Dual wielding, pros and cons why it wasn't used inside a specialized unit.

[Mamlaz]

One of the nice things about the thrust is the range, but by thrusting with both hands at the same time you are essentially eliminating your range.

No, no you don't.

Your primary sword thrust is with a lunge and that thrust is basically the same as without the other sword, while the second thrust is the supporting thrust which is just the extended arm.

Even if you thrust without torso movement, you will still sacrifice only a part of your range advantage, however, you will deliver another attack to the opponent that he must deal with instead of taking advantage of his own reach prep.

You do not face your opponent square on, except in some instances wielding a single sword two-handed - but even then one shoulder is going to be in front of the other most of the time. And in order to maximise the length of your lunge, your shoulders need to be aligned to a straight line pointing at the target. This means you cannot thrust with your off hand even if you wanted to.

Once you lunge you close in to your opponent, meaning your secondary thrust is then well in range, heck, if you follow through, even a dagger will be in range.

And again, there's the matter of torque: like with cuts, a thrust is going to be powered by the legs, which implies hip rotation. You can only rotate them in one direction at a time, even in a thrust.

Fencing is not boxing, even though the thrust will obviously be more powerful with hip movement and leg lunging, a sword thrust does not really need any of it.

Even a simple short hand movement will result in quite a powerful thrust with any pointy thing, that is why thrusts are so dangerous.


Regardless of all of it, I think this guy got dual wielding figured out;

隐藏

 

[Kissaki]

One of the nice things about the thrust is the range, but by thrusting with both hands at the same time you are essentially eliminating your range.

No, no you don't.

Your primary sword thrust is with a lunge and that thrust is basically the same as without the other sword, while the second thrust is the supporting thrust which is just the extended arm.

Try it, and you will see that your off hand has no range at all - will not even reach the target. Moreover, it will have no power at all. For your off hand to have even a little bit of power, and hopes of reaching your opponent, you cannot lunge with your primary. You will have to face your target more or less squarely, in the thrust itself - unless your rear hand is holding the longer weapon, but it will still be weak.

Even if you thrust without torso movement, you will still sacrifice only a part of your range advantage, however, you will deliver another attack to the opponent that he must deal with instead of taking advantage of his own reach prep.

He only needs to deal with one of them. Either step back and avoid both, or step to one side and deal with the thrust from the corresponding side. There's a reason the most popular dual-combo - rapier and dagger - used the longest weapon in the leading hand, and did not include in its repertoire thrust from rapier and dagger at the same time. If simultaneous thrusting was a good idea, they would have done it.

Once you lunge you close in to your opponent, meaning your secondary thrust is then well in range, heck, if you follow through, even a dagger will be in range.

Once you lunge, your leading thrust is within range. In order for your secondary thrust to be within range, you would have had to close to grappling range and that really is too far. How far can you thrust your left hand to your immediate right? Your hand extends only past your shoulder, and you have absolutely zero power in that direction. So unless you have lunged so far that your leading thrust has penetrated to your elbow. Even with a short sword, the tip of your off-hand weapon will barely reach your leading hand - unless you don't lunge.

Fencing is not boxing, even though the thrust will obviously be more powerful with hip movement and leg lunging, a sword thrust does not really need any of it.

The principles are the same. All attacks start from the legs, and footwork is essential in all swordfighting.

Even a simple short hand movement will result in quite a powerful thrust with any pointy thing, that is why thrusts are so dangerous.

A weak thrust, not a powerful one. The problem with a weak thrust isn't just that it won't penetrate as much as a strong thrust, it is also easier to defend against.

 

[Bromden]

Double thrusts and number of attacks made - the d20 is strong in this place.
Leave the goats alone, Jacob.

Musashi trained with two swords, but in his own words, this was just to train the skill of using a single sword, one handed. He never fought with more than one weapon in any of his duels.

I know that Musashi's life before Kojiro is mostly myth and legend, but those myths say that he solved the kusarigama problem with using two swords. Also I remember reading somewhere that many of his opponents got confused by the fact that he wields two swords and those guys failed even more miserably than his other opponens.

 

[Mamlaz]

Try it

I did.

and you will see that your off hand has no range at all

Wrong.

will not even reach the target.

Wrong.

Again, even a dagger will reach within a lunge.

Moreover, it will have no power at all.

Ridiculous statement.

