Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Coredump" data-source="post: 2289483" data-attributes="member: 6939">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.....Selective quoting.In the same article it statesCheck 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.I find this interesting, for a few reasons.First, it contradicts what you said hereSecond, 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.Again, using your link. 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 aroundDiGrassi 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.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...) 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 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.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.</blockquote>

Verification