[Elling Polden]

Two handed swords where used on the battlefield, but most of the time only as "backup" weapons; The primary fighting would be done with polearms.
They are faster at range and more versitale in close combat wrestling (In the half sword grip). However they disappear from the european battlefield with heavy armour in the 17th cent.

[Wolfgang Armbruster]

[Craig Peters]

While I can't speak for the entirety of the 30 Years War, I did recently write a paper on it, and to my knowledge the Swedish army under Gustavus Adolphus were armed with sabres which they employed from horseback. So it would seem that the answer, insofar as the Swedish army was concerned, is probably "no".

[Thomas Jason]

I would like to point out that the folks who describe using double weapons as not being effective have little to no experience with people trained to use them correctly.

[Hank Reinhardt]

Both the Filipino and the Japanese two sword school were developed from the Spanish rapier and dagger. The Chinese have their own school, and from watching them go through their routines, I have to admit to being underwhelmed. Years ago I sparred with a couple of guys who claimed to be quite knowledgable in the Chinese two swrods, but they were not very good at all. As a battle field tool, two swords would get you killed quite quickly. There just isn't enough space to use two swords effectively, since most blows would be short chops and stabs.
Alothough no one can say for sure, it appears that the rapier and dagger seemed to have started in Spain, and it certainly lasted there far longer than in any other place in Europe. So of course the SCA would call it "Florentine" after the Italian city.

[C. Stackhouse]

Perhaps two swords may not have been as effective, but what of two axes, or double maces? I could imagine that their reduced length and elevated crushing power would counter act the problems of space and limited power generation.

Side note: To see some incredible two weapon fighting (and martial arts in general) Check out ONG BAK. It's a movie from Thailand and has a small segment where the hero is fighting with two steel rods. (Don't expect mush in ways of story, It's you traditional martial arts film )

[Bill Grandy]

[Alexander Hinman]

Well, what I'm wondering about the FMA two-weapon bit is the length of the swords involved. From what I can remember off the top of my head, Filipino swords are quite stubby, resembling long chopping daggers more than swords.

Those I can understand being used in a two-weapon style without much interference. Of course, I have a few doubts about their effectiveness vs. sword & shield (because of my own prejudice, of course), and extremely heavy doubts against plate armour... Though the Filipinos, to my knowledge, have never encountered fully harnessed opponents, so it's a moot point.

[Thomas Jason]

There are longer blades such as the Kampilan though those are generally used single handed.

Moro Keris can be as long as a short to mid-length Type X.

The shield was also an integral part of the FMA and there are techniques for getting past it. They aren't as emphasized as much these days though as the shield has been rendered rather obsolete today.

The heaviest armor I've seen is chainmail with plates woven into it worn with a breastplate.

[Hank Reinhardt]

Musashi developed his two sword school after the arrival of the Europeans.Considered by most Japanese to have been in response to seeing them spar with a weapon in each hand. This method does not show up in any art prior to this. In fact, it almost never shows up afterward either. Many of the Escrima and Kali practioners also credit the Spanish with these developments. The fact that the weapons look nothing alike has nothing to do with it. The concept of fighting with two hands and both having an offensive weapon is what impressed them. You wlould hardly expect the Japanese or the Filipinos to start using rapiers. The Spaniartds were pretty well armored with then took over the islands. Of course firearms were the dominant factor, but never forget that the Filipino and Javanese weapons are not very good weapons. Steel was not very well done. Most were simpy case hardened, and quite a few have very weak and small tangs.
One comment about movies. The fighting is very well practised and highly choreographed, and the film editor can do wonders, never confuse that with reality.

[Stephen Hand]

Despite having been discussed at length, no one has presented any evidence that Philipino martial arts were based on Spanish rapier (La Verdadera Destreza), or indeed that native Philipinos ever witnessed Spanish rapier (which was a very upper class art). The arts are about as different as it's possible for arts using a weapon in each hand to be.

Interestingly there are very close similarities between FMA and European sword and buckler systems. I have been accused of teaching Kali while teaching I.33 (at the time I hadn't even seen FMA). Given that the Spanish were renowned for sword and buckler when they arrived in the Philipines and that Philipinos would have been pretty much guaranteed of seeing military sword and buckler it's interesting to speculate whether any influence came from this direction. This is why many people are looking for a pre-Destreza Spanish treatise.

Cheers
Stephen

[Bill Grandy]

(edit: Stephen posted at the same time, so some of what I said is redundant)

Hank,
I have to respectfully disagree. I know many people have claimed a connection between Filipino and Spanish martial arts, but as far as I know there isn't any actual evidence. People have just assumed that, because the Spanish and the Filipinos had contact, and because the Spanish happen to be known for using rapier and dagger at the time period, then obviously the Filipino's must have gotten it from them. Absence of evidence, however, is not evidence in itself.

For starters, the Filipino's would have been much more likely to see the Spanish using sword and buckler (and polearms and firearms), since they were soldiers, not civilians. I'm not an expert on the subject, but I know there've been many debates about this that I've read with interest, and it seems that the idea of the Spanish influence is more of a myth than anything else.

I am also not an expert on Japanese sword history, so I will mostly leave that alone, but I doubt that Musashi invented using two swords at the same time. He just happened to be a proponent of it, and a famous one at that. Regardless, I usually hear that the Spanish learned from Musashi (which also has no evidence, and is a little silly, in my opinion).

I'm not sure how you can dismiss the fact that the arts look nothing alike, though. This seems to be central to the argument that either nito ryu or escrima were developed from Spanish rapier and dagger.

[Elling Polden]

As earlier mentioned, Musashi ecourages your TRAIN with two swords, because it's harder. He still fights with the katana and wakisashi, like most other people. This because the japanese warrior at the time carries two swords, "The reason for we will not get into" and it is "foolish to die with a weapon undrawn"

As we know, attitude, and dumb luck, can be as important as what weapon you are using. Wich is why it's so hard to answer these questions.
But we know that if something works, people will keep on doing it. Somewhere along the line two sword fighting has probably been tried. It wasn't a great success, and thus never became a known style. Sword and dagger works OK, when compared to single sword or longsword, rapier and main gauche works well enough to have been developed into a dueling form...

[Hendrik Kivirand]

I am by far no authority on the matter, but having had affection towards two-sword fighting for years for some weird reasons, I have trained fighting with two full-length (90 cm) full-weigth swords for some years (though my primary disciplines are of course sword-and-shield and hand-and-half longsword suitable for my period). Just for fun. But here are my comments:

1) Fighting with two full length weapons is exhausting. In time one will learn to control the weapons enough, but it's hugely demanding on stamina, I wouldn't want to do it in armour, even simple maille shirt is almost too much.

2) It takes a LONG while to learn to use two equal weapons efficiently and equally, without ignoring one. Thus, it's simply much better use of one's time to learn using shield, for one. Especially, because, in the beginning, one is more danger to oneself than one's opponent.

3) In a duel, a trained 2-sworder is pretty much equal to anything but heavy polearms. But in a battle situation...let's just say you have to maneuver a LOT and that just can't be done enough in a battle. IMHO, of course.

I've found 3 counts of 2 swords being used in historical texts about warfare (prizefighting and such excluded), twice it is mentioned in viking-age sagas that someone grabbed two swords in great wrath and cut into enemy ranks, and once it's mentioned in some late 13-century text...my notes are not with me, so I fail to produce any names....

Point being, it's not a battle-efficient way to fight, but it's fun and showy, probably that's why prizefighters did it and that's why I keep doing it occasionally.

Best regards,
Hendrik 'Mimic' Kivirand

[Hank Reinhardt]

Let me deal with the Japanese and the Filipinos, Although I think we will simply disagree on this. Musashi was fairly young when the the first Europeans arrived. The Europeans had been involved with two weapons, or at least sword and shield for a very long time. Although I feel sure that in some point in their history of Japan someone grabbed and extra sword and went around swinging the two of them, it was Musashi who first started a school devoted to this. The school never became a national pastime, as the Japanese still preferred using two hands on one sword. Since many of the Japanese that I have read and talked with feel that he got the idea from the Europeans (Span.or Portugese), I will go along with them. But it was the idea, not the styyle. (They also got the idea of the gun from the same people). I am not quite as hardcore about the Filipinos. The Chinese landed there and for a few years carried on some extensive commerce with the islands. The Chinese had their own two sword schools,. so it is quite possible that the idea was planted by the Chinese. It may have been pushed by the arrival of the Spanish a couple of hundred years later. We can't know either of these until someone invents a time machine. Unfortunately I seem to be falling into the same trap that I dislike seeing in others. That of being too pedantic. After all, this is mere speculation since we can't know. Even if we could know, what difference does it make? The main question seems to be how effective is it? At least that is the only thing I am actually concerned with. As for fighting with two rapiers, one your opponent is past the points, you're in deep trouble to his dagger. Two rapiers were tried, and found quite wanting. Once someone has grappled with you a 6 inch knife is more deadly than a 40 inch bladed rapier.

[Allen W]

Brian boru's son Murchad was said to fight with two swords both before and during the Battle of Clontarf where he fell. This is mentioned in two sagas that of Brian Boru and I forget the other. Were you thinking of another Hendrik?

[Taylor Ellis]

Without evidence, any supposed link between obviously different weapon styles is pure speculation.

[Jean Thibodeau]

Might be one of those things were special talents like being fully ambidextrous makes it a techniques that works well for the very few, at least as far as being superior to one handed techniques.

Also, having the two swords doesn't force you to use both all the time if the tactical situation is disadvantageous to two sword techniques.

One could carry two swords and a buckler to use in the above case. ( Fairly short swords if the same size. )

With some limited experience with a pair if SAI I can move them around fast and not feel that one is getting in the way of the other. Same with a pair of Cold Steel Tantos: A 9" in one hand and a 12" in the other, flipping the blade rapidly from forward grip to reverse grip. Maybe just dumb luck but I have never hit the blades together or lost body parts.

Not intense practice but 30 years of playing with knives seems to have some training effect. ( Could be delusional though ! )

I would say I am about 80% ambidextrous: Throwing is definitely a left hand thing.

As to FMA I have only limited book knowledge about it: As in, read one book.

[Mark Eskra]

I believe it depends on the enemy. I would not face a wall of shields with two swords. On the other hand, both weapons are offensive as well as defensive, but only if you are skilled with both hands. Also, if you use a blade left-handed, you'd better be good, because you're heart's on that side. Mind to hand signal transmittal is an issue too-many people cant use two pistols at once without shooting themselves in the offhand-swords are the same way.

[Lafayette C Curtis]