Talk:Classification of swords

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Rapiers being edgeless 

message: This article seems to have a rather bad standard of citations. The OED is referred to many times, without a single actual citation. The group ARMA are (understandably) often cited, despite being an insular group that pretty much all other HEMA groups view as unreliable ...and there are many statements made without citations, which sorely need it.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 19:24, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Europe 

message: The following text was included in the "Rapier" section :
Confusingly, the German rappierHigginssword.orgJM9 is not the same weapon as the rapier but rather a long sword.swetnam1
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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  German "rappier" 

message: 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)
thread_title: merge, split, TNT, etc.

message: 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)
thread_title:  Parenthesis in quotation? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Ignoring the weight" 

message: *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)
thread_title:  Blade types 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Images? 

message: This sentence needs a rework pretty badly:
<<Apparently, many swords were designed for left-hand use, although left-handed swords have been described as "a rarity">>
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)
thread_title:  Left-handed swords 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Rapier description inconsistent with the article