Dual swords + their weaknesses

[Tom]

I don't really know much about this subject, being a modern sport fencer, but I've also got a little experience with traditional sword fighting. From what I've seen, dual-wielding would be incredibly hard. I mean, you've got two swords, and the weight of each is going to throw off your balance. Plus it's kind of awkward having a long weapon in each hand; there's a tendency to get the blades in each other's way. If you're not that advanced, too, that's one more sword to worry about that normal.

I mostly know this from watching a friend who's involved in the SCA try (and fail) to wield two short swords in a bout. It could just be due to the fact that he's usually armed with a rapier and parrying dagger, but it also could be that wielding two swords kind of leaves you open to a lot of opportunities on your opponent's part.

 

[wordwalker]

The other thing to keep in mind is that one of the keys to winning a sword fight is dominating, or re-directing the center line. Dual swords are very poor at this. So a fighter with a single, quality weapon and some knowledge about the importance of the center line would be an excellent foil for your two sword fighter.

Hmm, could you clarify that one? And, is it a truth that applies to all melee weapons (like a nice simple spear)?

 

[Russ]

Controlling or redefining the center line does absolutely apply to all of the western medieval melee weapons, including the spear.

The spear is a good example. If you cannot get your spear point on the center line, or it is pushed off the center in line it is just about useless. The two common period terms for dealing with a spear that way would be called "setting the point aside" (ie forcing it off the center line) or "breaking the point" or "pinning the point" (getting it off line and trapping it or literally breaking it off).

Think if redefining the center line this way (this is much easier to show than to write!). If we are both standing with our sword in two hands held directly out from our chests straight in front of each other, both out center lines are pointed directly at each other's chests.

Now if you take a step slightly forward and two one side and keep you blade pointed at the center of my chest, your sword now points at my chest and mine, if I have not moved points at the empty spot where you previously stood. So you have redefined the center line in a way that is very advantageous for you, and very bad for me.

Re-defining the center line is about moving (usually diagonally) and manipulating your opponents arms (with your weapons or your hands) so that you can strike your opponent without being struck yourself. There are many ways to do it, but that is the basic principle behind it.

If you are into eastern martial arts, this is often seen very well executed in Wing Chung.

 

[acapes]

Thanks to the OP for asking this question - fascinating replies too!

 

[wordwalker]

Thanks indeed. I haven't seen it defined that clearly way before.

I suppose the theory with dual weapons is that you can create a center line from either arm, or use either weapon to block, keeping your options open and your opponent guessing; ominous in theory. The fact that it's so rarely done outside of light-weapon fencing techniques (eg Florentine) suggests that all those attack "options" aren't as good as the raw reach and power of a bigger weapon-- or the blocking (and bashing) options of adding a shield instead.

 

[Elrik Blackhaven]

I have fought duel sword so I know a bit. Historically, There isn't really anything before the late 1500s and it deals more with fencing then actual sword fighting. Most historical forums will say that duel weapon fighting wasn't practical unless the off hand weapon was considerably smaller than the main weapon, such as sword and dagger or something like that. At that point, it would make more sense to use a shield of some type, even a buckler, because the fighter would gain more benefit from it. From practical experience, I strongly disagree with this. A skilled, duel weapon fighter is a formidable opponent. The types of weapons used are only limited primarily by the fighters size and strength and secondarily by the desired affect and fighting style. Basically speed vs power.
The most effective defense against a duel weapon fighter is a weapon and shield combination. Of the weapon choices, mace is probably the best. A long mace or war mace with some reach preferably. Something like a bec de corbin could be a good choice as well. These weapons don't require the fighter to be as precise as a sword or axe. A good shoulder or hip hit would be as likely to grant victory as a head shot. These weapons are good for negating the defense of most metal armor as well.
Flails are a fairly specialized type of weapon. Most fighters wouldn't use one because they are a peasant weapon, along with rakes and pitchforks. Most flails, to be effective, are two handed. For a single handed weapon, something like a morning star would be a better choice. Slightly easier to control. By adding the chain component to the weapon, initial speed and power might be increased but recovery and reaction time is reduced. Once the opponent has closed the range, some of their effectiveness is lost.

 

[Russ]

Thanks indeed. I haven't seen it defined that clearly way before.

I suppose the theory with dual weapons is that you can create a center line from either arm, or use either weapon to block, keeping your options open and your opponent guessing; ominous in theory. The fact that it's so rarely done outside of light-weapon fencing techniques (eg Florentine) suggests that all those attack "options" aren't as good as the raw reach and power of a bigger weapon-- or the blocking (and bashing) options of adding a shield instead.

Part of the limitation of using two swords is that you cannot create a true two on one application of force as recommended in so many medieval fighting manuals. So if there is a blade on blade engagement you can't use half swording ( putting a second hand on the riccassa), push the elbow with the free hand or use many other techniques. "Doubling up" is suggested in almost every significant treatise from the era and can't be done with two swords.

 

[Gryphos]

I think you guys might be forgetting the ultimate advantage of dual wielding: swag.

 

[X Equestris]

I think you guys might be forgetting the ultimate advantage of dual wielding: swag.

Sure, but swag doesn't really help you if you're dead.

 

[Gryphos]

Sure, but swag doesn't really help you if you're dead.

No, but it's massively important nonetheless. A dude dual wielding may not win in a fight against a dude with sword and shield, but he'll have more style while fighting, and what's life without a bit of flare and style?

 

[Legendary Sidekick]

what's life without a bit of flare and style?

Longer. BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA *ahem*


So, now that I've got the obnoxiousness out of my system, yeah, dual wield is cool in LARPs and video games. With a real sword, it's impractical. I've practiced with the katana (well, okay, an iaito… I don't plan to actually kill anyone, so I just wanted a sword with the weight and feel but not the sharp edge), and while one-handed techniques exist, the real power comes from the pull from the led hand.

I think that answers a question Mindfire asked years ago about why the samurai don't use shields. Also, the overhead strike is designed to halve a man from scalp to groin. That gets more cool points than dual wielding katanas, which would severely limit the control over each sword even for the ambidextrous.

 

[Gryphos]

My point is that life is about form as well as function, and there's more to fighting a bloke than just being practical. I mean, if everything was about practicality, why did people used to wear those funny hats with excessive amounts of feathers? The answer: swag. Now, don't get me wrong, you shouldn't be an idiot if it's going to get you killed, because you can't have swag when you're dead. So perhaps dual wielding isn't the best option in a fight to the death. I'm just saying the style-factor is something to take into account when discussing things like this, as it's probably why people started doing it in the first place.

 

[Legendary Sidekick]

Despite what I said above, I would not discourage a dual wielder, though that may depend on the type of fantasy. I don't write realistic stories, so for what I do, a dual wielder is probably acceptable. (I picture weapons being oversized in my head, but tend not to narrate exact size so readers may have more realistic interpretations.)

I wouldn't have a swordsman who's so good he can wield two swords at once. Maybe a showboat or an excessive character might do that. I haven't written this character, but I did once envision a sword-seller (not sell-sword) who had several swords strapped to the back. The sword-seller sells shitty swords that break easily and has to keep drawing more swords in the fight. I could see the sword-seller drawing two at once to save time. I also picture a barbarian with an oversized sword and two spas ready to draw—or even dual wielding a great sword and bastard sword for ridiculous, musclebound Florentine hack-and-slashing.

Yes, I do like the imagery. For me, whether I use it depends how over-the-top I want the character to be. My samurai master would use a single blade because I tend to want my skilled characters to be under-armed, realistically or not.

 

[Caged Maiden]

The benefit to sword and dagger over sword and buckler is that you can also stab a person with the dagger. However, in non-SCA fighting, you could you know, bash a person with a buckler. I prefer the sword and dagger to the sword and buckler, but that's only because learning to use a buckler to trap a blade, etc. takes a while and I've never learned the techniques. When the veteran light fighters are out on the field, it looks a lot more useful than when it's in my hand. Same with a cloak. That's a pretty neat off-hand when used well. I guess it's my goal one day to be more concerned with the flourish of the sport, right now, I'm just trying to survive.

 

[Elrik Blackhaven]

I think the answer to the question of duel swords depends on history vs fantasy and time period and culture when it comes to history.

If you are looking at accounts from the official fighting lists of Europe, you won’t find much before the 1600s. But, we need to understand that these types of competitions were as much about showing proper form as about winning. There were strict rules on how a competitor should fight with a given weapon within a certain style. There wasn’t any room for creativity. In fact, most accounts of “civilized” warfare, show combatants following strict fighting methods. Duels swords weren’t usually included in that. However, if we look outside of “civilized” European combat, we do find examples.

In Roman gladiatorial combat, they had a gladiator known as a dimachaeri. Duel sword fighter. This style of fighting must have been effective because it was popular for hundreds of years and any combat that didn’t please the crowds, wasn’t used for long.

There are accounts of the “barbaric” cultures using duel weapons, not swords specifically, among them were the Vikings, the Picts and the Celts.

The samurai may not have used duel swords but traditional schools of Japanese martial arts include dual wield techniques, particularly a style of classical Japanese swordsmanship conceived by the Miyamoto Musashi involving the katana and wakizashi, two-sword kenjutsu techniques he called Niten Ichi-ryū.

Later on, when fencing was the combat style rather than hack-n-slash, the use of a parrying dagger such as a main gauche along with a rapier is common.

However, in a fantasy setting, the sky is the limit. To add realism, it should be noted that duel sword/weapon fighting takes a lot of training and skill. It’s not a fighting style that is common or suited to most fighters.