Two-handed short sword?

[LooseGrouper]

Just an exercise in curiosity here, but would there be any utility to a 2-handed short sword like a gladius with a 2x length handle? I've seen a few that almost fit the bill. Cold Steel makes a Chisa (whatever that means) katana with a 24" blade, and they used to make The Warlord, which looked like a short chinese war sword blade with an 18-or-so-inch handle.

Anybody else know of something similar. Any advantage to them?


LG, who is bored on a rainy Saturday

 

[El Tejon]

The two handed short sword is mostly seen in Southern Chinese weaponry. There are several variations of sword lengths including the famed "horse chopping blade" which would be adopted in Japan as the "katana".

The utility of such a weapon is that the user can apply more muscle to the weapon's stroke, see e.g., dadao ("big saber"), by apply both hands. Same concept as the addition of weighted rings to the back of the Southern dao, both hands and more weight to stroke.

Be advised that the short sword can also be mounted as a pole arm which requires two hands, e.g. pudao.

The advantages or disadvantages of any sword can be debated ad infinitum, just like firearms. IME, I prefer a medium length saber that is well-balanced that I can use with one hand, or a truly short sword, e.g. the "butterfly swords" (aka baat jam dao, mother/son swords, willow leaf swords, bull's ears swords, etc.) that I can hold one in each hand. However, it is all about your training and hardware comes a distant second.

 

[Skofnung]

A Gladius with a 2X handle would be of less utility than a regular Gladius. Seems to me that it would get in the way.

Now a slightly longer grip, one that affords grasping the pommel with the lower portion of the hand and wrapping the index finger over it, basically adding another finger groove to the grip, might be of some help. It would afford powerful two handed manuevers while not being overly long.

I wouldn't want one though. Short swords are meant to be used with one hand, and a shield in the other.

Eastern swords are another matter. A matter I know little about.

 

[ghost squire]

http://www.dfoggknives.com/Cloud Cutter.htm
http://www.dfoggknives.com/photogallery/Papercut/index.html

 

[RyanM]

The "tactical gladius" sounds like exactly what you're describing. http://www.szaboinc.com/custom.html

 

[tellner]

The nagimaki might be close. It's got a long handle and a shortish heavy blade about the same length, kind of like a staff, but half of it is sharp. India created just about every variant on weapon that you can imagine and then some. The bhuj (elephant knife), buckie and saintie all have short blades and handles big enough for two hands. One example I've got is 30 inches long with a 10 inch blade.

 

[ocelot777]

"chisa" means "short" iirc

 

[Kjay]

Perhaps a review of historical weapons might provide some insight. Looking at weastern swords I can't think of an example of a two handed "short" sword. The old guys were pretty smart when designing bladed weapons and certainly would have seized upon a better idea to assist in dispatching foes. What practical advantage might a two handed gladius offer over the standard model? What manner of fight are you looking at? Armored opponent? With or without shields? A singled handed sword and shield make a formidable combination.

 

[LooseGrouper]

Thanks for all the inputs, guys. The cloud cutter looks pretty sweet, but it's one of a kind, apparently, and probably out of my price range. The "tactical gladius" is okay, but I think I'd prefer a full-length edge. Nevermind the fact that it costs $1700!!!!--holy shnikees!! That's more than I've paid for any of my GUNS, let alone a knife! I'm a big fan of pretty, but I only pay for things I can use.

Kjay, this was really just my mind wandering, but I was sort of invisioning using it as a home defense weapon in relatively close quarters. I thought maybe it could give a good middle ground between the thrusting and leverage of a short spear and the chopping/slicing ability of a good wakazashi (sp?) in a small space. It could also be a handy field tool if it wasn't double edged...like a cross between a machete and a small axe. I think the blade might need to be wider with a little more belly (ah la Kershaw/Onion Outcast) to be a good utility piece.

Imagination knife making is almost as fun as really making one...

 

[JShirley]

You can get a Bhutan sword for well under $300 from Himalayan Imports. Since I don't intend to use a shield anytime soon, I can see the utility of a two-handed grip on a short sword, if one is using a blade for some reason, instead of a boomstick.

