What was the biggest type of sword ever used in actual combat?

There is a type of idnian/pakistani sword that is flexible and is the size of a normal sword with the tip rolled up but as you swing it is unrolls into a really long sharp tongue - called an urumi. This part of India was never conquered and this type of sword was banned from duels. It's not the beefiest sword, but in terms of length it can roll out to well over 6'. The longest practical conventional sword is the 6' claymore.

Certainly the broadsword has its fans and was no doubt very scary and effective when used by a well trained soldier/knight. However I would argue that the greatest (not biggest) sword in history was the Roman Gladius - the sword that built an empire. Short, sharp and easy to carry and use, which is more than can be said for the larger broadsword. Just imagine having to fight from dawn til dusk, ten swings of a broadsword would be enough to tire all but the fittest, who might manage 20-30 swings, but after that they would be too tired to fight. Whereas the short Gladius can kill with very little effort on the part of the wielder. Mention must also be made of the 16th and 17th century Japanese Samurai swords, which are the peak of the craft - lightweight, razor-sharp and extremely deadly in the right hands.

The Broadsword was the longest and heaviest used by knights , To get through the armour of other knights , if it didn't cut through the amour the blow was so powerful it often knocked a knight out. In Saladin's army they had a sword with a sliding weight that increased the force of the blow but that was lighter than the broadsword.the Zweihander was a chopping sword that depended on sheer weight to disable an opponent ,(BIT LIKE A SAXON WAR AXE) Depending on were it was manufactured was mostly lighter than the broadsword.

The medieval german landsknecht and highland scots used twohanded swords as long as 6ft in length- very slow and unwieldy on the retract stroke, if the first blow didnt connect the other could easily get in with a counterstroke - particularly as twohanded swords preclude the use of a shield. it is notable that scot highlanders changed to a shorter singlehanded broadsword and shield

Sire Guilame de Walleis wielded a great double handed battle sword..its length was almost his height (6 foot)..it would have weighed probably 5lbs or so but perfectly balanced. In the medaeval battlefield perfect for close quarters slashing and hacking and swirling in arcs around the body, a ring of steel for defence. We perhaps forget that the mediaeval warriors were trained at a young age to wield these weapons and were suitably prodigiously muscularly developed in the upper arm. The archers for example at Agincourt although averaging 5'6 in height or less had bows with draw strengths of 120lbs or more and the huge strength to fire at least 300 yards. It is told that at the battle of Senlac ridge in 1066 our anglo saxon forbears could swing their massive axes so to cleave a knight in his armour and his horse in two. The Bruis at Bannockburn on the eve of battle cleaved de Boon 'from knave to chaplet' rising from the saddle of his palfrey to a mighty English warhorse as it flew past, lance askew. Their were some mighty skilled men in those days!

I think it's the Scottish Claymore, which was routinely over 1.4 metres in length and weighed in at a little over 2.5kg.

Zweihänder & Greatsword are two different phenomina, the latter normally used to describe hand-and-a-half swords. In terms of battlefield weapons the Zweihänder can be taken as the longest type of sword that saw much use. The weapon indeed has a highly specialised technique connected with its use; while it can be swung "full blade" to produce a heavy cutting blow the wielder may also grasp the blade ahead of the primary hilt (hence the small secondary "quillons" 12" or so up the blade) and use the sword as a short, nimble polearm with a reach akin to other swords. Usage technique was also highly flexiable, the pommel & hilt might be used to punch at close quarters while the whole sword could be reversed and the hilt used in hooking & tripping manouvres. Though not really at their best duelling with lighter & nimbler blades such large swords were formidable vs. polearms & armoured opponents.

I believe it may have been the large two sided broadsword. It took both hands to wield it, which is why the horses of these knights were trained to respond to knee pressures. These were the battle horses, trained in Spain, originally for the Romans, and adopted by the Medieval knights [the ones with money enough to afford them]. The horses would fight right along with the knights, biting, and kicking the enemy during a battle and respond to the knee pressure of the knight with out using the reigns. This way the warrior could use broadsword, mace, pike, shield and any other arms available. [these horses are now housed in Austria and called 'Lipizzans'. Although shown in films as being 'swung over the head' by a berserker [ie: viking], they usually used a double bladed war axe as their primary weapon. [email protected]

Nobody mentioned the Odachi, which was actually banned in Japan for being too powerful, able to cut a horse in half if used correctly...Japanese sword smiths still forge them occasionally as proof of their skill....vary in size usually from 5 to 6 ft long from tip to hilt