Talk:Knightly sword

Merge from Arming-Sword

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

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

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

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'?

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

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)

Requested move 20 September 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 01:41, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

---

Knightly sword → Arming sword – First, I hope I'm following the correct process, moving a page seems a bit arcane (at least for a long-time listener, first-time caller, like me). Anyway, in Historical European martial arts circles, such as YouTube channel Schola Gladiatoria, the term "arming sword" is very much the standard for this category of sword: one-handed double-edged cut-and-thrust swords, typically with cruciform hilts and modest profile taper. I've heard the phrase "knightly sword," but only perhaps 2% as often. At least one editor seems to agree (see below). For what it's worth, the nearest reference I have to hand ("Weapon: A Visual History of Arms and Armor", published by Dorling Kindersley 2006) used neither term. From what I gather, historical sources consistently just used their word for "sword," so either phrase is a modern coining by haplologists. Jon of All Trades (talk) 04:10, 20 September 2020 (UTC)—Relisting. 2pou (talk) 17:41, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose Since nobody is commenting, I thought I'd attempt to figure this out. Google Ngrams data shows "knightly sword" is far more common historically, and "arming sword" only gained common use around the 2010's. The Sword in the Age of Chivalry (1994) also uses the term thus. While it may be used more in the modern day, I don't think it has enough clear precedence to be the obvious WP:COMMONNAME._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:28, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cross-shaped sword and religion

I've noticed a commonly held myth online that the "Knightly" sword is the shape it is because of Christianity. This is patently untrue. The article describes the history of the sword, but I think it would be worth having a section dispelling this myth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.39.248 (talk) 13:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Knightly sword?

Who called this article "Knightly Sword"? I'm really not even familiar with that term being used, the normal term for this type of sword is "arming sword" and I'm pretty sure the wp:commonname is "Arming Sword" - the article needs to be moved. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:18, 20 January 2022 (UTC)