Which is LESS practical, using two full-sized swords or using one double-ended sword?

There are dual Katana styles, Musashi was famous for kicking ass with them (although he also won duels with oars, so whatever) IDK if those are full sized enough.

Inb4 Katanafagotry and anti-katanafagotry.

You could use dual swords as "one sword with an awkward weight or overlong parrying tool in off hand"
Or if you've got good gauntlets slap a hand on the back end of the double-sword and call it a shortspear

If you're talking about dual wielding two longswords, or using a quarterstaff with a longsword on either end, both are fucking terrible ideas.

With dual wielding, you need to keep track of where each sword is at all times, in order to not kill yourself. This isn't an RPG, so you don't get attack power x2 or some shit, you just have a shittier shield, or a wider area of attack (arguably, at that).

A double-sword would be hideous to actually wield if it's two fucking longswords. Really heavy, and very fucking long. Other weapons of similar length are built for thrusting.

If you meant a staff with two spear ends, I could see that being more practical, or two smaller blades (think a dirk, or maybe gladius), I'd say it's definitely more practical than dual wielding, but that's not really saying much.

>competition

So, good for one on one...

>a last resort option for if you were surrounded

...and good for one against a group. Basically dual-wielders are the master race.

op didnt specify longswords (also are you talking migration, medieval or renaissance?). Also vikings dual woeld "full sized" weapons, and quite well (they also used longswords).

I really can't see the advantage of a double ended sword, by keeping the two fixed in alignment you lose a lot of range of motion for the blades and increase the force required to swig, which reduces (rotational) acceleration.
But that's just an amateur fencer's opinion.

>you need to keep track of where each sword is at all times

Do you routinely forget what you're holding in your off hand? It's pretty hard to accidentally seriously whack yourself with a longer blade

>really heavy

This is flat-out wrong. It's not much heavier than a broom, metal blades are quite light when used in two hands. All you've done with your post is show that your Strength, Dex, and Intelligence are low as fuck.

It was katana and wakizashi, wasn't it? Wakizashi are criminally underrated weapons.

This is probably bait, but please understand that there are only two methods of "dual wielding" that notably worked.
Defensive, where the primary weapon had respectable reach and the off-weapon was used to parry or act as an emergency extra weapon (rapier and dagger, dirk under a targe with a handsword, etc)
Or offensive, where you might attack with either weapon, but they can only be so long or be used in a limited number of techniques because you need to make sure you don't block your own strikes or injure yourself.
So if you want to use both as "hitty killy weapons" you're getting cucked by shit reach

Would you count war pick and lantern shield as dual-wielding?

More importantly, is it sick as fuck?

You're adding practicality, as in the ability to have the weapon be in the most convenient arrangement. We're looking for the opposite here.

Look at that fucking hunk of metal.

...

I did mention targes. That's just a...well...if a targe is a jeep, that thing's one of the fuckier cars from Mad Max.
The gauntlet is gonna be worse for punching due to shield weight, and the two...what are those wolverine spikes even? Sword breakers? just get in the way and complicate it when you could use a bigger shield. Same for the single big spike in the center. Dirk in hand is better than the protruding sword, since you can produce it behind the shield like that as well as drop it into your main hand if your sword is lost, knocked away or stuck in someone. The lantern is...a thing? If you normally use a spiked shield in light just low enough a flickering, moving lantern helps.

No, they're for punching dudes in the face and blocking blades. Dumbass.

>dirk in hand is better than blade reinforced by being bolted to the metal attached to you.

No. Jesus, you armchair autists suck. Visit /k/ for just...one day. Learn something about actual weapons.

>weight makes your punches worse

Son, let me explain to you the principle behind brass knuckles...

RIP helicopterman

>limited number of techniques

It's a "Veeky Forums pretends to understand medieval and renaissance-era combat based on memes" episode!

What actually makes long weapons in each hand cumbersome isn't them getting in each other's way, it's weight. Weight is the problem. Go get a pair of baseball bats (you do keep sports equipment around, don't you?) out of your garage, try swinging them around a bit. Unless you're a complete klutz, you're not accidentally going to be whacking yourself with them or knocking them off each other, because hand-eye coordination is a thing that exists, but what you will notice is that they're heavy and tire you out, and throw you off-balance.

According to italian fencing master Francesco Altoni, there were hyper aggressive dual full-sized sword styles, but admittedly they were never particularly popular and, obviously, were meant for duels rather than open combat.
In essence you were meant to just go stabbing machine and thrust from high and low angles while defending with the other blade.

