Discussion Main / RoyalRapier

That being said, most prominent powers preferred the more robust backsword. Any elaboration on the Pappenheimer rapier? A rapier of any kind seems ill-suited to mounted combat as any mounted soldier would want to be making cuts rather than thrusts; arming swords, longswords and backswords would all be far better choices because of the stronger kinetic force behind the strikes. When it comes to thrusting from horseback, why do it? A spear or lance will accomplish a piercing connection by virtue of galloping on horseback.

As for the Spanish, they seemed to have a rapier fetish full stop, the same way the Germans seemed to prefer larger swords and the Scottish loved backswords.

The main land armies in western europe at the time were those of Spain, France, and Sweden. They all used rapiers (simply called swords but their main sword type basically defined the early rapier) as sidearms, and in the case of the swedes are definitely recorded as using them as a cavalry weapon. Scotland was hardly ever a trend setter in mainland warfare, and the early rapier was a larger sword (about the weight of an estoc, full slashing blade); unless you mean the zweihander, which by the end of the italian wars most doppelsoldner were dropping as little more than a fashion symbol.

The article's description of the rapier has a bad case of silver disease.

Something I really need to point out; none of you seem to be aware of the difference between a Rapier and a Broadsword. The Broadsword was the standard infantry sidearm through Europe till armor became rare enough (as it gradually became more and more cost effective to just use more troops instead of giving better armor to the ones you already have) that a slashing blade was more effective then a general cut and thrust one, and its blade was, edge to edge, typically a little over twice as broad as that of a rapier depending on which model was used exactly.

Also, on Rodeleros? A sidesword, which is what they typically used, is NOT a rapier. It is shorter and typically slightly broader. Its main purpose was to be a quick close range weapon to use against troops who trained primarily to hold a big stick pointing at the other guy. They were, in addition, abandoned less then three decades after they were introduced; effective counter or not, they were incredibly vulnerable except in their one purpose.

The french and the spanish did not use broadswords, and the word rapier in these languages is a back-import in the first place (they just called the damn things sword). There is no actual strict definition of the rapier until the english set out to pretend there was a major perceived difference between this and that type of commonly used continental, mostly latin sword

Well, I am the one who wrote up the description of the article, and maybe I do have a bit of Silver disease. I am open to criticism, and I just want to explain myself. What I ought to clarify is that what I had in mind when I was writing was the very long, narrow bladed civilian dueling rapier of the type illustrated in Capo Ferro and Giganti, which is what usually comes to mind when one is talking about rapiers, or more particularly rapier fencing. A sword like this. My write up does explain that rapier style hilts appear on practical military weapons such as this or even this, which may also be called rapiers but at the least are not the same kind of rapier. And of course that is the mature form of the rapier; early rapiers were not so different from military swords in their blades, and the swords used in Marozzo are really not that different from medieval arming swords. Some call them "military rapiers", or "sword-rapiers", or sometimes "side swords" to differentiate them from the dainty kind that's better suited for dueling. The phenomenon I'm describing is the creation of separate classes of civilian and military weapons, which did not exist in the Middle Ages. The military weapon's form imitated that of civilian fashion without compromising its performance too much, and that is mainly because they did not adopt the extremely narrow blade used in dueling rapiers. What the article is about, the way I see it, is the association of this civilian rapier with court culture and social posturing. Most of the famous "rapier" masters that published manuals were not writing for a primarily military audience, and some acknowledged that the sword as they practiced it was not much use on a battlefield with artillery and cavalry. The military had its own training: this was street fighting for well-heeled gentlemen who wore fashionable swords about their daily business. The only exceptions I can think of are the Spanish masters, many of whom were soldiers and claimed to have military relevance, and von Wallhausen who shows cavalry rapiers or tucks in his military manual.

While capo ferro's rapier can cut deeply enough to slice tendons, slash open a throat, or even crack open the front of your opponent's skull and pierce the brain, you aren't going to be chopping anyone's arms off like you could potentially do with a broader bladed sword. The duelling sword is designed for spitting guys who are wearing their shirt only, or perhaps at most a woolen doublet. Any kind of armor, whether it be densely woven mail or a doublet of defense with brigandine plates sewn in, is proof against it. Even a rolled up cloak is a good defense. As for battlefield armor, a leather buff coat is decent protection against a cavalry sword, let alone a civilian rapier's cut. Plate armor would stand a good chance of breaking a thin, hard-tempered rapier blade if you failed to find a gap and trusted too hard against its surface. A thrust to the gaps with an estoc or broadsword whose blade is sturdy enough to take the stress can wound a man in plate armor, but a civilian rapier is simply not a practical choice if you'll encounter any kind of armor. Now, most soldiers on the 16th century and later battlefield were only partly armored, and by the end of the 17th century armor is on its way out even for cavalry. In that case, armor penetration is no longer much of an issue. Still, a soldier is best served by a weapon that can cut and thrust almost equally well. The military weapons that are being described as rapiers often have slightly shorter blades, and are usually broad enough to be decent if not always excellent cutters.

Suppose that a sword has a single-handed grip, a nice spherical pommel, a complex handguard including a knuckle bow, quillons, side rings, finger rings, and perhaps some loop guards or counter guards. The blade has a ricasso. Does that make it a rapier? I argue that it doesn't. The hilt cannot be the sole criteria for classifying a sword. We have to ask what kind of blade it has. If a sword like this that weighs 3 lbs, 9 oz, and has an impressively thick blade has to be called a rapier for lack of a better term, then the definition is flawed. There are several "rapiers" in the Met like this and this that have blades that are wide at the base or both base and point, and I don't want to lump them in with these dainty things. The issue is confused even more by the fact that the blades and hilts of surviving examples were not all originally made for each other. Blades were re-hilted both in their own lifetimes and by later collectors, so many are either anachronistic or mismatched.

I acknowledge that my definition of rapier is too narrow, and terms like side sword are inadequate neologisms, but I don't think I can keep my sanity if we have to call every straight double-edged single handed sword from 1500 to 1700 that isn't a smallsword a rapier. Sorry everybody, that's my rant. I hope that I have not given offense by expressing my opinions strongly. I intent to rewrite the article eventually as my own views are evolving to a less black and white viewpoint, as rapiers are really a continuum that might be said to include fighting swords as well as dueling ones, but I want to be clear that I'm not just ignoring these comments.

No objection.