Gayest sword or should I say toothpick ever was it used as proto vibrator or something? Lmao wtf is that. Can that thing even kill a puppy? I doubt it.
>>886938
I use to think they were lame but have you ever held one? They are deadly
>>886953
lol
>>886938
It was developed in an era and society that was starting to focus more on aesthetics than actual effectiveness. Rapiers were designed to be a dueling sword that looked fancy while flourishing, but wasn't useful for anything but civilian combat.
>>886938
Nigga, that thing had just as much metal as midieval arming sword but the extra metal was used to elongate the blade. Its reach was a real boon when you needed to stab a nigga. It's also not as light as you think it is, hell by the end of your training you looked like a chronic masturbator. Historically though they were only briefly used by cavalry, musketeers and artillery as side-weapons before being replaced by smallswords since these were generally more practical and less burdening.
>>886986
You're thinking of the smallsword (which actually was an entirely civilian weapon that wasn't functional outside of duels). Rapiers were definitely used in combat, and functioned pretty well considering the stoutness and extra reach of the blade.
For what they were designed to do, rapiers are damned good swords, and very deadly.
Be pierced, peasant.
>>886938
Choose literally any other sword and get good with it and a guy with a rapier with your same level of skill will beat you
>>886953
Pretty much. Went through a bunch of other weapons first and the rapier is one of the most advanced.
I learned to hate it though because I personally prefer other weapons and it's a pain in the ass to fight against anyone with a rapier.
>>886938
Didn't they got banned in Japan because they were too deadly?
Or is that a meme
>>887804
>Or is that a meme
yes, here is an accout of what happened from the Takamura family passed down in the shindo yoshin ryu
“Maybe no recorded personal duel per se but the story about the Portuguese being banned from bringing swords (rapiers) ashore during the extensive trading exchanges in Kyushu is documented. The reason for the ban was linked to the fact that the Portuguese originally cut down so many samurai. The local samurai responded by having new swords made which were much lighter than the battle blades they normally carried. Later, another encounter occurred and a virtual small scale war ensued with many Portuguese dying in the skirmish. I know about this because a distant relative of my teacher actually took part in this bit of historical trivia. My teacher (Takamura Yukiyoshi) still owned
his relatives sword which was made specifically in response to the Portuguese sword tactics the samurai encountered in Kyushu. Like the famous Kogarasu Maru, this sword was double edged from about 5 inches to the kissaki but much lighter and faster. This design was adopted to allow a swift back-cut like the ones the Portuguese employed so effectively against the samurai with rapiers. Once armed with swords of this style, the samurai turned the tables even on the Portuguese in the second encounter. This is when the ban was finally instituted. The whole trading relationship was threatened….”
>>887155
Gunsword.
>>887155
katana legit shits all over this bullshit
>>887943
'no'
A rapier is more agile with a highly superior reach, not to mention it can also be used with a main gauche.
>>887943
Katana is trash, especially in a dueling scenario. Rapier wins any day of the week.
Why is a sword with a straight blade (longsword blade) and a rapier guard not viable ?
>>886938
Hi Guthrie!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7lhMAOxLxw
>>887943
Nice meme
>>888989
May I add this from the autists in the sword fan community.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nITldg2dOVk&feature=player_detailpage#t=59
>>887943
Folded 100 million billion times :DDDDD
>>888914
katana duels doesn't looks like gay fag dance
>>888958
Because most of those swords were intended to be used with two hands and a basket hilt doesn't give you much flexibility on hand placement. You could also expect a man with a longsword/ bastard sword to have a shield in most cases, which makes the guard aesthetic
I do believe I've seen Scottish claymores with basket hilts but I could be misremembering.
>>889792
also, a ricasso, straight hild, and maybe a boucle, and mostly enought for a 2hand.
>>889792
idk about claymores with basket hilts, but scottish broadswords definitely did
>>889139
So rapiers raped katans and then samurai made their own rapiers and raped the Portuguese before the Shogunate was forced to outlaw rapiers.
>>889792
>>890360
The terminology for "Claymore" is a bit fudged
It's debated but "Claymore" apparently originally referred to the 18th century Scottish broadsword, and was retrofitted onto all Scottish swords, eventually becoming better identified with the late medieval two handed sword, which some contend was originally referred to as a "claidheamh dà làimh" as opposed to "claidheamh-mòr".
>>889771
u wot m8? ill pierce thine bowels, i swear upon my mother.
>>886938
It's pretty good for stabbing.
>>890439
>was originally referred to as a "claidheamh dà làimh" as opposed to "claidheamh-mòr".
Actually, it was called a twa-handit sword, because despite the myths pushed by certain factions of nationalism, the primary language of scotland was english. Gaelic was only spoken in the backwater areas of the highlands which had a very low population
>>890371
well a rapier is a two bladed sword, the samurai just made extra light katana that could keep up with the quick back hand
>>891580
Didn't the Highlands contain half the population of Scotland before the Clearances?
>>886938
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wDjjLnKRcI
For (you)
>>891580
before the clearances the population was much higher, also the claymore was a highland weapon, lowlands just used standard european shit.
also scots and english aren't the same language, or at least they weren't
I prefer Estocs (aka Greatrapiers).
rapier has the reach
>>888958
They're called side-swords
>>887943
I know you're just looking to harvest replies, but as >>887828 says, a skilled man with a Rapier (and a small buckler) could kill anyone with a Katana.
I don't remember the exact source, but there was a Japanese pirate raid of Portuguese ships near Philippine shores due to a dispute.
The Portuguese sailors took advantage of the inherent clumsiness of wielding two-handed swords by simply parrying off the swing or dodging, then dashing in to swiftly poke their light Rapiers straight into the pirate's chest.
They kept doing this until the pirates were forced to retreat.
>>886938
>was it used as proto vibrator or something?
Stick it up your wazoo and find out.
>>892261
Skallagrim's Principle: The longer any internet conversation on the subject of war, weapons, or indeed any issue of personal violence continues, the sooner someone makes an inappropriate and unqualified comment praising the Japanese Katana sword...
>>892301
>Skallagrim
Is this guy relevant ?
>>892311
He's a cool guy, but don't rely on him for 100% true info.
>>892319
>awkward, fat, autistic sword collector and Scandinavian metal fan
>cool
Well the record was not that clear, many account have Europeans resorting to other weapons like pikes to drive away japanese swordsmen
http://www.tameshigiri.ca/2014/05/07/european-vs-japanese-swordsmen-historical-encounters-in-the-16th-19th-centuries/
>>892261
Dated Quotes
1561
“In either case he [Fernao de Souza] met with a sticky end, for he together with fourteen other Portuguese were killed in a brawl with Japanese at Hirado in 1561. That season there were no less than five Portuguese ships in Japan; one of which, commanded by a certain Afonso Vaz, went to Satsuma, where he was also killed in the port of Akune by some samurai,–accidentally according to Shimadzu, the local Daimyo.”
Fidalgos in the Far East 1550-1770: C.R.Boxer
cited in Some comments on various topics about using Japanese Swords
This encounter resulted in an assault on the Portuguese ships, in which the samurai had some success in boarding, but were eventually repelled, then destroyed by cannon fire.
>>892351
Eh. I like him mostly because he's one of the few sword channels that is pro-gun. I come from /k/, and over there, anyone that is pro-gun is considered cool because our numbers are low, especially in the current political climate, where liking guns is now a "scary" and uncool thing to do.
That's the reason why /k/ is the most furry tranny lgbtbbq-tolerant board in 4chan, and most far-right comments are responded with a "go back to /pol/ stormfaggot" replies.
>>892393
1604
“…unbeknown to the English, the Japanese had, in the words of Michelborne, ‘resolved with themselves either to gaine my shippe or to lose their lives’. The smiles vanished, the laughter died and the Japanese suddenly transformed themselves into brutal ‘rogues’ who stabbed and slashed at their English adversaries. The crew of the “Tiger” had never faced such hostility and scarcely had a chance to resist before the deck was swarming with Japanese wielding long swords and hacking men to pieces. Soon they reached the gun room where they found Davis desperately loading muskets. ‘They pulled [him] into the cabin and giving him sixe or seven mortall wounds, they thrust him out of the cabin.’ He stumbled on the deck but the sword wounds had severed one of his arteries and he bled to death. Others, too, were in their final death throes and it seemed inevitable that the Tiger would shortly be lost.
It was Michelborne who saved the day. Thrusting pikes into the hands of his best fighters he launched a last-ditch Attack on the Japanese soldiers ‘and killed three or four of their leaders’. This disheartened the Japanese who slowly found themselves at a disadvantage. Armed with knives and swords, they were unable to compete with Michelbornes’s pikemen and found themselves driven down the deck until They stood en masse by the entrance to the cabin. Sensing their predicament, they let out a terrific scream and dashed Headlong into the heart of the ship.”
