Sword typology

[JeanryChandler]

I'm trying to work out a basic sword typology for RPG games. As many of you know, to this very day most people familiar with RPG or fantasy computer games (ala Everquest etc.) are confused to the degree that they think a "long sword" means an arming sword, "studded leather armor" "splint mail" and "banded mail" were a real types of armor, and etc.

In trying to classify different types of long swords though I'm running into difficulty. I'm trying to establish the actual difference, if any, between "long swords", "bastard swords" and "Great swords" or "war swords". These terms are used so interchangably that researching this is very confusing. Oakshottes typology helps, but is seemingly more organized chronologically than by functional types.

My working assumption is as follows:

A long sword is two things, the early long sword, basically an arming sword with a longer grip for two hands, normally with a parallel blade with a simple flat blade cross section. The later long sword is a more sophisticated weapon with a sharper point, and a stiffer, longer, armor piercing blade with a flattened diamond or hexagonal cross section with multiple fullers, equally efficient at thrusting and cutting.

A bastard sword is basically a two handed (or hand and a half) cut- and -thrust sword. Tapering to a sharp point, with a diamond cross section, and a complex hilt for finger-over- the- guard grips suitible for thrusting. Still good at cutting but slightly more emphasized for thrusting. Lighter than most other types of long swords.

And a Great sword, is a kind of throw back to the early long sword type, with the flat parallel blade for unarmored opponents, except longer, maybe as much as 6-10" longer in the blade, and incorporating the sophisticated mulitple fulers. often built with a long ricasso, sometimes with siderings.

How far off am I? Is it possible to make such rigid distinctions between these thre types? Do I need totally different types? any help would be appreciated.

JR

And a great sword

[Craig Peters]

Jeanry

The problem with trying to classify swords into general categories is that each sword functions differently. Each sword is a unique weapon, and handles differently from other swords. To really get an idea of what I mean, I will use a two part analogy.

First of all, different longswords are somewhat similar to different handguns. For example, consider a Glock 17 and Colt .45. Both of these guns are called handguns and both have a similar basic structure. But anyone who has fired both of these weapons will tell you that a Glock 17 responds differently from a Colt .45. Likewise, a longsword produced in Germany will not handle the same way as a similar weapon produced in England.

Suppose we eliminate the cross-cultural factor in our comparison of longswords and instead compare two longswords made by the same swordsmith. Will the swords be similar enough that we could lump them together in the same category of sword type? Almost certainly. However, like musical instruments, where no two are exactly alike, even "duplicates" of the same sword probably had some minute, though possibly noticeable differences in handling.

So I guess my answer is that it depends how much detail you want to go into in your game. For most people, simply having a type of sword called a "longsword" that is exactly the same as all other longswords is sufficient for their game. However, if you want to go into more detail, you might even try creating a few types of "longsword" and changing the statistics slightly for them, such as whether it is superior at strikes and cuts, or superior at thrusting, a little more rigid, a little more flexible, etc. I hope I was of some assistance to you. <img src="http://www.thearma.org/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

[JeanryChandler]

Craig,

I understand your point, but I think an effort can still be made to narrow down these terms somewhat. In historical times a lot of technical terms tended to be used more or less nterchangably, the Masters themselves sometimes did this. Modern historians and medieval fencing enthusiasts have tried to bring some order to the jumble.

I'm not making an RPG, I'm kind of interested in producing documents which help to educate the general public on these matters, including gamers. Most people who know anything about medieval warfare or weaponry get their knowlege from computer or paper and pencil games, and live action role playing. The equipment data in most LARPS or RPG's is based more or less uncritically on research of largely indifferent quality that was done in the 1970s. From there this bogus misinformation spreads into books, film, TV, and throughout society. As a result, when you say the word 'long sword" to many people, who may have some familiarity with LARP, RPG's or Fantasy Computer games like Everquest or Ultima Online, they think you mean a single - hand knightly sword like an arming sword. Similarly they use the term broadsword to refer to anything from an arming sword to a greatsword.

I am trying to come up with a useful library of data that represents the current laymans state of the art, which can assist people involved in games on the design level and players better emulate historical reality, should they wish to do so. My theory is that the more functional and nuanced aspects of historical realism, if presented efficiently and accessably, will make it more popular in these genres over time. Realism per se has a bad rep right now largely because attempts to convey it to these mediums in the past
were done in a very clumsy and inept manner, which increased complexity without really enhancing realism.

We use these terms, single sword, long sword, bastard sword, great sword, sword of war, etc., so I think we should define them if we can. John Clements has been active in trying to correct the misuse of the term Broadsword, for example. Linguists and historical experts have recently reclassified the Scottish Highland greatsword most people know of as a 'claymore' as a Claidheamh de Laimh, where the original term claidheamh-mor now refers to much later era basket-hilt swords (if I understand this correctly). The Roman Gladius has been classified into recognizable variants from the different archeological finds.... the term "scimetar" has been abandoned in favor of historically specific weapon types such as the tulwar and the shamshir. The term "chainmail" is increasingly being replaced by the simpler and more accurate term "maile" or "mail". I could go on and on...

What I want to know, is do the terms bastard sword, war sword, great sword etc. have specific meanings which distinguish them from the longsword, or are they semi-generic terms with no real meaning.
If they do have specific meanings, such as my contention that a bastard sword is a cut and thrust long sword, then what are these as readers of this list best understand them.

I'd also be interested in any help with classification of the whole backsword / hanger / broadsword family of military swords....

JR

[JeanryChandler]

I recommend contacting "The Riddle of Steel" designer Jake Norwood

I think 'The Riddle of Steel' is one of the best RPG's out there due largely to the realistic basis of it's combat system. I posted links to the first half of an article I wrote about realism in role playing games to the TROS forum on "the forge", where it met with some support but also a certain amount of hostility from the large numbers of RPG people who are hostile to any attempt to improve realism on principle.

It's a testament to both the quality of Jakes idea for his game, and the inherent drama of realistic combat that his game is so popular in spite of the general industry-wide dislike of realism.

Bastard sword is defined by blade shape--accutely tapering with a more rigid cross section. Long sword is more of a catch all term covering bastard sword, sword of war

This is my basic theory as well. I have also come to understand that Bastard swords are more likely to have complex hilts including such features as finger rings and side rings. Can anyone think of a systematic way to discern long swords from great swords or war swords?

JR

[Casper Bradak]

I can't remember where, though I'm sure it was in some renaissance fencing manual, that "a bastard sword is something shorter than a long sword, and longer than a short sword". Which says to me that it's a primarily single handed sword, with a staggered or "hand and a half" grip for the option of 2. Whereas right next to that would be the longsword, a primarily 2 handed weapon that can be used with one. I don't think blade form has anything to do with it as there are nearly as many blade forms as weapons. I think the difference between a greatsword and a longsword is that a greatsword will be obviously a purely 2 hnded weapon, where using it with one hand would put you at a far greater disadvantage than with a longsword. It's my understanding as well that a sword of war is just a longsword, but often used in reference to the earlier variety.
Dagger types as examples, there were 7 basic medieval forms of western combat knives, almost any of which could have one of several types of blades.
Thoughts?

[Tony_Indurante]

I posted links to the first half of an article I wrote about realism in role playing games to the TROS forum on "the forge", where it met with some support but also a certain amount of hostility from the large numbers of RPG people who are hostile to any attempt to improve realism on principle.

Bob,

This isn't the right forum for this type of discussion, especially as the ARMA isn't about rpg design- but in that discussion the folks were not against realism, they were against including "realism" unless it was a specific design feature of a particular game system. Some games need realism, some games don't- it all depends on what type of game you are designing. In a couple of spots your article came across a bit condescending about the topic- and some really good stuff was lost because folks were turned off by that type of discussion style. Again, this topic is really not for this board, and I should have probably replied via PM, so Bob- if you'd like to discuss this more let's take it to pm, email or a more appropriate discussion board, ok?

[JeanryChandler]

I can't remember where, though I'm sure it was in some renaissance fencing manual, that "a bastard sword is something shorter than a long sword, and longer than a short sword". Which says to me that it's a primarily single handed sword, with a staggered or "hand and a half" grip for the option of 2.

