Why Would Anyone Use A Rapier Or Smallsword On Horseback?

Rapiers and smallswords are usually described as swords which are inappropriate for using on horseback. Yet both were historically. Why were they?

[darienthevolcanoman]

Came for the answer, stayed for the shirt.

[chrisball]

Most of the paintings featured here showing people wielding smallswords on horseback are portraits of aristocrats and generals. As gunpowder began to dominate battlefields during the early modern period, it became increasingly rare for generals to lead from the front, as, even if they were guarded by elite troops it became increasingly easy to target them and kill them- e.g. as happened to Sweden's King Gustavus Adolphus at the battle of Lutzen in 1632. Having your general gunned down at a crucial moment in a battle more than offsets any morale benefit gained from having them lead cavalry charges. The men carrying smallswords were for the most part probably not expecting to engage in hand-to-hand fighting, and were probably carrying them as a badge of rank and a last-resort sidearm.


As for rapiers, as noted here, they wouldn't necessarily be ineffective on horseback, and its also worth noting that some mounted troops from the early modern period actually fought as dragoons- riding to where they were needed on the battlefield, and then dismounting to fight as infantry. In that situation you might well choose a sword optimised for foot combat over one optimised for mounted combat.

[stcredzero]

"At the end of the day, a pointy object is a pointy object." So even though Matt Easton disdains the advice, "stick them with the pointy end, " he acknowledges that many historical combatants took that stance!

[Vonstab]

The gentleman at about 1:45 is Karl XI, King of Sweden in the battle of Lund 1676. He is not armed with a rapier, nor with a smallsword. While his weapon is referred to as 'värja' in Swedish, a word which today translates as 'rapier' in English it's meaning in a 17th Century context was looser and pretty much meant 'arm'/sidearm. (The word is derived from the German 'wehr' & 'seitenwehr'.) Karl XI's weapon in the paint is essentially of the type called Walloon Swords in English, the blade is cut and thrust but focused more towards the thrust.

[anthonythomas]

I served in the British Army, Royal Artillery from 1989 - 1996 and I used a Rapier almost every day...My regiment was 22nd Air Defence and later 16th Air Defence (Surface To air Missile)...Alright, alright it was a different type of Rapier, it was bad ass nonetheless lol.
Side note- It was a stickem with the pointy end type of weapon.

[Goatboysminion]

As far as I know, the Australian Light Horse who charged at Beersheba did both. Some used a bare bayonet. Which was handy for close quarters when they engaged the Turks.
Other's had bayonet fixed on their .303 Lee-Enfields, as the fired at the gallop.
Whatever worked.🇦🇺

[grailknight]

I would add that the rapier isnt the worst sword you could have to fight on horseback, it has characteristics which make it ok for that, long blade, quite sturdy, good hand protection, and remember some rapiers have quite sidesword like blades, the smallsword in the other hand not too great.

[mikesummers-smith]

Another reason not to dismount: riding boots are often not very good for walking in, especially if the ground is churned up. At least one British soldier at Waterloo was amused by the sight of unhorsed French cuirassiers trying to run back to safety in their thigh-length boots.

While on the subject of footwear, this sentence from the diaries of Sarah, Duchess of Marlborough has unaccountably lodged itself in my memory - "Today, my Lord returned from the wars, and pleasured me twice in his top-boots".

[segrientboar]

Yes the Australian Light Horse charge at Beersheba, 31 October 1917, was conducted holding the bayonet in hand. Their not having been issued sabres/lances etc. was deliberate.
Their intended role was as a highly mobile infantry force, which was how they conducted other operations for the duration of the war-dismounted. The horses were mere transportation only.
This was what made Beersheba such a notable event, it was completely outside their role and what they were trained for and experienced in.

[evilwelshman]

Floral-shirted cavalry needs to be a thing! :D

[ArmorFrogEntertainment]

Since Matt is unable to actually take a vacation to Hawaii at the moment, he's decided to wear a flowered shirt in the hopes of convincing himself he is, in fact, in the tropics.

[arthurpendragonsyt]

I was always under the impression that the people carrying smallswords on the battlefield would be officers whose job was primarily to command instead of fighting directly.

[donlars]

To boil it all down "This is a pointy object and you're holding it". :D

[timothyheimbach]

I'd imagine a rapier essentially becomes a short lance

[carloparisi]

Any time a civilian who carried a smallsword went somewhere on horseback, he had a slight chance to have to fight some bandit with it.

[kerebronemtadrata]

Shirt evolution - from superdry to extra humid. :P

[bluelionsage]

The three brothers of that vengeful husband might show up after the fight starts. As a better rider than swordsman I will stay mounted thank you very much.

[macfilms]

I think another element of this is position - both in the army and in society. In the 16th thru 18th centuries, the officers in an army were typically noblemen - titled wealthy men (yes, obviously there were exceptions, but generally the case) - a wealthy gentleman in the 16th & 17th centuries usually carried and trained with rapiers - so when they led troops (even foot troops for the more senior officers), they were on horseback and they wore the sword of their class. In the 18th century gentlemen typically wore small swords, so when serving as mounted officers, that was their sword.
I do think many officers in the 16th century would have carried a heavier bladed, better cutting sword designed for facing opponents who had various levels of armor in combat, instead of the rapier they wore daily - so more of an arming or bastard sword blade, with increasingly complex hand guards. By the time of the English Civil war, weren't most mounted troops carrying backswords or the like? Of course by the later 17th & in the 18th century when gentlemen wore smallswords daily, armor had (with some exceptions in heavy cavalry such as dragoons) mostly disappeared, and if a mounted officer ended up fighting, a smallsword, while far from ideal, would suffice (although spadroons, your favorite, had heavier blades and more cutting ability than the standard courtly smallsword).

[equesdeventusoccasus]

We don't use the sword we want, we use the sword we have.

[matthewzito]

I would imagine a lot of people would have ridden horses in civilian life while wearing their civilian sidearms. They may not have expected to use a blade from horseback (or at all), but sometimes stuff happens.