A cup hilted sword rapier for coments

Chris Evans · 18th November 2008, 11:58 AM

Hi Marc,

I drafted my post referencing Las Coplas De La Panadera, before seeing your post, so please accept my apologies for not acknowledging your contribution.

Enjoyed reading your post, which expounds things very nicely. I can't add anything meaningful to it, other than to alert readers to a very comprehensive treatment of this subject by AVB Norman in his The Rapier and the Small-Sword, pages 19-28.

Cheers
Chris

Marc · 18th November 2008, 04:18 PM

Absolutely no need to apologize, Chris, please, it was evidently a question of cross-posting

Best,

Marc

Gonzalo G · 19th November 2008, 03:24 AM

Marc, yes, there is such reference to the use of the word "ropera" on the article from Germán Dueñas Beraiz, also published by Gladius, mentioning this earlier poem, but it seems to me that we must take a more serious source about the conventional and accepted use of this term in the ordinary daily languaje of the people related with the use of the swords, and not from a poem where the languaje obeys to poetic licences.

Neverthless, the discussion was not about the obvious fact that the word, in several languajes and not only in english, had different meanings throught the time, but about the statement that "the term "rapier' is essentially and English one ", being the proper and correct, if I understood correctly. Which also, can have another implications. It is this statement that I found very questionable, and althought Chris has made a clarification about this point, still remains the fact about what can be properly named "rapier".

Another point is to say that we (whatever that "we" means), define the meaning of this word. In that case, we can also say that all the machetes mentioned in the spanish sources, in fact they are not machetes, because they do not correspond with the actual meaning of this word, and for that case, with the modern morphology of the machete. They even do not correspond with the meaning of the word, as used on the spanish army throught the 19th Century, as it´s morphology had several and drastical modifications in this period of time (short blades, long blades; straigh double edged, curved single edged, and so on). The machete has the same problem to define as a type, with fixed and invariable characteristics. This also happens with other historic swords. Of course, we can say otherwise. But that will not change, fortunately or unfortunately, the fact that the scholars, sword specialists and researchers, will continue to use this term aplied to the distinct variants produced on the evolution of the rapier, the ropera, or their equivalents in other languajes. I belive in the need to fix some parameters to each type of sword, but with the understanding of their historical evolution and uses, or we fall, as I said, in a reductionist and excesively formalist posture. The recongnition of the difficulty in diferentiating military and civil swords, portuguese and spanish, rapiers or not, makes evident the problem of making a valid "hardcore taxonomy", as proposed.

!Oh, I know!...people find very easy to learn and memorize fixed classifications, but classifications do not sustitute real knowledge, which is knowledge about the singular objects, and about their construction, variations and uses, not always reductible to be classified in a specific existing type, as they can contain features not foreseen by the people who makes such classifications. Classifications are only a tool, to be used within it´s limits, and to be discarded when not adecuated to a certain objects.

fernando · 19th November 2008, 05:07 PM

Magnificent input, Gentlemen.
I am still trying to emerge from such ocean of knowledge, to thank you all for the comprehensive posting exchange.
When the sword arrives, i will tell 'her' how deeply discussed 'she' has been in the Forum

.
Thanks again; i will now take some time to extract the most possible from such authentic lectures ... including the poems, which make me feel how ignorant i am

.

Fernando

Marc · 20th November 2008, 10:34 AM

Agreed.

Taxonomy is a tool, not the end, something that seems to be frequently forgotten. It makes things easier, helps in classification, allows for a more flexible and useful data treatment and contributes (ideally) in building a common language through which all those dealing with the subject can better understand each other. But, as so many things, it also works in layers. So, "rapier" is enough to evoke among those who are aware of the terminology an object specific enough to communicate the meaning. From there, we can start to add information to be as precise as necessary, and there’s where taxonomy and the consensual language it brings starts to be useful. So, for example, we can start to talk about a swept-hilt, a cup-hilt, number of branches, an urn, onion or cylindrical pommel, length, shape and section of quillions, characteristics of their finials, morphology of the knuckleguard, the grip, the ricasso, the channels, marks, inscriptions, edges, point, style of decoration, chronology, geographical area, etc… So, yes, “rapier” applied to this kind of swords is modern. So are we (some more than others

). It’s also useful, that’s why it’s used. I don’t think we should spend much time talking about if the term is “proper” or not, we should instead check if we agree or not in its use, and then we can start discussing about the object itself, instead of about the terms we use to describe it.

Chris Evans · 20th November 2008, 01:20 PM

Hi Marc,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marc

...and contributes (ideally) in building a common language through which all those dealing with the subject can better understand each other.

This I think hits the nail on the head - And when it comes to swords, the therm `Rapier' has to be probably the most open to miscommunication.

Cheers
Chris

Gonzalo G · 20th November 2008, 07:45 PM

Good points, Marc. I think Chris and you made excellent inputs on this matter. I would like the read you more often, in relation with the ropera or the rapier, as I know you have a very valuable direct experience in the handling, study and use of this sword.

Thank you very much, gentleman.
Regards

Gonzalo

18th November 2008, 11:58 AM	#1
Chris Evans Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Australia Posts: 685	Hi Marc, I drafted my post referencing Las Coplas De La Panadera, before seeing your post, so please accept my apologies for not acknowledging your contribution. Enjoyed reading your post, which expounds things very nicely. I can't add anything meaningful to it, other than to alert readers to a very comprehensive treatment of this subject by AVB Norman in his The Rapier and the Small-Sword, pages 19-28. Cheers Chris Last edited by Chris Evans; 18th November 2008 at 12:18 PM.

18th November 2008, 04:18 PM	#2
Marc Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Madrid / Barcelona Posts: 256	Absolutely no need to apologize, Chris, please, it was evidently a question of cross-posting Best, Marc

19th November 2008, 03:24 AM	#3
Gonzalo G Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Nothern Mexico Posts: 458	Marc, yes, there is such reference to the use of the word "ropera" on the article from Germán Dueñas Beraiz, also published by Gladius, mentioning this earlier poem, but it seems to me that we must take a more serious source about the conventional and accepted use of this term in the ordinary daily languaje of the people related with the use of the swords, and not from a poem where the languaje obeys to poetic licences. Neverthless, the discussion was not about the obvious fact that the word, in several languajes and not only in english, had different meanings throught the time, but about the statement that "the term "rapier' is essentially and English one ", being the proper and correct, if I understood correctly. Which also, can have another implications. It is this statement that I found very questionable, and althought Chris has made a clarification about this point, still remains the fact about what can be properly named "rapier". Another point is to say that we (whatever that "we" means), define the meaning of this word. In that case, we can also say that all the machetes mentioned in the spanish sources, in fact they are not machetes, because they do not correspond with the actual meaning of this word, and for that case, with the modern morphology of the machete. They even do not correspond with the meaning of the word, as used on the spanish army throught the 19th Century, as it´s morphology had several and drastical modifications in this period of time (short blades, long blades; straigh double edged, curved single edged, and so on). The machete has the same problem to define as a type, with fixed and invariable characteristics. This also happens with other historic swords. Of course, we can say otherwise. But that will not change, fortunately or unfortunately, the fact that the scholars, sword specialists and researchers, will continue to use this term aplied to the distinct variants produced on the evolution of the rapier, the ropera, or their equivalents in other languajes. I belive in the need to fix some parameters to each type of sword, but with the understanding of their historical evolution and uses, or we fall, as I said, in a reductionist and excesively formalist posture. The recongnition of the difficulty in diferentiating military and civil swords, portuguese and spanish, rapiers or not, makes evident the problem of making a valid "hardcore taxonomy", as proposed. !Oh, I know!...people find very easy to learn and memorize fixed classifications, but classifications do not sustitute real knowledge, which is knowledge about the singular objects, and about their construction, variations and uses, not always reductible to be classified in a specific existing type, as they can contain features not foreseen by the people who makes such classifications. Classifications are only a tool, to be used within it´s limits, and to be discarded when not adecuated to a certain objects.

19th November 2008, 05:07 PM	#4
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	Magnificent input, Gentlemen. I am still trying to emerge from such ocean of knowledge, to thank you all for the comprehensive posting exchange. When the sword arrives, i will tell 'her' how deeply discussed 'she' has been in the Forum . Thanks again; i will now take some time to extract the most possible from such authentic lectures ... including the poems, which make me feel how ignorant i am . Fernando

20th November 2008, 10:34 AM	#5
Marc Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Madrid / Barcelona Posts: 256	Agreed. Taxonomy is a tool, not the end, something that seems to be frequently forgotten. It makes things easier, helps in classification, allows for a more flexible and useful data treatment and contributes (ideally) in building a common language through which all those dealing with the subject can better understand each other. But, as so many things, it also works in layers. So, "rapier" is enough to evoke among those who are aware of the terminology an object specific enough to communicate the meaning. From there, we can start to add information to be as precise as necessary, and there’s where taxonomy and the consensual language it brings starts to be useful. So, for example, we can start to talk about a swept-hilt, a cup-hilt, number of branches, an urn, onion or cylindrical pommel, length, shape and section of quillions, characteristics of their finials, morphology of the knuckleguard, the grip, the ricasso, the channels, marks, inscriptions, edges, point, style of decoration, chronology, geographical area, etc… So, yes, “rapier” applied to this kind of swords is modern. So are we (some more than others ). It’s also useful, that’s why it’s used. I don’t think we should spend much time talking about if the term is “proper” or not, we should instead check if we agree or not in its use, and then we can start discussing about the object itself, instead of about the terms we use to describe it.

20th November 2008, 07:45 PM	#7
Gonzalo G Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Nothern Mexico Posts: 458	Good points, Marc. I think Chris and you made excellent inputs on this matter. I would like the read you more often, in relation with the ropera or the rapier, as I know you have a very valuable direct experience in the handling, study and use of this sword. Thank you very much, gentleman. Regards Gonzalo