Dual wield！

[SpectreSC]

I had a similar thought 15 years ago (Ever look back at yourself and cringe?)

https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php?threads/two-weapon-fightin-dual-wielding.1223/

TL;DR: 333 pages of back and forth without anyone really changing anyone's minds, and it was not added to the core game.

At this point I've given up offering valid historical context and proven sources, peoples minds here won't change. They assume out their asses about things people have said and then offer up half-assed comical asinine statements to pretend they have a valid point.

Dual-wielding was a valid and real form of combat, but apparently the master swordsmen in this topic think it's all fantasy ?

And even though a few of us have shown you that Knights, particularly Dismounted Knights, wielded two weapons as much as they used a 2-hander or, laughably, a shield in battle, people still want to pull the wool over their own eyes.

I'm not particularly advocating for including dual-wielding, but I am trying to give people insight and clear up their misconceptions and ignorance. But oh well! Like many have said, mods will most definitely handle it and include it for those who want it.

 

[Roaring Mouse]

I play historical tabletop wargames and belong to several gaming groups. There are a lot more miniatures and rules for naked wolf or bearskin wearing berserkers than dual wielding anything. Sometimes the suicidal berserker units will dual wield, but the berserkers rarely survive a game.

I'm just rambling, these dual wielding arguments are always fun to watch.

 

[Pt.C]

So far, the mod can only change the shield model to the weapon model, I will wait for the mod in other websites to see the effect, if the effect is not good, or forget it.
But no matter it is dual wield or double standard, once a mod appears, I will carry to this post.
I really don't understand, some people are like this, It is acceptable for a group of lv26 2h half-naked wolf-skin warriors to run and stand in front of archers, but a few lv26 heavily armored dw warriors are unacceptable.
I had no idea it was the Viking invasion of the time that cast a shadow on their hearts and other games that affected me, or they've just redefined the double standard in the weapons world, this has involved the world view, values, outlook on life, I have no idea.

 

[Karl_Magnus]

Dual wield would be a bit too OP, though. You would be able to alternate between each weapon and attack non-stop?

 

[TKnight]

Another option could be to lock 2 slots of weapons when wielding duals (and make them as an two handed weapons with custom animations like
- Hiting with both weapons
- Hitting with 1 weapon (second one doing nothing or maybe making a second hit as a combo) like two fast hits.
- Block with both weapons
- Block with 1 sword from one side. (so in this mode 1 sword work like a shield an another like an attack sword)

 

[WhiteEyedSh4rk]

At this point I've given up offering valid historical context and proven sources, peoples minds here won't change. They assume out their asses about things people have said and then offer up half-assed comical asinine statements to pretend they have a valid point.

Dual-wielding was a valid and real form of combat, but apparently the master swordsmen in this topic think it's all fantasy ?

And even though a few of us have shown you that Knights, particularly Dismounted Knights, wielded two weapons as much as they used a 2-hander or, laughably, a shield in battle, people still want to pull the wool over their own eyes.

I'm not particularly advocating for including dual-wielding, but I am trying to give people insight and clear up their misconceptions and ignorance. But oh well! Like many have said, mods will most definitely handle it and include it for those who want it.

The only evidence I have ever seen of someone dual wielding is in fighting manuals and they seem to just show every possible weapon combination anyways, probably for the reason of completeness. If every depiction of real fights show knights with Sword/mace/flail etc. + shield or just 2h, there is planty of reason to doubt that it was really used.

The only laughable thing here is, that you assume someone would throw away their shield, which is anything but useless, even for a knight. What would he do if his opponent has a spear? He can't reach reach him and there is no way he could block a thrust attack to the vulourable spots in armors, like the neck or armpit, which are particularely weak to thrust attacks. There wouldn't be any knights we know of today if they really would have been that stupid.

 

[SpectreSC]

The only evidence I have ever seen of someone dual wielding is in fighting manuals and they seem to just show every possible weapon combination anyways, probably for the reason of completeness. If every depiction of real fights show knights with Sword/mace/flail etc. + shield or just 2h, there is planty of reason to doubt that it was really used.

The only laughable thing here is, that you assume someone would throw away their shield, which is anything but useless, even for a knight. What would he do if his opponent has a spear? He can't reach reach him and there is no way he could block a thrust attack to the vulourable spots in armors, like the neck or armpit, which are particularely weak to thrust attacks. There wouldn't be any knights we know of today if they really would have been that stupid.

