D&D General The rapier in D&D

Okay. How about "Rapier, Circa 1490" from the Met, instead?


1758289348813.jpeg


A rapier from the 15th century, directly.

1758289393116.png


Oh, look. The Metropolitan Museum of Art outright states that they were developed in the late 15th century. Or 1400s.

GASP.

Here's an extant example from Germany in 1525.


Is it POSSIBLE that there were other rapiers in Germany -prior- to 1525 that we just don't have a physical example of?

Shock. Awe. Amazement.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Of course, this just raises the question of what exactly the D&D rapier is supposed to be. Given that what D&D calls a longsword is nothing like what modern Hema does,

How? It is a longish sword that can be used with either one or two hands. That's what a longsword usually means.
Historically a longsword is a term for a sword primarily wielded with both hands, usually 4'+ in length. Filippo di Vadi wrote that the total length should come up to the wielder's armpit. The grip/hilt is long enough to easily accommodate both hands (for example I'm looking at a 51" example right now with a 10.25" hilt). This is typically too long to be wielded comfortably or deftly with a single hand, though you can certainly release one hand on a swing to briefly extend your reach (albeit at the cost of power, so you wouldn't want to do that against armor).

A longsword as depicted and described in D&D is shorter and primarily wielded in one hand. The dimensions and characteristics the various editions give correspond more closely to historical weapons called variously an arming sword, knightly sword, or (earlier) viking sword or spatha, and perhaps the later cut & thrust sword. It's short enough to be wielded comfortably in one hand (and with a shield) and worn on a belt without constantly dragging on the ground.

1E AD&D lists a longsword as 3.5' in length, alongside the Bastard Sword at 4.5' in total length, a better fit for the historical longsword (and tells you to treat the bastard sword as a longsword if wielded one handed). The 2E Arms & Equipment guide says longswords range from 35" to 47" inches, with the latter having a 7" hilt, and notes that "the handles of all long swords fit only one human-sized hand". 3rd ed doesn't specify length but defines a longsword as a one handed weapon. (Bastard swords are classified as exotic weapons requiring a feat to wield in one hand without a -4 penalty, but usable two handed as a martial weapon). 4E also fails to specify length for the longsword and classifies it as one handed, but adds the Versatile property, allowing it to be wielded in two hands for an extra point of damage. 5E followed this example, though increases the die size to d10 instead of adding a +1. So in this way the 5e longsword has come to resemble the historical one a little more, though you'll still normally see people wielding a "real" two hander if they don't want a shield.

Obviously real world sword dimensions are highly variable and categorization can be a bit murky about the edges, especially in transitional periods as one common form is being replaced by another, but D&D calling a single handed blade a longsword has been a bit of a meme and lighthearted complaint among sword nerds for decades. OSR game 5 Torches Deep calls its single handed swords "arming swords" and its two handed swords "longswords".
 
Last edited:

Okay. How about "Rapier, Circa 1490" from the Met, instead?


View attachment 417483

A rapier from the 15th century, directly.

View attachment 417484

Oh, look. The Metropolitan Museum of Art outright states that they were developed in the late 15th century. Or 1400s.

GASP.

Here's an extant example from Germany in 1525.


Is it POSSIBLE that there were other rapiers in Germany -prior- to 1525 that we just don't have a physical example of?

Shock. Awe. Amazement.
Works for me. A 15th century rapier puts it solidly in my "Renaissance" general era of equipment in my gear book.
 


Works for me. A 15th century rapier puts it solidly in my "Renaissance" general era of equipment in my gear book.
Curious, because I have heard is said that "medieval" D&D is correctly represented by the Wars of the Roses period (1455-87).

Which is, technically, Renaissance.

Although no true Englishman would be seen dead with a silly European rapier for another couple of hundred years.
 

No, because there was no Germany. :p
Granted. At the time I think it was East Francia?

It's also worth noting that there's a fairly famous book made up of over a decade of research titled "The Rapier and the Smallsword: 1460-1820" by Alexander Vesey Bethune Norman (A.V.B. Norman) the former Master of the Armouries at the Tower of London. Released in 1979, it goes over the evolution of the Rapier, starting in 1460, to the Smallsword in the late 1700s to early 1800s as fashions changed and longer blades were deemed too cumbersome.

So. Y'know. The guy whose entire job was "Weapons and Armor History" in one hand, a 1490 rapier in the other... I think the argument's probably deader than a dragon killed with a +1 Rapier.
 


Okay. How about "Rapier, Circa 1490" from the Met, instead?


View attachment 417483

A rapier from the 15th century, directly.

View attachment 417484

Oh, look. The Metropolitan Museum of Art outright states that they were developed in the late 15th century. Or 1400s.

GASP.

Here's an extant example from Germany in 1525.


Is it POSSIBLE that there were other rapiers in Germany -prior- to 1525 that we just don't have a physical example of?

Shock. Awe. Amazement.
The blade shape and hilt puts that in the category of what is usually called a sidesword.

As noted several times previously the terms can be somewhat imprecise but there is in any case an underlying distinction in how the weapon was used which is the reason for the rapier/sidesword distinction.
 
Last edited:

Granted. At the time I think it was East Francia?

It's also worth noting that there's a fairly famous book made up of over a decade of research titled "The Rapier and the Smallsword: 1460-1820" by Alexander Vesey Bethune Norman (A.V.B. Norman) the former Master of the Armouries at the Tower of London. Released in 1979, it goes over the evolution of the Rapier, starting in 1460, to the Smallsword in the late 1700s to early 1800s as fashions changed and longer blades were deemed too cumbersome.

So. Y'know. The guy whose entire job was "Weapons and Armor History" in one hand, a 1490 rapier in the other... I think the argument's probably deader than a dragon killed with a +1 Rapier.
Honestly I don't even understand what point you are trying to aggressively prove here.

Are you saying that what is usually called a Rapier by Hema people existed in the 15th century? Or are you arguing that what is usually called a sidesword should just be conflated with 'rapier' under the one term.

I mean it's not like that there's a single moment when one thing finally becomes another - but the reason Hema makes these distinctions is because of how the weapons are used in practice. When the hilt becomes more complex the hand is more protected which means you can hold it further forward making the thrust quicker. This also possibly is what leads to favouring daggers in the offhand rather than bucklers to push the thrust aside rather than to deflect a swing.

There's the the Cluny sword in the late 15th century which has a longer narrower blade than the one you posted but it has a longsword hilt. Could you have used it in one hand like a rapier? Almost certainly - and perhaps the owner occasionally did, but the longsword hilt makes it same unlikely that it was primarily intended to be used that way.
 

Attachments

  • 1758292676902.png
    1758292676902.png
    445.8 KB · Views: 14
Last edited:

Honestly I don't even understand what point you are trying to aggressively prove here.

Are you saying that what is usually called a Rapier by Hema people existed in the 15th century? Or are you arguing that what is usually called a sidesword should just be conflated with 'rapier' under the one term.
I think she's pointing out that weapons labeled "rapiers" by experts existed in the 15th century. Whether those weapons are mislabeled in your opinion gets into more subjective territory.
 

Remove ads

Top