who needs a shield when you can just twirl your spear really fast like a baton in front of you, creating an impenetrable windshield

@moosepwn

8 жыл бұрын

+raglanheuser my sort of guy

@boooster101

8 жыл бұрын

+raglanheuser Never duel with a majorette

@danw9464

8 жыл бұрын

+boooster101 funniest thing I've read all week.

@captainbake5809

8 жыл бұрын

ive seen that technique block everything from bullets to arrows to missiles

@sfredd9800

8 жыл бұрын

Ok Aang.

meh swords are overrated dual wield shields is best.

@CrownRock1

7 жыл бұрын

Especially if they're made from wagon wheels.

@TheLaughingReaper525

7 жыл бұрын

CrownRock1 the snack cake not actual wagons

@adamfrisk956

7 жыл бұрын

Waving about 7-10kgs in each hand for more than 5 mins? Bah, bollocks!

@TheLaughingReaper525

7 жыл бұрын

Adam Frisk nnaaaaw its great

@darrengreen8000

7 жыл бұрын

but then you can't end him rightly

One hand is for weapon, the other one is for spellcasting. :)

@nickknife9681

5 жыл бұрын

Finally. Another spellsword.

@lewis2255

4 жыл бұрын

T Doran I’m pretty that applies for every other Skyrim player It’s all we end up doing

@iroraccy

4 жыл бұрын

@BlackDeathViral03 Fairly certain you could be a stealth Archer in Oblivion? I could be wrong but

@lt.branwulfram4794

4 жыл бұрын

Eldritch Knights, am I right?

@HaplessOne

4 жыл бұрын

@@iroraccy I think you might have been able to in a sense, but I dont recall the damage multiplier being there, or at least it wasn't as obvious.

Incorrect. When I'm fighting anyone in the pool I need two noodles to make my intimidation stance and attacks. Plus if a noodle is caught and torn from my grasp, I have a backup. Plus I can feel like general grievous or doc Ock. (Great video)

@theadhdviking8218

4 жыл бұрын

Nate Jack22 by god, your right

@HieronymousLex

3 жыл бұрын

LOL

@skipfred

2 жыл бұрын

I think this clearly settles the debate

@jackpavlik563

4 ай бұрын

The dual noodler, my arch enemy!!!

"You can do something else with your other hand" Yes, but it's not socially acceptable on the battlefield...

@cmdrTremyss

4 жыл бұрын

was came for this comment oh wait...

@gigagleb9842

4 жыл бұрын

War has no rules Fap in the face of your enemy, lower their spirits

@sethgyellins

4 жыл бұрын

Fap in the battlefield to assert your dominance

@IsraelCountryCube

4 жыл бұрын

can you guys stahppp thx pls

@QuartzIsAnOxide

4 жыл бұрын

Why of course, you can unscrew the pommel of your sword with your free hand

Yeah, but if I bring a shield the party's just going to make me tank.

@squirreel3434

8 жыл бұрын

xD

@schradeya

8 жыл бұрын

+thesphynx SO true. :)

@minifigure1000

8 жыл бұрын

+Sam M. Not if you're a DK :D

@minifigure1000

8 жыл бұрын

Dude i play LK xD

@caityreads8070

7 жыл бұрын

you could chuck it at people like a frisbee- Captain America does that and he's really cool

what I dual weild bows

@mrmaniac3

7 жыл бұрын

Some Weeb seems legit

@smarthinus3286

7 жыл бұрын

Yeah, just have a bow in each of your three hands, and pull them back with your iron teeth

@addictedartist4416

7 жыл бұрын

Dual wielding with 3 weapons is pretty impressiv

@bearlyrandom4462

6 жыл бұрын

If you can't dual wield bows you aren't L33T enough.

@brendanrisney2449

5 жыл бұрын

Yeah, but I use my feet to dual wield bows. Makes drawing the strings with your hands much easier.

Screw dual wielding swords I shall dual wield two spears

@kalelgabanes7518

5 жыл бұрын

Jeez that means you're holding two spears on one hand, THAT'S FOR SPEARS! *JEEZ YOU ARE OP*

@user-qv1gc1vn7o

5 жыл бұрын

can i ask, what if your 2 spear stuck in some where and you are facing a lot of enemies? press F for your soul and your brain

@jordansblabbering6303

5 жыл бұрын

when we were sparring as kids i did that and call it the 1 man phalanx :D

@artificialavocado9652

5 жыл бұрын

Hah! Amateur! I duel wield shields.

@chisel4164

5 жыл бұрын

Dual wield polearms

what about dual shielding? double the protection, double the shield bashing, exponential amounts of badassery.

@yetanother9127

8 жыл бұрын

thekingof300 You've given me the idea of a few lines of infantry with dual scuta (tower shields) in a wall several ranks thick, protecting a few bajillion archers. Patently absurd, but a cool image nonetheless. To the fantasy novel notes with that!

@husseinalramini4506

8 жыл бұрын

Jonathan Hughes cavalry's wet dream

@aranecek

8 жыл бұрын

+thekingof300 I think it would be better to have one BIG shield than two.

@yetanother9127

8 жыл бұрын

hussein alramini Not if you put a few pike squares out in front (or your archers are REALLY good).

@Ritzzngiggles

8 жыл бұрын

+thekingof300 what about duel spears or duel staves ultimate kungfu man

Dual-wielding fists are useful. I always use them dual-wield. I then reinforce my fists with well-armored gauntlets and cover the tops of my forearms with buckler-like oblong shields and grab 2 wide bladed punching daggers. Now I can go on the battlefield and get myself killed by a spearman with proper dual-wielding glory on my side.

@nickcarbaugh4301

8 жыл бұрын

Beautiful

@DeltaXXI

8 жыл бұрын

+Ariesticnig The olives that I was chewing... you made me eat them with my nose! x) quad-wielding > dual-wielding.

@dedrick43

6 жыл бұрын

Wait... wouldn't you have outright advantage against spearmen?

@maddizzle1744

5 жыл бұрын

@@dedrick43 No, Spears have longer reach, and in battle it's hard to get close to them

@lacyhart2043

4 жыл бұрын

Nice

Vintage Lindybeige. Imagine how it'll feel when there's a 25 year old Lindy video? You'll feel old. You'll feel really old.

@MH-mx7hq

4 жыл бұрын

I hate you for saying this lol but its so true

@Dinofaustivoro

Жыл бұрын

Specially when you remember seeing it when it came out

I'm sure there was the occasional short-lived madman who ran into battle with an axe in each hand.

@hein2790

2 жыл бұрын

i'd imagine it adds to the terror effect particularly if you're raiding those who aren't in much of a situation to fight back, maybe why in pop culture we see depictions of vikings dual wielding axes

Well, there go half my Skyrim builds... Edit: Haven’t duel wielded since this 4 years ago.

@carbon1255

7 жыл бұрын

Duel wielding is pretty crappy in Skyrim...

@MrGoatflakes

7 жыл бұрын

+Carbon 12 You are doing it wrong. Alchemy+Blacksmithing potions+Blacksmithing+2 single handed weapons+Enchanting=pwn

@carbon1255

7 жыл бұрын

MrGoatflakes YOU are doing it wrong, it is enchanting alchemy blacksmithing blacksmithing alchemy enchanting alchemy enchanting sneak ARCHERY. DUH. :P Good luck flapping your arms about in a DRAGON fighting game.

@MrGoatflakes

7 жыл бұрын

Carbon 12 Yeah last 2 times I did this I started to do sneaky sneaky and use light armour. I love it, but one thing not good is that it takes longer to clear out dungeons while sneaking around. But I still have the dual wielding for when enemies close with me despite my best efforts to murder them while they aren't looking. The light armour might be a waste of time though, because when your sneak gets good enough it doesn't seem to matter if you are wearing heavy armours. Maybe I'll legendary it when I get there, and my stealth will be so high it doesn't matter.

@Hawk_of_Battle

7 жыл бұрын

Pff, dual wielding fireballs is the only meta

If their arrows cover the sun.... attack in the night

@Yorikoification

9 жыл бұрын

uomosenzanomo Good idea, then you cannot see the arrows, which means they are no threat right?!

@Yorikoification

9 жыл бұрын

eucomo lhamas Yeh yeh yeh, 300 meme lolololol.

@Yorikoification

9 жыл бұрын

eucomo lhamas Oh? Then what was the joke? Enlighten me wise lama!

@Yorikoification

9 жыл бұрын

eucomo lhamas Oh? OOOOH?!! You wanna fight?! I'm so bloody ready to start a youtube comment flame war I can burst!.....No seriously, just tell me or insult me again to end this.

@Yorikoification

9 жыл бұрын

eucomo lhamas Whatever then

i find the plasma rifle and mauler combination is most excellent

@8ballentertainment.885

5 жыл бұрын

No no no, halo 3 smg magnum combo, smg to break shield, magnum to kill

@maddizzle1744

5 жыл бұрын

@@8ballentertainment.885 Plasma pistol to break shield faster and pistol to kill

@8ballentertainment.885

5 жыл бұрын

Jonathan Tairov yeth

@monsters8730

4 жыл бұрын

plasma gun and mauler? Surely, only a space marine can manage that?

@zoetropo1

4 жыл бұрын

In MOO2, yes. In the battle of Hastings, that combo is not so practical. Mainly because neither weapon had been invented yet.

Loyd 2014: 6 minutes videos without jump cuts Loyd 2020: 1:06:47 without jump cuts Love it

This video is basically longer version of "One is all you need" -Count dooku

@aiacfrosti1772

3 жыл бұрын

Only 1? What a terrible count

@alpakapucuf3394

3 жыл бұрын

@@aiacfrosti1772 oh jesus get out. I liek you

@seretith3513

3 жыл бұрын

Imagine they come behind how to builed a Lightsaber-Swordbraker Dooku would be fucked

@heavydarkmatter

2 жыл бұрын

Technically, Anakin was dual wielding when he killed Dooku. However, what he did was not the Jedi way.

Your button makes it look as though you have a hole clean through you.

@Mothman1992

7 жыл бұрын

DB Pooper I was trying to figure out why he'd video edited to put a hole in his chest

@MrMasterdavid

7 жыл бұрын

He is talking from experience

@evilace1956

7 жыл бұрын

MrMasterdavid I didn't know there are still sword and shield wars nowadays

@lemonke8132

7 жыл бұрын

DB Pooper thats what i thought

@ramentaco9179

6 жыл бұрын

Omg I read that as "your bottom" XD

As a Thai person, here in Thailand we had dual-wielding commando unit in ancient time. They got cool nickname like Taluang(Assault) Fanh(Strike) unit and it was practical. Considering that in ancient Southeast-Asia that time only noble commanders wear armor and soldiers were pretty much naked, flanking in tropical woodland when your enemy were in chaos was an ideal. Also, at the time the forest were so thick and the elevation was harsh so no horse, no plain in many occasion. These are why it was possible.

@mariosebastiani3214

4 жыл бұрын

I guess you're right. Plus moving around without a shield was faster and easier. But I think the real reason they were effective... it's cause they were Thai. Not so many countries around that have never been conquered/invaded during last 1000 years... Thailand is one of the few, cause its people fight like fearless tigers!

@mariosebastiani3214

4 жыл бұрын

@Brutal Beat they got in a fight with a japanese landing force during WW2. Siam had an agreement with Japan, in that they would allow their army to pass on their territory, but only to reach the border of another country. The japanese headed for a beach near a siamese military base, but the siamese didn't properly warn their garrison men beforehand. Seeing the japanese approaching, they decided to stop the landing and stood ground. The japanese, seeing they were opposed, started fighting. 300 siamese stalled a force of 20000 japanese for almost 3 days, fighting like tigers, unable to call for reinforcements as their radio base got destroyed. The siamese headquarters sent a messenger to the fort to order them to stand down, but the man got killed due to the intense fight. A second messenger got luckier, and the fight finally stopped. The japanese decided it was better to retreat and avoid passing on siamese ground. So, in short... no, they probably would have beaten the crap out of japanese or european even during medieval times.

@mariosebastiani3214

4 жыл бұрын

@Brutal Beat if you're right, then explain why they never got conquered or invaded deeply... also, armored doesn't mean invulnerable. Look at what happened to german knights during the siege of Alessandria. And a fully armored man wouldn't stand a chance of resìsting in the hot, moist thai weather.

@mariosebastiani3214

4 жыл бұрын

@Brutal Beat when? By who?

@mariosebastiani3214

4 жыл бұрын

@Brutal Beat The British didn't put colonies in Siam; their king went to England, saw how things were, came back to his people, told them to avoid doing things like going around half naked or peeing in the middle of the roads to avoid giving the westerners any excuse to come and bring "civilization" as they did in other countries. He also went on bringing european engineers for railroad construction, but it was crown-owned, not from a private foreign company like in Japan.

Double the swords, double the pommels. It's simple, really.

@twocupterry

4 жыл бұрын

Daniel Garrett yep

@Snoogen11

4 жыл бұрын

@Daniel Garrett Or one foe double rightly.

@surmountwho2861

4 жыл бұрын

Twice the price, double the fall.

@azekia

4 жыл бұрын

Why carry 2 stods to carry two pommels when you can carry a single sword abd a bag of pommels

@xaquko9718

3 жыл бұрын

@@azekia why not carry a sword with four pommels: one at the point of the blade, two at each end of the crossguard and the last one where it should be.

But, but, but... what about the feared "helicopter attack" wherein one holds a sword in each outstretched arm and spins around?

@drowninginthoughts

10 жыл бұрын

all time favourite move. when I do it I like to stop when my back is turned to my enemy to show him how invincible the helicopter makes me.

@BramClaes

10 жыл бұрын

Doing something like that would be very ineffective in a battle, because it is very crowded, and you are likely to hit 3 of your friends before you actually hit an enemy :p

@drowninginthoughts

10 жыл бұрын

Bram Claes I think you don't have to explain it. everyone who watches lindybeige or something simmilar and has at least a bit of knowledge about swordfights will know that it is ineffective.

@Talamare

10 жыл бұрын

I would take a step back and wait til you fall dizzy on the ground.

@WallGnome

9 жыл бұрын

Block once, and the guy falls over. Then repeatedly stab him. In other words, just a flashy way to commit suicide.

The off-hand is for my sword. My primary one holds my beer.

Lindybeige: the man who makes dungeons and dragons games three times as long

@Thessik73

4 жыл бұрын

And better.

if I was fighting someone, and had just a sword and sheild. then he pulled out two swords I would say this is my head "well fuck, clearly he knows what he is doing" and then I would run.

@sailorofthesoul1945

7 жыл бұрын

rottin_ Well that's only because you're the equivalent of a peasant soldier, probably less assuming you're not a farmer.

@arnerademacker8548

7 жыл бұрын

His point still stands, considering often armies would be created by conscripting everyone able to hold a weapon. Even peasants make effective cannon fodder.

For you people talking about the gladiators: The gladiators fought for a crowd, they fought for entertainment so their purpose was to put on a show. It's not impossible that a great deal of the fights were choreographed. There has been no battlefield troop who uses a trident and net as little as there has been a battlefield troop who uses dual wielding.

@hanb.4726

5 жыл бұрын

Yes and No. There are weapons like the trident, a corseque type weapons. In Europe, dual wielding really just existed with rapier and dagger so you're right about having no dual wielding in the battlefield. "There has been no battlefield troop who uses a trident and net as little as there has been a battlefield troop who uses dual wielding." I disagree with some of this. If you're including the whole world in this, well then you're incorrect. Dual wielding in battlefields exist in Asia. Trident like weapons have been used in Asia. I can't make an account for African cultures but with Asia I can. Dual wielding swords had its part in cavalry in the asiatic steppes, Korea, and China. Tridents are among many weapons in China and Korea.

This video will probably be watched by a lot of folks after we see Ser Arthur Dayne duel wielding.

@Nasmr.

8 жыл бұрын

Send it everywhere as we speak

@eddard9442

8 жыл бұрын

+Vansh Akre yeah thats me, i have seen this video 2 years ago, he makes good points, after watching Dayne fight, he seemed to pull it off well, it was choreographed well. i do medieval reenactment (steel weapons sparring in historical outfit/armour) and never dual wield because i'm always told it doesnt work/impractical but damn i want to make it work, Arthur Dayne has inspired me! fictional character or not i dont care!

@macedos39

8 жыл бұрын

+Justin thats the thing, it's a choreography where the players allow him time to move both swords. Looks pretty though.

@RinkeJohannesComposer

8 жыл бұрын

Look up ScholaGladiatoria's review of the Tower of Joy fight

@eddard9442

8 жыл бұрын

yeah i looked at the review, i am glad Matt liked it, i was worried he would hate it, dual wielding melee weapons needs to have the fantasy tag removed from it once and for all!

When I was young, I used to have large fights with my brother using sticks. I almost always either choose one large stick to use as a staff, that was light weight, or two smaller strong lightweight sticks, one larger one shorter. My brother would then take his sword/shield(an oval piece of wood with a rope nailed to the back of it), and we would dual. At first, I agree, using two of the same weapon is horribly hard to use. But using one shorter, and one longer one(realize neither is very long), it was actually pretty much equal to fighting my brother as you could use it in an X formation to catch his sword, and quickly swing out the other stick and hit him over the head or something. Granted, with multiple kids, you don't use two swords/sticks, you'll get beat. Quite quickly.

Somewhere in the forgotten realms a dark elf is crying.

The term Dual-Wielding referign to two-weapons combat came from video games, technically a sword&shield is a dual-wielding too, cus a shield is a defensive weapon.

@mundoinvisivelxd1936

8 жыл бұрын

yomauser shut up ..have you ever heard about musashi that created a style with two weapons and he beated 60 men with that all together ?

@yomauser

8 жыл бұрын

Do you really read it what I wrote? I said ...the "TERM" Dual-Wielding... That term reference to the use of two weapons, did not exist in the ancient eras, they just called Two-swords; two-weapons or similars.

@mundoinvisivelxd1936

8 жыл бұрын

yomauser i read ..but i typed this for other people ..not exactely for you.

@batrachian149

8 жыл бұрын

Pedantry has been called.

@wlos4029

8 жыл бұрын

+Ckyntosh then you could just post it as a normal comment and not as a reply

Seems to be a lot of angry people that cannot cope with the fact that dual wielding Daedric Swords and crouch/rolling everywhere won't win you lots of battles. C'mon people, I like Skyrim too, but just because something is effective on a game doesn't mean it would be in real life.

@mrwindupbird101

8 жыл бұрын

+Grey Stash Even by other games standards, the combat in Skyrim is very simple. If you melee, run and hit thing until thing is dead. Done. I always imagined dual wielding to be hard because I'm not as dexterous with my left hand as I am with my right hand. Trying to manage both hands, making sure the blades strike correctly on 2 separate weapons seems like a good bit of mental strain that you don't want in the middle of a large skirmish.

@greystash1750

8 жыл бұрын

***** Only example of those I'm aware of is Miyamoto Musashi, seems to me his dual wielding style is more for duels correct? One on one combat, not a battle (my point being it wouldn't win you battles having 500 men with 2 swords each rather than 1000 with a sword and shield each).

@greystash1750

8 жыл бұрын

***** I can see how the wakizashi would have shocked his opponents, be like 2 knights fighting, one with a longsword another with a gladius, that said, in a battle scenario, I'd rather have a sword (much like the one I actually own, a 32 inch blade broadsword) and some form of shield for my left hand, one thing I've learnt for sure, swords are heavier than I expected -_- wielding 2 whilst wearing armour is a big no no from my extremely limited experience.

@greystash1750

8 жыл бұрын

I don't have a Katana, in fact, I'm not exactly learned when it comes to eastern fighting, especially Japan (though I do like the 1560's to 1600's) though I was under the impression, especially judging from the shape, that Japanese swords are for cutting, not necessarily stabbing. All the blades that I know of are curved, Wakizashi, Katana, Nodachi, even the Naginata. I'd say balance is more important if you're swinging your sword than if you're lunging (which is obviously what my sword would be for). I was aware shields never really took off in Japan, they seemed to prefer mass spears with bows (and later guns) to fight.

@toddellner5283

5 жыл бұрын

I can't deal with the fact that old Lindy is spouting lies and bullcrap. The military, as in used by soldiers, systems of Thailand, Burma, Laos (if memory serves), the unbroken traditions of the Philippines, Indonesia, India, and Malaysia all have absolute scads of two-weapon subsystems and techniques. The historical record of combat by Native Americans and European manuals teaching sword paired with dagger or some other weapon is so voluminous that he doesn't even rise to the level of "mistaken". Your fanboi loyalty can't support the insupportable.

What about 15th Century full plate armoured blokes with a dagger or a knife in one hand and a sword in the other?

@andrescrespo2514

3 жыл бұрын

You pull the dagger out when you’ve knocked down your opponent. Plate armor means no need for a shield so take a 2h weapon then transition to a dagger.

@Lolpy.

3 жыл бұрын

This existed actually! In the Middle Ages it was popular in certain regions, usually in Iberia or the Italian peninsula, to have a sword for dealing blows, and a parrying dagger, the dagger was rarely used for striking though. Here’s an example: Giovanni has a sword, Pietro has a sword and dagger. Giovanni goes for a strike, Pietro raises his dagger to parry the blow and thrust his sword into Giovanni’s abdomen, winning the duel. That’s a basic example.

@ourvaluesarewhoweareinadem4093

3 жыл бұрын

@@Lolpy. Seems unlikely. What would be easier, blocking a blow with a huge surface area or a small surface area? Your example is like trying to stop a bullet by shooting it with another bullet instead of just wearing a plate carrier.

@ourvaluesarewhoweareinadem4093

3 жыл бұрын

@@Lolpy. Your "source" (wikipedia, lol) indicates they came into favour after melee weapons were on the decline on the battlefield. Seems your left hand daggers were primarily used in sporting and mock-combat where there was a strict set of formalized rules. Probably they are more of a fashion piece or status symbol than an actually useful piece of combat kit.

@Lolpy.

3 жыл бұрын

@@ourvaluesarewhoweareinadem4093 Did I ever say anything different? Also what’s wrong with Wikipedia? Public sources too low for you? You sound like a history teacher lmao

There were other things you could be doing with your free hand, if you know what I mean.

@CanyonF

7 жыл бұрын

unsheathing your long sword

@BebxOfficial

7 жыл бұрын

Canyon F And getting it wet. With blood.

@matmoome

7 жыл бұрын

Canyon F the one on your back

@Jimpozcan

7 жыл бұрын

Scrolling through your Facebook on your iPhone.

@Moralgo

7 жыл бұрын

Gives a whole new meaning to the term bloodlust.

I dual wield two lances and when I’m feeling frisky I dual wield two horses

Bullshit! Dual wielding gives you more speed! You just doing it wrong! You can hit with your one hand with powersword, and simultaniously shot with plasma pistol from other hand! And for defence you rely on your 3+ power armor, and 5+ fell no pain!

@fl333r

8 жыл бұрын

Heheh

@flamingcow5916

7 жыл бұрын

wow I thought you'd say a SAO arc reference instead of the GGO one...

@edison7300037

7 жыл бұрын

totally agree, i enchant my daedra sword though.

@mlm82

7 жыл бұрын

with dual wielding you can have two weapon enchants, instead of just one, and another armor enchant.

@trollface3874

7 жыл бұрын

Problem this is videogames

Brilliant video. These ideas took a long time to sink into my brain after years of reading fantasy novels and playing video games. Nowadays, I agree wholeheartedly with every point you made. Blows my mind that this video has been out for 6 years and I’m just now seeing it.

once the rapier came into fashion, dual wielding was fairly common. the parrying dagger, or main gouche (left hand) was used to great success.

Spear as a walking stick, shield slung over your back, sword on one hip and a dagger on the other. Done.

@factsabouturmum9250

8 жыл бұрын

+Peter Timowreef Do I have to buy a sword though? Can I just carry a hand axe? 'S'cheaper. :3

@BoarhideGaming

8 жыл бұрын

Good loadout, but already four times as fleshed out as the average battlefield contender could afford in medieval times. For the common man it was usually nothing but a single spear or similar cheap weapons.

@harald921

8 жыл бұрын

+BoarhideGaming You haven't watched Lindy's other videos I see! Swords were really cheap, the problem was that people couldn't just walk around with them. It was illegal! :)

@BoarhideGaming

8 жыл бұрын

Harald Kanin Watched nearly all of them, and *no*, swords were most definitely not cheap, especially not decent ones. And they weren't illegal everywhere, some places it was mandatory for every citizen to be able to contribute to the army, meaning they had to own swords, some places it was permitted to own weapons.

@factsabouturmum9250

8 жыл бұрын

The first couple raids would most likely pull the average soldier enough scran for a decent kit, but like I said earlier, I prefer the tool axe for a sidearm because it's cheaper, more compact, and more useful in general.

Miyamoto Mushashi, the famed Japanese duelist and swordsman, dual-wielded a long sword and wakizashi. I don't know about the feasibility of dual-wielding in war settings but it seems to be quite useful when dueling someone else one-on-one.

@HitodamaKyrie

10 жыл бұрын

A second weapon could be an advantage in a melee duel, most certainly. Unless the enemy has a spear or shield or something to that effect. A second weapon is a second point an opponent has to look out for (though only an amatuer duelist would care where your weapon was), in addition, you can use them to attack at separate times to get around an opponents parry/etc. It's more of a tactical decision. If you tried to dual wield weapons in a standing army environment, you'd die pretty quickly. It'd be somewhat akin to trying to dual wield assault rifles. Possible, but futile.

@Rhino1004

10 жыл бұрын

I think Lindybiege was talking about using two long swords and the like. The wakizashi was a short sword, so I'd imagine it was used for parrying, much like a fencer's parrying dagger, which was also covered in the video. It was said Musashi later developed a style involving two long swords, but I believe he never ended up using it, since he died shortly afterwards.

@EarthSlash

10 жыл бұрын

Musashi used both of his swords when holding off multiple opponents - for example, when surrounded by the pissed-off students of some "master" he killed that day. But he never used two weapons in a duel against another single opponent.

@ozowen

10 жыл бұрын

Musashi certainly used the two sword technique when dealing with multiple opponents, but, as was noted, there is no record of him doing so in duels nor in war. He spoke of using all your resources and his references to two swords also has that meaning. In other words, he didn't necessarily speak to using two swords but spoke in metaphor (as well) indicating using all resources when necessary. As a further note, the Philipino arts (Kali, Escrima, Armis de Mano) have a dual weapon system called Sinawali. From what I understand, it is not used in duels- it is however, quite useful for multiple attackers.

@BewegteBilderrahmen

9 жыл бұрын

Supposedly there were at least two duels with wooden weapons when he was fighting Muso Gonnosuke who first lost to Musashi, then developed the technique called Jodo/Jojutsu to fight swordsmen, especially dual wielders, and after a few years the two ended up in another duel which supposedly ended in a draw. I want to stress the fact that this is just a legend to how Jodo was invented, but there are techniques to fend off two swords at once in some older forms.

I look away from the video for a few seconds and suddenly this sod is talking about tennis. You sir have gained a subscriber.

A most sensible (as always) appraisal of the logical vs the mystical recollection of medieval warfare. congratulations Sir on a most enlightening and rewarding account of it.

@stuflames4769

3 жыл бұрын

If you're going to kiss ass, don't use an archaic cadence as your flow. It'll hurt you in a couple levels.

1:46 no-matter how many times I listen to that part I hear butlers instead of bucklers.

@Nine_

7 жыл бұрын

Who wouldn't want to carry around a small butler all day? I certainly would, having fresh coffee and mini-sandwiches on-the-go would be amazing.

@lewisirwin5363

7 жыл бұрын

He's even handier on the battlefield if he's called Alfred.

@PerfectAlibi1

7 жыл бұрын

+Ian Smith I rather have a small but sexy maiden. XD

@TheOneLichemperor

7 жыл бұрын

or Walter.

@vonbrigi2690

5 жыл бұрын

Hugh Mungus is that sexual harassment?

Duel wielding philosophy of use. A raider with duel bearded axes. Not to be used against the main formation but to run down enemies from broken formations or guards during raids. You can use 1 axe to hook their shield and throw them off balance making it easy to finish them off.

@Mentyr

10 жыл бұрын

I once came up with a similar idea, but i'd suggest bearded axe and a stabbing sword with a good handguard (so you can 1. parry and 2. stab, and the hook-and-stab-move would be more like the historical one with daneaxe and spear)

@Ogur1981

10 жыл бұрын

This is under the assumption that your opponent is just going to stand there and let himself be slaughtered. You need to get in close to actually hook. If you hook it wrong your opponent will simply twist the shield and yank the axe from your hand. That is just basic mechanics. A longer arm requires less force to create the same momentum. You can therefor generate more power with your shield. Also, the fact that you have to get in close is a major issue. Once you are busy hooking with your weapon your other weapon needs to be able to keep you alive. Your opponent will try and kill you just the same as you are trying to kill him. Axes are not that great for defending. They are top heavy and a bit on the clumsy side. Also, they rely on a chopping motion to deliver their power. Making a chopping moton while you are so close to your opponent is difficult. It actually reduces the number of areas you can effectively hit quite a bit. Let's assume you go up against a spearman. I have ttrained with two handed spears for about 10 years and I can tell you from personal experience: A dual wielder is a Christmas package to a competent spearman. Why? They have no way of properly controlling your spear. There is no shield that you have to get around, so an opening the size of he diameter of your shaft is enough to kill him. I have the reach, I have the speed and I have the pick of my target.

@qiperty

10 жыл бұрын

Ogur1981 Not to mention the fact that any incoming missile is an extreme danger to you without a shield, as well as the fact that if there is group combat at some point in the raid, the group with the shields would have a pretty hefty defensive advantage if they stick together. (good luck stripping a shield while his two buddies are also bashing and slashing at you with their own swords and boards) Additionally, shields and spears go pretty well together in the makeshift formations of frantic group combat.

