Talk:Classification of swords

Criticism
Someone posted the following to the article page: Durova

"(I highly debate this, I've NEVER heard of a one-hander being referred to as a "greatword")" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.69.59.152 (talk • contribs)

There is a fine line between sword and long knife, but I'm surprised that the German term for knife, Messer, wasn't mentioned in the article. It's a major curriculum in many major medieval German fencing manuals for fighting with the one-handed sword, and one-handed sword with butler shield. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.82.92 (talk) 02:05, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The lack of mention of Großemesser and Kriegsmesser (not "the German term for knife". No one ever fought with "the German term for knife") is just one problem, among many, with this article ...and the article on them is pretty bad, as well.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 05:16, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Rapiers being edgeless
The claim that "The rapier is an edgeless weapon" seems rather bizarre. While it is true that the source has Oakeshott say "There’s simply no doubt that the true rapier has very little if any edge.", this may simply be in comparison to true cutting blades.

Staying with sources from ARMA, one could cite this page, which states "/.../the true rapier is a long, narrow, rigid, nearly edgeless/.../thrusting sword with virtually no edge/.../"

...but also "This lack of cutting capacity did not discount making light, quick slashes with the edge or even the point against the face or wrist./.../Doing such could certainly lacerate skin, and depending upon the type of blade, even more, but they simply could not shear or cleave into flesh and bone, as could wider and flatter swords designed for cutting. While some rapier texts refer to non-lethal cuts made as a facial slash or performed with a pulling slice, the weapons were simply not designed either to hack and chop or slice and their blade geometry prevented it."

Thus the statement that it is nearly edgeless, is merely a statement of it having no edge, capable of a proper cut. Mind you, ARMA are not particularly well respected or trusted, amongst pretty much any HEMA groups, outside of ARMA.

I would argue that this is exactly what Oakeshott also meant. Indeed, if one looks at European Weapons and Armour: From the Renaissance to the Industrial Revolution (which I haven't yet read in depth, admittedly), one finds him stating "It may not need an edge at all, in the true cutting sense of the word.", in a section dealing with rapiers and reitschwerte (with him differentiating them by the fact that a reitschwert can make proper cuts, but rapiers cannot). It is thus far more likely that Oakeshott was simply sloppy with his language, rather than actually trying to claim that rapiers actually had no edges.

Many a source, clearly states that rapiers have edges, such as: http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_euroedge.html#rapier http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_arms_rapier.html http://www.aemma.org/index2.php?pg=k6 --ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 10:10, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Synonyms
I am rather disturbed by the notion that, because broad, great, large and big are supposedly synonyms, this means that broadsword, greatdsword, largesword and bigsword are also synonyms. That is pure original research, with no sources to back it up, yet it is a notions that permeates the article.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 19:19, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


 * It's my understanding that broadsword refers to blades that were designed to be wide, sharp, light, and flexible. They were made from steel and were designed primarily as slashing weapons that could also be used with thrust attacks. Two-handed claymores are broadswords but one-handed swords like the Scottish basket-hilt sword are also considered broadswords. So in this sense, "broad" does not mean long, large, big, great, etc. It refers to the width of the blade. The blade is broad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.82.92 (talk) 01:49, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "It's my understanding that/.../"
 * Well your personal understanding of things, is not really grounds for what should be written in a Wikipedia article. Things have to be verifiable, by reliable, and relevant, sources.
 * "Two-handed claymores are broadswords"
 * No.
 * "It refers to the width of the blade. The blade is broad."
 * No. There is a difference between a broad sword (i.e. a sword that is broad) and a broadsword.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 05:14, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Europe
The title of this article is "Classification of swords", yet it only speaks about European swords. Non-European swords need to be included.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 19:28, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that's the least of this article's problems. It rambles on at great length without much in the way of intelligent structure, and ultimately says nothing more that what the lede has already explained: terms have been used ambiguously in fiction, pop culture, and by non-fiction writers whose goal was to evoke the romance of past eras rather than to produce serious scholarship.  The essential portions of the article could surely be pared down to a couple of paragraphs, which could then be merged with Types of swords (which was, after all, the source of most of the ramble in the first place before someone wisely gave it the boot). 12.233.146.130 (talk) 01:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It is one of its many problems. I don't agree about the lack of structure, however and the body does contain a lot more information than the lead ...though most of it is dubious. As to a merger with Types of swords, I completely disagree. Types of swords is simply a list. This is a page that explains (or at least, is supposed to explain).--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 10:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Great Swords
Oakeshott isn't a primary source -- it is stated here on the Talk Page that he is "sloppy" with his terminology in regards to rapiers; besides a few C19 C20 C21 sources there doesn't seem to be any older English sources specifically calling these swords "great swords" but rather "two-hand sword"; therefore, great sword is a misnomer.

"Grans espées"Oakeshott's source -- Guillaume de Guiart This link that I have referenced seems to be Oakeshott's reference point in naming these "great swords". The text is ambiguous at best. What are "grans espees d'Alemagne", it is listed here under "Spatha" and mentions such a German sword as being wielded in a single hand. The text later states a passage where both hands are in the air, it does not, however, stipulate that both hands are grasping the hilt of such swords.

The term "great sword" is therefore Oakeshott's translation of an ambiguous and isolated term. The French use the terms épée (espée) à deux mains or espadon when referencing such swords.

Using the term claymore as a justification doesn't work either. Dictionaries define the claymore as a broadsword, and they variously give the etymology of Scottish Gaelic claidheamh mór as either great sword, Large Sword or big sword... there is no consensus nor is there any indication from primary sources that the term "great sword" should be applied to non-claymores.

Until someone can produce a primary source (in English no less) using the term "great sword" instead of Silver's, Swetnam's et al.'s "two hande sworde" then we should discard the notion that "great sword" is a historically acurate term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.105.207.99 (talk) 14:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oakeshott isn't a primary source? So what? Oakeshott is a secondary source, and "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible." Thus using Oakeshott's, highly praised and well respected, works, is perfectly valid.
 * Nowhere is it stated that Oakeshott is sloppy in his terminology. He merely says that a blade has no edge, when he meant "no edge worth mention". I, myself, am the one who made the statement about sloppiness, so...
 * The claim that his use of great sword is a translation, is beyond ludicrous: "The reason here is partly that the XIIIa's are very big weapons, partly because in their own time they were distinguished from their smaller contemporaries by the term 'espées de Guerre' or 'Grete Swerdes'. /.../ In the literature of the late 13th and early 14th centuries we find many references to these 'espées de Guerre', 'Grant espées', 'Grete Swerdes', and so on." Since when is "espées de Guerre", "Grant espées" or "Grete Swerdes", translations? (I could quote from "Records of the Medieval Sword" as well, but it's just more of the same)
 * You mention Guillaume de Guiart's work as being Oakeshott's reference point... Again, that is beyond ludicrous and pure original research. Oakeshott mentions many sources. Most he doesn't mention by name, but even among the ones he does refer to, Guillaume de Guiart's work is but one, among several. As to the notion of "grans espees d'Alemagne" mentioned therein being spatha... Again, that is original research (and in 1305, spatha hadn't been used for centuries, so that would be highly unlikely ...but then that is, again, original research)
 * You mention dictionaries... They are completely irrelevant. They are not reliable sources, in any way whatsoever. They could possibly be called tertiary sources, but that would be overly generous, by far. They are not sources on medieval arms, now are they?
 * You claim that the French used the terms épée (espée) à deux mains or espadon, for swords of the type XIIIa/XIIa. What evidence do you have for that assertion? Oakeshott states that terms such as épée (espée) à deux mains were only used for Zweihänder (Zweihänder is actually a modern term, but...), i.e. true two handers. Swords of the types XIIIa/XIIa are not Zweihänder.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 18:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oakeshott is perfectly valid as far as secondary sources and Wikipedia's "rules" are concerned but it is not valid in academia without support from actual primary sources. This is why Wikipedia is frowned upon so much by academics. Definite primary sources have never been presented and every attestation to great swords as being a legit historical term always reverts back to Oakeshott's original research. Everywhere on the Internet people are quoting Oakeshott and no other source.
 * If you re-read what I had typed, I stated that it was mentioned here on the Talk Page; therefore, I meant that was indeed you who called him "sloppy", so... Also you stated: "when he meant "no edge worth mention"", so now you are putting words in Oakeshott’s mouth? Doesn't this go against Wikipedia's rules regarding original research?
