Hello. Yes, I don't really disagree with anything here. The video ramble I shot went on to talk about the two-sword techniques I was taught in Wing Chun, and made a couple of the other points you make here, but I cut it down for the sake of length. I know of no evidence for katana and wakasashi prior to encounters with Portuguese fencers. Escrima is another you could have mentioned. Still not battle-winners, though.
In the Book of the Five Rings (Musahi's memoir of a sort), he says that if you want to learn to wield a sword in one hand, pick up two. He goes on to say that with practice this isn't that hard, you will get the hang of it. It seems that if Musashi thinks you should learn how to use a sword in each hand, it must have been an advantage sometimes. I think the duel scenario is the only place, makes most sense from a two swords are better than one perspective, again when you know there are only TWO competitors. Obviously the battlefield makes this skill moot, Because formation and shields are more important than a soldiers "dueling prowess".
@@footrot17 i don't think Matt is like that-- like that he would _intentionally_ miss Lindy's point or misrepresent it. I think that it is just easy for people to misunderstand others sometimes, where our own views and biases get in the way. Imo, Matt seems to be pretty earnest and intellectually honest.
I agree. Dual-wield techniques are mainly for civil personal engagement ONLY. I am a dual-wielder of Chinese broadswords (single edged, 31 inches on both weapons, weigh 2 pounds each). Based on my experience, dual-wielding has a few crucial factors in order to do it right: 1. Don’t swing the blades like in Hollywood or video games; that just doesn’t work! 2. Dual-wielding means two individual hands holding two single-handed weapons, so mostly, you can only parry or block by ONE HAND ONLY, in the right time by the perfect angle, and I have to remind you that you have to block the two-handed weapon attacks by the strength of one-handed; the technique is that use the part of the blade just ABOVE the CROSSGUARD to touch/stick-with the POINT of the opponent’s sword when parrying/blocking (Lever theory). This is one of the techniques for preventing being overwhelmed by heavy blows (also works for using one single-handed weapon). However, receiving the least pressure from the opponent comes with a price of more risks on your fingers being cut off. 3. You can let two swords CROSS together to parry one sword at the same time, but the “effective reflex angle” can be very LIMITED when using this technique. Reminder: Also CHECK the paragraph 2 for reference as well; without applies these conditions; the dual-wielder will be still EASILY overwhelmed. 4. Dual-wielding may need TWICE of the stamina than holding a single weapon, so learning to have a break WITHOUT let the guard off is another important lesson. 5. ALWAYS maintain the defense/threat-awareness of your center; every movement cannot be tested in the combat scenario without this golden rule. Sorry for bad English. Happy Dual-wielding~
Dan Menard In your pocket, obviously. Now, if you're some sort of crazy person and *don't* have a folding trebuchet, then you would have to carry it either on your back, or sword sheathe, whichever suits your fancy.
Personally, I would think the main advantage of dual-wielding, compared to shield or buckler, is the options it gives you. Now, I personally would favor a shield, but one of the biggest draws (that I can see) of dual wielding is a measure of unpredictability. Consider: If you are using a shield and sword, or dagger and sword, I know the far more likely tool you will use to attack and which to defend, and I can begin to work out maneuvers or plans around that fact. I know you're primarily going to defend with the shield, and attack with your sword. If you are dual wielding two swords, now I do not know which way you will attack. Feinting a blow with one hand and then cutting at me with the other, using the two in tandem, for someone inexperienced in fighting against dual wielding there is so much more going on to process than with a single "primary" weapon. Yes you can attack with the shield and dagger, but compared to two swords, there is much more offensive viability. Essentially, at least to my eyes, by picking a second sword over a shield, you're sacrificing defensive viability for offensive versatility, and making yourself a good deal harder to predict in the process.
,,With a sword in other hand, enemy won't know which tool i use to strike and which to defend". Same thing with a shield. Shield is also a weapon. Very dangerous one. If you think of shield only as a piece of armor, you're thinking wrong. Thing is: a sword in your off hand can do very little more than shield in terms of offence and far less in terms of defence. As for unpredictability - give me a shield and i'll show you how upredictable it can be.
Mateusz Jesionkowski I am aware that it is possible to attack with a shield, but it is not the primary attack option. You do not see shield and sword fighters chaining attacks with their shield or delivering shield-only combinations. The telling blow, is generally going to come from the sword. Not that you cannot attack with your shield, but that if I react to your sword, and only your sword 8 out of 10 times I'm going to make my block. Compare this to two swords, where, at least in theory, if I react only to one sword, you're going to get past my guard at least half the time (this is a hyperbolic example, I am not proposing that someone would ONLY react to the sword/one of the two swords, nor that a competent shield fighter would not pick up on this and mix in more shield strikes). There's also the lethality to consider, especially with smaller shields, like a buckler. No, I'm not going to enjoy getting punched in the face with a buckler, but I'd much rather be hit in the face with a buckler than be chopped in the head with a sword. With regards to something like a buckler, a second sword accomplishes almost everything the buckler does, and is a greater offensive threat. On top of that, there are fairly limited methods of shield-bashing an opponent, whereas with a second sword, you essentially have every single possible attack option with one sword that you do with the other. "Thing is: a sword in your off hand can do very little more than shield in terms of offence and far less in terms of defence." As I mentioned above, I disagree with this. With a sword I can slash down at your legs, cut your arm, have a go at your head, thrust, krump, wrist cut, elbow cut, etc. etc. With a shield, my targets are largely relegated to your torso and face, and my attack options are limited-- bashing with the boss, or the rim of the shield, and even then, the angles of my attack are quite limited. This is an even greater issue when using an extremely small shield, like a buckler. I am not arguing that shields are not unpredictable, I am arguing that dual swords would be MORE unpredictable, because you have a larger variety of angles and attacks you can come at your opponent than with your shield, and they are equally dangerous, as opposed to a shield which-- while certainly dangerous, is not nearly as lethal as a sword. Of course, this applies entirely to dueling, obviously a shield is far more effective in a large scale battle.
Which is why dual wielding is good for a one on one duel. On the battlefield all that offensive versatility will be for naught if your enemy is several meters away hurling spears, rocks and arrows which will be coming at you from every which way. That's when a shield is worth much more than a second sword.
KatakiDoragon I agree with you. On the battlefield you are vulnerable to massed artillery/missile fire, but also attacks from the side or behind, so in terms of survivability, defence is more useful than offence (Greek Hoplites, Roman Legionaries etc.) However, HEMA is mostly about 1-on-1 or 1v2 duels...
the Romans used pilums to disarm the enemy of shields. the metal used at the tip was a soft form that penetrated the shield and caused it to become cumbersome and almost impossible to carry and use effectively. Since most shields were wood for the bulk of troops, the pilum or javelin was a very effective form of forcing the enemy to drop his shield.
An informative response to an informative video. You and Lindybeige have really dug into the topic of dual-wielding, and offered some excellent information. As a writer who enjoys depicting swordfights, my thanks to both of you for this wonderful discussion! - Loranna
I'm surprised that neither this guy or Lindybeige mentioned that it would have been costly. I know that a Viking's most expensive possession was often his sword, but I know less about medieval smithing. Was it particularly expensive in medieval times?
By the 14th century at least, swords were not really expensive. In fact a buckler or shield could cost as much as a sword, depending on the quality and condition.
Enleuk bc? you mean 3400 years ago? or do you mean AD? if you mean 14th century, I heard you had to pay as much as an ox for a decent sword and an ox had basically the equivalent worth of a car/tractor
Good video. My experience with using two weapons is in the SCA (fighting in armor with wooden weapons). It's effective in our game, because of our particular conventions and rules: 1) We have a rule against "excessive force", so it's possible to block pretty much anything with a single-sword; 2) We call blows very light -- that is, we pretend a blow stuck entirely with wrist action defeats armor (this makes a two-weapon style much easier to use); 3) We don't allow shields to be used offensively, so their efficacy is reduced. In a real medieval melee, a shield is a wonderful thing.
Great points and counter points to Lindybeige's video on dual-wielding. Thank you for expanding upon his video. Now if only everyone who watched his particular video could see yours and vice-versa, there may be more understanding for people on the subject.
There's never been a time in history where people have successfully dual wielded two swords in combat. We cannot Multi-task. The illusion of Multi-tasking, is actually briefly focusing on one thing at a time
Excerpts from the 'The Book of Five Rings' (Gorin No Sho): "The 'Niten', or two-sword school of swordsmanship, is so-called because it is the duty of the 'bushi', whether a military commander or a rank-and-file foot soldier, to wear two swords.... ...In Japan, be the matter what it may, it is custom of the 'bushi' to wear two swords. My school is called the 'Niten' school in order to help people understand the benefits of two swords." pg. 18-19 "Even beginners in my school practice with a long sword in one hand and a [short] sword in the other. When in a fight to the death, one wants to employ all one's weapons to the utmost. I must say that to die with one's sword still sheathed is most regrettable." pg. 19 "It is awkward to hold a long sword in both hands when on horseback, running, in a stony field, on a steep road, and in a crowd of people. Because even if one holds a bow, sword, or other weapon in the left hand, one can still hold a long sword in the other. Assuming a stance with a long sword grasped by both hands is not the practical way. When it is difficult to put someone to the sword with one hand, by all means kill him with two hands. It is a matter that requires no great effort. In order to be able to freely employ a long sword in one hand, have people [students] hold two swords and teach them how to wield them." pg. 19 "It is better to wield two long swords rather than just one when facing a number of opponents alone. Also, two long swords are advantageous for taking prisoners. I need not write about such matters in detail here. From one thing, know ten thousand things." pg. 20 "When one understands the use of weapons, he can use any weapon[s] in accordance with the time and circumstances." pg. 21 Source: Miyamoto Musashi, 'The Book of Five Rings'. Translation by Nihon Services Corp. Bantham Books, 1982.
Good you named Musashi because he tells about why to use two swords together in his "book of five rings." He altho teaches the basics of swordfight so it is worth a shot ;-)
First: Well done. This is a difficult topic since we're not doing melee anymore with cold weapons (firearms, explosives, etc are now in style!) I do heavy armored fighting with "duel wield" and have found a few things: It is not possible to attract 3 people at once. It is possible to attack two people, effectively, using timing and heavy shots to disrupt their offense before killing them. The learning curve for duel wield vs sword and board is much longer, which in a war time is not desirable for training troops. One point you made I have found false is armored fighting is the idea of attack and defense at the same time. There are two weapons thats true, but power comes from the waist. One waist means one kind of action at a time if you want power in it. You can follow one attack after another with power, two defensive actions by "Marrying" the weapons (A term I will adopt from you!), but the tempo is always attack or defense. You can mess with the timing, feint, and turn attack to defense, and defense to attack, but same time with power has never worked for me. Again, this is armored combat where considerable force is needed. Thanks for putting this video up.
Evan Hughes Thanks for the input, though dual-wielding is more of less pointless in late-medieval armoured fighting because hitting plate armour with swords doesn't really do anything. Historical armoured fighting mostly consists of wrestling and halfswording, to stab between plates. Having a left hand available is far more useful in that context than holding another sword.
Evan Hughes People used what they did for a reason. Two maces would not have any advantage over what people actually used in the late Middle Ages. When you say that you fight fully armoured with two weapons, I assume you mean LARPing, rather than an actual martial art. ???
You're absolutely right that dual-wielding is better in one-on-one fights than on a large battlefield. In the martial art of kendo, you have to be well-experienced to use the fighting stance "Jodan-no-kamae" which involves a small dagger-like sword for blocking. It was quite funny watching someone who was not experienced enough to use these practice with a sensei. He got tsuki'd (throat stabbed) like 10 times consecutively. In a way, it's kind of like dual-wielding, but more like rapier and dagger.
musashi specifically mentioned dual wielding against crowds, and two handed one sword against a single target I've been in a few fights for my safety (albeit weaponless fights), and I noticed something important this might be because of a lack of shields but I think one of the main things is that there's a psychological advantage to being able to counter anyone and everyone with an attack back at them, making them think about their own behaviour - because with crowd psychology people often don't want to get into a fight, and if they think others will be able to engage they're even less likely to put themselves at risk much - and if you can take one of them down, I've seen it in action, it definitely takes the rest down a notch morale wise in a dueling situation it's one thing, but against an even semi amateurish crowd, there's a certain ferocity that can be used to overwhelm and strike fear into the attackers, which can be combined with one's own expertise to deal with the problem
Nice job. I just finished posting a response to Lloyd's "Dual Wielding" video in which I referenced my own experience in Filipino Escrima's "Espada y Daga" and Chinese Wing Chun's Bart Cham Dao (short double swords). Had I seen this clip first I wouldn't have had to bother. Keep up the good work!
