[Vegard Stomsvik Pedersen]

I read that two handed swords were never fully sharpened.
Is that true? Or did they relay mostley on the weight of the sword to slay a man?
(I'm very green when it comes to sword knowledge )

[Chad Arnow]

I have moved this topic to the Historic Arms Talk forum.

Please note the description for this forum:

"Discussions of reproduction and authentic historical arms and armour from various cultures and time periods"

Thank you.

[Sam Barris]

Different sword types from different ages utilized in different ways and featuring different blade geometries intended to overcome different varieties of armor would exhibit different degrees of sharpness, but they were all sharpened to the degree that they needed to be. On some types, the geometry might support a fierce cutting edge. On others, a finely honed edge might be played down to accomodate a wicked thrusting point. It all depends on what the sword was intended to do, and what it was going up against.

In general, though, the myth of Western swords not being sharp can go into the same rubbish bin with the myth of Western swords weighing fifty pounds. Modern sport fencers and the Japanese sword crowd really like to keep these myths going. Hollywood does its part, too. You may wish to check out the Oakeshott articles in the Features section for more information.

[Anders Nilsson]

It depends on what time in history the blade was used.

The more plate armour, the blunter edge and sharper point. There was some blades that was little more than a heavy metalrod with a sharp point. They where used in halfsword grip vs heavy plate. They hardly count as blades.
Most blades where sharp thou, they should cut meat and bone.
Some blades in the 1500 where used to chop holes in pikeformations but they where still sharp.

[Edward Hitchens]

If you were a Landsknecht and ended up fighting in close-quarters while your giant two-hander is still in your hands, you could almost use it like a quarterstaff. Mine, for instance, has a very long grip and a leather ricasso (as most swords of this type will anyway; mine is 66" overall). Any weapon this size really isn't meant for close combat, though if wielded properly, your opponent will find out the hard way that 'big' doesn't mean 'cumbersome.' I'm very familiar with quarterstaff tactics, and since we're discussing a comparable weapon in terms of length, the two somewhat share the same advantages.

[Eric Myers]

The Iberian two handed sword is quite nimble, almost like a longsword with longer reach. The manuals we have for it detail moves that would be most effective with a sharpened blade. Remember also, that kinetic energy is more affected by velocity than by mass, and it's a lot easier to sharpen a dull blade than to swing it a lot faster.