[William P]

Do you need a weapon for assaulting places and keeping order?
.. but you say that a halberd is a bit too big and awkward?.. and a knightly longsword is just a bit too puny?

look no further than the Two handed sword.. it can cut, it can thrust, its good for bodyguarding VIPs, doorways and streets, for boarding actions and being first into the breach..

accept no substitutes it even makes julien fries..

it really is the ultimate attack sword.

or.. is it?

[Matthew Amt]

[laughing in Roman]

[Dan Kary]

I'd not want one in an alley (as one of many possible examples where the context of the situation would render that sword as a very poor choice).

[Pedro Paulo Gaião]

I think it's weird how the Dutch Repulic who put a lot of emphasis on shielded swordsmen didn't achieve the expected amount of them in the records, where even Zweihander-armed soldiers are noted; which by themselves, seems to have been devaluated in favor of halberdiers.

[Dan Howard]

If it was so good, it would have seen more widespread use.

[Pedro Paulo Gaião]

[Dan Kary]

[Sean Manning]

Big two-handed swords were common in some periods of Chinese and Japanese history as well as early modern Europe. They were always outnumbered by staff weapons, guns, bows, and crossbows though!

The Spadone Project is collecting sources http://thespadoneproject.com/

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

It is notable that big two-handed swords appeared prominently in the 16th century in both Europe & East Asia. That suggests that the basic design of a 5-6ft sword offered meaningful martial utility. While I don't know of any prices for greatswords specifically, I suspect they were more expensive than equivalent staff weapons like halberds. Some available prices for polearms are rather cheap. A black bill cost a mere 16d in 1574; polearms generally seem to have been cheaper than single-handed swords.

It seems curious to go to the trouble making such large swords if there weren't some practical value. As mentioned, available European sources indicate that greatswords were especially suited to fighting multiple opponents. Certain successful 16th-century European forces used them alongside halberds in pike formations. There is some mention of cutting pikes in period documents, though this was contested at the time & remains controversial.

Examined from a physical point of view, the greatsword has four main advantages compared with polearms: being more nimble at any given weight thanks to balance closer to the hand, a longer sharp edge, more hand protection, & improved durability. It's also perhaps easier to wear a greatsword in a position where it can be quickly deployed, though there's scant evidence this was done historically (& there are a few texts that mention wearing staff weapons like the Welsh hook).

[Dan Kary]

[Dan Howard]

[William P]

[Matthew Amt]

[William P]

[Pieter B.]

The 16th century was a very messy and experimental period.

Naval warfare had not yet settled on ships of the line but rather used cannon armed galleys or galley shaped ships like the galleon. Both of them attacking with the prow in line abreast and relying on boarding action. On these you might find a colorful array of breech or muzzle loading bronze, cast iron and wrought iron guns mounted on swivels, two wheeled and four wheeled carriages firing stone, lead or cast iron projectiles. On deck archers using bows stood shoulder to shoulder with men using older style pole mounted handgonnes, shouldered matchlock arquebuses and gunshields. From the tops men would be hurling javelins and pots filled with quicklime. On land you could see meters long culverins, double barreled cannon and organ guns whose blasts cheered on noble companies clad in plate, pistol armed reiters and an array of exotic light cavalry from the frontiers of Europe. Crossbow armed reivers or balkan men with curved sword and bows.

In such an experimental environment large swords may have occupied a niche peculiar to the time and type of warfare.

Alonso de Chaves specifically mentions Montantes in his Espejo de Navegantes

[William P]

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

I don't see any indication in the source that greatswords were status symbols. In Ming-era texts, it's clear the authors appreciated large Japanese-style blades for their martial utility. Similarly, greatswords appear in many European fencing & military manuals. They're a mainstay of the Iberian fencing tradition & often praised. While presumably more expensive than staff weapons in both Europe & East Asia, many surviving greatswords are rather plain. It's unlikely these were valuable enough to be displays of wealth. Various extremely fancy weapons from this period exist, & are different.

It's more suggestive than conclusive, but Humphrey Barwick's mention that halberds had long staves & top spikes to go against greatswords stands consistent with the notion that greatswords have the advantage over staff weapons of similar length because of their relative nimbleness.

[Ryan S.]

Weren’t two handers also used for scrimmaging and as part of the “forlorn hope”.

I think in any case, the best formation is a mixed formation and that similar to sports teams, every general had his own variation of formations and changed them up based on the makeup of their team. [/i]

[Sean Manning]

I have also seen references to keeping a rack of greatswords next to the rack of pollaxes, bills, or halberds in bastions in 16th/17th century Europe. If the bad guys start climbing through the embrasures, the gunners have something better than their sidearms!

Some of the Iberian montante forms are called "how to defend the gangway of a galley" or similar.

I can't think of a lof of evidence for swords 150 cm and longer in overall length being worn on the body. Europeans carried them on the shoulder like a sfaff weapon, not sure what the Chinese and Japanese did.

[William P]