When does a knife become a sword?

[DShiflet]

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.

Well, the Zweihander wasn't a disposable weapon, so there's an exception right there, heh. Also for many vikings, in warfare swords were secondary weapons to the axe and spear.

 

[PJames]

According http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sword , swords developed from daggers when we could make stronger harder metal.

And from what think it all boils down to the difference in length and function.

Sword : Longer Blade
Knife : Shorter Blade

Long and Short are a matter of judgement and length is a matter of analysis.

Sword could be a blade long enough to be able to swing at the target from a distance which cannot be done with a knife.

 

[SCWillson]

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

It's all very well in the abstract to discuss weight, length, and blade geometry, but ultimately swords are long-bladed weapons designed to kill other humans. Our ancestors also made stone-bladeleted knives, which were used to do most of the same tasks we do with modern steel ones and I doubt most people would deny those were knives. So too with swords. It is irrelevant whether that blade is stone/shark's teeth and wood, copper, bronze, iron, steel, or (perhaps someday) plasma. All have long blades intended solely to kill other people. Swords are weapons; knives may be.

Perhaps another partial definition we can throw into the mix is that knives are as a rule concealable; swords are not.

 

[FortyTwoBlades]

It's all very well in the abstract to discuss weight, length, and blade geometry, but ultimately swords are long-bladed weapons designed to kill other humans. Our ancestors also made stone-bladeleted knives, which were used to do most of the same tasks we do with modern steel ones and I doubt most people would deny those were knives. So too with swords. It is irrelevant whether that blade is stone/shark's teeth and wood, copper, bronze, iron, steel, or (perhaps someday) plasma. All have long blades intended solely to kill other people. Swords are weapons; knives may be.

Perhaps another partial definition we can throw into the mix is that knives are as a rule concealable; swords are not.

The problem with that definition is that you're relying on the length of the blade, not on any other. The issue I draw with the macquahuitl and tooth-paddles is that they are of composite build, with one material creating the support structure and grip in one unit and the cutting edges inserted into that support structure. In the case of stone knives, they're still whole units with the blade and edge being seamlessly of the same material. The term "knife" is an even looser term than "sword" as well, and can be applied to such odd items as this--a hay knife:

With your second suggestion--you can't forget that we have oddities like belt swords, sword canes, etc. to account for.

 

[SCWillson]

The problem with that definition is that you're relying on the length of the blade, not on any other. The issue I draw with the macquahuitl and tooth-paddles is that they are of composite build, with one material creating the support structure and grip in one unit and the cutting edges inserted into that support structure. In the case of stone knives, they're still whole units with the blade and edge being seamlessly of the same material.

You cannot define a sword by its construction; it is best defined by its sole purpose: A long bladed tool for killing other people. Whether the blade is monolithic in construction is utterly irrelevant. Is a macquahuitl a sword? Yes. A really weird sword, but it is still a sword.

As I said previously, Neolithic stone knives were also made with stone bladelets inserted in wood handles. This was a significant technological innovation as it required far less stone to produce and made the tool lighter. A macquahuitl is only taking that innovation to its logical conclusion. (Had the Aztecs developed suitable metals technology they would have undoubtedly made swords out of bronze as they were clearly on the edge of nascent bronze working technology, but the arrival of the Spaniards derailed that possibility. It is intriguing to speculate whether their never-invented bronze swords would have resembled macquahuitls, giving us another unusual ethnic sword.)

And a sword cane is merely a thin concealed sword. Its purpose is still to kill people.

 

[Dodge]

Anything over 18" in blade length...

 

[SCWillson]

Anything over 18" in blade length...

A scythe has a blade over 18" but I don't think anyone would consider that a sword. Many polearms had blades over 18" as well, but those are not considered swords either.

 

[cchu518]

Perhaps its the glass is half empty conundrum drum. A sword is a longer knife that lacks the utility of a knife to do all but inflict malcontent in situations that are martial in nature.

 

[SCWillson]

Perhaps its the glass is half empty conundrum drum. A sword is a longer knife that lacks the utility of a knife to do all but inflict malcontent in situations that are martial in nature.

Isn't that just a long winded way of saying it's a long-bladed tool designed to kill people?

 

[FortyTwoBlades]

You cannot define a sword by its construction; it is best defined by its sole purpose: A long bladed tool for killing other people. Whether the blade is monolithic in construction is utterly irrelevant. Is a macquahuitl a sword? Yes. A really weird sword, but it is still a sword.

As I said previously, Neolithic stone knives were also made with stone bladelets inserted in wood handles. This was a significant technological innovation as it required far less stone to produce and made the tool lighter. A macquahuitl is only taking that innovation to its logical conclusion. (Had the Aztecs developed suitable metals technology they would have undoubtedly made swords out of bronze as they were clearly on the edge of nascent bronze working technology, but the arrival of the Spaniards derailed that possibility. It is intriguing to speculate whether their never-invented bronze swords would have resembled macquahuitls, giving us another unusual ethnic sword.)

And a sword cane is merely a thin concealed sword. Its purpose is still to kill people.

Again, I consider them sword-LIKE but not true swords. In the case of the sword cane I was pointing out that it ran counter to the criteria of a sword being unable or difficult to conceal.

And there are plenty of long-bladed weapons like polearms that are intended for killing people, but they are clearly not swords. By contrast, we have swords of the African continent which can often be very short, but are still considered swords, like these kuba ikul swords here, from Zambia.

 

[SCWillson]

Despite being called "swords" these are merely very broad daggers. That these are primarily ceremonial doesn't negate the fact their ancestry. Since these kubas are so short (Some I found online were less than a foot long: http://www.mfa.org/collections/object/short-sword-479260) it makes it rather hard to regard them as true swords. Despite other possible arguments about definitions, I think everyone here would concur that swords need to be around 15" long or more.

I believe I've already stated that polearms are not swords.

 

[FortyTwoBlades]

I think it's worth noting, as well, that you CAN define a sword by its construction. That's exactly how "messers" were born. While today we view them as swords they were originally designed to skirt around laws that prevented commoners from owning or wearing swords, so they built them in the style of a large knife instead.

Not sure why you think that the kuba swords linked were primarily ceremonial. They were culturally symbolic, yes, but the bulk of them I've seen were clearly weapons.

 

[FortyTwoBlades]

Here's an example of where the line really gets fuzzy. A 14"-bladed "hunting sword". There are a good number of characteristics that could be used to argue both sides of the debate as to whether or not this is a short sword or large knife.

 

[Gadfly22]

While this thread has some interesting facts about historical weaponry, the essential answer is that a knife never "becomes" a sword. There are no Aristotelian ideal "knives" or "swords" that any cutting or stabbing artifact needs to aspire to.

"Knife" is a general category of cutting or stabbing implements, and, like all general categories, the boundaries are fuzzy. And at those boundaries, an other general category -- like "sword" -- might better apply to a particular implement. Blade size is one of the parameters at the boundary, and certainly the most important. But the closer to the categorical boundary you go, the more likely that different observers are going to see different things. Someone who has never seen a claymore might think that a heavy blade of 12 inches or so definitely constitutes a "sword".

 

[cchu518]

I think it would be safe to say that if one is digesting something to this level of a "short sword" you would have to identify sub-classes in the nomenclature? I.E. Is a long knife aka a designated hunting knife meant for wounding a living thing mutually exclusive from a sword that could have the same intent?

 

[SCWillson]

Hunting knives are not generally designed for "wounding a living thing" but for butchering the animal after it is already dead by arrow, spear, or bullet or for administering the coup de grâce if it was only wounded.

The only person I know who uses a knife as his primary tool to kill animals is Tarzan.

 

[SCWillson]

Not sure why you think that the kuba swords linked were primarily ceremonial. They were culturally symbolic, yes, but the bulk of them I've seen were clearly weapons.

They were primarily used as status symbols; many were not even sharpened.

Regardless, kuba are really too short to be considered swords. They are more accurately considered daggers.

 

[Gadfly22]

Hunting knives are not generally designed for "wounding a living thing" but for butchering the animal after it is already dead by arrow, spear, or bullet or for administering the coup de grâce if it was only wounded.

The only person I know who uses a knife as his primary tool to kill animals is Tarzan.

I think if you google something like "knife hunt wild hog", you'll see plenty of videos of people using knives as primary killing tools on wild pigs.

 

[FortyTwoBlades]

Hunting knives are not generally designed for "wounding a living thing" but for butchering the animal after it is already dead by arrow, spear, or bullet or for administering the coup de grâce if it was only wounded.

The only person I know who uses a knife as his primary tool to kill animals is Tarzan.

Still with the intend for delivering death to a living thing, and still commonly referred to as a sword. There are plenty of longer examples out there--I just decided to grab one that was deliberately blurring the lines between knife and sword.

They were primarily used as status symbols; many were not even sharpened.

Regardless, kuba are really too short to be considered swords. They are more accurately considered daggers.

Source? Information I'm finding is that at least up until the end of the 19th century they were weapons, after which they became downgraded to status symbols. And I believe that part of the reasoning behind the length argument was that it had to be long enough to chop flesh effectively. I'd say that they compensate for their short length with enormous width.

 

[FortyTwoBlades]

Ultimately, all of my devils advocacy above is just pointing out the concept of not being able to use a single method to define a sword. There are tons of potential factors that need to be taken into consideration, and it's the sum of those features that establish the critical "definitional mass" that allows an edged weapon to be classified solidly as a sword or not.

Again, though, that's just my take on it. Feel free to disagree.