[QUOTE=Philip]I agree, Jim. The workmanship on that hilt is above that of mere "munition quality", to me it looks more like a sword privately-purchased by an officer for battlefield use.
Also, weren't rapiers in general more associated with those in leadership roles (officers, noblemen, the "upper crust") by virtue of the training needed to use them effectively in the point-centered fencing techniques that were maturing during the 16th cent. onward? One would think that the rank and file (except perhaps in some elite guards units) would tend to be schooled in more conservative cut-oriented techniques using weapons like the backsword and broadsword, holdovers from late medieval traditions, and thus be equipped accordingly.[/QUOTE
Thank you Philip, that's an excellent point! The officers and gentry were indeed well trained in fencing techniques, and would be more inclined toward swords more in accord with their station. While maintaining their fashionable rapier style hilts, the heavier 'arming' blades were more suitable for the shock and impact of combat.
Troops in other ranks were trained for more sequenced movements which were chopping and cutting actions for the heavy blades of these munition grade, issued weapons.
I recall reading once of an incident recalled by a British cavalryman at Balaklava in 1854, who was outraged at a Russian cavalryman who apparently when engaging him made a stroke with his sabre; the British officer responded......but then noted, then the fool gave me a cut #7 (clearly not the proper return in sequence), so I hit him with (cannot recall) and knocked him off his horse!
Such were the levels of combat protocol in other ranks sword training, and note that the sword moves were in numbered 'cuts' (I believe there were 8 and directionally applied from different angles).
|