Topic: Rapier Reach
Started by: Durgil
Started on: 11/24/2003
Board: The Riddle of Steel
On 11/24/2003 at 7:09pm, Durgil wrote:
Rapier Reach
Since the length of a rapier is listed in the book to be 46" to 56", shouldn't it be considered long with regards to its reach, not medium as it says in the book?
On 11/24/2003 at 7:24pm, Caz wrote:
RE: Rapier Reach
For that length I'd say definitely, though you could certainly get one with a medium reach....
On 11/24/2003 at 7:35pm, Durgil wrote:
RE: Rapier Reach
Should they have the optional two-handed use like the bastard and long sword?
On 11/24/2003 at 7:55pm, Jake Norwood wrote:
RE: Rapier Reach
A long-reach rapier would be fine; many were really about the same length as a greatsword. No two-handed rules, though. It's not a swinging weapon!
Jake
On 11/24/2003 at 8:14pm, Salamander wrote:
RE: Rapier Reach
Jake Norwood wrote: A long-reach rapier would be fine; many were really about the same length as a greatsword. No two-handed rules, though. It's not a swinging weapon!
Jake
Not to mention the hilt on even the earliest designs were not really made to accomodate two hands. The rapier is a weapon with a blade which can cut in some of the earlier forms, just not nearly as well as an arming sword or cut and thrust sword. Later rapiers were basically a very long stiletto with a quatrefoil or trefoil blade (distal cross section of the blade looked like a four pointed or three pointed star) to increase rigidity in the thrust. These later weapons could also cut, but you would get a deeper cut from a pen knife I'm afraid.
Besides, a free hand is a good thing when fighting with rapiers, trust me on this!
On 11/24/2003 at 8:15pm, Durgil wrote:
RE: Rapier Reach
So should bastard and long swords not account for two-handed use when they are being used to thrust with?
On 11/24/2003 at 8:20pm, Salamander wrote:
RE: Rapier Reach
Durgil wrote: So should bastard and long swords not account for two-handed use when they are being used to thrust with?
Well, I have trained a bit with both and I would say that they are pretty well modeled as they are. You see the statisitcs for one handed and two handed use are entered seperately on the tables and have got this covered.
On 11/24/2003 at 8:21pm, Durgil wrote:
RE: Rapier Reach
Salamander wrote: Later rapiers were basically a very long stiletto with a quatrefoil or trefoil blade (distal cross section of the blade looked like a four pointed or three pointed star) to increase rigidity in the thrust.
This sounds very similiar to the estoc.
On 11/24/2003 at 8:51pm, Salamander wrote:
RE: Rapier Reach
Durgil wrote:
This sounds very similiar to the estoc.
Yes, the estoc and later rapiers share similar design philosophies. However the estoc was more created as an evolution from the bastard sword. This is seen in the evolution of the blade geometries of the weapons as we go from lenticular distal cross section to hexagonal and finally to diamond as the blade went from one optimized for cutting to a pointier and pointier blade. Soon there was bo real mass on the forward end of the blade to make it a serious cutter and the next natural step was to basically make a pointy crowbar with a hilt.
Examples:
http://www.armor.com/2000/catalog/item913.html
Here they use the English nomenclature of "tuck" which is a bastardization of the continental word "estoc".
On 11/24/2003 at 10:14pm, Valamir wrote:
RE: Rapier Reach
Also, if memory serves correctly, the estoc was intended for mounted use, where the rapier, of course, is generally a foot weapon.
On 11/25/2003 at 3:00pm, Salamander wrote:
RE: Rapier Reach
Valamir wrote: Also, if memory serves correctly, the estoc was intended for mounted use, where the rapier, of course, is generally a foot weapon.
I have never heard about this, but it would be interesting to look into...
On 11/25/2003 at 6:10pm, Jake Norwood wrote:
RE: Rapier Reach
There were some later estocs for mounted use (Ralph--your Polish Husar book should have some shots of 'em. They'll have a saber hilt). As a general rule, however, estocs from the time period we're discussing were footman's weapons. From what we know, Knights fought *a lot* more on foot than previously thought.
Also, re: 2-hands on the rapier
Yes, I suppose that by gripping with the second hand somewhere you could get a more powerful thrust, but the weapon isn't made for that kind of use. Perhaps increase the damage a little bit in such a situation.
Fun stuff.
Jake
On 11/25/2003 at 6:21pm, Valamir wrote:
RE: Rapier Reach
Jake Norwood wrote: There were some later estocs for mounted use (Ralph--your Polish Husar book should have some shots of 'em. They'll have a saber hilt).
Quite a few actually. Pretty much a standard part of the hussar's kit. Near as I can tell they were held with the blade extended forward and employed like a lance during subsequent charges where the lance was already broken. They were prefered to the ubiquitous sabre against more heavily armored German and Swede opponents.
Since no distinction was made of these being specially adapted estocs I assumed that it was standard to employ them from horseback.
It actually is even more interesting to discover that the Poles took a perfectly serviceable foot weapon and adapted it to mounted combat at a time when most of the rest of Europe was moving away from mounted combat. Another confirmation point for the (eventually detrimental) Polish obsession with cavalry.
On 11/25/2003 at 6:26pm, Ashton wrote:
Just my two cents
You can place your off hand on the pommel of the rapier to drive the thrust home... but you lose on range since you can't throw the blade out as far as you might want to.
Some earlier rapiers (Agrippa period) were designed around a school that was based off of a cutting as opposed to a true thrusting style. Hitting with the tip was still a bit more effective, but there are some nice vessels (neck, armpits, inside of the thighs) where a deep cut is not as necessary.
Some "later period" rapiers still had a cutting element- Spanish schools seemed to like it quite a bit. Probably more interesting is the evolution of same- Italian rapier was designed for street fighting (esp. the earlier styles), French smallsword for court (though there was also a "street style"), and Spanish was based around geometric principles.
On 11/25/2003 at 9:03pm, Caz wrote:
RE: Rapier Reach
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.
On 11/26/2003 at 6:26pm, tauman wrote:
RE: Rapier Reach
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
On 11/26/2003 at 7:00pm, Jake Norwood wrote:
RE: Rapier Reach
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).
Caz wrote: 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
On 11/26/2003 at 7:45pm, Caz wrote:
RE: Rapier Reach
Well said.
On 11/30/2003 at 2:42am, Ashton wrote:
RE: Rapier Reach
Jake Norwood wrote:
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.