>Block blades with pointy bitz that look like an Ork glued them on
>Instead of with the shield it's attached to
You mean a light but solid medium that allows you to concentrate a punch to provide extreme pressure that can crack bone while protecting your own hand?
Throwing fists to distract, block, or stun is fine,but tying a weight to your hand to add mass to the swing isn't a great idea in the middle of a swordfight.

>Do you routinely forget what you're holding in your off hand? It's pretty hard to accidentally seriously whack yourself with a longer blade
It's pretty easy to get 'tangled up' with your second weapon because the first is in an inconvenient spot. When dual-wielding, you need to consider the location of each weapon at all times for them to be a boon rather than a nuisance. Most people who I've seen practicing swordplay or fencing for a few years can't dual wield effectively enough to not scew up their positioning every now and then.

>It's pretty easy to get 'tangled up' with your second weapon because the first is in an inconvenient spot
This is why you should hold one high and one low.

Sometimes you want to twist and disarm a dude instead of just tanking the hit. You must be a caster player.

In a duel, with no shields or armour, is pretty much insane not to use 2 weapons.
If the other guy uses one only, you've got an easy advantage.
Don't be the guy with only one sword.

He was too good for this world
Least his cousin Bowzooka made it out

You've seriously never heard of someone concealing a roll of coins in their hand to add weight to a punch? Weight makes punches better until it starts significantly slowing you down. Weight plus punchy blades makes your punches MUCH BETTER.

>in the middle of a swordfight

GEE YES BECAUSE YOU ARE PUTTING ON YOUR LANTERN SHIELD IN THE MIDDLE OF THE FIGHT INSTEAD OF WALKING AROUND ON GUARD DUTY WITH IT ON. IS IT OBVIOUS I'M BEING SARCASTIC? JUST CHECKING BECAUSE YOU SEEM KIND OF STUPID user.

By your logic, a mace is a worthless weapon and we should all use thin, light sticks because they're faster and unless you're cutting you can't possibly do damage. Just...leave. Go. You've embarrassed yourself enough.

>This is why you should hold one high and one low
Which would be nice if you could choose your guards at all times in a fight. You can still get tangled up because blocking the strike aimed to take your life is more important than ending up in your guard of preference afterwards.

there is double smallsword styles (smallsword are not small swords) and there are double back sword styles.

I've always upheld the mantra "never have an empty hand on the battlefield" and I always will.

>Most people who I've seen practicing swordplay or fencing for a few years can't dual wield effectively enough to not scew up their positioning every now and then.

Let's be honest here. You've never seen either and are theorizing based on what you think sounds right. In b4 pretending your fat ass is an elite fencing operator.

>It's pretty easy to get 'tangled up' with your second weapon because the first is in an inconvenient spot. When dual-wielding, you need to consider the location of each weapon at all times for them to be a boon rather than a nuisance

It's called "hand-eye coordination" and "not weighing 400lbs". I didn't exactly look graceful, but I tried it out with the prybar from my car and the warhammer I have in case of skinwalkers and despite both being much more tangle-able than a straight-bladed sword it didn't happen a single time despite me flailing around like a moron for several minutes. If I, with no experience dual-wielding and two weapons known for having hooks, can do it, anyone who did it regularly would have no problem.

you can always use the empty hand to grapple, like most manuals suggested.

Be patient, user, he clearly has autism. I know he's wrong, but come on, you're being a bit of a dick.

Giacomo di Grassi was a fencing master who wrote of the same thing.
copy pasting from a synopsis
>The final element which is of important note and one that defeats experienced and inexperienced combatants is that the weapons need to be kept separate in some fashion in order that they are not entangled. This entanglement can be due to the action of the opponent or the action of the combatant. This primarily happens due to a lack of consciousness of the position of the other weapon when an action is made, or when an action is completed. It is for this reason that the Low ward starts with one weapons slightly extended and the other more withdrawn.

In short, all he really says is "git gud fgt"

They are both shit for combat effectiveness, but two swords is slightly less likely to get you killed than something as retarded as a double ended sword.

>Implies others are neckbeards who think they're operators
>I tried dual wielding a warhammer and a crowbar
I'd mock you, but you already did it for me.

Very true, but far from each historical combatant was a fencing master. I'd argue both a novice and a master dual wielding swords would lose to another of the same skill level with more conventional equipment.

I didn't pretend at all it made me a cool guy to swing around a warhammer and a 30" prybar at random, I was shouting "HERP DE DERP DE DOOOO" as a warcry as I did it. The point is that even full-on flailing around like the mong of all mongs they didn't get tangled ONCE.