Do you even research what you claim? The majority of Dismounted Knights in the 14th/15th Century absolutely went into battle without a shield because it was cumbersome and pointless for them! Why? Because they wore STEEL FULL-PLATE. Nothing that was commonly used on the battlefield, and I mean NOTHING, could penetrate that type of armor for centuries until gunpowder and firearms came along, and even then it was unreliable until the late 16th/17th Century.

You can look this up yourself, the vast majority of the time Dismounted Knights in full armor were literal tanks and did not even bother with a shield in the High Middle Ages because they didn't need them. The fact you're even disputing that claim is just hilarious.

Shoot, even at the Battle of Agincourt, the reason the flower of French Nobility was crushed so devastatingly wasn't because of the English Longbow penetrating their armor... it was due to the fact that the arrows dismounted the Knights on horseback and left them in the muddied ground. But even then it was hard to kill these Knights until they were tired out and stuck in the mud, which gave the regular English footman the opportunity to approach and find those weak-points you speak of. In the heat of any regular battle you'd have to be extremely skilled to even make that type of strike.

Why didn't those French Knight's carry shields? Oh, that's right... because they wore Steel Full-Plate and felt invincible and those who did carry shields lost them when they fell from their horses.

But anyways, back on topic. Dual-wielding would be nice to have, albeit difficult to balance and time consuming to implement. It was historically viable and used though, so hopefully mods will include it at some point.

 

[eddiemccandless]

Do you even research what you claim? The majority of Dismounted Knights in the 14th/15th Century absolutely went into battle without a shield because it was cumbersome and pointless for them! Why? Because they wore STEEL FULL-PLATE. Nothing that was commonly used on the battlefield, and I mean NOTHING, could penetrate that type of armor for centuries until gunpowder and firearms came along, and even then it was unreliable until the late 16th/17th Century.

You can look this up yourself, the vast majority of the time Dismounted Knights in full armor were literal tanks and did not even bother with a shield in the High Middle Ages because they didn't need them. The fact you're even disputing that claim is just hilarious.

Shoot, even at the Battle of Agincourt, the reason the flower of French Nobility was crushed so devastatingly wasn't because of the English Longbow penetrating their armor... it was due to the fact that the arrows dismounted the Knights on horseback and left them in the muddied ground. But even then it was hard to kill these Knights until they were tired out and stuck in the mud, which gave the regular English footman the opportunity to approach and find those weak-points you speak of. In the heat of any regular battle you'd have to be extremely skilled to even make that type of strike.

Why didn't those French Knight's carry shields? Oh, that's right... because they wore Steel Full-Plate and felt invincible and those who did carry shields lost them when they fell from their horses.

But anyways, back on topic. Dual-wielding would be nice to have, albeit difficult to balance and time consuming to implement. It was historically viable and used though, so hopefully mods will include it at some point.

Ok, I wasn't going to say anything but... Would you mind actually sharing your sources?

I too can say that the order of the Pink Unicorn used dual flails while backflipping and riding dolphins in battle. It's out there, just look it up.

Forgive me but stuff like this is how anti vaxxers and other such nonsense gets started so yeah, bit of a pet peeve of mine

 

[SpectreSC]

Ok, I wasn't going to say anything but... Would you mind actually sharing your sources?

I too can say that the order of the Pink Unicorn used dual flails while backflipping and riding dolphins in battle. It's out there, just look it up.

Forgive me but stuff like this is how anti vaxxers and other such nonsense gets started so yeah, bit of a pet peeve of mine

Have you taken any History classes? Have you received your education? These things are discussed commonly in History courses around the world when on the subject... but since you seem baffled by such an accredited claim (The effectiveness of Plate Armor, I believe?), here you go, you can find a way to source these books yourself or a variation of them:

If we're discussing the usage of Shields by Knights?
Medieval Warfare by Nicholson, Helen, (2004) (Discusses the effectiveness of Plate Armor, specifically at Agincourt as well)

If we're discussing Dual-Wielding and Forms of Combat?
Mathern Fechtbuch (1686) (Discusses the various forms of Fighting Styles and Techniques at the time, and from known History) - Including Dual-wielding, with some great illustrations into this.
Gladiator: Rome's Bloody Spectacle by Nossov Konstatin, (2009) (Discusses the various forms of Gladiatorial Combat and the effectiveness of said styles, including Dimachaerii, aka Dual-Wielding Gladiators) Here's a Web Page with some sourced information from said book as well.
The Book of the Five Rings by Miyamoto Musashi, (1645) (Goes over topics from Musashi's Life, not "romanticized", includes discussions on Musashi's preference in combat and use of two swords)

Just a few sources for you although I'm sure there are quite a few more books I can look through for more information on the subject.

 

[Terminator_Pony]

But there is gladiatorial combat is M&B sooo...

Maybe once we get style points and the long awaited lion fights.

 

[eddiemccandless]

Have you taken any History classes? Have you received your education? These things are discussed commonly in History courses around the world when on the subject... but since you seem baffled by such an accredited claim (The effectiveness of Plate Armor, I believe?), here you go, you can find a way to source these books yourself or a variation of them:

If we're discussing the usage of Shields by Knights?
Medieval Warfare by Nicholson, Helen, (2004) (Discusses the effectiveness of Plate Armor, specifically at Agincourt as well)

If we're discussing Dual-Wielding and Forms of Combat?
Mathern Fechtbuch (1686) (Discusses the various forms of Fighting Styles and Techniques at the time, and from known History) - Including Dual-wielding, with some great illustrations into this.
Gladiator: Rome's Bloody Spectacle by Nossov Konstatin, (2009) (Discusses the various forms of Gladiatorial Combat and the effectiveness of said styles, including Dimachaerii, aka Dual-Wielding Gladiators) Here's a Web Page with some sourced information from said book as well.
The Book of the Five Rings by Miyamoto Musashi, (1645) (Goes over topics from Musashi's Life, not "romanticized", includes discussions on Musashi's preference in combat and use of two swords)

Just a few sources for you although I'm sure there are quite a few more books I can look through for more information on the subject.

That's a start! Minus the ad hominen that you definitely could have done without.

Medieval Warfare definitely looks like an interesting read. I don't think it has any mention about dual wielding being used in sieges though, feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

Mathern Fechtbuch has, as far as I know, one illustration related to dual wielding in a duel. Even putting aside the fact that you can't exactly take everything a source from 1686 says as the holy bible (or you can, depending on your views on the bible), that is a duel. Not massed combat. To be clear, the point that I am skeptical about is that dual wielding was ever used in massed combat (e.g., a siege).

The same thing can be said about the book on Gladiators. By the way, I am Italian. As far as I know my ancestors did not go into actual battles against the barbarians dual wielding tridents and nets. Gladiatorial combat was all about the show, as I am sure you know well. Once more, dueling, not real warfare. Although this, as the first source that you cite, seems like a reliable source, so thank you for that.

I believe I already touched on Miyamoto Musashi in my earlier post, let me quote the relevant section

This is the closest I was able to find myself

Miyamoto Musashi: His Life and Writings

It's a book, so I can only read the introduction and some pages of it from the google preview feature. Still according to the author Musashi is wrapped in legend and his accomplishments are somewhat of a controversy amongst asian historians (page xix, if you can read the introduction through the preview). It makes for an interesting read for sure, but I think that saying that this is evidence that dual wielding was an effective method for historical warfare is a bit of a stretch (let's also keep in mind that this person was a duelist, I can only say this based on my opinion but I doubt he would have taken dual wielding to a siege).

and just add that obviously you can not trust 100% what the guy wrote about himself. That would be like trusting the De Bello Gallico from Caesar to be an actual historical chronicle, word by word. In addition to that, if you read the source that I am linking above you see that it says that most material on Musashi is difficult to interpret for non japanese people, and mistakes in translations have led to biased views in western people (page ix in the preview, he mentions the Book of Five Rings, or Gorin No Sho).

Also to be clear, as far as I am concerned this conversation is just for its own sake. I don't think that the fact that dual wielding was or wasn't used in real warfare really matters for what concerns inclusion in this game.

 

[SpectreSC]

That's a start! Minus the ad hominen that you definitely could have done without.

Apologies, I can be a little snarky at times

Medieval Warfare definitely looks like an interesting read. I don't think it has any mention about dual wielding being used in sieges though, feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

Mathern Fechtbuch has, as far as I know, one illustration related to dual wielding in a duel. Even putting aside the fact that you can't exactly take everything a source from 1686 says as the holy bible (or you can, depending on your views on the bible), that is a duel. Not massed combat. To be clear, the point that I am skeptical about is that dual wielding was ever used in massed combat (e.g., a siege).

The same thing can be said about the book on Gladiators. By the way, I am Italian. As far as I know my ancestors did not go into actual battles against the barbarians dual wielding tridents and nets. Gladiatorial combat was all about the show, as I am sure you know well. Once more, dueling, not real warfare. Although this, as the first source that you cite, seems like a reliable source, so thank you for that.

I believe I already touched on Miyamoto Musashi in my earlier post, let me quote the relevant section

Very true, a lot of these sources are of the time period and not relatively recent or re-reviewed. But for the most part I think it highlights the idea fairly well. I am also of the opinion that, as far as open warfare and actual battles, dual-wielding is not particularly effective nor was it even used or considered by the majority of men in combat. But there were Knights, particularly Dismounted Knights, who would use two weapons as well in some cases.

It is definitely known that Knights did carry more than one weapon into battle, if they used both at the same time is still up in the air as the majority of the sources we have still don't paint a clear picture of what combat was really like.

But, since I can't really point to a clear source on that I'll have to give ground here to anyone who said otherwise.

and just add that obviously you can not trust 100% what the guy wrote about himself. That would be like trusting the De Bello Gallico from Caesar to be an actual historical chronicle, word by word. In addition to that, if you read the source that I am linking above you see that it says that most material on Musashi is difficult to interpret for non japanese people, and mistakes in translations have led to biased views in western people (page ix in the preview, he mentions the Book of Five Rings, or Gorin No Sho).

Also to be clear, as far as I am concerned this conversation is just for its own sake. I don't think that the fact that dual wielding was or wasn't used in real warfare really matters for what concerns inclusion in this game.

Also! I like your signature

Oh of course you can't trust most of these sources 100% anyways, they were all written from a certain point of view but as far as Musashi goes, for the most part, most of his martial abilities/prowess has historical evidence to attribute towards its validity. I can only point to his school of dual-wielding both Katana and Wakizashi as the best possible source of credibility.

Niten Ichi-ryu (Sorry for a WikiLink, quickest source I can grab)

But yes it is true that in some cases translations, particularly Japanese to English, can bungle up the true meaning of what was said or meant, inferred, etc.

I personally don't care if dual-wielding makes it in or not, nor do I believe it was used in open warfare because that would be suicide, but I do know it was used as a form of fighting in general. Specifically in one-on-ones and in arena bouts, etc. I just wanted to give historical context and evidence to others involved.

 

[WhiteEyedSh4rk]

Do you even research what you claim? The majority of Dismounted Knights in the 14th/15th Century absolutely went into battle without a shield because it was cumbersome and pointless for them! Why? Because they wore STEEL FULL-PLATE. Nothing that was commonly used on the battlefield, and I mean NOTHING, could penetrate that type of armor for centuries until gunpowder and firearms came along, and even then it was unreliable until the late 16th/17th Century.

You can look this up yourself, the vast majority of the time Dismounted Knights in full armor were literal tanks and did not even bother with a shield in the High Middle Ages because they didn't need them. The fact you're even disputing that claim is just hilarious.

Shoot, even at the Battle of Agincourt, the reason the flower of French Nobility was crushed so devastatingly wasn't because of the English Longbow penetrating their armor... it was due to the fact that the arrows dismounted the Knights on horseback and left them in the muddied ground. But even then it was hard to kill these Knights until they were tired out and stuck in the mud, which gave the regular English footman the opportunity to approach and find those weak-points you speak of. In the heat of any regular battle you'd have to be extremely skilled to even make that type of strike.

Why didn't those French Knight's carry shields? Oh, that's right... because they wore Steel Full-Plate and felt invincible and those who did carry shields lost them when they fell from their horses.

But anyways, back on topic. Dual-wielding would be nice to have, albeit difficult to balance and time consuming to implement. It was historically viable and used though, so hopefully mods will include it at some point.

Look at any fresco or sculpture or any depiction of knights at the time, if it would have been as common as you claim, they woulden't all show knights with shields. A knight is still vulnerable to many attacks from many weapons, especially if he doesen't have a shield to block them. And who says that the french at agincourt didn't had shields?

Implementing this would be a waste of time for an completely unnecessary.

 

[eddiemccandless]

Oh of course you can't trust most of these sources 100% anyways, they were all written from a certain point of view but as far as Musashi goes, for the most part, most of his martial abilities/prowess has historical evidence to attribute towards its validity. I can only point to his school of dual-wielding both Katana and Wakizashi as the best possible source of credibility.

Niten Ichi-ryu (Sorry for a WikiLink, quickest source I can grab)

Eh, I wouldn't call Wikipedia a scholarly source but in this day and age you can definitely do worse . Thank you for sharing that, it was an interesting read!

Also I meant to say that I like Pt.C's signature, for some reason I confused the two of you . I tried to edit it out but your answer beat me to it

Now excuse me as I go grab by third espresso of the morning.

