Ahhhh, given that Altaea's Interest thread's entering second page status, I figured I'd throw a post here to both clarify Nevis' expertise in historical matters and move the chain 8)

[quote=Nevis]
Alright, I'll get on (a) character(s), then.Oh, something I missed about the Renaissance (it was really late when I wrote that <p) is that a large part of it was also about a return to 'Classical' styles of thought and architecture-that is, Greek and Roman, based on large open styles and geometric (and even number) styles, as compared to the 'Gothic' style which was more about what aesthetically looked pleasing, intuition and mystery, that was predominant during the Medieval period.
[/quote]

These [i]Classical styles[/i] are now referred to as [i]Classical Antiquity[/i], which is a term used to describe the cultural history surrounding the Greco-Roman world prior to the Western Roman Empire's downfall. Many Renaissance artists, in particular, began to emulate, study, and mimick many Greco-Roman disciplines considered lost or forgotten over the centuries. In this respect, many architectural, art, and anatomical disciplines owe refinement due to discoveries made during the Renaissance as well as the movement's, Classical Antiquity hungers.

[quote=Nevis]
^^Actually, most of our current names for weapons (and especially swords) are modern inventions or at least modern uses of them. At that time, they were largely referred to as 'swords', with occasional use of 'longsword', 'long sword', 'great sword', 'dueling sword', 'side-sword/belt-sword' and so on. So, yeah, they weren't really classified by name back then, although I haven't heard of rapier specifically being used to refer to anything else.
[/quote]

Regarding name classifications, naming conventions are skewed because not all known names were recorded onto books. Medieval naming standards weren't as meticulous, varied, or specific as today's standards are, in fact, what's both fascinating and altogether odd is that common medieval naming practices involved issuing very few names or in some cases the same name for differing objects or subjects while one object or subject discipline usually carried many names :lol.

[quote=Nevis]
As I'm not entirely sure about what your point was with the paragraph on two-handed swords... swords actually reached their longest length and greatest size in real life once plate armor was actually already in decline. The open battlefield of pikes, polearms and arquebuses was actually when the largest swords reached their apex use. While, granted, they were still an uncommon weapon (more dangerous to use than a spear, took way more training to use effectively, more expensive weapon and so on), the technological level here is actually the very best one for them.
[/quote]

Not entirely familiar with two handed swords, but owing to certain readings, the long swords certainly did not offer any tactical advantages against pikelines, stiff close quarters engagements, or static kite shield/round shield/hoplon walls. There are several books that [i]do[/i] offer some sort insight into utilizing two handed swords for severing pikeheads and utilizing twirling movements to keep fighters at bay so to say they were useless is far from accurate! On the other hand, even though two handed swords certainly did have greater reach, they required open space for the best exploitation. I do recall reading about various battlefield accounts involving Gaullic longswordmen having difficulty penetrating Roman Legionary lines. This was due to numerous issues regarding the static manner, in which Roman soldiers fought and the lack of open space required to effectively wield their loose fighting styles. I understand that the Flamberge was an effective weapon and when I mentioned my two cents on two handed swords, what I meant was that they could be most effective for shock troops operating outside pikewalls when open gaps appeared within various static shield or pike lines. I'm not an expert so Nevis can certainly take over here 8)