thats like a full meter of thin sword, looks so dainty and elegant, except hardcore. its easy to think of a character who would use a rapier like that, unassuming at first glance, but a force to be reckoned with, so aesthetic
Gotta agree that having practiced both Longsword and Rapier, of the two I found that rapier tires me out faster, ie. requires more strength to wield effectively for a long period of time. In particular my shoulder and upper arm tire out faster with rapier. -Unassuming to many even now-a-days as a flimsy, light, stabby stick. But it's used by stronger people, with the best hand protection of many swords.
Regarding the suspension system, Thibault diagrams one where the sword is worn further to the rear (at about 7 or 8 o' clock) and the front strap is clipped on at the front in the center, where the belt buckle would be on a modern belt, rather than all the way over near the right hip. It seems to keep the rapier tucked out of the way a little better while you're walking around, which is Thibault's reason for wearing it that way.
If the belt system was designed to allow removing the scabbard and still keep the belt (and dagger) on, wouldn't attachment point in the back be really awkward to operate? It seems very intuitive to change the strap to the front for easier access.
About bucklers and their effectivenes against thrusts, by the 17th century, it was common at least in Spain that bucklers would be partly made of cork (to the point that the city guards were called 'corchetes', from the Spanish 'corcho' for cork). I've always thought that the reason for that could be so that the point of an attacking sword would get stuck in the cork, if only long enough to allow a counterattack, thus making the buckler more suitable to defend against thrusts than it was before.
I suspect it was more due to weight. While bucklers are already light and compact by shield standards, the extreme speed and dexterity of rapiers necessitated every weight-cutting measure possible, even if it meant sacrificing toughness and protection.
I would say it's for practical reasons to have the strap at the front. Much easier to take it off when you need to. No fumbling around at the back that way. But that is my personal opinion and experience.
If there's going to be a talk with Tod about the Swiss Saber he recently made (and it hasn't been done already), I would really be interested in your view/speculation on how a complex guard might change how you use a longsword/Swiss Saber compared to standard Fiore/Lichtenauer. With a proper baskethilt, you wouldn't need to be as concerned about protecting the hands - however, unlike with a one-handed sword, you can't keep your two-handed sword as extended when you're gripping it with both hands.
Michael Eversberg II Yes indeed. However the 1796 Cavalry Officers Light Sabre can cut through an Imperial Star Destroyer and still thrust into a hyper drive motivator without losing tension.
I've just started to watch both channels and I've learned an amazing amount of knowledge of how much thought and work went into the making and use of the sword and daggers plus other weapons . Two fantastic channels .... 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
Another good thing about an off-hand dagger is that it can also be used as... a dagger! If someone jumps you and you're in a confined space like indoors or whatever, it's good to have a shorter blade you can quickly access.
With the front strap it's easy to grab the scabbard with the left hand and lift the sword so it is vertical, which makes it easier to navigate tighter spaces like late medieval/renaissance era streets. If you're predominantly wearing your sword in the field or while travelling then this becomes a non-issue, so the back strap is fine.
Hello Matt! Just a hunch: Could the switch to the front strap be linked to the changing way the dagger was worn? One could imagine this strap being a potential tangle point when trying to get the dagger in a hurry, especially with a long sword swinging about. With roundel or "knightly" daggers being usually worn on the front or side of the body, putting the scabbard strap on the rear takes it out of the way. Inversely, as the parrying dagger is worn on the back, putting the scabbard strap to the front ensures it will not interfere with dagger use. My 2 cents...
Most of the weight is in the blade behind you ,with a rear mount it would swing behind you and the hilt would be out of your reach, the front mount keeps the hilt near your hand.
An interesting video! I definitely have a soft spot for rapiers and that is certainly a nice example of one! I also agree with you about the pommels. Aesthetics are important too and having a proportionate or pleasingly shaped pommel can really pull a sword together, regardless of whether it has a complex hilt or not. The sword belt is quite nice as well! Also, I think videos like this also do a great job of illustrating just how sizeable rapiers really are.
For the front strap, think about where the scabbard goes when you lunge and recover. On the recover as you're moving backwards, the scabbard might strike the ground. Much better for the scabbard to be strapped in the front when that happens so it can move forward as you move back.
Front strap is most likely for riding. Strapping a blade of this length at the back means it constantly hits the horse's legs, and makes mounting and dismounting awkward. Also, it seems to be more convenient for you to draw it,as you would like to present your right shoulder to the threat, anyway. In confined space, wearing it backstrapped, might cause a problem.
I think the rear strap wasn't used because it's fastening point on the belt would be below the dagger hilt - awkward to unstrap it, and it can move around your dagger. Hell, it could actually hook itself onto the dagger in some cases and you'd have no idea until you'd try to draw.
Fantastic video! It's crazy because I had just been thinking about how I'd love to see Tod produce a rapier. Also, I believe this is the first time I've seen Matt hold a rapier that wasn't blunted for training purposes. It was satisfying to finally see!
