two handed weapons

Users who are viewing this thread

illyrian

Recruit
I was watching the movie "Kingdom of Heaven"
The knights had what it seemed like bastard sword, what we have to use in the game with two hands. When riding a horse, these weapons were used one handed, with a shield on the other hand. When the knight would discart the shield, he then used his weapon two handed, with more speed.

I think that it should be incorporated in the game also. Two handed weapons, not all but some, should also be used one handed but with a slower reaction time to show that it's best use would be with both hands. It would make the game more interesting, and more fun. :lol:
 
Bastards swords were a weapon that could be used single or two-handed. I think this is isn't hard to implement. Just make you use them one handed qith a shield equiped,and two handed when without shield.
 
So you've got, say, a bastard sword that you can use with one hand with the speed of, say, a falchion and still hold that shield, but ditch the shield and the sword turns into a firebrand, eh?

I LOVE IT. :grin:


*promotes*
 
I think there was an option like this available in Diablo II, if I'm not mistaken.

But using it one hand should have a higher strength requirement than using it two hands.
 
Garth said:
I think there was an option like this available in Diablo II, if I'm not mistaken.

But using it one hand should have a higher strength requirement than using it two hands.

in diablo 2 only the barbarian class were able to weild 2-handed swords with 1 hand. 2-handed maces, axes, etc were still not able to be weilded in a single hand
 
that is precisely my idea, that two handed weapons be allowed to be used one handed, with alittle penalty, it is allowed.
It just needs to be incorporated.
Another thing about two handed swords, they were not that heavy as to not be used one handed. They usually ranged at the 10-18 pounds, not more.
 
I think that you should have onehanded, 1½handed, and two handed weapons. The heaviest weapons should still require two hands, but battle axes and bastard sword could be used with one. And broad/longswords and fighter axes could also be included in this category.
 
I dont think all two handed weapows should be used onehanded. I just said that bastard swords were used this way in history. Certainly, it should be not that good wielded with only one-handed, but this would be balanced by its flexibility.
 
illyrian said:
that is precisely my idea, that two handed weapons be allowed to be used one handed, with alittle penalty, it is allowed.
It just needs to be incorporated.
Another thing about two handed swords, they were not that heavy as to not be used one handed. They usually ranged at the 10-18 pounds, not more.

More usually around 7 pounds, actually, but even that is far too heavy to be sensibly used in one hand. You'd be cut to pieces by any opponent with the sense to wield a weapon properly.
 
Balance is as important as the overall weight of the weapon (the balance means how far is the centre of mass from the hilt of the weapon). Weapons that are balanced towards the hilt are easier to control and faster, those balanced towards the tip hit harder.

It must be said that there is a great difference between, say, Scottish claymore and landsknecht's two-handed sword.

But I agree, two handed weapons should be used in one hand only with a considerable penalty in speed and damage dealt.
 
illyrian said:
that is precisely my idea, that two handed weapons be allowed to be used one handed, with alittle penalty, it is allowed.
It just needs to be incorporated.
Another thing about two handed swords, they were not that heavy as to not be used one handed. They usually ranged at the 10-18 pounds, not more.

TEN TO EIGHTEEN??? :shock:

Good god man! :lol: Try a less than half! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Swords weights varried based on their duty of course, but a light, long, fast bastard sword like the young bucks carried around in the cities in the late 15th C. could weigh less than three pounds. Of course, those were meant for killing men wearing nothing more than the equivalent of a suit jacket. But even the huge Renaisance two-handers -zveihanders and flamberges and the like- rarely weighed more than eight pounds, and tended to weigh as little as six and a half!
It was only swords of state, ceremonial "bearing swords", that would have the enormous and elaborate hilts, tremendous overwide, overlong blades and piercing and engraving everywhere that weighed in at those enormous weights we see in books. There's one in the Tower that weighs 27lbs! But of course they were never used in battle, or even picked up in anger. :smile:

Remember, swords are for cutting people to ribbons, not for bashing through plate armor. We have axes and warhammers and polearms for that. :wink:


A bastard sword, unlike many modern "replicas" that bear the name and the same general profile, was called that because it was equally useful in one hand or two, but not as handy in one hand as a shorter arming sword, nor as deadly in battle as a two-handed sword o' war. Thus it was between worlds, neither one nor the other -a bastard.

I would suggest that most of you would find a true, well made warsword to be easier to use in one hand than most of todays reproductions of one-handedswords. :wink:
 
Aah, Destichado speaks the truth once again. As you can see from his post theres a common knowledge that swords or axes "weighed" a certain amount when infact the more important part was the balance and feel of the blade or axe, and even more so the skill to wield it properly, if you need info on the net the first place to visit and learn first is www.thearma.org there youll learn that swords didnt never ever weigh 10-18 pounds, you have to be either nuts or fantazising if you think so, (no offence).
 
With Effidian tools, I made my "Holy Sword of Light", that is basically a sword of war, but can be used with shield, and swings right-left and left-right as one handed, and swings up-down and thrusts as two handed. Its weith is 20 :smile: , and is longer (130) and faster, and gives you protection... :twisted:

Well, I think that is no more realistic.

BTW, I promote the idea.

*promotes the idea too*
 
Historical Note:

Apparently, bastard sword's weren't supposed to be used like you guys are saying:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastard_sword

However, I do agree with the original poster's idea, unless using a two-handed weapon with one hand on a horse is physically impossible in a battle situation to the point where even in a game it's silly...
 
13 Spider Bloody Chain said:
Historical Note:

Apparently, bastard sword's weren't supposed to be used like you guys are saying:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastard_sword

:roll: looks like I'm going to have to clean up that article, then.
The guy had good intentions, and knew about fechtbooken, but he only read the ones that were about harnesfecten (fighting in armour) -completely ignoring (or never hearing about) the ones for blusfechten (fighting in plainclothes), which (depending on the school) was entirely different.

There's so much diversity in this time period that classification is a nightmare, not nearly as simple as wikipedia makes it. But it *is* a good start -encyclopedias generally are.
I must admit that I am not certain about the etymology of the term "bastard sword". Longsword is indeed appropriate -as distinguished from arming/riding swords, and "grete swaerds"/swords o' war (epee du guerre)/"too-hondet swords"... but I could have sworn "bastard" was period. I'll have to check.
 
Hmm, I honestly don't see the weight of most 2 handed swords to be much of a burden if ya ask me. Been ages since I worked out, but I can still hold 60-70 lbs straight out from my side with each arm, and dead lift around 450lish. I'm pretty well sure 5lbs give or take would make little difference to a guy trained to fight in plate armor.
 
then you tried a 1-handed sword :razz:

there weren't that much 2-handed swords, because most swords could just be used 1 or 2 handed. (and many swordsman found it better to lift with two hands, would allow you to strike faster and more powerful, and for many even dodge better than with a shield).
also having studied kenjutsu for 7 years, it's very hard to kill a man using one hand, the best you can do is to wound him to death, or cut his legs and then overpower him (this was actually a famous roman/medieval tactic with shields, where the warrior guarded his upper body and swang his sword in a diagonal cut from head height to leg height, this is also a very powerful blow physics wise)

now back to 2handed swords, i have once tried to lift a 2handed viking sword, the thing was huuuge (kind of reminding me of gatts sword, only not as thick), you simple can't cut anything with it if you only use one hand.
 
Destichado said:
13 Spider Bloody Chain said:
Historical Note:

Apparently, bastard sword's weren't supposed to be used like you guys are saying:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastard_sword

:roll: looks like I'm going to have to clean up that article, then.
The guy had good intentions, and knew about fechtbooken, but he only read the ones that were about harnesfecten (fighting in armour) -completely ignoring (or never hearing about) the ones for blusfechten (fighting in plainclothes), which (depending on the school) was entirely different.

There's so much diversity in this time period that classification is a nightmare, not nearly as simple as wikipedia makes it. But it *is* a good start -encyclopedias generally are.
I must admit that I am not certain about the etymology of the term "bastard sword". Longsword is indeed appropriate -as distinguished from arming/riding swords, and "grete swaerds"/swords o' war (epee du guerre)/"too-hondet swords"... but I could have sworn "bastard" was period. I'll have to check.

I'm also realtively certain that "Bastard Sword" is period, and the origin of the term in your earlier post as well. On a side note, the "Long Sword" is actually a much more ambiguous title than the Bastard Sword. Whether or not it's agreed that "Bastard" is period, it is generally accepted that the term refers to the hand-and-a-half swords that could be wielded in one hand to allow a shield and also be used with both hands to allow for more forceful strikes and faster blade control. However, "Long Sword" has been used to refer to dozens of styles of blade, from swords akin to a longer version of the short sword, thinner versions of a broad sword, all the way into the late 1600's when many english fighting sailors used a very saber-like sword referred to as the "Long Sword".

Now, for the subject at hand, I've always hated that people PUT bastard swords in games, and made them exclusively one or two handed (usually two, from my experience). If you don't want to go to the effort to make the sword do what it exists to do, then don't do it at all. I think it would be really cool if you could equip a bastard sword and a shield for fighting mounted, or fighting several opponents, but then ditch the shield if you're knocked off your horse and have to fight cavalry or a few straggling troops. I'd say for stats, it'd be one of the slowest one handers, but the reach, for a one hander, would be sickening, and the damage would be pretty heavy too. Conversely, when wielded in two hands, it wouldn't have nearly the reach true 2-handers do, but it would be blindingly fast in comparison, probably 25% faster than it was as a 1-hander. Oh, and since hilt and tip ballancing have been mentioned already, it might be good to point out that the bastard sword pictured in spider's link is hilt-balanced, as are all of the replica bastard swords I've ever seen. I believe this is an integral part of the design, enabling the weilder to use the sword competently in one hand, and blindingly fast in two. Honestly, one of the selling points (by this, I mean reasons a player would want to buy the bastard sword in the game) would be that, wielded two-handed, it would likely be one of the faster weapons in the game. Certainly not as fast as the scimitar, but faster than even a long sword, I'd say.

A note for the guy who doesn't think 5 lbs is a lot to swing around. First, the leverage of the sword works for you in terms of damage, but physics always works both ways, and the leverage works against you for endurance, those 5 lbs turn into 50 really fast. Also, battles took hours, in armor, in the sun, swinging, blocking, and running. Some lasted all day and into the night (though chivalrous, and I use the term loosely, commanders would normally break off before sundown). Today, highly conditioned boxers swing little more than their fists, without leverage working against them, several pounds of metal and/or leather draped over them, or the hot sun baking down, and are out of breath and soaked in sweat in minutes. Swinging a sword in a battle is no easy task, friend.
 
Hmm, I honestly don't see the weight of most 2 handed swords to be much of a burden if ya ask me. Been ages since I worked out, but I can still hold 60-70 lbs straight out from my side with each arm, and dead lift around 450lish. I'm pretty well sure 5lbs give or take would make little difference to a guy trained to fight in plate armor.
That's ****ing metal. Hardcore, dude.
The most I can mannage is around 45 lbs. Never did dead lifts, but I benched 250 and squatted 400 when I was still lifting, so you wouldn't call me a slouch. :lol: And still, let me tell you, those weights are decieving!

It's one thing to pick up a sword. Anybody can do that. Most anybody can swing them, too. If that were all it was, you would have seen Cloud's Buster Sword and Gutts's Dragon Slayer in real life. I can *swing* the zveihander you see here with just one hand for as long as you want. :wink: The trick is making them move faster than the othe guy's sword, so he gets hit and you don't. A three pound sword will kill you just as dead as a twenty-pounder. :razz:

also having studied kenjutsu for 7 years, it's very hard to kill a man using one hand, the best you can do is to wound him to death, or cut his legs and then overpower him
Svart: you've been using the wrong kind of sword for that. :wink: Nihon-to aren't built for such use, or not optimally in any case.
With one of these or one of these, it's the easiest thing in the world to cut a man's head off or split him from shoulder to spare-rib with just one hand. :twisted:
 
Back
Top Bottom