Historical fencing - Dual wielding swords - overview and response to Lindybeige

Hi guys, so I'm just making a video to talk about so-called dual wielding which is a modern term, a very modern term I'm only aware of it from about the last 5 or 10 years it seems to have come from computer games or role-playing games or something, I don't know but essentially it describes the using of two weapons at the same time, one in each hand and it seems to usually be used in terms of using the same weapon or the same type of weapon in each hand Lloyd, Lindy Beige, makes a video about this where he makes a number of points, some of which I agree with, some of which I disagree with but essentially what the issue boils down to is that yes, dual wielding, i.e. using two swords in this case, was done historically contrary to what Lloyd says, it was done historically however, correctly as he says, it was not something that was done on the battlefield generally although there may be exceptions to that and I'll come to that in a moment so first of all, yes it's absolutely true that if you're using a sword i.e. if you're not using a pole weapon or a missile weapon, which are the main battlefield weapons or fighting on horseback, if you're using a sword then on the battlefield swords were very often in history used with large shields the reasons for that should be fairly obvious because if you're on a battlefield with opponents that could come from any direction firstly a shield is a good thing because it covers a large area of your body in one go you don't have to rely on actively seeing where an attack's coming from and parrying an attack you can have the shield there or there or there and you can close one of the lines straight away, straight off, without having to move the shield so you can move around the battlefield and a lot of your body is covered if missiles, i.e. arrows or javelins or axes get shot or thrown in your direction then that hopefully will protect you to a large extent aside from that, in a one-on-one fight against someone else who's similarly armed or armed with a pole weapon or some other kind of weapon shield and sword is a pretty awesome combo firstly the shield can obviously close a line, as I mentioned before but it can be used very actively to close other lines whilst you do things with the sword so, for example, in Bolognese Rotella, which is a round shield, a bit like this but it's domed rather than flat Manciolino, for example, generally seems to have held the Rotella at shoulder height closing the outside line and then he fights around the Rotella most of the time with one possible exception of a single-tempo response where he lifts it above the head and gives a riposte in the same time and that's something to mention about using two weapons Contrary to what Lloyd surmises about attack, attack, attack if you think about it in terms of defend and attack when you've got two weapons, be they of the same length or different length you've essentially got two options when someone attacks you, you can either marry the two weapons together in such a way that you form a very strong defence then you leave one weapon there whilst giving your riposte, i.e. your follow-up attack or you do have the option to give a single-tempo, i.e. in one time to defend and attack in the same time and of course that's true when you've got a shield or a buckler or two weapons, one in each hand so generally speaking, I'll just change swords here Generally speaking with buckler, whatever system you follow and I tend to follow the Bolognese-Italian sword and buckler style more you can either defend with the sword and the buckler together and then you keep the buckler there pushed against the person's sword whilst riposting or following up with a counter-attack or you have got the option, it's more risky with a buckler because it's very, very small to single-time defend with one and attack with the other and that is actually done more in rapier and dagger so they're two very different length weapons but having the dagger and the rapier enables you to defend with the dagger whilst attacking in the same tempo with the rapier so these are dual-wielding if you want to use that term but they're very different objects, much like the sword and buckler they have very different jobs to do, very different tasks and yes, this can attack and this can defend you can defend with the rapier and attack with the dagger but most of the time, whether it's sword and buckler or rapier and dagger most of the time you'll be defending with the small short object and attacking or riposting with the long object, with the most reach because that's what makes sense so going back to dual-wielding with two swords first thing to say is that it was done and the situations in which it was done, in Europe at least were generally in duelling or classroom fencing scenarios so it seems to have been almost a feat of skill to do it and using two swords together if you look at Manciolino for example who has a section in his treatise on using two swords in his case they're side swords, so a little bit like that sword but with a finger ring and possibly with a side ring and possibly with a knuckle bow as well, so a bit more hand protection and I'm no expert at all on Manciolino's two sword technique but he does do it, it's there documented in 1531 and we know it was part of the Bolognese tradition so in Bologna in Italy in the early 16th century they were definitely doing two sword fighting style was it used on the battlefield? Not really, no not that we can tell, not very much it seems to have been a skill that the skilled fencers did because it was hard to learn, difficult to master but potentially had some advantages if you were very good at it but only really good in a one on one scenario and that's where Lloyd Lindybeige is correct in his video that having two weapons might be good in a one on one situation but it's not very good in a battlefield situation or at least not as good as a shield and a sword would be so the last thing I should say on that as well is that outside of Europe we do know that using two swords together was done and it was done in a one on one dueling situation and it was done in a battlefield situation there are examples from Japan, potentially Mizashi did it there is an existing traditional Japanese Ryu school that teaches two katana style and we know that katana and wakizashi were used together occasionally and additionally in Indonesia and Malaysia on what was Sarawak we also know that occasionally two short swords were used together and it survived in the martial arts of Krabi Krabong for example so two swords, they were sometimes used together it wasn't very popular probably partly because it's very difficult to learn partly because it's not as good on the battlefield as sword and shield is or a polearm or something else but it was done, it's difficult to do and it's better suited to one on one fighting than battlefield fighting Thank you