Back-Sword Side-Sword??

[Christian Butter]

What's the difference? Where did the names originate from?

[Geoff Wood]

Originally posted by Christian Butter
What's the difference? Where did the names originate from?

I think a backsword has a back (blunt). Side sword is a cut and thrust civilian sword (again, I think). I assume it was worn at the side as an everyday item.

[Erik Stevenson]

Hi All,
Most sword names that we use these days are either the product of collector's or archeologist's attempts to classify different sword types in written discussion; some are fairly specific and some are not. I would agree with Geoff that a "backsword" is referring to a blade that is single edged, with no curve to the blade, and sometimes with a false edge near the point. This of course includes a wide variety of blades with differing profile and taper, mounted on different types of hilts, so the term is usually intended to describe the blade not the whole sword.

"Side sword" is an ill defined and fairly open descriptor. As near as I can tell (no one I have talked to is willing to attempt a definitive definition) a side sword is a type of sword that has a transitional blade, and usually a transitional hilt as well. It is not always limited to a cut and thrust type blade but rather to blades in between a sword of war type blade and a fully developed rapier blade. The hilts can be fairly simple but can also be fully developed formal hilts (something you would expect to see on a rapier). I think the main emphasis is that a side sword is still heavy enough to be used as a secondary weapon in the field of battle against light to medium armour (a sidearm if you will, in case the primary weapon breaks or is lost). The way I have come to think about the definitions is a side sword is a light war sword/heavy riding sword (military use or a situation when combat is expected), a riding sword is a light side sword/heavy rapier (perhaps rural protection against highwaymen and such), and a rapier is a light riding sword moving towards a small sword (civil protection/personal duels). There dest not seem to be any clear lines between these transitional stages and there are examples of swords that span the whole gamut of blade style and hilt style combinations

Anyone feel free to let me know if I am off base in my understanding, none of the books I have really tries to clarify this.

Cheers,
Erik

[Geoff Wood]

Originally posted by Erik Stevenson
Hi All,
Most sword names that we use these days are either the product of collector's or archeologist's attempts to classify different sword types in written discussion; some are fairly specific and some are not. I would agree with Geoff that a "backsword" is referring to a blade that is single edged, with no curve to the blade, and sometimes with a false edge near the point. This of course includes a wide variety of blades with differing profile and taper, mounted on different types of hilts, so the term is usually intended to describe the blade not the whole sword.

"Side sword" is an ill defined and fairly open descriptor. As near as I can tell (no one I have talked to is willing to attempt a definitive definition) a side sword is a type of sword that has a transitional blade, and usually a transitional hilt as well. It is not always limited to a cut and thrust type blade but rather to blades in between a sword of war type blade and a fully developed rapier blade. The hilts can be fairly simple but can also be fully developed formal hilts (something you would expect to see on a rapier). I think the main emphasis is that a side sword is still heavy enough to be used as a secondary weapon in the field of battle against light to medium armour (a sidearm if you will, in case the primary weapon breaks or is lost). The way I have come to think about the definitions is a side sword is a light war sword/heavy riding sword (military use or a situation when combat is expected), a riding sword is a light side sword/heavy rapier (perhaps rural protection against highwaymen and such), and a rapier is a light riding sword moving towards a small sword (civil protection/personal duels). There dest not seem to be any clear lines between these transitional stages and there are examples of swords that span the whole gamut of blade style and hilt style combinations

Anyone feel free to let me know if I am off base in my understanding, none of the books I have really tries to clarify this.

Cheers,
Erik

Erik
So, if I'm understanding you correctly, what I thought was a side sword should more properly be called a riding sword?
What is a war sword exactly?
Geoff

[Erik Stevenson]

Hi Geoff,
That is what I would call it, but that does not mean that I am correct. Oakeshott groups what I am calling side swords into the category of riding swords, as far as I can tell he does not use the term side swords as a classification at all (not in the books I have at least). So by his definition your original understanding is correct. I just find having another group to classify transitional swords helpful because otherwise the definitions are incredibly general. My reference for that definition of side sword is word of mouth from Maestro Sinclair via Dennis Graves.

A war sword, or Great sword, or Arming sword (these terms are often used interchangeably) is the type of sword that eventually became called a "Bastard" sword or "Hand and a Half" sword (see p 126, 129 of European Weapons and Armour or Sword in the Age of Chivalry by Oakeshott for more info). Again the lines between definitions are fuzzy.

The best bet in all of these cases is to ask the person using the term what they mean by "(insert term here)," because there is a lot of differing opinion about what term refers to what sword type.

Take care,
Erik

[Geoff Wood]

Thanks Erik.

[Christian Butter]

Thanks guys, very insightfull!

[Ethan Evans-Hilton]

So given that the Scottish basket hilts on the market seem to fall into two categories of blades, specifically a double edged "broadsword: blade or a single edged "backsword" blade, which would be more historically accurate for say the battle of Culloden?

[Erik Stevenson]

Hi Ethan,
Both a single edged and double edged blade on a baskethilt are historically accurate for Culloden. By the time of Culloden swords were a highly personalized affair as long as a person wasn't in a formal military, but even then if a person could afford a personal sword that was suited to his job description there seems to have been considerable leeway for people to do so in many militaries. For the Scots in Culloden they used any weapon they could get their hands on since the majority of people fighting with Prince Charlie were irregulars (citizens that took up arms) rather than formal military personnel. In all of the books about the swords used at Culloden there is a wide variety in the style of blade used (even cutlass or saber type blades mounted on baskets) as well as the type of swords used (including 16th century continental two-handers), it was not until the Scots were defeated and Highland regiments were included in the British military that the baskethilts they used became highly standardized.

Mac or Dale can probably give you more historical info on Culloden than I can, but the examples I cited came from The Swords and the Sorrows, which was an exhibit of some of the swords used at Culloden.

Cheers,
Erik