Rebel King
Recruit
Ok fine I really don't care about duel wielding in the vanilla as far as there gonna be some cool mods where i can beat down dudes with two short swords, that would make me happy.
Two weapon fightin? (dual wielding)
- Thread starter Kniggit
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Recruit
General_Sherman
Recruit
Ok, dual wielding was a thing. There are medieval fencing treatises that cover it, albeit briefly. And by "dual-wielding" I mean using a full sized 1 handed weapon in each hand, usually a pair of matched swords.
It was extremely rare though for 3 reasons:
1. It was very difficult to learn. You had to be nearly completely ambidextrous to make it worthwhile, otherwise you would end up only using one of the weapons effectively. And then it was a whole other system of techniques in addition to single-sword, sword and buckler, sword and dagger, sword and shield, etc . . .
2. It was inconvenient. Swords were popular because they were easy to carry, just strap the sword to a belt and you're good to go. Wearing two swords kind of nullified that though. The same would of course apply even more so with other weapon like axes, which are more cumbersome/inconvenient to carry. A back-up dagger or small shield/buckler was much easier to manage along with your sword than another sword.
3. It wasn't that much better than other options. The advantages to be gained from wielding two weapons at once aren't that great. First of all, it does NOT double your offensive output. Real life is not D&D and people don't take turns swinging at each other in a real fight. You can swing 1 sword with one hand just as fast as you can 1 sword in each hand. The advantage of two swords was that you could threaten two targets at once, and thus force an opponent to cover more of their body than they would otherwise have to. So in a street fight/duel situation against an opponent with just one sword, dual-wielding would confer an advantage, if you were very highly trained, and bothered to carry two swords around everywhere you went. In a battle, or against someone with a shield and sword, all of your advantages become liabilities. A shield id better at defending than a sword, and when you have to face more than one opponent, missile weapons, and pole-arms you want that superior defense.
It was extremely rare though for 3 reasons:
1. It was very difficult to learn. You had to be nearly completely ambidextrous to make it worthwhile, otherwise you would end up only using one of the weapons effectively. And then it was a whole other system of techniques in addition to single-sword, sword and buckler, sword and dagger, sword and shield, etc . . .
2. It was inconvenient. Swords were popular because they were easy to carry, just strap the sword to a belt and you're good to go. Wearing two swords kind of nullified that though. The same would of course apply even more so with other weapon like axes, which are more cumbersome/inconvenient to carry. A back-up dagger or small shield/buckler was much easier to manage along with your sword than another sword.
3. It wasn't that much better than other options. The advantages to be gained from wielding two weapons at once aren't that great. First of all, it does NOT double your offensive output. Real life is not D&D and people don't take turns swinging at each other in a real fight. You can swing 1 sword with one hand just as fast as you can 1 sword in each hand. The advantage of two swords was that you could threaten two targets at once, and thus force an opponent to cover more of their body than they would otherwise have to. So in a street fight/duel situation against an opponent with just one sword, dual-wielding would confer an advantage, if you were very highly trained, and bothered to carry two swords around everywhere you went. In a battle, or against someone with a shield and sword, all of your advantages become liabilities. A shield id better at defending than a sword, and when you have to face more than one opponent, missile weapons, and pole-arms you want that superior defense.
Revanshi
Recruit
Oh my god, these so called fencing experts... Are you kidding me? Not only dual wielding was a thing, it was A thing. Samurai trained to use dual katanas/ dual wakizasgi's/zatoichi's and any combo of these, Castillian duelists were undefeatable because they dual wielded, Roman legioneers dual wielded gladiuses, vikings dualwielded all the time, Prussian heavy infantry not only carried heavy pikes but also carried a sword and a dagger/short sword with them. Try using a shield in close quarters or in a massive fight. As soon as man mass came into the chaotic skirmish, infantry willingly dropped shields, not only were they heavy but also constricted their movement, two swords were used infenitely ALOT, even when flinstock weaponry was around, saying that dual wielding is unrealistic, ir plainly stupid, and whoever says otherwise, go read a goddamn book about medieval ages. Two swords had special schools of different styles, and in a melee are a great advantage even against shields, look at anciend romans they carried a tower shield with 5-6 pilums aswell as 2 gladiuses, 1 as a spair, and when it came the time to drop the shield alot of them use 2 weapons, 2nd weapon enables one to parry, counterstrike, of overwhelm the opponent with a flurry of blows or disorient one, aswell as giving one a chance to fight against 2 enemies at the same time. Unrealistic my ass, you "experts" make me sick.
If dual wielding will be implemented in the game it would not only be a wise choice, but also historically accurate.
If dual wielding will be implemented in the game it would not only be a wise choice, but also historically accurate.
Revanshi
Recruit
To General_Sherman
Ok, you're in the middle of a massive skirmish, wielding a sword and a kite shield, go:
How will it protect you from flanking enemies?
How will it cover your back?
How will it not restrict your movement in all the plate that already constricts you?
What you do, what most fighters did, if you're smart, you drop the heavyass peice of wood, and you're left with 1 weapon. While having a spare short sword would help you immensely.
Ok, you're in the middle of a massive skirmish, wielding a sword and a kite shield, go:
How will it protect you from flanking enemies?
How will it cover your back?
How will it not restrict your movement in all the plate that already constricts you?
What you do, what most fighters did, if you're smart, you drop the heavyass peice of wood, and you're left with 1 weapon. While having a spare short sword would help you immensely.
Revanshi said:
Hello 911, someone killed my braincells with stupid, please help.
Revanshi said:
I'm no General Sherman, but here we go.
By using the bloody shield.
By strapping it on your back. Would be even easier if you have TWO shields. GODS! Why haven't we thought of that?! Dual wield shields you guyz!
If I were wearing a full plate armor I wouldn't need to get a shield in the first place. Ever seen late medieval age soldiers?
Try swinging two swords in real life and tell me how comfy it is.
Its an eleven years long trainwreck that just keeps on going and going
Revanshi
Recruit
Yeah I can use both my hands effortlessly, and unlike you posers I perticipated in dozens of fighting recreations, with shields and dual weapons.
Strap it on the back? really? At best you'd have time to throw the piece of wood, noone will give you even 5 seconds to put it on the back. Also ever seen Prussian heavy infantry? Plate armors and tower shields, and you're basicly saying that plate armor can protect you againsgt everything.
Calling 911 someone has a very high opinion about himself.
Point is I've been in the MIDDLE (your movement restricted) of 200 vs 200, shield is useless, weights you down, while having an offhand weapon helps a ****ton. (ever tryed wearing atleast a double mail long shirt? Restricts you like a *****, try wearing a heavy breastplate with pauldrons and a helm, unbelievable uncomfortable, now get a shield into that combo, if it's a buckler then sure, if it's anything larger like a kite or heater shield, it throws you offbalance, since it's much heavier making your movement sluggish, and your swings clumsy, standing your ground with a pike and a shield is great, fighting with them or a sword looks cool only in movies like 300 (**** movie btw)
Almost always in the end either someone clever with a 2 handed sword was the last man standing, or someone with 2 short swords.
And it's not some cliche medieval/renessanse fair americans have, it was a brutal recreation, people got hurt, knocked out, and even some broken limbs.
That's closest to reality you can get, so whatever you think about yourself, keep it to yourself.
Also stop using wikipedia as your prime source of info, it's just emberrasing.
Strap it on the back? really? At best you'd have time to throw the piece of wood, noone will give you even 5 seconds to put it on the back. Also ever seen Prussian heavy infantry? Plate armors and tower shields, and you're basicly saying that plate armor can protect you againsgt everything.
Calling 911 someone has a very high opinion about himself.
Point is I've been in the MIDDLE (your movement restricted) of 200 vs 200, shield is useless, weights you down, while having an offhand weapon helps a ****ton. (ever tryed wearing atleast a double mail long shirt? Restricts you like a *****, try wearing a heavy breastplate with pauldrons and a helm, unbelievable uncomfortable, now get a shield into that combo, if it's a buckler then sure, if it's anything larger like a kite or heater shield, it throws you offbalance, since it's much heavier making your movement sluggish, and your swings clumsy, standing your ground with a pike and a shield is great, fighting with them or a sword looks cool only in movies like 300 (**** movie btw)
Almost always in the end either someone clever with a 2 handed sword was the last man standing, or someone with 2 short swords.
And it's not some cliche medieval/renessanse fair americans have, it was a brutal recreation, people got hurt, knocked out, and even some broken limbs.
That's closest to reality you can get, so whatever you think about yourself, keep it to yourself.
Also stop using wikipedia as your prime source of info, it's just emberrasing.
Revanshi said:
kinky
Revanshi said:
So, civilians that don't take part in war, are obviously a good reference as to what works. gotcha. Litteraly every single other example you made don'T fit the time period/era, except for the Vikings, who everyone know were horny helmed, unarmored, berserkers that dual wield dane axes, yup yup yup.
In regard to the non-battelfield comment I made, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQpfQd1397E here's an AR-15 with eleven billion things stuck on it, it works, it looks retared, but it works, you can shoot, you could probably aim with it, but the weight would be a *****, and yet noone would use it in anywhere else than on a shooting range, its not made for war, just like that dual wielding business.
Revanshi
Recruit
I dual wielded two light sabers, the trick is to be fast on your feet, parry and strike fast. You legs are your victory. I knew a girl that dual wielded 1 sai and 1 broadsword, and she kicked almost everyones ass. Anywhore, it's apperent I won't prove anything, since wikipedia knows better. Keep believing whatever you do, it seems real life experience doesn't prove anything these days.
Have a great day.
Have a great day.
