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
Anders Backlund




Location: Sweden
Joined: 24 Oct 2007

Posts: 629

PostPosted: Mon 26 Nov, 2007 4:13 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Lafayette C Curtis wrote:

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)


Interesting. If anything, I would have guessed that -once the skills has been aquired- using two swords would be easier, since they do the exact same thing anyway. Wink Razz

Quote:
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.


I think you misunderstand. I wasn't asking wether or not using two swords would give me an advantage over the sword-and-shield man. I was asking wether or not adding a sword would lessen my own disadvantage compared to using only one, provided that my skill with two swords is equal to my skill with one.

Wether or not I actually win isn't the priority here.

Lafayette C Curtis wrote:

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...


So, what's the difference? A boxers arms are still the same lenght, they both wear gloves... I don't see what you are getting at.

No one's ever said you can't employ different tactics with each sword, or that you have to use identical weapons.

Thomas Watt wrote:
I think the strongest point against dual-wielding (original discussion assertion) is simply history.


Actually I consider this the weakest point. There are several reasons for why dual wielding was never historically popular. For your battlefield example, there's the simple fact that a sword and shield combo is simply better, not to mention a cheaper and simpler alternative.

In civilian life, there's fashion (because carrying two swords around makes you look stupid), the additional training required, the practical concerns of wearing and drawing double blades, etc, etc.

However, I don't think that automatically invalidates dual wielding as an effective fighting style under the right circumstances.
View user's profile Send private message
Steven Reich




Location: Arlington, VA
Joined: 28 Oct 2003

Posts: 237

PostPosted: Mon 26 Nov, 2007 5:16 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

[quote="Anders Backlund"]
Lafayette C Curtis wrote:
Interesting. If anything, I would have guessed that -once the skills has been aquired- using two swords would be easier, since they do the exact same thing anyway. Wink Razz

Nope. More difficult. The thing is, while they are doing the same motions, what motions they do are modified by the presence of both of them. Cutting and thrusting alternatively and together with two swords effectively is most definitely more difficult than doing that with just one while a dagger or cloak stays out of the way and mostly just parries, or with a shield in which you often "work around" or incorporate into your attacks.

Anders Backlund wrote:
However, I don't think that automatically invalidates dual wielding as an effective fighting style under the right circumstances.

Agreed. Clearly it was effective--the masters did describe it and none of them say it was a "show style." Actually, I find it telling that in Marozzo and Manciolino, it is presented as a system for the Spada da Filo; that is, the sharp sword. However, it is a little different (just like nearly everything about swordsmanship) than portrayed is books and movies.

Steve

Founder of NoVA-Assalto, an affiliate of the HEMA Alliance
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Shayan G





Joined: 26 Sep 2006

Posts: 140

PostPosted: Mon 26 Nov, 2007 9:35 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Lafayette C Curtis wrote:


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


This is a hard idea for me to express, so I apologize in advance for my bumbling verbiage.

The way I've been taught escrima is a sort of parallelism in terms of approach--what the right hand can do, the left should be able to, and vice versa--this is for reasons of balance in training, as well as practicality: a wounded arm is an eventuality a warrior should train for. The escrima paradigm, as I've been taught (and I must use that disclaimer, since there are more styles of escrima than islands in the Philippines, and that's rather impressive! Eek! ) is one in which one doesn't differentiate single-stick vs double in training--escrima is designed to be applicable with the same principles and almost the same movements whether one is using bare hand, sticks, machetes, or swords, and regardless of which hand has the sword, or whether or not both do.

This parallelism is applied also to simultaneous wielding. Adding another sword in your other hand shouldn't change the principles applied in your escrima practice--this is part of the ingenuity of its system. That's why the system in which I'm training trains left and right equally, and dual-wielding equally with single-stick.

And again, I must issue the disclaimer that there are many styles of escrima and this is my individual perception of it as based on my training. Diversity is the spice of life, and certainly makes the martial arts world more interesting and enriching.

