A question regarding Rapiers..

[Webmaster]

Sorry, I should have said "won't work in every situation" to be more clear. There are appropriate moments to use such techniques, but I think they're more situational than standard rapier tactics. I agree "whipping" would not apply where a draw cut is clearly specified, but more for percussion cutting instead. If it's more likely to leave a big welt or tear the skin as a result of the technique, that's where I draw the line.

[Shawn Cathcart]

I'll have to flip through your book and see if it matches any of the blades at the Glenbow. We've started making notes of which weapons we concentrate on each time we go take a group of students there as we were beginning to realize that with so many blades, we had no idea which ones we'd looked at last time.

I think anyone that has handled any historical Rapiers with a slender blade, it would become somewhat obvious that the mass of that slender blade just doesn't give the feel of being able to cut very seriously. They feel quick and fast, but they just don't give the feeling of being capable of extremely damaging, shearing cuts. The comment too about the thick course clothing worn at the time would give good protection against everything but the trauma of the blow from a slender blade is a good point I think. I think most slashes would be useful at the face. Not disabling persay, but as someone else mentioned, they would certainly give a closing opponent a moments pause from which you could take back the initiative.

I think anyone wanting a good idea of how effective slashing, draw-cutting at targets aside from the face (arms, legs likely covered in garments) should view your videos of draw-cutting against that dummy you made. If a cutting blade with its extra mass and width could only seem to do limited damage against any well padded/armoured opponent, the Rapier would be even less effective. Another thing that crosses my mind is that none of the Rapiers I've handled at the Glenbow had anything approaching razor sharp edges. I suppose there could be many reasons how a blade could dull over time, but I'm curious if you've ever found any Rapier blades that would seem to support an edge capable of effecient draw-cutting.

I agree with the sentiment that it obviously was done in some capacity. But I have trouble thinking of very many scenario's where it would be more advantageous than the damage done by a thrust. Slashing a guys knee as a means of distraction, followed up by a switch to a higher target would make some sense. The slash though doesn't seem as though it would be very damaging in its own right.

[Casper Bradak]

I think the percussive slice advised for rapiers isn't a percussive slice, just the motion of one.
Just as some fighters and boxers will give their knuckles a twist on impact with their opponents exposed skin to help create a tear, the drawing motion of the rapier on impact will help to compound the damage in the same way even with a thick and slender blade. And this only with a percussive slicing motion. A slicing motion with no impact would be difficult enough to create worthwhile injury with even with a blade designed to cut in most cases.

[leam hall]

A tangential question for those of us who discuss these sorts of blades in stories; what would a person of the 16th-17th century call a cut and thrust type blade?

[Stuart McDermid]

Hi Leam,

Probably just "sword" but we do have some evidence (Di Grassi) that suggests that "rapier" may have been the word used. In Italian texts it seems the word "spada" is used for all swords.

This is just like the word rifle or more recently (and erroneously) the word gun.
This lack of classification of weapons in the texts of the period they were used in is a great hampering factor to hoplologists everywhere and leads to historically dubious but arguably necessary modern classifications like "Spada di Lato".
Cheers,
Stu.

[DavidEvans]

John
Picked up a copy of your book, which I like and has started me off reading more...On the subject of handling rapiers I'm trying to find more info out on the shape and dimension of rapier blades, along with such points as length, blance point, blade wideth etc. I'm trying to get details on blade thicknesss, taper, wideth at the three areaa on a blade, tang shape and length's, the shoulders and the way that's shaped. I've got a trip to see David Edge at the Wallace collection in April, where He's got maybe two rapiers that can be dismounted but if you've got anything along those lines it would be helpfull. What I'd like to be able to do is create Technical drawings if at all possible.

[John_Clements]

Hi
Yes, as I pointed out in my '97 book, these cut and thrust swords were called all sorts of things at the time from just "sword" or "spada" to field sword, arming sword, riding sword, military sword, and today reiterschwerter and spada di lato (side sword). But as Oakeshott complained, in modern times collectors and curators seem to have labeled nearly anything with a close-hilt that wasn't a cruciform Medieval sword a "rapier". Heck, for example there's a wide bladed 16th century single-edge cavalry sword in the Metropolitan Museum in NY right now that's still labeled "rapier" in their case. Sad. This is what adds to the confusion surrounding how rapiers cut, since classification of them was never exact and has become so convoluted. They just didn't go around labeling these weapons the way we would today by appearance, but defined them mor ebased on their function and capability.

Regarding rapier cross-sections, as curator researcher Claude Blair pointed out in his book on rpaiers & smallswords, their diversity makes any classification of their blade types near impossible, as they vary so much. Our swordsmith colleagues also point out that there's an almost infinite variety of ways to produce such a slender sword with one geometric shape or another that adds rigidity and lightness. Despite the many different rapier blade shapes I have not seen a modern replica yet today that unfortunately doesn't rely on the same simple flat diamond shape.

JC

[Steven Engelbach]

I think that part of the reason the term is used so indiscriminately (besides just ignorance) is that what you call it is partially determined by use. For example, I own Arms & Armor's "Milanese Rapier." Now I bought it to use for studying Marozzo, Manciolino, et. al. In this use, I'd call it a "sidesword" as I believe it fits the bill (i.e. designed for cutting and thrusting, giving away some cutting ability in it's design in exchange for some usability for thrusting). However, I feel that I could use it quite well to perform teachniques of Fabris (clearly a rapier master). In fact, were I to encounter someone with a "true rapier" (i.e. to the dimensions described by Fabris, Capoferro, Alfieri, et. al.), I'd definitely want to use my Fabris' techniques as depending on Marozzo's techniques might get me killed. Although I'll generally be at a disadvantage at the beginning of any exchange (because of the shorter length), I would still be perfectly able to perform cavationi, find my opponent's sword, execute stesso tempo parry-counters, etc.

Still, for classification, it would be nice if the people who should know better would use the correct terms. Certainly a swept hilt mounted with a heavy cutting blade isn't a rapier.

I guess when you get close to the border between the two that it's like the proverbial definition of pornography (i.e. I can't tell you precisely what a rapier is, but if I handle a particular sword, I can tell you whether or not it is a rapier).

I think we have a problem on the other end, too. When does it stop being a rapier (or "transition rapier") and start being a smallsword? Blade characteristics? Hilt design?

Steve

[John_Clements]

Hi Steven
You've hit the problem on it's head. As Dr. Anglo wrote, there were many types of swords and many ways of using them, and as Oakeshott suggested, and I agree, if a slender sword blade can take off an arm it's not a true rapier.

Once you get a short, light blade suited exclusively to thrusting, and used in a aprry riposte style for purposely of single duel, that's the smallsword.

JC

[DavidEvans]

John
I'jm trying to get in touch with anyone/Somebody as regards membership of ARMA. The reason being is that a)I'm outside the States 2) I'd like to look at those manauls and parts of manuals tucked away in the Members section. I'm interested in Italian sidesword, Opera Nova for one and Rapier, working from Pallas Armata via an understanding of earlier italian masters. Can you help? If so could you email me via my Hotmail account [email]Deuan@hotmail.com.[/email] Thanks

[Ryan Ricks]

ok here's a question for those of you who study thrusting swords:

Many say that triangular-cross section blades (bayonettes, rapiers, small swords) cause more leathal wounds which do not heal, or heal more slowly. this is ostensibly why triangular cross sectioned bayonettes were outlawed by the geneva convetion.

others, however claim that this is not the case, and the wounds were no more leathal than those caused by flat or diamond cross sectioned blades.

anyone care to weigh in on this?

ryan

[Jamie Fellrath]

I have nothing to back this up as of now, but it strikes me that I've always heard that puncture wounds are much more dangerous than slicing wounds because they are harder to heal and are much more prone to infection due to their depth.

A triangular blade, it seems, would be much more of a puncture than a flat blade. The flat blade would, even in a thrust, still slice quite noticeably. A triangular weapon would have to push, and therefore rip, its way through the flesh.

Has any test-cutting been done that might show this more?

[Webmaster]

If anything, I would think that a slit-shaped knife wound would close up a lot easier and faster than a triangular punch-hole. Just thinking about it is kinda painful.

[John_Clements]

I think it hardly matters whether a hole in your body is round, square, or Mickey Mouse head shape. As far as I have determined, sword cross sections for thrusting were designed to give them rigidity to puncture more easily, not to create specific wounds. A wide falt blade will cause a massive stabbing wound while a slender octagonal smallsword blade will cause a deep hole. Both will kill.

JC

[Casper Bradak]

Very true, flesh isn't like clay. Whatever the shape of the wound channel, the flesh will move right back afterwords. I wasn't aware the geneva convention outlawed certain bayonet cross sections. Those types of bayonets are designed that way because they are usually integral, so they're strong thusting weapons and tools but don't take up the space when folded in that a blade with an edge would.
Puncture wounds aren't more dangerous than cutting wounds due to infection (that's only an afterthought) but they far more easily reach and puncture internal organs, whereas cuts may have more stopping power and crippling ability, but not the ease of lethality.
Healing like infection is an issue but an afterthough when it comes to combat. Cuts can be more easily cleaned and stitched up, where if you survive a puncture it'll have to heal from the inside out, and of course, the deeper the wound the tougher to prevent infection inside it.