The shortest distance between two points is a straight line, right? The rapier, being a weapon optimized for thrusting, is ideal for attacking down a straight line, making it a very efficient weapon. Cutting, on the other hand, follows the curve of a circle, which, isn't a straight line, which takes longer. Further, it's assumed in a civilian defense situation that your are not wearing any armor, which means that your sword is pretty much simultaneously your only (or just primary) means of both defense and offense. Due to the long length of the rapier, coupled with the one handed grip, allows you to use your blade to keep your vitals nice and far away from your opponent while still being able to offend your opponent. Further, to cut, you must first take your sword off line (raise it above your head, for example) or have it off line already (holding it above your head) and then bring it down. Then the sword is off line it is not actively defending you. The rapier on the other hand goes straight from the defense to the thrust with no in between step. In fact, you can often attack and defend in the same motion (in one tempo) with the rapier. It is an exceedingly efficient weapon.
It is however, kind of a slow weapon (efficient doesn't necessarily mean quick). The thrust is a quick, efficient motion but the rapier is not that nimble of a weapon over all. As mentioned it's quite long and used one handed. The parry-riposte concept (two tempi action, two step, the parry is its own step, the attack is its own step) isn't something rapiers were actually good at, that's something the later, lighter, shorter, quicker small swords were all about. As a result of the slowness an offhand was often employed with the rapier (like a dagger, or buckler, or even open hand) to help cover angles and parts of the body that the rapier would have a hard time defending by itself. It is with the small sword that you see no off-hand implement, and the hand dropping further and further behind the body as giving a more narrowed profile became the larger concern. Modern sport fencing evolved out of small sword, by the by, which is one of the reasons why they keep their hand behind them while fencing. Not some, had to hold a lantern behind you business.
The shortest distance between two points is a straight line, right? The rapier, being a weapon optimized for thrusting, is ideal for attacking down a straight line, making it a very efficient weapon. Cutting, on the other hand, follows the curve of a circle, which, isn't a straight line, which takes longer. Further, it's assumed in a civilian defense situation that your are not wearing any armor, which means that your sword is pretty much simultaneously your only (or just primary) means of both defense and offense. Due to the long length of the rapier, coupled with the one handed grip, allows you to use your blade to keep your vitals nice and far away from your opponent while still being able to offend your opponent. Further, to cut, you must first take your sword off line (raise it above your head, for example) or have it off line already (holding it above your head) and then bring it down. Then the sword is off line it is not actively defending you. The rapier on the other hand goes straight from the defense to the thrust with no in between step. In fact, you can often attack and defend in the same motion (in one tempo) with the rapier. It is an exceedingly efficient weapon.
It is however, kind of a slow weapon (efficient doesn't necessarily mean quick). The thrust is a quick, efficient motion but the rapier is not that nimble of a weapon over all. As mentioned it's quite long and used one handed. The parry-riposte concept (two tempi action, two step, the parry is its own step, the attack is its own step) isn't something rapiers were actually good at, that's something the later, lighter, shorter, quicker small swords were all about. As a result of the slowness an offhand was often employed with the rapier (like a dagger, or buckler, or even open hand) to help cover angles and parts of the body that the rapier would have a hard time defending by itself. It is with the small sword that you see no off-hand implement, and the hand dropping further and further behind the body as giving a more narrowed profile became the larger concern. Modern sport fencing evolved out of small sword, by the by, which is one of the reasons why they keep their hand behind them while fencing. Not some, had to hold a lantern behind you business.
I have no clue what the point of that new Three Musketeers movies is supposed to be. All the commercials just make it look really stupid yet serious, and I can't tell if it is meant to be one huge joke.
I have no clue what the point of that new Three Musketeers movies is supposed to be. All the commercials just make it look really stupid yet serious, and I can't tell if it is meant to be one huge joke.
Make money, I'd guess. It has some built-in brand recognition that they don't have to buy a license for, too.
I loved Hamlet 2. I thought it was poorly-marketed, and everything I saw about the film presented it as a ridiculous slapstick comedy when in reality it was a lot smarter than that.
It's not everybody's cup fo tea, though. Might explain why it's $3 (or whatever) on Amazon right now.
I would also like to inform Japan that dragoons were people with guns that could get off their horses and act as infantry, not goddamn people on dragons who never even got off those dragons during battle.
I read somewhere that Shakespeare probably intended Hamlet to be a teenager, dunno if that's true, but he is angsty, and a college student, and he thinks he has life all figured out, also the play his about his relationship to his mother and his evil step father.
I'd like to see an adaptation where Hamlet's played by an 18 year old.
Posts
Or that people don't live that long?
Oh boy! This post is like christmas for me.
The shortest distance between two points is a straight line, right? The rapier, being a weapon optimized for thrusting, is ideal for attacking down a straight line, making it a very efficient weapon. Cutting, on the other hand, follows the curve of a circle, which, isn't a straight line, which takes longer. Further, it's assumed in a civilian defense situation that your are not wearing any armor, which means that your sword is pretty much simultaneously your only (or just primary) means of both defense and offense. Due to the long length of the rapier, coupled with the one handed grip, allows you to use your blade to keep your vitals nice and far away from your opponent while still being able to offend your opponent. Further, to cut, you must first take your sword off line (raise it above your head, for example) or have it off line already (holding it above your head) and then bring it down. Then the sword is off line it is not actively defending you. The rapier on the other hand goes straight from the defense to the thrust with no in between step. In fact, you can often attack and defend in the same motion (in one tempo) with the rapier. It is an exceedingly efficient weapon.
It is however, kind of a slow weapon (efficient doesn't necessarily mean quick). The thrust is a quick, efficient motion but the rapier is not that nimble of a weapon over all. As mentioned it's quite long and used one handed. The parry-riposte concept (two tempi action, two step, the parry is its own step, the attack is its own step) isn't something rapiers were actually good at, that's something the later, lighter, shorter, quicker small swords were all about. As a result of the slowness an offhand was often employed with the rapier (like a dagger, or buckler, or even open hand) to help cover angles and parts of the body that the rapier would have a hard time defending by itself. It is with the small sword that you see no off-hand implement, and the hand dropping further and further behind the body as giving a more narrowed profile became the larger concern. Modern sport fencing evolved out of small sword, by the by, which is one of the reasons why they keep their hand behind them while fencing. Not some, had to hold a lantern behind you business.
but in the battlefield people didn't use the rapier then?
Nineteenth.
Keanu Reeves.
Another fine example.
Yeah the rapier was a weapon of civilian defense, the blade isn't stout enough or tapering enough to really be what you want against an armored foe.
iirc at the time the rapier was popular battlefield tactics were becoming blocks of pikemen backed up by units of men with muskets.
:?:
Because there's two ways to read this.
/hipsterjeep
I loved the Mel Gibson Hamlet because it is closer to my interpretation of Hamlet.
I don't think I have the strength for another battle of wills about whether or not X is good or not, but the Branagh version sucks.
trying to pierce armor is nearly futile and the rapier is only good for piercing.
I've always wondered about that because it looks flimsy as fuck to fight someone in knight armour and on a horse.
But that all makes much more sense.
What about a zweihander vibrogunblade?
hold a lantern?
Make money, I'd guess. It has some built-in brand recognition that they don't have to buy a license for, too.
Everything about the Mel Gibson Hamlet was p. good except for Mel Gibson, who was godawful and had no idea what to do with the role.
Branagh's Hamlet was an hour too long and way too full of itself (like most things Branagh has done).
I've seen a lot of film adaptations of Shakespeare that I've really enjoyed, but I've never seen a great Hamlet on screen.
New gun control law:
You can own whatever handguns you want, but can only shoot them while wearing a bright purple hat with a feather in it.
I know of at least 3.
Tennant's was pretty good (though that was basically another RSC stage adaptation).
I laughed...at times... was ok...
playaaa
Do goats count?
Do you love me?
You can answer these questions in any order, choose wisely.
It's not everybody's cup fo tea, though. Might explain why it's $3 (or whatever) on Amazon right now.
I have had that since just after it aired and I still haven't seen it.
Nope, just haven't seen his.
It appears these codes are region locked.
I suspect if it didn't claim to be related to The Three Musketeers, then I'd likely be all over that film.
Different kind of musket :winky:
The Lester version has them using Muskets as well as swords. Also it has Charlton Heston and Christopher Lee as villains.
a good thrust could easily pierce a major organ and kill someone.
I'd like to see an adaptation where Hamlet's played by an 18 year old.