Hello. I am very new to this field of study and I am quite fascinated by all of the knowledge that I can find. I've been wondering if, as opposed to the sword/shield style of fighting, if it was ever popular and practical to fight with a sword in each hand. If anyone has any information concerning this and what type of blades would be best suited to such a practice, I am all ears. Thanks.

Well, there's Miyamoto Musashi's Ni Ten Ichi Ryu, which used both a katana and a wakazashi in concert. There's also the Renaissance play with rapier and dagger. Chinese monks were fond of fighting with butterfly knives, and it seems to me that there is a rough equivalent to those in Europe (The dussack, if memory serves. I'm sure I've seen those sold as a pair before.). None of these examples really fit what you're asking about, so for the most part, I'd say probably not. There's certainly nothing mainstream that I've heard of, and nothing in any books I've read. It doesn't seem like a particularly practical approach.

I think dussacks are sold in pairs because they are essentially sparring tools.

As far as fighting with two swords, in the SCA they call it "florentine", though I have no idea why. Its not a very popular style, because sword nd shield is generally held to be a far superior balance of attack and defense. Some love florentine, however, and are quite lethal at it. It's fun, but impractical for anything but on on one fighting.

Anyhow, cross reference florentine and SCA if you're curious about doubleclubbing. As far as steel or wasters, I have no idea.

The question of two sword fighting keeps recurring.

In short, there are very few two weapon fighting styles. The ones that exist are usually dueling styles (rapier and dagger), emergency solutions for civilians (Butterfly knifes), or because shields are simply not used (Japan). They all use one long and one short weapon, or two short. Musashi says that you should practice with two katana, but does not sugest that you fight with them; The weapons carried are katana and Wakisashi.

Two sword fighting has a number of disadvantages. First of all, coordination; It is hard to use both blades efficiently. They get in the way of each other, and thus slows you down.
Then there is the issue of defence. A lone sword offers little protection for the hands or head, a second sword gives the opponent two hands to strike at.
Then there is the problem with actually bringing both weapons to bear. Due to footwork dynamics, one sword will have to reach across your body, and as such have much shorter range.
Finally, you would be so much Sis Kebab on a battlefield, because your "passive defence", ie how hard you are to hit while you are looking the other way, is pretty much absent.

A much neglected factor in these discussions are also the virtues of the single sword; namely the ability to grapple very efficiently. In a "real" fight, where being nice towards your sparring partner, grappling, pushing and general infighting are a lot more important. This is obviously sufficient to keep people fighting with their single swords rather than sword and dagger. (most soldiers carried both)

The morals is, if it was all that smart, people would have done it a long time ago ;)

If you want to learn to use two swords at once, look into the various styles of Filipino Martial Arts (FMA) or the Thai art of Krabi Krabong.

Both are battlefield tested and very, very deadly. It is important to note however that the battlefield use of two swords is not suited for mass melee combat due to the lack of passive defense. It's best used in guerilla type combat where you strike hard, fast and don't hang around to hold ground, civilian defense, or unbalanced situations such as 2 on 1. FMA blade work is so effective that it's taught to some level in pretty much every branch of the US armed forces today. It's a living, breathing art.

You also don't need to use a long and short. Two weapons of equal length can be used. Generally the long and short are prefered by people with one dominant hand, or are just starting out.

I've done various FMA double weapon drills with a variety of weapons both native to the art and non-native. I've found that blade length is less important than the grip length. You need a grip that is pretty much designed for a single hand or else you can get caught up.

They do not slow you down either. You need to practice to get used to it, but I've found that I'm actually faster with two blades than I am with a single.

As for the stance issue giving one a further reach, yes this is a fact, however footwork drills allow you to use this to your advantage to cover 2 ranges at once. (In sparring I've found that a person closing to avoid a strike at long range often walks right into the the strike from the shorter range weapon.

Grappling is also very easily done if you know how to do it. There are ways to take people down without grabbing them with your hands. You can also immobilize and pin your opponents weapons with your swords as well.

Don't mistake your experiences with SCA fighting (which is essentially an untrained, made up style) with actual combat use of two blades. If you are serious about learning, look up a FMA school that specializes in it. It will blow your mind and completely change your preconceptions.

As an aside, it's important to note that FMA was heavily influenced by Spanish styles and is considered by some members of the community to be a European Art that was preserved by asiatic peoples.

There's a bit of "dual wield" in modern kendo as well. Rather rare, called nito IIRC. From the little I've seen in kendo matches, the extra sword makes it pretty hard for the opponent to get a good hit in (as defined by kendo rules), but at the same time the offence suffered as well, possibly (ie to my untrained eyes) because of the difficulcy of controling a full-size shinai with only one hand (relative controling it with two). Of course, I've only seen a few (hm, two I think...) nito practitioners, so the sample size is rather small. Also, to what extent this tells us something of real swordfights, well, dunno.

A few tidbits to add.

The two dussacks might have some validity. In England prize fighters would compete using a falchion in each hand, so it doesn't seem out of place to me that the dussack may have seen such use. Gavin, I've never heard that dussacks were sold in pairs. Where did you hear this, our of curiosity?

Also, supposedly Musashi's Nito ryu was actually frowned upon by contemporary swordsmen of his day. Whether this makes a difference or not about how effective the style is, it is clear from Musashi that is was meant to be for one on one situations, not for battlefield use.

In the Renaissance the use of two duelling weapons together, such as rapier & dagger or even the rare case of rapiers, was purely a civilian style. When it comes down to it, a shield is FAR more effective in defending and can still be quite effective at offense, but a dagger is far easier to carry in day to day life.

I am no expert on this, but I have heard that both Krabi Krabong and the various Philipino martial arts that utilize two weapons were not in fact used in battlefield situations, as many believe. Supposedly those aspects of the martial art were later developments, quite possibly as methods of developing skill (because it does take a lot of skill to use two weapons), but that the historical records show no evidence of them being used in other contexts outside of perhaps duelling. They are highly effective martial arts, for certain, but supposedly the context is often misplaced. I have only read this from other people online, though the people who've posted this are people who's opinions I trust.

As a personal note, I've played with the two sword thing from time to time. I find, for me, if the weapons are larger than large knives (i.e. blade length of two feet or less), it's worthless to try anything but purely thrusting, which shows why case of rapier can work (kind of), but most other styles require something much smaller. Even still, two swords does not give a huge advantage, as two swords does not equal a 200% increase in effectiveness. A person who is highly skilled with two swords has some advantages over a person highly skilled in one sword, but there are enough drawbacks to it to even the playing field out, in most cases.

Two blades were used in a battlefield situation as recently as WW2 in the Filippines that I'm aware of.

Another reason that two blades are not used in mass melee is the fact that it requires a lot of room to use and would affect formation.

Just picking up two blades and experimenting is not a sufficient experience. Formal training is the key, otherwise you miss a lot of the flow.

Rare is the person who can do it effectively without some formal training.

If you are good at it, a two weapon style is not only a more portable means of one on one combat, but FAR deadlier.

Yet I wouldn't recommend it for the battlefield. (Except as a last resort) A shield is not only easier to use (better for the everyday man at arms) But shields are tremendously effective weapons as well. You can knock someone down, punch them in the face with the boss, bring the edge accross their face or neck, slam it into a joint (knee/shoulder) or simply push someone away just to name a few additional uses.

Now here is an interesting thought, two shield fighting?

All of this has been very interesting to me and quite helpful. Thank you to all of those who have responded. I've noticed two things: first, it seems that most agree that two-sword fighting is impractical in close combat with multiple opponents. And, Thomas Jason aside, most also agree that it is less practical and less deadly (especially considering the amount of training required to fight with two swords). Thus, it seems that fighting with one sword is more practical, efficient and deadly. Secondly, given that one sword seems to be better, what of fighting with a two-handed sword or a bastard sword? Again, I know little about this topic and I suppose larger swords may be used for other purposes. But if you weild a larger sword that requires two hands, then it seems that you would no longer be able to use a shield. So are bastard and two-handed swords equally as impractical on the battlefield and in one-on-one combat as is two-sword fighting? Thanks everyone.

To add to what Bill is saying:

Large swords are not impractical at all on the battlefield. On the contrary, long swords and bastard swords, in a sense, represent true fighting with a single weapon, because fighting with sword and shield or sword and buckler is actually fighting with two weapons, albeit a highly effective combination of two weapons. Fighting with a long sword two handed, (and you must be clear that a long sword is primarily a two handed weapon), gives one maximal versatility in terms of the range and variety of strikes, slices, thrusts, binding techniques, parries- you name it- when fighting with only a sword. So, it's mistaken to look at these sorts of swords as impractical; they're useful both in battle and in one on one combat.

Another thing too is that in a sense, plate armour is like a shield that covers your entire body. While obviously plate is not exactly the same as a shield, the analogy suffices, so long as we keep in mind that it's only an analogy. Because of this, then, carrying around a shield in addition to this sort of armour becomes redundant. The shield doesn't really offer any extra protection that's particularly practical, and morever it actually hinders one in some ways. It prevents one from having the maximal versatility with a sword. It also hinders one's ability to offend at a longer range; you can hit someone farther away with a long sword than you can with a single handed sword. And even so-called bastard swords can fatigue one more quickly in battle when employed with one hand (in tandem with a shield) rather than with two hands. By and large then, it doesn't really make sense to have a shield if one is wearing plate, and even if one isn't, the versatility and the extra reach of the long sword still makes it an attractive choice, even when compared with sword and shield.

I might add one option I haven't seen discussed here or often is the use of a gauntlet as an alternate to a buckler: A sturdy gauntlet protecting hand and most of the forearm should be able to take hits at least as well a buckler and also gives you the option of grabbing the armour or sword of an opponent.

Avoiding for the moment armoured combat were a gauntlet or a pair of gauntlets would only be a part of your armour:

One could carry a sword and one gauntlet for the hand not holding the sword and maybe a large dagger as well giving the extra option of using the gauntlet and dagger if grappling wasn't a priority. One could always drop or throw the dagger to be able to grapple if needed ?

So, although there might be techniques unique to this combination would someone highly trained in using a sword and buckler be able to use unmodified buckler techniques with the gauntlet?

One even weirder possibility might be if one had no weapons left, to use a pair of gauntlets to parry and punch and grapple ?
This I would not see as an option one would choose but if one lost all of one's weapons this might be a lot better than nothing
until one manage to get a discarded weapon on a battlefield.

Based on period illustrations, I would guess bucklers would have been far more prevelent than gauntlets if little other armour was worn. For one, a buckler would be far cheaper. A buckler is much more protective than a bare gauntlet, and you definately can grapple with a buckler.

---

 Attachment: 29.6 KB