How often were two handed swords used in medieval warfare? Who used them? What was their purpose?
to go for the kill when theyre out of lobbys
Two handed swords were more Renaissance than Medieval. Their purpose wasn't different from that of any other sword - self-defense and close quarters combat. Anyone with training could use them, but in Germany there arose a series of guilds that trained and accredited master swordsmen whose mark of rank sometimes involved their use of a large sword. This gave them rights to better pay than other recruits who lacked some other way to vouch for their talent as a fighter.
>>339639
>How often were two handed swords used in medieval warfare?
Very rarely.
Two-handed swords like the zweihänder were used to break up enemy spear/pike formation.
They would run up towards the enemy and splinter/destroy the spears to force their lines to fall back.
They fell out of popularity (primarily zweihänders) due to the radius needed to swing. Other polearms would replace it.
>>339639
Spears and pole-weapons are generally better and have more range/versatility. Swords are better at close range. It's a niche role, mostly seen with zweihanders and the Landsknecht
>>339905
No, no, and no.
Two-handed swords were used like any other short polearm, for close quarters combat in any situation, and it especially excelled in defense whereas the halberd was excellent in offense.
>>339976
I'm pretty sure there's a general historical controversy over two-handed swords that each of our sides are the conflicting theories.
This guy describes how they'd fight off pikesmen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiD3cI3RqJU
>>340009
Lindy is just repeating what armchair theorists have been saying for decades, though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oxsol6J1HLU
Everything you'd like to know about towhanders:
http://www.thearma.org/essays/2HGS.html#.Vl4_j-Li7b8
Like anons said. They were specialist weapons, usually wielded by a few talented soldiers who used them to counter polearms.
Some had ring-shaped hilts to lock and break pikes with.
Also, many forget that a twohanded sword could actually be wielded in close-quarters by gripping the blunt party above the hilt. Your striking area would be shortened this way.
All in all they were effective at what they did.
However, it wasn't untill the rennaissance that they really saw any use. And even then they were wielded by a select few.
>>339639
Swords are primarily side arms. Mercenaries were fond of them. Things like zweihanders were used to stop cavalry while something like a claymore was thought to swung in rotations to deflect spears and get in.
>>339639
but that's a one-hander, anon
two handed swords as in swords used with two hands were extremely common - the "longsword" used extensively throughout from the late-mid middle ages onwards for a couple centuries being a prime example
two handed swords as in the "zweihanders" and the like were rather rare and a much later development
>>342213
For guts yeah but not everybody is 6'3 of pure demon/manslaying muscle.
And that's without the magical loli
>>339639
....
What do you mean by 'two handed sword'?
The massive zweihanders were not very common, but the langes schwert. which is meant to be used with two hands, was very common in the late Medieval period and was widely used in the Hundred Years War and was popular in the Renaissance, as well. Many of the manuals of fighting with swords from the Renaissance focus on these two-handed weapons as a foundational skill.
In my opinion two-handed swords where mainly the secondary weapon of knights, after the initial charge when even if it remained intact the cavalry lance was pretty useless, they drew their big swords and use them to make a big mess of the enemies around them. The blade was that long just because when you're on a horse you need that reach to cleave infantrymen
>>339639
What do you mean by two-handed-swords?
Huge zwei-handers? Extremely rare specialized weapons for breaking pike formations.
Longswords? They were fairly common but dedicating both of your hands to a weapon in battlefield leaves you vulnerable, polearms have the advantage of reach while longswords don't have as much.
>>342900
How do you expect them to use a two handed weapon from horseback dumbass?
>>339639
those were crazy times so they let people do whatever they wanted on the battlefield.
even though i'll be guessing those fuckers handling 2 handed swords won't be reaching old age
>>339639
I remember reading the yamato people used two handed swords even when they invaded Japan, and that the main advantage of two handed swords is that it takes very little training to use at a proficient level, allowing to levy larger army.
While using a one handed sword without rigorous training produces shitty results.
>>342981
You swing it like a pendulum using one hand, it's really easy to swing something if you use the mass of the object itself to achieve momentum
>>343054
What a retard. Real life isnt Mount and Blade
>breaking pike formations
Too bad those spears rather cushion than break and often were reinforced at the tips. And this is a rather ridiculous maneuver that no person which wants to live would ever do, for whatever money.
Are there even primary sources for that? Someone must have seen it happen.
>>343146
As far as I know it's just a theory. Another one I heard is that two handed swords were used by people who protected the flanks the truth is no one seems to know what the fuck were those swords all about for all we know there could be a bunch of real life Guts equivalents killing people back then.
I saw a .webm of a scene from a movie where two lines of pikemen were fighting each other and it looked heaps fucked.
Does anyone have it and/or know the name of the movie?
>>343167
Alatriste maybe.
>>343174
That's exactly it, thank you anon.
The scene from the movie was from the Battle of Rocroi.
>>339639
BIG
>>339905
>They would run up towards the enemy and splinter/destroy the spears
that's even more retarded myth than butt-naked vikings trippin balls on shrooms and drunk as fuck
