The ultimate fighting combination that cannot be beaten is dual wielding shields, obviously. It doesn't accomplish much, but at least it can bewilder your assailant long enough for you to make an escape.
+Roberto Luciani There have been shields with fair offensive capacity, though, and not just through spikes. Some pre-Roman shields in the British Isles could have had sharpened edges, for example.
+Roberto Luciani Oh? I think one of those shields with the big punching spike in the middle of it would be pretty good. Have like a kite shield on the left, punching shield on the right. There's the ol' "one two" right there for you. I think it's the Dhal I'm thinking of..?
+Roberto Luciani In the Pathfinder RPG the ultimate fighting combination actually is dual wielding shields. Well, actually the ultimate fighting combination is a toss up between turning into a dinosaur, summoning angels, and firing a high poundage longbow at a rate barely plausible for half drawing a target plinker. But dual wielding shields is strong for people who can't turn into dinosaurs and want to be able to fight in melee.
+Zwelf Angasten "You only have one set of eyes, and you can only look in the same direction at the same time, unless you have something wrong with your eyes"
I believe this is the first time his knife/fork collection has been shown to the general audience. I would love to see an In depth cutlery related video
+scholagladiatoria nope, a rare bad, video from you Matt on the real life implications you contradict yourself...no skill needed/it's a rare skill (or at least skill) on the role playing game part, usually 2 swords meant directly twice as good as 1. And that's not the case at all in RL. Thus, a penalty was laid. "practice" or "natural ability", in the form of a skill, attribute, or talent reduces or even removes altogether such penalties. Which may be a game issue, as 2 swords shouldn't ever be twice as good as 1, or 1.9x greater than a polearm or greatsword. In other words, you don't get the games issue, either on video games, it's all over the place. It might be impossible if the game simply doesn't allow for 2 weapons to be equipped, or whatever. No arguments there, it's too variable to discuss in general As someone points out earlier, switching your knife & fork is awkward, and it's presumed the ambidextrous will find it either less so, or not at all. Sure, one can practice, and acquire a skill. You seem to be saying it's not a skill/is a skill again A swordsman (right or left handed) that always practices using their sword in their right hand is going to be less effective when they try it in their left hand, at least for a while. Practice to master a skill, again. I suppose if all you are trying to say is a repeat of something you said before, which is that combat practice/skill is always helpful (ie the wrong handed swordsman is better than the untrained swordsman), that's fine, but it's not the impression this video leaves. On dual wielding in the past, you made it clear how the sum of dual wielding isn't twice that of a single blade, and good videos they are. Here, not so much. I love your channel & videos Matt, but everyone has an off day, and if that's not something you can agree to here, then at least I can have an opinion on not liking this ONE video (out of so many). No big deal in any event.
+Genghis Don crap, missed the part where it seems obvious being ambidexterous would be quite a boon to dual wielding, and probably to all manner of combinations of arms (sw/buckler, w/shield, sw/dagger, etc) pretty sure 2 pistols ain't the greatest thing either, but it looks cool too. Maybe I shouldn't say that, I find the 2 swords uncool upon viewing these days (unless they are short blades or long/short)
+Eupolemos No^^. When my friends would make a character sheet about me, they will all agree that my dex is below 10. I really have coordiation problems, can't even walk properly. However, kind of as treatment for that condition and of course for the fun, I took some Arnis classes, in which dual wielding is pretty common. As a result, I was often complimented about my dual wielding skills in larp and jugger. I still get my ass kicked, once my oppenent realises that my footwork is shit. So all in all, Dual Wielding is not a matter of dex in real life, but just a question of training.
+Ieuan Hunt True, considering that dual wielding was a highly uncommon skill. Difficult to learn, even more difficult to master but if done so then you have an unequal advantage against your opponent.
+Alexane Rose Your advantage was mainly surprise and intimidation from what I understand. Being such an uncommon technique, people didn't know what to do when faced with dual swords, even if the person is actually less skilled and would lose if his opponent wasn't slightly psyched out/wondering what to focus on.
DETHREAPER11 Intimidation is a factor and uncommonness does play a big role, but there are thee are others that I can think of. One of them being multiple engagement capability... that is if you can keep track of both weapons well.
+DETHREAPER11 If I was a moderately skilled spear and shield fighter I don't think I would be that intimidated by a guy with two swords. I know I can skewer him before he can come into distance and because he does not have a shield and I do he will have a very hard time hitting me without being hit first. My point is that if you know how to use a shield than you won't be intimidated by two swords.
I'm right handed. I found it easier to learn how to use my mouse with my left hand (fine motor control) so I can keep my right hand on my Tower of Joy. I would have thought it easier to switch my ToJ to my left hand, as it only requires a very basic motion to operate.
Awkwardly enough I am right handed, but I always used my left hand when fighing with my Tower of Joy ; ] This might be becouse it goes well with curvature of it ;p
+Marco Rubio I love the whole concept of two-weapon fighting being reduced to nothing more than a DPS mechanic, when usually in the very same games, two-handed weapons also fill that role. It makes you wonder what the point is in having two different weapon setups that serve the same purpose.
+HamsterPants522 Well with this plus +2 bursting short sword, I do fire damage! But with this +1 shocking dagger, I do electric damage! Honestly, it basically boils down to diversity, and in most cases, simply trying to make the character a bit different and more interesting to roleplay. It's done in roleplaying games for the exact same reason it's done on screen. It's flashy and fun. Sure, other things may be more practical and deadly while filling the same role, but it lets the player feel like they're doing something really badass.
+HamsterPants522 So people keep playing. They make one better, make everyone 'gear up' for that specific build with those specific abilities, then in half a year - change it so people will compete again. It's like modern sports, except it's (more) addicting and eats your time away (more).
+HamsterPants522 In D&D, at least 3rd edition, two-weapon fighting is better when you have extra damage dice like sneak attacks or flaming weapons, because it lets you roll more dice. Base damage is less important. A two-handed weapon increases your strength modifier and improves the output of the Power Attack feat. So dual wielding is more for rogues and people who like to stack damage dice, and two-handed is more for a straight up one-shot one-kill fighter or barbarian type.
In Japan, Miyamoto Musashi created his own technique called "Niten Ichi-ryū" which roughly translates to "two heavenly swords as one" but in Japan, they didn't really use hand held shields, so I could assume this was more practical
In The Book of 5 Rings/Spheres Musashi mentions that dual wielding helps one hold a hostage while still fighting, if I recall correctly. He wasn't messing around!
Given that the 'ambidexterity' in D&D is a learnable skill or feat, rather than something that can only be taken at character creation (IIRC) I'd say it's more "training your non-dominant hand" than true ambidexterity. Also you can still dual-wield without it, you just aren't as good at it as someone who does have that skill. Which makes more sense than most things in D&D. On top of that you get less of a penalty for using a small weapon like a dagger in your off hand as opposed to a "full-sized" sword without the ambidexterity skill IIRC But this brings me into a niggle I have with dual wielding in films and games; very often both blades used by the dual-wielding guy are shorter than the ones used by everyone else! (I'm looking at you, King Arthur) It's like "Oh hey, I've already reduced my defensive ability by not having a shield, now I need to make my weapons shorter than everyone elses!" and you just know that the dual wielder is a "speedy guy" too, so he probably has on even less armour than his companions
+Ben Kirkby It's easier to dual-wield with two shorter weapons, than with two longswords, or bastard swords or whatever. So two shortswords is much easier and not as much in the way of each other than two longswords would be. I know a longsword is a bit of a stretch, since they're primarily two-handed but can be used in one hand, but not really as regular weapons. Two long arming swords would not be as ideal as shorter arming swords, since the longer the weapon, the less space it is to swing around effectively. Sure, you can use it like you should, parry the enemy's attack with one blade, then come in with the other blade. And yes, you get reach with one or two longer weapon/s, but you don't really get more reach per se with two weapons of the same length. Just that you have an opportunity to do a little more since you have two weapons. I think Matt has covered this in plenty of his videos. Skallagrim too.
+Ben Kirkby And I agree about the light armored dual-wielder stereotype. It makes more sense to wear plate armor, or mail atleast(preferably both in combination with each other, and also a helmet), than a lighter armor, since you're already reducing your defensive protective abilities by not using a shield.
Ambidexterity should probably be considered a "feat." It's something that could be cultivated as a skill. It's also something that certain people have a tremendous advantage with by birth.
For record, Sir Arthur Dayne is known for wielding a single greatsword. It is called Dawn. In show, Sir Arthur Dayne is dualing-wielding, because he is replacing another character. In actual book, Arthur Dayne, Oswald Whent, and Gerold Hightower face off against Eddard Stark and his six companions. The show's writers chose to remove Sir Whent. In the show, Arthur Dayne is fighting for two. Great video, Matt. Thank you for taking the time share this with us. ^-^
I've got TWO legs from my hips to the ground And when I move 'em they walk around And when I lift 'em they climb the stairs And when I shave 'em they ain't got hairs Read more: Monty Python - I've Got Two Legs Lyrics | MetroLyrics
Me and several of my friends have tried duel wielding in sparring matches, and 1 of 2 things inevitably happens. 1) The person forgets that they are holding two weapons, and one hangs at their side as they focus on their primary hand. 2) They try to use both weapons simultaneously, and they keep getting in the way of each other, or the person freezes up a bit trying to figure out the patterns. I'm not sure how much practice would be required to get over these issues, but practice is required. Somebody who has never tried duel wielding before and just picks up 2 swords will be at a disadvantage. Fork and Knife are a bad metaphor, because the coordination is very simple, low stakes and you can take as much time as you want. For the most part you stab the object and hold the fork in place while you use the knife, in other words you're really only maneuvering one at a time. Duel Wielding is much more complicated than that. Similarly, you standing alone in your backyard and carefully and slowly trying out patterns does not demonstrate in anyway that you attempting this for the first time mid fight would not disadvantage you. I'm not saying you need to be ambidextrous or that it isn't possible, but it's a lot more complicated than you make it seem here.
Mark Gilbert's saber sparring shows both 1) and 2) really well. This is a real, historical chinese double saber routine: th-cam.com/video/dpqOWOhoJkQ/w-d-xo.html Many of the movements flow naturally from one to the next. In my understanding, each swing can be delivered either as parry or as a cut. So, while to the uneducated eye it may look like a bunch of mindless spinning, it is actually a method to condition one to constantly attack and parry/deflect any attack and carry on attacking.
I enjoy your videos in particular as a resource over Skall or Lindy. you often elaborate well including examples and note from battle or warfare and also in a duelling situation (the later being an area where both Skall and Lindy seem to overlook). i understand that fighting for the sake of survival was more than likely much more prevalent than for entertainment or simply as a show of skill, but those two often seem to skirt around the fact (if not overlooking it entirely) using only battlefield examples to draw their conclusions.
There's one curious thing I noticed with beginning fencers when they're given two weapons, or weapon and a shield - they tend to forget about the one in their off hand and not use it at all, only to suddenly remember it's there, make a move or two and forget about it again. Now, when you do that with a big shield, the shield still works really well (it's all you're really supposed to do with some shields). If you do that with a buckler, it still kinda works, if the buckler is kept in front of you. If you do it with a dagger, then dagger may as well not be there most of the time, so no harm done. Do it with a sword, though, and it not only may as well not be there, it actually gets in the way.
ambidexterity is actually a skill. I lost the use of my left hand for a while (I'm a lefty naturally) and I was able to learn how to do everything right handed. I regained the use of my left hand and can do just about everything with either hand and can write with both at the same time. It's just a matter of practicing till it doesn't feel unnatural anymore and if u stop practicing ur skill non-dominate hand deteriorates quite quickly
Another analogy of doing two very complex similar things with both hands is playing piano. Both hands are doing totally different music at the same time. It is simply developing the muscle memory.
+1964TP But again, that's a learned skill, not something just anyone can pick up. Anyone can learn ambidexterity through practice, which would make you more proficient in some ways, even if it isn't a huge difference.
It has been used by many notable duelists. Miyamoto Musashi dual weilded in duels and even in warfare, Khalid Ibn Alwalid dual wielded, was reported to have "two right hands", meaning equally proficient with both hands with his swords, at one fierce battle he broke 7 swords. Dual wielding is always better than sword and shield if you're actually good at it.
I think a lot of people in the comments are struggling with what Matt is trying to get across in his video. The dictionary definition of Ambidexterity is "being able to use both hands equally well" - What Matt is saying is, quite simply, you do not need to be able to use both hands equally well to dual wield effectively. Simple as that. The point people are making that you can't eat effectively if you switch your fork and knife hands is completely and totally irrelevant. Why would you switch hands? Can you eat fine with them in the proper hands? Great! Does that mean you're ambidextrous? No! Dual wielding swords is exactly the same. Your dominant hand will probably function differently than your off-hand, but you can still be a proficient, even expert dual wielder.
Yes, but ambidexterity as a skill in DnD relates often to offhand attacks specifically. Hence, you can "switch sides" and attack with both sides equally well. I bet it would cause a huge problem for many martial artists to suddenly hold their sword in their non-dominant hand, unless they've practiced a lot for both sides. And to support that it is beneficial to sometimes "switch sides" when fighting, there are a lot of stories that left handed opponents cause headache to people who have mainly dueled against right handed opponents.
great video, however i think you are missing the point of ambidexterity, both in game and in real life. it is a skill, its something you learn by training, ask anyone who has broken their "main arm", they have to relearn how to do many things with the other one, thats ambidexterity, the ability to use either arm for the same function. in games, you can see this as, a way to control both arms, without fumbling, because, like you said very well, its not easy to use two long weapons independently, it requires training.
To talk about Musashi and Ambidextery: In the Book of five Rings he says that u need to make the same swings with left and right to not be in disadvantage. It is not about having special ability, but still u need to train using both hands, a hand with no power will not lead to anything.
I master Shadowrun (a sci fi/fantasy pen & paper RPG), which has an overall simple system, where you get more dice for your actions the higher your skill and attributes are. The game assumes you're either left or right handed, so you get -2 dice on actions with your off hand. It also splits your pool, if you try to do something with two hands independently. For example, if you have a pool for bladed weapons of 10 dice and you try to use two swords at the same time, you'll have 5 dice for the main hand and 3 dice for the off hand. Since the minus for the off hand is always two, a pool of 20 dice will be 10 for the main hand and 8 for the off hand. If one tries to translate the game system back to the reality it tries to imitate, the more practice you have with your weapon (or whatever you want to use), the less impact will your handedness have. You can pick an ambidexterity trait during the character creation, which means the -2 dice go away as well. This leans heavily on your knife and fork example, while I only have to hold my food with the fork hand, the knife hand has to perform a rather complicated maneuver. I'd say after years of HEMA practice, you'll be able to do a lot of things better while holding objects in your hands, but I often hear people say they still prefer one hand over the other. I'd say requiring ambidexterity to be able to dual wield at all makes sense in some video games, where the sword fighting is more or less only flavor for the number system in the background. This is the exact opposite of Shadowrun. The game allows you to attempt anything you want and decides whether it works by dice roll. You can pretend to be a neuro surgeon, of course, but let's see if your intuition is high enough to fix a brain.
Man, you be a good person to have at a feast. Your dual wielding of Fork and Knife is masterful! I can see that turkey just disappearing in a fury of motion :)
Thank you for this intelligent overview of dual wielding and how it relates with ambidexterity this was mostly well worded and thought out however as a gamer I am disappointed you didn't do more research into how the ambidextrous abilities work in games before making it the centerpiece of your explanation. Typically no matter whether you spend the points on your character to have it any character can equip two weapons as you say it doesn't require some magic to hold 2 swords what games incorporate is a penalty for using 2 without the skill, in d&d a character can purchase feats, "ambidexterity" and "two-weapon fighting" are the feats that give the character the ability to dual wield without any penalty without either ability a character using 2 swords would suffer a -4 to rolls to determine whether his blow landed i.e. I'm required to roll a 16 on a D20 to hit my enemy I roll a 16 but because I'm not trained it becomes 12 and I miss if I have the fighting style feat this lessens to a -2 and no penalty if I have both I hope I was able to educate you in this please consider it a thank you for the knowledge you gave me
If Jaime was knighted by Sir Arthur, and served on the kingsgaurd with him for at least a couple years.. isn't it plausible that they trained with one another regularly? If so, how come Jaime never bothered to learn to use a sword in his left hand like his dual wielding mentor? that shows an uncharacteristic amount of humility for Jaime to just accept that Sir Arthur was a dual wielding badass and not try to prove himself superior in some way.
+Karl Toth Isnt it possible that Jaime was hanging out with him to learn enough from him, to eventually beat him? Only thing about his left hand I can think of is, that he was already quite good with his right side. If you are barely good enough to stand your ground with your primary hand against a better opponent, why would you handicap yourself by trying to use something new like your left side? Look at it like this. Jaime trained with Dayne to learn from him, to eventually beat him. Lets assume that was his goal, to beat Dayne for prides sake. When Dayne was alive, Jaime couldnt take him with his right hand. By time he may have been good enough to at least hold off Dayne, he was killed and Jaime became one of the greats. Almost no one could beat Jaime's right hand, so he stopped training to beat Dayne and just sat on his laurels for years. If you dont need to dual wield to be the best, why would you develop that skill set? Thats my read of the situation from the books and the show. A bunch of reasons just made the skill redundant.
+Arbhall McDougall You make a fair argument, and I suppose that same point has been made elsewhere in the comments in re: how to fight an opponent with a flashy/unorthodox style.
There's a common misunderstanding that in tabletop games, there's a negative modifier to wielding two swords. The negative modifier doesn't come from wielding two swords, it comes from making a two-pronged attack. And this is, additionally, not a modifier which makes wielding two swords less effective than one sword (though it can be). Rather, this compensates for the fact that you get two chances to attack an enemy and, statistically, it's more likely that one or the other will be parried (simply from crossing a plane of movement with another sword). My character "dual wields" a rapier and a net in my game. But he doesn't get any modifiers to using his rapier if I'm not currently attacking with my net. I am using my net to exploit openings by way of "attacks of opportunity" that I can make. While the use of my net isn't very realistic, it just emphasizes that your character can be a very effective dual wielder without ever, ever getting special training in the game, provided that they can make use of openings in their opponents' defenses.
+Alderick van Klaveren It really depends on the system. In GURPS, for example, if you don't have the Ambidexterity attribute (which is not a skill), you suffer a -5 penalty to using a sword in your off hand. That's a pretty severe penalty, but different skills handle it differently. For example, a rapier would often be paired with a dagger in the offhand which would use the Main Gauche skill. This is designed for parrying and functions somewhat similarly to a buckler. Though you can attack with the main gauche, the reach is not as long as rapier and it's generally not as good of a weapon. Using two swords at once would allow you to parry twice per turn rather than once, but you couldn't block as you could with a shield putting you at a disadvantage. There are other rules but I think I've explained the basics.
+Alderick van Klaveren The duel wielding penalty, as I understand it, is actually a balancing issue. Namely, you can do more damage per turn with two weapons than one on average.
Matt, I do dual wielding in kendo, it's called nito. I am also mostly ambidextrous. Being ambidextrous gave me a small advantage in the first 3 months when I started, mostly with footwork, and then technique is everything for the next years. I also do historical western fencing and using shield and axe uses the same skillset as nito regarding how both arms participate in the fight. Doing nito for 6 years helped me in the first 3 months of shield/axe and then it's another path. I have also tried dual wielding a few times in medieval fencing and it's interesting in duels, but it's a very niche/boutique technique that takes a long time to master, so there is very little payoff. It does intimidate and if you choose the right time and person you can win the day...but in a group battle it's almost al disadvantages. Being ambidextrous only shortens the time it takes to train with switched hands, which is useful in some formations, but that's it. A friend that is not ambidextrous caught up with me after a few weeks anyway. My anecdotal experience just confirms what you have been saying for a long time. Two swords has more disadvantages than advantages, but it does have advantages under the right conditions. Although hyped and covered in emotional arguments, it's an interesting discipline.
Do you instinctively hit harder with a shield and weapon than when using two weapons? I know it's possible to hit hard in either case, but do you think you know you have a shield, and conversely, have the psychological reassurance to hit with more force because you know you can defend more effectively?
+Jason Fuentes You don't really need to hit with much force at all to do some serious damage with a sword. A light tap is honestly all it takes to open up devastating wounds. So, hitting harder is kind of pointless, and if you miss, can result in overextending and leaving yourself open. So, to answer your question, I'd wager the answer is no, because you don't want to hit particularly hard in either case.
Although I learned a little from many different styles and a lot of fencing and general sparring experience, one style I developed back when my friends and I used to spar regularly was "Scimitar and Madu" style; mind you, before sparring, I didn't even know what a madu (real name: maduvu) was. It's a strong defensive two-weapon style, but it can explode offensively if the right opportunity opens up. The scimitar's curved blade allows for swift cuts when necessary, and I usually "rest" it at an angle with the tip close to the front of the madu to provide additional protection when needed. Since the madu is essentially a sort of buckler with two dagger-length spear-like tips on either end (my friend's homemade sparring version lacked the shield part, but had thick ends since he made the weapons as close to actual weight as possible), it makes quick under-hand stabs at range and even quicker close-ranged upward thrusts much more viable than remaining locked in sword range. My preferred "official" style is Fencing with one or two sabres (I started with Olympic-style, but reworked it into more practical use through "Renaissance Reenactment Fencing"), but I generally combine practical teachings of Fencing, Iaido, Kendo, and a lot of the sparring wisdom taught to me by the guy who introduced the full sparring experience to me almost 20 years ago into my own style. I know that my love of curved swords is a consequence of having grown up with a lot of Japanese influences (mostly my love of the katana). Not saying my style is the best by any means, simply that it works for me and my way of handling a battle. Sorry about the mini-rant. I really enjoyed this video, and it got me thinking about the old sparring days. Most likely going to end up watching more of your stuff and subbing. :)
After looking at Arthur Dayne dual wielding, how about doing a review of the final fight scene of shanghai knights - between Aiden Gillen (littlefinger from GoT) vs Jackie Chan, fast-paced fight scene, which I think visually looks very impressive.
your knife and fork analogy is flawed. Which hand do you normally use your fork with? What hand do you normally use your knife with? Now try switching between the two, I guarantee you eating will be much more difficult and will feel very awkward.
+Roshawn Terrell How is that different to using two swords? Nobody is saying that you have to use the two swords exactly the same as each other. It is little different to sword and buckler, or rapier and dagger.
scholagladiatoria Well of course you don't have to have good accuracy and control in both hands in order to use both blades, but it definitely makes a huge difference. Especially seeing as wielding two blades is far more difficult and risky than holding a big shield that can easily protect you by just lifting it up. Dual swords are far more risky but they have the possibility of an even greater reward if you manage to actually become effective with them. Granted most people would die before they likely would begin to master their weapon. So it was much easier just to hand the peasants long spears and big shields, because they are easier to use and as such less risky.
+scholagladiatoria not completely relevant to the discussion, but my aunt broke her dominant hand twice in one year and is now ambidextrous since she had to use her non dominant hand for so long.
+scholagladiatoria My experience is that (from a lot of practice) my brain doesn't seem to be able to track the position. orientation or velocity of my left hand anywhere near as well as my right, hence my right handedness. I just can't seem to develop a high enough level of ability in my left hand to make 2 swords viable or even hammer sheet/nails with my left hand regardless of the amount of practice. Coordinating your hands to perform simultaneous or alternating actions of the same type isn't the issue as much as getting the subordinate hand to perform with enough ability to make the task worthwhile. Handedness is very much a spectrum or sliding scale from ambidexterous to very dominate handedness.
Ambidexterity is more about having the ability to have fine motor control over both limbs. This becomes necessary when needing to make very small adjustments on the fly, things that your brain will automatically do with your dominant hand. For most, their non-dominant hand can only perform simple tasks, but do them well enough to not be noticeable. As for learning to be ambidextrous, it is simply training your brain and nerves to be able to process the necessary information and transmit it just as quickly as with your dominant hand. This is a learning exercise (for your brain to have to comprehend the information with speed and accuracy) as well as a physical process (myelin having to reform to give the most effective speeds), both of which make it easier for a younger person to learn.
Knife and knife food eating form, was it done historically? Was spoon and fork common in places where the texture of a meal wasn't a certainty? ...I've been watching too much youtube. Please don't answer these on Five Questions.
+Dominator046 The fork wasn't common in Europe until at least the 16th century. Before that, the knife was used to skewer as well as cut, so using two knives was probably done at least somewhere. Though it would have been far more common to just hold it in place with your fingers.
The knife and knife did happen a lot in japan and egypt and the spoon and fork thing in china Let's first talk about egypt Only rich people did it cuz you need to money to be able to do it and the first time it was used was during the period asterix and obelix visited egypt The japanese used it during the time goku was still training so the dragon ball period Now china is interesting some people think that the emperor jackie chan made it a thing but is was a chinese trader called bruce lee I hope you learned something
I studied Pilipino stick fighting for 4 years in my twenty's and it is not too difficult to become competent in duel wielding... Our master, Mr Ian Corrigan, had studied with the famous martial artist Dan Inosanto in the US and also trained in manila at the 12 pairs school and he would "show off" by wielding 2 full size baseball bats at such a high speed that you could hear them singing through the air feel the breeze at a good ten feet away..... Your uploads are always interesting and highly informative Matt... Keep up the great work my friend.
I have to disagree about the ambidextrousness point. I can't hit as accurately or powerfully with my left as my right and trying to focus on both arms at the same time is far harder than using one hand to help you balance the other.
+Alex Morgan You don't have to be equally able with both hands in order to use both hands. Presumably you don't have any trouble using a knife and fork :-)
Yes but you refer to the AD+D rule that when you fight with both hands, you suffer a penalty to your better hand and a greater penalty to your off-hand, unless you have Ambi in which case, the Penalty is reduced. Unless I am mistaken. Love your work BTW.
+Alex Morgan Japanese Nito Ryu Kendo (focused on wielding a long sword and a short sword) has a phrase that goes something like "when you split your hands from wielding a single weapon, you end up with all of your 'power' in one hand, and all of your 'control' (aka skill / dexterity) in the other hand". Typically with the 'weaker' hand holding the shorter sword, so that all you really need to do is step in and thrust or cut, and the stronger hand holding the longer sword. They typically use the shorter sword out in front to parry and control their opponent with, while their longer sword is held abover their shoulder and slightly behind them - always threatening a strong powerful strike (that doesn't have a whole lot of 'control' to it). From what I've heard about the kendo scene, it's a very disorienting style to fight against, because if you worry too much about one sword the other ends up getting you. I guess it wouldn't be too dissimilar from 'buckler and sword' fighting styles as in those the buckler is often held fairly far out too. In general though, dungeons and dragons does an awful job of representing reality; it shouldn't even be entertained in this kind of discussion.
+scholagladiatoria in the same sense aren't most people better using the knife in a certain hand and the fork in the other hand, true that anyone can switch hands but most people just naturally feel better using set hand for set piece of cutlery :)
My mind kept playing The English Beat over your demo! And now I can't stop laughing! Thank You I needed that. Also great video I've been arguing that very point with my friend Joel for months (mostly because he won't spar with me)
Hey, Matt, I think the penalty for "dual wielding" in RPGs is simply to prevent it from becoming the default for any character that doesn't use a shield. Most RPG systems have a fixed or linear progression to the number of attacks a character can make in one round of combat, and a character that dual wields effectively has one more attack that those with one weapon (and in some systems this is *doubling* the number of times you can attack). I know that in 1982's DragonQuest by SPI, this was a large advantage because all characters could only ever attack once, unless they were wielding a dagger against a slow opponent or had near-super human agility. In that system (which worked off of percentiles), there was a 30% penalty when attacking with your offhand unless you were, as you mentioned, ambidextrous (which was randomly determined during character creation) at which point the penalty was reduced to 10%. There was also a 10% penalty to the "main hand" if you attacked with both weapons in one round. Seems fair *mechanically* as you get to have another attack. Here's the numbers: In SPI's DragonQuest, all weapons do 1-10 damage plus a fixed amount based on the weapon. A two-handed sword will do 8-17 damage on a hit. A short sword (arming sword) will do 4-13 damage on a hit. If a character is dual wielding, they have a chance of dealing an addition 4-13. In a straight comparison, 8-23 is better than 8-14. The penalty to the hit chance on both attacks is simply a means by which the game creators can allow players to choose the two-handed sword over two swords, or even just a single sword with or without a shield to avoid the two-strike penalties, without feeling like they are handicapped. So, while not necessarily realistic, some times fair play takes precedent. Also, there's nothing sexy about shields unless they are diverting the fire breath of a dragon. Sorry, history. End nerd-ing.
You can learn to be ambidextrous. I was left handed but I had an accident and hurt my left wrist pretty badly so I had to learn to use my right hand. Now I actually write better with my right hand than my left. Although, it's partly due to my left wrist not fully healing right.
I have fought with two swords at larp for well over a decade. I can tell you that they are effective and I can fight two opponents at a time by using peripheral vision and footwork to direct them and choosing my strikes wisely. It require coordination and practice. Of course I would not conclude that larping is the same as sparring with steel, however it certainly can be done. I personally prefer it simply because I can hit faster from behind opponents and deal 2 hits at once, which is great for a "game style" setting. I am agreed with just about everyone however, that a sword and shield is the way to go, if you do not want to die. Good video.
I think skall made a good statement about duel-wielding. He stated that using sword and shield is also duel wielding, that shields are essentially weapons, but they are optimized for defense, rather than attack. I like that idea and I usually find it very pleasing to see games treat shields as weapons, rather than pieces of armor.
Funny thing is, I have to switch my knife and fork around when I eat. Right hand always leads. I guess i'm in need of a special training session with Matt Easton, cutlery duelist extraordinaire lol Nice video, enjoyable and informative as always.
Ambidexitery is usually about having equally dominant arms, so they've become neither right or left handed at a task. In hema terms it would be being able to use your sword in your left hand (and accompanying techniques/footwork etc) as you would with your right. In fantasy terms it's typically more of a 'can focus in 2 directions' so you can attack/defend in 2 zones at once (realistically this is hard because you only have one torso to commit to a movement and footwork is normally for one plane of focus, hence all the twirly wirly in movies).
Using a fork in the left hand can be quite advantageous because you can catch an opponant's weapon between the tines of the fork and then follow up with a knife attack.
I think its fun to see how dual wielding almost universally looks the same across multiple cultures. This looks so much like double sinawali weaving with FMA/Arnis/Eskrima dual cane/stick/baston/sword.
I like to use 2 swords for flashy choreographies. The people watching us were always having fun with it, but for actual duels I rather went with sword and shield or longsword. Another fun combination is sword and axe for hooking
When I broke my right hand I started to learn to write and draw with my left and did pretty well after awhile. When my right hand healed I stopped and lost that ability. So I think yes you can practice and become ambidextrous though I think some people can do it from the start but it isn't limited to those people. Though I'm still pretty sure the people that seem to be able to do it "innately" as you call it probably learned to do it when they are young, like how many of us learned how to write with one hand or the other. While they for whatever reason learned with both hands.
I mean, under pressure you'd turn to your dominant hand more so than your-off hand wich would probably happen during sparring or even battle. Wich is why it's called the dominant one, it's the one that takes control and the one you feel more confident using. If you're right-handed you'd use a sword in the right hand and a shield in the left. Am I right? So being ambidextrous means, neither of your hand is the dominant one, wich also means you feel equally comfortable with either.You could have the shield in either hand, or the sword in either hand. I mean, you still could, but it'd feel weird for a good long while. Being ambidextrous means you could switch whenever you want. Oh and, some people just are ambidextrous, but it is possible to to train for it :) Anyhow, good quality vids as always Matt! Keep up the good work
I think it does require some level of ambidexterity, but a learned style. The same way a person can learn to write with either hand if they devote enough practice to it, the same is true of swords. In most of the styles you mentioned (sword/dagger, sword/shield, sword/buckler, etc) and even in the comment about tennis or fork and knife, the off hand is being used at the same time, but for arguably a much simpler task. Most people even using single sword will be far less effective using the sword in their weak hand unless they have trained in both hands equally. That would carry over to duel wielding as well. And that's why I do understand it as the writing short hand for a person being a badass fighter. Because the person would need to learn to use the sword well normally, then train just as much to use it in his off hand, and then training to use them effectively together. Certain fighting styles using shorter weapons do focus on using two weapons from the beginning (like escrima) which does simplify it a bit because you are basically just learning one thing from the start. But to use your favorite word Matt: Context! That is how almost everyone is trained in those areas and is the standard. In medieval europe, wouldnt most teachers focus on teaching to use your sword in your main hand and a shield/buckler/dagger in your off hand? If so, you would likely need to train on your own to use both hands equally, and since there are a lack of schools for using two full length weapons together, you would essentially need to be self taught in that style.
Ambidexterity can be really handy to the initial learning process. I'm a recent HEMAist, but I've studied Wing Chun for a long time, and one thing that you notice with new students in Wing Chun is that people with dominant hands go through an initial adjustment period where they struggle to learn to use their off hands in the same manner as their dominant hand. Once their past that adjustment period though, people's handedness becomes moot.
It's admittedly an SCA thing, but from my experience of melee the advantage of two swords is that you can threaten two targets simultaneously (attacking both at the same time is another thing, but still). That gives you a useful asset in melee, offering a chance to control the fight against multiple opponents a bit more. You don't do it like they did at the Tower of Joy, mind you, but it can be done.
+Matthew Hooper Yea but that only works in SCA, HMB, and LARP because of the scoring systems...now had dayne been using two valyrian steel blades, and had the show not weakened them significantly, then it wouldnt matter as dayne could slice through sword and armor alike with little resistance, but as it stands, dawn was nowhere to be seen in the show, and valyrian steel is nerfed dramatically anyway, so the idea of being able to threat two people at once is just not realistic. Were I a stark soldier who was on dayne's off side being presented with the point of one sword, but him actually looking away, it would be of minimal threat, because he would find it difficult to find a weak point in my armor while focusing elsewhere. Assuming hes right handed, dayne would have been the most vulnerable while holding his arms extended from the side, on his left, and looking right, youd actually be safer with the blade pointed at you than were you infront of his chest or behind his back, as in those two cases he could use a small pivot to threaten you appropriately with either his primary and off hand in the case of the front, and primary hand in case of the back.
Quick story that may or may not be relevant. I shoot Olympic style pistol for my college (air, free, and standard) and in my sophomore year I had an accident that rendered my shooting hand effectively useless. I was, at the time, our third best shooter, and having a fairly new team, the difference between third and fourth was massive, and we couldn't afford to have me sit out until I healed. So I went into the safe and got the three guns that a left handed guy who graduated the year prior had been using, and started shooting. It was difficult for a little while, because it worked a familiar muscle group on the wrong side of the body, and I simply was not as strong because I never needed to be on that side, but after only a few days, I was shooting pretty naturally. I wasn't quite as good, obviously, but my scores were still competitive. I am by no means ambidextrous, but I know how to shoot, just like you practice HEMA and know how to use a sword. The brain just needs a poke or ten!
I should add that yes, I have attempted to shoot two pistols at once, no it was not effective my any stretch of the imagination, yes, it was stupid to try, and yes, it was fun as hell. It's also a completely different thing than two swords, and really not relevant to this topic.
The knife and fork is actually an excellent point *for* ambidexterity as most people cut with their dominant hand because keeping a fork still is quite easy and can be done with the "off hand". Tennis is another great point *for* it, that's why most tennis players prefer the back hand or even double handed backhand, because a swing with their off hand would be less accurate and/or powerful.
"You do not need any innate magical ability to use two swords" - speaking as someone who is an Escrima practitioner/instructor: you are correct. However, you do need to spend a decent amount of time training both hands, in order to get them to work at anything approaching equal competency. And once you've got both hands working, you then need to teach the various ways that they can work together. The way we teach that is to essentially teach everyone to be ambidextrous from day one - just by forcing everyone to do all our drills in both hands. And every so often we end up teaching the two main styles of asynchronous ("sinawalli", or weaving) and synchronous ("crosada", or crossing) dual-weapon movement. (and then, on occasion, we try to show how to use the same techniques empty-hand, as boxing is essentially dual-wielding your fists.) In that sense, it's kind of like handwriting - yes, teaching your off-hand to write is actually easier than teaching your primary hand, mainly because you aren't also at the same time learning the very concept of writing and language and grammar and punctuation and whatnot. However, it's still a physical skill you need to get up to snuff. I would argue that modern martial arts can get away with this sort of generalized training, simply because there's less pressure to produce competent soldiers in a short amount of time - as such, modern schools can go broad, rather than deep, from the start. But yeah - if you don't know how to dual-wield, honestly the easiest thing to do is to leave the rear weapon in the (I call it a roof block) - high guard? Anyway - it keeps your off-hand more-or-less out of the way, and cuts off the primary line of attack of your opponent. Essentially, this uses your off-hand weapon as a long, thin shield that helps to protect your head and upper torso.
I agree with a lot of what you said here. Having fought with both sword and shield and two swords, I'd say I prefer using a shield for a few reasons. While fighting in single combat, sword strikes can be easy enough to parry, but thrusts are much harder to predict as they aren't telegraphed (or shouldn't be). When considering the fight at the Tower of Joy, my only problem was when Dayne stabbed one of Ned's men and he took forever to do it. If one of your swords were to get stuck in a body (as you mentioned, there was a lot of armour) or if one of your blades were to break, it would certainly be better to have a big lump of wood between you and your opponents while you draw your second weapon. Especially if you're outnumbered by five or so.
I have a bit of ambidexterity (more like "right-handeness" coupled with "left-eyeness"), and the only thing special about it is that I can far more easily adapt my hand to my opponent. It's really fun using a shield in my right hand and a sword or spear in my left, or simply do an overextended swing with a single weapon only to catch it with my other hand and keep going. Changing which hand I use to pivot in a longsword is also nice, :)
The most difficult concept to understand when dual wielding with 2 swords of the same length is to keep them out of the way of each other. The same you do when you learn to swing a blade for the first time, to learn to keep your arm out of the way, thats why you learn to hide it behind or really close to your chest elbow touching your ribs. For the dual wielding to be used effective you dont use them at the same time as if you where boxing, thay way you square your body making you a better target but is also easier to block and neutralize both of them if they are moving towards the same pattern but one after the other. You would rather use a high guard on one and a low guard on the other at all times, this way you can thiner your body as a target just get your elbow on the hi guard really upwards on a complety vertical line so you can turn your body, keeping the guards like this you can avoid hiting ypurself. Then the chest game beggins, now i can attack or defend effectively from both my guards, is a chest game all from there but as soon as you start your attack with one you should be able to keep the other ready no matter what you swing on the other, you need to be as good with any of your arms to stop just using one weapon as a shield when in fact both should attack and defend in turns. I hope it helps cheers
I think the idea of being ambidextrous comes into it due to a person's strength in their arms. Bringing up tennis (I play tennis a lot) A player cannot switch to using their left hand and do the same. In badminton doing an overhead swing is incredibly difficult with your bad hand. Although with dual wielding swords you could sing both in the same way, surely your dominant hand is the one mainly doing the damage. It's at the point of contact that the left hand might react differently. Of course with practice the two hands might become closer together in terms of strength, but if you're also doing normal 1 sword combat the main hand will still be stronger than the offhand.
+trevor Wilkinson Or you can just practice a style that relies _heavily_ on your off-hand, like Niten Ichi-Ryu, in which it applies the actual force of the two-handed blows much of the time. It makes things a lot easier when they switch to two swords in advanced training, since their off hand is already pretty steady and strong.
Hey Matt, I am watching you for quite a while but have never commented your videos - guess it's an official greeting then :). Just wanted to say it was very glamourous/charming/cute/delightful and funny to see you swinging a fork and a knife while pretending you have a sword and a buckler. Have a good day!
Problem with the off-hand is not "can you use a sword in it?" It is, "can you use a sword WELL in it?" You might be able to swing it around okay in your off-hand if you're non-ambidextrous, but you will probably neither be as strong nor as accurate with the strikes as you would be with your dominant hand. True dual-wielding assumes you're using the same weapon in both hands. A shield is much more passive and requires less precision and dexterity to use in the off-hand than another primary weapon. RPGs represent this with varying trait systems that infer that someone who is not naturally ambidextrous (which is mostly everyone) needs special training in order to overcome their normal clumsiness with their off-hand, thus reducing the penalty for dual-wielding. It makes a lot of sense, because while people can certainly use a knife and a fork in both hands, if you ask them to switch which hand the knife and fork are located, most people will be much more clumsy and awkward than they would using them in their normal way (which for most people, for example, is knife in dominant hand, fork in off-hand).
Quick thing that I've found first ambidexterity does help but it isn't a be all end all second ambidexterity is a thing that you can train to achieve third I've toyed around with dualweilding and the best combo I've found is small sword and a light arming sword or a sabre of some kind, it's essentially just fighting with a single weapon but holding the smallsword at ready keeps your backhand out of the way and poses a very real threat if they try to close in
The ultimate fighting combination that cannot be beaten is dual wielding shields, obviously. It doesn't accomplish much, but at least it can bewilder your assailant long enough for you to make an escape.
this!
+Roberto Luciani
no more dark souls for you sir
+Roberto Luciani There have been shields with fair offensive capacity, though, and not just through spikes. Some pre-Roman shields in the British Isles could have had sharpened edges, for example.
+Roberto Luciani
Oh? I think one of those shields with the big punching spike in the middle of it would be pretty good. Have like a kite shield on the left, punching shield on the right. There's the ol' "one two" right there for you.
I think it's the Dhal I'm thinking of..?
+Roberto Luciani In the Pathfinder RPG the ultimate fighting combination actually is dual wielding shields.
Well, actually the ultimate fighting combination is a toss up between turning into a dinosaur, summoning angels, and firing a high poundage longbow at a rate barely plausible for half drawing a target plinker. But dual wielding shields is strong for people who can't turn into dinosaurs and want to be able to fight in melee.
"We have two hands - we can do two things." Matt Easton
Someone needs to write a book with all of matts quotes
+Ievgen Kharabet maybe even 3!
+Paul Alvarez
I think that book is the comment section
+Zwelf Angasten
"You only have one set of eyes, and you can only look in the same direction at the same time, unless you have something wrong with your eyes"
+Zwelf Angasten
"At some point, talking about HEMA will devolve into people demonstrating techniques with knives and forks"
You wield a knife and fork very convincingly.
I believe this is the first time his knife/fork collection has been shown to the general audience. I would love to see an In depth cutlery related video
You have got to be kidding. His entire channel revolves around cutlery. Albeit very large cutlery, but cutlery nonetheless. ;)
If the clip of you with two swords proves anything it is that dual wielding really does look cool as f***
chris4072511
Take a look at Godinho’s dual-rapier drills. You have no idea how cool it is.
@@jessecollins3652 Thank you! I never would have found that channel without your suggestion.
10 people dislike this video? Seriously? Do you hate cutlery or did your genitalia just fall off?
Probably the genitalia thing xD
+scholagladiatoria I've seen you get annoyed by this before. Is it possible they just dislike you personally?
+scholagladiatoria I'd suggest just ignoring the ratio of likes and dislikes.
+scholagladiatoria nope, a rare bad, video from you Matt
on the real life implications you contradict yourself...no skill needed/it's a rare skill (or at least skill)
on the role playing game part, usually 2 swords meant directly twice as good as 1. And that's not the case at all in RL. Thus, a penalty was laid. "practice" or "natural ability", in the form of a skill, attribute, or talent reduces or even removes altogether such penalties. Which may be a game issue, as 2 swords shouldn't ever be twice as good as 1, or 1.9x greater than a polearm or greatsword. In other words, you don't get the games issue, either
on video games, it's all over the place. It might be impossible if the game simply doesn't allow for 2 weapons to be equipped, or whatever. No arguments there, it's too variable to discuss in general
As someone points out earlier, switching your knife & fork is awkward, and it's presumed the ambidextrous will find it either less so, or not at all. Sure, one can practice, and acquire a skill. You seem to be saying it's not a skill/is a skill again
A swordsman (right or left handed) that always practices using their sword in their right hand is going to be less effective when they try it in their left hand, at least for a while. Practice to master a skill, again.
I suppose if all you are trying to say is a repeat of something you said before, which is that combat practice/skill is always helpful (ie the wrong handed swordsman is better than the untrained swordsman), that's fine, but it's not the impression this video leaves.
On dual wielding in the past, you made it clear how the sum of dual wielding isn't twice that of a single blade, and good videos they are. Here, not so much.
I love your channel & videos Matt, but everyone has an off day, and if that's not something you can agree to here, then at least I can have an opinion on not liking this ONE video (out of so many). No big deal in any event.
+Genghis Don crap, missed the part where it seems obvious being ambidexterous would be quite a boon to dual wielding, and probably to all manner of combinations of arms (sw/buckler, w/shield, sw/dagger, etc)
pretty sure 2 pistols ain't the greatest thing either, but it looks cool too. Maybe I shouldn't say that, I find the 2 swords uncool upon viewing these days (unless they are short blades or long/short)
I eat my food with two knives.
I eat noodles with one chopstick in each hand.
I eat ice cream with two forks. Peasants
@@facilityguard970 I eat soup with 2 knives
Seth Jones pfft, I also eat soup with swords and 5.7 rounds.
foolish mortals, i eat rice with two toothpicks
But you DO need a Dex of 15 :-P
I love how cautious Matt is when it comes to roleplaying games.
+Eupolemos No^^. When my friends would make a character sheet about me, they will all agree that my dex is below 10. I really have coordiation problems, can't even walk properly. However, kind of as treatment for that condition and of course for the fun, I took some Arnis classes, in which dual wielding is pretty common. As a result, I was often complimented about my dual wielding skills in larp and jugger. I still get my ass kicked, once my oppenent realises that my footwork is shit. So all in all, Dual Wielding is not a matter of dex in real life, but just a question of training.
Max out Dex in NWN and use HIPS...and you don't need a shield and CAN use two daggers. :)
I love how Matt knows how to joke. It makes him interesting to watch compared to people who are super serious 100% of the time.
Give me a shield and a spear and I will destroy anyone using paired swords. Most of the time.
+Ieuan Hunt Yes absolutely. I essentially say this in the video.
+Ieuan Hunt True, considering that dual wielding was a highly uncommon skill. Difficult to learn, even more difficult to master but if done so then you have an unequal advantage against your opponent.
+Alexane Rose Your advantage was mainly surprise and intimidation from what I understand. Being such an uncommon technique, people didn't know what to do when faced with dual swords, even if the person is actually less skilled and would lose if his opponent wasn't slightly psyched out/wondering what to focus on.
DETHREAPER11
Intimidation is a factor and uncommonness does play a big role, but there are thee are others that I can think of. One of them being multiple engagement capability... that is if you can keep track of both weapons well.
+DETHREAPER11 If I was a moderately skilled spear and shield fighter I don't think I would be that intimidated by a guy with two swords. I know I can skewer him before he can come into distance and because he does not have a shield and I do he will have a very hard time hitting me without being hit first.
My point is that if you know how to use a shield than you won't be intimidated by two swords.
Another great video, i enjoy when you go outside and give examples.
I couldn't use a Fork until I hit level 12, and I couldn't use the knife because I couldn't buy the skill :'(.
+Monkerr No. It's because you're a monk. You'll never be able to eat properly unless you cross class.
+Tightanus or he could lower his charisma in order to automatically receive the skill "eat with hands"
+Tightanus damn no wonder those monks so skinny
To the people making the ambidextrous argument, may just point out that drummers exist.
I mean, seriously...
Yeah but there's left and right handed drum kits, and it's really hard to use the opposite. Albeit part of it is habit.
I want to see this dual wielding friend of yours fight.
I'm right handed. I found it easier to learn how to use my mouse with my left hand (fine motor control) so I can keep my right hand on my Tower of Joy.
I would have thought it easier to switch my ToJ to my left hand, as it only requires a very basic motion to operate.
I believe you underestimate the level of fine motor control required to polish the Tower of Joy.
Awkwardly enough I am right handed, but I always used my left hand when fighing with my Tower of Joy ; ] This might be becouse it goes well with curvature of it ;p
+Angmir same here
I'm left-handed and there's only one thing my right hand can do better, and that's not holding a paintbrush like Bob Ross.
I like the extra dps from dual wielding.
+Marco Rubio I love the whole concept of two-weapon fighting being reduced to nothing more than a DPS mechanic, when usually in the very same games, two-handed weapons also fill that role. It makes you wonder what the point is in having two different weapon setups that serve the same purpose.
+HamsterPants522 Well with this plus +2 bursting short sword, I do fire damage! But with this +1 shocking dagger, I do electric damage!
Honestly, it basically boils down to diversity, and in most cases, simply trying to make the character a bit different and more interesting to roleplay. It's done in roleplaying games for the exact same reason it's done on screen. It's flashy and fun. Sure, other things may be more practical and deadly while filling the same role, but it lets the player feel like they're doing something really badass.
+HamsterPants522
So people keep playing. They make one better, make everyone 'gear up' for that specific build with those specific abilities, then in half a year - change it so people will compete again.
It's like modern sports, except it's (more) addicting and eats your time away (more).
+HamsterPants522 In D&D, at least 3rd edition, two-weapon fighting is better when you have extra damage dice like sneak attacks or flaming weapons, because it lets you roll more dice. Base damage is less important. A two-handed weapon increases your strength modifier and improves the output of the Power Attack feat. So dual wielding is more for rogues and people who like to stack damage dice, and two-handed is more for a straight up one-shot one-kill fighter or barbarian type.
In Japan, Miyamoto Musashi created his own technique called "Niten Ichi-ryū" which roughly translates to "two heavenly swords as one" but in Japan, they didn't really use hand held shields, so I could assume this was more practical
In The Book of 5 Rings/Spheres Musashi mentions that dual wielding helps one hold a hostage while still fighting, if I recall correctly. He wasn't messing around!
Given that the 'ambidexterity' in D&D is a learnable skill or feat, rather than something that can only be taken at character creation (IIRC) I'd say it's more "training your non-dominant hand" than true ambidexterity. Also you can still dual-wield without it, you just aren't as good at it as someone who does have that skill. Which makes more sense than most things in D&D. On top of that you get less of a penalty for using a small weapon like a dagger in your off hand as opposed to a "full-sized" sword without the ambidexterity skill IIRC
But this brings me into a niggle I have with dual wielding in films and games; very often both blades used by the dual-wielding guy are shorter than the ones used by everyone else! (I'm looking at you, King Arthur) It's like "Oh hey, I've already reduced my defensive ability by not having a shield, now I need to make my weapons shorter than everyone elses!" and you just know that the dual wielder is a "speedy guy" too, so he probably has on even less armour than his companions
+Ben Kirkby It's easier to dual-wield with two shorter weapons, than with two longswords, or bastard swords or whatever. So two shortswords is much easier and not as much in the way of each other than two longswords would be. I know a longsword is a bit of a stretch, since they're primarily two-handed but can be used in one hand, but not really as regular weapons. Two long arming swords would not be as ideal as shorter arming swords, since the longer the weapon, the less space it is to swing around effectively.
Sure, you can use it like you should, parry the enemy's attack with one blade, then come in with the other blade. And yes, you get reach with one or two longer weapon/s, but you don't really get more reach per se with two weapons of the same length. Just that you have an opportunity to do a little more since you have two weapons. I think Matt has covered this in plenty of his videos. Skallagrim too.
+Ben Kirkby Hope it wasn't too much to read hehe. And I hope it made perfect sense. Hope you appreciate my input. :)
+Ben Kirkby And I agree about the light armored dual-wielder stereotype. It makes more sense to wear plate armor, or mail atleast(preferably both in combination with each other, and also a helmet), than a lighter armor, since you're already reducing your defensive protective abilities by not using a shield.
With a fork, one needs a net like a retiarius to deal with peas or other troublesome pulses. A knife in a moulinette will just make them roll away.
Best gladiatorial culinary advice ever! lol
+Paul Alvarado LOL, polearm spork would be a formidable experience. I don't think it would be possible to stop thrust a spork in the right hands?
I love Matt's asides. "If you learned to use your cutlery properly." That was priceless!!!
+HNX Media Lol, "If you're not a barbarian!" xD
Ambidexterity should probably be considered a "feat." It's something that could be cultivated as a skill. It's also something that certain people have a tremendous advantage with by birth.
For record, Sir Arthur Dayne is known for wielding a single greatsword. It is called Dawn. In show, Sir Arthur Dayne is dualing-wielding, because he is replacing another character. In actual book, Arthur Dayne, Oswald Whent, and Gerold Hightower face off against Eddard Stark and his six companions. The show's writers chose to remove Sir Whent. In the show, Arthur Dayne is fighting for two. Great video, Matt. Thank you for taking the time share this with us. ^-^
Lol, Once you pulled out the Fork and Knife I hit Like.
Really cool seeing you actually duel wield those 2 swords!
Can we get some dual-wielding sparring videos? xD
+Diego De León Would love to see that.
Dualwielding Sword & dagger; there are plenties of videos about that.
marcelo oberauer
and i still want more of them... XD and some sword&sword, spear&sword and the deadly combination of dagger&trebuchet! xD
I'll try and get some video of the guys in my club doing dual rapier for you.
Chris Earl that'd be great man, one of the Bolognese schools i guess? XD
Does anyone else have a ton of paper sword making tutorials in the suggestions for this video?
+SanityVideo yes
+SanityVideo YES!
What did just happen, Google?
Makes a nice change from the pimple-popping vids...
I've got TWO legs from my hips to the ground
And when I move 'em they walk around
And when I lift 'em they climb the stairs
And when I shave 'em they ain't got hairs
Read more: Monty Python - I've Got Two Legs Lyrics | MetroLyrics
Me and several of my friends have tried duel wielding in sparring matches, and 1 of 2 things inevitably happens.
1) The person forgets that they are holding two weapons, and one hangs at their side as they focus on their primary hand.
2) They try to use both weapons simultaneously, and they keep getting in the way of each other, or the person freezes up a bit trying to figure out the patterns.
I'm not sure how much practice would be required to get over these issues, but practice is required. Somebody who has never tried duel wielding before and just picks up 2 swords will be at a disadvantage. Fork and Knife are a bad metaphor, because the coordination is very simple, low stakes and you can take as much time as you want. For the most part you stab the object and hold the fork in place while you use the knife, in other words you're really only maneuvering one at a time. Duel Wielding is much more complicated than that.
Similarly, you standing alone in your backyard and carefully and slowly trying out patterns does not demonstrate in anyway that you attempting this for the first time mid fight would not disadvantage you. I'm not saying you need to be ambidextrous or that it isn't possible, but it's a lot more complicated than you make it seem here.
Mark Gilbert's saber sparring shows both 1) and 2) really well.
This is a real, historical chinese double saber routine: th-cam.com/video/dpqOWOhoJkQ/w-d-xo.html
Many of the movements flow naturally from one to the next. In my understanding, each swing can be delivered either as parry or as a cut. So, while to the uneducated eye it may look like a bunch of mindless spinning, it is actually a method to condition one to constantly attack and parry/deflect any attack and carry on attacking.
I enjoy your videos in particular as a resource over Skall or Lindy. you often elaborate well including examples and note from battle or warfare and also in a duelling situation (the later being an area where both Skall and Lindy seem to overlook). i understand that fighting for the sake of survival was more than likely much more prevalent than for entertainment or simply as a show of skill, but those two often seem to skirt around the fact (if not overlooking it entirely) using only battlefield examples to draw their conclusions.
There's one curious thing I noticed with beginning fencers when they're given two weapons, or weapon and a shield - they tend to forget about the one in their off hand and not use it at all, only to suddenly remember it's there, make a move or two and forget about it again.
Now, when you do that with a big shield, the shield still works really well (it's all you're really supposed to do with some shields). If you do that with a buckler, it still kinda works, if the buckler is kept in front of you. If you do it with a dagger, then dagger may as well not be there most of the time, so no harm done.
Do it with a sword, though, and it not only may as well not be there, it actually gets in the way.
ambidexterity is actually a skill. I lost the use of my left hand for a while (I'm a lefty naturally) and I was able to learn how to do everything right handed. I regained the use of my left hand and can do just about everything with either hand and can write with both at the same time. It's just a matter of practicing till it doesn't feel unnatural anymore and if u stop practicing ur skill non-dominate hand deteriorates quite quickly
As a child I always thought that Nasir was the coolest one in the Robin of Sherwood TV series because he used two swords. :)
I love how you decide to hold onto the knife and fork for the rest of the video.
Another analogy of doing two very complex similar things with both hands is playing piano. Both hands are doing totally different music at the same time. It is simply developing the muscle memory.
or guitar, or most instruments. it does take practice though
+1964TP But again, that's a learned skill, not something just anyone can pick up. Anyone can learn ambidexterity through practice, which would make you more proficient in some ways, even if it isn't a huge difference.
It has been used by many notable duelists. Miyamoto Musashi dual weilded in duels and even in warfare, Khalid Ibn Alwalid dual wielded, was reported to have "two right hands", meaning equally proficient with both hands with his swords, at one fierce battle he broke 7 swords. Dual wielding is always better than sword and shield if you're actually good at it.
I think a lot of people in the comments are struggling with what Matt is trying to get across in his video.
The dictionary definition of Ambidexterity is "being able to use both hands equally well" - What Matt is saying is, quite simply, you do not need to be able to use both hands equally well to dual wield effectively. Simple as that.
The point people are making that you can't eat effectively if you switch your fork and knife hands is completely and totally irrelevant. Why would you switch hands? Can you eat fine with them in the proper hands? Great! Does that mean you're ambidextrous? No! Dual wielding swords is exactly the same. Your dominant hand will probably function differently than your off-hand, but you can still be a proficient, even expert dual wielder.
Yes, but ambidexterity as a skill in DnD relates often to offhand attacks specifically. Hence, you can "switch sides" and attack with both sides equally well. I bet it would cause a huge problem for many martial artists to suddenly hold their sword in their non-dominant hand, unless they've practiced a lot for both sides. And to support that it is beneficial to sometimes "switch sides" when fighting, there are a lot of stories that left handed opponents cause headache to people who have mainly dueled against right handed opponents.
Respect, mate, I wouldn't dare doing such dual wielding with that speed and sharps.
You have just proven the Hollywood gambit - you're a real bad-ass
great video, however i think you are missing the point of ambidexterity, both in game and in real life. it is a skill, its something you learn by training, ask anyone who has broken their "main arm", they have to relearn how to do many things with the other one, thats ambidexterity, the ability to use either arm for the same function.
in games, you can see this as, a way to control both arms, without fumbling, because, like you said very well, its not easy to use two long weapons independently, it requires training.
To talk about Musashi and Ambidextery:
In the Book of five Rings he says that u need to make the same swings with left and right to not be in disadvantage. It is not about having special ability, but still u need to train using both hands, a hand with no power will not lead to anything.
Filipino Martial Arts.
Good exposé on double wilding. Thanks for providing.
"Hello, knife and fork!" Put this on the t-shirt? :)
I master Shadowrun (a sci fi/fantasy pen & paper RPG), which has an overall simple system, where you get more dice for your actions the higher your skill and attributes are. The game assumes you're either left or right handed, so you get -2 dice on actions with your off hand. It also splits your pool, if you try to do something with two hands independently. For example, if you have a pool for bladed weapons of 10 dice and you try to use two swords at the same time, you'll have 5 dice for the main hand and 3 dice for the off hand. Since the minus for the off hand is always two, a pool of 20 dice will be 10 for the main hand and 8 for the off hand.
If one tries to translate the game system back to the reality it tries to imitate, the more practice you have with your weapon (or whatever you want to use), the less impact will your handedness have. You can pick an ambidexterity trait during the character creation, which means the -2 dice go away as well. This leans heavily on your knife and fork example, while I only have to hold my food with the fork hand, the knife hand has to perform a rather complicated maneuver. I'd say after years of HEMA practice, you'll be able to do a lot of things better while holding objects in your hands, but I often hear people say they still prefer one hand over the other.
I'd say requiring ambidexterity to be able to dual wield at all makes sense in some video games, where the sword fighting is more or less only flavor for the number system in the background. This is the exact opposite of Shadowrun. The game allows you to attempt anything you want and decides whether it works by dice roll. You can pretend to be a neuro surgeon, of course, but let's see if your intuition is high enough to fix a brain.
This channel reminds me of when History Channel was good.
Man, you be a good person to have at a feast. Your dual wielding of Fork and Knife is masterful! I can see that turkey just disappearing in a fury of motion :)
nobody ever talks about the ambisinister : (
Thank you for this intelligent overview of dual wielding and how it relates with ambidexterity this was mostly well worded and thought out however as a gamer I am disappointed you didn't do more research into how the ambidextrous abilities work in games before making it the centerpiece of your explanation. Typically no matter whether you spend the points on your character to have it any character can equip two weapons as you say it doesn't require some magic to hold 2 swords what games incorporate is a penalty for using 2 without the skill, in d&d a character can purchase feats, "ambidexterity" and "two-weapon fighting" are the feats that give the character the ability to dual wield without any penalty without either ability a character using 2 swords would suffer a -4 to rolls to determine whether his blow landed i.e. I'm required to roll a 16 on a D20 to hit my enemy I roll a 16 but because I'm not trained it becomes 12 and I miss if I have the fighting style feat this lessens to a -2 and no penalty if I have both I hope I was able to educate you in this please consider it a thank you for the knowledge you gave me
If Jaime was knighted by Sir Arthur, and served on the kingsgaurd with him for at least a couple years.. isn't it plausible that they trained with one another regularly? If so, how come Jaime never bothered to learn to use a sword in his left hand like his dual wielding mentor? that shows an uncharacteristic amount of humility for Jaime to just accept that Sir Arthur was a dual wielding badass and not try to prove himself superior in some way.
+Karl Toth Because there's difference between the books and the show.
+Peter C. The fact pattern is from the show, and my point is the show doesn't worry about internal logic.
+Karl Toth Isnt it possible that Jaime was hanging out with him to learn enough from him, to eventually beat him?
Only thing about his left hand I can think of is, that he was already quite good with his right side. If you are barely good enough to stand your ground with your primary hand against a better opponent, why would you handicap yourself by trying to use something new like your left side?
Look at it like this.
Jaime trained with Dayne to learn from him, to eventually beat him. Lets assume that was his goal, to beat Dayne for prides sake.
When Dayne was alive, Jaime couldnt take him with his right hand. By time he may have been good enough to at least hold off Dayne, he was killed and Jaime became one of the greats. Almost no one could beat Jaime's right hand, so he stopped training to beat Dayne and just sat on his laurels for years. If you dont need to dual wield to be the best, why would you develop that skill set?
Thats my read of the situation from the books and the show. A bunch of reasons just made the skill redundant.
+Arbhall McDougall You make a fair argument, and I suppose that same point has been made elsewhere in the comments in re: how to fight an opponent with a flashy/unorthodox style.
Karl Toth lol I have only one way of doing that. Shoot them lol.
Man, I love your channel. Excelent content.
There's a common misunderstanding that in tabletop games, there's a negative modifier to wielding two swords. The negative modifier doesn't come from wielding two swords, it comes from making a two-pronged attack. And this is, additionally, not a modifier which makes wielding two swords less effective than one sword (though it can be). Rather, this compensates for the fact that you get two chances to attack an enemy and, statistically, it's more likely that one or the other will be parried (simply from crossing a plane of movement with another sword).
My character "dual wields" a rapier and a net in my game. But he doesn't get any modifiers to using his rapier if I'm not currently attacking with my net. I am using my net to exploit openings by way of "attacks of opportunity" that I can make. While the use of my net isn't very realistic, it just emphasizes that your character can be a very effective dual wielder without ever, ever getting special training in the game, provided that they can make use of openings in their opponents' defenses.
+Alderick van Klaveren Dual wielding is harder to do and needs more training for a similar skill level, that is the reason for the modifier.
foroparapente Which, as stated, isn't the reason for the penalty. It's an equalizer.
+Alderick van Klaveren It really depends on the system. In GURPS, for example, if you don't have the Ambidexterity attribute (which is not a skill), you suffer a -5 penalty to using a sword in your off hand. That's a pretty severe penalty, but different skills handle it differently. For example, a rapier would often be paired with a dagger in the offhand which would use the Main Gauche skill. This is designed for parrying and functions somewhat similarly to a buckler. Though you can attack with the main gauche, the reach is not as long as rapier and it's generally not as good of a weapon.
Using two swords at once would allow you to parry twice per turn rather than once, but you couldn't block as you could with a shield putting you at a disadvantage. There are other rules but I think I've explained the basics.
+Alderick van Klaveren The duel wielding penalty, as I understand it, is actually a balancing issue. Namely, you can do more damage per turn with two weapons than one on average.
Alderick van Klaveren I don't know the reasoning of the game designer, I do know why it makes sense from a battle perspetive.
Matt, I do dual wielding in kendo, it's called nito. I am also mostly ambidextrous.
Being ambidextrous gave me a small advantage in the first 3 months when I started, mostly with footwork, and then technique is everything for the next years.
I also do historical western fencing and using shield and axe uses the same skillset as nito regarding how both arms participate in the fight. Doing nito for 6 years helped me in the first 3 months of shield/axe and then it's another path.
I have also tried dual wielding a few times in medieval fencing and it's interesting in duels, but it's a very niche/boutique technique that takes a long time to master, so there is very little payoff. It does intimidate and if you choose the right time and person you can win the day...but in a group battle it's almost al disadvantages.
Being ambidextrous only shortens the time it takes to train with switched hands, which is useful in some formations, but that's it. A friend that is not ambidextrous caught up with me after a few weeks anyway.
My anecdotal experience just confirms what you have been saying for a long time. Two swords has more disadvantages than advantages, but it does have advantages under the right conditions. Although hyped and covered in emotional arguments, it's an interesting discipline.
Yeah okay, but what if you use a spork? Did you think of that?
+White Void Sporkticus
I love how diffrent style do it. I am a FMA guy and this is very diffrent
Do you instinctively hit harder with a shield and weapon than when using two weapons? I know it's possible to hit hard in either case, but do you think you know you have a shield, and conversely, have the psychological reassurance to hit with more force because you know you can defend more effectively?
+Jason Fuentes You don't really need to hit with much force at all to do some serious damage with a sword. A light tap is honestly all it takes to open up devastating wounds. So, hitting harder is kind of pointless, and if you miss, can result in overextending and leaving yourself open.
So, to answer your question, I'd wager the answer is no, because you don't want to hit particularly hard in either case.
Although I learned a little from many different styles and a lot of fencing and general sparring experience, one style I developed back when my friends and I used to spar regularly was "Scimitar and Madu" style; mind you, before sparring, I didn't even know what a madu (real name: maduvu) was. It's a strong defensive two-weapon style, but it can explode offensively if the right opportunity opens up. The scimitar's curved blade allows for swift cuts when necessary, and I usually "rest" it at an angle with the tip close to the front of the madu to provide additional protection when needed.
Since the madu is essentially a sort of buckler with two dagger-length spear-like tips on either end (my friend's homemade sparring version lacked the shield part, but had thick ends since he made the weapons as close to actual weight as possible), it makes quick under-hand stabs at range and even quicker close-ranged upward thrusts much more viable than remaining locked in sword range.
My preferred "official" style is Fencing with one or two sabres (I started with Olympic-style, but reworked it into more practical use through "Renaissance Reenactment Fencing"), but I generally combine practical teachings of Fencing, Iaido, Kendo, and a lot of the sparring wisdom taught to me by the guy who introduced the full sparring experience to me almost 20 years ago into my own style. I know that my love of curved swords is a consequence of having grown up with a lot of Japanese influences (mostly my love of the katana). Not saying my style is the best by any means, simply that it works for me and my way of handling a battle.
Sorry about the mini-rant. I really enjoyed this video, and it got me thinking about the old sparring days. Most likely going to end up watching more of your stuff and subbing. :)
when you have a sword and shield the sword is going to be moving a lot and the shield is going to be static a lot.
+Dario Gonzalez (EmperorZeruel) Yep, I covered this in the video :-)
You sir make a fine point I'm delighted with your videos
After looking at Arthur Dayne dual wielding, how about doing a review of the final fight scene of shanghai knights - between Aiden Gillen (littlefinger from GoT) vs Jackie Chan, fast-paced fight scene, which I think visually looks very impressive.
For those who are interested the use of two swords is covered in the treatises of di Grassi, Agrippa, Marozzo & Manciolino.
But what about dual wielding two shields? You would be unkillable! (kek)
+Martin Alonso AC 20, 1d0 damage.
Oh, you mean sort of like this?
/watch?v=ZVNJKc61xqw
lol
Duel weilding sporks is the most effective way to eat.
your knife and fork analogy is flawed.
Which hand do you normally use your fork with? What hand do you normally use your knife with? Now try switching between the two, I guarantee you eating will be much more difficult and will feel very awkward.
+Roshawn Terrell How is that different to using two swords? Nobody is saying that you have to use the two swords exactly the same as each other. It is little different to sword and buckler, or rapier and dagger.
scholagladiatoria Well of course you don't have to have good accuracy and control in both hands in order to use both blades, but it definitely makes a huge difference. Especially seeing as wielding two blades is far more difficult and risky than holding a big shield that can easily protect you by just lifting it up.
Dual swords are far more risky but they have the possibility of an even greater reward if you manage to actually become effective with them.
Granted most people would die before they likely would begin to master their weapon.
So it was much easier just to hand the peasants long spears and big shields, because they are easier to use and as such less risky.
+scholagladiatoria not completely relevant to the discussion, but my aunt broke her dominant hand twice in one year and is now ambidextrous since she had to use her non dominant hand for so long.
+scholagladiatoria My experience is that (from a lot of practice) my brain doesn't seem to be able to track the position. orientation or velocity of my left hand anywhere near as well as my right, hence my right handedness. I just can't seem to develop a high enough level of ability in my left hand to make 2 swords viable or even hammer sheet/nails with my left hand regardless of the amount of practice.
Coordinating your hands to perform simultaneous or alternating actions of the same type isn't the issue as much as getting the subordinate hand to perform with enough ability to make the task worthwhile. Handedness is very much a spectrum or sliding scale from ambidexterous to very dominate handedness.
+Roshawn Terrell he covered the gist of that all in his video lol
Ambidexterity is more about having the ability to have fine motor control over both limbs. This becomes necessary when needing to make very small adjustments on the fly, things that your brain will automatically do with your dominant hand. For most, their non-dominant hand can only perform simple tasks, but do them well enough to not be noticeable. As for learning to be ambidextrous, it is simply training your brain and nerves to be able to process the necessary information and transmit it just as quickly as with your dominant hand. This is a learning exercise (for your brain to have to comprehend the information with speed and accuracy) as well as a physical process (myelin having to reform to give the most effective speeds), both of which make it easier for a younger person to learn.
Knife and knife food eating form, was it done historically?
Was spoon and fork common in places where the texture of a meal wasn't a certainty?
...I've been watching too much youtube. Please don't answer these on Five Questions.
+Dominator046 The fork wasn't common in Europe until at least the 16th century. Before that, the knife was used to skewer as well as cut, so using two knives was probably done at least somewhere. Though it would have been far more common to just hold it in place with your fingers.
The knife and knife did happen a lot in japan and egypt and the spoon and fork thing in china
Let's first talk about egypt
Only rich people did it cuz you need to money to be able to do it and the first time it was used was during the period asterix and obelix visited egypt
The japanese used it during the time goku was still training so the dragon ball period
Now china is interesting some people think that the emperor jackie chan made it a thing but is was a chinese trader called bruce lee
I hope you learned something
+Bruhhskie Idk Gold. Pure gold.
I cried just a little.
I studied Pilipino stick fighting for 4 years in my twenty's and it is not too difficult to become competent in duel wielding... Our master, Mr Ian Corrigan, had studied with the famous martial artist Dan Inosanto in the US and also trained in manila at the 12 pairs school and he would "show off" by wielding 2 full size baseball bats at such a high speed that you could hear them singing through the air feel the breeze at a good ten feet away..... Your uploads are always interesting and highly informative Matt... Keep up the great work my friend.
I have to disagree about the ambidextrousness point. I can't hit as accurately or powerfully with my left as my right and trying to focus on both arms at the same time is far harder than using one hand to help you balance the other.
+Alex Morgan You don't have to be equally able with both hands in order to use both hands. Presumably you don't have any trouble using a knife and fork :-)
Yes but you refer to the AD+D rule that when you fight with both hands, you suffer a penalty to your better hand and a greater penalty to your off-hand, unless you have Ambi in which case, the Penalty is reduced. Unless I am mistaken. Love your work BTW.
+Alex Morgan Japanese Nito Ryu Kendo (focused on wielding a long sword and a short sword) has a phrase that goes something like "when you split your hands from wielding a single weapon, you end up with all of your 'power' in one hand, and all of your 'control' (aka skill / dexterity) in the other hand". Typically with the 'weaker' hand holding the shorter sword, so that all you really need to do is step in and thrust or cut, and the stronger hand holding the longer sword.
They typically use the shorter sword out in front to parry and control their opponent with, while their longer sword is held abover their shoulder and slightly behind them - always threatening a strong powerful strike (that doesn't have a whole lot of 'control' to it). From what I've heard about the kendo scene, it's a very disorienting style to fight against, because if you worry too much about one sword the other ends up getting you. I guess it wouldn't be too dissimilar from 'buckler and sword' fighting styles as in those the buckler is often held fairly far out too.
In general though, dungeons and dragons does an awful job of representing reality; it shouldn't even be entertained in this kind of discussion.
+scholagladiatoria in the same sense aren't most people better using the knife in a certain hand and the fork in the other hand, true that anyone can switch hands but most people just naturally feel better using set hand for set piece of cutlery :)
+iTzzzRaW yes
My mind kept playing The English Beat over your demo! And now I can't stop laughing!
Thank You I needed that.
Also great video I've been arguing that very point with my friend Joel for months (mostly because he won't spar with me)
How about dual wielding shields?
Hey, Matt,
I think the penalty for "dual wielding" in RPGs is simply to prevent it from becoming the default for any character that doesn't use a shield. Most RPG systems have a fixed or linear progression to the number of attacks a character can make in one round of combat, and a character that dual wields effectively has one more attack that those with one weapon (and in some systems this is *doubling* the number of times you can attack). I know that in 1982's DragonQuest by SPI, this was a large advantage because all characters could only ever attack once, unless they were wielding a dagger against a slow opponent or had near-super human agility. In that system (which worked off of percentiles), there was a 30% penalty when attacking with your offhand unless you were, as you mentioned, ambidextrous (which was randomly determined during character creation) at which point the penalty was reduced to 10%. There was also a 10% penalty to the "main hand" if you attacked with both weapons in one round. Seems fair *mechanically* as you get to have another attack.
Here's the numbers: In SPI's DragonQuest, all weapons do 1-10 damage plus a fixed amount based on the weapon. A two-handed sword will do 8-17 damage on a hit. A short sword (arming sword) will do 4-13 damage on a hit. If a character is dual wielding, they have a chance of dealing an addition 4-13. In a straight comparison, 8-23 is better than 8-14. The penalty to the hit chance on both attacks is simply a means by which the game creators can allow players to choose the two-handed sword over two swords, or even just a single sword with or without a shield to avoid the two-strike penalties, without feeling like they are handicapped.
So, while not necessarily realistic, some times fair play takes precedent. Also, there's nothing sexy about shields unless they are diverting the fire breath of a dragon. Sorry, history.
End nerd-ing.
Lol @ The knife and fork......I uh......I wasn't expecting that.
You can learn to be ambidextrous. I was left handed but I had an accident and hurt my left wrist pretty badly so I had to learn to use my right hand. Now I actually write better with my right hand than my left. Although, it's partly due to my left wrist not fully healing right.
I have fought with two swords at larp for well over a decade. I can tell you that they are effective and I can fight two opponents at a time by using peripheral vision and footwork to direct them and choosing my strikes wisely. It require coordination and practice. Of course I would not conclude that larping is the same as sparring with steel, however it certainly can be done. I personally prefer it simply because I can hit faster from behind opponents and deal 2 hits at once, which is great for a "game style" setting. I am agreed with just about everyone however, that a sword and shield is the way to go, if you do not want to die. Good video.
I think skall made a good statement about duel-wielding. He stated that using sword and shield is also duel wielding, that shields are essentially weapons, but they are optimized for defense, rather than attack. I like that idea and I usually find it very pleasing to see games treat shields as weapons, rather than pieces of armor.
Funny thing is, I have to switch my knife and fork around when I eat. Right hand always leads. I guess i'm in need of a special training session with Matt Easton, cutlery duelist extraordinaire lol
Nice video, enjoyable and informative as always.
Ambidexitery is usually about having equally dominant arms, so they've become neither right or left handed at a task. In hema terms it would be being able to use your sword in your left hand (and accompanying techniques/footwork etc) as you would with your right. In fantasy terms it's typically more of a 'can focus in 2 directions' so you can attack/defend in 2 zones at once (realistically this is hard because you only have one torso to commit to a movement and footwork is normally for one plane of focus, hence all the twirly wirly in movies).
Using a fork in the left hand can be quite advantageous because you can catch an opponant's weapon between the tines of the fork and then follow up with a knife attack.
I think its fun to see how dual wielding almost universally looks the same across multiple cultures. This looks so much like double sinawali weaving with FMA/Arnis/Eskrima dual cane/stick/baston/sword.
I like to use 2 swords for flashy choreographies. The people watching us were always having fun with it, but for actual duels I rather went with sword and shield or longsword.
Another fun combination is sword and axe for hooking
so I spent my time cooking dinner listening to this. Now I really want to see a gopro Scholagladiatoria tableware tutorial :D
When I broke my right hand I started to learn to write and draw with my left and did pretty well after awhile. When my right hand healed I stopped and lost that ability. So I think yes you can practice and become ambidextrous though I think some people can do it from the start but it isn't limited to those people.
Though I'm still pretty sure the people that seem to be able to do it "innately" as you call it probably learned to do it when they are young, like how many of us learned how to write with one hand or the other. While they for whatever reason learned with both hands.
I mean, under pressure you'd turn to your dominant hand more so than your-off hand wich would probably happen during sparring or even battle. Wich is why it's called the dominant one, it's the one that takes control and the one you feel more confident using. If you're right-handed you'd use a sword in the right hand and a shield in the left. Am I right?
So being ambidextrous means, neither of your hand is the dominant one, wich also means you feel equally comfortable with either.You could have the shield in either hand, or the sword in either hand. I mean, you still could, but it'd feel weird for a good long while. Being ambidextrous means you could switch whenever you want.
Oh and, some people just are ambidextrous, but it is possible to to train for it :)
Anyhow, good quality vids as always Matt! Keep up the good work
I think it does require some level of ambidexterity, but a learned style. The same way a person can learn to write with either hand if they devote enough practice to it, the same is true of swords. In most of the styles you mentioned (sword/dagger, sword/shield, sword/buckler, etc) and even in the comment about tennis or fork and knife, the off hand is being used at the same time, but for arguably a much simpler task. Most people even using single sword will be far less effective using the sword in their weak hand unless they have trained in both hands equally. That would carry over to duel wielding as well. And that's why I do understand it as the writing short hand for a person being a badass fighter. Because the person would need to learn to use the sword well normally, then train just as much to use it in his off hand, and then training to use them effectively together.
Certain fighting styles using shorter weapons do focus on using two weapons from the beginning (like escrima) which does simplify it a bit because you are basically just learning one thing from the start. But to use your favorite word Matt: Context! That is how almost everyone is trained in those areas and is the standard. In medieval europe, wouldnt most teachers focus on teaching to use your sword in your main hand and a shield/buckler/dagger in your off hand? If so, you would likely need to train on your own to use both hands equally, and since there are a lack of schools for using two full length weapons together, you would essentially need to be self taught in that style.
Ambidexterity can be really handy to the initial learning process. I'm a recent HEMAist, but I've studied Wing Chun for a long time, and one thing that you notice with new students in Wing Chun is that people with dominant hands go through an initial adjustment period where they struggle to learn to use their off hands in the same manner as their dominant hand. Once their past that adjustment period though, people's handedness becomes moot.
It's admittedly an SCA thing, but from my experience of melee the advantage of two swords is that you can threaten two targets simultaneously (attacking both at the same time is another thing, but still). That gives you a useful asset in melee, offering a chance to control the fight against multiple opponents a bit more. You don't do it like they did at the Tower of Joy, mind you, but it can be done.
+Matthew Hooper Yea but that only works in SCA, HMB, and LARP because of the scoring systems...now had dayne been using two valyrian steel blades, and had the show not weakened them significantly, then it wouldnt matter as dayne could slice through sword and armor alike with little resistance, but as it stands, dawn was nowhere to be seen in the show, and valyrian steel is nerfed dramatically anyway, so the idea of being able to threat two people at once is just not realistic.
Were I a stark soldier who was on dayne's off side being presented with the point of one sword, but him actually looking away, it would be of minimal threat, because he would find it difficult to find a weak point in my armor while focusing elsewhere. Assuming hes right handed, dayne would have been the most vulnerable while holding his arms extended from the side, on his left, and looking right, youd actually be safer with the blade pointed at you than were you infront of his chest or behind his back, as in those two cases he could use a small pivot to threaten you appropriately with either his primary and off hand in the case of the front, and primary hand in case of the back.
Lol "hello knife and fork" good answer
Quick story that may or may not be relevant. I shoot Olympic style pistol for my college (air, free, and standard) and in my sophomore year I had an accident that rendered my shooting hand effectively useless. I was, at the time, our third best shooter, and having a fairly new team, the difference between third and fourth was massive, and we couldn't afford to have me sit out until I healed.
So I went into the safe and got the three guns that a left handed guy who graduated the year prior had been using, and started shooting. It was difficult for a little while, because it worked a familiar muscle group on the wrong side of the body, and I simply was not as strong because I never needed to be on that side, but after only a few days, I was shooting pretty naturally. I wasn't quite as good, obviously, but my scores were still competitive. I am by no means ambidextrous, but I know how to shoot, just like you practice HEMA and know how to use a sword. The brain just needs a poke or ten!
I should add that yes, I have attempted to shoot two pistols at once, no it was not effective my any stretch of the imagination, yes, it was stupid to try, and yes, it was fun as hell.
It's also a completely different thing than two swords, and really not relevant to this topic.
The knife and fork is actually an excellent point *for* ambidexterity as most people cut with their dominant hand because keeping a fork still is quite easy and can be done with the "off hand".
Tennis is another great point *for* it, that's why most tennis players prefer the back hand or even double handed backhand, because a swing with their off hand would be less accurate and/or powerful.
Great demonstration. Question for you. Based on your experience, are the extra attacks seen in RPGs for dual wielding warranted/justifiable?
"You do not need any innate magical ability to use two swords" - speaking as someone who is an Escrima practitioner/instructor: you are correct.
However, you do need to spend a decent amount of time training both hands, in order to get them to work at anything approaching equal competency. And once you've got both hands working, you then need to teach the various ways that they can work together.
The way we teach that is to essentially teach everyone to be ambidextrous from day one - just by forcing everyone to do all our drills in both hands. And every so often we end up teaching the two main styles of asynchronous ("sinawalli", or weaving) and synchronous ("crosada", or crossing) dual-weapon movement. (and then, on occasion, we try to show how to use the same techniques empty-hand, as boxing is essentially dual-wielding your fists.)
In that sense, it's kind of like handwriting - yes, teaching your off-hand to write is actually easier than teaching your primary hand, mainly because you aren't also at the same time learning the very concept of writing and language and grammar and punctuation and whatnot. However, it's still a physical skill you need to get up to snuff.
I would argue that modern martial arts can get away with this sort of generalized training, simply because there's less pressure to produce competent soldiers in a short amount of time - as such, modern schools can go broad, rather than deep, from the start.
But yeah - if you don't know how to dual-wield, honestly the easiest thing to do is to leave the rear weapon in the (I call it a roof block) - high guard? Anyway - it keeps your off-hand more-or-less out of the way, and cuts off the primary line of attack of your opponent. Essentially, this uses your off-hand weapon as a long, thin shield that helps to protect your head and upper torso.
regarding the example of you dual wielding. the only thing is, you are a legend, and can do more than us mere mortals
I agree with a lot of what you said here. Having fought with both sword and shield and two swords, I'd say I prefer using a shield for a few reasons. While fighting in single combat, sword strikes can be easy enough to parry, but thrusts are much harder to predict as they aren't telegraphed (or shouldn't be). When considering the fight at the Tower of Joy, my only problem was when Dayne stabbed one of Ned's men and he took forever to do it. If one of your swords were to get stuck in a body (as you mentioned, there was a lot of armour) or if one of your blades were to break, it would certainly be better to have a big lump of wood between you and your opponents while you draw your second weapon. Especially if you're outnumbered by five or so.
For all of you asking, those are Albion-made silverware, high quality steel, historically accurate. Matt only collects the best.
I have a bit of ambidexterity (more like "right-handeness" coupled with "left-eyeness"), and the only thing special about it is that I can far more easily adapt my hand to my opponent. It's really fun using a shield in my right hand and a sword or spear in my left, or simply do an overextended swing with a single weapon only to catch it with my other hand and keep going. Changing which hand I use to pivot in a longsword is also nice, :)
The most difficult concept to understand when dual wielding with 2 swords of the same length is to keep them out of the way of each other. The same you do when you learn to swing a blade for the first time, to learn to keep your arm out of the way, thats why you learn to hide it behind or really close to your chest elbow touching your ribs. For the dual wielding to be used effective you dont use them at the same time as if you where boxing, thay way you square your body making you a better target but is also easier to block and neutralize both of them if they are moving towards the same pattern but one after the other. You would rather use a high guard on one and a low guard on the other at all times, this way you can thiner your body as a target just get your elbow on the hi guard really upwards on a complety vertical line so you can turn your body, keeping the guards like this you can avoid hiting ypurself. Then the chest game beggins, now i can attack or defend effectively from both my guards, is a chest game all from there but as soon as you start your attack with one you should be able to keep the other ready no matter what you swing on the other, you need to be as good with any of your arms to stop just using one weapon as a shield when in fact both should attack and defend in turns. I hope it helps cheers
Badass at the end mate DW is awesome
I think the idea of being ambidextrous comes into it due to a person's strength in their arms. Bringing up tennis (I play tennis a lot) A player cannot switch to using their left hand and do the same. In badminton doing an overhead swing is incredibly difficult with your bad hand. Although with dual wielding swords you could sing both in the same way, surely your dominant hand is the one mainly doing the damage. It's at the point of contact that the left hand might react differently. Of course with practice the two hands might become closer together in terms of strength, but if you're also doing normal 1 sword combat the main hand will still be stronger than the offhand.
+trevor Wilkinson Or you can just practice a style that relies _heavily_ on your off-hand, like Niten Ichi-Ryu, in which it applies the actual force of the two-handed blows much of the time. It makes things a lot easier when they switch to two swords in advanced training, since their off hand is already pretty steady and strong.
Wow, the (new?) camera in this episode is fantastic.
Hey Matt, I am watching you for quite a while but have never commented your videos - guess it's an official greeting then :).
Just wanted to say it was very glamourous/charming/cute/delightful and funny to see you swinging a fork and a knife while pretending you have a sword and a buckler.
Have a good day!
Problem with the off-hand is not "can you use a sword in it?" It is, "can you use a sword WELL in it?" You might be able to swing it around okay in your off-hand if you're non-ambidextrous, but you will probably neither be as strong nor as accurate with the strikes as you would be with your dominant hand. True dual-wielding assumes you're using the same weapon in both hands. A shield is much more passive and requires less precision and dexterity to use in the off-hand than another primary weapon. RPGs represent this with varying trait systems that infer that someone who is not naturally ambidextrous (which is mostly everyone) needs special training in order to overcome their normal clumsiness with their off-hand, thus reducing the penalty for dual-wielding. It makes a lot of sense, because while people can certainly use a knife and a fork in both hands, if you ask them to switch which hand the knife and fork are located, most people will be much more clumsy and awkward than they would using them in their normal way (which for most people, for example, is knife in dominant hand, fork in off-hand).
It is shown in the Fursulyaat Mamluke manuals as well. They also stress training with both hands equally especially in mounted combat.
Quick thing that I've found first ambidexterity does help but it isn't a be all end all second ambidexterity is a thing that you can train to achieve third I've toyed around with dualweilding and the best combo I've found is small sword and a light arming sword or a sabre of some kind, it's essentially just fighting with a single weapon but holding the smallsword at ready keeps your backhand out of the way and poses a very real threat if they try to close in