Rapier v. court sword

In a duel with swords between opponents of equal fencing ability and
there being lots of room for footwork, is there a one sword that is
superior?

One reads that the court sword replaced the rapier and main gauche
because it was more maneuverable and could be used for defense as well
as offense. Then one reads that the court sword was developed because
the rapier was outlawed. While these factoids could both be true,
this seems unlikely.

As to sabers, It does seem logical that a thust weapon will be
superior to a heavier cut and thrust weapon in a duel because you need
to be a little closer to cut than to pierce.

Ken C






Ken
(to reply via email
remove "zz" from address)

In article <slrnbo5ben.8b3.zebee@zeus.zipworld.com.au>, zebee@zip.com.au
says...
> I suggest you add Hutton's Cold Steel to your list, (I think
> that's knocking about in PDF
>
<Delurk>

There are two of his works in .pdf format available here;
http://www.aemma.org/onlineResources/library_19c.htm
"Cold Steel" and "Old Swordplay"

</Delurk>
--

"The truth must be repeated again and again because error
is constantly being preached around us."
-Goethe

"Jonathan Jefferies" <jonathanjefferies@alamedanet.net> wrote in message
news:3f836fe6$0$16185$2c56edd9@news.cablerocket.co m...
> It may be that the rapier is often considered an offensive
> weapon with a definite downside for defense. Meaning that they
> were carried by persons expecting to be the attached. Which might
> suggest a less than honorable person.

That's why the picture 'The Procession at Blackfriars' has Queen Elizabeth
being carried in a palanquin actually shows her being carried by a gang of
thugs with rapiers rather than the gentlemen of her court dressed in the
highest fashion, also with rapiers...

Rapiers were high fashion, which is rather the point of Silver's book...

--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three

"William Marshal" <trebuchet30303@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dc7987e.0310071111.7221feed@posting.google.co m...

> I think that the smallsword superseded the rapier because the need for
> wearing a sword at all was by that time waning fast. The smallsword
> was more jewelry than weapon in terms of purpose, albeit it could
> still be used for defense when necessary.

It is arguable that people stopped wearing swords because they became more
lethal.

Silver talks about the increased lethality of the rapier and the downside
this involves. A backsword is a cutting weapon and cuts are often
non-lethal, however the thrust of the rapier, even if it doesn't kill may
well introduce bacteria into a wound in the body cavity, and in a society
where peritonitis usually killed this was lethal.

People may well have stopped carrying swords because they were too lethal.

--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three

On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 22:47:05 -0700, Jonathan Jefferies
<jonathanjefferies@alamedanet.net> wrote:

>I don't mean to disrespect your inquiry, but I do believe that your
>modern day fantasy view of sword fighting doesn't particularly jibe
>with historical or modern practice. And even in the "perfect case" scenario
>that you cite below, of course different men would likely pick
>different weapons even as they would today.

Well, there will never be complete agreement on the ideal weapon, yet
standard weapons nevertheless do get picked for whole armies. I would
think that there could be a consensus.

As to the rapier, one of the recommended sites has an interesting
statement:

>Rather than for war or battlefield, the slender, deceptive rapier was a personal weapon for civilian-wear and private quarrels. It was first designed for the needs of back-alley encounters and public ambush. Indeed, it was the first truly civilian weapon for urban self-defence developed in any society. It rose from practical tool, to popular “gentleman’s art”. Elegant in its lethality, it represents one of the most innovative and original aspects of Western martial culture and one with no parallel in other cultures. While never eclipsing cutting swords entirely, as a specialized weapon for personal single-combat, it was unequaled for almost 200 years until the widespread adoption of effective and reliable handguns.

See: http://www.thehaca.com/HEMA.htm

At least there is one other person -- far more knowledgeable than I am
-- who thinks that the rapier was the penultimate duelling weapon,
save for the handgun.


Ken
(to reply via email
remove "zz" from address)

In rec.sport.fencing on Wed, 08 Oct 2003 19:42:10 GMT
Ken <cprstn54zz@att.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 22:47:05 -0700, Jonathan Jefferies
><jonathanjefferies@alamedanet.net> wrote:
>
>>I don't mean to disrespect your inquiry, but I do believe that your
>>modern day fantasy view of sword fighting doesn't particularly jibe
>>with historical or modern practice. And even in the "perfect case" scenario
>>that you cite below, of course different men would likely pick
>>different weapons even as they would today.
>
> Well, there will never be complete agreement on the ideal weapon, yet
> standard weapons nevertheless do get picked for whole armies. I would
> think that there could be a consensus.

What an army needs is something that can be made cheaply, stand up to
lots of non fighting work (ask any grunt what a bayonet is for), and be
as effective as possible for an untrained user at close quarters in a
messy situation.

This is different to the weapon needed for a formal ritual duel, the
weapon needed against trained armoured opponents, the weapon needed
against trained unarmoured opponents, the weapon needed if you are
wearing it all day, the weapon needed if you are on horseback...

Remember - people have been using edged weapons for thousands of years.
If the "perfect" edged weapon was obvious, it would have been developed
early. Indeed it has been - for each situtation the developers were
confronted with.

Compare that to the paring knife. Your average small kitchen knife
was perfected a very long time ago, and any changes between whats in
your drawer now and what was in the kitchen in London in the 1300s (was
evidenced in archeologican digs) is a matter of better mettalurgy and
fashion in handle materials rather than any change in design. (And I
dunno about your drawer but the one in mine is damn near *identical",
bar the metal used, including hilt shape and hilt construction.) The
job the paring knife has to do hasn't changed, peeling vegies is still
peeling vegies.

> As to the rapier, one of the recommended sites has an interesting
> statement:

>>Rather than for war or battlefield, the slender, deceptive rapier
> was a personal weapon for civilian-wear and private quarrels. It was
> first designed for the needs of back-alley encounters and public ambush.

Well... I dunno about that, we really don't know what came first, it's a
chicken and egg thing. We do know that formal duels slowly stopped
being about battlefield weapons and armour and gradually the armour was
lost and the weapons were smaller and lighter, but we don't know *why*.

That non-battlefield people were using weapons to defend themselves long
before the rapier is known. THere's a fair bit in the laws of Henry I
about fighting with swords.

Why the rapier developed so *late* is an interesting question, and I'd
be hesitant to give any kind of definitive answer. I suspect it was to
do with the increasing use of professional soldiery meaning that if a
civilian had a sword it wasn't doing double duty.

There's also a definition problem that anyone studying this stuff comes
up against. What is a rapier? The word was in use for a couple of
hundred years, but you can see that the sword called "rapier" in 1620
was not the same sword in blade or hilt (and therefore, one presumes, in
use) as the one called "rapier" in 1480. Not to mention translation
problems - Di Grassi was published in English over 20 years after he
wrote his book in Italy, the English translation uses the word English
readers were familiar with - rapier. But it wouldn't be Swetnam's four
foot sword, it was most likely the spada di latto, the sidesword - much
closer to the modern epee in length, and with a blade of a different
shape to the later sword.

Some people use "rapier" to mean "long thursting only", some to mean
"long, mostly thrusting" some to mean "anything after about 1580",
some "anything with a swept hilt" and so on. So whenever reading about
"rapier" keep in mind that the writer may not be talking about the same
weapon you are envisaging, and also keep in mind that the bod they are
quoting or based on may not mean the same weapon the writer you are
reading is envisaging!


> “gentleman’s art”. Elegant in its lethality, it represents one of the
> most innovative and original aspects of Western martial culture and
> one with no parallel in other cultures. While never eclipsing cutting
> swords entirely, as a specialized weapon for personal single-combat,
> it was unequaled for almost 200 years until the widespread adoption of
> effective and reliable handguns.

When people were fighting on the streets, they were all cutting, even
smallsword users. And almost every "cutting" sword was thrust with....

Even Silver has thrusts, the most anti-rapier man you could meet.

> At least there is one other person -- far more knowledgeable than I am
> -- who thinks that the rapier was the penultimate duelling weapon,
> save for the handgun.

Well.. People I respect highly have strong reservations about the
scholarship and understanding of the HACA people in general and Clements
in particular. I do know that Clements book is strong on statements,
short on footnotes, and has a couple of glaring errors that are at odds
with his bibliography.

Do your own reading of primary sources, which will allow you to view
secondary sources with more feel for accuracy.

And to your list you might like to add Bryson's "The XVIthC Italian
Duel" which has a lot of very useful information about how they fought
and what with.

Zebee

In rec.sport.fencing on Wed, 8 Oct 2003 17:23:40 +0000 (UTC)
William Black <black_william@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> People may well have stopped carrying swords because they were too lethal.
>

Umm... Hasn't stopped people carrying guns, and guns are a lot more
lethal and a lot easier to use.

What stops people carrying guns is either a perception they aren't
needed, or a strong proscription against them.

Both of which applied with swords - anti duelling laws were being
enforced, and general street security was getting better.

Zebee

"Zebee Johnstone" <zebee@zip.com.au> wrote in message
news:slrnbo8v7v.r70.zebee@zeus.zipworld.com.au...
> In rec.sport.fencing on Wed, 08 Oct 2003 19:42:10 GMT
> Ken <cprstn54zz@att.net> wrote:

> Well.. People I respect highly have strong reservations about the
> scholarship and understanding of the HACA people in general and Clements
> in particular.

That's an interesting way of saying he talks a lot of balls, but I do
rather tend to agree.

--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three

In rec.sport.fencing on Wed, 8 Oct 2003 21:25:29 +0000 (UTC)
William Black <black_william@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> "Zebee Johnstone" <zebee@zip.com.au> wrote in message
> news:slrnbo8v7v.r70.zebee@zeus.zipworld.com.au...
>> In rec.sport.fencing on Wed, 08 Oct 2003 19:42:10 GMT
>> Ken <cprstn54zz@att.net> wrote:
>
>> Well.. People I respect highly have strong reservations about the
>> scholarship and understanding of the HACA people in general and Clements
>> in particular.
>
> That's an interesting way of saying he talks a lot of balls, but I do
> rather tend to agree.

I don't think I have enough experience or knowledge of the subject or of
his writings and teaching to go that far.

People I trust do go that far And the work of his I have seen was
definitely sloppy in scholarship, but what he's like *now* I can't say.
He wouldn't be the only one who has learned a lot and changed their
thinking in the last 5 years.

Zebee

"Zebee Johnstone" <zebee@zip.com.au> wrote in message
news:slrnbo8vb6.r70.zebee@zeus.zipworld.com.au...
> In rec.sport.fencing on Wed, 8 Oct 2003 17:23:40 +0000 (UTC)
> William Black <black_william@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > People may well have stopped carrying swords because they were too
lethal.
> >
>
> Umm... Hasn't stopped people carrying guns, and guns are a lot more
> lethal and a lot easier to use.

Actually it has.

When the effective repeating (revolving) pistol came along people in Europe
stopped carrying them.

In the USA however there was a need for a repeating pistol in the
wilderness. It is important to present a small band of aboriginals or
bandits with a 'platoon sized problem' rather than a 'squad sized problem'.
The revolving pistol did just that.

> What stops people carrying guns is either a perception they aren't
> needed, or a strong proscription against them.

No, as I said, the habit of carrying pistols died out in Europe with the
introduction of the effective repeating pistol, to the extent that it was
normal to carry a pistol when travelling in the 1850's but in 1906 when the
'Notting Hill Outrage' took place in London the police had to get guns from
a gun shop.

> Both of which applied with swords - anti duelling laws were being
> enforced, and general street security was getting better.

Duelling laws were strictly enforced in England from 1603 and the accession
of James 1 and VI. It didn't stop people fighting, although reports seem
to suggest that it was common to travel to France.

However in the English Interregnum (1649 to 1660) an Italian traveller noted
that all men wore edged weapons 'no matter if they be gentle or not', but
the big drop in street crime had been years earlier with the introduction of
the 'Poor law'. And ten years after the restoration only gentlemen wore
swords, and these were more exquisite male jewellery than weapons.

In reality, as we both know, the social carrying and use of personal
weapons is far more sophisticated than our crude arguments reflect.

A walk around the 'Personal Weapons' gallery at The Royal Armouries in Leeds
shows that social class and male adornment and fashion play a huge part in
all this.

One day I'll write a really good book, but right now I have to load a big
box of swords into my car...

--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three

In rec.sport.fencing on Wed, 8 Oct 2003 21:40:15 +0000 (UTC)
William Black <black_william@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> "Zebee Johnstone" <zebee@zip.com.au> wrote in message
> news:slrnbo8vb6.r70.zebee@zeus.zipworld.com.au...
>>
>> Umm... Hasn't stopped people carrying guns, and guns are a lot more
>> lethal and a lot easier to use.
>
> Actually it has.
>
> When the effective repeating (revolving) pistol came along people in Europe
> stopped carrying them.

Eh? There was no other difference at all in circumstances?

(hint... when were people carrying muzzle loaders, and why, and what
other factors were at play?)
>
> In the USA however there was a need for a repeating pistol in the
> wilderness. It is important to present a small band of aboriginals or
> bandits with a 'platoon sized problem' rather than a 'squad sized problem'.
> The revolving pistol did just that.

And now there is no wilderness, people have stopped, right?

>
> No, as I said, the habit of carrying pistols died out in Europe with the
> introduction of the effective repeating pistol, to the extent that it was
> normal to carry a pistol when travelling in the 1850's but in 1906 when the
> 'Notting Hill Outrage' took place in London the police had to get guns from
> a gun shop.

And there were no other societal factors at all, and you are absolutely
certain that people carried pistols in the 1850s? (Dickens lied to me!)

>
> Duelling laws were strictly enforced in England from 1603 and the accession
> of James 1 and VI. It didn't stop people fighting, although reports seem
> to suggest that it was common to travel to France.

Where the laws were not enforced...

> However in the English Interregnum (1649 to 1660) an Italian traveller noted
> that all men wore edged weapons 'no matter if they be gentle or not', but
> the big drop in street crime had been years earlier with the introduction of
> the 'Poor law'. And ten years after the restoration only gentlemen wore
> swords, and these were more exquisite male jewellery than weapons.

Was there a big drop? The soruces I've read say no.
> In reality, as we both know, the social carrying and use of personal
> weapons is far more sophisticated than our crude arguments reflect.
>

Exactly. The question is how important was lethality? I say pretty
well unimportant compared to many other factors.

zebee

Zebee Johnstone wrote:

>
> And to your list you might like to add Bryson's "The XVIthC Italian
> Duel" which has a lot of very useful information about how they fought
> and what with.

Is this still available? Neither Google nor Amazon seem to be able to find
it?
J.

In rec.sport.fencing on Wed, 08 Oct 2003 17:16:48 -0700
Jonathan Jefferies <jonathanjefferies@alamedanet.net> wrote:
>
>
> Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>
>>
>> And to your list you might like to add Bryson's "The XVIthC Italian
>> Duel" which has a lot of very useful information about how they fought
>> and what with.
>
> Is this still available? Neither Google nor Amazon seem to be able to find
> it?

Not in print no. Meaning interlibrary loan, or second hand from
abebooks.com or similar.

Zebee

Chris Zakes <moondrgn@austin.rr.com> nattered on
thusnews:4118ovole0bnusr36slkt5ou2cgiu6p9bm@4ax.co m:

> My understanding is that in such a situation, the challenged party
> would pick the weapons, and each fighter would be armed and armored
> identically.

The first is a peculiarity of that benighted and uncivilized English-
speaking island. Civilized countries like Italy had the challenge specify
weapons, although there was some debate over whether or not a counter-
proposal could be made by the challenged.

Zebee Johnstone <zebee@zip.com.au> nattered on
thusnews:slrnbo9amu.ab4.zebee@zeus.zipworld.com.au :

> In rec.sport.fencing on Wed, 08 Oct 2003 17:16:48 -0700
> Jonathan Jefferies <jonathanjefferies@alamedanet.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> And to your list you might like to add Bryson's "The XVIthC Italian
>>> Duel" which has a lot of very useful information about how they
>>> fought and what with.
>>
>> Is this still available? Neither Google nor Amazon seem to be able to
>> find it?
>
> Not in print no. Meaning interlibrary loan, or second hand from
> abebooks.com or similar.

And it's worth it. Bryson's book ought to be Doverized.

ortonmc+rsf@erols.com (Mark C. Orton) wrote



> > A strong cut, on the other hand---well, a missing sword arm is pretty
> > hard to shrug off...and a head even harder.
>
> In the latter case, it hardly seems necessary to shrug.
>
> -Mark-

Touche!

"William Black" <black_william@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<bm1h6r$poj$2@sparta.btinternet.com>...
> "William Marshal" <trebuchet30303@yahoo.com> wrote

>
> It is arguable that people stopped wearing swords because they became more
> lethal.


It is, but I think it goes against human nature. I mean, it certainly
hasn't stopped people from carrying guns...

"Zebee Johnstone" <zebee@zip.com.au> wrote in message
news:slrnbo91lp.gb.zebee@zeus.zipworld.com.au...

> And there were no other societal factors at all, and you are absolutely
> certain that people carried pistols in the 1850s? (Dickens lied to me!)

In 'Oliver Twist', Bill Sykes was shot from the roof, it wasn't commented
on as exceptional. The men hunting Magwitch across the moors in 'Nicholas
Nickelby' carry guns, the shots in the night are mentioned.


> > Duelling laws were strictly enforced in England from 1603 and the
accession
> > of James 1 and VI. It didn't stop people fighting, although reports
seem
> > to suggest that it was common to travel to France.
>
> Where the laws were not enforced...

Was dueling in France actually against the law at that time?

> > However in the English Interregnum (1649 to 1660) an Italian traveller
noted
> > that all men wore edged weapons 'no matter if they be gentle or not',
but
> > the big drop in street crime had been years earlier with the
introduction of
> > the 'Poor law'. And ten years after the restoration only gentlemen wore
> > swords, and these were more exquisite male jewellery than weapons.
>
> Was there a big drop? The soruces I've read say no.

It's seems to be the point when murder rates drop from about 8 in 100,000 a
year down to 4 in 100,000 in a year, where they stayed have stayed ever
since.

Murder rates are usually used as a measure of violence in society.

> The question is how important was lethality? I say pretty
> well unimportant compared to many other factors.

And I disagree, but we'll never know...

--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three

In rec.sport.fencing on Thu, 9 Oct 2003 09:36:09 +0000 (UTC)
William Black <black_william@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> "Zebee Johnstone" <zebee@zip.com.au> wrote in message
> news:slrnbo91lp.gb.zebee@zeus.zipworld.com.au...
>>
>> Where the laws were not enforced...
>
> Was dueling in France actually against the law at that time?

I believe so. Since the fight of "Les Mignons" which was what, mid to
late 1500s?

Zebee

Ken wrote:

> At least there is one other person -- far more knowledgeable
> than I am -- who thinks that the rapier was the penultimate
> duelling weapon, save for the handgun.

Yup. Vincentio Saviolo thought so too. He was a 1500s fencing master. His
entire life was dedicated to studying the blade ...

.... until he was killed in a fight by an untrained fighter with a short
sword.

It's not a simple question.

Jay Rudin