|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
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)
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)
- 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)
- Pier Gerlofs Donia's sword was longer than 180 cm, beng 213 cm (7 feet) in length, but the Technical Features article says "The Zweihänder could be up to 180 cm (6 ft) long from the base of the pommel to the tip of the blade." This means that Pier Donia's sword was not a zweihander, unless some revision to that statement was made, such as: "The Zweihänder could be over 180 cm (6 ft) long from the base of the pommel to the tip of the blade." 220.127.116.11 (talk) 18:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
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)
- I was surprised too, but just compare these results with these. --Angr (tɔk) 16:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 01:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
See also : 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
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)
- Well, Mercurio, the second version seems to be best! -)-(-H- (|-|) -O-)-(- 06:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- 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.
Zweihänder vs. pikemen
Why is there such a burning desire to avoid making any statements about why zweihänder-armed doppelsöldner were almost universally placed in the front ranks against pike walls? Pike walls, especially really well-trained pike walls like those used by the Swiss mercenaries, were utterly impenetrable by normal swordsmen. When I say utterly, I mean utterly; this era was the apotheosis of the pike wall concept. It was formulated and practiced to the point where no normal sword army could hope to break it; they weren't strong enough to break the ash pike shafts and not nearly long enough to get inside their jabbing range. Even other pikemen couldn't break it; it would simply degenerate into a physical "push of pike" with the shafts massively interlocked that could last for a full day with no ground gained by either side. The zweihänders were the only swords in inventory with both the reach to actually strike the pike shafts from beyond their ability to poke them back and the power to hew a solid ash pike-shaft.
- Do you have any Reliable Sources, that can verify what you claim? If you do then please, by all means, do add this information, with proper references to those sources. If not, then your claims have no place on Wikipedia.
- That's it.
- As things are, information on the use of zweihänders, is not reliable.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 13:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Great-swords are, as their title betrays, well, great. Greatness in the simplest sense; that is, size.
I'm sure we're all well aware of this. So, why am I bringing it up?
I think it would be beneficial for the reader to be able to intuit just *how* great. Measurements are fine and all, but, in order to service this function a bit more appreciably, I suggest that we introduce a few pictures.
For the average European man--of the middle ages, at least--even the tiniest of great-swords were level with a man's chin. That's quite sizable, I'm sure you'll concur.
I'd like to be able to afford the reader some inkling of this. Again, measurements suffice, as they are empirical, but they don't exactly convey the message quite as intuitively, I feel.
The aforementioned picture introduction, however, may perform the task more admirably. Pictures that compare the size of the sword to the size of the average man, preferably. I'll be snooping around for some of these for a bit. If you find any, please inform me.