Postby John_Clements » Mon Aug 23, 2004 12:52 pm
Well, it’s well written and a good attempt, but limited and therefore flawed. The main problem with it I think is it's written from something of a collector/curator point of view with an engineering flavor thrown in, not a fighter/martial artist's view (the obsession with "single time" action denotes a modern fencer's perspective as well). There are typology errors (“heavy cut and thrust rapiers”, “evolved from the broadsword”, etc.), and historical and factual errors, such as the cliché’ of the “discovery” in the 16th century of the thrust or that unarmored targets could be thus attacked. It also asserts that rapier edges helped in penetration, which is mistaken (does a smallsword or an ice pick need an edge?). The major error is it addresses that rapiers were “heavy and slow.” This is entirely false. As well, any time I see statements about the “ascendancy of the thrust over the cut” that ignores the distinction between civilian military combat that emerged (not to mention the survival of effective cutting swords into the 20th century), I know the material is a bit befuddled.
So, I am left with strong doubts that the author knows about actual authentic rapiers or their true historical fighting methods. On the plus side, it at least acknowledges the rapier’s lack of cutting ability and the reasons why.
As pointed out, all these things and more are addresed at length in my peice here on rapiers linked above (and our article on "Thrusting vs. Cutting"). Anyway, any time something like this tries to address the subject intelligently and seriously it’s welcome. No one’s perfect.
JC
Do NOT send me private messages via Forum messenger. I NEVER read them. To contact me please use direct email instead.
