Were Rapiers used in Combat?

[Jim McDougall]

It seems that I have seen references suggesting that the rapier was essentially a civilian weapon, largely confined to the gentry, and not used as a military weapon.

In paintings of military themes, it does seem that important historical figures are sometimes seem holding these type swords, but are these simply evidence of artistic license?

In writing yesterday on the so called 'pappenheimer' type rapiers, it occurred to me that I might have seen somewhere an illustration where a hilt of this style was being worn during the English Civil Wars. The development of the term itself is said to derive from the famed cavalry commander of the Thirty Years War, and that rapiers of this style hilt were used by him, and presumably a number of his troops.

Since armour seems to have been largely an element typically owned by wealthier individuals in earlier times, and even by this period of the 17th century, it would have been expensive to outfit large numbers of rank and file.
Is it possible that the presence of large numbers of troops without such protection would have presented an effective use of the rapier?


Looking forward to observations!!

All the best,
Jim

[kisak]

My opinion (currently at least) is that the rapier was by no means a civilian weapon, but rather simply a weapon, used by military and civilians alike.

While by no means a proper study, some things I've noticed which seem to point in this direction would include, as mentioned, the name of the Pappenheimer hilt. While I'm not sure how that name and that hilt type got mated to each other, it would seem somewhat logical for such a name to be used for a weapon used in war.

Staying with the Pappenheimer hilt, the Royal Armoury in Stockholm has two Pappenheimer-hilted blades on display which were used by Gustav II Adolf in times of war. One with the hilt damaged as the king ended up fighting a Polish cavalryman during a recon trip outside of Dirschau in 1627. Next to it there's a saber displayed which according to tradition is to have been taken in battle by the king from a Polish cavalryman "before the battle of Dirschau", its unclear if that would be the same man who chopped up the king's hilt.

There's also the blade he carried at Lützen. A third blade with a Pappenheimer hilt on display is also attributed the Gustav II, but with no mention of it being used in battle, instead it is to have been his favourite for everyday carry.

Now, Gustav II Adolf doesn't seem to have been leading from the front unless he absolutely had to, but he does seem to have ended up in combat personally at least two times, and he was wounded multiple times before Lützen. Thus I would guess that he would indeed have gone to battle knowing that he might have to fight for his own life. Still, he brought along something which, in my eyes, is clearly rapiers, which would be rather odd of these were somehow civilian weapons, unfit for the battlefield.

Then there's all those portraits we see of noblemen carrying some rather rapier-like swords. From what I've understood, these noblemen often saw themselves as warriors, or at the very least wished to be seen as such. Thus we generally see them painted in quite a lot of armour, helmet close at hand, etc. Adding a civilian sword to that would appear to be somewhat odd.

Including rapiers in paintings doesn't seem to end entirely with portraits of nobility either. Some examples of rapiers (or at least very rapier-like swords) in a more "general" setting can be seen here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/roelipi...7603325963415/

As a personal observation (with all the possible errors that carries with it), I've had the chance to handle a pair of early 17th century swept hilt rapiers in person at auction viewings, and one thing I noticed was that they were by no means at all small and light weapons. Instead they were sturdy pieces of considerable mass, making it easy to imagine that these were made to be driven forward through quite a lot of obstacles, and far from the smallswords and modern fencing foils (and the Hollywood fencing that's based upon them) which I suspect colour quite a bit of popular opinion about rapiers. They didn't strike me as something made specifically to carry around all day as decoration and "just in case" weapon.

All in all, it seems to me that there were certainly at least "rapier-like" swords being used by people in a military position, without any second thoughts about it. In order to make the rapier a civilian weapon then, we must somehow find a way to differentiate the civilian ones form those which were used in battle. I'm not aware of any good way of drawing up the boundary between them.

As for the decline in armour, I have heard it stated elsewhere that it seems to have helped the usefulness of swords in general quite a bit, resulting in the sword becoming the prime cavalry weapon overall in the 18th century. I'm not sure how correct that is, but looking at Swedish cavalry tactics, they shifted more and more in favour of sword over pistol as we get closer to the year 1700, and somewhere around that turn of the century the sword eventually replaced the pistol as the primary weapon for cavalry.

[fernando]

If i may come in with my complicometer ...
Probably the (un) definition of the rapier per se would confine the reasoning on its purpose.
Also the sense of being a military would not be so much distinguishable in early times as it is now.
In a notion spread over here (Iberian peninsula) the rapier was virtually a civilian (fencer) weapon, however often seen with military. Not only with nobles that were simultaneously officers, namely captains in those days, but also adopted by regular forces.
I could swear i have read that rapiers were used by Portuguese nobles in the discoveries period ... contextually for combat purposes, together with the traditional left hand dagger.
The attached picture shows a lace hilt rapier (Norman-57*), with a 1,030 mt. blade, dated 1585-1640. There is evidence that a number of identical swords were consigned for a Bavarian troop corps.
I wouldn't doubt that rapiers had a civilan (fencing) birth, as at least some rapier variations were used in or for combat.
End of this nonsense round.
Fernando

.

[Jim McDougall]

Kisak and Fernando,
Thank you so much for responding guys!
Beautifully stated and well thought out observations and I've spent some time trying to find references here as well. I am inclined to agree with both of you in what you have noted.
I think there were some differences between military and civilian rapiers, though I think these might be hard to distinguish by hilt alone, as these fully developed hilts, even many swept hilts, seem to have carried heavier 'arming' type blades in military parlance.
I think the very narrow civilian rapiers big problem was not only too narrow and fragile, but too long, some reaching fantastic lengths which even promoted some efforts at regulating same.

Kisak, I remember the first time I handled an actual rapier, I was stunned at the sheer heft! This certainly was anything but the light and delicate fencing foil or Hollywood rapiers waved around as such...it was heavy, solid and one could see how quickly combat with these would spend the combatants.

Apparantly the military use of complex hilts with the heavier arming blades was well known, and I think that the ever present villain of semantics in terminology might present difficulty in assessing the actual use of rapiers or complex hilted soldiers swords in combat. In the Encyclopedia Brittanica of 1771, the rapier is defined as the old broadsword used by common soldiers.
(A.V.B. Norman, "The Rapier & Smallsword:1460-1820", p.27).

I guess I should have thought this out better The pappenheimer, while considered or at least termed a 'rapier' is better defined as an arming sword with developed rapier type hilt.

These sword terms can really be misleading ! Thank you both for your views, which explain in much better perspective what little I discovered in my daily rampage through the bookmobile!

All the very best,
Jim

[fearn]

Hi Jim and all,

Great question. Since I nominated the estoc in another thread as one of the ten weirdest blades in the world, I'd point out that many think it's "the" predecessor of "the" rapier. This is similar to what happened in Japan, when they switched from over-sized field swords to smaller, more manueverable katanas.

Basically, I think an estoc doesn't work well for its allegedly primary job (going through plate armor), but a smaller, lighter version would work pretty well for lighter armor. Good enough for the battlefield? Maybe, but it depends both on the battle and the skill of the fencer.

F

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by fearn

Hi Jim and all,

Great question. Since I nominated the estoc in another thread as one of the ten weirdest blades in the world, I'd point out that many think it's "the" predecessor of "the" rapier. This is similar to what happened in Japan, when they switched from over-sized field swords to smaller, more manueverable katanas.

Basically, I think an estoc doesn't work well for its allegedly primary job (going through plate armor), but a smaller, lighter version would work pretty well for lighter armor. Good enough for the battlefield? Maybe, but it depends both on the battle and the skill of the fencer.

F

Excellent point Fearn!!! (no pun intended)
I hadn't thought of the estoc, also termed the 'tuck'. Actually, in reading through some of A.V.B.Norman's text, he does note that in many cases the full rapier type hilts were mounted with 'tuck' blades, so essentially here were the same basic fully developed hilts carrying blades for specific intent.
Those with heavier tuck form blades for military or heavier combat, and the thin civilian blades for everyday town wear, or of course, the duel.

From what I have understood of the estoc or tuck, it was not intended to pierce plate armor, but to stab through key uncovered locations, or in weak spots or separations. I would imagine that mail covered areas would also be somewhat vulnerable. Being no authority on medieval or Renaissance martial arts, I am only speculating here.

I think the idea of a thrusting weapon such as the rapier evolving from the tuck, which was often the long, narrow blade, with trefoil type cross section in many, to strengthen for rigid thrusting, is an outstanding thought. While I am not aware of this being discussed in the literature that I have checked, it of course is likely in text somewhere as it certainly seems logical.
Pretty impressive thinking there Fearn!!

What I always thought was interesting is these long, narrow bladed swords being mounted under the saddle, while either the arming sword or sabre was at the side of the horseman. One classic example seen is Rembrandt's "The Polish Rider" ( actually Lithuanian nobleman, as found in fascinating research found on this), where the horseman is 'armed to the teeth!', with these two swords, bow and arrow, and battle axe or war hammer (cant recall offhand).

Whatever the case, it does seem that the 'rapiers' actually used in combat in a military sense were typically arming swords with more substantial blades than the civilian types. One of my favorites has always been the Spanish cuphilt, in which by the 18th century remained with the distinct cup hilt but with much heavier blades. The term 'Spanish' is typically used collectively for these cuphilts of more familiar form, as they were certainly well known (and well used! in Portugal), as well as the Italian provincial regions, specifically Brescia, and in fact are even known to some degree in Germany.

Kisak, were any examples of the cuphilt (the deep cup type of 'Spanish' style) known in Sweden? There is so little material available on Swedish weapons, and just wondered.

Thank you Fearn for the excellent observation on the estoc!

All best regards,
Jim