Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X

[Ashtagon]

Don't carry a weapon, any weapon, for self-defence, unless you know how to use it.

If you don't know how to fight with a knife, don't bring one. The moment you show it, you just told him you're ready and willing to cut him up (even if you aren't). And if you don't know how to use it in a fight, it may turn out to be quite a simple matter for him to take it off you, in which case you are now unarmed against someone with a weapon who knows you had an intention to cut him up.

the results might make page 7 in the local gazette.

[Matthew]

Best define "samurai" as well, apparently even ashigaru were considered samurai in some periods (albeit the lowest sort). This was quite surprising to me, as I only read it recently in an Osprey book. In any case, leaving that extreme example behind, yeah in the knight versus samurai deal it is necessary to define terms, not that the result will be any clearer.

[Raum]

Do any of you with more exposure to this sort of thing have any suggestions we might not have thought of?

As long as she's in a fairly public area a screamer or other personal security alarm (i.e. noisemaker) will help. The baby may scare himself with it at some point but isn't likely to hurt himself.

Strobe ("stun") lights are also sold for potential self defense. However, they're not all that effective in daylight.

Skunk or dye sprays are a pepper spray alternate - but will have the same baby-in-purse issues.

A kubotan is decent but requires more training to use effectively.

Anything used needs to be trained with to some degree. At minimum you don't want to fumble around getting it out and you want to be prepared for whatever effects it has. (Blinding yourself with your own strobe is a Bad Thing (TM). )

Maintaining good situational awareness is a must. Simply avoiding surprise is probably one of the more effective things you can do to prevent casual assault. (As opposed to targeted.)

[Galloglaich]

Best define "samurai" as well, apparently even ashigaru were considered samurai in some periods (albeit the lowest sort). This was quite surprising to me, as I only read it recently in an Osprey book. In any case, leaving that extreme example behind, yeah in the knight versus samurai deal it is necessary to define terms, not that the result will be any clearer.

For that matter, defining a 'knight' can be quite problematic as well. 'Knight' meant different things in different places through different time periods, and the lines got pretty blurred. There were urban knights called 'Konstafler', there were monk-knights of the religious orders, men-at-arms, German schwarze reiter, Russian druzhina, Polish hussars, and French gendarmes, who fell somewhere in between knights and mere heavy cavalry. The Turks even had their own version, the Sipahi. There was even a class of serf-Knights called ministeriales who were on a socio-political level much closer to that of Samurai than most Knights, and were very common on the battlefields of Medieval Europe, particularly in Central and Northern Europe.

Then you also have bogatyr and robber knights or knights -errant, who were a little more like Ronin.

And from there it gets real complicated.

G

[Matthew]

Exactly so.

[Spiryt]

Polish hussars are really 'evolved form' - from 16th century, that's how some polish nobles were fighting - most elite and expensive fighting force.

They postdate knights in any understanding.

[Galloglaich]

And yet there were still also knights at that time, and the Hussars were mostly from the szlachta anyway so they were minor nobility for the most part. In fact the legal / social status of 'Knight' has continued up to the current day*. It's tricky to sort out precisely when and where the military concept of a knight and the more ephemeral other contexts separated out. Which was basically my point.



G

*Just as the status of samurai continued long past the point that samurai were doing much fighting, during the Edo period or Tokogawa Shogunate it was relatively peaceful in Japan.

[valadil]

Strobe ("stun") lights are also sold for potential self defense. However, they're not all that effective in daylight.

Unfortunately this only happens by day when I'm at work. The homeless guy leaves us alone when I'm there too.

Anything used needs to be trained with to some degree. At minimum you don't want to fumble around getting it out and you want to be prepared for whatever effects it has. (Blinding yourself with your own strobe is a Bad Thing (TM). )

This seems like the general consensus. I feel like if she's going to train at all, it might as well be unarmed training so we don't have to worry about baby finding weapons. In lieu of training, running seems like the best option.

