Two Sword style?

[Adam]

Does anyone here know how to fight with two swords simultaneously, Musashi-style? Would be rather impressive I think.

[JediMasterChris]

I know how with a Katana and Wakasashi, it takes alot of practice. I have a few swords but the wakasashi I use is 26' and the katana is 30' the blade.

[pesilat]

Originally posted by Adam
Does anyone here know how to fight with two swords simultaneously, Musashi-style? Would be rather impressive I think.

In the FMA, we call this "siniwalli" or, occasionally, "Macabebe."

There are a few systems out there built completely around this concept. But in many of the FMA systems I've been exposed to, it is taught primarily as a coordination drill (though advanced practitioners can certainly apply it, too). And, in training, we generally use sticks ... but the concepts can be applied to swords as well.

Mike

[JediMasterChris]

I taught myself using my bokken.

[Cudgel]

I can fight with long sword and dagger longsword and knife longsword and shortsword and if I feel frisky twin longswords. I can also fight with sword and shield. BUt I am not the best with two weapons prefering a twohanded sword.

Note a longsword is a weapon that is designed for use of an addional hand for power but can be used single handed. it is more commonly called a b@st@rdsword.

[Elekia]

I've only fought SCA light weapons, but I can fight with two 36 inch shinais. I find it easier to fight with two rather than just a single sword.

[Cudgel]

dear 36 shinai is 44 inches

[JediMasterChris]

I find it very effective to use two wakasashi especially.

[Cudgel]

I have a friend who likes the fight with two knives

[pesilat]

Originally posted by Cudgel
Note a longsword is a weapon that is designed for use of an addional hand for power but can be used single handed. it is more commonly called a b@st@rdsword.

I thought that a "longsword" was a single handed weapon. That a b@stardsword was also known as a "hand-and-a-half sword." Of course, any weapon can be used two handed to add power. But I thought the b-sword was the hand-and-half, not a longsword. Could be mistaken, though.

Mike

[kobudo_tob]

I went to our best museum in Leeds - The Royal Armouries. After one of the knight man-to-man combat demonstrations with what was billed as a "hand-and-a-half" sword, he opened himself up to questions. After anything had died down, I asked him rather sheepishly "is this the same as a ******* sword".

He answered "Yes, you are correct. It is also known as the longsword, broadsword and two-handed sword". That sentence kinda belittled all my knowledge I had about swords - I understood that a longsword was generally one handed etc.

But then.........something different happened.............and it kinda belitted my respect for that place. :)

[LilBunnyRabbit]

Well, I can fight ambi with two swords, although I prefer one sword and a knife, but they're only foam swords, although the LRP weapons do pack a fairly hefty punch.

[Cudgel]

Originally posted by pesilat
I thought that a "longsword" was a single handed weapon. That a b@stardsword was also known as a "hand-and-a-half sword." Of course, any weapon can be used two handed to add power. But I thought the b-sword was the hand-and-half, not a longsword. Could be mistaken, though.

Mike

I went to our best museum in Leeds - The Royal Armouries. After one of the knight man-to-man combat demonstrations with what was billed as a "hand-and-a-half" sword, he opened himself up to questions. After anything had died down, I asked him rather sheepishly "is this the same as a ******* sword".

well actually if you want to get technicle the term hand and half sword is a modern term and not historicly accurate.

b@stard swrds refer to the hilt design, that being a waisted grip and on or more finger and side rings.

Longsword ios a histracle term for the class of swords larger than a single handed sword that is designed to be used originally from horse back with a sheild and had a longer handle so the weilder could fight with both hands more comfortably.

broadsword is historicaly inacurate also being a 19th century term for all medieval swords that were broader than the dueling sword of the time the slim smallsword from whiv=ch the epee is derived from.

twohanded sword refers to sword that due to length and weight requires a twohanded grip it is a historical term as is great sword.


Well, I can fight ambi with two swords, although I prefer one sword and a knife, but they're only foam swords, although the LRP weapons do pack a fairly hefty punch.

is this foam over pvc pipe? if that is the case then I am sorry but i have to laugh at you i have been hit full power with such boffers they sting and thats it. They are good for small children only .

[JediMasterChris]

is this foam over pvc pipe? if that is the case then I am sorry but i have to laugh at you i have been hit full power with such boffers they sting and thats it. They are good for small children only .

I agree, or if you are a total begginer, once you advance you should be practicing with bokken and shinai, after that you can advance to using an Iaito. (real sword with no sharpness, used for training) I use two Iaito and it doesn't feel as awkward anymore...but I have become so fond of two wakasashi since I have been practicing awhile. It makes blocking, deflecting, and parrying much easier with two weapons, and their shortness makes them quick. The only drawback is you have no reach. Personally I prefer holding the wakasashi in my left hand facing down and the right handed one facing up, it provides me with a greater possible number of attacks.

[bubba]

One of my schools tech. uses a custom sword with a blade built into the saya. The tech. uses the real sword as a deversion and you attack with the saya.This is just one of many.

[Cudgel]

Originally posted by bubba
One of my schools tech. uses a custom sword with a blade built into the saya. The tech. uses the real sword as a deversion and you attack with the saya.This is just one of many.

what now?

[JessyBlue]

Dagger and a sword, that´s how it works :) (tout va bien)
Well not clearly a two sword style though it is different using a dagger, but I think the idea is partly similar: block with the one, slash wit the other.

[Cudgel]

or hjow about this. AXe and sword. Use teh axe to hook a weapon or shield out of the way and strike with your sword.

[tomek]

check Shim Gum Do, they use 2 long swords at the same time (not one long one short...), also You can find a little of this in KSW and some more in Farang MuSul.

[SoKKlab]

And of course the Thai art of Krabi Krabong, is a double sword style.

[kobudo_tob]

How about Gama/Kama...you use two of them and they are like little axes.

[Cudgel]

more pick like than axe I would think not that that makes a diference any ways. :)
Sheild and weapon is a two weapon style if you think about it.
You have your hacking or smashing weapon and then a large pice of plywood with metal bits not fun to get sheild bashed.

[Louie]

In Aberdeen a former Navy Lt. commander now retired, Locker Madden, (who re-introduced the art of Single-Stick fighting into the Royal Navy in the 1980's) also practices a double stick style which used to be called 'Cudgels' which simulates fighting with two cutlasses or broadswords.
Back in 1985 he held a Cudgels competition in Cornwall, the first recorded competition since Elizabethan times!

I have yet to meet the man but he tells me he's still Cudgels champion!!!

Louie (Ancient Scottish & European Martial Arts)

[Cudgel]

where do you supose I got my name?

[Andy Pandy]

lol

[deCadena]

the filipino blade oriented art of kali do have a double sword training (doble espada) as part of their system.

[Dark Blade]

There was a two sword style practiced many centuries ago, by a warriors who's name was Miyamoto Musashi.
He had his first duel at 13, and though he was in many duels, he never failed to attain victory, duels more than 60 times, and his last one was when he was 29.

Miyamoto wrote "The Book Of Five Rings" which is very much worth your time reading, it has alot about his style, which involes using both a katana and a wakisashi at once.

A very good book.

[Cudgel]

a great man aslomst deomn some beleived him.
He could killl lesser swordmans with sticks and sh!tyty katans whilst they had teh best of weapons. A wise man he was.

[47Ronin]

Musashi founded the style NITEN-ICHI-RYU the two sword style.
im surprised no one brought his name up, has everyone actuslly forgotten about him or just never knew?????

[Cudgel]

or matbe we thought iot would unecessarry to speak of him

[47Ronin]

why is it unnecessary to speak of him you guys were talking about a two sword style with wakizashi and katana he has probably the best history with it out of all swordsman.

