>According to him, a *good* two-weapon fighter was the most dangerous >opponent -- the best fighters he knew used two longswords >simultaneously. He mentioned one named Moonwolf (I think) who took on >ten or twenty people at once and won. Granted, the ten must have used >awful tactics. On the other hand, the professor was emphatic that two >longswords were the most effective combination he knew of.
Well, I've known Moonwulf for twenty-odd years, and I used to fight against him, too. He was _very_ good with two swords, and his success inspired a lot of others to copy the style. But, good as many of them were in single combat, few could match his skill in melee combat.
His secret was to keep moving. I remember one fight - six of us against him alone. We tried to keep together to avoid facing him one on one. He just kept dancing away, then darting in at the guy on the end of the line. Yes, our tactics stank (hindsight is great). But it was also _his_ tactics which affected the outcome. He knew how to avoid being pinned down by our numbers.
Of course, this was a small melee. In a real battle, with scores or hundreds of fighters, this mobile defense doesn't work. Your friends are too close to you, and you can't dodge away from your foes. In effect, your own side pins you down so the enemy can hack you apart. In our wars, Moonwulf always preferred using his unit as a mobile, flanking force to get behind the enemy lines. There they could spread out and fight single combats against the rear ranks. It even worked sometimes.
For our large wars, with hundreds to a side, the general feeling was that only hotdogs (showoffs, for the non-U.S. readers) used two weapons. The preferred choices were sword and shield, or spear or halberd _behind_ some good shieldmen.
Ed Tonry
End of Glorantha Digest V4 #246
WWW at http://rider.wharton.upenn.edu/~loren/Rolegame/glorantha.faq.html
Powered by hypermail