[Bob Burns]

At what point does a dagger become a sword? Why is it that the high quality production daggers that are available all seem to terminate at 12 inches in blade length? Didn't people of the medieval era carry daggers with longer blades, like say 14 or 15 inches? I have seen one available production dagger with a long blade at what is probably moderate quality from Windlass I think it is? Name of the dagger that I found is called the "Coustile".
From what I have seen the options of blade length in high quality production daggers is very limited. Why is this?

Happy Collecting,

Bob

[Derek St.]

I was thinking the same thing the other day. Why are the daggers so short? I would love if a company came out with a 17 inch blade that is about 1 to and 1 1/2 (inchs) at the guard that tapers down to a nice point and of diamond cross-section. But to much searching i also couldn't find anything like this? Was it just not done in the past? I also would like to know very much.





Derek MOGARTH Street

[Jean Thibodeau]

Bob;

I have the Anelace dagger from MRL ( Windlass made ) that has a very wide triangular blade 14" long.

Calling something a short sword or a long dagger can be tradition or arbitrary.

I have my own theory of when I will consider something a short sword rather than a dagger and it usually means at least a 12" blade and very stout: A large Bowie knife could be viewed as a short sword because it has the weight for heavy chopping cuts.

Between 12" and 20" is the zone were a blade could be one or the other: Heavier blades I find easier to class as swords and the closer to 20" the easier it is.

At 12" only the heaviest of blade would qualify and I would be more inclined to call it a knife or dagger.

As you can see It's mostly a case by case basis and works at least just for me as a way to decide for myself which I think it is which.

Not just looks either, I would also go by feel i.e. This feels like a sword or this feels like a dagger or knife.

I don't think there is a precise set of measurements that will make it easy to decide at least not in the midsize grey zone.

[Jonathon Janusz]

Keep your eyes open for atrims, and pick one up if you get the chance - approx. 22" overall length of dagger nirvana. I know what you mean; many folk's definition of "dagger" is my definition of "knife".

One other thing I've noticed - not too many sword-hilted medieval pieces in the higher end of the market. Most seem to either float too early in period (pre-1066) or later (15th-16th century). They are kind of a hard beast to track down.

[Patrick Kelly]

[Eric Nower]

Generaly, weren't the daggers carried in battle bigger than the ones used in everyday life?

[Alexi Goranov]

[Patrick Kelly]

[Bob Burns]

Once again, thanks Patrick for your enlightenment and what you said makes a lot of sense. I did know one thing, that a person's knife or dagger was the central tool of his or her everyday life, that much I knew. LOL
This sure is a fascinating hobby when it's all new to you, I have experienced this status in other circles of my life and it is a whole lot of fun and enjoyment. Like when I first started out in genealogy, I spent thousands of hours in researching my mother's roots, traveling the course of all the lines, not just her paternal roots, I hunted down every string of the spider web till I exhausted each and every one of them, like a ferret on steroids. LOL!
The difference between this and genealogy is that I can actually hold an exacting as possible replica in my hands, the desired find of the hunt materializes.

Are any of you familiar with the "Coustile" made by I think it is Windlass ?


Happy Collecting,

Bob

[Chad Arnow]

[Joe Maccarrone]

[Bill Grandy]

[Joe Maccarrone]

[Geoffrey H]

I think some of you guys need to get out your tape mesures and have a look at the difference between 12 and 17 inches. When you all talk in inches I often need to get out my tape mesure and have a look (as I'm used to centimeters). From this point of view a 17 inch (42.5 cm) blade seems (to me) to be unwieldey when used any way but underhand. The length I would be looking for in a dagger (a weapon for close grappling conflict) needs to be short enough to use a varietey of useful techniqes, but long enough to kill, possibly through armor. When you are fighting an opponent close up, having a very long dagger could possibly by a liability rather than an advantage. Finally, from the viewpoint of the evolution of weapons, I feel that if the majority of historical daggers were around 12 inches then this must be rooted in when people found to be most effective for dagger fighting at the time.

Were contempoary dagger fighting techiques and sword techinqes quite different? If so then it makes sense that daggers and swords are quite different.

As for the difference between daggers and swords of similar length, I can imagine a very long dagger designed for pericing armor, and a similar length shortsword. In my mind you can start to call something of that length a sword if it has both an edge for cutting and a point for thrusting. A dagger if it is for thrusting only, and a (huge) knife if it only has an edge for cutting (of hacking). Furthermore, to me a knife is something that clearly can be used as a tool (hence it has an edge and a less agressive point), a dagger is primarily a thing for killing (hence a very agressive point), and a sword is a weapon designed for fighting armed opponents.

[Mikko Kuusirati]

FWIW, Lutel makes a large 15th Century dagger (0.95kg, 40cm blade). Model 10042, near the bottom of the Daggers section of his catalog. It's been reviewed on myArmoury.com, too.

[Elling Polden]

13th cent. norwegian sources state that as a fighting man, you should carry a "goodbrynkniv "apparently a long bladed dagger made for defeating armour. (bryje=mail)
Wearing these knifes, known as "Rytning", or Rider/knight knifes, where banned in the city of Bergen in 1274, probably because they where a pure bred weapon, with no other use than killing.

[Eric Nower]

This is pretty interesting......

I was under the general impression that knives or daggers were carried everyday....an item like a cell phone today, everybody had one because it was funtional at the time. When a battle ensued the soliders would "upgrade" to a larger more combat -like knife or dagger. Aparrently not , they would have still used that "everyday common knife" until the 1400's....am I understamding that right?

[Elling Polden]

The "Brynkniv" was a combat knife, probably akin to the roundel dagger. Roundels are a pure stabbing impliment, and thus about as usefull as a nail.
The knifes carried for practical purposes where small, with a blade length of only a few inches.

[Daniel Parry]

That's interesting, Patrick, what you say about daggers not being apparent with armour until the mid-fourteenth century. I wonder why. It would seem to me a fairly obvious thing to add one on, on a 'just in case' principle on the grounds they're not terribly heavy or bulky and it might come in useful. Unless there's some practical reason not to ?

On the length of daggers, I've heard it said that there was also the issue of local laws regarding who could carry swords and where, and that long daggers may have a bit of statutory avoidance - i.e. as long as you can get without it being officially a sword. Don't know if anyone has heard this or has any opinions for or to the contrary.

Daniel

[Patrick Kelly]