Good point. Basically I treat cuts to the head as strikes of opportunity. If in a particular situation I can get away with a quick strike to the head without exposing myself I do so. Even if it's only a minor injury it's still going to affect the opponent's ability to fight, at least for a moment. In any case I agree with what you said about diagonal cuts to eye level and lower. Makes a lot of practical sense.
Indeed - of course I'm not suggesting that people should never cut at the top of the head, or that it isn't historical (because it is!), but that the majority of downwards cuts at the head should if possible be aimed at the sides of the head.
scholagladiatoria Now I feel the need to try and find some studies on injuries, relating to the head in medieval combat. It should be an interesting read. I wonder if people can tell the difference between a cross guard/mordhau and a war hammer.
While I am a bit late to this party I would like to point out that Scottish Highlanders of the 17th and 18th centuries seemed to make good use of cuts to the head.
Matt, I agree with every word you are saying in this video. But I do believe you are underestimating how much blood even a 1 inch cut on the top of the head can produce. You will be almost completely blind within a few seconds from blood running into your field of vision. Obviously a cut to the neck or lower face is preferable because it will end the fight. but still you either have to wipe the blood from your face or attempt to fight blind. I can only imagine the mental effect of knowing a sword just contacted the top of my head and now I am bleeding. I would probably want to flee the fight and check on my injury to make sure it isn't life threatening. Many professional MMA and boxing fights end early due to these types of cuts and they don't even involve a blade... I love all your videos, can you make a video with historical references for the average length of a sword fight (i1v1 duels, no armor)? I am starting to get the idea that 99% of sword fights lasted only a few moves.
Idk about boxing, but in MMA a stoppage due to blood is referred to as a doctor's stoppage and happens outside the fighter's control, many fighters tend to argue against such stoppages and just want to continue to fight
Yes. In modern combative applications, the bridge of the nose, just under the nose, side of the jaw, neck, and eyes are target areas. We don't fight humans by swinging our arms on top of the skull. So it only makes sense that historically men of arms wouldn't either. Good points, I am guilty of not having thought of this (though I do a great deal more thrusting than cutting with my choice of swords).
I disagree, here's why: Firstly, a persons natural flinch reflex is to move your head /away/ from the incoming blow, not toward it as you show at 4:10. A natural flinch reflex would move the other way. Flinch reflex is all about gaining time to escape, creating more distance -- this is written about by Donald McBane, who exploited his opponents flinch reflexes to land his blows (a thrust to the eyes causes the head to spring backwards, then he redirects the blow to the sternum). It would take dedicated training to make your instinctive reaction a removal from the /angle/ of the incoming blow rather than a simple /retreat/ from the incoming blow. That said, a persons natural flinch would actually cause you to do more damage, as your cut would land on the side of their face or the top of their neck. Secondly, you talk about a glancing blow to the head at 4:20. This kind of glancing blow is actually extremely effective at causing fatal injury, perhaps more so than a direct hit down the center line of the skull. Plenty of forensic archaeology has found skulls with neat slices removed from the upper part of the skull causing death. But we need not look at forensic archaeology to prove this point. Let us turn to modern day German student duels with "Korbschlaeger". The only target is the head and face. The "Korbschlaeger" is a very thin blade designed to cause scars and not injuries. Nevertheless, a very frequent outcome is that one of the combatants is "scalped" by a flick of the wrist that catches the top of the head at an angle, that is, the scalp is neatly separated from the skull and remains hanging on by some remaining tissue. The shearing forces involved with hitting a skull at an angle are much more likely to cause damage than a direct hit on the well protected top. Next, lets consider the equally likely scenario that your opponent flinches backwards (this is the primary flinch reflex exploited by Donald McBane) if you are striking for the top of the head, and the opponent pulls his head back, you will still (depending on how far he withdraws the top of his head) hit his face or temples, his cheeks, his chin, or his sternum) If you had instead aimed the shot at his face to begin with, his removal could have been just enough to void your attack completely. Tactically, aiming the blow at the top of the head is a "catch all" tactic. it provides for each possible flinch response that you opponent might make. Paradoxically, the /least/ diesirable outcome of a head attack is for your opponent /not/ to flinch, and to take the attack on the center of the skull (which is highly protected) but it would be very unlikely. And of course, in the unlikely event that you do hit him square on the top of the head, you will break so many fragile blood vessels that your opponent will be instantly blinded by the waterfall of blood pouring over his eyes. Even if you miss and strike the shoulder, you're still likely to incapacitate him.
In Destreza Verdadera don't exist that kind of hits. The vertical cuts go close the ear, near the neck. And the diagonals start in the eye. I really love your videos, even when I can't understand everything. Usually you explain the things slowly and with a simple vocabulary, that helps a lot. Thank you so much.
This is actually very good information even for modern-day combatants, particularly if you are a police officer or a soldier who carries a handgun rather than a long arm of some kind due to your particular duties and position (i.e. a mechanic, or some such.) It's not uncommon for a pistol bullet to bounce off the head if it impacts at a shallow angle on the domed part of the skull, particularly if it's a low velocity round, like a .45, and even moreso if the bullet is a full metal jacket, as it would be for a soldier. It can very occasionally happen with a rifle bullet, but it would need to be a VERY shallow angle of impact, and the transferred energy would still likely incapacitate your opponent by at the very least rendering them unconscious. Still, this is a great example of how all kinds of human combat share certain characteristics, just due to us all being... well... human, and it's a great example of why there's value to studying historical conflict and martial arts.
Indeed. Technology changes, but physics and human physiology haven't changed all that much in the past few thousand years. Fighting is fighting, and whether you have a sword or a gun, many of the principles and concepts remain the same. A rifle with a bayonet is nothing more than a spear that can shoot. An entrenching tool would be fought with in essentially the same way one would use an axe/mace/club, etc. Self-defense with a handgun frequently occurs at closer ranges than many would expect, making it quite similar to fighting with other short/close range weapons. Change the handgun to a knife, or make it an empty-handed affair, and the techniques would more than likely be recognizable to a knight or samurai from 600 years ago.
wcropp1 Exactly. In fact, gun disarms are no different than disarming techniques for a sword or polearm, especially versus long guns. To return to the subject at hand, however, I did a little more research, and I may have failed to give the .45 enough credit above. In all cases of deflection I could discover, the mass of the bullet was enough to at least daze the recipient of the impact considerably, effectively ending the confrontation. Preferable, in my opinion, since no one is necessarily dead when the dust settles, but not something I'd rely upon, since it can't be achieved consistently. This is where I think the matter would differ in weapon-based hand-to-hand combat. As Mr. Easton explained in the video, a sword's blade, by virtue of low mass and its cutting edge, will slice through the skin, and continue traveling, depositing very little energy. Though I quite expect it would produce enough bleeding to severely weaken and EVENTUALLY incapacitate one's adversary, bleeding takes time. In combat, (once again, as he said) the goal should be to very quickly subdue your opponent, so that he (or she, as the case may be -- a woman with a sword can kill you just as well as a man, if she know's what she's doing) is no longer trying to kill you.
I'm glad you mentioned the neck in this video, because if I were to have to land a cut on somebody above the shoulder, I'd definitely go for the neck. Even the lower parts of the head are quite well protected; the worst you can inflict, apart from minor bleeding, is probably a dislocated jaw. The neck is way less protected, and contains far more crucial body parts. Cut a carotid artery and the person will pass out from lack of blood to the brain, cut the windpipe and the results are almost as crippling. Also, during the 19th century, the strap of the hat or helmet was often reinforced or replaced by a chain-like alternative, which gave some protection to the side of the head, protection the neck lacked entirely.
Karl Haedrich no, that's "racial equality," which tries to give out equality of substance rather than equality of opportunity. Anti-racism is ignoring the color of skin and shape of face. This is how my family raised me. People are good or bad based on their actions, not the color of their skin. And for the record, I consider the entire human race a part of our "extended family" in the exact same fashion as our "color breed" is part of our extended family.
***** Those groups weren't making T-shirts; instead, they were making signs and protesting for a little something called civil rights. The fact that people had to fight for rights over skin color because of racists in power being backed by the ignorant masses who were spooned fed racists rhetoric, shows how despicable people can be. Being anti-racist isn't anti-white, it is anti-ignorant and anti-megalomaniac.
***** It isn't more than just skin color in the U.S. In white dominated and Latin societies, racism is about skin color. In China it is about if you are Han Chinese or not. Racism isn't the same in each culture, sure, but in the cultures that were being discussed, it is about skin color.
