|
Post by Jordan Williams on Jun 10, 2019 5:22:38 GMT
If the gentleman choosing rapier and dagger can catch the smallswordist while holding a half-filled beer mug in his half-outstretched arm, my money’s on the rapier man! But if he spills the beer by trippin’, exhaustion or by getting his mug spilled o’er him by the other one, or may it be any other way, he is not worth my 2 cent. BTW, is a rapier even a sword? Kidding aside, I think the smallswordist would do good if being light on his feet, having enough cardio and space to move as well as patience to wait for a mistake (e.g. the rapier-man over-extending himself or letting the point drop), all while moving out towards the dagger-side and thrusting at the resp. hand should the safe chance arise. If the rapier-man gets tired, the chance to ride the smallsword either around the dagger or along the rapier blade (each while controlling/guarding from the other blade with the off-hand) increases.
Also, in a clinch situation, the rapier man has – many kinds of - problems using his long blade. The smallswordist has one hand free to grapple and a slim spike to stab with.
Doesn't the rapier man somewhat alleviate the problem of long bladedness and not having a grappling hand by having a dagger that can move very quickly and basically parry with the force of the forte of a sword? If the rapier and daggerist takes a position similar to the man in your profile pic (left leg leading, dagger forward, And rapier tucked far behind presenting the tip behind the dagger, albeit moreso than your picture, and pointed at the opponent, and the legs bent more) than he can very quickly move backwards while threatening the smallsworder with the rapier, and presenting defense with the dagger.
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on Jun 10, 2019 5:24:07 GMT
Funnily enough, I often drop my point to at least the level of my opponents knee in fencing. This allows for me to slightly raise the tip and extend my arm slightly to gain some distance without it being obvious or from the get go. Of course I rely on my dagger for defence while doing this.
|
|
|
Post by markus313 on Jun 10, 2019 5:53:11 GMT
If the gentleman choosing rapier and dagger can catch the smallswordist while holding a half-filled beer mug in his half-outstretched arm, my money’s on the rapier man! But if he spills the beer by trippin’, exhaustion or by getting his mug spilled o’er him by the other one, or may it be any other way, he is not worth my 2 cent. BTW, is a rapier even a sword? Kidding aside, I think the smallswordist would do good if being light on his feet, having enough cardio and space to move as well as patience to wait for a mistake (e.g. the rapier-man over-extending himself or letting the point drop), all while moving out towards the dagger-side and thrusting at the resp. hand should the safe chance arise. If the rapier-man gets tired, the chance to ride the smallsword either around the dagger or along the rapier blade (each while controlling/guarding from the other blade with the off-hand) increases.
Also, in a clinch situation, the rapier man has – many kinds of - problems using his long blade. The smallswordist has one hand free to grapple and a slim spike to stab with.
Doesn't the rapier man somewhat alleviate the problem of long bladedness and not having a grappling hand by having a dagger that can move very quickly and basically parry with the force of the forte of a sword? If the rapier and daggerist takes a position similar to the man in your profile pic (left leg leading, dagger forward, And rapier tucked far behind presenting the tip behind the dagger, albeit moreso than your picture, and pointed at the opponent, and the legs bent more) than he can very quickly move backwards while threatening the smallsworder with the rapier, and presenting defense with the dagger. It didn’t mean to imply the rapier and dagger man would be at disadvantage, merely trying to point out how I think the smallswordist should go about that kind of match. Leading with the dagger in passata (or relying largely on the dagger for defence) is not best practice, especially since the smallsword is so quick. Depending on the length of the rapier it even can become a hindrance to the dagger hand. Of course a dagger is preferred to the naked hand, even in a grappling situation. However a long dagger can get tangled up there, too.
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on Jun 10, 2019 6:02:21 GMT
Doesn't the rapier man somewhat alleviate the problem of long bladedness and not having a grappling hand by having a dagger that can move very quickly and basically parry with the force of the forte of a sword? If the rapier and daggerist takes a position similar to the man in your profile pic (left leg leading, dagger forward, And rapier tucked far behind presenting the tip behind the dagger, albeit moreso than your picture, and pointed at the opponent, and the legs bent more) than he can very quickly move backwards while threatening the smallsworder with the rapier, and presenting defense with the dagger. It didn’t mean to imply the rapier and dagger man would be at disadvantage, merely trying to point out how I think the smallswordist should go about that kind of match. Leading with the dagger in passata is not the best practice, especially since the smallsword is so quick. Depending on the length of the rapier it even can become a hindrance to the dagger hand. Of course a dagger is preferred to the naked hand, even in a grappling situation. However a long dagger can get tangled up there, too. Ah okay, I misunderstood. Not the best practice, and does present the under and overside of the arm as a more tempting target (and to a lesser mpre risky extent the leg), but it's good for getting your opponent to take the close measure bait, and thrust low to high with the rapier while you cross or under parry with the dagger. The smallsword is quick, but there's only one way to offend with one in single sword. It's interesting to fence against and with this set of weapons vs each other as they both are thrusting swords, but one is much lighter and shorter and one can really rely on only a well timed stop thrust to stop an engagement. But the other than more bind potential.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Jun 10, 2019 7:35:47 GMT
Yeah, same thoughts here. Perhaps daggers and pistols were banned at court for reasonable reasons. I'd like to know if a fighter with a degen or even a smallsword could win against rapier & main gauche man in a duel situation. More reach with lunging? (no pistol involved) Equally skilled opponents, rapier & main gauche (arguably the top of the dueling food chain) would/should hold a decided advantage. Smallsword is still pretty cool to carry because it gives you so much (2 1/2 foot blade) in something usually less than 1 1/4lb. (the weight of a durable 10" bladed knife). Three pound, 50+" rapiers with a 12+" bladed dagger would be a chore to lug around, by comparison.
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Jun 10, 2019 16:45:19 GMT
I've found rapier alone and rapier & dagger to be extremely challenging weapons to beat in a duel. They have considerable reach advantage over medieval sword and buckler and cannot be displaced nearly as easily as one might imagine. They control the center as well as a longsword at longpoint while being much faster to respond to pressure signals and being trickier to grab. They can cut, but the cuts are not nearly as effective as a normal sword's. And this is probably the only real world weakness of the system in a duel. Specifically, in order to make a fast thrust with a rapier your whole body needs to move fast. Whereas with a normal sword only the sword needs to move fast. And indeed you don't even have to be moving in the same direction as your sword. But exploiting this is not easy, and next to a spear I've found that the rapier is the hardest weapon to face in mixed weapon fights. If your opponent is a high level fencer it becomes almost impossible to get through the pointy bits.
I agree that it was a matter of cultural changes and increased specialization. Smallswords took over the court sword/dueling role, sabers took over the battlefield roles, and public duels became much more secretive affairs with less emphasis on kills. Plus with the battlefield innovations of the 18th century, the sword took an even more remote role on the field than it had in the pike square days.
|
|
|
Post by markus313 on Jun 10, 2019 17:13:15 GMT
The rapier. A „come-outside-while-I-keep-insulting-you-hoping-my-buddys-come-join-me-quickly”-weapon. Good for “dueling” on the streets. For intimidation and carry amongst a “posse”. Not good for a quick draw. Not good for confined spaces or the close plays. Not good vs. multiple opponents. Little stopping power. Setting the trend to perversion (“mine’s longer than yours, whatcha gonna do about it!?”). Accompanied by all kind of flawed thinking/writings to mask the perversion. A bully’s weapon. Hazardous to its user and everyone else.
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on Jun 10, 2019 17:24:47 GMT
No u
|
|
|
Post by legacyofthesword on Jun 10, 2019 17:48:15 GMT
So rapier and dagger were the last bladed weapons in use and then everybody carried only pistols?
Well, yes. Sort of. Haha. Pistols/firearms became the primary weapon, and were usually backed up by a bladed weapon (musket with bayonet, pistol with smallsword or saber, etc.).
|
|
|
Post by howler on Jun 10, 2019 19:17:36 GMT
The rapier. A „come-outside-while-I-keep-insulting-you-hoping-my-buddys-come-join-me-quickly”-weapon. Good for “dueling” on the streets. For intimidation and carry amongst a “posse”. Not good for a quick draw. Not good for confined spaces or the close plays. Not good vs. multiple opponents. Little stopping power. Setting the trend to perversion (“mine’s longer than yours, whatcha gonna do about it!?”). Accompanied by all kind of flawed thinking/writings to mask the perversion. A bully’s weapon. Hazardous to its user and everyone else. Say, Markus, I'd like you to check out a cat named George Silver. Rapier certainly specializing in one on one duels, with backswords & sabers being more versatile, convenient. Still, one wouldn't want to mess with a rapier/offhand dagger combo in an open field unless you had a spear/polearm. Now, put a shield in the saber/backsword offhand?
|
|
|
Post by zabazagobo on Jun 10, 2019 19:39:10 GMT
Everywhere. Limp blades. No cutting. Very long, and very short. No symmetry. Poor form. Vulnerable. Predictable. I'm curious, what are you founding this in? Dang it, I just typed a reply and the site spazzed and I lost it. Okay, here's take two. Keep in mind I love rapier + dagger, it's one of my favorite styles of swordsmanship, I just think these are fair critiques.
Limp blades= I've seen rapier blades that weren't thick enough (or not treated correctly) that flex too much and don't thrust as well as they should as a result. I've also noticed with the rapier I own (Windlass Musketeer) the blade sags and flexes from weight more noticeably than other swords. It still thrusts well, but there are specimens out there which don't.
No cutting= a bit of a generalization, but stands as true in comparison to other types of swords, especially when the blade has a markedly tapered and pronounced thrust oriented shape. Some which have little width and lower mass could be disadvantageous weapons.
Very long= when the blade length approaches 40/42 in. it can be a bit unwieldy if it's weight isn't lessened. If the weight is lessened, it won't cut well and loses some versatility and may not thrust as well for not being as stiff. Daily carry also eventually became a chore, and the smallsword gained some popularity for being lighter and smaller.
Very short= this is the more 'sensory' aspect. With a cutting blade, you move through the target, maintaining momentum and moving past the target towards the next one. With a thrusting blade, out of necessity you must enter the target and disengage them. So, in some odd sense from my training, a sword where you cut can oddly seem longer based on movement patterns. Objectively, sniping with a rapier is an objectively longer weapon. Subjectively, things are murkier based on techniques employed. An odd phenomena, maybe it's just me?
No symmetry= to the extent that the sniping arm is the dominant arm and the other arm will be providing support uitlity. All manner of footwork and technique can be employed based on knowing which arm your opponent will step forward and thrust with to knock them off-line, which makes them somewhat vulnerable if the rapier in question is long and has notable recovery time. Especially if not paired with a parrying weapon.
Poor form= a tendency to lunge and dart forward, when done right, can be excellent for scoring a hit. A tendency to extend at a bad rhythm against a heavier weapon leaves your sword not only disengaged, but can wreck disasters depending on footwork. A rapier thrust is also where the fencer is at the most vulnerable, and if the sword is knocked off-line and their footwork is off it's a bad time. Of course, the remedy is good footwork and not lifting the feet or lunging forward with dramatic enthusiasm.
Vulnerable= The lunge leaves you open. Controlling for the lunge, a rapier is somewhat easy to bat away with force compared to some other swords. I just find that defensively, the rapier by itself has to rely on stealthily thrusting at the opponent since it's not as handy in a bind compared to other weapons with more leverage.
Predictable= when the focus becomes on the thrust, and the weapon performs poorly with the cut, it becomes somewhat easy to expect what will happen with the rapier. Of course, being able to deal with the attack when it does happen is another story as the rapier is excellent at moving forward with a well aimed thrust. However, without having a blade that's great for cutting (compared to something like a jian), you don't have as large of a variety of techniques.
So, of course, in my opinion, the solution would be to have a shorter, stouter blade, balanced for cutting and thrusting that can be comfortably worn, drawn and used. Something that approaches a hand and a half jian or sidesword it seems. Now history shows a different course, as the 'courtly' swords became small and easy to use as well as carry and sacrificed cutting ability, while those desiring a cutting blade got such in spades with sabres.
Edit: Should've added: ultimately, rapier just were phased out due to technological and strategic considerations. Reach advantage was nixed by developing improved firearms, so faster close quarters blades (e.g. sabre) became more popularized. All of the critiques I address with rapier can be countered with correct form, footwork, and pairing a rapier with a dagger. It is an excellent system of swordsmanship, but it would be better if a shorter blade optimized for cutting and thrusting was present, in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by zabazagobo on Jun 10, 2019 19:46:35 GMT
I've found rapier alone and rapier & dagger to be extremely challenging weapons to beat in a duel. They have considerable reach advantage over medieval sword and buckler and cannot be displaced nearly as easily as one might imagine. They control the center as well as a longsword at longpoint while being much faster to respond to pressure signals and being trickier to grab. They can cut, but the cuts are not nearly as effective as a normal sword's. And this is probably the only real world weakness of the system in a duel. Specifically, in order to make a fast thrust with a rapier your whole body needs to move fast. Whereas with a normal sword only the sword needs to move fast. And indeed you don't even have to be moving in the same direction as your sword. But exploiting this is not easy, and next to a spear I've found that the rapier is the hardest weapon to face in mixed weapon fights. If your opponent is a high level fencer it becomes almost impossible to get through the pointy bits.
