Stacy Clifford wrote:I might make an exception for some rapier footwork, since I've never seen anybody do an inquartata to do anything except stab somebody.
You know, I think I did an inquartata once in a school restaurant to save my lunch tray from collision... But I wouldn't say that's a common occurrence even for me
Jonathan Newhall wrote:Using two swords? Or telling people how awesome they are? Or some combo of both? :p
I am sure there is a abundant supply of people telling others how awesome they are. The two swords are a lot rarer, and if it was such a great idea why have none of the people with parrying dagger and rapier mentioned it?
Thai sword fighting is two sword oriented. I think there is a vid of Aldi using two rapiers. I think the rapier and dagger combo was more popular because two swords would be cumbersome and the dagger is better when your opponent gets close since the rapier wasn't designed for in-close fighting. And in earlier periods it seems that the europeans preferred a sheild
In this life peace can never be an external force-only an internal source
Jonathan Newhall wrote:Using two swords? Or telling people how awesome they are? Or some combo of both? :p
I am sure there is a abundant supply of people telling others how awesome they are. The two swords are a lot rarer, and if it was such a great idea why have none of the people with parrying dagger and rapier mentioned it?
That's exactly the thought process I would use. If it is so good, why does nobody use two swords? Chances are that over the last four thousand years it would've been figured out!
Toke Krebs Niclasen wrote:The two swords are a lot rarer, and if it was such a great idea why have none of the people with parrying dagger and rapier mentioned it?
That's exactly the thought process I would use. If it is so good, why does nobody use two swords? Chances are that over the last four thousand years it would've been figured out!
Actually references to two swords being used at the same time can be found in period sources, though generally I don't think it was pointed out as more efficient... See this page:
http://www.schoolofthesword.com/case.html
Yes, there are many discussions about this on the forum. It's not that the masters had nothing to say about two swords or that it was never used, it's that the masters recognized that you had to be ambidextrous to make it work, and thus the majority of their students wouldn't be well advised to try it in an actual fight. I'm sure plenty tried it in the schools and found out how difficult it really was.
0==[>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Stacy Clifford Free-Scholar ARMA Houston, TX
Just mentioning - FMA does use two swords, though they are more like "shortswords". Kalarippayattu (sp?) and Gatka also uses two swords, though those are sabers in most cases and the method is very different than WMA. But even in these systems sword+buckler, sword+dagger and single sword seems to be more widespread.
I GUESS that these systems using two swords more than WMA MAY have something to do with the much lower quantity of armour used there.
Adam Bodorics wrote:Just mentioning - FMA does use two swords, though they are more like "shortswords". Kalarippayattu (sp?) and Gatka also uses two swords, though those are sabers in most cases and the method is very different than WMA. But even in these systems sword+buckler, sword+dagger and single sword seems to be more widespread. I GUESS that these systems using two swords more than WMA MAY have something to do with the much lower quantity of armour used there.
I think the longer type of swords Europeans were using probably also had something to do with it. Two cut & thrusts are harder to control and require more precision to use effectively than, say, two messers. In Europe there were too many long weapons (I mean 3 ft. or longer in the case of swords) running around to make two short ones look like a very attractive option I would imagine, whereas that may not have been the case in SE Asia.
0==[>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Stacy Clifford Free-Scholar ARMA Houston, TX
Toke Krebs Niclasen wrote:The two swords are a lot rarer, and if it was such a great idea why have none of the people with parrying dagger and rapier mentioned it?
That's exactly the thought process I would use. If it is so good, why does nobody use two swords? Chances are that over the last four thousand years it would've been figured out!
Actually references to two swords being used at the same time can be found in period sources, though generally I don't think it was pointed out as more efficient... See this page: http://www.schoolofthesword.com/case.html
Regards,
I am aware that it does exist, but there are very few manuals for, say, dual rapier, as opposed to rapier and buckler, or rapier and dagger. The lack of prevalence of the dual-sword style suggests that it was not the world's most effective by any means.
I was watching the guy in the first video and the first time I watched it I was thinking that I should be embarassed for him, but then when I watched it for the 4th time with an open mind I began to wonder if this was ment to be traditional or if it was merely a freestyle exercise, as I noted that he made it a point to freeze momentarily at specific points as if he was checking off a list and hittng all the required movements and the hesitation was to allow the judges to see that he had hit each required movement in his routine.
Just an observation.
Tim
"When at first I took up the sword, I met it's soul. It taught me about myself and I shall never be the same."
Tim Ingersoll, 2009