[Dark Blade]

He is clearly the god of swordsmanship :P

[pesilat]

Originally posted by 47Ronin
Musashi founded the style NITEN-ICHI-RYU the two sword style.
im surprised no one brought his name up, has everyone actuslly forgotten about him or just never knew?????

Umm ... before posting something like this, you might try actually reading through the previous messages. Musashi was mentioned in the very first post, and in others that followed.

Mike

[Cudgel]

LInks we need links to sources that show techs using two weapons.

[Roga]

I was just wondering if some one answer two questions in this subject. What style is it when you use and Katana and its sheath? Any of you that were not Ambidexterous but now our? I apologize if sound like I don't what I'm talking about. I hope to learn alot eventually.

[Cudgel]

Welcome Roga

Well I'm more or less fully ambidextrous or ambisinister (both left hands :-))
I dont think being ambidextrous helps alot in two wepon fighitng uynless you both weapons egually to attack with, because I knwo lots of peol who fight with a sword and shield which is fighitng with two weapons, but two weapon fighitng styles will help with ambidexterity if you use two weapons to attack nad not one to just defend and the other to attack. YOu have to alterante attacking and defening between the two weapons for you skill with two weapons to grow.
Although it might a be good idea to start out using a single held in your off hand nitl you can attack passibly with it.

Just my opinion

[JediMasterChris]

There are tons of Kenjutsu styles that use the sheath...

[Hyaku]

Originally posted by 47Ronin
Musashi founded the style NITEN-ICHI-RYU the two sword style.
im surprised no one brought his name up, has everyone actuslly forgotten about him or just never knew?????

I for one didn't forget him.

But he didnt do a two sword style!

Fundamentals are taught using one weapon either single handed or with two.

But there are more advanced two weapon techniques.

An even higher level is with a shortsword.

[Luthen_inadon]

actually I would prefer Tai Chi Swords for double sword style, they are meant for one hand so they are light...that is just my opinion

[pesilat]

Originally posted by Hyaku
I for one didn't forget him.

But he didnt do a two sword style!

Fundamentals are taught using one weapon either single handed or with two.

But there are more advanced two weapon techniques.

An even higher level is with a shortsword.

What do you mean, "he didn't do a two sword style"?

Mike

[Cudgel]

he didnt really fight witht the two sword style from what I learned it was more of a traing way so he could use the katana one handed.

[pesilat]

Originally posted by Cudgel
he didnt really fight witht the two sword style from what I learned it was more of a traing way so he could use the katana one handed.

From what I read here: http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Courtyard/1553/fhead.html

He trained with 2 swords from a very early age (mentioned first on this page: http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Courtyard/1553/musha.html) but didn't use it to fight with until later.

On this page: http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Courtyard/1553/duels.html it mentions the first recorded duel, against Miyake Gunbei, where Musashi used the Two Sword style he'd been developing for years (though he was using wooden swords). This happened some time between 1615 and 1627. He died in 1645.

From there, it seems that he didn't do as much duelling, but was still in service as a samurai and so probably did fight more. Whether he used two swords after that or not, I don't know - but it does say that he continued to perfect his two sword method.

To me, this implies that he did, in fact, fight with two swords and that, while it took him most of his life to reach a place where he felt competent to fight with two swords, it was his goal to do so from very early on.

Of course, I don't know how accurate that page is but it jibes with other things I've read about Musashi. And in "Five Rings", Musashi talks at length about his strategies of combat and mentions many times the two sword method.

Mike

[Hyaku]

Originally posted by pesilat
What do you mean, "he didn't do a two sword style"?

Mike

Well it's above your post in bold font.

I will write it again in a simpler way for you.

He did not do a two sword style!

Musashi's fundamentals are taught using one weapon..... this means? It's a "One sword style"

Following this and not taught in the general dojo are...........two weapon techniques. They are the techniques that made him famous. Notwithstanding some other ryu have two sword technique

Most importantly. An even higher level is with a shortsword.

Then we can go on to study some bojutsu and a smattering of Jujitsu. Most people never get past the single sword.

Sorry but my information does not come from webpages. I am dealing with simple facts.

Regards

[pesilat]

Originally posted by Hyaku
Well it's above your post in bold font.

I will write it again in a simpler way for you.

He did not do a two sword style!

Musashi's fundamentals are taught using one weapon..... this means? It's a "One sword style"

Following this and not taught in the general dojo are...........two weapon techniques. They are the techniques that made him famous. Notwithstanding some other ryu have two sword technique

Most importantly. An even higher level is with a shortsword.

Then we can go on to study some bojutsu and a smattering of Jujitsu. Most people never get past the single sword.

Sorry but my information does not come from webpages. I am dealing with simple facts.

Regards

You seem to be getting all bent out of shape. I never claimed to know the truth of the matter. Not having studied it, I can only cull info about it from where I can.

But you also seem to be nitpicking. You say:
"Following this and not taught in the general dojo are...........two weapon techniques. They are the techniques that made him famous."

OK - so Musashi did in fact use two swords and was famous for doing so (I thought that was the gist of his relevance to this particular thread) but the system he developed doesn't teach two swords in the general curriculum - but does later get there?

So the style is, basically, a one sword style. Great. Doesn't invalidate the fact that Musashi used two swords and was famous for doing so - and is therefore relevant to this particular thread. Right?

Edit:
Oops - just went back and read the first post. I think I see what you're taking umbrage at. Maybe you weren't nitpicking as bad as I thought - but I think you may have misinterpreted the original post.

Originally posted by Adam
Does anyone here know how to fight with two swords simultaneously, Musashi-style? Would be rather impressive I think.

I don't think Adam was specifically referring to the "Musashi style" in his statement. I think he was saying something more along the lines of, "Does anyone know how to fight with two swords, like Musashi was famous for doing?"

But, please, start a new thread about the history of Musashi as you've learned it. I know I'd be interested in reading it. My only real exposure to Musashi has been a couple of translations of Go Rin No Sho.

Mike

[Stolenbjorn]

Spear and dagger is the quickest way to survive on the medieval reenactmentbattlefield, if your're a rookie, and if there is noone around with longbows...

-both weapons are quick and provide several options and the spear's reach is backed with the even speedier dagger if an opponent manages to close in.

[Cudgel]

Hey you study fiore

Cool

[Stolenbjorn]

Anyway, an Italian dude I met at a WMA seminar in Dijon, France -claimed that japanese started using katana+wakisashi after loosing to many duels with portugise with rapier+dagger...

On the swordforum, people sais this is just a rumor, but I want to post it here, just to provoke a little:Angel:

[Cudgel]

Ive heard the same rumor.

[Dante]

Going back to an earlier post - Miyamoto Musashi's style (Niten Ichi Ryu, sometimes known as the "Way of All Things") was to use ANYTHING. Swords, bows, sticks, hands, feet - it's a VERY diverse style, with actually surprisingly few forms & techniques. It's main principals aren't fixed, and unless you are a seasoned practitioner, you will look like a tít trying it. Think of it as the Jeet Kune Do of sword-arts.

Not to get off the subject, or anything... ;O)

[Stolenbjorn]

Originally posted by Stolenbjorn
Anyway, an Italian dude I met at a WMA seminar in Dijon, France -claimed that japanese started using katana+wakisashi after loosing to many duels with portugise with rapier+dagger...

On the swordforum, people sais this is just a rumor, but I want to post it here, just to provoke a little:Angel:

-Just an addition that I forgot while posting last time:

A friend of mine claims that fighting with wakisashi + Katana was called fighting "barbarian style", and if that is true, it might support the rumor. I don't know what to think, and there might be several other peoples around the japanese that they regard as barbarians and that have had significatly more to do with the japanese than the Portugese...

[Hyaku]

Originally posted by Dante
Going back to an earlier post - Miyamoto Musashi's style (Niten Ichi Ryu, sometimes known as the "Way of All Things") was to use ANYTHING. Swords, bows, sticks, hands, feet - it's a VERY diverse style, with actually surprisingly few forms & techniques. It's main principals aren't fixed, and unless you are a seasoned practitioner, you will look like a tít trying it. Think of it as the Jeet Kune Do of sword-arts.

Not to get off the subject, or anything... ;O)

Your right in a way. Yes, there is an adaptation to be able to use any weapon or hand to hand. But I would not have described my kenjutsu ryu as not having any principles.

On the contrary you could find yourself studying the basic fundamentals of Ipponme (the first technique) for around ten years. Then in turn you could apply these principles to more than one or different weapons. Its the lack of understanding of nor being able to do complicated work with two weapons or even harder a short weapon that forces us to study basic fundamentals.

As to barbarians..... Musashi said, we should learn the heart then learn the sword. We should if needed be able to take up arms in defence of our country and family and face our fatality. This philosophy was based on the use of the sword and looking at the advent of guns.
He called it "Seishin Chokudo". To take an honest straight path in life.

Now if a few more barbarians followed this ideal maybe the world would not be in the mess its in now.

[Dante]

Ah, I understand that (I study the style myself). I never said that there were NO principles, just that they're not as (for want of a better word) rigid as most MAs.

Just for the record, we're agreeing with each other on this one, Hyaku ;)

[Hyaku]

Originally posted by Dante
Ah, I understand that (I study the style myself). I never said that there were NO principles, just that they're not as (for want of a better word) rigid as most MAs.

Just for the record, we're agreeing with each other on this one, Hyaku ;)

But its extremly rigid and very unforgiving and very fixed. It determines and deals decisively with a threatening situation. Practice is severe allowing little room for error and mistakes severely reprimanded if repeated more than once.

The only possible way of learning anything other than single sword waza is by private tuition from the Soke. In Japanese we use the word Mongai fushutsu, meaning not to be taught outside.

When Musashi mentioned that one should research various ways. What he meant was not to actually do them all but to take note of what other people do.

Gorin no Sho is a manual. When one actualy practices with the ryu one learns to be able distinguish the finer points of what he mentions and seperate them from he says you should research.

Without doubt other sword schools can possibly identify with certain aspects of his philosophy. But it would be rather difficult to follow it in its entirety.

You say you study the style yourself? Forgive me for saying so but there are only sixteen of us listed with the Nihon Kobudo Renmei at the Nippon Budokan and I cant recall seeing you on it.

[Dante]

Lolol. I said STUDY. Please don't confuse this with being a practitioner. ;)

[dogfighter]

Originally posted by Cudgel
he didnt really fight witht the two sword style from what I learned it was more of a traing way so he could use the katana one handed. The way I remember it Musashi worded it something like this, (WHEN USING THE KATANA FIGHT AS IF YOU WERE USING TWO SWORDS). I don't know if he actualy used a two sword style or not (many drawings depict this) but I believe based on personnel experience with swords and sticks, Musahi may have been refering to the live hand. The live hand is the hand that is free when you wield a weapon using only one hand and you use the other (free hand) for checking and blocking or punching. If this is the case it seems to me that maybe Musashi prefered to use the large swowd using only one hand and using the free hand to disrupt an apponents inside range attacks. From personal experiance I find this is very effective. One thing is for sure. The mystery goes on!

[Sphyerion]

The way I remember it Musashi worded it something like this, (WHEN USING THE KATANA FIGHT AS IF YOU WERE USING TWO SWORDS). I don't know if he actualy used a two sword style or not (many drawings depict this) but I believe based on personnel experience with swords and sticks, Musahi may have been refering to the live hand. The live hand is the hand that is free when you wield a weapon using only one hand and you use the other (free hand) for checking and blocking or punching. If this is the case it seems to me that maybe Musashi prefered to use the large swowd using only one hand and using the free hand to disrupt an apponents inside range attacks. From personal experiance I find this is very effective. One thing is for sure. The mystery goes on!

Do you have a copy of the Book of Five Rings by any chance? He says that by holding two swords, you learn to use the sword one handed. And in a different section, he goes on to explain how a warrior should never use only one sword when he has both available because this is not taking full advantage of your resources. (paraphrased not nearly as elegantly i assure you) He doesn't need to refer to the live hand simply because he has an entire section in the book about the way to grip a sword. This is just my understanding of it... i'm open to new interpretations.

You say you study the style yourself? Forgive me for saying so but there are only sixteen of us listed with the Nihon Kobudo Renmei at the Nippon Budokan and I cant recall seeing you on it.
I'm not entirely sure, and I mean no offense whatsoever, but was not Musashi himself self-taught? And for those of us who don't live in Japan and have an opportunity to train as you do, have we any less of a right to teach ourselves this art? Does that go to say that since we do not formally practice it, we cannot be considered as truly practicing it?

[Hyaku]

Sphyerion said: I'm not entirely sure, and I mean no offense whatsoever, but was not Musashi himself self-taught? And for those of us who don't live in Japan and have an opportunity to train as you do, have we any less of a right to teach ourselves this art? Does that go to say that since we do not formally practice it, we cannot be considered as truly practicing it?

.........

No you are not "truely practicing it"

Initially self taught or not it constitutes over 400 years of practice by other people to have become one of Japans most famous forms of Kenjutsu.

You make it all sound so easy. Unless you have suddenly aquired some form of telepathy I dont see how this is possible. If it was possible the whole world would experts in no time and that would be nice. Can you apply this self taught principle to Karate, Iaido Kendo or for tha matter any Martial "Art"

Please dont get me wrong. I was not criticising anyone. The opportunity I have to practice is simply because I made it my life and made the effort. I was just trying to make a relevant contribution to a thread about something I have a reasonable knowledge of.

As I touched on earlier on in the thread The fundamentals are with the right hand. I did this for seven years and still do it for at least half of practice time.
The longer the better as it makes the understanding of Okuden a lot easier

Okuden (Hidden transmission) is first with two swords, then kodachi, bo, Jujitsu and jutte.

So fundamentals are with one. Nito is with one (in each hand) Kodachi is one, Bo with two and Jutte one.

The grip we use is very different. I would not even begin to attempt to describe it in writing.

To me doing this as self taught worries me more than someone who says they do self taught iaido, batto jutsu. We do pair work with no protection. Its avoid cuts that stop a centimetre from the floor or go to hospital. Mess around with this and someone will get hurt.

It really is a unique situation to take in for all concerned. In other martial arts we see it, do it. Then maybe get a book a video etc to help. Here we actually have manual that has actually preceded the practice!

We are making efforts to remedy this. But it takes time and money for all concerned. Canadian seminar is set for the first week in August. A phone call an hour ago tells me we might be coming to France around October.

I really do hope to meet people who show such great interest sometime in the future and try and help them understand Musashi's tradition.

[xuande]

I know that in Hung Gar and Northern Shaolin there are several forms for double broadswords and straight swords (gim), butterfly knives while technically not considered swords by the Chinese, could very easily be seen as a pair of short swords by most other people.

[The Kestrel]

Ok, holding and using two weapons depend of their weight.
That style has good speed. Althought is not well reckoned because the power.

[Cudgel]

Originally posted by The Kestrel
Ok, holding and using two weapons depend of their weight.
That style has good speed. Althought is not well reckoned because the power.

