the guy with the greatsword should have used it in a more spear like way keep your opponet back and you win let him within range and you'll almost certainly lose... also everytime he moved he should have brought the sword back in a defensive stance while circling left or right so as to not allow your opponet to know exactly if he's in range. but lets be honest in one to one combat duel swords will beat greatsword a good portion of the time.
Any good fighter on any given day. The style of sword has no baring when it comes to experience. The two handed sword fighter was obviously inexperienced in this form and left himself more open then just his legs. Bottom line reason why he lost was that. Their is no guaranteed predetermined winner based off of weapon.
only advantage i could see with having two short swords is if u get close enough the guy with the long sword couldnt do much to you but hit you with the pommel
but if its a guy with a shield and sword good luck with that
How you going to give a midget a two handed sword and expect him to win. You need to be large in stature for this weapon and very agressive. Amateur hour.
@GiptoCryptio I lot to larppers migrate into the SCA because it is highly competitive. You can do LARP and SCA fighting too. Hope to see you on the field one day wielding two swords.
The movements in this activity way to fast to tell if one of these opponents have taken a blow I really could not figure out you took a hit first. does anyone else sense this problem with this activity.
@Dimitri0809 You are absolutely correct that he movement in real fighting is way too fast for any observer to know if the blows were really good or not. Only the person in the armor being hit knows if the blow was good enough. A lot of shots will glance off armor. Glancing shots that don't connect well is part of the equation and would be meaningless in a real duel or battle.
Two-handed sword man would do better in live combat. The weight and power behind a large sword blow combined with the very real threat of it smashing through an attempted block/parry make a fearful weapon. You can see this even in SCA battles using halberds or similar heavy impact weapons. I own a Scottish claymore and it would be nigh impossible to parry with a longsword.
Ive been fighting for about 13 years, and aside from playing about with shield/ florentine I have always fought with a greatwpn. Either pole or greatsword. One of the things I tell the people I teach is no matter what wpn your fighting with, its still a stick. A greatwpn is still just a big stick, so while power DOES have something to do with the fight, your not going to be cracking any shields with it like you would a real dane axe or halberd. So make your wpn to your greatest advantage. (cont)
So if your fighting pole, range is important. Make a 7-7.5 ft pole with max blade allowed so you have less chance of hitting with shaft. Greatsword, make it 6 ft, put as long a handle on it as allowed so leg defense is easier. In the main, fighting against florentine with a pole or greatsword should be a predetermined fight. The pole should always win. Notice I said "in the main" Duke Sir Paul of Bellatrix completely destroyed me fighting florentine.
@Vargre Duke Paul could destroy most greatsword wielders. :-)
Part of the problem I see with this demonstration is that the zweihander is basically a katana. Testing that I have seen indicates that a katana sucks against mail. ("Deadliest Warrior" on Spike). A real great sword would be used to overpower the Florentine fighter. Of course, as with flails, that would probably not be done in SCA because of safety issues (along with face thrusts, below-the-knee and hand shots).
@leekellerking We allow Face thrusts in our kingdom, but not the knee or below. greatsword is a marvelous weapon but in S.C.A. combat it does have its limits, you can successfully parry a two handed weapon with a one handed one, but it must be a parry not a block. I've uses a single one handed weapon vs. two handed ones with greate success however my opponents wheren't top notch.
Not for nothing but it all depends on the fighters. The guys fighting here (particularly the greatsword) dont seem very experienced to me. Hes leaving his legs open repeatedly, (common mistake for people not experienced with greatsword) he doesnt seem to be hitting with much force (hes swinging with his arms, not his body) hes not using his range, hes letting the 2 stick get into HIS range, etc. The basic fact of the matter is that it comes down to the skill of the fighter, not the weapon.
I didn't see the greatsword user attempt any thrusts or leg shots. These attacks, or at least the threat of these attacks, are normally fundamental in fighting an enemy with two swords. Are these maneuvers disallowed in SCA?
@gaxxag Leg shots below the knees are disallowed. Thrusts on the other hand are perfectly legal, if the greatsword has a thrusting tip (which this one does). In fact the first thing I learned with greatsword was keep it pointed at their face so they can't advance. This guy is probably better off removing the thrusting tip to make it into a bastard sword so he can swing it faster.
@PkmnMegahero You have a good chance it you use a Glaive, which basically a sword on a stick. Almost all the techniques you use with the two-handed sword will work with the glaive. The glaive is about 6 feet long so it will give you a range advantage. You will also have a significant power advantage to possibly blow through some of the blocks of the single handed swords or force him to only try to block with the forte of his sword. A standard size Katan or Bastard sword will be at a disadvantage
@tsafa1 So, because I have a much wider range with a Glaive, It's more easier to defeat a Dual Swordsman? Too bad that I prefer longswords during combat.
@PkmnMegahero All two handed weapons have similar characteristics. I recommend you try to learn a few of them (longsword, poleaxe, halbred...). Not all weapons are suited to all conditions. A longsword is primarily a sidearm, similar to a modern day soldiers pistol, that is used for his personal defense and as a backup weapon. The Shield, spear, halberd, glaive are primary weapons, similar to a modern soldiers rifle. A polearms-man might carry a longsword while walking the town or forest.
@PkmnMegahero I forgot to mention... their is also the medieval "Greatsword" which might be to your liking. The Greatsword can be the same size as a longsword, but was generally bigger. The key feature is that it had parallel edges for more power. It handled more like a polearm then a longsword. Not something you want to find yourself on the front line with, but good for doing cleanup work and duels. The longsword was primarily a self defense and dueling weapon.
I agree with northwinder, the bigsword allways is first in scoring, the 2 swords guys is just biger and gets into shorter range and jumps on him, but with real swords he would have had a hand in minus or a hole in his guts. This is not very realistic. A good way to score aganst him could be just to poke into its face, if the helmet protection is good enough to avoid injuries. Also the lenght of the longsword can target legs, groin and so on.
look at the way the guy is holding the duel sword when in a blocking stance some wolveerine shit the greatsword guy could of easily knocked them out of his hands
@xxmasterchiefofahlo No, big difference in size. A Great Sword is also know as a Two Handed Sword or Zweihänder. These are true two handed swords with long handles that extend up to or past the elbow when held at the cross-guard.
A Longsword, Bastard Sword or Hand and Half Sword, have handles that fall short of the elbow when held at the cross-guard. These swords are typically used for self defense since they are conveniently worn at the belt.
@xxmasterchiefofahlo Large two-handed swords were typically hung from the horse and only used in war or on guard duty. You would not walk around town with them. They function more like polearms then like swords.
A lot of the terms we use today are also modern conventions. People in period who used swords where typically rich and might have several that they favored for different purposes. The terms varied from place to place.
@xxmasterchiefofahlo The term "war-sword" is a perfect example of a sword that meant different things at different times at different places.
The important distinctions to the people who used swords in period would be War-Sword, Town-Sword, and Dress-Sword. These are three very distinct classification of use. The minor differences in size and shape are less important.
@xxmasterchiefofahlo First thing is to find a local practice. I see from your profile that you live in Hong Kong. I will message you a link that you can use to find local information. To get started all you need is some armor. A lot of it you can make yourself. I use sword and shield because it offers the best defense. It is a good place to start because staying alive is even more important then killing your opponent.
@tsafa1: To use shield and any one-handed weapon(as long as you can handle any one-handed weapon, otherwise one will just simply have to specialize in some one-handed weapon which the wielder think fits best to him/her) seem to result in near immortality. XD
@Khornedevotee Imortality... not against anyone who is knows how to fight against a shield. There are plenty of ways to defeat a shield. The all involve different angles of attack and misdirections. It takes about two years of weekly training just to get a good grasp of the basics and offer a respectable offense and defense.
You are right that to a person facing a shield for the first time, it will seem like an impregnable wall.
@tsafa1: Forgive me my ignorance, I have quite shallow experience with these things considering that I do not train in these things. Are there any specific weapons that are more effective against shields than other weapons?
@Khornedevotee More important then the weapon is the experience. All weapon forms have advantages and disadvantages. The key is the maximize the advantages. The effective range of a shield is a lot closer then a polearm. If the shield can get close he has an advantage. If the polearm can maintain distance he will dominate the shield. Two-sword has an advantage against a shield too by being able to threaten and attack from different directions. Controlling the distance will win the fight.
@Khornedevotee A polearm usually has a 1 to 2 lb head on a wooden shaft so that is has mobility. Making it heavier will only make follow up shots harder. The first shot will always be shot and basing ones strategy on breaking through a shield is suicide. If you think about it a greatsword is essentially an all steel polearm. They move and function in a similar manor. The tip of a greatsword is even lighter then a polearms so it can have more directional change capability.
@tsafa1: Ok, I think I made myself misunderstood. I meant what if the SHIELD was 2-3 cms thick and made out of complete steel. Hehe, sorry m8 for making you confused. I made it wrong.
@Khornedevotee Consider that most historical weapon of all types are were light and relied on velocity rather then mass to be effective. The nobility carried light weapons because they had the skill to use them. The peasants carried mass weapons like axes and clubs. The nobility dominated the peasants with speed and skill.
@tsafa1: So a 2-3 cms thick solid steel shield(maybe reinforced steel) is too much to ask for in combat. But wouldn't it be more effective than a wooden shield. I've never really liked wooden shields. They don't seem to be able to take alot of damage. But that does ofc depent on what wood you use:English Oak or was it Book anyway Morgan Freeman as Azim in Robin Hood:Prince of Thieves curse the english wood ''damn english''...then I forgot. But it's a very hard wooden type for shield :).
@Khornedevotee The only shields made of solid steel are small bucklers that are up to 7 cm wide. Anything bigger and it will be too heavy to be used effectively. They did use all steel heater shields in the late 15th century for jousting tournaments. Jousting armor is much thicker and heavier then battle armor. In a joust you only wear the armor for a short time and there is little maneuvering. The intent of the joust is the break your lance on the other persons lance or armor, not to harm them.
@tsafa1: With wide you mean from the left side to the right and vice versa? I meant only thick like 2 or 3 cms thick and maybe say as big as a kite shield or a buckler size :/. But ty very much for that info.
@Khornedevotee Battle-Armor and weapons had to be light. People often marched for months just to get to the battlefield or stood guard duty for hours in their armor.
@Khornedevotee: Any solid shield would be too heavy, whether it was wood or metal. The real thing would be composite; a curved dome of layered wood with an ox-hide covering, metal rim and boss. The rim would turn the edge of any sword, protecting the shield from being hacked apart, while the ox-hide and concave shape would rebound a thrust. The idea would be to have a lightweight "sprung" shield, kinetic force held within the shape of it to deflect a blow.
@Khornedevotee They did have polearms with heavy heads. They looked like big butcher knives on sticks. The are specialized weapons. They are slow moving and very predictable. The key for the shieldman in that case is to move in and catch the first blow low on the shaft. The shieldman will then be able to execute multiple shots before a heavy polearms is raised up again for another attack.
A typical SCA shield is somewhere around 3000 cm^2 in surface area. The numbers I can find for the density of steel would give such a shield, at 2cm thick, a weight of approximately 48kg.
Even at 2mm, that's almost 5kg of extra weight on that arm. By comparison, a 2cm plywood shield comes in at about 3.5kg, is both cheaper and easier to make, and won't need the dents banged back out of it after every few fights. :)
@Polydorases: I am ignorant because I am no blacksmith or anything like that and I don't have any experience in these arts :). Do you understand? I think you do, becaue I think you are very smart PLUS I'm only 18 years old so that could explain it all. But what if you would be one of the world's strongest men and were trained to wear heavy armor and a big steel shield? :) Would that work? (I know I'm not realistic, I just try to have fun with my mind hehe XD)
I wish the people in videos like these wouldnt act so scared of getting hit. i understnad flnching when a giant wooden sword is gonna hit you in the face but cmon everyone in these videos flinches like crazy.
That is because we are hitting with full power and a lot of the blows actually hurt. This forces us to fight as if though the weapons are real. If you fought someone with a sharp sword and they made a threatening motion at you, you better believe you would flinch. This is oppose to some of the sword play you see where people are only tapping each other. That amounts to nothing more then sword-tag because there is no real threat of pain.
Because there is a real genuine respect for the pain the weapon will cause, fakes are also more effective. If you start an attacking motion, you can expect the other person to react to it. This creates an opening somewhere else that can be exploited. Such strong reactions can not be obtained unless you really don't want to get hit. Don't get nervous though, we generally go easy on beginners.
The guy with the 2-handed lost ground mainly for lack of momentum in his swipes and lack of stabbing moves. With enough force, at least one of the other dude's blades would have been sent flying. When he got close, he could've used his legs to at least push him away, if not outright hit him. Of course, that in a REAL blade fight...
But since this is just for fun (I hope it was just as fun as watching, I got envious), it's very nice.
lol if the greatsword is blocked/paried once the dual weilder/sword + board guy could get in and make a killing blow with ease. Two handed swords just aren't very efficient in my opinion unless it is a large axe because of the extra momentum damage and blunt trauma that they can inflict.
I like your guys sight. Please don't think me critical, but I've handle Long swords and they have a bit of weight to them and require momentum. The force of the Great sword would be enough to put an opponent on his ass
Historical Longswords weight about 3 to 4 lbs. Most historical Greateswords weight 4 to 6 lbs. That is about the weight that the rattan-swords we use come in at depending on length.
that sounds ridiculous, just look at how much steel you get at 2 pounds. A sword made out of such a little amount of metal if made longer than say 1' would not be able to withstand any punishment. A more accurate weight for the greatsword would be somewhere around 8 pounds and that is not considering either shape or intended function of the weapons blade.
I said "longsword" as in what is used in the Talhoffer and Liechtenauer tradition. These only weigh 3 to 4 lbs. The size of Greatswords varied too. Some were massive 50 inches but many were only 38 inches and weighed about 4 to 6 lbs. Do a Google search for historical greatswords and you will see.
The GS-user could have made use of an overhead stance instead of a forward ready, since he can't do the really powerful overhead blow from that position.
We use a very high calibration (we hit very hard). Our helmets weight about 9 lbs to protect our heads. Historical infantry helms only weighed about 2 lbs.
The greatsword has the advantage or reach and power but sacrifices defense and offense. By this I mean, every shot must be both offensive and defensive at the same time since the sword is also your shield. You can not take shot that leaves you open. Against two-sword and shield that mean trying to keep the fight at the edge of your range.
You have to be 18 to fight, but they have youth programs in many kingdoms if you are under 18. The youth programs are not to be underestimated because they do give a head start.
Two handed swords are probably the least used weapons in war. When sword and shield was not being used they used polearms where were longer and hit harder then two-handed swords.
Actually from the 15th century, the longsword became a very common sight in war, in fact I would tend to call a longsword the war sword par excellence.
Most of the art work I have seen in the 15th century show polearms, shields, bows and crossbows. Longswords are present in some art but they are a minority. It just does not make sense... why use a longsword when you can use a more offensive polearm or more defensive shield.
I can also add from my own experience at Pennsic with about 1,000 men on each side, the only use for short two-handed swords is in the backfield in the event the a shield column breaks through. The two-handed swords are useless on the front-lines. The get skewered by spears and crushed by polearms on static lines. Run over by shields. The weapon is too long to be useful when you are pressed up against someone in front of you and pushed from behind. That is what a field battle looks like.
The two-handed sword has some use in striking at he low legs of charging carvery as it runs by. But that is only in cases against Calvary units charging in loose formation.
@tsafa1 ok fair enough, I have never been in an sca battle, but my experience in combat has been with a longsword. I am basing my comments on the historic manuals as well, which seem to indicate that the preferred weapon is a longsword, maybe that is a more 'elite' kind of thing?
Yeah, the manuals were intended for people who could read. In the 15th century that was nobility and wealthy merchants. Prior to the 15th century the nobility was illiterate too, and only clerics could read. It is no coincidence that that Liechtenauer 's art was recorded by the monk Hanko Döbringer. During the renaisance period, merchants became literate so they could keep track of their finances and could afford to pay fencing masters.
In many cities the nobility saw the merchants prosper and followed their example in both commerce, literacy and the fighting arts. In towns and cities the principal activity was commerce and it was inconvenient to wear armor, carry shields and polearms. Hence people carried lighter longswords and rapiers . Of course they took an interest in learning to use them. In cities with concentrated populations you could have fencing schools. These were run as businesses for profit.
The manuals... particularly Talhafor's were advertisements. Many of the techniques can be applied on the battlefield in various situations, but they are primarily intended for self defense in Urban settings. There is not mention in any of the manuals of "war" unless you stretch an interpretation. It is all single combat and judicial duels. Good stuff to learn, non the less. Singles combat is harder to master then battlefield tactics.
Hmm, nice perspective, I don't really study German Manuals, I am into Italian fencing, most particularly Fiore and Vadi. Yeah the battlefield thing is interesting, Vadi mentions it (I think only to say don't thrust), but yeah the whole thing is hard to interpret to battlefield technique, the best we can do in club is small unit (4 people each side).
Funny you see talhoffer as an ad, me too, one of the things that draws me to fiore and vadi is that it seems more instructional.
Interesting that Vadi says not thrust in battle. So does De Grassi with reference to a two handed sword. Note: De Grassi does not speak of a Longsword, but rather of a proper two handed sword (Greadsword).
Yeah, I think it is because a thrust opens up your body in ways that a cut does not.
Funnily enough, Vadi refers to his weapon a sword in two hands, altough the dimensions seem to indicate that it is a longsword as opposed to the later period full two handed sword.
From what I recall, De Gegrassi mentions being able to threaten multiple opponents with the cut vs the thrust. Of course there is also a case to be made for not getting your sword stuck in someone mid-battle with a deep thrust.
@tsafa1 Exactly, two handed swords are totally pointless, I think the best combination would be a longsword and a shield combo because you have effective reach yet you can block most hits as well with ease. Dual swords work well too but only in one vs one matches and not on the battlefield.
I think two handed have their place. Particularly when traveling because they can be conveniently hung from the horse. A polearm and shield are tools of war, not for easy travel in time of peace. Greatswords for the same reason are convenient for soldiers whose function is not on the front lines. Different tools fro different jobs.
Dual wielding swords is not pointless. Maybe in medieval times, agaisnt a knight in full plate armor they would be highly ineffective, but agains't a lightly armored opponet, they would be devastating. The use of 2 swords is meant to confuse the opponent, since an attack could be launched from either blade. One blade is used for defense, maybe a parry or block, and the other is used to hit the vulnerable spot that an attack usually makes.
If used for complete offense, the blades are meant to be used to attack from 2 different directions, basically trapping your opponent in a pincer-like move. It is not a perfect choice, but there is no such thing as a perfect weapon, or weapon combo, since there is always something that will hand your ass over to you, be it another blade, a spear, or a simple rock :)
@AkeronLikeMusic True, against an armor plated knight, you would be better off dual wielding a hammer and an axe, which have a better chance of smashing through plate than a sword. Even if neither weapon penetrated the armor you have a better chance of knocking the guy down, hence making him more vulnerable.
@AkeronLikeMusic: Is it any good to use a one one-handed weapon only of any kind(the type is unimportant for the moment), let's call it off-hand here, without any additional weapon, such as in dual-wielding, and also without any shield? Would that result in any benefit which other weapon combinations lack? I know atleast that it would leave your other hand free to grab the opponent's weapon and disarm them/him/her/it and also it could leave your other hand free to knock them out uncunsious.
@vergilheartnet lol master of swordsmanship. In my own opinion, since I'm not used to fighting with dual swords, I'd prefer the greatsword. It's an easier type to learn(of course, if you have the stamina to go around swinging a sword the size of an adult lol) but then again, this weapon was design mostly for open warfare, and not exactly for a one-on-one battle. Although, with it's sheer size, an good chop will more than likely break through almost any defense P=
I was about to to post some awesome reply in defense of dual swords... until I realized you said that they were good for one on one.
I agree since I dual wield swords a massive battle is a hard place to fit in. Which is why I like forest battle so I can sneak through and pick off people one on one.
@CrankItEveryDay Historically 2 handers have held their own in other cultures. For example, although caravan guards and bandits in Northern China (isolated platoon level engagements) used mostly spear and double saber (blade usually 26"-31"), you would occasionally see people with the big two handed sabers (blade usually 46"-60"). A lot of these people were ex-military (ex. a general and his honor guard/loyalist leave rather than face a politically motivated recall and summary execution).
Like I've said before, knights in medieval Europe found it impractical to carry into battle two swords in each hand. Plus I think the claymore has more devastating effects in the right hands than a normal one-handed sword would.
And well, these guys kinda started to fight rather close to each other so there wouldn't be enough room for a swing to deal some blows.
I recently learned that there were Gladiators in Rome that fought with two-swords. They were called "Dimachaerus" The word in Greek means Two Swords. "Di" meaning Two and "Mechaera" meaning War-sword. Machi is the Greek root for war.
hmm, two blades... if these are well used, having good angle of defense and attack isn´t an oximoron... The long blade user could have used thrust kicks and circular footwork to counter that. Other than that, defense by distance and openings...
And about close blocks with great sword, push briskly the attacking blade and mow down your edge to the head or arm, while making circular footwork out of the opponent´s range(ie, moving to the external flank of the attack),.
The problem I have found with pommol strikes is that they are easily blocked at the wrist either by the weapon or the forearm. The two-sword guy is always going to have at least one weapon on defense. A pommol strike will also come in a lot slower and at a more predictable angle then a cut or thrust. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for using it when the opportunity presents itself, but the opportunity does not come up as often as it does in Greatsword vs Greatsword.
Try a pommel strike sometime. Sounds like you've thought about it, but haven't done it. After a 'clash', it is easy to press in with the edge of your blade and bring the pommel up under them and into the chin, and then down into the throat.
I've fought florentine for years, and I believe it has the edge over two handers. You can block and tangle with one weapon, and close *very*quickly inside their sword range and attack with the other.... just got to watch their buttspike.
Two sword has the advantage on sword and shield in that the Shield can block vision... but not so in the case of florentine.
Florentine vs Sword and board, thats trickier. Takes years to get real good at Florentine.
NICE! the gent with the greatsword needs to remember tho allowing your opponent in that close is gonna get him killed tho lol their better for distance fighting and the guy with the dual swords BRAVO lad BRAVO!
My basic technique with two swords was to agressively close and use combinations.
As a greatswordsman, I concentrate on speed (one reason I don't use a thrusting tip) and rapid disengagement and ripostes in unexpected directions. Sometimes I resort to hunting arms. Seriously, it's mostly instict for me.
Oddly, I've usually won from either side of a greatsword-two swords bout, yet my record with either form against standard sword-and-shield is only about 50/50. Darn those shields!
