Rapier Reach

[tauman]

Believe it or not, you actually can half-sword, of a sorts with a rapier. The last plate of the Salvator Fabris rapier treatise hints at it in a defense against a spear, but sadly, he doesn't go into details (saying that it should be trivial for one accomplished in rapier to figure out from the drawing).

I don't know about second hand on the pommel, though. I don't think it would make much of a difference...

Steve

[Jake Norwood]

Re: Polish Estocs and the Hussars
These weapons existed in a time that was well after the decline of armor, and were really just makeshift sword-lances. They hold little in common with the estocs of the TROS period, which were can openers. These earlier estocs were designed specifically for half-swording style use, and often featured secondary grips halfway up the blade.

Re: Cutting and Rapiers
In TROS the term "rapier" refers really to the thrusting-only variety used by cappo ferro, etc. Early rapiers, sometimes called "sword-rapiers" are denoted under the modern term "cut-and-thrust," or period term "sidesword" (Agrippa is considered by many to have belonged more to the cut-and-thrust side of things, as it's an early treatise and covers military application--if I'm not mistaken--meaning a sidesword for sure). As with the estoc issue above, we find that one name can refer to different tools in different places and different times, complicating discussions such as these tremendously! Any cuts in later rapier schools are likely to have been harrasing actions with no intent of actually injuring a person with the tip. Modern experiments confirm this, which was also the source of the contempt for the cut in the 18th and 19th centuries (such as what you read from Burton or Egerton and Castle).

Just curious, what're the differences between estocs designed for foot and mounted combat? I can't imagine there being such differences.....
I know weight isn't a factor. I've handled a 50" estoc, and they just dont have the mass of a cutting blade despite their thick section. You couldn't even beat someone down with one, only strike to lacerate bare flesh like a true rapier.

These mounted estocs from the 17th century were really just rapiers with 5 foot blades and saber hilts, meant primarily for cavalry charges, and therefore not really an estoc as statted out in TROS. A good example of a heavier estoc can be seen in the film Excalibur, at the duel between Lancelot and Gawain. I haven't seen any narrower ones in film, but I've seen dozens in museums. The estoc you're referring to is not a cutting weapon (no estoc is), but is meant for half-sword use by an armored fighter against an armored opponent. If swung it would only be to create an opening. The thick section was to provide the stiffness needed for an effective thrust against an armored opponent instead of the mass needed for a cut or other blow.


Re: Putting hand under the pommel
TROS could model this by spending an extra CP die for an extra point of damage, as with a cut.

I love this stuff.

Jake

[Caz]

Well said.

[Ashton]

Re: Putting hand under the pommel
TROS could model this by spending an extra CP die for an extra point of damage, as with a cut.

I love this stuff.

Jake

Heh. not a problem, Jake. It had stemmed out of an old conversation in terms of what Germanic rapier styles looked like (other than a very large man taking the rapier, breaking it over his knee and getting a real weapon.