Talk:Zweihänder

Military history: Technology / Weaponry / Early Modern Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800)

I just edited this article. I changed the sentence that said that the Landsknechts were swiss mercenaries employed by Maximilian I. That's wrong, at least according to the research I've done. The Landsknechts were formed by the Holy Roman Emperor to try to emulate the success of the Swiss pikemen. Apol0gies 18:12, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

see Talk:Döppelhander for the genius move to that title. dab (ᛏ) 10:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unit consistency

I've added some quick SI conversions to the stated (uncited) pound weights. However, the article is still a mess, unit-wise - it should standardize on one convention of either metric or imperial/US customary first and the other in parentheses (I suggest SI first, as suggested in the Manual of Style). As the units lack references and should anyway only be approximations, it should be safe to do. Kolbasz 22:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On a similar topic - I would prefer to see a "common range of [measurement type]" rather than an "average" with sword articles, especially this one. A rather comprehensive list of lengths and weights for two handed greatsword shows a good degree of variation, something I don't think is properly represented by stating a single average length.

To comply with Manual of Style, 'support moving the units to SI as you suggested. --Xiliquiern 00:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The German name

German for "both" is beide, not bide, I've read other sources with the former spelling, and haven't heard of German evolving in a direction that would turn a 1400s bide into modern beide. So would you mind giving me a little more to chew on than mere trust? --Svartalf 15:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised too, but just compare these results with these. --Angr (tɔk) 16:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course one of the vowel-related Lautverschiebungen (I tend to forget which one) turns long "i" into "ei". The more common German term today would be Beidhänder, though. —Nightstallion (?) 18:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but not in beide, which comes from OHG beide (< PWGmc. *baiþ-, cf. OE bāþe), not *bīde. That's why it surprised me. --Angr (tɔk) 20:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mh. Are you sure that bīde in this case is not simply a variant of beide? On second thought: Is it possible that Bidenhänder comes from the Latin prefix bi-, and that -den- was added to form a connection to the German beide, which was and still is pronounced as bīde in some parts of Germany? Just a thought—don't know how likely it is, and your linguistics expertise greatly outclasses mine, anyway. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 22:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angr is quite right, it is surprising, etymologically. It's a case of chaque mot a son histoire I suppose. dab (ᛏ) 23:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone linguistically and unicodally able put up some IPA for the word Zweihänder? I'm shaky what the ä would be and I don't know how to post IPA. Actually, I don't know how to do anything editing related; it just seems like a good idea.

See also [1]: I think we may be looking at a contamination of *Beidenhänder and Bihänder (the Latin bi- prefix). de:Zweihänder, in any case, lists the alternatives Bidenhänder, Bihänder and Zweihänder. dab (ᛏ) 23:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Historical use

This article disagrees with the swordsmanship article. The Wiki should be internally consistant, see discussion on talk:swordsmanship

Meister des Langer Schwert

"Soldiers trained in the use of the sword (the title Meister des langen Schwertes was granted by the Marx brotherhood) earned twice the pay of a common footman and were called "Doppelsöldner"."

The Marx brotherhood don't have anything to do with the Lansknecht, they were a seperate sword training guild. And the title Meister des Langer Schwert implies a longsword, not a zweihander. (Even though, to pass the tests to become a master in the Marx Bruder (umlat somewhere in there) one needed to know several weapons. Anglo's Martial arts of Renassaince Europe mentions 6 and 11 for two different dates, although this may have been a lower ranking test.) I suggest that this phrase be removed. Any objections? Sethwoodworth 20:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC) (sorry, late sig)[reply]

can you sign your comments please? It's four pathetic keystrokes. What do you mean by "The Marx brotherhood don't have anything to do with the Lansknecht, they were a separate sword training guild"? Are you claiming that the Lansknechts were a sword training guild? "Lansknecht" is just the period term for "mercenary" (more or less). Some of them were customers of the Marx brothers. Do you agree that the Marx brothers had the monopoly for granting the title, from the 1480s to the 1570s? Do you agree that this coincides with the Landsknechts period? Do you agree that you did need the title in order to be a Doppelsoldner? What is your problem then? Zweihanders are not even mentioned in this passage. dab (ᛏ) 20:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry the statement does appear in the context of the pike-breaking thingy; it may have to be more clearly separated, or moved to Doppelsoldner altogether. dab (ᛏ) 20:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, the Lansknect were not a sword training guild. I understand this. I am saying that the brotherhood of St. Mark were seperate entirely.

I disagree that a lansknecht needed to be certified by the Marx bruder to become a Doppelsonldner. If you can show me something that says otherwise I'll listen of course, but I've never heard of any such formal connection between the brotherhood of St Mark and the lansknect.

A Doppelsoldner is a landsnecht trained in the use of a zweihander. The position of Master of longsword entitles you to be able to teach quite lucritively in the civilian field. I see nothing to equate the title of master to a doppelsoldner of the landsknecht. Possibly the title of provost, which I don't believe entitled you to teach. Sethwoodworth 20:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Popular Culture

I think there should be an article on the zweihander in popular culture.-Uber Cuber —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.43.180.69 (talk) 01:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Feb '07 Rewrite

The article was poorly written and layed out, with many assertions repeated and placed oddly, as well as being inconsistent. I have cleaned up these problems. Also I have corrected misstatements about their handling. The Goliath fecthbuch depicts them being used much like longswords, and modern students of swordsmanship have shown the weapons to not be overly heavy, clumsy things.

Also, the pommel is the upper guard and the quillons the lower guard. Mercutio.Wilder 19:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pier Gerlofs Donia

Piers Gerlofs Donia has been added to the Zweihander article by User:Haggawaga - Oegawagga. I feel that the inclusion of this section is inappropriate for two reasons:

1. It is unreferenced and contradicts the scholarship on the subject thereby placing the burden of proof on the presenter of this information. 2. An article on a class of objects covering a large span of time and space should not have a section dedicated to a single user of that item. I feel that this is a clear corollary to the no trivia rule.

Below is the material in question, in its current form:

The legendary Frisian freedom fighter Pier Gerlofs Donia, allegedly wielded an enormous Zweihänder. The weapon measures 2,15 meters in length, and weighs around 6.6 kg. The sword is kept on display, in the Frisian museum.

and the original section:

The legendary Frisian freedom fighter Pier Gerlofs Donia, used to handle an enormous Zweihänder. The blade measured 2,15 meters in tall, and weighed around 7\8 kg. Grote Pier (Donia's nickname), could use this blade one-handed, and beheaded several enemies at the same time in just one hit, during battle! Today, the sword has still been kept, in the Frisian museum.

The section in question will be removed until the matter is resolved by discussion. Please discuss below- Mercutio.Wilder 17:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Mercurio, the second version seems to be best! -)-(-H- (|-|) -O-)-(- 06:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know which version you are referring to. The second chronologically or the second as it appears on this page. So, do you prefer the longer or shorter version? Either way you have not addressed the concerns I list: that the section in question is unreferenced and contradicts the current scholarship and that a section like this is akin to a trivia secion. Please explain how to address these concerns.