One handed swords vs Two handed swords - REPLY to the Metatron
Vložit
- čas přidán 2. 01. 2017
- Are two handed swords better than one handed swords? In this video we will discuss this questions and the points that The Metatron has raised in a recent video.
Metatron's video: • One Handed Swords vs T...
My old video discussing one handed vs two handed swords: • One handed swords vs t...
A disagreement is either an opportunity to learn or to teach.
or notice that neither party will differ so you kill them all. YAY HISTORY :D
Or a duel
@@MohamedTaymour13 yeah a duel
or, ideally, both.
Or you're both right and it was presented weirdly so now you both look at each other like "we are idiots"
Hey, I'm in Shad's mirror, that was cool :D
Fantastic video response mate, thoroughly enjoyed it. You bring up some very interesting points, I'll try comparing the swords myself as soon as I get a good quality long sword.
In the light of this new information, atleast in matter of weight, I must say I do reconsider and I myself would now consider a bastard sword to be indeed the best choice for a weaker individual, and the long sword a better option than an arming sword.
For my personal preference (so talking about me wielding the weapon) at the moment however I would still choose a one handed arming sword over a long sword/bastard sword as I'm absolutely in love with my Oakeshott type twelve and the way it feels in the hand, even with one handed usage.
Thank you for the shoutout and the respect you show for my channel and content.
'till next time ;)
and remember: the metatron has spread his wings.
A noble one I suppose :)
Metatron 2 people who collect weapons are some of the most level headed people on the internet, ah the irony
Metatron SQUIRRIL!
Oh man I totally understand about personal preferences, you should always use what works best for you, like how I still prefer longsword over sword and heater shield, even though the heater shield might be overall more beneficial in general. I just fight better with a longsword ^_^
It's been an absolute pleasure to have this discussion with you mate, thank you for offering you insights and please never hesitate to do it again, I love it and I can't wait to enjoy your future content!
those damn squirrels. that's exactly why I keep a crossbow beside my chair.
That "spear vs sword" thing is best described using modern weaponry - assault riffle is a better weapon overall, but pistols are better everyday carry.
excellent analogy. To further it, spears/assault rifles are most effective when deployed in ranks/base of fire. Swords are versatile weapons for both individual combat and squad deployment.
I disagree, respectfully, its a horrible analogy, A handgun in modern combat is a piece of shit, you will pull it in a last stand, no rifle situation, at best Now, for everyday always carry self defense, sure. Back then, the swords were the rifles of combat...spears...maybe sniper rifle, as in reaching out and touching someone farther than the rifle/sword. could. The handgun would be equivalent to their everyday always carry knife.
Get Zapt lol no, swords were expensive garbage and rarely used except as sidearms you use when your weapon breaks, just like handguns. Terrible against armor. Virtually everyone used spears or other polearms, the spear being your basic primary weapon. A sword is just a really upgraded knife and used as such. Thus, a modern submachine gun is basically the equivalent as a greatsword.
Get Zapt or when you are clearing indoor structures.
robert20351 shouldn‘t a warhammer and maces be more like shotguns?
Q: What sword to use in combat? One handed or two?
A: Whichever will end thine opponent rightly.
No, this is all wrong! We need Shad vs Metatron 1v1 now!
Shad 2 handed vs Meta 1 handed!
xD
4:10 An extra advantage: you can unscrew the pommel faster
I love this! I love that HEMA is one of the only places on the internet where people can agree or disagree civilly! It makes me so happy to be a part of this community!!
SQUIRREL!!!
WHERE !!!!!!!!!!!
Shadiversity was that a real squirel or was it joke?
I immediately had to think of the squirrel in my pants song from Phineas and Ferb XD
why not polearms for the ladies? even shorter ones. naginatas for instance were standard curriculum for the ladies in japan for a long time. all the leverage, all the reach.
SQUIRRELS!
Kinda awesome how the content creators tend to geek out a bit over the others videos. I pretty much follow Metatron, Scholar Gladitoria, Skallagrim and others. REcently stumbled across this channel. Not disappointed. Bit of a humorous style like Lyndibeige which I like. Just wanted to say that. Also great points on the Crossbow for range, and Longsword for personal defense.
so if your cupping the pummel while using a longsword let you twist the pommel off to finish your opponent rightly?
*end
end them rightly
Marveryn
I'll never forget the day my mom walked in on me as I was cupping my pommel.
*him
end him rightly
I used to be an adventurer like you, but then I took a pommel to the face.
"her opponent assumed she held her pommel out of weakness. he did not even hear her laugh before he was ended rightly"
still no explaination about how each type of sword fares against dragons... what about dragons?
Hmm, this is a very good question, indeed it might be the most significant question anyone could ask. My answer would be that it depends on the dragon's size. Horse size dragons, swords would still be useful though a long spear better. Elephant sized dragons and larger, swords would be nearly useless. Of course none of this has tackled the fire breathing issue.
dragonlance it is then...
Lord Mormagor A real life human with real life swords and armor wouldn't stand a chance 1v1 against a dragon. A chimp can rip off your face due to its strength, let alone a gorilla that's capable of quite literally ripping you in two, despite armor.
Now add flying, fire breathing, and about 3x the strength of what was mentioned. Getting into sword range against an animal or creature like that is pointless. You WILL die.
And don't bother with a shield. Metal absorbs heat, so if you wanna stand behind something that will melt into your body and transfer armor melting levels of heat to your hands..be my guest.
The best way to slay a beast like that is with numbers, reach, and viral warfare. Arrows and crossbows. The goal of fighting a dragon would be to DENY it the natural advantages they have.
Not charge headlong into the reach of a long neck and fangs that can crush a car.
Best is to get us on your side human XP
A Tank can kill a Dragon. Tanks > Dragons
I literally LOVE your channel. All of these little historical channels that have arose are beautiful. You included.
I've been fighting in the SCA for a little over 5 years, and my prefered weapon is greatsword. I know it's not HEMA, but I think I can speak from a wealth of experience and bruises about the bit where you're comparing sword and shield vs two handed sword. 13:31, Like anything a proper amount of training will get you used to the blind spot. It took me forever to get used to sword and board, but I've seen other fighters adapt to it quite quickly. At 13:45 , I have to say that you're luck is mostly due to the inexperience of your sword n' shield using opponents, most likely. Range is excellent, but only if you're quick and clever enough to maintain it. 14:23 I'd say that most times the shieldman has the advantage, if they're free to run down the one without a shield. Having one thing to attack with and one thing to block with tends to be better than having one thing to attack and block with. The longswordsman, or greatswordsman in my case, will only maintain the advantage if range is kept. With a longsword that range is going to be even more difficult to maintain, the shieldman might only have to take a step to get into their B range.
As far as the best weapon for someone with less physical strength, I think the spear is the best. You even said it yourself, that someone much weaker would want to avoid a grapple. A spear will allow the less physically endowed to keep attackers at range much easier, and wouldn't require as much power to inflict damage.
Miniature....
Metatron is not wearing plate armor...
It's PASTA ARMOR!
Oh...because he's italian...oh...wp
no, its luigi armor!!
Nah, I can't even tell the difference between Italian steel and pasta. AnsaldoBreda can burn in hell!!!
+Remium Qualit Quote of the day: "Can you burn a Luigi board?"
For a brief second i thought your Picture was the Coat of Arms of my Family. The same Color of the shield, but with something different on it. ^^
The things on the sides (i dont know how they are called in english) are also fairly similar, but the top thing is absolute different.
I'm impressed, as always. Your arguments are constructive and thorough. What more could I want?
It amuses me how he always has to explain people can share ideas and have a different opinions and that he isn’t dissing anyone
the mutual respect between Shad and Metatron, who I both enjoy very much, is really quite heartwarming
I commented 1st I liked 3rd
6:15 Reach is, of course, incredibly important, however I would like to point out that in the comparison drawn here you gain two benefits from the shorter sword. Weight as you pointed out, but also because the torque, (the force required to rotate the blade) is heavily influenced by mass distribution, because the mass on the shorter sword is placed closer to the handle, (the axis about which you will be rotating unless you are half-swording or something like that) it requires much less force to rotate the shorter bastard sword as compared to the long sword, on top of the total weight/mass. (Less weight = easier to hold up, less mass = less inertia so it's easier to swing).
I think people forgot how to use shields with arming swords. They were a very effective combo, you have to treat the shield as a weapon as well not just blocking.
Hey Shad! And Metatron! I am a fan of both of your videos.
I had an additional thought concerning the advantage of more reach with a longsword in this scenario.
We may also want to consider the likelihood that someone with less physical strength may also have shorter arm reach as well. That would particularly be the case if we are discussing differences in average male and female body types. Therefore, using a weapon with longer reach may actually help make up any difference in arm reach with the opponent and be another reason for using the lomgsword.
