[ Linked Image ]
Rudolf von Erlach as field commander of Berne kneeling in prayer before the battle of Laupen 1339 (illustration from Spiezer Chronik, c. 1485). Rudolf is shown with his family coat or arms and wearing a pointed hat with his heraldic colours.


In Schilling's Manuscript, there is a fairly good representation of these longswords/two-handers as a second side-weapon of the Swiss, after the Baselard. Apparently, everyone was expected to afford at least his main weapon, a baselard, and basic armor. Those who could afford this very long gripped-sword could add it as a secondary side-weapon. I also find interesting that this is perhaps the only manuscript I know so far to describe some swiss soldiers in full harness.

However, my doubt is related to the fact that sometimes you can see highlighted groups carrying their greatswords (often resting on the shoulders) without a main weapon. So I'm interested if by that time (late 15th century) the officers were mainly armed with the greatsword or if there were units of two-handed armed swordsmen amongst them.

Schilling's swordsmen:

https://myArmoury.com/talk/files/switzerland2011_82_of_352_199_628_115.jpg

https://myArmoury.com/talk/files/2874ye_101_139.jpg


Regarding what I have researched:

In some obscure period, the Confederation banned the use of zweihandër, but it was ignored or relaxed somewhere until the Second War of Kappel (where you can see illustration showing zweihandër-armed swordsmen fighting pikemen).

The zweihander wasn't adopted by the Landsknecht until somewhere by 1510's. Paul Dolstein drawings don't include them among the weapon of the Landsknecht serving in Sweden, for example. Some authors also argued it was swiss/german influence that make Scots adopt the use of two-handed swordsmen at the Schiltron's flanks starting at Flodden (1513).

Giving the fact that Oakeshott traces the earliest two-handers in Spain and then to Italy, it's possible the Swiss adopted the two-handers before the germans, who were likely to have copied them.

There's a lot of evidence that Swiss soldiers carried longswords as sidearms. They were famous for using longswords/two-handers even into the middle of the 17th century.

Now, some of the swords worn at the side in this particular chronicle look so big as to prove a hindrance. That might just be a matter of inconsistent proportions and artwork.

There are various later pieces that show pikers and halberdiers equipped with longswords, such as from Urs Graf. Sometimes these do have long handles, as in this picture.

Back to the subject of two-handed swords. Here's an interesting passage from a translation of Jacopo di Porcia's "The Preceptes of Warre" written sometime in the early 16th century

https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A09851.0001.001/1:5?rgn=div1;view=toc

Quote:

187. ¶ Of the maner of fyghtynge. Cause thy souldyours to foyne conty∣nually, and not lay on downryght, which force of fyghtynge is moche dreaded of thyne enemyes, cheifelye yf the foynes be cast at the face. These woundes ben vncu∣rable, and the wounded haue more nede of a preeste then of a surgyon. But yf thy men haue bastarde swordes, or twohan∣ded swordes, vsed in the ast partyes, lette them gyue downryght strokes. For those swordes be so deedlye, that lyghtlye they wyll stryke of the heed, cleaue the bodye, and dismembre all partes.

So he feels that most solders should be instructed to thrust towards the face, which is very frightening and deadly to the enemy. (I have sometimes come across similar instructions in later treatises, for instance that targeteers should be taught to only trust with their swords and aim for the face or where there is no armor.) However Jacopo also specifies that troops armed with bastard swords or two-handed swords held at the aft parts (i.e. not half-swording) should be allowed to give downward strokes because of all the cleaving and dismembering they do.

I wonder if perhaps the popularity of large "slaughter-swords" and wide-bladed battle axes was in part due to the psychological effect of the wounds they caused, sort of like how some writers considered bullets more frightening because they were more likely to maim or kill outright than arrows. The prospect of being stabbed in the face would be pretty scary, but how does it compare to seeing the man in front of you suddenly clutching a bloody stump where his arm used to be?

Elizabethan treatises don't seem to discuss great swords very much. George Silver did put the two-handed sword (albeit one with the same blade as a one-handed sword) pretty high up on his (in)famous weapons heiarchy. He thought it had the advantage over sword&dagger, sword&buckler, and sword&target in one-on-one combat and was still pretty effective when fighting in a pell mell with other armored men.

Silver and a number of other english military writers also tend make the distinction that a shorter and heavier polearm, like a 5-6 foot battle axe is better when fighting in a pell mell, while a longer, lighter polearm like a half-pike is better in one-on-one duels or in loose-order skirmishes.

Humphrey Barwick, writing in 1592, claimed that French officers carried long, thrust-centric, halberds in order to deal with greatswords:

Quote:

I wish no Halbards into the hands of any that hath no skill to vse the same, for it is a weapon that can abide no blowes, as the Bill wil do, but yet in the hands of officers, & such as hath skill how to vse the same, it is a very good weapon, but the same must be handled delicately with the push onely, and quickly drawne backe: the cause that the French officers do vse them with such long staues and pykes, is to encounter with the Lance-knights [Landsknechts], who do vse being Sargiants of foote-bandes, to carrie verie good long swordes or Slaugh swordes. But for our common countrie men, not vsed to handle a halbard as aforesaid: I woulde wish him to haue a good strong black Bill wide in the socket, to receiue a strong Staffe, the heade thicke in the backe, with a strong pyke in the backe and point sharpe edged:

So, I revived the topic because I found another reference for long-handled swords. This one is from a translation of Aeneid (1502), made at Strasbourg by Master Johann Grüninger. I don't know where this city was more under German or French influence, but the swords are anyways identical to the Schilling's manuscripts. These ones, however, are of smaller sizes than some of the Schilling, which are as tall as their bearer.

[ Linked Image ]
https://picclick.com/1502-Gr%C3%BCninger-Master-original-INCUNABULA-WOODCUT-The-Final-174117766737.html

Henry O. wrote:

I wonder if perhaps the popularity of large "slaughter-swords" and wide-bladed battle axes was in part due to the psychological effect of the wounds they caused, sort of like how some writers considered bullets more frightening because they were more likely to maim or kill outright than arrows. The prospect of being stabbed in the face would be pretty scary, but how does it compare to seeing the man in front of you suddenly clutching a bloody stump where his arm used to be?

I was quite disapointed when I saw that few soldiers in the Dutch Army were actually armed as targeteers, though Maurice was a very enthusiast of them. The number of two handed swordsmen and halberdiers in their divisions wasn't much bigger, though. Perhaps their few numbers can be indicative of something?

Quote:

Elizabethan treatises don't seem to discuss great swords very much. George Silver did put the two-handed sword (albeit one with the same blade as a one-handed sword) pretty high up on his (in)famous weapons heiarchy. He thought it had the advantage over sword&dagger, sword&buckler, and sword&target in one-on-one combat and was still pretty effective when fighting in a pell-mell with other armored men.

How exactly a two hander sword could be usefull when fighting armoured troops? A Zweihander or Montante doesn't have enough momentum to be a shock weapon like a halberd or pollaxe, so it can give much damage through armor. I don't know if thrusts are easier or stronger with them rather than other weapons as well.

Quote:

Silver and a number of other english military writers also tend make the distinction that a shorter and heavier polearm, like a 5-6 foot battle axe is better when fighting in a pell mell, while a longer, lighter polearm like a half-pike is better in one-on-one duels or in loose-order skirmishes.

Half-Pike isn't the same of a spontoon? And isn't a spontoon the same of a partizan? By the way, a black bill is the bill shaped in welsh or english manner?

I found strange the source says the English were not used to the Halberd because halberdiers were among billmen since the War of Roses.

Dear Sr. Gaião,

On Thursday 2 January 2020, you wrote:

Half-Pike isn't the same of a spontoon? And isn't a spontoon the same of a partizan?

No; a half-pike is generally longer than a spontoon or a partisan. Half-pikes are typically between two and three meters long. They have simple heads, as pikes and other spears do. Basically, if you cut the bottom off a pike's shaft, you get a half-pike. Because they're not as long as pikes, sometimes they have larger spearheads than pikes do, as balance is less of a problem.

Spontoons descend from partisans, but evolved into what is clearly a variant of a spear, rather than remaining a cut-and-thrust staff weapon. A spontoon is shorter than a partisan, usually around 1.8 to 2 meters long, and has a cross-bar below the spearhead, which is shorter--usually much shorter--than the head of a partisan. Here are two spontoons in the Higgins Collection at the Worcester Art Museum:

object number 2014.657; British, 1763-1786
[ Linked Image ]

object number 2014.117; German (Saxon), about 1725-1750
[ Linked Image ]

A partisan has a long blade with ears or flanges at the base, and is usually at least two meters long, up to about two and three-quarters meters long. It's more like a short sword on a pole. Here are three from the Higgins Collection:

object number 2014.189; Italian, late sixteenth century
[ Linked Image ]

object number 2014.192; probably German, about 1657
[ Linked Image ]

object number 2014.230; origin not listed, probably 1625-1650
[ Linked Image ]

Quote:

By the way, a black bill is the bill shaped in welsh or english manner?

The black bill is the English-style bill and the brown or forest bill is the Welsh-style one. Again, these examples are in the Higgins Collection:

black bill (English style): object number 2014.213; English, about 1540
[ Linked Image ]

brown or forest bill (Welsh style): object number 2014.131; English (as most probably were), late 1500s-early 1600s
[ Linked Image ]

I hope this proves helpful.

Best,

Mark Millman