Edit to add:
Wikipedia has a good description of what I'm talking about so ineptly:
Quote:
Many systems in fact begin training with two weapons, either a pair of sticks or a stick and a wooden knife (called espada y daga, Spanish for "sword and dagger"). This is sometimes justified by pointing out that warriors would not have gone into battle with an empty hand; another common explanation is that having two weapons forces the practitioner to use both hands, which is valuable even when working with one weapon: the extra hand is used to control the opponent's weapon and to strike when the range is sufficiently close. (Such uses are banned in modern sport fencing, so sport fencers generally hold the unused hand away from danger.) Historically, people all over the world, including Filipino warriors and Renaissance fencers often trained with a long weapon in one hand and a short weapon in the other.

The stick techniques used in Eskrima fall into two categories: the stick techniques that are training for sword fighting, and the sword techniques that are training for stick fighting. As usual, most systems are designed so that the practitioner can adapt their training to either weapon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escrima#Weapons
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 30 Nov, 2007 12:47 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Anders Backlund wrote:
However, I don't think that automatically invalidates dual wielding as an effective fighting style under the right circumstances.


Well, yes, I'd agree with that too. Although a fighter would need a great deal more training before he/she can be anywhere near proficient with two swords compared to other two-weapon (sword-and-buckler, sword-and-target, or whatever) styles, once he/she has reached that level of proficiency then he/she would be as dangerous as any similarly skilled swordsman--not to mention the advantage he/she would have had from the fairly high probability that his/her opponent wouldn't have been familiar with the idea of facing an adversary wielding two swords. This might be particularly important in Renaissance dueling, where most of the time the two combatants were supposed to fight with the same weapons, since if only one of them was familiar with the two-sword style then the fight would certainly go in favor of the one who knew what to do and what not to do with his two swords.
View user's profile Send private message
Jeremy V. Krause




Location: Buffalo, NY.
Joined: 20 Oct 2003
Likes: 1 page
Reading list: 1 book

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,717

PostPosted: Fri 30 Nov, 2007 9:22 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Some topics just gone on and on and on and . . . .
View user's profile Send private message
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team


myArmoury Team

PostPosted: Fri 30 Nov, 2007 9:31 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Jeremy V. Krause wrote:
Some topics just gone on and on and on and . . . .


I'd invite people who are tired of a topic to simply stop reading it rather than posting unhelpful statements like the one above. Also, keep in mind that any reply (helpful or not) only bumps the topic back up again. So if you're tired of it, why help extend its life by replying to it?

Happy

ChadA

http://chadarnow.com/
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Jeremy V. Krause




Location: Buffalo, NY.
Joined: 20 Oct 2003
Likes: 1 page
Reading list: 1 book

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,717

PostPosted: Fri 30 Nov, 2007 10:14 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I guess your right Chad,
One person can't fight the tide. So back to dual yielding and war elephants, and retractable assasins blades and what other quality post may be coming down the pipe. . .
View user's profile Send private message
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team


myArmoury Team

PostPosted: Fri 30 Nov, 2007 10:18 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Jeremy V. Krause wrote:
I guess your right Chad,
One person can't fight the tide. So back to dual yielding and war elephants, and retractable assasins blades and what other quality post may be coming down the pipe. . .


This sarcasm is unwelcome and unnecessary.

If you are tired of fantasy/game related posts, take time to try to educate people rather than being sarcastic. If you want different topics discussed, then start threads to discuss diffferent things. Work to solve the problem rather than just commenting on it.

Happy

ChadA

http://chadarnow.com/
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Shayan G





Joined: 26 Sep 2006

Posts: 140

PostPosted: Fri 30 Nov, 2007 11:16 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Honestly I'm learning quite a bit from the responses to those posts. Whatever inspires people to ask questions and learn more about arms and armour seems (in my opinion) to be perfectly suited to this web site's purpose.
View user's profile Send private message
Jean Thibodeau




Location: Montreal,Quebec,Canada
Joined: 15 Mar 2004
Likes: 50 pages
Reading list: 1 book

Spotlight topics: 5
Posts: 8,310

PostPosted: Fri 30 Nov, 2007 12:43 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Shayan G wrote:
Honestly I'm learning quite a bit from the responses to those posts. Whatever inspires people to ask questions and learn more about arms and armour seems (in my opinion) to be perfectly suited to this web site's purpose.


I agree fully that most Topics elicit interesting responses and even the more " fantasy " topics bring up real world history even if only to give context to the unrealistic/innnacurate ideas gotten from movies or games.

In parallel to this are the basic and " naive " questions that may seem very basic to some of us have their uses: People new to the subject need a little encouragement, patience, respect as well as a bit of kindness.

It is also of value to have the occasional Topic that deals with the basic knowledge: I know that when I first go to a site, dealing with a new subject matter I know little about, it nice to be able to get up to speed with the " jargon " and be able to find easy stuff in plain language.

It's also a good idea to direct new people to links to previous Topics or sources and suggest that they do a search.

Finally, I do enjoy the occasional " fantasy " discussion: Good to not take ourselves too seriously once in a while.

You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
View user's profile Send private message
Glen A Cleeton




Location: Nipmuc USA
Joined: 21 Aug 2003

Posts: 1,968

PostPosted: Sat 01 Dec, 2007 11:38 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

My first reproduction sword was chosen in consideration of a couple of parameters and is a side sword type of about 36" blade length. A second sword of that general proportion was purchased within about a year. One reason for the second purchase was to do a bit of drilling with two swords. I do agree witth what was written about being as proficient with either hand to be critical in advancing to use one in each together. I also noted the period reference to teaching and learning such as useful in the lists where such was becoming popular. in other words, facing someone else that is dual weilding similar swords. We see this touched on by a few historical teachers. Later on, there are some references to duels and bouting with pairs/ a case of falchions.

I do find tips of one's own swords can get tangled and do recognize some serious flaws in thinking it necessarily an advantage if facing another, even if they fight with but a single sword. If the paired weapon is to be used offensively at all, it involves a moment where you may be creating an opening to be expolited. this may be less of an issue with shorter paired weapons/blades, I don't know.

In the end, if you don't have someone to practice it with, i think one may find little in discussion to guide a better understanding (aside from what was written about teaching it). if one expected to maybe utilize it in sport it was useful to learn and practice.

Yes, some two sword threads get to be endless. Some are of note and actually share some good information about the true cultural contexts. Others, like this one, seem to be more all encompassing. Many will seem very strongly encamped on one side or the other about the practicalities but that misses the actual and historical contexts for several cultures and time periods.

Cheers

GC
View user's profile Send private message
Shayan G





Joined: 26 Sep 2006

Posts: 140

PostPosted: Sat 01 Dec, 2007 3:33 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Glen A Cleeton wrote:

In the end, if you don't have someone to practice it with, i think one may find little in discussion to guide a better understanding (aside from what was written about teaching it). if one expected to maybe utilize it in sport it was useful to learn and practice.


That's very well said. In my experience there are many aspects of martial arts experience that hypotheticals and academic debates simply can't substitute for, however cogent. One can read about playing the trumpet, for example, and study every scientific aspect possible, but were one to get on stage and try to play a Purcell the result would not be pleasant. That's why martial arts are an art, in my opinion, rather than simply a science.

Sorry for pontificating.
View user's profile Send private message
Mikko Kuusirati




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

Posts: 1,080

PostPosted: Tue 04 Dec, 2007 1:16 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Anders Backlund wrote:
So, what's the difference? A boxers arms are still the same lenght, they both wear gloves... I don't see what you are getting at.

Just a half-assed analogue, mostly. Happy

Point being, two weapons that do different things give you a lot more options than two weapons that both do the same thing.

Quote:
No one's ever said you can't employ different tactics with each sword, or that you have to use identical weapons.

Well, if by "dual-wielding" we're referring to any two weapons used together, then the practice was very near universal all through history, the most common off-hand weapon being, of course, various types of shields... (And the most common primary weapon various kinds of spears, 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
Mikko Kuusirati




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

Posts: 1,080

PostPosted: Tue 04 Dec, 2007 1:37 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Shayan G wrote:
Glen A Cleeton wrote:

In the end, if you don't have someone to practice it with, i think one may find little in discussion to guide a better understanding (aside from what was written about teaching it). if one expected to maybe utilize it in sport it was useful to learn and practice.


That's very well said. In my experience there are many aspects of martial arts experience that hypotheticals and academic debates simply can't substitute for, however cogent. One can read about playing the trumpet, for example, and study every scientific aspect possible, but were one to get on stage and try to play a Purcell the result would not be pleasant. That's why martial arts are an art, in my opinion, rather than simply a science.

Sorry for pontificating.

It's kinda funny how basically every second post in this thread is very closely paraphrased in the Book of Five Rings... several passages in the Water Book stress that you cannot learn the Way of strategy by merely reading the book, and emphasize the importance of both diligent study and, most importantly, regular practice. Happy

"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
Shayan G





Joined: 26 Sep 2006

Posts: 140

PostPosted: Tue 04 Dec, 2007 2:42 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Haha I noticed that too! One of my favorite books of all time is the Japanese Art of War, by Thomas Cleary. My favorite writers he excerpts are definitely Takuan and Shosan. It contains a PLETHORA of these kinds of discussions.
View user's profile Send private message
Gage B





Joined: 07 Aug 2009

Posts: 1

PostPosted: Fri 07 Aug, 2009 7:26 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

As for the two-sword approach I feel I must comment upon it.(my account was created for this sole purpose :P).

As for practicality a dual-sword style can be hard to learn. It can be unwieldy and uncoordinated due to the human's predisposition on focusing on one object at a time. In fact "multi-tasking" technically doesnt exist which complicates things when one tries to use two swords. For this simple fact it is highly more efficient to train in other styles(notably sword and shield). Thus the dual-sword style never becomes prominent in any culture of any time.

HOWEVER there is an exception: When a person has a naturally predisposition towards peripheral vision. When they can notice movements out of the corner of their eyes better then whats in front of them(at least in comparison to normal eyesight). This results in better night time vision then most with a lowered daytime vision. How this affects dual wielding is by complementing one's proprioception and equiblioception(perception of one's body parts, balance and motion) which create a superior "sense of location". This increased sense of location allows the fighter to know their own movements better when varying body parts act differentially in adaption to the surrounding(think rubbing your head and patting your belly to get a reward).

This predisposition(which can be altered by life-style choices) makes a person more prone to altering their movements with both hands and overall body. Essentially they can swing with one sword and know exactly what they are doing with the other one subconsciously. This leads to the intentional separation of tasks between hands. More specifically area. An avid user of dual-swords is more likely NOT to focus on their opponent but on the environment; location location location. Dissociating the sense of self with the sense of target. Then hand the task of one hand to cover a certain area while the other to cover the gaps of the area(like left and right though not as strictly). This way the individual sword can focus in one area while the other can focus in the other as opposed to one sword having to focus on all areas/altering body position to place the opponent in your range of focus.

To make movements less predictable a dual-sword user then needs to mix up the areas their swords govern, which can greatly set of the opponent. But such thought and coordination is inefficient if one is not physically suited to the task. Not to say that those that are would be superior to those that arent(dual-sword>one sword) but to say they are more capable of employing such an unusual style.

For an example of how this works I give the following situation:

A dual-wields swords
B uses a sword in his right, and a shield in his left.

B attacks A who uses his left sword to guide away B's sword while stepping diagonally right. With this A attacks with the right sword at the base where the shield isn't located. B steps back(more efficient then blocking since its low) and attacks yet again. A curves his left foot backwards, twisting his body to the side and bringing his right sword to block. Then A slides his left sword up and behind his right sword while bringing his right sword up and then down for an attack thereby "trading" off swords(a minor area trade). B is either killed or blocks with shield. Assuming he blocks A steps to the right with his left foot, swinging his right foot into a semicircle(lead with right foot) behind his left. This rotates him slightly around to B's diagonal left. This allows the freedom of A to pull his sword away and strike at the head or base. B must then either black with his shield in which case leaves his side opened to a slash from A's right sword or he can block with his sword. Assuming the latter A can pull his left sword in and against the shield while sliding his right sword off and arcing it to B's back(again another trade off and area mix).

End scenario.

Now of course few things go a straight as scenarios but as one can see it at least demonstrates the capability of Dual-swords. And I even made sure that the ones in the scenario were simple maneuvers; the most complicated being the footwork used after the first trade off and even then if seen some master that after a few weeks or even days.

Of course I could go into more detail and describe how such sweeping footwork is vital, how one must judge 'area' priorities, when trade-offs should and should not be used, as well as the effective yet risky advanced uses, but Im not out to write a dual-sword style here. Just to try and enlighten some as to how a sword style can and DOES work. Coming from one who avidly practices and teaches such a style after forming it from near scratch several years ago.
View user's profile Send private message
Peter Törlind





Joined: 19 Nov 2006

Posts: 23

PostPosted: Sat 08 Aug, 2009 4:28 am    Post subject: two swords in the SCA         Reply with quote

I am an SCA fighter (not a fighting guru, just a regular fighter that has fighting long-sword for one year;-) that sometimes fights with steel weapons-

And for you HEMA/WMA fighters just disregard the 'fact' "that SCA fighting is a sport fighting and not real fighting" for a while, and try to understand my comments, we can all learn from different disciplines.

So this is MY view of two weapons, in SCA fighter two weapons is quite usual (normally used by good fighters). I will only cover sword complemented with a dagger or sword in this post.

I see some advantages over using sword and shield:
+ You view is never blocked by a shield
+ Yo can fight a very aggressive style, you have two offensive weapons

And also some disadvantages:
- Many persons has hard time to block leg shots
- You often change to a more square stance, to been able to attack with both swords which makes a larger part of your body an target for the other person, also its harder to get good cut-hits from this stance (you have much more force from your 'back' sword if you have a regular stance).
- You have less protection from shots you don't actively parry (grand melee where an the other team can hit you with a spear from the side that you don't see).
- Much harder to learn, it's quite easy to learn to parry with your 'left' sword, but rather hard to get good combinations, and accurate hard hits with your 'left' hand.

I have a friend that I fight regularly that uses Sword and dagger (quite unusual SCA combo) and I normally fight longsword. And the problem for me is that he normally blocks my longsword and locks the sword against his body. If a meet a sword and shield guy I can use some half-swording techniques in close fighting but if I come close I am often killed with the dagger. The problem for him is the dagger arm (that is a quite nice target) and his legs on the left side.

You can see a short one minute fight between me and him here

This is not a regular SCA bout, we go for one minutes and count the number all good hits. This makes it much more hard for me as a long sword fighter, because if he locks me or pushes me into a corner he will hit me several times;-)

The sword/dagger combination is also very nice when meeting one spear guy at the battlefield, block/lock the spear with the sword run in and finish him with the dagger.

Regards Peter
View user's profile Send private message
James Head





Joined: 09 Mar 2008

Posts: 127

PostPosted: Sat 08 Aug, 2009 5:05 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Gage B

Thanks for Zombiefying a two year old thread with a large and rambling post. Now be honest and tell us in what venue you've been testing out this home brewed two handed fighting style of yours: NERO? Dagorhir? Guard UP? Knight Fight?
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team


myArmoury Team

PostPosted: Sat 08 Aug, 2009 6:14 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

James Head wrote:
Gage B

Thanks for Zombiefying a two year old thread with a large and rambling post. Now be honest and tell us in what venue you've been testing out this home brewed two handed fighting style of yours: NERO? Dagorhir? Guard UP? Knight Fight?


James,
This post can be read as fairly rude. We don't appreciate that kind of behavior here. You're welcome to question the person's ideas, but do so in a more constructive fashion.

Thank you.

Happy

ChadA

http://chadarnow.com/
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Anders Backlund




Location: Sweden
Joined: 24 Oct 2007

Posts: 629

PostPosted: Sat 08 Aug, 2009 9:48 am    Post subject: Re: two swords in the SCA         Reply with quote

Heh, haven't seen this one in a while. Good times!

Peter Törlind wrote:
- You often change to a more square stance, to been able to attack with both swords which makes a larger part of your body an target for the other person, also its harder to get good cut-hits from this stance (you have much more force from your 'back' sword if you have a regular stance).


When experimenting with dual wielding, I find it easier to change my dominant foot rather then trying to compromise.

Alternatively, and this is just a theory of mine but; what if one uses a lighter but longer sword in the off-hand to compensate for the reduced range?

The sword is an ode to the strife of mankind.

"This doesn't look easy... but I bet it is!"
-Homer Simpson.
View user's profile Send private message


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Off-topic Talk > Let's talk about dual wielding.
Page 3 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