Silver vs Rapier 

That end message is absolutely perfect; The Winner; The Better Swordsman. It's the same answer I give whenever somebody tries to sell their favourite Sword type as the best; the Weapon is only as good as the man/woman using it.

it doesn't depend on the weapon but the swordsman him/herself

Firstly: BRAVO! It takes a lot of balls for 2 accomplished athletes to both step out of their normal arena to test something new (like testing unmatched weapons). And I see lots of comments written here from people who just don't seem to understand what they're seeing. My hat's off to you 2 guys! Secondly: some physics. Silver realized it's not complex math to see that if the short swordsman can get past the rapierists thrusting tip, the rapierist's had it. But the issue is: how to get past that deadly tip? Thirdly: to better examine the question of getting past the tip I'd like to see you guys re-do this with some changes. Off the top I see the need for 2 changes from the short swordsman to better test Silver's idea: (i) Controlling Distance, and (ii) Stepping on the Female Triangle. Where the short swordsman is successful in the clip, he's knocked the rapier offline and enters close (so the rapier's length is now an obstacle instead of an asset). I expect he can do that more reliably and repeatably if (i) he stayed further out (he's often well within the rapierist's range in the clip. He doesn't need to be that close. He only needs his sword tip to be in range of the rapier's tip: he doesn't need to cut at the rapierist but at the rapier's tip, knocking it offline); and (ii) he entered on the rapierist (having knocked the rapier offline momentarily) with a traverse step away from that sword, thus assuring (hopefully) that he'll have safely stepped into range of the rapierist before the rapierist can regain control of his weapon and bring it back online. This is how we do it in Kali and I'd love to see that experiment with the old European weapons.

Interesting demonstration. It was particularly nice to see some of Silver's short sword in action. It is very rare finding demonstrations of cut-and-thrust or short swords without a buckler or a parrying dagger.

Yes, the better swordsman would win but Silver's method seems to be the best way to use the shorter sword or rapier against the long rapier.

Nice video. Final line was awesome! :)

I believe that Silver was partially right. Humans (with some exceptions) are natural cutters. We tend to instinctively swing sticks and swords when we're in combat. Just watch two kids playing with swords, most of them will bever even attempt to thrust. I've experienced this during my sports fencing training: learning to thrust was way more difficult for me than to just cut. Thrusting is undeniably a very efficient way of using a sword, but it is also a very unnatural way of movement.

I like all the "ow"s and "shit"s and "fuck"s xD I wish I proper gear to spar with...

Silver was, acording to some, a "xenophobic military man", a foreign sword that was not meant for war was his nightmare. However he had a point, rapier fencers were usually trained to fight logically against an equally logical enemy, an Italian fencer would have problems against an untrained madman going for the kill. The rapier made men unfit for the battlefield and more fit for the strategy room, of course the strategy room is where the Swiss and the Spaniards learned how to become the best soldiers in europe

Ah, someone who actually makes the point at the end! This was fun to watch, better than those videos where people dance around a bit then flail at each other.

Yeah the ending message is pretty much the conclusion to all sword match-ups.

th bolognese style seems fascinating to me. I would love to learn it. I am very proud of my WMA traditions. To the public EMA are source of true martial power while WMA are for nerds and geeks who are expanding their Dungeons and Dragons roleplaying. I would love to see more videos focusing on the speed, timing and martial prowness of WMA. So my one complaint is if we are showing our best practicioners-let them look world class.

If the short swordsmen didn't have that damned tin can on his head he would have actually been able to see and move around.

I agree. The fundamental principles of fencing are the same for any weapon. They are simply applied in different ways by different masters. An experienced & knowledgable fencer would employ the strengths of his/her weapon against the weaknesses of the opponent's weapon.

In Western Martial Arts, SCA, and similar societies, the armor worn during a bout is for the protection of the combatants, and not meant to be a representation of armor worn in civilian combat. People did not walk around wearing armor any more than you or I walk around with Kevlar vests. Since Silver addresses combat against a rapier, and a rapier is designed for civilian combat, it is safe to assume that the "broadsword guy" is using the weapon for civilian combat.

I love this video.

One of Silver's main criticism against the Italian fencing fad of his time was its absolute disregard for proper defence in favour of straight-line daredevil lunging thrusts. It is completely reliant on speed, which may somewhat be fine in a one-on-one duel by a speedy swordsman, but is suicide in actual battle. There are too many potential matches that will end with both contestants getting fatally injured regardless of who won the contest and the gap in skill, as a successful hit with a thrust is not guaranteed to disable the person - therefore, they can potentially retaliate back with a thrust of their own. Tried and tested battlefield weapons would ensure that even if the attack does not end the opponent's life, it would still have a good chance of disabling and maiming the enemy - pretty much as effective as killing them. Silver does not criticize the Spanish school of swordsmanship as much as the Italian, as the Spanish style does not operate from a straight-line attack. Spanish swordsmanship allows attack and defence in equal measure, with footwork playing a significant role of putting one's self in a position where the opponent cannot retaliate.

I suggest the use of sword in bastard gardant(point facing towards the enemy) as they are held in single stick and first try to hit safe and if it is not possible try to cross swords and from the crossing of weapons either hit using the wrist movement(speed of hand) or try to close in and grapple if the opportunity invites. That will be a true silver fight.

the thing is... often while your opponent attacks they leave themselves open for your own attacks, once your enemy lands a slash or a thrust it is pretty easy for you to make it a double, aka hit for hit, especially if they don't pull away in time, (although with the reach advantage of the rapier it would be easier to strike and pull away). And in a real fight it doesn't make such a difference if you are stabbed now or a second later if both of you get stabbed. The thing is that in a real fight if you get stabbed or cut with a sword the damage will likely be bigger than with a rapier.

Meu mestre dizia: faça sempre o que seu oponente não espera. Luta perfeita.. é assim

I must ask and hopefully someone can give me an answer: What kind of gorget, mask/helmet and gambeson is the Silver-fencer wearing? The mask seems to be by That Guy but I've no idea concerning his peculiar fencing vest / gambeson and the gorget.

I think honor duelling went big at the end of the late 16th and definitly by the beginning of the 17th. That being said, you are fairly right on.

"Keeping your distance" against a rapier whose hand is extended or "spent" position is uncalled for rather you use your weapon to keep away his point and through the crossing hit the opponent with elbow or stomp him or trip him or use the other hand, grapple him...

@MarkHolgate If its done right and is anything but a wrist cut it would likely have a similar effect. Note though that there are several cases of one party being stabbed in the chest and proceeding to win the duel and walk away to tell the tale.

That might work... if the other swordsman just stands there and does nothing. If you try this on somebody who knows what they're doing they'll just disengage and stab you while you're lying spent. The same is true even if the other person is using a similar weapon. In general, attacking the weapon only works if you really know what you're doing, or the other person doesn't.

I believe we can agree to have the proper respect for the rapier. Yet, in true close contact war, the overpowering weight and mass of most other swords really have to be our choice. Please, if anyone disagrees please respond. I'd love to have a friendly little debate on the issue.

Loved the video, thought it was really good but just a few points, Italian fencing almost always had a parrying dagger alongside, if not they used a pair of rapiers or a cloak, rarely a rapier on its own, this is more similar to French and German fencing, if a fighter grabbed the rapier like that he would cut his hand open (the edges of most rapiers were razor sharp) and most fencers of that age were taught kicks and back fists in the event that someone even got that close, other than that cool

Teaching someone to cut who has only learned to thrust is super easy, and fast. It also opens up holes in an opponent's guard if they aren't prepared. You are right about the wounds being smaller, many fencing masters at the time same said that after striking your opponent stay ready, they might know they've been hit. However if you cut tendons and muscle they will know they've been hit. Thrusting was more popular because duels were for first blood. In the real world only last blood matters.

While Silver calls them “shortswords” remember that he recommended a 37 inch blade those of average height and up to a 40 inch blade for those taller than average. With the exception of rapiers, most one handed swords that are currently being sold only have 30~34 inch blades

PS: But one can clearly understand Silver's point of view. He had taught sword all his life, and along came those bloody foreigners with their flimsy rapiers and their mediterranean mannierisms. And yes, the rapier fencing was developping and constantly changing. But it was in the end more efficient....

@LokitheCajun These people are fighting like rapier versus rapier except the sword wielding guy uses cutting motions.The sword guy is simply standing in front of the rapier swordsmen which is not at all what George Silver has mentioned.By fighting like this, the rapier guy has the definite advantage.Read my earlier comments.

Looks like good fun. We fought Silver's fight with a sword and buckler versus rapier and dagger... with similar results. @MarkHolgate - I don't know if I completely agree with your statement. If a rapier thrust is placed in the correct position, a single shot can indeed be a fight ender, as could a cut in the right spot, and a poorly placed single sword shot is historically NOT a fight ender... it's all about shot placement with either weapon... IN GENERAL you are correct, given good form.

Not very scientific? Really? How is following the advice of the masters not scientific? The advice is reproduced right there in the video. If you didn't make it past the first section, watch again. The first bit was about not following SIlver's instructions. The guys fighting in the last bout are two of the world's foremost historical fencing researchers. Fighting is messy. Mixed weapon bouting is particularly messy.

Rapier design did in fact constantly change. It was a newfangled concept, attempting to fulfill a need. However, those that made them had no clue how to use them, and relied on "user feedback". Swordsmen might come back and say "ya know, Steve, I bet i could REALLY kick ass if this joker was lighter (shorter, heavier, longer, sharper... pick your adjective)... do it again a little (adjective)er". It boiled down to personal preference.

cont..... and back hands will get you killes as a fight would last but a few seconds. The only mention of striking in the fight books for rapier was so that the person when run through knew they were so, "run him through to the hilt, thus strike with it so that he knows of his fate". this is because when you get stabed some times people don't know it do to adrenaline. They get the dead man's 10 seconds.

@LutzBrux1 indeed the rapier and later the smallsword were predominant in the duels. but, they were only limited to this area. as the technology advanced and the warfare changed, armingswords, longswords,etc. were not used anymore. but that does not necesarily mean silver was wrong. his teachings were not only focused on duels, but they were also aplicable for war, for melee in battle.

The threat from the rapier fencer is his weapon's point only. But from you sword you have the entire edge as well as the point cross his weapon thereby avoiding the point and there you are free to use either the point or thrust or grapple or fly away as the situation appropriates.That's why Silver was vehemently against straight line rapier fencing.

I love all forms of swordsmanship and I don't think any one form is best, rather it is best for me. I prefer backsword to rapier but my own style is a mix of several different masters with a bit of 19th century sabre thrown in for good measure. Happy fencing.

Currently I fence rapier in the SCA. The practice weapon I use is set up to simulate both point & edge. For the sake of safety only draw cuts are allowed. This is because a pecussive cut, even from a light sport sabre, really hurts. Even a "light" weapon such as a rapier is heavy enough & sharp enough to do serious harm to an unarmoured opponent. To be sure its not a battlefield weapon but I feel it fulfills its intended purpose as a civilian weapon of self defense.

fight in the order of First,Before,Just and Afterwards that is try to hit him First or cross his weapon Before he thrusts and either hit him or close him or strike or thrust his hand or deflect his weapon(a child's force is enough) Just as he thrusts or parry after he thrusts and strike or thrusts. The last option(which you are doing most) is not advisable(as his thrusts is in full force) make your crossing "before his weapon comes in full force."

some lovely fencing - and enlightening when we consider the lower standard of rapier fencers silver would have been facing in england. i think an issue in reconstruction is the disparity betwen the cutting ability of a rapier and a sword. A single strike or thrust from a single sword is a fight ender. a cut, even a thrust, from a rapier is certainly not so. So resolution is also very much going to affect the outcome here.

And I must admit that I spoke perhaps more broadly than was merited. They were not _usually_ sharpened all the way down both edges, though you are most certainly going to find exceptions to the 1/3 of one side guideline.

Silver was not critical of just one or two shortcomings (in his mind) of the Italian "rapier" style(s) (especially Saviolo) being taught in England at his time. It was a long list of problems he saw. He seems to focus a lot on how the rapier students did not have a good sense of basic timing and positioning, seeming tied to too much drilling and not getting in enough rough bouting, and his censure extends to all English fencers who trained with the rapier - he thought their training was too limited and artificial. Rapierists in England, for example, did not train to counter cutting attacks - only thrusts were allowed. I don't think Silver was any kind of fraud, but his criticisms of the rapier fit that particular situation of the time. His absolute confidence that he is right and that most everyone else is wrong is fascinating and must have come from real experience. He put out public challenges to prove it. The Paradoxes in fact challenges anyone to try to prove him wrong in bouts. I'm not sure the rapier was fully understood in England at the time, nor the entirety of the continental rapier systems...

My last comment said that he also believed cut and thrust style sword fighting to be superior for dueling and street defense as well, it wasn't purely for the battlefield. The trend never went back because pure thrusting styles were more fashionable and normally duels were not to the death but were to first blood (which also ended sometimes in infection and death). If my life depended on me stopping my opponent you can damn sure bet I'd pick the weapon that would stop them, not slightly wound.

Many of the rapiers I've seen were sharp on both sides on the upper 2/3 though after a quick Google it does seem that those were not as common as the ones you're talking about.

