Poll: Katana and Rapier: An Objective Comparison

[Lightknight]

Sorry, I should have clarified that all I meant is that the manuals I was referring to describe weapons that are similar to the rapier in the link (though obviously they were Italian rapiers, rather than Spanish, given that I'm only familiar with English and Italian rapier manuals), and those manuals detail cutting with rapiers. As I've said to Eclectic Dreck, I don't mean large cutting actions that you see with primarily cutting weapons, I mean small snappy cuts to vulnerable tendons and the like. I am familiar with the use of rapiers (although not adept), I am well aware they are not hacking and slashing weapons. But yes, I do not think we are really in disagreement.

Agreed. Even masters who adamantly disagreed with the use of a rapier as a hack and slash weapon would at least include cutting moves in their style. But by far a secondary utility as slashing can easily lead to breaks of the blade and the cuts aren't nearly as significant as with other blades. But, all in all, done right, it gets the job done.

European swords (at least later period ones, which the rapier certainly is) have a reasonably uniform hardness, which is typically not as hard as the edge of a katana, no. However, that does not mean that the katana is likely to break a rapier, and the circumstances under which that could happen are very specific (as Eclectic Dreck details in the post above). The sword will flex considerably before it will snap. This is not to say that rapiers can't break - of course they can, they're a sword like any other. I just don't think it's as likely to happen as you think it is. Another thing to mention about historical accounts of rapiers breaking (or any sword breaking, really) is that the breaking of a sword tends to be more memorable than not, and so you'll tend to see a skewed result to the accounts of breakages.

"likely" is an operative term here. I'm disagreeing with the notion that a katana or any blade of significant mass/hardness could NOT break a rapier. Not regarding the likelihood of it happening with two skilled combatants.

I'd say that two unskilled fighters would give the advantage to the non-rapier blade though. But that's besides the point.

One of the main points people are trying to get across is that, while the katana is certainly not a super fragile sword by any means, if it bends it will stay bent - the core is not spring steel.

I wouldn't think otherwise. But all blades should have some give. If not, they were tempered too hard and would shatter before bending. If any metal bends, it will stay bent. I'm not sure why you even made this point. Even bent spring steel doesn't return to former shape.

Unless you're saying there's no give. In which case you simply haven't worked with metal like I have. It all has some give. That's part of the strength of the blade as opposed to hardness. The strength of the blade is specifically to aid in the amount of give it has to protect the blade whereas hardness specifically reduces that strength.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

The practical viability of the cut for the rapier should be evident from the fact that it's in the period manuals. Why write it down if it didn't work? Sweetness was one of the English Masters of Defense, one would hope that he knew what he was doing (not that England was renowned for its rapier styles). Similarly Giganti details how to use the cut.
We are in complete agreement that it is definitely not a primary action of the rapier, but it is a useful situational tool. It does not make large, sweeping cuts akin to cutting swords, it makes short snappy cuts to wrists etc. (things with exposed tendons, mostly). These actions do not leave you vulnerable after the cut, if the cut misses. To be honest the main vulnerability lies in the attack into the preparation. There are ways to mitigate that threat but it is difficult.

If speaking of a cut to mildly wound, the disadvantages do diminish greatly. A cut that you describe does not require one to leave the line of attack or defense but has the notable disadvantage of also being unlikely to cause any significant wound. A small amount of sturdy clothing could easily negate such a mild attack. By contrast, making similarly small motions of the point along with a thrust has the notable advantage of being all but assured of causing a would should the blow land - less than a pound of pressure is necessary to achieve that end at the point.

But, again, from a practical perspective this does produce a problem. In order to achieve such a cut, one must be disconcertingly close to the opponent - a single fencing action from the wrist and hand. Delivering such an attack by a cut would require one be a fair degree closer than the attempting to hit the same target with a thrust and thus a greater commitment to the attack.

And, for the record, pointing to the English when it comes to the Rapier is folly given they were some of the last Europeans to give up the broadsword. The greater utility of the rapier for personal combat was eventually recognized, however. Of course, that the great masters of the art and all of the developments we remember (save for the court sword which was as much a political move as a practical one) came from other nations giving rise to broad competing schools of thought from the famous Spanish circles to the Italian and french disagreements regarding how best to hold the blade. The Italians, for example, are more likely to favor a cut given their development of a style of grip that sacrificed fine point control in favor of power where the french more clearly favored the thrust with a grip that sacrificed power in favor of fine control.

