Agreed.
Taxonomy is a tool, not the end, something that seems to be frequently forgotten. It makes things easier, helps in classification, allows for a more flexible and useful data treatment and contributes (ideally) in building a common language through which all those dealing with the subject can better understand each other. But, as so many things, it also works in layers. So, "rapier" is enough to evoke among those who are aware of the terminology an object specific enough to communicate the meaning. From there, we can start to add information to be as precise as necessary, and there’s where taxonomy and the consensual language it brings starts to be useful. So, for example, we can start to talk about a swept-hilt, a cup-hilt, number of branches, an urn, onion or cylindrical pommel, length, shape and section of quillions, characteristics of their finials, morphology of the knuckleguard, the grip, the ricasso, the channels, marks, inscriptions, edges, point, style of decoration, chronology, geographical area, etc… So, yes, “rapier” applied to this kind of swords is modern. So are we (some more than others
). It’s also useful, that’s why it’s used. I don’t think we should spend much time talking about if the term is “proper” or not, we should instead check if we agree or not in its use, and then we can start discussing about the object itself, instead of about the terms we use to describe it.
