Fighting with two swords?

[Allen Johnson]

Let's not forget to always look back to our original source material and ask the questions.
IF we accept the fact that we will never be as good at swordplay as the people who actually relied on it in the past we can be in a better position to accept the results.

If these people who wrote the manuals knew what they were doing and knew how to do it very , very well- then why do we never see two cutting swords being used? (Barring a few scattered and isolated incidents that may be suspect) If their main concern was survival and victory, I can only assume that using two swords did not accomplish that task as effectively and efficiently as they methods we see documented.

To me that answers the question of IF two swords were used- NO
The question of why, is not as clear right now.

[LafayetteCCurtis]

Still, I don't think the unpopularity and impracticality of two-sword fighting should discourage us from experimenting with it. After all, the burned hand learns to fear the fire--an understanding of the weaknesses of a system can be best achieved by actually seeing how it compares to other systems in practice.

[Rodolfo Martínez]

Maybe i was wrong saying that a two sword was only a hollywood invent . But surely that style wasn´t as used as a shield and sword or a main gauche style. Two sword styles requires a lot of knowledge, not impossible to perform, but, in my opinion, a bit hard.

[Allen Johnson]

I feel that our efforts are best focused on what is clearly documented and described. Goodness knows its hard enough to get good at just that, much less something that is hardly mentioned at all and requires much speculation and modern trial and error.

[Keith Culbertson]

And I will repeat: we have only a tiny fraction of potential representative manuals and it is not a mistake to think outside of a box, no matter how big someone thinks it is already.

[Stacy Clifford]

To be able to wield two swords in two hands effectivley would require the swords to be somewhat small; probably not more than 40". If you do that Zornhau with two of those swords and are fighting say a guy with a greatsword, couldn't he just thrust straight into your chest? He'll be out of your range and still be able to run his blade in you.

The sword in your primary hand should be able to be as long as you would normally use one-handed, in your off hand it's whatever you're comfortable with. Equal length swords probably will need to be a bit shorter, but that's dependent on what you're comfortable with. I would prefer a good pair of cut and thrust swords personally.

The greatsword thrust has no greater chance of getting through than it does against you with a single sword. You are still going to void, deflect, etc. The purpose of the double zornhau is so that one blade can be defensive and one offensive, one to deflect the thrust and one to strike back. Just because your weapons are shorter doesn't mean you can't get in range.

I also think fighting with two swords gives some people the impression that they can use both to block blows the same as if they had two hands on a single sword (from what I've seen). There's a reason why you don't want to really "block" any blows with a single hand (you really don't wan to do it at all but...): your wrist isn't strong enough to take it! So, using two single-handed swords to block is almost suicidal.

Your defense with two swords should be almost identical to S&D with cross and parallel blocks utilizing both weapons. The only difference is that you can actually countercut with the offhand sword, which you can't do with the dagger, and your offhand thrust has a lot more range. You're right that if you try to use your left hand by itself too much that you're going to get in trouble, but the same goes for dagger. You've got to resist that temptation and use the weapons in a complimentary fashion.

I just don't see any real discernable advantage to using two swords at once, outside rapiers. I guess that means I don't like using two cutting swords. To me, you don't gain any range, you don't gain any speed or power behind your strikes, you don't gain any control in your strikes, you don't gain any real parrying advantage, and of course you increase the chance of cutting yourself, no matter how good you are. I'd take my Greatsword any day over two messers if I had the choice; and a rapier over another single, one-handed sword.

Everybody is going to have their preferences, but I have to disagree with your assessment of weaknesses of two swords. All of those things can be controlled. It's not about what you're fighting with, it's about how you fight with it.

[Justin Lompado]

It's not about what you're fighting with, it's about how you fight with it.

I think that's something we can all agree with in all cases

Anyway, perhaps I am taking this discussion the wrong way. Are we trying to see using two full swords at once as possibly offering advantages over traditional single or two-handed combinations, or just as a curiosity with the chance of it being a viable alternative? With the latter, I can see the reaoning and even merit behind the idea (the implementation is something that needs to be worked out).

With regards to the former, I cannot think of any advantages that aren't offset by a disadvantage; and again the playing field becomes equal.

I guess in the end it all depends on oyur interpretation; because that is essentially what we do.

[Stacy Clifford]

My opinion is that two swords is a viable alternative to sword and buckler or sword and dagger. However, I don't think its advantages over those two combinations are all that significant. I see the tradeoffs on offense and defense balancing each other out, making it roughly equal in effectiveness to the others. Since it's harder to master than S&B or S&D (because an off hand sword requires more training to control), it makes more sense for teachers of the day to concentrate on the most reliable ways to produce effective fighting skills. Two swords would be bonus material for only the best students (or those cocky noble kids too aggressive for their own good, but who you can't say no to). Remember too that the masters frequently preach against ostentatious displays of aggression and bravado. I think they might agree that two swords is more of a "power trip" combo that might be used more for intimidation than actual combat utility.