[Spiryt]

Well, they certainly could still mean something 'different' around the Europe, but in Poland world "rycerz", "cavalier" or "equitus" basically became synonymous with szlachta that were serving in conflicts in any way.

So calling hussars, as any other noble cavalryman would be very common. So basically 'rycerz' - 'szlachcic'.

And due to sheer cost of hussar horses and equipment, it in fact rarely was minor szlachta who were serving there. Although some very wealthy hussars were often equipping some ~ 2 other at least until they could afford their own stuff after some fighting.

Obviously true magnates were pretty rare, though not unheard of, usually in command of some kind.

[Straybow]

The plural of "anecdote" is still not "data."

Too many people think Silver was simply "prejudiced" against rapier, and I suspect they've never studied his writings. According to people who know, he speaks very knowledgeably about rapier in his Brief Instructions. Forty years later about ten thousand rapier-trained Royalists found they had to trade in their toadstickers and train for real swords. But that's just a few thousand anecdotes, not historical data, right?

But a decent rapier fencer will be taught to defend. As will a decent kendo fencer. If you don't learn to defend, you learn to bleed out in your first fight.

Rapier defense by parry against blows of a heavier weapon is uncertain; it can be done in training when you have an idea where and when the blow will fall, but combat is different. Do that with rebated replicas instead of light, floppy practice swords, but first make sure your insurance is paid and you have a good cell signal to call 911.

If you try a flat 90 degree stop with a rapier against a heavier blade, you may not effectively parry at all. Better to meet the cut at a shallow angle, and deflect the cut enough so it misses, then put your point in his body as he finishes the cut.

Don't use it like a skinny broadsword. It's bad for that. Don't cut trees with a razor or shave with an axe. use the tool to its advantage.

Silver's other criticism of rapier is that putting the rapier in the opponent's body is usually insufficient defense, too. Though the rapier is deadly it is rarely immediately so. He may be hurt, but not hurt so bad that he can't hew at your head or leg before you've recovered your stance to make another parry, or even grab your hilt to make certain you'll lack defense against his next blow. He may be well enough to make many more swings that the rapier poorly defends until that defense fails.

A typical 16th cen rapier makes a poor broadsword because of length more than lightness of the blade. Most were no narrower near the hilt than 18th cen infantry swords and light cavalry sabers. (See G's pictures above; I've handled a 17th cen broadsword little wider or heavier than the third one in the upper pic, but a several inches shorter.) To move the rapier of excessive length from a point-forward stance to a full block against a cleaving blow is itself a bit clumsy, and then you can't uncross to answer before the attacker moves.

However, the bigger problem is that your rapier training doesn't tell you how to do it at all. It was intended to be a civilian weapon, and trying to make it a martial weapon is a disservice.

RPGs are limited in how they simulate combat... The question was what can a rapier parry, and the answer is most melee weapons, with varying degrees of difficulty. And the weapons it would be worst at parrying, it would be least likely to encounter.

...except in an RPG, where they can encounter flail-wielding minotaurs and hobgoblin axemen and...

[Knaight]

...except in an RPG, where they can encounter flail-wielding minotaurs and hobgoblin axemen and...

Given that RPGs often feature people blocking swords wielded by 50 foot giants with a normal sized wooden shield (which is going to get sheared right through) or any number of smaller weapons (in which some get sheared through, and some just get pushed out of the way) rapiers blocking any real weapon seems downright plausible by comparison.

[Galloglaich]

Well, they certainly could still mean something 'different' around the Europe, but in Poland world "rycerz", "cavalier" or "equitus" basically became synonymous with szlachta that were serving in conflicts in any way.

So calling hussars, as any other noble cavalryman would be very common. So basically 'rycerz' - 'szlachcic'.

And due to sheer cost of hussar horses and equipment, it in fact rarely was minor szlachta who were serving there. Although some very wealthy hussars were often equipping some ~ 2 other at least until they could afford their own stuff after some fighting.

Obviously true magnates were pretty rare, though not unheard of, usually in command of some kind.

spiryt I didn't quite parse that. Can you clarify?

What I meant by 'minor nobility' is that typical szlachta were minor nobility.

That is to say compared to other parts of Europe the nobility in Poland - Lithuania was huge in numbers (I think there were something like 500,000 in the 16th Century if I remember correctly?) and also tended to be relatively 'minor' in terms of wealth and land, in the sense that each one was not a major landowner with large entourages of henchmen, huge castles and so on... the szlachta had enormous power collectively in the Rzeczpospolita (nobles republic) but individually if I understand correctly weren't all that wealthy or powerful... at the same time that in much of the rest of Europe Kings and Princes were consolidating power at the expense of a disappearing minor nobility.

Among the szlachta obviously not all of them could afford to be Winged Hussaars. Is that what you were getting at?

G

[Spiryt]

spiryt I didn't quite parse that. Can you clarify?

What I meant by 'minor nobility' is that typical szlachta were minor nobility.

That is to say compared to other parts of Europe the nobility in Poland - Lithuania was huge in numbers (I think there were something like 500,000 in the 16th Century if I remember correctly?) and also tended to be relatively 'minor' in terms of wealth and land, in the sense that each one was not a major landowner with huge castles and so on... the szlachta had enormous power collectively in the Rzeczpospolita (nobles republic) at the same time that in much of the rest of Europe Kings and Princes were consolidating power.. at the expense of a disappearing minor nobility.

Among the szlachta obviously not all of them could afford to be Winged Hussaars. Is that what you were saying?

G

Well that's probably right, I meant that they were not 'minor' compared to 'average' polish noble, because some really minor noble without at least some decent land and wealth wouldn't afford to be one.

Althhough I'm pretty sure that nobles all around the Europe also usually weren't really all that wealthy.

Depending on the period about 8-10% of society would be noble indeed. So that's a lot of people, though there was also a lot of land 'available'.

[Galloglaich]

Yeah I think Poland had much more nobles than most of the rest of Europe though. I believe in France it's less than 1% if I am remembering correctly.

G

[Galloglaich]

Too many people think Silver was simply "prejudiced" against rapier, and I suspect they've never studied his writings

Silver is respected as a fencing Master and I think there is some daylight in between the two positions A) Silver is a maniac simply prejudiced against rapiers irrationally and B) Silver is correct and rapiers are worthless.

Silver's critique of rapiers, as he himself says, is both socio-political and technical. No doubt there were some fake rapier charlatans pretending to be masters in his time, and more to the point, he was justifiably concerned by the wholesale abandonment of the existing English martial arts tradition in favor of what he considered dubious foreign (Spanish and Italian, mostly) weapons and fighting systems. He makes a strong case for how to defeat a rapier using a variety of more 'traditinal' English weapons - a plausible case. I think most HEMA practitioners acknowledge that and his concepts of timing are influential... but there is more than one way to skin a cat and I don't think Silver negates the martial efficacy and historical impact of Rapiers.

For example, you describe dealing with a powerful overhand strike... you can deal with this 'aggresively' with a rapier using a method we also use with a longsword - in the KDF we call it an absetzen, but it's a single-time counter where you roll into a displacement with your strong while thrusting with your point to your opponents face, simultaneously. You are probably familiar with the technique, I'm not sure what it's called in Italian rapier systems but I've seen it done. Meyer just calls it an absetzen.

Using a rapier with a buckler or a rotella, obviously you would simply displace with the shield - while thrusting home with the rapier. With a dagger in the off hand you could either displace with the dagger or use the dagger and rapier together if necessary.

Or the most characteristic way to deal with that using a rapier would be to simply void and thrust.

I have seen some English and Scottish backswords, there is an exquisite 17th Century antique Scottish basket-hilt at a store downtown that I like to visit when I can. They aren't such beasts in terms of size and weight that you couldn't parry them.


I suspect the problem in the English Civil War was that most of the Royalists weren't well trained with the rapier. It's a weapon which, as we've discussed here upthread, requires a substantial amount of training to be effective. I suspect alot of the young nobles and soldiers who carried them didn't have much real training at all, some probably had none and were just carrying them for the prestige, out of the kind of empty fashion influence which made Silver so mad.

