Was dual wielding swords actually a thing?

yeah

idk

>>63818575 (OP)
maybe

>>63818575 (OP)
You can find some examples of it happening, but very rarely. It wasn't a normal thing, and the trade offs you'd have to make to do it are generally just not worth it.

>>63818575 (OP)
anything ive ever found one would be used normally one handed and the other would be attempted to be used like a buckler

>>63818575 (OP)
I think it was a thing for unarmored street fights, but not for the battlefield. Even for street fights, sword + dagger, sword + bucker, or sword by itself was more common, though.

>>63818575 (OP)
Rapier & very long dagger's about as practically close as you'll get; then there's if you count the scabbard off hand as a parrying device.

>>63818575 (OP)
Kill yourself faggot.

swords were very expensive in most of history

>>63818575 (OP)
It's one of those things that occasionally happened, and was neither useless nor incredibly useful compared to other options.
I'm sure a couple of guys were even real good at it, like every obscure skill.

>>63819103
>I'm sure a couple of guys were even real good at it, like every obscure skill.
I really wonder how good the master swordsmen were in their days. Most shit we see these days looks like total meme shit. Whenever I see those janky moves it reminds me of people just starting out in boxing and their sparring sessions
>Footwork is trash
>No endurance to speak off outside of first round
>Bad head movement
>Try to focus on heavy hits, not gauging distance, combinations are bad
I'm about 80% sure that actual swordfights are more like the seasoned boxers constantly moving in and out, more so if there is armor were grappling becomes more useful.

>>63818575 (OP)
>Was dual wielding swords actually a thing?
Yes, it was rare overall outside of speficic instances.
In the West, the most common example was the rapier + dagger combo during the 16th and 17th century, which was mostly used for dueling, not on an actual battlefield.

The other notable example is Miyamoto Musashi's use dual wielding.
Dual wielding was pretty much unheard of in Japan until this decided this prodigy wanted to make a whole new "school" out of dual wielding.
He taught his students how to dual wield, but was pretty much the only samurai of note who used this technique.
If I'm not mistaken Musashi's use of dual wielding was mostly for facing multiple opponents, as well as for area denial.

The main observation about dual wielding is that the off-hand / main-gauche blade needs to be small in comparison to the main blade in your main hand.
At least that's what's historical examples tell us.
The samurai had the longer katana in the main hand and shorter wakizashi in the off hand.
Same with the dagger and rapier, the dagger is much shorter.

Doing a bit of research on this, other Historical examples include the Dimachaeri Gladiators in ancient Rome and there's a list of asian martial arts which do include dual wielding, but there's very little in the way of actual battlefield use for dual wielding. It's mostly used for dueling and martial arts.

>>63819123
What would you say your favorite boxing match in history is.

only when dueling 1v1 and only with certain weapons, see: rapiers and those toothy parrying daggers

>>63818575 (OP)
Case of swords

It wasn't really a thing any serious fighter trained to do.

It happened, but it was essentially performance art.

>>63819157
it is also said that Musashi was exceptionally strong, to the point that his single handed wield was similar in strength to an ordinary man's double handed. then having an extra wakizashi in the free hand suddenly makes lot of sense.

>>63818941
They really weren't.

>>63819230
>essentially performance art
By performance artists, specialized in DEEPDARKDUELING

>>63819254
>it is also said that Musashi was exceptionally strong, to the point that his single handed wield was similar in strength to an ordinary man's double handed
That makes a lot of sense, since he's using a two-handed weapon with a single hand.
That's one of the things that I didn't mention in my post because it seems obvious.
>then having an extra wakizashi in the free hand suddenly makes lot of sense.
Well yes, but contextually.
In a 1V1, it doesn't make much sense to dual wield, despite what people might think.
It's when facing multiple opponents or when doing area denial that dual wielding makes the most sense.
It's simply because the strength difference between one two-handed sword and two one-handed swords.
Here's a visual example of what I mean :
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/QXsYiraWWys

So it really comes down to strength, fighting style and context.
Dual wielding is cool as fuck, but it's superiority is very situational, which is why it's been pretty rare overall.
If you don't count shields since they're not always seeen as a weapon itself, the most effective dual wield Historically was when pirates and such used a pistol in their off hand.

My own dual weild style is extremely effective, I have never been defeated in a duel (0-0)
It involves an offhanded rapier held cocked back at the hip and then a strong hand saber
You fight normally with saber but your opponent needs to be concerned the entire time about the rapier pointed at their testicles just waiting for an opportunity

>>63818575 (OP)
Yes but it was super rare. You don't get a lot by using two identical swords so it was more common to use two different weapons like a rapier and dagger or a sword and buckler.

>>63819914

>>63818575 (OP)
Yeah.
Happened a lot in dueling, more than most people think, and it's challenging to contend with.
Not very common as a battlefield setup -- where long weapons and shields were rather more important.

