Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > mid 16century swords Reply to topic
This is a standard topic  
Author Message
L Debono




Location: Ontario Canada
Joined: 16 Jan 2006

Posts: 2

PostPosted: Tue 24 Jan, 2006 9:14 am    Post subject: mid 16century swords         Reply with quote

I'm new and I don't know much about swords and I have some questions. When I visit museums I notice that most European Knights especially the Knights of St John of the mid 16 century, used rapiers. Some times it seemed to me that these rapiers had a wider blades and missing the knuckle guard.

Are these swords still considered rapiers?
Were regular rapiers used in that era?
How efficient were they against Ottoman amour?
Can replicas like these be purchased?

Thanks

Lawrence
View user's profile Send private message
Colin F.




Location: Bradford, UK
Joined: 30 Oct 2005
Reading list: 10 books

Posts: 134

PostPosted: Tue 24 Jan, 2006 2:36 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I was in Malta this past christmas (if you wish to see the pics I took from the armoury, please visit this link at sword forum:

http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread.php?s...adid=61658

As that was the home of the Knights of St.John, I'll share what I saw there in terms of your questions:

Are these swords still considered rapiers?

No idea, but many examples had an thicker blade (many that I was told about were rehilted blades from earlier swords that were converted to fashion of the times with the latest hilt), at least in much of the artwork I saw there, which I believe is a much thicker and sturdier type of blade. These were used frequently during the Great Siege of Malta in 1565, although from the looks of what was stored in the Palace Armouries at the time, two handed swords, single handers and pretty much whatever came to hand was used.

Were regular rapiers used in that era?

By the looks of things, rapiers were frequently worn whilst not 'on duty'. Lots of the tapestrys, paintings and other art sources point to the fact that they were very much dress/ever day weapons. There are details showing that a fair few knights were sent to the prison in the Citadel of Rabat/Victoria on the island of Gozo for duelling with rapiers.

How efficient were they against Ottoman amour?

No idea. However, it must be said, from the books that detail the siege, it seems that the use of combined Pike/Arquebusier formations along with support from Cannon and other artillery pieces was far more common than using the sword. However, I would suggest that as Estoc type blades were used for the siege itself, along with 'heavier' weapons, that rapiers worn for civilian dress would be little use against Ottoman armour.

Can replicas like these be purchased?

There are various manufacturers who can make rapiers. Its not for me to comment on these firms/people though as I have no experience of them.

hope that helps in some way,

Colin[/b]

Melchett - "In short, a German spy is giving away every one of our battle plans."
Cpt. Darling - "You look surprised, Blackadder."
Edmund - "I cerainly am, sir. I didn't realise we had any battle plans."
View user's profile Send private message
Stephen Hand




Location: Hobart, Australia
Joined: 03 Oct 2004
Reading list: 1 book

Posts: 226

PostPosted: Tue 24 Jan, 2006 4:16 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Dear Lawrence,

I would seriously dispute that knights ever used rapiers (in a systematic way, there's no accounting for what individuals might have done). For a discussion of the difficulties of classifying what is or isn't a rapier, and whether the military used them, take a look at this thread http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=5851&start=40, particularly the last page.

I have yet to see any evidence that rapiers were a military weapon (we know they were used occasionally by individuals though). Our main problem is that modern museum curators and collectors tend to classify anything with a fancy hilt as a rapier, regardless of whether it was called that historically. Therefore there are many weapons catalogued as rapiers, which you could not do rapier fencing with. If I called something a hammer and you couldn't use it to hammer a nail, it would be pretty silly. Unfortunately a lot of modern sword "experts" have no idea of how swords were used and have no interest in finding out.

Cheers

Stephen Hand
Editor, Spada, Spada II
Author of English Swordsmanship, Medieval Sword and Shield

Stoccata School of Defence
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Colin F.




Location: Bradford, UK
Joined: 30 Oct 2005
Reading list: 10 books

Posts: 134

PostPosted: Wed 25 Jan, 2006 2:35 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I would add that the picture that Mr. Hand posted on that link is a sword very similar to that which I was trying to describe in my answer to your first question. A 'Picture is worth a thousand words' moment Happy The only difference would be that the bar to protect the knuckles did not appear frequently, rather a more simple cross, however, the rest of the complex hilt was very common.
Melchett - "In short, a German spy is giving away every one of our battle plans."
Cpt. Darling - "You look surprised, Blackadder."
Edmund - "I cerainly am, sir. I didn't realise we had any battle plans."
View user's profile Send private message
Wolfgang Armbruster





Joined: 03 Apr 2005

Posts: 322

PostPosted: Wed 25 Jan, 2006 2:51 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

There's not much to add to the posts of Stephen Hand and Colin F. Happy

However, some museums make the mistake of displaying plate armour together with rapiers. 30 years war cuirasses holding thin rapiers, if you know what I mean Wink
View user's profile Send private message
Colin F.




