Is Dual Wielding Swords REALLY That Awkward?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 4 มิ.ย. 2024
- A lot has been said about why dual swords (of similar length) were not terribly common in history overall. But is it really an unrealistic fantasy trope or is there some merit to grabbing a second sword instead of a shield / buckler / parrying dagger?
At this point I feel like there has been some over-correcting, and claims have been made that go too far in the opposite direction, portraying any kind of dual wielding as impractical nonsense. It has its challenges, sure, but it's not as clunky and self-defeating as some seem to think (personally I also used to be a little skeptical).
** Music credits **
Outro:
"Highland Storm" by The Slanted Room Records
theslantedroom.github.io/stev...
Used with artist's permission
** Merch **
www.bonfire.com/store/skallswag/
If you want to join Bonfire to start selling your own merch: www.bonfire.com/welcome/07bb1...
** Support the channel **
Help fund future videos, get bonus content and access to an exclusive Discord server:
/ skallagrim
/ @skallagrim
Other ways to support the channel by shopping through affiliate links:
Kult of Athena, my favorite online store for reproductions of historical arms and armor, fantasy swords, etc:
www.kultofathena.com/?koa=259
Where to get HEMA gear and practice swords:
www.woodenswords.com/?Click=1799
GamerSupps powdered energy drinks and other stuff (I particularly like the SUS snack bars):
gamersupps.gg/Skall
I highly recommend the balms and oils from Beard Sorcery:
beardsorcery.com/?ref=0UEFtHW...
Books about history, martial arts, swords, knives, video/audio equipment, and other stuff I recommend:
US - www.amazon.com/shop/skallagri...
Canada - amzn.to/2HeOCMA
** Second channel / other social media **
/ @skallhalla
/ _skallagrim_
/ skallagrimyt
/ skallagrim_yt
#skallagrim #sword #fantasy #history #swordfighting - บันเทิง
It's only acceptable if it's dual welding claymores
Scotland forever
You can dual wield only katanas while wearing studded leather. Everybody knows that.
The image that my brain conjures up is someone with a claymore mine in each hand.
Okay Undine
dual wield zweihanders
The pros of dual wielding is simple math: If one sword does 100 damage, with two swords you do 200 damage.
The problem isn't apparent until you hit level 3 and go full difficulty. Practicing and sparring, you can get used to. But go full contact nerf-swords and you figure out why no one does it pretty quick. Trying to fight with both hands, is like trying to play those weird games that have you control 2 things at once with the sticks. The second you fall out of the groove, you can't recover. All you can do is hold one sword to the side for blocks and half-assed attacks, and within minutes, you realize you'd prefer a shield.
6 guys. We all goofed around, with nerf weapons on boring days. We all had the exact same realizations and experiences.
From nerf, I learned an un-thought-of tactic that knights really could've used.
Just grab your opponent's sword. Keep your free-hand free.
Sure, in reality, you'd need the equivalent of steel-toe gauntlets to prevent injury, but even grabbing the blade for a moment gives you a unblockable attack.
You forgot about the damage reduction for the off hand.
Quick maff
I think that the reason dual wielding was not done is because you would be better off using a different weapon in the off hand that offered different advantages. A dagger could be used for partying like a 2nd sword, but could offer advantages if you got in close to your opponent. You might find it easier to stab the opponent's sword hand using a dagger. In any case, carrying a dagger instead of a 2nd sword would be easier and we see lots of people using sword and dagger.
Nah man, because of split damage and dual wield bonus do 50 with each sword :/
Me about to play Elden Ring: "Oh actually I'd better watch this."
try two fingers
@@NickCombs Try two fingers but hole
I went to japan and there was no sub titles anywhere, anime has lied to me
@@m0-m0597 well did you download the srt file?
Hey! I loved your art tutorials! Helped me a lot some years ago.
Really appreciate your open-minded, no-nonsense approach to these kind of questions!
Oh how times have changed
@@trailgamer5 Indeed I remember some old Skal video about dual wielding where it was: "How good is dual wielding, lets ask these longsword experts who have never tried it. They say its dumb, so its dumb", I like this evolution of Skal, becoming more open minded.
If it’s good enough for Miyamoto Musashi then it’s good enough for me.
thats why i only swordfight with sticks!
Go pick up an Oar then
@@1stCallipostle I've started doing just that
With peace and love, you are not Musashi Miyamoto
[Strands you on a tiny island]
I suggest some escrima/kali (Filipino stick fighting) lessons to help you with that dual wielding dexterity. Been taking escrima since I was 12 and dual wielding feels super natural to me
Yeah Kali practicioner here, can confirm.
Btw, since you are an FMA person from the US I am using this chance to ask.
We both know FMA does way more than "just" sticks.
I don't get why its always being presented as such on american MA channels (like Hard2Hurt and such, just an example) and FMA being seemingly dunked on by a lot of people over in the US.
Is this because there are a lot of FMA-Mc Dojos that ruined "our" reputation?
Is this trying to keep competition low or is this the same thing like with HEMA that a lot of people just don't take it serious.
Not sure but I notice "us" (FMA People) having a pretty bad rep in the States.
Sorry for asking but this has been lowkey bothering me for a while know, maybe you have more insight into this.
Cheers from Europe.
I've been accused by some HEMA folks of being "fake" because I do Escrima/Kali with two axes instead of sticks or daggers
@@EvilGNU Dan Inosanto is Filipino American and he ran Jeet Kune Do for decades as the top Shifu and JKD is an MMA and it includes FMA, which are highly respected in JKD and American mma founded by Bruce Lee.
haha - came here to suggest the same. Dual-wielding makes a LOT more sense in a style/art that does it as the baseline. lol
@@EvilGNU Another FMA practitioner here, Pekiti Tirsia in particular and also from the States. From my experience, it's a lack of understanding mostly. To the average American, martial arts are essentially a Japanese or Chinese thing that got picked up and then turned into MMA. Part of it is Hollywood and its long love affair with flashy martial arts techniques, and part of it is that the wide prevalence of guns in our country make unarmed combat overlooked and "redundant" for self defense purposes.
FMA schools are actually kinda tricky to find outside of highly populated areas like the big cities here, so it's less that McDojos have ruined the reputation and more that to the average American, FMA doesn't even exist.
And then for those who are aware of it, you do run into what you are talking about, the "dunking". The general idea being that you're just larping or that you're not good enough to defend yourself without a weapon. I've seen it too, but I just ignore it. Anyone who spends time bragging about their own martial skill or trying to denigrate another's martial skill can either put up or shut up as far as I'm concerned and they typically tend to choose shut up when you politely remind them that "put up" against an FMA practitioner involves armed combat.
"If your opponent is crazy fast, they might be able to nail you with [a surprise thrust]."
Skallagrim, paraphrased
I trained hard at double baston with Filipino escrimas. It takes a lot of effort to get the coordination and then a little bit of pressure testing to make it viable. What I have found:
1. Tornado cuts are stupid. You are basically cutting at the same spot and people can parry both your weapons with one.
2. Double cuts at the same time are just as stupid
3. "Scissor" cutting/parries are effective, but you have to have the timing right.
4. Hanging parry with one weapon and attacking with the other works but if you don't have the timing right you will fail.
5. Case of rapier fighters will win over any weapon or style that focuses too much on cuts.
When you get it down though, and do it with say paired Messers, it's a lot of fun and people really don't want to spar you ;)
As another avid dual wielder, I agree with all your points.
As with any other weapon style against some OTHER style, there are ones in which it excels and ones which which it fails. Dual rapier is tough (both to learn and to fight against).
@@epremeaux yeah. Case fighters are why I have and train Montante/Greatswords now. Where's that single tempo parry/riposte now? (Seriously only way I can stand a chance lol)
@LordCrazyMike Montana? Yeah another in which I'd rather just run away lol "I see no advantage here"
Ok boomer
@@code066funkinbird3 sorry I don't understand. I was born in the late 80s so I'm not part of the baby boomer generation and as an avid civil rights supporter and LGBQT person, I don't fit the common conservative ideology that is largely considered a Hallmark of boomer mentality?
The real problem with duel wielding is that most people aren't ambidextrous enough to actually use the off hand
that's a pretty simple problem to solve
Agreed, although training can overcome it. There are some African sabre styles with good dual wielding training
I've trained a bit with dual wielding (or paired weapons as some groups call it), and at first, it is very strange. However, it doesn't take too long to start grasping
Yeah this might be part of it. I'm left-handed, and I primarily used my left hand for all sparring up until I was around 10 years old, at which point I also started practicing with my right hand because some techniques are designed under the assumption that you're using the same hand as your opponent. At this point I think I'm pretty much perfectly ambidextrous when it comes to single-handed use, so when I tried out dual wielding it came very natural to me.
@@amosfamous7327it takes years. A black belt level martial artist has a great chance.
So the short of it is that dual wielding is a counter against getting into a sword bind, catch with one sword and strike with the other. In a way this makes dual wielding a surprisingly defensive style where you counter or limit the opponent's options.
It’s basically a shield with higher difficulty
@@calcium_skeleton That's fair, but an offhand weapon provides the user with a few extra offensive options that a shield wouldn't (ex: the ability to block with either and counter with either, from either direction)
@@potatokilr7789 higher,,, more rewarding difficulty to be exact
The Gods gave you two hands... and you use them both for your weapon. I can respect that.
I thank you for that reference.
that dialog was for two-handed weapons, the guards had no way to tell if you were dual wielding
@@mardelmarcanoobligatory fus ro dah
Me when iron greatsword
which gods
Dual wielding.... Both hands have a sword or a parrying dagger!
Lol. The other really infuriating thing about the "parrying daggers are short for leverage" argument is the fact that you can simply parry at a lower distance with a sword. And, if you parry with the longer part of the sword, it still isn't completely useless, situationally.
I agree too.... A parrying dagger is less cumbersome.
I feel like it's easier to maneuver for one less trained as well.
And I appreciate the idea of having something that's very convenient if it comes to a grapple be what's in my off hand.
Might be due to lack of training with two swords, but I find a dagger much easier to use than a second sword. Lighter, more nimble and doesn't get in the way in more complicated situations
It’s a lower skill entry level for similar results, two equal sized blades would be very difficult for even an ambidextrous beginner. Even musashi used a shorter sword in his other hand after extensive training with a single sword
Forgive me, but what did you mean by "parrying daggers are short for leverage"? Was it referring to the idea that should a dagger and a sword meet tip to tip (or anything close) that the dagger is better able to push aside the sword since it's less far away from the user's hilt?
I would also add that if you are in a really crowded space, the dagger can sometimes be more useful.
Or if the opponent tries to grab you.
Might I add something. So I've studied Chinese and Japanese dual wielding more specifically two longs so double katana and double dao. Also Filipino Escrima.
Now I've never actually properly done sword and bucklers but recently I was talking with a guy who has and we were comparing notes. A lot of the stances, positions, and techniques of sword and buckler were very similar to near identical to dual wielding swords.
Some minor adjustments. Exmple is when you strike you use the buckler to cover your off side. You do the same with the sword though you raise it a bit so the blade is the thing covering your side.
Perhaps something to explore.
Could I ask which school of Japanese swordsmanship for 2 uchi katana?
As I am aware in there are only schools that teach Uchi katana and wakizashi? In Kōryu būjutsu
Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu
Enmei ryû
Tenshinsho-den Katori Shinto Ryû Heihô
Shingyôtô ryû
Tendô ryû
And proberly many others that I have yet to look into.
If you have any information that can point me to legitimate Kōryu that teaches the double katana as you specified, I would be most grateful as my own Kōryu doesn't teach Nito ken.
Giovanni Alberto Cassani recommended training with two swords as a basis for learning sword & cape, sword & gauntlet, sword & shield, sword & buckler, & sword & dagger.
Yes! Chinese martial arts practitioner here. The entire 'stick out the buckler with your sword either on your shoulder or under your opposite arm, and then strike from there and maneuver the blade around the buckler' totally feels like what happens with dual weapons. But the blades can switch roles infinitely.
I hope I can do it too
I just assumed it was less common because it's more complex than either sword and board (offhand mostly does its thing passively) or two-handed sword (only one weapon to figure out how best to move).
Shields aren't really "passive"
Static blocking is... A pretty poor idea. Better than it being your arm, but you still would much rather slap hits out of the way with it.
That being said, the surface area makes it MUCH easier to operate.
Sword and Dagger/short sword is pretty common as well, once again I imagine because it's easier to move and maybe slightly faster.
Also because carrying 2 full length blades is a pain the butt.
I don't think the complexity is that much different to a shield, the real difference is the lack of coverage area that makes a sword/buckler/knife more work than a large shield. When the shield covers much more of your body easily and has more value against arrows, slings, and the rightly ending methods it just makes sense over a second blade, but its still very much an active participation tool.
Also shield doesn't really bring that much in the way of downsides - usually not that much heavier (if heavier at all) and often held closer to the body supported by the forearm so it can be heavier without being as fatiguing anyway, blocks your own line of sight a bit more, but to some extent you don't need to see through it anyway. If you have to walk a long way carrying all your gear then your shield is going to want to shrink, and maybe to the point of just becoming another blade...
It is less common because it is worse than a single long weapon and worse than a sword and shield. But if you have a shorter sword in your primary and nothing in your off hand, it is better to have something in your off hand than nothing.
It's not a difference in complexity with a shield, it's more that a shield is simply better designed for its purpose than another weapon and has additional functions on the battlefield, such as stopping arrows. It's why sword and board was more common than two weapons.
Shields are better in formation and against arrows. So, for army reasons.
I take some contention with claiming this wasn't done much in history, there are several independent systems for dual wielding swords in 16th and 17th century fencing. Docciolini and Altoni, Agrippa, Godinho, Marozzo and Manciolino, among others. Docciolini offers a fairly comprehensive ambidextrous system for instance. Bit surprised you don't touch on any of them as it's an interesting research topic and at least deserves a mention.
Palladini even offers a way to make carrying two swords less awkward - give a nice sword to your page or to your friend who can’t fight, so when things get scrappy they can pass it to you.
Marozzo has a section on duel sword wielding, it's pretty much the same as sword and dagger.
The idea of luring the enemy closer to hit them with the off hand weapon that happens to be the longer one is kinda genius.
If you are not playing mind games before the fight even starts, you are already loosing. Confusing your opponent's judgement of measure is both offensive and defensive. When dual wielding, I use this technique a LOT.
I also try to casually switch stances. After a fiddling with my left hand for a bit, they forget that I still have that long reaching passing step with my dominant right hand.
Another is to assume your standard dominant stance, leave the left hand low as Skal was demonstrating. Throw a series of high attacks to the head and upper body. If they are a defensive fighter, they will focus high and leave low open. A simple rising cut from the left to the hips or ribs does the job. But this only works with close to equal length weapons.
I fight a lot of different styles (except longsword). I feel like dual wielding close to equal length weapons offers the most deception options out of any of them.
People are mentioning Kali and such daul weilding raipers does show up in european treatises as well, but it is not super common.
Kali: "That's not even my final form!" turns to Mahakali, wields ten swords
Fighting with two swords appears in at least a dozen 15th-17th-century European fencing treatises. Most of these sources feature lots of cuts.
the point with mentioning kali is that it shows it's not that difficult. People talk like dual wielding takes some crazy amount of skill, but I've seen 5 year olds do it pretty well from the moment they picked it up. I don't know what historical nerd looked at dual wielding and said it was too complicated but they're wrong.
@@oliver6257 Yes. In 1603, Giovanni Alberto Cassani recommended training with two swords as a way to learn sword & buckler, sword & dagger, sword & cape, sword & gauntlet, & sword & shield.
Eskirma, arnis or kali is a perfect example of using two weapons in tandem effectively.
I 100% agree! The efficiency comes mostly from memorizing preset movements and variations of those, so the two weapons will never interfere with one another; and while your options are therefore limited, since you learn to deal with each angle of attack, you'd never need the other options. Still, there are some hand-to-hand kali moves you can't use while holding weapons, but that's to be expected.
If Nightwing were to pick up two long knives the man would be a human blender...
Yep. I've done those arts for 20 years, among others.
While no sane person is going to argue that using two weapons isn't fantastic, that's not what the video is about. It's specifically about using two _full-length swords._ The length of weapons used in the systems you mentioned would qualify as shortswords, at most, and the distinction is important, thanks to physics and biomechanics.
I only got to train with an excellent Guro for about 18 months, but the drills from Arnis were fantastic, I practice them regularly.
Hey Skallagrim, nice to see you revisiting this highly controversial topic and showing some good thinking on how to make it viable. You could take a look on korean Ssanggeom if you want to have some examples of stances and movements that ensure that the swords will not clash with each other or restrict the fighters movement.
Hey, Beard Guy is back! =]
Nice arguments, but is there actually any techniques for 2 swords? I mean in hema, 'cause obviously there is niten ryu.
At least dozen European fencing treatises cover fighting with two swords, from the late 15th century into the 17th.
In adding further to the guy above, a large number of those fencing styles are usually with a smaller sword, parrying dagger, and sword catchers.
Interesting, but I mean actually 2 swords (being one not full size). Parrying dagger and whatnots are well covered.
I believe in Antonio Manciolino’s work there are techniques for two swords.
@@GotrekGurnisson It's over a dozen European fencing treatises that cover fencing with two full-sized swords. It was an established Renaissance weapon set & appears to have seen some civilian use.
Lindybiege did a video about a chinese dual dagger style. It had a lot of similarities, but looked like it uses the weapons purely as defensive at range to try and get as close as possible as to get inside the other guy's reach.
From personal experience fencing with rapier + dagger, I found myself naturally wanting to parry with the rapier (as if I was fencing one-handed) and then striking with the dagger while my main blade was locked. I can definitely see that still working with different sized blades.
I always wondered about that, I remember that in manga focused on martial arts(Mightiest Disciple Kenichi), they had a concept of a fighting technique, allegedly from karate, called couple hands or married hands, where you use both hands for the same thing both for defense and then both to (counter)attack.
I imagine in swords it would mostly translate to stabs and slashes would take a back sit.
Wielding two (full sized equal length) weapons effectively takes actual practice and coordination. It's not as simple thus not as commonly used.
I fence quite a bit with two swords (sideswords in my case) and I can say the biggest problem I have is not that they get in the way but that my left arm/hand is not trained enough and I can't really use it to attack effectively, so I just end up using it as a dagger but worse as it's slower and heavier. Super fun though, heavily recommend it if you have a chance.
We actually have a few sources on two sword, such as Marozzo and Manciolino
Some masters recommend training ambidextrously with single sword, makes sense to prevent this, and back problems through muscle imbalance.
@@Lohgoss mean while the extra time to take training for that someone else could have mastered a single blade more practically and usefull
@@terrycruise-zd5tw 4 reasons. Firstly tho not stated by historical masters, to prevent muscle imbalance. I have to train equally simply because of volume otherwise I run into issues longterm. Secondly, from a martial arts perspective being able to fight ambidextrously prevents getting folded because your main hand is injured, considering the amount of handsniping in fencing this one is an imperative. Thirdly, as illustrated by the comment I responded to, simply training both as a default means being able to use both offensive and defensive arms in the off hand to their full effect. And lastly, being able to switch hands is generally an advantage and can catch your opponent offguard.
@@terrycruise-zd5tw This is akin to saying that someone who grew up in a dual language household will be unable to use either language effectively.
The more one practices a thing, the more "zen" they get about realizing that the word "mastery" is a meaningless word, and those that use it are beginners, no matter how long they have been doing it.
Some people will take more naturally to one weapon, or weapon combination, than another, or one martial art vs another, or be good at languages, while others are terrible at learning them. Individuals are individuals.
But one thing is certain : Most forms of martial arts contributes positively to learning any other form of martial arts (to various degrees. One may need to "unlearn" a few old techniques before progressing in the new one, but over-all, there is a lot of "universal" to martial arts).
Practicing left handed when you are right hand dominant DOES have knock-on benefits to your normal mode. regularly trying out (and figuring out) a variety of weapon styles has knock-on benefits to your primary / favorite style. ALL training adds up in the end. Working with your worst weapon combo (or most hated) at least once a week has knock-on benefits. If you can take your least liked, most awkward weapons form and get it from "incompetent" to "competent", your favorite style will progress because of it.
But some people will just always be bad, no matter how hard they try. While others will pick it up lightning fast and be "good" essentially from day 1.
Being "decently good" at dual wielding means you are at least "decently good" at single sword. Being "exceptional" at dual wielding means you are probably "exceedingly exceptional" at single sword.
The time it takes to achieve this is irrelevant, unless you are trying to "collect them all" and became a "black belt" at everything. Usually such people are basically terrible at everything, with a few exceptional exceptions. It all depends on who judges what "mastery" means.
And to be fair, even truly exceptional fighters (competitive, renowned instructors, etc), get taken down by their students (and not because they "let them win"). A fight is by it's very nature chaos. Paradoxically, true masters know there is no such thing as a true master.
@laufert7100 I train sidesword as well, I trained both hands from the start because that is how I was taught in my 1st ever martial art. (You never know which stance you will be stood in if when attacked). If I am forced to use right only all lesson for free play or drill routines, I go home and drill the left hand the next day.
I am better with my right but can effectively defend myself with either. And because people are less experienced against lefties, I score hits more easily.
Now I am confident with a single sword in either hands, I have just started to learn morozzo duel weilding drills.
tbh considering the bio mechanics of the human body
i'd imagine that a duel wielding stance would probably look similar to a boxing stance
maybe something like a more sideways southpaw stance?
and im seeing some wing chun in there with the ideas of economic movement and smoothly transitioning defense into offense
Definitely i train as a dimachaerus in gladiator reenactment and the stance and techniques can resemble boxing
Kali, practitioners are expert dual sword wielders, specially the Kali ilustrisimo because they are 100% blade base system
Unironically, 1:30 is such a dope looking stance.
I'd at least get the right handed blade on the other side of the one being held against the back, it's a little trapped where it is. Also, both have a pretty long distance to travel to do anything useful.
6:04 If I were to design swords specifically for this purpose, I would give them each something similar to the guard on a Scottish broadsword.
Pair of schiavonas; they're good for a long grip for thrusting
Awesome video! 🔥💪
I've been practicing Larp sword fighting for a while, and it's awesome to see some of the same key ideas repeat here
Keep it up skall, you're awesome
One drawback is that a one handed sword will have less leverage against an opponent using a two handed sword; this can be supplemented by simply using your second sword.
Duel-wielding is just another case of "not as good or as bad as people think it is" as per usual when it comes to popular concepts.
7:30 ok I'm sorry, I am TOO DISTRACTED! What even IS that grip on the wooden sword?!
8:40 Thank you! I was so confused!
I was thinking the same. I'm still not convinced it's a good idea though. You wouldn't have as much control and it looks like it would be easy to disarm. You'd have a huge disadvantage in a bind. I don't personally think the reach advantage makes up for the drawbacks.
@@0612rex It's about the same as if you choked up. A choked-up one-handed bind is bad, and holding the tip of the grip doesn't make it worse unless your opponent chose to bind your sword at the extra tip-length you got (they won't). Disarming usually doesn't result in your hand sliding down a grip, but the grip twisting out of your hand when your grip strength falters, and choking up wouldn't prevent that. Choking up until contact with the tsuka might even give a better pivot point to be disarmed from.
It's the convention in kendo when one-handing.
It's a kendo thing,
It is not something that is done in traditional Japanese swordsmanship take a look at niten ich ryu or, katori Shinto ryu.
@@orbitalvagabond you'd still have a stronger lever force if your hand is further from the tip. It's going to be slower because there's more mass to move in front of your hand. Quickly changing direction of the swing will be more difficult for the same reason. I'm sure there's situations where that grip is advantageous, but there's a reason it doesn't seem to exist outside Japanese martial arts. I've used longswords one handed, and controlling the swing is hard enough with a standard grip. I suppose a shorter blade would be a little more manageable, but you're still sacrificing speed and control.
Great work! Entertaining and informational without getting boring. I enjoyed hearing Sindri's expertise as well as Skall's.
Love this video ❤would like more dual welding breakdowns with other weapons, like 2 axes (does the lack of thrust affect) or 2 maces (wild momentum must be murder on the shoulders). Also combinations is there a pairing of 2 different weapons that feels like a medieval cheat code?
Love your videos always a pleasure
Two swords means you can end two people rightly.
It's not THAT awkward, but it requires you to invest a decent amount of practice into a fencing style that's only going to be useful in a fairly limited set of situations. Battlefield is obviously out, it would be good for duels except those often specified equal weapons, and with self defence it means you now have to wear two swords around town instead of one or one and a buckler/dagger which are smaller. But sure, you can make it work decently well if you're dedicated.
I concur.
Would I want to fight two sword man with one sword? Not particularly.
Would I rather invest my time being better at one sword than becoming two sword man myself? Yes.
Or learning an easier defensive implement instead.
its basically just a thing of dexterity, most people cant make different cordinate movements without a lot of training.
Being naturally ambidextrous would make it easy, or left handed people since their right hemisphere is wired differently and allows for easier learning of use of the two hands.
Just to chime in on this generally great video:
A friend and I just gave a workshop on "Due Spade" - "Two Swords" fighting according to diffeent italian renaissance sources, focusing on Docciolini (Trattato in Materia di Scherma - 1601) and Manciolino (Opera Nova - 1531), who work with rapiers/side swords. Both have that thing going where in their didactics, the second (!) thing they teach is dual swords (Doccilini starting with spada sola, while Manciolino starts with sword and buckler). It's never a bad idea to look into the source texts! ;)
The longer the swords you are using and the more efficently you want to pair them in one tempo, the bigger the problem becomes of coordinating them. That said, if you know what you are doing, then it is totally feasible. It's also less a question of ambidexterity (which sure isn't detrimental) but more of knowing how to properly coordinate.
All that said, while two swords are sure better than just one sword and while fencing with two swords is certainly a great tool to learn coordination, I think that combinations like sword and buckler or even sword and parrying dagger are preferrable in everyday life and even in a lot of combat situations. There's reasons why paired swords, while being used historically (and even taught in the treatises, just as I said) were not as common but an eccentircity, as you yourself say.
Here’s to hoping Skall can tackle the world of “Dungeon Meshi” soon.
I wanna see Gordon Ramsey cover it
I'm still hoping for a Goblin slayer video. especially The Side story year one manga where he get his first gear.
I am not really worried about the clumsiness per say since I trained in Arnis, but it depends on the era. it seems to me if there are arrows, spears or stones coming at you, you want a shield lol. if it is a duel, why not?
I'd say it depends a bit on the volume of projectiles as well - Assuming you are aware you are in danger if it is just one archer you can probably just step sideways every time till they tire or run out of arrows. If its 3 or 4 maybe you can manage to maintain that dodging approach, perhaps use the surroundings as cover more - which for a traveller accosted by bandit etc is perhaps a risk/challenge worth accepting because you don't have to haul a 'real' shield and probably spare or two around - As if you don't have lots of buddies who are going to end up the unfortunate ones who die early... You probably need to carry an extra or two as once its full of arrows and spears its not going to do you much good...
But as soon as it gets into serious battle field type numbers, which means you probably have too many friends around you to really sidestep even if you had the Jedi reflexes you are absolutely going to want the shield no question at all.
I'd probably still argue the Parrying dagger or shield to be superior in duels, but in matched duels or just generally to make an opponent face something they are not used to it can have it's merits.
@@foldionepapyrus3441 I dont know about the velocity of older Bows... but one time I was at a martial arts demo, where a guy was showing how he could catch arrows. He had a bow-man stand about 300 feet away from him.. and fired off arrows at him. After the demo, he asked if any of us wanted to try. The arrows were tipped with pencil erasers... but even so, it was dangerous. Still... I got in line to try for myself...
As soon as you notice the arrow being sent.. its pretty much instantly about to hit you. According to the guy, the arrows travel at about 300 feet per second, from that Bow... so it made sense that you literally had less than 1 second to react properly. My instincts kicked in, and I just dived away, for the first attempt. It was terrifying. A few more attempts, and I was able to remain standing statically... but as I started to close my hand around the arrow.. it would pass through my hand before I could fully close it. It took maybe 6 tries, before I finally caught one.
The thing is... Im not sure if the bow-man was pulling a full draw on his shots, either. All I can say... is that if the bows were of similar velocity back then... and he was less than 300 feet away... it would not be as trivial to deal with, as you might think. Especially if you were already distracted, in a fight with another attacker.
Stones might also be an issue, if the OP is fairly close... if you dont have any armor / helmet.
@@johndough8115 I didn't say it was trivially easy, and did say you'd want to be aware of the danger. But the very fact you can catch arrows says if you are aware of it coming you can usually avoid it. Arrows (especially historical ones) don't actually get a huge spread of speed from all the potential draw weights - to survive the bigger bow the arrow must get heavier at which point its got more momentum, but it doesn't actually travel much if any faster. With a speed from tests by folks like Tod's Workshop saying 190 odd feet per second IIRC.
Though with modern CF shafts and bows with the notch for the arrow to travel straight through etc that won't apply nearly as much as the arrows are good for a wider power range.
Yeah dual wielding for this reason appears in street fighting, tournaments, show fights, and fencing halls. Basically civilian context. It is less common cause carrying two sideswords for example kinda sucks, and it may have been frowned upon socially like you are looking for trouble:
Seems that training would make this exceptionally effective, though I see the value of the rondel in armored combat even moreso. The prime benefit is the double threat, where an attacker doesn't know where to attack, how to defend, or where a counter is going to come from. Getting him to hesitate or be uncertain may allow you to avoid a fight entirely.
I liked the ‘these do work if you know their lengths… don’t entangle them.’ I had not throught ot why a short dagger Vs a sword length spectrum would matter in that way.
Dual wielding becomes natural fairly quickly in some cases. Filipino style fighting, whether empty or full, the off hand is actively participating. Kali, and Escrima pretty early on you learn to use either or both hands. Brutal tactics, too. Fun as hell to get beat with sticks in tho. But as with most anything else, it's how you train that makes the difference.
I feel like if your offhand and lead foot are aligned you can use a sideways stance and screen with one sword by keeping it pointed at the dude. I feel like you could almost corral people by advancing on the lead foot.
Oh no, now his swords can triangulate my position!
It definitely takes practice to be able to easily dual weild swords. But it definitely makes sense in a duel. Instead of just having a lefthanded dagger, why not have another full sized sword. The only real disadvantage I can see is if they get too close, then a dagger would be more effective than a sword in that scenario.
That first "Look at this!" pulled all the weight it needed to.
I think the thing with two swords isn't that it's not good or wouldn't work, but where would you use it.
In a battlefield, you need the shield to defend against missile weapons, in armored combat, you want something more effective vs armor and in a civilian context, you want something that's easier to wear.
Palladini has a pretty easy answer (undated manuscript, but ca. 1590s) - in a civilian context, just make sure your page or your friend who can’t fight has a nice sword they can pass over to you. After all, why risk going out alone when rowdy folks who might start a fight come in groups?
Godinho in the same time period also has a series of scenarios where two swords are used a lot like his montante, so it’s perfectly reasonable to arm up with two swords and scare off a gang of swashbucklers.
The Spanish Golden Age seems to have been the heyday of sword+not!shield systems.
So in a civilian context where travel and enterprise are develiping faster than authorities can catch up and there's a lot of thugs in lawless settlements, looking for their next score.
Maybe when fighting on a ship during boarding actions? Shields aren't that important/useful, heavy armored opponents aren't likely, combinations like "sword and pistol" definitely were used in that context, so why not two swords?
I can see why people would say this if they’ve never trained and are totally unaware of historical warfare/martial arts.
Skall, The tepee stance is how we used to teach dual wielding in the 90s. Its a good starter defense, but really only good against cuts (but really GOOD against cuts). But thrusts dominated against this stance. The parry you tried is really impractical at full speed. The reality is you just get skewered. The only way to make the tepee work with thrusting is to be a very nimble evader. Back-peddling or side stepping. However, if you can intercept it early and beat the blade down (cross block) it sets you up for what I call a cross-block cut, which you kind of did. Step into the opponent, beating their blade down to your left. Left hand strike (cut or thrust) OVER your right arm (which is now pushing the blade low), to the head/chest.
The other you demonstrated quite well is rolling the defensive sword to wherever you anticipate the counter attack would come from when you make your own attack, such as the high parry over your head, or crossing the body immediately following your attack.
It all takes practice and coordination. But there are several martial arts that are dual handed. I also see parallels watching drummers, jugglers, poi twirlers and ravers.
Hi Skall, this was really great!
I really appreciated how you went against the common conceptions regarding dual wielding, explored every single possibility that might happen, and found some really good reasons why dual wielding is not always a bad idea (and for what I know, this is a topic that unites all the sword community against anime fans ecc, pretty much like reverse grip). All this just to say that I really appreciate your open and analytical mind and in my opinion this is one of your strengths and best qualities as a content creator (and I’m sure as a person too, but I don’t know you, so…). Before this video I thought dual wielding outside sword-and-dagger was pretty much bullshit, but you made me change my mind, so thank you! I also have some considerations from what I’ve seen in this video:
1. I think dual wielding becomes a much smaller problem when your swords are thrust-oriented
2. Basically the main rule is “don’t try to attack with both swords at the same time, use one for parrying and switch if you need”
3. Maybe…the dagger is just the shortest sword you have in your hands, or the sword is the longest dagger you have in them…
Can you that one specific anime you are referring to? Afro samurai uses one sword in regular grip and it's very swordy anime.
Considering how many more options dual wielding or any pair of weapons (sword and shield, sword and dagger, spear and shield, sword and buckler, dagger and bojack, etc.), I wonder why more people didn't train for this and just stuck to one weapon.
I mean, personally, I do like the simplicity of wielding just one weapon, but how could even an experienced single weapon user deal with an equal opponent wielding two?
Because you would have to carry around two long weapons, which is highly impractical.
It's not just training with one weapon though. Getting equal dexterity in your off hand to use two of the same sword equally is harder than learning how to use say, a dagger/buckler which are rather simple in relativity.
Now shortsword being used as "parrying dagger but long" I can get behind
But say double equal length arming sword seems unoptimal for both carry and use. Likely better overall than just one sword if available though.
@ROMANTIKILLER2 Doesn't have to be equally-long weapons. Could be one long one and a short one (like how samurai paired theirs)(non-offensive weapons like buckles also count as they are easy to carry alongside a sword).
Historically? Shields are just too practical, and good swords are expensive to purchase and maintain. Yeah dual wielding can be very effective, but there are undeniable opportunity costs involved.
If someone is worried about their sword going dull or breaking, carrying two around isn't crazy. Sure, almost useless for civilians, but for fantasy scenarios, sometimes it could make perfect sense.
Great video as always! Also strength plays a big part as well. Blocking with one hand against a bigger opponent 2 handing will be much harder. One of my favorite parts of the Clone Wars comics was when Anakin taught Ashoka to dual wield against opponents of similar strength but when facing a stronger opponent only use 1 saber.
The main issue with an off-hand weapon is your effective reach. Your body MUST stand askew when weapons fighting, with one hand (the one with your first weapon in it) angled forward. If you don't, you are give up so much reach on that weapon that you'll be out-ranged by someone armed with the same weapon as you. Your off-hand can do one of the three things - grip your primary weapon to gain leverage/strength/stability with it, stay out of the way (often being placed on the hip or behind the back) of the weapons play that is happening, or hold some object that typically has no reach (usually a buckler, shield, or parrying dagger). An off-hand sword is basically a parrying dagger that is extremely awkward and slow to use... so it isn't going to be very popular, because it isn't fast or precise enough to be useful without much more training than a buckler/shield/dagger would require and will never outperform one of those options even if trained to perfection.
I would say though that an ambidextrous person might come to prefer two swords to sword and dagger, especially on uneven terrain and/or around obstacles. Being able to switch which weapon is the threat and which weapon is for defense is useful, if you have enough strength and coordination in your weak arm. Almost nobody does, though.
It's so good to see someone finally talks about this, and it's even better when it's Skallagrim.
I treat dual-wield swords as my main style, as I practiced FMA for years (95% self-taught), I overcome the difficulty of dual-wielding. And with a few moves/concepts from Wing Chun and Niten Ichi-ryu, I could fight opponent with a single sword, with sword and shield, and multiple opponents as well. There is no such thing as dead angle for defending, and at the same time it's so easy to find/create openings for opponent.
Though to be honest most of my sparring partners are my students from 7-12 yrs old, but some of them strike lightning fast. Fighting 3-4 kids is quite a challenge, and I could only beat them with dual wielding.
I love it so much that I made the protagonist of my novel uses two short swords as his main weapons, with throwing knifes and a magical spear as back up. Make sense if you're an adventurer in fantasy setting.
Your humor is on point, always puts a smile on my face!
Great video! I’d love to see your take on fighting with sword and parrying dagger.
😊 My experience facing someone with two swords is limited to rattan fencing in the SCA. Having said that, in that arena with those rules, a good two-sword fighter is extremely difficult to defeat with sword and shield. But it does take a lot of work and training.
I would also note that in the HEMA fencing world, no one seems to look twice at someone fighting rapier and main gauche, which utilizes many of the same skills as fighting with dual rapiers.
Positive comment
Good job buddy
Positive reply
Negative comment! 😡
Snide quip.
Very positive
Even The Mountain knew that was a bad idea. My guy had a claymore in one hand and a shield in the other.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say with this. Just to be sure, the Mountain is a GoT character, right? Because I wouldn't exactly count on a fictional character's preference for his applicability to real life martial arts.
Edit: In addition, depending on what Claymore you're talking about, it's a bad idea to use it one-handed if it isn't a basket-hilted broadsword you're talking about.
@@baronprocrastination1722 that has to be the most autistic response I've seen in awhile.
Bobby B gets the right idea, however. He's the only guy in the canon that use the correct anti armor weapon.
@@ucnguyenanh9414 Hope you're not talking about maces or hammers, because those absolutely weren't anti armor weapons.
@@RAMPED why not?
This is basically how Ive always thought of and approached two sword styles. The style Ive settled on that I really like is using a quick, light sword like a rapier in my off hand with fencing techniques for defending and creating openings. Im my dominant hand I really like wakizashis. They have the same values as a katana while being lighter and faster, so combined with a kendo-like style theyre perfect for taking advantage of openings for finishing strikes. I also like the flexibility of the wakizashi as it can effectively be a one or two handed sword depending on the wielder's needs. Also because theyre light and very well balanced, if youre well coordinated and well practiced you can easily flip between wielding them over handed and underhanded, giving you more striking options
dual wielding in addition to carrying two swords on you at once has the issue of the weak hand sword becomes a mainly defensive sword with some offence.
it be better at that point to use an easier wheapon like a dagger on the weak hand to boost the offense or use a shield instead for better defense
removing the weak hand to make it more practical would likely make it non-optimal use of the effort needed.
if you have two swords, you have two pommels. You can end them rightly twice.
Pommel on a chain
In the real world nany people chose carry a score of swords just to use the pommels as ranged weapons.
Musashi yelling from grave: "I told you to ponder upon this!"
i dual wielded two battle axes in my larp in my younger days. i was almost untouchable. i used my off hand to parry and block and my strong hand to strike. As i got older and started to lose a step on the younger players i switched up to lighter weapons. From experience i can say two weapon fighting is very effective.
Alternating strikes also cycling between offense and defense per hand works well. Always moving one to cover what the other leaves open, also way more opportunities to overwhelmed sneak a rude stab in-between
Been saying this for years. When I sparred I did this method. The longer your second weapon is the more reach you have.
dual wield spears would beat this
Hey Skal, have you ever covered/criticized Schwerpunkt? His content is promising especially for further dialogue between HEMA and the history of the Art of War. Keep up with the great work
bot
Back when I was interested in the SCA I had a friend that fought with two light maces and he dominated the tournaments. It didn't hurt that he was 6'5" and built like a brick wall.
The point you made about the sword and parrying dagger is such an absolute point. And I personally never found duel wielding to be awkward, but very fluid and comfortable, hence I have a tendency to be a duel wield fan boy in basically any video game. It really depends on the situation, it's really string in single combat, good balance of offense and defense and can be difficult to respond to.
I'm a big fan of the idea that, in general as a rule of thumb, dual wielding with lots of practice is *not* impractical, nor non-viable but *is* almost always not the best option. To me that actually indicates it's quite possible it would be a good selection for a duel- if your opponent has never or rarely ever sees/trains against your weapon choices but you *frequently* train against theirs then you arguably have quite a big advantage over them
Or in the heat of battle, your shield gets destroyed and you only have a one handed sword. There is another one handed sword in the ground. You instantly make yourself more capable and better armed by picking it up. Unless you are specifically untrained duel wielding.
discussing dueling gets complicated because the rules can vary. the place where dual wielding really shines is in self defense. it's far easier to carry 2 swords all day than a sword and a shield, especially if the swords are made to fit into a single scabbard as many historical examples were.
@@yamiyomizuki I'm not sure that's true. A medium-sized shield like a rotella/rodela weighs more than a sword but can be worn on the back & rapidly readied when needed, as appears in an early 17th-century Dutch military manual. Paired swords were a thing, but they have awkward grips that are flat on one side so the swords can fit together & only half a complex hilt at most. & they're slower to draw & deployed because they have to be separated after drawing.
@@b.h.abbott-motley2427 The Japanese didn't seem to have much trouble carrying two of em.
@@operator-chan1887 A wakizashi is about the size of a parrying dagger. European sources for two swords usually involve two full-length swords. Some extant paired swords worn together in a single sheath have 100+cm blades.
Duel wielding is only practical if you know for sure your opponent has nothing he can throw at you, if they do then grab a shield.
When I spared way back in the 1970s and 1980s, my favorite fighting style was with two swords where I was strong enough to wield two katanas one handed. I would tend to lead with one sword, fighting one sword style to hang up the opponents sword to both protect myself and help create an opening which I would then use the second sword to suddenly take advantage of, with the ability to switch quickly between leading with either the left hand or right hand sword.
Thx for this it was something i am actually thinking about. I am glad to see that you have found a friendly and skilled partner for videos and training who seems to stay.
I'd say the main reason, at least for Western Europe (since Eastern Europe and everything as East as Japan had dual wielding in some sense), is that it requires dedication and most armies were largely peasant levies while the dedicated knights had cumbersome armor and would prefer the safety of a shield (as they were nobles trying to live) than a second sword. You see that later with the decrease of armor worn in cities, growing largely during the Renaissance, the rise of dual wielding but with a parry dagger and other similar weapons.
1: Men-at-arms were more popular than peasant levies in most of Europe
2: how cumbersome armor is is drastically overstated.
It's more a question of why bother.
Learn to use your main battlefield weapon, then either your sidearm or your shield, then learn how to grapple and use a dagger...
Learning techniques for using a second sidearm at the same time that isn't a dagger (and grappling is very important in armor, don't skip dagger day) is just low priority.
And you might choose to instead pick up a mace for example even at that point. If you're gonna carry two sidearms, why not have the second one be specialized for something and pretty easy to carry?
Dual wielding rises with the growth of civilian fencing culture and complex guards. The peasant levie thing is overemphasized, most people bought their own equipment and most towns had arms requirments. Also, knightly armor wasn't cumbersome. Just shields offer protection and polearms offer power and range, two swords don't accomplish much on a battlefield. During the Renaissance, swords were cheap enough than alot of people had them, fencing books got cheaper with the printing press, the move towards making books in vernacular and complex guards on swords and dagers make the guards skall was using safer to do.
I'd say the problem was more due to the fact that it's harder to deal serious damage to another armored foe. There's also a massive reach disadvantage to any polearm. This kind of stuff saw a rise in civilian fighting in the Renaissance, but that's quite different and due to other complex cultural reasons, like weapons restrictions (you might be able to carry only one sword of a given length legally, but you could still have a dagger with you and use them both simultaneously).
Gotta say... all good points being made, a nice discussion & trade of opinion, no one getting angry, no put-downs... beautiful. Bravo! 👍🏼😃👍🏼
Besides from what others have said, levies were not that uncommon in Japan either.
Also, when plate became more common, shield started to be less used, because the armour already provided basically the same protection, so people would use two handed weapons.
That short dude with the high voice is already angrily filming a rebuttal
Do I even want to know who?
@chaosvolt I forget his name but he has a mad-on for The Witcher TV show because of the reverse sword grip. In spite of several creators pointing out there are situations when it's applicable and is found in treatises he dug his heels in and says it's just stupid.
An alternate method I've experimented with has been to keep each sword forward when guarding. When defending use the sword on the side of the attack to defend while simultaneously attacking with the sword on your opposite side. Try to keep each sword from crossing your centerline when defending. If cutting obviously the centerline will be passed but in such cases move the sword on the opposite side into a guard that isn't in the cutting sword's path.
For example if I'm using my left sword to cut diagonally from my upper left to my lower right 8 should move my right hand sword to a high guard such as finestra/ochs or posta di donna/von tag.
i also think that daily carry of two blades makes a lot more sense if one of them is also more tool-like, like a seax or something that can be used as a longer fighting knife/short sword, but can also be useful for non combat tasks (though nothing that would massively dull it ofc)
basically, Geralt is a dummy for having two swords but only using one at a time
The other is covered under soft silver lamination. He may not want to ruin it on people who are not sensitive to it when it also has a job against supernatural monsters who do not like it at all.
@@MaaZeus Solution: Carry 3 swords
Geralt's swords are longsword length if I remember correctly, it would be substantially more cumbersome than what Skall is doing in this video
@@CrizzyEyes That too.
I got a small amount of additional amusement from this as Hasbro just put up a pre-order for an 6" Action Figure of the Gi Joe Character Storm Shadow carrying two similarly sized sword. It was like a little primer for how he might use that as his choice of bladed weaponry. Just made me smile for that extra reason due to the timing of the video's release.
Beyond the dozen or so 15th-17th-century fencing treatises that cover dual wielding, we do have one bit of evidence for the civilian use of two swords in Europe: William Harrison in his 1577 description of England mentioned "desperate cutters" who wore "two daggers or two rapiers in a sheath always about them" & caused lots of trouble in drunken brawls. Harrison noted that these daggers & rapiers were longer than those used in any other nation. English alehouse daggers could be quite large. Additionally, a few period paired swords worn together in a single sheath exist in museum & other collections.
drizzt being ambidextrous helps him dual wield 2 full size scimitars, but he is also a fantasy character :P
I am left handed. One is to protect the other to assault. I switch handedness when I want to switch uses of the blades.
In things like blade and sorcery that's is exactly how I would fight with dual swords (often times a H&H longsword, or just two shortswords). Keeping like non-dominant offline until I really need too, or keeping my dominant in a sort of posed position while I make openings with my non-dominant weapon. I usually keep my dominant off because I'm faster with it, and if I make any openings I know I can strike faster with it before my opponent has time to close or counter, and am at least a little confident with my non-dom hand.
As for like- striking with both, it's usually lateral cuts. Ripping both blades side to side has never worked, and at most I may (when feeling spicy) chain together a fast sequence of non-parallel attacks to make myself feel special.
I have the benefit of being ambidextrous, and used to love doing the tournaments at the Renaissance faire. I only used one sword, but would switch hands occasionally to throw my opponent off. One of my friends in the scene thought a two-handed sword would always beat two one-handed swords, until we practiced and he lost every time.
Even better than trying to block and counter is to go in for an intentional bind using one of the swords leaving the other sword open for an attack.
Dual Wielding is really good but its often better to do it with a shorter weapon like a parrying dagger or the wakazashi thats why those are the mainstream types of dual wielding. If you do that type of Rapier combat with parrying dagger you will be better at dual wielding.
Robert Childs has guides.
I fought for a few years in the SCA and I loved doing things that were a little less common. I fought primarily axe and shield, but I also did a lot of short sword/arming sword dual wielding. I practiced to get the rhythym of the attacking and defending down while a friend would throw common attacks at me, so that I got used to attacking in a sequence where the wind up for my second swing would block the most likely attack from my opponent naturally. I got to a point where I got pretty good at it, and it really got into the heads of my opponent too. The key was being aggressive, at least in that setting and my experience. If it was a fight that was important for me to win though? I still went sword and shield. I just liked the oddities. I also trained with Butterfly swords in the Eastern Martial Arts I did though, so there was plenty of crossover.
My guess before watching:
I think it is very possible, but it will take forever to learn.
I have an FMA background and I focus on two weapons - this should be good to watch.
Recently I have been training with pipes instead of rattan sticks, and I think I could use a couple of 28-inch metal weapons effectively.
Years ago, a friend of a friend brought over some kendo swords. So the 3 of us went out to the backyard and started messing around with them. 2 of the swords were in good shape but the 3'd was barely holding on. After learning simple stuff like, swing at the person, not at the sword... 😆 We started to kind of get the hang of it. These are 3 kids who up until then, had no formal training and all we knew of sword fights was from movies. So of course, I wanted to try dual wielding, cuz that's like the coolest thing ever! It didn't take me long to discover this. Fight one handed, and use the other sword for strikes of opportunity. Also, like I said, the other sword was in real rough shape and you didn't want to fight with it more than you had to because it was ready to come apart.
But yeah, I could never figure out why everyone was so down on the idea. But yeah, good points of it taking a lot longer to get ready.
What I found in larping is not that it gets in the way, but it leaves you more exposed. Most stances with both hands focus on presenting as small target as possible, when dual wielding, you tend to keep more of your body facing the opponent. Which is why shields are better, because it gives the versatility without sacrificing self coverage.
As someone who trains quite a bit in gladiator reenactment as a dimachaerus fighting with two swords definitely has it's pros and cons, but i also think it depends a lot on the sword used. Like the really short gladii don't get in each others way that much and i kinda see fighting with two swords like boxing (especialy bare knuckle considering the different guard"
Anyway if you are interested i can send you some footage from training for you to analyse or we can talk about that 😁👍
When you hold your primary weapon in your left hand it takes the opponent off guard. Because the vast majority of people are right handed, we instinctively fight in a right handed custom. It's why left handed baseball players are valued.
I've practiced Kenjutsu here in Brazil, and ther was a number of "kamaes" / stances with 2 swords, like shown. And when you strike you switched the hands/ swords position, so a sword would not get in the way of the other.
I know someone will probably comment that Kenjutsu is focused on "katas" using wooden swords which we also did, but with the addition of combat. (the institute where I've trained named our practice Kenjutsu, but was kinda closer to Kendo)
Hey Skall, I recently learned about two-handed spiked shields that were apparently used for dueling (yeah I learned about them from the Elden Ring DLC, what of it?). Apparently they were obscure enough that no one really seems to have talked about them though, any chance you could look into them?
One thing that I hope you can explore more in future videos is dual wielding with different length swords vs similar length swords. It sounds to me like different length would be less cumbersome while offering some new options like your partner here showed, but doesnt it also sacrifice the symmetry of "I can defend and attack equally effectively from both sides" aspect. I'd love to see video that experiments with different length differences between the two swords and whether there's a sweet spot that keeps a little of both qualities
Here's the thing from history we see that several of the most feared sword fighters (Musashi Miyamoto is the kost well onown probably, but there was one from an Italian Renaissance fencing manual whose name i can never remember) in history used two swords. The issue is that everything i have read say it takes a HUGE amount of skill and training (moreso than standard sword training) so it was rarely practical to spend the time to learn it if you weren't already a master. As he points out the significant advantage is that you can attack and defend from both sides simultaneously at the same distance. (Yes you can with a shield, but that is GENERALLY going to set you up for the killing stroke followup whereas here the killing stroke is immediate)
I don't typically comment, but here goes. The fundamental of hip rotation belies the basis of wielding twin blades. If right, draw left. If left, draw right. Emphasize the hips. Start with this, build, and crush your opponent.
You are right and I wish he would be taught this by someone who knows what they are doing when dual weilding.