Short Sword or Long Knife

David Stifle

David Stifle

Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
10,188
Hi Fellas,

I am finishing up a 16" blade, OAL is 21.5". Does this qualify as a short sword in your opinion, or is it simply a really big knife? In any case, I will post pictures soon, I just need to finish the handle. I'm torn between using composite black pearl or black paper micarta (a pure blac, no grain).

Thanks,

Dave
 
Depends on the use intended.

Labels are just labels, call it whatever you want. But to me, a sword is a blade whose only use is that of the martial variety; not built with the intent of utilitarian function. This is why the Japanese Tanto was considered a short sword, as oppose to a knife. It was not made to be used to generic tasks.

If it's double-edged, I'd certainly call it a shortsword at that point. Single-edged, probably a honker of a knife.

And I vote black paper micarta, FWIW. You can't go wrong with that stuff. Pure, matte elegance. :)
 
Thanks for your take, Holyroller. The blade is forged and ground as a sword, to slice through meat, not a chopper to be used as an axe. (I was just wondering at what lenght a blade is considered a sword, I guess) And, I share your opinion on the black paper micarta as well.

Dave
 
i would call it a long knife but it's up to you. and if i were you i would go with the black pearl
 
I agree the intended use is a major factor in naming a blade sword or knife. Long blades are often used by butchers, short swords by centurions. What happens then when I make a 30" oal piece designed for cutting 2 by 4s in one swipe? It isn't axe or miter saw... sometimes the shape and proportions dictate the title. Some katana are designed to cut tatami...
 
David Stifle said:
Thanks for your take, Holyroller. The blade is forged and ground as a sword, to slice through meat, not a chopper to be used as an axe. (I was just wondering at what lenght a blade is considered a sword, I guess) And, I share your opinion on the black paper micarta as well.

Dave
Click to expand...

Consider that in the ancient world swords tended to be on small side. One of the more famous was the small swords used by the Spartans.

Also, there were short swords back then which were indeed choppers. The ones I am referring to were the near-eastern "sickle swords"; the sappara and its cousin the khopesh. In Europe there was the kopis/falcata, kin to the khukri, which was made in a variety of styles and lengths; one of the most vicious chopping swords ever developed, and some of them also were a bit on the smallish side.

Here's an Assyrian sappara sword from circa 1300BC. It's only a hair under 21.5" overall length. I'd imagine the blade length is about 15"-16" long. Is it a sword? Yep.

sickle_sword_1307-1275BC_MiddleAssyrianPeriod_reign_of_Adad-nirari_I_Mesopotamia_54-3cm.jpg
 
Thanks for all your replies, guys. I spent the last couple of days testing the blade. It goes through a two by four very rapidly, cuts rope, and handles hardened oak quite well, and still retains a keen edge. I scratched up the blade, so I will re-sand and then mount the handle this weekend. I will post pics soon. Again, thanks. There is a lot of expertise in this sub-forum:)

Dave
 
To echo others, it's defined by its use.

A Bowie is essentially a short sword, as Bowie technique is reilant on saber fencing. I've also seen ancient blades in museums that were a foot or less in length that were classified as swords.

Call it what you want.
 
Beside shape and intended use, the way it's harded or differentially tempered can help define what it is. Swords usually have a lower RC because they are meant to hit, and hit hard, AND while you do want a sharp edge, it's pretty safe to assume that you don't need a high RC because you won't be killing people every day! :D
(this may be different if your creating a modern "tactical" short sword for daily chopping and bush clearing)
 
yoz's friend said:
how long is a roman gladius?
Click to expand...

Historically speaking, it depends on the time period. The earlier swords used during the Roman Republic weren't very large at all. When the Romans copied the swords of the Iberians, they were a bit longer and tended to not grow much larger than that until the longer Spatha was developed later.

For the classic gladii of the Imperial days, a blade length from about 18" - 21" would have probably been about the norm.
 
It is customary in Japan, and has been for many centuries, to consider a blade lengh of one shaku (30.3 cm or 12 inches) or less a tanto (knife). A blade length over one shaku and up to two is a wakizashi (short sword), and any blade in excess of two shaku is a sword (e.g., a katana). As my experience is only with katanas and wakizashis, I haven't got a clue what was customary in Europe. Hope that helps.
 
Wayne Farrar said:
It is customary in Japan, and has been for many centuries, to consider a blade lengh of one shaku (30.3 cm or 12 inches) or less a tanto (knife). A blade length over one shaku and up to two is a wakizashi (short sword), and any blade in excess of two shaku is a sword (e.g., a katana). As my experience is only with katanas and wakizashis, I haven't got a clue what was customary in Europe. Hope that helps.
Click to expand...

Again it depends on the time period. They developed long bladed parrying daggers which would have been considered swords in the Bronze Age and early Iron Age. In the Renaissance they were considered daggers. The Norse and Germanic peoples were fond of the Seax. It could be a sword or dagger or something vaguely in between depending on the length.
 
H2H907 said:
Call it what you want.
Click to expand...

A rose by any other name....

It is really just a matter of symantics. There are no hard and fast rules. Your best bet would be to use the term that is associated with the traditional form of the knife/sword that you are making. It is not about making a factual distinction of whether the thing is the one or the other; it is about making it easier to convey the idea of what you are offering.

n2s
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top