Questions about bringing a rapier to war.

[YIzhe LIU]

How is the effecitve and results if a infatry carried a rapier or a rapier with main gauche to battle field to against other wider blade swords and cold armes during the age 1500-1700?

If i can use a rapier very well,can it take it to war as a major cold armes?

IF i can use a rapier with main gauche well,can i bring them to join a war as my major cold armes?

[Roger Norling]

How is the effecitve and results if a infatry carried a rapier or a rapier with main gauche to battle field to against other wider blade swords and cold armes during the age 1500-1700?

If i can use a rapier very well,can it take it to war as a major cold armes?

IF i can use a rapier with main gauche well,can i bring them to join a war as my major cold armes?

I can't really speak for the results or effectiveness, but they were certainly used in combination with pikes, for instance. Take a look at the images in Johann Jacobi von Wallhausen's manual here: http://www.hroarr.com/articles/article-wallhausen.php

[Stacy Clifford]

gtavc - Please edit your profile name to your full first and last name as required by our forum rules.

Roger,

Fascinating manual, but the swords I see in there look more like this one than they do rapiers to me:

http://www.albion-swords.com/swords/alb ... li-xix.htm

Rapiers were slender and good for one-on-one civilian dueling, but the tips were usually thinner and more fragile and often couldn't withstand the beating they would take in mass combat, plus rapiers weren't designed to face armor. Cutting ability comes in much more handy against multiple opponents and a good flat with a little give to it can generally absorb a blow better than a narrow spike. I'm sure rapier and dagger probably got taken into battle from time to time anyway (what weapon didn't?), but most good military men probably wouldn't have considered it your best choice of sword for the task at hand. George Silver is pretty vocal about that.

[Jonathan Hill]

The term Rapier (I know it seems like another one of these) has been used to refer to swords with a swept hilt (or complex/cup hilt) regardless of it being a slim thrusting blade or a wider cutting blade. So for the first step I would say if you are talking about a swept hilt with a wide cutting blade the sword will be just as effective on the battlefield as any other battle sword. These swords are more often referred to as a side sword to differentiate it from a sword with a thin thrusting blade (Rapier.) Sometimes the difference between a side sword and a Rapier is just remounting a wider blade on the same hilt.

A thrusting Rapier on a battlefield would not be an optimum choice. First off it is longer than most other swords and in a melee which becomes more cumbersome in the fight. It is a thrusting blade and does not cut to much effectiveness, so trying to cut at someone would be futile. Also it is not effective against most types of armor, you can thrust through a leather jacket or padded jacket, but any sort of metal armor you just aren’t going to do anything to.

I know in the movie Alatriste they used Rapiers on the battlefield but that was in accurate, they should have re-mounted a wider blade when moving to the battlefield rather than keeping the dueling blade.

Examples – sorry for the links to a different site if I have time I’ll try to find better.
Side sword - http://www.myarmoury.com/review_casi_pss.html
Rapier - http://www.myarmoury.com/review_casi_1219gt.html

[Roger Norling]

Well, the definitions of a rapier, side-sword, straight sabre and an arming sword are not always as clear cut. In the first decade of the 17th century the rapiers for war looked pretty much like this. They can also be seen in eg Van Burens manual on drilling.

But, yes technically some of these are probably side-swords, which in my eyes are the military variant of the rapier. Compare it to the Meyer rappir, for instance.

As for side-swords and early rappirs not being able to combat armour, looking at the Wallhausen images you see that they aim at thrusting into the gaps of the armour, just as in regular Harnischfechten. This in 1614.

I guess it depends on how you define the rappir.

http://www.thearma.org/Youth/rapieroutline.htm (Parts of this article appears to be contradicted by manuals such as that of von Wallhausen)
http://www.salvatorfabris.com/WhatIsTheRapier2.shtml

EDIT: This was a response to Stacy's post.

[Sal Bertucci]

Part of the problem is that now we try and classify every little difference about swords, and how they were used; however, when these manuals were written the Masters just called everything a "sword". They might specify "two handed sword" or "edged sword", but that was more of an exception than the rule.

[Roger Norling]

True, but it is also interesting to note that both Meyer and von Wallhausen use the term Rappier in the span of 1560 to 1614 for swords that look pretty good for cutting as well, one in the context of a fencing manuscript and the other in the context of advise on training for war.

The term was probably used even earlier, but rappiers are not my forte...

[YIzhe LIU]

but I remembered that the blade of some two hand swords are also as long as rapier?

[Roger Norling]

Not sure how that relates to the topic, but yes there were.

However, bidenhänders vary greatly in length, with blades the length of regular arming swords to being as tall as a man including the hilt, and for ceremonial use, even longer than that.

Coincidentally, I have an article that relates to that topic here: http://www.hroarr.com/articles/article-longswords.php

Also, check this article and the tables in the last pages particularly: http://www.hroarr.com/manuals/other/Wanke-Tilman-aufsatz-langesschwert-v1-2009.pdf

And this: http://www.ejmas.com/jwma/articles/2000/jwmaart_melville_0100.htm

[Roger Norling]

... and to reply to the original post, it appears as if the use of the early rappier included training for war in the first European Military Academy, the Schola Militaris in Siegen. This was part of the Dutch military system which had a strong influence on Europe, and was adapted and improved upon by Swedish King Gustav II Adolf in his campaigns, when building the Swedish Empire in the 1600s .

Early on there was little difference in blade between a tapering arming sword and a swept-hilt rapier and both were obviously used in war. The more slender rapiers were also carried, at least by officers and it appears to me as if it is unclear to what extent they were used. They could certainly be used to thrust into the gaps of protection, just as can be seen in the Wallhausen images.

King Gustav II Adolf carried a rapier in his final battle in 1632 at Lützen, where his army succeeded in defeating Albrecht von Wallensteins army, despite the king being killed in the battle. The description of the injuries he sustained describes "several rapier thrusts" although it was a bullet that killed him.

It would seem likely that he also carried a main gauche, but I wouldn't think that there was much fighting done on the battle field with a dagger and sword in combination.

Also, pikes and firearms where much more important weapons in this time period, but for infantry at close range or on horseback the rappier appears to have been used even in the context of war.

Here is a nice article on rapiers and other swords: http://www.armsarmour.com/a.pdf Unfortunately most of the text has been blurred, but the images are very pretty and enlightening. Also, keep in mind that the terminology used is that of museum curators and collectors and are as such often 19th century inventions.

[Jonathan Hill]

Roger I think your thoughts of battles are too clean, here’s a link to remind you the fights get dirty. For entertainment as well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26C758K4 ... re=related
It’s the scene I mentioned where they were using blades a bit too thin for the cuts they are making, a side sword blade would have been more appropriate.

Trying to keep on topic, the Sword is generally not a primary weapon on a battlefield, I hope the link can help illustrate that. The sword is good to you when appropriate but you will most likely start with a different weapon. Carrying a Sword and dagger is a good idea, but if that is all you bring to the fight you may find yourself with a spear in your face and having a hard time getting in range to use your blade, or you may find yourself too close to use your blade and only stabbing away with a dagger.

[Roger Norling]

Not sure in what respect you think my thoughts on battle are too clean, cuz I have some pretty dirty thoughts in mind as well. And I was under the impression that we pretty much agree... I just consider the side sword to be a rapier. After all, that is the term they seem to have used in the military academies of the period. It's us who like to be able to differentiate between different types of rapiers by giving them specific names...

[Stacy Clifford]

It can be very difficult to tell what they really considered a "rapier" back then and what they didn't. In the original Italian version of Di Grassi, the swords are simply called "spada" ("sword") in the text, but in the 1594 English version it is translated as "rapier." I remember reading at least one suggestion somewhere that this could have been a marketing tactic to sell more copies because a "rapier" was much more fashionable and popular in England at the moment than a plain old "sword." It's not real hard to picture some 16th century salesman telling you, "It's not just a sword, it's a rapier. Trust me, would I steer you wrong?" Or some young buck trying to impress a girl, "I just bought a new rapier, see the pretty hilt?" even though it was actually a cheaper weapon with a more conventional blade. People haven't changed all that much since then. In ARMA we generally find it more useful to identify swords by the blade type than the hilt because it's more directly relevant to function, which narrows the definition of rapier down quite a bit. History's a muddy thing though, and it's probably worth remembering that back then, anybody capable of reading, writing and fighting probably had some vested interest in not sounding poor and unfashionable even if he was actually a pragmatist. George Silver comes across like an exception bucking the trend (well, there's always a curmudgeon or two).

[Jonathan Hill]

Roger, we do agree, I just having fun with you

If you look at later period manual, 17th-19th C, the ones endorsed by the military use the word ‘sword.’ The Manuals I consider ‘fencing’ or school work use ‘Broadsword, Broad Sword’ or Small Sword’ when describing many different swords. So I would agree there may be an aspect of ‘marketing’ to the terms.

Personally I am less concerned with what it is called but rather how you use it. What we are calling a side sword is more of a cut and thrust and what we are calling a Rapier is more of a dueling thrusting blade. Similarly the discussion on what to call a Broadsword has similar issues. As for me I favor a naming system that give us in the modern world a common point of reference even if it contradicts some terms that were historically used. Naming blades according to the system is what I would favor, then we can all argue over what fits in each system …

As I study Rapier, Longsword and Sabre (broadsword system,) and we also have people studying side sword, the Side Sword system has much more in comnon with the Broadsword system than with the Rapier. I also see video’s up of people using thin thrusting blades in a side sword manner, taking advantage of the extra range and cutting with it (not in a Spanish Rapier way as well.) They are treating it as if the cut holds the same effect as it would with the side sword.

[Roger Norling]

With respect, here I disagree with you Stacy. Although I am sure it happened sometimes, I simply don't see this happening with people like Joachim Meyer or von Wallhausen. Just imagine trying to convince the Director of the first European Military Academy that the rehilted arming sword you brought really is the new and fancy rapiers everyone is speaking of...

It seems to me as if the simpler explanation is that it is us who have changed the definition of what a rapier is to fit our own needs for narrower classification. Not that it is a bad solution. I do that with the term "federschwert"...

But this is just semantics, since we all agree about the difference in how to use these different swords. What matters is what the original poster had in mind... What does he mean with a rapier?

Also, I am not so convinced that more slender rapiers were never brought onto the battlefield. The rapier that King Gustav II Adolf brought to his final battle was quite slender, although not even close to some narrow duelling rapiers. I am not sure of what type of rapier that was used to injure him, but his body was pierced repetedly. I will be checking out the buffcoat he wore at his death in a couple of months.

His Lützen rapier
http://www.livrustkammaren.se/default.asp?id=4900&ptid=&refid=4900&filename=&xmlfilename=

His shirt and buff coat worn at his time of death.
http://www.livrustkammaren.se/default.asp?id=4898&ptid=&refid=4898&filename=&xmlfilename=

Edit: I found some notes on the King's injuries: five shot wounds, two cut wounds, one rapier thrust wound and one crushed arm.