Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXVII

[Kaptin Keen]

That's not true at all.

It's basically true. No battle is ever won if you just sit on your hands, of course offensive action was taken on both sides. Also, the best defense, and all that. My point is, at no time did the Finns to attack Russia. They beat them back, yes, drove them from their borders - but they didn't (to my knowledge) set foot on Soviet soil, or march on Moscow, or any such thing.

But yes, obviously offensive action was taken by both sides, as I believe has been the case in every military action ever fought. Even the Danish attacked the Germans when they invaded. Not convincingly, but they did. I think our resistance to invasion tallied 16 dead. One might argue that we are move wise than valiant.

[Max_Killjoy]

That's not true at all. The Finnish army during the Winter War defintiely counter-attacked. Often. Some of the famous battles were counterattacks on blunted or overpenetrating Soviet attacks. Sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn't.

It just didn't happen in the strength of entire armies.

The strategy would be to let the enemy expend thier strength in manpower and machines and then hit individual targets where local superiority* could be achieved.

*not necessarily in mapower

Very true, the Finns were definitely not just sitting there taking shot after shot from the Soviets and doing nothing, they certainly attacked at the tactical level when it made sense.

What happened to the Finns in WW2 is one of the worst parts of the US and UK "having" to ally with the Soviet evil to defeat the Nazi evil.

[Kaptin Keen]

Very true, the Finns were definitely not just sitting there taking shot after shot from the Soviets and doing nothing, they certainly attacked at the tactical level when it made sense.

I believe the WW2 Soviet invasion of Finland is another example. Well, no it isn't - the Finn's never counter attacked. Just hunkered down, fought back with enormous will, and sent the Soviets packing. But they were outnumbered, badly.

Let me know if there's any further confusion about what I actually said.

[snowblizz]

It's basically true. No battle is ever won if you just sit on your hands, of course offensive action was taken on both sides. Also, the best defense, and all that. My point is, at no time did the Finns to attack Russia. They beat them back, yes, drove them from their borders - but they didn't (to my knowledge) set foot on Soviet soil, or march on Moscow, or any such thing.

But yes, obviously offensive action was taken by both sides, as I believe has been the case in every military action ever fought. Even the Danish attacked the Germans when they invaded. Not convincingly, but they did. I think our resistance to invasion tallied 16 dead. One might argue that we are move wise than valiant.

You need to start defining what the erk you mean by things. I'm not talking about shooting back. I'm talking about counter attacks to retake lost defensive lines, towns, etc etc etc. You seem to only count something like 4 years of fighting on the eastern front between Germany and the Soviet Union as a "counter attack".

My point is, at no time did the Finns to attack Russia. They beat them back, yes, drove them from their borders - but they didn't (to my knowledge) set foot on Soviet soil, or march on Moscow, or any such thing.

Also, the Contiuation War started with Finland attacking the Soviet Union, so again, yes Finland did attack the Soviet Union. Premediatedly. And opportunistically. Because they knew with the German invasion they might have a shot. Also ended very badly.
But everyoenw "knew" ther Germans were unbeatable and the Sopviet union would collapse in short order. They abrely won against the Finns after all.

Whether Soviet armies woulda respected our borders when they eventually forced ther Germans back is anyone's guess. The only thing am sure of is that the allies would not have been much help. The highpoint of the Finnihs invasion was the capture of Petrozavodsk renamed Äänislinna and envisioned as the main city of a future great karelia.

They beat them back, yes, drove them from their borders -.

This is also incorrect. The Finnish army, barely, held the Soviet armies at bay, deep inside Finnish territory in some cases, at the end of the Winter War. In fact the Finnish negotiators worked with the knowledge that they had to make a peace quickly because there existed no reserve to draw upon anymore and if peace had not been signed the army would probably collapse under the weight of a Soviet spring/summer offensive. Almost any peace that didn't involve totall occupation and a Rusian controlled government in Helsinki was considered favourable.

Being a largely secondary front in the Continuation War and still being inside the Soviet Union, though behind the old border, also saved Finland when they made an opportunistic peace. Again because the military resources were nearly spent and they still had some negotiation position.

Oh, and I get to be dismissive of Finnish capabilities because both my grandfathers fought in the war (and survived) and my grandmother was one of those who had to evacuate lost territory at the end of the two wars. The rest of you get to be impressed by how tough the Finns were.

[Kaptin Keen]

Also, the Contiuation War started with Finland attacking the Soviet Union

Didn't know that. Here, let me help you:

I'm not any sort of expert, so apologies for any inaccuracies in all this.

See? Are we done?

I'm giving historical examples of wars that were won by the underdogs - without the element of surprise. That's all. I don't why that's so upsetting to you, and I ... quite frankly ... don't give a damn.

So. done yet? Or do we take another round of this pointless BS?

[Brother Oni]

What techniques did people use to protect mail from rust.

I might have asked this a long time ago, but there was a mount and blade mode that had 'brass' mail mittens. Would this be a clever coating for rust prevention/asthetics or is it fiction (or could tyou generally try to make mail with brass)

Oiling mostly and regular cleaning of the mail. Cleaning was typically done by sticking it in half a barrel of sand and rolling it down a hill a few times in Norman times - by the medieval period, I believe they had something which just spun the barrel round (probably a water wheel).

Although you could paint the links, it wouldn't last particularly long before it rubbed/flaked off, so would require regular re-painting and you wouldn't get even coverage of the links.

If you were making mail out of brass links, they would be solid brass rather than iron links coated with brass as the brass layer would wear away like the paint. While bronze mail has been found throughout the ages (the Romans primarily, although there's records of the Philistines having bronze armour/mail), brass is a little too malleable to be useful as armour.

One advantage of bronze mail would the corrosion resistance as evidenced by this find:

Spoiler: Fragment of bronze Lorica Hamata circa AD80, found at Lunt Fort, Bagington, Warwickshire

Show

It would also be harder than iron or low grade steel but considerable more expensive, both in terms of materials cost and labour (the harder the material to work with, the harder it would be to weave into mail).

[hymer]

Given all this, if you want humans and elves to plausibly use different weapons, you should think about what sort of variations in their lifestyles would prompt those differences. For instance, you could say that the elves haven't conducted large-scale warfare in a long time, and so prefer rapiers, longswords, and other straight dueling blades that require lengthy training and perform excellently in a civilian context. The humans, on the other hand, live on open plains crisscrossed by mighty rivers, and so have taken to a variety of heavy single-edged blades handy on horseback and in shipboard combat.

As you mention, there's also the context of what you are fighting. The humans could be used to fighting lightly-armoured goblins from horseback and unarmoured boat raiders on the water, where the elves need to deal with heavily armoured hobgoblins. That could reinforce this trend.

It may also be worth pointing out that swords are often backup weapons. Say the elves use bows above all else, which makes any melee weapon a worthwhile contrast. The humans could use spears and lances, stabby weapons that can do penetration against any armoured opponent - so they don't need that as much in their sidearm.

[gkathellar]

As you mention, there's also the context of what you are fighting. The humans could be used to fighting lightly-armoured goblins from horseback and unarmoured boat raiders on the water, where the elves need to deal with heavily armoured hobgoblins. That could reinforce this trend.

It may also be worth pointing out that swords are often backup weapons. Say the elves use bows above all else, which makes any melee weapon a worthwhile contrast. The humans could use spears and lances, stabby weapons that can do penetration against any armoured opponent - so they don't need that as much in their sidearm.

Definitely. Or, in the same vein, maybe ancient but now-defunct alliances with dwarves have given them access to crucible technology for making the equivalent of Damascus steel, and so they prefer straight-bladed European-style swords that take advantage of the extreme flexibility of that type of metal. Any or all of these ideas can be in play.

That said, you could just as easily go the other way: since elves live in the woods, maybe they prefer curved swords that are more similar to the machetes they use in everyday life. Or perhaps, again because they live in the woods, their few iron mines are based around volcanic mountains with highly impure metal, and so they've learned to construct curved blades with strong spines, soft cores, and hard edges (i.e. Japanese).

Either way, it's perfectly reasonable to start from a preferred aesthetic and adjust the setting's particulars to fit.

One other thing worth noting: if either species is shorter, they'll probably prefer shorter blades. That doesn't mean they'll go for weighty chopping blades, necessarily, just that they'll edge toward something that allows them to operate while on the inside of the opponent's guard. To paraphrase another poster here: if you can't win the reach game, it's better not to play it.

[Jeivar]

I'm going with tall, long-limbed elves. And I'm leaning towards giving them curved swords. They have much more of a history of fighting unarmoured monsters, who need to be brought down with large wounds and dismemberment. And correct me if I'm wrong, but I've heard something about curved swords being more difficult to defend against, since the blade can be snaked around a shield or a weapon. That seems to fit with traditional elven quickness.