It's even more confusing in Norwegian, were the word kårde is used for Rapier, small sword and spadroon. Kårde = Rapier Drakt kårde/dress rapier=small sword Offiser kårde/officer rapier=spadroon
Re: the rapier's use as a battlefield weapon. While we do know that the rapier occasionally saw use on battlefields 1500-1700 due to people complaining about them, as it turns out George Silver was far from alone in his preference for a shorter weapon, and when it came to military sidearms in particular this opinion seems to have been almost universal. Even when someone does include the description of a military sword which gets translated as "rapier" it usually ends up being only about 3 feet long from tip to pommel (even shorter than Silver's "short sword") and specifically ordered to be good at both cutting and thrusting (as opposed to "it can cut if you really want it to but not very well"). While there's no doubt that the rapier certainly influenced the design of military swords over time. It's probably a bit of a stretch to say that the long rapier was ever a popular battlefield weapon.
Matt and God, That is a very nice rapier. I love the Spanish cup hilts with the mushroom shaped pommels. I also like the Mary Queen of Rose backsword with large hollow pommels. Nice Job!
I think the from back to front strapping with rapiers is because what you said, that it is modular, so you have an easier time to get just your sword off when you sit or do stuff.
It probably hooked in the front because it’s easier to hook it on there if you’re taking it on and off. The dagger was also in the back so that could make it difficult as well. With a longsword, you aren’t going to detach it from the belt the same way so it doesn’t matter that it’s got the strap in the back.
Somewhat surprisingly, at least to me, the vast majority of portraits I've found of men wearing rapier and dagger have the dagger set up to be drawn by the same hand as the rapier, rather than directly drawn to the off hand. My assumption on this is that the dagger was most importantly there as a weapon in its own right, rather than a companion weapon (and if worn, left on at all times; there are pictures of men playing tennis wearing daggers), and it was more important to not impair its use in this situation than optimise its use as a secondary weapon. On the subject of front vs rear strapping, dance manuals refer to which dances a gentleman might remove his sword for (galliards and voltas, for those keeping score at home), there rest he should keep it on. This says to me that being able to remove your sword relatively easily, and without looking like an awkward git, was socially important.
Front strap seems logical to me. It prevents the grip from swinging back/ keeps the grip closer to the front, where it is easier to reach when cross-drawing.
Do you know if the dagger was worn kind of concealed this way? A jacket would pretty much conceal is as long as it isn`t that long. I know the gauchos in argentina did wear their facons this way.
Perhaps the front strap would be better for wear while riding? Long thursting swords would be of interest to cavalry as a backup lance and the forward strap would facilitate a seated position. Also it's probably easier to put on yourself than passing the strap behind you.
With regards to the dagger and the orientation of the protective ring - if you take biomechanics and simplicity of drawing into account, then if you draw the dagger from behind, the ring will protect the thumb side of your hand, if you draw it from your right hip, it will protect the side with the other four fingers. You'd need to rotate the dagger while/after drawing otherwise.
I'm going to guess that the scabbard's strap being worn to the front is because of the dagger being worn scout style in the back. Whereas typically a Rondel or Bullock's dagger is worn in the front so the strap would go to the back.
Hey Matt! Regarding your comment on why the rapier is strapped to the front of the wearer tather than the back, as with a longsword, I wonder if it is because you are more likely to want to take it off with a rapier and therefore having the attachment in the front would make it easier to take it off than if you have to twist yourself to get to the attachment in the back. Anyways thanks for another great video with Tod!
There's a technique that some vapers use when wrapping the wire coil for a vaporizer (pretty much the exact same thing as handle wire wrapping) that will help make that a lot easier. When your wire is ready to go onto the grip, anchor one end of it to something and take all the slack out of it, then give it just a little slack and snatch it taut. It really helps previously wound wire be more straight.
Maybe they switched to a front strap for the sword so that when they needed to unhook the side strap during times when the sword was in the way, then they could just hold the sword in front of them in a relaxed position whereas they wouldn't be able to do that with a rear strap.
Hi! I have a question that's actually unrelated to the video. Recently my father and I made a Mycenaean spear with a bronze tip. It's about 2.05 meters long counting both the shaft and spear-head. Firstly, is that an ideal length for a spear that is also supposed to be thrown from a fairly small distance? And secondly, where is the ideal center of weight for such a spear?
could the switch of the belting sistem from the back to the front be caused by clothing? capes were very much used by high-status people of the time, and that could interfere with the belt (if placed on the back) when trying to clip and un-clip the rapier during everyday life.
The belt changed because now the dagger is in the back and also it is easier for a single person to do the strap in the front then the rear, in my opinion
My guess: strap in front because you're hooking the sword on and off more than you would with a shorter sword, and it's just easier to have it on the front. And also, the dagger is on the back. I don't know if that factors into it.
With a huge, long, awkward sword like that you'll want to unhook it a lot more during the course of your day than you would a side sword so an easy to access front strap makes more sense.
where is the actual "switch" people talk about? in both cases, the sword is suspended from one point, the belt distributor or buckle, ans pulled forward by another strap. be that the excess length of the waistbelt itself passing from the buckle of the belt down to the buckle at the throat of the scabbard, or a strap fixed at the throat of the scabbard and going towards the front buckle or a a point near it.
An idea for a video might be the difference between a Rapier, Foil and Long Sword/Arming Sword. While I may know a bit about it, I'd enjoy your take of the topic, Matt. Thanx and cheers from the States.
Having a large and hollow pommel helps each gram have more impact to, by placing the weight further away it has more leverage against what it counter-balances. Just adjust pommel size and shape as needed. So the sword can be overall a bit less mass for the same effectiveness. It also better helps prevent the hand from sliding off. Just a hypothesis.
I feel as though they might have switched from the back to the front strap to pull the hilt closer to one's hand, allowing for an easier drawing of the blade. If the back strap was applied to the middle of the blade, it might've pulled the tip closer inward and leave the hilt angled farther from the body.
Sword and buckler: take your sword off to sit down, and you've got a buckler. Sword and dagger: take your sword off to sit down, and you're still quite armed.
Would love to see a fight review from Lesters The Three Musketeers filmed in the 70's - lots of rapier and dagger fighting - of course also lots of tongue in cheek.
Let say it is 1705 and you had to fight in a duel. No armor but you are allowed sidearms. The choices of swords you have are smallsword, rapier, panzerstecher, estoc, xiphos, saber, cutlass, scimitar, backsword, broadsword, arming sword, Longsword, & side sword, your choices for side arms are dagger, cloak, shield, & buckler. I would choose the rapier and dagger. What would you choose?
Hi Matt , my next cuestion is not related with this video and I don't know if you have talked about this topic before (sorry if it's the case), but I just saw an old video about percussion weapons vs swords and I was thinking: If there are two fighters both in full plate armor (the same height, weight, strength...) one of them has a longsword and the other has a warhammer. Who is more likely to win? Does the armor tip the balance for the warhammer user?
That mic wire looks bothersome. Straps moving around may have to do with trying to avoid whatever might get caught or tangled up (different things depending on the historical period).
The only reason I can think of for moving the secondary sword support belt to the front is so as not to interfere with the dagger carried horizontally on the back. But that's just my best guess.
I think it is far less a swith from a rear strap to a front strap, and more just a shift in attachement points for them.. . with the longsword the belt distributor hangs a bit to rear of your left, and has some 12 straps forming to make contact with the scabbar. The point where it meets the belt is just shifted forward a bit, and rather than two narrow straps forming a triable between belt and scabbars, you have a large leather triangle, Not that much diffrent. And when the excessive belt length on a longsword was passed to the buckle at the throat of the scabbard, that made the other strap. which is now still there, just that the strap itself starts at the scabbard, and hooks to the belt, and that attachment point shifted a bit along the waistbelt the same way the other point did. It is essentially the same suspension, just shifted a bit so the sword hangs more towards the front. I reckon it might have to to with biomechanics of drawing a very god damn long sword.
The edge does the cutting not the flat and that blade has a lot of weight and leverage. It could definitely lop off a hand at the wrist. I have little doubt it could cut clean through a forarm, perhaps an upper arm depending on the skill and strength of the user.
contact on the belt moved from the back to the front was to unfasten it from the belt faster would be my guess, not just faster but more comfortably as well maybe
I would guess the strap in the front might indicate it was being put on and taken off more, since it might be easier to see and reach a strap in the front.
Maybe it's in the front to have the hilt be closer to your center for a quicker draw and making it more difficult to reach for others, the culture of the "bravuconada", etc. Or maybe, thinking as a formation of pikemen, having it forward would make it easier to reach in that side stance. Just some ideas.
What is the historical name for the belt attachment? I usually see them referred to as frogs. And someone please buy Matt a wireless mic. Every video I'm afraid he's going to accidentally cut the mic cord.
Ah, beloved rapier. The only weapon I've actively trained with other than the bow. Gorgeous, simply gorgeous. I'd love to branch out and learn viking sword and board, but I don't have time to commit to a club. :(
After researching the $50-150 daggers on KultofAthena i decided to go with Tod Cutler medieval daggers. I bought the 15th century Rondel Dagger and I am waiting on the Quillon Dagger - 12th - 17th Century to be restocked :)
When did bows and arrows depart the European military scene? The scene in an Indian Jones scene where the fancy swordsman gets dismissively shrugged off with a pistol shot has its equivalency with the now/artow stand off shot. Nice sword fella, eat a broadhead. Ok, so as a mainline weapon, how long did the sword last? Was it surpassed only by the musket?
That's a mighty long sidearm. Is that rapier near the limit of rapier length (assuming the wielder isn't Hafthor Bjornsson)? How would the wearer even draw that?
shade_grey There actually were even longer Rapiers. In the armoury of a castle close to where I live, there's one with a 110cm blade. That's some 15cm more than the one in the video. And I've heard of ones that even exceed that length.
In his treatise, Capo Ferro recommends a rapier that is twice the length of your arm, or sitting just under the armpit. That would give a 47in long blade or so, clearly longer than what Tod and Matt are showing there. About drawing the sword you would typically do it across the body using your hip to help you freeing the blade, ending in prima. grauenwolf.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/image1.png
That guy looks like he's wearing his belt much further down compared to the contemporary fashion of the 17th century or so (also, his legs are really short for some reason)... Still, it seems like something you wouldn't be able to draw in a hurry.
