Ok, well I am doing a piece on rapier's for another forum board, I know a little bit about them, but nowhere near enough.
I need to know things like the history, and how well this sword match's up againt another different type of sword.
I know that this sword is a thrusting weapon, but can it cut very well.......umm just anything useful, would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you, for your time.
Well, there are many other members much more qualified to provide information on rapiers, but I would humbly suggest checking out the features, articles, essays, etc., here on myArmoury (if you haven't already). I myself have not read all of them yet, but from what I have seen, I would say that you could find some decent background on rapiers, their evolution, technique, etc. At the very least, it could be a good starting point.
Good luck!
Good luck!
About rapiers specifically there is this featured article by Bill Grandy, here on myArmoury:
http://www.myArmoury.com/feature_arms_rapier.html
And I think you should also look at these two articles by Tom Leoni:
http://salvatorfabris.com/WhatIsTheRapier.shtml
http://salvatorfabris.com/WhatIsTheRapier2.shtml
The rest of the articles on his site are also very interesting, though perhaps not really meant for beginers...
http://www.myArmoury.com/feature_arms_rapier.html
And I think you should also look at these two articles by Tom Leoni:
http://salvatorfabris.com/WhatIsTheRapier.shtml
http://salvatorfabris.com/WhatIsTheRapier2.shtml
The rest of the articles on his site are also very interesting, though perhaps not really meant for beginers...
One of the debates about rapiers is whether or not they can cut effectively. Some argue that earlier "rapiers" and later rapiers should both be considered "rapiers" (and period texts do refer to both types of weapon as "rapiers" as far as I know) and thus therefore argue that rapiers can cut, depending upon the type in question. Others, such as myself, feel that there is a fundamental difference between the earlier "cut and thrust" style swords and the later "true" rapiers, and therefore argue that rapiers cannot be used to cut effectively, at least not in a manner that will cause any serious harm to a foe.
Another good place to read about rapiers is here: http://www.thearma.org/Youth/rapieroutline.htm
Another good place to read about rapiers is here: http://www.thearma.org/Youth/rapieroutline.htm
And some, like me, feel that there's no need to define a rapier so strictly, whether according to the "cut-and-thrust inclusive" school or the "thrust only" school, since it seems pretty obvious that 16th century rapiers differed significantly from 17th-century ones and each "rapier" master had his own preference for the kind of weapon that would suit his techniques best. Marozzo's cut-and-thrust techniques, for example, would probably fit best with a different kind of blade from Fabris's heavily thrust-oriented system.
I would also highly recommend Tom Leoni's articles listed by Vincent above, some of the most concise commentary on what entails a rapier I have seen. One should also check out Norman's work on Rapiers.
This is a huge topic that has challenged those with a good deal of experience with the weapon. I would caution one writing about the rapier with the qualifying statements you made to not try and make definite statements, as there are many examples that defy most rules about what entails a rapier.
Hi Craig, can I ask how you define a "true rapier", as you and the article state this is a classification you have defined and without stating the parameters it makes it difficult to qualify any of the statements made about them?
Best
Craig
This is a huge topic that has challenged those with a good deal of experience with the weapon. I would caution one writing about the rapier with the qualifying statements you made to not try and make definite statements, as there are many examples that defy most rules about what entails a rapier.
| Craig Peters wrote: |
| ... Others, such as myself, feel that there is a fundamental difference between the earlier "cut and thrust" style swords and the later "true" rapiers,... |
Hi Craig, can I ask how you define a "true rapier", as you and the article state this is a classification you have defined and without stating the parameters it makes it difficult to qualify any of the statements made about them?
Best
Craig
| Craig Johnson wrote: | ||
Hi Craig, can I ask how you define a "true rapier", as you and the article state this is a classification you have defined and without stating the parameters it makes it difficult to qualify any of the statements made about them? Best Craig |
Actually, the article does offer indications of the differences between the two under the fifth question. In paragraph two, John states:
"Rapier blades are relatively thin but have thick cross-sections. Some rapier blades are of flat diamond (or triangular) shape capable of holding a shallow edge, while other cross-sections are thicker hexagonal, octagonal, or four-pointed star-shaped with virtually no sharp edges."
The former sort with the flat diamond or triangular blades are more consistent with earlier styles (though I do realize they were also used later as well) whereas the latter sort are the "true" rapiers.
| Lafayette C Curtis wrote: |
| And some, like me, feel that there's no need to define a rapier so strictly, whether according to the "cut-and-thrust inclusive" school or the "thrust only" school, since it seems pretty obvious that 16th century rapiers differed significantly from 17th-century ones and each "rapier" master had his own preference for the kind of weapon that would suit his techniques best. Marozzo's cut-and-thrust techniques, for example, would probably fit best with a different kind of blade from Fabris's heavily thrust-oriented system. |
I'm not sure I follow; both of the points here seem to support the idea that there is a significant difference between the blade types which supports what I've stated. You may not feel that rapiers need to be defined strictly, but the points you've raised here don't really support what you've said, in opposition to what I've argued.
I'm with Lafayette on this, in that I feel it isn't a good idea to overly define the term rapier. It is such a hugely encompassing term that to refine its definition means that you always have to explain what you mean by it, and argue with all the people who disagree with you. Especially if you start talking about a "true rapier", which is a weapon not in much use when the term first started being used! I think it's fair to make some generalizations (as long as they are described as such) along the lines of early rapiers, later period rapiers, 18th century rapiers, etc if they help you narrow down a point you are trying to make, but anything beyond that is pretty much folly, and even the terms I listed are pretty vague.
| Eric Myers wrote: |
| I'm with Lafayette on this, in that I feel it isn't a good idea to overly define the term rapier. It is such a hugely encompassing term that to refine its definition means that you always have to explain what you mean by it, and argue with all the people who disagree with you. Especially if you start talking about a "true rapier", which is a weapon not in much use when the term first started being used! I think it's fair to make some generalizations (as long as they are described as such) along the lines of early rapiers, later period rapiers, 18th century rapiers, etc if they help you narrow down a point you are trying to make, but anything beyond that is pretty much folly, and even the terms I listed are pretty vague. |
Well said, Eric. I agree completely.
| Eric Myers wrote: |
| I'm with Lafayette on this, in that I feel it isn't a good idea to overly define the term rapier. It is such a hugely encompassing term that to refine its definition means that you always have to explain what you mean by it, and argue with all the people who disagree with you. Especially if you start talking about a "true rapier", which is a weapon not in much use when the term first started being used! I think it's fair to make some generalizations (as long as they are described as such) along the lines of early rapiers, later period rapiers, 18th century rapiers, etc if they help you narrow down a point you are trying to make, but anything beyond that is pretty much folly, and even the terms I listed are pretty vague. |
This makes sense from a perspective of period nomenclature, but it becomes far more problematic from the perspective of how the weapons were actually employed in fighting. Remember that period nomenclature isn't the only perspective from which we can consider this issue.
| Craig Peters wrote: |
| This makes sense from a perspective of period nomenclature, but it becomes far more problematic from the perspective of how the weapons were actually employed in fighting. Remember that period nomenclature isn't the only perspective from which we can consider this issue. |
Even still, there are too many rapiers that do not fit into the categories that the article calls "true rapiers", and yet they existed as far as the 19th century. I've seen one late 17th century rapier that had an edge keener than duelling sabers, and at the same time I've seen a contemporary 17th century rapier that had almost no edge at all. Both were very long, and both would be weapons that would fit just fine into the practice of masters such as Salvator Fabris, Nicolo Giganti, or Ridolfo Capoferro.
Domenico Angelo, in the 18th century, wrote about the dangers of facing Spanish swordsmen, who's rapiers were capable of cutting. Were those weapons capable of severing limbs? Probably not, but clearly they were not superficial cuts, either.
Pistofilo, in the 17th century, wrote of a sword that was very clearly designed for cutting, despite relying on the thrust. The images, however, look identicle the those seen in the manuscripts of the "classic" rapier masters.
Later period "baroque" rapier masters seemed to disagree on how often to utilize the cut over the thrust, and the period antiques seem to reflect this: Some antiques have strong cutting edges, some have no edge at all, and many are in between. Which ones are "true" rapiers?
I've said this often times before, but I'm not against the idea of a modern classification of period rapiers. However, it needs to be a very thorough classification, as with what Oakshott did for the medieval sword typology, otherwise we as modern people will tend to make gross generalizations which often lead to misunderstandings of history.
I am no rapier expert that's for sure! But I can cut through 4 gallon cat litter jugs filled with water at will, which is also a much thicker plastic than gallon jugs. Also, the rapier that I use is the Arms & Armor Three Ring Italian Rapier and it's blade is only about 7/8 " wide. Shane Allee, Nathan Bell and Joe Fults have seen me do it.
I realize that a 4 gallon plastic jug of water is not human flesh, but at the same time, I cut these jugs clean in half, to the surprise of others. :lol:
Bob
I realize that a 4 gallon plastic jug of water is not human flesh, but at the same time, I cut these jugs clean in half, to the surprise of others. :lol:
Bob
Last edited by Bob Burns on Sat 11 Aug, 2007 12:04 pm; edited 1 time in total
| Eric Myers wrote: |
| I think it's fair to make some generalizations (as long as they are described as such) along the lines of early rapiers, later period rapiers, 18th century rapiers, etc if they help you narrow down a point you are trying to make, but anything beyond that is pretty much folly, and even the terms I listed are pretty vague. |
Well, personally I'd prefer to go even further and state the specific master I'm talking about whenever I speak at length about rapiers. At least that way people can go out and check what kind of weapon would be best suited to the techniques in question.
| Craig Peters wrote: | ||||
Actually, the article does offer indications of the differences between the two under the fifth question. In paragraph two, John states: "Rapier blades are relatively thin but have thick cross-sections. Some rapier blades are of flat diamond (or triangular) shape capable of holding a shallow edge, while other cross-sections are thicker hexagonal, octagonal, or four-pointed star-shaped with virtually no sharp edges." The former sort with the flat diamond or triangular blades are more consistent with earlier styles (though I do realize they were also used later as well) whereas the latter sort are the "true" rapiers. |
Hi Craig
I did see this very passage in the article and it was one of the elements that actually prompted me to ask the question. There are obviously some indications here as to what you are defining as the "true rapier" but it is not detailed in any way The article states the blade types where used throughout the period, which I would agree with, but then this label becomes less useful as a point of definition. Do you defer to John's definition of what a "true rapier" is, and if so, has this been laid out anywhere?
I would say that if one is looking to typologies the swords that encompass the historical category of the rapier, one should have some very clear examples and research to present in support of their statements. It is a very interesting but broad category and to claim one has complete knowledge of the subject is a bold statement to be sure. To make definitive statements as you have done here and John has done in his article, that seem to contradict some of the historical record, requires a scholar to ask for the evidence and to evaluate what you can present with an open mind to incorporate any new information into the knowledge base we work from. The rapier, as used by the historical writers, changed over time and for us to decide some type of weapon is more or less that type today means we are choosing what we want from history as opposed to trying to understand what the past has to teach.
I look forward to any details you can give us on your definition of a “true rapier”.
Best
Craig
| Bill Grandy wrote: | ||
Even still, there are too many rapiers that do not fit into the categories that the article calls "true rapiers", and yet they existed as far as the 19th century. I've seen one late 17th century rapier that had an edge keener than duelling sabers, and at the same time I've seen a contemporary 17th century rapier that had almost no edge at all. Both were very long, and both would be weapons that would fit just fine into the practice of masters such as Salvator Fabris, Nicolo Giganti, or Ridolfo Capoferro. Domenico Angelo, in the 18th century, wrote about the dangers of facing Spanish swordsmen, who's rapiers were capable of cutting. Were those weapons capable of severing limbs? Probably not, but clearly they were not superficial cuts, either. Pistofilo, in the 17th century, wrote of a sword that was very clearly designed for cutting, despite relying on the thrust. The images, however, look identicle the those seen in the manuscripts of the "classic" rapier masters. Later period "baroque" rapier masters seemed to disagree on how often to utilize the cut over the thrust, and the period antiques seem to reflect this: Some antiques have strong cutting edges, some have no edge at all, and many are in between. Which ones are "true" rapiers? I've said this often times before, but I'm not against the idea of a modern classification of period rapiers. However, it needs to be a very thorough classification, as with what Oakshott did for the medieval sword typology, otherwise we as modern people will tend to make gross generalizations which often lead to misunderstandings of history. |
But really Bill, what do these quotes indicate other than the fact that both rapiers designed along the lines of the early style and the later style existed side by side? We can still draw a distinction between the two types.
| Craig Johnson wrote: |
|
Hi Craig I did see this very passage in the article and it was one of the elements that actually prompted me to ask the question. There are obviously some indications here as to what you are defining as the "true rapier" but it is not detailed in any way The article states the blade types where used throughout the period, which I would agree with, but then this label becomes less useful as a point of definition. Do you defer to John's definition of what a "true rapier" is, and if so, has this been laid out anywhere? I would say that if one is looking to typologies the swords that encompass the historical category of the rapier, one should have some very clear examples and research to present in support of their statements. It is a very interesting but broad category and to claim one has complete knowledge of the subject is a bold statement to be sure. To make definitive statements as you have done here and John has done in his article, that seem to contradict some of the historical record, requires a scholar to ask for the evidence and to evaluate what you can present with an open mind to incorporate any new information into the knowledge base we work from. The rapier, as used by the historical writers, changed over time and for us to decide some type of weapon is more or less that type today means we are choosing what we want from history as opposed to trying to understand what the past has to teach. I look forward to any details you can give us on your definition of a “true rapier”. Best Craig |
Craig,
It's not exactly clear to me what other criterion exactly you're looking for, or why you feel the criteria provided by John is insufficient. The article makes mention of differences of blade shape and cross section in the two groups of rapiers, much the way one would when talking about say an XIIIa sword versus a XVII, for which we already have a functioning typology. It seems to me that you are suggesting that from a nomenclature point of view, we should go with the less restrictive definition of our ancestors. That's fine, but as I mentioned above, it does raise problems from the use perspective.
To my knowledge, we really don't have anything else analagous to the situation of the rapier with historical blade types. It's the only weapon I know of that evolved such that some of its forms were almost incapable of making a cut (and certainly not a serious, debilitating wound) while others still could. In other words, it's the only sword type where at least one of its forms is effectively incapable of making one of the three, basic attack forms, namely the cut, thrust, and slice. That's why we make a distinction between the two groups, because they're not identical, and it's a significant distinction that should be made.
(Quote) I look forward to any details you can give us on your definition of a “true rapier”. (Quote)
I still don't see an answer to the question. I am also interested in learning what is a "true rapier."
I still don't see an answer to the question. I am also interested in learning what is a "true rapier."
What is a TRUE rapier supposed to be ? Only a rapier when it becomes specialized for thrusts only ! ?
Craig ( Peters ), if you want this to be the answer or the only answer you will accept I think you will be disappointed that not everyone is going to agree and although I think your arguments are interesting and valid I can appreciate the opposite views.
A definition can be based on usage i.e. does rapier fencing work with a specific sword and how much is rapier use weighted towards thrusts and how much cutting is still considered rapier styled swordsmanship ?
As others have pointed out this has evolved over time where most if not all rapiers became mostly thrusting weapons with only enough cutting ability to be distracting to an opponent.
Are all " cut and thrust " swords using rapier-like hilts rapiers ? I would say only if they can be used with rapier fighting techniques, then it's functionally and aesthetically a rapier. If it looks like a rapier but for some reason it would be very difficult to use as a rapier then maybe it is valid to call it something else ?
The whole point though is: Are you discussing this to find answers, exchange ideas or is winning an arguments and getting everyone to agree to your definitions the only point ? ( sorry if blunt, but I mean no disrespect ).
If I understand correctly then only the thrust only rapiers are rapiers and all the other cut & thrust types should be called something else ? In the modern context we could all agree to this just to simplify our categorization of things ( neat little name tags on neat little boxes ) . But if we want to reflect what things were considered to be in period this might not work because history is not " neat and tidy " and names of objects as well as the objects themselves evolved.
Forgetting what we call things for a moment when you pick up a sword you get a feeling about how it could be used, and even more so if you have studied various forms of swordsmanship i.e. " Yes, I could use this like a rapier or this feels like a great cutter or no way could I thrust with this Nepalese Kora. " ;) :D
Craig ( Peters ), if you want this to be the answer or the only answer you will accept I think you will be disappointed that not everyone is going to agree and although I think your arguments are interesting and valid I can appreciate the opposite views.
A definition can be based on usage i.e. does rapier fencing work with a specific sword and how much is rapier use weighted towards thrusts and how much cutting is still considered rapier styled swordsmanship ?
As others have pointed out this has evolved over time where most if not all rapiers became mostly thrusting weapons with only enough cutting ability to be distracting to an opponent.
Are all " cut and thrust " swords using rapier-like hilts rapiers ? I would say only if they can be used with rapier fighting techniques, then it's functionally and aesthetically a rapier. If it looks like a rapier but for some reason it would be very difficult to use as a rapier then maybe it is valid to call it something else ?
The whole point though is: Are you discussing this to find answers, exchange ideas or is winning an arguments and getting everyone to agree to your definitions the only point ? ( sorry if blunt, but I mean no disrespect ).
If I understand correctly then only the thrust only rapiers are rapiers and all the other cut & thrust types should be called something else ? In the modern context we could all agree to this just to simplify our categorization of things ( neat little name tags on neat little boxes ) . But if we want to reflect what things were considered to be in period this might not work because history is not " neat and tidy " and names of objects as well as the objects themselves evolved.
Forgetting what we call things for a moment when you pick up a sword you get a feeling about how it could be used, and even more so if you have studied various forms of swordsmanship i.e. " Yes, I could use this like a rapier or this feels like a great cutter or no way could I thrust with this Nepalese Kora. " ;) :D
| Jean Thibodeau wrote: |
| What is a TRUE rapier supposed to be ? Only a rapier when it becomes specialized for thrusts only ! ?
Craig ( Peters ), if you want this to be the answer or the only answer you will accept I think you will be disappointed that not everyone is going to agree and although I think your arguments are interesting and valid I can appreciate the opposite views. A definition can be based on usage i.e. does rapier fencing work with a specific sword and how much is rapier use weighted towards thrusts and how much cutting is still considered rapier styled swordsmanship ? As others have pointed out this has evolved over time where most if not all rapiers became mostly thrusting weapons with only enough cutting ability to be distracting to an opponent. Are all " cut and thrust " swords using rapier-like hilts rapiers ? I would say only if they can be used with rapier fighting techniques, then it's functionally and aesthetically a rapier. If it looks like a rapier but for some reason it would be very difficult to use as a rapier then maybe it is valid to call it something else ? The whole point though is: Are you discussing this to find answers, exchange ideas or is winning an arguments and getting everyone to agree to your definitions the only point ? ( sorry if blunt, but I mean no disrespect ). If I understand correctly then only the thrust only rapiers are rapiers and all the other cut & thrust types should be called something else ? In the modern context we could all agree to this just to simplify our categorization of things ( neat little name tags on neat little boxes ) . But if we want to reflect what things were considered to be in period this might not work because history is not " neat and tidy " and names of objects as well as the objects themselves evolved. Forgetting what we call things for a moment when you pick up a sword you get a feeling about how it could be used, and even more so if you have studied various forms of swordsmanship i.e. " Yes, I could use this like a rapier or this feels like a great cutter or no way could I thrust with this Nepalese Kora. " ;) :D |
Well Jean, you'll note that I've put "true" rapier in quotation marks, because the very idea of one being "true" is problematic. Both sorts of swords were known historically as rapiers, so a designation demarking the two seperates one sort from the other.
As I see it, this is all a matter of clarity. Suppose, for a moment, we go with the broader definition of rapier that encompasses both the earlier and later style of weapon. Someone who's curious about the subject might ask "Can a rapier cut?" To this, we'd necessarily have to respond, "Yes, it can cut".
"Cool," our curious individual replies, and he begins to making slashing and cutting motions with his Zorro-style rapier based upon what we've told him.
"Hold on a second," we say, "You can't really cut with that rapier, at least, not in any way that's going to cause real injury or harm. At best, you could cause distraction from a laceration with it which would allow for a killing blow."
"But you just told me that rapiers can cut," he protests.
"Well, some can. But not all rapiers are designed to do it effectively. Certain types had broader blades or blade profiles that were conducive to allowing the edge to be sharpened, and could cause cutting injuries. Others, like the one you have, are largely ineffective for cutting. That doesn't mean that they cannot cut; but you can cut someone if you whip them hard enough with a car antenna- therefore, just because it can lacerate doesn't mean that it's really designed to do it."
Notice what happened in our theoretical discussion. Even the person who wants to keep the broadest definition of the rapier as possible is forced to acknowledge that there is a distinction between these two "types" of rapier, and that the distinction is not insignificant. We may disagree on how we express this distinction exactly, but at the end of the day, it's still a necessary one. This is why the members of the ARMA draw a distinction between the cut and thrust type swords and the thrusting rapiers; in doing so, we remove the confusion and ambiguity in simply terming all swords of this sort as a "rapier" without any further qualifications.
Page 1 of 3
You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
All contents © Copyright 2003-2006 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum