http://www.swordforum.com/articles/ams/char-rapier.php

An article I just found about the rapier. I am particularly interested in the author's theory about how the rapier developed. Was it really just an adaptation to armor being more open to thrusts?

That doesn't make sense to me because later on, the rapier became the favorite weapon for unarmored combat.

Also, The author states that

"By the time of Capo Ferro, parrying with the left hand was considered obsolete, as he held that a rapier was self sufficient, though the practice lingered on under the justification of "facilitating" attacks."

According to the timeline you have set up on this site, Capo Ferro's treatise was pulbished in 1610, only four years after the one of Fabris.

My question is this: Since the treatise by Fabris (at least as far as I can tell) utilises the hand parry in certain situations to devastating effect and considering the similarities between Capo Ferro and Fabris, did they really consider the hand parry obsolete? Am I reading something wrong?

If you read this, you'll also find that the author says that rapiers were slow and cumbersome and he makes sort of a passing reference to the tip cut. I just wanted to know what some of the people here who are far more educated than I on the subject could determine.

I am very interested in the historical and studious aspect of the rapier as a martial art and I would greatly appreciate you weighing in since I don't quite feel confident enough in my knowledge to actually rule something as false or true. (with the exeptions of the most basic principles.)

Thank you,
Dylan

Dylan,

That article is quite a bit out of date--and has been for quite awhile. Anyway, in response to your questions (because I'm too lazy to read the original article):

First, the rapier was certainly NOT an adaptation to armor being more open to thrusts. The rapier would be an absolutely horrible weapon to use against armor. Actually, the rapier is more likely to be an adaptation of the earlier so-called "Cut & Thrust" sword which is optimized for thrusting against opponents with little or no armor. Note than none of the 17th century rapier manuals show fencers in armor, and only Alfieri even talks about fighting an armored opponent (and only one short chapter in very general terms regarding tactics when fencing someone who is wearing armor).

Most of the rapier masters preferred parrying with the weapon, or with an off-hand weapon (if you have one). However, from the point of view of parrying a thrust, there is little difference between parrying with the off-hand and parry with the dagger (although the latter is a little easier). What the masters absolutely do not want you to do is "hunt" for the opponent's sword with your off-hand (for obvious tactical reasons). However, they feel the same way about an off-hand weapon.

As to the rapier being slow and cumbersome: well, compared to the modern foil, or perhaps compared to a smallsword, I guess you could say that--although I don't know that I would say slow and cumbersome. After all, I wouldn't call a Spadone or a polearm "slow and cumbersome" compared to a rapier. They have different handling characteristics, but any well-made weapon should not be slow or cumbersome. However, I suspect that the author was merely trying to make a point that the rapier was significantly heavier than the foil or epee with which most people are acquainted.

I quickly looked at the paragraph on cuts. Let's just say that this is a little inaccurate. First, a correct cut means to incorporate a slicing motion (whether by draw-cut or push-cut) in addition to the percussive component of the cut. Fabris tells us this pretty clearly. Merely laying the blade on an opponent and then drawing it like you're slicing a piece of meat with a butcher knife won't do it. Now as to the tip-cut: generally, the ideal place to begin a cut is about a third from the end (Fabris tells us this stuff, too). However, extrapolating from the Bolognese swordsmanship of the previous century, we can see that some cuts were delivered with the last few inches of the blade. A consideration of the measures involved will explain why: a cut delivered with the "correct" part of the blade requires a shorter measure; a tip-cut requires the same measure as a thrust. However, it would be a mistake to think that all cuts with the rapier were tip-cuts. In the Bolognese, they are generally used when followed by another attack--and never explicitly named "tip cuts" (the evidence for them is not obvious and can only be seen when considering the necessary measure for an entire action). Generally, you should plan on cutting with the correct section of your blade.

Finally, I seem to remember that article discussion single-time versus double-time. Let's just say that it is wrong. Fabris, Capoferro, and Giganti all discuss double-time and use it to some extent. The later 17th century treatises are even more explicit. Marcelli and Di Mazo not only discuss and use double-time, they include the "parry-riposte" as a fundamental tactic. Note that all of these masters say that single-time is better--but then, so do the Italian masters of "double-time" weapons (i.e. the dueling sword, etc.), right up to modern times. Note that if the rapier is unsuited for double-time because of its weight, then you'd think that the earlier "Cut & Thrust" swords would be even less so--however, the parry-riposte figures even more prominently in the 16th century Italian material.

My general summary of this article is that it perhaps it advanced the understanding of the rapier somewhat when it came out, but that it is fairly outdated by the knowledge of the current WMA community and our understanding of the systems described by the masters of the Italian rapier.

Hope this helps. Let me know if you have any other questions.

Steve

Thank you, Steven. You pretty much confirmed the thoughts i had on the matter.

On the matter of a rapier being a poor defensive weapon, I thought it was a little strange since so many attacks seem to incorporate offense and defense in a single tempo. I showed the article to my friend and sparring partner and upon reading the heading of that paragraph he went off on a tangent which I quote part of:

"Whoever wrote that didn't have to square off with you and see a one inch wide piece of steel somehow miraculously cover your whole body!"

Those are his words. My parries are actually quite substandard I'm sure since everyone just wants to bout and no one feels like actually doing a little slow-down-let's-work-this-out-till-it's-perfect technique training that I desperately crave.

Also, on the matter of double VS single tempo, how could double tempo be better? The only advantage that comes to mind is that double tempo is considerably easier to perform in terms of reflex and natural reaction. But I've seen footage of single-tempo parry-counters that blew my mind. Seeing things like that reminds me how bad my fencing must really look.

And on tip cuts, I don't know anything about Marcelli or Di Mazo's treatises so I can't speak for them but I can say that if I'm in measure to thrust, by God I'm going to take the thrust. What is the point of striking with a minor cut that will at best bleed your opponent a little when you can stab into him and actually end the fight? (This is not of course, taking into account any first blood ideas or a duel against a much less skilled fighter in which you may not need or want to injure him.)

As for slicing cuts, I've always been a little confused by the notion of simply slapping a blade into a target. I mean that every time I deliver a cut, it is instinct for me to pull or push into the target. I'm not saying my cutting technique is fantastic. It isn't. But if you draw the cut out you're doing more damage and you can return to your defenses quicker. And if you push it in, you can also do more damage and you are closer to the opponent with all the advantages that can bring. (Assuming you step forward with the "sawing" motion as I tend to.)

thanks again, Steve. I kind of figured what was going on, I just wanted to clear it with someone more knowledgeable than myself before jumping to conclusions.

I'm not saying double-time is better (pretty much all of the Italian masters say the opposite: that single-time is preferable), only that it was more common many seem to think it was. Additionally, I find it very important to teach students to be able to perform a correct simple parry before I go to single-time. Additionally, against most wild, blade-flinging opponents, double-time works better and is safer (i.e. helps prevent double-hits when fencing the contemptuously suicidal).


Generally, a thrust is preferred by all the Italians. However, in cases where your point is off-line, bringing it online can be a cut. Additionally, if your point has passed, then cutting is probably preferable to withdrawing your hand to thrust. Finally, a cut to the arm/hand can be a good tactic--even if it only forces you opponent to move his sword.

Steve

I am glad to see this issue of single vs. double time brought up - it is an excellent example of one of the most persistent myths. One aspect that is usually not considered is the length of the weapon. The longer the weapon, the longer the forte, and the longer the forte the stronger the potential opposition and greater facility for single time whilst covering the line. With a short smallsword, with a blade of 31", I can just reach you whilst maintaining contact strong to strong. Penetration is going to be shallow - especially if your arm is long, and I won't have an advantage of leverage. It is little surprise to me that Angelo and others frequently show opposition with the wrist. With a 43" rapier or more I can oppose with my forte further down your blade, even if your arm is locked out straight (it takes a surprisingly long blade to reach the opponent in all possible positions with good penetration and leverage, even 42" is a little short for *some* actions). Seen in this light it is not so surprising that the shorter smallsword came to favor dui tempi. It has nothing much to do with weight. Simplifying things quite a bit, an epeeist has a very light blade yet counteractions in single time are generally preferred, and the blade is a little longer than the average smallsword.

Interestingly, I have heard this argument used to justify quite heavy, even clumsy reproduction blades.

Cheers,

Joseph

"I'm not saying double-time is better"

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that. I actually meant it more in the sense that the author of the article implies it. Now that you mention it, I have found greater success using double time parry-counters against the crazies (and they hate me for it.) And I don't deny that it has its merits in some situations. I actually meant to ask what those situations were, exactly. I apologize again for misrepresenting myself.

As far as teaching students double time first, I get that. It's how I learned. I'm only just now starting to apply single time counters with any sort of effectiveness (even now, i end up making it a double time since I have a hard time finding the debole of the other sword when it moves and the opponent instinctively shifts his forte to it.)

And as tip cuts being the result of bringing the point into line, I understand that. That sort of thing can happen especially when there's so much movement of steel going on. I meant that I would not initiate an action and take a tempo solely with the intent of making a tip cut. It just seems counterintuitive to me. If it's open and nothing else is and you can do it without reprisal, I see no issue to it but as far as making that a spelled out part of one's offense, I don't see the advantage.


And Joseph raises a good point about longer swords having longer fortes. I already mentioned gaining the sword in an attack is a problem for me in a lot of ways...I may just have to try that wrist resistance tactic!

Thanks, guys

Hi!




Double time is also generally easier to do, can be done later, is stronger because it allows for a "truer" crossing and is less vulnerable to feints.

Joseph,




What exactly do you mean by this? While the forte becomes longer in relation to the whole blade itself, in terms of physics, the further away the contact is the weaker you get, regardless of how you divide the blade.. If you think about it, why is a dagger such a good defensive weapon? Because it is usually always stronger in the crossing.


Yours,
Ilkka

This is a question then, that's been nagging at me for some time. How would one go about beating an armored opponent? Would you strike at the joints like elbows, wrists, knees, and neck? would you stab at "chinks" I mean, common sense says if he's not wearing a helmet, attack the head. But what advice to the masters give us? I don't have access to the treatises but perhaps one of you can help supply some information. Thanks.

Hi Ikka,

Sorry for my late reply. I only just realised you had written this response!

Actually I put it badly (incorrectly) when I said 'long forte'. What I actually meant was that at the point where two blades cross, a longer blade has the capacity to touch the opponent and the opponents weapon simultaneously with the forte closer to the point of the opponents blade. This means that an advantage of 'leverage' is maintained throughout the thrust. Taking things to the extreme, a very short sword cannot reach the opponent whilst maintaining any cross at all. A spear on the other hand could reach an opponent with a very long sword whilst touching or covering the foible of that weapon. The implications of this very simple geometric fact are quite important, I believe, in understanding the differences between weapons.

Cheers,

Joseph

Joseph,

thanks for the reply! Now I understand what you mean. You are right, in a single time defense and offense, the longer weapon carries an advantage. The shorter is forced to two times.

Cheers,
Ilkka

Hi Dylan,

It's an interesting question you pose - how to use a rapier against armor. I don't think it would have been that important, as the chances of a rapier man facing a knight completely encased are slim. I'd personally half sword and try and beat the opponent down with the hilt of my weapon, the 'murder stroke' of medieval two handed sword I believe? Actually, considering that very few blades even from the medieval period would have been capable of penetrating armor with a cut or thrust, I don't think the rapier can be singled out as particularly bad at this. It is a bit long for fighting in close, but armoured play often comes down to daggers anyway. The main difference between the rapier and the more acute medieval thrusting swords is in the thickness and stiffness of the point. Sometimes this reinforced point can be used to actually pierce the armor - there are accounts of this, and it is something no rapier could do - and sometimes it is used to simply find the gaps, which for the rapier man is more feasible. The biggest drawback for a rapier would be, I think, the chances of the blade snapping. Of course the fact that rapier masters were not really concerned about this type of combat means that if it did happen they would not have been as prepared for it as a fencing master in the 15th or 14th century.

Fascinatingly, Oakshott records a number of swords that are extremely 'rapier like' in blade design in his book 'The Medieval Sword', and the similarity was certainly not missed by the author.

Cheers,

Joseph

By the 1600s, it was highly unlikely that anyone would be encountered in full harness. However, it wasn't unreasonable to consider an encounter with someone wearing a breastplate and open-faced helm (i.e. like the conquistadors wore). In this case, I think you'd just have to consider that everything covered by armor was no longer a target. Therefore, cuts to the head and thrusts to the torso would just not work. However, you'd still have the arms, the legs, and the face (or course, your opponent would know this, too).

Steve

Heck, prior to this, they didn't bother to do anything other than this. And when using a sword against earlier, more complete armors, they either used the point where they could, or used the sword in more imaginative ways. There is not a discontinuity because we envision a sword as a rapier and not as a sword. The fencing of the 17th century proceeds from the 16th, and so on.

Steve

I really enjoyed reading this forum about the sword. I am not familiar with Rapier and Baroque Sword but when I tried to search it in the net. I can now differentiate the two. I mean I can now differentiate the Rapier Sword, Baroque Sword and also the medieval sword in which i have now.