Why is this movie so fricking dark?
You could light a goddam cigarette in the royal booth and it would probably double the overall brightness of the scene. Did Europoors forget to invent the sun or something?
>Did Europoors forget to invent the sun or something?
Euro here. That rain and grey is actually what my nation is like 10 months of the year. That is why everyone goes to the Mediterranean for summer holidays
>Did Europoors forget to invent the sun or something?
It wasn't until after WW2 when the americans came up with more peaceful uses for the nuclear bomb that the sun was invented.
It gets really stale when all representations of medieval or near-medieval are featuring the aesthetic.
I think it would be really cool to see people in bright costumes, with goofy ass long sleeves and pigeon-chested doublets and and pointy shoes. Would make for incredible contrast when they suit up and kill eachother in gruesome armored wrestling with a rondel through the visor or something
This is sort of a schizo post, but I believe the overwhelmingy majority of big budget media depicting pre-WW2 periods goes for this colorless, dirty, ultra-serious, miserable visual aesthetic to make people think "god, I'm so glad I was born in these times, because despite all the problems, this looks so much worse!" If you were actually in this situation in reality, there would be color, even during rain, people would be cheering or laughing or gossiping or clapping. Everyone was not miserable at all times.
It's both older and funnier than that. The meme of portraying the middle ages as brown and disgusting and malnourished and diseased comes from the 18th century Enlightenment period.
And the reason that's funny is that we now know by extensive, quantitative archeological evidence that the high middle ages were the highest point in terms of general health and nutrition (as evidenced by average height) in European history prior to the 19th century, while the Enlightenment period was one of the lowest points. The 13th century peasant was closer in height to a 20th century European than the 18th century commoner (who got bombarded by pamphlets on horrible the Dark Ages were) was to the 13th century peasant.
Not surprising considering the fact that peasants lived on farms and ate fish foul or meat daily (probbaly more fish than anything else) while the 18th century was the beginning of rapid urbanization, eww
>And the reason that's funny is that we now know by extensive, quantitative archeological evidence that the high middle ages were the highest point in terms of general health and nutrition (as evidenced by average height) in European history prior to the 19th century, while the Enlightenment period was one of the lowest points. The 13th century peasant was closer in height to a 20th century European than the 18th century commoner (who got bombarded by pamphlets on horrible the Dark Ages were) was to the 13th century peasant.
Any recs on studies regarding this? I cant trust wikipedia anymore
it's nonsense, they're conflating gen pop studies with studies focusing on urban populations (who were always smaller and sicker than rural ones)
It's both older and funnier than that. The meme of portraying the middle ages as brown and disgusting and malnourished and diseased comes from the 18th century Enlightenment period.
And the reason that's funny is that we now know by extensive, quantitative archeological evidence that the high middle ages were the highest point in terms of general health and nutrition (as evidenced by average height) in European history prior to the 19th century, while the Enlightenment period was one of the lowest points. The 13th century peasant was closer in height to a 20th century European than the 18th century commoner (who got bombarded by pamphlets on horrible the Dark Ages were) was to the 13th century peasant.
It's not General Population but there's a lot of skeletal studies on Towton and Visby because they were particularly nasty fights where a lot of men were buried very hastily. In Visby the corpses started to turn before they could even get the armor stripped off, so unusually they were buried before getting looted. forensic data at Towton in particular suggests that the soldiers there often had a level of health and fitness on par with a professional athlete. The bodies recovered generally have horrific injuries to the heads and forearms.
Towton might be more useful because the soldiers represented a broad swath of society.
>doing my PhD on history of a few central European parishes >look through parish records >16th and 17th century, 90% of the peasants sign their own names on birth and marriage records >18 century, Enlightened monarch rages against monks spreading backwards superstitions among the populace and seizes monastic land for himself >18th and 19th century, pretty much all peasants sign all records with XXX
No, no it is not. Shit is Germany, not Binlan during their month lasting darkness.
Considering we're on the topic of medieval crap, does anyone here shoot bows?
I spontaneously decided to buy a bow, and I was wondering if there's anyone here I can pilfer some information from.
Whatcha need. I only ever shot historical though, zero idea about modern bows.
It was the same with the vikings. They only wore brown and grey. No colors at all.
I always found it hilarious that middle ages, an era with some of the most colorful clothing when even commoners used colors, with battles being often endless sea of bright pastel colored heraldry, is commonly depicted in bleakest possible colors and shittiest/darkest possible lighting in movies. What a moronic homosexualry.
>Armour wasn't that heavy
That's true but I didn't get the sense that the armor was too heavy. They were a bit clumsy but the ground was muddy. >didn't obscure the field of view that much
They did when the visor was down which is why visors could be lifted. Most knights trained for armored fighting so this normally didn't bother them.
Doesn't seem that bad. Sort of like boxing given the armor.
I can't believe people used to fight in pike and shot formations. You have to match around as cannons the off of you. All the bad waiting of later line warfare with the added downside of more melee fighting and heavy horse charges fricking you up.
Not to mention that, in the rare cases where positioning was absolutely crucial and formations engaged in the push of the pike, instead of just teeing off on each other with fire arms until one side broke or withdrew, you generally had absolutely atrocious casualties for both sides.
The whole Thirty Years War is sort of insane. Imagine killing significantly more of Europe's population than both World Wars combined with one war. And you have a bunch of other extremely deadly religious wars outside of that two. The Huguenot Wars took place when France had a population 25% smaller than Syria in 2011. The Syrian War has totally fricked the country and killed 400,000-600,000. The French religious wars killed 2.8-4 million, granted over a longer time, but not even all that much longer at this point.
The 30 years war was several small wars combined. That is like saying ww1+ww2 are one war. Still does not change the fact of what you're saying.
The whole wars in the 17th century had insane effects on wester civilization. The idea of nation states was born here, serfdom was ended for good and the idea of universal human rights for europeans most likely originated also during this war. Hell "War Crimes" became a thing after this war.
Watch the movie alatriste. The final 15 minutes are kino and give a good idea how fricked up pike/shot warfare was.
European border is in urals.
Russia is part of europe even if we dislike the idea. There is nothing meaningfull after urals.
Just wasteland of natives and penal cities
>European border is in urals
look at a map - the urals lies behind the middle east
europe is the peninsula and always has been, it does not stretch beyond the black sea
just because st. petersburg lies in europe does not mean russia is europe
this is as delusional as saying turkey is europe because of istanbul
2 years ago
Anonymous
Nobody's saying Siberia is Europe because of Petersburg you stupid mutt
>That is like saying ww1+ww2 are one war.
i firmly believe people a few hundred years in the future will consider them to be 1 continuous conflict. in fact you could say the cold war is an extension of ww2 as well.
The 30 years war was several small wars combined. That is like saying ww1+ww2 are one war. Still does not change the fact of what you're saying.
The whole wars in the 17th century had insane effects on wester civilization. The idea of nation states was born here, serfdom was ended for good and the idea of universal human rights for europeans most likely originated also during this war. Hell "War Crimes" became a thing after this war.
Watch the movie alatriste. The final 15 minutes are kino and give a good idea how fricked up pike/shot warfare was.
Since WW2 that 1914-1945 was considered by some as a " Second Thirty Years-War". For the french historians and probably some german ones, this is absolutely a fairly normal thesis. Even De Gaulle said something like that.
>Religious autism is a hell of a drug.
Its what made europe so strong, same as the 30 years war. You had a bunch of empires duking it out with eachother or in civil religious wars. Then when they got tired they decided to have a go at the rest of the world and basically conquered the planet and raped and robbed all the shitskins.
Our modern cucktheistic liberal welfare states were made possible by fanatic racist, antisemetic and religious war crazed psychos.
The modern white man is an anthithesis to his ancestors and beacuse of this most european races will perish, the US will belong to mixed mexican mutts and europe to arab muslims. If you dont fight you perish. Religion is mandatory for a societies survival.
> religious autism made Europe strong
Europe only began to conquer Asia again starting by the 1700s, when Europe's aristocrats were increasingly losing interest in Christianity for Classical Roman and Greek stuff
Who cares about conquering stone age Indians? Whats more interesting is conquering a near peer adversary like the British East India Company against the Maratha Confederacy or Napoleon Bonaparte's le Grande Armee against the Ottoman Empire
Shut the frick up loser. Napoleon saw himself as the successor of Charlemagne, the moor murderer himself and father/guardian of Europe.
Every bongistani who left port and did the needful across the globe was a vehemently saturated in and violent espouser of the word of Christ.
have a nice day.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Napoleon saw himself as the successor of Charlemagne
It's almost like he had a complex or something ...
2 years ago
Anonymous
>successor of Charlemagne >presides over a secularist regime >doesn't have a priest crown him, but rather crowns himself
LMAO
>Every bongistani who left port and did the needful across the globe was a vehemently saturated in and violent espouser of the word of Christ.
ROFL, yeah, "the word of Vhrist" was what was on the bonger's minds when they formed the East India Company. Not making loads of dosh.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>it was revealed to me in my dream
england of the day was quite religious and actually invented most of the modern day nut bar protestant denominations. you're forgetting the king was the literal head of the fricking church as well. read a fricking book you Black person.
>Its what made europe so strong, same as the 30 years war.
This is the most garbage moronic take I've ever seen. All Europeans did was lose lose lose under hard line catholicism. Lost the Holy Land. Lost Constantinople. Lost Greece and the Balkans and bloody nearly lost Central Europe as well. All lost to the, at the time, practical and basically irreligious Ottomans.
Then along comes the Rennaissance, the Church can go get fricked and smart nerdy guys are allowed to develop shit rather than getting their shit pushed in by moronic churchmen and suddenly Europe is winning everything and the Ottomans having become hardline Islamists are getting their asses kicked all over the show.