Once you get to the eighteen hundreds, the samurai and Japanese military officers seemed to have the distinct advantage against the western saber, perhaps due to the fact many sabers were not sharpened or that the officers carrying them were not competent swordsmen
>>892393
>This encounter resulted in an assault on the Portuguese ships, in which the samurai had some success in boarding, but were eventually repelled, then destroyed by cannon fire
Yes that's the incident I'm talking about. The actual account was very detailed about how the Portuguese sailors dispatched the Japanese pirates (moves and everything). I wish I could find the actual journal.
I read it many years ago in an Online sword forum. A well-known poster from Portugal translated the entire journal for us. I remember there was a Weaboo Katana-fan (one of those guys in the forum with with 10,000+ posts) that was ass-blasted and was trying to defend the Katana while the whole forum was pointing and laughing at him.
It was glorious.
>>892420
As a note, it was written by one of the sailors that fought, not the actual official account written and reported by the officers.
That sailor's journal was much more detailed. Actually, I might be talking about a whole different incident (not the one that ended with a cannon). I'm not sure.
>>892437
The rapier certainly had some advantages for unarmored combat, the tachi of the time was a heavy war sword of about 96 cm long,(quite a bit longer than the edo period standard) that could be used single handed if needed but was more of a two handed sword.
a rapier was lighter, and slightly longer on average,and was one handed.
>>892420
Basically all accounts of japs attacking european sailors end this way.
Even when the euros lose, the japanese end up humiliated by the losses incurred.
>>892400
This doesn't really involve the rapier in any regard. If it's the incident i'm thinking of, the japs drew weapons and attacked men who were COMPLETELY unprepared.
>>892261
>rapier
>light
They're not light at all.
>two handed sword
>clumsy
They're not clumsy at all.
The rapier just happens to have and absolutely absurd amount of reach, as well as more angles of attack than a cutting weapon.
>>886938
>implying rapiers arent based
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhwIrONyEzg
>>893286
1. Okay I take the light factor back; I never held one and I assumed they were fairly lighter than most swords out there.
2. Okay, wielding a 2h sword may not be clumsy, but wielding a two handed sword is clumsier than wielding a one-handed sword IN GENERAL (there are anecdotes against my point, but this is the general trend). 2h swords rely heavily on swinging and what you can do with that, but one handed swords can do more, not to mention that you can do something else with the other hand.
Feel free to disagree.
>>892657
All I remember is that it was in the myArmoury forums. Good luck and tell me if my memory was wrong.
>>893374
>I assumed they were fairly lighter than most swords out there.
See pic.
>wielding a two handed sword is clumsier than wielding a one-handed sword IN GENERAL
No, it actually gives you more control. Compare the weight of the war swords (which were primarily two-handed weapons) and the rapiers. Rapiers were quite long and heavy weapons for being one-handed, which is why they were commonly wielded together with a parrying dagger, a buckler, a short-sword, etc. - in order to provide some defence, since the rapier alone was not yet ideal to be relied on for defence alone. The parade-riposte type fencing you see in modern olympic fencing was not yet a thing.
>2h swords rely heavily on swinging
What would keep you from thrusting with a two-handed sword? In fact, late medieval longswords were heavily optimised to be thrusting weapons.
>Feel free to disagree.
This is not so much a matter of disagreement because it can be backed by numbers.
>>893388
Some late medieval longswords, which obviously weren't all too bad at being used for thrusting.
>>893388
That sees to show rapiers are consistently lighter on average unless you're comparing a heavy rapier Tia light war sword
>>893396
You should consider that the war swords are primarily two-handed weapons, while the rapier is carried single-handedly. The difference in weight is not significant enough to call a rapier a "light" weapon. For one-handed swords, they were quite heavy.
>>893374
Two handed swords have more control. They're flat out faster to attack, recover, and change direction, because using both hands provides a hell of a lot more leverage, and allows you to push-pull with opposing hands to achieve the desired effect faster.
>>886938
I know, right? It's fucking pathetic, a sword that best exemplifies effeminate European culture. It's the perfect weapon for degenerate bisexual aristocrats who faint at the sight of blood and lack the upper body strength to use a proper weapon. It's reasonable to assume that it was used for bloodplay in homosexual sodomy more than it was ever used as a weapon. The main reason Europeans never went to war with Japan is because a Katana could cut right through that little fairy sword.
>>893374
is it this thread?
http://myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=4831
personally I do think that they are a little bias against Japanese swordsmanship, David mastro had started a thread on sword forum were he argued that Japanese sword schools must misunderstand their own historical training methods, and conflated edo period swordsmanship with sengoku.
I have my biases too of course, I think the Japanese showed parity or near parity with in their 15th century encounters, I can cite academic works to support this though.
“A Spanish royal decree of 1609 specifically directed Spanish commanders in the Pacific ‘not to risk the reputation of our arms and state against Japanese soldier'”.
Giving Up the Gun: Japan’s Reversion to the Sword, 1543-1879: Noel Perrin, p. 35.
“…unique among Asian nationals, they proved to be at least equal to the Westerners in trading and fighting skills throughout Far Eastern waters.”
Japanese-Siamese Relations, 1606-1629, Theeravit, Khie, in Thai-Japanese Relations in Historical Perspective (1988) p. 18.
cited in Seals of Red and Letters of Gold – Japanese Relations with Southeast Asia in the 17th Century
>>893804
The sources are all Edo period to be honest. The core problem in studying Japanese martial traditions is that they stopped fighting wars and stopped caring. It was all reinvented for peacetime military fetishism to find something for the Samurai class to do, since there were far more of them than there were administrative positions available.
>Giving Up the Gun: Japan’s Reversion to the Sword, 1543-1879: Noel Perrin, p. 35.
This was written by an English professor with a political agenda in mind, not a legitimate East Asian historian able to separate facts from puffing. Even his central thesis, that the Japanese wholly gave up on firearms, was flawed on its face.
>Japanese-Siamese Relations, 1606-1629, Theeravit, Khie, in Thai-Japanese Relations in Historical Perspective (1988) p. 18.
cited in Seals of Red and Letters of Gold – Japanese Relations with Southeast Asia in the 17th Century
I don't know this one, but the statement is so broad that it could mean anything. It also doesn't make much sense considering 17th century Japanese naval actions and seafaring trade was extremely limited.
>>893427
No, it says they're bastard swords. What's your point anyways? It doesn't show the weight of rapiers compared to "one handed swords" but it does show that they were lighter than contemporary swords.
Rapier long, increases reach, mad light weight so it could be used with one hand, even further increasing reach.
>>893950
The sources are all Edo period to be honest. The core problem in studying Japanese martial traditions is that they stopped fighting wars and stopped caring. It was all reinvented for peacetime military fetishism to find something for the Samurai class to do,
This is a vast miss-assessment of the Japanese marital arts during the edo period.
First, there are several living sengoku era arts and many more on the edge between the sengoku and edo.
second, is edo period sword schools were often dynamic dueling styles, which incorporated a wide variety of influences.
There were also many matches between styles, leading to revaluation of tactics and a focus on specialization unseen in the older styles
Actual fencing fag here. I've been practicing Epee, Sabre and Kendo on and off for over a decade whenever I've lived somewhere with a good club. I've messed around plenty with crossing styles. What I can say is this.
Epee > Sabre >>>>>>>> Kendo.
In Epee, you minimize the amount of area exposed to your opponents attacks while maximizing your reach. The lightness of the blade allows for extreme maneuverability, and parries are combined directly with attacks and finished. Piercing, maneuverability and reach are the most important aspects for defeating an opponent in a melee battle.
Two handed sword are clumsy, easily parry-able, takes away an open hand, as well as forcing your body into a stance that makes you more reliant upon parrying your opponent than dodging their attacks, and dodging is a preferred option over parrying in a defensive position, especially when you are using real weapons. The only real advantage you have is applied strength in a blow. It's terrible.
Sabre is decent, the only issue being that a real sabre is heavy and relatively unwieldly compared to a rapier. Sabre is an advanced form of using a bladed-edge sword, focusing on slashing attacks. The only advantage I can remotely think of is intimidation through swinging the blade at your opponent a lot in a short period of time, which is a very real thing.
>>894034
you realize that all three of those are sport fencing forms that are somewhat divorced from how the weapons were actually used.
typically cut and thrust swords ruled military blade work.
>>894034
Epee is as far divorced from classical rapier as two fags 'sword fighting' in a shower is from medieval arming sword.
You're also spewing a bunch of hilariously generalized bullshit with basis in reality.
>Two handed sword are clumsy
That's not how physics works
>easily parry-able
How do you not understand leverage?
>takes away an open hand
No, it actually doesn't
>as well as forcing your body into a stance that makes you more reliant upon parrying your opponent than dodging their attacks
Except long sword makes plenty of use of voiding.
>and dodging is a preferred option over parrying in a defensive position, especially when you are using real weapons
No, single time movements that displace the opposing weapon and strike the attacker in the same motion are.
>The only real advantage you have is applied strength in a blow
Along with reach, better control, faster recovery, and far better leverage for all tasks.
>Sabre is decent, the only issue being that a real sabre is heavy and relatively unwieldly compared to a rapier.
Except they're not significantly heavier.
>The only advantage I can remotely think of is intimidation through swinging the blade at your opponent a lot in a short period of time, which is a very real thing.
Counter cuts into your opponent, you fucking mongoloid.
Cuts can also stop and opponent much faster than the thrust. A man can get stabbed in the heart and still lungs.
He CANNOT fight through a severed bicep.
The rapier is ideal for unarmored, man to man fights.
It is not ideal for much else, which is why other swords coexisted with it.
Rekt the katana in duels.
You're missing some important context here. What you're looking at is Edo period samurai making enough koku off of their stipend to spend their time practicing swordsmanship. The only basis to the claim that these schools date back to the Sengoku is the fact that the Edo period samurai who founded these schools claimed it was from the Sengoku. The reason they made this claim was because it gave their school legitimacy at the time. I don't think I've ever seen anything credible that would suggest an ongoing martial tradition between Sengoku martial training and the Edo period sword schools. Swordsmanship was a very tangential part of warfare in the Sengoku, and was practically extinct by the latter decades of the Sengoku. I'm afraid you're buying into 18th and 19th century propaganda deriving legitimacy from and hearkening back to the glory days of the 16th century.
>>894063
Ive never read an actual cited account of this, just uncited rumors on the net.
The only documented fights are things like what is on here
http://www.tameshigiri.ca/2014/05/07/european-vs-japanese-swordsmen-historical-encounters-in-the-16th-19th-centuries/
>>894060
Armchair speculation. Go join a club and start fighting, you won't have to rely as much on blind insults in your arguments.
>>894078
>eppe fencing
>fighting
Pick one. You're playing tag with a wire.
>>894073
I came upon it once, it was an article about portuguese sailors with rapiers dueling Japanese with katanas, the portuguese came out victorious in all but one duel. It was noted thatboth opponents were unarmoured and that a fully armed and armoured samurai was something you really didn't want stomping onto your ship.
I tried finding it again but googling on a tablet a shit.
>>894070
The only basis to the claim that these schools date back to the Sengoku is the fact that the Edo period samurai who founded these schools claimed it was from the Sengoku.
This isn't true, we have third person accounts of many of these styles, as well as documentation in their possession which as been assented by scholars.
Now its true that some schools have fudged their dates, either by a few decades or by centuries though the latter is pretty easily detected. The decade thing comes from the fact that people often attributed their schools founding to their teacher rather then themselves
We know schools like the shinkage ryu date back to the sengoku for instance because of the many different lines of the school stemming from different students of the founder, as well as licenses in the school signed by him.
There are a number of academic sources addressing these core traditions as they are often refereed too (most Edo period schools are their decedents in some form or another)
and you can actually see the evolution in tactics from battlefield to unarmed styles looking at the different surviving schools
>>894080
>Tyler Weaver.
who is this?
>>894073
Fuck off Tyler Weaver
>>894096
I remembered the name after I posted that, personally I didn't like his posts that much
>>886938
fordorsia get out
>>894090
>and you can actually see the evolution in tactics from battlefield to unarmed styles looking at the different surviving schools
No you can't, and nobody in the field has believed this for decades. In fact swords were the basis for practically no battlefield tactics throughout most of the Sengoku, much less the late Sengoku. The sources you're referring to are the literature of the sword schools themselves, which are riddled with propaganda that anyone could spot. Most of them are second or third hand sources dating from the 19th or 20th centuries.
>>894119
I never said that swords were the primary battlefield weapon, Ive read the statistics, however armored swordsmanship definitely existed. Most of those early styles also taught polearms like the spear and naginata. Some of these schools actually have a great deal of third party references testifying to their existence, since many were associated with political institutions like shinto shrines and latter daimyo.
The sources you're referring to are the literature of the sword schools themselves,
I can cite western academic sources on the subject of surviving kenjutsu schools if you would like
scholars like Karl Friday and David Hall have written a lot of the subject, there is also Hurst's armed martial arts of japan.
>>893335
They are using smallswords, not rapiers, it's kinda similar-ish... but there are some big differences with how they are used, regarding tempo especially.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6919fC6Nck
(Capo Ferro by Puck Curtis against Fabris by John O'Meara)
>>887155
I'll go with a Saber.
You're move faggot.
>>894187
I win
You lose
>>894187
You're taking a weapon that has something like 10 inches of blade length difference if you compare average weapons.
Good luck then.
>>894060
All of this is generally correct. two handed sword has greater leverage and control, it sacrifices reach.
I would say that a stab can be a stopper, depending on where you stab, and a cut wound can also be non-disabling if you don't cut something vital.
First blood is not the same as till death or unable to continue
>would like to learn to fight with a rapier
>all the clubs near me only offer longsword and other medieval fighting styles
what's the obsession with all the medieval shit, jesus
>>895014
every post medieval sword that isn't zweihander or cavalry sabre is faggotry made manifest
>>895717
Fresh off the boat, from reddit, kid? heh I remember when I was just like you. Braindead. Lemme give you a tip so you can make it in this cyber sanctuary: never make jokes like that. You got no reputation here, you got no name, you got jackshit here. It's survival of the fittest and you ain't gonna survive long on 4chan by saying stupid jokes that your little hugbox cuntsucking reddit friends would upboat. None of that here. You don't upboat. You don't downboat. This ain't reddit, kid. This is 4chan. We have REAL intellectual discussion, something I don't think you're all that familiar with. You don't like it, you can hit the bricks on over to imgur, you daily show watching son of a bitch. I hope you don't tho. I hope you stay here and learn our ways. Things are different here, unlike any other place that the light of internet pop culture reaches. You can be anything here. Me ? heh, I'm a judge.. this place.... this place has a lot to offer... heh you'll see, kid . . . that is if you can handle it.
>>895014
Learn real fencing, not neckbeard HEMA renaissance fair shit.
>>895014
Fencing is literally based on rapier/smallswords
>>895014
Go for Olympic fencing you'll learn almost the same technique.
>>893969
>No, it says they're bastard swords.
How does the "No" come into play here? These late medieval war-swords were primarily two-handed weapon. Bastard sword and longsword are two terms that are used pretty much synonymously.
>What's your point anyways? It doesn't show the weight of rapiers compared to "one handed swords" but it does show that they were lighter than contemporary swords.
They were lighter than weapons that were primarily two-handed. A one-handed high medieval arming sword weighed on average around 2.4 pounds, which is lighter than most rapiers there.
The point is that rapiers were not light weapons, and people from that time period who wrote about them didn't consider them such. Refer to George Silver for example.
>Rapier long, increases reach
This is true.
>mad light weight
This is not true and you were shown evidence for this which proved that they were almost as heavy as two-handed weapons like you see in >>893392.
>>895791
Olympic fencing has nothing to do with rapier fencing. A rapier is a different weapon.
Olympic fencing is based on 18th century small-swords and academic/military sabre fencing. It is NOT based on rapier fencing.
>>887155
Spear
>>895911
That's because rapiers are gay.
Just fence epee.
>>895744
Rapiers are not smallswords. The style of fencing was completely different. This is easily seen in 18th century literature on German academic fencing, where they banned the smallswords from use in duels since they proved to be a lot more deadly than the rapiers due to being much faster to use and harder to control. A rapier is a more tactical weapon, much more a weapon of serious battle than a smallsword. It is longer, slower, keeps you out of reach and involves more thoughtful attacks. A smallsword with its fast parade-riposte style fencing results in much more randomness and involuntary hits which resulted in people dying from accidentally perforated lungs when they were just duelling until first blood.
Pic related shows smallswords. Compare this to >>895911.
>>887155
Unless heavy armour is involved, in which case you'd want something with a bit more leverage.
>>895919
All sorts of dueling weapons that would be good against a rapier.
another sword would not necessarily be my first choice
>>892159
koncerz is the coolest of these sword types
>>895920
an epee is just a gay rapier though, even the word sounds gay
>>895940
Early rapiers were still heavy enough to be used in war, though heaver blades were still preferred.
>>887943
>>892396
>>892319
>>892301
I'm not a hema guy really like some of his cutting and destruction vids, not that I'm endorsing everything he concludes and says, but it does give you a ruff idea of the durability of weapons and armor. Not how I would test all of them either, but Im not forking over the money
I'm always wary however of you tube, sword history vids, some of them are poorly researched. one flaw I often see, is taking modern Chinese made katana and counting them as a fair analogue to a sengoku era blade, or even a properly forged modern blade which has a far more complicated process than most of the Chinese ones (Some of the American smiths however are as good or better than traditional blades)
That said I really enjoyed his saber sparring video with steel blunts
>>886938
If you can aim, its pretty good. A lunge with that gives you hella range.
>>895892
>one outlier warsword that may or may not have been a 2 handed sword or even used in a war
>This is not true and you were shown evidence for this which proved that they were almost as heavy as two-handed weapons like you see in
This is bullshit. You're using a single outlier among the "war swords" category, when there's a huge ass list of actual "two handed swords" at the bottom in >>893388
Your argument is complete and utter shit.
>>898171
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6Cy1vCQGoc
single stick and rapier
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5w2Mh6CyXo
saber looks alot more fun
>>886980
I never joke when discussing swords, mate.
>>898217
>This is bullshit. You're using a single outlier among the "war swords" category, when there's a huge ass list of actual "two handed swords" at the bottom in >>893388(You)
The swords at the bottom are 16th century two-handed swords. Actual two-handed swords that can only be wielded in two hands and are often bearing swords, used in processions rather than weapons of war. Take a look at this picture. These are the types of weapons we're talking about. The swords above, the war swords, are more akin to the weapons seen in >>893392, although earlier (and likely heavier) implements. These were primarily two-handed weapons, but they could still be wielded in one-hand to a certain degree.
I can only repeat that the rapier is not a light weapon and it wasn't regarded as such by 16th century people.
George Silver wrote in regard to Italian fencing with rapiers:
>rapiers longer than is convenient to accord with the true statures of men, are always too long or too heavy to keep their bodies in due time from the cross of the light short sword of perfect length
Even if one may disagree with George Silver in regards to rapiers being "too long" or "too heavy" since length or weight (in relation to balancing) may not always be a disadvantage, the point remains that rapiers were not flimsy small sword type weapons. They were long and heavy for one-handed weapons, weighing almost as much as the (primarily) two-handed war swords of the late middle ages. Certainly there were different variants, some lighter, some heavier, but in general these were not light weapons. They emerged from the cavalry side-swords, which were by no means light weapons either but essentially arming swords with complex hilts.
If you want to prove a point, provide some sources rather than calling "bullshit" on people who back their arguments with actual facts.
>>898217
>>902737
I might as well link to the source: http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/paradoxes.html
You may want to read that; it's obviously highly opinionated, but it's an actual 16th century fencing master who apparently didn't think all too highly of the South European fencing traditions which relied on the rapier, and he preferred what he called a "short sword", very likely referring to British backsword or arming sword types.
>>887155
What if I pick a hammer or axe? Stop me now.
>>902737
You brough up that source, it's not my source, and you cherrypicked an outlier as being representative, which is also several inches shorter than a rapier, and then you go making claims about two handed swords that are really bastard swords.
No, what you said was complete bullshit. You source did not back up what you said at all, and now you're strawmanning as fuck to get a leg up.
Rapiers were light enough to be used with one hand increasing reach, and light for their reach.
Obviously they're not a fucking dagger.
>If you want to prove a point, provide some sources rather than calling "bullshit" on people who back their arguments with actual facts.
I'm not proving any point. I was reading the conversation and decided to call you out on your bullshit, because you tried to back your argument with cherry picked facts that actually said the opposite of what you said. No, you doing get to say all one-handed real swords were 2.4 pounds because of a single outlier. When you say compared to two handed swords, and you're too fucking lazy to crop out the actual two handed swords you don't get to claim that either.
>>902810
>doing
fucking auto correct
don't
>>902794
Unless you're talking about a polearm, you're fucked most of the time.
You're still fucked if it's particularly short.
>>902822
I can think of a number of weapons that would pose a challenge to it by virtue of their length or how unusual they are.
Just going by Japanese weapons, because that is what I am familiar with. bo, jo, chigiri kusarigama,
>>901308
That's actually not bad.
>>902847
Do you know anything about kenjutsu? because if you do its terrible
War rapiers are nasty both irl and in fantasy
Rapiers were developed around 1500, right around when gunpowder was really taking off and plate armor beginning to decline.
Without armor to contend with, the object of many melee weapons switched from the ability to defeat plate to the ability to effectively wound and disable unarmored or lightly armored enemies.
If you've ever played around with swords, or even got into stick fights with your friends as a kid, you'll know that it helps A LOT to be able to reach them when they can't reach you. Hence why spears, pikes, pole arms, and missiles have always been popular. You'll also know that the thrust is very useful, since you can keep your weapon in front of you in order to parry or counter, and can strike quickly and accurately.
The problem with spears, pikes, etc, is that they are big, sometimes unwieldy, and generally require two hands. You can't really fire a pistol while holding a spear. Spears are also weapons of war, and in many places seen as ungentlemanly, whereas the sword could be a status symbol.
The rapier was an weapon that could be used with one hand, extremely effective against people not covered in full plate, and could be worn around in public without attracting unwanted attention (much like open carrying an AR-15 would today).
>>903169
Good breakdown, one book I have however says that many war swords remained heavier blades with a rapier style guard
>>902810
>You brough up that source, it's not my source, and you cherrypicked an outlier as being representative, which is also several inches shorter than a rapier, and then you go making claims about two handed swords that are really bastard swords.
Bastard swords are primarily two-handed weapons. Look at any historical European fencing tradition and you'll find that to be true. They are not what is generally regarded a Greatsword, a Zweihaender, Bidenhaender, Gassenhauer, Montante, or whatever you want to call them, but they are definitely swords primarily intended for two-handed use. Look at any historical fencing treatise and you'll find that to be true. If you see them used being one-handed, it's usually from horseback (e.g. in De Arte Athletica by Meyer).
>Rapiers were light enough to be used with one hand increasing reach, and light for their reach.
They were light "enough" but they were not "light" in relation to other one-handed weapons and thus not generally regarded "light" weapons by fencing masters of the time. In fact, this is a major reason why you usually see rapiers being used with a defence implement such as a buckler, a dagger, a short-sword, etc. since the rapier was too cumbersome to allow for a comparably fast defence as modern fencing weapons. This is something which historical fencing masters have commented on and I've presented you evidence for it. Whether they were right is a completely different matter, but the fact that people who frequently used fencing weapons back in the day regarded them heavy should tell you that rapiers were not "light" weapons by any standard. They were different from modern fencing weapons.
>No, you doing get to say all one-handed real swords were 2.4 pounds because of a single outlier.
Actually, I merely looked up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knightly_sword. This is likely to be an average taken from several museum pieces, and I can guarantee you that there are plenty of lighter ones out there.
>>902810
continuation of >>904217
>You source did not back up what you said at all,
Did you even take a look at the source?
>I will not doubt but to maintain with reason among the wise, and prove it by practice upon the ignorant, that there is no certain defence in the rapier, and that there is great advantage in the short sword against the long rapier, or all manner of rapiers in general, of what length soever
>the rapier being too long, the cross cannot be undone in due time, but may be done by going back with the feet
>rapiers longer than is convenient to accord with the true statures of men, are always too long or too heavy to keep their bodies in due time from the cross of the light short sword of perfect length
>It is most certain, that men may with short swords both strike, thrust, false and double, by reason of their distance and nimbleness thereof, more dangerously than they can with long rapiers.
>By this it plainly appears, that the cause of the great slaughter, and sundry hurts done by long rapiers, consists not in their long reach, dangerous thrusts, nor cunningness of the Italian fight, but in the inconvenient length, and unwieldiness of their long rapiers, whereby it commonly falls out, that in all their actions appertaining to their defence, they are unable, in due time to perform, and continually in danger of every cross, that shall happen to be made with their rapier blades
He goes on and on, ranting about the rapier and the people who used them in regards to these weapons being often too long, too heavy, cumbersome, etc.
As I said earlier: whether he's right is a completely different matter, and lots of his contemporaries would have disagreed with him, but what is important here is to note that there's a guy - a fairly competent and educated swordsman even - who calls these weapons, which nowadays are often regarded "light", "heavy", "cumbersome", etc. - thus perfectly backing my point.
>>898171
I just can't stand how clumsily the guy produces and expresses himself in his videos. Every single one of his videos could be made in half the time if he would just plan them in advance instead of droning on and on and on and then fucking up his editing.
>>903169
>plate armor beginning to decline.
>around 1500
Anon...
Plate armour was THE thing in 1500's, nobility has worn it for entire century, and some basic things like breastplate tended to be used by pikemen etc..
>>887155
What if I decide to bring a flower to the florette battle?
>>894086
I have to agree with this guy. Fencing doesn't represent true military combat.
come on op we all know the gayest sword ever is the katana
>inb4 weeaboos
its a piece of shit
Speaking of weapons, is the chakram a useful and practical weapon or a meme?
>>904548
Looks like a shitty version of a throwing star to me
>>886938
Shit was viable as fuck in Dank Souls tho senpai
Ricard Lyfe nigga
