At what point does a dagger become a sword? Why is it that the high quality production daggers that are available all seem to terminate at 12 inches in blade length? Didn't people of the medieval era carry daggers with longer blades, like say 14 or 15 inches? I have seen one available production dagger with a long blade at what is probably moderate quality from Windlass I think it is? Name of the dagger that I found is called the "Coustile".
From what I have seen the options of blade length in high quality production daggers is very limited. Why is this?
Happy Collecting,
Bob
I was thinking the same thing the other day. Why are the daggers so short? I would love if a company came out with a 17 inch blade that is about 1 to and 1 1/2 (inchs) at the guard that tapers down to a nice point and of diamond cross-section. But to much searching i also couldn't find anything like this? Was it just not done in the past? I also would like to know very much.
Derek MOGARTH Street
Derek MOGARTH Street
Bob;
I have the Anelace dagger from MRL ( Windlass made ) that has a very wide triangular blade 14" long.
Calling something a short sword or a long dagger can be tradition or arbitrary.
I have my own theory of when I will consider something a short sword rather than a dagger and it usually means at least a 12" blade and very stout: A large Bowie knife could be viewed as a short sword because it has the weight for heavy chopping cuts.
Between 12" and 20" is the zone were a blade could be one or the other: Heavier blades I find easier to class as swords and the closer to 20" the easier it is.
At 12" only the heaviest of blade would qualify and I would be more inclined to call it a knife or dagger.
As you can see It's mostly a case by case basis and works at least just for me as a way to decide for myself which I think it is which.
Not just looks either, I would also go by feel i.e. This feels like a sword or this feels like a dagger or knife.
I don't think there is a precise set of measurements that will make it easy to decide at least not in the midsize grey zone.
:confused: :confused: :confused:
I have the Anelace dagger from MRL ( Windlass made ) that has a very wide triangular blade 14" long.
Calling something a short sword or a long dagger can be tradition or arbitrary.
I have my own theory of when I will consider something a short sword rather than a dagger and it usually means at least a 12" blade and very stout: A large Bowie knife could be viewed as a short sword because it has the weight for heavy chopping cuts.
Between 12" and 20" is the zone were a blade could be one or the other: Heavier blades I find easier to class as swords and the closer to 20" the easier it is.
At 12" only the heaviest of blade would qualify and I would be more inclined to call it a knife or dagger.
As you can see It's mostly a case by case basis and works at least just for me as a way to decide for myself which I think it is which.
Not just looks either, I would also go by feel i.e. This feels like a sword or this feels like a dagger or knife.
I don't think there is a precise set of measurements that will make it easy to decide at least not in the midsize grey zone.
:confused: :confused: :confused:
Keep your eyes open for atrims, and pick one up if you get the chance - approx. 22" overall length of dagger nirvana. I know what you mean; many folk's definition of "dagger" is my definition of "knife".
One other thing I've noticed - not too many sword-hilted medieval pieces in the higher end of the market. Most seem to either float too early in period (pre-1066) or later (15th-16th century). They are kind of a hard beast to track down.
One other thing I've noticed - not too many sword-hilted medieval pieces in the higher end of the market. Most seem to either float too early in period (pre-1066) or later (15th-16th century). They are kind of a hard beast to track down.
| Bob Burns wrote: |
| At what point does a dagger become a sword? Why is it that the high quality production daggers that are available all seem to terminate at 12 inches in blade length? Didn't people of the medieval era carry daggers with longer blades, like say 14 or 15 inches? I have seen one available production dagger with a long blade at what is probably moderate quality from Windlass I think it is? Name of the dagger that I found is called the "Coustile".
From what I have seen the options of blade length in high quality production daggers is very limited. Why is this? Happy Collecting, Bob |
While there were longer bladed knives and daggers such as the Italian Cinqeduea or the MRL Coustille (I don't know how accurate that term or design is. MRL isn't exactly Leeds) most don't seem to run much over ten or twelve inches, often shorter. Why? Because these things were primarily tools first and weapons second, unless we're talking about specialized examples like the Rondel. Carrying a knife or dagger around that has a blade over twelve inches in length is a pain in the butt, and it really isn't anymore effective than the shorter variety. It won't help out in daily camp chores any better, nor will it dispatch an opponent any quicker than a nine or ten inch blade (or shorter for that matter). It just looks cooler for those of us who've grown up with the "bigger is better" attitude. :D I will admit I like the longer ones too.
I'm not aware of any official delineation in length between a dagger and a sword. I suppose it's just a personal feeling. To me anything under eighteen to twenty inches feels like a dagger or knife, anything over that feels like a sword.
Generaly, weren't the daggers carried in battle bigger than the ones used in everyday life?
| Eric Nower wrote: |
| Generaly, weren't the daggers carried in battle bigger than the ones used in everyday life? |
Blade type and length (much like everything else) varied from time to time and from place to place. Before the end of the 14th century rondel dagger blades were of the"shorter" variety ~8in. From the end of the 14th century on one can find 15-17in blades on rondel daggers (Wallace collection A726, RA X-2). The shorter variety did not disappear and it still seemed like the more common form.
I hope that helps,
Alexi
| Eric Nower wrote: |
| Generaly, weren't the daggers carried in battle bigger than the ones used in everyday life? |
There's no evidence to indicate that daggers were worn with armor until the mid-14th century. In Medieval Arms and Armor by J.H. Hefner-Alteneck some of the 14th century effigies illustrated show standard sized daggers being worn, most of these appear to have blades shorter than twelve inches.
http://www.myArmoury.com/books/item.php?ASIN=048643740X
In earlier periods I'm sure knives like the seax were worn by combatants, but again, there's no pictoral evidence to show us how large they were, or if they were simply an everyday knife that was also carried into battle. I believe I've seen a few sources that show rather large rondels being worn with plate harness but I can't remember where.
Once again, thanks Patrick for your enlightenment and what you said makes a lot of sense. I did know one thing, that a person's knife or dagger was the central tool of his or her everyday life, that much I knew. LOL
This sure is a fascinating hobby when it's all new to you, I have experienced this status in other circles of my life and it is a whole lot of fun and enjoyment. Like when I first started out in genealogy, I spent thousands of hours in researching my mother's roots, traveling the course of all the lines, not just her paternal roots, I hunted down every string of the spider web till I exhausted each and every one of them, like a ferret on steroids. LOL!
The difference between this and genealogy is that I can actually hold an exacting as possible replica in my hands, the desired find of the hunt materializes.
Are any of you familiar with the "Coustile" made by I think it is Windlass ?
Happy Collecting,
Bob
This sure is a fascinating hobby when it's all new to you, I have experienced this status in other circles of my life and it is a whole lot of fun and enjoyment. Like when I first started out in genealogy, I spent thousands of hours in researching my mother's roots, traveling the course of all the lines, not just her paternal roots, I hunted down every string of the spider web till I exhausted each and every one of them, like a ferret on steroids. LOL!
The difference between this and genealogy is that I can actually hold an exacting as possible replica in my hands, the desired find of the hunt materializes.
Are any of you familiar with the "Coustile" made by I think it is Windlass ?
Happy Collecting,
Bob
| Bob Burns wrote: |
| Are any of you familiar with the "Coustile" made by I think it is Windlass ?
|
Bob,
The Windlass Coustille (with 2 L's) has been discussed here. The forum Search function will yield a number of threads that talk about it.
| Patrick Kelly wrote: | ||
There's no evidence to indicate that daggers were worn with armor until the mid-14th century. In Medieval Arms and Armor by J.H. Hefner-Alteneck some of the 14th century effigies illustrated show standard sized daggers being worn, most of these appear to have blades shorter than twelve inches. |
Oakeshott wrote the following about this mystery -- first paragraph of chapter 15, The Archaeology of Weapons:
The dagger during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries was not so important an item of the warrior's gear as it became during the fourteenth and fifteenth. Very few are shown in manuscript illustrations or upon monuments before the end of the thirteenth century, and such as do appear are in the process of being used in combat rather than worn upon the person. In the Maciejowski Bible, for instance, there are several battle scenes where daggers are almost as plentiful as swords, but there is no indication here or elsewhere in this manuscript where they were kept when not in use.
That about sums it up! I tend to think they were worn on the person somewhere, because, well...where else would they be? Rather a small item to have your horse carry for you! :D
Perhaps they were concealed under the surcoat for some reason that escapes me.
Anyway, the original question here was about dagger blade length, and I believe there is a simple answer for that: In the method by which daggers were generally wielded -- overhand (i.e. "icepick" grip), while grappling -- a blade longer than 12" rapidly becomes too long to be effective. In training I have found 12" to be the ideal length for me, actually, but I have long arms.
I do see a place for daggers with blades longer than 12", but I don't think they would have been wielded using the methods shown by Fiore, Liechtenauer, etc., which are probably quite similar to how daggers were used in earlier centuries.
| Joe Maccarrone wrote: |
| I do see a place for daggers with blades longer than 12", but I don't think they would have been wielded using the methods shown by Fiore, Liechtenauer, etc., which are probably quite similar to how daggers were used in earlier centuries. |
Actually, the rondel daggers in Codex Wallerstein appear to be pretty big:
http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/55.jpg
Granted, it's hard to say for certain, as the drawings could be skewed, but some of the techniques (such as the one linked above) make more sense with a larger dagger.
| Bill Grandy wrote: | ||
Actually, the rondel daggers in Codex Wallerstein appear to be pretty big: http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/55.jpg Granted, it's hard to say for certain, as the drawings could be skewed, but some of the techniques (such as the one linked above) make more sense with a larger dagger. |
Interesting, thanks. It's hard to tell proportion from the drawings, sometimes. I think a 12" dagger is long enough for the many techniques that involve grabbing the blade with the left hand; for these, a much shorter blade wouldn't work.
However, it's interesting also that the fighter on the left is holding the dagger in a forward grip; I have seen rondel daggers that are quite a bit longer than 12", and guessed that they were not wielded in a reverse/overhand grip -- as is the case here. Thoughts on this, anyone?
Come to think of it, I think there is a very similar play to this one in Fiore, with the master's (more moderately sized) dagger in a forward grip, though the vast majority are reverse grip.
I think some of you guys need to get out your tape mesures and have a look at the difference between 12 and 17 inches. When you all talk in inches I often need to get out my tape mesure and have a look (as I'm used to centimeters). From this point of view a 17 inch (42.5 cm) blade seems (to me) to be unwieldey when used any way but underhand. The length I would be looking for in a dagger (a weapon for close grappling conflict) needs to be short enough to use a varietey of useful techniqes, but long enough to kill, possibly through armor. When you are fighting an opponent close up, having a very long dagger could possibly by a liability rather than an advantage. Finally, from the viewpoint of the evolution of weapons, I feel that if the majority of historical daggers were around 12 inches then this must be rooted in when people found to be most effective for dagger fighting at the time.
Were contempoary dagger fighting techiques and sword techinqes quite different? If so then it makes sense that daggers and swords are quite different.
As for the difference between daggers and swords of similar length, I can imagine a very long dagger designed for pericing armor, and a similar length shortsword. In my mind you can start to call something of that length a sword if it has both an edge for cutting and a point for thrusting. A dagger if it is for thrusting only, and a (huge) knife if it only has an edge for cutting (of hacking). Furthermore, to me a knife is something that clearly can be used as a tool (hence it has an edge and a less agressive point), a dagger is primarily a thing for killing (hence a very agressive point), and a sword is a weapon designed for fighting armed opponents.
Were contempoary dagger fighting techiques and sword techinqes quite different? If so then it makes sense that daggers and swords are quite different.
As for the difference between daggers and swords of similar length, I can imagine a very long dagger designed for pericing armor, and a similar length shortsword. In my mind you can start to call something of that length a sword if it has both an edge for cutting and a point for thrusting. A dagger if it is for thrusting only, and a (huge) knife if it only has an edge for cutting (of hacking). Furthermore, to me a knife is something that clearly can be used as a tool (hence it has an edge and a less agressive point), a dagger is primarily a thing for killing (hence a very agressive point), and a sword is a weapon designed for fighting armed opponents.
FWIW, Lutel makes a large 15th Century dagger (0.95kg, 40cm blade). Model 10042, near the bottom of the Daggers section of his catalog. It's been reviewed on myArmoury.com, too.
13th cent. norwegian sources state that as a fighting man, you should carry a "goodbrynkniv "apparently a long bladed dagger made for defeating armour. (bryje=mail)
Wearing these knifes, known as "Rytning", or Rider/knight knifes, where banned in the city of Bergen in 1274, probably because they where a pure bred weapon, with no other use than killing.
Wearing these knifes, known as "Rytning", or Rider/knight knifes, where banned in the city of Bergen in 1274, probably because they where a pure bred weapon, with no other use than killing.
This is pretty interesting......
I was under the general impression that knives or daggers were carried everyday....an item like a cell phone today, everybody had one because it was funtional at the time. When a battle ensued the soliders would "upgrade" to a larger more combat -like knife or dagger. Aparrently not , they would have still used that "everyday common knife" until the 1400's....am I understamding that right?
I was under the general impression that knives or daggers were carried everyday....an item like a cell phone today, everybody had one because it was funtional at the time. When a battle ensued the soliders would "upgrade" to a larger more combat -like knife or dagger. Aparrently not , they would have still used that "everyday common knife" until the 1400's....am I understamding that right?
The "Brynkniv" was a combat knife, probably akin to the roundel dagger. Roundels are a pure stabbing impliment, and thus about as usefull as a nail.
The knifes carried for practical purposes where small, with a blade length of only a few inches.
The knifes carried for practical purposes where small, with a blade length of only a few inches.
That's interesting, Patrick, what you say about daggers not being apparent with armour until the mid-fourteenth century. I wonder why. It would seem to me a fairly obvious thing to add one on, on a 'just in case' principle on the grounds they're not terribly heavy or bulky and it might come in useful. Unless there's some practical reason not to ?
On the length of daggers, I've heard it said that there was also the issue of local laws regarding who could carry swords and where, and that long daggers may have a bit of statutory avoidance - i.e. as long as you can get without it being officially a sword. Don't know if anyone has heard this or has any opinions for or to the contrary.
Daniel
On the length of daggers, I've heard it said that there was also the issue of local laws regarding who could carry swords and where, and that long daggers may have a bit of statutory avoidance - i.e. as long as you can get without it being officially a sword. Don't know if anyone has heard this or has any opinions for or to the contrary.
Daniel
| Daniel Parry wrote: |
| That's interesting, Patrick, what you say about daggers not being apparent with armour until the mid-fourteenth century. I wonder why. It would seem to me a fairly obvious thing to add one on, on a 'just in case' principle on the grounds they're not terribly heavy or bulky and it might come in useful. Unless there's some practical reason not to ? |
I really don't know why. Like you I think it would be a good thing to have around. Who knows. I have been told that the cross-hilted daggers we medieval enthusiasts love so much were somewhat of a rare thing, with the ballock knife actually being far more common. Peter Johnsson has told me that nearly all of the originals he has examined have been single edged.
| Quote: |
| On the length of daggers, I've heard it said that there was also the issue of local laws regarding who could carry swords and where, and that long daggers may have a bit of statutory avoidance - i.e. as long as you can get without it being officially a sword. Don't know if anyone has heard this or has any opinions for or to the contrary.
|
I do know that the Italian city states instituted banes on the carrying of swords within their limits. I've read this is one theory for the development of the Cinquedea.
Page 1 of 2
You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
All contents © Copyright 2003-2006 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum