Is it true that sword & buckler had advantage to the rap

[YIzhe LIU]

I read George SIlver's passage about defense,he said that the rapier or rapier and dagger has no advantages to against sword and buckler.But in this passage

http://www.thearma.org/essays/SwordandBucklerP4.htm

http://www.thearma.org/essays/SwordandBucklerP3.htm

It is said that rapier had ever supressed the sword and buckler and the sword and buckler had no vantages to against rapier/rapier and dagger.

How do you think?I also read a passage in ARMA showed the rapier had never defeated or met broad sword in the history.

I should believe whom and which one

[Jonathan Hill]

The thing you need to understand about these passages, especially Silver, is they are all from the opinion or research of the writer. Each writer favors a particular weapon and thus will write as if that weapon is the greatest thing in the world, or they teach that particular weapon and thus they will tell how it is the best weapon ever. There are many passages in many different texts that all state a different weapon is the best weapon ever.

Reality is a grey line, and as stated in a different thread any weapon can defeat any other weapon, it all depends on the user. Now that said, again, each weapon has characteristics that may give it an advantage. A buckler can help overcome the disadvantage in range that the sword has over the Rapier.

Making a statement that one weapon has never faced a different weapon should not be done by us in the modern era. You can make a generality based off location and time, but Rapier and Broadsword were too close in time and location for me to make such a distinction. Gladius vs Longsword may be safer, but even Jian vs Rapier most likely happened, or Dao against Sabre most likely happened.

[YIzhe LIU]

I read George SIlver's passage about defense,he said that the rapier or rapier and dagger has no advantages to against sword and buckler.But in this passage

http://www.thearma.org/essays/SwordandBucklerP4.htm

http://www.thearma.org/essays/SwordandBucklerP3.htm

It is said that rapier had ever supressed the sword and buckler and the sword and buckler had no vantages to against rapier/rapier and dagger.

How do you think?I also read a passage in ARMA showed the rapier had never defeated or met broad sword in the history.

I should believe whom and which one

I think the sword and buckler had no advantages when one agains anoher or others with rapier/rapier and dagger were they did not know the right way to against.

I think to against rapier/rapier dagger,We should use the sword to stop or block rapier's lethal and fast thrust,not the buckler.

If they were to used in this way,the results would be the sword and buckler take advantages when against rapier and dagger.

Geroge Silver's opinion might be based on the way I have suggested.

[Nicholas Moore]

I think George Silver's opinion was based more on his dislike of Italians and their foreign weapons than any real evidence.

[JeremyDillon]

I think George Silver's opinion was based more on his dislike of Italians and their foreign weapons than any real evidence.

He also expresses the fear that the pervasive use of rapiers by the english population would result in drastically more dueling and street fighting. In the actual technical portions of his treatises he seems (although I'm no expert) to treat rapiers rather pragmatically, discussing the strengths and weaknesses of the weapon alongside others. It appears to me that Silver's objection to the rapier was nearly metaphysical. The very idea of the weapon, for Silver, is at odds with his idealistic conception of Englishmen.

Just my two cents. Others with a greater depth of knowledge may have more to say on the matter.

[Stacy Clifford]

He also expresses the fear that the pervasive use of rapiers by the english population would result in drastically more dueling and street fighting. In the actual technical portions of his treatises he seems (although I'm no expert) to treat rapiers rather pragmatically, discussing the strengths and weaknesses of the weapon alongside others. It appears to me that Silver's objection to the rapier was nearly metaphysical. The very idea of the weapon, for Silver, is at odds with his idealistic conception of Englishmen.

In Silver's defense, the rapier is really a specialized weapon intended mainly for dueling and street fighting. It contributes nothing to defense of king and country, so in his opinion the only reason to have one is to murder somebody in the street. It's still in his professional interest to teach its proper use because many students would encounter one or likely already have one despite his disapproval. Since the rapier could still be defeated by weapons with more acceptable (military) uses in his view, however, I can see why Silver would show some moral favoritism.

[Anthony R. Camacho]

As a long time epee fencer, I believe that rapiers, as dueling weapons, are superior than sword and buckler. Most rapiers would have a longer reach than the single hand swords used with bucklers. Further, the rapier fighter has the superior advantage of prolonged endurance with the lighter weight of the rapier. Finally, the rapier's thrusting method of inflicting wounds is potentially more lethal than most of the cuts that a short sword would inflict. That said, the sword and buckler were definately superior on the medieval battlefield than the rapier due to the compressed space of that type of fighting. Sadly, both weapons are inferior to firearms wich are the real reason both rapier and sword and buckler styles faded from public use.

[Stacy Clifford]

As a long time epee fencer, I believe that rapiers, as dueling weapons, are superior than sword and buckler. Most rapiers would have a longer reach than the single hand swords used with bucklers. Further, the rapier fighter has the superior advantage of prolonged endurance with the lighter weight of the rapier. Finally, the rapier's thrusting method of inflicting wounds is potentially more lethal than most of the cuts that a short sword would inflict. That said, the sword and buckler were definately superior on the medieval battlefield than the rapier due to the compressed space of that type of fighting. Sadly, both weapons are inferior to firearms wich are the real reason both rapier and sword and buckler styles faded from public use.

For purely dueling purposes I agree that the rapier in well trained hands is one of the hardest things to beat, but it is nonetheless beatable by shorter weapons with the right tactics. Regarding lethality, yes thrusting can be more deadly when aimed correctly, but Silver's point was that a rapier can also inflict a lot of wounds that neither kill nor even slow the other fighter down much, whereas deep cuts will usually disable whatever limb they hit and stop the fight a lot more often, with or without killing. Point control with a rapier can be pretty difficult against a resisting opponent, and it's easy to stab everything except your intended target sometimes against a vigorous defense. Cutting can be a little more forgiving in that respect. We've had this discussion before on other threads in more detail, so I won't drag it out here.

Regarding the advantage of greater endurance, I would claim that's actually false. First, rapiers often weren't any lighter that cutting swords and were sometimes in fact heavier. The thicker spine and greater length of the blade makes up for the lack of width, and the more complex hilts with elaborate cages can add considerable weight. I've handled rapiers that were so well balanced that they felt lighter than they really were, but I can say the same for cutting swords as well. Also, I have experience with both rapier and sword and buckler, and personally I find the intense, mostly linear lunging style of rapier to be significantly more tiring than sword and buckler. S&B is a more symmetrical, well-rounded style that uses more different muscle groups which can allow each other precious seconds to rest and recover. Rapier and dagger evens things up a little bit, but still places a much heavier burden on the sword arm and corresponding forward leg. I find longsword less tiring than rapier or sidesword for the same reason - the muscular burden is more evenly distributed around the body, so no one part gets fatigued too quickly due to overuse, despite the obviously larger weapon. You might be able to make a case for smallsword (on which modern epee is based), but even there my observation still applies.

[Jonathan Hill]

Endurance is so subjective it should not even be considered when comparing competent fighters in their own prospective weapon. As Stacy mentioned he finds Longsword less tiring than Rapier, I find Longsword more tiring than Rapier. I am more proficient with Rapier and can do ‘proper’ work with a Rapier far longer than I can do ‘proper’ work with a longsword, while on the other hand I have worked with a few others who are more proficient at longsword and they too find Rapier to take more out of them. By the way the blades are within three ounces of each other, and I would much rather do 5 min of lunge drills than 5 min of cutting drills.

The basics come to when you train regularly with the weapon you develop the endurance and technique you need to use your weapon. If you take someone of similar skill level and training with a S&B and compare to similar with Rapier/Rapier and dagger, they will not be a large difference in ‘getting tired.’ The one who got tired first was the one who decided to run around more while his opponent conserved his energy.

In a fight with a shorter weapon, any shorter weapon, and this applies to all weapons. The longer weapon will try to strike from the extent of their range, not allowing the shorter weapon to enter its own range, and thus keeping the user of the longer weapon safe while still having the ability to strike. The shorter weapon first must overcome this distance game before he can strike with his shorter weapon. Once he has overcome this issue he is usually at a distinct advantage as a longer weapon must adjust his ‘range’ before he can now strike.

[Stacy Clifford]

I agree that if you're comparing well trained, fit fighters, endurance is not likely to become an issue before somebody gets seriously hurt. Anybody well trained with their weapons should be fit enough to last out a single fight with them of any kind. Multiple opponents or fights that close to grappling are a bigger concern in that regard. I'm talking about the difference between sparring or drilling for 30 minutes without needing a breather vs. 15 minutes, not the difference between a 30 second fight and a two minute one.

Good summary on short vs. long weapons Jonathan, well stated.

[Anthony R. Camacho]

This discussion inspired me to think of what sword system the rapier would have a serious disadvantage confronting. As I stated in my earlier posting here, I do not believe it is the sword and buckler system. Instead, a rapier would have a serious disadvantage against the combination of a full sized single hand sword and the kite shaped shield. The kite shaped shield would provide good protection for most of the primary targets of the rapier, and the full sized single hand sword would certainly allow its user the ability to hit a rapier wielding opponent. I believe this fight would look similar to the rotation of a carusel with the sword and shield fighter at the center and the rapier wielding opponent at the circumfrence trying to circle outside the kite shaped shield to get a thrusting hit. All the while, the sword and shield fighter would await the right moment to get inside the rapier's guard and end the fight with a good cut or thrust.

[william_cain_iii]

Or the rapier guy would do what I did when I was doing single-sword versus someone with a shield, and give the shield a good stout kick, then stab the man as he scrambles to regain his balance.

Shields make people overconfident, and they don't necessarily realize they're as much an impediment in a one on one fight as they are an advantage - just have to know how to approach them.

[Stacy Clifford]

Anthony,

Sword and buckler isn't limited to a particular type of sword, and there is no reason you can't use a "full sized single hand sword" with a buckler if you want to. The swords in I.33 may be short and stubby, but what would you call the swords in Talhoffer's S&B? Are those not "full sized"? What about the long, narrow cut & thrust in Di Grassi's S&B?

Personally my favorite way to fight a rapier is with a nice agile cut & thrust. Once you know those little tricks to getting inside the rapier's point it becomes a lot easier to do, and having a free hand to grab the rapier blade can be very useful. If the rapier guy has a dagger then obviously I want one too since that makes the inside game a lot hairier for both of us, but either way agility vs. the rapier is generally key. Longsword can work surprisingly well against it also though, if you know how to keep the rapier out of its comfort zone. No matter what you use (aside from staff weapons), it's very difficult to fight against a rapier if you don't know how to fight with a rapier first. I think that's the main reason George Silver taught it despite his dislike of them.

[Jonathan Hill]

William makes a good point about the shield being a liability as well as an asset. While you can protect yourself with the shield you also limit your ability to strike at any angle that is blocked by the shield, so even your opponent can hide in the shield area. The best thing someone with that big of a shield can do is charge.

With a Rapier the hardest thing to fight is a small sword. Dam things are insanely fast and strong enough that a good beat from the small sword to your foilble will be give him enough time to make a hit and get out. As they are thrusters as well it is difficult to disengage it in time the way you would against a cutting weapon where you see a large arch of the blade.

Also what is a ‘full sized blade?’ That just seems interperative.

[Robin Milford]

I think if you know real sword fight then you know that a less weight tool is more effective when you have great speed. So I thing there Rapier have more advantage. That is my opinion only.