|
Post by spikeynorman47 on Sept 26, 2017 17:05:15 GMT
In what context would the European longsword be used in other than war or duels? Normal self defense weapons were arming swords, messers (in Germanic areas) and dagger as I understand it.
I just don't see unarmored longsword context being normal accept for duels. Am I wrong? I assume I am and want your inputs!
|
|
|
Post by masterofossus on Sept 26, 2017 19:42:27 GMT
In what context would the European longsword be used in other than war or duels? Normal self defense weapons were arming swords, messers (in Germanic areas) and dagger as I understand it. I just don't see unarmored longsword context being normal accept for duels. Am I wrong? I assume I am and want your inputs! You're basically right. Longsword generally came into vogue around the second-half of the 14th century (there are earlier examples, but it didn't become "popular" until then). In general, for a foot soldier to use a two-handed weapon one had to sacrifice a shield. The shield was so useful that giving it up required some significant advantage or a substitute, in terms of protection (so a pike square, for example, could get away with it because they're expecting to use their pikes to keep enemies at a relatively safe distance). In contexts where the shield becomes less advantageous - such as if one is already wearing plate armor - the use of a longsword or poleaxe made more sense because the shield provided only limited additional protection over the plate. Meanwhile, as a self-defense tool the longsword is heavier and longer, and therefore harder to carry than a one-handed sword like the arming sword and messer that you mention. So as a self-defense weapon that you intend to carry basically all the time, it's less manageable. Matt Easton has a series of videos on this, if you're interested, at scholagladiatoria. I've seen nothing in my (much more limited) research which argues against his interpretation.
|
|
|
Post by spikeynorman47 on Sept 26, 2017 20:31:52 GMT
I watch his videos all the time however I was just curious if there were any other context they'd be used in. I have a hard time picturing myself dueling anyone lol, but I guess that's just me (and I'm not a late medieval/early renaissance nobleman either I guess) so I guess if I were to magically travel back or to a fantasy world, the longsword may not be my weapon of choice.
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Sept 26, 2017 22:50:08 GMT
There is contemporary art showing longswords being worn/used by unarmoured people. A lot of it is religious art, showing the matyrdom of saints (by longsword), but other than that, it's shown being worn/used while hunting, occasionally worn/used by unarmoured soldiers or members of a violent mob.
IIRC, I've see occasional pictures showing it worn for ordinary urban EDC, but it's much less common than arming swords and messers. Not just because it was only popular for a short time compared to arming swords and messers - even when they are shown, most people wearing EDC swords don't wear longswords. (Alas, can't find such pictures now - as I said, rare.)
|
|
|
Post by leviathansteak on Sept 26, 2017 23:35:19 GMT
|
|
|
Post by howler on Sept 26, 2017 23:39:09 GMT
In what context would the European longsword be used in other than war or duels? Normal self defense weapons were arming swords, messers (in Germanic areas) and dagger as I understand it. I just don't see unarmored longsword context being normal accept for duels. Am I wrong? I assume I am and want your inputs! You're basically right. Longsword generally came into vogue around the second-half of the 14th century (there are earlier examples, but it didn't become "popular" until then). In general, for a foot soldier to use a two-handed weapon one had to sacrifice a shield. The shield was so useful that giving it up required some significant advantage or a substitute, in terms of protection (so a pike square, for example, could get away with it because they're expecting to use their pikes to keep enemies at a relatively safe distance). In contexts where the shield becomes less advantageous - such as if one is already wearing plate armor - the use of a longsword or poleaxe made more sense because the shield provided only limited additional protection over the plate. Meanwhile, as a self-defense tool the longsword is heavier and longer, and therefore harder to carry than a one-handed sword like the arming sword and messer that you mention. So as a self-defense weapon that you intend to carry basically all the time, it's less manageable. Matt Easton has a series of videos on this, if you're interested, at scholagladiatoria. I've seen nothing in my (much more limited) research which argues against his interpretation. I favor the lighter examples of longsword which give you one and two handed ability (versatility), like a hand and a half but with longer handle, though it may slightly affect pure one handed maneuvers.
|
|
Scott
Member
Posts: 1,676
|
Post by Scott on Sept 27, 2017 1:56:11 GMT
From memory in some of Bruegel's paintings there are unarmoured people with longswords.
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Sept 27, 2017 21:58:33 GMT
Longswords were something of a flash in the pan compared with single-handed swords. They were only around from the late 14th to the mid 16th. They're so well known now mostly because we have a ton of surviving manuscripts describing their use in detail. Whereas we have basically one manuscript on medieval arming sword and buckler.
Blossfetchen seems to have been the focus of Sword 101 instruction because it includes a wider range of movements than harnessfetchen. So it makes sense to start with the general and move to the specifics. Plus armor wasn't worn outside of special occasions, even during wartime. So it was important to know how to fight without relying on your armor too much.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Sept 28, 2017 2:55:21 GMT
Longswords were something of a flash in the pan compared with single-handed swords. They were only around from the late 14th to the mid 16th. They're so well known now mostly because we have a ton of surviving manuscripts describing their use in detail. Whereas we have basically one manuscript on medieval arming sword and buckler. Blossfetchen seems to have been the focus of Sword 101 instruction because it includes a wider range of movements than harnessfetchen. So it makes sense to start with the general and move to the specifics. Plus armor wasn't worn outside of special occasions, even during wartime. So it was important to know how to fight without relying on your armor too much. Unarmored, the one handed arming sword, when a shield is added, would shine vs. a longsword. Take out shield and longsword, preferably one that is similar to a hand and a half and is light enough, say 2 3/4lbs or so, has the advantage with its two handed versatility and overall increased length (roughly 4' short spear) for bind and stab.
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Sept 28, 2017 16:39:42 GMT
No question, and that may be a reason people did use longswords for EDC. There's a lot we don't know about longswords, including how exactly they evolved. I've heard one theory that arming swords got longer as a response to better armor. And the second hand added the leverage and power needed to get into the smaller and smaller openings. If true, that suggests longswords were a battlefield adaptation to armor in the late 13th and early 14th and that the gran epee de guerre/XIIIa led directly to 15th century longswords from the treatises. I've also heard that Fiore's manual should be read as fundamentally about harnessfetchen and the many grapples emerge from the predominant use of the long blade. If so, then blossfetchen with a longsword is something that may have emerged as an instructional tool more than a practical one. A way of understanding deeper mysteries about how to control a fight. And the master strikes of Liechtenauer may not actually be "five finger death strikes" so much as ways of unlocking an understanding of how to take apart an opponent's attack. The strikes aren't actually hidden (I mean they're described in the verse), but the meaning behind them is. If so, that would suggest the real lessons are the use of angulation and pressure to control your opponent and create a safe opening for your attack.
|
|