To put this in perspective, a properly held rapier utilizing a purely straight grip is actually held and maneuvered with two fingers - sufficient to direct the point but a problem if your attempt to laterally direct the weapon to some direct offensive end. The Italians, on the other hand, favored a grip that used at least three fingers in a grip that was quite solid. This had the effect of changing to the wrist for fine maneuvers (a less precise choice) but ensured any such action was backed by more strength than the french grip style could muster. The argument of superiority of style arising from this fundamental (and seemingly minor) difference raged for ages even into the modern sport until, eventually, the orthopedic grip was developed which was functionaly a compromise between the two competing styles.

Now, as to the continued existence of the cut in manuals, there are a few schools of thought. First, while the development of the rapier eventually lead to a weapon more or less wholly incapable of delivering an effective cut, that isn't to say it was entirely incapable. Blood could easily be shed even if a great many cuts would be required to cause a fatal wound. Given that duels eventually transitioned from affairs to the death into ones where first blood sufficed for most (even though such a thing stands in direct contrast to the most notable manual used to govern such affairs), the cut could remain a valuable tool. But, that said, there exists an incredibly strong argument against the cut that we find in the parry. Over time, the parry was reduced to nine fundamental manevers. Of those nine parries, you can see an inherent weakness to the cut

Prime protects one's high inside line and the position can best be described as looking at your watch
Seconde protect one's low outside line from rising attacks in this line
Tierce protects the high inside line and is notable because its only utility is to proct the wrist from the small cuts you advocate. It does not exist in modern foil for any practical purpose but it remains in epee as attacks on the wrist are valid
Quarte Protects the high inside line - also the standard position from which most fencers choose to start when commanded to be on their guard. Parries in this line can are as often circular as they are lateral
Quinte Protects the high line, notably the head, from falling attacks. This is one of the most common parries in sabre but it has virtually no use with a thrusting weapon.
Sixte - the same as quarte only for the outside line. A lateral parry between quarte and sixte (or vice versa) is the most common parry seen in sport fencing and often the only one many sport fencers actively use
Septime - also protects the low and outside line from rising attacks
Octave - protects from low inside attacks
Neuvieme - Similar to septime but protecting a higher line. Rarely used or taught given that it is broadly similar to a parry in quarte.

Notably absent are attempts to protect the head from cuts arriving laterally from the inside (prime protects outside) or any strong parry to the low outside line that would be necessary to protect against the cut. This means that defense against the cut in many lines would require an elaborate circular parry which stands directly against the economy of action that western swordsmanship began to advocate - that is, that the French advocated. This places our argument at an awkward impasse - we can see from this directly that the cut was seen as little threat based on the fact that while one constructs a full cage of steel against the thrust, there exist glaring openings against the cut. Indeed, many of the parries in this that protect against cuts appear to only do so by happenstance! Simultaneously, however, this weakness means that the cut is both unexpected and difficult to defend against.

But, as you said, we are in broad agreement I think. Yes, the weapon had an edge and yes it could be thus used to wound with a cut. Yes, manuals do indicate it's use even when the development of the weapon lead inexorably down a path that produced weapons that increasingly advocated the thrust over the cut that largely retained an edge to dissuade people from grabbing the blade. So, we simultaneously have a case for the cut and against the cut and little record of the practicality of the move. I suppose we will have to be satisfied with leaving this discussion at little more than the fact that I do not think the maneuver would often be a prudent choice in a duel. It is possible that my own position is biased based on the fact that the modern sport favors the French school of thought rather than the Italian. Were it the other way around, I would probably look more charitably upon the cut.

 

[cefm]

Indiana Jones answered this question best.

http://i.imgur.com/WMoSYNM.jpg

'nuf said.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

A rapier is a thin blade and is not nearly so flexible as a small sword for example. If a katana can break another katana then I don't see why any rational person would defend a thinner, harder blade (as in, one piece of hardened steel).

The reason I'd defend the blade is, as I pointed out previously, that such a break requires a specific intersection of events that are highly unlikely. Beyond the simple need for inhuman strength (the wrist tends to deflect against a strong strike after all), you also need to strike the perfectly perpendicularly or else the blade would simply slide down the object that stopped it. It should be noted that in sabre, that first requirement (strong wrist) and the second (perpendicular) are exploited in a proper execution of parry quinte which protects the head by placing the blade above and in front of the head with the blade angled up such that when the opposing blade is met, it naturally slides down to your own guard giving the one conducting a parry complete control over their opponents blade for a reposte. Finally, the odds of breaking the blade diminish considerably as you progress closer to the grip of the weapon. Given that the bottom third of the blade is used to properly parry (both because of this weakness of material and the utterly practical concerns of physics and lengths of lever that suffice to allow a parry to easily redirect force when using a higher potion of the blade would require inhuman strength), we thus arrive at a conclusion. In order for the blade to be in much danger of breaking from a cut, the defending fencer would have to misapply a parry while having inhuman strength. The point of the former is then sufficient to draw a conclusion - misapplying the parry as they did would more readily lead to death or injury than having a blade broken.

