Common sense in rapier cutting

[Tom Leoni]

Jeanry,

I think you are hitting the nail on the head in many regards.

My only disagreement is about cutting targets. As I said in point 1 of my previous post, the Italian cut and thrust masters of the 16th Century virtually NEVER aimed a cut at anything else than the head or head/neck area and the limbs. This is not only true of the single-handed sword, but also of Marozzo's spadone. I can recall only one instance where that is not the case.

Also, the term "Spada da lato" was NEVER used by 16th or 17th Century period masters. The one reference that confuses some researchers is when Agrippa (1553) talks about having the "spada a lato," meaning "to wear a (sheathed) sword at one's side."

I guess what I am driving at is this. There can be other schools of thought borne of careful research and as much love for the discipline as yours at ARMA. Different conclusions do not necessarily arise from intellectual dishonesty, Hollywood over-indulgence or lack of information.

Respectfully,

Tom Leoni

[Eddie Smith]

I don't know if this helps any but even if the term 'cut' shows up in rapier manuals it doesn't necessarly mean a laceration. In French cane and baton the strikes are refered to as 'coup' (sp?), which means cut, but obviously with a stick it isn't likely to really cut you.

[Tom Leoni]

Eddie, "taglio" is a cut. It's my mother-language...

Anyway, back to my real job.

Tom

[Shawn Cathcart]

Any thoughts on my comments Tom?

[JeanryChandler]

Jeanry,

I think you are hitting the nail on the head in many regards.

My only disagreement is about cutting targets. As I said in point 1 of my previous post, the Italian cut and thrust masters of the 16th Century virtually NEVER aimed a cut at anything else than the head or head/neck area and the limbs. This is not only true of the single-handed sword, but also of Marozzo's spadone. I can recall only one instance where that is not the case.

I dont know the Italian masters well, I barely know the Germans to be honest, but I have studied some Marozzo with my Italophile sparring partner and while he may specifically advocate targeting certain areas, his cuts do seem to potentially strike across nearly every part of the body.

Limbs and head are more likely targets anyway (even for the German masters) because they are the easiest to hit with a cut. I think the issue Caspar and I were responding to was your conclusion that targeting the head meant the cuts were lethal rather than harassing. The opposite could be asserted.

Also, there is a big difference between the limbs and head versus the face and hands, I had always understood that rapier masters emphasized the later though I could be wrong.

Also, the term "Spada da lato" was NEVER used by 16th or

It was used in the period though. The masters of all nations were normally quite vague in sword terminology, using terms like spada, espada, epee, mec, mech, svard, sword etc., and rarely anything more specific. That is the root of many of our problems today.

I guess what I am driving at is this. There can be other schools of thought borne of careful research and as much love for the discipline as yours at ARMA. Different

I'm not an ARMA member, I'm an independent dummy who occasionally disagrees with some ARMA doctrine (if you will) but is nevertheless tolerated on their forum <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" /> I have a lot of respect for the organization.

conclusions do not necessarily arise from intellectual dishonesty, Hollywood over-indulgence or lack of information.

Respectfully,

Tom Leoni

Though not always the most diplomatic, I dont think John is accusing you of intellectual dishonesty, so much as with not having the right perspective and using confusing terminology as a result. ARMA approaches European spathology and fencing from the perspective of the whole history of sword use, while your focus is understandably more narrow. This causes a difference in perception, but I think they are on the right path, looking forward from the ancients instead of backward from say sport fencing (I'm not accusing you of this specifically). In other words, if you see rapiers within the context of the other swords which were around before during and after their use, the differentiation between the 'cutting rapiers' or sideswords or cut-and-thrust or whatever you want to call them, and the true dueling rapiers basically used for thrusting only, seems more crucial and key toward understanding the weapons in question.

Regardless of the mention of cuts by the masters, I think we all know most 'true' rapier fighting was done with thrusts and jabs exclusively, with a bit of tip cutting for harassment.
'
Which leads me to another point that I thnk also informs Johns opinion, I have never heard of any anecdotal account where someone killed their opponent with a cut from a rapier, do you know of any?

I also agree with John that from a subjective analysis of the fairly numerous period anecdotes, rapiers did seem to break much more often than cutting swords.

Just my $.02, and with all due respect. I think everyone here respects your knowlege on this subject even if we disagree on some points.

Jeanry

P.S.
What does Marozzo mean by 'spadone'? I have seen term applied to everything from a bastard sword to a sidesword...

[Steven Reich]

Shawn,

I assume you mean this photo:


Those are both rapiers from Darkwood Armory. The one on the left has a Del Tin Practice Rapier Blade, the one on the right has a Del Tin Bated Rapier Blade. We use these very weapons (among others from Darkwood and other places) when practicing Fabris, and we'd say that yes, they represent a typical example of a rapier. In proportion, these resemble very much the weapons depicted in Fabris and his contemporaries and work very well in reproducing the techniques he describes in his manual. I can't remember the exact length of a blade, but I'm about 5'7" and the pommel comes to just below my armpit.

If, however, those blades fall outside of the range of what ARMA calls rapier blades, then I guess we've run into a deadlock of semantics. Certainly rapiers got lighter as the 1600s went on. Looking at Senese (1660) and later, you start to see due tempi actions gain more prominence to take advantage of the lighter weapons coming into use. The rapiers pictured above don't work particularly well for such late rapier play--Del Tin FISAS blades (lighter and more tapered) would work better.

Steve

[Steven Reich]

Jeanry,

I don't want to sound polemic in this post--hopefully I won't. Anyway, look at the work of Alfieri for illustrations of where the Fabris, Capoferro, Giganti, et. al. say to place cuts (lines that cross the leg or forearm or over the head in the plates). The targets are limited to the head, forearms and leg--usually right around the knee. A cut to the bone on the forearm could be a very serious injury for someone trying to hold a sword--even what I'd call debilitating. That doesn't mean anyone thinks the rapier will take off limbs (well, maybe fingers if the cut is severe enough) or split skulls, but neither are those the only types of serious injury.

The target selection of Manciolino, Marozzo, and dall'Agocchie in their hundreds of tactical actions is very specific:

Cuts:
Hand, Arm, Head, Face, Thigh, Leg

Thrusts:
Face, Flank, Chest

I can remember one action detailing a cut to the chest, and a few (rare) thrusts to the arm. There might be one or two more cuts to the chest or trunk, but they are definitely exceptions.

The so-called 'tip cut' of the rapier is not described in Fabris, Capoferro, Giganti or Alfieri. Fabris says that a cut should ideally use half of the third part and half of the fourth part of the blade (he divides the blade into four parts where part 1 starts at the hilt and and part 4 ends at the tip). Thus, the cut also incorporates a drawing or pushing action in addition to (but not without) the percussive action of the hit.

Spadone is literally the Italian word Spada (i.e. 'sword') with an augentative ending. So it would literally mean big/great/large sword.

Steve

[Casper Bradak]

Fabris, Alfieri, Capoferro and those whom we identify as "rapier" masters are not the only ones who use the head and limbs almost exclusively for targets of cuts. Manciolino, Marozzo and Dall'Agocchie (whom we call "cut and thrust masters") also have the same exact target preferences for the cut.

That's hardly suprising and has nothing to do with our argument. Their swords, although more capable of effectively cutting than a rapier, were more slender, and had a greater focus on the point. Their form of use, more than ability, is what predominantly leans them towards those target areas in my opinion.

Who said that only a "slender" rapier is a "true rapier"? Or that a rapier has to have a certain taper? I assure you that if you put together 100 experts, show them my originals and ask them whether or not they were rapiers, virtually all of them would say yes. If you have a more authoritative definition of a rapier as "a weapon whose blade cannot exceed 1/2 inch in width," please share it with me. I am not saying this (or anything else) sarcastically. It seems to me that your definition of a rapier is very restrictive and somewhat arbitrary, not that mine is too broad.

I won't state any specifics for rapier requirements, there aren't any. But I will say I can tell the difference between a rapier and a sword.
The difference is functionality with cuts and thrusts, and functionality is extremely important. In that regard, I'd say your definition is extremely broad.
If a sword is slender and optimized for the thrust, it will not cut well through either blade geometry or balance, and I'd say it is a rapier. If it can cut as well as a sword, it's a sword. Sure, there's plenty of grey area (how deep should it be able to cut through clothing and flesh?). Also, if it cannot reasonably be used in military fashion, and is primarily a civilian weapon, I'd say that also leans it more to the rapier side of the scale. Master Silver has some good comments on the differences, and those differences are big.
I'd also say if you put together 100 "experts", many of them would probably classify a sword as a rapier based off the appearance of the hilt alone.
Simply put, from a standpoint of use, the ability of the blade with cut and thrust is an absolutely necessary distinction.
I'm sure you won't argue that there are rapiers out there with virtually no cutting ability whatsoever, and then there are swords you classify as rapiers with some great cutting ability apparently. This is a big difference. If you want to call the two the same thing, it's your call but I can't justify any sense in it.

The concept of "harrassing cuts" is ENTIRELY missing from the many Italian rapier texts I have analyzed - Fabris, Giganti, Capoferro, Alfieri, Marcelli, and others. The old adage "absence of evidence...." is a canard. If we claim so frequently that this technique existed in a certain system such as Italian rapier, we must give evidence - our "common sense" just doesn't cut it - no pun intended. If you have any direct evidence of it, it would be a breakthrough in my studies, so I would gladly hear it from you or anyone else familiar with these Italian texts and update my understanding of the system.

As you see it. You think those cuts in Capo Ferro will cripple or kill. I'm convinced they're "harrassing" cuts. I'm sure they could be more than harassing cuts if you perform them with your wide, flat, sharp "rapier", but that looks a little different from those ones.

It is not entirely correct that Italian "rapier" masters did not use full blows. Fabris says that with most cuts, if you don't meet your target you will end up swinging the sword to the point that its tip ends up behind your back. Also, he identifies four ways to deliver the cut and, yes, one of them is a full cut from the shoulder. Sure, he discourages such technique for tactical reasons - but the very fact that he spends considerable time on it (devoting it even an illustration) means that such action was employed.

You may have 6 inches from your opponent to produce a scything cut, but if he turned out not to be there, your sword should of course travel, they must be done with strength, but that doesn't mean it was a full arm blow.
I haven't said cuts and full arm blows were never used, they were of course an option, which is why they were taught, and warned against by some, but like you said, they certainly discouraged them for good reason.

I don't have ANY emotional attachment to "defend the indefensible." It seems to me that this is a much hotter button for some of you than for me.

Could be, I just don't see reason in it with such different weaponry.

If handled incorrectly, any blade will break, especially at the tip. Actually, many cutting swords of the time have a sectional taper that end at a paper-thin point, no doubt to maximize the potential for cutting. I own a Schiavona that is exactly like that: at 1" from the tip, its section measures less than 1/10 of an inch. Also, read what Viggiani says when he writes about parrying: if I parry your fendente with an ascending diagonal cut and I meet your edge forte-on-debole, your blade will likely break. He was writing approximately in 1550: he either refers to the rapier (in which case he makes ample use of full cuts) or of the cut and thrust sword (admitting that it could break) - but we can't have it both ways.

Many swords, even true two-handers, ended in a 1 mm thin point for cutting, but we're not talking about bad for and smacking someone with the flat of a greatsword, we're talking about proper blows with a rapier. If some of the masters advised not to cut with them due to possibility of breakage, that's saying something. Bringing "any sword" into it is off the mark. I don't recall master Talhoffer or anyone like him advising against it.

As Mr. Oakeshott said: if a sword can't take off a limb it's a rapier (or a smallsword, or a variety of other weapons). Now, there are different shades of gray. A cut can still be momentous and debilitating without taking off a limb. So, if we go strictly by his definition, such cut could still be produced by a rapier.

It's painfully obvious that there are more different definitions of rapier than any other sword. Such a cut could be produced by your definition of rapier apparently, but you have quite a broad range of rapiers.

There were rapiers that were not at all designed to cut, others that still retained a good edge, some breadth to the blade and could therefore deliver cuts - while still being rapiers. I don't see why we have to be so categorically against the second option.

Because that is a big, big difference.

Rapier Master Alfieri (1640) is extremely explicit about the effects of a cut: it will "stop at the bone." To me, this also means that it will "make it to the bone."

Especially on the scalp, knee, or hand, right?

Again, I am not trying to be sarcastic or dismissive. Only, if someone tells me that a 40" bladed sword with a seven-ring hilt, weighing 2.5lbs and balancing 2" from the shell-guard is NOT a rapier only because it measures 1/4" more than they think a rapier should measure at the ricasso - and if they tell me that I am "defending the indefensible" because I believe it is, I am entitled to be puzzled and to question their definition's source in return. My quotes are genuine, and you can check them for yourself.

It's not so much about measurements, but ability, and to some degree the handling that follows. Make sense? I can certainly agree to disagree over sword definitions though.

[Patrick Hardin]

First of all, I've only skimmed some of the later posts in this thread, but there was one small point I wanted to make.

I honestly don't understand what all the debate is about when it comes to whether or not a rapier should be used to cut with. Sure, they can cause "harrassing cuts," and maybe a few can cut kind of deeply if you do it right, and yes, some are made to slash a little with the tip. But isn't all this debate about it kind of superficial when it comes down to fighting with them? These are tools intended to be used for killing people, and the shape and balance of the blade give certain advantages to certain techniques and fighting styles. Any person who trains enough with these weapons can pick one up and automatically feel how that weapon should best be used, whether that be cutting or thrusting. Most swords can do both to one extent or another, and some swords were designed to specialize in either cut or thrust. Now, when I pick up a rapier, being a person who trains in swordsmanship, I say to myself, "hmmm. This weapon is obviously meant to thrust really well, so I'd better emphasize thrusts if I want to use the weapon well and kill my opponent." With a cut-&amp;-thrust sword, I know I can do both about equally, and so on. I just honestly don't understand why there needs to be a lot of debate about whether a thrusting weapon should be used for cutting. We don't cut with estocs, though I know that's not quite the same thing. Still, if the cutting issue is really so important when learning how to fight with rapiers, maybe we should also explore the possibilities of thrusting with an Iberian falcata or Greek kopis, or one of those funky-shaped swords from the Maciejowski Bible. The rapier looks and feels like a thrusting weapon to me, so I'm gonna thrust with it. In fact, those rapiers with spatulate endings for slashing seem to me to be a way to make the weapon less lethal, in terms of a street brawl or something. Like fighting to dry blows with a cut-&amp;-thrust sword. You draw a little blood, and everybody goes home.

John wrote in one of his articles here that in ARMA there are scholars, and there are fighters. I'm a fighter. I want to know how best to use my weapon to kill. That's what swords are about. They're for killing. Period. Why debate about whether a thrusting sword can cut?

Patrick Hardin

[Craig Peters]

Tom,

In a purely denotive sense, you are correct that rapiers can delivering debilitating cuts, that is, cuts that weaken or enfeeble. But I can also see John's point here; some of the blows I have received from padded weapons could be labelled "debilitating". The other thing that one has to consider is that a debilitating cut from a rapier is not the same thing as a debilitating cut from a long sword since the latter will deal a far more horrific wound. So, if we only describe the cut as "debilitating" it is completely unclear as to the extent that the wound is debilitating.

However, I really cannot agree that a rapier produces a formidable cut. I have not seen any evidence which indicates that the rapier can make more than a stinging, lacerating wound by cutting. The term formidable isn't appropriate here at all, especially when we contrast the cutting capacity of early military swords and rapiers. The former produce "formidable" cuts, while the latter produce harrasing, or at best, "debilitating" cuts.

[Casper Bradak]

You're partly right and partly missing the point I think. Comparing it to thrusting with a kopis is a little off, though the best attack of the kopis is not the thrust, the thrust will still run a man through. Many rapiers, though you can strike edge blows, and some will even cut, they will not do so to nearly the degree of a sword.
WIth a rapier, it matters because it will effect your interpretation. If Capo Ferro (for example) says to use a cut, and he means it to be a harassing cut to cause an opening, but someone thinks a rapier will cut his leg off, or cut to the femur, that completely changes the interpretation, and makes that the goal of the technique. Likewise if someone says Capo Ferro uses a certain technique with a rapier, and the person they tell classifies wider swords as rapiers, they will also come away with a different understanding of the style.
If a layman is told that many rapiers can cut devastatingly well, and he then sees the slender blades in a picture of Capo Ferros manual, he'll go away with the idea that they could do so, not knowing there's a big difference between very narrow, thrusting rapiers and wider swords, which completely changes their use.
You're on in that the definition doesn't really matter if you pick up a sword. Whatever it's called, you should be able to tell what it can and can't do.
But if swords are defined by form and function, then there are a lot of peoples definitions of rapiers that are too broad. It's like calling all flat, sharp bladed spadones: estocs, or calling all double edged, straight cruciform swords: falchions.

[TimSheetz]

Hi Tom,

I would love to be able to see some of these test cuts. I think it important to note the weapons effects on a realistic target - one that has been covered with wool felt or other heavy cloth that is similar to the clothing of the period... I mean once a fibrous material covers it the whole world changes. It can even seriously hinder the cuts from a sword made to cut.

I think that you are describing swords that are cut and thrust swords that are more thrusty than cutty, and so put them in a rapier category cause they have features that overlap with rapiers. It seems that you put swords that are more cutty than thrusty in the cut and thrust category.

I propose a new category to go with the "cut and thrust"... it is the new and improved more descriptive "thrust and cut" sword. With the word thrust in the first position it makes it more prominent...

The rapiers I described in my first post, with a narrow blade that is very stiff and clearly not for cutting is what I would call a rapier. The weapons you describe as rapiers I would call a cut and thrust sword.. maybe even a rapier-like cut and thrust. The gray area between the two determine to what extent each method of blows and thrusts is used in its employ. And this can only be proven on realistic targets.

Peace,

Tim

[M Wallgren]

Is there any hints in the Manuals to what we could call the different type of blades? I´ve realized that the typification of swords are a jungle and different scholars have made different classes out of different premisess (yea you now the word javascript:void(0)
wink). Sometimes our field of study doesnt agree with the classification, an example is Oakeshotts Types. Albion Swords has made or plan to make some 6 or 7 models of the type XVa, but they differ quite much. The Mercenary is a fairly short sword, I would imagin somewhat fast and agile and more of a fearsome stabber and cutter than the planned model The Ringeck, whitch is a much longer and slender sword obviusly made for the more "classical" manual longswordplay. And they are both type XVa.

So could it be like Tim said that we in the more active hands on style of reserch could make a list of names and try to agree on them to avoid miussunderstandings and bad blood in the discussions to make all our studies more efficent?

My two...

Humbly yours...

[JeanryChandler]

Tim,

To me you have just described what a lot of collectors and spathologists, long confronted with exactly this problem, are now calling a "sidesword" or spada da lado.

Jeanry

[TimSheetz]

Jeanry,

Maybe, or maybe I just used a fancy term for a cut and thrust sword that is a bit longer than the typical.

When I hear sidesword, I think of something certainly a lot shorter than a rapier or what I would call a typical renaissance cut and thrust.

I mean, you can use an early medieval styled blade that has a high taper, and I would call it a cut and thrust weapon. If it tipped for excellent thrusting and is also effctive for cutting, it is a cut and thrust in my book.

Tim