Dayne dual wielding

[sweetsunray]

23 hours ago, House Toad said:

A curious question passed by, what is the difference between Dawn and Lightbringer? Two names but seemingly the same description? Maybe nothing in it?

Both glow, except one in the right hands burned. Dawn was made out of the fragments of a falling star, one of the oldest swords in the realm, living with the Dayne's for thousands of years, sharing features almost similar to the Whitewalker's weapons, when having the description of the Palesword?

Actually Lightbringer is described as drinking light, whereas Dawn reflects light. When LIghtbringer gives light it's the light of a fire. Dawn's light is the glow of the moon (aka reflective).

[House Toad]

36 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

Actually Lightbringer is described as drinking light, whereas Dawn reflects light. When LIghtbringer gives light it's the light of a fire. Dawn's light is the glow of the moon (aka reflective).

Lightbringer means brings light, what happens at Dawn. The description is the same title despite of any other worded variations. Dawn's light is a palesword, maybe because it hasn't been wielded in a time of need by its hero? Who has paleswords the Whitewalkers. Only assumptions, but where is Lightbringer today? If in adding a formula justifying the need for past legends of Azor Azhai, Jon's resurrection combating Winter in a time of need. The sword is as baffling, because Stannis only had a parlor trick? There is the age and metal of Dawn to be accounted for, but I don't know where the horn is, do you?

[sweetsunray]

23 minutes ago, House Toad said:

Lightbringer means brings light, what happens at Dawn. The description is the same title despite of any other worded variations. Dawn's light is a palesword, maybe because it hasn't been wielded in a time of need by its hero? Who has paleswords the Whitewalkers. Only assumptions, but where is Lightbringer today? If in adding a formula justifying the need for past legends of Azor Azhai, Jon's resurrection combating Winter in a time of need. The sword is as baffling, because Stannis only had a parlor trick? There is the age and metal of Dawn to be accounted for, but I don't know where the horn is, do you?

I urge you to read one of Lml's essays on this, but it's related to the making legend of Lightbringer (that involves blood sacrifice), and the dual Venus planet that in our world appears at dusk and at dawn and therefore often is part of legends where a hero dies and falls to the night, but is resurrected or returns at dawn. The two swords are certainly thematically related, but the wording used in the releveant passages about both swords (and Valyrian steel) strongly suggest they're not the same sword and are in opposition as each other as dusk opposes dawn. BTW the name Lucifer means Lightbringer.

[House Toad]

19 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

I urge you to read one of Lml's essays on this, but it's related to the making legend of Lightbringer (that involves blood sacrifice), and the dual Venus planet that in our world appears at dusk and at dawn and therefore often is part of legends where a hero dies and falls to the night, but is resurrected or returns at dawn. The two swords are certainly thematically related, but the wording used in the releveant passages about both swords (and Valyrian steel) strongly suggest they're not the same sword and are in opposition as each other as dusk opposes dawn. BTW the name Lucifer means Lightbringer.

Who is Lml's, I am the new boy, haven't read those essays? Dusk doesn't bring light for any clarity, unless it's the light of a Palesword, whereas Dawn heralds the sun. I was unaware that Lightbringer was Valyrian steel. Except the show's efforts of Valyrian steel being the next obsidian. I know Dawn is made out of starfall the falling fragments of a meteor.

However to spin a web. Those red priests have got to be good for something else, favoring their flaming swords? Hmm, but the spell works on the right sword otherwise it's a sword dipped in pyromancy, resulting in rather lackluster effect outside of the amused bedazzlement of a firestick?

Who knows, it was worth a guess? Because of their apparent symmetries. Lucifer is also known as the Stranger, that's nice to know?

[sweetsunray]

6 minutes ago, House Toad said:

Who is Lml's, I am the new boy, haven't read those essays? Dusk doesn't bring light for any clarity, unless it's the light of a Palesword, whereas Dawn heralds the sun. I was unaware that Lightbringer was Valyrian steel. Except the show's efforts of Valyrian steel being the next obsidian. I know Dawn is made out of starfall the falling fragments of a meteor.

