[Ryan S.]

Is it possible that the rapier started off as a cavalry sword? I am thinking about this for a few reasons:
1. Reitschwert, meaning riding sword is used synonymously with sidesword, which is a modern word for a rapier that is less rapier-like. Reitschwert can also describe longswords, and I don’t know what makes a long sword a Reitschwert or not.
2. Complex hilts allow better finger protection, allowing one to wrap a finger around the cross and give point.
3. The Polish Koncerz is similar to a rapier, especially a "true rapier" in that it is a long thrust dedicated weapon. In fact, it is longer and more thrust oriented.

I am not saying that rapiers weren’t duelling weapons, but rather wondering if the original idea was similar to the idea behind the koncerz.

[Vincent Le Chevalier]

Not terribly likely I think.

Terminology is mostly post-hoc, so I wouldn't trust the "reitschwert" thing too much.

Finger rings are actually first documented on cutting swords, before being adopted on other swords. More hand protection is always good, of course, but I don't think the fingering actually has so much to do with thrusting (mark that the koncerz do not have finger rings, either).

I'm not saying rapiers weren't used on horseback, of course. But they don't seem to have been designed primarily for horseback use. Perhaps the strongest piece of evidence for this is that in all lands were they were imported as foreign weapons (England, Germany essentially), they were described as dueling focused and on foot. I'm not aware of any source text alluding to a horseback development.

Regards,

[Sean Manning]

One problem is that complex-hilted military swords with four-sided blades often get described as 'rapiers' today. Seventeenth-century swords like the "Munich Town Guard" group or these in Schloss Ambras are not rapiers as described by George Silver or as depicted in the prints to Thibault and Capo Ferro. They are shorter with wider fortes.

The Met even calls this a rapier even though it has a blade that would look fine on an eighteenth-century English backsword! https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/22366

[Ryan S.]

Reitschwert is more of a historical term whose meaning is unclear today, rather than a new creation that represents a clear typological distinction. It is possible that a few of the museums that use the term Reitschwert, have taken the term from their inventory. Wendelin Boeheim doesn’t mention the term, using the term Degen for rapier. He uses the term rappier to refer to a flexible practice weapon.

When checking Boeheim I noticed that he mentions that the Degen was used as a cavalry sword, and continued to be used as such in Southern Europe after it was adopted by foot soldiers in other parts of Europe. His definition of Degen includes Haudegens, which he defines as single-edged Degens.

The word Degen at some point became a synonym for sword, but I will have to check when. It is possible that in German, the word Rappier changed in meaning significantly by the time the Boeheim was writing.

[Dan Howard]

If the rapier started as a cavalry weapon, you'd expect to see its length shorten when it gets adopted by infantry. We see the opposite occur; rapiers get longer over time before shortening again.

[Sean Manning]

[Ryan S.]

[Pedro Paulo Gaião]

[Sean Manning]

Many swords with a lot of rapier characteristics have blades that could easily be mounted on a late medieval longsword in the type XV, XVI, or XVII families except for the ricasso. And those longswords could easily be called tucks or estocs even if they are not the most extreme. So its not hard to see why in sixteenth-century England "tuck" and "rapier" can refer to the same object even though not all rapiers are suitable for pushing someone out of the saddle from a moving horse and not all tucks are pretty and easy to wear around town.

I don't know of a study of sword blades from sixteenth-century Europe because they are hard to date and hard to fit into a typology.

[Sean Manning]

The Met has photos of two sixteenth-century estocs. You can see how someone looking at the Saxon estoc in its sheath might not know whether its more for poking at the gaps in plate armour, or impaling people wearing doublets and hose.

https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/25627
https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/27434

Edit: a longsword-hilted estoc with a blade section that reminds me of a smallsword https://philamuseum.org/collection/object/211938

Long narrow stiff blades first appear on swords for fighting armoured opponents, but a lot of early complex hilts are mounted on broad flat blades, and eventually some cutlers start to offer swords with both features.

[Pedro Paulo Gaião]

[Sean Manning]

[Ryan S.]

Thanks, this is all great information. There are different ways to classify weapons, and it seems that they classified weapons differently than we do. I think the classification based on the type of clothes it was worn with makes sense. I am guessing that the same servant who helped with dressing also helped with armour. The term Kürißschwert is sometimes listed as another term for Reitschwert. At least some princes had swords to match a specific set of clothes or armour. There are portraits showing armour wearers carrying complex hilted swords, although they are often hard to see.



Christian II of Saxony, several swords that are known to belong to him are in museums. The colour of the hilt matches the decoration on his armour, but also the shape of the quillons matches the floral scroll shape. Similarly, one of his surviving suits of clothes matches a rapier of his in the Royal Armoury:
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEihL0Xzfy2Oq_GbffF_C26dEpmpbeIC2vJXnwE2l65uRdT7H1LJFqn_4DqMaiknA7i0h39fGs-K61YUQVKLVUkpUNp1uun1Wd6vxQga3w3QqQ2glJE3HGdvS2L0Tx5UC7a2IZTCC2fc6HMu/s1600/Christian+II+sword+against+parade+costume.JPG

When studying crossbows in the Dresden collection, Holger Richter was able to match documentation with specific crossbows. This allowed him to compare Wandschnepper and Vogelschnepper and determine the differences, even though it wasn’t apparent at the beginning. I wonder if this is possible with early modern swords.

[Pedro Paulo Gaião]

[Sean Manning]

[Anthony Clipsom]

Before we settle on the idea of an arming sword being two-handed/hand-and-a-half, I noted the following from 1415 when looking up its origins

Y wil and ordeyne þat John Cheyne, my sone and eir, have þe short armyn swerd harnaised with gold.


The Register of Henry Chichele, Archbishop of Canterbury 1414-1443, eds. E. F. Jacob and H. C. Johnson, vol. 2: Wills Proved Before the Archbishop or his Commissaries, Canterbury and York Society Publications 42 (1937). (p.49)

This is given in the University of Michigan Middle English dictionary

So, an arming sword could, at least in England, be short.

[Sean Manning]

[Pedro Paulo Gaião]

[Anthony Clipsom]

[Sean Manning]

I am interested in the connection between longswords, arming swords, and estocs, and between earlier rapier hilts and broad cutting swords. Books on arms and armour in English rarely know Iberian writers such as Fernão Lopes.

George Cameron Stone's Glossary (1934) could not decide whether an arming sword was an estoc or "A short sword worn at the right side."

Edit: also, plenty of soldiers might have a sword which was not an arming sword! If you were a light horseman or a crossbowman you might well choose a sword which was less stiff and pointy or longer or lighter. Not every soldier expected to use a sword while crowded close together against someone in full armour. "Civil vs. military" might not be as useful a division as "fighting armoured opponents at close quarters vs. fighting unarmoured opponents with lots of room."