Real life combat vs combat in Baldur's Gate/D&D/other fantasy products
booinyoureyes
Member Posts: 6,164
in Off-Topic
Interesting discussion with @meagloth @Anduin and @Elrandir in the meme thread about real life martial combat and the feasibility of dual wielding. Since I thought it was an interesting topic that I wanted to see continued, but not on the meme thread, lets do it here.
Meagloth had said that an off hand dagger was useful for parrying at greater angles to allow for a counter attack. I argue that you would be better off with a shield of some sort (probably a small shield or buckler).
Daggers provide too small of a surface area (unless they are trident daggers), poor angles (when pushing a sword away from your body, it would be quite simple for your opponent to adjust the angle and slide his weapon below your dagger) and bad leverage (short). A lighter shield would be able to provide security over more surface as well as give you the "oomph" you need to make such a wide parry as to allow for a counter strike on an unguarded opponent. Also, due to the larger surface area, you could deflect the attack with better accuracy and make sure that your opponents sword goes where you want it to go. Keep in mind that "blocking" attacks was very rare, and most parrying was deflecting rather than meeting straight on, so the wider shield would be able to redirect the opponents sword arm a greater distance.
I feel like a Chinese Hook Sword
or Butterfly Sword
would actually be better choices than a parrying dagger if you were to use an off hand weapon for this purpose as they provide better protection for your hands, are wider and thicker while still being light or can even trap larger weapons. Maybe @Heindrich knows more about these weapons, that were actually dual wielded (though only in martial arts and not real warfare).
Meagloth had said that an off hand dagger was useful for parrying at greater angles to allow for a counter attack. I argue that you would be better off with a shield of some sort (probably a small shield or buckler).
Daggers provide too small of a surface area (unless they are trident daggers), poor angles (when pushing a sword away from your body, it would be quite simple for your opponent to adjust the angle and slide his weapon below your dagger) and bad leverage (short). A lighter shield would be able to provide security over more surface as well as give you the "oomph" you need to make such a wide parry as to allow for a counter strike on an unguarded opponent. Also, due to the larger surface area, you could deflect the attack with better accuracy and make sure that your opponents sword goes where you want it to go. Keep in mind that "blocking" attacks was very rare, and most parrying was deflecting rather than meeting straight on, so the wider shield would be able to redirect the opponents sword arm a greater distance.
I feel like a Chinese Hook Sword
or Butterfly Sword
would actually be better choices than a parrying dagger if you were to use an off hand weapon for this purpose as they provide better protection for your hands, are wider and thicker while still being light or can even trap larger weapons. Maybe @Heindrich knows more about these weapons, that were actually dual wielded (though only in martial arts and not real warfare).
3
Comments
It was apparently a very effective combat technique for anyone with superior upper body strength, mass, and girth fighting a smaller opponent. The big guy would simply bullrush his opponent at the first opportunity, and overwhelm him. I suppose it would also work well for a smaller but very agile opponent, who could take advantage of his or her superior quickness.
This fighting style was (if I recall correctly) especially prevalent during the late 1700's through early 1900's, where there was overlap in developing gun technology and sword-fighting. A typical self-defense or attack would be to fire the single-shot pistol, then draw sword or rapier and attack, then, (if skilled with dual wielding), draw dagger and attempt to get into grapple range with the opponent. Apparently, the style was very popular with seafaring men and upper-class nobles.
I am pulling all of the above from memory, from having researched this before, and just remembering what I read, so it needs a citation. Don't take any of it as information without confiming it first with a good source.
I don't believe it has ever happened in reality for somebody to do something crazy like swing two huge, heavy flails at the same time. A single flail is a very clumsy weapon to begin with. Two of them? I don't think so.
It would also be impossible to perform archery while having anything but the bow, the quiver, and a small, light-weight holstered blade that could be quickly drawn when the archer's position was overrun. I don't let my archers in games carry anything but the archery equipment and a single-handed blade weapon.
I'm hoping some people will begin to post some good historical combat articles and videos to check out. I know the Renaissance cosplay and reenactment people have a lot of good knowledge and info about it. It should make for some very interesting reading. I've already seen some very interesting videos in other similar threads, like in the boob-plate discussions. I'd love to see more of the same here, about the historical feasibility of dual-wielding.