 * First off, claiming that this is ludicrous is your personal opinion. Secondly, in order for 'espées de Guerre' and "Grant espées" to become "Great Swords" Oakeshott would have had to translate these French terms. However, he is again "slopply" (to quote your word) because 'espées de Guerre' should be translated as "sword of war" or "war sword", and "Grant espées" should be translated as "large sword" or "broad sword".  Since there is no "large sword" he should have used broad sword, broad-sword or broadsword if he didn't want to use two-hand sword, but Oakeshott never liked the term broadsword so he dismissed it completely. I haven't seen any primary sources (that is, the literature of the late 13th and early 14th centuries as you stated without actually quoting any) using 'Grete Swerdes'; the only secondary source to use this term (i.e. grete swerdes) is Oakeshott, and every single tertiary source is merely quoting Oakeshott. On the other hand here is an example of literature from the 14th century:  in William Langland's Piers Plowman B. iii. 303 (1377) we find: "Alle that bereth baslarde, brode swerde or launce...", see what I did there, I provided an example of a primary source that does not quote Oakeshott, can you do the same in regards to the term "great sword"? And don't use Oakeshott's supposed sources that he doesn't even bother to mention by name as printed in his books as it is circular logic.   Here is also another source, Michael Drayton (1563–1631) wrote a poem about the Battle of Agincourt in 1415 called October 25, The Ballad of Agincourt, in it we find on line 90: "His broadsword brandishing," again a historical term that essentially means "great sword" but doesn't. I also like how you throw in Records of the Medieval Sword as further proof to back up your claim, which might work if a third party reading this was unfamiliar with the book; however, it is a book written by none other than Oakeshott himself! Again, circular logic, and again no definite proof.
 * Firstly I mentionned Guillaume de Guiart since Oakeshott finally decided to name a source. As I stated above, "Grant espées" does not exactly translate as "great sword" and it is not clear that a two-handed sword is implied.  Guiart is describing the Battle of Bouvines (1214) and none of the illustrations (primary and secondary) of the battle depict a two-handed sword. Secondly, accusing me of original research in regards to reference of spatha is ludicrous (apparently your word of the day) and proves that you never clicked on the above hyperlink where they quote Guiart's passage under Spatha.  You also made it clear that you are unfamiliar with Latin since spatha means sword and is used generically and not specifically to one type of sword as we tend to classify it today.  Your ignorance is also showcased in your statement: "and in 1305, spatha hadn't been used for centuries, so that would be highly unlikely ..." Really? Did they stop writing in Latin at this time? No. And how would they have written a sword in Latin? It would be either Spatha or Ensis. Jean Nicot's Thresor (1606) uses both spatha and ensis. Just because you don't speak or write in Latin doesn't mean that they didn't in the 14th century. Your comment is truly ludicrous.
 * Also, Oakeshott wouldn't be the first author to make up sources (c.f. Erich von Daniken) which by not naming his sources he is discrediting them in the eyes of academia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.105.207.99 (talk) 18:43, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The OED is more highly praised and accepted by academics than Oakeshott will ever be, and they do list medieval arms and armour too along with quotations from primary and secondary sources. You should look them up when you have spare time away from Wikipedia. Also, they don't have an entry for "great sword", and please don't ask me for a citation there isn't one, just look it up in the OED yourself. You won't find an entry.
 * Again you quote Oakeshott, so it must be true [sarcasm intended]. You want evidence, I have evidence that is centuries older than Oakeshott. Here is the proof from none other than Randle Cotgrave in his 1611 French-English Dictionary: "Espadon: m. A short two-handed sword." You can also find his definition here: http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/cotgrave/search/397r.html clearly not a "Zweihander".
 * Again you quote Oakeshott, so it must be true [sarcasm intended]. You want evidence, I have evidence that is centuries older than Oakeshott. Here is the proof from none other than Randle Cotgrave in his 1611 French-English Dictionary: "Espadon: m. A short two-handed sword." You can also find his definition here: http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/cotgrave/search/397r.html clearly not a "Zweihander".


 * ... to be continued when you actually come up with a definite source beyond Oakeshott's material.
 * Please learn how to edit talk pages. Your attempts at it are annoying to repair.
 * Please learn how to edit talk pages. Your attempts at it are annoying to repair.


 * What is valid, or valued, in academia has no relevance to what is valid in wikipedia.
 * This is Wikipedia. What is valid on wikipedia, is what is valid on wikipedia. The average wikipedia reader is not an expert in the subject about which they are reading, and they are therefore not able to properly interpret primary sources. Indeed, they may be more misinformed, rather than informed, by reading primary sources. That is why wikipedia avoids primary sources (and you would know this, if you had bothered to read Identifying_reliable_sources, which I linked to).
 * If you are an academic within the field, what are you doing looking for information about your field of expertise on wikipedia (or any other encyclopaedia)!?
 * Any academic, who expects wikipedia articles in the field they study, to be appropriate for them, is a complete moron. It's not wikipedia that is at fault, in such a case. It's the academic.
 * Also, I know of plenty of academics who value Oakeshott, and consider his works and contributions to the study of swords, to be invaluable, so... Besides, how many academics are there, who actually study swords (not as art, or mere historical artefacts, but actually as swords)? The few that exist, have mainly come about after Oakeshott and, to a great extent, because of him.
 * As to me putting words in Oakeshott's mouth, when I say what he means when he says "no edge", that is a decent argument, but... It is a valid interpretation, IMO. It would be silly to demand that we take his words completely literally. Exaggerations and metaphors are not a rare thing. To say that he means that it literally has no edge, is no less an interpretation, than my interpretation that he means "no edge worth mention". Mine has the advantage of being supported by the fact that Oakeshott has stated "It may not need an edge at all" of the rapier, following that with "in the true cutting sense of the word.", suggesting that his other mention was meant in the same way, but simply lacked the explaining elaboration.
 * As to your rebuttal about the issue of translation... Yes, I'll admit that "espées de Guerre" and "Grant espées" aren't really right. Thanks for pointing out that rather ludicrous error of mine. However "Grete Swerdes" is great swords. That is an undeniable fact. A fact that is sufficient to make my point, so my point still stands.
 * As to your accusation that I'm being deceptive, in referring to "Records of the Medieval Sword"... It frankly never even occurred to me that it might not be identified as a work of Oakeshott's. I was assuming that, that fact would be obvious. Surely it would be obvious to anyone who is familiar with Oakeshott (which you, from the very start, have shown that you are), wouldn't it? How can I be deceptive, when I speak of a book of Oakeshott's, knowing that you will know that it is a work of his? Also, hasn't that book been mentioned, with the author's name, here or on the article?
 * As to Guillaume de Guiart... That link of yours doesn't really get me anywhere sensible. Certainly not to any work of Guillaume de Guiart's (maybe you have to have a google books account ...and I avoid having any account that is connected to google). Either way, if the term spatha was used there, that is not relevant. The term was clearly being used to say "sword", rather than what we would call a spatha, today (people were not as specific and rigid, in their terminology back then). Not unless Guillaume de Guiart was also an archeologist. You seem to acknowledge this, but... if the word spatha was used, just to say "sword"... why did you mention it? It's clearly not relevant. Of course it's a sword! Whatever we may disagree about, concerning the nature of the weapons we are discussing, we can both agree that they are, without any doubt, swords. Why the hell did you ever bother to use the term spatha, in this conversation? To say that Guillaume de Guiart said that they were swords? Well of course they are!!! What could that possible have to do with this? One handed swords are swords. Longswords are swords. Zweihänder are swords. Saying that Guillaume de Guiart calls it a sword, doesn't make any implications as to what type of sword it is.


 * Again: "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible.". Your primary sources don't matter.
 * Please come back when you have a source that isn't a primary source. Until then, you have no say in this matter.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 23:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * As far as secondary sources, there is Sir Walter Scott’s epic poem about the Battle of Flodden Field 1513 (which also pre-dates Oakeshott and is just as much as a “credible” secondary source) Marmion: Canto 6, XXVII, 6 (1808): “And with both hands the broadsword plied.” Another example is Sir Walter Scott’s novel The Talisman (1825) about the Third Crusade where we find in Chapter 27: “The glittering broadsword, wielded by both his hands, rose aloft to the King's left shoulder, circled round his head…” Please note that Sir Walter Scott was fully aware that a broadsword could mean both a two-hand sword and a basket-hilt sword and his writings reflect both definitions. Scott also does not use the term “great sword”.
 * The Middle English Compendium (consisting of the Middle English Dictionary and Middle English prose and verse) lists "two-hande sword" and "brod sword" among its words but does not list "grete sword" or any variation thereof. This is probably why Oakeshott never mentions his "sources".
 * You insinuate that " The average wikipedia (sic) reader is not an expert in the subject about which they are reading, and they are therefore not able to properly interpret primary sources. Indeed, they may be more misinformed, rather than informed, by reading primary sources." So in other words you are insulting their intelligence regardless if they are not experts.
 * It is true that Wikipedia should not be the source for academic (i.e. accurate) information; however, it is always one of the first links to appear on an Internet search, and should it not be updated to be more factual? If not, then it has no integrity.
 * You also insinuate that any academic who stumbles onto a Wikipedia link must be a moron. However, you made in clear earlier with your above statement that you had no clue that Latin was the language of choice for the literary arts during the middle ages and part of the Renaissance. You also ignored my points that you couldn't refute like the period definition of an espadon other than attacking the legitimacy of primary sources.
 * You also stated : "Saying that Guillaume de Guiart calls it a sword, doesn't make any implications as to what type of sword it is." So then why do both Oakeshott and you make the implication?
 * Wikipedia's stance on sources should be that you back up secondary sources with primary sources. That is how you become credible and gain integrity.
 * Finally, bravo on taking my challenge to backup Oakeshott's "sources" and claims [sarcasm intended]. I've met yours with secondary sources that I'm sure you will probably denounce. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.105.207.99 (talk • contribs) 01:56, 29 August 2013
 * The, so called, secondary sources, which you cite, are all centuries old. They can be used as primary sources. Any use as secondary sources, would be silly for two reasons: 1. They are so old, that the reasons I've mentioned for avoiding primary sources, is even more true for these sources (and following the letter of the law, while going against the spirit of it, is not really acceptable here) and 2. They are so old, that they cannot really be regarded as reliable sources, in that regard.
 * As to my "assumptions" about the average wikipedia reader... I make no judgement about their intelligence. If you read something, which requires certain knowledge (note: knowledge, not intelligence) to understand properly, then a lack thereof, will inevitably lead to being uninformed and/or misinformed. Also, it's not my assumptions. It's Wikipedia policy
 * As to the claim that wikipedia's aim of being an encyclopaedia, makes it not accurate... That is your opinion, which you are welcome to. I do not share it, nor do most wikipedia editors.
 * You say that I claimed to have no clue that latin was used as the language of choice for the literary arts during the middle ages and part of the Renaissance. I have said no such thing. When you said the sword was referred to as spatha, I assumed that you meant spatha, in the modern sense of the word ...as it would be nonsensical to say that it was used in the sense of meaning "sword". It turns out, I overestimated you.
 * Guillaume de Guiart saying that the sword is a "sword", is pointless and says nothing about the type. Saying that he calls it "Grans espées d'Allemagne", however... That is completely different.
 * You can argue that Wikipedia's stance should be different, in the talkpages of the relevant guidelines and policies. Not here. If you manage to change the guidelines/policies (by convincing the other editors, thus making it the consensus opinion), you may then change this article accordingly.
 * You do not have the right or authority, to overrule the rules of wikipedia here, simply due to your personal opinions.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 02:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Please do not bite the newcomers ~ Nelg (talk) 00:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not biting and 209.105.207.99 isn't a newcomer. Furthermore, all the things I am demanding of him/her, are issues that has been pointed out to him/her, many times before.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 05:08, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not biting and 209.105.207.99 isn't a newcomer. Furthermore, all the things I am demanding of him/her, are issues that has been pointed out to him/her, many times before.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 05:08, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

