I've never understood the advantage of a two handed sword. Actually, I guess I do - the power behind the cut. What I mean to say is that I cannot imagine how a warrior wielding a two handed sword could hope to prevail against one with a sword and shield. Wouldn't the 2nd hypothetical warrior be able to take the hit on his shield and thus be presented with an open, unguarded (with the exception of armor of course) front in which to bury the point of his sword? I've always loved the idea of it, but it just seems an unpractical thing. Anyone care to enlighten me?
Sincerely,
Ennawbvie Essnovesse
| Victor Crowne wrote: |
| I've never understood the advantage of a two handed sword. Actually, I guess I do - the power behind the cut. What I mean to say is that I cannot imagine how a warrior wielding a two handed sword could hope to prevail against one with a sword and shield. Wouldn't the 2nd hypothetical warrior be able to take the hit on his shield and thus be presented with an open, unguarded (with the exception of armor of course) front in which to bury the point of his sword? I've always loved the idea of it, but it just seems an unpractical thing. Anyone care to enlighten me?
Sincerely, Ennawbvie Essnovesse |
First, I assume you are talking about "Two-hander" here. The huge two handed sword. Not the longswords, though the same principles applie. Then I think the power behind the cut isn't the key factor in hitting somebody behind the shield. The reach is a more significant help because you can afford going for the legs, which are the main opening usually for shield users. And then even if you miss, you still have enough reach to recover yourself before the sword and shield user reach you. At worst, the 2 handed sword can go half swording for tangling with the sword and shield user, but going close quarter against a 2 weapon combination usually won't result in good ending for the single weapon user....
Moreover, in my longsword sparring against the shield user, I try not to hit from his shield side unless I knew I was significantly faster. Usually I compete with his sword side. I bind his sword and lock it up on my complex guard at the same time I counter attack. So I don't have much troubles about "hitting the shield" because I don't hit it. Of course, against someone really good, he can rush over to block all my lines of attack with his shield and I got slaughtered.
It's a matter of skill. However I agree the sword and shield users, in unarmored combat, has an moderate advantage over single sword.
well there are two things you are not considering in this analysis...
1.) Shield can be, and often are, broken in battle as wood will frequently split along the grain.
2.) you are not taking into account the vastly sperior range of the greatsword.
You also might be considerering that they were slow and clumsy weapons that had no ability to recover from the stroke which is untrue.
Basically a good fighter would keep his opponent at bay with superior range. If the sword & shielder runs in, he''l get skewered by a well placed thrust to the face or strike to the legs.
Also one more aspect involved here. While there was frequent overlap, these two weapon styles seem to be in a different era if you ask me (correct me if I'm wrong someone?).
1.) Shield can be, and often are, broken in battle as wood will frequently split along the grain.
2.) you are not taking into account the vastly sperior range of the greatsword.
You also might be considerering that they were slow and clumsy weapons that had no ability to recover from the stroke which is untrue.
Basically a good fighter would keep his opponent at bay with superior range. If the sword & shielder runs in, he''l get skewered by a well placed thrust to the face or strike to the legs.
Also one more aspect involved here. While there was frequent overlap, these two weapon styles seem to be in a different era if you ask me (correct me if I'm wrong someone?).
I may be wrong, but I was under the impression two handed swords were most prevalent after armor had reached a standard of protection that reduced the need to carry a shield in hand to hand.
| Michael R. Black wrote: |
| I may be wrong, but I was under the impression two handed swords were most prevalent after armor had reached a standard of protection that reduced the need to carry a shield in hand to hand. |
That's correct, generally speaking. The two modes were mostly from different eras, so they're pretty much apples and oranges.
That said, probably there have been plenty such meetings. I think that the two-hander evolved during the "Age of Mail" when the tactic for getting through a hauberk might have been to break the other guy's collar bone.
| Douglas S wrote: |
| That said, probably there have been plenty such meetings. I think that the two-hander evolved during the "Age of Mail" when the tactic for getting through a hauberk might have been to break the other guy's collar bone. |
Sort of the very long sword acting like a narrow single flange mace when it fails to cut through the maille ?
A 4 pound mace and a four to 6 pound two-hander should be both be able to do a lot of blunt trauma damage even if the handling COG of a mace and that of a two-hander is very difference as well as agility and ease of recovery.
The sword can be very effective even without cutting. ;)
I think that even for fully armoured soldiers, the shield can be useful to protect against blows of axes and maces, for example, that can pierce the all kinds of plate armour.
| Jean Thibodeau wrote: | ||
Sort of the very long sword acting like a narrow single flange mace when it fails to cut through the maille ? A 4 pound mace and a four to 6 pound two-hander should be both be able to do a lot of blunt trauma damage even if the handling COG of a mace and that of a two-hander is very difference as well as agility and ease of recovery. The sword can be very effective even without cutting. ;) |
Eh... somewhat. Take into account the momentum and impact delivered by a hammer or axe-- weapons whose fulcrums are very close to the head. Now compare that with the momentum generated by a sword-- a weapon whose fulcrum is very close to the hand.
A sword is far more suited to skewering your opponent than bashing him.
| Guilherme Dias Ferreira S wrote: |
| I think that even for fully armoured soldiers, the shield can be useful to protect against blows of axes and maces, for example, that can pierce the all kinds of plate armour. |
I think you underestimate the effectiveness of plate armor, my friend.
Even with a Lucerne Hammer, a Halberd, or a Bill, your best bet against a plate-clad opponent is still to find the gaps.
It takes a mighty, dead-on push to penetrate plate armor-- and that's not even taking into consideration that the surfaces of the armor were curved, and were, therefore, rather difficult to get that 90-degree angle. The point of your weapon had an excellent chance of simply glancing off of your opponent's armor.
It took the advent of the firearm to defeat plate armor.
I could be wrong but I think the two modes did have plenty chances to meet later on when both had become unarmored dueling weapons close to ren. period. The 15th century unarmored longsword fight vs the same period of sword and shield... I think sword and shield didn't went out of use even into 17th century if you consider Scottish targe and basket hilt as a descendant of the style. And of course there were still longsword by then, if unpopular.
A important point here is that the longsword was not a primary weapon. 14th-16th century troops would carry spears, pikes or polearms as their primaries.
While carrying a shield around on your back is quite doable (I routinely do so when fighting with glaive or spear), the longsword is a lot more convenient, and supperior to a one handed backup weapon.
While carrying a shield around on your back is quite doable (I routinely do so when fighting with glaive or spear), the longsword is a lot more convenient, and supperior to a one handed backup weapon.
Mr. Swanger, you forgot the fact that the axes and polearms in general had much more knetic energy blows than ordinary swords. Even if these weapons could not pierce the best armours, the soldier with a commom strenght certainly, with these weapons, could dent even the hardest armour and consequently crush a bone for example.
| Jeremiah Swanger wrote: | ||
I think you underestimate the effectiveness of plate armor, my friend. Even with a Lucerne Hammer, a Halberd, or a Bill, your best bet against a plate-clad opponent is still to find the gaps. It takes a mighty, dead-on push to penetrate plate armor-- and that's not even taking into consideration that the surfaces of the armor were curved, and were, therefore, rather difficult to get that 90-degree angle. The point of your weapon had an excellent chance of simply glancing off of your opponent's armor. It took the advent of the firearm to defeat plate armor. |
it took the advent of the firearm to render plate armor obsolete. there were no firearms at Agincourt.
| Victor Crowne wrote: | ||||
it took the advent of the firearm to render plate armor obsolete. there were no firearms at Agincourt. |
First, There WERE firearms in agincourt, the french had a handful of cannons. Second, it soundds like you are making the assumption that arrows defeated the heavily armoured french which is not the case. Arrows'could' pierce the french armour, but rarely did. All one ad to do was raise his shoulders and slouch his head and one would be virtually immune. No, the arrows did nothing to the french physically, but did have a vast effect in terms of moralle. at 5000 archers (I believe that was the number) and 12 shots a minutes, you have 60,000 arrows pouring down on you, regardless of damage. That right there destroyed moralle. Second, the french had to stumble across a horribly muddy field. Third, while the knights were immune to arrows, the horses were not, and the french cavalry was decimated. And finally, the french fought too close together to be effective whereas the english archers nimbly took pot shots with their swords and axes. The french crossbowmen fired too soon and missed the english and they in turn were beaten by the superior range of the longbow. The french cannon did absolutely nothing ;)
Back on topic.
The shield was still around during the era of full plate but not common. Just like any time you use a longsword in plate, rush in at the half sword and grapple at the sword. The shield almost primarily is in the way although it can certainly deliver some hard blows on it's own. During the age of mail, I think of greatswords as being used on horseback. I don't know if fighters back then would have been able to break shields or not, or how regularly, but if mail could be broken through with a heavy sword, I think that the sword had a good chance of taking out a shield. A swordsman with a one handed sword but without a shield is at more of a disadvantage against a swordsman with a two handed sword.
Different cultures preffered different weapon systems. The Germans preffered big heavy two handed swords wheras not everyone else did. Two handed swords fight differently than sword and shield. They both have advantages/disadvatages. The better fighter would win.
Oh, and don't discount the buckler.
The shield was still around during the era of full plate but not common. Just like any time you use a longsword in plate, rush in at the half sword and grapple at the sword. The shield almost primarily is in the way although it can certainly deliver some hard blows on it's own. During the age of mail, I think of greatswords as being used on horseback. I don't know if fighters back then would have been able to break shields or not, or how regularly, but if mail could be broken through with a heavy sword, I think that the sword had a good chance of taking out a shield. A swordsman with a one handed sword but without a shield is at more of a disadvantage against a swordsman with a two handed sword.
Different cultures preffered different weapon systems. The Germans preffered big heavy two handed swords wheras not everyone else did. Two handed swords fight differently than sword and shield. They both have advantages/disadvatages. The better fighter would win.
Oh, and don't discount the buckler.
Last edited by Greg Coffman on Sun 26 Nov, 2006 3:33 pm; edited 1 time in total
From my limited experience at fighting in the SCA, I'd bet on the guy with a two-hander if skill is equal.
Given the reach problem, the sword-and-shield guy enters the fight at a serious disadvantage. While a shield may seem to be a defensive advantage, that ain't necessarily so. A well-wielded two-hander is not only superior in reach and power but is very capable in defense as well.
For the sword-and-shield guy, getting into range before being skewered or legless is going to be hard. And even then, the guy with the two-hander can choke up and half-sword at close range. The guy with the two-hander starts off with a big advantage, and even if the sword-and-shield guy gets into close range the advantage is fairly slim if the guy with the two-hander knows what he's doing.
The sword-and-sheild guy may be faster, but that speed will need to be spent in overcoming disadvantages, and so is not such an advantage in itself.
EDIT:
Just wanted to add a bit about the reach advantage:
I'm a very small guy, and if I've learned anything it's how valuable reach is. If you have more reach than your opponent, then you can back up and circle towards the shield arm any time the sword-and-shield guy advances, enabling you to stay out of range of your foe while staying in range to attack. My reach is very short and smart opponents did this to me, and let me tell you it's hard to counter.
Given the reach problem, the sword-and-shield guy enters the fight at a serious disadvantage. While a shield may seem to be a defensive advantage, that ain't necessarily so. A well-wielded two-hander is not only superior in reach and power but is very capable in defense as well.
For the sword-and-shield guy, getting into range before being skewered or legless is going to be hard. And even then, the guy with the two-hander can choke up and half-sword at close range. The guy with the two-hander starts off with a big advantage, and even if the sword-and-shield guy gets into close range the advantage is fairly slim if the guy with the two-hander knows what he's doing.
The sword-and-sheild guy may be faster, but that speed will need to be spent in overcoming disadvantages, and so is not such an advantage in itself.
EDIT:
Just wanted to add a bit about the reach advantage:
I'm a very small guy, and if I've learned anything it's how valuable reach is. If you have more reach than your opponent, then you can back up and circle towards the shield arm any time the sword-and-shield guy advances, enabling you to stay out of range of your foe while staying in range to attack. My reach is very short and smart opponents did this to me, and let me tell you it's hard to counter.
Page 1 of 1
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