Yes and no.CByrneIV wrote:While you are correct about the duration, you are ENTIRELY incorrect about the rest. I have no idea where you got this idea... god forbid it was a serious book or martial arts expert.D5CAV wrote:
Contrary to Disney movies, sword fights last about as long as gunfights, and they end the same way, with penetration of major organs leading to organ failure and death. Even the storied Samurai sword killed primarily with the point. Like medieval swords, the cutting blade was used mostly for executions.
Historically, this was false for all forms of sword combat other than smallsword/sidesword and rapier, which were at the very END of swordfighting as a practical primary method of combat, and often conducted with no armor, or minimal armor.
The VAST majority of sword combat, from the beginning of time, until today, ended up with one or both combatants suffering major limb wounds (either large slashes, crush breaks) or abdominal wounds, also mostly slashes (facial wounds were not uncommon either). Death was by blood loss, sepsis, or the inability to continue to function in life. Also, TBI through concussion was very common.
This is especially true for mounted swordsmen against other mounted swordsmen or infantry; which is the vast majority of sword combat from the 18th century on.
... BIG SNIP....
http://www.thearma.org/essays/thrusting_vs_cutting.html
Thrusting was part of the Greek and Roman manual of arms, as well as during medieval times.
There are several accounts of Renaissance swordsmen with small swords defeating multiple opponents. These were done with rapid thrusts and were not duels.
True on the Katana not being used much in real combat. For terrorizing unarmed non-Samurai, death was by slashing (head or limbs). For duel against another skilled Samurai, it was the point.