Go to page 1, 2  Next

montante/zweihander etc.. ultimate attack sword?
Do you need a weapon for assaulting places and keeping order?
.. but you say that a halberd is a bit too big and awkward?.. and a knightly longsword is just a bit too puny?

look no further than the Two handed sword.. it can cut, it can thrust, its good for bodyguarding VIPs, doorways and streets, for boarding actions and being first into the breach..

accept no substitutes it even makes julien fries..

it really is the ultimate attack sword.

or.. is it?
[laughing in Roman]
I'd not want one in an alley (as one of many possible examples where the context of the situation would render that sword as a very poor choice).
I think it's weird how the Dutch Repulic who put a lot of emphasis on shielded swordsmen didn't achieve the expected amount of them in the records, where even Zweihander-armed soldiers are noted; which by themselves, seems to have been devaluated in favor of halberdiers.
If it was so good, it would have seen more widespread use.
Dan Howard wrote:
If it was so good, it would have seen more widespread use.


Could you elaborate? I mean, they offer a good counter for pikes and spears and are better than other swords in normal situations as they have more reach. A Two Hander doesn't cut through mail or plate armor, but arguably this wouldn't be really that necessary in 16th-century warfare.

I thought they weren't so popular compared to rodeleiros/rondartschier in places outside Germany because it was more complicated to make a Two Hander than other swords, and apparently, in Germany it's said they recruited only those with a degree on longswords at a Fencing Guild or something; though I think this to be unlikely.

Do you think a zweihander-armed soldier is less efficient than a rodeleiro fighting other units or fighting each other, because of the (apparently bullet-proof) shield?
Pedro Paulo Gaião wrote:
I mean, they offer a good counter for pikes and spears and are better than other swords in normal situations as they have more reach.


Some questions:

1) Hasn't the pike thing been debunked? In what way are they a good counter for pikes? I thought that the myth was that they could cut through a pike and that's not right unless they get several wacks at it.

2) What's a normal situation? Reach isn't everything...penetration power, for one, is often important and I think a pretty normal priority, isn't it? I think a halberd (for example) has the reach advantage, and then some, plus other advantages...

3) Isn't their real probable purposes the following: intimidation (for body guards, etc.) and enabling one person to hold several people at bay (isn't this shown in the manuals?)
Big two-handed swords were common in some periods of Chinese and Japanese history as well as early modern Europe. They were always outnumbered by staff weapons, guns, bows, and crossbows though!

The Spadone Project is collecting sources http://thespadoneproject.com/
It is notable that big two-handed swords appeared prominently in the 16th century in both Europe & East Asia. That suggests that the basic design of a 5-6ft sword offered meaningful martial utility. While I don't know of any prices for greatswords specifically, I suspect they were more expensive than equivalent staff weapons like halberds. Some available prices for polearms are rather cheap. A black bill cost a mere 16d in 1574; polearms generally seem to have been cheaper than single-handed swords.

It seems curious to go to the trouble making such large swords if there weren't some practical value. As mentioned, available European sources indicate that greatswords were especially suited to fighting multiple opponents. Certain successful 16th-century European forces used them alongside halberds in pike formations. There is some mention of cutting pikes in period documents, though this was contested at the time & remains controversial.

Examined from a physical point of view, the greatsword has four main advantages compared with polearms: being more nimble at any given weight thanks to balance closer to the hand, a longer sharp edge, more hand protection, & improved durability. It's also perhaps easier to wear a greatsword in a position where it can be quickly deployed, though there's scant evidence this was done historically (& there are a few texts that mention wearing staff weapons like the Welsh hook).
Benjamin H. Abbott wrote:
It seems curious to go to the trouble making such large swords if there weren't some practical value.


I'm not sure that follows. Rich people spend money on all kinds of funny things. I'm guessing that rich people in the past weren't enormously more practical than rich people living today.
Dan Kary wrote:
Benjamin H. Abbott wrote:
It seems curious to go to the trouble making such large swords if there weren't some practical value.


I'm not sure that follows. Rich people spend money on all kinds of funny things. I'm guessing that rich people in the past weren't enormously more practical than rich people living today.


The whole point of conspicuous consumption was to get the most expensive trendy item, use it up where everyone could see, and replace it with something even more ostentatious.
Dan Howard wrote:
Dan Kary wrote:
Benjamin H. Abbott wrote:
It seems curious to go to the trouble making such large swords if there weren't some practical value.


I'm not sure that follows. Rich people spend money on all kinds of funny things. I'm guessing that rich people in the past weren't enormously more practical than rich people living today.


The whole point of conspicuous consumption was to get the most expensive trendy item, use it up where everyone could see, and replace it with something even more ostentatious.


Personally, I. As my OP somewhat hyperbolically notes. reckon that the early renaissance greatswords hit a very unique sweet spot, as being the largest of the swords, but the smallest of the polearms.

its got the full blade length that makes grabbing it difficult, it strikes harder than any normal sword, has enough reach to deny and clear significant areas for defense.. but is handier and lighter and a bit more agile in the swing than a halberd at such a extended reach, having nice hand protection and the ability to nicely half sword when in even smaller quarters doesn't help either... which we know from manuals that the sword was used in places like alleyways.

Hell, we've got a manual that tells you that when attacked in an alley, to stab at the opponents aggressively, switching sides to keep them at bay but using your reach over most swords to force them back until you can exit.

in urban areas id say it has a rather solid amount of utility, those large swings can be rather useful for crowd control, and id imagine theyd be pretty nasty in the role of attacking a breach or leading a boarding party, that kind of sword is big, intimidating, and swings fast and with reach. could be used to create a breakthrough, and , using those movements, deny enemies from easily rushing back, giving your own men time to exploit it and break through

i.e as shock troops

as to why it wasnt more common.. id say its because it was best in that particular sweet spot, means that its, ironically, specialised towards those particular applications, meaning that its overall need wasnt super mainstream. combine that with the actual expense of the sword themselves and the time and expense of training with the thing to develop proper proficiency. would limit its widespread adoption.

and for most field battle applications a halberd is just fine

but its rather noteable that in a , i believe Circa 1600 marching/ formation order, of the several nundred pikemen, arquebusiers and halberdiers, there were just a few dozen 'slaughter swordsmen' and all of them.. were positioned near the battle standard in the middle

which, to me gives this... vivid mental image of a crumbling formation, either due to being overpowered by a stronger pike block, shredded by musket and cannonfire, or maybe they just got rammed by a cavalry charge...
the 'victorious enemies trying to rush for the flag to capture it.. only to find it surrounded by a several dozen men with big honking greatswords doing those massive area denial swings

all while the standard bearers either GTFO, or given time for what remains of the command and control staff try desperately to restore cohesion and withdraw in good order as much as possible
William P wrote:
...
but its rather noteable that in a , i believe Circa 1600 marching/ formation order, of the several nundred pikemen, arquebusiers and halberdiers, there were just a few dozen 'slaughter swordsmen' and all of them.. were positioned near the battle standard in the middle

which, to me gives this... vivid mental image of a crumbling formation, either due to being overpowered by a stronger pike block, shredded by musket and cannonfire, or maybe they just got rammed by a cavalry charge...
the 'victorious enemies trying to rush for the flag to capture it.. only to find it surrounded by a several dozen men with big honking greatswords doing those massive area denial swings

all while the standard bearers either GTFO, or given time for what remains of the command and control staff try desperately to restore cohesion and withdraw in good order as much as possible


So it's a sword employed for *losing* a battle, rather than winning one? :p
Matthew Amt wrote:
William P wrote:
...
but its rather noteable that in a , i believe Circa 1600 marching/ formation order, of the several nundred pikemen, arquebusiers and halberdiers, there were just a few dozen 'slaughter swordsmen' and all of them.. were positioned near the battle standard in the middle

which, to me gives this... vivid mental image of a crumbling formation, either due to being overpowered by a stronger pike block, shredded by musket and cannonfire, or maybe they just got rammed by a cavalry charge...
the 'victorious enemies trying to rush for the flag to capture it.. only to find it surrounded by a several dozen men with big honking greatswords doing those massive area denial swings

all while the standard bearers either GTFO, or given time for what remains of the command and control staff try desperately to restore cohesion and withdraw in good order as much as possible


So it's a sword employed for *losing* a battle, rather than winning one? :p


its a sword employed very heavily to stop others from getting hurt, and for area denial
in this context i cant think of another use of it, other than maybe breaking away from the formation to be used in a flanking strike

so calling it the 'assault/ attack sword' seems like its incorrect now that i think about it
The 16th century was a very messy and experimental period.

Naval warfare had not yet settled on ships of the line but rather used cannon armed galleys or galley shaped ships like the galleon. Both of them attacking with the prow in line abreast and relying on boarding action. On these you might find a colorful array of breech or muzzle loading bronze, cast iron and wrought iron guns mounted on swivels, two wheeled and four wheeled carriages firing stone, lead or cast iron projectiles. On deck archers using bows stood shoulder to shoulder with men using older style pole mounted handgonnes, shouldered matchlock arquebuses and gunshields. From the tops men would be hurling javelins and pots filled with quicklime. On land you could see meters long culverins, double barreled cannon and organ guns whose blasts cheered on noble companies clad in plate, pistol armed reiters and an array of exotic light cavalry from the frontiers of Europe. Crossbow armed reivers or balkan men with curved sword and bows.

In such an experimental environment large swords may have occupied a niche peculiar to the time and type of warfare.

Alonso de Chaves specifically mentions Montantes in his Espejo de Navegantes

Quote:
Asimismo, si los nuestros saltaren en su nao, los primeros deben de llevar mon-tantes, que es mejor arma en tal caso, y los de coselete con espada y rodela.


Quote:
Likewise, if our people jump onto their ship, the first should carry mon-tantes which are better weapons for such a case, and men of the coselete [should have with them] sword and shield.”


Montantes are also mentioned at the battle of Lepanto where there clearing ability could be quite useful. Domingo Luiz Godinho and Diogo Gomes de Figueyredo writing in 1599 and 1651 still mention the montante as being used in contemporary galleys on the gangway.

Quotes taken from: An Introduction to Hand-to-Hand Combat at Sea: General Characteristics and Shipborne Technologies from c. 1210 BCE to 1600 CE by Rolf Warming
Pieter B. wrote:
The 16th century was a very messy and experimental period.

Naval warfare had not yet settled on ships of the line but rather used cannon armed galleys or galley shaped ships like the galleon. Both of them attacking with the prow in line abreast and relying on boarding action. On these you might find a colorful array of breech or muzzle loading bronze, cast iron and wrought iron guns mounted on swivels, two wheeled and four wheeled carriages firing stone, lead or cast iron projectiles. On deck archers using bows stood shoulder to shoulder with men using older style pole mounted handgonnes, shouldered matchlock arquebuses and gunshields. From the tops men would be hurling javelins and pots filled with quicklime. On land you could see meters long culverins, double barreled cannon and organ guns whose blasts cheered on noble companies clad in plate, pistol armed reiters and an array of exotic light cavalry from the frontiers of Europe. Crossbow armed reivers or balkan men with curved sword and bows.

In such an experimental environment large swords may have occupied a niche peculiar to the time and type of warfare.

Alonso de Chaves specifically mentions Montantes in his Espejo de Navegantes

Quote:
Asimismo, si los nuestros saltaren en su nao, los primeros deben de llevar mon-tantes, que es mejor arma en tal caso, y los de coselete con espada y rodela.


Quote:
Likewise, if our people jump onto their ship, the first should carry mon-tantes which are better weapons for such a case, and men of the coselete [should have with them] sword and shield.”


Montantes are also mentioned at the battle of Lepanto where there clearing ability could be quite useful. Domingo Luiz Godinho and Diogo Gomes de Figueyredo writing in 1599 and 1651 still mention the montante as being used in contemporary galleys on the gangway.

Quotes taken from: An Introduction to Hand-to-Hand Combat at Sea: General Characteristics and Shipborne Technologies from c. 1210 BCE to 1600 CE by Rolf Warming


so two handed swords used in boarding parties is actually more substantially recognised than just a few figures on the battle of lepanto tapestry?!

amazing.

and even moreso vindicates a curious interaction that occured in my local LARP scene.

in my larp, theres a nation called mureth, its 'flintlock fantasy' styled,m with airships, galleons, and a largely floating city of boats and partially scuttled ships connecting a bunch of sandbars and a single small island ala venice mixed with pirates

in that place the inhabitants are rarely armoured, dressed like the age of sail with tricorns and bonnets, with cutlasses rapiers andfestooned with muzzleloaders>

.. i myself have a burgonet and a peascod breastplate and pauldrones, ... when i first began roleplaying wioth this character.. various murethis remarked "i didnt expect to see a murethi so heavily armoured.

my response

"someone has to lead the boarding party"

https://scontent.fsyd4-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/332939903_614624454009431_1576611688042811549_n.jpg?_nc_cat=108&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=ae9488&_nc_ohc=TUOoL-5iepwAX86Pg9q&_nc_ht=scontent.fsyd4-1.fna&oh=03_AdRE6D1VMEP1VJKpwru0OKczmFScy1nO8WQm5GIzMn6F7Q&oe=6430098B

my LARP persona as a armoured mercenary (the bow is mostly because i dont own enough band shooting pistols yet, and LARP polearms and greatswords are very expensive)
I don't see any indication in the source that greatswords were status symbols. In Ming-era texts, it's clear the authors appreciated large Japanese-style blades for their martial utility. Similarly, greatswords appear in many European fencing & military manuals. They're a mainstay of the Iberian fencing tradition & often praised. While presumably more expensive than staff weapons in both Europe & East Asia, many surviving greatswords are rather plain. It's unlikely these were valuable enough to be displays of wealth. Various extremely fancy weapons from this period exist, & are different.

It's more suggestive than conclusive, but Humphrey Barwick's mention that halberds had long staves & top spikes to go against greatswords stands consistent with the notion that greatswords have the advantage over staff weapons of similar length because of their relative nimbleness.

Barwick 1592 wrote:
the cause that the French officers do vse them with such long staues and pykes, is to encounter with the Lance-knights, who do vse being Sargiants of foote-bandes, to carrie verie good long swordes or Slaugh swordes
Weren’t two handers also used for scrimmaging and as part of the “forlorn hope”.

I think in any case, the best formation is a mixed formation and that similar to sports teams, every general had his own variation of formations and changed them up based on the makeup of their team. [/i]
I have also seen references to keeping a rack of greatswords next to the rack of pollaxes, bills, or halberds in bastions in 16th/17th century Europe. If the bad guys start climbing through the embrasures, the gunners have something better than their sidearms!

Some of the Iberian montante forms are called "how to defend the gangway of a galley" or similar.

I can't think of a lof of evidence for swords 150 cm and longer in overall length being worn on the body. Europeans carried them on the shoulder like a sfaff weapon, not sure what the Chinese and Japanese did.
Sean Manning wrote:
I have also seen references to keeping a rack of greatswords next to the rack of pollaxes, bills, or halberds in bastions in 16th/17th century Europe. If the bad guys start climbing through the embrasures, the gunners have something better than their sidearms!

Some of the Iberian montante forms are called "how to defend the gangway of a galley" or similar.

I can't think of a lof of evidence for swords 150 cm and longer in overall length being worn on the body. Europeans carried them on the shoulder like a sfaff weapon, not sure what the Chinese and Japanese did.


https://www.geishasblade.com/odachi-or-nodachi/
we definately have evidence that these were stored on the back on occasion.

their curvature and less bulky guards do make these less of a pain to carry about. not sure about how it was done in china however.
https://studymartialarts.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/mingsworddrawing1678.jpg though this image of a changdao/ miaodao manual from the ming dynasty shows it being worn, somehow on the belt
Go to page 1, 2  Next

Page 1 of 2

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum




All contents © Copyright 2003-2006 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum