A Sword is a Sword

Greetings,

With no surprise, especially considering the title of the article and the blog, this article is about swords. But it is not just about them as objects alone, singularly, or pointing out one type of sword. It is an examination of swords in general. People, when they discuss sword, especially if they have anything to do with them in hobbies or study, are quick to separate and isolate them by function, culture and type. This discussion is designed to break down some of those barriers, to look at swords as swords.

The discussion which follows is more curatorial than social or practical, though both social and practical elements will come into the discussion. It is difficult to discuss swords without swordsmanship. To attempt such would be like attempting to discuss cars and their performance without discussing driving. There will not be a history of the sword, nor will there be any discussion of any particular type of sword, in fact this is exactly what this discussion is trying to get away from. The purpose of this discussion is to present the similarities between swords, rather than their differences so that they can all be appreciated with equal worth.

Definition

The Oxford dictionary defines a sword as a noun, "A weapon with a long metal blade and a hilt with a hand guard, used for thrusting or striking and now typically worn as part of ceremonial dress." (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/sword). The Cambridge dictionary defines it as "a weapon with a long, sharp metal blade and a handle, used especially in the past" (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/sword). Finally, the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines it as "a weapon (such as a cutlass or rapier) with a long blade for cutting or thrusting that is often used as a symbol of honor or authority" (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sword).

All define the sword as a weapon, all define it as having a long blade. Interestingly, in two of them they specify a metal blade. Two relegate the weapon to the past, while the other attributes symbolic meaning to the weapon, thus giving it some use in the present. What will be noted in all of the definitions is that they are very rudimentary, though they do have some specificity to them. Depending if one or another of these definitions is chosen, some types of sword may actually be not included in their definition. The most extreme examples would be the non-metalic swords used by some islanders and also pre-colonial peoples. Care must be taken in a definition.

A sword, could be described as a weapon with long blade designed for cutting and/or thrusting, which has a hand grip of some fashion. However specificity in length of blade could create questions as to where a weapon crosses the line between a knife and a sword. Then there is the question of weapons such as the "messer" which was a large knife, but was the length of a short sword. It needs to be noted that the definition of the sword is not as easy as it might sound.

Sword is a Sword

All swords are swords, regardless whether it is a sabre or a rapier, katana or a schiavona, it is a sword. We are the individuals who divide them up and show them to be different in shape, or nationality, or use, or period, or whatever. In all cases all of the weapons which have been named, all six of them are swords. Obviously we divide them up so that it is easier to understand what we are talking about, but sometimes this creates confusion if a person does not understand what the other person is talking about. The most important point that needs to be made is that they are all swords. Regardless of which period of history, or from which culture, they are swords.

Similarities

"The difficulty of treating the Sword is enhanced by the peculiar individuality which characterises it, evidenced by an immense variety of physique, and resulting as much from unconscious selection as from deep design. One of the characteristics of indigenous art is that no two articles, especially no two weapons, are exactly alike; yet they vary only within narrow and measurable limits." (Burton, 1987:xxi)

Burton (1987) is describing how swords are both complex articles in which no two are exactly the same, but at the same time all fall within a certain level of variation. It is this second point which needs to be noted. There are similarities across swords which cannot be denied. They all have blades and hilts, obviously, but a person can get even deeper in the examination of the similarities. The cross-guard is also a similar item. In some cases it may be a part of the handle, but it is still present, if in a reduced form. In the case of the katana it is the tsuba, thus a circular cross-guard, which would seem somewhat contradictory. The pommel is also present, it is the part of the sword which holds the rest of it together, and in the western versions adds counter-weight. In the katana this is the kashira.

These similarities which have been pointed out, only are those in the hilts of the weapons, the blades also have similar characteristics as well. All have a strong, weak and a middle portion of the blade; these are all relative strengths in comparison to one another. The strong is most used for defending, the weak is most used for offending, and the middle is most used for controlling actions of the opponent's weapon. When it comes to the question of edges, the weapons do have at least two edges, even though one of them may be blunt. Even this blunt edge can be used for actions against the opponent, such as parrying and actions of control. These similarities in physical form need to be noted and appreciated.

Shape, Use or Culture?

Swords have been classified and organised into groups often by specific shape, function or culture. The question is what is the best method of classifying them, is it one or a combination of these methods. Burton (1987) suggests two which are common among collections being Topical and Geographical or Material and Formal, the former considers the culture, location, place and date, the latter which only considers the objects themselves (Burton, 1987:xxii). Obviously both have their advantages and disadvantages. Coe et. al. (1996) use a more combination system taking into account both the artefacts themselves along with the cultural situation in which they were found in, thus taking advantage of both approaches described by Burton (Coe et.al., 1996:6).

The combination of classification of weapons has the advantage of not only examining the objects themselves and examining them for construction, shape and manufacture, but can also look at the culture in which they were found and look at their use, which is often sorely missing in curatorial approaches to weapons. This missing approach leads these curatorial approaches to divide swords down definitive lines which are not actually there, due to misinterpretations as to how the weapons were used.

Some weapons were more specialised in a single area of use than others, this is undoubted. A perfect example of this is the estoque, or tuck, which was designed to be used by an armoured combatant against another for a thrusting attack designed to pierce through gaps in armour. The weapon had no edge, so there was no chance that there was any chance of cutting ability. Often this is claimed to be the origin of the rapier, however that it is a weapon designed for armoured combatants makes this a somewhat spurious claim.

The rapier is a classic weapon for the abuse of weapon historians about its use. For some it was a purely point-orientated weapon which could not cut at all. For others it could cut just as easily as more military-styled weapons which were its contemporaries. Neither of these is accurate. The rapier was a point-orientated weapon, meaning that it was designed more for the thrust than the cut, but it could still cut, just not as well as a military sword of the same period, it was designed for civilian duelling and self-defence.

On the other end of the scale some would attempt to have us believe that the longsword was purely designed for cutting and that it did not thrust at all. Longswords came in several different forms indeed Oakeshott numbers twenty-two different types of sword in the medieval period (Oakeshott, 1998:24), thirteen of which could be claimed to be longswords. Some of these were predominantly cutting weapons, but that is not to say they did not have a tip to thrust with, and some of them were more designed to thrust with also. So, needless to say, it depends on which form of the longsword is being spoken about.

The sabre is in a similar situation, it can also thrust as well. No doubt Oriental weapons have the same spurious claims been made about them. These arguments will not be discussed here as I do not have the expertise in this field. Needless to say, weapons need to be examined carefully before claims on their use are made, especially when it comes to specialisation.

Conclusion

Each person has their preferences. Some people prefer chocolate ice-cream over vanilla, some people just don't like ice-cream at all. Preferences for swords are much the same, just because you prefer the longsword, does not mean that you cannot appreciate the jian, katana, gladius or rapier. Each sword has something to say about it and of its use. There are many similarities between weapons which can be appreciated.

Each sword was a tool designed for its time and place, to take it out of this time and compare it to something else, to deride it is not useful. Placing a sword on a modern battlefield and trying to compare it to modern weapon systems is like trying to take an apple and compare it to an orange among other oranges. Sure, both of them are fruit, but they are simply not a good match for comparison unless the question is for preference about fruit, not the best orange.

The greatest challenge we face is to get out of our comfort zones, and in some cases these comfort zones are quite small. Have a look at some others swords and appreciate them for what they are and what they can do. Make comparisons of them with swords that you are familiar with, but not for the purposes of derision, but for the purposes of noting similarities and other positive notes. This way you will come to appreciate more weapons and also the skills that go along with these weapons. Remember that the two deciding principles of time and distance exist for all martial arts armed and unarmed, you can learn something from all different places if you really put your mind to it.

Bibliography

Burton, R. F. (1987) The Book of the Sword, Dover Publications Inc., New York, USA

Cambridge Dictionary (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/)

Coe, M. et. al. (1996) Swords and Hilt Weapons, Prion Books Limited, London

Oakeshott, E. (1998) The Sword in the Age of Chivalry, The Boydell Press, Woodbridge

Oxford Dictionary (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/)

Merriam-Webster Dictionary (https://www.merriam-webster.com/)

Rapier to Civilian Sword - Editorial

Greetings,

Introduction

The rapier has to be one of the most argued about weapons. Every time there is a discussion about the rapier there is an assumption made about this weapon. There is an assumption made by the writer that the reader is going to conjure in their mind the same weapon that they are writing about. Unfortunately this is sometimes not necessarily the case. The result of this is that arguments ensue. The problem is the word and the connotations associated with it. Maybe it is time for a change in thinking.

Earlier Discussion

There has already been a post made with regards to the origins and identification of the weapon known as the rapier entitled, "What is a Rapier?" (https://afencersramblings.blogspot.com.au/2015/02/what-is-rapier.html). It attempted to identify and pin down this ever elusive weapon. It discussed that there were several different forms of weapon which were identified as being rapiers. This post also stated that there was a very limited presence of the word "rapier" in the period in which it was used. It indicated that there were several etymological claimants for the word, most of which were from fencing historians as they were not actually called those things in the period in which they were used. In essence it took the weapon apart and shredded many of the common "known" so-called "facts" about the origins of the weapon. It resulted in that, for the most part, the author has to identify the weapon and hope that the reader has a common opinion.

Curatorial Issues

With all of the infomation presented above alone, it can clearly be stated that there is a lot of confusion about what a rapier is and is not. For years museum curators and collectors have identified weapons primarily by their hilts rather than the entire weapons, and had only a passing interest in their blades. It is thanks to this group of individuals that you have the term "sword rapier", a ridiculous term that was supposed to indicate a rapier with a broader blade. More to the point they have also gotten confused about where the rapier stops and the smallsword begins, which is understandable considering this line is very blurry.

Baggage  

Added to the confusion of how to identify the rapier itself, there is a lot of "baggage" associated with the weapon. Some of this comes from the curatorial mistakes made by museum curators in the earlier periods when the weapons were mis-identified. Some of this comes from fencing historians who were desperately trying to claim the rapier as the sword of the Renaissance, the beginning of brighter times, but not so nimble as the smallsword which led to the truer art. The last of the baggage comes from more modern times in which reproductions have been used for test cutting to prove that the rapier was could or could not cut, depending on their particular bias.

Where to Go?

With all of these issues with regard to this weapon and the word "rapier" a person has to ask, what are we to do about it? How can a person have a discussion about such a weapon in a relatively intellectual atmosphere when there is so much emotion and confusion about it?

Solution: replace it with "civilian sword".

Civilan Weapon

The primary purpose of the rapier, whatever its form, was for civilian self-defense and duelling. Sure, we occasionally see them on the battlefield, but this was not their primary purpose. Thus to call it a "civilian sword" be it a "rapier" or a "sidesword" is more associated with what it was primarily used for.

Context

"Civilian sword" also more closely associates the weapon with its context. Especially in the Elizabethan treatise His True Art of Defense of Giacomo di Grassi of 1594 he discusses a sword, indeed he uses the word "spada" in the 1570, which was translated sometimes as "rapier" and sometimes as "sword" depending on the context of the weapon and its companion. Thus in the context of thus treatise it is actually more accurate to discuss a "civilian sword" rather than a "rapier" anyway. The same could be said of Saviolo's His Practice in Two Books of 1595, even though it does say "rapier" all the way through. In the case of both this weapon is mentioned all the way through as it was fashionable in England at the time.

Less Prejudgement

Using this newer term moves away from preconceived notions of the weapon, thus the reader will read about the weapon and understand its capabilities by what has been written by the author without pre-judging the actions of the weapon due to what it has been called. Also there will be less chance of bias for or against the weapon due to a lack of pre-judgement based on what the weapon is called. Further to this, the term "sidesword" is for the most part anachronistic in nature, determining a term for a weapon which would have simply been called a sword. Added to this, it has been noted the actions of the one, a sidesword have been noted to work quite well with the other the rapier, and in some instances, especially with earlier manuals, vice versa.

Better Coverage

A weapon which has a blade which is 45" (114.3cm) long and is 0.6" (1.5cm) wide and a 3-ring swept hilt is a rapier, but so is a weapon which has a blade which is 36" (91.4cm) long and 1" (2.5cm) wide and simple two port rings. Both are considered to be rapiers. Both are quite different weapons, the former being a weapon more found in the earlier seventeenth-century, and the later being from the mid-sixteenth-century. One only needs to look at a book or image search for "rapier" to see the many different variations. "Civilian sword" covers these and other weapons which fit into the same usage category much better.

Conclusion

For the most part we find a word and we tend to stick to it, even if it is not the best word. This is because we are lazy and because we get to used to using the word. With regard to the word "rapier" it is about time it had a change for a term which was much better aligned to the weapon which was actually used with the manuals, also better aligned with the weapons which were actually carried.

There is just simply too much baggage associated with the word "rapier". Too much assumption goes along with it when it is used and often those assumptions do not match up between authors and readers and this creates arguments which otherwise need not happen. Examples of these arguments can be found all over the internet. For some reason when the word "rapier" is brought up it brings out the most fervent idealists and the most passionate arguments as well.

The use of this new term "civilian sword" takes away all of the emotion which is associated with the old term and presents a clearer idea. It also presents a clean slate for an author to present their ideas about how to use the weapon without any pre-judgement on the part of the audience. The arguments associated with this new term can be transferred to more intellectual arguments of presenting sides until some sort of consensus is made about what a weapon is able to do, not with the idea of settling it once and for all but just for that weapon.

Using this new term "civilian sword" will enable a much fuller and better understanding of the Elizabethan texts also as it is more suitable to the forms of fence which are presented in these treatises. These treatises are on the cusp of change between a more cutting sword to a more thrusting sword, thus they are perfect for this term. They pin-point a position in time where the action of the cut was almost as effective in combat in a civilian combat with swords as was the thrust. With this new term a greater understanding of the art of the sword is the hope and goal.