At 09:52 AM 8/16/2002 -0500, Joshua Kronengold wrote: > >[um. I'm a historical and classical fencer with a fair amount of >training. I'll try to explain and/or footnote any terminlogy I use, >but I may miss some. ] > >The initial problem is that, as far as modern terminology is >concerned. Vlad doesn't fight with a rapier [1]. He's constantly talking >about parry-ripostes, stop cuts, and a bunch of things you can't, or >shouldn't do with a rapier That's odd. I've done all of those repeatedly with a rapier in stage-combat classes and informal duels. The real answer to his question is that he is paying too much attention to the cover, fer chrissakes. It is a *wonderful* cover, but attempting to translate that kind of detail from text to cover is just asking to be confused. As for why Vlad uses techniques with a rapier that, in fact, were not developed during the historical period on Earth when the rapier was in use, I will only say that there is a reason, and that this is one of the things I had figured out before I wrote the first word of the first story about Vlad. Clue: In college, I was a sabre-man as well as doing a lot of stage combat. My definition of "rapier" includes the sort of weapon in general use in France and England from about 1600-1650, a weapon originally developed to kill people in plate armour, but gradually modified as armour fell out of use because too many armored men were being killed by assholes with rapiers.