[Christopher VaughnStrever]

So after quite a few inquiries comming from students of mine and co-wmaers that I have worked with... after learning alot of dagger plays the question keeps comming up, would knights carry two daggers.

I have repeatedly told people that depictions I have seen only show a single dagger on a knights hips, would this be accurate? or would knights or even men at arms carry wo daggers?

[Lafayette C Curtis]

Why would they even need to carry two? Medieval society was probably more violent than ours, but it doesn't appear to be genuinely hyper-violent, and a knight with a dagger probably already has an emergency backup in the form of his eating knife anyway.

[Christopher VaughnStrever]

I had totally forgotten about people carrying their own eating knives><

But the original question from my students and peers, as it seems to them; With the dagger techniques there are alot of disarming techniques, but yes, Your eating knife would make a great back-back up dagger lol

[Dan P]

[Patrick De Block]

Very down to earth reply. If one dagger isn't enough, a second one won't help you.

Little story: if you want to kill someone, you first cut off his head and then you punch him in the belly. If you didn't succeed in cutting off his head, the punch will surely help. (little yellow circle, depending on your mood; fill in the expression)

[Gary Teuscher]

I've done some Asian style 2 knife fighting sparring (blade aligned with the "punching" knuckles). If it's a close combat fight, it's almost impossible to beat with one knife or if unarmed, even a bad scenario for the 2 knife guy results in a good wound on the person with one knife or no knife.

On the other hand though, a 36" or better sword puts you at the disadvantage for certain, so I really can't see in most circumstances where someone would try to fight someone with a longer weapon with a knife or even 2.

Seems like the most common use for a middle ages knife/dagger was a backup, or when the fight got t o a prappling situation, so I don't think trying to use 2 knives at once would make any sense.

[Doug Lester]

I think that Lafayette hit on it when he noted the eating knife as a backup. That leads me to another question, though. Would the "eating" knife be more of a utilitarian knife that could also be used to slice a chunk off the roast or would it be separate from a more utilitarian blade that was shorter than the fighting knife but maybe a little more robust than something used to eat with? Sort of like a shorter single edged triangular dagger with the eating knife carried as a by-knife. Or were people back then just not that fussy about what they used as an eating utensil? Or might it boil down to what one could afford?

[Jeffrey Faulk]

[Jean Thibodeau]

Not based on any historical evidence but just what I would carry in period and mostly because in period with the same personnality I would like weapons as much as I do now, but could carry them with fewer " restrictions " ( I assume enough power and social rank to ignore rules meant for the peasants .... ).

Anyway, using daggers I have for the sake of illustrating my dagger combination preferences if I was carrying two daggers or a dagger and a single edge knife of fighting quality.

Combinations:

A) Civilian armed heavy: Cinquedea 15" blades as a dagger/short sword + a 9" bladed dagger. ( Michael Pikula made Cinquedea and Tod's Stuff Basilard for example ).

B) In armour my A&A 15" Rondel dagger as the most useful in armour and if the fight turns into a wrestling/dagger fight.
( In this case an extra Dagger I can only see as a hide out blade and should I need to cut something as the Rondel is fairly useless as a cutting knife )

C) Civilian armed light: Tod's Stuff Eared Dagger + John Gage Ballock Dagger both with 12" blades but the Ballock dagger has a single edge blade that could double as well for eating/utility & fighting.

In all case a small light Bi-Knife for eating and utility.


Why would I be carrying two blades: Mostly to have one " bling " and big showy/impressive knife and the second being a well hidden backup but more general purpose versatile than the main blade choice.

The specific knive or dagger chosen could be a different one than the ones I mentioned in my collection but generally filling the same use niches of large short sword dagger with lots of reach, medium long and stout anty armour blade, and the shorter versatile type of single or double edged blades.

In period customs might be very different and one would rarely need the second blade and even more rarely use botth at the same time but I would certainly expect that a well off Knight or Nobleman might own a variety of daggers and chose one for the day like one would choose which tie to use with one's suit.

[Jean Thibodeau]

[Josh S]

So, maybe this seems like an amateur question, but the previous replies keep bringing it back to mind. Was it normal for a man-at-arms to take his set of eating utensils, strapped on his body, into battle? This seems like it would provide little advantage (the rather unlikely scenario of being both disarmed of one's dagger AND having enough time to pull out the backup eating knife or pricker before getting gutted) while providing at least two distinct disadvantages: extra weight (not much, but every bit counts, as any modern soldier can tell you) and either a loss of space that could be used to attach something more useful, or simply an extra presence of buckles and straps to potentially get hooked, tangled, etc.

[Colt Reeves]

I would think of it like this: Why don't you see modern military types carrying around two pistols? (Yes, I am aware that throughout history some have done it and some still do, but unless I'm mistaken, they are not in the majority.)

I think the if-you-lose-it-do-you-really-have-time-to-pull-another-one and one-more-thing-in-the-way arguments are probably the reasons for the lack of two pistol carrying, so that probably also holds true for daggers back in the day, both on and off the battlefield.

[Josh S]

D'oh! The grossemesser scabbards had slipped my mind. That eliminates the "extra parts" problem if not the rather minor weight issue - but then again, as you said, it's an example rather specific to messers. Where I start questioning the idea is the situation in which an eating set is carried in its own pouch/sheath/whatnot. From what I understand, getting ready for battle took time, particularly once full plate harnesses came into play. So, exempting emergency responses, there would have to be some point while suiting up at which a warrior would say to himself "wait, let me put on my fork & spoon purse" in order for the eating-knife-as-backup-weapon to even come into play. Going by reason alone, it seems silly - but of course this means little. We're discussing human behavior after all and plenty of other seemingly goofy habits prevailed at the time(and now!). If anybody has come across evidence that it was at least common to carry such utensils into actual combat(messer scabbards excepted), that would be great... otherwise, I'm doubtful...

[D. S. Smith]

[Jean Thibodeau]

[Gary Teuscher]

[Doug Lester]

As far as what a man-at-arms or other fighter might carry into battle with him would depend on it he had anyone to keep his personal items for him. If he was wealthy enough to bring squires, pages, or other servants with him to battle then they could keep things for him. If he had to look out after his own kit he might have to carry his purse and personal implements with him. Not likely that such mundane matters would have been dealt with in contemporary art much.

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

Writing near the close of the sixteenth century, Sir John Smythe wrote that arquebusiers shouldn't wear daggers because they hardly ever needed them and thus the dagger was simply a burden. Thus indicates that at least during that period folks didn't want to wear a dagger if they weren't likely to have to use it. The same logic might apply for other soldiers carrying a second dagger: it wasn't worth the trouble.

On the other hand, some modern soldiers carry five or more knives just in case, so it strikes me as plausible that at least a few historical warriors would have had a backup dagger.

[Craig Peters]

In my study of historical artwork, I have not seen knights wearing two daggers, so my guess is that it was rare. I won't go so far as to say it wasn't done, but I don't think it should be done by modern people on the grounds of "historical plausibility".