Location: Bradford, UK
Joined: 30 Oct 2005
Reading list: 10 books

Posts: 134

PostPosted: Wed 25 Jan, 2006 5:40 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Wolfgang Armbruster wrote:
There's not much to add to the posts of Stephen Hand and Colin F. Happy

However, some museums make the mistake of displaying plate armour together with rapiers. 30 years war cuirasses holding thin rapiers, if you know what I mean Wink


I can attest to this, as in the Palace Armouries in Valetta, they had a centre piece which showed mannequins dressed in full armour (brest plate, gauntlets, arm armour and morion) with a rapier and pike ( all C.1650). The only reason I could think that this would be would be for parade, but that would be giving the museum a huge benefit of the doubt.

Melchett - "In short, a German spy is giving away every one of our battle plans."
Cpt. Darling - "You look surprised, Blackadder."
Edmund - "I cerainly am, sir. I didn't realise we had any battle plans."
View user's profile Send private message
L Debono




Location: Ontario Canada
Joined: 16 Jan 2006

Posts: 2

PostPosted: Wed 25 Jan, 2006 2:55 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Now that I had seen more pictures and got more input I think I get a better idea of how things were back then. Like some of you said swords were not the only weapons. The attacks were a system of weapons deployed in a certain way. I suppose that artillery, musketry and mortars were widely used as well.
I really appreciate your feed back on this matter.

One thing that boggles to my mind - how naval battles concluded after the galleons’' bombardment? What did the knights arm themselves with when they boarded the corsair ships? I don't suppose long and heavy swords were practical. Same goes for armour. I wonder weather they used shorter swords or pirate like swords.......????

Cheers

Lawrence
View user's profile Send private message
Colin F.




Location: Bradford, UK
Joined: 30 Oct 2005
Reading list: 10 books

Posts: 134

PostPosted: Wed 25 Jan, 2006 3:50 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

What did the knights arm themselves with when they boarded the corsair ships?

Once again, from the pictures and other bits and pieces that were available in Malta, it seems that they were armed with a great variety of weapons. The 13th/14th pics in the link I gave you show some naval weaponry that was used by the Knights naval forces, although if it was used by the Knights themselves is unknown to me.

That said, it appears in certain pictures and other sources that pistols, dirks, daggers as well as swords of the shorter broader bladed variety were all used when it came to ship to ship fighting, however, I suspect that people with better knowledge than what I learned on my visit there could give you a better answer.

As for armour I have no idea, but here's a little photo showing that wearing it had some advantages...

[/b]

Melchett - "In short, a German spy is giving away every one of our battle plans."
Cpt. Darling - "You look surprised, Blackadder."
Edmund - "I cerainly am, sir. I didn't realise we had any battle plans."
View user's profile Send private message
Bill Grandy
myArmoury Team


myArmoury Team

Location: Northern VA,USA
Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Reading list: 43 books

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 4,194

PostPosted: Wed 25 Jan, 2006 9:08 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Wolfgang Armbruster wrote:
However, some museums make the mistake of displaying plate armour together with rapiers.


I wouldn't call this a mistake. There are period paintings that show men wearing cuirasses with a narrow-bladed rapier at the hip. Whether the rapier was ideal for combat or not, we certainly know that some people did take them into battle (as evidence by Stephen's quote in the other thread about them being set aside).

HistoricalHandcrafts.com
-Inspired by History, Crafted by Hand


"For practice is better than artfulness. Your exercise can do well without artfulness, but artfulness is not much good without the exercise.” -anonymous 15th century fencing master, MS 3227a
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Gordon Frye




Location: Kingston, Washington
Joined: 20 Apr 2004
Reading list: 15 books

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 1,191

PostPosted: Wed 25 Jan, 2006 10:53 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Lawrence;

For a good synopsis of Naval Warfare in the 16th Century, check out this essay:

http://www.drizzle.com/~celyn/jherek/16thMilSci.pdf

About half way down begins the discussion of Naval tactics, etc. Lots on Mediterranean as well as Atlantic naval tactics. What's better yet is that the first half of the essay is devoted to the land tactics of the era, so a pretty good concept of the arms, armour and tactis of the 16th Century may be gleaned from this rather nice essay. I recommend it to all.

Cheers!

Gordon

"After God, we owe our victory to our Horses"
Gonsalo Jimenez de Quesada
http://www.renaissancesoldier.com/
http://historypundit.blogspot.com/
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
Rodolfo Martínez




Location: Argentina
Joined: 30 Nov 2006

Posts: 347

PostPosted: Tue 06 Mar, 2007 10:04 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

There was a guy known as Don Juan de Austria if i´m not wrong who fought with a two handed sword on ship in the battle of Lepanto, but i´m not sure if that sword is a zweihander like one or a bastar sword.
Knights still used their old partner long or bastard sword during XVI century only falling off use at the very end of that century. Colin posted some Malta longswords but as a ¨knightly¨ weapon i guess that those knights used it widely too (I hope i´m not wrong)

¨Sólo me desenvainarás por honor y nunca me envainarás sin gloria¨
View user's profile Send private message
Elling Polden




Location: Bergen, Norway
Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Likes: 1 page

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,576

PostPosted: Tue 06 Mar, 2007 10:57 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

As has been concluded earlier, the terminology used to describe weapons in the renaissance is mostly random.
For instance, the italians didn't even have a name for Rapier.
From the 17th century, one has official army designations for weapons. These would vary from country to country, but are period terms.
One might say that a sword that does not have the finger rings of the classical fencing rapier isn't a rapier, but evidently, this would not be the case in the period.
The terms used by curators of the army museums of europe are by and large based on the historical records that each mark of sword was entered under.

Basically, if one wants consistent categories, one has to make them, which is OK.
For simplicity, one might opperate with Duelling Rapiers as a separate category. (distingushed by compound grips, fingerrings, and overlength, narrow blades.)

For instance, the danish/norwegian army opperated with three different kinds of swords: Korde, which includes any straigh thrusting blade, from the Walloon sword to the smallsword; Palask, which is a broadbladed sword, and Sabres, which are single edged and curved swords.
The last sidearm that was standard issue for the entire Dansih/norwegian army was the Soldatkorde M1701, in the middle of this picture (Flanked by unidentified 16th cent sword, and a shortened 16th-17th cent. Hirshfenger)

This weapon is essentially a smallsword with a sligtly broadened blade, as to have some cutting capability.
The later Muskerrkorde 1748, shown on top, is a pure smallsword. The weapon below is the Grenadersabel 1753

"this [fight] looks curious, almost like a game. See, they are looking around them before they fall, to find a dry spot to fall on, or they are falling on their shields. Can you see blood on their cloths and weapons? No. This must be trickery."
-Reidar Sendeman, from King Sverre's Saga, 1201
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
Lafayette C Curtis




Location: Indonesia
Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Reading list: 7 books

Posts: 2,698

PostPosted: Thu 08 Mar, 2007 10:13 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Gordon Frye wrote:
For a good synopsis of Naval Warfare in the 16th Century, check out this essay:

http://www.drizzle.com/~celyn/jherek/16thMilSci.pdf


It's a good one, but I wish people would start considering the Compagnies d'Ordonnance as a standing army. It deserves the title.
View user's profile Send private message
Gordon Frye




Location: Kingston, Washington
Joined: 20 Apr 2004
Reading list: 15 books

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 1,191

PostPosted: Thu 08 Mar, 2007 7:00 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Lafayette C Curtis wrote:

[B]ut I wish people would start considering the Compagnies d'Ordonnance as a standing army. It deserves the title.


True enough! But I suppose that the bias towards what consisted of a "standing army" in the 18th and 19th Centuries has clouded the judgement of most of the historians in thinking this way. "It doesn't look like the sort of apple I'm used to seeing, so it can't BE an apple!" sort of deal.

But compagnies d'ordonnance were definitely a standing army, especially if paired with the Bureau of Ordnance (artillery).

Cheers!

Gordon

"After God, we owe our victory to our Horses"
Gonsalo Jimenez de Quesada
http://www.renaissancesoldier.com/
http://historypundit.blogspot.com/
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
Lafayette C Curtis




Location: Indonesia
Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Reading list: 7 books

Posts: 2,698

PostPosted: Fri 09 Mar, 2007 8:31 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

The Bureau of Ordnance is a tricky one. Its organization stood outside the aegis of the Ordonnances proper, so a modern expert might nitpick and argue that it wasn't part of the army. But neither was the British Royal Ordnance in the 18th century...
View user's profile Send private message
Gordon Frye




Location: Kingston, Washington
Joined: 20 Apr 2004
Reading list: 15 books

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 1,191

PostPosted: Fri 09 Mar, 2007 10:18 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Lafayette C Curtis wrote:
The Bureau of Ordnance is a tricky one. Its organization stood outside the aegis of the Ordonnances proper, so a modern expert might nitpick and argue that it wasn't part of the army. But neither was the British Royal Ordnance in the 18th century...


True enough on both counts. But since it was standing, and it was essential to the make-up of a royal army, I think it counts closely enough. But nit-pickers will always grumble! Cool

Cheers!

Gordon

"After God, we owe our victory to our Horses"
Gonsalo Jimenez de Quesada
http://www.renaissancesoldier.com/
http://historypundit.blogspot.com/
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > mid 16century swords
Page 1 of 1 Reply to topic
All times are GMT - 8 Hours

View previous topic :: View next topic
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You 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 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum