Rapier v. court sword

In rec.sport.fencing on Mon, 06 Oct 2003 21:03:47 GMT
Ken <cprstn54zz@att.net> wrote:
> 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?
>

Heh. read the archives of this group for about what, 2 months ago?
heavily discussed then.

Basically, a sword is a tool developed for a job. If you see a sword of
a particular length and shape, it is that shape because of lots of
factors including metallurgy, how it was carried, who was using it,
where they were using it, what they were using it for.

People developed new shapes and change the length because they needed to
when circumstanced changed.

So if you want to know why the smallsword developed, ponder the reasons
swords were used, how they were used, who was using them, why they were
used, how they were carried, and then work out what was different.

Remember also that these things were evolutionary, not revolutionary.
People didn't suddenly make massive changes.

It's also worth working out what changes were made. Look at Vigianni,
Agrippa, DiGrassi, then look at Hope and McBane and Angelo, and see what
was different and what was the same.

Ain't no simple answer to this one....

Mind you, I'd take a 15thC longsword as per Talhoffer/Ringeck against
most thrusting swords, as I reckon I could damage my opponent badly and
take minor damage myself. Against a backsword or rapier it would be a
much closer fight.



Zebee

Ken <cprstn54zz@att.net> nattered on
thusnews:v6l3ov85ntcmnfs1d828c8rehq40jhrecg@4ax.co m:

> 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?


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

My Kung Fu is better than your Kung Fu!!!

On 6 Oct 2003 21:39:26 GMT, Zebee Johnstone <zebee@zip.com.au> wrote:
>Heh. read the archives of this group for about what, 2 months ago?
>heavily discussed then.

What was discussed then was the "best combat sword." Inasmuch as no
one duels in combat and scenarios vary widely in combat, there could
be no definitive answer.

The present question is quite different in that it asks about dueling.
It may well be that no one has figured out all the strategies and
tactics for the permutations and combinations of weapons, bucklers,
light armor etc. between two duellists with four hands among them, but
common sense suggests that some combination of tools is optimum.

Obviously, a broadsword is a loser. Slow hacking was OK if everyone
wore armor but would be fatal against an adversary who could run you
through in 1/4 the time it would take you to effect one swing. A no
brainer.

The key questions that occur to me are: Can a main gauche routinely
parry a small sword? If a small sword parries a rapier, what happens
when the main gauche is brough to bear?

I have also seen it written that persons who used rapiers were seen as
"thugs" by persons who carried court swords. Were they thugs to be
feared or thugs to be dispatched?

I suspect that the rapier plus main gauche was the ultimate deadly
combo for duelling, but it just went out of "style."

Are there any good books on technique for rapier and main gauche?
Maybe I can figure it out myself.


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

Yes there is one thrusting weapon superior to all others assuming equal
skill. It is the spear gun.

Ken <cprstn54zz@att.net> nattered on
thusnews:udc4ovolis2414jsea5t2ncgcqe39c1adv@4ax.co m:

> Obviously, a broadsword is a loser. Slow hacking was OK if everyone
> wore armor but would be fatal against an adversary who could run you
> through in 1/4 the time it would take you to effect one swing. A no
> brainer.

What if the rules of the particular duel specified that combatants had to
wear armor?

In rec.sport.fencing on Tue, 07 Oct 2003 03:48:11 GMT
Ken <cprstn54zz@att.net> wrote:
>
> Obviously, a broadsword is a loser. Slow hacking was OK if everyone
> wore armor but would be fatal against an adversary who could run you
> through in 1/4 the time it would take you to effect one swing. A no
> brainer.

heheh... and how much broadsword/backsword have you fought? (watching
rob roy doesn't count...)

Hint - they aren't slow to swing if you do it properly, they aren't just
for swinging and your smallsword might find a parry even of a wristcut
rather difficult, not to mention that it's ugly being on the wrong end
of a broadsword pommel or discovering halfsword the hard way.

It's just not that straightforward.

If it was, do you really think that people wouldn't have been using
small light swords early on? Yes, a bigger sword is good against
armour, but even without armour they weren't using them exclusively
until other things made it worthwhile. The backsword was in use
alongside the smallsword for a considerable time.

> The key questions that occur to me are: Can a main gauche routinely
> parry a small sword? If a small sword parries a rapier, what happens
> when the main gauche is brough to bear?

equal skill? toss up. My fencing master is probably better with an epee
than I am with sword and dagger if it's possible to measure such things,
he can't take me for granted though. Nor I him.

If I have two weapons, I am not using them alternately, I am
guarding with one and attacking with the other. You get to guess
which... or I'm controlling with one, passing off to the other, and
bingo.

However, that's if I get control. Even if I do, there's distance
involved, and things get complex.

It's most likely that if they are of equal skill in the chosen weapon,
and equal experience of the other weapon, then it's going to be too
close to call.

> I have also seen it written that persons who used rapiers were seen as
> "thugs" by persons who carried court swords. Were they thugs to be
> feared or thugs to be dispatched?

Considering that the term "rapier" covers over a century and very
different swords, and the term "court sword" dates from well after the
rapier, you might need to check your sources.

There was a time when "fencers" were considered thugs (hence the famous
edict about "fencers, bearwards, actors, and other vagabonds" but that
wasn't about the weapon, that was about social class.

If by 'rapier' you mean "long weapon mainly used for thrusting with
swept hilt" then it was in use by all classes. As the shorter lighter
smallsword (what is usually meant by court sword) came into fashion, the
people who might think of others as "thugs" were wearing it more for
fashion than for fighting. the ones who were fighting would probably
consider it old fashioned but that's all.


> I suspect that the rapier plus main gauche was the ultimate deadly
> combo for duelling, but it just went out of "style."

Swetnam agrees with you, Silver doesn;t.

But carrying Swetnam's "four foot sword" about was not as easy as a
shorter weapon, and as more folk carried, and more got taught, and
different styles came about, the advantages of length were less.

(not to mention that the chances of being in a fight were less too,
enforecement of anti-duelling laws was stepped up, the sword became a
fashion statement rather than a mark of a fighter)

>
> Are there any good books on technique for rapier and main gauche?
> Maybe I can figure it out myself.

Swetnam's book is basically "how to survive a duel", and he has some
things on dealing with what he called "short sword" as well as
backsword. Silver will give you something to think about with regards
to the cutting weapons you think so little of. DiGrassi is a good solid
well rounded system for rapier and rapier and off-hand weapon, he was
writing around the time of transition from spada di latto to the more
thrsuting oriented style.

Those are the 3 most accessible books in English by men who did this for
real. There are various "my style based on period books" from modern
sources such as John Clement's "renaissance swordsmanship" and Terry
Brown's "English Swordsmanship" but they are modern, and not tested in
lethal fight. meaning there are artifacts in them, and have to be
carefully sifted for those - not something that's easy to do without a
lot of reading and experience.

And for more food for thought, get hold of Christian Tobler's "German
Swordsmanship" to understand just how deadly a long heavy sword can be.
I've tried his techniques, rapier against hand and a half, and it's
vicious.

If you are really interested in this, I suggest you go find a good
Western Martial Arts group and learn from people who have been studying
this for a long time. There's really a lot more to it than you think.

Zebee

On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 03:52:47 GMT, "Samuel Lillard"
<slillard@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
>Yes there is one thrusting weapon superior to all others assuming equal
>skill. It is the spear gun.

Well, we weren't going there. But since you opened the door, it would
have to be the crossbow (not to mention the Uzi).

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

On 7 Oct 2003 09:00:06 GMT, Zebee Johnstone <zebee@zip.com.au> wrote:

>heheh... and how much broadsword/backsword have you fought? (watching
>rob roy doesn't count...)

Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

Would you kindly provide full citations for the books (author, name)
you mention? Or the URL of a list that has them?

Consider this hypothetical: You are a consummate swordsman skilled
in every edged weapon. You must fight a duel to the death against
another equally skilled but unknown opponent. You can choose any
combination of swords, knives and/or shields. You do not know what
your adversary might pick.

Are you saying that different men would pick different weapons? Would
someone actually pick a small sword when his adversary might pick
rapier and main gauche?

Based on the little reading I have done to date (two books plus
various web pages--which I intend to expand), there is little
quantitative analysis. Success was often based on secret techniques
that could be sprung on an opponent. Many schools of thought were
arbitrary and without substantial foundation. No one really knows the
answer because there is no empirical data. Modern competitive fencing
techniques are truly evolving, but this was not the case for actual
duelling weapons after the rapier was developed and refined.



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

In rec.sport.fencing on Tue, 07 Oct 2003 11:37:37 GMT
Ken <cprstn54zz@att.net> wrote:
> On 7 Oct 2003 09:00:06 GMT, Zebee Johnstone <zebee@zip.com.au> wrote:
>
>>heheh... and how much broadsword/backsword have you fought? (watching
>>rob roy doesn't count...)
>
> Thank you for your thoughtful reply.
>
> Would you kindly provide full citations for the books (author, name)
> you mention? Or the URL of a list that has them?

<rummage rummage>

The best one stop shop is probably
http://www.thehaca.com/manuals.htm
and there's more sites listed at
http://www.sca.org.au/rapier/guild_manuals.htm


> Consider this hypothetical: You are a consummate swordsman skilled
> in every edged weapon. You must fight a duel to the death against
> another equally skilled but unknown opponent. You can choose any
> combination of swords, knives and/or shields. You do not know what
> your adversary might pick.
>
> Are you saying that different men would pick different weapons? Would
> someone actually pick a small sword when his adversary might pick
> rapier and main gauche?


No idea, because *I'm* not skilled in those things. And such a person
doesn't exist. It's a hypothetical without an answer.

If I was going to take on anyone, I'd probably side with Swetnam and do
it with a staff or glaive. The man who knew what he was talking about
said that unless the rapier man was very good and got in hard and fast,
he was toast.

On the other hand, maybe a longsword. Yeah, I might get cut, but I
would probably do more damage to the rapier wielder.

Or perhaps case of swords. Can be very effective against rapier and
dagger.

As can rapier or backsword when allied with a chain glove.

And so on....

>
> Based on the little reading I have done to date (two books plus
> various web pages--which I intend to expand), there is little
> quantitative analysis. Success was often based on secret techniques
> that could be sprung on an opponent. Many schools of thought were
> arbitrary and without substantial foundation. No one really knows the
> answer because there is no empirical data. Modern competitive fencing
> techniques are truly evolving, but this was not the case for actual
> duelling weapons after the rapier was developed and refined.

Umm.. read more

yes, there were bods who taught for a living and liked to keep their
secrets. But there were also books widely published and a lot of
teaching going on, teaching founded on solid principles.

Sounds like you've been reading people who have been reading Edgerton
Castle, I suggest you add Hutton's Cold Steel to your list, (I think
that's knocking about in PDF, google for it) and Anglo's MArtial Arts of
Renaissance Europe. Gaugler's History of Fencing might be worth a look
too, and Amberger's Secret History of the Sword.

What it boils down to is that when it was your life on the line, then
what worked worked, and people who could teach what worked were valued.
You don't trust your life to "artbitrary"....

Go back as far as Viggiani, and while there's a certain amount of
mysticism involved, he's very practical.

Then fast forward to De Bazancourt in the 1860s and see his discussion
of new techniques and ideas. And his take on the way fencing evolution
changed and bogged down. (You can get his book "Secrets of the Sword)
from Laureate Press, google for it). Another leap, up to the 1890s and
the duellist Ageselao Greco who, with his brother Aurelio, developed a
deadly method of epee fencing which went through opponents - with sharps
and without - like a dose of salts. (The Greco stuff isn't available in
English, but Gaugler has a lot on them)

There is a *lot* of information out there, to be educated enough to work
otu what you want to know, you need to read it. Or spend time talking
to those who have, and have been studying this for a while. There's a
truckload more info available now than was available even 10 years ago,
and more than was available to people like Hutton and Castle. And many
more people working hard at how to do this.

(and ones who are keeping it alive, my fencing master learned to use
sword and dagger when he was studying in Italy in the late 80s, from
masters who had learned it from their masters and so on.)

Yes, when fighting with the sword stopped being a common thing and
started being a ritual thing, it developed in a ritual way. And being
ritual, there were things it didn't do all that well. But check Hope
and McBane (See Highland Swordsmanship from Chivalry Bookshelf) who
quite clearly show effective work with a smallsword and talk about using
it against other weapons.

Zebee

Ken <cprstn54zz@att.net> wrote



> 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.

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.

Personally I would consider a weapon versatile enough to both cut and
thrust superior to one which could only cut OR thrust. Even if the
opportunity for a cut should arise only occasionally, it's better to
be able to take advantage of it when it arises, no?






> 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.


Superior in what sense?

Read the accounts of duels from the bad old days and you find lots of
cases where multiple thrusts through some pretty vital areas failed to
stop the opponent---and very often failed to kill him. For every duel
in which both principals were killed there is one in which neither
was.

A strong cut, on the other hand---well, a missing sword arm is pretty
hard to shrug off...and a head even harder.

"Ken" <cprstn54zz@att.net> wrote in message
news:fm75ovghgt5m7t9iq33l1l36iaac7va18o@4ax.com...

> Consider this hypothetical: You are a consummate swordsman skilled
> in every edged weapon. You must fight a duel to the death against
> another equally skilled but unknown opponent. You can choose any
> combination of swords, knives and/or shields. You do not know what
> your adversary might pick.

I've said it here before and I'll say it again.

Swords don't kill, people kill.

If given a choice of edged weapons I'd probably choose a sixteenth century
Italian 'developed' halberd.

Certainly something that was long and sharp and chopped as well as having a
thrusting point and a shod butt.

Although a bow and arrow has it's attractions...

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

"Ken" <cprstn54zz@att.net> wrote in message
news:udc4ovolis2414jsea5t2ncgcqe39c1adv@4ax.com...

