Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > single handed swords vs. two handed swords Reply to topic
This is a standard topic  
Author Message
Joel Chesser




Location: Oklahoma
Joined: 23 Oct 2003

Posts: 724

PostPosted: Tue 02 Dec, 2003 2:51 pm    Post subject: single handed swords vs. two handed swords         Reply with quote

Hi everyone.
I am writing an essay for a junior english class about swords, the thesis being :
" The single handed swords weilded by warriors of old are more efficient then the two handed swords weilded by the same group."
Or something along hose lines.
Anyway, i was doing some thinking, and it seems to me, that weather or not they are efficient or not has to be judged by where they are being used, the battle field, or for deling.
I just kinda wanted to get some thought on this topic, One question i do have is, did they use two-handed swords in actual battle?
what do you guys think?

..." The person who dosen't have a sword should sell his coat and buy one."

- Luke 22:36
View user's profile Send private message
Shawn Mulock




Location: Calgary Alberta, Canada
Joined: 10 Sep 2003
Reading list: 8 books

Posts: 100

PostPosted: Tue 02 Dec, 2003 3:11 pm    Post subject: Re: single handed swords vs. two handed swords         Reply with quote

Joel Chesser wrote:
Hi everyone.
I am writing an essay for a junior english class about swords, the thesis being :
" The single handed swords weilded by warriors of old are more efficient then the two handed swords weilded by the same group."
Or something along hose lines.
Anyway, i was doing some thinking, and it seems to me, that weather or not they are efficient or not has to be judged by where they are being used, the battle field, or for deling.
I just kinda wanted to get some thought on this topic, One question i do have is, did they use two-handed swords in actual battle?
what do you guys think?


Hi Joel! Welcome to myArmoury.com! First of all, there are many learned scholars of fighting in the old ways here, and there is a lot to say about this post.

First off. I feel that your Thesis may not be proven here. We all have our biases here.

I for one think that the short sword was more efficient in some ways and not so in others. In battle the sword and shield were used side by side with the longswords (two handed swords) and for similar and dissimilar purposes. Even within the short sword category there was a vast variety of weapons developed over time and simultaneously. Among the longswords, the versatility and evolution of the weapons led to a startling variety of shapes and designs, based upon what the style of the times and what type of defensive measures were in place.

In the duel, the longsword and shortsword were seen used. Of course we do have to remember that the duel was as uncertain as battle, and you had little or no warning that day... You basically got into a disagreement with the other person and either ironed it out with words, or steel, right then and there. Seldom did they agree to meet on the field of honour. You fought with what you had.

The battle field was only a little different. The two classes of weapons were used here as well.

The short sword was very often used in conjunction with a shield or dagger and was used accordingly. A sword and buckler man could perform many actions and was quite able to carry out many maneouvers and actions with their hands full, even throws could be done with both hands holding weapons. The longsword has the same benefit, but often with the advantage of reach and that extra bit of power applied with both hands. One thing that is often overlooked by the uninitiated is the fact it is not the weapon, but the wielder of the weapon that makes the difference.

I am sure that there are others, more knowledgable than I who could be of service here as well... I am still a relative newby, having only been a scholar for the last ten months.

"It is not what you have, but what you have done".
View user's profile Send private message
Joel Chesser




Location: Oklahoma
Joined: 23 Oct 2003

Posts: 724

PostPosted: Tue 02 Dec, 2003 5:13 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

thanx, actually, i kinda figured there would be a great many opinions on this subject, i am interested to see what they are so any responces for or against the thesis are welcome, i am still learning, and am extremely open to being proven wrong.
..." The person who dosen't have a sword should sell his coat and buy one."

- Luke 22:36
View user's profile Send private message
Felix Wang




Location: Fresno, CA
Joined: 23 Aug 2003
Reading list: 17 books

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 394

PostPosted: Tue 02 Dec, 2003 5:23 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Everything depends on circumstances. Single combat vs massed combat is one of the biggest issues. Are both sides well armored, neither armored, or only one armored? How much room is there: if space is tight shorter weapons have an advantage.

Next, one needs to tighten up the definitions: by single sword, do you mean a single handed sword alone, with a buckler, or with a larger shield?

Then, comes the question of defining "efficient". Do you mean the one most likely to kill the other, or the one most likely to survive a string of combats (surviving takes more than just getting the other guy). Is it efficiency for weight of weapon (and/or shield?)? Is it effectiveness when handled by experts, or by newly trained recruits?

That being said, two handed swords were definitely used in battle. In the 16th century landsknechts used them as a supplementary weapon to aid their pikemen, and Durer has a famous picture of a gallowglass among other Irish fighters, with a two-handed ringhilt. Gallowglasses were professional soldiers, and not aristocratic types. They may have engaged in barroom brawls, but formal duels were unlikely.
View user's profile Send private message
Robert Zamoida




Location: Davis Monthan AFB, AZ
Joined: 06 Oct 2003
Reading list: 3 books

Posts: 228

PostPosted: Tue 02 Dec, 2003 8:40 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I agree with Felix's statement on circumstances; I've recently started learning wakizashi techniques in my kenjutsu class, and with the right use if timing and distance someone wielding a wakizashi can not only overcome someone wielding a katana but can negate the advantages of a longer weapon. Ultimately, I think it depends on the person wielding the weapon; how well they know their weapon of choice and what it can do under various circumstances, how well they understand the general principles of timing, distance, and initiative, and also luck (or fate) Wink . Maybe a better way to approach your thesis would be the compare both the advantages and disadvantages of one and two handed weapons.
Rob Zamoida
"When your life is on the line, you want to make use of all your tools. No warrior should be willing to die with his swords at his sides, without having made use of his tools."
-Miyamoto Mushashi, Gorin no Sho
View user's profile Send private message
Russ Ellis
Industry Professional




Joined: 20 Aug 2003
Reading list: 42 books

Posts: 2,608

PostPosted: Tue 02 Dec, 2003 8:43 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I have to agree with Felix, the thesis itself it fatally flawed.

The single handed swords wielded by warriors of old are more efficient then the two handed swords wielded by the same group."

Which single hand swords? There have been a huge variety throughout history. Those range from the type Xs of the viking era to the rapiers of the renaissance. Which warriors of old? Roman legionnaire? Greek Hoplite? German Landsnecht? Turkish cavalryman? What is efficient? Killing with a single blow? Which two handed swords? Claymore? Bidenhander? What about hand and a half swords? In what circumstances are they being used? Battle of Agincourt? Formal duel? Drunken brawl in a pub?

Forgive me for being so critical but I believe that you need to significantly narrow the focus of your paper if you want to be able to put together anything that is coherent.

TRITONWORKS Custom Scabbards
View user's profile Send private message
J. Padgett




Location: In a comfy chair
Joined: 17 Nov 2003

Posts: 137

PostPosted: Tue 02 Dec, 2003 9:43 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Speaking as an English major in college, I agree with everyone who has said you need to narrow your focus. Not only that, but you also need a thesis you can actually prove. Whether or not a single handed sword is 'better' than a longsword is largely a matter of opinion and circumstance. There are just too many variables to take into account to prove one or the other is superior. If one form of sword was superior to others; the people who used them for their livelihood likely would have known it, and historical examples would not be so widely diverse in design.

Every time I mention my major in a post I make some kind of spelling or grammatical error. I'm sure there is one in the above paragraph as well.

Perhaps you could choose to explore the idea of a sword's form following its function instead. You could talk about the differences between the wide chopping blades and narrow cut and thrust blades. Just a suggestion though. It's your paper after all. Big Grin
View user's profile Send private message
Sean Flynt




Location: Birmingham, Alabama
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Likes: 10 pages
Reading list: 13 books

Spotlight topics: 7
Posts: 5,981

PostPosted: Wed 03 Dec, 2003 7:12 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Which is better-a hammer or a screwdriver? Well...that depends on the task at hand, as the posts here suggest. I think you'd find it much more interesting to explore why both single-hand AND two-hand swords were valued. Toward that end, I'd strongly encourage you to also visit the website of the Association for Renaissance Martial Arts (ARMA):

www.thearma.org

There you'll find serious, historically accurate martial arts practitioners who train with all kinds of medieval and renaissance arms and armor, using period texts as their guide. The long sword (two-hands, usually) is ARMA's foundational weapon, with the single-hand cut and thrust sword a close second. Post a question on their forum and you'll get highly informed opinion that's been tested in sparring. Have a look at the test-cutting videos to see what different weapons can and can't do. Watch the sparring videos to see the unique ways the different weapons are wielded. Get hardwood dowells of shortsword and longsword length and get a sense for the mechanics of moving them around. That'll tell you much about the advantages of each. Anyway, between myArmoury.com and thearma.org, you'll have more than enough information for your paper.
Good luck!

-Sean

Author of the Little Hammer novel

https://www.amazon.com/Little-Hammer-Sean-Flynt/dp/B08XN7HZ82/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=little+hammer+book&qid=1627482034&sr=8-1
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Joel Chesser




Location: Oklahoma
Joined: 23 Oct 2003

Posts: 724

PostPosted: Wed 03 Dec, 2003 1:10 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Hey guys, thanks for the replys. They have been a tremendous help, and i readily concede to all your points.
I turns out that my teacher thought it was a bad essay topic anyway, but because it was the first essay for the class, she wasn't going to tell me that, just let me write it and see where i ended up.
In any event, I do realize that their are some major issues, with the statement as it was. I had thoughts on the topic that didn't add in that would have made it far more clear. specifically, identifying that i meant for the two swords to be pitted against one another, and the man with single hand sword using a shield. Also i for got to mention hand a half swords on the post, on my actual thesis i had included them with the single handers. i am sure i am leaving out some point or other. i think though in the end I have decided to think of a new thesis statement.
I would still like to hear comments on the topic.

..." The person who dosen't have a sword should sell his coat and buy one."

- Luke 22:36
View user's profile Send private message
James Nordstrom




Location: Sacramento, CA
Joined: 18 Sep 2003

Posts: 90

PostPosted: Wed 03 Dec, 2003 5:44 pm    Post subject: How about this         Reply with quote

"Compare-Contrast: Sword and buckler vrs sword and shield"

Weapons used would be rather simular or the same. Time wise they overlaped. However, both employed very different tactics for the same result.

Jim
View user's profile Send private message
Tom M. McIntire




Location: Hastings, Nebraska, USA
Joined: 14 Nov 2003

Posts: 11

PostPosted: Wed 03 Dec, 2003 6:21 pm    Post subject: Single Handed Sword         Reply with quote

The main benefit of a single handed sword came when battle lines clashed and became intertwined. Short swords and strokes were an advantage because of the crush of men and the lack of distance from your enemy.

The longsword was much better to reach from the ground up to the knight or horseman. Killing the horse and then killing the horseman was a job best left to the longsword, halbert, pike, spear or whatever.

Tom
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > single handed swords vs. two handed swords
Page 1 of 1 Reply to topic
All times are GMT - 8 Hours

View previous topic :: View next topic
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 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum