[Marileangorifurnimaluim]

Hey, thanks for joining us NinjaFerret. <P>I think you're absolutely right about the intent of the broadsword to kill by being powerful enough to cut through armor. Whether it be leather, maille, or plate armor. <P>It's a battlefield weapon, while the rapier I believe was exactly that, a duelist's and street-fighter's weapon. <P>A broadsword does no good in a 14th century city, those tiny little roads, where there's no room to swing. Stepping into a city, you put away the broadsword, and pull out the rapier. <P>Strength and precision go hand in hand. You need the strength to be precise enough to be deadly. But yep, these blades are a workout.<P>Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the foil actually was originally a training blade, deliberately dulled for practice. The phrase for dulling a blade was "foiling" the blade. It was used for exhibition style dueling later.<P>You know, I hadn't thought about the sabre at all. It <I>is</I> a calvary weapon. I need to do more research on this (care to join me? ). Looking at the earlier weapons of horsed fighters, such as the Knights Templar, they seemed to use broadswords. I think you have it there with the type of armor the attacker could expect to meet. The sabre, I'm willing to bet though I don't know, was a calvary weapon, during the Civil War and other periods where the calvary wouldn't be faced with chain and plate mail.<P>This is actually an important point, as Lostgariel is doing a rendering of Eowyn's stand against the Witch-King, and has asked what weapon she would have used. She says a Hand-and-a-Half sword. I've said probably longer. Now I'm not so sure.<P>Theatrical fencing is deliberately exaggerated of course to look good (you know that of course). What I have here is based a text describing the real thing. I think it would be boring to watch by comparision. Ponderous, slow and ve-ry repetitive.<p>[ May 21, 2002: Message edited by: Marileangorifurnimaluim ]