text:
Talk:Rapier

cutting vs thrusting
Anyone know why cutting weapons fell out of favor with the Euros? I was always taught that thrusting puts you off balance but there are advantages to using the point. Is there a general consensus that it us so advantageous that slashing would logically be removed altogether from swordplay? Or was it part of just a useless stylistic trend like many of the other designs of the era? Jarwulf 08:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It is difficult to cite a single reason for the development of the sword from a more cutting to thrusting weapon, but I personally lay the blame (for swords overall) on the development of armour. As chainmail became better and platemail more common and more efficient, swords became designed as a whole to be more oriented on the thrusts, as cuts could not penetrate proper plate armour and may actually be damaged when attempting to do so. So instead, the technique of half-swording was used to sneak the point of a blade in between the tips of armour plates or vulnerabilities in mail. Eventually, the sword became sharply pointed, with a relatively thick cross-section, no longer "excellent" at cutting, but more than capable. This same concept applied both to longswords and other warswords, including broadswords as mentioned below. Eventually, these broadswords became longer and more pointed, losing their edge altogether. Some believe that this evolution is largely a combination of the broadsword and the estoc, a long two-handed edgeless blade made for thrusting. Regardless, the exact classification of a rapier is problematic because of this evolution. Some individuals (and groups) consider any long slender one-handed sword used primarily for thrusting to be a rapier, including many of the rapiers that were relatively broad and decidedly sharply edged (they could cut!) in comparison to their later relatives which had no sharp edges because of the stiff, obtuse geometry. Conversely, others exclude these early variants, naming them "cut-and-thrust" swords, as they did both proficiently, and only leaving the last incarnations of single handed swords with little or no cutting edge, thick blade geometry, and a sharp point as "rapiers". The situation is confused further as period authors use the word "Rappier" or similar to describe and name swords that are not, necessarily by either above description, rapiers. So, to more directly answer your question, I think a relatively strong arguement can be made that the development of armour heavily impacted the role swords played in combat and the manner in which they were used. I believe it can also be subsumed that, to a large extent, developments in the trends of military weaponry (move towards longer and sharper, early wide cutting swords→more narrow thrust-oriented swords) significantly affected the development of civilian (read: rapier) weaponry. (This trend can be observed today with firearms, including brand, calibre, and style - I imagine a lot of people find that "if the military uses it, it's probably what I should use in self-defense, too.")

 * I should also note that, because the rapier was used as a civilian weapon, style did play a role in its use and, undoubtedly its form. This eventually would lead to the "degeneration" of the weapon to a smallsword something much less daunting than the longer rapier. It should also be noted that, because of stylistic problems, and theories on the Arte of Defense, the rapier did not evolve only in one direction - wide broadswords continued to exist among thin rapier blades, and thin, unsharpened rapiers did exist (though rarely) among the "cut-and-thrust" broadswords. This further confuses the definition, as dates cannot be used as strictly (i.e. "One-handed thrusting swords after 1650" would include a variety of swords, in no way limiting the selection to what one may think of as a "rapier".)-- Xiliquiern 12:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * While that does make sense it is still confusing why cutting swords like the calvary sabre would persist in the military while the thrusting rapiers were preferred for presumably unarmored civilian defense. Jarwulf 01:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

David Latapie (✒ | @) 11:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Backswords take advantage of mounted charges-a circular blow doesn't impede a rider, especially in a time where firearms where not that precise to be use while mounted. Consider the transition from blade to firearm was easier on foot that on horse. Later on, blade carried some prestige (think of a mounted dragoon shouting “chaaaaarge”).
 * Going all the way back to the beginning of this discussion. First, a properly executed thrust does not 'put you off balance'. The lunge is very stable in the direction of the attack; however, the trade off for the reach is that it is not so stable on oblique lines. Now, as to why cutting weapons fell out of favor in Europe--did they? The cavalry saber persisted up into the 1900s in Europe, as did the dueling saber--quite as long as the thrusting dueling weapons. Why one type of sword persisted was generally a matter of it being suited to the situation for which it was used. Marozzo
 * longer range
 * easier to transport than a bulky cutting sword. Lighter, too (we are not talking about military men anymore)
 * Actually, a typical rapier can be a real annoyance compared to a single-handed cutting sword. It's longer and harder to draw, not to mention that if you're not careful, you're constantly banging into things. Preserving your opponent's life wasn't generally a consideration. Saviolo, for example, specifically says that if you decide to fight a duel, you'd better be willing to kill your opponent. Marozzo
 * less deadly (important for most duels, although for it being allowed as a a civilian weapon).
 * All of the Italian masters (and many of the German, French and English) say that the thrust is deadlier than the cut.
 * a thrusting weapon get stuck in the body, which is dangerous in military combat. Not so in a duel (this is not an argument for the rapier in later time, but against the rapier in earlier times)

Hope this helps David Latapie (✒ | @) 11:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

29 April 2006 Deleted following: "The rapier was a light and effective weapon on the battlefield when it (or its varients) were used. Due to its light wieght and very sharp edge it was good at sliding under plate mail and thruogh kinks in heavy armor, thin variations like the epee or escot could cut clean through chain mail when well placed. For most of its period of use, the rapier was double-edged, but some later rapiers were single-edged (with a sharply triangular blade) or edgeless. A rapier is capable of both cutting and thrusting attacks, but the thrust is the main attack in all rapier fighting styles." Ventifax 04:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

10:13 21 November 2005 Moved rapier instructors to its own page. Added a separate category for rapier instructors to pull it out of the body of the main article. (My opinion is that the main article should refer specifically to the topic of the rapier. Instructors may be a useful piece of information but I see it as secondary.)

NOTE 15:32 18 November 2005 Arzach 2 - Is there a reason you moved Maestro Andrea Lupo Sinclair and Ramon Martinez in a list that is alphabetical?

I personally question why it is necessary to make a list of instructors under the rapier heading, but I'm not going to be the one to remove the entire list. Perhaps a separate article is in order?

NOTE 18:54 18 October 2012 i think thrusting is better because its like the rapier is an extension of your arm though it can get stuck Edited last April 10 2003, Ken Mondschein, editor@corporatemofo.com -The previous version was a little small, and a little off in its facts and implications. I made a page on European dueling swords a little more thoroughly (though I lost the references section, I'll have to recreate it).

-In this process we lost a minor reference to the estoc, which properly belongs as an inspiration for the rapier.

the librarian

The European dueling swords page is commendable, but gives little detail as how to recognize a rapier from quite a long way away. Maby the swords should be given their own articles, as the mode of operation and construction varied quite considerably through time, and instead have a European dueling page covering th social and historical aspects of this use of the weapons? --Anders Törlind

-Thank you. I would dearly love to get photographs or perhaps diagrams showing cross-sections, etc., though once you starting discussing variations you can go for a huge distance. The early rapier is just a thinner broadsword; then it starts getting longer and develops its own specialized contruction techniques and becomes the standard rapier, at least a meter long. And then it shrinks again as it transitions to the smallsword. And of course all along there were numerous schools of fencing with similar or widely variant ideas; many of these schools are known only by name. -I do think the previous Rapier entry had grown redundant. --Also, the evolution of the dueling swords, which forms a separate path from the evolution of military weapons and is a technical rather than a social field, deserves its own article. the librarian

-I rewrote this page to be actually factual and ended up reconstituting it as European dueling sword. Someone enamored of their own prose and unable to distinguish fact from fancy restored it, and I see that 213.114.131.107 just modified it to be internally inconsistent. Since I'm not going to get involved in a childish editing war, I will merely list a few glaring problems:

-the librarian
 * 1) A rapier is a ... two-edged The earliest rapiers ('cut and thrust' rapiers) were two edged, but edges were deprecated and mostly abandoned in later rapiers.
 * 2) The rapier developed at the very end of the 16th century...The rapier became popular in Europe in the 16th century the recently added internal contradiction. The rapier arose in 1500 and became obsolete around 1680.
 * 3) In parallel to the rapier, other weapons were developed for use in war in response to the increasing protection offered by fully articulated plate armour. This has nothing to do with the topic. Also, the estoc is widely cited as an inspiration for the rapier.
 * 4) the rapier, in various modified forms, gained usefulness on the battlefield this is news to me. However, it is often cited that the popularity of rapier-style basket hilts mounted on other types of swords has falsely given the imppression that rapiers were present on the battlefield.
 * 5) The rapier is capable of both slashing and thrusting attacks only the early rapier is much use for slashing. This is mostly true because the balance and center of percussion of the rapier--way out towards the point--and the tiny sweet spot of the rapier made it ineffectual for slashing.
 * 6) The rapier's slimmer cousin, the foil, is the sword most often associated with the duels of honour No, the foil is a nineteenth century invention, when duels were obsolete or conducted with firearms. So the "duels of honor" which were depicted were conducted with rapiers or smallswords.
 * 7) depicted in literature and movies however it is certainly true that teh foil was more familiar to modern audiences, ligter and easier to wield, and more beautiful in its motion, so it was often used anachronistically in movies.

I have read several Italian and German fenching manuals from the 16th and 17th century and examined the drawings in countless more. While there is a definite perference for the thrust in most of them, at no time was the cut ever discounted as a viable tactic. Furthermore, it would be nonsensical to think that someone fearing for his life would give himself such an obvious disadvantage as to not use a blunted weapon.

I am not familiar with the estoc, but I find it highly unlikily that it is the inspiration for the rapier. It certainly wasn't used by the Bolognese school of fencing and is wholely incompatible with the techniques taught by Achille Marozzo or Capo Ferro.

As for being ineffectual at slashing, I find that claim to be downright laughable. As I said above, all of the fencing manuals that I've seen from the 16th and 17th century taught the use of the cut. While I seriously doubt one would be hacking off many limbs, that isn't exactly necessary either. Much like a modern kitchen knife, the later masters taught that the effectiveness of the cut comes more from drawing the blade than it does from the initial impact. Grauenwolf (talk) 02:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Come now, Librarian! No need to get overly defensive: If an article contains errors, by all means go ahead and correct them! Removing information, however, has long been a no-no on the wikipedia, and as I still saw a use for an article about a rapier (being a rather famous sword type in and of itself) I simply reinstated the article, hoping that you would perhaps correct it. Oh, well. --Anders Törlind

 * As far as I'm aware, librarian's comments above are correct. I made the changes and moved some text around. I'm afraid I had to delete some phrases that were just totally not true (as far as I know), but I tried to put the respective information in some other sentence. English is not my first language, and neither am I an expert in rapiers (I've trained the use of one for about a year, that's all), so I'd be happy to have typos and mistakes corrected. -- Janka

Just two notes about some statements above:

 * 1) A rapier is a ... two-edged The earliest rapiers ('cut and thrust' rapiers) were two edged, but edges were deprecated and mostly abandoned in later rapiers.

Rapier has definitively a two edged sharp blade. But it has not to be confused with the earlier Spada da Lato (Sidesword) in use before it, more cutting oriented therefore with a broader sharp blade.

 * 1) The rapier developed at the very end of the 16th century...The rapier became popular in Europe in the 16th century the recently added internal contradiction. The rapier arose in 1500 and became obsolete around 1680.

This statement is not accurate. Rapier was in use until the end of the XIX century in Italy, in many different shapes but still fulfilling the basic criteria of what is a rapier. -- Arzach 2

No, it wasn't. The court-sword, smallsword, epee, and even duelling sabers were used in the 1800's, but not anything I, nor academia, would classify as a rapier. Sethwoodworth 18:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

omg people like it matters, any info i get that gets me a good grade on my project is all i and every other teen cares about. history aint completly acurate sometimes, deal with it! you people are freakin out over a stupid sword that no one realy cares about. did you know theres a whole word outside your house? go explore it! and stop being nerds in history. here do me a favor, get off this site now, open a news paper and find out about the more important problems the rest of the world has, jesus you people are so sad its pathetic. grow up and get a life! -Soccerboi-16

This page is for the discussion of the subject at hand -Soccerboi-16. Many of us want greater accuracy than what an average HIGH SCHOOL teacher would demand. Wikipedia should be held up to the same standards as other Encyclopedias, not to the standards of some teenage brat. I'm surprised you even visited this page, since this is a discussion page for a "stupid sword" nobody cares about. If you are uninterested in this particular area then that is fine with me, however, there is no need to go out of your way to tell other people they should be uninterested in this area. Contrary to your beliefs, many of us do have "lives" and are quite aware of current events (probably far more so then you). It seems someone who randomly goes into the middle of academic discussion pages (about fairly obscure topics too) and preaches about how the participants have "no lives" and should "grow up" doesn't have many (possibly any) other productive things to do with their time. Honestly, stop being so immature. -Anonymous-

 * Here's an idea: Saviolo (1595) taught cutting with the rapier. Swetnam (1617) emphasized the thrust. Perhaps someone with access to more manuals than I could go through them and list the ones that cut and those that don't. If there is a fairly clear cutoff, then we can say that until the year 16xx, rapiers were used for thrusts and cuts, and by the year 16yy, the use of the edge had mostly disappeared from instruction manuals. --Triskele Jim (talk) 20:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Commertial Links
Might I suggest we move Darkwood armory to the top of the commetial links list? They are usualy the de-facto rapier and sidesword manufacturer for custom swords. Relik's is simply a reseller for an indian factory (one of many) and the last isn't wide spread beyond it's personal section of the sca rapier market. Darkwood also has a wider selection than the other two. What is the standard here? Is there a wiki policy already on the concept?

weight?
This article gives information on the length and breadth of a rapier, but how much does an average rapier weigh? Marksman45 07:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

My understanding... no more than 3 pounds. 1 Kilo seems about right.Dave (talk) 07:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What's the source for the weights given in the article? _Arms and Armour_ by Fliegel includes rapiers weighing as much as 1.5 kg (though some are much lighter).  There was certainly some variation.  The Jade Knight (talk) 02:11, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Rapier beginnings
I'd like to adjust the beginning dates for rapiers, which are a bit off. The first use of the term rapier was in 1474. The spanish refered to it earlier as espada ropera, around 1469. The Italians claim that they invented rapiers even earlier, however the Italians called it only spada, "sword," so verifing their claim is a little harder. 1450 - 1460 for the Italians.

I'll add some references, but a quick Google search for "rapier 1474" has a lot of relavent hits, so this might effectivly be "common knowledge" and left uncited. The earlier dates I'll try to track down. --- Markspace 23:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

 * A number of sites identify the word rapier used in a French manuscript in 1474 as derived from the Spanish term espada ropera. These I think come from [|Complete Encyclopedia Of Arms & Weapons].  I have a copy and that's the explaination there.  Pubsblished 1986. --- Markspace 23:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

 * This article on [|rapiers] seems to have a second tack, but it also gives the date for the word rapier as 1474. Just one more... --- Markspace 23:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * don't be stupid, rapier has nothing to do with espada ropera but is the english render of "rapière" as most of the english words are renders of french words. french words orginates in many manguages including latin and greek. Louis R14 22:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

 * I can't understand why you difference between "ropera" and "rapier". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.137.214.184 (talk) 02:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * They are two different words. The question is why one should equate them.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 15:59, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Obviously, they are the same word from different languages. Just to note, the french word "rapière" has no meaning in french other than rapier because it comes from the spanish "ropera". The same thing happens with the word rapier in english. But in spanish ropera means "of clothes" or "dressing" and has a clear meaning. So from an etimological point of view it is clear. Yes, espada ropera has also the meaning of a sharp older sword (often the words have more than one meaning), it sometimes happens because there is always an older term when importing words, but the rapier is a espada ropera however you want to look at it unless you are blind. I am not saying that the rapier was first made in Spain, I dont know that, I am just saying that the swords are obviously the same and that the term is spanish in origin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.49.48.239 (talk) 21:08, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

 * You need to provide evidence, to back up your claims.
 * As far as I can tell, there is no one who has been able to make a clear, undeniable, case for the true etymology of the term "rapier". "Espada ropera" is a valid suggestion, for where the word "rapier" comes from, but not the only one ...and while the word "rapière" may not have any other meaning than "rapier" in modern French, that doesn't mean that it didn't have a different meaning in the past.
 * Also, the terms used back in the day, are generally relatively diverse and vague.
 * One word could be used for many types of blade, and many words could be used for the same thing ...and this becomes even worse when you consider that a word might be used for one thing at one time, but used for a different thing at a later/earlier time. This becomes further complicated when you consider the multiple languages. Thus what was called "rapier" or "ropera" in a certain time, in a certain language, in a certain country, might have nothing in common with what was called "rapier" or "ropera" in a different time/language/country.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 15:21, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

 * The term "espada ropera" includes the meaning of "rapier" as well as other edged swords. It is not a different sword to have a different wiki page or an early stage of the rapier as the wiki wrongly states (and misleads the readers for no reason). Because at that time, the term "espada ropera" could be used in Spain for any sword that could be carried by civilians as part of their clothes and just excluded those reserved for the military use, but nowadays the term has only the meaning of rapiers as well as edged rapiers. Also, if you can provide any document of any given time in which you can find the words "rapierè" or "rapier" referring to other thing than a sword I would like to see it (out of curiosity). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.49.48.239 (talk) 08:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

 * "The term "espada ropera" includes the meaning of "rapier" as well as other edged swords. It is not a different sword to have a different wiki page or an early stage of the rapier as the wiki wrongly states (and misleads the readers for no reason)."
 * So you claim ..but do you have any evidence for that? Historical usage won't count, for anything other than the etymology section. It is modern use, among modern sword scholars, that is relevant here.
 * "but nowadays the term has only the meaning of rapiers as well as edged rapiers."
 * Evidence please.
 * "Also, if you can provide any document of any given time in which you can find the words "rapierè" or "rapier" referring to other thing than a sword I would like to see it (out of curiosity)."
 * Well if you check the etymology/origin sections of well respected dictionaries...
 * http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/rapier?q=rapier
 * http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/rapier
 * That should be more than enough. Do you still have any complaints?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 17:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

 * I don't dissagree with the oxford dictionary at all. The word rapière might be an adaption of "rape", which I think it is, but that doesn't mean it is its origin at all. For example, in spanish the word for the voulge (a pole arm) is guja or buja. "Guja" is an adaption of "aguja" (pointed) but its origin comes from the french "vouge" or "voulge". In the case of the rapière it is easier to see the evolution. "Ropera" (spanish)->"rapera"(changing a vocal you adapt the word to have a meaning in french of rasp)->"rapiere" (to give it a french suffix)->"rapier" (for an english word). But even with the changes, from ropera to rapiere there are only 3 different vocals, taking out a vocal for the english term "rapier". Not like in my previous example from the french "voulge" to the spanish "guja" where almost all the letters where changed, but still, the origin of guja is voulge.
 * About its meaning we must see if along the history they have been trully different blades or not.
 * In the couplets of Juan de Mena's "Coplas de la panadera" - 1445-1450: the term "espada ropera" appears. It also appears in the documentated inventory of Alvaro de zuniga in 1468. It appears to be that the french term rapière first appears in the late 15th or early 16th century. But the edge of the sword is not removed from the swords until the late XVI century, so both swords were always edged when the terms appeared.
 * In Giles Duwes' "Introductorie for to lerne to rede, to pronounce an to speake Frenche trewly" - XVI century: la rapiére is translated as the "spannyshe sworde".
 * And in the New English Dictionary published in 1888 we can see the following definition of Rapier: Originally, a long, pointed, two-edged sword adapted either for cutting or thrusting, but chiefly used for the latter. In later use, a light, sharp-pointed sword designed only for thrusting ; a small sword.
 * Thus, the edge is not a difference between the swords rapière and the ropera and the ropera is not an early stage of the rapière or the rapier. So rapière, rapier and ropera, all had the meaning of being edged in the begining, same words for the same swords. The meaning for an only thrusting sword is modern.
 * Ewart Oakeshott in his book "European Weapons and Armour" (1980), a must read, supports this idea: page 136 - "The Spaniards of the late fifteenth century, finding that they could go about armed with these swords but without armour in comparative safety, began to call such weapons espadas roperas, 'swords of the robe', worn with ordinary civil dress. Early in the sixteenth century, when this practice had spread across Europe, the French condensed the name and called the weapon la rapiére, which the English further mutated to 'rapier'."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.49.48.239 (talk) 12:42, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "The word rapière might be an adaption of "rape", which I think it is, but that doesn't mean it is its origin at all."
 * No, but it could be ...or it might not.
 * "About its meaning we must see if along the history they have been trully different blades or not."
 * If you are still talking about the etymology: No, we don't.
 * Experts have looked into it, and they have found that they cannot ascertain what the exact etymology is.
 * We as Wikipedia editors are only supposed to relate what the experts have found, and not to come up with our own research (see WP:Original Research).
 * Your citation of Oakeshott is trumped by the multitude of various dictionaries and other sources, that cite other possibilities and state that the true nature of the origins of the term "rapier" is uncertain.
 * If you are talking about what the words mean today: No we don't. The historical usage is irrelevant.
 * "But the edge of the sword is not removed from the swords until the late XVI century, so both swords were always edged when the terms appeared."
 * I don't understand why you are talking about edges being there or not.
 * Rapiers have edges.
 * It is the small sword, that lacks edges, not the rapier.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 01:55, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation?
I came to this page whilst tying to find information on the UK Rapier surface to air missile (Rapier_missile). Maybe some sort of "could also refer to" is needed?

Brainz42 08:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Capo Ferro vs Capoferro
Although this might be more for the Capo Ferro page here on wikipedia, the most credible spellings that i can find and know all agree on the Capo Ferro spelling.

Scans of Capo Ferro's original text I see no reason to dispute how he spelled his own name.

The Capo Ferro Translation Project

The recently published Italian Rapier Combat: Ridolfo Capo Ferro

While Capoferro may be a modern translation of his name, it would be more correct and returns the most correct results on google, to use Capo Ferro in the beginning of the article as it is used in the rest of the article and in the reference materials also linked to in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vectorb (talk • contribs) 18:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Actually Capo Ferro is the 'modern' transcription of his name. Again, look here: http://www.viahup.com/index.php?title=Ridolfo_Capoferro

He spelled his own name as one word, as is apparent from Latinizations of his name, and references by other masters of the time. It wouldn't be more correct to spell it as two words, doing that just perpetuates an error made years ago by part of the English-speaking (and more importantly, Italian-ignorant) WMA community. Don't quote the title of a poor modern translation: Italian Rapier Combat: Ridolfo Capo Ferro Clearly the translator of that book had only the crudest of Italian skills--his translations are clunky at best and often times plain wrong. Yet, you'll take that over Jacopo Gelli's spelling? That is Gelli, who was a fencing historian and bibliographer who also happened to be a native Italian speaker? Do you read Italian well enough to make that judgement? Others who do side with Gelli. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marozzo (talk • contribs) 20:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

 * While I dont call a reference to another questionable wiki page a strong reference, I don't deny that it could be either one. The main point is that this page reflect the best information. We should not have his name spelled two different ways on the same page. We can not change the reference books including his own original text. I see that you have added the name confusion to his wiki page and that makes sense and where the difference should be noted, however on this page I think that it should be listed to match the reference material that we can link to. Alternately I dont see any reason to discuss Capo Ferro's opinion of the rapier over any of the other masters anyway and we could just rewrite without him. How would you best reconcile the difference? It should not stay as it is. Vectorb 22:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

 * On the matter of his own original text, on the front page his name seems to be spelled as two words. However, is that a purposeful space, a mistake by the typesetter, or just "drift" of the characters? However if you look at his portrait, you see his name in Latin: Rodulphus Capoferrus. If his name was two words, the declension rules of Latin would mandate (I think) Rodulphus Caput Ferrus that is, there would have to be agreement of the case endings (even if 'caput' is not correct, 'capo' is clearly not correct in this case). Now disregarding Jared Kirby's translation and unpublished, amateur translations, we're left with Castle's spelling "Capo Ferro" and Gelli's spelling "Capoferro". In this case, I would have to side with Gelli since 1. he was a native Italian and 2. his book is far more complete in terms of a fencing bibliography. Now the only other books I can think of that might match these in terms of completeness are Thimm's fencing bibliography (of which I don't have a copy yet) and Sydney Anglo's The Martial Arts of Renaissance Europe. However, Dr. Anglo also spells it as one word. Also, the original copies that the Library of Congress owns (they own three different editions) are listed as 'Capoferro' being the author. Finally, the modern spelling of the surname (it still exists in Italy) is 'Capoferro'.Marozzo 01:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Modern practitioners
User 68.237.193.195 please stop saying that there are unbroken rapier traditions. Although there have been a number of claims, not a single living person has ever produces a clear line back to one of the rapier masters. Ranp 14:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, based on Jacopo Gelli, it appears that there is an unbroken line back to the Marcelli dynasty of the 1400s, which leads up to the program at SJSU, although this would have to be verified in other sources. However, even if it is true (and it does seem very likely that it is), it really doesn't mean that any of the techniques have survived intact (as any graduate of the program will admit)--certainly the program doesn't teach anything about the systems of swordsmanship used in the 1400 or 1500s. You can start to see the seeds of classical technique and pedagogy in the treatise of the late 1600s (especially Marcelli), but that is a far cry from legitimacy that some other schools claim to have. Clearly no "living rapier system" has existed for a few generations at best.Marozzo 16:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone is still editing the article to say that there is unbroken lines to rapier masters. This person neither states who has such an unbroken line nor do they state their name. If someone makes the claim of an unbroken line then please cite who they are and supporting documentation. If there is nothing to cite then please do not edit the article.Ranp 16:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Relocated image
I relocated the image of the rapier from the first section to the opening, for better formatting. I hope nobody minds --DFRussia 04:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Nominated for Deletion
Given that the user Oglach98 (another nameless person) has not made a single contribution to Wikipedia I find it completely ridiculous for him/her to suggest that this article be deleted. If I was to take a wild guess I would say that this is related to the "unbroken tradition" issue. In any case, I am removing the Nominated for Deletion tag. A Nominated for Deletion tag should only be added by someone with real authority on Wikipedia or someone who has at least made significant contributions to Wikipedia. Ranp 17:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

 * See guidelines in the deletion tag: "this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oglach98 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Oglach98, why don't you start by letting us know who you really are. Why hide behind a an account that has made no contributions to Wikipedia?  Are you the same person as User 68.237.193.195?  Please tell us specifically why this article should be deleted? Ranp 21:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

 * This nomination for deletion is completely bogus. Both sides of the issue (or multiple views) can be presented. However, the base position, that there is an unbroken tradition of rapier techniques is the one that needs to be supported with evidence--something that has never been presented. If those who claim that would provide some reasonable evidence, most of the community would be reasonably open-minded. The problem is that [b]no evidence[/b] has been presented other than the circular kind: "I'm a rapier master and I say the tradition exists and you have to believe me because I'm a rapier master." Even in the most extreme case, all references to living rapier traditions, pro and con, could be removed rather than just deleting the whole article.Marozzo 22:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD notice
This article was subject to an AfD debate. The result was speedy keep. J Milburn 19:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism: Deletion of Information
The user Dingleberry1117 deleted very valid and important inforamtion from the article without explaining his actions. That information has been re-inserted. Given that Dingleberry1117 has not edited a single other article in Wikipedia it appears that his actions were nothing but another simple case of vandalism in which any reference to or by John Clements or ARMA are deleted without reason.Ranp (talk) 16:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed the statement "However in the Historical Fencing community his view is widely criticized for lack of historical evidence" that was inserted by the user Dingleberry1117 for two reasons. First, where two views on rapier classification (ie, the view of Tom Leoni and the view of John Clements) are presented in breif statements it makes no sense to insert an undocumented rebuttal statement. Second, the statement was actually inserted to appear that John Clements was say the statement about his own work. Again, given that the user Dingleberry1117 has made no other contributions to Wikipedia his/her actions can only be view as an attempt to take a cheap shot at discrediting John Clements rather than as a valid attempt to improve the article. If the user Dingleberry1117 is truely interested in improving the article then let him/her start by stating clearly who they are.Ranp (talk) 16:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Another round of vandalism by the user Dingleberry1117.Ranp (talk) 18:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

And another round of vandalism by the user Dingleberry1117Ranp (talk) 14:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Description
I've removed some critique of the description from the Description section. I thought the comments were valid, but the way to fix the problem is to fix the problem with appropriate re-writes-- not to throw in some criticism mid-section. Beastiepaws (talk) 05:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Pappenheimer
Pappenheimer links to this article, that is not good because the pappenheimer hilt is of minor importance in this article, while other articles exist like: the Pappenheimer family, general Pappenheimer (from the 30 years war). It needs a disambiguation page, but I do not know how to make one so I'm signalling it here, maybe someone can take care of it? 194.78.102.186 (talk) 15:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

 * you mean like this: Pappenheim (disambiguation)? If you want to make a disambiguation page for Pappenheimer, be bold.

 * Since pappenhimer hilts were also used on swords of war, it might be appropriate to have a page titled "Pappenheimer hilt" with a few pictures and links to Rapier and Sidesword.

 * By the way, the 30 Years War commander you speak of was Gottfried Heinrich Graf zu Pappenheim, not General Pappenhiemer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Triskele Jim (talk • contribs) 17:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

 * Yes, I found out you are right. However, where I live the name Pappenheim is mostly known from a quote in Friedrich Schiller's play Wallenstein ("Daran erkenn' ich meine Pappenheimer"). I believe it is due to sloppy translation that we often take the name of the general to be "Pappenheimer" instead of Pappenheim. So when I was looking for information on this man, I was surprised to arrive on a page about rapiers. Especially now that I found out about the existence of an actual Pappenheimer family that was executed for wichcraft. 194.78.102.186 (talk) 07:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

"Raper" vs. "Rapier"
I noticed that "rapier" was misspelled as "raper" in most instances in this article. This looked like obvious vandalism to me. (Ha ha, raper, very funny... not.) Just to be thorough, I checked with Google to see if "rapier" is ever commonly spelled "raper" and didn't find any evidence. Also, the edit seems to have been made by an anonymous person who left no comment or explanation for the edit. So I reverted "raper" back to "rapier". I didn't change the word "raper" in a block of Latin text; I think that is correct.

Changing "rapier" to "raper" seems like the sort of vandalism that may be repeated. Watch out for it in future. Steveha (talk) 07:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

L'Abbat
I removed L'Abbat from the list of rapier schools, as he's normally regarded as a smallsword master.87.210.0.196 (talk) 21:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

merge Spada da lato
I think we should merge Spada da lato here, as the Spada da Iato and Espada ropera are just early rapiers. Tinynanorobots (talk) 02:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

 * This is not the case. Side swords co-existed with rapiers throughout their period. While the early rapiers were edged, this type of sword was intended as a weapon suited to both war and civilian use. See ARMA's glossary, especially the section under "cut & thrust". (Association for Renaissance Martial Arts-- highly authoritative source that has contributed significant scholarship to the field).
 * If you have a specific source you'd like to share to support your proposal, please do. Wellspring (talk) 04:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Thanks, that source helped me understand a lot, although there is still a lack of clarity on what a Spada da Iato or Espada ropera is. In fact, Espada ropera seems to be Spanish for rapier. There are obviously two basic types of swords. "Thrust" and "Cut and Thrust" It seems in English, it is generally excepted that a rapier is a thrusting sword. I don't think that it is generally accepted that Spada da Iato or Espada ropera are exclusive or preferred English terms for types of cut and thrust swords. Only it is mentioned is that they are sometimes used to refer to both what is now known as a rapier, or a cut and thrust sword. After all, the original terms don't describe how they were used, but how they were worn. Actually, I can't find a translation of ropera besides rapier. Anyway, I am looking for some more detailed sources on side-swords/ cut and thrust swords. Tinynanorobots (talk) 15:42, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, what terms people historically used, for which type of swords, was generally rather vague and imprecise. Nowadays, the terms "spada da lato" and "cut and thrust sword", refer to a specific type of sword, and rapier to another (though there is some disagreement on the border between them), but historically...
 * As to the source, it is from ARMA who are a relatively small, and very insular, HEMA group. A group which strongly and radically disagrees with the wider HEMA community on many issues. As such, what is said in their glossary, doesn't necessarily reflect what is generally accepted by modern sword-related communities (be they HEMA groups, sword collectors, historians, sword-smiths etc).--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 08:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * So, it is ambiguous. What should we do with the articles, because they are in a poor state now. I mean there does seem to be a consensus that a rapier can be strictly defined, but not much info on side swords and the what not.Tinynanorobots (talk) 20:46, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * In what way could what I said, be interpreted as it being ambiguous? Historically, it's been ambiguous, but not the way it is used now. The wikipedia articles should reflect modern usage, with historical usage being mentioned as an aside.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 08:47, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The espada ropera article was wholly unsourced, so after four years, I've redirected here instead, so feel free to expand as needed. MSJapan (talk) 05:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Most of these will remain broadly unsourced because ARMA is wholly writing nonsense and their ahistorical idea of the rapier as a pure thrusting tool is based mostly on a narrow reading of Silver against literally every italian master. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.185.138 (talk) 07:15, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Rappier
This article claims "It is important to remember that the word "rapier" is a German word to describe what was considered to be a foreign weapon", citing the work of Joachim Meyer. It should be noted that many regard Meyer's "rappier", to be a very different weapon to the rapier.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 17:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

 * Who and how so?--Triskele Jim 16:40, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The HEMA community in general. Meyer may call it a "rappier", but its not what we would now call a rapier (mind you, our modern terminology isn't always the same as the, far less consistent, period terms). If you want evidence of this opinion, I've found many a forum post (in HEMA forums), where this opinion is clearly seen as an obvious fact: http://216.242.127.82/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=146 http://hemaalliance.com/discussion/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=219 http://hemaalliance.com/discussion/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2055&hilit=rappier http://www.thearma.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=40157&sid=31548ef4b0d7a3fd5a4620da647f7d14 http://www.thearma.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=39009&sid=ab7f578bb927efcab4291255adfc9bc5
 * ...and, though not referring to a work of Meyer's, but rather that of Mair: http://freifechter.com/PHM_Rappier.pdf
 * --ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 10:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

rapier cup style sword
I purchased a cup rapier from the estate of a collector. Unfortunently all his wife new about the one I got was that he brought it back from Europe probably 50 years ago. The only marking I can find on it is at the base of the hilt just under the cup engraved into the sword is the forearm of a man holding up a christian gothic style cross in its fist. Is anyone familiar with this makers mark? thx Cooper552012 11-8-12 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooper552012 (talk • contribs) 02:59, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Done away with medieval armour?
This is blatantly false. Conventional metal armour persisted until the 19th century, as it was more than adequate against firearms until the advent of the conical bullet and even then was sufficient against small arms. During the renaissance it did get substantially lighter due to a change in tactics, and more often than not armour was reduced to just a helmet and cuirass, but it still persisted. The complete lack of truth behind this combined with the lack of citation makes me suspect this was just snuck in by somebody with no knowledge in the matter who wanted to insert their bullet-worshipping nonsense into an article that couldn't possibly justify it. 50.123.104.96 (talk) 08:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a common belief. I think it would be more accurate to say the rapier was a civilian sidearm, and would not normally be used against armor. I'll need to find a citation for this, though, unless editors are willing to replace an implausible, uncited statement, with a more plausible but still uncited statement?--Triskele Jim 15:33, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Off-Hand Weaponry
This may be a good source to draw from for the expansion of the "Off Hand Weapons" section: http://moondragon.info/wiki/Basic_Rapier_Fighting_Styles 12.109.196.138 (talk) 13:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)spudman2
 * Some random SCA group (or the SCA, in general) does not count as a Reliable Source. I see no reason to regard them as reliable sources for information about rapiers or rapier fencing ...or any arm or armour, or the use thereof.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 14:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

 * This seems an authoritative site on the rapier although has a copyright warning at the bottom. REVUpminster (talk) 14:58, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well... ARMA are a small, insular group. They are generally considered unscholarly, bad at citing their sources, dogmatic and... undiplomatic. They have many views, which pretty much all others in the HEMA community disagree with, and find no basis for. Granted, there are many more areas, where there is agreement, but a lot of the disagreements are on fairly significant and fundamental issues.
 * I'd say that they count as an unrepresentative fringe group. Any authority they have, is strictly within ARMA itself, and their expertise is self-proclaimed. Others outside of the group, do not accept them as a good or trustworthy source. Thus I would not really count them as qualifying as a Reliable Source.
 * Furthermore, whilst John Clements has looked into rapiers a bit, it's nevertheless not really his area.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

WP Cutlery
"WikiProject Cutlery, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of knives, swords, and blades"; this would seem relevant to this article as it is to other articles on types of sword.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 15:16, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you aware what cutlery means? Swords cannot be called cutlery, by any stretch of the imagination. Since when are rapiers used to eat, or cook, food?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 01:56, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The WP Cutlery's scope is not restricted to the meaning of the single word "cutlery"; "WikiProject Cutlery, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of knives, swords, and blades"--Johnsoniensis (talk) 09:45, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You like to quote "WikiProject Cutlery, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of knives, swords, and blades", and yet... Where does it say that?
 * Nowhere.
 * The WikiProject does mention "bladed weapons" though ...which is a flaw in the WikiProject. An I have brought up in the projects talk page.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 19:42, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

For those that haven't checked the above mentioned discussion in the projects page: The issue has been resolved, with the project changing its name to "Blades", rather than "Cutlery".--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 17:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Dubious source
Here's the part of the text which I'm concerned about;
 * Its development began at a time period when the need for a lighter and faster sword became mandatory thanks to the introduction of firearm use in warfare and the corresponding de-emphasis on heavy armor.

First of all there's a consensus in the world of Historical European Martial Arts that lighter blades are not automatically faster. The cited source: http://www.historynet.com/weaponry-the-rapier.htm is based on an article written in 1996 and unfortunately features some outdated beliefs about arms & armor. We read lines like "The knightly harness was now a liability, and with its demise followed the decline of weapons designed to combat it–the mace, the war hammer and swords whose efficacy depended as much on percussion as on edge." - which is basically nothing more than repeating the myth Medieval swords were blunt and heavy for breaking through armor and crushing bones. Nothing of it is even remotely accurate. Also lines like "Since armor was no longer a consideration, and the rapier's design allowed for a much wider range of movement, the new competition became one of vying philosophies of defense, or, as the term evolved, 'fence.'" - reveal an outdated point of view, ignorant of Late Medieval/Renaissance fencing manuals & treatises and mobility of original 14-16th century plate armor armor as well. --Gladifer (talk) 19:56, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. On all points.
 * Frankly, looking at the source, it doesn't really qualify as a WP:Reliable source, either, so... I'll remove that statement.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 03:51, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sadly, most sword related articles on Wikipedia tend to be rather... flawed. (to put it nicely) Still a lot better than any other encyclopaedia, though.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 03:56, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Rapier. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110928060939/http://www.salvatorfabris.com/BologneseIntroduction.pdf to http://www.salvatorfabris.com/BologneseIntroduction.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100330045310/http://www.chicagoswordplayguild.com:80/c/theTradition/bologneseswordsmanship.asp to http://www.chicagoswordplayguild.com/c/theTradition/BologneseSwordsmanship.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Bronze age rapiers
This article needs to reference Bronze Age rapiers. Any mention of them is entirely omitted.

https://finds.org.uk/guides/bronzeage/objects/rapiers-and-dirks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.185.183.141 (talk) 03:00, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Espada Ropera
Does anyone actually use the term "espada ropera" in English? I've never seen it used outside of discussions of the origin of the name, and I teach rapier fencing professionally. The Jade Knight (talk) 03:35, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Antique Spanish sword.
Sword signed Madrid Hallmark looks like boar & 150 and tests for silver. Also personalized. 64.138.210.101 (talk) 20:47, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Blade
This section talks a lot about how many parts of a blade rapier masters counted but near to no information is given if the blade was sharpened. Could someone please expand that section? Heilongjian (talk) 07:41, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Rapier


text:
Glorious First of June

The Glorious First of June (1 June 1794), also known as the Fourth Battle of Ushant, (known in France as the Bataille du 13 prairial an 2 or Combat de Prairial) was the first and largest fleet action of the naval conflict between the Kingdom of Great Britain and the First French Republic during the French Revolutionary Wars.

The action was the culmination of a campaign that had criss-crossed the Bay of Biscay over the previous month in which both sides had captured numerous merchant ships and minor warships and had engaged in two partial, but inconclusive, fleet actions. The British Channel Fleet under Admiral Lord Howe attempted to prevent the passage of a vital French grain convoy from the United States, which was protected by the French Atlantic Fleet, commanded by Rear-Admiral Villaret-Joyeuse. The two forces clashed in the Atlantic Ocean, some 400 nmi west of the French island of Ushant on 1 June 1794.

During the battle, Howe defied naval convention by ordering his fleet to turn towards the French and for each of his vessels to rake and engage their immediate opponent. This unexpected order was not understood by all of his captains, and as a result, his attack was more piecemeal than he intended. Nevertheless, his ships inflicted a severe tactical defeat on the French fleet. In the aftermath of the battle both fleets were left shattered; in no condition for further combat, Howe and Villaret returned to their home ports. Despite losing seven of his ships of the line, Villaret had bought enough time for the French grain convoy to reach safety unimpeded by Howe's fleet, securing a strategic success. However, he was also forced to withdraw his battle fleet back to port, leaving the British free to conduct a campaign of blockade for the remainder of the war. In the immediate aftermath, both sides claimed victory and the outcome of the battle was seized upon by the press of both nations as a demonstration of the prowess and bravery of their respective navies.

The Glorious First of June demonstrated a number of the major problems inherent in the French and British navies at the start of the Revolutionary Wars. Both admirals were faced with disobedience from their captains, along with ill-discipline and poor training among their shorthanded crews, and they failed to control their fleets effectively during the height of the combat.

Background
Since early 1792 France had been at war with four of its neighbours on two fronts, battling the Habsburg monarchy and Prussia in the Austrian Netherlands, and the Austrians and Piedmontese in Italy. On 2 January 1793, almost one year into the French Revolutionary War, republican-held forts at Brest in Brittany fired on the British brig HMS Childers. A few weeks later, following the execution of the imprisoned King Louis XVI, diplomatic ties between Britain and France were broken. On 1 February, France declared war on both Britain and the Dutch Republic.

Protected from immediate invasion by the English Channel, Britain prepared for an extensive naval campaign and dispatched troops to the Netherlands for service against the French. Throughout the remainder of 1793, the British and French navies undertook minor operations in Northern waters, the Mediterranean and the West and East Indies, where both nations maintained colonies. The closest the Channel Fleet had come to an engagement was when it had narrowly missed intercepting the French convoy from the Caribbean, escorted by 15 ships of the line on 2 August. The only major clash was the Siege of Toulon, a confused and bloody affair in which the British force holding the town—alongside Spanish, Sardinian, Austrian and French Royalist troops—had to be evacuated by the Royal Navy to prevent its imminent defeat at the hands of the French Revolutionary Army. The aftermath of this siege was punctuated by recriminations and accusations of cowardice and betrayal among the allies, eventually resulting in Spain switching allegiance with the signing of the Treaty of San Ildefonso two years later. Nevertheless, the siege produced one major success: Sir Sidney Smith, with parties of sailors from the retreating British fleet, accomplished the destruction of substantial French naval stores and shipping in Toulon. More might have been achieved had the Spanish raiding parties that accompanied Smith not been issued with secret orders to stall the destruction of the French fleet.

The situation in Europe remained volatile into 1794. Off northern France, the French Atlantic Fleet had mutinied due to errors in provisions and pay. In consequence, the French Navy officer corps suffered greatly from the effects of the Reign of Terror, with many experienced sailors being executed, imprisoned or dismissed from the service for perceived disloyalty. The shortage of provisions was more than a navy problem though; France itself was starving because the social upheavals of the previous year had combined with a harsh winter to ruin the harvest. By this time at war with all her neighbours, France had nowhere to turn for overland imports of fresh provisions. Eventually a solution to the food crisis was agreed by the National Convention: food produced in France's overseas colonies would be concentrated on board a fleet of merchant ships gathered in Chesapeake Bay, and augmented with food and goods purchased from the United States. During April and May 1794, the merchantmen would convoy the supplies across the Atlantic to Brest, protected by elements of the French Atlantic Fleet.

Fleets
The navies of Britain and France in 1794 were at very different stages of development. Although the British fleet was numerically superior, the French ships were larger (even if more lightly built), and carried a heavier weight of shot. The largest French ships were three-decker first rates, carrying 110 or 120 guns, against 100 guns on the largest British vessels.

Royal Navy

Since the Nootka Crisis of 1790, the Royal Navy had been at sea in a state of readiness for over three years. The Navy's dockyards under First Lord of the Admiralty Charles Middleton were all fully fitted and prepared for conflict. This was quite unlike the disasters of the American Revolutionary War ten years earlier, when an ill-prepared Royal Navy had taken too long to reach full effectiveness and was consequently unable to support the North American campaign, which ended in defeat at the Siege of Yorktown due to lack of supplies. With British dockyards now readily turning out cannon, shot, sails, provisions and other essential equipment, the only remaining problem was that of manning the several hundred ships on the Navy list.

Unfortunately for the British, gathering sufficient manpower was difficult and never satisfactorily accomplished throughout the entire war. The shortage of seamen was such that press gangs were forced to take thousands of men with no experience on the sea, meaning that training and preparing them for naval life would take quite some time. The lack of Royal Marines was even more urgent, and soldiers from the British Army were drafted into the fleet for service at sea. Men of the 2nd. Regiment of Foot – The Queen's (Royal West Surrey Regiment) and the 29th Regiment of Foot served aboard Royal Navy ships during the campaign; their descendant regiments still maintain the battle honour "1 June 1794".

Despite these difficulties, the Channel Fleet was possessed of one of the best naval commanders of the age; its commander-in-chief, Richard Howe, 1st Earl Howe, had learned his trade under Edward Hawke, 1st Baron Hawke and fought at the Battle of Quiberon Bay in 1759. In the spring of 1794, with the French convoy's arrival in European waters imminent, Howe had dispersed his fleet in three groups. George Montagu, in HMS Hector, was sent with six ships of the line and two frigates to guard British convoys to the East Indies, West Indies and Newfoundland as far as Cape Finisterre. Peter Rainier, in HMS ''Suffolk and commanding six other ships, was to escort the convoys for the rest of their passage. The third force consisted of 26 ships of the line, with several supporting vessels, under Howe's direct command. They were to patrol the Bay of Biscay for the arriving French.

French Navy

In contrast to their British counterparts, the French Navy was in a state of confusion. Although the quality of the fleet's ships was high, the fleet hierarchy was riven by the same crises that had torn through France since the Revolution five years earlier. Consequently, the high standard of ships and ordnance was not matched by that of the available crews, which were largely untrained and inexperienced. With the Terror resulting in the death or dismissal of many senior French sailors and officers, political appointees and conscripts—many of whom had never been to sea at all, let alone in a fighting vessel—filled the Atlantic fleet.

The manpower problem was compounded by the supply crisis which was affecting the entire nation, with the fleet going unpaid and largely unfed for months at times. In August 1793, these problems came to a head in the fleet off Brest, when a lack of provisions resulted in a mutiny among the regular sailors. The crews overruled their officers and brought their ships into harbour in search of food, leaving the French coast undefended. The National Convention responded instantly by executing a swathe of senior officers and ship's non-commissioned officers. Hundreds more officers and sailors were imprisoned, banished or dismissed from naval service. The effect of this purge was devastating, seriously degrading the fighting ability of the fleet by removing at a stroke many of its most capable personnel. In their places were promoted junior officers, merchant captains and even civilians who expressed sufficient revolutionary zeal, although few of them knew how to fight or control a battle fleet at sea.

The newly appointed commander of this troubled fleet was Villaret de Joyeuse; although formerly in a junior position, he was known to possess a high degree of tactical ability; he had trained under Admiral Pierre André de Suffren in the Indian Ocean during the American war. However, Villaret's attempts to mould his new officer corps into an effective fighting unit were hampered by another new appointee, a deputy of the National Convention named Jean-Bon Saint-André. Saint-André's job was to report directly to the National Convention on the revolutionary ardour of both the fleet and its admiral. He frequently intervened in strategic planning and tactical operations. Shortly after his arrival, Saint-André proposed issuing a decree ordering that any officer deemed to have shown insufficient zeal in defending his ship in action should be put to death on his return to France, although this highly controversial legislation does not appear to have ever been acted upon. Although his interference was a source of frustration for Villaret, Saint-André's dispatches to Paris were published regularly in Le Moniteur Universel, and did much to popularise the Navy in France.

The French Atlantic fleet was even more dispersed than the British in the spring of 1794: Rear-Admiral Pierre Vanstabel had been dispatched, with five ships including two of the line, to meet the much-needed French grain convoy off the American eastern seaboard. Rear-Admiral Joseph-Marie Nielly had sailed from Rochefort with five ships of the line and assorted cruising warships to rendezvous with the convoy in the mid-Atlantic. This left Villaret with 25 ships of the line at Brest to meet the threat posed by the British fleet under Lord Howe.

Convoy
By early spring of 1794, the situation in France was dire. With famine looming after the failure of the harvest and the blockade of French ports and trade, the French government was forced to look overseas for sustenance. Turning to France's colonies in the Americas, and the agricultural bounty of the United States, the National Convention gave orders for the formation of a large convoy of sailing vessels to gather at Hampton Roads in the Chesapeake Bay, where Admiral Vanstabel would wait for them. According to contemporary historian William James this conglomeration of ships was said to be over 350 strong, although he disputes this figure, citing the number as 117 (in addition to the French warships).

The convoy had also been augmented by the United States government, in both cargo and shipping, as repayment for French financial, moral and military support during the American Revolution. In supporting the French Revolution in this way, the American government, urged especially by Ambassador Gouverneur Morris, was fulfilling its ten-year-old debt to France. Friendly relations between the United States and France did not long survive the Jay Treaty which came into effect in 1796; by 1798 the two nations would be engaged in the Quasi War.

May 1794
The French convoy, escorted by Vanstabel, departed America from Virginia on 2 April, and Howe sailed from Portsmouth on 2 May, taking his entire fleet to both escort British convoys to the Western Approaches and intercept the French. Checking that Villaret was still in Brest, Howe spent two weeks searching the Bay of Biscay for the grain convoy, returning to Brest on 18 May to discover that Villaret had sailed the previous day. Returning to sea in search of his opponent, Howe pursued Villaret deep into the Atlantic. Also at sea during this period were the squadrons of Nielly (French) and Montagu (British), both of whom had met with some success; Nielly had captured a number of British merchant ships and Montagu had taken several back. Nielly was the first to encounter the grain convoy, deep in the Atlantic in the second week of May. He took it under escort as it moved closer to Europe, while Montagu was searching fruitlessly to the south.

Despite Howe's pursuit, the main French sortie found initial success, running into a Dutch convoy and taking 20 ships from it on Villaret's first day at sea. For the next week Howe continued to follow the French, seizing and burning a trail of French-held Dutch ships and enemy corvettes. On 25 May Howe spotted a straggler from Villaret's fleet and gave chase; Audacieux led Howe straight to his opponent's location. Having finally found Villaret, on 28 May Howe attacked, using a flying squadron of his fastest ships to cut off its rearmost vessel Révolutionnaire. This first rate was at various times engaged with six British ships and took heavy damage, possibly striking her colours late in the action. As darkness fell the British and French fleets separated, leaving Révolutionnaire and her final enemy, HMS Audacious, still locked in combat behind them. These two ships parted company during the night and eventually returned to their respective home ports. By this stage Villaret knew through his patrolling frigates that the grain convoy was close, and deliberately took his fleet to the west, hoping to decoy Howe away from the vital convoy.

Taking the bait, the following day Howe attacked again, but his attempt to split the French fleet in half was unsuccessful when his lead ship, HMS Caesar, failed to follow orders. Much damage was done to both fleets but the action was inconclusive, and the two forces again separated without having settled the issue. Howe had however gained an important advantage during the engagement by seizing the weather gage, enabling him to further attack Villaret at a time of his choosing. Three French ships were sent back to port with damage, but these losses were offset by reinforcements gained the following day with the arrival of Nielly's detached squadron. Battle was postponed during the next two days because of thick fog, but when the haze lifted on 1 June 1794, the battle lines were only 6 miles (10 km) apart and Howe was prepared to force a decisive action.

First of June

Although Howe was in a favourable position, Villaret had not been idle during the night. He had attempted, with near success, to distance his ships from the British fleet; when dawn broke at 05:00 he was within a few hours of gaining enough wind to escape over the horizon. Allowing his men to breakfast, Howe took full advantage of his position on the weather gage to close with Villaret, and by 08:12 the British fleet was just four miles (6 km) from the enemy. By this time, Howe's formation was deployed in an organised line parallel to the French, with frigates acting as repeaters for the admiral's commands. The French were likewise in line ahead and the two lines began exchanging long-range gunfire at 09:24, whereupon Howe unleashed his innovative battleplan.

It was normal in fleet actions of the 18th century for the two lines of battle to pass one another sedately, exchanging fire at long ranges and then wearing away, often without either side losing a ship or taking an enemy. In contrast, Howe was counting on the professionalism of his captains and crews combined with the advantage of the weather gage to attack the French directly, driving through their line. However, this time he did not plan to manoeuvre in the way he had during the two previous encounters, each ship following in the wake of that in front to create a new line arrowing through his opponent's force (as Rodney had done at the Battle of the Saintes 12 years earlier). Instead, Howe ordered each of his ships to turn individually towards the French line, intending to breach it at every point and rake the French ships at both bow and stern. The British captains would then pull up on the leeward side of their opposite numbers, cutting them off from their retreat downwind, and engage them directly, hopefully forcing each to surrender and consequently destroying the French Atlantic Fleet.

British break the line
Within minutes of issuing the signal and turning his flagship HMS Queen Charlotte, Howe's plan began to falter. Many of the British captains had either misunderstood or ignored the signal and were hanging back in the original line. Other ships were still struggling with damage from Howe's earlier engagements and could not get into action fast enough. The result was a ragged formation tipped by Queen Charlotte that headed unevenly for Villaret's fleet. The French responded by firing on the British ships as they approached, but the lack of training and coordination in the French fleet was obvious; many ships which did obey Howe's order and attacked the French directly arrived in action without significant damage.

Van squadron

Although Queen Charlotte pressed on all sail, she was not the first through the enemy line. That distinction belonged to a ship of the van squadron under Admiral Graves: HMS Defence under Captain James Gambier, a notoriously dour officer nicknamed "Dismal Jimmy" by his contemporaries. Defence, the seventh ship of the British line, successfully cut the French line between its sixth and seventh ships; Mucius and Tourville. Raking both opponents, Defence soon found herself in difficulty due to the failure of those ships behind her to properly follow up. This left her vulnerable to Mucius, Tourville and the ships following them, with which she began a furious fusillade. However, Defence was not the only ship of the van to break the French line; minutes later George Cranfield Berkeley in HMS Marlborough executed Howe's manoeuvre perfectly, raking and then entangling his ship with Impétueux.

In front of Marlborough the rest of the van had mixed success. HMS Bellerophon and HMS Leviathan were both still suffering the effects of their exertions earlier in the week and did not breach the enemy line. Instead they pulled along the near side of Éole and America respectively and brought them to close gunnery duels. Rear-Admiral Thomas Pasley of Bellerophon was an early casualty, losing a leg in the opening exchanges. HMS Royal Sovereign, Graves's flagship, was less successful due to a miscalculation of distance that resulted in her pulling up too far from the French line and coming under heavy fire from her opponent Terrible. In the time it took to engage Terrible more closely, Royal Sovereign suffered a severe pounding and Admiral Graves was badly wounded.

More disturbing to Lord Howe were the actions of HMS Russell and HMS Caesar. Russell's captain John Willett Payne was criticised at the time for failing to get to grips with the enemy more closely and allowing her opponent Téméraire to badly damage her rigging in the early stages, although later commentators blamed damage received on 29 May for her poor start to the action. There were no such excuses, however, for Captain Anthony Molloy of Caesar, who totally failed in his duty to engage the enemy. Molloy completely ignored Howe's signal and continued ahead as if the British battleline was following him rather than engaging the French fleet directly. Caesar did participate in a desultory exchange of fire with the leading French ship Trajan but her fire had little effect, while Trajan inflicted much damage to Caesar's rigging and was subsequently able to attack Bellerophon as well, roaming unchecked through the melee developing at the head of the line.

Centre
The centre of the two fleets was divided by two separate squadrons of the British line: the forward division under admirals Benjamin Caldwell and George Bowyer and the rear under Lord Howe. While Howe in Queen Charlotte was engaging the French closely, his subordinates in the forward division were less active. Instead of moving in on their opposite numbers directly, the forward division sedately closed with the French in line ahead formation, engaging in a long distance duel which did not prevent their opponents from harassing the embattled Defence just ahead of them. Of all the ships in this squadron only HMS Invincible, under Thomas Pakenham, ranged close to the French lines. Invincible was badly damaged by her lone charge but managed to engage the larger Juste. HMS Barfleur under Bowyer did later enter the action, but Bowyer was not present, having lost a leg in the opening exchanges.

Howe and Queen Charlotte led the fleet by example, sailing directly at the French flagship Montagne. Passing between Montagne and the next in line Vengeur du Peuple, Queen Charlotte raked both and hauled up close to Montagne to engage in a close-range artillery battle. As she did so, Queen Charlotte also became briefly entangled with Jacobin, and exchanged fire with her too, causing serious damage to both French ships.

To the right of Queen Charlotte, HMS Brunswick had initially struggled to join the action. Labouring behind the flagship, her captain John Harvey received a rebuke from Howe for the delay. Spurred by this signal, Harvey pushed his ship forward and almost outstripped Queen Charlotte, blocking her view of the eastern half of the French fleet for a time and taking severe damage from French fire as she did so. Harvey hoped to run aboard Jacobin and support his admiral directly, but was not fast enough to reach her and so attempted to cut between Achille and Vengeur du Peuple. This manoeuvre failed when Brunswick's anchors became entangled in Vengeur's rigging. Harvey's master asked if Vengeur should be cut loose, to which Harvey replied "No; we have got her and we will keep her". The two ships swung so close to each other that Brunswick's crew could not open their gunports and had to fire through the closed lids, the ships battering each other from a distance of just a few feet.

Behind this combat, other ships of the centre division struck the French line, HMS Valiant under Thomas Pringle passing close to Patriote which pulled away, her crew suffering from contagion and unable to take their ship into battle. Valiant instead turned her attention on Achille, which had already been raked by Queen Charlotte and Brunswick, and badly damaged her before pressing on sail to join the embattled van division. HMS Orion under John Thomas Duckworth and HMS Queen under Admiral Alan Gardner both attacked the same ship, Queen suffering severely from the earlier actions in which her masts were badly damaged and her captain John Hutt mortally wounded. Both ships bore down on the French Northumberland, which was soon dismasted and left attempting to escape on only the stump of a mast. Queen was too slow to engage Northumberland as closely as Orion, and soon fell in with Jemmapes, both ships battering each other severely.

Rear
Of the British rear ships, only two made a determined effort to break the French line. Admiral Hood's flagship HMS Royal George pierced it between Républicain and Sans Pareil, engaging both closely, while HMS Glory came through the line behind Sans Pareil and threw herself into the melee as well. The rest of the British and French rearguard did not participate in this close combat; HMS Montagu fought a long range gunnery duel with Neptune which damaged neither ship severely, although the British captain James Montagu was killed in the opening exchanges, command devolving to Lieutenant Ross Donnelly. Next in line, HMS Ramillies ignored her opponent completely and sailed west, Captain Henry Harvey seeking Brunswick, his brother's ship, in the confused action around Queen Charlotte.

Three other British ships failed to respond to the signal from Howe, including HMS Alfred which engaged the French line at extreme range without noticeable effect, and Captain Charles Cotton in HMS Majestic who likewise did little until the action was decided, at which point he took the surrender of several already shattered French ships. Finally HMS Thunderer under Albemarle Bertie took no part in the initial action at all, standing well away from the British line and failing to engage the enemy despite the signal for close engagement hanging limply from her mainmast. The French rear ships were no less idle, with Entreprenant and Pelletier firing at any British ships in range but refusing to close or participate in the melees on either side. The French rear ship Scipion did not attempt to join the action either, but could not avoid becoming embroiled in the group around Royal George and Républicain and suffered severe damage.

Melee

Within an hour of their opening volleys the British and French lines were hopelessly confused, with three separate engagements being fought within sight of one another. In the van, Caesar had finally attempted to join the fight, only to have a vital spar shot away by Trajan which caused her to slip down the two embattled fleets without contributing significantly to the battle. Bellerophon and Leviathan were in the thick of the action, the outnumbered Bellerophon taking serious damage to her rigging. This left her unable to manoeuvre and in danger from her opponents, of which Eole also suffered severely. Captain William Johnstone Hope sought to extract his ship from her perilous position and called up support; the frigate HMS Latona under Captain Edward Thornbrough arrived to provide assistance. Thornbrough brought his small ship between the ships of the French battleline and opened fire on Eole, helping to drive off three ships of the line and then towing Bellerophon to safety. Leviathan, under Lord Hugh Seymour, had been more successful than Bellerophon, her gunnery dismasting America despite receiving fire from Eole and Trajan in passing. Leviathan only left America after a two-hour duel, sailing at 11:50 to join Queen Charlotte in the centre.

Russell had not broken the French line and her opponent Témeraire got the better of her, knocking away a topmast and escaping to windward with Trajan and Eole. Russell then fired on several passing French ships before joining Leviathan in attacking the centre of the French line. Russell's boats also took the surrender of America, her crew boarding the vessel to make her a prize (although later replaced by men from Royal Sovereign). Royal Sovereign lost Admiral Graves to a serious wound and lost her opponent as well, as Terrible fell out of the line to windward and joined a growing collection of French ships forming a new line on the far side of the action. Villaret was leading this line in his flagship Montagne, which had escaped from Queen Charlotte, and it was Montagne which Royal Sovereign engaged next, pursuing her close to the new French line accompanied by Valiant, and beginning a long-range action.

Behind Royal Sovereign was Marlborough, inextricably tangled with Impétueux. Badly damaged and on the verge of surrender, Impétueux was briefly reprieved when Mucius appeared through the smoke and collided with both ships. The three entangled ships continued exchanging fire for some time, all suffering heavy casualties with Marlborough and Impétueux losing all three of their masts. This combat continued for several hours. Captain Berkeley of Marlborough had to retire below with serious wounds, and command fell to Lieutenant John Monkton, who signalled for help from the frigates in reserve. Robert Stopford responded in HMS Aquilon, which had the assignment of repeating signals, and towed Marlborough out of the line as Mucius freed herself and made for the regrouped French fleet to the north. Impétueux was in too damaged a state to move at all, and was soon seized by sailors from HMS Russell.

Dismasted, Defence was unable to hold any of her various opponents to a protracted duel, and by 13:00 was threatened by the damaged Républicain moving from the east. Although Républicain later hauled off to join Villaret to the north, Gambier requested support for his ship from the fleet's frigates and was aided by HMS Phaeton under Captain William Bentinck. As Impétueux passed she fired on Phaeton, to which Bentinck responded with several broadsides of his own. Invincible, the only ship of the forward division of the British centre to engage the enemy closely, became embroiled in the confusion surrounding Queen Charlotte. Invincible's guns drove Juste onto the broadside of Queen Charlotte, where she was forced to surrender to Lieutenant Henry Blackwood in a boat from Invincible. Among the other ships of the division there were only minor casualties, although HMS Impregnable lost several yards and was only brought back into line by the quick reactions of two junior officers, Lieutenant Robert Otway and Midshipman Charles Dashwood.

The conflict between Queen Charlotte and Montagne was oddly one-sided, the French flagship failing to make use of her lower-deck guns and consequently suffering extensive damage and casualties. Queen Charlotte in her turn was damaged by fire from nearby ships and was therefore unable to follow when Montagne set her remaining sails and slipped to the north to create a new focal point for the survivors of the French fleet. Queen Charlotte also took fire during the engagement from HMS Gibraltar, under Thomas Mackenzie, which had failed to close with the enemy and instead fired at random into the smoke bank surrounding the flagship. Captain Sir Andrew Snape Douglas was seriously wounded by this fire. Following Montagne's escape, Queen Charlotte engaged Jacobin and Républicain as they passed, and was successful in forcing the surrender of Juste. To the east of Queen Charlotte, Brunswick and Vengeur du Peuple continued their bitter combat, locked together and firing main broadsides from point blank range. Captain Harvey of Brunswick was mortally wounded early in this action by langrage fire from Vengeur, but refused to quit the deck, ordering more fire into his opponent. Brunswick also managed to drive Achille off from her far side when the French ship attempted to intervene. Achille, already damaged, was totally dismasted in the exchange and briefly surrendered, although her crew rescinded this when it became clear Brunswick was in no position to take possession. With her colours rehoisted, Achille then made what sail she could in an attempt to join Villaret to the north. It was not until 12:45 that the shattered Vengeur and Brunswick pulled apart, both largely dismasted and very battered. Brunswick was only able to return to the British side of the line after being supported by Ramillies, while Vengeur was unable to move at all. Ramillies took Vengeur's surrender after a brief cannonade but was unable to board her and instead pursued the fleeing Achille, which soon surrendered as well.

To the east, Orion and Queen forced the surrender of both Northumberland and Jemmappes, although Queen was unable to secure Jemmappes and she had to be abandoned later. Queen especially was badly damaged and unable to make the British lines again, wallowing between the newly reformed French fleet and the British battleline along with several other shattered ships. Royal George and Glory had between them disabled Scipion and Sans Pareil in a bitter exchange, but were also too badly damaged themselves to take possession. All four ships were among those left drifting in the gap between the fleets.

French recovery

Villaret in Montagne, having successfully broken contact with the British flagship and slipped away to the north, managed to gather 11 ships of the line around him and formed them up in a reconstituted battle squadron. At 11:30, with the main action drawing to a close, he began a recovery manoeuvre intended to lessen the tactical defeat his fleet had suffered. Aiming his new squadron at the battered Queen, Villaret's attack created consternation in the British fleet, which was unprepared for a second engagement. However, discerning Villaret's intention, Howe also pulled his ships together to create a new force. His reformed squadron consisted of Queen Charlotte, Royal Sovereign, Valiant, Leviathan, Barfleur, and Thunderer. Howe deployed this squadron in defence of Queen, and the two short lines engaged one another at a distance before Villaret abandoned his manoeuvre and hauled off to collect several of his own dismasted ships that were endeavouring to escape British pursuit. Villaret was subsequently joined by the battered Terrible, which sailed straight through the dispersed British fleet to reach the French lines, and he also recovered the dismasted Scipion, Mucius, Jemmappes, and Républicain—all of which lay within reach of the unengaged British ships—before turning eastwards towards France. At this stage of the battle, Howe retired below and the British consolidation was left to his Captain of the Fleet, Sir Roger Curtis. Curtis was subsequently blamed by some in the Navy for not capturing more of the dismasted French ships, and was also accused of dissuading Howe from attempting further pursuit.

In fact, the British fleet was unable to pursue Villaret, having only 11 ships still capable of battle to the French 12, and having numerous dismasted ships and prizes to protect. Retiring and regrouping, the British crews set about making hasty repairs and securing their prizes; seven in total, including the badly damaged Vengeur du Peuple. Vengeur had been holed by cannon firing from Brunswick directly through the ship's bottom, and after her surrender no British ship had managed to get men aboard. This left Vengeur's few remaining unwounded crew to attempt to salvage what they could—a task made harder when some of her sailors broke into the spirit room and became drunk. Ultimately the ship's pumps became unmanageable, and Vengeur began to sink. Only the timely arrival of boats from the undamaged Alfred and HMS Culloden, as well as the services of the cutter HMS Rattler, saved any of the Vengeur's crew from drowning, these ships taking off nearly 500 sailors between them. Lieutenant John Winne of Rattler was especially commended for this hazardous work. By 18:15, Vengeur was clearly beyond salvage and only the very worst of the wounded, the dead, and the drunk remained aboard. Several sailors are said to have waved the tricolor from the bow of the ship and cried "Vive la Nation, vive la République!"

Having escaped to the east, Villaret made what sail his battered fleet could muster to return to France, and dispatched his frigates in search of the convoy. Villaret was also hoping for reinforcements; eight ships of the line, commanded by Admiral Pierre-François Cornic, were patrolling near the Ushant headland. Behind him to the west, the British took the whole night to secure their ships and prizes, not setting out to return to Britain until 05:00 on 2 June.

Casualties in the battle are notoriously hard to calculate exactly. With only one exception (Scipion), records made by the French captains of their losses at the time are incomplete. The only immediately available casualty counts are the sketchy reports of Saint-André and the records made by British officers aboard the captured ships, neither of which can be treated as completely reliable. Most sources accept that French casualties in the campaign numbered approximately 7,000, including around 3,000 captured, but these figures are vague and frequently do not agree with each other on details. British casualties are easier to confirm but here, too, there are some discrepancies; overall British casualties are generally given as around 1,200.

Convoy arrives

With a large portion of his fleet no longer battleworthy, Howe was unable to resume his search for the French convoy in the Bay of Biscay. The Admiralty, though unaware of Howe's specific circumstances, knew a battle had taken place through the arrival of HMS Audacious in Portsmouth, and was preparing a second expedition under George Montagu. Montagu had returned to England after his unsuccessful May cruise, and was refitting in Portsmouth when ordered to sea again. His force of ten ships was intended to both cover Howe's withdrawal from Biscay, and find and attack the French grain convoy. Montagu returned to sea on 3 June, and by 8 June was off Ushant searching for signs of either the French or Howe; unknown to him, neither had yet entered European waters. At 15:30 on 8 June Montagu spotted sails, and soon identified them as the enemy. He had located Cornic's squadron, which was also patrolling for the convoy and the returning fleets. Montagu gave chase and drove Cornic into Bertheaume Bay, where he blockaded the French squadron overnight, hoping to bring them to action the following day. However, on 9 June, Montagu sighted 19 French ships appearing from the west—the remnants of Villaret's fleet. Hastily turning his ships, Montagu sailed south to avoid becoming trapped between two forces which might easily overwhelm him. Villaret and Cornic gave chase for a day before turning east towards the safety of the French ports.

Howe benefited from Montagu's withdrawal, as his own battered fleet passed close to the scene of this stand-off on 10 June, pushing north into the English Channel. With Villaret and Cornic fortuitously pursuing Montagu to the south, Howe was free to pass Ushant without difficulty and arrived off Plymouth on 12 June, joined soon afterwards by Montagu. Villaret had anchored with Cornic in Bertheaume Bay the day before, but Saint-André refused to allow him to enter Brest until the republican attitudes of the town's population had been assessed. On 12 June, the convoy from America finally arrived off France, having lost just one ship in passage during a storm.

Aftermath
Both Britain and France claimed victory in the battle: Britain by virtue of capturing or sinking seven French ships without losing any of her own and remaining in control of the battle site; France because the vital convoy had passed through the Atlantic unharmed and arrived in France without significant loss. The two fleets were showered by their respective nations with both praise and criticism—the latter particularly directed at those captains not felt to have contributed significantly to the fighting.

France
In France the revolutionary principles of égalité precluded extensive awards, but Villaret was promoted to vice-admiral on 27 September 1794 and other minor awards were distributed to the admirals of the fleet. In addition the fleet's officers took part in a celebratory parade from Brest to Paris, accompanying the recently arrived food supplies. The role of Vengeur du Peuple was mythified by Bertrand Barrère, giving birth to an exalted legend. Opinion in France concerning the battle's outcome was divided; while many celebrated Saint-André's exaggerated accounts of victory in Le Moniteur, senior naval officers disagreed. Among the dissenters was the highly experienced but recently dismissed Admiral Kerguelen. Kerguelen was disgusted by Villaret's failure to renew the battle after he had reformed his squadron, and felt that the French fleet could have been successful tactically as well as strategically if only Villaret had made greater efforts to engage the remains of Howe's fleet. The French Navy had suffered its worst losses in a single day since the Battle of La Hogue in 1692.

Ultimately the revolutionary excesses of the period would prove disastrous for the French Navy. Poor leadership, conflicting and arbitrary orders and the decimation of the experienced seamen in the ranks promoted a negative attitude in the French officer corps. The French battlefleet did not contest British dominance in Northern European waters again, and their raiding operations repeatedly ended in failure at the hands of more confident British squadrons and the unforgiving Atlantic weather. By 1805, when the last great French fleet to take to the sea was crushed at the Battle of Trafalgar, poor training and low investment in the Navy had reduced its efficiency to levels unthinkable 20 years earlier.

Britain

In Britain, the fleet in Spithead was treated with a Royal visit by King George III and the entire royal household. Numerous honours were bestowed on the fleet and its commanders. Admiral Howe, already an earl, refused any further elevation, and one of Howe's political opponents dissuaded King George III from making him a Knight of the Garter. Vice-Admiral Graves was elevated to the Peerage of Ireland as Baron Graves, while Vice-Admiral Hood was made Viscount Bridport. Rear-Admirals Bowyer, Gardner, Pasley and Curtis (the last-named was promoted from captain on 4 July 1794) were all made baronets, and Bowyer and Pasley also received pensions of £1,000 a year to compensate them for their severe wounds. All first lieutenants were promoted to commander and numerous other officers were promoted in consequence of their actions. The thanks of parliament were unanimously passed to all who fought at the action and various other gifts and awards were distributed among the fleet. A memorial to Captains John Hutt and John Harvey, both of whom had died of their wounds on 30 June, was raised in Westminster Abbey.

There was, however, a bitter consequence of the awards, rooted in Howe's official dispatch to the Admiralty concerning the battle, which according to some accounts was actually written by Curtis. Howe had appended a list to his report containing the names of officers whom he believed merited special reward for their part in the battle. The list included Vice-Admirals Graves and Hood, Rear-Admirals Bowyer, Gardner, and Pasley, and Captains Seymour, Pakenham, Cranfield Berkeley, Gambier, John Harvey, Payne, Henry Harvey, Pringle, Duckworth, Elphinstone, Nichols, and Hope. Also mentioned were Lieutenants Monkton and Donnelly. The list had omitted a number of officers who had served in the battle, and the justice of their omission was a highly controversial issue in the Navy. Rear-Admiral Caldwell was the sole British flag officer present not to receive a hereditary honour, although he was promoted to Vice-Admiral on 4 July (as were Bowyer and Gardner). After studying the ship's logs and reports of the battle, the Admiralty minted a medal to be awarded to the living captains on the list only (although Captain William Parker of HMS Audacious was awarded one as well). The captains excluded from the list were furious, and the furore from this selective commendation lasted years: in 1795 Vice-Admiral Caldwell quit the service in anger as a result, while Cuthbert Collingwood, flag captain of Barfleur, refused all awards for future service until the Glorious First of June medal was presented to him as well. He eventually received it after the Battle of Cape St Vincent in 1797. Over five decades later the battle was among the actions recognised by a clasp attached to the Naval General Service Medal, awarded upon application to all British participants still living in 1847.

Bitterest of all was the whispering campaign directed at Anthony Molloy, captain of HMS Caesar. Molloy was accused of cowardice by fellow officers for his failure to follow Howe's orders on both 29 May and 1 June. Molloy's request for an official court-martial to clear his name failed, and although his personal courage was not called into question, his professional ability was. Molloy was dismissed from his ship.

Of the captured ships, several were purchased and enjoyed long careers in the Royal Navy, in particular the two 80-gun ships HMS Sans Pareil, which was decommissioned in 1802 but not broken up until 1842, and HMS Juste, which was a popular command until her decommissioning in 1802 at the Peace of Amiens. Of the four 74-gun prizes, Achille and Northumberland (both 74s built in the late 1770s) were broken up as unserviceable soon after arrival in Britain, while Impétueux was destroyed in a dockyard fire on 24 August 1794 while undergoing repairs. America, the final prize, was taken into the Royal Navy as HMS America but renamed HMS Impetueux in July 1795 and remained in service until 1813. The combined prize money for these ships was £201,096 (the equivalent of £0 as of 2024), divided among the ships under Lord Howe's command.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Glorious First of June