Two weapon fightin? (dual wielding)

[Amman d Stazia]

1)  How does it different from having a shield ?

2) Dual wielding has never been standard equipment for any army in the west, true. I didn't argue with that, I just wonder why.

3) battle in mediaval Europe is actually nothing more than non-standard raid. This make me also question usage of spearwall or shieldwall which was claimed making dual wielding useless. Since most encounter wasn't aim to be decisive battle, in what situation this formation is used and how often ?

1) a secondary weapon, while useful in melee or to offer different options in different situations (eg, your primary weapon is a spear, your secondary a short mace) offers nil protection against ranged weaponry.  That's the advantage of a shield.  It is primarily a large protective barrier but has the secondary ability to unbalance or distract an opponent when used in offensive fashion.
Also, unlike a secondary weapon in melee, the shield can be used as a battering ram.  You don't have to worry about where it hits the enemy, you just lean into it and shove them back, off-balance.  That lets your friends - who are standing close behind you with spear in hand - get a good hit on the enemy.

2) in Europe, back in the Roman Empire age, much of the terrain was already opened up by humans: forests were cleared, hillsides ploughed, roads built.  The rise of the Roman style of war with a disciplined force responding to central command, rather than the Celtic style with many small groups responding only to immediate, local leadership, meant that a large force wanted to fight in a relatively open battlefield to allow communication and oversight.
The rise of ranged weapons was not tied to this, but a seperate factor: Ranged weapons allowed a force to attack and damage an enemy without suffering casualties themselves.  Obviously the other force would also employ ranged weapons to counter this.
So when combat did occur, it was normally in a relatively open area, with ranged weapons on both sides.  This led to a preference for shields rather than multiple weapons.
Also, the tactics evolved for melee combat were those of close-packed groups, mutually assisting and protecting each member of the group.  Each member of the group was supposed to use his shield to protect his neighbour as well as himself, and to attack his neighbour's opponent if the opportunity arose, as well as attacking his own direct opponent.
The (im)practicalities of using more than one weapon, and trying to defend against multiple opponents without a shield, mean that a two-weapon fighting technique did not evolve.

3)  tactics evolved in order to give the military unit the best possible chance of success whilst maximising denial of opportunity to the opposing force.
In the context of groups of armed men raiding and burning, it still made sense even for only eight or ten men to work closely together offering mutual protection and support.  Formations were used WHENEVER POSSIBLE by those who had the knowledge and discipline to use them.  With the advantages of mutual support and protection that formations offered, it was a no-brainer.

 

[AlexHutchy]

Why do you even say dual weilding is pointless there's no protection from ranged attacks, the same is if you were using a 2 handed, the arguement about that is pointless.

 

[Moss]

Which would probably be why two handed weapons didn't really become common until heavier armours became common place on the battlefield during the renaissance.

 

[Blackthorn]

Right- from the top-
Padded armour stops cutting attacks pretty damn effectively- try cutting a sheet of linen with a knife, by hacking. Now double said linen over. Now triple it. Failing that- quick and dirty test, go into the kitchen, get an oven mitt, get a kitchen (non serrated) knife. Slice at the oven mitt. Presto- padded armour resisting the cut.

Next- availability of metal armour-
In the 12th-13th century period, most richer militia and most veteran proffesional soldiers would have access to maille (or were expected to- specific mention of 'richer burgesses' in The Assize of Arms and mention that the 'soldiers' of the Anglo-Norman force at the Battle of the Standard were 'metal-clad') It was not 'everywhere', but assume about 1/3rd of a force is unarmoured, then 1/3rd is gamboised, the other 1/3rd maille-clad. Standard Feudal levy (so the forces with the largest numbers of 'non proffesionals').

The European armies were just 'bandit barbarians'...
... just no. -Every- culture in the medieval period, as far as Russia, the Mongols, the Saracens, the Moors, the Italo-Normans etc. etc. fought most of their wars at a very low background level. The term 'barbarian' is a bit... well, frankly, offensive. As is dragging East/West divisions into this. Don't make me pull the gloves off and get down and dirty with the Early Behaviour of the Eastern State lecture, nor the Secret History of the Crusades. This is an argument about dual-wielding, not cultural superiority.

Next- how is using a shield different?
Well, frankly, it makes sense. That's difference no.1. In battle, a man goes for either reach or high protection. The shield offers protection, and therefore allows him to fight fairly close to his enemy. In a closed formtion there is little room for latteral or backward movement. Therefore dual wielding would mean you were holding two shorter weapons without the capacity to defend yourself. You could arguably parry one or two blows- but without the ability to move with the parries, it's all a matter of time.
If you use a two-handed weapon, then you now have reach, allowing you to strike at your enemy from outside his weapon's range. Pikes, halberds, spears, dane-axes, they're all designed to capitalise on the immobility of individual enemies, therefore allowing you to rain down blows on them, hopefully doing serious damage. Two-handed swords are not used as a mass-infantry weapon. Some men standing throughout the pike or halberd formations use them to deal with enemies who close on their comrades. It's a complimentary, not mutually exclusive, weapon.
The shield allows you impunity against most blows (if carried and used right), a surface that can reliably baffle enemy strikes without much risk of them 'slipping free', and allows you to close in formation upon an enemy whilst being missile resistant. In short, it is the ultimate universal tool- and forces your enemy into various manouevers to try and work around it or damage it sufficiently to remove it.

