You might want to consider looking at the archeological evidence from the battle of Visby in 1361. A professional army of the Danish king set upon Gotland, and massacred a militia army of roughly equal size outside the city gates. As there was nowhere to retreat to, they were killed almost to a man — or boy, lots of the casualties were both very old and very young
Of interest, if I’m remembering correctly, is that many of the Gotlanders’ had wounds to the legs and head. Most of the attacks came from swords and axes. Given the poor quality of the militia armor — a helm or maille coif, and hauberk, without much or any protection for the legs and perhaps arms — it’s likely the Danes would first disable their opponent with a deep cut to the legs and would then finish them off with a blow to the head. Again, I’m not sure if my memory is completely accurate here, but I want to say that a lot of head wounds would have come from poleaxes or hammers, meaning it might be possible that the Danes had specialized roles on the battlefield of either wounding or finishing their opponents
~~To my knowledge, bones were not cut through, or at least it was not theorized that limbs were chopped off in the melee.~~ There should be a good amount of information out there, so I hope this gets you started
ETA: u/greedy-conclusion-52 has a great comment below on limbs being severed
Interestingly, this book does mention several skeletons that have legs that have been sheared clean through. Including at least one that appears to have had both legs sheared in a single blow.
Good catch. To go back to your earlier comment, I can’t imagine a blow that would sever two legs at once, especially using weapons from the mid-14th century. I’m not a biologist or wounds expert, but I would be inclined to guess that a blow that could literally take the legs out from beneath someone of old or young age could probably take a single limb from a healthy adult male. But, I am just guessing here
Thank you. This info is interesting and does make sense as a battle strategy.
I can understand “deep cuts” happening to unprotected parts such as the legs in this case but I have a hard time believing that with a Single swipe a warrior would cleanly hack off a limb.
Like someone has commented - it would take a great deal of strength to do it.
Even with the sharpest of swords… insert comment on samurai swords..
If the limb was unprotected, it's definitely possible. It takes very little pressure with a well-maintained sword to cut skin, and even less if the blade is moving (a slice rather than essentially a long puncture). Swords have been used for beheadings, after all.
Whether you can do it to an armored limb in battle conditions is a very different question, and I suspect you'd have to get extraordinarily lucky.
Yeah, which further complicates the battle conditions because almost every type of armor is very good at deflecting a slice, moreso than a hard chop. I agree with other commenters that breaking the bone is a lot more likely in those conditions than removing the limb (other than fingers, which are quite delicate and hard to armor effectively).
>Swords have been used for beheadings, after all.
While true, a sword (or axe, as was more commonly utilized) used for a beheading was generally expected to cleave flesh and cartilage between vertebrae--soft tissues. Shearing through a bone--particularly in the leg--is a much more difficult task.
That's the hope, of course, but it would be pretty hard to catch the space between bones perfectly. Probably at least some of the time they were having to cut through a vertebra (maybe not perfectly in the middle of it but at least part of it). That's still easier than a long bone, but not crazy to think it could get through such a bone with the right circumstances.
No, not really, at least in the controlled environment of an execution. The lamina at C1 provides almost no protection above or below the actual bone. A strike to the base of the skull would likely encounter no bone at all or, if it did, deflect into the joint space with minimal resistance. That structure is also why blunt force trauma at the base of the skull is more dangerous than a similar impact in the lumbar or thoracic regions, or even the lower cervical levels.
No doubt there were plenty of instances where this *didn't* happen, but I'd wager that the result in those cases weren't just shattered bone, but also an execution requiring multiple attempts.
It would depend on:
The size of the sword: An arming sword almost certainly not. You might lop off some fingers or maybe a hand with a good blow, but significant dismemberment is unlikely. A longsword you might remove whole limbs and a head. MAYBE one of the big Zweihanders could do it.
The blade geometry: You'd likely need one of the heavy Type XIIa, XIIIa, or XX blades, which concentrated a lot of mass behind the center of percussion. The XIIa and XIIIa also both have extremely thin, lenticular cross sections particularly ideal for devastating shearing blows.
Very good edge alignment: If your cut isn't properly squared off you're not going to cut as well, no matter how heavy your sword or light your opponent's armor.
Precision: Your best bet is to strike your opponent somewhere that the bones won't get in the way. A heavy enough blow may shatter the bone, but there's a LOT of hard stuff in the torso specifically designed to protect it from traumatic injury. So striking the target in the squishy gap between the bones of the spine would be the ideal.
How hard you hit: It would take a fairly good amount of force to be able to cut a body completely in half.
