As a student of history, I am completely unimpressed with the historical references, as is Finvarr. There are isolated references, but the technique cannot in any way be said to have been common to tournaments *or* warfare of the middle ages. There simply aren't enough references.

There are a myriad of references, however, showing the use of single handed swords wielded without the benefit of a shield. These range from literary hundreds of mss. page illuminations to textual references to 16th century manuals on swordsmanship. There is a even a literary reference in Malory--Balin of the Two Swords. But in the end, it is not enough.

Nor can the case be made that two sword or sword and dagger reflects the rapier and dagger combat popular during the date 16th and early 17th centuries.

HOWEVER: Tournaments were only infrequently fought with whalebone or wooden weapons. In some places these may have been referred to as the "behourd," or practice tournies similar to the "vespers" tournies of the 12th-14th centuries, held on the evening prior to the real tourney to showcase squires and bachelor knights. The point here is that we are doing is significantly different from any historical reference, especially when you consider the format of Crown and other lists.

The closest cousin to a Crown list might be the jousting cheques of the 16th century. Some of these were elimination trees; at least the surviving trees make them appear so.

What we do isn't, in the final analysis, medieval except in spirit and in some of the equipment we wear. The medieval pas d'armes, and some tournaments, were distinguished from war initually by the element of "play," but increasingly became ruled more by rules than by the perquisites of warfare. We have chosen our own rules set, built in the modern day upon the medieval framework, just as the "re-enactors" of the 14th and 15th centuries sought to "recreate" the glory of an earlier time--even a mythical one.

I would say that half of what we do is based on the literary ideal of the knight, chivalry and the tournament, and half on the medieval reality of medieval life. Perhaps this is even too generous towards the recreationist elements of what we do, but I don't think so. What it means is that we can indeed build our own rules sets to suit ourselves, so long as we protect that ideal, the virtues we are trying to teach, and that 50% commitment to authenticity, especially as it applies to equipment and other accoutrement. In my book, the ideals and the teaching of virtue is a '10' on a 1-10 scale; authenticity a '9'.

I have wrestled with the question for many years, being a fond appreciant of the two-stick style (when done well). It can be elegant, powerful and graceful; or it can be choppy, ugly, ineffective. Or choppy and ugly and effective. Whatever the case, to be knightly fighting, it must be evocative of the knightly image for 'clean fighting' and adhere to the use of knightly weapons.

The tactical reasons two-sword is popular and effective are related, I believe, to the rules set we have chosen. We allow grilles. We have a point-type scoring system. We fight on foot. We use weapons in a given weight class and encourage a certain dynamic. Shields do not disintigrate, and swords do not break. These things let it be effective.

Since these rules are completely arbritrary, that is they have no relationship to the actual effects of weapons on armoured human beings or equipment, I see no problem with the use of two-swords in competitive tournaments. Mind you, they are out of place at more authentic tournaments where authenticity is a more important element of the tournament atmosphere.

What matters in the end is the renown of the combatant in question. Can they convince their opponents, the gallery, your consort, and the sponsoring noble or Crown that you are sincere, bearing chivalric virtue. For these things it doesn't matter what knightly weapon you use, but what you do with them and how you conduct yourself. In the end, this is the only important thing to me.