Single Weapon Style vs Dual Weapon or Weapon and Shield

[Loz]

Except that in higher societies people did attend parties armed, with rapiers, slim swords, sabres etc. depending on time and place. Some have been ceremonial but others have sure been useable by their wearers.
My point is that chosing weapon X might be mechanically superior in combat against weapon Y - but weapon Y might be culturally accepted, whereas X could get you weird glances, reputation as a barbarian etc.

Precisely. Roman Legions used shortswords because they offered a more practical application for their style of fighting than a longer blade. Yet within Rome all weapons were banned. And whilst some no doubt secreted knives around their person, it was largely observed. Society imposed a moral code on its populace. Martial traditions and fighting styles imposed another.

In feudal Japan, entering anyone's house armed was a disgrace (and only the samurai, a social class, had the right to walk around armed). Use of certain weapons was considered uncivilized or marked you as part of a certain social caste. Few samurai would pick-up a naginata (polearm) which was considered the weapon of the sohei and yamabushi (warrior monks). The yari (spear) was the weapon of the lowly footmen of the army. Yet all these weapons offer distinct advantages over a katana in many instances. And, before anyone offers-up the fighting style of katana/wakazashi (swords forming the dai-sho of the samurai) as an example of a culture that mini-maxed with two weapons, it was incredibly rare. The katana was mostly used two-handed with the wakazashi acting as a back-up weapon and not a defensive one.

 

[rust]

Except that in higher societies people did attend parties armed, with rapiers, slim swords, sabres etc. depending on time and place. Some have been ceremonial but others have sure been useable by their wearers.
My point is that chosing weapon X might be mechanically superior in combat against weapon Y - but weapon Y might be culturally accepted, whereas X could get you weird glances, reputation as a barbarian etc.

We mean the same, but my wording was bad.

My point was that there were the usually more efficient military weapons,
used by soldiers on the battlefield, and the usually less efficient civilian
weapons, part of the dresscode and used mostly for duelling, For example,
the early rapier was known as Espada Ropera, the "dress sword" worn with
civilian clothes, to distinguish it from the "real" swords worn with the armour
for combat. It would have been a major social blunder to appear at some so-
cial event with a "real" sword (and rather stupid to go to war with an Espada
Ropera). The social situation determined which weapons were considered ac-
ceptable, independent from the efficiency of the weapons.

 

[havercake lad]

Re Dress and court swords..Yes these are fine for parades and chorographed ceremonies where everyone sits, stands walks in a set pattern or order. Like parasols and canes they are probably meant to be checked in with the capes before attending parties and balls.
Annually visiting events where some re-enactors insist on wearing swords in a beer tent during the evening I can vouch for just what a stupid, nuisance they are in this type of situation !

 

[Simulacrum]

Indeed - still the case - I have a collection of Victorian weapons some of which are still current pattern. You come across 'piquet' weight swords for wearing with dress, which match the standard pattern except they have a narrower/lighter blade, sometimes with more elaborate decoration and polish. However it took a well-funded officer to have one for the field and another one for 'best'. Otherwise the main difference would be in the scabbard and furniture. Among officers 'fighting swords' of non-standard pattern are also common - think Sharp using a heavy cavalry sabre instead of a Rifles pattern sword.

Some weapons are obviously more acceptable in polite company than others, and this changes with the level or urbanisation/civilisation that applies. You can identify from ancient greek vases a shift from wearing weapons in civilian context - even including carrying a spear - and going about unarmed, in the Archaic period. It goes hand in hand with a change in aristocratic dress from wearing a fighting cloak (a small one that doesn't get in the way or even cover the 'essentials') to more elaborate clothes.

 

[rust]

Re Dress and court swords..Yes these are fine for parades and chorographed ceremonies where everyone sits, stands walks in a set pattern or order. Like parasols and canes they are probably meant to be checked in with the capes before attending parties and balls.

Yep, although during much of Europe's early modern history there
was still a dagger as a part of the noble dress code, it can be seen
on many paintings showing social events of all kinds where even a
dress sword would have been out of place. A noble without any ty-
pe of weapon at all would have been an extremely rare thing.

 

[duncan_disorderly]

I didn't see Inigo Montaya (You Killed My Father. Prepare to Die.) wielding a main gauche ...

I see your point, but I suspect that movies are very bad examples.
Movies show what the actors and their doubles can do, not what a
real world character of the right background would do. The number
of actors who could use something like a main gauche in a remotely
convincing way is minimal, and I doubt that Mandy Patinkin is among
them. :wink:

...But if few actors can be trained to use a main gauche in a remotely convincing manner, while being able to wield a rapier in a way that at least satisfies the audience, this suggests that the same would be true of warriors in real life. A warrior with 70% Rapier may be at a disadvantage to one with 70% Rapier & Main Gauche, but that doesn't mean they are equally common. (in D&D terms, a Longsword is a better weapon than a dagger, but my money is on the Level 7 Fighter with the dagger over the level 1 thief with a longsword)