However to spin a web. Those red priests have got to be good for something else, favoring their flaming swords? Hmm, but the spell works on the right sword otherwise it's a sword dipped in pyromancy, resulting in rather lackluster effect outside of the amused bedazzlement of a firestick?

Who knows, it was worth a guess? Because of their apparent symmetries. Lucifer is also known as the Stranger, that's nice to know?

https://lucifermeanslightbringer.wordpress.com/2015/05/12/astronomy-explains-the-legends-of-planetos/

While he makes a theory about the cause of the Long Night, he also goes into parallels and sword legends. No, i'ts not certain Lightbringer was Valyrian steel, but one sword has blood sacrifice in its legend and it "drank the blood", while VS is rumored to include blood sacrifice and is always described as steel that "drinks light".

[House Toad]

16 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

https://lucifermeanslightbringer.wordpress.com/2015/05/12/astronomy-explains-the-legends-of-planetos/

While he makes a theory about the cause of the Long Night, he also goes into parallels and sword legends. No, i'ts not certain Lightbringer was Valyrian steel, but one sword has blood sacrifice in its legend and it "drank the blood", while VS is rumored to include blood sacrifice and is always described as steel that "drinks light".

Thank you for the essay, it was an interesting and thought provoking read.

I am as confused of where it states within the book passages Lightbringer is made out of Valyrian steel? We had the crafting of a weapon and what gave it its flame, her sacrifice? They both drank blood Arthur Dayne best swordsman in the realm, and Lightbringer with Nissa's sacrifice giving it its flame.

We will find out the details in the next book there is clearly a lot more to this, at this point we are only guessing at the worded differences.

[sweetsunray]

Just now, House Toad said:

Thank you for the essay, it was interesting and thought provoking read.

 

I am as confused of where it states within the book passages Lightbringer is made out of Valyrian steel? We had the crafting of a weapon and what gave it its flame, her sacrifice? They both drank blood Arthur Dayne best swordsman in the realm, and Lightbringer with Nissa's sacrifice giving it its flame.

We will find out the details at this point we are only guessing at the worded differences.

That one's jsut the first. The others include sword stuff too.

[Ran]

On 5/11/2016 at 0:14 PM, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

I actually really liked the fight itself, though the direction of the scene was a little underwhelming.

I have a feeling that the dual wielding was a function of having to fight so many opponents at once. I'd guess that having something like a Zweihander (greatsword) which involves long slow powerful swings would make it quite easy to pick someone off if they were outnumbered by smaller faster opponents. 

From what I understood about the german use of those massive swords, they would generally be in bigger packed formations and used against pikes etc, where numbers would give them an element of safety against flank attacks etc. 

The fighting in the scene was awesome though.

Keep seeing this thread popping up so decided to read what folks were saying! Can't help but note that in fact historically greatswords were favored by bodyguards precisely because they were excellent against multiple opponents. See http://www.stoccata.org/index.php/styles/italian-greatsword-spadone

There's a decent example of why this was the case in this fellow (an amateur enthusiast, I'll note, not the greatest knight in the realm!) going through movements from a historical text, divided up into specific movements suitable for different scenarios:

Basically the greatsword was kept moving, keeping opponents at bay, and then presumably you found opportunities to do some damage. So realistically, a (very) skilled knight with a greatsword (a lighter-than-usual, sharper-than-usual greatsword at that) would both look visually quite skillful and at the same time would indeed be able to realistically fend off multiple foes.

That said, I think the truth is that choreographing a fight using such techniques and such a weapon would probably seem too dangerous and likely to lead to injury, so I'm not surprised it wasn't used.

[House Toad]

1 hour ago, sweetsunray said:

That one's jsut the first. The others include sword stuff too.

It might have been implied that Azor Ahai could have forged a Valyrian steel blade out of Lightbringer crafting the sword 3 times before finally plunging it into Nissa's heart giving it its fire? Due to the way that Valyrian steel blades are forged like Joffrey's Hearteater, from former Valyrian steel weaponry. Although the process of sword crafting Valyrian Steel is lost from the Doom? Valyrian steel blades are handed down now, or won, staying in houses for centuries or longer. Dawn is thousands of years old. The process is quite similar in creating blades, like in the way Samurai swords are forged where the metal is tempered thousands of times making weapons of such magnificent sharpness and durability. Unfortunately we don't quite know all of the craft behind Dawn, except that it was made out of otherworldly star or meteorite fragments. We haven't been specifically told Lightbringer is Valyrian steel.

I was speculating by formulating that with the legend of Azor Ahai who wasn't Stanni reborn, but Stannis had arrivied in time to save somebody who could now be possibly taking on that legend in fighting the same ancient threat. With the legend now about to unfold of who Jon is? Where is the sword, because we have the hero? Melisandre had also previously preformed sacrifice when making Stannis other fake burning weapon.

With the show omitting from our guesses through this topic's dual wield, it was only assumption, but they have there differences the show and the books. There is so much more to these legends from the author's words of what  all of the differences between the deities of ice and fire are, we really don't know very much about the Whitewalkers yet, and there is more to come form Asshai. Although it would be quite curious of how it translates into these two mentioned weapons, apart from certain contrasting descriptions?

[Chicxulub]

Guys, Dawn was unquestionably present in this episode.  I know that quite a few people have said this already, but here is a good screenshot I took showing quite clearly the rippling.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v243/robwazhere/dawn_zps7adgiaek.jpg

Now I know that Dawn doesn't really look like it's described in the books, but then again in this show, WHAT DOES?  Lol.  What other bright, whitish, ripply Valyrian steel looking sword could Arthur Dayne possibly be carrying?

Also, in the entire ASOIAF series, there is only (as far I as I know anyway) only one canon image/detailed description of a Sword of the Morning which appears anywhere.  It is very much worth noting that the only known example of a canon Sword of the Morning is wearing a second long sword EXACTLY as the show depicted Ser Arthur to do.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v243/robwazhere/13180889_10154132599759417_1919009390_n_zpshn2wabqk.jpg

This makes a ton of sense thematically as well.  In order to become the SotM, one must first become an incredibly skilled warrior.  Said incredibly skilled warrior had to EARN Dawn, which means that he didn't get it at 12 to begin training with.  It stands to reason that someone who earns the right to be called SotM and carry Dawn would probably have an extremely fine castleforged blade, and many men who have worked long and hard with such a blade would probably be loath to part with it.  Like it or not, the show seems to have gotten Arthur more 'right' than many here want to admit.

Does this mean that the SotM/Ser Arthur would dual wield them?  No, it doesn't.  However, it's not outside of the realm of the possible that a peerless warrior COULD successfully do it in a universe where we have eight foot tall dudes crushing people's skulls, ice demons, dragons and blood magic.

[Darksky]

Apart from making him that much more badass, having Arthur dual-wield allowed them to have the Stark men come at him at once. One sword would mean another standard Hollywood melee where the characters take turns attacking. That'd be awful. 

What's also impressive are the long takes. Normally, a typical movie swordfight is all about short takes, quick cuts and lots of close-ups. But not in this case,. The direction they went with is hard and daring, but they made it work in a spectacular manner. And every stunt choreographer would admit to how grueling it is to successfully stage a fight with multiple opponents and weapons involved without it being corny.

[The Fattest Leech]

3 hours ago, Chicxulub said:

Guys, Dawn was unquestionably present in this episode.  I know that quite a few people have said this already, but here is a good screenshot I took showing quite clearly the rippling.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v243/robwazhere/dawn_zps7adgiaek.jpg

Now I know that Dawn doesn't really look like it's described in the books, but then again in this show, WHAT DOES?  Lol.  What other bright, whitish, ripply Valyrian steel looking sword could Arthur Dayne possibly be carrying?

Also, in the entire ASOIAF series, there is only (as far I as I know anyway) only one canon image/detailed description of a Sword of the Morning which appears anywhere.  It is very much worth noting that the only known example of a canon Sword of the Morning is wearing a second long sword EXACTLY as the show depicted Ser Arthur to do.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v243/robwazhere/13180889_10154132599759417_1919009390_n_zpshn2wabqk.jpg

This makes a ton of sense thematically as well.  In order to become the SotM, one must first become an incredibly skilled warrior.  Said incredibly skilled warrior had to EARN Dawn, which means that he didn't get it at 12 to begin training with.  It stands to reason that someone who earns the right to be called SotM and carry Dawn would probably have an extremely fine castleforged blade, and many men who have worked long and hard with such a blade would probably be loath to part with it.  Like it or not, the show seems to have gotten Arthur more 'right' than many here want to admit.

Does this mean that the SotM/Ser Arthur would dual wield them?  No, it doesn't.  However, it's not outside of the realm of the possible that a peerless warrior COULD successfully do it in a universe where we have eight foot tall dudes crushing people's skulls, ice demons, dragons and blood magic.

The picture you showed is from the World book and it shows Arthur Dayne with three different types of stabbers. The one on his right hip is a short blade, maybe a dagger, not sure of the technical term. The one on his left hip (that you can see sticking out behind him) is a typical hand (hand and a half?) parlay fight sword. The big long great sword is most likely Dawn. Each do a very different job and are hardly used at the same time as the show is leading viewers to believe.

Here is a great video that explains the historic (in)accuracy of dual wielding and why it was not done.

No, this does not give any secret insight to Arthur Dayne and it took me way away from the story I was watching because it looked awful. Magic and dragons and such are the fantasy part, but for that to work and not seem too cheesy, you have to contrast it with the limits of reality... such as this. I have read some fantasies that are too unbelievable to be enjoyable.

Sorry, have to draw on the books for a second to help make a point.

Bronn fought with two swords because he only did that in one short skirmish with the Mountain Clans when he had his sword out and was fighting on horseback, fell off then grabbed another fallen guys sword. He carried a short dagger and a long sword at all other times. I only remember this small detail because I re-listened to this part of the book a few days ago while driving.

Shagga had an axe and a club and then an axe and a shield and then, yes, an axe and an axe. But axes are not long swords to get tangled in each other. And, when Shagga has his two axes, he throws one while he cleaves other people in the chest. Then he retrieves his thrown axe and bangs the two together to celebrate

Again, Daario with an arakh and dagger is a long sword and a small dagger. They can be used independently for different fighting styles or together in a slash/jab/parry type fighting.

None of these examples have a swordsman simultaneously draw two long swords and wield them without them getting in the way of each other while he is poked in the eyes like a stooge. Sorry. I hate to be a balloon popper.

[Chicxulub]

1 hour ago, The Fattest Leech said:

The picture you showed is from the World book and it shows Arthur Dayne with three different types of stabbers. The one on his right hip is a short blade, maybe a dagger, not sure of the technical term. The one on his left hip (that you can see sticking out behind him) is a typical hand (hand and a half?) parlay fight sword. The big long great sword is most likely Dawn. Each do a very different job and are hardly used at the same time as the show is leading viewers to believe.

Here is a great video that explains the historic (in)accuracy of dual wielding and why it was not done.

No, this does not give any secret insight to Arthur Dayne and it took me way away from the story I was watching because it looked awful. Magic and dragons and such are the fantasy part, but for that to work and not seem too cheesy, you have to contrast it with the limits of reality... such as this. I have read some fantasies that are too unbelievable to be enjoyable.

Sorry, have to draw on the books for a second to help make a point.

Bronn fought with two swords because he only did that in one short skirmish with the Mountain Clans when he had his sword out and was fighting on horseback, fell off then grabbed another fallen guys sword. He carried a short dagger and a long sword at all other times. I only remember this small detail because I re-listened to this part of the book a few days ago while driving.

Shagga had an axe and a club and then an axe and a shield and then, yes, an axe and an axe. But axes are not long swords to get tangled in each other. And, when Shagga has his two axes, he throws one while he cleaves other people in the chest. Then he retrieves his thrown axe and bangs the two together to celebrate

Again, Daario with an arakh and dagger is a long sword and a small dagger. They can be used independently for different fighting styles or together in a slash/jab/parry type fighting.

None of these examples have a swordsman simultaneously draw two long swords and wield them without them getting in the way of each other while he is poked in the eyes like a stooge. Sorry. I hate to be a balloon popper.

You're not popping any balloons!

I think you misunderstood me my friend.  I wasn't attempting to defend the show having him dual wield, rather just defend the portrayal of a man who holds the office of Sword of the Morning HAVING an arming sword in addition to a dagger and Dawn is canon, as (sorta) depicted in the show.  And in the World Book, it states that man is a Sword of the Morning, but it does NOT state that it is Arthur Dayne.

