Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJBEDxh0RQw
It was a relatively small myth that vikings used two swords. It was a death-wish to use something else than shield and an axe or sword on battlefield against the english native archers.
Next youre asking for horned viking helmets, because "They used them" lol.
Educate yourself? That is some excellent advice. Rather than relying upon some snarky, opinionated Brit, why not go to the sagas themselves? Surely history is more educational than YouTube videos?
"Droplaugarsona saga, ch. 15
Grímur hafði tvö sverð því að Gaus kunni að deyfa eggjar. Grímur vó jafnt báðum höndum. Hann brá upp sverði með vinstri hendi en hjó með hinni hægri til Gauss og af fótinn fyrir ofan kné.
Grímur had two swords, because Gaus knew how to blunt sword-edges. Grímur fought equally well with both hands. He raised one sword with his left hand and struck with the right at Gaus, taking off one of his legs above the knee.", http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/manufacturing/text/the_shape_of_viking_combat.htm
Additionally, there are several other examples of two-weapon fighting techniques from various cultures from Europe to the Far East.
It is clearly not an issue of whether it is possible or whether it was done. People would do whatever they could to get any kind of an advantage in battle (imagined or otherwise).
Since you like YouTube videos so much, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mw3ARKAtBhs
This one sums it up rather well, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rewvqm4pdw
So it seems rather clear that folks with half a clue understand that there are both historical accounts, and real world precedence that clearly shows that some warriors were known to wield two weapons. Whether that turned out to be a good strategy for the average fighter is another story altogether.
Which brings us back to the point of this thread...
I actually visited museums dedicated to northern cultures. Even asked about the horned helmets, and fighting tactics from a professor dedicated to this culture, more closely to the armies of northern cultures and their tactics.
Yes, berserkers were real, but they were rare, and didnt last long usually. It was despised as a tactic due to the fact and lands of britain being BAD for such tactics.
Worked better in the danish and northern areas, but the plains and open forests of british isles made little to no sense use something else than shield in other hand, IF one was available.
It was a thing, but it was SO rare at viking ages it was practically nonexistent. 1 being swords were rare at that time and date, due to bad material shortage it was easier to make axes. less resources went to making one, and it was more efficient in plunging trough armor, which still was rare back in the days.
When i asked about dual wielding in the time of vikings and how common it was, He said it was as common as were the myths. practically nonexistent. Myths and sagas of viking times were A LOT of the time praised to be something they were not.
One main thing why berserkers were rare, was because it was despised of. Vikings were generally HIGHLY educated. Highly hygienic, and strongly diciplined in war arts, and how important everything else with marching and supplementing yourself was before battles.
You know, all groups usually bathed every day if it was possible.
I have seen people who make it work, though... against inferior opponents, or when the rules favor light touches, and stop the fight after one such touch. And history records many warriors who made it work. Most of them used the second weapon mostly defensively, or were ambidextrous, and could switch between using either weapon defensively or offensively.
Many people have heard of Miyamoto Musashi's book which talk a lot about using two swords. Much fewer have read it, and understand exactly what he advocates. I think I have a post about it somewhere...
Also the fact that even ambidextrous people in viking ages chose a shield over two swords. Usually you lasted 5 times longer against archers with a large shield than a sword. two swords IRL back then was just a DRASTIC disadvantage, tactically and fight-wise. Yes you could output more damage but you were prone to archers in plain areas, since archery was a basic thing teached from father to son, even daughters due to the fact it was EASY and cost efficient way to kill people.
Earlier in this thread, I said "Yes, there have been individuals and even styles that use two swords in accord. No, not Miyamoto Musashi, do not bring him up unless you have read his books, not just heard the titles." I knew someone would bring him up. Well, I have read the books, and I have cumulatively spent dozens of hours discussing them with fencers and HEMA enthusiasts (there is a lot of overlap, both in skills and in practitioners)
I do not know what Musashi was thinking, but I know what he wrote.
1. Like much of the book, he uses the two swords in tandem to illustrate a philosophical point, not to specify exactly fighting strategy. "when you sacrifice your life, you would want to make fullest use of your available weaponry. It is unnatural not to do so, and to die with a weapon yet undrawn. "
2. He goes on about keeping choices available, having more weapons at hand, and very importantly, keeping a hand open for the other weapon. " if you carry a bow or spear or other arms in your left hand you have only one hand free for the long sword" This is about being able to use a sword in one hand, exactly as Europeans insisted that one must be able to use the longsword in one hand, although they preferred a shield for the off hand.
3. He was very definite that the two swords as one are most useful against mobs, in confined spaces, and when you are trying to take a less skilled man prisoner: "when running on uneven roads, on swampy ground, muddy rice fields, stony ground, or in a crowd of people", "It is better to use two swords rather than one when you are fighting a mob, and especially if you want to take a prisoner.".
4. He is absolutely clear, that against skilled opponents, you do not use two swords at once. "when you find it difficult to cut an enemy down with one hand, then by all means use both hands". The next characters in the scroll? "There is nothing complicated about this." It is an idiom for "this goes without saying".
He also, in the same book, talks a lot more about using the left hand on the long sword. Not exactly a ringing endorsement for dual wielding.
But all of the above is secondary. To understand him and his style, you need a bit of background. But first:
THE 16TH CENTURY KATANA IS A SНIТТY WEAPON
There, I said it. For decades, it had been reduced in length, its specifications set by the office of the shogun, with the stated aim of reducing its effectiveness as a weapon of war. Before that, when the sword was a real weapon, and not a bureaucrat's badge of office, the Japanese war swords were much longer - they made some of the most amazing swords in history - they did have technology way ahead of most Western swordsmiths. And when they did, they produced blades amazingly similar to the großes Messer, although their hilts and guards were quite different.
If you are thinking of the katana you've seen in movies, do not! Carrying such a weapon in Musashi's days would have gotten you executed. The katana and wakizashi Musashi writes about are both shorter than the Western joke of a weapon, the small sword. They are not full size swords, they are a short sword and a longish knife. Stand up, make a fist, let your arm hang down. The distance from your knuckles to the ground is the length of a 16th century katana. Well, it would be, if you were as short as a 16th century Japanese man.
So, katana and wakizashi is like a small sword and a parrying dagger. A combination imposed by social norms, and utterly non-optimal as war gear. You did not see people fighting Florentine style on European battlefields by choice. You did not see samurai fighting with "the two swords" by choice, anymore than you see soldiers on a 21th century battlefield using their handgun (let alone two) unless something has gone really fискеd up beyond all recognition.
And finally, Musashi was a genius. He may have been able to use two swords to beat his opponents. Did he? Fиск no! He used a single katana, and when he could get away with it, a wooden bokken that would break the legal limits on katana length.
Now you are just moving the goalposts and setting up falacious straw-man arguments.
You may have missed the fact that I specifically mentioned "two weapons". The references I used talk about swords but my point is not limited to swords. My arguments are also not limited to any singular culture or battlefield scenario.
In these games, I don't play a common foot soldier. I hire those guys from villages. There is no argument against having a hero using a weapon in each hand - it's established in the historical record and practiced in the real world today.
Personally, I think it comes down to choices the developers made. Mount & Blade didn't include the option and Viking Conquest built off of the original. That might be a limitation of the engine but I find that difficult to believe. If the engine can render hundreds of guys with weapons and shields, surely a weapon in each hand is just a matter of drawing up the animations for it? Since that is probably a huge and expensive task, I doubt we'll see it anytime soon but it would be nice to have that option in future installments of the franchise.
I'd certainly like to try it out.
Insulting the OP for asking the question is ignorant.
its just that it was a myth people used two weapons at that date and time. More myth than reality. There hasnt been any known indications of it being a used tactic on the battlefield, only the special drunken cases of soldiers doing stupid things like that were the REALLY rare cases of berserkers. nothing else.
Thats most likely why its not a thing in Viking conquest. There were dual wielding dagger thieves that time, theyre not in the game either.
If you would like to refute the many arguments and references already put forward, please do so. Otherwise, this becomes nothing more than children with their fingers stuck in their ears shouting "Na-na-na-na".
Your ill-informed opinion about using two weapons being a "myth" has already been shot down numerous times by more than one person. Historical facts trump opinions every single time.
It did happen. It does happen. It is not a "myth".
It is never a good idea to use the Saga's as historical fact... it is known that many are fraught with myth and fiction- they were meant to be stories, not historical recordings...
Just look at Beowulf's saga, he fights monsters!!! look at the saga's in the same way you look at The Illiad or The Odyssey... fiction which is loosely based on history
as to the first youtube video you provide, it is clearly seen that the guy with the 2 swords (on the left) rarely attacks with both at the same time, and "could" have attacked just as much with 1 sword... (similarly to what Lindybeige states in his video)...
hope this helps! :)
Not as much as you seem to think.
It's true that the sagas are not always considered to be factual accounts but suggesting they are all equally fantastic by referencing Beowulf is dishonest. Many scholars do rely on the sagas for a deeper understanding of history.
Given the limitations of available source material, the sagas are sometimes the best thing we have.
Your argument about using two swords simultaneously has absolutely nothing to do with any aspect of this discussion.
Lastly, your arguments do nothing to refute the basic common sense point...there are references to various fighters who used two weapons in combat. How on earth could you imagine that this couldn't have happened? A common tactic in weapon and shield combat is to force your opponent to expose themselves by using their shield to block an attack, thus providing an ally an opening. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that this might work by using two weapons yourself.
Personally, I consider it ridiculous to suggest that no one ever considered such a thing, despite the historical references that say it did happen. The fact that it didn't happen more often might suggest it was a bad idea or that such tactics required a very high skill level but in neither case, does it suggest it didn't or couldn't happen.