It seems that I have seen references suggesting that the rapier was essentially a civilian weapon, largely confined to the gentry, and not used as a military weapon.
In paintings of military themes, it does seem that important historical figures are sometimes seem holding these type swords, but are these simply evidence of artistic license?
In writing yesterday on the so called 'pappenheimer' type rapiers, it occurred to me that I might have seen somewhere an illustration where a hilt of this style was being worn during the English Civil Wars. The development of the term itself is said to derive from the famed cavalry commander of the Thirty Years War, and that rapiers of this style hilt were used by him, and presumably a number of his troops.
Since armour seems to have been largely an element typically owned by wealthier individuals in earlier times, and even by this period of the 17th century, it would have been expensive to outfit large numbers of rank and file.
Is it possible that the presence of large numbers of troops without such protection would have presented an effective use of the rapier?
Looking forward to observations!!
All the best,
Jim