Why is the idea so hard to grasp? Now, Peter, I bet you're quite familiar with the division of engagement ranges into Zufechten, Krieg, and Ringen? The taller and longer-armed swordsman would have an advantage in Zufechten, so it's in his interest to keep the fight revolving within that range with techniques that allow him to keep his opponent at bay (or, in other words, techniques that prevent his opponents from closing in). A longer blade allows him a few extra inches of additional reach that would make such techniques even more effective by virtue of the fact that, if they succeed, they'd keep the shorter opponent at an even greater distance away than with a shorter blade.

However, on the weak side--I don't see how a longer blade would accentuate the taller swordsman's weakness. Even with the shorter sword, the taller man would still be at a disadvantage if the opponent could close into a Krieg or even a grappling situation, and this closing in is not a matter of getting "just" within the compass of the blade; it's really getting deep within the arc of your taller opponent's blade, and in this case having a blade just a few inches shorter wouldn't give the taller man a real advantage because the shorter opponent would be more than a whole foot too close for his liking, and surely you wouldn't want to compromise your advantage by a whole foot just to give you a better chance in a situation where you're at a natural disadvantage!

Yes, this may sound counter-intuitive to an untrained man, but go and ask a military officer. He'll explain to you why there's a military maxim that tells you to "reinforce victory, not defeat," and why the cornerstone of battleship design during the early 20th century was the principle of "a good gun ensures victory; armor only postpones defeat." The same principle--that focusing on the maintenance and offensive exploitation of your advantages is more profitable than worrying about your disadvantages--also applies to swordsmanship, because this way you wouldn't be giving your enemy any chances to exploit your disadvantages as long as you can maintain the offensive tempo and initiative on your side.

Do not for a single moment think that I'm defending the taller swordsman because I'm tall. I'm 5'3"--and even my very limited experience in sparring has made me painfully aware of the various ways in which a taller swordsman can whack me with his longer reach!

Buenas Lafayette.
The thing that I do not see is based on that you cannot both have and eat the cake.
If the less tall fencer is not at a disadvantage because extra reach has it's own disadvantage than more of reach advantage also gives more of the accompanying disadvantage.

Why, if you already have a reach advantage, than make yourself more vulnerable to the offsetting advantage the smaller guy has?!

peter

Basically, if you use your longer sword correctly, you will retain the initiative and thus prevent your shorter opponent from utilizing his advantage in close-in fighting.

It's not a case of having your cake and eating it. You'd still be vulnerable if your enemy can get within the arc of your weapon--but if you have any respect for your own life, you'd employ your repertoire of techniques in such a way that the enemy wouldn't be able to force you into this kind of situation. And the extra length of your sword allows you to do this better because it'll keep the enemy at an even greater distance and force him to move even farther before he can put his advantage in close-in situations into play.

Peter,

I think part of the misunderstanding stems from the fact that you are comparing two different ways of gaining reach. The advantages and disavantages that one can get are not the same in both cases.

I believe what has been said is along the lines of:
- to the less tall fencer, a longer weapon is not always an advantage even though it extends reach
- to the taller fencer, a shorter weapon is a relative disavantage even though the reach is still in his favour

You don't get the same effect when you pick a longer sword and when you grow longer limbs, even though you end up with the same total reach. But obviously the second solution is hard to test :)

Oh, I get it allright; there are THREE factors to take into consideration:
1. the reach of the fencer
2. the length of the blade
3. the biomechanical relation between blade and fencer

I can understand 3. and also that is not one single magical number.
1. and 2. is where I get ' confused' as both have their advantages/disadvantages on either end and within the margins of 3. there is quite a bit of play in the trades-offs.

peter

My primary rapier form is case. I also hold my rapiers further back on the handle so I gain some extra reach. I normally use a 36" in my leadhand and a 40" in my rearhand. The shorter rapier in the leadhand gives me a better leverage. The longer rapier in the rear hand allows me the same reach as the lead rapier and also hides my true range. During the course of the fight as my opponent gets use to the range of the 36" in my leadhand I may switch up and lead with the 40". My opponent is usually taken by surprise at the additional range. If fencing another 40" I usually lead with my 40" from the start.

I have enough strength to use a 40" the same as a 36". They only weigh 2.5 lbs but a longer weapon is harder to handle. Most people do not have the strength and have to fight a different fight with a 40". With a 36" they will generally keep the point in line and move the hilt to parry. With a 40" you will often see people move their body and the hilt. Moving the body is slower, so most people fence better with a 36". A 40" favors angled attacks. A 36" is often too short for that. Another popular method people use with a 40" is to aim the point high and let it drop to the target.

These are my preferred instruments of death. My ring and pinky fingers sits in that second tier on the grip. No cup hilt or swept guard for me. My hands are fast enough that they rarely get hit. Holding the grip further back is my hand protection. I do not advise these Alchem rapiers for beginners.

[ Linked Image ]

I have not tried any rapier technique, only longsword. That said, momentum (~represented by mass X PoB) might also become a factor in this. If a longer sword is proportionally heavier, it begins to gain an advantage in being more likely to upset (set it aside, stop or break through the opponent's swing) the strike of the shorter sword. A person who is not tall, but is fit and strong, might want to beef up their blade weight (depending upon their speed and style of fencing) in addition to making sure the length is comfortable. Ultimately, the entire design of the sword could be tailored to the traits of the fencer, not just scaled in proportion to their height.

I've been able to read Thibault again, I can try to sum up what he says about the length of the sword. There is a whole section about that :) It starts in Book I, Table I, page 14. I'm trying to translate from French, here are the most relevant parts:

Girard Thibault wrote:

Let us speak now of the Sword, and of its true length, which is proportionnate and convenient for all the motions of the human body, and consequently the best of all. It is astonishing, that among those who have professed the Arms during their whole life, and published their writings accross the World, so few discuss this subject [...] Some did speak about it, and even determined the length of the sword, but more according to the taste of some cowards, who like to have very long weapons, so as to remain always at a distance, than to any demonstration of Science. And such is the opinion of those who want that the blades be equal to two full arms, such that setting the point on the ground beside the man, the pommel comes to his armpit; which is rather the length of an Espadon than that of a Sword: besides, it will necessarily be unsightly and inconvenient, as much to carry at one's side, as to draw out of the scabbard, and also dangerous and unwieldly to use. [...] I say that there are occasions more favourable for longer swords, and others for shorter ones. And so if we must assign a length, it has to be between the extremes, such that it is average; neither too short against long swords, nor too long against short swords, and in every occasions suitably handy. And as it is necessary that such a length be proportionnate to the person, we deduced and demonstrated it out from the measure of his body; [...] that is to say, the tip being on the ground between the hollow of his feet, the quillons reach exactly the height of the navel; [...]

Thibault then goes on describing several figures that illustrate his points. You can see them on Plate I here, all around Thibault's circle, labeled A through K.

- Figure A (top, left) shows how the proposed length does not hinder when carried at the side.
- Figure B (top, middle left) shows the starting position for drawing the sword.
- Figure C (top, middle right) shows how to draw the sword. The caption specifically says "It appears that our blade is so long, that it cannot be made longer without notable inconvenience [in this situation]."
- Figure G (bottom left) and H (bottom right) show how the length is still convenient for short distances, allowing the user to repel the opponent with either foot or hand and thrust at him at the same time.
- Figure D, E, F, I and K are just generic properties of the chosen proportion: relation to the height of the body, to the step, to the circle, and how to stand in guard so that the reach is maximal.

All in all, pretty much every argument he makes has already been mentioned in this thread, but I thought it could be useful to include the explanations of one of the old masters for reference...