Is it better to use one sword with 2 hands or 2 swords with one hand each?

depends on how strong your arms are and how skilled you are,the more skilled i guess two swords would be better than one

To tell the truth, I think that there really were more two hand swordsmen than dual swordsmen on the field, save for special circumstances.
So why weren't there many users of dual swords? Longer to train, impracticality on the battlefield where you can slice and dice your own people as easily as the enemy...naturally, it's harder to manage two blades than one.

Actually, I think the main reason is the need to produce double the amount of swords. Most Chinese sword units used a sword-shield combination.

are you basing this on history or movies? the shield combination would refer to infantry man with pole arms, not swords

Actually, I think the swordsmen would have carried shields more often than the ji halberdiers, since it takes two arms to wield a ji effectively. I have seen pictures of halberdiers carrying shields too, though - maybe they discarded the shield in close-quarters fighting? It was probably only in the Age of Fragmentation that the spear-shield combination became standard because of the tight formations and the danger of horse archers.

i didn't mean halbreds specifically. a standard infantry spear, you can make effective thrusts with one hand. If cavalry is circling you, you can defend with the shield and then thrust with the spear. a sword would not be a good choice in that situation since Chinese swords were not all that long

There is actually alot of sources that show Chinese military having sword unit carrying shields. But since I don't have the time to dig up my books, I would just post this readily availiable picture I have on my computer.

Two handed swords, in one-on one fights, usually beats any other combination of 1h sword with sield, another sword, etc.
I remember this topic was discussed on the sword forum. Fencers who practiced such matches before said the two-handed sword nearly always wins.

Japanese pirates with their two handed swords were said to be very effective against the 1 handed sabers used by Chinese marines
a sword in each hand I don't think is very practical. It'd be harder to learn, I think. Also, if you're fighting armor, you won't have as much force behind the blade, and striking with your weaker arm (usually left) will hit with even less force)

The pictures of Song and Tang Swordsmen I've seen usually has them in a sword&shield combination.

against the Japanese pirates though, the mandarin duck formation was invented. It was named so because the Mandarin duck mates for life, so the unit must always stick together. I think it conisted of...
2 sword/shield men to defend, two spear men to attack, two men with bamboo (with branches attatched) or special pronged spears to distract)

The question of two 1h swords vs one 2h sword probably can't be answered that easily. From experience, it strongly depends on the length of the swords involved. If you look at almost any two 1h swords techniques around the world, it usually consists of one long and one short. And before anyone try to bring it up as a counter argument, the shangdao of Chinese martial arts was not designed for fighting another sword. It was designed for fighting spears. And that is already a completely different question.

The advantage of using two swords is your ability to use them like a pair of hands. So there are alot of using one sword to deflect and the other to attack. Or using one to create a distraction. So the essense behind it is quickness as opposed to power.
The problem with two long swords has two major problems. (1) weight. Like I said, quickness is more important for two swords and slashing power. Having two big swords in your hands will inevitably reduce your speed in each hand. (2) Having two long swords means you will get in your own way. Because it is much harder to great a defensive line when you have two as opposed to one. These are the main reason why most two 2h sword techniques has a dagger or shortsword on the other hand.

I am going to make a guess that the reason why the single handed sword lost out again the japanese pirate was because of the confined space of ship boarding battles. If you look at that design of the Chinese dao techniques, it relies very much on one's bodiliy movement from side to side and advance and retreat to evade your opponent before delivering a counter attack. A boarding battle when everyone is cramped into a confined space, people simply can't perform this kind of movements. So whoever has a stronger power would automatically have an advantage.

The answer depends on the scenario.

Having some experience with katanas I can say a swordsman wearing body armour and using a two handed sword is a very effective combination. Two swords is generally not a good idea unless you're using a short weapon in one hand for parrying only. Against an armoured opponent you need to thrust into his unprotected spots and it would be quite difficult to do with two long swords.

The ultimate battle field swordsmanship IMO is a single handed sword with shield. The shield is also a weapon and can be used to push. A good sword and shield fighter is EXTREMELY hard to beat. It's not glamourous I know, but it works.

Now if you're sure you will be facing only one opponent and neither of you will be armoured, nothing beats a single handed light thrusting weapon. This has very specialized civilian application however and not useful against the armoured swordsman.

Those who have properly studied martial arts from a good instructor knows the following.

The outcome of a combat is based on many factors. The skills of the combatants, the preparation, the terrain, the time of day, the conditioning, the stamina, etc. There is no [ kitchen sink ] solution in combat.

Esp. in hand to hand combat, a weapon does not win the war. Man does.

The professional plays (& wins) w/ what he brings to the game.

i have Jian of various weights and lengths.

honestly, in a duel, i wouldn't use my shuang shou jian (its about 5 feet long total and weighs around 5 pounds)

i'd use my jian from long quan forge that is about 1.8 pounds and overall length 42.5 inches.

I would use the 5ft dao...

By the way, what is a shang dao, and how is it made to fight spears?

http://www.rsw.com.hk/videos.htm
This website has videos of people who fight with various sparring weapons
They do alot of research in replicating authentic swords, and in making them into a safe to use sparring form. You can see dao vs longsword, vs katana, podao(pudao?) vs katana, spear vs B****** sword, etc.

Those people don't really know what they are doing. For most part, they are kids with a few years of training and too much comic books. They definately have some nice ideas about how to replicate weapons to the correct length and weight. But if you actually see their movements, you will see all the mistakes made by people who had little sparring experiences.

A few of them seem to be better than the others, and they've fought/beaten people who trained at various martial arts schools. Neverless, it looks fun, and at least they're doing it.

Just because people study martial arts. That does not mean they are doing it correct. The degrees of proficiency between hackers and professionals is vast.

One can watch hundreds of ppl doing Taiji does not mean all of them are doing it right.

The professional can take anything around them and turn it into an implement. While an amateur has to worry about going home and get his favorite toy.

Now if the professional happen to have his favorite implement around. His advantage must increase depending on the skill level of the opposition.

In any endeavor, it is the will not the skill that counts.

'cause it takes a will to gain skill. It seemed most of the 'martial artists' were pretty bad, too stylized in movement. The main guy (Lancelot) apparantly trained in European B****** sword style, and beats the ones he fights. I think he may be on sword forum.

So the video shows a bunch of amateurs messing around with various weapons, that's still better than nothing, and is enjoyable to watch.

hehe, i would love to spar.

during high school, after school. a friend and i would get to the center early and fence/free fight for hours until the actual class began

well it depends on what kind of sword your using................. if your using a big sword with one hand well........... u know what's going to happen

[ "The Will to Prepare" is more important than "The Will to Win". ]

[ Your skills, your liking and motion usually determine the type of sword that one get. ]

Hi
I just want to share my thoughts on 2 handed sword or with 2 swords. I practise a korean form of 2 handed swordmanship, and students at higher 8th Dan ranking learned Ssang GumBup ( Double sword method ). I am working toward my first Dan and had been learning Ssang Soo Gumbup ( 2 handed sword method ) for 1.5 years already.

There are advantages of in using 2 handed sword method which are too long to be explained here. But in swordmanship , whether 2 handed sword or double sword or even in Chinese swordmanship share a common trait, that is SPEED, POWER & PRECISION.

I dont know much about the Chinese account on each method. But if I may to take an example , a story on a well known Japanese swordman Musashi defeated the equally famous Sasaki Kojiro. Musashi founded the double sword method and Sasaki Kojiro was also famous for his Double handed sword method. Musashi defeated Sasaki using 2 wooden sword instead of using the metal ones. Sasaki was defeated not because he lacked in skills but because of his character was lacking of calmness and steady state of mind during the battle. Musashi purposely came 2 hours late to meet the duel appointment with Sasaki, and this had made Sasaki lost his temper and his composure, while Musashi being of better character calmly fought with 2 wooden sword in his hands. I think if Sasaki has been an equal character like Musashi, the fight might have ended in a draw or maybe Sasaki might win.

I had read somewhere in the internet of historical account on a Chinese Woman Warrior who used Double Jian to fight her enemy. I could not remember her name and story. She was famous for her skillfulness in using double Jian sword method. Anybody aware of her ?

Regards

Johan

If I am not mistaken....she is Wang Cong'Er

Nice passage.
You didn't answer his question.....

The weapon player wins the battle, not the weapon.

I guess I'm replying to an old post here, but I think this is a neat thing to consider in this speculative arguement.

I do uncoreographed recreation. Its historical accuracy can be questionable at times, but this particular aspect of the fighting holds true because it's about fighting, not history.

There are plenty of people who fight with 2 1-handed sword and, like when you learn in almost any martial arts school, you start by learning combinations (much like in boxing). As people progress, they learn more combinations and more complex ones and they can sometimes mix combinations together. However, the limitation is that most fighters are not mentally capable of thinking about both weapons independently the way you think of and build your strategy for one weapon in a fight.

So, in most fights, I think it is safe to say that the 2 weapon fighter will be using various combinations (as complex and varied as they may be) where as the 2-handed sword fighter is likely to be adapting each strike to be appropriate for that instant in the fight.

That being said, there are a very few people who can use both completely independently. This is what makes a truely great 2-weapon fighter. The difference between the two is immense and I think would be a very large factor in the fight.

