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

[King Shark]

I told you...one step ahead.

[Veyne]

Unless you're wielding a shield in your other hand, which was often used as a melee weapon more than your actual sword was, even most of the "one handed swords" you know about were wielded with both hands in what they call "one and a half handed" swords.

You simply do not have the proper control over the weapon if you try to use it with a single hand. Swinging it takes more effort. Controlling where its going takes more effort. Preventing the sword from easily swinging back towards you in recoil after making a connection takes more effort.

Likewise, truly dedicated "two handed" weapons back in the day were incredibly niche, and generally served specific purposes. Mainly, mowing down foot soldiers while on a mount. And you just kind of let your weapon sit there. With the exception of the Poleaxe, which was just as common as the typical sword, and in some time periods and locations, the actual PREFERRED weapon of soldiers, you honestly didn't see a lot of two handed weapons. Most of them were either for decorating one's home, or looking like a scary, but impractical, badass on the battlefield.

[Trekz]

Why wield a 2-hander when you can wield two 2-handers?

[Deleted]

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.

My personal experiences, 2h Sword have the range, but the guy who have the shield will win, the shield is very easy to use, but its very hard to attack and be able to defend using a 2h Sword.

Now I as a shield man will advance, the 2h Sword guy can attack but if I parry/deflect using the shield and he is totally exposed.

[Saphyron]

Can't really choose between one or the other.

I have the strength to use a 2-handed sword but not for extended length of tiem which is the weak spot.
Someone blocking with a shield will most likely stagger backwards due to the blow and in many cases the shield will splinter. Of cause a more agile person can easily slip in a attack or two, if I miss an attack.

Both styles is valid. Worst case scenario is with an agile person using a bastard sword. The agile person will tire out fast but he will most likely end the fight before that point.

Granting following is using irl experience with "weighted foam swords" so can't 100% be true but with a 5-8 kilo 2-handed sword you will be strained after 10 min of fighting.

[Deleted]

sorry dubel post

[

[Endus]

My personal experiences, 2h Sword have the range, but the guy who have the shield will win, the shield is very easy to use, but its very hard to attack and be able to defend using a 2h Sword.

Now I as a shield man will advance, the 2h Sword guy can attack but if I parry/deflect using the shield and he is totally exposed.

That's a big "if" you're assuming. The reality is that the guy with the shield is going to get hit before he can get close enough to attack. And even if he does deflect the two-hander, the other guy isn't without defenses; you can use a two-handed weapon defensively in close fairly readily. Staff combat does this extensively, and the principles extend largely to swords as well.

Real combat isn't like fencing. And your entire presumption there is that you're more skilled than the other guy, since you're assuming you can block that first attack effectively. And that he just stands there and lets you run at him. Which is silly to begin with.

[DarkstarG]

I change into the Hulk. ***HULK SMASH***

I win every time.

[Adam Jensen]

I have a nuke on standby!

Kiss it good bye.



My USS Shiloh shoots down your nuke.

[Deleted]

That's a big "if" you're assuming. The reality is that the guy with the shield is going to get hit before he can get close enough to attack. And even if he does deflect the two-hander, the other guy isn't without defenses; you can use a two-handed weapon defensively in close fairly readily. Staff combat does this extensively, and the principles extend largely to swords as well.

Real combat isn't like fencing. And your entire presumption there is that you're more skilled than the other guy, since you're assuming you can block that first attack effectively. And that he just stands there and lets you run at him. Which is silly to begin with.

I am speaking about 2h Sword not a staff.

Fact it is relay easy to use a shield and you will have a great defense, and it leave one hand free to make offensive attack. Fact is is extremely hard to be offensive using a 2h sword and still have a good defense.

If it was real combat, I will scream to my buddy to shoot the guy using a bow or crossbow. But now we are speaking about some type of duel.

And that he just stands there and lets you run at him. Which is silly to begin with.

Ok you are the 2h Sword guy, what action will you do then I advance to you?

[Mihalik]

Folks in the Middle Ages preferred shield+sword for a reason. As did the heavy infantry of antiquity, Greeks and Romans.

The shield is not only a defensive tool, but also an offensive one if wielded correctly.

2 handed long swords were a niche weapon, that was wielded in a very similar fashion to how you would wield a spear (simply it had a longer cutting edge). The long sword would sometimes even be wielded as a club, using the handle and the hand-guard as a blunt weapon.

Hybrid swords like the Claymore or Bastard Swords were designed as thrusting weapons (thus the length) and weren't suitable to fencing. Fencing with those weapons didn't resemble fencing as people imagine it nowadays. After a very few swings the wielder would be worn out, parrying could shatter the blades, and armor often reduced to cutting edge to useless.

[Aeka]

The best sword every made on Earth is widely acknowledged as the Japanese katana, a two-handed sword. It is not, however, a 2-handed sword like European 2-hander swords. It is much lighter in weight, bladed on only one side, and as traditionally made, folded thousands of times, and of high quality steel, making it materially and physically superior to European blades. It was also not so long as to be unwieldy. Most duels of the samurai era were short affairs: the blades were so deadly, whoever made the first mistake, lost, often dying as a result.

[Simulacrum]

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

Your own source there is pretty explicit about people not actually using 2-handed swords to fence with. If someone with a 2-handed sword actually held any kind of an advantage in a duel, then presumably the people whose lives depended on this would've noticed it and started using them in duels, instead of fighting those with sword and shield or sword and dagger/short-sword. They were situational battlefield weapons.

So I'm not sure how you can defend your previous post's assertion that someone wielding a 2-handed sword would have "the advantage of mobility". When your weapon weights twice as much as your opponent's (5-8 lbs is a very heavy sword; a longsword/arming sword/rapier/etc. and a dueling shield, like a buckler, weight less combined), then you don't have the advantage of mobility. One only needs so much force to kill a guy, and when you go beyond the minimum requirement then you're just making your attacks slower, and wearing yourself out faster, for absolutely no gains, which is why the use of these weapons only occurred when you had some specific, situational reason to use them.

[Deleted]

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

just buy the fuel with a credit card then default on the payments. No debit collector is going to argue with you in a fucking tank.

[Endus]

I am speaking about 2h Sword not a staff.

And? The principles apply to both, was the point. You can parry in-close with both.

Ok you are the 2h Sword guy, what action will you do then I advance to you?

I hit you, and retreat, maintaining the distance.

You're assuming the other guy stands there and lets you charge him. Which is silly. He's just as mobile as you are.

Your own source there is pretty explicit about people not actually using 2-handed swords to fence with. If someone with a 2-handed sword actually held any kind of an advantage in a duel, then presumably the people whose lives depended on this would've noticed it and started using them in duels, instead of fighting those with sword and shield or sword and dagger/short-sword. They were situational battlefield weapons.

They did use them on battlefields, against mixed combatants. They didn't use them in duels, because even with blunted edges, that sucker's gonna be deadly.

Plus, we do have longsword fencing manuals (and unlike D&D, a "longsword" was a hand-and-a-half or two-handed weapon); http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...hoffer_025.jpg

So I'm not sure how you can defend your previous post's assertion that someone wielding a 2-handed sword would have "the advantage of mobility". When your weapon weights twice as much as your opponent's (5-8 lbs is a very heavy sword; a longsword/arming sword/rapier/etc. and a dueling shield, like a buckler, weight less combined), then you don't have the advantage of mobility. One only needs so much force to kill a guy, and when you go beyond the minimum requirement then you're just making your attacks slower, and wearing yourself out faster, for absolutely no gains, which is why the use of these weapons only occurred when you had some specific, situational reason to use them.

8lbs is heavy, but 5lbs is much more reasonable, particularly when you're swinging it with both hands, rather than one. A single-handed blade weighing 2lbs is likely to be more strenuous to wield than a 5lb weapon with two hands (though we're ignoring weapon length, which also factors into the equation). Even so, that's an issue of strain over time, not mobility; with two hands on a weapon, you have leverage, meaning you can manipulate the weapon much more rapidly. Pick up a mop and hold it with the mop end out, and swing it around with one hand, changing the direction as fast as you can. Now put both hands on about a foot apart, and see if you can swing it faster. You can. Because leverage is a big difference, and you're no longer making the adjustment largely through wrist strength alone.

[Zoranon]

The best sword every made on Earth is widely acknowledged as the Japanese katana, a two-handed sword. It is not, however, a 2-handed sword like European 2-hander swords. It is much lighter in weight, bladed on only one side, and as traditionally made, folded thousands of times, and of high quality steel, making it materially and physically superior to European blades. It was also not so long as to be unwieldy. Most duels of the samurai era were short affairs: the blades were so deadly, whoever made the first mistake, lost, often dying as a result.

So much misinformation in one paragraph. First of all katanas are not made of high quality steel, the iron ore in Japan is very poor quality and therefore the long and time-consuming process with many foldings. Even so, the swords were brittle and had to be sharpened very often. If a samurai met an European knight in plate on foot, he would break his katana on the first slash and die shortly afterwards. Unlike what films like to show, well made plate armour was extremely resilient, pretty much immune to slashes, the only way to get through it with a sword would be a thrust at a weak point.

As for two-handers, they had two purposes in organised warfare: to chop down even knights in plate armour and secondly to break of spear/pike heads. At any rate, you would still have very few men with thou handers compared to pikemen.

[Deleted]

The best sword every made on Earth is widely acknowledged as the Japanese katana, a two-handed sword. It is not, however, a 2-handed sword like European 2-hander swords. It is much lighter in weight, bladed on only one side, and as traditionally made, folded thousands of times, and of high quality steel, making it materially and physically superior to European blades. It was also not so long as to be unwieldy. Most duels of the samurai era were short affairs: the blades were so deadly, whoever made the first mistake, lost, often dying as a result.

Please to not begin this Katana worship, Iron was rare in medieval Japan, Katanas was done of inferior Iron so the blade need to be "thicker" to get sufficient durability and lack elementary weight savings in form of a fuller. But the Katanas is "better" on cutting because of the curved blade, and is better on penetrate because the superior steel in Europe sword flex better.

whoever made the first mistake, lost, often dying as a result

Yes the Japanese did not have the luxury to have iron armor on a large scale.

[The Usual Suspect]

Why wield a 2-hander when you can wield two 2-handers?

Except you can't. A claymore weighs about 3 kgs. Try swinging 3 kgs with one hand for more than 30 seconds.

[Trubo]

The best sword every made on Earth is widely acknowledged as the Japanese katana, a two-handed sword. It is not, however, a 2-handed sword like European 2-hander swords. It is much lighter in weight, bladed on only one side, and as traditionally made, folded thousands of times, and of high quality steel, making it materially and physically superior to European blades. It was also not so long as to be unwieldy. Most duels of the samurai era were short affairs: the blades were so deadly, whoever made the first mistake, lost, often dying as a result.

Props to you for making some changes to that /tg/ joke.

[Adam Jensen]

You are all fools. Swords are useless for anything else than cutting down unarmored peasants. Try cutting fully armored combatant with a sword and tell me how it went. The only proper choices are poleaxe, mace, or battlehammer. If you faintly mumbled something about axes, gtfo, what are you? Aforementioned peasants?

Or a high powered sniper rifle. I'd like to see a knight in shining armor block that!