Talk:Knightly sword

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.

Merging the Arming-Sword article into this one wouldn't be a bad idea, and would only necesitate adding an extra paragraph. I'm not sure why an article called "arming-sword" even exists (or why the title is hyphenated).

  • I did the merge, but it is scruffy, so i added the clean-up tag - it needs attention from someone who knows what info is pertinent and important, and when it comes to medieval swords thats just not me... Jdcooper 14:38, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

just a random surfer with a question: Does the length in the article refer to the blade length only, of the length of the entire sword (blade+hilt+ other bits?)

I was under the impression that it was discouraged for anyone to walk around armed in the medieval period (besides the standard utility knife)? Swords would have been worn for ceremonial purposes and battle but not in every day life.

Blade Type[edit]

I'm not sure that "parallel" should be specified since many were tapered. Peregrine 07:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with no contest. Parallel is an inappropriate descriptor. -- Xiliquiern 13:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Have replaced parallel with "straight bladed"

Peregrine 13:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Period of Use[edit]

Shouldn't it read 'into the 15th century and early 16th?' or somesuch? Just because the longsword increasingly replaced it doesn't mean that it disapeared. Wilhelm Ritter 17:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Picture needed[edit]

Any article about a specific type of sword is much less useful without a good picture. Mathiastck 14:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

--Actually, that particular specimen looks more like a longsword than an arming sword. Odysseas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.202.95.26 (talk) 08:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

'Knightly sword'?[edit]

I'm not convinced this is the best name, partly because when most people think of a 'knightly sword' they're as likely to think of a longsword as this shorter type of sword. I think 'arming sword' is definitely the better term here, it's specifically the shorter, 30-40" sword that this article refers to, rather than any medieval cruciform sword, which is what 'knightly sword' implies. I'd support a move to 'Arming sword' instead. Nototter (talk) 21:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

It's also pretty clear that whoever is claiming that all 'arming swords' were estocs is pretty mistaken, given that the estoc page describes an estoc as a type of longsword, with two-handed grip, where an arming sword is specifically one-handed, mostly used with a buckler or shield, something the estoc would to be too long to do ideally. Nototter (talk) 21:12, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Related later forms of swords[edit]

Originally, I added a mention of the fact that the arming sword (or knightly sword) served as a springboard for several new types of one-handed European swords during the early modern period (i.e. the 16th and 17th century, specifically). I mentioned the three key forms of these early modern successors: sideswords (spada da lato), rapiers, and the Reiteerschwerts used by cavalry (these latter seeing major use in the second half of the 16th and first half of the 17th century). However, someone had also recently added a mention of broadswords to this, and put them under the part where I mention cavalry sword evolution. This makes the contents confusing.

Not all broadswords were cavalry swords. Also, not all broadswords developed from the arming sword or the sidesword. And not all broadswords were the straight-bladed type of sword, like the sidesword, rapier and Reiteerschwert were. I singled out those three precisely because they are one-handed, straight-bladed descendants of the medieval one-handed, straight-bladed arming swords (knightly swords). They're a straightforward example, especially for readers not knowledgeable about sword evolution.

In contast, there are plenty of broadsword types that are not straight-bladed and not double-edged, unlike all three of the aforementioned descendant types. While there are plenty of early modern European broadswords that are double-edged and straight-bladed and can trace their evolution back to the arming sword (or one of its later forms), not all broadswords descended from arming swords. (In fact, there is plenty of historical evidence that the mostly single-edged broadswords developed from messers or other similar single-edged European swords. Not the arming sword.)

I've reworked the sentence slightly, to keep my previous three entries as the focus, but add "...and certain types of broadswords" as a new ending to the sentence. The mention of broadswords is a good addition, but it needs to be put into the correct context, to prevent ordinary readers from getting the wrong impression.

Thoughts, suggestions ? --ZemplinTemplar (talk) 14:09, 17 September 2017 (UTC)