Épeé: Bastard Child of Foil.

[esskreemr]

Excellent rebuttal! Much better than many others

Originally Posted by Ripostal Clerk

You seem to be unaware that the epee is the modern derivative of the smallsword. The fleuret (foil), as it is understood today, was originally the training tool for the smallsword.

Fair enough.

Actually, "Modern Olympic style" fencing owes far more to the smallsword, and its corresponding method of use (Escrime Francais).

OK

Hold on there. Lose the modern museum curator's terms--"spada da lato a striscia" and whatnot. They aren't historically viable.

If you asked a 16th century bravo (sword-wielding street thug) what his weapon was, he'd simply call it a spada (sword).

Sorry, I had to rely on the museum curator's terms. I don't know any 16th century bravos...

Prove it

What killed more people--the Renaissance-era rapier, or the Roman legionary's gladius? I'd be willing to bet hard cash on the latter...

Simply insert duels. You're getting a little too picky about semantics here. The post wasn't meant to be a complete history of swords. That information was provided merely as a precursor to the relevant material.

Let's consider this discussion to include the period of rapiers and later. If you want, you can disprove it, I won't hit you with the tedium of proving every minutiae of your argument. I'll pre-concede that my knowledge is limited.

Precisely.

That is why we shouldn't confuse the two.

Which is why I made the distinction.

A couple of problems with what you say above.

For one thing, even very late Spanish cup-hilt rapiers retained cutting edges, and the esgrimadors who used these weapons still employed the cut (source: Domenico Angelo's School of Fencing, 1763).

Secondly, the forte of any sword is typically blunt, because that is what you parry with.

Typically, yes. In the case of early versions of the small sword ( and rapier), it was sharp mainly to discourage grabbing the blade. Even though the rapier was an edged weapon with a thrusting point and was heavy enough to be used as a cutting weapon, very few used the entire width of the blade to cut. Again, this is a very general account. Feel to correct me if I'm wrong and if it's coherent with the discussion at hand.

Smallswords actually came with several different blade configurations, FWIW.

Again, not a definitive historyof all descendants of the rapier. I don't have the time or the expertise to do so. Maybe you could?

Actually, there were "severe penalties for duelling" (is death "severe" enough for ya?) way back in the days of the rapier.

I was speaking from a 'legal' standpoint.

(Shakes head) No again.

There were sharp (pointed) epees in the late 1800s. I've handled a couple in my day. Duels were fought with these epees. An Italian fencer would refer to such a weapon as a spada de duello, and a French fencer would call it an epee du combat.

Yet the epee you train with is still blunted (I'm assuming). A training weapon.

The foil was the training tool for the smallsword,

Yes. I thought we had established that.

and later for the epee.

I use a treadmill as 'training' of sorts for the foil. I'm not going to use one in combat. The foil and its conventions predate the epee. The sport foil and its conventions predate sport epee. Correct? You haven't stated anything to lead me to believe differently.

The "duelling sword" IS the epee!

But not the modern sport epee.

What if the epee is sharp (as I noted above)?

Suddenly, it's not a training tool--it's a real weapon.

And what if the foil is sharp? Suddenly, it's not a training tool--it's a real weapon also.

Here's a link to an image of Italian duelling foils:
http://www.fencingmuseum.com/latest.htm

The image:
http://www.fencingmuseum.com/images/Duellingfoils-S.jpg

case of late 19th century Italian duelling foils with scabbards – used by the popular Italian politician and survivor of 32 duels, Felice Cavallotti, whose last fatal duel was vividly described by Aldo Nadi in The Living Sword

Hmmmm... they look like foils, not epees, they're sharp, and they were used for duelling. I may be crazy here, but I believe that makes them weapons.

Thanks for providing more information. I love swords of all forms and it's great to hear from someone with the abundance of knowledge that you seem to have.

[Christopher J Umbs]

Originally Posted by esskreemr

Hmmmm... they look like foils, not epees, they're sharp, and they were used for duelling. I may be crazy here, but I believe that makes them weapons.

If they are sharp, they're not foils. Oxymoron there... the very definition of foiled is blunted.

[esskreemr]

Originally Posted by Christopher J Umbs

If they are sharp, they're not foils. Oxymoron there... the very definition of foiled is blunted.

The very definition epee is sword yet the modern fencing epee is blunted. The modern fencing sabre is blunted. So by your definition they are both foils. So Olympic Style epee fencers are merely foil fencers without convention. Olympic Style sabre fencers are whacking with the broad side of their foils.

So we've finally reached the conclusion that all Olympic style fencers are essentially foil fencers.

[Mr Epee]

A sword can be blunt.
A foil cannot be sharp.

I think Essy-baby forgot to take his smart pills again today...

And I'm still waiting for you to back up your original premise

Originally Posted by Essy-baby

Many people seem to be laboring under the false impression that foil is merely a training tool for épeé.

Where did you get this idea?

[esskreemr]

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

A sword can be blunt.
A foil cannot be sharp.

I think Essy-baby forgot to take his smart pills again today...

So if I sharpend the tip of my foil, it is now an epee?

[Ripostal Clerk]

E,

Originally Posted by esskreemr

Excellent rebuttal! Much better than many others

Thank you.

Simply insert duels. You're getting a little too picky about semantics here. The post wasn't meant to be a complete history of swords. That information was provided merely as a precursor to the relevant material.

Let's consider this discussion to include the period of rapiers and later. If you want, you can disprove it, I won't hit you with the tedium of proving every minutiae of your argument. I'll pre-concede that my knowledge is limited.

OK.

Typically, yes. In the case of early versions of the small sword ( and rapier), it was sharp mainly to discourage grabbing the blade.

Chris pointed that out too, yes.

Even though the rapier was an edged weapon with a thrusting point and was heavy enough to be used as a cutting weapon, very few used the entire width of the blade to cut.

The point is that the Spanish were still using their swords for cutting actions; this was observed by contemporary masters of the French school, who had long before given up the cut (as early as 1670, Philibert de la Touche had noted that the art of cutting had been forgotten in France).

It's also probably worth pointing out that, as late as 1844, Blasco Florio observed that the type of spada used by the Sicilians still had functional cutting edges. Considering the longtime Spanish influence on Southern Italian fencing, this shouldn't really come as a surprise.

Again, not a definitive historyof all descendants of the rapier. I don't have the time or the expertise to do so. Maybe you could?

If folks here are actually interested, I could throw in my 2 cents worth...

I was speaking from a 'legal' standpoint.

So was I.

Duelling was punishable by death during the heyday of the rapier. Refer, for example, to the Count de Bouteville's duel with the Marquis de Beuvron in 1627--Bouteville was beheaded for that one.

Yet the epee you train with is still blunted (I'm assuming). A training weapon.

But based on a purely combative prototype. The practice epee differs from the duelling epee only in the lack of a sharp point, and the temper of the blade. The cross-section remains the same (usually trefoil, but sometimes of more complex forms).

Foils, on the other hand, are invariably of square section.

I use a treadmill as 'training' of sorts for the foil. I'm not going to use one in combat.

You'd be better off using a kettlebell.

The foil and its conventions predate the epee. The sport foil and its conventions predate sport epee. Correct? You haven't stated anything to lead me to believe differently.

The important thing here is that the foil and its conventions do not predate the smallsword. Do you follow me here?

And what if the foil is sharp? Suddenly, it's not a training tool--it's a real weapon also.

By definition, it's not a "foil" if it's sharp. Major contradiction in terms there.

Here's a link to an image of Italian duelling foils:
http://www.fencingmuseum.com/latest.htm

The image:
http://www.fencingmuseum.com/images/Duellingfoils-S.jpg



Hmmmm... they look like foils, not epees, they're sharp, and they were used for duelling. I may be crazy here, but I believe that makes them weapons.

Referring to what I said above, there's one thing you have to keep in mind--"foil" always refers to a practice weapon. After all, it's a rebated sword. The weapons you posted the link to, casually described as "duelling foils" would not have been referred to as such in their day. A sharp sword is just that--it's a sword. An Italian would refer to such a weapon as a spada, or a spada de duello. The fact that those swords "look" more like Italian foils than epees is irrelevant. Heck, early examples of the epee du combat look more like a smallsword than a modern-day epee--they have the smallsword's small shell-guard, sans knucklebow and finger-rings.

Thanks for providing more information. I love swords of all forms and it's great to hear from someone with the abundance of knowledge that you seem to have.

Thanks again.

Best,

David

[esskreemr]

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

And I'm still waiting for you to back up your original premise

Where did you get this idea?

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.g...810e066d0f4bf0

By the way, the epee is a "real sword", merely with the tip blunted. The
epee is the final form of the Western European duelling sword, and it was
invented around 1800ish, for duelling--fencing came later. The foil was a
training tool for the epee. Don't ask about sabres--they're just too
weird.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.m...c067d5c55fe3ff

I Agree. I prefer epee, but sabre is a fine weopon and you can learn a
lot training in either. Foil was developed as a trainer for epee, and
became a sport in itself. I found it too full of rules and priorities,
although some people like it, comparing it to a chess game.

http://www.fencing.net/forums/188823-6-post.html

Sure, there are some good arguments for why everyone should start in foil (it did start as a training weapon for the epee/rapier after all!

[Ripostal Clerk]

Originally Posted by esskreemr

The very definition epee is sword yet the modern fencing epee is blunted. The modern fencing sabre is blunted. So by your definition they are both foils. So Olympic Style epee fencers are merely foil fencers without convention. Olympic Style sabre fencers are whacking with the broad side of their foils.

So we've finally reached the conclusion that all Olympic style fencers are essentially foil fencers.

E,

You also have to keep in mind the martial/cultural connotations at work here. In the European sense, the term "sword" historically refers to weapons that are straight and (usually) double-edged. Hence, whether you're talking about a stout-bladed military basket-hilt, or a slim cup-hilt rapier, it's still a "sword" (spada, espada, espee/epee, schwert, degen, etc).

The saber, on the other hand, was not typically called a "sword"--it was almost universally referred to as a "saber" (sciabla, sciabola, sabel, sabre, etc). A different species, if you will.

Best,

David

[cfaustus]

Originally Posted by esskreemr

Yet the epee you train with is still blunted (I'm assuming). A training weapon.

I use a treadmill as 'training' of sorts for the foil. I'm not going to use one in combat. The foil and its conventions predate the epee. The sport foil and its conventions predate sport epee. Correct? You haven't stated anything to lead me to believe differently.

But not the modern sport epee.

OK.

First things first, 'epee' is a modern curtailing of the actual name of the weapon: 'epee du combat' or dueling sword. The sword used for dueling and the sword used for the serious encounter were IDENTICAL in all but one way, the practice weapon was baited. Some which were lethaly sharp were baited with a tip which could be removed so that one could actually use the same weapon for training AND dueling. The SAME weapon. Does the weapon change simply because we bait it? No. How we use it might. However, the whole reason for having the epee in its form was to allow one to train as one dueled.

Over time dueling passed into the pages of history. The epee, however did not need to change as it had always been serviceable in both extremes. What did happen is that often the baiting of the blade became permanent. It is, however, still possible to take a modern epee, either sharpen it or attach a pointe d'arret and have dueling tool. (Provided one has not equiped oneself with an extra whippy blade). If you have a French or an Italian grip, the weapon will be the same as those used back in the 'bad old days'.

Yes, the modern sport epee is not a dueling weapon because we have replaced the dueling pointe d'arret with the electric switch. The weapon (its blade, guard, etc) remains largely similar to its predicessors (with exceptions where fencers use extra whippy blades, but good solid blades can still be had for epee).

At the same time, I will agree with you that modern sport epee (the activity) is not dueling. Of course not! It is a sport, a game, a safe recreational athletic activity. As an activity which is based upon competition, its rules have changed to make the game more exciting to the sensibilities of those participating in it. People are awarded points for hitting the other person. No strong penalty for being hit. As long as one hits the other person one more time than they hit you, you win. Fine. Makes sense for a fun, exciting game. Does it make sense for a duel. Of course not. But the tool, the actual epee, is largely the same. So what you really ought to be looking at is the different application of the tool rather than the tool itself.

As far as the foil becoming the training tool for epee, this is simply because the foil is good at what it was made for: a training tool for fencing fundamentals. It is a good place to start. If one wishes to use 'real' weapons, they must eventually practice with baited versions of those weapons to get more exact training: a foiled epee or a foiled smallsword etc. (any baited sword is techinically a 'foil' as Chris pointed out, however, the modern usage refers to the specific tool - the fleurette or fioretto) ... if one is lucky in their resources, however, there is no reason (aside from saftey concerns and modern legal liability) that the smallsword-foil/epee-foil they use could not be sharp beneath the tip used to bait the blade. So, they could remove the tip and voila! They have a sharp for dueling.

Ess, beyond this, I don't undestand what you are trying to get at. If you are simply trying to state that modern Olympic epee fencing is different in its practice than the application of the epee du combat to the serious encounter, I don't think you will get many dissenters. If that is the case, then you want to study traditional fencing. Find a good classical or historical salle.

[D'Art]

OK while you lot are arguing about what sword to use in a duel, I'm gonna go and play with some guns and we'll see who wins.......

[Epee_Pox]

If anyone challenges me, I'm choosing "balloons and blunderbusses."

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by D'Art

OK while you lot are arguing about what sword to use in a duel, I'm gonna go and play with some guns and we'll see who wins.......

Be sure that you stand more than about 21 feet away. Inside that distance you can be reached and killed before you can aim and fire...

As an aside, I am sure that at least a couple of you fellows already know this, but it's perfectly possible to grab even a sharp blade without injury---even without gloves; so I don't know how far we should credit the theory that late rapier and smallsword blades were sharpened just to deter the practice. I find it more intuitively believable that it was done to enable the draw cut during infighting, or perhaps just out of tradition.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Epee_Pox

If anyone challenges me, I'm choosing "balloons and blunderbusses."

I'm choosing "lawyers and police officers".

[Feraud]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Be sure that you stand more than about 21 feet away. Inside that distance you can be reached and killed before you can aim and fire...

As an aside, I am sure that at least a couple of you fellows already know this, but it's perfectly possible to grab even a sharp blade without injury---even without gloves; so I don't know how far we should credit the theory that late rapier and smallsword blades were sharpened just to deter the practice. I find it more intuitively believable that it was done to enable the draw cut during infighting, or perhaps just out of tradition.

It was common practice to use the off hand to ward off thrusts and hence Rapiers and Smallswords had sharp edges both to discourage this defense and to facilitate the effectiveness of the sharp point. The practice of making draw cuts with the rapier appears in period manuals but it’s not likely that it was very effective against even heavy clothing.
The reason dueling swords (epees) deliberately did not have edges was that it insured any blood drawn would be with the point, considered to be a more serious injury, and not from an inconsequential slash or scrape. The combatants in that period were prohibited by the dueling code from using their off hand for defense, hence no need for the weapon to have sharp edges.
In some smallsword duels padded gloves were worn on the off hand to prevent “first blood” being inflicted on the hand, and thus ending the duel prematurely. The film “The Duelists” features a fight like this.

Some historical fencing groups seem to overrate the effectiveness of draw cutting with thrusting swords. I don’t mean to give any credit to this organization (they’re crazy) but check out the videos showing sharp weapon demonstrations on this website.
http://www.thearma.org/Videos/Videos.htm
The rapier (a real period one, not repro, is used) punches straight through a real piece of meat without the slightest resistance. Slashes or draw cuts with the weapon are quite ineffective.

The cuts made with the medieval swords don’t fare any better and aren’t even able to cut through a cotton gambeson. There may be some trouble in the experiment with the sword, wielder, armor or both. There’s plenty of period accounts and illustrations which show people dismembered limb from limb in battle. I can’t imagine real swords were so ineffective.

[Ripostal Clerk]

Originally Posted by Feraud

The cuts made with the medieval swords don’t fare any better and aren’t even able to cut through a cotton gambeson. There may be some trouble in the experiment with the sword, wielder, armor or both. There’s plenty of period accounts and illustrations which show people dismembered limb from limb in battle. I can’t imagine real swords were so ineffective.

Something must be wrong.

Hank Reinhardt of Museum Replicas has demonstrated that broad-bladed Viking/Frankish swords, as well as later Medieval cross-hilted "knightly" swords, are very effective cutting tools. He was able to consistently chop into a side of pork covered in butted maille (note, since little if any Medieval maille was butted, this test should not be viewed as really representational of what a sword could do to armor. Rivetted maille is much stronger). The maille was severed, and unless a gambeson was placed underneath, the sword bit deeply into the flesh as well.

Lynn Thompson of Cold Steel has also done all sorts of cutting tests with every type of sword imaginable--katanas, Chinese sabers (daos), European sabers, European cutlasses, Medieval European "knightly" swords, and so forth--and they are all extremely formidable cutting implements.

Check out Cold Steel's Sword Proof DVD, to see Lynn and his associates slicing and dicing sides of beef and other hunks of flesh and bone.

[Feraud]

Originally Posted by Ripostal Clerk

Something must be wrong.

Hank Reinhardt of Museum Replicas has demonstrated that broad-bladed Viking/Frankish swords, as well as later Medieval cross-hilted "knightly" swords, are very effective cutting tools. He was able to consistently chop into a side of pork covered in butted maille (note, since little if any Medieval maille was butted, this test should not be viewed as really representational of what a sword could do to armor. Rivetted maille is much stronger). The maille was severed, and unless a gambeson was placed underneath, the sword bit deeply into the flesh as well.

Lynn Thompson of Cold Steel has also done all sorts of cutting tests with every type of sword imaginable--katanas, Chinese sabers (daos), European sabers, European cutlasses, Medieval European "knightly" swords, and so forth--and they are all extremely formidable cutting implements.

Check out Cold Steel's Sword Proof DVD, to see Lynn and his associates slicing and dicing sides of beef and other hunks of flesh and bone.

Yeah there’s certainly something wrong with those tests.
One thing is that if the mail they’re striking at is made from modern steel, it’s too well made. Real mail would have been riveted too, much stonger than costume grade “butted” mail, but it wouldn’t be made of top grade steel either. And much repro armor is made too heavy.
Another important effect, I’m not sure how much difference it would make but when you’re striking a target, it’s own weight gives inertia against the blow, so striking a 60lb punching bag isn’t the same a striking a 200lb man in armor, he’s not going to bounce away from the blow and rob the power out of it.
The ability of the wielder is important as well, using a cutting sword properly is actually quite difficult, you’ve got to get the edge lined up exactly right and follow the blow through, against a soft target it’s important to draw the blade with the strike.
Finally there are probably few sword makers today who can actually make a good sword, one in the video manages to break during the test.