well, I've said it a few times, I'm totally thrusting for a two hander since i starting looking into them. and I've always looked to see who might have the best reproduction on the net, and have kept on turning back and forth to Lutel handicraft. today i just by chance jumped on their site and what do i see as a new product their

http://www.lutel-handicraft.com/?p=productsMo...ante-16010

to me over all impressive - though built in a little bit of a broader style than the few I've been researching. Lutel must really want a part of my bonus thats due by the end of this month. [/url]

I like the looks ans the weight seems good too. I would also prefer a narrower blade, but it looks pretty nice. The parrying hooks look odd, but a little filing would fix that. I like that its longer than 60 inches too.

6.28 lbs seems a bit on the heavy side, but overall it looks good. I for one am happy to see a trainer a little more in line with the Albion Maximilian, rather than looking like a metal stick with parrying hooks.

The Maximilian is definitely not a montante. I would think this

http://www.lutel-handicraft.com/?p=productsMo...word-16009

would be closer.

The Max is a beauty, no doubt, but it's to small. I'd love to see an Albion in 65 to 75 inch range, but those are from the renaissance period and I don't think it will happen.

That's a nice sword, must be a new piece to their lineup because I've never seen it before. Could instantly be my new favorite in their big swords :) Interesting that they call it Iberian though, to me it looks more southern German/ Northern Italian.

Matthew, the Max is a renaissance sword as its from the earlier 16th century. Two handers as a whole varied greatly in size throughout the period, and I'm sure I could find plenty of "Montante" that would resemble the max in size and balance. Your right in that it's fairly small compared to other swords, but they ranged from 140 cm to God knows what in size and this is true no matter what period you look into.

The sword you referenced is based off a piece in the Wallace collection that's from the mid 15th century. It only resembles a montante in that the repro has a slimmer blade, but if you went a bit earlier then when those manuals were written I'd bet that they wouldn't be all that different from their central European counterparts. It's just that many surviving swords are likely from the later 16th to early 17th centuries, a time when slimmer blades were very popular in the region. I'm sure that one could use the max in montante drills, as it's a system that's meant to be used with two handed swords. As long as the blade isn't too floppy or isn't an overly heavy parade piece, it should work.



Regards.

Well, Daniel.......It's bound to come up sooner or later, so I'll go on and say it.........If you're lookin for a big two-hander, the Hanwei Lowlander might be a consideration. It's -relatively- well made, looks good, affordable, and easy to improve upon. I've heard quite a few folks say that with some work to the tang, grip, and pommel, it can become quite a beast. It's common knowledge that the Lowlander has a full, if thin, tang and a hollow threaded pommel. Adding good epoxy to the grip upon assembly will tighten up any slack in the grip, and take a LOT of stress off the pommel. The Lutels, unless changed design, have welded-on tang extensions---very well done, I might add. But, welded-on nonetheless. Can't say I've ever heard of one break. This particular Lutel looks great though. I'm sure that with 'showin a lil love' ...it would...as we say in Texas...'be a HOSS!'.............McM

That Lutel look very good, but there is also this Del Tin DT 2162 in stock at Kult of Athena:

http://www.kultofathena.com/product.asp?item=...ded+Sword+

I have one of these in an older version ( Bought around 2002 ) with some detail differences in the terminals at the ends of the guard and minus some of the short fullers on the ricasso.

I do like mine by the way. :D :cool:

I asked Lutel for data about this sword a while back and they gave me some measurements concerning the distal taper. The blade is 6mm thick at the base and tapers to 2.5 mm near the point.

i tend to use the terms that define two handers with region loosely. the description of this particular sword is Montante, but has more of what most people find familiar with early Swiss two handers. unless we see the actual makers mark and can track down where they are made, the terms used for them in any language is the same (two handed). the parrier haken do resemble what I've seen on some originals. some of the Iberian swords tend to have a little bit of flair to their file work, i believe there is one in Leeds that has a little file working done to the lugs.

Mark I've looked over the lowlander once or twice, with having to do the extra work to it, it lead me to look else where. for what i was looking for - i would have to extend the fuller, and was really looking for a hexagonal blade construction. and my biggest turn off is not having any parrier haken.

Jean i've actually never seen the Venetian - only from a picture on their direct wed site it didn't even look like it was offered. now i want to look into that one too thanks a lot my bonus check is just going to fly out of my hands :(

one of the things I've noticed in the production pieces that i haven't seen translate from the originals is distal taper. the venetian shows a 6.4 mm cross section at the quillon block down to 3 mm and at 64 inches in length, the period originals I've seen around this length are measuring 9 mm to 3mm even on a smaller example i know of (though it is possibly broken and re-hilted) i didn't see the details of that on the lutel piece, but it would be interesting to know.

essentially this would make the sword heavier, but in the end would it make that much of a difference in performance?

Another Montante worth considering: http://regenyei.sg18.net/imagesB/Egyeb6.html

I think we're using the term montante a little liberally. Many of the manuscripts make a differentiation between the montante and the swords used by the "esquadron volante", or forward troops. Montante were lighter, tending around 5-5.5 lbs. The 6lb (and up) variety of two-handed sword were the ones used by the forward troops, fighting pikes and heavier armor.

Is the lutel version spadone like? Yes. Is it montante like? Somewhat, but it's more of the front-line variation of the two-hander. In terms of use, it's kind of like the difference between a spear and a partisan. Can they be used the same way? Yes. Does their use differ tactically because of their form? Oh, yes. Do they act and feel differently when used with the same forms? Oooh yes.

Can the lutel one be used as a montante? Sure. Is it a montante? No, but it could be a spadone. You could use it for the montante forms, but it will make your body pay more for it (you're less likely to use the wrong body movement though :D ) The first one they show on the regneyei two-hander page is a dead ringer for a swiss two-hander I saw a while back. It's also lighter than the original one. [EDIT this one http://regenyei.sg18.net/imagesB/Spadone.html I was looking at the wrong weight, I don't know the thickness, but this is much closer to a montante than the lutel and other regenyei, characteristically. Also way lighter than the swiss one it resembles]

A montante is a two-handed sword, but a two-handed sword isn't necessarily montante. Montante were meant to fight in duels or hilarious amounts of troops, but not shock/front line troops. The other kind (I cannot for the life of me remember what the spanish called them, I'll post it in an edit at the bottom when I find it) were used on the front line to hammer things around then hold them in place for those behind them. You could use a montante for this too, but they aren't likely to take the punishment over time as well as something beefier.

Different families of longswords, different families of two-handers.

It's kind of weird actually. The two swords on the regneyei page I would assume are montante and the other spadone from their given characteristics seem to have their names switched.

Vincent,
I was under the impression that the Montante and the Spadone where names from different languages for the same type of weapon, like swert and spada?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uT7rVNGEzbU
This is a form from Marozzo and at 26 seconds in it shows a one handed strike, but you are asserting the Spadone is a different and heavier weapon?

I feel like I've missed something, these weapons interest me a great deal and I would be grateful to know what I've overlooked.

I've never seen the spadone primo assalto done with a longsword before, that was smooth. My understanding from Steve Reich is that the one-handed strike in the primo assalto is given as an option depending on range to the opponent. One handed strikes are very difficult to pull off with a spadone at speed, for the sake of your wrists you really have to practice the recovery before you try.

Spadone tended to be heavier than the montante and with longer crossguards, typically the parrying hooks (if present) were higher on the sword than on the montante (I've seen an exception to this, though), and spadone also had comparatively longer grips. Blade sizes varied on both of them, some montante and some spadone had fairly long blades and some fairly short ones. But even with the longer bladed montante, the grips weren't very long.

There is a regional difference in how they were made, but a montante would still be called a spadone in italy. A spadone may be called a montante in Spain. They served the same purpose, both were used in duels and for crowd control. If heavier two-handers were looped with the name spadone in Italy as well than their definition was just a little broader.

The later Spanish term "mandoble" incorporates the big ones as well, but I don't know if that's also the contemporary name for the heavier variation.

So the size difference (and weight) is more of a trend? Montante tend to be a bit lighter and shorter but exceptions exist?

Also comparing the previously video to a montante video

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=montante%20rule%203%20-&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CCwQtwIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DQNVojNVs2XE&ei=uxORUfvYG8uy0AGe1oHQCw&usg=AFQjCNETPYJdmmkoBYN7hW2nz7y_vQ2t2g&bvm=bv.46340616,d.dmQ

It seems to my eye that the Montante Rules use more power from the hip, and marrozzo throws more fromo the shoulder.

Here is another Marozzo
http://vimeo.com/14262468

It could be the practitioner of course.

Vincent points out something that I've noticed in the 4 swords I've been trying to get a look into. their parrying lugs are relatively close to the quillon block. in fact their so near, that the common conception is that these two handed swords were griped above the guillion block below these lugs, but that simply isn't true. on the swords I've pin pointed down. it looks pretty difficult to do, the space is too small for a hand to fit. (there are also swords from the same time that fit this description with broader blades as well)

another aspect I've seen in common is a very large ricasso above those lugs. the swords overall are pretty thick for their length. I have been thinking that the sword I've been looking at are just simply from the same maker, and that was why they had such similar characteristic.

Montante - seems to be defined as a sword not intended for war - but civil functions. slender blades with beefy cross sections. large ricasso and close parring lugs. at least this is what I've found common between the 4 swords.

Could you link to one or two of these swords? If you aren't in a gauntlet all you really need is about four inches of space to fit a hand, there is less room than that?