--------------------

Brought to you by "The Lion in Winter".

We can only speculate to prove a negative, but my guess would be that, as far as combat went, the biggest reason was that it was much more defensively effecient and increased one's battlefield effectiveness/survivability to have a shield in the other hand rather than another sword. A comprable question would be "why didn't two-sheild evolve?" Of course, armour developed to the point of not really needing a shield for the nobility, but a very common weapon was the hand-and-a-half sword, which was very effective with two hands. Many of the en masse weapons which evolved in the later medieval period also required the use of two hands: bills, any pole weapon, pikes, bows, crossbows. By the time you get to a case of rapiers, it's being used in an exclusively civilian arena against opponents who aren't wearing ANY armour.

quote:

---

Is it because swords at that time were not used to parry? Am I totally out to lunch?

---

Swords were used to 'parry' or 'ward' or 'guard.' Given the choice of being hit or interposing 'something' in your hand to stay alive, it is almost instictive to put something in the way. The more fighting manuals that are discovered, the more we learn that there was a body of Western knowledge and training handed down from earliest times.

As for being out to lunch. Perhaps you have a favourite theory that you wish to adopt or prove, and are therefore working backwards to document it. Rather, research what actually was done, then portrait that instead.

Perhaps we should start a thread of things that have yet to be proven to be done? Like quivers were not worn on the back, or rarely used for that matter.

--------------------

Some interesting ones that I would like to try though. In Njal's Saga he fights with a "halberd" and sword. Could be interesting.

I was under the impression that one fetchbutch writer said that if someone is using two swords they are more likely to hurt themselves than the other person.

From my experience, you invariably end up using one to block and one to attack, and a shield is better at blocking than a sword...

There are also basic flaws with the fighting style. Two weapon fighters almost invariably leave a gap striaght down their head which you can get them with.

Spearmen rip them apart, unless they are one-on-one, especially on the lower legs. Forarms are toast.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lachlan Yeates:
In Njal's Saga he fights with a "halberd" and sword. Could be interesting.

---

Reading translations are we? Gotta be careful when doing that, as linguistics scholars aren't usually well-versed in weapons lingo. Most likely, it was a fighting spear rather than a heavy chopper like what we think of as a 15th C halberd.

--------------------

This has already been discussed in our group a bit, with all the bits it was used taken out. A spear about 1.8m long seems to be the concensus, as it was used with a single hand, and it was theorised it had a long head, possibly similar to the Sutton Hoo "spear".

two swords...

If I had but one sword and was considering to buy something for the other hand, Iīd go for a buckler or shield.
Why?
Itīs by far more reasonable.
Itīs by far more protective.
It can be replaced more reasonably.

And still, itīs at least as serviceable- you can use it for parrying- and you can just as well give your opponent a stout blow or two with the shield boss.

A sword was worth a fortune. A shield would surely have been by far more reasonable.

The use of two swords has a dashing and heroic feel, and, of course, there will be some or another myth dealing with a two-sword fighting warrior (does anyone remember the 1980īs British Robin Hood TV series with the saracen called Nasir?), but in terms of living history, at least to my mind, this is not the way to go.

Reminds me somewhat of some debates we had over here (in Germany, that is) dealing with the question whether bearing a two-handed sword on oneīs back couldnīt hopefully be authentic, for technically and technologically this might well have been possible. For William Wallace. In the 13th century. ;o)

Regards

Ivo

--------------------

I know, I know, fantastical and proves nothing, but it is one of the only images I know of, so I thought I'd share.