![1463400125876[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/fwZa29R.png "1463400125876[1].png")
What was a Zweihander actually used for?
>>1145091
For battle.
And they aren't that big.
>>1145091
Don't look for video games for accuracy.
The one in the image would never be used in battle. The real ones are bit tiny, thin and long. Similar to katanas but with better metal quality.
>>1145091
charging and attacking enemy pikemen.
>>1145113
>The one in the image would never be used in battle.
I think I've seen the EXACT same sword in a museum in, I think Scotland. Anyone know what I'm talking about?
>>1145091
Shock troops, city guards (gate, bridges) or bodyguards.
>>1145091
peeling fruit
>>1145116
What does it have to do with the sword being used in battle ? The fact that it's (possibly) in a museum just proves that someone wanted a big sword, probably as a wallhanger, it doesn't prove the use.
Japanese had 3.3m long two handers, they never used them in war though...
>>1145091
Like a polearm to flank pike blocks and protect the Fahnlein.
>>1145113
>but with better metal quality
Not this shit again
>>1145127
Oh you're part of the "ITS CEREMONIAL" crew
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiD3cI3RqJU
>>1145116
I know this sword was used in actual combat.
>>1145201
have somebody actually tried out hacking into a pike formation with a double handed sword?
I find hard to believe that it is actually feasible
>>1145458
The battle texts do emphasize a lot of circular figure eight movements.
Add some safety equipment, and you could do some real life tests. Has anyone tried that?
>>1145091
Defeating pikemen/halberdiers because steel cuts through wood and you don't lose range like you would with a sword.
Requires immense strength though.
>>1145480
>and you don't lose range like you would with a sword.
But it's a sword.
>>1145480
i dont think you could cut through a pike if the opponent is facing you.
you have a really bad angle for cutting
>>1145091
cutting off horse legs during a calvalry charge.
>>1145673
Pikes would work better against horses.
>>1145091
The Zweihander was used to crush through armor, that's why they weren't super sharp, it's a rare weapon so there's not much on it. But The only instance I know of it being used is by big pierre. Also it is one of my favorite weapons.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pier_Gerlofs_Donia
>>1145673
You're thinking of a bardiche.
>>1145836
>The Zweihander was used to crush through armor, that's why they weren't super sharp
i dont get your logic. why would a blunt thing be better at cutting through armor than a sharp one?
>>1145912
Its not cutting through armor, its crushing it and the bone.
>>1145945
FIGURE EIGHTS !
Protecting VIP's, controlling crowds, controlling streets, helping to weaken pike formations, really, any situation in which it was a necessity for one or a few men to deny space or push crowds back. Note the names of these drills for the montante, more of an extra large longsword than the greatswords being posted, but the applications are the same. Yes, they were sharp, and no, they weren't for cutting through or crushing armor. The threat is almost always to the face (fancy getting your nose split and cheekbones crushed?), throat, limbs, and anything not covered by metal. Just going by the manuals here.
Montante video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYNy_drriXs
Note that these are the SIMPLE drills, as opposed to the COMPOSED set. Also understand that the manual was simply meant as a reminder of the sword's general mechanics. In real use, the montante wielder would pick techniques at will to suit the circumstances. Figureido also reminds us that the art of the montante is the verdadera destreza (true art, ie spanish rapier) just with a larger weapon with two hands on it.
>>1145480
>immense strength
Well, some lazy or small women might not be strong enough to use a greatsword, but from what I've learned from every european manual, there is zero emphasis on muscling any weapon about. The body delivers the weapon (the hands and arms providing adjustment and extension when appropriate). Think of it this way: your body manages to hold up ~160+ pounds of man all day and move it with great agility if you are at all active. Another 8 pounds is easily managed if you have the cardio and proper biomechanics. In my HEMA class we've swung 8 foot staves and pole arms around with surprisingly little effort when we do it right. One medieval german knightly manual (as do many other arts across the world) notes that in wrestling, strength only wins in a friendly bout, and the wrestling and longsword teachings were the core of their art.
>>1145091
OnlyAfro memes.
>>1146058
The cheekbones crushed line was a bit misleading. In a marginal blow, this is true, but a proper hit will simply slice the head in half, bone and all. Thegn Thrand on youtube confirmed this without even generating full power (he was standing still and swinging his claymore like a longsword instead of with the momentum that a greatsword or montante would have).
>>1146058
Why did they use the spear form for?
>>1146091
Not sure what you mean by spear form.
>>1146110
There's a second cross guard. You can change hand positions and use it like a spear.
>>1145216
I think that's a claymore.
>>1146125
Placing your hand there allows greater control of the weapon and makes it a bit shorter, improving short-range effectiveness. It is not purely for thrusting, though, as some very nasty snapping cuts (that lead directly into thrusts if desired) can be made with that sort of grip. In single combat, you would open the fight in the normal grip, and if the opponent (or you) closed or maybe had a long weapon that you needed to cross to keep its point away from you (and you didn't feel confident that you could cut at the weapon to knock its head aside and enter), it was then appropriate to grip the section beneath the second cross. Of course, if he has a shorter weapon, feel free to swing away at him at max range in the normal grip!
In closing, hand/grip changes happen all the time with polearms and to a lesser extent with greatswords in order to get the most out of the weapon.
>>1146058
>from what I've learned from every european manual, there is zero emphasis on muscling any weapon about.
It's pretty damn taxing to simply hold a weapon up for hours at a time. Even very light weapons.
t. fencer
>>1145836
>Zweihander was used to crush through armor,
Not really. Halberds and such are better suited for can opening.
One way they were used was in combination with pikes and halberds. They were agile and could be used to disable and defend against the enemy.
>>1146223
That's why it was rare, it was a failed prototype.
>>1145917
that's why we have maces and warhammers
>>1146318
That's why zweihanders are so few, they weren't that great, all I was saying is what they were used for and that I love them.
>>1146210
I assume by fencer you mean the modern sort? Just curious.
Regardless, what you say is correct, which is why the manuals put an emphasis on not using overweight weapons, changing guards often to avoid tiring, and being biomechanically efficient so that you can fight for as long as is necessary, since you probably won't know how long a battle/fight will last when one occurs.
Strength is, of course, a good thing and can allow you to use heavier weapons that trade off less performance for wieldiness. I have a 2.5 pound, 43-inch bladed rapier, for example, that would cut and thrust with more authority if it had a meatier spine, but handles fantastically as is.
Pic related is a real handful. A 37'' bladed english basket hilt. Since it had to cut and thrust with aplomb against stout coats and european bison or cowhide leather, it weighs about 3.21 pounds. Here's George Silver (1599), complaining about long rapiers, which, as mentioned above, tend to trade off the blade's stoutness and cutting potential for increased reach while maintaining good thrusting ability:
Can they pierce his corslet with the point? Can they unlace his helmet, unbuckle his armor, hew asunder their pikes...
Then again, he also waxes on about the joys of carrying and using a "short light sharp sword" with a good hilt to protect the hand and head in battle, and many basket hilts were 3 pounds or a bit under (sometimes 2.5 pounds)...
This whole post is getting a bit long, but I think that I've made my point. There are always trade-offs and ideal swords for specific jobs!
>>1145127
weren't they some sort of ad for blacksmiths ?
difference is we have written proof and drawings from Zweihänder use.
>>1146058
>Well, some lazy or small women might not be strong enough to use a greatsword, but from what I've learned from every european manual, there is zero emphasis on muscling any weapon about
Thats because it's a myth that weapons are heavy. A Zweihander weighs what, 3kg? Three, Kilograms.
That isn't heavy for anyone who isn't a total wimp whose never done any manual labour in their life. Unweildly it might be, heavy it is not.
>>1146331
But they weren't used for that and you are quite possibly retarded for thinking that.
the point wasnt to go in and cut the heads off pikes or win by yourself, that is ridiculous. their point was to cause enough disruption to the pike formation that more swordsmen could rush in and break it apart, pikes being rather weak 1 on 1. Two handers were used for a couple hundred years but they didn't get a huge role because the mixed formation of sword, pike, and gun became the big winner so they were just a small part of the whole unit, and actual hand to hand was rather rare. If there was a battle one side usually won before it got to push of pike.
Two handed swords are very good at holding ground in that you can easily defend an area against several attackers.
>>1146710
Sure dude.
>>1145091
They were smaller than that and it's actually pretty hard to tell as we have relatively vague knowledge about how did the fighting(not the strategy and tactics) looked like in battles before like 17th century. As in we have a general idea but telling "how did the guys with X(weapon) operated on the battlefield" is generally beyond our knowledge.
Soldiers who used them certainly didn't form any kind of ranks but were paid more so my bet is that they've did something hardcore.
>>1146840
a two handed sword was never used to crush armor atleast not the blade.
>>1145458
I doubt they've actually hacked into the pike formation but if they did - it wouldn't be actually that hard thing to do. For practical reasons, pikemen could only have 3-4 rows of the pikes down. If you've managed to deflect those 3-4 rows(only the pikes closest to you, not all of them at all) I can imagine somebody getting through.
Most importantly you can't really "stab" with the pike when in formation so it the most dangerous part was probably surviving until your friends would use that breach you've made.
But it's pure speculation, I don't really believe it.
>>1146844
No one left diaries or personal accounts?
>>1145458
You're supposed to be acting along with your own pike formation and the rest of your allies, you're not a single man against a block of pikes. Also you get more cash than the pikemen.
There is a personal account I read where they took a guy in full plate and threw him into the pike formation to create a hole then charged in after him. He had a 2 hander but I don't think he got to use it much.
>>1146872
I imagine that the circular motions that have been taught by various swordmasters for two handed swords would work well as defence also Achille Marozzo has a guard specific against pole weapons when using a two handed sword.
>>1146876
You see most people have idea on trench warfare. And then there is cavalry most armies had a lot of during WW1 and, suddenly nobody knows what was their role there. In other aspects, they very often miss the tiny details around melee that was present everywhere, they won't describe the technique they've thrown grenade with(because maaaaan it's common sense, right?), how they've moved machineguns around etc. etc.
Describing any other type of warfare is similar. When somebody does it in amateurish way, he covers some aspects more coherently some less(because lol, common sense).
When somebody covers it more historically, they do it in very "macro" scale, they don't delve into the fighting itself.
And when you have fencing manuals, they often show pretty weird techniques that were probably useless more often than not, they're too elaborate for the battlefields. Compare the "traditional" martial arts to the ones soldiers train or bayonet fencing to actual techniques you use to fight with bayonet - you just go for quick 2-3 moves that will bring you victory. I seriously doubt that medieval/renaissance battles were different in this aspect, majority of soldiers probably also fought like that.
>>1146933
I thought fencing manuals were just as much about personal 1 on 1 duels and theoretical situations, even ridicuously rare situations than anything else?
>>1146964
depends on the manual really.
>>1146504
>That isn't heavy for anyone who isn't a total wimp whose never done any manual labour in their life.
t. total wimp who has never done any manual labor in their life
>>1145091
Thou must returneth whence thou came.
Medieval warfare was strange and messy.
Vereor Nox
>>1147003
you can't lift a 170cm weapon that weighs 3kgs?
>>1145091
Fighting off zombies.
>>1147383
Is that Giant Dad?
>>1147387
Giant Dad transcends time
What about dual wielding?
>>1148083
it was probably a big meme back then
>>1146331
>all I was saying is what they were used for and that I love them.
but that's just wrong
>>1146195
"Claymore" just means big sword.
>>1149784
By that logic a zweihander would be called a claymore and not a zweihander.
>>1149784
It may mean that in origin but in and of itself it defines a specific type of sword.
>>1145114
this
>>1146331
I don't mean to be rude, but you have no idea what you're talking about.
If the purpose of a weapon is to crush through armour, it would be much more cost efficient and effective to use any variation of a poleaxe or polehammer. Swords were never meant to be dull. The purpose of a sword is in its variety of usage and efficiency. It does a lot while being low in weight. If you were to fight and armoured person with a zweihander, you would thrust at them (Most likely halfswording). If they were an easy target for a bladed attack, you have a sharp edge.
The zweihanders advantage over other swords is its range and ease of targeting multiple opponents at once. In a small battle or even a one on one fight (In the case of guarding someone), a few inches of length on a weapon can mean life or death. For multiple opponenets, there are specific techniques for the zweihander to handle crowds.
So no, it was not dull. There is never a reason for a sword to be dull.
>>1145113
>The real ones are bit tiny, thin and long.
Pic is sword of Grutte Pier, a Dutch Pirate Giant. Supposedly the man was as tall as the sword, 215cm or 7ft.
You will find depictions of Landsknechts where the Zweihander is larger than body size. Probably that was the size range of these swords. The misconception that the swords are small comes from the fact that nowadays people are bigger, so when they wield replicas it looks small indeed. Or just look at the photographs of Japanese and their Katanas.
