Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: TopCat <topcat@**.CENCOM.NET>
Subject: Rapiers and their usefulness
Date: Sun, 2 Jul 1995 00:50:57 -0500
Rapiers were all but unseen until gunpowder came into play in the
battlefield. With a decent rifle, you could punch holes in plate all day
long from a fair range. As guns became the battlefield weapon of choice,
rapiers (and their ilk) became more visible as sword-fighting (fencing)
became more of an art than anything else. Bring a rapier against me any day
if I'm wearing full armor. I doubt I'd even feel the touches of the blade.
Slip it into a crack in the armor and it means I have bad armor. For the
most part, if that blade gets betwene two plates, all I'd have to do is turn
my body to snap it as if it were a twig. Or, more likely, pull it from your
grasp. What also seems to be missing in the "slip the blade thru the
plates" argument is this: full armor is layered. Plates over chain over
padding over clothes. Now, maybe the blade could get between plates, but
then it'd have to contend with chainmail. Maybe, if the chains were
extremely large or broken, then the blade could get to the padding. If then
it was able to get thru the padding (after dealing with all of the other
armor) then it could get to clothes and flesh. The odds of that are slim
indeed.

-- TopCat
Message no. 2
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@***.NEU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Rapiers and their usefulness
Date: Sun, 2 Jul 1995 11:50:29 -0400
>>>>> "TopCat" == TopCat <topcat@**.CENCOM.NET> writes:

TopCat> Rapiers were all but unseen until gunpowder came into play in
TopCat> the battlefield.

The usage goes something like this:

Ranged weapons that are capable of punching holes in plate become more
and more common; armor cannot keep up. Thus a reversion to lighter armor
like chain under the assumption that it's easier to get out of the way
than to try and soak up the damage, which is true. Chain is vulnerable
to stilletos and other thin blades, thus a shift from the heavy
longsword to the rapier and other thin, flexable weapons which pretty
much ignore chain. Finally, armor entirely leaves general and ceremonial
usage, being relegated to strictly battlefield use.

Firearms of the period were very inaccurate; a mediocre crossbow had
better range characteristics than the best firearms. So, as firearms
became small enough to carry, armor became nearly useless: they rarely
hit the target even at close range, and when they did, they would punch
through the heaviest armors.

--
Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> \ Happy Fun Ball may stick to certain types
PGP Public Key: Ask for one today! \ of skin.
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox/ \
Message no. 3
From: P Ward <P.Ward@**.CF.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Rapiers and their usefulness
Date: Sun, 2 Jul 1995 16:59:20 BST
cOme to think of it, wasn;t the grandaddy of the rapier,
the Estoce designed to defeat the chain armour of the time?

I seem to remember something about it having a very thick
cross-section, maybe of triangular or square section at that...

RAT > Chain is vulnerable to stilletos and other thin blades,

Put like that, the gaps in plate are pretty vulnerable to
a good, thin sliver of steel... knock that knight off his horse,
and while he's down there, have a few grunts sit on his arms
and then wiggle your blade through his eye-slit, or in through
his arm pits.... etc..


Sorry to mention it, but those nice people at T$R have finally
recognised the armour-piercing capabilities of the XBow and
firarms, by giving allowing it to _ignore_ up to 5 (or 7) points
of armour at close range! About time too...

Phil (Renegade)
Message no. 4
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@***.NEU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Rapiers and their usefulness
Date: Sun, 2 Jul 1995 12:12:16 -0400
>>>>> "P" == P Ward <P.Ward@**.CF.AC.UK> writes:

RAT> Chain is vulnerable to stilletos and other thin blades,

P> Put like that, the gaps in plate are pretty vulnerable to a good,
P> thin sliver of steel...

There are rather significantly more holes in a suit of chain then a suit
of plate. An articulated suit of plate armor will have very few openings
other than around the eyes.

Anyway, the stilletto's job was twofold. First, penetrate the rings of
chain. Second, rip those rings apart.

--
Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> \ Happy Fun Ball may stick to certain types
PGP Public Key: Ask for one today! \ of skin.
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox/ \
Message no. 5
From: Robert Watkins <bob@**.NTU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Rapiers and their usefulness
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 1995 15:17:33 +0930
P Ward wrote:
> RAT > Chain is vulnerable to stilletos and other thin blades,
>
> Put like that, the gaps in plate are pretty vulnerable to
> a good, thin sliver of steel... knock that knight off his horse,
> and while he's down there, have a few grunts sit on his arms
> and then wiggle your blade through his eye-slit, or in through
> his arm pits.... etc..

'Cept that hitting a fairly small gap takes skill, or a sitting duck (which
is what the misericorde (sp?) was for...). Whereas if you shove a thin
blade at chainmail, it'll slide into the gaps...

--
Robert Watkins bob@**.ntu.edu.au
Real Programmers never work 9 to 5. If any real programmers
are around at 9 am, it's because they were up all night.
*** Finger me for my geek code ***
Message no. 6
From: Paul Jonathan Adam <Paul@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Rapiers and their usefulness
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 1995 23:38:56 GMT
> RAT > Chain is vulnerable to stilletos and other thin blades,
>
> Put like that, the gaps in plate are pretty vulnerable to
> a good, thin sliver of steel... knock that knight off his horse,
> and while he's down there, have a few grunts sit on his arms
> and then wiggle your blade through his eye-slit, or in through
> his arm pits.... etc..

The tricky part is knocking the knight down and keeping him there: plate
armour is a lot less unwieldy than most realise.

But I use this trick on anyone trying to wear mil-spec armour in my
game anyway... :-)

This is the reason the "misericorde" got its name, the "blade of
mercy": a
long narrow blade mainly intended to put a fallen armoured knignt out of
his misery.

--
When you have shot and killed a man, you have defined your attitude towards
him. You have offered a definite answer to a definite problem. For better
or for worse, you have acted decisively.
In fact, the next move is up to him.

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 7
From: Martin Steffens <BDI05626@***.RHIJ.NL>
Subject: Re: Rapiers and their usefulness
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 1995 11:12:38 +0100
> Datum verzending: Sun, 2 Jul 1995 00:50:57 -0500
> Stuur antw. aan: Discussion of the Fantasy game ShadowRun
<SHADOWRN@***.SURFnet.nl>
> Van: TopCat <topcat@**.CENCOM.NET>
> Onderwerp: Rapiers and their usefulness
> Aan: Multiple recipients of list SHADOWRN
<SHADOWRN@***.SURFnet.nl>
TopCat wrote:

> Rapiers were all but unseen until gunpowder came into play in the
> battlefield. With a decent rifle, you could punch holes in plate all day
> long from a fair range. As guns became the battlefield weapon of choice,
> rapiers (and their ilk) became more visible as sword-fighting (fencing)
> became more of an art than anything else.

There are more elements which made heavy plate armour obsolete:
- The way wars were fought. Because knights increasingly became
more of a target to be attacked by the common men, bows and crossbows
became more important on the battle field. A 15th- 16th century heavy
crossbow could fire perhaps three times a minute and there wasn't
much that could stop the quarrel, so riding around with your heavy
plate only made you slower.

-A lot of HtH weapons were especially designed to penetrate armour
(some worked even better against armoured targets than unarmoured
ones) so armour became less and less usefull.

-Gunpowder weapons were not very efficient at first only to
scare people and horses (it's a bit of a wonder why they continued to
use them being very inaccurate and slow).

The rest of your post was very much true. Rapiers were mostly useless
against plate armour.

Martin Steffens
GeekCode v2.1
GO/SS d--(++) H- s+:+ !g p? !au a?(26) w+ v++(?) C+(++) P? E? !N>+
K- W+ M- !V -po+ Y+ t+@ !5>++ jx R++>+++ G''' tv+ b+++$ (sort
of) D++ B? e+$ (hah) u-(++) h f+ r n--- y+
Message no. 8
From: Robert Watkins <bob@**.NTU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Rapiers and their usefulness
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 1995 20:49:16 +0930
Martin Steffens wrote:
> -Gunpowder weapons were not very efficient at first only to
> scare people and horses (it's a bit of a wonder why they continued to
> use them being very inaccurate and slow).

Look at the way they were used... volley fire. :) Accuracy isn't too much a
problem, if you can say it'll be about manheight most of the time at a
certain distance, provided you get lots of people firing.

Slow? Yeah, but they were also fairly lightweight, required not much in the
way of training, and shove a blade on the end of the musket, and you've got
a company of spearmen. Not a bad combo for light to medium infantry.

--
Robert Watkins bob@**.ntu.edu.au
Real Programmers never work 9 to 5. If any real programmers
are around at 9 am, it's because they were up all night.
*** Finger me for my geek code ***
Message no. 9
From: Martin Steffens <BDI05626@***.RHIJ.NL>
Subject: Re: Rapiers and their usefulness
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 1995 18:14:50 +0100
> Datum verzending: Tue, 4 Jul 1995 20:49:16 +0930
> Stuur antw. aan: Discussion of the Fantasy game ShadowRun
<SHADOWRN@***.SURFnet.nl>
> Van: Robert Watkins <bob@**.NTU.EDU.AU>
> Onderwerp: Re: Rapiers and their usefulness
> Aan: Multiple recipients of list SHADOWRN
<SHADOWRN@***.SURFnet.nl>
Robert Watkins wrote:

> Martin Steffens wrote:
> > -Gunpowder weapons were not very efficient at first only to
> > scare people and horses (it's a bit of a wonder why they continued to
> > use them being very inaccurate and slow).
>
> Look at the way they were used... volley fire. :) Accuracy isn't too much a
> problem, if you can say it'll be about manheight most of the time at a
> certain distance, provided you get lots of people firing.

Yes you are right, but put a similar sized unit of crossbow men in
the same place and they would be much more efficient, that was the
point I was trying to make :).

Greetings,

Martin Steffens
GeekCode v2.1
GO/SS d--(++) H- s+:+ !g p? !au a?(26) w+ v++(?) C+(++) P? E? !N>+
K- W+ M- !V -po+ Y+ t+@ !5>++ jx R++>+++ G''' tv+ b+++$ (sort
of) D++ B? e+$ (hah) u-(++) h f+ r n--- y+

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Rapiers and their usefulness, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!