>Lost Greece and the Balkans and bloody nearly lost Central Europe as well. All lost to the, at the time, practical and basically irreligious Ottomans.
that was the Byzantines, bro. corrupt, louche, soft and pampered, decayed empire and decayed people.
there's a reason the Turks stopped at Vienna, that's where the real hard men were.
Western Europe brought war to its zenith through dint of constant practice, that's why they (and the Japanese) went on to take over the rest of the world
Uhh bro what did Japan ever conquer? They gave it a good run but lost every foreign war until they learned how to sneak attack. They got fricked even after beating back the mongols as it weakened the Hojo and ushered in the beginning of the sengoku jidai
The Sengoku Jidai was two centuries removed from the mongol invasions. It had quite literally, unequivocally, absolutely NOTHING to do with the later Onin war and the beginning of the Sengoku period.
>Then along comes the Renaissance, the Church can go get fricked and smart nerdy guys are allowed to develop shit rather than getting their shit pushed in by moronic churchmen
Listen here you little shit, the Catholic Church was the main bank roller and supporter of the Renaissance Era of Europe. It engendered and proliferated the European scientific breakthroughs, artwork, and cultural identity that formed a somewhat cohesive stanchion of nations to push back invading Muslims. The Church ensured the survival of history and books that formed the baseline for the Renaissance Era discoveries.
Galileo had an autistic fit when the Church wanted more credibility in his Heliocentric model before accepting it. Copernicus's notes were kept by The Church, regardless if they were supporting the Heliocentric model and The Church was more than willing to listen to Galileo if only he brought forth more evidence on his theory.
Are you genuinly moronic or just historically illiterate. Hell europeans used to be exponentially more religious even 100 years ago.
The greatest european empires were hardcore christians, same for the US.
The rennaissance was basically italian nobles and clergy who got rich off the fall of the Byzantine empire and subsequent trade, investing alot of money into arts and sciences, including the Vatican being a major player in all of this.
Proper secular states have bee thing only after ww1 and it took over 50 years of communism to ruin eastern europe.
As a counter argument what has atheism got us?
Lost Germany, lost France, lost the UK, lost Austria, lost Sweden, lost Russia(these will be musilm caliphates in 30-50 years according to demographics),lost the US. Europeans are less than 5% of the global population an have very few countrkes they can call their own, but at least we have abortions and fun with drugs nowadays and science allows mentally ill men to chop their dicks off.
Atheism will not perpetuate and its obsession with stomping out christianity will only ensure a more fanatical religion takes its place.
>beat a guy unconscious >wail on his body with an 8 pound sword >stick said sword in his neck >sort of like boxing
I fricking wish boxing was like that.
Whats also crazy about the pike formation fighting was that both sides often sent out guys with daggers that would crawl around underneath the pikemen fighting, and they would rescue allies or stab wounded enemies to death right in front of their friends that couldn't do anything to stop them/
That sounds rather ludicrous. You are telling me that nobody in a pike formation other than dedicated men carried a knife around? I'm pretty sure a knife was the equivalent of a phone today, every man carried them on their person as a regular tool for a variety of uses.
It's not a matter of whether or not the Pikemen got knives, but that Pikemen are too busy piking each other to crawl around and stab people with their knives.
Warriors clad in shiny steel armor do look interestingly futuristic for the time period, especially when one considers how most people back then lived in villages of thatch roofed wooden-mud cottages
My impression is that heavier longer swords were used more like spears for cavalry breaking or general intimidation.
Leaned against the shoulder for endurance, and then swung forward at the right timing.
Not necessarily for duels? Especially not heavily armored ones.
Give either of these guys a short blade and theyd easily outmaneuver the other.
Of course not.
1. If you even have the smallest urge to ask "Is this accurate?" for any movie the answer is always no.
2. You can watch Battle of Nations or other buhurt match and see that a man in plate will barely notice any sort of normal bladed weapon, even heavy ones like poleaxes.
Exhibition duels like that were not always fought in the most practical or sportsmanlike ways, they were ad hoc dick measuring contests.
Legal duels however would be insanely regulated and regimented in what weapons and gear could be used and could last several days on until someone finally died,
Of course not.
1. If you even have the smallest urge to ask "Is this accurate?" for any movie the answer is always no.
2. You can watch Battle of Nations or other buhurt match and see that a man in plate will barely notice any sort of normal bladed weapon, even heavy ones like poleaxes.
>Battle of the Nations >realistic
It's not in any way. Those armors are padded several times more than real armors would have been, they're essentially crash test dummy armors meant to minimize the wailing of blunt weapons instead of balancing out protection with combat ability, people would often not wear as much armor or prefer to keep helmets open because being able to see what you're doing actually matters outside sports.
>Battle of the Nations
Point stands though, you can swing a zweihander at a guy in plate like a baseball bat and at best it will only stagger a man if he was taken completely by surprise.
I really hate how /k/ can only ever be on one side of the extreme of any argument so much so that they’re always wrong.
Yes, a salle helmet is very good at protecting you from medieval weaponry. Getting fricking gonked by an eight pound zweihander is still absolutely going to stagger if not bare a man to the ground though regardless of whether or not they were taken by surprise.
I disagree at least as it relates to everything no gun related. Here’s a brief history: >MUH KATANA cut through steel folded 1 gorilla on times >katana is pig steel shit ship break in half like twig >MUH ULFBERT twisted metal unstoppable European power >Viking sea Black folk never built anything, sword is shit! >MUH GLADIUS Roman conquer all short superior >lmao sword gays get dabbed on by spears legionnaires are spearmen because of muh javelin >MUH HALBERD <— you are here
2 years ago
Anonymous
That sounds more like what /misc/ has devolved into. I mean, I'm a fricking war refugee here. I've been on PrepHole since its inception and posted on /misc/ for many years, but now I can't fricking stand that board because they've been subverted, and everyone there's a fricking schizophrenic moron or a shill.
/k/ seems far more balanced in terms of viewpoints. Maybe it's just about going from full moron to half-moron, making the latter seem reasonable.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I just want the phase of "plate armour provides absolutely no protection against blunt trauma and even a slight tickle from a warhammer against a plate cuirass will completely shatter all your bones!" meme to end.
Most people don't even realize that the warhammer was primarily a horseman's sidearm rather than a primary infantry weapon or that the popularity of the flanged mace peaked in the 12th century or so, long before plate armour was even a thing.
We're talking about the context of the show here. The actors are not swinging at their faces, and the script has them treating the blows at their breast plate like as if they're being hit by a sledgehammer.
I disagree at least as it relates to everything no gun related. Here’s a brief history: >MUH KATANA cut through steel folded 1 gorilla on times >katana is pig steel shit ship break in half like twig >MUH ULFBERT twisted metal unstoppable European power >Viking sea Black folk never built anything, sword is shit! >MUH GLADIUS Roman conquer all short superior >lmao sword gays get dabbed on by spears legionnaires are spearmen because of muh javelin >MUH HALBERD <— you are here
Now you're just being moronic. You're taking memes and pretending posters ever said them seriously, or at least didn't get absolutely BTFO every time they said it in seriousness.
>You're taking memes and pretending posters ever said them seriously,
You must be new here, seriously. There’s still currently morons who make threads and argue tooth and nail that spears were unstoppable better than every other option at every single thing.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Oh no one moron who's trolling, what will we ever do.
2 years ago
Anonymous
If your idea of trolling is effort posting dumb opinions then congrats on wasting your time while people who actually know shit just assume you’re an idiot. >I was merely pretending to be a moron.
>It's not in any way. Those armors are padded several times more
The medieval armor was pretty goddamn padded, I'm not sure you can fit more than they did underneath. Also buhurt and most HMB also have fairly strict historicity rules, you can't just mix and match kit from different eras.
It is a plain fact that full plate armor against cold weapons basically makes you a war god. It was no accident that nobility survived and men-at-arms/conscripts did not.
where can I watch this movie/series!? It looks cool.
Its OK until the helmets come off (which they always do in movies) then it degenerates pretty fast in terms of realism
anyway aa01.net is my current pirate site
Medieval battle armor was nowhere near as pdded as it could be, and it was also lighter and thinner. Also buhurt isn't realistic by simple virtue of it not being a blood sport. Ypu could say they are simulating something like a tournament melee, but they use different rules and equipment anyway
>Medieval battle armor was nowhere near as pdded as it could be,
a padded jack/gambeson was at least an inch of quilted fabric. it could stop arrows. you wore that over two other shirts with two pairs of pants and padding around the knees, elbows, shoulders and feet.
You didn't put that shit on and rattle around like a tin can, it was tight and it was stuffed
That would be true in times when you wore chainmail over it. You would not be wearing an inch of padding under a steel breastplate, nor any other parts of a harness
2 years ago
Anonymous
I have nothing to say except that you are considerably mistaken. plate armor in every place and every time was put over heavy padding, on purpose
2 years ago
Anonymous
Go to about the 12 minute mark. Certainly does not look like an inch of padding to me on that garment
2 years ago
Anonymous
>cites gootube homosexual
let me guess you unironically watch skallacuck too
https://web.archive.org/web/20161217103014/http://www.revivalclothing.com/article-armingsequence.aspx
No, it is not accurate. In full plate armor any bladed implement is more or less useless against an opponent when used for slashing or chopping. If you were to hit less armored areas with a strong blow it may sting or bruise, and if you were to catch him in the head it may momentarily daze them depending on the padding, but by doing so you open yourself up to a stab that could be fatal for you. In a duel with two fully armored opponents, then, it essentially comes down to which of the two could wrestle the other into an advantageous position and then stab them in an area with a gap. The armpits, joints, eyes, etc. In the historical duel between Jacques Le Gris and Jean de Carrouges which was depicted in The Last Duel, for example (which had its own numerous glaring inaccuracies), Carrouges managed to wrestle his opponent to the ground after being wounded by a stab in the thigh in an unarmored area. Though Le Gris was invulnerable to Carrouges swings from his sword, his opponent bashed his weapon against the lock on his faceplate until at last he had opened it and finally killed him by stabbing him in the throat.
Rarely are medieval films or media at all authentic in their depiction of duels because they are not glamorous in the least. There aren't wild flourishes and sweeps but rather judging of distance with quick stabs, slices, or chops to kill the other. Watch two opponents duel with machetes in some third world country and you will get a sense of how incredibly brutal and distasteful the reality of lethal combat likely was. But especially with armored combat it is less than entertaining to watch, because it inevitably ends with a graceless tumble and a coup de grace on a helpless opponent.
>effortposting of this quality >largely ignored
Of course. Good shit, anon.
Also it wasn't that much chaotic, as much of techniques were learned. So you are right it was largely messy, but also not completely chaotic either. The fact why movies often ignore that they naturally used also their legs, knees and arms to punch and kick is beyond me.
Not that anon, but I recommend trying it if you can. It is ridiculously fun. I never went full Buhurt, but I did whole lot of historical medieval acting and was offered to try it few times and I enjoyed it a lot every single time. If you are training some martial/combat sport, you will enjoy it even better, lots of guys are otherwise MMA/Muay Thai lads.
Warfare is far more insane now. Most people in warfare now are not even aware the moment they are about to die, thanks to missiles and artillery and guided bombs and marksmen rifles.
This. Back then in a battle at least you were right beside your mates and had a decent chance of being well-rested and, yeah, also could somewhat accurately tell when you're actually in danger
Reading the synopsis for this show gave me a fricking headache and reminded me why I'm happy to be American were I can simply just frick over pseudo-elites by not purchasing their bullshit.
>When Charles the Bold, Duke of Burgundy, dies in battle, his heiress and only child Mary, intends to rule alone, despite being coveted by various suitors. Mary resists the rich Ghent burghers who, in cahoots with Louis XI of France, try to force her to marry the Dauphin Charles, a boy who is of a weak mentality and twelve years younger than her. Meanwhile, the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick III wants his son, Maximilian, to marry the duchess.
Witnessing her ministers being executed and her territories invaded by France, Mary decided to send her lady-in-waiting Johanna von Hallewyn to Maximilian with a message.
The young and warlike Maximilian despises his father's sluggishness and aversion to his enemies like the Hungarian king Matthias Corvinus. Although he was in love with his sister Kunigunde's lady-in-waiting Rosina von Kraig, ultimately he decided for the marriage as a chance to prove himself.
>I'm happy to be American were I can simply just frick over pseudo-elites by not purchasing their bullshit >pedos in washington >people who stand up against the government get jailed >mobs can run wild in the cities >~~*lobbyists*~~ like AIPAC in control of the government
Imagine bragging about taking orders from decrepit pedos and creepy orange israelites instead of following dynamic young princes and cute strong willed princesses. Monarchs were both personifications of the state and role models for their subjects, obliged to show courage, dignity, magnanimity and piety, modern world has cringe clowns in democracies or paranoid psychopaths in dictatorships.
I can't get over the fricking helmet, really. Imagine a ww1 movie and they make the actor wear half a fricking gas mask to "see the actor's face" it just represents the snobishness and narrow-mindedness of filmmakers so well. It's a fricking actor, not a face model
Realistic compared to pretty much any cinema of the period? Yes. Realistic compared to the actuality of the period? Unquestionably not. As the other poster mentioned, the helmets are just...what the frick, some of the most bafflingly stupid shit I have ever seen. But most of the movie does a fair attempt at recreating the events that lead up to the duel itself, and it's a pretty good movie in its own right. It's just a shame that we didn't get Ridley Scott when he was his most based making kino:
Honestly, I just don't fricking get it. We have tons of movies in the Napoleonic and afterwards that make SOME effort to truly reproduce the reality of life. But I honestly cannot name a single movie set in the medieval period that at all encapsulates with any accuracy the life at the time. It's all either practically high fantasy or caked in mud, there is literally no in-between.
>Unquestionably not
Helmet aside, the combat in the duel was based on multiple first hand written accounts. A lot of people watched it, a lot of them wrote down what happened in the fight.
I was more speaking to the entire film, but even the duel itself while following the basic elements left some out for cinematographic convenience. For example, Adam Driver's character should be far larger, quite more confident he would be victorious, and show a commanding strength in the duel that he simply did not. Similarly, he did not stab him in the leg with a knife after turning him around, but with his sword. I still enjoyed the fight tremendously, and they're somewhat nitpicks since they at least attempted to follow the events which is far, FAR better than virtually all media that takes place in the medieval era, but it's just worth noting.
>the nobles having real world skills and fighting wars for us and being honorable enough to show their face in public... le bad >the rich being untouchable parasites who do nothing but money change and enlist millions of plebs to die for reasons they were lied to about... le good
There was incredible downward mobility in Medieval society, and most people are related to knights and higher if you go back far enough. The fact that the peasantry actually tended to have a fair amount of noble blood in them is one of the things that made the general stock in Europe somewhat better than the peasantry elsewhere. Generally, there are only three or four generations of second sons before you go from a Duke to someone who is untitled. (one of the things the priesthood was for was providing second and third sons with a sinecure so they wouldn't cause trouble. The priests still got around, contrary to popular image, but their children were without inheritance.) Statistically speaking, pretty much everyone in western Europe is descended from Charlemagne. He and all his kids and grandkids (including the daughters) really got around.
All the more reason why its always kind of funny to see people sperg out about royalty. Hell despite being a euromutt burger I’m also a descendant of Charles II. Nobody kept it in their pants back then.
Its less about blood than about upbringing and obligations that used to came with nobility. Saudis cant match those, because both domestic and international environment wont allow it. Cadet branches of Saud clan is kept on gibz to intentionally make them into degenerate coomers that cant compete for power and main line is groomed by glowBlack folk and educated in the West. Not to mention their whole country and by extension the royal family got used to throwing infinite money at problems instead of dealing with them using wits and will, like medieval and early modern monarchs had to, because of perpetual shortage of resources.
That's nice, what has that got to do with claiming European peasant stock was improved by noble blood? If anything the best peasant stock would ironically be the bugmen. While Europe was languishing under serfdom and the full dysgenic effects of that, they were free peasants with full freedom of movement for most of their history.
>no bevor
good luck protecting the neck
also that isn't how they fought with long swords or zweihanders
they did not useless bash at solid iron plates, it wont cut
they gripped the sword in a 'half hand' manner, gripping the blade closer to the crossguard, this is called the 'ricasso' and was often left unsharpened, and they used them like prybars to get into and pierce chinks in the armor
as well as using them as levers in grapplings and trying to trip or throw to the ground their opponent, because there was a lot of wrestling involved
In my unlearnered amateur opinion I think the traditional folk wrestling styles found around Europe may devolve from the wrestling taught to men-at-arms
Many of them are characterized as 'jacket wrestling' or 'belt wrestling' because they begin with the combatants wearing and holding their opponents heavy canvas jacket or shorts
So immediately you are in close combat grappling and trying to trip or heave to the ground you opponent - exactly as it would have been in full armor once you had closed to grappling
Cornish Wrestling: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xzW30VsRFE
Swiss Schwingen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2G1GxWSDO8I
But most regions have sort of traditional wrestling: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folk_wrestling
So what do you think about my theory /k/?
It is not a theory, it is simply correct. For some unexplained reason people think that medieval combat was tools only, never full contact body fighting. It was in fact fairly strict martial style that was rigidly trained since childhood and which utilized not only whole body, but all kinds of weapons as well.
I think "real combat" in full armor was a lot like pic related
The stuff in movies or the old manuals were "Karate" compared to the more practical MMA.
In a fight like OPs movie, Those big swords would probably be held sideways and bashed into your opponents head and chest, used as levers to throw your opponent to the ground where you would hold the sword by the handle and the blade and use the point to poke at the gaps in the armor until you press down by leaning on the sword and find the squishy part.
I think pick related was more like "real combat" because it is essentially real combat.
>pic related
You're rather short on pictures there mate, but as for your video the shit they do looks the way it does because the rules forbid them from doing all the shit that'd actually wound the opponent. It's like making WW2 battles into a full contact sport, but only with unloaded weapons, and from that drawing the conclusion that shooting people had no place in 20th century warfare.
>It's not like you can just pull back the blade when someone's grabbing it, right?
Ideally you'll move the sword away when your opponent tries, which will most likely give you a brilliant opportunity to carve up his arm like a Thanksgiving turkey in response.
Though if you merely manage to get the sword moving a bit, so it slides in his hand as he grips, that will likely slice his hand apart.
But if he does manage to grab hold then yes, it's difficult to get your sword loose again. Not impossible, but difficult. And if you do you'll slice the hand apart on your way out.
Grabbing your opponents sword is a valid technique, but somewhat situational and very risky. If your enemy is paying proper attention, well, you can move a sword tip faster than a hand. The razor usually wins.
It was a joke, Black person.
Obviously, if someone tries to grab your very sharp blade, you just pull it towards you, and slice open the idiot's hand. I mean, the sword wasn't even wide enough to have anything to grasp onto.
The only way they could have made that scene quasi-realistic, was if he was wearing some kind of leather glove or something, which might have made it possible for him to hold on to it for a second or two, and given him a brief opportunity to cut him down.
He's just repeating my points. Wear a leather glove, or do it for a split second to a get good chop in.
He also suggests not actually getting in contact with the sharp edge of the blade, which should be obvious, and was not the case in the scene discussed above.
Yes sorta, but does it matter when you win and kill everyone in your path?
I mean, Thebes, the city that crushed Sparta fought in the gayest way possible, what matters is the results.
Writegay and fencer gay here, you have to understand when it comes to movie choreography they’re trying to tell a story not necessarily fight efficiently. While rob Roy is not horribly offensive when it comes to realistic fighting, you should understand that they’re exaggerating the bad guys homosexualry because the whole point of rob Roy is that the “nobility” and “gentlemanliness” of the British upper class was a facade, they were far more savage and cruel than the “brutes” (like rob Roy) that they looked down upon.
If you want to see some real good smallsword fencing here’s one of my favourite videos demonstrating really good technique and athleticism.
>anything to do
Yes, though it’s not a perfect analogue. Foil was the training weapon for smallsword and modern sport sabers are a lighter evolution of the gymnasium sabers that were also used for sword training. Technique has changed a lot as fencing has become more gamey since no one is actually killing people with swords anymore but there are still good principles and skills to be learned. To put things in perspective, not only was the same Style of fencing saber we see in the Olympics today (minus electric scoring of course) already in use when people were still fighting saber duels in Italy, but the epee, the last of the three weapons to be added to the sport, was occasionally sharpened and used to fight duels in the early 20th century in France.
Lee smith is a man baby and skallagrim (the guy recording the video) is a literal furry cuckhold . That said both lee smith and Richard marsden are both excellent saber fencers.
There is pretty much a direct lineage between the smallsword of even the early 18th century and today's olympic fencing, but of course the sport evolved, the rule set evolved, the social implications evolved, etc. But the smallsword, foil and sabre used in the 18th century are the direct analogs to what is now taught in modern fencing as foil, épée and sabre. Of course now it's entirely a sport whereas back then it was both a sport and a practical matter.
In Scotland, there was a pretty stark difference between the Lowlands, whose smallsword traditions were firmly established, and the Highlands who were more into the old broadsword fencing. But then many people practiced both.
The idea that smallsword was a dainty an effeminate weapon is nonsense of course, especially when some people like Donald McBane were particularly enthusiast about the weapon. It was usually even more deadly than previous weapons, but mostly because of the way it's trained (centered around thrust to the upper chest), and also because it's so light and fast so defending was much more complicated and doubles were common.
I don't know shit about fencing, but the reason I was asking, is because I know that many Japanese martial arts, as they exist today, evolved during a long period of peace during the Tokugawa shogunate and during the Meiji era, when the Samurai had nothing to do and sat on their asses. Unless I'm remembering this incorrectly, their martial arts, including kendo and kyudo, were adapted to a life that didn't involve warfare anymore, so they introduced aspects that had less to do with combat and more to do with rituals, rules, traditions and spiritual stuff, and they lost a lot of their practical applications. Of course, this is an oversimplification, given that their warrior culture still survived up until the introduction of firearms, when they were thoroughly trounced and destroyed during the bakumatsu, and swords were partially banned.
I assumed something similar happened in the west. I'd say we've lost even more of our martial traditions than the japs did, given how fencing seems more like a sport, and HEMA is more a recreation of medieval combat, rather than a continuous, surviving tradition.
You are absolutely wrong at least in regards to kendo. It first worth noting that kendo was practiced by the imperial Japanese army during the late 19th and 20th century as well as by some of the remaining samurai. This form of kendo included throws and locking techniques and was in general a lot more physical. This may of not been sengoku era fighting techniques but the Japanese were still very much killing people with swords at this time. Kendo became more sports field during the American occupation when they were worried allowing its practice and proliferation as a martial art might encourage resistance.
For Japan, there was a transformation of their martial arts, the newer ones were more adapted to the civilian life, armored fencing wasn't a subject anymore, naginatajutsu or sojutsu either. Many of the schools of the Sengoku era still kept their curriculum and passed them up to us, but their was some changes here and there.
It's completely wrong to believe that they were "trounced during the bakumatsu", who was trounced exactly? There was lots of swordfighting done during the bakumatsu era and many of the proeminent fighting schools like Tennen Rishin-ryu, Hokushin Itto-ryu, Jikishinkage-ryu or Shindo Munen-ryu demonstrated great skills in close combat. Both sides used swords and guns extensively, it is not like the Cruise movie you know? When they arrived, several european fencing masters noted that their fighting prowess was quite high, especially in terms of using sword and wrestling together. THey spoke highly of masters like Henmi Sosuke, Yamaoka Tesshu or Sasakibara Kenkichi. Styles changed, but just like in Europe, as I said, the civilian smallsword was no less brutal and deadly than the rapier, especially in country with a strong fencing culture like France. It's just a focus on different weapons, different duelling etiquette, etc.
There was more than a thousand schools simply of Kenjutsu in japan in the 1850s, now there's like a hundred or so. They've lost a lot too, but they still have living lineages that are very old, whereas European ones are more like a century or two max, like jogo do pau.
But transformation and evolution is normal in any fighting tradition, especially today where fencing is a useless skill. You can't deride sport fencing when that's the only practical relevancy of using swords. The japanese are mostly trying to preserve the traditions, which is a different attittude. But the idea that sport isn't a way to preserve martial attitude is silly. Boxing and wrestling are very much sports and very much martial practices.
There is pretty much a direct lineage between the smallsword of even the early 18th century and today's olympic fencing, but of course the sport evolved, the rule set evolved, the social implications evolved, etc. But the smallsword, foil and sabre used in the 18th century are the direct analogs to what is now taught in modern fencing as foil, épée and sabre. Of course now it's entirely a sport whereas back then it was both a sport and a practical matter.
In Scotland, there was a pretty stark difference between the Lowlands, whose smallsword traditions were firmly established, and the Highlands who were more into the old broadsword fencing. But then many people practiced both.
The idea that smallsword was a dainty an effeminate weapon is nonsense of course, especially when some people like Donald McBane were particularly enthusiast about the weapon. It was usually even more deadly than previous weapons, but mostly because of the way it's trained (centered around thrust to the upper chest), and also because it's so light and fast so defending was much more complicated and doubles were common.
Antenna swinging doesn't have much in common with real fencing.
Biathlon is another sports that was completely ruined by olympics.
Olympics ruin every sports it touches.
Smallsword fencing was done almost exclusively sword only. The only examples I know of where the off hand had any kind of weapon were some obscure plates where a lantern was in the other hand and some with cloak. Rapier=/=smallsword and even then single rapier was also a common way of fencing as well.
I can tell you this, despite the way it may seem I actually used to fence worse with an off hand weapon. I specifically started practicing sword and buckler because it frustrates me that i lost all sense of coordination the second another object was in my hand. In a lot of situations you may be better off forgoing an off hand weapon if your technique is better without it.
> no dagger in the free hand
It's useless anyway, the sword is fast and covering enough. What if the people who fenced in earnest also fenced for sport? Crazy thinking I know...
Say what you will about it looking homosexual but fencing and the rapier definitively BTFO every other style of swordsmanship they ever encountered. Portuguese bravi killed so many samurai that such duels had to be legally forbidden by the Daimyo and there were local attempts to create their own rapier.
It turns out stabbing the other guy every time he moves in to attack is a pretty effective way to win. Even if you do not strike a killing blow, being the first to suffer a wound like that all but guarantees you will lose against a competent opponent.
>Portuguese bravi killed so many samurai that such duels had to be legally forbidden by the Daimyo and there were local attempts to create their own rapier.
source: my ass
Considering we're on the topic of medieval crap, does anyone here shoot bows?
I spontaneously decided to buy a bow, and I was wondering if there's anyone here I can pilfer some information from.
What is the point in dueling with full plate armor and swords? Best you can do is smack your opponent on the head hard enough to give them a concussion, otherwise it's going to be a boring slugfest.
>What is the point in dueling with full plate armor and swords?
It could be to prove your skill, your bravery, your sense of honor, to have a friendly bout with your pals or to kill the other guy because he badly talked about your mother.
>Best you can do is smack your opponent on the head hard enough to give them a concussion
That's because you don't know how to fence. Just look at the famous duel between Jarnac and La Chataigneraie for a well described historical duel with sword and plate armor that ended with one bleeding to death and unable to move after being struck at the weakpoint of his armor.
Why is this movie so fricking dark?
You could light a goddam cigarette in the royal booth and it would probably double the overall brightness of the scene. Did Europoors forget to invent the sun or something?
Yes
it's called the "dark" ages dude.
The dark ages were 5th to 10th century, the zweihander was used in the 15th and 16th centuries. You're pretty far off.
you are critisising the historical accuracy of a puin
It was the dark ages
Africans hadn't shown cumskins how to make the sun yet
Rain is always more kino
never heard about medieval movie filter?
It was raining when the time traveler filmed that duel. Fricking moron didn't watch the video.
>so, about the lighti-
>frick it; we'll just put a filter over it and not bother
The "beauty" of the digital age.
>Did Europoors forget to invent the sun or something?
Euro here. That rain and grey is actually what my nation is like 10 months of the year. That is why everyone goes to the Mediterranean for summer holidays
>Did Europoors forget to invent the sun or something?
It wasn't until after WW2 when the americans came up with more peaceful uses for the nuclear bomb that the sun was invented.
gays like you should be euthanized.
That being said, I guess duels couldn’t take rain checks.
>he doesn’t like the darkest dungeon aesthetic
Its called atmosphere you absolute pleb.
It gets really stale when all representations of medieval or near-medieval are featuring the aesthetic.
I think it would be really cool to see people in bright costumes, with goofy ass long sleeves and pigeon-chested doublets and and pointy shoes. Would make for incredible contrast when they suit up and kill eachother in gruesome armored wrestling with a rondel through the visor or something
Hell yeah brother. Why do we allow the israeliteing of such kino
The middle age is almost never depicted as Eldritch/Gory as DD. It’s fantasy you pleb. What echo chamber do you live in where it is?
