Swetnam questions

[David Kite]

Okay. . .

<img src="/forum/images/icons/confused.gif" alt="" />
1.) Swetnam's ideal length for both a rapier and sword/back-sword blade is at least 4 feet. Severall times in his text he advises not to strike a blow (cut) with either of these because the weapon can/will bow or break. Now with a rapier I've got no problem with this advice. But. . . what about with a sword/back-sword? By his time (ca. 1580-- ca. 1620) the thrust has definitely taken precedence over the cut, but are the cutting swords of his time and length really too thin to be able to cut with them?

Now, he does describe wrist blows, but he advises against them for the aforesaid reasons. For a one-handed sword to be that long (4 feet) and still be wieldly, is it by necessity going to be too thin to strike with? Am I missing some vital detail? Is Swetnam just wrong, even though he's seen it happen?

<img src="/forum/images/icons/confused.gif" alt="" />
2.) Secondly, he definitely prefers the rapier over the sword/back-sword. One reason for this is the range of the thrust. Even with their respective lengths being equal, the rapier can (according to Swetnam) reach farther than the sword. The reason is due to the "closeness" of the sword's hilt.

With all of the pictures I have seen, and the few swords I've been able to handle, I don't see how the hilt would really hinder the reach of a sword or rapier. Am I wrong here as well? Is there another detail I'm missing? Or is Swetnam being one-sided toward the rapier in kind of the same way as Silver toward the sword?

In the illustrations of Swetnam's manual, the swords and the rapiers all have simple cruciform hilts with a knuckle-bow and what appear to be side-rings (or those could be broken fingers looping the cross. ouch). Hardly anything elaborate, and nothing that would seemingly hinder a thrust.


3.) Anybody have any guesses as to why Swetnam touts the importance of having a close-hilted dagger (and even a sword), but all the dagger in his illustrations have simple crosses?


Thanks in advance.

David Kite
GFS, ARMA in IN

[Casper Bradak]

If there is some specific quote that shoots down what I'm saying, give it to me, because I may have forgotten or missed it.

I don't recall any mention of his ideal length for any weapons. He does mention something about a sword being 4 feet (not the blade), though he gives no details. He does show in his illustrations that the rapiers are much longer than the swords, the swords looking of a good, weildy length and a good width for the cut.

He does say that you should thrust rather than cut. Even with the backsword, he reasons that even they may bow or break, as compared to thrusts, where that is basically unheard of vs proper targets. We know this, it can happen to any sword. He's really just grabbing at straws with that particular statement though. The backswords at that time were of many widths, but all of them with the purpose of having an effective edge as well as a point, as opposed to the rapier.

He says that if any blows are to be given, they should be wrist blows, due to their speed and lack of telegraphing, etc. He doesn't advise against wrist blows (see his Unicorn Guard), but says thrusts should be preferred in general. Except with the rapier, that he advises more strictly against blows with, as it is the more fragile and least effective of the two weapons in regards to the blow.

I think his reference to the closeness of the hilt taking reach away from the sword is another grasping at straws, or finding of the smallest detail, however insignificant. He seeks the smallest advantage and variable, after all, an inch/fraction of a second, etc. kills.
Though he doesn't show it in a picture, he may possibly be referring the the fully enclosed basket hilts, which do not allow for bringing the blade in line with the arm as easily as a more open design (not that they can't, it's just not as easy and the grip must be altered). He may also simply be referring to the position of the guards. A cutting blade may naturally often lie with the hilt closer.

3: No, not really. But that may also account for the "closeness" of the hilt on a sword effecting it's reach, though it obviously wouldn't in the swords illustrated.

[David Kite]

Thanks.

The quote you're thinking of doesn't shoot down your points, but here it is anyway. It's on page 184 of the book under the section "Observations for a Scholler or any other"

"Let thy Rapier or Sword be foure foote at the least, and thy Dagger two foote."

and for the staff: "Let thy Staffe of practise be seaven or eight foote, and better"

He doesn't say which he means, but I've assumed the length of the weapon was just for the blade and not the whole weapon. (ie a rapier and sword blade length of at least 48 inches) He doesn't make any mention of which he means, so I could be wrong and he may mean the entire weapon as you suggested. It would certainly make a cutting weapon more wieldly.

From what I've gleaned from the text, these are the weapons I believe he shows in the illustrations. These are from Mr. Hick's transcription on the main site:

From part 1

The first and second illustration show the rapier and dagger. These are the same illustration, but they'r shown twice on this page.

The third illustration shows his back-sword, which, even considering the risk in taking illustrations too literally, is visibly shorter than the rapier.

The fourth and fifth illustrations show the staff


From part 2

the first illustration appears to be back-sword and dagger

the second illustration shows what is most likely the rapier but could be the back-sword also on the left.

The sword he shows in on the right is, I believe, the short sword (which he doesn't give any details for length about). With a "normal" blade length of 48 inches ( if my assumption is correct) for a back-sword or rapier, then his short sword could be Silver's long sword of about 37 inches or may be the same as Silver's short sword.

We know a rapier blade could reach about 48 inches, but I don't remember hearing of a single-handed cutting sword reaching that length.

I fully admit I could be entirely off-base here, but this is the way I understand it so far.

Your arguments all do make sense to me, though, and yes, Swetnam spends a lot of time "grasping at straws."

thanks
David Kite
GFS, ARMA in IN

[Casper Bradak]

Ah, thanks for the references. If he literally means to have a sword of 4', he must be referencing his "long sword" (long, slender cut and thrust, but primarily thrusting sword) if he doesn't actually mean "long rapier" which he also mentions.
I think his illustrations are very literal (about sword length). His illustrations show his backsword, shortsword, and rapiers in good comparison. He does label his pictures with the weapons contained for the most part (such as with the short sword and dagger vs the "long rapier" and dagger).
I also believe that when he gives length, he means the entire weapon, though some rapiers were that length + a hilt. He doesn't specify, and it's not really an issue in my opinion. There's a lot of hand room for personal preference. Besides, was the measurement of a foot the same then as now?

I'm certain he and SIlver use the same terminology to reference the same weaponry, they match up very well.

[DavidEvans]

I'd say that Swetnam is refering to overall length at all times. Both types of sword do reach 48" in total length but blade lengths can be up to 10" less than that! Swetnam does give an interesting figure suggesting the reach of a fighter armed with such weapons is 12' . Not bad at all.

I'd say that Swetnam favours the thrust over the cut for reasons of speed. From Swetnam's guards a thrust is a simple move involving the feet, arm and hand in a straight to the target motion. Cuts involve taking the point offline from the target, opening you up to attack by the point.

Hope that helps

[John_Clements]

Hi David,
He does equivocate his weapon terms so often it's hard to tell, but where does he specifically say a backsword should not cut a blow? He says it about rapiers, I know, but swords?

Gotta run

JC

[John_Clements]

BTW, proof that although Swetnam professed not to be familiar with George Silver, he certainly had read Saviolo. Consider this passage among several:

On the value of “the Arte and exercise of the Rapier and Dagger” Saviolo declared in the opening of his book how “a man having the perfect knowledge and practise of this arte, although but small of stature and weake of strength, may with a little removing of his foot, a sodain turning of his hand, a slight declining of his bodie, subdue and overcome the fierst braving pride of tall and strong bodies.” (Saviolo, “To the Reader,” B2).

Swetnam wrote a skillful and well-instructed man “although but small of stature, and weake of strength, may with a little moving of his foote or a suddaine turning of his hand, or with the quicke agility of his body kill and bring to the ground the tallest and strongest man that is.” (Swetnam, p. 4-5).

MmmmHmmm...

JC

[David Kite]

Casper and David Evans:

Thanks, I guess now I won't feel too guilty if I decide to shorten my rapier waster. <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />

He does teach a lot about wrist blows, though he does certainly advice against striking in general. Again, though he isn't specific, he may just be against elbow or shoulder blows.

John:

It's in his section titled: "Certaine reasons why thou maist not strike with thy weapon in fight."

It's in his 2nd reason: "The next danger, if it be with a sword, is this, thou maist breake or bow him, or he may slip out of the hilts, any of these dangers may happen at the very first blow that thou strikest, and if it be a staffe it may likewise be broken, or the pike may flie out, and then thou art not assured whether thy enemy upon such an occasion will take the advantage upon thee, if such a chance doe fall out, therefore beware of striking."

Two points here:

One: He could just be exaggerating, like telling kids they'll blow their shoes off if they hold in their sneezes. I couldn't imagine someone willingly using a weapon that delicate.

Two: And no, I guess he never does specifically mention Back-swords breaking (that I could find), so I may have made an incorrect assumption that when he said "sword" he meant ALL swords including back-swords.

Interesting connection to Saviolo. I'll have to look into that.


thanks
David Kite
GFS, ARMA in IN

[John_Clements]

Well, again, since he equivocates so often with the words "sword" and "rapier" I suspect he often specifically means rapier when simly referring to it as a type sword. I have not seen evidence that slender arming swords were prone to breaks. But, it's possible he did mean an actual edged sword. This begs the quetsion why even have a cut and thrust blade then if you never forceably cut with it?

JC

[David Kite]

Yeah, that's where a lot of my confusion lies.

David Kite
GFS, ARMA in IN