|
|
Post by roth on Jun 30, 2022 17:50:58 GMT
How old does a sword have to be to be labeled ancient?
|
|
|
|
Post by Sir Thorfinn on Jun 30, 2022 19:16:31 GMT
LOL.
*It Depends*
This is a long thought out question, with no definitive answer I know of.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mark Millman on Jun 30, 2022 20:21:35 GMT
Dear roth,
In Europe and the Mediterranean, the division between the late ancient world and the early middle ages is very often placed around 500 C.E. Some people specify the collapse of the Western Roman Empire in 476 C.E. as the defining event. A minority opinion prefers to end antiquity around the time of Islam's rise in the 630s C.E.
European and Mediterranean swords older than about 500 C.E. are therefore ancient to late ancient, and more recent ones are early medieval to modern. As is true of most things, there are more continuities than differences around the transitional period; but the c. 500 C.E. break-point reflects the majority historical perspective.
I hope this proves helpful.
Best,
Mark Millman
|
|
|
|
Post by roth on Jun 30, 2022 20:57:33 GMT
Thanks Mark. Am I correct that swords were around in Europe before Asia?
What would be considered ancient for Asia, or does it depend on which part of Asia?
Do we know what the oldest known sword is in the world? I would imagine that would be tough to confirm.
|
|
Yagoro
Member
Ikkyu in Kendo and Kenjutsu Practitioner
Posts: 1,584
|
Post by Yagoro on Jun 30, 2022 21:46:05 GMT
Thanks Mark. Am I correct that swords were around in Europe before Asia? What would be considered ancient for Asia, or does it depend on which part of Asia? Do we know what the oldest known sword is in the world? I would imagine that would be tough to confirm. The assumption that swords were around in Europe before Asia is entirely incorrect. Also I'd consider pre han dynasty ancient for China and pre heian period as ancient for Japan. Also for Korea I'd consider pre baekje war as ancient |
|
stormmaster
Member
I like viking/migration era swords
Posts: 7,714
|
Post by stormmaster on Jun 30, 2022 21:49:36 GMT
There's a pristine still sharp bronze age sword from 510 bc from China called the sword of Goujian, thats pretty ancient
|
|
Yagoro
Member
Ikkyu in Kendo and Kenjutsu Practitioner
Posts: 1,584
|
Post by Yagoro on Jun 30, 2022 21:51:27 GMT
There's a pristine still sharp bronze age sword from 510 bc from China called the sword of Goujian, thats pretty ancient Also Europe and china basically developed swords at around the same time. China was a huge part of the bronze age trade after all |
|
|
|
Post by Mark Millman on Jun 30, 2022 23:44:45 GMT
Folks, Thanks Mark. Am I correct that swords were around in Europe before Asia? What would be considered ancient for Asia, or does it depend on which part of Asia? Do we know what the oldest known sword is in the world? I would imagine that would be tough to confirm. The assumption that swords were around in Europe before Asia is entirely incorrect. I agree, with the proviso that swords seem to have been invented in Western Asia--Asia Minor (now Turkey) to be specific--and to have spread from there. That suggests that they reached Europe before East Asia. The earliest ones may be the Arslantepe arsenic-bronze examples from the 33rd to 31st centuries B.C.E. Two arguments against them are that their very flat hilts may be too difficult to hold in combat, which would prevent their being considered real weapons; and that they're too short--the longest is just about 60 cm (24 inches) long, with a 43-cm (17-inch) blade. Another fact to consider is that the arsenic-bronze they're made of seems not to have been a deliberate alloy, but a natural consequence of the ores available to the makers; but to me this seems less important. These are matters of opinion, and you'll have to make up your own mind about them. If you're not familiar with these objects, you can read about two reconstruction projects in threads on Sword Forum International, Bladesmith's Forum, and myArmoury. In any case, the Arslantepe swords seem not to have had any descendants or lasting influence, so no matter what you think of them, swords vanish again (or continue not to be invented) and don't (re)appear for fourteen centuries. There are finds of what appear to be unalloyed copper weapons up to 60 cm long from around 2300 B.C.E. in the Cyclades, the island group in the Aegean Sea. Again, these can be considered long daggers rather than real swords, and the fact of their copper rather than bronze composition may make some people disqualify them. The first weapons unambiguously agreed to be functional swords are tin-bronze and appear in Minoan Crete around 1700 B.C.E. In East Asia, China's Shang Dynasty has bronze swords attested from about 1200 B.C.E. That seems pretty reasonable to me, although many people prefer to place the division between ancient and Imperial China at the establishment of the Qin Dynasty in 221 B.C.E. Given that it's only fifteen years before the rise of Han around 206 B.C.E., the difference is relevant only to political rather than social or cultural history. My preference would be to bump this back to the beginning of the Asuka period and the introduction of Buddhism to Japan, around 538 C.E. When Baekje fell to the Silla-Tang China alliance in the early 660s C.E.? Again, that seems reasonable. I could also agree with putting the split at the start of the Three Kingdoms period in the last half-century B.C.E., depending on the degree to which you want Korean history to be independent of Chinese history.
In South Asia (Greater India), most authorities place the end of classical antiquity in the mid-500s C.E.
Best, Mark Millman |
|
Yagoro
Member
Ikkyu in Kendo and Kenjutsu Practitioner
Posts: 1,584
|
Post by Yagoro on Jun 30, 2022 23:54:26 GMT
Folks, The assumption that swords were around in Europe before Asia is entirely incorrect. I agree, with the proviso that swords seem to have been invented in Western Asia--Asia Minor (now Turkey) to be specific--and to have spread from there. That suggests that they reached Europe before East Asia. The earliest ones may be the Arslantepe arsenic-bronze examples from the 33rd to 31st centuries B.C.E. Two arguments against them are that their very flat hilts may be too difficult to hold in combat, which would prevent their being considered real weapons; and that they're too short--the longest is just about 60 cm (24 inches) long, with a 43-cm (17-inch) blade. Another fact to consider is that the arsenic-bronze they're made of seems not to have been a deliberate alloy, but a natural consequence of the ores available to the makers; but to me this seems less important. These are matters of opinion, and you'll have to make up your own mind about them. If you're not familiar with these objects, you can read about two reconstruction projects in threads on Sword Forum International, Bladesmith's Forum, and myArmoury. In any case, the Arslantepe swords seem not to have had any descendants or lasting influence, so no matter what you think of them, swords vanish again (or continue not to be invented) and don't (re)appear for fourteen centuries. There are finds of what appear to be unalloyed copper weapons up to 60 cm long from around 2300 B.C.E. in the Cyclades, the island group in the Aegean Sea. Again, these can be considered long daggers rather than real swords, and the fact of their copper rather than bronze composition may make some people disqualify them. The first weapons unambiguously agreed to be functional swords are tin-bronze and appear in Minoan Crete around 1700 B.C.E. In East Asia, China's Shang Dynasty has bronze swords attested from about 1200 B.C.E. That seems pretty reasonable to me, although many people prefer to place the division between ancient and Imperial China at the establishment of the Qin Dynasty in 221 B.C.E. Given that it's only fifteen years before the rise of Han around 206 B.C.E., the difference is relevant only to political rather than social or cultural history. My preference would be to bump this back to the beginning of the Asuka period and the introduction of Buddhism to Japan, around 538 C.E. When Baekje fell to the Silla-Tang China alliance in the early 660s C.E.? Again, that seems reasonable. I could also agree with putting the split at the start of the Three Kingdoms period in the last half-century B.C.E., depending on the degree to which you want Korean history to be independent of Chinese history.
In South Asia (Greater India), most authorities place the end of classical antiquity in the mid-500s C.E.
Best, Mark Millman Good takes. Moreso said pre heian as what we would consider modern Japanese swords didn't become commonplace until the heian. I would consider chokuto as ancient, but by definition ancient Japan would be pre buddhism |
|
|
|
Post by Mark Millman on Jul 1, 2022 0:00:38 GMT
Dear jdawg221,
Fair point. This is about swords, after all.
Best,
Mark Millman
|
|
|
|
Post by treeslicer on Jul 1, 2022 0:04:19 GMT
Folks, The assumption that swords were around in Europe before Asia is entirely incorrect. I agree, with the proviso that swords seem to have been invented in Western Asia--Asia Minor (now Turkey) to be specific--and to have spread from there. That suggests that they reached Europe before East Asia. The earliest ones may be the Arslantepe arsenic-bronze examples from the 33rd to 31st centuries B.C.E. Two arguments against them are that their very flat hilts may be too difficult to hold in combat, which would prevent their being considered real weapons; and that they're too short--the longest is just about 60 cm (24 inches) long, with a 43-cm (17-inch) blade. Another fact to consider is that the arsenic-bronze they're made of seems not to have been a deliberate alloy, but a natural consequence of the ores available to the makers; but to me this seems less important. These are matters of opinion, and you'll have to make up your own mind about them. If you're not familiar with these objects, you can read about two reconstruction projects in threads on Sword Forum International, Bladesmith's Forum, and myArmoury. In any case, the Arslantepe swords seem not to have had any descendants or lasting influence, so no matter what you think of them, swords vanish again (or continue not to be invented) and don't (re)appear for fourteen centuries. There are finds of what appear to be unalloyed copper weapons up to 60 cm long from around 2300 B.C.E. in the Cyclades, the island group in the Aegean Sea. Again, these can be considered long daggers rather than real swords, and the fact of their copper rather than bronze composition may make some people disqualify them. The first weapons unambiguously agreed to be functional swords are tin-bronze and appear in Minoan Crete around 1700 B.C.E. In East Asia, China's Shang Dynasty has bronze swords attested from about 1200 B.C.E. That seems pretty reasonable to me, although many people prefer to place the division between ancient and Imperial China at the establishment of the Qin Dynasty in 221 B.C.E. Given that it's only fifteen years before the rise of Han around 206 B.C.E., the difference is relevant only to political rather than social or cultural history. My preference would be to bump this back to the beginning of the Asuka period and the introduction of Buddhism to Japan, around 538 C.E. When Baekje fell to the Silla-Tang China alliance in the early 660s C.E.? Again, that seems reasonable. I could also agree with putting the split at the start of the Three Kingdoms period in the last half-century B.C.E., depending on the degree to which you want Korean history to be independent of Chinese history.
In South Asia (Greater India), most authorities place the end of classical antiquity in the mid-500s C.E.
Best, Mark Millman FWLIW, I'm in broad agreement with all of Mark's conclusions.  |
|
|
|
Post by roth on Jul 1, 2022 2:57:12 GMT
Wow! These responses are amazing. Talk about a wealth of knowledge. It is greatly appreciated.
I found it interesting that some people wouldn't consider a sword to be made out of copper a real sword.
So, is there a certain length where a dagger is too long to be called a dagger?
|
|
AndiTheBarvarian
Member
"Lord of the Memes"
Bavarianbarbarian - Semper Semprini
Posts: 10,331
Member is Online
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Jul 1, 2022 3:03:25 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Mark Millman on Jul 1, 2022 4:36:46 GMT
Dear roth, Wow! These responses are amazing. Talk about a wealth of knowledge. It is greatly appreciated. You're very welcome. I'm happy to be able to help. To be explicit about what I only implied above, the reason that a copper weapon may not be considered a real sword is that copper is too soft to use for (1) a long blade that (2) may have to endure contact with other blades. Helmut Föll makes the same point in his article under the link that AndiTheBarvarian provides above. As with many of the criteria discussed above, it's a matter of taste. For me, anything with a blade shorter than about 45 cm (18 inches) is likely to be a dagger, and anything with a longer blade is likely to be a sword. But there are weapons clearly made to be used in a sword-like manner (leaving aside questions of scaling the weapon for unusually small users) that have blades as short as 38 cm (15 inches). The Spartan short xiphos, for example, seems to have been considered a sword by the Greeks, and those can have blades as short as 30 cm (12 inches). (That's a little short for me to think of it as a sword even knowing what its contemporaries thought.) Likewise there are weapons pretty clearly made to be used like daggers that have blades as long as 53 cm (21 inches; again, leaving aside questions of scaling the weapon for unusually tall users). Among the latter are some usually called "archer's daggers" or "archer's rondel daggers", from England. And Joseph Swetnam, in his 1617 fencing treatise The Schoole of the Noble and Worthy Science of Defence, recommends, for rapier and dagger or sword and dagger, a "Dagger two foote, for it is better haue the Dagger too long then too short". Even with six inches of hilt length--which would be long, even for a dagger with elaborate hilts--this could easily give an eighteen-inch (45 cm) blade; and some people believe he means the measurement to apply to the blade alone, giving a twenty-four-inch (60 cm) blade. But blade width, thickness, and cross-section and overall weight of the weapon also influence how all of these ambiguous weapons are seen. Best, Mark Millman |
|
|
|
Post by roth on Jul 2, 2022 17:30:35 GMT
Dear roth, Wow! These responses are amazing. Talk about a wealth of knowledge. It is greatly appreciated. You're very welcome. I'm happy to be able to help. To be explicit about what I only implied above, the reason that a copper weapon may not be considered a real sword is that copper is too soft to use for (1) a long blade that (2) may have to endure contact with other blades. Helmut Föll makes the same point in his article under the link that AndiTheBarvarian provides above. As with many of the criteria discussed above, it's a matter of taste. For me, anything with a blade shorter than about 45 cm (18 inches) is likely to be a dagger, and anything with a longer blade is likely to be a sword. But there are weapons clearly made to be used in a sword-like manner (leaving aside questions of scaling the weapon for unusually small users) that have blades as short as 38 cm (15 inches). The Spartan short xiphos, for example, seems to have been considered a sword by the Greeks, and those can have blades as short as 30 cm (12 inches). (That's a little short for me to think of it as a sword even knowing what its contemporaries thought.) Likewise there are weapons pretty clearly made to be used like daggers that have blades as long as 53 cm (21 inches; again, leaving aside questions of scaling the weapon for unusually tall users). Among the latter are some usually called "archer's daggers" or "archer's rondel daggers", from England. Thanks again for sharing your wealth of knowledge Let me go a bit further. Does the term longsword require a certain length? How about width for a broadsword? To qualify as flared, does the wide part have to be a certain percentage wider than the main part of the blade? Are there official numbers on these things? Is it possible for one expert to call something a certain sword and another disagree or are the sizes a universal thing? |
|
AndiTheBarvarian
Member
"Lord of the Memes"
Bavarianbarbarian - Semper Semprini
Posts: 10,331
Member is Online
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Jul 2, 2022 21:11:04 GMT
1.) Just longer than a short sword of the era. 2.) No 3.) No 4.) No 5.) a) Yes, 2 experts = 3 opinions (expert 1, expert 2, Oakeshott) 5.) b) No  Edit: 1.) In Japan it's officially 60,6 cm (2 shaku = 2 x 30,3 cm) and even longer short swords in Europe have also max. 55 - 60 cm blades, so you can use 60 cm. In the high medieval era the swords that were longswords before were called arming swords and longer swords for two handed use were called longswords then. 5.)a) Many swords don't match the Oakeshott typology exactly. The same blade can be described as a short XII with very untypical diamond cross section, as a long slender XIV with diamond cross section or as a shorter XVI with a broad base. |
|
|
|
Post by Mark Millman on Jul 4, 2022 2:33:35 GMT
Dear roth, Thanks again for sharing your wealth of knowledge You're very welcome. I'm happy to be able to help. Let me begin by saying that I agree with everything that AndiTheBarvarian says above. I'd like to expand a little bit--OK, maybe a lot--in order to explain why some of these terms are so confusing. As Andi says, no; in general, it's any sword that's longer than popular swords of its era that are considered short, so earlier ones are long-bladed single-hand swords, and later ones are the same as hand-and-a-half or bastard swords. Some authors specify the same blade lengths for weapons meant for one-handed and two-handed use; George Silver is a late, but explicit, example. In these cases the difference is not in blade length but in grip and overall lengths, although it's more common for longsword blades at any particular time to be longer than contemporary short sword blades in addition to any differences in grip (and thus overall) length. "Longsword" as an English word is also more than 400 years old; Shakespeare has Capulet call for his longsword in Romeo and Juliet. Some change in meaning over several centuries seems inevitable. Current confusion about the meaning of "longsword" comes mostly from historical European martial arts, where its use as the English translation of the German langes Schwert has resulted in many people's default understanding of "longsword" being the hand-and-a-half or bastard sword, which is the basic weapon of the late-medieval and early-modern German art of fencing. Ironically, this may itself be an instance of confused terminology. Michael Chidester has said that there's evidence that langes Schwert may not refer to the physical weapon but to its use, being fenced "long" as in most unarmored combat, as opposed to fencing at half-sword (with one hand on the hilt and the other grasping the blade), typical of armored combat and unarmored combat at grappling range.
I'd also agree with Andi that a European sword with a blade 24 inches (60 cm) long or less is (barring considerations of scaling the weapon for short users) clearly a short sword, but I find things fuzzy in the range between 24 and 28 inches (60-71 cm). Over 28 inches (71 cm) is for me no longer a short sword.
Like "longsword", the word "broadsword" is at least four centuries old. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, during the Dutch rebellion against Spain (in which many Englishmen fought) and the English Civil War, the word was used to distinguish broad-bladed cutting or cut-and-thrust weapons from narrow-bladed rapiers optimized for thrusting (which not all were, but "rapier" is another vexed term, which I'd rather not discuss at length just now). Actually, at that time "broadsword" was more specific, and meant a double-edged straight-bladed cutting or cut-and-thrust sword. Single-edged swords were distinguished by calling them "backswords". Later, in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries (so during the Seven Years' War (known as the French and Indian War in pre-United States North American colonial history), the American and French Revolutions, and the Napoleonic wars), "broadsword" meant any broad-bladed cutting or cut-and-thrust sword whether it had one edge or two and whether it had a straight or a curved blade. So at that time, the British Pattern 1796 light cavalry saber was as much a broadsword as a double-edged Scottish basket-hilted sword. (And let us also save discussion of "claymore" for another time, or better yet do a forum search for the several threads devoted to discussing its meaning.) The un-broad swords of the time were smallswords (in case there's any doubt, these are not the same as short swords, although some people confuse the terms), and toward the end of that period, spadroons. As Andi says, no and no. If a blade visibly flares, it's a flared blade. To be sure, that does require that the edges deviate from being straight as they approach the hilt--a blade that merely has an extreme profile taper from hilt to point and has straight edges is not flared. Again, as Andi says, this is absolutely possible. His answer brings in the Oakeshott blade typology, which I don't think is what you mean, but he is perfectly correct. To answer the question I think you do mean to ask, experts disagree all the time, but there is broad agreement on categories. As you might expect, there are more disagreements about intermediate and edge cases than about items that fall neatly into the averages for their types. For example, the origins of the late-medieval longsword (in the hand-and-a-half or bastard sword sense) seem to be in the cavalry swords of war of the high Middle Ages. To be more effective from horseback swords' blades were lengthened, but in order to balance properly the grips were simultaneously lengthened to give more leverage to their pommels--this is a way to increase the balancing effect of the pommel without making it, and the whole sword, excessively heavy (remember that these swords were already heavy compared to their predecessors because of their longer blades); these lengthened cavalry swords became known as swords of war. While swords had occasionally been used two-handed even with short grips (there's plenty of iconographic evidence for the practice; see, for example, the Morgan Bible, sometimes known as the Maciejowski Bible), the longer grips created an opportunity for sophisticated two-handed techniques to develop when these swords were used on foot. Once this happened, swords in turn began to be designed to take advantage of the new techniques. Is a sword with a 36-inch (91 cm) blade and a 5.5-inch (14 cm) grip a longsword or a sword of war? It depends on its shape (one of the reasons Oakeshott developed his typology was to make comparisons between swords easier), its dating, its place of origin, and (if this can be determined, which often is not the case for historical artifacts) its handling characteristics. Experts are likely to disagree on such an example. I apologize for the wall of text, but as I say, I want to try to make some of the confusion more manageable and there can be several complicating factors in any particular case. Regrettably, I don't think I can actually lessen the confusion; but if this were more straightforward, it would be less fun. Best, Mark Millman |
|
AndiTheBarvarian
Member
"Lord of the Memes"
Bavarianbarbarian - Semper Semprini
Posts: 10,331
Member is Online
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Jul 4, 2022 2:46:09 GMT
Thank you Mark for elaborating this.
My English isn't good enough so I tend to post short answers.
|
|
|
|
Post by roth on Jul 4, 2022 3:07:23 GMT
5.)a) Many swords don't match the Oakeshott typology exactly. The same blade can be described as a short XII with very untypical diamond cross section, as a long slender XIV with diamond cross section or as a shorter XVI with a broad base. Thanks for the response. You too Mark. I was flipping through Oakeshott's book today "Records of the Medieval Sword" to try to get better at identifying them but it sure is tough. He does mention disagreements amongst experts so mere mortals like me don't stand a chance. It's fun trying though. |
|
|
|
Post by eastman on Jul 4, 2022 14:30:07 GMT
... I apologize for the wall of text, but as I say, I want to try to make some of the confusion more manageable and there can be several complicating factors in any particular case. Regrettably, I don't think I can actually lessen the confusion; but if this were more straightforward, it would be less fun. Best, Mark Millman
no need for apologies, that was a worthwhile read.
I had seen references to the Maciejowski Bible illustrations for many years. Didn't know that there was another name. Any good reference books on this artwork?
|
|
Nov 1, 2024 0:13:58 GMT
Nov 1, 2024 0:13:58 GMT
