Fighting with a one-handed sword vs a two handed sword

[Salandrin]

I have noticed that holding a sword with both hands may provide more battering strength to overwhelm your opponent or enemy, but unless you are of the upmost physical build, your arms quickly tire, leading to clumsy strikes and increasing dependency on restoring your stamina in the middle of a duel. Holding a sword in one hand however, has the benefits of offering you flexibility in how you swing, fencing, and very minimal taxation on your arm's strength when fighting. However, depending on how strong your opponent is physically, defending with a one-handed sword can lead your arm to being strained very quickly, and being easily disarmed, and I have found the best way to counteract this is to try to avoid your opponent's swings altogether with feints and dodging, rather than meeting your opponent's blade head on with your own.

I want to know your opinions on this. What do you think is overall better?

[Kalis]

I have noticed that holding a sword with both hands may provide more battering strength to overwhelm your opponent or enemy, but unless you are of the upmost physical build, your arms quickly tire, leading to clumsy strikes and increasing dependency on restoring your stamina in the middle of a duel. Holding a sword in one hand however, has the benefits of offering you flexibility in how you swing, fencing, and very minimal taxation on your arm's strength when fighting. However, depending on how strong your opponent is physically, defending with a one-handed sword can lead your arm to being strained very quickly, and being easily disarmed, and I have found the best way to counteract this is to try to avoid your opponent's swings altogether with feints and dodging, rather than meeting your opponent's blade head on with your own.

I want to know your opinions on this. What do you think is overall better?

Usually when I come across someone wielding a two-handed sword, I allow them the first swing, in the hope I can dodge it, which permits me to counter-strike using the increased mobility of being a one-handed swordsman.

Unfortunately they don't always miss their intial swing and I have died seven times now. However, my opponents have died thirteen times, so I believe my way is superior.

I hope this helps.

[God8010]

Guns have range.

[Deleted]

I'm not a weapon history's expert exactly, but I'm fairly sure that one-handed swords are the most effective in most cases. There's the Landsknecht and some Gaelic infantry that are known for their zweihanders, but it seems more cost-effective for armies at the time to train soldiers to use one-handed swords + shield, since it requires less body training and is mostly just technique, whereas with two-handers you'd have to train more, and you would need to know how to defend yourself without simply blocking something with a shield.

Plus, there's the agility vs strength part, and in most cases I'd say agility wins. Unless you're in WoW. Fucking plate classes.

[The Usual Suspect]

Depends, if I would have a shield as well as a 1hander I would take on someone with a 2hander. If I only had 1 weapon, no way, that guy's sword is also longer than mine and likely to hit me before I get to him. But I could use the shield to block his blow, then stab him with my sword.

Think having a longsword vs. a gladius. That oversized breadknife won't help you.

[Kalis]

I'm not a weapon history's expert exactly, but I'm fairly sure that one-handed swords are the most effective in most cases. There's the Landsknecht and some Gaelic infantry that are known for their zweihanders, but it seems more cost-effective for armies at the time to train soldiers to use one-handed swords + shield, since it requires less body training and is mostly just technique, whereas with two-handers you'd have to train more, and you would need to know how to defend yourself without simply blocking something with a shield.

A spear & shield is better, as it lets you keep your opponents at a distance that their swords are generally useless.

n.b. A short sword for use in close combat fighting, to compliment the spear, is advisable.

[Sicarus]

Personally I use a tin tea cup, I smashed the end on a rock and use it for chest impaling. It works quite well, and I don't have the clunkiness of a sword.

[Salandrin]

thanks folks

[God8010]

Live by the sword, die by the sword. In an equal fight which won't be hard to find with guys accepting swords to fight with, you're gonna have to take a hit to open up a good hit.

Rather mop the field in oil and set it on fire before I walk out with a stick of steel and scream to some lord or god. Total madness.

[King Shark]

Guns have range.

Bombs have even better range.

[savagekelley]

Assuming no off hand dagger or shield and skill levels being equal, the two handed sword is more deadly. Superior reach and (generally) more damage behind the swing.

[Kalis]

Bombs have even better range.

Tanks provide good cover, and they are easy to park, can carry your shopping, etc. - a tad pricey on fuel though.

[Åmbulance]

Bombs have even better range.

Railguns > Bombs.

[King Shark]

Railguns > Bombs.

Can't argue with that.

[Greelix]

When you fight with a large weapon you don't only use your arms to swing. You have to use your body to reduce strain such as resting the weapon on your shoulder and such. That being said two handed weapons are generally reserved for specific purposes such as taking out horses and halting enemy momentum. In an army you want your fighting men able to fight side by side which favors 1 handed weapons.

In a duel setting it would all come down to who didn't make a mistake that was capitalized on.

[Mister K]

A spear & shield is better, as it lets you keep your opponents at a distance that their swords are generally useless.

n.b. A short sword for use in close combat fighting, to compliment the spear, is advisable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5hZeYRp05U

This, while I like 1 handed swords and all, spear and a shield is where its at.

[Deleted]

A spear & shield is better, as it lets you keep your opponents at a distance that their swords are generally useless.

n.b. A short sword for use in close combat fighting, to compliment the spear, is advisable.

I only thought about sword vs sword, else a gun would be the best, obviously.

[Kalis]

I only thought about sword vs sword, else a gun would be the best, obviously.

My tank beats your gun.

One step ahead of you again.

[Mister K]

My tank beats your gun.

One step ahead of you again.

I have a nuke on standby!

When you fight with a large weapon you don't only use your arms to swing. You have to use your body to reduce strain such as resting the weapon on your shoulder and such. That being said two handed weapons are generally reserved for specific purposes such as taking out horses and halting enemy momentum. In an army you want your fighting men able to fight side by side which favors 1 handed weapons.

Yeah good point. I think two-handed in most cases would be useless in duels.

[God8010]

I see all your weapons and bring you,