I agree that it was a matter of cultural changes and increased specialization. Smallswords took over the court sword/dueling role, sabers took over the battlefield roles, and public duels became much more secretive affairs with less emphasis on kills. Plus with the battlefield innovations of the 18th century, the sword took an even more remote role on the field than it had in the pike square days.
Agreed. Rapiers are extremely effective when designed and utilized correctly. My critique of them is that without a supplementary weapon in the off-hand they do tend to be vulnerable as they're a bit tough to use advantageously in the bind against a sword that isn't a rapier. With a dagger though, I find rapier to be one of the absolute best systems of swordplay ever designed.
On the topic of spears, I really wish a sturdy estoc was available. I think that having the option of two-handing a thick rapier like blade would work wonders on the concerns I have with a rapier's ability to maintain leverage and control beyond their sublime threat presence.
It really is more a matter of rapier not being effective as time went on due to technological and social factors. It's more burdensome to carry around a 40 in. blade dangling from the belt, so why not switch to the trend of the smallsword? And if one was looking to fight, perhaps a sabre or backsword was more fashionable? Or perhaps just a pistol? I wonder to what extent the reach advantage of the rapier was put to pasture by pistols so that swords became more focused on close quarters since firearms changed the name of the 'sniping' game.
|
|
|
Post by markus313 on Jun 10, 2019 20:48:34 GMT
Still, one wouldn't want to mess with a rapier/offhand dagger combo in an open field unless you had a spear/polearm. Now, put a shield in the saber/backsword offhand? At least it may serve to avert the view on these aberrations
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on Jun 10, 2019 22:14:51 GMT
I'm curious, what are you founding this in? Dang it, I just typed a reply and the site spazzed and I lost it. Okay, here's take two. Keep in mind I love rapier + dagger, it's one of my favorite styles of swordsmanship, I just think these are fair critiques.
Limp blades= I've seen rapier blades that weren't thick enough (or not treated correctly) that flex too much and don't thrust as well as they should as a result. I've also noticed with the rapier I own (Windlass Musketeer) the blade sags and flexes from weight more noticeably than other swords. It still thrusts well, but there are specimens out there which don't. But you can't really say a style of swordsmanship is trash because your expeirence with the swords has been poor can you? That would be like me saying that longsword is bad because it has poorly balanced swords because I've only ever owned windlass swords. The antique rapier I handled was plenty stiff to punch through the clothes it would go against. [/div]
No cutting= a bit of a generalization, but stands as true in comparison to other types of swords, especially when the blade has a markedly tapered and pronounced thrust oriented shape. Some which have little width and lower mass could be disadvantageous weapons. [/quote] Well sure, but in comparison the heavily curved sabre and falchions cannot thrust. Are those also poor weapon systems ousted by everything? This point could come to the argument of whether a weapon should be looked at in isolation or in direct comparison to other weapons to evaluate it's worth. To my opinion the rapier doesn't need to cut very well to be a good sword. Its worth is in the length of the weapon and speed it can be manipulated, just as the worth of the falchion or crooked sabre is in its ability to cut and be manipulated quickly in its own right. It's a good thing the weight is often lessened by good geometry and a good balance is achieved The rapier in my antique write up was around that blade length if not more and was actually very light. Very sharp as well, And again stiff enough for it's purpose. Does it need to cut well? No, not really. If I need to best the baron of insultedness I have no need to open him up, only to thrust him. I don't see why this means the system is bad. [/div]
Very short= this is the more 'sensory' aspect. With a cutting blade, you move through the target, maintaining momentum and moving past the target towards the next one. With a thrusting blade, out of necessity you must enter the target and disengage them. So, in some odd sense from my training, a sword where you cut can oddly seem longer based on movement patterns.
[/quote] With a cutting weapon you need to cut with the PoP to actually make an effective cut. With the thrust you need What, 3" is what I keep hearing. So if I have a longer cutting blade, say 36", where the PoP is a conservative 6" down the blade, like how it is on my marvelously engineered FR1822LCS, you have a roughly 30" of blade between you and your target. Let's go deep here btw so the target is the very common one offered up, the neck. Now let's take 3" away from the 42" rapier blade, now there is 39" between you and your target. The thrust requires less time, less length, less set up, and less sacrifice to execute. My blade is stuck in your now dying body as I throw a cut? Fair enough, it has happened in history and actually seemed often in the Anglo Indian wars cavalry or bayonet engagements. But I suspect one will use the dagger to parry against the last thrust or cut of the opponent while they either withdraw the blade or move closer in measure to also present and use the threat of the dagger. I don't really understand this point as much. If I can snipe a hand or wrist with a rapier before my opponent with say, a sidesword can be in measure, why is this poor? [/div]
No symmetry= to the extent that the sniping arm is the dominant arm and the other arm will be providing support uitlity. All manner of footwork and technique can be employed based on knowing which arm your opponent will step forward and thrust with to knock them off-line, which makes them somewhat vulnerable if the rapier in question is long and has notable recovery time. [/quote] Isn't that true for most sword styles? In German or Italian longsword you stand with the blade and foot in a certain way, just like rapier, and much the same in sabre and Messer and smallsword. Perhaps you and I have different experiences with rapiers, because between the higher quality sparring and the antique example I have had no problem making quick movements or bringing back online, aside from when I was just starting. The sword is usually the dominant arm because it has the most offensive item. Unless you mean that it's always out forward, which is not totally true in rapier and dagger. Actually in the style I am schooled in the dagger is usually somewhat more forward than the rapier hand. In destreza sure, but that's well, that's destrza [/div]
[/quote] Good thing we're talking about rapier and dagger. So wouldn't you say poor form is not from the system but instead from the fencer? Yes, extending at a bad rhythm will be not good for any weapon. And so will bad footwork. Not exactly unique to the rapier and dagger. Only a rapier thrust? What about a sabre or longsword or smallsword thrust? This is why the dagger is such a good companion. To minimize your risk while maximising your offensive value. Right, correct technique make most weapons deadly, And over committing or over extending is poor form and leaves any fencer in a poor spot despite the weapon chosen. [/div]
Vulnerable= The lunge leaves you open. Controlling for the lunge, a rapier is somewhat easy to bat away with force compared to some other swords. I just find that defensively, the rapier by itself has to rely on stealthily thrusting at the opponent since it's not as handy in a bind compared to other weapons with more leverage.
[/quote] The rapier can also very easily disengage around batting attempts. The lunge leaves you open with every weapon, the dagger is combined with the rapier to parry the opponents sword as you lunge and recover from the lunge. Perhaps you have found that based on your experience. I have in my own experience found the rapier to be as well as capable of offense as defense. Perhaps even more capable of offense then defense. Longer rapiers are poor in comparison to shorter swords in the bind, this is true. But this is negated by the fact that with the dagger you basically have the strong of a sword without the weight of the weak. [/div]
Predictable= when the focus becomes on the thrust, and the weapon performs poorly with the cut, it becomes somewhat easy to expect what will happen with the rapier.
[/quote] I wouldn't call knowing if your opponent will stab or cut as being too predictable. What angle? What part of the body? Disengages? False attack? Predictability comes with the wielder more than the wielded. I know someone with a 1796LC derivative will cut. Not very helpful if I'm meeting them for the first time. Which is why I would say the weapon does not determine predictability nearly as much as the wielder. How many techniques do you need to incapacitate someone? The rapier doesn't need to cut well because it is longer than most cut and thrust swords, And indeed I would wager longer than most jian with a guard better for more than just being pretty as well. [/div]
So, of course, in my opinion, the solution would be to have a shorter, stouter blade, balanced for cutting and thrusting that can be comfortably worn, drawn and used.
[/quote] Solution to what problem though? So a sidesword should solve whatever problem you present, but to be honest I still do not believe there is a problem at all. There are advantages and disadvantages to every weapon. Your jian for example has no real guard to speak of. The sidesword is outclassed by the rapier and by other actual cutting swords. The court sword evolved from the smallsword, and was used into the 20th century. Not really meant to be a weapon as such as a tool to show the rank or status of a wearer. Actually, as far as fighting swords, it seems the compromise sabre and shearing sword/spadroon designs took over for ease of carry and being effective weapons, other than the highlanders basket or the continental smallsword which also saw large amount of use. [/div]
Edit: Should've added: ultimately, rapier just were phased out due to technological and strategic considerations. Reach advantage was nixed by developing improved firearms, so faster close quarters blades (e.g. sabre) became more popularized. All of the critiques I address with rapier can be countered with correct form, footwork, and pairing a rapier with a dagger.
[/quote] So the topic is called "Rapier and Dagger - Where's the disadvantage". Sorry, have to be a smartass. If all the critiques you raise can be nixed by correct use of the system, why raise them? [/div]
[/quote] So here I would disagree, because at that point you don't have rapier and dagger. You have sabre/backsword/shearing sword/arming sword/side sword and dagger. The rapier is a strong weapon for the same reason a spear is. Add a shield to the spear and dagger to the rapier and it becomes stronger. Try to make either something it's not and you lose the strength. Just to note, not trying to be hostile at all. I just enjoy discussion and have recently been fencing rapier and dagger vs other weapons.
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on Jun 10, 2019 22:15:57 GMT
As to the bind - that's easy, just don't enter the bind.
|
|
|
Post by zabazagobo on Jun 10, 2019 22:41:31 GMT
As to the bind - that's easy, just don't enter the bind. Well said.
And no, not hostile at all, and very good counter arguments. My argument stems from the fact the rapier does lack certain degrees of versatility, it lacks the ability to cut, depending on how thick/robust the blade is it can have slow recovery, it is not good at binding and is arguably an inferior weapon with regards to being solely dependent on excelling with another accompanying armament. Hence why I mention why not use a proper cut n thrust sword and a dagger. Arguably a superior combination for versatility. With regards to versatility, limiting oneself to thrusts is not advantageous as if the sword becomes lodged you are completely vulnerable to another opponent. With regards to dueling applications, rapier is arguably the ideal weapon. For a skirmish or combat, a rapier with too thin a blade is a bad idea i.m.o. Having the ability to cut and thrust is a must.
It is indeed very true that my arguments about technical mistakes, footwork, spacing, etc. are excessively generalized arguments that undoubtedly could (and should!) be applied to absolutely every style of fencing. However, I do maintain that due to the thrust oriented nature of rapier play these mistakes seem to be more fatal. When a thrust is made, the recovery is quite a bit different than a slash, and it leaves one in some aspects 'paralyzed' for just the briefest interval that can completely crush the rhythm. This is what I mean by slow, and short. True, in terms of speed (function of distance and time), a thrust is quicker than cut, but if the thrust fails, the footing positions one in such a way with a thrust oriented weapon that cut-friendly weapon can seize the advantage and appear quicker.
Returning to symmetry, you are absolutely correct regarding longsword and many traditional systems. This shortcoming is why I'm an enthusiast of using approximately equal length weapons in each hand (and why I like certain weapons outside of swords like tonfa so much). I find the most effective form of rapier play (or at least the most fun) is to lead with the dagger, as you mention. This serves to create more symmetry between the arms, and allows the rapier to appear sleepy until it leaps forward with brilliant lethality, taking the opponent. It's a blast to execute and super fun to practice.
So, more concisely, my argument on the disadvantage of rapier + dagger is the poor cutting performance of the long armament, and thereby the disadvantage of not being able to pass through opponents, as well as how the rapier is so specialized that it can create problems due to a lack of versatility. Hence why I think that using a sidesword or backsword in tandem with a dagger might be a superior style, since the cutting performance is appreciably better and the blade is quite a bit shorter so there is improved symmetry between the two armaments.
Keep in mind, rapier + dagger is pretty much one of the best systems of swordsmanship, arguably the best for dueling period. Now, my question is if the rapier were substituted out for a sidesword or backsword, truly wouldn't the added strategic elements make for more effective swordplay?
Or one cold just stick 'em with the pointy end and call it a day. After all, rapier are awfully good at that.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Jun 11, 2019 2:17:32 GMT
As to the bind - that's easy, just don't enter the bind. Well said.
And no, not hostile at all, and very good counter arguments. My argument stems from the fact the rapier does lack certain degrees of versatility, it lacks the ability to cut, depending on how thick/robust the blade is it can have slow recovery, it is not good at binding and is arguably an inferior weapon with regards to being solely dependent on excelling with another accompanying armament. Hence why I mention why not use a proper cut n thrust sword and a dagger. Arguably a superior combination for versatility. With regards to versatility, limiting oneself to thrusts is not advantageous as if the sword becomes lodged you are completely vulnerable to another opponent. With regards to dueling applications, rapier is arguably the ideal weapon. For a skirmish or combat, a rapier with too thin a blade is a bad idea i.m.o. Having the ability to cut and thrust is a must.
