Why the longsword?

[GeorgeHill]

Why does ARMA choose to focus on the longsword? Would it not be far more correct to focus on sword and sheild?

Is it because longswords are realitively uniform, and shields come in infinte variety? Is it because there are (Are there?) more surviving books on the longsword? Is it because you only need one "thingy" instead of two to practise the longsword?

Frankly, I DRAMATICALLY prefer the shortsword in combonation with either a left handed weapon, or a shield. I want to be a good shieldfighter and I want to learn shortsword and dagger. (And rapier and dagger as well... but that's another issue.)

Now, I recently purchaced John's books on the rapier and cut and thrust swords, and medieval swords, which just came in the mail. I'm having a BALL studing the sheild fighting section in the second one, but it seems to me that shieldfighting is much easier, more effective, and just plain more 'pure european' then the two handed sword, (even used with all the crossgaurd tricks you can think of.)

OK, I'll be honest. I just like the shield better.... But to me, fighting with a shield is just plain more basic to the west then any single weapon. OK, Lots of cultures used the shield, lots. From the Zulu nation to the Chiniese. But it's still a Knight and his shield to me....

[TimSheetz]

Hi George,

I can tell you what I think are good reasons for focusing on the Long Sword.

First, there are more manuals written on the long sword and not too many with Sword and shield.

Second, the long sword - to be effective - absolutely demands that the user learn and use good footwork. One will never succeed with the long sword without developing great footwork. I have seen folks hunkering down behind their shield and think they are effective. They are hindering their combative development and someone who has their footwork can use a shield a lot more effectively.

Third, The long sword techniques (or the principles of the techniques) transfer to an extensive variety of weapons. Half swording has great many similarities with pole weapons, for example.

Anyway, there is my two cents.

Tim Sheetz

[Mike Cartier]

In the Meyer fechtbuch the longsword is the first book and he calls it the father of weapons. This was in 1570 long after it had battlefield use so clearly it provided attributes complimentary to an overall martial foundation.

i think the reason for this is tha use of the longsword teaches good footwork, gives one a strong base and teaches most of the martial concepts that will be used in the study of staff, sword & buckler etc.

Its does a lot to develop a good set of muscles in the upper body as well as the legs, providing a good dose of athleticism that makes the transition to the other weapons easier.

[Casper Bradak]

Also, in our main period of focus, the longsword was generally more common than the true sword and shield combination, and reflected in the fencing manuals.
That said, I think we're really lacking in a comprehensive shield curriculum. I'd like to see some more work done in that area by people who know what they're doing.

[John_Clements]

We don't "focus" on it, the majority of our members just study and discuss it---probbaly becuase the majority of historical source manuals do the same. Why? It's a versatile and effective weapon. But many of us study sword & buckler, sword & dagger, staff & polearms, shields, rapier, the dagger alone, and unarmed fighting.

JC

[Aaron Pynenberg]

For me personally it holds a certain aura, a kind of attraction. without getting too zen-like it is an object of great beauty, also possesing a certain deadly elegence. Many of the historical books I am reading mentions that this weapon was held in the same regard by knights during their own time as well, which intrests me greatly.

The comabt tactics required to weild it are also very intense and powerful. At the same time requiring enormous amounts of concentration and skill. -Aaron

[JeanryChandler]

I did sword and shield for 20 years before getting into real WMA. I got pretty good at it, I could beat most people I encountered 90% of the time. I felt the longsword was a comparatively weak weapon, inferior on defense and of limited utility.

When I learned a bit of real WMA though, my understanding of the longsword changed. This started with facing WMA trained longsword fighters, who even though in many cases were unused to facing shields, had far more of a repetoire of strikes and counters to draw upon than I could have even imagined.

As I began to learn the weapon, it became increasingly obvious that while it is more difficult to gain enough skill to become effective, it is ultimately a far more versatile weapon.

I feel that you "plateau" out on the sword and shield at a much earlier stage of skill development. You are very limited with that weapon, for example you have to largely concede initiative to an opponent with more reach, and you are more limited in your strikes.

The longsword can be good at long or short range, and if you have sufficient skill, is incredibly flexible and versatile. It can face a wide variety of different weapons, from spears to daggers, and can bring a very wide range of options to any situation.

The shield allows you to "rest" a bit more, and is strong defensively, but I sincerely believe that the longsword is ultimately a weapon which can be taken much, much further in terms of versatility and virtuosity. It is the queen of weapons.

Jeanry

[Shane Smith]

I study and train both the longsword and armoured longsword more than most anything else simply because the vast knowledge-base extant on this weapon is much more likely to keep my training on-focus and in accord with the historical methods once employed by the Masters. Quite simply,the better informed you are,the less likely you are to fall into falsity through ignorance. For instance,any attempt to re-create sword and shield play requires much more supposition to my mind that most any other form as there are no medieval works on this subject to help guide our hand.

[GeorgeHill]

Thank you everyone, those are excellent answers. I wasn't aware that the majority of surviving material was on the longsword. Pity there isn't as much about the shield. Who knows what wonderous tricks we might be completely overlooking?

Tell me, IS there much crossover between the falchion and the short sword? I notice a number of manuels sem to include the falchion.

[Stacy Clifford]

While any distinct weapon form is bound to have a few techniques specific to its configuration and intended use, for the most part a one-handed cutting sword is a one-handed cutting sword. If you know how to use one kind, you know how to use the others with a little adjustment for weight, length and balance. That's the beauty of it.

[Matthew_Anderson]

George,

Here's a good example of how longsword relates to another weapon: Take a look at Hans Lecküchner 's book on the langen messer. You might think the techniques would be radically different as the two weapons look quite different. In fact, you'll see cutting, thrusting, binding, winding, displacing, setting aside, use of both long and short edges, grappling, really, all the same techniques that you learn in longsword, only performed with the messer. Even half-swording! Even the basic stances are the same, although they have different names. There is also a lot of cross-over between longsword and sword and buckler, polearms, etc. as already mentioned. If you get good at all the things you can do with the longsword, picking up other weapons will come easier. As John pointed out, we don't really "focus" on longsword to the exclusion of other weapons, but you have to start somewhere, and longsword is a good way to learn a lot of basic principles that translate well to other weapons.

[Rod-Thornton]

This is an older thread, seemingly long-dead, but I have a question. How exactly/why did the longsword evolve to supplant the shorter sword & shield combo (if in fact it ever really did) since longsword heyday seem to appear rather later than shorter single-hand swords' usage.

Was it in part to better armor supplanting need for shield combined with better reaching potential of longer edged weapon and made possible with better metallurgy process enabling them to be made (longer)? Or was it something of a social change taking place? Or other things?

I do not think I am too sure of the etiology of its evolution and would like to better understand it. Training with it has been great and I personally have no interest in training with short sword and shield, although I am certain my sparring will have me training against them at some point.

[jeremy pace]

Mounted warfare. The longsword was used by mounted men to have the reach and leverage necessary to make a killing stroke from horseback. Especially with the advent of saddles with stirrups. Look to the romans. Rome had mounts, but didnt start really looking at the power until Flavius Stilicho began examining Alexander's Companions and the scilla, along with the mounted warriors of gaul in the turn of the millenia. Before that they used a short sword with tower shield or pilum. Too bad they were so late......

Once it gained popularity as a "knights" weapon, it was only natural that schools opened for the new gentlemans weapon. Other than the rome stuff my idea on it is just speculation. Maybe others have views on this, but i think its just common sense. With the invasion of the germanic tribes through most of europe they needed an edge, and mounted warfare in formation with a powerful weapon that could be used 1 or 2 handed while all your enemies were terrified of horses..... Who doesnt see the appeal in that?

As i said though, maybe someone else has exact dates and names that could give you a better answer, it just seems to me most of the western world kind of learned of this weapon around the same time.

[Rod-Thornton]

Yeah, I'm not certain I completely accept that as explanation. While I agree the Roman spatha was longer for reach, and mounted warfare drove it's lengthening, I am talking about the longsword from the standpoint of a two-handed weapon used without benefit of a shield....something that mounted warfare does not fully explain.

[Matthew_Anderson]

The increasing use of plate armour almost certainly had something to do with the development of the 14th/15th century longsword. Without the need for a shield, a primarily two-handed weapon is more practical. However, the longsword didn't "replace" single hand swords as single hand swords continued to be used throughout the middle ages and renaissance. As for mounted combat, most period illustrations show mounted knights with single hand swords, which makes sense, they would want one hand on the reins (although there are also images of knights wielding swords in two hands, they are less common). Also, some single hand swords used by mounted knights had rather long blades, as long as some two-hand sowrds, they just had single hand or hand and a half grips for use primarily in one hand.