Is there some specific cutoff point where a knife of a certain length ceases to be considered a knife and is instead considered a sword?
Here’s a start:
It would seem to me that the distinction between a dagger and a sword is that a sword is swung and the edge is used to hit the target laterally, while a dagger uses the point to stab the target axially.
No; it’s mostly a question of function. The Japanese wakizashi is a good example of this blurriness – usually considered a sword, it was often used as a knife or a dagger would be in Western martial culture. While 20" was a typical blade length, the shortest were only 12", which is definitely knife length in many circles. Early (bronze age) sword blades were also about 20"; personally, I have a hard time thinking of any blade under 15" as anything but a knife.
Could there be a distinction in how the hilts are designed?
Then what about rapiers, which are referred to as swords?
Great consecutive thread titles:
When does a knife stop being a knife and start being a sword?
How to clean fresh blood stains off a tatami mat? Need answer fast!
I would guess that a knife is something one uses to cut food, and a sword is something that, if used to cut food, would shock purists who then try to lecture you on the proper way to treat a sword.
So if in doubt, get a loaf of bread, start slicing, and gauge the reactions of bystanders.
I’d say that the difference lies in use beyond method of attack. While a rapier is primarily if not entirely a stabbing weapon, it’s still the main weapon used to parry. A dagger’s more likely to be used solely for a sudden attack, unless it’s particularly designed to be more useful.
In practical terms, I suspect rapiers are probably called swords because they’re long.
No, many later swords ( particularly post 13th century and into the Renaissance ) were designed specifically to thrust, with the most extreme examples having hardly any working edge at all.
The primary difference comes down to size and really has no hard definition. For example the old Germanic single-edged seax came in every size from 12" to up to 40". At the one extreme it would be called a knife, at the other a sword, but the basic design was roughly the same. Where you would draw the line between the two is a bit hazy.
It always seemed to me that if a machete was used to kill people, instead of cutting jungle underbrush, it would be considered a sword. So I definitely think what you use it for is part of its classification.
But now I recall Rwanda and wonder why machetes aren’t considered swords. I still think intended use is part of what sets swords apart and not length exclusively.
I was always taught that a single edged weapon was technically a knife, no matter how long, while to be a proper sword, it had to possess 2 edges. The comparative length of the edges was irrelevant as long as at least some portion of either side was sharpened; hence rapiers, sabres and the like get a pass since they usually possess a stabbing tip.
By that definition a katana is not a sword, as they are single-edged.
As are the scimitar, falchion, dao, tulwar, shamshir, cutlass, kilij or odachi, to name a few. There have probably been more single-bladed swords manufactured throughout history than double.
From the Wiki.
Citation needed, indeed.
When Crocodile Dundee can no longer say “That’s not a knife, this is a knife.”
That’s a spoon!
I hope that I am remembering this information correctly – the largest Bowie knives, from the 1840s and 1850s, were about 18 to 20 inches in total length. Some “D-Guard Bowies”, popular with the Confederate soldiers, were perhaps just a bit longer than 20 inches. Some of the bigger “Arkansas toothpicks” were roughly the same size.
In contrast, the Roman Gladius, definitely in the “short sword” category, was usually at least two feet long. I think they were often 26 to 28 inches in total length.
So, perhaps the cutoff point between knife and short sword was right around 24 inches.
I’ll give you a decent martial definition:
A sword is such when the length of the blade is sufficient to allow the implement to both defend and be a threat to the opponent simultaneously.
But even that definition is not perfect. You can also bring up differences in the blade geometry of a sword as compared to a knife.
But some swords were never used to defend - the Roman gladius, for instance, was used soley for attacking, with the defense placed squarely on the shield. It’s more a matter of fighting style than of the weapon itself.
Here’s *my * definition:
If you’d charge the enemy with one in your hand, it’s a sword.
If you’d only use it if the enemy is overrunning your position, it’s a knife.