Spare arms

[Kloster]

...

Care to give a citation to two weapon technique being the dominant one during the fencing period? I don't question it occured--it obviously did, but much of that was because you could do a _bind_ and still attack that way, something you can't do with a single, non-flexible weapon. But I have no evidence its actually superior for parrying, per se, unlike the obvious advantage present with a shield.

Not counting the shield (which is of course the main parrying weapon, widely used from the bronze age to the renaissance):

- The florentine style is a rapier plus a parrying weapon (mainly a dagger). Widely used in renaissance Italy, dominant in european duels from 1500 up to around 1650, when the better cups and the introduction of quillons allowed for 1H parry with purely thrusting weapons (Giacomo de Grassi and Vigiani).

- Niten’ichi (or Ni-To Kenjutsu) is a sword plus a parrying weapon. Usually, katana plus wakisashi. Never was dominant, but has been quite used.

- Philipinos Eskrima, done with 2 sticks or 2 swords. Dominant in the Philipines.

The single weapon for attacking and parry is feasible almost only with the modern, light thrusting only weapons.

Parrying with a cutting weapon risk to damage your own weapon.

Parrying with a heavy weapon is slow.

Runequestement votre,

Kloster

[Nightshade]

Not counting the shield (which is of course the main parrying weapon, widely used from the bronze age to the renaissance):

And you'll note I've granted that one.

- The florentine style is a rapier plus a parrying weapon (mainly a dagger). Widely used in renaissance Italy, dominant in european duels from 1500 up to around 1650, when the better cups and the introduction of quillons allowed for 1H parry with purely thrusting weapons (Giacomo de Grassi and Vigiani).

Widely use and dominant are not the same thing.

- Niten’ichi (or Ni-To Kenjutsu) is a sword plus a parrying weapon. Usually, katana plus wakisashi. Never was dominant, but has been quite used.

Again, I've never questioned it occured; I'm questioning your statement that it was the default case.

- Philipinos Eskrima, done with 2 sticks or 2 swords. Dominant in the Philipines.

Not all escrima/kali schools even teach two stick technique, however, which doesn't suggest to me its a default either.

The single weapon for attacking and parry is feasible almost only with the modern, light thrusting only weapons.

Again, the examples of asian sword technique I've seen tell me quite the opposite. I wouldn't want to say how practical it is for weapons that do all (mace) or most (axe) of their damage with mass, because I simply don't know, but there slashing weapons where parrying is the default way to use them defensively by all evidence I have.

Parrying with a cutting weapon risk to damage your own weapon.

Parrying with a heavy weapon is slow.

It still keeps you alive, and dodging is not quick either, especially in armor.

[Kloster]

And you'll note I've granted that one.

...

True.

...

Widely use and dominant are not the same thing.

...

True, but it was dominant in europe for the non armored, non shield duels from 1500 to 1650. It died because of the apparition of lighter thrusting weapons that were faster and stronger, allowing to parry without loosing too much time and to present a smaller, less lethal surface to the adversary. This in itself lead to the new maneuvers we still know (the lunge is invented by Vigiani around 1620).

...

Again, I've never questioned it occured; I'm questioning your statement that it was the default case.

...

I told it never was dominant. For what I've seen, most kendo/kenjutsu techniques are dodges, not parry, but as I'm not a practicioner, I can't say much.

...

Not all escrima/kali schools even teach two stick technique, however, which doesn't suggest to me its a default either.

...

All the fights I've seen are, but I'm not an expert.

...

Again, the examples of asian sword technique I've seen tell me quite the opposite. I wouldn't want to say how practical it is for weapons that do all (mace) or most (axe) of their damage with mass, because I simply don't know, but there slashing weapons where parrying is the default way to use them defensively by all evidence I have.

...

I've never seen nor practiced with mace nor axe. And none of the books I've read are speaking of it, so same comment as you on those.

For the asian styles I've seen (not practiced), ie kendo and eskrima, it was either dodges, or 2 weapon fighting.

...

It still keeps you alive, and dodging is not quick either, especially in armor.

That's for sure, with a metal armor, dodge is slow, but people wearing armor were, at least in europe, either carrying a shield (the ultimate parrying tool) or were using a 2 handed weapon. I don't know for other areas.

Runequestement votre,

Kloster

[Trifletraxor]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nightshade

...

Not all escrima/kali schools even teach two stick technique, however, which doesn't suggest to me its a default either.

...

All the fights I've seen are, but I'm not an expert.

1H stick/sword/axe is more common, but most schools also train 2 weapon use, and some also train primarily 2 weapon use.

SGL.

[Kloster]

1H stick/sword/axe is more common, but most schools also train 2 weapon use, and some also train primarily 2 weapon use.

SGL.

Thanks for the precision. I didn't knew for the axe.

Runequestement votre,

Kloster

[Nightshade]

1H stick/sword/axe is more common, but most schools also train 2 weapon use, and some also train primarily 2 weapon use.

SGL.

And to make it clear, I didn't want to suggest that the two-stick versions _weren't_ common, and frequently taught. I just was noting it was far from universal, which suggests to me that there are viewed as being downsides to the off-hand weapon here.

Bottom line is that since I know that its certainly possible to use one handed weapons both to attack and parry with at (within the coarseness of what time means in a melee round) the same time, I don't see any reason to simply limit the system to one parry at a time, and let the player worry about whether he's using his weapon, a possible offhand weapon, or a shield within that round. Its not a perfect simulation, as I'm certain some weapons are easier to parry with than others, but it seems a better one than a blanket exclusion and making a bunch of special cases.

[Kloster]

And to make it clear, I didn't want to suggest that the two-stick versions _weren't_ common, and frequently taught. I just was noting it was far from universal, which suggests to me that there are viewed as being downsides to the off-hand weapon here.

Bottom line is that since I know that its certainly possible to use one handed weapons both to attack and parry with at (within the coarseness of what time means in a melee round) the same time, I don't see any reason to simply limit the system to one parry at a time, and let the player worry about whether he's using his weapon, a possible offhand weapon, or a shield within that round. Its not a perfect simulation, as I'm certain some weapons are easier to parry with than others, but it seems a better one than a blanket exclusion and making a bunch of special cases.

On that one, we agree.

Runequestement votre,

Kloster