Thread replies: 67
Thread images: 19
Thread images: 19
File: SH2205N-1000.jpg (38KB, 1000x1000px) Image search:
[Google]
38KB, 1000x1000px
What was the actual purpose of this thing ?
I mean, obviously it was used to stab people, but when was it used ? I don't see how it could be used by soldiers in a battle, so was it made for dueling ? maybe it's for civilian self defense ? Maybe the city guards carried these ?
>>
>>2091309
>What was the actual purpose of this thing ?
Killing.
>I mean, obviously it was used to stab people
There, you answered your own question.
>but when was it used ?
Its usage began in the late 15th century, and it (along with the sabre, which was used by cavalry, and designs based on it and the sabre) was used until swords dropped out of use.
>I don't see how it could be used by soldiers in a battle, so was it made for dueling ? maybe it's for civilian self defense ? Maybe the city guards carried these ?
It was used in battle as a sidearm (with the main weapon being a polearm or a firearm), and mostly fell out of use with the invention of the bayonet. It was also used for all the other things you describe.
>>
>>2091309
>I don't see how it could be used by soldiers in a battle, so was it made for dueling ? maybe it's for civilian self defense ? Maybe the city guards carried these ?
Literally just go look it up on wikipedia or go watch Matt Easton's videos about rapiers.
This is literally a question that could be googled.
>>
File: 06dd479c00880b9f52b28f90cda61d46.jpg (15KB, 736x1101px) Image search:
[Google]
15KB, 736x1101px
>>2091309
The rapier developed from the side-sword, which was essentially an arming sword with a complex hilt. Rapiers for battlefield use were generally a bit sturdier. During the 17th century, rapiers became narrower and longer, focussing on the thrust. They were primarily carried for civilian self-defence. They were also used for duelling (especially under the premise that at that time most duels were far less regulated and 'institutionalised' and happened on the spot and were thus essentially a case of civilian self-defence).
>>
>>2091309
They are much more lethal than they look. They are sharp and strong, in a time when a lot of soldiers dont wear armour anymore.
>>
>>2091309
>It was used in battle as a sidearm
>rapier
No.
OP, go to /k/
>>
What was the actual purpose of this thing ?
I mean, obviously it was used to shoot people, but when was it used ? I don't see how it could be used by soldiers in a battle, so was it made for dueling ? maybe it's for civilian self defense ? Maybe the city guards carried these ?
>>
>>2091550
Soldiers wore plenty of armor during that time period
and they didn't carry rapiers
>>
File: archaic_21st_century_weapon.jpg (57KB, 200x200px) Image search:
[Google]
57KB, 200x200px
What was the actual purpose of this thing ?
I mean, obviously it was used to beat people, but when was it used ? I don't see how it could be used by soldiers in a battle, so was it made for dueling ? maybe it's for civilian self defense ? Maybe the city guards carried these ?
t. 25th century archaeologist
>>
What was the actual purpose of this thing ?
I mean, obviously it was used to collapse bridges, but when was it used ? I don't see how it could be used by soldiers in a battle, so was it made for dueling ? maybe it's for civilian self defense ? Maybe the city guards carried these ?
>>
File: 1479508601249.jpg (113KB, 455x675px) Image search:
[Google]
113KB, 455x675px
>>2091833
>obviously it was used to collapse bridges
>>
File: Really makes you think.jpg (130KB, 1440x468px) Image search:
[Google]
130KB, 1440x468px
What was the actual purpose of this thing ?
I mean, obviously it was used to stab people, but when was it used ? I don't see how it could be used by soldiers in a battle, so was it made for dueling ? maybe it's for civilian self defense ? Maybe the city guards carried these ?
>>
Kinda baffling that people bothered to carry around the long rapiers of the early to mid 17th century. I'm talking about Capo Ferro, Alfieri, Giganti, Fabris length, such that it reaches around the fencer's armpit.
>>
>>2091530
>They were primarily carried for civilian self-defence. They were also used for duelling (especially under the premise that at that time most duels were far less regulated and 'institutionalised' and happened on the spot and were thus essentially a case of civilian self-defence).
When you think about it the rapier shouldn't be necessarily such a great self-defence weapon. If I think some kind of assault situation on the street, it would be fairly like to begin at a close distance, like somebody suddenly drawing their dagger when they're near the target, also possibly in a small space in some alley - rapier is not good for either situation, it can be tough to draw because of its length and you can't do a very effective cut with it straight from the draw like you could with wider bladed swords. It's also not that good facing multiple opponents and there's no reason to assume that self-defence situation would be necessarily one-on-one.
So I guess what rapier is good if you expect to be on the street randomly challenged to a duel on the spot (was that ever likely to happen?) but your opponent is "honorable" enough to not surprise attack you. For duels with matched weapons the effectiveness of the weapon is irrelevant, and since a weapon for a formal duel need not be easily carried, it is inferior to polearms and zweihänders in the case that the duelists may choose their weapon.
>>
>>2092167
It takes a fraction of a second to draw a rapier. Many civilians wore one along with a small solid metal shield (a buckler) and apparently this was effective enough for it to be commonplace enough for a whole new word to describe such people (swashbucklers).
>>
File: Rapiers, Swedish national museum.jpg (167KB, 950x1224px) Image search:
[Google]
167KB, 950x1224px
>>2091603
>It was used in battle as a sidearm
>rapier
>No.
Yes, actually.
not all rapiers had knitting-needle like blades. miltary rapiers, for example those of the city guard of munich, or the pappenheimer rapiers used in the 30 years' war, or those used by the swedes, are all viable military blades which if hilted differently could be described as Oakeshott XV's from the late 15th C.
two examples on the left here, for example.
>>
>>2092167
It's not like critics of the rapier weren't around, e.g. George Silver. The point remains however that rapiers were carried for self-defence. This is not a matter of debate because it's a historical fact - whether they were good at that is a different issue, but that doesn't change their purpose.
>a weapon for a formal duel need not be easily carried, it is inferior to polearms and zweihänders in the case that the duelists may choose their weapon
A formal duel in the sense of a judicial combat - which at the time when the rapier was around wasn't really a thing any more - would have always been fought with the same weapons on both sides. And very often the participants were not necessarily allowed to choose as they also had symbolic meaning.
>>
>>2092240
It's true that rapier has had many historical meanings but if we want sword terminology to have any meaning today, there's no way a swords that wide-bladed such as the two on the left should be called rapiers. It is very superficial to call them rapiers just because they have rapier-like swept-hilts. You could chop limbs off with such blades.
>>
>>2092292
>It's not like critics of the rapier weren't around, e.g. George Silver. The point remains however that rapiers were carried for self-defence. This is not a matter of debate because it's a historical fact - whether they were good at that is a different issue, but that doesn't change their purpose.
No disagreement there, just had this thought when you mentioned rapiers as self-defence weapons, because often it is said that they are specialized for that.
>>
File: Munich Hermann-historica auction.jpg (18KB, 236x1398px) Image search:
[Google]
18KB, 236x1398px
>>2092298
well, given they are categorised and described as such in A.V.B.Norman's "the rapier and Small-Sword, 1460-1820", which is the authoritative publication on the subject of these swords...
and given AVB Norman was the former curator of the Wallace Collection and the Royal Armouries, and is one of the towering figures of 20th century arms research, I think his opinion is a little more valid than you saying "I dont think that's a rapier".
>>
File: Swedish Army Museum Accession number AM.061055.jpg (13KB, 236x357px) Image search:
[Google]
13KB, 236x357px
>>2092298
>You could chop limbs off with such blades.
and that is exactly why they used blades like that, on rapiers for war.
Incredible isn't it. its almost as if they're designed to do the job.
>>
>>2092349
its true they are rapier's in the broad sense, but not in the way its generally thought of. Really interesting weapons though
>>
>>2092187
>It takes a fraction of a second to draw a rapier.
It often doesn't take much longer to draw a rapier than it does a shorter sword but there's an increased risk of fucking it up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a10ncllct6Q
>>
File: rapiers.jpg (26KB, 600x263px) Image search:
[Google]
26KB, 600x263px
>>2092373
>but not in the way its generally thought of
that's because most people's understanding of arms and armour is, at best, wrong, and most commonly, utterly wrong.
and that depth of misconception isnt reserved to rapiers. the "heavy axe like falchion", and "machete like falcatas" (where not only is the description, but even the name is wrong), the "blunt medieval sword to crush armour", 1001 myths about katanas, a whole mountain of bullshit about damascus "Ulfberh+t" swords that has exploded in recent years, etc, etc.
the vast majority of what people "know" is utterly wrong.
And as a little side-note: these are Rapiers.
yes, that is the correct name for them - and the typological definition of this type of bronze age blade, used throughout academic archaeological research papers: Rapier.
>>
>>2092415
>yes, that is the correct name for them - and the typological definition of this type of bronze age blade, used throughout academic archaeological research papers: Rapier.
It should be considered that this isn't a term used at that time period though but a modern convention.
>>
>>2092349
As weapons, in terms of how would be they used, what would be their reach etc. they would be much more similar broadswords particularly the Schiavona variey. That is my argument. Yours is an appeal to authority.
>>
>>2092440
>It should be considered that this isn't a term used at that time period though
that far back, we dont even know what the words for "sword" were - our knowledge of languages that old is almost non-existent.
>>
>>2092167
Rapiers were as big/long as they were because people who carried them still expected that they might end up going against a variety of different weapons. People choose the rapier as a weapon presumably because they thought stabbing was the most effective way to defend themselves, and the weapon was purposefully built to be robust enough to deal with other weapons, and long enough to give the user a reach advantage.
The kind of scenario you're talking about is what lead to the development of the smallsword. As other kinds of weapons fell out of common use, and people stopped feeling the need to carry weapons that also had to deal with a wide variety of situations, the swords got smaller and lighter.
>>
>>2092457
I'll add to this post of mine:
Whatever. Definitions. Semantics. Nothing productive is likely to come out of that. I'll partially take back what I said. Call them rapiers if you want - I just want to point out that functionally speaking the "military rapiers" have more to do with other weapons than what is 95% of the time is meant with "rapier" in most HEMA discussions.
>>
>>2092457
only a Schiavona is typologically an entirely different form - a variant on the close basket hilt structure.
more importantly, they are different geographical origins, the Schiavona being used by the slavonic mercenaries in use by the Venetians (the name comes from "Schiavoni", meaning Hired soldiers), and produced in the foundries of Brescia and Venice.
The northern wide-bladed rapiers are complex-hilted - specifically, Norman type 52, and pre-date the fully formed Schiavona by about half a century, and originate on the opposite side of the alps, in modern-day Germany, with blades produced in Solingen and Passau, and exported enmasse.
they are entirely different weapons, Particularly in the blade cross-sections, schiavona tend more toward fullered fortes with lenticular section, whereas the northern rapiers are pronounced diamond section.
They are pretty much unrelated in terms of design intent, place of manufacture, region of use, or dating. They are certainly not Rapiers.
>yours is an appeal to authority.
Yes.
Strangely enough, the fucking experts know what they're talking about, not you, some random twat on an anon internet board.
An "appeal to authority" might well be an appropriate argument against it, if I were citing AVB norman's expertise in a discussion about... oh, 3rd century chinese halberds. He wasnt an expert about them. But when he was the man who created the typology, wrote the most significant book on the subject, and was the most highly regarded expert on the subject worldwide, I think his opinion carries a _little_ more weight than your ideas.
>>
>>2092512
> I just want to point out that functionally speaking the "military rapiers" have more to do with other weapons than what is 95% of the time is meant with "rapier" in most HEMA discussions
and that is because most HEMA practitioners know very little about arms and armour, but unfortunately, know a little bit more than joe bloggs in the street, and that tends to make them think they know more than they do.
They really dont. he amount of bullshit I've heard from hema types is shocking. The only redeeming fact is they're better than the ACL/HMB/BOTN bunch, who tend to know even less.
>>
>>2092482
>People choose the rapier as a weapon presumably because they thought stabbing was the most effective way to defend themselves
I'm not sure how significant a factor it is, but something to consider is that developed hilts were of course a big advantage in an civilian/unarmored context without gauntlents, and that while there were of course lots of more cutting oriented swords with such hilts, the extra weight in the hilt is better for thrusting than it is for cutting because of the point of balance.
>>
if the thin rapiers were just for duelling or for show, what would happen if someone with a thin rapier found themselves up against someone with a war rapier
>>
>>2092298
>You could chop limbs off with such blades.
Not a chance. The centre of mass is too close to the handle. Those are definitely thrusting weapons. You would use a cut to open up a line for attack, sure, but you would do the same with a gentleman's rapier too.
>>
>>2092654
>Not a chance. The centre of mass is too close to the handle.
You've never held one of the originals, or used one of the replicas of these, have you?
lets use the Wallace Collection no. A.612
Wolfgang Stantler, Swordsmith, Munich, Germany c. 1600
Length: 101.7 cm
Length: 85.6 cm, blade
Width: 4.5 cm, blade width above the ricasso
Balance point: 8.9 cm forward of the guard block
Maker's mark: Crowned 'S / T'
That balance point is almost identical to the average for a medieval Oakeshott Type XV, which tend to be highly capable cutters.
They do not handle anything like you think they do.
>>
>>2092631
They'd die, because the war rapier guy would have an actual weapon as well as the sidearm.
>>
>>2092167
I think you're sensationalizing the types of scenarios where a person might need to defend themselves. Real life isn't some kind of spy-thriller, especially 400 years ago.
Just as an example from some of the more "sensational" encounters in my own life; someone once flattened the tires on my bicycle then waited off a side path for me to take my nightly bike ride, his intention was to wait for me to cross the side path then charge me, but I saw him in advance and turned around. This was a premeditated attempt that happened at about midnight and yet if I had a rapier I still would have had enough time to draw it. A few months before that the same person called out to me from a secluded walking path while I was walking along the sidewalk, I just kept walking.
People in the past weren't stupid, the same rules of common sense and alertness to danger applied to them as it does to us. If someone is running at you you'll hear it, if someone tries to lure you into an alley you shouldn't enter the alley, if a group of people is walking towards you you should cross the street, etc. Cities weren't that big back then either and if you had an ongoing dispute with someone there's a good chance you'd recognize them.
The point of carrying a rapier for self defense is for deterrence and force multiplication. If someone tries to ambush you and you notice it in advance and you're armed with a rapier and they're armed only with a knife not only do you not have to yield to them but it also gives you the power to turn the tables on them and kill them.
>>
>>2092631
>if someone with a thin rapier found themselves up against someone with a war rapier
in a duel, the thin one, on the battlefield in war one.
Almost like they were made with a purpose in mind rather than all size fits all
>>
>>2093035
The ability to see an assault before it comes is not something everyone has and is not something anyone can keep up 24/7 if their duties puts them in those situations often.
Then again many people with a rapier also had a dagger.
>>
>>2091660
Underated post
>>
Is it fair to say that infantry used rapiers, and cavalry used swords ?
>>
File: 10730761_1.jpg (90KB, 1500x802px) Image search:
[Google]
90KB, 1500x802px
>>2091309
What was the actual purpose of this thing ?
I mean, obviously it was used to blow chests open, but when was it used ? I don't see how it could be used by soldiers in a battle, so was it made for dueling ? maybe it's for civilian self defense ? Maybe the city guards carried these ?
>>
>>2091426
>It was used in battle as a sidearm
Wrong
It was mostly a civilian weapon. It was heavy as fuck so most soldiers used other swords as a sidearm.
>>
>>2094706
It certainly cannot be generalized, contrary to popular culture, that rapiers were light - however to say that they were "heavy as fuck" is not really true either though I suppose some of the rapiers that were both very long and retained some modest cutting capacity along with the heavy hilt would have to be rather heavy for a one-handed sword.
If we're talking about the long and narrow rapiers as opposed to the "war rapiers" that we have also talked about here, the reasons why they weren't popular on battlefield are probably (my guesses)
1) most soldiers would have either a polearm or a ranged weapon. So when they already have a weapon with a good reach, it makes sense to go for something that's good at close distance. A long rapier would be a bit half-assed choice in that context.
2) A long rapier would be inconvenient to carry which in the heavy action of war would be even more of a nuisance than in civilian context and again, the soldiers would have to worry about their main weapon as well.
3) Thrust-centric swords are not as good at fights with multiple opponents (now why is that I have only a very rough idea, someone else may or may not elaborate).
4) On horseback thrusting is problematic because the chance of getting the sword stuck in the opponent is high.
>>
>>2091742
According to some fragmented sources, a store called Bad Dragon used to sell similar objects. It seems likely that these were tools of corporal punishment used while training reptiles. This is reinforced by the fact that there are some references from the same time period to a (unfortunately lost) document titled 'How to Train your Dragon'.
>>
Why were rapiers supposedly particularly crappy against armor even though estocs (with the blades at least seemingly very rapier like, long and narrow) were specialized anti-armor weapons?
>>
>>2095142
Because rapiers we're to blunt to cut an armor.
>>
>>2095142
because
>seemingly
>>
File: Phoerschwert.jpg (339KB, 1024x768px) Image search:
[Google]
339KB, 1024x768px
>>2095142
Estocs were quite a bit sturdier.
>>
>>2094418
>Is it fair to say that infantry used rapiers, and cavalry used swords ?
A rapier is a sword. I assume you meant sabers. And the answer is "sometimes."
>>
>>2091309
You poke-a them eyes! poke poke oh yeah. it dont kill but it hurts your face
>>
>>2095595
and, as you can see, it has three edges. it doesn't bend, it doesn't spring and it thrusts through anything you can thrust through at all.
>>
File: CapoFero.jpg (109KB, 763x471px) Image search:
[Google]
109KB, 763x471px
>>2095665
> it dont kill but it hurts your face
> it dont kill
Do you enjoy talking shit about subjects you have no clue about regularly?
>>
>>2095701
dat man is poke in the chest not eyes though fellow
>>
File: Capo_Ferro_7.jpg (671KB, 1461x805px) Image search:
[Google]
671KB, 1461x805px
>>2095764
that's because it was the first image from Capo Fero that I could be bothered to pull out of the reference library.
but since you insist:
>>
File: Capo_Ferro_9.jpg (632KB, 1442x872px) Image search:
[Google]
632KB, 1442x872px
or would through the side if the head be better.
that may be harmless to "sword through the face doesnt kill" guy, of course, since there's nothing between his ears...
>>
How are rapier cuts usually dealt with in HEMA sparring, tournaments etc.? Counting them just like with wider bladed weapons seems unrealistic as a rapier cut would be unlikely to end a fight, not to make rapier overpowered but on the other hand not counting them at all is unrealistic too.
>>
>>2096169
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6c-qcnU780&t=1m47s
>>
File: Backsword.jpg (83KB, 328x600px) Image search:
[Google]
83KB, 328x600px
>>2095621
By sword I mean all sorts of cutting swords : swords, sideswords, backswords, "broadswords", "war rapiers", szablas...
My rationale is that cavalry more often used forward-balanced swords in a cutting motion, whereas the infantry needed swords that were more balanced for fencing, like the rapier.
Am I correct ?
>>
>>
>>2096528
On the battlefield the cut vs the thrust is a heavliy debated topic, but at the time those were popular many soldiers would be wearing armor of some sort. a slashing sword could deal fatal or near fatal wounds to exposed areas much easier than the civilian rapier which isn't suited to cutting Its shorter blade would offer more leverage, and make it quicker to draw.
>>
File: cz-usa-cz-p-071.png (805KB, 1117x745px) Image search:
[Google]
805KB, 1117x745px
>>2091309
What was the actual purpose of this thing ?
I mean, obviously it was used to shoot people, but when was it used ? I don't see how it could be used by soldiers in battle, so was it made for dueling ? maybe it's for civilian self defense ? Maybe the city guards carried these ?
>>
I know a guy who is into historical swordfighting and renaissance reenactment. He recommended me the movie "Alatriste", because it's one of the most accurate portails of this style of swordfighting.
Here is a duel scene with rapier and parry dagger
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDS09DDpY14
and here is a tercio battle scene
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTYuYxmICGo
>>
>>2098104
>0:54
>guy gots his blade parried, visibly doesn't try to do anything with it, just keeps coming forward as his wrist is being grabbed
>accurate
I'd be so happy if movies had credible fights in them. A few years of training in any proper MA can ruin your entertainment from basically any fight scene.
>>
>>2099048
Forward momentum is a hell of a drug.
Thread posts: 67
Thread images: 19
Thread images: 19