[Michael Pikula]

[T.F. McCraken]

Good opening post, Mike.
I say that because I own LOTS of swords. I own everything from my Albion Templar to a couple KoA SLOs. I, myself, have never used a sword for what it was intended. Let's face it- swords are made for two things....killing men and pagentry. I am one for pagentry. I like owning them. I like the work that goes into them. I like scabbarding and re-gripping. I like mixing and matching hilts with blades with pommels. I REALLY like taking a Kult of Athena bargain-bin sword and making it look like a more expensive sidearm. (I'm doing one now for a friend.) I am a collector first, though. I don't re-enact. I don't do cut tests. I DO work at Bristol Renaissance Faire, but, my job there is a shopkeeper, so, wearing my sword at work is unrealistic.
I do have my preferences. I collect Irish. I have DelTin, Windlass and Windlass-hybrid ring pommelled examples. All the other swords I have are continually for sale so I can buy more Irish-hilted swords.
So, I'd have to say that...A sword, to me, is a representation of my ancestry. Green hills, red-headed lasses, and ring-pommelled swords.

Slainte!

Murphy

[Paul Hansen]

I essence a sword is a three dimensional object. Or in other words, a long bladed weapon (although some tools, like a machete).

Your definition of a sword as:

[Dan Howard]

One of the reasons why the NSW government did not legislate against owning a sword is because they found "sword" was extremely difficult to legally define without including a lot of other objects including wall hangers, theatre props, and sporting implements. The other problem is length. They would have had to pick an abritrary length to differentiate between a sword and a knife. If you use intent as part of the definition then the existing legislation works fine. Currently any object is defined as a "weapon" if it is used with the intent of harming another person.

[Bruno Giordan]

Authenticity.

[Dan Howard]

If you restrict the term to only refer to blades intended to harm another person then nothing made today would be classed as a sword since they are not made with that purpose in mind. Today swords are made for practice, decoration, research, sport, etc. I can't think of any that are specifically made with the primary goal of killing someone. I'll be willing to bet that more wall hangers are used in assaults today than what people here would call a "sword". As for authenticity, at least the above wall hangers have been used in "combat". Are they more "authentic" than a museum replica that has never been drawn from its sheath? The above question will never elicit an acceptable answer.

[Daniel Wallace]

Very interesting topic Michael.

what makes a sword a sword - well, construction first off. (at least in my view) a stainless steel wall hanger maybe be able to hold an edge, but they are rarely constructed to be bashed around. a sword is by definition a weapon - those of us know that - understand that as pointed out - some were just for show as bearing swords, not all were intended to harm.

oddly, in my experience someone ignorant of a sword believes them to be more dangerous than a rife. never mention you make knives or have a bunch on them on a first date - or second - or third - best get to know the girl at first lol.

i also tend to think of a sword as a tool, all be it of war, or ceremony. but today i think it has a deeper meaning as a tool that symbolizes your link with the past. weather you study history professionally, or you just dabble at it here and there, if you walk into a room and see a A&A, albion, something that you know is not 'wall hanger' you know this is a student of history in one way or another.

i started to collect knives when i was 14, and it's grown into something beyond what collecting should be. i now find myself more than just someone who wants to grab up a new blade every year, i want to know how their made, how they were used and why.

this has been blooming into a hoppy that i can hopefully build upon one day. what was once an interest has now become a practice. i'm no longer just reading about how blades were made, i'm attempting it myself. as this grows i'm hopeful to get a little of my own work out there once i'm confident in it.

i look at a sword and other than appreciating it's construction i want to understand its use, i so read fiore, and talhoffer. and to use the sword gives it another dimension. like stepping into a Rembrant, Picasso of whatever work of art you put on your wall. the idea of the sword being a part of you is realized in its use.

the sword has consumed me, it had sparked my historical intrest, littature, and has driven me as a craftsman and artist since i was a kid. and in my own way i still want to be the knight in shining armor. like a Gawain!

[Jean Thibodeau]

[Dan Howard]

My point is that it is impossible to define "sword". No matter how you go about it you either exclude some items that should be classed as swords or you include items that aren't really swords. I have my own definition and it is basically "I know one when I see one" but I can't describe it except in terms that always turn out to be unsatisfactory.

[Anders Backlund]

I would define a sword as: "A weapon intended to be used for swordsmanship, or any close intentional representation of such a weapon."

[Dan Howard]

That's a cop out. First you have to define "weapon" and "swordsmanship".

[Anders Backlund]

Ah, but if so, first you must define "cop out" and "define."

[William P]

also at what point does a dagger become a sword?

and some swords dont have edges, like the estoc, which is essentially a gigantic steel needle on a sword handle.

[Dan Howard]

[Johan Gemvik]

A real sword is designed and manufactured to be a functional and deadly weapon in the form of a cutting and/or thrusting inclined blade.

IMO though one doesn't belittle real swords or falsely name the object if one calls a fake used for ceremonial purposes a ceremonial masonic sword or similar things. We have to call it something and everyday people would see it as a sword since it looks like, or aguably is the same iconic type of object, just lacking part of all of the deadly effect to it.

To separate real from fake I usually call the real swords "sharps" or the full "real sharp swords".

[Artis Aboltins]

Well, with regards to ceremonial swords - at least some of those are just as real a weapon if used as such, as non-ceremonial ones. I have seen at least one, made by Peter Johnsson up close, and well it is as real a sword as any other... so it is not a good idea, IMO, to lump all ceremonial swords into one huge heap marked by sign "useless trash vaguely sword-like objects."

[Sam Barris]

It has been many a year since I lifted my first sword from its box in awe. It was from Museum Replicas, which at the time offered the best replicas of which I was aware. Still, even at the time something about it felt off. It did not feel like it wanted to move. My understanding of the techniques of the longsword were limited to John Clements' Medieval Swordsmanship, as well of a bit of fencing and kendo I'd picked up here and there. Not much to work with, but enough to know that something vital was missing from the weapon I'd purchased, and that bothered me, even though I was certain that the "weapon" would never see actual violence.

Years later, I drew my first Albion from its box and it was as if I'd reached the end of a Zen parable; "And in that moment, he was Enlightened." Yeah, that's the stuff. I've gone on to have similar experiences with other Albion, A&A and Bugei swords, as well as a fantastic custom falchion from you, Michael. I am very fortunate in that respect. Still, these weapons will also never see actual violence, though I'm certain any faults they might exhibit in said act would be entirely due to the shortcomings of the wielder.

I have carried two blades in the course of my military duties: a Bugei Hissatsu and my Navy dress saber. The Hissatsu was never drawn in anger (a good thing, that!), and the dress saber was obviously only worn on a few occasions as an accessory to my uniform. So in answering your question, I confess that I don't exactly know what makes a sword a sword. My dress saber is a gaudy wall-hanger by any standard. Superfluous male jewelry much like my ribbons and medals. Yet it is the only sword I own that still maintains a militarily legitimate role in the world, and I refuse to give it less than its due in that context. Heck, in that context it may well be the only real sword I own, and perhaps my Svante is merely an expensive toy for a boy who once found himself with more money than he knew what to do with. I don't like thinking this, because my Svante is utterly and completely magnificent, and my appreciation for it has only deepened in the years since it entered my collection. The same goes for every blade through which I have gained a tiny flash of insight into the mystery of swordness. Even my old Museum Replicas beater (not that I ever used it thus) is now viewed through a lens of fond nostalgia of a time when WMA was still in the process of being born, when Hank's breathless enthusiasm about distil taper seemed like high alchemy to a certain young man who was once me.

Maybe they're all swords, in their own way. Even the crappy ones.

[Michael Pikula]

[Chad Arnow]

Coming to agreement on this will be as easy as agreeing on the definitions of "historical accuracy," "good value/price," or "best sword." We all have different needs and purposes in collecting these things, ideas that have been discussed in other threads.

For me, the item must look and function as a period item would, despite the fact that I'll never face off with some uppity Saxon hordes. I have tools in my toolbox that I bought in case I need them. They're still tools even if I haven't used them yet. A screwdriver is a screwdriver to me even if it has never driven a screw in. Defining something by its intended use invalidates it until it is used in its intended fashion. It's like saying a screwdriver is not a screwdriver once it's made, packaged, shipped, displayed at a store, and bought but only after someone has used it. Using that definition, does something ever stop being a tool? If I use a screwdriver once and never again, was it only a tool while it turned righty-tighty, lefty-loosey and not before or after? I think not.

For me, tools (including swords) are defined by how well they are capable of performing their intended function when, if ever, called upon to do so. How well they capture the spirit of their forebears in form and functionality. I'm less concerned with modern materials and methods as it's difficult to find smiths that use period materials and techniques exclusively (no electricity allowed! ).

[Anders Backlund]