Why didn't the french or english use giant frickoff megaswords like the germans and italians?
Why didn't the french or english use giant frickoff megaswords like the germans and italians?
Why didn't the french or english use giant frickoff megaswords like the germans and italians?
The English had longbows and the French were descendants of the gauls
What do longbows or gaelic genes have to do with it?
England inherited Germanic smithing styles, both west Germanic and North Germanic. The earliest Anglo burials were Norse style weapons and armors, basically the exact same swords and helms and shields were extant between huge areas of Germany, Northern Europe and English and Norse settled British isles. This continuum of weapon styles continued well into the late middle ages, and England at one point lead the world in long bow arms, most of which were actually sourced from German speaking Europe. The late middle ages armors were significantly advanced in German speaking and Norse settled Europe. The trend of heavy plate armors and zweihanders in France was brought there from Norse Burgundians, and the Germans and Dutch, Norse Normans, Friisians, the still German speaking Franconians, and the Anglo-Saxons. Celtic and Gaulish arms were less sophisticated than ancient Germanic arms but their short sword styles and shields were similar, however even bronze age Germanic arms and israeliteelry were still more sophisticated. The Scythians and the Germanics innovated ancient weapons in most of Europe, and the Germans continued to innovate most if not all modern weapons in the 19th and 20th century as well. It is more of a cultural thing.
Complete schizo post and absolutely irrelevant to OP’s question.
Nothing about what I mentioned is schizo. The Celts and Gauls simply did not have a culture of weapon and technological innovation. And the English and French both had plate armors and two handed longswords, which were sourced from or inspired from Germanic speaking Europe. North Italy spoke German until very recently, left overs from the fall of Rome. A small part of it still speaks German, but not the ancient Cimbrian Germanic.
Everything you say is wrong man. Not only did the gauls invent chainmail and the welsh and scots invent longbows, proving that celts do innovate in terms of weapons, this is totally irrelevant because there wasn’t even a hint of celtic culture in France during the middle ages or renaissance.
The reason why the french and english didn’t use giant swords (they did but maybe not as much as germans) is because the english doctrine was based around longbows and the french doctrine was based on heavy cavalry and artillery.
Drop the pseudo science, history isn’t dnd.
Actually nothing I said is wrong, and I am not specifically trying to put down Gaulish or Celtic peoples. The historical fact is that the most advanced armors and arms innovations in both medieval Europe and bronze age Europe were sourced from farther east in continental Europe, from Germanics, Magyar, Scythians (Slavs and various other non-Slavs), Alans (partially Germanic), Illyrians (Pesudo-Germanic speaking peoples), non-IE Etruscans and so on. The earliest known chainmail also originates from BC era eastern Europe. The early Nordic bronze age was surprisingly one of the most advanced places in Europe for metallurgy at the time.
Yeah, this is completely irelevant to the question, I never denied any of the point you bring up in this post.
My point is that the french have culturally nothing to do with gauls and their kingdom was founded by germanics and unified from different germanic kingdoms so in terms of weapon and armor culture they were very much germanic, same thing goes for the english.
And longbows were invented by the welsh and used against the english who recognized its strength and decided to adopt it, it never came from eastern europe.
So both of your original points are just moronic, have a good day
>there wasn’t even a hint of celtic culture in France
>Emirate of the ZAB
lol, sounds like a shitpost.
IRL worldbuilding is a fricking joke with hack writers in general.
>hitler
>sidekick is named himmler
>roman empire
god I hate these gay ass greeks who larping as roman despite not even owning rome nor speaking latin
it's basically the same as some 2rd generation american larping as a brit because the land was once conquered by the british in the distant past
>it's basically the same as some 2rd generation american larping as a brit because the land was once conquered by the british in the distant past
Do those guys really exist? The only one's I ever hear about are the Americans that think they're Irish
Also the english got longbows from the welsh, not germanics so you’re just making up stuff.
The bulk of English longbows were sourced from Austria, Switzerland and Germany. From German craftsmen and woodmen.
To my recollection this was more about geography than culture: at higher altitudes (i.e. in the alps) there's a lower atmospheric pressure, which causes plants to grow more slowly because they needs carbon dioxide to photosynthesize, but in the context of trees this slower growth produces a tighter wood grain.
schizo shit probably by some kraut shitskin to suck himself in order to feel good about something in life
gaulish blacksmithing enjoyed the best reputation during the iron age and actually was one of the earliest culture to smith iron
>gaelic genes
you mean gallic
Because megaswords were a thing during the days where pike blocks were making a return. Their role in the battlefield is to do crowd control, to watch flanks and exploit openings, they are best employed by professional troops who can assume the risk and will face similar troops ie pike infantry. French and English warfare was evolving in different directions, more heavy on ranged units and heavy cavalry.
this is the correct answer, but the other answers are more fun
Greatswords are not that good except for slaying hundreds of plebs
Pretty sure these things were used in ceremony only.
yep, ceremonial guards and crowd control they'd just spin it over their head if the crowd got rowdy. It was more of a policing weapon not a war sword.
Pretty sure the landsknecht used them quite a bit
>they'd just spin it over their head if the crowd got rowdy
Simpler times, better times.
Flip it around and it turns into a warhammer. Come get some.
>It was more of a policing weapon not a war sword.
The original word for this sort of sword was "Grandes Espées de Guerre" so yeah, they absolutely were.
You are thinking of "bearing swords".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bearing_sword
Extremely long two handed swords ie; Spadone, Zweihänder were absolutely used in, and made for, combat. They were also significantly lighter and more agile than video games and other media would have you expect.
They were pussies.
Bongs are a physically and spiritually brutal people, and therefore choose to fight with inelegant weapons.
Italians fought with bills as well. They just made them 20x sexier.
can confirm as an angloid I fricking adore billhooks
They used them...
https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/35388
>not even 150cm
Small time compared to some the pike cutters that the landsknecht were wielding
>greatswords was most popular with mercenaries
>most mercenaries came from Germany and Italy
There's your answer
Peasants don't use greatswords because they lack the training and physique for it
Nobles don't use greatswords because they prefer to fight from horseback
That's totally logical. Thanks.
explain the swiss then, arguably the mercenary nation of the early modern period. don't see them running around with them big swords.
Swiss had these massive basket-hilted sabres.
not so massive, in fact nimble enough for one handed use.
40-46 inch blade is pretty big. 1.5-1.6 kilograms is reasonable.
nowhere near those beasts
the blade of the Montante is about 120cm and the Swiss Sabre is 100-110 or so. they weren’t standardized so they could have been any variation depending on the height of the person ordering it
Well Switzerland had a population of 1 million at the time while Germany had 16 million.
Just more Germans
The Scots did, they just weren't popular weapons.
That's 2 kilograms of steel, you can make like 8 polearms with that and hand them out to peasants.
The skill required to make them was high, when blacksmiths were busy making bodkin tips and spear heads.
Steel was really really expensive, and the average non-mercenary couldn't afford it.
It was cheaper to make things from bronze or iron, and greatswords made out of iron weren't durable at all whereas iron bodkins and spear heads worked just fine.
http://myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=25962&start=20
It's a combination of a few things:
It takes years to train a soldier to be good with a zweihander, not quite as bad as an archer, but polearm troops can be conscripted and trained relatively quickly.
Steel was really expensive. Germans had access to high quality Swedish iron that made (makes) really nice steel, and the English did not.
Immense skill differences between the artisans in Spain, Germany, and Italy vs the English. English went to longbows, and the bodkin points were a lot of what the smiths then produced. These weren't hardened they were just regular iron and they did a great job of piercing cheaper coats and maille.
This thread.
The amount of rubbish being spewed.
The absolute state of weapons and historical knowledge on /k/.
I suggest you research real history and not isolate your studies to your own dogma and preconceptions. The oldest genetic Europeans are Balkan Slavs and Germanic I carriers, both groups have already gone through more than a dozen cultural collapses and revivals on the continent.
What about Celts? Didn't they come before Germanics? At least in Western Europe that is
I don't want to segway into cultural, genetic, pre-IE and non-IE topics too much because it can and will involve many pages of text to even begin to study. But Germanics, Celts, Italics, Greeks, Illyrians and ancient Anatolians (Germanic, Celtic, Greek) were all stemmed from a common ancient western branch of peoples. The extremely ancient sites in the British Isles do not show Celtic genetic markers, they show non-IE genetic markers and WHG markers. Meaning possibly that preCeltic cultural and peoples made most of the ancient sites in the British isles before Celtic and Scythian (Scottish) arrival. The real rabbit hole to go down is related to the Venetic-Illyrian and Germanic-Celtic connection, and the genetic rabbit hole is y haplogroups I2 and I1 and their ancestors (modern Balkan Slavs and Norse Germanics are their predecessor carriers, but there is also a British branch that is almost completely extinct). The oldest Celtic cultures are on the continent and believe it or not, in Anatolia. They were contemporary with Slavic, Germanic, Italic and other cultures. Germanic in particular is extremely ancient.
I don't want to segway into modern French culture, but it was originally Celtic which was similar to ancient Germanic, then it was converted to bastardized Italic/Roman (who were civilized by Etruscans and Greeks first), and over time French culture became completely disconnected from both Gaulish and Germanic culture, in regards to both religion and language. Modern France is a melting pot of 3 separate groups, of which the Roman component is strongest, to the point that they take pride in it and have distain for anything Germanic in their past and actively are trying to kill out the Breton language even though it is closer to ancient Gaulish than Italic Latin. As for the technology and weapons, those are much older and they all come from central or eastern continental Europe, including chain mail, longswords, plate armor, chariots etc.
Oh yeah and to illustrate the antiquity of this. The oldest known long bow from yew was from 3300BC in the Alps. To my knowledge.
Also one word to focus on in your linguistic dive into the rabbit hole is. "Teut" "Deut" "Theod" "Tut(ankhamun)" "Tot(empole), "Tuatha", Illyrian "Teuta", Baltic "Tuata".
nta
LMAO
It's funny enough you use the phrase 'Celtic' alongside actual tribes and expect to be taken seriously.
But this shit:
>before Celtic and Scythian (Scottish) arrival.
Hilarious.
This thread is 100% proof you should never believe anything 'some random on the net said'.
The Celts are not the true inheritors of the most ancient sites in the British isles. The non-IE group that was completely wiped out with IE arrivals were clustered with Finnish, Sardinians, and Euskara in mtdna. As I've mentioned, the oldest actually known and studied Celtic like cultures are on the continent, and they don't actually go back as far as several other cultures which were contemporary with them. Christianity also buried or destroyed alot of the true Celtic heritage, as it did with Baltic, Germanic, Italic, and Slavic cultures. However to a lesser extant in Germanic and Baltic cultures.
By the way, don't look up the main ydna haplogroup of male Sardinians.
But anon, why?
>Celtic like cultures
If you want to be taken seriously, you need to stop using Celts and Celtic in this manner.
The Celts lived in the head waters of the danube, north of the alps. Not the British Isles or France. You're confusing culture and linguistic similarities with ethnicity.
In fact, before 1792 the word 'celt' had never been used to describe the pre-Roman inhabitants of Britain or Ireland.
If you're wondering what happened in 1792, a group of bards and artists got together on Primrose hill in London, made a 'stone circle' (out of pebbles), danced around a bit in a made up ceremony, and announced they were following druidic traditions of the ancient celts.
What you're describing as 'Celtic' were not one people, the language and cultural traditions they share were spread by contact not invasion.
Yes; culture, Linguistics, and ethnicities are intertwined in complex ways. For example, a common culture can have multiple languages and ethnicities in it, ethnicity alone is not indication of language as peoples do adopt other languages under cultural pressure or innovation, and technology is driven by culture more than anything else (and is subsequently associated with that cultures dominant ethnic and linguistic group even if it did not originate there), and some ethnicities and languages can produce many similar but distinct cultures in close and distant relation. The continental Celtic cultures were Celtic in the sense that they were similar to later insular Celtic cultures from which the modern notion of Celtic culture is derived. When in ancient times Kelts (the original etymology of the word is a k sound) were identified as such mostly by their language by the Greeks. Most groups in history were identified by language, Welsh and Wends are both Germanic terms for foreigners, while Teut is a pancultural term that means ones own folk group or kinfolk in every language in Northern and Western Europe save for Slavic culture in which the term (which became chud, means foreigner and was applied to Germanics, Celts, Balts, and Finns). The Beaker culture and continental bronze age cultures were extremely complex in these various ways. And the Nordic Bronze age cultures were actively conducting trade relations with ancient Egypt.
>applied to Germanics, Celts, Balts, and Finns
There you go again....
LMAO.
I give up.
The term was applied to those groups. Celts and Slavs interacted during later Slavic settlement and westward re-expansion. And obviously, Germanics and Balts and Finns have had long standing contact with Slavs. And for example, the Germanic term for foreigner from which the Welsh derive their modern denonym, was applied to various other non-Germanic groups by Germanic peoples just like the Slavics applied the term for Teuts to various other groups.
It is segue. Segway is an two wheeled goober mobile.
Years ago we'd call you a barrage jammer speaker. Spewing out masses of facts to cover for the lack of a real answer.
Celts are a cultural milieu, not a genetic heritage. The Germanic and Britannic peoples are descended from the Bell Beaker Folk; those who left the mainland to the British Isles became Celticised within the 1000s BC, those who remained west of the Rhine got Celticised too.
The British Bell Beaker Folk ended up mogging the Neolithic farmers who inhabited the land and laid the foundations of the Stonehenge, so that only about 10% of the modern British genome comes from the megalithic builders. The Beakies ended up adding to megalithic sites but they were not really masters of the craft
>those who remained west of the Rhine got Celticised too
Celticised, re-Germanized temporarily, then Romanized into its current form. The three linguistic groups of Italic, Celtic, and Germanic are very similar however likely because of their former common cultural heritage. While lost or more enigmatic related groups were Illyrians/Venetic, the ancient Anatolian groups, and the geographically distant Tocharians.
They used polearms instead because they weren't moronic.
well, those swords are for foot soldiers and at the time those great swords where fashion the french infantry almost exclusively consisted of swiss mercenaries, they were more into pole arms but had some great swords and they also brought their own gear and weapons from switzerland.
Nobody ever mentions the Spanish who made the Montante
These look so cool when people fence with them.
Germans have autistic strenght, Italians copied the Germans to frick German girls while Germans proved their strenght, collected bugs and argued about the best weight distribution of a saddlebag.
/thread
Misspelling the key noun in the sentence, complete irrelevance to the already completely bonkers thread, but also being redpilled on Germans.
English isn't my first language what error did I make?
Because they aren't moronic Black folk.
pikes and megaswords are for rhodoks
tiny gay wrists
Weak little baby men can't lift big swords good.
>he doesn't know
Because they would have tripped on them while running away.