Overall 21.5"
Weight 34 oz.
Spine thickness 3/8"
Regular steel guard.
Handle-- Rakta chandan wood.
Scabbard--Red Leather
http://himalayan-imports.com/uncle/3-13-06-2.JPG
http://himalayan-imports.com/uncle/3-13-06-3.JPG
http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=52803&d=1140307661
http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=52805&d=1140307695

John

 

[tellner]

Another alternative is Cold Steel's two handed machete. 32" with an 11 1/4" cane cutting blade. 1050 steel. Weighs 1lb 14 oz. And best of all, it's eighteen bucks.

 

[JShirley]

Well, the price is right. I'd prefer a point, though.

I think I might actually prefer one of those flat hoes with sharpened edges. Then, one might take a little sandpaper, and smooth the handle down to get rid of the splinters, then toss on some tung oil or similar. Just one idea.

J

 

[ROAshooter]

Short Sword

Add to the list..."Black Wind" ...20" blade....10"...grip.....from Ontario Knives.
Ontario Knives is the current supplier of combat knives to the Marines and a few other services as well.

Cabelas....has had them for 100 bucks.

 

[Lo.Com.Denom]

The nagimaki might be close.

Woah! If you describe a nagamaki as a "2 handed short sword", I definitely don't want to meet you down a dark alley! Good idea, though -- lots of handle, for a good reach. The only repros I've seen have been abominable, so far, unfortunately.

If you look at some of the "civillian" katana, made for merchants and other lower classes during the Edo period, many of them had the two-handed grip with a 24' blade or less (don't quote me on the exact length). They often came with a saya fit for a full-sized blade, to make it appear that the owner was befitting the rank of Samurai -- or maybe just to thumb their noses at authority...

Plus, I've seen a few wakizashi with longer, two handed grips as well. Seems that dimensions varied, depending on period and personal tastes.

Since civillian katana don't carry the prestige of bushi weapons, you can often pick up a servicable blade for reasonable money. If you do, however, please don't use it as a field tool! It may not be worth much now, but it might be, further down the line.

I think Tellner's machete idea is good, if you want to use it as a tool as well.

 

[Llywelyn]

application

Greetings,

The thing with a short sword vs. regular sword is application. The gladius tended to be a thrusting weapon. It wasn't made for striking or slashing as much. Some of the later gladius' were starting to tend more that way as the method of warfare changed. But if you hit something with a gladius you arn't going to do much, even with two hands. take a long knife and hit something with it, now take a sword thats 36" long. the difference should be obvious without even seeing it. They are made for different reasons. They do different jobs. Now, a gladius would be pretty good for home defence actually. Smaller, easier to swing or thrust with, without hitting something like walls or a ceiling. But you would probably be better off having it just one handed so that your other hand could have a knife/shield/whatever in it.

A machette is a bit different because of the way it is made and the shape of it. It is made for striking, because the end of the blade is heavier than the rest. Personally my defence weapons are a 6inch blade and tomahawk. I always carry both when I go to the woods.


Llywelyn

 

[Skofnung]

But if you hit something with a gladius you arn't going to do much, even with two hands.

Nonsense.

I saw a demonstration of what an Albion Gladius just like the one Kjay posted above is capable of. It made quick work of a tamagishiri (sp?) mat. I doubt that flesh would fare better against such a blade.

The Gladius was used mostly as a stabbing weapon for certain due to Roman tactics, but saying that one won't do "much" in a cutting role is plain wrong.

take a long knife and hit something with it, now take a sword thats 36" long. the difference should be obvious without even seeing it.

You don't "hit" with a blade. When cutting you can make a draw cut, a saber cut, or you can hack. I assume by "hit" you mean hack.

Hacking with a long knife may or may not be productive depending on the design of the knife. Lighter fighting knives would not do much real damage used as a hacker. A "36"" sword will have much more weight and would be a better hacking blade, but...

Hacking is not the right way to use most bladed weapons, even a 36" sword. Draw and saber cuts are much more effective, which you would find out if you actually tried it.

I use a cheap 12" Tramontina machete (a long knife by definition) with a very sharp edge around the family homestead to clear brush. "Hitting" with it yeilds little in the way of results on larger brush, but when used with a saber cut, it can handle 1 1/2" -2" wax myrtle and pine saplings with relative ease. I have no doubt that if used on a human target it would at least go to the bone, perhaps further. A better quality blade would most likley do better still.

 

[rudolf]

tellner wrote:
"Another alternative is Cold Steel's two handed machete. 32" with an 11 1/4" cane cutting blade. 1050 steel. Weighs 1lb 14 oz. And best of all, it's eighteen bucks."

That is about the most nasty thing you can have. I have a similar one from Tramontina, and believe me it really scares most people.

As to the two handed sword, the Grosse Messer would qualify.
http://www.coldsteel.com/88gm.html

 

[tellner]

Just call it The Rwandizer

I've had guns pointed at me and didn't like it. I think I'd go straight to Code Brown if someone came at me with one of those.

 

[madmike]

The reason most swords were one-handed was because the other hand was holding a shield. Tradeoff between better offense and no defense. Contrary to myth and Hollywood, swords were almost NEVER used as a blocking weapon.

And the technique for a gladius was based on it being used in formation. Thrust up, chop down. Repeat. It was quite capable of cutting.

A longer blade requires a stronger wrist to maneuver, because the moment is further from the joint. So a two-handed, shorter blade is EXCELLENT in close quarters if you don't intend to use a shield.

 

[tellner]

The reason most swords were one-handed was because the other hand was holding a shield. Tradeoff between better offense and no defense. Contrary to myth and Hollywood, swords were almost NEVER used as a blocking weapon.

Good points, but there are some mistakes here. I've been looking through old sword manuals recently - Medieval longsword, 18th and 19th century saber, a few others. In them the sword is, indeed, used to block. And many of those blocks are with the edge, mostly near the hilt. There are certainly parries and deflections, but blocks are basic parts of the program. In certain times and places swords which could be used two handed were common - Japan for instance. In others one handed swords were used without a shield.

And the technique for a gladius was based on it being used in formation. Thrust up, chop down. Repeat. It was quite capable of cutting.

When a warrior fights a soldier the soldier dies. When warriors fight soldiers the warriors die.

 

[JShirley]

When a warrior fights a soldier the soldier dies. When warriors fight soldiers the warriors die.

This sounds true. I was individually much more capable than the people I was around in the infantry, but you soon learn that it's all about teamwork, not personal ability. Personal skill (aiming) and stamina count, but teamwork's the key...

 

[tellner]

A friend of mine was serving his country "mobilizing the indigenous personnel" in Somalia some years back. The Afarese were fantastic fighters. When his people brought out the knives the locals thought they were cute - perfect for children but no use to a grown man. After about ten seconds of watching the Afarese knife work the officer said something like "Well, we don't have anything to teach you about knife fighting."

Then they got out the wargame attachments for the rifles and put 40 warriors up against 10 soldiers. The Afarese were good shots, fast and brave. But overlapping fields of fire and coordinated fire and movement cut them down like wheat before the sickle.

 

[madmike]

Good points, but there are some mistakes here. I've been looking through old sword manuals recently - Medieval longsword, 18th and 19th century saber, a few others. In them the sword is, indeed, used to block. And many of those blocks are with the edge, mostly near the hilt. There are certainly parries and deflections, but blocks are basic parts of the program. In certain times and places swords which could be used two handed were common - Japan for instance. In others one handed swords were used without a shield.

18-19th century was past the era of the sword. By then, it was more of a martial art and a gentleman's side piece. Sabers specifically were used to block--and were used at a time when shields had largely gone away.

"Medieval longsword" is too generic for me to comment. Which nation, timeframe, and sword?

And you'll find very few Japanese blades that ever went edge to edge. You can spot them by the gaping nicks.

 

[tellner]

One example:

Sigmund Ringeek's Knightly Art of the Longsword translated by Lindholm and Svard. Late 14th-early 15th century.

I haven't done that much Krabi Krabong, but the little I am familiar with includes a lot of force on force blocking.

 

[madmike]

I've seen that book. Extensive martial arts involved in the later period, before gunpowder completely took over. Same for pole weapons.

I was referring to the Hwood theory that foot soldiers with shields engaged in fencing play. Longswords were, as the title suggest, a knightly weapon.

I'm not familiar with the other, but it sounds Indonesian or Filipino. Completely different rules there.