why did people in 1500s/1600s Europe suddenly decide to fight with a knife in their off hand alongside a sword?

why did people in 1500s/1600s Europe suddenly decide to fight with a knife in their off hand alongside a sword?

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Because they wanted to

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Whyjaleavethekeysuponthetable?

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Some fag probably killed someone important while they locked swords and were monologuing by shoving a butter knife in their neck.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >sword lock
      no such thing

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >no such thing
        the first example video he shows is from star wars, where its actually a thing with light sabers, they stick to one another

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Akshualy, akshualu it's a realism problem of training with blunt and God forbid larp swords.
        Sharp swords bite into metal breddy good. Into each other, all metal bucklers, and ofc wooden shields. Blunts miss this aspect. Of course they are not glued together like scenic fencing shows but level of control with sharp swords is substantial.

        Blunts miss this aspect.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          They don't stick near as well when your actually moving at fighting speeds.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        if you're getting your information from this retard you should probably reconsider

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >shadoversity
        You mean the guy who’s only experience is literally, not hyperbolically, literally fucking LARPing?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I thought he actually practiced Hema? I know that’s not much better depending on the group.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            He does not. He had a “challenge match” as he called it, with a couple of guys at a local club. Here’s the thing, this was after he made a video talking about how HEMA was bullshit, and LARP was better because it’s “less restrictive.” The club he went to didn’t know that. He sparred with some noobs, didn’t even win all his matches, and then edited it to make it look like he did. Moreover, he claims to have invented a move never before seen in HEMA when all he did was a fucking slip. The guys a retard.

            >Joseph Swetnam was a professional fencing master who also wrote a series of public incel articles about how women were bullshit and men should avoid them.
            kek, I've read a bit of his stuff but I didn't know this

            So you can say while his contemporaries were out partying, he studied the blade

            Basically. Go ahead and read “the arraignment of women”

            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Swetnam

            >why are you calling an overhook a “circle block”?
            Different training tradition but I love how you HEMAfags shit on the old masters.
            That you identify the buckler as being closer to use without a 'shield' again indicates that bucklers are gauntlets.

            >hurr durr how dare you shit on the old masters
            You know who shits in old masters the most? Other old masters. I’m keeping the tradition alive.
            >hurr durr it’s a gauntlet because I can overhook with it
            You can overhook with a larger shield and punch with it to you absolute tard. There’s a lot of other shit you can do with both that you can’t do with a gauntlet because it’s a small shield. Literally by definition.

            https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/buckler

            Go let John clements gonk you in the head with a pummel “to see if it works.”

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >merriam-webster
              You know they change definitions to match the latest controversy? Some shield supremacist just paid them off.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Don’t talk about the shield-masons here jannies will delete the thread

                You could make exactly same argument about binding for a cutting action yet you say the buckler is superior there.

                It's easier to catch a sweeping blade than to catch a thrust.

                I’m not sure what you’re trying to argue here, that a buckler is better against defending against cuts or that a dagger is better at binding against cuts? If the former then I agree and already said so in a previous post. If the latter then no, not at all. The goal of the buckler is in part to provide extra protection to your sword hand but also your off hand. While you can, and people did, use daggers to defend against a cut, you’re at a greater risk of getting your hand chopped off at the wrist than with a buck which will cover both hand and well behind the wrist.

                I don’t know why you think renaissance swordsmen were too dumb to recognize what was most effective for fighting against the weapons of the time but you as an armchair theorist think you’ve figured it out better. The people who used bucklers a lot during the renaissance also generally favored side swords that had a better design for cutting true rapiers (although the term was used interchangeably in some places.)

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                It's already been said but bucklers just weren't done in an urban civil social milieu. It was either an uncouth lower-class sport or an uncouth lower class soldier's tool. It lost the PR battle over more spectacular rich idiots dueling with high class rich boy kit. Nobody's ever gonna remember the Honda Civic was a popular nearly ubiquitous street racing car for the same reason.
                What is far more interesting is that sword and buckler play saw parallel evolution in Persia and India to a similar high degree, with different schools and styles, but the Far East never did.
                Apparently good ideas only can travel so far and no further

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >It was either an uncouth lower-class sport or an uncouth lower class soldier's tool. It lost the PR battle over more spectacular rich idiots dueling with high class rich boy kit
                Lmfao tell that to this guy. In fact tell that to the entire bolognese school of fencing. Fashions and tastes varied by area, but when we look at who was pairing which offhand weapon with which sword it is generally true that daggers took precedence against rapiers and bucklers took precedence against cutting swords.

                Just because they were viewed as a lower class weapon in some places doesn’t mean that was true everywhere.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >bolognese
                >the Pittsburgh of the Renaissance claims relevance
                >things that are a joke elsewhere are srs bsns
                Dude that city invented paint-by-numbers art, you think their fencing schools matter?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >post evidence to the contrary
                >doesn’t count because it goes against what I think
                Whatever guy. You evidently won’t be swayed. Bucklers are better in every way in all contexts and anyone who staked their life on a dagger instead was a retard only concerned with fashion

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Bucklers were fucking everywhere in medieval cities, retard, to the point that it would be utterly unremarkable to see two jackass London teenagers fencing with them for sport.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                hi re read what i posted then kys thx bye

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Sword and shield > sword and knife

    But shields fell out of favor due to machismo

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Its rapier and dagger, not any sword with any knife. Rapier and dagger > Rapier and buckler or some other shit. These were civillian weapons for civilian use and ~~*confrontations*~~

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Renaissance PrepHole would have someone with a Hoplite's aspis insisting it was part of their "daily carry".

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >open carry advocate stopped by the town guard after walking around the market with in full plate with a montante
          >says he has the right because of his forefathers
          >refuses to fight back when seized
          >” BY GOD, YOU JUST WAIT UNTIL THE COURT HEARS ABOUT THIS!”
          >court hears about it
          >nothing happens

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >due to machismo
      more like due to bullets going through them

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        armor marginalized shields long before anyone was using firearms (sans cannon) that reliably defeated plate

        daggers are useful for going for the joints of a suit of armor

        a dueling dagger is not an anti armor weapon and no one was getting in full plate rapier duels enough to matter

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >full plate rapier duels
          I didn't know I wanted to see this until now. That sounds hilarious and long winded.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The targe is explicitly designed to catch musket balls

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >that bro who carries around a shield around the champs

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Shields died because of firearms, idiot

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/DORXhFZ.jpg

      why did people in 1500s/1600s Europe suddenly decide to fight with a knife in their off hand alongside a sword?

      Because they all had knives on them already, and carrying a shield around day to day is fucking retarded and impractical. Also possibly illegal. Swords are annoying enough on their own.

      And they didn't. Rapiers we're used alone, with daggers, or with bucklers on a regular basis. They all have advantages.

      Before the rapier you'd either carry a longsword, which is ideally used in two hands, an arming sword, which is also used alone, with a buckler, or with a dagger, or you'd just have your dagger.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      No they didn't you fucking pleb, the dagger people already carried developed into a companion weapon for civilian self-defense. You could carry both reasonably whereas bucklers were seen as weapons for brigands and shields weapons of war. If you have a dagger anyway you might as well make it usable with the sword, and you now have two things to stab a guy with.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I should’ve mentioned this in

        https://i.imgur.com/RjbB7H4.jpg

        >Because for civilians walking round with even a small buckler shield at all times just in case of attack or a spontaneous duel was dumb.
        It really wasn’t at the time they were most popular and the reason it changed was because the dagger was more advantageous to defending against the weapons of the time. Since the rapier is primarily a thrusting weapon, a dagger with a wide cross guard was advantageous at catching and binding it. Comparatively, against a more cut centric sword a buckler was best because it covered a greater area.

        For the record, when bucklers were carried they generally weren’t anymore intrusive than the sword itself was. A leather or rope cord would be tied around the handle of the buckler and then hung around your sword handle which hung in the frog at your waist. In this position you could effectively draw your sword and buckler at the same time, while taking up not much more space than you otherwise would have to with just the sword.

        , because you are correct that bucklers were seen as a weapon for brigand and not a lot of people realize that culturally there were some weapons associated with nobility and others associated with criminality just like today. Today you could say that the nightstick is typically associated with lawful authority whereas brass knuckles are seen as a thugs weapon despite them both being blunt objects used to bash people in the head. Similarly, the rapier was associated with the nobility of the time. Meanwhile the word “swashbuckler” began to be associated with men who had both swords and bucklers and went around getting drunk and picking fights for fun.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Because just using a rapier is dangerous as fuck and a parry dagger makes things much easier and safer for (You). Also because them garden gnomels saw potential in not just selling you *product (TM)* but also *accessory product (TM)*. Think if modern manufacturers sold you a matching mini pistol to your main one.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      but people usually had a dagger anyway
      and a knight would have a poleaxe, longsword, and rondel dagger

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        A knight would not have a longsword and rondel at the time rapiers and rapiers + daggers were used lol. Maybe the wallhanging relics of the family above the fireplace. People always had knives and / or daggers but they werent used with swords. Parrying daggers were specifically used and designed with rapiers in mind.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        There were places that allowed you to go around with sword&dagger that wouldn't hallow you to go with a polearm.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >a knight would have a poleaxe, longsword, and rondel dagger
        Everyday? All the time? In the fucking 1600s?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          It really does get old how many posters here can't get out of the video game mentality where you're always fully equipped and go to a designated stage to fight.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          One of the main differences between a knight and an infantryman was how many squires he had.
          Knights used to bring a heap of shit with them simply to avoid being at a local disadvantage.
          They might bring a dozen Weapons with them

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            late-1300s to 1500s, yes
            rondel dagger was the everyday carry
            sword was the sidearm carried almost as often
            poleaxe would be brought along if they were donning their armor

            Yes and everyday he’d start his life donning his full battle rattle for a full day of partying in the kings court and fucking other nobles wives.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              knights did start their day training in full armor
              now with that out of the way obviously the situation and context is going to vary
              going to the next town over would see you taking your sword and dagger, potential bandits on the road, once you arrived and were staying somewhere the town might have an ordance against carrying long arms or you might feel safe and so you go about the streets with just your dagger
              I dont think anyone disputed this sort of nuance

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                There's no evidence for Knights training daily in armor. We know ONE particular man did it, but that's all.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          late-1300s to 1500s, yes
          rondel dagger was the everyday carry
          sword was the sidearm carried almost as often
          poleaxe would be brought along if they were donning their armor

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Think if modern manufacturers sold you a matching mini pistol to your main one.
      I want this though, consoomers back then had it so good.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    because while fighting with a knife in the off-hand was used intermittently before the 16th-17th centuries, the nature of thrusting swords becoming widespread lead to a real doctrinal reason to teach the main guache.

    Since civilian swords of the era typically thrusted, the most dangerous part of dueling was controlling the tip of the enemy's sword. A dagger in the offhand could let you control the tip of the sword ontop of having the tip of yours free to thrust.

    some instructors caught on to this and began to include it in their teachings.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Wearing armor is difficult and a sheild is cumbersom. For regular carry sword + knife is much more convenient and still does 60 % of the job sword + sheiod does.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >a shield is cumbersome
      Can't believe it took this long to be mentioned.
      You can wear a little buckler, but it still gets in the way and isn't really comfortable. Or you wear a dagger, which you will barely notice compared to your sword.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        To add to this, carrying a shield around on your daily business is more of a pain than a knife.

        Wearing armor is difficult and a sheild is cumbersom. For regular carry sword + knife is much more convenient and still does 60 % of the job sword + sheiod does.

        Shields were a non-thing at this time gays. Even top of the line armour was just half-armour. Arquebuss-proof armour and shields were extremely rare and quite heavy, very few examples worn even on the battlefield (where these rapiers and daggers weren't seen anyways, as they're civilian weapons).

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckler
          >It was popular circa 1100 to 1600.[4]
          And yes, shields, even bucklers, were a non-thing after 1600. Because they were cumbersome to wear. Like we said. Idiot.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Shields arent cumbersome to wear. You just have a relatively weak left arm from cooming instead of lifting, thats all

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Bucklers fell out of favor because transition from cut and trust swords to primarily thrusting rapiers.
            Buckler is better than dagger for parrying cuts. Dagger is better as offensive weapon close.
            Usage of cut was reduced so less incentive to use buckler. Rapiers are weak close so more incentive to use dagger that covers that weakness.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              What if we could combine the two

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I was speaking in the context of the civillian when referencing shields and armor. No civillian ever had to worry about a sudden attack by a pack of arquebussiers.
          As for your statement on armor, while rare, full plate still worn occasionally in battle.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >shields were a non thing at this time
          I hate this board so much.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            the Spanish tried to use them in their Tercios but found it wasn't very effective and dropped them for more pikemen
            a little earlier the Italian city states often deployed light infantry milita with shields
            crossbowmen often used very large shields that were effectively a field fortification called a pavois

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous
            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              we're not talking about the battlefield, we're talking about civilian duels or shit lawmen would carry

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Yes carrying shields in a civilian setting was a non-thing at the time, and you only hate your own ignorance and stupidity, gay.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >carrying shields was a non thing for civilians
              Way to move the goal posts but you’re still wrong lmao

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Bucklers are gauntlets not shields.
                >fight me

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                On what grounds?
                >inb4 doesn’t have a strap
                Neither does pic related. Does this not count as a shield? It’s basically just a big buckler.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >straps
                You punch and circle-block with a buckler, the same as with an armored gauntlet. See Talhoffer for examples.

                >fight me
                You're so contrarian that I could win by saying I lost and you'd have a nice day just to say I definitively won.

                That's pretty circular.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >circle parrying with a buckler
                Lmfao what the fuck are you talking about? Are you doing French foil with a buckler?
                >talhoffer
                Oh that explains it, you’re retarded. Talhoffer was regarded by his contemporaries a bullshido expert.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Talhoffer was regarded by his contemporaries a bullshido expert.
                Are there any examples of that? I would love to look at some medieval shitposting.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                The real shizzdizzle. Note the passing or crossing movements which are how you fight without a shield, hence buckler = gauntlet.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Skimmed through the video, why are you calling an overhook a “circle block”? Why does he even bother with the buckler when he’s not using it anyways? This exact play exists as a messer play with no additional offhand weapon. There’s no point in holding the off hand weapon if you’re not using it, which you should be. The fact that you think bucklers are only used for punching and hooking (the latter of which they’re not even necessary) is just more evidence on how talhoffer was a shit swordsman.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >why are you calling an overhook a “circle block”?
                Different training tradition but I love how you HEMAfags shit on the old masters.
                That you identify the buckler as being closer to use without a 'shield' again indicates that bucklers are gauntlets.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I’d have to go looking but there was a claim that he received a cut on the hands and a strike with the flat to the face from another masters student (emphasis on the fact that he was a student, not a master himself) in a duel after said student told him he was teaching shit. I’ll see if I can find it but no promises.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                In regards to medieval shitposting pretty much everything George silver ever wrote shit talked the Italians and their rapiers for being too long. Additionally Joseph Swetnam was a professional fencing master who also wrote a series of public incel articles about how women were bullshit and men should avoid them.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Joseph Swetnam was a professional fencing master who also wrote a series of public incel articles about how women were bullshit and men should avoid them.
                kek, I've read a bit of his stuff but I didn't know this

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                So you can say while his contemporaries were out partying, he studied the blade

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >how women were bullshit and men should avoid them.
                Some things never change.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >fight me
                You're so contrarian that I could win by saying I lost and you'd have a nice day just to say I definitively won.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Wearing armor is difficult and a sheild is cumbersom. For regular carry sword + knife is much more convenient and still does 60 % of the job sword + sheiod does.

        I half remember some account of swords and bucklers making an awful racket as they clanged together when you walked.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      To add to this, carrying a shield around on your daily business is more of a pain than a knife.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Better question, why did they stop doing it when they moved from rapiers to smallsword?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Fencing had advanced to the point where actively using your offhand was a detriment because it made your profile less narrow.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Because smallswords were dangerous as all fuck and the maximum expression of glass-cannoning. They're almost impossible to parry unless with your own smallsword maybe, and basically this

      Fencing had advanced to the point where actively using your offhand was a detriment because it made your profile less narrow.

      Rapiers were still full fledged weapons; able to stab, parry and even cut. Smallswords were one purpose only, like a competitive shooting racing gun.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >maximum expression of glass-cannoning.
        Smallswords came about due to the prevalence of cities with their narrow alleys and tight interior spaces that made the rapier utterly useless.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          What are the sources for that shit oppinion lol. I can also make shit up as can anyone else. Narrow alleys have existed since bronze-age cities were a thing.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          wouldn't that be why the longsword evolved into the rapier?
          my understanding is the smallsword was more of a formal 'dress' item

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Rapiers were still full fledged weapons; able to stab, parry and even cut. Smallswords were one purpose only, like a competitive shooting racing gun.
        The smallsword I linked can cut, thrust and parry but whatever. Believe what you want

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          The colichemarde (You) linked was an adaptation to a military setting and no, that flimsy knuckleguard and tiny dish wont block or parry shit, unlike the hilt of a rapier. Believe what (You) want.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            you can parry with a blade you absolute brainlet

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        smallswords seem to get mogged by longer heavier weapons in sparring. they became popular because they were less cumbersome to wear and still a popular weapon for duelling. pistols had started replacing swords as the preferred self defense weapon by that point anyway.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Pistols got alot better and alot more common by then

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Okay but duels weren't fought with a smallsword and a pistol in the offhand

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Too afraid of deep stab wounds while shooting at each other point blank, chicken?

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    it evolved form fagger used in XII century called Misericorde

    HHH0T

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It's the equivalent of a handgun compared to a rifle, it does a particular job better than a sword.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      they would wield them simultaneously, people dont do that with rifles and pistols

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        They also didnt fire the sword from the shoulder, wtf are you slow? Are you going to make me type out that "Comparing medieval weapons only used for dueling, to modern firearms is not worth your time."

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Most likely because in the context the only shield you could bring would be a small buckler. It doesn't covery all that much more than a dagger and you can't stab with (usually), so the tradeoffs seem decent. A dagger is also usable by itself.

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >not keeping the shield, adding a huge dagger/short sword, a gauntlet, another dagger on the gauntlet, another other dagger on the gauntlet, then putting a spike on and a lantern in the shield
    plebs, that's why

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      nice but did it see actual use in combat?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Not much. It was mainly just used by night watch type people in rich cities, but I imagine some found excuses to use them for more than flexing from time to time.

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    daggers are useful for going for the joints of a suit of armor

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      so was the rondel dagger infact it was essentially designed for that job
      and in the era we are talking armor went away as a common thing

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    more people were carrying swords as varous circumstances made them more economical

    a dagger is much quicker to draw and handy at extremely close range

    a parrying dagger could give you an opening to safely draw your own sword if you're jumped by somebody that already has a weapon

    it opens up more offensive options compared to a sword by itself

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Because a rapier isnt gonna save you once your foe parries your thrust and closes the gap. You can either punch them with a buckler or stab with a dagger. Odds are the dagger does the trick a bit better. Personally, I think rapier and dagger is a stupid combo because you're just gonna stab your sword arm

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Because rapier is too lon, cumbersome and bad cutter especially up close. This makes rapier weak at close distance. If enemy binds blade and passes the point single rapier user gets into trouble
    Dagger covers that weakness.

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Daggers used instead of bucklers had huge cross guards. Worked very well one must guess.

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    it's easier to carry around a dagger than a shield

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Because they can't perry with it and do it effectively

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Because it was easier to carry around.
    Most of the time, swords are just sitting in their scabbards, not being used to stab people, and so instead of carrying around a big shield or a buckler, they'd just carry around a dagger and use that in their off-hand to parry instead.
    Same reasons why swords got thinner over time, simple convenience for daily carry

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >thinner overtime
      This had alot to do with better metallurgy allowing for practical narrow blades, as well as better armor necessitating them

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I suppose it was the case for metallurgy, but people probably didn't think less weight was a bad thing

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Rapiers tend to weigh about the same as the arming swords that preceded them. They're not lighter apart from very late era taza

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Because rapiers are very long and are hardly effective if you get past the point. Aside from being useful for parrying you have another shorter weapon if you're tied up or your opponent gets too close for you to stab them with your rapier

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >he doesn't know how to adept to the new meta

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    HEMAfag here, there are several reasons.

    >1: utility and practicality of carry.o
    There are many places that would not allow you to wear your sword, or it would be very difficult to use within confined spaces, that a dagger would be much more suited for, and therefore you would have a dagger with you already that you could easily pair with your rapier, which leads us to...

    >2: societal and social expectations.
    A rapier on a man's hip is equitable to somebody open carrying a pistol: not really a big deal depending on where you are, but might cost some social faux pas. Carrying a dagger is literally something that no one would ever blink at. Carrying two swords, or a sword and a buckler, is the equivalent of walking down the street with a shitty AR build slung on your back, and is bound to raise attention.

    >3: leverage and blade control
    Basic physics means that a dagger does have practical usage as appearing and blade control device, and if you will enter in close into the bind, you can just stab the guy. Win-win.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      does anyone in HEMA try to incorporate European folk wrestling styles? I feel like at the moment the weapons are bound and they're within grappling distance a 16th/17th century fencer - or an earlier man-at-arms - would have just grabbed their opponent and tried to take them to the ground, but I haven't seen that in any HEMA

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Depends on the school/club and the instructors. A lot of medieval manuscripts include wrestling/grappling sections. The club I go to is focused on the Fiore/Italian tradition and they offer occasional classes going over various the various wrestling techniques you find. That being said as a former wrestler you'd probably get more out of just going to any other martial arts gym as even though there's plenty of people who are knowledgeable about medieval wrestling/unarmed fighting I still find I can absolutely outclass any of them anytime we grapple and I haven't done wrestling/bjj since I was in college. Frankly most HEMA instructors I've met are complete neckbeards who aren't fit/experienced enough to be competent wrestlers when compared to dedicated wrestlers/grapplers because to most HEMAfags I know it's just a hobby unless you're a super autist who takes it way to seriously but those people are cringe beyond belief.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          How can I have it be a fun hobby but also take it somewhat seriously.

          Like boxing or other combat sports. Do I just gotta start going to a BJJ or MMA gym?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Check out your local club and get a feel for how they operate since there can be a wide variance in skill levels between clubs since there’s no real governing body to decide what is and isn’t good HEMA. If you get the impression it’s not pushing you enough, start training at a sport fencing club too. They may not be entirely realistic but they have good methodology and rated instructors and masters that makes it so you can be sure you’re not learning bullshit. I know that other guy says most HEMA instructors are neckbeards but I’ve met a lot who were incredibly talented martial artists as well. You won’t know until you check out your local club.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Fyi jsa is superior you slackjaw eurolet

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Fyi jsa is superior you slackjaw eurolet

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Because guns.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      /k/fags do realize it took centuries for guns to be viable enough to use alone, right? If we count those chink cannons in the 1300's it took around 500 years for you to be able to reliably fire a gun more than once, and before that if you missed a single shot you were liable to get gutted

  24. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Same reason we wear body armor - to reduce the chance of getting wounded. The offhand dagger is more for defense than offense.

  25. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It's threads like these that show that PrepHole really doesn't understand weapons outside of modern firearms

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >PrepHole really doesn't understand weapons outside of modern firearms
      >outside of modern firearms

  26. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Suddenly
    They didn't. Renaissance sword techniques originally came from medieval sword techniques. Early fencing schools would teach a variety of weapons (not just swords) including sword and buckler. At the time, sword and buckler lent itself the best towards street fights, and most schools gravitated towards this system.
    It's important to note that these systems lead with the shield first, not the sword. When you wanted to deliver a powerful blow, you'd step forward, crossing with your back foot to deliver the strike. This gave you both protection and power.

    The problem with using a buckler is that you only have one if you are expecting a sword fight. So, these schools would teach you how to use substitutes. Cloaks and daggers were both very popular, as almost everyone would carry them around. The dagger in particular had the advantage of having some offensive capability. Of course, even when using a dagger, you'd still (in most systems) have it in your lead hand, with the sword in your trailing hand, as was standard at the time.

    At this point in history, sword fighting was sort of in flux. A lot of things were tried, a lot of horrible and a lot of great systems were created. For example, some would have really, really long rapiers. That way, even with your rapier in your rear hand, you had two points in front of you, and with your rapier in your front hand, you had the range advantage. The problem with this is that a longer blade is much more unwieldy. This is a great trade off, if you're a fucking noob.

    Eventually, people got gud through experimentation, and through techniques like the lunge. Thrust based systems which led with the sword hand proved themselves to be much more effective. When the dagger is permanently relegated to the rear hand, it's usefulness drastically decreases. Thus, the French system, which dropped the dagger, won out over the Spanish and Italian systems, which used daggers.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      where do you learn this history? i'm interested but don't know where to start and most blogs/forums/youtubers have misleading nu-fudd hearsay.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I bought this book not too long ago, and it's been really interesting so far. I'd recommend it if you want to study the blade.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Cohen
          No thanks.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            ok, retard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Cohen_(fencer)

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              And?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The other reason is that the dagger/knife was everywhere. Carrying a sheath knife wasn’t unusual in the era and learning how to use a dagger was just common sense - why carry a blade if you didn’t use it.

  27. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    That is the day carry set.

    Fancy sword, backup small sword and a thick cape that can be used in place of a shield.

    Carrying a shield around would be like today going around with full plate carrier and military helmet. People will look at you weird.

    So renaissance Europe had people "day carrying" with thick capes, very long and nimble rapiers and a backup stiletto knife.

    The fighting stile the uses the thick cape as a shield (often also concealing the small knife) is called "cappa e spada"
    Quite a fancy sword style.

    In later periods the smaller knife was replaced with a single shot flintlock pistol and remained popular (but a bit less flamboyant) till multiple shot pistols became common and reliable.

    A later period guy would dress up a bit like the character Zorro but less flamboyant and with one or 2 flintlocks or Wheelock in his belt besides the cape and rapier.

  28. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    There are a few reasons.
    >dueling weapons
    >dagger easier to carry than shield
    >swords becoming longer and lighter
    >Chances of encountering archers almost nil

    But there is an overwhelming average to having a dagger in the cliche position, if you don't have a dagger you're dead.
    In earlier times knights had a dagger on their hip, because after shoulder checking someone with your shield you might drop your sword and grab your dagger with your right hand.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >because after shoulder checking someone with your shield
      through the 1300s plate became increasingly common, with the torso armor going from armored surcoat to coat of plates to a solid plate cuirass by the end of the century
      similarly the knightly arming sword grow longer in blade and pommel length becoming a two handed weapon
      this and the increasing amount of armor meant the shield dropped away from the equipment of a dismounted man-at-arms or knight (at this stage all knights were men-at-arms but not all men-at-arms were knights) - the poleaxe became the main weapon in order to defeat the fully armored opponent
      but anyway your last statement is right in a lot of the fighting manuals once opponents had their swords or poleaxes locked it would then turn into a wrestling match with the goal to get someone pinned on the ground and a dagger in a weak point, the rondel dagger that developed through the 1300s was purpose designed for getting through gaps in plate and piercing maille links

  29. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Use a heater shield or round shield in any historical fencing bout and you will blow the tits off your opponent. You're put at such a disgusting advantage over your opponent that it becomes silly to watch. You will just be standing there scratching your head muttering to the person next to you about why the fuck the key holder let this bout start in the first place.

  30. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    There was a man guy in 1569 who came up with it, his name was Hans Niphe’Ofhanderson

  31. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    remember, switching to your sidearm is always faster than reloading your rapier

  32. 1 month ago
    Anonymous
  33. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Because for civilians walking round with even a small buckler shield at all times just in case of attack or a spontaneous duel was dumb.
    A dagger handguard can block almost as well as a small shield, and can stab, but can be put away on your belt when not needed unlike a shield, plus you can use it to eat with.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Because for civilians walking round with even a small buckler shield at all times just in case of attack or a spontaneous duel was dumb.
      It really wasn’t at the time they were most popular and the reason it changed was because the dagger was more advantageous to defending against the weapons of the time. Since the rapier is primarily a thrusting weapon, a dagger with a wide cross guard was advantageous at catching and binding it. Comparatively, against a more cut centric sword a buckler was best because it covered a greater area.

      For the record, when bucklers were carried they generally weren’t anymore intrusive than the sword itself was. A leather or rope cord would be tied around the handle of the buckler and then hung around your sword handle which hung in the frog at your waist. In this position you could effectively draw your sword and buckler at the same time, while taking up not much more space than you otherwise would have to with just the sword.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Since the rapier is primarily a thrusting weapon, a dagger with a wide cross guard was advantageous at catching and binding it. Comparatively, against a more cut centric sword a buckler was best because it covered a greater area.
        I don't buy it, a buckler would had been better at catching a thrust.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Not really, your goal with the dagger to control it by binding between the blade and cross guard. There’s a reason why daggers made to be paired with rapiers had such big guards. You can’t really do this with a buckler.

          Think of it this way, if buckler was a better pairing for rapier people would’ve carried them more often. Their lives were on the line. Swordsman who were good and knew their shit lived on to teach.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            There's more to decision making than what makes something deadlier. With that logic you might as well claim street clothes made for better armor than actual armor. Daggers are more convenient to carry than bucklers, and fashion and culture would play a part in making bucklers a social faux pas.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              It’s really not anymore inconvenient than carrying a sword and buckler. In any case I explained why the dagger is advantageous against a predominantly thrusting weapon. The people who fought with them were not stupid. If you choose to be willfully ignorant because you happen to like bucklers that’s your own issue

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                You could make exactly same argument about binding for a cutting action yet you say the buckler is superior there.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                You absolutely cannot make the same argument.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                It's easier to catch a sweeping blade than to catch a thrust.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                No. It isn't. It's very fucking easy to just cut the hand holding the dagger. It is equally easy to just fucking power through it because you have shit leverage against a cut unless you're holding the dagger reversed, and you're not binding shit in that position. You cannot do this to the hand holding a buckler. Just fuck off. This is shit anyone who's actually looked at medieval swordsmanship knows, along with anyone who's practiced it. Or done martial arts. Or larped. Or had a stick fight. Or done any physical activity in their fucking life.

  34. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Because carrying a sword and dagger is Aesthetic and reasonably comfy for a swaggardly high-life male. Shields are unaesthetic and not comfy to wear around town while whoring and drinking. This is the key reason.

  35. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Because knives are more effective combat weapons in a post-apocalyptic enviornment than swords, and Go Nagai knew it. You see, Europe had a hell earthquake back in the 1500s/1600s, and everything went full Mad Max. Also, firearm technology was starting to mature around that same time, hence why full armor plating was being phased out.

  36. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    What would the modern firearm equivalent of the rapier/dagger combo be?

    a fullsized 5.7 handgun with a subcompact .45 in the other hand?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      There isn’t one trying to compare melee weaponry of any kind to firearms is retarded and pointless

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *