[Steve Hick]

Bill/Patrick, Good to see folks working with Figueiredo, one of the reasons we didn't put interpretations into our PDF is we wanted others to have the leeway Dom Diogo allows us. Having a big trainer is just necessary to get the full benefits of the insights this, and the spa done material provides to your fundamentals for all weapons.

Here we too have been playing around with variations to the basic rules, also doing sillier things from the Italian material, and working with the masters material - Monte, Anon 1580, de Paredes, Godinho, de Viedma. The Godinho translation is complete, but unpolished, it could still be a while.

Patrick, I look at driving and fight before and behind as transitional between the two. Wait till you see Godinho, his effectively only situational, and with a different palate of direction change steps that is far more dynamic and risky than Figueiredo's.

Steve

[Eric Myers]

Woo Hoo! This is exactly the sort of conversation that Steve and I hoped to start seeing more of when we made the translation available Bill and Patrick, your analyses of the work are particularly enjoyable to read. As Steve said, we purposely kept the interpretation out of that publication, but now I want to join in the conversation, so I'll chime in with a couple thoughts I've had on some of the topics you've brought up. Sorry I'm late to the conversation.

Regarding stepping or not with cuts: The more power you want in your cut, the more you need to step. Most cuts without steps are dispositive rather than executive. Stepping also helps when changing direction and cutting at (approximately) the same time. I do 2c with the same footwork Bill describes, but I think it is interesting that 2s is all cuts with steps, and the implication is that 2c is more difficult, perhaps because of that very lack of core body movement to assist the cuts, again in line with Bill's comments.

Thrusting without steps: IIRC, all thrusts from the right shoulder are with a step, and these all make sense. The thrusts over the arms are often with no step, and we have found a couple reasons to consider for this, which aren't in the work itself. First, all other authors tell you not to thrust when facing multiple opponents, since a thrust offends one but a cut can offend many. You can do most of the rules by just leaving out the thrusts, or by sliding them from/into the cuts before/after. Second, Monte describes cutting with a step and slipping the point backwards to elude the parry, and then thrusting. This works great :-) Monte is doing it with rising cuts, but it is essentially the same thing Timo described with a descending cut.

Cuts to or through the centre: I try to use both of these, because no system is complete without both. Circular cuts are described a lot in period works, but the leverage of two hands let's you do things like disarm a single hand sword using your weak against their strong. How can you not love that? I choose to or through mostly based on what is happening next: if it's followed by a thrust, the cut is to the centre (though Matt Galas does a pretty convincing tight continuation of a circular cut to return the point towards the opponent); if you want to cleave the opponent in twain or force him to step the f*** backwards, it's a cut through the centre; any time you want to affect more than one opponent with a single cut, it's a cut through the centre.

The importance of using a realistic trainer: There's all kinds of montante stuff you can do with a longsword, but which if you try to do the same thing at speed with a realistic trainer your body will let you know the following morning in no uncertain terms that that was the wrong way to do it.

Patrick's "second set": You point out one of the peculiarities of this work, that there isn't much cutting through the centre to get you turned around. There is some of it towards the end, but it's still different than what I've seen in some other arts. It's interesting, but I don't have a a good explanation except that all systems are a subset of "what is possible." Like you, I like to practice these rules from the left as well as from the right. As we get into the situational plays, however, I find I don't feel like I "need" the reverse of the rules as much. If I could actually try fencing someone at speed with this weapon, I might be more diligent about this "reverse rule" practice...

[Steve Hick]

[Harry J. Fletcher]

Please allow me a little lattitude here but from what I have read their use was against formations of pikes and arqubusiers which bagan be to developed in the sixteenth century. On the offensive the Zweihanders went in to cut a way thru the pikes for the infantry of cavalry to follow. Since this was most dangerous they received double pay and were known as double pay men. Flamboyent cut and puffed clothes of contrasting colors and ridiculous hats were their trademark. On defense they were interspersed forward of the pikemen but within the mass of pikes and their job was to cut cut off the attackers pike heads before they could reach the pikemen an obviously dangerous occupation. No doubt they earned every penny of their pay. There was mention of zweihanders using their swords to attack horses legs but no real substantive evidence is given for this in battle. The swords they used were not pointed for thrusting but only used for the slashing and cleaving cut giving the nature of their role in combat. Doubtless, they came into contact with infantry during these battles and developed some skills in the melee with them. However, their sword techniques were much different from those of the long sword or two handed sword. I hope this has been helpful

[Steve Hick]

[Daniel Staberg]

[Nicholas A. Gaese]

It is exactly as Daniel above had stated, the myth of the two-hander being used in such a manner is essentially debunked. No period sources reveal such a use of this weapon.

However, I do have a personal theory about its use, so take it as you may. This might also explain in part the origins of the famous myth.

I personaly believe that the two-hander may had a more flexible role during the earlier part of the century. Their primary porpose was to guard the ensign, but depending on the number of these troops, the captain may be enticed to send some to "troubled" spots. For instance, to settle a melee that may had broken out on the border of the feahnlein, giving time for the dissordered troops to return in formation. The captain may also send such troops to enforce victory or to deter defeat. Against an enemy on the edge of breaking, one certainly can't deny the psychological effect such a shock weapon can serve on such key moments in battle.

That being said, against a well ordered formation this tactic would have little value and is best left to the main arms of the formation to face. Had I been alone facing such a force as a wall of pikes, I would want nothing less then a cannon loaded with grapeshot, little else would work, a few swordsman would only end up as pin cushions.

As I said before I meant this tactic is only really viable during the first half of the century. If you've noticed, the closer to the end of the century you get, the more formations relly on gunners, the fewer the alternate arms become. Guns become the main offence of a formation and pikemen serve a more defensive role, no longer the famous charge of pike like what the Swiss were famous for. As such, for a formation of 500 men or so, by this time there may be 10 or less two-handers present, halberdiers remain in plenty as they were for a while longer still the best multi-porpose polearm, and even they became more decorative, with the axe heads becoming less functional. All this following new trends in function and fashion I guess.

No matter what the time frame though, there was never a need for many such swordsman. A dozen or so men would have been plenty for any of the above roles a captain would need them for. I have never seen any period artwork showing more than this anyways and the few pics backing my theory had only 2 or more/less men serving such a role.

Just my thoughts on the subject , at least serving as brain food for future ideas.

[Harry J. Fletcher]

Mr Straberg,

You are possibly quite right and I am on shaky ground in my presentation but here is the basis of my hyposthesis:

In WEAPON, A Visual History of Arms and Armour, page 102 it states:

"During the middle ages, most infantry swords were relatively light and easy to wield, but by the late 15th century, a distinctive group of larger weapons grew in popularity, particularity in Germany. These two handed (doppelhander--doublehander or beidenhande--both-handder) swords were specialist weapons. The Landsknecht who used them were called doppelsoldener and received double pay; but they earned it. They were expected to hack their way into enemy pike units. The impressive but clumsy weapons were also used for ceremonial duties and executions."

Shown as an example is a sword with a blunt point whose origin is German date 1550 and the caption says it is used to for hacking the way into enemy formations not pierce victims.

A second source used in my hypothesis is THE GRAMMAR OF WARFARE. On page 166 Titled Infantry, it illustrates Landsknecht who it states were developed by Maximilian I as a counter to the Swiss Pike formations which then dominated Eropean warfare. The Landsknechts are shown in their puffed and slashed dress but armed with a variety of various weapons from arquebuses, halberds, and their doppelhander swords as well as regular sized swords.


I think that one can say the two handed sword came in a variety of types with no one type predominating but the zeihander or doppelhander seems to catch ones imagination. History is not static but operates on a continuum which means change and evolution or sometimes repetition occasionally. National styles come into play as well as types of sword or uses of swords and tactics which means a confusing flux for we who are trying to interpret who used what, when, why, and how.

I liked the photos and found your presentation quite interesting particular for my own edification.

Regards,

Harry

[Timo Nieminen]

[Patrick De Block]

Back to the other twin in this thread on using two-handers.

As I said in a previous post, I was going to do some homework.

William Carew wrote:

'IX complex – thrusts behind while removing a foot (i.e. turn and pass back) + thrusts from a shoulder while putting in a foot'

I do a cut 3 stepping right followed by a cut 4 with a left step and again a cut 3 stepping right. The cut is to something like Langenort or Bicorno to form the thrust over the right arm which I give like a Schlüssel while stepping back with the right foot. When I put down my right foot I'm in a left Ochs (pommel in front of right shoulder) and I give the thrust stepping right to something like Hengenort. Dropping the point Schlüssellike only then I turn around to face the other direction and repeat the whole sequence.

As I read the rule I do not think you should turn to give the thrusts, the description is very different from the 4c. What do you think?

Eric Myers wrote:

'I choose to or through mostly based on what is happening next: if it's followed by a thrust, the cut is to the centre (though Matt Galas does a pretty convincing tight continuation of a circular cut to return the point towards the opponent); if you want to cleave the opponent in twain or force him to step the f*** backwards, it's a cut through the centre; any time you want to affect more than one opponent with a single cut, it's a cut through the centre.'

I do the same but now I'm going to try to do a convincing continuation of a circular cut but I still have to think and try a bit more on this.

Steve,

I have some plays of Godinho and Monte from the two handouts. I've figured them out, more or less, but I don't train them. My focus is on Figueyredo as I don't think I know this already well enough. But it is great material to compare and check what you're doing in Figueyredo. When the polishing is done I certainly want to read it.

[Nicholas A. Gaese]

To Mr. Fletcher

While im unfamiliar with your second source, I can tell you that the first book "Weapon" should be taken with a grain of salt.

I own the book and it's sibling books and they are all made to be interconnected. Take for instance "Warrior" and look up Landsknecht under Renaissance. they tell various things about them and under their equipment section shows the very same sword you mentioned. However, the Landsknecht formations are shown as having two-hand swordsman scattered along the formations perimeter to meet enemy troops and break their stride.

Now ask anyone who does Landsknecht reenactment and tried to pull off this tactic. They often find themselves overwhelmed by the number of enemy pikes and often got in the way of allied pikemen approaching from behind.
This is where my theory shines, as while two-handers are not very effective against a fresh, well ordered pike formation, they have use against a weakened/broken formation or during all out melees or "bad-war" as its also called.

All in all the Osprey book series as a whole are decent books, but they tend to be misleading or misinformed on various subjects. I would recommend looking into myArmoury's online book section,as the many books there are all good reads.

Regards
Nick

[William Carew]

[Lafayette C Curtis]

The discussion here makes me wonder somewhat about one thing: how much material do we have on the two-handed sword in 18th- and 19th-century manuals outside the revival movement championed by Alfred Hutton and his associates? It'd be interesting to see what the masters and writers of the smallsword and epee eras had to say about this rather antiquated weapon.

[Steve Hick]

[William Carew]

[William Carew]

[Eric Myers]

[William Carew]

[Eric Myers]

Hi Bill,

Well yes, it can be mitigated that way, but then you are clearly not following rule 4c (in this case) since we are told next to move the left foot with the revez. I'm not against making up new rules or free form movement, but that is different than figuring out what Figueiredo said to do in a specific rule.

At this point I'm not fully convinced this fits as a strict interpretation, but it's a nice combination of moves. (We practice variations based on rules too, in order to accommodate this sort of thing without getting to persnickety.) In 4c for example, it works nicely if the second talho is a cut through the centre which continues all the way around to bring the point forward again - this harnesses the movement of sword and body together quite smoothly for the step and thrust. I haven't had a chance to play around with Patrick's take on 9c yet.

Cheers,

[William Carew]