Power of the Rapier.....how strong is it?

[Cobra]

Many say the rapier is usful as far as speed and agility, but many say as well it lacks the power it needs to deliver a critical blow or thrust.

What is the power of the of a rapier's thrust? Can it go through a man if stabed and reach to the otherside of the man's back (can it go through a person and come out through the back to the point were you can see the blade on the otherside?)? Is the thurst strong enough to peirce armour?

And what about the Sword Rapier with a sharpened balde, can it severe limbs and reach the power of a katana?

[MA-Caver]

While I've never used a rapier per-se, they were/are fearsome weapons in the right hands. Of course that is true with ANY weapon. Rapiers are capable of being run through a man, provided that the wielder of the sword has the skill, speed, muscle and accuracy to do so.
Think upon this for a moment to answer your question and/or watch any fencing match... why else do the ends have large blunted tips and the fencers wear thick padded chest protectors and tight wire mesh face guards. It says something about the capability of those weapons does it not?

[Nikolas P.]

Many say the rapier is usful as far as speed and agility, but many say as well it lacks the power it needs to deliver a critical blow or thrust.

What is the power of the of a rapier's thrust? Can it go through a man if stabed and reach to the otherside of the man's back (can it go through a person and come out through the back to the point were you can see the blade on the otherside?)?

The short answer to this question is 'yes.' The long answer is that a rapier can go through a man, but it can't pierce bone. That means no thrusting straight through the ribcage. You might, however, be able to impale someone through the stomach, armpit, or neck.


Is the thurst strong enough to peirce armour?

No. As I understand it, the rapier was invented in a period where firearms were becoming more prolific, and thus armor more and more of a hindrance than a help. With armor disappearing, a new sword was invented that didn't need to be large enough and heavy enough to break armor, as the old longswords had been.


And what about the Sword Rapier with a sharpened balde, can it severe limbs and reach the power of a katana?

No, an edged rapier is still too thin to cut something as large as an arm.

[Cryozombie]

The short answer to this question is 'yes.' The long answer is that a rapier can go through a man, but it can't pierce bone. That means no thrusting straight through the ribcage. You might, however, be able to impale someone through the stomach, armpit, or neck.



No. As I understand it, the rapier was invented in a period where firearms were becoming more prolific, and thus armor more and more of a hindrance than a help. With armor disappearing, a new sword was invented that didn't need to be large enough and heavy enough to break armor, as the old longswords had been.



No, an edged rapier is still too thin to cut something as large as an arm.

So, in the grand scheme of things... say you were in a sitaution/time period that required the use of the sword in "life or death" combat... Would the rapier be a good choice, given that you had the time to learn to use it? Or would you be better off with something like a Cutlass, Saber, or Katana? Or maybe the old standby European Longsword?

Hmmm.

[Nikolas P.]

Firstly, as the parable goes, a sword is just a tool. It's the arm that wields it that makes it deadly.

Secondly, your question is too vague. The reasons there are specialized designs of swords are because they were refined to meet the needs of the era. The rapier was the perfect weapon for its time, because armor was on the decline, and man-to-man dueling was becoming more prevalent than frequent large scale wars.

[MA-Caver]

Not to mention that the rapier was/is an elegant weapon of a far more civilized day (that sounds familiar ... hmm :jedi1: ).
True an edged rapier isn't capable of slicing off an arm or a head but it would inflict some nasty cuts.
I've seen re-enactments where both a rapier and a dagger were used at the same time to achieve the effect that one or the other couldn't.
I think that a rapier could pierce through a rib-cage and into the heart muscle provided that the weilder was skillful enough to make that accurate of a strike... or mebbe just lucky. Either way it would inflict aseries of serious puncture wounds and thus create a hellva distraction for the "opponent". For my money the katana and other similar "broadswords" are more effective for creating damage.

[Nikolas P.]

To be honest, I can't imagine a rapier making much of a cut. It might make a painful laceration if whipped across the skin, but not a serious injury.

Fighting with rapier and dagger (or rapier and shortsword) is called florentine fencing. Fencers often held a secondary weapon in their off-hand; knife, cloak, net, and, of course, in later years the pistol.

[Michael Billings]

The rapier I fenced with was a shorter thicker version of the foil. You did not want to be poked with it, as it bent very little. I see it as more likely to penetrate soft tissue and probably likely to cut bone enough to get stuck or bound.

I thought it may be a good slicing weapon, not slashing. Saber was much more about whacking down your opponent. I like the post, function dictates form, a saber would be used in combat, a foil in training (and some duels - longer reach), and a rapier in dueling. I am not even sure it was ever intended for more than this. My learning was limited to a couple of college classes and frankly, I just don't remember the history of the weapon. But my thought is, you could get a very nasty, to the bone cut from a rapier, using the tip to cut, and certainly enough to cut a throat or artery in the arm or leg.

-Michael

[Nikolas P.]

I agree. A rapier is quite the weapon for precision "slicing." It's just not going to be taking any limbs off. :)

[pesilat]

To the best of my knowledge, a rapier isn't intended for slicing at all.

It's intended for thrusting. And, as it was explained to me, the flexibility/springiness of the blade is part of what makes it so lethal.

When it first makes contact with cloth, skin, etc, the blade begins to bend. At the thrust continues, a point of critical mass gets reached. Either the surface being stabbed (skin, cloth, etc.) gives way or the blade snaps. If the surface being stabbed gives way and the blade enters anything of less resistance then the tip of the blade will gain momentum as the blade springs back toward straight. So, in slo-mo, if you press the tip against something and begin pushing, when the surface breaks and the tip goes through, it will shoot forward, propelled by the tension of the bent blade, as if it had been thrust very violently.

If the blade breaks, of course, then you end up with a smaller, more rigid, still very sharp tipped blade which can still be used.

But, anyway, that's how the concept of the rapier was explained to me - and it makes a lot of sense to me.

Mike

[loki09789]

Sabers: Generally hack and slash, not great at stabbing, usually a mounted weapon.

Foil: Diputed as either a 'training weapon' to establish a very strict and precise skill of fencing OR a 'killing weapon' because the entire foil system and weapon is to accomplish the goal of thrusting into the trunk and groin triangle (lethal targets) of the body.

Epee: short, stiff thrusting weapon. Easy to carry unmounted and used for 'duels of honor' when first blood is generally the goal. Less strict than foil because the entire body is a 'legal' target.

Rapier: Lethal/Powerful because it had some cutting ability as well as thrusting ability, also it was a weapon advancement because it was a design specifically created as a result of improvements in metalwork and refinement of the raw materials as well as the precision of the craftsman. This advancement allowed it to maintain strength and flexibility in a longer and lighter blade than had previously been possible.

It was primarily a thrusting weapon - but unlike the epee/foil - it could effectively 'gore' the opponent because of the cutting edges allowing for more internal damage while inside and as it was withdrawn from the body....

Rapier's power came from the metal and the engineering that was cutting edge for the time. It still comes down to the person handling it to use it as well as it was crafted though.

[dohap]

To the best of my knowledge, a rapier isn't intended for slicing at all.

It's intended for thrusting. And, as it was explained to me, the flexibility/springiness of the blade is part of what makes it so lethal.

When it first makes contact with cloth, skin, etc, the blade begins to bend. At the thrust continues, a point of critical mass gets reached. Either the surface being stabbed (skin, cloth, etc.) gives way or the blade snaps. If the surface being stabbed gives way and the blade enters anything of less resistance then the tip of the blade will gain momentum as the blade springs back toward straight. So, in slo-mo, if you press the tip against something and begin pushing, when the surface breaks and the tip goes through, it will shoot forward, propelled by the tension of the bent blade, as if it had been thrust very violently.

If the blade breaks, of course, then you end up with a smaller, more rigid, still very sharp tipped blade which can still be used.

But, anyway, that's how the concept of the rapier was explained to me - and it makes a lot of sense to me.

Mike


It was intended also for slicing, and the first rapiers were not bending so much. You are talking about later models designed only for thrusting motion.

[Kenkaku Knight]

Hello everybody, I've been fencing for four years now, and I want to make a few clarifications, and a brief history of the rapier.

Full plate armor ==> medieval longswords and broadswords (aka Human can openers)

Gunpowder ==> armor = obsolete ==> human can openers = overkill

Now, people found out that smaller, lighter swords move faster than the heavier swords, and because nobody wore armor anymore, the smaller swords are just as deadly.

Thus, we have the rapier, a long, thin weapon with a cutting edge on it. As a slicing weapon, the rapier is still fairly ineffective, and the edge is more as a deterrent from someone grabbing the blade.

The extreme length made the rapier, with its thin, narrow blade, a very effective thrusting weapon, but because of its length, it became a cumbersome weapon to defend oneself with. So people armed themselves with a dagger, shield/buckler, or another rapier as a defensive weapon.

The next step in the rapier's history is its descendant, the small sword (court sword). This sword is shorter than the rapier, and was much more adept at switching between offense and defense. And because of the minimal slicing ability of the rapier, getting in past the thrusting tip became a cake walk for the smallsword, which modern day fencing is based on.

Just my history of fencing.

[RITFencing]

It was intended also for slicing, and the first rapiers were not bending so much. You are talking about later models designed only for thrusting motion.

This is true, and even later versions (there was no one 'true' rapier) were still capable of cutting. Look at German Schlager dueling; it involved two people standing close to each other and basically trading attacks and parries (not my preferred method, but to each their own.)

Also, as far as thrusting vs cutting weapons when dealing with an unarmored target: On a good shot, the thrusting ones are much more lethal because of the ease with which they can penetrate to vital organs. It's not actually as easy as one might think to chop through a ribcage (along with all the muscle and fat associated) but if a slim point finds its way between a pair of ribs, say good night, Gracie.

Incidentally, this is why modern fencers wear an extra layer of protection for the ribs, shoulder and upper arm on their weapon side; if someone penetrates the jacket at the seam running up this side (why manufacturers choose to put a seam there in the first place baffles me) or just penetrates the material, there is another layer of ballistic nylon with seams nowhere near the one on the jacket that will either stop the broken weapon or cause it to only penetrate an inch or so, as opposed to destroying any combination of the heart, lungs and spine.

Fortunately, these events are extremely rare (in ten years I have been at one tournament where someone took a blade in their body, and then it was a minor thigh puncture) but we have to prepare for them nonetheless. :)

[Langenschwert]

Full plate armor ==> medieval longswords and broadswords (aka Human can openers)

Keep in mind that swords were not the primary weapon against armour. That job fell to the pollaxe, mace and warhammer. Swords could be used against armour, so a longsword would be half-sworded to thrust into vulnerable targets, such as the palms of the hands, eyeslits, armpits, etc. Otherwise, it could be reversed to use the pommel or crossguard like a mace or warhammer. The advantage of the longsword is that it's easy to carry around, unlike a pollaxe. It's strength is its versatility.


Gunpowder ==> armor = obsolete ==> human can openers = overkill

This is an oversimplification. Armour started falling out of favour before firearms could easily breach it. What did start happening was towns fielding commoner militia, who couldn't afford plate. Nobles started leaving warfare, since commoners couldn't take nobles for ransom, and might perhaps execute them on the spot rather than have them hanging around draining resources. Fewer noble customers = fewer armourers = less armour on the battlefield.


Now, people found out that smaller, lighter swords move faster than the heavier swords, and because nobody wore armour anymore, the smaller swords are just as deadly.

Also, the rapier had its heyday as a civillian weapon. Civillians in the towns don't wear armour in the first place.


The extreme length made the rapier, with its thin, narrow blade, a very effective thrusting weapon, but because of its length, it became a cumbersome weapon to defend oneself with.

I disagree. The rapier is quite agile in defence. The buckler and off hand weapons have a long and storied history, and were not an innovation. See MS. I.33, which is a sword and buckler manual from about 1290, long before the advent of the rapier. It details civillian combat, not military combat.


The next step in the rapier's history is its descendant, the small sword (court sword). This sword is shorter than the rapier, and was much more adept at switching between offense and defense. And because of the minimal slicing ability of the rapier, getting in past the thrusting tip became a cake walk for the smallsword, which modern day fencing is based on.

The smallsword did not "defeat" the rapier. Fashion did. A rapier has a bulky, elaborate hilt and is fairly long. When fashions changed, people wanted swords they could wear at court without the hilts getting in the way. Thus you have a compact hilt and blade length that don't get caught on tables, one's fellow courtiers, and one's own garments. Since only nobles/officers were wearing smallswords, it became the nobles' duelling weapon. We use what we have to hand. Facing a rapier with a smallsword is something I wouldn't do if I could help it. :)

Just my $0.02.

Best regards,

-Mark

[Langenschwert]

Also, as far as thrusting vs cutting weapons when dealing with an unarmored target: On a good shot, the thrusting ones are much more lethal because of the ease with which they can penetrate to vital organs. It's not actually as easy as one might think to chop through a ribcage (along with all the muscle and fat associated) but if a slim point finds its way between a pair of ribs, say good night, Gracie.

True, thrusts are more lethal in general, but cuts have more stopping power. A reasonable cut to a wrist from a longsword will end the fight instantly (Pinocchio has his strings cut), but rapier duellists would suffer many puncture wounds, keep fighting but die in their beds days later. I would rather hit someone with a cut, put them into shock and finish them off at my leisure than give someone a mortal wound from a thrust, and have him live long enough to take me with him. :)

Best regards,

-Mark

[RITFencing]

Fair enough point; the heavier weapons certainly can have much more force behind them (simple physics, and the cutting motion can take advantage of different muscle groups.)

As far as the damage from shallow cuts, though, like tendons in the wrist, even a rapier would be able to deliver enough. For a real system shock, you'd want something cutting to the bone and still delivering a hard impact.

Again, this can be achieved with a lighter, thrusting weapon, though certainly with more difficulty (perforated lungs, for example, and arteries tend to take the fight right out of a person.)

[Langenschwert]

Fair enough point; the heavier weapons certainly can have much more force behind them (simple physics, and the cutting motion can take advantage of different muscle groups.)

A rapier isn't any lighter than a typical longsword. Both weigh in at about three pounds, give or take. It's the distribution of the mass. Less mass at the point of impact equals shallower cuts. :)


As far as the damage from shallow cuts, though, like tendons in the wrist, even a rapier would be able to deliver enough. For a real system shock, you'd want something cutting to the bone and still delivering a hard impact.

Yup, that'll drop you like a sack of excrement. ;)


Again, this can be achieved with a lighter, thrusting weapon, though certainly with more difficulty (perforated lungs, for example, and arteries tend to take the fight right out of a person.)

It can, but adrenaline is a powerful assistance to those who are mortally wounded. It's better to sever something that produces an instant effect that can't be affected by adrenaline, such as severed limbs or major tendons. The loss of control is instant, whether you know you've been hit or not. Superficial cuts and even severe punctures can be ignored temporarily if you're of the right physical makeup, but a severed hand cannot, if it's holding your weapon. :)

But we're splitting hairs. I'm enjoying the discussion nonetheless.

Best regards,

-Mark

[RITFencing]

I pretty much agree with everything there, except when I'm talking about lighter, I do not mean the overall weight of the weapon, but rather the balance (or the torque due to the center of gravity's position relative to the hand, if you will.)

[kaizasosei]

my uncle told me that the original foil fighting style was the quickest deadliest style of swordcombat. he would always tell me how fast it is and that all you'd see was a flash and the next thing would be a penetrating hole right between the eyes...
i dunno, but that's what i was always told. i briefly took a fencing class in a summer camp one time. later on when i started learning about swordfighting especially japanese swordfighting, i tried to integrate the stabing into my style. especially with the ninjato. i have never had a taichisword but i think it would be some good for stabing too.
i have seen some of the foils that have very ergonomic handles which would suggest a high level of dexterity that is being amped with even more responsive handle.
interesting are also the downwards pointing swords with bent handles of the mongols and centralasian nomads...the quality seems bad,but i wonder why they were like that and how they were used.
i would think that with a smallsword, you might also under right circumstances even easier breach the gaps in armour rendering it useless.
definately a weapon of skill as opposed to sheer power.

j

[thardey]

The original foil style was based on smallsword technique, not rapier, so it's apples and oranges to compare it to rapier.

Also keep in mind that there were many different styles of "rapier" most were actually schlagger blades, which were heavier, straight, tapered blades descended from the cut and thrust blades of the knights. There were rapiers that measured from the ground to the armpit (obviously not for cutting) there were some that were very much like a straight saber (fantastic for cutting) some flexed a lot (in order to slide past the ribcage -- not for extra speed ast was mentioned above) some had a triangle cross-section with a ridge cut into it (like a modern epee) to keep the blade from fencing at all.

What you really have to ask is what styles were "strong". Each "master" developed his own theory based on his own culture, his previous training, the materials at hand, and often his religion. Then he developed a sword specifically recommended for that purpose, often down to what kind of a hilt should be used.

For instance, there was a guy named Saviolo (who I study) who advocated a medium-length rapier of medium weight. He focused primarily on thrusts to the ribcage (turn the "guard" aka quillions, horizontal to the ground to slide past the ribs) and just above the hip. You only cut if your tip was forced off line, and it was a well-trained cut to the throat, the arm, or the arteries between your legs. His swords could easily penetrate the body and reach out the back.

There's another guy named Marozzo, (who I also study) who is from an earlier school, who uses a rapier that's almost comparable to a one-handed sword. It's short (around 34 inch blade) and (relatively) heavy. This sword was often used with a buckler (a small, round shield). It's primary purpose was cutting, with both the strong and weak sides (that's part of the reason it was straight). It was weighted forward for maximum stopping power, but was still considered a rapier.

The third guy I study is named Thibault. He uses a medium-long sword (barely short enough to be able to draw from a waist scabbard), which is very sturdy, and weighted a little forward. He almost exclusively used thrusts delivered with the power of the full body behind it. (Called "finishing with rigour"). He believed firmly that his swords could fully penetrate a skull, and many of his training pictures show drawings of a sword embedded to the hilt in some poor guy's face. The only cuts that he taught were by laying the sword tip against a throat and pushing the length of the sword against it with pressure. A very deep cut indeed, but certainly no decapitation.

Later guys migrated to more of a smallsword, which many people think of as a rapier. (for instance "Pirates of the Carribean" was pretty much exclusively smallsword fighting -- not rapier!) Those were very light, very quick, and very flimsy. Think of trying to defend your life with a sharpened, modern epee.

Early rapier strategy relied not on what we would consider "speed" but on economy of motion, which gave the illusion of speed. Cut out any superfluous motion, and you can get past his defenses faster. That's how the sword would be in your throat before you realized your opponent was even in range.

Hope this helps.

[Langenschwert]

my uncle told me that the original foil fighting style was the quickest deadliest style of swordcombat.

There is no "deadliest" style of sword combat. Foil combat is fast because the foil isn't a weapon. It is a training tool designed to enforce certain behaviour. That being said, a good sport fencer can tap you between the eyes really fast, and that's a great skill to have. And a good longswordman can sever your hand (or at least severly maim) with a flick of the wrists. Or he could close to grappling range, throw you with his off hand, and hit you with his blade as you fall. A trained rapierist can do the same. The failings of some later forms of sword combat is that it became popular to believe that a good swordsman should never have to resort to grappling or using the off hand in any way. Needless to say, that is patently false. Just like the fallacy of the cut versus the thrust. Both are important... you use whatever is the best at the moment. At least in a life and death encounter. In a sporting event or a formalized duel with some seconds standing by to enforce any rules with lethal force, things are different.

Best regards,

-Mark

[Langenschwert]

I pretty much agree with everything there, except when I'm talking about lighter, I do not mean the overall weight of the weapon, but rather the balance (or the torque due to the center of gravity's position relative to the hand, if you will.)

I can see that. However, some longswords such as my Albion Agincourt (Type XVa) are balanced quite close to the hands, and I could certainly do rapier drills with some of them. Others have done a fair amount of freeplay with knightly style arming swords using rapier technique and find it works passably well. I believe the "classic" rapier developed to take better advantage of techniques people were already using with earlier designs.

Best regards,

-Mark

[kaizasosei]

when i was 13 i got my first katana.. it was a very good blade.
whatever the case, when i first showed it to my grandfather, he kept telling me it was a rapier- in german säbel.
would you agree? what else could be called rapier? just how flexible is this term?

j

[Blindside]

when i was 13 i got my first katana.. it was a very good blade.
whatever the case, when i first showed it to my grandfather, he kept telling me it was a rapier- in german säbel.
would you agree? what else could be called rapier? just how flexible is this term?

j

Not THAT flexible. :D

Actually I think the translation of sabel is saber/sabre, which makes sense, giving the curved appearance of the katana.

Lamont

[Sukerkin]

First, please realise that I'm not speaking from a position of knowledge on this subject but only passing on snippets that I have read and heard from those more educated in the ways of Western Swordsmanship than myself.

I have heard that the 'true' rapier (as in the weapon rather than what has passed down the years into the sport) was actually slower in use than the longsword, because of the difference in mass distribution previously mentioned. Can someone shed any further light on this bald statement?

I can add my opinion to Langen's that the cut is generally held superior to the thrust in combat for achieving the stunning effect you need to make the killing blow (which may well have been the thrust, hence the pasing into legend of 'the point defeats the edge' cliche's). I'm a student of Muso Jikiden Eishin Ryu iaido and nearly all of our attacks are slices and, because of the shape of the katana and the mode of use, even our thrusts are slices, designed to open huge wounds in the soft tissues of the belly (in general).

[kaizasosei]

As we can see manstopingpower to be so important for Gunfighting, i can see the same for swords. i'd rather get spanked by a foil rather than bludgeoned by a sabre(forget the edge even).
why should the sword be used only for stabing or cutting. it could be used for anything from stroking, holding to rubbing even for flying.

j

[Steel Tiger]

I can add my opinion to Langen's that the cut is generally held superior to the thrust in combat for achieving the stunning effect you need to make the killing blow (which may well have been the thrust, hence the pasing into legend of 'the point defeats the edge' cliche's). I'm a student of Muso Jikiden Eishin Ryu iaido and nearly all of our attacks are slices and, because of the shape of the katana and the mode of use, even our thrusts are slices, designed to open huge wounds in the soft tissues of the belly (in general).

There are a number of documented cases of people taking a number (the most I have encountered was 6) of passes through the body with a rapier or smallsword and surviving at least to the next day. It also happens to a number of character's in Dumas' novels, especially The Three Musketeers. Dumas was writting in the 1830s and 1840s and was a student of fencing, so he probably had some good information on swords and sword injuries.

[Sukerkin]

Thanks, ST :tup:. I recall (now that you've said :o) reading before that Dumas very likely knew what he was talking about in his fiction.

I just wish I recalled where I'd come upon the thread discussing the lethality of thrusting wounds but their inconclusivity in 'duels' ... it may have been SFI or it may have been MAP ... of course, it may well have been here too {it was long ago before I became a member :blush:}. I'm sensing a need to go a-searching :D.

[Steel Tiger]

Thanks, ST :tup:. I recall (now that you've said :o) reading before that Dumas very likely knew what he was talking about in his fiction.

I just wish I recalled where I'd come upon the thread discussing the lethality of thrusting wounds but their inconclusivity in 'duels' ... it may have been SFI or it may have been MAP ... of course, it may well have been here too {it was long ago before I became a member :blush:}. I'm sensing a need to go a-searching :D.

Just as I was reading through your post I noticed again that you are in Staffordshire (close to where my father's family originated) and that made think of Shakespeare. There are a few written accounts of him being seen about town with a vastly long rapier (5 or 6 feet). Long enough that he had to carry it upon his back. There seems to have been a bit of a British craze for very long, improbable rapiers in the sixteenth century as there are other accounts of men carrying their companion's rapiers which were drawn by the other over the shoulder of the man doing the carrying.

[jks9199]

interesting are also the downwards pointing swords with bent handles of the mongols and centralasian nomads...the quality seems bad,but i wonder why they were like that and how they were used.
j

I believe you're describing the various kopis style blades, like the kukri today. The design of the blade and it's weight makes it an incredibly powerful cutting weapon; it can also be used to thrust. Here's one link about the kukri specifically: http://www.nepalesekhukuri.com/khukuri.html. If you put "kopis" into a search engine, you'll find lots of information easily about this style of blade.

[thardey]

First, please realise that I'm not speaking from a position of knowledge on this subject but only passing on snippets that I have read and heard from those more educated in the ways of Western Swordsmanship than myself.

I have heard that the 'true' rapier (as in the weapon rather than what has passed down the years into the sport) was actually slower in use than the longsword, because of the difference in mass distribution previously mentioned. Can someone shed any further light on this bald statement?


Everybody who taught rapier taught that theirs was the "True Rapier". (La Destrieza Veridad, is what the Spanish called their art. Roughly, "The True Art")

If you were to use a rapier like a longsword, then yes, it is much slower. If you were to use a longsword like a rapier, then the situation is reversed. It is always quicker to thrust than to cut. (Shortest distance, and all that.)

But that being said, rapiers were very slow to cut for most of their history. The rapier itself moved very little, while the strategy and speed of the fencer came from the very intricate footwork. In fact, the rapier was so relatively slow that for a long time the strategy was not at all what you see in modern fencing, which is a two-beat defence:
1st Beat: Parry or Block
2nd Beat: Riposte or Counter-thrust

With a heavier sword (classic rapier) this was not a good strategy. If you did block, it was only by moving the hilt as little as possible, while the tip stayed in place, pointing at your opponent. A few successful masters taught a one-beat (or single-time) defence.

1. Avoid attack while counterattacking from a covered position.

This involves gaining control of your opponent's sword (usually sliding it until you have a leverage advantage), while moving to a more favorable position (again, to gain leverage, usually), and thrusting from that "safe" position, all in one "beat" of time.

By the time most people realized that they were in a bad position, it was too late, and you could do nothing to avoid getting hit. At that point the most you can do (and often happened) was to desperately try to hit your opponent as well, so at least both of you were wounded. The reason the rapier got a reputation of being so quick, is that it was actually slow, but VERY, VERY subtle.

Example: Last month my fencing instructor and I were practicing a partner duel from Saviolo (see description above). Anthony Delongis (The saber fighter from Fearless) was there and he said:
"I know about what you're doing, and even I don't know what you're doing!"

The moment of going from "safe" to "unsafe" happens very quick, but once that happens, there's actually a lot of time to realize your mistake, but no time left to do anything about it. But you're right, most historical rapiers were not fast.

The trick is fast footwork, and a subtle sword.

[Steel Tiger]

I believe you're describing the various kopis style blades, like the kukri today. The design of the blade and it's weight makes it an incredibly powerful cutting weapon; it can also be used to thrust. Here's one link about the kukri specifically: http://www.nepalesekhukuri.com/khukuri.html. If you put "kopis" into a search engine, you'll find lots of information easily about this style of blade.

There is also a Middle Eastern and North African blade called a yataghan which is of the same configuration, but designed more for use by horsemen.

[Sukerkin]

Just as I was reading through your post I noticed again that you are in Staffordshire (close to where my father's family originated) and that made think of Shakespeare. There are a few written accounts of him being seen about town with a vastly long rapier (5 or 6 feet). Long enough that he had to carry it upon his back. There seems to have been a bit of a British craze for very long, improbable rapiers in the sixteenth century as there are other accounts of men carrying their companion's rapiers which were drawn by the other over the shoulder of the man doing the carrying.

One historical factlet (possibly apocraphal) that I can add to this discourse is that such overlong rapiers were the origin of the phrase "Cut him down to size!" as a law was passed to limit the length of blade. The 'overly' lengthy swords were supposedly attributed to 'foreign' influences - it makes me wonder if Silver had anything to do with this (now that I've heard of him and read some of his work)?

[Sukerkin]

Thanks for your illuminating post, Thardey.

The only thing that I don't immediately see is the physical reasons why one sword type should be quicker in the thrust than another?

I 'know' that the longswords centre of mass is nearer the hilt than the rapiers but I don't see why that would make it thrust slower - can you help the scales of ignorance fall from my eyes?

What complicates matters is that I recently bought my first European blade (my much revered 'bastard sword') and I can report that it is quicker into cuts and recovery than my katana - wonderfully light in the hands, probably because of the pommel weight. I suspect that because of that it would actually cut less 'well' but, in duelling style, unarmoured, combat, first blood counts a great deal towards who eventually wins out.

[Langenschwert]

when i was 13 i got my first katana.. it was a very good blade.
whatever the case, when i first showed it to my grandfather, he kept telling me it was a rapier- in german säbel.
would you agree? what else could be called rapier? just how flexible is this term?

j

Historically, the term Rapier was more flexible than modern usage. Interestingly enough, the Italians, who were credited (or blamed) for the invention of the rapier, merely called it a spada (sword). What we would call Cut & Thrust swords or sideswords today might have been called rapiers in their day. For modern usage, a rapier is a single handed sword optimized for thrusting, having a cage or cup-style hand protection. Thus a Schianova is not a rapier, nor is a smallsword, not is a foil.

Thus a katana is not a rapier. It is a saber. The Germans might have called it a grosse messer, langenmesser, or a kriegsmesser, had they seen one.

And rapiers not flexible. At least, no more flexible than other swords. Some are very rigid with no cutting edge at all.

Best regards,

-Mark

[Langenschwert]

I can add my opinion to Langen's that the cut is generally held superior to the thrust in combat for achieving the stunning effect you need to make the killing blow (which may well have been the thrust, hence the pasing into legend of 'the point defeats the edge' cliche's). I'm a student of Muso Jikiden Eishin Ryu iaido and nearly all of our attacks are slices and, because of the shape of the katana and the mode of use, even our thrusts are slices, designed to open huge wounds in the soft tissues of the belly (in general).

There is one nifty thrust that has a lot of stopping power, and that's the thrust to the face. In German Longsword, thrusts from the bind often target the face. This sets you up for a cut or slice if you miss the thrust, and generates a flinch response in the opponent which you can further exploit. :) Nonetheless, a good cut will end a fight quicker than a good thrust, unless the thrust hits something really juicy.

Best regards,

-Mark

[thardey]

Thanks for your illuminating post, Thardey.

The only thing that I don't immediately see is the physical reasons why one sword type should be quicker in the thrust than another?

I 'know' that the longswords centre of mass is nearer the hilt than the rapiers but I don't see why that would make it thrust slower - can you help the scales of ignorance fall from my eyes?

What complicates matters is that I recently bought my first European blade (my much revered 'bastard sword') and I can report that it is quicker into cuts and recovery than my katana - wonderfully light in the hands, probably because of the pommel weight. I suspect that because of that it would actually cut less 'well' but, in duelling style, unarmoured, combat, first blood counts a great deal towards who eventually wins out.

I can only take a stab at it (no pun intended), and I'm sure there are others who can dive into the physics of it if they are so inclined, but I've built a couple of Rapiers for practice (that is, I've bought safety blades, then built the hilt, handle, and pommel to fit.) And I've made some live steel swords (built the blade, handle, guard, pommel, etc): Longsword, Gladius, Cutlass, and a Wakizashi. But there are actually two points on a sword that you have to consider when building it: the center of balance (usually about 3-4 inches in front of the crossguard, on either a rapier or longsword) or, what people are probably referring to as "weight" on this topic, the "sweet spot" on the blade.

The center of Balance is easy to find -- put your finger on the blade and move it until the sword stays balanced.

The "Sweet Spot" is more elusive, and is what separates a Swordsmith from some guy like me who plays around in his shop. On a Longsword, or a katana, the sweet spot is where you can deliver a cut with the least amount of "vibration" coming back to your hand. Or put in a more "physics" conscious way, all of the energy is directed to that spot, to cause the most efficient transfer of energy. (If you connect before the sweet spot, your blade feels like it's trying "wrap around" the resisting object. If you hit way past the sweet spot, you sometimes get a shock vibration the length of the blade).

It's usually safe to say that that "sweet spot" is roughly 2/3 of the way down the blade. That sweet spot has a tendency to want to stay in one place, with the sword pivoting around it on an axis point. The closer the sweet spot is to the balance point, the easier it is to move the sweet spot around. Thus, on a cutting sword, the sweet spot is relatively close to the balance point, so it uses very little energy to swing it, but almost all of that energy is transfered to delivering the blow.

One of the variables you can experiment with in adjusting the sweet spot is the relationship of the weight of the pommel, versus the "arm" (physics term!) or distance from the center of balance. On a longsword, that arm is much longer to give room for the famous "half a hand" optional grip. It moves the "sweet spot" in.

A lighter pommel with a longer "arm" translates to the same balance point as a heavier pommel with a shorter "arm". Yet it ends up with an incredibly different feel for the sword.

On a typical rapier, that "sweet spot" is about 3-5 inches from the tip. It's a long ways from the balance point, so it's slower to swing, but that's a good thing for a rapier, because it helps to keep your tip between you and your opponent. Your tip "wants" to stay pointed at your enemy, which is ultimately, the goal of fencing. (If your tip is online, and your opponent's is not, you advance and hit him!) However, you can image that a cutting blow from that sweet spot will have almost no weight behind it, but will result in more of a whipping action, that will slice deep into soft tissue, but have very little momentum to carry it through resistance.

Think for a moment about the various different construction for swords. And let's say that all have about the same center of balance from the place where you grip the handle. (This of course doesn't count for blades like a khukri, which get heavier towards the tip).

A longsword has a simple, medium-weight crossguard, medium weight tang, and medium weight pommel spread out across a long arm. = short sweet spot

A one-handed cut and thrust sword has a light guard, a medium tang, and a heavy pommel on a short arm = medium sweet spot with a handle-heavy balance.

A saber has a heavier guard, a heavier tang, but almost no pommel on a short arm. = medium length sweet spot with a blade-heavy balance. (does "old wristbreaker" ring a bell?)

A Rapier has a heavy guard, a light tang, and a heavy/medum pommel on a meduim/short arm. = long sweet spot

A Katana has a very light guard, a heavy tang, and no pommel on a long arm = well, to be honest I've never touched a well-made katana, so I don't know.

Add to the equation the cross-section of the blade, the type of taper (thickness, width, or both) and the length of overall blade, and you have a infinite variety of types of swords, all with a similar balance point. Each sword type is useful in different applications. I would never fight on horseback with a rapier, but I would never take a saber to a duel, if I had a choice.

Hope this helps, and If somebody can correct this, go for it, I'm just a "laysmith" with some theories.

[thardey]

There is one nifty thrust that has a lot of stopping power, and that's the thrust to the face. In German Longsword, thrusts from the bind often target the face. This sets you up for a cut or slice if you miss the thrust, and generates a flinch response in the opponent which you can further exploit. :) Nonetheless, a good cut will end a fight quicker than a good thrust, unless the thrust hits something really juicy.

Best regards,

-Mark

Exactly! Don't underestimate the stopping power of 6 inches of steel through your eye or throat.

Also, just to add fuel to the fire -- how many cuts can actually penetrate the ribcage and cut the organs beneath? How many thrusts?

As far as the flexibility issues, maybe we should clarify. A rapier has the flexibility almost bend double before it breaks, so yes, in that sense it is way more flexible than a katana or a saber.

But don't be misled: Langenschwert is right in that a rapier is not flimsy. It takes a LOT of resistance to bend that rapier, and that resistance increases as the cross-section of the blade gets thicker towards the handle. A well-made rapier will only flex in the last 1/3 of the blade, and that's with a lot of weight leaning into it.

My instructor saw this happen in a accident, but it demonstrates how the small flexibility of the rapier was an asset to penetration.

During a bout, somehow an accident caused one of the fencers to be impaled through the thigh with a rapier. The sword entered aiming straight at the fibula (with the guard perpendicular to the ground), then encountered the resistance of the bone, flexed sideways until it "found" its way past the bone, and exited the back of his thigh at an angle to the original entry wound. (He was okay, it didn't hit anything too important.) And this was with a dull rapier.

If you thrust into the chest cavity, you thrust horizontally (guard parallel with the ground), the blade probably meets resistance from the ribcage, then it flexes until it works its way to a soft spot, and punches through. If you hit anywhere but the sternum you're likely to penetrate. If you hit the sternum with that much force (remember the proper way to thrust is to place the tip on your opponent, then push with all of your body weight behind it -- it's not a delicate thing.) It would definitely hurt, or bruise your heart. I've been hit there with a blunted blade, and it definitely takes the fight out of you!

Part of the reason you have stories in Dumas and Shakespeare about getting poked multiple times with no immediate effect is that in England, France, and Italy during that time, gentlemen did not thrust to the face. If was forbidden in practice (no fencing masks available) and if they didn't practice it, they didn't do it when it counted.

The Spanish, on the other hand, threw out the notions of a "gentlemanly" fight, and trained to hit the face and throat. Most of their opponents died during the duel. Sounds like the Germans had the same idea.

Also, most masters taught to get in, thrust, and get out, leaving multiple superficial wounds. Thibault, under the Spanish influence taught getting in, thrusting (to the face or body), then following through with such commitment that your hilt would hit your opponent so hard (after the blade was in them) that they would be knocked off their feet, and you could get your blade free with no other effort on your part. As far as I know, he never fought in a duel (he stuck with tournaments), but his students were greatly feared.

[thardey]

Thanks for your illuminating post, Thardey.

The only thing that I don't immediately see is the physical reasons why one sword type should be quicker in the thrust than another?

I 'know' that the longswords centre of mass is nearer the hilt than the rapiers but I don't see why that would make it thrust slower - can you help the scales of ignorance fall from my eyes?

What complicates matters is that I recently bought my first European blade (my much revered 'bastard sword') and I can report that it is quicker into cuts and recovery than my katana - wonderfully light in the hands, probably because of the pommel weight. I suspect that because of that it would actually cut less 'well' but, in duelling style, unarmoured, combat, first blood counts a great deal towards who eventually wins out.

Whoops! In re-reading your post I realized I didn't answer your question, but glanced off of it.

Let me try again.

It's not that the rapier was really quicker in the thrust. (Once you have any straight sword aimed at your target, you push, and that's it.) But it's that the rapier is much easier to keep on target in the first place. (Because of the location of the sweet spot mentioned above.) It's pretty easy to get a cutting sword's tip out of the way, but a rapier tip just sort of bounces back to where it needs to be.

When I'm playing with someone with more of a cutting sword, I usually throw a bunch of thrusts at them and their sword naturally comes off-line when they parry. The sword "wants" to circle around into a cut. Before they can thrust they have to aim, then attack. A well-made rapier will naturally stay on target, if there's no physical resistance from an opponent's blade. All you have to do is attack. (Not counting for strategies and tactics, etc.)

Also, even though a longsword and a rapier are the same length overall, the rapier has a longer blade and a shorter handle, which translates to a more efficient reach using only one hand. That means you can gain leverage advantage with less movement. (Sometimes even just by raising your body up a couple of inches, with your arm extended.)

[Sukerkin]

Deep thanks for the well expressed detail of your first post, the elaboration of your second and the re-targeting of the third :rei:.

I was previously aware of the different properties of the point of balance and the centre of resonance ("sweet spot") in a blade but how you described the fashion in which the seperation of these two points in the body of the sword affects the behaviour of the weapon in use was excellent :tup:.

[kaizasosei]

i think that cutting accurately requires more concentration and coordination as well as more speed. for me at least it feels that way. cutting also seems less personal, because it need not always be as aggressive or binding as stabing is. i think it might be easier to escape certain cuts rather than stabs, but that all depends on the speed and general circumstances. hard to say anything for sure.
of course i would think both stabbing cutting are to be valued equaly and should be used together to achieve distance as well as the upperhand.
obviously anyone standing in the way of a speeding sword could be seen as cursed.


j

[Steel Tiger]

Part of the reason you have stories in Dumas and Shakespeare about getting poked multiple times with no immediate effect is that in England, France, and Italy during that time, gentlemen did not thrust to the face. If was forbidden in practice (no fencing masks available) and if they didn't practice it, they didn't do it when it counted.

The Spanish, on the other hand, threw out the notions of a "gentlemanly" fight, and trained to hit the face and throat. Most of their opponents died during the duel. Sounds like the Germans had the same idea.

Also, most masters taught to get in, thrust, and get out, leaving multiple superficial wounds. Thibault, under the Spanish influence taught getting in, thrusting (to the face or body), then following through with such commitment that your hilt would hit your opponent so hard (after the blade was in them) that they would be knocked off their feet, and you could get your blade free with no other effort on your part. As far as I know, he never fought in a duel (he stuck with tournaments), but his students were greatly feared.

I had always heard the Spanish fencing style described as wild, even uncivilised, and now I think I can see why.

[Langenschwert]

i think it might be easier to escape certain cuts rather than stabs,

Actually, the converse is true. The weakness of the thrust is well, its weakness. It can be taken offline with little effort, and only threatens a limited target area, relative to say, a descending diagonal cut, which can threaten from the head down to the hands.


of course i would think both stabbing cutting are to be valued equaly and should be used together to achieve distance as well as the upperhand.

The great George Silver would have agreed with you there. He said the perfect fight utilizes both the cut and the thrust. I happen to agree. The so called Dobringer manuscript says to envision a line from the tip of your sword to your opponent, and that you ought to follow that line to strike or thrust him most directly, using the shortest path possible.

Best regards,

-Mark

[thardey]

Actually, the converse is true. The weakness of the thrust is well, its weakness. It can be taken offline with little effort, and only threatens a limited target area, relative to say, a descending diagonal cut, which can threaten from the head down to the hands.


But said cut takes some time to develop, and for me, is the easiest to "Shed" which takes only a little more effort than re-directing a thrust. The hardest cut for me to parry is a horizontal cut to the lower body, I can only static block those, which take a lot more work.



The great George Silver would have agreed with you there. He said the perfect fight utilizes both the cut and the thrust. I happen to agree. The so called Dobringer manuscript says to envision a line from the tip of your sword to your opponent, and that you ought to follow that line to strike or thrust him most directly, using the shortest path possible.


That's almost word for word what Saviolo taught as well. If it is quicker to thrust, that is, if that is the shortest path to hit opponent safely, do it! If your point is offline, then the shortest path to your opponent is a cut -- do it! My fencing rapier is of the Saviolo style (weight, length, sweet spot, balance), and it would cut quite well if it were sharpened. At least, I would not like to be cut by it.

I think the important part is to safely hit your opponent as many times, and as hard, as possible. Whether that's a cut or a thrust depends on many factors that would fill this whole discussion board.

If a thrust leaves you exposed -- don't thrust. If a cut leaves your defenses down, don't cut!

Rule #1: Avoid getting hit
Rule #2: Hit your opponent without violating Rule #1!

[Sukerkin]

Rule #1: Avoid getting hit
Rule #2: Hit your opponent without violating Rule #1!


:D

Thardeys Principa :tup:.

I'm not being facetious or rude by the way, I genuinely think that those are the fundamental principles of armed combat. We only respond to them with humour because they are so basic. Every school's body of technique grows from that pair of short sentences.

[thardey]

To give a apples to apples comparison on cutting, I assume most people here are familiar with the rolled up mats for katana cutting practice. (I think they're called Tatami mats?)

Anyway I've done cutting practice on them with a poorly sharpened rapier. (Moderately sharp - about like a standard kitchen knife - definitely not razor). We were using my instructor's live steel rapier from an earlier period.

Our best cuts were able to penetrate about an inch or so into the mats. (Our first cuts simply bounced off -- It takes some practice cutting those with a straight blade!) That was with about 6 inches of draw as the blade struck the mats.

Then we tried his lighter, later period rapier, which was almost a smallsword, and I was actually able to cut a little deeper with it. (Another layer of mat, anyway.)

I know my instructor wanted the blades sharper (he sharpened them himself), and he didn't soak the mats for as long as he would have liked, so maybe add another 1/2" to the possibility of the cut in an ideal situation?

So no, not a impressive cut, but not shabby either.

[thardey]

:D

Thardeys Principa :tup:.

I'm not being facetious or rude by the way, I genuinely think that those are the fundamental principles of armed combat. We only respond to them with humour because they are so basic. Every school's body of technique grows from that pair of short sentences.


It's basic, but it's amazing how fast rule #1 goes out the window when you see an opening.
:asian:

[Langenschwert]

But said cut takes some time to develop, and for me, is the easiest to "Shed" which takes only a little more effort than re-directing a thrust. The hardest cut for me to parry is a horizontal cut to the lower body, I can only static block those, which take a lot more work.

Perhaps, but a well-directed cut with appropriate force is not so easy to deflect, which is why is is generally better to cut as a defence to a cut.


That's almost word for word what Saviolo taught as well. If it is quicker to thrust, that is, if that is the shortest path to hit opponent safely, do it! If your point is offline, then the shortest path to your opponent is a cut -- do it! My fencing rapier is of the Saviolo style (weight, length, sweet spot, balance), and it would cut quite well if it were sharpened. At least, I would not like to be cut by it.

True enough. The difference is with longsword, it's more dangerous to start out with a thrust unless you've out-timed your opponent. Most of the plays start with a cut (usually a Zornhau) to either kill the opponent in one blow, or get a bind and work from there, often with a thrust from the bind, since you've now controlled the opponent's blade. That's why I've never been a proponent of practicing cutting patterns, since in a real fight you would never get to cut more than once or twice before entering a bind. The only use of such floryshes is IMO to develop control, footwork, and the ability to get to any position from any other.


I think the important part is to safely hit your opponent as many times, and as hard, as possible. Whether that's a cut or a thrust depends on many factors that would fill this whole discussion board.

If a thrust leaves you exposed -- don't thrust. If a cut leaves your defenses down, don't cut!

Rule #1: Avoid getting hit
Rule #2: Hit your opponent without violating Rule #1!

I can't disagree with any of that. :)

Best regards,

-Mark

[thardey]

Need to clarify one of my earlier posts:


But there are actually two points on a sword that you have to consider when building it: the center of balance (usually about 3-4 inches in front of the crossguard, on either a rapier or longsword) or, what people are probably referring to as "weight" on this topic, the "sweet spot" on the blade.

The center of Balance is easy to find -- put your finger on the blade and move it until the sword stays balanced.

It's usually safe to say that that "sweet spot" is roughly 2/3 of the way down the blade. That sweet spot has a tendency to want to stay in one place, with the sword pivoting around it on an axis point. The closer the sweet spot is to the balance point, the easier it is to move the sweet spot around. Thus, on a cutting sword, the sweet spot is relatively close to the balance point, so it uses very little energy to swing it, but almost all of that energy is transfered to delivering the blow.That's not exactly accurate. Apparently there's a third spot on the blade known as the Pivot Point, which is what I was describing. Details come from Albion Swords (http://www.albion-swords.com/swords/sword-terms.htm)



"CoP": The Center of Percussion is the point along the length of the blade where there is little or no vibration when the blade is struck on an object. When this section of the blade is used in striking, it transmits the least amount of shock and vibration to the user's hand, and also will provide the deepest penetration in a target. How to find the "CoP": A simple test to establish the "CoP" is to hold the sword vertically (with the point up) and lightly tap the side of the pommel. The point in the blade that doesn't vibrate is "CoP."

Pivot Point: When holding a sword at the top of the grip (where the grip meets the guard), point downward, between thunb and forefinger, move the sword back and forth with gentle movements of the hand. The sword will naturally pivot between your fingers and there should be a spot either along the blade or at the point where the blade seems to remain stationary. This is referred to as the pivot point -- the proper location of the pivot point will vary depending on the purpose of the sword -- a thrusting sword should have a pivot point located at the very tip of the blade point, a cutting sword may have a pivot point close to or corresponding to the CoP.So, on some rapiers that don't taper, the "Sweet Spot" or center of percussion is actually far removed from the "Pivot Point", which makes them hard to cut with. But for most cutting swords, or tapered rapiers, the two are virtually indistinguishable.