Craig Johnson wrote: | ||
Evenin Craig My Post dated Sun Aug 12, 2007 12:41 pm. Is the one I was referring to. The clearest way to state the question I have is, once again, what do you define a "True Rapier" as? You have given early/late comparisons that have been general and we all agree not clearly defining, as there are examples from all eras of the rapiers use. The blade geometry and configuration are obvious if one has documented them but just to say ‘blades like the ones I mean’ does little to create a definition. |
Craig,
The historical evidence indicates that the rapier (and here I'm using the term in its broadest and most inclusive sense) developed over time, beginning with blades that were broader, "cut and thrust types", and eventually evolved so that narrower blades that I identified as the true rapier sort begin to appear, some time in the latter half of the 16th century. That's not to say that the later form replaced the earlier, just the way that Type XVa long swords could still be found in the 15th century even although long swords had also evolved into the XVIIIa, XVIIIb, and XVIIIc forms as well. But, in the case of both the rapier and the long sword, the later types were an evolution from an earlier form.
One need only look at the period rapier manuals to see that this is the case. The earlier style of rapiers are clearly different than those which are more commonly found in later manuals. Some of the later rapier masters advised against striking with the edge at all, which is not consistent with the sort of instruction we'd expect for the earlier form of the weapon.
Therefore, I cannot agree with your assertion that there are examples of the different blade types from all eras of rapier use, because that simply isn't true. I've been very consistent in asserting that the earlier forms of blade continued to see use even after the development of the later forms, so there is no reason for there to have been any confusion over that. But as I've also stated, there was a clear evolution in the rapier which lead to the development of the later blade forms, types that did not exist earlier in the history of the rapier.
Quote: |
I do not feel there was anything lacking in John’s cuts in the second video. His body and footwork form was consistent with other videos and times I have seen him fight. The action on the initial cut was possibly a bit modest in a desire to show a test cut against a material, but in a way that is immaterial as it was his chosen methodology for the test. I have seen many others with similar swords do very impressive cuts. The lack of an edge is obvious as he demonstrates with his swipe on the hand, but if one is aware of the edge one has on a blade would not one alter there technique to get the maximum advantage out of the impact? It seemed to me a more effective cut could have been made with the sword in his hand against that target on the initial blow but it demonstrated his form, with that sword, on that target. |
He may have had concerns about damaging the blade. I cannot be certain. But with any type of single handed sword, long sword, (and I'd expect earlier style "cut and thrust" rapier) it would have been easy to deliver cuts in the manner John executed them.
Quote: |
The human target is soft and one can do a good deal of damage to it with a blunt bar let alone a sword even with a dullish edge. I have done much damage to myself over the years with foolish play and shop accidents. |
But again, as I mentioned in another post, you can cut someone if you whip them hard enough with a car antenna, but that isn't really "cutting" per se. To use another example, if I was to strike against flesh with a mace/morningstar and managed to split it open, would this truly qualify as cutting, even if I had sharpened the spike edges? Or is it really more of a bludgeoning attack? The implication of what you've suggested here is that most, if not all, medieval and renaissance weapons could be considered cutting weapons.
Quote: |
I have seen learned users of the sword do impressive things with a rapier blade very similar to the piece John used. So while I find the video interesting I do not find it conclusive as I stated above. This may come down to what you define as a debilitating wound. The definition of such being something that may take another thread to answer, as I fear some of the same issues of what constitutes debilitating will be subjective and defined differently by each individual. |
If you have videos of people cutting with rapier blades which are constructed like the ones John had, please post them. However, I can't really evaluate what you've said here by your statement alone.
Quote: |
I fear where we differ is I do not try to categorize a subset of rapiers into “true” or not true as it seems to me to do so is to make a distinction that does not bear the weight of the historical record and common experience. The honorable George Silver accepted. Yes there are situations where the rapier is less suitable for combat than others, battlefield melees “in service to the prince” being an obvious one. If the users of said items had thought through such an event or had enough experience in said event they would have realized this error on their part. In fact if you read the manuals and commentary of the period this is a clear distinction they recognize. But they do not define the items by such a distinction. They instead talk of choosing a weapon that is appropriate for the arms and situation. To say one is truer than another is to make a qualitative commentary on the combat methods and weapons that they would recognize as being obvious and neither true or false. |
I think you're missing the point of my George Silver quote. The point wasn't whether or not it was a battlefield worthy weapon, but rather that the rapiers that he is describing cannot cut. It's providing evidence for my assertion that there is indeed a sort of rapier that is unsuited to cutting. The rest of what he wrote isn't relevant to my point here; I included it only so as to not have a tiny little snippet of a quote devoid of any context.
Quote: |
I feel you have singled out a sub category of a weapon and made it somehow a target to get a point across. We do not have any quantitative data to say there where so many purely thrusting rapiers at any given period and you seem to feel this was degradation in the use of the sword. My experience has shown me that the varied use of the sword, cut, slice and thrust where always part of the game and while certain pieces where optimized for specific attacks, I would suggest that they where not as great a proportion of the total as you have in classifying the late rapiers as you have. |
I suppose it depends how one views things. I don't see this as being a sub-category of a weapon; rather, I see it as being two seperate forms of a weapon, like two branches on a tree. However, my abstract conceptual understanding of this distinction is neither here nor there. What is relevant is that there is a later form of rapier which appeared on the scene which is not suited to cutting. This I have referred to as the "true" rapier, following both John's article and the connotation of "rapier" which remains in both English and French, as opposed to the early forms that did appear to be effective at cutting.
By the way, don't assume that because I quoted George Silver that I view these later forms of rapier as "degredations". While I agree with Silver's arguments that a good military sword should be able to cut and thrust, and while I do have a preference for military type weapons, the "true" rapier has an elegance and finesse in appearance and use which I certainly can appreciate. I particularly like some of the swept hilt forms, and I think that the rapiers in Cappo Ferro's manual are absolutely gorgeous: http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/NewManuals/CapoFerro/10001053.jpg
Quote: |
Other than the existence of an edge you judge to be worthy of cutting with what blade parameters do you see as specifically designating the categories?
If we can move the discussion into the specifics of what define such items we may be able to get a better handle on what distinctions you are trying to make and we can compare those to the historical and experiential results others have gotten. |
The parameters I see as being relevant are the blade form. The hilt furniture is not relevant, and it's so varied anyways that describing earlier or later forms by hilt alone becomes meaningless. Really then, what matters is if the blade shape and form is conducive to cutting or not. I'm not sure if there's anything else that can be specified; I've already delineated elsewhere which blade forms constitute earlier rapiers, and which ones constitute the later sort.