Two bladed swords

[Joseph argento]

<img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" /> I have noted the appearance of double bladed swords in several books and movies. In fiction, it is always a practicle and effective weapon, having two short swords attatched at the hilt and no pommel. Allthough I cannot replicate something like this, I experimented with a quarterstaff. Using about one third of the length for a grip and "blades" of equal length, my approximation seemed like it would have usefull combat qualities, especially against unshielded opponents, or in a mele. I know that the quarterstaff can be somwhat effective, though lacking the killing power of the sword. However, I have never seen or read of any historical examples of such a weapon. Do they exist and I've just never heard of them? If they don't, I would be interested in finding out what unseen drawbacks such a weapon might posess. Thank you.

[Mike Chidester]

I know that the quarterstaff can be somwhat effective, though lacking the killing power of the sword.

A quarterstaff has all the killing power you'll ever need, and is certainly as deadly and effective as a sword.

As to a two-bladed sword, it would be more dangerous to you than to your opponent.

[Joseph argento]

Quarter staff's have all the killing power you will ever need

Oh. That seems quite quantrary to what I have always believed. While a quarterstaff can break bones or possibly kill you from concussion, this seems incomparable to the killing power a sword. John Clements discusses this in the section "On Wounds" in Medieval Swordsmanship. He even uses a stick as an example. Staves do not dismember and decapitate.

As to a two-bladed sword, it would be more dangerous to you than to your opponent.

Interesting. I amjust curious how you arrived at this, or weather you have done any experiments with it. I don't have any sparring experience with a quarterstaff. However, by just using one for drill, It doesn't seem that much proficiency would be required to prevent hitting yourself with it.

[Shane Smith]

George Silver circa 1598, considered the short staff superior to the sword in duelling; "The short staff or half pike, forest bill, partisan, or glaive, or such like weapons of perfect length, have the advantage against the battle axe, the halberd, the black bill, the two handed sword, the sword and target, and are too hard for two swords and daggers, or two rapier and poniards with gauntlets, and for the long staff and morris pike."

[s_taillebois]

Quarter/Half staffs, by the standards of the time in which these were used, very effective-as M. Smith and Company have so clearly noted. Have to consider that any weapon which caused interior damage, was virtually impossible for the medical arts of the time to deal with effectively. That's one of the many reasons why stylets, estocs, and such were also used, or sometimes proscribed. Sometimes the effectiveness of a weapon is in how it's perceived...what it might do, is as important as what it does.
If your possible weapon is something like two swords attached at the hilt (If I understand your description), there are companies which sell such things.
From a practical view...this kind of implement would lose several advantages to a bastard or longsword...less projection in a thrust, loss of a substantial area (of the flat) for warding, both the long edge/short edge much less available area for cutting. And likely, since there probably would be nothing like a cruciform hilt, loss of some of the protection to the hands and all the neat little tricks for which these can be used .
Essentially, an implement of this kind would force you to close on an opponent who has both a reach and warding advantage. And in close, the presumed length of the handles/pommels would present some disadvantages, compared to using a stylet or set of daggers.
So not quite sure what the advantage would be with something like the proposed weapon. That said, not having something like this around...but in some ways knowing what can be done with a bastard/long sword...I'll stick with the traditional stuff.
Although still not quite sure exactly what this implement might look like, or be used....
And anyway, a halfstaff/quarterstaff had it's uses in peasant revolts...

[Derek Gulas]

I haven't seen a two bladed weapon like the one you describe in any of the manuals. I'd say, that it could very well be that a two bladed sword would be effective in some environments. However, it could also be that whatever advantages it offers are also minimal, while offering disadvantages. For example, if it inhibits your ability to use a shield or grapple, while making it easier for you to poke yourself, that second blade could be a major drawback. When it comes to combat you need simplicity in your method. If you start getting too flashy, you'll start getting dead, because the other guy with the simpler, effective method will be killing you. I wouldn't call a single bladed sword deficient at killing at all.

I would also say that quarter staves are quite deadly in their own right. Sure, they won't cleave your skull, but they will crack it nicely. I've heard of buckets of water actually getting a hole blasted through them when hit with a quarter staff (that is, one side is struck, and the opposite side has a hole blasted in it) on this forum. Also, if you want to make a "real" weapon out of a quarter staff, just add a blade on one end. Then its a spear, a halberd, etc, and I definately wouldn't want to meet a guy with halberd in a dark alley.

So, to sum up: double bladed swords don't particularly offer an advantage over normal swords or other weapons, but they would be harder to use. Quarterstaves hurt a lot when you get hit and they hit very hard. Avoid suspicous people carrying halberds.

[s_taillebois]

Or surly peasant's carrying staves?

[Joseph argento]

Thank you, I appreciate all the info. I understand the logic behind not using such a weapon. It is an interesting concept though, and I'll still use it in my book. I can certinally understand the effectiveness of a staff in self defense, but I would not want to carry one into battle against armored opponents with swords. I suppose it depends on the situation. A single ended pole arm definately has advantages over one with two blades, and more versitility. Still, I would like to try something like this. My idea was closer to something like a two ended glaive, with proportions more simmilar to a pole arm than a sword.

I have never seen anthing such as this for sale myself. I would be interested in acquring one, if just to look cool. If you could perhaps remember where you saw it, I would appreciate it.

[JeanryChandler]

I think two bladed sword idea, which springs from either Dungeons and Dragons or Star Wars, is idiotic, with all due respect.

As far as the old staff vs sword debate, I grant that a staff is a formidable weapon, generally reach alone is a major factor in it's value, as is versatility in offense or defense. Against a staff I think a single sword is in trouble. Sword and buckler or a longsword however can be much more even.

I also think a sword which is a good cutter has three big advantages over the staff, A) you can cut through / destroy the staff, which based on some experiments I've done isn't as hard or unlikely as one might think, and B) you can grasp a staff for binds and disarms much more safely than you can with a sword, and C) you can draw cut with the sword and generally cause much more serious wounds much quicker, IMHO.

Of course a staff can also break a sword, particularly the kind of civilian cut-and-thrust or thrust only weapons which were popular from the 16th century onward... I think this would be more problematic though against heavier cutting military weapons...

Jeanry

[Patrick Hardin]

Well, if it's polearms you're thinking about, there is sort of a historical parallel. Many polearms were made with spiked buttcaps, which had all sorts of useful poking applications. I don't know of any two-bladed glaives, though. It seems to me that one would be vulnerable in the middle with something like that. Also, remember there's nothing you can do with two blades on a sword that you can't do with one.

Patrick Hardin

[s_taillebois]

Alas M Argento, the catalog wherein I saw the double bladed thing was found on a sidewalk...
And the relative entertainment value being somewhat low, it soon enough was cast into oblivion.
Might consider having your character use a billhook. Could get firewood and murder people all in one tool.

[Jaron Bernstein]

Hmmm....Well I recently took my staff and played with pumpkins. It is very good for smashing them. As in pumpkin parts flying all over. I found the thrusts go neatly through the outer layer and into the pulp, but not more than 1/4 way through the whole thing.

If anyone out there has sparred staff vs. longsword, could they please comment on how it went?

[Stacy Clifford]

It sounds like you have the misconception that a quarterstaff is held in the middle, which although nimble, reduces the power of strikes with either end. However, it's called a quarterstaff because you hold it about a quarter of the way up, with three quarters of the weapon sticking out in front of you to fight with. With a shorter staff in the 6-8 foot range this is still very agile and gives you a tremendous amount of striking power. Against an unarmored opponent it's devastating. If you want to bash somebody covered in metal with it, you add a metal head on the end. A naked staff could still do a number on armor, but the wood would get torn up faster and it wouldn't last long on the battlefield.

As for cutting a staff, I have to disagree with you a bit, Jeanry. It may not be that difficult to cut through an immobile staff, but to cut through one that is feinting, probing, thrusting, and generally moving around a lot is another story. Unless you cut into it head on going in opposite directions, the staff is probably going to give a bit on impact and absorb some of the cutting force, so that you'll be chipping at it more than cutting sections off. Also remember that an unrimmed shield was valued for the fact that a sword could get stuck in it, and I imagine the same could happen in a stout hardwood staff. A staff with a nifty new sword attachment could make a really nasty club (or fling the sword really far away), and watch out for the backup dagger.

Not too long ago we had a thread with some extensive discussion of staff vs. sword fighting tactics. Look for that.

[Rod-Thornton]

Hmmm,
Joseph, you wrote "...I have noted the appearance of double bladed swords in several books and movies. In fiction, it is always a practicle and effective weapon, having two short swords attatched at the hilt and no pommel...."

As you say, in fiction, it is practical. In non-fiction, think about this... For one blade of your sword to be effective, you must have it pointed at the opponent (the tenet of "point always online" here). Well, if that is the case, by default you always have a sword tip pointed online at you! - Your own other blade. Likewise, for a sword to cut, you must describe a nice arc according to the cut attempted. The parallel inverse arc would thus be cutting back on you! (I.e., an oberhau to him becomes a simultaneous unterhau to you). I have enough worry keeping the opponent's blade from within my danger zone without having to worry about two blades in it (his and my own!) I think that a double-edged sword is a fine thing, but double bladed becomes (excuse the pun) more of a "double-edged sword" to you as the linear nature of it forces a blade at you every time you force one to the opponent.

However, from reading the posts re: staff, take note that you grip polearm not in the middle, thus while one end may have a cutter on it (glaive, etc.) the other may have a weighted butt cap or bob on it, thus it does not attack you the same time you attack with it as would a double blade sword gripped in middle.

[Stacy Clifford]

I forgot to mention last night, note in this illustration from Silver that both ends of the staff appear to have sharpened butt caps on them: