Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[TaintedMustard]

So, what about shields? Are bucklers doomed to being useless forever or do they have situational uses as well?

Bucklers are lighter, which is supposed to be a slight advantage in the current system, when chasing down foes.

considering dwarves move at a slower but still reasonable rate with a gigantic heavy stone, it's not much for a wooden/leather shield.

Bucklers, if they're anything like the bucklers of the real world, should be very small and almost worthless against ranged weapons. However, they're very light and very good at defending against hand weapons, particularly swords, and because of their size, they could be made completely out of metal without making them ridiculously heavy.

[NW_Kohaku]

Bucklers were actually invented after the sort of full plate mail setup generally made large shields pointless, and people just started carrying around two-handed weapons, instead.  The term swashbuckler comes from the term buckler, so you can probably infer how they were historically used from that - mostly used in essentially unarmored dueling alongside a sword, which is often the sort of situation you're getting much of these off-hand main gauche type fencing styles that we're talking about in dual weilding.

As for using it with crossbows, well, again, bucklers don't help much against arrows, and frankly, that's what crossbowmen were worried about most.  Real crossbowmen often carried around things called "Pavise", which was sort of like an even larger tower shield with a kickstand, so that you could set it up as a mobile fortification in front of you.  Crossbowmen lugged those things around, built a free-standing shield wall in front of them when they got into position, and then started the slow process of winching their crossbows from behind cover to protect them from the crossbowmen on the other side.  Very effective in formation warfare, where you could have a reasonable expectation of not getting flanked or overrun, at least until the stuff was in the fan, anyway.

Since we seem to be bringing up the Battle of Agincourt quite a bit recently, I remember one bit from a History Channel documentary on it about the French relying upon mercenary crossbowmen to be their answer to the English longbowmen.  In their haste to get to the battlefield, however, they ordered the mercenaries to leave their pavise behind, so when the mercenaries were ordered to the front to start engaging in missile skirmishing, where the longbowmen had cover, and the crossbowmen did not, the mercenaries basically said "you don't pay me enough to die a senseless death", and just turned around and left the battlefield.


As for "hey, it's totally berserkery/vikingy for a dwarf to weild two axes", well, yes, I can actually agree with that, somewhat.  Having a hand-axe in both hands, however, does not mean the same thing as dual-weilding axes, and striking at the same time, however, like I said before, it's largely just a choice between whether you hit someone with the right hand or the left hand this time.  A dual-axe method of combat would have some use if you were worried about having an axe stuck in the head of someone you just felled while you were surrounded by enemies - just drop the stuck axe for a while, and come back for it later.

Still, we're talking about using that off-hand weapon as a parrying weapon at best, and just something occupying the other hand that doesn't matter at worst.

Real vikings, who were well trained in ship-to-ship combat would often use some sort of axe or chopping sword in one hand, and a sheild in the other, or a hook in the other to drag the enemy vessel (or just the enemy) nearer.

If we had a system for using weapons to grapple, this might actually be a little more sensical, as you could use something like the ninja weapon, the kusarigama, which is a two-handed weapon consisting of a chain with a weight on one end, and a sickle on the other.  One hand throws the chain to tangle (grapple) the enemu, while the right hand uses the sickle end to try to finish them.  Likewise, a roman-gladiator-style weighted net and sword style would make sense.

oh, and...

However if it was done with daggers it could be useful.

The problem with that is that daggers are friggin' nearly useless killing weapons in serious, armored combat. You're essentially better off grappling.

[Lord Shonus]

The problem with this suggestion is that, just like with the similar tactic with firearms, the unrealistic fantasy version has made people automatically reject the thousands of real world examples out of hand, because they "know" that it wouldn't work. The value of it is that you cannot block two attacks at once, and your oppenent can attack with either of his hands. That means that every second of that battle is a guess as to which of the two hands will be feinting and which will be striking. A weapon and shield, or a two-handed weapon, is much, much harder to take advantage of it with.

[cameron]

please post some of these thousands of examples, they would make your case much stronger. Also you can keep some one attacking with two weapons from hitting you, best way is be out of range but there would probably have been other techniques.

[Eugenitor]

The problem with that is that daggers are friggin' nearly useless killing weapons in serious, armored combat. You're essentially better off grappling.

