Stephen

It is always a pleasure but you do seem a little tense in your post. This has been a friendly discussion, let us keep it that way. I don't think anyone has been fixed on anything, nor was anyone accusing anyone else of anything. This is the myArmoury fourm, not SFI, so lighten up a little.

What I have been suggesting is that we do need to make a clear distinction between the two types of swords being discussed. If you want to call them all "rapiers" then I'll say fine but you still need to make the distinction between the two types of rapiers. The scholarship of any interpretation that does not make the distinction cannot help but suffer.

So as to not confuse you I will try to remember to use the term "thrust & cut" for swords that both thrust well and cut well.

Lafayette C Curtis wrote:

...I'm in two minds about Tom's definition because it sets out with the admirable goal of removing the artificial distinction between rapiers and side-swords/"cut-and-thrust" swords...

But is how well they cut an artificial distinction? Did soliders carry side-swords into battle? Did soliders carry narrow bladed rapiers into battle? Should we overlook the distinction shown in the test cutting at the following link?

http://www.thearma.org/Videos/NTCvids/testing...erials.htm

I can easily perform the techniques of both Fiore and Ringeck with either a type XIIa great sword and a type XVa bastard sword. However, I do recognize the clear distinction between type XIIa and type XVa swords. Should I not likewise recognize the clear distinction between a narrow bladed rapier and a "thrust & cut" sword?

Lafayette C Curtis wrote:

...but in the process it makes the definition so broad as to become nearly useless because it would practically include almost all straight-bladed Renaissance one-handed swords.

I fully agree.

Bill Grandy wrote:

By going on what the historical masters said, not by making up our minds first and putting that filter over the historical masters' words.

:?: I didn't say anything about not following the teachings of the historical masters. :?:
For what I say and think please read my post, only I speaks for himself.;)

Bill Grandy wrote:

Again, I'm agreeing that having a modern system of classification is a welcome thing. But I'm also not buying into the idea that we should be altering the historical meaning of words: That's historically irresponsible. And yes, giving the term "rapier" a definition that is comfortable to you, but not making the concession that this is a modern definition, is altering the historical meaning.

But that is what Tom did in his article. Read Lafayette's post.

Ran Pleasant
ARMA DFW

I really like the initial points that Bill and Tom have made on this forum and others regarding the issues of definition of rapier.

I particularly like the video example of using an I33 sword used for Italian technique. Ive done similar experiment with Chinese Jian, but never had the courage to bring it to a public forum.

This has been one of the most interesting topics discussed in the WMA/historical weaponry community for months. Regardless of other opinions, it should be clear to all that the term Rapier as we use it now is vague ---describing a number of weapons used over centuries across many different countries. There does need to be some sort of precision brought into this from an academic standpoint.

In spite of some rough spots this has been an excellent thread. It should probably be a spotlight topic.

Frankly, I agree with the idea of establishing an ahistorical but consistent classification of numbered blade-forms--preferably extending Oakeshott's classification further into the twenties. I guess we can probably get somewhere between eight and twelve new categories, although it will be years before we can be really sure of that.

Just a thought, something to throw out there:

I also agree with the need of an Oakeshott/Peterson-esque typology for rapiers. However, it may be fitting to include some standardized measure of a specific blades types cutting ability, as that appears to be of issue not only here but essentially everywhere the issue of training or practicing with a rapier comes up.

Of course, the issue with this is at least four-fold, removing the element of cost entirely. First, a suitable 'standard' material must be found. Should we test on a totally artificial element such as foam blocks, or try to find a material more representative of actual human flesh? Second, I'm sure most museums wouldn't be too fond of people actually using their weapons to cut on things. Thirdly, the cuts have to be repeatable and I see this as two issues within itself. Cutting: should all the cuts with every rapier be done at the same angle with the same portion of the blade with the same force? Or should the 'best cut' from each type of sword be taken, taking into account physical differences in properties between the blade and edge geometries. Human influence: how much statistical variation is there in human cutting ability? How far does edge alignment differ from optimal between cuts? Is it possible to built a suitable 'cutting' machine that still provides the same motion as a human cut? Lastly, we would have to insure that what evidence we have is not circumstantial: can we be certain that the cutting properties of the sample selection of type "Y" blades would more or less represent the cutting properties of all rapiers with that blade type?

I suppose it is nice to dream and hope that all my questions could be answered and that something like this could some day come to fruition. For the time being, however, I'm not a huge fan of the way that article broadened the definition, as others have pointed out, almost to the point of uselessness. I believe that the only true solace we will find in the categorization and discussion of rapiers will come through meticulous specificity so discussion is understood in context and without misconception.

Quote:

I defy anyone to get hit in the head with three pounds of steel and be in any fit state to continue fighting.

I'm not so certain that such a feat is impossible. To support this argument I present a portion of the 'Private Duels' section from the Arte of Defense, William E. Wilson 2003. The text provides example of a "duel of fighting seconds" and shows that even disfiguring wounds to the head are not totally debilitating and not always lethal instantly, nor in the following days. "Schomberg cut off half of Livarot's cheeck, but Livarot ran him through, killing him on the spot." The text continues detailing the fate of others involved, before arriving at Livarot's own continuation: "Livarot, horribly disfigured, was no longer of interest to the King (Livarot was the second to Quelus, who died a month later from multiple dagger wounds sustained in the same fight - his attacker, d'Entragues, fled france with "only a scratch on his arm"). He was killed in a duel over a woman two years later" (likely due to fault of not providing his own second, as cited in the text) (pp 11-12).

Here, the man was hit in the head with a rapier sufficiently to remove a considerable portion of his face. He was capable of continuing and winning the duel, and survived the wound entirely, save his physical appearance. That is not to say that other wounds to the head could take someone out of a fight, but rather to show that it is at least possible for a face hit to be less that instantly debilitating.

Here is a quote from the introduction of the article. The bolded words are my own emphasis:

Quote:

What I did not like about the commonly-heard definitions of a rapier as a "long, thin-bladed weapon," or "a weapon optimized for the thrust" or "a civilian weapon" (or any combination thereof) is that these definitions do not describe the genus "rapier." Rather, they are merely accidents that can be predicated about some sub-species of the weapon. And as such, they are fallacious definitions.

Note that here we are looking at the word rapier to denote a family of swords. Now lets look take a step back to look at a different example, the "saber".

What is a saber? Is a saber curved? Is a saber primarily a slashing weapon? Is the saber a poor thrusting weaon? Is the saber one handed? The answer, as with the rapier, is that it depends on the individual piece. Some sabers are excellent thusting weapons. Others are not at all. Some sabers are straight. Some curved. So, am I being unscientific to say that the word saber encompases many styles of blades? Is the word saber a useless definition? Of course not. So I don't see what the big deal is here in admitting that the word rapier is just as broad a term.

There is always a danger when we use retrospective categorization of imposing OUR sense of order and with the entire period behind us we can see the whole picture ( At least what's left of the historical record. )

Someone in the 16th or 17th centuries would be at the beginning and middle of the rapier period and the use of the rapier and what was called a rapier would be what was commonly called and used as a rapier at that time even if inconsistent from our point of view and knowing later evolution of rapiers, small sword and the desire to keep definitions clear and neat.

In period, a rapier would be any sword that could be used with the current at the time rapier techniques and what would match a certain fashion style of hilt ( Function but fashion as well: A type XVa sword that might work with rapier techniques would just look wrong at court functions and would be called something else! )

Blade type would affect if a specific sword would be good or mediocre for cutting. What we could say is that not all rapiers could cut well but all rapiers could thrust well i.e. No type XIII rapiers. :p :lol:

If we compare rapiers to golf clubs: If every rapier is A golf club some are drivers ( good cutters ) and some are putters ( mediocre cutters ): All are golf clubs ( thrusters )

Anyway, my interpretation of what I think Bill is getting at an my summary of it IF I understood his point correctly: This is not my area of expertise so I could be completely wrong. :eek: :D

Can i just ask a question, having not read the articles yet, they're by my bed for reading tonight, instead of going by the blade, is sword type actually defined by it's hilt?

By this i mean, a basket hilt is a basket hilt because of it's hilt, a longsword is that because of it's hilt, etc. Does this apply to rapiers? Or am i mistaken?