I think it's pretty uncontroversial that dual wielding has advantages over wielding one sword in one hand. In fact I'm not sure there are any major disadvantages at all. But what abou compared to sword and shield/buckler? Is it really advantageous at all that what you're holding in your off-hand is more lethal as an offensive weapon than a shield?
>over wielding one sword in one hand
well, you cut off the option to use the weapon in two hands, you throw off your ability to use your non-dominant arm for balance or grappling...
>>29913192
The benefit is you can shank the same guy twice, or two guys at once
>>29913192
Most often in historical fencing "dual weilding" wasn't fighting with two swords, it was fighting with a longer sword (usually a rapier) and a dagger. What this meant was that you could parry with the dagger and riposte with the rapier in the same time (meaning in one motion) where as if you have just a sword you have to parry and riposte. Along with this you have the option to attack with the dagger if you get caught up in a bind or a clinch at close range with your opponent.
>>29913192
A parrying dagger is a lot lighter and lower profile. It's a good option for people just out and about.
>>29913192
Usually, a buckler is better against cuts (and therefore heavy cuts from two handed swords and heavy broadswords) whereas a off-hand dagger is better against thrusts, that's why you see it mainly used from the second half of the 16th century where thrust became the proeminent method of attack. Plus obviously, being hit by a dagger is much more nasty than being hit by a buckler.
Dual wielding two swords was more a feat, to show mastery, than an actual thing that was done regularly. Sword and dagger on the other hand was a very practical combinaison.
As a lefty, this is one place where dual wielding would work.
Most of the times you won't be using the weapons you carry, shields are clumsy and get in the way if you carry them around. It's a lot easier to carry a parrying dagger instead.
>>29914726
A buckler ain't that big though, sure anything but that will be too big (stuff like targe and rotella), but a buckler is really the go-to civilian shield. The diameter of a buckler is hardly ever longer than one of a dagger.
Now granted, those were probably not that much used inside cities, whereas sword&dagger certainly did. They were more travelling weapons.
>>29915042
Yeah the diameter is pretty small but carrying a disc like that you'd have to sling it on your back to get it out of the way, carrying a dagger is something you could just do at the hip.
I agree that bucklers have an advantage for traveling, parry daggers are basically only good for one on one duels, bucklers are a lot more useful in a larger melee with many participants.
So daggers are good for honour duels but not so much in other situations.
>>29913192
You have to consider the context- mostly civilian use. A buckler is nice, but somewhat a pain in the but to carry around. A dagger, on the other hand, is not that bad. And considering it was mostly for countering against thrusts, the common attack of the time, a dagger definitely did suffice.
In military use this was rare, as you'd want a shield to prevent from taking an arrow to the face, or a two handed weapon to shank someone from farther away, so he can't shank you.
Rapier dagger combo is GOAT.