In pitched battles, discipline was usually he most important factor. This is why less trained forces were regularly trounced back in the day by much smaller forces. Discipline btw means essentially following a plan, one that has been practiced, often one designed to keep overall risk to the fighting force minimal. Spartans, Roman Legions (moreso the Republic era), Mongolians, etc all were incredibly disiplined on the battlefield, though used different tactics, all of their tactics were designed to keep the most of their soldiers alive possible. The Mongolians were willing to send in suicidal attacks remember, but these soldiers were meant to draw out their enemies, thus preserving the bulk of their troops while exposing their enemies to risk (ie counter attack, volleys of arrows, etc). Obviously horsemen are not going to be great dual wielders, but what about on foot? In pitched battle, the shield wall reigned from the Greek Phalanx until bigger, heavier warhorses were bred in Europe and the near east, because the shield was a great way to prevent death of both yourself AND those fighting beside you. Thats the key; shields allowed greater teamwork. You can't effectively parry attacks with your off hand to protect those next to you without opening yourself to being skewered, but with a shield and tight formation (ie the roman tactic), you could keep more soldiers alive longer. Of course, if you also design your shields with a boss (big steel blob in the center), you can actually strike without opening yourself to counters. Nobody sane would fight in a tight formation with a dual wielder imho.
Heroic combat is different though, ie sending champions to duel before a battle, or even in lieu of one. It also shows up in cultures where individuals try to seek 'quality opponents' on the battlefield, ie Japan where killing enemy nobles was cause for reward, but Ashigaru were simply killed on the way to nobles (or by other Ashigaru). These fights tend to favour the individualist styles over group strategies, and if on foot, dual wielding could maybe be employed, but typically reach is more valuable in these fights, since most cultures using heroic combat favour lighter armour. I still think a short but sturdy sword and a hefty shield is probably the best strategy, but a heavy two handed weapon could damage a shield without risking the wielder, and a sufficiently sturdy shield would probably slow you down, something longer two handed weapons can make use of. So, probably wouldnt see much dual wielding here, but you might see some, on foot.
Unequal battles are a more difficult question, since you are likely attacking an unprepred enemy. Such an enemy might not be wearing armour, likely has weapons sheathed, and probably isnt going to have a shield ready. In this case, the attacker doesnt need to worry as much about defence, and the battle will be piecemeal, rather than in lines, and using a second weapon, provided you have trained with it quite a bit (which would mean not training as much for other situations!), could be effective. Its a weird situation, but it certainly influenced history... Vlad Tepes himself lead a famous night raid that nearly killed the Sultan... and iirc, no Sultan's lead campaigns directly ever again.
In individual duels, dual wielding becomes more practical, especially depending on the enemy. Musashi was famous for dual wielding, but even he knew it wasnt always the best strategy. He was interested in making the katana more versatile, so using it one-handed was the basis of his teachings. Most western 'off hand daggers' were very specialized, and not as effective as weapons. They were ultimately more like a sai than a traditonal dagger.
Using two relatively light weapons like butterfly swords makes some sense, but you are at a big reach disadvantage. If you dont also have significantly better mobility, reach will win that fight. Samurai always tried to make it difficult to see their reach, and the length of their blade by holding their katana at certain angles, since a single mistake could decide the fight.
The blade is what defines the weapon. I don't understand how you could think this is somehow a small detail.
They are different the same way that a 40 inch bastard sword is different from a 40 inch rapier, or how a walking cane is different from a quarterstaff. A scimitar is different from a katana because the style of the blade is hardly a superficial difference.
Look at how much thicker the butterfly sword's blade is compared to the dagger you shared. Which would be more reliable when parrying? Keep in mind, they didn't parry sharp end on sharp end, but used the flat side of the sword to deflect thrusts.
Daggers were usually broader than a rapier, meaning those stabs counted for more. I wonder if this wasn't a consideration as well, as prolonged rapier only fights were dangerous for both fighters, as punctures infect easily.
One reason Samurai duals ended often with a single telling blow was that the wounds cause shock readily... bokken would probably cause more shock than a blade, meaning a blow to the body could 'stun' a fighter, even if that blow didnt strictly kill him. Shock ends duals quickly, and small punctures cause less shock, especially if a fighter has plenty of adrenaline. @bengoshi feel free to offer more insight into Eastern dualing.
I would be an archer
He made a couple videos about fantasy weapons, such as wrist mounted crossbows, and assessing whether they would work in real life (unfortunately the answer is usually either "no" or "why would you even do that?")
The parrying using a small shield or buckler that I was talking about in the original post is demonstrated in this video. It seems more effective than having a small, thin blade in the offhand
Look. A shield, a bulky one, is heavy. Would slow you down, and allow a lighter armoured fighter to get to your sides and deal you considerable damage. Large shields are useful in large defensive formations. The phalanx, the roman shield wall, the viking-saxon shield bearers are formations of mass infantry. All became useless when massed horse formations, that came along with the Normans and mounted knights (You could say Huns or Mongols here, but they used there horse to get near to fire arrows repeatedly into shields, weighing them down, until the holder was forced to either attempt to remove them (leaving them shield less) or drop the shield (leaving them shield less!) Shields then, became something a horse could jump onto. Gunpowder, as with other weaponry, rendered shields useless.
Now a small buckler, was used for one on one duels, but you needed it to be moveable and light, so you could move it quickly to block the blow, which in turn puts another part of your body in danger of the business end of whatever weapon you are facing.
As a fencer, I know that you need to give as little a profile to my opponent to hit.
So a sideways stance, right shoulder facing, left directly away from the enemy. One sword. Not even a shield (which, if I used one protect myself would require me to face my opponent squarely! One big target!) the arm tucked out of the way. The rise of the single weapon was surely assured!
Unfortunately, nice, gentlemanly, one on one duels are a rarity. A small skirmish, means that one small shield or buckler is darn useful, but that shield that is blocking, can also do a bit of bopping, and the rise of the secondary weapon took place.
So... bucklers should not give you ac protection, they should give you an extra attack!
From then on, the secondary weapon came on the scene... And you can see they both gave protection and an extra form of attack.
Dual-ling then is what all adventurers should aspire too!
Although, time to get realistic, the parrying dagger or Main gauche, was a small weapon.
So no longsword and a longsword combo here...
Also *facepalm* opened thread before tea, finish post now... with hundreds of posts saying the same... *facepalm*
Said training consists out of a lot of flailing around, meditating...and still gets destroyed by someone who learned to wield a sabre for a couple of months and has the advantage of surprise and momentum.
Also, the blades are quite similar as well. These are essentially knife-bladed daggers. And what do you mean when you say. "More reliable"? I don't think either is going to break, if that is what you mean.
However, shields are big, heavy, and cumbersome (something not generally represented properly in RPGs), and therefore impractical for self defence, since not many people are likely to wander around or do their shopping while carrying a kite shield on their backs, so for duelling and street fighting, people would prefer either a buckler, or a parrying dagger. The rapier/dagger style was popular during the 16/17th century, but that's the only instance I can think of where two-weapon fighting was used a great deal, and that was mainly in duels. I did see a picture of some 15c siege where one knight had a sword and dagger, but I don't think it was at all common. It certainly wasn't advocated in any of the fighting manuals that I've seen, other than ones that specifically deal with Italian or Spanish rapier styles.
In fact, something interesting that I was told: the story Romeo and Juliet is based mainly on two fashion cults, one of which used swords and bucklers, and the bucklers would make a "swashing" noise as they walked, hence the name "swashbucklers". The other would use rapiers and daggers, and wear big fashionable ruffs, and they were called "ruffians". These two cults often fought each other merely because it was cool to be in gangs, act tough, and cause trouble - it's basically the Shakespearian equivalent of Mods and Rockers. People do not change.
But I digress...on the battlefield, you either bring a shield or you stay out of the shield wall and go join the peasant rabble.
Hook swords: I think things like that were mainly for show. I would be very surprised if they were actually used in a real fight. For a start, something like that is likely to get stuck. I certainly wouldn't want to fight with a weapon like that.
I was referring to the ability to actually parry a strike, which is easier with a bigger weapon. It is more reliable because having a wider blade gives you more surface area. It essentially comes down to why softball is easier than baseball.
Also, when you parry a strike, it requires some force to be applied to move your opponents blade off its intended trajectory (basically a strength check against your opponent
You ever play that game in elementary school where you take turns hitting the other dude's pencil by flicking your own? You must have, it is a right of passage in American culture! If you were to choose a pencil of the following, which would you select?
It is similar logic when it comes to parrying.
If you watch the buckler video I shared you will see how easy it is slide your blade over a parrying sword. Larger surface area also gives you leverage in this sort of situation.
Now, if you are parrying edge on flat then there might be a different story, but most sword fighting experts say that this is a Bad Idea to begin with. If you are parrying edge on edge then the thicker blade is still better.
Basically more surface area=more protection in most situations.
If only mithril was real and we had priests to enchant them...
Adamantium is probably more comparable to the hardenable martensitic stainless steels, though we do have harder metal, but it tends to be very brittle, ie forms carbide. The annoying thing in metalurgy is almost anything that makes a metal harder tends to make it less tough. Some nickel steels are pretty impressive too, but I doubt they hold an edge as well as martensitic steels.
I've heard great things titanium treated with nitrogen, but don't know the numbers well.
Parrying varies massively based on what weapons the each is using, but unless you have a polearm (some axes too) or machete, parrying or being parried on edge is dangerous to your weapon. Samurai were taught to parry with the flat for a reason! Remember too, once a blade is nicked significantly, you have weakened it. Notches are always were things break. Ever shorten a dull box cutter? You can easily make a clean break at the thin spot, even though this isn't much thinner. Swords are tempered fairly hard, compared to an axe, which is why warriors loved wootz or pattern-welded gear, the low carbon portions don't harden. This allows the smith to harden without tempering, or to temper VERY hard, meaning the blade can be made sharp yet not shatter.
I have a ginourmos two-handed chopper I use to cut trees down, weighs ~12lbs. It works well because the blade is so broad, and the metal is pretty tough/hard. The sad thing imo is that this thing is comically awkward, having no counter balance, but I see even more silly weapons regularly in movies/shows, or read about them. Nobody human could fight with such a blade, yet we get even more comically impractical weapons depicted regularly. At least live action has less of this. End rant!
With nowadays combat I'd rather dual-wield controls for launching BrahMos-II from an airplane squad. Sorry but crossbows > bows in real life. A quarrel shot from a crossbow from less than 20 meters can penetrate more than 2cm of kevlar :'D no way you can do that with a bow.
Parrying with an axe involves the hilt... and yes, even the lighter axes usually used in combat would have been difficult to use defensively, which is one reason rich men usually didn't fight with them, as most of your defence relies on pure footwork or a shield.
In 3.5, there was a 'combat style' feat called Bear Fang, which required you to dw an axe with a dagger. The payout was that you could pull someone into a grapple with your axe, allowing you to stab with your dagger. It was nifty, and probably a reasonable tactic, as most axes have enough hook to work this way.
@CrevsDaak he didn't specify crossbow or longbow.
@booinyoureyes I don't think this needs to be an argument. I don't see any reason you couldn't parry with either. I was simply pointing out that I thought the difference was minimal, though they are clearly for different styles of fighting. I would probably choose the daggers over the butterfly sword because it appears you would hold it in a defensive backhand grip, and it would be very hard to score a solid hit. The thickness of the blade probably makes it much heavier and slower as well. With the dagger it can be held as a rapier and can come in for a quick jab. The butterfly sword looks like a slashing weapon. I have to go to bed but anyone has knowledge about how these butterfly swords are used id be interested.
For now, I would just say that the main difference between the real life combat and the one we have in games is that we can't reload after taking a critical hit ...
The old alternative, which is easier and possibly better, is wootz. The process is easier as it supposedly wouldn't involve as much forge welding. The result was an inconsistent steel product, which combines very high carbon and low carbon to make a pretty incredible sword or suit of armour. Professionally, such a blade might have less impact toughness than a masterwork folded sword like a katana, but could have been even sharper. The finished products generally had an acid bath to superficially corode the less resistant portions, which reveal the suspension nature of the finished product. It was said that these swords could cut a silk hankerchief that lands on the blade, which might be an exageration, but the extremely high carbon content of hard portions would hold a heck of an edge. Apparently nobody has had much luck reproducing it, but part of this is that there is little real demand, other than artwork. It almost certainly would be impossible to machine or weld using modern techniques. Seems very 'forge only', for working with it.
If you're curious, European equipment was either folded steel or wrougt iron with a steel edge welded on, as steel was significantly more valuable than iron before modern metal working. Roman gladii ( @subtledoctor correction?) were supposedly forged this way, specifically by twisting iron rods and welded on edges, which makes sense to keep the price low while making the swords fairly resiliant. Broken swords would be rare, but worn out could happen.
Using modern metallurgy though, we can make some pretty impressive alternatives.