Explain this.
Are you saying that while it might faster to fight with two weapons it doesn't hit as hard as using one weapon?

[The Walker]

http://www.samurai.com/5rings/

The two heavens...read it twenty times.

The book explains itself.

[The Kestrel]

yes.
If you hold(and use) a wepon with 2 hands, it will have more power, but it will be one hit.
With two, you have 1/2 power than with the both hands, but you can hit twice and block with one and attack with the other...

At first, it seems like the two swords are better, but the weight.....

[estranged13]

Originally posted by JediMasterChris
I know how with a Katana and Wakasashi, it takes alot of practice. I have a few swords but the wakasashi I use is 26' and the katana is 30' the blade.


must be heavy having a sword with a 26 foot blade and a 30 foot blade

[Sphyerion]

yes.
If you hold(and use) a wepon with 2 hands, it will have more power, but it will be one hit.
With two, you have 1/2 power than with the both hands, but you can hit twice and block with one and attack with the other...

At first, it seems like the two swords are better, but the weight.....

I'm afraid you're looking at it without taking in all the factors.

One handed gives you more freedom of movement as well.
Also, while you may argue that the weight is difficult to wield with one hand, you shoudl take into account that over time, you will grow accustomed to the weight. And there are many ways to handle a sword one handed no matter the weight. Also take into account that you can simply choose to use a lighter sword for one handed wielding... and when discussing weight... it's not even a factor when dual-wielding a small weapon such as a dagger...

[Cudgel]

yes.
If you hold(and use) a wepon with 2 hands, it will have more power, but it will be one hit.
With two, you have 1/2 power than with the both hands, but you can hit twice and block with one and attack with the other...

At first, it seems like the two swords are better, but the weight.....
well it would appear that you dont do much actually fighting. I've done two weapon fighting and have been able to hity with sufficent force, if I chose, to do damage. I used two axes, two rather long and light swords and other variations.
I also use a two handed grip, but not for power, I can get power with one arm, for speed there are some techinuqes that can be done faster when you have two hands holding a weapon. and that is all can add Sphyerion said a lot of what I wanted to say.
But hel I say it any ways either grow stronger or get lighter weapons.

[The Kestrel]

Indeed, swords arent my style. i checked it from a logical way
But i'm not saying you wont hit hard, yeah, you hit hard, but you hit even harder with two hand in one.It cant be the same force(unless you cant do force with one arm)

And for damage, look for some bruthal weapons, War gadgets if you want to give them a name.

[ap Oweyn]

Musashi founded the style NITEN-ICHI-RYU the two sword style.
im surprised no one brought his name up, has everyone actuslly forgotten about him or just never knew?????

Uh guys, Musashi is mentioned in the original flipping question. "Musashi style."

[dogfighter]

Indeed, swords arent my style. i checked it from a logical way
But i'm not saying you wont hit hard, yeah, you hit hard, but you hit even harder with two hand in one.It cant be the same force(unless you cant do force with one arm)

And for damage, look for some bruthal weapons, War gadgets if you want to give them a name. One can generate much power by learning power points of the body that can help produce great power using one hand style. Back hand strikes launched from the shoulder while twisting the body in the correct motion at the correct time. In rough terrain and uneven or rocky ground the one hand style provides better ballance and flexability especialy on horseback. Also: The free hand can assist in striking. Example: Try a back hand horizontal strike (with a stick) and use your free hand to help push as your strike is being launched and you will see the power generated. Working this technique off of the unbrella block (backhand roof block) is very powerfull and difficult to defend against. The same concept is used with the power points of the body. Main body points are the shoulders, hips,and thighs. Dogbrothers POWER video gives some insight into this area mainly barrowing from the PEKITI TRSIA system of KALI. One sword is more powerfull than two because all of your focus is on one weapon and one purpus be it two hand style or one hand style. The mystery continues. Dogfighter.

[Sphyerion]

One sword is more powerfull than two because all of your focus is on one weapon and one purpus be it two hand style or one hand style. The mystery continues. Dogfighter.

I'm afraid i must disagree here. First off, one should not be focusing upon any sword... to master martial arts, you should saturate your being with your style. Your actions should be natural and reflexive rather than a choice of reasoning and thought at the moment. Focusing on something makes it easy for you to get distracted as well. In this sense, with enough training, two swords wouldn't be a problem because you no longer need to focus on both swords let alone any. You'll wield each sword with the same level of control as you would had you only held one.

[dogfighter]

I'm afraid i must disagree here. First off, one should not be focusing upon any sword... to master martial arts, you should saturate your being with your style. Your actions should be natural and reflexive rather than a choice of reasoning and thought at the moment. Focusing on something makes it easy for you to get distracted as well. In this sense, with enough training, two swords wouldn't be a problem because you no longer need to focus on both swords let alone any. You'll wield each sword with the same level of control as you would had you only held one. I agree with part of what your saying, but the fact is when it comes to raw power one sword is more powerful than two. Also: When I talk about focus I am not refering to single mindedness or pre-meditated thought or stradige although these states of mind have a place in the whole skeem of things ie. visualazation muscle memory etc.

[Gryphon Hall]

My brother is actually left-handed, but was taught to do things with his right hand. So when we learned swordplay, he can fence with both the right and left rather well, but differently.

I prefer using one long sword in my right hand and any kind of blocking or trapping weapon on the other. But when I use two hands to hold a sword during a fight, it isn't because of considerations of speed or power, but stability. Sometimes, very rare times, "fencing" with one hand is just too difficult, and requires the other hand to help guide the tip and, ergo, the defense.

When I tried to do double bolo, though, the similarities in length confused me, making me accidentally stab my other hand. :o Probably just need more practice.

The brother I just mentioned had no difficulties with sinawali, though.

[Sphyerion]

I agree with part of what your saying, but the fact is when it comes to raw power one sword is more powerful than two. Also: When I talk about focus I am not refering to single mindedness or pre-meditated thought or stradige although these states of mind have a place in the whole skeem of things ie. visualazation muscle memory etc.

Care to explain how one hand can have more "raw power" than two? This is logically speaking untrue. Two hands applying force is more than one and at best equal. And beyond that, raw power in my humblest of opinions (and i do note that different opinions do exist on this) isn't important in any way.

And you explain what you are not meaning by focus.. but what DO you mean? It's hard to see how focus can ever be a problem with dual-wielding... it shouldnt' be an issue with any weapon.

[Cudgel]

What are two trying to say?


OK here is my opinion humble or not.

Weilding two weapons is like weilding one weapon. You can use just as much of your body when swinging one weapon as you can when swinging two.
A sword swung at half speed and half power will still cut human flesh so power isnt that imporant. Power isnt as important as placing your strikes cleanly ie good edge placement, proper follow through.
Power would be more important if you were weilding a blundgeon of some form. And even less so with an axe.

[shuyun3]

I agree with part of what your saying, but the fact is when it comes to raw power one sword is more powerful than two. Also: When I talk about focus I am not refering to single mindedness or pre-meditated thought or stradige although these states of mind have a place in the whole skeem of things ie. visualazation muscle memory etc.
One or two hands (or weapons) power is relative. More muscles do not necessarily translate to more power. A greater range of motion does not translate automatically into power either (or more correctly momentum). M=ma.

In most cases a one handed strike would lack stabilty to take its own recoil when clashing with a double handed strike (personal experience from Gryphon's self dubbed "can opener" vs. my double stick block [double stick but still seprate hands]). But a properly accelerated and chambered strike (don't forget the weapon mass) can take out a double handed (i.e. supported) strike from a proper angle. Double handed strikes appear more powerful because they can take more recoil.

