The husband and I were watching the movie Master and Commander when a scene came on showing a boy getting his arm amputated. This started a conversation between us about why amputations were done with saws. It seems like a swift blow from a sharpened clever like weapon would be more effective and faster than a saw. That said, I'm not a doctor and don't know a lot about the tools that are available at the time. I figured there must have been a reason, and you fine ladies and gentlemen would know what that reason was.
This started a conversation between us about why amputations were done with saws.
Doctors of today still use saws.
It seems like a swift blow from a sharpened clever like weapon would be more effective and faster than a saw.
And very inaccurate. Sure, it's fine if you want to decapitate someone. Doesn't really matter what part of the neck you hit, and they're supposed to end up dead. Not so good if you want to miss arteries or your assistant's fingers. Or what if your surgical cleaver isn't sharp enough and you don't cut through the whole bone? Can you hit the same exact spot twice? Three times?
Because of the damage that even a very sharp cleaver could cause; splintered bone, for example, or if the cleaver skidded off the bone causing further tissue damage. In any case, the use of a very sharp blade to cut through the muscle, and then a fine toothed saw to cut through the bone, as is still done now, was regarded as the most effective and efficient and least damaging means of amputation from at least the 16th century onwards.