Thank you for putting up this video. I have several points I wish to bring up that go in multiple directions. 1) For diagonal blows to the head- Meyer says to aim the zornhau below the ear (which are at the level of the eyes) and above the shoulder, Fiore you mention of course. This not only aims at more easily damaged places but makes the strikes much harder to avoid. 2) I agree that blows like these are comparatively easy to dodge and there are a number of techniques which are described from Liechtenauer on for exploiting this. Also, vertical blows aimed at the top of the head are also comparatively easy to dodge. 3) Despite all this we see a number of blows from ancient swordsmanship that nevertheless aim there. These all seem to be vertical blows, and the crown of the head is the center of the body in that orientation so it makes sense to aim there. Talhoffer's manuscripts show blows to the crown of the head. The Scheitelhau of the Liechtenauer tradition is usually interpreted as directed at the crown of the head. This at least demonstrates that in specific situations this would be the best strike to make according to some of the ancient masters. So to summarize: for diagonal strikes, absolutely. For vertical strikes it is a valid target in some circumstances.
Absolutely, I didn't mean to imply not to ever aim at the top of the head (it is sometimes easier to hit anyway), or that it wasn't historical - just that most modern historical fencers seem to aim exclusively at the top of the head (because it is easier I guess), when they should probably be aiming more often at the sides of the head.
I think there is a style element here too. we don't see blows to the crown in every manual after all. Fiore, for example, as far as I can tell never explicitly instructs to do it, and virtually every situation which could be dealt with using a scheitelhau could, theoretically, be done with a zornhau as well, or dealt with in other fashions. So I believe it may not be incorrect for some styles to avoid the target entirely.
I always love that shirt. Some people think anyone capable of violence is mean, evil, and or uncontrolled. I've always found the opposite is the case. The more proficient someone is with violence the more kind, understanding, and disciplined they tend to be. I'd rather be and see FARs than SJWs any day. One claims to be warriors when they are really political activists of a particular stripe, I despise that hypocrisy. The other is exactly what it says, people proficient with violence willing to stand against racism.
Your point about head dodging only applies to diagonal attacks. If the attack is completely vertical, then the defender will still get cut in the neck or shoulder if he chooses to move his head out of the way as you demonstrate.
Good point, that's why Mike Tyson gets good knock outs because he hooks at the jaw not the head. It would of course require a step forward. Just like the Spartans, say when your sword is too short take a step forward.
Glancing cuts, small nicks, to the forehead bleed very profusely and the blood will impair vision and distract. Enabling a more killing blow. Might be a good reason.
Funny, good point. Back in the good old days the saber mask had a large leather cowl on it, so when you popped the other bloke you'd get a nice fat plopping sound, blind judges could hear. Ground and mounted fencing tactics differ a bit just from how much target is available. Face and neck are usually the most immediately damaging in the cut. Hussars wear so many layers of clothes you might as well aim for the moustache... ;)
If you have ever watched the show Zombie Go Boom you will notice that their skull analogues are very accurate to human skulls and their tests give a good idea of what swords and blunt weapons can do to it. Basically a strong sharp sword strike (yes not hugely likely in real combat but whatever) will slice straight through the skull.
says the guy who has nothing to back that up, other than he trusts that some random people from the internet has made "100% anatomically correct" skulls and are not just bullshitting. to add to the theory, if you attempt to attack the person with all your force you will probably get killed before you finish your backswing. people didnt just swing with all their force like madmen, because only quick attacks would let you actually perform the attack.
I'm just saying what I've seen and that is why I said in brackets "(not hugely likely in real combat but whatever)" I do know all of what you said I was just making the point that the skull is not as invincible as some people say.
I actually saw a person take a powerful blow on the top of the skull with a blunt long sword during a sparring match where one of the combatants had forgotten to put his helmet on. It didn't seem to cause too much pain, but there was a lot of blood, almost instantly a stream was flowing down the face like a waterfall. The victim actually wanted to fight on, we had to practically drag him to casualty.
Another "problem". Most fighters/knights/men at arms were wearing at least rudimentary head protection. Padding, skull cap, mail coif. You were basically left with hitting the face or the temple.
Interesting thing to note is that I.33 shows no attacks to the head itself, everything is aimed at the neck. Blows from below are depicted as ending next to the cheekbones, which I interpret as an attempt to cut through the neck under the jaw. These seem like attacks to arteries in the neck, which makes a lot of sense, since 1) medieval people knew they were there, and 2) you can kill someone with a punch to the right place (cartoid sinus, I think?), or, if you merely restrict bloodflow through there (basically what rear choke does), guy goes down in 3 to 5 seconds. That said, I imagine cut #7 (or number 4 in I.33, ain't conflicting terminology fun?) was used against hands/back of the neck if your opponent tried to take off your leg pretty effectively.
Aim from eye level to the corner of the jaw. It's by far the weakest part of the skull. Catch the jaw right and you can knock them clean out too. The temple was were native American tomahawk practitioners would aim too, if memory serves me right. It's also worthwhile to aim for the neck as well, since the neck is so prone to damage of any sort.
Cheers Matt. There was a 19th century account in "Swordsmen of the British Empire" that described cut No. 7 as being 'obsolete'. I always wondered why, and now I know :)
Yes, it was phased out for this reason - note that there are also several accounts in Kinsley's book of blades breaking on the top of people's heads. Heads are pretty hard!
scholagladiatoria Bwahahaha what a wonderful image. I see it clearly in my mind. One guy with a broken sword, and another who didnt die from injury but laughed himself to death. I would be both proud as hell and pissing myself laughing, if i left a fight, and my opponent broke his blade on my skull. Thats a story to tell the granchildren.
btw, stiff and weight forward blade design like kukri, yatagan or katana should have no problem hitting on the skull cap. despite poor entry angle, the stiff and heavy blade usualy make its way in anyway. but still there are better place for you to hit if you have the choice.
As someone who studies tourney-style sword&shield with the SCA, I can confirm that we mainly use strikes to the head as they allow us to maneuver around the opponent's shield, and they're actually our most common strike (followed by cuts at the thigh). If you cover your face with your shield you can't see any more, so it's usually far less protected than their torso. Because of this reason, most of our strikes are at the eye line - above that and the curvature of their helmet comes into play, below that and you're hitting their helmet.
another reason for attacking the top of the head in reenactment combat is also base of the strain on the rest of the body, when you hit the top of the head, the force transfers downwards, to aim to hit someone at the side of the head, has greater chance of going low and striking the neck, and it also means that the head with be torqued and can potentially damage the neck/ spine a final reason is that, its a good cut to delover over a line of shields at men in a shield wall.
Would you say the same thing blunt trauma-wise for a Viking sword? A cutter like that with a lot of blade presence generates about 120 joules of energy, which is well above the fracture threshold of the skull.
I would also say that the head is further away, assuming that your opponent is guarding against you with a weapon, so I would've thought that striking their hand and wrist and arm would be easier but still put them out of action, ready for a thrust when you want.
scholagladiatoria You might be looking at this from the wrong perspective. I believe that those vertical cuts are not supposed to be aimed at the top of the head but rather at the center body line, and of course if the opponent is standing up straight the blade will strike at the top of his head. Those strikes are actually most difficult to evade because you can't just rotate your body or duck out of the way but instead have to make a large movement. They are also problematic to block since you will most likely have to put your sword above your head to form a strong block (or risk having it too weak to stop the strike) which in return could make blocking the next strike coming from a different direction more difficult. I have no sword fighting experience or any kind of credentials on the matter, this is just my humble opinion.
I would generally agree but the Skull Skallagrim showed where 1/3 of the brain bucket was removed at a diagonal angle like the guy at the end of underworld by a single clean sword stroke leads me to believe that, helmets aside, it would still be worth a try lol.
I remember watching a documentary where they examined a japanese skull, and the owner of said skull had been whop, whop, whopped on the forehead numerous times with a katana, not enough to break the bone, but enough to make blood pour into his eyes and generally making life miserable for the poor bloke until he got the final cut. Sure, you might not make a good cut from above, but if you hit and your opponent isn't wearing head protection you will mess him up, leaving him vulnerable to more deadly attacks.
Reminds me of an interesting weapon I was reading about recently: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere_(weapon)#Combat A Maori stone/bone/wood weapon that was like a cross between a club and a sword "...It has been claimed that a strike to the skull combined with a twisting flick of the wrist could force or wrench the victim's skull open." YIKES! (I'm guessing this strike would have been to the side of the skull near the temple like you were saying)
That's cool, in jogo do pau, with forward weighted staffs that rely on blunt force, we are also told to aim to the jaw, because the top of the head can make the staff bounce off if hit from some angles, and a hit to the jaw will most easily smash it than to the head.
also in medieval fighting if someone had say... a gjermundbu helm with avantial or something it may just skim down the side of the helm on to the avantial, possibly screwing up the whole edge alignment all together
Good points although I would say they apply even more universally that just to sharp weapons. This applies to unarmed fighting double since a hard strike on the 'dome' will most likely break your hand. Aiming point when I teach is the jawline - no higher than the eyes. You really don't want to hit the upper brow either. It also would apply to blunt weapons as well. If you want to transfer momentum to the head (and thus injure the brain) then you want to hit in a way that causes the neck to snap around. Coming straight down would just compress the neck. Certainly, you could do damage with a hard enough blow, but it would be much less effective than a sideways blow at temple height.
The cut at the top of the head always felt like a quick, longer range attack to me. Not meant to kill, just to harass, make your opponent bleed and blind him with his blood.
First of all, thank you for being clear even for people who are novices in martial arts. I casually practiced Aïkido for quite a while, a martial art ( maybe more "art" than "martial") with bits of katana fencing, and couldn't avoid to think, while watching this video, about the Shomen-Uchi attack, a very vertical top-down blow. I don't think, especially with this video in mind, that it was originally intended to be used as a strike on the top of the head. But here is my question : how can be such top-down blows efficiently used ? I have few doubts it can, since from what I understood from you, many fencing styles include them. However, as I said, I only have a very limited knowledge of fencing, and thus cannot know to which point my few hypothesis are correct.
I would argue that deliberately going for the head is *not* the best technique because whilst the neck is pretty much the best part to hit with a sword - you're almost guaranteed to slice into something useful to the other person's continued existence - it's not that easy to do. Strikes to the head are more easily intercepted because the natural guard position (the one that most people handed a sword will take up) tends to place the blade between the torso and head. Going for an opponents' other body parts with the intent to cause incapacitating wounds and kill them once they are no longer able to keep their guard up effectively through factors like pain and blood loss would seem to me to be a better strategy in a live steel fight. Of course, if you *do* get a good strike at the neck, it's an obviously good target and you should try to get it because it can end the fight almost instantly, and a shorter fight means less chance of you getting hurt too, but deliberately aiming at the neck seems to me to be an inefficient fighting method.
Usually when forensic arch. that I've read about, in a battlefield dig find skulls with obvious fatal trauma, it's blunt force, as you said. Yet there have been interesting exceptions. Slices of the skull, usually shallow, yet still devastating, which fit you're scenario, but in these cases, the specimens has a clean piece of the skull, taken-off. Always shallow, but still fatal, and still agreeing exactly what you stated in this vid. Until you addressed this issue, I wondered if a stand. 3' sword could easily slice a greater/deeper part of a human skull. From what you describe, if it were possible, than it would have to be from a greater lever, ex; twin-handed great sword, (slaughter/battle sword AKA "zeihander"). Even then,it would be a matter of doubt to bring about such a cond. given soldiers still have good protection from a helmet.
it is hard to land a clean cut on top of the head especially when your opponent is moving and fighting back. in china its hard to get a gun, so most of the violence assult is still done by cold steel. in many cases you see people got cut up 10 times on the head. sometimes the whole scalp is nearly taken off, but the injure are most shallow and didn't going through the skull. and usualy when someones head is about getting hit, he instinctly move his arm to parry the hit. beside unlike a bullet will tumble and fragment inside the flesh, a blade usualy stay one piece. so a lot of time you see a guy got cut up so bad that looks like his head went in a meat grinder, but still is able to run away. and a few weeks later he is out of hospital and looking for revenge lol.
can you tell something about celtic swords. It is so hard to find any information about it. Ptolemaos, Caesar and polybius write each different stories.
I know I'm a rapier fencer, but what if the opening is the fendente and my target is not his brain but his scalp and forehead? I'm not trying to kill him but to get blood in his eyes. I've never spent a lot of time setting it up, but I find it is just there, especially when a less experienced person is separating from an infighting situation and my weapon was just high (like a high tierce or 5 or 6 parries from saber) warding off theirs during infighting.
I did note what you said. Axes, clubs, staffs, warhammers and various staff weapons would still ring your bell but good even with a good helmet on. They would still put a person out and down for the count.
Not necessarily. With a good helmet on, it's more common to keep fighting, unless the blow is extremely powerful, or repeated. A good blow to the head can however daze someone quite convincingly so you can do it again, or perform a different strike. Not guaranteed though.
I had a very long discussion about this with someone on the coments on one of your videos (the one about earlier sparring head protetion equipment) a while back. I wonder if that is where this comes from :P I defended the position of it not being a good idea to aim for the head, although I must say I was thinking, as in this video, about the top of the head, and noted that the neck is a much better target, although I'd consider the neck to start at the ear and didn't think a lot of the face. I imagine with a well given hit with a good cutting sword it's not that hard to cut into the skull, but in combat, you hit when you have an oportunity, so it's usually not the best possible hit you could do, so it makes it unlikelly to cut the top of the skull in a deadly manner. Since in a combat you don't get many chances to hurt your oponent before he gets a chance to hurt you, using that chance on the top of the head is probably not very advisable. I have some backgeound of japanese swordfighting and one thing that I noticed at some point is that the main differences between the traditional places considered viable to strike in japanese sword fighting and in Kendo is that, other than in kendo legs are out of the question, the strikes that in Kendo are to the head, in kenjutsu and such the same attacks are to the neck.
