Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2007 20:29:17 GMT
Which would probably be more effective in the long run anyway. More room to rush in. At any rate, this was usually a later period tactic. (ie: 16th century) Similar to the Landsnechts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2007 22:11:32 GMT
Interesting about the spear shafts, I haven't seen any such test yet. Gallowglasses started using two handers at the end of the 15th century, but I really don't know if they accepted continental way of fighting with them...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2007 7:49:15 GMT
i remember reading somewhere that xiia & xiii blades were probably primarily wielded from horse back. which makes sense to me, seeing as the war horses at that time were being bred larger. so the higher up you are the more reach you need.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2007 4:49:35 GMT
The Varangian Guard of Byzantium, the bodyguards of the Emperor of Constantinople (today Istanbul) used great two handed axes, they were of scandinavian and norse descent.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Dec 22, 2007 20:34:19 GMT
I know. But it's nice to know they were there. I love two handed weapons and I always fantasized about two handed viking or early knightly sword and here they are. And that part about the battle of Benevento is interesting regarding the handling of these swords (the main subject of this topic after all ). And that part about Benevento also indicates that large war swords become common in Germany by 1266. It may be interesting to note that in DC, the native american smithsonian thing on the 4th floor, there is a weapons exhibit og european swords. I spent about an hour just looking at the small collection, but what is there is very fascinating. I don't think anyone else noticed, but there is a bastard sword (hand and a half) that I place from the very late 12th c. It is essentially a type XI with an elongated handle. The sword also possesses an extremely thick pommel that is really only noticable if you look at it from the side. It's wider than its circumference.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 24, 2007 21:28:21 GMT
I'm hoping to get something like that with the customized Del Tin 5143 I ordered few weeks ago. XIIa blade, spiked hilt from 2147 and quite massive brazil nut pommel from 2133 st. Maurice of Vienna. And after I get it I'll maybe shorten the blade a bit so that the fuller will come closer to the tip and it will look more like a long XI blade. I heared there are a few such swords but I haven't seen one really. I'm getting my Records of the medieval sword (E. Oakeshott) soon and I'm sure there will be something similar and of course much more interesting stuff...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 25, 2007 22:32:13 GMT
i forgot about this thread for a while... still very interesting though
Tsafa seems to have summed up two handed swords in this period pretty well: "I think two-handed swords serve best as a convenient compact weapon when traveling for your personal defense. It is not something I would take into battle."
and Asterix's point about XIIa and XIIIa swords being used from horseback is a good one too.
here's a hypothetical situation for anyone who likes to think about these things... lets say a 12th century traveler (give or take) carries a large XIIa sword for personal protection (since he doesn't want the burden of traveling with a shield). one day off in the wilderness with some friends he runs into some into some hostile folks armed with shields and single hand weapons (swords,axes, clubs... whatever).
so in this type of skirmish situation, which is not exactly a battle where shield walls and pikes and whatnot come into play... how do you think someone with a two handed weopon would fair against someone with a shield (i guess it could also just be thought of as a one on one fight...)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 25, 2007 22:46:58 GMT
i guess i'll give some of my thoughts to start....
obviously a shield would give certain clear advantages in a fight... but being armed with a longsword might not be the end of the world IMO. first off you'd have the advantage of reach and could try to thrust for the face or swipe at the legs if there was an opening. second, without a a shield you'd have increased mobility and could, if nothing else, stay out of reach and avoid attacks from your opponent. you could also use your off hand to grapple with your opponents sword arm or shield in certain cases (though this would probably be pretty risky for the most part)
also, if worst comes to worst you could get the hell out of there, and the lack of a shield would make it much easier to move quickly, especiall through woods and such.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2008 12:43:41 GMT
Depends on the type of two handed sword and how strong your traveller is, if the sword is strong enough or heavy enough it will cleave into a shield quite well. As to how they would fair, extremely well I imagine especially if the blade is light enough to be swung one handed. The two handed sword gives you the reach to go over the shield or around it or even under it and take the ankles off. Don't forget that the cutting part of the blade is not the only part of the sword
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Jan 2, 2008 3:04:54 GMT
Sorry, I read that wrong. From what I have seen in melee two-handed swords do little good. A pike or a glaive has more range and can deliver more power. With the extra range, a polearm-man can use the cover of his shieldmen and be effective. The few times I have seen short two-handed weapons do good, is if the enemy tries to break through and things get very confused. Even there the kill ratio is usually 1:1. Shieldman attacking straight into shieldmen also have kill ratios of 1:1 (unless they manage to out-flank). Same goes for polearms vs polearms or spears vs spears. Polearms and spears working within shieldwalls tend to get very good kill ratios. I think two-handed swords serve best as a convenient compact weapon when traveling for your personal defense. It is not something I would take into battle. Tsafa, the SCA is so far removed from reality, I'm suprised you can draw any conclusion based only off of your experiences of their "melees." Considering that the SCA considers one to be fighting in very light gear (open faced helmet, chain shirt, etc.), then all that you've said is that a two handed sword works poorly in a situation where one is not wearing much armour. Sadly, that does not appear to be the case. We can see that two handed swords WERE used in battle. We see this from the emergence as bastard swords in the 13th c. Notice that a huge porportion of swords past the 13th c. had long, two handed grips. Shouldn't this suggest then that as armour got better and the shield became less common, that the two handed sword (longsword, bastardsword, etc.) therefore became more and more popular? I'm sorry, but your "test" can be debunked fairly easily when one realizes that the environment in which you've tested your theory is tainted by anachronisms and misconceptions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2008 20:07:50 GMT
Yes, I agree with Rammstein about the emergence of two-handed swords. They were definately used, and had a place in later battles. Iconographic evidence also tends to support him.
However, I disagree that you cant draw conclusions based off of melee. You can, for any period of non-mounted combat, with little rigid armour. So basically, pre-13th century.
Personal Belief? Two handed swords were used as a way to pound the other guy into submission, which was then finished off with a dagger or halfswording. Possibly wrestling.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Jan 7, 2008 20:12:22 GMT
Half swording was not "finishing off"
One would begin and end a fight in halfswording perfectly well.
Fact is, it's not likely that twoh anded swords were likely to pound anything into submission considering that they weren't used that way - plain and simple. They were light enough to be used like a long longsword and wouldn't work well in the whole pounding scene.
(Personally, I haven't seen much evidence of them being medieval weapons at all - typically they are far after the middle ages, sometime in the renaissance when armour was dieing and full suits were being replaced by 3/4 and 1/2 armour.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2008 20:21:44 GMT
War Swerdes were used in the 13th century. (XIIa, XIIIa) They could be used in two hands. The blade form also limits their effectiveness against armour. However, against lightly armoured targets, or even those clad in mail, the cuts would be devastating. A nice XIIa grete swerde is on my wish list.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Jan 7, 2008 20:41:07 GMT
That's not a two handed sword.
Well not by my definition (And I so despise labeling but it's an unfortunate consequence of our hobby).
Them grete swords were hand and a half in general. A true two handed sword was a much later invention, however if one argues that 13th c. bastard swords fall under the technically huge umbrella of two handed swords, then it can be pretty easily proven they weren't bludgeoning weapons used to pound people into submission.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2008 20:50:56 GMT
More my point is that a two-handed sword is able to temporarily stun your opponent, allowing you to knock them to the ground, or disable them. There are deeds of arms listing blunt longswords with full harnesses, which end when a number of blows is hit on your opponent, he is driven from the list, or three points are on the ground (knees and arms).
Can you begin and end with Halfswording? Yes, but that is a different beast vs. bludgeoning.
Depending on when you define Renn. vs. Medieval, I would agree. I have started to see them around 1340's or so, which is easily in the range of Transitional armour, and definately used in the age of the White Harness.
I guess my point is that swords were multiple use tools. They could cut, slice, and stun depending on the opponent they are facing, and their successful adaptation. Pound might be a stong word for what I am describing. Not anything regarding an estoc, mace, or warhammer, but allowing them to work around their opponents armour.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2008 21:28:38 GMT
yeah i was thinking of XIIa or XIIIa swords when i started this thread (mostly out of anticipation for my upcoming AT1566 ) so not really what would be considered a "longsword" in the later-medieval sense i guess. though it seems to me, from my limited experience (i'm still waiting for tobler's 'fighting with the medieval longsword" in the mail) that the german school that we might usually associate with "longswords" made to both cut and thrust still emphasises the cut as the primary, or 'go to', attack. therefore it seems that using a sword like a XIIa or XIIIa (when not on horseback) might very well involve many of the techniques associated with "longswords" (assuming your oponent wasn't wearing plate armor)
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Jan 7, 2008 21:59:09 GMT
Type XIIIa is one of those swords you're probably referring to. However, even that is technically still a hand and a half sword. Technically.
Very well put on the last paragraph.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2008 22:18:05 GMT
David, I am struggling to remember where I read this (SFI or myArmoury), but I recall that one of the big names in German longsword said that yes, Liechtenauer's longsword can apply to war swords such as XIIa's, etc. We should be fine! ;D
|
|
|
Post by ShooterMike on Jan 7, 2008 22:26:28 GMT
yeah i was thinking of XIIa or XIIIa swords when i started this thread (mostly out of anticipation for my upcoming AT1566 ) so not really what would be considered a "longsword" in the later-medieval sense i guess. though it seems to me, from my limited experience (i'm still waiting for tobler's 'fighting with the medieval longsword" in the mail) that the german school that we might usually associate with "longswords" made to both cut and thrust still emphasises the cut as the primary, or 'go to', attack. therefore it seems that using a sword like a XIIa or XIIIa (when not on horseback) might very well involve many of the techniques associated with "longswords" (assuming your oponent wasn't wearing plate armor) Just to address this from another angle, the 1566 is definitely a "two handed sword" not a hand-n-a-half. I guess it all depends on how you define the two terms. Rammstein (and anyone else) how would you define these swords in terms of hand-n-a-half vs. two-handed?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2008 22:28:35 GMT
I would say they are all two-handed except for the last two on the right.
What sword is the second one from the left, Mike?
|
|