the term "rapier" as it stands is no more or less descriptive than "broadsword." You need to look at the physical aspects of any one weapon itself, not its "groping." the physical aspects of any sword weren't developed over night nor were any systems of fence. so can a rapier cut? hell, a car antenna can cut. is it practical to do so? that's the debate. that's also why the later manuscripts instruct cuts as harassing actions to draw time. if it lands? great. now put the point through his eye.
This video is also great for showing how rigid historical blades are, compared to modern ones. Even cut and thrust repros are often more flexible than this antique rapier. That stiffness is also the reason for modern foil scoring rules. A thrust to the face by a rapier foil could easily knock out teeth, blind you, or worse (in an age before safety equips), and blows to the hands could break fingers. Blows to the limbs would be tricky to "score," thus the torso remains as the only scoring region.
@ihaterobbie, It's obvious that the period manuals weren't written in a sporting context. Meyer (written in 1570) says a proper thrust starts has all of the body weight behind it. Saviolo talks about how to conduct duels, which often ended in death.
Also, people on their feet don't act like meat on a string. All of the cut energy goes into the flesh, not into moving the meat. A rapier may not sever limbs like a longsword, but it can easily cut through muscles or small bones like ribs.
@ihaterobbie123 "fencing" in this time period did not mean the modern sport/game. "Fencing" meant the full combative system employed, often with lethal affect. Please see Capo Ferro for some nice examples of Rapier through the head, for a better idea of what "fencing" meant in the 17th century.
@rapierlynx because Saviolo and Meyer are both instructing in the earlier Cut and Thrust sword form, not the later True Rapier format that has no significant cutting capability.
@rapierlynx why shouldn't a rapier have cutting capabilities? Basically its the same principle as with a sword only slim and more lightweight and still far from being a "thrust only" epee.
Rapier's were not designed to pierce armour. They are incapable of doing this. They were used in an unarmoured civilian context. Causing skin laceration is not "cutting" to cut effectively with a weapon means that that cut wills top the opponent. A rapier will not do this with a cut. The sabre did not develop from the rapier, the sabre developed from various broadswords and backswords.
@Zwerchhau English and Prussian cavalry sabres developed from the Hindu talwar, wich developed from Persian shamshirs, wich reached Korea from where the Japanese based the katana.
true. the rapier was meant for thrusting at the enemy, but its edges were sharpened enough on both sides of the blade however to deliever a blow that would at most give the enemy a good scar... the rapier was invented to "pierce" a knight's armour. the foil, sabre and epee all originated from the weapon... *NOTE* the sabre is a cutting weapon which means the rapier must have had some sort of cutting power even if it was meant for thrusting. just saying...
Actually, most of the true rapiers had no blade, and had cross sections that were either triangular, square, hexagonal, or more, as an attempt to make the rapier stiffer, and thus better at thrusting.
the term "rapier" as it stands is no more or less descriptive than "broadsword." You need to look at the physical aspects of any one weapon itself, not its "groping." the physical aspects of any sword weren't developed over night nor were any systems of fence. so can a rapier cut? hell, a car antenna can cut. is it practical to do so? that's the debate. that's also why the later manuscripts instruct cuts as harassing actions to draw time. if it lands? great. now put the point through his eye.
yellowvespa04 10 months ago
This video is also great for showing how rigid historical blades are, compared to modern ones. Even cut and thrust repros are often more flexible than this antique rapier. That stiffness is also the reason for modern foil scoring rules. A thrust to the face by a rapier foil could easily knock out teeth, blind you, or worse (in an age before safety equips), and blows to the hands could break fingers. Blows to the limbs would be tricky to "score," thus the torso remains as the only scoring region.
arrkhal 1 year ago
@ihaterobbie, It's obvious that the period manuals weren't written in a sporting context. Meyer (written in 1570) says a proper thrust starts has all of the body weight behind it. Saviolo talks about how to conduct duels, which often ended in death.
Also, people on their feet don't act like meat on a string. All of the cut energy goes into the flesh, not into moving the meat. A rapier may not sever limbs like a longsword, but it can easily cut through muscles or small bones like ribs.
rapierlynx 1 year ago
If rapiers can't cut, why did Saviolo and Meyer, among others, spend so much time in their books teaching how to cut with a rapier?
rapierlynx 2 years ago 3
@rapierlynx
They were probably talking in a fencing context, say if the rule was first to draw any blood anywhere then slashed would be useful and safer.
ihaterobbie123 1 year ago
@ihaterobbie123 "fencing" in this time period did not mean the modern sport/game. "Fencing" meant the full combative system employed, often with lethal affect. Please see Capo Ferro for some nice examples of Rapier through the head, for a better idea of what "fencing" meant in the 17th century.
Zwerchhau 1 year ago 2
@rapierlynx because Saviolo and Meyer are both instructing in the earlier Cut and Thrust sword form, not the later True Rapier format that has no significant cutting capability.
Zwerchhau 1 year ago
@rapierlynx why shouldn't a rapier have cutting capabilities? Basically its the same principle as with a sword only slim and more lightweight and still far from being a "thrust only" epee.
CoIdHeat 4 months ago
Rapier's were not designed to pierce armour. They are incapable of doing this. They were used in an unarmoured civilian context. Causing skin laceration is not "cutting" to cut effectively with a weapon means that that cut wills top the opponent. A rapier will not do this with a cut. The sabre did not develop from the rapier, the sabre developed from various broadswords and backswords.
Zwerchhau 2 years ago
@Zwerchhau English and Prussian cavalry sabres developed from the Hindu talwar, wich developed from Persian shamshirs, wich reached Korea from where the Japanese based the katana.
It all begun in the middle east.
RayneRockstar 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
It's not very sharp.
Kortoso 3 years ago
that failed.
Alundra321 3 years ago
It nots meant to be able to cut its made for stabing read the description
demfings 3 years ago 4
true. the rapier was meant for thrusting at the enemy, but its edges were sharpened enough on both sides of the blade however to deliever a blow that would at most give the enemy a good scar... the rapier was invented to "pierce" a knight's armour. the foil, sabre and epee all originated from the weapon... *NOTE* the sabre is a cutting weapon which means the rapier must have had some sort of cutting power even if it was meant for thrusting. just saying...
JAFORGE2008 2 years ago
Actually, most of the true rapiers had no blade, and had cross sections that were either triangular, square, hexagonal, or more, as an attempt to make the rapier stiffer, and thus better at thrusting.
HamsterPants522 2 years ago
The rapier is designed to be a thrusting weapon, to pierce someones chest and strike the lungs
TwigletWoof 2 years ago