Making 2 weapon fighting not suck-o-rama

[Coredump]

I suggest you do more research.

Many armies were augmented by irregulars (i.e. peasants).

And, most peasants that were given a weapon were given either a polearm, or a simple single weapon like a club or dagger.

A polearm is not a single handed weapon.
I stated that it did happen, but only as a "last resort"

And you seem to be equating a 'peasant army' with one that is unprepared and underequiped. While there were cases of this, it was not automatic. In England, the 'peasants' were trained to use a longbow.
The idea of a peasant army, was that they were not full time, not that they were nothing more than rabble. Irregulars were often provided weapons, and armor if available. It was not always available, hence the 'last resort' bit. BUt to use that as justification that it is better to go single sword compared to sword and shield.....

Yes they were. But they were very rarely used in normal combat in Europe until the 16th century. And even then, they had a few specialized roles and were not used by most troops.

http://www.selfdefenseforums.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-6576.html

Selective quoting.
In the same article it states

The use of the massive two-handed sword was well known and popular all over Europe since the 14th century. Its size and practice evolved throughout the Renaissance.
In Italy one of the most eminent scholars and historians of the Italian fencing tradition, Jacop Gelli, tells us that this weapon was taught by Master Tappe in Milan and Guido Antonio di Luca during the 14th and 15th centuries ...].

The two handed sword had specific duties, but it was not used as a general purpose combat weapon. For one thing, it was expensive to manufacture.

Check out Zweilander, landskeneckt, claymore, etc. The greatsword was in use in Scottland in the 1200's, and was popular in Germany/Switzerland in the 14-17th centuries.

You are basing a lot of your assumptions on one or two writtings, done near the end of the 16th century, based on fencing masters. Expand the field and you will get more answers.

Except that greatswords were historically used as thrusting weapons.

I find this interesting, for a few reasons.

First, it contradicts what you said here

The problem with a two handed sword on the battlefield is that not even your allies can get close to you or they could get accidentally hit. A two handed sword is not very functional in battle

Second, it defies logic. Medieval people were not stupid. If they wanted a weapon that was 'for thrusting', they would have made a spear. Why go through all of the pain of making a large sword, when a spear would be much easier?
Thrusting with a GS is a viable tactic, but not nearly as useful as thrusting with a spear. (or even polearm) THe *only* advantage a greatsword has over a spear, is that it can be swung.

It is obvious that you do not know that much about how this weapon was actually used if you think that you swing a greatsword. You have to read what weapon masters from the 15th through 17th century wrote down concerning melee weapons.

Again, using your link.

Without doubt, Marozzo�s two-hand fencing, beautifully illustrated in the third book of his Opera Nova (Modena 1536), is the most important and extensive work on the subject in the Renaissance. Marozzo carefully illustrates the assaults as unique sequences of blows, opposed guards and steps, thus detailing a sophisticated and complex Art of fencing

Notice the word "blows". To use a (heavy) greatsword as only a thrusting weapon is foolish. It is weighty to get through armor, or to at least bash the person around

DiGrassi was writing in 1570. By then *armor* was passe. The greatsword was useful against men in armor, gunpowder made armor a waste of time, so the need for a greatsword was lessened. DiGrassi was mostly right, by then the greatsword was not a 'noble' weapon, and it was pretty heaving for the militia, but that is because they were caring swords as a back up weapon to their guns.

The problem with swinging a greatsword is that if a trained opponent gets within your guard and blocks the swing near your hands with either a second weapon or a shield, he will kill you with his weapon.

You are right. If I am dumb enough to let my opponent get 6 feet closer than I want him, I am in trouble. But even 'near my hands', stopping a greatsword with a single weapon is chancy. This trick works in the SCA because of the *rules* of the SCA. (Can't hit 'too hard', swords invulnerable, blocking is binary...)

Hence the reason that you thrust with a greatsword.

Except it is much easier to deflect a thrust than block a heavy blow. And if the defect the thrust, then I am *really* screwed, it is very difficult to recover a GS from a thrust.

You keep the point of such a weapon facing your foe

You are in the SCA, does *anyone* you know fight that way? That would make it even easier for people to take the point off-target, and make it just about impossible to throw a decent blow.

Granted, you can swing such a weapon, but swinging it is a tactic of last resort when fighting multiple opponents (similar to Spanish Quarterstaff fighting where you attempt to keep your opponents at bay). But if you are using it that way, then (like I said in an earlier post) it is hazardous to you allies as well as your enemies.

You are not describing throwing a blow, you are describing 'flailing about wildly', in which case, you would be dangerous no matter what weapon you are using.

 

[Ruvion]

I just want to say...

myself being a noninformant (at least when it comes to swords and medieval fighting), your expertise really illuminated what greatsword fighting is all about Coredump...

Thanks a whole bunch!!!

 

[JackGiantkiller]

As a student of the sword who has experienced both boffer fighting and SCA rules fighting, sport fencing and kenjutsu:

Sport fencing, boffer fighting, ScA rules, bokken work, and shinai practice all have one thing in common. They are not real swords, thus they are not indicative of how one fights with a real sword. There are moves one can make with these weapons that simply cannot be accomplished with a real sword...in the case of the bokken because it is a curved club. In the case of the other 'weapons', because they are, as one other poster mentioned, light enough to be effectively lightsabres.

Several pounds of greatsword screaming down at you cannot be effectively blocked by one hand, and it is unlikely in the extreme that most trained fighters would try to block it at all. I, for one, would dodge a greatsword strike whenever possible, in order to avoid losing a limb, my weapon, or my life to one of the heaviest weapons on the battlefield.. They were often relatively blunt. That's because they didn't have to be razor sharp to remove limbs, and razor sharpess is actually a disadvantage when smashing through plate armor...the edges curl under, or chip.

All that said...even the experts can't know what it was really like. They weren't there. Neither was i, obviously. All we know is what history tells us...and that is rarely enough. So, by all means, keep on arguing...no one is actually going to change their mind if they already have an opinion.

My only point is, as posted at the top, but paraphrased: Yes, SCA fighting is much closer to tennis than to actual fighting. It is a competetive sport with rules intended to keep people from getting hurt. War, on the other hand, is a competitive sport with rules designed to hurt as many people as possible. Big difference. (ex-military combat medic, take my irreverance with a grain of salt.)

 

[Storyteller01]

Fighting with a two handed weapon (other than a polearm) has virtually no advantages. But in DND, it is often considered the best technique. Go figure.

So this is why certain techniques for katanas (thrusts, cuts, leveraging, you know... those armor negating techniques) are taught using two hands?

Heck, these same techniques are found is nearly all cultures, and and used with all two handed swords (if not most two handed weapons. General targets and leverage are similar).

A katana (like your bastard sword) IS a weapon that can be used one handed. It's even been made famous by a certain duelist using a long and a short version together (and a certain turtle using two of them ).

Here's a challenge for you: Get a target (bamboo, rope, whatever... ) and a cut with a sword, both one handed and two. which is easier?

Can't find a sword? Use an axe and some logs. Same principle

Fact is, fighting with two blades (NOT SCA, but using really sharp pointy things...) trades strength for versatility and improved reaction times. Even Mushashi is quoted (Book of Five Rings) as saying that using two weapons requires incredible strength in both arms. Those who don't have the stregnth are generally using lighter blades with accuracy.

In mass combat two handed weapons tend to rule, or else every samurai, knight, peasant, etc would have been armed with two weapons, instead of two handed weapons or sword and shield. This would have been especially prevalent in Europe, where the use of two weapons in a fight had been documented more often.

 

[Storyteller01]

It's far, far too easy to just take your off- or main-hand weapon, bind the other guy's weapon out of line, and whack him with your free hand.

Big difference between 'whacking' the guy and hitting accurately for a kill, especially when you have to strongarm your way through armor with one hand. There is a dubious account of a duelist driving his off hand weapon through a gorget, but the three witnesses each tell a different story.

Strength isn't incredibly vital when making a kill (a rapier only needs 8 grams of pressure to puncture skin, human neck breaks at about 10 to 11 pounds of torque, a choking technique taught in the military consists of crushing the larnyx between your thumbs), but if your not plowing the weapon through the target, you better hit something EXTREMELY vital.

What exactly are you aiming for?

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

So after all this, have we reached a consensus over 2wf sucking/not sucking?

 

[Nightfall]

Some how I doubt it...

 

[Coredump]

Sport fencing, boffer fighting, ScA rules, bokken work, and shinai practice all have one thing in common. They are not real swords, thus they are not indicative of how one fights with a real sword.

Mostly agree. But they can be 'indicative', as long as you realize the differences and don't assume they are he 'same'.

In the case of the other 'weapons', because they are, as one other poster mentioned, light enough to be effectively lightsabres.

Just a note. The SCA swords are made of rattan, and are fairly close to accurate weight for longswords. (The SCA greatsword is lighter than the heavy ones.)

All that said...even the experts can't know what it was really like.

True, but there are things that can be deduced, and even re-created. Just have to be careful of the inherrent limitations.

Yes, SCA fighting is much closer to tennis than to actual fighting. It is a competetive sport with rules intended to keep people from getting hurt.

eh.... I agree with your main point, but not to the extent you are making it. SCA (and others) can provide indications of things, but we must realize that the rules make a big change is how things are handled. As does the reality that you get to walk away after and SCA/boffer/etc fight.

(ex-military combat medic,

Thank you for that.

 

[Coredump]

Fact is, fighting with two blades (NOT SCA, but using really sharp pointy things...) trades strength for versatility and improved reaction times. .

Careful, the two handed sword often has faster reaction times than a single sword (ie medieval longsword). It is an effect of being able to push-pull with two hands. Try it with a stick sometime. And even a rapier had some decent heft to it. The stuff you see olympic fencers pulling is only because their 'swords' are a piece of wire....


edit: Hey Karin's dad... where are you from? I always like meeting other SCA folks, even if we disagree

 

[Storyteller01]

Careful, the two handed sword often has faster reaction times than a single sword (ie medieval longsword). It is an effect of being able to push-pull with two hands. Try it with a stick sometime. And even a rapier had some decent heft to it. The stuff you see olympic fencers pulling is only because their 'swords' are a piece of wire....


edit: Hey Karin's dad... where are you from? I always like meeting other SCA folks, even if we disagree

Meh... Speaking from training with katanas and katanas/wakizashi. Either way, I'd prefer using two hands to just one (although technically a one handed technique is balanced by movement from the other hand. there really is no such thing as a one handed technique).


When fighting with one weapon, especially after a deflection, there is a split second where you 'find the line' as the weapon moves into position for a strike (a common phrase in sword work is 'respect the line').

For experienced two weapons fighters (I'm not one of them, but I've been whacked enough times to know better) one weapon deflects while the other strikes. The second blade should already be moving into position before or during said deflection.

The time saved is minute, but in combat that little bit saves lives.