rapier, and he staggers and falls with scarcely a moan! Now it can happen that way, but it isn't very likely. Rapiers and small swords make small holes. If they hit a major artery or vein, or a nerve plexus, death can occur rather quickly. But even a direct thrust through the heart can take as long as ten seconds to kill, depending on the amount of blood in the brain at the time of the strike. And a man can do a lot of damage in ten seconds! Like stabbing you before you can withdraw your blade. There are many fights recorded where both parties received several puncture wounds in the body, and both recovered. There were also many instances of fights where one man died on the spot, while another lingered for two weeks before dying from a thrust in the stomach. There are several excellent books on the subject of dueling and one can easily see that death was not the swift and easy thing that we see in the movies. (For a more comprehensive study of dueling I would suggest The Sword and The Centuries by Alfred Hutton, The Field of Honor by Ben Truman, Milligen's History of Dueling and Dueling Stories of the Sixteenth Century by George H. Powell. There are more books out there, but I think these are the best.)

  One of the more unpleasant aspects of dueling in 17th and 18th century Europe was to win the duel by killing your opponent, only to be hanged for breaking the law . . . seems positively unsporting, doesn't it?

  But we could talk a long time about dueling itself, so now let us get back to the wounds made by blades. Back in the 1950s, I once saw a young man who had been attacked by two brothers. They had stabbed him three times in the abdomen, then run away, leaving the Italian stiletto still in the boy. Luckily for him, the knife was not particularly sharp. It had pushed his entrails aside, and he ended up with only three minor punctures to the muscle wall. Had he been stabbed with a knife with a wide, sharp blade, the results could have been much more unpleasant. With a wider bladed sword, such as a Viking, medieval or Roman weapon, the results of a thrust would be more deadly. The wider the blade, the more damage done.

  Reproduction gladius. HRC218.

  Whereas it is possible for a rapier or a small sword to penetrate a chest cavity without seriously damaging the individual, and to even push the intestines aside (not likely, but possible), a wide-bladed sword will be cutting the tissue as it passes in and out, making a much larger, and much more deadly, wound.

  The comment on a "stab in the right place" seems to be Roman in origin. But even then the operative words are "right place." The Roman gladius was a very effective cut-and-thrust weapon. Many think that it was only used in the thrust, but it is capable of delivering a very strong cutting blow. But its primary use was as a stabbing weapon. Held close to the body, the moment an opening presented itself the short sword could leap out and inflict a very deadly stab. With a blade close to two inches in width, and very sharp, the stab of a gladius was nothing like the pinprick of a rapier.

  I was recently asked if the thrust was known and used in medieval times, and if so, why was it considered so innovative and dastardly by gentlemen in the Renaissance? The thrust itself has been known since Og, son of Wog, picked up a sharp stick and stabbed Ug with it. The whole history of weaponry is filled with a collection of sharp and pointy things meant to cut and stab and generally hurt people. (Also heavy things meant to crush, but we're talking about thrusting here.) Early Iron Age swords probably did not have a good enough temper for good thrusting, but they were still used that way.

  For example, there is a very beautiful Celtic Iron Age rapier in the Berne Historisches Museum. The blade is a flattened diamond in cross section, perfect for thrusting, and could easily be a 16th-century rapier except for the grip. There is a whole class of medieval swords, Oakeshott Type XVII, that cannot be used for cutting: the blades are too thick, and they are obviously designed to be used for thrusting. Jean de Joinville tells of one knight who took his sword and couched it as a lance and used it against a Saracen during the crusade of St. Louis (1248–1254).

  The thick blade of an Oakeshott Type XVII sword makes it better for thrusting than cutting.

  So, the answer to the question was the thrust known in medieval times is actually quite complex and involves such variables as the deterioration of swordplay in the early 13th century, the increased use, and then disuse of armor, the growing popularity of the duel, and the effectiveness of the weapon involved.

  Although the knight was primarily a horseman, and looked down on the infantry, he could, and did, fight on foot. Before the increased use of armor, the sword was the primary weapon for close combat. The actual fight itself was quite energetic, with a great deal of movement w
ith many heavy blows being dealt and blocked.

  As armor improved, and more and more foot soldiers as well as knights were equipped with it, the sword became less and less effective as a weapon. To a degree this was acceptable, because in many medieval fights between knights the object was not to kill your opponent, but rather to render him helpless so that he could be captured. After all, when ransomed he was worth a great deal of money! Another very valid reason for this "compassion" was that if you started killing others of the aristocracy, you might very well be killed yourself!

  But there were efforts to improve the effectiveness of the sword. After all, some enemies just needed killing and to the devil with ransom. These swords varied. Some had very wide blades capable of cutting through mail with ease, but then use of plate armor expanded and this didn't work. So there were developed swords that were long, and very rigid, with points that could punch through any area that was thin, and could find the chinks in the plate and deliver a deadly thrust.

  But armor improved as well, and soon a sword was just about useless against good plate armor. So first a knight would use a lance—a long-distance weapon—against an enemy in plate. But once the lance was shattered, a mace, axe, or war hammer became the preferred weapons.

  Reproduction war hammer. HRC274.

  On the ground, by the middle of the 15th century in Europe the shield had been discarded, and the weapon of choice was a two-handed one. One should not forget, as many do, that the choice of weapon during this period was based on military and tactical considerations, and not which weapon was best for individual dueling. In a large mass of men, the pike was a terror-inspiring weapon, but it was damn near useless when used by one individual. The halberd, which was an effective hand-to-hand combat weapon, lacked the length to be able to stand up to an armored, mobile knight, and thus became a secondary weapon.

  The pike (left) was only effective used en masse, but the halberd (right) was an effective hand-to-hand weapon.

  Another and very important consideration is to look at combat at the time of the introduction of the rapier, the late 15th century. At this time the individual warrior, whether foot soldier or knight, was a man in pretty good condition. (Obviously not all of them: we know several died of heart attacks in various battles, as they weren't used to wearing their armor.)[2] But the real fighting man was far from a wimp. He wore heavy armor, typically weighing 50–55 pounds, and was used to dealing heavy blows in order for them to be effective. In battle he killed his enemy, or so badly injured him that he had to quit fighting. In civilian life, should he be attacked by thieves or bandits, or be challenged to a duel, it was close to the same thing. Heavy blows, dodging, ducking, parrying, and you attacked and killed your enemy any way you could: cutting, thrusting, or bashing him in the head. Generally speaking, all of the participants were fairly robust and vigorous specimens. There was a great deal of skill involved, but it was skill that also required a great deal of physical stamina.

  A reenactor in armor. Photo by Peter Fuller.

  Then along came the rapier. Even in its first days it meant a different type of fight. There was much more finesse, the blade was used to parry, and the primary attack was the thrust. But this was not the thrust of the sword, one that made a large and deadly wound, but rather a small hole, and one that frequently took several days in which to kill your enemy, and so he was frequently able to fight on, even after several sword thrusts. Which made it quite dangerous even to the winner. This was not the only thing found offensive by many of our Renaissance bravos. As a weapon for war it was worthless, it did not require the stamina of the swordsman, and it did not favor the forthright attacks and blows that many thought were the knightly heritage.

  England probably resisted the rapier longer than any other country. George Silver, the Gentleman Scholar of the Sword, author of Paradoxes of Defense, hated the rapier with a passion. My personal inclination is to think he hated the Italians and French more than he did the rapier. In much of his writing he shows a clear understanding of weapons and how they were used. But in regard to the rapier he simply refuses to see any of its advantages. But the young men in other areas took up the rapier with a vengeance. It was lightweight, dressy, and was ideal for the hot-blooded fight and the duel, which was gaining in popularity.

  Reproduction rapier. HRC14.

  No, it wasn't the thrust that caused the indignation among the older gentlemen of the Renaissance, it was the whole idea of the rapier; useless in war, and only fit for dueling, and then using moves that looked positively effeminate! Almost like dancing!

  As I have stated before: Man doesn't change, but fashion does. Within a generation the rapier was all the rage, and there were as many schools in its use as there were dances.

  But I digress, as I have a tendency to do.

  CUTTING WOUNDS

  The cut is much like the thrust: in the right place it can be deadly, and it can instantly incapacitate your opponent. The power that a good double-edged sword can deliver is impressive, or frightening (depending on which end of the blade you happen to be).

  There is the tale of Theodoric, who killed the King of the Ostrogoths by having his men hold him while he struck him at the juncture of neck and shoulder. The blow was so strong that Odovacar was split all the way down to his hip! This seemed to have shocked Theodoric, as he is reported to have exclaimed, "In truth, the wretch has no bones!"

  Now, this is a pretty powerful blow and you can be easily excused if you think it is a bit of hype. After all, that is a long cut, and there are plenty of ribs in the way. But think back to the Battle of Visby, and the awful damage recorded there. And there is another factor that must be considered. Bones are very tough, but they are not as hard as many like to think. The older you get, the harder and more brittle the bones get, but live bone in a fairly young man is not much tougher than a sapling.

  The other thing that must be looked at is the sharpness of the blade. Japanese swords have long been known for their sharpness, but being sharp was not something exclusively Japanese. Many European swords were just as sharp, and there are Viking era swords that still possess a very sharp edge. When you look at how flat and thin many blades are, you realize that in their heyday they were probably very sharp, and quite able to hew through bone.

  Just as there is no way to generalize about puncture wounds, there is no way to fully comment on the effects of a cut. We have tales from the Napoleonic Wars (Sword, Lance & Bayonet, Charles Ffoulkes & EC Hopkinson) of soldiers receiving several head wounds from sabers who were able to continue fighting. But we also hear of one having his head cut off from the blow of a saber, so it is apparent that it depends on the blow, what is being cut, and the sharpness of the sword.

  I believe that today too much attention is paid to the military sword, perhaps because many of the records that are still available detail battles and the wounds suffered. But the military saber of the 19th century was generally not a very sharp sword, and in many instances was not sharpened at all. General Nathan Bedford Forrest was highly criticized for having his men sharpen their swords, and so were the British for the 1796 Cavalry saber that was considered to be too "brutal" for war.[3] I think one of the reasons behind this is the modern military theory that if you wound a man it would take two to care for him, thus eliminating three men from battle. That sounds pretty good, unless you're the guy facing the enemy. You've just whacked him in the head, cutting a very deep scalp wound, so he's bleeding, but shows no intention of running away, and is also mad as hell. No thanks, I want my weapon to be as effective as possible.

  Not long ago a friend of mine sent me a clipping from High Adventures in Tibet and in it the authors detailed a raid by some bandits in Tibet. It showed several wounded, with all the wounds made by swords. The bandits had all been on horseback and as a result almost all of the wounds were head wounds. They really were pretty ugly, showing deep dents in the skulls, but all of the people survived. The swords used seemed to have been simple single-edged
blades of the saber style, with blades in the 33-inch length range with a blade width of about 1-1/4 inches: that is, simply not heavy and sturdy enough to cut through the hard bone of the head.

  Tibetan sword.

  But a well made, well sharpened sword in the hands of a man who knows how to cut can do a tremendous amount of damage. We read in epics of all ages and areas of people having arms and legs cut off, and even being cut in half! The Roman Ammianus Marcellinus comments: "The heads of others were split through mid-forehead and crown with swords and hung down on both shoulders. A most horrible sight." In Caesar's Commentaries a Roman soldier greets him and when Caesar looks at the man blankly, he says, "It's no wonder you don't recognize me, because my helmet and face were split by a Spanish machaira."

  Machaira.

  In the same sea battle related in Njal's Saga between Hrut and Atli, is an example of another limb-lopping blow. Atli leaped onto Hrut's ship, one man turned to meet him but was knocked off his feet by a thrust from someone else. Now Hrut faced Atli. Atli hacked at him and split his shield from top to bottom, but just then he was struck on the hand by a stone and dropped his sword. Hrut kicked the sword away, cut off Atli's leg and then killed him with the next blow. Such is the fate of pirates.