[LafayetteCCurtis]

I feel that our efforts are best focused on what is clearly documented and described. Goodness knows its hard enough to get good at just that, much less something that is hardly mentioned at all and requires much speculation and modern trial and error.

Well, that may be fine with your study group, but we must remember that different people prefer different approaches. Otherwise we'd all be studying longswords and ignoring the vast variety of weapons describes in the manuals.

And even with the actions and weapons clearly described in the manuals, aren't our interpreatations still based at least partly on trial and error?

[LafayetteCCurtis]

Anyway, perhaps I am taking this discussion the wrong way. Are we trying to see using two full swords at once as possibly offering advantages over traditional single or two-handed combinations, or just as a curiosity with the chance of it being a viable alternative? With the latter, I can see the reaoning and even merit behind the idea (the implementation is something that needs to be worked out).

Yes, it is the latter in my case. I have no plans of specializing in two swords, since I think I have mentioned before that I'm too strongly right-handed for that.

I think they might agree that two swords is more of a "power trip" combo that might be used more for intimidation than actual combat utility.

That matches the conclusion I've reached so far. And of course, it could have made an excellent display on solo or choreographed demonstration before the eyes of the uninitiated masses. We still have to remember that swordsmen did not exist in a vacuum, but within the framework of a complex social matrix. (Any prize for using big words?)

[Jaron Bernstein]

Hmmmm...I am reading Di Grassi and the study guide for it now (and will post some questions on that topic in a bit) and his "rapier" seems more C&T sword that true rapier. He does have a section on case of rapiers, which could be read as using 2 C&T swords together. That said, this is my first reading so I may be wrong.

[Logan Weed]

Well, with a single sword I can extent it from my body and point the tip at their chest or throat to keep them at bay, or I can pull it back to my body in hopes they'll misjudge my range of attack, raise it high to strike downward against their head and shoulders.

With a second sword I can assume two different blade position simultaneously thus increasing my offensive possibilities.

A dagger can be used to parry but it cannot threaten an opponent a sword's length away.

You could perhaps lead with one sword for a time, bind with it to occupy your opponents weapon and then thrust with the second. A sword could have an advantage over a dagger if you don't intend to close to grappling range.

Just some ideas, would be interesting to test whether I could squeeze any advantage out of them.

[LafayetteCCurtis]

Di Grassi does have a section on the case of rapiers--and his techniques seem to heavily favor the thrust over the cut, so he could just as well have been talking about the more specialized thrusting version (at least in that specific section).

[kenneth]

Greetings, All,

From experience, and as I accidentally posted on the "Two-Handed" thread, my own African (Hausa) Gangi tradition uses two swords, and the singular Kaskara type swords, similar to European double edged swords but indigenous to Sudanic Africa, in their extant warrior/hunters traditions. These are still used in duels resulting from disputes between hunters in which serious injury or death sometimes occur. These are also seen in the context of their martial performative displays of their weapons skills during festive periods or the enstoolment of local traditional warlords. The Gangi are very real warriors who still use their combative skills during actual life ad death struggles, so the ability to use two swords to good effect obviously still exists.

Two swords offer the ability to attack and defend simultaneously from two different angles. But either one weapon or both can be used effectively depending on the skill of a given combatant.

My point in mentioning this is that two swords can be used with great efficacy in very real confrontations. It all depends on the rules of engagement and the skills of the warriors in question. There are no hard-and-fast rules.

Fraternal,

Kenneth

[Gene Tausk]

Please sign off and log back on with your full name, first and last, as required by our Forum rules.

Greetings, All,

From experience, and as I accidentally posted on the "Two-Handed" thread, my own African (Hausa) Gangi tradition uses two swords, and the singular Kaskara type swords, similar to European double edged swords but indigenous to Sudanic Africa, in their extant warrior/hunters traditions. These are still used in duels resulting from disputes between hunters in which serious injury or death sometimes occur. These are also seen in the context of their martial performative displays of their weapons skills during festive periods or the enstoolment of local traditional warlords. The Gangi are very real warriors who still use their combative skills during actual life ad death struggles, so the ability to use two swords to good effect obviously still exists.

Two swords offer the ability to attack and defend simultaneously from two different angles. But either one weapon or both can be used effectively depending on the skill of a given combatant.

My point in mentioning this is that two swords can be used with great efficacy in very real confrontations. It all depends on the rules of engagement and the skills of the warriors in question. There are no hard-and-fast rules.

Fraternal,

Kenneth