Violence is dangerous - a resource

@Gahalla: I was more or less on about the Holy Roman Empire (who weren't French damn you! hell, the French weren't "French". They were Franks...). The language of diplomacy (and court) tended French, the language of the Church was Latin. But I'll let you off (how noble of me).

grufftoof wrote:(hell, the French weren't "French". They were Franks...).

Come on that's just getting into silly distinctions.
Since you're not going to distinguish people in england as anglo-saxon, saxon, briton or danish either. when you're talking about "world politics" and are refering to people from the kingdom of France.

Though most of the holy Roman empire still had their frankish influences due to Charlemagne. in the time of the crusades...

but why are we even discussing that? >.>

Amaryl wrote:

grufftoof wrote:(hell, the French weren't "French". They were Franks...).

Come on that's just getting into silly distinctions.
Since you're not going to distinguish people in england as anglo-saxon, saxon, briton or danish either. when you're talking about "world politics" and are refering to people from the kingdom of France.

Though most of the holy Roman empire still had their frankish influences due to Charlemagne. in the time of the crusades...

but why are we even discussing that? >.>

Because we can. And Gahalla was making the distinction between French and Norman. So, French and Frank seemed fitting.

Meh, Fair enough.

my medieval history is pretty rusty but I think the first crusade, with the capture of Jerusalem. the crusader armies were mostly from France and Italy. and not so much the franks from the HRE.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Crusade

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Crusade

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Crusade

Do read on that. -nod-

Bumping this, since people cant seem to rp anything else but violence anymore.

If it helps, I was quite content to stand and watch. With whiskey. Etc.

Maybe people want to be more voilent but they have lost practice. Cant have a good scrap these days without an ooc /e or a /w.

Biggest thing with fighting in RP is dont let IC=OOC, the rest will help refine your RP but that golden rule is vital to stop the QQ GMs get every day. As one of the gnomes said, the fight is the bullet point to the RP. A fight shouldnt be abstract. Think of WWE, they go to the effort of the storylines to give the matches more meaning than just 2 guys fighting, we should do the same too.

i know this is lame, but I was watching Saturday Night Fever (yeah, I did) and was impressed by the near-death the lads in a brawl had. It is good to remember all this... NOT to say that people shouldn't be able to have a friendly brawl IC and should feel bad about it, but hey.

If it's a serious fight, this is good stuff.

Someone do tell what happened

I reposted this on our guild forums, as not all is registered to these forums.

I ofcourse added link here, and full credits to you. I shall remove it if you want. :-)

I just wanted to add these points!


How quickly people actually die from cuts and punctures inflicted by swords and knives.

…even in the case of mortal wounds, pain may not reach levels of magnitude sufficient to incapacitate a determined swordsman.

Causes of death from stabs and cuts:

• massive bleeding (exsanguination) - most common
  air in the bloodstream (air embolism)
  suffocation (asphyxia)
  air in the chest cavity (pneumothorax)
  infection

Stabbing vs cutting:

Stabbing someone actually takes very little force if you don’t hit bone or hard cartilage.

• The most important factor in the ease of stabbing is the velocity of the blade at impact with the skin, followed by the sharpness of the blade.
  Stabbing wounds tend to close after the weapon is withdrawn.
  Stabbing wounds to muscles are not typically very damaging. Damage increases with the width of the blade.
  Cutting wounds are typically deepest at the site of initial impact and get shallower as force is transferred from the initial swing to pushing and pressing.
  Cutting wounds have a huge number of factors that dictate how deep they are and how easily they damage someone: skill, radial velocity, mass of the blade, and the size of the initial impact.
  Cutting wounds along the grain of musculature are not typically very damaging but cutting wounds across the grain can incapacitate.

Arteries vs veins:

• Severed veins have almost zero blood pressure and sometimes even negative pressure. They do not spurt but major veins can suck air in causing an air embolism.
  Cutting or puncturing a vein is usually not fatal.
  Severed arteries have high blood pressure. The larger arteries do spurt and can often cause death due to exsanguination.

Body parts as targets:

• Severing a jugular vein in the neck causes an air embolism and will make the victim collapse after one or two gasps for air.
  Severing a carotid artery in the neck cuts off the blood supply to the brain but the victim may be conscious for up to thirty seconds.
  Stabbing or cutting the neck also causes the victim to aspirate blood that causes asphyxiation and death.
  Severing a major abdominal artery or vein would cause immediate collapse, but this takes a fairly heavy blade and a significant amount of effort because they are situated near the spine.
  Abdominal wounds that only impact the organs can cause death but they do not immediately incapacitate.
  Severing an artery in the interior of the upper arm causes exsanguination and death but does not immediately incapacitate.
  Severing an artery in the palm side of the forearm causes exsanguination and death but does not immediately incapacitate.
  Severing the femoral artery at a point just above and behind the knee is the best location. Higher up the leg it is too well protected to easily hit. This disables and will eventually kill the victim but does not immediately incapacitate.
  Cutting across the muscles of the forearm can immediately end the opponent’s ability to hold their weapon.
  Cutting across the palm side of the wrist causes immediate loss of ability to hold a weapon.
  Stab wounds to the arm do not significantly impact the ability to wield a weapon or use it.
  Cuts and stab wounds to the front and back of the legs generally do not do enough muscle damage to cause total loss of use of that leg.
  Bone anywhere in the body can bend or otherwise disfigure a blade.
  The brain can be stabbed fairly easily through the eyes, the temples, and the sinuses.
  Stabs to the brain are more often not incapacitating.

The lungs as targets:

• Slicing into the lung stops that lung from functioning, but the other lung continues to function normally. This also requires either luck to get between the ribs or a great deal of force to penetrate the ribs.
  Stabbing the lung stops that lung from functioning, but the other lung continues to function normally. It is significantly easier to stab between ribs than to slice.
  It is possible to stab the victim from the side and pass through both lungs with an adequate length blade. It is very unlikely that this will happen with a slicing hit.
  “Death caused solely by pneumothorax is generally a slow process, occurring as much as several hours after the wound is inflicted.”
  Lung punctures also typically involve the lung filling with blood, but this is a slow process.
  

The heart as a target:

• …[stabbing] wounds to the heart the location, depth of penetration, blade width, and the presence or absence of cutting edges are important factors influencing a wounded duelist’s ability to continue a combat.
  
  Large cuts that transect the heart may be expected to result in swift incapacitation…
  …stab wounds, similar to those that might be inflicted by a thrust with a sword with a narrow, pointed blade may leave a mortally wounded victim capable of surprisingly athletic endeavors.
  
  Essentially, the heart can temporarily seal itself well enough to keep pressure up for a little while if it’s a simple stab. The arteries around the heart, while they are smaller and harder to hit, actually cause incapacitation much more quickly.

Originally from here
http://www.realfighting.com/content.php?id=75

Why is this yet to be stickied, I wonder? A fascinating and useful read.

because its in the guides sticky.

Oh, right. I hadn't noticed.

Yeah, i guess its slightly inconspicuous. But its still better than having 20 stickies, and debates about the stickyness of this guide over that guide. while the new threads being relegated to the mid of the page

Gogol wrote:What is this hippy talk.
War is hell?
I say, war is potential!

This really scared me when I saw your profile picture.

On another note. VERY GOOD GUIDE!

Rae Wulfgnar wrote:
   Slicing into the lung stops that lung from functioning, but the other lung continues to function normally.  This also requires either luck to get between the ribs or a great deal of force to penetrate the ribs.
       Stabbing the lung stops that lung from functioning, but the other lung continues to function normally.  It is significantly easier to stab between ribs than to slice.
    Lung punctures also typically involve the lung filling with blood, but this is a slow process.

Based on my knowledge, I think if one lung was punctured, then the other lung would fail. It's go something to do with the air pressures, and since both lungs are linked, if one was punctured, the other would be effected.

Jack Noodlemeister wrote:

Rae Wulfgnar wrote:
       Slicing into the lung stops that lung from functioning, but the other lung continues to function normally.  This also requires either luck to get between the ribs or a great deal of force to penetrate the ribs.
       Stabbing the lung stops that lung from functioning, but the other lung continues to function normally.  It is significantly easier to stab between ribs than to slice.
       Lung punctures also typically involve the lung filling with blood, but this is a slow process.

Based on my knowledge, I think if one lung was punctured, then the other lung would fail. It's go something to do with the air pressures, and since both lungs are linked, if one was punctured, the other would be effected.

The lungs work because they have only one exit. The muscle at the bottom of them do expand the lungs, "add more space" that needs to be filled by the laws of physics, creating a vacuum which causes the air to flow inside.

The suction won't be as potent if one of the lungs is penetrated. Providing that you get past the pain, possibly blood poisoning, risk of coughing blood or get air bubbles in your bloodstream.... i think the other lung will still work, but require 2x the work to even suck in the air, and obviously have less area to take the air into the blood now that the other side is useless.

I do know one person in RL who have only one lung. Lost the other one to cancer. While obviously there is no "hole" left in the lung that was removed due to surgery, he gets exhausted and out-of-breath -very- quickly.

So yes. While i am no doctor, but if one is penetrated, i think the other will still work, but at 50
70% of normal capacity, and you will be struggling with every breathe to get enough air to your body and will suffocate quickly if you keep on doing anything physical like combat.

Also, a totally legit source: In Skyrim we have a Stormcloak Soldier who got "A Sword Through the Chest". Considering he is not dead, and the definition of "Chest" does mostly cover Heart and Lungs, it was obviously not the heart since he still live, so he probably got a sword to his lungs. Now he lives in poverty, as a beggar, no longer fit in the war, so it is likely that his other lung got damaged and now he is not able to do things as well as he could before (just as my example from RL), despite the fact that he lived to tell the tale about it.