Talk:Longsword

message: I deleted the following paragraph, because the wildly nonhistorical Dungeons & Dragons game doesnt count as an academic ‘context’.
*The term "longsword" is ambiguous, and refers to the "bastard sword" only where the late medieval to Renaissance context is implied. "Longsword" in other contexts has been used to refer to Bronze Age swords, Migration period and Viking swords as well as the early modern dueling sword.
Among the many mistakes in the above paragraph is the claim that the viking sword is a called a longsword. The fact is, Old Norse texts never refer to the viking sword (sverð) as a ‘longsword’. 
Unsourced dubious claims can be freely deleted.
Regarding the Longsword article. Dubious claims can removed − or require citations. The claim that viking swords can be called ‘longswords’ comes from Dungeons & Dragons (!) − is in every way dubious − and can be deleted!
If for some reason you feel the viking sword can be called a ‘longsword’ please cite an academic source.
172.4.208.9 (talk) 17:56, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: It is false to call a viking sword a ‘longsword’

message: A long sword and a bastard sword are 2 different things.
Dudtz 9/12/05 6:07 PM EST
the recent edits could do with some references, such as "avg. length 122 cm". Yes, it is a typical length, but what is the use of an infobox giving random "typical values" (a "time period" of 400 years...) for an umbrella term such as longsword. concerning the "corrected" "misinformation" on 'bastard-sword', are you claiming it is a Renaissance term? Where did you read that?? Let's see:
the very competent myarmoury.com has:
:By popular definition a Bastard Sword is a weapon designed for use with either one or two hands.
going on to say that it is a misnomer. Yes, it is a misnomer, and we treat the term to get it out of the way, but we certainly don't use it as a technical term, such as "Spanish tapering blades". It is incorrect to say that "A long sword and a bastard sword are 2 different things." because bastard sword is not even a well-defined term! (strictly speaking, the statement cannot be wrong, since ex falso quodlibet :). 19:27, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: According to whom? Cite some sources, please. --Fean 19:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Where is the citation saying specifically that the bastard sword is a type of longsword?  In fact, the article in general seems to assume that "bastard swords" and the like are "longswords" simply based on colloquial speech rather than actual sources technically defining the "longsword" as such.  For example, the citation for the opening paragraph is to an article that is simply named "What Did HISTORICAL Swords Weigh?" with only ONE instance of the term "longsword."  Zhandao (talk) 22:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The following paragraph is wrong, and removed from the article. Please cite credible sources and explain the context of “long” compared to what.
:The term "longsword" is ambiguous, and refers to the "bastard sword" only where the late medieval to Renaissance context is implied. "Longsword" in other contexts has been used to refer to Bronze Age swords, Migration period and Viking swords as well as the early modern dueling sword.[dubious - citation neeeded].  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.132.18.25 (talk) 21:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: This claim is wrong, or at least dubious and requires citation

message: i believe they are but can someone verify this for me? --Bob 09:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not the case, though a matter of semantics is in issue. The term zweihander/bidenhander translates to "two-hander" though it is a rather modern manifestation, a more historical term coming from the 1400's (as opposed to the 1600's) being 'espée a deure mains or spada da due mani'. This included primarily swords with much longer hilts than both the typical 'longsword' and the 'bastard sword' - generally, what is commonly known as a claymore today. Eventually, during the renaissance when the zwei/bidenhander term was coined, these swords gained a number of unique features including parrying hooks (parrierhaken), compound hilts, side rings, and in some cases, a flame-blade, making the sword a 'flammard', 'flambard', or 'Flamenschwert' (The term 'flamberge' applies to certain forms of rapiers). Therefore, we must assert that, due to the fact that while bastard swords did indeed include a longer hilt and compound hilt, they did not include the parrierhaken, large ricasso, very long hilt (12 or more inches in some cases), nor the exceptionally wide cross of 'True Zweihanders' which in almost all cases, contain all of the above with the exception of one or two. Xiliquiern 19:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Were These Used Widely in The Hundred Years War? 

message: I had this puzzle in mind: the long sword is very good for piercing armours.
Yet, it is used by two hands, so was it a weapon to be used on horseback? (I can't imagine a guy carrying a two-handed sword on horseback to fight) Or knights normally just charge with lances.. The lances are broken, and then they dismount themselves and fight on foot with their long swords?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sophisticate20 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: i think that a long sword would be used as a backup weapon, as a lance or spear would need to be dropped after impaling someone. imagine having to carry a body on a long spear with one hand and then try to maneuver to pry the body off. like how they used war-hammers on horseback to break sculls. 24.151.40.149 (talk) 23:26, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Longsword Usage - On horseback as well? 

message: "colloquially referred to as bastard-sword or hand-and-a-half sword" sounds suspiciously similar to the description of the "bastard sword" from the Player's Handbook for DND. Unless anyone can come up with any sort of non-gaming reference to either term, we should get rid of them. Blueaster 01:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bastard sword dates from the 15th c; see above. Hand-and-a-half sword is common in modern non-gaming works, e.g. (without getting out of my chair) Wilkinson, "Arms and Armour", 1978. In any case, I don't see why we shouldn't report on modern colloquial usage even if it is derived from D&D. Megalophias 02:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I meant "see above" on this talk page, where I gave references for "bastard sword". As far as I know, the arms and armour terms popularized by D&D were not coined by Gygax et al (); they come from older works (albeit often outdated now.) Megalophias 05:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: afaik, the terms bastard-sword and hand-and-a-half sword are 19th century curators' coinage. So no, they did not originate in gaming culture, but they are not 'proper' terms, neither in the sense that they were used historically (when the swords were in use) nor currently (in the sense that they are part of some classification system used by experts today). dab (ᛏ) 12:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The term 'epee' bastard' appears in reference to a 'bastard sword' (direct translation) as early as 1418. During the Renaissance (late 1500's and 1600's), the term was applied, incorrectly, to single handed arming swords (cut and thrust, if that pleases you). The problem of mis-use does occur in the 19th and 20th centuries as games, pop culture, and curators began to refer to longer or larger swords as bastardswords, a fallacy. Some of these do include swords with bastard-like blades and waisted hilts, but lacking the compound cross of many 'true' bastard-swords, making them more of a 'standard' longsword like the Oakeshott XVIIIb.  Xiliquiern 15:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: that's very interesting, what is that 1418 reference you mention?  (ᛎ) q∀p 15:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wish I can produce the exact reference myself. The article I originally referenced was from the Association of Renaissance Martial Arts page on sword definitions, though 'A Glossary of the Construction, Decoration, and Use of Arms and Armour' (George Cameron Stone; 1934) confirms a 15th century reference and provides a beautiful picture of the waisted compound hilt. 'The Complete Encyclopedia of Arms and Weapons' (Blair, et al; 1979) makes mention of it being a 15th century term as well, and makes note of it evolving from a cruciform hilted longsword to the more differentiated waisted compound hilt. I will certainly strive to find this source from 1418...such things are rare, so if I can locate anything from the early 15th century, it should probably be among them. Xiliquiern 16:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  D&D? 

message: This statement caught my eye: "The evolution of the sword was gradual; there is no obvious classification of various types." Indeed, the evolution of the sword was gradual, and in some cases, extremely complex. Similarly, the evolution of the sword did not require one new type of sword to supersede another - swords from different time period may remain in use on the battlefield together. The statement that there is no "obvious classification", I believe, is incorrect. The Peterson typology and the Oakeshott typology categorize weapons from the Roman and viking spatha all the way into two-handed swords and estocs of the Renaissance. Other lesser known typologies by the same men and others categorize pommel variety, hilt shape, and guard design from the earliest viking swords all the way into rapiers (though I don't believe a rapier blade typology exists). Their work is not set in stone, as recent discoveries (and re-discoveries of things lost in museums) bring about items which don't always fall easily into a single category within a typology. However, these typologies have largely set the stage for academic discussion of types of swords within the community.
Before making an edit to revise this, I wanted to make sure that I was not misreading or misunderstanding the text. I'm not sure who authored it, but its current sweeping generalization seems to be largely incorrect. -- xiliquierntalk 14:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typology? 

message: I made a relatively large change today (being bold). I tried to source a lot of it, but some is left unsourced. I also added two images. Feel free to play with it. - xiliquiernTalk 21:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Addition

message: Bit of a rough diamond this one. I've added a TODO section which I'll try to work on. My primary task is eliminating the constant definition and redefinition of the term "longsword", which pops up in practically every section (and had its own disambig until now). But there's rather a lot of work that could be done to improve this article's readability. Chris Cunningham 10:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And part 1 is this ridiculous disambig page. look, not only do the foreign language links on the dab actually point to this article, but it contains absolutely nothing which isn't better explained in here. Disambig pages are better used for differing concepts, not to resolve finite points. Half this article discusses the differences between swords labelled as longswords, so the disambig is superfluous. Chris Cunningham 10:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: well, this article is intended as treating the late medieval sword. if you take this away, it will sink back into the confusion I've found it in at the time I created the disambiguation page. On Wikipedia, you always need to calculate future additions by well-meaning but clueless editors who don't read before they edit. dab (𒁳) 12:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fine. I've moved a lot of talk about other swords into other articles. There is fallout in the form of missing refs still to catch, and I need to check how this article flows, but I think you made the right call here. Chris Cunningham 13:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: you are doing a good job. dab (𒁳) 13:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy editing 

message: Are we going to use the modern german spelling, or the period spelling seen in manuals and text? I've only seen 'langen schwert' in period sources, but I suppose 'langschwert' could have been used then too. - xiliquiernTalk 16:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 'langen schwert' is inflected, nominative is langes Schwert: this is the regularized spelling of the period term. Using "period" terminology is problematic because orthography was not regularized, and there is often no single best way to spell things. dab (𒁳) 16:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, thanks for the correction. My understanding of German is less than basic. As it stands now, though, the contemporary terminology in the introduction setcion is": "Langschwert". Is this actually a period term, or is it only a modern one? (Or in other words, should it be replaces with langes Schwert? -xiliquiernTalk 16:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Langschwert is the equivalent of longsword and is not "period". langes Schwert is simply the equivalent of long sword, meaning, it is correct Standard German, but it also happens to be the modern spelling of the period term, spelled variously langes swert, lannges schwert, langes schwert. Your "langen schwert" is probably from the "period" expression kunst deß langenn swertz, regularized Kunst des langen Schwerts, English "art of the long sword". My suggestion would be to not get lost in orthographical quibbles, and simply say that the German terms are langes Schwert for the weapon, and Kunst des langen Schwerts for the art. dab (𒁳) 17:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I had no mean to "quibble" between "langen schwert" and langes Schwert, but rather to differentiate between Langschwert (currently, and apparently incorrectly, shown on the article page as a period term) and langes schwert, no longer mentioned as the period term or at all. I don't know enough to be certain, but I felt that the modern Langschwert should probably be changed back to period langes schwert as a correct period term. I didn't change it then, nor will I now. I think I need a break. -xiliquiernTalk 18:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: and to add to the confusion, the term "langes schwert" in period manuals often (in fact most of the times) doesn't refer to the weapon, but to the way of holding the weapon. long sword means holding it traditionally with both hands on the grip, while short sword means holding it in half-sword (one hand on the grip and one hand on the blade) Glimmlampe (talk) 06:31, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: German Spelling

message: Every dictionary I checked spells it as two words.  Then entire myArmoury site (not forum) has 'greatsword' only once as a singe word.
It is a compound word; just like high school etc.
Mercutio.Wilder 07:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great Sword Spelling 

message: I have come across two entries with this 'correction' made: replacing kg with newtons.  These edits were made by 72.85.214.147
According to wikipedia newton is a unit of force not weight.  As mass is a highly relevant unit of  measure for a device used for generating force, it is appropriate to list its mass.  If you wish to be more precise than change weight to mass instead of chaning units of mass to units of force.
And sign your actions.
Mercutio.Wilder 20:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not necessarily. --Eyrian 13:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Units of Mass 

message: Is it just me or is the picture not of a longsword but a two-hander?  It looks longer and has a longer grip than what I thought was a 'longsword.'
Wilhelm Ritter 15:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is exactly what differentiates a longsword from an arming sword or side sword.  The grip long enough for two hands.  For comparison see the entry on zweihander, these are 'true' two-handed swords.Mercutio.Wilder 18:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: to be fair, the image is hard to judge without a sense of scale. It may come close to a genuine Zweihaender. 19:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture

message: I removed the link farm.  All organizations and groups treated fairly.Ranp (talk) 21:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Link Farm

message: The hand-and-half grips allow the swordfighter to wield it with one hand. However, the off-hand would still never use a shield, true? Are there any examples from the medieval manuals that instruct how to use a longsword with a shield?
Are there any modern reinactors who can wield a longsword with a shield? *Can* it be done, if so *should* it be done? What are the advantages of a hand-and-half sword over a proper two-handed sword or single-handed arming sword? Especially regarding a shield. Haldrik (talk) 19:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Shields went out of use with the development of plate armour. They were obsolete when most of the manuals were written. Can it be done? Hand-and-half grip swords are light enough to used single handed. That was the whole point of the hand-and-half grip. So yes, though much better with a buckler (you can grip the sword hilt with the left hand while still holding the buckler for a powerful cut or thrust).  Should it be done? Depends on the date. Radj397 (talk) 01:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

text: Longswords were also called bastard swords. Hand-and-a-half was coined as a polite replacement for bastard sword. So what about Two-handers? They were called that because they were wielded with TWO HANDS! Radj397 (talk) 01:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Longswords and the use of Shields

message: Terminology
"The longsword (of which stems the variation called the bastard sword) is a type of European sword designed for two-handed use"
- Can anyone honestly say the bastard sword stemmed from the longsword? When? Exactly what is a bastard sword anyway? Is it a hand-and-a-half? How would that stem from a two-hander and not an arming sword?
"The term 'longsword' is ambiguous, and refers to the 'bastard sword' only where the late medieval to Renaissance context is implied. 'Longsword' in other contexts has been used to refer to Bronze Age swords, Migration period and Viking swords, rapiers, as well as the early modern dueling sword."
- By whom exactly? Perhaps you mean a 'long sword' i.e. a sword that is long and NOT a 'longsword' i.e. a particular type of sword.
Duff References
"but by the mid-16th century could refer to exceptionally large swords.[2] "
2^ Qui n'étoit ni Françoise , ni Espagnole, ni proprement Lansquenette, mais plus grande que pas une de ces fortes épées ("[a sword] which was neither French, nor Spanish, nor properly Landsknecht [German], but larger than any of these great swords." Jacob Le Duchat (ed.), Oeuvres de Maitre François Rabelais, Jean-Frédéric Bernard, 1741, p. 129 (footnote 5).)
- I cant read French but the reference is from 1741. The 18th century not the mid-16th. Has English and French terminology always been parallel anyway?
"while 'long sword' or 'long-sword', if used at all, referred to the rapier (in the context of Renaissance or Early Modern fencing).[6]"
6^ see e.g. A general guide to the Wallace Collection, 1933, p. 149.
- Actually read it! "the rapier, a long sword of elegant proportions" i.e. a sword that is long, NOT a longsword!
 
7^ A nonce attestation of "long-sword" in the sense of "heavy two-handed sword" is found in Principles of stage combat (1983).
- This is by an actor, not a historian or even a HEMA enthusiast. Is it a reliable source?
Morphology
"By the late 16th century, early forms of the basket-hilt emerge on this type of sword."
- Can two hands be used on a basket-hilt? Even an early one! Isn't the longsword designed for two-handed use? Or do you mean swept-hilt? They are not the same thing. (The illustration on the wikipedia sword article is a swept-hilt not a "basket shaped hilt"!)
Radj397 (talk) 22:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable content 

message: ...mainly because the term "longsword" is a neologism coined by HEMA enthusiasts around 2000.
If you want to use any literature from outside of HEMA publications of the past decade, you will be in terminological trouble.
So, would it be too much to ask that editors wishing to "improve" or "correct" this article first sit down and try to absorb the information conveyed by the "terminology" section. 
If you still think you need to make "corrections" concerning the use of terms like "bastard-sword", or introduce pseudo-German like Langesschwert, please make sure you make your reasons transparent. 
Perhaps it will help if I repeat the situation described in the article in somewhat emphatic terms here:
*IT DOES NOT MATTER whether you spell it longsword, long-sword or long sword. Such is the nature of English apposition, all these forms have been used in the past, since at least the 19th century, to refer to all sorts of swords, including Germanic spathas, Japanese katanas, and what have you. It is entirely HOPELESS to try and make a case that "longsword" is somehow a more specific term than "long sword". People have been called "Longsword" since the 10th century(!) simply because they had swords longer than the average of their time, this has nothing to do with this article's subject matter.
*The thing under discussion here is called "longsword" or "long sword" in modern HEMA, since ca. 2000, due to the period German term langes schwert. NO, THE PERIOD TERM IS NOT Langesschwert, Langenschwert or Langschwert. I know the first two have appeared in print, but these are mistakes by authors who do not know German. Langschwert otoh is a MODERN GERMAN term, exactly equivalent in its wide application (spathas, katanas, etc.) to English "longsword". It does not make sense to explain an modern English  term by an equivalent modern German term. German terminology is of interest because these swords were used in 15th to 16th century Germany. Consequently, the period terminology is of interest, not antiquarian terminology that suffers from the same ambiguites that the English terminology we are already stuck with.
--dab (𒁳) 13:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: this is a difficult topic

message: There is currently a significant section of this article focusing on the German longsword tradition, but no mention of the Italian tradition.  The Italian Longsword tradition is largely documented elsewhere and often considered the "other half" of historical longsword fencing.  Right now readers are only getting half the picture.  There is an article on Italian Medieval Swordsmanship on wiki already, but I'll leave it to more savvy editors to either include a link to this article in the main "Longsword" article or make a new section of it featuring this material.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_school_of_swordsmanship  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.172.134.23 (talk) 17:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italian Longsword Tradition 

message: The part where blade length should be listed instead simply says " length". The code "part_length" seems to be correct as far as I know. Does anybody know how to fix this? Kbog (talk) 02:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blade length 

message: In BBC Four's Castles - Britain's Fortified History (first broadcast Thu 4 Dec 2014 and reviewed by Jonathan Holmes in  Radio Times), it was claimed, by swordsmith Owen Bush (approx 39:10), that there are "writings" describing swords being tempered using "the urine of a ginger-haired virgin boy". Is there any more reliable source for this, or does it just reveal one of Bush's more bizarre personal fantasies? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:55, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Ginger Kids|Ginger]]? 

message: The article seems to present the following as the primary method of pommel attacks:
" ... depict use of the pommel (which could be unscrewed, removed, and thrown at an opponent to "end him rightly") and cross as offensive weapons."
While this does indeed come from a historical text, the implication here is that this is how pommels were normally used. There are a few issues with that:
1. To my knowledge, at least in HEMA, people are still guessing as to why or how this would be done, and what effect it would actually have in combat.
2. Historically, longsword pommels were typically peened, not threaded. So removing the pommel by hand is not possible. Even with a threaded pommel, it would be very difficult to unscrew and detach it fast enough for this maneuver not to be obvious to the opponent. Some think that perhaps a trick pommel may have been employed to mitigate this, but that also would imply such a trick pommel was not at all the norm.
3. The pommel is mainly used for striking the face and head during close plays -- while it remains attached to the hilt. I suggest that this is the most typical use of pommeling an opponent, and the article should reflect that, rather than the still very mysterious pommel throwing action.
My assumption is that the pommel throw has been placed here due to its popularity, essentially as a meme, among the online HEMA community, as popularized by YouTuber Skallagrim (and even he acknowledges it as an oddity, rather than the norm).
Including the pommel throw in the article as an oddity is fine, as it does appear in Talhoffer, but I think it should be made clearer that this maneuver is still a bit misunderstood, and is not the primary use for the pommel.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jojojamo (talk • contribs) 17:27, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pommel throwing 

message: A montante would essentially be the same sword as the zweihander, same size, just a different shape. searching "montante" in the search bar shouldn't link to this page, but to Zweihander instead. it also should be removed as one of the translations to spanish, because montante in spanish refers to true two-handed swords equivalent to the zweihander instead. Exp3rtShip (talk) 03:26, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Longswords are not equivalent to montante.