Just found your channel and i am enjoying your content. Thanks for your informative and entertaining videos.

I think its interesting to think about how in RP one does not consider the need for practical defences as much(prolly due to the lack of real danger) and thus gravitate towards flashy high offence options.

SPARTACUS taught me that being able to "dual wield" will make make me OP.

@Sommer57

8 жыл бұрын

+nodinitiative The movie or the Showtime tv series?

@nodinitiative

8 жыл бұрын

+Sommer57 The TV series of course

IMO what we generally see in historical weapons is that people carried shields into warfare and if double weapons or two weapons were ever used, it was in a dueling settling, such as the gladiatorial games or a fencing match. So shields were more reliable in a battle situation where you don't know what the opponent might be carrying, and where missiles would be flying. But in a duel, where you know what the opponent is carrying, you might select two weapons for flair or convenience (such as a parrying dagger in a situation where carrying a large shield would not be practical.)

@rosiello5100

9 жыл бұрын

***** And yet from personal experience I can tell you that, even in a civilian setting, a large shield is still the most effective choice, if not the most practical (of course you have still to carry it around and we're just arguing for argue's sake, no one carried large shields in their daily lives :) ). The opponent has a large obstacle to overcome if he wants to hit you, while a dual wielding opponent is a much easier targer. As far as smaller shields are concerned, I still think that a buckler is a more sensible choice; a parrying knife or a main gauche are surely more versatile, but a buckler requires less eye to hand coordination to be effective: is just a shield after all.

@aaronpaul9188

7 жыл бұрын

As armour improved, use of shields declined. By the late XV and XVI centuries men were using plate armour and no shield, instead using the heavy two handed weapons. Infantry started using long pikes and shield use declined there as well.

Ha! He mentioned halberds! That proves they are the greatest weapon of all time!

4:19 looks like my girlfriend trying to throw a punch

Dual-wielding is a defensive technique, you're not supposed to hack like a maniac. You basically use one weapon to parry, then follow immediately with the other weapon before your opponent can recover balance. And yes, it's a dueling technique, definetely not for the battlefield. Though you could dual-wield effectively on top of a horse if you were wearing armor and there aren't missiles flying around.

@capnclawhammer3024

9 жыл бұрын

Please do not assume that I'm attacking your assertion; I'm just asking, how does one dual-wield around the horse's head?

@CidGuerreiro1234

9 жыл бұрын

Capn Clawhammer I don't see the problem here. You just turn your flank towards the enemy and swing your swords just like you would with a single weapon. The risk of decapitating your own horse isn't any greater. It may seem risky because you are (probably) imagining someone striking like crazy from the saddle, but like Lindy said you don't swing your swords like a maniac, that's crazy and offers no advantage whatsoever. You parry with one sword and attack with the other.

@blackdeath4eternity

9 жыл бұрын

CidGuerreiro1234 you would only be able to attack on the right with the right sword & on the left with the left one, you also would loose much of your mobility when it came to turning as you would not be holding the reigns... unless the enemy is going to line up in two nice straight lines for you to ride between i think it would be impractical. ps. just encase you pick on this yes i know you can turn a horse with your feet, but you wont be able to anywhere near as well, your ability to turn as the situation demands would be hindered & that is very important if you end up having to fight someone else on horseback.

@CidGuerreiro1234

9 жыл бұрын

blackdeath4eternity You can thrust your left sword into your right flank (and vice versa), piercing through the enemy's eyes. It's actually easier than thrusting with the other weapon. On that matter it's really not that different from fighting with sword & shield.

@blackdeath4eternity

9 жыл бұрын

CidGuerreiro1234 ... to do so they would have to be right beside the horse & you would need perfect timing + the difficulty of getting the sword out when you have your arm crossed in front of you in order to stab someone.... on foot its similar to fighting with a shield im sure, on horseback im still not convinced.

What if you had shields on both arms while you were dual wielding?

@bcgroiSENSE

8 жыл бұрын

+Zero Ace Than you are insane, sir.

@crystalqueen9711

8 жыл бұрын

bcgroi Yeah, I get that a lot

@musketwithatapeworm

8 жыл бұрын

If you're a one man shield wall you can have a buddy behind you dual wielding spears

@realSOnoYa

8 жыл бұрын

+Zero Ace Then both my shields would have spikes

@joshuahadams

8 жыл бұрын

+Duck Wizard in the centre, above the handle, so you can punch and stab simultaneously.

I'd like to see more looking into the sword/parrying dagger combo. A medieval warrior owning both a sword and a dagger seems entirely reasonable to me. An ordinary person or bandit might also only have a couple knives to their name, so a sort of street brawl or mugging might lend itself more to dual-wielding than a pitched battle. The obvious meta however, as others have pointed out, is to have two shields.

if someone could clip it from 4:56 to 4:58, and add some techno music and effects, i would appreciate that very much

I have developed the technique of the deadly windmill! You have one scythe in each hand and you just spin around like a lunatic. Yeah, that's clever!

@Karanthaneos

6 жыл бұрын

For what they are, a more heavy Scythe sounds like a terrifying weapon to mount on horsemen when charging through infantry. Of course they would need to be quite far from each other to not scythe the horseman next to you which at the same time would leave you more vulnerable to infantry attack with spears and such... so yeah, that would also be a bad idea, but I'm liking the windmill thingy :D

Dual wielding two shields it is then!

@deltanoodles1975

8 жыл бұрын

+Runewell I've always thought about that.

@Neppy_Uzume

8 жыл бұрын

+DeltaNoodles Why not wield 2 big shields then and be the wall for your comrades?

@erilgaz

8 жыл бұрын

+Commissar Cirno Especially good if your comrads are archers.

@luangu

8 жыл бұрын

+Runewell AD&D 3.5 Will allow a Paladin to do that. I made a pure melee, brawling, grappling Paladin. Think holy professional wrestler of Heironeous. I had spiked bucklers in each hand. my best moment was when I choked out an Evil Cleric. Lol.

its like going back in time watching his old videos yet there is always something familiar about them

BEST YT TRAINER EVER!!! i'm doing this exercises every morning and already lost 10 kg. just follow the moves

If you want to see dual wielding done right, look up Kali/Escrima. It's far from useless. Granted that's a very different situation than ancient/mideval warfare.

@joshstarkey8883

8 жыл бұрын

***** Because you need two handed weapons for armor? Also I'm pretty sure there's been armor in China, maybe not like European full plate armor though

@vedeledev

8 жыл бұрын

+Archdemon-X not really.. there are historical treatises that show people in full plate using 2 swords but that's rare.. from the bolognese i think..

@joshstarkey8883

8 жыл бұрын

Dax Christian Barruela I think what with all the finding cracks or just bludgeoning due to the plate armor I'd be going for: 1. A two handed sharp thing I could parry with and stab into cracks 2. A two handed smashy thing I could parry with and bludgeon people through armor 3. A shield and some type of 1 handable blunt force weapon. I don't see trying to manuever the point of something (other than a spear) around a shield and stabbing in the cracks one handed being very effective. I think the shield would hinder your ability to get close and aim/angle into armor gaps, as would the length of a spear, and getting the force and accuracy would be difficult (hence half swording.) Probably dual sword wielding was done when a shield had been lost and a sword found, or else the user had enough skill to use each sword as a viable threat (could aim accurately and stab forcefully with either hand.) I wasn't trying to imply dual wielding was particularly effective when everybody wore full plate armor.

@vedeledev

8 жыл бұрын

+Josh Starkey your points are taken but then tke into consideration that the technique does exist.. also, it wasn't because they lost a shield and subbed a sword in place of the shield, the techniques actually show the need for 2 swords.. i think scholagladiatoria covered this and references the historical manual relevant..

