Rapiers on the Battlefield

[Tachikaze]

Quote[/b] (Brutal DLX @ April 07 2003,02:04)]I'm not confusing the rapier with the sports equipment, Tachikaze. You may have practiced fencing, but we're talking about a fight between two masters.
We seem to agree on the first hit being decisive, but I strongly disagree that the rapier guy would have an easy time scoring that hit. And if he misses, he won't be able to evade a Kensai.
Anyway, reminds me of that post from Solypsist linking to one forum where they debated whether a light sabre could deflect a phaser beam. lol. So that's going to be my last post in this thread before it get more absurd..

I wasn't writing to you about the foil; I was writing to people who asked what a rapier was.

If two masters faced each other, one with a rapier, the other with a katana, the only chance the the katana-wielder would have is to make a thrust. The rapier is a better thrusting weapon. This is assuming both combatants begin with their swords drawn.

[BlackWatch McKenna]

Having strapped on the Kendo gear, I would say "Katana".

Let's hear what the tough guys have to say............


Article from Swordsmanship
--------------------------
The Katana vs. The Rapier
A Fantasy Worth Considering

by John Clements, Director of the HACA

Every once in awhile it's not uncommon to hear people speculate on what result might occur in a duel between a Japanese samurai armed with his katana and a European Renaissance swordsman with a rapier. It's a worthwhile question to consider.

As someone who has some small experience in both traditional Japanese swordsmanship and fencing (Kenjutsu & Kendo) and who has been a long-time renaissance swordsman and Western fencer, I can offer an opinion on this question. From my own experience sparring with cutting against thrusting swords, I have a few insights. While there are certainly no historically recorded accounts (other than unsubstantiated myth and rumor) as to encounters between European swordsmen and Japanese samurai, I think we can make a few very general suppositions about such a fight.

First, while typical samurai warriors were highly trained soldiers, the average samurai was not an expert swordsman, perhaps only 5% or so were its been suggested. Of this 5%, maybe 5% of those were "master" level swordsmen. Whereas the average European rapier swordsman, would more or less be an ordinary urban citizen with or without military experience. He would likely have received some (if any) professional instruction from a master in a private school of fence and then would of course have some degree of street fighting experience. The weapon he is using would be one of personal self-defence and duel as opposed to a battlefield sword.

For sake of argument though, let's assume mastery level by each hypothetical fighter. Let us also assume armor is a non-factor in the encounter, as are any missile weapons or terrain factors. Further, lets assume that each swordsman is equally ignorant of the other's style of fight.

An immediate question that occurs then, is would the samurai's notorious resolute contempt for death and self-disregard lead to an audacious and immediate offensive attack? Would the rapier fighter's presumably cautious, cool-headed counter-thrusting style of fight provoke a simple stop-thrust? The samurai might well hold disdain for his "barbarian" foreigner's seemingly "flimsy" blade. This could prove fatal against a weapon with the speed and reach of a rapier. The rapier fighter himself may also erroneously hold his "pagan" adversary's cutting style equally in contempt. Underestimating both the speed and the force of a katana's deflecting counter-cuts can be disastrous. Even a small snipping cut could often dismember an arm. Simply stepping to evade an initial cut can even place you in the path of a powerful second and third one. For the most part though, since all the psychological factors, although important, are notoriously hard to quantify, we'll have to avoid them for now.

Personally, from my own experience, I think the outcome of such a fight would fall in one of either two directions. The samurai would move directly to make a devastating cut, becoming punctured through the head or lung as a result, but still having his cut cleave through the rapier fighter's headand torso (or at least his arm). Else, the rapier fighter would over time, make multiple shallow punctures to the samurai's hands, arms, and face until able to deliver an incapacitating thrust. But at this same time, the samurai would be carefully closing the distance and waiting until the split second he could dash the rapier aside and step in with a slice clean across his opponent's abdomen or face. Typically, the sword user won't risk stepping into a stop-thrust and the rapier fighter won't risk taking a swiping cut. The heavier blade can usually beat the rapier aside but can't respond in time. While the rapier, often could attack but afterwards couldn't recover or parry once it connects. I have seen both forms of outcomes in my mock-fighting practices, but more often the Japanese stylist underestimates the rapier rather than vice-versa.

As is becoming increasing well known, the rapier is not the flimsy tool of the modern sport version, nor is it used in the same flicking manner. It is longer, stronger, heavier, and involves a greater range of techniques and moves. The rapier's penetrating stabs have great reach and are very quick, particularly on the disengage. But it can still be grabbed and lacks cutting offense. The katana has a well-rounded offence to defence, and is much more symmetrical in its handling. It can make great close-in draw cuts and is an agile weapon with quick footwork of its own. It can be wielded well enough one-handed if need be, too. Obviously, a katana can't match the rapier thrust for thrust. What a rapier does best is fight point-on with linear stabs, and no heavier, wider blade will possibly out maneuver it. Playing to the rapier's strength by using a katana horizontally is a losing game.

The katana itself is not a slow sword. It has a good deal of agility as well as being able to thrust some. Kenjutsu cuts are delivered in quick succession using a flowing manner. Its two-hand grip can generate great power by using a sort of "torqueing" method with additional force added from the hips. The katana's cutting power and edge sharpness is also legendary (although often the subject of exaggeration). It is a sword of war after all, and faced a variety of arms and armors. While not every puncture with a rapier would be lethal, to be sure, virtually every cut by a katana was intended to kill instantly.

Although occasionally argued by some, I do not believe for an instant that the rapier would be "cut" or broken by a katana. Although katanas were (more or less) capable of cutting through metal, slicing an adversary's very sword, especially one as agile as a rapier, is improbable at best. The rapier really just doesn't offer the opportunity or the necessary resistance to even attempt it.

In thinking about all this, I have to admit to a certain bias. Being somewhat familiar with both Eastern and Western systems, I have a good feel I think for the strengths and weaknesses of each. So I may have a slightly skewed opinion. When I have sparred with each weapon against each style of fighter, I know generally what they can and can't do and adjust myself accordingly. Then again, maybe that makes me more objective than biased. My own experiences contrasting the two forms has been in using a variety of implements, including: non-contact steel blunts, semi-contact bokken (wooden sword) vs. replica rapier, and full-contact padded sword vs. schlager (rapier simulator). Attempting a simulation of sport epee vs. bokken though, is a futile exercise as the super light epee, more often than it can flash in with a poke, can be easily knocked around and even end up being bent. As well, shinai vs. a foil or epee is just as futile. The virtually weightless bamboo shinai distorts a katana's handling far more so than even a foil or epee misrepresents the performance of a rapier or small-sword.

Very often it has seemed to me, that sport fencers are quite often much too quick to assume that their own speedy feints, disengages, and long reach will easily overwhelm a cutting sword. Frequently, what passes for the kenjutsu that Western fencers have previously encountered was far from competent. Thus, they are habitually unprepared for a katana's agile strength and defensive counter-cuts. The worst thing the rapier fighter can do is to allow his weapon to be bound up with the point off to the side. He must avoid fighting close-in where the katana's force and slicing ability will instantly dominate. On the other hand, Asian stylists unfamiliar with what a rapier really is and what it can do, severely underestimate it. They too readily believe what they see in sport epee and foil is the "real thing". The rapier's deceptive speed combined with its excellent reach and fast, efficient footwork make it a formidable weapon to face in single (unarmored) combat. Essentially, underestimating either weapon is a fatal misperception.*

It is worth mentioning that the rapier was used more often with a companion dagger. But employing a dagger against a fast katana is extremely challenging as well as possibly self-defeating. Trying to trap or block a sword held in two-hands with a light dagger held in one is not advisable. The samurai might always release one hand from his weapon and grab his opponent's blade. However, some dagger techniques against a sword actually resemble those effectively used with the Okinawan sai. Also, the respected two-sword Nito-ryu style of Musashi seems to be much less relevant against the rapier. In this case, using one hand on two separate swords reduces the katana's own speed and strength advantages while playing to the rapier's. The two swords end up being too slow to employ their combination parry/cut against the rapier's greater speed and stabbing reach.

So, after all this I am reluctant to form an opinion of one over another, but I have to say I really don't know one way or the other. I have tremendous respect for kenjutsu's excellent technique and its ferocious cutting ability, yet I favor the rapier's innovative fence and vicious mechanics. Though it's very fun to speculate on, I think "who would win" between a rapier swordsman and a samurai is a moot question and unanswerable. Thus, what it eventually gets down to is not the weapon or even the art, but the individual (their conditioning and attitude) and the circumstances. Bottom line, it's about personal skill.

*Footnote: Interestingly, the Renaissance cut & thrust method (as practiced by the Elizabethan master George Silver or described in various early Italian manuals) naturally has qualities of each weapon. It's not unlike that of Kenjutsu with many fundamental principles being the same. It differs significantly of course, in its footwork and in the application of certain techniques and moves (particularly thrusts) which were later adapted to its similar "cousin", the rapier. Cut & thrust swords were also commonly used along with a buckler or dagger and the flexibility of this two-weapon combination can have some advantages against a single sword in held two hands.


About the Author

John Clements is the author of "Medieval Swordsmanship: Illustrated Methods and Techniques" (Paladin Press, November 1998, ISBN # 1-58160-004-6). He is the Director of the HACA - The Historical Armed Combat Association at http://www.thehaca.com/ - a martial arts organization dedicated to the study and replication of historical European swordsmanship and fighting skills.

http://swordforum.com/summer99/kat-vs-rap.html
----------------------------------------

and again..........

----------------------------------------
The Myth of Thrusting versus Cutting Swords

By John Clements & Belinda Hertz

While the great diversity of cutting and thrusting swords around the world testify to the importance of both cutting and thrusting in fencing, there is something of a pervasive myth of a supposed "superiority" of point over edge in swordplay, and predominantly in European swordplay. Yet, with only a few minor exceptions, prior to the early 18th century there was no "cut versus thrust" debate among Western swordsmen.

Many swords of the world were in actuality compromise designs that attempted to blend and combine in one weapon those elements ideally best for slashing or stabbing. There are many, many possible design solutions. There are types of swords with straight backs yet curved edges, and others that widen toward the point but then taper sharply. In most cultures acutely pointed cut-and-thrust swords existed side by side with more dedicated cutting blades for centuries with neither replacing the other.


The thrust and cut alike were common even fundamental fighting techniques among warrior cultures. Virtually every ancient people employed the thrusting spear for example, with many, such as the Greeks, Swiss, and Japanese, even specializing in it. When it comes to pole arms, just as with swords there are both thrust-only and cut-and-thrust versions, i.e., spears, lances and yari as opposed to halberds, glaives, and naginatas. Narrow tapered thrusting swords were actually known in ancient Crete while the Greeks themselves even developed powerful cutting swords in the convex bladed kopis. A similar weapon, the falcata, was employed by the Iberians, who are credited with developing the gladius hispanicus from which the Romans acquired their sword. The Romans, often cited as the personifying the epitome of thrusting swordplay, actually stressed both cut and thrust with their wide bladed gladius and eventually adopted the longer spatha, or cutting blade. The Celts, who had excellent metallurgical skills for some 500 years, preferred wide cutting-blades as did the later Vikings and Franks. The Saxons employed a large Bowie-like blade, the scramaseax from which their name is derived. The curved blade of the sabre or sable was said to have been first introduced to Eastern Europe through steppe nomads sometime by the 9th century and continued to dominate there among mounted warriors into the 20th century. The Chinese long before developed two major forms of sword, one a curved cleaving weapon and the other a longer straight cut-and-thrust one. In both Persian and Arabia from at least the 9th century straight double-edged swords designed for cut and thrust were used for mounted combat just as much as were curved single-edge ones such as talwars and scimitars. Charlemagne's own sword of state was itself a curved single-edged cutting and thrusting blade.

In Western Europe by at least the 1200s more slender-pointed tapering blades were used as much as were wider parallel-edged ones. In the Middle Ages specialized thrusting swords such as the estoc (tuck or stocco) developed specifically to fight articulated plate armor by stabbing into gaps and joints with their rigid blades. Medieval fighting texts are full of warnings as to the effectiveness of the thrust and how it was "deadly as a serpent." Still, a variety of curved Medieval sword forms such as the falchion, badelaire, malchus, storta, and Messer were commonly used among both knights and foot-soldiers in Medieval Europe (which ironically, could most all be employed in thrusting). From the early 1500s, the wide, curved Bohemian Dussack was a traditional German fencing weapon and training tool. The Japanese katana, famous for its cutting power, is actually a fairly good thrusting sword as well and such techniques were especially taught for battlefield use against armor. In North Africa, an unusual sickle-like sword, the shotel (similar to the ancient Thracian falx and sica), was even designed for hooking and thrusting behind an opponent's shield. Various tapering swords ideal for close-in stabbing were also developed in Indonesia, Malaysia, and India. Even the Zulu assegai can, in a sense, be seen as a form of long-handled thrusting sword. We might even consider such "flame bladed" swords as the Indonesian kris and the Renaissance-era flammard or flamberge as combination curved and straight edge.

In fact, whether a sword is straight or curved, tapered or wide, is not always a factor of the armor it might face or even whether it would be used mounted or on foot, but rather of the preferences and temperament of the user. Many North African swords for instance, were never intended to face heavy armors, yet vary from thin and straight to wide and curved styles.

While it is true that an original and particularly effective method of civilian foining fence (thrusting swordplay) did arise in 16th century Europe and continued to be refined and specialized into the 17th and 18th centuries, first with the gentleman's court or smallsword and then the duelling épée, the belief that thrusting swords were either an exclusively Renaissance "invention" is inaccurate and misleading. Even into the Renaissance, where with the advent of the rapier point fencing finally came into its own in Western Europe, cutting blades never disappeared either from the battlefield or personal self-defense (the rapier's innovative style of quick, deceptive, long-reaching stabbing attack quickly came to dominate both the urban street-fighting environment and the duelling field, but was never intended for the battlefield). Indeed, arguably nearly all European fencing manuals prior to the 1570s are "cut and thrust" styles. As Sir Philip Sydney in 1580 advised, "use as well the blow as the thrust" and, in the words of the master George Silver in 1599, "there is no fight perfect without both blow and thrust." Nevertheless, different swords do one or the other better.

In Captain John Godfrey's 1747, A Treatise Upon The Useful Science of Defence, he explained the relative values of the cut and thrust when he argued: "I must take notice of the Superiority the Back-Sword has over the Small, in point of Use." He then adds: "But the Back-Sword, sure, must be distinguished from the other, because it is as necessary in the Army, as the other is mischievous in Quarrels, and deadly in Duels. The Small-Sword is the Call of Honour, the Back-Sword the Call of Duty." Godfrey noted the difference in function between the smallsword and backsword by saying: "Sure[ly] the wide difference between killing Numbers of your Enemy in Battle, and one Man in a quarrel, ever so much in your own Defence, every calm thinking Man cannot but allow."

Into the 19th century, when armor and shields were no longer factors in combat, cavalry armies still debated what weapon was best for mounted swordplay, a saber (curved or straight), spadroon, or broadsword, or else a straight-bladed thrusting weapon, with each type having its proponents swearing from experience the utility of one form over the other. Yet, despite the debate, the vast majority of military pattern swords issued by European armories in the 19th century were curved cutting blades --often based on popular Turkish or Mameluke designs (even the modern U.S. Marine Corps' official dress sword is a semi-curved blade of this style).

While despite being eclipsed in the realm of civilian fencing by thrusting weapons ideal for single combat without armor, a tradition of cutting swordplay with sabre, backsword, and broadsword continued in Europe well into the 20th century. As the great Victorian historian of fencing, Egerton Castle, noted: "from the last third of the 17th century…the sword, as a fighting implement, becomes differentiated into two very different directions. The military weapon becomes the back-sword or sabre; the walking companion and duelling weapon becomes what we now understand by the small-sword. Two utterly different kinds of fence are practised: one, that of the back-sword; the other, what we would now call foil-play." Describing the history of the cutting and thrusting in historical fencing Dr. Sydney Anglo explains: "One of the most striking features - not only of the early theoretical literature but also of the actual foot-fighting - is the clear understanding of the use of thrusting with all weapons. In this respect, the ignorance of fencers prior to the mid-sixteenth century has been greatly exaggerated. The efficacy of the point had been grasped in classical times; was succinctly enunciated by Vegetius; and passed thence into the common lore of medieval combat which extolled the superiority of the "foyne" or thrust over the cut." For example, inspired by Vegetius, one 1458 source on "Knighthood and Bataille" stated, "Thrusting is better than smiting, especially at the heart." This is certainly true, but only in context --and that's the point.

In fact, many masters and fencers continued to argue for the necessity of familiarity with both the cut and the thrust, either with two specialized weapons or one capable of each. By the late 19th century, Italians such as Giuseppe Radaelli even reintroduced cutting swordplay into the realm of sport fencing. In essence then, except for civilian duelling in Europe, there has never been a true historical predominance of the cut over thrust. Differences between the two are a matter of the circumstances and conditions weapons are employed under as well as the preferences and temperaments of the fighters. Of course, thrusting was often forbidden in mock fighting contests during the Medieval and Renaissance eras precisely because, unlike edge blows, such techniques were notoriously difficult to safely control and puncture wounds were nearly impossible to treat (even today, surgeons still dread treating stab wounds more than lacerations).

It can be postulated that sword attacks with the point rely more on speed and finesse while those with the edge rely more on strength and momentum and this itself may reflect some of the prejudice that later developed between the two philosophies. Part of this lies in the simple fact that thrusting requires much less strength to make a lethal wound while an effective cut can require a powerful blow. Both require skill to use, both will kill, and both have situations where they are more practical. In the end, it was really 19th century Victorians and their 20th century sport fencer followers with their thin featherweight swords (descended from the 18th century smallsword) who perpetuated a belief in a historical linear "evolution" from crude, heavier, clumsy cutting and bashing swords toward the more refined and elegant "proper" science of point fencing. But history shows that where each was used in combination, the art of defense was arguably more versatile.

http://www.thehaca.com/essays/thrusting_vs_cutting.html
-----------------------------------------------------

~BW

[kaaskop]

yep the arma has one great site ,don't forget the read up on sword and buckler

[Brutal DLX]

Thanks BlackWatch for posting the articles. It's essentially what I wanted to say, underestimation is lethal mistake and the winner isn't certain at all.

[Vex47]

Here are some videos, a quote and some thoughts that I felt might inspire the topic further.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gVwaY0NEQU - Sparring between two very skilled historical fencers, both trained in the respective historical styles that match the "rapier vs katana" argument in a one on one duell. Looks like, in my opinion, it mostly would've come down to individual skill.

Here is a quote from Matt Easton of ScholaGladiatoria, a member of the Historical European Martial Arts community. The bit of text was a reply from Mr. Easton to a viewer of a video he made on the rapier about two years ago (as of this post):

"CrazyToastie - I don't think it is really possible to differentiate rapiers as being military or civilian in purpose, in 99% of cases. We could guess that the heavier ones are more for war and the lighter ones more for civilian life, but we are only ever guessing - in some cases a person might only own one rapier and that would be their sword in all aspects of life. There were broader and narrower ones, longer and shorter ones. Most real antique rapiers are quite stiff, regardless of their length or width - and of course their narrow width means they encounter less resistance entering a target than broader types of sword."

The video in which Mr. Easton made this response I will also link, as I think, even though Mr. Easton is now MUCH more proficient in the personal use of the rapier, as of the last year, than he was when he made this, he still points out that the blade geometry and setup of the rapier was what determined whether its owner would be duelling with it or using it as his war sidearm: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efZLw-tlIOs

Also, let us remember that, on the battlefield, swords were almost always a sidearm behind firepower or polearms, etc. Cheers! :)

Edit: Throwing in a link to a blog written by Tom Leoni of the Virginia Academy of Fencing on his most recent revelations about what makes a sword a "rapier": http://www.salvatorfabris.org/WhatIsTheRapier2.shtml

[Fragony]

I got a few antique ones, much shorter and broader than the one on the video, heavily reinforced. Could absolutily be used as a slashing weapon

Edit: lol I know it's inapropiate in this section of the Org but after the youtube video has ended the pose of the rapier wielder is kinda.......