One might argue that a wooden shaft with blades embedded in it is an axe or club rather than a sword.
Correct on the armour, but actually the most common piece of steel wielded aboard ship was the cutlass, a short but heavy sword for use in close quarters where there often wasn’t enough room for a long swing.
This is incorrect. Rapiers generally did have at least one cutting edge, usually along the entire length of the blade other than the ricasso. However, the edge was a secondary consideration because it was unlikely to do much damage - it was simply there so you might still inflict a small injury even if your thrust went wide.
Depending on the place and time (though never during Shakespeare’s time), a gentleman might be more likely to carry a sabre, which might or might not be curved but would place a heavy emphasis on slashing rather than thrusting.
So to summarize, since what I would have said has already been said:
The rapier was a weapon of personal self defense. Perhaps the first sword meant for the purpose exclusively and not for the field of battle. It varied in terms of blade geometry and style of fittings (the handle, grip, crossbar, etc) depending on the time period, location, and the wishes of it’s maker/user. But many were indeed sharp along most of the blade and although it’s primary use was the thrust harassing cuts were likewise employed (through certainly not to the same brutal efficiency as with a longsword or cut and thrust sword of the time).
A lot of modern plays and movies even mistakenly use the later small sword or dress sword of the late 17th and 18th centuries. This was typically not sharp, except for the point, though the blade geometry, again differed widely, some being little more than large needles.
As a weapon of personal self-defense, the rapier gained popularity, specially in cities were an ambush could lie in wait in some narrow alley. It was therefore socially acceptable to wear one openly among civilized company. Armor and a sword for war/spear on the other hand would not be acceptable and would probably run you into seriously trouble with the locals, unless you had a good reason for carrying such accoutrements.
In terms of performance, I wouldn’t have worried about a rapier being broken by say a longsword. Both blades were meant to take some abuse and to flex a LOT. A small sword would be another story, but surely you must have been time traveling to encounter someone brandishing such a weapon by the time the small sword came to popular use.
To expand on this a bit, modern competition fencing blades are made from an alloy called maraging steel, which is so flexible that the blade can be folded more or less double without snapping. Combat blades weren’t quite as flexible (would have made it much more difficult to do any damage with the point, obviously) but were still unlikely to break unless struck across the debole (thin bit) at a fairly specific angle.
Also:
The rapier itself would have weighed about the same as the two-handed longsword (whose popularity was on the decline in the 16th century) and was sometimes longer. So it’s also not the popular light as a feather movie prop you typically see displayed in movies and theater. It had the heft and mass that a weapon meant for the serious business of killing needed to have.
It’s funny but whenever I’ve had people who have never held a sword before touch and heft one the two biggest surprises are when they hold a medieval two-handed longsword and feel just how agile and light it feels. the other is when they hold a rapier and they realize it’s not what they expected (they usually expect something closer to what you would find in the modern sport).
You should also remember that the rapier was often used in conjunction with other devices - daggers (often with basket hilts themselves), small shields, or cloaks.
Cracks knuckles Ah, got a post to write. I’ve studied western martial arts for three years now, specializing in German Longsword, concentrating mostly on Liechtenauer’s school, with some Dobringer Ringeck and Mair. Though those other swordmasters all follow in Liechtenauer’s tradition. We’ve also studied other medieval weapons texts including quarterstaff, halberd, rapier, sword and buckler, sword and shield, backsword, wrestling, and rondel.
Rapiers were more fashion statement than function, which is why they became longer and thinner as time went by. If one looks at earlier rapiers, they were broader and better able to, well, actually fight against weapons that weren’t other rapiers. They were primarily used in duels and civilian combat.
Soldiers continued to use swords that weren’t rapiers for the entire time rapiers were popular with the public - though swords eventually fell out of favor as a mainstay of the battlefield and became a backup weapon as the pike formation took a firm hold on European battlefields.
Against armor, a rapier would be pretty useless. Even though people think chainmaile should be pierced pretty easily, one must remember than maile was worn with a padded backing that provided structural support and absorbed kinetic energy from a piercing weapon… i.e. making maile nigh unpiercable. Crossbows had enough kinetic energy to get through maile and backing, IIRC, though don’t quote me on that. Plate armor was essentially unbeatable - one had to go for weak points in the armor or use a gun - and a rapier wouldn’t really be useful against a knight in plate armor.
As far as weapons holding up on the battlefield, well… keep in mind that swords wouldn’t cut other swords. That’s a Hollywood fabrication. If a sword was going to break, it would shatter. Furthermore, while swords were definitely going to take a lot of abuse, medieval swordsmiths didn’t have modern technology. Blades would often not have had even heating and would have structural weaknesses along the blade that could lead to microscopic fractures, that would shatter at some point. Furthermore the quality of steel available to medieval swordsmiths was not equivalent to modern steel.
Also, armor was very expensive. A suit of plate armor in the late medieval period would’ve cost as much as a modern HOUSE. Even leather jerkins would’ve been fairly expensive, though far more prevalent. Depending on the time period armor would’ve been quite different and different kinds of armor would’ve had differing prices and qualities. Sot he reason most people didn’t own armor was simply because they couldn’t afford it. Also, the majority of people weren’t going around fighting each other - medieval life wasn’t Dungeons and Dragons.
If anybody is interested in discussing swords from a materials engineering standpoint, I’d highly suggest getting in touch with these guys. They’re weaponsmiths as well as blacksmiths and really, really know their stuff. Please let me know if any part of my post was unclear as this has kinda been a train-of-thought post. I’ll happily edit/reply/fix anything that needs fixing, or cite sources other than my memory if needed.
The Mad Engineer brings up a good subject. Fencing with “skinny” swords is partially a result of the rennaisance ideal of science. The rennaisance men were trying to apply scientific methods to fighting (specifically dueling). One conclusion that they came up with is that the thrust was better than the slash for the killing blow. Slashing still had uses such as harassing your opponent to ruin his attack or wear him down. But for the big finish, it was all about thrust. Thrusts are faster than chopping allowing you to get the first blow. And a thrust is (generally) harder to block than a chop. Thus the long thin blades. The thin blades were fast and precise because they were light. Since they were intended for civilian dueling rather than military combat, they didn’t have to be strong enough to pierce armor. Just clothes. Some guys were known to wear light chainmail vests under their clothes but this was considered cheating. Or smart, depending on ones view.
Why all the dueling? Because although the middle ages were over, men were still expected to defend their honor. Especially gentlemen of high station.
Others have mentioned using other items in dueling. Some used bucklers which were small shields. They could be very handy against a light weapon like a rapier. Some used a dagger which could block and attack. A specialized item was the Main Gauche (Left Hand) which was essentially a sword-sized grip, crossguard and pommel but with a dagger-sized blade. Many main gauche were created from rapiers whose blades had broken. Some duelists would drape their cape over their left arm and use it to entangle their opponents weapon arm as an errsatz shield.
Rapiers don’t feel quite as agile as a well-made longsword, their length would mean lots of weight at the back end of the blade and this adds mass. Furthermore, a plain-ol’ thrust (one that is not the finishing part of a series of moves, or in the middle of a series of moves) is actually the easiest attack to defend against. A cut is more difficult to defend against for a variety of reasons, which I can explain if you wish.
Again, a rapier is a fashion statement. The length of the blade looks pretty and that is its main purpose. Again, if the rapier were a superior military weapon, then armies would have adopted it.
A side note: Bucklers were NOT used as typical shields. They were used to protect the sword-wielding hand’s wrist. Every cut with a sword and buckler has your wrists glued together to prevent an opponent from stepping out of the way of the attack and cutting your wrist - something that is VERY easy to do.
Please do. All the fencers I’ve talked to say the opposite.
Unless they’ve spent time with the sabre, their opinions don’t really count.
By fencers I assume you mean sport fencers? Keep in mind that in duels and combat, there are very, very few (if any) rules, and sport fencers will typically have 0 experience with medieval weaponry and techniques. A thrust can easily be defended against by, if you have say a rapier, holding the rapier tip-down and moving the sword in a sweeping motion in front of you, deflecting the enemy blade to one side of your body or the other, and closing rapidly with them to initiate a grapple. A cut, on the other hand, can be more easily redirected than a thrust with both two-handed and one handed swords, no even if the sword has only one edge. The time you take to make a cut can throw off a defense, as well as a changing direction (Do a quick Google search for Wechselhau) while maintaining the momentum of the blade can throw off an opponent and get a strike in better than a thrust. Thrusts in longsword are typically used as finishing moves at the end of a sequence, or as a feint before a cut.
Actually, the main guy I spoke to is big into the SCA and has some experience with swords, spears, maces, etc… of various eras. But since I never asked him for a cite, i’m really just relying on his opinion and experience.
There are a host of groups who fence with weapons closer to those that were used in the Rennaissance, from the SCA to hardcore recreation groups. All of them are experimenting with cutting/slashing weapons vs rapiers. The results are that unless you are talking about a huge two-handed monstrosity, a slash or cut can be very easily blocked with a rapier.
As late as the Napoleonic era, there was a single huge difference in “honor” between nobles and commoners: commoners routinely took physical abuse from anyone in authority above them, getting slapped, kicked, punched, whipped and beaten with sticks. But to strike a noble was literally a mortal insult. A noble could be slain in battle or on the field of honor; or hanged (originally, beheaded) for a high crime- but once past boyhood never, ever subject to corporeal punishment. To question a noble’s honor was to question his social status, whether in fact he was considered a person with rights or else a mere peasant, serf or slave- a two-legged animal. The response to such a challenge could only be mortal; to kill or die rather than be cast down. This was due to how the classes had originally arisen: the nobles were the descendents of those whose creed was victory or death, while the commoners were those who had accepted defeat. So for a long time, duels of honor were not mere foppish snobbery about imagined slights. They were about proving that you would be accorded respect, or die trying to exact it.
Umm, no. The Rapier is a specialized weapon, and its lack of being adapted by the military is not an indication of its lack of killing ability.
Soldier’s swords came under two categories:
- Cavalry
- Foot Soldiers
For Cavalry a rapier is no good as thrusting weapons just don’t work on horseback. This is the nature of horse mounted combat and does not reflect on the Rapier
For footsolders, which for the Renaissance means mostly Pikemen or the rare specialist infantry, a Rapier is just too costly and the skill need to wield it properly just wouldn’t be there for the average soldier.
A soldier, on those rare moments that he would actually get to use his sword would be used it either against a cavalryman who just plowed into the pikewall and now needs to be chopped up with something before he recovers. Truth to be told a hand ax would have served better, especially in light of the non-combat uses of swords by soldiers.
Again this is not the fault of rapier. This is the nature of combat and of the soldier.
Pikemen weren’t even given swords at first, but at one point a general got he bright idea of grabbing a few soldiers with swords and domed shields and sent them with instructions to work under the pikes and start hacking away at troops whose only other weapon was 16’ long. It worked, and they started giving pikemen swords after that.
The Rapier had no place on the battlefield, but on the street or in the alley it shone.
Haven’t read the whole thread, so forgive me if I repeat what’s already been said.
This is incorrect. The British specifically were of two thoughts on sword mounted tactics. One school of thought was that a straight, thrusting blade was optimal in a cavalry charge. Granted, they weren’t talking about a rapier (which was a civilian weapon), but thrusting type swords were definitely used in cavalry tactics.
To the OP: The reason a rapier wasn’t used on the battlefield was that it was basically useless for anything except personal defense. Any kind of armor would negate the things. There were ‘long skinny swords’ that were used on the battlefield (as secondary or even tertiary weapons), but they were generally heavier, and they weren’t primary weapons but backups. Rapiers though were more civilian type weapons, used for personal defense against other unarmored civilians, or for the purposes of dueling.
-XT
Ah, I forgot about obsidian. I didn’t know about the wooden swords part. I’ve got to look that up. Why are they considered swords instead of, say, clubs?
They embedded the obsidian flakes into a core of wood…so, yes, it was a wooden sword (with a volcanic glass edge). Definitely not a club.
-XT