A Sword Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

Nolo

Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2007
Messages
2,624
Location
Galveston, TX
the comparatively heavy and unweildy rapier
I have never heard anyone call the rapier "heavy" or "unwieldy".
Wow.
You must not be Scottish... :p
The group I'm a part of uses replica boffer swords, mostly of the medieval bastard and longsword classes.
Of course, the strongest guy in our group has a 6'2" 10lb greatsword that he uses to great effect.
 
Many people confuse the small sword with the Rapier. The rapier was a long sword intended for the thrusting attack and not the fencing duel you see on the Three Musketeers or Princess Bride. The rapier could be used in a duel, was often used in it, but it was comparitively heavy compared with other blades. I have a basket hilt (circy 1760) which demonstrates this very well. It is considerably lighter than the rapier. I have several small swords, including a spadroon, and were I to duel in the romantic style, I would certainly use it over a rapier.

But, even the rapier, which is comparatively heavy and unweildy, is nothing compared to the hunks of steel that are passed as swords these days.

Ash
 
Yes, I know many people mistake the rapier for slashing dueling swords (usually smallswords and their ilk), and I know there are significantly lighter swords in the world, but I still wouldn't call a rapier "heavy" or "unwieldy".
If you can't carry and use a rapier, well, then, you probably weren't cut out to use a sword.
A rapier weighs, what? 2.5, 3-ish pounds? Any bastard or other medieval sword other than a back-up (or cinqueadia-type weapon) is gonna weigh more than that.
 
Nolo,

No army ever issued the Rapier. It was only a civilian weapon. It was mostly carried as a status symbol, and when compared with other weapons, it was heavy and unweildy. It was also not as versatile as other styles (not the neither flesh-nor-fowl semi-sabers). The Rapier existed in a fairly short window.

It was useless in cavalry, by the way. It did make a superb thrusting weapon (but was not very suitable for heavy cavalry) and thrusting wounds were the most deadly, while being more difficult to train to use.

But in the end, I will not say it was a poor weapon as it could be quite fearsome in the right hands.

Ash
 
No army ever issued the Rapier. It was only a civilian weapon. It was mostly carried as a status symbol, and when compared with other weapons, it was heavy and unweildy. It was also not as versatile as other styles (not the neither flesh-nor-fowl semi-sabers). The Rapier existed in a fairly short window.
I don't think I said an army issued the rapier. Thrusting really sucks on horseback, and by that time, those were really the only people who actually used swords.
It was useless in cavalry, by the way. It did make a superb thrusting weapon (but was not very suitable for heavy cavalry) and thrusting wounds were the most deadly, while being more difficult to train to use.
Well, yeah, what I just said.
But in the end, I will not say it was a poor weapon as it could be quite fearsome in the right hands.
Oh, I never said it was a poor weapon, just lighter than I think most men should be able to handle. Of course, being an almost full-blooded Scotsman, we never gave up our big claymores.
 
Pretty off topic, Nolo, but, well, here goes. A primer on swords.

Light cavalry used a curved blade for the slashing attack. This also included Hussars. The idea was to close with the enemy and, in melee, attack from either sides of the horse. This also worked with mounted artillery soldiers, who defended artillery from horseback.

Heavy cavalry tended to use a long, straight blade (but not a rapier). An example is the French Curassier's sword made by Klingenthal in 1812 and as used at Waterloo.

Other examples of the thrusting sword would be the Basket Hilted broadsword as shown below from the 1720's. Short, broad, and straight, it was ideal for the thrusting attack. The spadroon small sword, as well as the gothic naval, were also thrusting swords. The same is said of the cutlass, which was shorter and used for the slashing blow, but was most effective in the thrust.

There is also the semi-curved, which was the jack of all trades but master of none. Not great for the slash, it was not really very good for the thrust. It was a popular British officer's blade of the early to mid to late 1800's. It was still a tempered blade intended for combat and not merely a bobble at the side, but as a design not ideal.

Ash
 
I wouldn't say that I am an expert on Post-Renaissance swords, because I'm not, but I knew much of that already.
I really can't see how any standard-sized sword made for thrusting is good for cavalry. You can't really run anyone through when your up on a horse (unless you have a lance).
So I'm kinda wondering why I needed a primer on swords... :confused:
 
Oh, I didn't mean heavy cavalry. I meant light cavalry.
Plus, like I said, I'm rather rusty with it all after you pass the Renaissance.
Why'd they use the straight swords for heavy cav (which I thought pretty much died out after about the 1650s or so)? Did they expect them to just sit in a crowd of people and stick em all like shishkabob?
I'd think that you'd use a slashing sword to ride through, slash a bunch of people, ride back, lather, rinse, repeat.
Of course, I may not be considering enemy heavy cavalry.
It just seems like that method of heavy cavalry would make them so vulnerable to some two-bit peasant with a sharpened pike.
 
The heavy charge lasted well into the 1800's. Not until the advent of rifled percussion weapons was heavy cavalry obsolete. The French Cuirassiers were particularly fearsome and could break up a line of musket-armed infantry. Indeed, there were seargents armed with spontoons to defend against them.

Of course, there were heavy cavalry which carried spontoons in spear-fashion as well. In any case, heavy cavalry was typically the most elite, such as the Cuirassiers. Hussars and other light cavalry were relegated to lesser mounted warriors as a general rule, though the Hussars would have naturally been proud of their role.

By the way, in no way did I intend to sound condescending.

Ash
 
The thrusting blow was the most deadly, much more so than the slashing blow. Also, the long, straight sword carried, properly couched, was easier in a full-blown charge. Heavy cavalry was never really intended to simply mix it up in the chaos of a close-in melee. Light cavalry was to do that, to be in amongst the enemy with swords swinging. Heavy also often wore armor, both helmets and breast plates (Cuirasses). This was to survive the initial musket volley and so allow the attack to press before reloading.

Ash
 
Keep in mind that cavalry was ideally employed in the pursuit, rather than the attack. Thrusting from horseback at a fleeing person is not as hard as it sounds, and even in the attack, 'giving point' was the preferred technique until the melée.

The lance is of course the ultimate pursuit weapon, but is fairly useless in melée, in which case lancers or uhlans dropped their lances and went to swords anyway.

By the time of the minié ball and percussion caps, cavalry charges were obsolete. Infantry no longer needed to form square, just line up and shoot the hell out of the cavalry - clearly demonstrated in the American civil war, although the Germans tried a couple of boot to boot charges in the Franco-Prussian war (e.g. von Bülow death ride) which further demonstrated the futility of cavalry charges in the face of modern weapons.

Going back to the matter of the rapier - it is a rather heavy and slow dueling weapon, and the introduction of the Colischmarche (or Konigsmark) signaled the end for the rapier in favor of what became the smallsword. The rapier's existence owed more to the difficulty in making thin but durable blades given the forging and metallurgy of the time, as well as it's roots in the cruciform swords that proceeded it. As well noted by Ash, all of these weapons were civilian weapons, although smallswords were worn by high ranking military officers beginning in the late 18th century - more as a badge indicating the wearer's status as a gentleman than for any military utility.

The smallsword has evolved into the modern epée.

You may find Burton's 'Book of the sword' helpful in distinguishing patterns. My own expertise is with Napoleonic weapons, but I've been fencing epée of and on for the last 25 years.

Just for reference, here a comparison of the weapons:

Rapier:

C000496_L.jpg


Colischmarche

custom932a.jpg


Smallsword

88SMS.jpg
 
Rapiers were carried by nobility, the well-off and the 'dandies' of the late Renaissance. It was a status weapon and probably like carrying a Desert Eagle for a SD weapon, as it was a "bigger is better" weapon rather than a practical one. Like modern day caliber competitions or long barreled guns, they grew to ridiculous lengths (4' I think).

In Elizabethan England, the London Guard had standing orders to sieze & break off the tips of any rapiers found to be over 3' in length! -kinda like a pre-cursor to our hi-cap magazine laws...
 
Oh yeah, European armored cavalry of the rapier era carried a very long straight sword called the Estoc. It was designed to pierce chainmail, thin armor or find gaps in heavy plate. They were not swung, but were aimed like lances. Because of their length & weight, estocs were slung from the horse and not the rider.
 
A rapier weighs, what? 2.5, 3-ish pounds? Any bastard or other medieval sword other than a back-up (or cinqueadia-type weapon) is gonna weigh more than that.

Rapiers weighed pretty much exactly the same as one-handed cut and thrust swords, about 2 to 3 pounds, so you were half right. However, they were much longer, and more blade-heavy, thus poorer handling.

Yes, a rapier is capable of lightning fast thrusts. But the fancy schmancy swordplay you see in the movies just can't happen. You can parry with a rapier, but not well and not quickly. Bucklers, main gauche daggers, cloaks, chainmail gloves, etc., were used for a reason.

Properly made European cut and thrust swords are in a class all of their own in terms of handling. If you've had the chance to swing one around, yeah, the rapier doesn't hold a candle. It's a blade for stabbing from long distance, and not much else.
 
No army ever issued the Rapier. It was only a civilian weapon. It was mostly carried as a status symbol, and when compared with other weapons, it was heavy and unweildy. It was also not as versatile as other styles (not the neither flesh-nor-fowl semi-sabers). The Rapier existed in a fairly short window.

It was useless in cavalry, by the way. It did make a superb thrusting weapon (but was not very suitable for heavy cavalry) and thrusting wounds were the most deadly, while being more difficult to train to use.

I believe this is incorrect. Of course there were a bunch of rapier types, but if you look at paintings, pictures from around the 1650's, you see a lot of rapiers, and a lot of horsemen carrying rapiers.

This is Gustavus Adolphus’s sword, the sword he was carrying when he was killed on horseback in battle. It is a rapier.

http://lsh.it-norr.com/default.asp?id=4900&ptid=&refid=4900&filename=&xmlfilename=


As to being “issued”, model standardization was a late 1700’s concept.

I highly recommend going to the Frazier Arms Museum in Kentucky.

http://www.fraziermuseum.org/


On the top floor are arms and a lot more from the Tower Arms Collection. Every weapon I saw was in its proper historical context. Including rapiers. This beautiful swept hilt rapier is from the English Civil War period and was inside a case with a 3/4 suit of Armor.

ReducedDSCN6384SweptHiltRapier.jpg

And this exhibit, is depicting a cavalry fight during the English Civil War. The guy in armor has a rapier in his hand.

ReducedDSCN6385EnglishCivilWarScene.jpg

I was not allowed to use the flash, some of the uniforms are period, and they don’t want light to deteriorate the cloth, so the picture is grainy and dark.
 
So who else Fences?

I love Fencing, so I will always have a soft spot for a good balanced rapier.
 
I've been fencing for 25+ years (since high school). Almost exclusively epée, with a little saber and foil. I never liked right of way or other gamesmanship, and I was disappointed when the Spanish grip was banned for competition.

No Salle in Helena, so I haven't picked up a blade in a few years, since I moved here. I used to belong to Salle Auriol in Portland. If there is anyone in the area of Helena, Great Falls or Missoula who fences, please drop me line.
 
I'm not a fencer, but I do appreciate what a good piece of sharp metal can do in the hands of a skilled person. And, I appreciate the artistry of swordmakers.
And, now I have to go see that museum in Kentucky.
 
I fenced saber with the club in college and studied modern combat with Master Eddie Floyd for a little while here in ET.
 
I've only ever fenced foil. I would like to fence epee. I actually just bought an old Rapier made in Toledo, Spain*. Blunted of course, but I'll be getting back into practicing with a friend of mine who's taking the course.

Edited due to brainfart.
 
Last edited:
I tried to fence. I had an Olympian as the instructor. Problem is, he was Chinese and could only speak about twenty words of English. We were also doing it in an un air conditioned gym in the Alabama summer with fencing gear on.
I didn't get very far.
I like swords though. Particulary more medieval swords.
 
I took private lessons in European Swordsmanship for 2 years. There was brief cross training in Shinkendo, Iaido, and Kendo, which all added up to another year of Japanese swordsmanship training. My Euro sword training covered a wide range of weapons. Gladius/scutum, longsword, greatsword (dueling style) through late single-sword (Digrassi), and everything in between. I never felt particularly well suited to any styles and had the most difficult time in later era rapier. It is very complex and demanding for someone who is not particularly athletic. Even at it's most basic it was absolute murder in a single fight against many of the Japanese style students :neener:

The museums presenting those swords have them very poorly displayed against a suit of armor and being used on horseback. A better presentation should be made with Prussian lances or cavalry sabers. There is an amazing variety of continental sabers to display from any time period or culture. The rapier really isn't particularly light in weight compared to cutting weapons of the time, and their length is equally under-represented. 42"-46" wouldn't be an uncommon blade length for a historical rapier but I can't imagine a worse weapon for mounted combat.

Swords and swordsmanship were my first love but it's physically demanding compared to standing at the range an shooting. I just haven't had it in me to start training again, and the lack of organized training for European martial arts makes it more so.
 
" Any bastard or other medieval sword other than a back-up (or cinqueadia-type weapon) is gonna weigh more than that."

Actually most medieval European swords, including bastard swords and longswords weighed under 3lbs.

Surviving examples of the German two handed sword (zweihander) range in weight from 3.5 to 7 pounds but these were specialized weapons primarily for use against pike formations. The very heavy examples of these swords, some weighing as much as 16lbs, were never intended as combat weapons and were solely carried as cerimonial or "bearing" swords.

The Scottish Claymore was usually smaller than the zweihander and rarely exceeded 5 lbs. Unlike it's German counterpart the claymore was a fighting sword. The ones I have handled have been under 5lbs and actually balance quite well even when used with one hand (not an ideal situation to be sure!).


Cheers!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top