Two handed swords??
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
This may be a better question for /his/ but did any footsoldier in history actually ever use a two handed sword for pitched battles? (ie not single combat) It seems like there is no advantage over a spear/shield or sword/shield, as it's much harder to defend yourself and you don't have anything to stop projectiles. Why are they a thing today?
basically, ( to my understanding, of course) most swords in Europe were designed to be used as one hand swords, but also as two handed swords. If you really had to smack someone, use both hands.
Dedicated two handed swords however? not sure. It would be easier to cleave through armor with a massive two hand broadsword than a one handed blade tho.
>>29930845
IIRC, they used them to cleave through lines of pikes and shit
I might be wrong though
>>29930845
>in history actually ever use a two handed sword for pitched battles
Doppelsöldner, basically pike destroyer.
>there is no advantage over a spear/shield or sword/shield
With full armor there is little need for shield.
>Why longsword
Longer reach, but with versatility of a sword.
>>29930845
They where there to remove pikes, and then the occasional peasant.
Yes. The Germans especially were masters. The sweihander and kriegmesser are good examples.
>>29930857
>>29930865
>>29930901
The pike-breaking thing is more of a modern misconception.
Ever tried chopping the end of a pike shaft somebody is holding? It bounces off your sword.
What the dudes with two-handed weapons like poleaxes and greatswords were doing was using that mechanic as a way to open up gaps in the enemy's pike frontage; not by chopping the heads off of pikes, but by knocking them to the side and binding them to the ground using leverage.
You going stabby stabby and then suddenly some fucking ripped duded with a greatsword rushed into your pikes and sweeps his heavy ass sword across your spearpoint. He knocks it aside and tries to tie down as many of your spears as he can while his own pikemen start pushing into the defenseless gap.
>>29930845
Two handed swords have existed for thousands of years. The Thracians and Dacians were famed for the rhomphaia and the falx. If you look at Japan, you can see two handed swords of various types, ranging from smaller weapons to truly massive ones. The same can be seen in Europe. This can be seen most obviously in the longswords of the middle ages all the way into the larger two handed swords used by landsknechts in the 16th century.
Consider longer blade double handed swords for cutting down charging cavalry.
>>29930951
Where the two handed Japanese swords actually used in combat though? I remember reading that they were only used for like offering, or ceremonial shit
>>29931730
Some where but they tend to be close to the european practical ones in terms of size and weight, 150-180cm long, and about 3kg. Just like in Europe, they weren't used a lot, especially in the later periods, mainly because of the more widespread use of naginata (which had better range, similar use and were easier to manufacture) and then long spears.
You'll find usage mainly in the early feudal era.
Some styles did specialize in their use, like the infamous Yakumaru (Nodachi) Jigen-ryu, though you'll notice the weapons they have tends to be close to a montante, it's basically just a pretty long and hefty japanese sword. This style got a lot of success during the 19th century infighting as the Jigen-ryu kept very pragmatic battle-ready strategies that the people from other schools had trouble adaptating to, after like two centuries of peace.
>>29930854
>cleave through armor
You can't cut through steel plate with a sword anon.
>>29932347
But you can cleave through chain mail and leather.
>>29930845
European or Eastern?
Many European swords were bastard swords, wielded with either one or two hands.
Scottish fighters used two handed swords to chop through English billmen. German two handed swordsmen fought against pikemen.
Samurai in Japan regularly used two handed katanas in combat.
The answer is yes, but as spears were easier to train with and easier to make, and because the middle ages saw combat dominated by who could field more seasonal fighters or levies with minimal time to train, the spear and shield were the preferred weapons of armies.
Professional national soldiers as we see them today we're not around until the late 16th or early 17th century.
>>29930845
>did any footsoldier in history actually ever use a two handed sword for pitched battles
Absolutely. Landsknechte were 16th century German mercenaries who worked all over Europe, serving various conflicts. Most of them used pikes as their standard weapon. But a few specialized in using a massive two-handed sword known as a Zweihänder, which literally means "two-handed sword." Mercenaries who specialized in this weapon were considered especially valuable and so they were paid double. These men were known as Doppelsöldner, which means "double-pay man."
>>29932353
Leather, maybe, but not mail, especially if they're wearing padding.
>>29930845
Pre-pike medieval warfare tended to favor two handed weapon in general simply because all the important people were up to their eyebrows in steel plate.
In this case the two handed sword was useful for hacking at a dude even while still being a powerful stabber. Shields were kind of redundant since knights were basically wearing shields.
