Two weapon fightin? (dual wielding)

Currently viewing this thread:

Urlik

Sergeant Knight
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

source"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.
"Vivat Regina."

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.
 

rokema

Knight
let this die, two weapon fighting WILL NEVER BE HERE. If the devs can't make a multiplayer campaign they sure as hell can't make a two weapon fighting system.
 

bgfan

Grandmaster Knight
M&BWB
Actually, the two-handed weapon thing would be SO much simpler to add than a multiplayer campaign. I however would not like to see it added because it would prove impracticle, and incredibly difficult to counter.
 

Blackthorn

Squire
Urlik;
1) British Historians considered the Vinland saga to be credible since the 1980's. Fact.
2) There's no specific evidence saying ''two falchions'' in an 18th century duel. Again, not military, again not practical, again a matched contest, without evidence.
3) The passive dagger, as I said, is the closest you've come to.
4) Repeatedly TELLING ME how something -would- be practical doesn't work- especially as you're still discussing theory, and I'm saying 'show me historical examples'. Fight for a good sixteen years like I have, with most sword/sword and buckler/sword and shield combinations, come back and make this case and your theorising will carry more weight... but it will still be theorising.
5) Yes- there's lots of examples of people switching down from a polearm to a close knife/sword. Where does it show that John Smythe instructed in sword-and-main-gauche? Sword- yes. Knife- yes. Both... where?
6) Historical FACT shows... that there were some troops without shields. In the age of plate... where a hand to grapple would be more useful. You have -no- evidence of dual-wielding in post-arrow melee... just a theory based on... how much practical experience?
7) You're switching back and forth MADLY to form an argument. You've argued that there IS historical evidence, and then claimed at the begining that HISTORY ISN'T IMPORTANT. Calradia isn't Medieval Europe, but it's inspired by it and follows it closely to give an impression of realism. A realism a lot of us appreciate- if you want to dual-wield... go and play D+D or similar.
8 ) Your 'practical examples' show a lack of experience or true understanding of swordplay outside of a 'I do this, you do that' mindset, usually produced by some stick-waving and a bit of reading. I can argue that ANY weapon combination is the best because ''I SWEEP YOUR LEG OUT'' as a repeated argument.
 

Urlik

Sergeant Knight
1) the 1980's is quite recent. I had left school by the time evidence for the Vinland Saga was found. until then it was thought to be pure fiction.
2) I posted a quote and link to the source where it plainly says case of falchions as well as single falchion.
3) the dagger shown in Talhoffer isn't passive
4) I am not just discussing theory. when I did medieval and dark age combat re-enactment, I used sword and short sword very effectively. from my personal experience, it works in practice.
5) here is a quote from Sir John Smythe's military manual with the relevant words in bold
But after all this it may be, that some very curious and not skilfull in actions of Armes, may demand what the formost rankes of this well ordered and practised squadron before mentioned shall doo after they haue giuen their aforesaid puissant blows & thrusts with their piques incase that they doo not at the first incountry ouerthrow and breake the contrary squadron of their enemies . . . they therefore must either presentlie let [their pikes] fall to the ground as vnprofitable, or else may with both their hands dart, and throw them as farre forward into & amongst the ranks of their enemies as they can, to the intent by the length of them to trouble their ranks, and presently in the twinkling of an eie or instant, must draw their short arming swordes and daggers, and giue a blow and thrust(tearmed a half reuerse, & thrust) all at, and in one time at their faces: A therewithall must presentlie in an instant, with their daggers in their left hands, thrust at the bottome of their enmeies bellies vnder the lammes of their Cuyrasses, or at any other disarmed parts.
6) Historical fact shows that there were soldiers with no shields who were armed with swords and daggers in the 13th century.
the assize of arms dated 1252 lists the weapons and armour that everyone must own and the yeoman archers would have had a longbow, a sword, a dagger or knife and that is it. no shield.
they didn't carry the sword and knife for decoration, they carried them to use. there is no reason why they would not use the dagger or knife in the offhand if they didn't have a shield.
7) no, I am not switching back and forth. I have repeatedly shown evidence that there is no reason why offhand weapons shouldn't be in M&B
:cool: the I do this, you do that mindset is exactly how all the manuscripts from I.33 through Talhoffer to the later masters teach sword play.
my experience comes from many years of combat re-enactment using steel blades
 

Phalanx300

Banned
This would work by making the dagger or sidesword or whatever as a "shield". However it would not protect against arrows and would "break" like shields when enough damage has been given. It should also be an multiplayer only thing. It should also be weaker the nordinary shields so all in all it means your in a disadvantage against a shield and sword and two-handed weapon. Meaning its just people wanting to play like that without making them owning everyone.
 

rokema

Knight
Dagger - Can't block **** with it
Sword - can block but takes training, medieval swords were based on strength, not ***** samurai girly elegance. Merely bash your enemy into submission, that is why shields were good because they take a great beating.
Shield - bash people, eats all swings

Sword n' dagger, show me proof of real fighters with 'em and how they would work in WB
 
rokema said:
Dagger - Can't block **** with it
Sword - can block but takes training, medieval swords were based on strength, not ***** samurai girly elegance. Merely bash your enemy into submission, that is why shields were good because they take a great beating.
Shield - bash people, eats all swings

Sword n' dagger, show me proof of real fighters with 'em and how they would work in WB

Please **** off if you have no idea what you're talking about. :roll:

http://www.vimeo.com/19407385

Dual-wielding was used in a civilian context in the late Renaissance. The main question is whether that applies to a game emulating the technological and cultural development of 13th century Europe, and in a game where the main combat takes place on the battlefield.

Oh, let's not forget that old argument about what exactly counts as dual-wielding.
 

Phalanx300

Banned
I doubt the massive use of two handers in this period as well. Though I think that if duel wielding were to be included it should be player character/multiplayer only.
 
Urlik said:
the assize of arms dated 1252 lists the weapons and armour that everyone must own and the yeoman archers would have had a longbow, a sword, a dagger or knife and that is it. no shield.
It's stretching it to assume the knife would be wielded at the same time. Knives are quite a useful tool for archers, for everything from maintaining the bow to modification of the arrows. And sharpening stakes of course. Also, with archers being one of the scum ranks the task of putting the wounded out of their misery after the battle would fall to them, where the knife tended to be the main means of doing so.

Night Ninja said:
The main question is whether that applies to a game emulating the technological and cultural development of 13th century Europe, and in a game where the main combat takes place on the battlefield.
Well, in that case the question is what dual wielding would add to the game that can't be done without it. And an important consideration in that respect is how the hell you get a control scheme which lets you use two hands at once and doesn't require the user is some form of octopus to pull off.

And Rokema, you can clearly use the edit button so how about doing so rather than double posting?
 

Urlik

Sergeant Knight
what dual wielding (or more accurately, offhand weapons) would add the functionality for a proper shield bash as well as being able to block with either the shield or the weapon.
if a fully functional shield bash was added then modders would be able to do the offhand weapons
 

GaGrin

Squire
Archonsod said:
Well, in that case the question is what dual wielding would add to the game that can't be done without it. And an important consideration in that respect is how the hell you get a control scheme which lets you use two hands at once and doesn't require the user is some form of octopus to pull off.
For the first question I would say flexibility, especially since the game does model things outside of straight battlefield combat having civilian/street fighting would suddenly encourage the use of weapons and techniques that would be impractical in larger and more organised melee.

For the second question I suggest a remap of the mouse buttons to left/right hands rather than specifically ready and block.  Straight blocking isn't really a very good way of showing off weapon interactions anyway, timing or warding/guarding by using a ready position to defence makes (in my opinion) much more sense.

Of course, it remains to be seen if such a system would be worth the potential complexity, but hey, worth a test I'd have thought!  Or they could use some context sensitive inputs of course, but I seem to remember an outcry of general disgust last time that was even mentioned.
 

Blackthorn

Squire
1) At school- maybe. At degree level...
2) 'A case of falchions' doest not do the same as something saying 'two falchions'. Your assumption that any weapon lists MUST mean it's being used together is the flaw of your evidence, and unfortunately the crux of your evidence.
3) 'passive dagger' means it's used IN CONJUNCTION WITH THAT HAND’S PRIMARY OCCUPANT- in this case a shield- but sometimes a spear- ie- it's not being actively wielded- like a spike added to the shield.
4) Then the skill level was remarkably low- or the style of the group unrealistic.
5) here is a quote from Sir John Smythe's military manual with the relevant words in bold
But after all this it may be, that some very curious and not skilfull in actions of Armes, may demand what the formost rankes of this well ordered and practised squadron before mentioned shall doo after they haue giuen their aforesaid puissant blows & thrusts with their piques incase that they doo not at the first incountry ouerthrow and breake the contrary squadron of their enemies . . . they therefore must either presentlie let [their pikes] fall to the ground as vnprofitable, or else may with both their hands dart, and throw them as farre forward into & amongst the ranks of their enemies as they can, to the intent by the length of them to trouble their ranks, and presently in the twinkling of an eie or instant, must draw their short arming swordes and daggers, and giue a blow and thrust(tearmed a half reuerse, & thrust) all at, and in one time at their faces: A therewithall must presentlie in an instant, with their daggers in their left hands, thrust at the bottome of their enmeies bellies vnder the lammes of their Cuyrasses, or at any other disarmed parts.
So we have one man suggesting this for circa 17th century forces, with no evidence it was either implemented- but still fits with main gauche... but post Tudor in a world with virtually no shields in the West outside of Scotland.
6)” Historical fact shows that there were soldiers with no shields who were armed with swords and daggers in the 13th century”. - No. Historical evidence shows there were some troops without shields actively listed. The fact you've assumed they used two weapons is a massive assumption anyone with a serious history qualification would pull apart- the very fact a shield ISN'T listed might even suggest that it was taken for granted or issued from public armouries.
7)” no, I am not switching back and forth. I have repeatedly shown evidence that there is no reason why offhand weapons shouldn't be in M&B”- so some 13th century sources citing dual-wielding then? Or some very selective interpretations of something that has no corroboration- or projecting some later fencing styles back down a timeline to support a theory that you’ve researched with a prime bias? The latter.
:cool: "the I do this, you do that mindset is exactly how all the manuscripts from I.33 through Talhoffer to the later masters teach sword play." No- I.33 shows counters to moves as they're moving, and if interpreted correctly is a series of POSSIBLE counters to your enemy in mid-movement. Not ''he stands there and I do this''.
“my experience comes from many years of combat re-enactment using steel blades”- many? And with what group, in what context? Because it so far flies in the face of serious historical fencers, degree-level historians and seriously authentic reenactors.
 

Urlik

Sergeant Knight
1.) until L'Anse aux Meadows was discovered there was no unified acceptance of the Norse discovery of America and those sagas were thought to be fiction, although some earlier historians did suggest that the stories in those sagas were possible.

2.) with all your experience and expertise I am surprised that you do not know what a case of falchions is, especially as you claim to be familiar with Renaissance fencing styles which include case of rapiers (although in reality it should be case of swords as the original word is spada not rapier).
I have already provided a quote and a link to the source where it plainly says a case of falchions as well as single falchion. the inclusion of the word single before falchion and then the phrase case of falchions, in the context of duelling, is clear that they were to fight first with a single falchion each and then with 2 falchions each. any other interpretation of those phrases is clutching at straws.

3.) you said that Talhoffer didn't show any daggers being used in the offhand. I posted a link to a picture from Talhoffer which clearly shows that he did show the use of daggers in the offhand and that they are used offensively (as in to stab the opponent and not just for blocking).

4.) and you are wrong on both points. the skill level was pretty high (it had to be considering that we used real weapons and relied on skill to avoid injury) and we were invited to many of the large scale battles around the UK where skill and realism were high on the list for the organisers of the events.

5.) we have a knight of the realm instructing that the front row of pikemen should use sword and dagger instead of their pikes on a battlefield.

6.) so you are saying that the archers all carried shields? I think not.
the only time the shield would be of real benefit to them is when the enemy archers and crossbowmen are shooting at them and that would be the same time that they are shooting back. they would not have been able to use a shield at that time. but they did have a sword and a dagger/knife and considering the percentage of the army that they made up, they would have been expected to fight.
why is it so difficult for you to accept that someone with 2 weapons would use them when they don't have anything better to use in their offhand?

7.) you don't accept the Sagas as evidence, even though they are the only real records of actual fighting from the time period in question. but they are contemporary records that state that on more than 1 occasion people have used weapons in their offhand. swords and daggers and knives had been around for thousands of years before the Renaissance yet you think that they were only used in conjunction once people started to write things down.

8.) that is exactly what I said. you are choosing to misinterpret me.
the difference between "he does this so I do that" and "if he does this, I can do that" is semantic and neither are static.

I was with a group called Wolfguard ( a member of the Federation of Dark Age Societies with an emphasis on authenticity and living history as well as combat re-enactment)
 

GaGrin

Squire
I was talking to one of the fine fellows at my local HEMA club today and we both pretty much agreed that there was absolutely no disadvantage to using a dagger in the off-hand if you didn't have a shield. 

At the absolute worst you can drop it and still use that hand for any other action/reaction you might need to do and at best you've effectively doubled the effectiveness of your defence and practically for free.

I'm not going to argue dagger > shield, cos it doesn't; but dagger + sword is demonstrably better than simply a single-sword.

If you have a dagger (and everyone would have) then you'd use it if you didn't have anything better.
 
Top Bottom