Because of advancements in metallurgical technology I know that there was a movement towards stronger and lighter swords through history but there seemed to be no conclusion as to how to use the sword.
A good stab penetrates armor and vital organs but it doesn’t come with any momentum to stop the enemy fast. A nice slash uses the momentum and shape of the blade to cut deeply into soft tissue but it is easily stopped by bone. A hearty chop knocks the enemy down and shatters his bone with the momentum of the blade, but it doesn’t cut deeply into soft tissue because too much of the blade comes in contact. With this thing I could do all three… but seeing as how I don’t have one yet it begs the question, which is better?
“Better” is very subjective. As you’ve already hinted at in your post, the “better” method is the one which produces the results that you want.
Better meaning: kills the most efficiently
In that case, all three.
Chop their head in twain.
Slash their neck, severing the carotid artery.
Stab them in the heart.
I would think that there is no single most efficient weapon for all the above mentioned purposes - varying situations would require varying attack methods: fighting in close quarters, fighting dissimilarly sized or armed opponents, fighting in a formation (or against one), fighting cavalry, etc.
The true weapon is the wielder.
I susspect with sufficient skill the stab would become most efficient, as long as you can always hit a lethal spot the speed and range advantage of the stab would be best. This is assuming that a well placed stabe would be essentialy an instant kill not allowing an opponent any time to counter attack after being hit. Has metalurgy progressed far enough to produce a foil or rapier capable of penitrating a steel breast-plate?
It does. A thrust will carry much of the attackers body weight, although not with much momentum usually. The attacker leans into the attack without being grossly off balance. Picture an opponent poking you with a broomstick that he is resting his whole body weight on. Think you’d stop? If you don’t stop it is because you have manage to run up the sword blade. This has apparently happened, but it’s rare, and the opponent isn’t in fighting condition when they arrive. Consider them stopped with a thrust.
I think you’re using the term slash here to mean cut. A cut will go quite deep, it’s true, because it uses the edge to, well, cut. It is easily stopped by bone, but in most locations that is not a serious problem. Excepting the ribs and front of the calves/forearms in most locations if you cut deep enough to hit bone you have caused more muscle/tendon damage as you would had you stabbed.
Ever seen even a wood axe injury? It cuts extremely deeply into soft tissue. The same is true of a sword. A full power strike with the edge will go at least as deeply as any other stoke, if not deeper because it ignores minor bones and tendons. Those stories of people being nearly cut in two from sword strokes are true. And not just curved oriental swords. European straight swords were at least as effective and probably moreso. There was one writer on the subject of fencing who is best remembered by his appraisal of the utility of heavy swords. Loosely quoted it was “The most rapid and effective way to render an opponent innocuous is to remove one limb”. You don’t get much deeper than being completely bisected or having a limb amputated. A good heavy sword with a full power stroke will happily penetrate deeply enough to do so.
A stab doesn’t have any inherent advantage in those areas.
A cut using the edge of the word will give you just as much range since obviously the wound needs to be just as deep in both cases. If a sword is three feet long and I need to stab 3 inches into the neck to kill an opponent, I will also need to cut 3 inches in. Either way I end up standing 2 feet 9 inches away from the opponent.
The speed of a cut is not necessarily slower either. Both manoeuvres require either that the weapon be withdrawn slightly and then pushed forwards, or else that the attacker move the weapon forwards. The only difference is that a stab is directed inwards only, while a cut is directed inwards with some lateral motion as well. A cut with a sword is not wild Hollywood slash. It’s more akin to the way a butcher cuts a hanging carcasse, but done from further away.
Using a ‘chop’, essentially using the sword as a bludgeon, will be slower simply because it requires the attacker to commit a sizable fraction of their weight/momentum to the attack.
Basically there is no best way. It’s all dependant on the weapon being used, the armour the opponent is wearing and ultimately what you can hit.
A cut is usually better on the neck because it can follow the opponent if the pull back or duck. A stab is better on the chest because it more readily penetrates the bone if you have a light weapon. A cut works well on the abdomen if you are side on to the opponent, because again it can follow. A stab often works more effectively from the front because there is no bone. However the edge is still highly effective even front on. Note that none of this should be taken to imply that a thrust can’t follow an opponent. It can, and more importantly a thrust can easily become a cut if it needs to follow. Normally however a cut allows a faster response to a moving opponent.
Thrusts have a big advantage in that they are harder to react to. It’s the same principle as a boxing jab rather than a hook.
Ultimately any style will require the use of cuts, thrusts and occasionally slashes no matter what else. Trying to determine if a slash better than a cut is better than a thrust is as silly as trying to determine if a hook is better than a jab is better than a roundhouse. No fighter worth anything would ever consider fighting without a willingness and ability to utilise all three as circumstances dictate.
An earlier thread on the subject: Different Cultures, Different Swords: Why?
The very short summary: there are too many variables to even try to define a “best” weapon or style.
I must disagree Blake about Range of cut vs’ slash.
With a thrust the targets are at the front of the opponents body, the neck, eyes, dyaphragm etc. also the strike occurs in the last full inches of full extension (be it fencing, kenjutsu, or spear fighting). Any cutting attack would be used more against the sides of an opponent side of neck, lower ribs, knee joints etc. and such an attack would be very much overextended if the attacker was at full extension.
Speed is less difference, but I believe that since a thrusting weapon can be made lighter than a cutting weapon and still be effective, that there is also a speed advantage to thrusting styles over cutting styles.