[Vinyadan]

Unrelated to current discussion: in Pompeii, they have found the cavity left by a horse that died there during the eruption. They then made a plaster out of it. It was a "special" horse, one of great value, with bronze in its harness. It was about 150 cm at the shoulder, a size comparable to that of a modern Arab horse.

https://www.livescience.com/62595-po...rse-found.html

Also, an interesting short article about decisions by Henry VIII that would affect British horses until the 19th century: http://www.operationcentaur.com/heri...ii-and-shires/

[KarlMarx]

Does anyone here know where I might find some details on the tactical use of the Tachanka in the Russian Civil War and Soviet-Polish War, as well as how frequently they were used? It's always seemed to me that a horse-drawn cart wouldn't be a stable enough thing to be a moving firing platform, but also that a Tachanka is too exposed to be of much use as simply a mobile machine gun.

[Brother Oni]

Does anyone here know where I might find some details on the tactical use of the Tachanka in the Russian Civil War and Soviet-Polish War, as well as how frequently they were used? It's always seemed to me that a horse-drawn cart wouldn't be a stable enough thing to be a moving firing platform, but also that a Tachanka is too exposed to be of much use as simply a mobile machine gun.

From reading the wikipage, it seems to me that their tactical use is simply to get a machine gun into a good position very quickly, fire while stationary, then get the hell out sharpish if/when things go pear shaped.

I suspect they weren't used like mobile gun platforms, unless they were retreating from enemy cavalry. As for the stability issue causing inaccuracy, they weren't used as sniping weapons - throw enough fire downrange and you'll either hit something or cause the enemy to keep their head down, enabling either a retreat or another element to manoeuver forwards and destroy the enemy.

[gkathellar]

I've heard something about curved swords being more difficult to defend against, since the blade can be snaked around a shield or a weapon.

I've never heard that, and I'd say that if anything it's ... well, not quite the opposite. There's a lot of winding techniques and blows executed from inside the bind (when the two swords are pressed against each other) in any system of swordsmanship. Twisting around your opponent's defense is essential to most fencing. But double edged blades in particular can be used for quick cuts with the false edge even after an opponent has successfully parried their initial assault.

Try to visualize two double-edged longsword fighters, (A) and (B):

• (A) tries a direct thrust.
• (B) parries off to the side such that (A)'s lead edge is turned away from (B).
• (A) rotates their weapon like a lever around the point of contact with (B)'s sword, such that (A)'s false edge strikes (B).

A technique like this has the disadvantage of leaving (B) with a straight path to (A) - but if (A) has a cruciform sword, that disadvantage is partially or entirely negated, because the crossguard will continue to obstruct (B)'s attack while (A) negotiates around (B)'s defense.

You'd be hard-pressed to do the same with a single-edged longsword, or a saber - although there are definitely other binding techniques that would be possible with either of those.

[Mike_G]

I've never heard that, and I'd say that if anything it's ... well, not quite the opposite.

OK, I've fenced with straight and curved blades, and this is a real thing.

It's not a cut from a bind like you've described for longswords, that's a different thing. It's an attack with the point going around a parry. Sabres are bad for binds, but good for a fast, fluid style of cut and thrust

If you thrust with the weapon's curved edge to the outside, the enemy has to parry wider to stop it, since the point will be still be in line even if the middle of the blade is farther from the line, so to get the point offline, he has to parry that much wider.

You can also feign a cut, then when they make the expected parry, which is plenty wide enough to stop the cut from the "true" edge on the outer curve, you tun you hand over so now the inside of the curve is against their parry and the point/false edge can hit, even if the parry is wide enough that the true edge wouldn't have. A lot of sabers have a short sharpened false edge, sometimes it's wider near the point to give it a double edge for the first maybe third of the blade.

The trade off is that a curved blade is shorter for the same amount/weight of blade than a straight one, so you lose some reach, but gain some sneakiness.

Which I like, being a short and sneaky kind of guy.

It's hard to explain without pictures.

Richard Marsden does a very good seminar on sabre, and he touches on this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zN0zuLKwv2E

Anyway, not sure if I've explained it correctly, but I've done it and it's a real thing.

[gkathellar]

OK, I've fenced with straight and curved blades, and this is a real thing.

It's not a cut from a bind like you've described for longswords, that's a different thing. It's an attack with the point going around a parry. Sabres are bad for binds, but good for a fast, fluid style of cut and thrust

If you thrust with the weapon's curved edge to the outside, the enemy has to parry wider to stop it, since the point will be still be in line even if the middle of the blade is farther from the line, so to get the point offline, he has to parry that much wider. The trade off is that a curved blade is shorter for the same amount/weight of blade than a straight one, so you lose some reach, but gain some sneakiness.

Which I like, being a short and sneaky kind of guy.

It's hard to explain without pictures.

Richard Marsden does a very good seminar on sabre, and he touches on this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zN0zuLKwv2E

Anyway, not sure if I've explained it correctly, but I've done it and it's a real thing.

Ah, okay. I think I see what you're describing (you do a great job of explaining it, actually). That makes sense. Not quite what I'd envision when I think of "snaking" around the opponent's guard, but ... yeah, that seems quite tricky, and especially dangerous for an opponent who wasn't familiar with it.

I wonder if that'd work with a two-handed sword? It seems like that might leave you open in a way a one-handed blade wouldn't.

[Jeivar]

It's not a cut from a bind like you've described for longswords, that's a different thing. It's an attack with the point going around a parry. Sabres are bad for binds, but good for a fast, fluid style of cut and thrust

Fast and fluid? Sounds quite elfish. :)

The trade off is that a curved blade is shorter for the same amount/weight of blade than a straight one, so you lose some reach, but gain some sneakiness.

Which I like, being a short and sneaky kind of guy.

The thought occurs that tall elves could get around the loss of reach simply with their long limbs, and with signature long sabers. It could be something of a cultural marker.

[Mith]

This is more a sanity check question, but if one gets their hands on steel weapons, armour that is sub standard to what they either have or is at market standard, can the items be melted down and turned back into raw material? I ask because when I play in a party with a cart, I literally strip the corpses completely of anything that can be salvaged for money. I realise that mechanically, the weapons or arms work just the same as what could be bought, but I cannot see them being bought if there are other options available.


The way I can eyeball it is that the salvage in this case is a quarter of the regular cost (half cost to salvage, the other half being the work to reduce the metal down to ingots).


Is this something that would be reasonable, or not likely outside a high metal scarcity?

[Pauly]

This is more a sanity check question, but if one gets their hands on steel weapons, armour that is sub standard to what they either have or is at market standard, can the items be melted down and turned back into raw material? I ask because when I play in a party with a cart, I literally strip the corpses completely of anything that can be salvaged for money. I realise that mechanically, the weapons or arms work just the same as what could be bought, but I cannot see them being bought if there are other options available.


The way I can eyeball it is that the salvage in this case is a quarter of the regular cost (half cost to salvage, the other half being the work to reduce the metal down to ingots).


Is this something that would be reasonable, or not likely outside a high metal scarcity?

Metal salvage is a thing today, and has always been done through history. Short version is that it’s almost always cheaper to melt metal down back into ingots than to dig up rocks, crush and purify them then melt into ingots.

As for the economics that depends on how much cleaning needs to be done and how much energy you need to melt the metal.

Historically high value items (eg intact weapons and armor) were stripped by soldiers on the battlefield, but low value items (eg broken weapons, arrowheads embedded in corpses) were stripped by camp followers and the local peasants.

[Mith]

Metal salvage is a thing today, and has always been done through history. Short version is that it’s almost always cheaper to melt metal down back into ingots than to dig up rocks, crush and purify them then melt into ingots.

As for the economics that depends on how much cleaning needs to be done and how much energy you need to melt the metal.

Historically high value items (eg intact weapons and armor) were stripped by soldiers on the battlefield, but low value items (eg broken weapons, arrowheads embedded in corpses) were stripped by camp followers and the local peasants.

I had thought so, but wanted to confirm I wasn't missing any detail that might make it not worth it for what ever reason.

[Pauly]

I had thought so, but wanted to confirm I wasn't missing any detail that might make it not worth it for what ever reason.

The value of armor on the re-sale market depended a lot on how closely it was fitted to an individual.
For example a mail hauberk is a bit like a T-shirt, and came in S-M-L-XL type sizes.
A plate harness is more like a tailored suit, and would only properly fit someone of very close dimensions to the person it was made for.

So things that fit people easily tended to re-sell at closer to the their new value, but things that required precision fitting tended to re-sell at a lower percentage because it was harder to find buyers. One of the reasons European castles got filled with old suits of plate armor, apart from advances in armor technology, was that it was only rarely possible for a son to wear the father’s armor.

[Mith]

The value of armor on the re-sale market depended a lot on how closely it was fitted to an individual.
For example a mail hauberk is a bit like a T-shirt, and came in S-M-L-XL type sizes.
A plate harness is more like a tailored suit, and would only properly fit someone of very close dimensions to the person it was made for.

So things that fit people easily tended to re-sell at closer to the their new value, but things that required precision fitting tended to re-sell at a lower percentage because it was harder to find buyers. One of the reasons European castles got filled with old suits of plate armor, apart from advances in armor technology, was that it was only rarely possible for a son to wear the father’s armor.

I guess my reason for me having my question is that if it is a lot easier to melt down old armour to make new works, I feel like that is something I would of heard of happening with poorer nobility. Instead, usually, it seems like it is resold as is. I just wanted to know since sentimental value seems like it would only apply if the owner of the suit was a direct relative. Otherwise why wouldn't you melt down old things to make anew?

[gkathellar]

I guess my reason for me having my question is that if it is a lot easier to melt down old armour to make new works, I feel like that is something I would of heard of happening with poorer nobility. Instead, usually, it seems like it is resold as is. I just wanted to know since sentimental value seems like it would only apply if the owner of the suit was a direct relative. Otherwise why wouldn't you melt down old things to make anew?

I'm not sure this applies as much to armor as it does to swords, but remember that premodern steel wasn't melted and cast. It was heated until ductile and beaten into shape. Differential melting points in the alloy make it not only inexpedient to work with molten steel, and disadvantageous in the sense that the metal will become homogeneous instead of composed piece by piece of varying steels, but also in some cases impossible due to technical limitations (if you have tungsten or titanium impurities, for instance, a premodern furnace will separate those out). Furthermore, since molten steel isn't actually what things re made from, at best you'll be able render it back into roughly appropriate chunks before you can do the actual forging. And if steel is cheap, all of this could actually be more expensive than just buying new metal.

[Kaptin Keen]

So .. Russia's new 'super missile'. Anyone know what technology it uses? Is it some sort of ram jet variant? I mean, obviously the Russians aren't likely to share what they don't have to, but I'm sure someone somewhere has an educated guess =)

[Clistenes]

The value of armor on the re-sale market depended a lot on how closely it was fitted to an individual.
For example a mail hauberk is a bit like a T-shirt, and came in S-M-L-XL type sizes.
A plate harness is more like a tailored suit, and would only properly fit someone of very close dimensions to the person it was made for.

So things that fit people easily tended to re-sell at closer to the their new value, but things that required precision fitting tended to re-sell at a lower percentage because it was harder to find buyers. One of the reasons European castles got filled with old suits of plate armor, apart from advances in armor technology, was that it was only rarely possible for a son to wear the father’s armor.

I guess plain, unadorned plate armor was easier to re-sell and re-use. If you got a bunch of suits of plate armor of the same style, you separate them into pieces and you could select the pieces that fitted better a given client, until getting a full plate harness. Sort of like latter munition armor...

However, I doubt that was often done... you would need to have a ton of people selling you armor and another ton of people buying you armor to be effective, and full plate armor was used only by a minority during most historical periods...

But on the other hand, if you got an ornate suit of armor custom made for a prince, that is an extremely expensive unique piece, and if you separate the pieces, the lose their value. So it would remain stored in the royal/ducal/whatever family's armory...

[Jeivar]

Okay, the internet has debated this back and forth but I'd like to ask this question myself, hoping to find people who can answer from some experience: Is wielding two swords of the same length in any way, with any level of skill, the least bit viable? I know there is a little bit of historical example, of a long blade in one hand and a shorter one for parrying in the other, and I know that in open warfare you're best off joining a shield wall. But if one grants that elves are faster and more coordinated than humans, could one justify Drizzt-style fighting?

[gkathellar]

Okay, the internet has debated this back and forth but I'd like to ask this question myself, hoping to find people who can answer from some experience: Is wielding two swords of the same length in any way, with any level of skill, the least bit viable? I know there is a little bit of historical example, of a long blade in one hand and a shorter one for parrying in the other, and I know that in open warfare you're best off joining a shield wall. But if one grants that elves are faster and more coordinated than humans, could one justify Drizzt-style fighting?

While the answer is a general no, there are some exceptions (of more and less questionable practicality). In HEMA, there are people who swear by case-of-rapiers, and while I don't really see the appeal, there were period masters who taught it and they have left behind fencing manuals of the subject. I have variously heard it said that fighting in this way provides excellent defense and control once you really get the hang of it, or alternately that it was an excellent style for making sure that both you and your opponent ended up dead. Outside of rapier, there's nothing that I've encountered.

In Pacific Asia, however, you do see some actual dual scimitar-ish stuff!

Paired sabers, or shuang dao, are something of a trope in Chinese martial arts, but their efficacy is hotly debated. It's occasionally claimed that this technique was good against spears and other polearms, and may have been used in shipboard combat against or by pirates. My own teacher is pretty down on the notion, but that may have to do with how it's mostly represented by flippy Wushu guys that he hates. I would suggest that while good shuang dao may be out there, you'll have a hell of a time finding it or separating it out from the dross (which is sort of a running theme with Chinese martial arts in the present day). Slightly more pedigreed is the butterfly sword, a short sword/long knife used exclusively in pairs by Wing Chun practitioners.

Thailand gives us Krabi-Krabong, which trains in a variety of weapons including paired saber. This was allegedly a real military system in its day that isn't completely degenerate, so maybe look into that. Filipino systems tend to prefer sword-and-dagger, but IIRC there are a few that touch on paired swords. I don't know if silat does anything of the sort, but they do like their blades, so it'd be another place to look.

None of this really appears in Japanese sword art, although they do like short-and-long. Musashi advocated that one should train with two swords of equal length, as well as single sword in either hand, but not actually fight in this way. The objective was to develop equal strength and proficiency on either side, not to learn how to be a silly samurai buzzsaw.

As to elves in particular ... well, it's not just a coordination thing. It's that two swords of equal length are sort of redundant, with identical advantages and weaknesses (conversely, sword-and-dagger is attractive specifically because the two weapons accomplish different things). So I don't think superior dexterity alone is going to make up the difference.

[Kiero]

Okay, the internet has debated this back and forth but I'd like to ask this question myself, hoping to find people who can answer from some experience: Is wielding two swords of the same length in any way, with any level of skill, the least bit viable? I know there is a little bit of historical example, of a long blade in one hand and a shorter one for parrying in the other, and I know that in open warfare you're best off joining a shield wall. But if one grants that elves are faster and more coordinated than humans, could one justify Drizzt-style fighting?

Insofar as gladiatorial combat can be described as "viable", being primarily a form of entertainment, the Dimachaerus used twin-swords. Notable that they were relatively short blades.

[Mith]

I'm not sure this applies as much to armor as it does to swords, but remember that premodern steel wasn't melted and cast. It was heated until ductile and beaten into shape. Differential melting points in the alloy make it not only inexpedient to work with molten steel, and disadvantageous in the sense that the metal will become homogeneous instead of composed piece by piece of varying steels, but also in some cases impossible due to technical limitations (if you have tungsten or titanium impurities, for instance, a premodern furnace will separate those out). Furthermore, since molten steel isn't actually what things re made from, at best you'll be able render it back into roughly appropriate chunks before you can do the actual forging. And if steel is cheap, all of this could actually be more expensive than just buying new metal.

Thank you for articulating my gut feeling. I was imprecise in wording. When I was saying "melt", I wasn't thinking crucible, but reducing back to ingots.

[Martin Greywolf]

Dual swords is one of those things that keeps popping up because it looks really cool, and not just in modern times - gladiators have been touched on, but there are more cases.

There is a manual that shows two knights in full plate going at it with dual arming swords. From the context, it's pretty clear this is a tournament exhibition match, fought to showcase skill and woo ladies.

Dual rapiers appear a few times, but with two caveats. First is that they are *hard* to learn, the manuals basically say that it should only be taught to people who mastered singla and paired with dagger rapier, and they are AFAIK never a main focus of the book. There are several arguments why they would be used, most convincing ones to me are that it's either a marketing ploy (i.e. you will be this skilled) or a great way to get a rather large advantage in a pre-arranged duel (you trained with this weird combo, the opponent didn't, and the duel is in three days).

It bears mentioning that European manuals are often focused on trials by combat and therefore have techniques for really weird wepons, like sickles or scythes. Or rocks in a bedsheet.

gkathellar Already mentioned all of the Asian stuff I'm aware, I'd just like to add that while Musashi doesn't have twin katanas, he does have a katana paired with a wakizashi, which is different from just sword and dagger, European analogue would be sword and messer.

Now for the meat and potatoes of this, though. Why don't you see dual wields in military context?

Well, imagine you're a soldier. You need several things as equipment, so let's assume you get stuff like clothes and supplies already and focus on melee combat gear. Let's also assume that your primary weapon is... something else (spear, lance, bow) and we're selecting your secondary gear.

Now, first thing to remember is that this has to be portable, so two handed weapons are already out, you only get hand a half weapons, simply because you need to keep these on your person while doing soldier things (marching and digging latrines, for the most part). A sword fits nicely into this, but there are other options, like axes or hammers or what have you. This will keep your main hand occupied.

So, if your main hand is occupied, what about the other one? One answer is that you may already have s hield there to go with your lance, spear or bow, so problem solved. If you do not, you want something there, though, something thet's good for defense - you already have a solid attack option in your main hand.

Picking another weapon will not be very useful, real combat doesn't get 2 attacks per turn with a sword, you want something that can stop the weapons you are facing. So you pick a buckler, because it can hang around your person, doesn't get in the way too much and is light yet sturdy enough to stop a halberd blow. That last part, I know from experience, though the buckler did need to be hammered back into shape after taking it. If you are fighting with rapiers, balance shifts towards the dagger, not because it can stab people but because *it's a better defensive tool against nimble points*, and by this time, you start to see split between military and civilian gear.

So, all well and good, but what if you are quick and nimble and don't need shield? Well, you still need it for massed archery fire, because that's adressed to whom it may concern - unless you have Witcher-like reflexes and can parry arrows, and even then you could get in trouble in a heavy shower of stab. Not to mention that in a shield wall, there may be a solid five or six attacks coming in at you, and while shield can cover them all, your agility can't - unless you have a speed so superhuman you can pretty much murder everyone there and be known as the Yellow Flash.

There is, however, one area where twin swords can be used effectively, provided they are on the shorter side (half a metre/no more than 2 feet as a rough ballpark), and it's one where massed archery fire is not a concern - bodyguarding and street brawls. This is what chinese butterfly swords were originally for, as well as what Musashi recommends you use two swords for (he goes katana in one hand against a single opponent, in two if you can't cut him down, katana and wakizashi against multiple opponents).

This also depends a lot on psychological effect - while a well trained opponent will not be intimidated by sharp stick pointing at him, especially if you're looking at his friend, untrained ruffians certainly will be.

Incidentally, Europe solved this bodyguarding thing in a completely different way - they used large, two-handed weapons. For early medieval period, you have records of varangians with two-handed axes being very popular as bodyguards (pretty thorough record of them serving as such in Byzantium and Hungary), and in later periods, you had a really big sword (montante, beidehander). Again, this has a lot of it's strength in its psychological effect, no one wants to be the first guy in who gets smacked with the axe. Best case scenario, you have to hammer out your buckler.

[Pauly]

Okay, the internet has debated this back and forth but I'd like to ask this question myself, hoping to find people who can answer from some experience: Is wielding two swords of the same length in any way, with any level of skill, the least bit viable? I know there is a little bit of historical example, of a long blade in one hand and a shorter one for parrying in the other, and I know that in open warfare you're best off joining a shield wall. But if one grants that elves are faster and more coordinated than humans, could one justify Drizzt-style fighting?

Whilst others have answered, I want to add the classic dual weilding as depicted in RPGs:
- It was never a battlefield style of fighting, when it was used it was for duels or small skirmishes, for example fighting in a ship or in an alley.
- There is some speculation that it’s real usefulness was either a show of skill to intimidate the enemy, or an unconventional form that the opponent had never trained to defend against.
- it is actually faster to continue repeated attacks with one hand than to alternate attacks from different hands. Any advantage, if it exists, has to do with greater defense or the ability to change an angle of attack,not gaining extra attacks.
- I have read accounts where people in alleys would pick up a dropped opponent’s sword and dual weild as a means of keeping multiple attackers at bay. This seems to have been an ad hoc emergency response, not walking around town with 2 backswords or rapiers strapped to you.