Silver never challenged Saviolo to a shortsword versus rapier fight. It was rapier vs rapier etc, always the same weapon against the same weapon. This I think tells us something.

Speaking of training: people enlisted in the armies hardly ever had training in thrust fencing or fencing whatsoever. It was therefore easier to teach them basic cut fencing, that includes cavalry, who learned the stretched arm thrust, cut topleft to bottom right, and topright to bottom left. Your 'it is supereasy" is todays thinking Whereas people who had to defend themselves in duels and rencontres originally learned both (see Mayers Fechtbuch), and later dropped the cut ad to slow and clumsy.

Yeah... Except all the countries that kept heavy swords like the saber and other Basket-hilted, Schiavona style swords, which were still used in battle up until the 20th century... You know, about 150 years after the rapier and other thrusting style swords died out of real combat and moved into the sport arena...

I think they're just comparing the techniques against each other with no consideration made to armor. Paul, the gentleman in the "helm" accepts a rapier cut to the head at one point, so I'd say that's just the protective gear they had at hand. On the subject of hands, only specialty gauntlets have any armor on the inside of the hand.

Rapiers were civilian weapons though. Put an armoured soldier against one and unless they're very very good they're going down. It doesn't have the energy to properly pierce plate and while thin points are very good a chain mail they were often worn with fabric layers on top to catch arrows - I'd imaging a rapier would be similar, though perhaps more effective. If it was just padding - as shown here - then yes the soldier would go down immediately if hit.Though that helmet's impervious to hacks

cutting swords were never meant to be used in proper duels where both parties maintained a distance from each other. they were meant to be up close within the guard of another, where a sword tip could be grappled, whereas it cannot be if your arm is back, and a hard slash could not be swiped away by a hand. fencers dont like the part where the other grabs their hand and their sword is useless, while their opponent can still hack their body. but yes, if youre scared to get that close, thrust away

You are correct and incorrect at the same time. Italian masters taught single sword first as the fundimentals are most important stating that off-hand devices can be used in place of the free open hand. Most rapiers were not razor sharp, I know I have 3 origionals that have been in the family for as long as they have been in use, they are sharp but never razor the distal taper would not allow for it. As for grappaling in the rapier systems, it is restricted to pulls and lifts Kicks...

I think Silver's main complaint about rapier schools were the lessons were always changing, there was never a set art to it. Because of this he kept seeing and hearing of rapier people killing both of each other or seriously harming both in a duel. Silver set out to basically make a simple art that didnt' really need any additional steps and daily lessons as the Italians needed at the time due to the rapidly changing blade types and lengths (another of Silver's major complaints.)

Nice :-)

Rapiers were not sharp along the entire length of the sword. Skipping all of the technical terminology, usually it was only the first third of one side of the blade that was kept sharp. Renaissance masters thus delineate between the "false edge" and the "true edge." The bottom two thirds was not sharpened because that area was primarily used for parrying, and thus wouldn't hold an edge long anyway.

The swordplay at the beginning was horrible. I don't think Silver meant to just go baboon with a short sword. It did get better though

You mention the key word: "in battle". Silver writes in a civilian context, man to man, mostly unarmoured except maybe for bucklers, and it is in this context that you have to see the dispute. And in civilian combat, the trend never went back to cut and thrust. Military weapons are a different thing altogether, depending on users, period and purpose of the units and not that easily explained. But Silver speaks about civilians. If you want to discuss sabers for duelling, the

Fish n Chips vs Spaghetti.

The downward strike doesn't have to be a fully chambered strike like shown in this video. You can generate enough power to beat a rapier off point with a relatively small motion.

absolutely!

Failing to cover the grappling aspect of fighting. If that rapier guy used the techniques taught by Agrippa, that back sword guy would be doomed as soon as he narrowed. The man whom Silver based his critique of Italian school on was neither Capoferro nor Agrippa nor Thibault nor Marozzo, it was one whom although I forgot his name, was someone who was universally critiqued in the first place and Silver never gave a fair critique of rapier nor of Italian fencing. Not to mention how most rapiers back then were not the civilian rapier,but military rapier/side sword.

the proof of the pudding is in the slicing and dicing

Saying that for dealing with un or lightly armoured opponents I'd say the rapier is the pinnacle of sword design. Though I know some people who say that award goes to sabres. They might well be right, but rapiers look nicer. :D

It looks slooy to me too. If you watch or practice combative arts. You can see when someone is off balance, timid or uncommitted. If you watch UFC watch the early shows as compared to now and you will say it was sloppy. Not that those guys back than werent martial arts but the were not sure how to handle different styles

im confused... that was my first comment...? this was the first time i watched this video.. and we'll have tto leave this discussion to historians

@karikaalacholan Hmm, I wasn't arguing for the Rapier, and I see your point. The video's quality is good, but it can't really sway the opinion of 'non-rapierists'.... No pun intended. I'm no master swordsman, but it stands to reason that a dozen swordsmen skilled in the opposing techniques square off. The side with the greater average of victories should be judged as the 'better' technique.