Obviously, there are a still many other factors, but it seemed like this was something that hadn't been considered. Hope it provides good food for thought.

The comparison must base upon the context we are talking about:

In battlefield, the two hand-held sword like that of the Scottish Highlander or the ZweiHandler of Holy Roman Empire proved fatal to penetrate heavy Knights. The hand-held swords are not without disadvantage. Since their weight is heavy, the rate of slashing will be much slower than that of single-hand sword. Thus give more chance for the opponents to kill its users.

Usually, western swordmen prefered single-held sword with one or double-edged blade. With another hand they can hold a wooden or metal shield to provide more protection.

If we put into the context of battlefield, then attacking with two swords is basically unworkable if users faced upon a heavy infantry equiped with kite shield and a chapter straight sword.

I know that this post is older but I like to explain a little the "art of european fighting"

Like Boleslaw wrote it was more typical to use a sword ad a shield in the Battlefield. But nothing at all, the european Soldiers (not the Knights on Horse) use often a one and a half Hand sword. That means that the blade was long as a one Hand and the grip was long as a two hand. It seems that this belongs on the material of the older swords, after some fights the peak brakes. So you earn a short two hand sword that can be used like a one hand.
In fact some of the Soldiers have two weapons, as you can imagen, if there is a people with a shield you need some weapon to bring him down. For that you use a axe. If you slam these in a shield to rip of the shield, you loose it and know you have the possibility to use the power of both Arms to use the sword.
There was also type of soldiers that use a long dagger, in germany very well known as "Sachs" in the later medieval as second weapon with a rapier in the other hand. But at this time in the 16th century the soldiers was not heavy shielded. They was known as "Landsknecht" and paid by the mass of weapon they use.

If you like, look at these german website, where you can see a little part of the art of medieval clothes and weaponry.
http://www.burgruinelichtenstein.de/Hoefische%20Kleidung.htm
(Here some translations for the website:
Jahrhundert = Century
Ritter = Knight
edle Dame = noble Lady
erste Hälfte = first half
zweite Hälfte = second half




In my opinion there is no "better" only a different way to fight between using a two hand or two one hand swords. I prefer to fight with a one and a half and a long Dagger but only if the enemy is to close to use my bow.

In the West during the heyday of the Greek and Roman civilizations, the favoured sword was the short stabbing sword. This was during an era when the quality of armour was generally poor. During the Middle Ages, the quality of armour improved tremendously. Short stabbing swords gradually gave way to two-handed swords which were longer and heavier. These swords were used not just as swords, but also to serve as clubs for bashing. When gunpower made heavy armour obsolete, the stabbing swords and single-handed swords were once again in use.

A two-handed sword has the advantage of power. A sword brought down with two hands definitely has much more power than a sword with a single hand. However, a two-handed sword may be clumsy to use at times. It isn't so easy for both hands to move around together, compared to a single hand. Most Japanese warriors are armed with two swords; one long and one short. The short sword is needed when the gap is closed, and fighters are reduced to very close contact fighting.

It may not be suitable to compare swords by using bouts fought by swordsmen. I believe the comparison was made in the context of a battlefield, not a sparring bout. In a sparring bout, both parties have lots of room to maneuver. This will play an important role in the choice of swords, the type of sword technique used, the length of the sword, etc etc.
In a battlefield, you are basically squeezed for space. On both sides, you are hemmed in by your comrades. You probably can only advance, not retreat. You have no room for fancy manuevres, let alone even dodging a simple thrust. If quality of armour is not an issue here, then the proven sword is the short, stabbing sword; a suitable weapon for close-contact fighting. If you are talking about fighting a duel, then a sword with a longer reach might be of better use.

No sword is superior to another. Neither is one technique better than other. It boils down to what kind of battle you wish to fight. I thinking fighting on a battlefield is usually grossly inaccurately depicted in Chinese movies, where warriors have a lot of private space to dodge, wheel around and execute flashy techniques. In a real battle, the soldier is badly cramped for space. All he can probably do is block, stab, hack or just simply wrestle his opponent to the ground. No room for flashy techniques; not unless closing it for the kill is not their style of fighting. Then, you might want to ask, why use a sword when a spear can do the job better?

Generally IMO each weapons are design for their specific purposes. Dual handsword such as the European big sword, Japanaese katana or the Chinese big broad sword are deploy to be use against cavalry units, breaking infantry formation or in open fighting. The two handed sword has more cutting and slashing power and and cover more space.

Dual weapons tend to be lighter and it relay more on speed and quickness. It is also ideal in open fighting not formation fighting.

Both the dual hand sword and dual wielded swords are good in a free for all rumble type of fighting situation.

In formation fighting such as the phalanx, when wholesale formation fighting control is needed the shield and single one hand sword is more ideal for close quarter fighting. The early Greeks and Romans were very successful with the phalanx tactics using shield and a short sword against heavier weapon wielding enemies who tend to fight free for all.

Each weapon type have their advantages and disadvantages. The strength of a two hand sword usually can break the lighter dual wielded swords.

In Thai the Thai warrior can used single sword and 2 hand in 2 sword like


http://revver.com/video/301056/krabi-krabo...hai-weapon-art/
(www.muaychaiya.com)


like the opinion of Wan Ren aka Danny

A good video and a good way to demonstrate or relate just how it works, in that video the fighters are able to move fast because the weapons are lighter and their sword techniques are mostly close quarter getting inside avoiding direct blocking their opponent's weapons. Lots of parrying and side stepping, with slashing techniques.

Heavier weapons will usually go directly against the target attacking directly the weapon with the intention of breaking the weapon allowing penetration to the main target which is the body.

I guess this will be a good example of how heavy weapon is apply.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiBc8iz5hzI...feature=related

Heavier weapons are usually assign to stronger individuals who have the ability to wield the heavy weapons that are usually two handed with speed to match or keep up with the lighter individuals that wield either a single sword or saber or dual swords in both hands.

That is why Gen. Guan Yu was so exemplified because of his ability to wield the kwan dao which is heavy and only gifted strong individuals can wield it with such control and balance making him near invincible against other weapons.

In this video clip of the movie Musa the Warrior, notice the advantage of the heavy two handed weapon against the lighter saber swords and shield.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrQuoiRx1wY

I also remember reading in one battle between the Mongols and Western army of Europe, the Mongols lost that battle because it was fought in close quarter cavalry vs. cavarly, the light armour light weapons of the Mongols were no match against the heavy cavalry of Western Europe.

At the same time, ancient Roman Legions invincibility against the Gauls and Germanic tribes was there ability to deploy the phalanx against the heavy weapon wielding Gauls who find it difficult to break through the shield wall or phalanx of the Roman Legionaires.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z8kea1mwp8
Wu shu ability to wield that fast again aside from being very athletic through constant training it is also the weight of the weapons that makes a difference.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVxkGIRrN7U...feature=related

Modern crowd control units or riot police all over the country have seem to have resurrected or adopted the Roman-Greek Phalanx tactic in controlling and dispersing riots. Just like the ancient Roman army, today's riot plice relay on close quarter, close support from fellow riot policemen or women and the use of trencheons or for the Romans the short sword.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ns-StY31FSs...feature=related

I myself like to wield heavy weapons such as the big broad sword, battle axe, kwan dao and mountain trident but my body structure is design for leght weapons such as dual saber, dual swords, dual tiger hook or dual sai.

That is why I had to remodified lots of the heavy weapons weight so that I can wield them too for training and for the love of it but when it comes to actually using one in fighting I have to use the weapon that is suited for me and that is using the lighter saber, tiger or sai weapons.

I agree and will elaborate on this.

Close formation fighting was an effort in team work and discipline. Soldiers didn't have to worry about their flanks because they had fellow soldiers fighting on either side. The only person each Roman legionaire needed to worry about was the enemy to his immediate front.

Prior to enemy contact, legionairres would heave pilums at the enemy. A javenlin strike at close range would disrupt enemy formations. The soft headed iron head would bend upon impact, often forcing enemy warriors to discard their shields because of the cumbersome weight.

For close combat, the Romans used a short sword known as the gladius. This was a thrusting weapon. The entire Roman unit would move forward in lockstep, thrusting their short swords at the enemy. Enemy troops like Celts and Gauls often used longswords. The problem with a longsword is that you have to have room to swing it. Since the Romans fought in close formation, this effectively pitted 2 legionaires against every warrior with a longsword.

Barbarian hordes were also disadvantaged by their lack of discipline. As howling reinforcements poured forward, they sometimes forced the warriors on the front line into close proxmity with each other. There are many accounts of battles where the press from behind was so great that warriors were pinned together without enough room to even swing their weapons. This lack of discipline made such warriors easy meat for the Roman legion.

The Romans fought as units. Barbarians typically fought and died as individuals.

Well said, one disadvantage of the single hand sword is that when comes to open warfare like free for all they have difficulty to win against the stronger, heavier and larger two handed swords. That is why when armies started to develop new ways to break up the phalanx formation those phalanx soldiers find themselves in a disadvantageous situation against the Gauls, Celts and other barbarian tribes that fight well in open space with their two handed weapon.

In a one on one, I would give the dual weapon wielder the advantage over the single two handed sword.

Just to share, this video demonstrates a bit of 2handed sword vs sword/dagger and sword/shield combat:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJT1_1C231k

The music fits well