Me (an intellectual): "If we can wield a spear and a shield at the same time, can we then dual wield spears?"
Hehe, that sure sounds impractical! I wonder if anyone's ever tried it in RL.
I would think that it would be as good as dual wielding katanas.
Well, there are schools of martial arts that teach dual katana styles, but I haven't heard of any that teach dual spear. That's not to say that there aren't any, of course. But, if it was an effective fighting style, I imagine it would have been more frequently used.
Me (an intellectual): "If we can wield a spear and a shield at the same time, can we then dual wield spears?"
Hehe, that sure sounds impractical! I wonder if anyone's ever tried it in RL.
I would think that it would be as good as dual wielding katanas.
Well, there are schools of martial arts that teach dual katana styles, but I haven't heard of any that teach dual spear. That's not to say that there aren't any, of course. But, if it was an effective fighting style, I imagine it would have been more frequently used.
What would you get out of it?
A spear is mainly for thrusting, though shorter spears can also be used like a staff to block, stun, sweep, etc. What do you get out of holding two of them? Everything you do with a spear (except throwing one) is done better when you hold it with both hands. Having two spears means having two weapons you can't properly use.
This is like thinking that if you can fight with a dagger in each hand, why not fight with 3 daggers in each hand? The more daggers the better, right? They'll fit, after all, you can physically hold them. It's awkward, but no matter, the more the better!
Me (an intellectual): "If we can wield a spear and a shield at the same time, can we then dual wield spears?"
Hehe, that sure sounds impractical! I wonder if anyone's ever tried it in RL.
I would think that it would be as good as dual wielding katanas.
Well, there are schools of martial arts that teach dual katana styles, but I haven't heard of any that teach dual spear. That's not to say that there aren't any, of course. But, if it was an effective fighting style, I imagine it would have been more frequently used.
Dual katanas are actually really impractical. What someone would use is something like a wakizashi. One longer sword with a shortsword. That is something that is also done in european sword fighting.
Example:
Two katanas would only get in the way of one another, especially because they rely on thrusts and slashing motions.
Me (an intellectual): "If we can wield a spear and a shield at the same time, can we then dual wield spears?"
Hehe, that sure sounds impractical! I wonder if anyone's ever tried it in RL.
I would think that it would be as good as dual wielding katanas.
Well, there are schools of martial arts that teach dual katana styles, but I haven't heard of any that teach dual spear. That's not to say that there aren't any, of course. But, if it was an effective fighting style, I imagine it would have been more frequently used.
What would you get out of it?
A spear is mainly for thrusting, though shorter spears can also be used like a staff to block, stun, sweep, etc. What do you get out of holding two of them? Everything you do with a spear (except throwing one) is done better when you hold it with both hands. Having two spears means having two weapons you can't properly use.
This is like thinking that if you can fight with a dagger in each hand, why not fight with 3 daggers in each hand? The more daggers the better, right? They'll fit, after all, you can physically hold them. It's awkward, but no matter, the more the better!
Absolutely. There's a couple of great explanations of it on the thread I linked earlier.
Me (an intellectual): "If we can wield a spear and a shield at the same time, can we then dual wield spears?"
Hehe, that sure sounds impractical! I wonder if anyone's ever tried it in RL.
I would think that it would be as good as dual wielding katanas.
Well, there are schools of martial arts that teach dual katana styles, but I haven't heard of any that teach dual spear. That's not to say that there aren't any, of course. But, if it was an effective fighting style, I imagine it would have been more frequently used.
What would you get out of it?
A spear is mainly for thrusting, though shorter spears can also be used like a staff to block, stun, sweep, etc. What do you get out of holding two of them? Everything you do with a spear (except throwing one) is done better when you hold it with both hands. Having two spears means having two weapons you can't properly use.
This is like thinking that if you can fight with a dagger in each hand, why not fight with 3 daggers in each hand? The more daggers the better, right? They'll fit, after all, you can physically hold them. It's awkward, but no matter, the more the better!
Deathmaster Snikch seems to disagree.
1
Options
AtamaMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Me (an intellectual): "If we can wield a spear and a shield at the same time, can we then dual wield spears?"
Hehe, that sure sounds impractical! I wonder if anyone's ever tried it in RL.
I would think that it would be as good as dual wielding katanas.
Well, there are schools of martial arts that teach dual katana styles, but I haven't heard of any that teach dual spear. That's not to say that there aren't any, of course. But, if it was an effective fighting style, I imagine it would have been more frequently used.
What would you get out of it?
A spear is mainly for thrusting, though shorter spears can also be used like a staff to block, stun, sweep, etc. What do you get out of holding two of them? Everything you do with a spear (except throwing one) is done better when you hold it with both hands. Having two spears means having two weapons you can't properly use.
This is like thinking that if you can fight with a dagger in each hand, why not fight with 3 daggers in each hand? The more daggers the better, right? They'll fit, after all, you can physically hold them. It's awkward, but no matter, the more the better!
Deathmaster Snikch seems to disagree.
That wuss. He only has one in each hand like a noob! And I bet his tail could hold at least two.
Double katanas was never a thing. Katanas are 2 handed.
Tachis (1300-1600) went againts armor, therefore were pointier and longer 1 handed. Katanas (1600-1900) were heavy thick 2 handed slasher because people stopped using armor.
Efficient dual wielding is for dueling and with blades of different lenght.
Tachi+Kodachi in 1600 Japan.
Rapier+Dagger in 1600 Europe.
Without arrows flying around and in 1v1, another blade can be better for attack and defense than a buckler. You parry and attack at the same time, and both arms can do both.
I guess now would be the time to chime in with, "It's a fantasy game." Let us not get to crazy about things needing to be "realistic". In archeage I could transmog my 2h mace into a big tuna fish. I don't doubt that something similarly goofy will happen here. dual-wielding a quarterstaff and a sword or two katanas, it's up to the developers on how much time they wanna invest in such options. I say do it.
Though, I'd still suggest that it's more practical than dual spears...!
For a bit over a century, specific solders in the Roman army were equipped with three spears.
I'm not going to go in to any more detail than that though.
Those are not spears, those were pillums and they were intended to be thrown before engaging in melee with shield and sword.
Their points were designed to bend after being thrown so the enemy couldn't pick them up.
Pillums are closer to javelins, meant for skirmishing and harrassing prior to main engagement.
They weren't meant to be handled as spears.
Greeks fought with spear, shield and side-sword.
Romans fought with sword, shield and javelins.
I guess now would be the time to chime in with, "It's a fantasy game." Let us not get to crazy about things needing to be "realistic". In archeage I could transmog my 2h mace into a big tuna fish. I don't doubt that something similarly goofy will happen here. dual-wielding a quarterstaff and a sword or two katanas, it's up to the developers on how much time they wanna invest in such options. I say do it.
Realism is one thing. Having characters carry around things in a ridiculous, cartoonish way is another. The developers have already expressed a desire to get away from the "Warhammer/WoW" trope of carrying weapons that look like inflated props. Which is definitely going to improve this game's aesthetic immensely.
Realism is one thing. Having characters carry around things in a ridiculous, cartoonish way is another. The developers have already expressed a desire to get away from the "Warhammer/WoW" trope of carrying weapons that look like inflated props. Which is definitely going to improve this game's aesthetic immensely.
I would have to disagree. many games that go for a realistic look fall short and ultimately run into the brick wall of graphic progression that quickly takes what used to look real and makes it look horrible in comparison. This is why the warhammer/wow aesthetic works as it is a stylized aesthetic that does not lose its charm over time.
I do not wish that on AoC but that might end up happening.
mrwafflesMember, Leader of Men, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited October 2020
i mean if we're talking about / asking for weapons then daddy wants the most American Japanese sword of all time the gun blade. I mean why just cut down your enemies when you could shoot them at the same time.
1
Options
AtamaMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Realism is one thing. Having characters carry around things in a ridiculous, cartoonish way is another. The developers have already expressed a desire to get away from the "Warhammer/WoW" trope of carrying weapons that look like inflated props. Which is definitely going to improve this game's aesthetic immensely.
I would have to disagree. many games that go for a realistic look fall short and ultimately run into the brick wall of graphic progression that quickly takes what used to look real and makes it look horrible in comparison. This is why the warhammer/wow aesthetic works as it is a stylized aesthetic that does not lose its charm over time.
I do not wish that on AoC but that might end up happening.
Though, I'd still suggest that it's more practical than dual spears...!
For a bit over a century, specific solders in the Roman army were equipped with three spears.
I'm not going to go in to any more detail than that though.
Those are not spears, those were pillums and they were intended to be thrown before engaging in melee with shield and sword.
Their points were designed to bend after being thrown so the enemy couldn't pick them up.
Pillums are closer to javelins, meant for skirmishing and harrassing prior to main engagement.
They weren't meant to be handled as spears.
Greeks fought with spear, shield and side-sword.
Romans fought with sword, shield and javelins.
Pillum are a subset of javelins, for sure.
Thing is, javelins are a subset of spears.
As such, anyone holding a pillum is holding a javelin, and anyone holding a javelin is holding a spear. So it follows that if a Roman soldier is holding three pillum, they are holding three spears.
As such, anyone holding a pillum is holding a javelin, and anyone holding a javelin is holding a spear. So it follows that if a Roman soldier is holding three pillum, they are holding three spears.
They didn't triple-wield them, though. They threw them and then switched to their sword.
As such, anyone holding a pillum is holding a javelin, and anyone holding a javelin is holding a spear. So it follows that if a Roman soldier is holding three pillum, they are holding three spears.
They didn't triple-wield them, though. They threw them and then switched to their sword.
That's true - but I did only say they were equipped with them.
Comments
Well, there are schools of martial arts that teach dual katana styles, but I haven't heard of any that teach dual spear. That's not to say that there aren't any, of course. But, if it was an effective fighting style, I imagine it would have been more frequently used.
A spear is mainly for thrusting, though shorter spears can also be used like a staff to block, stun, sweep, etc. What do you get out of holding two of them? Everything you do with a spear (except throwing one) is done better when you hold it with both hands. Having two spears means having two weapons you can't properly use.
This is like thinking that if you can fight with a dagger in each hand, why not fight with 3 daggers in each hand? The more daggers the better, right? They'll fit, after all, you can physically hold them. It's awkward, but no matter, the more the better!
Dual katanas are actually really impractical. What someone would use is something like a wakizashi. One longer sword with a shortsword. That is something that is also done in european sword fighting.
Example:
Two katanas would only get in the way of one another, especially because they rely on thrusts and slashing motions.
Absolutely. There's a couple of great explanations of it on the thread I linked earlier.
Deathmaster Snikch seems to disagree.
Tachis (1300-1600) went againts armor, therefore were pointier and longer 1 handed. Katanas (1600-1900) were heavy thick 2 handed slasher because people stopped using armor.
Efficient dual wielding is for dueling and with blades of different lenght.
Tachi+Kodachi in 1600 Japan.
Rapier+Dagger in 1600 Europe.
Without arrows flying around and in 1v1, another blade can be better for attack and defense than a buckler. You parry and attack at the same time, and both arms can do both.
Very true.
Though, I'd still suggest that it's more practical than dual spears...!
For a bit over a century, specific solders in the Roman army were equipped with three spears.
I'm not going to go in to any more detail than that though.
Those are not spears, those were pillums and they were intended to be thrown before engaging in melee with shield and sword.
Their points were designed to bend after being thrown so the enemy couldn't pick them up.
Pillums are closer to javelins, meant for skirmishing and harrassing prior to main engagement.
They weren't meant to be handled as spears.
Greeks fought with spear, shield and side-sword.
Romans fought with sword, shield and javelins.
Maybe. ;D
I would have to disagree. many games that go for a realistic look fall short and ultimately run into the brick wall of graphic progression that quickly takes what used to look real and makes it look horrible in comparison. This is why the warhammer/wow aesthetic works as it is a stylized aesthetic that does not lose its charm over time.
I do not wish that on AoC but that might end up happening.
Pillum are a subset of javelins, for sure.
Thing is, javelins are a subset of spears.
As such, anyone holding a pillum is holding a javelin, and anyone holding a javelin is holding a spear. So it follows that if a Roman soldier is holding three pillum, they are holding three spears.
They didn't triple-wield them, though. They threw them and then switched to their sword.
That's true - but I did only say they were equipped with them.