50-50 with a Greatsword against a shield is pretty damn good. I have always felt that two-sword has the theoretical advantage against shield, even though it does not always seem to be the case practically.
Two-sword has an offensive advantage, since you've got, well, an extra sword. The key is developing a good defense -- basically being able to fight saber-style with either hand. (And, don't leave a vertical slot open.)
A full-size, six-foot greatsword is exhausting to use. I usually use a 51-inch sword; not as much reach, but very fast.
Makes me want to get out and fight again; it's been a couple of months, what with one thing and another.
Yes, I think you are correct, two sword does have a theoretical edge against shield. It seems to take a long time to learn two sword to get to that edge, but those that stick with it for long enough do.
IMHO Most people try two sword and give up on it as it takes a long time to stop getting clobbered by sword and board.
I've never done this, and observation is the only experience I got, but it seems obvious that two swords are better than a sword and shield, since a sword can block and attack. The second sword acts almost as a shield.
Granted, shields can block much better than swords, and can even be used offensively at times, but at some times it can even block you from hitting them from another side.
Not to mention all you have to block your other side is a sword, and it kills your mobility.
I have come to believe that two-handed swords are very difficult forms to master. I have seen time and time again that among equally skilled fighters the shield wins. If you match up a 10 year veteran with a two-handed sword against a two year shieldman, you then begin to see the two-handed sword win.
I have come to believe that the purpose of a two-handed sword is for personal defense. You don't carry a shield or poleaxe to the tavern. You can carry a sword on your belt. In battle you use a shield or polearm... perhaps you might equip specialized units with two-handed swords for specific tasks like scaling a wall.
Notice also how he is smaller than the 2-sword guy, how frequently he fails to recover his defense after delivering a blow (and then gets hit in the head), and how he lets the other guy back him up so he never stands his ground and never plants to put his whole body into the shot. At the end he is grunting and howling and swinging with the arms against a pretty static defense. He also never uses the point for a thrust or even to keep range.
Its the fighter and his technique, not the weapon.
Do most 2H veterans adopt the guideline of starting the weapon at ~90 degrees to the foe and then just swinging max force from there? That would seem to be a nice middle ground to me.
That is a really depends on the circumstances of how much force you need to use. Most people people can generate more then enough power from a ~45 degree angle. In this case you maintain the option of a cut or thrust. You are also traveling a shorter distance to your target which will harder to see and block. Fiore de Liberi calls the ~45 degree guard "Posta Breva". So it is a perfectly historical guard too. It is considered less stable in his system, but it works.
Thx, great vids. To me this illustrates limitations of SCA 2H sword and in general. The 2H guy never swings hard which is arguably the way to go against a dual wielder. If he did, he'd plow through any blocking sword and injure or kill him.
Actually, I know the 2-hand sword fighter, and this video shows his limitations more than that of the sport or the form. There are plenty of fighters who swing hard enough to plow through any blocking sword.
I have fought with two-handed sword and it is very possible to hit a shield edge hard enough to push it aside and maintain enough momentum to make a good hit. This only works if the shieldman is not expecting you to hit that hard. The flip side is that by hitting so hard you really committing to the action. An overcommitment action can be turned against a person. The correct approach I think is to vary the strength of attacks, directions and distance.
Blowing through a two-swordmans sword is even easier then blowing through a shield if you catch the sword near the tip. If he moves his sword and blocks with the forte... well the second sword is already on its way to the other guys head. Good Greatsword technique is based on each strike being defensive and offensive at the same time. Fine against another two-hand weapon, but a two-swordmand is always blocking and attacking from two different directions.
Yes, true, you can blow through a florentinist sword easier than through a shiedl.
When I fight greatsword, you have to power your blocks so they can't blow through.
Basically, you have to block and trap the greatsword with one sword, and kill with the other, which normally works for me. Just got to watch out for the buttspike!
the guy with the greatsword should have used it in a more spear like way keep your opponet back and you win let him within range and you'll almost certainly lose... also everytime he moved he should have brought the sword back in a defensive stance while circling left or right so as to not allow your opponet to know exactly if he's in range. but lets be honest in one to one combat duel swords will beat greatsword a good portion of the time.
vampuricknight1 3 weeks ago
Any good fighter on any given day. The style of sword has no baring when it comes to experience. The two handed sword fighter was obviously inexperienced in this form and left himself more open then just his legs. Bottom line reason why he lost was that. Their is no guaranteed predetermined winner based off of weapon.
TheEasternFighter 4 weeks ago
only advantage i could see with having two short swords is if u get close enough the guy with the long sword couldnt do much to you but hit you with the pommel
but if its a guy with a shield and sword good luck with that
kilkolio 1 month ago
How you going to give a midget a two handed sword and expect him to win. You need to be large in stature for this weapon and very agressive. Amateur hour.
prestonw55 5 months ago
@prestonw55
lol wat when did having a bigger stature ever been useful in armed combat?
being taller means there are more places to cut and bleed anyway
kilkolio 1 month ago
when equal skills; 2 weapons always win against 1, no matter size
therealcaz 5 months ago
Florentine is awsome, id love for my larp group to teach me haha
GiptoCryptio 6 months ago
@GiptoCryptio I lot to larppers migrate into the SCA because it is highly competitive. You can do LARP and SCA fighting too. Hope to see you on the field one day wielding two swords.
tsafa1 6 months ago
@tsafa1 that would be great to fight alone side highly skilled vets, as of now i'm still learning,
GiptoCryptio 6 months ago
The movements in this activity way to fast to tell if one of these opponents have taken a blow I really could not figure out you took a hit first. does anyone else sense this problem with this activity.
Dimitri0809 9 months ago
@Dimitri0809 You are absolutely correct that he movement in real fighting is way too fast for any observer to know if the blows were really good or not. Only the person in the armor being hit knows if the blow was good enough. A lot of shots will glance off armor. Glancing shots that don't connect well is part of the equation and would be meaningless in a real duel or battle.
tsafa1 9 months ago
@tsafa1
Yes but couldn't we just use an electronic scoring system like the one used in fencing?
This would also work well in big epic scale battles in the rest of the SCA org.
Dimitri0809 1 month ago
Two-handed sword man would do better in live combat. The weight and power behind a large sword blow combined with the very real threat of it smashing through an attempted block/parry make a fearful weapon. You can see this even in SCA battles using halberds or similar heavy impact weapons. I own a Scottish claymore and it would be nigh impossible to parry with a longsword.
ScottishFoxx 9 months ago
@ScottishFoxx lol ya especially a longsword your only holding with one hand
migratorycocanut 9 months ago
Ive been fighting for about 13 years, and aside from playing about with shield/ florentine I have always fought with a greatwpn. Either pole or greatsword. One of the things I tell the people I teach is no matter what wpn your fighting with, its still a stick. A greatwpn is still just a big stick, so while power DOES have something to do with the fight, your not going to be cracking any shields with it like you would a real dane axe or halberd. So make your wpn to your greatest advantage. (cont)
Vargre 1 year ago
So if your fighting pole, range is important. Make a 7-7.5 ft pole with max blade allowed so you have less chance of hitting with shaft. Greatsword, make it 6 ft, put as long a handle on it as allowed so leg defense is easier. In the main, fighting against florentine with a pole or greatsword should be a predetermined fight. The pole should always win. Notice I said "in the main" Duke Sir Paul of Bellatrix completely destroyed me fighting florentine.
Vargre 1 year ago
@Vargre Duke Paul could destroy most greatsword wielders. :-)
Part of the problem I see with this demonstration is that the zweihander is basically a katana. Testing that I have seen indicates that a katana sucks against mail. ("Deadliest Warrior" on Spike). A real great sword would be used to overpower the Florentine fighter. Of course, as with flails, that would probably not be done in SCA because of safety issues (along with face thrusts, below-the-knee and hand shots).
