pgandy
Moderator
Senior Forumite
Posts: 10,296
|
Post by pgandy on May 16, 2018 14:17:10 GMT
It almost seems like a rapier would have been just as effective a weapon in 1850 as it would have been in 1650, although by then, it was nowhere to be seen on the battlefield, yet swords were still commonly carried. I don’t think the rapier ever became obsolete but rather went out of style, as someone put it.
|
|
pgandy
Moderator
Senior Forumite
Posts: 10,296
|
Post by pgandy on May 16, 2018 14:21:08 GMT
|
|
pgandy
Moderator
Senior Forumite
Posts: 10,296
|
Post by pgandy on May 16, 2018 14:28:34 GMT
All of this talk is beginning to make me itch, but I have a rapier that I am completely satisfied with and a dagger, although the next time MRL offers their Musketeer Main Gauche on the DoD I’ll bite. I think that I’d be better offer adding something that I don’t have, like a cutlass, sabre, etc. But this thread has me thinking.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2018 14:30:11 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on May 16, 2018 14:33:52 GMT
The French 1882 could sometimes reach 36 inches and that was for infantry usage. I'd take one of those over any rapier, those blades are stiff as anything I've ever held and they have enough heft to make me feel confident in at least a harrying cutting action.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2018 14:39:09 GMT
Late 1860s colonial (northern Africa) 34" blade ![](https://i.imgur.com/9kDsNSa.jpg)
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on May 16, 2018 15:30:38 GMT
I seem to have deleted the photos of mine, but it was the normal non-colonial usage variant. Had a nice edge to it though.
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on May 16, 2018 15:33:23 GMT
It almost seems like a rapier would have been just as effective a weapon in 1850 as it would have been in 1650, although by then, it was nowhere to be seen on the battlefield, yet swords were still commonly carried. Fashion, style, and versatility. By midcentury many of the world powers with war experience were using cut and thrust sabres for their officers. Military sabre is also a lot easier to train soldiers in imho. Also, I'm not too trusting in the rapier as a stand alone or battlefield weapon. It seems to me that in a melee fight the blade could be limited in it's maneuverability when compared to a sword 10 or so inches shorter and with a better ability to cut. Not to mention being lighter. Thrust centric swords did come back into the spotlight in the 1880s but not all countries made the change. Austria, Spain, and the U.S. for example all still had sabre style infantry officer swords.
|
|
howler
Member
Posts: 5,274
Member is Online
|
Post by howler on May 16, 2018 18:25:50 GMT
Depends on the severity of the hangover. The truth is that I love tequila and rum and drink daily. Less now with the PTSD improved but daily. As far as getting drunk, I can’t remember the last time. While I have a thing for the booze getting drunk is a no-no and one of the worst feelings I know and avoid being so like the plaque. I am no good to myself nor others when drunk and would probably have been dead years ago by not thinking or moving fast enough to avoid/escape whatever... As for drugs no way. I’ve seen what it has done to others. No worse feeling than a bad hangover, which is why I only have one per night (actual health benefit and a couple on Saturday. Speaking of which, they are actually working on an anti-hangover pill that works on enzymes in the liver (or something to that effect) which would also help people with some forms of liver disease.
|
|
howler
Member
Posts: 5,274
Member is Online
|
Post by howler on May 16, 2018 18:38:18 GMT
I had the idea for this question because Dave Kelly called them in his 1908/1912 SWORD ( ![:)](//storage.forums.net/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png) ) review/comparison the "ultimate rapier". And afaik the older heavy rapiers together with a main gauche were used in a way that couldn't really be called modern fencing too. The CS seems to be a rapier in that way. CS has also the lighter Transitional Rapier. Yes, your right. I have the CS Ribbed Shell Swept Hilt and there is no way your swinging that beast like Errol Flynn, and the off hand is the peanut butter to its chocolate...or chocolate to its peanut butter, you get the idea.
|
|
howler
Member
Posts: 5,274
Member is Online
|
Post by howler on May 16, 2018 18:49:45 GMT
That CS MAA Shell Hilt dagger is wonderful. Sometimes Midway USA has something on clearance at a screaming deal and I saw one in the mid 70 dollar range with free shipping. Great fit & finish and sharpened 1090 steel.
|
|
AndiTheBarvarian
Member
Bavarianbarbarian - Semper Semprini
Posts: 9,984
Member is Online
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on May 16, 2018 18:53:41 GMT
No, I'm getting hungry! I'm happy with my Taza and its "classic" look, only need a Musketeer main gauche too because I think it has a matching "classic Spanish" design. One thing I dislike on my Windlass Florentine and Munich is the way they balance it with a more (Munich) or less (Florentine) heavy pommel. I found it fascinating that Hanwei could make the same POB on the Taza only with a good blade design, which means the blade has the most mass, but well distributed. I don't know how the other Windlass rapiers are balanced.
|
|
howler
Member
Posts: 5,274
Member is Online
|
Post by howler on May 16, 2018 18:57:37 GMT
The French 1882 could sometimes reach 36 inches and that was for infantry usage. I'd take one of those over any rapier, those blades are stiff as anything I've ever held and they have enough heft to make me feel confident in at least a harrying cutting action. At blade of 36" or less, I'd also pick something else over a rapier, particularly in melee.
|
|
howler
Member
Posts: 5,274
Member is Online
|
Post by howler on May 16, 2018 19:12:35 GMT
It almost seems like a rapier would have been just as effective a weapon in 1850 as it would have been in 1650, although by then, it was nowhere to be seen on the battlefield, yet swords were still commonly carried. Fashion, style, and versatility. By midcentury many of the world powers with war experience were using cut and thrust sabres for their officers. Military sabre is also a lot easier to train soldiers in imho. Also, I'm not too trusting in the rapier as a stand alone or battlefield weapon. It seems to me that in a melee fight the blade could be limited in it's maneuverability when compared to a sword 10 or so inches shorter and with a better ability to cut. Not to mention being lighter. Thrust centric swords did come back into the spotlight in the 1880s but not all countries made the change. Austria, Spain, and the U.S. for example all still had sabre style infantry officer swords. Can't disagree with much here. Different rapier did the job, but the saber, particularly on the battlefield and in melee had the edge (pun intended). In my mind a rapier is really a rapier when it has a 3 1/2 foot (42") blade or more. Throw in the main gauche and it is a nightmarish dueling weapon, with great reach from lunging thrusts.
|
|
pgandy
Moderator
Senior Forumite
Posts: 10,296
|
Post by pgandy on May 16, 2018 19:21:39 GMT
The truth is that I love tequila and rum and drink daily. Less now with the PTSD improved but daily. As far as getting drunk, I can’t remember the last time. While I have a thing for the booze getting drunk is a no-no and one of the worst feelings I know and avoid being so like the plaque. I am no good to myself nor others when drunk and would probably have been dead years ago by not thinking or moving fast enough to avoid/escape whatever... As for drugs no way. I’ve seen what it has done to others. No worse feeling than a bad hangover, which is why I only have one per night (actual health benefit and a couple on Saturday. Speaking of which, they are actually working on an anti-hangover pill that works on enzymes in the liver (or something to that effect) which would also help people with some forms of liver disease. I was referring to a drunken state itself more so than a hangover. There was a time that I could cure a hangover in no time flat. When operating as medic and was hungover I’d find the O 2 tank and take a whiff, a trick I learned from the fly boys. I also found that worked when feeling badly from the flu or fatigue. Those were the days.
|
|
howler
Member
Posts: 5,274
Member is Online
|
Post by howler on May 16, 2018 19:36:48 GMT
No worse feeling than a bad hangover, which is why I only have one per night (actual health benefit and a couple on Saturday. Speaking of which, they are actually working on an anti-hangover pill that works on enzymes in the liver (or something to that effect) which would also help people with some forms of liver disease. I was referring to a drunken state itself more so than a hangover. There was a time that I could cure a hangover in no time flat. When operating as medic and was hungover I’d find the O 2 tank and take a whiff, a trick I learned from the fly boys. I also found that worked when feeling badly from the flu or fatigue. Those were the days. Oh, I see. I suppose there is level of drunkenness where very drunk (drunk drunk) can be pretty miserable. Things start spinning, hard to walk, talk or think, then the stomach starts getting upset and the toilet beckons. Even light/medium drunk means your doing damage and are gonna feel it the next day. Some people are horrible drunks who are mean, fight, and are dangerous to themselves and others. A light to medium buzz with its accompanying feeling of calm and warmth is all I'd really care for.
|
|
pgandy
Moderator
Senior Forumite
Posts: 10,296
|
Post by pgandy on May 16, 2018 19:46:17 GMT
It almost seems like a rapier would have been just as effective a weapon in 1850 as it would have been in 1650, although by then, it was nowhere to be seen on the battlefield, yet swords were still commonly carried. Personally I’d rather have a 19th century military sword with its wider blade on the battlefield. The one BIG reservation I have with a rapier is its stopping power, something that I question. It is renowned as a deadly weapon, but lethality and stopping power are by no means the same. I think the reason that the rapier got its deadly reputation is that during the period they were used medicine had not advanced sufficiently to handle penetrating wounds and could better handle cuts and even amputations. I’ve read too many reports of people dying hours to weeks later from rapier wounds and some stating after a fight the participants looked much like one would today after a knife fight, multiple wounds. Soldiers in the “Swordsmen of the British Empire” are reported with multiple wounds regularly so I don’t know how valid the last part is. Those reports not only included swords but lances and to a much smaller degree gunshots. And then there were rapiers designed specifically for the battlefield. Perhaps I am confusing civilian and battlefield usage merge in my mind.
|
|
howler
Member
Posts: 5,274
Member is Online
|
Post by howler on May 16, 2018 20:46:04 GMT
It almost seems like a rapier would have been just as effective a weapon in 1850 as it would have been in 1650, although by then, it was nowhere to be seen on the battlefield, yet swords were still commonly carried. Personally I’d rather have a 19th century military sword with its wider blade on the battlefield. The one BIG reservation I have with a rapier is its stopping power, something that I question. It is renowned as a deadly weapon, but lethality and stopping power are by no means the same. I think the reason that the rapier got its deadly reputation is that during the period they were used medicine had not advanced sufficiently to handle penetrating wounds and could better handle cuts and even amputations. I’ve read too many reports of people dying hours to weeks later from rapier wounds and some stating after a fight the participants looked much like one would today after a knife fight, multiple wounds. Soldiers in the “Swordsmen of the British Empire” are reported with multiple wounds regularly so I don’t know how valid the last part is. Those reports not only included swords but lances and to a much smaller degree gunshots. And then there were rapiers designed specifically for the battlefield. Perhaps I am confusing civilian and battlefield usage merge in my mind. I think (like you say) saber is generally the way to go when factoring multiple uses and environments. You could near remove a mans head from shoulders with a 1796 LC, so stopping power is hard to improve upon. In duel, getting run through in upper chest area on a lunge by a large rapier/off hand combo (though not universally sure of stopping) would, I believe, be sufficient for all but the most hell bent, drugged up crazies. It best be a deeply penetrating thrust, however, as the bad guy may not care about shallow, disfiguring cuts and stabs, which probably ended many duels (which were often to "first blood").
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on May 16, 2018 20:52:49 GMT
It almost seems like a rapier would have been just as effective a weapon in 1850 as it would have been in 1650, although by then, it was nowhere to be seen on the battlefield, yet swords were still commonly carried. Personally I’d rather have a 19th century military sword with its wider blade on the battlefield. The one BIG reservation I have with a rapier is its stopping power, something that I question. It is renowned as a deadly weapon, but lethality and stopping power are by no means the same. I think the reason that the rapier got its deadly reputation is that during the period they were used medicine had not advanced sufficiently to handle penetrating wounds and could better handle cuts and even amputations. I’ve read too many reports of people dying hours to weeks later from rapier wounds and some stating after a fight the participants looked much like one would today after a knife fight, multiple wounds. Soldiers in the “Swordsmen of the British Empire” are reported with multiple wounds regularly so I don’t know how valid the last part is. Those reports not only included swords but lances and to a much smaller degree gunshots. And then there were rapiers designed specifically for the battlefield. Perhaps I am confusing civilian and battlefield usage merge in my mind. There are accounts in the same book of people getting run through by bayonets and then pulling themselves along the bayonet to strike the head or forearms of the trooper "off". Meanwhile cases of men not being stopped by cuts is usually based on dullness or how and where the cut was. For instance in the Crimean chapter there is an account of a soldier being covered in sabre wounds, but iirc none broke the skin as the Russians had not sharpened their swords.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2018 20:57:59 GMT
|
|