You've got some of this backwards.
Using a sword with both hands gives you additional leverage on the handle, meaning you're manipulating it as a lever between both hands, rather than trying to use wrist strength alone. It's generally easier to use any weapon this way. It's also generally faster to respond, due to that leverage. The idea that a two-handed sword is a big, lumbering bar of steel is a complete misunderstanding of basic swordsmanship.
The only real reason you'd want to use a sword with one hand rather than two, is if you're using that other hand for something else. Coordinating a second weapon can be challenging, but a shield is a good option, or alternatively using the free hand to grapple in close fighting. Even in the latter case, you'll want that free hand on the weapon when you can.
Han and a half swords fix everything
Signature done by Eis
One handed swords are usually used together with a shield, giving yourself a huge wall to hide behind when those hits come towards you.
Two handed swords are used both defensive as well as offensive, sacrificing a portion of the shields defense for a huge offense boost, what is best is depending on what kind of battle you are fighting.
Two handed swords only started to be used late medieval times because more and more fighters could afford heavy plate armor, which gave you the defense to take a few hits, but not as much as the shield gave, but still enough to be considered viable in combat
But before those times Iron were very expensive, and using a Two handed sword were suicide due to the loss of defense.
1h+shield because you simply have more manouverability, protection and speed. People who look at two handed swords often glorify them beyond their actual purpose, which was to hack down spear formations with spinning 8 sideways attack. When they were through they often were used as spears and sticking in.
The movie sphere along with gaming has twisted the entire reason for existance of 2 hander sword.
Modern gaming apologist: I once tasted diarrhea so shit is fine.
"People who alter or destroy works of art and our cultural heritage for profit or as an excercise of power, are barbarians" - George Lucas 1988
Hand and a half sword for me!
One-handed swords such as the Greek xiphos (pronounced ksee-fus) and the Roman gladius were stabbing weapons, designed to be used at close quarters when an individual was part of a Phalanx or a Cohort during the pressing phase of the melee (when rival phalanxes pushed shields against each other).
A solo warrior with a Xiphos or a Gladius would have been at a disadvantage (when fighting solo against a two-handed sword wielding Barbarian) in melee unless using a shield.
Dual-wielding swordsfighters (aka xiphomachoi)were unheard of in classical Graeco-Roman antiquity.
Longer blade versions of the xiphi and gladii were used by the Cavalry, but there were still one-handed. Sometimes they were slightly curved along the edge.
Two-handed long swords were used by the Barbarians of Northern Europe, namely Gauls, Celts and Germanics. A two-handed sword wielding Barbarian would have had the advantage when fighting solo versus a Greek or Roman swordsfighter, but he would have been at a disadvantage when fighting as a part of a larger Barbarian formation versus short-sword wielding Greeks or Romans organized in a phalanx or cohort respectively.
Spartan xiphi (short swords) were notoriously short, and other Greeks frequently made fun of the Spartans for this reason.
Last edited by Sturmbringe; 2013-12-01 at 05:49 PM.
Can't answer that question with that little information.
A lot of swords that can be used two-handed could also be used with one hand. They weren't that heavy; many historical pieces clock in at 3-5lbs, which isn't that much more than a blade intended for just one hand to use. Even those that were intended for exclusively two-handed use only clocked in at 6-8lbs, at most.
In a 1v1 duel, the two-hander has the advantage of reach, which means they have the advantage of mobility; their opponent must close the distance to attack. Their opponent has a shield, though, providing additional defensive options. It's going to come down to who's more skilled, with perhaps a slight edge to the guy with the two-hander.
It also bears mentioning that two-handed swords, the way most people think of them, aren't really a medieval weapon; they came into widespread use during the early Renaissance.
Not that 1h Sword is almost always combined with shield, and longsword is used with one hand but have the flexibility to be used as a 2h weapon. As previously poster have pointed out, 2h Sword was a very specialized weapon to be used in executions, brake shield walls etc
A 2hander is a poor choice in battle. You don't have room to swing it in a mass fight, you can't block with it and you can't shield yourself from arrows with it either.
And if you forced into a clusterfuck with men pushing from behind and men pushing from the front, you can't even fucking use it at all while the other baster put his shield on your chest and his longsword in your belly.
I don't have any idea where you got the idea that the guy with the 1-hander and a shield has more manueverability. His gear probably weighs more, and he's the one who's at a clear mobility disadvantage, since he has to move a greater distance to strike at his opponent than vice versa.
http://www.thearma.org/essays/2HGS.html