You're pic must be unrelated, because I can clearly see traces of color that shouldn't be there.
Fixed that for anon
This is sort of a schizo post, but I believe the overwhelmingy majority of big budget media depicting pre-WW2 periods goes for this colorless, dirty, ultra-serious, miserable visual aesthetic to make people think "god, I'm so glad I was born in these times, because despite all the problems, this looks so much worse!" If you were actually in this situation in reality, there would be color, even during rain, people would be cheering or laughing or gossiping or clapping. Everyone was not miserable at all times.
It's both older and funnier than that. The meme of portraying the middle ages as brown and disgusting and malnourished and diseased comes from the 18th century Enlightenment period.
And the reason that's funny is that we now know by extensive, quantitative archeological evidence that the high middle ages were the highest point in terms of general health and nutrition (as evidenced by average height) in European history prior to the 19th century, while the Enlightenment period was one of the lowest points. The 13th century peasant was closer in height to a 20th century European than the 18th century commoner (who got bombarded by pamphlets on horrible the Dark Ages were) was to the 13th century peasant.
Not surprising considering the fact that peasants lived on farms and ate fish foul or meat daily (probbaly more fish than anything else) while the 18th century was the beginning of rapid urbanization, eww
>And the reason that's funny is that we now know by extensive, quantitative archeological evidence that the high middle ages were the highest point in terms of general health and nutrition (as evidenced by average height) in European history prior to the 19th century, while the Enlightenment period was one of the lowest points. The 13th century peasant was closer in height to a 20th century European than the 18th century commoner (who got bombarded by pamphlets on horrible the Dark Ages were) was to the 13th century peasant.
Any recs on studies regarding this? I cant trust wikipedia anymore
it's nonsense, they're conflating gen pop studies with studies focusing on urban populations (who were always smaller and sicker than rural ones)
It's not General Population but there's a lot of skeletal studies on Towton and Visby because they were particularly nasty fights where a lot of men were buried very hastily. In Visby the corpses started to turn before they could even get the armor stripped off, so unusually they were buried before getting looted. forensic data at Towton in particular suggests that the soldiers there often had a level of health and fitness on par with a professional athlete. The bodies recovered generally have horrific injuries to the heads and forearms.
Towton might be more useful because the soldiers represented a broad swath of society.
>doing my PhD on history of a few central European parishes
>look through parish records
>16th and 17th century, 90% of the peasants sign their own names on birth and marriage records
>18 century, Enlightened monarch rages against monks spreading backwards superstitions among the populace and seizes monastic land for himself
>18th and 19th century, pretty much all peasants sign all records with XXX
Northern Europe is really dark
No, no it is not. Shit is Germany, not Binlan during their month lasting darkness.
Whatcha need. I only ever shot historical though, zero idea about modern bows.
There is a reason people of European origin fair worse in the sun than others, anon
>people of European origin fair worse in the sun
Yakub was a cruel master
WHAT THE FRICK IS UP WITH THIS GIF NAMES???
The sight I downloaded it from randomly generates filenames from animals and adjectives.
>Why is this movie so fricking dark?
don't you know, its the medieval period, they hadn't invented light yet.
that's why everything is dark, and brown. Because clearly no-one used colour then....
It was the same with the vikings. They only wore brown and grey. No colors at all.
I always found it hilarious that middle ages, an era with some of the most colorful clothing when even commoners used colors, with battles being often endless sea of bright pastel colored heraldry, is commonly depicted in bleakest possible colors and shittiest/darkest possible lighting in movies. What a moronic homosexualry.
I blame Ridley Scott
Armour wasn't that heavy and didn't obscure the field of view that much
Not all helmets are the same, genius. Also it's a camera behind the helm.
>Armour wasn't that heavy
That's true but I didn't get the sense that the armor was too heavy. They were a bit clumsy but the ground was muddy.
>didn't obscure the field of view that much
They did when the visor was down which is why visors could be lifted. Most knights trained for armored fighting so this normally didn't bother them.
they swing the zweinhander like it is the dragonslayer, it's too heavy
Chuckled when the three-pound sword hit the back of the 180lb man wearing 40lbs of plate armor flying
Doesn't seem that bad. Sort of like boxing given the armor.
I can't believe people used to fight in pike and shot formations. You have to match around as cannons the off of you. All the bad waiting of later line warfare with the added downside of more melee fighting and heavy horse charges fricking you up.
Not to mention that, in the rare cases where positioning was absolutely crucial and formations engaged in the push of the pike, instead of just teeing off on each other with fire arms until one side broke or withdrew, you generally had absolutely atrocious casualties for both sides.
The whole Thirty Years War is sort of insane. Imagine killing significantly more of Europe's population than both World Wars combined with one war. And you have a bunch of other extremely deadly religious wars outside of that two. The Huguenot Wars took place when France had a population 25% smaller than Syria in 2011. The Syrian War has totally fricked the country and killed 400,000-600,000. The French religious wars killed 2.8-4 million, granted over a longer time, but not even all that much longer at this point.
Religious autism is a hell of a drug.
The 30 years war was several small wars combined. That is like saying ww1+ww2 are one war. Still does not change the fact of what you're saying.
The whole wars in the 17th century had insane effects on wester civilization. The idea of nation states was born here, serfdom was ended for good and the idea of universal human rights for europeans most likely originated also during this war. Hell "War Crimes" became a thing after this war.
Watch the movie alatriste. The final 15 minutes are kino and give a good idea how fricked up pike/shot warfare was.
lol serfdom wasn't ended for good. Look at tsarist russia.
russia isnt europe and never has been
European border is in urals.
Russia is part of europe even if we dislike the idea. There is nothing meaningfull after urals.
Just wasteland of natives and penal cities
>European border is in urals
look at a map - the urals lies behind the middle east
europe is the peninsula and always has been, it does not stretch beyond the black sea
just because st. petersburg lies in europe does not mean russia is europe
this is as delusional as saying turkey is europe because of istanbul
Nobody's saying Siberia is Europe because of Petersburg you stupid mutt
you will never be european
The European borderlands are the Ukraine, literally.
>That is like saying ww1+ww2 are one war.
i firmly believe people a few hundred years in the future will consider them to be 1 continuous conflict. in fact you could say the cold war is an extension of ww2 as well.
Since WW2 that 1914-1945 was considered by some as a " Second Thirty Years-War". For the french historians and probably some german ones, this is absolutely a fairly normal thesis. Even De Gaulle said something like that.
>Religious autism is a hell of a drug.
Its what made europe so strong, same as the 30 years war. You had a bunch of empires duking it out with eachother or in civil religious wars. Then when they got tired they decided to have a go at the rest of the world and basically conquered the planet and raped and robbed all the shitskins.
Our modern cucktheistic liberal welfare states were made possible by fanatic racist, antisemetic and religious war crazed psychos.
The modern white man is an anthithesis to his ancestors and beacuse of this most european races will perish, the US will belong to mixed mexican mutts and europe to arab muslims. If you dont fight you perish. Religion is mandatory for a societies survival.
> religious autism made Europe strong
Europe only began to conquer Asia again starting by the 1700s, when Europe's aristocrats were increasingly losing interest in Christianity for Classical Roman and Greek stuff
>entire western hemisphere conquered in the name of 2 very very Catholic Monarchs and via their coin.
Lol. K.
Who cares about conquering stone age Indians? Whats more interesting is conquering a near peer adversary like the British East India Company against the Maratha Confederacy or Napoleon Bonaparte's le Grande Armee against the Ottoman Empire
Shut the frick up loser. Napoleon saw himself as the successor of Charlemagne, the moor murderer himself and father/guardian of Europe.
Every bongistani who left port and did the needful across the globe was a vehemently saturated in and violent espouser of the word of Christ.
have a nice day.
>Napoleon saw himself as the successor of Charlemagne
It's almost like he had a complex or something ...
>successor of Charlemagne
>presides over a secularist regime
>doesn't have a priest crown him, but rather crowns himself
LMAO
>Every bongistani who left port and did the needful across the globe was a vehemently saturated in and violent espouser of the word of Christ.
ROFL, yeah, "the word of Vhrist" was what was on the bonger's minds when they formed the East India Company. Not making loads of dosh.
>it was revealed to me in my dream
england of the day was quite religious and actually invented most of the modern day nut bar protestant denominations. you're forgetting the king was the literal head of the fricking church as well. read a fricking book you Black person.
>Its what made europe so strong, same as the 30 years war.
This is the most garbage moronic take I've ever seen. All Europeans did was lose lose lose under hard line catholicism. Lost the Holy Land. Lost Constantinople. Lost Greece and the Balkans and bloody nearly lost Central Europe as well. All lost to the, at the time, practical and basically irreligious Ottomans.
Then along comes the Rennaissance, the Church can go get fricked and smart nerdy guys are allowed to develop shit rather than getting their shit pushed in by moronic churchmen and suddenly Europe is winning everything and the Ottomans having become hardline Islamists are getting their asses kicked all over the show.
>Lost Greece and the Balkans and bloody nearly lost Central Europe as well. All lost to the, at the time, practical and basically irreligious Ottomans.
that was the Byzantines, bro. corrupt, louche, soft and pampered, decayed empire and decayed people.
there's a reason the Turks stopped at Vienna, that's where the real hard men were.
Western Europe brought war to its zenith through dint of constant practice, that's why they (and the Japanese) went on to take over the rest of the world
Uhh bro what did Japan ever conquer? They gave it a good run but lost every foreign war until they learned how to sneak attack. They got fricked even after beating back the mongols as it weakened the Hojo and ushered in the beginning of the sengoku jidai
>what did Japan ever conquer?
is that a trick question
So, not much?
The Sengoku Jidai was two centuries removed from the mongol invasions. It had quite literally, unequivocally, absolutely NOTHING to do with the later Onin war and the beginning of the Sengoku period.
>Then along comes the Renaissance, the Church can go get fricked and smart nerdy guys are allowed to develop shit rather than getting their shit pushed in by moronic churchmen
Listen here you little shit, the Catholic Church was the main bank roller and supporter of the Renaissance Era of Europe. It engendered and proliferated the European scientific breakthroughs, artwork, and cultural identity that formed a somewhat cohesive stanchion of nations to push back invading Muslims. The Church ensured the survival of history and books that formed the baseline for the Renaissance Era discoveries.
Galileo had an autistic fit when the Church wanted more credibility in his Heliocentric model before accepting it. Copernicus's notes were kept by The Church, regardless if they were supporting the Heliocentric model and The Church was more than willing to listen to Galileo if only he brought forth more evidence on his theory.
Are you genuinly moronic or just historically illiterate. Hell europeans used to be exponentially more religious even 100 years ago.
The greatest european empires were hardcore christians, same for the US.
The rennaissance was basically italian nobles and clergy who got rich off the fall of the Byzantine empire and subsequent trade, investing alot of money into arts and sciences, including the Vatican being a major player in all of this.
Proper secular states have bee thing only after ww1 and it took over 50 years of communism to ruin eastern europe.
As a counter argument what has atheism got us?
Lost Germany, lost France, lost the UK, lost Austria, lost Sweden, lost Russia(these will be musilm caliphates in 30-50 years according to demographics),lost the US. Europeans are less than 5% of the global population an have very few countrkes they can call their own, but at least we have abortions and fun with drugs nowadays and science allows mentally ill men to chop their dicks off.
Atheism will not perpetuate and its obsession with stomping out christianity will only ensure a more fanatical religion takes its place.
>they hated him because he told the truth
>beat a guy unconscious
>wail on his body with an 8 pound sword
>stick said sword in his neck
>sort of like boxing
I fricking wish boxing was like that.
Whats also crazy about the pike formation fighting was that both sides often sent out guys with daggers that would crawl around underneath the pikemen fighting, and they would rescue allies or stab wounded enemies to death right in front of their friends that couldn't do anything to stop them/
That sounds rather ludicrous. You are telling me that nobody in a pike formation other than dedicated men carried a knife around? I'm pretty sure a knife was the equivalent of a phone today, every man carried them on their person as a regular tool for a variety of uses.
It's not a matter of whether or not the Pikemen got knives, but that Pikemen are too busy piking each other to crawl around and stab people with their knives.
Now, is his claim true? No fricking idea.
Warriors clad in shiny steel armor do look interestingly futuristic for the time period, especially when one considers how most people back then lived in villages of thatch roofed wooden-mud cottages
>armor lacquered like a pot
great art
Is this accurate?
My impression is that heavier longer swords were used more like spears for cavalry breaking or general intimidation.
Leaned against the shoulder for endurance, and then swung forward at the right timing.
Not necessarily for duels? Especially not heavily armored ones.
Give either of these guys a short blade and theyd easily outmaneuver the other.
Remember: Duelling weapons =/= Battlefield weapons.
Duels often used weird shit like pic related
Of course not.
1. If you even have the smallest urge to ask "Is this accurate?" for any movie the answer is always no.
2. You can watch Battle of Nations or other buhurt match and see that a man in plate will barely notice any sort of normal bladed weapon, even heavy ones like poleaxes.
Damn right to pecker/make you poop area
Exhibition duels like that were not always fought in the most practical or sportsmanlike ways, they were ad hoc dick measuring contests.
Legal duels however would be insanely regulated and regimented in what weapons and gear could be used and could last several days on until someone finally died,
>Battle of the Nations
>realistic
It's not in any way. Those armors are padded several times more than real armors would have been, they're essentially crash test dummy armors meant to minimize the wailing of blunt weapons instead of balancing out protection with combat ability, people would often not wear as much armor or prefer to keep helmets open because being able to see what you're doing actually matters outside sports.
>Battle of the Nations
Point stands though, you can swing a zweihander at a guy in plate like a baseball bat and at best it will only stagger a man if he was taken completely by surprise.
I really hate how /k/ can only ever be on one side of the extreme of any argument so much so that they’re always wrong.
Yes, a salle helmet is very good at protecting you from medieval weaponry. Getting fricking gonked by an eight pound zweihander is still absolutely going to stagger if not bare a man to the ground though regardless of whether or not they were taken by surprise.
Not the guy you're replying to, but I think /k/ is far less extreme than other boards, as in, people are less likely to only be on one side.
I disagree at least as it relates to everything no gun related. Here’s a brief history:
>MUH KATANA cut through steel folded 1 gorilla on times
>katana is pig steel shit ship break in half like twig
>MUH ULFBERT twisted metal unstoppable European power
>Viking sea Black folk never built anything, sword is shit!
>MUH GLADIUS Roman conquer all short superior
>lmao sword gays get dabbed on by spears legionnaires are spearmen because of muh javelin
>MUH HALBERD <— you are here
That sounds more like what /misc/ has devolved into. I mean, I'm a fricking war refugee here. I've been on PrepHole since its inception and posted on /misc/ for many years, but now I can't fricking stand that board because they've been subverted, and everyone there's a fricking schizophrenic moron or a shill.
/k/ seems far more balanced in terms of viewpoints. Maybe it's just about going from full moron to half-moron, making the latter seem reasonable.
I just want the phase of "plate armour provides absolutely no protection against blunt trauma and even a slight tickle from a warhammer against a plate cuirass will completely shatter all your bones!" meme to end.
Most people don't even realize that the warhammer was primarily a horseman's sidearm rather than a primary infantry weapon or that the popularity of the flanged mace peaked in the 12th century or so, long before plate armour was even a thing.
We're talking about the context of the show here. The actors are not swinging at their faces, and the script has them treating the blows at their breast plate like as if they're being hit by a sledgehammer.
Now you're just being moronic. You're taking memes and pretending posters ever said them seriously, or at least didn't get absolutely BTFO every time they said it in seriousness.
>You're taking memes and pretending posters ever said them seriously,
You must be new here, seriously. There’s still currently morons who make threads and argue tooth and nail that spears were unstoppable better than every other option at every single thing.
Oh no one moron who's trolling, what will we ever do.
If your idea of trolling is effort posting dumb opinions then congrats on wasting your time while people who actually know shit just assume you’re an idiot.
>I was merely pretending to be a moron.
>It's not in any way. Those armors are padded several times more
The medieval armor was pretty goddamn padded, I'm not sure you can fit more than they did underneath. Also buhurt and most HMB also have fairly strict historicity rules, you can't just mix and match kit from different eras.
It is a plain fact that full plate armor against cold weapons basically makes you a war god. It was no accident that nobility survived and men-at-arms/conscripts did not.
Its OK until the helmets come off (which they always do in movies) then it degenerates pretty fast in terms of realism
anyway aa01.net is my current pirate site
Medieval battle armor was nowhere near as pdded as it could be, and it was also lighter and thinner. Also buhurt isn't realistic by simple virtue of it not being a blood sport. Ypu could say they are simulating something like a tournament melee, but they use different rules and equipment anyway
>Medieval battle armor was nowhere near as pdded as it could be,
a padded jack/gambeson was at least an inch of quilted fabric. it could stop arrows. you wore that over two other shirts with two pairs of pants and padding around the knees, elbows, shoulders and feet.
You didn't put that shit on and rattle around like a tin can, it was tight and it was stuffed
That would be true in times when you wore chainmail over it. You would not be wearing an inch of padding under a steel breastplate, nor any other parts of a harness
I have nothing to say except that you are considerably mistaken. plate armor in every place and every time was put over heavy padding, on purpose
Go to about the 12 minute mark. Certainly does not look like an inch of padding to me on that garment
>cites gootube homosexual
let me guess you unironically watch skallacuck too
https://web.archive.org/web/20161217103014/http://www.revivalclothing.com/article-armingsequence.aspx
It’s far from accurate. They have full armor while wielding a rennesance weapon. Not even mentioning their moronic swinging...
>being this wienersure while being completely dumb
He's wearing late XV century armour, renaissance started early XV century
Now show me a formation using zweihanders you ignorant frick. You’ll see next to no armor
while not a full suit, all of these Landsknechte have chainmail and breasteplates and tassets
No, it is not accurate. In full plate armor any bladed implement is more or less useless against an opponent when used for slashing or chopping. If you were to hit less armored areas with a strong blow it may sting or bruise, and if you were to catch him in the head it may momentarily daze them depending on the padding, but by doing so you open yourself up to a stab that could be fatal for you. In a duel with two fully armored opponents, then, it essentially comes down to which of the two could wrestle the other into an advantageous position and then stab them in an area with a gap. The armpits, joints, eyes, etc. In the historical duel between Jacques Le Gris and Jean de Carrouges which was depicted in The Last Duel, for example (which had its own numerous glaring inaccuracies), Carrouges managed to wrestle his opponent to the ground after being wounded by a stab in the thigh in an unarmored area. Though Le Gris was invulnerable to Carrouges swings from his sword, his opponent bashed his weapon against the lock on his faceplate until at last he had opened it and finally killed him by stabbing him in the throat.
Rarely are medieval films or media at all authentic in their depiction of duels because they are not glamorous in the least. There aren't wild flourishes and sweeps but rather judging of distance with quick stabs, slices, or chops to kill the other. Watch two opponents duel with machetes in some third world country and you will get a sense of how incredibly brutal and distasteful the reality of lethal combat likely was. But especially with armored combat it is less than entertaining to watch, because it inevitably ends with a graceless tumble and a coup de grace on a helpless opponent.
underrated post
>effortposting of this quality
>largely ignored
Of course. Good shit, anon.
Also it wasn't that much chaotic, as much of techniques were learned. So you are right it was largely messy, but also not completely chaotic either. The fact why movies often ignore that they naturally used also their legs, knees and arms to punch and kick is beyond me.
where can I watch this movie/series!? It looks cool.
Insanely awesome
zweihanders are cool
neat
the disarm at 21 seconds never gets old
Why are 2 of the swords at an angle if they are being illustrated to compare length?
Frick off mordhau spinning ankle biting fat homosexual
>mordhau spinning
what?
>ankle biting
what?
>fat
why am I fat?
The way they swing their swords makes them out to be heavier than they really were. But that's a standard movie thing so whatever I guess.
Also, although it is dark, you at least have to give them credit for not smearing everything and everyone in mud
>fight
that's sparing and why are their visors down?
>used to
boy
?t=188
>buhurt
>accurate representation of medieval combat
Ishygddt
fyi this guy is a monster
been following medieval combat sports for awhile now
Not that anon, but I recommend trying it if you can. It is ridiculously fun. I never went full Buhurt, but I did whole lot of historical medieval acting and was offered to try it few times and I enjoyed it a lot every single time. If you are training some martial/combat sport, you will enjoy it even better, lots of guys are otherwise MMA/Muay Thai lads.
Warfare is far more insane now. Most people in warfare now are not even aware the moment they are about to die, thanks to missiles and artillery and guided bombs and marksmen rifles.
This. Back then in a battle at least you were right beside your mates and had a decent chance of being well-rested and, yeah, also could somewhat accurately tell when you're actually in danger
Reading the synopsis for this show gave me a fricking headache and reminded me why I'm happy to be American were I can simply just frick over pseudo-elites by not purchasing their bullshit.
>When Charles the Bold, Duke of Burgundy, dies in battle, his heiress and only child Mary, intends to rule alone, despite being coveted by various suitors. Mary resists the rich Ghent burghers who, in cahoots with Louis XI of France, try to force her to marry the Dauphin Charles, a boy who is of a weak mentality and twelve years younger than her. Meanwhile, the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick III wants his son, Maximilian, to marry the duchess.
Witnessing her ministers being executed and her territories invaded by France, Mary decided to send her lady-in-waiting Johanna von Hallewyn to Maximilian with a message.
The young and warlike Maximilian despises his father's sluggishness and aversion to his enemies like the Hungarian king Matthias Corvinus. Although he was in love with his sister Kunigunde's lady-in-waiting Rosina von Kraig, ultimately he decided for the marriage as a chance to prove himself.
>I'm happy to be American were I can simply just frick over pseudo-elites by not purchasing their bullshit
>pedos in washington
>people who stand up against the government get jailed
>mobs can run wild in the cities
>~~*lobbyists*~~ like AIPAC in control of the government
Imagine bragging about taking orders from decrepit pedos and creepy orange israelites instead of following dynamic young princes and cute strong willed princesses. Monarchs were both personifications of the state and role models for their subjects, obliged to show courage, dignity, magnanimity and piety, modern world has cringe clowns in democracies or paranoid psychopaths in dictatorships.
So does K consider the Last Duel to be realistic? Reading some of the replies it would seem not.
I can't get over the fricking helmet, really. Imagine a ww1 movie and they make the actor wear half a fricking gas mask to "see the actor's face" it just represents the snobishness and narrow-mindedness of filmmakers so well. It's a fricking actor, not a face model
Realistic compared to pretty much any cinema of the period? Yes. Realistic compared to the actuality of the period? Unquestionably not. As the other poster mentioned, the helmets are just...what the frick, some of the most bafflingly stupid shit I have ever seen. But most of the movie does a fair attempt at recreating the events that lead up to the duel itself, and it's a pretty good movie in its own right. It's just a shame that we didn't get Ridley Scott when he was his most based making kino:
Honestly, I just don't fricking get it. We have tons of movies in the Napoleonic and afterwards that make SOME effort to truly reproduce the reality of life. But I honestly cannot name a single movie set in the medieval period that at all encapsulates with any accuracy the life at the time. It's all either practically high fantasy or caked in mud, there is literally no in-between.
Kingdom Come: Deliverance is like the only major media release that fairly depicts the middle ages.
The hilarious thing is that as soon as I typed that message out I fricking booted up KCD to run through it again. What a fricking game.
Except for how your fricking clothes degrade in minutes amd you usually end up running around in tatters because of it
If you're hiking through the forest and getting into battles with Cumans at least 10x a day, your clothes are gonna be fricked.
I don't know, man. I've never fought any cumans, but a sturdy wool jacket will last through months of non stop hiking and shit guaranteed
Apart from lacking crossbows, firearms and long weapons, absolutely. KCD is fricking awesome.
The single combat from El Cid was pretty good, except of course, for the magical disappearing helmets
?t=129
>Unquestionably not
Helmet aside, the combat in the duel was based on multiple first hand written accounts. A lot of people watched it, a lot of them wrote down what happened in the fight.
I was more speaking to the entire film, but even the duel itself while following the basic elements left some out for cinematographic convenience. For example, Adam Driver's character should be far larger, quite more confident he would be victorious, and show a commanding strength in the duel that he simply did not. Similarly, he did not stab him in the leg with a knife after turning him around, but with his sword. I still enjoyed the fight tremendously, and they're somewhat nitpicks since they at least attempted to follow the events which is far, FAR better than virtually all media that takes place in the medieval era, but it's just worth noting.
>we
>wuz
>Uberkonigritterzweilhanderschutzerittersoldetengeffreiter
>we
They were the senators/sheriffs of their time.
You were just one of their slaves.
>the nobles having real world skills and fighting wars for us and being honorable enough to show their face in public... le bad
>the rich being untouchable parasites who do nothing but money change and enlist millions of plebs to die for reasons they were lied to about... le good
Nobles were known to outright buttholes to their subjects
There was incredible downward mobility in Medieval society, and most people are related to knights and higher if you go back far enough. The fact that the peasantry actually tended to have a fair amount of noble blood in them is one of the things that made the general stock in Europe somewhat better than the peasantry elsewhere. Generally, there are only three or four generations of second sons before you go from a Duke to someone who is untitled. (one of the things the priesthood was for was providing second and third sons with a sinecure so they wouldn't cause trouble. The priests still got around, contrary to popular image, but their children were without inheritance.) Statistically speaking, pretty much everyone in western Europe is descended from Charlemagne. He and all his kids and grandkids (including the daughters) really got around.
All the more reason why its always kind of funny to see people sperg out about royalty. Hell despite being a euromutt burger I’m also a descendant of Charles II. Nobody kept it in their pants back then.
>He believes in noble blood
kek, you might as well claim the Saudis are the most powerful race in the world.
Peasant blood creates psycho homosexuals like Mao, Stalin, and Misc Pot.
Its less about blood than about upbringing and obligations that used to came with nobility. Saudis cant match those, because both domestic and international environment wont allow it. Cadet branches of Saud clan is kept on gibz to intentionally make them into degenerate coomers that cant compete for power and main line is groomed by glowBlack folk and educated in the West. Not to mention their whole country and by extension the royal family got used to throwing infinite money at problems instead of dealing with them using wits and will, like medieval and early modern monarchs had to, because of perpetual shortage of resources.
That's nice, what has that got to do with claiming European peasant stock was improved by noble blood? If anything the best peasant stock would ironically be the bugmen. While Europe was languishing under serfdom and the full dysgenic effects of that, they were free peasants with full freedom of movement for most of their history.
The Saudis are usurpers, the Hashemites are the actual total family in Arabia (the king of Jordan)
They're kind of okay.
>Dead or alive, thou're coming with me!
underrated
We as in 0.1% of the European population?
Better times
>no bevor
good luck protecting the neck
also that isn't how they fought with long swords or zweihanders
they did not useless bash at solid iron plates, it wont cut
they gripped the sword in a 'half hand' manner, gripping the blade closer to the crossguard, this is called the 'ricasso' and was often left unsharpened, and they used them like prybars to get into and pierce chinks in the armor
as well as using them as levers in grapplings and trying to trip or throw to the ground their opponent, because there was a lot of wrestling involved
halfhanding
In my unlearnered amateur opinion I think the traditional folk wrestling styles found around Europe may devolve from the wrestling taught to men-at-arms
Many of them are characterized as 'jacket wrestling' or 'belt wrestling' because they begin with the combatants wearing and holding their opponents heavy canvas jacket or shorts
So immediately you are in close combat grappling and trying to trip or heave to the ground you opponent - exactly as it would have been in full armor once you had closed to grappling
Cornish Wrestling: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xzW30VsRFE
Swiss Schwingen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2G1GxWSDO8I
But most regions have sort of traditional wrestling: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folk_wrestling
So what do you think about my theory /k/?
It is not a theory, it is simply correct. For some unexplained reason people think that medieval combat was tools only, never full contact body fighting. It was in fact fairly strict martial style that was rigidly trained since childhood and which utilized not only whole body, but all kinds of weapons as well.
Why they move like they shat their pants?
Medieval armor wasn't that restrictive and heavy.
Looks like wrestling, but 100% more metal.
>/pol/turds ruin another thread
You will live to regret your words and deeds.
Was more like 3-however many men at arms prepping the bull than a knight running in and wrecking shit like the cool aid man.
Wars were lame until the invention of the gun, you had to be wealthy to even participate.
I think "real combat" in full armor was a lot like pic related
The stuff in movies or the old manuals were "Karate" compared to the more practical MMA.
In a fight like OPs movie, Those big swords would probably be held sideways and bashed into your opponents head and chest, used as levers to throw your opponent to the ground where you would hold the sword by the handle and the blade and use the point to poke at the gaps in the armor until you press down by leaning on the sword and find the squishy part.
I think pick related was more like "real combat" because it is essentially real combat.
>pic related
You're rather short on pictures there mate, but as for your video the shit they do looks the way it does because the rules forbid them from doing all the shit that'd actually wound the opponent. It's like making WW2 battles into a full contact sport, but only with unloaded weapons, and from that drawing the conclusion that shooting people had no place in 20th century warfare.
did fencers really fight this gayly?
bro it's a 3 ft razor blade in your hand, what else are you going to do
Based on the final duel, a hand will always beat a razor. It's not like you can just pull back the blade when someone's grabbing it, right?
>It's not like you can just pull back the blade when someone's grabbing it, right?
Ideally you'll move the sword away when your opponent tries, which will most likely give you a brilliant opportunity to carve up his arm like a Thanksgiving turkey in response.
Though if you merely manage to get the sword moving a bit, so it slides in his hand as he grips, that will likely slice his hand apart.
But if he does manage to grab hold then yes, it's difficult to get your sword loose again. Not impossible, but difficult. And if you do you'll slice the hand apart on your way out.
Grabbing your opponents sword is a valid technique, but somewhat situational and very risky. If your enemy is paying proper attention, well, you can move a sword tip faster than a hand. The razor usually wins.
It was a joke, Black person.
Obviously, if someone tries to grab your very sharp blade, you just pull it towards you, and slice open the idiot's hand. I mean, the sword wasn't even wide enough to have anything to grasp onto.
The only way they could have made that scene quasi-realistic, was if he was wearing some kind of leather glove or something, which might have made it possible for him to hold on to it for a second or two, and given him a brief opportunity to cut him down.
He's just repeating my points. Wear a leather glove, or do it for a split second to a get good chop in.
He also suggests not actually getting in contact with the sharp edge of the blade, which should be obvious, and was not the case in the scene discussed above.
Yes sorta, but does it matter when you win and kill everyone in your path?
I mean, Thebes, the city that crushed Sparta fought in the gayest way possible, what matters is the results.
Writegay and fencer gay here, you have to understand when it comes to movie choreography they’re trying to tell a story not necessarily fight efficiently. While rob Roy is not horribly offensive when it comes to realistic fighting, you should understand that they’re exaggerating the bad guys homosexualry because the whole point of rob Roy is that the “nobility” and “gentlemanliness” of the British upper class was a facade, they were far more savage and cruel than the “brutes” (like rob Roy) that they looked down upon.
If you want to see some real good smallsword fencing here’s one of my favourite videos demonstrating really good technique and athleticism.
Does modern sport fencing have anything to do with sword duels from the era that the movie portrays though?
>anything to do
Yes, though it’s not a perfect analogue. Foil was the training weapon for smallsword and modern sport sabers are a lighter evolution of the gymnasium sabers that were also used for sword training. Technique has changed a lot as fencing has become more gamey since no one is actually killing people with swords anymore but there are still good principles and skills to be learned. To put things in perspective, not only was the same Style of fencing saber we see in the Olympics today (minus electric scoring of course) already in use when people were still fighting saber duels in Italy, but the epee, the last of the three weapons to be added to the sport, was occasionally sharpened and used to fight duels in the early 20th century in France.
Is this a good video, fencer-anon?
Lee smith is a man baby and skallagrim (the guy recording the video) is a literal furry cuckhold . That said both lee smith and Richard marsden are both excellent saber fencers.
I don't know shit about fencing, but the reason I was asking, is because I know that many Japanese martial arts, as they exist today, evolved during a long period of peace during the Tokugawa shogunate and during the Meiji era, when the Samurai had nothing to do and sat on their asses. Unless I'm remembering this incorrectly, their martial arts, including kendo and kyudo, were adapted to a life that didn't involve warfare anymore, so they introduced aspects that had less to do with combat and more to do with rituals, rules, traditions and spiritual stuff, and they lost a lot of their practical applications. Of course, this is an oversimplification, given that their warrior culture still survived up until the introduction of firearms, when they were thoroughly trounced and destroyed during the bakumatsu, and swords were partially banned.
I assumed something similar happened in the west. I'd say we've lost even more of our martial traditions than the japs did, given how fencing seems more like a sport, and HEMA is more a recreation of medieval combat, rather than a continuous, surviving tradition.
You are absolutely wrong at least in regards to kendo. It first worth noting that kendo was practiced by the imperial Japanese army during the late 19th and 20th century as well as by some of the remaining samurai. This form of kendo included throws and locking techniques and was in general a lot more physical. This may of not been sengoku era fighting techniques but the Japanese were still very much killing people with swords at this time. Kendo became more sports field during the American occupation when they were worried allowing its practice and proliferation as a martial art might encourage resistance.
For Japan, there was a transformation of their martial arts, the newer ones were more adapted to the civilian life, armored fencing wasn't a subject anymore, naginatajutsu or sojutsu either. Many of the schools of the Sengoku era still kept their curriculum and passed them up to us, but their was some changes here and there.
It's completely wrong to believe that they were "trounced during the bakumatsu", who was trounced exactly? There was lots of swordfighting done during the bakumatsu era and many of the proeminent fighting schools like Tennen Rishin-ryu, Hokushin Itto-ryu, Jikishinkage-ryu or Shindo Munen-ryu demonstrated great skills in close combat. Both sides used swords and guns extensively, it is not like the Cruise movie you know? When they arrived, several european fencing masters noted that their fighting prowess was quite high, especially in terms of using sword and wrestling together. THey spoke highly of masters like Henmi Sosuke, Yamaoka Tesshu or Sasakibara Kenkichi. Styles changed, but just like in Europe, as I said, the civilian smallsword was no less brutal and deadly than the rapier, especially in country with a strong fencing culture like France. It's just a focus on different weapons, different duelling etiquette, etc.
There was more than a thousand schools simply of Kenjutsu in japan in the 1850s, now there's like a hundred or so. They've lost a lot too, but they still have living lineages that are very old, whereas European ones are more like a century or two max, like jogo do pau.
But transformation and evolution is normal in any fighting tradition, especially today where fencing is a useless skill. You can't deride sport fencing when that's the only practical relevancy of using swords. The japanese are mostly trying to preserve the traditions, which is a different attittude. But the idea that sport isn't a way to preserve martial attitude is silly. Boxing and wrestling are very much sports and very much martial practices.
There is pretty much a direct lineage between the smallsword of even the early 18th century and today's olympic fencing, but of course the sport evolved, the rule set evolved, the social implications evolved, etc. But the smallsword, foil and sabre used in the 18th century are the direct analogs to what is now taught in modern fencing as foil, épée and sabre. Of course now it's entirely a sport whereas back then it was both a sport and a practical matter.
In Scotland, there was a pretty stark difference between the Lowlands, whose smallsword traditions were firmly established, and the Highlands who were more into the old broadsword fencing. But then many people practiced both.
The idea that smallsword was a dainty an effeminate weapon is nonsense of course, especially when some people like Donald McBane were particularly enthusiast about the weapon. It was usually even more deadly than previous weapons, but mostly because of the way it's trained (centered around thrust to the upper chest), and also because it's so light and fast so defending was much more complicated and doubles were common.
Antenna swinging doesn't have much in common with real fencing.
Biathlon is another sports that was completely ruined by olympics.
Olympics ruin every sports it touches.
> no dagger in the free hand
Sport is for noobs, really. Larpers, even.
Smallsword fencing was done almost exclusively sword only. The only examples I know of where the off hand had any kind of weapon were some obscure plates where a lantern was in the other hand and some with cloak. Rapier=/=smallsword and even then single rapier was also a common way of fencing as well.
I can tell you this, despite the way it may seem I actually used to fence worse with an off hand weapon. I specifically started practicing sword and buckler because it frustrates me that i lost all sense of coordination the second another object was in my hand. In a lot of situations you may be better off forgoing an off hand weapon if your technique is better without it.
> no dagger in the free hand
It's useless anyway, the sword is fast and covering enough. What if the people who fenced in earnest also fenced for sport? Crazy thinking I know...
Say what you will about it looking homosexual but fencing and the rapier definitively BTFO every other style of swordsmanship they ever encountered. Portuguese bravi killed so many samurai that such duels had to be legally forbidden by the Daimyo and there were local attempts to create their own rapier.
It turns out stabbing the other guy every time he moves in to attack is a pretty effective way to win. Even if you do not strike a killing blow, being the first to suffer a wound like that all but guarantees you will lose against a competent opponent.
>Portuguese bravi killed so many samurai that such duels had to be legally forbidden by the Daimyo and there were local attempts to create their own rapier.
source: my ass
You think people would do that? LIE on the internet?
For me it's the Spadone.
Considering we're on the topic of medieval crap, does anyone here shoot bows?
I spontaneously decided to buy a bow, and I was wondering if there's anyone here I can pilfer some information from.
>this is a show not a movie
REEEEE I dont have time for 3 seasons of bullshit
What is the point in dueling with full plate armor and swords? Best you can do is smack your opponent on the head hard enough to give them a concussion, otherwise it's going to be a boring slugfest.
>What is the point in dueling with full plate armor and swords?
It could be to prove your skill, your bravery, your sense of honor, to have a friendly bout with your pals or to kill the other guy because he badly talked about your mother.
>Best you can do is smack your opponent on the head hard enough to give them a concussion
That's because you don't know how to fence. Just look at the famous duel between Jarnac and La Chataigneraie for a well described historical duel with sword and plate armor that ended with one bleeding to death and unable to move after being struck at the weakpoint of his armor.
meanwhile in the Americas..
my savage ancestors 🙂
That was such a great movie.
the only thing that is insane is that you thing we actually fought like that