[Ruel A. Macaraeg]

The context of use for 16thc. two-handers has been debated here and elsewhere many times now, so many in fact that I'm not sure if a consensus has ever developed. I recently found something that hopefully can contribute some concrete evidence to the ongoing discussion.

I chanced on an old (1970s) Polish-language book on knights, and reproduced in it is a period illustration of the Battle of Grunwald (aka. the Battle of Tannenburg) in 1410, in which an allied army led by the Poles and Lithuanians defeated the Teutonic Knights. That battle was of course before the days of two-handers, but the woodcut shown here was from a Polish chronicle ca. 1597, and presumably shows features of combat contemporary to that time.

Two sets of pikemen engage in the center of the picture, but otherwise the two armies have distinct appearances in costume and equipment. Among the distinct fighters on the German side are what must be Doppelsoldner with their two-handers. Though they don't have the characteristic flukes or scrolled guards, these swords are of the same proportions, being drawn at the same height as the men carrying them (who are dressed in what looks like 3/4 harness).

Of primary interest, though, is where they are. These swordsmen are actually positioned between the forward pikes which are pointed horizontally at waist level. Though not yet engaged in this picture it appears that they are positioned to make contact with the opposing pikes (the allied soldiers don't have equivalent swordsmen on their side).

So what we might infer from this illustration is that one use for zweihanders was to engage opposing pikes to protect their own lightly-armored pikemen -- not go out and sweep them aside/break them far in advance of the pike line, as has often been suggested, but rather receive them just before the infantry lines collided. Assuming they survived this initial crash, they would be well position to immediately advance into opposing pike ranks, as the enemy pikemen, lightly-armored and divested of their primary weapon, would be extremely vulnerable. They'd literally be packed together almost immobile -- nice big targets for a large sword that could maybe take two or three guys out at a stroke.

Thoughts? If anything, such a precarious order of battle certainly justifies getting that "double pay" often mentioned. I sure wouldn't want to be the one having to welcome the enemy's pike line!

[Steve Fabert]

Any chance of a scan of this woodcut? I think I understand your description, but a peek at the picture would help.

Do you think the swordsmen were positioned to attack the heads of the opposing pikes to protect their own pikemen, or were they positioned to dodge under the enemy pikes to attack the pikemen themselves? Or maybe some of both?

[Alex Oster]

[Jean Thibodeau]

With a twohander used in the tight press of a pike square horizontal use would be difficult if not impossible but up and down chopping should be possible and effective against the opponent directly in front.

I also notice that when holding my Del Tin Venetian twohander at waist level I can hold it easily forward and use it in a pike-like fashion. ( If held with one hand on the pommel and the other behind the parrying hooks holding it for a long time is even easier .)

So one might use these at the front of the formation in this fashion until an opportunity presented itself to step forward for a usefull horizontal swing. I assume that one could retreat back to the relative protection of the pike square when things got too hot or to recover ones' breath and strenght: I assume that this could be repeated many times and still be survivable.

This would be used to create or take advantages of breaks in the ennemi line.

Maybe once the cohesion of the ennemi line was compromised some of your sides' pikemen might drop their pikes and cut into the melee with their short swords at dagger range.

[Jonathon Janusz]

I had the opportunity over this summer to handle a Lutel two-hander in a very similar fashion as described. An interesting variation I was shown/attempted:

pommel braced firmly at the hip, rearward hand on the grip at the pommel anchoring the weapon to the hip and creating the pivot point for any other motion of the weapon, forward hand holding the weapon by a side ring at the cross (leaving the flat of the blade skyward), a realtively wide stance, bend slightly at the knees to lower the center of gravity, and lean slightly toward the tip leaning "into" the charge, tip pointed slightly upward.

this gave very quick motion of the tip in the vertical axis,allowed the weapon to be "thrown" forward (like a ram) in a thrust, gave a solid base to receive the impact of a charge, and was fairly limited in motion along the horizontal (assumedly a posture used in tight formation). If the handle were a touch longer (and or the man shorter) the sword could possibly be used just as a standard pike (pommel in the dirt in the crook of the rear foot) albeit a lot shorter.

. . . I also improvised a little and found that holding the sword by the ring allowed for a quick, high, downward thrust that - with the reach of the blade - could easily strike not just the man holding a shield but also the man behind him while remaining comfortably beyond the reach of a close formation "sword and buckler" shorter cut-and-thrust war sword.

[Ruel A. Macaraeg]

I'll try to scan it when I get back after the holidays.

I like the suggestion of keeping it braced against the body somehow; certainly one ran the risk of fatigue if the zweihander were kept upraised for any length of time. Yet in this illustration, that's what's happening -- the men have their swords raised and poised for cuts. This may simply be to keep them out of the way of the leveled pikes, though, and might have been done right before the moment of impact; it makes sense that they wouldn't have marched into position that way.