historically, how would a longsword have been used in combat?
what armor would be worn with it, and what opponents would it be used against?
clearly, a longsword would be at a disadvantage when pitted against and arming sword and shield, considering the lack of protection, but in what context would a longsword be most effective?
>>30312554
You are wildly off base, the only thing that matters is the person wielding the weapon
An arming sword and shield could beat a long sword or an arming sword alone couple beat a sword and shield, or the longsword could beat the other combos
>>30312633
of course they could, but of two individuals with equal skill, the one with the superior equipment will have the advantage.
just watch any sparring videos, having a shield to block is a huge advantage
They were used like this
I am not even joking
>>30312745
why is the dude in armor using armor fencing techniques against an unarmored opponent?
>>30312721
Having a shield Will also greatly impair Your vision. It's a toss up either way and neither is definitively better. For example there is a technique called half- swording that one can do when not using a shield that is very effective. Also worth noting is that it's possible to bind any sort of shield. Source : studying techniques from masters like liechtenauer
>>30312554
That is a hell of a question, it was a sword used in multiple countries over a period of centuries by various cultures.
In a battlefield context though its used by and against people like this or against less well equipped troops. Note it was usually a secondary weapon to the poleaxe which is more effective against armour. It will be very effective against anybody who cannot afford full armour and it still lets you stab the gaps between plates or gives you leverage in wrestling with a fully armoured opponent.
Its disadvantage against sword and shield doesn't matter. In a civilian context nobody carries a full size shield around with them so the longsword has more reach than an arming sword. And in battle plate armour made shields mostly redundant so you might as well take advantage of the things a two handed sword lets you do.
>>30312745
>they were used like this
>for like... 25 years
>out of the 600 years that longswords were around
![image014[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/l6suqxV.jpg "image014[1].jpg")
>>30312766
because
>>30312809
what economical background would a person need to have to be able to afford plate armor?
how prevalent was it on the battlefield?
>>30312766
Well its obviously some form of demonstration.
And should mention OP, its use changes completely based on whether your opponent is wearing armour or not. Against people with none or little you just use the blade. If your opponent has armour you do the sorts of things in the video since you cannot cut him.
>There's already a sword thread
>This one could've been obviated by a trip to Wikipedia
How are digital natives this bad at internet stuff?
>>30312833
Varies massively depending on location, period and what kind of army it is.
By the mid-late 1400's even common soldiers often had partial plate armour or individual pieces. Its far too context dependent to give a proper answer though.
>>30312554
Probably if one person is armored and the other is a barbarian/pleb whatever without armor. Also the barbarian might not give a fuck to carry a shield and just wants the biggest thing to swing at the the enemy.
Most battles were fought primarily with spears, then pikes, and more often than not also with shields. Swords were a secondary and somewhat of a decorative piece. You can think of a longsword as an honor guard rifle of its time. Something the heavily armored MFWIC would carry but not often use. They didn't always go to battle in all that armor either.
>>30312863
> there can be only ONE thread about swords at ANY time
> meanwhile we have about 69 threads talking about fuddy five stopping powah
>>30312907
more like 69 threads talking about depressing legislative/antigun shit. I can't wait for all the liberals to stop crying so we can go back to our regular, run of the mill, /k/ threads
this wouldn't be a problem if the shit eating, cock smoking mods hadn't axed gun control threads, and just allowed a gun control general
>>30312907
>Unironically defending people not checking the catalog
>>30312863
but it creates discussion on an interesting subject
>>30312888
>decorative piece
This is not true at all once we move out of the Viking period. By the High Middle Ages swords were so cheap every soldier carried them because they are a useful weapon that is easy to carry on your belt.
>>30312937
It creates people saying what Wikipedia says because OP didn't bother learning enough to come in with anything but the type of super basic questions that Wikipedia is designed for.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longsword#Fighting_with_the_longsword
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_armour#Late_Middle_Ages
>>30312745
Yes, against guys in full armor where your slashing and stabbing means jack shit.
>>30313024
i don't really trust wikipedia on this sort of thing and would rather ask people on here because of the universally held misconceptions about medieval warfare and historical fencing.
wikipedia still claims the katana is a superior god weapon that can cut through tanks
>>30312817
Your numbers off, but, yes, for the period of time when longswords and full harness were contemporaneous.
>>30313051
>Dat hyperbole
Sure is Feinstein in here.
>>30312975
Sword of like a handgun though right? I bet it would have been like it was in the cowboy days up until the 1911 days, the pieces would have had at least some artistic value. Nowadays everyone just carries ugly ass glocks.
My point is they didn't go to war with their parrying weapon. They took things with range advantage. Long pikes, bows crossbows. Range has always been an advantage since the days of throwing rocks, that's why we developed guns in the first place and not lightsabers or something close range.
>>30312809
>in a civilian context
In a civilian context nobody carried around longswords either, because most towns were noswords. They carried messers, the middle-ages equivalent of Sig braces.
>>30313041
There's so many holes in the armor, it's mainly for defense against arrows.
Bows were like guns, any pleb could kill the highest ranking knight at range. They armored up so that wouldn't happen. It did offer protection against blows, certainly slashes, but that shit wasn't as thick as AR500. The guys had to be able to move. What the guys trying to demonstrate in the video is that precision was key, he's maneuvering and bashing the guy trying to get a gap in the armor to present itself. Of course one could always just bash the shit out of the dude with a mace.
>>30312828
>>30312837
>>30312745
>>30313059
Wow our ancestors were fucking retards.
If this was seriously how they were used why don't we see more swordstaffs being utilized? They would be far more effective and not potentially lead to cutting yourself, not to mention offer better grip and control.
>>30313209
>Swordstaff
What the fuck is that, some D&D shit? I've never heard of it.
>>30313209
> limiting yourself to a single fighting style
these techniques weren't used out of purpose, they were used out of necessity.
swords offered versatility, and this is just one of the many possible uses.
>>30313220
Something like this, but less cringy, and the handle can be like half that long. It offers better maneuverability and bashing capability (like a pike) as well as stabbing and slashing. Unlike a pike it's full tang, the handle area is wrapped metal.
I can't even find a good historical example because their use was so rare, that's what I'm pointing out as retarded. Does this shit not look combat effective as fuck? Why didn't they use them?
At the time the "longsword" was the common Noble's sidearm, there was full plate.
You don't need a shield when in full plate and you don't even need a complex handguard if you're wearing gauntlets. they provide all realistic forms of protection.
against armored foes, it's currently beleived an armored Man At Arms would have used a combination of half swording and grappling to hit the weak parts of the armor, like the arm pit or the eye slits of the helmet.
>>30313285
Fuck, pic related
>>30313220
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swordstaff
>A Swordstaff (Svärdstav) is a Scandinavian polearm, used in the medieval ages. It is made by placing a blade at the end of a staff.
>Although Dolstein believed the weapon was made from swords, there is no independent confirmation of this.
>clearly identifiable artistic or archaeological evidence of the form of these weapons is lacking
Sounds like someone way back in the past created mythical weapons with his description of a long spear. The closest thing I could find that wasn't a fantasy weapon is this and this is entirely a thrusting weapon.
>>30313308
That's an awlpike, or a "Ahlspiess" if you're a sperg who can only use foreign words to name something.
>>30313285
>>30313296
Because it would be way too heavy, the balance would be completely fucked, and the handle would disable you from doing 80% of the fencing movements dont with a sword.
There is no benefit to it being full tang either, pollaxes were close combat weapons and they had a wooden handle.
You are the retard here anon.
>>30313285
Pikes are particularly maneuverable being long as fuck, some troops cut them down to normal spear-length but that put them at a disadvantage when up against a pike square that hadn't.
What you're describing is more like a partisan, pudao or naginata.
>>30312554
Watch some videos of modern day german longsword competitions. Its legit as fuck.
>>30312745
bull shit.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zueF4Mu2uM
>>30312554
>>30313209
>Why didn't they trade the versatility of a long sword for a more restrictive sword staff.
>>30313327
>Filename
>>30313285
>Unlike a pike it's full tang
I don't think that any polearm in history has been full tang, that's a lot of metal to add and I doubt it'd have much benefit.
>>30313360
but that's actually a real technique described in talhoffer's manuals
>>30313332
It would literally be around the same weight as a longsword of the same length... you think they just make the handle super fucking thick like your skull or something? How would it weigh more?
>>30313374
To fight with holding the blade and swinging the hilt???
Dude you have source/technique name? I have been doing this for a bit and have never seen that. Whats the benefit?
>>30313372
>Filename
lel. didn't read it.
i'll just stop posting now.
>>30313209
I think the prevalence of this type of maneuver means they didn't cut themselves. Which means they weren't retarded. Which means you're retarded for not being able to come to that conclusion on your own.
>>30313427
> name
halfswording? not sure
> benefit
as you can see in the webm, slashing at an opponent wearing plate armor is useless, as you can't cut through steel.
using your sword as a warhammer allows you to do some actual damage to an armored opponent.
>>30313464
Maybe but most swords of the time, while certainly sharp and capable, were more for crushing and stabbing than slashing anyway. So it seems superfluous to me.
>>30313459
The prevalence of the necessity of that type of maneuver calls for the designing of a new type of weapon that allows it to be performed mkre effectively... so you don't have to grab onto something not designed to be grabbed onto and risk it slipping out of your hands or stabbing yourself in the thigh while swinging, which probably happened.
>>30313416
>How would it weigh more?
Because you're attaching a long wooden handle to a blade large enough to be called a sword. Polearms in general are known for being relatively heavy, I don't know where you're getting the idea that this would be the exception.
isn't a swordstaff basically just a glaive in non-faggot terms?
>>30313607
From what I've been able to glean a swordstaff is different in that the tang is used to mount the blade, glaives are mounted by socket. That does seem to be about the only difference though.
>>30313209
Longsword in harness mainly happened in judicial duels. You would be wearing thick leather gloves which would keep the sword from biting into your hands, and you would have a firm grip on the blade to keep the sword from sliding and thereby cutting the leather.
On an actual battlefield, men-at-arms didn't go around wrestling with longswords; they used weapons like pollaxes, with large, heavy heads for striking other people in armor. A sword on a stick is the opposite of what you want--sure, you've got reach, but you can't strike very effectively, you can't cut, and you don't have the control to stab the enemy in the gaps of his armor.
>>30312554
Your question only serves to display your complete and utter ignorance of all things weaponry, let alone simple sword fighting. Nothing else to see here except a moronic post from a 10 year old.
First, apparently you are unaware that a shield was almost never used in hand to hand combat. It is a disadvantage. No shield can block the entire body and there will always be a portion exposed and that is what is attacked. Secondly, defending with a shield is its own skillset requiring mastery. Otherwise, it is simply a hunk of metal to slow one down and provide a false sense of security. Third, shields were used almost exclusively in staged fighting in an arena and their only other use was in frontline shieldbearers in marching formation in wars where they were used to block arrow volleys until the opponent essentially ran out of arrows, then they were thrown to the ground and abandoned for real weaponry. Fourth, shields worth using in medieval times were absurdly heavy out of necessity. Even then, most shields lasted only a few battles before they were useless and failed--either entirely by way of structural failure, or in the mechanism for bearing them.
Your question, again, is moronic at best.
This >>30312633 is the only other correct answer in this thread.
>>30313464
>>30313427
Half-swording is when you grip with one hand halfway up the blade and essentially use the sword as a short spear, guiding the point into gaps in the enemy armor.
Pic related, on the other hand, is called mordhau. You're essentially using your sword as a large club to batter the enemy, because you can't cut an armored enemy.
>>30313024
You act like you need to be fucking prepared with notes to come to this Norwegian hand-cream discussion forum
>>30313760
See
>>30313107
>>30313739
continued:
Further, shields were only used for a very short period of time and were useless once platemail was developed as you were essentially a walking shield. Most historians of armaments hold that shields became obsolete even earlier, and unless you count the freestanding tate as a shield (it is not, technically) no one used them, let alone in battle as two handed swords (which also gave the biggest advantage: reach) became the weapon of choice for all but fools in open fighting.
>>30313501
You take a longsword
You make something like that but it's half handle half sword for better maneuverability since half the sword is useless anyway.
They are around the same length
It's not going to be heavier, if so not by very much. Polearms usually had ax heads making them heavier.
>>30312721
The long sword is used to stab.
Other wise its used like a staff, with one hand holding the blade.
Plenty of blocking options
>>30313209
Its a sword, that means its easy to wear. You cannot carry both a polearm and then a swordstaff as well. People training with their backup weapon for the not unlikely possibility they will lose their poleaxe does not make them retards.
What is it with people on the internet who think they are more qualified than entire generations of people whose entire function in society was combat?
>>30313360
They are doing unarmoured longsword. Its an entirely different set of techniques.
Almost nobody does armoured longsword fighting at full contact because full plate is expensive and the techniques are inherently dangerous. What with being designed to injure through armour.
>>30313739
>>30313823
Are you literally braindead? Shields were ubiquitous from the bronze age until the High Middle Ages. And they saw use well into the Renaissance. They weren't some passing fad, most proper close combat troops in history had a shield and a spear until plate rendered them redundant and made two handed weapons necessary. And most shields were made of wood.
Also anybody who calls it platemail gets their arms and armour knowledge from Dungeons and Dragons. You have mail and you have plate, platemail is a made up word.
>>30313488
> were more for crushing and stabbing
> stabbing
certainly
> crushing
no nigga that's what maces are for.
>>30313942
>mfw in movies troops like that get stabbed or slashed in the chest and they die
>mfw they think a long sword would go through a cotton tunic, a gambeson, a leather jack, a chainmail hauberk, and a surcoat
There was only one movie I saw that did medieval combat right and it was a documentary on PBS. In one scene they had soldiers just hacking away at people on the ground and trying to rip the helmets off to get a dagger in.
>>30313739
>>30313823
are you fucking retarded?
like really, you sound like a d&d faggot who thinks they're an expert in medieval warfare
you even type like an autistic basement dweller
shields were extremely prevalent in warfare in many different cultures and periods.
also, many shields were designed to cover the entire body, like kite shields and larger round shields, just to name a few.
also
> hunks of metal that slow you down
what are bucklers?
> obsolete once plate armor was introduced
>implying plate armor was affordable for the average soldier
>implying armored soldiers didn't use shields on top of plate
>implying shields weren't commonplace on the battlefield
fucking retard
>>30314116
Longswords and other bastard type swords weren't sharp the whole length of the blade. It was so you could grab the blade and strike with the hilt and handle.
Also a lot of mounted cavalry didn't sharpen their blades and this carried over as far as the civil war in the US. They didn't want the blade sharp because the possibility of it cutting into something and then sticking in that said something would be enough to dismount them. This is why they only left the tip sharp. A mounted charge while swinging was enough to do the damage they needed to do while the tip as really the only effective way regardless to do any damage.
>>30314264
well sure, mounted sword techniques are a whole nother thing, man
and sure, the tip is the most important part to be sharp, but you can grab a sharp blade without cutting yourself, provided you do it right.
>>30314305
>but you can grab a sharp blade without cutting yourself
Sure, but you wont be able to swing it.
>>30314318
>what are gloves
Hell, you don't even need gloves. Just a firm grip.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwuQPfvSSlo
>>30314237
Lol @ you calling him retarded.
Honestly, he's 99% right.
And btw, your question is idiotic.
Shields were pretty much useless and came in and out real fast. Plate armor made them obsolete.
You literally have no idea what you are talking about kid and everyone in this thread is laughing at you.
>>30314237
>>30313829
>It's not going to be heavier, if so not by very much. Polearms usually had ax heads making them heavier.
Your hypothetical weapon is roughly 50", half blade and half handle with langets and ostensibly some kind of rudimentary guard. If it's going to cut people worth a shit then it needs to have a thick wide base, which is going to make it heavy, comparable or heavier than pretty much any other weapon of its size.
The glaive usually had a handle that was longer than that entire weapon with a slightly shorter blade. Polearms with no reach suck and heavy swords with no maneuverability suck and your weapon has every drawback.
>>30314264
Civil war era cavalry would sometimes use the flat of the saber to slap troops on the head or shoulders, still potentially lethal, but that was usually enough to get them to realize the game was up and surrender. Also sharpened sabers would go blunt fairly quickly just from rattling around in the scabbard.
>>30313739
>>30313823
>>30314386
>>30314404
> samefagging this hard
>>30314386
>shields came in and out real fast
>3000BC to 1400AD
Uh, what?
>>30313464
Stabbing at one is largely useless to, it's pretty much impossible to get through the plate armor of a standing opponent as any blow would allow them to move backwards to absorb it.
>>30314648
you try to stab the places where there's no armor
under the armpits, at the joints, etc
see >>30312745
illustrates the technique quite well
>>30314648
couldn't really heavy points like those found on certain polearms punch through plate?
>>30313831
>Other wise its used like a staff, with one hand holding the blade.
Depends on the system.
>>30314212
>they had soldiers just hacking away at people on the ground and trying to rip the helmets off to get a dagger in
If you add Benny Hill to that it gets funny instead of terrifying.
>>30312554
Longsword would be jack of all trade kind of weapon.
In both armoured and unarmoured situation.
>>30312809
Also this.
>>30313134
Messer's were manufacturer's trick to bypass swordsmith guild.
Not civilian trying to bypass town security.
>because most towns were noswords
Depends. Someplace like Britain are truely noarms.
But at someplace it is required for you to bear arms in order to be accepted as a citizen.
> the middle-ages equivalent of Sig braces
More like middle-ages equivalent of HTC/Samsung to Apple
>>30312745
when will this meme die. that will be like holding the gun barrel to yourself while pulling the trigger while trying to hammer him with the grip.
whats funnier is the guy in armor could have just charged him with a normal strike and killed him right away.
>>30315418
>whats funnier is the guy in armor could have just charged him with a normal strike and killed him right away
>What's demonstrations
Imagine the red shirt guy is in full suit of armour as well.
>>30315438
i think in the original video it says something like "techniques an unarmored opponent can use against an armored knight", so no it's not a demonstration of armor vs armor.
>>30314264
The parts you grab to strike with the hilt are the parts you would normally cut with, they were sharp
I've done them with a sharp sword, it's very possible to not get cut and I even punched a (very small, it's just a crossguard) hole through a sort of viking round shield - 7 layers of linen glued to wood using a planked construction because the guard came to a point
>>30315418
> pommeling someone with the grip of a pistol
Was done historically
> zornhau technique of bashing with the crossguard
Was done historically
Read a book, dumbass
>>30316731
>zornhau technique of bashing with the crossguard
This is absolutely not what a zornhau is, a zornhau is a diagonal cut, you're thinking of mordhau.
>>30313942
>They are doing unarmoured longsword. Its an entirely different set of techniques.
If you are doing Lichtenauer lineage stuff that is. Fiore's two-handed sword can be done in armor or out of armor, is close plays especially.
>>30314386
amusingly your precious full plate came in and out real fast compared to shields, which were developed and used by literally everyone since the bronze age
>>30312633
>>30312721
>>30312791
Paulus Kal shows longsword and buckler together, your arguments are invalid.
Besides, you can do half-swording with a sword and buckler, Kal and Lignitzer have plays about it.
The fact that sword and buckler was done for a longer period than longsword would indicate that strictly determining that one is better than the other is ridiculous. They both offer different advantages and both were used by knights and gentlemen, so it's not like it's strictly a knight weapon vs lesser-class weapon.
>>30314237
Maybe someone in this thread can help me. I lost this image that was very similarly yours. It as French Men-at-arms fighting English, but more realistic than yours.
Anyone know what I'm talking about? it was a very impressive painting
>>30313657
Those aren't the tang, they're not really a continuation of the blades piece of metal, they're langlets designed to reinforce the shaft.
>>30318417
>Those aren't the tang
I know, I never said that they were. FFS I even mention socket mounting in that very post.
