FWIW, it also counters your claim that two-handers were, from the 1560's onwards, "fairly well gone, except for as Parade pieces". After all, di Grassi's original Italian manual was first published in 1570, and was later reprinted in English in the 1590s.
This was indeed interresting! Thanks; I feel more and more certain that I can claim that greatswords were used in war!
Esgrimador, once again, you seem to have misread what I wrote: "The Battle of Pavia (1525) really was the zenith for the Zwiehander, and by the 1560's they were fairly well gone, except for as Parade pieces." The Landsknecht had fairly well given the field up to the Reiter or Ritter by the 1560's, with the Zwiehander succumbing to the Reiterschwert and pairs of Petronels. Overall, the two handed swords were definitely on the decline, I'm hard pressed to think of any examples of two handed swords made after about 1580 not identified as Parade pieces, and they were certainly nothing more than a curio by the time you get to the 30 Years War, and the English Civil War. I'm hard pressed to even find references to them being used to any notable degree in the 80 Years War in the Low Countries or the French Wars. As far as George Silver, Di Grassi, and their contemporaries, of course they utilize these weapons in their training, and note their experiences in their books. It's not as if Di Grassi had suddenly acquired all of his experience in a single moment in 1570. I'm not sure of his exact age when he published that book, but I'd venture a guess that he was probably at least 30, and probably had around 15 years of swordplay under his belt, putting his experience between 1555-1570. Definitely in the declining years, but it's a safe bet that his tools, methods and teachers had been forged in the era just after the climax of the Italian wars, where all of this was quite fresh. Additionally, by reading George Silver's description of the Two handed sword, it appears to me that he is not referring to the same two handed great sword (such as the Zwiehander) that we've been discussing: "The perfect length of your two hand sword is, the blade to be the length of your single sword." This sounds much closer to the Hand-and-a-half swords or Reiterschwert that saw use through about the early 1600's, as they all have the 32-38" blade lengths and long handles consistent with the above. But again, I'm happy to learn more and share resources. Matthew
I am actually of the same mind, I feel that Silver's twohandedsword is really jsut a longsword, but no i ahve to conviince some SCAdians that his twohandedsword is the same as langenschwert
D, "Once again"? When did I "misread" you the first time? With all due respect, you are mistaken here, my friend (unless I am just "misreading" you yet again). Landsknechte continued to operate through the entire 16th century, though by the second half of the 1500s they didn't have the same old "punch" as in Frundsberg's day. Huge numbers of them served in the Spanish Army of Flanders. They seem to have emphasized the use of the pike, and had comparatively few firearms. Have you actually taken a census of fighting two-handers from various museums? Also, you must consider that any given sword had a working life of about 50 years or so (according to Oakeshott). And, in any case, Sir John Smythe mentioned in his Certain Discourses Military that two-handers ("slath swords") were still used to guard the standards in the 1590s. And yet he writes about the two-hander as if it was still used in his own time (and clearly it was, though it was not as common as in previous decades). A couple of things need to be addressed here. First off, there's always been some controversy over what kind of weapon Silver was describing. In his book on Silver's treatises, Paul Wagner concluded that Silver was talking about a ******* sword, but I disagree. Silver was pretty specific about his terminology (during a time when terminology could often be fairly loose), and I suspect that if he was talking about a ******* sword, he would have termed it as such. The fact is that there are smaller two-handers, such as the Spanish montante, which would pretty much fit Silver's description of a properly-sized two-hander. Thus, what we're talking about here can be described as either a two-hander with a comparatively short blade, or as a ******* sword with a longer grip. Secondly, the reitschwert is a single-handed weapon, not a ******* sword. I'm going by the definition given by Ewart Oakeshott, in his European Weapons and Armour From the Renaissance to the Industrial Revolution. And certainly, every period representation of a reiter that I have seen shows them equipped with single-handed arming swords. Best, E
>When did I "misread" you the first time? I beleive it was with: "Forgive me, as I only quickly skimmed this thread ...where do you get the figure of sword-armed doppelsoldner making up only 0.5%-1%" ...but we've already covered that... >Landsknechte continued to operate through the entire 16th century, though >by the second half of the 1500s they didn't have the same old "punch" as in >Frundsberg's day. Huge numbers of them served in the Spanish Army of >Flanders. They seem to have emphasized the use of the pike, and had > >comparatively few firearms. You might not be misreading me, but you certainly seem to keep going off tangent and assuming I'm talking about the Landsknechts as a whole, and not the Zwiehander, or other two handed swords and their declining roles in Warfare in the 16th century. Yes, they (Landsknecht) did continue to operate, but they were no longer the "primary punch" of the Imperial Army, and as you have yourself pointed out their primary relationship to pike, the Zwiehander had fairly well vanished from the field, and the guns and powder were being further explored and developed for the Reiter, Carabin, etc., paving the way for the role that would eventually be dubbed Dragoons. By 1570, the Reiters were outnumbering the Landsknecht in their deployment, a fairly dramatic shift in the proportions of Light Cavalry to Pike, and it was also being mirrored by Henri of Navarre's and the Prince of Conde's actions in the French Civil Wars. It took the other end of the Hapsburg Empire (Spain) a bit longer to follow suit, and hence the English as well, but the tactical need, and notable presence of the two handed sword is slipping by the 1560's, and fairly well gone by the 1580's. >And, in any case, Sir John Smythe mentioned in his Certain Discourses >Military that two-handers ("slath swords") were still used to guard the >standards in the 1590s. If you're referring to "Certain Instruction Of Orders Militarie" from 1594, I've not encountered that section yet. He has several sections describing the Ensign and his guard of Halberdiers, and in his placements for battle he includes Pike, Shot, Ensign, Phife, Drums, Halberdiers, Battle-Axes, Demilaunces, Stradiots, Archers, Crossbowmen and Baggage, but no mention of two handed swordsmen. I haven't read it all yet, but if you could point me to that passage, I'd like to see what the context was, thank you. There was another book he wrote, I can't recall the title, but I'll dig that one up in case that was the one. >Have you actually taken a census of fighting two-handers from various >museums? Yeah, that's kind of what I do. I'll certainly never catalogue *everything*, but I've got a fairly decent library with various books covering the Landeshaus Graz, Imperial Armeria De Madrid, the Tower, Art Institute of Chicago, the Met, the Wallace Collection, etc., not to mention the standard assortment of Valentine/Norman/Etc. reference books on Rapiers and Swords. >Also, you must consider that any given sword had a working life of about 50 >years or so (according to Oakeshott). Of course, I'm not saying that they were all melted or discarded. It's merely that they had outlived their usefullness, and were on the decline, with very little being produced to replace them. >The fact is that there are smaller two-handers, such as the Spanish >montante, which would pretty much fit Silver's description of a properly->sized two-hander. Thus, what we're talking about here can be described as >either a two-hander with a comparatively short blade, or as a ******* sword >with a longer grip. ...which would be the point I've been making from the beginning. These are *not* the greatswords, two-handed swords, Zwiehanders, etc., that started this thread. On a different note, I've personally not heard the term 'Montante', and am intrigued. Have any online references to this class of weapon? I'll crawl through my Madrid museum book again, but would love to see some examples of this, and it's general features that put it in a different classification entirely. As far as the Reiterschwert goes, I tend to look at that as a term for where no better one exists. For the most part, the Reiterschwert are the complex hilted forms upon a sword, as opposed to a Rapier. If I say "swept hilt", most people instinctively put the word "rapier" on the end of it. Ewart Oakeshott himself had much the same viewpoint on the matter: from http://www.thearma.org/oakeshottinterview.htm: ... ARMA: " . . Another issue that causes confusion and which you wrote on is the difference between renaissance swords and rapiers." OAKESHOTT: "Oh my yes, there is much more to be said on this. There were numerous types of swords in use and rapiers were only one form. You wouldn’t take one in to battle. You only have to examine the swords [rapier blades] in hand to see real cutting would be all but futile. There were reitschwert, assorted basket hilts and such for that." ARMA: "Essentially, ‘cut-and-thrust swords’ like George Silver used." OAKESHOTT: "Certainly. I’ve written about this in my books. Fencing people have ignored or overlooked these swords. We’ve got them all over the place here." .... ARMA "To return briefly to the subject of sword types again, you point out the differences between blades in the renaissance that were swords and that were rapiers, this seems to be a matter that slips past a lot of people?" OAKESHOTT (laughing) "Yes, well we are dealing with both swords, or reitschwert as I call most of them, and true rapiers. There is a simple difference, there are two simple blades, one is broad with reasonable breadth and one narrow, one can cut an arm off …the other is a rapier. It’s for thrusting with. There’s simply no doubt that the true rapier has very little if any edge." At any rate, many of the blades identified as Reiterschwert by the curators actually have some very definitive "hand and a half" looking features to them: Here's one site: http://www.claudiospage.com/reitschw.htm There are three examples on this page that have the same handle/guard/pommel/blade scale, shape and arrangment as your typical "hand and a half", and at 47", 46" and 44", are certainly longer than your average single handed sword.
>And, in any case, Sir John Smythe mentioned in his Certain Discourses >Military that two-handers ("slath swords") were still used to guard the >standards in the 1590s. I found the citation you're referring to in 'Certain Discourses Concerning Formes And Effects Of Weapons', printed in 1590. It is in reference to how the Imperial forces are drawn up: "When the great Princes of Germanie...are disposed to make warre...being bound (as they are) by their tenure Militarie to the Empire, some to find horsemen, and others to finde footmen at their own charges...form their regiments of footmen into great bands of 500 to an Ensigne..." "...the other cause that doth moove them to forme their bands so great, is, that their milicia consisting of Harquebuziers, Piquers, and some Halbarders, with a few slath swords for the gard of their Ensignes..." This again describes an approximate 1% distribution of long swordsmen (I, too will assume that that's what a slath sword is. Again, a new term I'll be looking into) to a company. Furthermore, it is described in the context of Militia being drawn up in time of conflict. I'd say that this brings your "50 years of usefulness" point into play, and that these weapons and fighters are the holdovers from the previous era. My point is that these are certainly not the "shock troops" many would have people beleive, are certainly in a gross minority of weapons in use on the battlefield by the last quarter of the 16th Century, and are no longer the "weapon de jour" in warfare, they are more like the weapon of "yesteryear". Regards, Matthew