It is indeed very true that my arguments about technical mistakes, footwork, spacing, etc. are excessively generalized arguments that undoubtedly could (and should!) be applied to absolutely every style of fencing. However, I do maintain that due to the thrust oriented nature of rapier play these mistakes seem to be more fatal. When a thrust is made, the recovery is quite a bit different than a slash, and it leaves one in some aspects 'paralyzed' for just the briefest interval that can completely crush the rhythm. This is what I mean by slow, and short. True, in terms of speed (function of distance and time), a thrust is quicker than cut, but if the thrust fails, the footing positions one in such a way with a thrust oriented weapon that cut-friendly weapon can seize the advantage and appear quicker.
Returning to symmetry, you are absolutely correct regarding longsword and many traditional systems. This shortcoming is why I'm an enthusiast of using approximately equal length weapons in each hand (and why I like certain weapons outside of swords like tonfa so much). I find the most effective form of rapier play (or at least the most fun) is to lead with the dagger, as you mention. This serves to create more symmetry between the arms, and allows the rapier to appear sleepy until it leaps forward with brilliant lethality, taking the opponent. It's a blast to execute and super fun to practice.
So, more concisely, my argument on the disadvantage of rapier + dagger is the poor cutting performance of the long armament, and thereby the disadvantage of not being able to pass through opponents, as well as how the rapier is so specialized that it can create problems due to a lack of versatility. Hence why I think that using a sidesword or backsword in tandem with a dagger might be a superior style, since the cutting performance is appreciably better and the blade is quite a bit shorter so there is improved symmetry between the two armaments.
Keep in mind, rapier + dagger is pretty much one of the best systems of swordsmanship, arguably the best for dueling period. Now, my question is if the rapier were substituted out for a sidesword or backsword, truly wouldn't the added strategic elements make for more effective swordplay?
Or one cold just stick 'em with the pointy end and call it a day. After all, rapier are awfully good at that.
Taken in all realms of use (melee, military, practicality & versatility in different environments, etc...), backsword, sidesword, saber (with and even without offhand dagger) are superior GENERAL swords. However, the specialization of the longer bladed rapier with main gauche made it the apex predator of its niche, which was one on one duels. It may also have excelled in narrow alleyways and as a thrusting weapon on horseback when using a thick & heavy blade. For what it's worth, I have no training, experience, formal education in this subject, so it is just what I think based on what I've heard, so it all basically means nothing. Would be nice to have video of these systems being put to use centuries ago when they were popular. But then, we would be watching men fighting for life and honor, and often to the death, which is another reason rapier (and also smallsword "to the death") went away, only to be replaced with "to first blood" and Court/Dress swords which were often functionless "fashion jewelry".
|
|
pgandy
Moderator
Senior Forumite
Posts: 10,296
|
Post by pgandy on Jun 11, 2019 2:40:08 GMT
I’ve read this thread and have seen many valued arguments for long blades, short blades, a dagger, shield, another sword, and I could go on. But what if in a bind you reached down with your off hand and grabbed, squeezed, and twisted your opponent’s crotch. And then in that moment of surprise when he reacts send him to the dentist by planting your hilt firmly in his mouth. If you are fast enough you might get multiple pokes in. Just food for thought.
|
|
|
Post by elbrittania39 on Jun 11, 2019 2:51:22 GMT
So one thing I'm surprised hasn't been brought up yet is the very nature of rapier technique. Rapier, or at least Italian rapier, operates off of a sideface lunge and recover system. That system gets watered down once you introduce a dagger because to bring the dagger to bear, you have to square your shoulders with your target (presenting a bigger target for them to stab, abandon stability in the lunge (by giving up an off hand to throw out and balance yourself with), and reduce your lunge range (by not presenting your rapier shoulder forward as much). I'm not saying rapier and dagger was necessarily worse than single rapier, but I think it is fair to take into account adding a dagger is not a strict pro for rapier, but rather it has its own pros and cons.
|
|
|
Post by elbrittania39 on Jun 11, 2019 2:53:45 GMT
Also, while this has already been litigated to some extent, dont judge antiques by reproductions. Just because a windlass rapier was floppy and just kinda poo doesnt mean a historical equivalent would be. Trust be, after handling repro and antique rapiers, the disparity is hilarious.
|
|