|
Post by Afoo on Feb 18, 2015 0:46:34 GMT
Okay, so first of all, yes, I was under the mistaken impression that the OP was asking about 1500's and 1600's, not solely the 16th century. In that case, yes, there would be no smallswords around with the exception of very, very early proto-forms (still rapiers, really) in the 1590s. The rapier, however, is dead accurate to period, and would suit the fencing style the OP is talking about far better than anything but a late side sword (probably something from after 1550 from my admittedly somwhat limited knowledge) used in a late, rapier-like style (remember, the rapier evolved from the side sword, and was used in parallel with it). Thus your losing the plot. Now, if side swords did not evolve from arming swords (at one point being nothing more than a late arming sword with first one, then two rings, etc.) as you at this point appear to believe where, pray tell did they come from? Of course late period side swords were much more rapier-like, following the general trend toward the thrust on the continent, but at first, yes, they were arming swords with rings on the guard. Now, as to the issue of side swords in battle, my first comment was indeed phrased in such a way that it could be interpreted as indicating that I believed that the side sword was only used in civilian contexts. This was not at all what I meant to say. Of course the side sword was used in war, but it does rapidly disappear from civilian use later in the period, this being largely due to the dominance of the rapier. It also disappears from the battlefield as pallasch-type swords, backsword derivatives, sabres, and smallsword derivatives (i.e. the spadroon) come into favour for military use in much of Europe. Which brings me to my final point: The side sword was indeed geographically restricted, though perhaps not as much as my post would seem to indicate. Consider the supremacy of the backsword in Elizabethan England, the early broadswords of Scotland, the militarized rapiers found across the continent, and the swords of Germanic Europe. The side sword was used everywhere, but it is undeniable that it was most popular (and most commonly used) in Iberian and Mediterranean Europe, which, coincidentally, are the places where the rapier arose and was dominant. I am glad to see you admit that a sword from 1650-1800 is not a sword from 1500-1600. I never said that the side sword did not evolve from the arming sword. You are putting your own spin on what I say. You first said, "It's just an arming sword with some rings on the guard". I pointed out that it was an entirely different sword. The Germanic Migration sword evolved from the Roman spatha, but it was not a Roman spatha. Viking swords evolved from Migration swords, but they were not Migration swords. 12th and 13th Century swords evolved from Viking swords, but they were not the same. Arming swords evolved from 12th and 13th Century swords, but they were not the same. Side swords evolved from arming swords, but they were not the same. Rapiers evolved from side swords, but they were not the same, and finally small swords evolved from rapiers. The 15th Century transitional side swords with an arming sword blade profile were also not the same as 16th Century side swords. No ancestor of the next evolutionary sword was the same as the sword from which it evolved. If you do not believe that the arming sword was a very different sword from the arming sword, simply study the guards and attacks of the arming sword and buckler. Then study the guards and attacks of the side sword, and you will see that they were two different critters. If you have further interest, I highly recommend the documentary, Reclaiming The Blade. I own the DVD, but you can rent it on Amazon. I also recommend Renaissance Swordsmanship: The Illustrated Use of Rapiers and Cut-and-Thrust Swords by John Clements, the director of ARMA. I cannot recommend this book highly enough for both reenactors and HEMA practicioners. Of course the rapier would be period for the 16th Century, however, if the lady in question is a reenactor, there could be a problem. It would only be good for a very wealthy civilian persona. As I previously stated, rapier instruction was so expensive in the 16th Century that only the wealthy could afford to study. Soldiers and the middle class could afford side sword lessons. In addition, rapiers were very expensive in the 16th Century. In reenactment, you generally want to go with a common impression. Otherwise the authenticity police will harass you all weekend. I used to carry printed documentation in my pouch for many items of my kit to deal with it. It is not fun. IMO, it is better to dumb down your kit a little bit and only have sterotypical items so that you are left in peace. If the lady is wearing garb fabrics and colors of the working or middle classes and carrying a rapier, the authenticity police will ruin her weekend. So you admit that the side sword was everywhere but most popular around the Med. What does that matter except to try and save face? Look at 16th Century English paintings and count the number of side sword hilts contrasted to other sword types. Having established these clarifications, is there even further need for this discussion? I know I am not a mod, but this does seem a bit harsh. Remember that we are all simply trying to give advice to a fellow community member, not to triumph over other forum members. Consider this - all the advice we give here is with good intention, and we should all be thankful for it. Comments like this do nothing to further the thread. Besides, the dispute has already died down and we have gotten back to regular programming, so just let it go. I do not know much about swords from this period, and would rather hear more about that than whatever this is
|
|
|
Post by aronk on Feb 18, 2015 0:55:08 GMT
I would submit that the rapier was not solely restricted to the extremely wealthy by the mid to late 16th century. It is relatively easy to find sources that suggest that wealthier elements of the newly formed middle class would be able to afford them, though depending on local law, their carriage may or may not have been legal or without tax. Being a biologist (more precisely a virologist) by training, it would seem to me that you appear to have a punctuated equilibrium view of the evolution of swords, given your statements. The sources do not back this up. They instead suggest a gradualist view of the evolution of the spatha to the smallsword. That is, a late 16th century side sword would look far more like a rapier (and in fact, may at some point be essentially indistinguishable from a rapier except to the most anal of sword Linnaeans) than it would look like an early side sword, which would look very much like an arming sword with rings on the cross. Techniques for use follow a similar pattern, though there are exceptions as in the case of Lichtenauer's school of longsword in the 14th century. Does it make sense that the masters would have said "okay, we've added some rings to the hilt of our swords, let's throw out the old system entirely and invent a new one"? Thus an early side sword would look and be used a great deal like a late arming sword, and by extension, a very late civilian side sword would look and be used a something like an early rapier. Now, as for your last point, my initial point was that the side sword was not as universal as the arming sword was. That's it. As for your reference to paintings, I frequently have difficulty trusting many works of art to accurately depict weapons and combat of the period. In the Morgan bible, for instance, arming swords are clearly depicted as cleaving through great helms with great frequency, a feat modern tests have not been able to consistently replicate.
|
|
|
Post by aussie-rabbit on Feb 18, 2015 1:17:30 GMT
So you admit that the side sword was everywhere but most popular around the Med. What does that matter except to try and save face? Look at 16th Century English paintings and count the number of side sword hilts contrasted to other sword types. Having established these clarifications, is there even further need for this discussion? Keep it all nice and civil guys not forgetting the century eg. the 15th runs from 1401 to 1500 date wise - there is a good piece here on weight that includes discussion on period. www.thearma.org/essays/weights.htm#.VOPg7SyhzAgJoan of Arc seen here wielding a sword
|
|
Scott
Member
Posts: 1,676
|
Post by Scott on Feb 18, 2015 1:30:17 GMT
Spearman, which 16th century English paintings are you referring to? Just because the hilt looks like a side sword doesn't mean it is a side sword. As far as appropriate goes, a sword that the lady in question likes would be best. Carriage is irrelevant as women did not wear swords. Nor did men till later in the 16th century outside of a military context. A man would wear a dagger of some sort. So, given the lady is a fencer,some sort of rapier that might be carried, but not worn. Take a look at the picture of Joan of arc that aussie rabbit posted. Ignore that Joan of Arc is dressed as a German, but note she is holding the scabbard, not wearing it.
|
|
|
Post by spearman on Feb 18, 2015 23:45:32 GMT
Although using a side sword would still be considered "fencing" in the 16th Century, she would be able to use a rapier right out of the box if she is a fencer, although there is much about the rapier not included in modern fencing. A side sword would require relearning the weapon. Why would a side sword be more different? While a side sword isn't such a close match to modern fencing weapons as a smallsword, it doesn't seem any worse than a rapier as far as difference goes. Closer to the same length, lighter and will handle more like modern fencing weapons (not much like them, but close to them than a rapier). (However, modern "reproduction" rapiers tend to be short and very light for rapiers.) Timo, Good post. According to the writings of George Silver, the rapier required stepping back during a disengage due to how long the blades were, while the side sword did not. Side swords had shorter blades. I am exclusively focused on the English school as far as 16th Century swords go, so I must admit that as a disclaimer. George killed a number of rapier teachers, and a big part of his teaching was to show his students how to defeat a rapier. You can use a side sword out of the box in the same way you would use a rapier, but you would sacrifice a number of period guards and attacks. The best source I have found to show the difference is Renaissance Swordsmanship: The Illustrated Use of Rapiers and Cut-and-Thrust Swords by John Clements, the director of ARMA. You are quite correct that modern rapier repros are shorter and lighter than period examples in some cases. IMO. they are trying to negate some of the disadvantages to the rapier that were corrected with the small sword.
|
|
|
Post by aronk on Feb 18, 2015 23:57:41 GMT
Personally, I'd much rather be on the rapier side of smallsword vs. rapier. Reach is huge in a poking match.
|
|
|
Post by spearman on Feb 18, 2015 23:59:39 GMT
So you admit that the side sword was everywhere but most popular around the Med. What does that matter except to try and save face? Look at 16th Century English paintings and count the number of side sword hilts contrasted to other sword types. Having established these clarifications, is there even further need for this discussion? Keep it all nice and civil guys not forgetting the century eg. the 15th runs from 1401 to 1500 date wise - there is a good piece here on weight that includes discussion on period. www.thearma.org/essays/weights.htm#.VOPg7SyhzAgJoan of Arc seen here wielding a sword aussie-rabbit, although we are discussing 1500-1600, your post is still valid as swords would still be used on the battle field that were 200 years old, maybe even more. There would have been plenty of 15th Century swords that would have creamed users of side swords in the 16th Century, including longswords, so good point. I am coming from the viewpoint of a 16th Century reenactor with a common kit. Anything else can lead you to being picked on all weekend. It is not fun.
|
|
|
Post by aronk on Feb 19, 2015 0:16:44 GMT
When I do 18th century and Napoleonic reenactment, I never have issues with unusual items. Perhaps the reenactment circles I participate in are simply more knowledgeable.
|
|
|
Post by spearman on Feb 19, 2015 0:34:08 GMT
Personally, I'd much rather be on the rapier side of smallsword vs. rapier. Reach is huge in a poking match. Good post. I also thought so also until I stopped fencing and started researching. The smallsword is outside of my period of interest, but is was, at the time of its advent, probably the best sword for a duel ever invented. George Silver pointed out that the rapier had a blade so long that it required stepping back during disengage from the timing of the hand or timing of the arm range, and George said it had lead to the deaths of a number of men. He killed a number of Italian rapier instructors using side swords and English Basket Hilts. Eventually none of them would accept his challenges. I am not reallly a smallsword fan, but a disengage and riposte can be done in one fluid motion without retreating to the timing of the foot range like the rapier. This is an advantage over the rapier. By the time of the small sword, footwork was more advanced. It is easy to get inside the guard of a longer bladed weapon. The extra long blade of the rapier is actually a disadvantage, especially after the strategy of the long lunge was added to to the Italian School. One of the reasons that the small sword replaced the rapier. So your interest in the 18th and 19th Century is important.
|
|
|
Post by spearman on Feb 19, 2015 1:02:53 GMT
When I do 18th century and Napoleonic reenactment, I never have issues with unusual items. Perhaps the reenactment circles I participate in are simply more knowledgeable. Since later periods have more documentation, those reenactors have an advantage. Also there are plenty of organizations that have people that are better researched, although I never found them at the time. The earlier your time period, the greater your disadvantage, one of which is the Iron Age. No matter how much research was done and how much documentation I had, there was always at least one person with a single primary source based upon a secondary source that would target me for the weekend. I eventually carried documentation on my pouch for some things.
|
|
|
Post by aronk on Feb 19, 2015 1:32:37 GMT
I train mostly sabre, and have a very small bit of experience with smallsword, and while I do agree with George Silver, the rapier vs smallsword bouts I've seen tend to be 50:50. Personally, I prefer the smallsword (mostly because it fits my period of interest), but the rapier is quite a weapon in the right hands. of course, the issue of basket-hilted backswords is an interesting one in that the system that George Silver devised for their use was aimed to a great extent at defeating the rapier and side sword, given their prevalence on the continent at the time.
|
|
|
Post by aronk on Feb 19, 2015 1:35:43 GMT
Of course, the rapier, as you mention, suffers from the same problem as the spear (perhaps more so even, as it cannot be shortened by sliding it in the hand like the spear), that being the total vulnerability of the wielder once the opponent gets past the point. In sabre vs. bayonet on foot and sabre vs. lance on horseback, the rule is the same as it is for salesmanship: always be closing.
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Feb 19, 2015 3:11:33 GMT
Personally, I'd much rather be on the rapier side of smallsword vs. rapier. Reach is huge in a poking match. A slightly longer rapier is better than a slightly shorter rapier. Same thing works for spears: a 15 foot spear is better than a 12 foot spear, which is better than a 10 foot spear, which is better than an 8 foot spear, which is better than a 6 foot spear. But the 6 foot spear can be better than the 15 foot spear - light weight and speed matter too. Never fought smallsword vs rapier, so don't know how that would work out, but less than a pound vs 3 pounds might make up for the reach difference. (But I'd take a spear against the rapier, if I had a choice, rather than a smallsword. Then both reach and speed would be on my side.)
|
|
Razor
Senior Forumite
Posts: 1,883
|
Post by Razor on Feb 19, 2015 3:53:03 GMT
Timo, Good post. According to the writings of George Silver, the rapier required stepping back during a disengage due to how long the blades were, while the side sword did not. Side swords had shorter blades. I am exclusively focused on the English school as far as 16th Century swords go, so I must admit that as a disclaimer. George killed a number of rapier teachers, and a big part of his teaching was to show his students how to defeat a rapier. You can use a side sword out of the box in the same way you would use a rapier, but you would sacrifice a number of period guards and attacks. The best source I have found to show the difference is Renaissance Swordsmanship: The Illustrated Use of Rapiers and Cut-and-Thrust Swords by John Clements, the director of ARMA. You are quite correct that modern rapier repros are shorter and lighter than period examples in some cases. IMO. they are trying to negate some of the disadvantages to the rapier that were corrected with the small sword. What rapier teachers, did George Silver kill?
Rapier vs. Side sword- If the side swords fighter was in his place, I could see the rapier man would have to step back to disengage to attack. Rapier vs. rapier- If they were in their place(time of hand) They wouldn't have to step back to disengage. Now if they were a little closer than their place(like going into grips) I could see this, and this can happen very easy. This is why Silver said, "The just length of you sword, to be made according to your own stature". This way, if you get to close you can still uncross your sword and attack. For me anything 32" to 34" is good for my stature, 32" to 33" my preferred length.
John Clements book is out dated, I wouldn't recommend his book.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Kelly on Feb 19, 2015 7:52:53 GMT
Personally I've come to the opinion that the real reason the rapier and other 16-17th Centruy swords went by the boards was the renunciation of the complex hilt. The over the quillons grip limited the range of wrist motion in a manner unfavorable to the fencer. ( Just can't make a straight thrust with your wrist locked by that overhand grip...). The smallsword didn't really take off until Louis XIV of Frence made it his court sword in 1683.) Even before then proto smallswords and military weapons were already morphing away from the old complex hilts.
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Feb 19, 2015 17:20:54 GMT
Would the manufacturing and repair costs of the complex hilts have played a role?
|
|
|
Post by Dave Kelly on Feb 19, 2015 22:29:58 GMT
Would the manufacturing and repair costs of the complex hilts have played a role? Rationally it would be a reasonable consideration, but particularly with rapiers there was a fashion statement involved in the style, that sustain and fed upon itself. People bought rapiers because it was expected of them, and the royal courts, fencing masters and forges parasitically fed off the perception of need. When Louis XIV of France and a very brilliant cabinet of officers planned to strtegically make the Bourbon Court the most spelndid and fashion driven court in europe they rerouted popular perception of need that propelled a revolution in all sorts of mediums. Make you a sexy new smallsword, lavishly over designed to make your friends jealous, and you only had to pay twice as much as you did for your rapier; oh, and back to the salon for fencing lessons from a new Frence master of a system NOT based on an Italian school...phgggt. :D
|
|
Scott
Member
Posts: 1,676
|
Post by Scott on Feb 20, 2015 12:13:25 GMT
Don't underestimate the importance of fashion. Fashion played a large part in the popularity of the rapier and then the smallsword. People wore long rapiers and trained under Italian teachers because it was fashionable to wear a long rapier and have an Italian fencing teacher. If you look at the development of armour in the sixteenth century, particularly high end armour, it's shape follows the civilian fashion of the day. Sometimes the practical considerations are secondary to what's cool.
|
|
|
Post by spearman on Feb 20, 2015 20:38:54 GMT
I train mostly sabre, and have a very small bit of experience with smallsword, and while I do agree with George Silver, the rapier vs smallsword bouts I've seen tend to be 50:50. Personally, I prefer the smallsword (mostly because it fits my period of interest), but the rapier is quite a weapon in the right hands. of course, the issue of basket-hilted backswords is an interesting one in that the system that George Silver devised for their use was aimed to a great extent at defeating the rapier and side sword, given their prevalence on the continent at the time. The smallsword is outside of my period of interest, but I do admit it was a really good dueling weapon. The blade was short enough to allow a disengage and riposte within timing of the hand or timing of the arm range without stepping back, and it could be done in one fluid motion. When I was a fencer, our instructor would not allow moving from the French foil to any other weapon for at least one year. I instinctively would attach into an attack using blade leverage to hit. That was legal with epee, but not with foil.
|
|
|
Post by spearman on Feb 20, 2015 21:00:22 GMT
Personally I've come to the opinion that the real reason the rapier and other 16-17th Centruy swords went by the boards was the renunciation of the complex hilt. The over the quillons grip limited the range of wrist motion in a manner unfavorable to the fencer. ( Just can't make a straight thrust with your wrist locked by that overhand grip...). The smallsword didn't really take off until Louis XIV of Frence made it his court sword in 1683.) Even before then proto smallswords and military weapons were already morphing away from the old complex hilts. Yes, I think I agree with that. From the swords I have tried, I also noticed limited wrist motion.
|
|