Leif
leekellerking 11 months ago
@leekellerking We allow Face thrusts in our kingdom, but not the knee or below. greatsword is a marvelous weapon but in S.C.A. combat it does have its limits, you can successfully parry a two handed weapon with a one handed one, but it must be a parry not a block. I've uses a single one handed weapon vs. two handed ones with greate success however my opponents wheren't top notch.
recruiter40 6 months ago
Not for nothing but it all depends on the fighters. The guys fighting here (particularly the greatsword) dont seem very experienced to me. Hes leaving his legs open repeatedly, (common mistake for people not experienced with greatsword) he doesnt seem to be hitting with much force (hes swinging with his arms, not his body) hes not using his range, hes letting the 2 stick get into HIS range, etc. The basic fact of the matter is that it comes down to the skill of the fighter, not the weapon.
Vargre 1 year ago
@Vargre Agree the skill of the fighter is everything. I know both fighters in this video and the two-sword guy is many years more experienced.
tsafa1 1 year ago
two swords per soldier was rather expensive<-most realist and valid arguments against duel wielding, also particularly useless against archers...
Zodiamaster 1 year ago
I didn't see the greatsword user attempt any thrusts or leg shots. These attacks, or at least the threat of these attacks, are normally fundamental in fighting an enemy with two swords. Are these maneuvers disallowed in SCA?
gaxxag 1 year ago
@gaxxag Leg shots below the knees are disallowed. Thrusts on the other hand are perfectly legal, if the greatsword has a thrusting tip (which this one does). In fact the first thing I learned with greatsword was keep it pointed at their face so they can't advance. This guy is probably better off removing the thrusting tip to make it into a bastard sword so he can swing it faster.
xexonix 1 year ago
Is it impossible to defeat a dual swordsman with a sword BUT without a shield???
Because I use only two-handed long swords and at our academy we don't learn how to use two swords.
PkmnMegahero 1 year ago
@PkmnMegahero You have a good chance it you use a Glaive, which basically a sword on a stick. Almost all the techniques you use with the two-handed sword will work with the glaive. The glaive is about 6 feet long so it will give you a range advantage. You will also have a significant power advantage to possibly blow through some of the blocks of the single handed swords or force him to only try to block with the forte of his sword. A standard size Katan or Bastard sword will be at a disadvantage
tsafa1 1 year ago
@tsafa1 So, because I have a much wider range with a Glaive, It's more easier to defeat a Dual Swordsman? Too bad that I prefer longswords during combat.
PkmnMegahero 1 year ago
@PkmnMegahero All two handed weapons have similar characteristics. I recommend you try to learn a few of them (longsword, poleaxe, halbred...). Not all weapons are suited to all conditions. A longsword is primarily a sidearm, similar to a modern day soldiers pistol, that is used for his personal defense and as a backup weapon. The Shield, spear, halberd, glaive are primary weapons, similar to a modern soldiers rifle. A polearms-man might carry a longsword while walking the town or forest.
tsafa1 1 year ago
@PkmnMegahero I forgot to mention... their is also the medieval "Greatsword" which might be to your liking. The Greatsword can be the same size as a longsword, but was generally bigger. The key feature is that it had parallel edges for more power. It handled more like a polearm then a longsword. Not something you want to find yourself on the front line with, but good for doing cleanup work and duels. The longsword was primarily a self defense and dueling weapon.
tsafa1 1 year ago
@PkmnMegahero
I agree with northwinder, the bigsword allways is first in scoring, the 2 swords guys is just biger and gets into shorter range and jumps on him, but with real swords he would have had a hand in minus or a hole in his guts. This is not very realistic. A good way to score aganst him could be just to poke into its face, if the helmet protection is good enough to avoid injuries. Also the lenght of the longsword can target legs, groin and so on.
Arthelad 1 year ago
wow the duel swords man is cheating, he's getting owned and then he's charging the great swordsman.
bums77 1 year ago
look at the way the guy is holding the duel sword when in a blocking stance some wolveerine shit the greatsword guy could of easily knocked them out of his hands
sawu101 1 year ago
Is greatsword essentially a longsword?
xxmasterchiefofahlo 1 year ago
@xxmasterchiefofahlo No, big difference in size. A Great Sword is also know as a Two Handed Sword or Zweihänder. These are true two handed swords with long handles that extend up to or past the elbow when held at the cross-guard.
A Longsword, Bastard Sword or Hand and Half Sword, have handles that fall short of the elbow when held at the cross-guard. These swords are typically used for self defense since they are conveniently worn at the belt.
tsafa1 1 year ago
@xxmasterchiefofahlo Large two-handed swords were typically hung from the horse and only used in war or on guard duty. You would not walk around town with them. They function more like polearms then like swords.
A lot of the terms we use today are also modern conventions. People in period who used swords where typically rich and might have several that they favored for different purposes. The terms varied from place to place.
tsafa1 1 year ago
@xxmasterchiefofahlo The term "war-sword" is a perfect example of a sword that meant different things at different times at different places.
The important distinctions to the people who used swords in period would be War-Sword, Town-Sword, and Dress-Sword. These are three very distinct classification of use. The minor differences in size and shape are less important.
tsafa1 1 year ago
@tsafa1 Thanks for the helpful clarification.
What combo of arms are you the most comfortable with? I see you use the sword and shield a lot.
What would a guy need to get started on this?
xxmasterchiefofahlo 1 year ago
@xxmasterchiefofahlo First thing is to find a local practice. I see from your profile that you live in Hong Kong. I will message you a link that you can use to find local information. To get started all you need is some armor. A lot of it you can make yourself. I use sword and shield because it offers the best defense. It is a good place to start because staying alive is even more important then killing your opponent.
tsafa1 1 year ago
@tsafa1: To use shield and any one-handed weapon(as long as you can handle any one-handed weapon, otherwise one will just simply have to specialize in some one-handed weapon which the wielder think fits best to him/her) seem to result in near immortality. XD
Khornedevotee 1 year ago
@Khornedevotee Imortality... not against anyone who is knows how to fight against a shield. There are plenty of ways to defeat a shield. The all involve different angles of attack and misdirections. It takes about two years of weekly training just to get a good grasp of the basics and offer a respectable offense and defense.
You are right that to a person facing a shield for the first time, it will seem like an impregnable wall.
tsafa1 1 year ago
@tsafa1: Forgive me my ignorance, I have quite shallow experience with these things considering that I do not train in these things. Are there any specific weapons that are more effective against shields than other weapons?
Khornedevotee 1 year ago
@Khornedevotee More important then the weapon is the experience. All weapon forms have advantages and disadvantages. The key is the maximize the advantages. The effective range of a shield is a lot closer then a polearm. If the shield can get close he has an advantage. If the polearm can maintain distance he will dominate the shield. Two-sword has an advantage against a shield too by being able to threaten and attack from different directions. Controlling the distance will win the fight.
tsafa1 1 year ago
@tsafa1: Will the polearm still dominate the shield if it's completely made out of steel and the shield is 2-3 cms thick :)? Just out of curiousity.
Khornedevotee 1 year ago
@Khornedevotee A polearm usually has a 1 to 2 lb head on a wooden shaft so that is has mobility. Making it heavier will only make follow up shots harder. The first shot will always be shot and basing ones strategy on breaking through a shield is suicide. If you think about it a greatsword is essentially an all steel polearm. They move and function in a similar manor. The tip of a greatsword is even lighter then a polearms so it can have more directional change capability.
tsafa1 1 year ago
@tsafa1: Ok, I think I made myself misunderstood. I meant what if the SHIELD was 2-3 cms thick and made out of complete steel. Hehe, sorry m8 for making you confused. I made it wrong.
Khornedevotee 1 year ago
@Khornedevotee Consider that most historical weapon of all types are were light and relied on velocity rather then mass to be effective. The nobility carried light weapons because they had the skill to use them. The peasants carried mass weapons like axes and clubs. The nobility dominated the peasants with speed and skill.
tsafa1 1 year ago
@tsafa1: So a 2-3 cms thick solid steel shield(maybe reinforced steel) is too much to ask for in combat. But wouldn't it be more effective than a wooden shield. I've never really liked wooden shields. They don't seem to be able to take alot of damage. But that does ofc depent on what wood you use:English Oak or was it Book anyway Morgan Freeman as Azim in Robin Hood:Prince of Thieves curse the english wood ''damn english''...then I forgot. But it's a very hard wooden type for shield :).
Khornedevotee 1 year ago
@Khornedevotee The only shields made of solid steel are small bucklers that are up to 7 cm wide. Anything bigger and it will be too heavy to be used effectively. They did use all steel heater shields in the late 15th century for jousting tournaments. Jousting armor is much thicker and heavier then battle armor. In a joust you only wear the armor for a short time and there is little maneuvering. The intent of the joust is the break your lance on the other persons lance or armor, not to harm them.
tsafa1 1 year ago
@tsafa1: With wide you mean from the left side to the right and vice versa? I meant only thick like 2 or 3 cms thick and maybe say as big as a kite shield or a buckler size :/. But ty very much for that info.
Khornedevotee 1 year ago
@tsafa1
well said
northwinder 1 year ago
@Khornedevotee Battle-Armor and weapons had to be light. People often marched for months just to get to the battlefield or stood guard duty for hours in their armor.
tsafa1 1 year ago
@tsafa1: Well that sounds tough. Glad I didn't have to join their ranks XD.
Khornedevotee 1 year ago
@Khornedevotee: Any solid shield would be too heavy, whether it was wood or metal. The real thing would be composite; a curved dome of layered wood with an ox-hide covering, metal rim and boss. The rim would turn the edge of any sword, protecting the shield from being hacked apart, while the ox-hide and concave shape would rebound a thrust. The idea would be to have a lightweight "sprung" shield, kinetic force held within the shape of it to deflect a blow.
JCLeSinge 1 year ago
@Khornedevotee They did have polearms with heavy heads. They looked like big butcher knives on sticks. The are specialized weapons. They are slow moving and very predictable. The key for the shieldman in that case is to move in and catch the first blow low on the shaft. The shieldman will then be able to execute multiple shots before a heavy polearms is raised up again for another attack.
tsafa1 1 year ago
@tsafa1: Aye, that too will work ^^.
Khornedevotee 1 year ago
@Khornedevotee Surely, you mean mm, not cm.
A typical SCA shield is somewhere around 3000 cm^2 in surface area. The numbers I can find for the density of steel would give such a shield, at 2cm thick, a weight of approximately 48kg.
Even at 2mm, that's almost 5kg of extra weight on that arm. By comparison, a 2cm plywood shield comes in at about 3.5kg, is both cheaper and easier to make, and won't need the dents banged back out of it after every few fights. :)
Polydorases 1 year ago
@Polydorases: I am ignorant because I am no blacksmith or anything like that and I don't have any experience in these arts :). Do you understand? I think you do, becaue I think you are very smart PLUS I'm only 18 years old so that could explain it all. But what if you would be one of the world's strongest men and were trained to wear heavy armor and a big steel shield? :) Would that work? (I know I'm not realistic, I just try to have fun with my mind hehe XD)
Khornedevotee 1 year ago
lol i practice ninjutsu and its way easier to fight with katanas so you have my respect
SuperBillibob 1 year ago
I wish the people in videos like these wouldnt act so scared of getting hit. i understnad flnching when a giant wooden sword is gonna hit you in the face but cmon everyone in these videos flinches like crazy.
JonathanKanada 1 year ago
That is because we are hitting with full power and a lot of the blows actually hurt. This forces us to fight as if though the weapons are real. If you fought someone with a sharp sword and they made a threatening motion at you, you better believe you would flinch. This is oppose to some of the sword play you see where people are only tapping each other. That amounts to nothing more then sword-tag because there is no real threat of pain.
tsafa1 1 year ago
Because there is a real genuine respect for the pain the weapon will cause, fakes are also more effective. If you start an attacking motion, you can expect the other person to react to it. This creates an opening somewhere else that can be exploited. Such strong reactions can not be obtained unless you really don't want to get hit. Don't get nervous though, we generally go easy on beginners.
tsafa1 1 year ago
True, sorry bout my bitching I do relise how it wld be making flinch.
JonathanKanada 1 year ago
@JonathanKanada: Well what can I say, people just don't like to get hurt! XD
Khornedevotee 1 year ago
The guy with the 2-handed lost ground mainly for lack of momentum in his swipes and lack of stabbing moves. With enough force, at least one of the other dude's blades would have been sent flying. When he got close, he could've used his legs to at least push him away, if not outright hit him. Of course, that in a REAL blade fight...
But since this is just for fun (I hope it was just as fun as watching, I got envious), it's very nice.
Gunner193 2 years ago
wow that was an awesome justification of the weapons tsafa1.
weapons were tools made for killing, and like each tool has its special uses.
AndyCarnage 2 years ago
lol if the greatsword is blocked/paried once the dual weilder/sword + board guy could get in and make a killing blow with ease. Two handed swords just aren't very efficient in my opinion unless it is a large axe because of the extra momentum damage and blunt trauma that they can inflict.
CrankItEveryDay 2 years ago
This looks like so much fun!
ShotGlassINC 2 years ago
Sure is. Its open to everyone and free too.
tsafa1 2 years ago
I like your guys sight. Please don't think me critical, but I've handle Long swords and they have a bit of weight to them and require momentum. The force of the Great sword would be enough to put an opponent on his ass
schaelakhan 2 years ago 2
Historical Longswords weight about 3 to 4 lbs. Most historical Greateswords weight 4 to 6 lbs. That is about the weight that the rattan-swords we use come in at depending on length.
tsafa1 2 years ago
a greatsword at 4 to 6 pounds...
that sounds ridiculous, just look at how much steel you get at 2 pounds. A sword made out of such a little amount of metal if made longer than say 1' would not be able to withstand any punishment. A more accurate weight for the greatsword would be somewhere around 8 pounds and that is not considering either shape or intended function of the weapons blade.
jnleppanen 2 years ago
I said "longsword" as in what is used in the Talhoffer and Liechtenauer tradition. These only weigh 3 to 4 lbs. The size of Greatswords varied too. Some were massive 50 inches but many were only 38 inches and weighed about 4 to 6 lbs. Do a Google search for historical greatswords and you will see.
tsafa1 2 years ago
The GS-user could have made use of an overhead stance instead of a forward ready, since he can't do the really powerful overhead blow from that position.
egonremos 2 years ago
I'm pretty sure he wasn't trying for power.
CountArtha 2 years ago
I'm new to this but, if he's handling a great sword, wouldn't that be used for more power for sacrifice for mobility?
Tranisdaman 2 years ago
We use a very high calibration (we hit very hard). Our helmets weight about 9 lbs to protect our heads. Historical infantry helms only weighed about 2 lbs.
The greatsword has the advantage or reach and power but sacrifices defense and offense. By this I mean, every shot must be both offensive and defensive at the same time since the sword is also your shield. You can not take shot that leaves you open. Against two-sword and shield that mean trying to keep the fight at the edge of your range.
tsafa1 2 years ago
that isnt the problem. growing up in this the problem is the fact he only uses right attacks and doesn't switch it up enough
TheMemesiss 2 years ago
is there an age limit in sca?i am very interested
pigadis1 2 years ago
You have to be 18 to fight, but they have youth programs in many kingdoms if you are under 18. The youth programs are not to be underestimated because they do give a head start.
tsafa1 2 years ago
The greatsword is a very defencive weapon, he should not attack, instead, wait.
Plastkanin 2 years ago
Two handed swords are probably the least used weapons in war. When sword and shield was not being used they used polearms where were longer and hit harder then two-handed swords.
tsafa1 2 years ago
Actually from the 15th century, the longsword became a very common sight in war, in fact I would tend to call a longsword the war sword par excellence.
mrAbaterWhite 2 years ago
Most of the art work I have seen in the 15th century show polearms, shields, bows and crossbows. Longswords are present in some art but they are a minority. It just does not make sense... why use a longsword when you can use a more offensive polearm or more defensive shield.
tsafa1 2 years ago
I can also add from my own experience at Pennsic with about 1,000 men on each side, the only use for short two-handed swords is in the backfield in the event the a shield column breaks through. The two-handed swords are useless on the front-lines. The get skewered by spears and crushed by polearms on static lines. Run over by shields. The weapon is too long to be useful when you are pressed up against someone in front of you and pushed from behind. That is what a field battle looks like.
tsafa1 2 years ago
The two-handed sword has some use in striking at he low legs of charging carvery as it runs by. But that is only in cases against Calvary units charging in loose formation.
tsafa1 2 years ago
@tsafa1 ok fair enough, I have never been in an sca battle, but my experience in combat has been with a longsword. I am basing my comments on the historic manuals as well, which seem to indicate that the preferred weapon is a longsword, maybe that is a more 'elite' kind of thing?
mrAbaterWhite 2 years ago
Yeah, the manuals were intended for people who could read. In the 15th century that was nobility and wealthy merchants. Prior to the 15th century the nobility was illiterate too, and only clerics could read. It is no coincidence that that Liechtenauer 's art was recorded by the monk Hanko Döbringer. During the renaisance period, merchants became literate so they could keep track of their finances and could afford to pay fencing masters.
tsafa1 2 years ago
In many cities the nobility saw the merchants prosper and followed their example in both commerce, literacy and the fighting arts. In towns and cities the principal activity was commerce and it was inconvenient to wear armor, carry shields and polearms. Hence people carried lighter longswords and rapiers . Of course they took an interest in learning to use them. In cities with concentrated populations you could have fencing schools. These were run as businesses for profit.
tsafa1 2 years ago
The manuals... particularly Talhafor's were advertisements. Many of the techniques can be applied on the battlefield in various situations, but they are primarily intended for self defense in Urban settings. There is not mention in any of the manuals of "war" unless you stretch an interpretation. It is all single combat and judicial duels. Good stuff to learn, non the less. Singles combat is harder to master then battlefield tactics.
tsafa1 2 years ago
Hmm, nice perspective, I don't really study German Manuals, I am into Italian fencing, most particularly Fiore and Vadi. Yeah the battlefield thing is interesting, Vadi mentions it (I think only to say don't thrust), but yeah the whole thing is hard to interpret to battlefield technique, the best we can do in club is small unit (4 people each side).
Funny you see talhoffer as an ad, me too, one of the things that draws me to fiore and vadi is that it seems more instructional.
mrAbaterWhite 2 years ago
Interesting that Vadi says not thrust in battle. So does De Grassi with reference to a two handed sword. Note: De Grassi does not speak of a Longsword, but rather of a proper two handed sword (Greadsword).
tsafa1 2 years ago
Yeah, I think it is because a thrust opens up your body in ways that a cut does not.
Funnily enough, Vadi refers to his weapon a sword in two hands, altough the dimensions seem to indicate that it is a longsword as opposed to the later period full two handed sword.
mrAbaterWhite 2 years ago
From what I recall, De Gegrassi mentions being able to threaten multiple opponents with the cut vs the thrust. Of course there is also a case to be made for not getting your sword stuck in someone mid-battle with a deep thrust.
tsafa1 2 years ago
@tsafa1 Exactly, two handed swords are totally pointless, I think the best combination would be a longsword and a shield combo because you have effective reach yet you can block most hits as well with ease. Dual swords work well too but only in one vs one matches and not on the battlefield.
CrankItEveryDay 2 years ago
"two handed swords are totally pointless"
Really? I would like to hear why you think that.
mrAbaterWhite 2 years ago
I think two handed have their place. Particularly when traveling because they can be conveniently hung from the horse. A polearm and shield are tools of war, not for easy travel in time of peace. Greatswords for the same reason are convenient for soldiers whose function is not on the front lines. Different tools fro different jobs.
tsafa1 2 years ago
Dual wielding swords is not pointless. Maybe in medieval times, agaisnt a knight in full plate armor they would be highly ineffective, but agains't a lightly armored opponet, they would be devastating. The use of 2 swords is meant to confuse the opponent, since an attack could be launched from either blade. One blade is used for defense, maybe a parry or block, and the other is used to hit the vulnerable spot that an attack usually makes.
AkeronLikeMusic 2 years ago 8
If used for complete offense, the blades are meant to be used to attack from 2 different directions, basically trapping your opponent in a pincer-like move. It is not a perfect choice, but there is no such thing as a perfect weapon, or weapon combo, since there is always something that will hand your ass over to you, be it another blade, a spear, or a simple rock :)
AkeronLikeMusic 2 years ago
@AkeronLikeMusic True, against an armor plated knight, you would be better off dual wielding a hammer and an axe, which have a better chance of smashing through plate than a sword. Even if neither weapon penetrated the armor you have a better chance of knocking the guy down, hence making him more vulnerable.
Damienx247 1 year ago
@AkeronLikeMusic: Is it any good to use a one one-handed weapon only of any kind(the type is unimportant for the moment), let's call it off-hand here, without any additional weapon, such as in dual-wielding, and also without any shield? Would that result in any benefit which other weapon combinations lack? I know atleast that it would leave your other hand free to grab the opponent's weapon and disarm them/him/her/it and also it could leave your other hand free to knock them out uncunsious.
Khornedevotee 1 year ago
@AkeronLikeMusic so woould u prefer using dual blades or just a broadsword????? u seem to be a master of swordsmanship
vergilheartnet 1 month ago
@vergilheartnet lol master of swordsmanship. In my own opinion, since I'm not used to fighting with dual swords, I'd prefer the greatsword. It's an easier type to learn(of course, if you have the stamina to go around swinging a sword the size of an adult lol) but then again, this weapon was design mostly for open warfare, and not exactly for a one-on-one battle. Although, with it's sheer size, an good chop will more than likely break through almost any defense P=
AkeronLikeMusic 1 month ago
I was about to to post some awesome reply in defense of dual swords... until I realized you said that they were good for one on one.
I agree since I dual wield swords a massive battle is a hard place to fit in. Which is why I like forest battle so I can sneak through and pick off people one on one.
On the field we're just archer bait...
MaseYevon 2 years ago
@CrankItEveryDay Historically 2 handers have held their own in other cultures. For example, although caravan guards and bandits in Northern China (isolated platoon level engagements) used mostly spear and double saber (blade usually 26"-31"), you would occasionally see people with the big two handed sabers (blade usually 46"-60"). A lot of these people were ex-military (ex. a general and his honor guard/loyalist leave rather than face a politically motivated recall and summary execution).
1uc3n7 1 year ago
Like I've said before, knights in medieval Europe found it impractical to carry into battle two swords in each hand. Plus I think the claymore has more devastating effects in the right hands than a normal one-handed sword would.
And well, these guys kinda started to fight rather close to each other so there wouldn't be enough room for a swing to deal some blows.
Dawn59er 2 years ago
I recently learned that there were Gladiators in Rome that fought with two-swords. They were called "Dimachaerus" The word in Greek means Two Swords. "Di" meaning Two and "Mechaera" meaning War-sword. Machi is the Greek root for war.
tsafa1 2 years ago
hmm, two blades... if these are well used, having good angle of defense and attack isn´t an oximoron... The long blade user could have used thrust kicks and circular footwork to counter that. Other than that, defense by distance and openings...
And about close blocks with great sword, push briskly the attacking blade and mow down your edge to the head or arm, while making circular footwork out of the opponent´s range(ie, moving to the external flank of the attack),.
Minroud 2 years ago
Notice the Greatsword guy doesn't attack with his pommel when two swords guy gets in close.
deathlibrarian 3 years ago
The problem I have found with pommol strikes is that they are easily blocked at the wrist either by the weapon or the forearm. The two-sword guy is always going to have at least one weapon on defense. A pommol strike will also come in a lot slower and at a more predictable angle then a cut or thrust. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for using it when the opportunity presents itself, but the opportunity does not come up as often as it does in Greatsword vs Greatsword.
tsafa1 3 years ago
Try a pommel strike sometime. Sounds like you've thought about it, but haven't done it. After a 'clash', it is easy to press in with the edge of your blade and bring the pommel up under them and into the chin, and then down into the throat.
DavenricheBladesman 2 years ago
I've fought florentine for years, and I believe it has the edge over two handers. You can block and tangle with one weapon, and close *very*quickly inside their sword range and attack with the other.... just got to watch their buttspike.
Two sword has the advantage on sword and shield in that the Shield can block vision... but not so in the case of florentine.
Florentine vs Sword and board, thats trickier. Takes years to get real good at Florentine.
deathlibrarian 3 years ago
Thanks for you experienced insight Deathlibrarian.
tsafa1 3 years ago
NICE! the gent with the greatsword needs to remember tho allowing your opponent in that close is gonna get him killed tho lol their better for distance fighting and the guy with the dual swords BRAVO lad BRAVO!
silverfire337 3 years ago
I am really happy your guys are enjoying these vids. I will have to post more.
tsafa1 3 years ago
aye mate i do agree
silverfire337 3 years ago
My basic technique with two swords was to agressively close and use combinations.
As a greatswordsman, I concentrate on speed (one reason I don't use a thrusting tip) and rapid disengagement and ripostes in unexpected directions. Sometimes I resort to hunting arms. Seriously, it's mostly instict for me.
Oddly, I've usually won from either side of a greatsword-two swords bout, yet my record with either form against standard sword-and-shield is only about 50/50. Darn those shields!
Cabochon1360 3 years ago
50-50 with a Greatsword against a shield is pretty damn good. I have always felt that two-sword has the theoretical advantage against shield, even though it does not always seem to be the case practically.
tsafa1 3 years ago
Two-sword has an offensive advantage, since you've got, well, an extra sword. The key is developing a good defense -- basically being able to fight saber-style with either hand. (And, don't leave a vertical slot open.)
A full-size, six-foot greatsword is exhausting to use. I usually use a 51-inch sword; not as much reach, but very fast.
Makes me want to get out and fight again; it's been a couple of months, what with one thing and another.
Thanks again for posting the cool vids.
Cabochon1360 3 years ago
I would say the key with two sword is maintaining your attack so they can't get an attack in.
Attacking their weapon side and forcing them to block with their weapon, so they can't use it to attack you.
And closing so their shield is in the way of their shots....then their shield becomes yours also.
But mainly movement!!! Two swords use movement for defense... you got to get in and get out!
deathlibrarian 3 years ago 2
Yes, I think you are correct, two sword does have a theoretical edge against shield. It seems to take a long time to learn two sword to get to that edge, but those that stick with it for long enough do.
IMHO Most people try two sword and give up on it as it takes a long time to stop getting clobbered by sword and board.
deathlibrarian 3 years ago
I've never done this, and observation is the only experience I got, but it seems obvious that two swords are better than a sword and shield, since a sword can block and attack. The second sword acts almost as a shield.
Granted, shields can block much better than swords, and can even be used offensively at times, but at some times it can even block you from hitting them from another side.
Not to mention all you have to block your other side is a sword, and it kills your mobility.
StraitjacketJunky 3 years ago
Nice video! I've been on both sides of this equation, having used two swords for many years, switching to greatsword a couple of years ago.
Cabochon1360 3 years ago
I would love to hear some more insight from you. From both sides of the equation. Nothing beats experience.
tsafa1 3 years ago
I have come to believe that two-handed swords are very difficult forms to master. I have seen time and time again that among equally skilled fighters the shield wins. If you match up a 10 year veteran with a two-handed sword against a two year shieldman, you then begin to see the two-handed sword win.
tsafa1 3 years ago
I have come to believe that the purpose of a two-handed sword is for personal defense. You don't carry a shield or poleaxe to the tavern. You can carry a sword on your belt. In battle you use a shield or polearm... perhaps you might equip specialized units with two-handed swords for specific tasks like scaling a wall.
tsafa1 3 years ago
Notice also how he is smaller than the 2-sword guy, how frequently he fails to recover his defense after delivering a blow (and then gets hit in the head), and how he lets the other guy back him up so he never stands his ground and never plants to put his whole body into the shot. At the end he is grunting and howling and swinging with the arms against a pretty static defense. He also never uses the point for a thrust or even to keep range.
Its the fighter and his technique, not the weapon.
captainzorikh 3 years ago
Do most 2H veterans adopt the guideline of starting the weapon at ~90 degrees to the foe and then just swinging max force from there? That would seem to be a nice middle ground to me.
shinyhalo 3 years ago
That is a really depends on the circumstances of how much force you need to use. Most people people can generate more then enough power from a ~45 degree angle. In this case you maintain the option of a cut or thrust. You are also traveling a shorter distance to your target which will harder to see and block. Fiore de Liberi calls the ~45 degree guard "Posta Breva". So it is a perfectly historical guard too. It is considered less stable in his system, but it works.
tsafa1 3 years ago
Thx, great vids. To me this illustrates limitations of SCA 2H sword and in general. The 2H guy never swings hard which is arguably the way to go against a dual wielder. If he did, he'd plow through any blocking sword and injure or kill him.
shinyhalo 3 years ago
Actually, I know the 2-hand sword fighter, and this video shows his limitations more than that of the sport or the form. There are plenty of fighters who swing hard enough to plow through any blocking sword.
captainzorikh 3 years ago
I have fought with two-handed sword and it is very possible to hit a shield edge hard enough to push it aside and maintain enough momentum to make a good hit. This only works if the shieldman is not expecting you to hit that hard. The flip side is that by hitting so hard you really committing to the action. An overcommitment action can be turned against a person. The correct approach I think is to vary the strength of attacks, directions and distance.
tsafa1 3 years ago
Blowing through a two-swordmans sword is even easier then blowing through a shield if you catch the sword near the tip. If he moves his sword and blocks with the forte... well the second sword is already on its way to the other guys head. Good Greatsword technique is based on each strike being defensive and offensive at the same time. Fine against another two-hand weapon, but a two-swordmand is always blocking and attacking from two different directions.
tsafa1 3 years ago
Yes, true, you can blow through a florentinist sword easier than through a shiedl.
When I fight greatsword, you have to power your blocks so they can't blow through.
Basically, you have to block and trap the greatsword with one sword, and kill with the other, which normally works for me. Just got to watch out for the buttspike!
deathlibrarian 3 years ago