I'm not the guy you addressed your other point to, but that's also wrong. In a duel with no shields and no armor the guy who can stab the other guy in the balls when their other blades are locked wins. Real life isn't an RPG, there is no "oh shit I take -5 to attack for this maneuver".

>30" prybar

How do you think one of those things would do as a straight-up melee weapon? They don't seem like they'd even take an improvised weapon penalty.

Okay, I have no problem with you being a retard, but please don't spread your idiotic ideas to others. Also, for the sake of discussion, let's assume you actually went outside and swung around some weapons while looking like an idiot.

You already admitted that you don't know what you're doing, so let me explain this in very simple terms. Randomly flailing around two things is not the same as effectively dual-wielding. When swordfighting, every attack works from a guard. A guard -way too briefly put- is a pose in which you are defended by your weapon. Every attack and block goes from a guard to a guard. After all, when you're not in a guard, you're not in a pose in which you are defended. When you attack, you can choose your go-to attack -and therefore guard- relatively freely. When defending, you can't. You block, then see where your blade's momentum carries you the easiest. Your opponent, given enough skill, can dictate your movement to a certain degree. This increases the risk of getting tangled.

Furthermore, when randomly swinging implements, there's no stress and nobody bashing on your weapons, both of which increase the risk of making a mistake. After all, you're thinking about two weapons at the same time instead of only one under stressful conditions.

>when their other blades are locked

This is not something that actually happens in actual sword fights. Ever.

As for dual-wielding: It's stupid. If you are using a 1-handed weapon, there is no good combat reason to use another 1-handed weapon in your other hand instead of a shield. The instances where this does happen (such as rapier and main gauche, though there are others) are because a person can comfortably carry bladed weapons on their person in everyday life. Nobody is going to carry around a shield when there is little chance of actually getting into a fight to the death.

Flailing around in your backyard means nothing. You are a turbomong.

(edit)

Amending this post to say:

>As for dual-wielding AS IS COMMONLY PORTRAYED IN GAMES: It's stupid.

As my post mentioned, using a two weapons is a valid technique, though it was uncommon, and always inferior to weapon+shield. It only happened because it would have been silly to incorporate a shield into ones daily attire when there was little expectation of violence.

>there is no good combat reason to use another 1-handed weapon in your other hand instead of a shield. The instances where this does happen (such as rapier and main gauche, though there are others) are because a person can comfortably carry bladed weapons on their person in everyday life.
The other guy definitely is a turbomong, but this is wrong too. The buckler was carried around in everyday life for a long time by the same sorts of people who wore mains-gauche later, and the main reason they transitioned from buckler to dagger is that a dagger is really more useful against a primarily thrusting weapon. (Notably, you can use it to lock your opponent's blade...) You can try this out yourself if you want to invest the time into getting to the point of skill where you can meaningfully experiment with arms, or you can just accept that there's a broad consensus about this in both HEMA circles and period treatises.

As for the other part of your statement, a parrying dagger is a really specialized thing and not something you can carry socially on the excuse that you're just going to cut salami with it. It's just as explicit a defensive sidearm for fights as bucklers are.

Holy shit this level of retardation. Buddy, if I can do it, anyone can do it. Now I appreciate that you think you, in your blobosity, are a leet swordfighting maestro, but you aren't. The actual leet swordfighting maestros wrote about people dual-wielding long rapiers. Because it was a thing that happened in real life. You're approaching this like some kind of video game where concrete stances and rules trump the way swinging a piece of metal around actually works...oh, and look, providing jack fucking shit in the way of proving that weapons get tangled if you have decent fitness and hand-eye coordination. Watch less anime and exercise more. For the sake of everyone.

Also, thinking about two weapons at the same time isn't difficult. As a matter of fact, thinking and planning out your moves ahead of time isn't something that happens much in a real fight. You're reacting. Strategy is for when you don't have steel in your face. Now, I want to say, I appreciate the effort you put into sounding like a pretentious douchewaffle HEMAfag, it's good LARPing on your part...but let's be clear, here. You know zilch about swords. You think tangling straight pieces of metal is a problem. You're lucky this is an anonymous message board or your posts would get copypasted back at you, with laughter attached, for years to come. Go outside and do something physical.

>(edit)

Shields are heavy, cumbersome, and generally speaking for fags. Why use a shield when you can block just as well with a sword and then put it through a guy's throat? The answer is because most shieldfags were untrained peasant fucks with no skills. Hiding behind a piece of wood doesn't require any talent.

You've already proven you're a retard. We get the message, no need to keep pushing it.

>but please don't spread your idiotic ideas to others
>proceeds to autism

The quintessential Veeky Forums post.

>every attack ends and begins with a guard

This is something you only do in, say, sport fencing. A real swordfight is much more dynamic.

I see that you're intentionally poking at someone who has, if not autism, something very much like it. Please stop, you'll just make him worse. I agree with you, but you're borderline trolling.

A buckler is still a shield. A small shield, but still a shield. And the issue of carrying a shield around isn't one of social inappropriateness- it would have been perfectly seemly for a man to carry around weapons, but just the practical issue of carrying around a shield. I'd imagine even prior to the centuries when shields tended to no longer be used in warfare, people rarely would have worn a shield on their person in daily life if there was little expectation of violence.

Also, see my amendment post. I caught that there was a mistake in that statement, but I'm talking about (and assuming what this discussion is about) the overall feasability of two-weapon fighting rather than fencing styles appropriate specifically to the renaissance/baroque eras. Like, using a dark ages style round shield instead of a buckler or parrying dagger would be effective... but it would also have been crazy, since carrying around a 3-foot shield in daily life in the 16th-18th centuries when you will most likely never even need to use it would be silly. (and these renaissance/baroque era two-weapon fighting styles were intended for regular life rather than warfare)

Isn't the real retard the person who manages to tangle their swords together?

>imagine

There's the problem. There's evidence it actually happened. Are you the same guy who thinks you can tangle your swords together if you aren't thinking really hard about where they are at all times?

Would you feel better if we talked about vikings swinging two dainaxes instead of renaissance dual-rapier fencers?

>Why use a shield when you can block just as well with a sword and then put it through a guy's throat?

Because a sword cannot block as well as a shield.

>A real swordfight is much more dynamic.
How does being dynamic hinder you in taking up a guard?

Yes, in fact, it can. There aren't mechanical AC bonuses in real life.

>two dane-axes

Dane axe: A long-hafted axe which can only be wielded with two hands

Because you're not resuming your stance "between turns" because there are no turns. In fact, you're more likely to be turning an attack into your next attack than jumping back into a "guard". Have you seriously never, ever, had a swordfight with anyone? Because I see a lot of theory that's floated around Veeky Forums like shit in a sewer, completely baseless theory, in your posts.

>autism

Autism: The disease you have

Gee golly gee, did you know if you don't have the right weapon proficiency for it it'll fall right out of your mitts?

Fair enough, it's not like you return to a guard after every single move, that was just for brevity's sake more than anything. Nonetheless, not every attack results in a hit for either side nor is every hit fatal, and if an instant of 'rest' occurs for whatever reason, you go back to a guard. The point I was trying to make was that "just keep one weapon high and the other one low" doesn't work in practice.

Don't blame Veeky Forums, he's seen one too many Lindybeige videos. Brits hate dual-wielding because they never mastered it.

Except that it does and it was widely studied, but I'm glad you found the single testicle to admit you were wrong.

It's not about the weapon "falling out of your hands," retard. It's about being completely impractical. Yes, you COULD fight with a giant weapon in each hand, but you would lose and get killed because you would be unable to effectively wield them.

>Yes, in fact, it can
Citation needed

I think two large one-handed weapons are worse. I'm not going to say I'm good at this shit, but I tried twin longswords (mostly just for training purposes and cause it feels cool) and all the control you lose from one handing them just isn't worth any possible benefit you could have. Maybe with lighter construction longswords and if I was beef as fuck it could work, but not having an "arm" to leverage probably means that no matter how strong you are, you'd be better off just two handing it.

The stupid double swords actually lets you leverage shit, and as long as you are decently dressed up you probably won't cut yourself too bad.

>he can't wield two great weapons

I hate manlets

You might be right.

Very well. I admit I am wrong. There are situations where a fencer can dual-wield two weapons while keeping one high and the other low at all times, regardless of whatever action their opponent takes to avoid it. Those are situations where the first fencer is much more skilled than the second, which is a completely trivial situation to discuss.

Furthermore, a fencing master won't get tangled up with his swords. I fully concede this point.

Neither point change the fact that dual wielding (and learning how to do it) provides additional challenges compared to other, more conventional armaments, making it all in all a less efficient art.

Joke's on you, daggers are great weapons to them.

Two full-sized swords. Especially if by "full-sized" you mean two hand-and-a-half swords or zweihanders rather than simply "not a shortsword+dagger but two shortswords."

With the twinblade you're looking at a basically superfluous blade on the back in most situations, that, if you're unarmoured, or thrust with the blade in the inner edge of your arm (so it could potentially be grabbed and shoved back or pushed back with a shield right into your armpit), could be used against you pretty easily, but if you're armoured and mindful of how you hold the sword, assuming it is balanced appropriately there isn't much WRONG with it.

You could still hold a shield in your other hand or grasp the weapon in two hands for greater control, if one blade somehow breaks you can flip it around and have another one like a Greek dory, and if someone gets behind you or you're surrounded as a last resort you can backthrust with the second blade- In fact in powerstance you use them like regular swords in DS2, to the chagrin of a lot of players hoping for something spectacular and silly. As an absolute last ditch you could even hold it by a blade and use it like a spear to extend its reach, but obviously the balance wouldn't be good for that if it were good as a sword.

On the other hand with two fullsized swords you have a superfluous blade in your nondominant hand that serves basically no purpose but to cross yourself up and occupy a hand that would be potentially useful otherwise. There are practical dual wielding styles, but they necessarily use a short blade in the left hand so they can't cross each other up, and in the case of western styles especially the dagger in the left hand is often basically a fork meant for catching and locking blades while you stab the people wielding them with your real weapon.

Actually using the twinblade like a staff the way darth maul or the chosen undead (when wielding them "normally") does is less practical though.

>I have stubby manlet arms
>lets make matters worse by using a short weapon

Small people are usually better off with big weapons. There was even some manlet Landschnekt who got famous for using a sword about 1 1/2 times his size.

I think the answer to OP's question is that it depends on a lot of factors, among which the length of the swords. I suppose it's again time for that old Veeky Forums adage:

>Depends on the setting

You know full well that was said in jest. Still, that's a pretty cool bit of history, got a name or link or something?

Pepin the Short. The sword was 183 cm long (~6 feet), while Pepin himself was about 136 (less than 4 and a half).

>landschneckt
u wot knight?

>knight

You mean knave.

I messed up, I know now that it is Landsknecht.

What about sword nunchuks?

Double edged sword.

With dual wielding, you can at least drop a sword.

Is this Loss?

tfw seeing something you drew being posted after all this time.

>IDK if those are full sized enough.
Problem is here, what is 'full sized'.
There are short bladed katanas.
Not undersized katanas, they were the exact length they were intended to be. They were 'full sized'.

He did both, from what I recall, but only very late in his life, and mostly in controlled conditions.

I think the only situation where he actually really recommended it over just using 1 sword was when you are outnumbered, or as a training method.

You mean sword-chucks, they are almost as deadly to the opponemt as they are to the weilder

If you have to ask...

Lady Maria, don't you have a clock to be guarding?

Musashi noted that you held a sword (longsword) in your dominant hand and a short sword in your other hand in his style, so they were not both fullsize, no. The point of actually wielding both in combat was spacing, if you have only a longsword and someone gets in close to you it is very difficult to cut him without hurting yourself, let alone leaving yourself open, but if you have something much shorter you just stab the fucker.

Even then, he wasn't saying "you should fight this way," he was saying "you should know how to fight this way, because it would be stupid to die because you were in a situation where you could not draw your wakizashi with your left hand and wield it effectively." He actually recommends training with a sword in either hand to keep yourself from habitually twohanding your sword, because it is more advantageous in general to use a sword with one hand for reach and flexibility, and also because in real battle you will often be carrying other weapons (such as bows and other sidearms) in your left hand; However, he also states that you should twohand your longsword if that is what it requires to cut your opponent.

So basically even history's greatest proponent of dual wielding and the poster boy of "true" dual wielding (as in, using two blades at once with both being used as killing tools rather than one being used to parry) didn't say it was how you should fight or that it was a good idea, just that you should know how just in case.

Both of it might look cool, but is any of it really practical at all?

I like how something about lightsabers is supposed to make them basically impossible to wield without superhuman dexterity AND being attuned to the force and then this fucker uses his like a fucking staff

the fact that he was probably canonically the most skilled fighter in the entire series if you reason it out and was basically killed in five minutes is kind of indicative of the design philosophy behind the prequels as a whole

Would depend on how they came together, if they lock in tightly they might take a while to disconnect when you need them to, if they are loose then it may fall apart.

those guys look really fucking stupid

>He doesn't dance around his 3 meter tall shield like a stripper pole in his pajamas holding a sword in his other hand
Get a load of this faggot

you just literally defined faggotry

No, (You) did.

Good thing he's the best character in all of Clone Wars and Rebels then.