The point is that if armour is good enough for stopping a projectile weapon, such as an arrow or a bolt, then you're going to need a weapon that can get through or circumvent that armour - a two-handed weapon. One handed weapons can do the job but the sort of weapon you'd use for that sort of thing would not be particularly suitable for wielding in both hands at the same time. Swords are bloody rubbish against well-forged steel armour (such as tight-linked maille or a plate harness)* but are the better weapons for 'dual-wielding' due to their 'better' balance (subjective - depends on the weapon). Dual-wielding is only documented, often extensively, once you get to the 'Renaissance' period, especially during the latter part of the 16th century (notably Giacomo di Grassi) and the 17th century (Ridulfo Capo Ferro is more than worth a mention), as the blades of the weapon we refer to as a 'rapier' were made longer, thinner and, with suitable hilt furniture & correctly weighted pommel, better balance.coolchucky said:So, you mean enough armor stops arrows like shields do. Interesting point of view.
I already know the troop diversity. What I meant is if there existed two handers, there could have also existed dual wielders. I am just commenting about the situation for troops not using a shield. I do not go into details about the usage of the weapons, etc.
One of the reasons why it became more popular with later rapiers (c17) is that with a greater emphasis on the use of the foilble (the tip) it was much easier to protect yourself as you'd constantly threaten your opponent and only have a small way to move the blade to defend yourself. The stances & movements of the body with the rapier helped immensely with this, as it allowed you to stand more 'side-on' to your opponent, thus presenting a smaller target that you can defend even more easily and allow use of the fast and powerful lunge attack. Thus we find with Ridulfo Capo Ferro & onwards with Italian rapier that dual-wielding played quite a popular part - everyone carried a knife or dagger, so being able to bring two weapons to the fight was better than one.
That's a very basic, and truncated, explanation but in all seriousness no-one with half a brain would go into battle dual-wielding due to its inefficiency because as you're flailing at an opponent with two weapons and doing little to his plate harness, he smacks you onto your back with the lead-weighted hammer of his warhammer and put you on your arse where you're immediately vulnerable.
*Except during the Migration Period (c5-c6/7) when the spathas used by the Saxons & other Germanic tribes would chop right through much of the maille available at the time due to the blades shape and weight - they made a right mess of people out of armour.