You're very welcome.

BTW, I erred in the reference to the Doge's collection, it's actually from the Belgian Museum:

http://www.myArmoury.com/albums/photo/388.html
[Address edited to correct URL]

These are classic examples of the late 16th century soldier's sidearm, and in design could all be called 'Reiterschwert', although their application was as a general arm, not just for a Horseman.

What fascinated me was that these very developed "swept hilts" didn't become common on the civilian rapier until the 1590's, and didn't really reach their zenith until about 1600-1610, but on the battlefield, they had already become quite well developed by the 1580's.

Only swords 6 and 8-10 in Matthews first link show what I understand as reitschwert hilts. I have also seen these hilts on a rapier blade and a panzerstecher but the cut-and-thrust style seems to be the norm.

One aspect that makes these types of discussions difficult to nail down is that the meaning in period, if used then, often was evolving through time. As an example the rapier of 1500 would probably not be the Rapier of 1700. The desire for us today to be able to classify and catagorize all the artifacts of the past is often befuddled by the unrestrained use of terminology, as well as spelling, of the clerks, clerics, authors and recorders of the past.

The intended use of a sword was often the deciding factor in its cataloging in the period of its day to day use. The physical qualities of the sword are what we most often turn to when trying to organize the surviving examples into descriptive groups. Two different methods of looking at the same data. They however are not wholly interchangeable and one of the interesting difficulties in studying the sword. :-)

Best
Craig

"The physical qualities of the sword are what we most often turn to when trying to organize the surviving examples into descriptive groups." -Craig Johnson

I think you hit the nail on the head... :)

Allen had commented that only a few of the swords I referred to qualified as "Reiterschwert" in his method of classification, and I can see that his chosen examples have a few common elements among them, notably the cruciform quillons as the base structure, and the lack of a knucklebow. Being that these swords are given this label by the various Museums and Auction houses, we can either accept them as they are given, or use our own terminology and maybe disagree about where/how we apply them... :)

(BTW, I'm not trying to pick a fight Allen, I was just commenting on how everyone has a different lexicon/perspective, no offense is meant... :)

At any rate, I've seen all manner of "Reiterschwert" as far as hilt forms go, and I'm fairly certain the distinction is more made for the blade. In all the period literature I've accumulated (mostly English, a little French, German and Italian) they are all simply referred to as "swords" (something William had commented on earlier), and they are usually described by the authors in terms of length, width, and blade "performance" (a stout blade, a nimble blade, a stiff blade, etc.).

Being that we have no period English terms of distinction, we have invented terminology to help us communicate the types of weapons we are referring to (War Sword, Battle Rapier, etc.), and the Germans happen to have a word that is applied to the weapon forms we are talking about, but with a confusing intermingling of a reference to Cavalry.... :)

This is where I'll put my flag and make my stand (well, for now... :), is that in English, they are simply "swords", and that to put in in a reference of a mid to late 16th century soldier's sidearm should communicate it as a slightly wider than a rapier, generally about 30 mm in width, and with a complex hilt design that can easily be called a "swept hilt", being careful not to confuse your audience with the assumed third word in that phrase (rapier). You wear a rapier to court, and a sword to war, and between 1550 and 1650, hilts became more and more important in the design, and a platform for showing an artist's skill, and an owner's wealth.

Where we, as a community of collectors and enthusiasts *should* put our energy, is to share our interpretations (just like this thread is doing), and help spread the word. There is a lot of garbage data out there, and the polish of a well put together website makes information seem credible, when it may be shortsighted at best, and flat out wrong at worst.

I offer for you a most blatant error in regards to Reiterschwert:

http://www.armouronline.com/encyclopedia_of_h...eitschwert

"German Reitschwert - See Backsword." (follow the link to:)

http://www.armouronline.com/encyclopedia_of_h.../backsword

"Backsword. Also Mortuary sword or German Reitschwert. Has only one cutting edge (therefore its name). The non-cutting edge is thicker, creating a wedge-like shape. This shape supposedly increases cutting capacity."


Here is a slick website that is now going to stupidly lump together Reiterschwert in with Scottish Basket hilts and Schiavonna, never mind the fact that damn near ever Reiterschwert out there is double edged. WTF?

At any rate, I'm glad there is a learned community out there, I'm *ecstatic* that there are so many manufacturers as a part of this list, and if Albion's smiths are up for it, I'd like to talk about having you make a Reiterschwert for me... ;-)

BTW, If anyone is interested in learning more about 16th and 17th century warfare, I have a list of the books and manuscripts from the period that I reference for information on Arms, Armour and Warfare. These manuscripts are mostly from the Huntigton Library collection, but you might find copies in many of the University Libraries across the US and UK.

http://www.renaissancewarfare.com/bibliography.htm

(My site is pretty pathetic on actual content right now, I've got a lot of work to do getting everything scanned and organized, but I hope to get things put up in the next year).

