forums.cubicle7.co.uk
archive

I've been following this thread with great interest. I'm sure there is more that could be demonstrated historically. But I'd like to suggest that maybe we can all agree on the following tenets:

-that 2 weapon fighting is more-or-less a modern fantasy and while it works in pulp games it may not be appropriate for Middle Earth.

-that regardless of real-world justification, a 'two-weapon' fighting style should be rare in this game and offer only a very specific and nuanced benefit when compared to 2 handing or boarding.

-no one wants to see Drizzt's popping up in TOR

-a lot of the anti dual-wielding revolves around protecting against munchkinism. (And that's ok!)

-the game could use a bit more options in terms of outfitting.

I don't agree with it being a "modern fantasy", but I can accept your other points.

Rocmistro wrote:I've been following this thread with great interest. I'm sure there is more that could be demonstrated historically. But I'd like to suggest that maybe we can all agree on the following tenets:

-that 2 weapon fighting is more-or-less a modern fantasy and while it works in pulp games it may not be appropriate for Middle Earth.

-that regardless of real-world justification, a 'two-weapon' fighting style should be rare in this game and offer only a very specific and nuanced benefit when compared to 2 handing or boarding.

-no one wants to see Drizzt's popping up in TOR

-a lot of the anti dual-wielding revolves around protecting against munchkinism. (And that's ok!)

-the game could use a bit more options in terms of outfitting.

I agree on most points, but I take a slight exception to the first. If you refer to two weapon fighting as portrayed in many visual medium (Drizzt's twin scimtars and all that jazz), then I agree that it's a pulp fantasy. For sure using two weapons wasn't a common fighting style as long as combat was mostly done with slashing attacks. It's entirely possible that some crazy, desperate or simply unconventionl warriors used this style, but there is no solid proof that this style even became mainstream. When weapons became lighter and fencing shifted toward thrusting attacks the style became more widespread, although this is at least 400 years ahead the technological point of the Middle Earth (using our world as a reference).

Rocmistro wrote:I've been following this thread with great interest. I'm sure there is more that could be demonstrated historically. But I'd like to suggest that maybe we can all agree on the following tenets:

You've gone WAY too far with these. Several are outright wrong.

Rocmistro wrote:-that 2 weapon fighting is more-or-less a modern fantasy and while it works in pulp games it may not be appropriate for Middle Earth.

Wrong. I cannot agree to this fabrication/falsification, especially since we see Samwise Gamgee use paired weapons in the text. (1) It's NOT a modern fantasy. It's documented in the Sagas, it's documented in the Welsh histories, it's documented in ancient China, it's documented in Iron Age Rome (mostly in the arena - look up retarius)

Rocmistro wrote:-that regardless of real-world justification, a 'two-weapon' fighting style should be rare in this game and offer only a very specific and nuanced benefit when compared to 2 handing or boarding.

maybe.... Was it rare historically? Rare enough to be a distinctive feature, but not rare enough to need descriptive prose. Much like driving while talking on the cell, or drinking coffee whilst on the computer. Common enough that the audience gets a clear image from the mention.

Rocmistro wrote:-no one wants to see Drizzt's popping up in TOR

Wrong. One of my potential players desperately wants this. If you change it to "most people"...

Yes, he's a munchkin. Yes, He's more of an ass than I tend to be. But even one exception makes "no one" a lie. And I'm certain he's not the only one.

Rocmistro wrote:-a lot of the anti dual-wielding revolves around protecting against munchkinism.

This I can agree with.
I think it's also a piss-poor reason.

Rocmistro wrote: (And that's ok!)

Wrong. Once you start guarding against munchkinism, you need to change vast stretches of extant rules, like the Defensive Stance and the Fellowship mechanics. In TOR, real munchkins all play combat hobbits with shortbows.

Rocmistro wrote:-the game could use a bit more options in terms of outfitting.

Agreed.

Woodclaw wrote:
I agree on most points, but I take a slight exception to the first. If you refer to two weapon fighting as portrayed in many visual medium (Drizzt's twin scimtars and all that jazz), then I agree that it's a pulp fantasy. For sure using two weapons wasn't a common fighting style as long as combat was mostly done with slashing attacks. It's entirely possible that some crazy, desperate or simply unconventionl warriors used this style, but there is no solid proof that this style even became mainstream. When weapons became lighter and fencing shifted toward thrusting attacks the style became more widespread, although this is at least 400 years ahead the technological point of the Middle Earth (using our world as a reference).

I'm pretty sure it's safe to say that Rocmistro's comments were meant to be taken within the context of the culture, time period, and technology that Tolkien was emulating.

aramis wrote: I cannot agree to this fabrication/falsification, especially since we see Samwise Gamgee use paired weapons in the text. (1) It's NOT a modern fantasy. It's documented in the Sagas, it's documented in the Welsh histories, it's documented in ancient China, it's documented in Iron Age Rome (mostly in the arena - look up retarius)

Hoist with your own petard. If you have to rely on the scene where Sam, who has no weapon training at all, picks up a second weapon, and then drops it for the vital blow, you're inadvertently proving the point.

I knew a guy who said that motorcycle helmets were unsafe. To prove his point he would cite a case where a guy slid across the pavement, bounced over the curb, and his helmet caught on the curb and broke his neck.

Citing Retarius is another example of this: Note that they used net, trident, and dagger. So, they used three weapons at once? Or maybe they threw the net, then used the trident, and pulled the dagger out as a backup weapon? Also, did you notice the "net" and "trident" theme? Clearly they've got some kind of Neptune costume going on. Remember we're talking about gladiators, who were going to try to please the crowd and stand out for their uniqueness. So the fact that Retarius is needed to "prove" the viability of two-weapon fighting is like citing Hulk Hogan to prove the validity of professional wrestling maneuvers.

And, again, "documented in the sagas" is not documentation. I'll again bring up my point about dual-wielding pistols in today's movies: in our stories we ascribe to our heroes abilities that make them seem heroic. And you don't have to look at just the purely fictional ones: there are lots of movies about real people and events in which details are embellished to make the story more engrossing. (The recent film Monuments Men is a great example of this.)

I'm sure you would agree that not every detail in the Icelandic Sagas is accurate. So, then, which bits do you think are the embellishments? My money would be on the descriptions of their martial prowess.

Our history and literature is filled...FILLED...with descriptions and illustrations and carvings of soldiers and warriors. The lengths you have to go to in order to find examples of two-weapon fighting demonstrates that it was so rare as to be essentially non-existent.

Two more thoughts on this before I go to bed:

1) I have no experience with SCA (or kendo, or any other weapon fighting) but I do have a ton of experience with climbing, and I'll observe that techniques and styles that work in a safe environment like the gym or on top-rope are very different from what works in more lethal environments, where falls would be very, very bad. Even when the falls would not be that dangerous but just scary, it really changes the game. It's almost two different sports. Experience with the former doesn't really apply to the latter.

But there's a related observation: some ballsy free-soloists like Tobin Sorenson, John Bachar, and Derek Hersey climbed long alpine routes without ropes, but almost always on established routes well below their ability. So maybe when facing an opponent who won't be a challenge, using a less-effective style can be a flashy way to not only win, but to humiliate your enemy. Or just to make it more interesting or fair. E.g., "I think I will kill him left-handed."

Then again, John, Tobin, and Derek are all dead.

2) Regarding "Florentine Style", I am not a historian but the following occurred to me, and maybe some of you with more knowledge could tell me whether it fits the facts: Perhaps this style emerged as a side-effect of a cultural shift, in which well-to-do gentlemen started carrying swords on a daily basis. It just wouldn't have been practical to carry a shield while strolling around Verona, drinking wine, flirting with girls, and dueling with rivals, even though a shield would have been more useful. And although a dagger in the offhand might not have been very effective, it was at least better than, or could sometimes be better than, an empty hand.

Any possible truth to that?

Elfcrusher wrote: 2) Regarding "Florentine Style", I am not a historian but the following occurred to me, and maybe some of you with more knowledge could tell me whether it fits the facts: Perhaps this style emerged as a side-effect of a cultural shift, in which well-to-do gentlemen started carrying swords on a daily basis. It just wouldn't have been practical to carry a shield while strolling around Verona, drinking wine, flirting with girls, and dueling with rivals, even though a shield would have been more useful. And although a dagger in the offhand might not have been very effective, it was at least better than, or could sometimes be better than, an empty hand.

Any possible truth to that?

Possible but highly unlikely. All the great masters of fencing I've read advocate dagger over buckler as the better defense. Buckler is almost always taught, but the fencing masters I've read generally advocate either single sword or multiple offensive weapons, with bucker being treated as a socially expected but inferior choice; baton is preferable to buckler. As do the Tattershall folks (who while they do play in the SCA, are ARMA certified, and teach techniques banned in the SCA.)

As a side note: the Reivers in Scotland are documented (by their enemies as well as their own limited surviving documents) to have trained to use both buckler and dagger at the same time in the off hand - the targe was held using a soft handle and a forearm strap, and the hand on the handle is able to hold a dirk as well. Having used this mode in practice, it's the best of both worlds.

aramis wrote:

Elfcrusher wrote: 2) Regarding "Florentine Style", I am not a historian but the following occurred to me, and maybe some of you with more knowledge could tell me whether it fits the facts: Perhaps this style emerged as a side-effect of a cultural shift, in which well-to-do gentlemen started carrying swords on a daily basis. It just wouldn't have been practical to carry a shield while strolling around Verona, drinking wine, flirting with girls, and dueling with rivals, even though a shield would have been more useful. And although a dagger in the offhand might not have been very effective, it was at least better than, or could sometimes be better than, an empty hand.

Any possible truth to that?

Possible but highly unlikely. All the great masters of fencing I've read advocate dagger over buckler as the better defense. Buckler is almost always taught, but the fencing masters I've read generally advocate either single sword or multiple offensive weapons, with bucker being treated as a socially expected but inferior choice; baton is preferable to buckler. As do the Tattershall folks (who while they do play in the SCA, are ARMA certified, and teach techniques banned in the SCA.)

As a side note: the Reivers in Scotland are documented (by their enemies as well as their own limited surviving documents) to have trained to use both buckler and dagger at the same time in the off hand - the targe was held using a soft handle and a forearm strap, and the hand on the handle is able to hold a dirk as well. Having used this mode in practice, it's the best of both worlds.

Aside from the fact that the existence of the Florentine (or case of rapiers) style is disputed, Elfcrusher's explanation isn't far from truth. The rapier rose to prominence between the 15th and 16th century, when fencing shifted from cutting blades (like the 14th Century sidesword) to thrusting blades. By that time the buckler also suffered from a shift in perspective.
Before the 16th century, the buckler was considered a socially acceptable alternative to the shield, an off-duty soldier was entitled to carry a buckler to defend himself in place of a normal shield. By the 16th century the old shields were more or less obsolete and the buckler was considered a pure military weapon. A man carrying a buckler in that day and age was like a guy carrying a SMG today. This was one of the causes of the rose to the initial rose to prominence -- in civilian fencing -- of the main gauche and other off-handed blades.

aramis wrote:Valerian - the rounds historically had both center handles and straps for the forearm in many cases.

There are good reasons for a largish round (28-36") to be used strapped like a heater. The first is that they mass quite a bit - they're a circle of hardwood an inch thick. 19.5L of hardwood masses about 17.5kg. (19L is from 2.5cm thick, 0.5m radius, 0.05m inner radius; SG of most hardwoods is around 0.95.) ANd then there's a 0.5 to 2.5 kg boss. They are 15 (pine) to 20kg. Given that mass, reason 1 is grip strength - it fails quickly with vibration. Reason 2 is inertia - the potential to injure the wrist with sudden changes is increased by center-hold only. Third is the ability to move it quickly - closer in is less moment to overcome. Fourth, the forearm isn't going to be smashed by the edge if a mass weapon hits. Fifth is control of angle; it's easier with a two strap system.

I was thinking about what it feels like to pick up a shield-sized plank of hardwood (former furniture maker, so I've done it a bit) and I thought, "Those things don't weigh 40+ pounds...." So I checked the math on this.

First, I think you were looking at the SG of green wood. Even if the shield were made of green wood, it wouldn't stay green for long. I looked up the SG of red oak (a widely available, durable hardwood): it's 0.91 green, 0.67 dry.

A 36" shield (I'm not going to mix units, and I'm 'Murican so I'm going to use Standard) that's 1" thick is 177 cubic inches, which is just about 1/10th of a cubic foot. A cubic foot of water weighs 62.4 pounds, so that's 6.24 pounds. But wait, that's for water. Even with greenwood we multiply that by 0.91, which is 5.67, but once dry we multiply by 0.67, which is 4.2 pounds, or 1.9 Kg.

Certainly if you add some cross-bracing, strap and handle, and even an iron rim that weight is going to increase. But not sure how you get to 17.5 Kg.

Maybe 36" by 1" isn't accurate? I'm no shield expert so I just used the dimensions you suggested.