Hello!
I was wondering if anyone has had any insights as to how the Albion Earl or the A&A Durer Bastard Sword feel in one hand?
I've found 2 reviews that seem to indicate the Earl is slightly too heavy to be used effectively in one hand, and 1 that says otherwise. The weight does seem like it might be a problem. The hollow-ground blade with a convex edge is tempting though!
The A&A Durer Bastard Sword's weight seems to vary a bit: I've seen 2 lb 15oz on a couple sites, but the official site says 3.1lbs. Not sure if this'll effect how it handles in one hand.
Also, does anyone know what hand and half XVIII Tried and True Armory offers? http://triedandtruearmory.com/ATrim-catalog.html only seems to list pommels and guards...
| Vincent K wrote: |
| Hello!
I was wondering if anyone has had any insights as to how the Albion Earl or the A&A Durer Bastard Sword feel in one hand? I've found 2 reviews that seem to indicate the Earl is slightly too heavy to be used effectively in one hand, and 1 that says otherwise. The weight does seem like it might be a problem. The hollow-ground blade with a convex edge is tempting though! The A&A Durer Bastard Sword's weight seems to vary a bit: I've seen 2 lb 15oz on a couple sites, but the official site says 3.1lbs. Not sure if this'll effect how it handles in one hand. Also, does anyone know what hand and half XVIII Tried and True Armory offers? http://triedandtruearmory.com/ATrim-catalog.html only seems to list pommels and guards... |
I have (and love) the A&A Durer and it handles well for a sword of its size in one hand... I rarely use it that way. Its feels amazing in two hands. I think horseback or a every extended thrust would be the only reasons I would want to use a longsword in one hand.
What one handed technique are you concerned about?
-Re: the Durer Bastard Sword:
Thanks for the feedback! I'm glad to hear that it handles well in one hand :)
-Re: one handed techniques:
I'm just starting to learn WMA (starting with the English style as prescribed by Silver) and from my limited understanding of Silver's Paradoxes and Brief Introductions, I think the technique that Silver was most concerned about was the ability to thrust with one hand at long range as well as close range.
More specifically, at close range, I think Silver was concerned with the ability to uncross one's blade from the opponent's—without taking a step back and while monitoring the opponent's sword hand with the off hand—so that a thrust/blow could delivered.
Additionally, the following passage from Wagner's "Master of Defense" seems to indicate that Silver felt that a bastard sword should usable with two hands or one hands, although to what extent is unclear.
"...a two-handed sword with a blade the same length as that of the shortsword, that is, around 90 centimetres (36 inches), that could both cut and thrust with equal efficacy, and light enough that you may 'play upon double & single hand, at the 2 hand sword' perhaps no more than around 1.4 kilograms (3 pounds)."
Thanks for the feedback! I'm glad to hear that it handles well in one hand :)
-Re: one handed techniques:
I'm just starting to learn WMA (starting with the English style as prescribed by Silver) and from my limited understanding of Silver's Paradoxes and Brief Introductions, I think the technique that Silver was most concerned about was the ability to thrust with one hand at long range as well as close range.
More specifically, at close range, I think Silver was concerned with the ability to uncross one's blade from the opponent's—without taking a step back and while monitoring the opponent's sword hand with the off hand—so that a thrust/blow could delivered.
Additionally, the following passage from Wagner's "Master of Defense" seems to indicate that Silver felt that a bastard sword should usable with two hands or one hands, although to what extent is unclear.
"...a two-handed sword with a blade the same length as that of the shortsword, that is, around 90 centimetres (36 inches), that could both cut and thrust with equal efficacy, and light enough that you may 'play upon double & single hand, at the 2 hand sword' perhaps no more than around 1.4 kilograms (3 pounds)."
Hey Vincent,
I can't speak to the Durer's viability for Silver's system as I have no experience with it; however, I can say it works extremely well for the Lichtenauer school.
If I was taking any sword to a fight, I'd be my pick. ;)
I can't speak to the Durer's viability for Silver's system as I have no experience with it; however, I can say it works extremely well for the Lichtenauer school.
If I was taking any sword to a fight, I'd be my pick. ;)
Much of the question of one handed use is going to come down to you. Challenge is figuring out how strong you are in comparison to the reviewer. These are not heavy swords.
