his guard is also fairly open, a hit straight down between those sticks to the head that's leaning forward would be an easy hit. preemptive cross blocks with the non-atacking hand is a good practice to develop (im still working on that myself).
Grim is a great example of this technique, as seen in my video titled "Florantine fighting at Cudgel war tournament 2011"
the guy with two swords has a strange stance, he's leaning forward too much, this puts him a bit off balance, and more strain on the back, moves his head much closer to the oponent without substantially increasing his range, and angles his shots more downwards making high shots harder. he's also leaping up into the air on his attak in a strange way. im sure more experianced SCA people can give him good advice
@vyrewatch12321 You can call it whatever you want... and its fine by me.... but we are talking in modern English so it is not going to historically correct either way. The Romans called it Di-Macheara... which they got from the Greek "Di" meaning "two" and "macheara" which means "large blade". Di-Grassi called it "case", because the swords were usually carried in case rather then on the body. Every culture that every used a sword would have had its own name for the form.
speed, agility, and endurence if your skilled. i dont have to deceive my oppoinent to win, i just have to be more quick and more agile with my movements and attacks. The endurence card is played when one fighter looses the concentration and can no longer fight to his or her ability.
@Blightrecords Speed, agility, endurance, strength are all physical qualities that effect how well you can use your skill. Developing Skill is a matter of training. Deception though is a quality that can catapult a fighter several levels higher. Some of the best fighters I have encountered are in their 50's and not longer have speed, agility, endurance and strength... they still win fights because they fight smarter with deception. A person can not stop aging... they can still fight better.
@anphelps27 The movie or the TV series? They mostly use two-handed swords. The swordplay you see in Theater and the Movies is refereed to as "Stage Fighting". Its main purpose is to entertain. The movements are done is such a manor that they can be easily seen by the audience. Competitive fighting is the opposite. The movements are done in such way so they are seen as little as possible. Deception and misdirection is everything in swordfighting.
@tsafa1 I was just kidding man. TV and movies never get anything right. If you are a sword fighter, you prolly laugh at the way they fight on the screen. Sword fighting is hard as hell and give big respect to anyone that can do it. I like the two handed swords the best.
@guyi2545 ummm... its not choreographed... its real combat. We hit at full speed and power. The fighting is actually the farthest thing from choreography as we intentionally try to mislead the other person with fakes and misdirections.
@tsafa1 Oooh so im guessing that's full weight armour then and weapons? I would rather have wear some tough leather and have the two swords ^_^ but I probably played too many games in my childhood.
@guyi2545 The helmets were wear weigh about 9 lbs in order to be able to safely absorb the impact of the blows. The armor we wear on the body is between 15 and 30 lbs. The swords weigh about 3 lbs and the shield weighs about 8 lbs. With the exception of the helmet, this realistic weight for the fighting armor of a medieval foot soldier. A medieval nasal helm weighed about 2 lbs.
@guyi2545 Beginner armor usually costs $500 to $700. It take about two years of weekly practice just to get competent. It takes about 10 years to really get good. This is a martial art.
I believe it's called dual-wielded swords when it comes down to wield two identical or non-identical ''swords''. Not two-swords. I almost was mistaken that it was two-handed sword versus shield and sword :/. But anyway Iiked this fight. Good job :)!
@tsafa1: Thank you very much for making those facts clear m8 :D. I see. Well, almost(if not all) things are called different things but nonetheless they mean the same thing ofc. Alittle history now and then can't harm.
Flo guy needs to put the pressure on; looks like S&B guy is in his head. Flo should be better at closer range than sword'n'board, especially in the SCA, where real bashing and edging aren't allowed. Pour on the shots; no more of this two-shot combo, then see what happens nonsense. Ex: Cross to the brow, expect a block, shift right while he's partially blinded, left hand shot to this sword, pull it back for a strong onside block, right hand deep wrap.
I hate SCA, or atleast my local group. They allow shield-barges but disallow kicks, knee attacks, shoulder barges or punches of any kind. I went there hoping to give fair representation of Japanese battlefield swordsmanship only to find a bunch of pricks who tweaked the rules to make most asian martial arts useless.
Banned weapons include: ANY Okinawan weaponry (yes, all of it) even if within safety regulations and long weapons.
Using a kote (heavy forearm armour) to guard was also illegal -.-
The reason we don't allow grappling, pushing, kicking... etc is because they don't want to allow an advantage to a larger person. In the SCA we all fight as equals in one pool. That includes men and women. So it has to be skill based fighting. Many of us, including myself, also play outside the SCA with less restrictive rules. But you have to make the connections first and get people to trust that you won't sue them if you are accidentally hurt. Then they will play with you on the side.
You can use rig some of the Okinawan Weapons so they work in the SCA. The Kama (sickel) is basically two short axes which are allowed. The Sai is two short swords or daggers. They do not allow flail weapons, but people do experiment at non-official practices. The main thing is that no part of the weapon be able to penetrate the helmet openings. For flail weapons the risk is the rope getting under the gorget. I see no problem with the Tonfa as long as it is rattan and thrusting tip is padded.
For Kote, you can rig a small shield/buckler. I have seen people use it. The rules are a little different from area to area but there are a lot of practices to pick from around most major US cities.
In combat the whole torso is a target. I would have baited him high, and cut his leg below the shield. Then goe High to strike his dome. I think the shield is more advantagous, but he never uses offensively.
The two-sword guy does a lot of baiting and attacking to the opposite side... both high-low and left-right. There is a lot of possibilities with using the shield offensively. The most effective ones against two-sword being presses and swipes. However, this particular two-swordman is very good. If I open my shield up at all, he will hit me before I blink. The safest way I found to kill him is with a thrust what has been set up with a cut.
Getting close enough to use the shield offensively puts me in a position where it is harder to thrust from different angles. It gives him more of an advantage, because he can move to my shield-side and use my own shield to protect himself. He also has more angles on me with once he gets close on my shield side. I don't want him that close to me. I really want to fight him at a medium range and the is beyond the reach of any offensive use with the shield.
the biggest flaw ive seen when fighting sword and shield single sword etc etc is grappling, i have an easy time taking down my opponents, especialy in full armor and just grinding them out on the ground. it is totaly ignored in sca and those types of individual combat.
Have you seen my TuChux grappling video? That tournament allow grappling and was a lot of fun. The problem with grappling is that when both people know how to grapple it more often results in a stalemate. This is not efficient if you want to kill the other guy and move on to the next fight. It also expends more energy which is very costly even if you win. In a battle, grappling can also result in being killed by a third person since your out of formation and unarmored areas are more exposed.
Very true... and that applies to any weapons. I have heard people complain that their own shield gets in their way. That is because they don't know how to attack around it. Two-weapon forms are very advanced and require much more training to get good at them... but when you get good... your GOOD.
It's impractical in medieval Europe for a knight to charge into battle with two swords in each hand. A knight would totally use a shield for extra protection rather than using his less dominate hand to attack.
Some people are equally competent with both hands. I am not the Two Swordman in the video, but not only can I fight with either hand, but I can write with either hand Furthermore, neither of my eyes is dominate so I can shoot arrows with either hand just as competently.
Am i the only one who has come to the conclussion that tower shield and flail is the way to go? Flail is very hard to block and can go past shields. Its weakness is the weak blocking ability, which is why you need a shield that can also to be used to block low attacks.
Anyway i would chose shield over second sword anyday. Since two swords is weak against spear and archers too.
Flails are fun to fight with and against. They generate a lot of power. The key to blocking a flail is to use the flat of the shield. Against a sword you generally only use the corners and edges. To use the flat against another sword is over-blocking. The flail is usually dead once it hits the flat of the shield so using the flat is not an overcommitment because the flail can not repost as easy as a sword. It has to be wound back up.
An experienced flail-man can do some interesting things with the handle of the fail once the head is dead. Griping it just under the chain and having a spike at the bottom of the handle can add some more thrusting options.
The reason why Roman Gladiators fought with a sword in each hand was merely for amusement. Of course the plebs of the time are going to be amazed with such a spectacle.
I recently learned that there were Gladiators in Rome that fought with two-swords. They were called "Dimachaerus" The word in Greek means Two Swords. "Di" meaning Two and "Mechaera" meaning War-sword. Machi is the Greek root for war.
i stated that they were wearing the full armour, they were maybe heading for a battle or something, but suppose they weren't informed yet about their enemy's fighting style or how to fight the enemy more efficiently. and again i dont think the code of the bushido would allow the samurai to kill a knight without a fight, maybe he would kill a less worthy opponent like a regular soldier, or maybe he would shoot the knight in the battlefield.
5. assuming that both of the traveling warriors were actually wearing their full armours, they would only be carrying a sword and maybe a bow and some arrows, to travel lightweight.
3. in this scenario both warriors are away from everything. they randomly meet, the knight kills the samurai(probably). nobody else sees it so other samurai don't know how to fight a knight if they ever encouner one, assuming they are even aware of the existance of the europeans (during the middle ages).
4. european armour was sword proof, that is why fredschwert was developed. arrows could only penetrate them at a range of about 10ft, maybe less or maybe more.
Knights and Samurai would have been almost equally matched. The knight would have an advantage in two areas that are a mater of fact. The skeletal remains of knights show that they were bigger by about 4 inches. That translates into more mass and more strength. Second, Samurai did not use nor fight against shields on a regular basis. This unfamiliarity with this proven weapon from would be costly to them.
to actually give you another reason a knight would win is because a Samurai didnt use stabs they would slash the the Armour on a knight covered all areas that the Samurai usualy goes for. But i grew up in the SCA and have studied alot
Just wanted to briefly address the whole knight vs. samurai thing. Good luck accurately predicting a fight like that. Far too many variables to factor in. Knight's myth: slow, plodding, reliant on brute strength. NOT true. Samurai myth: All deadly sword masters, armed with the mighty katana, able to slice through anything. NOT true. Knights were agile, skilled warriors. Few samurai were sword masters, their main weapons were the yari and yumi. I would think the first mistake would decide it.
1. the scenario is not in japan, its in a neutal place.
2. tetsubo is a mace or a club not a freaking war hammer!!!! if you google war hammer you'll get some pretty good examples, in the images section that is.
3. in the neutral scenario it would take long enough for another samurai to come, this would give the knight time to prepare or call reinforcements.
i have always prefered not to REALLY use double swords in this kinda stuff, but to have one sword more as protection, and the other to be one-sided, like a rapier(i know this makes you a lot more predictable, but it also seems to make you faster and more precise...if i cant have tow swords, i dont usualy get a shield either...dont want anything gettting in the way of my target...
No, its just takes more training. The basic idea is that one is on offense and the other is on defense. Which does what, can change during the course of the fight to throw off your opponent. Historically, it would be a practical skill to develop because shields often break in the initial clash. You can always pick up a second sword off the ground to at least block with.
I highly doubt that. But perhaps it was used to confuse more than to deal (or block) damage. Plus, if Knights of the time were experiencing problems with shields breaking in the initial crash, they could work on them to improve them with reinforcement bands and what not after the battle. And well, if your shield broke that soon then I suppose it wasn't very good in the first place.
In any case De Gresse did include two sword in his manual written in 1570. In the original Italian he does not specify rapiers, he says "swords". He also does not say he invented the concept of fighting with two swords. It should be assumed it was around long before him.
We are all assumed to be in mail with open face helms regardless of what we are actually wearing. The sticks spread the impact of the force out. It allows us to use full power and speed. If we where using blunt swords, we would be breaking bones. If you search my videos for "duel" you can seem me sparring with blunt swords in a few videos. It should help you judge how well the skill from these sticks transfers to steel.
A big chunk of the protection is the shear mass of the helmet. They are typically between 14 and 12 gage in thickness. Mine weighs 7 lbs. Some weigh close to 10 lbs. Inside they are required to have 1/2 inch of padding. In my case I have 1/4 inch and I wear a padded arming cap to make up the difference. The cap soaks up the sweat and provides the extra cushion.
LOL!!! Not really. In reality, a knight fully armored in plate could never be killed by a samurai. Swords don't cut through good plate armor, period. That's why European soldiers adopted polearms, poleaxes, maces, and warhammers to try to bludgeon enemies or pierce the weak points at the joints of the armor. A katana isn't cutting through plate armor no matter how sharp.
Oh wow lol. Brute strength he says. There is grace, skill, and technique in western fencing, but we don't know nearly as much about it as kendo because the methodology has been lost to history, so people say it's all brainless brute strength. Ridiculous. Also, plate armour was created specifically to stop cutting weapons. Katanas are not cutting straight through steel plates. No way. A guy in full plate armor with a mail shirt beneath will beat a samurai 9 times out of 10. Steel plates > swords
Knights used various weapons across history in accordance with situation in which they found themselves and the armor that they needed to fight against. For much of European history, knights used arming swords and longswords, both of which are actually better at thrusting than cutting. Heavy swords were never popular, and certainly weren't used for dueling. The typical longsword weighed 2 to 4 pounds, about the same as a katana. They are quite suitable for fencing.
It depends a lot on the situation, but If you're well trained, I think 2 swords would be better since you would have a deadly weapon in each hand, but that way it's much harder to defend yourself so it requires a lot of training.
i have practiced for a few years on my own with a wide variety of swords and i found the best is a middle length sword such as a long sword or a short sword and shield has many advantages but when i tried two swords the sword in my left and was slow weak and inaccurate this would lessen with practice obviously but i can't see it being of viable use
If you are predominantly right handed, what normally happens when you try two-sword for the first time is that right-sword does all the attacking and the left-sword works like a shield. The way to train the left hand is to fight lefty with sword&shield for about two years once a week. Fighting single-sword (lefty) is also good. Then after two years you can start training two-sword. Initially you need to train the left hand in isolation.
If you look through my other videos you will find one with dagger and sword fighting. It can be a very effective two-weapon form if you like to fight in close.
While it seems to me that wielding two swords is cool in a 'video game/fantasy' type way, that it would be largely impracticable against a sword/shield or when in engaging large battles.
It seems to be popular in chinese martial arts. Whether that means it's viable or not I don't know, but they got popular somehow...
You see it a lot in later European eras. I think it depends on what you're fighting against. If your assailant is wearing armor and using a shield, maybe not so affective.
I would say that largely depends on the situation. Also, realistically, it's not easy to carry two swords of the same length on you at once. The concept of carrying them on your back is far-fetched and nearly impossible to do with a sword of any favorable length. In the midst of a large battle, it depends on who's fighting. The shield is dependable both up close and of course, against enemy projectiles. With two swords you're very vulnerable to projectiles, unless you're heavily armored.
Spiked? Please explain. Were such shields ever used? I think a center-spike would serve as a place to hook a shield. Did you mean a Hungarian style shield with an edge spike? I am trying to get more info on those.
I've never heard of spiked shields, but it atleast sounds lagitement. They could have had them. They had spikes at the end of lonsword pommels and at the butt of spears and helmets. No reason they didn't put them on a shield.
Still,,,you have to get really close to use it. Plus heavy calvary will destroy you. Small spikes wont protect you from billions of pounds of horse and metal charging at you.
True that heavy Calvary was the preferred weapon. It was the airpower of if its day. Calvery can not however flush out a castle or forest. You needed boots on the ground back then too.
again, im not saying two handed swords are invencible, but it was more useful on the battlefield than it is in SCA and ARMA, because the don't count the fact it could more effectively penetrate armour than a one handed sword. Now maybe a dagger and sword would be effective. Thats just a thought I've heard from somebody else. less range but more practical/more armour penetration.
different weapons are more effective vs different armour..but a short sword and sheild...i wouldn't find good in any fight since you'd have to be closer to whoever your fighting do to the shortness of your weapon...
I have a number of videos where I am fighting polearm. Take a look at those. Weapons have their optimal ranges, if you can force a person to fight outside that range, you gain an advantage. It is distance management. I have video again polearms where I succeed and others where I don't. So skill is the big factor. The weapon is just a tool and a matter of knowing how to use it the right way.
Using a second sword makes no sense if you can have a shield in the other hand. This is also why in history no one ever used two-weapon techniques in real combat (except duells in the rennaissance and a few(!) japanese guys)
Using two-sword or even two-handed weapons does not make sense when there are arrows in the air. Shields are the better battlefield choice but shields to break, especially straps. People tend to be very particular in what shield type they use and how they strap it. It may be hard to replace a shield in the middle of a battle. Swords however tend to be lying all over the place as the dead drop them and are a lot easier to pick up and just go. Two-sword is a good backup form.
except, the tactic of the medievil ages were more based off heavy cavalry. Which is where two handed swords and pikes are effective. two handed swords were used to attack the enemy pikemen rather than shield men. The heavy cavalry did that. and pike men beat the cavalry. Thus why the two handed sword was used to fight the pikemen. Also a small onehanded sword can get through armour as effectively. But two swords are useless.
I think of two-sword more as step up from sword and buckler. You can defend with either sword while the other attacks. You can change which side is doing the attacking and which is doing the defending.
It is just as tough to stop arrows, calvary, or polearms with a buckler. Neither is ideal for battle. They are more suitable as personal defense. You would not go to the tavern with a full-size shield. Between sword/buckler or two-sword, I would prefer two-sword.
in actuality a 2H sword could break a shield or cause it to crack if u swing hard enough, but it will take alot of swinging. the good thing about having a buckler is that after u block with it, u can charge in with a stabbing weapon such as a rapier-like dagger to penetrate their chain mail, or even better hav an ax and cut off their hand 2 one handed weapons is cool cuz u hav more speed on sum1 with a shield and u also hav mroe mobility, which is y alot of the wariors tht usd 2sords wore chain
Trying to break a shield is a huge overcommitment. Trying to be a musclehead usually gets a person killed. Trust me I have tried, I have some some videos posted here lifting some pretty heavy weight. This is not a very efficient approach to fighting. It is better to develop the skill to go around the shield or get it move out of your way with misdirections. Hitting shield hard may or may not break it, if it does not, you just wasted a move and that is costly.
As far as kicking someone wearing mail is concerned, it seems to be it would be pretty effective if the aim was to knock them off balance, rather than cause them pain. Such as kicking their foot out from under them, or something like that.
Cleary this guy isn't well versed in anti-shield combat. He should be hooking the sheild with the pommel/handguard of the coresponding sword and yank back, floowing through with a stab with the hooking sword (or a slash if using the pommel to hook) meanwhile using the other sword to keep the opposing blade in check. In actuality, if I were striped of a sheild I would grab the nearest lightest axe, which are far better for shield hooking allowing for a sword stab in the torso
The two-sword guy is very experienced against shields and has fought with them too. There is a counter to every strike, and a counter to the counter without end. It is often a question of who makes a mistake first. The two-sword's vulnerability is that he is always open somewhere to attack. His advantage is that he can threaten from two different directions at once. There are costs and benefits to every weapon form.
I thought Kicking wasnt allowed on the SCA combat? meh oh well, The guy doing Florentine is pretty decent but his stance leaves a winde window of attack on the other hand you should work on your stance as well try to swing your sword straight forwards instead of going back in order to swing. It takes time to find a good stance do so but it pays off tenfold. other than that pretty damn good practice.
Hi, I'm the shieldman. There are many ways to fight two-sword. The main idea is that one sword is on defense while the other is on offense. They should be constantly switching rolls to keep the opponent off guard. With a good two-swordman I should not be able to pickup if they are a natural right or lefty.
I don't think two-sword is a good choice for a battlefield and the two-sword man here usually uses another weapon-form in melee. Historically two-sword would have been practical if your shield or shield-strap broke. Its hard to find a shield that is strapped right for you laying around but you can always find another sword laying around on a battlefield.
You should check out my videos where I am fighting with steel blunts. Makes no difference to me. If you can use one, you can use the other.
Yeah that's kind of what I would think I'd do naturally, use the off weapon in the place of a shield. I don't have much experience like you guys do, you look pretty skilled. I'm just looking at it as a joe-smoe peasant would; some things just feel right though. Anyone with training is always going to have an edge, but an untrained goofball might get a couple lucky shots in, you never know.
You can participate it this. Its open to everyone. The training is free. There is loaner gear sometimes available until you get your own. Go to SCA[dot]org to find a practice in your area. You can go watch and talk to people.
Hmm the guy dual weilding is pretty good but I think he would be a lot better if he were faster and more agile. Also if he could swing his swords a little faster. The sheild bashing was really getting him.
I never knew dual-wielding was actually useable, I just assumed it was something fancy videogames used because it looked awesome. Its a shame it's illegal in my country to own a sword, bow or any other weapon until you're 18, otherwise I would've signed up for lessons.
I own about 10 real swords, but I hardly use them. You can't really learn with a real weapon and you can't sparr with them. You will learn with a wooden waster or a steel blunt. You then then apply those techniques to real weapons. So the leasons will serve you better then a real weapon. What Country and city do you live in. I can check if they have an SCA practice. SCA is mostly free.
If I were the one with the shield and sword, I'd shield bash one of his hands away and swiftly jab his stomach. It'd be a basic maneuver but It'd get the job done swiftly and easily. VERY nice fight, by the way.
Thanks. You will notice how light on his feet the two-sword man is and how he maintains distance as I close in. He is very good at not getting his swords tangled up in my shield.
Thanks for the info, very interesting indeed! You certainly seem to know what you're doing. It would seem that you outclassed your opponent in this bout. Would you say this is because of different skill levels or because the sword+shield style is superior?
I'm quite intriqued because Hollywood always seems to glamorize the two sword style, but if this fight is any indication it seems the opposite is true.
Oops I haven't seen this for a while and it was not quite as one sided as I remember it, but I'm still curious if you think one style is better than the other?
Sword and shield is the best place to start for most people. It minimizes the available target areas on your body and it allows you to concentrate on developing one arm at a time. The learning process is less painful. Fighting two-sword is a far more difficult to learn but once you can coordinate offense and defense with the two-weapons you effective have twice the offense and twice the defense. So I think two-sword is superior. I won't know for sure until I commit myself to learning it.
It takes a minimum of 4 years of weekly training to become competent with any fighting form. Two-sword falls short is on a real battlefield with volleys of arrows falling from the sky. Shields and their straps however are known to break in battle. It may not have been easy to find a replacement shield but you would have been able to find a second sword laying on the ground from fallen men. Two-sword would have been a good backup form.
Hi Namorr. Glade you liked the fight. Sword-arms are hard to hit if the shieldman does his job right. The view of observers is different then the one that the two fighters actually have as they look across from each other. Look at .44 and .58 sec into the fight. You will notice that the arm at rest is just behind the shield. The shieldman will try and maintain that relative position to his opponent as he moves around.
When the shieldman attacks, he he does so for a 2 or 3 combinations and then resets to his guard. The arm is exposed for too short of time and is not in one place too long, to be easily targeted. Not that it can't be done, but the head is a much better target. Visibility must be maintained so that means that the head is always open somewhere to some shot. The upper legs are then next most likely target as the shield comes up to block the head.
Correct. When you have no shield your main defense is distance. Since 80% of the two-weapon-man's body is open at anytime, he must minimize his risk by keeping out of range. The shieldman on the other hand can close in more safely and throw shots from behind his shield.
his guard is also fairly open, a hit straight down between those sticks to the head that's leaning forward would be an easy hit. preemptive cross blocks with the non-atacking hand is a good practice to develop (im still working on that myself).
Grim is a great example of this technique, as seen in my video titled "Florantine fighting at Cudgel war tournament 2011"
sijar1 6 months ago
the guy with two swords has a strange stance, he's leaning forward too much, this puts him a bit off balance, and more strain on the back, moves his head much closer to the oponent without substantially increasing his range, and angles his shots more downwards making high shots harder. he's also leaping up into the air on his attak in a strange way. im sure more experianced SCA people can give him good advice
sijar1 6 months ago
It's called dual-wield.
vyrewatch12321 9 months ago
@vyrewatch12321 You can call it whatever you want... and its fine by me.... but we are talking in modern English so it is not going to historically correct either way. The Romans called it Di-Macheara... which they got from the Greek "Di" meaning "two" and "macheara" which means "large blade". Di-Grassi called it "case", because the swords were usually carried in case rather then on the body. Every culture that every used a sword would have had its own name for the form.
tsafa1 9 months ago 3
speed, agility, and endurence if your skilled. i dont have to deceive my oppoinent to win, i just have to be more quick and more agile with my movements and attacks. The endurence card is played when one fighter looses the concentration and can no longer fight to his or her ability.
Blightrecords 10 months ago
@Blightrecords Speed, agility, endurance, strength are all physical qualities that effect how well you can use your skill. Developing Skill is a matter of training. Deception though is a quality that can catapult a fighter several levels higher. Some of the best fighters I have encountered are in their 50's and not longer have speed, agility, endurance and strength... they still win fights because they fight smarter with deception. A person can not stop aging... they can still fight better.
tsafa1 10 months ago
Ever watch highlander?
anphelps27 1 year ago
@anphelps27 The movie or the TV series? They mostly use two-handed swords. The swordplay you see in Theater and the Movies is refereed to as "Stage Fighting". Its main purpose is to entertain. The movements are done is such a manor that they can be easily seen by the audience. Competitive fighting is the opposite. The movements are done in such way so they are seen as little as possible. Deception and misdirection is everything in swordfighting.
tsafa1 1 year ago 5
@tsafa1 I was just kidding man. TV and movies never get anything right. If you are a sword fighter, you prolly laugh at the way they fight on the screen. Sword fighting is hard as hell and give big respect to anyone that can do it. I like the two handed swords the best.
anphelps27 1 year ago
Bad quality...but two swords is best in my opinion i think choreography could be better but meh =]
guyi2545 1 year ago
@guyi2545 ummm... its not choreographed... its real combat. We hit at full speed and power. The fighting is actually the farthest thing from choreography as we intentionally try to mislead the other person with fakes and misdirections.
tsafa1 1 year ago
@tsafa1 Oooh so im guessing that's full weight armour then and weapons? I would rather have wear some tough leather and have the two swords ^_^ but I probably played too many games in my childhood.
guyi2545 1 year ago
@guyi2545 The helmets were wear weigh about 9 lbs in order to be able to safely absorb the impact of the blows. The armor we wear on the body is between 15 and 30 lbs. The swords weigh about 3 lbs and the shield weighs about 8 lbs. With the exception of the helmet, this realistic weight for the fighting armor of a medieval foot soldier. A medieval nasal helm weighed about 2 lbs.
tsafa1 1 year ago
@tsafa1 Sounds like hard work 15 minute fight = good nights sleep afterwards
guyi2545 1 year ago
@guyi2545 Practice usually lasts about two hours. In that time I will usually fight 5 or 6 fights. Its a good workout.
tsafa1 1 year ago
@tsafa1 Would probably be fun but also expensive..That and I loose interest in things rapidly (I have ADHD)
guyi2545 1 year ago
@guyi2545 Beginner armor usually costs $500 to $700. It take about two years of weekly practice just to get competent. It takes about 10 years to really get good. This is a martial art.
tsafa1 1 year ago
@tsafa1 I have a shield... now i just need to get two years older (to fight because you need to be 18),armor, and a sword.
bookercreator 10 months ago
@bookercreator You can fight SCA heavy combat/combat archery at age 16 with parental consent.
DaRkCaBoOdLe137 9 months ago
sword and shield are better
luce504 1 year ago
i'd rather like to see a two handed sword vs. sword and shield
bums77 1 year ago
I can't tell what's going on :(
MCulpa 1 year ago
@MCulpa Check out some of more recent videos taken with a better camera. You may be able to see more.
tsafa1 1 year ago
@MCulpa Take a look at some of the more recent fighting videos I put up. The video quality is better.
tsafa1 1 year ago
I believe it's called dual-wielded swords when it comes down to wield two identical or non-identical ''swords''. Not two-swords. I almost was mistaken that it was two-handed sword versus shield and sword :/. But anyway Iiked this fight. Good job :)!
Khornedevotee 1 year ago
@Khornedevotee Its called different things in places. In my area its called two-sword. The Romans called it Dimachaerus. Thanks for watching.
tsafa1 1 year ago
@tsafa1: Thank you very much for making those facts clear m8 :D. I see. Well, almost(if not all) things are called different things but nonetheless they mean the same thing ofc. Alittle history now and then can't harm.
Khornedevotee 1 year ago
@tsafa1 i call it skill, which this has a lot off
formerfreak 1 year ago
@formerfreak Thanks :)
tsafa1 1 year ago
love how that dual swords guy is trying for an opening on the other guys sword side and not doing any low strikes either
waterswind 1 year ago
This seems like it's a serious hazard to the nice finish on that wood floor.
WickedUnrelentingVLN 1 year ago
@WickedUnrelentingVLN The floor is "collateral damage" :)
tsafa1 1 year ago
Flo guy needs to put the pressure on; looks like S&B guy is in his head. Flo should be better at closer range than sword'n'board, especially in the SCA, where real bashing and edging aren't allowed. Pour on the shots; no more of this two-shot combo, then see what happens nonsense. Ex: Cross to the brow, expect a block, shift right while he's partially blinded, left hand shot to this sword, pull it back for a strong onside block, right hand deep wrap.
technococcus 1 year ago
Fury warr vs Prot warr. Too bad that Fury warr didn't spec Titan's Grip! :P
Agent1W 1 year ago
@Agent1W hahahahahahaha
Gratch2222 1 year ago
@Agent1W Rofl nice WoW reference :P
muahahaha55 1 year ago
@Agent1W
Poor fury warriors don't stand a chance against Shield Block followed up several Revenges and hearty Shield Slams!
knotwrite 1 year ago
@knotwrite *sigh* well, what can you do? He'll probably try to get a ret pally or DK to help him lol.
Agent1W 1 year ago
I hate SCA, or atleast my local group. They allow shield-barges but disallow kicks, knee attacks, shoulder barges or punches of any kind. I went there hoping to give fair representation of Japanese battlefield swordsmanship only to find a bunch of pricks who tweaked the rules to make most asian martial arts useless.
Banned weapons include: ANY Okinawan weaponry (yes, all of it) even if within safety regulations and long weapons.
Using a kote (heavy forearm armour) to guard was also illegal -.-
ihaterobbie123 2 years ago
The reason we don't allow grappling, pushing, kicking... etc is because they don't want to allow an advantage to a larger person. In the SCA we all fight as equals in one pool. That includes men and women. So it has to be skill based fighting. Many of us, including myself, also play outside the SCA with less restrictive rules. But you have to make the connections first and get people to trust that you won't sue them if you are accidentally hurt. Then they will play with you on the side.
tsafa1 2 years ago
You can use rig some of the Okinawan Weapons so they work in the SCA. The Kama (sickel) is basically two short axes which are allowed. The Sai is two short swords or daggers. They do not allow flail weapons, but people do experiment at non-official practices. The main thing is that no part of the weapon be able to penetrate the helmet openings. For flail weapons the risk is the rope getting under the gorget. I see no problem with the Tonfa as long as it is rattan and thrusting tip is padded.
tsafa1 2 years ago
For Kote, you can rig a small shield/buckler. I have seen people use it. The rules are a little different from area to area but there are a lot of practices to pick from around most major US cities.
tsafa1 2 years ago
In combat the whole torso is a target. I would have baited him high, and cut his leg below the shield. Then goe High to strike his dome. I think the shield is more advantagous, but he never uses offensively.
schaelakhan 2 years ago
The two-sword guy does a lot of baiting and attacking to the opposite side... both high-low and left-right. There is a lot of possibilities with using the shield offensively. The most effective ones against two-sword being presses and swipes. However, this particular two-swordman is very good. If I open my shield up at all, he will hit me before I blink. The safest way I found to kill him is with a thrust what has been set up with a cut.
tsafa1 2 years ago
Getting close enough to use the shield offensively puts me in a position where it is harder to thrust from different angles. It gives him more of an advantage, because he can move to my shield-side and use my own shield to protect himself. He also has more angles on me with once he gets close on my shield side. I don't want him that close to me. I really want to fight him at a medium range and the is beyond the reach of any offensive use with the shield.
tsafa1 2 years ago
the biggest flaw ive seen when fighting sword and shield single sword etc etc is grappling, i have an easy time taking down my opponents, especialy in full armor and just grinding them out on the ground. it is totaly ignored in sca and those types of individual combat.
ozfuji 2 years ago
Have you seen my TuChux grappling video? That tournament allow grappling and was a lot of fun. The problem with grappling is that when both people know how to grapple it more often results in a stalemate. This is not efficient if you want to kill the other guy and move on to the next fight. It also expends more energy which is very costly even if you win. In a battle, grappling can also result in being killed by a third person since your out of formation and unarmored areas are more exposed.
tsafa1 2 years ago
You don't even have to take them to the ground. Just knowing takedowns and throws could help you score blows on a prone opponent.
Also, secondary strikes such as knees (to the groin!) and headbutts.
theshninja 2 years ago
The florintine style of fighting is effective but only as good as the fighter who is practiced in it.
Knightsquire74 2 years ago
Very true... and that applies to any weapons. I have heard people complain that their own shield gets in their way. That is because they don't know how to attack around it. Two-weapon forms are very advanced and require much more training to get good at them... but when you get good... your GOOD.
tsafa1 2 years ago
It's impractical in medieval Europe for a knight to charge into battle with two swords in each hand. A knight would totally use a shield for extra protection rather than using his less dominate hand to attack.
Dawn59er 2 years ago
totally
IBroughtUTheHorizon7 2 years ago
Some people are equally competent with both hands. I am not the Two Swordman in the video, but not only can I fight with either hand, but I can write with either hand Furthermore, neither of my eyes is dominate so I can shoot arrows with either hand just as competently.
tsafa1 2 years ago
Am i the only one who has come to the conclussion that tower shield and flail is the way to go? Flail is very hard to block and can go past shields. Its weakness is the weak blocking ability, which is why you need a shield that can also to be used to block low attacks.
Anyway i would chose shield over second sword anyday. Since two swords is weak against spear and archers too.
Darinor 2 years ago
Flails are fun to fight with and against. They generate a lot of power. The key to blocking a flail is to use the flat of the shield. Against a sword you generally only use the corners and edges. To use the flat against another sword is over-blocking. The flail is usually dead once it hits the flat of the shield so using the flat is not an overcommitment because the flail can not repost as easy as a sword. It has to be wound back up.
tsafa1 2 years ago
An experienced flail-man can do some interesting things with the handle of the fail once the head is dead. Griping it just under the chain and having a spike at the bottom of the handle can add some more thrusting options.
tsafa1 2 years ago
the one with dual blades most go more in the attack... he never attacks in defence he is weaker...
PuddingblendeR 2 years ago
Comment removed
Dawn59er 2 years ago
The reason why Roman Gladiators fought with a sword in each hand was merely for amusement. Of course the plebs of the time are going to be amazed with such a spectacle.
Dawn59er 2 years ago
True, which is why I stated that he should be using a shield more than a sword. : /
Dawn59er 2 years ago
I recently learned that there were Gladiators in Rome that fought with two-swords. They were called "Dimachaerus" The word in Greek means Two Swords. "Di" meaning Two and "Mechaera" meaning War-sword. Machi is the Greek root for war.
tsafa1 2 years ago
...with sneakers on? haha!
MrDuke32 2 years ago
i stated that they were wearing the full armour, they were maybe heading for a battle or something, but suppose they weren't informed yet about their enemy's fighting style or how to fight the enemy more efficiently. and again i dont think the code of the bushido would allow the samurai to kill a knight without a fight, maybe he would kill a less worthy opponent like a regular soldier, or maybe he would shoot the knight in the battlefield.
Supertomiman 2 years ago
i dont think that the code of the bushido would let the samurai run away.
Supertomiman 2 years ago
sorry, its not fredschwert, its halbschwert.
Supertomiman 2 years ago
5. assuming that both of the traveling warriors were actually wearing their full armours, they would only be carrying a sword and maybe a bow and some arrows, to travel lightweight.
Supertomiman 2 years ago
3. in this scenario both warriors are away from everything. they randomly meet, the knight kills the samurai(probably). nobody else sees it so other samurai don't know how to fight a knight if they ever encouner one, assuming they are even aware of the existance of the europeans (during the middle ages).
4. european armour was sword proof, that is why fredschwert was developed. arrows could only penetrate them at a range of about 10ft, maybe less or maybe more.
Supertomiman 2 years ago
1. by neutral scenario I meant a spontaneous encounter of traveling warriors.
2. the samurai didn't carry that!!! wtf!!!! those were weapons used by low ranked soldiers, not necessarily as well trained as the samurai.
Supertomiman 2 years ago
btw
stop saying things about the european armour's weak spots. compared to the o-yoroi they are minimum
Supertomiman 2 years ago
Knights and Samurai would have been almost equally matched. The knight would have an advantage in two areas that are a mater of fact. The skeletal remains of knights show that they were bigger by about 4 inches. That translates into more mass and more strength. Second, Samurai did not use nor fight against shields on a regular basis. This unfamiliarity with this proven weapon from would be costly to them.
tsafa1 2 years ago
to actually give you another reason a knight would win is because a Samurai didnt use stabs they would slash the the Armour on a knight covered all areas that the Samurai usualy goes for. But i grew up in the SCA and have studied alot
TheMemesiss 2 years ago
Just wanted to briefly address the whole knight vs. samurai thing. Good luck accurately predicting a fight like that. Far too many variables to factor in. Knight's myth: slow, plodding, reliant on brute strength. NOT true. Samurai myth: All deadly sword masters, armed with the mighty katana, able to slice through anything. NOT true. Knights were agile, skilled warriors. Few samurai were sword masters, their main weapons were the yari and yumi. I would think the first mistake would decide it.
Davloran 2 years ago
it usually does
Anodai 2 years ago
there is one unarmed martial art called kampfringen.
look for it on wikipedia.
Supertomiman 2 years ago
1. the scenario is not in japan, its in a neutal place.
2. tetsubo is a mace or a club not a freaking war hammer!!!! if you google war hammer you'll get some pretty good examples, in the images section that is.
3. in the neutral scenario it would take long enough for another samurai to come, this would give the knight time to prepare or call reinforcements.
Supertomiman 2 years ago
1. would a samurai be carrying all his weaoins all the time? I dont think so!
2. how much time would he have to adapt before he was killed by the european knight? Not much!!!
3. European armours were arrow proof at any distance farther than about 10ft.
4. samurai didnt have warhammers, they didnt like them or need them so they simply didnt develop anything similar. chinese did have warhammers.
Supertomiman 2 years ago
Agreed.
I mean, there ARE weakspots in the armor.
The Samurai is trained to hit at the best spots.
Samurai are usually Technique while Knights in Armor are usually swing and wish.
KhmerIshMe 2 years ago
Spikey Thing on a pole?
A mace or a Morning star?
lol.
KhmerIshMe 2 years ago
O.o?
Warhammer isn't asian, its European.
OR, OR...
Shoot him with a musket.
KhmerIshMe 2 years ago
i have always prefered not to REALLY use double swords in this kinda stuff, but to have one sword more as protection, and the other to be one-sided, like a rapier(i know this makes you a lot more predictable, but it also seems to make you faster and more precise...if i cant have tow swords, i dont usualy get a shield either...dont want anything gettting in the way of my target...
Sacurason1 2 years ago
isn't using 2 weapons impractical?
anon4234 2 years ago
No, its just takes more training. The basic idea is that one is on offense and the other is on defense. Which does what, can change during the course of the fight to throw off your opponent. Historically, it would be a practical skill to develop because shields often break in the initial clash. You can always pick up a second sword off the ground to at least block with.
tsafa1 2 years ago
I highly doubt that. But perhaps it was used to confuse more than to deal (or block) damage. Plus, if Knights of the time were experiencing problems with shields breaking in the initial crash, they could work on them to improve them with reinforcement bands and what not after the battle. And well, if your shield broke that soon then I suppose it wasn't very good in the first place.
Dawn59er 2 years ago
In any case De Gresse did include two sword in his manual written in 1570. In the original Italian he does not specify rapiers, he says "swords". He also does not say he invented the concept of fighting with two swords. It should be assumed it was around long before him.
tsafa1 2 years ago
Why are half the videos on YouTube taken with crappy cell phone cameras?
Good fight, by the way.
CountArtha 3 years ago
I bought a better camera and posted some other two-sword fights.
tsafa1 2 years ago
Oh, sticks... sorry, thought you said swords.
szparker 3 years ago
We are all assumed to be in mail with open face helms regardless of what we are actually wearing. The sticks spread the impact of the force out. It allows us to use full power and speed. If we where using blunt swords, we would be breaking bones. If you search my videos for "duel" you can seem me sparring with blunt swords in a few videos. It should help you judge how well the skill from these sticks transfers to steel.
tsafa1 3 years ago
Ah really? Hmmm...
What sort of padding are you using on the inside of the helms? I see quite a lot of side-of-the-head shots.
Our helms are well padded on top of course, (Leather suspension usually), but we have little on the sides.
Steel! Lol! Man, I would NEVER fight as SCA guy with steel... Lol! Friggin LETHAL! Hahahahahaha!
szparker 3 years ago
A big chunk of the protection is the shear mass of the helmet. They are typically between 14 and 12 gage in thickness. Mine weighs 7 lbs. Some weigh close to 10 lbs. Inside they are required to have 1/2 inch of padding. In my case I have 1/4 inch and I wear a padded arming cap to make up the difference. The cap soaks up the sweat and provides the extra cushion.
tsafa1 3 years ago
Meh.
Armor MUST be a bitch.
LOL
Give me a Katana,
and theres a possiblity i will beat you.. =)
KhmerIshMe 3 years ago
Absolutely. Go to SCA[dot]org and find a practice near you. You may be able to borrow armor and weapons there. All good fun.
tsafa1 3 years ago
LOL!!! Not really. In reality, a knight fully armored in plate could never be killed by a samurai. Swords don't cut through good plate armor, period. That's why European soldiers adopted polearms, poleaxes, maces, and warhammers to try to bludgeon enemies or pierce the weak points at the joints of the armor. A katana isn't cutting through plate armor no matter how sharp.
AnubisCidolfas 2 years ago
Eh?
Katana is effective with technique. Not Brute Strength as European Soldiers use.
The Japanese Katana will be able to kill a full armored plate knight because it will find a weakness. Each armor always has a weakness.
KhmerIshMe 2 years ago
Oh wow lol. Brute strength he says. There is grace, skill, and technique in western fencing, but we don't know nearly as much about it as kendo because the methodology has been lost to history, so people say it's all brainless brute strength. Ridiculous. Also, plate armour was created specifically to stop cutting weapons. Katanas are not cutting straight through steel plates. No way. A guy in full plate armor with a mail shirt beneath will beat a samurai 9 times out of 10. Steel plates > swords
AnubisCidolfas 2 years ago
Eh?
Knights most of the time use Great Swords.. Or Zweihanders... You get what I mean. You can't fence with those. Fencing uses stabs, not swings.
KhmerIshMe 2 years ago
Knights used various weapons across history in accordance with situation in which they found themselves and the armor that they needed to fight against. For much of European history, knights used arming swords and longswords, both of which are actually better at thrusting than cutting. Heavy swords were never popular, and certainly weren't used for dueling. The typical longsword weighed 2 to 4 pounds, about the same as a katana. They are quite suitable for fencing.
AnubisCidolfas 2 years ago
Okay. Tell you the truth, I don't think a Knight will be able to defeat a samurai.
Nor will a Samurai be able to defeat a knight.
We don't know =/
The best knights and samurais are dead.
They don't exist anymore.
KhmerIshMe 2 years ago
It depends a lot on the situation, but If you're well trained, I think 2 swords would be better since you would have a deadly weapon in each hand, but that way it's much harder to defend yourself so it requires a lot of training.
blasty137 3 years ago 2
Two-Sword guy gets kinda tooled by the sword and board guy. To use two-sword properly you gotta be agile and mobile, not to mention aggressive.
ookamiwarrior 3 years ago
GOOD
Leeseuongwoo 3 years ago
lol i did this one time i duel wielded to 2 two handed swords vary hard to control
maxwarrior808 3 years ago
It takes at least a year of practice to gain good control, if you have no prior training. Fighting effectively and winning takes many more years.
tsafa1 3 years ago
i have practiced for a few years on my own with a wide variety of swords and i found the best is a middle length sword such as a long sword or a short sword and shield has many advantages but when i tried two swords the sword in my left and was slow weak and inaccurate this would lessen with practice obviously but i can't see it being of viable use
bassistoftheyear 3 years ago
If you are predominantly right handed, what normally happens when you try two-sword for the first time is that right-sword does all the attacking and the left-sword works like a shield. The way to train the left hand is to fight lefty with sword&shield for about two years once a week. Fighting single-sword (lefty) is also good. Then after two years you can start training two-sword. Initially you need to train the left hand in isolation.
tsafa1 3 years ago
Would it also help to have a dagger in the left hand? I've heard of using a dagger and a longsword as a fighting style.
000majorwinters000 3 years ago
If you look through my other videos you will find one with dagger and sword fighting. It can be a very effective two-weapon form if you like to fight in close.
tsafa1 3 years ago
Will do, thanks. (;
000majorwinters000 3 years ago
i couldn't find an sca near me :(
Supertomiman 3 years ago
Your profile says you live in Costa Rica. I looked for you. I am sorry I could not find anything either.
tsafa1 3 years ago
I was in San Jose a few years ago. If I come back I will let you know and we can meet.
tsafa1 3 years ago
lmao i started out watching wow vids and then i ended up here....awsome video though
gotboobiemilk 3 years ago
I've always wondered about this.
While it seems to me that wielding two swords is cool in a 'video game/fantasy' type way, that it would be largely impracticable against a sword/shield or when in engaging large battles.
Is the two sword/weapon style viable?
LordPaul256 3 years ago
It seems to be popular in chinese martial arts. Whether that means it's viable or not I don't know, but they got popular somehow...
You see it a lot in later European eras. I think it depends on what you're fighting against. If your assailant is wearing armor and using a shield, maybe not so affective.
spinhook888 3 years ago
Di Grasse covered two-sword among his other forms. He does not imply that he invented two-sword, he is just passing it along with some tips.
tsafa1 3 years ago
I would say that largely depends on the situation. Also, realistically, it's not easy to carry two swords of the same length on you at once. The concept of carrying them on your back is far-fetched and nearly impossible to do with a sword of any favorable length. In the midst of a large battle, it depends on who's fighting. The shield is dependable both up close and of course, against enemy projectiles. With two swords you're very vulnerable to projectiles, unless you're heavily armored.
000majorwinters000 3 years ago
i think the best equipment a mediaval soldier can use is a large spiked tower shield and a shortsword..
gigibagigi 3 years ago
Spiked? Please explain. Were such shields ever used? I think a center-spike would serve as a place to hook a shield. Did you mean a Hungarian style shield with an edge spike? I am trying to get more info on those.
tsafa1 3 years ago
I've never heard of spiked shields, but it atleast sounds lagitement. They could have had them. They had spikes at the end of lonsword pommels and at the butt of spears and helmets. No reason they didn't put them on a shield.
rabidmonkeyarmy 3 years ago
Still,,,you have to get really close to use it. Plus heavy calvary will destroy you. Small spikes wont protect you from billions of pounds of horse and metal charging at you.
rabidmonkeyarmy 3 years ago
True that heavy Calvary was the preferred weapon. It was the airpower of if its day. Calvery can not however flush out a castle or forest. You needed boots on the ground back then too.
tsafa1 3 years ago
again, im not saying two handed swords are invencible, but it was more useful on the battlefield than it is in SCA and ARMA, because the don't count the fact it could more effectively penetrate armour than a one handed sword. Now maybe a dagger and sword would be effective. Thats just a thought I've heard from somebody else. less range but more practical/more armour penetration.
rabidmonkeyarmy 3 years ago
different weapons are more effective vs different armour..but a short sword and sheild...i wouldn't find good in any fight since you'd have to be closer to whoever your fighting do to the shortness of your weapon...
Unkown555 3 years ago
I have a number of videos where I am fighting polearm. Take a look at those. Weapons have their optimal ranges, if you can force a person to fight outside that range, you gain an advantage. It is distance management. I have video again polearms where I succeed and others where I don't. So skill is the big factor. The weapon is just a tool and a matter of knowing how to use it the right way.
tsafa1 3 years ago
Using a second sword makes no sense if you can have a shield in the other hand. This is also why in history no one ever used two-weapon techniques in real combat (except duells in the rennaissance and a few(!) japanese guys)
Vitadoc01 3 years ago
Using two-sword or even two-handed weapons does not make sense when there are arrows in the air. Shields are the better battlefield choice but shields to break, especially straps. People tend to be very particular in what shield type they use and how they strap it. It may be hard to replace a shield in the middle of a battle. Swords however tend to be lying all over the place as the dead drop them and are a lot easier to pick up and just go. Two-sword is a good backup form.
tsafa1 3 years ago
except, the tactic of the medievil ages were more based off heavy cavalry. Which is where two handed swords and pikes are effective. two handed swords were used to attack the enemy pikemen rather than shield men. The heavy cavalry did that. and pike men beat the cavalry. Thus why the two handed sword was used to fight the pikemen. Also a small onehanded sword can get through armour as effectively. But two swords are useless.
rabidmonkeyarmy 3 years ago
I think of two-sword more as step up from sword and buckler. You can defend with either sword while the other attacks. You can change which side is doing the attacking and which is doing the defending.
It is just as tough to stop arrows, calvary, or polearms with a buckler. Neither is ideal for battle. They are more suitable as personal defense. You would not go to the tavern with a full-size shield. Between sword/buckler or two-sword, I would prefer two-sword.
tsafa1 3 years ago
but two handed sword beats sword and buckler if two handed sword guy is good
rabidmonkeyarmy 3 years ago
in actuality a 2H sword could break a shield or cause it to crack if u swing hard enough, but it will take alot of swinging. the good thing about having a buckler is that after u block with it, u can charge in with a stabbing weapon such as a rapier-like dagger to penetrate their chain mail, or even better hav an ax and cut off their hand 2 one handed weapons is cool cuz u hav more speed on sum1 with a shield and u also hav mroe mobility, which is y alot of the wariors tht usd 2sords wore chain
nejikid 3 years ago
Trying to break a shield is a huge overcommitment. Trying to be a musclehead usually gets a person killed. Trust me I have tried, I have some some videos posted here lifting some pretty heavy weight. This is not a very efficient approach to fighting. It is better to develop the skill to go around the shield or get it move out of your way with misdirections. Hitting shield hard may or may not break it, if it does not, you just wasted a move and that is costly.
tsafa1 3 years ago
Cool fight, I'm not gonna watch the whole video but i'd say sword and sheild wins! xD
ColtConvict 3 years ago
As far as kicking someone wearing mail is concerned, it seems to be it would be pretty effective if the aim was to knock them off balance, rather than cause them pain. Such as kicking their foot out from under them, or something like that.
OneEyedJack1970 3 years ago
Right. But a kick to the knee will break it regardless. The mail only helps.
rabidmonkeyarmy 3 years ago
I'll never understand why people REFUSE to use a decent camera when filming action that requires you to see CLEARLY.
JeffDeBiase 3 years ago
The lighting conditions are a big factor. The same camera looks better with more light.
tsafa1 3 years ago
I bought a better camcorder and posted some new vids. I hope you're happy now :)
tsafa1 3 years ago
Hey good job on the new camera \m/
JeffDeBiase 3 years ago
Cleary this guy isn't well versed in anti-shield combat. He should be hooking the sheild with the pommel/handguard of the coresponding sword and yank back, floowing through with a stab with the hooking sword (or a slash if using the pommel to hook) meanwhile using the other sword to keep the opposing blade in check. In actuality, if I were striped of a sheild I would grab the nearest lightest axe, which are far better for shield hooking allowing for a sword stab in the torso
cheezeofages 3 years ago
The two-sword guy is very experienced against shields and has fought with them too. There is a counter to every strike, and a counter to the counter without end. It is often a question of who makes a mistake first. The two-sword's vulnerability is that he is always open somewhere to attack. His advantage is that he can threaten from two different directions at once. There are costs and benefits to every weapon form.
tsafa1 3 years ago
I thought Kicking wasnt allowed on the SCA combat? meh oh well, The guy doing Florentine is pretty decent but his stance leaves a winde window of attack on the other hand you should work on your stance as well try to swing your sword straight forwards instead of going back in order to swing. It takes time to find a good stance do so but it pays off tenfold. other than that pretty damn good practice.
OmegaGlow 3 years ago
Kicking is not allowed. I don't think it would very effective against against the mail we are assumed to all be in.
tsafa1 3 years ago
This could have been a good and interesting clip. But unfortunately the quality is so poor that it's hard to see what they're actually doing.
Persekarva 3 years ago
Dual wielder has the wrong stance unless he's left handed?
Deadzo 3 years ago
Hi, I'm the shieldman. There are many ways to fight two-sword. The main idea is that one sword is on defense while the other is on offense. They should be constantly switching rolls to keep the opponent off guard. With a good two-swordman I should not be able to pickup if they are a natural right or lefty.
tsafa1 3 years ago
Just seems like I would use the off hand forward as a defensive weapon, right hand back as offensive.
Doesn't really matter since all of this is guesswork, there's no one living to teach it, and any surviving manuals are open to wild interpretation.
With all due respect, in a real war battle, fancy moves would get you killed; swinging and thrusting savagely might keep you alive.
I still say if you can swing a stick, you can fight with a sword.
Deadzo 3 years ago
I don't think two-sword is a good choice for a battlefield and the two-sword man here usually uses another weapon-form in melee. Historically two-sword would have been practical if your shield or shield-strap broke. Its hard to find a shield that is strapped right for you laying around but you can always find another sword laying around on a battlefield.
You should check out my videos where I am fighting with steel blunts. Makes no difference to me. If you can use one, you can use the other.
tsafa1 3 years ago
Yeah that's kind of what I would think I'd do naturally, use the off weapon in the place of a shield. I don't have much experience like you guys do, you look pretty skilled. I'm just looking at it as a joe-smoe peasant would; some things just feel right though. Anyone with training is always going to have an edge, but an untrained goofball might get a couple lucky shots in, you never know.
Wish I could participate in this!
Deadzo 3 years ago
You can participate it this. Its open to everyone. The training is free. There is loaner gear sometimes available until you get your own. Go to SCA[dot]org to find a practice in your area. You can go watch and talk to people.
tsafa1 3 years ago
Hmm the guy dual weilding is pretty good but I think he would be a lot better if he were faster and more agile. Also if he could swing his swords a little faster. The sheild bashing was really getting him.
Beghin99 3 years ago
Nice sparring!
If you like 2 stick and get the chance, you should watch Duke Dag from Midrealm fight sometime. He is excellent with it.
wcanne 3 years ago
I searched and watched some videos of Duke Dag. It was very enjoyable. Thank you.
tsafa1 3 years ago
I never knew dual-wielding was actually useable, I just assumed it was something fancy videogames used because it looked awesome. Its a shame it's illegal in my country to own a sword, bow or any other weapon until you're 18, otherwise I would've signed up for lessons.
SarethNatael 3 years ago 3
I own about 10 real swords, but I hardly use them. You can't really learn with a real weapon and you can't sparr with them. You will learn with a wooden waster or a steel blunt. You then then apply those techniques to real weapons. So the leasons will serve you better then a real weapon. What Country and city do you live in. I can check if they have an SCA practice. SCA is mostly free.
tsafa1 3 years ago
they do exist, however most formal styles use 2 smaller weapons, or a regular one and a small one for blocking.
pyr666 3 years ago
oh yeah two short swords work very nicely together...it looks kinda like kali/stick fighting.
Limejello10512 3 years ago
I dual wield 36inch katana.
HAve since I was little, it gets pretty rough against well ranged weapons.
Bo Staff, Spears, etc.
Norkam82 3 years ago
If I were the one with the shield and sword, I'd shield bash one of his hands away and swiftly jab his stomach. It'd be a basic maneuver but It'd get the job done swiftly and easily. VERY nice fight, by the way.
AkutsoKurenai 3 years ago
Thanks. You will notice how light on his feet the two-sword man is and how he maintains distance as I close in. He is very good at not getting his swords tangled up in my shield.
tsafa1 3 years ago
Hey tsafa1,
Thanks for the info, very interesting indeed! You certainly seem to know what you're doing. It would seem that you outclassed your opponent in this bout. Would you say this is because of different skill levels or because the sword+shield style is superior?
I'm quite intriqued because Hollywood always seems to glamorize the two sword style, but if this fight is any indication it seems the opposite is true.
gregvs3 3 years ago
Oops I haven't seen this for a while and it was not quite as one sided as I remember it, but I'm still curious if you think one style is better than the other?
gregvs3 3 years ago
Sword and shield is the best place to start for most people. It minimizes the available target areas on your body and it allows you to concentrate on developing one arm at a time. The learning process is less painful. Fighting two-sword is a far more difficult to learn but once you can coordinate offense and defense with the two-weapons you effective have twice the offense and twice the defense. So I think two-sword is superior. I won't know for sure until I commit myself to learning it.
tsafa1 3 years ago
It takes a minimum of 4 years of weekly training to become competent with any fighting form. Two-sword falls short is on a real battlefield with volleys of arrows falling from the sky. Shields and their straps however are known to break in battle. It may not have been easy to find a replacement shield but you would have been able to find a second sword laying on the ground from fallen men. Two-sword would have been a good backup form.
tsafa1 3 years ago
Why the swordman didnt attack shieldmans sword arm more? Shielman kept it quite often exposed during his attacks.
Nice fight amyway, must have been pretty exhausting
Namorr11 3 years ago
Hi Namorr. Glade you liked the fight. Sword-arms are hard to hit if the shieldman does his job right. The view of observers is different then the one that the two fighters actually have as they look across from each other. Look at .44 and .58 sec into the fight. You will notice that the arm at rest is just behind the shield. The shieldman will try and maintain that relative position to his opponent as he moves around.
tsafa1 3 years ago
When the shieldman attacks, he he does so for a 2 or 3 combinations and then resets to his guard. The arm is exposed for too short of time and is not in one place too long, to be easily targeted. Not that it can't be done, but the head is a much better target. Visibility must be maintained so that means that the head is always open somewhere to some shot. The upper legs are then next most likely target as the shield comes up to block the head.
tsafa1 3 years ago
the two handed sword keeps running back so far
DomDomDom1nation 3 years ago
Correct. When you have no shield your main defense is distance. Since 80% of the two-weapon-man's body is open at anytime, he must minimize his risk by keeping out of range. The shieldman on the other hand can close in more safely and throw shots from behind his shield.
tsafa1 3 years ago