single hand and two hand

[JeanryChandler]

One thing I have been struggling with for this second essay I'm doing on combat realism for RPG's, is what exactly is the difference between using a weapon single handed versus two handed.

In the old days of stickfighting, I found that I often liked to use even heavy weapons like 3-4lb long-swords single handed, because it gave me more reach and seemingly more flexibility. Using hanging guard type parries which required less strength, I could actually parry much better, though I couldn't do beats and I couldn't strike as hard. It seems easier to get the point of my sword to move a long distance with a single hand.

Using the same weapon double handed obviously conveys better precision, and more strength and control in strikes and parries, but seemignly at the expense of less reach, and less overall flexibility. In fact, sometimes if I strike at someone two handed, and then they counter, I will switch to one hand to get the point where I need it to be for a parry (often by letting the point drop while I rotate my wrist to get the sword into a hanging guard). Conversely, when fighing with a weapon two handed, I'll often suddenly let go with one hand (usually my left) to strike with more reach when I think I have an opportunity.

What do y'all feel the differences are between fighting one handed versus two handed, assuming a weapon like a longsword. Is two handed faster or slower? Which method is better for defense? I seem to parry much better one handed, but the opportunity to do more aggressive beats and slap-asides with two hands is effective for me too.

I would be interested to hear y'alls opinions.

JR

[Guest]

I like the looks of single handers best, Vikings, Celtic blades and such, but to be honest, for sparring or cutting or fencing, I like hand and a half or two hand swords. The long hilt and heavy pommel can give a standard lenght blade, a better feel in the hand during movement, for me.

[Jake_Norwood]

Just to complicate things...

In the area of the two-hander, the lenght of the handle is a big deal. As a lever, it can move the tip of a weapon very, very quickly--much more so than a single-handed weapon will ever be able to move in a controlled fashion. I think that fighting two-handed requires more training and coordination, however, to be "initially" proficient.

Jake

[JeanryChandler]

Actually, what I orginally meant by opening this thread, was that with a given weapon, say a longsword or an arming sword with a hand and a half grip, what are the differences between using it single handed versus two handed.

As far as I can tell, you seem to have more power and control two handed, but a little bit more reach and flexibility, and maybe quickness in some circumstances, when you use the weapon single handed. When I fight with a longsword, I tend to alternate between a single and two-hand grip, sometimes slipping out of a two hand to a one hand grip for example when striking, to gain extra reach.

The question y'all seem to be addressing is comparing a single sword to a longsword. Since y'all brought it up Ill throw in a comment there too. I agree jake the length of the grip is a big factor in controlling the two handed weapon via leverage. You can see this in LARP and SCA groups where two handed swords typically have huge, historically inaccurate grips. They are making them bigger for better control.

Having learned this at a very early stage, I used to stare with wonder and disaproval at photos of Viking swords. The grips were so tight, how could you wield them properly? It wasn't until I handled a pretty good replica once briefly that I got an inkling of the genius of it. Properly balanced, the tight grip has it's own advantage.

In combination with a well balanced weapon, I find that the pressure of your hand against both the guard and pommel helps you control the weapon, in a surprising manner somewhat analogous to the way the over the guard grip helps control the point on cut-and-thrust swords.

I also find that the longer grips on some Arming swords (SLA's) I have can get in the way, and when I do use a single sword, I have come to prefer the Viking type weapons with the very short grips, with which I seem to be able to strike out with very high speed and excellent precision.

I have not ever had much success experimenting with the alleged pinkie finger over the pommel grip that some Vikings were supposed to have used.

JR

[Casper Bradak]

I'll try to answer your original question, if I understand it. I think Jake hit the nail on the head about leverage. Using a 2 handed weapon with 2 hands gives you leverage, leverage gives you power or strength, and control or maneuverability.
There are plenty of techniques for using 2 handed swords and other weapons with one hand, because like you said, they have thier uses, but it's not the primary way, again due to leverage, because outside of those specific techniques, you'd be at a disadvantage with a weapon of that general form in one hand.

[JeanryChandler]

Thanks Caspar, and you too Jake, y'all are getting a little closer to answering my question.

But I'm really not so much asking, is it better to use two handed weapons with two hands than one hand, What I'm trying to determine is, from the point of view of modeling a swordfight in the sense of doing a simulation, what are the precise mechanical differences. How differently does it effect fighting.

For the sake of argument, lets assume a weapon which is in length and weight roughly midway between an Arming Sword and a Longsword. Lets call it an Arming sword with a slightly extended handle, long enough that you could use it two handed, but a light enough weapon to wield easily one handed as well. Say 2.2 lbs and 43 inches long. Maybe an Oakeshotte Type XVIII?

Now for example you are saying that the superior leverage of using a weapon two handed give you more power, strength, and control or maneuverability.

What then, would be the advantage of using the weapon one handed? Would there be any advantage? If there was not, why weren't all swords such as rapiers, sideswords, etc. made with extra long handles so you could use two hands?

My point however isn't to argue the superiority of one handed vs two handed grips, by any means! I am just interested in quantifying the exact differences, how it effects the ability to fight. What the advantages and disadvantages are offensively, defensively, and in causing damage from different types of attack (cut, thrust, draw-cut etc.)

JR

[Casper Bradak]

One handed weapons allow the use of 2 weapons. Dagger, buckler, shield, etc. If you ask why use one over the other, outside of personal preference, that opens up a massive and highly debateable, probably off topic tangent discussion. There's also the issue of ease. While the 2 hand sword was primarily a weapon of war, the one hand sword always remained a valid, more easily carried weapon of self defense through all ages, like the buckler as opposed to the shield. Hence some terms like riding sword, side sword, etc. Also, considering the weapons design, if it's designed to be primarily one handed, there's often no considerable gain in using the second hand, they just remain more maneuverable and balanced in one. You should be able to feel that theory for yourself when training w/replicas.

[Casper Bradak]

Sorry I think I'm still missing your point. Back to leverage. Single swords are generally lighter, shorter, and of course used with one hand, so they generally have less leverage. Generalized, a single sword won't strike as strongly and won't withstand as strong a strike as a 2 handed sword when conventionally used. But that's really generalized. Due to their specialized weight and balances, one shouldn't be able to generally "out maneuver" the other. But, blade forms have massive effect on all these things, so even generalizations are difficult given the variety of european bladed weapons.
At the half sword, leverage is equalized between the 2 types, and it's a matter of length and blade form.
Generally longer crosses and grips on 2 handers make some techniques easier as well.
Now if you don't generalize, and compare, say, a rapier to a wide bladed longsword, the rapier may certainly out maneuver the longsword to some extent, but be found lacking in strength and leverage even at the forte, when recieving blows or any sort of binding. But even that example is generlized within it's context.

[JeanryChandler]

The ability to use two weapons or a shield is definately one major advantage of fighting one handed, but I'm thinking more in terms of a single weapon only, in an effort to narrow down the mechanics.

I'm guessing by your statement that you reject the premise of a sword equally designed for single or two handed use, so let me pose the hypothetical question this way: By your argument, if one was armed with say, a three and a half foot long stick, are you then saying that one would always be better off using a two handed grip rather than one?

While the 2 hand sword was primarily a weapon of war, the one hand sword always remained a valid, more easily carried weapon of self defense through all ages, like the buckler as opposed to the shield

It seems to me that both single handed swords and bucklers were used in war as well as in civilian conflict, but this is again bringing the argument into the realm of the superiority of one type of weapon over the other, which I'm not interested in discussing here.

Also, considering the weapons design, if it's designed to be primarily one handed, there's often no considerable gain in using the second hand, they just remain more maneuverable and balanced in one.

But if a two handed grip is so superior, why didn't sword makers simply add a few inches to the swords grip, so that it could be wielded that way?

Do you not think, therefore that there is any advantage of reach, or and increase in speed in the thrust, for example, when using a sword single handed?

JR

[Casper Bradak]

In my experience there are no swords that can be equally used one or 2 handed, they always lean to one side of the fence, even if they have the option of the other.
Anyway, if you notice I usually say a sword is designed to be used "primarily" one way or the other. Ever notice how most all european swords have pommels designed to be gripped?

"It seems to me that both single handed swords and bucklers were used in war as well as in civilian conflict, but this is again bringing the argument into the realm of the superiority of one type of weapon over the other, which I'm not interested in discussing here."

I never implied that they weren't. At least not on purpose. Just take what I said about that literally.

"But if a two handed grip is so superior, why didn't sword makers simply add a few inches to the swords grip, so that it could be wielded that way?"

"Do you not think, therefore that there is any advantage of reach, or and increase in speed in the thrust, for example, when using a sword single handed?"

Generally I don't think one is superior to the other, and I don't remember saying that. I would say, when you're using single weapons, the 2 hnd sword does have advantage over the single sword though. And many did have extra room on the grip, hence "hand and a half" or bastard swords.
There's no increase in speed of thrust with one hand over two, though there would be an insignificant change in speed due to a weapons mass.
The reach is a real issue. A single sword will have no reach advantage vs. a 2 hand sword because it is shorter. A 2 hand sword gains reach in one had. This technique is called das gayslen or the spring. It is a technique that often lands a thrust, but, as usual, with only one hand on the grip, you have less leverage and are at a disadvantage with the 2 hand sword if you are displaced when attempting it.
Make sense?

[Olgierd Pado]

Hi guys,

Let me chime in with a few generalised remarks based on my own (limited) sparring experience - longsword vs. 1h sword:

- longsword has a better reach than 1h sword. Since I am on the tall side, using longsword gives me an edge <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" /> when facing people with 1h swords only. Springing may come in handy, you just have to be careful not to be displaced forcefully.
- 1h sword can be a lot faster than longsword, especially if you are not greatly skilled using two handed weapons (as is my case). You have to avoid big, round swipes but make your attacks more forward directed and try threatening opponents with your point.
- longsword is better because it's bigger <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />. But seriously - its greater length and size makes it somewhat more intimidating. I noticed that my friends are more afraid of longswords than 1h swords.
- question of two handed grip and it's effectiveness (Jeanry) - In my opinion, two handed grip is better when you have a heavier and bigger weapon. Since longswords are usually heavier than 1h swords, you are generally better off - with two hands you have roughly two times more strength to move a weapon that is not twice as heavy as 1h sword (I am not talking about Swiss 2 handers here). Even taking into consideration the fact that two handed style is more demanding, the benefits are well worth it.
I guess that with light 1h weapons they reached a point of diminishing returns - adding longer handle and leverage did not yield satisfactory results in terms of speed and control. Quite the opposite: controling light weapon with two hands is in fact less effective and does not leave your left hand free.

Cheers
Olgierd

[Craig Peters]

I seem to parry much better one handed

Jeanry, the question is, how do you parry? Do you have a copy of Medieval Swordsmanship: Illustrated Techniques and Methods by JC? Reading on the section about longswords, I'd suggest that when parrying properly, using two hands does have its advantages, particularly because of the stability it offers against the force of your opponent's strike. I'd suggest that a one handed parry against a proper two handed strike would indeed be at a disadvantage. Of course, I am still relatively new to HEMA, and I have not been able to attend an ARMA gathering. Perhaps a more experienced scholar can comment upon what I've said.

Also, you asked why sword makers wouldn’t simply add more length if two handed swords are inherently superior. However, it is crucial in this discussion that we also look at it from a historical perspective. For most of the time that is considered to be the Middle Ages, the armour in use is mail, not plate or a mixture of plate and mail. Mail does have its defensive merits, but used alone, it does not have tremendous value. It is still possible to suffer tremendous wounds from the blunt trauma of the impact of a sword. However, a shield coupled with mail suddenly allows the warrior to be far more effective in combat. I suspect there are some people who would rather fight with a shield alone; it can be used to cover many different lines of attack, it can smash your foe’s weapon aside to allow for a counter attack, and it can even be used as a weapon in its own right. Mail, on the other hand, is simply a passive defense system that reduces the severity of a wound you receive should you be hit. Of course, if you’re fighting with a shield, naturally a sword with one hand is much more useful than one which allows two hands, so there’s not too much reason for the latter to be used extensively.

However, armour was constantly evolving, and soon plates began to be added to mail. Armour made of articulated plates, even at the time, could not be effectively defeated with the knightly sword of earlier times. Instead, one needs to be able to exploit the various places in armour where flexibility is needed. Suddenly, a two handed sword begins to make more sense- the heavier armour means that a shield is less useful than it once was, and longer swords capable of being used with two hands allow greater offensive potential with cuts, but more importantly, using two hands offers much greater control when thrusting to exploit plate. And of course, using a sword with two hands does have numerous advantages, as mentioned by the others here, that a single handed sword does not.

I hope that helps to address part of your question.

[Webmaster]

Jeanry,

I'll try to address your original point here, which, if I may rephrase, is why not use one hand on a two-hand grip? I think it all comes down to balance and leverage, as has been implied by others here. A sword with a short, one-handed grip is balanced to allow all of the functions of the sword (cut, thrust, slice) to be made effectively with just one hand. Extend the handle a few inches, however, and the center of balance shifts back (assuming constant blade length), and suddenly you have a counter-lever swirling around beneath your hand while you fight, which in some instances can even bind against your own arm if you try to execute certain techniques normally done only with two hands. I'm assuming here that you're gripping the sword near the cross as you would a single-hander, not by the pommel as in a das guyslen. Even in techniques that aren't affected by the extra weight and length, you are still trying to exert control over more sword with less force (fewer hands). This makes it easier for your cuts to be displaced or your edge alignment disrupted than it would be if you were using two hands on the same sword. You are probably also going to have less tip control when thrusting both before and after impact, even if you gain a little bit in speed and reach. The extra length of handle is also something that can be struck under the right circumstances, which, given its position of leverage, can really disrupt whatever you were about to do. On the plus side, I think you can gain some speed and reach by one-handing it on certain attacks, and when closing the extra handle can make a nice hook or hammer, but you have to make sacrifices in control to gain these advantages. Overall, I think if a sword is built with extra length of handle to allow to hands, then that is the optimal way to use it, regardless of whether using one hand remains possible.

As for why not build all swords to be two-hand ready, that depends too much on what type of fight the sword is intended for (for instance, rapiers are all about reach, which is best gained with one hand). Other people here seem to be addressing that question well enough, I think. Is this more the type of answer you were looking for?

[JeanryChandler]

I apologize to everybody who has contributed to this thread. I have done a terrible job of making myself clear.

The conversation has sidetracked into all kinds of areas, and all kinds of assumptions which have nothing to do with the issue I was trying to discuss.

Let me state categorically:

1) I am NOT trying to determine if a single handed grip is better than a two handed grip. Nor am I advocating one position over another.

2) I am not trying trying to determine if single swords are better than long swords.


3) What I AM trying to do is to is this:

Nail down what exactly the difference is between using a weapon single handed versus using it two handed, assuming all other things are equal, good bad and indifferent.

So for example, some people on this thread have stated the following:

A two handed grip grants:
more striking power
better control
better parrying

A single handed grip grants:
better reach
more quickness
less power
less control

Does that sound right?

JR

[Craig Peters]

A two handed grip grants:
more striking power
better control
better parrying

A single handed grip grants:
better reach
more quickness
less power
less control

The dangers of making generalizations of this sort are just that- the comments are generalized and are not necessarily entirely accurate.

For instance, it has been mentioned that a single handed grip can allow better reach. However, an equally significant and important factor is the length of the weapon you are using. A single handed sword that is 38 inches in length and employed with one handed doesn't really have a better "reach" than a longsword that's 48 inches in length. In other words, keep in mind that such generalizations have somewhat limited value.

more quickness

What exactly do you mean by "more quickness"? You''ll have to define your term more precisely. Do you mean to say that single handed swords tend to weigh less, and can thus be employed with greater ease? If so, this is true to an extent, but a poorly balanced single handed sword will not work as well as a well balanced but heavier longsword, for example. So other factors come into play.

The other thing to consider is that longswords are "quicker" insofar that you can accelerate them to a velocity and speed much greater than a single handed sword because of the fact that you are employing two hands, not one. So clarification of this term is necessary.