Were there any specific angles/targets taught in traditional kenjutsu? Are the targets in kendo completely artificial, or is there still some similarity to traditional targeting? I would like to see some more historically accurate Japanese sword (and other weapons) sparring--I know jujitsu used to be allowed in kendo competition, right?
To my knowledge, yes, although I'm not sure how old jujitsu is. I think it's more that there were techniques that were akin to jujitsu rather than being actual jujitsu. Although most of that I know from kenjutsu and from traditional swordfighting is from third party sources. The thing with where to strike is in kendo there's these upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/36/Kendo_target_areas.png I don't remember where it ws that I originally saw the actual swordfighting targets, but the "men" didn't exist, the Migi and Hitari men were called differently and were directed to the neck, there was no attack to the head, actually. In addition, there was one attack to each thigh, if I recall correctly. This made it so there wer 9. To be fair, the stab to the throat and the stab to the belly are considered the same attack.
Interesting. I'll have to do some research and see if I can find some more info, as I always thought the kendo targets were somewhat limited. As far as jujitsu goes, I've just always heard any empty handed techniques done by an unarmed samurai referred to as "jujitsu," though I suppose that isn't necessarily always the case. Was there less of a distinction between empty handed/weapon arts back when these skills were actually being used (i.e. grappling was taught as a part of kenjutsu), or were there simply a number of different empty hand arts?
wcropp1 They're limited because you can only hit there where your opponent is armored. However, the strikes themselves in sword combat are somewhat limited too. The reason there isn't an armpit attack is because it's ingeneral not easy to hit someone there. The kendo hitting targets are a sport version (that's why one hits in the safer top of the head and doesn't hit the unarmored thighs) of the traditional targets, which were there because they were the good places to attack, elsewhere it was not cosidered a good place to attack. As for unarmed techniques, in general it was considered good for any fighter (they weren't all samurai... well, depends on the period, but in general samurai weren't the only ones) to know to fight empty handed. Or indeed to know how to use all the weapons (spears, naginatas, bows, wakizashis, guns...) Specially in the latter periods after the role of the samurai was diminished for the lack of wars and their purpose changed, where they focused on perfecting themelves, perfecting their craft, which came from religious beliefs. It would evidently make sense, if they have the chance to use an useful unarmed technique during swordfight and they know how to perform it, that they'd do it. That said, using unnarmed moves while fighting with swords was never very commonly used anywhere in the world. It was mostly trips. Things like, when you're stuck together very close with the oponent, you place your foot firmly in a way that can trip them, then you push them against your foot, making them fall over. But in general, they used whatever they could use to win.
Yea, safety concerns in a sport are certainly going to change your targeting. Regardless, though, there are only so many ways to hit a person, and you see a lot of commonality between the various sword-arts of the world. Unarmed techniques are no-doubt useful for anyone involved in a real fight (whether samurai or otherwise--I'm sure Japan had fighting men that weren't necessarily samurai, just like not all European fighters were knights). Foot sweeps and trips seem to be some of the more common techniques among the world's martial arts (they're certainly quite practical, simple and low risk), but you also see quite a bit of arm grabbing (for obvious reasons) and hip throwing, etc.
That's a good point. Admittedly, I'm no expert on the topic--I've just heard this a number of times. If you look at most knife attacks, they are sewing-machine-esque repeat stabbings to the stomach, neck, etc. Additionally, most fist fights involve forehand haymakers. Essentially all boxing punches are forehand strikes, and they make up the majority of strikes in MMA, almost all the hand strikes save for the occasional hammer fist or open hand strike on the ground. I've also heard reference to this in regards to sword use and the lack of backhand cuts used by most untrained people. At the very least, the forehand shot is usually thrown *first,* and is easier/a bit more instinctual, especially when using a weapon with a shield, etc. None of this has been academic research or anything though, so I can't link you to any scholarly articles or anything.
wcropp1 Its the most basic attack: swinging top-left to bottom-right. Seen from the attackerit is the left side. Thus it does not involve a false edge or backhand.
Swinging from the top left of the person you're swinging at to their bottom-right would hit their left temple, not their right? And your own top left to bottom right would be a backhand? Unless I am going crazy?
Yea, I'm still not quite sure how you get a right temple hit without swinging backhanded. Regardless of which side it hits though, I've always heard that the Romans mostly used the gladius to stab with. So what's up with all the chopped Germanic skulls, etc.? Was the gladius a more well rounded weapon than many seem to think? Or is evidence of a stab to the gut simply harder to trace after so many years?
Huge fan of your thoughts. Now, how about making strikes from the neck and up 3pts / "the big hit" in tournaments, not chin and up guys? -Marius R. Oslo KdF
scholagladiatoria This question sounds facetious even as I am typing it, but it is a sincere inquiry, so here goes: Considering that the top of the head is the strongest part and that the face is the most vulnerable, why did the design of head protection for warfare focus on the helmet rather than the mask?
I'm obviously not Matt, but you do eventually see face protection incorporated into helmet design. I think it just took a while for people to figure something out that didn't compromise their movement/breathing/visibility too much. Even once fully enclosed helmets were developed, they were not always worn, as the added protection is gained at the expense of the aforementioned visibility/breathing, etc. It's a bit easier to just stick a metal bowl on your head. However, pretty early in history you see, for example, Greek hoplite helmets which give pretty decent face protection relative to what was used by other civilizations for many years to come. Even today, modern soldiers could benefit from helmets with facial coverage, which is starting to appear, but it presents issues when trying to obtain a proper cheek weld (the interface between the shooter's face and the stock) when shooting a rifle.
Perhaps this is one of the reasons Fiore doesn't include vertical strikes in his [surviving] works. After all: why make things more complicated for newbies and such? (Assuming his works really were intended for students without much prior experience, that is)
It's not easy to decapitate a person Even not considering armor - spine is really tough and you should basicaly strike between the bones with a lot of forxe and/or a long cut. And depending on the fact that battle swords ain't really put that much of a punch (as Matt said in video) and that there is a space between one and another combatant and that they both dont want to get killed and are on constant movement it wont much likely to happen. The other good point about why it seems difficult to happen would also be the fact that executioner type swords, made specificaly for beheading were way more heavy than regular battle swords and also balanced more towards the flat tip and even with that hack of a tool the blow dealer could screw the job Also there are a lot easier ways to disable your opponent from fight to begin with Not that it did not happen. There are just lots of variables in need to be on right place for it to happen
Michał Wiśniewski Good points, as for the difficulty in the cut itself, i think it just depends on the sword, like a Scottish Claymore. Ignoring how inaccurate the show "Deadliest Warrior" can be, their demonstration was fairly legitimate in showing the impact and cutting potential of the sword. Something like that i can see having an easy time with lopping heads, its just as you said, the variables to get to that point is the issue
Everything that has been said above, plus the basic fact that people more naturally and effectively protect their heads usually. Hitting the top of someone's head can be easier, but it's usually easier to protect the sides of your head. Nature has that one worked out I guess.
scholagladiatoria I would argue that nature has made us good at protecting our heads from blunt trauma, not bladed attacks. See my post above, a typical flinch reflex would cause you to move your head away from the attack /in the same line as the attack/. This work well with punches or blunt objects, because it removes you from the apex of the punch, or reduces the effective change in velocity at the point in contact (since your head is moving in the same direction, it reduces the acceleration applied to your head)
Perhaps its in part because we don't feel particularly comfortable aiming at the soft parts of our training partners head because we don't want to injure or risk injuring our partner. After all they are companios, not enemys
Ironically... striking for the top of the head is exactly how Musashi won his duel against Sasaki Kojiro Then again, Musashi used a boken allegedly carved out of a boat paddle. So yeah, that might cause significant blunt damage.
On my 2nd hema training i got an strike right on the head with a paddet sparing two handet sword an i had a tinitus an i was desorientated for several seconds. But i my head was unprotected. So i a real fighting situation my opponent would defnitly kill my...
Excellent points! Thank you for this. On a side note; are their any swordsman here who have ever faced an inexperienced sparring partner and lost? This happened to me today and we were using simulated swords and it left me quite frustrated. I am not sure what errors I may have made. Any opinions would be appreciated! Thank you.
Fighting someone inexperienced is usually frustrating. From my experience, they tend to do stuff that should get them killed instantly - dropping their guard to hack at you as soon as they see an opening for example - but because you don't expect an opponent to fight so irrationally you are not ready for such an attack and get hit or it ends up being a double-hit. It takes some time to learn when to strike and how to strike safely (both for your safety as well as the opponents) and generally "the master fears the pupil more than another master" because from another experienced fencer you can somewhat expect how he will act whereas someone new to fencing might not know himself what he's going to be doing next.
I've noticed things like this happening from time to time. We had an inexperienced member come and wipe the floor with several tournament vets. The new guy played semi pro hockey and seemed to be able to compensate lack of experience with vastly better reflexes, physicality and overall speed. Was interesting to say the least.
It also goes to many other competitive activities as well Seems that the best anwser would be that it also takes a time to learn. Not only how other skilled in the art person may do but also to know and get used to basic notions that a beginner may do, what seems most natural and then takin an easy advantage of it. But it is definitely true that it is frustrating
And we shouldn't forget, that this is part of what makes it fun to get into this sport as a newbie. I remember on my second fight - I was instantly into sparring, even before learning the proper techniques - I managed to duck beneath a cut, pass the opponent while doing so and smack him straight across the back from behind his shoulder. That was bloody awesome but should never have worked - it also never worked again and got me many a bruise trying to repeat that experience :D
Yes, inexperienced people can be very difficult to fight, because they do some crazy things that whilst being stupid, are also unpredictable. But remember that sparring with safe gear is very different to real fighting with sharp weapons. In safe sparring a beginner will sometimes ignore an attack at their head and just strike back in the same time, because they know they are safe. They would be unlikely to behave in the same way with real weapons and real danger. So sparring is always a false test of such things.
Will a sword cut even go trough the forehead? I mean yeah, test cutting videos they take a heavy sword and cut a fixed target that is supposed to represent a skull. Sometimes it doesent even go all the way trough in those videos. On a battlefield though, you are unlikely to land a perfect two handed katana cut from the exact right angle into an unyielding target, like you do in a test cutting video. If you are on a battlefield you might not have the time to aim properly. You are most likely wielding a lighter sword, probably only with one hand and you are trying to hit someone who is trying very hard not to get hit so if you do hit, it might be a glancing blow. And and this is key as well, you are not hitting a stationary target, if you hit a man, part of your force is going to be wasted on pushing is body backwards which will diminish the damage. In my years of martial arts, I have seen people take blows to the head that are powerful enough to knock them off their feet, and they just stand up again and keep fighting. So a blow to the head might waste more energy pushing the entire head back than piercing the skull. Which might damage the neck, but again, sword don't hit with that much weight.
LarsaXL Generally the head is a hard target, yes. There are many historical accounts of sword blades actually breaking on human heads (often whilst killing the person at the same time though..). However there are quite a few historical accounts of sword cuts penetrating the head as far down as the teeth. So it depends on the sword and the cut.
scholagladiatoria That is impressive, I didn't think bone was hard enough to break steel. So it might work if you have a heavier cutting sword but it is adviced against.
LarsaXL I doubt it would happen with most modern steel, but in the dark and middle ages, their iron refining techniques were not near what we have today. many of these blades had a huge number of impurities in them, making the sword weaker, and more likely to fracture. There are even some accounts of people breaking sword over their knees as a sign of surrender, or to discrace some court martialed officers..
thebeyondwordser Good point. I did not know swords were that easy to break, even impure steel can be very durable. I forgot how thin you often make a sword to make it nimble even though it makes it fragile.
Yes. Firstly because there is no such thing as 'race' in science and secondly because I am against deliberately penalising people because of their physical characteristics.
I like your videos,but the virtue signaling "wayciss " shirt is lame as fuck.Why the need for it?Your all about tradition European martial arts but DON'T want to be identified with others who share your heritage?That's pretty weak...
No. The t-shirt is really simple. I am against racism. That is what the t-shirt says. That is, being an arsehole to a person because they are of a different ethnicity to me. For example if they are Irish, a Slav, from India, or a Native American. If you think that being an arsehole to someone because they are a different ethnicity than you, then that makes you a racist and the sort of person I do not like.
@@scholagladiatoriaI'm not an asshole, I just think we have enough virtue signaling sissies who bend over backwards to prove they arent "racist ".Such are cowards who are people that I do not like.
You talk about 'virtue signalling', but have a username inspired by a (badly spelled) Nazi war criminal, who was executed for his crimes. I'm assuming that's not your real name and that you are actually a Nazi fanboy anyway. You are the person 'virtue signalling' - Your idea of virtue apparently being race supremacy. I believe in fairness and justice, and know from studying history and archaeology that we are all related and all mongrels (in 'race' terms). You admire race-inspired genocide, apparently.
Glancing cuts, small nicks, to the forehead bleed very profusely and the blood will impair vision and distract. Enabling a more killing blow. Might be a good reason.
