Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Off-topic Talk > Let's talk about dual wielding. Reply to topic
This is a standard topic Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next 
Author Message
Gabriel Lebec
myArmoury Team


myArmoury Team

Location: NY, NY
Joined: 02 Oct 2003
Reading list: 32 books

Posts: 420

PostPosted: Wed 14 Nov, 2007 7:32 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Thank you for the quotes Mikko. It's been a while since I read Musashi, I guess. Blush Very interesting though; it still isn't cut-and-dried, but the full explanation makes a lot of sense to me practically.

...well, at least until the "one man is the same as ten thousand" line, there he loses me. Wink

"The most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion that stands at the cradle of true art and true science." - Albert Einstein
________
View user's profile Send private message
Anders Backlund




Location: Sweden
Joined: 24 Oct 2007

Posts: 629

PostPosted: Wed 14 Nov, 2007 9:24 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Thomas Watt wrote:
Addressing the original post, within my own experience studying (although not a good student I will admit) use of the Chinese Jian, I was surprised at the variety of cuts and slices that accompanied many of the moves. Almost every thrust and chop (I don't know the Chinese words for the move, but it's most close to a chopping move) is finished out with a slicing motion as the sword is withdrawn. Because of the reach involved, the empty hand is moved opposite the body to balance the move.
Were someone to try this with two swords against someone with a single jian, I see a high likelihood of them getting one of their wrists sliced.

To better describe the slice, it is a slice like carving a turkey or ham... designed to pull the blade across an arm or wrist and let the edge do its work.

It is hard enough for me to keep the one wrist with blade from getting whacked, let alone worry about a second blade and limb!


I recognise this: an online friend of mine, who trains with the jian/gim, has described this move to me. I'll have to remember to ask him about the application vs dual wielders.

Anyway, I suppose it depens on how you hold your off sword since when dual wielding you are keeping two gardes at once. Also, take in consideration the type of swords and the style of swordsmanship you are practicing.

Gabriel Lebec wrote:
Hello again Anders.
That sounds OK to me. Personally I'd expect that without specific training done by an already accomplished swordsman, trying to use two swords could easily backfire. But that's just my less-than-concretely-based opinion. Happy-GLL


Which leads me to ask the question: how many here has actually tried this for real?

Me, I prefer empirical observations to theoretical hypothesis. Wink

Steven Reich wrote:
Apparently the Italian sword masters of the 1500s felt the same way. In their instructions for using two swords, they say that the swordsman must first be able to use a sword equally well in either hand. That is, you should be able to fence with your off-hand as well as with your dominant hand. Then, you learn a set of techniques for both at once where neither sword is favored or designated to perform a particular role--that is, both swords perform the roles of offense and defense equally. Having experimented with some of this stuff, I'd have to very strongly agree. If you haven't trained this way, you're more likely to interfere (or even injure) yourself than help--something that an experienced opponent would notice and use to his advantage.

Steve


Oh, definitely. I don't expect anyone to be able to just pick two swords up and be able to use them right off the bat, no matter how skilled they are with one.

That being said, I wonder if you really have to go as far as training both hands sepparately from scratch. To me, it seems like the equivalent of a boxer training to fight with only one hand at a time, or a drummer learning to use the right drumstick before the other. Maybe this isn't a good anology, but you get my point.

My own experience has taught me that it's perfectly possible to wield two swords without them interfering with each other or accidentally striking yourself, provided you can fence at least decently with your off hand. (Then again, I'm hardly what you might call a master swordsman, so the efficiency of my dual wielding is probably still questionable.)
View user's profile Send private message
Steven Reich




Location: Arlington, VA
Joined: 28 Oct 2003

Posts: 237

PostPosted: Wed 14 Nov, 2007 9:39 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Anders Backlund wrote:
That being said, I wonder if you really have to go as far as training both hands sepparately from scratch. To me, it seems like the equivalent of a boxer training to fight with only one hand at a time, or a drummer learning to use the right drumstick before the other. Maybe this isn't a good anology, but you get my point.

On this, I can really only take the cheap way out and plead the argument from authority (i.e. the masters of arms who actually knew the arts). However, I will say that even having good form with one hand doesn't necessarily do anything for the off-hand. Try doing any significant solo drilling--for example, work through all the cuts and thrusts of the Bolognese system with your dominant hand and with all the correct footwork. Then try the same thing with your offhand and see how much more difficult it is.

Anders Backlund wrote:
My own experience has taught me that it's perfectly possible to wield two swords without them interfering with each other or accidentally striking yourself, provided you can fence at least decently with your off hand. (Then again, I'm hardly waht you might call a master swordsman, so the efficiency of my dual wielding is probably still questionable.)

The problem with just picking them up and depending on good manual dexterity is that you'll most likely delegate them to separate tasks, or, in the event that you try to use both, you'll end up forgetting about one as you use the other. In the Bolognese stuff, you see both swords attacking or defending, or one of each, or one attacking in such a way that it also augments the defense of the other one. These are things that you really need to train to do with both swords.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Anders Backlund




Location: Sweden
Joined: 24 Oct 2007

Posts: 629

PostPosted: Wed 14 Nov, 2007 10:20 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Steven Reich wrote:
On this, I can really only take the cheap way out and plead the argument from authority (i.e. the masters of arms who actually knew the arts). However, I will say that even having good form with one hand doesn't necessarily do anything for the off-hand. Try doing any significant solo drilling--for example, work through all the cuts and thrusts of the Bolognese system with your dominant hand and with all the correct footwork. Then try the same thing with your offhand and see how much more difficult it is.


Unfortunately I do not know the Bolognese system. Wink
However, I am capable of swordfighting with my left hand fairly well, even though it doesn't have the same dexterity as my right. (And probably never will, me being right-handed.)

Anders Backlund wrote:

The problem with just picking them up and depending on good manual dexterity is that you'll most likely delegate them to separate tasks, or, in the event that you try to use both, you'll end up forgetting about one as you use the other. In the Bolognese stuff, you see both swords attacking or defending, or one of each, or one attacking in such a way that it also augments the defense of the other one. These are things that you really need to train to do with both swords.


Of course. But then again, this can be said about the art of swordfighting as a whole. You can't achive anything without training.
View user's profile Send private message
Mikko Kuusirati




Location: Finland
Joined: 16 Nov 2004
Reading list: 13 books

Posts: 1,080

PostPosted: Wed 14 Nov, 2007 5:48 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Anders Backlund wrote:
Of course. But then again, this can be said about the art of swordfighting as a whole. You can't achive anything without training.

Sticking to Musashi, it's probably worth noting that he systematically ends every single chapter with some variation on "You must study hard." Big Grin

"And sin, young man, is when you treat people like things. Including yourself. That's what sin is."
— Terry Pratchett, Carpe Jugulum
View user's profile Send private message
Elling Polden




Location: Bergen, Norway
Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Likes: 1 page

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,576

PostPosted: Thu 15 Nov, 2007 6:43 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Well, with enough training you can make pretty much anything work.

However, the training time might be more efficiently spend learning a less complicated combat form.

In the end, I really can't see much use for learning to fight with two swords at once. It is less convenient for quick draw than sword and buckler or sword and dagger, which means you would not carry them around for self defense.
On the battlefield it would simply be no match for the "classical" battlefield weapons sword and shield, spear or polearm.
The only reason would be if it where to become a common dueling form, which it to my knowledge never did.

"this [fight] looks curious, almost like a game. See, they are looking around them before they fall, to find a dry spot to fall on, or they are falling on their shields. Can you see blood on their cloths and weapons? No. This must be trickery."
-Reidar Sendeman, from King Sverre's Saga, 1201
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
Anders Backlund




Location: Sweden
Joined: 24 Oct 2007

Posts: 629

PostPosted: Thu 15 Nov, 2007 9:59 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Elling Polden wrote:
In the end, I really can't see much use for learning to fight with two swords at once. It is less convenient for quick draw than sword and buckler or sword and dagger, which means you would not carry them around for self defense.
On the battlefield it would simply be no match for the "classical" battlefield weapons sword and shield, spear or polearm.
The only reason would be if it where to become a common dueling form, which it to my knowledge never did.


