Quote:
|
Originally Posted by fernando
By the same order of ideas, the weapon doesn't have to be perfectly functional, to be a weapon. I bet several specimens developed were not fully efective, at least according to the "catalogue". There must have been lots of atypical pieces, surely more on the civilian side. I guess many a civilian would not dream going to school to learn how to hit someone; he would just imagine that a piece was to strike in an unstudyed single blow, no manouvres involved. No fighting art envolved, just having something to do the job at once.
Looking at the "estoc" piece shown by Jens ... decidedly a thrusting weapon, yet with the type of hilt giving the idea of usual conceptual slashing pourpose.
Concerning the rapier fencing technique, the fact that, in real practice, it wasn't used the Hollywood way, it doesn't avoid the fact that a specific schooled training was needed to use it ... i mean efectively use it.
Am i wrong if i say that you can slash with less training than you can thrust ?
Aren't thrusting moves more subtle and subject to the proper moment ?
David, you got me lost with the Goa event. This place was taken in 1510, the rapier wasn't yet used ... or do i miss something?
I must have said such amount of BS that i won't even sign this posting  . |
Hi Fernando,
I agree that not all weapons created were perfectly functional, by which I mean, an 'all rounder' weapon that can deal with all situations would be impossible. Weapons 'evolve' and some become more 'specialised', suited to a limited number of tasks/situations. This type of weapon tends to become obsolete as battle conditions/situations change and its use no longer 'required'.
I believe that the early Rapiers were designed very long bladed so as to be able to keep your assailants at a distance (as most other swords available were shorter) The Rapier (in Europe) became popular, very quickly and as far as I can tell the need for skill training occurred because of the increased likelihood of assailants armed with Rapiers ....in effect the blade 'reach' advantage was lost.
The excellent example of the "estoc" sword shown by Jens has a Tulwar hilt and probably fixed by resin. I feel, that it was a matter of convenience, it probably took minutes to fix the blade .... and Tulwar hilts were plentiful.
In Stones 'A Glossary.....Arms and Armour...' there are various examples of Indo Persian maces fixed to Tulwar hilts.
If the Rapier blade had been Tulwar hilted, I would agree that it probably was 'experimental' for the same reasons.
However, this Firangi has a Khanda styled hilt, but is smaller. The hilt is not a modified one, it is constructed for the sole purpose of fixing a narrow blade. The domed pommel area is smaller than the Khanda's I have seen. This allows more wrist movement, essential to a sword of this type. I believe that these hilts were made specifically for Rapier blades, and if I am correct...this sword had gone beyond the 'experimental stage'.
As the Firagi 'rapier' blades, (on the ones I have seen) are double edge for their entire length, I am not so certain that the technique used was the same as the Europeans (most Rapiers were not edge 'sharp' full length, some had approx. 1/3 from the tip sharpened......one of the main reasons was to prevent your assailant 'grabbing your blade')
Sorry, I didn't explain myself properly, I am not suggesting that the Portuguese had invaded with Rapiers in their arsenal. I meant that the Portuguese were well established in the Region and with constant contact (trade shipping) with mother Portugal, new trends (such as the Rapier) would have been known/adopted quite quickly by the 'colonials'. Military action was needed to 'maintain' the colony and Rapiers would have been available to the Portuguese.
No Fernando, nothing you have said could be put in the category of 'Bovine Secretions'
Kind Regards David