Rapiers have a well-documented history of breaking during fights from various things. From armor to just breaking inside the body. If you can reach out and snap the blade then it can sure as hell be damaged by a steel blade. Not just a katana either, any thick blade of hardened steel.

Yes the blade can damaged but, again, you seem to presume that the blade is some flimsy chunk of steel. The thrust as executed in western fencing delivers staggering force to the blade - far exceeding that delivered by a katana. The reason is simple - where the katana is backed by the mass of the arms, the thrust is backed by the mass of the entire body. The Rapier was expected to withstand, repeated impacts of many hundreds if not a few thousand pounds of force and that it could withstand one such impact is a testament to it's strength. Sure, it isn't good at bearing a sustained load the way a heavier mass of steel would be, such as when you attempt to snap a blade with your hands. And sure it broke in combat - so did hundrends of other weapons. The point, quite simply, is that such breaking of the blade is an unlikely scenario and thus not worthy of consideration in this debate.

Please don't forget, I'm in the Rapier would win in this thread category. I think, given parameters of landing a successful blow on the target, the rapier's reach and manueverability is all the advantage it needs to gain that standing when damage potential isn't considered.

And that is where we truly differ. I would not consider the rapier maneuverable. The length and mass of the blade were such that the weapon needed an accompanying device to defend with precisely because it was difficult to change lines! That is not the hallmark of a weapon that is maneuverable. That, of course, assumes we are discussing the long and slender weapon and not the small sword or court sword that most people erroniously think of when they hear the term rapier. Were it one of the latter weapons, I'd join your camp on the maneuverability front!

I don't think it would necessarily happen. I think the rapier is agile enough to generally avoid sword strikes. But I'm just combating the silly notion that a katana can't break a rapier. Simple as that. I don't think you're disagreeing with me. I think you're arguing with me about the likelihood of it doing that. But the topic on the thread was that it can't do so. Not everyone wielding a rapier is necessarily an expert. People make mistakes and with a rapier that can easily mean a broken blade.

The advantage the rapier wielder has is not the maneuverability of his weapon. It is in the reach of his weapon and the fact his weapon has a guard that protects the hands. Were I forced into such an engagement, I would opt to strik at my opponents hands first given the utter lack of an effective guard. Standing against him are a host of disadvantages that I've outlined at length elsewhere in this thread.

Of course, outside of this theory crafting universe, the outcome boils down to a discussion of if the wielder of the rapier can control the distance and tempo of the fight. If he can do so, a result of skill more than the weapon, then the rapier could easily win the contest. If he could not maintain this command position, he is very likely to lose. Which, of course, is true regardless of weapons used in combat. Ultimately, the discussion necessarily ignores the fundamental human element leaving us with only minor details to quibble about. Personally, while length is an advantage, I can concive of a great many ways to close the gap, some which exploit the weakness of the rapier and some that just require a fundamental application of bladework, and thus I favor the Katana in this fight.

 

[Lightknight]

The reason I'd defend the blade is, as I pointed out previously, that such a break requires a specific intersection of events that are highly unlikely.

The blades regularly broke in battle. They were notorious for it. So clearly you are incorrect here.

And again, I'm not debating liklihood. I'm debating ability. The comment was made that a katana could not break a rapier in battle. My claim is that nearly any sword could. Even a rapier landing a solid blow at another rapier's tip should have some success.

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.

Yes the blade can damaged but, again, you seem to presume that the blade is some flimsy chunk of steel.

Compared to other blades of greater mass but similar hardness, yes, it is. Flimsiness is a relative thing. I also think a Katana could break another katana, a properly hardended long sword could break a kanata, and many other alternatives. I do not think that a rapier could break a katana though. Not enough mass to it. The lack of mass is what made it a crappy hack/slash blade but a quick and efficient thrusting blade. So thankfully it didn't need to break other swords to be successful.

And that is where we truly differ. I would not consider the rapier maneuverable. The length and mass of the blade were such that the weapon needed an accompanying device to defend with precisely because it was difficult to change lines! That is not the hallmark of a weapon that is maneuverable. That, of course, assumes we are discussing the long and slender weapon and not the small sword or court sword that most people erroniously think of when they hear the term rapier. Were it one of the latter weapons, I'd join your camp on the maneuverability front!

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. The nature of a thrusting weapon makes it difficult change course once being thrust.

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.

It is in the reach of his weapom... snip

I have said this so very many times. I'd give the advantage to nearly any weapon that has sufficient reach. A spear wielder should always win on first strike against any opponent with a shorter weapon where skill is roughly equivalent.

And yes, the ability to strike at the hands is nice.

Of course, outside of this theory crafting universe, the outcome boils down to a discussion of if the wielder of the rapier can control the distance and tempo of the fight. If he can do so, a result of skill more than the weapon, then the rapier could easily win the contest. If he could not maintain this command position, he is very likely to lose. Which, of course, is true regardless of weapons used in combat. Ultimately, the discussion necessarily ignores the fundamental human element leaving us with only minor details to quibble about. Personally, while length is an advantage, I can concive of a great many ways to close the gap, some which exploit the weakness of the rapier and some that just require a fundamental application of bladework, and thus I favor the Katana in this fight.

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.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

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.

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.

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.

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.

The nature of a thrusting weapon makes it difficult change course once being thrust.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Shadowstar38]

You are not really crediting both sides with anything, I see blind fanyboyisms in your post.

"Should a Samurai actually bring a Katana out against a knight, he would be two things.

- Dead.
- An idiot."

Your words. Makes it seem like you're saying Samurais would just be shit outta luck against knights. Which is kind of an illogical.

Though, I'm with you on the last part of your post. The first time I read the title of this thread I laughed at the use of "objective".

 

[Joos]

The only real downside of a rapier that I can see here is that it's not heavy enough to punch through armor. That's why the rapier was generally a civilian weapon, not a weapon of war.

Actually, what paved the way for the rapier as the martial weapon of choice was the introduction and wide spread use of firearms; armour simply became irrelevant. And the rapier, like any other weapon was never a "civilian" weapon of the time. It was always a martial weapon. A civilian weapon of the era would have been a pitchfork or some similar tool.

 

[GundamSentinel]

The only real downside of a rapier that I can see here is that it's not heavy enough to punch through armor. That's why the rapier was generally a civilian weapon, not a weapon of war.

Actually, what paved the way for the rapier as the martial weapon of choice was the introduction and wide spread use of firearms; armour simply became irrelevant. And the rapier, like any other weapon was never a "civilian" weapon of the time. It was always a martial weapon. A civilian weapon of the era would have been a pitchfork or some similar tool.

On the battlefield it had some use as a sidearm (the same can be said of the katana, but w/e), and didn't see that much actual war. It was a civilian weapon used for self-defense, duelling and sports fencing. The military used other cutting and thrusting swords, rich people used rapiers to stab people.

 

[Lyri]

You are not really crediting both sides with anything, I see blind fanyboyisms in your post.

"Should a Samurai actually bring a Katana out against a knight, he would be two things.

- Dead.
- An idiot."

Your words. Makes it seem like you're saying Samurais would just be shit outta luck against knights. Which is kind of an illogical.

Though, I'm with you on the last part of your post. The first time I read the title of this thread I laughed at the use of "objective".

Alright you got me there.
I was under the impression that this "Samurai Vs. Knight Scenario" was just straight up whack-a-mole between the two, which in my opinion heavily favours the knight.

However, people are just adding everything in a samurai's arsenal, yet seemingly leaving the knight vanilla.
So yeah, if we're going the latter route then Samurai would win if he could

1/ Puncture armour with an arrow.
2/ Crush him under a dead horse.

Otherwise, at mid to short range a knight should be able to overcome.

and yes, there is no objectivity as it's just bias towards the "cool" one.

 

[Raesvelg]

So...

Basically what we've got here is... Failure to communicate.

Someone actually bothered to make a thread about this. I'm kinda shocked.

Why not just re-title it: A largely ceremonial weapon specifically designed to meet the conditions under which it was used VS A largely ceremonial weapon specifically designed to meet the conditions under which it was used.

I dunno about you guys, but I'm placing my vote on the largely ceremonial weapon specifically designed to meet the conditions under which it was used.

 

[Naqel]

Rapier has the advantage, but lacks the raw power.

Being stabbed isn't nowhere near as hard on the body as being slashed(with very few exceptions) and any serious damage done with the rapier would potentially leave its user in a position for the katana to return the favor.

 

[Valiance]

While each sword is designed for different purposes, I'd say the rapier would be better to have in most situations.

 

[Exerzet]

I don't really believe this is a fair comparison, the age in which Rapiers were used was an era dominated by the introduction of firearms. Used mostly as a weapon for duels, not for actual combat. Where as the Katana dominated most of Medieval Japan, and while not all of the warriors of Japan used heavy armor, the Japanese equivalent of a Knight would still be decked out in enough armor to make a Rapier worthless.

So while the rapier would be better in a duel setting, in an actual fight between two people the person with the Katana would have a clear advantage, presuming that they each just have a Rapier or A katana, in an actual battle the person with the rapier would still probably win, because he has a gun.

Actually, the Medieval Japanese armour was primarily ok against cutting, since most of their opponents used cutting weapons. The density of the plates would not be enough to stop a full-force thrust from a rapier, if it at all slowed it down. Of course, there is the chance that the rapier would get stuck in the plates, after penetration, but by that point, it wouldn't matter much for the samurai.

However; I feel confident in stating that no good fencer would aim directly for the plates, and would rather stab in the between-spaces, to minimize resistance and make the subsequent dodge easier for said fencer.

 

[Hero in a half shell]

So...

Basically what we've got here is... Failure to communicate.

Someone actually bothered to make a thread about this. I'm kinda shocked.

Why not just re-title it: A largely ceremonial weapon specifically designed to meet the conditions under which it was used VS A largely ceremonial weapon specifically designed to meet the conditions under which it was used.

I dunno about you guys, but I'm placing my vote on the largely ceremonial weapon specifically designed to meet the conditions under which it was used.

Nonsense.

Clearly the largely ceremonial weapon specifically designed to meet the conditions under which it was used doesn't stand a chance against the other largely ceremonial weapon specifically designed to meet the conditions under which it was used because in this situation the strengths of the largely ceremonial weapon specifically designed to meet the conditions under which it was used counter the weaknesses of the largely ceremonial weapon specifically designed to meet the conditions under which it was used by a speculative amount that I believe gives it the edge.
And if you believe that the strengths of the other largely ceremonial weapon specifically designed to meet the conditions under which it was used are more conditionally appropriate than the largely ceremonial weapon specifically designed to meet the conditions under which it was used that I favour, then I will just exaggerate the strengths of my largely ceremonial weapon and downplay the strengths of your largely ceremonial weapon because we lack the quantitative information to compare the two directly. It's simple!

Some men you just can't reach.

 

[Oroboros]

Well, I fenced for a couple of years, so here's my 2 cents on the subject:

In a duel, between two unarmored opponents, I'd definitely give it to the Rapier. You can strike quite quickly with a lunge and can reach far longer than a katana, which being a draw-cut weapon, is going to require you to get in quite closer to be effective than a rapier-fencer would. Also shouldn't discount the possibility that a rapier duelist would likely bring a buckler or main gauche to complement his rapier, since it is a one handed weapon, while a katana (with some notable exceptions) seems to focus more on two-handed technique. (which is another thing that is going to shorten reach) Lastly, we should consider that piercing wounds can be extremely, particularly without modern medical knowledge or technology, while even horrific to look at cuts can be survived. I seem to remember an anecdote which I was (luckily)able to find the full version of on Wikipedia.

"In the Peninsula War the English nearly always used the sword for cutting. The French dragoons, on the contrary, used only the point which, with their long straight swords caused almost always a fatal wound. This made the English protest that the French did not fight fair. Marshal Saxe wished to arm the French cavalry with a blade of a triangular cross section so as to make the use of the point obligatory. At Wagram, when the cavalry of the guard passed in review before a charge, Napoleon called to them, "Don't cut! The point! The point!"

-General Patton

Patton Was an Olympic quality fencer, so I tend to think he knew his stuff in this situation. He also revised the US Cav Saber to be more thrust-oriented.

So even if our brave Samurai manages to close the gap and cut through our fencer, there's a good chance he might die after the fact from wounds received in the duel.

Both are beautiful weapons in their own deadly way, and shouldn't be regarded as 'inferior' but in an unarmored duel on foot, I'd definitely put my money on the rapier-user.

 

[Wyes]

snip

Sorry, perhaps 'bend' was not the term to use. Yes, what I mean is that from what I've read European swords had more give than the katana (obviously depending on the sword). However, what I'm coming to realise is that this is possibly more a function of blade geometry than of material. I am not a metallurgist, and I don't have access to my fancy software at the moment that shows me stress under load.

snip

The typical rapier fighting distance (obviously depending on the length of your lunge etc.) seems to be roughly with the blades engaged at the foible, from there it's not an inconceivable distance to get to the wrist, which is one of the few viable targets with the rapier - and you don't have to inflict a significant wound to disable the sword hand (those tendons are awfully close to the surface). But you're quite right that said cut can probably be largely negated by several layers of sturdy cloth. Whether or not that would have been worn during duels I can't say. One thing I have recalled is that a lot of the cutting actions only took place after taking the opponents blade off line first or otherwise binding it in some fashion.

As for the grip - my instructor seemed to be perfectly happy with a grip that engaged two fingers or three, so long as it was a neutral position, but whether or not that's traditional or not I don't know.


As an interesting aside; I've heard very little about French styles/manuals/treatises in HEMA. I'm sure it exists, it just doesn't seem to be as popular.

Nice post though.

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.

Only part I disagree with here is the off-hand weapon (which a few people here have mistakenly referred to as a main gauche, which really only refers to the left hand) being necessary. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a rapier treatise that doesn't also contain rapier and some offhand weapon, but they also contain the single rapier with no accompanying weapon.

while the katana is certainly not a super fragile sword by any means, if it bends it will stay bent - the core is not spring steel.

Please provide some sources before repeating that claim again and again! Modern reproduction swords might make use of spring steel, but I don't think it was available in the 16th century...

Also read this article by John Clements. Under the subheading 'Ancient Art and Modern Science" he outlines reasons why middle ages swords were certainly NOT made from spring steel.

http://www.thearma.org/essays/How_Were_Swords_Made.htm

So, a lot of the guys I do HEMA with are history buffs, and I had a lot of half-remembered conversations with them wherein I recall it being mentioned at some point that one test for the quality of a sword was the amount it could flex, etc. etc.

Obviously this is about as dodgy a source as they come, so I decided to do a little reading of my own. The main sources I came across are this one [http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_bladehardness.html] on the hardness of blades, (this one [http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_euroedge.html] also gives a brief description and history of the rapier, which is nice). There is also this video [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnkVlK3BFLw] from one of the instructors from Schola Gladiatoria (worth reading his responses in the comments too, and you'll find his other videos on katanas here [http://www.youtube.com/user/scholagladiatoria/search?query=katana]. Given his career is in HEMA I'd tend to defer to his judgement.

Now, the main problem has been that I've been giving people the impression that the Europeans were making steel similar to modern spring steel, which is wrong. The blades were stiffer, and the steel was not as uniform. However, I do think that European blades (obviously very much depending on the particular sword) tended to have more 'give' than katanas (see earlier bit in post talking to Lightknight), which may have been more a function of geometry than material, I don't know (which is mentioned in the ARMA link you posted).

As for the ARMA and John Clements... I've said it previously in this thread and I'll say it again. From what I've seen and heard of John Clements from other people involved in HEMA, the guy comes across as a twat. Which is not to say that he's stupid, but the consensus seems to be that he's very sure of his own opinions and doesn't like to hear criticisms about them. Possibly as a result it seems that the ARMA has become quite isolationist compared to other HEMA schools (e.g. it seems they've never participated in WMAW, and I've heard anecdotes of Clements angrily denouncing those who've tried to show him that his ideas were wrong by besting him in combat and then banning them from returning to his school - I can't comment on the truth of these anecdotes). This is not to say that ARMA doesn't do some good things - I'm sure they do, and some of their articles I've read seemed pretty good. However, largely it seems a case of quantity over quality.

The reason I'm explaining all that is because it makes me distrustful of the article you posted - that may be bias on my part. The part you reference seems to be mostly okay other than a few general things - he seems to imply that a blade with more flex (e.g. one made of spring steel) would not cut as well as a softer blade that would deform. I would not agree with that, at least not without qualification. For example, some might imagine some kind of material that would maintain an edge and be flexible like a whip - I would expect such a material to be capable of cutting without too much difficulty. However, a sword that has deformed and bent is much harder to cut with because the angle of the cut isn't uniform (depending on the severity and uniformity of the bend). The other thing is that even modern spring steel rapiers that are designed to flex could easily pierce with the thrust if they had a sharpened point - the rapier was not a weapon designed for use against armour, it was primarily a civilian weapon (not that swords cut through most armours anyway...). However, I will certainly concede that this would not be ideal for thrusting and a stiffer blade would be desirable.


EDIT:

Seeing my 2m tall friend who practices iaido and competes all over the world, it's pretty frightening just how fast he can strike with his katana(which is appropriate to his height) and that includes thrusts(hence the blood grooves on some katana, which some say are to reduce weight, while iaidoko say its to pull out the sword so it doesn't get stuck in people).

My best technical guess is that the heavier katana could swat away the rapier and give an opening for a thrust.

The 'blood groove' is called a fuller [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuller_%28weapon%29], and has nothing to do with the sword not getting stuck in somebody. As far as I'm aware, that's not even a problem that needs addressing. I'm sorry to say that the iaidoko don't really have a leg to stand on in this case.

As for beating aside the rapier - beats (the action of trying to knock aside the sword) are generally inadvisable against a weapon like the rapier that is designed to disengage. In fact, even against cutting weapons such an action is only useful in very particular circumstances. This is why almost all offensive actions in historical fencing systems (including in kenjutsu) involve attacking the person, not the weapon.

 

[Oroboros]

...this is one odd question. The response to it is amazing.

I'd imagine that the lack of a proper sharp edge on a rapier puts you at a disadvantage if the katana-wielder gets in close.
It'd likely go either way, but I'd bet on the person wielding the katana.

Rapiers often (but not always) have sharpened edges to dissuade others from attempting to grab or deflect the blade away with their hands (if a duelist did not have a main gauche or buckler, they would be expected to use a cloak or gloved/bare hand in their other hand) But the fencer would be at a disadvantage, since most rapiers were not designed for cutting in an offensive manner. (although there are numerous exceptions to this-'rapier' is a rather broad term) It would be in the fencer's best interest to retreat as fast as possible to get into a more favorable position and out of range. While there are techniques for delivering a nasty stab at closer range, they can be a bit unwieldy, and turn the length of the weapon-normally a advantage, into somewhat of a disadvantage against a katana.

Seeing my 2m tall friend who practices iaido and competes all over the world, it's pretty frightening just how fast he can strike with his katana(which is appropriate to his height) and that includes thrusts(hence the blood grooves on some katana, which some say are to reduce weight, while iaidoko say its to pull out the sword so it doesn't get stuck in people).

Tall people have an advantage in melee no matter if they are using a rapier or a katana. There was a epee/foil fencer I used to know who was of similar height (B rank I believe in both weapons) who could cover the distance of the entire fencing strip in the blink of an eye. let me tell you, a fellow of that height with a lunge almost to the floor with a rapier can cover a *lot* of ground very quickly. As early as the Napoleonic wars Grenadiers were recruited from the tallest soldiers available for use as melee specialists with their bayonets-height gives a distinct advantage in most situations in a melee.

As for 'blood grooves', the fuller is for reducing weight, other things you might hear about them are just myths. While a logical evolution of the katana (since they have rather fat and heavy blades) I don't think they were historically used on Katanas, so I don't think the katana used by the samurai in the hypothetical duel would have one.

My best technical guess is that the heavier katana could swat away the rapier and give an opening for a thrust. I guess now we need two hundred wielders and have them duel, to get some data.

While it would likely be in the best interests of the Samurai to be as aggressive as possible and clear the distance between the two asap, there are factors to consider that would make 'swat (ing) the blade away' more complicated than you assume.

The length of the rapier means that a slight wiggle at the wrist makes a more exaggerated movement at the tip, this is used to great effect in fencing in the form of feints and disengages. By inducing an opponent to parry or beat a perceived threat and then dipping the weapon under the opponents blade while the opponents blade sails past, a feint disengage is a very effective way of getting past an opponents defenses. Our hypothetical samurai would be best to be wary of how quick and effective a rapier can be at avoiding blade contact when its wielder wishes so, else beating the opponents blade might do more harm than good.

Getting one hundred Katana and one hundred rapier duelists sounds delightfully like that cancelled show 'Deadliest Warrior' And while the Deadliest Warrior is probably about as objectively reliable as asking a random person off the street for their opinion on the matter, I always thought that show was hilariously fun to watch (even if only for the nitpicking and debates that would crop up after the fact) I think this is a great Idea!

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

The typical rapier fighting distance (obviously depending on the length of your lunge etc.) seems to be roughly with the blades engaged at the foible, from there it's not an inconceivable distance to get to the wrist, which is one of the few viable targets with the rapier - and you don't have to inflict a significant wound to disable the sword hand (those tendons are awfully close to the surface).

Fencing distance, strictly speaking, places the two fencers at such a distance that one could deliver an attack in the space of a single fencing action. This actually places the two fencers such that the tips of their respective blades are a foot or more apart. If you are close enough that the tips cross, simply presenting the blade (or, in other words, simply extending the arm) is sufficient to deliver an attack and thus could be called point blank range. The closest viable range for fencing with a thrusting weapon is roughly the same as the length of the blade and thus for a small sword would be approximately three feet while a rapier could be well over four feet. This is simply because any close and it becomes impossible to bring the point to bear on a target leaving only the edge and you're standing too close to do much more than mildly wound. This is, of course, ignoring a handful of maneuvers that have little place outside of sport fencing given that it would be all but impossible to deliver a fatal cut. These include, attacking from behind the back (a move that doesn't decrease this range by much and also leaves the entire front open) and from under the arm (a move that does dramatically decrease the minimum range but, at best, would only lightly wound and simultaneously risks laying one's own shoulder open).

But you're quite right that said cut can probably be largely negated by several layers of sturdy cloth. Whether or not that would have been worn during duels I can't say. One thing I have recalled is that a lot of the cutting actions only took place after taking the opponents blade off line first or otherwise binding it in some fashion.

It depends entirely upon the nature of the duel and the terms negotiated. Thought it should be said that most attacks on the blade (the bind, envelopment, glide and a handful of others) could only really be followed by a thrust due to simple mechanics. That leaves only some variation of the beating or expulsion attempts but even with this you'd probably still be best served attempting a thrust.

As for the grip - my instructor seemed to be perfectly happy with a grip that engaged two fingers or three, so long as it was a neutral position, but whether or not that's traditional or not I don't know.

As an interesting aside; I've heard very little about French styles/manuals/treatises in HEMA. I'm sure it exists, it just doesn't seem to be as popular.

It's actually interesting because you can see the competing styles in the french and Italian grips. The Italian grip was specifically designed for a strong grip that included hooking the index and middle fingers across a small cross bar on the grip itself whereas the french grip was simply designed to lay naturally in the hand such that when gripped with index finger and thumb the blade would be in line with the arm naturally when the wrist was upward.

As far as which style was better, it's hard to say. The modern sport grip is an orthopedic pistol grip that effectively combines the strength of the Italian grip with fine control of the french grip so the best answer I can give is they both had advantages. The french grip still has a place with many fencers though largely in epee where fine point control and range are more important than power.

Only part I disagree with here is the off-hand weapon (which a few people here have mistakenly referred to as a main gauche, which really only refers to the left hand) being necessary. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a rapier treatise that doesn't also contain rapier and some offhand weapon, but they also contain the single rapier with no accompanying weapon.

Strictly speaking, it was necessary in that the mechanics of the rapier made it incredibly difficult to transition from attack to defense or vice versa. Without a secondary implement, you would be forced to rely on single time actions which dramatically reduce your offensive and defensive options. This basically means that you're largely forced either to fully commit to an attack or wait for an attack so that a parry-reposte in single time could be attempted.

By contrast, the much faster court sword could easily perform actions in double tempo leaving you free perform additional actions like feints and such.

While it is not inconceivable that one could win a duel with a rapier alone the use of a secondary implement would dramatically improve your odds. By contrast, a court sword works well enough alone that a secondary implement is not only unnecessary, it could easily undermine your chances.

 

[Wyes]

Fencing distance, strictly speaking, places the two fencers at such a distance that one could deliver an attack in the space of a single fencing action. Strictly speaking, this actually places the two fencers such that the tips of their respective blades are a foot or more apart. If you are close enough that the tips cross, simply presenting the blade (or, in other words, simply extending the arm) is sufficient to deliver an attack and thus could be called point blank range. The closest viable range for fencing with a rapier is actually roughly when two fencers at the ready have their guards meeting as that is the closest possible range at which an attack could reasonably be delivered barring, of course, a handful of maneuvers largely developed for the sake of the sport.

From guard with the foibles meeting we certainly couldn't land a blow by an extension of the arm, largely because the guard (that I am familiar with, rather than something like Capo Ferro, but I know the Spanish had a similar guard to the Italians) already has the arm mostly extended. Any further extension of the arm only nets you a few extra inches, and the blade length is typically 36-40". The extension of the arm was necessary to start the attack, but it certainly doesn't reach the opponent - the lunge was necessary (or that step where the back foot moves out sidewards, the name of which I cannot remember - I just remembered it being kinda cool footwork).

It's actually interesting because you can see the competing styles in the french and Italian grips. The Italian grip was specifically designed for a strong grip that included hooking the index and middle fingers across a small cross bar on the grip itself whereas the french grip was simply designed to lay naturally in the hand such that when gripped with index finger and thumb the blade would be in line with the arm naturally when the wrist was upward.

As far as which style was better, it's hard to say. The modern sport grip is an orthopedic pistol grip that effectively combines the strength of the Italian grip with fine control of the french grip so the best answer I can give is they both had advantages. The french grip still has a place with many fencers though largely in epee where fine point control and range are more important than power.

The grip (by which I mean the hand, rather than the design of the hilt/hand) most of us used had the index finger over the quillion, which gives control rather than power (compared to say the broadsword grip, which is more or less a hammer grip). There was also the option to wrap the middle finger over the quillion and let the index finger sit somewhat further up the ricasso. I never used that so I can't speak for its advantages.

Strictly speaking, it was necessary in that the mechanics of the rapier made it incredibly difficult to transition from attack to defense or vice versa. Without a secondary implement, you would be forced to rely on single time actions which dramatically reduce your offensive and defensive options. This basically means that you're largely forced either to fully commit to an attack or wait for an attack so that a parry-reposte in single time could be attempted.

While it is not inconceivable that one could win a duel with a rapier alone the use of a secondary implement would dramatically improve your odds.

Being preferable doesn't make it necessary, which is more or less the argument you're making here. If both duelists have only a single weapon, then there's no advantage. If one duelist does have an off hand weapon, then yes, you are at a distinct disadvantage. It is not difficult to transition to a defence with the rapier upon withdrawing from an attack, but you do lose offensive options once the thrust is spent.