>>63818575 (OP)
Chiefly for duelling and martial arts, and typically in the context of carrying a shorter blade in your off-hand for parries or catching your opponent's blade, though two longer blades is not unheard of.
It can be argued that you can extend the usage beyond duelling and sport to say Italian streetfighting, but it would not be a normal on a battlefield.
So typically not two swords, but the combination of a sword and parrying dagger is attested, though so is a lot of other choices of sidearm, some more realistic than others.

>>63819973
I see, I wasn't the first to develop testicle threats

>>63819162
Me beating up your mom's pussy

>>63819542
wtf

What's the history for dual wielding pistols, especially revolvers. Wearing a brace of black powder pistols was historical. Pistols often worn in pairs, Napoleon as example.

>>63819123
>I'm about 80% sure that actual swordfights are more like the seasoned boxers constantly moving in and out
Truth. The duel in "Rob Roy" is a very accurate swordfight, some of the best sword play on film.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFFefqycqmo&t=270s
>>63819157
>>63819254
>>63819542
None of the original records of his duels and battles mention him using two swords, at least not that I've ever seen.
The only time he's mentioned using two swords is in his book, which contains no real substance on actual technique, just a bunch of generic Asian philosophy bullshit, and in the non-lethal duels he had that were more of demonstrations than duals.
In all of his actual duels to the death he used a single weapon, usually caving people's head in with a bokken or an oar.

The idea that Musashi would purposely tell people misinformation or even train them wrong is incredibly in line with his personality, he did every possible thing he could to disadvantage and troll his opponents into making mistakes.
Making himself a greater swordsman by simply lowering everybody else's ability and tricking them into doing goofy bullshit is the exact kind of philosophy he had, it would have been poetic to him.

Not in normal warfare. Dimachaerus' were gladiators armed with two bladesa. Niten Ichi-ryū was a Japanese two blade style. In the west, raper+dagger was a dueling combo.

>>63820404
If you were ambidextrous it might've made sense but I don't see much of an advantage in trying to shoot with your off hand rather than just shooting with your main hand twice.

>>63820404
>What's the history for dual wielding pistols, especially revolvers.
Fantasy.
>Wearing a brace of black powder pistols was historical.
Now days it's called the "New York reload," it's not meant for dual wielding and never was.

>>63818575 (OP)
Very much so. Especially for dueling.

The better question is if dual wielding swords was really a thing on the battlefield.

>>63820631
>Fantasy
Outliers exist
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Alterie
Also for the guys over at /kg/
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_%22Two-Knife%22_Altieri

>>63819914
>that day, a legend was born

>>63820480
There's good reason to believe that Musashi was a bullshitter through-and-through. AFAIK there exactly two contemporary accounts of his exploits, one is about how he and his crew simply gangbanged Sasaki Kojirou and the other is just him getting knocked off his horse by a literal shit-flinging peasant. Most everything known about him is through his own writing and much later glorified accounts. Gassing himself up as a dual-wielder is in line with the rest of the charade.

>>63818575 (OP)
The smaller the weapons, the more likely they are duel-wielded. For identical weapons, there are very few examples and most are predictably Asian. Paired butterfly swords is probably the best documented. Sai, nunchucks, etc. were usually single weapons despite modern forms. For show purposes, plenty and gorgeous like paired dao.
One weapon that would make an absolute beast doubled would be gladius, someone ITT mentions the Dimachaerus gladiator type.
Another thought, as others are discussing strength and size of weapons, is that the longer the weapon the more precise the timing needed to perform, the more risk of fouling between the paired weapons. For example, the antique paired dao my sifu had were notably shorter than a proper length single dao by maybe 3".
>>63819542
>f, the most effective dual wield Historically was when pirates and such used a pistol in their off hand
Jim Bowie apparently preferred a long knife in the left and pistol in the right. Not sure if the knife was icepick or saber gripped, probably situational.

>>63820790
>The better question is if dual wielding swords was really a thing on the battlefield.
Essentially never in organized (non-tribal) warfare. Shields or heavy polearms are too important.

>>63820631
>It was never for dual wielding
Eh. Back in the day they were fighting in close quarters popping and dropping and they wore braces of them for sheer volume. Making a left handed shot from 10 feet away isn’t hard so I’m sure it was fairly common.

>>63819157
dual rapiers are featured in a bunch of italian treatises.
18th century korean military manual has a section on dual wielding swords.
also chinese "iron whip" (something like a cross between a bar mace and sai, not a whip) are often depicted dual wielded.

>>63821321
Wouldn't surprise me.
Most of the other samurai and leaders from the feudal era have much cooler stories anyways without the theatrics.
>>63821054
>>63821508
I also forgot about Alexander Solonik, who was a Russian hitman that apparently liked to dual wield PKMs for hits "Macedonian style."

Patas were traditionally dual-wielded.