1. Over-all, it's about tactics & opportunity as you have more flexibility & utility.. 2. It's not about doing more damage. Parry's are oft-times better than blocks. You also have better chances of getting a strike without fear of being struck yourself. Parry & counter-strike is a favorite tactic among duelists. Even a full-block with two weapons against semi-strong attacks is easier to accomplish against faster weapons than with an awkward shield. 3. Having a spare weapon even for a special attack, such as in-close penetration even for armor, a long-knife is better suited than a mace, axe, spear, or sword. I am an Hawk-Dirk Duelist. Trust me, there are plent of video's online that show the superiority of Dual-Wielding against Single-Weapon opponents....as long as it isn't a Great-Sword or Battle-Axe. 4. It wasn't used on the battle-field...cuz it is best meant for raider/berserkr type skirmishes (special small-group combat), duels, & assassinations.
When I have used two swords (Re-enacting) I find that you can overcome guards easily if one attacks with both weapons simultaneously for example is one goes to the head and one to the lower torso or legs, either on the same side or opposite. Also one can use one sword defensively and attack with the other.
If you could ever cover the whole "Reverse grip" fighting style that would be something I'd love to see. Starkiller and a few other Jedi/Sith from Star Wars use that. I don't see much benefit of it but I know basics of swords combat at best.
It's not bs in terms of people have done it. In my martial arts Kuk Sool Won, a korean martial art. We have a form called reverse sword form. It's a form so we do practice this, it's a very cool form and it's difficult and we use forms to improve conditioning. So it certainly is done in a martial arts hobby context. I have no idea of it's use in a battlefield scenario. I have been told that the idea behind it is that if you were blinded in battle this could you this to try to give yourself some protection or ward away attackers. I personally don't think that historically ever had any truth. Seems too hollywood as you say. But it's used in modern day martial arts. (this specific korean one any way :))
Hi, the 'case of falchions' [a pair] was used by the British 'stage gladiators' in the 18th century (eg. shown in Miller's manual) and the 12th-17th century hanger and falchion (which were sabre-like weapons used before the 18th/19th century sabre) were used with bucklers, yes. But bucklers were only commonly used in Europe between the 12th and 17th centuries. The sabre was used with the buckler in Eastern Europe during that time and occasionally in Western Europe.
+John Cannellos I'm sure he'll do. I think he likes to talk about these things in GoT in general, and I've seen him getting a load of requests for it in the comments.
+John Cannellos Yeah, I'm waiting for that too. Some say it's the best fighting scene in the series. I don't agree. It looks way too fancy and not in a Viper vs. the mountain good kind of way. It's just unnecessary movement against a big group of people, which managed to die one after another, instead of just going all together and kill him.
+Leo Nawroth I'm a little conflicted on it too. I think it was entertaining but the 4 on 1 part was a little much. Overall I'm really happy they did the scene, so I guess I'll try not to criticize it too much.
+John Cannellos I would like to point out that everyone in the group were using single swords and no shield no armor, not to mention they probably weren't the most skilled. When you analyze Game of Thrones, realize they are showing that depiction to emphasize how skilled the person really was. Sir Arthur Dayne was said to be the best swordsman in a world with Sir Selmy, Gregor Clegane and Khal Barbo. And he was said to be the best by a longshot. It is no real jump to say that man who is a master at duel wielding could take out a group of four single sworded men (not to mention he was fully plated in armor, the others were not). I'm not saying it's likely a regular duel wielder has a great chance against four regular men, I'm saying the Worlds Best, fully plated in armor, has a very good chance against non armored, single sworded young men lacking battle experience. As for the actual sword fight itself, I am no expert. It may or may not be accurately portrayed, but that's not the point I'm trying to prove. This reminds me of people saying Gregor could not have crushed a skull because his actor couldn't do it in real life. That actor is only 6 foot 8. The Mountain is portrayed in the book as an 8 foot tall, 500 pound, armor clad, adrenaline fueled mad man with tree trunk sized arms. Of course THAT guy could pop a skull. You need to let go of the actual world's data and use the data in the book for the most accurate statements of whether or not something was possible.
+Matt Ritchey All good points, they definitely wanted us to see that Ser Arthur Dayne was the best there ever was - and it worked. There was really no point in the fight where he had much trouble. Ned killed that other kingsguard (Hightower or Whent is up for debate) pretty easily, which also shows how much better Dayne was. Although it's a fantasy world and the story is more important than accuracy, I am curious about his techniques. For instance: a number of times, he would turn one sword upside down with the pommel facing up and fight with the other one normally (blade up). When he is fighting Ned 1v1 at the end is a good example. Seemed like a pretty awesome and effective style so I was wondering if that was realistic. Regardless, a great scene for GOT.
yes it does but he's being polite towards your loyt... he sais right at the begining that it wasn't really done wich is just to put it simple...plain false
and the whole video (LLllloooyds ) is trying to make it look ridiculous and foolish including it in the category of made up things that look or sound cool but aren't true....except that it was done. it's that simple.
Actually, Lloyd said that it was a stupid idea to do it in battle, which Matt agreed with. Lloyd also said that dual wielding was used in duels, which Matt also agreed with and elaborated on. That whole rant about using both weapons to attack simultaneously was in response to some rpg rules that had players do just that. The entire rant has nothing to do with how things were actually done historically. In fact, everything that Matt said just elaborated on things that Lloyd said, but never contradicted a single point.
Don't try to comment on comparison if you didn't actually watch through and critically consider both videos. It's fairly obvious from your comments that you didn't watch Lloyd's video all the way through, and I suspect you didn't watch this video through either.
I'm glad you made this video, it is well done. I have a buddy who has a godlike innate skill with dual wielding, and seeing Lindy talk about it being ineffective just sort of made my brain hurt a little. It very clearly does work given the correct circumstances and skill. Nobody would want to walk onto a battle field full of heavy infantry dual wielding two swords, but in a duel, or while fencing, it can work very well. Especially if you possess freakish levels of wrist flexibility.
Wait, so you say that Lloyd says that they _didn't_ use it historically, but then you say he says they _did_, but not on the battlefield? As for the 'attack, attack, attack' thing, Lloyd was taking about the mechanics of a tabletop RPG, not a historical scenario.
I used to play D&D quite a lot and this was a subject of frequent argument when first it was first added to the games I ran. I found this video quite cathartic because it shows why a shield is so useful and how difficult it is to wield twin longswords effectively, especially because it was a staple of "munch" fighters.
For all the dimwits and narrow-minded patrons who think that there is "No evidence of any major history army with dual wielding soldiers" Exhibit A: Ssangdo or Ssanggeom (쌍도; 雙刀; 쌍검: 雙劍) This literally means "Twin Swords." It can vary from twin long swords or twin short swords. These techniques can also be used on Horseback as 'Masang ssanggeom'. The Korean cavalry was famous for using Twin Sword techniques on horseback, while balancing on the horse with grace. Ssangyunggeom are two twin swords that is held with one sheath. The sheath is twice as wide because it needs room for the second sword. The sword's length varies from three to four feet. Usually these swords were double edged and made entirely of Iron (including the sheath). Exhibit B: Chinese War Era butterfly swords had a long narrow blade that emphasized stabbing. While a deadly stabbing blade with a sharpened swage-known as "Red Boat" knives-was used by Chinese revolutionaries in the Wing Chun lineage, modern Wing Chun practitioners tend to prefer a blade profile with a wider belly that emphasizes chopping and slashing. Wing Chun lore attributes this to the desire of Monks to maim rather than kill. These knives generally have a quarter circle style tip suitable only for chopping/slashing and not stabbing, or a shallower curve to a more pointy tip that will accommodate both. Need I say more?
First of all thank you! I was convinced that was D&D-fantasy fiction! I tried using two swords and founded it unmanageable, so I was prone to belive it could not and have not been done. It's nice to know that someone, somewhere, sometime could actualy do it!
Although dual-wielding may be a modern term ( I'd like to see sources on how modern it actually is), it's a few times older than the 5-10 years you stated, and it was the term in traditional/table-top gaming going back at least to the creation of Dungeons & Dragons in 1974. Aside from modern usage, the original etymolgy may go back to Ancient times. Dimachaerus (dual-knife in Latin, spelled Dymachaerus in Lyons, France where the inscription about it was found, was the common term used by Romans and it could have easily transformed into dual-augmentata as different weapons besides knives and swords were interchanged in gladiatorial combat. It may sound like I'm being nit-picky, but it was a head-scratcher being right near the BEGINNING of your video, and I'd like to know the sources about dual-wielding being modern (or as modern) as you say.
I want to start by saying I love your channel and agree with most of your assessments. And as far as twin sword styles it's my preferred fighting method. I study the dimachaerus gladiator style. and I'm so glad you demonstrated the cross parry, because so many people think dual wielding and the cross parry are Hollywood myths. but the cross parry is by far the strongest defense the twin sword style has. And is the best defense against the double thrust low should you be facing another two weapon fighter.
How am I wrong? I have seen demonstrations of these weapons, Twin hook is a southern shaolin we have a pair of them in our dojo this isn't mortal combat. I go to a mix martial arts school our website is www zenmartialarts com I have seen live demonstrations and we have butterfly swords and practice with them. Da fuck you smoking?
you could look up twin hook swords anywhere online even on youtube and see a demonstration. or butterfly sword these are duel wielding weapons. I HAVE BEEN PRACTICING FOR OVER 9 YEARS
to even assume I am getting my knowledge from mortal combat shows how arrogant and uneducated you are open up a history book will you or read some martial arts manuals something!
ZarlanTheGreen www *dot* zen martial arts *dot* com I already posted it its my evidence you idiot. second I said you could look it up on youtube type in twin hook sword form you know what a form is I hope?
I'm wondering what the point would be of bringing a buckler onto a battlefield instead of a shield. Even a relatively small shield would give you a lot more protection against missiles, and I don't see why it would be particularly worse at parrying. On the other hand with a buckler you don't even get the advantage of a main-gauche for instance of a potential lethal attack (though I guess you could punch someone with it...) Does anybody know if the buckler was ever used en masse in combat formations? I think I've heard about some two-handed sword wielders with bucklers, but I can't recall where.
The buckler has the advantage of small size, especially for archers or troops that had substantial other equipment that they focused on. The buckler could literally be stuck on the belt, or looped over a dagger in its sheath and almost ignored until needed. Also, you could have the buckler on your hand, and still be able to hold something else effectively, and even use a dagger or small weapon, without being overly cumbersome to wield the two in the same hand. You'd basically have to choose whether you wanted to block, or stab, but you'd have the option of using the off hand for whichever was needed, and in a case like with a knife, hand axe, or dagger that wasn't optimized for blocking, the buckler would allow you the option of defending with the weapon you had on hand. Those are my thoughts on it, at least.
the buckler was actually wielded as a weapon not a shield, that why many have sharpened edges or big spikes, it was used in combo with a swash or other small blade, the soldier would role under shield or spear walls and lay about with the buckler to create gaps for attacking soldiers to come through, and what gave rise to the term swashbuckler.
If someone could educate me on this as I don't really know, but what about Viking Berserkers? I remember seeing somewhere that Berserkers used to psyche themselves into a bloodlust frenzy and use two small hand axes and hack away at the enemy with little concern for their own well being. Don't know whether that's bullshit or not. But if true that would be another instance of dual wielding yes?
Yes, but this wasn't a particularly skilled method of combat. Fighting with an axe is fairly limited in the first place, and it's likely they relied purely on sheer ferocity and brute strength (and yeh, maybe some drugs) instead of a particular fighting style, particularly as beserkers were usually unleashed against mostly defenseless civilians or broken formations as opposed to actual military formations, who could just form a shield wall and hold the formationless beserkers back with total ease. Also, the actual evidence is fairly limited: your standard viking would go with the sword and shield option (or bows or whatever other role they were filling) but the most primary and trustworthy sources on beserkers suggest large, two-handed axes, swords, etc, giving additional reach and a much more efficient method of utilising their strength. I personally don't see a culture as practically martial as the vikings dual-wielding.
Great video! Very informative. Another interesting example of two-weapon fighting is in Roman gladiatorial combat. The Dimachaeri were warriors, or gladiators, who were known for using two swords. Typically curved siccae. Alas, there's not much concrete information regarding them, but it's an intriguingly dated example of dual wielding. Whether or not it was effective is debatable, though. The Romans sure did enjoy giving gladiators odd equipment to work with.
In Scandinavian folk lore there are tales of dual wield on the battleground, but when dual wielding, you weren't in the front line. It worked like some of the group you are with form a Shieldwall so that you protected and since in them, some would stand behind them, on then they would dual wield, commonly with an axe in the off-hand and a sword in the main hand.(they could also be using two handed weapons like spears or axes), when person in command would yell open shield then the warriors would open and pull an opponent soldier in behind them and the ones with dual wield would kill them, kinda like thinning them aout one by one.
It's used in my Martial Arts school as a Single-trick pony disarm, or however I should phrase it. If your opponent has a staff/pipe or any other weapon which you can grip anywhere without getting hurt and effectively but you already have a weapon yourself, you can "dual wield" by using your hand aggressively alongside your weapon to disarm the opponent, take his weapon and quickly counter attack in as smooth a motion as possible while sidestepping towards their rear. Thanks to the sidestepping motion and the direction, it is quite a handy style to get in some quick hits. Not done often, as I said, a "One trick pony", but quite effective if the situation is right. [Inosanto Kali + Northern Flat plate praying mantis]
Dual wielding is an old term actually, and was popularized in pop culture way back from cowboy movies with a pistol in each hand for rapid firing. The more modern term that I know of for holding two identical weapons in each hand is "akimbo". In practice, I think only the Chinese were big on dual wielding swords though, and no clue what they called it... and while I agree a shield makes more sense the Chinese were never big on shields for some reason.
ZarlanTheGreen Gay means something different now than it did in the 60s, so yes, I consider a word in popular use for many decades now to not be "relatively new" unless thou considerst tis proper ye speakest as such to be "relatively neweth". xD
ZarlanTheGreen Wow, so much fail in this post -__- Even using wakizashi in offhand while wielding Katana in main hand "IS" dual wielding, and to say that it isn't exceptional is ignorant to say the least. And to say that Miyamoto Musashi did not use two katana is also completely false, he was quite well known for using two full sized katana, it is even written in his manuscripts. "To hold the long sword (katana) with both hands is not the true way, for if you carry a bow or spear or other sword in your left hand you have only one hand free for the long sword" "It is not difficult to wield the long sword with one hand, the way to learn this is to fight with TWO LONG SWORDS, one in each hand. It will seem difficult at first, but everything is difficult at first" From "Go Rin No Sho, The book of five rings" by Miyamoto Musashi Even the very name of his sword school shows this, Ichi Ryu Ni To, "One school, Two swords" So sorry, you are completely wrong.
ZarlanTheGreen So my point is painfully obvious, in the context of its new as in from a few years ago is WRONG, and I made it also perfectly clear that its from the 60s which is a many magnitudes older than 5 years ago from gaming as he stated (pretty sure no one was playing computer games back then). There is nothing confusing about my post.
i see often between you and lindy, is that lloyd speaks almost purely of warfare while you tend to draw a lot of knowledge from dueling and academia. its interesting to see the perspective between you two, though i believe that many of your responses tend to forget the spirit of a lindybeige video. i really don't want to use the word pedantic, but i can't think of a better way to express this. that said, i love that you challenge lloyd, its cool.
book of five rings talks about using two swords. The philippines use a spanish (hema) mix style. it has two dagger .two sword two stick styles .its a great fighting style. that concentrates on two weapons.
+gabriel olguin lol two daggers. May be cool to look at, but not effective in any kind of scenario except maybe if you want to be really sneaky or something. no rang, no advantage. The question we have to ask ourselves is simple: Why dual-wield two daggers when you can use a sword and a dagger? Rapier and dagger is clearly the ultimate combo. I really think two daggers is the dumbest shit to use. Only good for showing off.
I like your shield in the video. This give me an idea to build one like your. By the way, THANK YOU for clearing my confusing thought about dual wielding swords.
Kek Mas then he shouldn't say at the beginning of the video that it wasn't really done...he clearly stated that... if he contradicts himself later it just shows he's more about being smart about what he sais than about saying the fucking truth .
Preeeetty sure he was talking more about why it's a bad idea than the fact that no one did it. Regardless of this one quote you're making, that isn't the point of the rant. And every point he made was perfectly sensible, why use another sword when you can have a shield or a buckler? It doesn't provide a huge advantage and weapons are made for killing, not blocking.
Lindybeige said it wasn't done often but it would have been done in fencing or class room situations. I am not sure why you made this video in this manner as you said the exact same thing but with a tone to disprove. However your video was more informative as it had examples. Its like that episode of Futurama where the presidential debate is a guy debating his clone.
One thing most people who did this kind of dual-wielding videos gloss off on the subject of the shield, is the fact that shield is as much a weapon too, and a pretty good one at that with the surface area and mass giving a coming blow high amount of energy. I think it was Skallagrim who made a good point on average fighting man in the ages of swordfighting, pointing out that Dual-Wielding would need a very focused training (roughly twice the amount of single-blade use, simply because of you applying swordsman techniques on to your offhand, very few of us start out the life as truly ambidextrous), and at the same time you could get more benefits from shield and blade use. Dual-wielding is very cool, I agree but the shield needs more love in my opinion. After all, a good fighter does much more with the shield than just blocks incoing blows. Cheers. Aleksi Heikkilä.
+Morti 1 It is the normal size. They were worn hanging on the belt. Remember that swords are basically a sidearm. You'd take it with you out to the tavern, shopping at the market, travelling, etc. All you wanted was a little convenient thing that could hang on your belt and not get in the way. But going in to war you'd probably use a larger shield and spear, with a sword only for backup.
One quick thing is that dual wielding would likely suit a very offense based swordsman, rather than someone that likes to fall on defence and force his opponent to try and get around it. Whereas an offence based swordsman can parry with the off-hand blade, a big enough opening could also allow them to get off more shots at an opponent, possibly winning the bout through the tenacity and speed of the blows, OR by tiring the opponent out a bit quicker by forcing him to block more blows. The weakness, of course, is the potential balance issue the dual-wielder faces should he himself be parried, though i imagine they'd practice scenarios such as that to teach themselves to follow up in a smooth motion. Then of course, there is the biggest advantage to dual wielding, that being that it is a lot harder to block or parry two blows coming from different angles and directions at the same time. I'm no expert but I'd say in most battles where a dual wielder won, the final blow was likely such an attack as that. You could probably categorize it as a "big risk, big reward" combat technique or style.
I bet the number one reason you don't see too many people using 2 swords on a battlefield is that most of the people would be using sword and shield. ZerqTM brings up the cost of making a second sword. and when fighting shoulder to shoulder, and you are right on top of your friends and enemies. that shield would provide a strong barrier between you and your fow. I would imagine that your sword, and everyone else's would be raised up over the heads, and people would be pummeling each other's faces with the pummels. If I have more room to fight, using two swords is fun, thought i still love a big shield, if you have room to swing two swords, it allows for fast switching for attack and defence, and in any direction. helpful if I are fighting multiple people
i agree with you, i think shield based fighting was more useful and tailored towards conventional formation combat. It is not as applicable to small skirmishes or dueling.
notf noio Actually a shield is as good in a battle as in a duel. It's always a barrier between you and your opponent, it can be used as a defense, as a courtain and as a weapon and allows you to get closer without endengering yourself too much if your opponent has a longer reach. In my experience as a practicer of swordsfighting I can assure you that a shield always gives you an enormous advantage against someone who has not.
I think this video's overly critical of Lloyd. The point Lloyd was making that Matt calls "attack, attack, attack" was regarding a guy who sent Lloyd board-game rules for combat wherein a guy dual-wielding got two attacks per turn on the basis that he had a weapon on each hand so Lloyd's video was focused on this. Lloyd didn't surmise that you get more attacks by having a weapon on each hand, at all. It was the other way around, actually.
I don't think he was overcritical at all Jesus Christ. Lloyd's main point was people didn't use it back then and didn't see a reason to use dual wielding EVER.
Just for clarity, without a shield on the battlefield having another weapon would be preferable. It's also worth pointing out that in the Sagas 'duel wielding' is not an uncommon occurance - the Ulfhednar for example. That said, you make perfect sense and I agree with you.
Hypothetically speaking, if there was a duel between a man who was dual-wielding swords (of equal length or close to it) and a man carrying only one sword (no shield or buckler) and they were about the same skill level, would the dual-wielder have an advantage? In other words, would the man wielding only one sword be able to attack and defend against a dual-wielder well enough to put up a good fight (or even win the fight) without being significantly more skilled than the dual-wielder? I understand that I'm oversimplifying things and that such a scenario probably wouldn't be likely, but I'm curious if there could be any benefits to dual-wielding in a scenario like that, since I see examples like that in television and movies a lot.
+Spar10Leonidas I would take two swords over one in a duel if I had the choice. Using two swords just gives you more options. You could block/parry your opponent while attacking in the same action. if you like taking big risks you could try attacking with both swords at once from different angles. If you were really desperate, you could even throw one at your opponent (or both).
A type of the sword matters as well. If I was to battle the guy of same skill and strength as me with two longswords of the same length having one longsword of the same length as those, I would prefer having one, as having it held in two hands gives you more leverage and therefore more speed. Also, having only one sword I could possibly concentrate more on footwork which is also very important.
+Peter Grinev "two longswords" A longsword is a type of two-handed sword, so why would you dual wield two-handed swords? Even in that scenario, I would throw one longsword and use the other. If we're talking about dual wielding swords, I think it's safe to assume we're talking about one-handed swords.
MiTH MoN yeah, thats why I said that the sword type matters too. probably even in this case I would wield 1 sword still, as you can still grip it near the pommel for additional speed, and still you have more of your internal resources to focus on the footwork
I did some looking around on wikipedia and found out that roman gladiators had a revered dual-wielding fighting style named Dimachaerus (also known to be used in the Spartacus TV series). From what I've read it was mostly used in the arena in small combat situations, the gladiator's who fought like this had to be highly skilled and experienced as it was one of the most hardest fighting styles to master-
Duel wielding on the battle field would require you to be able to think and attack far to much, I don't know about anyone else, but I would be scared to attempt to carry a dagger and a sword, not sure if I could parry a battle axe with a dagger, sooner or later my luck would run out, with a shield you don't have to focus your attention on doing two things at once, with a dagger you have to always moving that arm around while moving the sword, its like chewing gum and riding a bike and talking on a phone at the same time, while other people around you on the battle field are eyeballing you, even if you did have the skill, it would not offer protection from arrows or throwing weapons of any kind. In fact, if the attacking blow was to strong it could break your wrist trying to catch or parry the blade away, so you'd end up dead pretty quickly. So nobody in there right mind would attempt such a stupid thing to start with.
I love how he comes down a bit on it here, and in later video's he's kicking butt with them! (To be fair, he was using one for blocking, the other for striking, though it was in a small group skirmish!)
You also have to look at the battlefield environment of where dual wielding was used on the battlefield. In the rare instances it was utilized you were dealing with fighting environments where people were typically in close quarter melee battles rather than open field engagements where troops tend to be massed together and fought more cohesively. Where duel wielding is useful is in urban, jungle or mountain environments where you have small groups fighting in tight quarters. Ship boarding pirates often used dual wielding with men fighting back to back for instance, and often employed kicks and acrobatic maneuvers. Sometimes Hollywood does get it right as evidenced by the fact that Savate developed from Jeu Marseille and Chausson and the fact that the Khmers, Thais and Malaysians were all heavily involved in marine and jungle warfare and used dual wielding and kicking style martial arts for instance. In such environments shield walls are not as effective and a large shield can even inhibit your movement.
i was not aware of a fighting style using two swords and a lot of kicking, which sorces are you looking at. that is not to say that i disagree with you, frankly i,m just glad to see people not dismiss dual weilding out of hand so easaly. most of what i have read and experienced suports the advantage two-sword styles have in close quorters. i just want to know your sorces so i can learn from them.
There is one example of two swords used on the battlefield in Europe. At the Battle of Clontarf (in 1014), Murchadh mac Briain, was described, by both the Irish and the Vikings, as wielding two swords and practically walking through the enemy. Granted, he was probably exceptional in basically every sense of the word (a once in several centuries level of skill/talent), but the exception did exist.
Check out Miyamoto Musashi and his Niten Ichi-Ryu. One of the greatest swordsmen of all time, and Go Rin no Sho is probably one of the most interesting pieces of literature.
Plus Musashi style was " long sword / short sword " similar to sword and dagger, and that style ( long sword and short sword ) was allready " used " in Japan 41 years before Musashi was even born, Portuguese soldiers used dual wielding ( sword and dagger ), and probably used it better, since the dual wielding katanas is not as efective in a " battle " as dual wielding a " crab " sword and a " crab " dagger that can literaly lock the oponents blade and render him defenceless
Ray Caburnay Precisely, Musashi may have been a superb swordsman in Japan, to be fair the guy was briliant, not as a swordsman ( though acording to historians, he was extremely talented ) but has a strategist, he won so many duels because 1st he use to " think outside the box " he dident follow the " conventional " samurai style, and 2nd because he had a tendency to get " inside he's oponents head ", crap in one of he's duels he used a stick instead of a sword, but those technics were revolutionary in Japan, and Japan only, because in Europe he wold be considered a decent swordsmen at best, like i said, Europeans were allready using dual wielding for almost half a century before he was even born, and had also weapons " made " for that purpose.
Ray Caburnay Three very skilled swordsmen from Europe include: Richard the 1st of England, William Marshal, mentor of Richard, and Bertrand du Guesclin. Also 3 of the best swordsmen to ever live.
Having dabbled a bit with Manciolino dui spade a bit myself, you've pretty much nailed it in this video. It's a bit impractical outside of a dueling scenario. Still incredibly fun in after-class sparring though.
This guy basically restated everything Lindy said in his video while saying he is wrong. Lindy did say duel wielding was done with daggers and swords in duels and such. However historically duel wielding two full sized weapons was not done in actual combat except in Gladiator games or the occasional duel.
I'm probably thinking of shinkendo in that case - I think the main point I was trying to make was regarding katana and wakizashi, which of course were and still are fairly widespread. Cheers.
Dual wielding two katanas is the ultimate way. you cannot defeat the warrior that mastered two katanas. Do you remember Myamoto Musashi and his legendary undefeated Niten ito ryu? it is ultimate fighting technique and Musashi was strongest warrior that ever walked on earth, he defeated 60 masters and thousands of lower ranked soldiers with his two katanas. his spiritual strength level was over 9000. there's no more powerful technique than Niten Ito Ryu and two katanas are most deadly combination ever.
Abing Abing I don't mind any propaganda. as far as lies are spread I will be happy. I fucked Georgia (russia's neighbour country) I stole Crimea, I am the hero!
Dongnaebu Sunjeoldo painting is an example of dual wielding in a battlefield, however the dual wielding Japanese outside the castle might be holding something else.
Jen'ari Daephius That may be because Drow don't fight in Formation. Drizzt, Jarlaxle and Artemis are duelists, and usually how battles play out is one side batters the enemy lines with magical artillery and the melee fighters engage in small one or two at a time duels en masse samurai style. Drizzt and company meanwhile usually attack the enemies rear or flank as a special force, or defend the ramparts. Drow send in waves and waves of minion orc/goblin shock troops and slaves to break the enemy lines, batter the enemy (and the slaves) with magic, send a calvary charge of armored lizard riders and driders and then MAYBE their fighters will come in and clean up if any are still alive.
QuantumFrost rarely ever used by large armies in actual battles, most empires favoured large shields some ridiculously large! The smaller the shield the greater the danger, only really good for protecting the hands, leaves your actual arms in a lot of danger.
i have to agree as i've always considered 'dual wielding' as the main sword arm carrying a larger more effective weapon, whilst the weaker arm [or left in most cases] carries a smaller weapon mainly for blocking or for using to riposte. It just makes more sense. Also, having fought with a large traditional long sword [which seems to be a blunt, bone breaking weapon rather than a sharp piercing weapon] it is damn heavy and takes a degree of training to use effectively as a sword alone, without a shield. and in a battlefield you have limited space to swing weapons as men were often in close lines. there just isn't room for fancy parrying when you are side by side with hundreds of other fighters. Even in WW1 and WW2 the close quarters fighting was often done with spades [see Eastern Front for the most vicious melee fighting] and rifle or pistol butts or literally ANYTHING to hand.
Basically only skilled people could use the duo weilding correct and it's wasn't used in wars many because the lack of defense against the archers duo weilders are destroyed by arrows and they are hard to use
As I am primarily a stage fighter I often employ using two swords for the "flashyness" in choreographies. When sparring it is very hard to use them effectively against big shields but I found it comparatively effective against longswords and still somewhat useful-ish against pole weapons (if you are not afraid to go in and bind the pole weapon with one sword while closing in). I agree that on a battlefield you would have to be either a real master or batshit crazy to try it (little reach, no defense against missiles, too dependant on having space as you could easily stab an ally in formation) but in duelling it may have some use. In stagefights for a less professional audience it is quite fun and flashy tho, even when not fully choreographed.
Hi Matt!! Really enjoy your videos!! A real education, looking forward to a video on Fiore and possibly comparing him with Miamoto Musashi. Keep up the good work!!
Good response to LLoyd's video. A few thoughts though - sure dual wielding in renaissance with parrying blade. But I suspect it wasn't done a lot for several reasons.... - Cost - Swords were costly, metal was expensive - Active vs passive - Shield is passive defense and helps on a battlefield - Ranged weapons - Difficult to learn - left hand weak for most - split focus - do one thing really well rather than two things. I suspect if dual wielding was superior then fighters using those styles would have survived and had paintings commissioned but since its a rare exception rather than the norm its suggests its probably been an on/off experiment throughout history with limited success. I'm not a historical weapons guy (always wanted to) rather a Sabre fencer (Sabreur) who in summer fencing when the masters were away used to encourage our guys into impure thoughts (epee vs sabre, sabre with epee rules i.e. none, 1 on 2, 1 on3 etc for a laugh) but I amenjoying your videos as I'm very keen on European Martial Arts I also lived 7 years in Sarawak and wife is from Sabah (Kadazan tribe) was thrilled to hear some info on Borneo - any chance of a video on Bornean martal arts, I've alsways thought the Iban dances held keys to various fighting moves for teaching young warriors. Also do you know anything about Kadazan Swords I've only ever seen a few pictures seemingly they used more of a long sabre rather than a short "Parang" like the Ibans in Sarawak (I have a nice collection of a few parangs) - Thanks again - Ian
Cossacks using a guardless "shashka" are/were training both left and right hand, as well as both hands together. I think this was done to developp agility, balance and speed, more than an effective way to fight.
I believe you are Incorrect on some points: If you do any reasonable amount of practice with florentine fighting as I did many years back when I was younger and fitter! You will find yourself defending mostly with your main hand / larger weapon, and attacking with your offhand / smaller weapon with snipe attacks. The reason is you need to keep yourself alive before you attack, and attacking with the smaller weapon is simply more effective because your opponent will be more focused on the larger threat. I suspect Rapier+Dagger would be terrible for this because rapiers are poor for parrying, but my experience lies in long sword + scram (short sword). Whilst florentine can be an effective martial form it would be unsuited to battle use because shields don't just protect you - they protect the person next to you too, battlefield fighting requires more cohesion and teamwork so if you don't have a shield then the friendly person next to you is likely to get rid of you quicker than your enemies will! To fight florentine you will need to be more mobile to defend yourself, and in contrast to how RPG games handle it, you will likely attack LESS often because you need to focus your mind more on actively defending yourself either by parrying or moving. Successful attacks tend to be snipes that surprise your opponent and you'll be less likely to counter attack because you are more likely to leave yourself exposed to attack when doing so. I hope this helps.
I know a couple of modern HEMA fighters who are very effective with two swords, but it does not seem to offer an advantage over longsword or sword and buckler. In fact I would give the advantage overall to the sword and buckler, personally.
Miyamoto Musashi was kinda famous for dual wielding. It is rumored (I guess) that in his duels with the Yoshioka School of Swordsmanship, he innovated the niten’ichi sword-fighting style which involved Musashi battling with his katana held in one hand and the shorter wakizashi held in the other. The style now is called Hyoho Niten Ichi-ryū and apparently is still practiced today in Japan.
+elem etra He mentions this in the video. The wakizashi is predominantly there for defence while the katana is predominantly for attacking, just like the rapier and dagger.
@lindybiege The school that mr windsor is referring to is katori shinto ryu, which looks nothing like any of the rapier/main guiche styles of the period. And on top of that the style has been around since the 14th century. So there is a little proof that two sword was use by the japenese before the appearance of "portugese sailors" Thank you for your time
Dual-wielding on the battlefield seems like something that could happen in an improvised situation during the heat of battle. For example, losing or breaking a polearm, or 2 handed sword. If this were to happen a soldier might choose to pick up the weapons of the fallen to continue fighting, perhaps grabbing one in each hand, depending what is available around him, of course.
You can block and attack with a single standard longsword just the same, though dual wielding might give you an advantage when it comes to blocking someone other than the person you are attacking with the same action. But the question is is whether the effort to acquire the necessary coordinative skills, especially when we are talking about two sword length weapons at least partially used for cuts, is not better spent in simply becoming better with your main weapon in a more classical way.
I'm copying my reply to Lindy here as it mostly applies: "You completely forget about the fact that "dual wielding" two equal weapons, either short or long, was completely normal in Asia, and was used on the battlefields. Short weapons that are traditionally used in pairs include kama, katar, nunchaku, sai, tonfa, jambya and several others. Long weapons traditionally used in pairs include the jian (one handed double edged straight sword) and dao (one handed sabre or falchion). Jians and daos actually existed in pairs specifically designed for "dual wielding", where the handle and hand guard are slightly offset and shaped in a way that the two swords can share a single scabbard, can be drawn with one hand like a single sword, then separated into the two hands. Then there were hundreds of various weapons that were used in pairs, including maces, hammers, metal sticks, daggers, metal fans and various oddly shaped bladed devices. Lot of people think that "kung fu weapons" are only valid in flashy martial art forms and wuxia movies, but many of them were absolutely used in wushu, the battlefield version of Chinese martial arts. Just Google: "wushu shuang dao" So yes, "dual wielding" two offensive weapons, even swords on a battlefield is a historical fact."
As you said context is everything. If you are dualwielding dagger and sword not always the best is to defend only with the dagger to parry and use your point with the sword, yes if he is also dualwielding the same combo, that way you eliminate his point treat and use your reach to use yours since his dagger will be out reached. But if he is only using one sword it is a better strategy to use your sword to "wrestle" his own out of your way then you get close to finish with the dagger, his sword is useless at that range and you got a dagger protecting you at really close range, which is one of the reasons to dual wield in the first place, to cover your ranges...
Interestingly, apparently, when that long and short sword combination is used in kendo, they hold the short sword in the retracted right hand (a point scoring target) and the long in the left hand, held forward (a non-point scoring target).
Hello. Yes, I don't really disagree with anything here. The video ramble I shot went on to talk about the two-sword techniques I was taught in Wing Chun, and made a couple of the other points you make here, but I cut it down for the sake of length. I know of no evidence for katana and wakasashi prior to encounters with Portuguese fencers. Escrima is another you could have mentioned. Still not battle-winners, though.
I think he missed the point of your viddy lindy. Might have just used your name in the title for extra views
In the Book of the Five Rings (Musahi's memoir of a sort), he says that if you want to learn to wield a sword in one hand, pick up two. He goes on to say that with practice this isn't that hard, you will get the hang of it. It seems that if Musashi thinks you should learn how to use a sword in each hand, it must have been an advantage sometimes. I think the duel scenario is the only place, makes most sense from a two swords are better than one perspective, again when you know there are only TWO competitors. Obviously the battlefield makes this skill moot, Because formation and shields are more important than a soldiers "dueling prowess".
@@footrot17 i don't think Matt is like that-- like that he would _intentionally_ miss Lindy's point or misrepresent it. I think that it is just easy for people to misunderstand others sometimes, where our own views and biases get in the way.
Imo, Matt seems to be pretty earnest and intellectually honest.
obviously Lindybeige and Scholagladiatoria should take this dispute to a dual wielding judicial duel
If you have a weapon in your offhand how will you perform rude gestures at your enemies?
Nick Carbaugh You still have your third arm. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Nick Carbaugh I hate my life. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+Dee no u havent u have the same amount, but ill push u over the edge
inigo?
f
I agree. Dual-wield techniques are mainly for civil personal engagement ONLY. I am a dual-wielder of Chinese broadswords (single edged, 31 inches on both weapons, weigh 2 pounds each). Based on my experience, dual-wielding has a few crucial factors in order to do it right:
1. Don’t swing the blades like in Hollywood or video games; that just doesn’t work!
2. Dual-wielding means two individual hands holding two single-handed weapons, so mostly, you can only parry or block by ONE HAND ONLY, in the right time by the perfect angle, and I have to remind you that you have to block the two-handed weapon attacks by the strength of one-handed; the technique is that use the part of the blade just ABOVE the CROSSGUARD to touch/stick-with the POINT of the opponent’s sword when parrying/blocking (Lever theory). This is one of the techniques for preventing being overwhelmed by heavy blows (also works for using one single-handed weapon). However, receiving the least pressure from the opponent comes with a price of more risks on your fingers being cut off.
3. You can let two swords CROSS together to parry one sword at the same time, but the “effective reflex angle” can be very LIMITED when using this technique. Reminder: Also CHECK the paragraph 2 for reference as well; without applies these conditions; the dual-wielder will be still EASILY overwhelmed.
4. Dual-wielding may need TWICE of the stamina than holding a single weapon, so learning to have a break WITHOUT let the guard off is another important lesson.
5. ALWAYS maintain the defense/threat-awareness of your center; every movement cannot be tested in the combat scenario without this golden rule.
Sorry for bad English. Happy Dual-wielding~
Thanks. Yes, dagger in the shield hand was also done in Highland Scottish swordsmanship up until the middle of the 18th century at least.
What about dual wielding shields?
funny
Hey a shield can be used as weapon as well as defense
Louis Rudy But you would fight like a raging one.
MrBrownieGaming So can a toothbrush, that doesn't make it ideal.
i do this in dark souls
I agree with most of your points, but if you *really* wanted to end him rightly, you would dual wield a dagger and trebuchet.
+Vlad1m4ra How does one carry a siege weapon on their person?
Dan Menard In your pocket, obviously.
Now, if you're some sort of crazy person and *don't* have a folding trebuchet, then you would have to carry it either on your back, or sword sheathe, whichever suits your fancy.
End him rightly? Couldn't end me. I dual-wield 24 pounder naval cannons. I remain undefeated in single combat since 1683.
The best of short and long range
Why not two trebuchets?
Personally, I would think the main advantage of dual-wielding, compared to shield or buckler, is the options it gives you. Now, I personally would favor a shield, but one of the biggest draws (that I can see) of dual wielding is a measure of unpredictability. Consider:
If you are using a shield and sword, or dagger and sword, I know the far more likely tool you will use to attack and which to defend, and I can begin to work out maneuvers or plans around that fact. I know you're primarily going to defend with the shield, and attack with your sword.
If you are dual wielding two swords, now I do not know which way you will attack. Feinting a blow with one hand and then cutting at me with the other, using the two in tandem, for someone inexperienced in fighting against dual wielding there is so much more going on to process than with a single "primary" weapon. Yes you can attack with the shield and dagger, but compared to two swords, there is much more offensive viability.
Essentially, at least to my eyes, by picking a second sword over a shield, you're sacrificing defensive viability for offensive versatility, and making yourself a good deal harder to predict in the process.
,,With a sword in other hand, enemy won't know which tool i use to strike and which to defend".
Same thing with a shield. Shield is also a weapon. Very dangerous one. If you think of shield only as a piece of armor, you're thinking wrong.
Thing is: a sword in your off hand can do very little more than shield in terms of offence and far less in terms of defence.
As for unpredictability - give me a shield and i'll show you how upredictable it can be.
Mateusz Jesionkowski I am aware that it is possible to attack with a shield, but it is not the primary attack option. You do not see shield and sword fighters chaining attacks with their shield or delivering shield-only combinations. The telling blow, is generally going to come from the sword. Not that you cannot attack with your shield, but that if I react to your sword, and only your sword 8 out of 10 times I'm going to make my block. Compare this to two swords, where, at least in theory, if I react only to one sword, you're going to get past my guard at least half the time (this is a hyperbolic example, I am not proposing that someone would ONLY react to the sword/one of the two swords, nor that a competent shield fighter would not pick up on this and mix in more shield strikes).
There's also the lethality to consider, especially with smaller shields, like a buckler. No, I'm not going to enjoy getting punched in the face with a buckler, but I'd much rather be hit in the face with a buckler than be chopped in the head with a sword.
With regards to something like a buckler, a second sword accomplishes almost everything the buckler does, and is a greater offensive threat.
On top of that, there are fairly limited methods of shield-bashing an opponent, whereas with a second sword, you essentially have every single possible attack option with one sword that you do with the other.
"Thing is: a sword in your off hand can do very little more than shield in terms of offence and far less in terms of defence."
As I mentioned above, I disagree with this. With a sword I can slash down at your legs, cut your arm, have a go at your head, thrust, krump, wrist cut, elbow cut, etc. etc. With a shield, my targets are largely relegated to your torso and face, and my attack options are limited-- bashing with the boss, or the rim of the shield, and even then, the angles of my attack are quite limited. This is an even greater issue when using an extremely small shield, like a buckler.
I am not arguing that shields are not unpredictable, I am arguing that dual swords would be MORE unpredictable, because you have a larger variety of angles and attacks you can come at your opponent than with your shield, and they are equally dangerous, as opposed to a shield which-- while certainly dangerous, is not nearly as lethal as a sword.
Of course, this applies entirely to dueling, obviously a shield is far more effective in a large scale battle.
Which is why dual wielding is good for a one on one duel. On the battlefield all that offensive versatility will be for naught if your enemy is several meters away hurling spears, rocks and arrows which will be coming at you from every which way. That's when a shield is worth much more than a second sword.
Daniel Tibirisa On the battlefield I have no disagreement, I am arguing purely from a dueling perspective.
KatakiDoragon I agree with you.
On the battlefield you are vulnerable to massed artillery/missile fire, but also attacks from the side or behind, so in terms of survivability, defence is more useful than offence (Greek Hoplites, Roman Legionaries etc.)
However, HEMA is mostly about 1-on-1 or 1v2 duels...
the Romans used pilums to disarm the enemy of shields. the metal used at the tip was a soft form that penetrated the shield and caused it to become cumbersome and almost impossible to carry and use effectively. Since most shields were wood for the bulk of troops, the pilum or javelin was a very effective form of forcing the enemy to drop his shield.
Aaaaaaand?
I was taught that the reason the tip was soft was so it would bend after it his so would be useless to throw back.
An informative response to an informative video. You and Lindybeige have really dug into the topic of dual-wielding, and offered some excellent information. As a writer who enjoys depicting swordfights, my thanks to both of you for this wonderful discussion! - Loranna
If they didn't dual-wield, then way did they have a skill tree for it. Checkmate.
Figaro Fog
he just said they did do it...
go rewatch his video
madhatten00 oh dude, I know that. it was a joke.
I'm surprised that neither this guy or Lindybeige mentioned that it would have been costly. I know that a Viking's most expensive possession was often his sword, but I know less about medieval smithing. Was it particularly expensive in medieval times?
By the 14th century at least, swords were not really expensive. In fact a buckler or shield could cost as much as a sword, depending on the quality and condition.
Oh, okay. Thanks!
scholagladiatoria How expensive was a sword in the 14th century bc?
Enleuk bc? you mean 3400 years ago? or do you mean AD?
if you mean 14th century, I heard you had to pay as much as an ox for a decent sword
and an ox had basically the equivalent worth of a car/tractor
Shootingstarr I meant 14th century bc.
Good video. My experience with using two weapons is in the SCA (fighting in armor with wooden weapons). It's effective in our game, because of our particular conventions and rules: 1) We have a rule against "excessive force", so it's possible to block pretty much anything with a single-sword; 2) We call blows very light -- that is, we pretend a blow stuck entirely with wrist action defeats armor (this makes a two-weapon style much easier to use); 3) We don't allow shields to be used offensively, so their efficacy is reduced. In a real medieval melee, a shield is a wonderful thing.
Great points and counter points to Lindybeige's video on dual-wielding. Thank you for expanding upon his video. Now if only everyone who watched his particular video could see yours and vice-versa, there may be more understanding for people on the subject.
There's never been a time in history where people have successfully dual wielded two swords in combat. We cannot Multi-task. The illusion of Multi-tasking, is actually briefly focusing on one thing at a time
Excerpts from the 'The Book of Five Rings' (Gorin No Sho):
"The 'Niten', or two-sword school of swordsmanship, is so-called because it is the duty of the 'bushi', whether a military commander or a rank-and-file foot soldier, to wear two swords....
...In Japan, be the matter what it may, it is custom of the 'bushi' to wear two swords. My school is called the 'Niten' school in order to help people understand the benefits of two swords." pg. 18-19
"Even beginners in my school practice with a long sword in one hand and a [short] sword in the other. When in a fight to the death, one wants to employ all one's weapons to the utmost. I must say that to die with one's sword still sheathed is most regrettable." pg. 19
"It is awkward to hold a long sword in both hands when on horseback, running, in a stony field, on a steep road, and in a crowd of people. Because even if one holds a bow, sword, or other weapon in the left hand, one can still hold a long sword in the other. Assuming a stance with a long sword grasped by both hands is not the practical way. When it is difficult to put someone to the sword with one hand, by all means kill him with two hands. It is a matter that requires no great effort. In order to be able to freely employ a long sword in one hand, have people [students] hold two swords and teach them how to wield them." pg. 19
"It is better to wield two long swords rather than just one when facing a number of opponents alone. Also, two long swords are advantageous for taking prisoners. I need not write about such matters in detail here. From one thing, know ten thousand things." pg. 20
"When one understands the use of weapons, he can use any weapon[s] in accordance with the time and circumstances."
pg. 21
Source: Miyamoto Musashi, 'The Book of Five Rings'. Translation by Nihon Services Corp. Bantham Books, 1982.
Good you named Musashi because he tells about why to use two swords together in his "book of five rings."
He altho teaches the basics of swordfight so it is worth a shot ;-)
First: Well done. This is a difficult topic since we're not doing melee anymore with cold weapons (firearms, explosives, etc are now in style!)
I do heavy armored fighting with "duel wield" and have found a few things: It is not possible to attract 3 people at once. It is possible to attack two people, effectively, using timing and heavy shots to disrupt their offense before killing them.
The learning curve for duel wield vs sword and board is much longer, which in a war time is not desirable for training troops.
One point you made I have found false is armored fighting is the idea of attack and defense at the same time. There are two weapons thats true, but power comes from the waist. One waist means one kind of action at a time if you want power in it. You can follow one attack after another with power, two defensive actions by "Marrying" the weapons (A term I will adopt from you!), but the tempo is always attack or defense. You can mess with the timing, feint, and turn attack to defense, and defense to attack, but same time with power has never worked for me.
Again, this is armored combat where considerable force is needed.
Thanks for putting this video up.
Evan Hughes Thanks for the input, though dual-wielding is more of less pointless in late-medieval armoured fighting because hitting plate armour with swords doesn't really do anything. Historical armoured fighting mostly consists of wrestling and halfswording, to stab between plates. Having a left hand available is far more useful in that context than holding another sword.
How about two maces, or an axe in the off hand?
Evan Hughes sounds possible, but tiring in my opinion.then again, I'm no professional
Evan Hughes People used what they did for a reason. Two maces would not have any advantage over what people actually used in the late Middle Ages. When you say that you fight fully armoured with two weapons, I assume you mean LARPing, rather than an actual martial art. ???
You're absolutely right that dual-wielding is better in one-on-one fights than on a large battlefield. In the martial art of kendo, you have to be well-experienced to use the fighting stance "Jodan-no-kamae" which involves a small dagger-like sword for blocking. It was quite funny watching someone who was not experienced enough to use these practice with a sensei. He got tsuki'd (throat stabbed) like 10 times consecutively. In a way, it's kind of like dual-wielding, but more like rapier and dagger.
You and Lindy need to work together or something, I love both your styles and methods and knowledge. Awesome video!
musashi specifically mentioned dual wielding against crowds, and two handed one sword against a single target
I've been in a few fights for my safety (albeit weaponless fights), and I noticed something important
this might be because of a lack of shields but I think one of the main things is that there's a psychological advantage to being able to counter anyone and everyone with an attack back at them, making them think about their own behaviour - because with crowd psychology people often don't want to get into a fight, and if they think others will be able to engage they're even less likely to put themselves at risk much - and if you can take one of them down, I've seen it in action, it definitely takes the rest down a notch morale wise
in a dueling situation it's one thing, but against an even semi amateurish crowd, there's a certain ferocity that can be used to overwhelm and strike fear into the attackers, which can be combined with one's own expertise to deal with the problem
Bolognese rotella sounds like a pasta sauce company.
Nice job. I just finished posting a response to Lloyd's "Dual Wielding" video in which I referenced my own experience in Filipino Escrima's "Espada y Daga" and Chinese Wing Chun's Bart Cham Dao (short double swords). Had I seen this clip first I wouldn't have had to bother. Keep up the good work!
1. Over-all, it's about tactics & opportunity as you have more flexibility & utility..
2. It's not about doing more damage. Parry's are oft-times better than blocks. You also have better chances of getting a strike without fear of being struck yourself. Parry & counter-strike is a favorite tactic among duelists. Even a full-block with two weapons against semi-strong attacks is easier to accomplish against faster weapons than with an awkward shield.
3. Having a spare weapon even for a special attack, such as in-close penetration even for armor, a long-knife is better suited than a mace, axe, spear, or sword.
I am an Hawk-Dirk Duelist. Trust me, there are plent of video's online that show the superiority of Dual-Wielding against Single-Weapon opponents....as long as it isn't a Great-Sword or Battle-Axe.
4. It wasn't used on the battle-field...cuz it is best meant for raider/berserkr type skirmishes (special small-group combat), duels, & assassinations.
Nice profile pic
nice to see someone who can read and isn't stupid, i swear half the people who commented on my post cant read.
When I have used two swords (Re-enacting) I find that you can overcome guards easily if one attacks with both weapons simultaneously for example is one goes to the head and one to the lower torso or legs, either on the same side or opposite. Also one can use one sword defensively and attack with the other.
If you could ever cover the whole "Reverse grip" fighting style that would be something I'd love to see. Starkiller and a few other Jedi/Sith from Star Wars use that. I don't see much benefit of it but I know basics of swords combat at best.
The reverse grip is Hollywood bullshit. :-)
scholagladiatoria I figured. :) Thanks for the confirmation.
