Cup hilt with rompepuntas.
Many of the cup hilts possess a turned over lip around the cup called a "rompepuntas." If a strong thrust is aimed at the cup, it is possible for the blade to slip over the cup and strike the arm or even the body of the swordsman. This lip is designed to prevent that from happening. In play with blunted fencing weapons we found that this works. A hard thrust to the top of the cup can frequently cause the blade to slide off and into the arm of your opponent.
Aside from the rompepuntas, the majority of the early cups also had a great deal of pierced work. This is really beautiful work, often cut steel. This open work serves the same purpose of the rompepuntas, as it provides many opportunities for any thrust to the hilt to be caught.
Reproduction rapier with swept hilt. HRC14.
The cup hilt quickly spread throughout Europe and was quite fashionable, but of course, the swept hilt remained in use.
By the middle of the 17th century, the long rapier was undergoing some changes. The blade was getting shorter, somewhat lighter, and the hilt was also being simplified. In Spain, the long rapier remained popular, and this reduction in size was less notable. At the same time, due to many factors—and fashion most assuredly played a part—the main gauche was being used less and less. Single combat was taking more and more of the aspects of pure fencing, and the small sword was coming into its own.
I find it hard to understand why the main gauche was abandoned. In any dueling system you can set up whatever rules you wish, and duels were frequently fought under some really absurd rules. Consider the duel fought in Europe (France, I believe), where the two men did not possess any weapons other than helmets with sharp beaks, and were required to butt and peck at each other. Or a man put in a pit to his waist having to fight a woman who was free standing. But as a self-defense item the rapier alone leaves a lot to be desired when confronted by more than one attacker.
Take the death of Pizarro, the Conqueror of Peru. He and his brother were attacked at dinner by a group of assassins. Pizarro did not have time to put on any armor; instead he seized his cloak, wrapped it around his left arm and attempted to fight off his attackers. He and his brother were doing pretty well when Pizarro stabbed one of his attackers. As he attempted to withdraw his sword, one of the attackers in back pushed the unfortunate pierced assassin forward. Pizarro could not clear his sword in time and was himself stabbed in the throat. We do not know exactly what sword Pizarro was using at the time, but more than likely it was a type typical of the time and origin, and would be a straight-bladed sword, relatively narrow in blade width and excellent for thrusting.
Not that I think he would have survived, but I do think he would have been able to take more of his assailants with him had he an additional weapon. Pizarro was far from a nice man; in fact, calling him treacherous, murderous scum might be harsh. Accurate, but harsh. However, there is one thing he was, and that was tough.
My point (maliciously intended pun) is that with a long weapon a thrust can penetrate too deeply, and present problems in the withdrawal. A second weapon, such as a main gauche, still allows you to be defend and attack while regaining use of the weapon.
SMALL SWORDS
In the third quarter of the 17th century, the small sword gained great acceptance and dominated the field of civilian swordplay almost exclusively. It also became a very necessary item of male jewelry, and some of the hilts of these weapons are incredible works of art! You can find examples with cut and pierced work, tiny granules of gold and silver, and incredibly detailed figures, some holy, some erotic, all beautiful. It would seem almost a crime to use one of these swords in combat, but they did. Of course they were also worn by men who really had no idea of how they were used, nor any desire to learn. Although there were duels aplenty, there really weren't as many as books and movies seem to suggest.
A gaudy small sword.
Many have considered these early small swords the most deadly sword ever developed. But these are people who consider classic fencing as the only "proper" method for fighting with a sword. I hear the same thing from devotees of the katana, who think that small swords and rapiers are silly effeminate sticking toys. Sigh. I also do a lot of shooting, and hear pretty much the same thing about the different calibers of handguns.
I'm a heretic in both fields. The best weapon is the one that you have with you at the time you need it.
But back to the subject at hand.
The wearing of the small sword as an item of male fashion was beginning to fade by the mid-18th century, and soon was to pass away completely except for ceremonial occasions. By the time of its passing, the blade had degenerated into a small, thin and unimpressive sword very similar to the swords such as those of the Knights of Columbus and other modern fraternal orders.
Colichmarde.
At its peak, say from 1660 to 1720 for rough dates, the sword was long, slim and quite light, with very little hand protection. The most effective of these small swords had beautiful triangular blades, with very deep hollow facings. This made for a stiff, light, and really quick sword blade. There was an interesting development, called the colichemarde, which came close to turning the small sword into an actual military weapon, although I do not think that was its purpose. The colichmarde blade was triangular, quite wide for at least a third of the blade, and then tapered abruptly to the standard triangular cross section. The wide blade, being deeply hollowed, had a balance point close to the hilt, which allowed the blade to be exceedingly quick. However, its width allowed the blade to be used to block cuts from heavier swords such as a saber. Since there is a real possibility that a normal blade might break under the impact, this allowed the sword to be carried in circumstances where a heavier blade might be called for. It really is an attractive weapon, and I must confess, it's the only small sword that I like.
The colichmarde was supposed to have been invented by Philip Von Konigsmark (1656–1694), a Swede of German origin. He was quite the adventurer, and was reported to be the lover of Sophia Dorothea, the wife of George, Crown Prince of Hanover, who later became George I, King of England. Von Konigsmark was murdered when the affair was discovered—and I think we can safely assume it was German Georgie who had it done—and Sophie Dorothea was shut up in a castle. Kings can be hard to get along with.
It's a great legend about the invention, but probably untrue, since small swords with this shape were showing up before Philip was born—but I have no doubt about his affair. All women love a good swordsman.
FENCING
Rapier and small sword play are the forerunners of modern fencing. I first encountered fencing in the mid 1950s at the Atlanta YMCA. At the time I was wrestling, boxing, rope climbing, and I wanted to learn to fence, too. The instructor they provided us was Professor Morenus. He was retired from Georgia Tech, and was about 70–72 at the time. He was a disengage fencer, and he always reminded me of a large white spider. He informed me once that I might make a good swordsman, but that I would never make a good fencer. Now, I do not know how good a swordsman I have ever been, considering that it has to all be in sport or play, but I do know that I was a lousy fencer.
The truth was that I was never really interested in fencing, I was interested in fighting, and learning how to use the sword as a weapon. Fencing is a sport.
Originally fencing was used to teach the use of the sword for the duel. It rapidly became a sport/pastime, and a very upscale one at that. It was a gentleman's sport, and more emphasis was placed on how you behaved and moved, rather than winning. In the early days, there were a lot of sneering remarks aimed at those fencers who were considered "just stabbers" who had no form, but merely attacked repeatedly. This could be a just criticism in a sport, but in actual combat it would be a meaningless remark. Real combat is only concerned with whether you win or die.
When I first started playing with saber, it was explained to me that the saber was used mainly on horseback, and so there was a convention of not attacking the legs. However, the
weapon was much lighter than any antique saber I had encountered. It weighed about 12–13 ounces compared to two and a half to three pounds for real sabers. The blade was more like a buggy whip than a sword blade, but Professor Morenus did not allow cut overs to count (this is where the blow was parried, but due to the flexible blade the attacking sword would still bend over and touch). Much of the work was done with wrist and fingers, and I didn't know anyone who could do that with one of my real swords. I still don't. When many fencers actually pick up a real saber, they are shocked by its weight and consider it useless. For sport fencing, it is.
The epee was developed as a training weapon for the dueling sword, and I feel that in many respects it would work pretty well. But the blade is too light, and the conventions and rules prohibit many of the things that did occur in real fights. Since the whole body is a target, that does reflect a much more realistic approach than the other two forms. Even so, counting a hit to the calf the same as a hit to the chest or face is not realistic.
In the old days there were squabbles about who hit first, and the contestants had to rely on the sharp eye of the judges. To rely on the honor of the contestants was simply not practical. Not for reasons of honor, but simply because in many cases the heavily padded individuals can't tell who hit first. Many times he wouldn't even know that he was hit at all!
The introduction of electronic scoring stopped that and, in my opinion, ruined fencing and removed all pretense of it being a martial art. For those of you who may not be familiar with it, the sword is equipped with a wire that registers a hit and time. When two hits are registered, the point is awarded to the first hit. The result of this innovation has been ignoring defense completely.
The last match I witnessed was several years ago and between two world-class epee fencers. They both stood at the end of the strip, both tapping their blades on the floor, a picture of intense concentration. Suddenly they both leapt forward and clashed, both blades bent under impact, and both turned to the scoreboard to see who had hit first. The whole match consisted of this sort of "swordplay."
Another result of electronic scoring is the "coupe." (I have heard that some places have banned this, but I can't say for sure.) The coupe is a flick of the blade that will merely touch your opponent. However, it will close the circuit and register as a hit. Using a real sword, all you would have achieved is possibly a very small nick.
Now, I may be old-fashioned, or I may just be old and wimpy. But my idea of a successful sword fight is for me to stick my enemy, and for him not to stick me. It certainly doesn't include getting stuck by him, even if I hit a fraction of a second quicker. I recall reading of one historical duel where the adversaries were so angry that they rushed upon one another doing nothing but stabbing. They were both successful and both fell dead. A bystander remarked that they were "two silly people, skewering each other on the first pass."
As of this writing, there is a great deal of squabbling regarding swordplay. There are new kids on the block, holding up as a shining beacon the fight manuals of old, all claiming to provide the secret of historically accurate swordplay. There are many other groups, all of them trying to come up with swordplay that is more realistic, and closer to being a combat art. Except for a very few, most realize that safety is an important consideration. The need for safety does, however, always interfere with the goal of being as realistic as possible. This is the nature of the beast, and I have no desire to change it. Failure to employ safety rules could easily leave me bereft of readers, which I would hate. With this in mind, many groups are achieving a modicum of success. I haven't seen all of them, so I won't make any comments regarding any of the individual groups, but I wish them all well.
