Why did people in the early modern period start using it in favor of broad-bladed swords like the medieval longsword or bastard sword?
>>61971101Reach and precise point work, great hand protection.
>>61971101Makes it much easier to rapi
>>61971101It was a cheap way to fuck with armored opponents. The rapier's pointy end would find it's way between the gaps in the armor and stab the foe there.
>>61971101Reach is king.A slimmer blade can be longer than broader blade of the same length and that lets you stab a nigger before he can stab you.
>>61971101>light>easy to wear>very fashionablethe rapier got it's popularity as a civilian weapon for personal defense, not a military one. a rapier on your hip is tasteful and easy to wear around town, a longsword is anything but. they weren't uncommon in militaries, but they were mostly personally purchased and owned sidearms. which is what swords were, they were sidearms. if you do most of your fighting with your musket or your pike, you are naturally going to prefer the sword that is smaller, lighter, and one handed.
>>61971101unironically swordfags learned that spears were superior and decided to turn the sword into a spear. It became a thing in the early modern era because prior to high quality spring steel, trying to make a sword like that would lead to snapped blades and nothing else.>>61971360This is a totally retarded take. Sidearm in a medieval and early modern context has zero relation to modern ones. Soldiers do not use pistols. They just don't.Swords got used in every single battle.
>>61971360You're thinking of smallswords, rapier is as heavy as an arming sword and is a bitch to wear because of the length and the handguard. Longswords had a longer grip but often a slightly shorter blade so they're kind of complarable in terms of being clumsy to wear.>>61971363Spears have big problems in terms of hand protection and only having a point that the attacker has to bypass. Rapier fixes both by having a cutting edge and a complex hilt.
>>61971363>It became a thing in the early modern era because prior to high quality spring steel, trying to make a sword like that would lead to snapped blades and nothing else.Well there were estocs and type XV arming swords/longswords back in the 14th century with blades not very different from early or militarized rapiers of the early modern era. Estocs also had trianular hollow ground blades that would be used on the smallswords centuries later.
>>61971147Wtf r u talking about, rapiers were primarily used by civilians and rarely taken into battle, they were most effective against unarmoured targets, with a quick thrust into the body ending most fights
>>61971497>rapiers were primarily used by civiliansnope>rarely taken into battleVery wrong>they were most effective against unarmoured targetsThat's literally any sword.
>>61971101Its longer and because its stiffer, it can pierce through plate. Something longswords and axes couldn't do. Its also lighter than warhammers which were so stupidly massive and heavy only a few people in the world could use them.
>>61971509>it can pierce through plate
Shit thread is shitRapiers are great for unarmored duels, that's why. And they were basically impossible to make before the renaissance, the metallurgy just wasn't up to it.
>>61971147so it longswords>>61971497in a battle you'd be in a line and using a spear or polearm
>>61971101Focus shifted from chaotic meeles to one on one duels. The rapier is much faster and agile in such a situation than say a longsword.
>>61971101>What is the utility of the Rapier?kills people >Why... start using it in favor of broad-bladed swordskills 'em first, because of the reach advantage (both in the blade and more importantly, by the mechanics of their use). this coming without the legal/social repercussions of carrying a polearm
>>61971147Ignore this poster, I'm not sure if he is trying to troll or if he is seriously misinformed, tragic either way.
>>61971360Rapiers aren't light, what the fuck is up with this thread.
>>61971101The rapier was a duel swor optimized for unarmoured combat; it's the evolution and specialization of earlier one handed swords
>>61971101it's a product of the arms race between weapons and armor. armor got tougher and covered more body, swords got thinner and longer to strike at the gaps in the armor. no sword can pierce 16th-17th century armor. you had to stab at places like visor or any opening you can find.
>>61972119Rapiers had nothing to do with stabbing gaps in armor. Actual swords designed for that didn't have complex hilts because it's shit for halfswording, which you would generally need in order to have enough control to reach fine targets.
>>61972115Retarded boomers and retarded teens spewing retarded shit they picked up from their retarded video games and retarded 4chan posts made by other retards.
>>61972119No sword can pierce 13th century armor either. Just STFU faggot.>>61971101The utility of a rapier is that in an unarmored fight it's pretty strong. Which makes it great for EDC in an age when having to defend yourself in random brawls or duels was a fairly common occurrance. People carried different weapons to serve as their primary tools on the battlefield where they would have to face pikes, cavalry in heavy armor and guns. But many people only had one sword so it saw plenty of use on the battlefield too.
>>61971101My non historical experience from fencing and some limited hema. Its weapon that is versatile, agile and punches above it's weight class. Thats light fashionable and has a strong advantage against unskilled opponents. The basket allows you to block and punch better and take low low parry and reposte with less risk. In particular against heavy hits if needed.The blade is light enough to make fast counters in a wide range. The thrust is deadly like with any weapons but even the light cuts can make for a decisive strike/injury. The faints and quick block-riposte works well against swords fighters that are are not used to it and go for power strikes. It's not much fun to block against swords and it's risk. Because the hits are just so so fucking heavy. But you can Basket box like with a buckler. Plus you can counter so so much faster and go for any strike especially stuff like hands, face, limbs. Skilled swordsmen that use the full close combat style with parry-guard strikes get into your space and have some Armor and lost of stamina for continues power blows are very dangerous.You stance movement is usually more dynamic in out burst than the prowling swords. YOU try to set the engagement and pace of it. It's fashionable, flex of money and light so you could wear it formally and slaughter brigands on you way home that just picked up a gramps sword to mug someone.Though that s just my impression from going the ritualist Olympic fencing to HEMA. Where you often have just "any light hit counts" as if had no Armor and more of a Duel type of fights. Plus you don't try to bend/break your opponents weapon.
>>61971101It was lighter than other swords and had similar performance. It was a T72 of swords vs Abu Harams and the Challenged of teh early modern.
>>61972369where do you retarded fags even come from?
>>61972379Presumably Holland, judging by the Jan Steen painting.
>>61971363They were dueling weapons carried by asshole nobles, it's very hard to defend against a blade that thin and agile.Due to lack of modern medicine, wounds with very little cross section could still be deadly so a noble might just go around wounding people all day.
>>61971147No it wasn't, even chainmail was good enough to usually save a guy from being stabbed by a rapier. If you don't believe me, there are videos on YT where such theories like yours are actually tested.You need to understand: rapier was a CIVILIAN weapon used for two things: duels and self-defence. In war soldiers were using backswords, broadswords and so called "military rapiers" (pic related) that were functionally arming-swords (they had rapier-like hilt but blades similiar to arming swords - with similiar characteristics like weight, lenght, balance etc).
>>61971360>they weren't uncommon in militaries, but they were mostly personally purchased and owned sidearms. which is what swords were, they were sidearms. if you do most of your fighting with your musket or your pike, you are naturally going to prefer the sword that is smaller, lighter, and one handed.I disagree. I mean - sure, there were instances when soldiers were using rapiers - but it wasn't common. Foot soldiers like pikemen and musketeers were using dussacks, broadswords (for example: Scotts) and hangers (cutlasses) - or just daggers (later in XVII century: plug bayonet), in cavalry most common were backswords and sabers, officers would sometimes use "military rapiers" like this one >>61972488 but not always (for example: Cromwell was using mortuary hilt backsword).Pic related: collection of XVII century swords used by swedish army.
>>61972488Rapier/Degen, which were used in the military until the 18/19th century, is just a pointy thin metal stick. Why were they used? Because you can fit five guys in the same space with them compared to normal swords which you swing in some capacity. Officers and civilians used those for duels as well of course but it's the same situation like in the US with every body buying guns they used in the military because they are common and people had experience with them already.>Pic semi related>>61972514I think ther eis confusion in this discussion here because people mix up translations and military history from four regions in Europe from over four hundred years without understanding even ones region use. In German the rapier falls under the category of Degen sometimes depending on the topic and place of discussion. Degen are used in modern fencing for example but you would normally not mix those up with rapiers or cavalier sabres which also sometimes are put under the Degen umbrella
>>61972115It's a meme that has taken root thanks to the "swords" used in tinfoil tag.
>>61971101Rapiers combined excellent hand protection with excellent reach and great point control. Most rapiers could cut, but they were specialized for the thrust, which were by then recognized as the more reliably lethal attacks with a blade.The rapier was principally a civilian sword but it did see military use, and claims to the contrary are false. Rapiers used in a military context tended to have more versatile blades that acknowledge the cut more, like the earlier (but still sometimes concurrent) spada da lato. Vulnerabilities of the rapier included their generally poor cut, the vulnerability of the tip to breakage, and potentially the weight. While weighted towards the hand (to improve point control), in an extended engagement, the user's arm would still tire.
>>61972488>and so called "military rapiers" (pic related)You posted broadswords that don't even have a point, dumb shit.
>>61972488Are you the same butthurt polack subhuman that can't comprehend thrusting swords from another thread? When are you going to kill yourself?
>>61972823Can you post a picture of a sword you call "degen"? Google shows many different swords.If it's my pic - it's clearly not rapier - but......you are 100% correct that the same word may have different meaning in different languages/regions. Imho, since it's an english forum, we should stick to english classification of swords, otherwise all those threads are absolutely pointless - if we can't even agree about the system of classification.
>>61972888
>>61972865Oh, and as others have said, rapiers are ineffective against armor. But this is not particularly damning, swords are not effective weapons against armor.
>>61972943You can half-sword a rapier just as easy as any other sword. It's probably MORE effective against armor than a traditional double edged arming sword, what with the thick diamond cross-section and rigid blade.
>>61972488>>61972888No one cared about semantics in the pre-modern period. 99% of terms for distinct swords in use today just come from the word "sword" in the language/time period/dialect those swords were primarily associated with. I'm pretty sure I've seen swords that would be called sideswords today that were called rapiers in their time. That said, if you say today "rapier" today pretty much everyone assumes you mean a long thin one handed thrusting sword with an enclosed hilt. It's kind of disingenuous to use another definition.
>>61972937Are you such a little bitch that you cannot even state that you don't believe military rapiers exist so you pretend they're a completely different thing in hopes of tricking people to believe that?
>>61972923Of course forgot my pic.
>>61972473>t.
>>61971101Alright Rapiers were the best swords of their era. Their reach is insane, they are light, they can puncture most armor. If you had money you'd get a rapier Issue was broad swords could break them and the steel was hard to makeThere's varying definitions on rapiers so you get semantic arguments. They were used in the military but in groups they aren't good to use. They were hard to make well their entire game would be to control distance and use footwork to counter angles a broad sword could get on them In a group you can't have groups of guys doing dancing footwork in formations without choas and typically armies would slowly smash together. It wasn't usually mass charges or one on ones. Count Dooku actually uses a rapier not fencer style. Watch him Luke uses a katana style Obi uses almost a fencers style Quigon broad sword
>>61972964Yes. I think that "military rapier" is a artificial modern term and such swords shouldn't be even classified as rapiers, but since most of literature call them "rapiers" because they have a functional ricasso (even tho' their blade is nothing like "civilian" rapier and forces the user to use it basically as arming sword) - I use this term. In my opinion such swords are closer to so called side-sword, "spada da lato", renaissance sword hovever.
>>61972993
>>61972473>a noble might just go around wounding people all day.>The Early Modern Era Nobleman Woonder>"AAAH ZOUNDS I'M WOOOONDING, 'SBLOOD">doesn't need to kill, only to wound>refuses to cut or slash, will only stab>won't even slice bread or cheese, finds ways to eat it skewered upon his rapier>"FIE ON THEE AND THY FAT BLADE, THOU WHORESON">once at a capon for luncheon whilst it was still wounded
>>61972923Here is a pic. The other dude isn't me but his picture showcases the problem. The word Degen is pretty broad and spans from some straight sabors to the thin moderns fencing sticks( foils is their English name?)
>>61971101It's a duelists weapon, a weapon for personal defence where one is expected to take on one or two opponents. It is not a battlefield weapon.
>>61973011>Yes. I think that "military rapier" is a artificial modern term and such swords shouldn't be even classified as rapiersSo you ignore actual swords that the modern term describes and pretend they didn't exist because it doesn't fit your retarded worldview.>but since most of literature call them "rapiers" because they have a functional ricassoNobody cares what some polish dipshits think about swords they were too subhuman and stupid to use.
One one hand, people tend to grossly oversimplify what this or that sword is. Longswords can be what you see on the left here, rapiers can be what you see on the right. These certainly aren't "anything goes" affairs, but there's usually a lot more variation to things than the popular image allows for.Now as for wide versus narrow blades that's largely a matter of where you want to be on the cut-vs-thrust scale. A thrusting blade wants thickness to be stiff, and in turn can't be terribly wide or it'll get overly heavy (still, many of them, including many rapier, end up quite hefty). Cutting blades tend to want to be thin so you don't need to push the target material aside as much, while width means there's some mass behind the edge to help push it through.Overall fashion there has changed back and forth over the centuries, and at any given point you're going to find a lot of people having very different ideas about it as well.>>61972823>>Pic semi relatedI think it might actually be very related, in that people just really like the notion of the rapier as an ultra-light, very narrow blade used solely in a civilian setting, like they've seen in The Three Musketeers for example (yes, utterly missing what a musketeer was in the process). Much like the idea about very heavy "axe in a drag" cutting swords appears to fulfil a fundamental psychological ned among many. Thus we see the latter being shifted from sword to sword as it's shown that whatever is currently held up as the brute cleaver is shown to not be that, and for the former we have all sorts of contortions and inventions (military rapiers, sideswords) being brought up to safely quarantine away any historical sword that fails to conform.Also, rapiers and the wider family of degen will often have very capable edges as well, at least if the edge has been maintained in the last century or three.
>>61972514>Foot soldiers like pikemen and musketeersWe see them with rapiers in period art, I keep seeing them armed with rapiers in museum displays, and we have relatively plain rapiers that are what the officer's were using on a soldier's budget. Now they certainly also used a lot of other swords, but I don't see any real reason to think the rapier was particularly rare overall.>>61973011>even tho' their blade is nothing like "civilian" rapierThe problem with this is that as far as I can tell it really just assumes that whatever is seen as sufficiently narrow to deserve the term "rapier" was a civilian blade (the exact criteria may vary a bit, but I've yet to see a satisfactory one) that no one would ever have brought to the battlefield. (Well, no one that counts at least...) Actually showing that these blades were purely civilian things throughout Europe at the time (ie not just Silver's back yard) remains to be done.
>>61973075>So you ignore actual swords that the modern term describesNo i don't. I explained what I understand under term "military rapier" (so, again: broad double-edged blades typical for arming swords/spada da lato but with rapier hilt and functional ricasso). Swords YOU call rapiers however aren't called rapiers in any classification system known to the world except your own head canon. That's why I will not reply to your shitposts anymore, for discussion with you is pointless. Go present your uneducated opinions somewhere else.
>>61973078>Longswords can be what you see on the left here, rapiers can be what you see on the right.Today we have specific terms like estoc and sidesword in common use for those. If we get pedantic about terms but appeal to a period where people were less pedantic in order to justify those terms we end up creating an inherent motte and bailey fallacy in the language where people can argue without ever actually disputing facts.ie:"military rapiers were commonplace""no rapiers (long one handed thrusting swords) were primarily civilian""no rapiers (complex hilts on cut and thrust blades) were definitely used militarily"no disagreement has been had and people argue about nothing
stabbing > slashingsanic speed > slow cumbersome dork sols attack windupRapier is the elegant and refined weapon for a Gentleman Dex build, simple as.
>>61973025Chuckled.
>>61971101Generally speaking most of civilian rapier dueling was done without armor and lasted until whoever get stabbed first at most. Luckily if played out properly that kind of duel will generally prioritize long range exchange of thrusts that often end up shallow enough not to cause death.In a fight to death there is a greater chance someone will not give up after the first stab and the fight at least momentarily will continue at a closer distance. Addition of any armor or shield will increase that chance even more. At a closer distance the same length of blade might not be able to utilize an effective thrust, but still cut well.
>>61973101Like I said - there were instances where foot soldiers were using rapiers, but when you look at actual papers like pic related, you'll see actual rapiers weren't very common. Also - notice that reenactors that reenact particular regients don't use rapiers very often. And least but not last - I mentioned "military rapiers" - swords that have rapier-like hilts but more broad and shorter blade capable of cutting well - it's very possible such swords are represented on all those pictures like yours and in museums.
>>61973157
>>61971101It was a dueling weapon that was good for self defense. Rapiers were long as balls but light enough to use one handed so in a 1v1 fight you could poke and jab from outside the range of your opponent.
>>61973197Still, a typical rapier was just as heavy as arming sword. That's the common misconception about rapiers - that they were light. They weren't.
>>61973109>Today we have specific terms like estocUsually it's the other way around, with people insisting that an estoc basically can't cut at all (much like they think about rapiers), and ideally has a triangular cross-section or some such. I wouldn't go quite that far however, going by "it's usually a good idea to listen to Peter Johnsson" I'll consider the top one here an estoc, and the middle one a longsword. (I also wouldn't be surprised to see a degree of overlap depending on hilt styles, locality, etc.)>and sidesword Much as with "military rapier" the problem I have with the current use of that term is that it appears to exist mostly because people can't live wit the thought of a not so narrow rapier. I've never seen anyone who could show that the surviving swords we have are somewhat separated into two clumps with narrow on one side, wide on the other, and relatively few specimen in between. Instead this term appears to just slam a border down right in the middle of the pile in an attempt to force the terminology to conform with preconceived notions of what the swords should be rather than what the swords actually are.As for your example of people talking past each other, well if both sides just called the lot of these things rapiers they could get on to looking into if there was any systematic difference in the rapier used for civilian and military affairs to the point where we can actually differentiate the two reasonably well. (That this hasn't been done is why I'm sceptical about the term "military rapier" as well. I saw it suggested once that they'd be heavier, and the civilian ones lighter, but that wans't accompanied by any rapier weight data that showed two somewhat distinct groups. On the contrary when I myself started compiling data form the Wallace collection's rapiers it instead showed one large blob with some outlier son each side.)
>>61973105>I explained what I understand under term "military rapier" (so, again: broad double-edged bladesSo you're completely fucking retarded. Rapier has the opposite of "broad double edged blades" and you're a dumb fuck for repeating this bullshit. Same with your idea of arming swords really, you worthless polish scum just don't deserve to be near swords in general since you're too dumb to properly use them and may as well be fighting with sticks. You're uneducated unwashed swine that doesn't belong in historical discussion.
>>61973205Hence, "Light enough to use one handed".You had the reach of a longsword but the weight of an arming sword.
>>61973252A longsword is light enough to use one handed, that's how they were being used. Just admit you were wrong about it and move on.
>>61973168de Gheyn's work isn't "an actual paper"? Has anyone done a grand overview and actually counted that rapiers are decidedly rare? Officers and commanders certainly liked to have their portraits painted with them while otherwise garbed for war, and this was a time when even the highest of officers ended up fighting for their lives every now and then. Do they not count? (This aid noting that you said soldiers above, so perhaps you only meant to talk about the common rank-n-file there, nothing to be implied about the officer's habits.)
>>61973252Yes, exactly. Plus different weight center. Rapiers had it closer to hilt, making the tip of the sword more nimble, while arming swords (and related swords like side-swords or "military rapiers") had it more in the centre of the blade, making them less nimble but much better cutter.
>>61973279Period art and attestation does not count if it doesn't support my point, of course!
>>61973252More than that because it used one hand and usually no off hand or a longer parrying tool (eg compared to arming sword and buckler) the body was further from the opponent than you could get with a longsword. So I would say they outranged longswords given the longsword has to accept being threatened before they can threaten back>>61973269That's a stupid statement, rapiers were of the appropriate and exclusive function of being used one handed and weighed accordingly, they are directly comparable to arming swords
>>61973252Longswords and rapiers can easily weight the same. Here's all the rapiers in the Wallace collection that were on the site when I did this (minus 19th century chop jobs, the one with a built-in pistol, etc). Each dot is one sword, no unit on the x-axis.
>>61973296"Rapiers are light because they are one handed" is a stupid statement since there's basically no one handed sword type that's heavier than the rapier. Go and shove your stupid opinion somewhere the sun doesn't shine and keep it there instead of posting it in another stupid template thread on /k/ next time.
>>61971101You can use it in a small hallway. It's one-handed. It goes through chainmail, and actually made chainmail obsolete. It's like asking why people use 5.56 instead of 7.62mm. It just has a little bit more utility, is more compact, doesn't take too much skill. Yeah, in a wide open field someone using a longsword can probably kill a rapier user. They'd just have to hit their blade and bend it, or just throw a mean cut since a rapier wouldn't really be able to block it. But there's just a lot more scenarios where a rapier is probably more useful. Especially in places like alleys, or ships, or in claustrophobic castle corridors, etc. And I say this as someone who trains extensively on longsword.
>>61973314> there's basically no one handed sword type that's heavier than the rapierI don't know what alternate worlf you live in where people just randomly developed massively different physical proportions for use of rapiers out of nowhere and didn't carry that over to any other weapon. The average of both arming swords and rapiers comes in a bit over 1kg
>>61973279Of course they count, sir - and I don't even try to pretend otherwise, but officers weren't majority in a regiment, that's pretty obvious? Yes, I admit - I was talking about common soldiers. Now, I'll repreat what after Matt from scholagladiatoria YT channel - officers' primary weapon were their soldiers.Officers tend to use their private swords, while rank-and-file soldiers were usually issued with one. So it had to be sturdy, cheap and easy to use. Rapier isn't easy weapon to master, because it's thrust-centric (while natural reflex is to chop). While officers surely had their fencing lessons, common soldiers didn't. And last but not least: a blade that's 115 cm or longer, isn't ideal for rank and file formation.>de Gheyn's work isn't "an actual paper"?It is but we don't see actual sword - all we see is a hilt and a bit of scabbard. It's very possible those blades were more cut&thrust than thrust-centric, so more suited for war.
>>61973334You don't know shit about anything so it's no wonder you believe that rapiers being one of the heaviest oen handed sword types means that it's impossible for normal humans to wield.
>>61973340The optimal weight for a one handed weapon doesn't change much because people don't change much. Not optimal doesn't mean not possible to use, but no one creates suboptimal weapons as a matter of course unless they're an uncontacted tribe with no competition. Just stop being retarded, thanks
>>61973339>Yes, I admit - I was talking about common soldiers.So when are you going to post anything to substantiate your idiotic delusions about how the real military rapiers are totally "arming swords" which are apparently broad bladed and better for cutting.> Rapier isn't easy weapon to master, because it's thrust-centric (while natural reflex is to chop)Italians, French and Spanish disagree but i understand that a monkey like you is incapable of understanding such things.>It is but we don't see actual swordAre you fucking blind, you coping fuck?>It's very possible those blades were more cut&thrust than thrust-centric, so more suited for war.Another faggot pole insinuation, apparently thrust isn't suited for war.
>>61973347Sorry but your dumb idea about rapiers being light is still just as dumb as it was when it got called out. Eat shit and die if you cannot accept this much.
>>61973355No one said 'hurr rapier light' in a contextless vacuum. One anon said they are light enough to be used one handed which is self evident. You sperged because he wrote "rapier" and "light" in the same sentence, which your favorite HEMA influencer warned you means bad things, so you saw red and started flinging shit all over the place.
>>61973364>No one said 'hurr rapier light' in a contextless vacuum.>>61971360 >>61972341 >>61972369 >>61972993Which one of those dipshits are you and why do you keep making up blatant lies to cover up your obvious Dunning-Kruger.
>>61973372No one you were actually talking to. I didn't survey the universe for all possible opinions, I was talking within the context of this post chain. I didn't make any of those posts and since they aren't material to the conversation I'm having, they're irrelevant. You gonna keep acting like a monkey?
>>61973157Many pikemen used swords or longer knives because pikes fucking broke, and it was also necessary because sometimes you had to stab someone or something that got past the pikeheads (or finish off wounded enemies who crawled or fell under them).It's a correct useage of the word but when people call swords sidearms it kind've annoys me because it carries the connotations of current-year sidearms which are never anyones first choice, while swords were pretty commonly taken out after a charge or occasionally as someone's primary weapons. I wish we had a different word for this kind've stuff.
>>61973387>it's not meI accept your concession. A few more of these and you'll be claiming that you never posted in this thread at all and if this means you won't ship up the board with your retarded drivel it'll be an improvement.
>>61973281Why are you samefagging?
>>61973401>here's some random posts i bet you made them>those aren't mine and aren't a part of this discussion >YEAH WELL I GOT YOUYou can admit you were retarded instead of looking for a gotcha. This isn't your twxtter page.
>>61973413>yeah nobody claimed *retarded thing*>here it is>oh who cares that somebody else posted it, i didn't, i just vehemently defended it over and over for no reason>no, it's you who is retarded and on twitter, no i won't admit *retarded thing* was retardedGotcha is all you deserve for your pathetic flailing.
>>61973388I don't deny that they needed swords. I argue they hadn't usually rapiers but other types of swords like broadswords, dussacks, hangers - or daggers and plug bayonets at the very least.
>>61973426I understand you took my statement that no one was saying that to mean no one in the universe, I wasn't, I was saying no one was saying it in any of the posts you were sperging out at. I can understand that you misinterpreted, but it has been cleared up. You are now harping on nothing because you have no further argument.
>>61973439So when are you actually going to argue your point instead of just repeating your opinion?
>>61973443Your universe is apparently as small as this entire thread so i can definitely see why you would cling to your retarded statements this much - they literally mean the entire world to you.
>>61973448I reiterate >You are now harping on nothing because you have no further argument
>>61973451I reiterate>*retarded thing* is retarded and you're a retard for defending it
>>61973458>>61973451
>>61973460>>61973458gonna cry?
>>61973444I did numerous times, here for example: >>61973339or here:>>61973168
>>61973465So all you have is one random picture your poolack ass has scrambled and your dipshit poolack theorycrafting? Good to know that your opinions are fantasy in the realm of fire breathing dragons.
>>61973464Not particularly. Gonna grow up?
>>61973472Your mom says i'm plenty grown up already. Gonna admit that rapiers aren't light?
>>61973478>y-yuh mutha So no.>Gonna admit that rapiers aren't light?Tell me which part of the posts I actually made that says rapiers "are light' without qualification. Start at the first post I made to you.>>61973296>That's a stupid statement, rapiers were of the appropriate and exclusive function of being used one handed and weighed accordingly, they are directly comparable to arming swordsThis is and was my unchanging stance. You have sat there and sperged about words I never said for like 50 posts. Calm down, little man. I understand a one handed sword looks like a greatsword to you, but your stature is many standard deviations from the mean in the wrong direction.
>>61973502Best to ignore this retard, he's the master of strawman and spewing uneducated opinions. And brownie most likely.
>>61973502>Tell me which part of the posts I actually madeSo you're not going to admit the obvious fact that rapiers aren't light. Why is it so hard for you? Why are you so hellbent on evading such a simple thing? I'm not angry at you, you're too pathetic for that. All it would take is a simple "yes" to answer that question, yet you evade it to no end like it's a German drug inspector.
>>61973517If you're going to samefag you should at least pick a different insult than the one you use to cope with being a subhuman poolack that can only subsist on licking Anglo and German boots and stealing their inventions.
>>61973520>Why haven't you defended this statement I made on your behalf?Because it's not a statement I actually made. What is the sense in defending a caricature you made of my argument, why can't you actually address anything I've said directly?>>61973523Not me, try again. I could never resist yelling at retards.
>>61973339>and a bit of scabbard.A straight and decently narrow scabbard. It ain't a dussack in there, and I'm not one of those who feels a rapier has to be absolutely needle-narrow ( >>61973078 ), or very heavily optimized for thrusting.>a blade that's 115 cm or longerhttps://wallacelive.wallacecollection.org:443/eMP/eMuseumPlus?service=ExternalInterface&module=collection&objectId=61088&viewType=detailViewhttps://wallacelive.wallacecollection.org:443/eMP/eMuseumPlus?service=ExternalInterface&module=collection&objectId=61138&viewType=detailViewhttps://wallacelive.wallacecollection.org:443/eMP/eMuseumPlus?service=ExternalInterface&module=collection&objectId=61056&viewType=detailView>It's very possible those blades were more cut&thrust than thrust-centric, so more suited for war.We see multiple cases of thrust-centric blades being used for war. The Swedish swords you yourself posted, many pallasches, the pile of panzerstechers in the Graz armour... Sure,w e might not want to take it to the point of the bronze age swords that had next to no tang and are frequently found with the attaching rivets bent as if the sword has torn loose during a cut, but those were rather obsolete technology anyway once proper tangs got invented.
Were all or most rapiers made with a spring temper?
>>61973533>Because it's not a statement I actually made.So why can't you admit it's stupid? Why are you instead waseling around it for dozens of posts while making up lies on the fly and backtracking on them?>why can't you actually address anything I've said directly?I did, you're just too much of a bitch to reply to my posts.>Not me, try again.Are you a jewish pole by any chance? I can't imagine you're not jewish with how much you slimy fuck like to lie and i can definitely believe you're polish because you're so bad at it.
Popular opinion:Sideswords are prettier and more useful than rapiers.
>>61973523Oh yeah, one thing. What a coincidence, Matt from scholagladiatora just taped a video about western blades being a copy of eastern sabers. Cope.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nq6og6I9gvQ>>61973533Seriously, ignore him. Two days ago he spent 3 hours claiming that polish winged hussar sabre design was stolen by Poles from Germans. They guy has ZERO knowledge about the topic, he just want to sperg out.
>>61973545>So why can't you admit it's stupid? Is that your goal? It's not an admission, I freely submit that stating rapiers are "light" is stupid if said in the context of all one handed swords, because they aren't light, they fit within the typical average of one handed swords. That wasn't the point at hand. You saw someone simply saying rapiers could provide long reach while being light enough to be used in one hand, and you sperged out.Do you even understand that the word "light" is relative? I believe that you do, but you are so invested into your ego you need to construct and alternate reality where you didn't just sperg out for no reason.>I did, you're just too much of a bitch to reply to my posts.Every one of your posts directed my way has received a reply, whether that's a particularly good use of my time or not. Including the few times you've actually tried to make a point. I am neither jewish nor polish, and I don't have schizophrenia, which means I'm feeling pretty good in comparison to you.
>>61973567Ok ok fine, I'll make the last one the last reply. I'm too easily entertained by retards
>>61973567> Matt from scholagladiatora just taped a video about western blades being a copy of eastern sabers.So much for the self proclaimed brownie hater, lmao. Btw, matt is a proud cuck and would give his daughter to be raped by hindus if he had one.Why are you talking to yourself? Are you so emotionally vulnerable you need to invent another person to calm you down?>>61973583>Is that your goal? It's not an admission, I freely submit that stating rapiers are "light" is stupid if said in the context of all one handed swordsNow we're getting there!> because they aren't light, they fit within the typical average of one handed swordsExcept we aren't since your jewish genes force you to weasel in some bullshit here. Average one handed swords are lighter than rapiers since there are no one handed swords that are heavier but plenty that are lighter, including sabres, backswords, smallswords, hangers, messers and so on.>Do you even understand that the word "light" is relative?Yeah, relative to other swords rapiers aren't light. What were you imagining, the weight of the universe, you nitpicking fag?>I am neither jewish nor polishOh you definitely are. You really suck at samefagging since you don't even change the way you address me between your personas. Could it be that you got your jewish genes from a russian that raped your father and fucked your mother back in the day? This would explain why you're so pathetic even for a pole.
>>61973538I never said there were no shorter rapiers. There were, especially in second half of XVII century. They are called "transitional rapiers" nowadays. The examples you posted have pretty broad blades tho', they are heavy and short - totally fall under "military rapier" category.>The Swedish swords you yourself postedNo. Those swords are clearly cut&thrust blades (good for both applications).
>>61971101Rape
>>61973539Giving blades a proper quench and then tempering appears to have become the norm in Europe in the 15th century or so, and thus I'd expect the vast majority of rapiers to have gotten this treatment. This may not always have resulted in a blade that was fully hardened through though, these basic carbon steels are rather shallow hardening and rapiers often have pretty thick blades. I've also seen it suggested, but sadly not from a very good source, that a good number of Toledo blades would have had mild steel or iron cores. These wouldn't have taken to hardening at all.
>>61973593You've proclaimed that you're a big boy and won't be tempted by nasty things like providing evidence for your outlandish claims several times already. What's stopped you before? I bet you'll come back to cope about rapiers again within an hour since dickriding the sabres invented by browns and perfected by Germans is apparently equivalent of a vatnik's USSR power fantasies to you.
>>61973621Funny how a thrusting blade turns into a cut and thrust blade and a cut and thrust blade military rapier turns into a heavy cutter that you imagine what arming swords are. Truly olympic level of mental gymnastics.
long, one handed and sheathablefor self defense and duelingthough for self defense, something shorter would be much more conventient to carry and i think a a long and light spadone would probably have the edge in a duel if thats allowed
>>61973634I know of one 16th century italian "falchion" that was analyzed and had an iron core and pattern welded blade and made me wonder how actually common that was, the core that is.
>>61973621>I never said there were no shorter rapiers.That "blades 115cm or longer" bit was a direct quote from your post, and your argument that the length of blade makes rapiers ill suited for war makes little sense if you think shorter rapiers were also a thing.>they are heavy and short - totally fall under "military rapier" category.The idea that there are light civilian and heavy military rapiers is why I created the graph in >>61973308 in the first place. As you can see we have a pretty continuos spectrum of weights for most of it, with a few outliers on the light end and one outlier on the heavy end. I see no sensible reason for drawing a dividing line right through the middle of this group. So can you provide a much larger and better data set where we actually do see a light and a heavy group? Or is there some other evidence to back the idea that we have two separate groups of rapiers? Because so far I've yet to see anyone really carry that argument past the "no true scotsman" go-around, where rapiers are light/narrow/civilian and anything that fails to live up to that gets dismissed as a rapier/sidesword/cut-n-thrust sword instead of being taken as a sign that the rapier definition might be too restrictive.
>>61973756Anon, two of yours examples have blades 2,8 and 3 mm respectively - that's a width of katanas (I know, I have one and just measured it) - so more or less like katana - known cutter. Third one has 2,2mm blade - still pretty broad for a rapier, altough in a lower range for a blade that's able to cut properly. Still, classification of swords isn't stiff so there are blades that are hard to categorise. As for your weight graph - I don't really care about weight when I'm trying to categorise a sword - I care more about its construction, hilt and lenght. A rapier under 100 cm loses most important rapier's advantage - range, the very reason why rapier evolved from spada da lato in the first place - and if it's still heavy like other, longer rapiers - it doesn't have an advantage of being nimble and comfortable to carry like a small-sword.So called "transitional rapiers" were short - blade under 100 cm, yes - but they were also considerably lighter and in time turned into small-swords. Your examples aren't such blades - they are short but still heavy. And last but not least - 115 cm isn't my invention, most popular sites claim rapiers had 115 on average, with 130 cm being the longest (few days ago anon posted a rapier that was supposed to have 150cm blade, but it's hard to believe).
>>61974042>Still, classification of swords isn't stiff so there are blades that are hard to categorise. So there was little point to that little tangent other than to show us you can't tell the difference between millimetres and centimetres? Especially since I've already told you I don't think rapiers have to be needle narrow, so these having a bit of width to them isn't going to make me reconsider my classification. It's also not, as you put it, just "my invention" either. Note that the Wallace collection also labels them as rapiers, despite their width. This isn't exactly a practice they're alone about either, here's a few examples from the MET that despite not listing the blade width, well, they're no needles:https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/23219https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/22361https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/22366They do list the blade lengths though... Or how about the British Royal Armouries?https://royalarmouries.org/collection/object/object-22924https://royalarmouries.org/collection/object/object-23396https://royalarmouries.org/collection/object/object-6976https://royalarmouries.org/collection/object/object-7034>I don't really care about weight when I'm trying to categorise a swordYet it was one of two criteria mentioned when you label the Wallace collection rapiers I linked to as "military rapiers", and it one of the two features of transitional rapiers that you considered worth mentioning (personally I'd probably start with the hilt style there).>most popular sites claim rapiers had 115 on averageWhich is significantly different from your claim of "115 cm or longer".
>>61974445>Which is significantly different from your claim of "115 cm or longer".Yes, you are right. I concede in that matter. After consideration I must agree that I've overestimated the share of italian rapiers (that were very long) in general rapier family. You convinced me.>So there was little point to that little tangent other than to show us you can't tell the difference between millimetres and centimetresIt's a typo (it's faster to write 2x "m"s and I didn't notice I did that). Later I use cm correctly tho'. Of course I meant cm when I was talking about width. Seriously, don't you have more important things to point out? I'm from Europe, we use metric system here.>Yet it was one of two criteria mentioned when you label the Wallace collection rapiers I linked to as "military rapiers", and it one of the two features of transitional rapiers that you considered worth mentioning (personally I'd probably start with the hilt style there).I mentioned it to demarcate military rapiers and transitional rapiers. They were both short, but one had broad blade and was heavy - capable of cuts like spada da lato or arming sword, second one had narrow blade (that had reduced cut ability or no cut ability whatsoever) and was lighter than rapiers at their peak evolution. In my book if your rapier has blade massive enough to cut your opponent into pieces - even if it has functional ricasso - it's more a spada da lato-like sword (or arming sword) than rapier. I am ready to discuss (and revise my views if convinced - because I'm not a retard resistant to good arguments) when one starts and other ends - but I am adamant about demarcation about the two. if I can take my rapier and use it like an arming sword - my tolerance ends there. Pic related.
>>61974633>I mentioned it to demarcate military rapiers and transitional rapiers.Ok, if the weight is irrelevant to what's a "military rapier" and what's a regular rapier, then what standards do we use to differentiate the two? What data set do you use to show that we actually end up with two somewhat distinct groups (or three, if you want transitional rapiers to be its own thing, or more if there are further variations still) instead of just arbitrarily chopping up the population to fit your ideas about what a rapier should be? You know; "is there some other evidence to back the idea that we have two separate groups of rapiers?" And then what evidence is there for one group being for civilian sue and the other of military use? You mention length, will we suddenly see a clear(ish) separation if we do for length what I did for weight in the graph above?>In my bookOk, and why is that a reasonable stance? Is it just what you think should be the case, historical realities be damned? Because I think that instead of deciding first what this or that sword should be, and then sorting things up according to that, we should instead see what the swords actually were, and then adapt what we think a rapier (or whatever) is to that. It also hasn't exactly been hard for me to find plenty of examples where major museums (in the English speaking world at that) have very different ideas than you about what kind of width these things should have, so why should anyone care more about your opinion than theirs? (Also, don't confuse a wide blade with a massive one, weight and profile have a rather poor correlation.)
>>61974948>Ok, and why is that a reasonable stance?Because rapier was a sword that evolved to be used in certain way - first the technique evolved more into thrust, then sword evolution followed, making it more thrust capable at the cost of losing some cut capabilities. Both technique and sword evolution was parralel to the point when spada da lato (side sword) became true rapier and technique was focused on thrusts with cuts being secondary. Meanwhile in militaries spada da lato never truly disappeared, for rapier - with its limited cut capacities - was suboptimal for military usage, where a dude had to fight with people armed with eastern sabres, broadswords and backswords. Also - rapier with narrow long blade is pretty useless on horse for your fencing capabilities are horribly limited (no footwork for instance).>Ok, if the weight is irrelevant to what's a "military rapier" and what's a regular rapier, then what standards do we use to differentiate the two?I didn't say it's irrelevant. I said I don't generally use weight to categorise swords - because its hard to say how heavy a sword is by looking at picture. But of course it's crucial for sword capabilities. So, as for standards you asked: cut and thrust abilities more balanced instead of thrust-centric with limited cut ability, a blade similiar in shape to arming sword I would call a "military rapier". Because it has functional ricasso and being younger than side-sword/spada da lato - I'm using "military rapier" term, but I wouldn't mind to call it even an arming sword - because functionally it is an arming sword. According to Matt from scholagladiatoria people in XVI through XVII century differated rapiers from cut and thrust swords. Rapiers were called rapiers - but "military rapiers" were called SWORDS. And it didn't matter what hilt the sword had.>have very different ideas than you I've seen broadswords, spadroons or even straight hangers called rapiers, so that's not a serious argument.1/2
>>619752472/2Generally - I repeat after Matt here.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wECWKN_RawHere. I understand that I have zero authority here as an anon - but how about the guy himself?
>>61975247>Because rapierA start, but you don't get around to showing that this was actually what happened, and that it actually produced somewhat distinct and separate groups of military and civilian swords. Without that the "civilian rapier/military sword" approach is also usually useless short of using a time machine.>with its limited cut capacities - was suboptimal for military usageI've already listed examples of where militaries begged to differ.>Also - rapier with narrow long blade is pretty useless on horseCavalry swords often have longer blades than infantry ones, and we do see thrust-focused cavalry swords too.>cut and thrust abilities more balanced instead of thrust-centric with limited cut abilityDoesn't seem that much easier to tell from a photo than the weight...>a blade similiar in shape to arming swordOk, got a graph where we can see one population of swords with longer/narrower blades and one with shorter/wider ones? (Or whichever metric you use to define it.) I do happen to have one for the total length of the same swords as in my weight graph, but something tells me you're going to find some reason not to care about that one either. Then what data shows one group was military and the other for civilians?>According to Matt from scholagladiatoria>so that's not a serious argument.Categorically tossing out a few museums, just after you dragged in a youtuber... Maybe judge both our sources by the same standards?That said I'm not arguing for directly using historical nomenclature, that'd be a mess, but one based on historical reality. Should Matt cover something else please timestmap it.
>>61972388>judging by the Jan Steen painting.Finally, a man of culture in this shithole.
>>61975721>man of cultureYou know, there are a lot of way that phrase can be used these days.
>>61975745>>61975721You just know this nigger would be shitposting on this site if he was alive today.
>>61971101Rapiers are scary in the way a larger sword can never be. Have you ever been on the wrong end of one?In a real fight, one good poke is all it takes to give you an insurmountable advantage and you can't fucking see it, because the blade is very narrow. You can't see it move, you can't look at the guy, he doesn't move much.Rapiers are incredibly scary weapons in 1 on 1 fights.
>>61975697>I've already listed examples of where militaries begged to differ.You mean in the other thread with patton sabre etc.? If so - I still say no. You will not convince me on that. I firmly believe polish cavalry knew what was doing.>Cavalry swords often have longer blades than infantry ones, and we do see thrust-focused cavalry swords too.Yes, they are, but they generally rarely are longer than 90 cm (even hussar pallash was shorter than 90 cm - pic related), while rapiers were usually (I know, I know) longer than 100 cm. But most importantly - cavalry swords were excellent cutters - backswords, broadswords, sabers, pallashes etc. Never forget that in XVI and for at least half of XVII century cavalry was heavilly armored. Thrust-centric rapier would be almost useless against armored foe, especially since no foot works is possible - your thrust would be weaker, unless you'd try to use your rapier like estoc/koncerz sword (charging with it using horse' speed to nail someone through - altough I've read people who reenact on horses that using koncerz like this would end up with broken wrist so it had to be put on saddle), but that would be an end of the sword most likely - and a hand that was holding it.>but something tells me you're going to find some reason not to care about that one either.Apparently Wallace collection doesn't have many "military rapiers". Or maybe, bear with me, they don't actually call them rapiers? Simple. That doesn't prove anything.> just after you dragged in a youtuberMatt isn't just some youtuber - he literally lives of swords. He collects them, sells them, talks about them, studies them etc. And I can't timestamp this video if the whole video is on topic. Either watch it whole and say he's doesn't know his shit or our discussion is done.>A startLike I said - watch Matt's video. He explains this way better than I, quotes sources etc. I believe the guy - I consider him as authority on swords.
>>61975933
>>61975697>WallaceOh, look, a... longsword!
>>61975986A sword...
>>61976013Another sword... What the hell??!PS. Have you placed those swords on your graphs or not?
>>61976024They call this a rapier, lol...
>>61975697Also - since most people were using other type of blades for war (backswords, broadswords, hangers, cutlasses, sabers, dussacks, hunting swords) - no wonder why actual military rapiers are rare beasts. Meanwhile same people who used those other swords during war - in case of nobility at least - had their civilian, narrow rapier.Here, problem solved.
>>61975933>You will not convince me on that. I firmly believe polish cavalry knew what was doing.So we've firmly established that your argument revolves around thrusting swords being unsuited for military use because polish cavalary didn't use them.That's why you endlessly nitpick, defltect, make excuses and never provide a concrete definition of what you're talking about, only vague concepts of cut&thrust swords which you use to ignore inconvenient examples that don't fit your narrative.
>>61971511He thinks plate is made of tin foil and thinks being able to cut through sheet metal is like mango fantasies.
>>619769491. most known people (yes, youtubers) that make videos about swords use the concept of cut&thrust swords (like Matt on video I asked you to watch - he's british, so clearly he knows english well enough to understand what he's talking about) - it is you who, for some reason, can't grasp the concept. It's your problem, not mine.2. I reffer to hundreds of years of history of the best cavalry in the world, who tested their swords time and time again and chose their weapon of choice by trying while you reffer to TWO instances: Napoleon that supposedly told his guys to thrust - and untested on battlefield strategy invented by young Patton in the beginning of XX century when cavalry had very little meaning - with a sword that was also Patton's invention (and also untested). There were many inventions through history of warfare that were stupid or at least suboptimal, but they were present nontheless. There.
>>61975933https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koncerz
>>61972115People think rapiers are smallswords.Plus /tg/.
>>61978085Winged hussars had two blades - sabre and koncerz or pallash. To this day people are arguing how exactly koncerz was used - and against what opponent. Some tell that they were used like lance, with hilt being put on saddle - against cavalry, others that is was used against infantry that stopped and surrounds a hussar (a weapon of last chance so to speak). Koncerz wasn't rapier tho' - it was comically long, even 180 cm. Again - koncerz wasn't a substitute for sabre. A hussar may not had koncerz - but he always had his sabre.
>>61972956No it'd be worse because the rapier is designed to pierce flesh not metal.
>>61978043You'd make more of a case if you referred to the plethora of other cultures that also preferred cut-centric cavalry swords - basically the entirety of asia and eastern europe, but also westerne europe like for example napoleonic britain. Even their straight cavalry sword is barely useful for thrusting.Btw. napoleon and patton weren't the only cases of thrust-centric swords, it was a general fashion in the late 19th century. The concept has some precedent with the koncerz, but that one was a secondary for a reason.
>>61978238You are probably right, but since I know polish cavalry best - I reffer to things I can safely say I am proficient. And since polish cavalry is commonly considered the best cavalry in the history - I think it's a safe bet.
>>61978262>since polish cavalry is commonly considered the best cavalry in the historyUhuh.
>>61978265don't you dare try to tell me there's more to history than Sabaton songs
>>61978265Everyone blows his own trumpet. But they proved to be very, very, good - against many different opponents with different way of warfare. If there is a best cavalry in the history - I'd vote for winged hussars (ang generally polish cavalry) with clear conscience.
>>61978300Winged hussars were a factor that was winning battles against numerical superior enemy with far greater firepower - in times when cavalry generally had a support role only. And they did it for 150 years. And even later, when hussars were a history, polish cavalry was held in high regard, for example by aforementioned Napoleon - after the battle of Somosierra, during which polish cavalry did "the impossible" thing.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Somosierra
>>61978341t.
>>61978392I wish.
>>61978043>most known people (yes, youtubers)Matt Easton is now "most known people". >the concept of cut&thrust swordsRapiers are cut and thrust swords, with very few and rare exceptions. Matt himself says so. It's just your problem that polish sabres get dabbed on by rapiers so you invent lies to shield yourself from reality. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0E8BVw7w_hM>hundreds of years of history of the best cavalry in the world, who tested their swords time and time again and chose their weapon of choiceSteppe niggers copying other steppe niggers means nothing. The actual weapon of the best cavalry that is expected to actually fight anyone other than naked peasants is the lance.
>>61978176Since koncerz is just a polish name for the estoc that they copied, there's nothing mysterious about it.
>>61973197>gay snuff pornthought I was on a blue board for a moment
>>61978456Oh, it's (you) again...
>>61978483Yes, every time you come to cope about your gay wittle saber i'll arrive and push your shit in. I bet you enjoy that too since humiliation is the name of your entire national history.
>>61978456>polish sabres get dabbed on by rapiersPolish sabres are cavalry weapons. Rapiers are infantry weapons.>Steppe niggers copying other steppe niggers>>61978238I agree that brits could generally qualify as white niggers, but other euros used cavalry sabres as well so it doesn't quite hold up.
>>619784611. estoc was a weapon mainly used ON FOOT, koncerz was exclusively a cavalry sword2. it was a two handed weapon for the most part, koncerz was one-handed3. it was considerably shorter than koncerz, the difference might be even over 50 cm.So no - estoc =/= koncerz and since we have no source from the era how koncerz was actually used - we are only guessing. In my opinion reenactors that actually tried the blade from a horseback are probably the closest to the truth - that koncerz was used by hussars to fight while being surrounded with infantry (in other words - not in motion), possibly armed with polearms like spears - hence the absurdly long blade.
>>61978522>koncerz was used by hussars to fight while being surrounded with infantryHow would that even work, fencing with such an absurdly long blade? And you still, easily, get outranged by spears. I don't buy it, I find it much more likely they used it like late 19th century cavalry with their thrusting swords.
>>61978522>estoc was a weapon mainly used ON FOOTWrong. It was used on horseback just as mucn, both in military and as a hunting weapon.>it was considerably shorter than koncerzstill a copy>So no - estoc =/= koncerz and since we have no source from the era how koncerz was actually usedThis is cope.
>>61978521>Polish sabres are cavalry weapons.Is that why poles fence with them on foot?>I agree that brits could generally qualify as white niggersWe've gone over this, your entire shithole nation exists because Brits decided to restore it and your shithole nation hasn't produced a single day's worth of cultural, scientific or military achievments of the British in your entire history. The only reason you're above turks and russians is because some Italians and Germans decided to settle on your lands.
