Blackthorn
Squire
1) As I say- most serious students of Norse literature took it as possible as early as 1980- however references to wolf-skins granting supernatural powers and weapons hewing limbs clean off made much of the actual narrative untrustworthy for most sagas. Fact.
2) Actually- no. A case of any weapons means multiple weapons will be AVAILABLE. As a degree-level historian one has to differentiate between biased extrapolation and historically proven fact. It could be that they will be used together. It could be that single falchions will represent two closely matched weapons of identical handling- and a variety will be available for a second duel, varying in size, etc. etc. That's the original meaning of the term 'case of'. Granted, by the later period this came to mean 'dual wielded'- especially in the case of rapiers, but it simply meant mutiple blades would be made available to both combatants- to select a single one, or two. It's also still post-medieval exhibition fighting... which is not admissable evidence for battlefield combat in the era of military swordplay.
3) And it's still not dual-wielding. I granted passive use. That's still not the same, and I still conceeded the point. If you wish to delcare this your victory, then okay- but passive use is -not- the same as using a primary in your offhand.
4) Anyone can get an invite to the larger events- and your use of dual-weapons already throws the authenticity of the group into sharp and non-complimentary relief. Bias research methods will allow things like dual-wielding, whereas serious study of all the sources to extrapolate evidence would lead immediately away from it for anything pre-renasiance. Constant projection of things up and down the timeline means you could equally have allowed forms of plate, metal-covered shields, etc. etc. ''Used real weapons''... unlike other societies, who use...?
5)... in the 17th century... and again... evidence it was implemented? Yes- we have one man suggesting it. We have a good source showing Machiavelli urging Rennaisance princes to equip armies in the Roman style with large shields and short swords. We also know his one such-armed militia was crushed and the form was abandoned in favour of the pike again. Before you can prove anything beyond a historical glitch- you need supporting evidence. So far you've a handful of possible references, all post-15th century- one an extrapolated possible source referring to demonstrative duels... and one suggestion of sword and main gauche in mass pike blocks... which was never to my knowledge introduced.
6)And... no. I was pointing out that a lack of mentioning a shield doesn't mean ''DUAL WIELDING!" should be your first logical conclusion. In fact, due to it's absence in period manuals such as MI.33 and any depiction of military forces, one should assume the opposite. And again- why is it hard to accept? Because you've no evidence to suggest they -did-. They are two tools for very different jobs; and sword-and-dagger fencing is yet to make an appearance for nearly 200 years.
7)No... the Anglo-Saxon Heroic literature (Battle of Maldon, etc. etc.) provides a biased but wonderfully detailed account of fighting in the shield-wall... and never mentions dual-wielding. Nor do most sources of the time. Only Scandinavian sources actually written down so long after they can be dismissed as primary sources. Again- historical practice.
8 ) No- ''He does this, so I do that'' is not the same as ''He moves in this way, I react thus." The first is 'to me, to you' style, the second a dynamic mid-combat flow. For someone with this laudible combat experience within a UK society, you don't understand much of the subtleties of combat.
Seeing as there's an obvious way to settle this- and the clearly logical way- here it is.
I'm also in the UK. I run cell-groups of reenactment society UK wide. If you want to pit your theory against mine, I suggest an exhibition bout. You dual-wielding; me not. I will use a polearm, a sword and shield, a dagger and shield- a range of combinations that make more effective sense within this contextual time period. I invite you to use any dual-combination throughout all of time. After 20 such bouts, we will have come to a conclusion about our most practical form. Even a skill mis-match can be accounted for by having a series of vanilla bouts, and then checking their ratio against the proposed bout ratio. I'm happy to agree any rules- any armour. I'll even supply the equipment. As this seems the only way such a theory-based debate with no real historical evidence (beyond one explicit theory, one inferred exhibition bout, and 14th-century recounted saga) can be settled, I'll be glad to do it, and it can end this back-and-forth debate, where you don't want to accept serious degree-level historical critique of a flawed argument.
2) Actually- no. A case of any weapons means multiple weapons will be AVAILABLE. As a degree-level historian one has to differentiate between biased extrapolation and historically proven fact. It could be that they will be used together. It could be that single falchions will represent two closely matched weapons of identical handling- and a variety will be available for a second duel, varying in size, etc. etc. That's the original meaning of the term 'case of'. Granted, by the later period this came to mean 'dual wielded'- especially in the case of rapiers, but it simply meant mutiple blades would be made available to both combatants- to select a single one, or two. It's also still post-medieval exhibition fighting... which is not admissable evidence for battlefield combat in the era of military swordplay.
3) And it's still not dual-wielding. I granted passive use. That's still not the same, and I still conceeded the point. If you wish to delcare this your victory, then okay- but passive use is -not- the same as using a primary in your offhand.
4) Anyone can get an invite to the larger events- and your use of dual-weapons already throws the authenticity of the group into sharp and non-complimentary relief. Bias research methods will allow things like dual-wielding, whereas serious study of all the sources to extrapolate evidence would lead immediately away from it for anything pre-renasiance. Constant projection of things up and down the timeline means you could equally have allowed forms of plate, metal-covered shields, etc. etc. ''Used real weapons''... unlike other societies, who use...?
5)... in the 17th century... and again... evidence it was implemented? Yes- we have one man suggesting it. We have a good source showing Machiavelli urging Rennaisance princes to equip armies in the Roman style with large shields and short swords. We also know his one such-armed militia was crushed and the form was abandoned in favour of the pike again. Before you can prove anything beyond a historical glitch- you need supporting evidence. So far you've a handful of possible references, all post-15th century- one an extrapolated possible source referring to demonstrative duels... and one suggestion of sword and main gauche in mass pike blocks... which was never to my knowledge introduced.
6)And... no. I was pointing out that a lack of mentioning a shield doesn't mean ''DUAL WIELDING!" should be your first logical conclusion. In fact, due to it's absence in period manuals such as MI.33 and any depiction of military forces, one should assume the opposite. And again- why is it hard to accept? Because you've no evidence to suggest they -did-. They are two tools for very different jobs; and sword-and-dagger fencing is yet to make an appearance for nearly 200 years.
7)No... the Anglo-Saxon Heroic literature (Battle of Maldon, etc. etc.) provides a biased but wonderfully detailed account of fighting in the shield-wall... and never mentions dual-wielding. Nor do most sources of the time. Only Scandinavian sources actually written down so long after they can be dismissed as primary sources. Again- historical practice.
8 ) No- ''He does this, so I do that'' is not the same as ''He moves in this way, I react thus." The first is 'to me, to you' style, the second a dynamic mid-combat flow. For someone with this laudible combat experience within a UK society, you don't understand much of the subtleties of combat.
Seeing as there's an obvious way to settle this- and the clearly logical way- here it is.
I'm also in the UK. I run cell-groups of reenactment society UK wide. If you want to pit your theory against mine, I suggest an exhibition bout. You dual-wielding; me not. I will use a polearm, a sword and shield, a dagger and shield- a range of combinations that make more effective sense within this contextual time period. I invite you to use any dual-combination throughout all of time. After 20 such bouts, we will have come to a conclusion about our most practical form. Even a skill mis-match can be accounted for by having a series of vanilla bouts, and then checking their ratio against the proposed bout ratio. I'm happy to agree any rules- any armour. I'll even supply the equipment. As this seems the only way such a theory-based debate with no real historical evidence (beyond one explicit theory, one inferred exhibition bout, and 14th-century recounted saga) can be settled, I'll be glad to do it, and it can end this back-and-forth debate, where you don't want to accept serious degree-level historical critique of a flawed argument.
