| From: | Marc A Renouf <jormung@*****.UMICH.EDU> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: nunchucks |
| Date: | Wed, 18 Dec 1996 19:26:01 -0500 |
> I wouldn't generalize. Using a sword (and I mean *effectively using
> it) means you perform cutting maneuvers rather than thrusts (that's
> the reason why swords have mostly broad blades, otherwise they'd be
> rapiers). Also, most of the wounds in sword fighting were (more or
> less) deep cuts. A bat or staff is a different thing, you use its
> speed (momentum) in order to shatter bones or paraylize muscles. I'd
> say staff damage is around the same as sword damage.
True only to a point. There are far more areas that a sword can
cause a crippling or mortal wound to that a club. It's a merit of being
able to not only cause greivous tissue damage (which *both* weapons are
easily capable of), but the added bonus of being able to spill lots of
the opponents' blood onto the ground as well. Before you bring up the
point of blunt trauma and internal hemorrhaging, realize that blood loss
due to a severed femoral artery is a hell of a lot faster than almost
*any* type of internal bleeding.
There are also economies of scale. I think you will agree that
given the same amount of force or speed, a sword will do more damage than
a club. You can break a bone with a club. You can remove an entire limb
with a sword.
But hey, in the hands of a skilled opponent, either will kill you
just as dead, so it doesn't really matter a whole lot.
Marc
