Arguing with people on the internet about longswords...

[Jonathan_Kaplan]

So I am (gasp!) arguing on the internet with people about the history and how useful longswords were, and rather than doing what is likely the SMART thing and, you know, not arguing with random anonymous people on the internet, I feel compelled to correct them, for some reason.

Alas, I don't know enough of my history to accurately reply to the particular points and call into question particular statements of people... so I ask you all for help!

Here are some of the statements that I am having trouble replying to:

Person 1, on the greatsword:

"Because its a horrible weapon. At its length you can't actually do a full single point thrust (one or two handed) and for swinging you only get about 1/2 it length for actual reach, thus forcing ineffiecent slashes, and draw cuts. Its only nice in theory, the minute its starts to get on paper physics comes in and says this is a horrible weapon idea. "

Person 1, on what I specify as the cruciform two handed renaissance swords:

"1. The cruciform form of the straight sword was developed for the Crusades and more for religous reasons than for practical ones. At which point you get a standing symbol.
2. Renaissance era plate was advanced enough that a sword simply was not getting the job done, thus the development of more focused weapons like the battle axes and war hammers. The sword's time was roughly the middle dark ages when every one was in simple chain mail.
3. The halberd, the simple common infantry weapon, yeah that took less time to forge, less time to train, had longer effective reach, same utility (poke, chop, hook, etc.) and was more useful one defense and in formation.

So yes, I am saying that a weapon that was mostly a legacy of older times and a symbol of status is a bad weapon. "

Person 2:

"Basically, take all of the advantages of wielding a Glaive (not a Glaive-Guisarme, which is better because of the design to rip people off mounts).

And extend the blade to below where your main hand should be.

Now you have a Greatsword.

Longswords/Bastardswords, the 1.5 handed weapons were useful. the full fledged 2hr Greatsword was not, as it sacrificed the strength of being a Greataxe, Glaive, Spear, halberd, or Pike for being a bigass sword. Swords may be cool, but they are not a practical twohander design. "

Now, I am... fairly sure that in addition to the value statements these people are making, they are getting some terminology wrong and also some factual statements wrong as well. And I don't know where they are likely getting their information (I doubt it comes from a vacuum), so I would like some help figuring out where those sorts of statements or opinions may have come from... and some reasonable replies to them would be helpful as well, thanks!

[Kevin Reicks]

They come from pop culture fictional entertainment and "documentaries" where "experts" are movie prop and stunt guys that don't know what the Hell they are talking about. They get their info from victorian era myths and personal biases being involved in the east Asian stuff.

If you want to debate, read and keep books handy by actual schollers. The big two that are fairly available and consistantly good IMO are Ewart Oakeshott and Sydney Anglo. The former has done many books on the weapons and armor themselves and the later wrote a book on how they were used. Also, find quotes of people who lived in those times.

Oh, and show them this video by a REAL expert. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqC_squo6X4

[Stacy Clifford]

First of all, what are they referring to as a "greatsword"? A larger-than-average longsword, or a Dopplehänder ("double-hander") or Bidenhänder ("both-hander") like the ones in this article?

The Weighty Issue of Two-Handed Greatswords

There is plenty of good information in that article you can use. Keep in mind that the biggest swords were intended primarily to play a particular role on the battlefield against certain types of formations, not as general weapons to be used anywhere like smaller, more maneuverable swords. If they didn't get the job done that they were intended for, nobody would have used them for very long.

[Doug Marnick]

There are so many problems with the arguments of your internet foes, it seems they get their facts from the heated debates mostly found in the back room of a comic book store. To be brief, there are two videos right here at the ARMA website that help slightly. One is JC performing a flourish with a two hander.
http://www.thearma.org/Videos/JC_flr_hurtarm04.wmv I remember seeing another one, he was standing near a lake edge but can't find it. The other is a test cut with such a weapon. http://www.thearma.org/Videos/NTCvids/greatswordonmeat.mpv These two videos alone demonstrate both maneuverability and lethality. Overall, you may debate in hopes to educate but you might have become mired in a lost cause against ignorance. I'm sorry I cannot be more helpful at this time and dredge up the information you need, but I wish you luck. As stated above, every weapon served a function and your best weapon against opinion is researched facts.

[Jonathan Hill]

There are some very valid points they are making and you shouldn’t discount them due to the things they get wrong.

Vs. Plate (and to an extent chain) a sword is not the optimum weapon. You can’t cut steel (there are some videos of what happens when you cut chain…nothing) thus the damage done with a swing is percussive, a halberd will do a far better job at this. The sword is used to thrust into gaps but you have to get up close and personal to do that. With a halberd/poleaxe you do not need to get up close and personal to do this. Thus when fighting someone in plate, I’ll reach for a bec de corbin, halberd or poleaxe before a sword any day. I can’t cut plate armor but I can bash in the armor, hook it and control you and thrust into gaps with the spear point on the weapon all at a greater range than the sword is effective in.

If you consider the cutting ability of a two handed sword and compare it to a glaive (cutting edge on a big stick) the glaive will be a bit more effective. You can’t really swing the blade around like you see JC doing in a formation. That statement completely misses the point of the big two handers, you can’t really split a pike formation very well with a glaive.

Swords may be cool but they are not the be all end all weapons for a battlefield.

[James Brazas]

Everyone above has addressed the main issues related to the two-hand sword pretty well.

All I will add is that the people Jonathan Kaplan was arguing with seem to misunderstand the nature of how arms interact with armor - especially when it comes to harnissfechten (armored fighting).

Outside of Medieval/Renaissance fencing circles, very few people really know how to use Medieval/Renaissance weaponry - especially against armor. Even many historians don't know.

Against maille, cutting blows with a sword can be quite effective - especially when using a cutting-oriented sword like Oakeshott Types X through XIV, Type XIX, etc. It probably won't cut through the maille, but it could certainly break bones with a direct hit. Even more effective against maille would be a powerful thrust from a sharply tapering blade like an Oakeshott Type XV or Type XVa. Honestly, any Oakeshott Type from XV to XVIII would be quite effective in the thrust, though XV and XVa would be the best.

So maille changes things. You can no longer cut off limbs in a single stroke, but you can break bones with the cut (when using swords that emphasize cutting). You can no longer impale an enemy with a thrust, but you can still penetrate the maille and kill with a single powerful thrust (with swords that emphasize thrusting).

Plate changes things even more. Cuts are basically worthless against full plate armor. It could dent the armor a little, but not enough to be a worthwhile attack. Maces and hammers would be better in the "cut," but even they would only just deliver bigger dents. It wouldn't penetrate and likely would not kill. Mostly, they would be useful for crushing the joints to prevent the knight from moving that limb. A direct hit with a strong blow to the head would certainly hurt, though.

However, plate armor has gaps. Without gaps, you couldn't move. So harnissfechten is all about thrusting into the gaps of armor - which is precisely where a long, sharp, tapering blade like a Type XV arming sword or a Type XVa longsword excels.

So if you want to kill a knight, the precise thrusts of a longsword into gaps is much better than whacking him repeatedly with a mace.

They also probably aren't aware of halfswording (halbeschwert) where you grasp the blade with one of your gauntletted hands (the other hand still on the hilt) and wield the longsword as a short spear. This sacrifices reach, but gives maximum point control, leverage, thrusting power, and accuracy for piercing even the smallest gaps of armor.

So swords remained highly useful weapons on the battlefield whether against unarmored enemies, maille clad enemies, and even plate armored knights.

It is true, though, that the pollaxe is generally easier to use against plate since it gives greater reach than a sword when thrusting into gaps and it can deliver significant concussive damage with the hammer or axe head. So it combines the usefulness of a battle axe, hammer, and spear. Jonathan Hill is correct in saying that polearms were often preferred due to their long reach.

Halberds were also useful, though not as good against plate as the pollaxe due to their blade shape.

Spears were always useful provided that they had a good, tapering, reinforced point.

Yet swords still have value as a highly effective weapons for use in close quarters. They were every bit as lethal in battle as a pollaxe or halberd, they just lacked reach. Swords were also the weapons that the vast majority of surviving manuals spend the vast majority of their time teaching. So the idea of them being merely "ceremonial" or "symbolic" is ridiculous.

The folks Jonathan Kaplan was arguing with also likely do not understand the fact that there was always a great diversity in armor types among the different social classes. Even if the knights and lords could wear full plate armor, most could not. Some would have partial plate armor (like a helmet and breastplate). Some would have maille. Some would only have cloth armor like gambesons or arming jackets.

Against full plate, swords can be used to thrust into the gaps or armor (especially in the halfsword).

Against partial plate, you could either thrust into the gaps or cut at the unarmored portions.

Against maille, you could thrust to pierce the maille (if you have a good thrusting sword) or cut for concussive damage.

Against cloth armor, you can thrust or cut just fine.

Two-Hand Swords were mainly used as cutting swords against lightly armored infantry. They had incredible reach (greater than the pollaxe or some shorter spears), incredible firepower, and very good coverage (long cross-guards, side rings, etc.). Their greatest use was tearing a whole in enemy infantry formations.

They were not usually used in tight infantry formations. They could possibly be halfsworded and used as spears in tight infantry formations, but they weren't as well suited for that as an actual polearm would be.

They could be used to halfsword and thrust at the gaps of a knight's plate armor, but they were mainly cutting swords and didn't have the rigid, reinforced, sharply tapering blade design ideally suited for piercing gaps in armor.

The longsword was a general purpose weapon well-suited for close-quarters melee combat in any situation.

The Two-Hand Sword was a specialized weapon ideally suited for maximum effectiveness in breaking up infantry formations, shock tactics, etc. Outside of its element, it isn't as useful.

[Stacy Clifford]

Good comments, James. The short version of that is: NOT EVERYBODY ON THE BATTLEFIELD WAS WEARING FULL PLATE ARMOR. While it's true that you could end up fighting literally anybody in the chaos of battle, if your job is to go after pikemen in partial armor, you don't need to be equipped to fight fully armored knights. No army has ever been able to afford to equip everybody with the highest grade of armor.

[LafayetteCCurtis]

Person 1, on the greatsword:

Well, there's the greatsword, and then there's the great sword. What you seem to be discussing here is the Renaissance two-handed sword and, while it's known as the "greatsword" in popular culture due to the influence of fantasy roleplaying games, more historically-focused discussions tend to use the word/phrase "great sword" for a different kind of weapon: long-handled cut-oriented blades of the Oakeshott types XIIa and XIIIa, mostly about the same size and weight as more thrust-oriented longswords although with a somewhat different paradigm of handling and balance.

"Because its a horrible weapon. At its length you can't actually do a full single point thrust (one or two handed) and for swinging you only get about 1/2 it length for actual reach, thus forcing ineffiecent slashes, and draw cuts. Its only nice in theory, the minute its starts to get on paper physics comes in and says this is a horrible weapon idea. "

You could tell this bloke to look at the relative dimensions of blade and handle in two-handed swords. A longsword (or its earlier cousin, the greatsword) seldom has the handle taking up more than one-fifths of the entire weapon's length. On the other hand, the handle on a two-handed sword easily makes up one-fourths or even one-thirds of the weapon's entire length, giving a greater leverage to help control the weapon's greater mass. This is how the weapon remains manageable despite its sheer size, although of course it's still not going to be as fast or as agile as a smaller longsword.

"1. The cruciform form of the straight sword was developed for the Crusades and more for religous reasons than for practical ones. At which point you get a standing symbol.

This is BS. Any historical martial artists who has spent a while studying reconstructed medieval European martial arts alongside other sword arts that do not use the cruciform sword design (or switching from the former to the latter) would find that the long, prominent cross on medieval European swords plays a really important role in protecting the hands and controlling the enemy's weapon. At least I'd be very reluctant to try things like Absetzen or Duplieren without a substantial cross.

2. Renaissance era plate was advanced enough that a sword simply was not getting the job done, thus the development of more focused weapons like the battle axes and war hammers. The sword's time was roughly the middle dark ages when every one was in simple chain mail.

This argument completely misses the point because the horribly misnamed "Dark Ages" as well as the Early and High Medieval periods also had its own "more focused weapon": the spear in its various forms. Not to mention that there was never any shortage of dedicated chopping/crushing weapons apart from swords; the Dane Axe was around long before plate armour (apart from helmets) became popular, the Maciejowski Bible is chock full of all sorts of choppers and bludgeons, and let's not forget that the lobated/knobbed mace never really fell out of use since the Bronze Age.

3. The halberd, the simple common infantry weapon, yeah that took less time to forge, less time to train, had longer effective reach, same utility (poke, chop, hook, etc.) and was more useful one defense and in formation.

Well, depending on what kind of sword is being discussed, it should be noted that many later halberdiers (from the late 15th century onwards) also carried short swords as a backup. It's not one or the other; if one could have both, why carry just one?

If the discussion is to be restricted to the two-handed sword, however, there may be some cultural factors at work. For example, the Imperials (particularly the Landsknechts) seem to have favoured the two-handed swords for certain roles that the Swiss would have assigned to halberdiers instead. But then, the Swiss had their own two-handed swordsmen too, and it's not surprising that they tend to be assigned to one nice that was also the particular province of the two-handed swordsmen in Imperial service: guarding the colours. In this respect, the two-handed swordsmen would likely go into action when the rest of the formation had been shaken or broken up by the enemy assault, and the intimidation factor presented by their massive swords might be quite important in helping them stem the tide of the enemy's attack and buy time for everybody else to rally, regroup, and come back into the fight, preferably before the colours had been captured.

"Basically, take all of the advantages of wielding a Glaive (not a Glaive-Guisarme, which is better because of the design to rip people off mounts).

And extend the blade to below where your main hand should be.

Now you have a Greatsword.

Again, missing the point since a glaive (assuming that this means a long knife-blade at the end of a pole) doesn't have the mass or the sheer impact force of the two-handed sword....

Longswords/Bastardswords, the 1.5 handed weapons were useful. the full fledged 2hr Greatsword was not, as it sacrificed the strength of being a Greataxe, Glaive, Spear, halberd, or Pike for being a bigass sword. Swords may be cool, but they are not a practical twohander design. "

There's some point to this, but some others in this thread have shown you that the Renaissance two-handed sword was not (and never) a general-purpose weapon in the manner of earlier longswords. It was a specialist weapon primarily intended for guarding the colours/standards at the centre of a pike formation, plus a few other tasks similar to those of contemporary halberdiers (things like forming up a flying squad to assault the flank of an enemy pike formation that was already engaged to its front). Therefore it didn't need to match the longsword's versatility and could concentrate on things that it was really good at (in the opinions of contemporary fencing masters, this largely involved fighting against multiple enemies at once).

BTW, the mention of "greataxe" is another thing that makes me think that the discussion is couched in the terminology of Dungeons & Dragons 3rd Edition -- which is not a bad game in itself, but not something one should rely on for historical weapon nomenclature.