Hi to every one here!

Does someone here have any experience with dual wield / two weapon fighting?

I am a viking reenactor and I have been using common combinations shield + sword/axe ... sometimes spear and dane axe too... but now I decided to try something new - a pair of one handed axes (weight cca 700-800 g. each, custom made by Hurdalek - Czech republic, hafts by myself, axes were put from bottom - no wedges needed)

[/img]

I have tried only some movements (=have not test it in harder fight) and it seems to me that I can easily hook the shield with one and then strike with second one which is pretty nice :-)

BUT

I feel a lack of protection around legs (my axes are bit slower eventhough much lighter than swords) ..

1. when I hook the shield with my left while my right is ready to strike I have no lower left leg protection
2. I am still not sure whether it is better to try to block incoming blows to the legs and lower parts of body from the inside (that seems natural) - or try to let the attacking sword approach first and then to go for it with the axe from the above and thus alter its direction from the outside so the sword misses me in front of me (that I suppose gives the chance to catch and bind the sword and seems a bit faster)

Thank for Your answers and experience!

---

 Attachment: 243.16 KB
axe [ Download ]

I tried wielding two axes in a Viking reenacting context for the first time this past weekend. I felt that I was growing very dependent on my shield and wanted to try something else. I do not yet have enough experience to draw any conclusions, but I am interested in what input others may have.

Have you considered looking at eskrima/arnis/kali?
I can't really think of anything else that deals with "dual" or paired weapons except later cases of rapiers.

Yes, you give up leg protection without gaining the extra distance for safety that you get using a polearm. What to do about this depends on armour being worn (or armour assumed to be worn). Some options are:

(a) Stay further away than you would with sword and shield or axe and shield. Move in, strike, move out.

(b) Punish that sword arm to stop cuts to your legs (try to step back to protect your leg at the same time).

(c) To get better leg protection, you could hold a long-hafted axe in your shield hand, and a one-handed axe (or sword) in your other hand. Consider the Indian parrying weapon, the saintie.

(d) Train with single weapon against sword and shield. Leg-saving methods there will work for two-weapons.

(e) Use your left-hand axe to bind/trap/restrict your opponents weapon at a long range. Reach out and lay the top of the head against their weapon, and see what they do. Can you stay in contact?

(f) If you have armoured legs, and the rules allow, blocking/avoiding leg blows isn't critical. Try to block, but move in. Hit back, hook that shield, wrestle.

(g) Hook their shield towards their weapon. Move towards the shield, away from the weapon.

(h) Move away from their shield. Now (temporarily) it's two weapons against one. Win before the shield comes back into play.

Movement is really important. Move or die!

Two-weapon appears in various martial arts. It's common in Chinese martial arts where it's mainly intended to be anti-spear (the opposing weapon is a two-handed spear); two-weapon does work much better against a single two-handed spear than single weapon. Shield and weapon is also good against spear compared to single weapon. Two-weapons restricts your own vision less than a shield, but less protection against arrows (and multiple spears in a shield wall). But mainly, I think, the idea was that two weapons is easy to carry as a sidearm - both can even live in the same scabbard - and it's superior to single one-handed weapon (both against a spear and against a single one-handed weapon).

The only problem with going shieldless is that you are exposed to all manner of missile weapons, which could be suicidal in some circumstances. For example, going shieldless in the Norse sagas did happen, but it was rare and much commented on by the characters, some of whom did not think much of the shieldless one's chances. Thus, depending on what time and place you are attempting to re-enact, going without a shield is an amazing show of martial skill and daring at best and downright stupid at worse. Just because it seems to work for modern day "play-fighting" doesn't mean it is a good idea historically, and that should be kept in mind for a given audience who doesn't know anything except movie stunt fighting.

I've done a bit of two weapon fighting, and a bit more fighting against it, in both western and eastern martial arts, and honestly haven't found two weapons to be an advantage or disadvantage. It changes things to be sure, but lines of attack, timing, and the like remain the same. If anything, I've seen two weapons fighters get a little overconfident and not realize that two weapons doesn't mean two attacks. Or they think that binding up another person's weapon is going to be easy and they'll get an easy win. Reality is a bit different.

First off, body position and footwork can make the second weapon useless or even a hindrance. Just try and get a good blow from your off hand directly across your body. Second, that most people aren't all that ambidexterous means that that off hand is probably going to be slower and weaker and that can really mess up a whole bunch of things with timing and position and the like. Third, defenses are much weaker than you'd expect. A sword or and axe just doesn't function as well as a shield for defense, if for nothing else, your hands are much more exposed. And this comes into play in attacks as well. I've hit off hand and arms pretty regularly because they are exposed and slow and the person thought they had an opening they really didn't have. Single swords are fast and disengage easier than most realize.

Now this isn't saying that two weapons are worthless, but it is pointing out that there isn't a magic "win" tactic. And some advocating two weapons neglect that its not a sword, or two swords, or a spear, its YOU that is the weapon. I've taken out spear users pretty regularly with a single longsword by grabbing the spear with my hand and attacking theirs with my sword. They got caught up in my sword and forgot that they are fighting me.

Still have fun and learn.

Hi,
I tried different ways of fighting and moving using your advices - I appreciate especially those from Timo Nieminen and Ben Coomer.
The crucial is movement - I must be much faster in footwork. And surprisingly :-) I have to move my weapons more often - to not stick in the air and not to give the opponent chance to have me rigid with them.
Sometimes I feel more like an angry bee :-) always flying, never resting and giving stings whenever possible.

In this fighting I found useful my new armour which I finished a few weeks ago - rawhide lamellar

I tried dual weapon fighting with ordinary chainmail and then with rawhide lamellar armour - chainmail greatly slowed my footworking but with rawhide lamellar I feel myself rather light on my feet and almost dancing. That lightness I was not able to fully use when fighting with shield but now I think I can :-)

If you are interested in rawhide lamellar armour I have some pics here:
http://www.tafl.cz/lamellar-armour/

Thank You once more for advice and help!

You're welcome.

I think that you are right about movement. Obviously, it comes into play in all martial arts, but with two weapons you need to keep everything moving or you lose the advantages of them.

I'd be interested in how it works out against multiple opponents if you get the chance...

I got to do a bit more dual weapon wielding in a reenactment context and have found that it can be quite effective against multiple opponents provided those opponents are shieldless. It takes a lot of situational awareness, coordination and speed to really exploit the advantages of dual wielding. I have found dual wielding to be next to useless against any shielded opponent and completely suicidal against shield and spear. I have had some success with dropping both my axes and engaging the shielded spearman by grabbing their spear with one hand, then levering the spear to control the shield and stabbing with a knife.

In general I would say that going shieldless is very foolish, but I portray a lower class slinger and in our game the sling is a purely for show weapon, ie I can only target shields, not actual opponents, so if I want to really get involved in the fight I need to be able to do so without a shield and preferably with the most low-status weapons possible.

Timo, one thing to keep in mind is that all of our fighters fight almost exclusively with spear and shield and are really good at it, while dual wielding is something we have only begun to experiment with. You will have to define "cross-block." It just seems impossible to defend against the spear thrusts, close and get around the shield all at once, the spearman is just too fast, has too much range advantage and too good a defense. Sometimes a more beserk strategy will work, but not reliably. I have had more success dropping both axes and wrestling the opponent to the ground where I can draw my knife, but it is no easy thing to catch a fast-moving spear thrust and wrestle a shield carrying warrior to the ground.

I'm not convinced duel wielding is anything other than SCA fantasy.

I'd be willing to change my mind if I saw some historical evidence of western duel wielding outside of later rapier/dagger, etc combos.

@T. Arndt
We have discussed this in my fencing group, and the only "historical evidence" I've seen so far is this image below. So I still regard dual-wield as fantasy for the most part.
http://wiktenauer.com/wiki/Mathern_Fechtbuch_(2°_MS_Math.7)

---

 Attachment: 85.39 KB

T, you are of course quite correct, there is no evidence that I am aware of for dual wielding during the Viking Age. In the group to which I belong we fight almost exclusively with spear and shield, as is historically correct, and would discourage members from using two axes in a demonstration. It is just fun to mix things up a bit at practice.

Timo, my experience has been that crossing weapons is dangerous in that it makes it easy for ones opponent to control both of your weapons, at least when fighting axes against axes. I will have to experiment with the "X-block" against spear and see how that works. It is indeed really hard to close on a spearman. We often shorten our spears to the point of holding the shaft right under the socket when pressed, so that the spear becomes a dagger. I got this idea from reading about the 15th century knight Jaque Lalaing http://www.thehaca.com/essays/Lalaing.htm. I'll get back to you after I have experimented a bit more. It would be cool to show each other videos of our combat, I will see if I can get some video of me fighting with two axes, a picture is worth a thousand words, moving pictures a million ;)