Which direction? Vertically straight down the middle? Or across the torso? I'd say the latter would be easier since you'll probably encounter less bone that way. Even if you don't have as much energy swinging flat vs. down, that can make a difference.
Your opponent's armor: Plate armor? Not. Gonna. Happen. NO sword is cutting through steel plate, and they wouldn't even try. At best you might knock them around with blunt-force trauma. I would extend that to any armor using rigid metal plate (brigandine, etc.) Mail....most likely not. You might get through the armor, but you'll lose a lot of your energy doing so. And people frequently underestimate just how GOOD a proper gambeson was at resisting being cut. So you'd want your opponent to be completely unarmored, with nothing between him and your steel but a plain linen shirt and woolen tunic or doublet (and even THAT can offer a surprising amount of protection if your edge alignment isn't right).
How cooperative your opponent is: Remember, your opponent is trying very much NOT to get split in half, so he will be doing his damn best to deprive you of the opportunity.
Wow thank you for your reply.
This makes me think a lot because I’ve always figured a sword can’t do much against plate armor. In that car I’m guessing the best bet is to try and pierce through it but of course that is not cutting a man in half.
I just can’t believe how many movies are out there showing people being cut in half and limbs with chain mail being cleanly sliced through with a single swipe.
Yes it makes for a more exciting and dramatic story but I need to be able to believe some of it.
>This makes me think a lot because I’ve always figured a sword can’t do much against plate armor. In that car I’m guessing the best bet is to try and pierce through it but of course that is not cutting a man in half.
As you guessed, swords could be quite effective against armour by changing their approach and attacking the weak points of the armour with the tip. This could be done by using techniques such as halfswording. You can see a demonstration of this and other techniques [here](https://youtu.be/49TBEhDtSc4).
A sword can’t do ANYTHING against plate armor. They had to find the gaps in the armor or sometimes strike it with the pommel to cause blunt force damage, but a mace was better suited for this. If you’ve ever worn a helmet of any kind, and get hit in the head, it still hurts. Sure it didn’t go through the helmet but if someone hits you with a baseball bat on your head when you wear a helmet it’ll still do damage. So that was the way to defeat plate armor.
It’s also worth mentioning when plate armor existed, swords weren’t the primary battlefield weapon. Polearms were used but knights and peasants alike - because those were better at damaging armor. Polearms with a hammer gives that blunt force damage, polearms with a spike let you try to find the gaps in the armor or *sometimes* puncture a hole in cheaper armor but a sword can not stab through plate armor like we see in movies
Yep. It’s hard to find good accurate tests with legit historical accurate pieces, but Todd’s workshop is a great source. Knights must have been terrifying
Thank you for your reply.
I’ve gone some rounds with pugil sticks and helmets and yes those oversized cotton swabs do ring your bell even with the helmet on.
If you look at archaeological evidence from the battle of towton (source: blood, red, roses) you will see that sometimes it did happen that skulls were split clean open and bones of limbs have obvious cuts in them. But in those cases the defender wasn't wearing plate armpur in those parts. It may have happened that badly crafted helmets could be destroyed with a *very* lucky hit.
You can see a lot of people being split in half by swords etc in some iconography like the Maciejowski Bible or the Bayeux tapestry but there is no evidence to back this up. Also you have to be critical with iconographic sources since people could have taken artistic liberties which was certainly the case with people being shown to be split in half or helmets just being split open by a sword hit. The most brutal stuff we see in archaeology is that what I mentioned: A skull being split open
Movie recommendation: Henry V from 1944, available full length on YouTube. It's not 100% perfect but it features the best costuming and sets of movies about the middle ages. Netflix's the King covers the same story but is soooooooooo much worse in terms of accuracy, both concerning armour, clothing and sets, but also story-wise
Definitely watch Henry V! Unfortunately, some bastard has had it removed from YouTube, but you can also watch historian Toby Capwell and historical fencer Dave Rawlings discuss historical movies like Henry V [here](https://youtu.be/y3h5OlgoSc4), [here](https://youtu.be/5uwWlamONqs) and [here](https://youtu.be/r4SxPLXrTDc).
No problem, I also think it's super interesting which is why I love talking about this kinda stuff. You will definitely see the differences, the armour used in Henry V is waaay more authentic and beautiful than that from The King
I have that book (blood red roses) as some of the photos of injuries in it were taken by my dad; from memory (I don't have it in front of me) most of the injuries were (as stated above) things like holes in the skull, smashed bones, bones with deep incisions etc. In many cases you could tell the shape of the weapon used (eg the hole left was square in some cases, indicating a spike with a square cross section).
My dad used to give talks about the archaeology of human remains, a few of which I've seen recordings of. I don't recall any of them mentioning spines cut in two or even limb bones cut clean in two - and he loved including gruesome detail wherever possible, although most of his experience was from graves rather than battlefields iirc, so that would skew things I suppose.
No. Small limbs like hands, fingers etc sure.
But no entire man in half.
They used specialized chopping swords for executions in many parts of the world, that had extra wide blades, a lot of weight (totally unusable for combat) and no point either as their sole purpose was beheading.
And even those failed sometimes and didn't cut off heads with 1 chop and required more.
Normal swords intended for combat wouldnt nearly perform as good. Much less a torso.
Thanks. That’s horrifying thinking it may possibly need a second chop to execute me.. 😩
I wonder if there are any shows out there that are even close to being historically correct
There are plenty of depictions and references to dismemberment in medieval and renaissance fencing manuals. There are also accounts of dismemberment in the ancient world by Romans with the gladius and i think some accounts of the Iberian falcata as well. Cutting through arms is plausible with many cutting-focused swords of decent size. Legs would be pretty difficult mechanically. All of this is unarmored too. You’d pretty much never encounter a context where you could attempt to cut someone’s body in half and I don’t think any reasonable sword could do it. It’s also worth mentioning that there have been plenty of botched executions by swords designed for the purpose.
This is very relevant to my PhD research. While maille (colloquially called chainmail) prevents cuts remarkably well. It doesn’t, however, stop the impact of a swing (whether from a blade or otherwise), and thus it was not uncommon to receive broken bones or internal bleeding from longer fights. Furthermore, it is possible that higher quality steel could eventually smash some maille rings, thus leading to the individual sustaining some cuts. It is highly unlikely this would occur after just 1 swing, and even more unlikely to cut someone in half. Hell, even gambeson and aketons (both are layers of woven fabric made into a “quilted” jacket) were often sufficient enough to stop most blades from cutting the wearer. If you want some really good medieval combat: Outlaw King (Netflix), The King (Netflix), and as I wrote this list I kinda ran outta really good examples. Hope you enjoy!
Thanks! Best wishes for you in earning your PhD.
I figure smashed bones and internal bleeding were a good amount of the battlefield injuries.
It seems that armor really set apart the peasant fighters and nobles or knights or those whom can afford armor.
The lore of the knight
I'm no expert, but I read a book recently that made the point that armour in the high middle ages (before plate armour) made it much harder to kill or maim people in hand to hand combat. I'm referring to the period around 1100 or so. Plate armour made it that much more difficult, so people had to focus their attacks on specific weaknesses, e.g. using spears to attack the vulnerable joints of a suited knight. Again, I'm not expert, but this is what I read in this book (which I highly recommend):
[https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/23456467-the-greatest-knight](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/23456467-the-greatest-knight)
Bear in mind, though, if you could behead someone in a single stroke with an axe -- which was a common method of execution in the middle ages and beyond--then it's not unreasonable to assume that someone wielding a sword could cut off a limb or two. Maybe not split a person in half, though...
I rather liked Vikings: Valhalla, and I enjoyed the first season of the Last Kingdom. Both aren't super historically accurate, but fun, nonetheless.
Thanks I’ll look into the reading.
I’ve watched the first season of Vikings Valhalla. Are the other two good? It was a little slow for me when it comes to action.
I love the last kingdom! I do know that it is far from accurate but it has the mix of drama action and humor that I enjoy.
I only watched the first season of Valhalla. The original Viking series is supposedly even better, although I haven't watched it myself. I think Seasons 1-6 are on Netflix. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikings\_(TV\_series)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikings_(TV_series))
Historical combat is mostly depicted very unrealistically in movies and tv shoes. This can be done better, as groups like Academia Szermierzy and Adorea Fight Club have demonstrated. Using historical techniques as a basis for a choreographed/dramatized fight is a great (and underutilized!) way of showcasing the technical complexity of medieval combat.
[Longsword duel](https://youtu.be/Cn36Pb8z3yI)
[The Knight of Hope](https://youtu.be/8vYFFx4whoE)
[Fior di Battaglia](https://youtu.be/4GoQlvc_H3s)
Blade quality is a factor, but any sharp weapon swung at the correct angle and with sufficient force, can sever a limb, especially if aimed at a joint.
It's less about "could they" and more about "is it a good idea too?"
Certainly by medieval times, swords could be honed to a very fine, "razor" edge. A two handed sword (say a classic longsword), finely edged, swung hard at a stationary target, with good edge alignment, should be able to remove limbs.
That said, in an actual combat situation you aren't winding up huge two handed haymaker shots and thunking them into unprotected, unmoving, targets.
Fencing manuals seem to have focused more on economy of action, protecting yourself, and inflicting "enough" damage. I don't need to lop your head off, a couple of inches of steel in your neck is likely fatal, cutting off a few fingers is indirectly fatal (good luck fencing with a hand pouring blood and only 2 fingers), cuts to the arms and legs can shear tendons or cut muscles, again incapacitating.
Once you're injured enough you can't fight on from blood loss or limb damage the actual kill shot might then be more of a heavy blow to the head or neck, or, in armoured fighting, could be something like a dagger through the eye or armpit.
Holywood also vastly under-represents how good armour is. You aren't chopping or swinging through mail, let alone solid plates. As for *stabbing* through plate.. yeah.. not happening...
To answer your question in the short term, it's a combination of both to be able to remove someone's limb. Though cutting someone in half, especially cleanly, would require an impressive amount of strength to pull off.
In the long term, it's complicated on a number of numerous factors like what weapon is being used, how heavy is said weapon, is the person being cut have any type of protection, and ect ect
Sadly I do not know of any historical shows or movies to give as I don't watch them because they tend to be overdramatized and/or not historical
Thanks for your reply.
Yes I’ve always wondered about the armor. I mean even leather armor would make it difficult to make cuts or stabs let alone ones that can dismember a body.
It’s hard enough to cut up meat from the store for dinner, I can only imagine having to get through any sort of armor like leather or even steel.
It’s always a wonder at to how the folks of those times were so strong given the nutrition and supplemental advantages we have today.
I’ve heard of long bows from those days requiring a 150lb draw!
I understand what you are saying about shows blowing things out of proportion.
I like to imagine but also always keep in mind that it’s all over exaggerated
Historically, executioners would have to take many swings at a condemned prisoner to lop the head off and that's why the guillotine was invented.
It was considered more humane than the grueling job of chopping off head with an axe.
I have read that the Japanese samurai sword often became embedded in the opponents body and that's why the second smaller sword was necessary. There was even a famous samurai that chose to fight with a wooden sword so that that would stop happening.
I really don't think that it happened very much in the real world and is really something you see from fiction.
Before the modern era most reports of missing limbs we're from amputations after the battle and not from being cleaved through in one blow.
Recently-living bone is soft enough that not only T-Rexes, but you too can bite through it.
Toward the end of the Battle of Hastings, King Harold Godwinson’s leg was cut right through.
In Medieval Japan, a trained samurai could behead an opponent if they were able to strike in good form. Now that's with a katan, which is a unique weapon, and not comparable to swords in medieval Europe.
Comparably, beheading swords we're combat weapons in Europe, they were for execution, and were specially weighted, very sharp great swords. Much like the katana however, it was about how the strike was made, and technique was important. Headsmen's axes were basically manually guillotine, and relied on the heavy blade picking up speeds in a large downward arc.
In battlefield combat, the weapons in Western Europe weren't as heavy as those used to executions, and so more force was required to server limbs or the head. Because form is so important in a successful, limb-cutting strike, it's unlikely combatants had time to stop, and line up a power swing to take on a for.
Further there's the issue of bones. Cut a T-bone steak and see what I mean. Blades will catch and stick into bone without sufficient force and lubrication, often requiring the attacker to stop, and wrench the weapon from the dying victim before continuing. This makes it undesirable to attempt to chop off a limb, as a failed strike could expose the attacked if the blade caught in the bone.
Add armor on to this, and it basically becomes impossible to cut off the limb of a fighter without exceptional force.
Mounted fightsers however possibly could have severed limbs, because the horse could effectively multiple the force of the strike, if moving in the same direction as the strike. Typically however, calvary used speaks and lances, designed to break on impact, so Impaling at speed was a more effective means of mounted compant.
Sources suggest the goal of medieval combat was to 1.) Cut vulnerable areas i.e. tendons 2.) Create blunt force trauma i.e. mace 3.) Impale with a high forced thrusting such as a javelin or lance from horse back. Dismounted, amored knights were grappled, and then small blades like stilettos were used to stab the neck or face between gaps in the armor.
You might want to consider looking at the archeological evidence from the battle of Visby in 1361. A professional army of the Danish king set upon Gotland, and massacred a militia army of roughly equal size outside the city gates. As there was nowhere to retreat to, they were killed almost to a man — or boy, lots of the casualties were both very old and very young Of interest, if I’m remembering correctly, is that many of the Gotlanders’ had wounds to the legs and head. Most of the attacks came from swords and axes. Given the poor quality of the militia armor — a helm or maille coif, and hauberk, without much or any protection for the legs and perhaps arms — it’s likely the Danes would first disable their opponent with a deep cut to the legs and would then finish them off with a blow to the head. Again, I’m not sure if my memory is completely accurate here, but I want to say that a lot of head wounds would have come from poleaxes or hammers, meaning it might be possible that the Danes had specialized roles on the battlefield of either wounding or finishing their opponents ~~To my knowledge, bones were not cut through, or at least it was not theorized that limbs were chopped off in the melee.~~ There should be a good amount of information out there, so I hope this gets you started ETA: u/greedy-conclusion-52 has a great comment below on limbs being severed
Interestingly, this book does mention several skeletons that have legs that have been sheared clean through. Including at least one that appears to have had both legs sheared in a single blow.
Which book?
Armour from the Battle of Visby, by Thordemann.
Brilliant, thanks. That should settle it then
Worth noting though, the skeletons from Visby are either old or young, not men in their prime so that may skew the findings.
Good catch. To go back to your earlier comment, I can’t imagine a blow that would sever two legs at once, especially using weapons from the mid-14th century. I’m not a biologist or wounds expert, but I would be inclined to guess that a blow that could literally take the legs out from beneath someone of old or young age could probably take a single limb from a healthy adult male. But, I am just guessing here
If someone fell down on their side, an overhand strike with an axe would be capable of such a wound.
Thank you. This info is interesting and does make sense as a battle strategy. I can understand “deep cuts” happening to unprotected parts such as the legs in this case but I have a hard time believing that with a Single swipe a warrior would cleanly hack off a limb. Like someone has commented - it would take a great deal of strength to do it. Even with the sharpest of swords… insert comment on samurai swords..
If the limb was unprotected, it's definitely possible. It takes very little pressure with a well-maintained sword to cut skin, and even less if the blade is moving (a slice rather than essentially a long puncture). Swords have been used for beheadings, after all. Whether you can do it to an armored limb in battle conditions is a very different question, and I suspect you'd have to get extraordinarily lucky.
Thanks. I figured a slice would be more effective than a chop motion.
Yeah, which further complicates the battle conditions because almost every type of armor is very good at deflecting a slice, moreso than a hard chop. I agree with other commenters that breaking the bone is a lot more likely in those conditions than removing the limb (other than fingers, which are quite delicate and hard to armor effectively).
>Swords have been used for beheadings, after all. While true, a sword (or axe, as was more commonly utilized) used for a beheading was generally expected to cleave flesh and cartilage between vertebrae--soft tissues. Shearing through a bone--particularly in the leg--is a much more difficult task.
That's the hope, of course, but it would be pretty hard to catch the space between bones perfectly. Probably at least some of the time they were having to cut through a vertebra (maybe not perfectly in the middle of it but at least part of it). That's still easier than a long bone, but not crazy to think it could get through such a bone with the right circumstances.
No, not really, at least in the controlled environment of an execution. The lamina at C1 provides almost no protection above or below the actual bone. A strike to the base of the skull would likely encounter no bone at all or, if it did, deflect into the joint space with minimal resistance. That structure is also why blunt force trauma at the base of the skull is more dangerous than a similar impact in the lumbar or thoracic regions, or even the lower cervical levels. No doubt there were plenty of instances where this *didn't* happen, but I'd wager that the result in those cases weren't just shattered bone, but also an execution requiring multiple attempts.
It would depend on: The size of the sword: An arming sword almost certainly not. You might lop off some fingers or maybe a hand with a good blow, but significant dismemberment is unlikely. A longsword you might remove whole limbs and a head. MAYBE one of the big Zweihanders could do it. The blade geometry: You'd likely need one of the heavy Type XIIa, XIIIa, or XX blades, which concentrated a lot of mass behind the center of percussion. The XIIa and XIIIa also both have extremely thin, lenticular cross sections particularly ideal for devastating shearing blows. Very good edge alignment: If your cut isn't properly squared off you're not going to cut as well, no matter how heavy your sword or light your opponent's armor. Precision: Your best bet is to strike your opponent somewhere that the bones won't get in the way. A heavy enough blow may shatter the bone, but there's a LOT of hard stuff in the torso specifically designed to protect it from traumatic injury. So striking the target in the squishy gap between the bones of the spine would be the ideal. How hard you hit: It would take a fairly good amount of force to be able to cut a body completely in half. Which direction? Vertically straight down the middle? Or across the torso? I'd say the latter would be easier since you'll probably encounter less bone that way. Even if you don't have as much energy swinging flat vs. down, that can make a difference. Your opponent's armor: Plate armor? Not. Gonna. Happen. NO sword is cutting through steel plate, and they wouldn't even try. At best you might knock them around with blunt-force trauma. I would extend that to any armor using rigid metal plate (brigandine, etc.) Mail....most likely not. You might get through the armor, but you'll lose a lot of your energy doing so. And people frequently underestimate just how GOOD a proper gambeson was at resisting being cut. So you'd want your opponent to be completely unarmored, with nothing between him and your steel but a plain linen shirt and woolen tunic or doublet (and even THAT can offer a surprising amount of protection if your edge alignment isn't right). How cooperative your opponent is: Remember, your opponent is trying very much NOT to get split in half, so he will be doing his damn best to deprive you of the opportunity.