Unless you *are* grappling, say you grabbed an armored knight from behind and want to drive something into his eyeslit. What do you want to use for *that* task, a sword or a dagger?

If you want to dual wield practically, you have to train, and train, and train, and learn to split your attention, and hope that you have the reflexes and strength to block your enemy's attacks with either hand while striking with the other. The reason almost nobody dual-wields is because it's *really hard to do* effectively.

But if you have superior reflexes and strength, go for it, and hope your enemy isn't striking at you from behind a tower shield where he really can block both your weapons while hitting with his one.

[TaintedMustard]

Unless you *are* grappling, say you grabbed an armored knight from behind and want to drive something into his eyeslit. What do you want to use for *that* task, a sword or a dagger?

I'd want one hand free to manipulate his body while I find a gap to thrust my dagger into him.

In any case, a knight would have had at least three weapons: a spear, a sword and a thrusting dagger.

[Lord Shonus]

Little drunk, but I can name a few. Dual daggers were a signature weapon of the Mexican street gangs of the 19th century. In the 18th, 17th, and 16th century it was a common tactic in Amerindian raids against European settlements, as it negated the effective use of a musket in hand-to-hand combat ( a musket makes a pretty nasty club, and it's stok is good for catching axe blades. In the last major battle to be fought with steel and crossbow before gunpowder took over, at least a third of the Scots were described as using two axes according to contemporary accounts.  The same is true of the earlier vikings. Pretty much the only places it DOESN'T appear is in the highly disciplined Roman-era armies and the curious mix of untrained rabble and elite knighthood that characterized the post-roman period.

[Hyndis]

A stiletto is great for heavy plate armor but to even use it you're going to need to defeat him first. Thats basically just delivering the coup de grace.

[TaintedMustard]

A stiletto is great for heavy plate armor but to even use it you're going to need to defeat him first. Thats basically just delivering the coup de grace.

Not necessarily. Armored fighting involves a lot of grappling, assuming one party doesn't surrender first (which they often would). The sword and spear are just to weaken the opponent from range, while close-in fighting with sword, dagger and wrestling will prove decisive. If the opponent is being obstinate, a rondel (which was carried by nearly every man, never mind every knight) can be very useful.

[Hyndis]

That is how Agincourt ended.

The English archers combined with the thick mud wore down the French knights until they were mostly just too exhausted to move. Walking through mud several feet deep in heavy armor for a long distance while being shot at is utterly tiring. Many French knights just drowned in the mud. The arrows were also primarily effective on the horses, which never had as much armor as a knight. Down the horse, knight drowns in the mud. Or is trampled.

Once the English ran out of arrows they then moved forward and finished off the exhausted or injured knights in melee. The arrows didn't do a lot of killing directly, but the arrows were enough to wear the French down so much that the French could no longer effectively fight, and so unarmored (or very lightly armored) archers were able to easily defeat the French knights and took minimal losses while doing so.

The French men-at-arms reached the English line and actually pushed it back, with the longbowmen continuing to shoot until they ran out of arrows and then dropping their bows and joining the mêlée (which lasted about three hours), implying that the French were able to walk through a hail of tens of thousands of arrows while taking comparatively few casualties. But the physical pounding even from non-penetrating arrows, combined with the slog in heavy armour through the mud, the heat and lack of oxygen in plate armour with the visor down, and the crush of their numbers meant they could "scarcely lift their weapons" when they finally engaged the English line.

When the English archers, using hatchets, swords and other weapons, attacked the now disordered and fatigued French, the French could not cope with their unarmoured assailants (who were much less hindered by the mud). The exhausted French men-at-arms are described as having been knocked to the ground and then unable to get back up. As the mêlée developed, the French second line also joined the attack, but they too were swallowed up, with the narrow terrain meaning the extra numbers could not be used effectively, and French men-at-arms were taken prisoner or killed in their thousands. The fighting lasted about three hours, but eventually the leaders of the second line were killed or captured, as those of the first line had been. The English Gesta Henrici describes three great heaps of the slain around the three main English standards.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Agincourt

Wearing heavy plate armor is very tiring. Slugging it out with heavy plate armor turns into a question of endurance mostly. A person wearing plate armor is nearly invulnerable, but only so long as he's not tired. Once he becomes exhausted he becomes less and less able to defend himself, eventually becoming helpless.

[TaintedMustard]

Well... yeah. A tired man is a useless man, armored or not. It really would not have mattered how much armor the English archers had. The French were exhausted from the mud, which was described as being waist-deep after the initial cavalry assault (which, as cavalry assaults all too often are, was also itself disorganized and undermanned). The English preserved their strength until it could be expended to best effect when the enemy were weak. The French threw theirs away.

Agincourt is an example of the effects of terrain on battle and of the consequences of the failure to respect it. Everything about it favored the English: the mud, the narrow battlefield (situated in a clearing between two wooded areas, which, like the pass at Thermopylae, acted as a force multiplier for the English, as the French could not bring their full strength to bear) and the archers' fortifications (palings, wooden stakes, which blunted any cavalry charge that could actually reach the English lines). If the French knights and men-at-arms were not heavily armored, they would instead have simply been shot to pieces.

Fighting masters of the day, in their manuscripts, explicitly instruct the armored man to not bother with dodging blows—his armor will absorb most of them, and moving too much will make him become tired more rapidly.

Given favorable circumstances, a knight was more likely to be wounded and then ransomed rather than killed, so well did his armor protect him. He would fall to the ground, he would be offered surrender and his opponent would move on to the next man. Judicial duels (a primarily German phenomenon) would be more likely to result in death. Unarmored men would be cut down like grass if they couldn't run away or overwhelm armored men with numbers. Arming swords and longswords do utterly terrible things to flesh, and can cause vicious lacerations through light armor, while their points can pierce it with a good thrust.

In none of these instances, though, would two daggers help you more than a sword and a dagger, which is the subject of this thread.

[Neonivek]

please post some of these thousands of examples, they would make your case much stronger. Also you can keep some one attacking with two weapons from hitting you, best way is be out of range but there would probably have been other techniques.

Not too effective a lot of two weapon and one handed styles have a lot of advancement attacks. At least that is what I can sum up from what I seen first hand... plus then there is fencing (It is very tough to parry a thrust)

Also if you want a situation where two daggers are more useful then a Sword and Dagger... then your forgetting another reason why people used two weapons at once. Because their weapons were also throwing weapons!

[Hyndis]

Also if you want a situation where two daggers are more useful then a Sword and Dagger... then your forgetting another reason why people used two weapons at once. Because their weapons were also throwing weapons!

That is the only reason why historically people have used multiple weapons. Roman soldiers carried a few javelins with them. They of course did not dual wield them, but they could throw them or use them as a spear. Then they pull out the gladius and get to work.

Same thing with six-shooters. They took time to load, so if you carried two with you you would have 12 shots ready to go. No one can fire two pistols at the same time with any hope of accuracy. You fired one until it was empty, then moved the other loaded gun to your main hand and fired off those bullets. Hopefully you wouldn't need more than 12 bullets, but its better than the other guy with only 6!

[Neonivek]

No one can fire two pistols at the same time with any hope of accuracy

There are ways

[NW_Kohaku]

Actually, real-life pirates, who used single-shot firearms, often carried effective necklaces of pre-loaded pistols, so that they could fire one, drop it, and grab the next.  Plus those pirates carried their cutlasses, so that they had a weapon that no longer relied upon ammo once you ran out of pistols.

I wouldn't say that it is impossible to dual-wield pistols, however, as there are certainly trick shooters who can pull off very impressive feats of dexterity and ambidexterity thanks to the fact that, unlike swords or axes, you don't need to change your stance or make a full-body motion to pull a trigger on a gun, although you do still need to be balanced.  Dual-weilding pistols is a skill for being coordinated in both hands and having the ability to handle the recoil in both hands (which would make this far easier for lower-caliber weapons).  Compared to lunging with two weapons at once, however, it isn't nearly as rediculous or unbalancing.

Plus, if we're talking about firing two semi-automatics as fast as possible, a lack of accuracy may simply be overridden by pure attrition.

Of course, hand-held firearms are very, very unlikely to be in vanilla DF, anyway, so this is all completely irrelevant.