The dreaded dualwielding

[Peter Goranov]

Much controversy and hollywood glorification has surrounded the dual wielding of swords. From what I have read and learned on this site, it seems that apart from dagger & rapier, and some brief mention in a manual where it is said that one must be as good with his off-hand as he is with his main hand (be ambidextrous and equally skilled and practiced as I understand it), we have little other proof that anyone ever used dual swords, or dual anything for that matter (not talking about Katanas & Tanto blades or Katars or any other eastern shenanigans).

Even when discussing dagger combat, practitioners here have mentioned they'd rather have their off-hand free for grappling and the likes, rather than have it wield a second dagger.

I came upon this article today http://www.roman-colosseum.info/gladiat ... haerus.htm . Now certainly, the Gladiators were putting on a good show for the crowds, and no one marches in battle with two swords in each hand. However if they were capable of using two swords reliably enough to create a gladiatorial style, then it is perhaps possible? Did this legacy carry into the Dark Ages and re-emerge in the Middle Ages? From what I know after the forming of the Western Christian kingdoms, the people abandoned their tribal heritage and style of war, and adopted the new ones.

But the Romans had to get the idea from somewhere. Is it a universally valid point that people think dual wielding equally sized blades is cool? Or did some tribe actually use it as a style developed for actual combat? The text mentions Thracians and Illyrians (who were just another type of Thracain tribe), but I am certain Thrace used Phalanx tactics and equipment, mixed in with some curved blades and shields (used together).

[Joshua Cook]

There is a chapter in Marozzo's work that describes fighting with two rapiers. Di Grassi also includes a chapter on such fighting, and both of these masters did recommend studying this method as it required a high degree of skill.

However, I have a theory as to why sword & dagger was preferred to the case of swords as the traditional term has it. Most people don't realize that while a melee weapon such as a sword has a maximum effective range, it also has a minimum effective range. Without room to ready a blow or thrust, the sword loses it's effectiveness. A dagger, on the other hand, requires much less room to be effective, and thus has virtually no minimum effective range. This fact is why most all of the masters recommended the use of daggers in wrestling to finish your opponent. Therefore, it is actually more advantageous to use a sword & dagger as opposed to the case of swords.

[Sripol Asanasavest]

I supposed that's possible, but the swords used are not as heavy and long as some of the swords we see in European and other Asian swords (like Katanas). In real life situation most soldiers will experience combat fatigue. That is why some Vikings prefer war axes because they are much lighter than the swords, but because most the force is concentrated on a smaller blade, it could inflict quite a lot of damage and split shields. Even the most trained and fit soldiers get tired...maybe he needs water and he's getting cramps. That's why some cultures fought with smaller swords. It's the same concept as the axes. If you don't make it too long, it actually could inflict more damage to the enemies than longer ones, and you don't want to make it too heavy because of combat fatigue and so you wield them better. Some of these shorter lighter swords, used by the Greeks and some Asian cultures, can hack and cut through a body and body parts better than some of the bigger and longer swords, and it's easier to used.

[Peter Goranov]

There is a chapter in Marozzo's work that describes fighting with two rapiers. Di Grassi also includes a chapter on such fighting, and both of these masters did recommend studying this method as it required a high degree of skill.

However, I have a theory as to why sword & dagger was preferred to the case of swords as the traditional term has it. Most people don't realize that while a melee weapon such as a sword has a maximum effective range, it also has a minimum effective range. Without room to ready a blow or thrust, the sword loses it's effectiveness. A dagger, on the other hand, requires much less room to be effective, and thus has virtually no minimum effective range. This fact is why most all of the masters recommended the use of daggers in wrestling to finish your opponent. Therefore, it is actually more advantageous to use a sword & dagger as opposed to the case of swords.

I can understand that. But everyone seems to be mentioning later periods and rapiers or smallswords in particular, whilst I'm talking cut&thrust weapons like longswords or the shorter versions, like the gladius or falcha described in the link I posted.

I supposed that's possible, but the swords used are not as heavy and long as some of the swords we see in European and other Asian swords (like Katanas). In real life situation most soldiers will experience combat fatigue. That is why some Vikings prefer war axes because they are much lighter than the swords, but because most the force is concentrated on a smaller blade, it could inflict quite a lot of damage and split shields. Even the most trained and fit soldiers get tired...maybe he needs water and he's getting cramps. That's why some cultures fought with smaller swords. It's the same concept as the axes. If you don't make it too long, it actually could inflict more damage to the enemies than longer ones, and you don't want to make it too heavy because of combat fatigue and so you wield them better. Some of these shorter lighter swords, used by the Greeks and some Asian cultures, can hack and cut through a body and body parts better than some of the bigger and longer swords, and it's easier to used.

While I appreciate your input I fail to see how this is relevant to the topic at hand. I was discussing practical dual wielding for actual sparring or otherwise, and explicitly mentioned my doubt of soldiers going in battle doing this. I was addressing single combat, and the Roman gladiators in particular.

The weapon length and type varied, because the weapons evolved and adapted to the present need for the battlefield. It also mattered how rich your country or province was in quality steel, and how the methods of manufacturing had evolved in your particular area. But I do not want to get off-topic on my own thread.

[Peter Goranov]

Double post.

[Sripol Asanasavest]

I am saying if you are going to used two swords in battles, the warrior better be able to easily wield the swords. Of course, that might not be practical if they were wearing plated armors.

Fighting with a rapier and dagger has it's advantages if the fighter is quick. The same concept as Krabi Krabong technique that uses two swords. The swords in KK are shorter and lighter, but also can cut and hack through your enemies like butter. It's really uncomfortable fighting with plated armors all over your body because it's very hot and humid over there. My sister got dehydrated very quickly when she visited Thailand because she had lived in the U.S. most of her life. [chuckle] Imagine marching all day for two days when you are trying to make up for lost time.....

[steve hick]

There is a chapter in Marozzo's work that describes fighting with two rapiers. Di Grassi also includes a chapter on such fighting, and both of these masters did recommend studying this method as it required a high degree of skill.

However, I have a theory as to why sword & dagger was preferred to the case of swords as the traditional term has it. Most people don't realize that while a melee weapon such as a sword has a maximum effective range, it also has a minimum effective range. Without room to ready a blow or thrust, the sword loses it's effectiveness. A dagger, on the other hand, requires much less room to be effective, and thus has virtually no minimum effective range. This fact is why most all of the masters recommended the use of daggers in wrestling to finish your opponent. Therefore, it is actually more advantageous to use a sword & dagger as opposed to the case of swords.

Godinho has several rules about two swords, Manciolino has an assaulto, Agrippa has some,DiGrassi, etc.. From Pacheco, we have that de la Torre wrote about it in his word of 1474, and claimed to have created it (at least his system). In Godinho we have the swordsman combatting a number of adversaries in different situations, they are either armed with ordinary swords or swords and secondary weapons, there is no two sword versus two sword, nor coverage against two handed weapons.

Steve

[Joshua Cook]

Steve, thank you for elaborating. The case of swords is not particularly my forte so your post was particularly enlightening.

And Peter, the works pertaining to fighting with the case of swords mostly come from the later rapier period. There just aren't many surviving source materials from the 1500's or earlier that really talk about the use of dual-wielded weapons. Pre-1500's the two weapon combinations that you really see are sword & dagger, sword & buckler, and sword & shield.

In short, while it is possible that there was an unbroken tradition of using the case of swords from the Roman times to the Renaissance, there just isn't any evidence to support such a theory.

P.S. Sripol, the average European sword, depending on type, only weighed 1 - 3 lbs (0.5 kg - 1.5 kg) while the typical battle-axe weighed anywhere from 1 - 6 lbs (0.5 kg - 3 kg). This means that an axe could weigh up to twice as much as a sword, indicating that the sword was actually the lighter and less tiring of the two weapons. I cite http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_axe and "Renaissance Martial Arts: The Web Documentary" found at http://www.thearma.org/Videos/Videos.htm as my sources. What sources do you have for your conclusion that the axe was a lighter weapon?

[Sripol Asanasavest]

You're probably right...about the axes. I was just guessing and for some reason thought they would be lighter since they don't need to make it that big and heavy. At least that's what I thought.... [chuckle]

And, the Romans made their shields out of wood just like the Vikings.... Later, they re-enforced them with steel on all the edges and diagonally on both sides, like an X.

[Steven Ott]

Thai sword fighting and escrima both dual weild. It seems to me, that in the west, sheilds were important, probably due to missle attacks as well as hand-held weapons. And with sufficient armor, a two handed weapon was preferred. But dual weilding is real. Think about pugilism, a fighter can use both hands without weapons-why would adding weapons make it so impossible?

[Joshua Cook]

You're probably right...about the axes. I was just guessing and for some reason thought they would be lighter since they don't need to make it that big and heavy. At least that's what I thought.... [chuckle]

And, the Romans made their shields out of wood just like the Vikings.... Later, they re-enforced them with steel on all the edges and diagonally on both sides, like an X.

I am right on both accounts, and I am openly challenging you to provide evidence to the contrary. If you can't, I suggest that you leave this topic to those who actually know what they are talking about as opposed to just guessing.

[Sripol Asanasavest]

I'm saying with the right kind of weapons and science anything is possible....but whether it's practical or not, that's another.... That's all....

[nathan featherstone]

just on the axe comment finds of viking axes with tiny heads were very common and having handle replicas they are much faster in the right hands than a sword.
anyways back to the main topic i think as a training tool this seems to pop up getting a person used to weapons in each hand etc maybe in case one arm is injured but in practical use its a very hard system to use.

[Joshua Cook]

Actually most archaeologists have theorized that those axe heads you are talking about are most likely utilitarian tools, not weapons of war. Now, I will concede that is theory, however, there is no definative evidence that a light axe such as that was an actual weapon. It goes back to my earlier point, you can't make claims without having legitimate evidence to support the claim.

But, I have digressed from the topic of this post, please forgive me. I am just so tired of people making claims, sometimes to the point of absurdity, and having no evidence to support their claims.

[nathan featherstone]

then why have axes of this types been found in burial mounds?
and most axes of the period developed from tools into weapons. i have also talked with many reenactors researchers and archaeologist who agree that they could have been used as there is also little evidence to prove they were not used yes they were tools but as were bearded axes one of the most common hand axe types of the period.
i will quote regia anglorum on the topic of axes "Small hand axes tended to just be wood-axes which were used for combat" so why would they not be used.
i am also tired of the elitist attitude some people have on this forum. must i add a bibliography to every single post i put up?
yes your points are valid but its also rude to totally discredit others on here in this fashion.
anyways i apologize to peter for hijacking his post i wont say anymore on the topic.
back to the origional topic.