Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Sword and dagger together before Silver? Reply to topic
This is a standard topic Go to page 1, 2  Next 
Author Message
George Hill




Location: Atlanta Ga
Joined: 16 May 2005

Posts: 614

PostPosted: Mon 08 May, 2006 11:59 pm    Post subject: Sword and dagger together before Silver?         Reply with quote

I'm in an arguement on a list, and I'm likely in the wrong, but I'm not yet willing to conceed the point. The trouble is, I can't find much evidence for sword and dagger being used 'togeather' before Silver, or the Rapier showing up.

Does anyone have any evidence for dual wield sword and dagger styles prior to Silver? Actually Prior to Rapier and Poniard.

iconography, book references, anything.

Seeing as how everyone who had a sword had a dagger, it seems to make sence that they would use them togeather, but so much seems to show the singlehand sword, if used without a sheild, is either used alone or with the left hand to grapple.

I'm 'trying' to show that the dagger would have frequently been in the left hand, but I'm rather without any evidence that this was the least bit common prior to the rapier.

Am I totally wrong, or is there something to my arguement?

To abandon your shield is the basest of crimes. - --Tacitus on Germania
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Elling Polden




Location: Bergen, Norway
Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Likes: 1 page

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,576

PostPosted: Tue 09 May, 2006 1:03 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

There are accounts of two weapon fighting in the norse sagas, but these are usually in a "Then he totaly flipped!" context.

This topic has been quite widely discussed.
Intuitively (at least to us...) it would seem that an additional weapon would be a good idea. Historically, though, two weapon fighting seems to have been uncommon, outside formalized dueling.

IMHO, the reason for this is not that a second weapon isn't usefull, but that a free hand is MORE useful. Especially when using swung weapons; A block-grapple-strike has a better chance of ending a fight in your favour than a stab with a offhand dagger.
Bucklers offer better hand protection, and are a overall better defensive option.

In rapier play, grappling is less instrumental, because of the long blades. The advanced hilts also offers better hand protection, making the buckler redundant. Thus, the parrying dagger came into its own, until it was made obsolete by double time fencing...

"this [fight] looks curious, almost like a game. See, they are looking around them before they fall, to find a dry spot to fall on, or they are falling on their shields. Can you see blood on their cloths and weapons? No. This must be trickery."
-Reidar Sendeman, from King Sverre's Saga, 1201
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
Bill Grandy
myArmoury Team


myArmoury Team

Location: Northern VA,USA
Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Reading list: 43 books

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 4,194

PostPosted: Tue 09 May, 2006 8:31 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Isn't it a little backwards to make an argument, and then look for the evidence afterwards? Wink

Yes, sword and rapier was used before Silver. Most fencing manuscripts of the early 16th century show it. Marrozzo, Manciolino, and many others. These are manuscripts that existed before Silver's treatise, and they are showing a lineage that would later pave the way to the thrusting rapier, but are still swords that rely on both cut and thrust.

Prior to the Rennaissance, I'm unaware of concrete evidence sword and dagger techniques (maybe they're out there, I just am unaware of them). I think it has more to do with the role of the sword in different time periods. In the MIddle Ages, the sword had a more of a focus on military life than civilian, and in a military setting sword and dagger doesn't really have so much relevance as sword and shield.

It isn't until the Renaissance that swords started being commonly seen carried by civilians in daily life. In this respect, a dagger may have been preferred to a buckler for ease of carry, and also for it's ability to be used on its own without the sword in tight situations.

To assume that just because a person carried a dagger that they must have used it simultaneously, though, is a leap of logic. 15th century armoured knights carried both a longsword and dagger onto the lists. The dagger was a back up weapon, and it was also a weapon that functioned well during grappling situations. Just because they carried both doesn't mean they tried to use them simultaneously.

HistoricalHandcrafts.com
-Inspired by History, Crafted by Hand


"For practice is better than artfulness. Your exercise can do well without artfulness, but artfulness is not much good without the exercise.” -anonymous 15th century fencing master, MS 3227a
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Bill Grandy
myArmoury Team


myArmoury Team

Location: Northern VA,USA
Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Reading list: 43 books

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 4,194

PostPosted: Tue 09 May, 2006 8:43 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Elling Polden wrote:
IMHO, the reason for this is not that a second weapon isn't usefull, but that a free hand is MORE useful. Especially when using swung weapons; A block-grapple-strike has a better chance of ending a fight in your favour than a stab with a offhand dagger.
Bucklers offer better hand protection, and are a overall better defensive option.


I slightly agree and slightly disagree. I think that two long weapons is more of a peril than one long weapon for the exact reasons you state. I think a dagger, though, makes more sense than grappling. If a person grabs onto me, I can drop the dagger to grapple without a second thought, but in most cases I can also stab the person before that happens. In fact, I'd call the dagger a great deterence to someone attempting to grapple with me.

I very much agree that the buckler is a better defensive option, and in fact I consider the buckler an off hand weapon.

Quote:
In rapier play, grappling is less instrumental, because of the long blades. The advanced hilts also offers better hand protection, making the buckler redundant. Thus, the parrying dagger came into its own, until it was made obsolete by double time fencing...


There are grapples in rapier, though I do agree that it is less common do to the difference in distance in a rapier fight compared to other swords. I don't think the complex hilt has anything to do with the choice over buckler or dagger, though, as bucklers were used with basket hilts quite commonly. As I mentioned earlier, I think some people may have preferred the dagger simply because it could be used by itself when situations were too pressed to draw the sword, and also because it was a little smaller to carry around in every day life. The double time fencing doesn't factor in, because there are plenty of styles that address sword and dagger that do not use exclusively single time actions. Silver, for instance.

HistoricalHandcrafts.com
-Inspired by History, Crafted by Hand


"For practice is better than artfulness. Your exercise can do well without artfulness, but artfulness is not much good without the exercise.” -anonymous 15th century fencing master, MS 3227a
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
George Hill




Location: Atlanta Ga
Joined: 16 May 2005

Posts: 614

PostPosted: Tue 09 May, 2006 3:51 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Bill Grandy wrote:
Isn't it a little backwards to make an argument, and then look for the evidence afterwards? Wink



Yes Bill, It very much is. Which is why I bowed out of that arguement because I haven't the evidence, and I needed to do some asking around. It seems I haven't managed to kill 'quite all' my misconceptions about swords.

It's my current theory that sword and dagger would have been a prefered option among many....when fighting out of armor, without any sort of shield. The shield of any kind would be prefered, but in it's absence, the dagger might have been pulled, and simply used 'more or less' on it's own, rather then as a two weapon style, when the oppertunity presented itself. The buckler being prefered if you had one, but if you were caught without, you pulled the dagger.


But I don't think that's something I can backup.

To abandon your shield is the basest of crimes. - --Tacitus on Germania
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Bill Grandy
myArmoury Team


myArmoury Team

Location: Northern VA,USA
Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Reading list: 43 books

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 4,194

PostPosted: Tue 09 May, 2006 7:54 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

George Hill wrote:

Yes Bill, It very much is. Which is why I bowed out of that arguement because I haven't the evidence, and I needed to do some asking around. It seems I haven't managed to kill 'quite all' my misconceptions about swords.


Fair enough. Laughing Out Loud

Quote:
It's my current theory that sword and dagger would have been a prefered option among many....when fighting out of armor, without any sort of shield. The shield of any kind would be prefered, but in it's absence, the dagger might have been pulled, and simply used 'more or less' on it's own, rather then as a two weapon style, when the oppertunity presented itself. The buckler being prefered if you had one, but if you were caught without, you pulled the dagger.


But I don't think that's something I can backup.


Well, you have to look at specific time periods and what role the dagger would have in that context. Like I said above, throughout the Medieval period the sword itself held more of a military role than a civilian role, so in this case it didn't make sense to train with sword and dagger when sword and shield would be a more effective choice. But as the sword became more of a civilian weapon, sword and dagger starts becoming more viable.

As to the dagger being on it's own, I do agree that this would have been a reason to carry a dagger at all, because as I mentioned above sometimes a sword is just too big to draw when you need a weapon fast. But like you, I don't have any hard evidence either. Happy Though I do have some reasons why I think this based on small bits of possible evidence in manuscripts, such as Fabris including a section on fighting unarmed against a dagger weilding opponent. Clearly the sword isn't always an option, so understanding the use of the dagger (and how to fight against it) was an important bit of self defense that a civilian would want to know.

HistoricalHandcrafts.com
-Inspired by History, Crafted by Hand


"For practice is better than artfulness. Your exercise can do well without artfulness, but artfulness is not much good without the exercise.” -anonymous 15th century fencing master, MS 3227a
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Alex B.





