Sword-and-Buckler vs. Rapier: Fair Fight?

[James Brazas]

Much has been made by many historians about how the rapier defeated the sword-and-buckler and became the weapon of choice in the later Renaissance.

(Of course, the rapier would be worthless on a battlefield with plate armor.)

They cite the rapier's length and its nimble and deceptive point, saying it was easily able to outmaneuver the Sword-and-Buckler, thrust around its defenses, and win. From what they say, it sounds like (in a civilian context) the rapier defeats sword-and-buckler as easily as paper defeats rock. (Basically, this is what Egerton and Castle say.)

Yet we know there was at least a generation there (latter half of the 16th Century) where the Rapier and Sword-and-Buckler were used side-by-side. We also know that George Silver at the turn of the 17th Century still held the Sword-and-Buckler up as the preferred fencing style. Finally, we know it was still in use in Jamestown in the early 17th Century.

Which leads me to my primary question: what caused the fall of the sword-and-buckler and the rise of the rapier?

Was the rapier simply superior for unarmored single combat?

Was it merely a matter of fashion - the Rapier being the elegant fashion of the day?

Was it the rise of reliable firearms, making a pistol a much better off-hand weapon than a buckler?

Was it something else?


Here is my second question:

If the Sword-and-Buckler really could compete with the Rapier, what would be effective tactics to use?

Near as I can tell, the Sword-and-Buckler's main disadvantage relative to other weapons is its short reach (shorter reach than the longsword, sidesword, rapier, or any polearm).

[Vincent Le Chevalier]

The question is in fact more complex, because there wasn't such a clear opposition sword & buckler vs. rapier (except perhaps in England). The sword itself changed gradually, gaining length, losing some blade mass, and supporting more and more protective hilts. You do see sword & buckler in the late XVIth, but with swords that are already close to the rapiers that came up later. So this was not sword & buckler as in I.33. Sword & buckler was not really replaced by sword alone, but by sword & dagger or sword & cape.

A good example of this transition is in Lovino. You see illustrations of all the weapon combinations, with always the same sword. So the question is not really, why did the rapier replace sword & buckler, but why did they abandon the buckler.

My guess is that it was because it was more cumbersome than dagger or cape, not as dangerous in close as a dagger, and also less practical to bind the opponent's sword with. The great advantage of the buckler is that it can bounce cuts without being disturbed by them, but this is not so useful in single combat out of armor, in which thrusts started to dominate. Fashion and practical aspects surely came into play too...

Regards,

[Stacy Clifford]

I agree with Vincent that you have to specify what kind of sword and buckler you mean. Similar to Lovino, Di Grassi describes single sword, S&D and S&B (as well as sword & cape and two swords) all using the same slender sword in a mostly thrusting style. The way he uses the buckler is different from the older I.33 method: there is still some shield striking and stifling, but he uses the edge of the buckler more, whereas I.33 uses mainly the face of the buckler. A Talhoffer-style buckler full of points and curves is a much better binding weapon than Di Grassi's dinner plate buckler with a center spike.

You also didn't specify if the rapier fighter had a second hand weapon. Rapiers were sometimes used with bucklers themselves. A parrying dagger is better for binding a blade, but if you get past the rapier's point, a buckler can make a dagger nearly useless in close while the short sword does its work.

There is no doubt that in trained hands, a rapier is a nasty, dangerous thing, but I agree with Silver that if you understand the rapier and approach it correctly, you can give it a great deal of trouble even with a shorter weapon. The main thing is to treat it like a spear and clear the point before going in. Use the sword to bind the rapier at range and let the buckler handle the dagger in close while the sword cuts loose to attack and you can make it a pretty even game (that's just one possible tactic, but one of the more useful in my opinion).

I don't think the sword & buckler ever stopped being effective against other swords, but if you could get similarly good defensive results with a more fashionable weapon (which, generally in civilian defense, you could with sword & dagger), then more people are probably going to use the newest and shiniest before stepping out with grandpa's Old Reliable. Guns no doubt changed things as well, but ultimately it's probably multiple factors rather than any single one that led to the decline of S&B's popularity.

[s_taillebois]

Also a matter of cultural effect, the rapier was in its own way as much of a social marker of status as a weapon. It got to the point that rapiers as symbol got to be a nuisance, Elizabeth 1st for example dictated that rapiers could not extend beyond a certain length as these had become a nuisance in markets and etc. As M. Clement's noted the ascendency of the rapier is a matter of fashion as anything else...in our society the equivalent would be the 'cowboy; guns of the sixties or a customized 1911-obsolete militarily but fashionable.

And another factor in the rise of the rapier and the fading of the sword and buckler was shifts in other weapons including the gun. The rapier would remain in use because it was a civilian weapon...other swords would change due to the major changes in warfare in that period.

Basically as far as comparing edged 'apples and oranges' it is a matter of the competency of the wielder as all are dangerous. (s)Peake using a stick killed several Spanish sword fighters during the same period when rapiers were popular.

[James Brazas]

Interesting. So it sounds like sword-and-buckler and rapier-and-dagger would have both been quite effective. But rapier and dagger was simply more fashionable and more comfortable (a dagger being smaller and easier to carry around than a buckler).

Thank you Stacy Clifford for the tips on defeating the rapier. To be honest, I love the longsword, sword-and-buckler, and sidesword (with and without off-hand weapons), but I'm not as big of a fan of the rapier since it was only a civilian weapon. But I at least want to know how to defeat it. I imagine I'll eventually have to learn rapier in order to know how to effectively counter it.

What do you think of a concave buckler? Would that make it more effective for catching or defelecting thrusts?

Also, am I correct in my assumption that when George Silver rated Sidesword above Rapier and Sidesword-and-Buckler above Sidesword-and-Dagger that he rated them like that with the battlefield in mind rather than civilian duels?

[Benjamin Abbott]

Also, am I correct in my assumption that when George Silver rated Sidesword above Rapier and Sidesword-and-Buckler above Sidesword-and-Dagger that he rated them like that with the battlefield in mind rather than civilian duels?

No. Silver's hierarchy of weapons applies to single combat in the open. He gave battlefield recommendation separately in the same section.

In case such as this one where knowledgeable sources disagree on the odds a given weapon match, there's not much to do but trust your experience/intuition/gut or accept the uncertainty. Silver considered the single sword superior to the single rapier and the sword-and-buckler combination all the more so. Swetnam had minimal respect for the buckler. Make of the conflict what you will.

[James Brazas]

You know, now that I think about it, you're right.

He did seperate it into single combat and tight battlefield formation sections.

The sections seemed to be pretty similar, though he ranked sword-and-target below sword-and-buckler in single combat. For battlefield infantry use, he ranked target above buckler.

I wonder if that was in part based on the assumption that you were wearing partial plate instead of full plate?

I imagine in an earlier era, for a full plate clad knight, the buckler might be more useful than the target even on the battlefield. At the very least, I remember seeing more knights with sword-and-buckler in period art than I see using sword-and-target.

Silver also seems to favor various kinds of swords and pollaxes above longer polearms for tight, close-quarters for obvious reasons.

And it's also true about the ambiguity. If the masters agree on something, it's a pretty safe assumption that they're right since they used these arts all their lives and lived or died by their skill.

But if they disagree, they probably all had good reasons for their opinions. So it's probably more based on their differing priorities, differing era/setting, differing style, or differing preferences than the inherent superiority or inferiority of a given weapon.