> The present question is quite different in that it asks about dueling.

The fundamental point about duelling is that the weapons are agreed between
the combatants. It is the successor to 'trial by combat' and the victor is
the one favoured by G-d and so is correct.

These were not trivial combats but reasonably highly formalised ritual with
'seconds' and rules of behaviour.

Even in the duel mentioned by Swetnam in jest, between the master and his
pupil, the weapons are the same.

And it's still the best fencing joke I've ever heard...

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

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.

j.

Ken wrote:

>
> I have also seen it written that persons who used rapiers were seen as
> "thugs" by persons who carried court swords. Were they thugs to be
> feared or thugs to be dispatched?
>

Jonathan Jefferies <jonathanjefferies@alamedanet.net> nattered on
thusnews:3f836fe6$0$16185$2c56edd9@news.cablerocke t.com:

> 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.

Perhaps it was more on the order that people who wear Armani see those who
wear less hoity-toity garments are "thugs"...

On 7 Oct 2003 12:11:57 -0700, trebuchet30303@yahoo.com (William
Marshal) 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-

In rec.sport.fencing on Tue, 07 Oct 2003 18:40:40 -0700
Jonathan Jefferies <jonathanjefferies@alamedanet.net> wrote:
> 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.

But they were worn by all classes, you can see them in various portraits
of nobles, Saviolo and Swetnam were both teachers of nobility and even
royalty.

I believe the original idea was wrong for most of the period the rapier
was in use, and possibly a little bit right for a small portion of the
smallsword era, but only in the "they are poor and lowerclass" sense.

Zebee

Ken,
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. There is no perfect
weapon for all scenarios - as someone else commented. And almost
every fighting man today their favorite weapon. This is even
true in olympic sport fencing where the great official effort has
gone into eliminating differences in the weapons.

J.

Ken wrote:
>
>
> Consider this hypothetical: You are a consummate swordsman skilled
> in every edged weapon. You must fight a duel to the death against
> another equally skilled but unknown opponent. You can choose any
> combination of swords, knives and/or shields. You do not know what
> your adversary might pick.
>
> Are you saying that different men would pick different weapons? Would
> someone actually pick a small sword when his adversary might pick
> rapier and main gauche?
>

On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 11:37:37 GMT, Ken <cprstn54zz@att.net> wrote:

>On 7 Oct 2003 09:00:06 GMT, Zebee Johnstone <zebee@zip.com.au> wrote:
>
>>heheh... and how much broadsword/backsword have you fought? (watching
>>rob roy doesn't count...)
>
>Thank you for your thoughtful reply.
>
>Would you kindly provide full citations for the books (author, name)
>you mention? Or the URL of a list that has them?
>
>Consider this hypothetical: You are a consummate swordsman skilled
>in every edged weapon. You must fight a duel to the death against
>another equally skilled but unknown opponent. You can choose any
>combination of swords, knives and/or shields. You do not know what
>your adversary might pick.

My understanding is that in such a situation, the challenged party
would pick the weapons, and each fighter would be armed and armored
identically. (There were some writers who even argued that if a
one-armed man was challenged, his opponent should have the same arm
removed before the duel should be allowed.)

So che chances of a *formal* duel with unequal weapons is pretty
unlikely.

-Chris Zakes
Texas

"That's what Jagulars always do," said Pooh, much interested. "They call 'Help! Help!' and then when you look up they drop on you."

"I'm looking down," cried Piglet loudly.

-A.A. Milne, "The House at Pooh Corner"

"William Black" responded to Zebee Johnson:

> > > 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?

Yes. According to Billacois' *The Duel, Its Rise and Fall in Early Modern
France*, Henri III tried to ban it with an edict required a careful set of
procedures for grievances. In 1599, Parliament called duelling illegal, but
the King Henri IV didn't proclaim it so until 1602.

And, yes, that fact was known in England. An English translation of
theFrench law was published in 1609 in London. "To this end have We, by our
Edict, dated in Aprill the year of our Lord 1602, and made by the consent
and advice of al the Princes of our blood, the Officers of our Crowne, and
others of our Counsell which were then about Vs, declared all such, as under
a pretence of drawing satisfaction from any man for a pretended wrong, shall
either challenge, or cause to be challenged, guiltie of high treasons, and
withall ordained they shall bee punished accordingly : as likewise such as
shall answer any such challenge, or assist & second such as doe."

However, it was not enforced with any particular vigor. According to
Baldick's *The Duel*, Henri IV granted 7,000 pardons for duelling over
nineteen years.

On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 19:42:10 GMT, Ken <cprstn54zz@att.net> 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.

What, then, would be the ultimate duelling weapon?

-Mark-