>>61978541That's the point - they wouldn't fence, they'd just poke enemy infantry like Cossacks for instance. Some reenactors even suggested that it would be more handy to hold koncerz like a hammer (with thumb touching pommel) and use it like a ski pole (pic related).Generally - koncerz was a pretty fragile weapon so charging with it like a lance would end up in breaking it, not to mention the wrist would break too (some people suggested leaning it against the saddle, but others say it would be absurd, for it would nulify the reach of the sword - its only advantage). Not to mention it would be impossible to retrieve the sword after piercing someone through during charge. Poking enemy during passing through sounds more reasonable but then again - it is not Patton's sabre - it's much longer and because of that less wieldy - so switching swiftly between targets during riding through would be somewhat harder.
>>61978590>poles fence with them on footSo? They're still optimized for cavalry use. On foot they lose out to rapiers, or sideswords, or infantry sabres (poles will deny the latter, but still). For cavalry use they're pretty damn good. As are tons of other, similar sabres. Like the 1796 for example. Rapiers on the other hand have almost never been used on horseback (the thrust-centric cavalry swords of the 19th century are stiffer and heavier).
"Rapier?" I hardly knew her!
>>61978599>fragile weaponHussar lances also broke on impact, and were pretty damn expensive as well. I wouldn't put it past them to employ single-use swords.>the wrist would breakSkill issue. Hussars got a lot more training than some modern reenactors.
>>61978614Sabres were by far the most popular sword in poland so unless you intend to say that poles didn't have infantry swords and the whole polish sabre fencing doesn't exist then polish sabres aren't exclusively designed for cavalry.
>>61978620Lances were meant to break. This is why it was the only part of hussar arenal that was funded by a king - and after each charge hussars were getting back to their own lines to get a new one if needed. >Skill issue. Hussars got a lot more training than some modern reenactors.You can't cheat the laws of physic. Imagine holding a stick during a motorbike ride and hitting something with that stick. The impact of the lance was received by the saddle, no such support for koncerz tho'.
>>61978642>The impact of the lance was received by the saddleWhat. I am aware of some weird contraption the hussars used to make use of longer lances, but every other lancer of history didn't.
>>61978642>Imagine holding a stick during a motorbike ride and hitting something with that stickLiterally a skill issue, no wonder you dumbnuts were breaking wrists. You don't hit people with the sword, you just hold it and use the speed of the horse to get it into the target, which is still much more powerful than what a human-powered thrust can deliver. You then rotate the hand with the sword as you go past it and let it exit the target on the way back. This is quite an established technique that's and was quite widely publicized and practiced. Matt Easton describes it multiple times in various videos too.
>>61978658Couched lances of the late middle ages worked quite similarly by resting on a bracket extending from the chestplate and adding the weight of the rider and the horse to the thrust while also helping the rider hold the lance during the charge. They fell out of use with the proliferation of pikes and the appearance of pistols in the 16th century though since guns had even more range, were also effective against armor and weren't at great risk of being lost in use. It's true that for the rest of the entire known history lances hadn't used anything like that at all.
>>61975933>Never forget that in XVI and for at least half of XVII century cavalry was heavilly armored. Thrust-centric rapier would be almost useless against armored foe,What? In the late 15th and 16th century Estocs were popular among the heavy cavalry in Western Europe especially because of their supposed effectiveness of dealing with armoured foes. Bladed swords such as sabres for the heavy cavalry became more popular in the 17th century again because armour became increasingly less common, especially for foot soldiers.
>>61978662I differentiated here >>61978599 the thing you just described and charging with koncerz LIKE A LANCE (frontal attack to pierce an opponent through). Two different things.>>61978701Later lance wasn't used like knightly/hussar lance tho'. It wasn't meant to break. It was more used like sword - the hit was delivered more into the side of the opponent when passing by, not frontal attack.
>>61978727Estoc was a dedicated weapon to do ecaxtly that. But we are talking about RAPIER. Not every possible thrust-centric blade but RAPIER. A rapier, anon - that was way more flexible than estoc, wasn't as sturdy as estoc etc.
>>61978813Why would you use a sword like a couched lance with just your wrist? Did you want your hand broken? What a dumb thing to do.
>>61978262>since polish cavalry is commonly considered the best cavalry in the history
>>61978842Because authors (historicians) - mainly in the 80'ties - suggested it was used like that - hence the theory about leaning it against the saddle.
>>61978851https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMAB7Xkyl7E
>>61978862Ah yes, the ever reliable movie industry, surely we can depend on their portrayal of things.
>>61978880You do realise that was a joke, right?
>>61978831Matt Easton explicitly likened the british 1908 to an estoc, rather than a rapier.
>>61978889Oh, you're not the polish anon. It wouldn't have been a joke coming from him.
>>61978904But I wasn't talking about estoc, M1908 or any other sword but rapier. I even adressed the idea of using rapier like estoc/koncerz.>Thrust-centric rapier would be almost useless against armored foe, especially since no foot works is possible - your thrust would be weaker, unless you'd try to use your rapier like estoc/koncerz sword (charging with it using horse' speed to nail someone through (...)), but that would be an end of the sword most likely (...)
>>61978910Actually I am that polish anon.
>>61978916Yes anon, I was trying to support your point.
>>61978918So you're the joke here?
>Thread devolves in arguing if a generic sword is in made up category 1 or 2When will you learn?
>>61978921No - just stupid posts deserve stupid answers.
>>61978925Stupid posts like yours?
>>61978923Need to stroke that polish ego somehow.
>>61976158>Meanwhile same people who used those other swords during war - in case of nobility at least - had their civilian, narrow rapier.Being brought to war is why I question the claim of them being purely civilian, and this also leaves the wider-bladed specimens up in the air.>>61975933>You mean in the other threadNo. Panzerstechers, Swedish Caroleans swords (pictured cavalry trooper's sword m/1717, 114cm btw), many a pallasch, that bunch.>That doesn't prove anything.It sure ain't evidence fit for publishing. But it was an honest attempt to find a divide by length or weight amongst rapiers, using the largest bunch of them I had available at the time with this data given, and going purely off of whatever they choose to call a rapier to keep my own bias out. For a happy amateur I'd say that's a fair amount of legwork done to try and prove something I didn't think was correct in the first place. If we instead take a moment to consider the data you have presented, well, a short moment is all we need because you've presented none whatsoever. So if mine proves nothing, why should I be impressed with yours? Again, try to use the same standards for both of us. Hell, since you "know" that these military rapiers were a thing it should be much easier for you to find a reasonable data-set that includes them. >he literally lives of swords. As opposed to the people at the Arms&Armour departments at the Wallace Collection, MET and Royal Armouries... You know, I am harder on Mat here than I usually am, but that's because of how you dismissed the museums. Same standards you know. But he's not exactly the one and only expert out there. He's had Dr Capwell as a guest at times, wanna guess where that guy works?>Either watch it wholeNo, I'm not going to watch a sixteen minute video just to see if it covers anything beyond what you've said. I'm not doing your homework for you. Nor will I "debate" with Matt here for you to watch.
>>61978933Like yours. But I did say that my claim about polish cavalry being the best is more about everyone's blowing their own trumpet: >>61978315 Seriously, relax.
>Either watch it wholeNo. I'm not going to watch a 16min video to try and see if it happens to cover other arguments of yours beyond what you yourself has covered. It isn't on me to try and find arguments for you, you have to do your own homework. And having some kind of baroque threesome here with me, Matt and you isn't goign to work anyway, because your interpretation of what he said may not match mine. For there to be any point in me talkign to you, you will have to express in your own words what you think you've learned from your sources, even if that's just this one video.>>61978831>Not every possible thrust-centric blade but RAPIERWhen you say>Thrust-centric rapier would be almost useless against armored foeit implies that the thrust-centric part is why it's bad against armour, so other thrust-centric swords would also be almost useless there. It might not have been what you intended to say, but that's how it comes across.
>>61978948Yeah, you keep doing that. You bring up a really fucking shitty argument and then go "but not really lol" hoping to use that as deflection if anyone points out how shit the argument is.You're only fooling a teenager with that.
>>61978945The only large collection of such "military rapiers" I know are held in Munich museum for the city was issuing such swords to its town guardsmen. Unfortunatelly I can't find a detailed database like the Wallace's. But if they had such database, I bet the outcome would be extremely different than yours. Pic related.>Being brought to war is why I question the claim of them being purely civilian, and this also leaves the wider-bladed specimens up in the air.I consequently stated that rapiers weren't something unheard of during war. But I still claim they were RARE. People - even nobility - would rather take a broadsword to war than rapier, apparently even "military" one, since they are so rare in collections. I've given one example - Cromwell, for we know how his sword looked like during civil war - it was mortuary-hilt backsword, altough we know for A FACT that he had a classical rapier too, for he was carrying it during time of peace.>I'm not doing your homework for you.The whole video is about wha is rapier, what is "military rapier" etc. I watched it many times. If you can't spend 16 minutes to watch it (altough you were ready to spend I don't know how long to make some graphs) - I have nothing else to add.
>>61978976I said it before your butthurt post, but whatever. Bye.
>>61971101Rapier? R-rapier than what?
>>61978920Sorry anon, it's hard to follow the context.
>>61978949https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wECWKN_Raw&t=590sI think the most important things starts here. Are you ready to watch 4 minutes?
>>61979024You're a fucking joke, mate.
>>61978945Oh look what I have found in Wallace collection - a "military rapier" (from Munich collection) that is called A SWORD. So even people YOU consider authorities - think such blade is a SWORD, not rapier. Do you have anything to add?
>>61979081>think such blade is a SWORD, not rapier.Wait was he saying rapiers aren't swords?
>>61979080And you are totally unfuny, dude.
>>61979081You know rapiers are swords, right? Did you think that calling a sword a sword is some kind of gotcha moment that will just allow the rest of your unsubstantiated bullshit to pass?
>>61979085>>61979089Nice strawman, begone.
>>61979096>>61979089>>61979081>>61978945But what if it's a Spadroon?
>>61979096Nice non argument. You're still eating shit like the slimy shill you are.
>>61979096Don't cry about strawmen if you expect people to make your argument for you, faggot.
>>61978662>>61978658>>61978642This sounds like a lot of terminology confusion.So the technique for using a sword on a horse is to use the speed of the horse to move the blade faster, adding the horse's 30 km/h to the sword's 70 km/h. Obviously. The interesting thing is that you let the wrist flex on impact. This was called letting the wrist "Break". The wrist wasn't actually broken, that's just what swordsmasters of the time called it.As for lances, you tucked the lance in your armpit and used a high backed saddle to absorb the impact.
>>61979017So you have no data. Given that the data I provided "proves nothing", am I really supposed to be convinced by your 'no data? You really need to sit down, think through what you think is good enough here, and then stick to that standard for both your and my arguments.>I've given one example - CromwellAnd here's the rapier Gustav II Adolf carried at Lützen. So I'm not sold on your idea that just people in general preferred other swords for war when they could choose, that there were a bunch of swords all considered capable enough that people then choose form based on personal preference seems like a "null hypothesis" we don't have nearly enough reason to reject.>>61979054He certainly covered part of why I don't like "sidesword". As for the rapier/sword split, note how he's very clear on it all being not straight out of the source material, but his interpretation/opinion. Personally I think his views appear to be based very much on Elizabethan English practices. I on the other hand lean more towards getting a functional modern (but history-based) nomenclature out of it and with a more pan-European approach. Of course it's hard to say what exactly he's basing it on since he's only really presenting his conclusions here, he doesn't present any quotes, and sword data or anything like that (you know, the stuff I really want), all we get is "based on what I've read I think..." There's also a very good chance that this is, in his eyes, a heavily simplified take on things intended for an audience with basically no prior knowledge at all and no attention span for a more in-depth look.Also, is >>61979081 you?
>>61979382What do you think I am trying to prove here? That there were no "classic" narrow-bladed rapiers used during wars? Well - I said numerous times that it did happen. I'm saying that it was RARE, but it DID happen. Especially in case of officers (not to mention kings) that weren't exactly expected to fight - their primary role was to command.>and sword data or anything like thatBut your sword data doesn't prove anything either - but the average size of a rapier (and only under assumption that Wallace's collection is representative) about which I already agreed with you - that average rapier blade was shorter than I estimated.>but his interpretation/opinionYes - based UPON source material. >he doesn't present any quotesYou don't either. But I choose to believe him that he actually read what he says he did - and I agree with his conclusions. I agree with him that there was a division between narrow rapiers and broad "rapiers" - and that they were called differently by people of the epoch.Rapier was (generally) a gentleman's sword. Most soldiers were peasants tho'. So even if every gentleman in Europe was using his personal rapier as his weapon of choice during war (and we know that wasn't the case) - still it would be RARE AS FUCK for common soldiers were armed with other (cheaper and easier to use) swords. The swedish swords I pasted earlier clearly show that in XVII century (so when rapier was a thing) more broader blades (good choppers) were preffered for war - both for infantry and cavalry. Pic related - dussacks bought by a norwegian king by the end of XVI c. and first 20 years of XVII c. for his subjects (conscripts).And yes, that was me. As you can see, even guys from Wallace museum don't call munich sword a rapier. Also I pasted 3 other swords that aren't called "rapiers" even tho' they clearly have functional ricasso and come from XVII century.
>>61979573>What do you think I am trying to prove here?In that specific case it'd be that we have this specific "military rapier" type of sword as something reasonably distinct enough to deserve its own label.>You don't either.That gets us back to the issue of the military rapier, because that's how you've dismissed what I've presented. You rather made the point there that I shouldn't bother finding more of the kind until we untangled that issue.>But I choose to believe him The problem with simply trusting an expert with nothing added of your own is that the experts won't always agree. For example, Capwell calls this a rapier (Capwell et.al. 2012; "The Noble Art of the Sword"), and if you search for that name on Easton's channel you'll find that Matt isn't going to dismiss Capwell's opinions in a hurry. >even guys from Wallace museum don't call munich sword a rapierNo worries, I don't expect to agree fully with them on every single judgment call. But when we have people from three different museums all calling things "rapier" despite having blades way too wide for your taste, then that's a good sign that rapiers don't need to be quite so skinny all the time. And the Wallace Collection clearly does label some stuff as rapiers that you think are instead "military rapiers", since you've said so yourself. (Of course you then later on suggested that they might not be labelling their "military rapiers" as rapier so, well...) As for the data set I collected from there I did, as previously mentioned, intentionally not worry about what they did and didn't call a rapier specifically to keep my own bias out, but I can toss those three in and we'll see where that gets us.
And here we are. I'm still not really seeing any major split off into various groups, especially since those three didn't end up on either extreme end.
its a spear you can carry on your hip
>>61979943 (Of course you then later on suggested that they might not be labelling their "military rapiers" as rapier so, well...)Also I said that I'm open to discussion where one ends and another starts. At least two of three you previously mentioned have their blade above 2,5 cm width which makes them above typical rapier.>The problem with simply trusting an expert with nothing added of your own is that the experts won't always agree.I agree with Matt because his views correspond with my own thoughts about the topic I had long before I stumbled upon his channel. If I was simply following polish experts and authors, I'd have to go even further than you and call a rapier every one-handed straight sword with fancy hilt that isn't a smallsword - because in polish literature (pretty old tho' because no scholar, as far as I know, picked up the topic, so more modern papers about the matter don't exist and most authors just repeat after it), that adopts Heribert Seitz classification, doesn't exist an equivalent of broadsword ("pallash" term is a narrow term - straight one-edge blade with sword or sabre-like hilt).Since you mentioned Gustav II Adolph sword, I'll translate what the book (pic related - check the timestamp) says about it (bottom right): "During 30 Years War rapiers of that group of officers' rapiers were spreading through Europe, with pretty broad, capable of well cutting blades (...talks about the hilt construction...). That kind of rapier had with him the king Gustav II Adolph, when he fell in battle of Lutzen in 1632 (picture 87-2b)".Generally - in this book all broadswords are called "military rapiers" (in polish: broń bojowa), so the "military rapier" I'm talking here would be, no doubt, put into that category as well.
>>61980169>If I was simply following polish experts and authors, I'd have to go even further than you and call a rapier every one-handed straight sword with fancy hilt that isn't a smallswordSounds like the word you're translating as "rapier" might be more akin to the Swedish "värja" or the German "degen", both terms which are much much wider than the English rapier. (The Swedish one for example would also cover the m/1717 cavalry sword I posted above.)Overall terminology like this may not translate very well between languages, "pålyxa" in Swedish translates directly into poleaxe in English, but includes a number of weapons that we wouldn't call poleaxes.
>>61980258Yes, that's very possible, since this classification, like I said, is swedish (the author was Heribert Seitz, who was, according to wikipedia, born in Sweden) - and was adopted by Zdzisław Żygulski jr. in that book.