How would you draw such a blade on horse back ? Also Mercenarys might carry such sword quickly while carrying a small sheild musket pistol . Would people wear full armour with it or would the still carry a equivalent of the muskets of later times.
That's not even the longest they can get. I read somewhere that street thugs and other disreputable characters sometimes used extremely long rapiers and they painted the last few inches black so the point was harder to spot in the dark alleys and the opponent would misjudge the distance.
joseph dedrick surely thats exagerrated. 60 frickin inches? people wore that? you cant wear that. but i dont think you can even wear 50 properly in everyday life.
Maybe because of armor, In the age of the rapier armor was disapering more and more. I think earlier in the age of full plate i think the rear mounted strap was preferable so it wouldn't interfere with the fold or other forms of groin defence.
I bet the reason they switched from the strap from back to strap to front was fashion...they liked how they sash of leather drew the eye to their codpiece...
I would hazard a guess that the buckle for a second restraining point serves the same purpose as the clip? By having it on the front it becomes more accessible to remove it when entering civilian setting where it is not seen as acceptable I.e. A home or a place of business. You could quite stylishly remove the clip and buckle without turning away from your business parter or whomever it is by fumbling around your back and embarrassing yourself, as at the time style is everything.
Another disparity between olympic style fencing and HEMA: Olympic sports rapiers are below 750g and even those can feel quite heavy very quickly. Can't imagine how tiring a blade twice the weight must be.
In a double lock situation, you kick them in the nuts. Then you try to extract your weapon. And with regards to the front strap, I would speculate that it was simply easier and quicker to remove that way.
I would speculate it has to do with the pluderhosen. Lots of nice folding fabric in the back that you dont wanna mess up. In the 15th century the fashion was as you know very tight around the buttocks so the strap there would not interfere with any folds and stuff.
Interesting. You can see the momentum of the blade, just by Matt doing simple chops and thrusts with it. It moves more like a late mideval blade (at least in my mind), rather than a traditional rapier (at least what I think of as a rapier - which is probably more late 1700's, TBH.)
Beautiful weapon, although I prefer cup-hilts or at least more symmetrical guards, that protect the hand equally regardless of uning it left or right-handed.
A question rather of the actual topic for this video, but still somewhat related since it is about wielding two weapons: In some modern produced drawings presenting early 18 centry soldiers, they are depicted in a bayonet fencing situation with the muscet held in left hand somewhere close to its balance point and a military style small sword/ rapier -ish in the right one. Is this a authentic bayonet fencing style or is it something made up by modern artists? I can kind of see some advantages with this style, at least theoretically, but at the same time I get the feeling that you really can´t get so much out of your muscet/bayonet either while defending or attacking with it... Don´t have a muscet, just a sword so I can´t really figger it out by myself.... :-) Happy if someone could say something about it...
I love the fact Matt is resting the rapier scabbard on his foot and not on the floor as not to damage the piece. Little details
I've got a great show name for the two of you: "Matt & Tod's swords: Maximum thrusting capacity".
i guess I am kinda off topic but do anyone know of a good website to watch newly released movies online?
@Andrew Jabari Lately I have been using Flixzone. You can find it on google :)
@Gavin Skylar Yup, been using Flixzone for since april myself =)
thats like a full meter of thin sword, looks so dainty and elegant, except hardcore. its easy to think of a character who would use a rapier like that, unassuming at first glance, but a force to be reckoned with, so aesthetic
As well as Elan from the Order of the Stick.
Gotta agree that having practiced both Longsword and Rapier, of the two I found that rapier tires me out faster, ie. requires more strength to wield effectively for a long period of time. In particular my shoulder and upper arm tire out faster with rapier.
-Unassuming to many even now-a-days as a flimsy, light, stabby stick. But it's used by stronger people, with the best hand protection of many swords.
I keep looking at you swinging the sword thinking your going to cut the mic cord
souris nathan I'm guessing Matt is preparing for his upcoming "Rapier vs Kusari-Gama" video.
Regarding the suspension system, Thibault diagrams one where the sword is worn further to the rear (at about 7 or 8 o' clock) and the front strap is clipped on at the front in the center, where the belt buckle would be on a modern belt, rather than all the way over near the right hip. It seems to keep the rapier tucked out of the way a little better while you're walking around, which is Thibault's reason for wearing it that way.
If the belt system was designed to allow removing the scabbard and still keep the belt (and dagger) on, wouldn't attachment point in the back be really awkward to operate? It seems very intuitive to change the strap to the front for easier access.
Often it wasn't attached to a waist belt, nut to a baldric.
Forward strap is between your legs - would get in the way, when you are on horseback.
@@MrPhantomEd At that point I would imagine you would have a system to clip it to the saddle.
About bucklers and their effectivenes against thrusts, by the 17th century, it was common at least in Spain that bucklers would be partly made of cork (to the point that the city guards were called 'corchetes', from the Spanish 'corcho' for cork). I've always thought that the reason for that could be so that the point of an attacking sword would get stuck in the cork, if only long enough to allow a counterattack, thus making the buckler more suitable to defend against thrusts than it was before.
I suspect it was more due to weight. While bucklers are already light and compact by shield standards, the extreme speed and dexterity of rapiers necessitated every weight-cutting measure possible, even if it meant sacrificing toughness and protection.
I would say it's for practical reasons to have the strap at the front.
Much easier to take it off when you need to. No fumbling around at the back that way.
But that is my personal opinion and experience.
More rapier stuff please. These swords are quite interesting and fun.
If there's going to be a talk with Tod about the Swiss Saber he recently made (and it hasn't been done already), I would really be interested in your view/speculation on how a complex guard might change how you use a longsword/Swiss Saber compared to standard Fiore/Lichtenauer. With a proper baskethilt, you wouldn't need to be as concerned about protecting the hands - however, unlike with a one-handed sword, you can't keep your two-handed sword as extended when you're gripping it with both hands.
Yep, I hope Matt gets to review the reproduction :)
An elegant weapon for a more civilized age^^
The Photonrapier? ;-)
Daimon X, nothing like a 38 inch rapier to toast a marshmallow at a witch burning I say
Indeed
Lightfoils are a thing in the old SW universe, Frankenstein :p
Michael Eversberg II Yes indeed. However the 1796 Cavalry Officers Light Sabre can cut through an Imperial Star Destroyer and still thrust into a hyper drive motivator without losing tension.
I've just started to watch both channels and I've learned an amazing amount of knowledge of how much thought and work went into the making and use of the sword and daggers plus other weapons . Two fantastic channels .... 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
Another good thing about an off-hand dagger is that it can also be used as... a dagger! If someone jumps you and you're in a confined space like indoors or whatever, it's good to have a shorter blade you can quickly access.
With the front strap it's easy to grab the scabbard with the left hand and lift the sword so it is vertical, which makes it easier to navigate tighter spaces like late medieval/renaissance era streets. If you're predominantly wearing your sword in the field or while travelling then this becomes a non-issue, so the back strap is fine.
Hello Matt!
Just a hunch:
Could the switch to the front strap be linked to the changing way the dagger was worn?
One could imagine this strap being a potential tangle point when trying to get the dagger in a hurry, especially with a long sword swinging about.
With roundel or "knightly" daggers being usually worn on the front or side of the body, putting the scabbard strap on the rear takes it out of the way.
Inversely, as the parrying dagger is worn on the back, putting the scabbard strap to the front ensures it will not interfere with dagger use.
My 2 cents...
Tod does beautiful work.
I love videos like this where you give an overview of a weapon/weapon system, with plenty of new stuff as well.
Most of the weight is in the blade behind you ,with a rear mount it would swing behind you and the hilt would be out of your reach, the front mount keeps the hilt near your hand.
Tod’s work is brilliant. Great show.
An interesting video! I definitely have a soft spot for rapiers and that is certainly a nice example of one! I also agree with you about the pommels. Aesthetics are important too and having a proportionate or pleasingly shaped pommel can really pull a sword together, regardless of whether it has a complex hilt or not. The sword belt is quite nice as well!
Also, I think videos like this also do a great job of illustrating just how sizeable rapiers really are.
For the front strap, think about where the scabbard goes when you lunge and recover. On the recover as you're moving backwards, the scabbard might strike the ground. Much better for the scabbard to be strapped in the front when that happens so it can move forward as you move back.
A most delightful pair of blades.
Front strap is most likely for riding. Strapping a blade of this length at the back means it constantly hits the horse's legs, and makes mounting and dismounting awkward.
Also, it seems to be more convenient for you to draw it,as you would like to present your right shoulder to the threat, anyway. In confined space, wearing it backstrapped, might cause a problem.
I think the rear strap wasn't used because it's fastening point on the belt would be below the dagger hilt - awkward to unstrap it, and it can move around your dagger. Hell, it could actually hook itself onto the dagger in some cases and you'd have no idea until you'd try to draw.
The large pommel is for intimidation purposes, obviously.
Jokes aside, that's a really good-looking sword.
Waited years to see Matt with a rapier and dagger combo, was it worth it....you bet.
Fantastic video! It's crazy because I had just been thinking about how I'd love to see Tod produce a rapier. Also, I believe this is the first time I've seen Matt hold a rapier that wasn't blunted for training purposes. It was satisfying to finally see!
It's even more confusing in Norwegian, were the word kårde is used for Rapier, small sword and spadroon.
Kårde = Rapier
Drakt kårde/dress rapier=small sword
Offiser kårde/officer rapier=spadroon
Re: the rapier's use as a battlefield weapon.
While we do know that the rapier occasionally saw use on battlefields 1500-1700 due to people complaining about them, as it turns out George Silver was far from alone in his preference for a shorter weapon, and when it came to military sidearms in particular this opinion seems to have been almost universal. Even when someone does include the description of a military sword which gets translated as "rapier" it usually ends up being only about 3 feet long from tip to pommel (even shorter than Silver's "short sword") and specifically ordered to be good at both cutting and thrusting (as opposed to "it can cut if you really want it to but not very well").