A single handed strike has more range of motion to involve more muscles (both factors considered) to coordinate and accelerate a weapon for maximum striking power. Thus Potentially has greater power. (E.g. compare a doule fisted punch vs. a left cross/hook the maximum power of the left cross/hook is greater than the sum of two fists hitting simulteneously because the hip will not be properly utilzed here.)

As for ambidexterity (I'm a southpaw) I learned to use a weapon on my weaker hand when I learned that it was good to use the alive hand for controlling the enemy's weapon hand. But it was dangerous to do so because flesh does not measure up to steel so then at first I used another weapon to press the enemy's weapon while I struck with my stronger hand. Eventually my support hand learned to attack too.

I can recommend Complete Sinawali by Reynaldo Galang as a good double weapon form manual. It is published by tuttle publications

[dustIn credible]

I like using twin stick swords. I have one that is 41"long the other is more like two Tantos 26" long total not blades......easy to conceal if you need to plus the wood is tough as nails use it as an escrima stick as well or a bo staff for the longer ones.....does anyone know the proper name for double stick swords?

[cloudgodd]

the power of your strike would depend one the style that you are useing to fight, if what I use and know is Kenjutsu, with this art the power would be the same, seeing how you use only one hand to strike with either way, the reason is weilding one sword with two hands the back hand is pulling the blade while the front hand is pushing the blade for control pruposes, so the front hand is the only hand striking, therefore in kenjutsu, you would get just as much power using one hand or two hands, since nomatter which you use only one hand is striking......Cloud

[Sphyerion]

not entirely true... by using one hand to strike.. and a second hand "pulling" you have what is known as a lever. =) Quite different.

[cloudgodd]

not entirely true... by using one hand to strike.. and a second hand "pulling" you have what is known as a lever. =) Quite different.


that is ummmm.....WRONG! When striking in kenjutsu your dominate hand which is the leading hand is pushing the top of the sword forward, and your non-dominate hand the back one is pulling the bottum of the sword, this is where the control over the sword comes from, that is why most practitioners of KENDO, and KENJUTSU practice strike with a Suberito because they are heavy, once you have perfect control over the Suberito, the katana, is nothing is as lite as a feather, but the application still applies, the leading hand pushes, and the rear hand pulls, ask any kenjutsu instructor.....Cloud

[Sphyerion]

okay... lets look at this scientifically ok? "the leading hand is pushing the top of the sword forward, and your non-dominate hand the back one is pulling the bottum of the sword" from your quote here... This describes what is known to man as a "lever" however, the pivot in this case is applying force as well, which only adds to the force. That means... that two hand has more force than one. which disproves" "with this art the power would be the same,"

[Gryphon Hall]

For your enjoyment and/or enlightenment:

http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?threadid=9416&highlight=sword

please take note that though the forum is about fantasy gaming, the main contributors are those who actually are swordfighting martial artists trying to get realism into their games.

[Musashi Kyo]

Sorry if this is redundant but Musashi's style is Ni Ten ichi Ryu.

[cloudgodd]

okay... lets look at this scientifically ok? "the leading hand is pushing the top of the sword forward, and your non-dominate hand the back one is pulling the bottum of the sword" from your quote here... This describes what is known to man as a "lever" however, the pivot in this case is applying force as well, which only adds to the force. That means... that two hand has more force than one. which disproves" "with this art the power would be the same,"

But the downward force is only applied with one hand not two, in what you are saying it would take three hand to acomplish, when strikeing in kenjutsu only one hand is doing the strike, science or not, if you took a kenjutsu class you would know this.....cloud

[Cudgel]

But the downward force is only applied with one hand not two, in what you are saying it would take three hand to acomplish, when strikeing in kenjutsu only one hand is doing the strike, science or not, if you took a kenjutsu class you would know this.....cloud
Ok evn though one hand is applying the force in the direction of the strike, the hand appplying the force in the oppisite direction on the handle is also applying force in the same direction as the lead hand onthe blade. And there is more to swinging a sword than your hands and arms there also shoulders and hips and your torso. And it is easier to apply your hips shoulders and troso to power your strike when using both hands.

[Sphyerion]

Ok evn though one hand is applying the force in the direction of the strike, the hand appplying the force in the oppisite direction on the handle is also applying force in the same direction as the lead hand onthe blade. And there is more to swinging a sword than your hands and arms there also shoulders and hips and your torso. And it is easier to apply your hips shoulders and troso to power your strike when using both hands.

yep. I think cudgel understands what I am talking about. =)

[dogfighter]

What are two trying to say?


OK here is my opinion humble or not.

Weilding two weapons is like weilding one weapon. You can use just as much of your body when swinging one weapon as you can when swinging two.
A sword swung at half speed and half power will still cut human flesh so power isnt that imporant. Power isnt as important as placing your strikes cleanly ie good edge placement, proper follow through.
Power would be more important if you were weilding a blundgeon of some form. And even less so with an axe. This is true!

[Gryphon Hall]

Ok evn though one hand is applying the force in the direction of the strike, the hand appplying the force in the oppisite direction on the handle is also applying force in the same direction as the lead hand onthe blade. And there is more to swinging a sword than your hands and arms there also shoulders and hips and your torso. And it is easier to apply your hips shoulders and troso to power your strike when using both hands.
Quite true. Quite true. Yet even if the other hand is "stationary", the fact that it is holding stationary as a fulcrum focuses the force exerted by the primary hand in a way that one hand alone cannot do.

Think of a typical lever action can opener: try opening the can by merely pressing the blade against the can, or ramming it against the can, all without latching it to the rim. More often than not, you will merely dent the can, but not pierce it. Yet, merely latching it to the rim allows you to pierce through with seemingly minimal force.

A typical hand-operated paper cutter demonstrates this as well: with the sort of blade it has, you cannot merely "chop" down on the paper without a lot of effort, but with the relatively stationary fulcrum, it's a cinch.

[cloudgodd]

Ok evn though one hand is applying the force in the direction of the strike, the hand appplying the force in the oppisite direction on the handle is also applying force in the same direction as the lead hand onthe blade. And there is more to swinging a sword than your hands and arms there also shoulders and hips and your torso. And it is easier to apply your hips shoulders and troso to power your strike when using both hands.
Have you ever taken kenjutsu, kendo, shinobigatana, iaido, iajutsu, anything?? just curious if you are speaking out of schooling or SEA tournaments? the only thing the second hand is doing is controlling the cut the blade is making it is not applying downward, sideway, upward force depending on the direction you are swinging, now if you were to say you have a much more controlled cut with two hand rather than one I would agree, but you did not, you said that the force of the cut would be stronger, wrong, since you brought musashi up you are speaking of KENJUTSU, then no, one hand as just as much force as two, it is possible for one hand to have as much control as two but not likely....Cloud

[Cudgel]

Forget it.
You really arent worth the effort to educate seeing how several others have already posted what I was going to post. And besides that this thread was suppsoed to be about fighting with two weapons regardless of whether or not Musashi did or not.

[cloudgodd]

Forget it.
You really arent worth the effort to educate seeing how several others have already posted what I was going to post. And besides that this thread was suppsoed to be about fighting with two weapons regardless of whether or not Musashi did or not.
no this thread was about fighting with two SWORDS not two various weapons of your choosing jut to prove your little SEA point....maybe in other fighting forms the second hand has something to do with the force but in kenjutsu it does not.....
but I not worthy of your mighty education oh grandmaster of two sword fight skills so please forgive my intrusion in to you pathetic life....

[Sphyerion]

no this thread was about fighting with two SWORDS not two various weapons of your choosing jut to prove your little SEA point....maybe in other fighting forms the second hand has something to do with the force but in kenjutsu it does not.....
but I not worthy of your mighty education oh grandmaster of two sword fight skills so please forgive my intrusion in to you pathetic life....

The problem here is, we're discussing potential. The way you compare it is like comparing the capacity of two unequal sized containers and saying that the capacity is equivalent just because the water in them is equivalent.

While YOU may not have more force when using two hands, two handed wielding is none-theless capable of more force due to the leverage principle already stated.

With that stated, i'd also like to point out that many kenjutsu teachings include the usage of applying opposing force between the leading and following hand, which results in leverage. This I know as definite, simply because I've seen countless articles on it and met many who teach it in this manner. To consider YOUR style the "one way" is ignorant. .

[Cudgel]

Oh and WTF is SEA?

[Hyaku]

He meant SEA South East Asia.

To stick in a few more yens worth: I will be there in a few weeks to teach. Some of my students there do other two handed weapon styles. But I think they would be the first to say that what they do bears no resemblance whatsoever to anything Musashi did.

As I already mentioned Japanese weapons are about using Kahanshin (lower body power to motivate a technique) if its one or two, heavy or light. Up to now these techniques are Okuden waza and are not taught in the open Dojo. But things are slowly changing.

[Gryphon Hall]

It is interesting to note that the modern day school of Niten Ichi Ryu school (actually, the Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu) uses lighter than normal bokken for practice. Hmmmm... how come? Probably because, inspite of Musashi saying that holding one sword with two hands is not the true way, actually trying to fence with a normal weight and balanced bokken and katana with just one hand is too difficult.

I got the pictures I am attaching from this web site on Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu: http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Pagoda/8187/Niten.htm . I mean, look at the pictures and compare how itty-bitty they are compared to normal bokken.

Musashi is still not wrong; to train to be able to wield a sword with one hand as strongly as if wielded by two is a good ideal. But it is interesting to note, also, than when Musashi faced some of his most dedicated opponents, he used one katana or bokken.

The thing is, one can still effectively fight with two weapons, but let's not say that, on any particular individual, that wielding it with one hand has the same applied power as when wielded with two.

[Sphyerion]

It is interesting to note that the modern day school of Niten Ichi Ryu school (actually, the Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu) uses lighter than normal bokken for practice. Hmmmm... how come? Probably because, inspite of Musashi saying that holding one sword with two hands is not the true way, actually trying to fence with a normal weight and balanced bokken and katana with just one hand is too difficult.

I got the pictures I am attaching from this web site on Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu: http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Pagoda/8187/Niten.htm . I mean, look at the pictures and compare how itty-bitty they are compared to normal bokken.

Musashi is still not wrong; to train to be able to wield a sword with one hand as strongly as if wielded by two is a good ideal. But it is interesting to note, also, than when Musashi faced some of his most dedicated opponents, he used one katana or bokken.

The thing is, one can still effectively fight with two weapons, but let's not say that, on any particular individual, that wielding it with one hand has the same applied power as when wielded with two.

i always figured that the lighter versions are far those who arn't strong enough to use real weight weapons. I for one, use a full weight bokken when using one hand.

[Hyaku]

It is interesting to note that the modern day school of Niten Ichi Ryu school (actually, the Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu) uses lighter than normal bokken for practice. Hmmmm... how come?

Sorry your wrong.

Having held Musashi's Jiso Enman no bokuto a few times I would say we are using similar weapons

http://www.hyoho.com/boto.jpg

They can be lighter. Perhaps begginers are not used to using one hand. Also the same as other sword arts older people generaly settle for something lighter. The thing is perhaps you start with a lighter weapon until you get used to it

At the moment most of us use fairly heavy ones. Everyone uses one that has been hand made. The ones sold by budogu-ya are nothing like the weight that is required, the tsuka is too thin, worst thing is the kodachi is a complete waste of time. I break a few every year doing kodachi waza. Defending against cuts that stop about an inch from the floor is heavy work.

Soke uses an ebony one. I am using Ipe. Others various heavy woods. The Fukuoka-han style bokuto is quite heavy too.

You also mentioned Musashi's use of one bokuto in duels. I have mentioned earlier on in the thread that the fundamentals of the Ryu are with one weapon with one hand. Two weapons are okuden waza and a short sword even harder.

[Sphyerion]

Sorry your wrong.

Having held Musashi's Jiso Enman no bokuto a few times I would say we are using similar weapons

http://www.hyoho.com/boto.jpg

They can be lighter. Perhaps begginers are not used to using one hand. Also the same as other sword arts older people generaly settle for something lighter. The thing is perhaps you start with a lighter weapon until you get used to it

At the moment most of us use fairly heavy ones. Everyone uses one that has been hand made. The ones sold by budogu-ya are nothing like the weight that is required, the tsuka is too thin, worst thing is the kodachi is a complete waste of time. I break a few every year doing kodachi waza. Defending against cuts that stop about an inch from the floor is heavy work.

Soke uses an ebony one. I am using Ipe. Others various heavy woods. The Fukuoka-han style bokuto is quite heavy too.

You also mentioned Musashi's use of one bokuto in duels. I have mentioned earlier on in the thread that the fundamentals of the Ryu are with one weapon with one hand. Two weapons are okuden waza and a short sword even harder.

Yep! See, that's what I was saying. The lighter weapons are for starters. You'd normalyl work up to the real weight. Which is one reason most peopel dont' start with a real sword cause metal is much heavier than the wood. =)

Anyways, Hyaku> if you dont' mind answering this...
in the book of five rings, I understood it in the sense that he said that to not use two swords is dying without using everything you have. And he said that the best way to learn to wield one-handed is two have two swords in your hands. So, why is it that so many teachings of his style start off by using only one sword at a time? Am I misunderstanding something?

[Hyaku]

To try and answer there is just so much to take into consideration apart from which hand does what that we have to learn. Old ryu are keen on Yokewaza, the techniques of being able to attack and at the same time avoid being cut. There is very little head on confrontation unless we can determine to-maai (outside cutting distance). There is so much to learn in deriving power from the hara, "very" low hip techniques, different grip different set of muscles coming in to play. the timing of things etc. The list is endless.

I used to think the one weapon technique was going on too long. I did a good seven or eight years or fundamentals and of course still do it. But now I can concentrate on two weapons I think, thank God I can do the fundamentals without having to think about them and concentrate more on the hand work.

Most of all we do have an opponent and we don't wear protection. You probably spend more time getting out of the way at first rather than responding. There is very little of, "Well your still a begginer so I will slow things down a lot. Just too much to take in all at once and Musashi's way of doing things in stages to improve.

I have practiced and taught Kendo/Iaido for years and done battojutsu. But these cuts do not finish with outstretched arms. Strong full blooded cuts with intent that finish a centimetre from the floor have to be treated with respect.

[Sphyerion]

Old ryu are keen on Yokewaza, the techniques of being able to attack and at the same time avoid being cut. There is very little head on confrontation unless we can determine to-maai (outside cutting distance).

Interesting... I always understood Musashi's style to be quite confrontational. Considering that two of his initiatives are entirely offensive and the other is just variation of offensive. And it seemed to me that his style wasn't about avoiding your opponents strike, it was about pressing it down and preventing your opponent from doing anything effective against you. With that understanding, there should never be a need to avoid a strike.

[Hyaku]

Interesting... I always understood Musashi's style to be quite confrontational. Considering that two of his initiatives are entirely offensive and the other is just variation of offensive. And it seemed to me that his style wasn't about avoiding your opponents strike, it was about pressing it down and preventing your opponent from doing anything effective against you. With that understanding, there should never be a need to avoid a strike.

