Talk:Longsword

Longsword and bastard sword

A long sword and a bastard sword are 2 different things. Dudtz 9/12/05 6:07 PM EST

the recent edits could do with some references, such as "avg. length 122 cm". Yes, it is a typical length, but what is the use of an infobox giving random "typical values" (a "time period" of 400 years...) for an umbrella term such as longsword. concerning the "corrected" "misinformation" on 'bastard-sword', are you claiming it is a Renaissance term? Where did you read that?? Let's see: the very competent myarmoury.com has:

By popular definition a Bastard Sword is a weapon designed for use with either one or two hands.

going on to say that it is a misnomer. Yes, it is a misnomer, and we treat the term to get it out of the way, but we certainly don't use it as a technical term, such as "Spanish tapering blades". It is incorrect to say that "A long sword and a bastard sword are 2 different things." because bastard sword is not even a well-defined term! (strictly speaking, the statement cannot be wrong, since ex falso quodlibet :). 19:27, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Bastard Swords have a wider blade and they are longer. Dudtz 4/15/06 12:00 PM EST

According to whom? Cite some sources, please. --Fean 19:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Bastard swords are indeed a form of longsword. They were longer than a "shortsword" due primarily to a special longer 'half-grip' found on many swords as a "waisted hilt", putting them somewhere between one-handed shortswords and two-handed greatswords; undoubtedly a longsword. The Oakeshott typology XVIIIb and XVIIIe are perfect examples of the long wasted hilt, and tapered blade, though lacking the more compound hilt found on bastard swords (similar to those on Renaissance cut and thrust swords). During the onset of the Renaissance, the term was mis-used to categorize single-handed arming swords such as the 'Reitschwert'. Xiliquiern 19:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Were These Used Widely in The Hundred Years War?

i believe they are but can someone verify this for me? --Bob 09:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Bastard swords tend to be true zweihanders, longer than the traditional longswords. ~Kjiersz

This is not the case, though a matter of semantics is in issue. The term zweihander/bidenhander translates to "two-hander" though it is a rather modern manifestation, a more historical term coming from the 1400's (as opposed to the 1600's) being 'espée a deure mains or spada da due mani'. This included primarily swords with much longer hilts than both the typical 'longsword' and the 'bastard sword' - generally, what is commonly known as a claymore today. Eventually, during the renaissance when the zwei/bidenhander term was coined, these swords gained a number of unique features including parrying hooks (parrierhaken), compound hilts, side rings, and in some cases, a flame-blade, making the sword a 'flammard', 'flambard', or 'Flamenschwert' (The term 'flamberge' applies to certain forms of rapiers). Therefore, we must assert that, due to the fact that while bastard swords did indeed include a longer hilt and compound hilt, they did not include the parrierhaken, large ricasso, very long hilt (12 or more inches in some cases), nor the exceptionally wide cross of 'True Zweihanders' which in almost all cases, contain all of the above with the exception of one or two. Xiliquiern 19:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Where are you sourcing that? The term 'bastard sword' is a minsomer anyway, it was a term used long after the period to denote what Victorian scholars considered a hand and a half sword. That would be classified as a longsword in my book. Sethwoodworth 19:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

'Bastard sword' is a perfectly good period term. OED's first citation is from 1418. It's in Harrison, Swetnam, and the London Masters of Defence mss. It isn't clear exactly what kind of sword it was, but it did exist. OED says that "bastard" in this context implies something of unusual shape or size for its class, especially something unusually large. Swetnam refers to "The Bastard Sword, the which Sword is something shorter then a long Sword, and yet longer then a Short-sword," which supports the popular definition.

Modern usage prefers "longsword", which is fine, but is plenty ambiguous in period English too. It's just as much , and as little, a modern term as "bastard sword" is. Megalophias 18:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

It certainly isn't true that all fechtbücher show two-handed use only, though it may be true of the German ones; Fiore's entire sword in one hand section shows longswords being used. There is also plently of artwork outside the manuals showing one-handed use (e.g. Dürer's "Apocalypse"). English sources frequently refer to long swords being used single or with dagger or buckler, though this may be a reference to a type of one-handed sword which shares the name. Megalophias 22:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

D&D?

"colloquially referred to as bastard-sword or hand-and-a-half sword" sounds suspiciously similar to the description of the "bastard sword" from the Player's Handbook for DND. Unless anyone can come up with any sort of non-gaming reference to either term, we should get rid of them. Blueaster 01:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Bastard sword dates from the 15th c; see above. Hand-and-a-half sword is common in modern non-gaming works, e.g. (without getting out of my chair) Wilkinson, "Arms and Armour", 1978. In any case, I don't see why we shouldn't report on modern colloquial usage even if it is derived from D&D. Megalophias 02:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

when i'm asking whether or not info in an article is relable, you're telling me to look at the article itself to reassure myself? i don't care if it comes from D&D, but it needs to be differentiated as such, so that it would be recognized as gaming terminology and not historical terminology

I meant "see above" on this talk page, where I gave references for "bastard sword". As far as I know, the arms and armour terms popularized by D&D were not coined by Gygax et al (); they come from older works (albeit often outdated now.) Megalophias 05:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

afaik, the terms bastard-sword and hand-and-a-half sword are 19th century curators' coinage. So no, they did not originate in gaming culture, but they are not 'proper' terms, neither in the sense that they were used historically (when the swords were in use) nor currently (in the sense that they are part of some classification system used by experts today). dab (ᛏ) 12:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The term 'epee' bastard' appears in reference to a 'bastard sword' (direct translation) as early as 1418. During the Renaissance (late 1500's and 1600's), the term was applied, incorrectly, to single handed arming swords (cut and thrust, if that pleases you). The problem of mis-use does occur in the 19th and 20th centuries as games, pop culture, and curators began to refer to longer or larger swords as bastardswords, a fallacy. Some of these do include swords with bastard-like blades and waisted hilts, but lacking the compound cross of many 'true' bastard-swords, making them more of a 'standard' longsword like the Oakeshott XVIIIb. Xiliquiern 15:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

that's very interesting, what is that 1418 reference you mention? (ᛎ) q∀p 15:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I wish I can produce the exact reference myself. The article I originally referenced was from the Association of Renaissance Martial Arts page on sword definitions, though 'A Glossary of the Construction, Decoration, and Use of Arms and Armour' (George Cameron Stone; 1934) confirms a 15th century reference and provides a beautiful picture of the waisted compound hilt. 'The Complete Encyclopedia of Arms and Weapons' (Blair, et al; 1979) makes mention of it being a 15th century term as well, and makes note of it evolving from a cruciform hilted longsword to the more differentiated waisted compound hilt. I will certainly strive to find this source from 1418...such things are rare, so if I can locate anything from the early 15th century, it should probably be among them. Xiliquiern 16:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

ok, ok i believe you. but if that is so, i don't think that the terms, being both anachronistically applied and obselete would not be relevant then. it's interesting, but not relevant. Blueaster 05:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Typology?

This statement caught my eye:

"The evolution of the sword was gradual; there is no obvious classification of various types."

Indeed, the evolution of the sword was gradual, and in some cases, extremely complex. Similarly, the evolution of the sword did not require one new type of sword to supersede another - swords from different time period may remain in use on the battlefield together. The statement that there is no "obvious classification", I believe, is incorrect. The Peterson typology and the Oakeshott typology categorize weapons from the Roman and viking spatha all the way into two-handed swords and estocs of the Renaissance. Other lesser known typologies by the same men and others categorize pommel variety, hilt shape, and guard design from the earliest viking swords all the way into rapiers (though I don't believe a rapier blade typology exists). Their work is not set in stone, as recent discoveries (and re-discoveries of things lost in museums) bring about items which don't always fall easily into a single category within a typology. However, these typologies have largely set the stage for academic discussion of types of swords within the community.

Before making an edit to revise this, I wanted to make sure that I was not misreading or misunderstanding the text. I'm not sure who authored it, but its current sweeping generalization seems to be largely incorrect. -- xiliquiern^talk 14:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

How come nobody bothers to put in an average length of these swords?

How come nobody bothers to put in an average length of these swords? It is kind of annoying me that most other versions (in other languages) have the length but the English one does not!

Well, probably because the article has yet to be really seriously fleshed out. I would also like to think that people have avoided adding a range because there is such large variation. -- xiliquiern^talk 13:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Five men walk into a room. One is carrying a case filled with money. Hundred dollar bills, to be exact. Enough hundred dollar bills to equal one hundred thousand bucks. The other guys have five dollars in their wallets. The average amount of money any person in there had is not close to what the majority actually had. What does all that mean? An average length will not really provide the reader with much information, because longswords(and swords in general) vary quite a bit. They vary so much that people have trouble defining what a longsword IS. --Fean 09:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The following might be of interest to you:

A summary of data gathered during a study of the swords now currently held in the Wallace Collection, the Stibbert Museum, Florence, and the Royal Armouries.

Results of study of swords dated 9th-16th centuries:

sword type	grip length (cm)	sword length (cm)	weight (g)
Single-handed swords	~10	75-120	650-1400
Hand-and-a-half (bastard) swords	min. 15		800-1400
Two-handed swords	~20-45	max. 150	1500-2600

Note that the results were evenly distributed for length and weight throughout time period.

Dawson, Timothy, 'A Club with an Edge', Medieval History Magazine, Vol 2, Issue 3

Gwinva 10:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

just to let you know... grams isn't a measure of weight... just as, in the article, it inaccurately uses kg as a measurement alongside pounds. grams is a measure of mass, just as slugs is the measure of mass in the english system. newtons is the measure of weight in the metric system.

Addition

I made a relatively large change today (being bold). I tried to source a lot of it, but some is left unsourced. I also added two images. Feel free to play with it. - xiliquiern^Talk 21:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Expansion

Some thoughts on where further expansion may be useful. - xiliquiern^Talk 03:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Citations. Simple as that.
• Construction, a section on the type of steel and a brief overview of the manufacturing process. Perhaps a contrast with the modern steels and techniques used today.

• Folding the steel
• Hilt attachment methods

All good venues, except steel type. No factories to produce little bars of "1070 steel." --Fean 09:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I meant more generally: i.e. carbon steels, not stainless steel, or other alloys

Copy editing

Bit of a rough diamond this one. I've added a TODO section which I'll try to work on. My primary task is eliminating the constant definition and redefinition of the term "longsword", which pops up in practically every section (and had its own disambig until now). But there's rather a lot of work that could be done to improve this article's readability. Chris Cunningham 10:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

And part 1 is this ridiculous disambig page. look, not only do the foreign language links on the dab actually point to this article, but it contains absolutely nothing which isn't better explained in here. Disambig pages are better used for differing concepts, not to resolve finite points. Half this article discusses the differences between swords labelled as longswords, so the disambig is superfluous. Chris Cunningham 10:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

well, this article is intended as treating the late medieval sword. if you take this away, it will sink back into the confusion I've found it in at the time I created the disambiguation page. On Wikipedia, you always need to calculate future additions by well-meaning but clueless editors who don't read before they edit. dab (𒁳) 12:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Fine. I've moved a lot of talk about other swords into other articles. There is fallout in the form of missing refs still to catch, and I need to check how this article flows, but I think you made the right call here. Chris Cunningham 13:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

you are doing a good job. dab (𒁳) 13:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your work so far! I struggled with the collection of terminologies in compiling the article originally. At the time of its creation, bastard-sword and great sword redirected here, so the article was made inclusive following that realization. Generally, Greatswords, Bastard Swords, and Estocs are treated as derivations of Longswords, a sort of subtype as there is a good deal of overlap. (This, among other things, makes strictly defining the term hard.) The new disambiguation page, however, certainly lets this article be cleaned up significantly. Also, feel free to start throwing around citation request tags - I'll be more or less free tomorrow and have a pretty nice library at my disposal to try and get anything sourced. -xiliquiern^Talk 15:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

German Spelling

Are we going to use the modern german spelling, or the period spelling seen in manuals and text? I've only seen 'langen schwert' in period sources, but I suppose 'langschwert' could have been used then too. - xiliquiern^Talk 16:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

'langen schwert' is inflected, nominative is langes Schwert: this is the regularized spelling of the period term. Using "period" terminology is problematic because orthography was not regularized, and there is often no single best way to spell things. dab (𒁳) 16:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the correction. My understanding of German is less than basic. As it stands now, though, the contemporary terminology in the introduction setcion is": "Langschwert". Is this actually a period term, or is it only a modern one? (Or in other words, should it be replaces with langes Schwert? -xiliquiern^Talk 16:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Langschwert is the equivalent of longsword and is not "period". langes Schwert is simply the equivalent of long sword, meaning, it is correct Standard German, but it also happens to be the modern spelling of the period term, spelled variously langes swert, lannges schwert, langes schwert. Your "langen schwert" is probably from the "period" expression kunst deß langenn swertz, regularized Kunst des langen Schwerts, English "art of the long sword". My suggestion would be to not get lost in orthographical quibbles, and simply say that the German terms are langes Schwert for the weapon, and Kunst des langen Schwerts for the art. dab (𒁳) 17:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I had no mean to "quibble" between "langen schwert" and langes Schwert, but rather to differentiate between Langschwert (currently, and apparently incorrectly, shown on the article page as a period term) and langes schwert, no longer mentioned as the period term or at all. I don't know enough to be certain, but I felt that the modern Langschwert should probably be changed back to period langes schwert as a correct period term. I didn't change it then, nor will I now. I think I need a break. -xiliquiern^Talk 18:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Great Sword Spelling

Every dictionary I checked spells it as two words. Then entire myArmoury site (not forum) has 'greatsword' only once as a singe word.

It is a compound word; just like high school etc. Mercutio.Wilder 07:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Units of Mass

I have come across two entries with this 'correction' made: replacing kg with newtons. These edits were made by 72.85.214.147

According to wikipedia newton is a unit of force not weight. As mass is a highly relevant unit of measure for a device used for generating force, it is appropriate to list its mass. If you wish to be more precise than change weight to mass instead of chaning units of mass to units of force.

And sign your actions. Mercutio.Wilder 20:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Picture

Is it just me or is the picture not of a longsword but a two-hander? It looks longer and has a longer grip than what I thought was a 'longsword.' Wilhelm Ritter 15:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)