My point about the plausibility in our magical world is simply that if we're going to suspend belief on some things, the idea that someone is capable of doing something that's not possible in reality should be considered.  I've never really understood how people can quibble over realism on things in a high fantasy book, but that's just me.

[goomba]

1 hour ago, The Fattest Leech said:

The picture you showed is from the World book and it shows Arthur Dayne with three different types of stabbers. The one on his right hip is a short blade, maybe a dagger, not sure of the technical term. The one on his left hip (that you can see sticking out behind him) is a typical hand (hand and a half?) parlay fight sword. The big long great sword is most likely Dawn. Each do a very different job and are hardly used at the same time as the show is leading viewers to believe.

Here is a great video that explains the historic (in)accuracy of dual wielding and why it was not done.

No, this does not give any secret insight to Arthur Dayne and it took me way away from the story I was watching because it looked awful. Magic and dragons and such are the fantasy part, but for that to work and not seem too cheesy, you have to contrast it with the limits of reality... such as this. I have read some fantasies that are too unbelievable to be enjoyable.

Sorry, have to draw on the books for a second to help make a point.

Bronn fought with two swords because he only did that in one short skirmish with the Mountain Clans when he had his sword out and was fighting on horseback, fell off then grabbed another fallen guys sword. He carried a short dagger and a long sword at all other times. I only remember this small detail because I re-listened to this part of the book a few days ago while driving.

Shagga had an axe and a club and then an axe and a shield and then, yes, an axe and an axe. But axes are not long swords to get tangled in each other. And, when Shagga has his two axes, he throws one while he cleaves other people in the chest. Then he retrieves his thrown axe and bangs the two together to celebrate 

Again, Daario with an arakh and dagger is a long sword and a small dagger. They can be used independently for different fighting styles or together in a slash/jab/parry type fighting.

None of these examples have a swordsman simultaneously draw two long swords and wield them without them getting in the way of each other while he is poked in the eyes like a stooge. Sorry. I hate to be a balloon popper.

ahaha, yes!

shagga is indeed awesome  

[The Fattest Leech]

11 hours ago, Chicxulub said:

You're not popping any balloons!

I think you misunderstood me my friend.  I wasn't attempting to defend the show having him dual wield, rather just defend the portrayal of a man who holds the office of Sword of the Morning HAVING an arming sword in addition to a dagger and Dawn is canon, as (sorta) depicted in the show.  And in the World Book, it states that man is a Sword of the Morning, but it does NOT state that it is Arthur Dayne.

My point about the plausibility in our magical world is simply that if we're going to suspend belief on some things, the idea that someone is capable of doing something that's not possible in reality should be considered.  I've never really understood how people can quibble over realism on things in a high fantasy book, but that's just me.

Sorry. I guess I did misunderstand your post.

Arthur was the last Sword of the Morning. As of right now that title is open, waiting to be filled. (and more than enough theories to fill an additional World size book ) But this World book does say that Arthur was "the most famous of all" in regards to being SotM. (pg 239). There are atleast 17 references to Arthur being the SotM. I also agree that the show gave us nothing more than a guy swinging two unimportant swords. All symbolism, which tells of character, is belittled and lost.

When telling a story, even high fantasy, you have to have some bumpers, some resistance, some limitations, or nothing is important or a struggle- all of which develops a characters personality. Martin has even stated he is against it in various ways. This goes for religion as well, something I can totally appreciate  Dragons are good (especially ice dragons ). Humans doing unhuman things because plot demands, ehhh, it gets a little thin there and moves into penny-rag territory. In-world magic in ASOIAF is not even a sure thing. 

"I don't think any gods are likely to be showing up in Westeros, any more than they already do. We're not going to have one appearing, deus ex machina, to affect the outcomes of things, no matter how hard anyone prays. So the relation between the religions and the various magics that some people have here is something that the reader can try to puzzle out."

[Forlong the Fat]

13 hours ago, The Fattest Leech said:

The picture you showed is from the World book and it shows Arthur Dayne with three different types of stabbers. The one on his right hip is a short blade, maybe a dagger, not sure of the technical term. The one on his left hip (that you can see sticking out behind him) is a typical hand (hand and a half?) parlay fight sword. The big long great sword is most likely Dawn. Each do a very different job and are hardly used at the same time as the show is leading viewers to believe.

Here is a great video that explains the historic (in)accuracy of dual wielding and why it was not done.

No, this does not give any secret insight to Arthur Dayne and it took me way away from the story I was watching because it looked awful. Magic and dragons and such are the fantasy part, but for that to work and not seem too cheesy, you have to contrast it with the limits of reality... such as this. I have read some fantasies that are too unbelievable to be enjoyable.

Sorry, have to draw on the books for a second to help make a point.

Bronn fought with two swords because he only did that in one short skirmish with the Mountain Clans when he had his sword out and was fighting on horseback, fell off then grabbed another fallen guys sword. He carried a short dagger and a long sword at all other times. I only remember this small detail because I re-listened to this part of the book a few days ago while driving.

Shagga had an axe and a club and then an axe and a shield and then, yes, an axe and an axe. But axes are not long swords to get tangled in each other. And, when Shagga has his two axes, he throws one while he cleaves other people in the chest. Then he retrieves his thrown axe and bangs the two together to celebrate

Again, Daario with an arakh and dagger is a long sword and a small dagger. They can be used independently for different fighting styles or together in a slash/jab/parry type fighting.

None of these examples have a swordsman simultaneously draw two long swords and wield them without them getting in the way of each other while he is poked in the eyes like a stooge. Sorry. I hate to be a balloon popper.

I find your proof from the book to be dubious. You've cited three different examples of people wielding two weapons, including two swords. In addition, in the new sample chapter, GRRM has referenced a Golden Company member named "Two Swords." And the Worldbook picture referenced above shows Dayne with two swords similar to what was shown in the show. 

Then there's the fact that several historical sources establish instruction on two sword techniques. http://www.hroarr.com/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2014/06/Terminiello-Piermarco-Reich-Steven-Fighting-with-two-swords-according-to-Altoni-and-Docciolini-2013.pdf

http://www.freelanceacademypress.com/manciolinotwoswords.aspx

People's hang up in this issue is just mystifying to me. It's clear that using two swords at the same time was not typical, but that it happened. An important reason not to do it is that most people wouldn't be capable of doing it well. Hence, showing someone do it establishes mastery of a very difficult technique. Something you might expect the best swordsman in history to be able to do. 

[The Fattest Leech]

32 minutes ago, Forlong the Fat said:

I find your proof from the book to be dubious. You've cited three different examples of people wielding two weapons, including two swords. In addition, in the new sample chapter, GRRM has referenced a Golden Company member named "Two Swords." And the Worldbook picture referenced above shows Dayne with two swords similar to what was shown in the show. 

Then there's the fact that several historical sources establish instruction on two sword techniques. http://www.hroarr.com/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2014/06/Terminiello-Piermarco-Reich-Steven-Fighting-with-two-swords-according-to-Altoni-and-Docciolini-2013.pdf

http://www.freelanceacademypress.com/manciolinotwoswords.aspx

People's hang up in this issue is just mystifying to me. It's clear that using two swords at the same time was not typical, but that it happened. An important reason not to do it is that most people wouldn't be capable of doing it well. Hence, showing someone do it establishes mastery of a very difficult technique. Something you might expect the best swordsman in history to be able to do. 

Again, those weapons were not used in active battle the entire time, or where not of the same size (one dagger, one long), as the book described.

And you think that the name Two Swords means the guy literally uses two swords at once, all the time? Is that how the book is being interpreted in the show? Literally literal? The quote from Arianne 2 says, "Two Swords and his fondness for red-haired women," so chances are one sword is his steel and one is his penis. That is a very common theme in the books.

And what you cited also says that one of the weapons has to be shorter than the other, as I stated and the video I posted made very clear. I put the cited quote below.

Also, what you cited refers to the stories as being ahistorical, and that definition: is not concerned with or related to history, historical development, or tradition <an ahistorical attitude>; also :  historically inaccurate or ignorant http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ahistorical

It hangs me up when I'm ready to watch something and enjoy it but am immediately taken out of it because something just looks implausibly wrong. Dragons I can live with. Magic and little children of the forest? Sure, because those are fantasy. A regular human doing "super human" stuff like this... not so much. I turn to the X-Men when I want something along those lines.

"Two swords, one shorter than the other, with an armoured forearm

were used in at least two famous duels in."

 

[Forlong the Fat]

1 hour ago, The Fattest Leech said:

Again, those weapons were not used in active battle the entire time, or where not of the same size (one dagger, one long), as the book described.

And you think that the name Two Swords means the guy literally uses two swords at once, all the time? Is that how the book is being interpreted in the show? Literally literal? The quote from Arianne 2 says, "Two Swords and his fondness for red-haired women," so chances are one sword is his steel and one is his penis. That is a very common theme in the books.

And what you cited also says that one of the weapons has to be shorter than the other, as I stated and the video I posted made very clear. I put the cited quote below.

Also, what you cited refers to the stories as being ahistorical, and that definition: is not concerned with or related to history, historical development, or tradition <an ahistorical attitude>; also :  historically inaccurate or ignorant http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ahistorical

It hangs me up when I'm ready to watch something and enjoy it but am immediately taken out of it because something just looks implausibly wrong. Dragons I can live with. Magic and little children of the forest? Sure, because those are fantasy. A regular human doing "super human" stuff like this... not so much. I turn to the X-Men when I want something along those lines.

"Two swords, one shorter than the other, with an armoured forearm

were used in at least two famous duels in."

 

Let me be a bit clearer on my criticism of your book proof.  The fact that several people are referenced as wielding two weapons at the same time, including two swords, doesn't make it less likely that Dayne would wield dual swords.  It doesn't prove that he would, of course, but it certainly doesn't support the proposition that doing so would be ridiculous.  At best this evidence is inconclusive.

As to Two Swords, I suppose it is possible the name refers to the fact that he has both a sword and penis.  The main argument against that interpretation is that the nickname would describe very nearly every one of the 10,000 members of the Golden Company.  One would expect a nickname to describe something unusual about him (eg., that he likes to fight with two swords).  Having a penis, a sword, and enjoying sex, hardly seem like unusual characteristics.  But, without anything more, it would be hard to make any firm conclusion.

Your argument about "ahistorical" is simply not intellectually honest.  That word appears exactly once in the cited material, in this sentence:  "The use of the term “Florentine” to denote the practice of fighting with two weapons (or more specifically two swords) is ahistorical, originating within the Society for Creative Anachronism (the SCA) in the 1970s."  That sentence by itself makes plain that "ahistorical" refers to the "the use of the term Florentine."  The first sentence of the article says:   "Far from being a modern conceit, combat with two swords at once is described in a number of treatises on historical fencing."  The article goes on to cite several sources concerning instruction on fighting with two swords and historical instances of duels fought with two swords.

As for the question of whether one sword must be shorter than the other, the proposition that people regularly fought with a long and short blade is so well established that it couldn't really be disputed.  But the fact that people frequently found it useful to fight with a second blade doesn't very much help your argument that it is unreasonable to consider the best swordsman in history fighting with two swords.  That people fought with two blades is beyond dispute; the question is whether they ever fought with two long blades.  Here again, the cited article provides unambiguous proof (at page 5) with a quote from Francesco di Sandro Altoni's treatise:  "But having discussed the single sword I think it best, before commencing with other topics, to discuss wielding two full-length swords without other arms, two incomplete swords, and the sword and dagger. Starting with two full-length swords . . ."  The treatise goes on to describe in detail the technique for fighting with two "full-length swords."  Even without this language, it ought to be fairly obvious that, by referring to two "swords," rather than a sword and dagger, the texts are referring to two long blades.  Thus,  Marco Docciolini's text (quoted at page 10) with an entire chapter "On Two Swords" and Mancioloino's text on "The Play of Two Swords" (http://www.freelanceacademypress.com/manciolinotwoswords.aspx) also support the use of two long blades.  Use of long and short blades is covered in chapters on "Sword and Dagger."

[The Fattest Leech]

53 minutes ago, Forlong the Fat said:

Let me be a bit clearer on my criticism of your book proof.  The fact that several people are referenced as wielding two weapons at the same time, including two swords, doesn't make it less likely that Dayne would wield dual swords.  It doesn't prove that he would, of course, but it certainly doesn't support the proposition that doing so would be ridiculous.  At best this evidence is inconclusive.

As to Two Swords, I suppose it is possible the name refers to the fact that he has both a sword and penis.  The main argument against that interpretation is that the nickname would describe very nearly every one of the 10,000 members of the Golden Company.  One would expect a nickname to describe something unusual about him (eg., that he likes to fight with two swords).  Having a penis, a sword, and enjoying sex, hardly seem like unusual characteristics.  But, without anything more, it would be hard to make any firm conclusion.

Your argument about "ahistorical" is simply not intellectually honest....

The articles start out by saying that the accounts are ahistorical. That was not my word or my definition. It doesn't matter if they say it one time, or ten. I was referencing what you posted. I will read it again when I have more time, but more and more it shown that using two long swords in the middle of battle does not work. Most of what was cited in your post were duels- just two people. That could conceivably be easier to do rather than fighting one guy in front of you while simultaneously swinging, deflecting and killing people behind you. What, are they teachers with eyes behind their heads???

Touche on this one : Having a penis, a sword, and enjoying sex, hardly seem like unusual characteristics.  But, without anything more, it would be hard to make any firm conclusion.

I'm sure Ameri Frey doesn't actually have a gate in front of her house... yet e have Gatehouse Ami. (A fav of mine).

Adding: I don't mind discussing this with you, but I will not use up thread space and argue. That happens too often for my liking. Please feel free to pm if you want

[Forlong the Fat]

50 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said:

The articles start out by saying that the accounts are ahistorical. That was not my word or my definition. It doesn't matter if they say it one time, or ten. I was referencing what you posted. I will read it again when I have more time, but more and more it shown that using two long swords in the middle of battle does not work. Most of what was cited in your post were duels- just two people. That could conceivably be easier to do rather than fighting one guy in front of you while simultaneously swinging, deflecting and killing people behind you. What, are they teachers with eyes behind their heads???

Touche on this one : Having a penis, a sword, and enjoying sex, hardly seem like unusual characteristics.  But, without anything more, it would be hard to make any firm conclusion.

I'm sure Ameri Frey doesn't actually have a gate in front of her house... yet e have Gatehouse Ami. (A fav of mine).

Adding: I don't mind discussing this with you, but I will not use up thread space and argue. That happens too often for my liking. Please feel free to pm if you want

What you're saying about the articles is just false.  Show me another sentence where they state, suggest, or imply, by that word or any other, that the accounts are ahistorical.  The entire first paragraph shows the opposite:

"Far from being a modern conceit, combat with two swords at once is described in a number of treatises on historical fencing. Counting Italian sources alone, this combination is covered in no fewer than eleven known treatises.1 No mere novelty, Di Grassi esteems two swords as the strongest combination short of polearms, while Palladini notes it is particularly apt for dealing with multiple opponents.2 "

And the next two paragraphs describe concrete historical descriptions of people fighting with two swords.

"Furthermore encounters with two swords are attested beyond the technical literature. Two swords, one shorter than the other, with an armoured forearm were used in at least two famous duels in the sixteenth Century involving the renowned condottiere Ascanio della Corgna, against the Count of Carpegna (in Bologna) and Giovanni Taddei respectively (the latter, on the 26th March 1546, was dubbed the “duel of the century”, watched by nearly three thousand people and later painted by Niccolò Circignani in 1575). While Martin du Bellay recounts another notable duel with two swords between the Seigneur de Sarzay and the Seigneur de Veniers in 1538, in the presence of Francis I of France.3"

As I noted above, the only thing noted as being ahistorical is "The use of the term “Florentine” to denote the practice of fighting with two weapons (or more specifically two swords)."

How can an entire article, titled  "Combat with Two Swords According to Francesco di Sandro Altoni (c.1540) and Marco Docciolini (1601)," citing eleven separate Italian treatises provide instruction on fighting with two swords, and describing historical instances of people fighting with two swords, possibly suggest that fighting with two swords didn't happen?