.

Greetings everyone!

I am interested in knowing what length of rapier people prefer when studying the masters from the 1500's or early 1600's. The time frame I am thinking of would include the styles described by Joachim Meyer and Salvator Fabris.

On a separate forum, I read from Stephen Hand that "There are several ideal lengths quoted, quillons on the navel, twice the length of the arm etc. They all come to the same length for me, so I just use the quillons on the navel measurement." He continues to describe rapiers as using a single-time opposition to an opponent's attack, which would favor a longer blade (in the realm of lengths at 40-inches or a bit longer).

Similarly, I read elsewhere that a cursory comparison of rapiers in a catalog resulted with a blade length variety between 38" and 43".


So I ask all of you here at myArmoury, based on your own experiences, when practicing the arts of Meyer or Fabris, what blade length feels comfortable to you? What weapon do you use and from what maker?


In the range of 38" to 43", is a shorter blade necessarily a disadvantage?



I ask these questions because I am interested in purchasing a rapier that will be used for both Meyer and Fabris. The sword I am looking at has a blade length of 37" and is 42" in overall weapon length. Myself being 5'10", I am wondering if this rapier would be too short for my proportions. I hope that hearing other people's opinions based on their experience and personality will be educational and enlightening.

Additionally, I suspect that asking for a 43" blade on a sword that was designed for a 37" blade will throw off all the intended handling characteristics of the weapon.


I thank you in advance for your thoughts, opinions, and stories.

(Craig)

.

Hi Craig,
Before I begin, keep in mind that Meyer and Fabris are two fairly different systems. Meyer uses the cut quite a bit more than Fabris does, and in many ways is more in line with the Bolognese tradition of spada da filo. Not that you can't use the same sword for both, but I wouldn't want a blade that is too long for Meyer.

Fabris never gives a blade length for his ideal sword (probably because it ultimately is the person, not the sword, that matters), but he is within the same tradition as Capoferro, who said a sword should be about the size of one's lunge. I'm a big fan of the contemporary Thibault's method of measuring a blade, which is where the quillons should reach the navel when the sword point is on the ground. Using this method, I use a 43" blade (I'm 6' 2"), which also happens to fit Capoferro's measurement.

Truth be told, though, I can fence with a 35" blade just as well as a 43" blade. I wouldn't obsess too much about it, as long as the sword feels right to you.

Hi Craig,

I'll just expand a bit on Bill's comments, since he covered most of what I would say. The "perfect length" for cutting swords (described by those masters who actually address it) tends to be in the 36 to 40 inch range for most people. That said, there sure are a lot of swords that aren't that long! A shorter blade is generally more wieldy than a longer one, but sacrifices some of your reach. It's a trade off.

The cutting swords I refer to above are those for systems that use a lot of cuts, but even the thrust dominated systems of Capoferro, Fabris, etc generally include some cuts. Rapier is almost too broad a term to use in your question, unfortunately. I suggest getting a shorter bladed sword for more cutting styles and a longer one for some of the more thrust oriented styles -- you just can't have too many swords :lol:

hi craig, I too am 5'10, and have studied both fabris and meyer (along with several others) I generally use an arms and armor italian three ring rapier for my historic fencing classes. the blade length on that piece is 38 inches (which on me puts the quillons just above the top of my navel) over all length is 47 1/4 I find it to be just about perfect for my needs,

I too was inundated with advice on correct length, for good or evil I went with what was most comfortable for me to use and what allowed me to get the greatest enjoyment from my studies.

I hope that was helpful

if you have any questions please feel free to send me a message

chris

Craig,

If you are talking Fabris and Meyer, then likely the two biggest concerns will be how the blade interacts when contacting other blades and how wieldy it is when performing cavazioni. Unfortunately, these are somewhat hard to mate up in the same blade. What I mean is, in Meyer (and his Italian contemporaries such as the Bolognese masters), there is a certain "bite" that you want to get when two swords connect in an action, such as a suppressing cut (in Meyer) or a falso parry (in the Bolognese). Now you can do both of these actions with lighter blade, but a meatier blade will connect better and transfer more of the force to your opponent's blade--a particular "feel" that I really prefer. However, this extra mass will make a blade that is slower in the cavazione (i.e. disengagement)--one of the absolutely most important actions in Fabris (not to mention the fact that a meatier blade is going to be quite rigid--and might not be very suited to anything but moderate drilling for Fabris, as getting hit with a thrust will hurt). If you absolutely must have sword one for both systems, then I'd go a little shorter than the "typical" rapier reproduction available (so probably 40" or less) and lighter than the typical Meyer Rappier. However, something else you can consider is that many hilts can serve both purposes with different blades (that is, you swap in the blade more suited to the system you are studying at the moment). I have a few swords with which I do exactly that.

Steve

Dear Craig,

I'm not sure what systems I was talking about when I made that statement, but the best advice I can give is to pick a system and use a weapon that fits the description and/or illustrations in the manual. I have been known to do Di Grassi, for which I prefer a weapon without a complete hilt and with a 37" blade, Saviolo for which I prefer a weapon with a full swept hilt and a 38" blade, Swetnam, for which I prefer an English cup hilt (not to be confused with the later Spanish cup hilt) with a 42" blade and Pallas Armata for which I prefer a swept hilt with a 42" blade (ever so slightly lighter than the blade on my Swetnam rapier).