The backsword, by contrast, is a simpler weapon to learn, IMO. Each weapon has it's strengths and weaknesses.

G

[Spiryt]

Wouldn't the problem with rapiers in English Civil War be that rapier makes pretty lousy field weapon, and no one is trying to deny this fact?

It was definitely civilian and 'small scale' weapon, and excelled in such situations.

[Mike_G]

Wouldn't the problem with rapiers in English Civil War be that rapier makes pretty lousy field weapon, and no one is trying to deny this fact?

It was definitely civilian and 'small scale' weapon, and excelled in such situations.

As Galloglaich says, there were battlefield rapiers, with a wider, shorter blade, but the long, thin, thrusting rapier would be badly suited to battlefield conditions. I've done quite a bit of historical rapier and a bit of cut and thrust sword work, and I'd prefer the rapier for defending myself on the streets of Florence, but a nice backsword for tangling with heathen Roundheads. (French, Scottish and Irish ancestry. I'm a bad Catholic, but Jacobite to the bone.)

Like I said earlier, apples and oranges.

The original question was "what can a rapier defend against?" And I still say the answer is "Most melee weapons, so long as you know what you're doing." I wouldn't want to face an armored minotaur wielding a poleaxe with only my trusty rapier, but the idea that it can't parry anything is rubbish.

[Spiryt]

As Galloglaich says, there were battlefield rapiers, with a wider, shorter blade,

With all that mess in the terminology, I personally just don't call the stuff like those "rapier" - rapier will be of narrow, long blade and characteristic proportions - obviously a lot of those rapier hilted swords would be called rapier both by people in the past and today....

This thing is dubbed "battle rapier" - but just by glance it's pretty much XX-something Oakeshott type with ricasso, knuckle and loop guard.

[Straybow]

Silver is respected as a fencing Master and I think there is some daylight in between the two positions A) Silver is a maniac simply prejudiced against rapiers irrationally and B) Silver is correct and rapiers are worthless.

Silver's critique of rapiers, as he himself says, is both socio-political and technical. No doubt there were some fake rapier charlatans pretending to be masters in his time, and more to the point, he was justifiably concerned by the wholesale abandonment of the existing English martial arts tradition in favor of what he considered dubious foreign (Spanish and Italian, mostly) weapons and fighting systems. He makes a strong case for how to defeat a rapier using a variety of more 'traditinal' English weapons - a plausible case. I think most HEMA practitioners acknowledge that and his concepts of timing are influential... but there is more than one way to skin a cat and I don't think Silver negates the martial efficacy and historical impact of Rapiers.

...The backsword, by contrast, is a simpler weapon to learn, IMO. Each weapon has it's strengths and weaknesses.

The sword is a short time to learn, the True Fight a lifetime to master, sir. I've not studied how to use rapiers, only how to oppose them. TLDR, haha.

[Mike_G]

I've not studied how to use rapiers, only how to oppose them. TLDR, haha.

Well, thank God you're here to tell us how to defend with one.

[Straybow]

Well, thank God you're here to tell us how to defend with one.

Hah, knew that would get ya!

So, if I were to study rapier, should I study the Italians? Capoferro, Agrippa? Rocco Bonetti (critically injured by a man using the traditional English fight)? His son Jeronimo Bonetti (killed by a man using traditional English fight)? Saviolo, who along with Jeronimo refused to demonstrate their claimed superiority over the English system on stage facing George and Toby Silver?

Ok, maybe I should study the Spanish school. Carranza's Destreza is supposed to be the shizznick, for all weapons from daggers to polearms.

Perhaps the French system? Or even the English system, Hope's "New Method?" That was basically an attempt to devise a rapier system that follows Silver and makes blocks with a true cross a bit less unwieldy, using the smallsword which is a proper length weapon by Silver's standard.

No, I don't need to perfect how to do the things they taught to understand by the wisdom of others more capable than I the flaws therein, and how to take advantage of them. That is study enough for me.

All these are interesting historical methods, and those who wish to study and master one or two, or spend a lifetime mastering them all, I bid well and godspeed.

[Mike_G]

Hah, knew that would get ya!

So, if I were to study rapier, should I study the Italians? Capoferro, Agrippa? Rocco Bonetti (critically injured by a man using the traditional English fight)? His son Jeronimo Bonetti (killed by a man using traditional English fight)? Saviolo, who along with Jeronimo refused to demonstrate their claimed superiority over the English system on stage facing George and Toby Silver?

Ok, maybe I should study the Spanish school. Carranza's Destreza is supposed to be the shizznick, for all weapons from daggers to polearms.

Perhaps the French system? Or even the English system, Hope's "New Method?" That was basically an attempt to devise a rapier system that follows Silver and makes blocks with a true cross a bit less unwieldy, using the smallsword which is a proper length weapon by Silver's standard.

No, I don't need to perfect how to do the things they taught to understand by the wisdom of others more capable than I the flaws therein, and how to take advantage of them. That is study enough for me.

All these are interesting historical methods, and those who wish to study and master one or two, or spend a lifetime mastering them all, I bid well and godspeed.

Well, when you complain that people who complain about Silver being biased probably haven't studied his writings, but then you complain about rapier being useless but admit you haven't studied it...

Well, you sound like a man posting from the depths of his colon.

[Bhu]

Some of you may remember me from sometime back having some questions about japanese weaponry. I have finalized my list here:

http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=772.0

and would like some feedback before i begin statting them out if possible. These should all for the most part be real world weapons, I jsut wanna make sure nothings slipped by me.

[Straybow]

Well, when you complain that people who complain about Silver being biased probably haven't studied his writings, but then you complain about rapier being useless but admit you haven't studied it...

Well, you sound like a man posting from the depths of his colon.

No, sir. I think you missed my point. If another (in this case, Silver) has already mastered the system, and identified the weaknesses of the system (the rapier as a sword of excessive length and deficient in cleaving power and reliant on slow footwork), and how to best that system, I can learn that. I don't need to know the eight parries, the stocata from the imbrocata, the myriad of footwork schemes. The details don't matter if they can be beat.

[GraaEminense]

I was assuming some level of competence, largely because the completely untrained are terrible with shields regardless (with a few exceptions).

The completely untrained are terrible with everything, not significantly more so with shields in my experience. But, at this point we are picking nits -we do agree on most points it seems.

[Mike_G]

No, sir. I think you missed my point. If another (in this case, Silver) has already mastered the system, and identified the weaknesses of the system (the rapier as a sword of excessive length and deficient in cleaving power and reliant on slow footwork), and how to best that system, I can learn that. I don't need to know the eight parries, the stocata from the imbrocata, the myriad of footwork schemes. The details don't matter if they can be beat.

Ah.

That's why the rapier was abandoned, England dominated Europe throughout the Renaissance, France and Spain faded into obscurity in the 17th century, English bill-fencing schools drove the local masters out of business in Italy, and smallsword dueling came directly from study of the quarterstaff.

Galloglaich and I aren't even saying the rapier was better than a backsword, just that it was a useful weapon that people used for a long damn time, and this is how and why.

People who have actually studied rapier, and some who have fenced rapier (not foil) against other rapiers and against other HEMA weapons have tried to engage in civilized discussion about how to defend with one, but you just want to quote from "Thoughts of Chairman Silver" and believe that an entire martial art that you haven't studied was used for centuries even though it was crap. Apparently because people are really stupid unless they adopted "English" fighting styles.

Like football hooliganism, I guess.

[Autolykos]

@Self-defense stuff:
The people I trained JuJutsu and Escrima with usually had "palm sticks" and similar stuff in their pockets (or on their keyrings). Basically it's a metal or hardwood stick that extends about an inch out of your hand at the top and bottom (sometimes with a conical shape, but not actually pointy). You can easily pass them off as "massage sticks", and they can add quite a bit of power to a strike (bottom of the fist is better than a classic punch anyway, at least for untrained people). Don't know if it's a good choice for someone completely without training, as it requires you to get "up close and personal", and won't do wonders. It may turn a poor strike in an ok one, or a mediocre one into a good one, but it won't just let you take on an experienced fighter. Best use is to deliver a surprisingly hard hit to shock and buy some time and then getting away ASAP.
A sturdy (and pointy) umbrella is also nice, just don't use it like in the slapstick movies. Best way is a grip that looks like half-swording and using it to stab (IMHO).
If pepper spray is illegal in your place, you can always carry a small can of spraypaint (make sure it is the same color as your car, if people start asking questions). Will make it easier to identify the guy afterwards, but is not exactly "baby-safe". Salt dissolved in alcohol (or concentrated vinegar) is also quite painful in the eyes and a bit safer.

I would definitely advise against knives. They require a good deal of training, are likely to escalate the situation, are messy (and risky!) to use, and will make you look very bad in front of a judge.

Note that I (luckily) never was in a situation where I actually had to try it out, so I can't guarantee it will work.

[Crow]

The kubaton. My wife carries one of those.

[Straybow]

That's why the rapier was abandoned, England dominated Europe throughout the Renaissance, France and Spain faded into obscurity in the 17th century, English bill-fencing schools drove the local masters out of business in Italy, and smallsword dueling came directly from study of the quarterstaff.

Galloglaich and I aren't even saying the rapier was better than a backsword, just that it was a useful weapon that people used for a long damn time, and this is how and why.

No, it was fashion that created the espada ropera instead of those big, vulgar swords of the battlefield. The social factors outweighed logic 3-400 years ago, just like millions of people bought pet rocks thirty years ago. Paid Money. For ordinary rocks.

When it came to direct contest, two of three great Italian masters who came to England were bested, and the third refused to answer a challenge. When it came to war, the sword was secondary to the spear through most of history, then to more advanced polearms, then to gunpowder. But for the troops that actually needed swords, heavy cavalry for example, did they use rapiers? No, they used sabers well into the 20th century (and not pretend sabers of sport fencing). Sailors and marines used cutlasses. While some aristocratic officers carried rapiers most infantry swords were backswords and sabers as well. I had a cheap ACW infantry sword that was no rapier.

Now, when it came to conquering with the rapier, Cortez conquered the stone age Aztecs. Pizarro conquered the Incas when their fabled Emperor and his elite troops sallied forth unarmed, convinced that the radiant glory of the Emperor's divinity would awe these strange metal-clad men to surrender. Not an impressive season schedule for Team Rapier.

People who have actually studied rapier, and some who have fenced rapier (not foil) against other rapiers and against other HEMA weapons have tried to engage in civilized discussion about how to defend with one, but you just want to quote from "Thoughts of Chairman Silver" and believe that an entire martial art that you haven't studied was used for centuries even though it was crap. Apparently because people are really stupid unless they adopted "English" fighting styles.

I'm fairly sure that whippy metal longsword trainers, or nylon, are hardly a true test. Even the guys who battle in full armor use them. The one test of parrying a replica in a prearranged attack show it is possible, which I freely grant. But nobody is volunteering to test in unscripted sparring with replicas.

I'm also fairly sure they haven't studied Silver. Read it, yes. Studied, learned, applied, not so much (I don't think Gailloglaich is claiming that, for example). Nor would I commend 99% of what you see on youtube claiming to be Silver. As I said, the historical rapier methods are interesting and worthy of study. I'm also convinced, by everything I've tested and seen tested, that Silver was correct and his methods work.

[Talakeal]

Back in middle school I watched a video about the crusades which states that European knights wore thick felt pads over their armor which made them virtually immune to arrow fire as the arrows would simply stick in the felt, however during the crusades the knights had to abandon this tactic because it was simply too hot in the middle east to wear both armor and felt, and thus they were at a big disadvantage to Muslim archers.

I have never heard anything about these felt pads since. Was this a real thing?