Hey all, I'm new to TROS, and I only have a mild understanding of the rules. So anyway, I read in the book that you can use something like a short club with sword and shield style, provided that you use it like a sword (i.e. use the manuevers from S&S style, NOT mass weapon and shield). So my question is could I use a rapier with sword and shield style (provided that I use it as I would say...a short sword)? Or is it impossible to use one without the rapier proficiency?

Thanks!

I'm sure Rapier has a default for sword/shield style, but you would be limited to thrust attacks only. Its probably not very high either. A club is actually used more like a sword than a rapier is.

I don't see why not. I mean the image of wieding a rapier/buckler combination is pretty classic (IMHO at least), but you're definetely going to be better off using your rapier prof so that you can take advantages of the extended maneuvers list.

I think the circumstances would be roughly alone the lines of: your sword and shield trained character is escaping from a dungeon and has no wepaons. Suddenly he is confronted by guards, they are bearing down on him, swords drawn when he spots one of these new rapier things he's hear about hanging in a case by the wall....

That's what the defaults are for.

There's no reason you'd be limited to thrusting attacks. Rapiers are just unweildy at swung attacks, usually quite long, will do little damage, and may possibly break.

Everything I've read regarding the physics or swordplay, the techniques taught by masters of the rapier (Johnny Depp adn Orlando Bloom do not count) during that time period, and the test cutting and sparring research done by groups like the ARMA points to one thing: rapiers don't have the mass, proper blade configuration, or the rigidity to create a lethal cut. An annoying and painful cut yes, but not lethal. If you want to kill someone with a rapier you stab them someplace important.

That's why there is no "Cut" move for rapiers in Riddle.

but there IS cut damage for the rapier.

Also, I'm fairly sure that the weapons used in Pirates of the Caribbean were more representative of cut and thrust than rapier.

Cutlass, sabers, spadroons, smallswords. Didn't notice any rapiers in that movie.

Hmmm... While I wouldn't claim that you're likely to kill anyone with a rapier cut, I think it is very possible that you might disable someone with a cut to the right place (forearm or lower leg). It doesn't really matter if you're still alive if you can't hold a weapon any more. Apparently, I'm not the only one who felt this way--Ridolfo Capo Ferro, Salvator Fabris, and Francesco Alfieri (among others) all include cutting techniques in their manuals (second in preference to thrusts, of course).

Steve Reich

Tash wrote: Everything I've read regarding the physics or swordplay, the techniques taught by masters of the rapier (Johnny Depp adn Orlando Bloom do not count) during that time period, and the test cutting and sparring research done by groups like the ARMA points to one thing: rapiers don't have the mass, proper blade configuration, or the rigidity to create a lethal cut. An annoying and painful cut yes, but not lethal. If you want to kill someone with a rapier you stab them someplace important.

That's why there is no "Cut" move for rapiers in Riddle.

"Rapier" is a pretty broad term.

Saying "a rapier can or can't..." is like saying "a sword can or can't" but not distinguishing whether you're talking about a roman gladius, a norman blade, or a late period arming sword.

Rapiers varied in length, blade width, and heft quite a bit, with a general trend towards getting lighter.

Museums (who particularly like to classify things based on very questionable standards) particularly like to call some blades "sword-rapiers" because they are particularly heavy rapiers.

So whether or not a rapier can cut, depends largely on what actual blade you're talking about.

Early rapiers especially still had enough features of a cut and thrust sword to be able to deliver cuts.

Cutting motions with later rapiers were more likely to be tip slashes to the face or arms (some minor shock in TROS terms) than actual damaging blows.

It comes down more to the style than the individual weapon, which is what the passage about Sword & Shield with clubs is really talking about.

DSwinging a club isn't astonishingly different from swinging a sword (but the result will be). However, you don't flourish a club/sword around in the same way you would a rapier, thus the shitty default. Something like Cut & Thrust style would be a far closer match for rapier use because it's a more similar style of using the weapon.

Brian.

Weren't those taught as distraction moves to escape from a bind or grapple, not as actual attacks?

The "Pirates" dig was a joke by the way. Its an awesome movie (heck I named my puppy "Captain Jack") but not to be cited as an authority on any kind of swordfighting.

And I remember there being several rapier looking blades, definately some of the ones hanging in the smithy where they had that first fight, and the one Bloom made for the comadore looked like a long thrusting style rapier to me.

As for the types of rapiers, I was speaking specifically about the later thin bladed ones. Earlier ones were still evolving out of the C&T type of blades and had many characteristics of both. Should have been more specific what I was talking about.

By "those," do you mean cuts? The three named masters taught the cuts as valid attacks, not as tricks. They weren't tip cuts, nor were they taught as distractions. OTOH, all three also say that thrusts are safer and more lethal (safer because you don't take your point out of line and because a thrust only takes one tempo). The rapier of which they speak, was a double-edged weapon with a blade length of about 40"-42."

I assume by "later thin bladed" you mean the rapier as taught by Marcelli or Bondi di Mazo (i.e. late 1600s) that were on their way to evolving into smallswords?

Steve

Tash wrote: Weren't those taught as distraction moves to escape from a bind or grapple, not as actual attacks?

The "Pirates" dig was a joke by the way. Its an awesome movie (heck I named my puppy "Captain Jack") but not to be cited as an authority on any kind of swordfighting.

And I remember there being several rapier looking blades, definately some of the ones hanging in the smithy where they had that first fight, and the one Bloom made for the comadore looked like a long thrusting style rapier to me.

As for the types of rapiers, I was speaking specifically about the later thin bladed ones. Earlier ones were still evolving out of the C&T type of blades and had many characteristics of both. Should have been more specific what I was talking about.

Yes, by "those" I mean the various cuts. I had thought they were taugh as highly secondary mavuevers to be employed only when your point was alread off line and your oponent was closing inside (to trap, stab with his dagger, etc.).

And by the "later thin blade" I meant the later gneneration, longer rapiers (some topping 50") that sometimes didn't even have edges.

In my personal experience (and I'm certainly not a rapier master), I've found it does work well in situations where your point is offline and your opponent has made getting it online too difficult (perhaps because he's closing too fast). Also, I've found it works well on the left hand of an opponent who extends his hand to grab my blade.

As far as "highly-secondary," the masters I've read certainly highly prefer the thrust, but they do offer the cut as alternatives. Alfieri, for example, offers the cut as an option in 11 out of his 15 rapier-alone plates. Both Alfieri and Capo Ferro recommend the cut (basically, a stop-cut to the wrist/forearm) as an option against l'huomo bestiale (the bestial/wild opponent).

Still, the rapier is definitely a thrusting weapon and someone who approaches it with an emphasis on cutting will not do well. Certainly, it would be just about impossible to kill someone with a rapier cut without a very lucky strike.

Steve

Tash wrote: Yes, by "those" I mean the various cuts. I had thought they were taugh as highly secondary mavuevers to be employed only when your point was alread off line and your oponent was closing inside (to trap, stab with his dagger, etc.).

And by the "later thin blade" I meant the later gneneration, longer rapiers (some topping 50") that sometimes didn't even have edges.

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?

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

bergh wrote: 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?

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

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?