On the durability of rapiers

[madd0ct0r]

the last one, the 17th centuray http://kultofathena.com/product.asp?item=DT5171

Double edge diamond cross section, blade appears to be a near linear taper, no narrowing at the hilt, hilt and blade length. Looks to be something easyish to setup.

[Thanas]

Heh. You're welcome to try, I bet you a hundred quid that you won't manage to do so with any realistic fighting technique. I have fought with a massive Del Tin (and got one on order) so I am quite confident they are unlikely to just break.

[madd0ct0r]

Thanas, I'm talking about setting up an FEA model. Fucks sake, why are sword people so fricking defensive they assume I'm in the rapier sucks crowd. Every post is interpreted as an attack.

I've been a fricking steel worker, I know this material. I know that people claiming they'd snap have either been using carbon heavy knitting needles or fap-manga. I'm just curious and looking to test my FEA skills, that's all

[LaCroix]

Thanas, I'm talking about setting up an FEA model. Fucks sake, why are sword people so fricking defensive they assume I'm in the rapier sucks crowd. Every post is interpreted as an attack.

I've been a fricking steel worker, I know this material. I know that people claiming they'd snap have either been using carbon heavy knitting needles or fap-manga. I'm just curious and looking to test my FEA skills, that's all

I told you, your first comment was generally understood that way.

Point of interest: Can you model it with one end floating free, while the other hand is held by something semi-floating with human strenght, that will also give once pressure builds up, or to the shock of impact? (You know, like a hand holding it?)

Because everything else will be a very flawed model that will not test the actual behavior of the blade. Of course it will break much easier (e.g. 'less force nescessary') than a 'normal' sword if I just assume it will be held tightly at both ends and bent. But that's not how reality works with swords. These flawed models are why the notion that the rapiers would break easily came to be.

edit: You'd need model it so that you could measure how much of an impact you would need to bend it beyond the breaking point before the human hand would act as a (sufficient) shock absorber. Also, since there is only a limited area where an impact can transfer force to the blade, and the hand can move the sword out of that zone, it's a shock absorber with infinite length. (Unlike a car suspension which has a maximum capacity once the spring is fully compressed, your arm will simply swing away or twist at the wrist until the other blade doesn't touch your blade, anymore). Modeling that kind of realistic behavior should be quite a task. I'd certainly be interested int the results for that.

[madd0ct0r]

In 20 min before work I ran a short test, uniform thickness, no fussing with cross section yet. My experience so far confirms your point re model. I'm dripping technical terms here, so if there's owt you want clarified please ask rather then haul off.

I restrained the model about 2/3 of the way up the handle, and applied a load roughly were I figured striking would be.
Ignore the actual numbers, they're pretty meaningless for now, but the stress distribution will do for a first order estimate.
the numbers are the Von Mises stress, a function of stress in all axis combined. It's a fairly typical measure of yield points in an elastic-plastic material like steel. For my argument, it's important since it tracks areas at higher risk of fatigue cracking.
I'm not talking about a sowrd shearing through a new rapier - i'm talking about the loads that a rapier will endure again and again and where they are likely to cause fatigue cracking.

(There's a complication, since getting twatted with a heavy sowrd is likely to cause localised case hardening, but I'll test that after the cross section refinement)

Again - basic 20min test run. Ignore the value of the numbers, just the relative values.



close up on handle




That's pretty unrealistic - more akin to the blade being clamped in a vice then a hand. modelling the restraint will definitely be the hard part.

[LaCroix]

Yes, localized case hardening, along with the visible notching of the blade at excactly the same location is the main sword killer. The more "hardened notches" a blade has, the more potential fracture hotspots there are. Usually, a sword would be replaced once it had too much use under it's figurative belt - there is only so much you can do to grind these notches out until the blade is destroyed for all practical purposes.

Tips for striking impact position.
A typical sword would have alternating impacts on the tipmost third (when you stike at the enemy), and on the hiltmost third (the forte, which you would try to parry with).
Now, a rapier would certainly not be used to chop, but pierce, but you'd recieve a lot of blows to the tip when (a saber or broadsword using) enemy would try to displace your blade by force. So you could assume the same distribution of strikes.
(A rapier used against rapiers, though, would almost never experience a strong percussive blow, apart from a occasional forcible nugde to the side for displacement, as both would thrust instead of cut. So for standard duel situations, this simulation would be moot, anyway.)

I don't know if the software can do this, but you might be able to model it if you build it as 3 arms, two hinges : first arm is firmly restrained, with a hinge and a spring under tension holding the second arm in place, while the third arm is the to be tested blade, and can swing almost unrestrained (the human wrist doesn't provide much force in terms of stabilisation). That would be the accurate physical representation. Can you simulate fast impact or only static load?

Another idea - can you simulate a restraint that can break at a force equal to human strenght, thus having that part fail at the point a human arm would be batted away? Thus, the force applied to the blade would be similar.

[Elheru Aran]

You can't make a wider 'restraint'?

Note that the tang actually narrows where the blade meets the guard to pass through the guard and grip before being secured by peening over a pommel. Not at the top of the 'cup', but where it meets the actual cross. See here:



You can see there that the blade also changes to a rectangular cross-section rather than diamond (this is called a 'ricasso'), if that affects anything. The guard may also have a degree (if very minimal) of reinforcement to the blade by stiffening that ricasso via the 'arms' inside the cup. It's probably minimal enough that it can be discounted, though.

[Thanas]

Tips for striking impact position.
A typical sword would have alternating impacts on the tipmost third (when you stike at the enemy), and on the hiltmost third (the forte, which you would try to parry with).
Now, a rapier would certainly not be used to chop, but pierce, but you'd recieve a lot of blows to the tip when (a saber or broadsword using) enemy would try to displace your blade by force. So you could assume the same distribution of strikes.
(A rapier used against rapiers, though, would almost never experience a strong percussive blow, apart from a occasional forcible nugde to the side for displacement, as both would thrust instead of cut. So for standard duel situations, this simulation would be moot, anyway.)

That is not true, even in rapier vs rapier the greatest fencing masters of our age can be forced to use a blow to dislodge the enemy blade after just barely ducking it. See this vid and you will find several examples of it, especially where less-skilled fighters would be forced to meet the blow with their own blade. The blow is somewhat underestimated in rapier combat - there is a time and place for it and it isn't really never discounted in the old manuals.

[LaCroix]

Tips for striking impact position.
A typical sword would have alternating impacts on the tipmost third (when you stike at the enemy), and on the hiltmost third (the forte, which you would try to parry with).
Now, a rapier would certainly not be used to chop, but pierce, but you'd recieve a lot of blows to the tip when (a saber or broadsword using) enemy would try to displace your blade by force. So you could assume the same distribution of strikes.
(A rapier used against rapiers, though, would almost never experience a strong percussive blow, apart from a occasional forcible nugde to the side for displacement, as both would thrust instead of cut. So for standard duel situations, this simulation would be moot, anyway.)

That is not true, even in rapier vs rapier the greatest fencing masters of our age can be forced to use a blow to dislodge the enemy blade after just barely ducking it. See this vid and you will find several examples of it, especially where less-skilled fighters would be forced to meet the blow with their own blade. The blow is somewhat underestimated in rapier combat - there is a time and place for it and it isn't really never discounted in the old manuals.

Apologies - I wasn't aware that the chop was still that prominent in some styles. I assumed that a regular battuta would be the most prominent blow by far, with chops only a rare occasion. A quick check showed that Spanish styles do use the cut quite prominently, while Italian styles do shun it to various degrees. I am only (mildly) familiar with Italian rapier styles.

Come to think of it, Hollywood probably uses exaggerated Spanish styles (using cuts, circling instead of linear footwork) in their movies, which led me to disregard the cut in fencing as hollywoodesque.

[Thanas]

The Italians do somewhat discount the blow, but use it as ultima ratio or if the opportunity just presents itself. BTW, if there would be no need for cutting, the rapier would be much thinner than it was in History. My guess is that we would see something like the really elongated Kavalierdegen blades probably, or something like the blades of the 19th century much earlier if there would be no need for cutting or meeting blade with blade.

(though another reason would be the usage of broadswords and longswords/sideswords which necessitated a thicker blade as well, at least up to the 17th century).

EDIT:

Come to think of it, Hollywood probably uses exaggerated Spanish styles (using cuts, circling instead of linear footwork) in their movies, which led me to disregard the cut in fencing as hollywoodesque.

Maybe, I don't know much about the evolution of Hollywood styles. But it would make sense seeing as how the Spanish style came later than the Italian one and was more prominent before the sanitized version of duelling took over.

[madd0ct0r]

You can't make a wider 'restraint'?

Note that the tang actually narrows where the blade meets the guard to pass through the guard and grip before being secured by peening over a pommel. Not at the top of the 'cup', but where it meets the actual cross. See here:

[-clip - img]http://kultofathena.com/images%5CDT5171_5_l.jpg[/img]

You can see there that the blade also changes to a rectangular cross-section rather than diamond (this is called a 'ricasso'), if that affects anything. The guard may also have a degree (if very minimal) of reinforcement to the blade by stiffening that ricasso via the 'arms' inside the cup. It's probably minimal enough that it can be discounted, though.

I agree the arms can be discounted - they stiffen the cup, but compared to the blade they're drinking straws.

In this particualr case, does the tang actually narrow? I choose this one from the four since the blade is narrow enough that just changing to rectangular section, padding and grip is enough. Unlike a 50mm wide blade, there's no need for this to shrink, so why would the smith add that weak point?

[Elheru Aran]

I don't know the construction of that particular rapier, but it's less of a weak point than you think because the wood (or whatever material, but wood is traditional) grip is compressed between the pommel and the guard when the sword is assembled, which turns the whole hilt into a fairly solid unit.

And it's made that way because otherwise you couldn't fit the pommel on. You need a narrow tang to slide it down upon. Let me see if I can find a picture...



That's a modern reproduction of the P1908 British saber, but apart from using a nut to hold it together, that's essentially it.

[Elheru Aran]

Another picture that may help:



Ignore the one on the left (it's an example of what *not* to do), the one on the right is the one you want. You see that the wood of the grip is not particularly thick, the tang is still fairly robust. The shoulders of the blade are recessed into the guard, which should be a fairly good fit, so the guard with the grip behind it, and the pommel compressing everything together, are a pretty robust unit all told.

Here's another one:
Linking due to size

You can see that with this one, not only is the hilt assembly compressed together, the ends of the grip fits into recesses in the guard and pommel. Gives everything a little further reinforcement.

Remember also that bare wood grips are simply not used unless they're riveted slabs such as on a large messer. Knives take different stresses and are shorter anyway, so they can use bare wood without much concern. It's far more common for grips to be wrapped in leather, cloth, or wire, which has the result of reinforcing the wood grip.

So... yeah, swords have been used for a few thousand years or so. People have had a pretty good while to optimize the traditional designs of their areas.

[madd0ct0r]

Heh, I can see where they welded the tang onto the modern repro.

Is that other one you linked original? cos scaling off the grip points, that looks like a 25mm blade an 9mm tang. That's a huge stress concentration at that corner

I'll narrow the Handle in to say a 15mm tang, full thickness, on the 22.9mm blade specified. I'm not fussed about the far end, big or small it won't be carry any forces in this setup.

[Elheru Aran]

I dunno about it being original, don't think so though. *Blade* could be, it looks older, but I doubt it unless that's a restore job there.

A welded tang is fine provided that it's done well; that's the trick there. I think the only part welded on is the threaded bit at the very end of the repro tang. It's not a huge deal with a P1908 saber as they're largely thrusting weapons, if it was used more for cutting that would be more questionable. But again, as long as it's well done, it should be fine. A spotty, bubbly, or slaggy weld, no.

15mm sounds about right; could even go a little wider.

[madd0ct0r]

I think I've made a decision on the handle restraint it will be modelled as a block of steel, with rounded off corners projecting out of the blade ~1m long, with a node at the end of that fixed.

This might still mean the moments generated are too high - it basically means someone blocking a heavy sword with a rapier without following the swing. The 1m length means that the weird local effects of the infinite stiffness of the restraint can even out more realistically. It's structural bridge software, I'm not going to put too much effort into stuff it can't do. Till tomorrow.

[LaCroix]

Keep in mind that the first picture above show an arming sword tang, where the blade is easily twice as wide as a rapier.
The second, linked one is a smallsword, which has a specialized blade folded along its length, creating a V cross section, to make the blade stiffer. Light, short and very quick. Basically an evolutionary step between the rapier and the épée.

For a rapier blade (at least the ones I had inspected), the shoulders are barely existing, like 2-3 mm setback each side (just enough to provide stability for the precisely matched basket pressed into it with the scewing pommel), for a 20-25mm blade width at that point, and the tang was barely tapered. 15 would already be on the slim side, 17-18 mm would be more realistic.

Also, the blade thickness and general cross section area increases a lot when coming closer to the hilt, the last 10-20cm are sometimes actually a rectangular block with slightly rounded corners, ~5mm thick.

[LaCroix]

The Italians do somewhat discount the blow, but use it as ultima ratio or if the opportunity just presents itself. BTW, if there would be no need for cutting, the rapier would be much thinner than it was in History. My guess is that we would see something like the really elongated Kavalierdegen blades probably, or something like the blades of the 19th century much earlier if there would be no need for cutting or meeting blade with blade.

(though another reason would be the usage of broadswords and longswords/sideswords which necessitated a thicker blade as well, at least up to the 17th century).

There is a very interesting transitionary type, the colichemarde, which is present in late rapiers and early smallswords, which only retains a proper blade for the forte:



It does support the notion that blade thickness was only kept because it was still necessary to be able to parry a chop.

Edit: I just realized the one linked by E.A. is also a colichemarde...

[Jub]

There is a very interesting transitionary type, the colichemarde, which is present in late rapiers and early smallswords, which only retains a proper blade for the forte:



It does support the notion that blade thickness was only kept because it was still necessary to be able to parry a chop.

Edit: I just realized the one linked by E.A. is also a colichemarde...

I'm wondering if that could have been due to colichemarde's being easier to manufacture with a thicker forte versus a proper smallsword or rapier?

[LaCroix]

Actually, making that kind of blade is harder. The transition makes trouble while forging the blade, makes proper tempering a LOT harder, makes the ginding/shaping/honing harder. Even making a proper sheath is more of a hassle for it. All over the work process, things need more attentinon and effort. You wouldn't do this if there wasn't a good reason for it.

That blade shape appeared in the "dawn" of the rapier, and in early smallswords. Later smallswords don't use that design, and then quickly evolve into the épée. It was a pure transitional shape in a time where you still had to reasonably expect having to parry a strong blow by a heavy blade. A thinner blade would be nicked too deeply by a bad parry to keep the owner's confidence to hold up to the next blow, as well.

To sum up the history of that design, briefly (and very, very roughly) - Once rapiers became standard, even military sabers became lighter and more "duelly-stabby" than before to keep up with the quick stabby rapier blade. So, the full blade of a rapier slowly became obsolete. At this time, people tried to improve the rapier, making it even quicker. Some tried to make the whole sword shorter and lighter - which resuted in the lightning-fast smallsword, while others came up with the idea just making the blade thinner. Sadly, since heavy war sabers were still a thing, at some point people became uncomfortable with the thin blade, and thus, the idea was born to keep the parry section heavy. Smallswords soon also used that design, making them even quicker. Then, due to people being used lighter swords, military sabres became even lighter, too, and the strong forte became unnecessary. The rapier got supplanted by the much quicker and handy smallsword, and the miltary followed the fashion again and adopted duelling/light sabers and smallswords fully, and shortly after, swords fell out of fashion, completely, due to guns and bayonets and stuff.

Many dress uniforms still include a smallsword or light saber, since it is fancy and was the last sword type in use.

[Jub]

Actually, making that kind of blade is harder. The transition makes trouble while forging the blade, makes proper tempering a LOT harder, makes the ginding/shaping/honing harder. Even making a proper sheath is more of a hassle for it. All over the work process, things need more attentinon and effort. You wouldn't do this if there wasn't a good reason for it.

That blade shape appeared in the "dawn" of the rapier, and in early smallswords. Later smallswords don't use that design, and then quickly evolve into the épée. It was a pure transitional shape in a time where you still had to reasonably expect having to parry a strong blow by a heavy blade. A thinner blade would be nicked too deeply by a bad parry to keep the owner's confidence to hold up to the next blow, as well.

To sum up the history of that design, briefly (and very, very roughly) - Once rapiers became standard, even military sabers became lighter and more "duelly-stabby" than before to keep up with the quick stabby rapier blade. So, the full blade of a rapier slowly became obsolete. At this time, people tried to improve the rapier, making it even quicker. Some tried to make the whole sword shorter and lighter - which resuted in the lightning-fast smallsword, while others came up with the idea just making the blade thinner. Sadly, since heavy war sabers were still a thing, at some point people became uncomfortable with the thin blade, and thus, the idea was born to keep the parry section heavy. Smallswords soon also used that design, making them even quicker. Then, due to people being used lighter swords, military sabres became even lighter, too, and the strong forte became unnecessary. The rapier got supplanted by the much quicker and handy smallsword, and the miltary followed the fashion again and adopted duelling/light sabers and smallswords fully, and shortly after, swords fell out of fashion, completely, due to guns and bayonets and stuff.

Many dress uniforms still include a smallsword or light saber, since it is fancy and was the last sword type in use.

