Is it true these were used to smash through pike formations? Some even say you could use these to chop pikes in half or cut the legs off a horse. Is there any truth to this or is that just bullshit from zweiaboos?
>>816328
It's bullshit. They never had a purpose, they were just popular weapons for a specific kind of soldier who ended up in many different situations, some of which involved facing a pike formation.
It was the man holding the weapon that was special, and not because he chose to use that weapon but because that weapon was generally prized as a mark of someone who achieved a high level of personal skill among German martial arts students during the Renaissance.
For the same reason the Spanish sword and buckler were not used to smash pike formations, but just happened to be the favored weapon of a generation of Spanish soldiers who were veterans of the war with Granada where that style of fighting was popular, and had now moved on to battlefields in Italy.
>>816368
I'm having a hard time imagining how you would smash into a pike formation with a zweihander without instantly getting skewered by 10 pikes at once.
>>816416
They weren't that dense, it'd be more like 4 or 5 at most. The two handed sword was pretty good as an individual defensive weapon facing off against multiple attackers. The real issue is that the pike formation would just end up running them over, especially when they had their own swordsmen and other soldiers with short polearms in the mix.
It was heavy armor that let you smash into a pike formation, not the sword.
>>816368
Citation needed bruv
>>816463
Read your primary sources and take nothing said by early medieval military historians like Charles Oman said for granted unless specifically traced to a primary source that flat out says the same thing like in a fecht manual.
How does an armycounter a square formation of pikemen? Its like defeating a hedgehog by slamming it into the ground with your bare hand.
>>816550
Usually one of two things:
A) Smash it with artillery and/or musket/arquebus fire. A dense square of troops that isn't particularly mobile is the perfect target for ranged weapons.
B) Get a wedge of your own pikemen to penetrate the square. If they're facing out in every direction, and you only attack from one, then 3/4 of the men in the formation aren't actually doing anything useful. And if you have a significant fraction of the same, all pushing in one direction, you get more momentum and shock to bowl them over.
Alternatively, you ignore it and rout the rest of the army, and wait for them to get hungry and thirsty. They can't really break formation without you jumping them.
>>816562
I know ranged weapons would defeat masses of pikemen, but can't the formation make internal adjustments to the square to provide reinforcement to the sector that is being attacked?
>>816588
>but can't the formation make internal adjustments to the square to provide reinforcement to the sector that is being attacked?
Given enough time, sure. But it's not all that easy to maneuver around a 10-14 foot long pole with a pointy bit, especially as part of a group to get everyone facing the same direction if you weren't at the beginning.
>>816368
I really like this image, do you mind If I save it?
>>816328
Nope.
The only thing that smashed pike formations was artillery, ball, or other more motivated pike formations.
>>816328
The claim is a interpretation of a swiss depiction but most two handed swords of that size are well documented ceremonial.
Bigger than life is the mantra here. (Take the William Wallace sword for example.)
What people mean with when they say zweihänder is a montante which resembles a sword but can be used as a polearm. I see it more as the fusion between taperless sword for cutting and an ahlspieß.
>chop pikes in half or cut the legs off a horse
It sure could but so could an axe. It makes little sense to try and cut down cavalry when they outreach you by default with lances.
Wouldnt it be a poor design if that were the case?
>>816328
In the confusion of battle and approaching a pike formation on the move, I could see a largish two handed sword being reasonably effective. I doubt anyone would want to "smash" through a pike formation, but getting enough men under the pikes to get close enough do some hard work with their swords may just break the front line of pike men. Since the other ranks can't see exactly what's happening it might open the pike formation up a little, losing its effectiveness. From there, the swordsmen have a fairly distinct advantage.
It would require the will of the swordsmen to take relatively high casualties before breaking the pike formation. But I could imagine it going either way. Either the pike formation reacts appropriately, holds formation, multiple ranks of pikes get deployed and the swordsmen get run through pretty quickly... Or the swordsmen get the drop on the pike formation, get under the pikes before they can properly form up and break them through the mayhem caused.
Maybe this is why very well drilled and experienced pike men were so prized.
If the pikes were already entangled, then the core of the square, consisting of men armed with shorter weapons like halberds, partisans, and lances, could be deployed help break the stalemate. A two handed sword could be used for the same purpose, but they were certainly far less common. An obvious reason is that they don't double as a walking stick like a short polearm does, and they were probably much more expensive.