It's not bs in terms of people have done it. In my martial arts Kuk Sool Won, a korean martial art. We have a form called reverse sword form. It's a form so we do practice this, it's a very cool form and it's difficult and we use forms to improve conditioning. So it certainly is done in a martial arts hobby context. I have no idea of it's use in a battlefield scenario. I have been told that the idea behind it is that if you were blinded in battle this could you this to try to give yourself some protection or ward away attackers. I personally don't think that historically ever had any truth. Seems too hollywood as you say. But it's used in modern day martial arts. (this specific korean one any way :))
Reverse grip is potentially useful for indoor fighting, utilizing grabs etc
Very situational in any case
the only useful idea behind that grip is stabbing power. it will absolutely kill your reach.
it's just a silly video game design concept, not real
Hi, the 'case of falchions' [a pair] was used by the British 'stage gladiators' in the 18th century (eg. shown in Miller's manual) and the 12th-17th century hanger and falchion (which were sabre-like weapons used before the 18th/19th century sabre) were used with bucklers, yes. But bucklers were only commonly used in Europe between the 12th and 17th centuries. The sabre was used with the buckler in Eastern Europe during that time and occasionally in Western Europe.
Any chance you'll do a video on the Tower of Joy 4 on 1 fight from Game of Thrones Season 6 episode 3?
+John Cannellos I'm sure he'll do. I think he likes to talk about these things in GoT in general, and I've seen him getting a load of requests for it in the comments.
+John Cannellos Yeah, I'm waiting for that too. Some say it's the best fighting scene in the series. I don't agree. It looks way too fancy and not in a Viper vs. the mountain good kind of way. It's just unnecessary movement against a big group of people, which managed to die one after another, instead of just going all together and kill him.
+Leo Nawroth I'm a little conflicted on it too. I think it was entertaining but the 4 on 1 part was a little much. Overall I'm really happy they did the scene, so I guess I'll try not to criticize it too much.
+John Cannellos I would like to point out that everyone in the group were using single swords and no shield no armor, not to mention they probably weren't the most skilled. When you analyze Game of Thrones, realize they are showing that depiction to emphasize how skilled the person really was. Sir Arthur Dayne was said to be the best swordsman in a world with Sir Selmy, Gregor Clegane and Khal Barbo. And he was said to be the best by a longshot. It is no real jump to say that man who is a master at duel wielding could take out a group of four single sworded men (not to mention he was fully plated in armor, the others were not). I'm not saying it's likely a regular duel wielder has a great chance against four regular men, I'm saying the Worlds Best, fully plated in armor, has a very good chance against non armored, single sworded young men lacking battle experience. As for the actual sword fight itself, I am no expert. It may or may not be accurately portrayed, but that's not the point I'm trying to prove. This reminds me of people saying Gregor could not have crushed a skull because his actor couldn't do it in real life. That actor is only 6 foot 8. The Mountain is portrayed in the book as an 8 foot tall, 500 pound, armor clad, adrenaline fueled mad man with tree trunk sized arms. Of course THAT guy could pop a skull. You need to let go of the actual world's data and use the data in the book for the most accurate statements of whether or not something was possible.
+Matt Ritchey All good points, they definitely wanted us to see that Ser Arthur Dayne was the best there ever was - and it worked. There was really no point in the fight where he had much trouble. Ned killed that other kingsguard (Hightower or Whent is up for debate) pretty easily, which also shows how much better Dayne was.
Although it's a fantasy world and the story is more important than accuracy, I am curious about his techniques. For instance: a number of times, he would turn one sword upside down with the pommel facing up and fight with the other one normally (blade up). When he is fighting Ned 1v1 at the end is a good example. Seemed like a pretty awesome and effective style so I was wondering if that was realistic. Regardless, a great scene for GOT.
So old and yet the most realistic thinking Video ive ever seen on such a Fantasyish Topic
I love how not a single point made in this video actually contradicts any of the points that Lloyd made in his.
yes it does but he's being polite towards your loyt... he sais right at the begining that it wasn't really done wich is just to put it simple...plain false
and the whole video (LLllloooyds ) is trying to make it look ridiculous and foolish including it in the category of made up things that look or sound cool but aren't true....except that it was done. it's that simple.
Actually, Lloyd said that it was a stupid idea to do it in battle, which Matt agreed with. Lloyd also said that dual wielding was used in duels, which Matt also agreed with and elaborated on. That whole rant about using both weapons to attack simultaneously was in response to some rpg rules that had players do just that. The entire rant has nothing to do with how things were actually done historically. In fact, everything that Matt said just elaborated on things that Lloyd said, but never contradicted a single point.
Don't try to comment on comparison if you didn't actually watch through and critically consider both videos. It's fairly obvious from your comments that you didn't watch Lloyd's video all the way through, and I suspect you didn't watch this video through either.
I'm glad you made this video, it is well done. I have a buddy who has a godlike innate skill with dual wielding, and seeing Lindy talk about it being ineffective just sort of made my brain hurt a little. It very clearly does work given the correct circumstances and skill. Nobody would want to walk onto a battle field full of heavy infantry dual wielding two swords, but in a duel, or while fencing, it can work very well. Especially if you possess freakish levels of wrist flexibility.
The more swords you wield, the better. Just look at Killer Bee!
hi Sylph
um, hi?
how cute :)
Literally just looked this up for my curiosity and end up finding this awesome channel!
Wait, so you say that Lloyd says that they _didn't_ use it historically, but then you say he says they _did_, but not on the battlefield? As for the 'attack, attack, attack' thing, Lloyd was taking about the mechanics of a tabletop RPG, not a historical scenario.
I used to play D&D quite a lot and this was a subject of frequent argument when first it was first added to the games I ran. I found this video quite cathartic because it shows why a shield is so useful and how difficult it is to wield twin longswords effectively, especially because it was a staple of "munch" fighters.
For all the dimwits and narrow-minded patrons who think that there is "No evidence of any major history army with dual wielding soldiers"
Exhibit A: Ssangdo or Ssanggeom (쌍도; 雙刀; 쌍검: 雙劍) This literally means "Twin Swords." It can vary from twin long swords or twin short swords. These techniques can also be used on Horseback as 'Masang ssanggeom'. The Korean cavalry was famous for using Twin Sword techniques on horseback, while balancing on the horse with grace. Ssangyunggeom are two twin swords that is held with one sheath. The sheath is twice as wide because it needs room for the second sword. The sword's length varies from three to four feet. Usually these swords were double edged and made entirely of Iron (including the sheath).
Exhibit B: Chinese War Era butterfly swords had a long narrow blade that emphasized stabbing. While a deadly stabbing blade with a sharpened swage-known as "Red Boat" knives-was used by Chinese revolutionaries in the Wing Chun lineage, modern Wing Chun practitioners tend to prefer a blade profile with a wider belly that emphasizes chopping and slashing. Wing Chun lore attributes this to the desire of Monks to maim rather than kill. These knives generally have a quarter circle style tip suitable only for chopping/slashing and not stabbing, or a shallower curve to a more pointy tip that will accommodate both.
Need I say more?
First of all thank you! I was convinced that was D&D-fantasy fiction! I tried using two swords and founded it unmanageable, so I was prone to belive it could not and have not been done. It's nice to know that someone, somewhere, sometime could actualy do it!
Although dual-wielding may be a modern term ( I'd like to see sources on how modern it actually is), it's a few times older than the 5-10 years you stated, and it was the term in traditional/table-top gaming going back at least to the creation of Dungeons & Dragons in 1974. Aside from modern usage, the original etymolgy may go back to Ancient times. Dimachaerus (dual-knife in Latin, spelled Dymachaerus in Lyons, France where the inscription about it was found, was the common term used by Romans and it could have easily transformed into dual-augmentata as different weapons besides knives and swords were interchanged in gladiatorial combat. It may sound like I'm being nit-picky, but it was a head-scratcher being right near the BEGINNING of your video, and I'd like to know the sources about dual-wielding being modern (or as modern) as you say.
I want to start by saying I love your channel and agree with most of your assessments. And as far as twin sword styles it's my preferred fighting method. I study the dimachaerus gladiator style. and I'm so glad you demonstrated the cross parry, because so many people think dual wielding and the cross parry are Hollywood myths. but the cross parry is by far the strongest defense the twin sword style has. And is the best defense against the double thrust low should you be facing another two weapon fighter.
Twin hook swords Chinese a military weapon and butterfly swords, and other various duel wielding weapons were used as well in both china and Japan.
How am I wrong? I have seen demonstrations of these weapons, Twin hook is a southern shaolin we have a pair of them in our dojo this isn't mortal combat. I go to a mix martial arts school our website is www zenmartialarts com I have seen live demonstrations and we have butterfly swords and practice with them. Da fuck you smoking?
you could look up twin hook swords anywhere online even on youtube and see a demonstration. or butterfly sword these are duel wielding weapons. I HAVE BEEN PRACTICING FOR OVER 9 YEARS
to even assume I am getting my knowledge from mortal combat shows how arrogant and uneducated you are open up a history book will you or read some martial arts manuals something!
oh yes Tonfas are used in pairs. kamas you can use in pairs as well.
ZarlanTheGreen www *dot* zen martial arts *dot* com I already posted it its my evidence you idiot. second I said you could look it up on youtube type in twin hook sword form you know what a form is I hope?
This is a better representation on the topic and addresses all points on the matter. Great video, and brutally honest.
I'm wondering what the point would be of bringing a buckler onto a battlefield instead of a shield. Even a relatively small shield would give you a lot more protection against missiles, and I don't see why it would be particularly worse at parrying. On the other hand with a buckler you don't even get the advantage of a main-gauche for instance of a potential lethal attack (though I guess you could punch someone with it...)
Does anybody know if the buckler was ever used en masse in combat formations? I think I've heard about some two-handed sword wielders with bucklers, but I can't recall where.
The buckler has the advantage of small size, especially for archers or troops that had substantial other equipment that they focused on. The buckler could literally be stuck on the belt, or looped over a dagger in its sheath and almost ignored until needed. Also, you could have the buckler on your hand, and still be able to hold something else effectively, and even use a dagger or small weapon, without being overly cumbersome to wield the two in the same hand. You'd basically have to choose whether you wanted to block, or stab, but you'd have the option of using the off hand for whichever was needed, and in a case like with a knife, hand axe, or dagger that wasn't optimized for blocking, the buckler would allow you the option of defending with the weapon you had on hand. Those are my thoughts on it, at least.
Good points. Thanks.
in fact it wasnt usually used on the battlefield but on one on one duels
the buckler was actually wielded as a weapon not a shield, that why many have sharpened edges or big spikes, it was used in combo with a swash or other small blade, the soldier would role under shield or spear walls and lay about with the buckler to create gaps for attacking soldiers to come through, and what gave rise to the term swashbuckler.
Joshua Templeton Ah - like with the Tercio formations - gotcha
I'm so happy! You mentioned Miyamoto Musashi and the Niten Ichi Ryu school of kendo! Those guys rocked!
If someone could educate me on this as I don't really know, but what about Viking Berserkers? I remember seeing somewhere that Berserkers used to psyche themselves into a bloodlust frenzy and use two small hand axes and hack away at the enemy with little concern for their own well being. Don't know whether that's bullshit or not. But if true that would be another instance of dual wielding yes?
Yes, but this wasn't a particularly skilled method of combat. Fighting with an axe is fairly limited in the first place, and it's likely they relied purely on sheer ferocity and brute strength (and yeh, maybe some drugs) instead of a particular fighting style, particularly as beserkers were usually unleashed against mostly defenseless civilians or broken formations as opposed to actual military formations, who could just form a shield wall and hold the formationless beserkers back with total ease. Also, the actual evidence is fairly limited: your standard viking would go with the sword and shield option (or bows or whatever other role they were filling) but the most primary and trustworthy sources on beserkers suggest large, two-handed axes, swords, etc, giving additional reach and a much more efficient method of utilising their strength. I personally don't see a culture as practically martial as the vikings dual-wielding.
used the same as other Vikings - sword+sheild, axe+sheild,,
itsinmyvein Both berserkers and the use of mushrooms are myths. Just like the silly horned helmets.
Great video! Very informative. Another interesting example of two-weapon fighting is in Roman gladiatorial combat. The Dimachaeri were warriors, or gladiators, who were known for using two swords. Typically curved siccae. Alas, there's not much concrete information regarding them, but it's an intriguingly dated example of dual wielding. Whether or not it was effective is debatable, though. The Romans sure did enjoy giving gladiators odd equipment to work with.
In Scandinavian folk lore there are tales of dual wield on the battleground, but when dual wielding, you weren't in the front line. It worked like some of the group you are with form a Shieldwall so that you protected and since in them, some would stand behind them, on then they would dual wield, commonly with an axe in the off-hand and a sword in the main hand.(they could also be using two handed weapons like spears or axes), when person in command would yell open shield then the warriors would open and pull an opponent soldier in behind them and the ones with dual wield would kill them, kinda like thinning them aout one by one.
Sorry for my English if there is someone who should complain.
It's used in my Martial Arts school as a Single-trick pony disarm, or however I should phrase it.
If your opponent has a staff/pipe or any other weapon which you can grip anywhere without getting hurt and effectively but you already have a weapon yourself, you can "dual wield" by using your hand aggressively alongside your weapon to disarm the opponent, take his weapon and quickly counter attack in as smooth a motion as possible while sidestepping towards their rear. Thanks to the sidestepping motion and the direction, it is quite a handy style to get in some quick hits. Not done often, as I said, a "One trick pony", but quite effective if the situation is right.
[Inosanto Kali + Northern Flat plate praying mantis]
Dual wielding is an old term actually, and was popularized in pop culture way back from cowboy movies with a pistol in each hand for rapid firing. The more modern term that I know of for holding two identical weapons in each hand is "akimbo". In practice, I think only the Chinese were big on dual wielding swords though, and no clue what they called it... and while I agree a shield makes more sense the Chinese were never big on shields for some reason.
japan has a national hero that developed and perfected a dual wielding style
ZarlanTheGreen Gay means something different now than it did in the 60s, so yes, I consider a word in popular use for many decades now to not be "relatively new" unless thou considerst tis proper ye speakest as such to be "relatively neweth". xD
ZarlanTheGreen He specifically says its new and he's only aware of it from the last five years. 0:14
Many decades > 5 years
ZarlanTheGreen Wow, so much fail in this post -__- Even using wakizashi in offhand while wielding Katana in main hand "IS" dual wielding, and to say that it isn't exceptional is ignorant to say the least. And to say that Miyamoto Musashi did not use two katana is also completely false, he was quite well known for using two full sized katana, it is even written in his manuscripts.
"To hold the long sword (katana) with both hands is not the true way, for if you carry a bow or spear or other sword in your left hand you have only one hand free for the long sword"
"It is not difficult to wield the long sword with one hand, the way to learn this is to fight with TWO LONG SWORDS, one in each hand. It will seem difficult at first, but everything is difficult at first"
From "Go Rin No Sho, The book of five rings" by Miyamoto Musashi
Even the very name of his sword school shows this,
Ichi Ryu Ni To, "One school, Two swords"
So sorry, you are completely wrong.
ZarlanTheGreen So my point is painfully obvious, in the context of its new as in from a few years ago is WRONG, and I made it also perfectly clear that its from the 60s which is a many magnitudes older than 5 years ago from gaming as he stated (pretty sure no one was playing computer games back then). There is nothing confusing about my post.
i see often between you and lindy, is that lloyd speaks almost purely of warfare while you tend to draw a lot of knowledge from dueling and academia. its interesting to see the perspective between you two, though i believe that many of your responses tend to forget the spirit of a lindybeige video. i really don't want to use the word pedantic, but i can't think of a better way to express this. that said, i love that you challenge lloyd, its cool.
book of five rings talks about using two swords. The philippines use a spanish (hema) mix style. it has two dagger .two sword two stick styles .its a great fighting style. that concentrates on two weapons.
Espada Y daga
+gabriel olguin lol two daggers. May be cool to look at, but not effective in any kind of scenario except maybe if you want to be really sneaky or something. no rang, no advantage. The question we have to ask ourselves is simple: Why dual-wield two daggers when you can use a sword and a dagger? Rapier and dagger is clearly the ultimate combo. I really think two daggers is the dumbest shit to use. Only good for showing off.
+crazysam871 Because you are not going to carry 2 swords in a city (in 20. century).
I like your shield in the video. This give me an idea to build one like your. By the way, THANK YOU for clearing my confusing thought about dual wielding swords.
i don't really see how you're disagreeing with anything lindybeige said...
And Lindy was talking about it being used on the battlefield.
He mentioned civil disputes and duels also. All he was really saying was you might as well use a shield because it's better.
Kek Mas then he shouldn't say at the beginning of the video that it wasn't really done...he clearly stated that... if he contradicts himself later it just shows he's more about being smart about what he sais than about saying the fucking truth .
Preeeetty sure he was talking more about why it's a bad idea than the fact that no one did it. Regardless of this one quote you're making, that isn't the point of the rant. And every point he made was perfectly sensible, why use another sword when you can have a shield or a buckler? It doesn't provide a huge advantage and weapons are made for killing, not blocking.
He said it wasn't done in the battlefield. Not that it wasn't done ever.
Nice to see this tearm spoken up by someone who actualy has an idea what he `s actualy talking about!
Lindybeige said it wasn't done often but it would have been done in fencing or class room situations. I am not sure why you made this video in this manner as you said the exact same thing but with a tone to disprove. However your video was more informative as it had examples. Its like that episode of Futurama where the presidential debate is a guy debating his clone.
Lindybeige also mentioned duelling..... They are saying the same thing...
One thing most people who did this kind of dual-wielding videos gloss off on the subject of the shield, is the fact that shield is as much a weapon too, and a pretty good one at that with the surface area and mass giving a coming blow high amount of energy. I think it was Skallagrim who made a good point on average fighting man in the ages of swordfighting, pointing out that Dual-Wielding would need a very focused training (roughly twice the amount of single-blade use, simply because of you applying swordsman techniques on to your offhand, very few of us start out the life as truly ambidextrous), and at the same time you could get more benefits from shield and blade use. Dual-wielding is very cool, I agree but the shield needs more love in my opinion. After all, a good fighter does much more with the shield than just blocks incoing blows.
Cheers.
Aleksi Heikkilä.
is that small for the size of a buckler? I know they are usually small so that they can be used aggressively but that seems abnormally small...?
They're basically cereal bowls.
NecroBanana More like small dinner plates.
+Morti 1 It is the normal size. They were worn hanging on the belt. Remember that swords are basically a sidearm. You'd take it with you out to the tavern, shopping at the market, travelling, etc. All you wanted was a little convenient thing that could hang on your belt and not get in the way.
But going in to war you'd probably use a larger shield and spear, with a sword only for backup.
One quick thing is that dual wielding would likely suit a very offense based swordsman, rather than someone that likes to fall on defence and force his opponent to try and get around it. Whereas an offence based swordsman can parry with the off-hand blade, a big enough opening could also allow them to get off more shots at an opponent, possibly winning the bout through the tenacity and speed of the blows, OR by tiring the opponent out a bit quicker by forcing him to block more blows. The weakness, of course, is the potential balance issue the dual-wielder faces should he himself be parried, though i imagine they'd practice scenarios such as that to teach themselves to follow up in a smooth motion.
Then of course, there is the biggest advantage to dual wielding, that being that it is a lot harder to block or parry two blows coming from different angles and directions at the same time. I'm no expert but I'd say in most battles where a dual wielder won, the final blow was likely such an attack as that.
You could probably categorize it as a "big risk, big reward" combat technique or style.
I bet the number one reason you don't see too many people using 2 swords on a battlefield is that most of the people would be using sword and shield. ZerqTM brings up the cost of making a second sword. and when fighting shoulder to shoulder, and you are right on top of your friends and enemies. that shield would provide a strong barrier between you and your fow. I would imagine that your sword, and everyone else's would be raised up over the heads, and people would be pummeling each other's faces with the pummels.
If I have more room to fight, using two swords is fun, thought i still love a big shield, if you have room to swing two swords, it allows for fast switching for attack and defence, and in any direction. helpful if I are fighting multiple people
i agree with you, i think shield based fighting was more useful and tailored towards conventional formation combat. It is not as applicable to small skirmishes or dueling.
notf noio Actually a shield is as good in a battle as in a duel. It's always a barrier between you and your opponent, it can be used as a defense, as a courtain and as a weapon and allows you to get closer without endengering yourself too much if your opponent has a longer reach. In my experience as a practicer of swordsfighting I can assure you that a shield always gives you an enormous advantage against someone who has not.
Rayla, one of the lead characters in The Dragon Prince, duel wields two swords.
I think this video's overly critical of Lloyd. The point Lloyd was making that Matt calls "attack, attack, attack" was regarding a guy who sent Lloyd board-game rules for combat wherein a guy dual-wielding got two attacks per turn on the basis that he had a weapon on each hand so Lloyd's video was focused on this.
Lloyd didn't surmise that you get more attacks by having a weapon on each hand, at all. It was the other way around, actually.
I don't think he was overcritical at all Jesus Christ.
Lloyd's main point was people didn't use it back then and didn't see a reason to use dual wielding EVER.
I was glad to hear that you favour the Bolognese style for sword and buckler. I must agree there, they do make good sauce!
Still sounds like it would be fun to learn though even if it isn't practical.
Just for clarity, without a shield on the battlefield having another weapon would be preferable. It's also worth pointing out that in the Sagas 'duel wielding' is not an uncommon occurance - the Ulfhednar for example.
That said, you make perfect sense and I agree with you.
Hypothetically speaking, if there was a duel between a man who was dual-wielding swords (of equal length or close to it) and a man carrying only one sword (no shield or buckler) and they were about the same skill level, would the dual-wielder have an advantage? In other words, would the man wielding only one sword be able to attack and defend against a dual-wielder well enough to put up a good fight (or even win the fight) without being significantly more skilled than the dual-wielder? I understand that I'm oversimplifying things and that such a scenario probably wouldn't be likely, but I'm curious if there could be any benefits to dual-wielding in a scenario like that, since I see examples like that in television and movies a lot.
+Spar10Leonidas I would take two swords over one in a duel if I had the choice. Using two swords just gives you more options.
You could block/parry your opponent while attacking in the same action. if you like taking big risks you could try attacking with both swords at once from different angles.
If you were really desperate, you could even throw one at your opponent (or both).
A sword is better than an empty hand.
A type of the sword matters as well. If I was to battle the guy of same skill and strength as me with two longswords of the same length having one longsword of the same length as those, I would prefer having one, as having it held in two hands gives you more leverage and therefore more speed. Also, having only one sword I could possibly concentrate more on footwork which is also very important.
+Peter Grinev
"two longswords"
A longsword is a type of two-handed sword, so why would you dual wield two-handed swords? Even in that scenario, I would throw one longsword and use the other.
If we're talking about dual wielding swords, I think it's safe to assume we're talking about one-handed swords.
MiTH MoN
yeah, thats why I said that the sword type matters too. probably even in this case I would wield 1 sword still, as you can still grip it near the pommel for additional speed, and still you have more of your internal resources to focus on the footwork
I did some looking around on wikipedia and found out that roman gladiators had a revered dual-wielding fighting style named Dimachaerus (also known to be used in the Spartacus TV series). From what I've read it was mostly used in the arena in small combat situations, the gladiator's who fought like this had to be highly skilled and experienced as it was one of the most hardest fighting styles to master-
Duel wielding on the battle field would require you to be able to think and attack far to much, I don't know about anyone else, but I would be scared to attempt to carry a dagger and a sword, not sure if I could parry a battle axe with a dagger, sooner or later my luck would run out, with a shield you don't have to focus your attention on doing two things at once, with a dagger you have to always moving that arm around while moving the sword, its like chewing gum and riding a bike and talking on a phone at the same time, while other people around you on the battle field are eyeballing you, even if you did have the skill, it would not offer protection from arrows or throwing weapons of any kind. In fact, if the attacking blow was to strong it could break your wrist trying to catch or parry the blade away, so you'd end up dead pretty quickly. So nobody in there right mind would attempt such a stupid thing to start with.
I love how he comes down a bit on it here, and in later video's he's kicking butt with them! (To be fair, he was using one for blocking, the other for striking, though it was in a small group skirmish!)
You also have to look at the battlefield environment of where dual wielding was used on the battlefield. In the rare instances it was utilized you were dealing with fighting environments where people were typically in close quarter melee battles rather than open field engagements where troops tend to be massed together and fought more cohesively. Where duel wielding is useful is in urban, jungle or mountain environments where you have small groups fighting in tight quarters. Ship boarding pirates often used dual wielding with men fighting back to back for instance, and often employed kicks and acrobatic maneuvers. Sometimes Hollywood does get it right as evidenced by the fact that Savate developed from Jeu Marseille and Chausson and the fact that the Khmers, Thais and Malaysians were all heavily involved in marine and jungle warfare and used dual wielding and kicking style martial arts for instance. In such environments shield walls are not as effective and a large shield can even inhibit your movement.
i was not aware of a fighting style using two swords and a lot of kicking, which sorces are you looking at. that is not to say that i disagree with you, frankly i,m just glad to see people not dismiss dual weilding out of hand so easaly. most of what i have read and experienced suports the advantage two-sword styles have in close quorters. i just want to know your sorces so i can learn from them.
There is one example of two swords used on the battlefield in Europe. At the Battle of Clontarf (in 1014), Murchadh mac Briain, was described, by both the Irish and the Vikings, as wielding two swords and practically walking through the enemy.
Granted, he was probably exceptional in basically every sense of the word (a once in several centuries level of skill/talent), but the exception did exist.
Check out Miyamoto Musashi and his Niten Ichi-Ryu. One of the greatest swordsmen of all time, and Go Rin no Sho is probably one of the most interesting pieces of literature.
Oops. I made this comment literally RIGHT before you mentioned "outside of Europe"
Plus Musashi style was " long sword / short sword " similar to sword and dagger, and that style ( long sword and short sword ) was allready " used " in Japan 41 years before Musashi was even born, Portuguese soldiers used dual wielding ( sword and dagger ), and probably used it better, since the dual wielding katanas is not as efective in a " battle " as dual wielding a " crab " sword and a " crab " dagger that can literaly lock the oponents blade and render him defenceless
TheAquarius1978 Whatever works for whatever situation, my friend.
Ray Caburnay
Precisely, Musashi may have been a superb swordsman in Japan, to be fair the guy was briliant, not as a swordsman ( though acording to historians, he was extremely talented ) but has a strategist, he won so many duels because 1st he use to " think outside the box " he dident follow the " conventional " samurai style, and 2nd because he had a tendency to get " inside he's oponents head ",
crap in one of he's duels he used a stick instead of a sword, but those technics were revolutionary in Japan, and Japan only, because in Europe he wold be considered a decent swordsmen at best, like i said, Europeans were allready using dual wielding for almost half a century before he was even born, and had also weapons " made " for that purpose.
Ray Caburnay Three very skilled swordsmen from Europe include: Richard the 1st of England, William Marshal, mentor of Richard, and Bertrand du Guesclin. Also 3 of the best swordsmen to ever live.
Excellent study - good mention of Musashi and Sarawak fighting
Lindybeige was very specific about using the second weapon to block. You once again failed to listen.
Having dabbled a bit with Manciolino dui spade a bit myself, you've pretty much nailed it in this video. It's a bit impractical outside of a dueling scenario. Still incredibly fun in after-class sparring though.
bucklers are so cute lol
came across this completely by accident. i'm a fan already!
This guy basically restated everything Lindy said in his video while saying he is wrong. Lindy did say duel wielding was done with daggers and swords in duels and such. However historically duel wielding two full sized weapons was not done in actual combat except in Gladiator games or the occasional duel.
I'm probably thinking of shinkendo in that case - I think the main point I was trying to make was regarding katana and wakizashi, which of course were and still are fairly widespread. Cheers.
Dual wielding two katanas is the ultimate way. you cannot defeat the warrior that mastered two katanas. Do you remember Myamoto Musashi and his legendary undefeated Niten ito ryu? it is ultimate fighting technique and Musashi was strongest warrior that ever walked on earth, he defeated 60 masters and thousands of lower ranked soldiers with his two katanas. his spiritual strength level was over 9000. there's no more powerful technique than Niten Ito Ryu and two katanas are most deadly combination ever.
Wergvaldys Botagas As far as I know, he used just one katana in most of his duels. But that was funny anyway :D
Wergvaldys Botagas Now I hope you're trolling
Review Propaganda im sorry Achilles is the greatest warrior
Review Propaganda what about ''usa'' propaganda
Abing Abing I don't mind any propaganda. as far as lies are spread I will be happy. I fucked Georgia (russia's neighbour country) I stole Crimea, I am the hero!
Hi, yes they were. Plenty of examples in medieval art, manuscripts, tapestries etc.
So...what about tripple wielding?
I think a weapon in the mouth is no good idea
***** What is that?
Jan Ritter Well I can personally use my dick as a third weapon. Sometimes I use, but only when fight with Girls. Nice Girls.
One Piece is an Anime in which there is a side character that uses a third sword held in his mouth.
Unless you plug a sword in your butt I don't see how that would happen
Dongnaebu Sunjeoldo painting is an example of dual wielding in a battlefield, however the dual wielding Japanese outside the castle might be holding something else.
Duel Wield is only a ten year old term? The Crystal Shard (1988)
***** that was my point :)
Goddam Salvatore's been writing those books for a long time lol.
Man I love that series. It's sad, I have 8 books left, and I've already finished, what, 15? Something like that.
Drizzt Do'Urden, dual wielding scimitars.
Jarlaxle Baenre, dual wielding long swords.
Artemis Entreri, dual wielding Charon's Claw & The Jeweled Dagger.
Nearly every melee-favouring drow, dual wielding anything.
Jen'ari Daephius That may be because Drow don't fight in Formation. Drizzt, Jarlaxle and Artemis are duelists, and usually how battles play out is one side batters the enemy lines with magical artillery and the melee fighters engage in small one or two at a time duels en masse samurai style.
Drizzt and company meanwhile usually attack the enemies rear or flank as a special force, or defend the ramparts.
Drow send in waves and waves of minion orc/goblin shock troops and slaves to break the enemy lines, batter the enemy (and the slaves) with magic, send a calvary charge of armored lizard riders and driders and then MAYBE their fighters will come in and clean up if any are still alive.
Don't forget Kali from the Philippines. A stick on each hand or a stick and dagger are a common image. subscribed!
Those bucklers...I wouldn't even trust one with holding my milk and cereal let alone defending my body.
Like all things, requres training and understanding.
They were used and they did work
QuantumFrost rarely ever used by large armies in actual battles, most empires favoured large shields some ridiculously large! The smaller the shield the greater the danger, only really good for protecting the hands, leaves your actual arms in a lot of danger.
i have to agree as i've always considered 'dual wielding' as the main sword arm carrying a larger more effective weapon, whilst the weaker arm [or left in most cases] carries a smaller weapon mainly for blocking or for using to riposte. It just makes more sense.
Also, having fought with a large traditional long sword [which seems to be a blunt, bone breaking weapon rather than a sharp piercing weapon] it is damn heavy and takes a degree of training to use effectively as a sword alone, without a shield.
and in a battlefield you have limited space to swing weapons as men were often in close lines. there just isn't room for fancy parrying when you are side by side with hundreds of other fighters. Even in WW1 and WW2 the close quarters fighting was often done with spades [see Eastern Front for the most vicious melee fighting] and rifle or pistol butts or literally ANYTHING to hand.
Basically only skilled people could use the duo weilding correct and it's wasn't used in wars many because the lack of defense against the archers duo weilders are destroyed by arrows and they are hard to use
Anybody here because of Kirito?
Me
BlueSwordsman-Gaming & More meh
+BlueSwordsman-Gaming & More Why!!? Why not AoT.. Not that shtty character
Because I don't like 10 minutes of explaining what happened last episode. That's actually the reason I stoped watching it :/
Yep, I am. I'm cosplaying Kirito in a few months and want to at least have some knowledge about it!
As I am primarily a stage fighter I often employ using two swords for the "flashyness" in choreographies. When sparring it is very hard to use them effectively against big shields but I found it comparatively effective against longswords and still somewhat useful-ish against pole weapons (if you are not afraid to go in and bind the pole weapon with one sword while closing in). I agree that on a battlefield you would have to be either a real master or batshit crazy to try it (little reach, no defense against missiles, too dependant on having space as you could easily stab an ally in formation) but in duelling it may have some use. In stagefights for a less professional audience it is quite fun and flashy tho, even when not fully choreographed.
I love you no gay
Hi Matt!! Really enjoy your videos!! A real education, looking forward to a video on Fiore and possibly comparing him with Miamoto Musashi. Keep up the good work!!
Good response to LLoyd's video. A few thoughts though - sure dual wielding in renaissance with parrying blade. But I suspect it wasn't done a lot for several reasons....
- Cost - Swords were costly, metal was expensive
- Active vs passive - Shield is passive defense and helps on a battlefield
- Ranged weapons
- Difficult to learn - left hand weak for most
- split focus - do one thing really well rather than two things.
I suspect if dual wielding was superior then fighters using those styles would have survived and had paintings commissioned but since its a rare exception rather than the norm its suggests its probably been an on/off experiment throughout history with limited success.
I'm not a historical weapons guy (always wanted to) rather a Sabre fencer (Sabreur) who in summer fencing when the masters were away used to encourage our guys into impure thoughts (epee vs sabre, sabre with epee rules i.e. none, 1 on 2, 1 on3 etc for a laugh) but I amenjoying your videos as I'm very keen on European Martial Arts
I also lived 7 years in Sarawak and wife is from Sabah (Kadazan tribe) was thrilled to hear some info on Borneo - any chance of a video on Bornean martal arts, I've alsways thought the Iban dances held keys to various fighting moves for teaching young warriors. Also do you know anything about Kadazan Swords I've only ever seen a few pictures seemingly they used more of a long sabre rather than a short "Parang" like the Ibans in Sarawak (I have a nice collection of a few parangs) - Thanks again - Ian
Cossacks using a guardless "shashka" are/were training both left and right hand, as well as both hands together. I think this was done to developp agility, balance and speed, more than an effective way to fight.
I believe you are Incorrect on some points: If you do any reasonable amount of practice with florentine fighting as I did many years back when I was younger and fitter! You will find yourself defending mostly with your main hand / larger weapon, and attacking with your offhand / smaller weapon with snipe attacks. The reason is you need to keep yourself alive before you attack, and attacking with the smaller weapon is simply more effective because your opponent will be more focused on the larger threat. I suspect Rapier+Dagger would be terrible for this because rapiers are poor for parrying, but my experience lies in long sword + scram (short sword).
Whilst florentine can be an effective martial form it would be unsuited to battle use because shields don't just protect you - they protect the person next to you too, battlefield fighting requires more cohesion and teamwork so if you don't have a shield then the friendly person next to you is likely to get rid of you quicker than your enemies will!
To fight florentine you will need to be more mobile to defend yourself, and in contrast to how RPG games handle it, you will likely attack LESS often because you need to focus your mind more on actively defending yourself either by parrying or moving. Successful attacks tend to be snipes that surprise your opponent and you'll be less likely to counter attack because you are more likely to leave yourself exposed to attack when doing so.
I hope this helps.
I know a couple of modern HEMA fighters who are very effective with two swords, but it does not seem to offer an advantage over longsword or sword and buckler. In fact I would give the advantage overall to the sword and buckler, personally.
Miyamoto Musashi was kinda famous for dual wielding. It is rumored (I guess) that in his duels with the Yoshioka School of Swordsmanship, he innovated the niten’ichi sword-fighting style which involved Musashi battling with his katana held in one hand and the shorter wakizashi held in the other. The style now is called Hyoho Niten Ichi-ryū and apparently is still practiced today in Japan.
+elem etra He mentions this in the video. The wakizashi is predominantly there for defence while the katana is predominantly for attacking, just like the rapier and dagger.
@lindybiege
The school that mr windsor is referring to is katori shinto ryu, which looks nothing like any of the rapier/main guiche styles of the period. And on top of that the style has been around since the 14th century. So there is a little proof that two sword was use by the japenese before the appearance of "portugese sailors"
Thank you for your time
Dual-wielding on the battlefield seems like something that could happen in an improvised situation during the heat of battle. For example, losing or breaking a polearm, or 2 handed sword. If this were to happen a soldier might choose to pick up the weapons of the fallen to continue fighting, perhaps grabbing one in each hand, depending what is available around him, of course.
Lindybeige clearly stated that he was talking about battlefield, and NOT duelling.
You can block and attack with a single standard longsword just the same, though dual wielding might give you an advantage when it comes to blocking someone other than the person you are attacking with the same action. But the question is is whether the effort to acquire the necessary coordinative skills, especially when we are talking about two sword length weapons at least partially used for cuts, is not better spent in simply becoming better with your main weapon in a more classical way.
I'm copying my reply to Lindy here as it mostly applies:
"You completely forget about the fact that "dual wielding" two equal
weapons, either short or long, was completely normal in Asia, and was
used on the battlefields. Short weapons that are traditionally used in
pairs include kama, katar, nunchaku, sai, tonfa, jambya and several
others. Long weapons traditionally used in pairs include the jian (one
handed double edged straight sword) and dao (one handed sabre or
falchion). Jians and daos actually existed in pairs specifically
designed for "dual wielding", where the handle and hand guard are
slightly offset and shaped in a way that the two swords can share a
single scabbard, can be drawn with one hand like a single sword, then
separated into the two hands. Then there were hundreds of various
weapons that were used in pairs, including maces, hammers, metal sticks,
daggers, metal fans and various oddly shaped bladed devices.
Lot of people think that "kung fu weapons" are only valid in flashy
martial art forms and wuxia movies, but many of them were absolutely
used in wushu, the battlefield version of Chinese martial arts. Just
Google: "wushu shuang dao"
So yes, "dual wielding" two offensive weapons, even swords on a
battlefield is a historical fact."
As you said context is everything. If you are dualwielding dagger and sword not always the best is to defend only with the dagger to parry and use your point with the sword, yes if he is also dualwielding the same combo, that way you eliminate his point treat and use your reach to use yours since his dagger will be out reached. But if he is only using one sword it is a better strategy to use your sword to "wrestle" his own out of your way then you get close to finish with the dagger, his sword is useless at that range and you got a dagger protecting you at really close range, which is one of the reasons to dual wield in the first place, to cover your ranges...
Interestingly, apparently, when that long and short sword combination is used in kendo, they hold the short sword in the retracted right hand (a point scoring target) and the long in the left hand, held forward (a non-point scoring target).