Tactics in One-handed vs. Two-handed Sword Combat

I am much indebted to Joonas 'Peltsi' Peltokorpi for a lecture in which he outlined his ideas of this particular tactical problem - this article owes much to him.

Most historical fencing manuals assume that both fencers have the same equipment (mostly because they originate from a time when the main reason to cultivate skills with a sword were duels). The probably best-known exception to this is the Fiore manuscript that intends to deliver battlefield survival skills and also treats asymmetrical situations such as dagger vs. sword.

Asymmetrical situations are inherently unfair - which is why they tend to not occur in duels but are attractive on a battlefield. When learning to deal with them, it is thus important to understand who holds what advantage, what can be done to counter or deny this advantage and what situations have to be avoided.

In the following, we'll look at a fencer with a one-handed arming sword trying to fight an opponent with a two-handed longsword.

Some basic truths

Let's start out by comparing the relative merit of the two weapons and have a look at what situations favour one of them,

The longsword has more reach

The most obvious difference between a longsword and an arming sword is that the longsword is, well, longer. The exact amount depends on the weapons, but the difference is of order ~20 cm.

Length comparison of my two sparring weapons, a longsword (actually a feder) and an arming sword.

That means that - independent of how long the arms of any fencer are - there is a distance from which the wielder of the longsword can strike at the hands of his opponent without having to fear a counter-attack (this is not necessarily so when the longword-fencer goes for 'deep' targets like the head or the torso because while his own head may be out of reach, his arms most probably are not).

Being able to strike without risk of a counter is a huge advantage, so in tactical terms there is a 'zone of death' around the longsword fencer - if his opponent lingers there, he is courting disaster.

Two hands move the sword faster than the wrist

With a longsword, it is possible to do 'push-pull' cuts in which both hands move in different directions (a good illustration is Schnappen in the German system). The same idea - using the lever-arm between both hands to move the blade - can be used in feints to quickly change the line of attack.

When trying to do any of those with an arming sword, it becomes quickly apparent that the necessary force must come from the wrist - an that is weaker and has less of a lever arm. So while it is possible to feint and change line of attack or even do quick cuts from the wrist with an arming sword, it is by no means as fast or precise as with a two-handed sword.

Tactically, this means that the longsword fighter has a set of feints and cuts available that is superior to what can be done with one hand.

Two hands are stronger than one

Pushing with two hands uses more muscle mass for starters, but when one thinks of a bind, also the lever arm of the longsword handle is superior to what the arming sword offers.

The upshot is that in a bind, the longsword will win under a wide variety of conditions because it simply holds the mechanical advantage (this doesn't mean it will always win - if the strong of the arming sword is against the weak of the longsword, one hand can still be more effective than two - it's just difficult to achieve such binds reliably).

Two hands are more precise than one

By now a familiar theme, the larger lever arm of the longsword handle allows to have more precise point control as well as faster recovery after actions like Durchwechseln in which the point is briefly dropped. With the arming sword, all control has to come from the wrist, and that is never as precise.

The consequence is that the longsword can be expected to be faster and more accurate in thrusts and counter-thrusts.

The left hand doesn't have to be idle

The Fiore plays for one-handed sword illustrate the idea quite clearly - as soon as the distance is suitable, the left hand enters the fight to grab, pull, push or turn the opponent it never remains idle.

Examples for the use of the left hand from the Fiore manual, one-handed sword techniques.

Close-play is the one situation where the arming sword has advantages over the longsword. The first depends a bit on training and experience: When close play distance is entered, the one-handed fencer has his left hand available but the longsword fencer still needs to make the decision to let go of the handle with his left hand. This may give the one-handed fencer a split second advantage.

Also, when only one hand is on the handle, the arming sword is faster to bring around than the longsword and - because it is shorter - it is less likely to get stuck somewhere in the confusion of grappling moves and other close play actions.

Thus, if the one-handed fencer manages to get into close distance, his weapon gives him an advantage.

Distance control

From what has been said above, it is clear that the fencer with the one-hand sword needs to get close to have any sort of advantage. Often in a swordfight, the straightforward way to get close to the opponent is to make contact with his blade in a bind and advance along the bind. However, against a longword this simply is not a good option because the two-handed sword can be expected to win the bind and do a counter-thrust.

So, during Zufechten, the fencer with the arming sword should aim to stand at a distance from which neither of the two can launch a quick surprise attack and from which even the longsword fencer needs to make at least a passing step to attack, thus giving the arming sword fencer time to react.

The general idea is then to pass quickly through the about 20 cm wide zone in which the longsword fencer can strike without any risk because he has the longer weapon.

In defense: If the longword-fighter decides to attack, getting close is a straightforward task. It is sufficient to parry the attack (with a block or cut) while agressively stepping forward (or sideways) rather than stepping away and keeping the distance. In essence, the motion of the longsword fencer solves the problem of closing distance rapidly. The danger of waiting for an attack is of course to estimate distance wrongly and give the longsword fencer an opportunity for a surprise attack.
In offence: Attacking an opponent with superior reach is not an easy task. It requires the ability to bring a credible attack forward fast and decisively. The obvious risk is that the longsword fencer simply steps back, makes the attack go short and uses his longer blade to strike. This must be avoided at all costs. If the first attack does not reach the opponent, it should at least connect with his weapon and be followed by a subsequent attack immediately.

The arming sword has to avoid the center

Plays on the center line are usually fast thrusts, binds, tip movements like Durchwechseln or quick low-energy cuts to the hands. As has been stated above, for all these actions, the two handed longsword is superior to the arming sword.

Thus, it is a mistake to go up against a longsword in the center.

In contrast, for wide diagonal or horizontal cuts, the longsword is not much better than the arming sword, and the same is true for blocking such cuts.

In a few situations, like striking sideways (as in 'a fencer moves left past his opponent and strikes him with the right hand'), the arming sword is clearly better than the longsword, because the second hand on the sword anatomically limits the reach.

So the aim of the one-handed fencer must be to attack from the side. The initial advance must be a wide cut that forces the longsword to a block and is accompanied by a vigorous step forward, subsequent attacks can then keep the pressure, but the aim is to either get close enough to use the left hand in close-play or to get to the left side of the opponent and strike sideways.

Summary

Generally, a one-handed arming sword is at a disadvantage against a two-handed longsword - everything else equal, the one-handed fencer cannot expect to win.

The best he can do is to try to control the exchange (see the article Phases of an exchange, transitions and control), in particular distance, such that the longsword fencer cannot get all the advantages of his superior reach and blade/tip accuracy.

If the exchange can be steered into a close-play situation, the shorter weapon can be expected to win - but this is difficult because a one-handed sword cannot be expected to win binds.

The best case for the arming sword is if the longsword fencer gets eager to score a hit and overcommits to an attack - then closing distance rapidly is fairly easy. If on the other hand the longsword fencer is carefully monitoring distance and patiently aims to steer the fight into the zone where he holds the advantage, this is very difficult to win with the shorter weapon.

Back to main index Back to Swordfighting

Created by Thorsten Renk 2026 - see the disclaimer, privacy statement and contact information.