Were Rapiers used in Combat?

[Jim McDougall]

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

[kisak]

My opinion (currently at least) is that the rapier was by no means a civilian weapon, but rather simply a weapon, used by military and civilians alike.

While by no means a proper study, some things I've noticed which seem to point in this direction would include, as mentioned, the name of the Pappenheimer hilt. While I'm not sure how that name and that hilt type got mated to each other, it would seem somewhat logical for such a name to be used for a weapon used in war.

Staying with the Pappenheimer hilt, the Royal Armoury in Stockholm has two Pappenheimer-hilted blades on display which were used by Gustav II Adolf in times of war. One with the hilt damaged as the king ended up fighting a Polish cavalryman during a recon trip outside of Dirschau in 1627. Next to it there's a saber displayed which according to tradition is to have been taken in battle by the king from a Polish cavalryman "before the battle of Dirschau", its unclear if that would be the same man who chopped up the king's hilt.

There's also the blade he carried at Lützen. A third blade with a Pappenheimer hilt on display is also attributed the Gustav II, but with no mention of it being used in battle, instead it is to have been his favourite for everyday carry.

Now, Gustav II Adolf doesn't seem to have been leading from the front unless he absolutely had to, but he does seem to have ended up in combat personally at least two times, and he was wounded multiple times before Lützen. Thus I would guess that he would indeed have gone to battle knowing that he might have to fight for his own life. Still, he brought along something which, in my eyes, is clearly rapiers, which would be rather odd of these were somehow civilian weapons, unfit for the battlefield.

Then there's all those portraits we see of noblemen carrying some rather rapier-like swords. From what I've understood, these noblemen often saw themselves as warriors, or at the very least wished to be seen as such. Thus we generally see them painted in quite a lot of armour, helmet close at hand, etc. Adding a civilian sword to that would appear to be somewhat odd.

Including rapiers in paintings doesn't seem to end entirely with portraits of nobility either. Some examples of rapiers (or at least very rapier-like swords) in a more "general" setting can be seen here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/roelipi...7603325963415/

As a personal observation (with all the possible errors that carries with it), I've had the chance to handle a pair of early 17th century swept hilt rapiers in person at auction viewings, and one thing I noticed was that they were by no means at all small and light weapons. Instead they were sturdy pieces of considerable mass, making it easy to imagine that these were made to be driven forward through quite a lot of obstacles, and far from the smallswords and modern fencing foils (and the Hollywood fencing that's based upon them) which I suspect colour quite a bit of popular opinion about rapiers. They didn't strike me as something made specifically to carry around all day as decoration and "just in case" weapon.

All in all, it seems to me that there were certainly at least "rapier-like" swords being used by people in a military position, without any second thoughts about it. In order to make the rapier a civilian weapon then, we must somehow find a way to differentiate the civilian ones form those which were used in battle. I'm not aware of any good way of drawing up the boundary between them.

As for the decline in armour, I have heard it stated elsewhere that it seems to have helped the usefulness of swords in general quite a bit, resulting in the sword becoming the prime cavalry weapon overall in the 18th century. I'm not sure how correct that is, but looking at Swedish cavalry tactics, they shifted more and more in favour of sword over pistol as we get closer to the year 1700, and somewhere around that turn of the century the sword eventually replaced the pistol as the primary weapon for cavalry.

[fernando]

If i may come in with my complicometer ...
Probably the (un) definition of the rapier per se would confine the reasoning on its purpose.
Also the sense of being a military would not be so much distinguishable in early times as it is now.
In a notion spread over here (Iberian peninsula) the rapier was virtually a civilian (fencer) weapon, however often seen with military. Not only with nobles that were simultaneously officers, namely captains in those days, but also adopted by regular forces.
I could swear i have read that rapiers were used by Portuguese nobles in the discoveries period ... contextually for combat purposes, together with the traditional left hand dagger.
The attached picture shows a lace hilt rapier (Norman-57*), with a 1,030 mt. blade, dated 1585-1640. There is evidence that a number of identical swords were consigned for a Bavarian troop corps.
I wouldn't doubt that rapiers had a civilan (fencing) birth, as at least some rapier variations were used in or for combat.
End of this nonsense round.
Fernando

.

[Jim McDougall]

Kisak and Fernando,
Thank you so much for responding guys!
Beautifully stated and well thought out observations and I've spent some time trying to find references here as well. I am inclined to agree with both of you in what you have noted.
I think there were some differences between military and civilian rapiers, though I think these might be hard to distinguish by hilt alone, as these fully developed hilts, even many swept hilts, seem to have carried heavier 'arming' type blades in military parlance.
I think the very narrow civilian rapiers big problem was not only too narrow and fragile, but too long, some reaching fantastic lengths which even promoted some efforts at regulating same.

Kisak, I remember the first time I handled an actual rapier, I was stunned at the sheer heft! This certainly was anything but the light and delicate fencing foil or Hollywood rapiers waved around as such...it was heavy, solid and one could see how quickly combat with these would spend the combatants.

Apparantly the military use of complex hilts with the heavier arming blades was well known, and I think that the ever present villain of semantics in terminology might present difficulty in assessing the actual use of rapiers or complex hilted soldiers swords in combat. In the Encyclopedia Brittanica of 1771, the rapier is defined as the old broadsword used by common soldiers.
(A.V.B. Norman, "The Rapier & Smallsword:1460-1820", p.27).

I guess I should have thought this out better The pappenheimer, while considered or at least termed a 'rapier' is better defined as an arming sword with developed rapier type hilt.

These sword terms can really be misleading ! Thank you both for your views, which explain in much better perspective what little I discovered in my daily rampage through the bookmobile!

All the very best,
Jim

[fearn]

Hi Jim and all,

Great question. Since I nominated the estoc in another thread as one of the ten weirdest blades in the world, I'd point out that many think it's "the" predecessor of "the" rapier. This is similar to what happened in Japan, when they switched from over-sized field swords to smaller, more manueverable katanas.

Basically, I think an estoc doesn't work well for its allegedly primary job (going through plate armor), but a smaller, lighter version would work pretty well for lighter armor. Good enough for the battlefield? Maybe, but it depends both on the battle and the skill of the fencer.

F

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by fearn

Hi Jim and all,

Great question. Since I nominated the estoc in another thread as one of the ten weirdest blades in the world, I'd point out that many think it's "the" predecessor of "the" rapier. This is similar to what happened in Japan, when they switched from over-sized field swords to smaller, more manueverable katanas.

Basically, I think an estoc doesn't work well for its allegedly primary job (going through plate armor), but a smaller, lighter version would work pretty well for lighter armor. Good enough for the battlefield? Maybe, but it depends both on the battle and the skill of the fencer.

F

Excellent point Fearn!!! (no pun intended)
I hadn't thought of the estoc, also termed the 'tuck'. Actually, in reading through some of A.V.B.Norman's text, he does note that in many cases the full rapier type hilts were mounted with 'tuck' blades, so essentially here were the same basic fully developed hilts carrying blades for specific intent.
Those with heavier tuck form blades for military or heavier combat, and the thin civilian blades for everyday town wear, or of course, the duel.

From what I have understood of the estoc or tuck, it was not intended to pierce plate armor, but to stab through key uncovered locations, or in weak spots or separations. I would imagine that mail covered areas would also be somewhat vulnerable. Being no authority on medieval or Renaissance martial arts, I am only speculating here.

I think the idea of a thrusting weapon such as the rapier evolving from the tuck, which was often the long, narrow blade, with trefoil type cross section in many, to strengthen for rigid thrusting, is an outstanding thought. While I am not aware of this being discussed in the literature that I have checked, it of course is likely in text somewhere as it certainly seems logical.
Pretty impressive thinking there Fearn!!

What I always thought was interesting is these long, narrow bladed swords being mounted under the saddle, while either the arming sword or sabre was at the side of the horseman. One classic example seen is Rembrandt's "The Polish Rider" ( actually Lithuanian nobleman, as found in fascinating research found on this), where the horseman is 'armed to the teeth!', with these two swords, bow and arrow, and battle axe or war hammer (cant recall offhand).

Whatever the case, it does seem that the 'rapiers' actually used in combat in a military sense were typically arming swords with more substantial blades than the civilian types. One of my favorites has always been the Spanish cuphilt, in which by the 18th century remained with the distinct cup hilt but with much heavier blades. The term 'Spanish' is typically used collectively for these cuphilts of more familiar form, as they were certainly well known (and well used! in Portugal), as well as the Italian provincial regions, specifically Brescia, and in fact are even known to some degree in Germany.

Kisak, were any examples of the cuphilt (the deep cup type of 'Spanish' style) known in Sweden? There is so little material available on Swedish weapons, and just wondered.

Thank you Fearn for the excellent observation on the estoc!

All best regards,
Jim

[kisak]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Kisak, were any examples of the cuphilt (the deep cup type of 'Spanish' style) known in Sweden? There is so little material available on Swedish weapons, and just wondered.

As far as I can tell, cup-hilts never seem to have been common in Sweden (the usual problem fo proving the absence of something popping up here). There's none on display in the permanent collections at the Royal Armoury or the Army Museum (though I think it would be a safe bet that they have a few in a magazine somewhere).

There are none shown in Berg's Svenska Blankvapen, and I can't recall them being shown in Seitz' Svärdet och Värjan either, though both these publications are about military weapons. And on the utterly unscientific side of things, cup hilts doesn't seem to be very common at sword auctions and such here either.

In short, my guess would be that the cup hilt never saw any popularity of note up here. Perhaps somewhat comparable to the military cuphilt in general idea (mating a "civilian" hilt to a "military" blade) though is the "commander's sword" used by officers from the late 17th to early 19th century. While these have hilts of a shape I'd normally associate with smallsword, they come in all sizes from smallswords to large cavalry cut-n-thrust swords.

[pbleed]

What an interesting thread this has been. Thank you all. It brings tomy mind whatkind of sword ought to be called a 'rapier.' Most of the swords we find and call rapiers are a good deal lighter than heavy swepthilts. Cup hilts and other late 17th to 18th century rapiers seem generally lighter. These are 'rapiers', but I have a hard time seeing them as military weapons. I will bring these musings to a reconsideration of European military history.
Peter

[Jim McDougall]

Kisak, thank you for responding on the question about cuphilts in Sweden. I know the excellent references by Berg and Seitz, which are both outstanding, but unfortunately do not have them with me. I was curious about whether the cuphilt, which did in some degree get to Germany, got as far north as Sweden as so many German sword types did.

Good information on the 'commanders swords' which are indeed a heavier version of the standard smallsword style, and that is an excellent example of civilian style hilts combined with heavier blades for military use.
This is much the same as in Great Britain as the 1796 regulation patterns were introduced. While the cavalry officers had a stirrup hilt sabre for light cavalry, the heavy cavalry had an 'undress' basket hilt type sword for regular wear, and a 'boatshell' type hilt similar to smallsword design for dress occasions, also with a heavy straight blade.


Hello Peter, and I'm really glad to see you posting here on this! You are right, that most of the rapiers associated with civilian town wear and duelling etc. are indeed 'lighter' and certainly would not be effective in the military combat situations typically considered.
I think what we are finding is that apparantly while the hilt forms are essentially of the styles popular with civilian weapons of the period, the blades began to become more substantial in military configurations. In the 18th century the rapier term itself seems to have somewhat fallen out of use, except with the Spanish and Portuguese who profoundly maintained thier traditions in swordsmanship.
The cuphilt style was maintained in the Caribbean and many of the colonies in New Spain, and the 'dragoon' swords known as 'bilbo's' have a heavy interpretation swept hilt rapier style. These swords were likely used well into the 19th century.

It seems like on these forums, many discussions result in disparity in terminology in trying to classify weapons. While it seems that such emphasis on terminology would be of little importance in studying the actual weapons, I think it is important to understand the terms and how variations may have developed or applied. Having to rely on contemporary narrative or accounts in such study it is important to know that the weapon being described is actually the one we presume it to be.

I think one great example of this is that accounts of the death of Magellan describes him being killed by an Islander with what is presumed to be a 'kampilan'. We can only presume this refers to the type of sword we now know in the Philippines, but perhaps several hundred years ago it meant another form altogether.

Of course I know that you are more than well established in these tenets of study and I am only recounting this as a matter of perspective in the thread, so please pardon my ramblings. I really am very honored to have you join us here.


Thanks very much Kisak and Peter,

All the best,
Jim

[fearn]

Hi Jim,

Don't know about you, but isn't there a potential similarity between "war rapiers" and civilian rapiers, and the "warrior" and "scholar" forms of the jian (wu jian and wen jian)? It's an interesting parallel evolution, perhaps.

F

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by fearn

Hi Jim,

Don't know about you, but isn't there a potential similarity between "war rapiers" and civilian rapiers, and the "warrior" and "scholar" forms of the jian (wu jian and wen jian)? It's an interesting parallel evolution, perhaps.

F

Another outstanding comparison Fearn!
I am sure you are much better versed than I am in these and the Japanese weapons you have mentioned, but that certainly does sound like a well placed comparison. I honestly do not know the distinct differences between these, other than the obvious use of the term 'scholars' for the civilian forms.

All the best,
Jim

[sirupate]

I remember reading some where that the military rapeirs were of a sturdier build, this probably did not apply to high ranking Officers mind.

Hello Jim

I think one great example of this is that accounts of the death of Magellan describes him being killed by an Islander with what is presumed to be a 'kampilan'. We can only presume this refers to the type of sword we now know in the Philippines, but perhaps several hundred years ago it meant another form altogether.

When I was in Cebu a couple of years back, they (Cacoy Doce Pares World Federation) didn't believe it was the Kampilan, they believe that it was a large club, that was probably used for grinding food stuffs.

[kisak]

Regarding this bit about heavy war-rapiers and light civilian version, how is the distribution between light and heavy? Do we have two somewhat distinct groups, or is is perhaps just a bell-curve from light to heavy, with the lighter ones being more likely to see civilian use, and the heavier ones more likely to see military use? And what differences we have, how much of these existed in a single point in time, and how much is due to developments over time? Many cup-hilts for example would seem to be considerable later than the majority of swept-hilts.

Basically, I'm not entirely convinced yet that speaking of the civilian and military ones as fully separate categories is entirely suitable, at least not for slightly earlier times (say, 16th to mid 17th century for a rough guess at a suitable time period there). Looking at things like officer's scarf swords, it may not be necessarily so that lighter swords indicate civilian use with any greater probability, at least not in all time periods.

These aren't areas I've looked into nearly enough, but hopefully it'll be a few decent questions at least.

[Paul Macdonald]

Hi Folks,

It seems like broadsword, rapier is a very general term of sword description that can cover many different tools designed for different jobs.

Most sword types can be defined firstly not by the hilt form, but by blade.

A pappenheimer rapier hilt may be mounted to either a broadsword blade or a thrusting rapier blade, and both create different handling weapons for different specific jobs.
One would then be classed as a rapier hilted broadsword, and the other as simply a rapier.

Specific blade choice is down to environment and what we are likely to face.

For practical battlefield use, then we are likely to face broadswords, short hangars and polearms. Best carry a broadsword or backsword blade.
For civilian duel, the lighter, faster thrusting blade serves better for fencing use. For streetfight, somewhere between the two is ideal, as on the street in the C17th, we can likely face either rapier or broadsword.

It was not unusual for military men (above the station of being issued with a munition grade weapon) to commission a stout broad or backsword blade, but mounted to a rapier hilt. A good rapier hilt still provides adequate hand protection against cuts, but this weapon is now a rapier hilted broadsword.

This is a very different tool to the longer, thinner rapier blades that are primarily designed and forged for the civilian duel or streetfight.

The civilian rapier blade through the C17th evolved by it`s own branch of development independently from the broadsword and backsword blades, which have always been employed for martial military field use.

Hope this helps

Macdonald

[Jim McDougall]

Fantastic discussion going here, and Kisak those are excellent observations on the variance between civilian and military swords, and extremely well versed questions.
I think Paul's response beautifully explains the terminology ,and how our understanding of the classifications of these forms can be quite challenging without qualification in descriptive reference. I really enjoy the patiently detailed explanations on the dynamics of these weapons, which as a complete lay person regarding fencing, helps me understand much more!

Simon, thank you for joining us here on this, and for the clarification on that reference on the kampilan. I used the analogy without consulting any of the actual material, just from recollection. When I checked later, it seems that the 'kampilan' reference was more presumed from later writers, and the actual weapon type remains unknown.

Thanks very much gentlemen,
All the best,
Jim

[fearn]

Dumb question here, Paul.

I won't dispute the idea that a broadsword is better for multiple opponents. My question is whether a rapier blade, particularly a heavy one, is better at going through armor, at least light armor.

F

[Paul Macdonald]

Hi Fearn,

No such thing as dumb questions, only dumb answers

Rapier blades are designed to oppose unarmoured opponents wearing either shirt sleeves or civilian street wear (shirt , waistcoat, doublet).
It will run a man through in these for sure, and likely even light - mid weight leather, but any heavier than this (such as buff coat leather), and I would doubt the effectiveness of a rapier blade for piercing.
Against steel armour of any kind, no chance.

Best tool for sticking leather armour or steel armour gaps in close is a sturdy dagger.

Hope this helps

Macdonald

[Dmitry]

A good example of the rapier-mounted broadsword is the accumulation of multiple examples with nearly identical hilts, which were carried by the Bodyguard of the Electors of Saxony in the late 1600s-early 1700s.
These blades are uniformely beefy cut-and-thrust type, which would probably break an average civilian rapier blade with one blow.
I believe this is the exact type of sword that was often painted on the equestrian portraits of various European military commanders, nobility and rulers of the 1600s.

[Chris Evans]

Hi,

A fascinating recurring subject!

I think that in post #10, by Stephen Hand gives us a strong clue ; http://swordforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=84055

My own view is that in all probability rapiers did see combat during wars, just as knives did, but were not the weapon of choice and were used on account of dire necessity, for lack of anything better being on hand, rather than efficacy.

Cheers
Chris