Is it a large knife, or, a short sword?

not2sharp · Dec 29, 2000

At what point does a large knife pattern become a short sword?

The terms are used loosely by most people. Some have tried to classify pieces according to some arbitrary blade length with varying success. Yet, for my purposes I usually define the item according to its performance characteristics.

If the blade derives its ability to cut or penetrate based on speed then I tend to call it a sword. Knives tend to depend more on weight and strength than velocity, generating its cutting force by leveraging the mass of the blade and the strength of the person wielding it. Swords are the opposite; they are weapons, the targeted cutting area is much larger, speed can be increased to improve defensive and first strike objectives while retaining the ability to hit within the larger target area.

Can anyone suggest other chateristics that would help to distinguish knives from swords?

phatch · Dec 29, 2000

Characteristics of the steel and sharpness intent of the design.

Knives are of a harder, more brittle steel, thinner stock and designed to take a finer, sharper edge, to cut with their own weight or lighter pressure.

A sword is of a more flexible and stronger material, so that it can flex, especially at impact, without breaking and as a result of lodging in the target and its resulting movement.

Part of this is achieved with thicker stock and thicker edges to minimize nicks and chips that introduce stress points in the blade. The finer sharper edge of a knife would be destroyed too quickly for effective use in a single combat as compared to the edge of a sword.

In summary, blade design (including shape, edge geometry, material and temper) would be my first criteria in comparing blades of similar size.

But I'm not a pro.

Phil

not2sharp · Dec 29, 2000

Phil,

While I think we agree on the relevant characteristics, I am not sure that we are aligned on the criteria.

For example:

I would consider the US 1005 (Colins),1909 (Springfield Armory), and 1910 bolo to be large knives. On the other hand, modern US issued machetes are more sword like, depending more on speed and springy blade.

Paracelsus · Dec 29, 2000

I'm pretty sure the line between 'knife' and 'sword' is drawn at blade lengths exceeding 14.24567 inches. Any longer, and it's a sword, even if it looks like a knife.

The Japanese Samurai carried a long sword (the Katana, with around 28 inch blade length), a short sword (the Wakisashi, about 20 inches), and a long knife (the Tanto, around 10 inches blade length). I think all of these weapons were considered swords by the Samurai. But I dunno for sure.

The American bowie knife is generally around 9 to 12 inches in blade length, although longer blades happen. And it's a knife. Knives can be used as weapons. They can also be used for utility.

Swords are used only for one pupose. And it would be hard to call that use strictly Utilitarian.

Paracelsus, who really has no good answer for this question but had fun thinking about it

Walt Welch · Dec 29, 2000

Paracelsus; esteemed colleague. The feudal Japanese used a unit of measurement just under one foot. Here is an explanation from this
site:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Japanese sword blades were/are made in a variety of lengths. The blade is classified by its length. A daito (long sword),either a tachi or katana, is over two shaku (one shaku equals approximately 12 inches or 30 centimeters) in length. A shoto or wakizashi has a blade length between one and two shaku. A tanto blade is normally under one shaku in length. The length of a sword blade (nagasa) is measured from the tip of the kissaki in a straight line to the mune-machi.</font>

As to what constituted a sword or a knife, I can only state that restrictions were placed on daito and wakizashi, but not tanto. A logical conclusion would be that the first two were considered swords, and the tanto a knife.

Walt

[This message has been edited by Walt Welch (edited 12-29-2000).]

DHall · Dec 30, 2000

The following is an opinion only

I studied a bit of Kali/Arnis (Filipino style) which taught knife, stick (single and double) as well as short sword (overall length 22"). In the mind of the instructors, you used the knife only to go after the body, i.e. no "knife to knife" contact due to the reasons stated in other posts above ("knifes being a higher RC and more brittle) while "swords" were used to go after the body and "sword" to "sword" contact was common (the blades being a lower RC or differentially hardened allowed for this contact with out the blade breaking). Also in the "sword" work the momentum of the blade dictated the moves available while in knife work it was the body that dictated the moves. Another point was the guard. Most knives do not have a guard that up to the task of a blade that is sliding down your blade (I had many a bruised knuckle when going stick to stick!):O. Again I was only able to study for a short while, but these were the lessons I learned.
Regards,
DHall

------------------
"sharks and dogs" he muttered, "sharks and dogs...."

TheMartialWay · Dec 31, 2000

Not2sharp,

The problem with this question is, I don't think there is a real answer. So far, every defination given can go either way.

You said "If the blade derives its ability to cut or penetrate based on speed then I tend to call it a sword." By this defination, a Bowie or any other fighting knife would be a sword when clearly it is not.

Also, phatch said; "Knives are of a harder, more brittle steel, thinner stock and designed to take a finer, sharper edge, to cut with their own weight or lighter pressure.

So, by that defination if I made a katana with a 27" blade but made it of a harder more brittle steel with thinner stock so it can take a finer, sharper edge; it would now be a knife? Nope.

I am not puting down what anyone is saying or saying that it is wrong, I am just trying to show how any answer given just comes down to opinion.

Here is a question I just asked myself, how would you guys answer it; if you took an ordinary hunting knife and made it grow until the blade was 28" long, would you call it a sword, or a tremendous knife? If you would call it a sword, at what point did it cease to be a knife??

------------------

Louis Buccellato
http://www.themartialway.com
Knives, Weapons and equipment. Best prices anywhere.
-------------

"only the paranoid will survive"

[This message has been edited by TheMartialWay (edited 12-30-2000).]

TheMartialWay · Dec 31, 2000

How about this defination; once a knife becomes too big to function as a utility piece, it is now a sword. For example, a Bowie can still do a good job at utility tasks such as skinning game, cuting string, cleaning your nails etc. Now try doing any of those tasks with a broadsword, katana, claymore etc. Does that make sence?? I am not sure if it does

------------------

Louis Buccellato
http://www.themartialway.com
Knives, Weapons and equipment. Best prices anywhere.
-------------

"only the paranoid will survive"

not2sharp · Dec 30, 2000

The MartialWay

"...too big to function as a utility piece..."

Unfortunately, whether something is functional depends to a large extent on the skills and determination of the user. Plenty of people living under primitive conditions tend to use machete-like blades to meet nearly 100% of their cutting requirements. We can probably find folks who have skinned and processed mid-sized game with nothing more elaborate than a razor blade, and one of the knife magazines recently had a story on someone who cleaned a deer with a spent cartridge he had flattened and sharpend on a rock.

I am sure that this question has an answer, and most of the time we can readily distinguish between knives and swords, I am just not satisfied with many of the definitions I have come across.

not2sharp · Dec 31, 2000

Here are some thoughts barrowed from Ken Warner:

"A sword is not a knife. A sword doesn't do knife things well, if at all; nor do knives come even close to sword behavior... It's a fact. If you shrink a real sword proportunately, you don't get a knife, you get a letter opener. Conversely, if you enlarge a knife proportunately, you get something you cannot lift with one hand" (Swords aren't long knives, Knives 94, pg. 78)

Richard F. Burton (The Book of the Sword) provides a hint to design protocol for a cutting sword. The sword's blade tends to be composed of 5 distinct regions:
1) The tang
2) The whole strong
3) The half strong
4) The half weak
5) The whole weak

The tang is the part that affixes to the hilt, the whole strong is immediately in front of the hilt, and the whole weak is nearest to the point. A sword is designed to perform three functions: to cut, to thrust, and to guard. The thrust is performed with the point at the end of the whole weak. The cut is performed with, or at, the center of precussion located towards the end of the half weak. While guarding is done with the whole strong. According to Burton, cutting with the whole strong or whole weak would be ineffective; we would simply get vibration and a jarring of the hand.

If we take the two together we end up with the principle that a sword differs from a knife in that it is lighter for any given length. It retains its effectiveness by incorporating the design concepts observed by Burton. The knife on the other hand cuts equally throughtout its length, but it is heavier as a consequence.