| Author |
Message |
Justin Pasternak
Location: West Springfield, Massachusetts Joined: 17 Sep 2006
Posts: 174
|
 Posted: Sun 16 Sep, 2007 2:18 pm Post subject: Very Long Dagger Blades? |
 |
|
I'm just curious if anyone knows of any dagger blades that are from 18" to 24" inches in length? 
There is a quote from the book called: "The Complete Encyclopedia of Arms & Armor", and it says:
"Metal served to lengthen the blade of a dagger: from blades measuring 4" - 8" inches, which was the normal length of a stone dagger, there was a fairly rapid increase to blades measuring 12" - 16" inches and even longer. The length of the blade continued to increase, but when it exceeded 24" inches, a new type of weapon was created: this was not so much a long dagger but rather a short sword."
Here is another quote on the length of dagger blades. From the book called "Warriors' Weapons" it says:
"Dagger blades were from six to twenty inches long, single or double edged, straight or curved."
|
|
  |
 |
|
Ivo Malz
Location: Hanau, Germany Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Posts: 30
|
| Posted: Sun 16 Sep, 2007 3:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hello.
The most prominent long dagger/dagger hilted short sword is the Schweizerdegen, basically a 15th century basilard with a short sword length blade. In the collection of Bad Urach, Germany, they even have a roundel dagger sporting a thrusting blade with triangular cross section the blade of which measures some 45 to 50cm, so roughly between 18 and 20".
Regards
Ivo
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bram Verbeek
|
| Posted: Mon 17 Sep, 2007 2:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
In the bronze age (where these quotes relate to) there is not a very direct distinction between rapiers/swords and daggers. If you look at seax, you see a range from truly small to too long to even be considered a short sword, similar with daggers and swords. It could well be that one person makes a longer version of one type of blade, and another only has steel for a severely shortened verion of another blade, whose type commonly is larger.
The problem would be what you consider a dagger, and what no longer fits that description. A hilt style without a weighted pommel could be used, but the long celtic swords would fit that bill too, the next could be its length, but since the question is about the longest length dagger, this would leave much to be desired as well (the definition would answer the question).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jeroen Zuiderwijk
Industry Professional
|
| Posted: Mon 17 Sep, 2007 4:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bram Verbeek wrote: | | In the bronze age (where these quotes relate to) there is not a very direct distinction between rapiers/swords and daggers. |
There is however though a clear transition from dagger to rapier (thrusting weapon) to sword (cutting and thrusting). In the early bronze age, daggers ranged up to 30cm (with some exceptions of up to 50cm). The rapiers of the middle bronze age usually had a length of 40-50cm, but shorter daggers were also made using the same blade shape but in shortened versions. In the late bronze age, the separation between dagger and sword was much more clear. In the UK/Ireland, there were separate daggers and swords with very different designs, with the swords usually 50-60 bladelength , and the daggers 20cm bladelength. In continental Europe, single edged knives replaced daggers completely. So there we have double edges swords along single edged knives in the late bronze age.
Here's some examples of the rapiers:
N.b. the center one is an exceptionally long example of 80cm (longest found rapier).
| Quote: | | The problem would be what you consider a dagger, and what no longer fits that description. A hilt style without a weighted pommel could be used, but the long celtic swords would fit that bill too, |
Actually virtually no swords had purposely weighted pommels until the late medieval period. Until that time, pommels were generally actually made as light as possible. Even Viking sword pommels were most of the time hollow to reduce their weight. So I wouldn't consider a weighted pommel an essential element at all to consider something a sword or not. The main purpose of pommels has always been to keep the hilt together, as well as to rest the back of your hand against, as well for adding decoration. Using it for extra weight for balancing is just an additional feature introduced much later on.
| Quote: | | the next could be its length, but since the question is about the longest length dagger, this would leave much to be desired as well (the definition would answer the question). |
There just isn't a clear way to define what's a sword and what isn't. Some swords are clearly swords, some daggers are clearly daggers, and some are just in between. For this reason, I refer to bronze age rapiers simply as rapiers. There's however early bronze age blades that I consider to be swords, eventhough they have blades of around 30cm in length. That's due to them clearly changing blade shape away from daggers, and starting to develope into swords. But there's single edged weapons of later periods, with blades of 50cm which I still call knives rather then single edge swords. [/quote]
|
|
 |
|
|
Bram Verbeek
|
| Posted: Mon 17 Sep, 2007 5:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
I think it is better to think of the weapons clearly daggers, like you sort of suggested, I was merely pointing out that it is not always simple to draw the line.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dan P
Location: Massachusetts, USA Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Posts: 208
|
| Posted: Mon 17 Sep, 2007 10:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
I define a dagger as a double-edged blade that's short enough to draw and use in either hand efficiently, in either the conventional or reverse grips. For me, this means a maximum total length of about 20". For example, this Cold Steel "dirk" is about the largest thing I have that I would still call a dagger.
|
|
|
|
|
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Mon 17 Sep, 2007 10:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dan P wrote: | | I define a dagger as a double-edged blade that's short enough to draw and use in either hand efficiently, in either the conventional or reverse grips. For me, this means a maximum total length of about 20". For example, this Cold Steel "dirk" is about the largest thing I have that I would still call a dagger. |
I think defining a dagger as double-edge limits things. Many "rondel daggers" or "ballock daggers" were not double-edge. I think of daggers as short(er) thrusting blades. Short arms with rounded points more favorable for cutting are knives. This terminology can overlap, of course. But that's just me. 
"Dags" are (often) pointed protrusions on clothing and on aventails. I'd be surprised if there wasn't a relation between the terms.
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
 |
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Mon 17 Sep, 2007 5:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Swetnam suggested using a dagger at least two feet long.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fabrice Cognot
Industry Professional
|
|
|
|
|
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Mon 17 Sep, 2007 7:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fabrice Cognot wrote: | | Chad Arnow wrote: |
"Dags" are (often) pointed protrusions on clothing and on aventails. I'd be surprised if there wasn't a relation between the terms. |
There is. The clothing thing preceding the weapon term. |
That's what I thought.
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
J Anstey
|
| Posted: Mon 17 Sep, 2007 9:59 pm Post subject: Dagger from Dagestan |
|
|
I am not positive but I thought the word Dagger orginates from Dag meaning pointed mountains as in Dagestan (town of pointed mountains)
Attached is a picture showing a typical Kinjal (double sided dagger)
 [img][/img]
Hope this is not off topic?
Cheers
Jason
erm FWIW Dags in Australian are the things that hang of a sheeps backside. ie, An expression to hurry up is "rattle your dags" 
|
|
|
|
|
|
J Anstey
|
| Posted: Mon 17 Sep, 2007 10:08 pm Post subject: kuban cossack daggers |
|
|
... and here is a picture showing various lengths of a kinjal, check out the bloke on the right!
 [img][/img]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremiah Swanger
|
| Posted: Mon 17 Sep, 2007 11:21 pm Post subject: Re: Very Long Dagger Blades? |
|
|
| Justin Pasternak wrote: | I'm just curious if anyone knows of any dagger blades that are from 18" to 24" inches in length?
There is a quote from the book called: "The Complete Encyclopedia of Arms & Armor", and it says:
"Metal served to lengthen the blade of a dagger: from blades measuring 4" - 8" inches, which was the normal length of a stone dagger, there was a fairly rapid increase to blades measuring 12" - 16" inches and even longer. The length of the blade continued to increase, but when it exceeded 24" inches, a new type of weapon was created: this was not so much a long dagger but rather a short sword."
Here is another quote on the length of dagger blades. From the book called "Warriors' Weapons" it says:
"Dagger blades were from six to twenty inches long, single or double edged, straight or curved." |
Someone recently made a rondel dagger with a hollowground-parallelogram cross-sectioned blade exceeding 20 inches. I think it was Eric McHugh, if I'm not mistaken...?
"Rhaegar fought nobly.
Rhaegar fought valiantly.
Rhaegar fought honorably.
And Rhaegar died."
- G.R.R. Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire
|
|
 |
|
Gary A. Chelette
|
| Posted: Tue 18 Sep, 2007 8:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
If swords were not allowed in some places due to restriction or class, then the simple 18" "Dagger" was most likely allowed instead for defence.
That's how I would call it. "Dat's not me sword! Dat's me Dagger! A bloke gotta have something to eat with!" 
Are you scared, Connor?
No, Cousin Dugal. I'm not!
Don't talk nonsense, man. I peed my kilt the first time I went into battle.
Oh, aye. Angus pees his kilt all the time!
|
|
 |
|
Justin Pasternak
Location: West Springfield, Massachusetts Joined: 17 Sep 2006
Posts: 174
|
| Posted: Mon 01 Oct, 2007 4:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'd have to say that the maxium blade length for a dagger should be 18" inches.
But, as in previous posts there is no real way of classifying the blade length of a dagger.
There's also a rondel dagger with a blade length of 19 1/2" inches on this very website. Go figure.
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Mon 01 Oct, 2007 7:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Justin Pasternak wrote: | I'd have to say that the maxium blade length for a dagger should be 18" inches.
But, as in previous posts there is no real way of classifying the blade length of a dagger.
There's also a rondel dagger with a blade length of 19 1/2" inches on this very website. Go figure. |
I tend to agree that anything above 18" is getting into the short sword category but nothing is set in stone.
Heavier short blades would be more usefully defined as short swords compared to equal length but slimmer more agile blades.
Functionally a blade that can be used in a normal forward grip but still short enough to be used in a reverse ice pic grip could also be used as a defining factor for a blade being a dagger? Just my personal way to define a dagger. 
One could compare it to "porn ": I can't define it exactly but I know it when I see it ! When I see a blade or better yet handle it I get an intuitive " feeling/opinion " that it's a dagger or a sword, at least for me.
There is also the traditional route where some blades are called daggers/knives or short swords by specific cultures with length being very inconsistent if compared to each other. ( Hope this complicated sentence makes sense.  ).
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
Gary A. Chelette
|
| Posted: Tue 02 Oct, 2007 6:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jean Thibodeau wrote: | | One could compare it to "porn ": I can't define it exactly but I know it when I see it ! When I see a blade or better yet handle it I get an intuitive " feeling/opinion " that it's a dagger or a sword, at least for me. |
That would depend on if your a conservative or a liberal.
Look at my view on the Coustille and I think that maybe a good feel on how to classify a blade.
http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=9799
Are you scared, Connor?
No, Cousin Dugal. I'm not!
Don't talk nonsense, man. I peed my kilt the first time I went into battle.
Oh, aye. Angus pees his kilt all the time!
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Tue 02 Oct, 2007 11:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gary A. Chelette wrote: | | Jean Thibodeau wrote: | | One could compare it to "porn ": I can't define it exactly but I know it when I see it ! When I see a blade or better yet handle it I get an intuitive " feeling/opinion " that it's a dagger or a sword, at least for me. |
That would depend on if your a conservative or a liberal.
Look at my view on the Coustille and I think that maybe a good feel on how to classify a blade.
http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=9799 |
To me the new coustille feels like a dagger: A BIG dagger but still a dagger.
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
Gary A. Chelette
|
| Posted: Tue 02 Oct, 2007 12:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jean Thibodeau wrote: | | Gary A. Chelette wrote: | | Jean Thibodeau wrote: | | One could compare it to "porn ": I can't define it exactly but I know it when I see it ! When I see a blade or better yet handle it I get an intuitive " feeling/opinion " that it's a dagger or a sword, at least for me. |
That would depend on if your a conservative or a liberal.
Look at my view on the Coustille and I think that maybe a good feel on how to classify a blade.
http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=9799 |
To me the new coustille feels like a dagger: A BIG dagger but still a dagger. |
Agreed! It's a nice piece however you look at it.
BTW: Both the old and the new blade feel very different but both are very nice to hold.
Are you scared, Connor?
No, Cousin Dugal. I'm not!
Don't talk nonsense, man. I peed my kilt the first time I went into battle.
Oh, aye. Angus pees his kilt all the time!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Christopher B
|
| Posted: Tue 02 Oct, 2007 12:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I feel like we get into a lot of trouble when we try to apply terminolgy from our age to items and ideas from long ago.
We really like to categorize things... Probably it's related to the fact that nearly everything we make is created by industry and things are more alike then they are different.
For example, if you look at the different types of guns that are made today, you can easily categorize them by their caliber, rates of fire, bolt configurations and a few other statistics.
The problem is, when you go back to the bronze age, there was no such thing as standardization. Everything is hand made and there is no standard to build on (nobody used blueprints).
For me, it doesn't really matter if you call a blade wielded by an Egyptian in 1,000 BC a "dagger" or "sword" or "khopesh" or a "hoopti-doo." Show me a picture of it (or describe it as best you can) and i'll know what you're talking about.
We can't even use they're name for these weapons because, again, they did not standardize so the name could represent any number of weapons from any number of locations made from any number of materials.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a standard topic