Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > 16th Century Rapier Length Reply to topic
This is a standard topic Go to page 1, 2  Next 
Author Message
Craig Shira




Location: California
Joined: 02 Feb 2007

Posts: 39

PostPosted: Sun 18 Nov, 2007 11:52 am    Post subject: 16th Century Rapier Length         Reply with quote

.

Greetings everyone!

I am interested in knowing what length of rapier people prefer when studying the masters from the 1500's or early 1600's. The time frame I am thinking of would include the styles described by Joachim Meyer and Salvator Fabris.

On a separate forum, I read from Stephen Hand that "There are several ideal lengths quoted, quillons on the navel, twice the length of the arm etc. They all come to the same length for me, so I just use the quillons on the navel measurement." He continues to describe rapiers as using a single-time opposition to an opponent's attack, which would favor a longer blade (in the realm of lengths at 40-inches or a bit longer).

Similarly, I read elsewhere that a cursory comparison of rapiers in a catalog resulted with a blade length variety between 38" and 43".


So I ask all of you here at myArmoury, based on your own experiences, when practicing the arts of Meyer or Fabris, what blade length feels comfortable to you? What weapon do you use and from what maker?


In the range of 38" to 43", is a shorter blade necessarily a disadvantage?



I ask these questions because I am interested in purchasing a rapier that will be used for both Meyer and Fabris. The sword I am looking at has a blade length of 37" and is 42" in overall weapon length. Myself being 5'10", I am wondering if this rapier would be too short for my proportions. I hope that hearing other people's opinions based on their experience and personality will be educational and enlightening.

Additionally, I suspect that asking for a 43" blade on a sword that was designed for a 37" blade will throw off all the intended handling characteristics of the weapon.


I thank you in advance for your thoughts, opinions, and stories.

(Craig)

.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
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: Sun 18 Nov, 2007 3:20 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Hi Craig,
Before I begin, keep in mind that Meyer and Fabris are two fairly different systems. Meyer uses the cut quite a bit more than Fabris does, and in many ways is more in line with the Bolognese tradition of spada da filo. Not that you can't use the same sword for both, but I wouldn't want a blade that is too long for Meyer.

Fabris never gives a blade length for his ideal sword (probably because it ultimately is the person, not the sword, that matters), but he is within the same tradition as Capoferro, who said a sword should be about the size of one's lunge. I'm a big fan of the contemporary Thibault's method of measuring a blade, which is where the quillons should reach the navel when the sword point is on the ground. Using this method, I use a 43" blade (I'm 6' 2"), which also happens to fit Capoferro's measurement.

Truth be told, though, I can fence with a 35" blade just as well as a 43" blade. I wouldn't obsess too much about it, as long as the sword feels right to you.

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
Eric Myers




Location: Sacramento, CA
Joined: 23 Aug 2003

Posts: 214

PostPosted: Sun 18 Nov, 2007 3:57 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Hi Craig,

I'll just expand a bit on Bill's comments, since he covered most of what I would say. The "perfect length" for cutting swords (described by those masters who actually address it) tends to be in the 36 to 40 inch range for most people. That said, there sure are a lot of swords that aren't that long! A shorter blade is generally more wieldy than a longer one, but sacrifices some of your reach. It's a trade off.

The cutting swords I refer to above are those for systems that use a lot of cuts, but even the thrust dominated systems of Capoferro, Fabris, etc generally include some cuts. Rapier is almost too broad a term to use in your question, unfortunately. I suggest getting a shorter bladed sword for more cutting styles and a longer one for some of the more thrust oriented styles -- you just can't have too many swords Laughing Out Loud

Eric Myers
Sacramento Sword School
ViaHup.com - Wiki di Scherma Italiana
View user's profile Send private message
Chris Olsen




Location: Saint Paul
Joined: 23 Mar 2006

Posts: 54

PostPosted: Sun 18 Nov, 2007 4:04 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

hi craig, I too am 5'10, and have studied both fabris and meyer (along with several others) I generally use an arms and armor italian three ring rapier for my historic fencing classes. the blade length on that piece is 38 inches (which on me puts the quillons just above the top of my navel) over all length is 47 1/4 I find it to be just about perfect for my needs,

I too was inundated with advice on correct length, for good or evil I went with what was most comfortable for me to use and what allowed me to get the greatest enjoyment from my studies.

I hope that was helpful

if you have any questions please feel free to send me a message

chris
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Steven Reich




Location: Arlington, VA
Joined: 28 Oct 2003

Posts: 237

PostPosted: Sun 18 Nov, 2007 8:22 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Craig,

If you are talking Fabris and Meyer, then likely the two biggest concerns will be how the blade interacts when contacting other blades and how wieldy it is when performing cavazioni. Unfortunately, these are somewhat hard to mate up in the same blade. What I mean is, in Meyer (and his Italian contemporaries such as the Bolognese masters), there is a certain "bite" that you want to get when two swords connect in an action, such as a suppressing cut (in Meyer) or a falso parry (in the Bolognese). Now you can do both of these actions with lighter blade, but a meatier blade will connect better and transfer more of the force to your opponent's blade--a particular "feel" that I really prefer. However, this extra mass will make a blade that is slower in the cavazione (i.e. disengagement)--one of the absolutely most important actions in Fabris (not to mention the fact that a meatier blade is going to be quite rigid--and might not be very suited to anything but moderate drilling for Fabris, as getting hit with a thrust will hurt). If you absolutely must have sword one for both systems, then I'd go a little shorter than the "typical" rapier reproduction available (so probably 40" or less) and lighter than the typical Meyer Rappier. However, something else you can consider is that many hilts can serve both purposes with different blades (that is, you swap in the blade more suited to the system you are studying at the moment). I have a few swords with which I do exactly that.

Steve
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Stephen Hand




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

Posts: 226

PostPosted: Sun 18 Nov, 2007 11:09 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Dear Craig,

I'm not sure what systems I was talking about when I made that statement, but the best advice I can give is to pick a system and use a weapon that fits the description and/or illustrations in the manual. I have been known to do Di Grassi, for which I prefer a weapon without a complete hilt and with a 37" blade, Saviolo for which I prefer a weapon with a full swept hilt and a 38" blade, Swetnam, for which I prefer an English cup hilt (not to be confused with the later Spanish cup hilt) with a 42" blade and Pallas Armata for which I prefer a swept hilt with a 42" blade (ever so slightly lighter than the blade on my Swetnam rapier).

These measurements would differ depending on your height.

Cheers
Stephen

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
Craig Shira




Location: California
Joined: 02 Feb 2007

Posts: 39

PostPosted: Tue 20 Nov, 2007 1:03 pm    Post subject: Thanks!         Reply with quote

.

I want to thank everybody for the advice.

(Craig)

.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Bob Burns




Location: South Indianapolis IN
Joined: 09 Sep 2005
Likes: 1 page
Reading list: 112 books

Posts: 1,019

PostPosted: Wed 21 Nov, 2007 11:01 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Hi Craig, well with sword and rapier masters like Bill Grandy and Stephen Hand responding, I don't know that I can add much, except that I am 6' 1 1/2" and 195 lbs. that I have read that the crossguard is supposed to equal with the center of the navel. I bought my (so far) one and only rapier from Arms & Armor, choosing the Three Ring Italian Rapier prior to having read the above mentioned information and the crossguard on my rapier comes in at 3 inches shy of my navel. Measuring from the tip of the blade through the ring guard and to the crossguard is 39 5/8 inches, while from the tip to the ring guard is 37 5/8", overall is 46 inches. Perhaps I need that Italian 2 ring rapier or the Elizabethen rapier?
Although I have a number of swords and only the one rapier, I would never part with my rapier, I Love this 3 Ring Rapier!!
For a 7/8 inch wide blade, it cuts very well for me, gallon jugs, big jugs. multiple gallon jugs, it cuts them all!

Bob
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Peter Bosman




Location: Andalucia
Joined: 22 May 2006

Posts: 598

PostPosted: Wed 13 Feb, 2008 6:49 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

My excuses for digging an old topic up but I thought it more appropriate than to start up a new one when I am realy adressing the old one...

Is there not something odd about matching a shorter blade to an already shorter reach?
Yes, I see the logic of the biomechanics, of the leverages involved but two times short does not make long but a lot short, giving quite a bit of advantage in reach away.

If I were a short person facing a big guy I would want a SPEAR! not a shorter blade than he has!

peter
View user's profile
Vincent Le Chevalier




Location: Paris, France
Joined: 07 Dec 2005
Reading list: 15 books

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 870

PostPosted: Wed 13 Feb, 2008 8:34 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Hi Peter,

Peter Bosman wrote:
Is there not something odd about matching a shorter blade to an already shorter reach?
Yes, I see the logic of the biomechanics, of the leverages involved but two times short does not make long but a lot short, giving quite a bit of advantage in reach away.


It does seem strange indeed, but I think all martial traditions do it just this way, and give a shorter person an accordingly shorter weapon, when the length of the weapon is seen as variable at all (for example I believe the length of the shinai in kendo is fixed, and you have to adjust to it). So there must be some good reason for this...

The first that I can see is that motions change (ever so slightly) when the proportion between the sword and the body changes. Ensuring that all students have their weapons proportionnate to their body is probably helpful when teaching a set of specific moves. Thinking of the sword as a pendulum, it stands to reason that its length is paramount in how it behaves dynamically. It then makes sense to have it "timed" to your own body.

Having a sword measured according to your body also gives a perhaps clearer view of the reach of your motions, for example steps. I think this is what Girard Thibault, quoted earlier in the thread, was after. It also means that the sword will play well with your range of motion, so that you will be able to pull the point backward far enough, for example. This is also found in Thibault and Silver.

I think, but I'm not clear about that yet, that the heart of the problem is that compensating for the shortness of your limbs with the length of your sword is not the good solution, because it gives you a false sense of safety while reducing your options. By accepting to fight at a longer distance with a shorter step, it becomes more difficult to go out of the direct line, for instance, while your adversary doing his big step will have no problem doing so and entering your angles. Well I don't know if this last paragraph makes sense to anyone, but anyway Worried

I too would like to hear some more informed opinions on this interesting topic Happy

--
Vincent
Ensis Sub Caelo
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
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 13 Feb, 2008 11:37 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Peter Bosman wrote:
My excuses for digging an old topic up but I thought it more appropriate than to start up a new one when I am realy adressing the old one...

Is there not something odd about matching a shorter blade to an already shorter reach?
Yes, I see the logic of the biomechanics, of the leverages involved but two times short does not make long but a lot short, giving quite a bit of advantage in reach away.

If I were a short person facing a big guy I would want a SPEAR! not a shorter blade than he has!

peter


Hi Peter,
Here's the thing. If you have two incompetent swordsmen, then yes, the longer reach has a great advantage. But if you have two competent swordsmen, then the reach issue evens out. A skilled swordsman relies on timing and proper judgement of distance, and a shorter person can use his closer measure to his advantage just as much as a taller person can use his extra range to his.

I have a student, David, who is about a foot shorter than me, and typically uses a shorter blade. Yet he can still show me a thing or two whether in rapier, longsword, or messer, once he gets in close.

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
Peter Bosman




Location: Andalucia
Joined: 22 May 2006

Posts: 598

PostPosted: Wed 13 Feb, 2008 12:47 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Bill Grandy wrote:
Here's the thing. If you have two incompetent swordsmen, then yes, the longer reach has a great advantage. But if you have two competent swordsmen, then the reach issue evens out. A skilled swordsman relies on timing and proper judgement of distance, and a shorter person can use his closer measure to his advantage just as much as a taller person can use his extra range to his.

I have a student, David, who is about a foot shorter than me, and typically uses a shorter blade. Yet he can still show me a thing or two whether in rapier, longsword, or messer, once he gets in close.


As you experience that 'things' even out I thus accept that gladly and respectfully. That leave we with the question as to WHAT is the factor evening things out when both are expert? Both being expert 2" reach + 2" blade; ceterus paribus = pierced heart versus touching the skin. It must be quite an advantage to compensate for this. WHAT ' thing' evens the reach disadvantage out? What is that advantage the shorter guy has, thus the relative disadvantage the expert with the longer reach has?

peter
View user's profile
Steven Reich




Location: Arlington, VA
Joined: 28 Oct 2003

Posts: 237

PostPosted: Wed 13 Feb, 2008 12:58 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Peter Bosman wrote:
As you experience that 'things' even out I thus accept that gladly and respectfully. That leave we with the question as to WHAT is the factor evening things out when both are expert? Both being expert 2" reach + 2" blade; ceterus paribus = pierced heart versus touching the skin. It must be quite an advantage to compensate for this. WHAT ' thing' evens the reach disadvantage out? What is that advantage the shorter guy has, thus the relative disadvantage the expert with the longer reach has?

Well, here's where you start to get into some of the classic disagreements in the sword arts: is it better to have a long or a short blade? This really breaks down to what phase of the fight you prefer and at what phase you want the advantage. A longer blade means that you have a chance to strike first (whether or not you do is another issue). A short blade means that if you can block/void/counter the opponent's first strike, then you have the advantage.There are also issues of mechanics of cutting, clearing the point (i.e. getting it on target when you're inside), etc. These are all considerations you must keep in mind with an opponent. That's sort of the 10,000 foot level, but gives you a general idea...

Steve

Founder of NoVA-Assalto, an affiliate of the HEMA Alliance
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Peter Bosman




Location: Andalucia
Joined: 22 May 2006

Posts: 598

PostPosted: Wed 13 Feb, 2008 1:45 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

So what you are writing Steven is that a longer or shorter blade has specific dynamic properties that do not swing the balance either way, which makes the optimum biomechanical size matching more important than the length.
Assuming a rule of thumb for the relative proportions the smaller fencer would simply need to adapt to exploiting the specific dynamic properties availeable to him and the larger one too but to the 'opposite' dynamics to make the most efficient use of the given situation.

peter
View user's profile
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 13 Feb, 2008 10:11 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Peter Bosman wrote:
As you experience that 'things' even out I thus accept that gladly and respectfully. That leave we with the question as to WHAT is the factor evening things out when both are expert? Both being expert 2" reach + 2" blade; ceterus paribus = pierced heart versus touching the skin. It must be quite an advantage to compensate for this. WHAT ' thing' evens the reach disadvantage out? What is that advantage the shorter guy has, thus the relative disadvantage the expert with the longer reach has?


Hi Peter,
As Steve mentioned, a lot will depend on the circumstances. Here are some VERY broad generalizations, though, to give you a rough idea of what I mean.

-A shorter person, with a shorter weapon, potentially can have the upper hand when getting in close past the longer weapon. That is, using Steve's example above, the taller person may have the initial advantage as the two enter striking range, but if the shorter person can parry and step in close, the taller person is now at a disadvantage, since the longer weapon will have to withdraw to strike in a way that the shorter one will not.

-Grappling is generally easier with shorter weapons than longer ones. So, using the above example, if I had a shorter reach, I might try to get in close with the specific purpose of binding my opponent's arms with my empty hand (or buckler, or whatever).

-A shorter weapon can potentially "uncross" at the blades faster than a logner one (to use one of the Englishman George Silver's arguments).

-A shorter weapon has the potential to be drawn from its scabbard faster than a longer one.

-A shorter weapon can be potentially easier to carry (particularly if you're already short). Ease of carry is a major factor in weapon choice: A ten foot pike might have a big advantage over a two foot sword, but that doesn't mean the ten foot pike is practical to carry around as a civilian in a crowded city.

Again, I want to stress that these points are GROSSLY generalized, but I hope they at least get some of the basic ideas across.

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
Peter Bosman




Location: Andalucia
Joined: 22 May 2006

Posts: 598

PostPosted: Thu 14 Feb, 2008 1:33 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I get it Bill.
The (bio)mechanics and skill to use the tool weigh heaviest.

The rules of thumb would give me a rapier blade of 45" and yet a 35-38" colichemarde or cut-n-thrust blade with a dagger would be more versatile and suit ME better.
This leads us to the importance of customs and beliefs of the times again ...... I realy like the quote given by Sean Flynt in another topic. The master in question explains himself by stating that he is only talking about rapiers because his pupils do not want to know about the dagger, buckler etc....

peter
View user's profile
Hugh Fuller




Location: Virginia
Joined: 01 Oct 2003

Posts: 256

PostPosted: Thu 14 Feb, 2008 7:32 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Didn't Elizabeth I have a rule that rapiers in her court could not exceed 36"? I had read that somewhere and that she had men enforcing the rule with devices to break off the blades of offending rapiers at 36".
Hugh
Still trying to walk in the Light
Please see 1 John 1:5
View user's profile Send private message
Peter Bosman




Location: Andalucia
Joined: 22 May 2006

Posts: 598

PostPosted: Thu 14 Feb, 2008 8:16 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Hugh Fuller wrote:
Didn't Elizabeth I have a rule that rapiers in her court could not exceed 36"? I had read that somewhere and that she had men enforcing the rule with devices to break off the blades of offending rapiers at 36".


That is a concrete example of a factor other than effectiveness yes. She thought the longer blades unsightly so banned them, period Laughing Out Loud

peter
View user's profile
Stephen Hand




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

Posts: 226

PostPosted: Thu 14 Feb, 2008 4:41 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

In boxing there's an old saying that a tall man should make himself taller and short man make himself shorter. In practice that means that a tall man should emphasise his reach while a short one should forget about reach and look at reducing the size of his target and working in close. When a boxing coach told me that (I'm shorter than most opponents) I suddenly got a lot better. Having said all that I agree with Silver's oft repeated comment that "the tall man hath the vantage over the man of mean stature".

Blades that are disproportionally long become unwieldy. A taller person can wield a longer blade without it becoming unwieldy than a shorter person. Remember that a tall person will always outreach you, unless you use a sword that is ridiculously long, so don't play the reach game, get a sword in proportion to your body, accept that you are outreached and play a game appropriate to your body shape.

It's that simple.

Cheers
Steve

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
Peter Bosman




Location: Andalucia
Joined: 22 May 2006

Posts: 598

PostPosted: Fri 15 Feb, 2008 12:52 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Stephen Hand wrote:
It's that simple.

When you are short Idea
It has been made quite clear that extanding the blade length beyond biomechanical effectiveness is contra productive.

If you are the taller guy you do have an OPTION. You can build on your advantage by adding to your reach BUT as this thread points out this coin has another side to it and you will add to this downside too.
If you have 4" more reach than a short(er) guy you will still have this when you handle the same lenght of blade. Why add 2" more at the cost of adding to the strenght of the shorter guy?!

As you write the taller guy will have the advantage of his reach period.
Although it is good strategy to make use of your strong points it is worse strategy to neglect your weak ones.

I per example are 186 cm. and have fairly long limbs. A jian ' matched' to this will give me superior reach to most of the world but will make me slooooooooooooooow and very vulnerable below the reach.....
I do get the logic of this thread but still do not follow the wisdom of a rule of thumb.

Peter
View user's profile


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > 16th Century Rapier Length
Page 1 of 2 Reply to topic
Go to page 1, 2  Next 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