|
Post by nddave on May 19, 2024 1:42:41 GMT
I sense a question about the best thrusting dadao, kukri or shamshir! Don't forget the executioner swords, lol!
|
|
|
Post by curiomansion on May 19, 2024 1:46:25 GMT
At a very minimum, guards on earlier swept hilts were clearly optimized for protecting against cuts. Between the shape of the hilt and the shape of the blade, I think intuition makes it pretty clear what a weapon was intended for. I'd argue that most rapiers could cut and cut well; well enough, anyway.
"Rapiers" and "Sideswords" as we know them today are modern classifications; if you place a long, thin thrusting only blade on one side and call that a rapier and a complex hilted, non-basket heavy cutting sword on the other and call that a sidesword, you can easily fill the gap between the two with countless originals to bridge the two extremes. It's not clear to me if we can even judge how common what types were and where with much precision.
I personally find the cuttier rapiers more fun to play with, but that's me.
|
|
AndiTheBarvarian
Member
"Lord of the Memes"
Bavarianbarbarian - Semper Semprini
Posts: 10,124
Member is Online
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on May 19, 2024 2:02:42 GMT
I absolutely don't want to receive a full blown "cut" from an estoc but that doesn't mean it's a cutting sword. I prefer cut and thrust swords over thrusting orientated blades too. It's just the aspect of giving the things the right name without having CDO (it's OCD but in right order). IMHO rapiers aren't just any blade with a complex hilt. But afaik the French call all blades with a saber hilt a "saber" (if they'd speak English of course), even straight double edge blades. I've seen broad short hunting sword blades with a smallsword hilt but I wouldn't call them a smallsword.
|
|
|
Post by curiomansion on May 19, 2024 2:56:42 GMT
AndiTheBarvarian I've seem some thrust oriented rapiers that I'm pretty sure I could receive a full blown cut from and still keep going, especially if I was wearing clothing from the period. Most of them looked like cutty enough and far from an estoc. My contention is most earlier rapiers were actually predominantly cut and thrust swords that were elongated for reach not to optimize thrusting. I think the thrust centric rapiers came later and think you can see it in the evolution of the hilts and blades. Also the "cut vs thrust" paradigm (and consequently the categorization of swords as cutting vs thrusting) came later. Meyer strings cuts and thrust one after the other, 1.33 does as well, a lot of JSA katas too. My big picture impression is that given options, people like what they like, and the sword market back then catered to a wide variety of tastes and opinions just as varied as ours. Looking at museum pieces, you can justify almost anything as historical and no category of sword (rapier included) can stand to be narrowly defined. I hope that's freeing to everyone as a collector and enjoyer of swords!
|
|
|
Post by nddave on May 19, 2024 17:07:25 GMT
AndiTheBarvarian I've seem some thrust oriented rapiers that I'm pretty sure I could receive a full blown cut from and still keep going, especially if I was wearing clothing from the period. Most of them looked like cutty enough and far from an estoc. My contention is most earlier rapiers were actually predominantly cut and thrust swords that were elongated for reach not to optimize thrusting. I think the thrust centric rapiers came later and think you can see it in the evolution of the hilts and blades. Also the "cut vs thrust" paradigm (and consequently the categorization of swords as cutting vs thrusting) came later. Meyer strings cuts and thrust one after the other, 1.33 does as well, a lot of JSA katas too. My big picture impression is that given options, people like what they like, and the sword market back then catered to a wide variety of tastes and opinions just as varied as ours. Looking at museum pieces, you can justify almost anything as historical and no category of sword (rapier included) can stand to be narrowly defined. I hope that's freeing to everyone as a collector and enjoyer of swords! You make a good point, I think one thing some of us tend to forget is each sword type was created and or designed with an intended purpose to what suited the swordsman of that time period and region. For example European Swords went from broad cutting swords to acute thrusting swords when armor became more prevalent and the cut lost its effectiveness. This is why I really see the separation between Civilian and Military Rapier as a common thing in the 16th-17th centuries as the purpose of use differed tremendously. The Civilian wasn't walking around in plate all day so the benefit of a long thin thrust centric Civilian Rapier was allowing one to keep distance but also administer impeding and or fatal attacks quickly and safely. A thrust between the ribs or to the shoulder or thigh was definitely enough to incapacitate an attacker and doing so from 35"-40" was safer than 25"-30". Later we the Rapier loose favor to the small sword, not because the length was deemed a burden but actually the opposite as more people focused on actual Fencing techniques and learning Fencing in the 18th and 19th centuries the sword was cut down in length simply because a learned fencer or duelist didn't need the extra length for defense as a benefit to lack of skill. Same with the simplifying of the intricate hilt. As the extra hand protection wasn't technically necessary for an experienced fencer.
|
|
AndiTheBarvarian
Member
"Lord of the Memes"
Bavarianbarbarian - Semper Semprini
Posts: 10,124
Member is Online
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on May 19, 2024 17:41:38 GMT
Afaik the cut vs. thrust discussion was mainly a problem of Napoleonic era and later cavalry. With those swords it's rather thrust vs. cut&thrust. Rapier vs. military sword, but later also smallsword vs.spadroon. One on one duel situation in civilian area vs. battle chaos. I just prefer to call it military sword to military rapier, but I know what is meant.
|
|
|
Post by mrstabby on May 19, 2024 17:50:58 GMT
Something that jumped out on me while watching videos on cutting with a rapier, they all do big, wild, wide cuts. Would you ever do that during a fight leaving yourself open like that? Of course a small "harassing cut" can still sever tendons and produce debilitating wounds, but that't true for any sharp rapier.
|
|
|
Post by nddave on May 19, 2024 17:56:46 GMT
Afaik the cut vs. thrust discussion was mainly a problem of Napoleonic era and later cavalry. With those swords it's rather thrust vs. cut&thrust. Rapier vs. military sword, but later also smallsword vs.spadroon. One on one duel situation in civilian area vs. battle chaos. I just prefer to call it military sword to military rapier, but I know what is meant. True as swords became more of an officers weapon over infantry. I prefer the focus of Rapier as a term as to denote hilt distinction. Side-Sword and Military Rapier are more synonymous to each other, where I think your definition of Military Sword would have more similarity or focus to the 17th-18th century Broadsword or Backsword. But then again they too are more distinctly categorized as basket hilts as opposed to the more D-cup style of most standard Military Swords and Sabers.
|
|
|
Post by nddave on May 19, 2024 18:01:08 GMT
Something that jumped out on me while watching videos on cutting with a rapier, they all do big, wild, wide cuts. Would you ever do that during a fight leaving yourself open like that? Of course a small "harassing cut" can still sever tendons and produce debilitating wounds, but that't true for any sharp rapier. Yea I've notice this to, it definitely goes against the technical forms of Fencing. I've always looked at the cut being a counter or follow up attack to a thrust. For example in a Parry you might draw your blade back in reprise and cut at the arm, upper thigh/hip. It's not going to dismember anyone but it's going to hurt and cause bleeding. Especially when most quarter duels were to first blood.
|
|
LeMal
Member
Posts: 1,145
|
Post by LeMal on May 19, 2024 18:16:32 GMT
Something that jumped out on me while watching videos on cutting with a rapier, they all do big, wild, wide cuts. Would you ever do that during a fight leaving yourself open like that? Of course a small "harassing cut" can still sever tendons and produce debilitating wounds, but that't true for any sharp rapier. It's when, especially since this kind of fighting is "in the round," they've essentially flanked you and your point is already way off line. You're going to have to swing wide anyway to bring the point back on line, and if they're in too close, you either have to draw way back or land the edge. If a decent target, e.g. head or neck, forearm or hands, presents itself that way, it's worth going for.
|
|
howler
Member
Posts: 5,287
Member is Online
|
Post by howler on May 19, 2024 21:05:46 GMT
AndiTheBarvarian I've seem some thrust oriented rapiers that I'm pretty sure I could receive a full blown cut from and still keep going, especially if I was wearing clothing from the period. Most of them looked like cutty enough and far from an estoc. My contention is most earlier rapiers were actually predominantly cut and thrust swords that were elongated for reach not to optimize thrusting. I think the thrust centric rapiers came later and think you can see it in the evolution of the hilts and blades. Also the "cut vs thrust" paradigm (and consequently the categorization of swords as cutting vs thrusting) came later. Meyer strings cuts and thrust one after the other, 1.33 does as well, a lot of JSA katas too. My big picture impression is that given options, people like what they like, and the sword market back then catered to a wide variety of tastes and opinions just as varied as ours. Looking at museum pieces, you can justify almost anything as historical and no category of sword (rapier included) can stand to be narrowly defined. I hope that's freeing to everyone as a collector and enjoyer of swords! You make a good point, I think one thing some of us tend to forget is each sword type was created and or designed with an intended purpose to what suited the swordsman of that time period and region. For example European Swords went from broad cutting swords to acute thrusting swords when armor became more prevalent and the cut lost its effectiveness. This is why I really see the separation between Civilian and Military Rapier as a common thing in the 16th-17th centuries as the purpose of use differed tremendously. The Civilian wasn't walking around in plate all day so the benefit of a long thin thrust centric Civilian Rapier was allowing one to keep distance but also administer impeding and or fatal attacks quickly and safely. A thrust between the ribs or to the shoulder or thigh was definitely enough to incapacitate an attacker and doing so from 35"-40" was safer than 25"-30". Later we the Rapier loose favor to the small sword, not because the length was deemed a burden but actually the opposite as more people focused on actual Fencing techniques and learning Fencing in the 18th and 19th centuries the sword was cut down in length simply because a learned fencer or duelist didn't need the extra length for defense as a benefit to lack of skill. Same with the simplifying of the intricate hilt. As the extra hand protection wasn't technically necessary for an experienced fencer. The breakdown via "purpose driven" just can't be overstated. One would benefit most from the cut/thrust ability of a Military Rapier on the battlefield while in a one on one duel the long Civilian (optimally with left hand dagger) would be most deadly. The small sword was advantageous only because it was easier to carry, as the duels of that time had so many rules (like often being over at "first blood"), and why not carry a pistol with it. Who REALLY wants to rock a freaking three plus pound, four foot long steel bar around, not to mention the HELL that would be a fight between two men so armed. ![;-|](//storage.forums.net/forum/images/smiley/squint.png) The smallsword evolved (or more accurately DEVOLVED) into the feeble Court Sword...nothing much more than a fashion accessory. I think the latter day 18th and 19th century sabers would be certainly better than smallswords in both military and civilian realms, no doubt and would absolutely love to see a duel to the death between a long rapier (with and without left hand dagger) and a military saber, and think the edge still goes to the rapier.
|
|
AndiTheBarvarian
Member
"Lord of the Memes"
Bavarianbarbarian - Semper Semprini
Posts: 10,124
Member is Online
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on May 19, 2024 21:30:41 GMT
Maybe the point of the edge is control over the situation. If the set is completely clear you'll take the best specialized tool for it. If you don't know what's going to happen you'll want an all purpose tool.
|
|
|
Post by ragebot on May 19, 2024 21:49:52 GMT
Why limit yourself, how about thrust and cut both. Are you an FSU alum? What year? Also nice anamorphic shot. Looks like a 2x squeeze? Have two degrees from FSU both in 1978. Anamorphic lens was a Great Joy 85mm 1.8 squeeze on a Sony A7s iii body color corrected in Da Vinci Resolve Studio.
|
|
|
Post by ragebot on May 19, 2024 22:14:04 GMT
Maybe the point of the edge is control over the situation. If the set is completely clear you'll take the best specialized tool for it. If you don't know what's going to happen you'll want an all purpose tool. Alfred North Whitehead was an English mathematician and philosopher who ascribed the bareness of logic to it's failure to forget it's founders. I sometimes wonder why so little attention is paid to what I will call modern swords made using modern manufacturing methods with modern metallurgy. In the vid I posted about not being limited but using both thrusting and cutting the sword I used a Cold Steel Tactical Wakizashi Machete selling on Amazon for $US50. Sure I had to spend some time sharpening it on my KO WS but I have to say I can't complain about anything related to how it thrusts or cuts and am convinced even a custom made blade costing four or five figures and following historical accuracy to the letter could produce any better results. Not to mention I have no reservations about taking that sword to the KO WS; something I might hesitate about if it was a very expensive sword. www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0738NLWSV/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1
|
|
|
Post by nddave on May 19, 2024 22:28:19 GMT
You make a good point, I think one thing some of us tend to forget is each sword type was created and or designed with an intended purpose to what suited the swordsman of that time period and region. For example European Swords went from broad cutting swords to acute thrusting swords when armor became more prevalent and the cut lost its effectiveness. This is why I really see the separation between Civilian and Military Rapier as a common thing in the 16th-17th centuries as the purpose of use differed tremendously. The Civilian wasn't walking around in plate all day so the benefit of a long thin thrust centric Civilian Rapier was allowing one to keep distance but also administer impeding and or fatal attacks quickly and safely. A thrust between the ribs or to the shoulder or thigh was definitely enough to incapacitate an attacker and doing so from 35"-40" was safer than 25"-30". Later we the Rapier loose favor to the small sword, not because the length was deemed a burden but actually the opposite as more people focused on actual Fencing techniques and learning Fencing in the 18th and 19th centuries the sword was cut down in length simply because a learned fencer or duelist didn't need the extra length for defense as a benefit to lack of skill. Same with the simplifying of the intricate hilt. As the extra hand protection wasn't technically necessary for an experienced fencer. The breakdown via "purpose driven" just can't be overstated. One would benefit most from the cut/thrust ability of a Military Rapier on the battlefield while in a one on one duel the long Civilian (optimally with left hand dagger) would be most deadly. The small sword was advantageous only because it was easier to carry, as the duels of that time had so many rules (like often being over at "first blood"), and why not carry a pistol with it. Who REALLY wants to rock a freaking three plus pound, four foot long steel bar around, not to mention the HELL that would be a fight between two men so armed. ![;-|](//storage.forums.net/forum/images/smiley/squint.png) The smallsword evolved (or more accurately DEVOLVED) into the feeble Court Sword...nothing much more than a fashion accessory. I think the latter day 18th and 19th century sabers would be certainly better than smallswords in both military and civilian realms, no doubt and would absolutely love to see a duel to the death between a long rapier (with and without left hand dagger) and a military saber, and think the edge still goes to the rapier. Definitely, I think the reach alone would be a serious advantage over the saber. Then again in regards to the smallsword it had to have been a nasty tool in its own right as it's short life (no pun intended) basically revolved around the continental wide ban of all sanctioned duels. I sure as hell wouldn't want to take a well placed thrust by one lol!
|
|
AndiTheBarvarian
Member
"Lord of the Memes"
Bavarianbarbarian - Semper Semprini
Posts: 10,124
Member is Online
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on May 19, 2024 22:28:44 GMT
I recognized the blade but wasn't sure if it's the katana or waki machete. Did you do something with the handle? I have the katana machete and it is a really good sword, the tip is nasty.
|
|
|
Post by ragebot on May 19, 2024 22:56:41 GMT
I recognized the blade but wasn't sure if it's the katana or waki machete. Did you do something with the handle? I have the katana machete and it is a really good sword, the tip is nasty. Nothing done to the handle; but truth be told I have probably spent more time with the KO WS sharpening it than actually cutting with it. There are several what I call modern tactical katanas and wakizashis at very low prices that make great beaters. This is another sub $US100 wakizashi I cut with that is a great bang for the buck option, Musha Handmade 31" Tactical Samurai Wakizashi with 1045 Carbon Steel.
|
|
|
Post by curiomansion on May 20, 2024 0:41:32 GMT
Are you an FSU alum? What year? Also nice anamorphic shot. Looks like a 2x squeeze? Have two degrees from FSU both in 1978. Anamorphic lens was a Great Joy 85mm 1.8 squeeze on a Sony A7s iii body color corrected in Da Vinci Resolve Studio. Nice! I graduated in 2011. Hello fellow Nole! That's a great camera setup!
|
|
|
Post by curiomansion on May 20, 2024 0:53:07 GMT
You make a good point, I think one thing some of us tend to forget is each sword type was created and or designed with an intended purpose to what suited the swordsman of that time period and region. For example European Swords went from broad cutting swords to acute thrusting swords when armor became more prevalent and the cut lost its effectiveness. This is why I really see the separation between Civilian and Military Rapier as a common thing in the 16th-17th centuries as the purpose of use differed tremendously. The Civilian wasn't walking around in plate all day so the benefit of a long thin thrust centric Civilian Rapier was allowing one to keep distance but also administer impeding and or fatal attacks quickly and safely. A thrust between the ribs or to the shoulder or thigh was definitely enough to incapacitate an attacker and doing so from 35"-40" was safer than 25"-30". Later we the Rapier loose favor to the small sword, not because the length was deemed a burden but actually the opposite as more people focused on actual Fencing techniques and learning Fencing in the 18th and 19th centuries the sword was cut down in length simply because a learned fencer or duelist didn't need the extra length for defense as a benefit to lack of skill. Same with the simplifying of the intricate hilt. As the extra hand protection wasn't technically necessary for an experienced fencer. The breakdown via "purpose driven" just can't be overstated. One would benefit most from the cut/thrust ability of a Military Rapier on the battlefield while in a one on one duel the long Civilian (optimally with left hand dagger) would be most deadly. The small sword was advantageous only because it was easier to carry, as the duels of that time had so many rules (like often being over at "first blood"), and why not carry a pistol with it. Who REALLY wants to rock a freaking three plus pound, four foot long steel bar around, not to mention the HELL that would be a fight between two men so armed. ![;-|](//storage.forums.net/forum/images/smiley/squint.png) The smallsword evolved (or more accurately DEVOLVED) into the feeble Court Sword...nothing much more than a fashion accessory. I think the latter day 18th and 19th century sabers would be certainly better than smallswords in both military and civilian realms, no doubt and would absolutely love to see a duel to the death between a long rapier (with and without left hand dagger) and a military saber, and think the edge still goes to the rapier. Apparently the wearing of super large rapiers got so bad that regulations were passed, restricting the length. It appears parts of Europe got into a "my rapier is longer than yours" social battle. As to a court sword being nothing more than a fashion accessory, I have to strongly disagree. They hold their own in skilled hands to most carriable swords and have extreme advantages if the fight starts with both weapons sheathed. I've found most practitioners who's good with geometry and disciplined about defending with the strong can hold their own against any infantry saber with a modern foil; the agility is on a whole 'nother level. Keep in mind easier to carry is a big deal, as it often also means easier to draw. Also, many rapiers were every bit as fashion focused as later smallswords were. There are some beautiful hilts that probably wouldn't last more than a few hits mounted on rapiers.
|
|
howler
Member
Posts: 5,287
Member is Online
|
Post by howler on May 20, 2024 5:57:15 GMT
The breakdown via "purpose driven" just can't be overstated. One would benefit most from the cut/thrust ability of a Military Rapier on the battlefield while in a one on one duel the long Civilian (optimally with left hand dagger) would be most deadly. The small sword was advantageous only because it was easier to carry, as the duels of that time had so many rules (like often being over at "first blood"), and why not carry a pistol with it. Who REALLY wants to rock a freaking three plus pound, four foot long steel bar around, not to mention the HELL that would be a fight between two men so armed. ![;-|](//storage.forums.net/forum/images/smiley/squint.png) The smallsword evolved (or more accurately DEVOLVED) into the feeble Court Sword...nothing much more than a fashion accessory. I think the latter day 18th and 19th century sabers would be certainly better than smallswords in both military and civilian realms, no doubt and would absolutely love to see a duel to the death between a long rapier (with and without left hand dagger) and a military saber, and think the edge still goes to the rapier. Apparently the wearing of super large rapiers got so bad that regulations were passed, restricting the length. It appears parts of Europe got into a "my rapier is longer than yours" social battle. As to a court sword being nothing more than a fashion accessory, I have to strongly disagree. They hold their own in skilled hands to most carriable swords and have extreme advantages if the fight starts with both weapons sheathed. I've found most practitioners who's good with geometry and disciplined about defending with the strong can hold their own against any infantry saber with a modern foil; the agility is on a whole 'nother level. Keep in mind easier to carry is a big deal, as it often also means easier to draw. Also, many rapiers were every bit as fashion focused as later smallswords were. There are some beautiful hilts that probably wouldn't last more than a few hits mounted on rapiers. In the hands of a skilled practitioner, even a court sword could be deadly, and some were very ornate. However, a huge number were junk fashion trinkets, and court swords were about the bottom of the bladed food chain. In a battle between two equally skilled opponents, the man with the long rapier would have a monstrous advantage over the court sword armed adversary.
|
|