Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

Chris Evans · 17th November 2008, 03:33 AM

Hi Fernando,

You did well to act decisively - It is a fine sword. I often look in there as he often gets some very nice pieces.

Whether rapiers did or did not find a military application has become a can of worms, principally because the term "rapier' is essentially and English one, dating back to Elizabethan times, used to designate a civilian mostly thrusting sword . To be sure, the term had distant counterparts on the continent, though as the sword historian Castle tells us, with very different connotations. But with the passage of time, by the 19th century it was applied by some, such as Burton, to any sharp thrusting sword suitable for fencing.

With the advent and spread of the historical European martial arts (HEMA) movement the term attained a kind of universality that wasn't there historically. As a result it is now very difficult to define the breed satisfactorily. This is compounded by that many military swords were fitted, often retro-fitted with the complex hilts commonly associated with civilian rapiers. It has been recorded that during the Napoleonic wars, British soldiers reported that the Spaniards were using rapiers, whereas in all probability what they saw were military broadswords fitted with cup hilts and variants thereof.

My own take on the matter is that the proper use of the term in the English language is the historical one, as used during the renaissance in England, and as such the weapon was totally unsuited for war, notwithstanding that occasionally it did find its way to the battlefields. just as in a later era the small sword did too, despite being equally unsuited. As for the cup hilt, from those photos that I provided, it would seem that they did find some favour with the military, probably on account of offering good protection to the hands. After all, during the 17th century complex hilted military swords were all the rage for that very reason, as exemplified by the sword of Gustavus Adolphus, so why not cup hilts further on?

As an aside, to my mind, much more problematic is the differentiation between the rapier proper and the later transition rapier, which IMO can only be done on the basis of function - And again this is the source of much confusion and never ending debate in some circles, as it impacts on the fence possible with the rapier proper.

Again congratulations and

Cheers
Chris

17th November 2008, 03:33 AM	#10
Chris Evans Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Australia Posts: 685	Hi Fernando, You did well to act decisively - It is a fine sword. I often look in there as he often gets some very nice pieces. Whether rapiers did or did not find a military application has become a can of worms, principally because the term "rapier' is essentially and English one, dating back to Elizabethan times, used to designate a civilian mostly thrusting sword . To be sure, the term had distant counterparts on the continent, though as the sword historian Castle tells us, with very different connotations. But with the passage of time, by the 19th century it was applied by some, such as Burton, to any sharp thrusting sword suitable for fencing. With the advent and spread of the historical European martial arts (HEMA) movement the term attained a kind of universality that wasn't there historically. As a result it is now very difficult to define the breed satisfactorily. This is compounded by that many military swords were fitted, often retro-fitted with the complex hilts commonly associated with civilian rapiers. It has been recorded that during the Napoleonic wars, British soldiers reported that the Spaniards were using rapiers, whereas in all probability what they saw were military broadswords fitted with cup hilts and variants thereof. My own take on the matter is that the proper use of the term in the English language is the historical one, as used during the renaissance in England, and as such the weapon was totally unsuited for war, notwithstanding that occasionally it did find its way to the battlefields. just as in a later era the small sword did too, despite being equally unsuited. As for the cup hilt, from those photos that I provided, it would seem that they did find some favour with the military, probably on account of offering good protection to the hands. After all, during the 17th century complex hilted military swords were all the rage for that very reason, as exemplified by the sword of Gustavus Adolphus, so why not cup hilts further on? As an aside, to my mind, much more problematic is the differentiation between the rapier proper and the later transition rapier, which IMO can only be done on the basis of function - And again this is the source of much confusion and never ending debate in some circles, as it impacts on the fence possible with the rapier proper. Again congratulations and Cheers Chris Last edited by Chris Evans; 17th November 2008 at 05:02 AM.