From: tabaer@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Troy A Baer)
Subject: Re: Swashbucklers vs. Knights in Armour, was: GM's Pain
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 17:19:23 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.152411.1385@ncar.ucar.edu> nexus@karnak.cgd.ucar.edu (Jeff Berry) writes:
>In article <moonman.703233174@camelot> moonman@camelot.bradley.edu (Craig Levin) writes:
>>        Potentially heretical opinion: 
>>
>>	Fencing weapons and their antecedents-the smallsword and the
>>rapier-would be very inappropriate for use versus an armoured
>>opponent. The way that a fencing weapon is built is too frail for
>>defense against the weapons used by said armored opponent-like a
>>battle-axe-and its method of use-the direct thrust-leaves the warrior
>>open to attack on his or her arms by the opponent. Keep swashbuckling
>>restricted to a game world where armor has largely gone the way of the
>>dinosaur, and guns aren't too dependable yet, IMO.
>>Craig\The Moonman\Levin       Lt. Pedro de Alcazar, RN (Portugal)
>
>OK, just a few comments here on what appear to be common misconceptions,
>
>
>point a)  Rapier and Smallsword _are_ fencing weapons.  Fencing is derived
>	from defence, and these were the weapons most commonly used.
>
>point b) foils, epees(in the modern sense, not the original sense), and the
>	modern fencing sabre are practice weapons.  A foiled weapon, from
>  	which we get the word foil, is a weapon which has been purposely
>	blunted or tipped so as to reduce the chance of injury.  Thus,
>	someone who is attempting to cause injury with such a weapon is working
>	at cross purposes.  
>
>point c) all modern fencing weapons and styles (speaking now of competition
>	type fencing) were originally intended to train for certain weapons.
>	
>What this means is: fencing weapons can stand up to attacks by substantially
>heavier weapons, and can, quite probably penetrate fairly heavy armor.
>Further, a well trained fencer is much less likley to be hit in the arms
>than the battle-axe wielding warrior.  
> [stuff about off-hand weapons deleted]
>badger                                      Don Alexandre Lerot d'Avigne
>Jeff Berry                                  Seneschal of Caer Galen, Outlands
>               nexus@ncar.ucar.edu
>NCAR doesn't tell me what to think, and I return the favor.
>"You're a notch and I'm a legend"-------Alice Cooper
>"You're still doing the things that I gave up years ago.."-----Lou Reed

The rapier and smallsword are civilian weapons.  They were not designed
for battlefield combat, but for decoration and dueling.  I have difficulty
that a rapier could stop a two-handed blow from an epee'-de-guerre (bastard
sword).  Among other things, the rapier's blade is too light (I've seen this
in playing around with my roommate's rapier) and too flexible.  A rapier-
main gauche combination might be able to stop a bastard sword or battle
axe once, but the fencer would most likely come away with two shattered
weapons and one very amused opponent.

Modern competition fencing came from fencing styles developed in England,
France, and Italy in the mid 18th Century.  By then, though, the rules
have become so conventionalized and so much emphasis has been placed on
form rather than effectiveness that the sport is not really viable as a
true combat form. (this information is from Ch. 6 of  _Basic_Foil_Fencing_
by Dr. Charles Simonian)

Rapiers can penetrate armor IF you can find a chink in the armor and IF
you can get close enough to exploit it.  Truly extraordinary fencers,
like today's Olympians, might be able to pull it off, assuming they aren't
hewn down trying to get close enough.  However, even if a chink is found,
they're mostly at the joints; the only really vulnerable spots are the
eyeslits and throat, and they're usually well protected.

Not to flame, but think through what you said before.  If you don't believe
me, go to a fencing club and try blocking a baseball bat with one of their
sabers -- that's the closest modern-day equivalent.

	--Troy
+--------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
|Troy A. Baer        | There's no time for us, there's no place for us,  |
|tabaer@magnus.acs.  | What is this thing that fills our dreams, yet     |
|  ohio-state.edu    |  slips away from us?                              |
|an038@freenet-in-a. | There's no chance for us, it's all decided for us,|
|   cwru.edu         | This world has only one sweet moment set aside    |
+--------------------+  for us,                                          |
| What opinions?     | Who wants to live forever... when love must die?  |
|                    |         -- "Who Wants to Live Forever," Queen     |
+--------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
Note:  Most leading theologians claim this argument is a load of dingo's
	kidneys.