rapier vrs longsword

[Vincent Le Chevalier]

To clarify what I was trying to say a little bit, receiving a blow on the forte should work safely on any type of blade, including a flexible practice rapier, because that part is made sturdy enough to do so. All the masters tell us this about every type of blade. That part is not vulnerable to breakage, and testing blows on it doesn't prove that rapiers can't break, it just proves the masters are telling you the correct way to defend yourself.

Actually Thibault says verbatim that parrying with the strong can lead to a blade breaking:

La vieille mode de parer un coup de taille, c'est de mettre le fort de l'épée devant la tête avec la pointe montante, pour recevoir le coup venant à pleine force dessus ou à l'environ de la garde. Chose qui est fort dangereuse et sujette à beaucoup d'incommodités ; par exemple que le Contraire ne vous blesse en vous enfonçant l'épée, ou qu'il la mette en pièce [...]

(Tab.XIV, p.3)

The old way of parrying a cut, is to bring the strong of the sword in front of the head with the tip rising, in order to receive the full force of the blow on it or close to the guard. Something that is very dangerous and full of inconvenience ; for example the Contrary [the opponent] could hurt you by driving through your sword, or smash it to pieces [...]

(Translation by me)

Now maybe Thibault was exaggerating the fragility of the swords in order to push his more refined parry, but he reiterates the warning in the chapter dealing with rapier vs. longsword so that's pertinent to the discussion. Demonstrating that there are safer ways to parry a cut that would not expose you to a blade breaking was I think the point of the experiment, not showing that rapiers do not break under any stress.

Regards,

[Jonathan Hill]

I’ve read a few things comparing 18thC sabres to 18th C Katana’s that stated or alluded to Katana being constructed of a much rigid or brittle steel mixture and the Sabre/Broadsword used a “softer” steel. This allowed the 18-19thth C broadsword techniques of parry on the sharp, 90 degree static parry’s ect. to exist. While this same technique would more likely shatter the Katana, it merely dented the Sabre and it could be hammered out later, the Katana had other strength but the ability to receive much blade on blade contact was not one of them. I have no idea when Europe began using this type of steel or if they ever made more rigid/brittle blades like Japan did (I care for using not making), but basically the brittleness of the steel will be a large factor in when the blade breaks, but regardless receiving the attack on the fort is still the strongest part to do so, if using such technique.

As far as I am concerned all blades break, it’s just a matter of when not if.

As to the test of controversy, I don’t think we are really disagreeing on much. The point of that test was to show that the proper historical technique will work, that of a counterthrust. This may be a ‘duhh’ moment for those of us who use it more often but it seems perfect for those who will swear to me that a longsword will cut my Rapier in half like a hot knife through butter, i.e. a new student or someone new to the on-line community that is looking for knowledge... I would not consider this a stress test of all parts of the Rapier, nor do I see them claiming it to be, especially the foilable as we can all agree that particular blade whipped around like a wet noodle compared to today’s models, and definitely compared to real blades.

[Stacy Clifford]

Actually Thibault says verbatim that parrying with the strong can lead to a blade breaking:

La vieille mode de parer un coup de taille, c'est de mettre le fort de l'épée devant la tête avec la pointe montante, pour recevoir le coup venant à pleine force dessus ou à l'environ de la garde. Chose qui est fort dangereuse et sujette à beaucoup d'incommodités ; par exemple que le Contraire ne vous blesse en vous enfonçant l'épée, ou qu'il la mette en pièce [...]

(Tab.XIV, p.3)

The old way of parrying a cut, is to bring the strong of the sword in front of the head with the tip rising, in order to receive the full force of the blow on it or close to the guard. Something that is very dangerous and full of inconvenience ; for example the Contrary [the opponent] could hurt you by driving through your sword, or smash it to pieces [...]

(Translation by me)

Well if Thibault is saying what I think he's saying, then I would agree with him. It sounds like he's talking about a static parry in opposition like the St. George guard, which essentially uses the sword as a shield. That does pose a greater danger to the sword and I've never heard anyone in ARMA ever dispute that. I was referring to either a hanging parry that redirects the energy of the blow at an oblique angle, or moving in with a stifling action at the strong, both of which are very common actions in a lot of manuals and reduce the energy of the collision. A counterthrust can also achieve the same effect against a cut; Di Grassi's "reverse thrust" is a beautiful example. I would be surprised if Thibault suggested otherwise. In my statement I was assuming the people involved in the test were parrying correctly as I just described, which any sword should be made to withstand. If you're just holding it up and praying the cut stops on it, then my statement would not hold up because blades are not made to take that much direct force with any frequency. I think we're on the same page here, we just need to get all our assumptions out on the table to verify it.