*walks away screaming in quarantinese*

 

[Lord Irontoe]

I don't see why this is so controversial. If it was actually possible to replace the block animations with a left handed attack without majorly redoing the entire combat system, then why not have dual wielding? You'd get a second, weaker attack and in turn you entirely lose any ability to block except for chamber blocks, which are hard already. Dual wielding capable weapons would probably need to be short and light and do lower damage, so you'll need to risk yourself getting in close without a block ability. As long as it was tuned right and not overly fast, it doesn't have to be OP.

 

[SpectreSC]

Look at any fresco or sculpture or any depiction of knights at the time, if it would have been as common as you claim, they woulden't all show knights with shields. A knight is still vulnerable to many attacks from many weapons, especially if he doesen't have a shield to block them. And who says that the french at agincourt didn't had shields?

Implementing this would be a waste of time for an completely unnecessary.

I'll point out what I said, specifically, because I feel you may be a bit confused as to what I just explained to you.

Shoot, even at the Battle of Agincourt, the reason the flower of French Nobility was crushed so devastatingly wasn't because of the English Longbow penetrating their armor... it was due to the fact that the arrows dismounted the Knights on horseback and left them in the muddied ground. But even then it was hard to kill these Knights until they were tired out and stuck in the mud, which gave the regular English footman the opportunity to approach and find those weak-points you speak of. In the heat of any regular battle you'd have to be extremely skilled to even make that type of strike.

Why didn't those French Knight's carry shields? Oh, that's right... because they wore Steel Full-Plate and felt invincible and those who did carry shields lost them when they fell from their horses.

The French Knights at Agincourt, unless Mounted, did not carry Shields. Those who DID carry Shields on Horseback lost them fairly quickly after they were dismounted by the hail of English Longbows unleashing arrows on them. And there are plenty of historical accounts and excerpts to back up these claims. It's one of the most famous battles in English and French history and has been studied years over by many Military Historians and all have seem to agreed on the same conclusion.

The French Knights made the terrible mistake of underestimating the vastly outnumbered English Army, charged a field full of muck and mud, and were decimated by arrows first, then the humble peasant and his short sword or mace, etc once the Melee began.

I do agree though, implementing this would take a lot of time but it isn't unnecessary nor a waste of time. That's your opinion.

Eh, I wouldn't call Wikipedia a scholarly source but in this day and age you can definitely do worse . Thank you for sharing that, it was an interesting read!

Also I meant to say that I like Pt.C's signature, for some reason I confused the two of you . I tried to edit it out but your answer beat me to it

Now excuse me as I go grab by third espresso of the morning.

*walks away screaming in quarantinese*

True, wikipedia is not my first source of choice either but it was the quickest one to find in a hurry And no worries, I do encourage you to read up on a credible source though. There's a lot more interesting history behind Musashi beyond what is commonly known.

And ahh, I figured haha. I have no signature yet. Enjoy your Espresso!

 

[WhiteEyedSh4rk]

Knights were known to use two weapons or one large two handed weapon on the battlefield. It's not hogwash, it's the truth. There's plenty of historical sources in academia to confirm that. No one is saying it's practical though or preferred but it was definitely a thing.

Knights were known to forego their Shield and use a larger 2handed weapon or dual-wield a combination of a sword and flail, mace, etc. They were walking tanks and deadly on the battlefield, so that's some actual historical battlefield context.

nor do I believe it was used in open warfare because that would be suicide, but I do know it was used as a form of fighting in general. Specifically in one-on-ones and in arena bouts, etc. I just wanted to give historical context and evidence to others involved.

You are kind of contradicting yourself and all your rock solid sources are unreliable and only show, that dual wielding might have been used in tournaments or duels.

 

[SpectreSC]

You are kind of contradicting yourself and all your rock solid sources are unreliable and only show, that dual wielding might have been used in tournaments or duels.

I'm not contradicting myself at all. I actually clarified my point above your post but you seem to have missed that, yet again. But if you really want me to state it yet again:

"I am also of the opinion that, as far as open warfare and actual battles, dual-wielding is not particularly effective nor was it even used or considered by the majority of men in combat."

I understand you don't like historical accuracy nor sources and credibility, but please at least educate yourself on some of these topics before making claims and denying proven history.

 

[Chlodulf]

Even is some madmen did use it, it doesn't mean it's effective or common. It's simply biomechanically unviable.

However, it's always cool in high fantasy settings. Where some races and cultures are reckless like that

 

[Caps]

it looks more like throwing stuff