[Joel Chesser]

Hi everyone.
I am writing an essay for a junior english class about swords, the thesis being :
" The single handed swords weilded by warriors of old are more efficient then the two handed swords weilded by the same group."
Or something along hose lines.
Anyway, i was doing some thinking, and it seems to me, that weather or not they are efficient or not has to be judged by where they are being used, the battle field, or for deling.
I just kinda wanted to get some thought on this topic, One question i do have is, did they use two-handed swords in actual battle?
what do you guys think?

[Shawn Mulock]

[Joel Chesser]

thanx, actually, i kinda figured there would be a great many opinions on this subject, i am interested to see what they are so any responces for or against the thesis are welcome, i am still learning, and am extremely open to being proven wrong.

[Felix Wang]

Everything depends on circumstances. Single combat vs massed combat is one of the biggest issues. Are both sides well armored, neither armored, or only one armored? How much room is there: if space is tight shorter weapons have an advantage.

Next, one needs to tighten up the definitions: by single sword, do you mean a single handed sword alone, with a buckler, or with a larger shield?

Then, comes the question of defining "efficient". Do you mean the one most likely to kill the other, or the one most likely to survive a string of combats (surviving takes more than just getting the other guy). Is it efficiency for weight of weapon (and/or shield?)? Is it effectiveness when handled by experts, or by newly trained recruits?

That being said, two handed swords were definitely used in battle. In the 16th century landsknechts used them as a supplementary weapon to aid their pikemen, and Durer has a famous picture of a gallowglass among other Irish fighters, with a two-handed ringhilt. Gallowglasses were professional soldiers, and not aristocratic types. They may have engaged in barroom brawls, but formal duels were unlikely.

[Robert Zamoida]

I agree with Felix's statement on circumstances; I've recently started learning wakizashi techniques in my kenjutsu class, and with the right use if timing and distance someone wielding a wakizashi can not only overcome someone wielding a katana but can negate the advantages of a longer weapon. Ultimately, I think it depends on the person wielding the weapon; how well they know their weapon of choice and what it can do under various circumstances, how well they understand the general principles of timing, distance, and initiative, and also luck (or fate) . Maybe a better way to approach your thesis would be the compare both the advantages and disadvantages of one and two handed weapons.

[Russ Ellis]

I have to agree with Felix, the thesis itself it fatally flawed.

The single handed swords wielded by warriors of old are more efficient then the two handed swords wielded by the same group."

Which single hand swords? There have been a huge variety throughout history. Those range from the type Xs of the viking era to the rapiers of the renaissance. Which warriors of old? Roman legionnaire? Greek Hoplite? German Landsnecht? Turkish cavalryman? What is efficient? Killing with a single blow? Which two handed swords? Claymore? Bidenhander? What about hand and a half swords? In what circumstances are they being used? Battle of Agincourt? Formal duel? Drunken brawl in a pub?

Forgive me for being so critical but I believe that you need to significantly narrow the focus of your paper if you want to be able to put together anything that is coherent.

[J. Padgett]

Speaking as an English major in college, I agree with everyone who has said you need to narrow your focus. Not only that, but you also need a thesis you can actually prove. Whether or not a single handed sword is 'better' than a longsword is largely a matter of opinion and circumstance. There are just too many variables to take into account to prove one or the other is superior. If one form of sword was superior to others; the people who used them for their livelihood likely would have known it, and historical examples would not be so widely diverse in design.

Every time I mention my major in a post I make some kind of spelling or grammatical error. I'm sure there is one in the above paragraph as well.

Perhaps you could choose to explore the idea of a sword's form following its function instead. You could talk about the differences between the wide chopping blades and narrow cut and thrust blades. Just a suggestion though. It's your paper after all.

[Sean Flynt]

Which is better-a hammer or a screwdriver? Well...that depends on the task at hand, as the posts here suggest. I think you'd find it much more interesting to explore why both single-hand AND two-hand swords were valued. Toward that end, I'd strongly encourage you to also visit the website of the Association for Renaissance Martial Arts (ARMA):

www.thearma.org

There you'll find serious, historically accurate martial arts practitioners who train with all kinds of medieval and renaissance arms and armor, using period texts as their guide. The long sword (two-hands, usually) is ARMA's foundational weapon, with the single-hand cut and thrust sword a close second. Post a question on their forum and you'll get highly informed opinion that's been tested in sparring. Have a look at the test-cutting videos to see what different weapons can and can't do. Watch the sparring videos to see the unique ways the different weapons are wielded. Get hardwood dowells of shortsword and longsword length and get a sense for the mechanics of moving them around. That'll tell you much about the advantages of each. Anyway, between myArmoury.com and thearma.org, you'll have more than enough information for your paper.
Good luck!

[Joel Chesser]

Hey guys, thanks for the replys. They have been a tremendous help, and i readily concede to all your points.
I turns out that my teacher thought it was a bad essay topic anyway, but because it was the first essay for the class, she wasn't going to tell me that, just let me write it and see where i ended up.
In any event, I do realize that their are some major issues, with the statement as it was. I had thoughts on the topic that didn't add in that would have made it far more clear. specifically, identifying that i meant for the two swords to be pitted against one another, and the man with single hand sword using a shield. Also i for got to mention hand a half swords on the post, on my actual thesis i had included them with the single handers. i am sure i am leaving out some point or other. i think though in the end I have decided to think of a new thesis statement.
I would still like to hear comments on the topic.

[James Nordstrom]

"Compare-Contrast: Sword and buckler vrs sword and shield"

Weapons used would be rather simular or the same. Time wise they overlaped. However, both employed very different tactics for the same result.

Jim

[Tom M. McIntire]

The main benefit of a single handed sword came when battle lines clashed and became intertwined. Short swords and strokes were an advantage because of the crush of men and the lack of distance from your enemy.

The longsword was much better to reach from the ground up to the knight or horseman. Killing the horse and then killing the horseman was a job best left to the longsword, halbert, pike, spear or whatever.

Tom