One handed swords vs Two handed swords - REPLY to the Metatron 

Hey, I'm in Shad's mirror, that was cool :D Fantastic video response mate, thoroughly enjoyed it. You bring up some very interesting points, I'll try comparing the swords myself as soon as I get a good quality long sword. In the light of this new information, atleast in matter of weight, I must say I do reconsider and I myself would now consider a bastard sword to be indeed the best choice for a weaker individual, and the long sword a better option than an arming sword. For my personal preference (so talking about me wielding the weapon) at the moment however I would still choose a one handed arming sword over a long sword/bastard sword as I'm absolutely in love with my Oakeshott type twelve and the way it feels in the hand, even with one handed usage. Thank you for the shoutout and the respect you show for my channel and content. 'till next time ;)

The thing about sword and buckler, it uses more of grappling and hitting techniques. So strength and height are a real advantage. Taking a good hit on a buckler is comparable to a hand to hand hard block, so again a weak person will not be able to take too many blows on the buckler (or especially a shield) before getting tired or ineffective. So yes, they would be more in a business of using reach instead. On a battlefield or in a duel, it makes sense to use well made gauntlets and gloves to protect the arms and a helmet. Especially gauntlets can make a one handed weapon lunge much safer - a lunge compensates for the shorter reach. A big guard on the weapon does so too, but nowhere near as effectively, and it weighs and/or reduces options. A bit of armor goes a long way if fitted properly. It's probably not something you would carry every day though. An even lightly armored warrior generally has much less need of a shield unless going against someone who is either using a weapon with a massively longer reach, say a polearm designed to fight armor (not stick) or a missile weapon like a crossbow, bow or even some firearms. Shields are great when closing distances - you still get to move fast of course.

interesting discussion! in the end, I think it really depends on preference... but also depends on many other details, for example, it's just self defense, or can ir be for a battle? or, as you pointed out, when talking about holding the shield for too long, will the phisically weak person have to hold the weapon for a relactively long time? I, in my (really) humble opinion, would prefer the shorter sword, because of how the point of balance would play a role in making the arms tired, and also because of the possible center of percussion (given the lenght of the blade) making a shorter weapon easier to handle, even if I'd prefer a long sword myself... (excuse my horrible English...)

Thank you so much SHAD and METATRON for your "Replying Videos". It's really interesting and mature. I'm French and the last part of 2016 was a "Dark Age" on French RU-vid with full of "RU-vid Drama". So THANK YOU TWO!!

That Squirrel will haunt my nightmares.

I agree with your views on the momentum of the sword, however I personaly feel that by using a sword with 2 hands massivly reduces the agility of the blade and historically people with less strength were used more as skirmishers rather than front line warriors. If extra strength is needed a fighter could use a second hand with a one handed where as the 2 handed will never be able to gain the agility of a smaller blade. By the way love the videos.

A couple of points a) if you increase the length (weight) of the grip while reducing the length (weight) of the blade, you run the risk of totally screwing up the weapons balance. b) a shorter weapon against a longer blade can be *VERY* advantageous.

Could you maybe do an analysis on the Great Wall of China from the new movie "The Great Wall"? I know it isn't faithful representation of what it actually was, but I'd like to know what you have to say about it. (Thanks to your videos, I cringed when the battlements were too low and characters threw their shields off without a shadow of a doubt)

There is one thing i want to say about this (I know the video is 3 months old). I have a good friend, a girl, who is praticing HEMA and she is small. She practiced fighting with a longsword but she stopped doing it with a regular longsword and instead uses a arming sword two-handed now. The reason is interesting it was nothing about weight or something like that. She had problems doing some attacks, defences etc. because of the length of the blade. It was more like she would use a greatsword and therefore couldn't do all the things you could do with a longsword. Often the blade touched the ground or even was stopped by the ground so the usability was not as good as the one i have it with a longsword. The funny thing is because of that it was easier to attack her legs in order to hit her because she had problems defending against that.

Hey I was wondering if you could answer a question for me about certain castles. Most the time when I look at pictures and research them, the primary castle, or tower house, is usually hollow on the inside, like how the floors in Rochester castle are gone. Were the floors made of wood that molded away over time or were they stone that just eventually fell?

The Metatron has spread his wings¡

massive fan btw from your cousins from New Zealand

do people carry multiple weapons? a sword and a warhammer? A dagger/knife as backup is standard thinking. maybe on the horse' pack?

Or maybe they use daggers. Throwing daggers and stuff. Just sneaky sneak and stab when they sleep. And in battle just carry like a gazillion daggers to throw.

I just want to point out that a sword should fel balanced not too light. There is a reason that a base ballplayer does not simply grab the lightest bat available. If it is too light it will throw off your balance and rhythm. Also note that in your sparring those taps would do absolutely nothing to even a lightly clothed person. It is sort of like olympic boxing vs regular boxing. The weak boxer who lands a lot of weak hits can easily win over someone make hard hits that actually hurt the opposing person.

If spear is better, why not quarterstaff for self defense? Can double as a walking stick, so not hard to carry around, and wouldn't draw attention or seem out of place.

3:20 ...you know you were thinking it

I wonder if knife/dagger at the belt can counter grabbing. Whats your thoughts?

Great video, very good.

A disagreement is either an opportunity to learn or to teach.

those damn squirrels. that's exactly why I keep a crossbow beside my chair.

Q: What sword to use in combat? One handed or two? A: Whichever will end thine opponent rightly.

No, this is all wrong! We need Shad vs Metatron 1v1 now! Shad 2 handed vs Meta 1 handed!

That "spear vs sword" thing is best described using modern weaponry - assault riffle is a better weapon overall, but pistols are better everyday carry.

SQUIRREL!!!

so if your cupping the pummel while using a longsword let you twist the pommel off to finish your opponent rightly?

4:10 An extra advantage: you can unscrew the pommel faster

still no explaination about how each type of sword fares against dragons... what about dragons?

I love this! I love that HEMA is one of the only places on the internet where people can agree or disagree civilly! It makes me so happy to be a part of this community!!

Miniature.... Metatron is not wearing plate armor... It's PASTA ARMOR!

Kinda awesome how the content creators tend to geek out a bit over the others videos. I pretty much follow Metatron, Scholar Gladitoria, Skallagrim and others. REcently stumbled across this channel. Not disappointed. Bit of a humorous style like Lyndibeige which I like. Just wanted to say that. Also great points on the Crossbow for range, and Longsword for personal defense.

I've been fighting in the SCA for a little over 5 years, and my prefered weapon is greatsword. I know it's not HEMA, but I think I can speak from a wealth of experience and bruises about the bit where you're comparing sword and shield vs two handed sword. 13:31, Like anything a proper amount of training will get you used to the blind spot. It took me forever to get used to sword and board, but I've seen other fighters adapt to it quite quickly. At 13:45 , I have to say that you're luck is mostly due to the inexperience of your sword n' shield using opponents, most likely. Range is excellent, but only if you're quick and clever enough to maintain it. 14:23 I'd say that most times the shieldman has the advantage, if they're free to run down the one without a shield. Having one thing to attack with and one thing to block with tends to be better than having one thing to attack and block with. The longswordsman, or greatswordsman in my case, will only maintain the advantage if range is kept. With a longsword that range is going to be even more difficult to maintain, the shieldman might only have to take a step to get into their B range. As far as the best weapon for someone with less physical strength, I think the spear is the best. You even said it yourself, that someone much weaker would want to avoid a grapple. A spear will allow the less physically endowed to keep attackers at range much easier, and wouldn't require as much power to inflict damage.

So, I saw this video and became intrigued so much I tracked down the other two videos. First things first, after teaching people how to sword fight for over tens years, I tend to agree with your opinion more than Metatron's opinion. In fact, here's a video from scholagladitoia where Matt Easton says the same thing: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-9wDjjLnKRcI.html. Londswords are much better for beginning sword fighters that don't have the muscles needed to support some of the techniques. I tend to prefer the rapier myself, but I have lost students to longsword classes because their arms got too tired. Ultimately though, the best weapon for someone is the one that feels the most comfortable. My favorite memory of how strength doesn't translate into sword fighting very well is one where a prison security guard came to my fencing school because he wanted to learn something different. This guy was huge, he was much stronger than me, and i actually had difficulties because it was like fighting Conan the Barbarian while i was trying to teach him the basic strikes. The gentleman actually had to take off work and missed the next session because he could not move his arm after the first lesson. So, I agree that giving a novice a longsword to start off with is a good choice while they learn how to control the weapon. Metatron wasn't wrong though. There are many historical cases where people would user a one handed sword with two hands. My favorite is a dueling stance that was used with the Scottish basket hilt claymore, and there is a pretty good example of it in the movie "Rob Roy". However, that is not how the sword was made to be used and you will always lose effectiveness when using a weapon in a way that it wasn't intended to be used. So the reach advantage severely offsets the weight disadvantage of using a single handed sword. And the thing to remember is the a single handed word really was designed to be used in a battlefield situation which is why it was so short, and why many were so tip heavy. They were meant for areas where there wasn't room to maneuver, so if you have room once again, the longsword wins this. Ultimately though, it depends on what you feel more comfortable with. It just so happens that most people prefer the feel of a longsword when first learning how to fight than other weapons.

why not polearms for the ladies? even shorter ones. naginatas for instance were standard curriculum for the ladies in japan for a long time. all the leverage, all the reach.

I think you should try to convince your fellow larpers about alternative methods to just strapping on a shield. Have you suggested handles to them? Maybe they'll get a handle on you then. :)

In conclusion: use spears. They usually outreach swords.

I think people forgot how to use shields with arming swords. They were a very effective combo, you have to treat the shield as a weapon as well not just blocking.

It amuses me how he always has to explain people can share ideas and have a different opinions and that he isn’t dissing anyone

I need that chair. Like... I fucking need it.

Could it be that the people you're sparring against don't know how to fully utilize a shield?

People without shields on a battlefield are wounded or dead. Archers will take the easy target......the guy with a two hander. Two handers are for dueling on they are niche roles once archers are on the field.

a reply to the beautiful long-haired cringy bastard mettaton. I love him

the mutual respect between Shad and Metatron, who I both enjoy very much, is really quite heartwarming

I see the shields most of the time used defensively. But i think it should be used in a more aggressive way like the Vikingshield! But i think its forbidden in LARP to do that. In a real fight it could be more difficult for you to win against someone with a shield using it agressive. Would you agree or do you have a different experience? :)

In my limited experience, I also found the two-handed long sword a more potent choice than sword & shield, allowing for "fancier footwork" & parry. The shield can become a mild distraction, which I felt took away from your ability to attack as effectively. It compels you to attack more confidently, but somehow makes you more of a sitting duck in dexterity. (Not talking shield wall or Roman legion stuff here.)

Though at my height (6'0) reach isn't really a problem, I agree with you in preferring the two-handed longsword. Not only is the comfort and control level much higher, but let's be honest here; two-handed longswords really LOOK incredibly cool.

Having to carry a big object is not the only reason why it's not so practical to use a spear for self defense. Being in closed quarters like rooms, corridors or even narrow city roads is also an issue if you're fighting with a spear I reckon, as opposed to being in an open battlefield where the spear can be put to full use.

No offence is mean the by the following comment. “ADHD. Highway to hey look a squirrel.”

6:15 Reach is, of course, incredibly important, however I would like to point out that in the comparison drawn here you gain two benefits from the shorter sword. Weight as you pointed out, but also because the torque, (the force required to rotate the blade) is heavily influenced by mass distribution, because the mass on the shorter sword is placed closer to the handle, (the axis about which you will be rotating unless you are half-swording or something like that) it requires much less force to rotate the shorter bastard sword as compared to the long sword, on top of the total weight/mass. (Less weight = easier to hold up, less mass = less inertia so it's easier to swing).

Shad... Take it a step further. A DAGGER in two hands! So light! So easy to swing!

MY OPINIONS ARE ALWAYS CORRECT how dare you

But you're wiggling toy swords

I guess the Japanese Nagamaki might be the perfect weapon in this case. Well I doubt anybody will ever read this comment anyways...

Swords look really cool. But let's be honest, spear> sword every time

Holding the sword in one hand you have longer reach. And that is clearly visible on your video. The fact that your reach is not restricted by your left hand. Which is an advantage for the one handed sword. Also with one handed swords you would use different power generating techniques which would make up (partially or fully) to the leverage advantage of the two handed sword. There is a reason why one handed swords were vastly popular during historical times. I would argue that two handed swords in historical times were mostly seen as battlefield weapons for a very specific time period 14-16th century.

But using a one-handed sword with two hands lacks the extended reach of a proper longsword. So its a fucking dumb idea. If you are gonna loose the reach then you might just as well keep using the one handed sword in ONE hand and a shield on the other... And leverage off course, as you explained.

"The best technique are past down by survivors''

Ooooooooooooooohhhhhhh!!!!!! Fight fight fight

I think that the long sword is a really beautiful elegant weapon :) My D&D group was discussing halflings the other night, about how a real fight between a hallooing and a human might go. We agreed that halflings would have a harder time against human than D&D or similar RPG's portray. We also speculated that a spear would be the best melee weapon that a halfling could use in a fight against a human with a windlass crossbow being the best weapon over all, barring gunpowder.

Shad, would you mind doing a video on the terminology of armor? You already have one for the sword and one for castles, but nothing on armor.

The heavier the sword the better the workout. No matter what sword they choose their strength levels will adapt to wield it.

I love shad but my god, but audio equalizing😂

wait... why not make a spear... with a cross guard?

I love a healthy discussion, it's much more productive than a 1 point of view opinion

We're one handed swords used mainly with shields in the other?

Great video, I agree with you entirely. BTW, I've had a chance to play Cogent roleplay and love the game. Thanks for the link.

One handed katanas vs two handed swords?

I think quarterstaff or slings would be better for someone with less strength, still requires lots of practice/training but those things could be best for them the staff gives reach and blunt force as well as could be used like a walking stick, and slings were used by shepherds I am pretty sure and many of them where young people/children and they have less strength, also that gives even more range.

in the states many bowie knife makers balance the blade weight and length to match the forearm of the customer who will weird it. I wonder if the same thing can be done with a sword to give someone who may not be as strong a balance advantage?

The bit on the end illustrates why I went for great swords in skyrim over shield and sword. Too much coordination required. Give me the big sword that can swing and block and bash and it's fluid.

The video against the Shield Man was interesting. The guy doesn't know how to fight a two-handed weapon. Once you close in on any two handed weapon with a shield, you get your shield on his hilt and you play Sticky Fingers. If he backs up you stay with him. The whole time The Shield man should be swinging left and right Non-Stop while maintaining Shield pressure on the two handed weapon. If you want a more realistic experience try SCA. Full powerful speed with a simulator that hurts makes a big difference in how good you get and how fast. The skill caliber in the SCA is also a lot higher when you start fighting Knights and Dukes. Best Regards

so... bastard or hand and a half sword would be better yes?

the best weapon for women would be a dagger and stealth

Dual wielding

I am an Artist, The Battlefield is my Canvas, The Tetsubo is my Brush... and you? You're the paint. (Sometimes the paint runs...)

I am just realizing how much the quality of Shad's videos have improved (especially the audio quality).

Me: *Throws knife at hand" "As you can see. The enemy cannot use their hand if you disable it. Same for a Smallsword, Dagger, Rapier ,Jian etc"

Shad, does the height of the wielder matter for sword length & blade length? Let's say the wielder is 5'5" - 5'9" and is primarily looking at the 12th-13th Century.

You are wrong about grappling. I weighted 75 kg and can easily grapple with 100kg guy because I train BJJ. 😋

You know, Shad, when discussing whether a fact is true or false there's no place for opinions. If two people are presented with the same information, they understand it in the same way, and reach different conclusions, AT LEAST ONE OF THEM is wrong. We all live in the same reality, with the same natural laws, where the same cause necessarily leads to the same effect. Nobody can say "In my opinion, 2+2=3". No matter how many times they repeat it, no matter how many people repeat it, 2+2 still equals 4 because reality doesn't care about opinions. And there is only one way to solve the disagreement: NOT by dispute, because the person who sounds more convincing might not be the one who is right. The only way to solve it is by experimentation. That means let reality do the talking for you.

Great video, Shad! Like always! However, in terms of strength being in a *much* greater role in grappling: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-M7V1eUfccJo.htmlm14s Here's an olympic gold medalist wrestler wrestling (Jouko Salomäki; en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jouko_Salom%C3%A4ki ) wrestling with a professional bodybuilder (Hanssi Fell). Technique has an immense role to play in grappling. Strength doesn't hurt, and yes, the strength difference can be so great that the technique just is not enough, but usually technique > strength. However, if neither has technique advantage, then I would count the following as game changers: experience, strength, ferocity / ruthlessness and the willingness and ability to take a hit. Of course there are others, I'm sure, but these just came to my mind and I should be working instead of replying to you. :P

I think you have to visit the "Deutsches Klingenmuseum" (German museum for blades) in Solingen. There are tons of swords, original and replicated swords. I know it's a long way and costs a lot (I think you are from Australia; sorry, if I have a false assumption), but I think this could be your personal Mecca. I have been there very often and I will be there often because I enjoy it. Solingen is also called "City of Blades" because of many factories/manufacturers and blacksmithes making swords, sabers, rapiers, daggers, knifes and sets of cutlery; even straight razors. Its tradition traces back to the Middle Ages. In Solingen is also a castle called "Schloss Burg" ("Burg Castle", official translation). Maybe one day you will travel to Solingen and visit the castle, which is actually a medieval palace, and the "Deutsches Klingenmuseum". Thank you for all your informative videos!

but when it comes to blades... in my opinion... a weaker opponent... it shoult use 2 light short swords... like 2 khyber knives... and use escrima / kali technique.... block with one hand and stricke with the other... at the same time... or allmost the same time... .... light and fast... but that's just my oppinion... cuz that's what im familiar to :P

Why do people always go towards the 'Mass Production' designs but never discuss possible customized designs and such. Why not an Arming Sword Blade Length with Long Sword Length Hilt? Though I think a Short Spear like what Balsa in Moribito wields might be the best weapon as it could be used as a Bludgeon, Staff, Thrusting, and Slashing Weapon while being able to double as a walking staff and such.

An experienced fighter can swing 5 hits per second with a standard 36" one handed sword. An experienced fighter can swing 7 hits per second with a 6' great sword. Reach only matters to those who don't feel comfortable getting in close. My personal philosophy has always been, "Jump in their underpants and make 'em panic.", and yep that goes even for a fight between some poor sod with a sword and shield while I use my great sword. :) The method you prefer of grabbing the pommel is actually quite detrimental. First, it is dangerous for your hand. You risk injury. Trust me, I am the practical application of your theory. You also lose a considerable percentage of your defensive power by grabbing the knob. Proper back hand grip is important. In the case of equally skilled combatants, the longer, two handed weapon will trump the single sword with buckler 99% of the time, or full sized shield 70% of the time. For people who haven't had any experience and wonder about full sized shields, try this... hold a pillow case by your fingertips with outstretched arms. Let us know how long you could keep that position. :) Side note: Shad, nothing I loved more, in SCA combat over the last decade I played, after a fight the shield man who just lost to my great sword would come up and say, "I knew you were going to do that move. It's the only one you've used all day and I was totally prepared for it. But it just happened so fast...". Gotta love a 6 foot weapon that can go from perpendicular to parallel and impaling in less than 1/30 of one second. :)

What is the best weapon for a woman/weaker combatant? A Pole-arm or sword (style of your choosing) What if you could effectively pick both? I think Japan has answered this question - i raise you the glaive. Naginata (Japanese glaive) have shortsword length blades and handguards and even came into regulated use by bushi class women so they formulated it specifically to work well for women by devising versions with shorter blades and lighter shafts, developing the ko-naginata. It even has a counter-weight/bludgeoning implement.

Ok so assuming the weight of the 2 swords are the same [and bearing in mind I'm getting these average lengths from wikipedia]: A sword with a length of 29in with 1in of space between your grip would require roughly 4.66lbs of force to reach equilibrium A sword with a length of 38in with 3in of space between your grip would require roughly 10.66lbs of force to reach equilibrium So it looks like aside from stylistic prefrences and speaking purely in terms of weight and the strength needed, one handed sword wins.

I think the best defensive tool for a mideival woman (or limp-wristed nancy-boy) is. . . a husband. Seriously though, a dagger/stiletto. Pretend to surrender and stab 'em in the back.

Shad brings up the importance of fitness/size in determining a victor, but I wouldn't gloss over such things as the "tiebreaker" factors.Never underestimate physical prowess. Anyone who is serious about any kind of fighting should be spending 95% of their time conditioning and building strength. Technique, arms, and armor quickly lose their returns as you get tired, winded, fall to the floor and die after your heart explodes. Or when you drop your guard because you can't hold your arms up. Etc. Plus, physical fitness is just a good idea that gives massive return on investment overall. ;P

I hike in rough country a lot(8+hours\week) and have no problem carrying a machete for brush and a 6'staff for navigating blowdowns.. And a backpack with a toddler.Spears really wouldn't be that bad to carry daily methinks, as long as they are under 7' and I've found a short spear still effective against sword & shield. They're basically a walking staff with a knife attached.

A weak person has no place on the battlefield. I'm talking proper weak. They're just better off hiding, don't you think? Could get in the way of proper fighters, or shoot someone in the back. And in that instance, say some refugees are found by viking marauders - or just one, to keep it simple - i think a knife or a club would do you as much good as a longsword. It just comes down to pure dumb luck if you're gonna survive. Im thinking that a weaker person, say a rogue or wizard type in your RPGs, would still be quite strong enough to wield any sort of weapon he/she chooses, as it would be a career adventurer and as such prepared for the rigors of combat, physicality included. If you're OOM, that is...

I nerd-out and geek-out with my friends all the time. One way we keep it civil is thus: We never use the word "conclusion". How can we? There is no "conclusion" until me with my weak wrists and forearms are face to face with an armed brute and my only choices are an Arming Sword, Longsword, or Rapier. Only then will I conclusively be alive or dead. My friends and I are highly egotistical, highly competitive, but almost strictly in the arenas of nerddom and geekdom. In order to avoid highly emotionally charged arguments (two of us are Bipolar and another is Borderline Personality), we avoid buzzwords that indicate victory or loss as if they were the plague. Unfortunately, that careful walking on eggshells isnt always possible and so huge fights have broken out in the past. But we try very hard to use a word like "concluded" because it implies a mic-drop that quite simply isnt there.

On the issue of holding the pommel: You can do that, but Liechtenauer disagrees with you. The pseudo-Döbbringer glosses clearly tells you to *not* hold the pommel ...which tells us that a lot of people *did* like to hold it. Other manuals (and thus Masters) seem to be perfectly okay with holding the pommel. So if you're training Liechtenauer, you need to keep your hand off the pommel ...but if your doing, say, Fiore, then feel free to grab that pommel!

The optimal weapon for each persons’ attributes is the correct one. The right tool for the job is also correct. You wouldn’t fight a tank with an m16? You would have zero chance. Fighting a tank with a bazooka and you may have a chance. If I were to fight an armored knight, then I would arm myself with a halberd( can opener) . I’ll take every inch afforded.

I have no idea how strong Jon Snow is but, Ik the actor is my height (5'8) and he uses a longsword. Now Ik it's a TV show and fantasy and all, but it still seems logical. And I certainly prefer longsword in 2 hands over sword and shield and I'm on the weaker/shorter side, but I seem to do well enough (with no real training mind you) with it, specially compared to arming sword with buckler/shield.

The best weapon for a given situation hasn't got much to do with the size and strength of the combatant (whether they're a 50 kg female warrior and a 100 kg male warrior). If your opponent has light armor or no armor, and no shield, then the most important features of your ideal weapon are: 1) Damage; usually featuring a sharp blade because it's so effective against human flesh. 2) Reach; because if you can harm your opponent from further away, you can kill them before they can even touch you. 3) Surprise factor; this works the same way as reach, and in a fair fight (duel) is not a factor. Your ideal weapon (for a weak warrior or a strong one alike) is going to be a projectile weapon. Bows, crossbows, firearms, slings, or anything along these lines is effective and efficient at transforming your input force into higher output force on the target. A projectile launched from any of these weapons is going to hit harder and fly faster than you could throw them yourself. So firearms come out on top, maybe chemical weapons. You want to ignore those, and talk about pre-gunpowder? The repeating crossbow is a fierce weapon. Standard crossbows fire slowly due to their lengthy reloads, and bows and slings require a decent amount more skill to use effectively. That being said, broad-tipped arrows out of a lower-strength bow are still going to be effective. For melee weapons, we're immediately excluding blunt impact melee weapons, because they are inefficient at killing lightly armored opponents. This brings us back to reach, and two-handed spears rule here. If you decide "a long spear is too clumsy to carry around on a daily basis, and use in confined spaces", then pick the longest sword that is short enough for your needs. If you bring shields into the equation, it really comes down to the skill of the fighters. Shields are effective tools in combat, and you may want to consider weapons specifically designed to hook around the shield (such as extremely curved stabbing swords). The two-handed spear (and projectile weapons), having exceptional range, can still attack the openings (above and below the shield) with their reach advantage, but have much less options due to the effectiveness of good shields. Bringing armor into the situation (especially full metal plate armor) changes the priorities of the ideal weapon. Blunt impact weapons become much more useful, and "pick-like" weapon spikes become a good option for puncturing the armor. When you understand what weapons are most effective in a given situation, the question of "weapons for weaker people" is non-existent.

6:47 Yes but look at UFC 1 the 170lb BJJ fighter beat all the people on roids 100 pounds over him, because they werent as good at grappling.

I can easily swing My Bastard with one hand. I have difficulty swinging My Norman with two hands.

So, for the conclusion, the two-handed grip is much more useful than one-handed. The blade-length of longsword and one-handed sword both have their advantages for considering the reach and speed maneuverability. Therefore, I would choose a bastard (hand-and-a-half / two-handed grip) sword.

Nice video (again); just 6:30 was a bit misleading: The length of a sword IS NOT equivalent to its reach. If you are using it for thrusts, it is equivalent, but not for cuts. With the longsword you see in this scene, you need to hit approximatly 1/3rd down the tip to make an effective cut. The arming sword had thus a bit longer reach in comparison. This would apply even more so to some messer, falchion, katana or sax. Similarly, for people that have little experience with swords, it might come as a surprise, but short heavy blades can handle better than longer blades of the same weight, due ot the mass distribution. However, with longer blades higher tip speeds are reached.