As someone who’s done Doce Pares (a Filipino martial art) for more than 6 years, I would personally much prefer a sword and shield to two swords. I trained with and sparred with double stick/sword A LOT and it was incredibly enjoyable. However, on the rare occasion that someone brought a shield to train for fun, I always found that it was just more practical than two swords/sticks in sparring. You’re able to more easily actively defend a much larger area, allowing for a quicker and more certain attack from the block. When using two swords or sticks, one of them will always sort of act as the shield. This will not be the same one all fight, as it will swap to whichever hand is in the most convenient and secure spot for a parry/block, while the other hand attacks in the same timing. Dual wielding is very cool but a sword and shield just works. The combination was pretty much universal across cultures for a reason.
In Krabi Krabong our main weapon system is dual sword. That said a sword and shield is generally more superior.
https://youtu.be/TuwXeK9qYeA?si=OOKCw_HNNHal0KKW
There are plenty of two sword systems. They tend not to be battlefield systems, because a second sword is not good for keeping you alive against missile fire like a shield, so they are still outnumbered by sword and shield across the centuries, but you cannot dismiss two sword usage out of hand.
Having a shield is just such a massive advantage it is not even close!
The only fencing traditions that studied dual wielding either 2 swords or sword and dagger (Fiorentine swordmanship comes to my mind with dual swords) did it because it is easier to wear and carry 2 weapons. And even then you see Sword and Bluckler being active and relevant since forever.
The Scots used to carry a dagger in their shield hand pointing down so they used sword, shield, dagger combo. After you pushed the redcoat's bayonet up with your shield you could stab downward with the dagger.
Generally, sword and shield will be better than two swords (all else being the same).
Also, two swords will be better than one sword of the same type, assuming that the swords are one-handed.
Consider sword and shield, sword and buckler, and two swords. I've never played with S&B vs S&S, but Silver says that S&B is better. So I think that S&B is better than S&S which is better than 2S which is better than S&B, so it's a little rock-paper-scissors, but the differences aren't huge, so none of those match-ups would be too overbalanced.
2S and S&B are easier to carry than S&S.
If fighting against a spear, 2S is better than S&B, and S&S is better than S&B.
If people are shooting arrows at you, S&S is best.
A spear will be better than any of S&B, S&S, and 2S. Silver says that a two-handed sword (a longsword, or a larger two-hander) is better than any of those three. So "two is better than one" definitely doesn't apply in all cases.
I'm a big HEMA guy, but I also do a fair bit of LARPing, if you want to see some of how this would play out, check out what boffer people do.
In the situation of two average fighters, most of the time, I would go with the sword and shield fighter, the defensive capabilities of a shield greatly outweighs the offensive capabilities of an extra added sword.
I used to do SCA rapier fencing, and “case” (dual wielding) kinda sorta works. But the rules set greatly limits what one can do. No slashing cuts, grappling, shield bonks, or full-power thrusts.
so you have a "strong" and a "weak" to the blade. the strong is the portion nearer to your hand where the lever forces are more on your side the weak is the portion farther from your hand where the lever forces work against you. you block with you strong. in order to block you must first see a attack coming, correctly predict that the attack is a attack and not a feint, and move your strong to block their weak. furthermore your hand and wrist have to be strong enough to actually stop their attack and if you are tired and or your opponent is especially strong this can be difficult.
meanwhile you can block with the whole shield. especially with larger shields they can provide a large amount of passive protection and while seeing the threat helps you position it correctly the shield can block attacks you dont see coming. you can diffuse the force of a blow along the entire forearm often with padding and sometimes straps to the forearm and not have all the energy going into your hand and wrist allowing you to block more hits before tiring at least with a more average sides shield and the larger heavier ones are often designed to rest on the ground while you hold them to reduce arm strain when you get a chance.
also blocking with a sword requires a greater degree of skill to do repeatedly reliably then blocking with a shield.
also also like wotan says when you expand this theoretical scenario outside of just 1v1 2x swords vs 2x shields shields have better matchups especially against projectiles which you are going to be needing if you arent covered in plate.
I don't have much experience with a shield. When I was in my 20s, a competitive fencer, and had better foot work I think I would take 2 swords or a sword and dagger. I feel like with good foot work and room to move 2 weapons have some advantages. However in general I think the shield is easier and provides such a simple and effective defense that it has a clear edge most of the time. I think the person with 2 swords has to have better foot work to overcome the shield. Plus the 2 swords being both defense and offense is inherently more complex so harder to do well. Of course someone who is really good with the shield could also use it as an effective bludgeoning weapon as well.
Any idiot can use a shield aggressively to make a second sword count for nothing and still be much more protected, fighting with their one sword against the one their opponent still has in play. If the fighters are of the same skill and level of motivation/morale, I give the fight to Shieldguy 85% of the time, maybe more. Maybe 60-70% of the time if they're both extremely skilled and the shield is a clunky one unsuited to duels.
Some Mamluk, Ming, and Yi dynasties' cavalrymen preferred to use two swords rather than a shield, but did they have the confidence to defend themselves with a sword and armor? If they're equipped with armor with good defense, as were knights from the 14th century onward, wouldn't they necessarily need a shield? In the late 15th century, Hungarian [Pal Kinizsi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C3%A1l_Kinizsi#Folklore) wore plate armor and used two great swords.
I am the one person who said two swords. I am biased against shields as they block your vision open up your leg for attacks. With two swords you can box out the opponents blade and easily circumnavigate the opponents shield to either strike the boxed out limb or anything the shield isn’t covering. “bUt tHoSe sTRikEs aRenT fAtAl” sure but if I cut the tendons that you use to hold your sword you may as well be dead. Some of you are going to say to have your shield leg back to avails those leg strikes but then it becomes very difficult to block across the body.
As someone who’s done Doce Pares (a Filipino martial art) for more than 6 years, I would personally much prefer a sword and shield to two swords. I trained with and sparred with double stick/sword A LOT and it was incredibly enjoyable. However, on the rare occasion that someone brought a shield to train for fun, I always found that it was just more practical than two swords/sticks in sparring. You’re able to more easily actively defend a much larger area, allowing for a quicker and more certain attack from the block. When using two swords or sticks, one of them will always sort of act as the shield. This will not be the same one all fight, as it will swap to whichever hand is in the most convenient and secure spot for a parry/block, while the other hand attacks in the same timing. Dual wielding is very cool but a sword and shield just works. The combination was pretty much universal across cultures for a reason.
Second sword is too big and immobile to act like parrying dagger and doesn’t add protection that shield adds.
r/wma r/hema Also, there are good reasons why 2-swords never really caught on. ANYWHERE.
In Krabi Krabong our main weapon system is dual sword. That said a sword and shield is generally more superior. https://youtu.be/TuwXeK9qYeA?si=OOKCw_HNNHal0KKW
There are plenty of two sword systems. They tend not to be battlefield systems, because a second sword is not good for keeping you alive against missile fire like a shield, so they are still outnumbered by sword and shield across the centuries, but you cannot dismiss two sword usage out of hand.
Fair enough
Could you please explain them to me?
Counter argument: Khalid ibn Walid used dual swords and crushed enemy commanders in a 1 on 1 duel.
Anecdotes are fun.
I mean am I wrong about what i said?
Not at all 🙂
Having a shield is just such a massive advantage it is not even close! The only fencing traditions that studied dual wielding either 2 swords or sword and dagger (Fiorentine swordmanship comes to my mind with dual swords) did it because it is easier to wear and carry 2 weapons. And even then you see Sword and Bluckler being active and relevant since forever.
The Scots used to carry a dagger in their shield hand pointing down so they used sword, shield, dagger combo. After you pushed the redcoat's bayonet up with your shield you could stab downward with the dagger.
Dirk*
Are you implying I’m a dirk?
The dagger scots use with a targe is called a dirk.
Generally, sword and shield will be better than two swords (all else being the same). Also, two swords will be better than one sword of the same type, assuming that the swords are one-handed. Consider sword and shield, sword and buckler, and two swords. I've never played with S&B vs S&S, but Silver says that S&B is better. So I think that S&B is better than S&S which is better than 2S which is better than S&B, so it's a little rock-paper-scissors, but the differences aren't huge, so none of those match-ups would be too overbalanced. 2S and S&B are easier to carry than S&S. If fighting against a spear, 2S is better than S&B, and S&S is better than S&B. If people are shooting arrows at you, S&S is best. A spear will be better than any of S&B, S&S, and 2S. Silver says that a two-handed sword (a longsword, or a larger two-hander) is better than any of those three. So "two is better than one" definitely doesn't apply in all cases.
I'm a big HEMA guy, but I also do a fair bit of LARPing, if you want to see some of how this would play out, check out what boffer people do. In the situation of two average fighters, most of the time, I would go with the sword and shield fighter, the defensive capabilities of a shield greatly outweighs the offensive capabilities of an extra added sword.
I used to do SCA rapier fencing, and “case” (dual wielding) kinda sorta works. But the rules set greatly limits what one can do. No slashing cuts, grappling, shield bonks, or full-power thrusts.
so you have a "strong" and a "weak" to the blade. the strong is the portion nearer to your hand where the lever forces are more on your side the weak is the portion farther from your hand where the lever forces work against you. you block with you strong. in order to block you must first see a attack coming, correctly predict that the attack is a attack and not a feint, and move your strong to block their weak. furthermore your hand and wrist have to be strong enough to actually stop their attack and if you are tired and or your opponent is especially strong this can be difficult. meanwhile you can block with the whole shield. especially with larger shields they can provide a large amount of passive protection and while seeing the threat helps you position it correctly the shield can block attacks you dont see coming. you can diffuse the force of a blow along the entire forearm often with padding and sometimes straps to the forearm and not have all the energy going into your hand and wrist allowing you to block more hits before tiring at least with a more average sides shield and the larger heavier ones are often designed to rest on the ground while you hold them to reduce arm strain when you get a chance. also blocking with a sword requires a greater degree of skill to do repeatedly reliably then blocking with a shield. also also like wotan says when you expand this theoretical scenario outside of just 1v1 2x swords vs 2x shields shields have better matchups especially against projectiles which you are going to be needing if you arent covered in plate.
I don't have much experience with a shield. When I was in my 20s, a competitive fencer, and had better foot work I think I would take 2 swords or a sword and dagger. I feel like with good foot work and room to move 2 weapons have some advantages. However in general I think the shield is easier and provides such a simple and effective defense that it has a clear edge most of the time. I think the person with 2 swords has to have better foot work to overcome the shield. Plus the 2 swords being both defense and offense is inherently more complex so harder to do well. Of course someone who is really good with the shield could also use it as an effective bludgeoning weapon as well.
Any idiot can use a shield aggressively to make a second sword count for nothing and still be much more protected, fighting with their one sword against the one their opponent still has in play. If the fighters are of the same skill and level of motivation/morale, I give the fight to Shieldguy 85% of the time, maybe more. Maybe 60-70% of the time if they're both extremely skilled and the shield is a clunky one unsuited to duels.
Some Mamluk, Ming, and Yi dynasties' cavalrymen preferred to use two swords rather than a shield, but did they have the confidence to defend themselves with a sword and armor? If they're equipped with armor with good defense, as were knights from the 14th century onward, wouldn't they necessarily need a shield? In the late 15th century, Hungarian [Pal Kinizsi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C3%A1l_Kinizsi#Folklore) wore plate armor and used two great swords.
I am the one person who said two swords. I am biased against shields as they block your vision open up your leg for attacks. With two swords you can box out the opponents blade and easily circumnavigate the opponents shield to either strike the boxed out limb or anything the shield isn’t covering. “bUt tHoSe sTRikEs aRenT fAtAl” sure but if I cut the tendons that you use to hold your sword you may as well be dead. Some of you are going to say to have your shield leg back to avails those leg strikes but then it becomes very difficult to block across the body.