ARMA
Director John Clements answers Youth email on swords and swordsmanship
Questions
and Answers
about the Rapier
As
a trained fencer and a martial artist who has studied historical European swordplay
since 1980, and worked out vigorously against all styles of weapon
fighters, I feel confident enough in my understanding and expertise to offer
qualified opinions on the rapier and its historical use.
I’ve examinedand handled dozens of real rapiers from the 16th
and 17th centuries in five countries and three private
collections and also viewed them in museums in nine countries.
I’ve researched their history in 5 European libraries, and three
private collections, as well as several major libraries in the USA.
I also own an extensive library of works on Renaissance swords
in six languages and have consulted with several noted professional bladesmiths and academic scholars. Below I have tried to summarize the nature of this distinctive weapon of our Western martial heritage.
What kind of sword is a rapier?
The
best answer I can give is that the true rapier is a long,
narrow, rigid, nearly edgeless single-hand thrusting blade with
a thick, tapering, cross-section and very narrow and sharp point. There is no question rapiers vary in their shape,
length, and width and especially in their hilt configuration. But rapiers are generally thin, light, fast,
and well-balanced thrusting swords intended for unarmored
single-combat.
The definition of the rapier as a form of Renaissance
sword differs among various authorities on historical arms. The
various historical terms for rapier referred to a slender cut-and-thrust
sword capable of limited slashing and slicing blows and equally
suited to military or civilian use. Eventually it came to mean
exclusively a long and slender thrusting sword with virtually
no edge.
Rapiers come in all shapes and sizes, and classifying
them all as “rapiers” is not always easy (and as I described in
my 1997 book, they are quite typically misidentified). But
what they all have in common is that they are decidedly slender
and rigid blades designed for a thrusting (as opposed to a “cutting
and thrusting”) style of swordplay.
There is often some confusion over exactly what
kind of sword is really a rapier because classification of swords
was never something that was exact because historical swordmakers
and swordsmen didn't go around labeling their weapons. They did
not categorize them the way we do today by appearance, but instead
defined them more based on their function and capability. But
modern arms collectors and arms curators have typically labeled
nearly any blade with a close-hilt that wasn't clearly a cruciform
Medieval sword as being a "rapier" even though this
was not the case historically. Modern swordmakers have also followed
this habit and it has added to the confusion surrounding the weapon.
Also, fencing history is not a straight line
of evolution from primitive to more advance weapons and methods—as
if the development of different swords was a process of working
toward some ideal “higher” form (which has been the view of fencing
history since the 19th century).
Changes
in sword forms have been more like a tree with several branches
growing out and declining while new branches formed. This was
a process of innovation and adaptation to circumstances and needs.
It is therefore acceptable for clarity today to apply the
distinctions of “early” rapier, to the wider flatter form, and
“later” or “true” rapier to the more slender kind.
Also, many times a short tapering arming sword with an acutely pointed
and tapering blade style (typical of those used since the 15th
century) will get labeled today as being a type of “rapier” merely
because of a close-hilt style that resembles those on later 16th
century rapiers.
What are real rapiers like?
While
it is difficult to make specific generalizations about any class
of swords, and the rapier is no exception, there are certain attributes
and qualities about them that I can offer comments on.
Over the last few years I’ve had the privilege
and opportunity to have personally inspected about four or five
dozen antique 16th & 17th century rapiers
of various sizes, and I’ve actually exercised with several specimens,
and even test-cut with some. I’ve paid particularly attention
in my research to the cross-sectional changes along their length,
their stiffness (as much as was possible without actually bending
them), and to their edge sharpness (I also own about a dozen different
makes of replica blades, and test-cut extensively with them on
raw meat and other materials). Further, I have looked at these
weapons from the perspective of a fighter, as a martial artist
and fencer familiar with the historical ways and results of using
them.
How do real rapiers handle?
In
my experience researching authentic pieces I was especially stunned
at how fantastically well-balanced most were so that they felt
absolutely weightless, lighting fast and agile (completely beyond
even the very best modern reproductions I’ve handled). Only a
few antique rapiers of the wider variety felt a bit awkward to
me—and even then that may have been because they were experimental
designs or designed for some particular person’s fighting style
rather actually than being poor weapons. The specimens I’ve weighed or have specifications
on were all less than 3 pounds, with most under 2.5 pounds and
a few even less than 2 pounds.
They were not the least bit cumbersome. As both a student
of Medieval swords and former sport fencer, I can declare with
authority that these weapons were not slow or clumsy to wield.
With few exceptions, I have no doubts whatsoever that every
rapier technique described in the historical sources (and then
some) could be executed effectively with most all of these weapons.
What kind of blades did rapiers have?
Like
any other sword, the variety of rapier blades is considerable,
as all sorts of designs were being experimented with at the time
(which creates confusion about them and now makes classification
of them very difficult). Rapier blades varied considerably in
length, thickness, cross-sectional shape, and edge sharpness. Many
of these are hard to completely distinguish from the varieties
of military cut-and-thrust swords then in use. They ranged from
flatter, tapering blades to thicker, narrower (so-called “true’)
ones. But nearly all are rigid, quite narrow, and become thinner
toward the point and, rather than flattening out, many actually
become oval or round in cross-section at the last quarter or last
fifth of their length. Their
weight was concentrated in their hilts thereby facilitating an
agile point to make rapid long-reaching stabbing attacks.
Rapier
blades are relatively thin but have thick cross-sections. Some
rapier blades are of flat or diamond-shaped (or triangular) cross-sections
capable of holding a shallow edge, while others are thicker hexagonal,
octagonal, or four-pointed star-shaped with virtually no sharp
edges. These various cross-sections were all simply efforts to
produce a light and very stiff blade. Rapiers may have thick,
squared off and blunt ricassos (the blade portion just
above the hilt) or be wide and entirely sharp at this portion.
How strong were rapier blades, couldn’t they
break easily?
There
is substantial historical evidence for rapiers breaking during
fights (in bodies and against other weapons), and I have held
several real ones that had broken points. I’ve examined many others
that to me felt so thin and light I am sure they would readily
break if used to slash with or even if seized by a hand and forced
to bend. I have broken enough different kinds of blades, both
by accident and in testing, to have a good idea of the force required.
There was considerable diversity in the geometry of rapier
blades and some designs intended to produce a light and especially
agile thrusting weapon resulted in particularly thin points that
tended to snap off when an edge blow was struck against a firm target. Several rapier masters even advised
not to strike any edge blows at all with them, or if you did,
to not use the force of the whole arm from the shoulder.
Yet, a rapier blade is by no means fragile
nor vulnerable to being easily broken or cut by other swords (though
its slender tip might on occasion snap). The rapier can be
quite sturdy and capable of parrying the cuts of heavier swords,
but only with the thicker section of its blade or hilt
and in a deflecting action to redirect the attacking point rather
than a passive, rigid block. From the many specimens I have
handled I would have no concern with the majority of them being
able in this manner to parry blows from heavier cutting blades.
But, it was better to avoid or dodge cuts from broader
blades than to parry them with a slender sword (though, I’m sure
parrying was performed when unavoidable).
Where does the name “rapier” come from?
There
are several theories as to the origin of the word. Originally,
by the 1470s the French referred mockingly to any excessively
long and slender weapon as la
rapière, while the Spanish called a weapon worn about town
in civilian clothes a spada ropera, a “robe sword” or “dress
sword.” In English such
weapons became known as rapiers. In German they were called Rappier.
The word rapier eventually came to refer exclusively to
the slender thrusting sword we now know. In modern Italian they
are sometimes now called striscia. There are also several
other theories and words relating to the term rapier, such as
rasper, rappen, and
verdun.
Interestingly, the Italian and Spanish originators of the
rapier never referred to the weapon itself as anything other than
simply spada or espada, generic words meaning “sword.”
French sources from the 1530 and English sources of the
1540s both refer to rapiers as being “the Spannyshe
sword.”
However, there are no descriptions as to exactly
what this espada ropera actually was. We do not know its
size, its length, or its blade or hilt style. Given the nature
of fighting and other arms at the time, it must have had some
characteristics that were different enough to warrant a new label.
Intriguingly, there is evidence that men at Italian courts of
the 1480s and 1490s were beginning to wear blades that were much
longer and heavier than ordinary daggers but shorter and lighter
than ordinary arming swords. It may very well be that this weapon in time
was produced in longer and longer varieties.
Why was the rapier created?
Rapiers
developed from earlier forms of cut-and-thrust swords as a weapon
for urban self-defense and private dueling. By the 1540s, swordmakers
were responding to the self-defense needs of unarmored fighting
men for a fast single-hand stabbing sword with a long reach that
could be used in the street or back alley or an enclosed space.
Their creations were tried out, and whatever worked best was then
continually refined based on the advice and requests of swordsmen.
At
first, the rapier developed in response to cut-and-thrust swords
and only later did it find use against other rapiers. No
one suddenly invented a pair of rapiers complete as is, then decided
to go around offering to fight someone with them.
In fact, portraitures of noblemen as well as patrician
families and royal courts from the first half of the 16th
century are decidedly void in depicting long slender single-hand
swords being worn.
Over time, new swords were devised along with
new methods for using them. While a man might not go around in
public wearing a conspicuous sword of war with a broad cutting
blade, a lighter, thinner weapon was at once both less menacing
and less encumbering. But designs for an optimal thrusting sword for
unarmored single-combat continued to evolve over the next hundred
years. They did not develop
into their final form until the 1570s or 1580s.
Why
was the rapier something new?
As
it spread across Western Europe, the true rapier was a new distinct
form of sword as much as it was a new method of fighting. By
the 1530s there were changes occurring to swords and swordplay,
but they were neither immediate nor sweeping nor even unprecedented.
Sword designs had always been revised to fit new requirements
that resulted from technological, military, or social changes.
What was new then was the idea of a light, long-bladed, single-handed
stabbing sword. What was unique with the rapier was the development
of a weapon that for the first time emphasized unarmored civilian
single-combat rather than overall self-defense or battlefield
use.
The rapier originated in Italy and Spain and
from there spread throughout Western Europe.
The rapier’s introduction as an urban side arm was gradual
and not immediate. While swordplay in Europe had always stressed
footwork, the new foyning style required a new and less instinctive
manner of moving and a specific footwork had to be learned for
this. Despite the ascent
of the new weapon and its linear thrusting method, when taken
as a whole it can be seen that fencing treatises throughout the
16th century consistently reflected a range of self-defense
concerns, both military and civilian.
There
is an obvious direct and discernible link between the brutal,
practical fighting methods of the earlier Middle Ages and the
more sophisticated, elegant Renaissance fencing systems. The new style of thrust fencing was not an “evolution”
but an adaptation to the needs of a changing social and military
environment. In
fact, the rapier was originally not even a weapon innovated by
professional fencing masters, but by other fighting men and the
two weapons styles and their methods were for a considerable time
contemporaries of one another.
In the Renaissance
social and technological changes accelerated
experimentation in Western fighting arts and civilian schools
of fence proliferated. A systematic study of civilian
rather than military fencing grew into a new “Science of Defence”
emphasizing the private duel.
When did slender swords turn into rapiers?
Exactly
when a slender sword “becomes” a rapier is not an easy question
to answer. Because a sword is designed to fulfill a particular
purpose, and is then used in a manner that accomplishes that purpose,
a sword is therefore defined by its blade geometry, not its hilt
configuration (as has so often been the case among collectors
and curators).
The diversity among rapiers is explained easily
enough when we understand that fighting men at the time were discovering
what types worked best and how best to use them and swordsmiths
were struggling to fulfill their needs. In the “evolution” of
Renaissance weapons there were forms of blades developed that
were not quite wide enough to cut strongly as other kinds but
were also still not narrow and light enough to foyne as well as
later “true” rapiers. Being
unable to do either very well, they were not popular and in a
few decades were quickly replaced by newer forms.
In experimenting with designs for tools used
to defend and take lives, some things worked better than others.
But these took time to permeate across regions to replace earlier
patterns. Like much of progress in Renaissance learning and science,
changes did not occur in a vacuum. Advances in self-defense were
based on what had already been commonly established for centuries.
No tradition of fighting or methodology of combat exists
by itself. It comes into
being due to environmental pressure as only a processing or refinement
of what existed previously. So
it was with the thrusting swordplay of the later Renaissance.
Why is there confusion over what kinds of
swords are rapiers?
Because
rapiers were not “invented” overnight, but quickly developed from
slender cut and thrust arming swords of the early 1500s, the two
families of weapons are very closely related.
There is a blurry line separating them and no clear-cut
linear evolution from one form to the other. At the time a variety
of designs were being experimented with. Fencing treatises of
the early 1500s typically do not clearly define or differentiate
whether they are teaching the use of civilian rapiers or military
style cut-and-thrust swords—which were sometimes called arming
swords, field swords, Reitschwerte (“knight’s sword”) or
spada di lato
(“side sword”). It is often
difficult to gauge what kind of sword the authors preferred, as
their illustrations are vague and inconsistent, plus their methods
may work well with either slender military swords or their thinner
cousins, the true rapiers. Thus,
it is often easier today to refer to “early” and “later” rapiers
and even “transitional” rapiers, even though these are not historical
terms and do not fully describe the subject.
Today,
because very few people who write or speak about rapiers and rapier
fencing have ever actually handled antique specimens (and even
fewer ever actually practiced with a real one), a lot of misstatements,
assumptions, and conjecture has built up.
With
the long-time prevalence of poor rapier fighting in movies and
TV and inaccurate displays by stunt fighters and reenactment troupes,
considerable misunderstanding surrounds the true nature of the
weapon. Unfortunately today, there are also many poor quality
reproduction rapiers on the market that are inaccurate in their
blade stiffness, shape, and weight as well as hilt. This problem
has been widespread for many decades and has added to the confusion
about the qualities and attributes of real rapiers, how they functioned,
and how they were properly handled.
What time period was the rapier in use?
The swords that meet the loosest definition of
what a rapier is first appear by the 1540s, though the word predates
this. The truest form appears by the 1580s but the weapon continued
to evolve into the late 1600s, and in Spain to a small degree
was still used even into the 1800s. During the 1700s and 1800s, in some parts of
Europe select antique rapiers were occasionally brought out for
formal duels.
How do rapiers relate to other kinds of thrusting
swords?
Were their any special kinds of rapiers?
As
fighting men using rapiers developed their own unique new form
of thrusting swordplay, and sought to answer the challenge of
how to deal with others doing the same, a variety of distinct
rapier forms were created. Some of these specialized weapons had
extremely long blades in an attempt to gain reach over an opponent
in a fight. Some types
were also produced with extra long grips for the same reason.
There were even some rapiers made with extra-thick and extra-long
ricassos to assist in parrying the blows of broader swords. Other
specialized rapiers had their tips flattened and widened to permit
a sharper cutting edge—the so-called “spatulate” point. This allowed
the favored technique of delivering a quick facial slash with
a motion from the wrist. Other kinds copied the remarkable “wave”
or “flame” edges of certain larger sword blades or even had unique
saw-like edges. These unusual styles were attempts to add some
degree of slicing or draw-cut potential to the narrow weapon (as
well as a way for the sword maker to show off his artistic talent,
since such designs were difficult to produce).
These waved blades were also sometimes used on daggers.
Other unique rapier designs included ones with spike pommels as
well as highly ornate and decorative hilts or blades with perforated
holes and even with single-shot pistols built-in.
Was there ever such a weapon as a “sword rapier”?
Historically, there were no such names as “cutting
rapier”, “sword-rapier”, or “transitional rapier” ever used in
the Renaissance. With the ascendancy of civilian rapiers over
traditional military swords in personal duel and private quarrel
during the 1500s, a new era in personal weaponry began. There
were always attempts to combine the slashing and cleaving potential
of broad cutting blades with the quick, stabbing agility of a
slender thrusting one. This lead to a great deal of experimental
weapons types, some of which were failures with neither the cutting
power of wider swords, nor the speed and lightness of narrow ones.
Today, some of these forms are sometimes mistakenly
described as “heavy rapiers”, or "sword-rapiers" while
others are assumed to be a form of transitional blade between
the two. Older style tucks were also occasionally remounted with
the newer types of rapier hilts and these are also occasionally
misidentified as being heavy rapiers.
How
did the rapier change fencing?
The
essence of rapier fencing is the view that in fighting the shortest
distance between two points was not the curved line of a cut,
but the straight line of a thrust. The
quickness and reach of the rapier in unarmored combat could be
surprising and unexpected to those not use to its kind fight.
In skilled hands it was unpredictable, swift, and easy
for an inexperienced adversary to underestimate. A stabbing wound
can be made very easily and it tended to be fatal. A man
attempting to slash or chop with a comparatively less agile and
slower cutting sword could find himself being hit with a well-timed
and well-placed thrust from a faster, longer-reaching rapier.
Yet, without experience or training, two rapier fighters might even charge one
another and be mutually run-through.
Against
the linear attacks of other rapiers a fighter would try to simultaneously
defend and counter-attack by a carefully timed movement which
parried by deflecting the adversary’s point away as he made his
own thrust in reaction. This was achieved as one single action
by maintaining contact or “opposition” with the opponent’s thrusting
blade and, if necessary, using his second hand or weapon to assist.
A long, thin sword was ideal for this, but at some lengths could
also become a disadvantage as an opponent with a shorter and faster
blade could close in past its point or use his dagger.
The slender,
deceptive rapier was a personal weapon for civilian wear and private
quarrels rather than one carried for war. It was designed
for the needs of back-alley encounters and sudden assaults and indeed, it was the first truly civilian weapon for urban
self-defence developed in any society. It rose from practical
tool, to popular “gentleman’s art.”
What does it mean that the rapier is a “foyning”
weapon?
The
term “foyning fence” refers to an essentially thrusting versus
thrusting style of swordplay.
The term “foyne” (or “foign”) means to thrust straight,
as if to stab from a distance by extending the arm and the lead
foot. The rapier was conceived as a thrusting sword rather than
a “cut and thrust” sword. The earliest types might be considered
more “thrust and cut.”
Rapiers were well suited to unarmored street-fighting
and private duelling. They were simply more adept at the newer
style of foyning fence than the wider, flatter kind of blades,
which by the late 1500s were declining in general military use.
But thrusting was hardly a new thing in the 1500s. It was an important
part of Medieval swordplay and had been commonly used since ancient
times.
Through experiment and observation Renaissance
fencers discerned that the thrust traveled in a shorter line than
the arc of a cut, and against an unarmored foe would reach farther
and strike sooner. The
rapier was designed along these principles. In excecution, it
produced a method of fighting with a grace and elegance all its
own.
Why
did they have such elaborate hilts?
There is actually no such thing as an exclusively
“rapier” hilt. The hilts on rapiers existed in a great variety
of styles but were dominated by “close” forms consisting of large
quillons (cross-guards) and various kinds of bars, rings, plates,
or cups. But most all of these “compound-hilt” styles were not
exclusive to rapiers alone and had actually begun earlier on various
wide cutting swords. They were also used on many later types of
swords other than rapiers.
Unlike
the small, light, standardized hilts used on modern sport fencing
epees and foils, the various larger complex-hilts on rapiers were
designed not to prevent thrusts on the hand so much as intentionally
prevent the opponent’s narrow point from easily moving around
the weapon and counter-thrusting. The wide cross-piece and assorted
counter bars, first developed to defend against cuts, would obstruct
the attacking blade. It also proved a useful weapon in itself
when used to strike at an opponent’s face.
Over the next century, as thrusting blades were made increasingly
lighter and quicker as well as shorter this concern became less
of an issue. Additionally, such large cumbersome hilts were a
nuisance for gentlemen in fashionable dress wearing them at their
sides.
How were rapiers used in fighting?
Rapiers
were not used the way we typically have seen in movies like musketeer
or pirate films, and others like, Princess Bride or Zorro.
Despite frequent misrepresentation in popular culture, rapiers
are not employed in rapid exchanges of thrust and parry as in
modern sport fencing nor in slashing through ropes and leather
belts or carving letters in things. That kind of fictional stunt
is only a fantasy.
The action of the rapier in a fight was, in one
sense, far more violent and ferocious, and on the other far more
cautious and precise. Attacks
were more often “voided” (dodged) than blocked and when they were
blocked, it was typically done with a deflection that simultaneously
rode the other blade to continue on to make a counter thrust.
What
other weapons were used with rapiers?
A rapier was virtually always used in conjunction
with the free-hand, or either a parrying-dagger, a buckler, or
a cloak, but also even a scabbard or other item. The dagger was
consistently held with the point up and the cross-guard “sideways”
in order to parry or bind the opponent’s blade. Some had elaborate
guards and were specially designed for trapping and parrying.
A method of dueling simultaneously with two rapiers also developed. But there is no evidence of any “sword catchers”
or “sword breakers” being used effectively. Such tools might help
in defense by delaying an opponent’s ability to respond or renew
an attack, but it is unlikely they could actually trap, hold,
or really break a rapier blade.
Most
every person carried some sort of dagger during the Renaissance,
and gentlemen typically went about with a cloak or cape which
could be used in defense. A
man would need to be able to defend himself not only against another
rapier, but also against common military swords as well as polearms
such as spears, pikes, and halberds.
What style of fighting did the rapier involve?
Essentially, the rapier was a one-handed sword
that employed and allowed for dexterous use of the point for thrusting
combined with a cool, calculating style of fight relying less
on striking power and more on careful judgment of timing and range.
Its
fighting style was an apparent break with the legacy of Medieval
cut-and-thrust traditions in favor of new systems advocating thrusts
over cuts. But thrusts
were not deemed “superior” to cuts, as in the right circumstance
with the right weapon each had their place and advantage. When
facing another rapier, a range of linear movements and traversing
footwork was employed with quick feints, jabs, and angulated and
circular thrusts. Though
there were different ways to approach it, the style was generally
energetic, aggressive, and cautious.
But for the most part rapier combat was not anything like
the “genteel” fencing with “decorum” practiced among gentlemen
of later centuries. Depending upon the situation, rapier fighters
would readily employ punches, kicks, hilt strikes, tripping, arm
locks, blade grabbing, leg sweeps, chokeholds, and other all-out
combat techniques other than just sword on sword actions.
How effective as a weapon was the rapier?
The
rapier had the unique capacity to make incredibly deceptive and
agile attacks and the dangerous capacity to renew continued thrusting
attacks at unpredictable angles, even after parrying the attacks
of wider cutting swords. It could also accurately stab at
the face, throat, eyes, teeth, and especially the hands with rapid
light wounds to distract, provoke, and harass an opponent.
The rapier’s quick, powerful thrust was lethal in its penetrating
power. A simple stab wound of only a few inches could instantly
prove deadly. Narrow holes made in vital internal organs
could not be treated and would not heal. However, even when
mortal, its wounds were not always immediately fatal. Unless punctured
clean through the skull or heart, a man might be run through and
continue fighting for several moments, or even win a combat but
die sometime later from shock and loss of blood.
Historical authors complain of the rapier’s inability
to deliver decisive killing blows and the capacity of men to withstand
several injuries from them. The
historical records of combat with the weapon support this view. Yet, the historical accounts of rapier combats
also include substantial examples of men instantly killed from
quick single thrusts.
When
a rapier thrust hit it would invariably produce a serious hole
in the person’s body or head. Unlike a cut, which might only be
a shallow flesh wound that will heal in time, a thrust can puncture
organs internally, will not stop bleeding, and cannot be treated.
While a cutting sword can be used to make light or flat-side blows
that are not lethal, with a rapier there is no way to really control
the depth of a stabbing attack to only cause a minor shallow stab
wound. With rapiers, men could not merely brawl one another indifferently
with slashing and clashing blows as they sometimes did with other
swords. Each attack was therefore potentially a mortal one and
there was little room for error or leniency. The result surely gave a new earnestness to
what were once common clashes.
Could rapiers be used for both defending as
well as attacking?
Rapiers
were without question capable of defending and offending; otherwise
they would not be of much use as a weapon. If it couldn’t attack to wound an adversary
effectively why even use it to fight with?
If it couldn’t defend you from attacking weapons what good
would it ever be? While
different weapons have different defensive and offensive capacities,
any long metal blade can be employed as a good defense against
blows. The rapier is no
exception.
While a slender thrusting blade does not perhaps
have the warding ability of heavier, more robust swords, to imagine
a rapier wouldn’t keep other weapons from hitting you is a notion
ignorant of the realities of personal combat. As many masters
of the time wrote, in skilled hands, it was well-suited to an
unarmored man’s urban self-defense needs.
But,
as a lighter, thinner blade, it obviously lacks the mass to easily
beat down a heavier blade or displace its attack by counter-cutting—which
was commonly performed with other swords. As well, if forced to employ such a rigid defense
against a strong blow from a larger weapon it was not as sturdy
for parrying with a direct static block. As a specialized weapon,
it is therefore not as well-rounded as a broader blade intended
for fighting under more generalized circumstances.
Being a one-handed sword, a fighter wielding
a rapier would naturally choose to employ his free hand to assist
him, whether empty or holding another weapon. Using two weapons
like this was common with warriors throughout history and in no
way does it imply any deficiency with the primary weapon (as is
sometimes alleged). As
with anything in fighting, it required coordination and practice.
This was also not a matter of armor having been
discarded either. Many earlier swords were also used in combination
with parrying weapons such as shields, bucklers, and daggers.
As with rapiers this was not done out of any necessity of their
being somehow unable to parry alone, as is often wrongly
asserted, but rather, from the inherent advantage of using
two weapons together. The
combination of a long rapier with a short parrying dagger proved
very dangerous to unarmored fighting men.
Could rapiers be used for edge blows?
As
with any long bladed weapon, rapiers could always be used to strike
a blow with the “edge.” Many
rapier texts include such actions in their repertoire and any
swordsman would make himself familiar with them. But, whether
such a blow, or “cut”, actually injured or wounded an opponent
was dependent upon many factors. The question is then, how effective were rapier
edge blows and what result would they be expected to achieve against
an attacker?
Rapiers lack the blade width, blade mass, and
edge bevel and angulation to do more than lacerate with an edge
blow (if it were otherwise, there would be no need for so many
other types of broader cutting swords). As a sword that emphasizes
agile stabbing attacks, the true rapier had little to no real
edge sharpness and could not be used for wide slashing cuts, despite
what is notoriously depicted in film and sometimes used in staged
performance fencing.
How well could rapiers cut?
There are many period writers who complained
the rapier did not cut well (relative to dedicated cutting blades)
and were unsuited to the needs of the battlefield for this reason.
They were not designed for nor capable of lethal cutting
blows and no period fencing text actually instructs to use them
that way. Nor are there historical accounts of any deadly cutting
blows with true rapiers being made in fights.
This
lack of cutting capacity did not discount making light, quick
slashes with the edge or even the point against the face or wrist. This was useful to harass, provoke, and distract
the enemy. Doing such could certainly lacerate skin, and depending
upon the type of blade, even more, but they simply could not shear
or cleave into flesh and bone, as could wider and flatter swords
designed for cutting. While
some rapier texts refer to non-lethal cuts made as a facial slash
or performed with a pulling slice, the weapons were simply not
designed either to hack and chop or slice and their blade geometry
prevented it.
The issue is clouded however by the existence
of wider, tapering blades with flatter cross-sections and sharper
edges, which were capable of slashing open a throat or cutting
off a hand. These weapons, though used similarly, were not
identical in performance to the far more slender variety of what
can be called the “true” rapier.
How sharp were rapiers?
Given
the changing cross-sectional shape of a rapier’s blade along its
length, different portions might have different degrees of “edge”
sharpness. Sharpness is a relative term. A razorblade, for example
is very sharp, but it is also very fragile and easily dulled.
A butter knife by contrast is not very sharp, but its edge is
still quite thin and hard. A sword blade would have as much edge
as physically possible as a matter of course, if only to prevent
it being easily seized by an opponent's hand. But, with such thick
shapes and broad bevels, rapier edges simply could not retain
much sharpness (especially after repeated forceful contact against
other blades).
Where the blade became the thinnest, at the point,
there would be the least amount of sharp edge. On those with blade
shapes that prevented especially sharp edges, they obviously were
unsharpened.
When I consider the teachings from historical
rapier texts in light of all of this above, combined with the
wounds recorded in rapier duels and street combats compared to
those with larger cutting swords, I reach certain conclusions
that are very consistent with the rapiers inability to make serious
cutting wounds. Rapiers simply could not dismember, decapitate
or make strong cutting blows nor were they ever intended to do
so.
It is also very improbable that over time rapiers
surviving in museums and collections could have had their edges
dull or rust away to any degree that we now cannot judge their
original sharpness.
What would happen if you made cutting strikes
with a rapier?
The
results of a rapier cut would be dependent upon many factors:
the mass and the edge configuration of the blade (a factor of
its cross-sectional shape and thickness), the angle of the cut,
the force behind the blow, the portion of the weapon that impacted (closer to or farther from the point), and the
location of the strike on a person (against a softer or harder
area). The Renaissance teachers
of the rapier frequently instructed to use cuts as secondary attacks
only when the adversary’s point was not directly threatening,
or they advised not to use them at all.
Given what has already been described above regarding the nature
of rapier blades and their use in cutting, it can be surmised
that the results of any cut might be that no harm would be done
(because the edge turned and did not hit correctly, the blow was
not hard enough, or the target area was too tough). Or the results
might be a painful stinging injury to the face, arm, or leg, that
causes a severe welt or a surface scratch and perhaps then annoys,
infuriates, or intimidates the opponent.
Or the results might be a lacerating wound to the musculature
of the arm, leg, shoulder, or torso that inhibits to some degree
the opponent’s freedom of action. It’s also conceivable (with
a flatter, sharper edge) that the throat might even be slashed,
the eyes blinded, and fingers or perhaps even a hand severed.
From the historical accounts however, what we can believe
the results surely would not be is immediate debilitation,
incapacitation, or outright death.
From
my personal experience over the years using a wide variety of
sharp blades, including some antique rapiers, in test cutting
on numerous materials I have little doubt about how strikes with
the edge of rapiers would be employed. Depending upon the kind
of blade and portion of the arm used to strike with (shoulder,
elbow, wrist) our tests on fresh, raw meat produced nothing greater
than shallow surface cuts or tearing rips. Typically they made
little more than welts that did not even break tissue. If the
blade was flatter and wider, a hard blow with a quick, immediate
follow-on “drawing” pull caused a significant slicing wound. These
cutting results however were very poor compared to those possible
with wider kinds of heavier cutting blades, which can cleave and
shear to a considerable depth even through bone. Interestingly
though, slashes using the very tip of the rapier, even particularly
narrow ones, invariably would quite easily cause short ripping
tears in the meat. When we cut against soft cloth, the results
were even weaker. In all cases, the rapier cuts did not seem to
be sufficient to either disable the limbs of an aggressive man
or kill him on the spot.
A “cut” is any blow with the edge of a sword,
regardless of the actual sharpness of such an edge or the capacity
for that sword to make an incise wound.
So, just as a particularly curved sword can still thrust,
though not nearly as well as a straight one, even a slender sword
can “cut”, but not nearly as well as a wider one. After all, even
a car-antenna or a slender cane rod could “cut” if you slashed
someone with enough force and hit them on the right spot.
If we think of edge blows with a light, slender,
rigid blade not in terms of being shearing blows intended to incapacitate,
but rather as distracting and harassing actions designed to open
the opponent up to a more lethal thrust, then “cutting” with a
rapier can make sense. These cuts will hurt, they can bruise, they
will likely break skin and more, but they won’t stop an attacking
man intent on killing.
Why is there controversy over how the rapier
was used?
The
Renaissance fighting styles changed so much over time that they
died out and now no one alive knows for sure how it was done back
then. Different swords often require different methods of using
them and this leads to different styles of fighting.
These change over time and there is no one alive today
who really knows the forgotten styles.
The old teachings have been lost from disuse and the old
styles went extinct due to their obsolescence. Any modern enthusiast
or student of swords must therefore interpret the old texts and
rediscover how to handle the old weapons. Yet few individuals
now possess the knowledge or experience with real weapons and
genuine Renaissance fighting techniques to demonstrate them correctly.
There is also a lot of misinformation on the Internet from
those who base their understanding of the rapier more upon modern
sport fencing rather than the actual weapons and historical source
works. So, in the process, misconceptions develop from
assumptions that are made and from the misrepresentations that
exist in the pretend sword fighting of games and entertainment.
The examples of swordplay we see today portrayed in movies, TV,
sport fencing, as well as many Renaissance fairs and reenactment
societies, do not offer the most accurate picture.
Did rapiers ever face broader or heavier
style Medieval swords?
By
time the rapier came about, older styles of traditional military
swords and Medieval weapons (used primarily for facing armors)
were generally obsolete on the battlefield and were no longer
carried for general self-defense on the street either. While they
still had application and were studied to a degree in traditional
schools of fencing during the 1500s, the new rapier was not designed
or intended to defeat them. From time to time it was possible
to still encounter the older weapons in single combat and there
is evidence the rapier then proved a difficult challenge. But
it must be considered that unlike the new civilian rapier, due
to changing military conditions, these broader and heavier weapons
were largely past their prime and thus were not being practiced
as intently as they once had been. So, as a weapon of street-fighting
and single-combat duelling, it is not a matter of the rapier having
somehow "defeated" or "over come" Medieval
swords.
Were rapiers ever taken into battle during
wars?
There are some accounts of rapiers being carried
into battle particularly by mounted officers (the least likely
to engage in close combat) but not of any rapier being effectively
used in actual fighting. Many military writers during the rapier-age
advocated the use of tucks (short stiff thrusting swords) and
later authors sometimes mistook these swords as being “rapiers.”
Several authors of the time complained specifically of
the rapier not being suited to the battlefield whiles others said
it was fine.
Were rapiers ever used against armor?
Rapiers
were not designed nor intended to be employed against armored
opponents. Yet, encountering armor was a common occurrence for
any fighting man of the time. Rapiers were capable of piercing
soft armors but historical evidence shows that fine maile (chain-link
armor) was a sufficient defense and was often worn under clothing
for this very reason. If an opponent were wearing any portion of plate
armor, which was still possible on the battlefields and within
urban militias of the 1500s and 1600s, attacks would naturally
be directed to other more vulnerable areas.
Who carried or wore the rapier?
Though
associated with late Renaissance gentlemen, the rapier at various
times was carried and used by all classes and the earliest references
to the weapon’s use from the 1540s to 1560s, in fact, concern
common urban self-defense, not aristocratic private duels. While
the rapier is often associated with cavaliers and courtiers of
the aristocracy, it in fact originated as a weapon of street fighting
among commoners, merchants, and shopkeepers.
Though swords worn with civilian dress (as opposed to battle
dress) may have begun with the nobility at court, the need for
a self-defense weapon was also felt by ordinary citizens.
As the foyning method developed however, it came to be
employed more and more by that class which most engaged in private
duels of honor, the nobility. Within a generation it became a
popular martial skill to study for most sophisticated Renaissance
gentlemen. In some places it was a fad to study in private
the “secrets” of an exotic style under a foreign master. As with
later smallswords (the duelling blade of 18th century
gentlemen) some rapiers were also carried by unskilled men simply
as symbols of rank and authority.
Did
the rapier require special training to learn?
Every
sword requires specialized training in order to use it to its
fullest capacity and the rapier was no different.
However, it has been said that slashing or chopping with
a cutting blow is much more instinctive than delivering a straight
thrust. Unlike earlier
traditions of martial arts in Renaissance Europe which focused
on battlefield use and general self-defense skills, the thin and
light rapier required a change in the stance as well as the footwork
in order to gain maximum reach while avoiding being stabbed or
cut in return. So, over a generation or two a new method of training
was specifically developed as preparation for the unique nature
of fighting a duel with a rapier against another rapier.
Rapiers could in their time reasonably expect
to face a range of cutlasses, sabres, broadswords, two-hand swords,
and daggers, as well as bucklers and pole-weapons while still
encountering buff coats, chest plates, and maile armor (sometimes
worn under clothing). So a man would need to learn in general how
to “fight”, not simply “fence” with rapier against rapier.
Did fighting with the rapier involve any grappling
or wrestling?
With
few exceptions, until sometime in the 1700s all sword combat invariably
involved grappling and wrestling as an important component. A
skilled fighter could always close in with his opponent to disarm
or throw him or otherwise trap him in some way. He also had to
be able to defend against his opponent doing the same.
A weapon certainly helps you to fight, to protect yourself
from blows, and to deliver lethal ones of your own.
But it does not entirely eliminate the possibility of an
enemy getting at you and grabbing hold.
How did a swordsman learn and practice rapier
fencing?
The physics of thrusting swordplay, unlike the
dynamic clashing of broader blades, can be worked out and learned
slowly, provided care is taken.
Though developing the quick vigorous skills for actual
combat still required considerable exercise. As with any method
of fighting, rapiers were taught through a series of drills and
exercises that conveyed the weapon’s techniques along with core
principles of fighting (that is, timing, distance, technique,
etc.). However, just what the lessons were and how they were passed
along is something we no longer have any record of and can only
speculate on in our reconstructions. The key or foundational elements
of the weapon are clear enough from the surviving historical study
guides. Still more has been learned from literature of the period
and modern experiments. But just how rapier fencers actually practiced
their craft is something still being explored at the present.
Men
learning to fight with a rapier would have been taught fundamental
warding postures or fighting stances, basic attacks, how to step
and move, and how to deal with attacks by putting them aside,
evading them, or closing in against them. They would have been
taught awareness of the different divisions of the blade, where
it was stronger or weaker when pressed or pressing. They would
have been instructed in using their free hand or dagger to parry,
trap, or strike and they would have learned when to hit with their
hilt and when to grapple and wrestle as needed.
There
were schools and masters of Renaissance martial arts all over
Europe teaching swordplay in the 1500s and 1600s. According to
some teachers of the age the rapier’s manner of fight was actually
very easy to acquire. It was still highly methodical, often presented
with a wrapping of geometry and involved jargon, and frequently
viewed as more refined and scientific than the traditional “military”
fencing that it largely replaced off the battlefield. One master
in 1617 even claimed a boy of fifteen could learn to defend himself
against any man in very few lessons. Other teachers wrote the
rapier’s basis could even be learned without a teacher.
Were there expert teachers or masters
of rapier fighting?
Yes. During the age of the rapier there were many professional instructors
of fencing and martial arts teachings the use of a variety of
swords and weapons. The first work that specifically described
a civilian fighting style for a type of long slender sword that
can be identified as a "rapier" appeared around the
year 1553. But during the three decades between 1550 and 1580
when the newer rapier was emerging contemporaneous with the still
active military cut-and-thrust style, fencing masters and their
published books continued to present the traditional style swords
and weapons. But by 1580 there emerged a distinction between older
military styles and the appearance of a distinctive civilian style
of rapier fencing specifically intended for duelling and urban
self-defence. However, many of the treatises from this time that
actually depict and describe use of the thinner and longer rapier
also continued to include material on traditional military weapons-shields,
polearms, and double-handed swords used on and off the battlefield
for self defense as well as dueling. Then, by 1600 more and more
fencing treatises tended only to present civilian rapier fencing.
How were rapiers made?
Because
they did not require especially hard edges, nor great flexibility,
a rapier was actually not that difficult to produce. As with any
sword it had to be both strong and resilient. It had to be able
to withstand blows without breaking but it also had to be able
to hold an edge or point without staying bent or dulling instantly
after an impact. As swordsmiths now will point out, there is an
almost infinite variety of ways to produce such a slender sword
with one geometric shape or another that adds rigidity and lightness.
(Despite the many different rapier blade shapes I have not seen
a modern replica yet today that unfortunately doesn't rely on
the same simple flat-diamond shape, even though this represents
only one small form of earlier rapier blade styles).
There are several modern myths about how swords
are made. Select iron ore
had to be first processed by heating and working it into steel
before it could be shaped. Swords were never made by pouring molten metal
into molds (this would only produce a brittle and weak cast-iron
shape). Swords were also not created by pounding red
hot metal into shape on an anvil. Rather, after heating, the material
had the consistency of soft clay and needed to be carefully and
gradually hand-shaped by a skilled craftsman slowly and softly
working it. Blades were also not made by merely quenching (dunking)
them into water or some other liquid while red hot. This merely
was a finishing step in hardening the outside after a final careful
reheating. Before this a complex process of slow tempering (heat-treating)
was conducted to ensure the blade had the right stiffness and
resilience. This part was a major aspect of a swordsmith’s art.
Most
every kind of sword blade involves combining a softer inner core
of iron with a harder outer surrounding of steel. Getting this “sandwich” combination right for
the kind of job a particular blade was being called upon to perform
was not easy. Most blades
were produced by a folding process (something not exclusive to
Japanese swords) which mixed the required attributes of hard and
soft metal. Finally, their end shape would be produced by hand
grinding and polishing. To test rapiers, they would be thrust
and flexed against a resistant target. This was not to make sure
they could repeatedly flex, for that was not what they were intended
for, but rather to test whether they were well tempered and durable.
If made too stiff they would snap, if too soft they would not
recover from the bend. They might also be thrust against a softer material
to see how easily they pierced it.
While
the basic geometry of a rapier blade was probably produced in
the forging process, the final shape and the beveled facets of
the edge would likely have been created by grinding (perhaps even
after the blade had been heat treated).
Compared to those on a broad cutting sword, the tapers
and cross-sectional changes on a narrow stabbing blade would also
be minimal. Additionally, a thin blade would be less likely to
distort or warp during the hardening by heat (tempering) process.
Are practice rapiers and modern replicas different
than the real ones?
Real
rapiers were quite stiff. They needed to be very rigid in order
to easily thrust into human bodies when trying to harm an enemy.
If not, they would be unable to successfully puncture through
material such as cloth, leather, flesh, and even bone.
They also had to be able to deliver techniques as well
as deflect and beat other blades without wobbling or whipping.
To ensure this, rapiers were made with cross-sections that added
rigidity and strength without being too thick or heavy.
They were also tempered in such a way to give them additional
stiffness while retaining the necessary resilience.
Today, instead of being properly rigid most all reproduction
rapiers are made much too flexible and sometimes even wobbly.
This
is perhaps due to the desire by many rapier fencing aficionados
to have a safe practice weapon while sparring that will easily
bend to a considerable degree without breaking or accidentally
penetrating. But this degree of flexibility, appropriate for sport
weapons, affects the way such blades perform and distorts the
true techniques of real rapier fencing. There is also so far no
actual evidence of any flexible practice rapiers having ever been
used in the Renaissance. Bendable practice weapons for foyning fence
do not seem to appear prior to the use of the smallsword in the
late 1600s. Surviving specimens of “practice” rapiers from the
Renaissance are themselves quite stiff and not overly flexible.
However, there are many examples in both artwork and literature
from the age of practice rapiers with large ball tips for safe
training.
What
is a “smallsword” and how did it descend from the rapier?
By the mid-1600s, as fashion, firearms, and necessity
altered the need for personal self-defense weapons, the long bladed,
large-hilted rapier fell out of general use. Much lighter, shorter
versions developed which in time came to be known as smallswords
(sometimes also called court-swords, town-swords, or walking swords).
The distinction between the conditions under which civilian rapiers
and gentlemanly smallswords were each used greatly influenced
their development and design. The lighter, shorter, quicker smallsword
was not an inherent innovation over the earlier rapier and did
not “outfight” it. Rather than the smallsword design being in
itself any great virtue over the longer rapier, it was instead
developed for more specific and narrow circumstances.
The smallsword was a more poised, somewhat formalized,
dueling weapon whose teachings involved as much deportment and
composure as it did technique. In contrast
to the longer rapier, the smallsword fencing style, using a much
shorter and lighter blade, made a separate parry and riposte (counter-attack)
as two distinct movements.
The
smallsword’s method of both parrying and counter-attacking as
two separate actions (in “double time”) was not an intrinsic “improvement”
over earlier methods of fighting—which employed simultaneous actions
of offense and defense by counter-blow—but an adaptation. When
an exceptionally light thrusting sword came about, purposely developed
for civilian duelling with another similar weapon, it naturally
could affect two separate motions out of the action of parrying
a thrust and returning another.
This was no great advancement in fencing theory as much
as common sense fighting by using a weapon’s intrinsic speed to
its logical technical advantage.
How does rapier fencing of the Renaissance
compare to modern fencing styles?
Modern
sport fencing developed in the late 1800s from styles of fencing
created in the 1700s at a time when fewer kinds of swords were
being used by fewer men under less varied conditions.
It is the smallsword, and not the earlier rapier, from
which modern sport fencing styles are directly derived. It has
far more in common with this humble weapon than it does with rapiers
or any earlier Renaissance swords. Modern fencing’s “weapons”
were in fact never real swords. They were designed specifically
for simulation in a safe duelling game. They are much lighter,
softer, and faster than their historical counter-parts. Their
specialized rules of play observe artificial constraints that
have very little to do with any elements of Renaissance swordsmanship. Despite
what many people commonly try, real rapiers, being heavier, stiffer,
sturdier, and with larger hilts than today’s relatively flimsy
sporting weapons, cannot be used in the same flippy manner as
modern fencing does (and vice versa).
Though
rapiers and later smallswords, foils, and epees all utilize similar
core movements (since they are all forms of foyning fence) on
the whole there are considerable differences between them. Many
elements of rapier fighting described in accounts of combats and
duels or taught within texts from the period are simply illegal
in the modern sport. There is no use of either secondary weapons
or the free hand, for example, and combatants are not permitted
to use too much force against their adversary’s blade. This itself
alters the nature of the fight and the techniques used significantly.
There is no blade grabbing or manual disarms allowed, nor can
the fighter grab his own blade with both hands in any manner.
There are also no cutting strikes at all used with later
foyning weapons, even if just to aggravate and harass the opponent
and sometimes no blows are delivered below the waist. There is
no body contact permitted at all in modern fencing, and certainly
no grappling allowed to hold or trip or throw the opponent. This
alone fundamentally changes the approach and attitude brought
to such a fight.
Why did rapiers fade away?
The
rapier era was active for some 150 years, just long enough for
several varieties of the weapon and several fighting theories
for using them to have evolved before firearms made them truly
obsolete for personal self-defense.
The rapier stayed in wide use as the premier personal weapon
for urban self-defence and duel of honor in Western Europe until
the mid-to-late 1600s, but was largely outmoded by the early 1700s.
As the daily wearing of swords about town declined there
was no longer the opportunity for sudden challenges and assaults
as there once was. Similarly, there was no longer the same urgent
necessity to employ a dagger or suddenly parry a thrust with the
bare hand. Thus, rapiers fell out of use.
What makes the rapier special?
As a personal weapon of urban self-defense, the
vicious and elegant rapier became the dueling tool par excellence.
In my opinion (speaking also as avid admirer of both longswords
and sword & buckler fencing), for single unarmored duels with
a sword, in skilled hands the slender rapier is a vicious and
formidable weapon for single combat not to be underestimated (especially
by those unfamiliar with its unique style of fight). Its method
is quick, deceptive, subtle, and represents one of the most innovative
and original aspects of our Western martial heritage.
The
rapier was distinct in Western European sword history in that
it represented a specialization of design—that is, a weapon optimized
for unarmored single-combat rather than fighting most anywhere,
anytime, or under any conditions.
It was strictly a personal weapon, never used or intended
for war or battlefield. However, what a rapier arguably did
best was fight another rapier. As a slender, civilian thrusting
sword the rapier was a sophisticated and highly effective form
of personal combat, vicious and elegant in its lethality.
How come so many different looking sword blades seem to have been called “rapier” over such a short span of time?
This is not a hard concept to grasp. Regardless of the names continually evolving for different types of swords in the period, there were tapered single-hand swords and then there were rapiers (hence, the new methods of civilian fencing that developed in the 16th century). The weapons are not identical and do not perform or handle identically.
This is self-evident in handling original specimens and in test-cutting with modern reproductions of each type.
Military and civilian blades of radically different cross-sectional profiles are simply not synonymous. They cannot all be employed as some foil/saber hybrid. Arguing that they do is an astounding display of idiocy and ignorance. The whole idea is simply that there was a new slenderer, tapered, single-hand sword blade becoming popular that was not intended or suited for military use and which emphasized thrusts. These weapons eventually grew so slender that they lost all cutting capacity as they developed a particular method of counter-thrusting use. Oddly, despite the sometimes view that all slender Renaissance swords and rapiers are essentially the same, it is not generally claimed that rapiers and later smallswords are identical even though many smallswords were merely rapier blades shortened and given different hilts. It makes even less sense then to argue that blades of radically different cross-sectional profiles are somehow synonymous.
What should I look for in a good practice rapier blade today?
Rapiers did not have a uniform blade shape that simply tapered until sharp. As with so many other types of historical swords, virtually all rapiers had a differential cross section along their length – a change in their blade geometry or shape –, going from a thick but narrow hexagonal, square, or star shape to a flatter triangular or oval toward the point. There were a wide variety of such blade designs. Most would have a high central riser or deep fuller channels that further affected their mass and stiffness. The ricassos and tangs of rapiers were also frequently thicker than were their blades at their widest portion. All of this affected their balance, center of gravity, and weight, and thus, would directly produce a particular manner handling and use. Unfortunately, despite these facts, virtually no modern reproduction rapiers are made today with anything other than a simple (and inaccurate) cross-section of a flattened diamond taper with a limited tang. This further encourages the tendency for reproductions to be far whippier than their historical counterparts. Like any sword, a good rapier needed a certain amount of resilience to ward blows and its considerable narrowness would of course give it a certain natural flexibility. But, for its thrusting attacks to penetrate as well as to effectively deflect the thrusts of other blades, a rapier required considerable stiffness. An accurate reproduction rapier will have a cross section that incorporrates these factors.
How can someone start studying the rapier
now?
If you want to begin exploring the rapier without
spending hundreds of dollars on equipment, you can purchase an
inexpensive wooden rapier waster, try working with some of the
material in my ’97 Renaissance Swordsmanship book as a
basis for study (in which many of the elements raised here are
addressed), and read through the many rapier articles and manuals
online here at the ARMA website. Practice thrusting against a target, moving
by stepping quickly forward and back and diagonally while thrusting,
and practice lunging and thrusting while using the left hand to
parry and trap. It’s really not a difficult weapon to practice
(as one master even said) once you have grasped the simple foundation
of its method. It just takes time and sufficient effort.
The seemingly complicated exchanges of rapid thrust and
counter thrust of foyning fence can appear highly technical and
indecipherable to the uninitiated beginner, but there really are
only a few movements at work.
If
you have never practiced any form of swordplay, it can be very
useful to learn modern styles of foyning fence with foil and epee,
as it is a descendant of the rapier.
But be aware at all times that these are very stylized
forms of duelling sport far removed from Renaissance martial arts.
They are taught and practiced with a number of artificial rules,
limitations, and restrictions that have nothing whatsoever to
do with the combat effectiveness or history of how earlier swords
were actually used. The polite ritual swordplay of late 19th
century duelling was a far cry from the savage ferocity of Medieval
and Renaissance hand-to-hand combat. While there are core movements
common between them (and between most all forms of swordplay),
the differences in the weapons and the conditions they were used
under are important.
Where
can someone learn more about real rapiers and rapier fencing?
There
are unfortunately still very few reliable sources for learning
about real rapiers and real Renaissance fencing. My advice is
to follow along with the articles on the ARMA website and read
the books on our reading list and, of course, consider becoming
a member. Also, pay attention
to everything you can and collect your own study notes. But, be
always wary of its accuracy. When it comes to rapiers (and other swords), popular conceptions
in general are considerably different than both the historical
and the physical reality. In my experience, it’s
often difficult for some people (whose knowledge of swords and
swordsmanship primarily comes from movies, TV, video games, and
comic books) to put aside their preconceptions and instead, consider
the reality of the historical record when forming their opinions.
What is worse, however, is that
some modern fencing teachers will intentionally put forth known
falsehoods concerning the rapier as a way of camouflaging their
ignorance of fighting arts from the Renaissance era and their
own virtual irrelevance to its study. So, read a lot, study hard,
but be cautious about what information you accept as correct.
As with many things, when learning either history or fencing,
skepticism is healthy.
Rapier fencing is neither difficult nor complex. It existed not on its own but within a larger context of Renaissance arms and armor and fighting skills. Only the later Baroque smallsword and modern fencing made foyning fence into something elaborate. Beware of modern teachers of the rapier who, as neither high-caliber fighters with long training in Renaissance combatives nor highly skilled martial artists, go out of their way to promote the mystique of the rapier rather than its practical simplicity.
Why does historical accuracy matter when studying
the rapier?
Because
the rapier was a real weapon invented by real people to really
fight one another, we owe it to their legacy and our heritage
to respect the history involved.
History is about what actually took place, not some imaginary
or pretend things. It presents for us the record of the ideas,
the events, and the people that formed our world.
It is not merely a starting point of inspiration for fantasy
entertainment and role-playing amusement. History really happened. There is nothing imaginary
that can compare to the reality of the millions of our ancestors
having over centuries lived out their lives, working, playing,
loving, creating, thinking, fighting, and dying. Their efforts
and ingenuity, their sweat and blood, their continuous life and
death trial and error testing are our sole best source for what
truly worked in personal combat. They learned from earnest experience. They knew
what worked and what didn’t because their lives depended on it. It was real.
Rather than just make things up now or mix things together
today we owe it to both our forebears and our descendants to appreciate
their world and the struggles that created it. To best understand
the present and prepare for the future, we must consider the past.
Because to know where you’re going, you have to know where you’re
from. Whatever the motive
for your interest in swords and swordplay, it must begin with
a firm appreciation of the history behind when and where and why
they existed.
The preceding has been excerpted from a forthcoming book on
Renaissance swords. Please note this article is protected by copyright.
To use, quote, copy, or reproduce any part of it for a school
project or website you must contact us for permission first.
While
there were special Medieval thrusting swords, called estocs or
tucks and used since the 1300s, these were not early rapiers and
there is no direct connection between them. They were large, heavy,
stiff, two-handed blades specifically designed to puncture or
beat on plate armor. They were not handled like rapiers but are
directly related to the use of Medieval swords held by the blade
(what was called at the “half-sword”).
They
had many names in different countries and were essentially just
sharp metal rods with square or triangular cross-sections and
typically two large, round hand guards. These tucks were also
used in shorter single-hand versions in the late 1500s and early
1600s, but these weapons could not be handled like a much thinner
and lighter rapier.
Misunderstanding
To
learn effectively how to fence together men therefore had to be
cautious but trusting. Blunted and un-pointed weapons, originally
called “foyled” blades, were typically used that would not hurt
if they hit too hard.