Dual weapons?

Usually dual weilding involved one larger weapon in the dominant hand for attacks and a smaller weapon used mainly for defense or sometimes the deathblow after the enemy had been in some way rendered defensless. Famous combinations would be a trident with a net or a whip, another is a longsword with a dagger or a war ax with a buckler (essentially small shield/ glorified brass knuckles)

A note: "Dual" is an adjective meaning "two". You don't "dual" things.



Anyway, I agree with George. While it’s certainly possible, and maybe even historically practiced to use two weapons of the same type, that’s not usually the best way to do it.

GeorgeK said:

Usually dual weilding involved one larger weapon in the dominant hand for attacks and a smaller weapon used mainly for defense or sometimes the deathblow after the enemy had been in some way rendered defensless. Famous combinations would be a trident with a net or a whip, another is a longsword with a dagger or a war ax with a buckler (essentially small shield/ glorified brass knuckles)

Click to expand...

I don't recall a historical incident for people using a net with a trident or a war ax with a buckler


As for two handed weapons there is a fight manual (digrasse if I recall) which shows two rapiers being wielded

However you should keep in mind that if there's is very little or no historical evidence for a certain type of weapon or usage of said there's probably a really good reason for that.

If you check out the ARMA forums they have a bunch of good stuff on swords and whatnot, also contact an AW member named Zornhau.

From what I know a really good fighter might be able to use two identical swords in individual combat but they would next to useless in a battle

In the end I think it's best just to have your character wield one sword or even something other than a sword

And here I thought we were gonna talk about duel weapons.


*sigh*

Sue-proof Armour said:

I don't recall a historical incident for people using a net with a trident or a war ax with a buckler

Click to expand...

Primarily Trident/net was part of the gladiator combat of the Roman Coliseum. It's not practical in large-scale warfare, but very practical in mano-e-mano scenarios in the flashy, showy coliseum and circus.

As for two handed weapons there is a fight manual (digrasse if I recall) which shows two rapiers being wielded

Click to expand...

Yeah... But, it's really not that effective outside of Rapier/Dagger fencing/back-alley-behind-the-tavern scenarios and a guy with a shield and a sword has a tactical advantage in combat. Duel-Wielding is very, very overrated. The best-case scenarios are Phillipine swordsman, or Apache knife fighters, but part of the allure of two weapons is the maddening aggression of that style of combat. It's not the sort of thing you see often in regimented military cultures - Japan, England, France - where tactics were valued. In Medieval European combat, you'd often get archers and lightly-armored "rabble" infantry units with maces and long knives but they were considered tactically inferior to a unit of trained pikemen, armored knights, etc.

Anyway, here's a list with various bibliographic references for the curious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fechtbuch#German_Fechtb.C3.BCcher

However you should keep in mind that if there's is very little or no historical evidence for a certain type of weapon or usage of said there's probably a really good reason for that.

Click to expand...

True, but not completely so. That reason could be a question of availability of materials, quality of building materials, traditions of craftsmen...

In the end I think it's best just to have your character wield one sword or even something other than a sword

Click to expand...

In the end, the weapon is the least interesting part of the character. Stressing what widget they flurl about in mighty war is vastly inferior to consideration of who they are, what they desire, and why they're doing what they do. No one but Zornhau actually cares what weapon he's got in his hands. Just make him human. Stress the human, the craft of fiction, and not the inanimate object in his palm. It really doesn't matter what he's bashing people with. It only matters that we care.

If you're looking at dual wielding, it'd likely have to be something like a hatchet and a knife, two knives, or a sword and dagger swort of thing. The thing is, in most situations you'd be better off either having a weapon and a shield, or a two handed weapon(better reach, more powerful blows compensate for the lack of defense.).

Almost any warrior would carry a dagger or knife as a back up weapon. If only for its utilitarian usefulness(e.g. gutting a deer). That's why I don't see the practical reason for using dual swords, but I do know that a knife and tomahawk was a common set of melee weapons back during colonial/wild west time periods. There's a reason for it though. A tomahawk is an effective throwing weapon, IN addition to being a hatchet, and a knife is well a knife. Both were "tools" that were useful in a practical sense just as much as they were combat wise.

Soothing Snow said:

So I could have my character wield dual weapons, but it's not reccomended........ Also I could have him wield two of the same weapons, not impossible but hard to do?

Click to expand...

Not so much hard to do as rather pointless. Pretty much the only cases where a weapon in the off-hand makes sense is when it's used for parrying, where an actual shield is too big to carry. (Or to unfashionable)
For a stronger offence, picking a two-handed weapon is a better choice.

Sword and dagger was very common, but only with swords like Rapiers and the like. There's no reason he couldn't have an additional knife that he carries around with him. I'm just saying that fighting with two "longer" weapons isn't a very good idea. The best combination of dual weapons for fighting in most circumstances, are those that compliment each other.

For example, as I mentioned a little while ago, the Tomahawk and Knife/Dagger. The tomahawk has raw hitting power(weight is at the end of the weapon), good reach(typically the handle was maybe 18 inches long), can snag weapons/bodyparts(you can use the weapon like a hook), and can be thrown. A good dagger typically is very easy to handle(means its easy to poke a guy in the place of your choosing), can be used in tight places where a tomahawk can't(e.g. your opponent grapples you, you can knife him in the gut, or in a tight hallway or something), and it can be hidden.

In combination, these weapons allow for you to have a balanced offensive capability over a variety of different tactical situations. That's why weapons like dual swords don't make any sense. Secondly, a knife and a tomahawk aren't necessarily perceived as weapons. A knife is a tool, that a lot of people might have on them, and so is a tomahawk(it's basically a slightly enlarged hatchet). If you're not seen as a threat, that's a huge advantage. It means you can come and go in a city without likely being shaken down by guards, and it can mean that if you end up in a fight, you've got the element of surprise.

badducky said:

Archers and lightly-armored "rabble" infantry units with maces and long knives but they were considered tactically inferior to a unit of trained pikemen, armored knights, etc.

Click to expand...

Archers were prettily heavily armoured and they were hardly considered rabble they were considered an integral part of the combined arms model

True, but not completely so. That reason could be a question of availability of materials, quality of building materials, traditions of craftsmen...

Click to expand...

That's not what I meant, I meant a lack of evidence in historical fightbooks. For instance: You'll never see a twenty foot pole covered in ten inch spikes with flails the size of melons on each end, and there's a good reason for that (The sheer impracticality)

In the end, the weapon is the least interesting part of the character. Stressing what widget they flurl about in mighty war is vastly inferior to consideration of who they are, what they desire, and why they're doing what they do. No one but Zornhau actually cares what weapon he's got in his hands. Just make him human. Stress the human, the craft of fiction, and not the inanimate object in his palm. It really doesn't matter what he's bashing people with. It only matters that we care.

Click to expand...

Actually, a lot more people than Zornhau care about what the character has in his hand.

As for the character well no one's disagreeing with you but I don't think that's really relevant.

I'm surprised no one has yet mentioned the practice of wielding two daos, (short, machete-like swords) in Southern China. Similar weapons were also used in Indonesia and Thailand, also in pairs. You should look up the modern martial art called Kali; it is an indonesian art, that teaches how to fight with two batons, which could easily be replaced with swords.

You can also see this art in various Chinese kung-fu movies. I think "Iron Monkey" and "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" both had someone who fought in this manner. Those movies were both popular here in the USA.

You can also try reading about Miyamoto Musashi, the famous duelist who pioneered the two swords technique in Japan. He wrote a book called "the Book of Five Rings."

Duelling with matched blades was taught and practiced in Europe and the Eastern cultures. In the west, the matched blades were called "A Case of Rapiers" (Which happens to be the title to my first attempt at a novel.) A Case of Rapiers were made to fit together in the same scabbard and carried on one hip. This was not an especially popular form or armament - but it did exist and was common enough to be taught in the Schools of Fence.

You don't specify the particular culture or setting. Is it supposed to be historical? Some sort of fantasy world with an historical connection?

The fencing style of the character will reflect his personality traits and mindset. The choice of weapon might also reflect that, but more importantly the weapons will make a statement about the martial philosophy of the culture they come from.

Rapier and Dagger was FAR more common than duelling with a Case of Rapiers. The Elizabethan Masters usually taught all of the various styles Rapier and Dagger, Single Rapier, Broadsword, Sword and Shield, Sword and Buckler, Sword and Target, Single Staff, Morris Pike - the whole enchilada.

Can you tell us why it's important that your character fight with or carry TWO swords?

BTW - A 'parry' is a defensive action which can be made with a weapon or the hand - to prevent an attack from landing.

Look at it this way - You are in hand-to-hand combat with an enemy. The enemy is wielding 2 swords of equal length, one in each hand. You, on the other hand, have a sword in one hand and shield in your other hand. You and your opponent approach and begin swinging at each other. Your shield blocks one of his attacks as long as you can get your shield positioned to do so. He has no shield so his other sword is more concerned with blocking your attack than in actually getting in a killing blow against you. You can thrust (as the Romans did with the gladius as very short ranges), chop (as a knight did during the middle ages), or fence (as the movies do it).

He can't do much of any of the above because having no defense puts him completely on the defense.

It's about weight, initiative, and advantage, not necessarily speed. The key is to put an enemy down and put him down hard enough to stop him from being a threat to you again, ever.

A heavier weapon, in melee combat, is generally a more decisive weapon, but it limits the number of times you can swing it or the speed at which you can swing it. The Romans preferred a short, stabbing weapon for mass combat and they ruled the battlefield for 500 years using it.

Now, I think that the light saber duels portrayed in the Star Wars movies are great action scenes, but I don;t think they're practical weapons either used in pairs. Essentially, those scenes hearken back to the movie duels in Robin Hood, etc. If you watch closely enough, you can see the actors swords in some of those movies actually bend because they were made of rubber.

In The Princess Bride and the Zorro movies, however, there ar some really great, well-acted, and finely-choreographed sword fights. Look at the weapons the actors are using and study the choreography of the fight. They are amazing, but they never happened in real life.

For sheer brutal reality, take a look at Braveheart or Gladiator or go to a Renassaince Festival and talk to the SCA (Society for Creative Anachronisms) guys. They'll hand you a simulated weapoin and let you take a few swings with it just to see how it feels and how its wielded.

Next, go see an expert at a martial arts studio. Many of their styles are decorative and not appropriate for large-scale combat, but quite effective in back alleys. Have one of the sensei's demonstrate their techniques for you. They'll be happy to do so, I'm sure, especially if you tell them you're trying to get your fight scenes right.

Fighting with two scimitars is not unknown, but it's useful in a skirmishing style of fighting.

You wouldn't find people using dual weapons in a situation where you have the units marching in lock-step toward each other. There the shield wall is going to be vital, and pole arms are going to be the main weapons used until a breach can be forced.

I've fought Long/Short sword, long/long sword (Florentine-style), Axe/Mace in the SCA, but that was primarily in a one-on-one or an open field battle. However, Sword and Shield were the initial styles taught by the knights-marshal in my group and only when you'd proven you could defend yourself were you allowed to try other styles.

I also fight nito ryu (two-sword style) in Kendo. I'm still better at ito ryu (one-sword) but I'm hoping to improve my nito as I go along. I've fought against naginata in demos and I would never fight a pole arm with single sword, given my options.

I've watched the Chinese martial artists fighting with two swords before and it's an incredible thing to watch. Also, Filipino escrima (stick fighting) uses two weapons and the speed they can get up to at the more experienced levels is pretty impressive.

So, yes, if you're moving large numbers of people against each other, then sword and shield is going to be very important (unless you're wielding a pole arm, but that's another thread). If you're looking at people mostly moving around town, where you wouldn't expect to be carrying a shield at all times, then fighting with a pair of rapiers, a rapier and main-gauche or two short swords could easily be imagined.

I'm not sure if anyone's mention this yet but the Japanese Kodachi is an amazing dual wielding weapon. It's a short, easy to swing katana based weapon used during the edo period, though I expect you're looking for something more european.

http://www.wikimartialarts.org/main/index.php/Kodachi

Soothing Snow said:

Parrying?

Click to expand...

Blocking or deflecting an attack, basically.

I've been away studying martial arts for my WIP for a while, but decided to drop in and see what's going on at the AW.

From what I've seen in martial arts, using your enemies weapon along with your own to bind their arm and take them down is a common and effective strategy. As is wrestling with them at their weapon.

Trying to engage an enemy with an off hand is difficult to do because of the coordination and strength differences between each hand. The average joe warrior won't be able to actively be attacking with each weapon. This makes his off hand a weakness when he attacks with it.

A skilled enemy would bind his off hand or use it to throw him down.

In the case of someone who is skilled at using two at the same time, there are some advantages, such as being able to keep the opponent guessing from which side the attack is coming from.

There are situation in which a second blade, even for a skilled user would just be something else sharp for them to fall down on.

Examples are German Martial arts favourite move of ringim am schwert. or wrestling at the sword. There were a couple of ways they could do this with your weapon.

One example, they would parry your blade, and then half hand their own, turn on yours and step behind you and bind their hilt across your chest. Pull and flip you onto the ground so hard you lost your weapon(s)

Another, they would parry your move out from you, step behind your leg, place their off hand across your chest and throw you to the ground.

Most of the moves I have seen in martial arts seem to make sure the dominant hand is made ineffective and the off hand can not reach you, while allowing you to use your off hand to attack.

This is the reason why smaller blades were normally used with a larger one. I can change a throw from placing my arm across your chest to placing my dagger in your armpit.


Another factor against a double weapon is a lethal engagement between two well trained combatants doesn't last the minutes of hollywood, the tens of seconds of fantasy. It lasts as long as a gun fight. 3 to 10 seconds. you likely would never get to even bring your second weapon to bear.

To summarise my lengthy rambles. A second weapon has some advantages but they are nominal at best. unless the second is small enough to be used in throws against an enemy, but not long enough to be used in throws and binds against you.


I'll finish this post with a pair of youtube videos, showing how quick a real encounter lasts. and some of the moves mentioned above.
Long Sword Technique
Ringen am Schwert

Perhaps I missed it Soothing Snow, but as most of us point out, things depend upon your situation. Warriors generally fight differently than gladiators who fight differently than skirmishers, gangs or assassins etc. It would help us to know more about the situation.

Anatomically: To use two long weapons well and equally effectively is possible for only a very few. Most people simply have too vast a difference between how their right brain manages their left arm and how their right brain manages their left arm. Those who can typically have an abnormal (or "heightened" if you want nicer connotations) amout of cross connections between the right and left halves of both their cerebellum and cerebrum and those people also seem to have a higher risk of schizophrenia. That's why there are very few truly ambidextrous people. The lighter the weapons and the shorter the weapons, the more likely some average people might with enough training, manage it. Most people simply don't have the necessary proprioception to keep track of where the tips of their blades are without watching them and if they are watching them, then they are not watching their opponent.