Two weapon fightin? (dual wielding)

[SacredStoneHead]

:< how has this carried on for so long?

Because people like fancy things, no matter how silly they are.

(continuation) And what keeps this thread alive is an endless chain of events:

Step one - Stupid post, something like "omg, y u no made dual wield *slobber* i wuld like 2 play as a viking berserker";

Step two - People who cares about explaining things to enlighten uneducated people try to make some reasoning;

Step two and a half: People who like to flame stupid people begin the flaming;

Step three: More explanations, stupid poster yields, done.

Step four: Some lazy ****head post something that was written two pages ago, and then the cycle begin again.

 

[rapier17]

...more or less, Sacred, more or less.

Sure, it may not have been practical on a European battlefield, but perhaps that is not the case on a Calradic battlefield.

Well there it comes down to Calradia having weapons & equipment found in c13 Europe. So as it wasn't practical on a European battlefield with that equipment, it equally would not be practical in Calradia.

 

[SacredStoneHead]

...more or less, Sacred, more or less.

I'm losing my temper, sorry folks.

Time to take a breath and calm down a bit

 

[Vermillion_Hawk]

I didn't ever recall anybody asking you to come in here and play moderator. I had no idea people's opinions hurt you that much.

 

[SacredStoneHead]

I didn't ever recall anybody asking you to come in here and play moderator. I had no idea people's opinions hurt you that much.

My opinion is that if you don't want to spend some time reading the thread, don't post.

I'm not 'moderating' anything by writing this and I really don't need nobody 'asking' me to do it, though I'm certainly not liking to write the same thing over and over.

That's not constructive by any means, it takes my time, so I shall wait for someone else to do it, or let the thread restart the cycle the way it always do 

 

[MadocComadrin]

I didn't ever recall anybody asking you to come in here and play moderator. I had no idea people's opinions hurt you that much.

You brought up Musashi: you were asking for it.

 

[Vermillion_Hawk]

Yet again, I had no idea that the actions of others in a thread you voluntarily choose to view could have such a profound effect. Also I don't exactly see how citing a historical source (what the person in my original post was asking for) is a request for a moderation.

 

[Baguette Eater]

Musashi: Born in 1600 in Japan

MnB: takes place in 1257 in a representation of Europe

Link: None

 

[Vermillion_Hawk]

Musashi: Born in 1600 in Japan

MnB: takes place in 1257 in a representation of Europe

Link: None

In case you missed my previous post, I was simply answering the question that the previous poster could not find ANY historical evidence of fighting with two weapons. I was not necessarily talking about any time period, historical evidence in general. Additionally, I can't link to the Book of the Five Rings, one cannot simply hyperlink to an entire book.

 

[AWdeV]

But it's been adressed before. Musashi as well as Portuguese sailors with a main-gauche/rapier combination, as well as Viking Berserkr.

The last one is only mentioned in myths and legends and can't be taken as historically accurate.
The portuguese sailors used their combination to devestating effect in duels, and same goes IIRC for Musashi.

On a battlefield with archers, crossbowmen and stone-hurling thugs you'll definitely want a shield or else you're just a rather silly-looking pincushion.

 

[Baguette Eater]

And then, plate armor, where you need the strenght of both arms, or to wrestle down your enemy.

 

[MadocComadrin]

Yet again, I had no idea that the actions of others in a thread you voluntarily choose to view could have such a profound effect. Also I don't exactly see how citing a historical source (what the person in my original post was asking for) is a request for a moderation.

While it's not expected a person read the entire thread--being of such great length, that same length should probably be a clue that someone as overly-romanticized and cliche as Musashi has been brought up a thousand times already.

Likewise, your answer was irrelevant anyway, as not only does the post you're referring to mention forms of dual wielding, he later expresses not finding any historical sources of Western forms of duel wielding being used on the battlefield.--not dual wielding in general, the many forms of which, as clued by the length of the thread, have been mentioned multiple times already--and only need to be mentioned if someone tries to disprove dual wielding in general.

 

[Swadius 2.0]

Elaborating on what battlefield means here. It simply means that there are no rules of which anyone is expected to follow in terms of fighting for one's life. This extends to the equipment people can use, to their moves, it also doesn't limit how many people can take part in the fight either. This of course isn't restricted to field battles, it can take place just about anywhere. It's less about where it was fought, and more about the lack of rules whatsoever in this type of fighting.

As blackthorn pointed out:

Dual-wielding can never emerge as a useful style. The terms under which it -did- emerge are usually due to other considerations- economic, legal, or colonial- the banning of carriage of weapons or items (such as the ban of carrying bucklers in Italian cities to prevent fighting in the streets- leading to the use of the offhand dagger to -replace- what was removed).

 

[AWdeV]

Those Italians should've just banned swords. A buckler vs buckler duel would be more hilarious.

 

[SacredStoneHead]

Those Italians should've just banned swords. A buckler vs buckler duel would be more hilarious.

Dual bucklers duel

 

[MadocComadrin]

I'd carry like 6-7 bucklers and throw them at people until I'm left with two.

 

[ThorofAsgard]

I'd sharpen the edges first, just be like Oddjob from James Bond with his bowler hat.

 

[AWdeV]

Those Italians should've just banned swords. A buckler vs buckler duel would be more hilarious.

Dual bucklers duel

Exactly. Like steel boxing gloves.

 

[Blackthorn]

Most medieval laws and ordinances that ban weapons don't cover swords or daggers; they're simply considered items of polite dress for gentlemen. For instance, carry a wood-worker's handaxe on your belt within an Anglo-Norman city that's suffering a bit of public unrest, and expect to be 'gone over' by the local militia. Walk down the same road with a sword belted on, and expect them to step aside and bow. Welcome to the world where the social status of the sword awards it's own 'right to bear arms'- IE- I carry this, ergo I have the right to. It's why the banning of bucklers was so hiliarious- it's the begining of the tide turning against 'young gentlemen going armed'; within a few hundred years decent gents like myself wouldn't be allowed to wear swords at all...

 

[NovaTitan]

Ahhhhhhh, the summer is here! How is everyone? This thread continues to live, though annoying at times, I have come once more to ask a question. I've been practicing with longsword and sword and shield for about a month. I've practiced sword and buckler for 2 weeks. Recently, my father and I created an 8ft pole as a practice spear. Drawing inspiration from the Stainless Steel bannermen that uses the banner as a longass spear and the sword as a sort of shield and Hilde from the Soul Calibur series... Fine, it was mostly Hilde, but the SS bannermen gave it a sort of historical legitimacy.

Anyways, I found out that although the spear (primary) and sword (secondary) looks cool and elegant, the axe is actually a far better weapon for trapping the enemy's weapon or hooking and removing their shields. A shield works great in a true medieval battle, but I'm focusing on duels when it comes to martial arts, so I came to the conclusion that an axe is preferable to a shield when going with the arming sword. A free hand would work just as well in most duels, but against a sword and shield an axe would penetrate or cause blunt trauma on the shield arm in historical situations.

Now there are scant sources on the sword (primary) and axe (secondary) combo, but I do think it would've been used by a few practitioners. Does anybody have any experience or historical knowledge on this? Thanks for your time. 

Edit: Also, thanks to Blackthorn. He was right. A free hand is preferable to sword + dagger. The free hand is theoretically the better in most encounters.