Then there are sport fencers who will assure all and sundry that sport fencing is the apex of swordplay and it is what all swordplay has been aiming at for several hundred years. Lest that sound a little harsh, let me quickly say that there are plenty of swordsmen in both camps that have a full appreciation of the realities of actual swordplay and fun, whether the fun be sport or re-enactment.
I have read that Aldo Nadi was the greatest fencer who ever lived. I am not able to comment on that. But I have also read that he had two duels to first blood, and lost both of them. When the tips are off, and you are looking at a man with a weapon who desires to hurt you, many things go right out the window.
Many will think that I look down on fencing. I don't. Fencing is a highly disciplined and rigorous sport. It requires great reflexes, balance, coordination, and endurance. And it has all sorts of rules, and the rules provide enjoyment to the participants. It has nothing to do with killing people and it does not teach you to fight.
Fencers fight in a straight line. This makes sense when you are a fencing master with a fair number of students. You can't afford to have them circling each other, they would get in each other's way. But in real life you would circle, and would try to take advantage of any features of the terrain that might make your opponent stumble, or distract his attention.
The foil, the epee and the saber are all lightweight weapons designed with the two purposes of being fast and not harming the opponent. Now, they can really hurt when used as a whip, much as a radio aerial will if ripped off a car and used in a street fight. The bad news is when the whippee closes with the whipper. In short, a small sword is about as light as you can reasonably get with a sword blade. It is deadly, but it has its weaknesses.
Still, learning to fence can be fun, and it will familiarize you with having a sword in your hand, and with moving while learning to defend and attack. It is an excellent sport, but it will not teach you how to fight with a rapier or a small sword. There are other groups out there who will do a better job. But also remember that they have rules as well. Rules are necessary for safety's sake and that must be of paramount importance.
There are several books recounting many of the duels in the past, describing fights with rapier, small sword, sword and buckler, polearms, etc. They are entertaining and informative, but they do not go into the necessary details for the reader to fully understand what has taken place. "Wounded many times," "fighting furiously," "desperate encounter": there are general terms given, and the reader is allowed to use his imagination to picture the duel. It can be fun, but not an effective teaching tool except that you realize that it is a killing that is being recounted.
FIGHTING WITH THE RAPIER
A look at the differences between fencing and fighting can be instructive. In fencing you are taught to stand with your sword arm and leg presented to your opponent. The off hand is held well back, and is often extended backwards when the individual lunges. This is an interesting stance, and is pretty much the same as used by individuals in pistol duels. The body is presented sideways, as it furnishes less of a target, both for sword and pistol. There is one problem here: almost any hit that penetrates the torso will usually be fatal. When being struck face on, there are areas where the blade or ball might be able to pass through without giving a fatal wound, but sideways, it is very difficult to find a path that would not hit a vital organ.
Fencing stance.
In the old days, men fought face on, with the sword arm and leg only slightly extended. The off hand was held generally about shoulder height. This allowed the arm to be used in blocking a thrust, slapping it aside, grabbing the blade, or even punching the opponent (obviously, I am talking about single weapon combat). Some rapiers were made with a thick center ridge, with actual edges. These swords were not good for cutting, as the ridge would prevent any deep wounding. However, it could make grabbing the blade somewhat problematical. This was offset by the use of mail gauntlets.
Whit Williams of the Reinhardt Legacy Fight Team in fighting stance.
Photo by Adam Lyon.
The main gauche was an important weapon in both dueling and in rough brawls and confrontations. Since there were no rules on wearing the dagger, people pretty much let personal preference dictate where it was worn. Some wore it behind the b
ack and pretty much horizontal, others had it canted and wore it on the right side. This allowed both sword and dagger to be drawn simultaneously. (This was another reason for the demise of the long-bladed rapier: it took way too long to clear the scabbard.)
It is generally agreed that the dagger was used to parry with, and the sword was the attacking weapon. However, in play I have had a great deal of success using the rapier as the parrying weapon, closing and attacking with the dagger. This will catch many by surprise, but after they have fought with me several times, it becomes a fight of taking advantage of any opportunity that presents itself.
There is one neat trick that I have had work for me several times in play. If a dagger gets too close to the rapier, or the rapier to the dagger, it is possible to move against one or the other forcefully, and tie up both blades. This only lasts for a fraction of a second, but it is enough to land a blow with the dagger. Obviously this will work in reverse, tying up both weapons with your dagger and striking with the sword. There is a more unpleasant reverse of this, when your opponent ties up your blades.
Generally, the dagger was held with the thumb on the flat of the blade, and any other position was what the individual preferred. It could be held at shoulder height with a bent elbow or fully extended. There are historical drawings of fighters holding the dagger in an icepick grip with the point down. There may have been individuals who could fight this way, but I am not among them. I can say that I never lost a bout when my opponent was holding his dagger like that.
Hank Reinhardt's The Book of the Sword Page 13