Except that if you’re fighting in an extremely enclosed space like a tunnel, you’d drop your sword and use a dagger.
I think the general idea you put out there is sound, though- the sword is one’s primary weapon, and a knife is a backup weapon- much the same way that a modern infantryman carries a rifle as his primary weapon and a pistol as a secondary weapon.
A simpler distinction is that daggers and knives have little or no hand protection - no bell guard, handguard, crosspiece or whatever. Swords almost always do.
But then again, through out most of it’s history the sword WAS the sidearm of the soldier. The spear, lance, or polearm was the main weapon or the rifle, in your analogy.
I don’t think any one definition is perfect. combining the definitions so far we have:
A tool with a relatively long blade which may or may not be double edged, which may or may not exhibit certain geometric qualities (distal and lateral tapering, risers and fullers), which may or may not be long enough to both defend and display a threat simultaneously, which may or may not feature some type of protection for the wielder’s hands and which may or may not combine both the cut and the thrust in it’s method of use.
I’m not sure that this is really accurate. The shield may indeed have been the focus of defense while in formation on the field, but I’m not convinced that the spatha could meet my definition. How was it used in personal self-defense? In the arena? I don’t even know if we actually know the answer to that, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it was done similarly to later species of single handed swords.
Simple yes, accurate, no. All of my fencing daggers have ample hand protection, as do the historical daggers I had them designed after.
The one and two edge distinction also breaks down. The navaja, like many single-edged weapons, has a false edge that can either be sharpened or not. The navaja is always called a “knife”, despite its widely varying size. The duelling sabre, another single-edged weapon always called a “sword”, has a false edge that can be sharpened or not. On the Japanese side, the katana also has a false edge.
The edge distinction is more relevant for Chinese weapons. Any westerner would call the Chinese “big knife” a sword.
This is not a canonical answer, but from western usage, I think the knife/dagger distinction is pretty clear. A knife is primarily a utility tool that is occasionally good for cutting people. If you can shave with it or clear brush, it’s a knife. You can certainly cut your food with a navaja, but it would be quite difficult to do so with a fencing dagger.
The sword/dagger distinction is a lot hazier. Rather than looking for rules, it just makes more sense to look at contemporary usage. The Romans called the gladius a sword. The Italians called the cinquedeas and misericordia “daggers”. Who are we to argue?
Not really. Most spear wielders didn’t carry a sword. The spear was a substitute for a sword, not a complement; making enough spears to outfit an army was a lot cheaper than making a lot of swords, so infantry- like Greek hoplites- carried spears, but no sword.
Generally, soldiers only carried a spear and sword when the spear was to be thrown, like the Roman pilum. In these instances- owing to the obvious difficulty of retrieving one’s spear once tossed at your opponents- it was intended as a single use weapon only, and the soldier carried a sword for when the armies closed to melee.
There are exceptions, obviously; spear armed cavalry often carried swords because a spear wielded on horseback was likely to break or be entangled as soon as you hit someone with it.
Except that a gravity, switchblade or stilleto (modern usage) “knife” is usually marketed as a weapon, and is often considered an illegal weapon under various state “knife” laws.
This is incorrect. Hoplites carried a xiphos, a sword sidearm, said to have inspired the gladius. Hoplites were a part-time citizen army, and aside from being cheaper, a spear is an easier weapon to master than a sword.
Sure. I am talking about its original usage, that is, how it acquired the name that persists today. There is a lot less use for utility knives for ordinary people in the 21st century than there was in the 15th.
As Maeglin pointed out, this is incorrect. And as far the middle ages go, the main weapon of the knight and the professional soldier/mercenary was the spear, pole arm and/or lance. The sword was always the side arm. The spear was not only easier to master, it was also the superior weapon in combat.
Quick clarification: the spear was the superior weapon in military engagements characterized by unit fighting. The sword is a marvelous weapon for self-defense and was carried accordingly.
What Kinthalis is saying here is unimpeachably correct, but perhaps subject to misinterpretation.
On the parrying angle, isn’t a Japanese sai designed to be useful for defense? I’ve always heard them referred to as a type of dagger, rather than sword.
I am by no means an expert in Japanese weaponry, but my understanding of the sai is that it is actually a baton by construction and not a blade. You certainly can jab someone with it, but the few demonstrations of sai technique I have observed showed the striking capability of the weapon.
Are you sure of it? It has always been my understanding that hoplites had a sword as secondary weapon.
Plus, if they didn’t have one, how did they fight when the enemy had closed range, or when their ranks were disrupted?
The hoplite doru spear was a close range weapon. When hoplite ranks were disrupted, they broke and fled. The most critical stage in a hoplite engagement was the othismos, or striking phase. The units would push against each other until one of them broke. When a line broke, the soldiers dropped their shields and ran like hell. The victors of the othismos were then able to kill them, exploiting the unarmored backs of legs of the fleeing soldiers.
Knights used swords, maces, and axes as secondary weapons after their lances broke, were embedded in other soldiers, or dropped. The lance was still the primary heavy cavalry weapon and was responsible for its destructive capabilities.
You’re forgetting those Westernese daggers - “long, leaf-shaped daggers damasked with serpent-forms in red and gold” inside black sheath “wrought of some strange metal, light and strong, and set with many fiery stones.”
<nitpick>Okinawin (or possibly Chinese) rather than Japanese</nitpick> Sai are *blades *only in the same way that large knitting needles are. That is, they have a point that could do damage if pushed into someone you dislike, but are otherwise smooth edged. As Maeglin says, more of a baton with significant defensive properties.
