Author |
Message |
Jeremy V. Krause
|
Posted: Sat 16 Dec, 2017 11:40 am Post subject: Use of two hands when wielding long-seaxes |
|
|
Hello everyone,
What do you think about this. The handle length of sexes in general and specifically long seaxes seems to suggest that these could have been used two handed.
I have a fine reproduction of the Seax of Beagnoth which can be seen here. http://myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=335...t=beagnoth and here http://myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=32102
The seax can feel a bit ponderous in one hand but really sings in two.
So what do folks think or is this even an answer that can be made?
|
|
|
|
Mark Moore
|
Posted: Sat 16 Dec, 2017 12:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have a Kris Cutlery langseax with an 8'' grip. I can hand 'n a half it, but it feels strange to me, being used to longer swords. I guess I would say it feels like overkill...but that's just me. ......McM
''Life is like a box of chocolates...'' --- F. Gump
|
|
|
|
Zach Gordon
|
Posted: Sat 16 Dec, 2017 12:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I haven't heard mention in any sagas specifically about the practice..
Maybe there's some artistic evidence around.
I've always thought of these more like machetes, or hunting swords, where you can choke up (so to speak) for finer work like butchering... Or you can hold from the end of the handle for more momentum when you chop.
With shields around, I can't imagine anyone specifically wanting to hold a weapon with two hands... Unless they have lost said shield.
Just my 2¢
Z
|
|
|
|
Steve Fabert
|
Posted: Sat 16 Dec, 2017 12:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Anyone who carried a shield would have had a hard time using two hands to swing a cutter of any kind. I always thought that was why only fully armored combatants could use a two-hander, because only they could leave their shields at home.
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
Posted: Sat 03 Mar, 2018 10:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
Using weapons two-handed while carrying a shield is pretty doable if the shield has a guige that lets it hang from the neck and shoulders. Some Carolingian shields in the era appear to have had guiges. I'm not so sure that it would have been the case for the English, though; the Regia Anglorum authenticity guide remarked that they couldn't find evidence for two-handed spear fighting except by people dressed in hauberk and helmet (and thus having less need of a shield).
|
|
|
|
G Ezell
Industry Professional
Location: North Alabama Joined: 22 Dec 2003
Posts: 235
|
Posted: Fri 16 Mar, 2018 1:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm making a reproduction of the Little Bealings seax, which has a blade almost 27 inches long and a thick spine. The balance point is 7 1/2 inches forward of the handle, so it handles more like an ax than a rapier. It certainly could be used two-handed, but I don't think this would have been done on the battlefield due to the heavy reliance on shields, but I can certainly see it happening in a self-defense situation when a shield wasn't handy.
" I have found that it is very often the case that if you state some absolute rule of history, there will be an example, however extremely unusual, to break it."
Gabriel Lebec
https://www.facebook.com/relicforge
|
|
|
|
Philip Dyer
|
Posted: Sat 17 Mar, 2018 8:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
G Ezell wrote: | I'm making a reproduction of the Little Bealings seax, which has a blade almost 27 inches long and a thick spine. The balance point is 7 1/2 inches forward of the handle, so it handles more like an ax than a rapier. It certainly could be used two-handed, but I don't think this would have been done on the battlefield due to the heavy reliance on shields, but I can certainly see it happening in a self-defense situation when a shield wasn't handy. |
I honestly think that would be rare in that situation as well. a cloak, stick, or scabbard can function as a improvised shield and you lose allot of range when you two hand a one handed weapon and in an unarmored fight, reach is very important and in some cases, compensate for a lack of armor.
|
|
|
|
|