Not sure about Asia or Japan specifically so I believe you, but in the European medieval context, dual wielding was pretty much solely used in duels (and rarely at that), and would be utterly dysfunctional on most battlefields, because for the most part, the enemy force would have some archers/crossbowmen/whatever ranged units that would skull-f*ck everything without some really solid armor OR, much more commonly, a shield. Hence shields were almost universally used by soldiers in the medieval and ancient times, and while that technically is dual wielding, as shield is also a weapon, it is not really considered such. But anyways, like I was saying, dual rapiers (do make FS!!), or more commonly, a sword and dagger were usually only used for duels, where no ranged weapons would be used, there was no need to be cautious not to stab someone next to you in the eye accidentally, and there was no line to be held.
Not sure how dual wielding on the battlefield makes sense in the asian context, but maybe they had less powerful bows/generally more advanced armor for the regular soldiers to fend off the projectiles? Or rather, since dual wielding is extremely advanced in terms of skill, it made sense for the few who would practice it, who would of course in Japan be the samurai, who of course would have high-end armor?
Yep, that’s what happens when you get a few enthusiasts going. It’s entertaining, but it seems to be getting further from the original topic, and I’m feeling tempted to put an off-topic flag up to keep the thread on track.
As I said, maybe get a combat realism thread going in Lounge (or private) if you want to continue that, @Kekmaster and @Riwillion.
Archery was very prominent in most Asian cultures, as well. Mongolian Archers and their very distinct bows (usually composit, made from wood and horn. When not taut, the limbs curved in the other direction, and they drew the string with the help of a rind they wore on their thumbs) were historically very well renown. Japanese archery with traditional japanese bows (with the upper limb being longer than the lower) was considered a much more essential and renown skill than swordsmanship, something that isn’t portrayed very well in today’s romantized version of Samurai (in fact, archery was considered so important that at one point, the two army leaders would engage in a long range duel with a single arrow as a sign of fate, and if the leader was hit, his army was considered defeated). It is less a matter of equipment (even though samurai-armour that was worn before the introduction of black-powder weapons was surprisingly resistant against arrows), but a matter of engagement distance and terrain. If the two forces clashed in melee distance, this is when you’d draw your dual weapons and engage.
As for the Philippines, “traditional” warriors didn’t care much about European battle arrays and combat was very often happening in confined spaces as jungles and such, where ranged weaponry of that time wasn’t as suitable - and even the name given to filippino martial arts, “Eskrima/Escrima” gives you a hint how combat took place: Scirmishing, guerrilla tactics, close quarter encounters. Even goes so far that the US army employed Filippino warriors to combat the Japanese forces on the Philippines, and to great success, with them actually engaging the troops with Bolo, Ginunting and Kampilan swords (what the FMA would call “larga/largo mano”. I was blessed to have had the opportunity to have met the late GM Leo Giron, who was employed in this matter, and even though he didn’t like talking about this too much - understandably -, this is how it was).
I think similar things are conveyed about how the Teutons / Germanic tribes fought the romans in the Varus battle, because they knew they had nothing to fear from any kind of ranged combat, that the roman array would not help them in the confined spaces of the forrests, and that their overall weaponry (and shield formations) were too clumsy and slow to use without proper preparation, so dual wielding weapons was apparently something the Teutons did in this case.
Now just to derail a bit more:
There is one almost universal point that eliminated dual wielding in almost all cases and that is:
If your weapon is made properly it will allow you to grab it with both hands even if it is designed for use in one hand. This will with almost all weapons allow you to wield it with much greater speed agility and strength, out competing someone wielding two weapons.
But I acknowledge that most people didn’t train with two weapons but with one and stuff was really expensive in the past. It’s to note that cheap weapons that rely on mostly force such as maces, clubs and axes greatly profit from the 2h tactic as it is exactly force that you won’t gain from dual wielding.
Try breaking something with two hammers than with one and both hands.
Really depends on the weaponry involved and the situation. Weapons employed in what we call “fencing” today had no benefit from utilizing the second hand on your main weaponry. If weaponry is designed to be used one handed, it is best used one handed. Grabbing a weapon with two hands also reduces its effective range, and quite noticably so, which is why almost all styles of armed combat that utilize a single weapon favour “strong side forwards” (with noticable exceptions being styles focused on very short weaponry like knives. “Russian Speznas” knife fighting usually involves fighting weak side forward to use as a tool for deflection and similar principals are also employed in most FMA-styles that focus on short bladed weapons).
In context where bladed weaponry can be employed effectively, strength isn’t usually an issue. Katanas are royally impractical weapons (as being one of the only example of weapon that didn’t naturally evolve out of changes in practicality, but simply by stilistic choice), at least when compared to other bladed weapons usually reserved to a caste of professional warriors, but they were usually devilishly sharp. You don’t need strength to inflict injury with a sharp, long blade, not even that much finesse, only proper technique (Musashi writes about this - and most people who practice the sport version of japanese fencing, Kendo, will be able to confirm that this holds even somewhat true on this context - that basically the pinky and ring finger of the left hand are the only fingers employing force on the weapon handle, the right hand directing it and otherwise, the weapon lies in your grip very loosely. The blade’s own weight and shape do the cutting without needing much force involved). But of course, there’s a reason why masters like Musashi prefered to use a single katana over his infamous dual wielding style in duels. Against someone who knows that they are doing, the advantage gained from a second weapon mostly doesn’t outweigh the advantage of being able to employ a single (longer!) weapon with both hands.
That’s one of the reasons why in almos all FMA, traditionally, dual wielding two weapons of similar lengths is considered the “beginner’s” style and taught first. An untrained fighter with two weapons is twice as dangerous as an untrained fighter with only one and contrary to popular believe amongst fantasy-nerds, dual-wielding weapons is alot easier to learn than just a single weapon (and certainly not that uber-mega-finesse-elven-murder-death-style of legend almost any kind of fiction wants it portrayed as). Two weapons of different lengths (and maybe even application), that is certainly a different story.
Nothing eliminated dual wielding I would say, dual wielding was never very prominent anywhere, and it only became a thing in Europe after the colonisation of Philippines, where the Spanish got the idea from the Philippine practitioners of Escrima, which Kekmaster has already mentioned as being very dual-wielding-oriented, using a number of different dual wielded-weapon combos.
And I would very much disagree with your assessment of 2H weapon outperforming dual wielding - I have tried with my friends numerous times and the one using two arming swords would almost universally win against the one using a longsword, assuming the one with two swords had any experience with dual wielding at all that is. You would be right that 2H weapons would be vastly superior in dealing with armored opponents though - dual wielded weapons would be incredibly useless in dealing with someone in full plate armor, although I would say not bad at all at dealing with almost any other sort of armor due to their speed, moveset variations, and their unpredictability by the opponent.
I would agree with mostly everything, but dual wielding is very difficult to do, and certainly not easier than using a single weapon. Yes, it might be true that a beginner might be more dangerous with 2 blades than one, but so would generally speaking anyone of any level of skill with 2 blades than one, assuming of course they had as much expertise with both styles. Thing is, to dual wield, you need the exact same knowledge and practice you do to effectively use a single weapon. And then, on top of that, you need the same for your non-dominant arm, which is vastly more difficult. And then, on top of that even, you need to be able to synchronize the two, learn specific moves that are facilitated by this, and un-learn/learn not to attempt specific moves that are made impossible by this form. This is especially the case of course with long-bladed weapons like arming swords (which generally were not dual-wielded historically exactly because of this - they would get in the way of each other and unless you know what you are doing, it would screw you over). Sure dual wielding is entirely possible without any expertise, but you will probably suck at it, your edge alignment will suck greatly, especially with your non-dominant arm, your moves will be unpredictable, but also inefficient and will likely hinder one another etc. etc. And edge alignment is extremely important, as screwing it up will result in even a strong blow to very thin armor or possibly even a single layer of clothing to do hardly any damage at all. I think you are basing your assessment of dual wielding on Escrima, but in Escrima, you generally use shorter weapons and/or weapons that have no edge (sticks), therefore there is no edge alignment issue. In Escrima, yes, dual wielding is relatively easy, although I still cannot see how it is supposed to be easier than a single stick/sword/knife.
Truley these lacking detailed motions made me sick. Indeed as we’re on modern age its near impossible to perfom perfect sword art and such. Yet as the game is based on fantasy theres no need to make everything realism entailed, instead why not make it cooler. For that mattered most 3rd person wielding must be redesigned.
It’s “easier” in the sense that it allows people to become relativeley dangerous relatively fast. It’s a matter of “quick to learn, hard to master”, though I’d still put the “mastery” part for dual wielding weapons of different lengths. Sure, it does stem from my experience from teaching FMA (though I do also have extensive experience with spanish espada y daga and some experience with Nito fencing), which is a very specific culture when it comes to dual wielding and it being “easier” is definitely not the sole (or even main) reason why it is taught first (it trains both hands and coordination between both, which is a very essential skill, footwork, positioning and due to its symetrical nature, you can train your patterns in loops and generate very high amounts of repetition in relatively short time, something that is a core principal of most FMA), but according to most “old Grandmasters” I have spoken with (or people who trained directly under folks like Ilustrisimo, Inay, Cabales, Sarmiento and Estalilla Jr.), one of the reasons it was taught first is that it allowed folks to become “combat ready” relatively quickly, even though the majority of these “old masters” prefered single weaponry themselves. In this regard, the FMA are probably one of the best sources, simply because their lineage is relatively close to people who still used the techniques in actual combat, the Hispano-European influence of the techniques is (at least in some cases) big enough that it allows at least somewhat educated statements regarding the “traditional” HEMA (which is one of the reasons why the absolute vast majority of HEMA-reconstructors have a strong FMA background) and they are weaponry-based martial arts that have neither been sportified (kendo and olympic fencing have almost nothing to do with actual weaponry-based combat anymore, as much as practitioners want to claim otherwise) or “romantized” by “budo” ideals that isolated and misenterpreted techniques due to a lack of application.
I think we mean the same thing, but I should have made my points alot clearer in this aspect, my apologies.
Yes, I agree. To me, the animations are fine enough in 1st person, since it is a fantasy game, after all, it should look cool in the first place and “realistic” only in the sense of suspension of disbelief. The Lord of the Rings movies are good example where to draw the line, at least in my books: The combat is unrealistic as anything, but it looks convincing enough that you don’t question it, until Legolas does his thing, surfs down the stairs on a shield while machine-gunning Orcs, stabbing them with arrows or pulling a “Shadow of the Colossus” on an Oliphaunt just because Peter Jackson loves his elves so much.
This isn’t Game of Thrones. One of the reasons I very much detest the Series is the fact that they couldn’t tone down the combat to match the otherwise “grim-dark” realistic tone of the universe.
Just food for thought: The original Star Wars Trilogy worked pretty well with its very few and meaningful lightsabre battles that were not over the top, but more or less just japanese katana-bouts with glowsticks (and surprisingly “realistic” at that), whereas all the new films just went full regalia, which also works for entertainment, but also makes everything a bit less… believable.
