[Timo Nieminen]

[Rob Phillips]

I practise Arnis which incorporates fencing using short blade single handed weapons.

The trick of good Arnis combat is entirely based on fast offset foot placement in order to evade the reach of the oponent's weapon. In the case of a spear and shield, I would consider the dual weilder at some distinct disadvantage.
However, the striking speed and combination blocks and counter strikes would still be effective to disarm the opponent. Certainy plate armour would be a nice substitute for no shield protection but Arnis practise the use of small bucker shields which can be strapped over the elbow or weilding hand for light parrying. Leather armour woud most certainly be preferential to maintain the speed and agility of arnis attacks and dextrous evasion.

[T. Arndt]

[Lafayette C Curtis]

[Timo Nieminen]

[Lafayette C Curtis]

Well, in my case (or my group's case), the polearms guy explained that he almost always had an easy time dealing with X-blockers since the crossed-blade block only deals with the spear without threatening the spearman in any way, leaving him free to exploit the dead space created on the side away from the parrying blades by using either the other end of the spear or some sort of closing and grappling move. We find that it's more effective to swing both blades/weapons on parallel tracks, the nearer one to parry the spear while the other one aims for the spearman's hand at the same time, in conjunction with advancing footwork. This way, if the spearman attempts to disengage without retreating, he stands the risk of taking a simultaneous hit to his hand, while if he retreats he'd create a tempo that can be exploited. Another method (that only works with swords or long daggers) is to parry out and upwards with the closer blade while the further blade (pointing slightly downwards) finds the spear shaft and lodges it in the crook between the cross and the base of the blade, following up with a glissade downwards onto the spearman's nearest hand. This makes use of the similar principle as the X-block but apparently the spearman doesn't always remember that it can be easily avoided the same way (by going to the other side and striking with the butt).

That being said, I agree that there's probably no way for a two-weapons guy to get a consistent advantage against a spearman of similar skill and experience, and even less so when the combat becomes a massed (rather than one-on-one) affair. Two weapons in single combat (apart from sword and dagger, which is more like one weapon and a half) is either just for fun or a show of superior skill, while in massed fighting it's plain suicide.

[Elling Polden]

As Ben Coomer points out, there are several weaknesses with a two weapon style. One of them is that if you try to use or cover with both weapons at once, you will end up with your body square to the opponent. This will allow you to either thrust right trough the gap between the weapons, or strike at the shoulder on the outside.
Especially fun if you are a glaive or daneaxe man.

In the end, you can only use one weapon at a time, without exposing your body. This is one of the main reasons off hand weapons are often shorter than the primary; They are there to save your ass if someone rushes, or allow you to close after a bind.

This is not to say that two weapons can not be made to work. However, you have to be very carefull, and your battlefield versitality drops like a rock. It can be a backup option for a spear/polearm man, once shit hits the fan. Personally I prefer to carry a shield on my shoulder, and use the left hand for grapling.
Yesterday my shield strap broke, however, and I was using my 90 cm broadaxe as a off-hand weapon when I dropped my spear.

The key to doing this sucsessfully is ANGLE. First, you need to make a consious choice which weapon is leading. This weapon has to screen the weapon of the enemy, and your body needs to be behind it. As if you where fighting with a single sword.
The second weapon forms an extention of the primary block. In the same fashion the sword extends the cover of a shield or buckler.
So, move so that your foe can only strike at you from one direction. Cover that direction with your lead weapon, and back it up and/or threaten the foe with the secondary.

Thus, rather than a X block, I would use a "scissor". Left side forward, with the axe held at the top, or sword in hanging guard similar to the Kruch buckler guard. Right hand close to the left, with the weapon forming the top scissor AND threatening his arm/shoulder. Move so that he can not slip his weapon on the outside of your guard.
If he attack you, block, bind and strike with your free weapon, If he does not, either feint him, or close to bind.

[Kurt Scholz]

[G. Freeman]

[Matthew Amt]

[G. Freeman]

[Tjarand Matre]

I have limited experience fighting against dual wielders but I do on occations.
1: Reenactment fighting (with shield): Dual wielders can take some amount of beating before you successfully land a cut. If you get too close, they might trick you in to recieving a hit with frantic windmill moves. Dual axes against sword and shield is just silly. The shield has greater leverage against hooking so the axe-wielder always end up being dragged into a hit or a nose-bleed.
2: Hema-ish fighting (with longsword or messer, no shield): Dual wielders loose at once due to the fact that they are unable to deflect multiple stabs or high speed sword play. A well placed cut with a longsword or messer breaks any one hand weapon defence regardless of wich hand the weapon is held in.

I have yet to play with rapier and parry dagger but given that your foe also has equivalent wepaons this is a case where dual wielding could actually work. But on a medieval battle field? I doubt it.

[Christopher Lee]

The historical examples, one medieval Irish and a few viking, i posted earlier in this thread do not appear to relate to "battlefield" situations but rather individual combats. However, the use of two weapons would surely involve as much of a disadvantage as the use of a two handed axe, would it not? There are i believe a number of examples from historical sources? So the crucial factor appears to relate to the opponent having a shield?

[G. Freeman]

[Joshua R]

[Matthew Amt]

[Dan Howard]

[Dan Howard]

[Elling Polden]

Matthew: Quite correct. However, there is nothing to say you can not carry both a shields and a bow. A smaller round shield or a heater/kite shield can easily be slung on the back or shoulder.

Most often, scouts/skirmishes would be equiped with pack hoses, and thus could choose their armament on a case to case basis.
As a general tendency, cultures that engage in skirmish warfare use small shields that can be conveniently carried at all times, and a focus on the individual warrior. And since they are also more likely to be standing on their own in a loose confrontation, warriors form these cultures often carry weapons for all occations.
Take your arab tribesman or scottish highlander: Small round shield, sword, dagger, bow, and/or blinged up musket and pistols, if late period.

Intereestingly enough, Vikings where not(!) kitted as raiders, with their large round shields, spears, and axes. But herein might lay part of their relative sucsess. Heavy infantrymen in loose order make a lot better skirmishers than light infantry in closed order makes a line.

[Matthew Amt]