I own an Earl, and Tylor and I practice WMA together. I'll bring it to our next practice and we can both compare the two swords and give you our joint feedback.
Silver's two hand sword remains a bit of mystery. The advance in Brief Instructions potentially contradicts his length recommendation, as he wrote that "if both play upon double & single hand, at the 2 hand sword, the long sword has the advantage if the weight thereof is not too heavy for his strength that has it." You can thrust single with most any two-handed weapon - even the pike - so one reading of this gives almost any big sword odds against a bastard sword. But then why would Silver suggest the shorter length in the first place?
I also don't understand why the additional length would be a disadvantage if limited to double-handed play. In describing how the short staff defeats two foes with sword & dagger, Silver assumes the staff wielder uses the full length of the weapon. So why would a montante with a four-foot blade have trouble against a longsword with a three-foot blade? I find this part of Silver's hierarchy of weapons rather dubious.
I also don't understand why the additional length would be a disadvantage if limited to double-handed play. In describing how the short staff defeats two foes with sword & dagger, Silver assumes the staff wielder uses the full length of the weapon. So why would a montante with a four-foot blade have trouble against a longsword with a three-foot blade? I find this part of Silver's hierarchy of weapons rather dubious.
From my own experience using a longsword in one hand is reasonable only when the second hand cannot be used for some reason (holding a shield, wounded, etc). Even when wielding a heavier longsword it is very easy to strike with one hand while holding opponent's hands with another. But fighting for a prolonged time is very difficult even if the longsword is very light. It is because of mass distribution (a flywheel effect) and longer handle getting in the way. So I divide swords with long hilts into 3 main categories:
- swords with shorter handles (often so short that the second hand has to grab the pommel). These are easy to carry around and might be good for a horseman because they can be used one-handed on horse but when on foot they can give additional power of the second hand. Or they can be used with a buckler. Here is a good example
[ Linked Image ]
- "true" longswords intended mainly for two-handed use. Lighter montantes can also fall into this category. These are usually not intended for continuous agile one-handed fencing but can be used to deliver both cuts and thrusts one-handed. Such swords usually have pretty long handles and blades. Here is an example
[ Linked Image ]
- two-handed swords. They often have parrying lugs and a ricasso that can be grabbed to increase leverage. These are large beasts and are intended to be wielded with both hands, however one can easily make one-handed thrusts with them.
When used in two hands the bigger the sword the better as long as it's not too heavy for the wielder. So when training longsword techniques I would advise to buy a proper longsword. I would advise to buy a sword of the first type either when you really want one or when you want to train both one-handed sword and longsword but cannot afford both.
- swords with shorter handles (often so short that the second hand has to grab the pommel). These are easy to carry around and might be good for a horseman because they can be used one-handed on horse but when on foot they can give additional power of the second hand. Or they can be used with a buckler. Here is a good example
[ Linked Image ]
- "true" longswords intended mainly for two-handed use. Lighter montantes can also fall into this category. These are usually not intended for continuous agile one-handed fencing but can be used to deliver both cuts and thrusts one-handed. Such swords usually have pretty long handles and blades. Here is an example
[ Linked Image ]
- two-handed swords. They often have parrying lugs and a ricasso that can be grabbed to increase leverage. These are large beasts and are intended to be wielded with both hands, however one can easily make one-handed thrusts with them.
When used in two hands the bigger the sword the better as long as it's not too heavy for the wielder. So when training longsword techniques I would advise to buy a proper longsword. I would advise to buy a sword of the first type either when you really want one or when you want to train both one-handed sword and longsword but cannot afford both.
Lots of artwork shows mounted warriors wielding what you call true longswords in one hand. In some cases, these swords look downright huge, though we can perhaps dismiss that as artistic distortion. But they definitely have long handles. See Mair's manual for countless examples of this.
One should consider many aspects. For example
- A mounted man at arms hardly does any "continuous agile one-handed fencing". And as I said these swords "can be used to deliver both cuts and thrusts one-handed"
- If 2 horsemen are riding at each other there is time for only one blow before they have gone past each other, i.e. no fencing.
- If there is enough time for mounted fencing then horses are either standing still or walking so one can grab a sword in two hands and there a larger sword would have advantage.
- A sword for a mounted warrior is usually a secondary weapon. If a horseman is dismounted he will probably loose his primary weapon and having a larger sword would be quite handy.
- Few authors of paintings were actual witnesses of these battles
- Images were not drawn at the time of battle. Artist draw as much as he knew and saw. And at the time of drawing he probably saw weapons and armor on the streets of his town rather than on the battlefield so real battlefield equipment could have been a little different.
- Artists tend to like drawing some things and totally ignore others.
- We often see people shooting desert eagles one-handed in movies. A longsword could be (in in some cases certainly was) a "desert eagle".
- A mounted man at arms hardly does any "continuous agile one-handed fencing". And as I said these swords "can be used to deliver both cuts and thrusts one-handed"
- If 2 horsemen are riding at each other there is time for only one blow before they have gone past each other, i.e. no fencing.
- If there is enough time for mounted fencing then horses are either standing still or walking so one can grab a sword in two hands and there a larger sword would have advantage.
- A sword for a mounted warrior is usually a secondary weapon. If a horseman is dismounted he will probably loose his primary weapon and having a larger sword would be quite handy.
- Few authors of paintings were actual witnesses of these battles
- Images were not drawn at the time of battle. Artist draw as much as he knew and saw. And at the time of drawing he probably saw weapons and armor on the streets of his town rather than on the battlefield so real battlefield equipment could have been a little different.
- Artists tend to like drawing some things and totally ignore others.
- We often see people shooting desert eagles one-handed in movies. A longsword could be (in in some cases certainly was) a "desert eagle".
While you do see illustrations of mounted combatants using longswords two-handed, at least as many or more show single-handed strokes. While mounted fencers might only strike one blow at each pass, cavalry fought for extended periods in numerous battles and skirmishes. Slaughtering fleeing enemy infantry by the sword constituted one of cavalry's chief battlefield roles. In that light, I'm skeptical that they had trouble using their swords in one hand - the main mounted method - or that their swords were intended first and foremost for dismounted fighting.
| Aleksei Sosnovski wrote: |
| . So I divide swords with long hilts into 3 main categories:
- swords with shorter handles (often so short that the second hand has to grab the pommel). These are easy to carry around and might be good for a horseman because they can be used one-handed on horse but when on foot they can give additional power of the second hand. Or they can be used with a buckler. Here is a good example - "true" longswords intended mainly for two-handed use. Lighter montantes can also fall into this category. These are usually not intended for continuous agile one-handed fencing but can be used to deliver both cuts and thrusts one-handed. Such swords usually have pretty long handles and blades. Here is an example - two-handed swords. They often have parrying lugs and a ricasso that can be grabbed to increase leverage. These are large beasts and are intended to be wielded with both hands, however one can easily make one-handed thrusts with them. |
I very much agree that there are more variables than just one handed versus two handed and many designs that fall in between, but here are a few more sub-categories:
A) True one handers with short handles and two handed use would mean cupping one hand over the other for an extra heavy blow but too short be really used for any longsword techniques depending on leverage by moving one hand forward and the other back.
B) One handers with 6" to 7" handles or short handles with long pommels: These I might call Hand and a Quarter swords, These are still mostly used one handed but if one used longsword techniques one's hands would be very close together and not optimum for two handed use. ( These are generally not considered when discussing longswords and is an extra category I would add ).
Example: http://www.kultofathena.com/product.asp?item=...on+Randeck
Grip + pommel leave just enough room for two hands.
C) The lighter longswords that I would call True Bastard Swords ( My definition ) that are designed to be effectively used single and/or two handed.
D) Somewhat larger Bastard Swords/Longswords/Montante that one can just barely use one handed for limited techniques and not for a long series of consecutive blows or parries.
E) True Twohanders from big to huge that are impossible or almost impossible to use one handed. ( Except for maybe a thrust or one blow by someone very strong ..... rare emergency use in very limited ways ).
Anyway just my personal perceptions and " typology ".
Hi Aleksei,
I feel as though you are using your modern experiences and calling them fact without looking at the actual historical evidence.
Not always true, and certainly not true according to the period manuscripts that describe in great detail the art of fencing from horseback. Sometimes you are at a gallop, but quite often you are not.
True, but only if they are riding at each other. There are many times in combat where there isn't room to be at a gallop, or where you were not at a gallop to begin with.
Sometimes, but not if you intend on having maximum control of the horse. On foot, you rely on your footwork. On horseback, you rely on the horse's footwork. That also doesn't take into account that at any moment you may need to spur the horse forward, and taking your hands off the reigns puts you in less control if you need to suddenly do so.
In many periods the sword was usually a secondary weapon regardless if you were on horseback or on foot, so the point is moot. And having a larger sword *can* be handy... except when it isn't. War was not black and white, and there were times where a smaller weapon was preferred and times where a larger weapon was preffered. Otherwise we would not see so much variety in period sources.
And neither are you or I. ;) But many of the people who wrote about combat were witnesses or actual participants.
People didn't just make these illustrations in a vacuum. Someone had to tell them what to illustrate. And that doesn't include the copious amounts of texts we have written by people who were actual combatants.
A modern movie is not the same thing. Modern movies are entertainment for modern audiences. Many of the illustrations and treatises we have come from historical people who were writing for the sake of educating other historical fighters, not for entertainment.
We also see longsword being used one handed in many period sources, such as in the Paulus Kal fechtbuch.
On horseback:
http://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/~db/bsb00....174.98.30
On foot:
http://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/~db/bsb00....174.98.30
And note that when these fencers switch to two handed use, they are using essentially the same sword:
http://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/~db/bsb00....174.98.30
Also note that there are a number of complex wrestling actions done from horseback, which cannot be done if both horsemen are charging forward at full speed:
http://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/~db/bsb00....174.98.30
And before you say that Paulus Kal didn't know what he was talking about, we have hard evidence that Kal served in three different courts holding the title of "schirmmaister", or "Master of Defense". In Duke Ludwig's war with Albrecht Achilles, we have evidence of Kal's expenses for having equiped and commanded soldiers wielding handguns. We have evidence of him having commanded during the siege of the Ritter Hans Gebewofl von Degenberg's castle in 1468.
So we have a Master of Defense, who taught fencing, served and commanded in warfare, and wrote a fencing manuscript in the 15th century showing plenty of examples of the longsword being used interchangibly with one handed and two handed techniques, and shows one handed use both on foot and on horseback.
Bringing this back to the original topic: It's true that some swords simply don't feel that great in one hand, and I feel that the Earl is such a sword. The balance is a little more towards the point, making it powerful in two hands, but a little sluggish one handed. I would not prefer it as a weapon from horseback. The Durer is much livelier, but would not have the same cleaving power. It would handle much better one handed, though it is heavy enough that you would certainly need to train with it one handed before that would feel natural (which is true of most longswords).
I feel as though you are using your modern experiences and calling them fact without looking at the actual historical evidence.
| Aleksei Sosnovski wrote: |
| One should consider many aspects. For example
- A mounted man at arms hardly does any "continuous agile one-handed fencing". And as I said these swords "can be used to deliver both cuts and thrusts one-handed" |
Not always true, and certainly not true according to the period manuscripts that describe in great detail the art of fencing from horseback. Sometimes you are at a gallop, but quite often you are not.
| Quote: |
| - If 2 horsemen are riding at each other there is time for only one blow before they have gone past each other, i.e. no fencing. |
True, but only if they are riding at each other. There are many times in combat where there isn't room to be at a gallop, or where you were not at a gallop to begin with.
| Quote: |
| - If there is enough time for mounted fencing then horses are either standing still or walking so one can grab a sword in two hands and there a larger sword would have advantage. |
Sometimes, but not if you intend on having maximum control of the horse. On foot, you rely on your footwork. On horseback, you rely on the horse's footwork. That also doesn't take into account that at any moment you may need to spur the horse forward, and taking your hands off the reigns puts you in less control if you need to suddenly do so.
| Quote: |
| - A sword for a mounted warrior is usually a secondary weapon. If a horseman is dismounted he will probably loose his primary weapon and having a larger sword would be quite handy. |
In many periods the sword was usually a secondary weapon regardless if you were on horseback or on foot, so the point is moot. And having a larger sword *can* be handy... except when it isn't. War was not black and white, and there were times where a smaller weapon was preferred and times where a larger weapon was preffered. Otherwise we would not see so much variety in period sources.
| Quote: |
| - Few authors of paintings were actual witnesses of these battles |
And neither are you or I. ;) But many of the people who wrote about combat were witnesses or actual participants.
| Quote: |
| - Images were not drawn at the time of battle. Artist draw as much as he knew and saw. And at the time of drawing he probably saw weapons and armor on the streets of his town rather than on the battlefield so real battlefield equipment could have been a little different.
- Artists tend to like drawing some things and totally ignore others. |
People didn't just make these illustrations in a vacuum. Someone had to tell them what to illustrate. And that doesn't include the copious amounts of texts we have written by people who were actual combatants.
| Quote: |
| - We often see people shooting desert eagles one-handed in movies. A longsword could be (in in some cases certainly was) a "desert eagle". |
A modern movie is not the same thing. Modern movies are entertainment for modern audiences. Many of the illustrations and treatises we have come from historical people who were writing for the sake of educating other historical fighters, not for entertainment.
We also see longsword being used one handed in many period sources, such as in the Paulus Kal fechtbuch.
On horseback:
http://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/~db/bsb00....174.98.30
On foot:
http://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/~db/bsb00....174.98.30
And note that when these fencers switch to two handed use, they are using essentially the same sword:
http://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/~db/bsb00....174.98.30
Also note that there are a number of complex wrestling actions done from horseback, which cannot be done if both horsemen are charging forward at full speed:
http://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/~db/bsb00....174.98.30
And before you say that Paulus Kal didn't know what he was talking about, we have hard evidence that Kal served in three different courts holding the title of "schirmmaister", or "Master of Defense". In Duke Ludwig's war with Albrecht Achilles, we have evidence of Kal's expenses for having equiped and commanded soldiers wielding handguns. We have evidence of him having commanded during the siege of the Ritter Hans Gebewofl von Degenberg's castle in 1468.
So we have a Master of Defense, who taught fencing, served and commanded in warfare, and wrote a fencing manuscript in the 15th century showing plenty of examples of the longsword being used interchangibly with one handed and two handed techniques, and shows one handed use both on foot and on horseback.
Bringing this back to the original topic: It's true that some swords simply don't feel that great in one hand, and I feel that the Earl is such a sword. The balance is a little more towards the point, making it powerful in two hands, but a little sluggish one handed. I would not prefer it as a weapon from horseback. The Durer is much livelier, but would not have the same cleaving power. It would handle much better one handed, though it is heavy enough that you would certainly need to train with it one handed before that would feel natural (which is true of most longswords).
I own a Dürer. I would not want to have to use it one-handed dismounted against someone using the same sword with two hands, but I think it would be fine mounted and single-hand, as suggested not only by its own characteristics but also by ample artistic evidence of mounted use of longswords. Dürer himself sheds light on this in his drawings and the AA sword It is true to the type. It's a true longsword and I don't use the term interchangeably with "bastard sword," which in my understanding is a blade of single-hand length but with a hand-and-a-half grip for an overall length noticeably shorter than a true longsword, which I tend to associate with an overall length of ~48". I can't readily defend those distinctions historically, but I do find them to be useful.
Attachment: 198.09 KB
Attachment: 198.09 KB@T. Arndt: Talk about trusting a sword with your life! :)
@Joe: That is indeed a difficult challenge!
@Scott: Oh wow, thank you! :D
@Benjamin: I definitely agree that Silver's thoughts on the two-handed sword are sadly rather scant. With respect to the quoted passage though, I believe Wagner's interpretation is that when Silver says "long sword", he is referring to the bastard sword, as opposed to a "longer sword." In that case, I believe the implication is that the wielder of a sword that is not too heavy for the wielder would have the advantage.
My interpretation is that the "ideal" length that Silver recommends is for the reasons of being able to uncross and attack as mentioned previously.
With regards to longer blades, I think Silver believes that a longer blade will have the advantage as long as the wielder is able to uncross. There is a segment where he describes why a taller man would always have advantage of a shorter man, assuming a "perfect fight" and that both blades were of his prescribed ideal length.
I think Wagner's book describes Silver's ideal shortstaff as around 8-9 feet long (which seems consistent with Silver's instructions on how to find an ideal staff length). Thus, my understanding is that the wielder would have a considerable range advantage against a sword (to the extent that he suggests 2 vs 1 would still be doable). Silver does seem to leave much unsaid about his hierarchy though.
@Aleksei: Thanks for the breakdown! (Though it appears I've inadvertently sparked quite a lively debate!) Your purchase order suggestion sounds reasonable and economical :)
[Edit: Wow, a lot of responses while I was composing this!]
@Joe: That is indeed a difficult challenge!
@Scott: Oh wow, thank you! :D
@Benjamin: I definitely agree that Silver's thoughts on the two-handed sword are sadly rather scant. With respect to the quoted passage though, I believe Wagner's interpretation is that when Silver says "long sword", he is referring to the bastard sword, as opposed to a "longer sword." In that case, I believe the implication is that the wielder of a sword that is not too heavy for the wielder would have the advantage.
My interpretation is that the "ideal" length that Silver recommends is for the reasons of being able to uncross and attack as mentioned previously.
With regards to longer blades, I think Silver believes that a longer blade will have the advantage as long as the wielder is able to uncross. There is a segment where he describes why a taller man would always have advantage of a shorter man, assuming a "perfect fight" and that both blades were of his prescribed ideal length.
I think Wagner's book describes Silver's ideal shortstaff as around 8-9 feet long (which seems consistent with Silver's instructions on how to find an ideal staff length). Thus, my understanding is that the wielder would have a considerable range advantage against a sword (to the extent that he suggests 2 vs 1 would still be doable). Silver does seem to leave much unsaid about his hierarchy though.
@Aleksei: Thanks for the breakdown! (Though it appears I've inadvertently sparked quite a lively debate!) Your purchase order suggestion sounds reasonable and economical :)
[Edit: Wow, a lot of responses while I was composing this!]
| Vincent K wrote: |
| With respect to the quoted passage though, I believe Wagner's interpretation is that when Silver says "long sword", he is referring to the bastard sword, as opposed to a "longer sword." In that case, I believe the implication is that the wielder of a sword that is not too heavy for the wielder would have the advantage. |
I love Paul's book, but I don't find his interpretation of this passage convincing. Silver regularly uses "long" and "short" comparatively but never employs "long sword" as a synonym for "two hand sword."
| Quote: |
| Silver does seem to leave much unsaid about his hierarchy though. |
It can be summarizes as follows: reach wins up to perfect length, which is three feet for single-handed weapons and eight to nine feet for two-handed weapons. The matter of montante against longsword breaks this pattern, however, if you interpret Silver as giving odds to the latter.
The Paulus Kal fechtbuch illustrates my point about longswords perfectly. That's a great resource. Thanks for bringing into the debate, Bill. The knightly longsword is a remarkably versatile weapon.
For some reason some of you guys read my comments as "a longsword cannot and/or wasn't used one-handed". So I have to repeat: "these are usually not intended for continuous agile one-handed fencing but can be used to deliver both cuts and thrusts one-handed". These are at a disadvantage when fighting out of armor and especially on foot. Just take your longsword in one hand, find an opponent with skill equal to yours, give him a one-handed sword with a comparably long blade and fight. Or give him the same longsword and let him use it two-handed. You'll see the difference.
Now let's get to details.
On this picture knights are obviously riding at each other. And they are armored. A situation where a longsword could be used. By the way, they both use longswords so they are both in the same situation, no-one is at a disadvantage so why not? http://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/~db/bsb00....174.98.30 I can also speculate that because when fighting on horse and especially in armor a longsword could sometimes be more desired than a one-handed sword due to various possible reasons some of which I described in my previous post one had to learn using it one-handed. Or that strange and unconventional weapons were often used in duels.
On this picture handles are long and blades are short. I wouldn't trust these proportions anyway. And again, they fight with equal arms. http://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/~db/bsb00....174.98.30 By the way, one copy of Fiore has section on armored combat illustrated without armor. Will you attempt these techniques without armor saying that it is illustrated so somewhere?