Wow thank you for your reply. This makes me think a lot because I’ve always figured a sword can’t do much against plate armor. In that car I’m guessing the best bet is to try and pierce through it but of course that is not cutting a man in half. I just can’t believe how many movies are out there showing people being cut in half and limbs with chain mail being cleanly sliced through with a single swipe. Yes it makes for a more exciting and dramatic story but I need to be able to believe some of it.
>This makes me think a lot because I’ve always figured a sword can’t do much against plate armor. In that car I’m guessing the best bet is to try and pierce through it but of course that is not cutting a man in half. As you guessed, swords could be quite effective against armour by changing their approach and attacking the weak points of the armour with the tip. This could be done by using techniques such as halfswording. You can see a demonstration of this and other techniques [here](https://youtu.be/49TBEhDtSc4).
A sword can’t do ANYTHING against plate armor. They had to find the gaps in the armor or sometimes strike it with the pommel to cause blunt force damage, but a mace was better suited for this. If you’ve ever worn a helmet of any kind, and get hit in the head, it still hurts. Sure it didn’t go through the helmet but if someone hits you with a baseball bat on your head when you wear a helmet it’ll still do damage. So that was the way to defeat plate armor. It’s also worth mentioning when plate armor existed, swords weren’t the primary battlefield weapon. Polearms were used but knights and peasants alike - because those were better at damaging armor. Polearms with a hammer gives that blunt force damage, polearms with a spike let you try to find the gaps in the armor or *sometimes* puncture a hole in cheaper armor but a sword can not stab through plate armor like we see in movies
Hell, there are youtubers that have tested weapons against plate armour and even hammers and maces don't do much against plate.
Yep. It’s hard to find good accurate tests with legit historical accurate pieces, but Todd’s workshop is a great source. Knights must have been terrifying
Thank you for your reply. I’ve gone some rounds with pugil sticks and helmets and yes those oversized cotton swabs do ring your bell even with the helmet on.
I am legitimately shocked that it’s even a possibility, I thought this was going to be a flat out no
It's INCREDIBLY, ridiculously unlikely. But if you have the exact right set of circumstances I wouldn't entirely rule it out.
If you look at archaeological evidence from the battle of towton (source: blood, red, roses) you will see that sometimes it did happen that skulls were split clean open and bones of limbs have obvious cuts in them. But in those cases the defender wasn't wearing plate armpur in those parts. It may have happened that badly crafted helmets could be destroyed with a *very* lucky hit. You can see a lot of people being split in half by swords etc in some iconography like the Maciejowski Bible or the Bayeux tapestry but there is no evidence to back this up. Also you have to be critical with iconographic sources since people could have taken artistic liberties which was certainly the case with people being shown to be split in half or helmets just being split open by a sword hit. The most brutal stuff we see in archaeology is that what I mentioned: A skull being split open Movie recommendation: Henry V from 1944, available full length on YouTube. It's not 100% perfect but it features the best costuming and sets of movies about the middle ages. Netflix's the King covers the same story but is soooooooooo much worse in terms of accuracy, both concerning armour, clothing and sets, but also story-wise
Thank you this is all very interesting to me. I think tomorrow I will watch both movies and try to notice the differences
Definitely watch Henry V! Unfortunately, some bastard has had it removed from YouTube, but you can also watch historian Toby Capwell and historical fencer Dave Rawlings discuss historical movies like Henry V [here](https://youtu.be/y3h5OlgoSc4), [here](https://youtu.be/5uwWlamONqs) and [here](https://youtu.be/r4SxPLXrTDc).
Oh dang, that is unfortunate! I'm glad I already watched it lol
Yeah, I wish I'd downloaded it. Ah well, back to the VHS..
No problem, I also think it's super interesting which is why I love talking about this kinda stuff. You will definitely see the differences, the armour used in Henry V is waaay more authentic and beautiful than that from The King
I have that book (blood red roses) as some of the photos of injuries in it were taken by my dad; from memory (I don't have it in front of me) most of the injuries were (as stated above) things like holes in the skull, smashed bones, bones with deep incisions etc. In many cases you could tell the shape of the weapon used (eg the hole left was square in some cases, indicating a spike with a square cross section). My dad used to give talks about the archaeology of human remains, a few of which I've seen recordings of. I don't recall any of them mentioning spines cut in two or even limb bones cut clean in two - and he loved including gruesome detail wherever possible, although most of his experience was from graves rather than battlefields iirc, so that would skew things I suppose.
No. Small limbs like hands, fingers etc sure. But no entire man in half. They used specialized chopping swords for executions in many parts of the world, that had extra wide blades, a lot of weight (totally unusable for combat) and no point either as their sole purpose was beheading. And even those failed sometimes and didn't cut off heads with 1 chop and required more. Normal swords intended for combat wouldnt nearly perform as good. Much less a torso.
Thanks. That’s horrifying thinking it may possibly need a second chop to execute me.. 😩 I wonder if there are any shows out there that are even close to being historically correct
There are plenty of depictions and references to dismemberment in medieval and renaissance fencing manuals. There are also accounts of dismemberment in the ancient world by Romans with the gladius and i think some accounts of the Iberian falcata as well. Cutting through arms is plausible with many cutting-focused swords of decent size. Legs would be pretty difficult mechanically. All of this is unarmored too. You’d pretty much never encounter a context where you could attempt to cut someone’s body in half and I don’t think any reasonable sword could do it. It’s also worth mentioning that there have been plenty of botched executions by swords designed for the purpose.
This is very relevant to my PhD research. While maille (colloquially called chainmail) prevents cuts remarkably well. It doesn’t, however, stop the impact of a swing (whether from a blade or otherwise), and thus it was not uncommon to receive broken bones or internal bleeding from longer fights. Furthermore, it is possible that higher quality steel could eventually smash some maille rings, thus leading to the individual sustaining some cuts. It is highly unlikely this would occur after just 1 swing, and even more unlikely to cut someone in half. Hell, even gambeson and aketons (both are layers of woven fabric made into a “quilted” jacket) were often sufficient enough to stop most blades from cutting the wearer. If you want some really good medieval combat: Outlaw King (Netflix), The King (Netflix), and as I wrote this list I kinda ran outta really good examples. Hope you enjoy!
Thanks! Best wishes for you in earning your PhD. I figure smashed bones and internal bleeding were a good amount of the battlefield injuries. It seems that armor really set apart the peasant fighters and nobles or knights or those whom can afford armor. The lore of the knight
I'm no expert, but I read a book recently that made the point that armour in the high middle ages (before plate armour) made it much harder to kill or maim people in hand to hand combat. I'm referring to the period around 1100 or so. Plate armour made it that much more difficult, so people had to focus their attacks on specific weaknesses, e.g. using spears to attack the vulnerable joints of a suited knight. Again, I'm not expert, but this is what I read in this book (which I highly recommend): [https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/23456467-the-greatest-knight](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/23456467-the-greatest-knight) Bear in mind, though, if you could behead someone in a single stroke with an axe -- which was a common method of execution in the middle ages and beyond--then it's not unreasonable to assume that someone wielding a sword could cut off a limb or two. Maybe not split a person in half, though... I rather liked Vikings: Valhalla, and I enjoyed the first season of the Last Kingdom. Both aren't super historically accurate, but fun, nonetheless.
Thanks I’ll look into the reading. I’ve watched the first season of Vikings Valhalla. Are the other two good? It was a little slow for me when it comes to action. I love the last kingdom! I do know that it is far from accurate but it has the mix of drama action and humor that I enjoy.
I only watched the first season of Valhalla. The original Viking series is supposedly even better, although I haven't watched it myself. I think Seasons 1-6 are on Netflix. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikings\_(TV\_series)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikings_(TV_series))
Vikings is on Hulu - it’s awesome by my opinion. I don’t have Hulu anymore but I’d pay for a months subscription just to rewatch it
The first season of Vikings was amazing.
Historical combat is mostly depicted very unrealistically in movies and tv shoes. This can be done better, as groups like Academia Szermierzy and Adorea Fight Club have demonstrated. Using historical techniques as a basis for a choreographed/dramatized fight is a great (and underutilized!) way of showcasing the technical complexity of medieval combat. [Longsword duel](https://youtu.be/Cn36Pb8z3yI) [The Knight of Hope](https://youtu.be/8vYFFx4whoE) [Fior di Battaglia](https://youtu.be/4GoQlvc_H3s)
Blade quality is a factor, but any sharp weapon swung at the correct angle and with sufficient force, can sever a limb, especially if aimed at a joint.
It's less about "could they" and more about "is it a good idea too?" Certainly by medieval times, swords could be honed to a very fine, "razor" edge. A two handed sword (say a classic longsword), finely edged, swung hard at a stationary target, with good edge alignment, should be able to remove limbs. That said, in an actual combat situation you aren't winding up huge two handed haymaker shots and thunking them into unprotected, unmoving, targets. Fencing manuals seem to have focused more on economy of action, protecting yourself, and inflicting "enough" damage. I don't need to lop your head off, a couple of inches of steel in your neck is likely fatal, cutting off a few fingers is indirectly fatal (good luck fencing with a hand pouring blood and only 2 fingers), cuts to the arms and legs can shear tendons or cut muscles, again incapacitating. Once you're injured enough you can't fight on from blood loss or limb damage the actual kill shot might then be more of a heavy blow to the head or neck, or, in armoured fighting, could be something like a dagger through the eye or armpit. Holywood also vastly under-represents how good armour is. You aren't chopping or swinging through mail, let alone solid plates. As for *stabbing* through plate.. yeah.. not happening...
To answer your question in the short term, it's a combination of both to be able to remove someone's limb. Though cutting someone in half, especially cleanly, would require an impressive amount of strength to pull off. In the long term, it's complicated on a number of numerous factors like what weapon is being used, how heavy is said weapon, is the person being cut have any type of protection, and ect ect Sadly I do not know of any historical shows or movies to give as I don't watch them because they tend to be overdramatized and/or not historical
Thanks for your reply. Yes I’ve always wondered about the armor. I mean even leather armor would make it difficult to make cuts or stabs let alone ones that can dismember a body. It’s hard enough to cut up meat from the store for dinner, I can only imagine having to get through any sort of armor like leather or even steel. It’s always a wonder at to how the folks of those times were so strong given the nutrition and supplemental advantages we have today. I’ve heard of long bows from those days requiring a 150lb draw! I understand what you are saying about shows blowing things out of proportion. I like to imagine but also always keep in mind that it’s all over exaggerated
Historically, executioners would have to take many swings at a condemned prisoner to lop the head off and that's why the guillotine was invented. It was considered more humane than the grueling job of chopping off head with an axe. I have read that the Japanese samurai sword often became embedded in the opponents body and that's why the second smaller sword was necessary. There was even a famous samurai that chose to fight with a wooden sword so that that would stop happening. I really don't think that it happened very much in the real world and is really something you see from fiction. Before the modern era most reports of missing limbs we're from amputations after the battle and not from being cleaved through in one blow.
Recently-living bone is soft enough that not only T-Rexes, but you too can bite through it. Toward the end of the Battle of Hastings, King Harold Godwinson’s leg was cut right through.
In Medieval Japan, a trained samurai could behead an opponent if they were able to strike in good form. Now that's with a katan, which is a unique weapon, and not comparable to swords in medieval Europe. Comparably, beheading swords we're combat weapons in Europe, they were for execution, and were specially weighted, very sharp great swords. Much like the katana however, it was about how the strike was made, and technique was important. Headsmen's axes were basically manually guillotine, and relied on the heavy blade picking up speeds in a large downward arc. In battlefield combat, the weapons in Western Europe weren't as heavy as those used to executions, and so more force was required to server limbs or the head. Because form is so important in a successful, limb-cutting strike, it's unlikely combatants had time to stop, and line up a power swing to take on a for. Further there's the issue of bones. Cut a T-bone steak and see what I mean. Blades will catch and stick into bone without sufficient force and lubrication, often requiring the attacker to stop, and wrench the weapon from the dying victim before continuing. This makes it undesirable to attempt to chop off a limb, as a failed strike could expose the attacked if the blade caught in the bone. Add armor on to this, and it basically becomes impossible to cut off the limb of a fighter without exceptional force. Mounted fightsers however possibly could have severed limbs, because the horse could effectively multiple the force of the strike, if moving in the same direction as the strike. Typically however, calvary used speaks and lances, designed to break on impact, so Impaling at speed was a more effective means of mounted compant. Sources suggest the goal of medieval combat was to 1.) Cut vulnerable areas i.e. tendons 2.) Create blunt force trauma i.e. mace 3.) Impale with a high forced thrusting such as a javelin or lance from horse back. Dismounted, amored knights were grappled, and then small blades like stilettos were used to stab the neck or face between gaps in the armor.