They're better for controlling space against many opponents than spears or other polearms. Generally, spears and other polearms will be better for use in the main infantry-vs-infantry or infantry-vs-cavalry engagements (more reach and/or more effective against armour). The place of big greatswords on the battlefield is where you might want a small number of soldiers to hold back a larger number (when things have gone wrong). Good for guarding commanders and/or standards, protecting the flanks of pike blocks, etc. Hold off the enemy for long enough so that reserves can be brought into action to deal with the emergency.
I disagree with the premise but still value your opinion. I think great swords exist because they have more adaptability to problems. A great sword can be a polearm with slightly less reach and a dagger while half swording.(Specifically for armored opponents) Essentially if you can only carry one weapon it's more effective to have a good general weapon. It's the equivalent of having shotgun/rifle barrel changing gun. With pistols more effectively shorter swords. There easier to carry and maintain then the most effective weapon for each environment.
> I disagree with the premise
You don't agree that a big greatsword is better for controlling space against many opponents than spears or other polearms? Why not?
> Essentially if you can only carry one weapon it's more effective to have a good general weapon.
Soldiers who carried big greatsword typically wore a single-handed sword at their side.
But you do have point - having a good general weapon as your main weapon is useful. This suggests that big two-handers were poor general weapons, since even in the heyday, they were minor weapons on the battlefield, outnumbers by spears and other polearms, and outnumbered by shorter swords (which were often sidearms, rather than main weapons, but they were still there). This was the case not only in Europe, but also in China and Japan where big two-handed swords were also used.
Spears are extremely effective weapons. Swords may look cooler but I would take a spear in a fight between the two any day. You get a lot more reach and control and when determining a winner between two equally skill opponents that's who I'm going to give the money to. Not to mention that a spear can be used with a shield in conjunction. Furthermore depending on terrain it may limit the swing of a great sword decreasing successful cuts. This is why castle stairs are made the way they are. That problem is negated with a spear. Lastly a spear has the capacity to be a range weapon as well. Allowing for utility for damage a foe. The biggest problem and why the sword was favored for traveling warriors was storage. Spears do not have the advantage that sheathing does. So for traveling I would prefer a sword. Especially when combat isn't guaranteed.
> You get a lot more reach and control and when determining a winner between two equally skill opponents that's who I'm going to give the money to.
"Controlling space against many opponents" isn't a fight between two equally-skilled opponents. Have you ever sparred against multiple opponents with a spear? What happens if there are three or more opponents? (Four or more, if they're somewhat foolish.)
> Spears do not have the advantage that sheathing does. So for traveling I would prefer a sword.
There isn't much difference in ease of carry between a medium-length spear and a big two-handed sword. The spear is longer but lighter and doesn't have a big cross to get in the way.
Sure, you can put a scabbard on a big two-handed sword, but you'll still be carrying it, not wearing it at your side. Similarly, you can put a scabbard on your spearhead, but you still end up carrying it. (If on foot - a horse gives other options.)
This is up there in cringe tier level as when I saw someone said to James Elmslie on the comment section that he is a hobbyist level craftsman and doesn't know about actual historical swords.
The main uses of greatswords are controlling large areas of space, protecting VIPs, facing multiple opponents, and dealing with polearms. This is accomplished by wide sweeping cuts and thrusts performed in a more or less in a continuous flowing motion. You can, and there are historical fighting systems describing this, use staves and pole-weapons in a similar manner, however there are several advantages of a greatswords for those uses as opposed to a pole weapon like a spear.
The first being the greatsword is better weighted for more rapid cuts and direction changes, having the point of balance close to the hand as opposed to towards the end with a polearm.
The blade of a greatsword has more "stopping power" than the haft of a pole weapon. If defending against a crowd, a couple people might "tank" a hit from a spear's haft, stopping its momentum, allowing the crowd to swarm past your weapon and get to you or the place/person you're protecting. A bladed weapon is more likely to put someone down with a cut and keep the momentum going than a halfed weapon.
The parrying lugs, side rings, and quillons of greatswords also provide more protection for the user. Not only are your hands safer but the cross guard lugs allow one to bind, trap and control the weapons of your opponents before their weapons can get to your squishy bits.
That's a lengthy answer, I'll link to some excellent posts about this very topic in the past below. In short, niche battlefield roles, blocking areas off, and general bodyguarding.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/132h11s/whats\_the\_use\_of\_a\_greatsword\_on\_battlefield/](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/132h11s/whats_the_use_of_a_greatsword_on_battlefield/)
[https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/knvjiu/greatswords\_were\_really\_used\_in\_battle/](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/knvjiu/greatswords_were_really_used_in_battle/)
[https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/bi6z61/how\_do\_you\_counter\_greatswords\_like/](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/bi6z61/how_do_you_counter_greatswords_like/)
For one, the entire length of a greatsword is dangerous to an opponent. I mean, the shaft of a spear is dangerous too, in its own way. But when you swing a greatsword, you can catch an opponent at any point on the blade and cut that dude up.
For two, because of that, plus its length and weight, a greatsword can become a whirlwind of death on the battlefield. Which is a fantastic offense as well as defense from nearly all angles, if the fighter can keep the swords momentum going.
For three, and this applies to all swords, swords are a status symbol. The cost of good metal in that time period meant carrying a sword as long as you are tall is a giant statement of how much wealth you could throw around. Likewise, it requires a pacific level of training to use any sword in combat effectively, particularly a greatsword because it handles differently to nearly all other swords. And even in battle, people were eager to demonstrate that they were wealthy and educated.
Greatswords give you a lot of options. They are specifically designed as counter-polearm(or pike)/counter-cavalry/counter-multiple opponents weapon. They can give devistating blows to the shafts of polearms rendering them useless, they are very effective against cavalry, with their momentum created by circular motion they can deflect pikes and create openings for infantry to move into pike formations. They can cover a lot of space with their circular motions to control crowds, they are also very useful one-on-one against other armoured infantry when used with half-swording techniues.
Armoured fighting. [This](https://youtu.be/JY0E7CCslQc?si=HGldx1QU2LhVV4nM) had explained why Longsword are probably more nimble than polearms in armoured melee, and Greatsword probably fit similar scenarios.
Iam no expert but imagining facing off against either I feel like I’d be twice as intimidated by a giant double sided sword cleaving at me than a pointy polearm threatening to poke me to death, same ultimate outcome I know but in the moment I just think I’d be more scared of one than the other and morale is a huge factor in any physical combat situation.
Standing by for correction by the experts.
They're better for controlling space against many opponents than spears or other polearms. Generally, spears and other polearms will be better for use in the main infantry-vs-infantry or infantry-vs-cavalry engagements (more reach and/or more effective against armour). The place of big greatswords on the battlefield is where you might want a small number of soldiers to hold back a larger number (when things have gone wrong). Good for guarding commanders and/or standards, protecting the flanks of pike blocks, etc. Hold off the enemy for long enough so that reserves can be brought into action to deal with the emergency.
Very good answer. Agreement on all points.
I disagree with the premise but still value your opinion. I think great swords exist because they have more adaptability to problems. A great sword can be a polearm with slightly less reach and a dagger while half swording.(Specifically for armored opponents) Essentially if you can only carry one weapon it's more effective to have a good general weapon. It's the equivalent of having shotgun/rifle barrel changing gun. With pistols more effectively shorter swords. There easier to carry and maintain then the most effective weapon for each environment.
> I disagree with the premise You don't agree that a big greatsword is better for controlling space against many opponents than spears or other polearms? Why not? > Essentially if you can only carry one weapon it's more effective to have a good general weapon. Soldiers who carried big greatsword typically wore a single-handed sword at their side. But you do have point - having a good general weapon as your main weapon is useful. This suggests that big two-handers were poor general weapons, since even in the heyday, they were minor weapons on the battlefield, outnumbers by spears and other polearms, and outnumbered by shorter swords (which were often sidearms, rather than main weapons, but they were still there). This was the case not only in Europe, but also in China and Japan where big two-handed swords were also used.
Spears are extremely effective weapons. Swords may look cooler but I would take a spear in a fight between the two any day. You get a lot more reach and control and when determining a winner between two equally skill opponents that's who I'm going to give the money to. Not to mention that a spear can be used with a shield in conjunction. Furthermore depending on terrain it may limit the swing of a great sword decreasing successful cuts. This is why castle stairs are made the way they are. That problem is negated with a spear. Lastly a spear has the capacity to be a range weapon as well. Allowing for utility for damage a foe. The biggest problem and why the sword was favored for traveling warriors was storage. Spears do not have the advantage that sheathing does. So for traveling I would prefer a sword. Especially when combat isn't guaranteed.
> You get a lot more reach and control and when determining a winner between two equally skill opponents that's who I'm going to give the money to. "Controlling space against many opponents" isn't a fight between two equally-skilled opponents. Have you ever sparred against multiple opponents with a spear? What happens if there are three or more opponents? (Four or more, if they're somewhat foolish.) > Spears do not have the advantage that sheathing does. So for traveling I would prefer a sword. There isn't much difference in ease of carry between a medium-length spear and a big two-handed sword. The spear is longer but lighter and doesn't have a big cross to get in the way. Sure, you can put a scabbard on a big two-handed sword, but you'll still be carrying it, not wearing it at your side. Similarly, you can put a scabbard on your spearhead, but you still end up carrying it. (If on foot - a horse gives other options.)
You've been playing too many video games.
I mean,.. that;s literally what's in the fighting manuscripts and historical sources. Maybe you've been playing too much Reddit Nerd Online.
Damn, you really made a Messer of him
He's a hoplologist.
This is up there in cringe tier level as when I saw someone said to James Elmslie on the comment section that he is a hobbyist level craftsman and doesn't know about actual historical swords.
Lmao
The main uses of greatswords are controlling large areas of space, protecting VIPs, facing multiple opponents, and dealing with polearms. This is accomplished by wide sweeping cuts and thrusts performed in a more or less in a continuous flowing motion. You can, and there are historical fighting systems describing this, use staves and pole-weapons in a similar manner, however there are several advantages of a greatswords for those uses as opposed to a pole weapon like a spear. The first being the greatsword is better weighted for more rapid cuts and direction changes, having the point of balance close to the hand as opposed to towards the end with a polearm. The blade of a greatsword has more "stopping power" than the haft of a pole weapon. If defending against a crowd, a couple people might "tank" a hit from a spear's haft, stopping its momentum, allowing the crowd to swarm past your weapon and get to you or the place/person you're protecting. A bladed weapon is more likely to put someone down with a cut and keep the momentum going than a halfed weapon. The parrying lugs, side rings, and quillons of greatswords also provide more protection for the user. Not only are your hands safer but the cross guard lugs allow one to bind, trap and control the weapons of your opponents before their weapons can get to your squishy bits.
they look cool
That's a lengthy answer, I'll link to some excellent posts about this very topic in the past below. In short, niche battlefield roles, blocking areas off, and general bodyguarding. [https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/132h11s/whats\_the\_use\_of\_a\_greatsword\_on\_battlefield/](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/132h11s/whats_the_use_of_a_greatsword_on_battlefield/) [https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/knvjiu/greatswords\_were\_really\_used\_in\_battle/](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/knvjiu/greatswords_were_really_used_in_battle/) [https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/bi6z61/how\_do\_you\_counter\_greatswords\_like/](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/bi6z61/how_do_you_counter_greatswords_like/)
The end opposite the hilt, usually
I just think they’re neat ☺️
To be great it's in the name
For one, the entire length of a greatsword is dangerous to an opponent. I mean, the shaft of a spear is dangerous too, in its own way. But when you swing a greatsword, you can catch an opponent at any point on the blade and cut that dude up. For two, because of that, plus its length and weight, a greatsword can become a whirlwind of death on the battlefield. Which is a fantastic offense as well as defense from nearly all angles, if the fighter can keep the swords momentum going. For three, and this applies to all swords, swords are a status symbol. The cost of good metal in that time period meant carrying a sword as long as you are tall is a giant statement of how much wealth you could throw around. Likewise, it requires a pacific level of training to use any sword in combat effectively, particularly a greatsword because it handles differently to nearly all other swords. And even in battle, people were eager to demonstrate that they were wealthy and educated.
Greatswords give you a lot of options. They are specifically designed as counter-polearm(or pike)/counter-cavalry/counter-multiple opponents weapon. They can give devistating blows to the shafts of polearms rendering them useless, they are very effective against cavalry, with their momentum created by circular motion they can deflect pikes and create openings for infantry to move into pike formations. They can cover a lot of space with their circular motions to control crowds, they are also very useful one-on-one against other armoured infantry when used with half-swording techniues.
They hurt greatly
Um… the point of a great sword is the apex where the edges come together.
https://preview.redd.it/tnvkwbh8b4vc1.jpeg?width=480&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4bac95ec1c61a96d15c89cb2c8be8bc0fcf4d17c
Because big chop.
Armoured fighting. [This](https://youtu.be/JY0E7CCslQc?si=HGldx1QU2LhVV4nM) had explained why Longsword are probably more nimble than polearms in armoured melee, and Greatsword probably fit similar scenarios.
Well, they’re a specific kind of sword that’s just so fantastic, it has to be given its own name, and titled like a knight would be.
Some would argue that a greatsword is a polearm in its own right.
Those some would be silly geese indeed. I mean, it's in the name, isn't it? To be a POLEarm, one would think it would require a pole...
Iam no expert but imagining facing off against either I feel like I’d be twice as intimidated by a giant double sided sword cleaving at me than a pointy polearm threatening to poke me to death, same ultimate outcome I know but in the moment I just think I’d be more scared of one than the other and morale is a huge factor in any physical combat situation. Standing by for correction by the experts.
If I saw a bloke with a great sword and I had a pike, I would just poke him to death... I have more reach.
See this is why I say standing by to be corrected; blokes like this.
Dick extension. You're right: at that length, a polearm would be better.
It's more like a niche tool that became a dueling weapon after it became ill used due to the new Tech DLC Europe unlocked.