Thanks for the info. I would have figured that keeping the blade thicker at the base and drawing it out to a thinner tip would have been how that sword evolved. Though now that I've read the above it makes sense that you'd want a thicker section to parry with and that tempering would be a pain with so drastic a change in blade width over such a short distance.

[Thanas]

Actually, making that kind of blade is harder. The transition makes trouble while forging the blade, makes proper tempering a LOT harder, makes the ginding/shaping/honing harder. Even making a proper sheath is more of a hassle for it. All over the work process, things need more attentinon and effort. You wouldn't do this if there wasn't a good reason for it.

That blade shape appeared in the "dawn" of the rapier, and in early smallswords. Later smallswords don't use that design, and then quickly evolve into the épée. It was a pure transitional shape in a time where you still had to reasonably expect having to parry a strong blow by a heavy blade. A thinner blade would be nicked too deeply by a bad parry to keep the owner's confidence to hold up to the next blow, as well.

To sum up the history of that design, briefly (and very, very roughly) - Once rapiers became standard, even military sabers became lighter and more "duelly-stabby" than before to keep up with the quick stabby rapier blade. So, the full blade of a rapier slowly became obsolete. At this time, people tried to improve the rapier, making it even quicker. Some tried to make the whole sword shorter and lighter - which resuted in the lightning-fast smallsword, while others came up with the idea just making the blade thinner. Sadly, since heavy war sabers were still a thing, at some point people became uncomfortable with the thin blade, and thus, the idea was born to keep the parry section heavy. Smallswords soon also used that design, making them even quicker. Then, due to people being used lighter swords, military sabres became even lighter, too, and the strong forte became unnecessary. The rapier got supplanted by the much quicker and handy smallsword, and the miltary followed the fashion again and adopted duelling/light sabers and smallswords fully, and shortly after, swords fell out of fashion, completely, due to guns and bayonets and stuff.

Many dress uniforms still include a smallsword or light saber, since it is fancy and was the last sword type in use.

I am not so sure I would agree with that analysis. To me, the reason for the disappearance of the rapier is not that attempts were made to make it quicker or better. There is no better duelling weapon there is IMO.

The main reason was that the culture of duelling changed. Now, it was not the goal to kill the enemy or win in a street fight after being ambushed by the hired assassins of local nobles. Now, the idea was to just draw blood, to be able to dance (pretty hard with a rapier at your side), to not kill the enemy. Thus rapiers were exchanged in favor of the far less deadly, far less effective and way more safe (and much more cheaper) smallsword.

The rapier was obsolete in military warfare due to other matters - the last ones to really use it were the Caroleans. With the advent of the bayonet, it was just not worth it to issue rapiers to the ordinary soldiers. It persisted as officer weapon for a pretty long time though after that. (But military rapiers were often different from real rapiers anyway. For example, the one of the "war rapiers" carried by Gustavus Adolphus was more of a curious mix between a basket sword and a rapier.)

[Elheru Aran]

There are a few HEMA types out there who might disagree with your assessment of the rapier as the best duelling weapon ever, and politely invite you to try your rapier against their poleaxe/longsword/sword and buckler etc... (not trying to start a discussion although if you want to share your opinion as to why, feel free)

I would question how much the proper rapier was actually used in a military context, though-- by 'proper rapier' I mean a long weapon specifically balanced and intended for a thrust-centric style. My understanding of the matter is that the broadsword, backsword, early sabres, and reiterschwert (which I assume is essentially the same as what you call a 'war rapier') were far more common as their use was a little more flexible. Military swords slowly developed along two lines after the 17th century or so-- curved sabres and straight spadroons.

[Thanas]

There are a few HEMA types out there who might disagree with your assessment of the rapier as the best duelling weapon ever, and politely invite you to try your rapier against their poleaxe/longsword/sword and buckler etc... (not trying to start a discussion although if you want to share your opinion as to why, feel free)

I don't really think there is much debate about this. Most poeple in HEMA seem think that the rapier (or rapier/buckler, rapier/cloak, rapier/dagger) is the best duelling weapon ever and even sidesword/sabre people will admit that IMO.

The best argument is one of functionality and mathematics. The latter support the theoretical superiority of rapier thrusts over a cutting/slashing weapons. The other is simply the fact that the rapier replaced all previous duelling melee weapons and that there was no political impetus behind that change (unlike in the change rapier --> sidesword.) Of course, in the end, individual skill matters more, but on average, the rapier simply won out.