Well, here's the thing.

In real life, dual-wielding is an impractical method of combat because of three factors: weight, defensive weakness, and inflexibility. Against someone with a shield, you had pretty much a huge disadvantage, and you couldn't put enough weight behind your swings to break their guard because you'd need to two-hand swing for that.

For this reason, in real life and in most medieval-based games, I don't like the dual-wielding aesthetic.

Lightsabers, however, very much circumvent these flaws. Due to their weight being in the hilt and the gyroscopic effect, it's easy to maintain their momentum. Their ability to deflect blaster fire and how easily they can be whirled gives them great defense. The applications of the forms and Trakata [turning the blade on/off mid-combat] offers flexibility.

As a result, I love the idea of a defensive-oriented dual wielding style, Soresu/Makashi blend, alternating between forward and reverse grips to strengthen the one-handed defense.

Ashoka Tano style probably is the best - 1 normal lightsaber + 1 dagger-type lightsaber, I would prefet that in real life myself

Have to admit her updated style when they aged her last season is really cool. But not in the game. I also like her reverse grip style in her main hand, again not in the game that I have seen.

With respect and good-naturedness, in my studies, I would say Musashi would disagree.

Well, here's the thing.

 

In real life, dual-wielding is an impractical method of combat because of three factors: weight, defensive weakness, and inflexibility. Against someone with a shield, you had pretty much a huge disadvantage, and you couldn't put enough weight behind your swings to break their guard because you'd need to two-hand swing for that.

 

For this reason, in real life and in most medieval-based games, I don't like the dual-wielding aesthetic.

 

Lightsabers, however, very much circumvent these flaws. Due to their weight being in the hilt and the gyroscopic effect, it's easy to maintain their momentum. Their ability to deflect blaster fire and how easily they can be whirled gives them great defense. The applications of the forms and Trakata [turning the blade on/off mid-combat] offers flexibility.

 

As a result, I love the idea of a defensive-oriented dual wielding style, Soresu/Makashi blend, alternating between forward and reverse grips to strengthen the one-handed defense.

Form V: The same style as Anakin Skywalker used in the prequels either that or Sorensu (Form III) that Obi Wan used.

Single lightsaber with a Shoto back up just in case I ever had to fight someone that used a lightwhip.

With respect and good-naturedness, in my studies, I would say Musashi would disagree.

No he wouldn't. Musashi used two swords against multiple inferior opponents. He used a single sword when facing the very best opponents. Musashi taught to master a blade in each hand so you would have superior control and mastery when using a single blade with both hands.

Vaapad. Although it was created far after the time of TOR, I like how Windu fights.

Would be useless in real life, since it relies on the opponents inner dark side of the force.

i choose...

DEATHSTAR!

Well, here's the thing.

 

In real life, dual-wielding is an impractical method of combat because of three factors: weight, defensive weakness, and inflexibility. Against someone with a shield, you had pretty much a huge disadvantage, and you couldn't put enough weight behind your swings to break their guard because you'd need to two-hand swing for that.

 

For this reason, in real life and in most medieval-based games, I don't like the dual-wielding aesthetic.

 

Lightsabers, however, very much circumvent these flaws. Due to their weight being in the hilt and the gyroscopic effect, it's easy to maintain their momentum. Their ability to deflect blaster fire and how easily they can be whirled gives them great defense. The applications of the forms and Trakata [turning the blade on/off mid-combat] offers flexibility.

 

As a result, I love the idea of a defensive-oriented dual wielding style, Soresu/Makashi blend, alternating between forward and reverse grips to strengthen the one-handed defense.

Sorry but this is wrong on so many levels I have no intention of addressing them all.

Suffice to say, a number of dual wield martial styles have been practiced for centuries with great success since the earliest days of the gladiator and beyond. Wielding two blades affords greater manoeuvrability and flexibility than traditional sword and board, or two hander's, and is no less effective in defence, and even against heavily armoured opponents is effective due to the aforementioned flexibility and speed, the style easily allows one to exploit a cumbersome opponent, as no armour is invulnerable.

Duel wielding is so effective; it was banned or dropped from a number of fencing and martial weapon competitions as offering an unfair advantage against more static styles.

Sorry but this is wrong on so many levels I have no intention of addressing them all.

 

Suffice to say, a number of dual wield martial styles have been practiced for centuries with great success since the earliest days of the gladiator and beyond. Wielding two blades affords greater manoeuvrability and flexibility than traditional sword and board, or two hander's, and is no less effective in defence, and even against heavily armoured opponents is effective due to the aforementioned flexibility and speed, the style easily allows one to exploit a cumbersome opponent, as no armour is invulnerable.

 

Duel wielding is so effective; it was banned or dropped from a number of fencing and martial weapon competitions as offering an unfair advantage against more static styles.

No, unless you learnt fencing from "Gladiators - Gods of the arena".

Dual wield can be faster of both 1h&shield and 2h, but lacks the defensive options of the first and the offensive option of the latter (reach and momentum).

In fight without armors i will put my chances on dual wield, in almost any other situations the other two options complements themselves (and surclass any dw user).

Sorry but this is wrong on so many levels I have no intention of addressing them all.

 

Suffice to say, a number of dual wield martial styles have been practiced for centuries with great success since the earliest days of the gladiator and beyond. Wielding two blades affords greater manoeuvrability and flexibility than traditional sword and board, or two hander's, and is no less effective in defence, and even against heavily armoured opponents is effective due to the aforementioned flexibility and speed, the style easily allows one to exploit a cumbersome opponent, as no armour is invulnerable.

 

Duel wielding is so effective; it was banned or dropped from a number of fencing and martial weapon competitions as offering an unfair advantage against more static styles.

The problem is everything you just said only applies to one-on-one combat, such as duels. Which I never contested dual-wielding's effectiveness of.

Dual-wielding is perfectly good for a one on one fight, such as between gladiators.

But that's not what real combat is.

The problem is that it's no good on a battlefield, where you have well-armed enemies with shields everywhere. It lacks defense and will get you killed in warfare.

Also, 'effective against heavily armored opponents'. This is not true at all, and you have no idea how armor works. You can't put enough power behind a one-handed blow to pierce plate armor unless you use a mace, and maces are horribly balanced for dual-wielding.

Furthermore, you ever faced someone with a shield? Those ain't just for blocking, bro. If you go in with two short-swords [because you can't dual wield longblades, try it] he will smash the hell out of you with that bad boy and then gut you.

But hey, you wanna disagree? Good luck with that.

Oh, also, because I'm sick of weeaboo jerks bringing him up:

Miyamoto Musashi only ever used dual-wielding in one recorded duel, after he killed the leader of the Yoshioka school and a dozen supporters, mostly armed with sticks or NOT AT ALL, attacked him. He was forced to use two blades just to keep himself from getting surrounded.

After that, he felt inspired to create his niten'ichi style, which there is NO RECORD of him ever using in a duel afterwards. He used freaking bokken [wooden swords] more than anything from then on. If someone's good enough to kill you with bokken, it doesn't matter what he uses. Musashi was an incredible swordsman, but that says nothing about dual-wielding.

There's no practicality to dual-wielding, and the only reason it saw use at -all- in Japan is because THEY DIDN'T HAVE PROPER METAL AND WOOD TO MAKE SHIELDS WITH. And even then it was only used in close quarters.

I am not 100% disagreing with you but when you start spouting incomplete facts at people you are just begging for someone to come and tear your post to shreds.

The different kind of weapons mentioned in your post and in earlier all have their strong sides and their weak sides. For example, a two-hander has an increases range of which people can be hit and the power it strikes with is almost doubled compared to one-handed weapons. But your flexibility, as mentioned before, is taking some blows and your defence is worse than that of a shield wearer.

This can be applied to every kind of weapon. All of them have their strong suits and their weak suits. Some may be better off against other weapons but they might be as good to another weapon.

Who said anything about piercing the armor? You do know that you can bypass the armor by hitting the weakspots, aka the joints?

Your usage of the term "real combat" is mindboggingly stupid, combat does not equal war. Combat is the act when two or more people use violence on each other to inflict harm. Something called "real combat" is a term that is nonexistent and frankly does not make any sense.

I can agree with you that a shield can be used as a weapon, but saying that someone with a shield facing someone without a shield would "smash the hell out of him" is very unlikely. A shield CAN be used as a weapon but is a very inefficient weapon due to it's short reach and low attack power.

About your statement that "THEY DIDN'T HAVE PROPER METAL AND WOOD TO MAKE SHIELDS WITH", I would very much like to see some proof backing up that statement. I doubt you will ever find anything to back this up (because there is none).

But hey, you wanna talk back? Good luck with that.

There could be some misspelled words in there and some holes, but hey, it's late!

Okay, let's see.

First off: "Bypassing the armor by hitting weak spots." Have you ever tried this in real life? As in, really tried it against someone with a shield? The precision required is nearly superhuman, and even if you do have the accuracy for it, getting in on someone with a shield is extremely difficult. I'm not saying it's impossible, but the point is, while you're trying to do that, you've got an angry guy with a shield and sword in a very good position to **** you up as you try and stab him through his guard.

I'll concede about the 'real combat' usage, bad term on my part. Fair enough.

Shields make much better weapons than you give them credit for. Keep in mind that they were built for deflection and ease of use, and that you can easily smash someone's hand with a shield. Furthermore, the short reach is negated against a dual wielder, because a shield has similar range to that of a blade short enough to dual-wield [which is approximately between twenty to twenty-eight centimeters].

As for the metal and wood, do you just not know much about Japan? They used bamboo for their woodcraft, which while strong for bows and spears, isn't suitable for shieldwork. As for metal, it's pretty widely known that Japan, due to being an isolated island nation, had limited resources. Why do you think the common soldier used a spear instead of a sword? Because spears only required a small biit of metal and a shaft of bamboo. Swords of all kinds were the privilege of those who could afford them, and the steel that Japan did have was weak and low quality - that's why katanas were made by folding steel, the folding process was to reinforce the brittle metal.

Okay, let's see.

 

First off: "Bypassing the armor by hitting weak spots." Have you ever tried this in real life? As in, really tried it against someone with a shield? The precision required is nearly superhuman, and even if you do have the accuracy for it, getting in on someone with a shield is extremely difficult. I'm not saying it's impossible, but the point is, while you're trying to do that, you've got an angry guy with a shield and sword in a very good position to **** you up as you try and stab him through his guard.

 

I'll concede about the 'real combat' usage, bad term on my part. Fair enough.

 

Shields make much better weapons than you give them credit for. Keep in mind that they were built for deflection and ease of use, and that you can easily smash someone's hand with a shield. Furthermore, the short reach is negated against a dual wielder, because a shield has similar range to that of a blade short enough to dual-wield [which is approximately between twenty to twenty-eight centimeters].

 

As for the metal and wood, do you just not know much about Japan? They used bamboo for their woodcraft, which while strong for bows and spears, isn't suitable for shieldwork. As for metal, it's pretty widely known that Japan, due to being an isolated island nation, had limited resources. Why do you think the common soldier used a spear instead of a sword? Because spears only required a small biit of metal and a shaft of bamboo. Swords of all kinds were the privilege of those who could afford them, and the steel that Japan did have was weak and low quality - that's why katanas were made by folding steel, the folding process was to reinforce the brittle metal.

To be fair the sword is a romanticized weapon period. The spear has always been the favored weapon on the battle field due to how well it works in both formations and even one on one fights. A lot of people think "You just need to get in against someone with a spear" but in reality that isn't easy against someone knowledgeable in it's use.

To be fair the sword is a romanticized weapon period. The spear has always been the favored weapon on the battle field due to how well it works in both formations and even one on one fights. A lot of people think "You just need to get in against someone with a spear" but in reality that isn't easy against someone knowledgeable in it's use.

This is very true, and usually it -was- that the common soldiers favored spears. That said, in European and Arabic warfare, swords and other metal-heavy weapons were in use a lot more because there was more metal to be found than in Japan.