Has there ever been...

[Thurak]

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?!?

[John_Longarrow]

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.

[Ulstan]

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?

[Joshwa]

Because it looks freakin awesome, thats why!

[HighLord z0b]

13th century manuscript showing a knight wielding a two handed glaive;



It was certainly unusual, but not totally out of the question.

[Rhedd]

Because it looks freakin awesome, thats why!

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. ^_^

[John_Longarrow]

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.

[Kobal2fr]

Don't forget "a discharged crossbow's string stays taut" . 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" ?

[Da_Funkey_Gibbon]

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.

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.

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.

[BigTex]

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?!?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Ars Moriendi]

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.

What !?
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.

[Rebellious Waffle]

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.

[Ars Moriendi]

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.

From the links you posted (Oakeshot XIII page) :

"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.

[Rebellious Waffle]

From the links you posted (Oakeshot XIII page) :

"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.

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:

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.

[Didz]

@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)