So my take on this is unless you’re using a dagger you should be able to use two hands to boost both the speed and attack strength of wielding a sword. Long/bastard/other however depending on the weight of the weapon swinging with both hands will cause you to stagger when swung with full force. I think of a bat for instance. I can wield with with one hand (and do so pretty effectively) Though I can swing much faster and stronger with both. Though recovering from the swing can take longer than if I use only one hand.
I think most of you here miss the point that using a one-handed weapon gives you the possibility to use a shield for defense. That’s especially useful in open battle when you have defend yourself against archers while proceeding.
You would either choose a big, heapy and long weapon (like a big axe, a warhammer or a polearm) in order to kill your opponent with brute force and with the benefit of your bigger range or you would choose a leightweight one-handed weapeon (like a sword or a mace) in order to strengthen your defensive abilities with a shield.
Fighting with sword and shield was probably the preferred way of the mounted soldiers aka knights since they already use a shield on horseback and the (not too long and heavyweight) sword is their usual second weapon. It was quite usual that the cavalry didn’t use their horses in open battle (often the terrain was not suited or the enemy infantry was too well equipped (polearms, shieldwalls) and trained for an attack on horseback) but used their second weapon and shield for the whole battle.
Two-handed weapons were more rare weapons used by only a few soldiers who were especially trained in using them. Even the “common” infantry was mostly equipped with polearms AND shields. They usually used their spears and halberds with only one hand in order to maintain the defense with their shield (building close lines very dangerous for cavalry). That was an effective tactic rooted in ancient Greek and Roman field tactics.
Many of the paintings show knights and soldiers in tournament or honory encounters. Different equipment was used there (bigger horses, heavyweight armor, bigger weapons). It’s quite probable that one category of fighting was the encounter with only a sword and without shield. In that case it would make some sense to use a big sword with both hands. That’s of course also true if you’ve lost your shield in a real battle.
Around the time the game takes place shield were slowly phased out since plate armor became better and more common. This game will still feature shields but around this time poleaxes and such were becoming the preferred weapons for Men-at-Arms on foot. the period from 1400-1450 is roughly the span of time when shields and armor were still used together.
Yepp, I agree. But heavy armour and shields both slowly died in the mid of the 15th century due to the upcoming of gunpower and handguns.
But yes, a knight in full plate armour could possibly go without a shield. But it’s imo worth to mention that a full plate armour was still very expensive and only a part of the fighting forces could afford one.
Well the shield went away from the battlefield a fair bit earlier than plate armor. I’d say heavy plate armor lived on till mid french war of religion (1580ish) and in the form of 3/4 plate armor lived on till 1648. Breast and back plates for heavy cavalry remained in use until the first world war in some nations. The need for a shield just disappeared because armor was good enough, and while full plate armor made to size in the period 1450-1550 was probably quite expensive the off the rack suits could be bought with two or three months worth of salary of an infantry soldier.
Then again the period this game is set in does feature shields so we could just stop discussing this now 
2 Likes
I don’t know if the plate armors and the shields are too much expensive, or if the people use it. Ok, but if you want to use a shield o don’t use it , why you can’t go to a battle with out a shield, and use 2 swords/axes/maces, why you can’t choose?
Well, dual-wielding is only effective in fantasy games but of course we should be free to use whatever we see fit no matter how effective it is…
I disagree. Depending on how you dual wield and how deft you are with both of your hands and what you’re wielding it can be very effective. Grant it you need to be strong as heck to be efficient (if you plan on blocking…which is one way of effectively dual wielding) or be like an illusionist on the battlefield or when dueling which is also effective.
The only dual-wielding tactic really performed on a bigger sclae as far as I know was using a dagger for defense as a sustitute for a shield. But using two “main” weapons like two swords or a mace and a sword was VERY uncommon and VERY hard to perform in way that is superior to fighting with a two-handed weapon or a one-handed weapon and a shield.
3 Likes
There was a Special sword in the holy Roman empire (Germany) called Zweihaender which was like the name says used with both hands. But you are right, the idea for the “Zweihaender” came from the “Langschwert”.
Also, kind of answering a bit late, but hey?
WTF?? it’s not important what is his real o correct name LOL I propose a different combat system, yes? we can talk about this?
My combat system talk about what happening if can you take the weapons with one or two hands, if you can, the power, faster, agility, precision skills change it? and we will have diferents o specials movements?
The right name is quite important because there are so many names out there it is very easy to talk about something completely different. Back when the swords were used there hat not been a clear definition, they where often just called swords, no matter if they were one or two handed or how big they where.
The long sword, the one that is nowadays liked to be called bastard-sword, was normally used with both hands. One is faster, more precise and can do much more than used with one hand. With one hand they are to big for precise movement and one has to swing it.
Swinging ones sword is something that is done in Hollywood and by people with too heavy swords, it is slow, gives away what one is about to do and leave one open. Not really healthy.
The big two-handed swords in Germany were primarily used for opening spearwalls and they became quiet famous in southern Europe in the renaissance. The really heavy ones that gave the wrong idea about how heavy swords had to be, were made in the 19. century when every owner of a castle thought he needed some weapons, and they were only for show.
In the medieval ages they seemed to have tried very much, a lot of crazy stuff can still be found in museums, but there is no evidence of two swords, and like the scabbard on the back (also some fantasy bullshit), there sure had been good reasons not to do that.
With the scabbard it is clear, because it just does not make sense at all, why they never had two swords is an other question, but probably with the same explanation: It does not make sense.
For example: In the i.33 one uses the bucker primarily to protect the sword-hand, which is the vulnerable body-part. With two swords one has two vulnerable of them and no way to protect them…
And what about the one-handed swords?