A Good Musketeer's Rapier, Probably Saxony, ca. 1600

Chris Evans · 2nd August 2012, 02:36 AM

Fernando,

I think that it is axiomatic that a sword's type/name is determined by its function rather than its appearance.

In this respect rapiers are rather tricky, because their function is generally poorly understood, yet their appearance overlaps with that of many other swords on account of the elaborate hilt and thrust predisposed blade. So I fear that the practice of calling any sword fitted with a complex hilt or a slim thrusting blade a rapier will be with us for a long time to come.

In any event, there is little logical consistency in how swords types are named, so why do we expect the public at large to adhere to an inadequately defined convention? I mean, "swords" is a class/set that includes all hand held cut&thrust weapons, longer than knives, yet we call what in reality is a short rapier a "small sword" - Now, how irrational is that?

Cheers
Chris

2nd August 2012, 02:36 AM	#13
Chris Evans Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Australia Posts: 685	Fernando, I think that it is axiomatic that a sword's type/name is determined by its function rather than its appearance. In this respect rapiers are rather tricky, because their function is generally poorly understood, yet their appearance overlaps with that of many other swords on account of the elaborate hilt and thrust predisposed blade. So I fear that the practice of calling any sword fitted with a complex hilt or a slim thrusting blade a rapier will be with us for a long time to come. In any event, there is little logical consistency in how swords types are named, so why do we expect the public at large to adhere to an inadequately defined convention? I mean, "swords" is a class/set that includes all hand held cut&thrust weapons, longer than knives, yet we call what in reality is a short rapier a "small sword" - Now, how irrational is that? Cheers Chris Last edited by Chris Evans; 2nd August 2012 at 03:13 AM.