[Sam Arwas]

There doesn't seem to be a general consensus on what an arming sword is on these forums (or anywhere else for that matter). Some people will call any kind of medieval one handed sword an arming sword while others have there own varying criteria .

I personally see this term as refering to one-handed lenticular section swords from the High Middle Ages, Group One in Oakeshott's classification system (types x to xiv) with the possible exclusion of parent type x, type xiia and type xiiia.

I would find it helpful to get a sense of what other people consider the term to mean to reduce somewhat of the confusion when discussing these types of sword because they are the ones I am most interested in and will spend the most time discussing.

[Mike Ruhala]

Honestly I don't think there can ever be anything like solid definitions for these terms. Most often the OG's seem to have referred to their weapon as "sword" in their native language regardless of its specific configuration and if it was something exotic chances are they called it "sword" in a foreign language. When occasionally there is a more precise term than "sword" chances are it has multiple meanings depending on era and context. Consider the word "longsword" for instance. A subset of modern enthusiasts are pushing to try and make "longsword" mean a sword that can be used in two hands but is on the smaller end of that spectrum whereas the only actual historical definition for that term that I can find comes from Andre Paurnfeyndt and makes it clear that *any* sword in two hands is a longsword, from the reitschwert up to the schlachtschwert. Coincidentally "reitschwert" meanings "riding sword" which is often used nowadays to refer to single handed sword with a short blade, never a 4 foot long XVIIIb as a 15th/16th century German swordsman would have understood it. Even then I understand that the word "longsword" was first applied to long single-handed swords before extended grips were a thing and probably has something to do with the old Roman system with the spatha(and its derivatives) being the long sword and the gladius(and its derivatives) being the short sword. By the 15th century "short sword" comes to mean wielding your sword with one hand on the grip and the other on the blade. That's how it goes.

Sooo... the best I would try to do with "arming sword," which is a term I do use for convenience, is "a full sized(greater than 30" blade) single-handed, double-edged sword of a type used during the 11th through 15th centuries."

[Stephen Curtin]

I don't think that names such as "arming sword" are particularly useful. I would just call it a sword, and if further classification is required, just use Oakeshott's typology.

[Alan E]

"Arming sword" = the sword I habitually put on when I arm up.

"Long sword" = the longest sword I have.

"Short sword" = the shortest sword I have.

That's about the sum of the way the words seem to have been used AFAICT.

[Kel Rekuta]

I second Alan's comment.

[Luka Borscak]

As a reenactor, I call my 2 reenactment swords longsword and single handed sword (Single handed is one word in Croatian so it's easier to use. ) only when there is a chance someone will not know which sword of the two I'm talking about. For example if I tell my squire to bring me my sword, if I want specifically longsword or single handed one, I will tell him so. If it's not really important which sword I'm talking about, I just call them "sword". I suppose that was the way back then too.