Mornin Craig

I think there is much we can dig into here as we are discussing this. If I rephrase my question to, why do you call a rapier made specifically for the thrust, a "true rapier"? it may clarify my missgivings with the term.

The use of a thrusting blade only in a rapier probably can be hard dated into the mid 1500's maybe earlier. The term rapier was used from at least the beginning of the 16th C. if not earlier, so why do the "true" examples not appear until the thrust and slice fight dominates? Would not the usual use of such a term be used to designate the first large group of items that were recognized by most contemporaries as that item?

The term itself by your own definition is an artificial nomenclature of today and while you, John, and I would assume, other ARMA members are defining this to yourselves it does not communicate much to the rest of the community you interact with or, and most importantly, creates a false sense of the historical in the public who almost certainly will not have the context and background to understand what you are communicating with your term. I fear this will only create more confusion and misinformation over time. Something I have worked hard at for years to improve and something I know John dislikes greatly.

Craig Peters wrote:

The historical evidence indicates that the rapier (and here I'm using the term in its broadest and most inclusive sense) developed over time, beginning with blades that were broader, "cut and thrust types", and eventually evolved so that narrower blades that I identified as the true rapier sort begin to appear, some time in the latter half of the 16th century. That's not to say that the later form replaced the earlier, ...But, in the case of both the rapier and the long sword, the later types were an evolution from an earlier form. One need only look at the period rapier manuals to see that this is the case. The earlier style of rapiers are clearly different than those which are more commonly found in later manuals. Some of the later rapier masters advised against striking with the edge at all, which is not consistent with the sort of instruction we'd expect for the earlier form of the weapon. Therefore, I cannot agree with your assertion that there are examples of the different blade types from all eras of rapier use, because that simply isn't true.

Clearly there is a development in the style of weapons over time, I would suggest a closer look at the historical record would help you see that this is not usually a linear or branch type development as is so often used by us today to sort out our world. Rather think of it as ebb and flow from one combinations of attributes to other combinations, realizing that no single combination ever completely fills the entirety of use.

Craig Peters wrote:

I've been very consistent in asserting that the earlier forms of blade continued to see use even after the development of the later forms, so there is no reason for there to have been any confusion over that. But as I've also stated, there was a clear evolution in the rapier which lead to the development of the later blade forms, types that did not exist earlier in the history of the rapier.

Craig this is a clear and concise statement and one that defines the situation well. I did not think there was confusion over this. I would suggest that the use of only a specific blade function to create a subset that is the truest form of a weapon has limits in the discussion and understanding of the historical record concerning these weapons.

Craig Peters wrote:

But again, as I mentioned in another post, you can cut someone if you whip them hard enough with a car antenna, but that isn't really "cutting" per se. To use another example, if I was to strike against flesh with a mace/morningstar and managed to split it open, would this truly qualify as cutting, even if I had sharpened the spike edges? Or is it really more of a bludgeoning attack? The implication of what you've suggested here is that most, if not all, medieval and renaissance weapons could be considered cutting weapons.

Hmm, I would suggest my comments do not imply the above. What I felt I had communicated was that even with an edge that comes to an apex but would not be called sharp by us today, one can do a great deal of damage to an opponent with the cut. The ability to debilitate with a cut is something I feel you are classifying at a high level of physical damage, a cleaving off or gapping type wound, is this correct?

I have seen what I would consider debilitating cuts to the bone, nerve damage, loss of blood and other forms of trauma from such edges and blunter ones as well over the years. I do not think trying to define a weapon by its ability to deliver such a wound is going to be helpful. I would stick to sharpness of the edge and specific blade dimensions. The wound effectiveness is a difficult tool to use.

Craig Johnson wrote:

I have seen learned users of the sword do impressive things with a rapier blade very similar to the piece John used. So while I find the video interesting I do not find it conclusive as I stated above. This may come down to what you define as a debilitating wound. The definition of such being something that may take another thread to answer, as I fear some of the same issues of what constitutes debilitating will be subjective and defined differently by each individual.

Craig Peters wrote:

If you have videos of people cutting with rapier blades which are constructed like the ones John had, please post them. However, I can't really evaluate what you've said here by your statement alone.

I do not have any at hand, I know some are on the web, but I would be leery of pulling in other people’s efforts with out prior permission. Much of what I have seen has been in person at demonstrations and practice. I was providing an example of a first hand account of having seen it done and as I stated earlier negative result videos are problematic as evidence, positive results are only a bit better.

Craig Johnson wrote:

I fear where we differ is I do not try to categorize a subset of rapiers into “true” or not true as it seems to me to do so is to make a distinction that does not bear the weight of the historical record and common experience. The honorable George Silver accepted. Yes there are situations where the rapier is less suitable for combat than others, battlefield melees “in service to the prince” being an obvious one. If the users of said items had thought through such an event or had enough experience in said event they would have realized this error on their part. In fact if you read the manuals and commentary of the period this is a clear distinction they recognize. But they do not define the items by such a distinction. They instead talk of choosing a weapon that is appropriate for the arms and situation. To say one is truer than another is to make a qualitative commentary on the combat methods and weapons that they would recognize as being obvious and neither true or false.

Craig Peters wrote:

I think you're missing the point of my George Silver quote. The point wasn't whether or not it was a battlefield worthy weapon, but rather that the rapiers that he is describing cannot cut. It's providing evidence for my assertion that there is indeed a sort of rapier that is unsuited to cutting. The rest of what he wrote isn't relevant to my point here; I included it only so as to not have a tiny little snippet of a quote devoid of any context.

Hmmmm, I guess I would disagree that his quote does not help us look at the discussion in most of what he says

George Silver wrote:
For the single rapier, or rapier & poniard, they are imperfect & insufficient weapons, and especially in service of the prince. When men shall join together, what service can soldier do with a rapier, a childish toy where with a man can do nothing but thrust, nor that neither, by reason of the length, and in every moving when blows, are dealing, for lack of a hilt is in danger to have his hand or arm cut off, or his head cloven. And for wards and grips, they have none, neither can any of these fine rapier men, for lack of use, tell how to strike a sound blow.

He is commenting here that they “are imperfect & insufficient weapons” obviously he did not have a high opinion of them. He comments that they “can do nothing but thrust,” and that “neither can any of these fine rapier men, for lack of use, tell how to strike a sound blow.” which implies the thrust was dominate but possibly not exclusive as there is the tone of one editorializing a bit, not trying to give an objective analysis of current combat methodologies, I think we can agree. His comments could be seen as more orientated to the users of such weapons as much as the weapons themselves. But the commentary does put the style of combat he was concerned with in context and that there was not a complete agreement on what a rapier was even then.

Craig Johnson wrote:

I feel you have singled out a sub category of a weapon and made it somehow a target to get a point across. We do not have any quantitative data to say there where so many purely thrusting rapiers at any given period and you seem to feel this was degradation in the use of the sword. My experience has shown me that the varied use of the sword, cut, slice and thrust where always part of the game and while certain pieces where optimized for specific attacks, I would suggest that they where not as great a proportion of the total as you have in classifying the late rapiers as you have.

Craig Peters wrote:

I suppose it depends how one views things. I don't see this as being a sub-category of a weapon; rather, I see it as being two seperate forms of a weapon, like two branches on a tree. However, my abstract conceptual understanding of this distinction is neither here nor there. What is relevant is that there is a later form of rapier which appeared on the scene which is not suited to cutting. This I have referred to as the "true" rapier, following both John's article and the connotation of "rapier" which remains in both English and French, as opposed to the early forms that did appear to be effective at cutting.

Here I must, and hopefully convincingly, try to change your mind. You state

“the "true" rapier, following both John's article and the connotation of "rapier" which remains in both English and French”

is it not a goal of ARMA and myArmoury as well as most right thinking sword scholars to try to illuminate the past in a clearer and more approachable way for students and the public at large? Here a step has been made to go with a general perception of the past that does not coincide with the historical record. We should not choose terminology that propogates a misconception as opposed to helping deepen understanding. To call your “true rapier” by that title implies it is the only, the ‘right’ use of the term, is this your intent? To my mind this would create another misaligned term to see used poorly for years as has happened in the past.

Craig Peters wrote:

By the way, don't assume that because I quoted George Silver that I view these later forms of rapier as "degredations". While I agree with Silver's arguments that a good military sword should be able to cut and thrust, and while I do have a preference for military type weapons, the "true" rapier has an elegance and finesse in appearance and use which I certainly can appreciate. I particularly like some of the swept hilt forms, and I think that the rapiers in Cappo Ferro's manual are absolutely gorgeous: http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/NewManuals/CapoFerro/10001053.jpg

I did not assume that at the beginning Craig, it seemed to be a subtext to some of your comments, my apologies for any confusion.

Craig Johnson wrote:

Other than the existence of an edge you judge to be worthy of cutting with what blade parameters do you see as specifically designating the categories? If we can move the discussion into the specifics of what define such items we may be able to get a better handle on what distinctions you are trying to make and we can compare those to the historical and experiential results others have gotten.

Craig Peters wrote:

The parameters I see as being relevant are the blade form. The hilt furniture is not relevant, and it's so varied anyways that describing earlier or later forms by hilt alone becomes meaningless. Really then, what matters is if the blade shape and form is conducive to cutting or not. I'm not sure if there's anything else that can be specified; I've already delineated elsewhere which blade forms constitute earlier rapiers, and which ones constitute the later sort.

The blade cross sections would seem to dictate the majority of what you are commenting on. If I may, I will layout what I remember from the previous posts. Please correct if you feel I have misstated something.

A rapier blade that has a narrow width, less than ?measurement and cross sectional shape that creates a stiff blade with an edge geometry that exceeds ?degrees.

The majority of these cross sections include, diamond, hexagonal and variations there of.

Would you agree that this would be a concise statement about your category if the numbers could be filled in?

Best
Craig