The ultimate fighting combination that cannot be beaten is dual wielding shields, obviously. It doesn't accomplish much, but at least it can bewilder your assailant long enough for you to make an escape.
+Roberto Luciani There have been shields with fair offensive capacity, though, and not just through spikes. Some pre-Roman shields in the British Isles could have had sharpened edges, for example.
+Roberto Luciani Oh? I think one of those shields with the big punching spike in the middle of it would be pretty good. Have like a kite shield on the left, punching shield on the right. There's the ol' "one two" right there for you. I think it's the Dhal I'm thinking of..?
+Roberto Luciani In the Pathfinder RPG the ultimate fighting combination actually is dual wielding shields. Well, actually the ultimate fighting combination is a toss up between turning into a dinosaur, summoning angels, and firing a high poundage longbow at a rate barely plausible for half drawing a target plinker. But dual wielding shields is strong for people who can't turn into dinosaurs and want to be able to fight in melee.
+scholagladiatoria nope, a rare bad, video from you Matt on the real life implications you contradict yourself...no skill needed/it's a rare skill (or at least skill) on the role playing game part, usually 2 swords meant directly twice as good as 1. And that's not the case at all in RL. Thus, a penalty was laid. "practice" or "natural ability", in the form of a skill, attribute, or talent reduces or even removes altogether such penalties. Which may be a game issue, as 2 swords shouldn't ever be twice as good as 1, or 1.9x greater than a polearm or greatsword. In other words, you don't get the games issue, either on video games, it's all over the place. It might be impossible if the game simply doesn't allow for 2 weapons to be equipped, or whatever. No arguments there, it's too variable to discuss in general As someone points out earlier, switching your knife & fork is awkward, and it's presumed the ambidextrous will find it either less so, or not at all. Sure, one can practice, and acquire a skill. You seem to be saying it's not a skill/is a skill again A swordsman (right or left handed) that always practices using their sword in their right hand is going to be less effective when they try it in their left hand, at least for a while. Practice to master a skill, again. I suppose if all you are trying to say is a repeat of something you said before, which is that combat practice/skill is always helpful (ie the wrong handed swordsman is better than the untrained swordsman), that's fine, but it's not the impression this video leaves. On dual wielding in the past, you made it clear how the sum of dual wielding isn't twice that of a single blade, and good videos they are. Here, not so much. I love your channel & videos Matt, but everyone has an off day, and if that's not something you can agree to here, then at least I can have an opinion on not liking this ONE video (out of so many). No big deal in any event.
+Genghis Don crap, missed the part where it seems obvious being ambidexterous would be quite a boon to dual wielding, and probably to all manner of combinations of arms (sw/buckler, w/shield, sw/dagger, etc) pretty sure 2 pistols ain't the greatest thing either, but it looks cool too. Maybe I shouldn't say that, I find the 2 swords uncool upon viewing these days (unless they are short blades or long/short)
+Zwelf Angasten "You only have one set of eyes, and you can only look in the same direction at the same time, unless you have something wrong with your eyes"
I believe this is the first time his knife/fork collection has been shown to the general audience. I would love to see an In depth cutlery related video
+Eupolemos No^^. When my friends would make a character sheet about me, they will all agree that my dex is below 10. I really have coordiation problems, can't even walk properly. However, kind of as treatment for that condition and of course for the fun, I took some Arnis classes, in which dual wielding is pretty common. As a result, I was often complimented about my dual wielding skills in larp and jugger. I still get my ass kicked, once my oppenent realises that my footwork is shit. So all in all, Dual Wielding is not a matter of dex in real life, but just a question of training.
+Ieuan Hunt True, considering that dual wielding was a highly uncommon skill. Difficult to learn, even more difficult to master but if done so then you have an unequal advantage against your opponent.
+Alexane Rose Your advantage was mainly surprise and intimidation from what I understand. Being such an uncommon technique, people didn't know what to do when faced with dual swords, even if the person is actually less skilled and would lose if his opponent wasn't slightly psyched out/wondering what to focus on.
DETHREAPER11 Intimidation is a factor and uncommonness does play a big role, but there are thee are others that I can think of. One of them being multiple engagement capability... that is if you can keep track of both weapons well.
+DETHREAPER11 If I was a moderately skilled spear and shield fighter I don't think I would be that intimidated by a guy with two swords. I know I can skewer him before he can come into distance and because he does not have a shield and I do he will have a very hard time hitting me without being hit first. My point is that if you know how to use a shield than you won't be intimidated by two swords.
I'm right handed. I found it easier to learn how to use my mouse with my left hand (fine motor control) so I can keep my right hand on my Tower of Joy. I would have thought it easier to switch my ToJ to my left hand, as it only requires a very basic motion to operate.
Awkwardly enough I am right handed, but I always used my left hand when fighing with my Tower of Joy ; ] This might be becouse it goes well with curvature of it ;p
Given that the 'ambidexterity' in D&D is a learnable skill or feat, rather than something that can only be taken at character creation (IIRC) I'd say it's more "training your non-dominant hand" than true ambidexterity. Also you can still dual-wield without it, you just aren't as good at it as someone who does have that skill. Which makes more sense than most things in D&D. On top of that you get less of a penalty for using a small weapon like a dagger in your off hand as opposed to a "full-sized" sword without the ambidexterity skill IIRC But this brings me into a niggle I have with dual wielding in films and games; very often both blades used by the dual-wielding guy are shorter than the ones used by everyone else! (I'm looking at you, King Arthur) It's like "Oh hey, I've already reduced my defensive ability by not having a shield, now I need to make my weapons shorter than everyone elses!" and you just know that the dual wielder is a "speedy guy" too, so he probably has on even less armour than his companions
+Ben Kirkby It's easier to dual-wield with two shorter weapons, than with two longswords, or bastard swords or whatever. So two shortswords is much easier and not as much in the way of each other than two longswords would be. I know a longsword is a bit of a stretch, since they're primarily two-handed but can be used in one hand, but not really as regular weapons. Two long arming swords would not be as ideal as shorter arming swords, since the longer the weapon, the less space it is to swing around effectively. Sure, you can use it like you should, parry the enemy's attack with one blade, then come in with the other blade. And yes, you get reach with one or two longer weapon/s, but you don't really get more reach per se with two weapons of the same length. Just that you have an opportunity to do a little more since you have two weapons. I think Matt has covered this in plenty of his videos. Skallagrim too.
+Ben Kirkby And I agree about the light armored dual-wielder stereotype. It makes more sense to wear plate armor, or mail atleast(preferably both in combination with each other, and also a helmet), than a lighter armor, since you're already reducing your defensive protective abilities by not using a shield.
+Marco Rubio I love the whole concept of two-weapon fighting being reduced to nothing more than a DPS mechanic, when usually in the very same games, two-handed weapons also fill that role. It makes you wonder what the point is in having two different weapon setups that serve the same purpose.
+HamsterPants522 Well with this plus +2 bursting short sword, I do fire damage! But with this +1 shocking dagger, I do electric damage! Honestly, it basically boils down to diversity, and in most cases, simply trying to make the character a bit different and more interesting to roleplay. It's done in roleplaying games for the exact same reason it's done on screen. It's flashy and fun. Sure, other things may be more practical and deadly while filling the same role, but it lets the player feel like they're doing something really badass.
+HamsterPants522 So people keep playing. They make one better, make everyone 'gear up' for that specific build with those specific abilities, then in half a year - change it so people will compete again. It's like modern sports, except it's (more) addicting and eats your time away (more).
+HamsterPants522 In D&D, at least 3rd edition, two-weapon fighting is better when you have extra damage dice like sneak attacks or flaming weapons, because it lets you roll more dice. Base damage is less important. A two-handed weapon increases your strength modifier and improves the output of the Power Attack feat. So dual wielding is more for rogues and people who like to stack damage dice, and two-handed is more for a straight up one-shot one-kill fighter or barbarian type.
Ambidexterity should probably be considered a "feat." It's something that could be cultivated as a skill. It's also something that certain people have a tremendous advantage with by birth.
I've got TWO legs from my hips to the ground And when I move 'em they walk around And when I lift 'em they climb the stairs And when I shave 'em they ain't got hairs Read more: Monty Python - I've Got Two Legs Lyrics | MetroLyrics
In Japan, Miyamoto Musashi created his own technique called "Niten Ichi-ryū" which roughly translates to "two heavenly swords as one" but in Japan, they didn't really use hand held shields, so I could assume this was more practical
In The Book of 5 Rings/Spheres Musashi mentions that dual wielding helps one hold a hostage while still fighting, if I recall correctly. He wasn't messing around!
great video, however i think you are missing the point of ambidexterity, both in game and in real life. it is a skill, its something you learn by training, ask anyone who has broken their "main arm", they have to relearn how to do many things with the other one, thats ambidexterity, the ability to use either arm for the same function. in games, you can see this as, a way to control both arms, without fumbling, because, like you said very well, its not easy to use two long weapons independently, it requires training.
There's one curious thing I noticed with beginning fencers when they're given two weapons, or weapon and a shield - they tend to forget about the one in their off hand and not use it at all, only to suddenly remember it's there, make a move or two and forget about it again. Now, when you do that with a big shield, the shield still works really well (it's all you're really supposed to do with some shields). If you do that with a buckler, it still kinda works, if the buckler is kept in front of you. If you do it with a dagger, then dagger may as well not be there most of the time, so no harm done. Do it with a sword, though, and it not only may as well not be there, it actually gets in the way.
After looking at Arthur Dayne dual wielding, how about doing a review of the final fight scene of shanghai knights - between Aiden Gillen (littlefinger from GoT) vs Jackie Chan, fast-paced fight scene, which I think visually looks very impressive.
I think a lot of people in the comments are struggling with what Matt is trying to get across in his video. The dictionary definition of Ambidexterity is "being able to use both hands equally well" - What Matt is saying is, quite simply, you do not need to be able to use both hands equally well to dual wield effectively. Simple as that. The point people are making that you can't eat effectively if you switch your fork and knife hands is completely and totally irrelevant. Why would you switch hands? Can you eat fine with them in the proper hands? Great! Does that mean you're ambidextrous? No! Dual wielding swords is exactly the same. Your dominant hand will probably function differently than your off-hand, but you can still be a proficient, even expert dual wielder.
Yes, but ambidexterity as a skill in DnD relates often to offhand attacks specifically. Hence, you can "switch sides" and attack with both sides equally well. I bet it would cause a huge problem for many martial artists to suddenly hold their sword in their non-dominant hand, unless they've practiced a lot for both sides. And to support that it is beneficial to sometimes "switch sides" when fighting, there are a lot of stories that left handed opponents cause headache to people who have mainly dueled against right handed opponents.
If Jaime was knighted by Sir Arthur, and served on the kingsgaurd with him for at least a couple years.. isn't it plausible that they trained with one another regularly? If so, how come Jaime never bothered to learn to use a sword in his left hand like his dual wielding mentor? that shows an uncharacteristic amount of humility for Jaime to just accept that Sir Arthur was a dual wielding badass and not try to prove himself superior in some way.
+Karl Toth Isnt it possible that Jaime was hanging out with him to learn enough from him, to eventually beat him? Only thing about his left hand I can think of is, that he was already quite good with his right side. If you are barely good enough to stand your ground with your primary hand against a better opponent, why would you handicap yourself by trying to use something new like your left side? Look at it like this. Jaime trained with Dayne to learn from him, to eventually beat him. Lets assume that was his goal, to beat Dayne for prides sake. When Dayne was alive, Jaime couldnt take him with his right hand. By time he may have been good enough to at least hold off Dayne, he was killed and Jaime became one of the greats. Almost no one could beat Jaime's right hand, so he stopped training to beat Dayne and just sat on his laurels for years. If you dont need to dual wield to be the best, why would you develop that skill set? Thats my read of the situation from the books and the show. A bunch of reasons just made the skill redundant.
+Arbhall McDougall You make a fair argument, and I suppose that same point has been made elsewhere in the comments in re: how to fight an opponent with a flashy/unorthodox style.
But there are people like me, my right hand is my dominant hand, it's pretty common but I'm more right-handed than most people, I even have a disease because of this, my right side of the body is a little bent because I never used my left hand for nothing in my entire life (just for typing and eating), even my spine is bent to the right side, so... I'm really, really... really bad with my left hand but there is a pro: my right hand/arm is stronger than it should be, I have 59 kilos/130lbs my punch has more power, let's say it's like if I had 70/75 kilos 154/160 lbs. I train Muay Thai so it's pretty funny to see people's face when I land my right hand.
Do you instinctively hit harder with a shield and weapon than when using two weapons? I know it's possible to hit hard in either case, but do you think you know you have a shield, and conversely, have the psychological reassurance to hit with more force because you know you can defend more effectively?
+Jason Fuentes You don't really need to hit with much force at all to do some serious damage with a sword. A light tap is honestly all it takes to open up devastating wounds. So, hitting harder is kind of pointless, and if you miss, can result in overextending and leaving yourself open. So, to answer your question, I'd wager the answer is no, because you don't want to hit particularly hard in either case.
Me and several of my friends have tried duel wielding in sparring matches, and 1 of 2 things inevitably happens. 1) The person forgets that they are holding two weapons, and one hangs at their side as they focus on their primary hand. 2) They try to use both weapons simultaneously, and they keep getting in the way of each other, or the person freezes up a bit trying to figure out the patterns. I'm not sure how much practice would be required to get over these issues, but practice is required. Somebody who has never tried duel wielding before and just picks up 2 swords will be at a disadvantage. Fork and Knife are a bad metaphor, because the coordination is very simple, low stakes and you can take as much time as you want. For the most part you stab the object and hold the fork in place while you use the knife, in other words you're really only maneuvering one at a time. Duel Wielding is much more complicated than that. Similarly, you standing alone in your backyard and carefully and slowly trying out patterns does not demonstrate in anyway that you attempting this for the first time mid fight would not disadvantage you. I'm not saying you need to be ambidextrous or that it isn't possible, but it's a lot more complicated than you make it seem here.
Mark Gilbert's saber sparring shows both 1) and 2) really well. This is a real, historical chinese double saber routine: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-dpqOWOhoJkQ.html Many of the movements flow naturally from one to the next. In my understanding, each swing can be delivered either as parry or as a cut. So, while to the uneducated eye it may look like a bunch of mindless spinning, it is actually a method to condition one to constantly attack and parry/deflect any attack and carry on attacking.
Another analogy of doing two very complex similar things with both hands is playing piano. Both hands are doing totally different music at the same time. It is simply developing the muscle memory.
+1964TP But again, that's a learned skill, not something just anyone can pick up. Anyone can learn ambidexterity through practice, which would make you more proficient in some ways, even if it isn't a huge difference.
It has been used by many notable duelists. Miyamoto Musashi dual weilded in duels and even in warfare, Khalid Ibn Alwalid dual wielded, was reported to have "two right hands", meaning equally proficient with both hands with his swords, at one fierce battle he broke 7 swords. Dual wielding is always better than sword and shield if you're actually good at it.
ambidexterity is actually a skill. I lost the use of my left hand for a while (I'm a lefty naturally) and I was able to learn how to do everything right handed. I regained the use of my left hand and can do just about everything with either hand and can write with both at the same time. It's just a matter of practicing till it doesn't feel unnatural anymore and if u stop practicing ur skill non-dominate hand deteriorates quite quickly
your knife and fork analogy is flawed. Which hand do you normally use your fork with? What hand do you normally use your knife with? Now try switching between the two, I guarantee you eating will be much more difficult and will feel very awkward.
+Roshawn Terrell How is that different to using two swords? Nobody is saying that you have to use the two swords exactly the same as each other. It is little different to sword and buckler, or rapier and dagger.
scholagladiatoria Well of course you don't have to have good accuracy and control in both hands in order to use both blades, but it definitely makes a huge difference. Especially seeing as wielding two blades is far more difficult and risky than holding a big shield that can easily protect you by just lifting it up. Dual swords are far more risky but they have the possibility of an even greater reward if you manage to actually become effective with them. Granted most people would die before they likely would begin to master their weapon. So it was much easier just to hand the peasants long spears and big shields, because they are easier to use and as such less risky.
+scholagladiatoria not completely relevant to the discussion, but my aunt broke her dominant hand twice in one year and is now ambidextrous since she had to use her non dominant hand for so long.
+scholagladiatoria My experience is that (from a lot of practice) my brain doesn't seem to be able to track the position. orientation or velocity of my left hand anywhere near as well as my right, hence my right handedness. I just can't seem to develop a high enough level of ability in my left hand to make 2 swords viable or even hammer sheet/nails with my left hand regardless of the amount of practice. Coordinating your hands to perform simultaneous or alternating actions of the same type isn't the issue as much as getting the subordinate hand to perform with enough ability to make the task worthwhile. Handedness is very much a spectrum or sliding scale from ambidexterous to very dominate handedness.
I enjoy your videos in particular as a resource over Skall or Lindy. you often elaborate well including examples and note from battle or warfare and also in a duelling situation (the later being an area where both Skall and Lindy seem to overlook). i understand that fighting for the sake of survival was more than likely much more prevalent than for entertainment or simply as a show of skill, but those two often seem to skirt around the fact (if not overlooking it entirely) using only battlefield examples to draw their conclusions.
Knife and knife food eating form, was it done historically? Was spoon and fork common in places where the texture of a meal wasn't a certainty? ...I've been watching too much youtube. Please don't answer these on Five Questions.
+Dominator046 The fork wasn't common in Europe until at least the 16th century. Before that, the knife was used to skewer as well as cut, so using two knives was probably done at least somewhere. Though it would have been far more common to just hold it in place with your fingers.
The knife and knife did happen a lot in japan and egypt and the spoon and fork thing in china Let's first talk about egypt Only rich people did it cuz you need to money to be able to do it and the first time it was used was during the period asterix and obelix visited egypt The japanese used it during the time goku was still training so the dragon ball period Now china is interesting some people think that the emperor jackie chan made it a thing but is was a chinese trader called bruce lee I hope you learned something
There's a common misunderstanding that in tabletop games, there's a negative modifier to wielding two swords. The negative modifier doesn't come from wielding two swords, it comes from making a two-pronged attack. And this is, additionally, not a modifier which makes wielding two swords less effective than one sword (though it can be). Rather, this compensates for the fact that you get two chances to attack an enemy and, statistically, it's more likely that one or the other will be parried (simply from crossing a plane of movement with another sword). My character "dual wields" a rapier and a net in my game. But he doesn't get any modifiers to using his rapier if I'm not currently attacking with my net. I am using my net to exploit openings by way of "attacks of opportunity" that I can make. While the use of my net isn't very realistic, it just emphasizes that your character can be a very effective dual wielder without ever, ever getting special training in the game, provided that they can make use of openings in their opponents' defenses.
+Alderick van Klaveren It really depends on the system. In GURPS, for example, if you don't have the Ambidexterity attribute (which is not a skill), you suffer a -5 penalty to using a sword in your off hand. That's a pretty severe penalty, but different skills handle it differently. For example, a rapier would often be paired with a dagger in the offhand which would use the Main Gauche skill. This is designed for parrying and functions somewhat similarly to a buckler. Though you can attack with the main gauche, the reach is not as long as rapier and it's generally not as good of a weapon. Using two swords at once would allow you to parry twice per turn rather than once, but you couldn't block as you could with a shield putting you at a disadvantage. There are other rules but I think I've explained the basics.
+Alderick van Klaveren The duel wielding penalty, as I understand it, is actually a balancing issue. Namely, you can do more damage per turn with two weapons than one on average.
For record, Sir Arthur Dayne is known for wielding a single greatsword. It is called Dawn. In show, Sir Arthur Dayne is dualing-wielding, because he is replacing another character. In actual book, Arthur Dayne, Oswald Whent, and Gerold Hightower face off against Eddard Stark and his six companions. The show's writers chose to remove Sir Whent. In the show, Arthur Dayne is fighting for two. Great video, Matt. Thank you for taking the time share this with us. ^-^
I have to disagree about the ambidextrousness point. I can't hit as accurately or powerfully with my left as my right and trying to focus on both arms at the same time is far harder than using one hand to help you balance the other.
+Alex Morgan You don't have to be equally able with both hands in order to use both hands. Presumably you don't have any trouble using a knife and fork :-)
Yes but you refer to the AD+D rule that when you fight with both hands, you suffer a penalty to your better hand and a greater penalty to your off-hand, unless you have Ambi in which case, the Penalty is reduced. Unless I am mistaken. Love your work BTW.
+Alex Morgan Japanese Nito Ryu Kendo (focused on wielding a long sword and a short sword) has a phrase that goes something like "when you split your hands from wielding a single weapon, you end up with all of your 'power' in one hand, and all of your 'control' (aka skill / dexterity) in the other hand". Typically with the 'weaker' hand holding the shorter sword, so that all you really need to do is step in and thrust or cut, and the stronger hand holding the longer sword. They typically use the shorter sword out in front to parry and control their opponent with, while their longer sword is held abover their shoulder and slightly behind them - always threatening a strong powerful strike (that doesn't have a whole lot of 'control' to it). From what I've heard about the kendo scene, it's a very disorienting style to fight against, because if you worry too much about one sword the other ends up getting you. I guess it wouldn't be too dissimilar from 'buckler and sword' fighting styles as in those the buckler is often held fairly far out too. In general though, dungeons and dragons does an awful job of representing reality; it shouldn't even be entertained in this kind of discussion.
+scholagladiatoria in the same sense aren't most people better using the knife in a certain hand and the fork in the other hand, true that anyone can switch hands but most people just naturally feel better using set hand for set piece of cutlery :)
I think the idea of being ambidextrous comes into it due to a person's strength in their arms. Bringing up tennis (I play tennis a lot) A player cannot switch to using their left hand and do the same. In badminton doing an overhead swing is incredibly difficult with your bad hand. Although with dual wielding swords you could sing both in the same way, surely your dominant hand is the one mainly doing the damage. It's at the point of contact that the left hand might react differently. Of course with practice the two hands might become closer together in terms of strength, but if you're also doing normal 1 sword combat the main hand will still be stronger than the offhand.
+trevor Wilkinson Or you can just practice a style that relies _heavily_ on your off-hand, like Niten Ichi-Ryu, in which it applies the actual force of the two-handed blows much of the time. It makes things a lot easier when they switch to two swords in advanced training, since their off hand is already pretty steady and strong.
Hi, thank you for your videos, I like them. My opinion is, to use 2 weapons require much more skills, of course and longer the weapons the harder to learn, the same as to use 2 different weapons (2 swords, sabres etc are "easy" to move against say sword and mace/axe etc, because they need different moves - because weight, point of balance, specs. of use etc.) To compaire it with knife and fork isn´t, in my exp. the best, because they are very short, light, you are using just 2 - 3 movents to use them and you don´t need to use your weak hand to defence aginst your food;-) Also, compare shield movements in weak hand with a regular weight/lenght sword isn´t the best, in my eyes, because shield needs just few movements but the sword can be and should be used in full range of the sword techniques, otherwise isn´t realy good idea to use 2 swords. Our brain likes similarity, that is why we use mostly 2 the same/similar weapons (2 swords, 2 sabres, 2 daggers or a sword with a dagger which is close to the sword, it is a "small sword"). I´m in Chinese MA and we are using many 2 weapons sets - broadswords (sabres for me), stright swords, but canes, hammers, axes etc. For dual wielding, there is MANY styles you can find there, I think more then in European MA, may be, because they didn´t use shields as we did here. Just a tip, try find Chinese tonfa and sabre combination, that is realy rare and each hand must do different movements and learn to attack with the tonfa then only use it as a shield keeps your enemy very busy...just example:-)
I don't know that the tabletop rules on duel-wielding are actually rubbish, at least not in the games I've played. In my experience the penalty for not being ambidextrous isn't to your overall ability to attack due to some higher skill level but to your ability to attack with your off-hand. My left hand is certainly far less dexterous than my right and would be much less useful for attack, whereas a shield or buckler (which goes in the off-hand) needs much less dexterity to use defensively. I can see why ambidexterity would be considered a requirement for attacks with the off-hand to be as effective as attacks with the main-hand.
ambidexterity is indeed a skill you can learn. If you look at the juggling community, I'd dare say 60-70% is ambidextrous. This could just be because ambidextrous people find it easier, and thus more enjoyable, to learn juggling, however I don't think that's very likely, seeing how few 'normal' people are ambidextrous.
I really enjoy your articles Matt.Great channel! I was wondering if you know the mechanics of the "Harmonius Cut" from the Hellas period,I have read about it in texts and there is a 2nd C roman sculpture depicting it...any thoughts All the best from a fellow Brit and blade enthusiast Salve M.V.
You needed 'ambidexterity' feat to equalize penalties to attack for right and left hands in AD&D v3.0. It was deprecated and it's effect was attached to feat named 'two weapon fighting' in v3.5. ...I don't know why I know that :)
Thank you for this intelligent overview of dual wielding and how it relates with ambidexterity this was mostly well worded and thought out however as a gamer I am disappointed you didn't do more research into how the ambidextrous abilities work in games before making it the centerpiece of your explanation. Typically no matter whether you spend the points on your character to have it any character can equip two weapons as you say it doesn't require some magic to hold 2 swords what games incorporate is a penalty for using 2 without the skill, in d&d a character can purchase feats, "ambidexterity" and "two-weapon fighting" are the feats that give the character the ability to dual wield without any penalty without either ability a character using 2 swords would suffer a -4 to rolls to determine whether his blow landed i.e. I'm required to roll a 16 on a D20 to hit my enemy I roll a 16 but because I'm not trained it becomes 12 and I miss if I have the fighting style feat this lessens to a -2 and no penalty if I have both I hope I was able to educate you in this please consider it a thank you for the knowledge you gave me
When I broke my right hand I started to learn to write and draw with my left and did pretty well after awhile. When my right hand healed I stopped and lost that ability. So I think yes you can practice and become ambidextrous though I think some people can do it from the start but it isn't limited to those people. Though I'm still pretty sure the people that seem to be able to do it "innately" as you call it probably learned to do it when they are young, like how many of us learned how to write with one hand or the other. While they for whatever reason learned with both hands.
Agreed. In Wing Chun we practice using 2 "swords" or short "swords" even though the literal translation is knife. Moves are practised mirrored and independent. And I can tell you right now I'm far from ambidextrous.
Hi Matt! I largely agree with your statements in the video, however here's some points I might argue, regarding my experinece (I practiced and teached sword and dagger -bolognese- and occasionaly dabbled in two swords, but it is an area to learn a lot about still): - I agree that it is a skill everybody can learn and it is too mystified due to pop culture and rpgs. Aside that, it tends to be hard in the beginning for one who practiced longsword and/or solo one handed sword prior, because the simple fact that learning to use two weapons instead of one takes time to adjust and it tends to be easier with sword and shield or sword and dagger, because of the two weapon's different roles and lenght. After sword and dagger, two sword is indeed not as hard as one might imagine, in my opinion. - I partly disagree that sword and shield is mostly superior. In non-battlefield situation, notably in a duel, two swords could have a big advantage, namely the increased quantity of possible attacks and angles of attacks and the reach of those attacks could overwhelm the opponent. Most importantly, the shield/dagger side of the opponent and especialy his leg(s) are very vulnerable because it takes a great deal of experience and speed to defend the lower areas with a dagger or a shield, while the attacker's other sword can defend a larger area because of the longer blade, while posing a threat with the point, a thing a shorter weapon/shield have a harder time to do. Or the two-sworder can make an attack on the enemy' sword-side, forcing his weapon to defend and in the same time making another attack with his other sword to an exposed area. Now I don't say that it is the ultimate combo, or whatever, in the end the more skilled fencer would win and learning to use two weapons of similar length takes time and it has as much disadvantages in other fields as advantages, but in my experience both as with and against it, it could be very effective and overwhelming to the opponent. Note, that, of course the effect of inexperience in fencing against it could be a huge factor too, i don't doubt that.
You can learn to be ambidextrous. I was left handed but I had an accident and hurt my left wrist pretty badly so I had to learn to use my right hand. Now I actually write better with my right hand than my left. Although, it's partly due to my left wrist not fully healing right.
Yes you need to be ambidextrous in games to use two swords because most people are right or left handed. Try writing with your off hand or cutting with a knife with your off hand it's not possible or good at all. Ambidexterity helps you control both swords as if you had two main hands instead of a main hand and off hand. You can train yourself to become ambidextrous but it takes time.
To talk about Musashi and Ambidextery: In the Book of five Rings he says that u need to make the same swings with left and right to not be in disadvantage. It is not about having special ability, but still u need to train using both hands, a hand with no power will not lead to anything.
I guess being ambidexter certainly gives you an advantage in the learning process, but once you are skilled at dual-wielding, you are skilled and that's it. And certainly it is not a sine qua non condition.
I loved dual Dao training. Sadly I didn't have enough time with it to be able to use it in sparing. There's something in the feeling once you've got both blades in syncopated motion though.
You should audition for the next season of Game of Thrones. Even if you get no speaking lines you could show us some real sword techniques while still looking totally cool.
On ambidexterity as a skill: you're probably never going to be as good at it as a person who was born with innate ambidexterity, but you certainly can practice and learn to use your non-dominate arm *much* better than you initially could. I've known a right-handed person who learned to use her left hand very well, including precise coordination (e. g. hand-writing and using a computer mouse) while her right arm was covered in plaster after being broken.
+VioletGiraffe Interesting example you mentioned. I am left-handed yet I mainly use mouse in a right hand. Though I can as easily use it with left hand too, I just don't want to change the usual setup of mouse on the right side of keyboard. It is not that hard, though writing is much more difficult to achieve with the non-dominant hand.
Problem with the off-hand is not "can you use a sword in it?" It is, "can you use a sword WELL in it?" You might be able to swing it around okay in your off-hand if you're non-ambidextrous, but you will probably neither be as strong nor as accurate with the strikes as you would be with your dominant hand. True dual-wielding assumes you're using the same weapon in both hands. A shield is much more passive and requires less precision and dexterity to use in the off-hand than another primary weapon. RPGs represent this with varying trait systems that infer that someone who is not naturally ambidextrous (which is mostly everyone) needs special training in order to overcome their normal clumsiness with their off-hand, thus reducing the penalty for dual-wielding. It makes a lot of sense, because while people can certainly use a knife and a fork in both hands, if you ask them to switch which hand the knife and fork are located, most people will be much more clumsy and awkward than they would using them in their normal way (which for most people, for example, is knife in dominant hand, fork in off-hand).
Amedexterty is not compareable to using a knife and fork. Okey I'm gone give a clear explaination to how you should see someone being amedexterius as a advantages in combad. Imagen someone that is right handed or left handed using a longsword in a fight. There lead hand will always be on top for the most controlle right. If the right-handed person had to hold the sword left hand up and other way around there fighting abilitie would drasticly decrease right. This is cause there main hand that has the most controlle is no longer in the same spot. Someone that's amedexterius can be effectif with either hand up and can even switch hands during the fight. Sure one-side that you trained the most is slightly better cause of more developt musicle memory, but both sides can be used to high effect. Now imagen this bleeding true to using 2 weapons, your coördinaten with neither weapon is worse cause both hands are equily controllable. You can perfectly coördinate both weapons at once without having to focus on doing moves with one and kind of neglecting the other for that moment. Someone that isn't amedexterius will always have one weapon they will be less effectif with and most of the time they will choose either something smaller that they can coördinaten more easly for there of hand like a a dagger or a buckler or something big and defencive they don't have to move that much for example a shield, but when you give this person 2 longer weapons like 2 rapiers and there not trained at it they will fail horribly at using the weapon in there of hand cause they will have very little to no controlle over it. Someon that is amedexterius naturaly will be able to controlle both weapons with the same level of skill. Even when your blades move in angels that cross they will not though eachother unless ofcourse your doing it on purpose. For people like me duel wielding wil actuely be easy and it will bassicly take the same amount of training that it takes to just be able to use one sword. With the last statement I mean if you are amedexterius and you already learned how to fight with one sword you can already duelwield. I'm pretty sure I'm amedexterius but was raised right handed sow I have a slight advantages fighting right handed cause my coördinaten on that side has bin better developed, but these examples are from my expierence bassicly.
I can second your statement. I am fairly ambidexterous aswell. My left side is marginally stronger, but my right side is more dexterous, because it's just easier to mainly use your right hand in the world we live in and I was told in kindergarden that I had to pick one side. Anyway, I don't have any fighting experience, but I am a wood carver and wood carving is kind of a dual wielding type of activity aswell, where you are holding the mallet in one hand and the knife in the other. I have never had any problem switching the tools and using them with reversed hand positions. Some other wood carvers I have met, have looked at me in awe, because they can not do it to save their lives. Although most people seem to be able to learn to switch hands with a little effort, especially if they are used to performing complex tasks with both hands. In the context of roleplaying I would classify dual wielding as a specialised skill unless the character is in deed ambidexterous. You don't have to be ambidexterous to learn dual wielding, but it sure steepens your learning curve, since your nondominant hand dosn't have to catch up with the dexterity. With pretty much every skill I have learned it's super easy for me to just switch hands and do it with my hands reversed, but I have seen many people struggel to the point where they just gave up.
I think that in a battle, it's more important to not die than to kill the enemy. Therefore I would always believe that sword and shield will be infinitely better in every situation than dual swords. I can't think of a single situation where dual swords would outclass sword and shield. Now, duel WIELDING is quite useful, for example a rapier and a dagger or sword with buckler and dagger. Duel wielding is interesting and useful. Dual swords however, useless.
+Min Jeong-Something Well, in a practical historical context, as far as I'm aware, the primary reason dual wielding happened was in situations of civilian self-defense when one didn't simply have access to a shield anywhere. But I think it also wasn't usually swords that were dual wielded in this context. Perhaps most other weapons besides swords, actually. Dual weapons are perhaps useless in the context of a battle, but a battle is only one sort of combat scenario.
Hey Matt, what do you think about dual-wielding swords like these? kultofathena.com/product.asp?item=TFW001 They're made to be just short enough such that they don't get caught on each other and used against yourself by being approximately the length from your elbow to your fingertips, which is also reminiscent of Wing Chun's(the martial art they're made for) view on weapons, that fighting with a weapon is essentially just adding another joint onto your arm. They're also built to have guards with quite good coverage so that you can simultaneously use one sword to defend against your opponent's weapon and strike with the other one. As compared to the rapier+dagger combination, they're also meant to both be of equal size so that you have no weak sides in your offense nor defense.
+Nohb'dy 11 yes, duel-wielding butterfly swords is most definitely a thing. those things are designed to be use as a set, much like the shaolin twin-hooks.
It's admittedly an SCA thing, but from my experience of melee the advantage of two swords is that you can threaten two targets simultaneously (attacking both at the same time is another thing, but still). That gives you a useful asset in melee, offering a chance to control the fight against multiple opponents a bit more. You don't do it like they did at the Tower of Joy, mind you, but it can be done.
+Matthew Hooper Yea but that only works in SCA, HMB, and LARP because of the scoring systems...now had dayne been using two valyrian steel blades, and had the show not weakened them significantly, then it wouldnt matter as dayne could slice through sword and armor alike with little resistance, but as it stands, dawn was nowhere to be seen in the show, and valyrian steel is nerfed dramatically anyway, so the idea of being able to threat two people at once is just not realistic. Were I a stark soldier who was on dayne's off side being presented with the point of one sword, but him actually looking away, it would be of minimal threat, because he would find it difficult to find a weak point in my armor while focusing elsewhere. Assuming hes right handed, dayne would have been the most vulnerable while holding his arms extended from the side, on his left, and looking right, youd actually be safer with the blade pointed at you than were you infront of his chest or behind his back, as in those two cases he could use a small pivot to threaten you appropriately with either his primary and off hand in the case of the front, and primary hand in case of the back.
When dual wielding, is it better to train using two swords of equal length or to start with say, rapier and dagger, then when you are competent enough to do so, move on to dual rapiers? I hate sounding like a katana-nut but I'm still broadening my library, but in a copy of the book of five rings, Miyamoto Musashi advises using the long sword (katana) in each hand, noting that it will feel heavy at first, before moving on to using the short sword (wakizashi) in one hand and the katana in the other. But in another translation, Musashi writes to practice the techniques in the Water Scroll/Chapter using the long sword on its own, the short sword on its own and finally using both simultaneously to practice the techniques. My question is: do the European treatises follow that same structure for dual wielding swords? Again apologies for sounding like a katana worshipping...worshipper. Thanks in advance for any help/advice
I'm ambidextrous and tend to agree with your sentiment on the use of two swords throughout history. It was probably very rare and few men would benefit from it. Still, I'm sure there WERE men of the period who could handle two weapons simultaneously and defeat anyone. Some people are capable of having two "trains of thought" at once and could certainly be deadly if trained.
In fencing class, being ambidextrous I would switch my sword side when fighting with a left hander to mess with them since they are use to fighting right hander
I have fought with two swords at larp for well over a decade. I can tell you that they are effective and I can fight two opponents at a time by using peripheral vision and footwork to direct them and choosing my strikes wisely. It require coordination and practice. Of course I would not conclude that larping is the same as sparring with steel, however it certainly can be done. I personally prefer it simply because I can hit faster from behind opponents and deal 2 hits at once, which is great for a "game style" setting. I am agreed with just about everyone however, that a sword and shield is the way to go, if you do not want to die. Good video.
One simple question: Can this kind of juggling you do with the two swords effective in a duell, or is it mainly to show off and impress you opponent. Let´s say in a dual one guy got two swords the other got a sword and buckler? All swords are equal. Because I can remember there was once a articel I think from Dimicator or so where they where talking about artistic fighting and how to deal with an artistic fighter. The answer was, don´t let yourself get impressed, don´t try to copy your oppenent cause you loose cause he his better in it. Just try to force your own direct style through, cause even if you miss a lot of attacks your opponent will be exhausted before you or do some bad blocks.
I mean in a duell situation. Not against multiple opponents. Against multiple opponents you have to try to seperate and keep distance (by not trying to grable) to have a chance, and that is always in disfavour for you. Because in a duell you can always try to reduce the opponent strikes to simple strikes from the left shoulder or right shoulder and so on. And then I would say you can use your standart parries for these strike. F.e. after i.33 you counter a strike (as right handed) from the opponent right shoulder (i think it was the third strike??? wasn´t a while in sword and buckler fencing) with a half shield. If he wields two swords and strike with both in the same manner, I would say do the same. Because then all the things he can do with the right sword would be the same like in sword and buckler fencing. If he want to do something with the left sword he needs to pull it back. And as soon as he do so, just go in for the kill and stab him from the half shield. Cause you have two hands in the center both together and the only real thread is then the right sword, you can push aside. So that is just my guess, because I think that you should not let yourself be impressed by some flashy sword play, just kill the fucker. Also there might be some techniques i really don´t know that may help you.
There were actually some epilepsy treatments in the 20th century which separated the two halves of the brains a bit more from one another. Those people could actually have their two hands do different things at the same time like draw.
Ambidexterity in RPGs because even if you're the most braindead of them all, your natural "Put your hand in front of the blow" instinct will kick in and the only difference being you have a shield there instead of just your arm. If you wield two maces, nobody gives a bloody damn about technique. You can clobber an enemy easily. But as far as something edged or pointy goes, you have to focus on what you're doing and it's not exactly easy to coordinate 2 parts of your body differently. (Try drumming for example.) With a fork and a knife you Stab>Cut>Lift and that uses absolutely no ambidexterity. It's more like writing with a pen. You write with your main hand. Try writing with both your hands. That's closer to what happens with swords.
I think the implication of an unlockable "SKILL" in most games is meant to convey "PROFICIENCY" not literal ability. with the weapon enough to use on a regular basis. If the in-game context of your character is "Yes I can physically pick up two swords but I'm so unskilled with them that it would hinder the players experience" then that would not be so fun to play. So unlocking that "ability" really implies training up to the point of it being practical.
Why do games require a feat/skill to dual wield effectively? Very simple: balance. For a melee-oriented character in, say, D&D, dual wielding nearly doubles your damage output compared to wielding a single weapon, whereas wearing a shield will only give a small boost to your defenses (in D&D 3.5, wearing a large shield gives you +2 AC, and all characters have a "natural" AC of 10 without armor, so a shield is only a 20% defense boost over being naked). Before you say it, yes, we know this isn't realistic - game and balance, remember. Dual wielding IS great in the game, so it requires an investment of a very valuable character skill/feat point into ambidexterity or the game's equivalent to keep the option balanced with shields, which many classes can use innately and aren't all that powerful.
My problem with two sword is that in most rulesets it has an advantage that is not realistic. In SCA fighting, two Sword is very effective, as is "madu style" sword and axe or sword and spear but in a real fight these styles are less effective. I believe this is also true in various foam fighting groups. I fought primarily two Sword from about 1989 to 1991 and it was very effective but I gave it up completely in an effort to be more realistic. Another note, a few people have tried using two weapons in HMB/BOTN style team fighting and it's a disaster. They would pretty much always be better off with a buckler or even an empty hand... With no thrusts and armor that works it just doesn't make sense.
So, the reason there are penalties and extra skills required in roleplaying games/video games is for game balance. Suddenly getting twice as many attacks as someone with a different weapon style in a single combat round is very unbalancing to the combat system. As a fighter that uses two long blades in boffer combat (LARP), I am not ambidextrous. It's advantage is a massively strong offense and speed. Typically a sword and shield fighter will be able to take fewer swings. Essentially, I'm agreeing with you here. That's all. Also, love the forks. Nice video.
Another reason why sword and shield might be superior than two swords (especially in a battlefield situation) - and I think you have pointed this in one of your videos: Swords are expensive and far harder to replace than shields. Although that's not really relevant for the fight sequence =P
Mark uses 2 swords and can beat 2 people, I pick up 2 swords and cut my right hand off, and my right hand has a sword in it, which technically just attacked my foot which now makes it 3 v 1.Only joking I'm exaggerating, but I do suck balls with 2 swords.
Have you ever taken a pair of bokken or a katana and a wakizashi and tried to use it how Miyamoto Musashi did? There could be a very highly skilled and intricate art developed around it and in certain circumstances, it would be extremely effective. Particularly against a single sword-wielding opponent in a one-on-one duel and possibly even effective against a sword and shield wielding opponent. I'd love to do or see some sparring with dual katana and wakizashi, fighting against spear, sword, sword & shield, etc