For your off hand to have even a little bit of power, and hopes of reaching your opponent, you cannot lunge with your primary. You will have to face your target more or less squarely, in the thrust itself - unless your rear hand is holding the longer weapon, but it will still be weak.

I will bet 300 Euros you never held a sword in your life.

He only needs to deal with one of them. Either step back and avoid both, or step to one side and deal with the thrust from the corresponding side.

No, not with two swords.

Once you lunge, your leading thrust is within range. In order for your secondary thrust to be within range, you would have had to close to grappling range and that really is too far.

False, with a sword, 80-90cm in most cases will be a sufficient distance.

How far can you thrust your left hand to your immediate right? Your hand extends only past your shoulder, and you have absolutely zero power in that direction. So unless you have lunged so far that your leading thrust has penetrated to your elbow. Even with a short sword, the tip of your off-hand weapon will barely reach your leading hand - unless you don't lunge.

Like, every word that you write is wrong...

Why the hell would I have to pass my elbow to achieve a thrust?

I am not fencing with kitchen knives...

The principles are the same. All attacks start from the legs, and footwork is essential in all swordfighting.

So?

A weak thrust, not a powerful one. The problem with a weak thrust isn't just that it won't penetrate as much as a strong thrust, it is also easier to defend against.

Yeah, it will still penetrate an unarmed man without any issue and it will be basically of the same speed as the primary thrust, just with reduced range.

 

[Bromden]

Bending forward so much can easily become counterproductive, especially with that low, wide stance. It will be a ***** to move out of the way of a counterattack of any kind if your attack misses.

 

[Kissaki]

Try it

I did.

What, exactly, did you try?

Wrong.

Wrong.

If you want to sound convincing you'll have to try a whole lot better than that.

隐藏

That is not a lunge. Notice the alignment of the shoulders. He is grappling, and two more things you might notice:
1. He is leading with his (empty) off-hand, so this technique shown is very situational.
2. The artist has elongated the fellow's right arm, which is unnaturally long.

In a lunge, your shoulders are in line to the target, to maximise range - this is not the case here.


And seeing as that image was the only thing you posted which came close to resembling an argument, I will leave it at that. Vapid insults serve to demonstrate only one thing, and that is that you have run out of arguments. You cannot win the argument by trying to shame me, the best you can hope for is that I will stop posting. And that does indeed seem to be your aim. My aim, on the other hand, is discourse. You don't like your opinion challenged, too bad.

I know that Musashi's life before Kojiro is mostly myth and legend, but those myths say that he solved the kusarigama problem with using two swords. Also I remember reading somewhere that many of his opponents got confused by the fact that he wields two swords and those guys failed even more miserably than his other opponens.

I have read some spurious accounts too, but that was in a book of anecdotes with no citations of any kind. One passage even claimed he fought with two swords in his first duel against Gonoskue, supposedly trapping his long staff (!) between his two swords - which, of course, is ridiculous. Musashi started training - and teaching - with two swords because he felt that the single-handed use of the katana was much neglected by his contemporaries, and that it was an important skill to know. He states as much up front in his 36 Articles of Swordsmanship.

 

[Mamlaz]

Bending forward so much can easily become counterproductive, especially with that low, wide stance. It will be a ***** to move out of the way of a counterattack of any kind if your attack misses.

You mistake my intent.

I am not arguing that it should be done, I am arguing that it can be done.

Re-read the initial claim I am rebutting here.

What, exactly, did you try?

Fencing.

If you want to sound convincing you'll have to try a whole lot better than that.

Your arguments are baseless, there is nothing really to rebut, the only thing that remains is to state that you are wrong.

That is not a lunge.

Yes, yes it is...by definition.

Notice the alignment of the shoulders. He is grappling, and two more things you might notice:
1. He is leading with his (empty) off-hand, so this technique shown is very situational.
2. The artist has elongated the fellow's right arm, which is unnaturally long.

Now you are just babbling.

And seeing as that image was the only thing you posted which came close to resembling an argument, I will leave it at that.

While you on the other hand did nothing but spew utter nonsense.

You actually stated that a thrust requires full body movement to have force

Vapid insults serve to demonstrate only one thing, and that is that you have run out of arguments. You cannot win the argument by trying to shame me, the best you can hope for is that I will stop posting. And that does indeed seem to be your aim. My aim, on the other hand, is discourse. You don't like your opinion challenged, too bad.

You are cute with your attempts at sidelining the fact that you never held a sword in your life.

 

[Kissaki]

<tumbleweed>

I'll reply to you when you can behave like an adult; when you have some actual arguments to bring to the table. I don't even require that you demonstrate any knowledge of the subject, so long as you aren't so proud that you cannot modify your position. Right now, I see in you as I myself was over 20 years ago, with no experience but lots of opinion - and as pigheaded as they come.

Of course, now that I have insulted you back - and much more skillfully, I might add - I have no belief whatsoever that you will respond with anything other than more bile.

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

Just ignore Mamlaz and save yourself the effort. He only ever posts to be stubbornly contrary.

 

[Bromden]

I can glue a shuriken to the tip of my **** and wave it around offensively in a duel, but that doesn't mean I should.

 

[Mamlaz]

Of course, now that I have insulted you back - and much more skillfully

Alright, your claims;

-one would never attack with two weapons at the same time = debunked, regardless of how effective it is, you obviously can attack with both weapons at the same time
-thrusts require the motion of the entire body to be powerful = ridiculous claim that does not really need any attention
-the secondary thrusting sword will not come into range during the lunge = demonstrated as false, even a dagger comes in range
-lunging requires side hip movement = false
-you accused a renaissance artist of purposefully elongating the fencers arm to mislead the viewer = 

 

[Mamlaz]

This single image proves literally every word you posted here as wrong;

 

[Kissaki]

This single image proves literally every word you posted here as wrong;

隐藏

A far better image, this time someone actually wielding two weapons (unlike the previous image you posted). Again, note that he is not leading with his rapier, which means he has crossed. Same thing with the previous image you posted. He would not be able to do that if he was leading with the rapier - and at any rate, you can still defend against that double thrust as one. This video is slow-paced and clear enough that you can see how and why such passes are made. And this is what a lunge looks like. Front leg, front arm. What your fellow is doing in your second image, you may understand better from this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAdgQGMb-h4

As you see, it is not a lunge. The dagger is there for protection, but in the image you posted the situation is such that the guy on the right can safely use it for offence instead.

 

[Mamlaz]

(unlike the previous image you posted).

The previous image was debunking your range comment, not the dual wielding.

Again, note that he is not leading with his rapier, which means he has crossed. Same thing with the previous image you posted.

Firstly, that is irrelevant.

Secondly, are you suggesting that he was leading the thrust with his dagger?

He would not be able to do that if he was leading with the rapier

Wrong.

and at any rate, you can still defend against that double thrust as one.

Did I ever claim otherwise?

This video is slow-paced and clear enough that you can see how and why such passes are made. And this is what a lunge looks like. Front leg, front arm. What your fellow is doing in your second image, you may understand better from this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAdgQGMb-h4

As you see, it is not a lunge.

It is.

It really, really is a lunge.

The fact that you refuse to accept that is hilarious.

The dagger is there for protection, but in the image you posted the situation is such that the guy on the right can safely use it for offence instead.

Wait, wait, so first you state that he was not leading with the rapier...and now you state that he was using his dagger defensively at the same time? 

 

[AreJohn]

Why don't you all meet up with a knife and a sword each and settle the issue through a practical experiment?

 

[Ililsa]

I'd never do that stupid 'X' thing. Never, ever, ever, ever. Never. Because you'd still be under their weapon and if your parry fails, is too slow, is too low, and their weapon gets through, you'll be struck, you need to recover your weapons and in that time you're open and defenceless. Rapier treatise intends to place the person's body in a safe position where they cannot be struck, or at the very least it is hard to do so.

To be fair, it's not really a 'X' block, or something you should need to do 99% of the time. It's suggested as a defence against a 'heavy sword' in Giganti. It comes up in this video.

隐藏

I'll add as a disclaimer, I'm by no means a Rapierist, I'm a total novice with a longsword outside of reenactment. But to add my two cents to this thrusting fracas, in Lichtenauer at least thrusts do come from square on, so hip movement definitely isn't required, but as far as I can see it would basically be pointless (ha) to thrust two rapiers simultaneously.

 

[Soldier Of Thebes]

 

[Vraelomon]

Well if we're posting images anyway

隐藏

(he uses them wrong but to be fair he only has 3 fingers)

 

[Bluehawk]

Duel grappling

隐藏

 

[Areze]

special forces should dual weild desert eagles most effective oper8r ever 10/10