I love these videos, I am a subscriber of both you guys channels, great content
why not polearms for the ladies? even shorter ones. naginatas for instance were standard curriculum for the ladies in japan for a long time. all the leverage, all the reach.
Moist Von Lipwig Please watch to the end of the video. He actually does say that once again.
I meant why not for self defense? He said they were okay for the battlefield, but not for self-defense. If you could travel around with a longsword at your waist, you could just as easily do so with something the size of a staff.
But he just said that. You don't carry polearms around, while you do carry swords.
The_Shinigami
I specified "even shorter ones". You can easily travel with a staff-like weapon that's about as tall as you. Good enough for self-defense on the road. Also useful if you gotta walk a whole lot.
You can't carry around polearms, or swords, as tall as you comfortably. Neither can you draw them efficiently enough to defend yourself from an attack quickly.
Now you could certainly carry around staffs or short spears the size of a longsword, but honestly, why would you? They have no advantages and too many disadvantages. Also the longsword has a sheath on your waist made to draw from, while staffs and spears have nothing of the sort and would just be a hassle. Not to mention that they would be more useless in a fight.
Can you post a collection of all your larp battles? it was a lot of fun to see you destroying those guys. I love seeing your knowledge and experience actually come into play in a battle/fight :D
man, I saw your subscriber count and thought it said 553,000. We need to get you more subs!
It's also very possible to have two people with different information and different ways to go about it and still end up with the same conclusions...
It is also very interesting to see, or be apart of.
Thank you so much SHAD and METATRON for your "Replying Videos".
It's really interesting and mature.
I'm French and the last part of 2016 was a "Dark Age" on French CZcams with full of "CZcams Drama".
So THANK YOU TWO!!
Il y a quand même beaucoup de Québécois dans la communauté du G.N. qui adorent Shad
I think you should try to convince your fellow larpers about alternative methods to just strapping on a shield. Have you suggested handles to them? Maybe they'll get a handle on you then. :)
this got me thinking about something, and it's kind of a tangent. I see it mainly in fantasy roleplaying games, like D&D. there's this idea that people have that they need to have only one weapon or set of combat equipment, just whatever the one best thing is (and in some cases, maybe one melee set and one ranged weapon). there's the fighter with the two-handed sword, there's the paladin with their lance, the assassin with their twin daggers...
but realistically, a well-prepared combatant will have multiple weapon options. they'll have their main weapon(s), and they'll also have a sidearm, or a backup weapon, and also a dagger, and maybe a ranged weapon as well (weather it's a bow or crossbow, or a polearm that has alot of reach).
when I make characters for fantasy games like D&D, I make sure they are well-equipped. depending on how much strength my character has, or whether they can afford a horse or donkey to carry their extra gear, or whatever, I'll have a variety of weapon options on them. for example, I might have a rogue/ranger multiclass who uses a quarterstaff sometimes, or a dagger and one-handed slashing sword sometimes, or a rapier and dagger sometimes, or a bow and arrows sometimes. or maybe I'll have a paladin who uses a halberd most of the time, but will switch to a morningstar if he needs to, and still have a dagger as a backup weapon.
kind of like how, for everyday self-defense, your low-strength combatant might not be realistically able to carry a polearm or spear around everywhere she goes, so she uses a sword instead. but even though, ideally, she would use the spear on a battlefield during war, she might still have that sword as a sidearm and perhaps a dagger as well (good for finishing oponents in heavy armour). she might even have a crossbow, too.
Your vidoe contain so much usefull information about real combat things, that should be somehow implemented into games, that it's going to crazy levels :)
Especially the later part, where you talked about how your 2H sword skills are better, than your 1H sword and shield, that it's not worth for you to use a shield.
Being an amateur counts much more, than it's represented in the games, having a shield counts much less, than it's being represented in games... I'm realy waiting for a good RPG game, that at least tries to implement these things somehow.
I enjoyed this video. Lots of good ideas. In general, I'd say the spear is the best weapon for those with less strength and a shorter reach. But if I were designing a sword for that purpose, I'd go with something proportioned like an estoc. A long, thin longsword, but scaled back to about the length of a normal long sword to reduce weight. This would preserve the reach and leverage advantages of the longsword while reducing the weight a bit. It also has a devastating thrust which would be the easiest attack to make for those who are weaker. Big swings are going to tire you out, telegraph your attacks and generally won't do as much damage if you have less strength and weight behind them. So, a long, thin sword that you can get both hands on will provide the best opportunity to poke holes in your enemy before they can poke holes in you.
In my limited experience, I also found the two-handed long sword a more potent choice than sword & shield, allowing for "fancier footwork" & parry. The shield can become a mild distraction, which I felt took away from your ability to attack as effectively. It compels you to attack more confidently, but somehow makes you more of a sitting duck in dexterity. (Not talking shield wall or Roman legion stuff here.)
Hey shad I live in utah and am LDS too! Haha it was pretty cool to hear you served a mission!
Always good videos, Shad.
In conclusion: use spears. They usually outreach swords.
Carrying a spear everywhere is impractical
I've wondered for a while now, as I find this to be my personal preference, are there any major advantages to a reverse grip over a standard grip? I love your content and I learn so much from your videos. So I wanted to know what your opinion was. Thanks so much.
i just love that you both respect each others point of view, and here is something i would like to know. what would be a good weapon for a Naga, from Indian mythology?
Having to carry a big object is not the only reason why it's not so practical to use a spear for self defense. Being in closed quarters like rooms, corridors or even narrow city roads is also an issue if you're fighting with a spear I reckon, as opposed to being in an open battlefield where the spear can be put to full use.
Linck192 True but on the other hand you could very easily hold door or narrow corridor with spear because noone could go around you, they have to deal with your tip in quite tight space which is the worst scenario for them.
agreed wholeheartedly-- tight corridors would go for the spear every time. How many times did ancient Greek troops prove that _point?_
So, I saw this video and became intrigued so much I tracked down the other two videos. First things first, after teaching people how to sword fight for over tens years, I tend to agree with your opinion more than Metatron's opinion. In fact, here's a video from scholagladitoia where Matt Easton says the same thing: czcams.com/video/9wDjjLnKRcI/video.html. Londswords are much better for beginning sword fighters that don't have the muscles needed to support some of the techniques. I tend to prefer the rapier myself, but I have lost students to longsword classes because their arms got too tired. Ultimately though, the best weapon for someone is the one that feels the most comfortable. My favorite memory of how strength doesn't translate into sword fighting very well is one where a prison security guard came to my fencing school because he wanted to learn something different. This guy was huge, he was much stronger than me, and i actually had difficulties because it was like fighting Conan the Barbarian while i was trying to teach him the basic strikes. The gentleman actually had to take off work and missed the next session because he could not move his arm after the first lesson. So, I agree that giving a novice a longsword to start off with is a good choice while they learn how to control the weapon. Metatron wasn't wrong though. There are many historical cases where people would user a one handed sword with two hands. My favorite is a dueling stance that was used with the Scottish basket hilt claymore, and there is a pretty good example of it in the movie "Rob Roy". However, that is not how the sword was made to be used and you will always lose effectiveness when using a weapon in a way that it wasn't intended to be used. So the reach advantage severely offsets the weight disadvantage of using a single handed sword. And the thing to remember is the a single handed word really was designed to be used in a battlefield situation which is why it was so short, and why many were so tip heavy. They were meant for areas where there wasn't room to maneuver, so if you have room once again, the longsword wins this. Ultimately though, it depends on what you feel more comfortable with. It just so happens that most people prefer the feel of a longsword when first learning how to fight than other weapons.
I was looking at an earlier episode, where you talked about armor in medieval fantasy, and the armor used by the Starks in game of thrones, which is leather with rivets is actually a coat of plates
I am just realizing how much the quality of Shad's videos have improved (especially the audio quality).
Shad, would you mind doing a video on the terminology of armor? You already have one for the sword and one for castles, but nothing on armor.
Hi, Shad! Big fan of your videos, as well as Metatron. So my question is that would the two of you be willing to do a collab together? I think a discussion in this regard would be very interesting and could actually cover quite a bit of information. Just out of curiosity. Now if you'll excuse me, there are some squirrels outside that are invading my land...
Though at my height (6'0) reach isn't really a problem, I agree with you in preferring the two-handed longsword. Not only is the comfort and control level much higher, but let's be honest here; two-handed longswords really LOOK incredibly cool.
Interesting conclusion. One thing I would note is the location of the battle. In an open field? sure long words are great for combat endurance when arrows aren't on the field. But, what about fighting in Castles? The benefits of a shield and single arm weapon in a castle stair way really kinda changes everything. Shields have an interesting ability to negate terrain advantages.
Some years ago I made a painting of the Amazons from the Achilles myth. If I remember correctly they commonly used small half moon shaped shields, basically a buckler, and a small double axe. This also could make sense since a top heavy weapon would give a weak person more striking power or at least weaker person would be on par with a stronger opponent.
Hey Shad, any chance you could do a special on early black powder weapons, like the Arquebus? Those were introduced while the middle ages was still going on, but they are often ignored.
From what I can gather, having two hands far apart allows for more fluid, quicker movements, but it disturbs your structure during cuts. Keeping your hands closer reduces the reach difference between your hands to a minimum, allowing your to keep the sword at the center of your body while having both of your arms extended, which makes it so you can transfer hip and shoulder rotation into the swing better. If you swing while having two hands far apart by pushing the blade with the right hand (if you're right handed) and pulling the pommel with the left hand, while simultaneously extending your arms, it allows for a very quick, snappy cut, but it will be much less powerful than a fully committed arcing hew.
The strongest cut you can make with a sword involves extending your arms, locking them and your whole body into a rigid structure, while rotating your hips and shoulders in the same plane at the same time. Also you need to position your hands properly, squeeze your fingers in a certain way etc. They teach this sort of grip in kenjutsu. However, with a double edged sword, I feel like you need to break it sometimes to achieve certain positions and execute certain strikes.
Hey, Shad,
I know I probably write this quite late for you to reply, but I'd like to point out another thing to consider - it's also a matter of surroundigs, which weapon is better to use. For example if you'd have to defend yourself in interiors (and should swords be those defensive weapons you argue, you'd pick one that suites EVERY possible enviroment), you'd find probably much more positives in those bastard swords (onehanded sword's blade and twohanded sword's hilt). Sure, you could use longsword and grab it by the blade, but then you'd lose protection for at last one of your hands, though usually for both of them, because of the different angles you'd use the sword then.
Cheers.
Yay - NERDFEST! You both make very good points about long vs short swords. My query concerns how much effect the added length of the long sword would have in terms of controlling the tip, especially as it would have a greater leverage effect with said added length - both in terms of controlling one's aim, and controlling when its momentum makes it go next if you should happen to hit something. I'm not entirely sure if the leverage of the longer hilt would be enough to compensate. Thoughts, anyone?
I want to know how you and your longsword did against opponents with a center grip shield. Sounds like the arm strap was a significant factor in the comparison. I personally prefer round shields with a center boss because it allows for more maneuverability- i can hold it close, hold it out, hold it diagonally or toward an opponent to aid my line of sight or even punch with it (where allowed). More importantly, you can easily move it so it protects your legs.
Guess I have to look up your video on heater shields to see why you love them so much.
I am interested in your thoughts about shields used in formation, namely how armies which used the short sword/shield combo (that is documented) formed shield walls or phalanxes, could this help explain why when you have sparred with a single person with sword/shield they seemed more at a disadvantage due to limited reach and extra weight?
The bit on the end illustrates why I went for great swords in skyrim over shield and sword. Too much coordination required. Give me the big sword that can swing and block and bash and it's fluid.
interesting discussion! in the end, I think it really depends on preference... but also depends on many other details, for example, it's just self defense, or can ir be for a battle? or, as you pointed out, when talking about holding the shield for too long, will the phisically weak person have to hold the weapon for a relactively long time? I, in my (really) humble opinion, would prefer the shorter sword, because of how the point of balance would play a role in making the arms tired, and also because of the possible center of percussion (given the lenght of the blade) making a shorter weapon easier to handle, even if I'd prefer a long sword myself... (excuse my horrible English...)
Hey Shad, I don't know if you remember me but I was the one trying to start a channel for teaching history through projects. Anyway I was working on putting together some wooden sword projects for my channel and I was curious what wood you use for your swords? Any other tips for wooden swords?
Thanks
one of your biggest fans
-Jacob Cohn
thank you! i just got a question to the point about sword length. i agree on the point, that you want to keep your opponent es far as possible away. but how so you think about the leaverage if the opponent knocks it away?
I need that chair. Like... I fucking need it.
Why like?
That's not a chair, that's a THRONE!
Hey, could you make a video about common folk weapons, that were used during some uprisings, like, for instance, in the Hussite wars? I was looking into it and I think it could make a pretty interesting video.
I really need to find the time to make a video on my thoughts on this.
Great video, I agree with you entirely. BTW, I've had a chance to play Cogent roleplay and love the game. Thanks for the link.
Currently trying to persuade my DM that after the current campaign to switch to cogent...
I think quarterstaff or slings would be better for someone with less strength, still requires lots of practice/training but those things could be best for them the staff gives reach and blunt force as well as could be used like a walking stick, and slings were used by shepherds I am pretty sure and many of them where young people/children and they have less strength, also that gives even more range.
Nice video (again); just 6:30 was a bit misleading:
The length of a sword IS NOT equivalent to its reach.
If you are using it for thrusts, it is equivalent, but not for cuts. With the longsword you see in this scene, you need to hit approximatly 1/3rd down the tip to make an effective cut. The arming sword had thus a bit longer reach in comparison. This would apply even more so to some messer, falchion, katana or sax.
Similarly, for people that have little experience with swords, it might come as a surprise, but short heavy blades can handle better than longer blades of the same weight, due ot the mass distribution. However, with longer blades higher tip speeds are reached.
On last of occasional sparing session of our HEMA club I had opportunity to try various swords.
I was quite surprised, how light Rapier felt. It can be even lighter than arming sword, and has much of weight on the basket - close to hand - therefore feels even lighter. And in the matter of reach may be almost as long as longsword.
In addition when we talk about weaker person, we can't expect him/her to rely too much on parry or doing strong cuts. And Rapiers aren't meant to do heavy cutting or parrying.
So in my opinion for weak-handed person ideal weapon would be Rapier with dagger or cloak.
in the states many bowie knife makers balance the blade weight and length to match the forearm of the customer who will weird it. I wonder if the same thing can be done with a sword to give someone who may not be as strong a balance advantage?
Renegade Show Yes. Just order a custom-made sword on your physical dimensions(height, arm reach), preferred weapon type and fighting style.
Skallagrim mentions some like Cult of Athena. And check Baltimore knife and sword they have videos here at youtube (Man at Arms of Awe Me)
just to add my thoughts - a while ago I was in a swordfighting tournament (larp swordfighting, sure, but I think the core principles still apply) and I had more trouble (using a bastard-ish longsword) defeating people with longsword or similar weapon than ones with shields
Could you maybe do an analysis on the Great Wall of China from the new movie "The Great Wall"?
I know it isn't faithful representation of what it actually was, but I'd like to know what you have to say about it. (Thanks to your videos, I cringed when the battlements were too low and characters threw their shields off without a shadow of a doubt)
Could it be that the people you're sparring against don't know how to fully utilize a shield?
Based on the footage he's shared, I'd guess that to be the case.
They didn't use it at all. Far to small for single fighting the way they were wielding it, as far as strapped to the arm for single combat it's just a big NO.
***** Then why were small strap on shields like the targe and the rotella used for single combat?
Watch the Academy of Historical Fencing's videos for some examples of shields used well.
Looking back at the comment I forgot to mention I was speaking of large shields like in the video. I have seen small bucklers strapped to the arm in some of the treatises, but no large shields.
i can only agree.. those round shields without a strap to bind it to the arm are actually very light but they really only feel light for like 10 minutes and then you feel em in your upper arm.. my experience with them is fighting for hours with sword and shield and shield and spear and you really are glad after a while to change them for a long spear or another twohanded weapon.. it doesn't matter how strong you are and how light the shield is.. it's bulky and you will feel it after a really short time especially when you block some hits.. the best thing to do is holding it close to the body except for when you move it to block or give the opponent a shield bash..
That Albion Kingmaker is just so pretty, perfect aesthetic proportions as an arming sword.
from my own experience the longer handle of the longsword makes it easier to handle with two hands than the arming sword. 300-400g are easy compensated by that especially because lots of this weight is in the grip. In other words i completely agree with you.
Hey, Shad. What would be the pros and cons of a two handed Arming Sword? This is something I've been wondering about for a while now.
So, I like both channels Raf's and your's and I generally agree on two points. First, the crossbow. Second, using two hands instead of one compensates for a lot of strength. However, I think you're taking this from a slightly wrong angle. I wouldn't directly argue with physics, such as weight and leverage, but I would come more from the angle of which weapon is most capable of offsetting the opponents strength advantage. You raised the point of tiring and that has some implications. Even though armor distributes weight better than people think, a few dozen kg more on the body are more tiring than not having them. So we need to assume that the weak fighter needs to wear less armor, however that means that two handed weapons can become more dangerous as they often assume the wielder is armored and lack the defense of a shield. But you can't use a shield which is also really tiring either. So, since the defense is gonna suck anyway, we can try to go with the old motto a good offense is the best defence. So I would argue that no matter how you put it, in a drawn out fight the weaker person is gonna lose eventually, the only winning strategy I see is ironcally, using a heavier two-handed weapon, in the hopes of dropping the opponent with the first blow. The reverse might also work, using a long light weapon to keep distance and tire the opponent before you do. I think anything in between isn't gonna work. So, I'd say two-handed-warhammer one the one side, quaterstaff on the other.
I have a question here in regards to your analysis of reach and leverage. Have you tried this test with a thrust-centric fighting style or just the slashing style? Also, although I realize your round shield is authentic, I could swear I've seen considerably smaller ones which would be more suited to weaker people/women (probably down to 20-30% larger than your heater), and it seems to me any decent-sized shield would be preferable to fighting without a shield. Especially when you consider that the reaction time of a weaker fighter will be slower with any given weapon, you want to maximize the amount of maneuverability you have by moving your own body rather than the weapons at the ends of your arms. Also, apply biophysics. Any time you can use the body's weight and motion to drive the blade (such as thrusting moves or circular swings) you effectively reduce the amount of strength needed to fight. I'm not a particularly strong guy but I have dual-wielded 4-5ft two handed foam swords using these principles and been effective even against spear and shield (which I would say was a severe handicap for myself). The weight is probably less, but the balance is also completely off, and they still feel extremely clumsy in the hand, yet if you apply this method, and brace the hilt against the forearm for thrusts, wielding them becomes more possible.
Another point to consider when talking about shield combat is how the initial swing can actually be hidden behind the shield if done right. This is something I think weaker but more skilled warriors would learn to use in order to mask their (slower) attacks and give their opponent less reaction time to block it.
I'm not much of a sword nerd but I just watch videos like this because I am planing on becoming a sword owner so thanks for the "intel", cheers mate.
You can use a longsword, or a twohanded sword, with one hand to make a thrust with longer reach. As in you let go with one hand, thrust and then grab the sword with both again.
Having reach can be a benefit, but one issue is if you're weaker than your opponent AND have a long weapon (either a long sword or polearm,) your opponent can use the length against you by using leverage to drag your weapon down and trap it. I'm not a strong guy and I've had a polearm completely dragged out of my hands a few times :/ personally I go for a 1-hander and buckler when fencing, to offset the strain on the wrists using a solid pair of plate gauntlets helps stop over-straining, even if it does add a bit more weight to your arm.
I'm certainly no expert on medival martial arts, so if I say something incorrect please do point it out.
Isn't it the case with shields, especially strapped on ones, to block maybe one hit and then get close enough to bash and stab?
It all depends on what you train for. Weaponry in particular. If you have trained with a shorter length weapon, you most likely have trained for closer range combat. It is widely taught that distance is your ally. Especially if you are, “weaker and smaller”, but this is not always the case. Having shorter reach means that once in your range your opponent with longer range will have a much harder time defending in a close range conflict, especially if you are still at striking range for YOU, but not at grappling range for them. You still have all of your skills and advantages, while taking their main advantage of distance. It’s not always advisable to keep distance.
The thing about sword and buckler, it uses more of grappling and hitting techniques. So strength and height are a real advantage.
Taking a good hit on a buckler is comparable to a hand to hand hard block, so again a weak person will not be able to take too many blows on the buckler (or especially a shield) before getting tired or ineffective. So yes, they would be more in a business of using reach instead.
On a battlefield or in a duel, it makes sense to use well made gauntlets and gloves to protect the arms and a helmet. Especially gauntlets can make a one handed weapon lunge much safer - a lunge compensates for the shorter reach.
A big guard on the weapon does so too, but nowhere near as effectively, and it weighs and/or reduces options.
A bit of armor goes a long way if fitted properly. It's probably not something you would carry every day though.
An even lightly armored warrior generally has much less need of a shield unless going against someone who is either using a weapon with a massively longer reach, say a polearm designed to fight armor (not stick) or a missile weapon like a crossbow, bow or even some firearms. Shields are great when closing distances - you still get to move fast of course.
a few notes:
gripping pommel with the off-hand is useful but not the "ideal" grip. Most people who cut competitively with longswords don't use this grip, but it is excellent for inverting and winding in an encounter. The exact topic has been discussed in medieval literature, too.
