rapier vrs longsword

[andrewlonsdale]

hi i am ex fencer use to do compertion fencing with my pistol grip foil
i had recent debate with some else and he recons a longsword would beat rapier in single combat i wondering if i am right or wrong
if all things are equal and armour is not worn who would have the main advantage with choice of weapon?
cheers

[Sal Bertucci]

First off. Change your user name to your first and last name as dictated by the forum rules.

Second; I think it depends on skill level. Two people hold a sword for the first time? Longsword has a huge advantage. As they become more skilled the playing field levels a bit, with the Longsword still retaining some slightly more advantage due to having more options.

That being said, the rapier wielder is capable of beating a longsword multiple times. I know b/c I've been the rapierist. However, while it is fun to play with now and then, I wouldn't choose to do it in real life.

[andrewlonsdale]

thank you changed my name know
so if their both skilled swordsman you think the rapier would be the better weapon

[Jonathan Hill]

This definitely has more to do with the skill level of the user than the blades. But all in all I also believe some blades have an advantage over other blades. A smallsword is great to use against a Rapier, and conversely I’d take a rapier against a longsword any day of the week.

A longsword is a cut and thrust weapon. It’s very strong in the cut and beautiful in the thrust. A rapier is a thrusting weapon, and the cuts are more an nuisance than debilitating. The blades are roughly the same length, but the Rapier is meant to be pointed directly at your opponent. The point of balance wants you to point it at him, while the longsword does not want to be parallel with the ground and pointing it at your opponent will tire you out faster. This gives an initial advantage of range to the Rapier even though they are the same length. The cage around the rapier protects the hand of the user, while the quillions of the longsword need to be manipulated in line with the attack. Basically you can target the hands and arms of the longsword a lot easier than you can the rapier as they are more exposed.

So I don’t drone on for hours, the rapierist will keep the fight at length to play to his own advantage. The longswordist’s goal is to ‘get past the point’ of the rapier where he is safer, and then lay into the guy. The winner is more the master of distance rather than the master of the blade, this is the same when dealing with smallsword vs rapier, or sabre vs rapier.

As to that thought that the longsword will just break the rapier - http://www.salvatorfabris.com/RapierPar ... word.shtml

[Jonathan Hill]

double post...

[andrewlonsdale]

thank you

[Sal Bertucci]

. The point of balance wants you to point it at him, while the longsword does not want to be parallel with the ground and pointing it at your opponent will tire you out faster. This gives an initial advantage of range to the Rapier even though they are the same length. The cage around the rapier protects the hand of the user, while the quillions of the longsword need to be manipulated in line with the attack. Basically you can target the hands and arms of the longsword a lot easier than you can the rapier as they are more exposed.

Totally disagreeing with you here. I can point a longsword a a person for just as long if not longer than a rapier b/c the weight of the weapon is distributed to both arms.

I also don't feel your point about the quillions of the longsword aren't strong b/c you don't consider longswords that had fairly complicated hilts.

I'm also disagreeing with this:

"So I don’t drone on for hours, the rapierist will keep the fight at length to play to his own advantage. The longswordist’s goal is to ‘get past the point’ of the rapier where he is safer, and then lay into the guy."

You're forgetting what you previously mentioned that the weapons are practically the same size. A longsword is just as deadly from all parts of that range, whereas the rapier cannot AFFORD for the opponent to be anywhere inside the tip of the weapon.

gtg

[Stacy Clifford]

Another important factor is how well each knows the other's fight. If the longswordsman knows how to use a rapier and vice versa, then I would give the edge to the longsword due to its aforementioned versatility. A longswordsman who doesn't know the rapier's capabilities will quickly get a nasty surprise, but if he knows to treat the rapier more like a spear or that it can be briefly overwhelmed with a flurry of short cuts from kron, then the longsword's versatility can be exploited more easily. (Regarding that flurry of cuts, from the rapier's perspective, sticking your hand in the Cuisinart to try to sneak a thrust through is certainly possible, but rather intimidating to try.) The rapier is certainly dangerous, but it has certain limitations built into it on purpose, so someone who knows them can exploit them and change the odds considerably. As we always say, it ultimately comes down to the fighters more than it does the weapons. You can beat anything with anything if you just know how.

[John Farthing]

While demonstrating the side-sword against the Longsword, the techniques discussed herein are easily enough applied to the rapier when facing the Longsword. That being said, I believe the video on side-sword vs. Longsword from right here on the ARMA site, goes a long way towards answering your inquiry.

http://www.thearma.org/Videos/LessonOnSideVLong.mp4

If you have difficulty with the above link, this video can also be viewed on Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpFrXHm-HBg

[Vincent Le Chevalier]

I'd take the rapier

I think the rapier and the associated fighting style has more or less evolved for just the scenario you describe: one-on-one encounter without armour, without necessarily an equality of weapon either. Not to say that the longsword hasn't been used in such a situation, but it does not seem to have been its designed application.

Even the shortest rapier blades (say, something like what Thibault shows) would be above 42in for someone my size. Longswords do not seem to reach that size, at least not those that the majority of people train with now; Albion's Meyer only has 36in of blade. To get the same blade length you have to creep into true two-handers, Montante for example. Handling the sword with two hands efficiently also diminishes the range. That does not just mean that the rapier will land a fraction of time before the longsword hits (which would be quite useless ), it also implies that the rapier fighter will be able to afford to keep the contact point between the blades closer to his strong and closer to his opponent's weak.At 42in, maybe the cut of the rapier blade would not be sufficient on arms, but to the head it's still a sizeable threat, so the rapier fighter wouldn't be completely harmless in close. All the more so if he has a dagger (which was basically the standard equipment for actual fighting as opposed to training).

Assuming trained fighters, I don't think the tactics used would surprise either really, so it would be down to skill and to how fit the weapon used is for the context. For untrained fighters, I'd bet double hit, and I'd wager that it is easier to train someone to be marginally efficient with a rapier than it is to train someone to the same level at longsword. The whole theory is a lot more compact and the actions do not have to be as physical either...

Regards,

[JeremyDillon]

As to that thought that the longsword will just break the rapier - http://www.salvatorfabris.com/RapierPar ... word.shtml

Just wanted to point out that the experiment your citing was performed using a Del Tin practice blade. I've played with these quite a bit and they're VERY flexible in comparison with an actual rapier blade (as should be expected from a practice blade). For this reason, I really don't see what they think they've proved. I'm not necessarily coming down on the other side of the argument here, just pointing out that their experiment is pretty inconclusive, since they've chosen some unapt tools.

[Stacy Clifford]

As to that thought that the longsword will just break the rapier - http://www.salvatorfabris.com/RapierPar ... word.shtml

Just wanted to point out that the experiment your citing was performed using a Del Tin practice blade. I've played with these quite a bit and they're VERY flexible in comparison with an actual rapier blade (as should be expected from a practice blade). For this reason, I really don't see what they think they've proved. I'm not necessarily coming down on the other side of the argument here, just pointing out that their experiment is pretty inconclusive, since they've chosen some unapt tools.

Rapiers usually have a thick, sturdy spine in the lower portions of the blade to make them stiff since they have so little width to draw structural strength from, so of course parrying on the strong is going to be effective, and every manual tells you to do it that way with every type of blade anyway, so testing that doesn't really address the issue. From what I know of John Clements' research, most accounts of rapiers breaking are of the tip or the last foot of the blade breaking off, where the blade gets much thinner and weaker. It tended to happen when the rapier was used to cut against too sturdy a target or when the opposing weapon landed a hard blow on the rapier's weak. Since rapier cross sections were highly variable, some were probably more durable than others and less susceptible to this problem, so you can't really generalize the problem across all rapiers, but it apparently happened often enough to be a concern worth keeping in mind. That said, I agree that testing a flexible practice blade has little scientific relevance to the real thing.

[Vincent Le Chevalier]

As to that thought that the longsword will just break the rapier - http://www.salvatorfabris.com/RapierPar ... word.shtml

Just wanted to point out that the experiment your citing was performed using a Del Tin practice blade. I've played with these quite a bit and they're VERY flexible in comparison with an actual rapier blade (as should be expected from a practice blade). For this reason, I really don't see what they think they've proved. I'm not necessarily coming down on the other side of the argument here, just pointing out that their experiment is pretty inconclusive, since they've chosen some unapt tools.

[...] That said, I agree that testing a flexible practice blade has little scientific relevance to the real thing.

The problem here is that the particular technique performed is not technically parry but a counter-thrust, which would have been quite hard to perform safely with a real blade as far as I can figure. I think the experiment is still valid because it proves that the technique to parry cuts indicated in the manuals diminishes the impact on the blade in a good proportion, which would make it less likely to break anyway.

Thibault makes a few allusions to blades breaking when used to make a static block, even rapier against rapier, so it did happen often enough to be noticed. But in my opinion the point of the experiment was that the force of the blow could be diverted just as the manuals advise (though Thibault's solution is not technically similar to that of Fabris, it shares the property that it spreads the impact over a longer time with the blades sliding, thus not putting undue stress on the blade).

Regards,

[Jonathan Hill]

The technique also ‘jams’ the power of the attack as you stop it closer to the opponents meza-to-fort and thus he does not have nearly the power on it that the strike would if the strike was received in proper cutting distance.

Before you go dismissing the ‘test’ of a technique because a part of the blade is flexible, you should think about what effect that flex had on this test. The flex mostly happened in the meza to foilable on that and all rapier blades, that one more so than a jump rope. The impact was happening on the fort of the blade where it is more stiff. The only argument I see concerning the flex of the blade is that the blade would be ‘softer’ than historical ones and thus less likely to shatter or break upon impact. That would be a valid argument and one that the technique addresses when you meet the blade ‘fort-to-fort,’ but as Vincent eluded to blade breakages did happen. Even if the blade did break you would still have killed your attacker, you just may have taken a hit as well.

The technique is nothing more than I do most times I spar, I use it with longsword, Rapier, I’ve even had the change to do it with a sabre. No one cares what I do when sparring so I don’t bother telling you guys that I’ve done it, people like to see other write things up to believe them. Give it a try, as your opponent cuts in at you , take bicorno, angle your quillion properly to catch his attack and put the point directly on his chest.

[Stacy Clifford]

To clarify what I was trying to say a little bit, receiving a blow on the forte should work safely on any type of blade, including a flexible practice rapier, because that part is made sturdy enough to do so. All the masters tell us this about every type of blade. That part is not vulnerable to breakage, and testing blows on it doesn't prove that rapiers can't break, it just proves the masters are telling you the correct way to defend yourself.

The part of the blade that is vulnerable to breakage is the foible, the part you would normally cut with, but which also occasionally receives blows by accident. This is also the part of a practice rapier that is the most flexible. It's not going to behave the same way in a stress test as a stiff blade designed to penetrate, so beating on it (or with it) will give you no useful data on the breakage of stiff blades because it will just flex instead, as it's designed to do. If you want to know how the weak portion of a stiff blade is going to react under stress, you have to perform your test with a stiff blade.

The point of such a test is to determine how well the blade survives unintended actions like a poorly thrown blow or a bad parry with the wrong part of the blade. After all, it's fighting; things go wrong, and you have to survive them. Knowing the limits of your weapon is part of that.