Without Gunslingers, Where Did We Get Rapiers?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 104 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

We all have our definite opinions about the gunslinger. Some of us love it, some of us hate it, and others don't give a toss either way. If it doesn't fit with your world, that is perfectly fine. If you don't want to allow it into your game, well it's your game and it's your call.

There is something else we haven't been considering though; without guns, how did rapiers become so common?

Everyone's favorite 18-20 X2 piercing weapon is a direct result of the widespread use of artillery and matchlock weapons on the field of battle. It was, in a very real way, the progeny of guns. So what do you do if "keeping things fantasy" is truly the goal? Do you disallow weapons that were created because guns changed up the game, or do you come up with alternative reasons why they would be created in the absence of black powder? Or, lastly, do you shrug and ignore it because it's too much work and hey this is fantasy and it can be whatever we say it is?


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Eh, while I'll acknowledge that their specific form was somewhat influenced by the end of armor as a major component of the battlefield, rapiers came into trend due to other piercing weapons that only gained popularity BECAUSE of armor.

Longswords were designed not only to cut, but in order to pierce into the gaps of the opponent's armor. As the middle ages progressed, you started to see the emergence of estocs, a for runner of the rapier which mostly abandoned the cutting edge in order to get a finer point that could more easily enter the gaps. And we cannot forget the various types of daggers such as rondels, stilettos, and knightly daggers, which were used to finish off wounded opponents or stab into places such as the eye holes when in close quarters. And while your article goes on about how the rapier was unique because it was carried by the common man, those daggers I mentioned in fact also saw a lot of use among the lower classes, which showed that there was already a trend towards using piercing weapons even before the end of armor (and honestly- armored combat should have little influence on civilian trends, since most civilians were unarmored anyway, and rarely faced armored foes, even during the height of the middle ages)

There is also the fact that rapiers gained popularity due to a backlash against swashbuckler. And when I say swashbucklers, I mean swordsmen that used swords and bucklers. It was an extremely popular style, and it gained a sports like role due to the fact that swords could have an unsharpened edge.

Unfortunately, as we have seen with soccer hooligans, you can imagine how violent they can become...and they are also trained in a sport specifically designed to hurt (and possibly kill) others, and they were well equipped and trained for violence. So encouraging such fools to get into rapier fencing...well... helped to 'cull the herd' since it is harder to non-lethally stab someone.

The lethal nature of rapier dueling also made it a much more serious affair, and as such the testosterone filled youth gravitated away from weapon based sports, and more towards things like boxing and maybe early forms of rugby and such.

Overall, guns did have an effect on making rapiers popular, but they were not the only influence.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

This is a really interesting question. I suppose you could argue that magic took the place of guns in the "making heavy armor almost useless" progression.

(Or we can blame Hollywood for using rapier & saber fencing techniques in all the "medieval" pieces or sword and sorcery movies, so the rest of us don't know the history anymore?)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Blaming Hollywood is as easy as it is popular.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's an interesting question, and while not everyone wants to poke and prod at it I find that there is a lot of depth to be got from it.

For instance, were rapiers mass-produced as an urban self-defense weapon that was relatively cheap that could be used with commonly available training? Is it instead, as mentioned, the product of a lethal dueling culture that eschews armor over raw skill and deadliness? Are they a weapon preferred by races like elves whose speed and lithe nature makes them more deadly with a precision weapon? Did they become popular on ships due to weight and effectiveness, thus making them a favorite of pirates and sea ports whose popularity spread inward?

It's a thought experiment. For some DMs it's just extra work they don't want to mess with and so they get snippy and tell you it doesn't matter. For some it's interesting to toss in a rock and see how the ripples can change a setting in subtle ways.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:
Blaming Hollywood is as easy as it is popular.

So is rhetorically asking about anachronisms in RPGs.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Andostre wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Blaming Hollywood is as easy as it is popular.
So is rhetorically asking about anachronisms in RPGs.

which is in a way what you do when you ban guns,


Lord Foul II wrote:
Andostre wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Blaming Hollywood is as easy as it is popular.
So is rhetorically asking about anachronisms in RPGs.
which is in a way what you do when you ban guns,

And it comes full circle.

My question then is why shouldn't we question RPGs? Why should you always accept everything at face value instead of pursuing what might lead to an interesting concept?

If a DM bans certain spells or types of magic in a game, you ask why. Maybe you want a justification, or maybe it's because you want to understand how his world is different from the rules you're used to. If resurrection magic is now impossible it makes every death permanent, but how else would it change the world? Would the clergy be seen as less powerful, or the gods as uncaring? Is it a conspiracy because resurrection sometimes goes wrong, leading to horrible monsters?

Sometimes things are the way they are for simplicity's sake and to make the details easy to manage. But sometimes if you dig and poke you can find something that's a lot more satisfying.


What sources did you use for your information?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Neal Litherland wrote:
...Or, lastly, do you shrug and ignore it because it's too much work and hey this is fantasy and it can be whatever we say it is?

Mostly this, though not because it is too much work. Any "work" you do looking at RL stuff only informs any decisions you make. But trying to get all logical on any choices, outside the logical consistency of your fantasy world is just…too much for me.

Otherwise you probably wouldn't have bronze age weapons AND plate armor AND cutlasses AND flintlox AND….dragons.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

It's an interesting conjecture but to quote the article:

"While knights on heavy horses had been one of the most dangerous forces on the medieval battlefield they were rendered significantly less effective by cannons and the widespread use of matchlock and wheel lock firearms."

And the problem with this is that it's dead wrong.

In the English Civil War pikes and cavalry were the main force, with muskets - at that period matchlocks - and canons providing supporting fire along with crossbows and longbows (which were more effective, but required greater training); wheel-locks and flintlocks had not yet arrived, and matchlocks had not even replaced crossbows and longbows. Yet the main sword was undeniably a form of rapier: a long, slender, sharp sword used to thrust rather than cut. Firearms had not yet really come "in" but the rapier was already here.

Armour had been reduced in complexity and coverage not because it was ineffective against muskets (plate was proof against early muskets for the most part) but to make it cheaper, covering just the vitals to maximise effectiveness but reduce cost. If you look at the standard armour of the English Civil War, it's easily adapted from one soldier to another, while full plate armour would have to be painstakingly resized if the owner put on a few pounds, let alone be fitted from one man to a different one. Off-the-peg armour had trumped tailor-made armour, based on price. You could turn out a lot of generic armour and train up a lot of men for the price of arming and training just one knight, and they were easier to maintain too.

Similarly, the reason the musket supplanted the longbow and crossbow had nothing to do with firepower and everything to do with ease of use. You could train an archer in five years, a crossbowman in a week, and a musketeer in a day. King Henry V famously annihilated a French army of knights with longbowmen at Agincourt, guns themselves were not a factor in knights being made redundant on the battlefield due to ranged firepower.

The rapier itself was the result of a steady progression of swords in Western Europe from generic broadswords to more specialised blades as economies grew. The "Viking" broadsword gave way to the arming sword and the falchion, and later the early rapier. Of these the rapier was not just deadly against both flesh and armour, but lightweight so it used less metal. Weight of equipment was, as ever, a vital consideration for a marching soldier. It wasn't the only sword around, it was just an optimal choice.


TarkXT wrote:
What sources did you use for your information?

The sources are listed in the bibliography at the end of the article.

Liberty's Edge

I don't particularly worry about it, but I'm pretty sure I could come up with a reason why rapiers were introduced into a fantasy world without guns. I'm not sure if they have an official Golarion answer, but if they did it could revolve around nobles wanting a gentlemen sword that is used for sport and isn't cumbersome. The sword does present some advantages in the game mechanics that other swords do not. It is a 18-20 crit range weapon that can be used with weapon finesse. Not many weapons have all that so people can even chalk it up to superior sword crafting.

Silver Crusade

Lord Foul II wrote:
Andostre wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Blaming Hollywood is as easy as it is popular.
So is rhetorically asking about anachronisms in RPGs.
which is in a way what you do when you ban guns,

Blaming Hollywood may be easy-- but it's also not necessarily wrong (Hollywood has in fact been largely responsible for popularly propagating many historical errors over the years).

Rhetorically asking about anachronisms in RPGs can lead to many interesting discussions. And, while fantasy can be whatever we want it to be (thus, maybe it's hard to really have an "anachronism" in a truly fantasy world); if you're running a historical RPG, then the discussion of anachronisms is entirely relevant-- though maybe more work than you want to put in on your hobby.

And, banning guns... isn't anachronistic at all if your campaign is based in Imperial Rome or Norse Societies and Viking Voyages circa 800 CE. Just might be a little anachronistic to ban all reference to gunpowder if you're running a Crusader campaign, c 1200 CE, but still no guns (in the 3 historical campaigns just mentioned there also would not be any rapiers to speak of)... Now, if you're trying to do a 1600s-ish swashbuckling campaign, but still ban guns?

Silver Crusade

Dabbler wrote:

It's an interesting conjecture but to quote the article:

"While knights on heavy horses had been one of the most dangerous forces on the medieval battlefield they were rendered significantly less effective by cannons and the widespread use of matchlock and wheel lock firearms."

And the problem with this is that it's dead wrong.

In the English Civil War pikes and cavalry were the main force, with muskets - at that period matchlocks - and canons providing supporting fire along with crossbows and longbows (which were more effective, but required greater training); wheel-locks and flintlocks had not yet arrived, and matchlocks had not even replaced crossbows and longbows. Yet the main sword was undeniably a form of rapier: a long, slender, sharp sword used to thrust rather than cut. Firearms had not yet really come "in" but the rapier was already here.

I think you may be mixing up historical periods here... For the English Civil Wars that were commonly labelled "The Wars of the Roses" (approx 1450-1471; plus Bosworth Field in 1485), your description seems quite accurate to me. For the set of conflicts commonly described as the English Civil Wars (1645-1649, also coinciding with the tail-end of the 30 Years' War in Continental Europe), which is the set of Civil Wars that I believe Mr Litherland refers to, no so much.

As far as I recall from the history books and lessons and such, by that point in time (1649) the flintlock already existed and the gun was having a major effect on directly reducing the desirability of heavy armor on the battlefield (as opposed to the just the question of how much it cost). Meanwhile, the rapier was not in vogue in a recognizable form in 1485. Also, I do recall reading about the longbow still being in use and still being effective on the battlefield in several actions during the Wars of the Roses, but I can't remember any battle of the later English Civil Wars (the 17th century ones) where the longbow or crossbow played any real part. And, the rapier (as we know and refer to it today), started to emerge in the mid-1500s, not in the 1450s. So-- I don't think Mr Litherland is "dead wrong" as you say; and if he is, he has lots of company on the shelves of the historical sections in your local libraries.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

There are some rather glaring logical inconsistencies presented even just within the article.

We have the concept that armor is being used less because guns. Okay. We'll assume that's valid (though within the timeline noted of "rapiers started appearing in the 1400s", I don't buy it). I would expect to see rapiers on the battlefield then, yes? If the driving force behind their existence is "we don't need to get through armor anymore, so rapiers work now", then I would certainly presume that lots of soldiers started carrying rapiers.

... Oh. It was used by civilians, this article tells me. Civilians. Who are not, as a matter of course, dealing with people wearing armor. That sort of throws the whole "rapiers happened because armor stopped happening" out the window, doesn't it?

Rather, that would imply to me that rapiers happened for an entirely different reason. To quote the article: "Since there was more wealth more readily available during the Renaissance than there was during the Middle Ages (and since rapiers were less expensive than the bigger, heavier swords of the early period) more people could afford to carry swords."

So:

-rapiers are lighter than older swords, thus both cheaper and easier to carry, both of which are beneficial to civilian settings.
-rapiers' primary presumed disadvantage, dealing with armor, did not exist in civilian settings.
-rapiers are predominantly civilian weapons.
-civilians had more money to throw around.

You're going to have to explain again how rapiers came about because guns and not because money.


Remains of hand held guns from the Wars of the Roses.... Link to BBC article.


Finn Kveldulfr wrote:

I think you may be mixing up historical periods here... For the English Civil Wars that were commonly labelled "The Wars of the Roses" (approx 1450-1471; plus Bosworth Field in 1485), your description seems quite accurate to me. For the set of conflicts commonly described as the English Civil Wars (1645-1649, also coinciding with the tail-end of the 30 Years' War in Continental Europe), which is the set of Civil Wars that I believe Mr Litherland refers to, no so much.

As far as I recall from the history books and lessons and such, by that point in time (1649) the flintlock already existed and the gun was having a major effect on directly reducing the desirability of heavy armor on the battlefield (as opposed to the just the question of how much it cost). Meanwhile, the rapier was not in vogue in a recognizable form in 1485. Also, I do recall reading about the longbow still being in use and still being effective on the battlefield in several actions during the Wars of the Roses, but I can't remember any battle of the later English Civil Wars (the 17th century ones) where the longbow or crossbow played any real part. And,...

During the Wars of the Roses the longbow was still by far and away the missile weapon of choice. Bombards - heavy canon - were used to reduce fortifications, but rarely against actual troops in the field and while hand-guns existed, these were expensive and rare. Accounts of the Battle of Bosworth don't mention guns, they mention archers.

Skipping ahead to the English Civil War, the flintlock may have existed in 1649, but that does not mean it was in common use - flintlocks and wheel-locks used complex mechanisms, after all, while matchlocks didn't, making them tools of the wealthy and not the masses. The English Civil War musketeers used smooth bore matchlocks for the most part because these were cheaper to produce. At least, that's what they have in the museums hereabouts alongside the rapiers...however, heavy plate armour has by this time already gone the way of the dodo on the battlefield.

If you check out this artwork, the musketeers here are holding matchlocks, not flintlocks.

This picture shows the typical cavalry armour of the period - note it's not heavy plate armour, that's already gone. Instead a breastplate (that was tested proof against musket balls by shooting at it from point blank range) is the main bulk of the armour. Swords are clearly rapiers in style if not name.

The big problem with history is that when several technologies and social factors progress together, we try and associate one particular change to one particular innovation. It generally doesn't work like that. Certainly firearms progressed in popularity, complexity, ease of use, and power over the period from their introduction through to the current day, but they were not the only factor that influenced military thinking.

At one stage, war was largely conducted by noblemen and their retinues. By the time of the Wars of the Roses, professional soldiers who were not associated directly with the nobility were making their mark, often as mercenaries. These "middle class" soldiers were skilled like the longbowmen, extensively trained so that they could use their weapons effectively, but much less expensively equipped, unlike the nobility - knights were still effective, but if you could get two dozen crossbowmen for the same price, they were the better value for money. Their numbers swayed the battles, taking the decisive emphasis away from the knights and their armour.

By the time of the English Civil War, the faster you could train and equip a large army the better, and you had commoner-soldiers making up the bulk of armies - pikemen and musketeers or crossbowmen. The importance of a few very highly trained and expensively equipped men had given way to the importance of having large numbers of effective troops; knights had yielded to yeomanry. It did not matter whether the soldiers on the ground used longbows, crossbows, or muskets - a squad of any of them could take out a charging heavily armoured knight...by shooting his horse.

Edit: consulting some sources, flintlocks WERE used in the English Civil War, but by dragoons (mounted troops, and something of an elite) and not by infantry who used the matchlock.


The rapier isn't a battlefield weapon (afaik, it never was); rather it's an improved and lengthened version of a smallsword. Of course the term "rapier" doesn't necessarily describe the same thing to all people; I think of it as a slim cut-&-thrust straightish blade about 4' long with a half-basket hilt & thumb ring.

As its main advantage over other weapons are ease of carriage and reach, I could justify it in Golarion as something to let you get reach over largish creatures like bugbears, ogres and hulking barbarians. Or, as suggested above, as an Elvish weapon that allows Finesse. Or as a superior shortsword (same weight, +1 damage, twice the price).


Rapiers are more of a product of changing court fashion and social dynamics than the advent of firearms (the article is correct about cannons though).

Small swords were gentleman's accessories. Duels became popular. That's really where the rapier came from. heavy armor and heavy weapons were out of fashion due to the advent of canons, so it was only natural that the rapier would grow out of the one kind of sword that was still important to the aristocracy (the one that started out as a fashion statement).

In duels the concept of the Supremacy of the Point became really obvious, so the smallsword lengthened and various designs came forth that took advantage of the faster, more graceful combat style that duels were creating.

Guns didn't really cause the death of armor (not immediately anyway. armor remained popular up until guns could fire more than once). Guns just made armor change. Heavy chain and plate style armors didn't work, so instead we ended up with leather-and-breastplate designs that remained popular well into the 1700sth century.

All that being said, OP's point is still a good one. Having fencing-based combat styles in a world without guns doesn't make a lot of sense, unless the culture that developed the fantasy-world's rapier did an awful lot of social dueling. That culture's due-rules would have to include rules about not being armored, because frankly, heavy armor makes rapiers really ineffective.

TL:DR-

Canons got rid of heavy armor. Fashion made the smallsword into a clothing accessory. Duels give rise to aristocrats wanting to learn to fight. Smallsword is the obvious choice for dueling, since everyone had them already. Stabbing unarmored targets is better than cutting them. Rapier developed to stab better.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

An interesting fantasy twist on this concept would be a culture where the "fashion weapon" was something else.

The Aldori are like this in Golarion. They carry swords that are the natural evolution of the Longsword, because the longsword was/is fashionable in their culture.

The same thing could be done with a lot of weapons. In the Mistborn books the aristocrats carry "dueling canes" and beat each other up with sticks.

A culture that carried jeweled daggers for fashion might develop specialized knives.

Dwarven dueling axes are an interesting concept. I'm picturing them like canes with axe heads instead of handles.

Dow might develop poisoned finger-blades out of the weird hand-jewelry they seem to wear in a lot of artwork.

There's a lot of interesting possibilities for fantasy-world fashion to push exotic and interesting weapons and fighting styles that would be analogous to fencing.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

It's a nice little lesson in history but pretty irrelevant from a gamer's perspective. We had rapiers in the game for decades before the gunslinger came about.


LazarX wrote:
It's a nice little lesson in history but pretty irrelevant from a gamer's perspective. We had rapiers in the game for decades before the gunslinger came about.

The entire point of OP's post was to ask why that would be.

Guns and cannons played a big part in the development of the rapier and fencing as a combat style. Without guns and cannons, why would rapiers even exist.

Discussing that question is the point of this thread.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Doomed Hero wrote:
LazarX wrote:
It's a nice little lesson in history but pretty irrelevant from a gamer's perspective. We had rapiers in the game for decades before the gunslinger came about.

The entire point of OP's post was to ask why that would be.

Guns and cannons played a big part in the development of the rapier and fencing as a combat style. Without guns and cannons, why would rapiers even exist.

Discussing that question is the point of this thread.

Actually, rapiers exist as much do to the early gun's shortcomings as it's advantages. Once revolvers got to the Colt stage, rapiers became only dress accessories for officers.


kestral287 wrote:

So:

-rapiers are lighter than older swords, thus both cheaper and easier to carry, both of which are beneficial to civilian settings.
-rapiers' primary presumed disadvantage, dealing with armor, did not exist in civilian settings.
-rapiers are predominantly civilian weapons.
-civilians had more money to throw around.

You're going to have to explain again how rapiers came about because guns and not because money.

Well, they wouldn't have to deal with heavy plate armor. Leather and chainmail might have been a thing (kind of like the level of a cheap bullet proof vest that can only really deal with handguns)

Of course, rapiers were rather well suited for dealing with that kind of armor. Much like the stiletto (which became famous as a tool of assassination due to its traits), rapiers tended to slender, and could well have a needle like point. That works well on leather and heavy cloth, and it could possibly get into the links of chainmail without too much trouble. Overall, there is a reason why estocs, one of the most specialized antiarmor weapons of the late medieval era, are considered one of the forerunners of rapiers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mudfoot wrote:
The rapier isn't a battlefield weapon (afaik, it never was); rather it's an improved and lengthened version of a smallsword. Of course the term "rapier" doesn't necessarily describe the same thing to all people; I think of it as a slim cut-&-thrust straightish blade about 4' long with a half-basket hilt & thumb ring.

So it's standard issue in the English Civil War of the 17th century and fact that the French Kings Musketeers carried it as their standard melee weapon in the 18th Century are what, exactly? These are swords made for and used on the battlefield.


Dabbler wrote:
Mudfoot wrote:
The rapier isn't a battlefield weapon (afaik, it never was); rather it's an improved and lengthened version of a smallsword. Of course the term "rapier" doesn't necessarily describe the same thing to all people; I think of it as a slim cut-&-thrust straightish blade about 4' long with a half-basket hilt & thumb ring.
So it's standard issue in the English Civil War of the 17th century and fact that the French Kings Musketeers carried it as their standard melee weapon in the 18th Century are what, exactly? These are swords made for and used on the battlefield.

To be fair, that's about two hundred years after the article asserts they were battlefield weapons.


Gwen Smith wrote:
This is a really interesting question. I suppose you could argue that magic took the place of guns in the "making heavy armor almost useless" progression.

Except A) Magic is rare in your average D&D/Pathfinder setting, certainly not among PCs but in actual in-setting armies few of the involved soldiers are actual spellcasters.

B) Armor very evidently is still a thing in these settings, you constantly run into PCs and NPCs alike wearing heavy armor.

Quote:
(Or we can blame Hollywood for using rapier & saber fencing techniques in all the "medieval" pieces or sword and sorcery movies, so the rest of us don't know the history anymore?)

That's what that is? It usually looks to me more like crazed lunatics trying to bash each other's swords into pieces while horridly overswinging all the time.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Golarion is not the historical past of earth.

Golarion is not the historical past of earth.

Golarion is not the...

and fantasy RPGs own much more to Hollywood and pulp than to history books.


KutuluKultist wrote:

Golarion is not the historical past of earth.

Golarion is not the historical past of earth.

Golarion is not the...

and fantasy RPGs own much more to Hollywood and pulp than to history books.

You have a point.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Since Pathfinder rapiers are exactly as effective at getting through heavy armor as every other type of melee weapon in existence, you don't really need strategic or socioeconomic factors to justify them.


Dabbler wrote:
This picture shows the typical cavalry armour of the period - note it's not heavy plate armour, that's already gone. Instead a breastplate (that was tested proof against musket balls by shooting at it from point blank range) is the main bulk of the armour. Swords are clearly rapiers in style if not name.

Note that Ireland was poor, and poor areas have never fielded all that much of heavy armored cavalry in any era.

Armor from the rich parts of Europe circa that time:

Still quite formidable.

Heavy armored cavalry didn't go away around the end of the 14th century, not at all. If anything I suspect that by numbers there were more armored cavalrymen in Europe in 1600 than 1400.

Armor for infantry was due for a resurgence on the Continent as well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

In a PF style fantasy world the most powerful people on the battlefield are armor lacking magic users. This means all the logic that rapiers were the result of armor wearers no longer controlling the battlefield would have applied earlier in the evolution of weaponry in a fantasy world, resulting in rapiers developing in tandem with greatswords instead of sequentially.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
KutuluKultist wrote:

Golarion is not the historical past of earth.

Golarion is not the historical past of earth.

Golarion is not the...

and fantasy RPGs own much more to Hollywood and pulp than to history books.

It annoys me to no end when people repeatedly flagellate this deceased equine.

No Golarion is not based on the historical past of Earth.

It like Hollywood and the pulps does draw its flavour from historical earth... That is why there are pyramids and Arabian and Viking analoges Golarion.

For some people the history of weapon development is important to the internal consistency of their campaign.

Looking to historical equivalents is the only route people have to provide the background they require.

If you asked JRR or GRR for the history of a type of weapon, I am sure they would be to give you a 10 page essay on where it came from. That is why they are the the masters of world buildin.

Sovereign Court

The 8th Dwarf wrote:

If you asked JRR or GRR for the history of a type of weapon, I am sure they would be to give you a 10 page essay on where it came from. That is why they are the the masters of world buildin.

Meh - JRR was the master of histories in epic poetry, languages etc. His world's economy etc was mostly nonexistant. One reason he probably ripped on industrialization so much. :P (Plus he blamed industrialization for the horrors he saw in WW I.)

Liberty's Edge

cnetarian wrote:
In a PF style fantasy world the most powerful people on the battlefield are armor lacking magic users. This means all the logic that rapiers were the result of armor wearers no longer controlling the battlefield would have applied earlier in the evolution of weaponry in a fantasy world, resulting in rapiers developing in tandem with greatswords instead of sequentially.

This is an excellent explanation, actually. :)

It's not universally true, but it's common enough for weapons to be made for the situation.

Sovereign Court

cnetarian wrote:
In a PF style fantasy world the most powerful people on the battlefield are armor lacking magic users. This means all the logic that rapiers were the result of armor wearers no longer controlling the battlefield would have applied earlier in the evolution of weaponry in a fantasy world, resulting in rapiers developing in tandem with greatswords instead of sequentially.

Not to mention unarmored monks & light armor combat casters (magus/bard/bloodrager etc.)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
The 8th Dwarf wrote:

If you asked JRR or GRR for the history of a type of weapon, I am sure they would be to give you a 10 page essay on where it came from. That is why they are the the masters of world buildin.

Meh - JRR was the master of histories in epic poetry, languages etc. His world's economy etc was mostly nonexistant. One reason he probably ripped on industrialization so much. :P (Plus he blamed industrialization for the horrors he saw in WW I.)

He was right. It was the Industrial Age which made warfare on that scale possible. Also keep in mind that the Great War was the first total war which put such heavy emphasis on the mass destruction of civillians. It redrew the entire map of Europe and pretty much ended the last remnants of Victorian society, as well as the bulk of Europe's monarchs.

It was for him and many others, the end of the world they knew.

Sovereign Court

LazarX wrote:
Also keep in mind that the Great War was the first total war which put such heavy emphasis on the mass destruction of civillians.

Not really. Arguably mass destruction was new since it was the first major war with large bombs. But many ancient wars didn't worry much about civilians. Heck - raping & pillaging was one of the major advantages of soldiering in some cultures. In the not so distant past - Napoleon's troops were infamous for it - though it backlashed on him in Spain (and somewhat in other places) with all of the guerrillas he had to deal with.

While industrialization changed the methods, it didn't really change the results all that much.

JRR was a fan of the push at the turn of the 20th century back to craftsman/artisins vs industrialization. (Like the old crafsman houses.) Which is great if you're one of the gentry like JRR was and can afford it.


Charon's Little Helper wrote:
The 8th Dwarf wrote:

If you asked JRR or GRR for the history of a type of weapon, I am sure they would be to give you a 10 page essay on where it came from. That is why they are the the masters of world buildin.

Meh - JRR was the master of histories in epic poetry, languages etc. His world's economy etc was mostly nonexistant. One reason he probably ripped on industrialization so much. :P (Plus he blamed industrialization for the horrors he saw in WW I.)

The thing is if you asked JRR why such and such used axes he would have a history and a background to the weapon. The industrialisation thing is a tangent - interesting but a tangent. The whole point is world building.

Sovereign Court

The 8th Dwarf wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
The 8th Dwarf wrote:

If you asked JRR or GRR for the history of a type of weapon, I am sure they would be to give you a 10 page essay on where it came from. That is why they are the the masters of world buildin.

Meh - JRR was the master of histories in epic poetry, languages etc. His world's economy etc was mostly nonexistant. One reason he probably ripped on industrialization so much. :P (Plus he blamed industrialization for the horrors he saw in WW I.)
The thing is if you asked JRR why such and such used axes he would have a history and a background to the weapon. The industrialisation thing is a tangent - interesting but a tangent. The whole point is world building.

Yes - if you consider history etc to be the only part of world building. I'd consider the economic advantages & trading etc to be of equal importance. JRR didn't really touch them, and it leaves some holes in his world.

For example - how in the heck do the elves feed themselves. You never see or hear of elf farmers. No elf settlement seems to have the required farmlands surrounding them in order to grow enough food. Do they all eat magic bread all the time? Do they trade elf magic for human grain to make said magic bread with? Do the elves trade with the dwarves or humans for metals, or are there in fact elf miners?

How do the dwarves feed themselves when living underground? Do they rely solely upon trading with other races for food? Do they eat mushrooms as their primary crop?

How in the world does the wasteland of Mordor feed the vast orc armies? Are there orc farmers? Fields worked by human slaves? Remember - pre-industrial period, the majority of any population needed to be dedicated to agriculture.

Etc.

(Note - I haven't read all of the extra JRR books - so feel free to correct me if he did cover those things. But my sister read most of them, and when I bring up this stuff she just gives me a dirty look.)


Mordor at least is covered. Remember that the area is volcanic, there's a large portion of it that's actually extremely fertile farmland. I believe human slaves are used, but that might be the new game throwing off my memory.


Núrn was a semi-arid place due to its close proximity to Gorgoroth and consisted mostly of short grass landed plains, fertile enough to support farming to support the armies of Sauron, as opposed to the arid plateau of Gorgoroth, which is north-west of Núrn.

The Dwarves farmed the valleys and in the case of the Lonely Mountain traded extensively with Dale. That is why Dale was so rich.


While chronologically, the rapier did follow the advent of guns, it was primarily in direct response to another situation - duels. What we often imagine as rapiers, that being reasonably short, actually were known as small swords. The actual rapier was a much longer blade, often times longer than the classic english longsword, but weighing about the same ultimately. The reason it was designed as a long, thrusting weapon with greater reach than most conventional blades, but in doing so losing most of it's cutting edge, was for the sake of dueling. It gave the user a noticeable advantage over a traditional sword user. This advantage of course was only present in the one on one, light to no armor, no shield, pick your sword style of duel that was very prominent in the era following the popularization of guns. They were never used as major combat blades, because they did not lend themselves to the conditions of a battlefield.

A thin, narrow blade, ideal for dueling against unarmored opponents could very well be created in any fantasy society that has dueling as a past time. Elves would be the first thing one would think of in this of course. Such a blade has it's very significant value and stands on it's own without the need for a musket being used to ward calvary charges, and thus can be implemented into a fantasy world without such conditions.

Now I need to go clean myself. I feel dirty for having defended silly dex based rapier fighters....


HowFortuitous wrote:
Now I need to go clean myself. I feel dirty for having defended silly dex based rapier fighters....

You have also defended us noble few strength based rapier fighters. Be proud of the service you have done this day!


Charon's Little Helper wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Also keep in mind that the Great War was the first total war which put such heavy emphasis on the mass destruction of civillians.
Not really. Arguably mass destruction was new since it was the first major war with large bombs. But many ancient wars didn't worry much about civilians. Heck - raping & pillaging was one of the major advantages of soldiering in some cultures. In the not so distant past - Napoleon's troops were infamous for it - though it backlashed on him in Spain (and somewhat in other places) with all of the guerrillas he had to deal with.

Not to mention World War I was one of the less terrible wars for civilians as far as military action goes, thanks to the nature of trench warfare. A relatively static front line gives all the civilians plenty of time to clear out of the war zone. By far most of the civilian deaths in World War I were from malnutrition and disease.

Granted, a war that's "less terrible for civilians" can still be pretty nasty. But compared to something like World War II or the Thirty Years War...


Chengar Qordath wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Also keep in mind that the Great War was the first total war which put such heavy emphasis on the mass destruction of civillians.
Not really. Arguably mass destruction was new since it was the first major war with large bombs. But many ancient wars didn't worry much about civilians. Heck - raping & pillaging was one of the major advantages of soldiering in some cultures. In the not so distant past - Napoleon's troops were infamous for it - though it backlashed on him in Spain (and somewhat in other places) with all of the guerrillas he had to deal with.

Not to mention World War I was one of the less terrible wars for civilians as far as military action goes, thanks to the nature of trench warfare. A relatively static front line gives all the civilians plenty of time to clear out of the war zone. By far most of the civilian deaths in World War I were from malnutrition and disease.

Granted, a war that's "less terrible for civilians" can still be pretty nasty. But compared to something like World War II or the Thirty Years War...

The Armenians and Belgians would like to differ with you in regards to less terrible for civilians.


Interesting article on the Middle Earth Economy..... Link

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Chengar Qordath wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Also keep in mind that the Great War was the first total war which put such heavy emphasis on the mass destruction of civillians.
Not really. Arguably mass destruction was new since it was the first major war with large bombs. But many ancient wars didn't worry much about civilians. Heck - raping & pillaging was one of the major advantages of soldiering in some cultures. In the not so distant past - Napoleon's troops were infamous for it - though it backlashed on him in Spain (and somewhat in other places) with all of the guerrillas he had to deal with.

Not to mention World War I was one of the less terrible wars for civilians as far as military action goes, thanks to the nature of trench warfare. A relatively static front line gives all the civilians plenty of time to clear out of the war zone. By far most of the civilian deaths in World War I were from malnutrition and disease.

Granted, a war that's "less terrible for civilians" can still be pretty nasty. But compared to something like World War II or the Thirty Years War...

About 36 million people died in the First World War. Multiples of that number were injured or displaced. No previous war had anything even close to it. Whether it was from gun shots, plague, or starvation, no matter how you cut it, those numbers are pretty horrific to Victorian sensibilities.


LazarX wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Also keep in mind that the Great War was the first total war which put such heavy emphasis on the mass destruction of civillians.
Not really. Arguably mass destruction was new since it was the first major war with large bombs. But many ancient wars didn't worry much about civilians. Heck - raping & pillaging was one of the major advantages of soldiering in some cultures. In the not so distant past - Napoleon's troops were infamous for it - though it backlashed on him in Spain (and somewhat in other places) with all of the guerrillas he had to deal with.

Not to mention World War I was one of the less terrible wars for civilians as far as military action goes, thanks to the nature of trench warfare. A relatively static front line gives all the civilians plenty of time to clear out of the war zone. By far most of the civilian deaths in World War I were from malnutrition and disease.

Granted, a war that's "less terrible for civilians" can still be pretty nasty. But compared to something like World War II or the Thirty Years War...

About 36 million people died in the First World War. No previous war had anything even close to it. Whether it was from gun shots, plague, or starvation, no matter how you cut it, those numbers are pretty horrific to Victorian sensibilities.

Welll there's a bit more to it than that.

The total number of deaths is notable. But of equal note is the way and means in which they died. Suddenly the sciences of aviation, chemistry, and the internal combustion engine gave birth to mustard gas, aerial bombardment, long range artillery, and numerous other mean devices for removing human life.

The numbers had a lot to do with the sheer efficiency of industry created combined with the stubborn short sightedness in military commanders on how to employ those weapons. World War 1 taught very harsh lessons about the nature of mechanized warfare. It's somewhat interesting to see how armies evolved out of these lessons going into round 2.

1 to 50 of 104 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Without Gunslingers, Where Did We Get Rapiers? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.