All mention of "great sword" seems to date no earlier that the 19th century with Oakeshott, Clemens and others later repeating the reference. The is no Internet search result that will provide an historical proof of there being a sword labelled "grete swerde". The term does not appear in Thomas Mallory's Le Morte d'Arthur (1485) nor in Chauser's Canterbury Tales (ca. 1387-1400), nor in Silver's Paradoxes of Defence (1599), nor in Swetnam's he Schoole of the Noble and Worth Science of Defence (1617), etc., etc. However, Internet search results do regurgitate : "“espées de guerre”, “Grant espées”, “Grete Swerdes”, and so on" from Oakeshott but not other confirmed sources from the medieval and early European periods. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.55.30.227 (talk) 04:12, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Comments about the naming of Swords in Scotland:
It actually amazes me that there is so much arguing about this subject - specifically about the 'Claymore' from Scotland. I will say this is the first time I have ever added anything of my own, but here goes: I have actually changed the wiki page re the Claymore and Two handed sword but I will repeat it here maybe in more detail: The Claymore 'Claidheamh mor' is a basket hilted double edged sword used by the Scots from around 1400 ad (open to discussion) the blades were made in Germany mostly (Solingen or Gniessau) I believe. The reason for this was the Scots did not have the ability to produce good blades. We did however make the basket hilts and scabbards. It was a standard length sword worn in a scabbard at the hip like any other sword. It was only called a Claymore because it had a slightly wider (double edged blade)than the standard 'backsword' used by the English, not because it was bigger. They preferred the backsword as it presented less of a threat to colleagues and especially to horses. Now the larger Two Handed Sword as reportedly used by William Wallace is NOT a Claymore! It is called 'Claidheamh da Laimh' (Sword two handed) and was replaced by the Claymore, some say because it was just too big and heavy and unwealdy unless you were a giant. Which Wallace was by the way at over 6 feet in height. This information is evidenced by the greatest modern book on the subject of Scottish Weaponry and Culloden and Scots history called: The Swords and The Sorrows. It is unfortunately not in print (when I last checked) and is impossible to get hold of (unless you know better) I have an electronic copy of it and can send individual pages etc if anyone is interested. I feel it is so sad that so many people have it wrong on this subject, every website just repeats the same mistakes. I admit you have to go deep to find the actual facts but that is what makes the 'game' fun, at least to me. If you disagree with me then, please, reply, politely, and if we cannot agree, then we will agree to disagree. Another comment: I have read all the above discussions and it seems to me that everything is open to discussion, vis-a-vis the comments about using two hands to swing the sword above the head.....it could be that you would use the sword that way when tired as after a short time it would become so heavy it needed two hands to swing it! Even more so with the Two Handed Sword. I know that as I have both and have tried it! And swords in Scotland may well have been different than in other countries and translation as one commenter put it, is also dependent on the translator. I am only able to comment from a Scottish view point and no other. And Walter Scott was writing a long time after all this happened and maybe he is the cause of all the confusion regarding the naming of the swords ! Heaven forbid ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.28.53.140 (talk) 10:52, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * "If you disagree with me then, please, reply, politely"
 * I do and I shall. BTW, being civil is one of the five central policies of Wikipedia ...though, to be fair, not everyone abides by it, all the time. Sadly.
 * "the blades were made in Germany mostly (Solingen or Gniessau) I believe. The reason for this was the Scots did not have the ability to produce good blades."
 * Indeed. Most sword blades were made in that area, during pre-Viking days, all the way until... some time during the Renaissance, I think (I'm not really sure), when the Germans started getting significant competition.
 * "It was only called a Claymore because it had a slightly wider (double edged blade)than the standard 'backsword' used by the English, not because it was bigger."
 * Backswords have the same width as basket-hilted broadswords ...and the English used basket-hilted broadswords quite a lot. It was not something that was unique to the Scottish.
 * "They preferred the backsword as it presented less of a threat to colleagues and especially to horses."
 * No, that is clearly untrue. I can believe that they generally preferred backswords, though I'd need to see some Reliable Sources to confirm that ...but broadswords are certainly not any more dangerous to their comrades or horses. I can kinda see how someone might get that idea, but... no.
 * "Now the larger Two Handed Sword as reportedly used by William Wallace is NOT a Claymore!"
 * That sentence alone, proves that you do not know what you are talking about, and any sources that you have read, are not to be trusted.
 * William Wallace died long before either the two handed sword or the basket-hilted sword was created. Any talk of him using any of these swords, is therefore utterly untrue.
 * "It is called 'Claidheamh da Laimh' (Sword two handed)"
 * Do you have any source, that can confirm that, that term was used? While either sword was still in use?
 * "and was replaced by the Claymore,"
 * You are claiming that the two handed sword was replaced by the basket-hilted blade?
 * Not only is there a complete lack of evidence for that claim, but...
 * They are two completely different types of weapon. One cannot replace the other, as they fill completely different niches/functions. A true two hander (which the sword we're discussing is a form of) can replace a pole-arm (and vice versa). It cannot replace a sword, or be replaced by a sword, any more than a sniper rifle can replace a handgun, or a halberd can replace a dagger.
 * "some say because it was just too big and heavy and unwealdy unless you were a giant."
 * Some? And who would those people be? You need to be more specific.
 * The only people I know of, that would ever say anything like that, are people who have never tried to wield a sword (a proper and historically accurate sword, that is ...or an original), and who have never heard of the period manuals that describe how to use the swords or learned any of their teachings.
 * True two handers, aka Zweihänder, are relatively large and heavy, compared to other swords, but they are by no means heavy (certainly not heavier than a normal pole-arm) and they are quite nimble and manoeuvrable.
 * "This information is evidenced by the greatest modern book on the subject of Scottish Weaponry and Culloden and Scots history called: The Swords and The Sorrows."
 * Well clearly it's a badly researched amateur book, then.
 * Also could you provide a link, full title, name of the author or something?
 * "it could be that you would use the sword that way when tired as after a short time it would become so heavy it needed two hands to swing it!"
 * No. That simply would not happen.
 * If you would get tired after a short time, then it is worthless as a weapon.
 * "Even more so with the Two Handed Sword."
 * A longsword is mainly intended for two hands, but can be used with one, but...
 * A true two hander, also know as Zweihänder (and, as I've said, the two handed Scottish sword we're talking about is such a sword), cannot practically be used with one hand. It is only meant to be used with two hands.
 * "I know that as I have both and have tried it!"
 * Most modern replica swords are extremely overweight and horribly badly balanced (I've held one... it felt horribly heavy. Nothing like an actual sword). Also, I doubt that you learned how you are supposed to hold and swing the swords.
 * Thus your impressions will more than likely have done more to greatly mislead you, than to inform you.
 * Don't trust that the impression you get from a modern replica sword. There are a few, who actually make proper replicas, that weigh and feel like they should, but most replicas (generally called SLOs or "Sword-Like-Objects") are worthless for anything other than being decorations (often called wallhangers, for that reason) ...and many are even bad at being that.
 * "And swords in Scotland may well have been different than in other countries"
 * Scotland and England are pretty close (and they did have trade with other countries too) ...and their swords very similar, aside from a few minor cosmetic differences though, admittedly, I dunno that the English had any true two handers ...but there were similar swords used by the Iberians (i.e. Spanish and Portuguese), Germans, Swiss...
 * Oh, and also: You might want to look at what is written in Claymore.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 21:11, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

German "rappier"
The following text was included in the "Rapier" section :

Confusingly, the German rappier is not the same weapon as the rapier but rather a long sword.

The references are insufficient, and the information itself seems wrong, since in German fencing treatises "Rappier" refers to a side-sword, the longsword being simply called "Schwert". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.199.134.13 (talk) 13:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * this is just based on eclectic reading of 16th-century German fencing texts. There is a reason Wikipedia articles should be based on scholarly publications. --dab (𒁳) 12:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

merge, split, TNT, etc.
This type of "article" about "swords" is doomed because one editor begins a discussion of the European medieval sword, and the page is then bulldozed by introduction of scattered "global" material, creating an unstructured mess covering most bladed weapons used anywhere in Eurasia over the past 3,000 years. What the article should do is base itself on published literature on one topic, such as "swords of the European High Middle Ages". If then somebody comes along and insists that the topic "classification of swords" must also include the swords of the Chinese Bronze Age, the proper way to address this is WP:DISAMBIG. --dab (𒁳) 12:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Parenthesis in quotation?
There is a quotation in the text that says "Let thy (long) Rapier or (long) Sword be foure foote at the least, and thy dagger two foote." I'm not sure what exactly the quote is suppose to prove, but I'm mostly curious about the parenthesized "(long)s". Are these words added by the person who added the quote? If they are, shouldn't they be in brackets, as such: "Let thy [long] Rapier or [long] Sword be foure foote at the least, and thy dagger two foote." I believe that brackets are the tradition when one modifies another persons quotation, usually to make it fit the flow of your language better or to improve readability. In any case, if these words ARE added by the person who included the quote, what does the quote then prove? Typically the tradition of changing a quotation doesn't extend to adding words that might change the meaning of the phrase (if you're an honest writer, anyway). If the original quote lacked the words "long", then you can hardly use the quote as basis for argument about the modern understanding of the term. How do we know the author was speaking about long swords? Are we just supposed to take the person who posted it's word about what the author intended to say? Perhaps he was actually saying "let your [typical] sword be foure foote at the least [as opposed to long swords, which are much longer]". How do we know that those added words are indeed appropriate to the original intent of the author?.45Colt 09:41, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Joseph Swetnam was advocating the use of "long" Spanish/Italian rapiers and long-swords which George Silver riposted against with his Paradoxes of Defence to advocate the use of the "shorter" sword and shortened (by Royal decree, btw) rapier. We know that the long-sword is four foot in length thanks to the measurements sieur Louis de Gaya and also Alain Manesson-Maillet provide in their works. BTW, the illustrations in both of these works show the long-sword (as used by the French; aka estoc/estocade) being what we would probably call a "rapier" and the Spanish sword being the cup-hilt rapier. So when Swetnam says "let thy rapier or sword be four foot at least", he is referring to the same Spanish sword (aka rapier) and the long-sword that Gaya and Manesson-Maillet reference and that Silver so despised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.55.17.100 (talk) 02:10, 19 August 2020 (UTC) TLDR : Yes, it should be in brackets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.55.17.100 (talk) 02:17, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 30 July 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: No consensus. No such user (talk) 09:32, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Classification of swords → European classification of swords – Discussions over previous merge proposals have pointed out that the current page focuses on the European view, noting that there is a more international list at Types of swords. Nevertheless a merge has not been supported, on the grounds that Types of swords is a list article, whereas Classification of swords is more descriptive. The specific policy point is that current title is insufficiently precise to describe the scope (WP:PRECISION) Klbrain (talk) 11:51, 30 July 2017 (UTC) --Relisting.   Dr Strauss   talk   20:49, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * We can certainly expand the coverage of this article without necessarily merging in the list article. My impression is that swords tend to be classified by certain factors - handedness, length, breadth, straight or curved, single or double bladed. To the extent that the same factors are used to classify swords under different names in different cultures, we can discuss this in the article. bd2412  T 03:46, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That's very helpful, BD2412. I'm not an expert in this field, but in reading the article is did seem that there was a European focus to the classification. For example, the terminology introduction has "European" twice, without any other regional description, and the first 2/3 of the article covers european weapon almost exclusively. That's fine, but it would be helpful if the title reflected the content. Chinese and Japanese swords are clearly covered in the "Single-edge and curved swords" section, but I wonder whether this is still a primarily western classification? I'm now rather neutral on the question of a move, but agree with you that the merge was not a good idea; some sort of classification is helpful, and the current classification article reads well. Klbrain (talk) 08:17, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Ignoring the weight"
What does the article mean by stating that using the two hands to create a lever allows your to ignore much of the weight of the sword? livingfract@lk 06:58, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Blade types

 * There are "double edged" swords that have only the 1st third or 1st half of the other side sharpened. That is, I believe, characteristic of some sabers that do not have too pronounced curve. Any special name for that type?


 * There are swords that have inverse curve (not sure if that is the term) for the blade - opposite of the sabre. Examples are Dacian falx (the type that has a smooth curve the whole length of the blade, not the one that has only the tip curved to the inside), Thracian sica, Falcata, Kopis, Kukri. Setenzatsu (talk) 12:20, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Images?
This article is useless to anyone without a degree in swordsmanship. Maybe add some descriptive images showing any of these sword types? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.153.60.13 (talk) 03:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Left-handed swords
This sentence needs a rework pretty badly:

<>

Checked the provided source and it appears to be addressing a single set of left-handed swords. 73.28.104.45 (talk) 06:30, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Dagger
no mention of other fighting knives? 84.71.233.232 (talk) 21:38, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Rapier description inconsistent with the article
The rapier section mentions the "rasp, file" etymology. However, most modern sources prefer the derivation from espada ropera, a "dress sword." I think the etymology should be cut, or it should be harmonized with the rapier article. Pawsplay (talk) 00:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC)