It’s the typical “grasping for straws” strategy people use when they realise their fancy idea just doesn’t fit the period.
The first weapon/s to function like assault rifles where brought into use in the 20th century 
.
Anyway, regarding scabbards. Where they or where they not used when going to war? I recall a apocryphal tale of them being left behind, at ones homestead. A symbolic gesture and at the time of reading this I did find it plausible. Yes, wars did carry on and a sword without protection from the elements might suffer, but drawing them from scabbards in anger does seem unpractical. Just wondering.
20th century =1900s 
Yes well… umm, you see… its early and… umm… yeah. I’m going to leave now. Also, still wondering about the scabbard.
1 Like
Please remember that for a LONG time people believed that European swordsmanship was nothing but clunky and crude bashing precisely because of the LACK of written evidence. It’s only been with the rediscovery of the manuscripts that this picture if finally starting to change.
Additionally, when your oldest WRITTEN fechtbuchen (Liechtenauer and I.33) are already demonstrating a highly-evolved and codified fighting system, that’s NOT something that just magically sprung into being, but is something that has been developing over decades if not centuries. Just because that book was written in 1512 doesn’t meant that it’s not building on a fighting system that has been passed orally (which is how the vast majority of the fight masters worked in the first place) for a century or more. Liechtenauer (which you can’t even learn FROM Liechtenauer’s writings themselves, but have to rely on later manuscripts like Ringeck’s) was clearly building on concepts that were already known and existed for some time (as well as taking potshots at a more elaborate, tourney-based fighting system of which we have no other record). Just because Liechtenauer was the earliest WRITTEN example doesn’t make him the earliest example PERIOD. The fact that there is similarity between his school of longsword fencing and the earlier I.33 manuscript (as much as a century) shows this.
People here seem to forget that bucklers and shields are to be considered as a weapon too.
The edge of a buckler was often sharp at one side, so you could use it to cut, punch or bash (with the edge or the middle) and block your opponent.
So your “dual wielding” options are: One handed sword + Shield/buckler , one and a half handed sword (bastard sword) + buckler , Dagger + buckler , Axe + shield.
I know of re-enactors fighting with Sword and axe but I have no idea about historical accuracy, I can image that it was done.
As far as i can remember, in the early stages of the middle ages it was despised to fight with a dagger. It wasn’t honorable to fight so… unhonorable.
Parrying with your sword and then gutting him with your dagger. So thats one of the reasons nobody did it. (Oeakshot, Archeology of weapons or The Medieval Knigh by David Edge and John Miles Paddock)
Same goes for cross bows, you couldn’t use them on christians, but others were okay (Pagans, Muslims etc.). (Forgot the source).
Not quite.
It wasn’t lost at all.
The main problem was the bad propaganda from fencing schools. You want to sell your Style as the best and since swords where getting out of style everyone started to believe them. Writers just took over and spread the word even further in their novels.
The worst part was probably Hollywood. With their depiction of heavy and brutal weapons and armor, they imprinted this image into our brains. Specialists knew it all along, but to the general public it was lost indeed.
sorry I only can think of this:
There are always people who fight without honor. But fighting with a sword in one hand and a dagger in the other is just not logical, you pull the dagger and stab when you have an opening, while still keeping yourself safe, like when you pin down your opponent while wrestling.
The more honorable thing to do at that point is letting him surrender (if he’s a noble, because that gives his life value).
I would really like to see some source on the "sharp edge of a buckler."
Because I don’t know of any of the bucklers in museums showing this. And I don’t remember seeing any drawings of it in the fight books I have looked thought.
Striking with the buckler, sure, but not a sharp edge and cutting with it.
(also imaging carrying a sharp buckler from you belt every day… who do you avoid anyone getting cut by it?)
I’m sorry it could probably be such a ‘legend’ going around that I picked up.
doesn’t change that you can hit with the edge well aimed at an unprotected throat and it’s all over.
It had less to do with what was or was not honorable, and more to do with “This guy with all his armor is worth a TON of money in ransom.” The dagger was also a VERY important part of a knight’s kit (hence why dagger is one of Liechtenauer’s main focuses), and in some cases knives and daggers carried a great deal of cultural significance (IE, the Scottish dirk, or the seax among the Saxons).
“sorry I only can think of this:”
I try not to think of that at all. Proof positive that everything GRRM learned about Medieval combat he learned from video games and DnD.
Also came handy for whittling and eating. Sort of like the modern KA-BAR, for example.
This, too. There’s not much overstating the importance of the dagger.
No. One hundreds years after. Also I am not saying it is complete proof.
The dagger and the sword had been invented long before 1400, and people would obviously have experimented with things. It is just not clear whether or not sword and dagger were used at once then by anyone.
I have myself found that in one or two handed sword fighting against unskilled people, they can be had quite quickly by pushing my sword into theirs in a “bind” and then quickly pulling out my dagger and “stabbing” them. Sword and dagger. No-one put that in an expensive book to be sold to rich people, but it happened nonetheless.
No.
People instead of going back and forth about when exactly some combinations are made, lets just all agree that technically every weapon you can hold in one hand can be combined with any other but that doing so in a lot of cases just doesn’t make sense.
If the games allows you to carry 2 swords, or sword and dagger or whatever combination, then just do it. But realistically speaking is whatever you use in your left hand used for defense and you just can’t parry a longsword with a dagger.
Eventually in the end it’s just a game that will have it’s limitations. People who practice sword fighting of any kind hope that it will be realistic in game, the same for people with an interest in archery, I myself hope for decent blacksmithing, there is even a topic about realistic fishing here.
But think for yourselves, don’t hope for it to be exactly as in real life because if you want that then just go do it in real life. It’s still going to be an awesome game! 
And if you have questions based on other games then don’t argue if it get’s proven wrong, or research a bit for yourself.
[quote=“Treysceusec, post:23, topic:5396”]
Here’s a Historical source for Lange Messer (I suppose an English name would be “long knife” or “backsword”) and Rondel Dagger:
Albrecht Dürer 1512
[/quote] Oh, well, right, i just did not thought about this possibility, i only had the picture of blocking simply with the dagger, in combination it does make more sense.
But i would say the Messer is kind of special Weapon that developed a unique fightingstye, primarily with only the Messer and an empty left Hand. So it i think it is quite logical to take something in that hand and adapt the techniques.
Against a Longsword or Sword and Buckler, one is still in the disadvantage.
@ sharp edge of a buckler: I would not want an buckler with sharp edges, that would be more dangerous for the wielder himself than for the opponent. But the edges did not have to be sharp, in the i.33 there are quite a lot of techniques where the opponent gets hit in the face with the edge of the buckler, that might not be lethal but it will distract him long enough to use the sword…
1 Like