Dual Wielding

[sigurdr]

Sorry this is so off topic, this is the best place I knew to ask a lot of knowledgeable historians about warfare. (btw the mod is excellent, looking forward to Carthage in 2.2!!!)

Anyway so I was watching Game of Thrones and the tower of joy scene had dual wielding in. For those who haven't watched it here is a link.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBRfThQIZYo

The guy dual wilding is supposed to be the best of his generation for context against a bunch of battle hardened warriors. I have spent time dual wilding with a sword and dagger but that is a very different style to what he does. I know that this technique would be useless in a pitched battle but could it work in a a fight like this? For me it didn't seem to unrealistic but many of my friends thought it was ridiculous. It is slightly ridiculous but only in the same way that effectively winning 4 on 1 is always going to be in my opinion.

Thanks in advance and keep up the good work.

[QuintusSertorius]

Real warriors dual-wielded all the time - their secondary "weapon" was the shield. Which can be used actively like a weapon as well as for defense. Not just by punching it forward, either; the rim is a weapon too. It can be slammed down into a foot, or up into an opponent's jaw/face.

[romanius24]

A lot of people assume incorrectly that the shield is not a weapon but it definitely is. Even some games label the shield as 'armor'.(Skyrim for example did that)

I thought that fight was very unrealistic and video gamey. If it was a real fight it would have ended really fast regardless of that fighter's skill.

[Sint]

Anyway so I was watching Game of Thrones and the tower of joy scene had dual wielding in. For those who haven't watched it here is a link.

GoT is horrible when it comes to fighting you shouldn't really use it as an example or source,it's not really realistic at all and some of the best fighters in that series fight more like drunken apes.And as said before using shield is dual wielding and usually better than using a second sword or spear

[sigurdr]

I wasn't using it as a source and i certainly wasn't suggesting it should be adopted in EB2. I was just curious as to how unrealistic it was. I suppose they should have all had shields and that the major problem with the fight is that the knight should have died instantly in 4v1. Not that he had two swords which was kind of irrelevant in the circumstances. I have never tried using a shield, I should try and get hold of one.

Cheers for the replies. Also I always had a problem with how poor armour was in game of thrones (both book and series) and found it kind of odd that people found their immersion broken by dual wielding when their were so many other problems with so many of the fights.

[Roma_Victrix]

Good points about shields being a weapon, hence a part of dual-wielded weaponry.

In the Early Modern period (16th-18th centuries), the much, much lighter and skinnier rapier sword was sometimes dual-wielded in swordplay, and perhaps on rare occasions it was dual-wielded in actual combat. More often the parrying dagger would have been combined with the rapier. However, this was almost certainly not the case with broadswords (i.e. basket-hilt) of that period, or with the arming swords of the High Middle Ages and longswords of the Late Middle Ages. Earlier, certain types of gladiator in ancient Roman arena fighting dual-wielded with a gladius sword and shorter weapon closer to a knife. Therefore the Game of Thrones "Tower of Joy" scene in the link above shouldn't have a guy wielding two big longswords at once, which would have been completely ineffective, unless of course he truly was the greatest swordsman of all time who could handle the slashing and thrusting with both arms at once. It would make much more sense for his second weapon to be akin to a dagger, not a full-length sword.

It should be noted that dual-wielding also had a precedence in South Asia and East Asia as well. For instance, the Japanese wielded two swords at once, the katana and the wakizashi, although the former was much bigger than the latter. Noticing a pattern here? Outside of armaments for real soldiers engaged in actual combat, traditional Chinese martial arts also has the rather short single-edged bladed "butterfly swords" for fighting. The slightly longer yet much thinner "hook swords" with single-edged blades were also used in martial arts, but there is absolutely no evidence that they were used in battle by regular soldiers.

[QuintusSertorius]

That Tower of Joy fight would have made more sense if everyone had shields. Then guy who was a better swordsman would have an easier time getting around their shields, without exposing his own vulnerable spots, and have made better use of his shield (as both weapon and defensive accessory) to baffle, confound and harrass his opponents.

Of course, TV producers generally don't seem to think much of shieldwork, so went for that silliness of dual-wielding.

[Rad]

It should be noted that dual-wielding also had a precedence in South Asia and East Asia as well. For instance, the Japanese wielded two swords at once, the katana and the wakizashi, although the former was much bigger than the latter.

I know of one school of swordsmanship that did this. It was a rarity as well. I have to point it out because some folks (damn weeaboos) make every excuse to do what they want, and I'm really annoyed by that. The katana is primarily a two handed, backup weapon in a battlefield scenario... which sorta makes the wakizashi a backup backup

[QuintusSertorius]

If you're going into battle, why take chances by only having one backup? Virtually everyone carries a knife/dagger suitable for fighting, even if only so you have something you can use in a close press. You'd have that even if you had javelins, a spear and a sword.

[Rad]

The Tower of Joy fight was seriously messed up. There were supposed to be 3 Kingsguard (instead of 2) against 7 Northmen (instead of 6). Much more favorable (and realistic!) odds for the Kingsguard, who are supposed to be the greatest knights in the realm.
A lot of the participants didn't carry shields or wear helmets. Armor, as usual, is portrayed as paper thin. A knight, dual wielding, outside some ritual form of combat? That's the biggest joke of it all. He should have either gone with sword+shield for protection or two handed weapon for power and reach.

[Rad]

If you're going into battle, why take chances by only having one backup? Virtually everyone carries a knife/dagger suitable for fighting, even if only so you have something you can use in a close press. You'd have that even if you had javelins, a spear and a sword.

You're telling me something I already know. I never said it was wrong to have more than one reserve. In fact, when I finish my reenactment kit, I will have a polearm, a sword and a dagger. Might even throw in a mace just in case

[Barlind]

I know that this technique would be useless in a pitched battle but could it work in a a fight like this?

It wouldn't. At least not in the open. Perhaps if the other four were peasants who never held even a staff in their hands.

However, dual wielding was taught and used.
As said by others, mostly various shields, especially for soldiers, because it's a lot more useful in battlefield. It covers a large part, offers protection against missiles, can be used as a weapon, is useful in formations (shieldwall for example) and of course, with it fighter can withstand very powerful strikes. You can be hit on a shield with heavy lead pipe and you'll barely feel the force, because it distributes along whole arm which holds it. Receive the same hit directly on a sword, and you'll drop the sword or even break wrist/sword.

Other weapons were used, but not often on the battlefield and more in duels and such. Apart from usual combinations of main and shorter weapon (rapier and dagger, rapier and cloak...) two swords or rapiers of equal length were also used (at least in renaissance but probably before too). Some of the moves the kingsguard in GOT used (cross vertical block, bashing opponent's sword with both swords for more power, crossed hands gard,..) are found in renaissance fighting manuals.

I would say two longswords fighting is not unrealistic at all. But it was rare, and not taught to ordinary soldiers because it's no use and more of a hindrance on battlefield in pitched melee. But that's exactly how got's producers filmed it. He has two swords, ergo he is twice as deadly, can engage at the same time twice as many opponents and all this means twice the fun. It is silly logic. The four against one would butcher him, even if he is levels above them in skill. I must correct my self - even a peasant with an rock or staff behind him would finish him.

Also, here's a picture from di Grassi's manual Ragione di adoprar sicuramente l'Arme, si da offesa come da difesa from 1570.

[z3n]

The four against one would butcher him, even if he is levels above them in skill.

Actually it would depend on their psychological fortitude (i.e. morale), and the footwork and willingness to take risks. Nobody wants to die and fights to the death in close combat or even just 'real' fights are something most of us can't talk about.

[QuintusSertorius]

Actually it would depend on their psychological fortitude (i.e. morale), and the footwork and willingness to take risks. Nobody wants to die and fights to the death in close combat or even just 'real' fights are something most of us can't talk about.

Very valid point, and this guy also had a fearsome reputation on his side. People tend to overlook the psychological factors (that's why EBII has morale and psychological mechanics), but they're just as important as the mechanical ones. Not least because most men aren't killers, I'm reminded of Dave Grossman's On Killing and other works, showing how hard it actually is for most of us to intentionally kill.

[Ἀπολλόδοτος Α΄ ὁ Σωτήρ]

That Tower of Joy fight would have made more sense if everyone had shields.

Tower of Joy... lame joke incoming: Looked more like "Tower of Backstabbing" to me.

[Rad]

Barlind, the things you will find in some fighting manuals can be pretty weird (pommel throwing)...
If it is there, it doesn't mean it was intended for regular use. All that stuff indicates very ritualized fighting - maybe a trial by combat. In the picture you have shown,
both sides are armed in the same way - so that no one would be at an disadvantage.

[QuintusSertorius]

Duelling is a form of ritualised fighting. It's an artificially constrained situation where only one man fights only one other, without anyone else intervening. If everyone plays by the rules.

[Rad]

The tower of Joy fight wasn't a duel. The parties in question did not agree to a certain manner of fighting. It was not ritualised in any way. They just met, and killed each other. That's why I am still sort of weirded out by the fact that Stark went there with just 6 dudes against 3 of the best fighters in the kingdom. It was naive for him to think that he wouldn't have casualties. A few dozen marksmen would have made the fight less painful for the Northerners. I guess the fat one just wanted some drama in his books... as if he lacked any

[gaius germanicus]

Oo i didnt know that there were so many fence masters around the internet.

[Rad]

Hahahahaha I wish it was so.