The Armour Archive

I hate shields. Let me say that right off. They are ungainly and annoying personally. And as much as I enjoy swords, they just don't feel right for me. I like to lay about me with either 2 maces or 2 axes. I was wondering about the various kingdom rules on 2weapon fighting in full battle?

I don't know of any rules about it.

But I gotta tell ya, re. the title of the thread:

You're right that "florenteen" doesn't mean just swords. Actually, "florenteen" doesn't mean anything.

Now, florentine, on the other hand...

Effingham

...means of the city of Florence, Italy where fighting with two weapons was apparently quite the rage.

but not amongst men in cote armor. so the style in and of itself should not be used in sca heavy combat. dual weapons like a sword and a dagger are certainly knightly pursuits, but a sword in each hand should stay in the fantasy books.

regards
logan

trystan wrote:...means of the city of Florence, Italy where fighting with two weapons was apparently quite the rage.

I've always associated it with spinach, swiss cheese and onions in my egg pie.

dukelogan wrote:but not amongst men in cote armor. so the style in and of itself should not be used in sca heavy combat. dual weapons like a sword and a dagger are certainly knightly pursuits, but a sword in each hand should stay in the fantasy books.

regards
logan

trystan wrote:...means of the city of Florence, Italy where fighting with two weapons was apparently quite the rage.

WTF? A sword and a dagger are 2 weapons. I never mentioned any of that other shite.

trystan wrote:the city of Florence, Italy where fighting with two weapons was apparently quite the rage.

This impression is, I have have heard, due to a mistranslation of some sort from a document...

Thelonious -

Man, you came to the wrong place for info on 2 weapon fighting. You'll get more crap that help.

Go, have fun with it - 2 swords, 2 axes, whatever. If someone you face gives you grief for using a non-period style, remind them that the rules of the list allows them to yield a fight for any reason, with no loss of honor.


Dilan
(Who is still willing to accept Murrough Mac Brian at the Battle of Clontarf as possible evidence of 2 swords being used in combat.)

Thelonious -

Man, you came to the wrong place for info on 2 weapon fighting. You'll get more crap that help.

Go, have fun with it - 2 swords, 2 axes, whatever. If someone you face gives you grief for using a non-period style, remind them that the rules of the list allows them to yield a fight for any reason, with no loss of honor.


Dilan
(Who is still willing to accept Murrough Mac Brian at the Battle of Clontarf as possible evidence of 2 swords being used in combat.)

As far as I know, there are not really any rules religating "florintene" style in "full combat".

Are you meaning "full combat" to be melee or Tourney?

If melee usually Florintene fighters are scirmishers. Guys who engage main units to slow them down.

Period weapons to use would be 6ft spear and sword (broken lance and sword). Or Sword and dagger.

As for Tourney you would be restricted to what the tourney allows in the list. As far as I know there is no evidence of 2 mace or 2 axe fighting being period. Probably because they are not a very realistic or well balanced system. both mace and axe are very offense oriented. Once you get them moving you have to keep them moving. You can't block to well with them.

I hate to throw circumstantial evidence into the mix, but just for kicks and giggles. . .

This is from a 13th century manuscript in the Beinecke collection:

http://inky.library.yale.edu/ARTHUR/IMAGES/Z4410100.JPG

(the funny guys at the top. . . )

http://inky.library.yale.edu/ARTHUR/IMAGES/Z4410100.JPG
That rocks.
I dig the cat at the bottom right who's gonna take a bolt in the pooper.
They must be pledging a Frat.

D. Sebastian wrote:I dig the cat at the bottom right who's gonna take a bolt in the pooper.
They must be pledging a Frat.

I know, that cracked me up too. There are some great images in manuscripts. There's one in the Romance of Alexander where some guy has his hose pulled down and is bent wayyyy over and looking back between his legs at what I can only hope is his doctor.

Thanks for all of the... I'm not sure what yet, but thanks. And dammit now I need to finish my armour so I can start to "Layeth the Smacketh down" at Estrella War.

I think people sometimes confuse "period" for "popular" or "normal." Just because there are few artistic drawings of anyone using two swords, or two maces, or two axes doesnt mean it wasn't done. Some say "Prove they did it that way." I say "Prove they didn't!"

I find it hard to believe that out of thousands of years of fighting no one looked down at two swords and said: "Hey, that might be effective to use!"

Ditto for the mace or axe idea.

I love to fight with two weapons. Ive done it with two swords, two maces, and even sword and mace once. It was fun for me and I enjoyed it.

The bottom line is have some fun and enjoy the sport.

cblackthorne wrote: Just because there are few artistic drawings of anyone using two swords, or two maces, or two axes doesnt mean it wasn't done. Some say "Prove they did it that way." I say "Prove they didn't!"

Well, you can say it, but it's still an example of the argumentum ad ignorantiam, a logical fallacy.

You can think up a thousand examples where it would be an absurdity. "Hey, titanium existed, prove no one used it!" And so on.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but it's far and away worse evidence of presence...

I find it hard to believe that out of thousands of years of fighting no one looked down at two swords and said: "Hey, that might be effective to use!"

Yet they had belt pouches, and no one ever seems to have thought of sewing them into garments until a few centuries ago, apparently. They had sulfur and saltpeter and charcoal---why no gunpowder until 9th century China, and why didn't it spread to Europe until the 14th? We look back and find it "hard to believe" that things we take as self-evident, with the benefit of hindsight, weren't equally obvious to our forebears. That's a trap...

Try Sword and Axe for a laugh, it is really good fun.

Servus!

"Florinteen" - either a hot eighteen year old babe on each arm or young Italian ladies from Florence. Either way a winner!

Ducking like a madman.....

Marshal wrote:You can think up a thousand examples where it would be an absurdity. "Hey, titanium existed, prove no one used it!" And so on.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but it's far and away worse evidence of presence...

Marshal,

We are not talking the creation of a new metal alloy, Im talking about using a tool that is already sitting in front of them.

Since the only "pictures" of the time period are drawings what you should really say is that "no one took the time to draw it" rather than say "it isnt period."

I still believe they only took the time to "record" the popular ideas of the time. Two weapons fighting just wansn't in style. Thats all.

Its referred to enough in writing I believe to suggest its existence was there.

cblackthorne wrote: -- snip --
I find it hard to believe that out of thousands of years of fighting no one looked down at two swords and said: "Hey, that might be effective to use!"

I don't either... I imagine the conversation when something like this:

Student: "But teacher, wouldn't I be even more deadly with two weapons?"

Master (nodding sagely): "Its possible. Perhaps you should try it and demonstrate."

Student gleefully opens gash in his own body with his own left (or non-dextrous) handed weapon.

Master: "See, indeed you are even more deadly."


In short, well suitable for stick-fighting (including boffer), I think two weapons are inferior (and more dangerous) than single weapon and shield or two-handed weapon.

I would have picked up a second sword, or something, just to use to block things. That is a natural inclination that I have. I may not have laid into people with it, but I would have used it like a skinny shield- at worst.

Do I think that 2 sword has a place on the battlefield? Yes, only if your main weapon system is down/broken/lost and you are improvising in the heat of battle. Would I request that your average guy ever carry 2 swords onto the field under normal battle rules? No, and I would tell them to pick up something else if they showed up with that as their choice.

In single combat is it ok? Sure, but make sure that your opponent wants to fight against it first.

Alaric

While I agree that fighting with two-weapons may not be Historial or even advisable in true life&death, no rules fighting. In the SCA Sports fighting, with the "no grappling" rules and other reasons, I think it is perfectly ok to fight with two swords or two axes.

I remember one long fun fight I had agaisnt somebody who fought with two axes. It was different for me. I think it makes the SCA more fun when there are different weapons/methods used. I would not want to fight against nothing but sword and shields for forever. Gimme a odd weapon or change of pace to fight against.

I agree with Duke Alaric on many things. I just question his last remark about asking the opponent before fighting with two weapons. I have never had anybody ask me (other in at practice) if they could use a great sword, pole arm or any other weapons. I am just wondering, why is two axes different?

as completely off topic, I would love to figt with an axe. Either a two-handed axe, like the Saxons or an axe and shield. I just think that the axes look cool. (I think chicks dig guys with axes) But the few times i have tried to use the axe, I kept hitting with the shaft and the head would miss the target. So, I stick with "swords" so that i have a bigger striking surface. (ok ok..I know you non-SCA people will take all kinds of issues with what i just said, but I'm talking SCA here)

Although I haven't tried it yet - I've always wanted to see what fighting on-hand sword, off-hand axe would be like. I see the off-hand axe as a great tool to grab and move shields and sword baskets as well as a threat my oponent would need to consider.

Of course, I speak from romantic ignorance and most likely would use it as nothing more than a under nourished shield.

Has anyone a comment on this?

That's how I fought for a number of years, D. But I'm a lefty, so my axe was in my right hand. The axe made for a wonderful hook, to manipulate my opponent's shield. Coupled with a thrusting tip, I killed more by opponents pulling thrusts into themselves than I ever did by throwing slots with it.

What about dual-wielded halberdz?

Jehan de Pelham, squire of Sir Vitus?

Jehan de Pelham wrote:What about dual-wielded halberdz?

Jehan de Pelham, squire of Sir Vitus?

And just who are you aiming that comment at I might ask?

It's a stupid joke, pertaining to munchkiny role-players who always want to dual wield the largest damage weapons, regardless of size. The argument goes like this: a powergamer always seeks to do the maximum damage, so they seek to dual wield the largest damage weapons, and get amulets ans so forth to make up for the lack of shield. Then, because they are otherwise ignorant, they look at a halberd's damage, which is greater than a sword, and ask the game moderator if they can dual wield them. Which is just stupid, and worthy of a few laughs.

Sorry for the derail. Not directed at anyone.

Jehan de Pelham, squire of Sir Vitus

The lack of grappling is really one of the main reasons why two-sticks is so effective in the SCA arena. The real beauty of single sword/open hand only shows itself when you can grab, and punch, and hold.

We could also talk about the limited target rules (no shins), etc, but the subject has been clubbed as badly as the guy I once found clubbing harp seals.