[kronckew]

key word i think being 'duel', an artificial rules bound form of lethal argument settling as opposed to actual melee battles between disciplined trained soldiers who need a sword capable of working at near and far ranges without getting stuck in an opponent due to over-penetration. military swords of the period were shorter, wider, and sharper, excepting possibly the nobility and officers who tended not to lead from the front. the ultimate rapier form, the smallsword was great for duels, but died out with the 18th century as they were not a good battle sword. the scots taught them that. george washinton i hear had a colchemarde smallsword but he carried a more practical spadroon or hanger in battle tho. doubt he ever used either to actually injure an opponent.

'rapier' is a term we now apply to similar weapons that like 'falcata' was not normally applied to by those who carried them in earnest. it's just a more convenient way of saying "long pointy stabby sword with a fancy loopy wire or cup) hand protector that doesn't cut very well but looks cool".

added:

there is also a practical limit on how long a blade you personally can carry & unsheath (and re-sheath), as well as a weight limit. most rapiers were 1.5 kilos-2kilos at most. much the same as earlier and later swords. you could of course carry a longer one on horseback, like an estoc - basically a backup lance.

found this elsewhere on a sword forum: probably what i was originally thinking of: the english wore rapiers much longer that the fashion in the rest of europe, thus the following.

As far as the Royal Proclamations go, the earliest is 1557, which stated;

“…from henceforth no person or persons, of what estate, or condition so ever he or they be, do use or weare by nyghte or by daye, not sell any sworde or rapier above the length of a yard and a halfe quarter in the blade at the most, not any buckler, with more pykes therein then one, and the same not to be sharpe, or above .ii ynches long, or of a broder syse then hath ben most commonly used within this Realme, nor use or weare any gauntlet, or vambrace, not any other weapon of defence, other than theyr common swordes, rapiers, daggers, and bucklers, according to thauncient usage”

This seems to have been roundly ignored, and on the 6th of May 1562 a further proclamation was made that;

“And where as an usage is crept in, contrary to fromer orders, of wearing of long Swordes, and Rapyers, sharpened in suche sort, as maye appeare the usage of them cannot tende to defence, whiche ought to be the very meanying of weearyng of weapons, in times of peace: but to murther, and evident death, when the same shalbe occupyed. Her Majesties pleasure is, that no man shall after .x dayes next following this Proclomation, weare any Sword, Rapier, or any weapon in theyr steade, passynge the length of one yard & halfe a quarter of blade, at the uttermost: neither any Dagger above the length of .xii inches in blade: neither any Buckler, with a sharpe point, or with any point above two ynches of length”

There does seem to have been serious, if not entirely consistent, efforts to enforce these statutes, and in 1580 Lord Talbot reported that;

“the French Imbasidore, Mounswer Mouiser, ridinge to take the ayer, in his returne came thowrowe Smithfield; and ther, at the bars, was steayed by thos offisers that sitteth to cut sourds, by reason his raper was longer than the statute: He was in a great feaurie, and dreawe his raper; in the meane season my Lord Henry Seamore cam, and so stayed the mattr”.

Given Silver’s comments, by 1599 they seem to have given up trying.

spelling (and grammar) was an individual thing back then - no dictionaries of standardized spellings till the 17th c... spelling tests - another thing we can blame the english for.

(the 'legal limit was thus 40.5 inches of blade)