Hi! I'm looking into some swordplay examples/styles for personal writing purposes and I've been caught on greatswords like montantes and Zweis.
From what I've seen, if the layout is right, a very intimidating twirling style that covers the whole area around the person is effective. For reference, I've been looking at videos like this.
Now, I know a person can't obviously do this forever or at an overwhelming speed, nor would this tactic be usable in every situation. But I'm still curious on the general mindset and openings someone would look for when dealing with a greatsword user? Especially since it seems like as long as there's enough room, the sword could start-up those motions again and it doesn't look like anything you want to get caught up in.
I know next to nothing except what I personally try to look up, so I look at everything just from an outsider's perspective and using what I think is common sense. More specifically, trying to find an opening would be dangerous with swipes like that since it could mean sliced hands, arms, or god forbid your head.
So TLDR; how do you counter greatswords? Especially ones in motion?
Since you're asking on r/AskHistorians rather than r/martialarts, I'll base this on historical sources as much as possible. Let us also assume that you have a shorter weapon, rather than a long polearm (or javelins, a bow/crossbow, a gun, etc.).
Di Grassi (1594) notes what you note, that the two-handed sword in motion is a scary thing:
The which manner of skirmishing, besides that, it is most gallant to behold, being accompanied with exceeding swiftness in delivery, (for otherwise it works no such effect) it also most profitable, not properly of itself, because men considering the fury of the sword, which greatly amazes them, are not so resolute to do that, which otherwise they could not choose but do.
But what is it that he thinks that those facing a two-handed sword should choose to do if they were not so greatly amazed? Nothing other than the obvious: either (a) stay just of of reach and let the blade go past, and then close with haste, or (b) move in soon enough to parry/block the blade close enough to the hilt where it is moving slower. Di Grassi wrote, continuing from above:
That is, either to encounter the sword in the middle towards the handle, when it carries small force, or else to stand far off, watching whilst the sword goes, and is carried compassing in his great circle, being of the compass of ten arms, or more, and then to run under it, and deliver a thrust. And these two ways are effectual, when such men are met withal, who are exercised to enter nimbly and strike, or such as dare, and have the spirit and courage, to set, and oppose themselves single against the two hand sword
There is a third approach, too. One can (attempt to) beat the point of the two-handed downwards with your weapon. The goal is to disrupt the motion of the sword, and ideally drive it into the ground, or otherwise stay in contact with it. This beat is not done directly opposing the motion of the sword, due to the momentum of the big blade, but at an angle, so that your weapon can slow and stop the two-handed sword more gradually. If you can pin the sword against the ground, you can close in relative safety, and strike with your (shorter) weapon. If you merely bring the two-handed sword to a stop, your contact with it is near the point, and you have an advantage in leverage - the length of the blade provides you with a long lever arm with which to move their weapon as you wish. Push their weapon aside, and close and strike.
If the two-handed sword is held stationary, point forward, you don't need to do the first step (stop the sword). You can go straight into the next step - engage the tip with your weapon, and exploit that long lever arm to control their weapon. Avoiding this is one of the reasons that the sword is often kept in motion.
I don't know of this being described in the context of sword against big two-handed sword, but it appears in other discussion of short weapon vs long weapon. For example, Silver (Brief Instructions) prescribes a similar technique for short sword against long sword or rapier, and for short staff against long staff. Similar techniques also appear in Japanese swordsmanship, with sword against naginata. In this Katori Shinto Ryu naginata (vs sword) kata:
the swordsman tries to engage the naginata near the point, and lever it around. It's harder to make this work against a naginata, since the leverage advantage is not as great as against a two-handed sword (since the naginata wielder can hold the weapon with hands well apart, providing them with more leverage). One of the goals of this kata is to teach the naginata wielder how to disengage from such an attempt to control the weapon, and counter. For this reason, the attempt doesn't work in this kata, but it's clearly considered dangerous enough to be important to learn how to counter. The same kata, and a few others, are performed here at a slower pace, which might be easier to follow: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94y1D0TW3GI
Similar technique can be seen in the Chokugen Ryu kata:
with sword against a huge naginata. As well as the engagement and levering around, there are attempts by the swordsman to beat (i.e., hit with his sword) the naginata near the tip, and to stomp on the naginata to drive it into the ground.
This third approach is safer than either of di Grassi's suggestions. The problem with di Grassi's first method - moving in and parrying/blocking closed to the hilt of the two-handed sword - is that the two-handed sword can shift heights quickly. If you move in blocking mid or high, the two handed sword can come in low, under your block (and shield if you have one). If you assume the attack will be low, it can rise easily over your block.
The comparison between di Grassi's second method and the third method above is straightforward: the third method aims to have useful control of the two-handed sword, at least temporarily, which will make closing safer. Di Grassi's method depends purely on timing and speed.
A naive wielder of a big two-handed sword is at risk of being defeated by any of these three methods. It is important for a two-handed sword user to learn how to counter them. The counters involve deceiving the opponent as to when they can try to safely close (ideally, luring them in for an easy hit), disengaging from attempts to control the weapon, and changing heights of an attack to hit a closing opponent. All of these need to be done while moving back to give more time before the opponent closes.
References:
Giacomo di Grassi, His True Arte of Defence, (1594): http://wiktenauer.com/wiki/Giacomo_di_Grassi#Two-Handed_Sword
George Silver, Brief Instructions upon my Paradoxes of Defence, undated manuscript, c. 1600: http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/brief.html
Zweihanders were popular mostly early 16th century. The Swiss outlawed their use, while German mercenary armies like the Landsknechte kept using them.. Zweihänder-wielders fought primarily with and against pike formations. However, note how the early 16th century also saw the early modernization of gun powder weapons in warfare. Even more significant than cannon was the use of smaller firearms: the arquebus, and later, the musket. Although lacking the accuracy and range of a bow, a firearm didn’t require extensive strength and training the Zweihander does to wield. By the late 16th century, practical use of the Zweihander had ceased entirely. To answer your question, the easiest way to counter a large sword-wielding soldier would be a gunpowder weapon. Alternatively, a bow would work as well.
Clements, J. "The Weighty Issue of Two-Handed Greatswords". ARMA. Retrieved 11 May 2012.