Why were one-handed swords in general more common than two-handed swords? I really don't get this, even in the heyday of the longsword common soldiers used one-handed swords as sidearms even though they usually had a two-handed primary weapon, and later on when shields had entirely gone out of use it was still one-handed swords like the sabre that were most common, I can't see any reason to use a one-handed sword when your other hand is empty anyway, why was this the case?

I could be wrong...but even once shields were abandoned, the off hand still was not always "free". Cavalry soldiers need to hold the reins. A pistol could be in the off hand, or a main gauche type dagger. If your primary weapon was not a sword, and most times it was not (spear, pike) I single handed side arm as a backup would make sense to me. 2-handed swords seem to be in many cases a rather specialized weapon. Bucklers and the targe shield continued to be used for a rather long time after the heyday of the larger shields.

Simply carrying a larger sword if its not your primary weapon has to be considered, its not as handy attached to your body as a smaller sword would be. Strapping it to your back ninja style is really not practical if you need to gain quick access to it as a secondary weapon, despite what we see in Hollywood.

Makes sense about the one-handed sword being more convenient to carry, I hadn't really considered that, but still knights did use longswords as sidearms and since so many longsword treatises focus on unarmoured combat they must have been used for self-defence in civilian life too, they can't have been that much more inconvenient to carry.

I wonder about this as well, specifically in the context of piker sidearms. Judging by a wide array of artwork, Swiss pikers - generally regarded as the best - commonly carried longswords, especially in the late fifteenth century and early sixteenth century. Some Landsknecht pikers also wore longswords during this period, but later in the sixteenth century English, French, and Italian military writers apparently assume a single-handed sword. I suspect part of it comes down to fashion and culture. Longswords persisted in the Swiss military well into the seventeenth century. Different groups had different favored and culturally valued weapons. As long as none of these gave dramatic advantage, both theory and historical evidence suggest such different weapons could coexist. Piker sidearms used during the sixteenth century include short katzbalgers and baselards with either rounded or sharp points, longswords of various sizes and hilt configurations, long single-handed swords with complex hilts suitable for both cut and thrust, very long English-style rapiers good mainly for the thrust, and of course daggers.

Interestingly, George Silver did consider the two-handed sword - which had only roughly 36-inch blade - superior to the single-handed sword with or without a dagger, buckler, or target. Silver's two-handed sword was what we'd call a longsword, though it's unclear exactly how long a handle or heavy a blade he wanted.

Two handed swords may be used on a battlefield, and they do indeed look fearsome, but they're not a lot of use in a confined place, plus they are difficult to carry about.Single handed swords and scabbards are awkward enough in a group.
One on One combat, they are effective - but in a melee situation they are at a bit of a disadvantage, as they take more time to switch from attack to defence, leaving the user open to attack from other quarters. On the battlefield..you need a lot of space to swing one, too close and you endanger others on your own side, so that leaves you more vulnerable to attack. It wasn't just a joke when soldiers wielding two handed swords were called " Forlorn Hopes"

Two handed swords may be used on a battlefield, and they do indeed look fearsome, but they're not a lot of use in a confined place, plus they are difficult to carry about.Single handed swords and scabbards are awkward enough in a group.
One on One combat, they are effective - but in a melee situation they are at a bit of a disadvantage, as they take more time to switch from attack to defence, leaving the user open to attack from other quarters. On the battlefield..you need a lot of space to swing one, too close and you endanger others on your own side, so that leaves you more vulnerable to attack. It wasn't just a joke when soldiers wielding two handed swords were called " Forlorn Hopes"

A totally off-handed remark....

If YOU needed a blade - what would YOU carry? Yes, I understand history... I repeat - what would YOU carry, given the options available TODAY?

Choose as you see fit. I love the 14th centaury... oddly, it does not appear that we will be living in it again. I somehow suspect that the 14th century folks were not overly focused on the 11th Century.

As far as convenience goes, if this piece is to be believed, sixteenth-century soldiers did lounge about with longswords. Note how the Swiss soldier in the center wears a longsword. While longswords might seem unwieldy in the press of battle, the success of Swiss pikers and halberdiers suggests that longswords were serviceable if not downright advantageous.

Something to keep in mind is that there's not really longswords per se, there's only fencing, fencing long and fencing short. Some swords were made with features to be especially advantageous for two-handed use but you can fence long with a single handed sword and you can fence short with a two-handed sword. Artwork shows single handed swords being used with two hands several centuries before long grips become common. Considering ringen am schwert a trained swordsman is never really fighting with just one hand anyway.

Some advantages of a single hand sword:

Less material/easier to fabricate
Easier to wear/less cumbersome
Easier to wield in a tight formation of other soldiers
Shorter blades are easier to thrust with

Some advantages of the longsword:

Slightly better reach
More power in the cut
Halfswording techniques
More hilt strike options

But remember that thrusting with one hand gives considerably more reach than thrusting with two hands with the same weapon, so the first advantage of the longsword is somewhat lessened when dealing with the thrust. Also, halfswording and hilt strikes are really an attempt to use a longsword more in the role of a polearm/mace to compensate for its lack of effectiveness against armoured opponents. But in an age where the sword has taken a sidearm/backup weapon role on the battelfield, we already have specialized weapons that are more effective against armour. So, if you don't really use your sword on the battlefield too much, I think the advantages of the arming sword are more useful than the advantages of the longsword.

To comment on the katana/wakizashi: this is a fairly unique weapon setup strictly used by samurai. When both are worn it is called daiso ("big-little") and is the definitive mark of a samurai. Also, the wakizashi was almost always worn, even indoors, and the katanas were usually not. Also remember that the daisho was a backup to the yari spear and yumi bow which were primary weapons. Furthermore, katanas, while made extremely well given the poor ore deposits in Japan, were much more brittle and harder than more european swords of say the 15th century and were prone to breaking when sword on sword combat was involved. Just another explanation of the wakizashi/katana pairing.

Are the Chinese swords butterfly swords/knives? This article has an interesting in-depth look at the social history of that weapon, which (interestingly) was probably not that old and might have been far more common in "civilian" settings than among military troops:

http://chinesemartialstudies.com/2013/01/28/a...tial-arts/


Anyway, to return to the original question, it's worth noting that the two-handed (or hand-and-a-half) sword wasn't really that common in the long term; in Europe it was only made and used in considerable numbers for about three or four centuries out of something like 25-30 centuries of recorded history, barely three centuries in Japan (roughly the Tokugawa, Meiji, and Showa eras up to the end of the Pacific War) out of some thirteen or fourteen with verifiable historical records, and in China it lasted the longest (maybe six or seven centuries up to the middle of the 20th) but was even less common (compared to other swords and weapons) than in Japan and Europe.

That doesn't answer the why, but it's really interesting to see just how uncommon such swords were in purely relative terms.

I would take some issue with the generality of associating the Classical Age with large shield/small sword, as the Celtic tribes of France and Germany used long swords together with sizeable shields. The primary reason the Greeks and Romans used short swords was because it was a backup weapon for the most part-- the primary weapon was the spear. The Romans did introduce the concept of using the short sword in close combat, but I suspect this probably had a lot to do with the various conflicts with Gallic tribes.

In the 'medieval' era, single-handers are probably more prevalent due to a simple fact-- they were cheaper-- and slightly easier to forge because there's simply less metal to move around and balance versus a bastard sword or longsword. Plus, they're easily paired with a buckler, which is definitely a very common shield for the lower classes.

So essentially, the answer to your query is, 'convenience'. There's a little more to it than that, of course, but that IMO is mostly the case :)