Two-Hand Swords: Highly Specialized or Just Big Longswords?

[James Brazas]

Hello, everyone! I've been doing research into Two-Hand Swords lately and I've run into a lot of conflicting information.

On the one hand, I've seen a lot of people claim that the Two-Hander was a highly specialized weapon only used by elite infantry to break up pike formations, guard a narrow area, etc. The argument goes that such a long and powerful weapon was ideal for fighting against polearms (especially the long and somewhat unwieldy pike), but that it was so long and heavy that it would be at a disadvantage to the longsword, cut-and-thrust sword, etc. It would also be too large to use much in tight formations or alleys and certainly far too big for use on horseback. So it's really just a one-trick pony for fighting against pike squares.

On the other hand, I've seen people make the argument that it was basically just a big longsword. With a few exceptions, longsword techniques would work just fine for the Two-Hander. It may be 2 lbs. heavier or so and it's usually a good bit longer, but can still be used nimbly. Peter Johnsson in his description of the Albion Dane even goes so far as to recommend it as well-suited to armored fencing and says that it could probably deliver enough concussive force for even a cut to do significant damage against a full-plate clad enemy (though not cutting through the plate, of course). The idea of a sword powerful enough for cuts to be legitimate attacks against a fighter in full plate is very interesting to me. Of course, halfsword thrusts into the gaps of plate would probably still be best. He also mentions that it may have been used on rare occasions as a makeshift short lance even on horseback.

Obviously, there are going to be differences between a big cutter like the Maximilian and the Dane (which leans slightly towards the thrust).

What I wonder is this:

How much truth is there on each side? I imagine that both are probably right to some degree. The Two-Hander is more of a specialist than the longsword, but I doubt it's the one-trick pony it is sometimes portrayed as.

How much of a gap there is in handling between the familiar longsword and its heftier Two-Hand cousin? Is it a difference only of degree or are we talking differences of magnitude?

Does the type of Two-Hander make a significant difference? Would a Type XVIIIe like the Dane be more of a "big longsword" and the Maximilian be more of a specialist? Would the Maximilian be effective in the halfsword against plate?

I hope someday to be able to get a Two-Hand Sword waster and test all this out myself, but that will have to wait for a little while.

Any thoughts?

[LafayetteCCurtis]

Both longswords and proper two-handed swords exhibited a great deal of variation in size, balance, and features. Even the techniques for their use varied considerably from master to master. I've heard people remark that Joachim Meyer's longsword style is much more suited to the larger swords of his era (probably including a significant proportion of two-handed swords) as opposed to the shorter and more agile longswords preferred by 14th- and 15th-century writers. Not having had much experience with Meyer's system myself, I'm not a reliable judge of this, but a cursory examination does reveal some substantial shifts in emphasis (for example, Meyer's stances are quite long and low, even when compared to some other contemporary 16th-century treatises in the German tradition, and he puts a greater emphasis on low wards such as the Alber and the Nebenhut than earlier masters). There are still many basic similarities with the rest of the Liechtenauer tradition, however, so I suppose somebody familiar with the older, shorter, lighter style of the longsword would not have been entirely at a loss if he had to pick a much larger two-handed sword.

There's only one two-handed swordsmanship system that I've really dabbled with -- Figueyredo's montante -- and it's quite different from my background in the Liechtenauer longsword style, but I lack the experience to tell exactly how much of this was due to the difference in weapons and how much was a matter of regional variation. One thing I know for sure is that the two styles control space in very different ways; if I can hazard a simplistic description, the German longsword style (as I use it) surprises the opponent by closing in quickly and engaging from the bind at a range most untrained people don't associate with long-bladed swords, whereas Figueyredo prefers to keep enemies at a distance with broad sweeps that utilise the montante's reach and momentum to intimidate them. The montante's inertia also means that properly executed blows are very difficult to parry or set aside even with another similarly massive montante, so the exchanges I've seen show an interesting tendency towards two-time (parry-and-riposte, or more commonly void-and-riposte) actions as opposed to single-time counterattacks.

But take all that with a handful of salt, since I'm not all that experienced in German longsword and even less so with the montante.

[James Brazas]

Interesting! Thank you very much for your input!

It makes sense that there would be a spectrum between the earlier longswords and the true two-handers. Your comments on controlling distance are very interesting. Also, I didn't realize there would be THAT much of a difference in the momentum of the strikes between a longsword and two-hander.

So it seems like they really are two quite distinct weapons, though very similar in their core movements and concepts.

I'm getting the impression that attempting to parry a two-hander with an earlier longsword would be tricky to do. Would it be similar to using a sidesword against a longsword? ARMA put out a video about that a while ago, talking at length about how to avoid strong "indes" binds (if you're the one with the smaller weapon) and try to weave around and behind the other swordsman's weapon. It seemed to be more about flowing around your opponent rather than a traditional "bind" where you seek maximum leverage to offset their weapon and attack their openings. Off-setting something bigger than your weapon usually doesn't seem to work well. We've sparred a lot with longsword vs. one-hand swords of various sorts in our group.

Still, it sounds like the two-hander would have some advantage in any situation where it had enough space to be able to use it's reach and power effectively.

Maybe that was why some people considered it to be too specialized? Too big to be a daily civilian sidearm and too big to be used from horseback or in a tight infantry formation, but having a noticeable advantage if it has the space it needs.

Does that sound right? Am I understanding this weapon?

[Stacy Clifford]

I'm getting the impression that attempting to parry a two-hander with an earlier longsword would be tricky to do. Would it be similar to using a sidesword against a longsword? ARMA put out a video about that a while ago, talking at length about how to avoid strong "indes" binds (if you're the one with the smaller weapon) and try to weave around and behind the other swordsman's weapon. It seemed to be more about flowing around your opponent rather than a traditional "bind" where you seek maximum leverage to offset their weapon and attack their openings. Off-setting something bigger than your weapon usually doesn't seem to work well. We've sparred a lot with longsword vs. one-hand swords of various sorts in our group.

This is not quite the same because longsword vs. sidesword is two hands vs. one hand, whereas longsword vs. two-hander is two hands vs. two hands. Once you bind at the strong where you're supposed to, you may still be at a leverage disadvantage, but it's not nearly as great and you should still be able to play the longsword's inside game. What is the same is that if you lack the leverage advantage, you try to make up for it with agility. Binding at the two-hander's strong may be tougher when it's being used to intimidate you against closing in, but the whole point of learning the Art is to not be easily intimidated, so find a way in and do what you gotta do. Closing on bigger swords is still the best way to beat them.

[James Brazas]

Hm. That does make sense.

Longsword wouldn't be at as much of a leverage disadvantage against two-hander as sidesword would be against longsword.

Of course, closing the distance is a must since the two-hander has the reach advantage.

OK, here are a few small related questions:

1. When was this sword actually used (especially on the battlefield)? I've seen some give it a range of only 1500-1550 - which seems awfully short considering that most of the weapons in our era of study were used for centuries. Yet I know there are 17th Century manuals that teach the two-hander and I've seen many swords in 15th Century longsword manuals that seem at first glance to be of more of a two-hander length (like Talhoffer).

2. If a group wanted to incorporate two-hand swords into its curriculum, what would be a good manual to start on? Also, would additional protective equipment be required (beyond fencing masks and padded gloves)?

[LafayetteCCurtis]

Another technique I've found particularly effective against two-handers is Nachreissen, especially when combined with a feint to fool the two-handed swordsman into believing that the longsword chap is about to start by performing a suicidal straightforward block or displacement.

1. When was this sword actually used (especially on the battlefield)? I've seen some give it a range of only 1500-1550 - which seems awfully short considering that most of the weapons in our era of study were used for centuries.

We're not really sure. Even in its heyday, the two-handed sword was a weapon used for a highly specialised role (I'm talking about tactical employment here, not the techniques for its use); the only solid evidence we have from contemporary sources say that they were assigned to a small elite group of men tasked with defending a unit's standards and officers. It would be naïve to think that they were never used outside this role, of course, but in any case it was never a very common weapon and no military writers (that I know of) were particularly enthusiastic about increasing the number of two-handed swordsmen at the expense of more conventional troop types like pike or shot.

