|
Post by schnitzelsandwich on Mar 5, 2019 3:08:36 GMT
Hey y'all, I'm back. So this sort of follows up on the last question I asked, and it sort of doesn't. Basically speaking, if you're only going to be using a sword and nothing else (no shield, buckler, or other weapon), what advantage would there be to using a one handed sword vs a two handed sword.
It's my understanding that two hands on a sword provides better leverage and thus greater control. For those of you who study dedicated one handed sword systems, are there any advantages over two handed sword systems (longsword or katana, not greatswords or montante, to give you an idea) that they don't/can't provide?
Two handed sword people, how would you respond to those advantages in a fight?
I appreciate your guys' input. Thank you!
|
|
|
Post by leviathansteak on Mar 5, 2019 4:07:13 GMT
In terms of combat concerns only without others e.g. size, carry convenience.
A one hander of same blade length as a two hander offers a bit more reach. You can reach further with one hand than 2.
I find that operating a one hander in restrictive hema gear is easier and less encumbering than using a 2 hander.
A 2 hander is generally less tiring to use though. And the added structure and strength allows 'snappier' handling and quick direction changes imo. The cutting performance is also enhanced for the same reasons
|
|
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Mar 5, 2019 4:29:36 GMT
Nearly every sword fighting culture ended with a single handed sword holded with an extended arm for more reach (saber, epee). It worked. Even the Japanese adapted this after the confrontation with the western culture (went back later for national heritage reasons (and lost the war...)).
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on Mar 5, 2019 8:04:32 GMT
One hand. Don't underestimate the power of the grapple while using the guard of the sword as a knuckleduster.
Also, it's incredibly intuitive to use, even if you don't know anything about sword fighting you can pretty much get away with using it like a sharp club if you're careful.
|
|
|
Post by markus313 on Mar 5, 2019 8:45:29 GMT
Main advantages of a one-hander (in general): - ease of carry - can be (better) used with off-hand-implements (shield, reins, guns etc.) - more reach with one hand than with two (at the same blade length) - more mobility with one hand than with two (the blade can rotate around the hand at a tighter angle) - hand protection (full basket for single handers - this is an important one, especially without a shield)
Main advantages of two-handers: - power/control At grappling each has pro and cons. The advanatge of using two hands on a weapon is not that it`s less tiring (it`s not) or that it allows for quicker cuts etc., but that it allows for using longer and heavier blades and put in more force/control that force.
In confined spaces I`d generally prefer a one-hander (personal preference due to hand protection and using shorter blades in confined spaces - a two-hander may be just as good if not better, depending on space; two-handers with short blades don`t make much sense). In open space a two-hander of the same blade length or more is at an advantage.
Another vital aspect to consider is the very different nature of a “fight” and a “duel”.
People didn`t change to one-handers because of actual sword fighting.
|
|
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Mar 5, 2019 9:26:21 GMT
... due to the fact that swords in most cases were sideweapons, secondary weapons next to poleweapons and guns, and a single handed sword is the better sideweapon. But it would be interesting how a duel between an HEMA longswordman and a thrustfencing rapierman ends.
|
|
|
Post by markus313 on Mar 5, 2019 13:55:00 GMT
In essence, a two-hand sword allows you to do almost everything (except for very refined stuff and techniques relying heavily on hand protection) with more power resp. control (you need to use a different stance/body motion/footwork than with what many one-handers were designed for) than with a one-hand sword. That being said, one tactic you don`t see utilized too often (but which can be very effective) is the use of one handed strikes (holding the sword near the pommel) with a two-handed longsword.
|
|
|
Post by elbrittania39 on Mar 5, 2019 19:42:42 GMT
So I've only practiced one handed systems (foil, epee, sport sabre, Italian Rapier, and Polish Sabre). The biggest advantage these systems give you is reach. While something like a longsword may appear longer, in order to two hand the sword, you remove the option of standing side face and attacking on the lunge like what you see in all three olympic weapons.
This means someone using a sabre or rapier can stay in that side face stance and repeatedly lunge towards their longsword or katana opponent at a distance where the two hander cannot easily respond. In order to initiate a more favorable distance, the two hander will have to close in and make up that distance.
I'd day the biggest advantage the two hander would have would be in binds. A lot of these single sword systems dont bind the swords together like you see in Hollywood. The blades connect during parrys and beats before springing apart into a new motion. But longsword likes to stay more connected to the opponents blade and gain leverage over it to transition into a strike. If the single sword user allowed themselves to end up in a bind with a two hand user, they'd be in trouble. If the longsworder knows how to do a good bind its gonna be pretty hard to compete with his leverage.
|
|
|
Post by zabazagobo on Mar 5, 2019 20:00:22 GMT
So I've only practiced one handed systems (foil, epee, sport sabre, Italian Rapier, and Polish Sabre). The biggest advantage these systems give you is reach. While something like a longsword may appear longer, in order to two hand the sword, you remove the option of standing side face and attacking on the lunge like what you see in all three olympic weapons. This means someone using a sabre or rapier can stay in that side face stance and repeatedly lunge towards their longsword or katana opponent at a distance where the two hander cannot easily respond. In order to initiate a more favorable distance, the two hander will have to close in and make up that distance. I'd day the biggest advantage the two hander would have would be in binds. A lot of these single sword systems dont bind the swords together like you see in Hollywood. The blades connect during parrys and beats before springing apart into a new motion. But longsword likes to stay more connected to the opponents blade and gain leverage over it to transition into a strike. If the single sword user allowed themselves to end up in a bind with a two hand user, they'd be in trouble. If the longsworder knows how to do a good bind its gonna be pretty hard to compete with his leverage. Exactly what I was about to type up. The reach advantage of a one handed weapon with a lunge is nice, but if a two handed sword greets it and binds it up, the single handed weapon is in for a particularly bad time if the two handed weapon user knows how to manipulate their weapon.
Essentially, key advantage to each: one handed- reach with the lunge/thrust; two handed- percussive force and binds. Either can be good at the cut or thrust, agile or maneuverable depending on technique and the weapon's stats.
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Mar 5, 2019 22:24:31 GMT
As many have already said, it's a trade-off between reach and leverage. IMO, about 4" of reach.
For duelling to first blood with swords of standard length, reach is king. If you keep targets (other than the sword arm) another 4" back, it helps a lot. Same principle applies in a lot of sport swordsmanship.
Often, swords with two-handed grips were longer, and the two-handed sword had a reach advantage, or at least equality in reach. If a one-handed sword was made as long, or longer, it would often be on the heavy and sluggish side for a one-handed sword, and the two-handed sword would have an advantage in speed as well as leverage. Consider the long rapier: a blade longer than that of a longsword, and thus with an enormous reach advantage over longsword (and everything else other than a polearm or another long rapier). The sluggishness of the sword, and not being able to bring the point in front of a very close opponent, meant that it was used with a companion dagger. Long rapier without dagger is quite a risk - putting everything into that chance of getting the first hits in, and losing much in-fighting ability. Not for no reason was the rapier replaced by the smallsword.
So, consider the katana. Light enough to easily enough use with one hand (plenty of examples in traditional use, especially in iaido), yet often used two handed. If this gives a reach disadvantage, why? Some possible reasons:
- Lack of a duel to first blood culture.
- The katana originated as a battlefield infantry sidearm (katana mounting allows good stable accessible wear at the waist that doesn't interfere with running). Those battlefields were dominated by polearms, melee-wise. Against a polearm, switching to one-handed use will still leave you with a huge range disadvantage. Against a polearm, leverage is useful, to displace/bind the polearm to let you close (this can also be done one-handed, but you need to engage very close to the guard - two hands makes more of the blade usable for the bind with an opposing polearm, and gives more margin for error). Even in post Sekigahara/Osaka peacetime conditions, there were still polearms everywhere. The katana was intended to be useful against all hand-to-hand weapons, not just other katana.
|
|
|
Post by schnitzelsandwich on Mar 6, 2019 4:15:22 GMT
This is gonna be a stupid question, but why do Jedi use a lightsaber in two hands then?
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Mar 6, 2019 4:26:33 GMT
The original Jedi fight choreography was based on Japanese swordsmanship (with some silly Obi Wan spins added). No internal reason, at the time.
|
|
|
Post by elbrittania39 on Mar 6, 2019 5:31:44 GMT
This is gonna be a stupid question, but why do Jedi use a lightsaber in two hands then? TBH nothing about lightsaber combat makes sense and I don't think the directors were going for gritty and realistic. There's no reason to even swing a light saber like a sword since it will slice someone in half at any speed.
|
|
|
Post by elbrittania39 on Mar 6, 2019 5:36:09 GMT
Oh something else to consider is parry options. When you parry with a one hand sword, you are typically deflecting the incoming blow so that it misses you. A two handed sword has enough stability that it can catch an opponent in a static parry. A static parry would be even easier to preform if your opponent was using a one handed sword and you were using a two handed sword.
That being said, static parry's aren't nessecarily better, it's just another option for the more stabley gripped two handed swords.
|
|
|
Post by schnitzelsandwich on Mar 6, 2019 6:03:28 GMT
I like the points you made, elbrittania39. I enjoy polish saber and longsword a lot as well which is why I made this thread.
Whenever I imagine using a saber it seems very elegant but at the same time wild. Kind of the like the Polish nobility back in the 17th century. Where as with the longsword it's more of a 'Geralt of Rivia' type of vibe. A lot of professionalism involved.
It's interesting how in entertainment all the master swordsman use a longsword or a katana. One handed swords aren't represented too much (on their own at least, without anything in the off-hand).
|
|