Some thoughts on classification
It’s been well stated, and I think now it is well known, that most terms we use to refer to specific kinds of sword are modern ones, and that for the vast majority of history, people simply referred to a sword as ”sword” perhaps with a descriptor or two to differentiate form other swords.
Some purists may state that this means that all modern terms are therefore invalid, however I think most people would disagree, as I do. More words to allow for clearer and more concise communication is no bad thing. It’s good to be able to say “Longsword,” and have you immediately know I’m referring to something like this,
rather than another sword which may be unusually long, like a rapier or zweihander.
There is, however, one distinction that I don’t quite get, and I don’t view as necessary, and i’ts that of the rapier versus the side sword.
Sure, with some classic side swords you think “how could you ever call that a rapier?”
But there are others which may be just a little too short, and just a little too thick in the blade,
and you think, “well, maybe…” Then you get swords like this,
The blade is a little thicker than you might expect of a classic rapier, but no so thick that it you could never consider calling it a rapier.
What complicates matters further is that there was no distinction made between the two in the era they were used, despite the fact that clear distinctions between sword types was beginning to emerge. George Silver makes it abundantly clear that the rapier is something distinct from other swords.
Rapiers are said to have first been made in Spain, and the first ones looked like this, very much what I would call a side sword not a rapier.
They were called Espada Ropera, a term that would survive to refer to weapons like this,
which are very, very much not side swords.
The term side sword itself comes from the Italian term, spada da lato. The funny thing is, I have never seen this term used in Italian treatises. From Achille Marozzo,
the Italian masters all seem to universally refer to the weapons they teach simply as spada, sword. Perhaps someone more experienced with a wider variety of Italian manuals can tell precisely where the term comes from.
Regardless, the sort of techniques which are typically applied to what is either termed a side sword or a rapier from these Italian treatises realistically can be applied to either, and I have seen it done so and have done so myself.
Stylistically, there is little difference between the two weapons, and from a technical use standpoint, there is virtually none. Therefore, I pose that the two terms do not refer to different sorts of weapons, but rather may be used interchangeably, for all intents and purposes.
I freely invite anyone with thoughts on the subject to add your piece, and I know there are a few HEMA and historical swords people out there I would like to hear from. @elsegno @victoriansword @peashooter85 @pteappic @cossack-armiger @historicalfightingguide @short-swords @swordlesbianism @longswordsinlondon @sirobvious, I know some of these blogs are more active than others, but I would like to hear the thoughts of all of you (there are some others that come to mind, but they are either not very active, or I’m unsure if they would like to be called attention to like this.
theartofmadeline
germansingergirl
kaledo-art
dailybridgerton
gummygunk
blakekathryn
snowghoul
origamiaround
dededos