Great group here, and thank you for such good discussions. Makes me want to saddle up and go kick the Duke of Parma's butt in a bog in Holland... :)

Matthew

BTW, I just came across an ARMA interview with Ewart Oakeshott where he describes this very topic:

http://www.thearma.org/oakeshottinterview.htm

...

ARMA:
" . . Another issue that causes confusion and which you wrote on is the difference between renaissance swords and rapiers."

OAKESHOTT:
"Oh my yes, there is much more to be said on this. There were numerous types of swords in use and rapiers were only one form. You wouldn’t take one in to battle. You only have to examine the swords [rapier blades] in hand to see real cutting would be all but futile. There were reitschwert, assorted basket hilts and such for that."

ARMA:
"Essentially, ‘cut-and-thrust swords’ like George Silver used."

OAKESHOTT:
"Certainly. I’ve written about this in my books. Fencing people have ignored or overlooked these swords. We’ve got them all over the place here."

....


ARMA
"To return briefly to the subject of sword types again, you point out the differences between blades in the renaissance that were swords and that were rapiers, this seems to be a matter that slips past a lot of people?"

...

OAKESHOTT
(laughing) "Yes, well we are dealing with both swords, or reitschwert as I call most of them, and true rapiers. There is a simple difference, there are two simple blades, one is broad with reasonable breadth and one narrow, one can cut an arm off …the other is a rapier. It’s for thrusting with. There’s simply no doubt that the true rapier has very little if any edge."

Hi Matthew,
In terms of historical accuracy, the term "rapier" encompassed the so-called "cut and thrust" swords that you are referring to. As Craig mentioned, the meaning in period may have still been evolving. But if you look at the 17th century English translations of both Digrassi and Saviolo, the term "rapier" is used (though the original Italian says "spada"), and both masters were clearly using a sword that was broad bladed and could serve for military use.

Also, there were many "thrusting" rapiers that were used on the battlefield, though it was nowhere near as common as "cutting" rapiers or other cutting blades.

For that matter, the term "cut and thrust" sword is not a period term, either. Many people lately have been referring to these swords as sideswords, though there is some contention with that term as well, as it may be a misinterpretation with certain historical documents.

Bill, I may be mistaken but I thought Saviolo's and DiGrassi's treatises were originally written in English for an English audience as both were teaching in England at the time. I understood this to be what set George Silver off in the first place. Speaking of Silver, he at least distinguished between rapiers and swords though this the only source I am sufficiently familiar with to determine one way or the other.

Allan,
I think that's more hypothesis than fact, though I may be wrong.

As for the terms, Italians didn't even use the word rapier. You will see terms such as "spada" (meaning only sword) and sometimes "spada da lato a striscia", and quite possibly other terms. Rapier is a very muddy term, used to describe different types of swords, most of which generally have complex hilts. (I say "most" because there may very well be exceptions that I don't know about, which seems to be the case more and more often as we try harder and harder to classify things into terminology.)

I used to be more adamant about clearly defining between a "sidesword" and a "true rapier", but not so much anymore. Having gotten the chance to work with "sidesword" techniques of the 16th century bolognese masters, and having worked with "thrusting" rapier systems extensively, I've come to realize that while there is a difference between the weapons, they still could be used interchangably. I could use a thrust-oriented rapier for Marozzo's single sword, or a sidesword for Cappo Ferro's rapier. They aren't optimal in those situations, but they aren't completely alien to each other, either. I think many people don't realize just how much cutting is done in 17th century rapier systems.

So nowadays I have a tendency to say, "cutting rapier" and "thrusting rapier", which still isn't any better, but at least it's somewhat clear that I'm using my own terms and not claiming them to be period terms.

Incidentally, I've never liked the word "battle rapier", because it implies that all cutting rapiers were designed for war, and not for duelling, and it isn't quite so black and white. Agrippa, for instance, uses a cutting sword (albeit he relies primarily on the thrust), but clearly states that he is teaching a defense for sudden attacks and for honor in the duel, not for war.

"In terms of historical accuracy, the term "rapier" encompassed the so-called "cut and thrust" swords that you are referring to"

In technique, yes, they were tossed about equally, but in regards to the blade itself, no they are considered different weapons with different applications. I just cracked open the 1594 English version of DiGrassi, and right there at the table of contents, he describes his technique for "The Single Rapier, or The Single Sword".

His introduction basically says that he deals with the techniques used for a common set of attributes, but intimates that there are so many types of blades out there, he is focusing on the general methods of fighting, and that it makes no difference whether it is for Rapier or Sword, or perhaps further extrapolated, Martial or Civilian:

"Of the Sworde:
Comming therefore first to this weapon, as unto that on which is grounded the true knowledge of this Art, beeinge of reasonable length, andd having edges and point, wherein it seemeth to resemble everie other weapon, It is to be considered, that forasmuch as it hath no more the two edges and one point, a man may not strike with anie other then with these."

From the Martial side of the fray, here are two excerpts from a period manuscript dealing with arming the English up for the ongoing war in the low Countries, from a Captain having served there. In it, he describes (in the uncannily obscure way I was alluding to earlier...:) the proper sword for a soldier going off to war, and I've also included a comment of his about daggers, to help illustrate that the choice of arms (and their terminology) really is closely linked to their intended application:

from Sir John Smythe's "Certain Instruction Of Orders Militarie", 1594:

"The blades of their swordes I would have to be verie good, and of the length of a yard and not above; with their hilts only made with .2. portes, a greater and a smaller on the out side of the hiltes, after the fashion of the Italian and Spanishe arming swordes;"
...

"The blades of their daggers also, I would wish them to be not above 10 inches long, and that the hilts of the same should be only made of one single and shorte crosse without any portes, or hilts at all, and not with great hilts after the fencers or alehouse fashion;"

Yes, the 'cut and thrust' term is our way of differentiating now between the various sword forms from back then, but in the period, you used a "sword" and that "sword" had a certain design, for a certain purpose, in a certain epoch, and that design evolved. If you went out to war with your Great-Great-Great Grandaddy's sword, chances are it looked a whole lot different than the latest stuff hot off the forge. Think of yourself sitting in your low, small, lean, souped up Civic, compared to the 1967 Cadillac you inherited from Uncle Sydney. They're both "cars", but you can't drive them the same way, they don't feel the same, but they both go forwards and backwards. Now, the Rapier would be you getting behind the seat of an electric Sparrow. Sure, it's got 4 wheels, a steering wheel, and pedals, just like your "car", but you just don't feel right thinking about this as a car. Same general principles, but a whole lotta different as well... :)

The way I sum it up is this, when it comes to war, you take a sword, when it comes to being the paragon of fashion, you don the Rapier.

"the application would be the technique"

To clarify, what I mean is that the technique deals with the manner of moving yourself and your blade (counter a thrust with a pivot of the wrist and counterthrust, counter a downward cut with an avoidance to the left and counter cut or thrust to deltoid, etc.), and the application deals with your opponent (armored or in civilian clothes).

I know we're not in disagreement that a Rapier is a lousy tool for dispatching an opponent in Armor, but I think you're making an erroneous statement that the term "Rapier" is not clearly defined, and that people in period would have blithely intermingled the terms "sword" and "rapier", not having a care as to what they were referring to.

I think what I'm trying to express is that while a Rapier is generally a "Cut and Thrust" weapon, not all "Cut and Thrust" weapons are Rapiers. A rapier can be fairly easily typified as having a slender blade (usually 5/8"-7/8"), a length of 36"-54" (38"-42" being more the norm), with a tip that is designed for thrusting, and a nominal double-edged profile (they might not be meant to hold an edge, but they are for the most part "edged").

To me, the only weapons I would ever categorize as 'thrust only" would be Estocs, Tucks, Panzerstecher, and the Smallsword. The Trifoil and Quatrofoil profiles I think are my line in the sand... :)

I'll never disagree with you that the Rapier was a "specialized weapon for civilian use", it most certainly was, but it's origins stem from a Civilian arm that was a functional symbol of a man's authority or station, and trickled down through the masses.

Remember that with the rise of the Merchant class in the Renaissance, man became aware that he could improve his station in life, and the way to illustrate that, to earn the respect, business, or praise of your betters, was to emulate their manners and customs. The rapier was one of those symbols that starts with the upper classes, and works it's way down until it becomes an everyman's tool.

At any rate, when you dive into the Period texts, it becomes quite clear that when they are talking weapons Military, they use the word "sword", when talking weapons Civilian, they use both the words "sword" as well as "rapier", but not interchangeably in regards to the weapon, only in regards to the methods of using them.

Lastly, I offer you a quote from "Duello Or Single Combat", by John Selden, 1610. It is in regards to the choice of weapons available to a combatant or the Defender for an "extrajudicial dual" (I love that phrase... :)

"Search is made (by the combatants) both of equality of their weapons which are also at the Defendants election so that he confine his choyce within Auncient, Usuall, and Military"

While the foolish Officer may occasionally show up to a war with a Rapier on his hip, it was not the norm, it was certainly not effective, and was worth a few choice words from Sir John Smythe (among others) to deride them publically, in front of their peers, and have their lack of a "Souldiers Wysdom" publically flaunted. Popular culture certainly considers matters of War in an entirely different context than matters Civic, and used the appropriate words for it in their writings.

To get back to Reiterschwert, I think it's a term used to describe a swept-hilt 16th century sword... whew, took us a while to get there.... :)

Bill, thank you for the great discussion!
Sincerly,
Matthew