The spear thread inspired me to create a thread about how effective various weapons/shields/armour would be against other types of weapons/shields/armour.
Now we all know that on battlefield two swords would be much inferior to sword and shield because of missilies, but on unarmored one-on-one fight how well would two swords do against:
longsword
sword and dagger
sword and buckler
sword and shield (targe)
It depends on who is wielding the weapons more than the weapons themselves.
Trebuchets had superior anti armor capabilities desu.
Le pedant.
Assuming two equaly skilled combatants,
>longsword
Is the enemy using both hands to yield the longsword? Then two swords win easily. He's vulnerable after each missed/blocked attack. You can either parry with one and counterattack with the other or set up an attack with your right by diverting your enemy's attention with the left, like in boxing.
>sword and dagger
Same as above.
sword and buckler
Same as above. Bot not as effective because you can no longer set up attacks with one hand and strike with the other.
>sword and shield (targe)
This is the only option where I see no advantage. You would lose the hability to counterattack as quickly because you would be covering yourself with the shield and absorbing a lot of the impact from the enemie's attacks.
>This is the only option where I see no advantage. You would lose the hability to counterattack as quickly because you would be covering yourself with the shield and absorbing a lot of the impact from the enemie's attacks.
So are you saying that sword and shield would have the advantage or that they would be equal?
I think they would be equal.
sounds like a tarantino movie
the same way you deal with any pre modern missile troops, you charge them down with cavalry, but oh wait theres pikes in the way
Guy was 19 at the time.
Lived till the ripe old age of 75 IIRC
vilence is as much social as anything else. various weapons were popular not just because of what was effective but what was socially acceptable, and what other people were armed with, as well as what sort of fight you expected.
The best sword for dueling might not be ideal of dealing with assaults or the battlefield. There are whole classes of weapons probably only useful for duels and not much else.
>equaly skilled combatants
Another pretty meaningless term even in same-weapon fighting tbqh. Some people's personal styles will do better or not as well against others. Cross weapon fighting is just chaos and skill isn't as much of an element as luck.
>Longsword
Are you assuming that the longswordsman is getting very close with his weapon? Because he would be using proper spacing, and since the two swords would be shorter than the long sword, the dual wielder would require time to close the gap, and that would be time where the dual-wielder would not control or only have limited control of the blade of the longsword, which opens him up to a redouble or allows the longswordsman enough time to parry or volt.
I'm not sure if any of the weapons have strict advantages over the others, if I'm going to be honest.
>Another pretty meaningless term even in same-weapon fighting tbqh. Some people's personal styles will do better or not as well against others. Cross weapon fighting is just chaos and skill isn't as much of an element as luck.
Well let's say that the fighters are clones of each other and have spend equal time of practice with each weapon and weapon/off-hand combination.
>Are you assuming that the longswordsman is getting very close with his weapon? Because he would be using proper spacing, and since the two swords would be shorter than the long sword, the dual wielder would require time to close the gap, and that would be time where the dual-wielder would not control or only have limited control of the blade of the longsword, which opens him up to a redouble or allows the longswordsman enough time to parry or volt.
If the one-handed swords are rapiers though, the dual wielder has better reach, or at least he can use his maximum reach more easily, because the longswordsman would have to hold the longsword with one hand and near the pommel to get similar reach to rapier. Which would make longsword into a heavier and clumsier rapier, so it would be not very wise to do very often at least.
This is fair, but then the dual wielder is pretty useless if the longswordsman manages to get inside his guard (retracting a thrusting sword to attack a very close enemy takes absurd amounts of time and it's much harder to hit someone than you'd think). At that point, it would have been better to bring a dagger.
Everything you just said is bullshit, and you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Take your autism and go.
Probably better to cut rather than thrust at that point, even if rapier isn't very good at it.
Why is everyone is being pedantic retards instead of answering OP
10 pikemen vs 1 alcoholic with a kitchen knife
Despite modern imagination pikes were rather good dueling weapons.
It was common for rapiers to not be sharpened at the edges, and many of them have geometries similar to the later short sword, which could not be sharpened at the edge.
To not be a "pedantic", I know that the SCA* rules allow for cutting in rapier during infighting, but I would doubt one could amass enough momentum to cut through cloth and skin with a rapier in an infighting situation in actuality.
Longsword has the clear advantage in an infighting scenario because you can half-sword, rather then needing to extend back to thrust, or move the sword out of a guard position in any way.
Due to the way it's wielded it also has an advantage in terms of its potential for attaque au fer**, which would make breaking guard and getting into that position much easier.
I don't really want to speculate about the practicability of pushing aside two swords with one attaque, but I imagine that you would only need to move aside the front-most sword to get in properly, since I assume the second sword would be wielded as a dagger.
*I am not involved in any way with SCA. I'm mainly an olympic (epee) fencer who has messed around with some longsword and rapier technique.
**Longsword is heavier means that an attaque au fer carries more force, Rapier is longer implies that the wielder has to apply more torque to get it back into en garde. More torque=more time.
I'm sorry if I've messed up any physics terms in this post.
Some later rapiers did not have sharpened edges, I wouldn't say it was common thuogh.
All this is pointless speculation since nobody wields these weapons any more and no amount of experimentation with blunt objects is going to get you closer to the historical reality of a real fight to the death.
Because OP's question is inherently stupid. Everybody that does some serious cross weapons research (or just some serious HEMA) knows that things are a little more complex and that there are myriad of factors involved and the question cannot be answered per se. And everybody who tries to answer it Vidya style just makes you instant facepalm and leave the thread.
>Because OP's question is inherently stupid. Everybody that does some serious cross weapons research (or just some serious HEMA) knows that things are a little more complex and that there are myriad of factors involved and the question cannot be answered per se.
OK, how about just answering that lacking more specific knowledge about fighters, circumstances etc. these weapons are roughly equal? Or answer what factors would favour which weapon/shields etc. I don't see the need to insult.
I don't think I demanded any sort of straightforward absolute "which one wins" in the OP.
There is not just longsword, theres 300 years of different longswords, different techniques, different uses, different schools etc.
Theres not just Rapier, theres 350 years of different Rapiers...
As said, your question is stupid and you should feel bad now.
If you want to have a serious discussion, start asking serious questions.
There are also many different types of daggers, dagger techniques etc. Doesn't change the fact that generally speaking dagger is at disadvantage in an unarmored fight against a longsword in an open space.
>Is the enemy using both hands to yield the longsword
Stopped reading right there. Fuck off dark souls.
Who the hell wield two swords in a battle? Why do you think you need more than a blade to kill someone? It's totally not efective because a real battle to death is no game of thrones bullshit. Pls do serious research on HEMA and martial history and then come to post again.