Change Rapiers

Acarnatia wrote: The actual manner of employment wasn't the slash-and-thrust methods used by arming swords, though; that's counterproductive to the very point of using a thrusting sword and will actually quickly destroy a thrusting sword.

tinypantha wrote:Thank You Acarnatia for actually reading my post.

Like i said before using a rapier isnt un-seen for fighting but using it with a self handicap such as 1 hand behind your back? No.

Turning sideways to minimize the amount of space you must parry? Yes

Acarnatia wrote:]Modern fencing is almost entirely unrelated to actual Renaissance combat. Modern fencers are also notorious among actual historians for using VERY inaccurate information when speaking about earlier forms of combat.
Please read the first two paragraphs under history- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_dueling_sword#Fencing a lot of fencing (in America especially) also came from Great Britain. In Great Britain, while dueling was legal, killing a man in a duel was not. Therefore, the techniques used were specifically designed to not kill. Obviously, this is different from actual military combat. Note the History section on this page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapier Fencing came from civilians pretending to be soldiers. It developed from techniques, stances and weapons that were unfit for actual warfare. Many modern fencers also say unfounded things about pre-fencing combat that more often than not actually shows how poorly researched they are. If we are going to talk about historical combat, please use actual history to make your point; if we're just going by the Rule of Cool, then that's another thing and your basis is actually quite valid. As I think I've shown, I have a strong preference for historical accuracy.
On the other hand, there is a problem in stating what actually was used because we just don't know. One of the reasons that Eastern combat is so popular and so often portrayed as superior the Western combat is that unlike the Eastern martial arts, not a single pre-firearm martial art survives today. All historians have are books, which which are not enough to really be certain of the accuracy of modern interpretation.
If anyone is interested in a lot of really accurate and honest information regarding 1300-1550 or so combat, I strongly suggest you look some pages on this website. http://www.thearma.org/ Aside from this website, the best other source I've found is Wikipedia.

tinypantha wrote:But we arent Fencing!

and buggy i am typing using a GUI its very bulky.

Rapiers weren't used like that (or for long) in battle! They really were like swords, only used as a last resort.

I do not know the proper way to 2h them but i feel 2h would be better then Mr.Fencer

Acarnatia wrote:That's not possible, actually, because EVERY Renaissance-age and prior martial art from Europe is extinct. http://www.thearma.org/study.htm
In regards to the comment on how thrusting swords were held with the off-hand behind the wielder's back-read the section on 'off-hand weapons.' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapier The stance that society has been shown again and again is a civilian dueling stance, not a combat stance. That's for a different time period, a different battlefield and a different weapon.
Furthermore, Dark Souls is, at least at lower levels, actually pretty realistic. It takes only a handful of hits at most to die or to kill; the weights of gear are only off a little bit; (many armors are actually 3/4 of what the actual weight was while the weapons are about 1.5 times heavier. Weights in Demon's Souls were nearly perfect) the maneuvers are generally true enough to actual combat; many of the weapon and armor designs are actual replicas of specific surviving arms and armor; even the way that magic is implemented and how it affects the world at large is realistic and natural. The elements that push well beyond what is realistic (considering the low-level magic and souls-infused people) are actually fewer in number. (Dragon's Tooth)