11th century two-handers

[Merentha]

i mean that a 2hander are more wielded like an polearm than a than a sword with a grip for 2hands.

You'd be wrong then.  There were weapons, like the falx, nagamaki, or fauchard (whee!  I learned new weapons not too long ago) used like very short polearms, but longswords, greatswords, and other twohanders were used like, well, two-handed blades.

 

[Tarrak]

i mean that a 2hander are more wielded like an polearm than a than a sword with a grip for 2hands.

You'd be wrong then.  There were weapons, like the falx, nagamaki, or fauchard (whee!  I learned new weapons not too long ago) used like very short polearms, but longswords, greatswords, and other twohanders were used like, well, two-handed blades.

To make it simple and easy to understand, these weapons can with some artistic license be called 'sword-on-a-stick'. Until recently I didn't know there were European versions of this rather cool weapon class.
There has been posted a few images of such weapons in the suggestionthread for weapons.

 

[Gasolineh]

European version of what?

 

[Ezias]

swords on sticks

 

[Damien]

I'd never heard of falx-like weapons being used at such a late date. Any archeological evidence, depictions, or textual descriptions?

Not off-hand. But, generally speaking, weapons do not fall out of use if they work. And the falx and its descendants worked quite well. Combine that with the known fact that there were no two-hand swords in Europe in the 11th century, and you have a clear reference to the falx being used into the early medieval period. But for anything more 'solid' on the evolution and continued use of the falx, I'd need to check some sources, which I just don't have time to do these days. Sorry, man. Try looking into the Swabians -- you'll find their history quite readily linked with peoples who would have used the falx, and therefore. . easy explanation for how it would have showed up in their hands in the 10th and 11th centuries.

 

[Gasolineh]

aint the zweihänder style swords rellated to them? haha i would like to see someone wield that like a longsword

 

[ArabArcher35]

Zweihander just means "Two-Hander" in german. It's not a type of sword, it just implies that it's supposed to be used in two hands.

 

[nijis]

Okay, there's a mid-13th century falxlike weapon from the Maciejowski Bible posted in a pic over on page 5 of the armour effectiveness thread. http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,17042.60.html

That at least suggests that the falx line was still active. Why would two-handed swords in the 11c be ruled out? I see various references to Irish "lewing swords" on Google, although I can't figure out where the evidence for such blades are coming from. Are there metallurgical or other reasons why long swords would not be practical at an early date?

 

[Damien]

aint the zweihänder style swords rellated to them?

No.

haha i would like to see someone wield that like a longsword

Two-hand swords were very much used like proper longswords. Many of the stances, attacks, and guards are the same or similar. And half-swording was a popular tactic with both.

Zweihander just means "Two-Hander" in german. It's not a type of sword, it just implies that it's supposed to be used in two hands.

Correct.

Why would two-handed swords in the 11c be ruled out? I see various references to Irish "lewing swords" on Google, although I can't figure out where the evidence for such blades are coming from. Are there metallurgical or other reasons why long swords would not be practical at an early date?

They weren't practical for a number of reasons. The first and foremost is that metallurgy had not progressed to the point where -effective-, excessively long blades with proper blade geometry were even feasible. The falx, while an effective weapon, was fairly rudimentary -- heavy and prone to breaking from the stress of impact. They were also fairly thick. This is evidenced by the simple development of swords -- read up on the medieval sword and you will see how, with the progression of metallurgy, swords became progressively longer, often slimmer as well to facilitate a thrusting-oriented mode of combat. You will see that the paramount sword until the end of the 13th century was a single-hand sword. As plate armour developed, also thanks to advances in metallurgy, longer swords could be developed as well. There's also a related reason:

Armour. During the height of the single-hand sword, the pre-eminent armour was mail. Far less protective than plate. To put it simply, it was infinitely wiser to carry a shield than a sword that requires both of your hands. As armour progressed, shields became smaller, and were often discarded as superfluous. Without the need of a shield, the second hand was free and could aid in the use of a two-hand sword. Likewise, the advance in armour required a different approach to weaponry -- the single-handers of mail's day weren't quite as good against new forms of armour.

So, there are many reasons why two-handers didn't develop that early. And it was as much "no reason to make them" as it was "can't make them."

 

[nijis]

That sounds reasonable. Many thanks for the extended answer.