Help with a DiGrassi translation needed.

[Rod-Thornton]

Been reading DiGrassi for the past three nights, and now I am more confused than ever before.

Question:

In rapier fencing, are there ever any edge blows made, even when the rapier is a thrusting weapon? My questions comes about as I read through the section (beginning pg. 14) where it is argued that it is sometimes better to strike with the edge, over the point.

The text goes to say that "When it is better to strike with the edge" is when "...the better blow, in which a man spends the least time. And therefore when this happens and may be done with the edge, then the edge is to be preferred before the point...." Also, what sort of blow is this? A wrist cut? A shoulder cut?

Thanks,

[Brian Hunt]

Hi Rod,

Digrassi is not one of my main areas of study, with that, let me proceed. Yes there are cuts performed in rapier fencing both true edge and false edge. Capo Ferro, Alferi, Fabris and others speak of cuts but emphasize the thrust. Fabris speaks of four specific cuts and explains them, if you want to know what he has to say on cuts let me know and I will post it later.Also if I remember correctly, Digrassi is one of the first "transitional rapier" manuals to emphasize the thrust over the cut.

hope this helps.

Brian Hunt
GFS

[Allen Johnson]

yes- it's that silly "rapier" word that gets us snagged here. There are types of rapiers that are more prone to allow for cuts. I think something like this would certainly apply: http://www.armor.com/rapier121.html

[Rod-Thornton]

Thanks, yeah, I would. My copy of Cappo Ferro speaks only briefly about cuts (one paragraph) and about scything...whatever the actual definition of that is. Anyhows, it defines the cut as using all the debole (the mid-way to the tip) for it....yet the videos here showing test cutting using one show the whole thing to be a relatively weak sort of cut...far less effective than a poke. BUT DiGrassi actually spends considerably more dialogue on the cut, leading me to think more of it is employed than suggested by looking at corresponding plates in other works. So... now I am confused and wondering if my practice-poking-at-pell with rapier is considerably lacking due to me not performing any cuts when practising thrust exercises. I'd like some help on whether or not some attention should be to the edge offense in addition to the offense given at the point, and how best to do so.

[JeffGentry]

Hey Rod

I think some of your difficulty arise's from the fact that it is difficult to determine what type of blade configuration any certain master considered a rapier.

In Dr Anglo's book he talk's about this on pg 99, On pg 100 he goes to the Queen Anna new world of word's dictionary(1611) the writer of the dictionary define's The word Verdugo As "a Rapier, a Tuck, a little sword" to most of us there is big difference between a tuck and rapier, Also in Di Grassi in the original Italian IIRC he used the word spada origanly and the translator of the manuscript translated spada as Rapier, Di Grassi never actualy called his weapon a rapier he referred to it as spada in his writing.

So I would say it was not a "true" rapier, more of a transitionlal type blade.

Jeff

[John_Clements]

Hi
See the Spotlight feature here on our site regarding Q&A about rapiers. That will answer a lot of this.

The key issue regarding edge blows in regard to the rapier (questions of its etymology and typology aside) is that it's important to keep in mind that not all sword types perform in the same manner.

The historical challenges of different battlefield and self-defense needs resulted in a wide range of long bladed weapon designs (and different methods for effectively employing them). Sword designs are specialized tools. Depending upon their dimensions of length and width, cross-sectional geometry, and edge and point configurations, some types will do one thing very well but not another. Some may have been intended more for cutting or slashing at either hard or soft targets, thrusting only at hard or soft targets, or a compromise somewhere in between. The characteristic qualities that permit one action will hinder the other. This gives different sword types different strengths and weaknesses depending upon how and why they expected to be used. Different sword types also have different shapes and that make them either stiffer or more resilient and thus better at cutting or at thrusting. Each sword design differs as to what it can do best within whatever kind of fighting conditions it was created to perform under. Each has its specialization, even if it is generalized.

Cutting or thrusting techniques could each be more effective or less effective depending upon its own tactical context. A fighter with a slender straight sword would naturally favor stabbing over cleaving or slashing with it. A lighter narrower blade does not have the mass or momentum and requires (as well as permits) a slicing action be added to the impact by pulling the blade back as it hits. A heavier wider one as it impacts neither needs (nor really even permits) such an action. The more mass a sword has the more effect it can have in its cuts and the hard it will be to set its attacks aside (but the less maneuverable it will be in recovering its ward following any strike or parry).


So, while sword thrusts differ only in the depth of point penetration, in contrast, cleaving, shearing or slicing edge blows can be quantitatively different. This why edge blows from slender thrusting swords –rapiers—cannot be viewed as equivalent to the edge blows of other dedicated cutting blades. While understanding of this simple dynamic is uncommon now, and it confuses many enthusiasts, it becomes self-evident when practicing energetic strikes using different types of sharply edged (and historically accurate) swords against a variety of realistic target materials.

A lot of this will be explained in my next book on swords, perhaps by the end of the year.

JC