A Couple of questions on the rapier

[Vincent Le Chevalier]

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.

I think there might be a problem trying to objectively quantify that.

Cuts and thrusts are different kind of actions, so I don't really see how you're going to compare them and say "this sword thrusts better than it cuts". Even trying to compare the effects of both kind of strikes is very difficult, as it depends on the user, the technique, and the target.

Even if there was a way to measure it, there might be a continuum of cutting ability. Any threshold will be arbitrary and reflects more the personal opinion of the modern "expert" than the original conception of the swords. With thrusts the problem is less obvious, as anything that enters the body with relative ease causes about the same kind of damage.

One thing we might be able to objectively recognize is an edgeless sword. This leaves plenty of weapons in a grey area... I personally think a systematic study of the balance of period original might bring insights, as I've written about here, but I won't venture a guess as to the result of such a study. Besides, it seems the general interest in this is still quite low at the moment; it involves maths, you see

Regards,

[Benjamin Smith]

One thing I think I should clarify Sam is that many "rapier" (dedicated thrusting weapons that couldn't dismember someone in one cut no matter how hard you try) do in fact have edges, sometimes all the way down to the hilt. Their cross-section and mass distribution is what prevents them from cutting effectively, not the presence or lack of edges. These can be hard to distinguish from some swords that can cut quite well. So if the edgeless rapier cannot slice well, and neither kind can cut well we probably should conclude that they have slightly distinct skill sets. That being said I doubt that one would need to study each in depth as a separate weapon as one would with a cut-and-thrust sword, backsword, or other early weapon, because the only difference is that one should not attempt the harrying slices with the edgeless models.

The cut and thrust sword would probably be somewhat harder to distinguish from earlier styles that can thrust just fine. Take an Oakeshott XIV, XV, XVIII, or XIX and you'll probably find that they can do many or even in some cases all of the quick cut-to-thrust transitions of the "cut-and-thrust sword/rapier" quite well. It's really hard to say where the line between these weapons begins and ends, so the idea that many techniques from later "rapier manuals" could work for these earlier weapons has some validity.

[Sam Nankivell]

One thing I think I should clarify Sam is that many "rapier" (dedicated thrusting weapons that couldn't dismember someone in one cut no matter how hard you try) do in fact have edges, sometimes all the way down to the hilt. Their cross-section and mass distribution is what prevents them from cutting effectively, not the presence or lack of edges. These can be hard to distinguish from some swords that can cut quite well. So if the edgeless rapier cannot slice well, and neither kind can cut well we probably should conclude that they have slightly distinct skill sets. That being said I doubt that one would need to study each in depth as a separate weapon as one would with a cut-and-thrust sword, backsword, or other early weapon, because the only difference is that one should not attempt the harrying slices with the edgeless models.

The cut and thrust sword would probably be somewhat harder to distinguish from earlier styles that can thrust just fine. Take an Oakeshott XIV, XV, XVIII, or XIX and you'll probably find that they can do many or even in some cases all of the quick cut-to-thrust transitions of the "cut-and-thrust sword/rapier" quite well. It's really hard to say where the line between these weapons begins and ends, so the idea that many techniques from later "rapier manuals" could work for these earlier weapons has some validity.

Actually, its not that they could just work with earlier weapons. Cut and Thrust style swords existed all they way up to the modern era if you include the saber. Therefore, these manuals show a method of use for contemporary cut and thrust weapons as well as thrust only weapons. (We already know how earlier ones were used thanks to Digrassi, Marozzo and Meyer).

[Jaron Bernstein]

The very nature of sword taxonomy a la Oakshott is a modern invention. Sword aren't like cars where the mass produced 1987 Buick Lasabre is different from the mass produced 1988 version of the same car, all built to standard blue prints. There was some element of mass production in the great armor and weapon workshops, but not in the sense that we have today from factories.

Accordingly, blade types (in terms of function) were a matter of degree than absolute. This can range from a 100% optimal cutter with minimal thrusting utility, to a sword that does both well, to a dull stick with a sharp point optimized for thrusting and everywhere in between on that spectrum for the mixture.

By my current understanding, what we are calling a true rapier (modern functional descriptive term) is something that is optimally made for the thrust and has some, but very minimal, cutting utility. Yes, it can lacerate flesh on a cut, but no it can't lob your arm off the way what we call a cut and thrust (C&T) sword can. What it does really well is go into your eye fast from 6 feet away like a Capo Ferro picture.

[Sam Nankivell]

The very nature of sword taxonomy a la Oakshott is a modern invention. Sword aren't like cars where the mass produced 1987 Buick Lasabre is different from the mass produced 1988 version of the same car, all built to standard blue prints. There was some element of mass production in the great armor and weapon workshops, but not in the sense that we have today from factories.

Accordingly, blade types (in terms of function) were a matter of degree than absolute. This can range from a 100% optimal cutter with minimal thrusting utility, to a sword that does both well, to a dull stick with a sharp point optimized for thrusting and everywhere in between on that spectrum for the mixture.

By my current understanding, what we are calling a true rapier (modern functional descriptive term) is something that is optimally made for the thrust and has some, but very minimal, cutting utility. Yes, it can lacerate flesh on a cut, but no it can't lob your arm off the way what we call a cut and thrust (C&T) sword can. What it does really well is go into your eye fast from 6 feet away like a Capo Ferro picture.

Hmm. I thought that John Clements defined a true rapier as one that had no cutting edges, which is what separated it from a "rapier" that might have an edge.

There were though certainly a variety of blades during the period, which is partially what leads me to believe in the flexibility of these manuals.

[Stacy Clifford]

I've learned from John in his wide experience examining authentic swords in museums that rapiers were highly individualized weapons. Depending on the preferences of the owner and the maker, some had cross sections ranging from diamond to triangle to 6-point star, some had edges all the way up and some only the last few inches and some none at all, and some even had a needle shape for most of the length and flared out into an edged spatulate tip. Some had a little cutting ability and some had none at all. As a general rule though, they were all very narrow in width for most or all of their length.

The thing to remember is that in order to be a good thrusting weapon, a rapier has to be very stiff. To maintain stiffness, the narrower you make the blade, the thicker you have to make it. A diamond cross section will produce an edge, technically, but if the blade is only half an inch wide and stiff as a needle, then that edge is probably thicker than a chisel. It is an edge, but you can't really call it an effective cutting edge because it has to push too much material aside to bite deeply. Thick edges are defeated by friction when cutting. The last few inches can be made more knife-like if desired because it's not enough length for that flat profile to become floppy, otherwise you would have the effective stiffness of a four foot hacksaw blade. Basically a rapier made that way is a one-handed spear; you could slash with it, but that's not what it's best for. The whole point is, once the blade is narrower than a certain width, if you want it to be stiff for good thrusting, then it doesn't matter if it has an edge, it still won't be able to cut. It's just basic engineering.

[Keith Culbertson]

hmmm, I like the idea of considering a rapier a kind of one-handed spear, although there is no rapier material for half-swording like a short staff/spear can be used...is there?

[Ryan Woo]

hmmm, I like the idea of considering a rapier a kind of one-handed spear, although there is no rapier material for half-swording like a short staff/spear can be used...is there?

The last plate in Fabris' manual shows how to fight against a pole arm with a rapier by half-swording.

[Stacy Clifford]

Besides the one Ryan pointed out I'm not aware of any, but I haven't delved into the rapier manuals that much either. John has talked about half-swording with the rapier when you get in too close many times though.

[Scott A. Richardson]

I would be interested te see that video shot again, but this time with an opponent that actually understood how to attack and did so earnestly.

[Sam Nankivell]

What would you define as a rapier vs. a very slim cut and thrust sword? Would you consider a 40" diamond section blade with a 1 1/8" width at the base and with a steady taper towards 1/4" at the the tip as a sidesword or a rapier?

[Randall Pleasant]

Sam

The best way to get a grip on what is a rapier and what is a cut & thrust sword is by looking at Albion's Maestro line of blunt swords at the following URL: http://www.albion-swords.com/swords/albion/swords-albion-mark-maestro.htm Note the Capoferro is a rapier and the Marozzo is a cut & thrust. Of course, there were swords that fall in between these two types but by and large the swords being discussed are either more like one or the other.

[Jon Pellett]

hmmm, I like the idea of considering a rapier a kind of one-handed spear, although there is no rapier material for half-swording like a short staff/spear can be used...is there?

Swetnam: "Now another fashion is, by holding your left hand upon the blade, and so with the strength of your forefinger and thumbe of your left hand, you may breake your enemies thrust cleere of your bodie, by turning of your rapier point downe-ward or up-ward accordingly as your enemie chargeth you; and then charge your enemie againe with a quicke answer."

[Sam Nankivell]

Sam

The best way to get a grip on what is a rapier and what is a cut & thrust sword is by looking at Albion's Maestro line of blunt swords at the following URL: http://www.albion-swords.com/swords/albion/swords-albion-mark-maestro.htm Note the Capoferro is a rapier and the Marozzo is a cut & thrust. Of course, there were swords that fall in between these two types but by and large the swords being discussed are either more like one or the other.

Yes, that is what I would consider the main difference between a cut and thrust sword and a rapier visually (longer blade, more slender blade), which I think is a good way to define it rather than through cutting power. However, I think I have a fairly good way to think of the relative cutting power of swords, rapiers and true rapiers:

A sword can take an arm off. A rapier might be able to cut to the bone. But a true rapier might only make a cut on the skin, perhaps not at all.

[Randall Pleasant]

A sword can take an arm off. A rapier might be able to cut to the bone. But a true rapier might only make a cut on the skin, perhaps not at all.

I must strongly disagree with you categories. Like Tom Leoni you are lumping swords like the Albion Capoferro and the Albion Marozzo into a single category of rapier. This leads to confusion rather than to clearity. If a blade can cut to the bone then it is a sword. If it can cut to the bone and can easily deliver a thrust then it is a Cut & Thrust sword, not a rapier. It seems we are going to have to agree to disagree on this subject. I cannot find any scholarly grounds on which I can accept Tom Leoni's definition of rapier as any single hand sword of the Renaissance period.