While there's no doubt that the rapier certainly influenced the design of military swords over time. It's probably a bit of a stretch to say that the long rapier was ever a popular battlefield weapon.
Matt and God, That is a very nice rapier. I love the Spanish cup hilts with the mushroom shaped pommels. I also like the Mary Queen of Rose backsword with large hollow pommels. Nice Job!
I think the from back to front strapping with rapiers is because what you said, that it is modular, so you have an easier time to get just your sword off when you sit or do stuff.
It probably hooked in the front because it’s easier to hook it on there if you’re taking it on and off. The dagger was also in the back so that could make it difficult as well. With a longsword, you aren’t going to detach it from the belt the same way so it doesn’t matter that it’s got the strap in the back.
Somewhat surprisingly, at least to me, the vast majority of portraits I've found of men wearing rapier and dagger have the dagger set up to be drawn by the same hand as the rapier, rather than directly drawn to the off hand. My assumption on this is that the dagger was most importantly there as a weapon in its own right, rather than a companion weapon (and if worn, left on at all times; there are pictures of men playing tennis wearing daggers), and it was more important to not impair its use in this situation than optimise its use as a secondary weapon.
On the subject of front vs rear strapping, dance manuals refer to which dances a gentleman might remove his sword for (galliards and voltas, for those keeping score at home), there rest he should keep it on. This says to me that being able to remove your sword relatively easily, and without looking like an awkward git, was socially important.
Front strap seems logical to me. It prevents the grip from swinging back/ keeps the grip closer to the front, where it is easier to reach when cross-drawing.
Do you know if the dagger was worn kind of concealed this way? A jacket would pretty much conceal is as long as it isn`t that long. I know the gauchos in argentina did wear their facons this way.
Perhaps the front strap would be better for wear while riding? Long thursting swords would be of interest to cavalry as a backup lance and the forward strap would facilitate a seated position. Also it's probably easier to put on yourself than passing the strap behind you.
Does this type of dagger have a specific name, or was it just referred to as a dagger?
x90z75ek2 main gauche, french for left hand
Joe Dank Thanks!
With regards to the dagger and the orientation of the protective ring - if you take biomechanics and simplicity of drawing into account, then if you draw the dagger from behind, the ring will protect the thumb side of your hand, if you draw it from your right hip, it will protect the side with the other four fingers. You'd need to rotate the dagger while/after drawing otherwise.
I'm going to guess that the scabbard's strap being worn to the front is because of the dagger being worn scout style in the back. Whereas typically a Rondel or Bullock's dagger is worn in the front so the strap would go to the back.
The huge pommel can help with point extraction because the heel of your hand has something to press against as you are pulling the point out.
beautiful work Tod . brigands will feel that steel .. once you can draw it out :P
Hey Matt! Regarding your comment on why the rapier is strapped to the front of the wearer tather than the back, as with a longsword, I wonder if it is because you are more likely to want to take it off with a rapier and therefore having the attachment in the front would make it easier to take it off than if you have to twist yourself to get to the attachment in the back.
Anyways thanks for another great video with Tod!
The amount of "That's what she said" moments in this video is incredible.
There's a technique that some vapers use when wrapping the wire coil for a vaporizer (pretty much the exact same thing as handle wire wrapping) that will help make that a lot easier. When your wire is ready to go onto the grip, anchor one end of it to something and take all the slack out of it, then give it just a little slack and snatch it taut. It really helps previously wound wire be more straight.
Time to invest in a wireless microphone, don't you think, Matt? ;)
11:06 it seems easier to tie and untie to the belt from the front.
Just looks more practical to me
Maybe they switched to a front strap for the sword so that when they needed to unhook the side strap during times when the sword was in the way, then they could just hold the sword in front of them in a relaxed position whereas they wouldn't be able to do that with a rear strap.
I got triggered when Matt said that Spanish cup hilt swords are ugly, but I managed to calm myself down, hahaha
Kwijiboz same here.. Lol
It sounds to me that he was just referring to certain Spanish cup hilts with small pommels were ugly. Not necessarily Spanish cup hilts themselves
Deo Vindice The ones I've seen they all have small pommels, so...
But it's all good everyone has their own aesthetic preferences
But they are ugly.
@@wrobelmike ugliness kills too...
Wish I had the coin for one of Tod's swords, they are beautiful.
Love how you keep saying how you look. Fashion is not taken into account enough in most discussions.
It looks like Tod has a lovely property, that looks like a creek in the background.
Jeffrey S. , Railroad tracks.
Hi! I have a question that's actually unrelated to the video. Recently my father and I made a Mycenaean spear with a bronze tip. It's about 2.05 meters long counting both the shaft and spear-head. Firstly, is that an ideal length for a spear that is also supposed to be thrown from a fairly small distance? And secondly, where is the ideal center of weight for such a spear?
could the switch of the belting sistem from the back to the front be caused by clothing? capes were very much used by high-status people of the time, and that could interfere with the belt (if placed on the back) when trying to clip and un-clip the rapier during everyday life.
The belt changed because now the dagger is in the back and also it is easier for a single person to do the strap in the front then the rear, in my opinion
Thank you for your work.
My guess: strap in front because you're hooking the sword on and off more than you would with a shorter sword, and it's just easier to have it on the front. And also, the dagger is on the back. I don't know if that factors into it.
With a huge, long, awkward sword like that you'll want to unhook it a lot more during the course of your day than you would a side sword so an easy to access front strap makes more sense.
Maybe switching from a longsword style rear strap to a rapier style front strap has to do with the dagger being worn at the back.
where is the actual "switch" people talk about? in both cases, the sword is suspended from one point, the belt distributor or buckle, ans pulled forward by another strap. be that the excess length of the waistbelt itself passing from the buckle of the belt down to the buckle at the throat of the scabbard,
or a strap fixed at the throat of the scabbard and going towards the front buckle or a a point near it.
Mr. Easton, wouldn't the strap be in the way of the dagger if it reached behind like other swords?
An idea for a video might be the difference between a Rapier, Foil and Long Sword/Arming Sword.
While I may know a bit about it, I'd enjoy your take of the topic, Matt.
Thanx and cheers from the States.
Beautiful Rapier
I’m looking for one of these early war rapiers myself
Having a large and hollow pommel helps each gram have more impact to, by placing the weight further away it has more leverage against what it counter-balances. Just adjust pommel size and shape as needed. So the sword can be overall a bit less mass for the same effectiveness. It also better helps prevent the hand from sliding off. Just a hypothesis.
I feel as though they might have switched from the back to the front strap to pull the hilt closer to one's hand, allowing for an easier drawing of the blade. If the back strap was applied to the middle of the blade, it might've pulled the tip closer inward and leave the hilt angled farther from the body.
Sword and buckler: take your sword off to sit down, and you've got a buckler. Sword and dagger: take your sword off to sit down, and you're still quite armed.
Would love to see a fight review from Lesters The Three Musketeers filmed in the 70's - lots of rapier and dagger fighting - of course also lots of tongue in cheek.
Let say it is 1705 and you had to fight in a duel. No armor but you are allowed sidearms. The choices of swords you have are smallsword, rapier, panzerstecher, estoc, xiphos, saber, cutlass, scimitar, backsword, broadsword, arming sword, Longsword, & side sword, your choices for side arms are dagger, cloak, shield, & buckler. I would choose the rapier and dagger. What would you choose?
Because it's a quick release system. Strap at the rear (and buckle) would seem to defeat the point somewhat.
Hi Matt , my next cuestion is not related with this video and I don't know if you have talked about this topic before (sorry if it's the case), but I just saw an old video about percussion weapons vs swords and I was thinking: If there are two fighters both in full plate armor (the same height, weight, strength...) one of them has a longsword and the other has a warhammer. Who is more likely to win? Does the armor tip the balance for the warhammer user?
That mic wire looks bothersome.
Straps moving around may have to do with trying to avoid whatever might get caught or tangled up (different things depending on the historical period).
The only reason I can think of for moving the secondary sword support belt to the front is so as not to interfere with the dagger carried horizontally on the back. But that's just my best guess.
Matt’s jeans are so cool
I think it is far less a swith from a rear strap to a front strap, and more just a shift in attachement points for them.. .
with the longsword the belt distributor hangs a bit to rear of your left, and has some 12 straps forming to make contact with the scabbar.
The point where it meets the belt is just shifted forward a bit, and rather than two narrow straps forming a triable between belt and scabbars, you have a large leather triangle, Not that much diffrent.
And when the excessive belt length on a longsword was passed to the buckle at the throat of the scabbard, that made the other strap. which is now still there, just that the strap itself starts at the scabbard, and hooks to the belt, and that attachment point shifted a bit along the waistbelt the same way the other point did.
It is essentially the same suspension, just shifted a bit so the sword hangs more towards the front.
I reckon it might have to to with biomechanics of drawing a very god damn long sword.
As an Alexandre Dumas fan I am enjoying imagining this sword wielded by one of his musketeers.
The edge does the cutting not the flat and that blade has a lot of weight and leverage. It could definitely lop off a hand at the wrist. I have little doubt it could cut clean through a forarm, perhaps an upper arm depending on the skill and strength of the user.
contact on the belt moved from the back to the front was to unfasten it from the belt faster would be my guess, not just faster but more comfortably as well maybe
I'm guessing that the second strap is on the front instead of the rear because the center of balance on a rapier is closer to the hilt.
I would guess the strap in the front might indicate it was being put on and taken off more, since it might be easier to see and reach a strap in the front.
Maybe it's in the front to have the hilt be closer to your center for a quicker draw and making it more difficult to reach for others, the culture of the "bravuconada", etc. Or maybe, thinking as a formation of pikemen, having it forward would make it easier to reach in that side stance. Just some ideas.
Very interesting Video!
What is the historical name for the belt attachment? I usually see them referred to as frogs.
And someone please buy Matt a wireless mic. Every video I'm afraid he's going to accidentally cut the mic cord.
1:07 Men. Always adding another inch to their estimation.
Ah, beloved rapier. The only weapon I've actively trained with other than the bow. Gorgeous, simply gorgeous. I'd love to branch out and learn viking sword and board, but I don't have time to commit to a club. :(
After researching the $50-150 daggers on KultofAthena i decided to go with Tod Cutler medieval daggers. I bought the 15th century Rondel Dagger and I am waiting on the Quillon Dagger - 12th - 17th Century to be restocked :)
When did bows and arrows depart the European military scene? The scene in an Indian Jones scene where the fancy swordsman gets dismissively shrugged off with a pistol shot has its equivalency with the now/artow stand off shot. Nice sword fella, eat a broadhead. Ok, so as a mainline weapon, how long did the sword last? Was it surpassed only by the musket?
That's a mighty long sidearm. Is that rapier near the limit of rapier length (assuming the wielder isn't Hafthor Bjornsson)? How would the wearer even draw that?
shade_grey
There actually were even longer Rapiers.
In the armoury of a castle close to where I live, there's one with a 110cm blade. That's some 15cm more than the one in the video. And I've heard of ones that even exceed that length.
In his treatise, Capo Ferro recommends a rapier that is twice the length of your arm, or sitting just under the armpit. That would give a 47in long blade or so, clearly longer than what Tod and Matt are showing there.
About drawing the sword you would typically do it across the body using your hip to help you freeing the blade, ending in prima.
grauenwolf.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/image1.png
That guy looks like he's wearing his belt much further down compared to the contemporary fashion of the 17th century or so (also, his legs are really short for some reason)... Still, it seems like something you wouldn't be able to draw in a hurry.
How would you draw such a blade on horse back ? Also Mercenarys might carry such sword quickly while carrying a small sheild musket pistol . Would people wear full armour with it or would the still carry a equivalent of the muskets of later times.
i never knew rapiers could be that long. thats a long sword man
The Goddamn Batman That is pretty standard for a rapier.
That's not even the longest they can get. I read somewhere that street thugs and other disreputable characters sometimes used extremely long rapiers and they painted the last few inches black so the point was harder to spot in the dark alleys and the opponent would misjudge the distance.
the longest on average was 48 inches but they went up to about 60 or so for the very longest.
joseph dedrick surely thats exagerrated. 60 frickin inches? people wore that? you cant wear that. but i dont think you can even wear 50 properly in everyday life.
I would say because the ease of removal. Having that strap in the back, it’s a pain to un hook without undoing the belt
Maybe because of armor, In the age of the rapier armor was disapering more and more. I think earlier in the age of full plate i think the rear mounted strap was preferable so it wouldn't interfere with the fold or other forms of groin defence.
Does it sound strange that I think I've fallen in love?
With the Rapier ya buggers......
I bet the reason they switched from the strap from back to strap to front was fashion...they liked how they sash of leather drew the eye to their codpiece...
I would hazard a guess that the buckle for a second restraining point serves the same purpose as the clip? By having it on the front it becomes more accessible to remove it when entering civilian setting where it is not seen as acceptable I.e. A home or a place of business. You could quite stylishly remove the clip and buckle without turning away from your business parter or whomever it is by fumbling around your back and embarrassing yourself, as at the time style is everything.
Another disparity between olympic style fencing and HEMA:
Olympic sports rapiers are below 750g and even those can feel quite heavy very quickly. Can't imagine how tiring a blade twice the weight must be.
In a double lock situation, you kick them in the nuts. Then you try to extract your weapon.
And with regards to the front strap, I would speculate that it was simply easier and quicker to remove that way.
I would speculate it has to do with the pluderhosen. Lots of nice folding fabric in the back that you dont wanna mess up. In the 15th century the fashion was as you know very tight around the buttocks so the strap there would not interfere with any folds and stuff.
Interesting. You can see the momentum of the blade, just by Matt doing simple chops and thrusts with it. It moves more like a late mideval blade (at least in my mind), rather than a traditional rapier (at least what I think of as a rapier - which is probably more late 1700's, TBH.)
Beautiful weapon, although I prefer cup-hilts or at least more symmetrical guards, that protect the hand equally regardless of uning it left or right-handed.
A question rather of the actual topic for this video, but still somewhat related since it is about wielding two weapons:
In some modern produced drawings presenting early 18 centry soldiers, they are depicted in a bayonet fencing situation with the muscet held in left hand somewhere close to its balance point and a military style small sword/ rapier -ish in the right one. Is this a authentic bayonet fencing style or is it something made up by modern artists?
I can kind of see some advantages with this style, at least theoretically, but at the same time I get the feeling that you really can´t get so much out of your muscet/bayonet either while defending or attacking with it...
Don´t have a muscet, just a sword so I can´t really figger it out by myself.... :-)
Happy if someone could say something about it...
concerning switching sides with the belt strap: shot in the dark, it was easier to buckle and many men likely did that in long march.
While I don't realy know, I'd say the front strap is easier to install or uninstall