Happy?

 

[Phalanx300]

It can always be made optional if people really wouldn´t like seeing it in Warband if it ever gets introduced. It would be great for multiplayer for the people who would enjoy using it.

 

[Night Ninja]

And we're now back to square one.

 

[AlexHutchy]

And we're now back to square one.

I wasn't aware we went off square one.

 

[AWdeV]

Thread was way off square one.
Family de Stazia explained why it never evolved on European Battlefields,
Mr. Moss explained why twohanders aren't a valid comparison and
Mr. Blackthorn re-explained why it never evolved on European battlefields and also why shields are a better option, not to mention that he also re-explained why twohanders aren't a valid comparison!

Get it through your thick head! Two swords would be dangerous and impractical on the battlefield and by the time twohanders are a valid comparison then dual wielding has lost its' merits because two swords won't help you get through an armour any faster than one big one!

 

[Phalanx300]

Whether it has or hasn´t evolved in Europe has nothing to do whether it evolved in Calradia which for some reason has such different fighting styles it wouldn´t make an big difference for the player himself to decide on his gear, especially in multiplayer.

 

[AlexHutchy]

Whether it has or hasn´t evolved in Europe has nothing to do whether it evolved in Calradia which for some reason has such different fighting styles it wouldn´t make an big difference for the player himself to decide on his gear, especially in multiplayer.

my point.

 

[Tercero]

oh yes, Im wondering if dragons did evolved in calradia and if magic and necromancy did too... that argument is pointless

of course we are in a "paralell world" with different history culture etc, but that doesnt me that something impractical in the battlefield would be used... and it wont if we look to calradia ways of fighting, vaegirs, best archers, khergits, horse archers, rhod+swadians deadly xbows... the only ones not using mass ranged weapons are nords, who use throwings weapons... would you try to parry a throwing weapon with a dagger???

 

[AlexHutchy]

oh yes, Im wondering if dragons did evolved in calradia and if magic and necromancy did too... that argument is pointless

of course we are in a "paralell world" with different history culture etc, but that doesnt me that something impractical in the battlefield would be used... and it wont if we look to calradia ways of fighting, vaegirs, best archers, khergits, horse archers, rhod+swadians deadly xbows... the only ones not using mass ranged weapons are nords, who use throwings weapons... would you try to parry a throwing weapon with a dagger???

And why would do parry it with a 2 handed axe?

 

[Phalanx300]

oh yes, Im wondering if dragons did evolved in calradia and if magic and necromancy did too... that argument is pointless

of course we are in a "paralell world" with different history culture etc, but that doesnt me that something impractical in the battlefield would be used... and it wont if we look to calradia ways of fighting, vaegirs, best archers, khergits, horse archers, rhod+swadians deadly xbows... the only ones not using mass ranged weapons are nords, who use throwings weapons... would you try to parry a throwing weapon with a dagger???

For all you know it did, would change nothing with the accuracy as its an fantasy world to begin with.

You also complain about Rohan soldiers not wearing shields when charging like European counterparts would've done? 

 

[Tercero]

because you have to get swadian guards/knights mail/plate with something? lancers/vaegir lamellar? rhodocks sergeant armour?

you see? thatis the problem, you start talking about dual welding and youll finish trying to take hobbits into calradia, please, this isnt that kind of game, you might see mods with that content

 

[Phalanx300]

because you have to get swadian guards/knights mail/plate with something? lancers/vaegir lamellar? rhodocks sergeant armour?

you see? thatis the problem, you start talking about dual welding and youll finish trying to take hobbits into calradia, please, this isnt that kind of game, you might see mods with that content

What this game is and isn't is for the devs to decide. You start linking dual wielding to fantasy creatures. I fail to see how people using dual wield in Warband to entertain themselves will lead to Elves and Dragons  .

 

[AlexHutchy]

because you have to get swadian guards/knights mail/plate with something? lancers/vaegir lamellar? rhodocks sergeant armour?

you see? thatis the problem, you start talking about dual welding and youll finish trying to take hobbits into calradia, please, this isnt that kind of game, you might see mods with that content

What this game is and isn't is for the devs to decide. You start linking dual wielding to fantasy creatures. I fail to see how people using dual wield in Warband to entertain themselves will lead to Elves and Dragons  .

Preach

 

[Karel]

 

[McBeverage]

QFT; QFE

 

[Tercero]

omg thanks some people with a bit of common sense

dual welding is in a way, fantasy, it wasnt use because it is impractical and when you say "devs will decide what this game is and what it is not" then id say, shut the **** up, devs havent implemented dual welding so they dont want it here, if you can show your arguments to support dual welding, we can try to counter them

 

[Tsukana]

I'm not that big a fan of the idea of dual wielding in WB multiplayer. That's about it.

Now, to the linking between dual wielding and Aragon, or Eragorn or whatever his name is.

Not all of us who support dual wielding (probably just me actually) are 13 year olds who watch anime and have Legolas fetishes. 'Nuff said.