And just compare blade length to the previous picture! Now these proportions look much more reasonable to me. And much more two-handed. http://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/~db/bsb00....174.98.30
Again mounted and armored. By the way, wrestling is a good choice when your weapon is not very useful ;) . But I wonder why we started speaking about wrestling? How does it relate to swords? Or did I say anywhere that wrestling was not done on horse? http://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/~db/bsb00....174.98.30
Oh, I like cleaved helmets and people in armor cut in half! Bill, pictures are not photos. You should never fully trust them. Well, I probably can trust Durer's picture since it's almost like a photo, but it does not show any use (and I never said such a sword cannot be used on-handed in the first place. Plus an armored man doesn't have to worry about fast cuts that are effective in unarmored combat, power and reach could be more important).
I would like to see a text describing somebody who prefers to use a longsword one-handed when he has a choice to use it two-handed or to use a normal one-handed sword. And I doubt that a person who ordered the painting worried about which swords were depicted there.
I have to bring up Fiore again. These illustrations are often pretty far from reality. They were meant to remind people the techniques that they already knew so the reader was perfectly aware of the context that we have to guess today. And some of these manuals seem to be an advertisement more than anything else so not so far from a modern movie.
So to sum it up, some if not most "true" longswords can be used effectively in one hand in certain situations. But they are at a disadvantage when compared to same sword used two-handed or to a dedicated one-handed sword of the same length and weight. People's choice of sword to wear depended on many factors such as whether they expected to fight on horse or on foot, armored or not, on a battlefield, on a street or in a duel. Also choice of a weapon depends on the person's weight and strength. There are other factors such as fashion, etc. but I won't even try to write the full list here. Pictures can't show many of these things and are also often full of artistic license so while they can be used as evidence one should not take everything that is depicted as an absolute truth. And when in doubt, just take a sword and try fighting. This method might not give a valid result for a beginner, but for an experienced swordsman it works just fine. As for training equipment, I would advise to use "true" longsword for practicing longsword techniques and a one-handed sword for one-handed techniques. Using something intermediate is reasonable only when one can't afford two swords or when one wants to see how this particular sword can be used.
Now let's get to details.
On this picture knights are obviously riding at each other. And they are armored. A situation where a longsword could be used. By the way, they both use longswords so they are both in the same situation, no-one is at a disadvantage so why not? http://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/~db/bsb00....174.98.30 I can also speculate that because when fighting on horse and especially in armor a longsword could sometimes be more desired than a one-handed sword due to various possible reasons some of which I described in my previous post one had to learn using it one-handed. Or that strange and unconventional weapons were often used in duels.
On this picture handles are long and blades are short. I wouldn't trust these proportions anyway. And again, they fight with equal arms. http://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/~db/bsb00....174.98.30 By the way, one copy of Fiore has section on armored combat illustrated without armor. Will you attempt these techniques without armor saying that it is illustrated so somewhere?
And just compare blade length to the previous picture! Now these proportions look much more reasonable to me. And much more two-handed. http://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/~db/bsb00....174.98.30
Again mounted and armored. By the way, wrestling is a good choice when your weapon is not very useful ;) . But I wonder why we started speaking about wrestling? How does it relate to swords? Or did I say anywhere that wrestling was not done on horse? http://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/~db/bsb00....174.98.30
| Bill Grandy wrote: |
| A modern movie is not the same thing. Modern movies are entertainment for modern audiences. Many of the illustrations and treatises we have come from historical people who were writing for the sake of educating other historical fighters, not for entertainment. |
| Bill Grandy wrote: |
| People didn't just make these illustrations in a vacuum. Someone had to tell them what to illustrate. And that doesn't include the copious amounts of texts we have written by people who were actual combatants. |
| Bill Grandy wrote: |
| A modern movie is not the same thing. Modern movies are entertainment for modern audiences. Many of the illustrations and treatises we have come from historical people who were writing for the sake of educating other historical fighters, not for entertainment. |
So to sum it up, some if not most "true" longswords can be used effectively in one hand in certain situations. But they are at a disadvantage when compared to same sword used two-handed or to a dedicated one-handed sword of the same length and weight. People's choice of sword to wear depended on many factors such as whether they expected to fight on horse or on foot, armored or not, on a battlefield, on a street or in a duel. Also choice of a weapon depends on the person's weight and strength. There are other factors such as fashion, etc. but I won't even try to write the full list here. Pictures can't show many of these things and are also often full of artistic license so while they can be used as evidence one should not take everything that is depicted as an absolute truth. And when in doubt, just take a sword and try fighting. This method might not give a valid result for a beginner, but for an experienced swordsman it works just fine. As for training equipment, I would advise to use "true" longsword for practicing longsword techniques and a one-handed sword for one-handed techniques. Using something intermediate is reasonable only when one can't afford two swords or when one wants to see how this particular sword can be used.
While I can't say much on the particular swords mentioned, I do have experience on how different people react differently to particular weapons. I have an Albion agincourt and my wife has a Constable. Both are type XV's but very different weapons. My wife pretty much has to use the Agincourt as a full two hander while I can switch pretty easily between one and two with it. This isn't too surprising as I am much bigger than my wife. But its the reverse with the Constable. She has little problem with single hand, but I have to use both hands, even though it is a shorter lighter sword. It might be because we obviously practice more with our own, but it could be physiological, that our different strengths play better with different types, or even psychological, that we have expectations in how something should feel and we just fall into those patterns easier.
But that really does make sense because we all approach weapons and fighting pretty differently. My friend has a Yang sabre that he swears is perfect, but I don't care much for. He thinks my Agincourt is blade heavy and awkward. Assuming that both of us have an idea what we are talking about, most of it comes from more training in our respective swords, but its more than that. We also spar free hand and we have different approaches even then, though we have been trained in the same styles. I tend to come in linear and hard while he tends to circle and rely on precision. And these traits tend to come out in our swordsmanship.
So I think that the different reviews are perfectly correct, coming from people with different strengths and weaknesses and approaches to what they think a sword should be.
But that really does make sense because we all approach weapons and fighting pretty differently. My friend has a Yang sabre that he swears is perfect, but I don't care much for. He thinks my Agincourt is blade heavy and awkward. Assuming that both of us have an idea what we are talking about, most of it comes from more training in our respective swords, but its more than that. We also spar free hand and we have different approaches even then, though we have been trained in the same styles. I tend to come in linear and hard while he tends to circle and rely on precision. And these traits tend to come out in our swordsmanship.
So I think that the different reviews are perfectly correct, coming from people with different strengths and weaknesses and approaches to what they think a sword should be.
If longswords were so terrible to use one handed, why were longswords like the ones on both side of this photo created?
[ Linked Image ]
These were obviously designed for one-handed use, and they aren't the only swords of this design I've seen pop up in the 1500's, which if I recall is around Silver's time. Someone was thinking about it and designing swords for this kind of use.
One handed I doubt they were used like longswords. If I had to guess I'd say they were used more like rapiers or broadswords. I don't know enough about it to make a judgment either way.
My main point being that they existed. So their use probably did as well.
Attachment: 19.3 KB
[ Linked Image ]
These were obviously designed for one-handed use, and they aren't the only swords of this design I've seen pop up in the 1500's, which if I recall is around Silver's time. Someone was thinking about it and designing swords for this kind of use.
One handed I doubt they were used like longswords. If I had to guess I'd say they were used more like rapiers or broadswords. I don't know enough about it to make a judgment either way.
My main point being that they existed. So their use probably did as well.
Attachment: 19.3 KB| Vincent C wrote: |
| If longswords were so terrible to use one handed, why were longswords like the ones on both side of this photo created?
[ Linked Image ] |
These swords fall perfectly into my first category. See, "swords with shorter handles (often so short that the second hand has to grab the pommel)". These were universal weapons. But while any universal tool is reasonably good at handling a number of tasks a specialized tool is better at handling the sole task it is designed for. Your idea that they could be used like rapiers is interesting. But a rapier would be better. They can be used two-handed, but a "true" longsword let alone a montante would be better. But what to do if you don't know if you will need a rapier or a longsword? The answer is on the photo.
And by the way, I don't think anyone in this thread said that longswords were terrible. They were good at some things but not so good at others. It's a matter of choosing the right tool for specific situation. I don't carry pliers and a knife. I carry a Leatherman multitool instead. While it is inferior to the above-mentioned tools at performing their tasks, it is perfectly enough for me and it is comfortable to carry which is very important.
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