Hello:

I really admire the German zweihander swords, and two-handed swords in general. Zweihanders look more intimidating. I wish a company found on K.O.A. would make a replica of one with a straight blade - not the wavy "flamberge" blade.

Anyway ... I wanted to ask you more informed gentlemen a question since many (if not all) zweihanders have a ricasso for gripping the sword further along its length while one hand still grips the handle. I think "Danes" with those cool type XVIIIe blades have a ricasso too.

Am I correct in thinking that these two-handed swords were not used only as swords in the usual sense? Given their length, and the use of a ricasso, were some polearm-like techniques used with zweihanders too?

Obviously, one could still swing, chop, thrust, parry, and half-sword like with other swords. However, I was wondering if zweihanders were designed to be more like a combination weapon. Sort of part polearm, part sword. I guess what I am trying to say is in a sword vs. sword situation, polearm-like techniques could be initially employed with a zweihander. Then conventional and half-swording techniques were employed as the range decreased. I do not know if zweihanders were ever used as dueling weapons, but perhaps I am asking about what happened with a zweihander after one got done chopping off pike heads.

I hope my logic is correct. Perhaps I am not using the correct terms. It just seems like one would take full advantage of a zweihander's length like one does with a polearm before going into "sword mode."

Am I sort of thinking correctly? I welcome all comments, and I thank you for tolerating my ignorance. Hopefully, someone like Christian Tobler will make a zweihander/two-handed sword DVD one day. I simply find two-handed swords a big mystery. There is now plenty of literature explaining how a "normal" European medieval sword was used (like Albion's Munich sword). However, I know of no source explaining how zweihanders were properly used.

I sense a few different principles were involved with using a two-handed sword. After all, it was a different weapon. Thanks guys!

Hi Dustin,

On the whole, these would simply be used like larger longswords. We can surmise this from illustrations in the 'Goliath' Fechtbuch, which show quite large swords.

We can also surmise this from an examination of the 'Spadone' material found in Italian texts. The weapon is really treated like an outsized longsword.

Naturally, some actions will prove more cumbersome than others, but the same is true between lighter and heavier longswords - it's all a matter of degrees.

So, I'm afraid I won't be doing any special treatment on true two-handers - the Germans simply don't make such a distinction there.

Cheers!

Christian

Like a polearm? Sure. But what does this mean? There was some discussion of this, on what it means to use a polearm, in a recent thread on Axes and Footwork. The weapon isn't used in isolation, it's part of the overall (human+weapon), and the human part stays the same. There is a great similarity between the use of a sword in two hands and a polearm. I think that a Zweihänder sits very nicely in the middle of this, and that sword in two hands, Zweihänder, and polearms. In a very important way, Zweihänder sits on the polearm side in this continuum.

It's very much like a sword in that it's shaped like a sword, and holding it by the grip in both hands, you can move it from one side of your body like a sword. That is, the pommel has room to move in front of your body. You can use the usual longsword guards with no (or at most, a little) modification, the same attacks, etc.

It's different from the usual longsword in that it's significantly heavier. No cheating in terms of body mechanics! You need to move with it, need to step with it, turn with it. You must use proper footwork, proper body motion. Of course, you can use the same footwork etc with a longsword, but with a Zweihänder, you must use it. It shares this with (heavy) polearms. (This brings to mind Chinese use of extra-heavy polearms as training/examination weapons, to force the user to use proper footwork and body motion.)

And since you have a range advantage over longsword, you can use polearm strategy against a longsword. (And against a polearm, you are short, and need to use longsword versus polearm strategy from the longsword side?)

A key point in the Montante manual that's been mentioned before (here and also when we discusses the Zweihänder back at the start of the year) is the body mechanics, step and move with the weapon.

There is one thing that seems to me to be different, a way in which the Zweihänder is not just a sword/polearm intermediate - it looks very good for chopping off feet. I've not studied this in detail, but as a casual Zweihänder tactic, it works very well.

Hello all,

I might end up eating my words, but I'd wager that there was a pretty significant difference in deployment/usage and technique between the zweihander and other longswords in the "really big" category. Christian, I've only seen a few reproduced illustrations from Goliath, but if I recall them correctly, the swords shown there are more or less upsized longswords, aren't they (I don't suppose you have a DVD on this subject in the works, do you?)? Even if the overall length and weight are comparable to the swords Dustin is specifically referring to, the blade to hilt proportions and the features (flukes, very wide compound crosses) are quite different.

I've often wondered what use the stereotypical zweihander was intended for. The oversized guard and the flukes seem like they would make half-swording, in the German longsword style, impractical. But that is coming from a guy who is likely a bit smaller than those Doppelsöldners were. I just can't help but think the bulk of the guys out in the press, lopping off pike heads (and pikemans' heads, feet, etc.) were carrying swords more like Albion's Tyrolean & Maximilian, while the more ornate swords were dedicated to roles like protecting the standard bearer, or in VIP bodyguarding roles.

For what it is worth, ARMA has an essay related to this topic; they surely have more hands-on experience with artifacts like these than I do: http://www.thearma.org/essays/2HGS.html
They at least address the handling capabilities, if not the typical period usage.

As Timo pointed out, any weapon is part of a whole system, not as an isolated thing without connections to other things. I'd bet that if you study up on longsword and polearm, then see what you can make of Goliath or the Montante material - this form of sword & deployment seems to have been "task specific", as in multiple adversaries, VIP escort, and such - you'll be able to teach most of us plenty about the sword family in question.

Finally, maybe check out Del Tin's model 2162 - they call it a Venetian sword, but it is pretty similar to a non-flamberged zwei. Not a current KOA offering, but if it's in production, they could probably get you one.

Edit: Well, Jean beat me to it on the DT mention. Jean, you've got both those beasts? You haven't reviewed them, have you?

Best to you all!

From what I've heard it's used more like a polearm, or at least shares similar techniques, though I've no doubt that some of the longsword blows might work, but I'll stick to using it more like a polearm.

Honetly, there isn't a gigantic difference between the larger swords and the smaller ones, just as Christian said. Yes, there are certain biomechanical differences (just as there are differences between using an arming sword and a longsword), but if you understand one weapon, you know the basics of the other. There are certain mechanics that one weapon will use over the other weapon, but that's only after you've gotten down to the nitty gritty techniques. The biggest difference is simply the fact that the larger weapon requires more control. If you've only ever done longsword, and you pick up a larger two hander and start going throug the actions, you'll immediately notice that it requires that you turn your hips a certain way, and that you need your knees and joints need to move in a certain alignment, or else the size of the sword starts to control you rather than the other way around.

I'm going to make a cheap plug here. :) At NHSC, we're going to be teaching the Spadone, which is simply the Italian name for the Zweihander (or Montante, or Bidenhander, etc). The event is open to everybody, and if you're interested in learning this weapon, then I highly recommend this.

http://www.vafinc.com/nhsc/

Hey Dustin,

I thought I'd throw in my super secret longsword training technique :D I use an old zweihander to practice my drills, cutting, and master strokes. It makes a regular steel sword feel like nothing.
I am above the average when it comes to height which probably makes it easier, but I am not superhuman in anything besides amazing good looks.... With a little practice, it handles just like a longsword. The sheitelhau is the only cut that is awkward- combination of the extra weight and the extra long grip.

Fighting with a two handed sword is definitely coming up on the list for video features, but the next DVD is focusing on only the single handed sword, sorry ;)

Glad to meet some more people interested in Figueyredo.

William,

Although usually Figueyredo tells you when to step, I do the second complex rule with three steps, with changing legs and with one step. The changing legs version reminds me of the Prellhauw (rebounding cut) of Meyer but I should use the flat of the blade then which isn't something Figueyredo talks about. I must confess I still do the rules with a Liechtenauer as I don't have a two-handed sword yet.

Timo,

What you are describing is more or less in the fourth simple rule of Figueyredo which you can do either as a cut that falls short on purpose or not, followed by a thrust. I like your description of the bio-mechanics of it.

Patrick

The original post mentioned chopping off pike heads... What is the conclusion on that, is that probable enough in battle conditions to be used as a tactic, or is it just displacing the pikes with a cut and then going for the pikeman?

Luka,

In Figueyredo it is the 14th simple and complex rule. Basically it's deflecting and then going for the wielder of the weapon and there are two different ways to go for the wielder.

You can find those rules here, if you don't have them already:
http://www.oakeshott.org/Figueiredo_Montante_...d_Hick.pdf

William,

I like your survey, it's a good way for me to see if I got everything right as with the 2nd complex. At first I simply did it with steps, supposing that's what he meant until I realised it was a supposition. Then I started doing different versions and I haven't decided yet.
I meant changing the lead foot without altering the distance, but you gave me some ideas. As Figueyredo wants you to do and undo the rule and he says in the end notes that you should take from them all what you best understand and serves you to defeat your adversaries. But that's something else, I guess I'd better learn the rules first. And by the way, what do you mean with a triangle step?

You wrote:

"... I think it’s instructive that he explicitly leaves out any mention of additional steps in the 3rd complex rule (among others). The 3rd complex introduces, for the first time, the concept of cutting without an attending step (all the fundamental cuts up to that point were accompanied by their own step).Now look at the 4th simple rule: a talho without a step, followed by a talho with a step (then a revez without a step, followed by one with a step)."

I guess you meant the 2nd complex and the 3th simple?

As for the cuts, I haven't decided yet on the upwards ones to stop at face level or higher up at something like a Kron. I tend towards the Kron for now although I think the important thing is happening at face level. For the downwards cuts I stop at face level.

And yes, Ilkka, I'm simply envious.

Patrick

p.s.: I ordered a two-hander, waiting impatiently.

William,

I think the first and second rule, the simple as well as the complex, form a subset. The first simple is cutting diagonally upwards, the complex one is the same but thrown in is cutting vertically down and up. The second is cutting diagonally downwards, the complex one also with horizontal cuts from both sides. This means the eight directions and that's why I think they should all be done with a step for each cut.

The second subset is the three ones following where you are taught thrusting and different transitions.

The remarkable thing for me is the 4th complex: learning to turn a 180° which is done stepping backwards while thrusting. As you are cutting down from your right shoulder you could just swing through and turn around to your left with or without stepping or you could have stepped left additionally and turned around to your right ... and in both cases you could form a thrust.
The transitions in this set are not only done as a full swing but also at shoulder level.

I think these two subsets form a set divided from the rest by the sixth rule which is against a montante and the complex one says as much as: if you know how to handle a montante you will know what to do.

So the first five simple and complex are the basics. The 7th till the end are the "real" situational ones. I do not consider driving forward or turning a 180° as situational in the first five. I also think that this second set could (should) be done from the left shoulder guard.

What do you think?

Patrick

Forgot the sword, one from Arma Bohemia.