@joshstarkey8883

8 жыл бұрын

Dax Christian Barruela​ I wasn't saying the sword would be used exactly like a shield. The fact the techniques exist does not mean they weren't intended as a backup. I could see breaking or losing a shield, say to a spear, and picking up another sword to help protect yourself being a common enough situation to warrant being in some manuals. I could be wrong though, and like I said, some people might be proficient enough with dual swords to use them as their main weapons. You say there's a video on this? Can you give a name? Update: I found it, haven't watched yet

Laughed while watching this, not at his theories cause the man knows his stuff... but at the simple realization that if you were to watch this muted it would look like a very uncoordinated little boy trying to show a bully how tough he was

@capnclawhammer3024

9 жыл бұрын

Oh, my... LOL...

I'm impressed with your serve technique

@satinderdhindsa835

5 жыл бұрын

John C I was thinking the same thing

My understanding is that castles/keeps would have tower stairways spiralling clockwise from top to bottom and cellar stairways spiralling clockwise bottom to top. So the defenders (fighting every inch of the stairwells) would be able to swing their swords freely while the attackers would have their sword swings impeded by walls. Architectural advantage for close-quarters combat. Apparently special units of left-handed swordsmen were sometimes trained for these stairway assaults. Is this story a truth or a myth? Where does it come from?

@pwnmeisterage

5 жыл бұрын

@Urrcreavesh I sort of agree. It seems like the battle is already over once the attackers have forced the last defenders into a tower. All that's left is for the royal bodyguard to die in heroic fashion while taking out as many of the invading bastards as they can. Still seems clever and legit ... I just can't recall the source and haven't (yet) found other sources to confirm it. Maybe it was just an important feature in one castle or one battle instead of a strategic fixture across the era. Or maybe just interesting strategy at a pub.

@CarlosSanchez-my7zg

4 жыл бұрын

There is some truth. Like in chillon castle in switzerland was built with this in mind. Not sure about lefty warriors. Though in my mind, lefty warriors made sense if you wanted to suprise an enemy trained right handed. Just opinion

@Philly_Jump_Over_The_Fence

4 жыл бұрын

How I laughed as I unleashed my secret, left handed army on my enemies keep.

@mariosebastiani3214

4 жыл бұрын

I've noticed it in the castles I visited. Plus, in a particular one the main fly of stairs (straight) was made of steps with different height and width. If you were living there you'd get accustomed to the feature, and by waiting on top of the stairs (where there is space to fight) you'd see a charge break as some of the assailants would trip and fall.

I'd think that the biggest reason against wielding two weapons is that the level of skill and practice involved is very high. You thus can hardly expect large groups of people to master the art - and when units in armies are meant to all use the same combos of equipment that further discourages people from trying to master two-weapon fighting. Another factor is the likely fact that using two weapons as part of a large battle is significantly less effective than if you did so one-on-one.

@mrwindupbird101

7 жыл бұрын

Well besides being short a shield, a major piece of armor, let's say you had to parry a blow with one arm. If that person is using anything besides a smaller one handed weapon, you lose. He has a mace, your arm gives, he breaks your shoulder. He uses an axe and you use a sword, your arm gives, and he takes a chunk of your shoulder. If he uses any polearm you are without a doubt screwed because your only defensive option is using both weapons to redirect the hit and he has weight on his side, you will tire out first and you lose. Short of a suicidal fantasy, "dual wielding" is just to specific if it does have it's uses and to unreliable.

@curseofgladstone4981

7 жыл бұрын

with an axe you could just one blade to stop it before it gets momentum. when you see his arn go back for a swing lunge forwards and push your sword against it and stab with the othed hand. and dont forget that the bigger a weapon is the slower you will be with it. you dodge or deflect and attack. duel wielding is just not effective in mass combat because it needs space to use. and army using it wouldnt work. as for missiles, most people would use shields and you take cover behind them.

@joescannoli7660

7 жыл бұрын

+Dragon Warhammer remember though that in real life people don't telegraph their attacks, not even with an Axe, they're not the huge slow thing that you imagine, besides you can hook a weapon with an Axe so you also has that to worry, not to mention that if you somehow manage to block the swing like you said he only needs to step backwards to free himself from that lock.

@Mothman1992

7 жыл бұрын

Joe's cannoli every attack worth worrying about will be telegraphed to a certain extent. if you don't believe that grab an axe and some logs. pick up the axe and swing it from a neutral position only using your arm and see how far you get into the log, then choke up on the head with one hand and grab it at the base with the other. lift it behind your head on your dominant side and turn to put your non dominant side forward before turning to put your dominant side forward, twisting your lower body, and leaning into the swing. the casual untelegraphed chop won't do shit, the one that actually telegraphed will be the last thing the guy you're swinging at ever sees if you hit him. and the reason no one dual wielded is that it's more of a liability than an asset. the swords get in each other's way unless you have choreographed enemies instructed to attack you from the exact right angle. parrying daggers were used because they were short enough to work around

@toddellner5283

5 жыл бұрын

Forget the theory. People did it all over the world.

I used to do a lot of fencing when I was younger (sabre) and occasionally we'd break a blade. Occurred to us to take these broken blades, smooth off the tip and a make them into parrying daggers about 15" long. Spent a long time playing around with that combination and came to the conclusion that if you were up against an opponent armed only with one weapon, he was dead. If you attacked with the sabre, he would have to parry, at which time you'd step in and jab him in the ribs with the dagger. Or if your opponent gets his attack in first, you parry with either sabre or dagger, and again, while his weapon is tied up, step in stick him. Two weapons absolutely work. Against two handed weapons? It worked, but not as well; two handed weapons will outreach you and probably overpower your parry, so it's a toss up. But yes, not using both hands in some way is to lose a fight.

Musashi talks extensively about dual wielding in his book The Five Rings. He recommends it, and as a duellist with around fifty confirmed kills and not a single loss he’s probably onto something. That said battles aren’t 1v1 duels, so I doubt his ideas on fighting would be the same for facing legions of foes.

@moralhazard8652

4 жыл бұрын

Not sure if I remember this correctly, but wasn't one of his blades significantly shorter than the other? Which would create a similar situation to the whole rapier+dagger kind of thing?

@falcodarkzz

4 жыл бұрын

@@moralhazard8652 I'll check the book later, I was under the impression he talks about both full length swords and a single shorter sword, like a Wakizashi, being used. These can be 24 inches in length though, so I'm not sure if we could put it in the same class as a dagger?

@rolfsannes8246

4 жыл бұрын

he use 2 blade, katana and wakizashi in fight with many oponents, think he only use one blade katana or boken in real duels 1v1

@kopiller

4 жыл бұрын

Odachi and Kodachi, yep same scenery like rapier and dagger, and I think in musahi's school of swordsmanship the dual sword forms are anecdotal.

@junichiroyamashita

3 жыл бұрын

Musashi philosophy is not " using two sword" for the sake of it,the point is " being able to use one in each single hand", it is a fortuitous case that Japan was a most favorable ground for dual wielding since samurai carried the daisho,removing the hypotetic incumbrance of carrying another sword. I belive that he advice two sword against many beacuse one could deal with more than one opponent seamlessly,he openly critiqued the need of using two hands for a single katana,considering it to be impratical. It is similar to the Arnis concept of Bantay Kamang,even with only a weapon,the other hand can be used for defending and attacking even against multiple opponents,somenthing not possible with a single two handed weapon that is not a polearm.

Musashi invented the dual wielding style in Japan, holding a katana in one hand and a wakizashi in the other. Though he only did this in dueling, as you said. He never lost a duel in his life, no matter what style he went against. Nodachis, kusarigamas, naginatas, all fell to his style. He was also among the first to attempt to use the katana in one hand, which is why he opted to use the wakizashi in his off-hand.

@matthewpaul8755

10 ай бұрын

It was already a thing … like it was everywhere else’s

What if you're ambidextrous and you quickly do a 180 jump to swap your stance in a decisive moment?

Miyamoto Musashi was a famous Japanese swordsman who used a two sword technique, a large sword and a companion sword, for example a katana and a wakizashi.

@giammix3000

10 жыл бұрын

Yep he created and the only one that mastered it, it's called nito ryu and it's still used in martial arts (kendo)

@2bblack

10 жыл бұрын

Exactly, thats the one who really used dual-wielding.

@Tadamichi_Kuribayashi

10 жыл бұрын

Martin Černý Yep and he used it to great effect also.

@AGiantPie

9 жыл бұрын

He never used that in duels, only when facing multiple opponents.

@WastelandSeven

9 жыл бұрын

True. And many Chinese weapons are used in pairs. Hook swords, straight swords, "butterfly" knives" etc.

I love it when you ramble, don't spare me

"You could reasonably carry a butler around". But only in Britain!

You can also do the beyblade technique with dual wielding and be very effective in a large battle, you forgot about that i guess...

Some below have brought up the two swords carried by samurai, and the two sword fighting system formalised by the sword master Musashi. His is one of the tiny number of such Japanese sword school/systems, and Musashi himself very rarely used both swords at the same time. Musahi's system was a katana based mirror of the western rapier & main gauche system, with the wakazashi short sword used like the main gaiche arming dagger - as a fending weapon with limited offensive capability. There are similar two sword styles in every sword culture - Thailand for example has a tradition that includes a two Krabi (longsword) system. Thing is they are rare and small scale, and were almost never used in real combat as, as Lloyd points out, the disadvantages far outweigh the advantages. NB: I dont class the rapier/main gauche system as dual wielding as the arming dagger was a "shield" fending device rather than a sword equivalent. Again Lloyd is right there, and I can confirm it as its a system I learned. Two main swords is just mainly Hollydud bollocks.

@Lymmar

10 жыл бұрын

Yeah, I think Musashi came up with the two sword thing after his dueling days were done. I do think the story goes that he once had to draw his wakazashi when he fought this guy who used a kusarigama, but who knows how true that even is.

@paununs8719

10 жыл бұрын

+Lymmar Yes, it seems it´s more literature than anything. But there is this movie, "Samurai 2: Duel at Ichijoji Temple", in which we see an awesome kusarigama vs katana fight, it looks pretty good and realistic.

@Lymmar

10 жыл бұрын

I watched that forever ago. I need to check it out again.

I cant stop watching your videos

I love your videos Lindybeige. Keep em coming

If you had the defense of a shield wall to protect you it might be viable for a second line troop to be armed with maybe a short spear and a hook or other tool to break a defensive shield wall. but that would leave you very open unless you had lots of people working to protect you

You could hold my potions in your off hand. BUT THEY ARE TOO STRONG FOR YOU TRAVELER

@passertuut4006

5 жыл бұрын

They would kill you!

Parrying daggers of various styles and uses were often used in dual welding applications in European swordsmanship that eventually changed and became what we know now as fencing. Various styles of kung fu also make use of two weapons, and have very extensive training and manuevering to be effective, but both have certainly had their uses in the past and were indeed very effective if done properly.

Dual wielding was taught and practiced both on foot and mounted in the Arabic /,mamluke texts. It was taught primarily as a test of skill, and coordination or used in battle if your shield was lost or destroyed.

@matthewpaul8755

10 ай бұрын

Bingo

I feel like dual wielding was more for a dueling scenario compared to a battlefield scenario.

@99superjesus

8 жыл бұрын

+Punished Todd dualing or skirmish i think. If someone was taught it in a classroom, skirmish breaks out and they need something for their other hand which is probably likely (no ones gonna lug a shield around outside battle) then yeah it probably happened a fair bit.

@chrisridge5504

8 жыл бұрын

Yeah they might use it in a skirmish.Shaolin monks had two thin swords they knew how to dual wield.

The Saxons had the Seax as secondary weapon, so I always imagined them dual wielding, can you make a video about how the Seax was used?

Dual wielding is a great exercise for developing ambidextrous skills which will help in cases of weak side or weak hand combat. This is no different than learning to shoot pistols with both hands. I am very competent with both hands when shooting but I only need one. In my professional (retired) I had to engage many times and I never went to my weak hand first. Two guns doesn’t make you more accurate, in fact it makes you less. Two swords will not make you more accurate and will likely tire you out twice as fast. It is also not greatly effective against Spears, Bow Staffs or other long pointy things designed to maim or kill. Love this guy and show.

I think duel wielding lends itself better to a fantasy setting for a few reasons. Usually characters can take quite a bit of punishment before expiring, plus with the addition of magic in general, there's less of a trade off when opting for two weapons. I think ultimately the ideal main advantage one could have with dual wielding is being able to still do two things at once. You may not be faster at attacking but you've got a weapon on each one of your flanks, meaning your enemy now has to keep his eyes on two weapons. Additionally if you have planted one of these weapons into an enemy's head already, you'd have another weapon ready to strike, block, or parry an incoming foe. Still I imagine it wasn't done in large battles, but maybe in smaller group fights.

One other disadvantage to dual wielding would be body position. With one weapon, you can keep your body turned to protect your torso, where many vital things keep you alive. When dual wielding, you have to turn the torso, and expose your torso more. Does this sound correct, or am I wrong?

@cyan3284

7 жыл бұрын

JDBriceProductions I disagree. ... Duel wielding absolutely can be done without overly exposing one's centre, basically using one sword in a variant of a high or low guard and the other in a central guard....if you search "agrippa 2 sword" you can see some examples of positions

@JDBriceProductions

7 жыл бұрын

James Goffin Nice! thank you. I will definitely research that.

@billlupin8345

7 жыл бұрын

Is there anywhere to get historical sword manual pdfs for free? I don't think it's right that I have to pay membership to see a copy of a piece of history.

From my experience it seems that dual weilding can work in small scale fights with either two small weapons or one small and one large as was common in duels

@itsrudetostare673

5 жыл бұрын

Yeah it was a niche tactic, at the end of the day, almost everybody who lived for more than a couple minutes on a battlefield used a shield.

I always find some kind of spell (healing or freezing are both good) in the offhand and an axe or sword in the main hand work best. Failing that I suppose a nice 9mm wouldn't go amiss either. Dual wielding guns on the other hand does increase rate of attack, but it makes the reload a bit more cumbersome.

Dimachaerus is a dual sword wielding gladiator. I gave a seminar on the international gladiator training in The Netherlands. It is doable to use two swords. Some sixteenth century guides with dagger and sword is also usable with the two swords.

duel is a technique were one hand is used to create an in for the other weapon. Works great 1v1 with NO range weapons.

@DrewLSsix

7 жыл бұрын

mba2ceo. dual, not duel.

@jacobr3533

7 жыл бұрын

Florentine style aka dual wield was never used and us a very bad style of fighting even... no especially one on one.

can you discuss the subject matter you cut out? it actually sounds rather interesting, going by the description.

In Japan they did. Many if not almost all koryu kenjutsu style there are nito katas (longsword and short sword dual wielded). Both Katori Shinto Ryu and Hiho Niten Ichi Ryu have several very usefull dual wielding katas. On Instituto Niten, which is a Niten Ichi Ryu dojo, they spar regularly and VERY effectively with two swords. Just take a look at their channel and see for yourself.

