Fighting with two swords?

[LafayetteCCurtis]

Greetings, ladies and gentlemen,

I have been researching both primary and secondary sources on authentic styles of fighting with a sword in each hand, and so far I have only been able to locate quotes and passages where both swords in questions are thrusting rapiers. Is this indeed the case, or have I missed an important source and there was an actual method using two swords other than rapiers? Any help (and discussion) would be appreciated.

Lafayette c. Curtis (Lay)

[Allen Johnson]

Nope! You havent missed anything. There is next to no, zero, zilch evidence that there was ever an established system of using two cutting swords of equal legnth. There is sword and dagger aplenty, but no two swords. Once you try it, it becomes clear that using weapons like this is pointless and hampers your natural movements and is quite awkward and cumbersome. There was no one better than this than the people who left behind the manuals. And if they didnt see fit to include anything close to it in all the many manuals that we do have, then it probably was never a good idea.
There is a mention in some of the English prize fights about using a "case of falchions". Though it dosent really describe the weapons, nor their manner of use. It is worthy to note that this was for a prize fight and was never documented occuring in battle or serious duels.

At least as far as I know

[Axel Pettersson]

does not agrippa and marozzo show use of two swords? They also use the cut quite alot (marozzo atleast). I agree that it would seem uncomfortable to use, perhaps it was a display of skill, to show off in the salle?

I think it is Marozzo (or perhaps manciolini) that says that there is no use to learn a case of swords unless you are as comfortable wielding a sword in one hand as in the other, that could also explain why it is so uncommon (besides the fact that most people probably wore a dagger or a buckler rather than an extra sword).

[Justin Lompado]

does not agrippa and marozzo show use of two swords? They also use the cut quite alot (marozzo atleast). I agree that it would seem uncomfortable to use, perhaps it was a display of skill, to show off in the salle?

I think it is Marozzo (or perhaps manciolini) that says that there is no use to learn a case of swords unless you are as comfortable wielding a sword in one hand as in the other, that could also explain why it is so uncommon (besides the fact that most people probably wore a dagger or a buckler rather than an extra sword).

I'm not really familiar with what Marozzo or Agrippa show anymore; but can we assume they were using the tip of the rapier to make small cuts to weak areas, i.e. elbows, back of knees, etc? I'd have to look, but I think to be pertinent to the question we need to know exactly what kind of swords were being used in those manuals. I just assume rapier, but maybe they're using C&T swords

[LafayetteCCurtis]

I'm not really familiar with what Marozzo or Agrippa show anymore; but can we assume they were using the tip of the rapier to make small cuts to weak areas, i.e. elbows, back of knees, etc? I'd have to look, but I think to be pertinent to the question we need to know exactly what kind of swords were being used in those manuals. I just assume rapier, but maybe they're using C&T swords

I've seen some of the passages in Marozzo and Agrippa as well, but unfortunately I don't always have access to the illustrations and the pictures in the due spade section are often conspicuously missing. I tend to assume that they deal with rapiers as well because they seem to focus on the thrusts as killing blows.

Of course, I'm aware of the Japanese technique from the school known as the Hyoho Niten Inchi-ryu of using a short sword and an even shorter sword (that is, the katana and the wakizashi), but the school using these methods is a highly traditional school and therefore requires a long apprenticeship that I can't afford. And this inquiry is focused on the European tradition anyway.

I'm mostly asking because after a serious practice session, I and my friends tried to do some whimsical poking and bashing at the pell with a sword in each hand, and I found that I naturally gravitate to using thrusts each time because when doing cuts my hands tend to get entangled and I end up not knowing which one is left and which one is right.

[JeremyDillon]

Of course, I'm aware of the Japanese technique from the school known as the Hyoho Niten Inchi-ryu of using a short sword and an even shorter sword (that is, the katana and the wakizashi), but the school using these methods is a highly traditional school and therefore requires a long apprenticeship that I can't afford. And this inquiry is focused on the European tradition anyway.

The two sword tradition in Japanese martial arts isn't limited to the Hyoho Niten Inchi-ryu school, but is actually represented in many different schools. On the subject of any European use, I've somewhere read (I believe possibly on this very site) an excerpt from an old Norse text describing a duel in which one combatant used two swords, I'm not sure where exactly this came from but maybe someone else knows of the quote I'm talking about? From personal experience in sparring I can say that the style does feel very strange and clumsy since the swords tend to get in each others way. I dont see why a combatant would choose to leave his shield behind in favor of a second sword when going off to battle, and I certainly can't imagine a scenario where the second sword would be used in the off hand due to a lack of preparation time, as a dagger might be used, since I've never seen an example of a warrior carrying more than one sword on his person at a time.

[Martin_Wilkinson]

This might be of interest.

http://members.lycos.co.uk/rapier/case.htm

basic overview, including a picture of an interesting case of rapiers.

[LafayetteCCurtis]

The two sword tradition in Japanese martial arts isn't limited to the Hyoho Niten Inchi-ryu school, but is actually represented in many different schools. On the subject of any European use, I've somewhere read (I believe possibly on this very site) an excerpt from an old Norse text describing a duel in which one combatant used two swords, I'm not sure where exactly this came from but maybe someone else knows of the quote I'm talking about? From personal experience in sparring I can say that the style does feel very strange and clumsy since the swords tend to get in each others way. I dont see why a combatant would choose to leave his shield behind in favor of a second sword when going off to battle, and I certainly can't imagine a scenario where the second sword would be used in the off hand due to a lack of preparation time, as a dagger might be used, since I've never seen an example of a warrior carrying more than one sword on his person at a time.

I've heard about nito techniques in the Tatsumi-ryu and the Kashima Shinto-ryu as well, though obviously the Niten Ichi-ryu is the most obvious and most accessible example. Incidentally, the wakizashi sits uneasily on the dividing line between long knife and short sword, so perhaps it wouldn't be wrong to name the nito techniques "sword and dagger" rather than "two swords."

As a matter of fact, I can easily imagine the trick of fighting with two rapiers, since the movements are much tighter and narrower. But fighting with two cutting or cut-and-thrust swords feels like a strange idea now that I've tried it, though not in a systematic or comprehensive manner. BTW, I'll try to look for that Norse account in the ARMA collection on "Viking Fighting" as well as the Project Gutenberg translations of Norse sagas I've downloaded several years ago.

[LafayetteCCurtis]

This might be of interest.

http://members.lycos.co.uk/rapier/case.htm

basic overview, including a picture of an interesting case of rapiers.

Hm. Yes. It's an interesting page, though I wish it could have dwelt further upon the subject. Maybe I'll continue my experiments and try to see if I can come up with something meaningful.

[LafayetteCCurtis]

Found this page on HEMAC:

http://www.hemac.org/modules.php?name=C ... age&pid=15

Haven't had the chance to scrutinize it further or try out its methods, though, so I don't yet have any opinions on it.

[LafayetteCCurtis]

By the way, does anybody here know of an English translation or at least a digital transcription of Marozzo's Capitula 76? It seems to be the specific section dealing with the use of two swords, and I'm definitely curious about it.

[Allen Johnson]

so much of this depends on the weapon(s) we have in our hand(s).

True rapiers just do not cut well. Cut & thrust sword do a much better job. Two swords of equal legnth are more awkward to handle than a sword and dagger. There is little that you can do from a technique standpoint with two equal legnth swords that you can not accomplish with sword and dagger. There is no medieval evidence of two sword useage.

[Allen Johnson]

Found our viking source for two swords.

It's from the Droplaugarsona Saga.
"Grim had two swords, because Gaus knew how to blunt sword edges. Grim fought equally well with both hands. He raised one sword with his left hand and struck with the right at Gaus, taking off one of his legs above the knee. Now Gaus fell down and in that moment swung his sword at Grim so that it hit his leg, making more of a shearing than a biting wound. Now the Viking ran away, but Grim took the silver and acquired great renown from this deed."

It is unusual that someone can fight equally well in both hands. Note that he still was injured enough to take him away from the fight despite the two swords.

Egils saga describes someone carrying two swords to a duel. One in a scabbard and one in his hands. Multiple shields were common as well at these duels as ones became too chopped up to use.

[LafayetteCCurtis]

Another passage, this time from Di Grassi:

http://www.musketeer.org/manuals/diGras ... ss2.htm#18

I've done some tentative trials on them, and it seems like the cuts tend to favor elbow and wrist cuts over straight-armed shoulder cuts--but tell me if I'm wrong, since I'm not that experienced.

Obviously, it all feels awkward at first, since it's quite different from the more "military" style I'm used to. I keep itching to drop the off-hand sword and grab the imaginary opponent's sleeve or collar instead.

[Logan Weed]

I wouldn't think this is something you can just get the hang of by striking a pell.

It's complicated and requires flawless coordination of both weapons and feet. I'd also assume some degree of natural ambidexterity would be required for true effectiveness.

So, you need an orderly system of attack and defense and you need to drill this system until your weapons work independently without further thought. As long as you're striking with one weapon and then having to think about what to do next with the other it's merely a distraction.