Hank Reinhardt's The Book of the Sword (12 page)

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 with 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.