Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2009 6:23:50 GMT
From what I remember, a dirk is classified as a sword. I think they may have been a representation of an oath not to bear arms, so to prove their oath, they cut down their swords into dirks. This is not a historical fact, but it seems interesting non the less. This idea is actually not far from the truth. What is or is not a "sword" is a legal issue above all else. In most places, common people could not carry swords. This is a reason for the popularity of the Gross Messer (big knife). In Ancient Rome it was illegal too enter the city with arms. Ceaser was not killed with a sword, he was stabbed with daggers. The Gracchi brothers were not killed by swords either. Beyond swords, even the color of cloths and types of fabrics to be worn were regulated. A common person could not wear the cloths of a noble or cleric. In the medieval and ancient world people did not have ID cards. You were whom you appeared to be. For a common person to dress as a noble and carry a sword it was an act of fraud. Worst then that, it was a heretical attempt to undo the order established by God... This was serious stuff back then.
|
|
|
Post by randomnobody on Feb 1, 2009 21:41:00 GMT
So, hoping to spur some more discussion here I managed to get a photo of some of the items I personally own and will offer them up for debate. So...top and bottom are, respectively, my 21" nagasa Rawblade, and an 18" nagasa antique wakizashi. Maybe 17.5 it depends on my mood. Anywho, both of which arguably swords, no? From the left, a Gen2 12th Century/Norman dagger, a Windlass Viking dirk, Hanwei's Saxon Scramsax (spelling differs I'm going with easy) ...yeah...sword, dagger, dirk...s(e)ax...uh...sure?, Valiant Co's (of Australia) Bosnian knife, a kukri (which I consider a knife...), some cheap hunting/field knife from MTech I bought years ago, Hanwei's Tactical Tanto (Hmm...tanto. Dagger? Knife? Really short sword? I say knife...), a modern version of the legendary Fairbairn-Sykes Commando Fighting knife (arguably a small dagger, eh?), a tanto (again...knife?) forged by our own slavia631 (still lovin' it, slav, and yes, that is rust, yes, on both sides, no, haven't a clue how or when it got there, noticed it one day, but it's not going anywhere so I don't worry about it...I'll polish it off sometime...seems pretty inactive), an old Kabar 1232 knife, and last on the far right is an A.G. Russell Sting. A little knife I alternate with the Kabar when I go out, with the exception of going to work. So, guys...thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by genocideseth on Feb 1, 2009 21:50:32 GMT
Well, the kukri I never really thought of as a knife. I always thought of it as a... Kukri? It always seemed to be it's own entity. Although your pictures bring new debates... Hmmm... I imagine a kid would find your Gen 2 Norman Dagger to be a sword though... Man... We need a historian here.
|
|
|
Post by randomnobody on Feb 1, 2009 23:37:09 GMT
There's a bit of an angle to the picture, since my lighting isn't the best, but I think the blade of the Gen2 is about 12 or 13 inches long...the Windlass is about a half inch longer in the blade, but ultimately the two are the same concept, I think. The dirk handles more like a very small sword, though, while the dagger feels like...well, it feels like absolutely nothing, actually, but we'll just call it a big knife. This is what I think of when I think of a "dagger" so I feel the description accurate. Perhaps, too, for the "dirk," but my experience with "dirk" blades is limited to the one piece as yet. As to kuks, I'll grant they typically fall into their own category more often than not however I think most will agree the average is ultimately a knife, or somewhere between a knife and a machete. A garden tool, really. The s(e)ax (somebody get a consensus on how to spell that) has me lost, though. A short sword, perhaps? Or is it really just a s(e)ax? What IS a "s(e)ax," anyway? I don't think anybody will argue with me calling the other blades knives, yet the Bosnian is very nearly the same blade length as the dirk and dagger... Similarly, I do feel that perhaps the F-S could really be described more accurately as a small dagger, rather than a knife. Yet it's most often (exclusively?) classified as a knife. A combat/fighting knife, granted, but a knife no less. I suppose ultimately whatever method of warfare a set of people used would determine the shape, style, and size of their weapons, which would branch from there to the various designations such as dagger et cetera, and at the end of the day...one man's dagger, is, quite simply, another man's sword.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2009 2:08:00 GMT
Two add a little more fuel for discussion there are five pictures comparing the Spartan Lakonian (sword) to several other weapons. This first photo compares the Lakonian to a DSA Elven Dagger and a Windlass Medieval Sword Hilt Dagger (no longer available). In my opinion only the Lakonian is a sword. Here we have the Lakonian and the Windlass Coustille. I tend to class the Coustille as a sword. The third picture shows the Lakonina (center) with a Cold Steel Naval Dirk and the Windlass double edged Bowie. The blade on the Naval Dirk is impressively in length, but I still think of it as a knife. The Bowie is problematic. It has a hefty blade and is only slightly smaller than the Lakonian. Opinions? This picture is similar to the last one, but the Bowie has been replaced by a 1909 Argentine short sword. Is it really a short sword? The last photo shows the Lakonian and two Windlass Bowies. The D-Guard Bowie is larger than the Lakonian - in fact it is large enough that I have trouble calling it a knife. The other Bowie I'd categorize as a knife without any quams even though it is quite large and hefty. I hope to hear your opinions on these weapons.
|
|
|
Post by randomnobody on Feb 2, 2009 2:21:33 GMT
Which Coustille is that? I remember they put out a revised version a while ago that may have been smaller? I remember thinking it a shame that they'd turned a small sword into a big knife... That double-edged bowie...that IS a tough one. I'm not sure I'd ever heard of any such thing as a double-edge bowie, but since we happen to have something calling itelf that, well...uh...well, I don't know. I tend to think of bowies as knives, but with that one and the D-guard model...they really are short swords if you forget what they're called and just look at them... That Argentine short sword reminds me of some old bayonets, but then some of those were classified as "sword bayonets" so it may be that this is, in fact, a short sword. I don't know. At any rate, nice collection you have there.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2009 15:20:37 GMT
Which Coustille is that? I remember they put out a revised version a while ago that may have been smaller? I remember thinking it a shame that they'd turned a small sword into a big knife... That double-edged bowie...that IS a tough one. I'm not sure I'd ever heard of any such thing as a double-edge bowie, but since we happen to have something calling itelf that, well...uh...well, I don't know. I tend to think of bowies as knives, but with that one and the D-guard model...they really are short swords if you forget what they're called and just look at them... That Argentine short sword reminds me of some old bayonets, but then some of those were classified as "sword bayonets" so it may be that this is, in fact, a short sword. I don't know. At any rate, nice collection you have there. Thank you. You also have a nice collection. The Coustille was purchased on October 1, 2008. I don't know whether it is an early or late version. Blade Length is 16 3/4 inches with a total length of about 22 3/4 inches. It weighs 23.7 ounces. The double edged "Bowie" weighs the same as the Coustille. To me this is not a proper Bowie knife but Windlass has chosen to call it this. I agree with you on the D-Guard Bowie. The 1909 Argentine Short Sword is based on the 1891 and 1909 Argentine Mauser bayonets. The blade is heavier and in a "bolo" pattern. Examples of the bayonets can be viewed at the addresses below. arms2armor.com/Bayonets/arg1891a.htmAs to the photo you posted, the two bare blades are obviously swords. The leftmost three in the center group are problematic. If I had to label them I'd probably call them daggers - but they are right on the border. The rest I have no problem calling knives or daggers. (I normally think of daggers as being a subset of knives that are double edged and designed for fighting. I have no idea if that is correct or not.)
|
|
|
Post by randomnobody on Feb 2, 2009 15:51:21 GMT
You may have the "new coustille," then...I'll have to look it up later and get the comparison specs. Windlass seems to like making up new blade shapes and calling them whatever they like, but I'm with you on the "bowies." Now that we've mentioned bayonets, I could have included mine... A French epee bayonet, forget the pattern presently but made in 1879, 'bout as long as my wak...somewhere between 16 and 18 inches of "blade," granted it's mainly a poker...not much of an edge to it, but hell of a point. In the hand I'd be okay calling most old bayonets swords, especially the oh-so-appropriately-named "sword bayonets" that were so common up through WW1. WW2 saw a few, I think, but by then most were more knife-sized. This just keeps getting deeper.
|
|
|
Post by YlliwCir on Feb 2, 2009 17:16:48 GMT
Ahh, nice discussion and blades, friends. Seems the difference is like beauty, it's in the I of the holder.
|
|
|
Post by randomnobody on Feb 3, 2009 4:45:09 GMT
With the mention of bayonets, I felt sharing this might be appropriate: You're already familiar with the Raw (top) and Seki (bottom) but in the middle there is the French Gras bayonet I mentioned earlier. It's about the same blade length as the raw, minus the curve, but is longer than the other wak by a bit. So...off the rifle...is it a sword? A nice collection of bayonet photos (you'd think this person was me, our background appears to be the same carpet... ) here: www.bayo-hunter.com/collect.htmNote how the sizes vary from "knife" to "sword" and everywhere in-between.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2009 12:33:47 GMT
Interesting discussion! For my two cents- I think of it as a purely linguistic distinction, ie not rational. Although, of course, Bill Tsafa has a good point about the distinction being important in certain places and periods. If I remember correctly, in most of those cases the distinction was actually spelled out in the statutes, usually by blade length. I've always liked the Chinese way of dividing the blade-groups: if it's got two edges it's a jian, if it's got one edge it's a dao. Beautifully elegant and simple! English, on the other hand, is soooo much messier. But then, that also makes it so much more versatile and creative.... Shakespeare's line "is this a dagger I see before me?" works off our understanding that a dagger is a weapon (whereas a knife can also be a tool), and further, unlike a sword, it's the weapon of an assassin or murderer. So, I think in English we have these cultural associations (mostly to do with their intended use) that go along with the different words we use to describe blade-tools, which resonate more strongly than their physical dimensions. So does that help make a distinction between a dagger and a sword? Well, no But it does raise another way that they are sometimes distinguished- A dagger can be concealed easily, while a sword cannot. The word "dagger" is associated with murder by stealth, with nasty, no-holds-barred infighting ('get the daggers out'), with betrayal ('dagger in the back'), with feelings of hatred/anger/jealousy ('look daggers' at someone). The word "sword" is more associated with chivalry ('sword of honor'), fair-play and lawfulness ('sword of justice') etc. I know none of this is really helpful. Sorry! I'm just feelin' a tad philosophical tonight... Cheers Marc E
|
|
|
Post by Kilted Cossack on Feb 3, 2009 21:48:35 GMT
Poohze:
Could that play off the similar Roman classification of weapons, of which I've read (ahem, John Maddox Roberts, ahem, ahem), where the pugio is honorable, and the sica is not?
Charles Appel:
Sir, your photos add a great deal to the discussion. Perhaps, as RicWilly suggests, a lot of it is in the eye of the beholder, kind of like the High Nine and the question of pornography (we know it when we see it).
I'm still feeling my way, so any offense given is unintentional. (I only give intentional offense when I know a lot more than I know now, and seldom even then.)
|
|
|
Post by genocideseth on Feb 3, 2009 23:43:10 GMT
Well, so far it appears as though what defines a dagger depends on what it was classified as from the culture it was created from, no?
|
|
|
Post by randomnobody on Feb 3, 2009 23:46:29 GMT
Pretty much. But with hybrids and fantasy pieces...well...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2009 11:09:28 GMT
Poohze: Could that play off the similar Roman classification of weapons, of which I've read (ahem, John Maddox Roberts, ahem, ahem), where the pugio is honorable, and the sica is not? Hmmm, maybe. It might have contributed to the current associations in English, since latin was a great influence for quite a few centuries. I'm not sure how one could definitively prove it one way or the other . You'd have to examine all the contributors to modern english, and survey the literature to see when those associations started to develop. Maybe a good PhD for any martially-minded linguistics students out there! Good thought! Well, so far it appears as though what defines a dagger depends on what it was classified as from the culture it was created from, no? That's pretty much my thought, too. As for more modern, or mash-up or fantasy pieces, I think it's probably as much how the manufacturer describes the piece, or how the owner feels about it. I think there is a point at which the weapon becomes long enough and/or heavy enough for most people to call it a sword rather than a dagger. But I'm not sure if it could be simply defined. But then, maybe some budding psychologist, with a martial bent, could do a PhD presenting people with pictures of different weapons and asking them to describe them as either daggers or swords, and then work out a formula to define the difference from the results! My gut feeling is that it would end up being a combination of blade length, hilt length, and overall mass of the weapon that would be the factors people use to judge the distinction. I think those are the things I use.... Cheers Marc E
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2009 12:02:58 GMT
The difference between a sword and a dagger is interesting. The dictionary definition of a dagger is a short, swordlike weapon with a pointed blade and a handle, used for stabbing. Which really doesn't give us much of an insight into the difference. A dagger is also defined as a two edged weapon with a blade shorter than a sword blade. Again not useful, I personally feel that it is all about the function of the weapon so to define what a dagger is we need to talk about distance. A dagger is a weapon for close distance, usually a blade that is no more than say 12 inches long, a short sword is a weapon with a blade over 12 inches, and a sword is anything over 25 inches. I also think that things like width and weight and such are important in determining the difference between dagger and sword.
|
|