I believe this is the older popular definition of a bastard sword, and I could be wrong but I don't think it is correct. I have seen many photos of swords identified as bastard swords, including on the ARMA site, which seemed to be quite as long as any long sword or great sword I have seen. I beleive the categorization of the Bastard sword does have to do with the blade type. But I'm not certain which is why I posted this thread here! Hopefully someone more knowlegable will enlighten us.

Dagger types as examples, there were 7 basic medieval forms of western combat knives, almost any of which could have one of several types of blades.

Actually, I think this is also an outdated mode of analysis. From what I understand, (I'm paraphrasing John C. here) in the 19th century, swords (and dagger) were primarily categorized in terms of their hilts, by art dealers and museum curators with no working knowlege of how swords were used and no real understanding of the historical record of their use (for example if blades were intended for dealing with certain types of armor) Ewart Oakeshott was one of the first people to attempt to categorize swords by more relevant factors such as blade shapes, lengths, weight, and blade cross-sections in addition to the pommels, which is a big part of what made him so important.

I also believe there are considerably more than 7 basic European types of daggers or fighting knives. Here is a link to an early and woefully incomplete attempt I once did to categorize daggers and some single hand swords of the West.

http://bellsouthpwp.net/d/e/deodand23/Blades/Blades2a.htm

There are more swords in that doc than knives, but lets see, off the top of my head I can think of the seax family, the rondel, the bassilard, the Scottish dirk, the Roman pugia, the stiletto, the coustille, the German dussack, the convex- bladed falcata types, the main gauche and the whole family of blocking daggers, the wave bladed Kris type knives (which were big in Europe as well as the middle east and Asia), and the Spanish cinqueda... just to name a few.

JR

[JeanryChandler]

This isn't the right forum for this type of discussion, especially as the ARMA isn't about rpg design

I'd really rather only discuss weapon typology here, which is I think a subject relevant to this forum. Or so I hope <img src="http://www.thearma.org/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" />

they were against including "realism" unless it was a specific design feature of a particular game system.

I think they were missing the point, because I wasn't deamnding realism as they understand it be put in, as I've stated here I was and still am just trying to re-examine and improve the foundation of data which all those games rely on regardless of the focus of the specific game. I admit, for the record, I am often sarcastic and condescending.

if you'd like to discuss this more let's take it to pm, email or a more appropriate discussion board, ok?

We can discuss it on the Forge when part 2 of my essay comes out, and the whole debate flares up again as it no doubt will.

All I want to talk about here in this thread in the ARMA forum is what terms can correctly be applied to what specific historical weapon types, something I thought would be near and dear to the hearts of many ARMA members.

JR

[Casper Bradak]

"I also believe there are considerably more than 7 basic European types of daggers or fighting knives."
That's very true, but I said "medieval", of which there are 7 basic varieties of hilt forms. If you don't specify a time period the list is longer.

[JeanryChandler]

That's very true, but I said "medieval", of which there are 7 basic varieties of hilt forms. If you don't specify a time period the list is longer

True enough, my bad... So what are the seven types then?

JR

[Casper Bradak]

This is a basic list, and of course could be broken down, but I think it pretty well covers it
Rondel
Baselards
Quillon
Ballock
Eared
Cinquedeas
Peasant knives
Like I said, (almost) all of these, especially the more military ones, used any and all of the existing blade forms of the time. I think daggers are more apt to be defined by their hilt form than their blades, though of course their blades define their ultimate use.

[JeanryChandler]

http://bellsouthpwp.net/d/e/deodand23/Sword-Typology.doc

Ok, barring anything better, and any helpful feedback from here and a couple of other palces, I'm going to do my entry on these weapons based on this analysis and interpretation of Oakeshottes typology. You can see it at the above link as a word doc.

I'm wondering, from what I have read of Oakeshottes analysis, with all due respect he seems to list many swords as being heavier than most modern reports I have read, including here on ARMA. Oakeshott describes many of these swords as ranging in weight from 3-4 pounds to as much as 5.5 pounds for the type XVII, when other accounts I have read of this type of sword (two handed cut-and-thrust types) indicated that they were very light, under 3 pounds. Can somebody explain this?

JR

[Casper Bradak]

When in doubt go with the most current information in this case I think. I just flipped through a book or two of his and he describes a type XVII as being just over 2 lbs.