Good Rapier

[Vincent Le Chevalier]

Keeping in mind my total lack of practical experience in this domain...

I own a Darkwood rapier with a bated blade. It's true that it's more flexible than it should probably be if it were sharp (it's certainly more flexible than my Milanese rapier but it's not the same kind of "rapier" anyhow). However there are some observations that can be made as to why it can still be useful.

First, much of the flexibility is in the flat-to-flat plane. It would need a far greater force to bend edge to edge. Now, most of the blade actions are done with the edge, from what I've seen in Fabris and Thibault at least. Possibly because even with sharps you have a far better feel of the opposing blade with the edge than with the flat. In these actions, as described in the manuals, the flex does not hurt. At least not with the bated blade, from what I can see. It could even be argued from this point of view that the extra flex works to ensure a better form.

Second, it seems that the masters consistently warned against the use of excessive force on the opponent's blade anyway. So in my opinion if the force in the bind is such that the blades start to bend widely, the fighters are both doing something that is explicitly frowned upon by the masters. All the more so if it is flat on flat. The course of action being to first oppose with the edge, and, if the force continues to build up, to disengage for example.

In the end, it is quite possible that the extra stiffness in the flat to flat plane is there on sharps just to ensure efficient penetration, but not used for fencing actions all that much. Efficient penetration is precisely what you want to avoid while training... And all the more so in free play...

The con of using a very stiff blade, appart from the safety concerns, is that it prevents the full execution of the action in some cases. The bent blade simulates the fact that the thrust actually penetrated without modifying the positions of either fighters nor the point of contact. With a stiff blade, either the target has to go back, or the attacker has to shorten its reach, or allow the strike to glance outside. But then I don't know how it is done within Arma, maybe there is a possibility I can't think of.

I don't know how the practice blade from Darkwood differs from their bated blade, though. Maybe this is the one that is too flexible...

[Ray Brunk]

"Second, it seems that the masters consistently warned against the use of excessive force on the opponent's blade anyway. So in my opinion if the force in the bind is such that the blades start to bend widely, the fighters are both doing something that is explicitly frowned upon by the masters. All the more so if it is flat on flat. The course of action being to first oppose with the edge, and, if the force continues to build up, to disengage for example"

Agreed, which is exactly my problem with todays epee style blades. Almost no force is required to bend these blades. 20-30 degrees is not very wide but enough to ruin a technique. With a proper stiff blade this distortion does not exist at all so why train that way.

I disagree with the flexibility helping proper thrust technique. Doesn't take much force to penetrate the human body so there should be no need to hit with such force as to drive a sparring partner back. As far as shortening the thrust, one should be disciplined enough to be able to "ease up" upon contact. If I take a hard thrust now and again so be it as this is a combat martial art. It hurts but I'll heal. Most at ARMA haved sparred with a longsword wooden waster for years, so a poke with a stiff blade is no worry. I use my wooden rapier which has no give. Hurts sometimes but I'm ok. This thread was not about defending the new rapiers but my choice to use a historically accurrate weapon by my own choice.

"In the end, it is quite possible that the extra stiffness in the flat to flat plane is there on sharps just to ensure efficient penetration, but not used for fencing actions all that much. Efficient penetration is precisely what you want to avoid while training... And all the more so in free play... "

????????


As far as the technique distortions caused by an overy flexible blade....it's very hard to describe through type. Really needs to be shown one on one in person. Instead of defending the flexible blade, you may want to try the advantages of a "stiff" blade. Going back and forth on the forum will probably not bring any conclusions. You're welcome to PM me if you would like to make an attempt at specific situations or techniques where this all come in to play.

[Sam Nankivell]

"Second, it seems that the masters consistently warned against the use of excessive force on the opponent's blade anyway. So in my opinion if the force in the bind is such that the blades start to bend widely, the fighters are both doing something that is explicitly frowned upon by the masters. All the more so if it is flat on flat. The course of action being to first oppose with the edge, and, if the force continues to build up, to disengage for example"

Agreed, which is exactly my problem with todays epee style blades. Almost no force is required to bend these blades. 20-30 degrees is not very wide but enough to ruin a technique. With a proper stiff blade this distortion does not exist at all so why train that way.

I disagree with the flexibility helping proper thrust technique. Doesn't take much force to penetrate the human body so there should be no need to hit with such force as to drive a sparring partner back. As far as shortening the thrust, one should be disciplined enough to be able to "ease up" upon contact. If I take a hard thrust now and again so be it as this is a combat martial art. It hurts but I'll heal. Most at ARMA haved sparred with a longsword wooden waster for years, so a poke with a stiff blade is no worry. I use my wooden rapier which has no give. Hurts sometimes but I'm ok. This thread was not about defending the new rapiers but my choice to use a historically accurrate weapon by my own choice.

"In the end, it is quite possible that the extra stiffness in the flat to flat plane is there on sharps just to ensure efficient penetration, but not used for fencing actions all that much. Efficient penetration is precisely what you want to avoid while training... And all the more so in free play... "

????????


As far as the technique distortions caused by an overy flexible blade....it's very hard to describe through type. Really needs to be shown one on one in person. Instead of defending the flexible blade, you may want to try the advantages of a "stiff" blade. Going back and forth on the forum will probably not bring any conclusions. You're welcome to PM me if you would like to make an attempt at specific situations or techniques where this all come in to play.

Well...I wouldn't go so far to call most good quality rapier blades "epee" blades, that's more what I think when I think of old schlager blades.

Clearly, there is a big difference in what I consider "stiff" and what you and many others consider "stiff". I have used Darkwood bated blades, Hanwei Practical Blades and Schlager blades before. The Hanwei Practical Blade I would consider to be very flexible in the last third of the blade, something I didn't feel uncomfortable with considering the strong forte. The Schlager blade bends at about half-way and felt "wobblier" than more accurate blades. The Darkwood bated blade, however, felt nice and stiff. Personally, I have found that the differences between using a "stiffer" blade like the Darkwood bated and a more flexible blade like the Schlager seem quite minimal, nothing that I would consider detrimental to technique, merely comfort. That being said, this is just from my limited experience.

Personally, if you want an accurate rapier, I think buying a sharp and blunting it might be your best option. It would probably also be the most historical, since I think there is mention of rapier practice being done with normal rapiers that merely had a leather ball on the tip. However, I was under the impression that most of the "sharp" models were quite similar to blunt ones in flex.

Also, I am still curious, if stiffness was so important, than why did people substitute the ultra flexible foil as a training weapon for the ultra stiff smallsword? (I don't believe there have been any "rapier" foils historically, so there must be a good reason why).

[Vincent Le Chevalier]

I use my wooden rapier which has no give. Hurts sometimes but I'm ok. This thread was not about defending the new rapiers but my choice to use a historically accurrate weapon by my own choice.

In the end, it is quite possible that the extra stiffness in the flat to flat plane is there on sharps just to ensure efficient penetration, but not used for fencing actions all that much. Efficient penetration is precisely what you want to avoid while training... And all the more so in free play...

????????

What I meant was that while the extra stiffness is useful in actual fight because the blade pierces more easily, I'm not convinced it should be useful in the action before the blade strikes. But indeed, if you are decided on a very stiff rapier, I'm not going to discuss it and Sam's suggestion might be the best: buy a sharp and blunt it. The problem is that good sharps do not come cheap... Arms & Armor seems to be the best bet, but you'll have to find a blade that matches your requirement in terms of blade width and length.

Out of curiosity, what is the historical evidence about wooden rapiers used for training?

Also, I am still curious, if stiffness was so important, than why did people substitute the ultra flexible foil as a training weapon for the ultra stiff smallsword? (I don't believe there have been any "rapier" foils historically, so there must be a good reason why).

I think it is the same evolution as the one that happened in Japan when the shinai got widespread. There has been a gradual change from a teaching based on drills and limited freeplay, to include a more vigorous sparring approach done with a less realistic weapon that gives safety or even comfort. It seems they were not too keen about being bruised repeatedly by their partners

This does not lead to any big technical problems as long as people stick to the established forms, tested with real weapons in real-life experience, instead of trying to use the sparring weapons to discover new techniques. They knew exactly which techniques did work and which did not, and I believe that using the artificial shortcomings of the weapon to 'win a point' would have been frowned upon.

Now we have a different problem as we try to rediscover how techniques work. Whether it really is the case for rapier is up to debate, as the manuals are very explicit in their description of the techniques...

I'm not so sure there haven't been any rapier foils historically. Arms & Armor claims their blunts are based on original practice blades. There is also the engraving of a fencing school in Leyden in the end of the sixteenth century, that clearly shows buttonned blades (it is at page 15 in Sydney Anglo's The Martial Arts of Renaissance Europe, I have been unable to find it online at a good resolution). Girard Thibault in his 1628 manual writes about "fleurets" (the French word for foils). Maybe they were just blunt ordinary blades, maybe something else...

I'm also wondering what makes you think smallsword blades were stiffer than rapier blades? Liancour writes about the quality of a good blade in his manual and it includes a test of flexibility:

[...] you must push the Sword against a wall, and notice if it makes a good circle when bending. If you see a stop, that is if the bend stay around the point and the rest of the Blade remains straight, it is a great fault. But if it takes a good circle in its length, to about one ft. from the Garde, which is the fort, it is the sign of its quality. If by bending the whole blade stays falsed, it means that the quenching is not good, although it is better than not falsing at all. If it falses a little bit, this is not much of a fault, on the contrary it indicates that the quenching has been gently made, which is a sign of the bests quenchings.

(This is the translation from the Linacre School of Defence, you can read the full thing here: http://www.sirwilliamhope.org/Library/Liancour/Liancour.php)

Of course I have never tested any antique like that either, so I don't know how big the bend would be in this situation...

[Jaron Bernstein]

"Yes, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is completely inflexible. After all, it encounters little force when thrusting (since it goes through flesh rather than pressing against it), the forte (which is used to bind control the opponent's blade) is never flexible and the tip agility is fine so long as the blade is not too "noodly". It just seems to me that the ARMA ideal of a rapier includes no flex whatsoever, hence the preference for rapier wasters and fiberglass (though I am not sure how fiberglass performs)."

I have only handled one antique true rapier. It was completely stiff and had the tip agility of a laser pointer. Perhaps others here who have handled other antiques can offer their experiences.

"Wouldn't an actual rapier have some flex as all swords do? I am fairly sure that even historical rapiers flexed somewhat, they did not use completely inflexible blades like the later smallswords (and yet, somehow, masters of the completely inflexible smallsword felt that it was perfectly fine to bout with very flexible foils ).[/quote]"


Training blades often end up different from the actual blades. You go from Katana to Bokken to Shinai in JSA for example. I do have fairly decent experience sparring with both very stiff wooden and fiberglass rapier simulators and can attest to their safety. With a fencing mask and t-shirt, the most extensive injury I have seen or received has been dime sized bruises.

[Will Adamson]

I remember one in particular at the IG that was quite amusing!

[Sam Nankivell]

I'm also wondering what makes you think smallsword blades were stiffer than rapier blades? Liancour writes about the quality of a good blade in his manual and it includes a test of flexibility:

[...] you must push the Sword against a wall, and notice if it makes a good circle when bending. If you see a stop, that is if the bend stay around the point and the rest of the Blade remains straight, it is a great fault. But if it takes a good circle in its length, to about one ft. from the Garde, which is the fort, it is the sign of its quality. If by bending the whole blade stays falsed, it means that the quenching is not good, although it is better than not falsing at all. If it falses a little bit, this is not much of a fault, on the contrary it indicates that the quenching has been gently made, which is a sign of the bests quenchings.

(This is the translation from the Linacre School of Defence, you can read the full thing here: http://www.sirwilliamhope.org/Library/Liancour/Liancour.php)

Of course I have never tested any antique like that either, so I don't know how big the bend would be in this situation...

That's odd, I always assumed that smallswords were quite inflexible due to their triangular and hollowed cross-sections. Perhaps there were some smallswords that had other cross-sections that would give this sort of flexibility.

Training blades often end up different from the actual blades. You go from Katana to Bokken to Shinai in JSA for example. I do have fairly decent experience sparring with both very stiff wooden and fiberglass rapier simulators and can attest to their safety. With a fencing mask and t-shirt, the most extensive injury I have seen or received has been dime sized bruises.

Safety, I trust, is no issue so long as both partners are responsible. So the stiffness of the weapon shouldn't matter in this respect. I was simply wondering whether all historical rapiers were completely stiff. I would think that the later the rapier, the less significant the edges and thus the stiffer the blade (since transitional rapiers have a tendency to be more "smallsword" like). However, wouldn't an early 17th century or late 16th century rapier have a more flexible blade, since it was closer to the cut-and-thrust sword in cross-section?

Also, for those who do use wooden rapiers regularly and who have used blunt rapiers for bouting as well, how different do you feel the two are? Do you feel there any difference in technique when using one or the other?

[Will Adamson]

Speaking of wood rapiers, what size dowel should be used? I'm assuming oak would be the best wood type.

[Curt Dunham]

Speaking of wood rapiers, what size dowel should be used? I'm assuming oak would be the best wood type.

I make mine out of 1/2" x 2" red oak slats found at Lowes rather than a dowel. I select the straightest grain, taper the blade down to one inch, and build up the handle and cross out of separate pieces epoxied together. Ash or hickory would be better, but they are harder to find. I add weight for balance, but they're still pretty light. Even so, my study group at ARMA South Florida seems to like them.

[Vincent Le Chevalier]

That's odd, I always assumed that smallswords were quite inflexible due to their triangular and hollowed cross-sections. Perhaps there were some smallswords that had other cross-sections that would give this sort of flexibility.

Well there is more to flexibility than just cross-section. One might say that the cross-section determines a kind of ratio between blade density and stiffness. Given that the smallswords are also quite a bit lighter than other swords, it's possible that even whith that kind of cross-section they are able to bend under pressure. Which is not the same thing as being wobbly either, by the way.

For example, if you take two blades of the same width and thickness, profile and distal tapers, one with a diamond cross-section, the other with a hollow ground cross section, the diamond will be stiffer (i.e. you will have to press harder agains a wall to bend it), but heavier, so possibly more wobbly (because its own inertia will be able to bend it somewhat).

The bottom line is that it's not really possible to have the same weight and balance, amount of wobbliness, but different stiffness... It's all the problem with practice rapiers, in fact...

[Will Adamson]

Where should the balance point be for a rapier?

[Vincent Le Chevalier]

Where should the balance point be for a rapier?

I don't think you'll find a definitive answer to this question, though the very specific definition of a "true rapier" used by the Arma might help. The best you can do is probably to look at any stats you can find about antiques; sadly the point of balance is rarely measured. Two such lists:
http://www2.nau.edu/~wew/fencing/armouries/rapiers.html
http://www.musketeer.org/Garrick/Blade_spec_article.html

If you trust a modern smith enough you can also look at reviews of his products.

Please bear in mind that the point of balance is far from telling the whole story about how a sword handles. See this thread for more discussion of the matter:
http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=10719

Regards,

[Will Adamson]

I realize it only tells one part of the story on how it handles, but as you say, that's one part that doesn't get told in most sources. I can get data on lengths, weights, and decorations, but POB I have never seen. I just didn't want to assume it was the same as a longsword, in fact I would think it would be closer to the guard than that.

[Curt Dunham]

I realize it only tells one part of the story on how it handles, but as you say, that's one part that doesn't get told in most sources. I can get data on lengths, weights, and decorations, but POB I have never seen. I just didn't want to assume it was the same as a longsword, in fact I would think it would be closer to the guard than that.

This site [http://www.musketeer.org/Garrick/Blade_spec_article.html] includes POBs for historical rapiers. The equation developed is not correct (probably a typo) but the numbers are correct. I worked out the correct equation but don't have it handy. I'll dig it out if anyone wants it.

[Vincent Le Chevalier]

The equation developed is not correct (probably a typo) but the numbers are correct. I worked out the correct equation but don't have it handy. I'll dig it out if anyone wants it.

Indeed there is a typo, thanks for pointing it out... The equation should read:
Fb = W / ( 1 + 3Lb / 4Lh )

I don't know how useful it is, though, because the assumptions behind it are quite debatable. And Fb here is not a force but a mass. There are no moments of inertia involved either; indeed the measurements taken say nothing about moment of inertia. I wonder what can really be deduced from such a calculation...