Which ancient people were the first creators of the sword? and how did they do it? When people "dropped" rubbish stone and when they started using metals?
(not necessarily a specific one)
ancient swords
Which ancient people were the first creators of the sword? and how did they do it? When people "dropped" rubbish stone and when they started using metals?
(not necessarily a specific one)
we thought that the main spreaders were the CIE people (or CAIE, if you want) but according to the main war cultures that we found studying archeology, this is not true. The expansion of the CIE used stone weapons until at least the beginning of the Bronze Age (or until the middle in some areas).
Well, what I mean is that swords have always been a luxury for a minority, until the Middle Ages, without mentioning very well integrated empires (like Rome)
the use of swords as a group thing was not common.
for mentioning only Europe... and corresponding regions.
People forget that it's not just "tin", but the quality of it....
Regarding your question, who created it, we are not sure, but it was probably between Anatolia, as proto-swords were found in the region, and farmers used a lot of metal materials. East Asia may have been one of the oldest.
Wow nice
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10963-021-09155-7
article link
Anatolia
Why do you idiots keep saying that? Was the sword created in Türkiye?
read my review again.
I said that proto-swords (or daggers, if you want) have their origins in farming Anatolia.
Now, the oldest sword is practically impossible to know, each continent has its archaeological finds.
I will use Eurasia;
Although we cannot really know which people created the first swords, we can use it as which locations had a greater dispersion, in this case, in the Balkan areas. It is safe to say that at least in Europe, its origins lie in that region, which is not much of where the oldest proto-swords were found.
The Early European farmers.
They already used metals and bronze
People started using metals at different times; first gold and native copper then they discovered smelting. Swords are kind of difficult to dustinguish from daggers and there are a lot of pointy pieces of copper that you could argue fall in the sword/short sword category.
Interestingly there were also people that were making stone copies of copper/bronze swords; maybe an attempt from flint knappers to not be excluded from that market, picrel.
what if you defined a sword as a blade whose length in metal cannot be usefully copied by its length in stone?
The problem is that it's not a very clear definition; like what stone are you using, what do you mean by "usefully" etc etc
It's a very clear definition.
Daggers are primarily for stabbing rather than cutting or clubbing. Stone daggers shatter in everything except stabbing.
Copper swords didn't happen for the same reasons. So copper / early bronze daggers almost never exceeded 50cm in length.
later hard bronzes made true swords 50cm+ possible.
With a true sword you can perform every motion you want instead of being restricted to stabbing.
Also a sword is long enough that it acts as a personal space maintainer. Like an intermediate between ranged weapons (bows) and daggers.
Which texts use these and and the other anon's descriptions as a definition for swords?
Pretty much everyone. Even Wikipedia if you check out their Bronze_age_sword article.
Let me clarify, who were the pioneering theorists whose ideas or texts propagated a brilliant analytical understanding of the sword and dagger/knife difference?
Do you regularly confuse swords with daggers anon?
No but the inquiry is deeper than that. When does a dagger become a sword?
>No but the inquiry is deeper than that. When does a dagger become a sword?
There's nothing deep about being too stupid to understand what differentiates a sword from a dagger.
You're equivalent to Bertrand Russell using complicated logic over 200 pages to prove that 1+1=2 in Principia Mathematica.
>There's nothing deep about being too stupid to understand what differentiates a sword from a dagger.
Okay then Mr moron, what distinguishes a sword from a dagger.
Try to answer this so I can make a fool out of you and show it's not as simple as your room temp IQ mind thinks.
>Okay then Mr moron, what distinguishes a sword from a dagger.
Already been explained actually moronic sir.
't even understand what the fallacy is
Said the guy who said something was a fallacy when it wasn't and was mocked for that.
Nothing more than another pseudointellectual autistic child that brings up fallacies when there are none as argument ending attempts.
Because he has no valid arguments.
>muh arbitrary true sword definition is right because I said so
You are in no position to insult anyone
>>muh arbitrary true sword definition is right because I said so
>You are in no position to insult anyone
Most people aren't mentally moronic idiots like you who argue that birds are actually humans because it's just an "arbitrary distinction."
Or that men are actually women because it's just an "arbitrary distinction."
Or that Daggers are Swords because it's just an "arbitrary distinction."
Or that chainmail is plate armor because it's just an "arbitrary distinction."
>noooo my made up definition is real and everyone should accept it noooo!
What are you idiots arguing about? about what is a sword and what is a dagger?
There is no clear cut point were swords begin and daggers end
>There is no clear cut point were swords begin and daggers end
Gladius Swords are all over 50cm in length you stupid frick lol.
Friends, what if the definition of sword and dagger were more correlated with shape than size? I mean, a dagger would clearly have different functions than a sword and that would imply changes in the design of the piece.
But there is always gonna be overlap; this isn't a controvertial statement
I didn't say it was meant to be.
Why?
Where is the objective cut off point?
Quiet stupid and let the three adults (including me) talk.
Did you even read? Do you count the curve or not? Where does the sword and dagger wakizashi start and end? Wakizashis are swords, as agreed by everyone except you.
>you embarrassed yourself by bringing up the Roman gladius that are all over 50cm in length.
Not me but I support my free thinking anon.
I ask whatever I want you idiot, who are you to determine somethin? sperm deposit
You get no real engagement because you're a low IQ loser.
Why is the girl so angry? Who said I want to be involved in something like this? If your opponent is wrong, why are you so angry and aggressive? sperm deposit?
You lost
the morons are basically arguing about size.
one moron thinks that size X makes a sword, while the other sick person claims that there is more complexity to that.
There are two women, don't worry. just watch and see them fight
You're an idiot. The latter is clearly right. Even if he made a mistake with the gladius. There's no clear limit between a dagger and a sword.
>There's no clear limit between a dagger and a sword.
In fact, there is a limit.
Don't be moronic, he massacred you and now you cry like a serene man
What is the limit and why is there?
I knew it, you're afraid of looking stupid. Too late for that though.
No it hasn't you room temp IQ idiot. A wakizashi is considered a short sword moreso than a dagger in all authoritative sources. There goes your decent but still arbitrary definition.
>I knew it, you're afraid of looking stupid. Too late for that though.
Dude... Are you using a phone or something and aren't scrolling up?
>No it hasn't you room temp IQ idiot. A wakizashi is considered a short sword moreso than a dagger in all authoritative sources. There goes your decent but still arbitrary definition.
I literally said that swords are generally 50cm+ in length and you embarrassed yourself by bringing up the Roman gladius that are all over 50cm in length.
This is wrong. For bronze age swords we use a typology in which the shortest blades are iirc 28cm long and iirc the longest bronze age swords are 80cm. It's also not exactly the case of them going gor the longest possible blade either, the typical sword found around 1250BC would be type Eii which rarely goes above 40cm usually oscillating around 30cm.
In case of the bronze age weaponry clear definitions are important because we literally don't know how did they call these things so it's just archaeologists picking up a thing and trying to call ot something so it's easier to discuss it. See bronze halberds and rapiers to get a taste of how far away this is from your understanding of these terms.
>With a true sword you can perform every motion you want instead of being restricted to stabbing.
No true scotsman fallacy; your benchmark is as arbitrary as any other
>>With a true sword you can perform every motion you want instead of being restricted to stabbing.
>No true scotsman fallacy; your benchmark is as arbitrary as any other
are bipedal omnivorous hominids.
>No true Scotsman fallacy; your benchmark is as arbitrary as any other.
>doesn't even understand what the fallacy is
Pretty much everything you said is wrong.
I would think they'd be moderately effective light slashing weapons against an unarmored opponent, and a thrust also is a kind of stab.
A macuahuitl can do considerable damage so one wonders about early antler and flint sickles.
>shatter in everything except stabbing.
>Copper swords didn't happen for the same reasons.
Oh really? Copper swords would shatter?
A copper sword seems like, idk anon maybe you mean copper daggers. Very short copper daggers.
There are longish daggers/swords of arsenical copper like
. Point is the knife/dagger/sword divide is kinda arbitrary
>There are longish daggers/swords of arsenical copper like
Forgot image.. Point is the knife/dagger/sword divide is kinda arbitrary
Nobody would ever confuse that for a sword lol.
Unless it's a pop science article from Ars Technica of course.
You know. The people that knowingly employed boasting pedophiles like Peter Bright.
>it's not a sword because....uuuh
Some roman gladii were like 50cm; I guess they are now daggers.
>Some roman gladii were like 50cm; I guess they are now daggers.
Gladius Hispaniensis
"the sword was 75–85 cm (30–33 in) long"
Mainz Gladius
"The sword was 65–70 cm (26–28 in) long"
Fulham gladius
"The length of the sword is 65–70 cm (26–28 in)"
Pompeii gladius
"The length of the sword is 60–65 cm (24–26 in)"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gladius
From wikipedia
>Pompeii gladius
>blade lenght 45-68cm
What now bufoon?
>From wikipedia
gladius
lenght 45-68cm
>What now bufoon?
That's not the sword length anon...
Wow are you a fricking moron lol.
Lmao more arbitrary rules
>uuuh you have to measure the handle despite it's legth being dictated by the space needed to fit the hand because....uuuuh
>Lmao more arbitrary rules
I never said blade length anon.
You're simply a stupid autistic moron that has no idea of what he's talking about.
>says the one who made up an new definition of sword pretending it's the correct one
>>says the one who made up an new definition of sword pretending it's the correct one
It's literally the standard definition lol.
Nobody refers to anything over 50cm in length as "daggers".
Oh well if someone said it's this random number than it's settled
They do, and they also call under 50 cm blades swords.
Here are some >50 cm daggers
https://epicarmoury.com/categories/weaponry/daggers/
They seem to have defined them as such because they lack guards and probably serve as side arms suitable for making use of stabbing for the advantage of distance.
What abot a 49.7cm blade? dagger? It's basically the same as 50cm
>Swords are kind of difficult to dustinguish from daggers and there are a lot of pointy pieces of copper that you could argue fall in the sword/short sword category.
i mean i guess so yeah. this thread hasnt even gotten into aluminum swords that shift the definition of the 50 cm understanding.
S Caucasian soldiers from Trialeti Culture in mid-Bronze Age mostly wielded spears & daggers with shields, but wealthiest used meter-long swords. These swords appear to be the earliest, & their design spread to Aegean & Anatolia by Late Bronze Age.
Anatolia:
>https://arkeonews.net/the-worlds-oldest-and-first-swords-ever-discovered/#:~:text=In%20the%201980s%2C%20Marcella%20Frangipane's,alloy%20of%20arsenic%20and%20copper.
Forgot image.
That is a dagger, mister.
>These weapons have a total length of 45 to 60 cm
45 cm sword ftw, 50 cm moron btfo
oh god what did my innocent question rile up.
unless you guys can act maturely i take my question back.
There are swords with less than 40 CM on their blade and daggers with more than 40 CM from tip to cape.
Don't be fooled by the fighters below
t: guy who has worked at the company Matarluria since I was 18 years old.
LoL
The SAME guy
whats a cape
..... OP here
Who won the "debate"?
and thanks for the answers? I guess
>45.8cm
Yeah, a sword smaller than 50 cm.
>So it's a very late era weapon that wasn't even used as a sword.
You didn't know anything about wakizashis until you read pseudopedia. Wakizashis were perfect for indoor combat, which is where many crucial fights happened. Idiot.
It's a sword shorter than 50 cm, so the 50 cm limit isn't a hard set rule.
>Yeah, a sword smaller than 50 cm.
Between 45.8 and 75.8cm.
Most are obviously over 50cm long.
It's a Japanese weapon. "Sword" is a Western word.
Was used very late in the 15th/16th centuries.
Wasn't even used as a sword.
Sad...
Some but not all. Westerners respect it as a sword. You lost. I accept your concession.
>Some but not all.
Most...
>Westerners respect it as a sword.
it's a family of weapons of different length that are mostly over 50cm. So yes, It's more accurate to say wakizashi are Swords rather than Daggers.
Man you really are room temp IQ. If swords can be <50 cm, daggers can be over 50 cm. It's that simple. You're just scared of being wrong.
>Man you really are room temp IQ. If swords can be <50 cm, daggers can be over 50 cm. It's that simple. You're just scared of being wrong.
When then why have you been wrong with every example you've given?
You haven't even found a legit exception to the rule yet.
>
Lol, posting stupid memes isn't a valid argument anon.
Stupid memes like a 50 cm limit that only one loser takes seriously? Agreed.
>Stupid memes like a 50 cm limit that only one loser takes seriously? Agreed.
How can it be a meme when you haven't found one example when it isn't the case?
How are you so amazingly delusional anon?
I would also like to see your arguments.
Why isn't there a limit?
Who defined this rule?
>Who defined this rule?
The same people who defined the Mail coif as having a head circumference between 50 and 70 cm.
Because almost everyone has a head circumference withing that range.
function determines form.
That's why daggers tend to huddle around a certain range of sizes and swords around another.
Because they are used for different things...
so everything above and between 50cm is a sword and everything below that is a dagger?
>so everything above and between 50cm is a sword and everything below that is a dagger?
>So copper / early bronze daggers almost never exceeded 50cm in length.
>later hard bronzes made true swords 50cm+ possible.
That's what he's been claiming but no one else is buying it. Publishers from Oxford onward do not agree with it. He lives in a tiny 50 cm wide world.
>That's what he's been claiming but no one else is buying it. Publishers from Oxford onward do not agree with it. He lives in a tiny 50 cm wide world.
You're the only person even disagreeing with it and you aren't Oxford lol. You haven't even cited a single book yet lol.
All you've done is mention Gladius and Wakizashis that both neatly conform to my rule.
https://www.medieval-combat.net/how-long-swords/
Shortest listed sword type is 20 inches.
Once again fits in with the general 50cm rule.
I see, well, maybe the knight will make another point.
>You didn't know anything about wakizashis until you read pseudopedia.
Lol. People generally quote Wikipedia because idiots like you prefer that.
Unless it disagrees with what you are saying of course, then it's suddenly no good lol.
Daggers were mainly used to parry opponents' sword blows, for example in duels. While the sword was used in the right hand, the dagger was used in the left and sometimes also had the function of destroying the tip of the opponent's sword, since its temper was stronger in addition to sometimes its edge was serrated.
none of that matters.
What matters is that wives are not European creations, that makes me open up in my face
Swords*
Sorry jaja
Swords= farmer creation.. steppe guys lost, again
???
.
What if you made a wooden sword, sharpened it, then fire hardened the edges, then sharpened it again? Could it cut a man? Is it pointless to sharpen twice? Am I just a silly billy who knows nothing about swords? Just something I thought about in the shower the other day.
>it's an autistic nitpicking and bickering thread
yay
The dao cut through all ignorance
>Which ancient people were the first creators of the sword?
CHG Iran_N people did in the Caucasus.
>The most ancient bronze sword on record, dating from the second or third century of the 4th millennium BC. It was found in a stone tomb near Novosvobodnaya
Then it spread to Anatolia.
>The first weapons that can be described as "swords" date to around 3300 BC. They have been found in Arslantepe, Turkey, are made from arsenical bronze, and are about 60 cm (24 in) long.[2] Some of them are inlaid with silver.
Funny how what your moronic ass posted says the opposite, that the Arslatepe swordS (yeah, there are many of them while only ONE Maykop dirk exists) date to 3300 BC, while the Maykop one could date to the third millennium BC, AKA it could be many centuries more RECENT than the Arslantepe swords; by the way, if you had bothered to look at them you’d have noticed that the Arslantepe swords look NOTHING like the Maykop blade, so even if we ignore that they are probably older than it, they still would be very likely unrelated. There’s also ANOTHER Arslantepe-like sword discovered in an Armenian momastery in Venice, which the Armenians probably brought from Eastern Anatolia or Armenia.
The Maykop sword looks nothing like the Arslantepe ones, it originally was bent but I can't find that picture anymore, here it is anyway, the only Maykop sword known
Compare it with the Arslantepe ones and similar finds from Eastern Anatolia, completely different
*Looks up old bronze age swords*
They, uhh..... Took a bit of pride in their metal working back then. Elegant looking knives they made.
Swords where just metal daggers that were made longer and longer over time until it became its own category of weapon.