Printable View
... a two handed sword, horse based unit?
I would assume that the physical limitations of wielding a 2 handed sword whilst riding a horse would make it impractical, but I am ever curious.
Has there ever been someone famous who did so? Or a particular unit?
I don't think so. As a Warhammer player, I have always been bugged by the fact that game system favoured such an impractical weapon choice for mounted characters (it's been toned down in the latest version of the rules).
The closest I can think of are the "naginata cavalry" of STW/MI. But even then, I am not sure there is a historical basis for the unit.
2h cavalry is impractical from many standpoints.
for example:
A. Your defenseless on the side you aren't swinging your sword, making you an easy stabbing dummy by spears.
B. It's very cumbersome using a 2h weapon while being atop a horse, especially since you can't put your weight into the blow effectively.
C. 2h weapons are usually used to overpower your foes with excessive force, to crush their armor and shields through sheer might, and if your cavalry, it would be easier to either let the horse do that (just by kicking or bumping into people) or to merely charge with a lance or similar weapon which has an even greater shock(both physical and morale) effect upon the enemy.
of course, i'm only using my logic to dictate this, but i think it has some good points to consider regarding this:sweatdrop:
Summary: it is illogical to utilize a two-handed mêlée weapon while atop a horse.
Hmmm, I don't think "cumbersome" and "unwieldy" would apply as an explanation. I mean, bows are cumbersome and unwieldy, but there still were a lot of determined people with very, very strong thighs who used them on horseback.
But the problem with a 2 hander weapon is that there's really only two ways to strike with them : horizontal slash and vertical slash, and that's about it, they're too unbalanced for anything fancier. Or, to put in another way : decapitated horse and halved horse :grin:. Other types of moves with 2 handers mostly involve using their momentum to (roughly speaking) make figure eights with them without stopping, and that requires stability and space, neither of which can be found atop a horse, especially if he's tossing and turning and jumping and kicking and biting, as a warhorse if wont to do.
All horses are stark raving mad creatures by nature, war horses are even worse because they're further trained to be. War horses in the middle of a lot of hostile people ? We're talking Hannibal Lecter nuts. Totally Librarian poo.
And you don´t fall from your horse using a bow... ever imagined to swing a really heavy weapon down from a horse to one side and miss the enemy?!? How are you supposed to keep your balance and not to fall?!?
Plus it depends a lot on which type of two handed sword you are talking about.
Using a Katana from horseback isn't too hard compared to some of the other blades. A Katana can be used either one or two handed. Using a claymore wouldn't be as the weapon is designed to be used not only two handed, but also it is intended for you to use more than just the blade in combat. For the traditional claymore the very large pommel weight can and often was used to beat someone senseless if they got too close for you to use the full blade on them effectively. Likewise you could shift your lower (normally left) hand up to above the cross piece to aid when blocking with the weapon (additional leverage) and this grip allowed you to use the blade closer in as well as punch with the weapon.
Most of these manuvers would not be practical from horse back.
I am sure someone did try using one, especially if they didn't have something better at hand. I do not know of any historical units that did this.
I think the real question is, why would you *need* to use a two handed weapon from atop horseback? I'm sure it's feasible: using a lance is equally clumsy and clunky and awkward.
However a lance beats out a two handed weapon on the initial charge, and for melee combat, any advantage the rider would get over a one handed weapon by using a two handed weapon is automatically granted to him simply by virtue of sitting atop a rearing warhorse. (Greater reach, greater momentum and crushing power).
A guy on the ground needs a two handed weapon to effectively strike at a guy on a horse: a guy on a horse does not need a two handed weapon to effectively strike at a guy on the ground. So, why use one when you can kill the dude just as easily with a one handed weapon and have the benefit of a shield for your offside?
Because it looks freakin awesome, thats why!
13th century manuscript showing a knight wielding a two handed glaive;
http://www.medievaltymes.com/courtya.../otm10va&b.gif
It was certainly unusual, but not totally out of the question.
