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

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]

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

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 :) 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.

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

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 ;)

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

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...

[ Linked Image ][/b]

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

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)

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)
[ Linked Image ]
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
[ Linked Image ]

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...