Seen this way, it's quite natural that two-handed swords don't show up as prominently in the records as more common (and more versatile) troop types, so we're not entirely sure about their longevity. The 1500-1550 bracket is probably based on their representation in contemporary artwork; battle scenes from this particular era commonly showed one or two (or a few) two-handed swordsmen among the press of pike, whereas in earlier and later eras we only get rare glimpses here and there.

2. If a group wanted to incorporate two-hand swords into its curriculum, what would be a good manual to start on?

Depends on whether you'd like to start with the familiar (easier to transfer what you already know to the new weapon) or choose the unfamiliar (to minimise pollution/confusion between your study of the longsword and the two-handed sword). There are certainly many traditions to choose from, and none of them (apart from Meyer, if we consider him to be part of the two-handed sword camp at all) have been very extensively studied to date; Figueyredo's montante and Bolognese spada a due mani (mostly Marozzo) have seen a surge in interest (and and increasing amount of published research) in the last few years so you might want to consider jumping on either bandwagon.

Also, would additional protective equipment be required (beyond fencing masks and padded gloves)?

Not in the beginning, I think; with two-handed swords, control is extremely important even when you're completely armoured, so (from my subjective viewpoint) I'd start with as little protection as I plausibly can in order to make sure that I never lose my respect for the sheer power of the weapon.

[steve hick]

SNIP
There's only one two-handed swordsmanship system that I've really dabbled with -- Figueyredo's montante -- and it's quite different from my background in the Liechtenauer longsword style, but I lack the experience to tell exactly how much of this was due to the difference in weapons and how much was a matter of regional variation.
SNIP

There is little on the two hand sword or hand and half sword of Iberia from before 1599 - and even for that there is not much. We do have records of masters of the weapon from the early 15th century (Navarre) and records of prize playing from mid century from Majorca. However, Pedro del Monte/Pietro Monte has a short section in his Collectanea that covers the two handed sword of ca 1480-1509, and it is consistent with the play of Figueyredo. He does not seem to have anything concerning coming to the bind and working at short range, but instead we have the same sweeping attacks to control and intimidate the (apparently single) opponent.
Steve

[Stacy Clifford]

He does not seem to have anything concerning coming to the bind and working at short range, but instead we have the same sweeping attacks to control and intimidate the (apparently single) opponent.
Steve

It seems likely that anybody back then who was learning to use the two-hander would have been expected to already know the longsword and other smaller weapons. The big sword can bind and wind as well as any if you need it to, but that's not what you make a big sword for; you make a sword that size to clear out the space around you. They may have simply seen no need to re-teach longsword tactics the fighter should already know, focusing instead only on the weapon's intended purpose. A two-hander can fight like a longsword if it's forced to, but why let it come to that?

[James Brazas]

Lafayette Curtis:

Thanks again! That Nachreissen idea makes a whole lot of sense. With the amount of power and momentum the two-hander has, I imagine that's probably one of the best things to do if you have a significantly smaller weapon.

It sounds like Figueyredo or the Bolognese masters would be good places to start! They're all free online, so that could work well. Thanks!

Stacy Clifford:

That makes a lot of sense, too! I guess now like then, the two-hander is best taught as an "advanced" weapon to students who already know the longsword.

All:

It's also interesting to see how hard it is to date the two-hander. I mean, the 1500-1550 timeframe seems to be its heyday, but according to Steve Hick, it seems like masters were writing about it from the 1400s to the 1600s! That's a pretty good stretch!

Is it possible that it's role as an anti-pike square weapon was mostly in the early 1500s, but it continued to be a guard weapon for the entire stretch that it was taught in the manuals? I've also read some materials indicating that the two-hander continued to be used occasionally by mercenary groups into the 1600s.

The more I look into the pike-and-shot era, the more it seems like there were a lot of different infantry sword units used to counter the pikes - though most of them seem to have seen limited use. Besides the two-hander, there were the Sword-and-Target users in the early 1500s (Spanish Rodeleros mostly). From what I've read, their time on the battlefield was very short - only the 1510s to 1530s!

Was sword-and-buckler used longer by skirmishers to attack pike squares? The sources I've found are unclear since they frequently conflate the buckler with the target/rotella/rodela.

This discussion has gotten me very interested in how to defeat pike-and-shot formations. Previously, my interests were mostly the full plate era.

[LafayetteCCurtis]

Well, if that's what you're wondering about, the only reliable way to defeat a pike-and-shot formation was with a better pike-and-shot formation. Preferably with the support of friendly artillery and cavalry. There was simply no panacea that could break a massive pike block in a rock-paper-scissors fashion -- not sword-and-target men, not two-handed swordsmen, not even artillery without some infantry or cavalry to finish thejob with cold steel.

[James Brazas]

Thanks! That's good to know.

Honestly, anti-pike-and-shot tactics were only part of the reason I was asking about the Two-Hand Sword. It was mostly curiosity about the weapon itself.

We're looking at including it as an advanced optional weapon for those who have already demonstrated some skill with the longsword.

More and more, I think I really need to read some of the Kriegbuch written in this era. I think it would be fascinating.

[Ryan Snavely]

I've got a book that I picked up a couple months ago on the two handed sword called "The Art of the Two Handed Sword by Ken Ken Mondschein. I dont know much about him or how the 2 handed sword works though as I haven't even really looked into the weapon much xP

It would be nice to learn more about the use of the weapon I agree

[LafayetteCCurtis]

Hmm. I didn't know that there's already a book on Alfieri's two-handed sword. Alfieri is somewhat related to the Bolognese tradition (or may even be one of the latest exponents of it, though his style is far more thrust-oriented than earlier masters), so it'd probably beneficial to check out his foundational teachings in single sword or sword-and-buckler too for some useful (and possibly necessary) background since I don't know whether his work on the spadone is meant to stand entirely on its own.

[Steven Reich]

I hardly ever post here, but then, I hardly ever post anywhere. However, since Spadone & Montante is something that I study, I thought I've give my two cents.

My answer to the question would be a resounding 'yes'. Clear as mud, right? Okay, what I mean is that *sometimes* it is just a longer longsword and at other times it is quite a bit different--all depending upon your tactical situation. One big difference is how relatively "safe" it is to attack the legs as compared to with a longsword--you can still cover your head (to some extent) while attacking the upper legs of your opponent. In the event that your opponent has an unmatched weapon (i.e. you have a two-hander and your opponent only has a longsword or single-handed sword), this is significantly more pronounced and you can torment your opponent by threatening his legs. Additionally, the distance between your hands can greatly increase your leverage as compared to a longsword. OTOH, should you allow your opponent into his ideal range while he is covered from your attacks, watch out!

Some of the really fun material for this weapon is the Iberian material of Figueyredo, Godinho, and Parades. While most of these techniques are given in terms of solo drills, they cover a wide range of tactical situations--usually with the two-handed sword being used against multiple opponents.

I wouldn't consider Alfieri's two-hand sword material to be from the Bolognese school--it really resembles the Iberian stuff more than the stuff of Marozzo (or the other Italian two-handed sword material, e.g. the Anonimo Riccardiano, Lovino, et al.). However, I don't really have any proof one way or another...

BTW, as a rough guide, I tend to consider a sword which is long enough that I can attack my opponent's legs while still covering my head to be a two-handed sword (see Marozzo's Guardia d'Intrare guards with this weapon to get a general idea of the sword position in such an attack). However, that's really just *my* guide and not something mentioned in a treatise.

Hope I at least gave you something interesting to think about...

Steve

[James Brazas]

Thank you, Steven Reich! That's actually really interesting. I know from longsword that it can be very hard to defend both high and low targets simultaneously. That actually opens up a lot of interesting possibilities with the two-hander. I'm looking forward to delving more into the Montante now!

We're currently working on designing our curriculum for Two-Hand Sword. I've found some good material online in Figueyredo, Godinho, Di Grassi, and Marozzo. But I'm having trouble finding Parades and Manciolino in English. Would you know where to find them in English? Or maybe other good sources in English?