Cutting your own horse's head off, falling to the ground, dropping your oversized weapon in the process, and ending up wallowing under a few hundred pounds of bloody meat (until recently your mount), is NEVER freakin' awesome. ^_^Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshwa
HighLord z0b
I'm not sure if we could consider that perfectly accurate. After all, it does show the following;
1) Being shot in the chest with a crossbow bolt doesn't impact your ability to lift and throw very heavy rocks.
2) It is perfectly acceptible to look under another man's kilt when he's climbing a ladder.
3) Knights flying around in chain mail was an accepted fact.
4) The bow on a crossbow was aligned vertically, not horizontally.
5) Large shields are carried much as a modern boxing glove is worn, but only if you are also using a dagger as your main weapon when storming a castle.
In all, I'd say there are a few issues with this picture that don't match reality. It is probably just as accurate as most of the current action movies are. Its intended for entertainment, not education, and as such does have some "Artistic license" used in it.
Don't forget "a discharged crossbow's string stays taut" :grin:. I love your Hollywood analogy though. I wonder if historians take that factor into account enough... (or should that be "take that factor enough into account ?". Or even "Take into account that factor enough", maybe ? This is a real question.)
I do wonder what those mailed legs hanging in the air are supposed to represent. "And Sir Ulstain was uppercut'd so hard he flewedth to t'moon" ?
The weight of it has little to do with why its impractical. Using a 2hd sword is imbalancing and near impossible to get both hands on it and swing without hiting the horse. Which is why they werent used.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thurak
A katana is special. It's a one handed sword, thats had its handle elongated to allow for 2 hands. Which is were it derives alot of its power from. The wieght of a 1hd slashing sword with the force and the speed of a 2hd sword.Quote:
Originally Posted by John_Longarrow
A claymore is a 1hd scottish cavalry sword. What your refering to is a cleavemore (sp). But almost any 2hd combat technique involves balance and two feet on the ground to build and maintain momentum and parry.Quote:
Originally Posted by John_Longarrow
What !?Quote:
Originally Posted by BigTex
Even a basic google search for "claymore sword" will return thousands of results which define claymore as "two handed sword used by highlanders", with pictures and everything. Google "cleavemore" returns exactly 3 results, one of which is at the .org ... The term "claymore" refers also to a type of scottish one-handed sword, but that usage is far less common and it's a weapon that only came into use around 1700-1800, not our period of interest.
As to the original topic, the only sane way I can imagine using a large 2h sword would be to swing downward with one hand, along the side of the horse - imagine a polo player with a mallet hitting infantrymen en-passant. Trying to use it with both hands would result, as other have pointed already, in either the horse losing important parts of his anatomy, or the rider falling off if he leans too far on one side to avoid hurting his mount.
The following resources might be useful regarding sword research:
An introduction to Oakeshott's Typology of the Medieval Sword
For hand-and-a half and two-handed swords in particular:
Oakeshott Type XII Swords (Subtype XIIa)
Oakeshott Type XIII Swords (Subtype XIIIa)
Oakeshott Type XV Swords (Subtype XVa)
Oakeshott Type XVI Swords (Subtype XVIa)
Oakeshott Type XVIII Swords
Doesn't immediately pertain to the use of two-handed swords in a cavalry context, but there's a lot of good background about the history, use, construction and utility of such blades.
It's out of proportion, but it clearly a depiction of contemporary battle. Think of it as a representation, or icon, rather than an attempt to realistically portray the physical dynamics of battle.Quote:
Originally Posted by John_Longarrow
I fail to see why the artist would represent a sword being wielded two-handed if it never happened.
It's pretty obvious that a knight, once in the chaos of battle, could wind up using two handed strokes from his horse, I dunno if anyone brought a sword in for that purpose, but I think we need to remember that knights were not always very strictly regimented. A few individuals could have tried out that tactic, or even been proficient in it.
A lot of the medieval manuscripts were full of 'artistic licence', which why in a lot of them you will see longbowmen pulling there bows back to there chest and not there ear. I think it was probably also easier to draw the face of the archer without a bowstring in the way.
Anyone who has tried shooting a longbow would know that pulling it back to the chest will end up with an arrow that goes about 10 yards. That and a nice bruise on your forearm from the bowstring hitting it:oops: (and believe me it hurts)
special characters - yes. usually these are the unusually strong generals in ancient times. in china, there was actually one general who was so famous that he is worshipped as a deity! (Guan Yu) but until he gets a kickass horse, he did complained that the poor horse was unable to take his weight! :sweatdrop:
reference:
i dont doubt that noone has ever tried swinging 2-handed weapons on horse, but they probably given up after kissing Mother Earth too many times!:beam:
Only 2-hand-weapon used (frequently) by cavalry is the spear.
Naming the kontos a spear of 3-4 meters used by cataphracts.
Or the naginata used by japanese cavalry.
Don´t forget the medieval lance.
Don´t forget:
MTW2 is a game.
That was really the specific one I remembered. I was curious if there were further examples.Quote:
Originally Posted by Airfix
Thanks for the input everyone =)
Wasn't the Naginata used sort of like a scythe, held down to swipe the poor sods while your horse runs forward, rather than actually swung ? Letting your horse do the job and just hang on as much as you can, sort of thing ?
I don't think these were necessarily two handed weapons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Airfix
The most likely to have been was the Kontos, but evidence to support this or its assumption and even its length has been contrived from modern experimentation rather than historical evidence. Many actual images of the Kontus in action show it being held in one hand just like a spear, the theory that it must have been used two-handed seems to be based upon the results of tests to determine the maximum practical length (4.5 metres/16 feet) that a Kontus might have been.
However, this length is pure conjecture and even if it was accurate then it provides no information on how it was used or held.
The Naginata for example is a balanced weapon designed to be held at its point of balance and either spun or used in wide sweeps, with both ends having purpose. Two hands might be employed for some of these movements but the weapon itself does not require to be held in two-hands to use.
The spear is also a balanced weapon designed to be held in one hand, either overarm or couched and thrust in short jabbing strikes or swung in wide sweeps to clear space around the rider. There are images in Napoleonic cavalry manuals of lancers holding their spears in two-hands but these are misleading in that they exist to demonstrate the drills needed to change the grip on the weapon to face threats from various angles rather than the grip maintained on the weapon when attacking with it. These lances were 9' long and weighed four pounds.
The medieval lance was definately a single handed weapon, held couched and in most cases actually locked in place by the armour of the bearer. The riders other arm was occupied by his shield and the reigns. It relied upon the impetus of the horse to drive it home and was thus useless after the initial impact of the charge and was probably discarded.
The big issue for all these weapons was the ability of the rider to keep his seat on a horse whilst using them. The Medieval knight had a special saddle to prevent him being shot backwards over the backside of his horse upon impact, but even so the fixed nature of the lance would probably have dislocated his shoulder and perhaps broken his collar bone if some sort of shock absorbing system was not included in the weapon itself.
The Napoleonic lancer (really a mounted spearman in all but name) had to be very careful to approach his target at a regular speed and time his jabs perfectly so that the point was not driven too far into the enemes body. Failure to do so, was a common mistake by new recruits and led to numerous broken wrists and even deaths during training as a result of the lancer being catapulted over the head of his horse. At Waterloo for example the lancers who defeated the Scots Greys did so at the walk, simply moving forward slowly in line and jabbing at them until they fell off their horses. Dragoons bodies were found to have anything up to 20 stab wounds in them after the battle where the French had repeatedly thrust their spearpoints into them a few inches and then withdrawn them and thrust again.
One would assume that a this technique would have been equally valid in ancient times, if not even more so as many ancient cavalry are depicted riding with no saddle or stirrups to keep them on their horse and so any impact or imbalance would have been critical.
That seems unlikely, the laws of physic's means that any impact occuring at the end of a pole arm will be magnified several fold at the pivotal point. Therefore, the most likely result of allowing the end of a Naginata to strike any object at the gallop would be to inflict a massive torgue effect at the other end. Given that the rider would be holding the weapon at its point of balance the likely outcome is that the pointed end dispatches the target whilst the blunt end dispatches the rider, in an early form of mutually assured destruction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2fr
Its more likely, in my opinion, that any swing would be timed to strike the enemy a passing blow from behind so that the impetus of the horse was not added to the impact.
But if so, then the speed of the horse's forward motion will decrease the force with which the naginata strikes the enemy, weakening the blow proportionally as the speed of the mount increases. Perhaps it was designed for use when relatively stationary?
Thats the point really, by striking backwards the impetus of the horse works with you to remove the blade from the victims body, if on the other hand you strike on the approach the impetus works against you and is likely to force the blade harder into the target. Needless to say, if the blade becomes imbedded in a dead weight whilst your mount continues to move way at a gallop something has to give, which probably means, your arm, your marriage to your horse or your weapon. None of which are particularly conducive to survival on a battlefield.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rebellious Waffle
Another interesting question is how the naginata user would acheive purchase for any sort of swing without exposing himself to an enemy sword thrust. On foot defence is acheived by rapid movement and creating a space around the fighter by sweeping his weapon, but that become less practical to acheive on a horse. The horse is hardly going to be able to predict its riders intentions and may well have its own views on what is appropriate, whilst sweeping a pole weapon defensively becomes a lot more awkward with a horse between your legs and its head blocking the forward quadrant of the swing.
The French napoleonic drill manual for lancers shows various procedures for weilding a pole weapon defensively including one for defending yourself from an attack from your exposed left side by using a similar sweep like movement. This basically involved, raising the lance over your head with one hand, spinning it in your open palm so the point was facing over the horses rear and then sweeping it forwards across the left side of your horse and over your horse head in the hope of distracted your attacker. Trying to actually do that in any sort of swirling melee would have been pretty challenging and the results not particularly likely to succeed, even if you managed not to drop the lance during the spin. Not to mention the fact that sitting there with your arms raised over your head is just inviting someone to stab you in the chest.
Needless, to say the evidence is that such drills were rarely followed in actual battle and the most common solution seems to be to drop the lance as soon as the combat got messy and switch to your sword. Two-thirds of the men in all lancer regiments carried swords anyway, simply because anyone not in the front rank armed with a lance was more of danger to his friends than the enemy.
To me, the 'omg they'd cut the horses heads off' argument is one of the least plausible for why two handed weapons were not widely used on horseback.
I believe it is because they weren't necessary, and the benefit of a shield outweighed any advantage having a two handed weapon would give a mounted soldier.
An amusing bunch medieval knights must have been, always cutting off theri own horses heads and then crashing gloriously to the ground where the weight of their armor would prevent them from even getting up!
Hey, where else would they get the one horse's head in the Godfather?
From the links you posted (Oakeshot XIII page) :Quote:
Originally Posted by Rebellious Waffle
"These swords were devastatingly effective in slashing attacks from horseback or two-handed use when dismounted."
... which suggests these swords were used by mounted warriors, probably with one-handed swings to the side, and normal 2h use when off the horse.
Unfortunately, no other links are provided to support this affirmation, except the original source books.
Thats another myth, beleived to have been based on the fact that Henry VIII needed to be winched onto his horse for jousting contests, mainly due to the gout in his legs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulstan
Weapons Archeologists like Mike Loades have demonstrated repeatedly that not only could a knight in full plate get up off the ground, re-mount his horse and climb a seige ladder in full armour, but that they could run jump and even dance in armour if need required.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ars Moriendi
Honh, I must've missed that sentence the first time around.
A reference from page 38 of Medieval Swordsmanship: Illustrated Methods and Techniques by John Clements:
Quote:
Long-Swords
The various kinds of long-bladed swords with handles long enough to be used in two hands are deemed long-swords. Long-swords, war-swords, or great-swords are characterized by having a long grip and a long blade. First recorded in English about 1450, the term long-swords was undoubtedly used earlier, at least in Germany... Long -swords (or war-swords) eventually helped lead to improved armor, which, in turn, led to the development of larger swords. Longer swords were also necessary on horseback, since larger war horses were then being used to accommodate more heavily armored riders as well as the animal's own armor protection. Sitting higher up called for a longer weapon to reach opponents on foot and on the ground. New evidence suggests such swords were in use as early as circa 1150.
What he said. From Wikipedia :
Granted, the suits of armour worn by re-enactors are made out of better quality metal, and are probably a bit lighter than the real thing because of this, but on the other hand your run-of-the-mill re-enactor is a librarian, historian, scientist and so on, not a fit, trained and exercized military man.Quote:
While it looks heavy, a full plate armour set could be as light as only 20 kg (45 pounds) if well made of tempered steel. This is less than the weight of modern combat gear of an infantry soldier, and the weight is better distributed. The weight was so well spread over the body that a fit man could run, or jump into his saddle. Modern re-enactment activity has proven it is even possible to swim in armour.It is possible for a fit and trained man in armour to run after and catch an unarmoured archer. The notion it was necessary to lift a fully armed knight onto his horse with the help of pulleys is a myth originating in Mark Twain's "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court", and only rarely occurred in the 19th century. Even knights in enormously heavy jousting armour were not winched onto their horses. This type of "sporting" armour was meant only for ceremonial lancing matches and the design had to be extremely thick to prevent severe accidents, such as the one causing the death of King Henry II of France.
This idea that plate armour was super-heavy stems from a complete misunderstanding of the whole point of platemail : the idea was not to take the hits like a WW2 tank armour would, but to deflect them harmlessly, mostly through the use of curved surfaces and clever design. So they didn't need to be that thick.
(To be 100% accurate, WW2 tank armour was often sloped, and thus also caused shots to glance off sometimes but it wasn't the reason it was sloped in the first place - it was so you had more "effective" thickness compared to a vertical plate, as the incoming shell would have to punch through more metal. So in essence, it was the brute force approach to armoring :grin:)
I wouldn't rule out the possibility that medieval armors were very light -- I know swords made during that period were dramatically lighter than most modern replicas (.9 to 1.3 kg, whereas modern replicas often weigh as much as 5.4 kg) so armor weight close to, or perhaps less than, that of modern replica armors might not be out of the question.
@Rebellious Waffle
So, it seems the real issue was length of blade rather than the type of grip used to weild it. This must have been a specific medieval problem as it does not seem to have been carried forward into later era's of cavalry weapons. So either the horses were a lot higher or a difference in saddles and armour had a major impact upon the ability of the rider to reach dowwards.
Nevertheless, Long Swords were designed to be used either one-handed or two-handed depending on circumstances, bit like a tennis racket.(Sorry been watching Wimbledon)
I don't know about using a 2h sword from horseback... Seems largely impractical to me...
However, on the plate armour side, being able to mount your horse without putting a foot in your stirrup (ie jumping on your horse) in full armour, was considered a good omen when a squire was granted the knight title...
So armour should not have been that heavy...
Still on the armour question, one should remember that plate (as stated by Kobal) was mainly used to deflect blows and was worn over chainmail and leatherjackets that would take the brunt of the blows should they pierce said plate, so the metalworking on the plates was generally recognized as one of the masterworks of the times and whole towns and smiths gained reputation as being able to make the most formidable plates (Milan and Nurnburg among them around 1250-1300)...