It makes you look pretty darn cool, though. Razz Wink
View user's profile Send private message
Elling Polden




Location: Bergen, Norway
Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Likes: 1 page

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,576

PostPosted: Thu 15 Nov, 2007 10:45 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Anders Backlund wrote:

It makes you look pretty darn cool, though. Razz Wink


Ah, yes. until you die, and the sword and shield guy goes home with the girl Wink
Thus, he will procreate, and pass his shield on to his children, until dual-sword wielders are breed to extinction.

"this [fight] looks curious, almost like a game. See, they are looking around them before they fall, to find a dry spot to fall on, or they are falling on their shields. Can you see blood on their cloths and weapons? No. This must be trickery."
-Reidar Sendeman, from King Sverre's Saga, 1201
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
Shayan G





Joined: 26 Sep 2006

Posts: 140

PostPosted: Thu 15 Nov, 2007 11:24 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I apologize for my late entry to the thread, but I had to chip in:

Escrima is most certainly intended as a battlefield art, though it is equally suited to duels or streetfights depending on your style. Its versatility is what has endeared it to countless militaries, police forces, and self-defense instructors worldwide. For example, my instructor's instructor (or my grandmaster, I suppose) trains Filipino soldiers for close combat in the jungle against Abu Sayyaf separatists, and has himself engaged in countless such battles (as an aside, I find the idea of that rather creepy!). And before the wars against Abu Sayyaf, escrima was used against Spanish colonials when the escrimadores didn't have enough guns to go around. It has a long history of use in mass battles in the islands of the Southeast Asian Pacific. As someone mentioned earlier, facing multiple opponents is an integral aspect of the art.

Regarding two-handed wielding, in FMA, even when one hand is empty, it is never ever a "dead hand," just hanging out and maybe blocking once in a while--it is supposed to be constantly moving, as much a part of your strategy as the weapon-hand.

I guess the way I understand it,the idea is you should be as deadly without a weapon as you are with one, and vice versa. It's basically the JSA concept of no-mind, no-sword, that Takuan wrote about in The Unfettered Mind.
http://www.angelfire.com/extreme4/kendo/TheUnfetteredMind.pdf

Quote:
If ten men, each with a sword, come at you with swords slashing, if you parry the sword without stopping the mind at each action, and go from one to the next, you will not be lacking in proper action for every one of the ten.

Although the mind acts ten times against ten men, if it does not halt at even one of them and you react to one after another, will proper action be lacking?

But if the mind stops before one of these men, though you parry his striking sword, when the next man comes, the right action will have slipped away.

Considering that the Thousand Armed Kannon has one thousand arms on its body, if the mind stops at the one holding a bow, the other nine hundred ninety-nine will be useless. It is because the mind is not detained at one place that the arms are useful.


That's what I mean--Takuan says it so well Wink


Last edited by Shayan G on Thu 15 Nov, 2007 11:47 am; edited 1 time in total
View user's profile Send private message
Greg Coffman




Location: Lubbock, TX
Joined: 24 Aug 2006
Reading list: 4 books

Posts: 254

PostPosted: Thu 15 Nov, 2007 11:41 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Shayan G wrote:

Regarding two-handed wielding, in FMA, even when one hand is empty, it is never ever a "dead hand," just hanging out and maybe blocking once in a while--it is supposed to be constantly moving, as much a part of your strategy as the weapon-hand.



I think that is a good idea for WMA as well. You always fight with two hands, not necessarily two weapons.

For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.
-Hebrews 4:12
View user's profile Send private message
Thomas Watt




Location: Metrowest Boston
Joined: 19 Sep 2006
Reading list: 7 books

Posts: 159

PostPosted: Thu 15 Nov, 2007 2:37 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Anders Backlund wrote:
I recognise this: an online friend of mine, who trains with the jian/gim, has described this move to me. I'll have to remember to ask him about the application vs dual wielders.

Anyway, I suppose it depens on how you hold your off sword since when dual wielding you are keeping two gardes at once. Also, take in consideration the type of swords and the style of swordsmanship you are practicing.

You should ask your friend about the "secret sword" - supposedly the empty hand is not really empty, but contains the secret sword. At this point, mine is ineffective, but then I'm an indifferent student at best.

Surprisingly, many of the moves are not all that strange or exotic. I think anyone experienced with rapier training would recognize variations on many of the movements, and feel quite able to cope.

Have 11 swords, 2 dirks, half a dozen tomahawks and 2 Jeeps - seem to be a magnet for more of all.
View user's profile Send private message
Anders Backlund




Location: Sweden
Joined: 24 Oct 2007

Posts: 629

PostPosted: Thu 15 Nov, 2007 7:18 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Elling Polden wrote:
Anders Backlund wrote:

It makes you look pretty darn cool, though. Razz Wink


Ah, yes. until you die, and the sword and shield guy goes home with the girl Wink
Thus, he will procreate, and pass his shield on to his children, until dual-sword wielders are breed to extinction.


Only if you actually die. Razz

But seriously, that's only if you're talking about medival European swordsmanship or similar styles that actually incorporate shields, rather then swordsmanship in general. What if we put it in a scenario where a shield wouldn't be a issue? Say, a 18:th century sailor or pirate wielding two cutlasses, or a samurai fighting with two katana? And we've already concluded that this can be done with rapiers, in theory.

Edit: Also, here's a question. If I do find myself facing an apponent with a sword and a shield, what do I benifit the most from? Fighting him with only a single sword and no shield, or fighting him with two swords? (Assuming I can actually wield two swords competently, naturally.)

Also, I see what you mean about the practical concerns of carrying and drawing two weapons. Though, I'd argue there's still the possibility of starting the battle with a single sword and picking up a discarded extra weapon along the way, or even taking it from a defeated enemy. (In fact, most examples of dual wielding I've seen in movies, books, etc, seems to follow that formula.)

Thomas Watt wrote:
You should ask your friend about the "secret sword" - supposedly the empty hand is not really empty, but contains the secret sword. At this point, mine is ineffective, but then I'm an indifferent student at best.


Is that kind of like that whole "anything can be a sword if you are skilled enough" things you see in wuxia stories and the like all the time?

Kinda reminds me of the 15:th Precept of Karate: "Think of your hands and feet as if they were swords." Wink

Quote:
Surprisingly, many of the moves are not all that strange or exotic. I think anyone experienced with rapier training would recognize variations on many of the movements, and feel quite able to cope.


I've heard this, though the rapier and the jian strike me as very different weapons.

One sword I'd be interested in comparing to the jian is the spadroon, though. The spadroon is a short, light cut-and-thrust backsword that seems (to me at least) very similar to the jian. I have no idea how their handling characteristics compare, though.
View user's profile Send private message
Alex Oster




Location: Washington and Yokohama
Joined: 01 Mar 2004

Posts: 410

PostPosted: Thu 15 Nov, 2007 8:14 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I might add that i do remember rapier and cloak styles existing. I think the general idea of using the off hand w/ something is prevelent. However, i believe the idea of the thread was dual wielding as in same weapon, so thoughts of two non alike items are off base? I'm again on a mobile, so i'm not sure if this is on target.
The pen is mightier than the sword, especially since it can get past security and be stabbed it into a jugular.
This site would be better if everytime I clicked submit... I got to hear a whip crack!
My collection: Various Blades & Conan related
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
Anders Backlund




Location: Sweden
Joined: 24 Oct 2007

Posts: 629

PostPosted: Thu 15 Nov, 2007 9:09 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Alex Oster wrote:
I might add that i do remember rapier and cloak styles existing. I think the general idea of using the off hand w/ something is prevelent. However, i believe the idea of the thread was dual wielding as in same weapon, so thoughts of two non alike items are off base? I'm again on a mobile, so i'm not sure if this is on target.
¨

While dual wielding swords is the main topic, I welcome any discussion about two-weapon fighting in general. Happy
View user's profile Send private message
Lafayette C Curtis




Location: Indonesia
Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Reading list: 7 books

Posts: 2,698

PostPosted: Fri 16 Nov, 2007 3:48 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Anders Backlund wrote:
But seriously, that's only if you're talking about medival European swordsmanship or similar styles that actually incorporate shields, rather then swordsmanship in general. What if we put it in a scenario where a shield wouldn't be a issue? Say, a 18:th century sailor or pirate wielding two cutlasses, or a samurai fighting with two katana? And we've already concluded that this can be done with rapiers, in theory.


Actually, the rapier techniques that employ two swords at once are distinctly not battlefield techniques. Giacomo di Grassi even made an explicit mention in his rapier manual that the two-sword style was not used in the battlefields of his time--perhaps with the implication that it wasn't meant to be used as such anyway.

The point is simple, really. If two-sword styles were so practical, then we must have seen a great deal more of them in written accounts and illustration of war. But we don't. Even with the presence of two-sword techniques in Mamluk and Korean martial art--both of which were arguably meant for battlefield use--we don't really see many Mamluks or Koreans wielding two swords on the battlefield. And it should be quite important to note that two-stick/two-sword fighting wasn't part of the core curriculum in Eskrima.

In conclusion, while two-sword styles might not be inferior to single-sword, two-handed sword, or sword-and-shield methods of fighting, it probably took a great deal of effort to get to the level of skill where a swordsman can use two long blades at once with a reasonable chance of success--much more than with most other styles of swordsmanship, and probably more than what most warriors (even highly experienced ones) were willing to invest in a single weapon. For myself, I can easily see why people would be more interested in learning how to wield a broader variety of weapons (say, unarmed, dagger, sword, a polearm, and a missile weapon) than more variations on the same weapon (single sword, sword-and-dagger, sword-and-cloak, two swords). The former is generally a better approach to ensuring that you'd be able to use whatever is in your hands in the chaos of a combat situation!


Quote:
Edit: Also, here's a question. If I do find myself facing an apponent with a sword and a shield, what do I benifit the most from? Fighting him with only a single sword and no shield, or fighting him with two swords? (Assuming I can actually wield two swords competently, naturally.)


From training more extensively than your opponent does. Honestly, it's a bit futile to compare different fighting systems with the aim of seeing which one is better than the other, since such comparisons would assume that the warriors involved would have equal skill--and I think it's safe to say that in the real world there is practically no such thing as a fight between two equally skilled combatants. So, if you want to be able to face somebody with sword and shield, train more and harder in whatever weapon you're already good at. If it's sword and shield, practice more and shield. If it's longsword, practice more longsword. If it's sniper rifle, practice more sniping.

As for me, when facing a man with sword and shield, I'd use neither sword-and-shield nor two-sword fighting; I'd use the approach called "one sword and a lot of friends," otherwise known as "numerical superiority."


Quote:
Also, I see what you mean about the practical concerns of carrying and drawing two weapons. Though, I'd argue there's still the possibility of starting the battle with a single sword and picking up a discarded extra weapon along the way, or even taking it from a defeated enemy. (In fact, most examples of dual wielding I've seen in movies, books, etc, seems to follow that formula.)


If anything, I think this idea might be worse than carrying two swords in the first place, because the second blade you pick up would be an unfamiliar blade and you'd most likely feel uncomfortable with its balance and heft!


Quote:
One sword I'd be interested in comparing to the jian is the spadroon, though. The spadroon is a short, light cut-and-thrust backsword that seems (to me at least) very similar to the jian. I have no idea how their handling characteristics compare, though.


Hmm...the original jian--the battlefield version, that is--actually seem more comparable to the cut-and-thrust versions of larger European blades, like some of the later medieval swords (say, Types XVI or XVIII) or Renaissance military blades. The spadroon, on the other hand, is more of a cut-capable smallsword, although it is true that some of them seem broad and massive enough to have some serious cutting capability against unarmored targets.


Anders Backlund wrote:
While dual wielding swords is the main topic, I welcome any discussion about two-weapon fighting in general. Happy


You don't need to look far for sword-and-cloak styles of fighting. Practically all of the Renaissance Italian masters include it within their rapier curricula, so just go and check any of them--Marozzo, di Grassi, Fabris, Capo Ferro, Alfieri, or whoever you want to read. Many of them also include methods for fighting with cloak and dagger, which is a really, really good idea because, if youre a 16th- or 17th-century gentleman, you'd be very likely to wear a dagger everywhere and your apparel probably includes the sort of hip-length or thigh-length cape used in this style of fighting. The use of the term "cloak and dagger" for espionage might have actually stemmed from the use of these weapons by diplomats and spies when they were cornered and challenged in places where they weren't supposed to be, although of course this is purely my personal speculation.
View user's profile Send private message
Shayan G





Joined: 26 Sep 2006

Posts: 140

PostPosted: Fri 16 Nov, 2007 7:13 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Lafayette C Curtis wrote:
And it should be quite important to note that two-stick/two-sword fighting wasn't part of the core curriculum in Eskrima.


Actually, the first escrima I learned was the two sword style...it is most certainly a core of every system of escrima I've ever seen. Where did you hear this?
View user's profile Send private message
Anders Backlund




Location: Sweden
Joined: 24 Oct 2007

Posts: 629

PostPosted: Fri 16 Nov, 2007 10:20 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Lafayette C Curtis wrote:

Actually, the rapier techniques that employ two swords at once are distinctly not battlefield techniques. Giacomo di Grassi even made an explicit mention in his rapier manual that the two-sword style was not used in the battlefields of his time--perhaps with the implication that it wasn't meant to be used as such anyway.


I am well aware of this. I meant outside the battlefield.

Quote:
In conclusion, while two-sword styles might not be inferior to single-sword, two-handed sword, or sword-and-shield methods of fighting, it probably took a great deal of effort to get to the level of skill where a swordsman can use two long blades at once with a reasonable chance of success--much more than with most other styles of swordsmanship, and probably more than what most warriors (even highly experienced ones) were willing to invest in a single weapon. For myself, I can easily see why people would be more interested in learning how to wield a broader variety of weapons (say, unarmed, dagger, sword, a polearm, and a missile weapon) than more variations on the same weapon (single sword, sword-and-dagger, sword-and-cloak, two swords). The former is generally a better approach to ensuring that you'd be able to use whatever is in your hands in the chaos of a combat situation!


I still don't quite see why, exactly, training with two swords should be that much more difficult then training with a sword and shield, rapier and dagger or any other combination of arms.

Quote:

From training more extensively than your opponent does. Honestly, it's a bit futile to compare different fighting systems with the aim of seeing which one is better than the other, since such comparisons would assume that the warriors involved would have equal skill--and I think it's safe to say that in the real world there is practically no such thing as a fight between two equally skilled combatants. So, if you want to be able to face somebody with sword and shield, train more and harder in whatever weapon you're already good at. If it's sword and shield, practice more and shield. If it's longsword, practice more longsword. If it's sniper rifle, practice more sniping.

As for me, when facing a man with sword and shield, I'd use neither sword-and-shield nor two-sword fighting; I'd use the approach called "one sword and a lot of friends," otherwise known as "numerical superiority."


I'm sorry, I don't understand this reply at all. WTF?!

Let me rephrase that: Do I gain anything by adding an extra sword when facing an opponent with a sword and shield?

Quote:
If anything, I think this idea might be worse than carrying two swords in the first place, because the second blade you pick up would be an unfamiliar blade and you'd most likely feel uncomfortable with its balance and heft![/quite]

Good point. I'd still have gained an extra weapon, though.

Quote:

Hmm...the original jian--the battlefield version, that is--actually seem more comparable to the cut-and-thrust versions of larger European blades, like some of the later medieval swords (say, Types XVI or XVIII) or Renaissance military blades. The spadroon, on the other hand, is more of a cut-capable smallsword, although it is true that some of them seem broad and massive enough to have some serious cutting capability against unarmored targets.


I was thinking primarily about the fact that these weapons seem to share similar lenghts, are are both used in a cut-and-thrust fashion.
View user's profile Send private message
Lafayette C Curtis




Location: Indonesia
Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Reading list: 7 books

Posts: 2,698

PostPosted: Sun 25 Nov, 2007 3:41 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Shayan G wrote:
Lafayette C Curtis wrote:
And it should be quite important to note that two-stick/two-sword fighting wasn't part of the core curriculum in Eskrima.


Actually, the first escrima I learned was the two sword style...it is most certainly a core of every system of escrima I've ever seen. Where did you hear this?


Well...probably not from an authoritative source. I was just paraphrasing this post:

A. Jake Storey II wrote:
There is actually very little two-weapon wilding in eskrima but all the styles have it as an option. Sinawali eskrima uses two short-swords/sticks, and Espada y daga is a short-sword/stick and knife style. Other then my system contains 7 individual styles and those were the only two-weapon wilding styles in the system, and they are not part of the "three core styles of Inayan Eskrima".


So...well, you're free to try to dispute Jake's assertion. I'll just sit back and watch and steal as much knowledge as I can from both sides of the debate. ;p


Anders Backlund wrote:
I still don't quite see why, exactly, training with two swords should be that much more difficult then training with a sword and shield, rapier and dagger or any other combination of arms.


Because sword-and-shield or sword-and-dagger utilize components that have distinct, different roles, and this distinction would likely be easier to remember in the stress of combat than the basic tenet of the two-sword style? (i.e. that each sword's role should be totally interchangeable with the other's)

Quote:
Quote:

From training more extensively than your opponent does. Honestly, it's a bit futile to compare different fighting systems with the aim of seeing which one is better than the other, since such comparisons would assume that the warriors involved would have equal skill--and I think it's safe to say that in the real world there is practically no such thing as a fight between two equally skilled combatants. So, if you want to be able to face somebody with sword and shield, train more and harder in whatever weapon you're already good at. If it's sword and shield, practice more and shield. If it's longsword, practice more longsword. If it's sniper rifle, practice more sniping.

As for me, when facing a man with sword and shield, I'd use neither sword-and-shield nor two-sword fighting; I'd use the approach called "one sword and a lot of friends," otherwise known as "numerical superiority."


I'm sorry, I don't understand this reply at all. WTF?!

Let me rephrase that: Do I gain anything by adding an extra sword when facing an opponent with a sword and shield?


Well, let me clarify, then: I was saying that I don't think you'll gain any particular advantage against a sword-and-shield opponent by using two swords instead of one--at least nothing beyond the dubious advantage of novelty. A more reliable approach to get a distinct advantage over the sword-and-shield man would be to train more intensively in whatever weapon you're already comfortable with--or to bring friends who'd be able to flank and mob him once you've tied him down in a frontal engagement.
View user's profile Send private message
Mikko Kuusirati




Location: Finland
Joined: 16 Nov 2004
Reading list: 13 books

Posts: 1,080

PostPosted: Sun 25 Nov, 2007 6:25 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Lafayette C Curtis wrote:
Anders Backlund wrote:
I still don't quite see why, exactly, training with two swords should be that much more difficult then training with a sword and shield, rapier and dagger or any other combination of arms.


Because sword-and-shield or sword-and-dagger utilize components that have distinct, different roles, and this distinction would likely be easier to remember in the stress of combat than the basic tenet of the two-sword style? (i.e. that each sword's role should be totally interchangeable with the other's)

And, of course, two identical weapons, like a pair of long swords, are plain redundant in most situations. A different weapon - dagger, axe, shield, whatever - in the off-hand opens up a whole new world of possible strategies and combinations, instead of just more of the same.

It's kinda like how competent boxers throw quick, light jabs with the lead hand and slower but more powerful crosses with the other, rather than just the same old haymakers with both. And how all fighters, armed and unarmed, lead with one foot instead of standing square on to the opponent, at that...

"And sin, young man, is when you treat people like things. Including yourself. That's what sin is."
— Terry Pratchett, Carpe Jugulum
View user's profile Send private message
Thomas Watt




Location: Metrowest Boston
Joined: 19 Sep 2006
Reading list: 7 books

Posts: 159

PostPosted: Sun 25 Nov, 2007 10:59 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I think the strongest point against dual-wielding (original discussion assertion) is simply history.
Were that to be a highly effective approach, armies would have been so equipped, and paired swords would have been the norm instead of being such a rarity.
In a heart-pounding all-out kill-or-be-killed fight, whatever works best is what wins, and what others will very quickly adopt -- would you do any differently?

Have 11 swords, 2 dirks, half a dozen tomahawks and 2 Jeeps - seem to be a magnet for more of all.
View user's profile Send private message


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Off-topic Talk > Let's talk about dual wielding.
Page 2 of 4 Reply to topic
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next All times are GMT - 8 Hours

View previous topic :: View next topic
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum






All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum