A Sword by any Other Name is a piece of cutlery - for humans

I like that title, but it has nothing to do with what I am about to write about. 

So, some of you may know I am working on an expansion of the Arms and Armor book. This requires some research into weapons, their use, their manufacture, and their history. A lot of things strike me. Several of the most notable, of which I was aware but still strike me, is how weapon development was related to armor development, cultural selection, tactical consideration, strategic utility, resource availability, and craftsman skill. That about covers it. What is really cool is how the sword changes from time to time and place to place.

I think the most common view of the word is that of the late Merovingian or Carolingian periods. This would be a a double edged straight sword with a fuller running nearly the entire length of the blade. The blade is broad at the base and narrows toward the tip. The tip is beveled or rounded and not generally pointed. The pommel has a quillion and the base of the pommel a round knob series of knobs. Overall it was about three feet long and weighed two and half pounds. The blade is designed for cutting or hacking, not for thrusting attacks.

Through the next five hundred years or so, the sword would undergo so many permutations it would be an encyclopedic task just to track. Long story short though, be the end of the Medieval period and just before the introduction and widespread use of guns, the more common sword is an arming sword. Armor had changed, tactics changed, strategy changed, force disposition changed, technology advanced, and economies of scale were developing. So of course the sword changed. 

The arming sword is, like its predecessor and seemingly simple design with few changes. A lot had changed through. The arming sword was about 3 feet long and weighed, roughly 3 pounds. The grip and pommel were designed for one handed use. The blade is broad at the base and has a ridge extending at least two thirds its length. Significantly, the blade tapers from its base to its sharpened tip. The arming sword was designed to pierce armor or to be thrust into gaps in armor. 

The differences may seem minuscule, but they are not. Each had its own purpose and utility. Each was designed under a specific set of circumstances and needs. During the 900's heavy armors, such as chain, were not the norm, though chain would shortly become ubiquitous. The swords of the time had spatulated tips (beveled or rounded) making chain armor very effective against any thrusting attacks and even diverting and hampering slashing attacks. Swords changed. Once plate and mail and full were developed, swords like those found in the 900s were nearly useless for attacking. On the other hand, swords with long and narrow blades sharpened at the tips had a better chance of piercing armor and allowing for thrusts inside armor gaps. There were thousands of iterations in between.

Just something to note as this is going into the arms and armor book as I build a chart for weapons versus armor.... yes I am going there.