the Vinland Saga was thought to have been fiction and no-one thought it was possible for Vikings to have crossed the Atlantic until quite recently.
and even if we say that the use of 2 weapons in the sagas was only for the hero in a fictional setting, that is exactly what the player in M&B is, the hero in a fictional setting (get used to it, M&B isn't Medieval Europe, it is fiction based on Medieval Europe, Scandinavia, Mongolia and the Middle East).
no, I said that Di Grassi's case of rapiers were more like swords than modern rapiers, not that swords, rapiers and falchions were interchangeable.
and I have posted links to examples of a case of falchions earlier in this thread but as you are too lazy to read all of it or use google
"A trial of skill to be performed between two profound masters of the noble science of self-defence, on Wednesday next, the 13th of July, 1709, at two o'clock precisely. I, George Gray, born in the city of Norwich, who has fought in most parts of the West Indies—viz., Jamaica, Barbadoes, and several other parts of the world, in all twenty-five times upon the stage, and was never yet worsted, and am now lately come to London, do invite James Harris to meet and exercise at the following weapons: back-sword, sword and dagger, sword and buckler, single falchion, and case of falchions
. I, James Harris, master of the said noble science of defence, who formerly rid in the Horse Guards, and hath fought 110 prizes, and never left a stage to any man, will not fail (God willing) to meet this brave and bold inviter at the time and place appointed, desiring sharp swords, and from him no favour. No person to be upon the stage but the seconds.
note that it specifies single falchion and then case of falchions
as for the Talhoffer illustration, it clearly shows a dagger in the offhand being used to attack with.
as for it being used as a weapon switch, I have always said that the offhand weapon is for when your opponent closes in and the opportunity to strike arises and that for most of the time it would be used for blocking.
here is a quick example of how a dagger/knife/seax in the offhand would be better than a shield.
your opponent thrusts at you and you parry by sweeping his sword to your right so that it is across his body.
this allows you to attack the right side of his body with your dagger and he can't get his shield across to block it or use his sword.
with a shield, all you could do is hit him or push him and neither of those would put him out of action.
it is not historical nonsense.
historical fact shows that there were soldiers who were armed with swords and daggers/knives but who didn't have shields.
English longbowmen didn't have shields but by Royal command were expected to have swords AND knives/daggers.
when they had used up their arrows and joined in the hand to hand fighting, did they use the sword on its own or did they have the dagger in their offhand?
as this would be during a stage in the battle when the majority of missile weapons were exhausted, a shield would not be so important and in hand to hand fighting, 2 weapons aren't at that much of a defensive disadvantage to sword and shield and you have more opportunities to incapacitate your opponent.
sir John Smythe trained his pikemen in a way that the front rank would drop their pikes and use sword and dagger after the initial contact with the enemy.