Reach isnt an "absolute" advantage. The longer your weapon is, the more of it is "foible" and weak to being parried. When long weapons are parried a skilled opponent will move in to grips as quickly as possible. Once they have cleared the point and gotten into their own measure, the length of the weapon becomes a *dis*advantage, as it becomes much more difficult to pull, disengage or redirect attacks. Compare for example the amount of openings you could expose with a dagger once someone had gotten hold of you, versus with a longsword.
"The best technique are past down by survivors''
I would like to point out a factor which I think you missed, namely that if you extend the length of the handle without extending the length of the blade you'll shift the centre of balance further rearward changing the handling characteristics of the sword. A minor point but one I felt worth mentioning
I think you have to visit the "Deutsches Klingenmuseum" (German museum for blades) in Solingen. There are tons of swords, original and replicated swords. I know it's a long way and costs a lot (I think you are from Australia; sorry, if I have a false assumption), but I think this could be your personal Mecca. I have been there very often and I will be there often because I enjoy it.
Solingen is also called "City of Blades" because of many factories/manufacturers and blacksmithes making swords, sabers, rapiers, daggers, knifes and sets of cutlery; even straight razors. Its tradition traces back to the Middle Ages. In Solingen is also a castle called "Schloss Burg" ("Burg Castle", official translation).
Maybe one day you will travel to Solingen and visit the castle, which is actually a medieval palace, and the "Deutsches Klingenmuseum".
Thank you for all your informative videos!
You should get a buckler for your two handed sword style. Skallagrim has a video on how to use it super effectively.
A couple of points a) if you increase the length (weight) of the grip while reducing the length (weight) of the blade, you run the risk of totally screwing up the weapons balance. b) a shorter weapon against a longer blade can be *VERY* advantageous.
Does reach advantage become a hindrance in enclosed spaces, with less room to manoeuvre?
I agree with your views on the momentum of the sword, however I personaly feel that by using a sword with 2 hands massivly reduces the agility of the blade and historically people with less strength were used more as skirmishers rather than front line warriors. If extra strength is needed a fighter could use a second hand with a one handed where as the 2 handed will never be able to gain the agility of a smaller blade. By the way love the videos.
Great discussion of opinion!
Kinda off topic, but I was wondering something- did Knights or wealthy swordsmen carry multiple swords at all, like you see in some movies/shows? I could see the appeal of a backup, but was it common for someone to carry a backup sword along with their main sword at their hip, was it two of the same sword if they did in most cases or two different types?
Would a Bastard Sword be the best option if someone wanted to switch back and forth between using a shield or not using one?
Shad. If you are fighting in the arena and you are only allowed to use a longsword, but you can also pick up a shield if you want, would you use a longsword with a shield or just by itself? Or.. Do you think it would be more beneficial to use longsword with a shield, than without it?
Because you said that it was possible in the previous video =)
You mention in many of your videos that a person can carry only so much stuff and when travelling, wearing armour is extremely tiring. Given the benefits of a horse to carry bow, spear, shield and perhaps heavy armour; what are your thoughts on using a hand and a half as your sword for versatility in it giving you the option to go two hand with armour or one hand with shield? Thanks.
Walt
I'm not a great expert - correct me if I'm wrong - but I've always thought that the shield, not any shield, not the small buckler, but a big one like kite shield should have a strap to hold it on the forearm.
Hey, Shad, Idk if you've ever talked about this, but is the katana lighter than the 'standard' medieval arming sword? 'Cus then, wouldnt it be better for someone with less physical strength?
3:25 that's an interesting fighting style. What do you call that technique? :)
I totally agree with you. While I have always preferred one-handed swords, specially sabres, over the last few months I've started to appreciate more and more the longsword. If you don't have an off-hand weapon (dagger, buckler), there's usually no point in choosing a one-handed sword over a longsword.
You also have to consider how it's going to work if your in armour your gauntlets are going to make it near impossible to use two hands on a arming sword, saying that I have found that by adding an extra 2-3 inchs onto the guard onto my long sword makes it easier to use in armour.
How would you compare a modern riot (rectangle shape) that can still be used one handed and with a melee weapon to a similar weight medieval shield.
I am upset with myself that I missed where, in your previous video, you mentioned how the spear and shield would be the optimal pick for ladies who found themselves in formation close combat
I had a thought about weapons for weaker folks, in the ranged category. Instead of a bow, what about the oft-overlooked sling? It's a little shorter ranged, but you don't have the draw back of you know... drawing it back. Moreover, the sling might be more effective against armored opponents than a bow and arrow, since it is blunt force instead of piercing.