What is the deal with that Bastard sword? Valid info, please...
Demonoid_Limewire
Member Posts: 424
The weapon's description, in 2, says: (besides the rest) can be wielded with one, or two hands.
So, is it possible to use it as a two handed sword? And if yes, how?
Wielding it with a shield, or as an offhand, clearly uses it with one of your hands. Now, how to use it with my two hands? Does damage differ?
So, is it possible to use it as a two handed sword? And if yes, how?
Wielding it with a shield, or as an offhand, clearly uses it with one of your hands. Now, how to use it with my two hands? Does damage differ?
Post edited by Dee on
0
Comments
Slightly off topic, in real life, a bastard sword, longsword, and broadsword are all the same thing. People try to distinguish between them but all that naming came later. Swords where just swords. How many things can you pick up and call "hammer" today? It was like that. Sure, we have sledge hammers and mallets and little hammers and big hammers, but they can all be called hammer and no one will correct you.
If it's any consolation to you, you do get bonuses to holding one handed weapons with two hands in later editions.
Bastard swords, or hand and a half swords came into fashion in the 6th Century. Derived from the long sword, it had a broader blade and weight to club into the more heavily armoured knights that were appearing at this time. It could still be wielded one handed, but you would not hack down with it, you would let the weight of the blade swing your arm down and then use the weight to swing it back up again. Fall off your horse and you could get two hands behind each wallop.
The broadsword takes this to the extreme and is something else to behold. Not used on horseback at all. You would use the weight again to put the power into the swing and put great big dents into armour, they are not that long though, they are called broad for a reason!
Scottish Claymores, the kind of big swords you imagine Excalibur to actually be, and what is presumed the two handed swords in the game, are actually a strange design that came into being between halberds and spears, and were used for anti cavalry measures... mostly unsuccessfully.
Think that sword is the same one this Scot is wearing... To give a size indicator...
Some people make distinctions, but this is all done, post-sword. When swords where actually being used, it worked this way.swords where not museum pieces that needed to be classified like they are today. They where tools, like my hammer analogy.
It's also good to remember that none of the names where in English. They where in different languages, in different periods, so translation can cause confusion. A 16th century French "longsword" is very different from a 11th century German longsword. As times changes and weapons evolved, the names we translate to mean one thing meant different things to different people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_of_swords#.22Handedness.22
Just read this and you can get an idea of how convoluted classifying swords is.
On a completely different note, most of my knowledge comes from museums whith a small one in nearly every castle, a British classification system then? ... so... eek.
As for your example about an épée, you would never use an épée in battle because by the time fencing was popular, guns were used in battle. Fencing in fact became popular because guns had come along, and large weapons were no longer needed to pierce armor. The épée, in fact, evolved from the civilian weapons such as the rapier and small sword, and didn't come around until the 19th century for fencing duels fought to "first blood." If you were in a period where people still used swords for battle, you'd, certainly use a longsword in a duel. In fact, épée is the French word for "sword" which in a sense proves my point about translation and culture barriers.
Btw I just wrote a paper in this for school, so I've been brushing up on it recently, and for the paper I ended up spending a day with a guy called Bob Charron at a longsword workshop, and he his one of the top medieval fighters in North America. He teaches from Latin and German text that have recently been coming to light, the same texts that knights and soldiers used back in The day. This is a self-defense thing, not a sport, so it's taken very seriously.(they use metal practice longswords, and they don't even wear helmets. It's hilarious. It makes sport fencing look like babies playing with sticks:P) He's been doing this for 15 years and can actually read the Latin, and has a photocopy of the text. This guy knows what he's talking about. The hammer analogy is his, not mine.
Also the way these things were wielded were often very VERY different. Take a fencing foil versus a standard long sword. One is about finesse and dexterity the other is about chopping and slashing.
Think of Cell phones as a proxy. Sure one cell phone is pretty much like any other, but still there are flip phones and Sat phones and smart phones, blackberries, etc... all of slightly different use, construction and design. "Modern" man encountering each may identify them as Cell phones, but we would have at least a general idea about the differences and would classify (much in the way you were saying museums did for swords). They are different. We know they are different and how to use them differently.
The sport of fighting with long swords without a helmet is a german sport. A scar from such a duel to the face was a badge of honour. In fact your North American friend has somewhat twisted the whole thing, the academic qualities are the same but it was not about self defence, as it was all about being able to take a blow and walk away... Honest read here http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dueling_scar
To be fair smacking each other with plastic lightsabers, until your black and blue, is fun enough... So I can understand the attraction.
But to go back on topic. The hand and a half sword, or bastard sword could be wielded one handed on horseback or two handed on foot. (Think about the danger to the horse wielding a two hander on horseback! ) and I understand that the limitations of the game does not allow you to wield it two handed, but I'm nearly 100% sure there is a mod for it...
Compare that to the Japanese Katana, another type of sword or the Moorish scimitar and you can clearly see that, although these too are all 'Swords', they are by no means 'the same'. They are regionally and culturally different in make, construction and design. And they are wielded differently.
So sure, all of these long, sharp, pointed hand held devices of death may have had some variation on the theme of 'Sword', there are definite clear and specific differences. So much so that they deserve their own special classification.
Another factor, although a Knight may have a sword made specifically for him, when wars came and hundreds or thousands of 'Soldiers' needed to be outfitted with weapons, they weren't individually crafted.
My DM used to like to add regional flair. To that end, there were regions where certain types of swords (and other weapons and armor) were only available. If you walked into one shop they might only have broad swords and no long swords. If you asked the smith for a long sword, he would make a broad sword, but might add a few inches to the length, because that is what he knew.
The whole one- or two-handed thing about bastard swords is a remnant from the PnP rules, where it indeed could be used in one or two hands with different damage and speed factor as a result.
Ironically, the stats for a bastard sword in BG are those of the two-handed use, even if it is only used as a one-hander.
The implication is pretty clear: "I can tell that what you're using is made of iron, but there's no way I'm calling that a sword."
What your DM did was cool.
I think of stories where the armories of castles were stocked with swords that the men at arms would wield in defense of the territory. These were often times not custom made for individual soldiers, but were more or less made for the manner house and USED by whom-so-ever happened to be on duty. Absolutely a Knight would have his own sword, presumably made for him. But a sell-sword or soldier of fortune or even guards would not be rich enough to own or have made their own swords. They would take ownership of whatever was to hand at the time.
Same with conscripts in the Roman and Persian armies.
Lots of medieval texts on swordplay exist. This is seems a good site...
http://www.thearma.org/manuals.htm#.U3rvNBlwbqB
Your text must be pre 1600s as they all became sportative after that period...
This is a longsword:
And as you can see it's very similar to the drawing in the description:
A viking sword looks like this:
And an arming sword is a bit shorter than the longsword animation:
Of course this is fantasy, they can invent military scythes if they want, yadda yadda...
This, I believe, is where many eastern weapons like the Kama originated.
But yes... Scythe seems silly!
I *never* dual-wield a bastard sword.
Slightly off topic, it is interesting to note that when JRR Tolkein wrote about Middle Earth, apparently Plate mail did not exist in that world. So the Plate armor that we see in the movies is anachronistic. Still awesome movies though.
1. Broadswords iirc were much later than the dnd 'longsword', a general design used since the bronze age, by the celts primarily. Greeks and romans made iron versions, but both felt (correctly) that such weapons were impractical in the tight formations they favoured. Anyways, broadswords properly refers to a reneissance and later era dueling sword that compared to the non-flat rapier looked very broad. It ussually featured a basket hilt and was used to slash as well as thrust. Popular especially among Scots. Very similar to a cutlass, but lighter generally, while differing from a sabre by having a broader blade and being shorter.
2. General rule of swords: anything longer than the viking sword and used in war was probably for cavalry use, unless it was long/heavy enough to be two-handed, st which point it becomes an onfoot weapon. Internationally speaking, bastard swords (ie katana, the only truly prevelant example i can think of) are meant, as has been mentioned, to be used single handed on horseback, but used with both hands on foot. Very few samurai used their katana on foot with one hand, but some few did use other styles. Western bastard swords were rare, but would probably include the falchion. Further east, bigger dao would be closer to bastard swords than exvlusive twohanders.
3. Romans took the gladius from the spanish, and favoured it (and the better made drusus) as it could be used with a very awkward shield in a shield wall formation. Romans used something very similar to a longsword on horseback, which we rarely hear about as the romans werent great horsemen. Earlier roman troops used the spear and shield, like the greeks, but favoured longer, narrower shields. Roman heavy infantry btw relied more on shield bashing more than their swords, hence the heavy boss!
4. Swords werent standard equipment in many eras or regions, since metal, especially good steel needed for a 'longsword' tended to be prohibitive; stumpier swords used more wrought iron, which doesnt harden well, and thus a good slashing sword couldnt be made without at least 1/4 steel (ie pattern welded). Swords could be made more affordably if the smith forges the blade of wrought iron, with cutting edges welded on to hold an edge. A spear required far less metal, while a morningstar or spiked club needed no steel and could be made by anyone. Armies historically that used swords as standard gear favoured short stabbing/hacking weapons, to save metal, some of which could be used for armour. The celts though were still a heroic culture at heart by the time they fought the romans, so they prefered bigger swords, and didnt use much armour. I dont think most chinese militaty used daos, though they wouldnt be rare. They werent that long usually either!
5. Rapiers werent always light, just not flattened; older ones that saw actual combat tended to be as heavy as a longsword (some heavier actually) and were used to pierce the increasingly heavy breastplates as crossbows and bows were slaughtering knights. Gunpowder wasnt popular enough to be significant yet, but crossbows were cheapish and easy to use. It became impractical to use heavy enough armour, so armour lost surface area and got thicker. Helmets and breastplates became the only prsctical armour, and this was thick enough to be hard to chop through, and more rigid as well. Pikes and polearms were popular for commoners. Look up the estoc to see how unwieldy the older piercing swords were! The largest saw twohanded use.
6. Scythes as far as i know were only used as improvised weapons. Most examples in fantasy arent scythes at all, as they lack the two handles perpendicular to the shaft, which was never straight. As a weapon, you couldnt practically use it to slash, but with modification it could be used as an awkward lucern hammer. IE strike with the point. In most texts ive read, kama were used like a pick, ie for piercing, despite fantasy depictions of slashing. Most 'ninja' themed weapons were used to cirvumvent weapon restrictions... im particularly fond of the fact that smoking pipes had size/weight restrictions, as people were using them as weapons! Hence Happosai perhaps?
@DreadKhan - thanks for that information. Very enlightening.
The only people I can think that may have been heavily armed to that extent would be the Uruk-hai or the Knights if Dol Amroth, but I can't recall off the top of my head...
There is another passage that has Gimli talking about dwarven armor being specifically chain mail. I want to say that takes place in Helm's Deep, but it might have been in Moria. It surrounds the discussion about Bilbo's coat of mithril armor. Again the implication is that chain mail is the best armor around, but it is more a lack of talk about plate rather than a tacit stated fact.
I actually think the meet of the 'proof' that plate mail doesn't exist arises from the Silmarillian but since I could never get through that book, I couldn't say where.
As for the Uruk-hai, they wouldn't have plate mail. They wouldn't have the skill to make it. Nor would they have been able to travel the way they did in Plate.
I imagine that warriors in the middle-ages and odler times would talk about swords in terms of "longswords" "two-handed swords" and "bastard swords" - but probably in not those exact terms. I would think that they would have rough categories, but these would be broad as no two swords would look exactly the same.
Swords were an evolution rather than a static state. Variations such as the Estoc (a weird stabbing 2-hander) got thrown up in response to the armor of the time. Current names did not keep up. Looking back we can define them easily, but at the time there would probably have been a couple of dominant types. Likely they would have been dubbed short, long, personal or war swords as their owners saw fit.