[Peter Bosman]

It may be blasphemy to purists but to me the medieval longsword as illustrated in the Talhoffer publications is not all that wildly different from the blade of a reitschwert from an early 'rapier'. Yet renaissance rapier style fencing differs rather a lot from medieval swordfighting.

I wonder wether form and function mutually evolved with warfare or if cultural taste was the leading motivator.
Would a reitschwert be a handicap for 'Talhoffer' style or a longsword be a handicap in rapier style or is it mainly in vogue to follow the rapier style and 'not done' to have something else even if that was just as suiteable?!
Was/is this a functional 'thing' or maily a cultural development?

peter

[Anders Backlund]

Well, obviously, a longsword is a longsword and a rapier is a rapier. Both are specific types of swords designed for specific uses.

Now, I absolutely don't believe that any given fencing style is restricted to a certain type of sword or vice versa. But that is not to say trying to use a sword in a way it wasn't meant to be used is advisable. One can always try to apply the principles of one sword style to a different one, but it's silly to think one can trade a reitschwert for a longsword or vice versa and expect similar results.

Basically: If two swords are different, they will also handle differently. And if they are very different, they will handle very differently. This should be taken into consideration.

As for your question of whether the difference in technique is functional or cultural, I believe it was a little bit of both. Keep in mind that the longsword was a battlefield weapon while the sidesword and rapier were civilian swords. They were used in different contexts, so its not surprising they would also be used differently.

[Bennison N]

I don't agree that a student of any given fencing school can use any sword. Personally, I believe that is exactly the reason so many varied types of blade shape, weight, length, etc., exist in the first place.

Swords and styles... At the moment, I am looking for any help I can find regarding the recreation of a Kopis technique for use without a shield. Does anyone have any advice or suggestions? I can use the Kopis, it is, after all, basically a one-handed cut/thrust backsword, but I am certain not many, if any, of the techniques I use in practise are authentic Greek, Celtic or Macedonian. The power in a cut, due to the axe-like shape is amazing.

[Jared Smith]

The sword form in question is a cut and thrust sword. Some might even say it was more oriented towards cut than thrust, but arguably adequate for both. Looking at the various Renasissance Armies in the Features section, one can see a lot of opportunities for both tactics. I suspect the sword was suited for the diversity of it's period opponents. I have never handled this type of sword, but suspect one could perform a fair portion of traditional longsword technique "hand and a half" style, or use it for thrusting against armoured opponents.

[Bill Grandy]

[Bennison N]

The difference in weight , length, point of balance, handle, shape, even pommel size and shape, of a sword a student has never before encountered would render the majority of his school's specialised techniques ineffective.

If said student was extremely quick with a rapier or smallsword, for instance, a long two handed sword (let's say a 14th Century Zweihander) would be too heavy to speedily apply to battle. Say the sword, in this instance, did not have an overly sharp point. His standard and most practised way of finishing would be ineffective, and he would have to rely on cuts. If he was good with a rapier, he would have reasonable knowledge of cuts, but not limb-severing hacks and spear-splitting chops, and again the weight would slow his movements somewhat. The size of the arc to swing for power would leave him more exposed than he would be comfortable with, and he would attempt less techniques as a result. Even the majority of his quicker smallsword or rapier tactics would be far less effective, as he would be forced to adopt one-beat. If he had the terrible misfortune to face someone who was using the exact sword they had always trained with, the unfortunate student of this discussion would be defeated rather badly and in extremely short time.

I do agree that fundamentals universally apply. There does come a time in training, though, when the techniques being taught or developed are weapon-specific. A lot that works with one type of sword, obviously wouldn't with certain others. For example, try using a Khopesh the way you would an Estoc...

So maybe how I should have worded my earlier post was: "I don't agree that a student of any given school can use any given sword WELL". Simply compare the performance of the student with his personal weapon (or at least the preferred sword taught to him by his school), with which he practises regularly, and a sword he has never seen or held before. Some students might even have trouble with someone else's sword of the same type... I have seen this countless times with Chinese Jian. The sword flies out of the hand, or they hit the ground with it by accident, sometimes even accidentally cutting themselves. Once they have their own sword in their hands, they complete an entire Jianshu form with no mistakes. If they were in a pitched battle, lost their sword, and were forced to pick up another, they would find themselves at an extreme disadvantage, wouldn't they?

That is why I personally do not recommend spending one's entire martial life on the same school. It would seem obvious that practising your fundamentals (and using your imagination to envision further techniques...) with as many different weapons as possible would prepare you for the eventuality that you might be called upon to duel without your favourite, or at least most practised, type of weapon.

[Jared Smith]

[Steven Reich]

[Bill Grandy]

[Bill Grandy]

[P. Cha]

I don't think it's an issue unless you go WAY out of time or area. So no, a fiore manual would probably fail if you tried it with a kopesh or a katana. But assuming your using something close to that era, I don't think it's gonna be too much of an issue.

So yes, as long as your near the same time frame, what worked was generally realized as to work and used until it stopped working...either functionally or socially (which is why early rapier and talhoffer would look similar...but a few hundred years down the line it doesn't).

[Peter Bosman]

Estimadas senores, interesting viewpoints. It is always enriching to learn other perspectives.

Meanwhile I have dug in the wealth of info on ARMA and encountered well researched anwers: the 'rapier develloped from/as a civilian arm (like was mentioned here) and thus with differing requierments than 'simply' maximum blade effectiveness.
The basic fact that a thrust is faster than a cut was not lost on early medieval swordsman so nothing new to swordsmanship thus the sleek blade of the longsword based on the (thrusting) aspect of what was to become renaissance rapier fencing.

To me the asner seems to be that yes, early rapier fencing would have been entirely possible with the 'Talhoffer' blade and all but the techniques requiring two hands on the hilt would have been possible with the reitschwert/early 'rapier'.

Fighting = fighting was mentioned was mentioned entirely correctly and it is the changes in society, the cultural background against which the sword played a functional role that changed it to the true rapier for civilians, On the battlefielf nothing much changed,
Under various names labeled on differing details the functional tapered sleek cut&thrust form of the longsword remained in exitence on the battle field and with it no doubt the fighting techniques.

Again I am amazed by the for most of us alien reality of killing by the sword that was so obvious to every swordsman untill say the 18th century. This is best illustrated that there existed no such thing as 'trickery' in this face of death that was a fact of daily life.
I guess it is the harsh reality of, the different outlook on, death was and is the reason why during the past say two centuries WMA and thus swords have been difficult to REALY understand.

In a different topic I ran into this as well. 'Talhoffer' techniques are intended to be end solutions, to result in death, as fast as possible by any means. It seems logical to US to practice fluidity in techniques and transitions to other techniques but that fails to incorporate the deadly effectiveness and goal.
I suppose the development of late rapiers and smallsword embodies a change in the outlook of THIS aspect.
Just think of the word 'brutality' and the meaning it has to us. What we think of as 'ruthless' now was nothing more or less than common sense.
This integration of death as fundamental part of living in western european culture probably explains why the crusaders were so alien to muslim warriors. To them, as to me, is seemed obvious to simply not engage or get off the battle field if the situation was a no hoper wheras either concept did not exist to the WMA.
I am amazed by the aspects and later perceptions of the Jarnac-duel that seems to ebody this. I think I understand the concept but I know it, the medieval death-reality, is utterly alien to me.

peter

[Steven Reich]

[Peter Bosman]

[Steven Reich]

Peter,

Sorry that I came across so harshly in my earlier post. I'm just getting over the flu and it has left me even more irascible than usual.

Steve

[Sean Flynt]

For what it's worth--Pallas Armata, 1639:

I have fitted my self to the times, in speaking only of single Rapier and single Sword, being that the Dagger, Gauntlet, Buckler are not in use, and because that the Rapier and the Sword are the grounds of the less noble weapons. The Rapier of the Quarter Staff, of the long Pike, of the Halbard: the Sword, of the two handed Sword, and of the Falchion, so that a man who can play at single Rapier and BackSword well and judiciously, may with great ease learn to handle the rest of the weapons.

[Bennison N]

OK, you guys... I stand PARTIALLY corrected.

As everyone could carry weapons, and challenge anyone else to a duel in those days of duelling, I still believe that the so very vast majority of swordsmen would only be proficient enough to staunchly and confidently face an opponent with the weapon they carried everywhere with them on their belts, back, etc.

As you were discussing the lessened regard swordsmen and duelists would have had for death, they still would've feared it. I think even a swordsman of the Bologna school would've sought to ensure victory by specialising in one weapon above all others, for confidence purposes. Stacking the deck, so to speak, right?

[Steven Reich]

[Peter Bosman]

The crux is, to me, an alien perception of life and time during the middle ages. It is difficult to discuss it in terms of having fear for death as is doen in this last few threads as it is near to impossible for us to grasp the totally different outlook of medieval people. Even something as obvious to us that it does not even occur to us that it is possible to have a different outlook on it as sequential time perception was not the case.
It therefor is very difficult to discuss violence, ruthlessness, brutality, honour, respect for life as we do not have the same foundations for our perception of these concepts.

When studying the 14th c. per example one must let go of present day concepts as much as possible to even understand what is actually described. So many things are assumed just as we do that it is almost inevitable to read what is not written. Also what is written is meant to be read and thus the writer is writing from the awareness that somebody will form an impression of him, passing judgement on him.

Anyway, 'death' was conceived in a way alien to us so it is difficult to relate our seemingly logical views on this to what is written.

peter

[Jean Thibodeau]