Both of these are notable for being essentially _duelling_ styles, rather then having ever worked, or come to that, even really been tried in mass combat. So it's arguable if even they are much different from the "martial artist" end of the spectrum. And the essential difference is surely that in a duel, defence isn't worth a great deal, since you'll have to dispose of your opponent sooner or later anyway, so sooner would be distinctly preferable, rather than having self-preservation as your top priority as any sane soldier does.
Musashi may have been about the worst person ever to get into an argument with in a bar, possibly in the history of the universe, but he didn't set much of an example or precedent for practical warfare in Japan, much less elsewhere else.
> and using a handaxe to hook the opponent's shield. I am classing a left
> handed combat net as a modified shield, here, like a rolled-up cloak.
I'd be prepared to consider a Real Second Weapon, though even in Late Night Italian Sword and Sandals Flicks on Channel 4 -- hey, I was on the dole, and very bored: sue me ;-) -- I've never seen a serious attempt to attack with each weapon anything like simultaneously. This is a somewhat extreme case, though, as both a throwing net and a trident are altogether harder to handle than, say, a gladius, individually, much less simultaneously.
> The point is that you will almost never see two of the exact same weapon
> used. They will get in each other's way, without giving the wielder more
> options.
I thought MM _did_ use identical weapons, at least at some point in his career. (Variously two katana, and two bokken (!), I believe.) Using a katana together with the wakizashi was already relatively common, I believe. (Please correct me if my recollection is at fault here, though not all at once, and with as few "umms" and "errs" as is merely completely unnecessary.) But as previously noted, Musashi was, as one Sensei Coyle, nidan aikido, once put it, "a complete looney".
All the (RW) anecdotal evidence I'm aware of points to two-weapon use being only much of an option for people who are highly skilled, intent on major mayhem, and somewhat challenged in their instinct for self-preservation.
Ob. Glorantha: if the above thesis is correct, then it makes a fair bit of sense that the main users of such a style seem to be Humaktoids and Storm Bullies, which fits in with my personal experience of RQ like wot she is played, and indeed with such anecdotes. So perhaps RQ models the "real" situation at least adequately. But will G:tG do even that well, if it follows the Pendragon scheme? One's options would here seem to be pretty limited to full-scale berserkerdom, or to somehow fudging a Partial Success to be some sort of secondary weapon result. RQ multiple attack rolls, while flagrantly inconsistent with the spirit of "abstract away from individial blows", do at least add some colour, and make it possible to rationally determine _which_ of two weapons hit, in cases where it becomes Very Important. (Guess which hand I hid the Fireblade in.)
Slainte,
Alex.
Powered by hypermail