Rapier/side swords or saber/cutlass. Which do you like more?

J

jason41987

Joined
May 9, 2012
Messages
174
Since the Renaissance, swords seem to have become more specialized for one purpose or another, with side swords being a single handed arming sword with a more developed hilt, and that hilt giving more point control and precision, you get the rapier which is very well suited for thrusting, while still retaining an ability to cut.

On the other side of that, sabers have become more and more popular for military use. Swinging a weapon feels more intuitive and more natural, and as such sabers are very specialized cutters. And a closer quarters version of that, the cutlass, is very well suited to that as well.

But what do you like more, what do you think is better overall, and why?
 
No sword has become more and more popular for military use, only for military ceremonies.There's a difference.
Most modern sabres are cut-and-thrust types
Cut to wound, thrust to kill.
0_cav-pic-825494
 
Rapiers cut as well, but sabers are better at it, sabers thrust as well, but rapiers are better at that. I think because swinging a weapon is a bit more intuitive to most people and a fairly natural instinct, perhaps saber has a shorter learning curve, or is easier to train? Or maybe since military was already using them for cavalry because the curvature lends itself pretty well to the task, they just adopted the similar school of arms for outfitting officers, and in the sense of the cutlass, people in the navy with something they were already teaching. That makes sense, as rapiers (not including side swords) were mostly civilian weapons since they had no value for cavalry like the saber had.

Though watching competitions between fencers utilizing saber vs rapier it would seem if skills are equal, the guy with the rapier usually wins.
 
I think rapier is more for civilians dueling. It's not hard use enough :) for battle.
I like my Polish saber I got. I want to get the Russian shashka or something equivalent.
 
jason41987 said:
well obviously the only solution is to get a good representation of both types
Click to expand...
I misread your post a bit. I can see the strength of both and now wouldn't mind having a rapier as well lol, come to think of it... Wouldn't mind thrusting and you can probably whip that point nicely at something. Different balance and feel.
I think I'd like both.
 
Well, that is one of the advantages of the rapier having a longer blade and a POB near the hilt. Any swing is going to have a higher tip velocity and quicker acceleration.

A problem I have noticed just looking at reviews and demonstrations of available swords out there is a lot of people are selling rapiers with blades that are very flexible, like you'd find on a practice blade which is done so that you do not injure your sparring partner or fellow competitor. But the actual weapons actually used for defense are supposed to be much, much stiffer, even using diamond cross section blades to increase rigidity so more energy goes into stabbing through a target. I think finding a good representation of a rapier will be harder to find than a good representation of a saber.
 
Rapier is a thrusting weapon, while a sabre is a slashing/cutting weapon. The long, slender blade of the rapier is lightweight and very sharp. So I go with rapier
 
Context is indeed key and most military swords are compromise tools meant to cover as much ground as possible while still doing them acceptably well: Cut hard, thrust nimbly, parry strongly, balance nicely, carry comfortably, and be economical to produce. Generally, it's a case of, "You can have it good, cheap, and soon. Pick two." In this case several swords cross over well from cutter to thruster (in an unarmored context) and the one that I favor is the Spanish Model of 1728, also known as a Bilbo (probably after the Spanish city of Bilbao -- Bilbo in Basque).

2046835408_Brinckerhoffd.thumb.jpeg.4250c10d059fc4c6b4f0cdbff664048a.jpeg


It is, technically, a broadsword, but not far from a rapier in profile, weight, and balance. I have drilled with replicas I cobbled together for my students and I find them pretty handy. They do not thrust as well as a smallsword, but as well as many rapiers. They do not cut as well as my original 1811 Blücher sabel, but not much does! Someday I'll try to get my hands on a 1728 at the museum in Pueblo. Surely it will be enlightening.

Remember, as the 19h century wears on, cavalry sabers begin to straighten out moving away from dedicated cutters like the UK 1796 and Pruss 1811 towards compromise cut/thrusters. And by the 20h century, we're back to pure thrusters in the US and UK.

Another compromise blade is known as the 1830 Dragoon saber in the US (based on a UK design). With the yelman at the end of the blade, it seems it would make a good thruster and heavy cutter. ( horseclover horseclover , correct me if I've misidentified the dragoon sword here).

And finally, many cav pallasches cut and thrust well, but they can be terribly heavy and not suited to pedestrian combat.

But then, I'm a horseman!

Zieg
 
Last edited:
John Logan has just finished a fourth 1728
https://www.facebook.com/ironjohn.logan/media_set?set=a.2995450200473866&type=3

A lot of folk might look at them as rapiers but not really. It is like the notion that all katana look alike. Although, there is a little more truth to that. Some will look at a Patton 1913 and call it a cutlass, others a rapier.

The more one looks at types and specifics, the more one can absorb the information.

I think I am on strike regarding the whole precept of this thread.

The Ames m1833 (not 1830) dragoon sword has a pipeback, quill point blade but not really a yelman. One would expect a yelman to be above the spine profile, where the m1833 does not.

My favorite yelman of the moment. Photo swiped from Collectors Firearms
_DSC0028__08247.1561988327.1280.1280.jpeg

Note the back edge is above the profile line of the spine. Yelman were developed on European swords after exposure to kilij
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilij

Imo, a pipeback, quill point does not have a yelman.

There is no best sword. My new favorite this season is a recently adopted Del Tin 13th century 2132 reproduction. Other newer favorites in other threads I have posted. My mid 19th century cavalry swords are both straight and curved.


Cheers
GC
 
horseclover said:
John Logan has just finished a fourth 1728
https://www.facebook.com/ironjohn.logan/media_set?set=a.2995450200473866&type=3

A lot of folk might look at them as rapiers but not really. It is like the notion that all katana look alike. Although, there is a little more truth to that. Some will look at a Patton 1913 and call it a cutlass, others a rapier.

The more one looks at types and specifics, the more one can absorb the information.

I think I am on strike regarding the whole precept of this thread.

The Ames m1833 (not 1830) dragoon sword has a pipeback, quill point blade but not really a yelman. One would expect a yelman to be above the spine profile, where the m1833 does not.

My favorite yelman of the moment. Photo swiped from Collectors Firearms
View attachment 1242173

Note the back edge is above the profile line of the spine. Yelman were developed on European swords after exposure to kilij
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilij

Imo, a pipeback, quill point does not have a yelman.

There is no best sword. My new favorite this season is a recently adopted Del Tin 13th century 2132 reproduction. Other newer favorites in other threads I have posted. My mid 19th century cavalry swords are both straight and curved.


Cheers
GC
Click to expand...
Great clarification. Thanks!

Zieg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top