Joined: 25 Jan 2004
Reading list: 2 books

Posts: 20

PostPosted: Wed 10 May, 2006 6:29 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Talhoffer, in his "one vs. two" plates shows the outnumbered fighter using a sword in one hand and the other clutching both a buckler and a dagger.

One important thing to note is that many pre-1500 daggers have very small to absent guards. This would seem to indicate that the dagger was not used as a defensive device against a sword.
View user's profile Send private message
Bill Grandy
myArmoury Team


myArmoury Team

Location: Northern VA,USA
Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Reading list: 43 books

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 4,194

PostPosted: Wed 10 May, 2006 7:21 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Alex B. wrote:
Talhoffer, in his "one vs. two" plates shows the outnumbered fighter using a sword in one hand and the other clutching both a buckler and a dagger.


Ah, good call! I didn't think of that.

Which reminds me, Durer shows messer and rondel dagger.

HistoricalHandcrafts.com
-Inspired by History, Crafted by Hand


"For practice is better than artfulness. Your exercise can do well without artfulness, but artfulness is not much good without the exercise.” -anonymous 15th century fencing master, MS 3227a
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Allen Johnson





Joined: 26 Aug 2003
Reading list: 29 books

Posts: 198

PostPosted: Wed 10 May, 2006 11:35 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Yep!


 Attachment: 37.04 KB
Mess and Dag.jpg

View user's profile Send private message
Benjamin H. Abbott




Location: New Mexico
Joined: 28 Feb 2004

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,248

PostPosted: Wed 10 May, 2006 1:30 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Quote:
IMHO, the reason for this is not that a second weapon isn't usefull, but that a free hand is MORE useful. Especially when using swung weapons; A block-grapple-strike has a better chance of ending a fight in your favour than a stab with a offhand dagger.


I don't agree with this at all. As Silver writes, the sword & dagger has the advantage over the single sword. Being grappled is bad, but being stabbed is generally a lot worse.
View user's profile Send private message
Elling Polden




Location: Bergen, Norway
Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Likes: 1 page

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,576

PostPosted: Thu 11 May, 2006 4:06 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Again, this depends on the context: In a one on one square-off, the sword and dagger might be better. In a battlefield situation maybe not.

As the talhoffer and Duer plates show, you might pull your dagger if you need it. (you are always carrying one, anyhow...) but that it was not a "standard" combination.
BTW, the text on the talhoffer plate says "The guy in the middle is screwed.", as far as i remember. Wink

I've occationally fought with the sword in the of hand, and dagger in the right, to take down shieldmen... It kinda works, but is quite silly, non the less...

"this [fight] looks curious, almost like a game. See, they are looking around them before they fall, to find a dry spot to fall on, or they are falling on their shields. Can you see blood on their cloths and weapons? No. This must be trickery."
-Reidar Sendeman, from King Sverre's Saga, 1201
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
Wolfgang Armbruster





Joined: 03 Apr 2005

Posts: 322

PostPosted: Thu 11 May, 2006 4:31 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Elling Polden wrote:
Again, this depends on the context: In a one on one square-off, the sword and dagger might be better. In a battlefield situation maybe not.

As the talhoffer and Duer plates show, you might pull your dagger if you need it. (you are always carrying one, anyhow...) but that it was not a "standard" combination.
BTW, the text on the talhoffer plate says "The guy in the middle is screwed.", as far as i remember. Wink

I've occationally fought with the sword in the of hand, and dagger in the right, to take down shieldmen... It kinda works, but is quite silly, non the less...


Talhoffer calls it the "Nothstellung" or "Not Stand" depending on the edition, which roughly translates as emergency stance. No statements about the poor guy in the middle are being made, however in the 1467 edition he manages to kill one but is about to get cut in half by the remaining opponent (Tafel 241). The text on the other hand says that he has managed to bind him, but it doesn't really look like that to me since the enemy still has his sword-arm free ( http://www.schielhau.org/talmesser.html )
In any case, 2 against one is a very bad situation *g*

On the topic: I'm (almost) sure that the dagger was used in combination with a sword before Silver (when hard-pressed you use everything you have), but a ballock or rondel dagger doesn't really work well as a parrying dagger since they have only minor hand-protection (in most cases). But I have to admit that I'm not very familiar with Silver.
Just my 2 cents *g*
View user's profile Send private message
Kel Rekuta




Location: Toronto, Canada
Joined: 10 Feb 2004
Likes: 1 page

Posts: 616

PostPosted: Thu 11 May, 2006 5:58 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Wolfgang Armbruster wrote:


On the topic: I'm (almost) sure that the dagger was used in combination with a sword before Silver (when hard-pressed you use everything you have), but a ballock or rondel dagger doesn't really work well as a parrying dagger since they have only minor hand-protection (in most cases). But I have to admit that I'm not very familiar with Silver.
Just my 2 cents *g*


An excellent point. Also note the inverted grip on the offhand dagger in the Durer messer plates. Like Liberi's dagger defenses against sword, the dagger is gripped icepick style as an aid to deflection. Not at all like a main gauche in rapier fencing. Pretty hard to stab someone with the hilt of a dagger. It takes a bit longer to deflect an attack, enter forward and plunge a dagger down with this grip versus the underhand grip. I'm with Elling on this. Off hand daggers are for people who don't know how to cover and grapple as one movement or face very long thrusting weapons. It isn't a common form of medieval sword play.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Josh Brown




Location: Renton, WA
Joined: 08 Sep 2005

Posts: 20

PostPosted: Thu 11 May, 2006 4:33 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Elling Polden wrote:

IMHO, the reason for this is not that a second weapon isn't usefull, but that a free hand is MORE useful. Especially when using swung weapons; A block-grapple-strike has a better chance of ending a fight in your favour than a stab with a offhand dagger.
Bucklers offer better hand protection, and are a overall better defensive option.


I would actually think that the usefulness of grappling over off-hand stabbing would not so much be the answer for the lack of dagger usage described in combat. I would more likely say that the significant leverage advantages of a two-handed weapon or the enhanced body coverage of a shield or buckler was a greater asset in the chaos of mass combat - especially against the pike, bill, halberd, longsword, lance, and those damn pesky archers - none of which would be particularly easy to parry with a dagger.

Elling Polden wrote:

In rapier play, grappling is less instrumental, because of the long blades. The advanced hilts also offers better hand protection, making the buckler redundant. Thus, the parrying dagger came into its own, until it was made obsolete by double time fencing...


Grappling is certainly fundamental in rapier, though it is only sought under specific advantageous circumstances - bulling in to overpower someone is pretty much the antithesis of the more scientific Art of Defense described by the rennaissance era masters. The dagger, however, makes for a much more sure defense than the hand, was a common article of dress during the period, and can be used to control and redirect a thrust in ways that a buckler cannot. I doubt that it was "double-time fencing" that finally threw the dagger out of favor - more likely the advent of modern eating utensils that removed it as a ubiquitous item of dress, and therefore as a convenient at-hand means of self-defense.

Benjamin H. Abbott wrote:

I don't agree with this at all. As Silver writes, the sword & dagger has the advantage over the single sword. Being grappled is bad, but being stabbed is generally a lot worse.


Again, from what I understand Silver is decidedly not a big fan of dagger in-fighting, as it has even more of a propensity to end badly for both parties than the italianated rapier fencing he so vehemently despises. However, a dagger mounts a much better parry vs. the cut than the buttery-soft flesh of your soon-to-be-severed apendage.

Kel Rekuta wrote:
I'm with Elling on this. Off hand daggers are for people who don't know how to cover and grapple as one movement or face very long thrusting weapons. It isn't a common form of medieval sword play.


Or who those might have forgotten to pack their forest bill and coate of plates before being jumped by theiving vagrants whilst returning home from the local tavern.I hate when that happens. Wink

And George, per your question on use of the dagger prior to Silver, you might try researching the practice of one of those dead italian masters listed by Silver - one who mentions a four-day training curriculum on the use of sword and dagger.
View user's profile Send private message
Bill Grandy
myArmoury Team


myArmoury Team

Location: Northern VA,USA
Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Reading list: 43 books

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 4,194

PostPosted: Thu 11 May, 2006 5:56 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Josh,
I very much agree with all of your points. Cool

HistoricalHandcrafts.com
-Inspired by History, Crafted by Hand


"For practice is better than artfulness. Your exercise can do well without artfulness, but artfulness is not much good without the exercise.” -anonymous 15th century fencing master, MS 3227a
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Elling Polden




Location: Bergen, Norway
Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Likes: 1 page

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,576

PostPosted: Fri 12 May, 2006 1:01 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Josh Brown wrote:
I would actually think that the usefulness of grappling over off-hand stabbing would not so much be the answer for the lack of dagger usage described in combat. I would more likely say that the significant leverage advantages of a two-handed weapon or the enhanced body coverage of a shield or buckler was a greater asset in the chaos of mass combat - especially against the pike, bill, halberd, longsword, lance, and those damn pesky archers - none of which would be particularly easy to parry with a dagger.


If you are in a large scale melee, you will have a main weapon; probably shield and spear, or pole/twohanded spear, depending on period and location. Sword and dagger only becomes an option when a polearm/spear fighter drops his main weapon, for the reasons that you mention above.
My argument is largely that in this situation, people would no be likely to pull their daggers in addition to their sword.
This is assuming that they do not have a shield or buckler.

As far as I know, Even in the late renisance, when rapier and dagger was in its prime, Sword and dagger would not be a battlefield combo. Troops carried both, but the dagger would usually be hung on the right side, to be drawn in close quarters, and used on its own.

So, it would appear that while of hand daggers can be handy (no denying that), the sword/dagger combo is not markedly superior to the single sword.
Which, to answer George's question, means that there is no logical necessity that a fighter armed with both a sword and a dagger will use them at the same time.

"this [fight] looks curious, almost like a game. See, they are looking around them before they fall, to find a dry spot to fall on, or they are falling on their shields. Can you see blood on their cloths and weapons? No. This must be trickery."
-Reidar Sendeman, from King Sverre's Saga, 1201
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
Bill Grandy
myArmoury Team


myArmoury Team

Location: Northern VA,USA
Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Reading list: 43 books

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 4,194

PostPosted: Fri 12 May, 2006 7:18 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Elling Polden wrote:
So, it would appear that while of hand daggers can be handy (no denying that), the sword/dagger combo is not markedly superior to the single sword.
Which, to answer George's question, means that there is no logical necessity that a fighter armed with both a sword and a dagger will use them at the same time.


This I also agree with: It's all about context.

One of the problems we modern people have is the need to state whether one style is superior than another. I suppose it's not only us moderns who do it, as Silver certainly did.

HistoricalHandcrafts.com
-Inspired by History, Crafted by Hand


"For practice is better than artfulness. Your exercise can do well without artfulness, but artfulness is not much good without the exercise.” -anonymous 15th century fencing master, MS 3227a
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Randall Pleasant




Location: Flower Mound, Texas
Joined: 24 Aug 2003

Posts: 333

PostPosted: Fri 12 May, 2006 2:52 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Elling Polden wrote:
So, it would appear that while of hand daggers can be handy (no denying that), the sword/dagger combo is not markedly superior to the single sword.

I strongly disagree. In the hands of a swordsman who understands how to use these weapons together, the sword & dagger offers many advanages over a single sword. These weapons in combination are a favorite among many in ARMA.
View user's profile Send private message
Bill Grandy
myArmoury Team


myArmoury Team

Location: Northern VA,USA
Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Reading list: 43 books

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 4,194

PostPosted: Fri 12 May, 2006 7:30 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Randall Pleasant wrote:
I strongly disagree. In the hands of a swordsman who understands how to use these weapons together, the sword & dagger offers many advanages over a single sword. These weapons in combination are a favorite among many in ARMA.


Randall, I don't think that's Elling's point. If two weapons was absolutely superior, then why didn't everyone train that way for all situations? Again, it's all about context. Otherwise why didn't gentlemen carry around two smallswords in the 18th century? Why did so many archers in the 15th century carry sword and buckler instead of sword and dagger? Because of outside factors that meant it made more sense in those particular situations it made more sense to do so.

HistoricalHandcrafts.com
-Inspired by History, Crafted by Hand


"For practice is better than artfulness. Your exercise can do well without artfulness, but artfulness is not much good without the exercise.” -anonymous 15th century fencing master, MS 3227a
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
George Hill




Location: Atlanta Ga
Joined: 16 May 2005

Posts: 614

PostPosted: Sat 13 May, 2006 7:02 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

[quote="Elling Polden"]
Josh Brown wrote:
I
As far as I know, Even in the late renisance, when rapier and dagger was in its prime, Sword and dagger would not be a battlefield combo. Troops carried both, but the dagger would usually be hung on the right side, to be drawn in close quarters, and used on its own.


Elling, did anyone ever siggest it as a battlefield combo? I can't say I see anything like that...


But I believe a significant argument can be made in favor of it as a streetfighting combo. I'm just curious how early we can show people using it.

To abandon your shield is the basest of crimes. - --Tacitus on Germania
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Sword and dagger together before Silver?
Page 1 of 2 Reply to topic
Go to page 1, 2  Next All times are GMT - 8 Hours

View previous topic :: View next topic
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum






All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum