Hank Reinhardt's The Book of the Sword

by Hank Reinhardt

  Most telling are contemporary comments. In his excellent book The Rapier and the Small Sword, A.V.B. Norman quotes a bill from Robert Selkirk, cutler to James IV of Scotland, for the wrapping of a rapier, a riding sword and an arming sword. Even earlier, the rapier is described as being a cutting weapon, and a tuck as having three or more edges.

  There is also the question as to the origin of the word "rapier." Many think of it having descended from the German word "rapper," meaning to tear out, or the Spanish word "raspar," to scratch. Claude Blair offered another source, the espada ropera, or sword of the robe, i.e. civilian wear. To be quite honest, I really don't care. In many respects it's like questioning the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin. If I had to choose, I would choose the Blair explanation. My reasoning is quite simple. (Many have said that I am simple as well, so don't waste your time thinking it.) The rapier is an excellent weapon for dueling, (though for multiple assailants, it leaves something to be desired—more on this later), but is useless in war. Since it is worn with civilian dress, the espada ropera seems to fit.

  THE TYPES OF RAPIER

  It is confusing to read that one of the earliest mentions of the rapier pertains to a cutting sword. One has to remember that not only were our ancestors somewhat lackadaisical about spelling, but had the same carelessness regarding terms. This is a very confusing area because there are no hard and fast lines that can be drawn. We live in an age where everything must be compartmentalized. It is a Ford, or a Chevrolet, it is a 21-inch TV or a 33-inch. A copper-jacketed round nose .45 caliber bullet leaves the barrel at 830 feet per second and develops a specific amount of muzzle energy. Well, it's not that way with swords, and it sure would be a lot easier if it were.

  But the rapier itself is a confusing weapon. Just what is a rapier? I have seen rapiers with blades that will cut, although not too well. And these are not sword rapiers, but rather regular rapiers with slightly wider blades. I can see why our ancestors were careless about terms, as there is no specific set of rules to determine what is a rapier, a sword rapier, or just a narrow sword. There are rapiers with blades that are very thin, with no discernible edge, and yet, to my mind, the blade shape and function should indicate that it is a specific type of sword. Alas, this does not seem to work with the rapier. However, for convenience sake, I will define a rapier as a sword with a long, thin blade that is primarily used for thrusting.

  Those swords which can also be used for cutting we will term "sword rapiers," and will deal with them later in the chapter on straight-swords. The term itself is quite confusing, as no one is really sure what it means.

  Ewart Oakeshott offered the best way to distinguish between a sword and a sword rapier: if you pick up the sword and you think you could cut off a man's arm, then it's probably a sword rapier; if you don't think you can, it's probably a rapier.

  If I am facing someone with a sword rapier, with a heavier cutting blade, and he is foolish enough to hold the sword in an "en garde" position, the moment he lifts the sword for a cut I will attack. And with the balance of my sword, it should be quicker to enable me to avoid a defending left hand that might be trying to block my attack.

  Like everything else in life, it's a trade-off. If you make the sword blade wider and heavier to facilitate cutting, you make it somewhat slower and less able to "fence" should that be required. If you keep the weight the same, but shorten the blade to achieve the same purpose, you lose length. If your rapier is lightning fast due to a thin deadly blade, you can't cut, nor do you have the strength to block a heavy cut from a heavier weapon. You also stand in danger of having your sword blade grabbed by an opponent. Make no mistake, gloves were made with mail lining in the palms for just that purpose. Later, as the rapier blade became almost totally without a functioning edge, it could easily be grabbed by the left hand. A strong man could grab the blade and bend it until it was useless, or in some cases even break it. That, of course, depended on how strong the man was and on the temper of the sword.

  A cutting sword has to have a relatively flat blade in order to cut. A thick blade prevents the sword from cutting deeply, but the sword also has to have a certain amount of mass behind the edge in order for it to cut at all. Machetes, with their thick backs, are excellent for light chopping, but are not as efficient as swords in combat. However, if you add just a little mass to the blade by making it only slightly thicker, then you can have a devastating weapon, and one quite similar to Chinese swords.

  From the above, you can see that categorizing these swords is very chancy indeed. It is a constantly shifting set of values, but no set rules. Finally, add into the equation the very real fact that much of the sword's use will depend upon the wielder.

  There are several things that can be considered. First, the guard: the hilt of the rapier is quite attractive, and does provide some protection for the hand. The rapier was lighter, quicker, and easier to carry than many of the standard swords of the day. Another factor is that the rapier was a lousy weapon of war. So attempts were made to solve all of these problems, and obviously they solved none of them. (Well, maybe the fashion one, as there are sword rapiers that are quite attractive).

  Early rapiers were generally only a little lighter than the tucks. Many were made with wider blades that did have edges. But it was also found that these blades were slower, and that a purely thrusting blade was much quicker.

  By the middle of the 16th century, the rapier had reached the form given above and lasted until it was supplanted by the small sword. It was also realized that a somewhat longer blade gave one a slight advantage over an opponent armed with a shorter sword. This led to a rapid increase in the length of the rapier, and pretty soon it reached absurd lengths. I have handled and seen many with blades as long as 54 inches. I have been told of one in a private collection that reached a full 5 feet in blade length!

  Blades this long were incredibly annoying to the average person. It would be difficult to walk around without having someone's long rapier rapping you as they passed by (another source for the term rapier—something that's always rapping other people?). Good Queen Bess responded to this by issuing an edict in 1562 that all who wore these long rapiers should have their swords broken to a yard in length. I have often wondered if wearing of the long rapier did not have some influence on the design of many buildings and plazas during the Renaissance. Certainly they are spacious and airy and you could wear a reasonable length sword in such places without creating much of a disturbance.

  But I wander (as I am given to doing). The extra long rapier blade presented a more deadly problem: it really didn't work all that well. Its great length made it slow and awkward and, once an opponent got past the point, there was great difficulty in gaining control of the thing. Remember, they were not fencing, and there were no rules for combat. A long blade would be slow and, with almost no edge, it is relatively easy to grab the blade with the off hand. So rapiers quickly dropped back to what many considered an ideal length.

  Some rapiers do have edges, but the mass of the blade is so light, and the blade is so thick, that any cut will act more as like a slash with a whip than an actual cut. Even if the actual edge is sharp, the angle of the wedge would be too great to allow the sword to penetrate. True, a wound from a sword like this would be unpleasant to receive, but it wouldn't be deadly, and it leaves the wielder of such a sword open to a killing thrust.

  A very few rapiers were made with points that were spade-shaped, flattened and sharpened. This allowed them to be used in a slashing cut called the "stramazzone." This was usually directed at the face, in the hopes of a head cut that would blind the opponent. It doesn't seem to have worked very well, as there aren't a lot of them around.

  Various forms of the swept hilt were used for the rapier until well into the 17th century. In the first quarter of the 17th century a new hilt form emerged, the cup hilt. This is the hilt form that most think about when the word rapier is mentioned. It is a very practical form, and gives great prot
ection to the hand, as mentioned above.

  Many years ago I purchased a rapier from Ewart Oakeshott with a cross cross-section. To digress a moment, I was at my first visit to Ewart and Sybil Oakeshott's home and I was a little nervous. Ewart had written what I consider to be the best and most informative book on arms and armor that I had ever read, The Archaeology of Weapons. I read it when it first came out in 1960, and even today it still stands head and shoulders above anything published before or since. I wasn't sure that he would want to spend time with a potzer like me, but he had extended the invitation so I accepted. I shouldn't have been worried. Two more delightful and wonderful people you will never find. Within five minutes I was completely at home, and every visit was a total joy from that day on.

  We were having a great time talking about swords and Ewart was allowing me to examine his collection. He was a great one for "hands on" experience. He said that he had a rapier he wanted me to look at, and handed me this beautiful sword in almost perfect condition. The gilding was worn, but the fighting capabilities were still there. I took it from him and immediately started looking for someone to duel. (I had this experience only one other time; see the chapter on Japanese swords.) I knew that whoever had owned this weapon had not died in a duel, for who could lose with such a sword in hand? I had a hard time relinquishing it, and Ewart gave me his word that should he ever sell it, I would get first crack. From that day on he referred to it as "Hank's sword," and a few years later I did become the proud owner.

  To this day I consider it the finest rapier I have ever seen. There are many rapiers that are more decorative, with beautiful hilt work, gorgeous sheaths, and some can be traced to notable figures. But of all the rapiers I have been lucky enough to hold, this is by far the best. The blade is 43 inches in length and at the ricasso the blade is 1-1/16 inches wide and 1/4 inch thick. There is a maker's mark, a crown over a T. The blade is deeply hollow ground, so that it is almost a cross in the cross section. Quite rigid, the blade has a slight curve, which I think happened in use. (Rapiers are not intended to be flexible like a fencing epee—that is movie nonsense. It has to be stiff in order to punch through the torso of the enemy.) The hilt is the "standard" swept hilt, and the weight of the sword is 2 pounds, 7 ounces. The balance is right in front of the hilt, so that when you grip it with one or two fingers around the ricasso, it seems to float in your hand. Ewart believed it dated from about 1600 AD, and I have no reason to doubt it. Although to my personal taste the sword is about 3 inches longer than I like, with a main gauche in the left hand, I'd feel it was a very formidable weapon. A few years later, Simon Fearnham of Raven Armoury was kind enough to make me a close copy (even I am reluctant to play with a four-hundred-year-old antique). This allowed me to handle the rapier in a defensive mode. Alas, I had to assure my friends that I would make no thrusting motions with the blade, but would only parry. I am convinced that it is the sword I would choose if ever challenged to a rapier duel.

  Reproduction Oakeshott rapier. HRC24.

  The rapier quickly became the sword of the gentleman, and although other weapons were used on occasion, the rapier was the weapon of choice for dueling. It was admirably suited for this, but alas, for little else. Oh, it might defend against thieving footpads provided one had time to draw it, but as for war, it served no purpose. In the maelstrom and raging hell of battle, the little rapier was ineffective. Unlike the Roman gladius, the long rapier required more distance to thrust and stab, and the thin blade would break under the pressure of battle. Against wheel lock, polearm, broadsword and axe, and having to face armor, the rapier was insufficient.

  MAIN GAUCHE

  The rapier was often accompanied by a dagger termed a "main gauche," for the hand it was used in, gauche being French for "left," main for "hand." Back then, people were pretty serious about their fighting, and saw no reason to limit it to one hand. The left hand was used to ward off a thrust by slapping the blade, or to grab your opponent's blade. If that happened, you could stab your enemy, or even try to bend the blade if it were a thin-bladed weapon.

  Reproduction main gauche. HRC121.

  Our ancestors were far from stupid, and could easily see that having a dagger in the left hand made a lot of sense. At one time a very few swashbucklers carried a pair of rapiers. The idea being that if one sword was good, then two swords were twice as good. Alas, that was wrong, and I am sure a few people learned of their mistake, but I doubt seriously if they lived long enough to correct it.

  In single combat the most serious problem facing a rapier is that it is a distance weapon. Once the opponent has broken past the point, it is impossible to turn the hand and then stab him. The sword is simply too long, and its main advantage becomes a deadly disadvantage. This problem was solved by using a dagger in the left hand. Blade length was important. It is very easy to choose a dagger with a long blade, as this will allow you to reach your opponent quicker, but then you can end up with the same problem, of your dagger being too long. A blade of about 14–16 inches seems to be pretty close to the ideal, but this does depend on the arm length and physiology of the person using the dagger.

  Reproduction main gauche with thumb ring. HRC116.

  The main gauche was designed for this type of fighting. Often the left hand holding the blade is protected by a thin shell and a crossguard. Sometimes the crossguard will have a ring projecting out of it at right angles instead of a shell. This is called a "thumb ring" and I haven't the slightest idea as to why. It is on the opposite side of the dagger from the thumb, and the people who think you put your thumb through it have no concept of swordplay. The ring is there to protect the hand from a sword sliding down the blade. All parries are made to the outside. Certainly you don't want to parry the sword across your body, and if you put your thumb through the ring, you are quite likely to get it lopped off.

  The usual way of holding the main gauche was in the same fashion as you held the sword. However, there are illustrations and comments that some held the main gauche with the "icepick" grip. I tried this several times in play, using fencing swords and dummy flexible daggers. I managed to stab myself several times, and was also able to lose all of the fights. I went back to the old way.

  Many of the left hand daggers are designed to trap an opponent's blade. Sometimes the guard will be lifted up out of the plane of the blade. When a parry is made the hand can be turned, catching the blade, if only momentarily. This can be a great advantage, and in the fraction of a second, allow you to stab your opponent in any area that happens to be open. Another method is to have two small projecting blades coming up about an inch from the main blade. These will have little hooks that can also catch a blade. Some blades will have these same hooks. Many times these are referred to as "blade breakers," but that is wishful thinking. They are there for the sole purpose of catching and holding the blade.

  A main gauche with "blade breaker" hooks. HRC130.

  The left hand dagger was an important weapon, and it seems to have been first fully appreciated and used in Spain. There is a small amount of argument about this, but no one has been able to offer definitive proof for any one location. At any rate, the use of rapier and dagger lasted longer in Spain than in any other European country, well into the 18th century.

  But the main gauche was not only an important adjunct to the rapier, but to the sword, and sword rapier as well. It is always better to use both hands, and if you don't have a shield or a good buckler with you, then a good dagger is quite nice.

  THE RAPIER'S FORM

  The cross-section of most rapier blades was a diamond shape, although there are triangular cross sections as well (in the forerunner of the small sword), some square, some square with deeply hollowed faces. All of the blades were straight. However, there was one variety that is quite interesting.

  Rapier with flamberge blade.

  This is the rapier that is often called a "flamberge rapier." The sword has a blade that is a series of S curves that gives it a serpentine look. These
types of blades are found a great deal in two-handed swords, in straight swords, sword rapiers and, of course, daggers. It was thought that the curved blades inflicted a deeper and more serious wound (more on this in the section dealing with the geometry of swords). A few years ago I got a good copy of a rapier that had one of these curved blades. In playing with it with some of my friends I made a rather interesting discovery: when you first lunge, and your sword is parried by a flamberge blade, it can cause you to lose your concentration if you're not careful. The parry causes your sword to vibrate, and although the effect is slight, it is still disconcerting. After a few times you get use to it, and it no longer matters. Of course, the reverse is also true, that it takes a short while to get used to using one of these rapiers. So hey, anything to gain an edge or, in this case, a point.

  In popular works, such as the movies of Cyrano and The Three Musketeers, the rapier is shown with a cup hilt. It is surprising how long it took for this eminently practical hilt to be developed and used. Most authorities believe that the cup hilt was developed in the first quarter of the 17th century. (Still, there is a cup hilt in the Spanish Naval Museum in Madrid that is listed as belonging to an admiral who died in 1571. In this, I am inclined to believe the authorities rather than the museum, as the museums in Spain have frequently mislabeled some of their weaponry.)