>>11288684>The rapier is light.First of all, in general rapiers are actually quite heavy for one-handed weapons. They weigh about as much as medieval longswords, which were primarily two-handed weapons. Rapiers are not the same as modern fencing weapons, which have their historical roots in academic sabres, duelling epee de combat and courtly small-swords.
Also, "rapier" is a pretty broad term. Depending on which time period you look at you might be referring to something which resembles more a medieval arming sword with a complex hilt, for definite military purposes, that can still deliver quite the cut, or an exceedingly long, civilian, thrusting weapon.
Lastly, Silver is a questionable source - as he was an English fencing master, and therefore in economic competition with continental fencing teachers that brought rapiers to England, but his perspective should at least exemplify that it's not as easy as that. A rapier is not generally "better" than a longsword, a rapier is not generally "better" than a sabre, or a katana for that matter - these weapons all had their specific purposes and weaknesses.
In an unarmoured scenario, a rapier has a distinct advantage due to being commonly (but not always) a very lengthy weapon. Its length alone allows people to fight very defensively and attack people from a safe distance. However, its length also made it very cumbersome, which is the primary reason why it was often used with a buckler or dagger for defence: it was not mobile enough for the parade-riposte style fencing that came up with small-swords. However, if a guy for whatever reason, shows up to an unarmoured fight with a real two-handed sword or a spear (i.e. an actual weapon of war), he now has the reach advantage.
