Using a rapier with sword and shield style?

[bergh]

now as we are talking about rapiers, cut and thrust swords.

why not then write some links down so that we all can see the difference?

[tauman]

Being at work, I'm limited as to what websites I can see (I'm amazed I can get to this one). I'll try to do this from memory.

If you go to http://www.armor.com and go to rapiers

For Cut & Thrust, there are a few examples that stand out:
1. Milanese Rapier (yes, for Cut & Thrust, despite its name)
2. Gustav Vasa
3. Dresden Sword
4. Saxon Sword (Well, it's got 'Saxon' in its name, but I can't remember the rest).

For Rapier:
1. Elizabethan Rapier
I can't recall other names, but I seem to remember an Italian Rapier and a French Rapier.

One thing to note, there is no clear transition between Cut & Thrust and Rapier. Some Cut & Thrust swords are better at cutting than other, in the same way as some Rapiers are lighter and more agile than others (even within the same period). So while Alfieri's cuts might work particularly well with some rapiers, they might be close to useless with others.

Historically, there was not a clear line between Cut & Thrust techniques and Rapier techniques. While we can look at the earlier Bolognese masters (i.e. Marozzo & Manciolino, et. al.) and say that they were definitely Cut & Thrust, or the later rapier masters (Fabris, Capo Ferro & Alfieri, et. al.) and say that they were clearly using the rapier, but what about the masters in between? Viggiani's techniques sometimes look like rapier techniques, sometimes like C&T. The same for Agrippa.

If we go farther into the future, we start to see the same problem with finding a dividing line between rapier and smallsword.

Steve

now as we are talking about rapiers, cut and thrust swords.

why not then write some links down so that we all can see the difference?

[tauman]

Okay, here are some specific links. Note that some of the Cut & Thrust swords are termed "rapiers." While I guess you could say that this is something of a misnomer according to our modern classification, historically, the term "rapier" was used rather indiscriminantly by the English and the Germans to refer to a wide selection of swords, while Italians never used the term rapier (referring to the weapon with the term "Spada" or sword).

Cut & Thrust:
http://www.armor.com/2000/catalog/item084.html
http://www.armor.com/2000/catalog/item162.html
http://www.armor.com/2000/catalog/item111.html
http://www.armor.com/2000/catalog/item121.html
http://www.armor.com/2000/catalog/item135.html
http://www.armor.com/2000/catalog/item192.html

Rapier:
http://www.armor.com/2000/catalog/item171.html
http://www.armor.com/2000/catalog/item168.html
http://www.armor.com/2000/catalog/item190.html
http://www.armor.com/2000/catalog/item127.html
http://www.armor.com/2000/catalog/item170.html
http://www.armor.com/2000/catalog/item169.html
http://www.armor.com/2000/catalog/item163.html

Steve

[Caz]

I think the generally accepted differentiation nowdays, it that if it has any hope of doing more than harrassing with an edge blow, it's a cut and thrust, if it'll only lacerate, leave a welt, bruise, or is pointy enough the blade may break with an edge blow, it's a rapier.  Generally.  Exceptions may be rapiers with spatulate points to leave somone needing stitches with a good blow.
    Sensible enough?