Two weapon fightin? (dual wielding)

Users who are viewing this thread

Tsukana

Sergeant
I was going for more "You're pinned to a damn wall by somone with a board shield, which probably restricts both your arm movement and the stableness of your stance, allowing little to no power in grappling."

Still, you could tie the weapon hand up, but how long can you?

Not to mention, even if you DO have a stable stance, what if he overpowers you during grappling anyway?

It's just an example of how "better" is, as I said, situational. I was assuming that both combatants were unarmored minus the shield/buckler.

And afterwards, one of them would become known as "corpselover".
 

rapier17

Baron
Tsukana said:
I was going for more "You're pinned to a damn wall by somone with a board shield, which probably restricts both your arm movement and the stableness of your stance, allowing little to no power in grappling."

Still, you could tie the weapon hand up, but how long can you?

Not to mention, even if you DO have a stable stance, what if he overpowers you during grappling anyway?

It's just an example of how "better" is, as I said, situational. I was assuming that both combatants were unarmored minus the shield/buckler.

And afterwards, one of them would become known as "corpselover".

I will stand by my original response. Now as my sword arm is pinned across my body... shoulder into that massive, flat surface against which I can get great purchase & using the wall as a 'starting block' with a foot, push them back until they're running backwards & keep going until they fall over.
 

Blackthorn

Squire
Rynuusuke said:
LOL, so, you are trying to claim the 50+ specialists in London England that spent their whole professional lives working at the Tower of London Armory and Museum are wrong and you are right. Congrats, you should win an award for that comment.

I know I'm massively late to the debate- but on this point-
HELL YES.
The Armouries (London, Leeds, etc. etc.) have made some HORRIBLY outlandish and innacurate claims throughout their time- I spent half of my dissertation debunking them.
The 'Samuraii Supremacy' is a hangover of the 70's-90's period of horrendous historical b*ll*cks- only in recent years have Western historians begun to drop the ''heavy and clumsy'' image of Medieval European combat, even though variour WMMA groups have been shouting it for years with experimental archeology techniques using accurate museum replicas of armour and weapons and following Mi33 and Talhoffer. But never mind; obviously the kind of place that claims that knights in the 15th C fought with their visors down, that maces are the simplest weapon to learn to use and finally mis-labels 16th C Indian armour as 14th C Mongolian gear for roughly a decade before realising their mistake know better than the rest of us...
 

rapier17

Baron
Protection from missile weapons. Far easier to whack it up once you get to the enemy infantry for greater spacial awareness which is essential in a melee.
 

Amman d Stazia

Master Knight
yep.  Even bernard cornwell (who makes the odd slip of detail) points out in several places of his grailquest trilogy that the visor's place is UP except to ward off missiles.

Some of his characters even forego visored or closed helms in order to get the benifit of vision that open-faced helms provide.


*edit for on-topicity*

it's two WEAPON fighting, so if I headbutt someone with my visor down, that counts as dual wielding, right?
 
What era are you talking about for the visor up because: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvCvOC2VwDc
Note their visor are down.


Edit: hyper derp writing, fixed/
 

rapier17

Baron
It would vary from combatant to combatant I would suppose. I used to wear a nasal bar helm when I did Saxon re-enactment - I hate having things close to my face & whilst it was a bar that ran the length of my nose with about a gap of an inch I still found it uncomfortable to have that close. To wear a helm with a visor down would be too claustraphobic for myself - I like to see whats going on around me and with a helm's visor possibly restricting my senses I would imagine I personally would start to panic. A lot. Especially with the din of combat going on around me.

With everything there is a trade off. I suppose if you're used to having a visor covering your face & fighting like that then you'd be willing to go into combat with it down. If you weren't & prefered to see what was going on around you then I would imagine you'd have the visor up for melee or have it removed altogether.
 

tostig

Sergeant Knight at Arms
M&B
bobthehero said:
What era are you talking about for the visor up because: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvCvOC2VwDc
Note their visor are down.
Nice video. Worth noting that all the sources that they show are from after the 1520s, while the earlier Falkner one depicted them open. I wonder if there are artistic or military trends in play.
 
Rynuusuke said:
2. Yes, I have. However, my point being is that PHDs who have spent their entire lives and specialties in 14-1600's history all agree the above comment.

They have? In case you didn't notice, academics have been one of the single largest sources of bull**** on the subject. The waffle they spout filters down to enthusiasts like *%&# ****ing Bottomley. Part of the problem is that the academic community is one big circlejerk: a sufficiently influential paper will be cited and treated as a usable source by many other academics, even if the contents are utter crap.

Rynuusuke said:
In case you are forgetting, in reality Knights hated being dismounted.

[citation needed]

Rynuusuke said:
So, most of your live steel (dismounted) bouts are simulations of the exception rather than the rule.

You might want to look at this resource. It's funny how so many treatises have a section dealing with combat on foot, isn't it? I mean, if these people hated being dismounted, you'd think they'd ignore it! They definitely didn't like groundfighting much, and it doesn't appear all that often.

Rynuusuke said:
Now to explain for everyone else what that means. The armor you are moving in is much lighter stronger and finer finished than any brand new armor for 14-1600 Europe. Therefore, not surprising that modern SCA fighters are quite nimble. However, it is not realistic nor accurate to the period as none of your equipment is lowered to the period, in quality of manufacture. As to do so, would be inviting a severe increase in risk of injury or death on the part of participants.

Actually, SCA fighters are known for using munitions armour (budget considerations, custom harness and spring steel components are costly) made with mild steel, which demands a fairly high thickness of steel for adequate protection. They would thus be more heavily encumbered than knights. Properly fitted period harness allows for mobility sufficient for any battlefield needs.

Rynuusuke said:
Citation: Tower of London Armory (which holds the world's largest collection of arms and armor and the most renowned researchers)

I'm sorry, but you haven't actually established that plate armour of modern manufacture is definitively superior to period examples. Also, appeals to authority without actually citing what the **** the authority says don't hold any weight in an argument.


EDIT: Bloody late to the argument, but I've been overseas getting thumped by better martial artists so I can learn something off them.  Still am, actually. :razz:
 

rapier17

Baron
Those sorts of arguments never die. But normally people have the decency to wait through a period of mourning before necroing them. Fie, Night Ninja, fie on your zealous nature, spurred forth, no doubt, by your convalesence through the medium of getting one up the bracket.
 

Blackthorn

Squire
The Armouries RE: Japan;
They're twinned with the Nikko Toshogu Shrine, and ever since that relationship began have pretty much sold the ''Japan is the highest form of bladed and bow combat seen to MAN!" despite the constant notations that in free-form sword contest, sword and shield unarmoured tends to best all comers (because it doesn't take armour into account).

Also- regarding harness weights; my maille weighs within a lb of the extant shirts held in armouries across the UK and in the Wallace collection. My shield is heavier than the Von Brienze shield, and my sword bears the same weight and balance as a 12th C original in Oakeshot's Records of the Medieval Sword. All my primary combat style is based around Mi.33 and images of 12th C combat (practical stuff stays in, impractical rejected), and my -shoes- are without modern grip. That's how close we're talking.
And if you look on my avatar, you'll notice me lunging mid-sprint.
Speaking of Knights not liking dismounted combat- I suggest you -really- look into Anglo-Norman to English Knights, c.1090-1500. Norman knights fought about 1/3rd of all recorded actions on foot (either dismounted for the purposes of forming a super-heavy infantry block, such as the Battles of the Standard and Tinchebrai or for siege attacks/defences) and this figure only increases by the time we reach the the end of the dateline for 'Knights'. The problem is partially that 'knight' is given to mean something specific, whereas the term changes entirely across six hundred years of standard usage. So I suggest a bit of research- and not just embracing sources that whilst supporting your argument, also contradict themselves and have been widely debunked.

And Night Ninja; I apologise for my colleagues. During my diss. I trawled a LOT of academic sources regarding equipment, it's likely weight and outfit... and essentially one man bullsh*ts and the rest repeat. Wonderful how academia becomes a ground for 'thought inbreeding'. There are -some- good works out there, though, I would hasten to add... and some historians who do bother to take time to try and check their conclusions... although their snobbish attitude to both Archeology as a whole and Experimental Archeology specifically doesn't help at all. :neutral: I am hated by my own breed...
 

NovaTitan

Veteran
I read some Osprey books and it shows knights, peasants, and militiamen having a dagger handy in the belt. If the shield is broken or heavy from missile fire (javs via skirmishers), then wouldn't it make sense to dual-wield with the dagger? I'm talking about soldiers with one-handed weapons like clubs, one-handed swords, etc..
 

Blackthorn

Squire
NovaTitan said:
I read some Osprey books and it shows knights, peasants, and militiamen having a dagger handy in the belt. If the shield is broken or heavy from missile fire (javs via skirmishers), then wouldn't it make sense to dual-wield with the dagger? I'm talking about soldiers with one-handed weapons like clubs, one-handed swords, etc..

To a layman, it would seem so. But in all seriousness, having two hands to deliver stronger blows, or having a hand free to grapple is usually more useful. Also- shields are 1) harder to destroy than you'd think and 2) pretty much easy to accquire mid-battle. You'd be better off snatching a spear from either an enemy or the ground than trying to divert enemies with an off-hand dagger.

And as a quick post scriptum- don't believe everything you read/see in Ospreys. As a rule- good information... but...
1) The Sicilian SPEARAXE!
2) The ring-hilted 13th C Italian sword
3) The Welsh 'egg' shield
And many many other illustrations whose basis is... "I dunno... why not?"
 

Blackthorn

Squire
An oval shield I can -just about- give some credance to... a roundshield for the Welsh of the late 12th C... sure. An egg-shaped shield? This is a shield that gives you -less- cover at the torso and head...
 
Top Bottom