The only reason people contest the rapier as best sword (against armorless horseless plebians) is because the sword and...

It means a lot because they were completely different weapons.

This is a smallsword. Smallswords were significantly lighter weapon - many rapiers weigh as much as a medieval longsword (which was mostly a two-handed weapon). For that purpose, rapiers were often used together with a dagger or cloak for defence. The kind of parade-riposte style fencing you find in smallswords wasn't as common. Due to length and weight, rapiers were used quite different from smallswords. Smallsword fencing was much faster, much more up-close and therefore significantly deadlier and there are actually records from German university cities where they ended up banning smallswords because people would (accidentally) kill each other all the time by perforating their lungs.
A rapier will serve you much better as a weapon self-defence - although it is arguably not as comfortable to carry (which is probably the reason why they fell out of favour with people).
And when it comes to rapiers being civilian weapons exclusively, it depends on where we draw the line between the side-sword, since many 17th century side-swords were essentially rapiers, sometimes with sturdier, shorter blades - but even in historical sources you can find people refer to them as rapier.

Attached: serveimage.jpg (1280x879, 562K)

Learn to read sentences autismo.

I read your sentence and I corrected you where you were wrong.

Why do you start a sword thread when it is obvious that you know jackshit about swords?

For 1v1 sure but a rapier would be way worse than a saber againts multiple opponents while a saber or a long sword is just slightly less effective than rapiers on 1v1.
There is also the fact that cutting swords immediately incapacitate the opponent by cutting the muscles and shit but there are reports that people killing their opponent after getting run through by a spear or a rapier and then dying...

SEIBA!

Attached: idol saber.jpg (800x800, 284K)

That’s a foil or epee

>talks about Rapiers
>posts a small sword
>gets corrected
>refuses to admit error and calls the guy an autist instead
Kindly gtfo OP.

True.
That is also the reason military at the time often used side-swords, backswords or similar cut-and-thrust swords rather than rapiers.

>rapiers were civilian swords.
Wrong.
Military rapiers with slightly shorter, stouter blades existed, and people definitely did bring their civilian swords to war too, even if they were arguably not well suited for the job.

Attached: swedish_rapier_sword_17th_century_b.jpg (850x697, 107K)

Veeky Forums is fucking shit

Because in modern testing and hobby usage they're unbeatable

>they're unbeatable
no

With no armour or shield and two skilled opponents?

Yes

no. We have done enough sparring Rapier vs whatever to know they are not unbeatable. They offer an advantage against some weapon combos and a disadvantage against some others and thats that. Calling something 'unbeatable' is just stupid, much more so if you haven't clocked in a couple hundred hours of training with said weapon.

I was under the impression that the speed and reach coupled with the power generated by the length had an advantage over any other sword

No, fencing isn't a video game. Real rapiers are rather heavy weapons, wrist flicking style of fencing doesn't work, you really have to put your entire body in. A small sword for example would easily outmaneuver a rapier in both speed and point control.

Interesting stuff, don't mind the retards

>with the power generated
apart from the really good thrusts, rapiers do not generate that much force.