Hema has come a long way. 10 years ago if i would have asked my club if anybody wanted to try dual or a case of swords I would have gotten a lot of negative feedback on the very thought of even trying it
Years and years ago the best viable way I found to use swords in this manner was to often have them crossed together and I'm really glad to see some of that at play here.
Well there is some truth to this supported by the sources...But it s absolutely not the only thing you can do. There is plenty of plays describe on later Italian and Iberian sources. There is around 12 historical sources we know of that deal with wielding two swords and plenty of illustrations where they use of some kind of paired weapons are used.
If we believe Luis Pacheco de Narváez's account, Pedro de la Torre developed fighting with two swords in the late 15th century. (De la Torre published circa 1474.) This apparently came out of using a stick of roughly sword length in his left hand during an earnest fight. So dual wielding was even medieval by one common definition (ending the medieval period at 1500).
Are those the new HF Black Prince gloves? If so, are you planning on doing an overview/review on them? I'm particularly interested in them as a potential sabre glove, though there's so little information on them it's hard to tell if they'd be suitable.
They are yes, we got the first pair ever made as a tester and have been carrying out extensive testing for the last month, initial review video coming very soon.
@@AcademyofHistoricalFencing Excellent - looking forward to the HF Black Prince review, as well. Despite already having half a dozen sidesword gloves, still haven't found one that works for all my hilts while providing enough protection to fence against heavier weapons.
Why that kind of fighting was not common? My view: cost. Swords are expensive and two of them doubles the price and doubles the needed maintenance. Definitely not the most cost-effective style, but definitely looks functional enough.
By the 16th century when paired swords were reaching their peak of popularity in Europe, swords were not all that expensive anymore and had become a very common daily wear item for many. Large offhand daggers were also very popular and they cost almost as much as a sword and required almost as much maintenance as well. There are a few reasons why paired swords have never been hugely popular. 1 - Weight and bulk - A full size sword is a large and bulky object, carrying two of them day to day is a real nuisance, and could actually get very uncomfortable and painful. 2 - If you were going to carry so much extra bulk/weight, a shield would be better in a great many contexts. For example having to fend off missile weapons, whether that is javelins on a battlefield to rocks from an angry mob. A shield is also much better against pole arms than a second sword. 3 - The training required to use them well is very time consuming. 4 - In the event of needing to defend oneself quickly, a shorter offhand weapon is much more useful. Such as eing rushed at close range, or having to defend oneself indoors after having taken your longer blades off. 5 - Overkill - Overall these kinds of swords were predominately worn for self defence in civilian life or as sidearms in war, not something you are expecting to use i anger regularly.
@@AcademyofHistoricalFencing If I recall right one Italian master was paid to develop method to fight with two swords by wealthy client. He did it and observed that first you had to become ambidextrous to truly know how to fence with two swords. Very long process. In personal combat there are way more ways to fight effectively than on battlefield.
@@AcademyofHistoricalFencing Those are all merely practical reasons, and I a gree. But aren't there purely fighting-related reasons as well? Such as, for example: 1) One sword is already covering the longer range, so adding another at the same length won't do that much good here. A dagger instead would cover the short range which a second long blade would lack. For example at grappling range. 2) A shorter weapon could move more freely around the longer weapon, while a longer weapon might be hindered by the other one. 3) A shorter weapon might be quicker for blocking. 4) Even with a lot of training, in regards to multitasking of the brain, it may be better to have two weapons for partly different purposes. 5) Many parrying daggers had features to trap the enemy's blade. 6) A shield might have advantages over another sword even in a sword-vs-sword-context, not just against polearms. What do you guys think?
Here we are each using 1 Malleus model and 1 Kvetun (no.5). We also use Black Fencer and have the newly released Regenyei models on the way which we expect will once again be up there in quality with those other three.
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
Hema has come a long way. 10 years ago if i would have asked my club if anybody wanted to try dual or a case of swords I would have gotten a lot of negative feedback on the very thought of even trying it
It's bizarre that the narrative that dual wielding is terrible & not historical ever caught on, given how often it appears in fencing manuals.
Great sparing.
Years and years ago the best viable way I found to use swords in this manner was to often have them crossed together and I'm really glad to see some of that at play here.
Well there is some truth to this supported by the sources...But it s absolutely not the only thing you can do. There is plenty of plays describe on later Italian and Iberian sources. There is around 12 historical sources we know of that deal with wielding two swords and plenty of illustrations where they use of some kind of paired weapons are used.
Ah, the epic fail at 4:24 where Ian (middle pair of fighters in purple) gets his swords tangled while fighting with me...and pays the price.
If we believe Luis Pacheco de Narváez's account, Pedro de la Torre developed fighting with two swords in the late 15th century. (De la Torre published circa 1474.) This apparently came out of using a stick of roughly sword length in his left hand during an earnest fight. So dual wielding was even medieval by one common definition (ending the medieval period at 1500).
Are those the new HF Black Prince gloves? If so, are you planning on doing an overview/review on them? I'm particularly interested in them as a potential sabre glove, though there's so little information on them it's hard to tell if they'd be suitable.
They are yes, we got the first pair ever made as a tester and have been carrying out extensive testing for the last month, initial review video coming very soon.
@@AcademyofHistoricalFencing Excellent, thank you :)
They are sitting in my cart… waiting on review to buy
@@AcademyofHistoricalFencing Excellent - looking forward to the HF Black Prince review, as well. Despite already having half a dozen sidesword gloves, still haven't found one that works for all my hilts while providing enough protection to fence against heavier weapons.
Very interesting. Thanks for sharing.
Why that kind of fighting was not common? My view: cost. Swords are expensive and two of them doubles the price and doubles the needed maintenance. Definitely not the most cost-effective style, but definitely looks functional enough.
By the 16th century when paired swords were reaching their peak of popularity in Europe, swords were not all that expensive anymore and had become a very common daily wear item for many. Large offhand daggers were also very popular and they cost almost as much as a sword and required almost as much maintenance as well. There are a few reasons why paired swords have never been hugely popular.
1 - Weight and bulk - A full size sword is a large and bulky object, carrying two of them day to day is a real nuisance, and could actually get very uncomfortable and painful.
2 - If you were going to carry so much extra bulk/weight, a shield would be better in a great many contexts. For example having to fend off missile weapons, whether that is javelins on a battlefield to rocks from an angry mob. A shield is also much better against pole arms than a second sword.
3 - The training required to use them well is very time consuming.
4 - In the event of needing to defend oneself quickly, a shorter offhand weapon is much more useful. Such as eing rushed at close range, or having to defend oneself indoors after having taken your longer blades off.
5 - Overkill - Overall these kinds of swords were predominately worn for self defence in civilian life or as sidearms in war, not something you are expecting to use i anger regularly.
@@AcademyofHistoricalFencing If I recall right one Italian master was paid to develop method to fight with two swords by wealthy client. He did it and observed that first you had to become ambidextrous to truly know how to fence with two swords. Very long process.
In personal combat there are way more ways to fight effectively than on battlefield.
@@AcademyofHistoricalFencing Those are all merely practical reasons, and I a gree.
But aren't there purely fighting-related reasons as well?
Such as, for example:
1) One sword is already covering the longer range, so adding another at the same length won't do that much good here. A dagger instead would cover the short range which a second long blade would lack. For example at grappling range.
2) A shorter weapon could move more freely around the longer weapon, while a longer weapon might be hindered by the other one.
3) A shorter weapon might be quicker for blocking.
4) Even with a lot of training, in regards to multitasking of the brain, it may be better to have two weapons for partly different purposes.
5) Many parrying daggers had features to trap the enemy's blade.
6) A shield might have advantages over another sword even in a sword-vs-sword-context, not just against polearms.
What do you guys think?
what brand of sidesword do you use?
Here we are each using 1 Malleus model and 1 Kvetun (no.5). We also use Black Fencer and have the newly released Regenyei models on the way which we expect will once again be up there in quality with those other three.
Is Michael a snake?
So black jacket is resorting mainly to the Iberian source and Red jacket to the Bolognese?