When does a knife become a sword?

[dr_fosg8]

A knife is a knife. A knife is seen not as a weapon so to speak but a tool or instrument to complete a cutting task. Once you move beyond that there are soooo many verbages involving edged weapons that it is really just a matter of opinion in some cases. At what point does a dagger become a dirk or a short sword or a hand and a half sword, etc, etc.

Essentially if you move beyond the definition of a knife you have a weapon, and, sometimes a knife can be designed/shaped to resemble or be a weapon. Basically, to me, it is all a matter of intended purpose. If you are in a wheat field with a scythe it is a tool, walking around the mall...

 

[Gunny Bob]

Can't give you a definitive answer but I know one (a sword) when I see one.

 

[FortyTwoBlades]

Metal is not necessary. The archaeology museum where I work weekends as security has a very nice Aztec sword made of wood with obsidian bladelets fastened along both edges with adhesives. An professional archaeologist who was visiting a few weeks ago said he saw a demonstration where a similar sword was used to kill and then decapitate a full-grown bull (this took place in central Mexico). The blade on the one in the museum is about 20" long.

I personally wouldn't classify macquahuitls as swords--rather as bladed clubs. The same goes for Hawaiian shark tooth-studded wooden paddles. Sword-like, but not really a sword. This, by contrast, I would consider one. A swordfish bill with a shaped and wrapped hilt for weapon use. I've seen images of swordfish bills mounted in cutlass fittings before, too, and by the look of them they weren't just typical for-fun sailor craft.

Even if a macquahuitl or Hawaiian tooth-paddle was translated into a steel rendition I still wouldn't consider them swords. Sword-like weapons, for sure, but in a weird subclass of their own--like a dead vestigial path on the evolutionary timeline of edged weapons.

 

[FortyTwoBlades]

What are you- his boyfriend? Let him speak for himself. In any event, nobody is confusing a crappy knife with a sword. Instead the OP wanted to ask about the line between a knife and sword. It cannot be length b/c some long blades are knife like and some shorter blades are more sword like. Heft, geometry and other physical attributes all combine to make a sword ill suited for traditional knife duties.

No--I simply understood him, which you evidently did not. I was merely explaining what he meant by the comment, which was with regard to your assertion to whit: "My feeling is that a sword is something that does not perform the typical duties of a knife well." If you were simply saying as a general statement that swords don't do knife work well, then yes that's true. But it's not a clear empirical delineation between knives and swords because there are also knives that are simply bad knives.

Check your feelings at the door. I wasn't insulting you. Ad hominem attacks are a logical fallacy and don't contribute to the conversation.

There have been swords that were primarily for sticking. See "Rapier."

A good number of the earliest bronze swords were thrusting swords, in fact! They had essentially nothing resembling a tang--just a flare at the base of the blade where it was riveted to the grip. Some have been found with the rivet holes torn out, possibly suggesting that the wielder lashed out in an act of desperation, putting catastrophic strain on the rivet holes in the process.

 

[Barabus]

No--I simply understood him, which you evidently did not. I was merely explaining what he meant by the comment, which was with regard to your assertion to whit: "My feeling is that a sword is something that does not perform the typical duties of a knife well." If you were simply saying as a general statement that swords don't do knife work well, then yes that's true. But it's not a clear empirical delineation between knives and swords because there are also knives that are simply bad knives.

Check your feelings at the door. I wasn't insulting you. Ad hominem attacks are a logical fallacy and don't contribute to the conversation.

All good. No insult issued or received. There is no bright line rule for the knife/sword distinction. That is clear from the range of answers.

 

[Thomas Linton]

A knife is a knife. A knife is seen not as a weapon so to speak but a tool or instrument to complete a cutting task.

You suggest a distinction -- perhaps useful -- that is not generally accepted in our society.

A Bowie Knife was a sidearm - a back-up to a single-shot firearm - prohibited in several states due to its identity as a weapon..

A "fighting knife" is part of our language.

Fairbairn–Sykes fighting knife
Fairbairn–Sykes commando knife
Ek Commando Knife

Mack the Knife.

 

[FortyTwoBlades]

You suggest a distinction -- perhaps useful -- that is not generally accepted in our society.

A Bowie Knife was a sidearm - a back-up to a single-shot firearm - prohibited in several states due to its identity as a weapon..

A "fighting knife" is part of our language.

Fairbairn–Sykes fighting knife
Fairbairn–Sykes commando knife
Ek Commando Knife

Mack the Knife.

You forgot SMATCHET!

 

[SCWillson]

I personally wouldn't classify macquahuitls as swords--rather as bladed clubs. The same goes for Hawaiian shark tooth-studded wooden paddles. Sword-like, but not really a sword. This, by contrast, I would consider one. A swordfish bill with a shaped and wrapped hilt for weapon use. I've seen images of swordfish bills mounted in cutlass fittings before, too, and by the look of them they weren't just typical for-fun sailor craft.

Even if a macquahuitl or Hawaiian tooth-paddle was translated into a steel rendition I still wouldn't consider them swords. Sword-like weapons, for sure, but in a weird subclass of their own--like a dead vestigial path on the evolutionary timeline of edged weapons.

Why wouldn't you consider it a sword? It's primary method of inflicting injury is from cutting, not impact. Certainly the stone knives used by our ancestors are (quite correctly) identified as knives. The only reason swords were not made entirely out of obsidian or flint is that it is too brittle. They'd certainly be more than sharp enough, we still cannot make steel blades as sharp as obsidian ones.

Personally I would consider it a sword made with the only suitable indigenous materials available to the Aztecs and Polynesians; ones which would never have been used had better materials been available.

Our museum store has an obsidian knife for about $35; I've been seriously contemplating buying it.

 

[B JACKSON]

Intended or actual use shall dictate

 

[Grease]

I think it depends mostly on intended use. You don't carry a knife around for use in sword fights (at least, most normal people don't. ) and you don't carry a sword around for use as a paring knife. A sword is intended purely as a weapon, whereas a knife is a tool that can be used as a weapon. Our modern fighting methods have brought about the creation of the combat knife, which somewhat complicates the discussion.

Still, I think swords and combat knives (when carried during active military service) would fall under the same category of pointy/sharp implements.

 

[FortyTwoBlades]

Why wouldn't you consider it a sword? It's primary method of inflicting injury is from cutting, not impact. Certainly the stone knives used by our ancestors are (quite correctly) identified as knives. The only reason swords were not made entirely out of obsidian or flint is that it is too brittle. They'd certainly be more than sharp enough, we still cannot make steel blades as sharp as obsidian ones.

Personally I would consider it a sword made with the only suitable indigenous materials available to the Aztecs and Polynesians; ones which would never have been used had better materials been available.

Our museum store has an obsidian knife for about $35; I've been seriously contemplating buying it.

As I mentioned, I'd consider it in a class of its own, along with the aforementioned tooth-bladed weapons. They're composite-bladed, with a supportive "blade" structure to hold the edged inserts. I consider that a significant deviation from the "accepted general parameters" that add up to reach the critical mass of features defining a sword. Just my take on it, though. They're definitely sword-like but I consider them not-quite-swords.

does the word sword in this argument include the weapon known as a foil? if so then we have a weapon that will be used for slashing or for thrusting

A foil is a practice sword intended to stand in for a smallsword. While the other sport fencing weapons are named after their live-bladed counterparts, the foil isn't.

 

[gadunz]

Mycenean duel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmj1gjPcZh8

 

[Thomas Linton]

Intended or actual use shall dictate.

Says who?

 

[GIRLYmann]

not2sharp
"...a similar thread in which we discussed knife length as the primary determinant..."

point in case...
even though a machete is long
it is seldom mentioned or considered as a sword.
it is a long knife tool.

"...If the thing is to be used primarily as a weapon, then it is a sword, otherwise it is a knife..."
i dunnno, if a knife is longer than what one is usually accustomed to
it would feel unwieldy.
i suppose the yard stick for a sword would be - once it becomes impossible to whittle with it.
sadly we can't be all zorro.

"...The shape and size, as well as, the design details are important qualitative performance considerations..."
yeah, that's probably it.
as since only the designer or maker of a particular said object
would have worked out the technical specifications required
for the original intended purpose of either a true weapon or utility tool only.

 

[not2sharp]

One of the areas that I have always enjoyed exploring are the various cultural and historical "short swords"/"sidearms", and when you look at these things, they really straddle the usual interpretation of both knife and sword. Now, if we look at something like Stone's Glossary of Arms and Armor we see various objects labeled knife or sword based on their traditional labeling, yet if you put them side by side it is hard to see what specific qualities of the inherent design would lean the one way or the other.

As Stone tells us
"The effectiveness of the sword as a weapon, both of offense and defense, the ease with which it could be carried, and the opportunities that it presents for display in the ornamentation of blade, hilt, scabbard and belt, long made it a favorite with all metal using nations. This is amply proved by the numerous references to it in literature where it typifies arms, power and bravery. In spite of this there is no definition of the sword, that is, none that differentiates it from all other weapons. ...Neither length of blade, kind of hilt nor method of use define it - all overlap."

n2s

 

[DShiflet]

As I mentioned, I'd consider it in a class of its own, along with the aforementioned tooth-bladed weapons. They're composite-bladed, with a supportive "blade" structure to hold the edged inserts. I consider that a significant deviation from the "accepted general parameters" that add up to reach the critical mass of features defining a sword. Just my take on it, though. They're definitely sword-like but I consider them not-quite-swords.

I agree, I wouldn't consider them full on swords either, related, but not actual swords.

 

[Redmasta]

I would look at it like a sort of venn diagram of swords and knives. There are times where its pretty clear cut and then there are times where they have similarities and could go either way. I think at around 9" blade it starts to get a little fuzzy, depends mostly on how u intend to use it.

 

[singularity35]

I'd say a sword is a primary weapon for war(in cultures that use them), like a rifle or a carbine is these days, a knife can be a utility tool or a dedicated weapon but if it's a dedicated weapon, it will be analogous to a sidearm.

 

[DShiflet]

I'd say a sword is a primary weapon for war(in cultures that use them), like a rifle or a carbine is these days, a knife can be a utility tool or a dedicated weapon but if it's a dedicated weapon, it will be analogous to a sidearm.

Well, if swords are only primary weapons, and aren't sidearms...what about the Swiss and German Landscknecht mercenaries of the 15-16th centuries? They carried a pike, 2 handed zweihander sword, or crossbow/bow/arquebus as their primary weapon, but almost universally carried the katzbalger shortsword as a sidearm...looking at a katzbalger there's no way you'd confuse it with a knife, yet it's also analogous to a sidearm, not their primary weapon for war. Same with the xiphos shortsword of the ancient Greeks, it was analogous to a sidearm, with the spear being the primary weapon.

 

[singularity35]

Well, if swords are only primary weapons, and aren't sidearms...what about the Swiss and German Landscknecht mercenaries of the 15-16th centuries? They carried a pike, 2 handed zweihander sword, or crossbow/bow/arquebus as their primary weapon, but almost universally carried the katzbalger shortsword as a sidearm...looking at a katzbalger there's no way you'd confuse it with a knife, yet it's also analogous to a sidearm, not their primary weapon for war. Same with the xiphos shortsword of the ancient Greeks, it was analogous to a sidearm, with the spear being the primary weapon.

Yep, that immediately came to my mind as soon as I clicked post but if you think about it, the crossbow was a ranged weapon and the pike essentially was a disposable weapon. When it came to CQC, it was the sword. But then I'm sure there are exceptions to every rule.