Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk XI

[gkathellar]

With dual wielding: What are the problems involved with using two weapons of the same length (two katana, two daggers, two rapiers, etc.)?

Well, first of all, let's draw a line: there's a difference between using two daggers and using two rapiers. Two knives or daggers is reasonably practical and relatively straightforward — but two long or even mid-length blades is a distinct sort of challenge.

As to the problems of using two long blades? There are a lot of them.

The real standout is lack of versatility. No matter how good you are at fighting with two long weapons, there's not much you can do with them that couldn't be done better with a single long blade or a long blade and a short blade, and plenty of things you can't do that those styles can. There are some long weapons better suited to paired use, but none that really reap huge advantages from it, because ultimately, you are only going to attack with one blade at a time no matter what you use.

Coordination is another one, as Spiryt mentions. Two long blades can get in each other's way like nobody's business. As a subset of coordination, there's the question of attention — that is to say, where is your mind in the fight? With single sword or sword-and-dagger, you focus on attack and defense with one weapon, and have a small second weapon or a free hand held back for quick defense or binds when the opportunity presents itself. With two equal-length weapons, the second weapon doesn't necessarily have a role. It's just sort of there. (This is something my own teacher has emphasized to me when I brought the question up with him — to paraphrase, "you can use one sword for offense and one sword for defense, but I'd rather just focus on the one weapon and use it twice as well.")

There's also a basic physiological problem — to actually use two long weapons, as opposed to just hold them, you need to keep both of your shoulders forward, and your feet in a position to drive either arm at any given time. For many weapons (though not all), this goes against doctrine. A profile or half-profile presents a narrower, more easily defended target. Placing your feet in a position to drive either hand usually slows defensive footwork. There's a lot of defensive compromise for a limited amount of offensive gain.

Apparently, there were some attempts at using two identical weapons like that, as well, but didn't seem to be really popular.

My understanding is that Florentine duelists usually managed to die in the process of killing their opponent. One can imagine how that wouldn't really catch on.

Two katanas particularly doesn't have sense, being mainly two handed weapon, and with their long handles and handling properties trying to operate two of them at the same time wouldn't really have any sense.

Indeed. The closest you'll find to historical precedent on that is Musashi. He actually advocated that warriors should become familiar with using a long blade their left hand, their right hand, and each hand, as part of the training for long blade-and-short blade. But he never advocated a pair of long blades in battle, as far as I can tell; my limited understanding is that for him, even sword-and-dagger was primarily for dealing with multiple opponents.

I have heard that the Japanese did occasionally use paired mid-length blades (kodachi), with one held in a reversed grip for defense, but I've never seen anything to indicate that actually happened.

Turning a bit East, China does appear to have some paired saber and paired sword traditions, of ... questionable efficacy. Having encountered legitimate Chinese traditional martial arts, I've never yet seen shuang dao or shuang jian that looked like it was doing anything a single sword couldn't do while keeping the other arm available for balance and hand techniques.