I mean fucking obviously, for anyone who knows anything about swordplay. Any swordsman worth his salt knows that a single two handed sword will always beat someone wielding two separate one handed swords.
First of all, being a swordsman is about SPEED, and you can't be nearly as fast with two clunky pieces of metal in your hands. Plus that's two weapons to think about, two weapons to distract your attention away from the fight. You'll get tired so fast using two swords that you might as well not even fucking bother.
>B-but two is better than one
No it fucking isn't. A single sword with the proper parrying technique will fucking obliterate any noobie swordsman who thinks two swords is better. You're dividing your efforts in half, and therefore you're gonna get stabbed and fucking die.
>b-but I can block with one hand and hit with the other
Pfffttt.. Yeah, in the slowest, most clunkiest way possible. No swordsman is gonna fall for your piss poor double sword tactic. Go back to school and learn how to properly wield a single sword before you go out there and get yourself killed.
I'm just saying, two swords just aren't as effective as a single sword in pretty much any fight.
Cameron Torres
So that's why the nip who created the style just destroyed everyone. Ya know, because defending against two live blades is complicated
Kayden Wright
Why did you make such an obvious post responding to no one? I very seriously doubt that many people think two swords is a viable choice in 90% of situations
Uncomfortable. I bet that woman is pretty cold. Someone should tell her about raincoats that close all the way.
Ayden Murphy
>One man defines what is good and what is bad in the face of a nigh universal preference across the world of a shield, buckler, dagger or nothing at all
Ryder Lewis
In very specific circumstances he said it would be better. He also said that the best weapon in any fight was a gun so idk dude.
Jason Morris
Two sword twice as sharp as one sword
Cooper Gray
Replace the other sword with a shield, though...
Grayson King
>you better pray that there is automatically distance between opponents Why, there is. There always is, you fucking retard.
he said that guns were best in sieges, though he pointed out that the guns of his day had some weaknesses, the biggest being they became useless once melee fighting began.
Ultimately he said to be familiar with all the common weapons of his day.
Eli Campbell
He said it was better against multiple opponents. Most if not all his duels were fought with a single weapon.
Bentley Allen
>falling for the fake decoy head I wear above my real head You fell for my ruse. I was a manlet all along. Prep air to dye.
Austin Young
When i trained Kendo, my trainer say that in fights between nito (two swords) users and itto user these firsts usually won.
Easton Fisher
>these firsts usually won. ....what?
Gavin Reed
nito users won. Also, you have more chance against them by using short, one-handed blade than this defensive two-handed shinai (which usage is also an other specialization in kendo), but this shouldn't be a suprise
Ian Baker
a sword is better within 15-20 feet
John Carter
Back in Highschool, I Learned with foam padded weapons (official published rules of "Sword Tag"). I wielded a bastard sword two-handed without a shield, and always won against anyone dual-wielding a pair of swords.
Jackson Cruz
I trust Musashi more than you, sorry random fat nerd.
Jonathan Ortiz
Rain can come in warm varieties near the equator.
Jacob Rodriguez
Fact 1: Many swords were designed with 1 hand in mind. Fact 2: Even though it is possible to get some of your fingers in on most such 1 handed swords for more leverage, it doesn't help a huge amount, plus you lose the range and safety advantage of the bladed / sideways stance. Fact 3: If you are using a 1 handed sword as intended, one hand will be free. Fact 4: While using your free hand for grappling is a decent strategy, it is risky and is predicated entirely on whether you can get that close up in the first place. Fact 5: If you're not using your other hand for grappling, you either keep it out of the way or are using a shield. Fact 6: If you're not using a shield, then your last best option is to carry a second weapon. Doesn't matter if the second weapon is short or long, whether you use it actively on the advance or held in reserve for a sneaky stab in between the usual swordplay tempo; anything is better than nothing.
Conclusion: Therefore two 1 handed swords are definitely better than one. If you're strong enough to parry a 2 handed sword user with just one hand, then your second stabby sword that he cannot counter will almost certainly be his doom.
Brayden Cooper
HEMAfag here, here's what I think based on personal experience and reading.
1. Reach and leverage are a huge deal. Even a significantly smaller man can easily push aside a one-handed sword with ease when using a longsword. Modern Feders (training longswords) tend to be very much on the large side of things, although shorter ones exist. When fencing Sword & Buckler against various lengths of longsword, a long bladed longsword will be able to poke at a distance (which is quite boring), while a more historically accurate, shorter bladed one can't use reach the same way and is therefore extremely vulnerable, as the buckler is practically made to just beat that motherfucker aside.
2. Using any sort of offhand weapon takes practice. You'd think something like a simple rotella (round, arm-strapped shield generally associated with the renaissance) would be the easiest thing to use in the world, but it turns out that's not the case. We tried one out with a variety of fencers, here's what happened: In the case of dudes who were good fencers, but had no experience with shields or bucklers, they turned out to be an outright hindrance. They could fight better with just the sword. With people who attend the S&B training, it was a massive force multiplier. So much for the idea that arm-strapped shields suck.
A parrying dagger is a fair bit harder to use than a shield or buckler, a second sword is WAY harder to use than a parrying dagger. Do the math.
3. Structure and shit. Parrying a powerful cut isn't as easy as just putting your sword in the way, unless you're using a structurally strong ward. Unless you practice this shit like a motherfucker, your offhand is probably weaker and less dexterous than your main hand, and therefore it's very likely that your parries will be shitty.
So basically, yeah, a two handed sword is better than two one handed swords.
Michael Taylor
Miyamoto Musashi's HNIR isn't a very valid comparison because just like most other japanese styles who do two swords together, it used the short and long sword and not similar blades. The short sword is typically not even 20in long and Musashi's style uses a longer one than usual. It's basically a large dirk rather than a proper sword.
Besides, Musashi's two swords is based on the truncheon and sword more than anything.
bait but I agree. having two swords would give you less control, and it would be impractical. swords akimbo is a product of fantasy. people duel weld swords for display and to show off but not for actual combat
Aaron Price
it isn't uncommon for a knife and sword combo. It would be impractical to duel weld knives too because you can't grapple
Charles Harris
>teleports behind you *scoff* Amphhhre. noaffin prphona, did. Uue nedde thdude ah chanth. Ftfy
Lincoln Stewart
Checked and kek’d
Dominic Ramirez
>be me >read this >grip pizza crust in teeth >recite line Your translation checks out
