I’m a little confused about the meaning of “Hand-and-a half” sword. My first impression was that it was just a normal one-hander with an elongated hilt which would allow you to grip it wit two hands if you want. But now it’s looking like it is just another name for a long sword, and then I read another post recently (can’t remember by who or in which thread.) which suggested the elongated handle idea. Which is it? What does Hand-and-a-half really mean?
| A. Jake Storey II wrote: |
| I’m a little confused about the meaning of “Hand-and-a half” sword. My first impression was that it was just a normal one-hander with an elongated hilt which would allow you to grip it wit two hands if you want. But now it’s looking like it is just another name for a long sword, and then I read another post recently (can’t remember by who or in which thread.) which suggested the elongated handle idea. Which is it? What does Hand-and-a-half really mean? |
Hand and a half means the grip is longer than a single-hander but not as long as a two-hander. The blade could be shortish like and arming sword; modern folks apply the term "bastard sword" to those. Or it could have a longer blade, what people often call a "long sword" (though long-swords can ride the line between hand and a half and two hander in some cases. The terminology is not widely standardized and many people interchange terms.
So both the swords you describe above (a longsword and a one-handerish blade with longer grip) can be considered hand and a half swords.
| Chad Arnow wrote: |
| Hand and a half means the grip is longer than a single-hander but not as long as a two-hander. The blade could be shortish like and arming sword; modern folks apply the term "bastard sword" to those. Or it could have a longer blade, what people often call a "long sword" (though long-swords can ride the line between hand and a half and two hander in some cases. The terminology is not widely standardized and many people interchange terms. |
To make it even more confusing, the term "long sword" has been used in period to describe single handers, and occassionally even rapiers. As Chad said, period terminology wasn't standardized, particularly when we as modern people tend to lump various time periods into the umbrella term of "history". :)
Its probably best to separate "longsword" versus non-"longsword" terminology from assumptions about grip length.
Types often termed today as "longswords" are those with blade lengths near 36 inches (91 cm) in length. There are a considerable number of historical and reproduction examples which have grip lengths and handling characteristics best suited for; one handed , "hand and a half" style, and a few surviving lively handling examples (historical inspiration for the Albion Munich for example) with a very long and full two handed grip. Blade length, not grip length or handling traits seem to best typify why these swords are called "long."
At the same time, there are a lot of swords with blade lengths closer to 32" (81 cm) and shorter which often seem to handle adequately in all situations with just one handed use. These are typically not called "long" swords. Again, we can find examples of long grips for these such as the new "historically inspired model" which Angus Trim has posted about developing in the last few days.
Types often termed today as "longswords" are those with blade lengths near 36 inches (91 cm) in length. There are a considerable number of historical and reproduction examples which have grip lengths and handling characteristics best suited for; one handed , "hand and a half" style, and a few surviving lively handling examples (historical inspiration for the Albion Munich for example) with a very long and full two handed grip. Blade length, not grip length or handling traits seem to best typify why these swords are called "long."
At the same time, there are a lot of swords with blade lengths closer to 32" (81 cm) and shorter which often seem to handle adequately in all situations with just one handed use. These are typically not called "long" swords. Again, we can find examples of long grips for these such as the new "historically inspired model" which Angus Trim has posted about developing in the last few days.
Regardless of specific lengths of blade, handle and the proportions of one to the other a hand-and-a-half sword means to me that functionally it can be used one handed at least reasonably easily and two handed because it has at least a minimally long handle/pommel that can fit two hands: Do both well !
A twohander will need both hands and be too heavy for effective one handed use.
( This can vary, to a degree, with the strength of the user ).
The various names applied to twohanded capable swords can vary in modern and period usage and definitions can be inconsistent, as mentioned in previous posts.
A twohander will need both hands and be too heavy for effective one handed use.
( This can vary, to a degree, with the strength of the user ).
The various names applied to twohanded capable swords can vary in modern and period usage and definitions can be inconsistent, as mentioned in previous posts.
| Jean Thibodeau wrote: |
|
A twohander will need both hands and be too heavy for effective one handed use. ( This can vary, to a degree, with the strength of the user ). |
I suspect this is about 99 . something % true. On the other hand, there are rare swords like "the Munich" which in terms of blade weight and handling could easily make a very nice and nimble hand and a half, except that they are equipped with such a long grip that the grip itself makes one handed use extremely awkward, at least in my opinion. In a case like that, I would say the grip alone makes it an obvious "two hander." Weight and size do not have to be the determining factor.
| Jared Smith wrote: | ||
I suspect this is about 99 . something % true. On the other hand, there are rare swords like "the Munich" which in terms of blade weight and handling could easily make a very nice and nimble hand and a half, except that they are equipped with such a long grip that the grip itself makes one handed use extremely awkward, at least in my opinion. In a case like that, I would say the grip alone makes it an obvious "two hander." Weight and size do not have to be the determining factor. |
Like you say 99% of the time true: But awkwardness for one handed use is also a valid way to disqualify a sword as being easily useable with one hand. The whole " package " needs to be considered, but the feeling of awkwardness can vary from person to person and what one is used to: With enough practice something that feels wrong at first can be adapted to.
One can alsways find an exception to the rule and an exception to the exception. ;) :lol: A definition that covers 99% of cases is good enough. ( Special cases can always be noted as you have ).
I actually agree Jean!
I like to be careful not to propagate the idea that all "two handed" swords were very heavy. This can lead to a false myth like the claim that all medieval swords weighed 20 lbs or more, or that armour was so heavy knights had to be hoisted on to their horses with cranes...
I also hope there is an acceptable way of classifying sword typology such that the sword classification remains the same regardless of user. I.e in my weak hands is it not a two hander just because in your stronger hands you can easily handle it one handed?
Surviving swords accepted as obviously intended for two handed use, and actually intended for combat (not parade swords) don't tend to be drastically different (often less than 1 lb and a couple of inches difference, sometimes considerably less) in terms of non-grip performance statistics from "bastard" or "hand and a half" swords. It is subjective, but you can assign defensible numbers to the issue. As the article below points out, in some regions such as Germany, it was actually not that rare to hilt "bastard weight" swords as two handers. The Munich is not necessarily unique within it's suspected region of origin and period. Peter Johnson has more to say about this, theories of specific work shops and regions, but I'll let that be his story to tell.
http://ejmas.com/jwma/articles/2005/jwmaart_dawson_0205.htm
At least to me, the "hand and a half" or "bastard" slang terms best conveys something of a sword with fairly common longsword proportions, but hilted in a way that the hilt (around 6" to 7" long) makes one handed or two handed use (second hand partially covering pommel) comfortable for the majority of average strength and sized users.
I like to be careful not to propagate the idea that all "two handed" swords were very heavy. This can lead to a false myth like the claim that all medieval swords weighed 20 lbs or more, or that armour was so heavy knights had to be hoisted on to their horses with cranes...
I also hope there is an acceptable way of classifying sword typology such that the sword classification remains the same regardless of user. I.e in my weak hands is it not a two hander just because in your stronger hands you can easily handle it one handed?
Surviving swords accepted as obviously intended for two handed use, and actually intended for combat (not parade swords) don't tend to be drastically different (often less than 1 lb and a couple of inches difference, sometimes considerably less) in terms of non-grip performance statistics from "bastard" or "hand and a half" swords. It is subjective, but you can assign defensible numbers to the issue. As the article below points out, in some regions such as Germany, it was actually not that rare to hilt "bastard weight" swords as two handers. The Munich is not necessarily unique within it's suspected region of origin and period. Peter Johnson has more to say about this, theories of specific work shops and regions, but I'll let that be his story to tell.
http://ejmas.com/jwma/articles/2005/jwmaart_dawson_0205.htm
At least to me, the "hand and a half" or "bastard" slang terms best conveys something of a sword with fairly common longsword proportions, but hilted in a way that the hilt (around 6" to 7" long) makes one handed or two handed use (second hand partially covering pommel) comfortable for the majority of average strength and sized users.
| Jared Smith wrote: |
| I actually agree Jean!
|
Yes, I guess we can agree to ......... AGREE. ;) :D
It is my understanding that a 'hand and a half sword' describes a sword with a handle long enough to be gripped with the leading hand by the hilt, and the following hand encompassing the end of the handle and the pommel, allowing the user to wield the sword in either a one-handed or two-handed manner. A bastard-sword is presumably something similar, a sword which can be wielded in a one-handed or two-handed manner, which can have a handle with space for hand-and-a-half use, or a true two handed grip.
In other words, what Mr. Smith said.
In other words, what Mr. Smith said.
This is all very interesting. I've been wondering about these definitions myself.
Personally, I've always thought of a "bastard sword" as, essentially, a large single-hander with a hilt meant for two hands, a "hand-and-a-half sword" as a single-hander modified to be used with two hands if required, and anything from longswords to greatswords as two-handers.
I'm probably completely wrong, but that's the impression I've had. :p
Personally, I've always thought of a "bastard sword" as, essentially, a large single-hander with a hilt meant for two hands, a "hand-and-a-half sword" as a single-hander modified to be used with two hands if required, and anything from longswords to greatswords as two-handers.
I'm probably completely wrong, but that's the impression I've had. :p
I would agree with your description of the Bastard sword.
The historical use of the term is not known with high certainty. Today, it seems to be applied to swords which have both a grip and a blade that are each somewhere between single handed and two handed sword proportions. We might look at some strange swords like one of the long griped viking styles and say that one is not a "bastard", but is a "hand and a half." Its subjective, but seems to be gaining consistency in terms of how collectors and enthusiasts are applying the term today.
The historical use of the term is not known with high certainty. Today, it seems to be applied to swords which have both a grip and a blade that are each somewhere between single handed and two handed sword proportions. We might look at some strange swords like one of the long griped viking styles and say that one is not a "bastard", but is a "hand and a half." Its subjective, but seems to be gaining consistency in terms of how collectors and enthusiasts are applying the term today.
See, the term "hand and a half" invokes in me the mental image of a hilt with enough space for two hands if you include the pommel, whereas a bastard sword has a grip for two hands plus the pommel. (Making bastard swords, per definition, two-handers.)
Don't ask me were I get this from. It's the way it's been in my head for years now.
Don't ask me were I get this from. It's the way it's been in my head for years now.
| Anders Backlund wrote: |
| See, the term "hand and a half" invokes in me the mental image of a hilt with enough space for two hands if you include the pommel, whereas a bastard sword has a grip for two hands plus the pommel. (Making bastard swords, per definition, two-handers.)
Don't ask me were I get this from. It's the way it's been in my head for years now. |
Interesting concepts and definitely food for thought !
Forgetting labels/names for a moment: Lets say I pick up a sword, my impressions from the handling will tell me.
First
1) That I can use it one handed or only twohanded.
and/or
2) That I can use it both ways more or less 50/50 or weighted more towards one handed or twohanded.
and/or
3) That the handle/pommel is just long enough for hand and a half use.
and/or
4) That the handle is definitely a twohanded one with a blade on the short end of the twohander scale.
and/or
5) That it's a full scale in size and handling twohander.
Have a missed a variable ?
Copying something I posted a few years ago:
All bastard swords are hand-and-a-halfs, but not all hand-and-a-halfs are bastards. Earlier bastard swords didn't have compound hilts, the first being type XVa's - see Oakeshott's comment on the first page of the XV-XVa section of Records of the Medieval Sword. One of the main definitions of an epee batarde is that it can be used just as easily with one hand as with two. I'm not sure how many bastards live up to this ideal - most that I've handled favor two handed over one handed use.
All bastard swords are hand-and-a-halfs, but not all hand-and-a-halfs are bastards. Earlier bastard swords didn't have compound hilts, the first being type XVa's - see Oakeshott's comment on the first page of the XV-XVa section of Records of the Medieval Sword. One of the main definitions of an epee batarde is that it can be used just as easily with one hand as with two. I'm not sure how many bastards live up to this ideal - most that I've handled favor two handed over one handed use.
Is the term "hand-and-a-half" historical?
I don't favor the term, because the such swords still require a two-handed use; and are therefore longswords. I know longsword hilts that could fit three hands and it's still a longsword.
I seem to recall that the term "bastard" was used for a wide variety of 'unusual' sword patterns, but I can't find the reference.
-Steven
I don't favor the term, because the such swords still require a two-handed use; and are therefore longswords. I know longsword hilts that could fit three hands and it's still a longsword.
I seem to recall that the term "bastard" was used for a wide variety of 'unusual' sword patterns, but I can't find the reference.
-Steven
If you do find a credible reference, please post it. Its worthy of a dedicated post. Since this confusing topic surfaces just about every year, it would be nice to consolidate opinions about the terminology.
At least once or twice over the past few years I have encountered a post or two elsewhere pointing out that some early French references to pack saddle ("batard") or "pack saddle swords" may have been made (speculation based on etymology), and started the evolution of the term "bastard sword." Separately, another theory attributes this to a "bastard's" attempt at gaining a throne who used such a type of sword. Both theories have been mentioned in the last couple of years here within our forum. Both possible explanations are just modern theories as far as I know.
My understanding is that the "bastard" term was not common until around 15th century (maybe not even common then, but at least known in multiple instances.) Meanwhile, swords we would likely attribute this label to had been around, at least as rare specimens, since 12th/13th century time period.
I view the terms "hand and a half" or "bastard" as slang terms that are more modern than what they attempt to describe. Also, as you say, just about anything with a blade length near 36" or more (showing what looks to me as adequate room for 3 hands on the grip in some cases) may have been depicted in 15th century fechtbucks and simply called "langswords." (Sorry for any above misspelling.) The Oakeshott typology is a lot more reliable, but unfortunately, we are going to keep on encountering these terms due to frequent use in games and merchant's web sites.
As a reference, one should look at Albion's descriptions (aka "bastard" reference) of Againcourt, Talhoffer, Ringeck, etc. Those swords actually have weights and blade lengths sort of falling in between those of the most massive present offerings (Baron and Svant Nilsson Sture) and some of the more average 3 lb longswords (Castellan, Mercenary, Crecy, etc.) We are sort of splitting hairs here, making big differences based on small 4 ounce weight increments and about 1 inch of blade and grip length.
At least once or twice over the past few years I have encountered a post or two elsewhere pointing out that some early French references to pack saddle ("batard") or "pack saddle swords" may have been made (speculation based on etymology), and started the evolution of the term "bastard sword." Separately, another theory attributes this to a "bastard's" attempt at gaining a throne who used such a type of sword. Both theories have been mentioned in the last couple of years here within our forum. Both possible explanations are just modern theories as far as I know.
My understanding is that the "bastard" term was not common until around 15th century (maybe not even common then, but at least known in multiple instances.) Meanwhile, swords we would likely attribute this label to had been around, at least as rare specimens, since 12th/13th century time period.
I view the terms "hand and a half" or "bastard" as slang terms that are more modern than what they attempt to describe. Also, as you say, just about anything with a blade length near 36" or more (showing what looks to me as adequate room for 3 hands on the grip in some cases) may have been depicted in 15th century fechtbucks and simply called "langswords." (Sorry for any above misspelling.) The Oakeshott typology is a lot more reliable, but unfortunately, we are going to keep on encountering these terms due to frequent use in games and merchant's web sites.
As a reference, one should look at Albion's descriptions (aka "bastard" reference) of Againcourt, Talhoffer, Ringeck, etc. Those swords actually have weights and blade lengths sort of falling in between those of the most massive present offerings (Baron and Svant Nilsson Sture) and some of the more average 3 lb longswords (Castellan, Mercenary, Crecy, etc.) We are sort of splitting hairs here, making big differences based on small 4 ounce weight increments and about 1 inch of blade and grip length.
So, taking this discussion from the theoretical to the 'practical'; i'm curious, would the Windlass German Bastard Sword qualify as a 'hand and a half' sword? What other actual examples of these swords are there around at the moment?
Based not so much on blade dimensions, but on the massive weight that still handles surprisingly well in one hand, I would have to acknowledge this as a "bastard!" The term is subjective, and how you decide the number of others currently offered is highly debatable.
Windlass's reproduction is nearly a full 1 lb lighter than the historical collection original which would be very average of true two handers based on weight. It certainly has the grip length, estimate about 7" width between guard and pommel, to qualify as a "hand and a half." Considering that the blade is shorter than many single handers (only about 30"), this is a pretty unusual sword.
http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t...light=a477
Some other offerings;
Arms and Armour #081 - http://www.arms-n-armor.com/sword081.html
Hanwie's "Bastard" - http://shop.fencing.net/product_p/ca-2250.htm (I would argue that the very long grip would make this more like the Munich, awkward to do a lot with one handed and more like a very light two hander.)
Phoneix Metal Creations "Bastard" (review on this site) - http://www.myArmoury.com/review_pmc_bast1.html
I could go on..
Windlass's reproduction is nearly a full 1 lb lighter than the historical collection original which would be very average of true two handers based on weight. It certainly has the grip length, estimate about 7" width between guard and pommel, to qualify as a "hand and a half." Considering that the blade is shorter than many single handers (only about 30"), this is a pretty unusual sword.
http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t...light=a477
Some other offerings;
Arms and Armour #081 - http://www.arms-n-armor.com/sword081.html
Hanwie's "Bastard" - http://shop.fencing.net/product_p/ca-2250.htm (I would argue that the very long grip would make this more like the Munich, awkward to do a lot with one handed and more like a very light two hander.)
Phoneix Metal Creations "Bastard" (review on this site) - http://www.myArmoury.com/review_pmc_bast1.html
I could go on..
Not sure where I got this from, but I've always been under the impresson that they were a general, all-purpose 'backup weapon' - used differently dependent on whether mounted or not.
Dependent on period (and I'm thinking the earlier period for them - early 14c), I've always taken them to be something that is carried by those with cash, and used as backup to the lance.
Soo, while mounted, lance breaks or is dropped, whip out hand-and-half and use it single-handed with the aid of gravity or horse-momentum to swing downwards at infantry. Left hand still has a shield and reins.
When on foot, forgo the shield to use 2-hands to give the necessary extra control and power needed to make the weapon effective against the armour of the period.
Dependent on period (and I'm thinking the earlier period for them - early 14c), I've always taken them to be something that is carried by those with cash, and used as backup to the lance.
Soo, while mounted, lance breaks or is dropped, whip out hand-and-half and use it single-handed with the aid of gravity or horse-momentum to swing downwards at infantry. Left hand still has a shield and reins.
When on foot, forgo the shield to use 2-hands to give the necessary extra control and power needed to make the weapon effective against the armour of the period.
Page 1 of 2
You cannot post new topics in this forumYou 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
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum