Rusted Blade
[14] Master
Well, to an extent, this is certainly true. For example, when early versions of the cruciform sword first arrived in Britain, they were called longswords, even though they were actually quite short by comparison to later arming swords of the mid and late middle ages, simply because they were notably longer on average than the carolingian-style swords that preceded them. In this way, "long sword" did resurrect itself as a term several times when new words were introduced to particular regions.
However, ultimately as Europe and its warfare became more interconnected, terms became more standard--and eventually the family of cruciform swords hit its absolute limits in length (as a matter of practical construction and the ability of humans to wield them--about 400 years ago, when the largest of the great swords were developed and saw brief utility in the short span of time before warfare moved on beyond swords being an effective weapon for mass warfare, little more than a hundred years later. While the truly large great swords are sometimes depicted as a high medieval weapon in film (Braveheart's iconic two-hander that looks essentially like a claymore but with a straight guard), this is actually creative license: the great sword evolved much later in the Renaissance and thus only saw a limited period of action before it was made completely impractical by the rapid advance of technology around the same time.
At around this time, as traditional armor was also becoming obsolete, swords became increasingly relegated to roles of dueling among the gentry/aristocracy. In the late middle ages and early renaisance, the arming sword evolved into the side-sword (the spada da lato is an intermediate form of this evolution), and then ultimately into the rapier, which as a class remains today probably the single most deadly sword ever created for un-armored combat, having 1) unmatched range for a single-handed sword--actually, per the above, there was actually a time when the rapier was called the long sword, complicating things further!, 2) a narrow blade that greatly reduced the weight of the sword relative to its length, for increased manuverability, without sacraficing durability much due to new metallurgical advances, 3) a mass distribution that put the weight mostly lower in the sword, allowing for increased control, 4) versatility in the that it could be used to slash or pierce, since it was rarely used in a context where armor was in play, and 5) new and highly protective cage/basket guards. I know that games like SC sometimes present swords in terms of having advantages and disadvantages and promote the notion that every sword can be great in its own role, and none are really better than other, but in terms of genuine sword play, that's just not very realistic: the truth is that the rapier has the best balance of all possible features that you might want in a sword, presuming your opponent is not wearing armor. Uhhh, I think I've gotten off on to a tangent here...
Anyway, eventually the names became fairly locked-in across Europe with a clear classification scheme, which has mostly persisted until today. Terms like arming sword (sometimes also called a 'knightly' sword), long sword, great sword, and rapier have all had an at least somewhat distinct meaning in formal literature about warfare since then; so while its true that for a large span of time, "long sword" had a secondary idiomatic meaning of "a longish sword in terms of what we use around here these days", eventually as European swords hit their upper limit in size, the meaning of the longsword froze and soldiers of the time (as with scholars today) call only a specific type of sword of a general size and configuration a "long sword".
Yeah, I'm not so sure about the first one: it's definetly getting there in terms of length, but is probably still a good half a foot off from the length of a proper longsword, and the hilt is odd. I can't see the scale properly in that image, but it does seem to have enough hilt to be wielded two-handed, and at the very least is a hand-and-a-half hilt. Some might call it a bastard sword, but the hilt is atypical of the weapons that eventually took that moniker.
The sword in the second image is most definitely a longsword. Indeed, aside from the hilt being a little overly ornate and impractical, it's the stereotypical definition of a longsword (at least as regards the portions we can see): the guard is heavy and about 3/4 of a foot long, the hilt more than accommodates both hands and there is a fair sized pommel.
However, its worth noting that when I said Geralt's weapons are not longswords, I was speaking specifically in regard to his SCVI weapons" insofar as he is an RPG character first and foremost, I presume you can probably arm him with a huge number of swords of various sizes in the Witcher games, but I confess that, despite buying Witcher II and Witcher III on sale, I never got more than a couple of hours into either. Maybe I'm wrong about the variety though, because I know the idea is that Witcher's use two swords: steel for combat with other mortals and silver for the various monsters they hunt, which are apparently vulnerable to the metal in the lore of that setting. So I guess you can't really run around with two proper longswords strapped to your back, so maybe he only uses one-handed swords in the game and the two-handed swords are just artistic embellishment for the promotional art?
Yeah, it's all a part of that scheme that I mentioned before. I can't say for certain, because being in my forties, I was just a kid when the trend started, but as far as I can trace it (and I started pondering this question a long time ago), the fantasy scheme started (as with very much in the genre these days) with D&D: that earliest versions of that game created a scheme that classified swords as "short swords", "long swords", "bastard swords" and "great swords" and all fantasy medeval swords were meant to fit into these four categories, so long as they were "western" looking enough. Notably, one of those classes ("short sword") doesn't really even exist in history (there is a 'small sword', but that was actually a later development than the arming sword). You sometimes get glimpse of what they seem to think a "short sword" looks like in fantasy artwork of the franchise: it's a kind of broad and short blade with a stubby little guard that is used by hobbit-sized races, looking something a danish sword or a gladius.
Anyway, it might have ended there, but as silly and generic as D&D may have been, its influence is undeniable. I never played that style of role playing game, but I did play a whole bunch of RPG video games in the 80s through early 2000s (and still play the odd one every few years to this day) and virtually every single one of them uses that same basic four-size scheme, rolling just about every single-handed sword in the middle ranges into the generic category of "long sword". It's something I've long noticed, but to be honest with you, I've never bothered to have a conversation about it with another person before, because I recognize the usage is now so pervasive, that for most people, that's what the word is starting to mean. But shit, if I can't nitpick these things here, where can I? :)
Hardly a trope when the real historical white samurai William Adams existed. He's a very important figure in Japanese history.
William Adams (pilot) - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Yes, I'm well aware of who William Adams is, but a concept doesn't stop being a trope just because it has some historical antecedents. "Trope" isn't even a critical term in all (or even most) cases: the term simply means that it represents an established pattern in previous storytelling or art which a creator has to be mindful of in their own work. And yes, the "The White Samurai" trope definitely can be a bit of a silly cliche, and is usually not treated in a manner consistent with the historical examples: the handful of caucasians who became samurai were given those positions because they brought outside engineering acumen or other useful knowledge, not because they were fierce warriors: there's a big difference between the role William Adams had as a Samurai (as a political position) and what you see Tom Cruise doing in The Last Samurai. Or for that matter, what you see in a large number of anime, and of course (in the case of this franchise) what you see with Arthur. Though I'll remind you that the entire reason I brought Arthur up is because I think he's a good candidate to visit again in a game, hopefully with a full and proper treatment at last.
Preach it, brother: "And the Rock cried out--no hiding place!" It's going to be great having him back in the mix: this game is hurting a bit for super heavy hitters. You know, the more I think about it, the more obvious it should have been that not only would he for sure be in season 2 (I mean we had numerous, numerous reasons to think so of course), but they even dropped some of his kit into one of the free drops without us really taking note of it. I mean, why would they be spending time working on those trinkets unless they were essentially the classic alts that we've seen added for all returning characters; just released a little in advance this time.
Last edited:
