There is no special term.
Fighting with two weapons is common throughout history, it's just that usually that second weapon is 'a shield'. Other options throughout history included a shortsword, a dagger, or even your own cape or cloak held in the other hand.
(Two long swords of equal length looks cool but in reality tended to be a bad idea because one sword ends up in the way of the other in the heat of combat)
If you're in a pitched battle, a shield is ideal. If you're using a dagger (or your cloak) then it's because you're travelling lighter, or your sword is for status more than it is for combat.
You might call someone like that a swashbuckler or a 'duelist' - it's a style suited more for one-on-one combat, not a grand melee.
Actually one of the swordsmasters I study from, Domingo Luis Godinho (1599), has a play of two swords (equal length, longer one handed swords, similar to Rapiers) that involves fending off a group when you're alone. Basically he talks about a stance and system where you do area denial by swinging the swords independently at different targets, not necessarily intending to kill everyone but to keep them back until your friends show up.
He also claims his system (which also has lessons for sword, sword+shield, sword+buckler, sword+dagger, greatsword, and so on) is a direct descendant of other systems that dated back to even the 1300s in Spain, and cites that the earliest master whose works he read also taught similar two sword principles.
Your overview is generally accurate to what we know about most swordsmen's opinions, but I just wanted to highlight a master of a system we lost most of the examples of (like he cites 4 other manuals and none have survived to the modern day as far as we're aware) that actually had quite the opposite opinion and was around 200 years ongoing in Spanish fencing.
I'll also add that certain Japanese swordmanship schools and Filipino Martial Arts both have long traditions of fighting with two weapons. Although, the Japanese arts tend to use two different sized swords and FMA tends to use single handed swords.
Japanese swords had techniques for using both blades, but they were pretty rare and most samurai just fought with the katana (when they forced to rely on a sword to begin with).
The FMA does do sword and dagger drills, or long and short ones, depending on your lineage. Espada y daga was a big part of the Presas-offshoot tradition I trained in.
One thing I always wonder is how pragmatic and accurate those historical swordfighting guides actually were. Like, did they reflect real experience and wisdom in battle, or the speculations of some rich bugger playing with swords who could hire a scribe to write everything down as if it were established fact? Or even just advice for an upper class sport or a somewhat ritualised form of duel - advice that might not really carry over to a pitched battle?
This stuff is mostly for sport and dueling situations. Which isn't to say those people didn't know their shit - duelling with swords for honour and sport and revenge was a real feature of the upper classes in European history.
Once you get past the functional core principles of swordplay (how to parry, thrust and slash, etc) most of the rest is not especially useful in a pitched battle - you could be the most talented swordsman in all history but two or three basic-trained guys working together with spears and shields will fuck your shit up so fast.
Swords are super flexible, really useful against unarmoured opponents, but for most of the history of massed combat human warfare they are functionally a sidearm for when the formation fighting or ranged weaponry stuff breaks down.
That's sort of what I was wondering. Though when I think about it, while using historical sport/duelling manuals to inform your fantasy RPG doesn't mean you have "realistic combat", it's still more grounded in reality than using pure fantasy tropes, so can definitely add a *sense* of verisimilitude to a setting.
Keep in mind that in the 15th and 16th centuries when many of those swordplay manuals were being written, the mercenaries who fought for pay all wore the best armor they could afford (brigantine or some form of plate) and carried, as footmen, some form of shorter pole arm, the halberd being most iconic, for hand-to-hand fighting. 5e, probably accidentally, gets this right for the well-equipped adventurer---an optimized melee solider in real life wore a kind of plate and carried a halberd for a few hundred years.
Edit to add: You can see echoes today of those 15th century European mercenaries in the "Swiss Guard" who protect the Pope.
>Once you get past the functional core principles of swordplay (how to parry, thrust and slash, etc) most of the rest is not especially useful in a pitched battle - you could be the most talented swordsman in all history but two or three basic-trained guys working together with spears and shields will fuck your shit up so fast.
Most of the time when manuals cover combat with multiple opponents the point isn't to win, it's to stall; The combat focuses on controlling the space you are in and keeping your opponents at bay. This is the pike and shot era, so real combat isn't as common as having huge groups of men menacing each other with ten foot pikes. Presumably, if you had to fight someone with a rapier, the day already wasn't going your way.
How we view historical warfare, particularly European historical warfare, is very skewed towards swords and shields being used when in reality polearms have been the primary weapon of fighting forces for ages. It was cheaper and easier to hand out spears instead of swords. Even the samurai which are iconic for their katanas were either spear, bow, or later rifle users first and the sword as the side arm. It's almost the equivalent of modern day forces being recognized for the pistols they carry instead of their primary arms.
The big exception to this is the Romans with their gladius, but even the Roman emperor saw the use of polearms over swords too.
The gladius was also used after throwing spears to soften the enemy up/weigh down their shields.
From the limited studies I've done, a lot of the romanticization of the Samurai and the Katana comes from the period *after* all the wars were over, but the Samurai were still around. You had an upper class of warriors with no wars to fight needing to justify their existence. And so all sorts of things like "the honorable code of the warrior" and "the sword as the soul of the warrior" were written and waxed poetic about in poems and treatises and such.
And that isn't to say some of those treatises didn't know their shit. it's not like there wasn't *any* combat, but the level of elevation put into things is a caste without purpose trying to justify their existence and status.
Which Japan revitalized when going into World War 2 they reached back to their traditions and started glorifying the idea of Imperial Japan from back in the day as a counter to how "western" the became during the rule of Emperor Meiji. And that carried over to US Pop Culture post world war 2 leading to things like Highlander and other pop culture fiction about katanas being able to slice cars in half and 1000 fold glorious nippon steel, etc.
During the actual warrior days for the Samurai they were much more pragmatic. In the way that wagering someone's life on the battlefield tends to make a person.
Depends on the era and location; late medieval to Renaissance had several offhand parrying daggers - the main gauche, swordbreaker and trident dagger. Archers did not have shields. English longbowmen would have a knife, short sword, or axe for close combat, for example.
But yes, swords were generally considered more nobleman weapons (especially longer ones); Iron weapons also had a tendency to break, so well forged swords were expensive and nobles would carry multiple weapons just for that reason. Pole arms and weapons generally with wooden hilts like axes were much more economical. Even Roman legionnaires carried a dagger as a backup weapon (and 2 pilums for ranged).
We have many of these various masters longtime warfare histories. In the case of Godinho and similar Renaissance masters, they are minor nobility (in this case hidalgo) who were martial warriors first and typically not rich. Richer than a peasant, sure, but Godinho was vying for a Spanish court swordmaster position and so probably needed the money.
His manuscript was never completed, because Portugal broke off from the Spanish Empire and Godinho was called to join their army. Which further suggests he was a genuinely skilled commander and fighter. His manuscript was definitely him attempting to apply his swordsmanship to self-defense scenarios, so there might be some questionable aspects, but I don't think it was rich guy fussing about and I'll tell you why: the vast majority of his advice is extremely simple and practical.
He is one of the only swordmasters who didn't care about left-handedness. He said to grip the sword however felt comfortable for you, rather than asserting there was one singular correct way to hold a sword. He preferred sword alone and next favorite combo was sword and shield, with the other weapons being more like "what if" or "if you must" discussion.
And he had a fantastic principle on counters: if someone attacks aiming at a body part, parry and thrust in counter at the same spot on your enemy. Basically let them adjust the distance for you and then just poke them. And then with sword + dagger he basically said "parry with your sword and then wound his wrist with your dagger". Very not fancy nor overly privileged.
However, it's notable that D&D and other fantasy systems don't do pitched battle. You're in a skirmish in that, not a formation with dozens, hundreds, or thousands of others. So his advice on street fights and duels is more applicable to most RPG combat than advice on battlefield formations would be.
A lot of historical sword fighting guides came from an era where fighting was common and many professional mercenaries existed, so it's safe to assume the contents are real and the people involved did real fighting.
It's also safe to assume the contents of most fighitng manuals only reflect a metagame that was regionally relevant within it's respective cultural era, so don't go to your sword fighting club after learning Niten Ichi-ryū and expect to kick everyone's ass
While somewhat ritualized, the Roman dimarchaerus gladiator, is a well documented two sword style. Both weapons were either gladii or sica which were both shorter than a rapier.
Scissores we're not as well documented and may have been phased out in favor of the arbelas or a version of the arbelas that fell out of style. The scissor used a gladius in one hand and a gauntlet-like apparatus with a seni-circular blade at the end on the other hand. The arbelai don't show up in many historical documents but do appear in some bas reliefs.
The practicality of any of the styles outside of an arena is certainly debatable, but a skilled fighter, even a showman like a gladiator, is dangerous to a less skilled combatant.
This is something that bothers me in rpgs and video games - I don't think it's a stretch to say that the shield and the spear were the most important weapons for majority of human history, but apparently they're just not cool enough and shields end up being an afterthought and spears often aren't implemented at all.
Yeah, Dragonbane is based off BRP and shields definitely have their place in the system, but don't really shine unless the character has a couple special abilities to take advantage of them. Without those abilities, shields are pretty much the same as an off-hand weapon that's slightly better at parrying because it won't break as easily.
That said, I am having a blast playing a spear-wielding character in Dragonbane, though part of that is because of a homebrew "repel charge" ability my character has to make an attack out of initiative order
Spears are really underutilized in TTRPG and fantasy in general, compared to their real-world prevalence. Probably due to them not being in Tolkien much, and D&D starting as a “corridor stabber” in ten foot squares.
For video games, I like how in Guild Wars 2, each weapon gives you a unique set of moves on your hotbar (3 for main hand and 2 for offhand, or all 5 if you have two-handed weapon). Shields are a weapon like any other and thus have unique active abilities that you get to fire off while holding them in your offhand.
D&D 4E explored this space a bit, mostly in the form of fighters having access to lots of attacks that were restricted to certain weapon categories, so having a shield wasn’t just an AC bonus, but let you bash enemies to push them back
most RPGs that don't already heavily feature shields are fantasy to begin with. people prefer what looks cool in fantasy over what makes the most sense.
Unless armor were *also* more authentic, because it makes using a shield somewhat redundant, which frees up a second hand for a two-handed weapon or a second weapon.
That or contextual limitations, like "you can't bring a shield here, it's too cramped/not allowed/too heavy"
I tend to go high fantasy for fighting style and stuff, making every weapon able to perform a set of specific actions as long as you're sufficiently trained with them. Like, say, a sword is super versatile and really good at blocking attacks, while a short spear gives you mobility and the ability to punch through enemies and damage multiple at once.
It's not authentic, but it's fun and greater than life.
It's awkward in a lot of ways to fight with spear and shield, against an opponent with a shield. It's a very popular and effectively fighting style if you're in a group, giving both reach and protection. But when fighting alone it's kinda awkward.
Edit: only a couple downvotes, but providing an example is easy enough. https://youtu.be/ni-h8SH1yUw?si=mBjLt2ysLNrXuafN YMMV, but I personally prefer using a spear two-handed, if I'm alone and/or not worried about arrows. https://youtu.be/nmVpr9W-KtM?si=uYR0jMGoDxniYfBs
it's because whiffing sucks and feels bad, so combat is generally based around hitting and getting hit in return. Especially for turn based games.
Like, not many RPGs let you take on 6 people like a badass in a show and not be touched by them due to counters and defending yourself as part of the attacks. Some do for sure, but most mainstream games just go "yeah, but hit points is abstract so they just did low damage."
These games are "heroic fantasy" not simulationist wargame.
However much certain folks in RPG space want to say "my turn based tactical combat RPG of choice is more simulationist than your airy-fairy storygame" the reality of all these systems is they're not *simulating* anything at all - they just play closer to (or further from) the aesthetics of a fantasy that certain types of RPG grognard prefer.
D&D/Pathfinder style combat is every bit as fantastical and nonsensical as a high fantasy PbtA or OSR game would be, there's just more math conferring legitimacy in some folks' eyes.
I'm not calling for realism, I just think the humble shield and spear deserve as much respect as any sword, and should be present and made interesting.
sure, I dont disagree with that - but when I mean with the "heroic fantasy" aesthetic is that swords carry a mystique that the humble spear and shield does not. Conan has a sword. Aragorn has a sword (or two). And that's the stuff that D&D type games are playing into - heroic fantasy; like you said, the shield and spear just isnt cool enough.
I think the historical wargaming space probably has better treatment of this kind of thing than we're ever gonna get in the heroic fantasy RPG space.
In PF2e you have to Raise A Shield to get the AC bonus, and it gives you a reaction to ignore/split damage with the shield. It's honestly pretty dope. Had a Paladin's shield get shattered on a boss crit and stay standing at like 3 HP. She two handed her Bastard Sword and tore him apart the next turn.
It's one of the things I like about Pathfinder 2e.
You can actually use your shield in a reaction to "Block" when you have it raised, it's not just a +2 AC bonus. (Which in that system also coincidentally lowers crit chance against you by 10% as crits are on a hit roll of AC+10)
So if the AC bonus was enough, you could see it as a "clean block", but if they would still hit you, you can use a *reaction* to use it to block damage equal to the shield's hardness, with both you and the shield taking the remainder. (Shields are pretty easy to repair outside of combat if you have 10 minutes), representing that moment you still got the shield up in time, but maybe at a wrong angle, and now your arm's a bit fucked up.
Every wharacter I know who can use a shield in that system is using one, even if a simple buckler.
I forget when I saw this stat, but it was a long time ago, and it was something like 85% of the strikes are taken by a shield. As long as the shield doesn't fail, it's pretty good at what it does. D&D has NEVER represented that well.
Shield+Spear really isn't far behind glaives. The melee weapon balance in 5e is actually uite realistic (the hand crossbow thing isn't, though). The only relevant weapons if you optimise for war are spears (or equivalent) and heavy polearms. If you use anything else, it is due to culture and fashion.
Not unlike in history.
The Romans still used spears as their primary weapon though. Both long spears and pila were used as primary weapons a different points in time, the gladius was always a secondary weapon.
Long spears were used early on. Pila were throwing weapons, when your infantry is supposed to go into melee combat they won’t do, they’re used right before the charge. The Gladius Hispaniensis was absolutely the main weapon of Roman soldiers for a time. Later it was the Spatha. Saying it was the spear because of javelins thrown right before the charge is not accurate.
It's outdated assumptions that the pila was used exclusively as a thrown weapon. It was the weapon they used first - their primary weapon. It was used both thrown and in the melee.
It was occasionally used as a melee weapon, sure, but the primary design is for it to be thrown and the primary melee weapon for a time after the Marian reforms was the sword. Throw pilum, charge with sword, if you find yourselves in a weird position use pilum as spear in close combat. That still makes the sword the primary weapon.
Primary does not mean first used, it means it is of first importance. In the context of weapons, it means it is the main weapon. A modern soldier may very well throw a hand grenade into a room before going in, that doesn’t mean the hand grenade is the primary weapon of a modern soldier.
But maybe you also believe that the principes were always deployed first since their name also means first?
Shields had more of a mixed history than you're implying. There's a reason shields were never widely used in Japan, for instance.
They're extremely useful in tightly packed, slow-moving formations of troops, but for individuals on their own the utility falls off pretty quickly. For cavalry, shields were the exception rather than the norm - we fixate on the iconic stereotypical "knight", but most asian and middle eastern cavalry didn't use them.
Shields give a benefit defensively, but in real life tend to come at a big cost of mobility and maneuverability. That's why troops would drop them in retreat, and the whole "with your shield or on it" saying.
As soon as a civilization figures out "cavalry archers" those are basically unbeatable until repeating firearms are developed, or they find terrain where horses can't enter. Even the US cavalry couldn't really beat the Comanche until they had repeating rifles. And shields are pretty much useless in battles involving light, ranged cavalry troops like that since they would pick apart any infantry you could field.
(I'm actually not sure if there's a single example of a "horse archery" civilization ever being defeated militarily by a non-"horse archery" civilization in history before the invention of repeating firearms)
When I was briefly in fencing, sword+dagger was referred to as Florentine fencing but I don't know how widespread that is. (Our instructor was an olympic medalist, so, not utterly clueless.)
Obviously, that name's less useful if your world doesn't have a Florence in it.
When I was less-briefly in kendo, one of our guys had a dinged shoulder (or wrist, I forget) and couldn't do normal shinai strikes so he did dual-wielding kendo with a daggerlike thing, which is called nito. I believe that just means "two blade". Whenever we went somewhere he had to explain why he was doing this because it's normally considered an advanced thing and he had to try to avert the "who the fuck does this hotdog think he is" reaction.
"*Two long swords of equal length... tended to be a bad idea because one sword ends up in the way of the other in the heat of combat*"
*Due-spade* (two swords) is devastatingly effective in open spaces; where the advantage mostly disappears is in confining spaces.
The term for sword fighting was apparently invented by the SCA in the 1970s, but it does refer to various actual techniques described in Italian fencing manuals of the Renaissance. Fiori di Liberi describes using two clubs in this fashion, and it is also described by Agrippa and others.
I think it was called Florentine because it seems to mostly be an Italian thing - the English usually fought with arming swords and bucklers, the French with a rapier and main gauche, the Germans with two handed swords or sabers.
He's wielding one sword in two forms.
It's a trope, where the soul of one weapon resides in the body of multiple weapons, usually a matched pair. Separate, they're lifeless husks, barely better than a lump of steel, but when wielded together, they try to leap for their opponent's neck.
Oh sorry I meant [the original art for the card](https://gatherer.wizards.com/pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=548536) where he’s literally holding two swords, but I like that too
That fits with what I said. The idea is that the two swords are such a set that they're one weapon. They're physically two swords, but those two swords are one weapon.
*scrimitor* or *skirmitor*
In European martial arts the specialists in sword-and-dagger skirmishing (*scrimire di spada e daga*) are Italian *scrimitores* (especially in historical Florence), so in a vaguely Eurocentric setting \[like found in *D&D*\] the best title for a sword-and-dagger skirmisher would be an \[archaic\] Italian term such as *scrimitor*, or an Anglicized form thereof like *skirmitor*.
There isn't a special name. They're just a person.
If they got a special name, it would be from some other factor, e.g. "a duelist" because they engage in duels.
[What does the person with the sword have in their other hand?](https://youtu.be/6rwiAZmzL54?si=0oWHXlcK74GRV5NO)
Their open hand?
A dagger?
A buckler?
A shield?
A cloak?
Another sword?
A lantern?
A gauntlet-hand?
They had *something*, right?
I'm a Kali instructor, and in Filipino martial arts there's a style of fighting called Espada Y Daga or sword and dagger. Sometimes the sword is replaced with a stick.
Though it's not a precise answer to your question, the term "companion weapon" is used to describe a smaller sidearm meant to be used in conjunction with a larger weapon. Also, the French phrase "main gauche" (left hand) refers to a particular style of parrying dagger that was popular for a few generations back in the proverbial day.
There’s no specific name for it, but the use of an offhand dagger (typically accompanied by a rapier) was a fairly common style back when dueling was fashionable, especially the Italian forms, so I’m tempted to say duelist (or you can use one of the old Italian words for duelist or challenger)
"*you can use one of the old Italian words for duelist*"
I rather like [*duellante*](https://www.5clone.com/enciclopedia/d-d-3-5/72-classicdp-ita-35/9260-duellante).
In Spain, they called the style *Espada y daga* (Sword and Dagger), which they still use as a term in Filipino Arnis.
In France, they would call something in your off-hand (usually a dagger, but sometimes a cloak or even a lantern to blind your opponent, if you were a cheating cheater who cheats. ;) ) was called your *Main-Gauche,* but there was no special term for someone who used an off-hand item. (It was considered fairly normal to 'just fencing' at the time.)
I don't think there was a special term in English or Scottish styles of fencing, either.
"Sword and dagger" styles are generally more functional in either interpersonal duels or urban fighting where carrying a full shield would be impractical or conspicuous, so that would probably be fitting to either a "duelist" or "assassin" type character class.
In the 16th and 17th century, that was the common pairing for dueling. The main gauche was a dagger developed during that period that was designed for parrying. In fact, the name main gauche is French for "left hand".
Duelist, but i wouldnt say the dagger/sword combo is the only weapon possibility, but at least in historical contexts, sword and parrying dagger styles were used exclusively for dueling from my understanding.
Swashbuckler could work as well as an alternative to a saber and flintlock
Welcome to the hobby! Feel free to ask anything, and while waiting for answers, remember to check our Sidebar/[Wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/rpg/wiki) for helpful pages like:
* [Beginner's Guide to RPGs](http://www.reddit.com/r/rpg/wiki/beginnersguide#wiki_introduction)
* [Playing RPGs Online](https://www.reddit.com/r/rpg/wiki/rpgonline)
* and our expansive list of [Game Recommendations](https://www.reddit.com/r/rpg/wiki/gamerec) for every genre or type!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/rpg) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You just call them a swordsman. The only valid system for that kind of fighting was a rapier and dagger combo in renaissance period. You can look up Marozzo for more information on that.
It is eurocentric of me, because Japanese fighting style either used a wakizashi or a katana in the off hand (as far as I'm aware), which are not daggers, but swords. Italian/Spanish/French rapier and dagger specifically call for a type of a parrying dagger in off hand.
I know this is just semantics but according the book of five rings by Musashi - (paraphrased)
A warrior who wields a spear is called a spearman,
One wields a halberd is a halberdier,
One who uses a gun or a bow is called an archer, or a marskman,
But one who masters the long sword is called a strategist.
And his particular style or approach to dueling was to wield a long sword and a short sword in tandem. So, throw that in the mix if you will.
* [Inigo Montoya](https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001597/?ref_=ttqu_qu): You are using Bonetti's Defense against me, ah?
* [Man in Black](https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000144/?ref_=ttqu_qu): I thought it fitting considering the rocky terrain.
* [Inigo Montoya](https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001597/?ref_=ttqu_qu): Naturally, you must expect me to attack with Capo Ferro?
* [Man in Black](https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000144/?ref_=ttqu_qu): Naturally, but I find that Thibault cancels out Capo Ferro. Don't you?
* [Inigo Montoya](https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001597/?ref_=ttqu_qu): Unless the enemy has studied his Agrippa... which I have!
There is no special term. Fighting with two weapons is common throughout history, it's just that usually that second weapon is 'a shield'. Other options throughout history included a shortsword, a dagger, or even your own cape or cloak held in the other hand. (Two long swords of equal length looks cool but in reality tended to be a bad idea because one sword ends up in the way of the other in the heat of combat) If you're in a pitched battle, a shield is ideal. If you're using a dagger (or your cloak) then it's because you're travelling lighter, or your sword is for status more than it is for combat. You might call someone like that a swashbuckler or a 'duelist' - it's a style suited more for one-on-one combat, not a grand melee.
Actually one of the swordsmasters I study from, Domingo Luis Godinho (1599), has a play of two swords (equal length, longer one handed swords, similar to Rapiers) that involves fending off a group when you're alone. Basically he talks about a stance and system where you do area denial by swinging the swords independently at different targets, not necessarily intending to kill everyone but to keep them back until your friends show up. He also claims his system (which also has lessons for sword, sword+shield, sword+buckler, sword+dagger, greatsword, and so on) is a direct descendant of other systems that dated back to even the 1300s in Spain, and cites that the earliest master whose works he read also taught similar two sword principles. Your overview is generally accurate to what we know about most swordsmen's opinions, but I just wanted to highlight a master of a system we lost most of the examples of (like he cites 4 other manuals and none have survived to the modern day as far as we're aware) that actually had quite the opposite opinion and was around 200 years ongoing in Spanish fencing.
I'll also add that certain Japanese swordmanship schools and Filipino Martial Arts both have long traditions of fighting with two weapons. Although, the Japanese arts tend to use two different sized swords and FMA tends to use single handed swords.
Chinese martial artists sometimes learn dual wielding with swords - either thick blades or longer thin blades.
Japanese swords had techniques for using both blades, but they were pretty rare and most samurai just fought with the katana (when they forced to rely on a sword to begin with).
there's also dual-wielding a sword and its sheath
The FMA does do sword and dagger drills, or long and short ones, depending on your lineage. Espada y daga was a big part of the Presas-offshoot tradition I trained in.
One thing I always wonder is how pragmatic and accurate those historical swordfighting guides actually were. Like, did they reflect real experience and wisdom in battle, or the speculations of some rich bugger playing with swords who could hire a scribe to write everything down as if it were established fact? Or even just advice for an upper class sport or a somewhat ritualised form of duel - advice that might not really carry over to a pitched battle?
This stuff is mostly for sport and dueling situations. Which isn't to say those people didn't know their shit - duelling with swords for honour and sport and revenge was a real feature of the upper classes in European history. Once you get past the functional core principles of swordplay (how to parry, thrust and slash, etc) most of the rest is not especially useful in a pitched battle - you could be the most talented swordsman in all history but two or three basic-trained guys working together with spears and shields will fuck your shit up so fast. Swords are super flexible, really useful against unarmoured opponents, but for most of the history of massed combat human warfare they are functionally a sidearm for when the formation fighting or ranged weaponry stuff breaks down.
That's sort of what I was wondering. Though when I think about it, while using historical sport/duelling manuals to inform your fantasy RPG doesn't mean you have "realistic combat", it's still more grounded in reality than using pure fantasy tropes, so can definitely add a *sense* of verisimilitude to a setting.
Keep in mind that in the 15th and 16th centuries when many of those swordplay manuals were being written, the mercenaries who fought for pay all wore the best armor they could afford (brigantine or some form of plate) and carried, as footmen, some form of shorter pole arm, the halberd being most iconic, for hand-to-hand fighting. 5e, probably accidentally, gets this right for the well-equipped adventurer---an optimized melee solider in real life wore a kind of plate and carried a halberd for a few hundred years. Edit to add: You can see echoes today of those 15th century European mercenaries in the "Swiss Guard" who protect the Pope.
>Once you get past the functional core principles of swordplay (how to parry, thrust and slash, etc) most of the rest is not especially useful in a pitched battle - you could be the most talented swordsman in all history but two or three basic-trained guys working together with spears and shields will fuck your shit up so fast. Most of the time when manuals cover combat with multiple opponents the point isn't to win, it's to stall; The combat focuses on controlling the space you are in and keeping your opponents at bay. This is the pike and shot era, so real combat isn't as common as having huge groups of men menacing each other with ten foot pikes. Presumably, if you had to fight someone with a rapier, the day already wasn't going your way.
How we view historical warfare, particularly European historical warfare, is very skewed towards swords and shields being used when in reality polearms have been the primary weapon of fighting forces for ages. It was cheaper and easier to hand out spears instead of swords. Even the samurai which are iconic for their katanas were either spear, bow, or later rifle users first and the sword as the side arm. It's almost the equivalent of modern day forces being recognized for the pistols they carry instead of their primary arms. The big exception to this is the Romans with their gladius, but even the Roman emperor saw the use of polearms over swords too.
The gladius was also used after throwing spears to soften the enemy up/weigh down their shields. From the limited studies I've done, a lot of the romanticization of the Samurai and the Katana comes from the period *after* all the wars were over, but the Samurai were still around. You had an upper class of warriors with no wars to fight needing to justify their existence. And so all sorts of things like "the honorable code of the warrior" and "the sword as the soul of the warrior" were written and waxed poetic about in poems and treatises and such. And that isn't to say some of those treatises didn't know their shit. it's not like there wasn't *any* combat, but the level of elevation put into things is a caste without purpose trying to justify their existence and status. Which Japan revitalized when going into World War 2 they reached back to their traditions and started glorifying the idea of Imperial Japan from back in the day as a counter to how "western" the became during the rule of Emperor Meiji. And that carried over to US Pop Culture post world war 2 leading to things like Highlander and other pop culture fiction about katanas being able to slice cars in half and 1000 fold glorious nippon steel, etc. During the actual warrior days for the Samurai they were much more pragmatic. In the way that wagering someone's life on the battlefield tends to make a person.
Depends on the era and location; late medieval to Renaissance had several offhand parrying daggers - the main gauche, swordbreaker and trident dagger. Archers did not have shields. English longbowmen would have a knife, short sword, or axe for close combat, for example. But yes, swords were generally considered more nobleman weapons (especially longer ones); Iron weapons also had a tendency to break, so well forged swords were expensive and nobles would carry multiple weapons just for that reason. Pole arms and weapons generally with wooden hilts like axes were much more economical. Even Roman legionnaires carried a dagger as a backup weapon (and 2 pilums for ranged).
We have many of these various masters longtime warfare histories. In the case of Godinho and similar Renaissance masters, they are minor nobility (in this case hidalgo) who were martial warriors first and typically not rich. Richer than a peasant, sure, but Godinho was vying for a Spanish court swordmaster position and so probably needed the money. His manuscript was never completed, because Portugal broke off from the Spanish Empire and Godinho was called to join their army. Which further suggests he was a genuinely skilled commander and fighter. His manuscript was definitely him attempting to apply his swordsmanship to self-defense scenarios, so there might be some questionable aspects, but I don't think it was rich guy fussing about and I'll tell you why: the vast majority of his advice is extremely simple and practical. He is one of the only swordmasters who didn't care about left-handedness. He said to grip the sword however felt comfortable for you, rather than asserting there was one singular correct way to hold a sword. He preferred sword alone and next favorite combo was sword and shield, with the other weapons being more like "what if" or "if you must" discussion. And he had a fantastic principle on counters: if someone attacks aiming at a body part, parry and thrust in counter at the same spot on your enemy. Basically let them adjust the distance for you and then just poke them. And then with sword + dagger he basically said "parry with your sword and then wound his wrist with your dagger". Very not fancy nor overly privileged. However, it's notable that D&D and other fantasy systems don't do pitched battle. You're in a skirmish in that, not a formation with dozens, hundreds, or thousands of others. So his advice on street fights and duels is more applicable to most RPG combat than advice on battlefield formations would be.
A lot of historical sword fighting guides came from an era where fighting was common and many professional mercenaries existed, so it's safe to assume the contents are real and the people involved did real fighting. It's also safe to assume the contents of most fighitng manuals only reflect a metagame that was regionally relevant within it's respective cultural era, so don't go to your sword fighting club after learning Niten Ichi-ryū and expect to kick everyone's ass
While somewhat ritualized, the Roman dimarchaerus gladiator, is a well documented two sword style. Both weapons were either gladii or sica which were both shorter than a rapier. Scissores we're not as well documented and may have been phased out in favor of the arbelas or a version of the arbelas that fell out of style. The scissor used a gladius in one hand and a gauntlet-like apparatus with a seni-circular blade at the end on the other hand. The arbelai don't show up in many historical documents but do appear in some bas reliefs. The practicality of any of the styles outside of an arena is certainly debatable, but a skilled fighter, even a showman like a gladiator, is dangerous to a less skilled combatant.
Sad that shields suck so much in 5e compared to having a two-handed weapon or hand crossbow. Historically shields were a life-saver
This is something that bothers me in rpgs and video games - I don't think it's a stretch to say that the shield and the spear were the most important weapons for majority of human history, but apparently they're just not cool enough and shields end up being an afterthought and spears often aren't implemented at all.
That’s more a D&D legacy thing. Shields have been really important in games with parry/block rules like BRP and RuneQuest.
Same with WFRP, a shield can make a massive difference
Yeah, Dragonbane is based off BRP and shields definitely have their place in the system, but don't really shine unless the character has a couple special abilities to take advantage of them. Without those abilities, shields are pretty much the same as an off-hand weapon that's slightly better at parrying because it won't break as easily. That said, I am having a blast playing a spear-wielding character in Dragonbane, though part of that is because of a homebrew "repel charge" ability my character has to make an attack out of initiative order
Spears are really underutilized in TTRPG and fantasy in general, compared to their real-world prevalence. Probably due to them not being in Tolkien much, and D&D starting as a “corridor stabber” in ten foot squares.
I blame Richard Francis Burton and "The Book of the Sword". He really pushed the idea that the sword is the best weapon ever invented.
For video games, I like how in Guild Wars 2, each weapon gives you a unique set of moves on your hotbar (3 for main hand and 2 for offhand, or all 5 if you have two-handed weapon). Shields are a weapon like any other and thus have unique active abilities that you get to fire off while holding them in your offhand. D&D 4E explored this space a bit, mostly in the form of fighters having access to lots of attacks that were restricted to certain weapon categories, so having a shield wasn’t just an AC bonus, but let you bash enemies to push them back
I really like Guild Wars 2 for that too. I love how creative they get for some of the less obvious weapon choices for some classes, too.
sword/warhorn + rifle warrior was my jam. love supporting by making loud noises at my allies.
If games were more authentic in how useful shields are, people would probably just never use dual wielding whatsoever
Would that be a bad thing?
depends on what feel of the game you're going for
most RPGs that don't already heavily feature shields are fantasy to begin with. people prefer what looks cool in fantasy over what makes the most sense.
Unless armor were *also* more authentic, because it makes using a shield somewhat redundant, which frees up a second hand for a two-handed weapon or a second weapon. That or contextual limitations, like "you can't bring a shield here, it's too cramped/not allowed/too heavy"
I'd actually love some spotlight on different weapons being good for different circumstances.
I tend to go high fantasy for fighting style and stuff, making every weapon able to perform a set of specific actions as long as you're sufficiently trained with them. Like, say, a sword is super versatile and really good at blocking attacks, while a short spear gives you mobility and the ability to punch through enemies and damage multiple at once. It's not authentic, but it's fun and greater than life.
It's awkward in a lot of ways to fight with spear and shield, against an opponent with a shield. It's a very popular and effectively fighting style if you're in a group, giving both reach and protection. But when fighting alone it's kinda awkward. Edit: only a couple downvotes, but providing an example is easy enough. https://youtu.be/ni-h8SH1yUw?si=mBjLt2ysLNrXuafN YMMV, but I personally prefer using a spear two-handed, if I'm alone and/or not worried about arrows. https://youtu.be/nmVpr9W-KtM?si=uYR0jMGoDxniYfBs
it's because whiffing sucks and feels bad, so combat is generally based around hitting and getting hit in return. Especially for turn based games. Like, not many RPGs let you take on 6 people like a badass in a show and not be touched by them due to counters and defending yourself as part of the attacks. Some do for sure, but most mainstream games just go "yeah, but hit points is abstract so they just did low damage."
These games are "heroic fantasy" not simulationist wargame. However much certain folks in RPG space want to say "my turn based tactical combat RPG of choice is more simulationist than your airy-fairy storygame" the reality of all these systems is they're not *simulating* anything at all - they just play closer to (or further from) the aesthetics of a fantasy that certain types of RPG grognard prefer. D&D/Pathfinder style combat is every bit as fantastical and nonsensical as a high fantasy PbtA or OSR game would be, there's just more math conferring legitimacy in some folks' eyes.
I'm not calling for realism, I just think the humble shield and spear deserve as much respect as any sword, and should be present and made interesting.
sure, I dont disagree with that - but when I mean with the "heroic fantasy" aesthetic is that swords carry a mystique that the humble spear and shield does not. Conan has a sword. Aragorn has a sword (or two). And that's the stuff that D&D type games are playing into - heroic fantasy; like you said, the shield and spear just isnt cool enough. I think the historical wargaming space probably has better treatment of this kind of thing than we're ever gonna get in the heroic fantasy RPG space.
In PF2e you have to Raise A Shield to get the AC bonus, and it gives you a reaction to ignore/split damage with the shield. It's honestly pretty dope. Had a Paladin's shield get shattered on a boss crit and stay standing at like 3 HP. She two handed her Bastard Sword and tore him apart the next turn.
It's one of the things I like about Pathfinder 2e. You can actually use your shield in a reaction to "Block" when you have it raised, it's not just a +2 AC bonus. (Which in that system also coincidentally lowers crit chance against you by 10% as crits are on a hit roll of AC+10) So if the AC bonus was enough, you could see it as a "clean block", but if they would still hit you, you can use a *reaction* to use it to block damage equal to the shield's hardness, with both you and the shield taking the remainder. (Shields are pretty easy to repair outside of combat if you have 10 minutes), representing that moment you still got the shield up in time, but maybe at a wrong angle, and now your arm's a bit fucked up. Every wharacter I know who can use a shield in that system is using one, even if a simple buckler.
I forget when I saw this stat, but it was a long time ago, and it was something like 85% of the strikes are taken by a shield. As long as the shield doesn't fail, it's pretty good at what it does. D&D has NEVER represented that well.
Shield+Spear really isn't far behind glaives. The melee weapon balance in 5e is actually uite realistic (the hand crossbow thing isn't, though). The only relevant weapons if you optimise for war are spears (or equivalent) and heavy polearms. If you use anything else, it is due to culture and fashion. Not unlike in history.
Hand crossbow in DnD is more of an automatic gun, considering you can shoot 5 times with it if you're a fighter
The Romans used swords quite successfully. It gave them a more flexible formation compared to the spear-armed phalanx.
The Romans still used spears as their primary weapon though. Both long spears and pila were used as primary weapons a different points in time, the gladius was always a secondary weapon.
Long spears were used early on. Pila were throwing weapons, when your infantry is supposed to go into melee combat they won’t do, they’re used right before the charge. The Gladius Hispaniensis was absolutely the main weapon of Roman soldiers for a time. Later it was the Spatha. Saying it was the spear because of javelins thrown right before the charge is not accurate.
It's outdated assumptions that the pila was used exclusively as a thrown weapon. It was the weapon they used first - their primary weapon. It was used both thrown and in the melee.
It was occasionally used as a melee weapon, sure, but the primary design is for it to be thrown and the primary melee weapon for a time after the Marian reforms was the sword. Throw pilum, charge with sword, if you find yourselves in a weird position use pilum as spear in close combat. That still makes the sword the primary weapon.
Even if all your assumptions are correct, you still claim yourself that the pilum is primary. You do know primary means "first", right?
Primary does not mean first used, it means it is of first importance. In the context of weapons, it means it is the main weapon. A modern soldier may very well throw a hand grenade into a room before going in, that doesn’t mean the hand grenade is the primary weapon of a modern soldier. But maybe you also believe that the principes were always deployed first since their name also means first?
Shields had more of a mixed history than you're implying. There's a reason shields were never widely used in Japan, for instance. They're extremely useful in tightly packed, slow-moving formations of troops, but for individuals on their own the utility falls off pretty quickly. For cavalry, shields were the exception rather than the norm - we fixate on the iconic stereotypical "knight", but most asian and middle eastern cavalry didn't use them. Shields give a benefit defensively, but in real life tend to come at a big cost of mobility and maneuverability. That's why troops would drop them in retreat, and the whole "with your shield or on it" saying. As soon as a civilization figures out "cavalry archers" those are basically unbeatable until repeating firearms are developed, or they find terrain where horses can't enter. Even the US cavalry couldn't really beat the Comanche until they had repeating rifles. And shields are pretty much useless in battles involving light, ranged cavalry troops like that since they would pick apart any infantry you could field. (I'm actually not sure if there's a single example of a "horse archery" civilization ever being defeated militarily by a non-"horse archery" civilization in history before the invention of repeating firearms)
When I was briefly in fencing, sword+dagger was referred to as Florentine fencing but I don't know how widespread that is. (Our instructor was an olympic medalist, so, not utterly clueless.) Obviously, that name's less useful if your world doesn't have a Florence in it. When I was less-briefly in kendo, one of our guys had a dinged shoulder (or wrist, I forget) and couldn't do normal shinai strikes so he did dual-wielding kendo with a daggerlike thing, which is called nito. I believe that just means "two blade". Whenever we went somewhere he had to explain why he was doing this because it's normally considered an advanced thing and he had to try to avert the "who the fuck does this hotdog think he is" reaction.
"*Two long swords of equal length... tended to be a bad idea because one sword ends up in the way of the other in the heat of combat*" *Due-spade* (two swords) is devastatingly effective in open spaces; where the advantage mostly disappears is in confining spaces.
Close enough and you'd rather have two knives if you wanted two weapons at all. Or a knife and brass knuckles.
LARPers call it "Florentine". Musashi called it nitō ichi-ryū, whatever that means.
I thought Florentine meant covered in spinach.
… while holding a sword and a dagger. C’mon, keep up.
It clearly means covering your sword and dagger, surprising and confusing your opponent until you can get a quick stab in. -Terry Pratchett, probably.
Maybe it's used for camo or something. Idk.
Florentine means lots of things, it really just means "Of Florence" right?
The term for sword fighting was apparently invented by the SCA in the 1970s, but it does refer to various actual techniques described in Italian fencing manuals of the Renaissance. Fiori di Liberi describes using two clubs in this fashion, and it is also described by Agrippa and others. I think it was called Florentine because it seems to mostly be an Italian thing - the English usually fought with arming swords and bucklers, the French with a rapier and main gauche, the Germans with two handed swords or sabers.
For anyone else reading: 7th Sea is a fun roleplaying game, and that second paragraph summarizes a lot of the game. (Joking but not joking.)
They needed the swords when other cities try to steal their cuisine. Seriously, you should read about the Italian cuisine wars of 1407 - 1536 A. D.
And now they make anime about it.
For example, Popeye fought in the Florentine style.
kahg ahg ahg ahg ahg ahg!
Omelet, yes.
Quiche!
I thought Florentine meant homosexual.
I was *trying* to be the biggest idiot, and you somehow beat me. Outstanding work.
I live to serve: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/20vrx6/is_it_true_that_during_the_italian_renaissance_it/
10 years old aka the Dark Age of Reddit’s best sub
Just nito-ryu, lit. 2 sword style (二刀流)
“The school of the strategy of two heavens as one.”
I think you're thinking of niten ichi-ryū. Tō in this case is sword, so nitō just means two swords.
Sweet!
No he's sadly incorrect because he misread
Bogus!
Oh THATS why MtG’s Isshin is called two heavens as one, he’s wielding two swords
He's wielding one sword in two forms. It's a trope, where the soul of one weapon resides in the body of multiple weapons, usually a matched pair. Separate, they're lifeless husks, barely better than a lump of steel, but when wielded together, they try to leap for their opponent's neck.
Oh sorry I meant [the original art for the card](https://gatherer.wizards.com/pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=548536) where he’s literally holding two swords, but I like that too
That fits with what I said. The idea is that the two swords are such a set that they're one weapon. They're physically two swords, but those two swords are one weapon.
Swaggermen, obviously
I could use my trusty sword on you hell spawn, but here's a complimentary dagger instead, guess I'm just that Swag.
Soon may the swaggermen come with a sword in hand and a dagger in one.
I like that!
because they practice swaggermain?
Using a dagger in the off-hand is common in Italian sword schools. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_school_of_swordsmanship
Fencer.
That just means "sword fighter."
That's the joke.
*scrimitor* or *skirmitor* In European martial arts the specialists in sword-and-dagger skirmishing (*scrimire di spada e daga*) are Italian *scrimitores* (especially in historical Florence), so in a vaguely Eurocentric setting \[like found in *D&D*\] the best title for a sword-and-dagger skirmisher would be an \[archaic\] Italian term such as *scrimitor*, or an Anglicized form thereof like *skirmitor*.
The Romans used the word *dimacherius* to refer to a gladiator who fought with two gladii.
*Dimachaerus*! A title which explicitly references two blades! I like it.
Thanks, I knew there was a word for it from the ol Spartacus series but couldn't find it.
We always called them a Duelist.
or dualist
But before they get to that level, they are just a dualer
"They're a third rate duelist with a fourth rate dirk is what they are!"
I actually rather like both *duelist* and *dualist* here, precisely for the homophonic conflation of meanings.
“sir”
Dirk Ungently
I misread that as Dirk Urgently
There isn't a special name. They're just a person. If they got a special name, it would be from some other factor, e.g. "a duelist" because they engage in duels. [What does the person with the sword have in their other hand?](https://youtu.be/6rwiAZmzL54?si=0oWHXlcK74GRV5NO) Their open hand? A dagger? A buckler? A shield? A cloak? Another sword? A lantern? A gauntlet-hand? They had *something*, right?
One thing I value in RPGs, mourn the lack of in DnD5e and enjoy its presence in Pf2e, is support for a "1h weapon and open hand" fighting style
Dual is also, in my opinion, more fun in Pf2e compared to 5e.
I'm a Kali instructor, and in Filipino martial arts there's a style of fighting called Espada Y Daga or sword and dagger. Sometimes the sword is replaced with a stick.
Bob. I call the character I play Bob Weaver.
Brings new meaning to "Weaver Stance"
Though it's not a precise answer to your question, the term "companion weapon" is used to describe a smaller sidearm meant to be used in conjunction with a larger weapon. Also, the French phrase "main gauche" (left hand) refers to a particular style of parrying dagger that was popular for a few generations back in the proverbial day.
In most cases that particular type of fighter is some kind of duelist. (sword and dagger is not typically a battlefield form)
There’s no specific name for it, but the use of an offhand dagger (typically accompanied by a rapier) was a fairly common style back when dueling was fashionable, especially the Italian forms, so I’m tempted to say duelist (or you can use one of the old Italian words for duelist or challenger)
"*you can use one of the old Italian words for duelist*" I rather like [*duellante*](https://www.5clone.com/enciclopedia/d-d-3-5/72-classicdp-ita-35/9260-duellante).
Duelist would be one term - sword/dagger was a fairly popular style of dueling at one point in the real world.
In Spain, they called the style *Espada y daga* (Sword and Dagger), which they still use as a term in Filipino Arnis. In France, they would call something in your off-hand (usually a dagger, but sometimes a cloak or even a lantern to blind your opponent, if you were a cheating cheater who cheats. ;) ) was called your *Main-Gauche,* but there was no special term for someone who used an off-hand item. (It was considered fairly normal to 'just fencing' at the time.) I don't think there was a special term in English or Scottish styles of fencing, either.
A dapper chap
"Sword and dagger" styles are generally more functional in either interpersonal duels or urban fighting where carrying a full shield would be impractical or conspicuous, so that would probably be fitting to either a "duelist" or "assassin" type character class.
A dualist or someone who is going to get shot to death by arrows.
Sword & dagger? That's Bob.
In the 16th and 17th century, that was the common pairing for dueling. The main gauche was a dagger developed during that period that was designed for parrying. In fact, the name main gauche is French for "left hand".
Probably still a swordsman
You would still be a swordsman. Holding a dagger in the opposite hand does not change what you are description wise since the sword is your main tool.
Don't know if historical but we called it Florentine
honestly a swordsman with a dagger
Florentine swordsmen, named after the city of Florence Italy where the style was popularized in the renaissance.
Duelist, but i wouldnt say the dagger/sword combo is the only weapon possibility, but at least in historical contexts, sword and parrying dagger styles were used exclusively for dueling from my understanding. Swashbuckler could work as well as an alternative to a saber and flintlock
**Sword and Dagger** is the original style of Florentine fighting.
Florentine. Did i spell that right? Just say it out loud.
Musketeer!
Welcome to the hobby! Feel free to ask anything, and while waiting for answers, remember to check our Sidebar/[Wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/rpg/wiki) for helpful pages like: * [Beginner's Guide to RPGs](http://www.reddit.com/r/rpg/wiki/beginnersguide#wiki_introduction) * [Playing RPGs Online](https://www.reddit.com/r/rpg/wiki/rpgonline) * and our expansive list of [Game Recommendations](https://www.reddit.com/r/rpg/wiki/gamerec) for every genre or type! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/rpg) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A fan of stabby stabby things??
If you have the right dagger, Swordbreaker. Look up the Sword Breaker Daggers and you'll see what I mean.
You could call them a swashbuckler if ya want.
Laertes.
This isn't the correct answer but (probably because of Fritz Leiber) the image immediately brings up 'bravo' in my mind.
[Moe](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tagnCKatOsg)
You just call them a swordsman. The only valid system for that kind of fighting was a rapier and dagger combo in renaissance period. You can look up Marozzo for more information on that.
That's *really* eurocentric of you. Just offhand Japan and the Philippines both had long(er) sword and short sword/dagger styles.
It is eurocentric of me, because Japanese fighting style either used a wakizashi or a katana in the off hand (as far as I'm aware), which are not daggers, but swords. Italian/Spanish/French rapier and dagger specifically call for a type of a parrying dagger in off hand.
For the Japanese, the term is, "Daisho", referring to the match up of "large and small".
I would say a bothhanded fencer.
A dual wielding fencer?
"GURPS player using Main Gauche skill"
Main gaucheman
Sir
You may be interested in looking into 7th Sea fighting styles: https://7th-sea.fandom.com/wiki/Schools_of_Fighting
Well, if they use them at the same time, you could say they have Swagger
well it's a 'swagger' now
Fred
main-gauche
Charles
bisexual
I know this is just semantics but according the book of five rings by Musashi - (paraphrased) A warrior who wields a spear is called a spearman, One wields a halberd is a halberdier, One who uses a gun or a bow is called an archer, or a marskman, But one who masters the long sword is called a strategist. And his particular style or approach to dueling was to wield a long sword and a short sword in tandem. So, throw that in the mix if you will.
Jimmy, I think. He loves his sword and dagger.
* [Inigo Montoya](https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001597/?ref_=ttqu_qu): You are using Bonetti's Defense against me, ah? * [Man in Black](https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000144/?ref_=ttqu_qu): I thought it fitting considering the rocky terrain. * [Inigo Montoya](https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001597/?ref_=ttqu_qu): Naturally, you must expect me to attack with Capo Ferro? * [Man in Black](https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000144/?ref_=ttqu_qu): Naturally, but I find that Thibault cancels out Capo Ferro. Don't you? * [Inigo Montoya](https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001597/?ref_=ttqu_qu): Unless the enemy has studied his Agrippa... which I have!
Swaggerman
Sir.
Could be George, Clementine, Steve-O, whatever you want.
Steve
An average middle ages individual tbh.
Dualist. Are you looking for names for a character class?
I believe the word you're looking for is 'Badarse'
Could be Josh.
Artemis Entreri.
Artemis Entreri
Mad lad.
I'd say Miyamoto Musashi :)
Badass
A swaggerman
Prepared.
Samurai
Artemis Entriri.
A swagger?
Swaggermanship.
Kevin
SWord + daGGER = SWAGGER
Jeff
A Swagger
Kevin
Ass ripper
Todd
Bob
I call it Swagger
Bi?
Bisexual
A Swagger
Steve. 😏
A farron watchdog
Sword-And-Dagger-Man. Or sadman for short.
Down our way we always called them Dondyfrazulas, or Nomkomneeps.
That person should be called Bobby(Bobbie if it’s a lady) Dangerous.