r1 r1 r1 r1 r1 r1 r1 r1 r1 r1 r1 r1...

Damn right

It has an almost identical moveset to DS3, so no two-handed thrust (except the rolling attacks)

here I am wishing we held our swords downward again like in DS2.

I also wish it had the same moveset/stance as in DS2.

That would be less correct if you look at the grip. (Medieval) longswords have a long grip for 2 hands, arming swords have a short one for 1 hand. And don't forget that you can wield any weapon 1 OR 2 handed.

This incarnation of the weapon seems to have a true two-handed grip (even if it's on the shorter end) so even without having a particularly long blade it could still count as a "true" longsword.

Eh...the blade is far too short to really be called a Longsword. If it was a Longsword the blade would be longer than that of the Bastard Sword not shorter. The Bastard Sword was supposed to be the halfway point between the two weapons after all.

Bastard sword is not a historical term, it's not even a modern term.
Term bastard sword was popularised by D&D in the popculture.
This thing here is a longsword judging from the handle length, even if the blade is little shorter that usual, it's still considered a longsword.

I think it would fall more into the hand and a half sword range. The Middle Ages were a strange time where swords were concerned. The in game bastard sword would actually be more accurate as a Longsword.

If you want historical accuracy, Longswords were indeed used in one hand or both. There are plenty of medieval depictions of people using them with just the same sort of shield as the Vagabond class begins with. And as for fencing masters, the venerable Fiore de'i Liberi details how to use the real thing with either one or both hands, being a contemporary of the weapon.

No! You're supposed to beat the whole game with just the longsword, or else you're a weeaboo or something! Ree!

No! You're supposed to beat the whole game with just the longsword, or else you're a weeaboo or something! Ree!

No! You're supposed to beat the whole game with just the longsword, or else you're a weeaboo or something! Ree!

yes

Yes, it's not a phase, dad! R1 spam is life

Do you still spam on your mom?

No, I remapped my controls.

Another piece of medieval history: longswords were between 37 and 42 inches long, which, while meant to be wielded two handed, made it usable one-handed in the case one of your arms got damaged. They were still meant to be
wielded two handed, but amateurs historians will assume they were longer than reality. The biggest reason they weren't wielded two handed is that there were no reason to wear a shield once you had a decent armor, and two hands mean more impact. Also, knight would often switch between two handed and one handed stances so that they could use they secondary hand to grab something like a spear on the ground to throw or grapple a person.

Arming swords, were between 26 and 32 inches, and couldn't be wielded efficiently two handed if you wanted. Other than the vikings, arming swords were nearly never seen on the battlefield. It was a noble's sidearm, similar to a revolver nowadays. Some people have them, but they don't plan on going to war with them. Medieval battlefields had mostly spears, while trained combatants usually used halberds , warhammers or longswords (in the case of knights)

Greatswords (mostly the Zweihander, Flamberge and Claymore) were meant to be especially long, often reaching the height of its wielder. They were meant to be wielded two handed, and you couldn't wield it efficiently one handed. And for the single century that they were used, they were mostly specialised weapon targeted at slaying horses and dealing with spearmen. In no way were they versatile enough to be wielded with allies around you.

All straight swords, except maybe short swords, look like they are meant to be used in two hands, and yes most longswords, especially early ones, can be used in one hand. I am a hema practitioner and know why this misconception is so widespread. In our tournaments we usually had pretty big longswords around 130 cm. Because a bigger sword means more reach and power. And power helps not only in offense, but in defense, because it is easier to stop a lighter sword or push it aside.

A lot of the precise terminology used for swords these days comes from historians trying to categorize and catalogue everything, failing that it comes from Victorian medievalists or from DnD. In a real world context, these would have mostly just been called "swords", boring as that is.

The biggest problem with swordplay in From games isn't naming conventions it's the fact anything bigger than a longsword gets thrown around like a Dragonslayer.