Rock, paper, scissors.........

Thrusting is not "better" per se. It is a bit faster, and it is easier to learn, because it is JUST thrust, and not cut AND thrust. But arguably, the wounds are lighter, except if a vital organ is hit. So again, depending on situation. But if you do not want to listen to technical arguments, why do you think ALL civilian fencing went to thrusting weapons (civilian!)? Why is it according to you?

Silver was clearly proven wrong by history insofar as the whole of Europe switched first to cut-and-thrust rapier, then to thrust rapier and then to the epee (is that what you call it in English?). The only notable exception being the British Isles, where the sword stayed a bit longer a la mode. But if the whole of Europe changed their mind around 1600, that speaks a clear language. And at that time, it was not a matter of taste or opinion, but one of survival.

You don't need to raise your arm for a lethal cut, it only takes a flick of the wrist to make your opponent bleed out or cripple them. A thrust can easily be deflected as well, while it takes more energy to do the same with a cut. I have never ruled out the thrust a viable attack, what I'm saying is that rapier/smallsword is no where near as versatile as a backsword/saber for killing. You seem to think that dueling = superiority, when it is versatility that = superiority.

CLAYMORE CRUSH PUNY RAPIERoh no my spleen

2:11 DAMMIT

Where is the fencer's parry dagger?

... as always :-)

What century did George Silver live? I'm a little distrustful of any period past the 1600s.

Well if we would take thing historically accurate rapierst would not have pin point weakness of armored opponets. He or she could just use firearm. Reason why blades got lighter was that armors become obsolete and reason why they became popular over other melee weapons was bechose they became part of dressing code of a gentleman. Nothing to do about sword being superior weapon over spear or polearm for example.

Bugger! lol

Yeah. Or not.

I would say that this video doesn't represent a good example of Silver vs rapier. The swordsman is not fighting out of a proper guard (hanging guard, or open/outside guard stance) as Silver recommends. As karikaalacholan said below, the swordsman is fighting as one trying to modify his rapier training.

Why is he using the rapier like a broadsword? He's a gonner in battle.

with the most effective was the Spanish rapier and using school and fought the true skill in circles and generally used also he gave a short They were feared across Europe

Not.

Not very scientific.

The Schiavona is nothing like the Olympic sabers of today, it is a weapon meant to kill and maim. Olympic Sabers don't even use the same techniques because they aren't built the same, you'd be better off comparing them to your favored rapiers. Again show me your sources, the burden of proof is on you. Most of those laws were made about how long a rapier could be, not what kind of weapon you could use.

Hahaha! I love your reaction. It has amussed me. Now take a deep breath. If you're trying to call me out, and accusing my of being a teenager; why would you mention the Thunderdome? I seriously doubt teenagers these days have seen Mad Max. They're making a new one, eh.

To be fair, swords in general aren't very good against armor. You need an axe or mace in those situations more.

So bum rush him and get past the point?

Haha! It was a joke, really. A game? Hmm, might be worth checking out.

I disagree. Weapons do have attributes that outclass other weapons. Can a dagger master beat a pistol? Most likely not. Such a divide is smaller within melee weapons, but it is an example of how weapons can be countered.

It lies with the skill of the user, really, but no I wouldn't use a short sword vs a rapier, if nothing else, just by sheer virtue of the size difference.

Just as George Silver said, it is a child's toy. And all I see in this video are 2 children playing. Silver challenged your Saviolo to a duel, even offering him the rapier as first choice, but Saviolo fled. Silver's treatise was eventually used to train the military. But more importantly than all that, his reasoning is sound.

Small sword fighter is pretty whack. The other dude is controlling the center and choosing the range. Not exactly a demo of the weapon itself.

Tsss...not easy I know, but this one isn't a good medieval fencer.

Stop playing for points and see who kills who!

Ah George silver, yet another self proclaimed master of hit and hope. You can't compare his simple back sword nonsense to that of a rapierist. It's an insult.