This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force

Made some minor grammatical adjustments. Removed the debate on curved vs straight blades as it doesn't have anything to do with the article itself and as such is off topic. Removed descriptions of 2 of the sword types as the article already links to their own articles.--Lepeu1999 18:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why keris included? Isn't it a dagger rather than sword?Aditthegrat 04:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crusaders

The Crusaders confronted the Islamic scimitar, but largely failed to adopt the weapon, also because of the symbolism contrasting the cruciform Christian sword with the "crooked" "heathen" weapon.

While it is true that the Crusaders didn't adopt curved swords, and that symbolism played a part in that decision, to say that they 'failed' to adopt it implies that the scimitar was superior to the Crusader's straight blades. Whether curved blades are superior is a matter of debate among swordsmen. I believe it could safely be said that each type of blade has its own advantages.

The scimitar is an excellent weapon - against unarmored opponents, such as you'd find in hot climates. Against opponents wearing armor, slashing and cutting are less effective. In fact, often a knight's blade would be blunt, with the intent to be less about shearing through armor and more about cracking limbs beneath it from the force of the blow. The Crusaders' weapons were superior - for their fighting style, in their climate. To adopt the scimitar would have required a great deal of retraining for their knights, in technique, tactics, and strategy, and just wasn't worth it, even if it would have provided them with a tactical advantage on the Crusade.

Perhaps instead of saying they failed to adopt it, it should just be noted that they merely didn't. --Crickel 05:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Main usage of term?

In my experience (which Google seems to confirm) while the term backsword can be used for any single-edged sword, it primarily refers to early modern European swords, usually straight, and typically having a protective hilt such as a basket hilt. Also to the singlestick used as a practice weapon, and to the style(s) of use typical of this weapon. I could be wrong, of course. As it stands, though, people are likely to imagine Jacobean yeoman fencing with daos...

If anyone has an image of this kind of backsword (for instance a Scots basket-hilt claymore) it deserves to have the top-most place in this article, IMO. Megalophias 19:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above 100%. I've modified the article and removed the non-european references. Most of the list are not backswords. A backsword is more then just a single edged sword in the same way a rapier is more then a long sword optimised for thrusting.--Lepeu1999 19:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone document when this term first came into use? I am curious when and by whom 'backsword' was coined (and in reference to what). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.230.141.70 (talk) 13:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

single edged swords

since when are single edged swords no longer swords? many swords are single edged, if not most. who decided double edged to be a deffinition of the word sword?--Lygophile 21:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I removed the big about the definition of "sword" being only a double-edged weapon. - xiliquiern ^Talk 21:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Curved blade statement

Removed the statement re how a curve works to make a slashing wound worse. I know it was true, but I can't find a source for it anyplace so I removed it. If you can source it, feel free to add it back.--Lepeu1999 15:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Hanger"

I want to amend this section of the Jack Sparrow article because it distinguishes between a cutlass and the longer hanger, which Jack uses. However, Hanger (weapon) redirects to Cutlass, which makes only passing reference to "short and broad backsword called hanger," linking here - and this article makes no mention of the "hanger" form. So... which article ought to describe the hanger, if it's related to the cutlass yet actually a backsword? -AndromedaRoach 11:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both are backswords so if you want to add them to the list and link feel free.--Lepeu1999 12:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Backsword

What is the etymology for 'backsword'? Does anyone know where the terms come from? Seems very counter-intuitive to me. Theblindsage (talk) 10:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comes from the single edge and the thick 'back' of the sword.--Lepeu1999 (talk) 00:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

During the 17th century mortuary swords, broadswords and hangers were classified as backswords (all derived from a 16th century German design).

Please provide a cite that show's they were considered backswords and I'll be fine with it being included. You should sign your talk page posts.--Lepeu1999 (talk) 12:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why the term backsword refers "more specifically to early modern European weapons" when for example the scimitar is listed as a type of backsword. The scimitar in this case is far older than the early modern European age, and so it seems faulty to me to classify a a sword that is older than its "classification", when this "classification" is Euro-centered. Basically, why is the backsword considered early european when, by definition, the original backswords were not European. ClockSpire (talk) 21:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I propose either removing the references to the backsword being distinctively European or to disambiguate between European "backswords" and the original backswords. ClockSpire (talk) 21:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would be more infavor of removing the Scimitar link from the article--Lepeu1999 (talk) 14:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't know; I did some research outside of Wikipedia and visited Encyclopedias and sites that sell swords and came up with definitions of backswords that generally agreed with this one: " Backsword -- A sword blade, which has a cutting edge only on one side. Most commonly found on curved blades, such as sabers, falchion, and cutlass" from http://www.albion-swords.com/swords/sword-terms.htm. Others simply refer to the sword as having only a one-sided blade, as does the current Wikipedia definition and dictionary.com. In addition, it is useful to mention here that the earliest sword samples available point to it being developed in in Mesopotamia in Southwest Asia having evoloved from curved axes, and thereby having one cutting surface (See encyclopedia brittanica: http://search.eb.com.proxy.uchicago.edu/eb/article-9070676). Given this, I propose removing the reference to backswords as being European and instead including blades such as the Shamshir, Kitana, Machete, etc. which also fall under this classification. ClockSpire (talk) 15:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Websites selling repro swords aren't exactly scholarly sources. I'd feel a lot better about the change if you had some other source material. I'd love to read the U Chicago material but it requires a log in.--Lepeu1999 (talk) 21:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Backsword is a western sword term, referring to western swords. Can anyone find a referrence to katana, dao or butterfly swords that uses the term backsword? If not, I will remove those weapons from the list.87.210.0.196 (talk) 11:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do. I came here to see if anyone else had raised this issue. "Backsword" is a term that refers to European swords of the time period mentioned in the article, not just any type of sword with a single edge from any time period. I'd also like to contest the idea that it is called "backsword" because it was worn on the back, as stated in the article. The cited source appears to be a picture book rather than a scholarly reference (correct me if I'm wrong) at Google Books that does not actually use the term "backsword" or make any such claim; in fact, the light horsemen depicted in the book's illustrations are universally wearing their swords on their hips. ARMA and MyArmoury.com state that is is called a backsword because it has a thick unsharpened back edge, unlike earlier types of European swords, which were predominantly double-edged (with obvious exceptions such as the seax, messer, falchion, and similar military weapons). To evoke the spirit of the Venn diagram, all backswords are single-edged swords, but not all single-edged swords are backswords. 71.200.134.47 (talk) 14:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remove katana and scimitar again. Unless there are proper references to non-western swords being referred to as backswords, please don't re-add them.--87.210.0.196 (talk) 20:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Claymore

The term Claymore typically refers to the Scottish two-handed great sword, which is not a backsword, since it is double-edged. Perhaps somebody meant to link to the Scottish Broadsword, which only has one edge?

Greggor88 (talk) 23:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Claymore page keeps moving the definition of claymore. At one time it described both types of sword. You are correct that backsword does not refer to the two-handed Claymore. However, it also doesn't refer to all single-handed ones, either. Only those that have a single-edged blade, rather than the double-edged broad blades which were possibly more common in Scotland than England. 87.210.0.196 (talk) 23:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier use and development

I've added a bit about early use and development (with citations). Haven't found the first use of the term backsword but the type certainly existed earlier than the article implied. The protective hilt first developed on the backsword so that should be included. I'll expand it when have time. Radj397 (talk) 22:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A protective hilt could just as easily be used on a double-edged sword. You'd need to ensure that the reference was specific to a single-edged sword. I don't have Mike Loades' book, so I can't check how he backs up the statement that "around the early 14th century the backsword became the first type of European sword to be fitted with a knuckle guard". I'm not saying it's wrong, just that it seems a little too specific. 87.210.0.196 (talk) 23:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]