Talk:Galatine Prime/@comment-24040624-20160801154953/@comment-76.174.238.253-20160905011004

@Apoc The other guy just said that all swords historically fell under only specific (three) categories for swords. Short swords were relayed as just that, 'swords' that were 'short'. If you asked someone back then what a sidesword, a cinquendea, a gladius, a dao or sabre was in 'classification', they would all be 'shortswords'; and they all are, yet their function varies immensly form each other. Arming swords are swords traditionally(more often than not) one-handed, longer swords than short, but shorter than longsword, though the definition varies from area to area, region to region. Especially since some cultures made arming length swords and had them be traditionally two handed since sheilds were not especially common. But just as for LONGSWORDS, they were all under the blanket term "longsword" for being a "sword" that was "long", and by 'long' we mean longer than an arming sword. Whether that was a two-handed "broadsword", a nodachi, a claymore, a kriegsmesser, a zweihander or even curtana, they were all LONGSWORDS.

Also, yes, it is on the wikipedia page, and for good reason as the excerpt comes from a historical encyclopedic anthology book by Thomas Pennent and a book by Alexander Robert Ulysses Lockmore (1778). Annual Register Vol. 23. London. Things have sources on wikipedia after all, those that don't tend not to last long without edit.

If this is the only thing you can go back to, and you still keep coming to it despite being proven wrong, you're either not knowledgeable enough, missinformed or just really bloody stubborn. Do not be the guy who cannot learn, most people here(most) have been fair, even polite, in their corrections.