Is it a Sidesword? The Sword with Far Too Many Names

[James Brazas]

I've found that with new students in our group, they often come with preconceived ideas about what to call various weapons. Obviously, the "broadsword" is the worst offender. But we've had some deeper diffuculties with nomenclature.

For longswords, it's easy. Everyone calls it the longsword. Some varieties can be called b@astard swords, greatswords, or war swords (epee du guerre). But basically everyone is in agreement that "longsword" is the preferred term (langeschwert, spada longa).

For arming swords, it's also pretty easy. The only other names I've ever seen for them would be short swords, riding swords, or simply "swords." But when we want to get specific, we all basically call it the arming sword.

The rapier, falchion, messer, spear, staff, and pollaxe all likewise have firmly established names and definitions.

But the "sidesword" seems to be the sword with far too many names.

Mair and Meyer called it the "rappier."

Silver called it the "short sword."

Many italian schools called them "spada da lato" (sidesword) or "spada da filo" (I'm guessing that means sharp sword or edged sword). I know that many Bolognese practitioners prefer the term Spada da Filo.

The Spanish called them "espada ropera" (dress swords).

Victorians often called them rapiers, sword-rapiers, military rapiers, or cutting-rapiers.

They are also often called cut-and-thrust swords.

Then, many manuals simply called them "swords" (to differentiate them from the civilian rapier).

Compounding this difficulty is that these weapons weren't all the same. Often, the more cutting-oriented "sideswords" seem to be nothing more than arming swords with finger rings or side rings. So the difference between an arming sword and a military-oriented "sidesword" could be very slight. On the other end of the spectrum, many more civilian oriented "sideswords" would be nearly indistinguishable from the "true" civilian rapier.

I have usually called them sideswords, but I always get that puzzled look on people's faces as they say "What's that? The side of what? It looks like a rapier to me."

So what would the preferred term be?

I'm assuming that the preferred term would be a term used by swordsman in the Renaissance, as well as a term which is appropriately specific.

Afterall, "sword" doesn't help us much. "Cut-and-thrust" sword is pretty vague since virtually any sword can cut or thrust. Spada da filo could work, but I don't like it since the vast majority of swords are sharp/edged anyway, so it also doesn't say much.

I'm leaning towards calling them sideswords or possibly military rappier.

Of course, if there's one term that was most often used in the Renaissance, then that would trump all other considerations since historical accuracy is the goal.

Thoughts?

[Roger Norling]

Many terms are modern attempts at differentiating between various weapons, thus terms like Cut&Thrust swords, Sideswords etc. Also Federschwert, Zweihänder, Greatsword, Broadsword etc belong to this category. Arming sword appears to go back to about 1590, which really is well after its time.

In the Renaissance they basically only used (Langen) Schwert, Reitschwert (which varied greatly in design from longsword to rappier), Schlachtschwert (Two handed sword), Dussack (a sabre), and Rap(p)ier. Both Mair and Meyer, which were the first two German sources to handle it calls it this.

Some feel that others will confuse this with the later thrusting-oriented rapier, but to me that is like giving a new name to a thrusting oriented longsword trying to differentiate it from a cutting oriented longsword.

Basically it is a personal thing. More differentiation can be useful sometimes, but among peers I think older terminology works just fine.

[Stacy Clifford]

It really doesn't even look like there was wide agreement in their own time. The sword used in Di Grassi is slender but clearly capable of cutting, since he tells us to do so with it. The original Italian manual from 1570 simply calls it spada, or "sword", while the 1594 English translation calls it a "rapier". Think soda vs. coke vs. pop - we all know what it refers to, but good luck ever getting yankees and southerners (or Englishmen and Italians) to agree on a name. We use modern terminology to try to create agreement where history didn't feel the need, or even actively fought against it. I think the best approach is if you are referring to a specific location or time period, use the local terminology; if you are trying to describe swords across multiple countries, decades, or centuries, you're probably going to need modern terms, but be sure to define them for your readers to avoid confusion.

[James Brazas]

Roger Norling:

Thanks!

It sounds like, at least within the German tradition, the preferred term is definitely "rappier." So it's good to know there is a definitive answer (at least when studying Meyer/Mair).

Of course, to avoid confusion, we could make sure students understand the difference between the military-oriented rappier (aka sidesword) and the civilian-oriented rappier (aka "true" rapier).



Stacy Clifford:

That makes a lot of sense. Afterall, we have manuals stretching across several very different centuries and countries.

It sounds like it's rather unclear what to call the "rappier" from an Italian perspective, an English perspective, or a Pan-European perspective.

I guess if we were going for a Pan-European term (if that's possible), we should either use the English term (since we speak English) or the Italian term (since most of the surviving sidesword/rappier manuals are Italian).

Was there a term specifying this sidesword/rappier in England or Italy?

If it's possible, I'd rather use a historical term than a term coined centuries later.

[Stacy Clifford]

Sometimes I believe we're overthinking the terminology. More often than not in English, if it was a single-hand weapon, had two edges, and could cut, regardless of ornamentation, it was just "a sword" and didn't need any other special designation. If it had one edge it was a backsword, if it had no edges or no useful edges it was either a rapier or a tuck, but rapier and "sword" had some overlap depending on who you asked. There are things you can say are definitely a rapier and things you can say are definitely not, but the overlap is probably impossible to avoid completely both then and now. The war between the lumpers and the splitters will never end. When in doubt though, perhaps sometimes a sword is just a sword.

[Vincent Le Chevalier]

It seems that the term "rapier" was restricted in use to the English or German influenced parts, at least in the technical sources (and applied to a variety of weapons, on top of that). For the rest it's just a "sword" (spada, espada, épée and so on).
That article from Tom Leoni is relevant I think:
The rapier revisited

I tend to call all of them (including your sideswords) rapiers now, as the less informed people tend to associate that name (if they know it at all) with weapons used out of armor with complex hilts. The informed people already know the problem

Regards,

[Stacy Clifford]

That reminds me, this article also covers a lot of questions:

Questions and Answers About the Rapier

[James Brazas]

Thanks!

Those articles were informative and they explained a lot of the reasons for the confusion.

It sounds like, as far as historical terms go, rappier works for Meyer/Mair, short sword for Silver, and either (Renaissance) sword or (military) rapier for everything else.

No matter what, I'd probably have to explain the difference between the shorter, better-cutting military swords/rapiers that could thrust through maille or into the gaps of plate vs. the longer, thinner civilian rapiers designed solely for unarmored combat.

[LafayetteCCurtis]

It's worth noting that Meyer/Sutor's rappier and the Bolognese sword styles are all civilian duelling styles; while competent practitioners of these styles would probably have had a significant edge over untrained opponents on the battlefield, the styles themselves were principally intended for duels and self-defence in civilian situations.

[James Brazas]

Hm. True. I guess that makes it more difficult to call it a "military" rappier/rapier.

Even if they were civilian fencing styles, I'm assuming that the weapon itself was the same as those used on the battlefield. Am I correct?

If so, then it would still be a military rapier. If not, then there goes my attempt to find a historical term.

Would Di Grassi or Silver be considered more military oriented?

If the "military rapier" term fails, then I guess we're just left with rapier, rappier, short sword, or sidesword.

Rapier is confusing since the "true" civilian rapier had a very different blade from Mair's rappier, Marozzo's sword, or Silver's short sword - and they were all used very differently from the "true" civilian rapier.

Rappier is accurate for Meyer/Mair, but it's just looks like a typo to English speakers. So it might not be wise to use out of a Meyer/Mair context.

Short sword could work, though that gets confusing since it's actually really long compared to earlier swords. Then there's the fact that I'm pretty sure Silver is the only master to call it a "short sword." But it still seems like one of the better remaining options. There would at least be less confusion or conflation of terms.

Renaissance sword could work, but all the swords we study are swords from the Renaissance.

So that might bring us back to sidesword, a nonhistorical term, but at least easily identifiable and commonly understood in HEMA circles.

[LafayetteCCurtis]

Don't sweat it. You only have to pick or define a term that makes sense to your group, and if everything else fails you could just pick up the sword in question and say "we're going to practice this.

[James Brazas]

Fair enough. That makes sense.

But it really would be nice if there was an actual answer - or at least a term that the preponderance of masters would have recognized.

It looks like all there is are historical terms that are only valid for certain masters or geographic areas (rappier, short sword), terms that are valid but extremely vague (sword, rapier), and terms that are nonhistorical but clear (sidesword).

Maybe I'll just go with sidesword afterall.