Hello everyone!

First of all, let me wish you all the best in the new 2006!

In this topic I don't want to talk about your choice - sword or sabre, but I want to discuss one interesting, on my oppinion, question. This is the question of the terminology, or how is better to be called the weapons, which have features, specific for both types (swords and sabres) in same time? So, what is the best way to call them?
There are at least two weapons of this type - the Japanese katana and the pallash (or cavalry backsword if you want). We can add another in this list - the falchion, the Caucasian shashka, or even the Turkish yathagan and the ancient kopsis. So, if the katana is a sword - what about its curved blade (typical sabre feature), and what about the straight blade of the pallash with its mass, heavier than the sabre (which are features more typical for the sword)?
Are the only traditions important, or we have to consider other things?
What is your oppinion about this?
Thanks in advance for all your replies

Regards!
Boris

I would suggest that we should primarily just call these weapons what they were called in their own time and culture. Otherwise, we use embarrasingly ethnocentric descriptions like we sometimes find in 19th and early 20th c. writing. "Nipponese Saber," and such. Also, as you point out, it's very difficult (not mention unnecessary) to force these weapons into neat categories. For purposes of defining a given type, I think we should simply describe–"long, narrow, slightly-curved, single-edged blade" as opposed to "saber blade".

Sean!

You are absolutely right. We should call them as in original. Even in the Japanese the name of the group of all Japanese edge weapons is nihhon-to (or nippon-to) - "Japanese sword". Using the original name is OK, but when we come to the description - what should we write? "The pallash is a .... What - "sabre" or "sword"?...with long, straight blade". If we say "cavalry edge weapon" - OK again. But "BUT" always remains.

Regards!
Boris

I agree things should be refered to in the original but I can also understand using 'sabre blade' or derrivations to describe a sword to someone who isnt familiar with the type.

Person A: What is a katana?

Person B: It is a type of sword which is sort of like a two handed sabre...

It isnt nessesarily ethnocentrism, just a way to understand the unfamiliar.

I know absolutly nothing about Indian sword so when someone says kilij, shamshir, talwar or pulwar, for me to visualize it it is helpful to say scimitar (which at least denotes a non European sword) or sabre and then go into more detail from there.

In the end the term that should be used is the term that can be understood.

To say that something unfamiliar is like something familiar is perfectly reasonable and helpful. To say that something is something familiar is misguided, I think. In other words, while it makes sense to describe the blade of the katana as being somewhat like a saber blade, it would be inappropriate to categorize the katana as a saber, which, as I understood it, was the question raised in the original post. Another example: A naginata is like a glaive, but it isn't a glaive and shouldn't be categorized as one.

I completely agree with Sean Flynt. call it by its proper name. Sword names change with the times, and now the term broadsword can mean most anything, whereas it was orionally intended to mean the military sword. Also its like squares and rectangles, all sabers are swords, but not all swords are sabers.

Hank!

I agree with you. But I remember something interesting - the national languages, and maybe traditions.
The English is OK, because you have different words for different types of weapons, but in Bulgarian its not like this. Just one example - the word "kopie" means everything of lance, spear, pike and note it doesn't show its exactly type. In the same way we haven't words which mean broadsword and backsword, and the word "rapira" (you see it's close to the English "rapier") actually means epiee, rather than rapier. I know it's a matter of terminology, but sometimes I'm very confused when read articles in English - what is this, or what is that. From the other hand, the meanings of the terms changed in time.
So, is it better to categorize the weapons or not? Should we say this is like this, or should we say this is this.
About the traditions I will give just one example. All over the world (including in English language sources) it is said that naginata is a Japanese halberd, but it isn't. So what in this case?

Regards!
Boris

Boris, an excellent post and you bring up quite an interesting question when having to deal with languages other than your own. I do not think there are any hard and fast rules that can be set up. It makes for an interesting problem is someone translates, and yet does not know weaponry. I think that is the case with calling a Naginata a halberd. While it is closer to a bill or glaive, it is not a halberd, nor is it a glaive or bill. It is a naginata. In another post, I run inot this same problem when talking about the Viking "halberd. It is not a halberd, but that is how it is translated and at times it would be called a bill. Gets quite confusing, and the only solution that I see is a photo of the object plaus a good description. Best, Hank

Gosh, maybe I'm missing something, but isn't the term 'sword' a very broad one, kind of like 'gun', and the term 'saber' (or sabre) simply a slightly more narrow and specific sub-type? Kind of like 'gun' and 'semi-automatic rifle'?

Hello
I preciser is allowed that I.L considere like sabre or "protosabre" any weapon long, has single edge whose back of the blade is definitely thicker, that it is curved or not. It considere thus like sword and not sabre the weapon scythe of Zlatopil which dates from IVe century before J.C!!!

-Franck-

Hi
It is still Franck
By I.L I wanted to say Iaroslav Lebedynsky (professor at the INALCO, Paris). Sorry, I made a draft and I forgot of the name!

Hmmm, the 1913 US Cavalry saber is double edged, straight, and the thickness is more to the center of the blade. Sim iliar in description to some rapiers or even cut and thrust swords, and yet it is a saber, and intended to be used as one. I just do not think you can set up a working definition for a saber.

I think that Sean and Hank have both summed up the point (pun not intended, but certainly not avoided) in a couple of their posts. In some cases, even swords that are placed in a given catagory defy the definition that defines that catagory, and one still has to be able to decribe these swords to other people.

I hate to sound like your high school English or speech teacher, but this is why you have to know your audience. For example, it makes perfect sense to say "it is similar to an Oakeshott Type XII, but with an indented ricasso," because most of the people who read this site know what the terms in that description mean. If they don't, there are articles that explain it, and a forum where they can ask for clarification (though, the latter probably means the author got carried away). If I am talking to my coworkers (who do not know the difference in these things, and do not want to take the time to learn), then I have to use a different method of explaining things. I might have to compare a sword to something as absurd as a screwdriver.

Obviously, language barriers make this a bit trickier, but as long as there some agreed upon terms or generalizations, then descriptions can be built off of that. A 1913 US Cavalry saber may not fit the perfect description of a saber, but, by using it as a starting point, we can produce clear descriptions that give a read a decent sense of what is being discussed. Like wise, I think that some one could describe a falchion by saying, "it is a sword, but..." or by saying, "it is a saber, but..." and still end up with a valid, understandable description.

So... yes, using terms like "sword," "saber," "spear," and "glaive" is usefull. On other hand, do not be afraid to clarify, or qualify those statements. Above all, do not be afraid of, "but..."

-Grey