![]() |
|
![]() |
#1 | |
Member
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Germany
Posts: 525
|
![]() Quote:
After I had many old blades in my hand, I slowly begin to have a feeling for it. The main advantage of the rapier is the length, ~13cm more is pretty much. But we talk about a duel weapon and in this case the weight of the sword is of highest importance. There are many videos on Youtube and nowadays they are trying very seriously the find out the old way of sword fighting. They more and more come to the same conclusions than in the Renaissance or Medieval. The Rapier for example is a good and fair opponent for a one and half hand longsword of italian type (designed for thrusting). But the duel rapier is slow and very exhausting because of its high weight of ~1kg. The rapier-duelist normally tries to make offensive and defensive moves together in one action (Youtube "Rapier vs Longsword"). The small sword duelist on the other hand got such a fast weapon, he can make offensive moves and defensive moves indepently from each other. Fighting with a small sword is completely different to a rapier and at least twice as fast or faster. If you watch a rapier duel you can see every move clearly but with a small sword one needs the slow motion to see whats happend. Regards, Roland |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Member
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Surabaya - Indonesia
Posts: 199
|
![]()
it's a colichemarde sword, halfway in evolution to rapier, with half of the blade still wide, to parry heavier sword
popular in 16-17 th century, if I'm not mistaken congratulations Donny |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 | |
(deceased)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Portugal
Posts: 9,694
|
![]() Quote:
Surely we are all aware that (school) fencing is one thing, (honor) dueling is another, and sword fighting in combat is way far different than those two, even if there aren't period video clips to demonstrate. ... From what i wonder whether fighting in combat depends, not so much in sword characteristics, but in the man (or woman) handling it. I fear that subtle differences in blade configurations are not so convincing as their effective brutality, so to say, notwithstading primary factors like weight and length but again, all those transcended by handlers not minding much about virtual modus operandi to hit their target. The Roman gladius was a short weapon, the Falcata Iberica was also rather short, yet it was narrated to be a vicious weapon. All this to gain courage to say that the Colichemarde in its original configuration might be a fashionable fencing or dueling thing but not an actual combat resource in itself; maybe because i humbly find that its unestethical look is not compensated by being a combat resistent weapon. But don't hit me, i am only the piano player ![]() And by the way Roland, your example, be it transitional or not, has by far a more balanced appearance ![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Arms Historian
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Route 66
Posts: 10,296
|
![]()
Wayne, thank you for adding the picture of George Washington's sword that I mentioned, pretty interesting example.
Actually fencing has been described as a 'science', where dueling has been described as anything from a passion to an obsession, in these times. It seems that the sword in combat is quite a different thing, as the dynamics there are profoundly dynamic to say the least. I recall an anecdote pertaining to a cavalry action in the Crimea during that war, where a British cavalryman was 'annoyed' because a Russian horseman had responded 'out of sequence' to his strike , giving him a cut so and so and knocked him off his horse. Fencing, and in its ultimate theater, the duel of honor, is a most systemic and carefully gauged arrangement, where the features of the weapons are key in their performance in accord with techniques practiced. Combat is an explosive and volatile interaction where no such rules or strategies can be expected to be followed, as shown in the anecdote above and how out of place it was. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|