Dual wielding 

who needs a shield when you can just twirl your spear really fast like a baton in front of you, creating an impenetrable windshield

One hand is for weapon, the other one is for spellcasting. :)

what I dual weild bows

Vintage Lindybeige. Imagine how it'll feel when there's a 25 year old Lindy video? You'll feel old. You'll feel really old.

meh swords are overrated dual wield shields is best.

Yeah, but if I bring a shield the party's just going to make me tank.

I'm sure there was the occasional short-lived madman who ran into battle with an axe in each hand.

Screw dual wielding swords I shall dual wield two spears

"You can do something else with your other hand" Yes, but it's not socially acceptable on the battlefield...

what about dual shielding? double the protection, double the shield bashing, exponential amounts of badassery.

Incorrect. When I'm fighting anyone in the pool I need two noodles to make my intimidation stance and attacks. Plus if a noodle is caught and torn from my grasp, I have a backup. Plus I can feel like general grievous or doc Ock. (Great video)

Loyd 2014: 6 minutes videos without jump cuts Loyd 2020: 1:06:47 without jump cuts Love it

Dual-wielding fists are useful. I always use them dual-wield. I then reinforce my fists with well-armored gauntlets and cover the tops of my forearms with buckler-like oblong shields and grab 2 wide bladed punching daggers. Now I can go on the battlefield and get myself killed by a spearman with proper dual-wielding glory on my side.

Well, there go half my Skyrim builds... Edit: Haven’t duel wielded since this 4 years ago.

i find the plasma rifle and mauler combination is most excellent

This video is basically longer version of "One is all you need" -Count dooku

If their arrows cover the sun.... attack in the night

Your button makes it look as though you have a hole clean through you.

The off-hand is for my sword. My primary one holds my beer.

As a Thai person, here in Thailand we had dual-wielding commando unit in ancient time. They got cool nickname like Taluang(Assault) Fanh(Strike) unit and it was practical. Considering that in ancient Southeast-Asia that time only noble commanders wear armor and soldiers were pretty much naked, flanking in tropical woodland when your enemy were in chaos was an ideal. Also, at the time the forest were so thick and the elevation was harsh so no horse, no plain in many occasion. These are why it was possible.

What about 15th Century full plate armoured blokes with a dagger or a knife in one hand and a sword in the other?

But, but, but... what about the feared "helicopter attack" wherein one holds a sword in each outstretched arm and spins around?

Somewhere in the forgotten realms a dark elf is crying.

Double the swords, double the pommels. It's simple, really.

This video will probably be watched by a lot of folks after we see Ser Arthur Dayne duel wielding.

The term Dual-Wielding referign to two-weapons combat came from video games, technically a sword&shield is a dual-wielding too, cus a shield is a defensive weapon.

Lindybeige: the man who makes dungeons and dragons games three times as long

I dual wield two lances and when I’m feeling frisky I dual wield two horses

For you people talking about the gladiators: The gladiators fought for a crowd, they fought for entertainment so their purpose was to put on a show. It's not impossible that a great deal of the fights were choreographed. There has been no battlefield troop who uses a trident and net as little as there has been a battlefield troop who uses dual wielding.

Bullshit! Dual wielding gives you more speed! You just doing it wrong! You can hit with your one hand with powersword, and simultaniously shot with plasma pistol from other hand! And for defence you rely on your 3+ power armor, and 5+ fell no pain!

if I was fighting someone, and had just a sword and sheild. then he pulled out two swords I would say this is my head "well fuck, clearly he knows what he is doing" and then I would run.

When I was young, I used to have large fights with my brother using sticks. I almost always either choose one large stick to use as a staff, that was light weight, or two smaller strong lightweight sticks, one larger one shorter. My brother would then take his sword/shield(an oval piece of wood with a rope nailed to the back of it), and we would dual. At first, I agree, using two of the same weapon is horribly hard to use. But using one shorter, and one longer one(realize neither is very long), it was actually pretty much equal to fighting my brother as you could use it in an X formation to catch his sword, and quickly swing out the other stick and hit him over the head or something. Granted, with multiple kids, you don't use two swords/sticks, you'll get beat. Quite quickly.

Miyamoto Mushashi, the famed Japanese duelist and swordsman, dual-wielded a long sword and wakizashi. I don't know about the feasibility of dual-wielding in war settings but it seems to be quite useful when dueling someone else one-on-one.

There were other things you could be doing with your free hand, if you know what I mean.

Brilliant video. These ideas took a long time to sink into my brain after years of reading fantasy novels and playing video games. Nowadays, I agree wholeheartedly with every point you made. Blows my mind that this video has been out for 6 years and I’m just now seeing it.

once the rapier came into fashion, dual wielding was fairly common. the parrying dagger, or main gouche (left hand) was used to great success.

SPARTACUS taught me that being able to "dual wield" will make make me OP.

Seems to be a lot of angry people that cannot cope with the fact that dual wielding Daedric Swords and crouch/rolling everywhere won't win you lots of battles. C'mon people, I like Skyrim too, but just because something is effective on a game doesn't mean it would be in real life.

I look away from the video for a few seconds and suddenly this sod is talking about tennis. You sir have gained a subscriber.

Ha! He mentioned halberds! That proves they are the greatest weapon of all time!

Duel wielding philosophy of use. A raider with duel bearded axes. Not to be used against the main formation but to run down enemies from broken formations or guards during raids. You can use 1 axe to hook their shield and throw them off balance making it easy to finish them off.

Spear as a walking stick, shield slung over your back, sword on one hip and a dagger on the other. Done.

4:19 looks like my girlfriend trying to throw a punch

if someone could clip it from 4:56 to 4:58, and add some techno music and effects, i would appreciate that very much

1:46 no-matter how many times I listen to that part I hear butlers instead of bucklers.

Dual-wielding is a defensive technique, you're not supposed to hack like a maniac. You basically use one weapon to parry, then follow immediately with the other weapon before your opponent can recover balance. And yes, it's a dueling technique, definetely not for the battlefield. Though you could dual-wield effectively on top of a horse if you were wearing armor and there aren't missiles flying around.

Musashi talks extensively about dual wielding in his book The Five Rings. He recommends it, and as a duellist with around fifty confirmed kills and not a single loss he’s probably onto something. That said battles aren’t 1v1 duels, so I doubt his ideas on fighting would be the same for facing legions of foes.

A most sensible (as always) appraisal of the logical vs the mystical recollection of medieval warfare. congratulations Sir on a most enlightening and rewarding account of it.

What if you had shields on both arms while you were dual wielding?

Laughed while watching this, not at his theories cause the man knows his stuff... but at the simple realization that if you were to watch this muted it would look like a very uncoordinated little boy trying to show a bully how tough he was

I love it when you ramble, don't spare me

"You could reasonably carry a butler around". But only in Britain!

I have developed the technique of the deadly windmill! You have one scythe in each hand and you just spin around like a lunatic. Yeah, that's clever!

Miyamoto Musashi was a famous Japanese swordsman who used a two sword technique, a large sword and a companion sword, for example a katana and a wakizashi.

BEST YT TRAINER EVER!!! i'm doing this exercises every morning and already lost 10 kg. just follow the moves

I think its interesting to think about how in RP one does not consider the need for practical defences as much(prolly due to the lack of real danger) and thus gravitate towards flashy high offence options.

If you want to see dual wielding done right, look up Kali/Escrima. It's far from useless. Granted that's a very different situation than ancient/mideval warfare.

IMO what we generally see in historical weapons is that people carried shields into warfare and if double weapons or two weapons were ever used, it was in a dueling settling, such as the gladiatorial games or a fencing match. So shields were more reliable in a battle situation where you don't know what the opponent might be carrying, and where missiles would be flying. But in a duel, where you know what the opponent is carrying, you might select two weapons for flair or convenience (such as a parrying dagger in a situation where carrying a large shield would not be practical.)

I'd like to see more looking into the sword/parrying dagger combo. A medieval warrior owning both a sword and a dagger seems entirely reasonable to me. An ordinary person or bandit might also only have a couple knives to their name, so a sort of street brawl or mugging might lend itself more to dual-wielding than a pitched battle. The obvious meta however, as others have pointed out, is to have two shields.

Solution: *Dual Shielding*

Some below have brought up the two swords carried by samurai, and the two sword fighting system formalised by the sword master Musashi. His is one of the tiny number of such Japanese sword school/systems, and Musashi himself very rarely used both swords at the same time. Musahi's system was a katana based mirror of the western rapier & main gauche system, with the wakazashi short sword used like the main gaiche arming dagger - as a fending weapon with limited offensive capability. There are similar two sword styles in every sword culture - Thailand for example has a tradition that includes a two Krabi (longsword) system. Thing is they are rare and small scale, and were almost never used in real combat as, as Lloyd points out, the disadvantages far outweigh the advantages. NB: I dont class the rapier/main gauche system as dual wielding as the arming dagger was a "shield" fending device rather than a sword equivalent. Again Lloyd is right there, and I can confirm it as its a system I learned. Two main swords is just mainly Hollydud bollocks.

Musashi invented the dual wielding style in Japan, holding a katana in one hand and a wakizashi in the other. Though he only did this in dueling, as you said. He never lost a duel in his life, no matter what style he went against. Nodachis, kusarigamas, naginatas, all fell to his style. He was also among the first to attempt to use the katana in one hand, which is why he opted to use the wakizashi in his off-hand.

its like going back in time watching his old videos yet there is always something familiar about them

I cant stop watching your videos

I'd think that the biggest reason against wielding two weapons is that the level of skill and practice involved is very high. You thus can hardly expect large groups of people to master the art - and when units in armies are meant to all use the same combos of equipment that further discourages people from trying to master two-weapon fighting. Another factor is the likely fact that using two weapons as part of a large battle is significantly less effective than if you did so one-on-one.

Dual wielding two shields it is then!

My understanding is that castles/keeps would have tower stairways spiralling clockwise from top to bottom and cellar stairways spiralling clockwise bottom to top. So the defenders (fighting every inch of the stairwells) would be able to swing their swords freely while the attackers would have their sword swings impeded by walls. Architectural advantage for close-quarters combat. Apparently special units of left-handed swordsmen were sometimes trained for these stairway assaults. Is this story a truth or a myth? Where does it come from?

yea but fighting floor bosses while you're trapped in a game for two years straight

You could hold my potions in your off hand. BUT THEY ARE TOO STRONG FOR YOU TRAVELER

I feel like dual wielding was more for a dueling scenario compared to a battlefield scenario.

Just found your channel and i am enjoying your content. Thanks for your informative and entertaining videos.

I love your videos Lindybeige. Keep em coming

Musketeers used muskets? Can you use one whilst swashing your buckler?

You can also do the beyblade technique with dual wielding and be very effective in a large battle, you forgot about that i guess...

I like this guy because he get straight to the point

I'm impressed with your serve technique

Yes dual wielding is not a viable technic but it is still cool in video games and movies xD

why didn't you mention quad wielding? or maybe wielding both a sword and a pistol?

Dual wielding is a great exercise for developing ambidextrous skills which will help in cases of weak side or weak hand combat. This is no different than learning to shoot pistols with both hands. I am very competent with both hands when shooting but I only need one. In my professional (retired) I had to engage many times and I never went to my weak hand first. Two guns doesn’t make you more accurate, in fact it makes you less. Two swords will not make you more accurate and will likely tire you out twice as fast. It is also not greatly effective against Spears, Bow Staffs or other long pointy things designed to maim or kill. Love this guy and show.

I think duel wielding lends itself better to a fantasy setting for a few reasons. Usually characters can take quite a bit of punishment before expiring, plus with the addition of magic in general, there's less of a trade off when opting for two weapons. I think ultimately the ideal main advantage one could have with dual wielding is being able to still do two things at once. You may not be faster at attacking but you've got a weapon on each one of your flanks, meaning your enemy now has to keep his eyes on two weapons. Additionally if you have planted one of these weapons into an enemy's head already, you'd have another weapon ready to strike, block, or parry an incoming foe. Still I imagine it wasn't done in large battles, but maybe in smaller group fights.

73 people would use two handweapons in battle :D

Pft im Dual wielding 2 Short Bows, it's like a Minigun.

The picture on the thumbnail is so epic actually

Dual wield bow, double the shots, double the damage, double the badassery.

In a duelist context this exists as evidenced by the Fiore treatises.

Dual wielding in a battle is stupid, for assasinating someone or, dueling, it could be effective

I imagine most people also think they're going to have the director four feet away just off screen to give them cues for their dual wielding fight scene

Dual wielding was taught and practiced both on foot and mounted in the Arabic /,mamluke texts. It was taught primarily as a test of skill, and coordination or used in battle if your shield was lost or destroyed.

What if you're ambidextrous and you quickly do a 180 jump to swap your stance in a decisive moment?

Shields also lost popularity when people began wearing full plate armour. Plate was so effective that a shield was a waste, and it was better to just put both hands on your poleaxe.

"Musketeers used muskets" This just blew my mind. DAMN YOU HOLLYWOOD!!

One hand's for beating my enemies in battle, the others for beating myself off the battlefield.

dual wielding on the battlefield is basically kamikaze. you might do some more damage but you are almost certain to die. for duels dual wielding is quite a but more useful. i remember from the very age of 4 when i fought with sticks that having two swords is better than one, but then again we didnt have anything for shields, so it was either one sword or two swords. but even later on with playful duels up until now i still find how practical it can be to have a second sword, but still i think the reason is purely because of how much of an amateur me and my opponents are. we dont have proper metal armour, we have bad posture, footwork and our fighting style is mostly improvised or just what worked best the past few years (but we're still amateurs so that doesnt mean much except it is good for hitting amateurs) some of these upsides are the following: -two attacks at once. neither are very strong, very fast or very accurate, we usually use it like a shotgun, spray and pray. well, that is more like a machine gun. i guess spray once and pray once, then. -when you're disarmed...you're not actually disarmed, you still have another blade that you dont even need to unsheath but can immediately counterattack with. it is quite obvious that this is only an upside for newbies. you arent completely dead when you should be as good as dead. or when you're the underdog, you get a second chance (you're almost always an underdog) -actually well educted hema practitionners will have a tad bit more of a hard time against you because they never trained against dual wielders like you. but then again you are uncoordinated anyway, so he wont be able to use his amazing counter techniques against you but you wont be able to use your edge that you have on him by having two swords either. -depending if people agree if grappling is fair play or not, a second sword is way better. yes, you can also shield bash someone, but in this one regard it is actually better to have a second sword, especially if the opponent grabbed the other one firmly. but a dagger is better in this situation. overall the best thing about a sword is its versatility. axes for example can generate more power, spears have more reach, bow and arrows have even more and maces are way better at dealing with heavy armor. swords are reasonably light but there are daggers and slings that are way lighter. but swords do reasonably well in all these regards (and probably even more regards, but i am too much of a rookie to even think of them) so if one sword is so versatile, why not use two for even more versatility? obviously this only applies for quick arcade like duels, in battlefields bow and arrow are the best but if you dont count that, a nice selection of weapons is ideal like spear, sword, shield and maybe something to deal with heavy armor, pretty sure the ancient and medieval armies got it right.

I used to do a lot of fencing when I was younger (sabre) and occasionally we'd break a blade. Occurred to us to take these broken blades, smooth off the tip and a make them into parrying daggers about 15" long. Spent a long time playing around with that combination and came to the conclusion that if you were up against an opponent armed only with one weapon, he was dead. If you attacked with the sabre, he would have to parry, at which time you'd step in and jab him in the ribs with the dagger. Or if your opponent gets his attack in first, you parry with either sabre or dagger, and again, while his weapon is tied up, step in stick him. Two weapons absolutely work. Against two handed weapons? It worked, but not as well; two handed weapons will outreach you and probably overpower your parry, so it's a toss up. But yes, not using both hands in some way is to lose a fight.

His sweater is so baggy, love this guy

look forward to all the rambling outtakes one day :)

There was a sword master who did just that and he became a legend his name was Miyamoto Musashi. rules, don't just use two weapons carelessly like Conan the Barbarian, one must take his brain with him. Facing an opponent head on who is using a bow and arrow is obviously not using his brain.

The Saxons had the Seax as secondary weapon, so I always imagined them dual wielding, can you make a video about how the Seax was used?

This is golden

As someone who regularly fights medieval style (Dagorhir battle games), I have encountered/dealt with/been killed by a number of dual-wielding opponents, and I've learned a few things in the process. Most of the primary points of the video still stand, such as shields being better for missiles, but there are a few things that make two weapons a potential threat. One of the biggest advantages in dual wielding is the ability to cut off arms and legs. You can't press up against your opponent as with a shield, but you can skirt around them and try to "shave" off cuts to the sides by diverting weapons. This is very effective against individuals using two-handed weapons without armor, who can be baited in to attacking and then approached on the rebound. You can also get some good force behind hits without winding up. Winding up is an easy way to let your opponent know where you'll attack, where short, quick chops are more unpredictable and still able to exert a sufficient amount of force to be considered "fatal or injurious" if the weapon was real. Using two weapons still requires a level of coordination, initiative, and physical ability that place all but the most experienced users at a disadvantage, but dual wielders can still be anything from a nuisance to a distraction to a fatal opponent.