yes, i do, the only weapons i've ever trained in the use of are, sai and dual wakizashi. I LOVE THEM BOTH. any questions, feel free to ask.
Actually, during the renaissance and a bit after that, soldiers Dual-ed a Rapier and a Dagger. So the style might be reliable.
rapier and dagger are not a style for use in qwar. The rapier was a street weapon and a dager was used because a rapier could only defend in single time, ie no lighting fast rispotesthe dagger was used for parrying and the rapier for attacking. Im not quite sure how common two weapons actaully was for the battle feild in Europe.
"...rapier was a street weapon and a dagger was used because a rapier could only defend in single time, i.e. no lighting fast rispotes..." Cudgel's response is a fairly accurate statement, although I'm going to pick some nits in the logic and background (no offense meant, Cudgel, I'm, again, going after the background data that was handed to you), and look forward to hearing responses after I stake my flag in the ground... Forgive me if I'm in the minority, and perhaps less versed in what information is being presented where, but I've only ever seen Chris Evans espouse the single-time/double-time theories, and quite frankly, I find it rather absurd. For those who've not encountered these concepts, Mr. Evans (in an article on Rapiers at SwordForum.com) suggests that single-time sword play (attack/counter-attack/counter-attack/counter-attack) was a limitation, and the norm in early Rapier play due to the ungainly weight, heft, unresponsiveness and general clumsiness of the weapons of the Rapiers of the early era (1560-1650). He goes on to say that only as the weapons become smaller (due to them no longer being used against heavier blades), that they become lighter, and then the double-time swordplay (attack/parry/attack/parry) is suddenly revealed as the better method of fence, and the rapid development towards the smallsword takes these (apparently better) methods of swordplay to the next level. Well, the first part I'm going to assault (although it helps affirm Cudgel's point) is the application of the Rapier. As Cudgel says, these are Civilian weapons. Sure, a few soldiers show up on the field sporting their Rapiers on their hips, but they were publically humiliated in person and in print by their peers. A Rapier on a Battlefield is kind of like entering your Echo in a Nascar event. It is horribly outclassed by those around it, and while still can meet the bare minimum of "getting you where you want to go", a Rapier in the press of Shot and Pike will maybe help you dispatch a couple people on the way out, but is essentially useless to win a battle. One thing that may confuse this perception (and feed the fires of confusion) is the complex hilt configurations found on swords from the 1560's onwards. We most commonly hear the words "Swept Hilt" followed immediately by the word "Rapier", however the compound hilts (quillons, port rings, knuckle-bows, etc) actually first appear on the battlefields with the cut and thrust swords. The other limitation we have to remember is our forebears' naming conventions. For as broad a language as English is, for whatever reason the only words ever to describe the types of blades in the period were either "sword" or "rapier", but their application was very precise. The context of the texts makes it clear that you bring a Sword to war, and you wear a Rapier for your day-to-day. Now, "Rapier" opponents such as George Silver decried the Rapier as a foppish and ineffective weapon of defence, and would still carry their "Sword", but the civilian arm and the war arm are still different beasts, especially on the continent. At any rate, the reason I digressed to the limitation of the English vocabulary, is that to best illustrate what I am referring to in the history of compound hilted blades, we have no English word of distinction for them, and must sidestep to the German "Reiterschwert". Reiterschwert translates to “Riding Sword”, meaning the sidearm of a horseman, but the design of the blade is the typical Soldier’s sidearm (it’s been mentioned on a few other threads how the sword was a “last ditch” weapon for 95% of the soldiery deployed). Here are some good examples of Reiterschwert, or Soldier’s sidearms typical of the day from the 1560’s through abouth the 1620’s: http://www.myarmoury.com/albums/displayimage.php?pos=-388 http://www.claudiospage.com/reitschw.htm http://www.claudiospage.com/reitschw2.htm Note how all of the weapons are what we would characteristically call “swept hilts”, but they are certainly not Rapiers. The false assumptions that get made are that these are either Early Rapiers (and too heavy to be functional as a thrusting weapon), or that the Rapier was commonly engaged against these heavier foes, and were for a while heavier themselves to deal with them. Well, only a doofus would take a Knife to a Gun fight, and likewise, only a doofus would bring a Rapier to a Swordfight (…note the dead Fop in Rob Roy, although I hardly recommend Hollywood as Primary Reference material… At any rate, the Rapier was never meant to deal with heavier blades than itself (I’m amazed that on another thread on this site someone describes a Rapier vs. Zwiehander fight, WTF?), therefore any argument that founds itself upon this premise is a classic case of faulty premises. Secondly (…my God, he’s not done yet?… , in regards to the Single-Time/Double-Time commentary, the Single-Time method of fence suggests that when your opponent goes to hit you, hit him first. Let’s listen to the thought process on this one… “…Say, you mean that if I see a guy take a swing at me, I should sidestep and hit him in the arm first? Or perhaps, as he goes to lunge all I have to do is drop my point into his face? Or maybe as he swipes across my face, I envelope his blade and take a swipe at his in return? What, am I trying to kill this guy?” Uhhh, yeah, that would be the point. Double-Time fence doesn’t develop as a fighting method to dispatch your opponent, it develops as the Gentlemanly mode of fence in the Salon. Sure, Smallswords are lethal tools, and duelling could certainly send someone backpeddling off this mortal coil, but the Smallswords are the tools of the Gentleman in matters of Honor, and above all, honorable Gentlemen should fight with dignity and decorum. This is where all the silly nonsense of “Right-Of-Way” gets invented and finds it’s way into Modern Competitive Sport Fencing. Parry/Riposte has nothing to do whatsoever with how to best dispatch your opponent, it has *everything* to do with who has the right to claim a touch. If he attacks, and I parry it, I am now allowed to attack back (riposte). If he attacks, and I counter-attack, I will only score a point on him if his touch misses. If he attacks, and I present a stop hit, I will only score a point on him, again, if he misses. I’m sure there are some Fencing afficionados out there who can either correct me on the nuances of that, or help fill in all of the other blanks, but the point is that Parry/Riposte is the preffered method to fence *ONLY* in regards to Sport Fencing, as that is the only way to guarantee your good touch counts for something, as the the other (and in my opinion, more efficient) methods only count if the other guy misses. And now we circle back around to Cudgel’s point (“…my God, is he done?… . The correct answer (in my opinion, at least) is that the Dagger was not there to counter the Rapier's inefficiency of fence, but simply because it is there, and could be used to augment your fight. The Dagger was the companion arm to the Rapier, not neccesarily out of design, but because you always carried a knife on you, regardless of whether you carried a sword. And lastly, to correct Cudgel, the Dagger was used *very* offensively in the Swordplay of the period, not just defensively. So, I find myself running against the grain on this one. Thoughts? Sincerely, D. Matthew Kelty
In my Kung Fu school, we have a style called Double Dragon Broadswords. Basically it's two Southern Chinese broadswards in one sheath, with the handle of each sword basically half of an ellipse. The swords are the same btw, unlike those Katana/Wakisashi sets.
WHOA...... That was kinda cool, so glad my lack of knowledge brings out more knowledge. SWEET. I am going to have to agree with all u just said cuz it has a ring of truth in it, partly from my brief foray into SCA rapier, even though few use completely historically blanced blades. You will note how ever that I never aid the dagger was used exclusivly for defence or that is was carried for use with a rapier or sword. I negected to elaborate further on the fact that everybody carried a dagger or knife on their person at such time making it a natural to use it in your offhand unless u had something else to use in it. Although I was still under the impression that while one could use their dagger offensivly it was mainly used to parry so u could use your rapier or sowrd soley or motly for offence, much like my understanding of the sheild or buckler. Granted there are many things that I consider a defenvie action that are really quite offensive in nature. But in short a wonderful explaination on single and double time, something I barely understood, and that I do beleive I picked from the article on the rapier at SFI.
My apologies Cudgel, you used the words "...the Dagger was used for Parrying...", and that was what I keyed off of... Yes, the dagger was certainly the preferred Parrying arm, as that allows you to strike with the sword from a safer distance, but if my memory serves me well, about 20% or so of the documented duelling wounds in the Renaissance were attributed to the dagger (hamstring cuts top the list, with hits to the face a close second. I'll have to find the reference again, but somewhere along the line an Elizabethan commentary observed that every good fencing master was always missing one eye... To help add to the shield info, the shield, targe, or target (collectively grouped as 18"-24" shields) was a fairly "defensive only" tool, but the buckler (8"-16") is a wicked little tool. The sheilding capabilites are obvious, although it is used more to redirect the opponents blade than neccesarily stopping it cold, but the really fun part is the way the buckler gets used to punch... Your SCA Rapier experience is *quite* valid, as that entire branch of the SCA goes straight back to William Wilson and the Tattershall school of Defence (I think), one of the first and most widely referenced teachers of Historical Fence. Patri Pugliese paved the way for the access to all of the old manuscripts, but William really honed the translation and teaching from those manuals, long before Mr. Clement's ever had his short and curlies, let alone assumed he was the only one to reseach the originals... (...can you tell I've got a warm and fuzzy spot in my heart for the HACA...
actually quite interestingly enough one of the people at the local SCA rapier practice studies at the Tatershal school of Defence and ive met one fo the Instructors. And If I had the time I might still be going to the SCA rapier. I found the historical techniques to be more natural and cool looking, partly from 5 years of doing free play with shinai, you do it enough with real intent you start to get pretty close to how it was. My only beef was I was taught two differnet ways to parry with a rapier, one the hisoircal and more natuarally feeling way and a less intuitive way. I was being corected constantly for useing the natural way to parry, it was mildly agravating. lets see if i can describe it clrealy. if you are in tierce, point at their throat, elbow down and to ouside of your body, and your hand in held vertically withe t quillions striagt up and down, you woul parry by rotating the bottom quillion up to the attacking blade. This is more natural, the other way is to rotate the upper quillion ito the attacking blade. I got a little fed up when I had some of the white scarves telling I was doing it wrong by parrying in natural way. EDIT: Oh and...why is it that I get teh feeling that not many in the WMA community seem to like JOhn Clements or teh HACA/ARMA?
I *think* I can visualize what your describing. As my traditional "Modern" forms are rusty, I'll need you to clarify, as the numbers mean little to me. Assuming your right handed, I'm thinking your right leg is forward, hilt is about stomach height, or in a low/middle ward, with an upward pointed blade, as you say, towards the face. If the threat is coming in to your midsection towards your left or center, yes, sweeping the hilt across into supponation (palm up), rolling the bottom quillon out and up in a clockwise manner would make the most sense, as it closes the line, and at the same time cocks your arm in such a way that a lightning fast counter-thrust can be executed in line to your opponents torso. I'm thinking this sounds like going into fourth position, although I could be wrong. If I were to pronate (knuckles up), and roll the hilt counter-clockwise into that same attack, I'd certainly have a leg up on a wicked counter-cut available to the opponent's right side of the arm, shoulder or head, but my tip would have to go offline, meaning I'd need to spend more time bringing it back in, not to mention I have a slightly higher chance of seeing his tip slip under my arm and into me. Hmmm, I'd say that for attacks to my left above the sternum, the "overhand", or pronated form would be best, with the "underhand" better for middle or low attacks. White scarves? My, how very "Dumas"... John, yeah, he's an arrogant prick. Good fighter from what I've seen, but certainly not the best. Brash, arrogant, and occasionally quite misinformed due to aforementioned arrogance. An egotistical schoolyard bully who hates being bested. The organization itself has good data, and for the most part a good method of teaching, they just need to ditch Napolean... I have much more respect for Tattershall, Aemma.org and the Western Journal of Martial Arts, not to mention my own mentors Don Smith, Con MacLir, Logan, Brayton Carpenter, and all of the sundry minions of same throughout the ages. BTW, since you're in Ventura, you may want to look Brayton up. He runs a traditional dojo, however he's got oodles of experience with German Fechtschule materials, and was one of my first mentors. Hit me up at Admin @ RenaissanceWarfare.com, and I'll give you his email address.
thats exactly what I meant.And prontating for a higher atacker aslo feels more natural but pronating fo a mid or low atakc was jsut so awakard. I once saw him speaking and demonstrating some swords tuff on the history chanel. he did a flousih or wahtever the term is for a solo drill, well he did at full speed ans manged hit his own shield about 3 times with his wod and looked very sloppy, and somehtign about his presence jsut bugged me.
everyone should read book of five rings its great. musashi says you should practise two sword fighting with two katanas. i have its great physical training and it makes you faster with a wakiashi in the other hand :woo:
Heh sorry for my ignorance but looks like I finally figured what those swords are called. Real swords without sharpness are called Iaito. Looks like I've learnt something today I've always been interested in getting one but couldn't ever figure out what they were called .. -Vick.
