Where does the long sword fit in that continuum?
I would guess between the war sword and the two hander (Zwei Hander, right?)
Where does the long sword fit in that continuum?
I would guess between the war sword and the two hander (Zwei Hander, right?)
" La rose est sans pourquoi, elle fleurit parce qu’elle fleurit ; Elle n’a souci d’elle-même, ne demande pas si on la voit. » Angelus Silesius
"There are problems in this universe for which there are no answers." Paul Muad'dib
Once again, "longsword" is a modern term not found in the period. In that sense, this sword is a "longsword". In modern parlance it will mean any sword built for use with either one or two hands. We generally use this term to denote the War Swords successors found in the later XIVth and XVth centuries. These types would feature blades with more acute points and more rigid diamond cross sections that would replace the flatter lenticular cross sections found on swords in earlier periods, like this War Sword. These features were introduced in order to counter the increasing development of plate armor. People in antiquity didn't have our obsession with hyper-catagorization. This can lead to confusion and debate over what is an "arming sword", "side sword", "rapier", etc.
Terms like Zweihander, Bidenhander, etc. are terms used in the late middle ages and early renaissance to denote the very large two-handed swords commonly associated with German Landsknecht mercenaries. In Spain this type of sword would have been referred to as a "Montante".
Last edited by Trooper224; 10-09-2021 at 09:38 AM.
We may lose and we may win, but we will never be here again.......
Just to be sure, the Zwei Hander/Montante (I've heard the term Spadone too) is mostly for use in the "pike and shot" tactical formations used by units like the early Spanish tercios and the landsknecht. The war swords had a more "general use" on the battlefield (like the one hander you show) and its form (length, width,point etc...) varied with time and circumstance and didn't have a particular name.
Am I off on anything?
" La rose est sans pourquoi, elle fleurit parce qu’elle fleurit ; Elle n’a souci d’elle-même, ne demande pas si on la voit. » Angelus Silesius
"There are problems in this universe for which there are no answers." Paul Muad'dib
I think also (although I think @Trooper224 knows more than I do) that both the "one hand" and "either one or two hand" swords would be considered sidearms. They would be worn into battle and used once conditions no longer favored the primary weapon (spear, poleaxe, ranged weapon, etc., depending on social status and wealth), while that two-handed sword would be carried into battle, not worn, and were the primary battlefield weapons of the troops carrying them.
Michael "Tinker" Pearce is another Swordsmith to look at. His book "Medieval Sword in The Modern World" is good.
Center of balance vs. center of percussion is something he discusses.
I have talked with him at some length and he is a good guy and very knowledgeable.
Tom Maringer is another great guy.
His Vorpal series knives, in the 1980s, with upside down break front kydex sheaths were and are very innovative and fast.
Overall, I'd agree. A "sidearm" is really whatever you choose to wear on you beltline, so anything could apply. Once again, a modern term trying to shoehorn its way into medieval definition. Two-handed swords, of the various types, where never worn on the back as portrayed so frequently in Hollywood, although they often had scabbards. Those were specific weapons for specifically defined uses and would have been carried in the baggage train on campaign, or across the shoulder like a rifle.
We may lose and we may win, but we will never be here again.......
@Trooper224 The story of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight may compliment your sword, I think.
https://www.historytoday.com/archive...cid=c9cf25fc2d