A Question on Medieval Two-Weapon Fighting

[Kyle Stickling]

I started weapon sparring about two years ago with a friend of mine short sword against short sword as a fun passtime. But after a few weeks we decided to make a martial study of the art. We both bought John Clement's Medieval Swordsmanship and over time acquired longswords and a buckler and have used his book to improve our skill with the longsword and shortsword and buckler styles.

However, I've also tried using two shortswords, which seems to be either a rare occurance in medieval times or non-existant. So I post this seeking a source of information on the style, or an explanation on why it simply wasn't used much, if at all.

[Brian Hunt]

This really wasn't a common style. The only one that comes to mind is what is called a "case of rapiers." Generally, most sword combat was done with a single sword (like the long sword) or a sword and some other shield/buckler or weapon such as a dagger, not two swords. Digrassi, Marrozo, and Agrippa all have material on using two rapiers. So to me this appears to be a civilian style of combat done with the rapier, a civilian's sword, not a military style of combat that would have been used on the battlefield.

just my 2 cents worth.

Brian Hunt

GFS

[JeanryChandler]

What is the origin of this term "florentine" style which the SCA uses to describe fighting with a short weapon in one hand and a longer weapon in the other. The short weapon is something larger than a dagger and the longer weapon is usually no more than about 42" or so.

Is there any evidence of something like this ever being used in Florence? It does seem to be a pretty effective technique, but I've never seen anything remotely like it in the handful of fechtbuchs I have seen, but I remember once seeing a woodcut of a guy, I think maybe it was Jan Zizka the Hussite general, fighting with a mace in one hand and an arming sword in the other..

Has anyone ever had much practice of this in sparring, or know of occurances in either civilian or military practice in medieval or renaissance periods?

DB

[Kyle Stickling]

The dual shortsword style is actually my favorite, I've used it for quite awhile. But with such limited experience I'm reluctent to draw serious conclusions on the style.

As for its actual historical use it makes sense that maybe it wasn't used because it was an inferior style for the warfare of the time. The question is what makes it inferior.

[JeanryChandler]

The reason two short swords doesn't work well ultimately is because reach is so critical. The reach disadvantage is crippling, you might as well fight with two daggers. Historically, people did however often fight with a dagger in one hand and a sword in the other, and there was also the 'case of rapiers' style mentioned already.

I'm interested in examples of a longer weapon like an arming sword or a sidesword or a rapier used with something shorter, but larger than a dagger.

DB

[Casper Bradak]

This is asked from time to time. It can be summed up as extremely lacking in versatility.
There are examples of it, but I have yet to read of an example outside of duelling or play.
Most 2 weapon styles that were used, were far more effective.
It makes a great deal of medieval techniques impossible, including half swording and grappling.
The list goes on. It can be effectively used by someone who practices it, but still, only really in one on one situations where armour is not a factor and you are good at maintaining your measure against more versatile weapons and combinations of weapons.

[Jared L. Cass]

As far as why the SCA calls it that...I have no clue. Maybe one of our ARMA ex-SCA or current SCA members could shed some light on that.

Now, onto the questions of "short sword & short sword" (do you mean short sward as in arming sword or as in something closer to the size of a gladius?) and "arming sword & something bigger than a dagger"....

As far as the first goes (and it ties in with the second), IMO it's really a matter of range. If your using two arming swords, once somebody gets inside your range, the fight suddenly becomes much more difficult for you. You get cramped and don't have the room to cut efficiently (if you have two gladius sized swords, they'll probably kill you befor you're close enoufgh to kill them). But if you're using a dagger and arming sword, you can do basically the same "long range" fighting as with the two longer ones, but now if somebody gets inside your range...you rule them because you've got a weapon combo that is as useful at close range as at long (same goes for the buckler fight too).

Now the second, "something shorter, but larger than a dagger": This I would think would be very hard to classify. IMO, daggers as we in the 21st cen. tend to think of them probably max out at 16 inches or so. But we need to remember that this wasn't really the case "back in the day". We see daggers that appear to be close to 20 plus inches (the ones in the codex wallerstien appear to be bigger than this!) Even the daggers in museums (on line and in person) range from anywhere from the relitivily short to the quite long.

Even the manuals we see dealing with sword and dagger have sometimes a substantial difference in the size of the "left hand dagger".

I don't know if any of that makes any sense, but some thoughts anyway <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

Jared L. Cass, ARMA Associate, Wisconsin

[JeanryChandler]

This is asked from time to time. It can be summed up as extremely lacking in versatility.
There are examples of it, but I have yet to read of an example outside of duelling or play.

Are you referring to case of rapiers or uneven weapon combinations or both?

DB

[JeanryChandler]

Yeah, it's true the medieval or renaissance dagger is a whole nother animal from the modern fighting knife. Perhaps that is some part of the reason for the absurd notion perpetuated in video games and rpg's that daggers aren't dangerous weapons!

It's interesting to note that many types of short swords and very long daggers were popular in the renaissance, both in military and civilian circumstances. The katzbalger of the Landsknechts, the cinqueda sword, and your various Oakeshotte type XXI and XXII subtypes are an example of the former, the coustille dagger and main gauche are good examples of the latter.

In sparring I have found that a mace or a hand axe seems to make a good offhand weapon. The hand is exposed but the weapons mass and shape offer numerous advantages in both offense and defense. I'll try to find that image of Jan Ziska with a mace and a sword...

DB

[Casper Bradak]

Any paired swords of like length.

[Kyle Stickling]

The "short swords" I'm familiar with have a blade length of 30 and 1/2 inches.

I know that in the Renaissance that using a rapier and another rapier or dagger was not very rare at all, and am more interested about its use in the medieval period. So granted that two blades of the same length lack versatility, does that mean that some soldiers did employ a sword and dagger style? Armor seems to me to be a very important factor, as weapons had to be able to defeat armored opponents in the time. Couldn't daggers be used effectively against armor?

Its easiest for me to confront the problem thinking of the differences between a sword&amp;dagger style and that of the more common sword&amp;shield or longsword. The dagger can't blocked as well as a shield, but that isn't to say it is at all lacking in defensive ability. The sword&amp;dagger style can't deliver nearly as strong a blow as a longsword. But close in could that ready dagger be decisive? It seems like it wasn't, or the style would have been more common. Which makes me again wonder about the things that made this style inferior for the time... Sadly I'm completely inexperienced in armored combat and all I can attempt to do is make logical conclusions and hope someone can correct any misconceptions I have.

I think I will take a close look at the sword&amp;dagger section of John Clement's Renaissance Swordsmanship . Do you think the differences between the cut and thrust sword and a more medieval version are so different that I can't use that as a base of study?

[Casper Bradak]

Daggers were quite effective vs. armour, but a dagger with a sword would have a tough time of it.
Sword and dagger use wasn't uncommon at all, though it doesn't seem to have had any common military application, battlefield combat just doesn't seem to allow for it to go well. As a duelling, civilian, street skirmish or self defense combo it was very effective.

[Patrick Hardin]

Sword and dagger is fine for fighting an unarmored opponent one-on-one, where you've got plenty of room to step and maneuver. In the press of the battle, however, there just isn't room to use the sword and dagger together effectively. Understand also that infantry in all periods fought in certain formations. They would either all be equipped with shields, sometimes to protect their neighbor as well as themselves, or they would all be using larger two-handed weapons like pikes, spears, axes, hammers, etc. I've never heard of an army that used infantry that fought with sword and dagger. As for knights on horseback, who would really be the ones using the kind of sword you are thinking about, they would either have to have a shield to protect their left side, or their plate armor would do it for them. In any case, it's VERY hard to fight with a dagger from horesback. Daggers on the medieval battlefield were mainly for finishing off the dying, or for killing captives that could pay no ransom. The sword was often used for the same purposes. The only other time a dagger would be used in battle would be as the absolute last resort, after all other weapons, including the sword, had been lost. I'm sure it could have come to that often, though.

As for fighting an armored opponent, if you both have arming swords and daggers at your disposal, and nothing else, you need your left hand free to halfsword and grapple. Once you've gotten your armored opponent to the ground, maybe broken one or two of his bones, and pinned him well enough, then you draw your dagger to work into the openings of his armor, or drive through the links of his mail to finish him off. Most manuals that cover armored fighting show something of this kind.

Patrick Hardin

[JeanryChandler]

Didn't the Spanish infantry in the Renaissance use sword and buckler, with notable effect against pike formations? That is a pretty similar style to sword and dagger. In fact I think the Spanish often used fairly short swords. If I remember correctly the Italians had some light sword and buckler infantry as well.

DB

[Casper Bradak]

Sword and buckler was common in battle for a very long time, by soldiers of many nationalities, but it is not that similar to sword and dagger. It is at least different enough to make it far more useful in that context.
Sword and dagger is most useful in foyning fence, sword and buckler is far more versatile, being able to defend better against a variety of weapons, while retaining good striking capability. It was said by Master Silver to have the advantage over sword and dagger.