Extremely so. To confront a threat. Then deal with a commited attack by moving well forward if possible. Inside to the side of the opponent to deal a decisive action.

When I say avoid I did not mean escape. Like a lot of older Budo decisive attacks contain avoiding movement. You cut him. He misses!

There is only "one" Musashi technique. Sen no sen. It confronts an aggressive opponent and deals with him when he has commited himself to point of no return. Any and all movements are based on this detection.

There are the holding down techniques you write of that occur when the opponent cuts but fails to cover the distance required to reach you. Quickly closing in holds down and crowds the opponent to force him back. Its all a very one sided right against the throat technique giving the opponent little choice where to go. Then deals with him beyond question.

If all this stuff was head on, one person or both would go to hospital every time we practiced. Gendai Budo (Modern) offers this head on opportunity as we wear protection.

Even In Batto-Jutsu I was taught that the only reason we cut makiwara is because a roll of straw does not offer a threat. Years ago one would cut and side-step in.

[Sphyerion]

Extremely so. To confront a threat. Then deal with a commited attack by moving well forward if possible. Inside to the side of the opponent to deal a decisive action.

When I say avoid I did not mean escape. Like a lot of older Budo decisive attacks contain avoiding movement. You cut him. He misses!

There is only "one" Musashi technique. Sen no sen. It confronts an aggressive opponent and deals with him when he has commited himself to point of no return. Any and all movements are based on this detection.

There are the holding down techniques you write of that occur when the opponent cuts but fails to cover the distance required to reach you. Quickly closing in holds down and crowds the opponent to force him back. Its all a very one sided right against the throat technique giving the opponent little choice where to go. Then deals with him beyond question.

If all this stuff was head on, one person or both would go to hospital every time we practiced. Gendai Budo (Modern) offers this head on opportunity as we wear protection.

Even In Batto-Jutsu I was taught that the only reason we cut makiwara is because a roll of straw does not offer a threat. Years ago one would cut and side-step in.

very cool. Thanks for the explanation!

[tekkengod]

yes, i do, the only weapons i've ever trained in the use of are, sai and dual wakizashi.
I LOVE THEM BOTH. any questions, feel free to ask.

[The Kestrel]

Actually, during the renaissance and a bit after that, soldiers Dual-ed a Rapier and a Dagger. So the style might be reliable.

[Cudgel]

rapier and dagger are not a style for use in qwar. The rapier was a street weapon and a dager was used because a rapier could only defend in single time, ie no lighting fast rispotesthe dagger was used for parrying and the rapier for attacking. Im not quite sure how common two weapons actaully was for the battle feild in Europe.

[Domenico]

"...rapier was a street weapon and a dagger was used because a rapier could only defend in single time, i.e. no lighting fast rispotes..."

Cudgel's response is a fairly accurate statement, although I'm going to pick some nits in the logic and background (no offense meant, Cudgel, I'm, again, going after the background data that was handed to you), and look forward to hearing responses after I stake my flag in the ground...

Forgive me if I'm in the minority, and perhaps less versed in what information is being presented where, but I've only ever seen Chris Evans espouse the single-time/double-time theories, and quite frankly, I find it rather absurd.

For those who've not encountered these concepts, Mr. Evans (in an article on Rapiers at SwordForum.com) suggests that single-time sword play (attack/counter-attack/counter-attack/counter-attack) was a limitation, and the norm in early Rapier play due to the ungainly weight, heft, unresponsiveness and general clumsiness of the weapons of the Rapiers of the early era (1560-1650).

He goes on to say that only as the weapons become smaller (due to them no longer being used against heavier blades), that they become lighter, and then the double-time swordplay (attack/parry/attack/parry) is suddenly revealed as the better method of fence, and the rapid development towards the smallsword takes these (apparently better) methods of swordplay to the next level.

Well, the first part I'm going to assault (although it helps affirm Cudgel's point) is the application of the Rapier. As Cudgel says, these are Civilian weapons. Sure, a few soldiers show up on the field sporting their Rapiers on their hips, but they were publically humiliated in person and in print by their peers. A Rapier on a Battlefield is kind of like entering your Echo in a Nascar event. It is horribly outclassed by those around it, and while still can meet the bare minimum of "getting you where you want to go", a Rapier in the press of Shot and Pike will maybe help you dispatch a couple people on the way out, but is essentially useless to win a battle.

One thing that may confuse this perception (and feed the fires of confusion) is the complex hilt configurations found on swords from the 1560's onwards. We most commonly hear the words "Swept Hilt" followed immediately by the word "Rapier", however the compound hilts (quillons, port rings, knuckle-bows, etc) actually first appear on the battlefields with the cut and thrust swords.

The other limitation we have to remember is our forebears' naming conventions. For as broad a language as English is, for whatever reason the only words ever to describe the types of blades in the period were either "sword" or "rapier", but their application was very precise. The context of the texts makes it clear that you bring a Sword to war, and you wear a Rapier for your day-to-day. Now, "Rapier" opponents such as George Silver decried the Rapier as a foppish and ineffective weapon of defence, and would still carry their "Sword", but the civilian arm and the war arm are still different beasts, especially on the continent.

At any rate, the reason I digressed to the limitation of the English vocabulary, is that to best illustrate what I am referring to in the history of compound hilted blades, we have no English word of distinction for them, and must sidestep to the German "Reiterschwert".

Reiterschwert translates to “Riding Sword”, meaning the sidearm of a horseman, but the design of the blade is the typical Soldier’s sidearm (it’s been mentioned on a few other threads how the sword was a “last ditch” weapon for 95% of the soldiery deployed).

Here are some good examples of Reiterschwert, or Soldier’s sidearms typical of the day from the 1560’s through abouth the 1620’s:

http://www.myarmoury.com/albums/displayimage.php?pos=-388

http://www.claudiospage.com/reitschw.htm

http://www.claudiospage.com/reitschw2.htm

Note how all of the weapons are what we would characteristically call “swept hilts”, but they are certainly not Rapiers. The false assumptions that get made are that these are either Early Rapiers (and too heavy to be functional as a thrusting weapon), or that the Rapier was commonly engaged against these heavier foes, and were for a while heavier themselves to deal with them. Well, only a doofus would take a Knife to a Gun fight, and likewise, only a doofus would bring a Rapier to a Swordfight (…note the dead Fop in Rob Roy, although I hardly recommend Hollywood as Primary Reference material… :)

At any rate, the Rapier was never meant to deal with heavier blades than itself (I’m amazed that on another thread on this site someone describes a Rapier vs. Zwiehander fight, WTF?), therefore any argument that founds itself upon this premise is a classic case of faulty premises.

Secondly (…my God, he’s not done yet?… :), in regards to the Single-Time/Double-Time commentary, the Single-Time method of fence suggests that when your opponent goes to hit you, hit him first. Let’s listen to the thought process on this one…

“…Say, you mean that if I see a guy take a swing at me, I should sidestep and hit him in the arm first? Or perhaps, as he goes to lunge all I have to do is drop my point into his face? Or maybe as he swipes across my face, I envelope his blade and take a swipe at his in return? What, am I trying to kill this guy?”

Uhhh, yeah, that would be the point.

Double-Time fence doesn’t develop as a fighting method to dispatch your opponent, it develops as the Gentlemanly mode of fence in the Salon. Sure, Smallswords are lethal tools, and duelling could certainly send someone backpeddling off this mortal coil, but the Smallswords are the tools of the Gentleman in matters of Honor, and above all, honorable Gentlemen should fight with dignity and decorum. This is where all the silly nonsense of “Right-Of-Way” gets invented and finds it’s way into Modern Competitive Sport Fencing.

Parry/Riposte has nothing to do whatsoever with how to best dispatch your opponent, it has *everything* to do with who has the right to claim a touch.

If he attacks, and I parry it, I am now allowed to attack back (riposte).
If he attacks, and I counter-attack, I will only score a point on him if his touch misses.
If he attacks, and I present a stop hit, I will only score a point on him, again, if he misses.

I’m sure there are some Fencing afficionados out there who can either correct me on the nuances of that, or help fill in all of the other blanks, but the point is that Parry/Riposte is the preffered method to fence *ONLY* in regards to Sport Fencing, as that is the only way to guarantee your good touch counts for something, as the the other (and in my opinion, more efficient) methods only count if the other guy misses.

And now we circle back around to Cudgel’s point (“…my God, is he done?… :).
The correct answer (in my opinion, at least) is that the Dagger was not there to counter the Rapier's inefficiency of fence, but simply because it is there, and could be used to augment your fight. The Dagger was the companion arm to the Rapier, not neccesarily out of design, but because you always carried a knife on you, regardless of whether you carried a sword.

And lastly, to correct Cudgel, the Dagger was used *very* offensively in the Swordplay of the period, not just defensively.



So, I find myself running against the grain on this one. Thoughts?
Sincerely,
D. Matthew Kelty

[Infrazael]

In my Kung Fu school, we have a style called Double Dragon Broadswords.

Basically it's two Southern Chinese broadswards in one sheath, with the handle of each sword basically half of an ellipse.

The swords are the same btw, unlike those Katana/Wakisashi sets.

[Cudgel]

WHOA......
That was kinda cool, so glad my lack of knowledge brings out more knowledge. SWEET.

I am going to have to agree with all u just said cuz it has a ring of truth in it, partly from my brief foray into SCA rapier, even though few use completely historically blanced blades.

You will note how ever that I never aid the dagger was used exclusivly for defence or that is was carried for use with a rapier or sword. I negected to elaborate further on the fact that everybody carried a dagger or knife on their person at such time making it a natural to use it in your offhand unless u had something else to use in it.

Although I was still under the impression that while one could use their dagger offensivly it was mainly used to parry so u could use your rapier or sowrd soley or motly for offence, much like my understanding of the sheild or buckler. Granted there are many things that I consider a defenvie action that are really quite offensive in nature.

But in short a wonderful explaination on single and double time, something I barely understood, and that I do beleive I picked from the article on the rapier at SFI.

[Domenico]

My apologies Cudgel, you used the words "...the Dagger was used for Parrying...", and that was what I keyed off of... :)

Yes, the dagger was certainly the preferred Parrying arm, as that allows you to strike with the sword from a safer distance, but if my memory serves me well, about 20% or so of the documented duelling wounds in the Renaissance were attributed to the dagger (hamstring cuts top the list, with hits to the face a close second. I'll have to find the reference again, but somewhere along the line an Elizabethan commentary observed that every good fencing master was always missing one eye... :)

To help add to the shield info, the shield, targe, or target (collectively grouped as 18"-24" shields) was a fairly "defensive only" tool, but the buckler (8"-16") is a wicked little tool. The sheilding capabilites are obvious, although it is used more to redirect the opponents blade than neccesarily stopping it cold, but the really fun part is the way the buckler gets used to punch... :)

Your SCA Rapier experience is *quite* valid, as that entire branch of the SCA goes straight back to William Wilson and the Tattershall school of Defence (I think), one of the first and most widely referenced teachers of Historical Fence. Patri Pugliese paved the way for the access to all of the old manuscripts, but William really honed the translation and teaching from those manuals, long before Mr. Clement's ever had his short and curlies, let alone assumed he was the only one to reseach the originals... (...can you tell I've got a warm and fuzzy spot in my heart for the HACA... ;)

[Cudgel]

actually quite interestingly enough one of the people at the local SCA rapier practice studies at the Tatershal school of Defence and ive met one fo the Instructors.
And If I had the time I might still be going to the SCA rapier. I found the historical techniques to be more natural and cool looking, partly from 5 years of doing free play with shinai, you do it enough with real intent you start to get pretty close to how it was. My only beef was I was taught two differnet ways to parry with a rapier, one the hisoircal and more natuarally feeling way and a less intuitive way. I was being corected constantly for useing the natural way to parry, it was mildly agravating.
lets see if i can describe it clrealy.
if you are in tierce, point at their throat, elbow down and to ouside of your body, and your hand in held vertically withe t quillions striagt up and down, you woul parry by rotating the bottom quillion up to the attacking blade. This is more natural, the other way is to rotate the upper quillion ito the attacking blade. I got a little fed up when I had some of the white scarves telling I was doing it wrong by parrying in natural way.

EDIT: Oh and...why is it that I get teh feeling that not many in the WMA community seem to like JOhn Clements or teh HACA/ARMA?

[Domenico]

I *think* I can visualize what your describing. As my traditional "Modern" forms are rusty, I'll need you to clarify, as the numbers mean little to me. Assuming your right handed, I'm thinking your right leg is forward, hilt is about stomach height, or in a low/middle ward, with an upward pointed blade, as you say, towards the face.

If the threat is coming in to your midsection towards your left or center, yes, sweeping the hilt across into supponation (palm up), rolling the bottom quillon out and up in a clockwise manner would make the most sense, as it closes the line, and at the same time cocks your arm in such a way that a lightning fast counter-thrust can be executed in line to your opponents torso. I'm thinking this sounds like going into fourth position, although I could be wrong.

If I were to pronate (knuckles up), and roll the hilt counter-clockwise into that same attack, I'd certainly have a leg up on a wicked counter-cut available to the opponent's right side of the arm, shoulder or head, but my tip would have to go offline, meaning I'd need to spend more time bringing it back in, not to mention I have a slightly higher chance of seeing his tip slip under my arm and into me.

Hmmm, I'd say that for attacks to my left above the sternum, the "overhand", or pronated form would be best, with the "underhand" better for middle or low attacks.

White scarves? My, how very "Dumas"... ;)

John, yeah, he's an arrogant *****. Good fighter from what I've seen, but certainly not the best. Brash, arrogant, and occasionally quite misinformed due to aforementioned arrogance. An egotistical schoolyard bully who hates being bested. The organization itself has good data, and for the most part a good method of teaching, they just need to ditch Napolean... :) I have much more respect for Tattershall, Aemma.org and the Western Journal of Martial Arts, not to mention my own mentors Don Smith, Con MacLir, Logan, Brayton Carpenter, and all of the sundry minions of same throughout the ages.

BTW, since you're in Ventura, you may want to look Brayton up. He runs a traditional dojo, however he's got oodles of experience with German Fechtschule materials, and was one of my first mentors. Hit me up at Admin @ RenaissanceWarfare.com, and I'll give you his email address.

[Cudgel]

thats exactly what I meant.And prontating for a higher atacker aslo feels more natural but pronating fo a mid or low atakc was jsut so awakard.

I once saw him speaking and demonstrating some swords tuff on the history chanel. he did a flousih or wahtever the term is for a solo drill, well he did at full speed ans manged hit his own shield about 3 times with his wod and looked very sloppy, and somehtign about his presence jsut bugged me.

[wing chun]

everyone should read book of five rings its great. musashi says you should practise two sword fighting with two katanas. i have its great physical training and it makes you faster with a wakiashi in the other hand :woo:

[vickbd]

Heh sorry for my ignorance but looks like I finally figured what those swords are called. Real swords without sharpness are called Iaito. Looks like I've learnt something today :D I've always been interested in getting one but couldn't ever figure out what they were called :confused:..

-Vick.