I wonder if soldier ever held dual shields in combat. You can knock you enemies out with them and they also provide good protection. I’m curious whether this is a thing

In a 1 to 1 duel, having a short and long sword is very good. You can block with one and strike with the other, but switch it up if you have to. You can use this to distract the enemy, and get more hits. Obviously not as good on the battlefield, but if I had to sword duel I would go with that combo. It literally lets you counter-attack whenever the enemy swings at you and has their guard down.

dual wielding on the battlefield is basically kamikaze. you might do some more damage but you are almost certain to die. for duels dual wielding is quite a but more useful. i remember from the very age of 4 when i fought with sticks that having two swords is better than one, but then again we didnt have anything for shields, so it was either one sword or two swords. but even later on with playful duels up until now i still find how practical it can be to have a second sword, but still i think the reason is purely because of how much of an amateur me and my opponents are. we dont have proper metal armour, we have bad posture, footwork and our fighting style is mostly improvised or just what worked best the past few years (but we're still amateurs so that doesnt mean much except it is good for hitting amateurs) some of these upsides are the following: -two attacks at once. neither are very strong, very fast or very accurate, we usually use it like a shotgun, spray and pray. well, that is more like a machine gun. i guess spray once and pray once, then. -when you're disarmed...you're not actually disarmed, you still have another blade that you dont even need to unsheath but can immediately counterattack with. it is quite obvious that this is only an upside for newbies. you arent completely dead when you should be as good as dead. or when you're the underdog, you get a second chance (you're almost always an underdog) -actually well educted hema practitionners will have a tad bit more of a hard time against you because they never trained against dual wielders like you. but then again you are uncoordinated anyway, so he wont be able to use his amazing counter techniques against you but you wont be able to use your edge that you have on him by having two swords either. -depending if people agree if grappling is fair play or not, a second sword is way better. yes, you can also shield bash someone, but in this one regard it is actually better to have a second sword, especially if the opponent grabbed the other one firmly. but a dagger is better in this situation. overall the best thing about a sword is its versatility. axes for example can generate more power, spears have more reach, bow and arrows have even more and maces are way better at dealing with heavy armor. swords are reasonably light but there are daggers and slings that are way lighter. but swords do reasonably well in all these regards (and probably even more regards, but i am too much of a rookie to even think of them) so if one sword is so versatile, why not use two for even more versatility? obviously this only applies for quick arcade like duels, in battlefields bow and arrow are the best but if you dont count that, a nice selection of weapons is ideal like spear, sword, shield and maybe something to deal with heavy armor, pretty sure the ancient and medieval armies got it right.

look forward to all the rambling outtakes one day :)

In guild wars 2 ( a role playing game ) they made mesmers(a class utilizing dueling/ mind trickery ) have dual wielding swords with specific emphasis on a dueling sort of design which is why they made the skill line they’re associated with called “dueling” it’s nice to see some video games try to tackle this trope. Somewhat realistically.

Pft im Dual wielding 2 Short Bows, it's like a Minigun.

@novaraptorus6250

4 жыл бұрын

A Gatling bow!

Musketeers used muskets? Can you use one whilst swashing your buckler?

@Sewblon

7 жыл бұрын

Isn't it buckling your swash?

@shigshig1432

7 жыл бұрын

To reload a musket it took two hands, so the buckler may possibly be in the way, Thats just my thoughts though, I'm not entirely sure ahah

@diceman199

7 жыл бұрын

I've used muzzle loading black powder muskets....you really don't want to be juggling anything else while reloading them

@Zretgul_timerunner

5 жыл бұрын

Theres a reason shields are more or less relegated to urban building entry and such combat and the lad carrying it has at best a handgun which he likely wont be able to properly reload

@nou4898

3 жыл бұрын

69 likes

I don't know if it counts as a dual wielding, but in Asia people were using sometimes short katana and a dagger. Also there were Bagh Nakh (or tiger claws) used often as a very light weapon for assasinations, and some say that it also was helping in climbing trees when equipped in both hands.

@WwZa7

7 жыл бұрын

Also in Poland Sarmatian were riding a horse, while having a sword in one hand and a flintlock in the other. And no, that's not fantasy, it really happened.

In Japan and Okinawa some farm tools were used as weapons and they were usually duel wielded.

While I agree about your conclusions on Katanas and similar Japanese blades, Lindy, Musashi Miyamoto used to dual wield a pair of Japanese swords, one short, one long-ish. This was in Duels, as far as I know, I don't know anything about samurai duel wielding swords in open battle. I think perhaps the idea was similar to rapiers and parrying daggers? One long blade to attack, and one short one to defend? Personally if I was in that situation, I'd have used one of the Japanese Sai weapons to defend. Seems like it'd be more effective at stopping a sword strike in a duel. Maybe it's because Sais were actually gardening implements, so Samurai would feel dishonoured if they used one?

@koletonnelson6310

8 жыл бұрын

+MarklenIngyer There's actually no record of Musashi dual-welding in duels (counter-intuitive, I know). TRAINING with two swords, yes, but he himself stated that was more to master using the sword effectively in only one hand, as opposed to the two handed grip that was the norm. As for using a Wakizashi in the off hand, that's not really dual-wielding, in the manner Lindy's (Lindies?) talking about. That's basically identical to the Portuguese style he mentioned in the video. Ah, no. The Sai were most certainly not garden implements. They originated in South-east Asia, and were developed specifically as weapons (based on the Indian war trident), before spreading to China and thence, Japan. Or, more specifically, Okinawa, where it obtained the name we know it by today. The Sai is a weapon used in the traditional Okinawan martial arts (which, by the way, includes Karate.)

@TeaIngyer

8 жыл бұрын

Koleton Nelson Looked it up. "While most Okinawan weapons are variations of wooden or rattan farm tools, sai were created specifically as weapons, usually to use in defense against sword-wielding samurai by higher class citizens as opposed to peasants" You are correct.

@whawhaa

8 жыл бұрын

Pretty sure Musashi dual wielded (correct me if I am wrong) when he fought that entire clan by himself, if I recall correctly it were 90 men, also he dual wielded in the duel againt kojiro, but that was about it.

@TeaIngyer

8 жыл бұрын

Ward Asselbergs Citation needed :3

@dehro

8 жыл бұрын

+Ward Asselbergs he never fought an entire clan by himself. He did fight primarily in duels and was as badass in them as they come, but fighting an entire clan? I don't think so

Solution: *Dual Shielding*

I would love to hear your analysis on Filipino Weaponry and battle history in regards to dual wielding. Love your channel BTW.

It's interesting that in a lot of your videos, one of the primary arguments used tend to be that the technique/equipment wasn't very effective because it wasn't popularised, and it tends to be assumed that the user of the technique/equipment would be fighting in formation. What I'd like to point out here though is that, as made evident in the video itself, it is difficult to coordinate the two weapons in a way to maximize its effectiveness, and so would have taken much more time to perfect and master. It wouldn't have been something any common soldier would be able to do, and it would be easier to just train your formations in the basic fighting techniques than taking the time to train each soldier in the art. Moreover, I believe that - with the very valid argument regarding shields and arrows/lances - those using the dual wielding would have used it in fighting one-on-one duels. With the tennis analogy, the advantage of dual wielding would be that, while you're gearing up your serving arm for the attack, you still have the other weapon available for parrying; as an improvement from simply using a shield to parry, the parrying weapon can always be transformed into an attack if you spot an opening in your opponent's form. tldr: I concede that this may not have been a very useful technique for army vs army fighting, but it's merits in dueling cannot be so quickly dismissed.