A Couple of questions on the rapier

[Sam Nankivell]

Once again, I have been reading around and would like to know what ARMA's research has come up with in comparison to other groups.

1) If a rapier is an unedged stabbing weapon, why do manuals we think of as "rapier" manuals (e.g. Fabris, Capo Ferro, Giganti, Alfieri, etc...) show cuts with an unedged "rapier"? Why are we calling these "rapier" manuals?

2) Also, what do you make of this quote from a late 17th Century rapier master? "It is much better to be armed with a sword that has two edges than with an estoc [...], which is nothing more than a stick with a point." (Pallavicini, La Scherma Illustra, 1670). (Sounds like we have an Italian George Silver ).

3) Why is it that English writers (George Hale, Joseph Swetnam and George Silver) make a huge distinction between the thrusting only rapier and cut and thrust sword and teach both seperately, while Italian authors don't seem to teach the two as separate weapons? (They recognize a difference between an unedged sword (estoc) and an edged sword (spada da filo) but seem to teach both with the same method.)

4) Besides this one video I found of Bill Grandy (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8428781260330923822), has anyone else tested rapier techniques (especially where masters mention using cuts) using what we would think of as cut and thrust or arming swords?

[Benjamin Smith]

This is a complicated question. Here's my brief and relatively uneducated understanding of this issue.

1) Most "rapier" do in fact have edges. That being said there is a practical difference between the two weapons we should note. If a weapon can land a debilitating cut anywhere on your body it's a "cut and thrust sword" not a "rapier" no matter what anyone calls it. If a cut from the weapon will only end the fight by landing on the neck, fingers, or a lucky tendon strike it's a "rapier." Some of the manuals that say they're using rapier are using "cut and thrust swords" transitioning to the "rapier." There's been enough test cutting to prove that even a full arm strike from a "rapier" in the wrong location is no guarantee that you've won. Yeah it'll hurt like hell but it won't cleave your skull in two, severe your muscles clean through, or rip your belly open so that your guts will spill out. They have a lot of trouble breaking bone too. Even solid blows with a "rapier" almost always need to be followed up with a thrust to guarantee victory. This was one of Silver's big beefs with them that he notes in Paradoxes of Defense and My Brief Instructions on the Paradoxes of Defense. If my memory serves me correctly he mentions that one of his friends was wounded nine times in one fight and still won.

2) Either this Italian thought similarly to Silver, or that contemporary rapier should transition somewhat back to "cut and thrust swords," or that one should make more use of cuts and slices than was then common. This bears looking into and more research.

3) See #1 for the English Masters. For the Italians, I haven't done enough research, the precise period of who specifically is writing might be a reason. Also Italy was the center of high culture and fashion during the Renaissance, it is likely there was a little more pressure to "keep up with the Jones's" and this may have made the transition from "cut and thrust" to "rapier" more rapid and more complete [this is pure speculation by the way]. Perhaps there wasn't a great deal of difference between the two particular sets of weapons at the specific times and places you mention [also pure speculation].

4) You can see some of our test cutting videos with rapier on the website to demonstrate their effectiveness. As to trying to do what Mr. Grandy is doing, one must beg the question why? It is well established both historically and among modern practicioners that the different weapons aren't designed to do the same thing. Testing exactly how well they would do in a role they aren't meant for will at best a confirm what we already know, different swords should be used differently to play to their strengths. It's likely that someone has.

[Stacy Clifford]

Keep in mind too that "rapier" didn't necessarily mean the exact same thing all over Europe at any particular time. Di Grassi's manual is a good example. His original Italian manuscript was written in the 1570s, and (I could be wrong about this) I believe he used the Italian word spada that simply translates as "sword" mostly to refer to the weapon. If you look at the Italian illustrations, they show a pretty slender blade. In the 1590s Di Grassi's manual was translated into English, and the translator apparently thought "rapier" was the appropriate term to use, but the illustrations in the English version show much broader blades that look almost Medieval. That could be partly due to the less sophisticated style of the later illustrations, but I think it's evidence of some cultural difference of understanding as well.

[Audra Grapes]

I'm certainly no expert but that video looked more like sport fencing than historical technique. Although there were a few grabs at blades...is that allowed in fencing? (I'm a complete ignoramous about the rules of sport fencing.) I've only browsed the so-called rapier manuals but the only "cutting" I've seen demonstrated by ARMA members is either to knock aside the opponents blade thus making an opening for a thrust or to smack the opponent with the intentions of distracting or causing some reaction.

P.S. Sam, I sent you a PM

[Stacy Clifford]

Grabbing the blade is definitely NOT allowed in sport fencing rules, along with any other use of the left hand or any sort of bodily contact in general. Kinda takes all the fun out of it... The girl in that video clearly didn't know how to take advantage of the fact that she had a much longer weapon.

[Sam Nankivell]

Sorry, I guess I have gone into 4 a bit more.

The reason I asked question 4 was to confirm a theory that I have latched onto in recent months. I originally heard it from Tom Leoni and others such as Bill Grandy (the man in the video). Basically, it states that "rapier" manuals were not in fact just for what we would call "rapiers" (i.e. true rapiers, unedged and civilian) but for one handed swords in general. This would explain why many authors seem to be vague about what weapon they are using (e.g. stating that it is a "sword with two edges and a point and calling the sword a "spada" rather than something specific).

What really got me thinking was when I asked a friend of mine who was studying Pallas Armata. The stance the author uses for "sword" seems to be the same as in rapier (I later confirmed this by going over the translation here by myself). The only real difference between the "sword" and "rapier" section is that one is thrusts and counters to thrusts while the other is cuts and counters to cuts (with a couple thrusts). Pallas Armata seems to be an English interpretation of Italian rapier, which is why it would use the same Fabris-esque stance for both. Part of this adaptation to suit the English is to divide the cuts and thrusts into Sword and Rapier, as opposed to the Italians who kept one archetype that could be adapted to either an edged or unedged sword (just use or don't use cuts).

Therefore, the theory goes that you should be able to use a cut and thrust sword or a true rapier (or something in between) to practice "Italian Rapier". The quotes authors seem to give about their styles indicate that they are flexible. For instance, Fabris specifically states that if you cannot form his low stances for whatever reason, don't. He also states that while it is best to use thrusts only in an unarmoured, one on one situation, when facing armoured or multiple opponents, one should use both in unison.

This also seems to make sense since from 1600 onwards, we don't really seem to see any manuals akin to the cut and thrust style of Marozzo or Manciolino. However, cut and thrust weapons still continue. Therefore, the methods used with these weapons are shown in these "rapier" manuals. The reason these manuals give precedence to the thrust is because of the tactical nature of the thrust, not because they use only thrusting weapons. (Even Digrassi and Agrippa, who are clearly using a cut and thrust weapons, maintain a thrust-centric system. Not because their weapons cannot cut, but more because they don't value the cut as much as the thrust.) Therfore, the cuts are demonstrated so that one can use a cut and thrust weapon or a thrust only weapon (and they continue to be demonstrated until we get into smallsword manuals).

As a final note, I also fell that this makes sense because good systems are built on principles that can be applied to many weapons (such as Fiore's baton).

Also, to Audra, the rapier fencing in that video is indeed historical. Bill Grandy is a researcher and teacher of Capo Ferro's system of combat, which is what he is using in that video. Most of what I have seen here at ARMA (gleaned from videos) seems to most resemble earlier "rapier" styles such as Agrippa or Digrassi (though personally, I would label those two more as "cut-and-thrust" masters). This is perhaps why it seems unfamiliar. Also, most of the cuts are not shown in the plates of the manuals but are described in the text. If you want to see them demonstrated in plates, take a look at Alfieri. The lines surrounding the fencers are alternate wounds described in the text, many of which are cuts.

Thanks for taking in my long winded additional two cents.

[Randall Pleasant]

Sam

Let me start to noting that I am not a rapier student and that the following statements are only my personal opinions.

There are a lot of problems with Tom Lenoi's attempt to apply the label "rapier" to every type of single handed sword of the Renaissance period. One can indeed use a Cut & Thrust sword as if it was a true rapier because it can indeed thrust very well. However, one cannot use a true rapier as if it is a Cut & Thrust sword because it simply cannot cut well. Please note that I'm not saying a true rapier cannot cut at all, with enough speed even a car antena can cut , I'm saying that it cannot cut well, it cannot make a killing cut. John Clements noted some time back that in his extensive research he has never seen a single historical case of someone having been killed by a cut from a true rapier. In other words, every person that was killed by a true rapier was killed by a thrust. So yes, manuals such as Fabris do have cuts, but are these cuts used to make killing cuts or are they used to set someone up for a killing thrust? One simply cannot ignore the differences between a true rapier and a Cut & Thrust, that is poor scholarship!

The other problem I have with Tom Lenoi's attempt to lump every type of single handed sword of the Renaissance period under the label "rapier" is that it moves from a specific meaning to a more general meaning. A common feature of every field of study is an attempt at classification. Tom's use of "rapier" is a move away from clear classification. Clear classification has servered well the fields of biology, chemistr, archaeology, etc. Likewise, Ewart Oakeshott's clear classification of swords (some of which are from the Renaissance period) has servered us well. What is needed is not a generalization (lumping) of swords from the Renaissance period but rather a clear classification of those swords.

[John Farthing]

If the fencers in the video are indeed, as you claim, fencing in a truly 'historical' style, then it is most likely that of the barogue era. While the barogue era is not my area of study, I can tell you that the rapier evolved as a weapon for personal defence and not, sportified, rule based fencing. The very fact that the fencers in the video are engaging one another in a straight line is indicative of later rule based styles of fencing as sport and not, a martial practice for developing personal defence.

[Sal Bertucci]

All I have to say is that I'm assuming that the white fencer is mainly supposed to be the target, and not practicing the techniques.

[Vincent Le Chevalier]

Hi Sam!

Interesting thought that you expose in your last post, I must say I like it quite a lot...

I also think that the techniques and tactics exposed in the so-called "rapier manuals" are not limited in essence to the use of a specific type of sword, or at least not cutting vs. thrusting weapons. They are more heavily influenced by the context considered, which is largely unarmoured duelling, that favours certain tactics. The principles are sound and they can be used with other weapons, I even pulled a move straight from Thibault with a padded boken once. Not a very significant experiment as neither me nor my opponent were really advanced in either Thibault or kenjutsu Bill Grandy's experiment, as far as I know, was mainly to see for himself what he could do with his rapier training and a cutting sword, and he saw that it worked. Of course the weapons are unbalanced here but the skills are also unbalanced I believe; anyway the deeper analysis of the video is perhaps best left to those who have actually read some period manuals and can judge of the conformance of the actions to what is written...

We could restrict the rapier to mean edgeless sword (as the English apparently did), and start refering to all these manuals as simply "sword manuals". In other words, solve the terminology issue by doing exactly what the Italians, Spanish, French did back in the day: avoid the word rapier... But I somewhat doubt this is going to happen; in this regard the solution of Tom Leoni is probably a less drastic change for the majority of people. Also, we can keep a tidy distinction by refering to "thrusting rapiers" or some such ("English rapier" ?) if we want to, exactly as now we are forced to refer to "cutting rapiers" (or cut & thrust sword which is equally as lengthy and vague) if we follow the ARMA terminology.

Actually, I wonder what the proportion of pure thrusting swords was and how it evolved in time. I'll have to go back to the museum and see if I can count, but I'm left with the impression that they were a minority except perhaps at the very end of the period. In this case it would be wise to keep the shorter name for the most common sword...

Thanks for sharing!

[Vincent Le Chevalier]

Some more comments about the video...

The very fact that the fencers in the video are engaging one another in a straight line is indicative of later rule based styles of fencing as sport and not, a martial practice for developing personal defence.

Well it's possible to fight in a straight line even though no rule forces you to. I think the actions are quite linear, as should be expected of thrust oriented styles, and they simply reposition themselves on the line at the end of each action to facilitate the filming. There is a bit of side stepping in there, just not very dramatic but possibly sufficient.

Also, grabbing the blade is not necessarily indicative of good historical rapier fencing. Fabris, for one, was not too keen of using the left hand to either parry or grab. He even says that he doesn't think it's really possible with a sharp blade, which takes us back to the cutting debate

Since I've just looked in Fabris, about this:

the only "cutting" I've seen demonstrated by ARMA members is either to knock aside the opponents blade thus making an opening for a thrust [...]

In the words of Fabris:

As for those who first cut into the opponent's sword in order to knock it out of the way and then attack, I will not waste too many words. Suffice it to say that if you have any awareness of tempo and cavazione you can always save your sword from this practice.

(trans. Tom Leoni, Chapter 8, p.13)

Regards,

[Sam Nankivell]

Sam

Let me start to noting that I am not a rapier student and that the following statements are only my personal opinions.

There are a lot of problems with Tom Lenoi's attempt to apply the label "rapier" to every type of single handed sword of the Renaissance period. One can indeed use a Cut & Thrust sword as if it was a true rapier because it can indeed thrust very well. However, one cannot use a true rapier as if it is a Cut & Thrust sword because it simply cannot cut well. Please note that I'm not saying a true rapier cannot cut at all, with enough speed even a car antena can cut , I'm saying that it cannot cut well, it cannot make a killing cut. John Clements noted some time back that in his extensive research he has never seen a single historical case of someone having been killed by a cut from a true rapier. In other words, every person that was killed by a true rapier was killed by a thrust. So yes, manuals such as Fabris do have cuts, but are these cuts used to make killing cuts or are they used to set someone up for a killing thrust? One simply cannot ignore the differences between a true rapier and a Cut & Thrust, that is poor scholarship!

The other problem I have with Tom Lenoi's attempt to lump every type of single handed sword of the Renaissance period under the label "rapier" is that it moves from a specific meaning to a more general meaning. A common feature of every field of study is an attempt at classification. Tom's use of "rapier" is a move away from clear classification. Clear classification has servered well the fields of biology, chemistr, archaeology, etc. Likewise, Ewart Oakeshott's clear classification of swords (some of which are from the Renaissance period) has servered us well. What is needed is not a generalization (lumping) of swords from the Renaissance period but rather a clear classification of those swords.

Well, I agree with you on one count. I certainly wouldn't trust a cut from a rapier to kill an opponent. Come to think of it, I'm not even sure many thrusts would kill an opponent (well, immediately anyways), which is why many masters are adamant on returning to guard after you think you have "killed" the enemy.

I don't fully agree with Tom Leoni's classification system. To me, a rapier is not a sword that can cut and thrust equally, but a sword that can thrust far better than it can cut. To me a rapier is:
- A civilian sword
- A sword optimized for thrusting (can thrust better than cut)
- Single handed
- From the 16th Century onwards
- Made to be used with a thrust-centric style

This is contrasted from a "sword" that can do both equally and is used in both civilian and military contexts.

I would suggest that we come up with a family of weapons known as "rapier" using these characteristics and have a sub-division: True Rapiers (no edge, not made for cutting at all).

Now, at this point I am slightly confused. I was under the impression that John's main idea was that a rapier cannot cut, not that the rapier cannot cut as well as a sword. This was my main issue since we keep referring to "rapier" manuals that show cutting, thus making them non-rapier manuals. (However, there are some "rapier" manuals that do discard cuts.)

Also, I think that it is a bit of a misnomer to call these "rapier" manuals when they work perfectly well with any single handed sword. (Okay, maybe not ANY single-handed sword, but most that have two edges and a keen point.)

I think where Tom is coming from is using what the "rapier" manuals define as a rapier (two edges and a point) and applying that definition to swords of the era (leading to a very, very wide base). What ARMA seems to be doing is instead focusing on a physical sword-form (an edgeless, one-handed, civilian thrusting sword) and applying that to manuals that may apply to more than simply an unedged thrusting sword.

Naturally, I feel the solution lies somewhere in between the two approaches. Taking care to have a good spathological definition, but at the same time not skewing the intention of manuals through this definition.


Basically, we need to differentiate between "rapier" as a weapon and "rapier" as a method of fence.

[Sam Nankivell]

If the fencers in the video are indeed, as you claim, fencing in a truly 'historical' style, then it is most likely that of the barogue era. While the barogue era is not my area of study, I can tell you that the rapier evolved as a weapon for personal defence and not, sportified, rule based fencing. The very fact that the fencers in the video are engaging one another in a straight line is indicative of later rule based styles of fencing as sport and not, a martial practice for developing personal defence.

Actually, the fact that the two fencers are engaging each other in a straight line is because it is the shortest distance.

Most 17th Century Italian authors (e.g. Capo Ferro, Fabris, Giganti) do engage in a fairly linear manner for this reason (with a bit of room for voids and such). It is only the Spanish and the Early Italian rapier and Bolognese masters who use things such as offline steps and fighting in a circle.

To my knowledge, most masters of the 17th Century (with the exception of the Spanish) state that moving to the side or trying to circle around one's opponent is suicide because it gives your opponent a tempo to intercept your action (by simply following you like a turret) and thus will probably lead to your death. Just looking at my translation of Fabris (1606), he never tells you to ever move sideways unless making a void (girata or inquartata). I am fairly sure Capo Ferro doesn't either, nor does Giganti, Alfieri or any other Italian authors from the era. I would say that their style is certainly not for "sport" . (And the smallsword and late rapier of the late 17th and 18th Centuries is made for both sport and personal defense, as with most fencing of any type throughout history. After all, what else would you call prizefights?)

[Stacy Clifford]

Basically, we need to differentiate between "rapier" as a weapon and "rapier" as a method of fence.

That is a good way of putting it and I think there is some confusion over the idea sometimes, but as I said, it's hard to settle on a definition NOW when they couldn't even settle on a definition THEN. The thrust-heavy method of fighting we think of as "rapier" though did in fact have a technical name in its own time: foyning fence. Using that term divorces the style from the weapon because you can "foyne" with a knife on a stick (just ask Joseph Swetnam!). A rapier would then be almost by definition a weapon that is specialized for use with the foyning style of fence. That still leaves a lot of room for interpretation, but I think the idea fits the general attitude of the masters who wrote about it.

As for the postulate that "rapier" manuals may have been intended to cover a wider variety of swords than just the ones shown in the drawings, while this sounds pretty reasonable and could be true, is it backed up by anything in any of the texts? As Ran will surely tell you, just because an idea sounds sensible to our ears now doesn't mean we can assume that it's true without some minimal evidence to back it up. It's an intriguing idea, but in this case I think we have to stick with what they did give us and avoid too much speculation on what they didn't. At least some "true" rapiers had the last few inches sharpened enough to cause surface damage, so having a few slashes in the repertoire probably wasn't a totally bad idea, you just couldn't expect them to be fight enders, and I don't know of any that are portrayed that way.

[Sam Nankivell]

Basically, we need to differentiate between "rapier" as a weapon and "rapier" as a method of fence.

That is a good way of putting it and I think there is some confusion over the idea sometimes, but as I said, it's hard to settle on a definition NOW when they couldn't even settle on a definition THEN. The thrust-heavy method of fighting we think of as "rapier" though did in fact have a technical name in its own time: foyning fence. Using that term divorces the style from the weapon because you can "foyne" with a knife on a stick (just ask Joseph Swetnam!). A rapier would then be almost by definition a weapon that is specialized for use with the foyning style of fence. That still leaves a lot of room for interpretation, but I think the idea fits the general attitude of the masters who wrote about it.

As for the postulate that "rapier" manuals may have been intended to cover a wider variety of swords than just the ones shown in the drawings, while this sounds pretty reasonable and could be true, is it backed up by anything in any of the texts? As Ran will surely tell you, just because an idea sounds sensible to our ears now doesn't mean we can assume that it's true without some minimal evidence to back it up. It's an intriguing idea, but in this case I think we have to stick with what they did give us and avoid too much speculation on what they didn't. At least some "true" rapiers had the last few inches sharpened enough to cause surface damage, so having a few slashes in the repertoire probably wasn't a totally bad idea, you just couldn't expect them to be fight enders, and I don't know of any that are portrayed that way.

Actually, masters of the period don't seem to define anything as fight enders, which is why they encourage you to return to guard as soon as you have made a wound (whether it was a cut or thrust). You're right though that accounts of duels do show that thrusts were usually (perhaps always) the thing that killed someone.

Also, I am surprised that there are rapiers that are sharpened in the last few inches because many Italian masters advocate using the entire debole (last third of the blade) to make a cut, while incorporating a slicing motion. (The manuals never mention tip cuts.)

Funnily enough though, I think this might be a case of us using a 16th and 17th century English view (Rapier stabby, sword cutty) and applying it to all foyning traditions, as I will describe below.

Some evidence is for this adaptability is already provided in the quote I gave in my original post: "It is much better to be armed with a sword that has two edges than with an estoc [...], which is nothing more than a stick with a point." (Pallavicini, La Scherma Illustra, 1670). There is also a quote from Fabris stating: "it is through the use of the sword alone that all other weapons, offensive and defensive, can be learned" (Fabris, 1606). This next quote, while being from a secondary source (Tom Leoni), I trust is reflective of the manual: "Alfieri also talks of swords that could be broader and shorter if one wanted a weapon that could deliver formidable cuts--without ever hinting at a different typology of sword."

Fabris also mentions that you can alter his stance if necessary: "...you will be better served to bend it [your body]. But if you cannot, you should rather remain straight, because if you force your posture you will never be ready to move."

We also find out that George Silver and Fabris might not be worst enemies after all: "The need to talk about it [the cut] is only proportional to the need to expand on the techniques of the cut and the thrust, since it is necessary to know both." (Fabris, 1606).

One author, Pallavicini (Mr. Italian Silver) actually does show many different types of swords being used in his manual. Some with complete hilts, some with incomplete hilts, some with shorter, wider blades, some with longer, thinner blades etc...
Here is a link to download the manual: http://www.salvatorfabris.com/pallavicini.pdf (Edit: Second thought, this is only minor evidence since changes in blade length and shape might be due to artistry rather than showing multiple blade styles. Hilts are the main thing that change, with some of them being definite military hilts. However when we consider the quote from this guy, I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't intend multiple blade styles.)

There is also the fact (as I mentioned before) that no authors really clearly define the weapon they are using beyond the fact that it has two edges and a point (and perhaps its ideal length). Some people, such as Pallavicini, say what they personally like in a weapon (though none seem to mention a preference for swords without edges) but only the English authors seem to clearly divide their curriculum into thrusting and cutting swords.

I suspect this might be because the English got the idea of the foyning fence from the Italians and so kept it seperate from the native stance (with the exception of Pallas Armata) for their non-foyning weapons. The Italians on the other hand simply used one stance for both that leaned towards foyning while including cuts if the weapon could manage them. This might also explain why there are no non-foyning manuals (think Marozzo) from Italy at the time (1600-1750ish), while their are still a significant number of military style cut and thrust swords.

What I think is that people used the basic principles from this system (things such as tempo, measure and basic strong guard positions) and altered them as needed. If you had a sword that could cut, do more cutting. If you had a sword that could thrust, do more thrusting. This is why the manuals present both options to us. They choose to focus on thrusting more because they believed it was tactically superior. (The same reason Digrassi and Agrippa focused on thrusting while employing even earlier, wider, more cutting centric weapons).

If you want some more evidence, look to my earlier posts.