One-Handed Sword Use

[Armaddict]

So...in terms of code, there is no benefit to using a single weapon in one hand, such as a long sword or bastard sword (that I know of).

Historically speaking, does this line up well?  I only ask because in watching 'sword movies' of late, it came to my attention that the one handed style is prevalent.  Is this just movies, or was this actually a thing?

[valeria]

So...in terms of code, there is no benefit to using a single weapon in one hand, such as a long sword or bastard sword (that I know of).

Anecdotally speaking, I'm not sure your "no benefit" theory is on target.

[Patuk]

Two-handed swords are really expensive, harder to use for people fighting in formation, break far nore easily, and are not that much more useful. Shields are really cheap and practical in comparison.

[whitt]

So...in terms of code, there is no benefit to using a single weapon in one hand, such as a long sword or bastard sword (that I know of).

Historically speaking, does this line up well?  I only ask because in watching 'sword movies' of late, it came to my attention that the one handed style is prevalent.  Is this just movies, or was this actually a thing?

Shields were used because:
A) the other guy hitting you really sucks.
B) recover time is problem with longer blades (see A)
C) you can only parry a blow with your arm once (see A)
D) No shield, means no defense against archers (see A)
E) You can protect and be protected your buddies with a shield (see A)

Two handed swords generally were used to shatter pikes and the folks that use them chopped the ends of the pikes, then got right back behind the shields.

[Armaddict]

I mean just the sword and a free hand. No shield, but bouts of using two hands as desired. Its popular in show, was curious if it was rooted in historical swordsmanship. Aside from fencing.

[Tetra]

Its popular in show

Has popular television ever been an accurate or historically sound example of what is realistic in a fight?  My feeling says no.

[Marauder Moe]

If you're a front line fighter in an honest war, you probably would have a shield.  "Sword movies" aren't about those people, though.  

Shields are really heavy and interesting people like leaders and adventurers might be less inclined to lug one around all the time.

Using a sword with no shield is what fencing actually is.  In modern times it's been refined to mean fighting with a rapier, but 600 years ago fencing often meant longswords.

Hans Talhoffer wrote some once-lost manuscripts for some pretty intricate European martial arts forms with a lot of focus on the longsword (without a shield).

[RogueGunslinger]

Fencing is very much a thing in real life and isn't popular TV, but for combat... eh. Why wouldn't you keep a buckler?. Is a person any more able to dodge a strike without a shield than with? I find that doubtful. Maybe there's an argument to be made for slightly better agility, but in reality shields can be made both durable and light. Realistically using that one free hand to grapple is unwise, using it to keep balance should be unnecessary.

Really What benefits would there be?

[Tetra]

Fencing is very much a thing in real life and isn't popular TV, but for combat... eh. Why wouldn't you keep a buckler?. Is a person any more able to dodge a strike without a shield than with? I find that doubtful. Maybe there's an argument to be made for slightly better agility, but in reality shields can be made both durable and light. Realistically using that one free hand to grapple is unwise, using it to keep balance should be unnecessary.

Really What benefits would there be?

A co-leader of my RP guild on another game is a fencing instructor.  I asked her about mobility in full kits of armor and she said it's actually very easy to keep your balance, jump, and move around with moderate speed in plate.  Obviously you aren't going to be effectively kicking anyone but, I would think shields are much easier to handle by relative comparison.  And that is a non-Zalanthan human we are talking about, so we can assume off-handing a shield is no burden.

[HavokBlue]

I can't think of many instances in which a one-handed sword with no sidearm or shield would be prevalent except with the use of sabers and cutlasses on boats.

I believe the type of fighting Moe is referring to typically involved a hand-and-a-half (or bastard) sword which featured a shorter blade on a longer grip, allowing for two-handed usage when appropriate and one-handed usage when necessary. This kind of fighting is rarely pictured accurately in media though. Also keep in mind that the people fighting like this would have been clad in plate armor, which despite what movies will have you think, is not easily penetrated by a sword. Fighters would have been focusing on disarming and knocking their opponents over to deliver a killing strike to the neck, for example. One trick that stands out in my mind from personal research is a maneuver in which one fighter makes a two-handed, low thrust at his opponent's gut. His opponent (holding his own weapon with one hand on the hilt and one hand on the blade for increased leverage) forces the first fighter's blade aside and then in the same movement reverses the direction of his own weapon, sliding into the exposed joint at the back of the knee. You now have a hobbled opponent who you can outmaneuver or perhaps dispatch with a quick strike from your misericorde.

[valeria]

French guys doing things in plate armor.

[HavokBlue]

Fencing is very much a thing in real life and isn't popular TV, but for combat... eh. Why wouldn't you keep a buckler?. Is a person any more able to dodge a strike without a shield than with? I find that doubtful. Maybe there's an argument to be made for slightly better agility, but in reality shields can be made both durable and light. Realistically using that one free hand to grapple is unwise, using it to keep balance should be unnecessary.

Really What benefits would there be?

A co-leader of my RP guild on another game is a fencing instructor.  I asked her about mobility in full kits of armor and she said it's actually very easy to keep your balance, jump, and move around with moderate speed in plate.  Obviously you aren't going to be effectively kicking anyone but, I would think shields are much easier to handle by relative comparison.  And that is a non-Zalanthan human we are talking about, so we can assume off-handing a shield is no burden.

Some shields are light. Some shields are heavy.

Movement in plate armor can't be used as a factor for determining how heavy a given shield might be or how it affects your ability to fight. The reason you can wear 80 pounds of metal armor and chain is because it's distributed across your body and you aren't lifting any one part of it at a time. Assuming a normal range of motion afforded by most armor, you can generally expect to run, jump, and even cartwheel (with some small difficulty) in armor.

All the weight of a shield is being lifted and maneuvered entirely by your shield arm (a roman scutum is roughly 20 pounds, for example). Unless you're using a buckler or similarly small shield, you will not be able to easily two-hand your weapon, meaning you are missing out on a lot of physical power against your opponent.

[Erythil]

In terms of battlefield combat, I can't think of any armies that sent anybody into battle with a sword and no shield.

Even the urban duelists of the renaissance would commonly have a parrying dagger, metal gauntlet, buckler, cape, etc., in their off hand.

[Tetra]

Some shields are light. Some shields are heavy.

Movement in plate armor can't be used as a factor for determining how heavy a given shield might be or how it affects your ability to fight. The reason you can wear 80 pounds of metal armor and chain is because it's distributed across your body and you aren't lifting any one part of it at a time. Assuming a normal range of motion afforded by most armor, you can generally expect to run, jump, and even cartwheel (with some small difficulty) in armor.

All the weight of a shield is being lifted and maneuvered entirely by your shield arm (a roman scutum is roughly 20 pounds, for example). Unless you're using a buckler or similarly small shield, you will not be able to easily two-hand your weapon, meaning you are missing out on a lot of physical power against your opponent.

Right.  But in this context, are bone and wood going to reach more than say, 5-8 pounds for a medium sized shield?  I see Zalanthan armor being fairly lightweight, not only by virtue of the materials, but because the climate requires it.  Just to put things in perspective, the denser your shield, the more shock it will likely be able to absorb.  So the weight is a trade-off.

[lostinspace]

I was under the impression that one sword with no shield was just prevalent in entertainment because it was prevalent in noble duels. It was fancy and in style then, and now it's romanticized now. Same reason bull fighters fight witha one handed sword, it's fancy. Most people in heavy combat were probably more heavily armored, had a shield, or a polearm and was in formation with dozens of others.

[HavokBlue]

Some shields are light. Some shields are heavy.

Movement in plate armor can't be used as a factor for determining how heavy a given shield might be or how it affects your ability to fight. The reason you can wear 80 pounds of metal armor and chain is because it's distributed across your body and you aren't lifting any one part of it at a time. Assuming a normal range of motion afforded by most armor, you can generally expect to run, jump, and even cartwheel (with some small difficulty) in armor.

All the weight of a shield is being lifted and maneuvered entirely by your shield arm (a roman scutum is roughly 20 pounds, for example). Unless you're using a buckler or similarly small shield, you will not be able to easily two-hand your weapon, meaning you are missing out on a lot of physical power against your opponent.

Right.  But in this context, are bone and wood going to reach more than say, 5-8 pounds for a medium sized shield?  I see Zalanthan armor being fairly lightweight, not only by virtue of the materials, but because the climate requires it.  Just to put things in perspective, the denser your shield, the more shock it will likely be able to absorb.  So the weight is a trade-off.

A scutum is wood and leather and comes in at around 20 pounds. Viking round shields seem to average 15 pounds based on a quick search, and they also consisted primarily of wood and canvas or leather.

[Patuk]

There is an example of people fighting without shields whatsoever, and that example is called Japan.

Said example also isn't very good, seeing as the only reason they could even do so in the first place was that nobody else in Japan was using shields. If people had started using them, they likely would have conquered all of their silly island group very soon. Zalanthas has no example of a place where all the fighting is infighting and no outside threats exist.

Shields did exist in conjunction with two-handed weapons, or else there would never have been pike phalanxes. Such shields were also partially tied all along a man's arm and neck, however, and Zalanthas' terrain tends to be rough enough that it might often be impractical. Still, some militias could use the formation, since drilling your soldiers for it isn't complicated.

[Armaddict]

Thanks for the good feedback.

I was, essentially, fishing to see whether or not it was a good concept for a future warrior of mine, 'sensibly' speaking.  I don't think it is, after the responses.

As far as whether or not shows can show what's real...my thoughts were that basically things are choreographed.  Usually, choreography is a blend between something that exists (a martial art) and showmanship, but I couldn't find any examples for where it had existed outside of the rapiers of the renaissance.  So I opened it up for help.  So thanks, I appreciate it.

My impression is that the single long sword is viable, but only as either a two handed weapon or small blades being drawn and tossed.  Whatever, looking for style.   

[Harmless]

So...in terms of code, there is no benefit to using a single weapon in one hand, such as a long sword or bastard sword (that I know of).

Historically speaking, does this line up well?  I only ask because in watching 'sword movies' of late, it came to my attention that the one handed style is prevalent.  Is this just movies, or was this actually a thing?

Actually, I think that there is a mild bonus to disarm -- as I recall from (somewhere) being unarmed increases your success in disarming, so maybe being partially "disarmed" gives the same bonus.

Looking at this:

A few styles utilize one weapon only, with the body turned so as to present a minimal target to the opponent. The off-hand is then free to draw another weapon if needed, or else be employed for striking or grappling if the combat enters very close quarters. The wrist sheath hidden beneath a sleeve is a common tactic here, for a previously empty hand might suddenly have a knife or dagger in it, at a most inconvenient moment for the opponent. Exponents of this one-weapon style usually spend a lot of their time on extremely quick footwork.

So that might support it somewhat.

Finally, some nerdy videos from Scholagladiatoria, who is a fencing guy on youtube, sorry he's so loud.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7eQ0VB68_qk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maqnz3Trn2w

a quick summary of points in link 2:

one-handed swords are cheaper.
They are smaller (and thus encumber less when worn) -- noteable areas of difficulty are in drawing the weapon quickly and in mounting.
they are nimbler, and are thus better for parrying.
They are easier to use when mounted.
When wielded one-handed, a two-handed sword's hilt pokes out at you -- one can be trained to have that be less problematic.
note: a one-handed sword can still be grabbed in both hands (by holding the pommel), to still be able to wield it faster.

[Armaddict]

...watching that second video just made me really wish that the weapon economy was more present.  Alas.

[Harmless]

...watching that second video just made me really wish that the weapon economy was more present.  Alas.

Agreed 110%. If we could have weapons degrade over time, need to be sharpened to be of use if they were edged, reinforced if they were bludgeoning, etc, then that would really help a lot. A two-handed sword of fancy construction may become less desirable if it costs 300 coins every month or two of frequent use to repair it, and that over time, repairing it became more and more expensive -- weapons would have a lifespan.

As would make sense, the system now makes no sense (slight chance of a break happening, but it could happen at any time, and seems to be highly dependent on strength scores making it very very rare indeed)

[Armaddict]

...watching that second video just made me really wish that the weapon economy was more present.  Alas.

Agreed 110%. If we could have weapons degrade over time, need to be sharpened to be of use if they were edged, reinforced if they were bludgeoning, etc, then that would really help a lot. A two-handed sword of fancy construction may become less desirable if it costs 300 coins every month or two of frequent use to repair it, and that over time, repairing it became more and more expensive -- weapons would have a lifespan.

As would make sense, the system now makes no sense (slight chance of a break happening, but it could happen at any time, and seems to be highly dependent on strength scores making it very very rare indeed)

Well, not only that, but the kind of weapons that are common in game.  You see the longsword -everywhere-, when there's a significant amount of craftsmanship involved in just the extended pommel, it seems (that's not taking into account that such might be because of extending the metal, because I am a noob in these matters.)  However, it got me thinking along lines of high quality weapon-bone versus low quality bone, i.e. Mek bone might just be that much better.  Low quality craftsmanship on obsidian means it loses its edge after only a couple fights, due the chipping being done poorly so that the slivers breaking off don't maintain the edge, but take bulks off, etc.

Seeing that kind of variability in craftsmanship, and prices to go with it, would do wonders towards separation of social classes, I think.  In theory.  Mostly I just think it'd be awesome.

[Harmless]

I was under the impression that one sword with no shield was just prevalent in entertainment because it was prevalent in noble duels. It was fancy and in style then, and now it's romanticized now. Same reason bull fighters fight witha one handed sword, it's fancy. Most people in heavy combat were probably more heavily armored, had a shield, or a polearm and was in formation with dozens of others.

Yep, one handed and shield (usually a buckler) was extremely common. People wore this combination most frequently on a daily basis. Schola talks about this combo the most because it was popular for so long. In this video by him he talks about shield + sword combo. It's a long one -- discussion of different shield types is what he starts with, then begins doing demonstrations at 6mins.

In brief, a buckler is the best when you're wearing light or no armor. If you're wearing heavy armor, large shields were practical mostly to help you narrow down your opponents on the battlefield to those ahead of you and to your sword-arm side -- the heavy shield completely guards your body from the side, and from arrows etc, allowing you to focus. However, in one on one combat, a heavy shield sucks balls.

In arma, this could be coded by having a heavy shield give a bonus to shield use when fighting multiple opponents, and a small shield a bonus when fighting a single opponent (and being useless when getting "flanked" or attacked by multiple opponents).

I don't know how much multiple opponent fighting is coded, but if it was, then this would be a major decision maker in the choice of shield. "Am I likely to fight in duels or in mass combat?"

[HavokBlue]

Another thing to consider is that if you're using a one-handed sword, you're probably relying on thrusting attacks to deliver a killing blow or to penetrate weaker armor (this extends to longer swords to some degree as well) because a one-handed swing inherently carries less force, and the cutting edge of your blade does not have enough weight behind it to inflict serious damage with chopping motions. A thrusting attack concentrates the force at the point of impact, allowing a one-handed sword to achieve greater penetration against armored targets. I think the roman gladius is a good example of this, although I imagine if you are fighting one-handed, without a shield, you'd want a cross guard.




disclaimer: I have a lot of experience with modern epee fencing but relatively limited experience with traditional European martial arts.

[Patuk]

Gladii did not have crossguards, but then the Romans were too busy conquering the world to bother with fencing.

Also, I think that for Zalanthan materials, thrusting/crushing weapons would be much more practical than slashing ones.