What makes a sword? Length? Purpose? What?

Paracelsus

Paracelsus

Joined
Nov 6, 1999
Messages
2,639
Someone asked a question in the general forum today about defining the word 'sword'. Is it length alone that makes a big knife into something best called a sword? Or is there some more fundamental way to distinguish knives from swords that is not entirely based on blade length?

For example, I think (may be wrong) that the Samurai sword trio were All considered 'swords' even though the tanto may have only a 10 inch blade length. I wonder if the Purpose of a sword (killing) distinguishes a sword from a knife, which may have functions beyond those needed for a weapon.

Anyway, I am not trolling. I thought this was an interesting question and I'm sure you guys (especially Robert) will be very knowledgable and opinionated about what makes a sword a sword.

Lets here it!

Paracelsus, always trying to learn
 
Hey Para,

Yeah you bring up a good point. The problem is that much of it is considered useless semantics. Names are a game of a few rules, and many exceptions. Just as you cannot define all swords under generalized characteristics (not all physical characteristics are shared...curved/straight, narrow, wide, weight, # of edges, et cetera), you cannot accurately conclude what defines a sword in particular. However...

In my opinion, there are a few considerations to be made...some people feel length is the deciding factor. Tanto are considered swords (as you described) and are blades of less than 1 shaku (just a shade less than a foot) in blade length. Does this mean that all bladed instruments of similar dimensions are swords also? I tend not to think so. And if you find a big novelty 40 lb dagger about 3 feet long, one has to question its "swordlike" qualities in terms of use and function. As a GENERAL rule though, in many cases it's just semantics and normal folks don't care.

In another sense, we have the purpose in mind. The sword is a VERY specialized weapon and is not designed for versatility as a tool. Of course there are some minor exceptions, as I pointed out there would be above. Knives, on the other hand, are designed to be tools of versatility. Look in the forums...people who use and abuse knives by doing tasks apart from cutting. This isn't done with swords. Swords have very few purposes. That's why IMO 20" bladed kukri are knives. Anything with an edge can function as a weapon, so why bother with definitions? For nut cases like me, it's interesting to ponder.

A big bowie with a 14" blade could be considered a sword in some respects to size, but its versatility grants it the title of a knife. A tanto with a 12" blade is used on the battlefield and is not considered a tool of many uses, that's why kogatana and such exist, quite often used with a kozuka in the tanto's scabbard. The tanto is not a knife because it is not intended for multiple purposes really.

And nowadays it's even more pointless to try defining swords in modern syntax as they really are weapons of the past. I don't care who wants to deny it, swords are weapons of the past, and need to be understood in their respective places.

Or maybe there's an omnipotent being hiding somewhere who's just laughing his ass off at all the incongruence of English vocabulary
biggrin.gif
.

Shinryû.

Addendum: Yeesh, I'm gonna need to wake up more!

[This message has been edited by Robert Marotz (edited 12-30-2000).]
 
Hmmm,
That IS a tough question. It's flitted through my mind a few times over the years but I usually just swat at it with the newspaper until it goes away.
Maybe use is the key. I have to agree with Robert that you can't really call a Kukri a sword, but it's BIG enough when you compare it to a Gladius.
Some of the monster bowies would be the equal of a gladius or a kukri, so there's not much help there either.
I think it's safe to say ONE easy way to answer the question is,
How many hands do you have to have to USE it?
True, not all one handed blades are knives, but I'm pretty sure all TWO handed blades are swords.(Yeah, I know all about draw knives. You know what I mean!)
I'd say anything over 20 inches is PROBABLY a sword, and anything over 25 inches HAS to be a sword. (Surely there are no practical 25 inch bladed knives?)
Any other fairly iron clad limits?

Afterthought,
Do the Gurkas use their kukris in any utilitarian role or is it reserved for use only as a weapon?


------------------
I cut it, and I cut it, and it's STILL too short!
 
The Nepalese use khukuris for everything from digging potatoes and cutting up chickens and vegetables for curry, to driving nails and chopping firewood. Gurkha soldiers use the khukuri as an all-purpose service knife like Western troops use a Ka-Bar or Randall. The difference is that a khukuri is, as has been shown repeatedly over the last several centuries, capable of routinely and instantaneously dispatching an enemy with a single highly effective strike. IMO, when used in this manner it is unquestionably a sword. It simply has many other non-lethal uses, unlike a sabre, rapier or katana.
 
Therein reinforces my "designed versatility" point...

I mean versatility is part in the tool's design and also part in the resourcefulness of the individual, but swords are designed for a specialized purpose and fulfill that role as they are designed to. Nowadays it gets complex because the sword's intended use is obsolete, and the only real reason for them is nostalgia, be it martial arts or collecting.

But this can't be an a rule without exception. It varies between cultural mindsets...I'm sure there are various "swords" that get used for grunt labor, maybe Filipino? I don't know.

I don't think you can find any perfect description of a sword. People will call a Japanese tanto a "knife" and people will call a big Bowie a "short sword." Size is the best factor for generalizing, but the more familiar you become with swords in an individual cultural context, and the more picky you get, all the little exceptions start popping up.

Shinryû.
 
Paracelsus:
Thanks for asking the question.
Back in '94 Ken Warner asked me to put down some "Thoughts on Swords", which became the title of an article I wrote for him that was published in KNIVES '95 (pp 58-62). The next year, in KNIVES '96 (pp 15-20), I followed it up with "The Functional Characteristic of Swords". I went and got out my copies of those books and looked through them again, and I still agree with what I put down at that time. Unfortunately I no longer have the text files for the articles, and I hesitate to key the whole thing in here... But I can hit on a few major points and maybe you'll be inspired to look up a copy.
The article "Thoughts on Swords" in KNIVES '95 focuses mainly on dicussing the question "What IS a sword?" and struggling with ideas of defining it. I gave three possible definitions and discussed their merits and faults.

Definition #1 (the Physical definition)
A sword is an edged weapon with a usable blade length of at least 18 inches, and with a handle shorter than the blade.

This clearly distinguishes between a sword and a spear, but lacks the flexibility to distinguish between different sizes of users, and between different kinds of blades... such as very narrow or very wide.

Definition #2 (the Personal definition)
A sword is an edged weapon with a usable blade length at least equal to the measurement from the user's elbow to the outstretched fingertips, and with a handle shorter than the blade.

The definition takes into account the user's size, but has the other weaknesses of #1.

Definition #3 (the Functional definition)
A sword is an edged weapon with a blade at least 18" long, with a handle shorter than the blade, and which can be depended upon to perform its design function when in the hands of a skilled user.

This idea dispenses with the arguments above as simply irrelevant and comes down to "brass tacks" as it were. We don't care what it looks like... Does it work? It also uses the phrase "design function", so we need to define that as well. Here is the last paragraph to the K'95 article:
"...Finally, there is no way to get around this: The design function of a sword is to cleave human flesh and bone. It may be repugnant to contemplate, but all swords of whatever ethnic background or method of manufacture have this feature in common. They are long slivers of steel specifically designed to kill or dismember human beings in the quickest, most efficient manner possible. Any sword-like item which cannot perform this function is not a sword, but merely a visual representation of a sword."

Then, in the K'96 article I went on to discuss the specific features that a sword must have. I defined seven factors that make a sword, based on the functional definition (#3)
1. Edge
It must be sharp, and able to cut deeply and often. Basically a function of steel, heat-treatment, and edge geometry.
2. Weight
It must have some mass in order to be effective. Many sword fighting styles depend on blade momentum for a large measure of striking force. But weight should not be "excessive"
3. Balance
Determines the ease with which the word may be moved in action. Different swords may be balanced differently based on the intended fighting style. Also influences the location of the "sweet spot", the point of maximum cutting power on the blade. Any swordSman should be able to determine the location of the sweet spot within seconds of picking up an unfamiliar blade
4. Grip
The handle must beshaped and-or textured so that the orientation of the blade can be perceived instantly by feel alone, and so that the handle will not slip from the user's grasp.
5. Construction
It must be constructed to withstand repeated hard usage without breaking the blade off at the guard, the handle coming apart, or the steel becoming permanently bent.
6. Scabbard
A sword without a scabbard a danger to the keeper and becomes susceptible to accidental damage.
7. Workmanship
A sword can have all the above features and still be poorly made. Some degree of workmanship is necessary to invoke a pride of ownership and an appreciation of beauty.
The rest of the article discusses each of these in turn, at some length.

So... there's one (long) opinion on what a sword is!
Tom Maringer
 
Tom,
On your seven features that a sword must have, you list first and foremost sharp edges.
It is not uncommon to find historical specimens of Rapiers and Small Swords with either only a sharpened point or a sharp edge on the foible only, is this an oversight in your list or do you not consider the Rapier and Small Swords to be true swords?
(Obviously, if not, why not?)

------------------
Tráceme no sin la razón, envoltura mi no sin honor
 
Ken:

I see this as an oversight... on further reflection I think the point IS an "edge", and still must be sharp, but to pentrate, rather than "cut". Not sure how to re-word the definition to reflect that.

Actually, I'm surprised that nobody has chosen to argue the scabbard question. I see the scabbard as a major part of a sword, rather than an afterthought. I sometimes spent up to 40% of the time working on the scabbards.
Tom

[This message has been edited by tmaring (edited 01-10-2001).]
 
I don't much see why anyone should argue with the scabbard being an important part of the sword. I've always believed that the fittings are (give or take) as important as the blade itself. To leave a sword without a scabbard--or at least a decently crafted sheath--seems disrespectful of the blade. Obviously, there is room for exceptions, but in general, some form of scabbard seems necessary.

As for what makes a sword? I'll probably get slammed for this, but perhaps it isn't a question that can be answered tangibly. The distinction between "sword" and "knife" may be more one of art and soul than of math and science. Perhaps the sword is for all intents and purposes the nobility (not as in king, as in born leader, one who seems set apart) of the blade world. There is no way to catalog the differences that set it apart. You simply feel the difference. A sword is a knife with charisma
smile.gif
Call me a kook, call me an idiot, call me a cab. Whatever. It just seems like a point that ought to be made.

Although if you must speak in technical terms, I think Robert has gotten closest to a likely solution so far.
 
A U.S. Supreme Court justice once commented that although it was hard to define pornography in such a way as to distinguish it from art, he could always tell what it was when he saw it. I feal the same way about swords.

Here are some more thougts:

http://www.bladeforums.com/ubb/Forum64/HTML/001230.html

[This message has been edited by not2sharp (edited 01-11-2001).]
 
This thread has become a little too TAXIng for me.
rolleyes.gif


LOL

------------------
Tráceme no sin la razón, envoltura mi no sin honor
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top