[Craig Johnson]

[Richard C G]

Craig Peters;

Forgive my ignorance and bluntness.

Can you reply with a statement "A True Rapier is a rapier which............"? That would be a definition.

So far you have responded to the question, but not answered it.

I remain in eager anticipation of a definitive answer.

[Angus Trim]

Rapier is not a weapon type I really like, but I have been involved in cutting and handling tests with some modern repros.....

About five years ago, Tom Leoni brought an antique to a place known as Livermore, the 2nd WMA event named that {for the place held}........I got the opportunity to not only handle the weapon, but to measure it......

The dynamic balance of the weapon favors the thrust, however, the edge was sharp.

I made a blade from the specs taken from Tom's rapier, and mounted it. Tinker had a rapier he had made from specs of another antique.........

We tested these with some local WMA folks, and a couple local enthusiasts. Targets were 2L pop bottles, 1/4 inch plywood, and 1/2 tatami mats........

Results in the plywood, best cuts going 4 inches deep, suggest a skull cracking capability, probably fight ending deep. Best cuts on tatami mats were clean cuts thru..... probably means taking a wrist off is a possibility.

Results though, varied around the clock depending on who the cutter was. Sometimes tatami was just bent over, no cut. 2L bottles sent across the parking lot. And plywood merely scratched...........

My own opinion is that I wouldn't discount the ability of a rapier , even one mainly designed around the thrust, to make a fight stopping cut. I certainly wouldn't want to be the target of an experienced individual trying to deliver a cut with such a weapon.......

Are these the equivalent of more cut specific weapons "in the cut"? Of course not, but in my view, a rapier with an edge is nothing to sneeze at either.......

[Eric Myers]

Gus, I think you've brought up a good point, and one that I can corroborate. In my experience I have found that lighter weight - and generally narrower - blades can still cut very well, but they are less forgiving of poor technique and circumstance than are more robust cutting blades. I have an old dueling sabre with an extremely sharp and light weight blade. If my form is good I can cleanly cut all the way through a tatami mat, but if I'm off a bit it just bounces off. Some of the reproduction rapiers I have are not that extreme, but still fare similarly. In contrast, with a nice wide bladed cutter it's almost hard to fail a cut.

[Bill Grandy]

[Craig Peters]

[Craig Peters]

[Craig Peters]

I might also add that the myArmoury.com article "Forms of European Edged Weaponry" itself states:

If compared with the arming sword, the rapier was a much lighter weapon with a straight double-edged and pointed blade, which, with the development of the art of fencing in the 16th and 17th centuries, finally became narrower and lighter, and thus suitable for thrusts only... In English and French, [the term rapier] has retained its classical connotation of a light thrusting sword used in the 16th and 17th centuries [Emphasis mine].

http://www.myArmoury.com/feature_euroedge.html

[Jean Thibodeau]

Craig;

How about TYPE 1 rapiers: Capable of thrust and cuts at various degrees.

TYPE 2 rapiers: Extremely blunt edged capable of only thrusts and zero to none cutting and generally of later period.

A real typology like Oakeshott's might have many many more types from 1 to 25 for example. The above examples is just for clarity and as an oversimplification.

With your definition only TYPE 2 are " real " rapiers ! Well, you have a perfect right to want to classify rapiers like this: It a valid system of classification, at least descriptive in a modern sense.

Other views have been expresses rebutting this definition with historic and swordshandling arguments and restating your definition doesn't actually address the objections to the universal acceptance of this very narrow definition of what a rapier is in my opinion.

What specifically makes the historical and swordsmanship rebuttals made by Bill or Craig Johnson erroneous ? A convincing argument for me would be one taking directly addressing these points i.e. all these early TYPE 1 rapiers that were called rapiers in period are not rapiers: BECAUSE ............... fill in the blanks ! I'm completely open to be convinced.

Excluding all the TYPE 1 " rapiers " doesn't really simplify the problem of defining what a rapier is just by arbitrarily deciding that only the TYPE 2 qualify.

At this point if my comments don't convince, or lead to less going around in circles, I will just agree to disagree and stop or very much limit any future comments on this topic.

[Bill Grandy]

[Craig Peters]

[Craig Johnson]

Hi Craig

I noticed you have not responded to my additional queries at the top of the second page of responses. This would help cover a lot of ground if you were able to do so.

As to your Videos, the first does not come up for me it says the server does not have that info. The second does show John trying to cut some ?pig? the audio is difficult to make out. The cuts do not seem very effective both in the edge that remains on the blade and John's mechanics. I understand John is a very efficient swords man but I fear all the video proves is with that rapier John was unable to cut that target with that technique. I am not trying to belittle his performance but the use of video to disprove is very limited. The number of factors involved is large and I fear very conditional to the specifics of any given situation.

I personally feel that if there is a decent edge on an item and the hand on the hilt has practice and skill those will be the major factors in the effectiveness of a cut.

Your concern that a rapier would not be able to impose a serious wound does not seem to stand up to historical commentary and modern investigation. The period swordsmen of their day where not fools. If something did not work well enough to protect themselves they would have changed. One can not over estimate the influence of fashion and economics on the process but it all comes back to these are skills for killing in deadly combat one did not choose an inferior system and have it survive for a great length of time. To loose that perspective will leave one very short in your understanding of the sword and its use.

Best Regards
Craig

[Roger Hooper]

It’s becoming clear to me that there is no such thing as a True Rapier. It is like asking, what is the True Medieval Sword? (a type XII? I don’t think so)

What do rapiers have in common?

They are single hand swords.

They are used for both offense and defence.

They have some kind of hand protection on the hilt besides a cross guard. They all(?) have at least some arms of the hilt or pas d’anes, even if they are hiding inside a cup or complex of bars.

They were in use from the late 15th century to the early 19th. (not sure about the end date)

Must the blades be double-edged, or can a backsword be a rapier?

Otherwise, the blades can vary greatly in length, width, cross-section, ricassos, cutting and thrusting ability, etc.

A rapier typology could be developed that could rival Oakeshott’s in complexity. I'm not sure if should be based just on blades, or whether hilts should be put into the mix. Among all those types, there would be no “True Rapier”.

Craig Johnson, have you ever thought of attempting to create such a typology? It would be a huge task, but I think you could be the man for the job.

[Jean Thibodeau]

[Craig Johnson]

[Craig Peters]

[Justin King]

I think that the issue is confused due partly to modern authors often calling any sword with a complex rapier-type guard a rapier. I think of the fully developed rapier (more or less lacking cutting ability) as strictly a duelling weapon, whereas there were many examples of swords during the same period which have similar guards but feature blades which could have been useable in military context, and are capable of cutting to a greater degree. Whether or not one considers these to be rapiers, varies from person to person....I begin to wonder if 17th century swordsmen had the same discussion, and if they ever managed to agree. Their terminology was probably much different from ours in different regions and time periods and in some cases probably stiil is today, so perhaps it is best not to get too hung up with the words themselves and try to understand the intent behind them-I understood what Craig Peters meant when he said "true rapier", although I think the term draws too sharp a line, never a good idea when comparing swords, IMO.
As the period of the "rapier" progressed it was more and more exclusively worn/used by civilians who used it for duelling. In this context the intent may not even be to kill necessarily, many duels were fought to first blood or until one opponent was sufficiently wounded to cede victory. In this type of use a very narrow blade, capable of inflicting minor cuts and slices, but not designed for heavy cutting, may be perfectly acceptable and even considered to be a more gentlemanly weapon as it allows some sporting swordplay with the thrust always availible if the fight should become mortal. It has already been mentioned that in the hands of a skilled user the cut should not be discounted entirely, a well-placed tip slice could easily sever the jugular and windpipe even with one of the narrower, less "edged" types...so much for lacking fatal cutting ability unless one wears a gorget during their affairs of honor.
At the same time swords featuring similar guards but wider blades more oriented to the cut, were in use and some were likely intended as battlefield weapons. Where to draw the line and call a sword a rapier is subjective IMO, to define the term further is perhaps beyond it's original intent. Other languages have different levels of definition concerning swords so perhaps rapiers can be better defind in Spanish or Italian?

[Craig Johnson]

[Lafayette C Curtis]

[Justin King]