Quote from: Christopher Brady;989726Sorry, you're right, I meant the the 40 to 48 inch blade, although a Long Sword classification DID go to 5 feet in length, it was typically used to denote two handed sidearms.  And that's type of sword I'm talking about, the two handed sidearm, why was it used in a battlefield situation?

Hey typos happen and I appreciate the correction. Defining the right name for bladed weapons is a bit tricky. I wouldn't call a sword as long as 40-48 inches a long sword. I mean obviously it is a long sword, but I'd probably call a 40-48" blade a hand-and-a-half sword or a bastard sword or something else to distinguish it from the long sword that has a blade that is around 34-36 inches or so. Unless the wielder is big and strong and uses a blade 40-48" long with just one hand I wouldn't really consider that weapon a side arm either. A sword wielded with both hands seems more likely to be the main arm that a guy would use on foot rather than a sidearm.

But let's set all that terminology and definition aside. The reason, as I understand it, to use a two-handed weapon is to get more leverage, control, and power than one would get from a 1 handed weapon. That's all simple physics. And since using both hands means you can't actively use a shield, often (though not always, there are a lot of exceptions) those longer swords show up when armor gets heavy enough that warriors decide they can do without a shield while fighting on foot.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;989464Uh, the 'long sword' (which I freely grant is a loose term) tended to describe a blade between 40-60 inches in length and could be worn at the hip, and often was.  The hilt was often designed for two handed use.  But like I said, they were not the heavy German  (supposed) horse cutter swords.

Again, I'm not saying it's not true, but I'm wondering why the sword stayed so long as a mainstay of the elite soldier if it's really not as effective as it seems to have been portrayed.

I was referring to the Zweihander type 6' sword, which as I said functions as a pole arm. I agree longswords like the medieval claymore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claymore are much shorter, can be used in a hip scabbard, and can be used one-handed though they are too big for that to be ideal (slightly smaller bastard sword versions can be used one or two handed equally).  

I think longswords were in common use because they were most effective sidearm of the era, being the largest cut & thrust blades that could be carried in a scabbard, ideal for officers commanding troops. They can cut down unarmoured or lightly armoured infantry en masse, and can potentially thrust through mail, with the two-handed grip having better armour-piercing penetration than a one-handed arming sword. They can even be used one-handed on horseback. With half-swording techniques they have some ability against plate armour, though they are certainly not the best anti-plate weapon.

But AFAIK there is no evidence the longsword was ever the primary battlefield weapon - medieval infantry armies were usually dominated by pole arms, spears then pikes. Much like armies since pretty much forever until the 18th century. And cavalry used lances, likewise. The two-handed longsword was always primarily the weapon of an officer/leader, not a common soldier's weapon.

So like I said, the correct comparison for a longsword is the holstered pistol.

Edit: The factors that make a longsword a popular medieval officer's weapon also make it a logical choice for a D&D-style adventurer - effective, flexible, easy to carry - so I'm happy enough for RPG stats to reflect that. But on an actual battlefield you would see massed spear or pike, not massed longswords. This can be reflected by giving spears & pikes superior reach and lower space requirements.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;989726Sorry, you're right, I meant the the 40 to 48 inch blade, although a Long Sword classification DID go to 5 feet in length, it was typically used to denote two handed sidearms.  And that's type of sword I'm talking about, the two handed sidearm, why was it used in a battlefield situation?

A tallish man actually can* wear a longsword with 4' blade and 1' hilt scabbarded at the waist, and draw it. NB the waist is the narrowest bit of your body below the ribs, not lower down at your hips where we wear belts these days.

*Seen it on Youtube several times.
Matt Easton's Scholagladiatoria channel is extremely good. Skallagrimm Metatron Shadiversity Lindybeige are also useful for perspective; Easton is a real sword expert.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;989477Portrayed by whom and effective against whom, and when? From 1350 or so+, swords (sub-zweihander, which are definitely a specialty-use item) were low-effective against the most advanced armor of the day. Just like now an assault rifle (or machine gun, even grenades) are not the weapons to use against a tank. That does not make it useless on the field of battle. It just means that you used the sword (a very efficient-to carry sidearm) on the targets it was effective against, and mission-specific weapons against any full armored knights that walked into your path. One of the things that D&D doesn't really do well is emulate a real field of battle in that IRL, you would have dedicated knight-breaker troops, just as you would have the skirmishers, pikemen, cavalry, archers, squires carrying extra lances, guys trucking about ladders such that others can scale walls (if charging a fortification), and all sorts of dedicated, mission-specific labor.

Yup, I agree completely with this.

BTW for Christopher & Bren the current* medievalist sword typology for western European crossbar-hilt straight-blade cut & thrust swords goes as follows:

1. Arming Sword - a one handed sword about 3' to 3'6" total length. Until pretty late in the middle ages these were the only swords. They are pretty close to Classical-era straight edge longer blades like the Roman Spatha.
2. Bastard Sword - similar blade to longer arming sword, but hilt long enough for two-handed use. Typically about 3'6" to 4' total length.
3. Longsword - longer blade & hilt, designed for two-handed use but wieldable one-handed at a pinch. Typically about 4' to 5' total length. Eg medieval claymore. These come in around 1350-1400 AD.
4. Two-handed sword (zweihander) - giant late medieval polearm sword, definitely two-handed only. About 6' total length for practical designs, the really giant ones are believed to have been ceremonial. These are mostly 16th century, so barely medieval.

For RPGs I generally have the D&D 'greatsword' be what medievalists currently call the 'Longsword', ie a primarily two-handed sword up to 5' long that can be carried in a scabbard. D&D 'longsword' covers 'arming sword' and (in 5e D&D) the' bastard sword'. The 4e D&D exotic 'Fullblade' would be a Zweihander.

*They seem pretty settled on this, with some fuzziness around the bastard sword vs longsword distinction. It's a bit different from the early 20th century sources Gygax used, and also different from what people of the era used (mostly 'sword' and 'big sword').

I think the longest weapons are the nerdpenises being swung around in this hilarious thread.

Not that dangerous though, unless they're uncircumcised.

Two-handed/reach weapons are used because (theoretically, with the right training) they can "cover an entire line", this line being between/crossing the line drawn between you and your opponent's incoming angle, without using a shield. Longswords (2h/bastard) were probably favored in certain situations because they would bite-into, and secure a "bind", on a wooden-hafted weapon. Great for picking off lone pairs of pikemen (which your pike block should, have broken the opposing block into). When in a "bind", 3 things win over any amount of grunt force:

1. My edge against his flat (swords transfer this "edge/vs flat" better than pole-on-pole binds, this delivering better pressure sense to the sword wielder)

2. My sword on top of his sword (various mechanical things about the human body/center of gravity)

3. My strong in his weak (strong = closer to your hand, weak = further from your hand, the sword _is_ a sharp lever)

https://www.patreon.com/posts/more-on-dealing-4315265

Thus, you can "sweep" the center and control it with big swords without relying on a shield. You can only safely strike at your armed opponent if you first control the center.

Here is another great example from the Academie Duello in Vancouver BC: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4LAFFtVudQ

And here is Dimicator explaining leverage with polearms: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kP-0wZsLYRI

I seem to recall hearing about pikes that were metal 6 feet back from the blade.  It was to keep Zwihanders from chopping the points off.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;988213I use the space required numbers (in original D&D and in 1e AD&D) as a rough guideline (I allow some wiggle room in the numbers). If I deem there isn't sufficient space, I apply the non-proficiency penalty (this means that fighters can adapt to such situations better than other classes, which I like) to "to hit" rolls.

As usual, there's some kind of guideline for handling things in the original AD&D books.

Quote from: Headless;990097I seem to recall hearing about pikes that were metal 6 feet back from the blade.  It was to keep Zwihanders from chopping the points off.

I'm not sure there's any evidence of zweihanders being used to do that. They are not a great design for chopping - a wood axe would be much better. They are mostly thrusting weapons with a slicing capacity. Apparently merchants' bodyguards liked them as one zweihander could fend off a pack of unarmoured bandits with wide cuts, but I don't think that was their primary use.

I suspect their primary use was to kill enemy soldiers in the front rank once pikes were pressed in too close for the front pikes to be used. Halberds the same.

Quote from: Voros;989910I think the longest weapons are the nerdpenises being swung around in this hilarious thread.

Not that dangerous though, unless they're uncircumcised.

Uh-oh, someone's not being cool enough for Voros again...

As if you can't see the humour in the dead earnest Wikiexpert talk here Kruger.

Quote from: Voros;991155Wikiexpert

i'm using that at work. sometimes folks become subject matter experts because they read an article. i hate it, so now i will refer to it as Wikiexpert

Quote from: Voros;989910I think the longest weapons are the nerdpenises being swung around in this hilarious thread.

Not that dangerous though, unless they're uncircumcised.

Nerds calling a sword zweihander is always good for a laugh. It's not even the right term.

Leaving aside pathetic nerds attempting to mock slightly less pathetic nerds for discussing nerd stuff, Scholagladiatoria has just put up a "who used longswords" video - [video=youtube;ZMHAHOd2QCY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMHAHOd2QCY[/youtube]

Just to avoid potential confusion, it's worth noting that when Easton talks about "longswords" he's not talking about what is called a "longsword" in (A)D&D. When he talks about "longswords" or "bastard swords" the (A)D&D equivalent would be the (A)D&D bastard sword. When he talks about "arming swords" the (A)D&D equivalent would be the (A)D&D longsword.