These measurements would differ depending on your height.

Cheers
Stephen

.

I want to thank everybody for the advice.

(Craig)

.

Hi Craig, well with sword and rapier masters like Bill Grandy and Stephen Hand responding, I don't know that I can add much, except that I am 6' 1 1/2" and 195 lbs. that I have read that the crossguard is supposed to equal with the center of the navel. I bought my (so far) one and only rapier from Arms & Armor, choosing the Three Ring Italian Rapier prior to having read the above mentioned information and the crossguard on my rapier comes in at 3 inches shy of my navel. Measuring from the tip of the blade through the ring guard and to the crossguard is 39 5/8 inches, while from the tip to the ring guard is 37 5/8", overall is 46 inches. Perhaps I need that Italian 2 ring rapier or the Elizabethen rapier?
Although I have a number of swords and only the one rapier, I would never part with my rapier, I Love this 3 Ring Rapier!!
For a 7/8 inch wide blade, it cuts very well for me, gallon jugs, big jugs. multiple gallon jugs, it cuts them all!

Bob

My excuses for digging an old topic up but I thought it more appropriate than to start up a new one when I am realy adressing the old one...

Is there not something odd about matching a shorter blade to an already shorter reach?
Yes, I see the logic of the biomechanics, of the leverages involved but two times short does not make long but a lot short, giving quite a bit of advantage in reach away.

If I were a short person facing a big guy I would want a SPEAR! not a shorter blade than he has!

peter

Hi Peter,

Peter Bosman wrote:

Is there not something odd about matching a shorter blade to an already shorter reach? Yes, I see the logic of the biomechanics, of the leverages involved but two times short does not make long but a lot short, giving quite a bit of advantage in reach away.

It does seem strange indeed, but I think all martial traditions do it just this way, and give a shorter person an accordingly shorter weapon, when the length of the weapon is seen as variable at all (for example I believe the length of the shinai in kendo is fixed, and you have to adjust to it). So there must be some good reason for this...

The first that I can see is that motions change (ever so slightly) when the proportion between the sword and the body changes. Ensuring that all students have their weapons proportionnate to their body is probably helpful when teaching a set of specific moves. Thinking of the sword as a pendulum, it stands to reason that its length is paramount in how it behaves dynamically. It then makes sense to have it "timed" to your own body.

Having a sword measured according to your body also gives a perhaps clearer view of the reach of your motions, for example steps. I think this is what Girard Thibault, quoted earlier in the thread, was after. It also means that the sword will play well with your range of motion, so that you will be able to pull the point backward far enough, for example. This is also found in Thibault and Silver.

I think, but I'm not clear about that yet, that the heart of the problem is that compensating for the shortness of your limbs with the length of your sword is not the good solution, because it gives you a false sense of safety while reducing your options. By accepting to fight at a longer distance with a shorter step, it becomes more difficult to go out of the direct line, for instance, while your adversary doing his big step will have no problem doing so and entering your angles. Well I don't know if this last paragraph makes sense to anyone, but anyway :\

I too would like to hear some more informed opinions on this interesting topic :)

So what you are writing Steven is that a longer or shorter blade has specific dynamic properties that do not swing the balance either way, which makes the optimum biomechanical size matching more important than the length.
Assuming a rule of thumb for the relative proportions the smaller fencer would simply need to adapt to exploiting the specific dynamic properties availeable to him and the larger one too but to the 'opposite' dynamics to make the most efficient use of the given situation.

peter

I get it Bill.
The (bio)mechanics and skill to use the tool weigh heaviest.

The rules of thumb would give me a rapier blade of 45" and yet a 35-38" colichemarde or cut-n-thrust blade with a dagger would be more versatile and suit ME better.
This leads us to the importance of customs and beliefs of the times again ...... I realy like the quote given by Sean Flynt in another topic. The master in question explains himself by stating that he is only talking about rapiers because his pupils do not want to know about the dagger, buckler etc....

peter

Didn't Elizabeth I have a rule that rapiers in her court could not exceed 36"? I had read that somewhere and that she had men enforcing the rule with devices to break off the blades of offending rapiers at 36".

In boxing there's an old saying that a tall man should make himself taller and short man make himself shorter. In practice that means that a tall man should emphasise his reach while a short one should forget about reach and look at reducing the size of his target and working in close. When a boxing coach told me that (I'm shorter than most opponents) I suddenly got a lot better. Having said all that I agree with Silver's oft repeated comment that "the tall man hath the vantage over the man of mean stature".

Blades that are disproportionally long become unwieldy. A taller person can wield a longer blade without it becoming unwieldy than a shorter person. Remember that a tall person will always outreach you, unless you use a sword that is ridiculously long, so don't play the reach game, get a sword in proportion to your body, accept that you are outreached and play a game appropriate to your body shape.

It's that simple.

Cheers
Steve