- Sep 3, 2008
My argument, actually, is that if the events in question did arise, the problem of a broken blade is the least of your concerns. Parrying a cut perpendicularly with one's foible is far more likely to simply result in an attck through the parry and death or injury regardless of the weapon. I'm not presuming perfection on the part of the rapier master but rather asserting that the mistakes they need to make to truly endanger their blade would easily be fatal by themseles.Lightknight said:So you're debating past me here. Your comment is more along the lines of, "But a rapier master wouldn't let the tip get hit". That has nothing to do with what I'm saying.
I'd generally agree that one can present the weapon in a threatening fashion relatiely easily; however, given the blade is actually deliered by the feet I'm not quite convinced the full action of attack is substantially faster than with the cut. My experience is with european fencing after all.Lightknight said:Maneuverable was a poor word choice to convey a correct point. What I mean is that you can strike more rapidly with the rapier. The light blade makes is a weapon that can move faster than the heavier variety.
It is a trivial matter to change lines of attack with a thrust, actually. The heft of the rapier (and when I refer to it's mass, it's more a problem of length than absolute weight) would make it more difficult to do this quickly or accurately than the comparatiely featherweight small sword but it would still be a trivial skill for any one trained in the art. Indeed, the feint/disengage/attack is one of the first complex attacks learned in fencing preceed only by the feint/parry/reposte!Lightknight said:The nature of a thrusting weapon makes it difficult change course once being thrust.
Really, if we assume the weilder of the rapier is using a classic rapier and not the small sword, he would have some other implement at his disposal to defend himself with because this implement was a fundamental and necessary part of the style.Lightknight said:Though there were many other reasons for the side-arm rather than just manueverability. Rapier users basically don't have a weapon available if their blade is in the body of an opponent or in their grasp. If someone stabs you with a rapier you may not just wilt and fall to the ground in agony. You've got a blade too and the moment the rapier is in there you can strike as well. This opposed to a striking weapon that is only out of play while striking the opponent.
Sure - as I said, if the rapier master can maintain his distance (thus commanding the engagement) he'd likely be able to win. But, command of the fight could easily change hands in this match-up.Lightknight said:They are supposed to be equal, which means we're just talking blade against blade. Removal of human elements makes the discussion viable whereas the inclussion of them would make the parameters too numerous to be discussed.
Frankly, I see many outcomes where they both die.
Ultimately, I think the rapier user could deliver a wound - I just don't think they'd manage to land something fatal before the katana wielder could do the same. At least not on average.