That being said, two handed swords were used as far back as the celts since it offered more range and hitting power. Under the right circumstances you could knock a man down with the force of the blow.
Caesar actually writes about the gauls coming at his legionaires with big two handed swords and striking so hard that they'd bend permanently.
>>29932411
Maybe with an ax and a REALLY big swing.
>>29932353
>cleave through chain mail
No you can't.
>inb4 some stupid deadliest warrior clip with butted mail of dubious quality
>and leather
With great effort. Boiled leather is tough shit, there's a reason it was used and popular.
>>29932353
you can not cleave through European style chain mail.
It's a misconception created by using Halloween costumes by professional TV-"historians"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xw3lcgIAwLk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kl-ec6Ub7FM
>>29932432
A big maybe, and even then all it's going to do is punch through a few links, not cleave the guy wearing it. The heads on 2 handed axes are only a little bigger than those on 1 handed ones.
>>29932413
No.
Warfare was dominated by poorly equipped, poorly trained peasants.
This was so evident that some people, including the pope, advocated banning crossbows because they were so easy to use that the idea of someone wearing expensive full plate that was personally given a fief by a lord for military service could be picked off by Bernard Refusehauler with a weapon he picked up half an hour ago was dangerous to the nobility.
Think of it as the first gun control.
Anyway, but yeah, peasants dominated the battlefield, knights were extremely rare and fought on horseback. If they weren't commanding levies raised from their fief they were extremely effective shock cavalry.
>>29932481
And yet it was the armored cavalry charges that kings spent vast fortunes on it to carry the day.
>>29932517
Nah. It was mainly peasants, serfs, or poor landowners pressed into service by their lords that won battles.
When it wasn't those guys, it was mercenary armies paid to fight the war.
Knights were like samurai, landowning sometimes warriors. They were more political than military.
>>29930845
two handed swords are basically polearms that also happened to be swords. they were used by heavily armored infantry, as such you didn't really need a shield with it.
>>29932538
Illogical, the training and equipping of an individual knight was enough to pay for dozens of levies.
If infantry won battles, why have knights?
>>29932919
>if infantry win battles, why have tanks?
>>29932942
Simple. infantry is cheaper. Tanks are expensive. Nations built as many tanks as they could but you needed infantry to counter enemy numbers. Otherwise they could drown you in bodies, much like what happened to the Nazi Elefant
>>29932965
>the point
>your head
Knights, like tanks, are a force multiplier.
>>29932538
If all your peasants go die in some conflict, where does your food and income come from?
Levies were used only when the area was in danger, not to go send them off to fight.
>>29933043
Oh I get you're point, I just think you're wrong.
Artillery is a force multiplier. Snipers are a force multiplier. Hand Grenades are force multipliers.
Tanks Are Force. Unlike the previous, they can stand on their own in battle. Send a half dozen tanks at a fortified position and they can take it. Send a company of artillery at a position and they'll certainly reduce it but without support they're sitting ducks for a counter attack.
>>29930845
It depends on what you mean by "two-handed swords".
Throughout the late middle ages and well into the Early Modern period, a type of sword, commonly called a "longsword", was used that was primarily a two-handed weapon but could still be used with one hand, e.g. from horseback.
When it comes to 'true' two-handed swords, i.e. swords too long and heavy for one-handed use, we have historical depictions of them being used, historical descriptions of them being used, historical manuals on their use and we have weapons that remain from these periods. Some of them are very large and heavy ceremonial bearing swords, e.g. from the personal guards of Prince-Bishops, but others are well likely to have been intended as weapons.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkpmOpRm-R4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhNnwby--yQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWf9JYjY0Ik
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsFbCaAWesU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YB5v6lPBsyE
>>29932965
>Nazi Elefant
No it was because it had no machine gun for defence against infantry.
Not because "zerg rush".
And it was called the Ferdinand. They all got converted to the elephant version which had a machine gun.
>>29931730
>Where the two handed Japanese swords actually used in combat though?
Considering the katana is a two handed sword? Yes. The larger ones were indeed used as well, but to a far lesser extent than polearms.
>>29930932
Those knights look like a medieval farside cartoon.
>>29933504
Holy fuck you're retarded.
>>29933609
GIANTS GIANTS GIANTS!!!!!
>>29933942
He's not wrong. Armor is a maneuver force. It can be used as a force multiplier, but its advantages are best served as a maneuver force. Knights were exactly the same thing. Sure, you could mix them in with your regular soldiers and have a more stable line. However, you could mass them together into a massive concentration of power. More than that, it was a HIGHLY MOBILE concentration of power. They provided the knockout punch of armies for centuries.
Some of the techniques that are specific for the larger two handed swords were often for crowd control, a handful of members of the town guard could contain a violent mob with those swords thanks to their reach.
They were used in the field to some extent, but polearms were better to fight from formation. The swiss guard for example banned the members from using swords because they wanted the unit to focus on fighting as a unit and not focus on individual mobility. So they were more common among mercenaries.
>>29930932
>The pike-breaking thing is more of a modern misconception.
Doesn't seem that way. There are depictions of just that from the 16th century.
>>29934103
>Doesn't seem that way. There are depictions of just that from the 16th century.
He probably thinks pike-breaking meant slicing through the pike, thereby breaking the pike, instead of bashing away several pikes to break the pike formation.
>>29930932
No it isn't a modern misconception you fuck
why just randomly make stuff up?
>>29934252
Well...have you ever tried to cut a spear with a sword? At best you'll cut notches out of it but the weight is all wrong for a single, shattering blow.
>>29934103
sources for these statements?
>>29934252
source?
Two handed swords were used on the battlefield to protect areas with crowd control flourishes. The guarded unit flanks but mostly standards and cannons.
>>29934629
not him but this one will be the most succinct.
It has an excellent bibliography.
hroarr.com/an-overview-of-the-iberian-montante/
>This may be a better question for /his/ but did any footsoldier in history actually ever use a two handed sword for pitched battles? (ie not single combat)
Yes, as previously mentioned in the thread, doppelsoldners did.
>It seems like there is no advantage over a spear/shield or sword/shield
Range is incredibly valuable in melee combat. Having a significantly longer weapon allows you to determine the tempo of combat by giving you the initiative when attacking and makes defending easier due to your opponent having to take longer closing in on you before he can actually attack. It's the reason why, despite what every work of fiction would have you believe, even in a one vs. one situation that a soldier using an arming sword + heater shield is actually at a disadvantage against a soldier of equal skill armed with a spear or other long weapon.
If you want some concrete examples of this, go read up about Richard Peake and his exploits if you aren't familiar with him.
>as it's much harder to defend yourself and you don't have anything to stop projectiles.
I hope you realize that by the middle of the 14th century, shields were already on their way to becoming a thing of the past among heavy infantry. The appearance of things like longbows and crossbows, both of which could shoot right through any shield that was light enough to be hand-carried while still providing good cover, as well as the proliferation of more protective armor and longer + deadlier melee weapons (many of which required two hands to use) meant that, eventually, the benefits provided by a shield no longer outweighed the trade-offs for your typical man-at-arms.
That being said, crossbowmen made use of pavises to cover their reloads and many light infantry adopted bucklers at one point or another.
>Why are they a thing today?
For the same reason they were back then. Transitional armor with a greatsword or poleaxe >>> hauberk with arming sword + shield in almost any situation.
>>29932385
Dopplegangers is the term. They were mercs who who tired or managed to get their pay and someone elses. Hence the double pay/impersenator. Landsknechts were famous for mercs in their ranks trying this.
>>29932385
Japanese used the big long swords as an "anti-cavalry"
seems like spears would be good enough, but japs be japs.
>>29935280
Dopplesoldners. Means double soldier. Doppleganger means a ghostly apparition that looks like a living person.
>>29930845
>It seems like there is no advantage over a spear/shield or sword/shield, as it's much harder to defend yourself and you don't have anything to stop projectiles. Why are they a thing today?
well it was primarily used against polarm formations to break them up. also if you think you can't parry with a zweihander you are shit out of your mind that shit is fast it has an angular velocity similar to any sword but the radial velocity on the tip is pure insane.
>>29932385
>Zweihänder, which literally means "two-handed sword."
It actually means "three-handed sword"
>>29937863
>It actually means "three-handed sword"
"Damn. I gonna need another hand to do this, good thing I have a third leg"
>>29937863
Wouldn't that be Dreihänder?
Or am I autistic and you are making the penis joke.
>>29938076
No, that>>29938026
is a penis joke
>>29938076
I forgot to check myself. And rekt myself. Zweihander DOES mean "two-handed" sword
>>29933904
>>29932330
Thanks guys. How were the larger nodachi swords used?
relevant
>>29940546
What's the point of the flamberge?
>>29940799
To tear out something's insides.
>>29940809
>>29930845
The longsword was commonly carried into battle as a sidearm, and if you're on foot, you're using it two handed.
>>29940799
You can maneuver a polearm with it better than a normal sword.
>>29939770
Kinda like the european ones for what I've seen, it looks similar to typical kenjutsu but empasis is on larger swings... since it covers much more range. There are certain drawing techniques that are required too because of the length.
Previously stated (in)famous Jigen-ryu use basically a single technique, a terrifying vertical cut from their high right (tombo-no-kamae) and a quick return in guard that works as a beating... for more vertical cuts. Training is focused on this particular cut and to be able to recover as fast as possible (they used to do practice more than 10000 cuts a day every day). They don't use bokken for their training but large stick of wood that gets bigger and heavier as the student progress in the school. For drawing they use a single technique, a forward reverse rising cut that gets them in guard and covers most lines.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_HCXrexuSY
>>29932413
In some extreme cases the steel plate actually extended above the eyebrows to completely enclose the head.
>>29933470
This, THIS, a million times this.
Imagine you are a medieval lord going off to battle. You grab 1000 peasants and shove a spear in their hands to make up the numbers in your army.
That means another 1000 mouths to feed on campaign and they can't fight worth a damn AND they are not home earning you money, money which you could have spent hiring more soldiers.
>>29940799
Power of a curved blade, balance of a straight blade, one hit from this and it's all over
>>29941353
The frogmouth is a highly specialised jousting helmet, not intended for warfare. It also does leave a gap for sight and ventilation, though one aimed slightly upwards. So you lean forward to see, and then sit up straight just before the lances clash, so there's no longer any straight path from the opponent's lance to your eyes that doesn't go through a good slab of metal.
>>29941371
It seems a pretty common thing at least to explain the changes in society in the early (or so) middle ages with that. Older societies generally had pretty much everyone at arms and pitching in to defend or raid. Then we get the alternative with most just being farmers, to support professional soldiers. And as the two met, the professional soldiers came out on top more often than not.
Famous 2-handed sword user
>In 1791, Jacobus Kok wrote that above the porticus of the New City Hall of Leeuwarden, two remarkably large swords were found which were said to have belonged to Grutte Pier and Wijerd Jelckama. Donia was noted for the ability to wield this great sword so efficiently that he could behead multiple people with it in a single blow.
>Today, a great sword that is said to have belonged to Pier is on display at the Fries Museum in Leeuwarden. It measures 2.15 metres (7 ft) in length and weighs about 6.6 kilograms (14.6 lb). Some sources put his height at 7 ft.
>>29941652
His sword, for reference.
>>29934031
the legend never dies
The greatsword was a field weapon, carried on the shoulder while on the battlefield. It had no sheath and was not carried on the back.
Because of the immense skill required to wield greatswords effectively, they were almost exclusively used by veteran soldiers. These soldiers were typically experienced and wealthy enough to be fitted in full plate armor. Therefore the typical 2-handed sword fighter was an élite soldier wearing high quality equipment.
Companies of 2-handed sword users were rare. Instead, individual soldiers were attached to companies of pikemen. The battlefield is a messy place and it's unlikely that 2-handers had a single specific role. The theory is that the 2-handed sword was used in some fashion to help break up opposing pike lines, and while it is likely that it in some point in history the weapon was employed in such a fashion, it was unlikely that this was its sole purpose.
Indeed, the user of a 2-handed sword was simply a very powerful presence on the battlefield. They were masters of close-quarters fighting and had a distinct advantage against all hand weapons and polearms save those with a thrusting tip. 2-handed sword users had a reputation for being able to fend off many opponents at once. They were often employed as field bodyguards for commanders and people of import.
When fighting with a 2-handed sword, skilled users rely on the momentum of the weapon, fluidly alternating from side to side as they step forward with the sword. Some longsword styles focus primarily on strikes to the head. The blade is a very versatile weapon and there are a variety of ways to hold it, whether you are holding it poised against your shoulder, high in front of you like an oar, or down at your waist, blade protruding forward like a polearm, to be used as a thrusting weapon. A lesser-used stance involved holding the haft with the blade down like a broom, allowing the user to "punch" the blade and deliver upward strokes from an odd angle.
>>29941667
And much like the sallet (mid to late 15th century) of St. Olaf (995-1030), odds are that he never even saw that sword. Though in this case at least the swords pre-date the person (ca 1400?). They simply found a pair of old bearing swords in the city hall attic/basement, and attributed to him on nothign more than him being a famous and famously large person from the region, so of course these huge swords must have been his!
The British Royal Armouries has a pair of extremely similar bearing swords, and there's another one in the Topkapi. It may have been a pretty popular model in its day.
If Pier did make use of a large two handed sword, then my money would be on him using one made for fighting, and probably in the style of the late 15th or early 16th century, instead of a ceremonial sword from the time of his great great grandfather.
>>29941769
>all hand weapons and polearms save those with a thrusting tip
I think that'd be most of them. It definitely includes the pike.
And which longsword style specifically aims mostly for the head?
>>29941667
Holy fuck, shit´s HUGE
And speaking of people who won't be buying a lot of clothes off the rack, here's the harness made for Bartlmä Bon, who was about 260cm tall. Sadly the museum appears to have gone for contrast rather than good comparisons, and surrounded it by harnesses made for children, but still.
Sword's probably unassociated, but seems like a two hander of considerable size an roughly the right time period.
>>29941794
>It definitely includes the pike.
It does. Alone, 2-handed fighters are disadvantaged against the pike and really any thrusting weapon longer than the blade of their sword. So yes, "most" polearms would be more precise.
>And which longsword style specifically aims mostly for the head?
None of them, that claim was spurious :^)
Though it seems frequently in the few fights i've witnessed that blows to the head are very common, that's not really a function of "style."
>>29941831
>So yes, "most" polearms would be more precise.
Even without the pike, I'd say most polearms do have tips that would be quite good at thrusting. Given the period, what can we find that doesn't, the average bardiche perhaps? Hastily re-purposed scythes.
(Pic may or may not be period appropriate, I'm too malnourished to think about it.)
Or maybe I'm just misunderstanding your posts.
>>29941867
>>29941871
>>29941861
Sorry, you are correct, I meant that "most" polearms have an advantage over the 2-handed sword. I included the caveat about thrusting tips in >>29941769 because there are a few slashing polearms against which the 2-handed sword is superior, such as the >>29941861 bardiche, some varieties of voulge, the scythe, a long-hafted war axe, maybe a particularly shitty billhook, but most polearms are stabby and that makes them dangerous to someone using a 2-handed sword.
>>29941817
260CM
YEAH NAH
>>29941894
>>29941817
he's a big guy
>>29941799
That's what she stated.
>>29932473
Most of that is European weapons vs european armor, both were constantly changing to counter the other and most people wouldn't even be trying to kill a knight outright it would be more profitable to capture/ransom them.
Not to mention modern stuff is much different than authentic, materials are produced differently and have much better tolerances as far as being uniform like you could assume all those rings are relatively similar in metal temperance where a medieval one might not be so much.
Besides you hear about entire well equipped armies getting wiped out sometimes there is bound to be something that worked well enough to get through armor for instance I was watching a t.v. show about the crusaders trying to hold Jerusalem during one of the crusades and it mentioned scimitars had the potential to break chainmail at that time
>>29941940
A one handed weapon is very unlikely to be able to deliver the energy needed to cut or stab through mail. The human body isn't really up to the task.
However, mail is unlikely to cover absolutely everything on your body, and even if it does, you may be able to cause at least partially disabling damage through it, giving you a better chance to either find an unprotected spot or to put both of your hands and all of your weight behind an attack.
Thus we get a situation where mail offers very good protection, but not complete such. So you can wear someone down. As for outright killing anyone, most deaths in battle appear to have taken place when people where no longer fighting, ie running down those fleeing, or as seems to have been the case with the Towton finds, butchering the wounded and prisoners.
As for modern materials, the weapon sued in that video where of such, so obviously mail would have performed much better than that in reality. Well, ok, this is a silly thing to claim, but so is that the mail is performing too good simply because of modern materials. Using non-accurate things for testing skews the results, but in which way is often a lot harder to say.
Looking at the mail alone, the metal has a good chance of being better than historical. (Though the heat cycling hardening and tempering for both the modern and historical mail will ore often than not be a perfectly even "nothing".)
On the other hand, the performance of mail is very heavily dependent on the quality of the riveting (or such) closing the rings, since rings opening up and unlinking is a major failure mode. And with the number of links involved, that's a lot of work, and a lot of cost. Modern mail, keeping the cost sane and profits up, often ends up being not so brilliant here.
