80ef65 No.511925
Strictly looking at melee and/or medieval weapons here. Mainly versatile ones that could still be of average or some use in the modern world. Discuss and post opinions on medieval combat as well as favorites.
c310ca No.511933
>modern world
If you practice, anything is viable.
Legally and most likely to survive a jury? A knife or a stick.
Realistically? A spear or a mace.
9f6e84 No.511934
A proper war hammer (2ft shaft, hammer with spike, spike on hilt) is the most dangerous weapon, far better than a sword or dagger.
f90178 No.511939
a mace would be best against modern armor as well as unarmored targets.
anything too long and too heavy would probably be a detriment, and range is already your biggest weakness.
also can't cut yourself on accident with a mace while showing off not that you ever should be doing such a thing in the first place
bedcce No.511942
Longsword probably, easiest to carry around and has the most techniques and treaties.
f90178 No.511943
new weapon idea:
a mace, but on 4 wheels, with some kind of automatic drive power, and perhaps a way to direct the wheels.
call it the crowd pummeler.
b24929 No.511944
>>511934
Honestly a two handed maul, battle axe, or in my personal opinion, a single handed war hammer would be best from a military standpoint because all of those double as tools to be used for a multitude of tasks.
But if we get into a land war with China we might need pike/halberd formations for when the machine gun barrels melt
bedcce No.511945
>>511944
A sword is still best because it's lightweight, has reach and can easily be put into a scabbard.
Shit like battle axe and warhammers have their uses, but their versatility aren't comparable to swords.
There's a reason sword remains as sidearm long after spear and axe.
b24929 No.511946
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>511945
So… dress blue's and a sword?
I just figured the hammer's and axe's are already common pioneer tools, so if we took pride in our white culture we could have kept the traditional designs with the same functionality with a bit of old world flare.
bedcce No.511948
>>511946
Back in medieval era, people usually go spear-sword or axe-sword, or warhammer-sword.
You will most likely lose your polearm during combat and use your sword afterwards.
be8791 No.511956
ITT: People who don't understand that weapons spend the majority of time on your belt and not on the battlefield.
>>511934
>>511939
Hammers have shit reach, shit speed, and lack versatility. There's a reason that common soldiers usually used polearms, swords, and axes.
>>511944
1. Historical mauls were almost always wooden, and sometimes had metal shodding to make them heavier and more robust. Something like a modern sledgehammer would make for a shit weapon due to its enormous inertia.
2. Military axes =/= tool axes; their different weight distributions and edge geometries make them great at one job, and either mediocre or terrible at the other.
3. Military hammers are specifically anti-armour weapons, and are shit against lightly armoured opponents when compared to edged weapons. Furthermore, their striking surface was usually segmented or had protrusions to aid with energy transfer on a strike, and both of these features make for unsuitable tool hammers.
3.
6bee51 No.511959
>>511956
fuggen phone formatting
ad9c94 No.511969
>>511946
Swords were basically medieval sidearms. Every soldier who could afford one would have had a sword strapped to his belt along with a knife and whatever specialist weapon he was carrying (axe / hammer / mace / flail / spear / bow).
Once you got out of the chain-mail period and basic mass production kicked in for weapons you'd start to see every non-peasant owning at least a basic sword and OCing them in their day to day life. Remember that this is before the rise of police forces, and as soon as you left town odds were that you'd be walking through bandit country and carrying a weapon was just sensible. Even the poorer peasants would have had a (by modern standards) large knife on his belt as much as a tool and piece of cutlery as a weapon.
If you're looking for a medieval weapon that someone could carry and use today I'd suggest looking more at the larger forms of seax than swords though (not many people would train enough with the sword for it to be much more than a display), if you wanted something a little more imposing than a Maul or some other design of blunt weapon as it's much easier to use and understand.
c310ca No.512013
>>511956
>Hammers have shit reach, shit speed, and lack versatility
>There's a reason that common soldiers usually used … axes
Axes were identical to war hammers save for the head, which was a wedge rather than a spike or flat surface.
Unless you mean an axe you wield with two hands, which is almost as laughable due to how precise you have to be over a club or quarterstaff.
6bee51 No.512022
>>512013
Hammers can only deliver lots of blunt force, while wedge-tipped axes can cut AND deliver lots of blunt force.
If you're really so set on having a a short, blunt melee weapon over a long, sharp one in a situation without heavy armour, then you're better off with a mace for easier "edge" alignment.
9f6e84 No.512024
>>511944
>pic
Exactly what I meant.
I've seen it used and its terrifying, I would have doubts facing off with one even if I had a gun.
>>511945
Because swords became status symbols, and status symbols were ridiculously important before 1800s. Like you said here >>511948 swords were so shitty they werent even the main weapon being used.
>>511956
>Hammers have shit reach, shit speed, and lack versatility.
Hammers reach is controlled by its shaft, which can be shortened or lengthened practically every battle. A sword cannot do that.
Hammers light wooden shaft has many times the speed of a sword, while its iron head focuses momentum.
In terms of versatility, a war hammer can have any other weapon on the reverse. A flat head can crush bones or transmit force through armor, without getting stuck in whatever its hitting. An axe or spike is a TOTAL COMITMENT weapon, once you strike you're tied with the target. Meanwhile a hammer can strike and dart away, strike again and dart away…. in the time it takes an axe to strike and then get unstuck.
In other words you are wrong at every level of resolution, you are fractally wrong.
6bee51 No.512027
>>512024
>I've seen it used and its terrifying, I would have doubts facing off with one even if I had a gun.
>swords were so shitty they werent even the main weapon being used.
>Hammers reach is controlled by its shaft, which can be shortened or lengthened practically every battle.
>Hammers light wooden shaft has many times the speed of a sword, while its iron head focuses momentum.
>Meanwhile a hammer can strike and dart away, strike again and dart away…. in the time it takes an axe to strike and then get unstuck.
Diagnosis: terminal retardation and/or bait posting
Prescription: pic related
94ddeb No.512039
>>511969
A machete is basically a sword.
94ddeb No.512040
Something like pictures would be great.
ad9c94 No.512052
>>512039
>No Hutu, bad Hutu. No genocide for you.
The difference is in the intent in design and manufacture. A Machete is a tool that will fuck someone up rather than a purpose built weapon. Pretty much every culture in Human history used agricultural tools as weapons at one time or another - and yes South Americans and Africans have shown that the machete makes an effective weapon, just as the Gurkha showed that the Kukri works just as well for killing as it does for farming.
Tl;dr
<The axe I use to split wood is basically pic related
6dde48 No.512060
Which military officer saber is cheap and not shit? I'm talking surplus goodies that's been produced in high enough numbers to drive down the price.
9f6e84 No.512067
>>512027
>reaction post image
>insult/ad hom
>no argument
hmmm….
>repeat until unconscious
Which will be never because that surface is flat like a hammers head, and we all know hammers are harmless which is why your parents let you play "smash the baby" with a hammer and your head.
9d8d24 No.512180
>>511939
Why would a weapon that is specifically designed for use against armored targets be best against unarmored targets?
1952a4 No.512192
>>512060
>shitposting at the patent office.
388347 No.512194
A Rondel dagger. Best complimented with grappling skills, but without it's still lethal if met in close proximity. It's length and narrowness also gives it a terror factor.
2db2a9 No.512196
>>511925
A good mace (optionally with a basic shield) is probably the best thing to use without any real training, alternatively an axe. Swords are a little bit more difficult to use than they look (have to deal with edge alignment and all that to be truly effective).
f90178 No.512217
>>511944
>But if we get into a land war with China we might need pike/halberd formations for when the machine gun barrels melt
can we just stab them with the machine gun barrels?
or just use flamethrowers.
bf3930 No.512220
>>512060
I got a shashka which has kept its shape after a good beating or two.
ad9c94 No.512225
>>512060
>Which military officer saber is cheap and not shit
>cheap
>not shit
Pick one.
54eeeb No.512283
>>511945
A sword requires much more training to use effectively and is much more maintenance intensive. Edge alignment is not nearly as much of a problem to be trained around with axes, and is not a concern with blunt weapons and thrusting weapons.
The sword was by most measures the best weapon around for quite awhile, but only for the people that could afford one and train with it constantly. Some peasant can pick up a pike and really ruin a well trained knight's day though.
In contemporary use, close contact thrusting weapons like daggers, simple blunt force weapons, and lightweight one handed axes are probably the most valid. Spears are simple and effective, but not in tight quarters. A yard long dowel with a spearhead could be useful as both a stabbing tool and a bludgeon, but would lose the spear's great advantage of reach, which again is a negative trait in many modern combat situations.
4d734e No.512302
>>512276
Gun laws can't melt steel blades.
Or plumbing pipe smgs
ad9c94 No.512462
>>512302
An angel made of knives you say?
3129bb No.512495
Why aren't you doing bayonet drills?
If you can't turn your long rifle into a short spear you're doing something wrong. Also, though it is counterintuitive, primitive minds fear a sharp point far more than they do looking down a muzzle.
2105a0 No.512540
>>512302
I-is he the messenger of the Murdercube?…
712f30 No.512546
>>512540
Do not be afraid; for behold, I bring you range days of great joy and nugget food for all the streloks! This will be a sign for you: you will find a raifu wrapped in cloths and lying in a crate.
c83c2f No.512548
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>512462
>ANGEL OF BLADES
>MONARCH OF THE KINGDOM OF THE KUBE
91a7c2 No.512556
There's no real need to be theoretical here. People have been hitting others with melee weapons for most of history. If we're talking about modern conflict, we should probably look at the most recent large scale war in which hand to hand combat was significant. In world war 1, the decisive answer was made about the superior melee weapon: a fucking club or shovel. Bayonets were eschewed by the end, because they were cumbersome and if you don't kill at first strike, you're dead. If we're talking about late medieval/early modern, a long stick that is sharp on the end turns out to be useful. It is particularly useful when you have friends who are similarly equipped. If you feel up to the task, putting a small blade at the top can also be useful to the well trained. These are the best melee weapons for actually fighting people. Nearly any other melee weapon you can imagine has been tried against these designs, and failed.
>>512039
There is exactly one effective strike on a machete, and it is very awkward to parry with. If you're defenseless killing Tutsi scum, that's no problem, but you'll get outclassed easily by somebody with another weapon.
>>512495
I think that our country's primitives have been granted the fear of the barrel by natural selection, especially if its held by another… primitive.
388347 No.512560
>>512495
It would make more sense to carry around a cane sword than a bayonet if we're talking about EDC and just as lethal while being many times less heavy than that image. I know Bartitsu is a less commonly referenced martial art that deals with turning seemingly harmless items into unusually effective weapons like canes and umbrellas and I think has some bayonet drills as well as techniques that loosely resemble historical fencing.
21646a No.512575
>>512566
>along with a picture of your weapon
c83c2f No.512579
>>512575
Edged weapon, obviously. You can't make bladed bullets or edged baby killing high capacity assault barrel shrouds.
In burgerland I'm pretty sure there's no laws against any sort of bladed weapon.
is there anything I should edit?
9f6e84 No.512580
>>512566
Why angel of blades specifically? Just call it an emissary of the murdercube, and it helps with all fights.
Also cut out the part designed to get britfags into trouble.
ad9c94 No.512698
>>512548
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-shropshire-37444227/100000-weapons-turned-into-knife-angel-sculpture
Bugger me, they want to put it up in Trafalgar Square.
It is said that long ago, when the first Streloks saw their British cousins labouring under unjust and totalitarian gun laws, that one day a man made of SKS's would come to bring liberty and semi-auto rifles with all the food they could eat to true believing Britloks everywhere. Then some Strelok told this prophet that such a man would be stopped at the border as the SKS was banned in Britain. There followed a lengthy argument about whether or not the black barrel would qualify this messenger of the /k/ube for affirmative action and legal immunity, or if Britain even had borders anymore, until the /k/ube itself grew tired of their autism. Saying "Well fine then, I'll build him out of knives or something if it shuts you faggots up".
b70df6 No.512717
>>512566
Bless my weapon, Angel of Blades!
388347 No.513066
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
Bumping this thread because that other sword thread is a shit show. Here is a video thats a good watch if you want to know more about what makes a blade do what it does and certain ways of swinging the weapon will yield more efficient cutting mechanics than others.
388347 No.513068
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>513066
Here is a video that puts the swords and martial techniques into a context that parallels other activities with modern firearms with historical swordsmanship as a life style.
388347 No.513069
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>513068
More context about how weapons were used in combat.
25191b No.513088
Im in favour of that venetian dagger. The one that starts about 3-4 inches wide and has a straight taper to a point at 10-12 inches long. That would make for some horrifying stab wounds. If you expect to encounter someone else with a weapon though, and need to justify having it, a stout cane is a good option. Have it tapering to about half an inch over the last ten inches with a brass ferrule on the end, and learn basic fencing for thrust control. Throat, eyes, mouth, solar plexus, bladder, groin. Give it a nice solid handle, and you can use the top side as a bludgeon for strikes to the wrist, elbow, knee and temple.
8085de No.513099
>>511925
>Mainly versatile ones that could still be of average or some use in the modern world.
get an axe. Its easy to use versatile and gives bonuses against dragons
8085de No.513100
>>512556
>There is exactly one effective strike on a machete, and it is very awkward to parry with. If you're defenseless killing Tutsi scum, that's no problem, but you'll get outclassed easily by somebody with another weapon.
isnt machette pretty much falchion? this shit was all over the place, there should be at least some techniques developed for it
6bee51 No.513104
>>513088
>Im in favour of that venetian dagger.
The cinquedea? I'm of the knowledge that it was more of a fashion accessory than an actual weapon.
388347 No.513165
>>513100
Off the cuff there might some description of falchion combat in i.33 in combination with a buckler. I don't read much of sword and buckler, but apparently it was one very popular combination to carry around for an average person. In the german traditions the closest second to a falchion would probably be some sort of messer. It would be interesting to see a resurgence of some of these smaller weapons down south especially with such a rich history of duels we might find more use for these manuscripts past sport.
9d8d24 No.513168
>>513069
>>513068
>>513066
This is great stuff. The second one in particular is a big fucking truth bomb. It doesn't feel good to admit that I've spent years practicing what is for all intents and purposes sport fencing. At the same time some aspects of the real art seem so useless in a modern context that I can't imagine wasting time on them for no obvious gain.
But it occurs to me that if what we're doing now is a sport then so was feder fencing in the 16th century. What Meyer and Sutor and Paurenfeyndt show in their books is HEMA as we know it. If it was good enough for them it should be good enough for us.
388347 No.513210
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>513168
If by we you mean tournament practitioners. I don't think anyone besides those who train kampfringen with a dagger are trying to use their skills in their everyday life. However the sport side is necessary for the development of a strong athletic base and while we have a much safer arguably much better way of stress testing techniques in the sport side of HEMA the aspects more useful towards combat shouldn't be shunned if you want to understand what it means to fight in a melee with historical weaponry.
The holmgang in hamburg is an example of HEMA except without the popular restrictions. I think at some point we should start testing techniques with sharps in a tournament setting, but my ideas are not popular as are theres.
25191b No.513241
>>513104
Fashion accesory or no, getting stabbed with with one would ruin your day. Spose you could say that about a lot of things, but if it was decently sharp, youd have no issues practically disemboweling someone with one stab.
9f6e84 No.513258
>>513165
>to byzantine/eastern forms
>ignores eastern/greek forms are one massive family and roman a far smaller one
>ignores sabres independently invented by byzantine greeks
>overly focused on small island sheepfuckers
10000% correct infographic
6bee51 No.513273
>>513241
If you're going to be seriously wearing a blade, why not a smallsword over a cinquedea? Such a broad blade offers no real advantages.
388347 No.513274
>>513258
Looks good to me. The transition from falchion to messer was the whole point of it being posted.
25191b No.513277
>>513273
A E S T H E T I C
E
S
T
H
E
T
I
C
But yeah, a short sword is fine too.
9d8d24 No.513287
>>513210
What would tournaments with sharps accomplish except to expedite the world's first HEMA-related death? I doubt it would bring us closer to understanding the art. Unless the fighters are really trying to kill each other (they won't be) the fight won't resemble what the manuals teach, whereas fights with training weapons actually have the potential to. And it's obvious that's what is happening with the holmgang group. They're sticking to a very limited repertoire of techniques to avoid murdering each other but how is that advancing their skills? And is it worth the inevitable career-ending injury?
I think controlled non-contact sparring with sharps is a great way to develop respect for the weapon and learn how real swords behave but anything more is risk with no reward.
388347 No.513309
>>513287
At least holmgang has the balls to do it and you don't see them going into a full blood lust mode intent on hacking their opponent to death. The whole point of using true blades with less protection is that it raises the crucible in order to produce stronger more confident fencers that will heed only the best advice given to them through the manuals and through serious combat experience. Holmgang fencers look pretty shit, but under those same conditions to an average tournament fighter it would probably be like hitting the restart button. Your inner strength should be tested just as equally as your weapon skill so having the weight of mortally is what makes the whole idea great not a hindrance.
9d8d24 No.513324
>>513309
Just because something takes balls doesn't make it worth doing. And going up against your friend with sharps isn't what I'd call a crucible. I doubt they're under more stress than a tournament fighter since they have full knowledge they aren't trying to really hurt each other.
Every exercise should help triangulate the "real" martial art from a different direction, right? Except that one introduces lots of potentially detrimental artifacts into what I would guess most people are training for, which is blossfechten to the death. If that's what you're trying to master then what use is it? There's no head, neck, or shoulder target, and furthermore they won't thrust or even threaten with the point as they both know the other person won't go through with it. That's like 80% of the techniques - gone. The result is sword tag against the arms and legs that looks nothing like it should. Fencing to the first bleeding cut with feders makes way more sense in terms of developing as a fighter.
ad9c94 No.513331
>>512579
>You can't make bladed bullets or edged baby killing high capacity assault barrel shrouds
What a dismal lack of imagination.
Just off the top of my head you could mount a lengthy bayonet type blade on the barrel shroud in order to make your Dakka Choppy as well; shit, mount one on the bottom, both sides, and the bottom, with the blades reaching a few inches beyond the barrel (add weight to the stock to counterbalance the weight dragging your muzzle down).
As for bladed bullets I imagine you could shave down a .303 round to give it an edged oblong profile as opposed to the more standard tapered cone shape. That shouldn't do too much damage to the receiver or barrel (hopefully) but the accuracy of the weapon would go to shit.
Granted these are at best impractical, edgelord tier nonsense - but where, exactly, do you think you are?
bedcce No.513332
>>512024
>Because swords became status symbols, and status symbols were ridiculously important before 1800s. Like you said here >>511948 (You) swords were so shitty they werent even the main weapon being used.
Swords aren't really status symbols post the 1100s, swords are dirt fucking cheap. People use sword because they have reach and are versatile.
STOP THE MYTH THAT SWORDS WERE EXPENSIVE PAST THE VIKING ERA.
9d8d24 No.513335
>>513309
After doing a little more research I discovered they've had two deaths in their group. Ask those guys whether they are now stronger and more confident fencers. I get the impression they're just retarded thrill seekers who can't get their fix any other way.
922363 No.513356
>>513332
>a pound of unwrought steel, that is a bar of steel unfashioned into any item cost around $27 US in 1812, after the advent of cheaply produced wrought iron
>in the 14th century 1 pound of silver was worth 300lbs of iron, while a sword for instance cost around an ounce of silver
In short, you're full of fucking shit. Iron, steel, and the workmanship in making arms and armor were expensive as fuck and the reason why most armies fought with spears.
b21645 No.513368
>>513356
>In short, you're full of fucking shit. Iron, steel, and the workmanship in making arms and armor were expensive as fuck and the reason why most armies fought with spears.
You are wrong and ignorant. First of all they fought with spears, because thanks to their reach spears are a good weapon to kill people without getting yourself hurt. They can be used to fight in formation and to keep away cavalry.
Secondly the price for weapons wasn't uniform throughout the whole medieval period(5th to the 15th century), after the fall of Rome the currency changed from Gold to Silver, they had a couple of market crashes, Lords who had the right to mint coins were known to fuck with the silver content of the coins to enrich themselves and the coins were only in circulation for a couple of years before being re minted. Then you have the Black Death who caused the wages in Europe to shoot through the roof, because so many workers died and it took a long time for the market to normalize again. Also not all trades in the medieval period were done with money, many people still bartered directly with the goods they had. Munition armor and arms were also a thing, not every blade was folded and forged by some kind of ancient master and last but not least the craftsmen back then build things to last, unlike our current consumer industry which produces thing that break in half a decade, even a mediocre sword could last your whole life if you took care of it and could be given to your descendants. So a lot of shit started to accumulate and old arms and armor were cheaper to buy than paying a craftsman to make a new one.
922363 No.513463
>>513368
You know we have historical records that prove you're full of shit right?
bedcce No.513471
>>513463
And we have actual historical record that shows a sword costs about a bread in medieval England.
Jesus, every longbowmen have a sword.
bedcce No.513474
>>513471
http://www.luminarium.org/medlit/medprice.htm
And source, maybe not a bread but not a fortune.
Snd guns were darn cheap too back in the Wild west, it is all about the quality.
6b0e3a No.513505
>>513474
>Peasant's sword (1340s) - 6d
>Worker's daily wage (1340s) - 3d
That's pretty cheap all things considered.
b21645 No.513506
>>513463
Show them, I am sure you are just too stupid to read them right. One thing that confuses people a lot when reading prices about the medieval age is that a pound wasn't always a pound, different regions had their own mass measurements.
In my youth I lived in a part that once belonged to the seven frisian sealands and because the people living there were free men, they were expected to follow the call to arms if their chieftains called them and there existed laws how much weapons they should bring with them, based on how much property they owned.
I did a little bit of research and found out that if you owned property with the same value as three cows, you were expected to bring a "warsword" with you.(If you owned more also your own horse.) If you owned property in value less than three cows you had at least bring a speer and shield with you and real poor people were expected to have at least a bow and a quiver full of arrows.
388347 No.513508
>>513324
>I doubt they're under more stress than a tournament fighter since they have full knowledge they aren't trying to really hurt each other.
Except you don't always get put up against fighters you spar with. When you get hit with a feder it hurts because the other fighter is competitor trying his best to make sure that you get hit and he doesn't so as an intelligent fencer you do the same or else you will loose which is the whole point when lichtenauer says those who are timid learn to fence poorly. Another psychological aspect is respecting the afterblow. When two good fencers fight both are likely to be hit resulting in an afterblow because while they are pound for pound in technical ability neither of them has a serious concern of being hurt at all if fatigue sets in and your withdraw becomes sloppy.
>Except that one introduces lots of potentially detrimental artifacts into what I would guess most people are training for, which is blossfechten to the death.
I agree it can be lethal if not done right. There are exceptions that may be made. The point can be taken away, but thrusts still counted, the blade could remain a federswert while retaining enough of an edge to simulate a cutting weapon. Even without these exceptions these exceptions equipment may be modified to where it may look more a kin to the the picture i posted and the fighters given the freedom to decide how THEIR fight going. No one should be tricked into a death match against a fencing partner/complete stranger and any one seeking that environment should be met with equal lethal intent as how fights escalated in medieval street brawls.
9f6e84 No.513512
>>513471
Haaaaaa by using that comparison you want to imply it was cheap, because TODAY bread is cheap. Back then a loaf of bread was equivalent to $1500 now (~100h work). People ate about a loaf of bread per month, not per day like some retards do now.
Back then there was no real spare time, so if you give up a loaf of bread for a shitty long knife, you dont have a loaf of bread that month which puts your life in jeopardy.
What could you even buy today thats comparable?
What product requires risking your life to get?
f3649a No.513532
>>513512
Do you have even a single source?
9f6e84 No.513552
>>513532
The average person before 1800 lived on 5¢ a day, or a dollar a day in todays money, working 16hr per day.
And rent was abour $4 a day in todays money, so they had $3 for food. Bread wasnt the only food, and a single worker had multiple dependants.
So please try to wrap your head around why exchanging a loaf of bread for a long knife of brittle shit iron that might last a battle does not mean every peasant was dumb enough to buy or wear one around.
Also this is the average, including gold encrusted kings. Doesnt count slaves or serfs which made up the majority at one time, because counting them would be dividing by zero.
bedcce No.513560
>>513552
Need some sauce to go with that pasta m8.
And sure you can afford a fucking sword for self defense, not like you have to use and replace it every two weeks.
9f6e84 No.513570
>>513560
Improving our standard of living by Wesley Krug, chapter 14 or something.
bedcce No.513573
>>513570
Seems like fucking speculation to me.
Foods get more expensive over timrs, not cheaper, considering peasants back then can grow their own food.
9f6e84 No.513580
>>513573
>Foods get more expensive over timrs, not cheaper, considering peasants back then can grow their own food.
>what is irrigation, pesticides and fertilizers
>what are greenhouses and anti-frost methods
>what is making labor free by using giant machines
That has to be the dumbest fucking comment I've ever heard, and I regularly troll /leftypol/.
9d8d24 No.513603
>>513512
Bread was so widely available in the medieval period that people literally used pieces of bread as tableware, called trenchers. That's $1500 a meal not including the part you're actually eating, does that sound accurate to you?
8085de No.513610
>>513552
>implying fiat currency is worth anything
25191b No.513654
>bread cost about 100 hours of labour
Thats the stupidest fucking thing ive ever read on /k/. Right after "swords were so expensive only the nobility had them in any quantity". Its a proven fact that swords (for a given value of sword) were cheap enough that most people had one in the late middle ages. Depending on region. In the 13th century alone, the price of steel dropped by 90%.
4ce484 No.513681
>>513654
It's an AYYLMAO posting, what do you expect? Bug-eyed bastards probably invented personal shields like the ones from Dune and are trying to spread misinformation about swords to strip away our ability to resist them when they come enmasse to steal away our resources.
ad9c94 No.513699
>>513654
>"swords were so expensive only the nobility had them in any quantity"
Depends entirely on date. For the year ~900ish it might be a bit of an overstatement, but largely accurate. Once you get into the hundred years war though they've been pretty standard shit for a few generations.
0eb438 No.513720
>>513512
>Back then a loaf of bread was equivalent to $1500 now (~100h work). People ate about a loaf of bread per month, not per day like some retards do now.
Bullshit, early medieval towns had communal baking houses that operated weekly and the thing about bread is that its get stale fairly quick.
>>513552
>…working 16hr per day.
Impossible because the lack of light sources meant the majority of people in the medieval age were forced to do all their work during the daylight.
>And rent was abour $4 a day in todays money, so they had $3 for food.
When they lived for rent. Majority of people didn't, including soldiers who where the main customers for swords.Also the original point wasn't that every peasant and worker was free to get a sword, but that they were a normal commodity for the combatants of that time and that most had a sword as a sidearm.
105555 No.513722
>>513699
This statement is truth up until the early middle ages, with the re-introduction of mining and weapon manufacturing after the fall of the Roman Empire. It took about three hundred years for swords to be steadily re-introduced as a weapon not reserved for nobility because of costs. At 900 swords were still expensive, but were worth a fraction of what they costed two/three hundred years before, and it marked the gradual shift for more metal in a soldier's gear.
So the statement "most feudal soldiers used spears because of cost and production caps in making swords" is very accurate; you could produce several spears with the same amount of metal than a sword, with the added flexibility a spearwall had over swords and axes, which was the preferred strategy of soldiers of the past.
9f6e84 No.513762
>>513603
Moron, that shows that tableware was UNAVAILABLE, not that bread was somehow overly available.
>>513654
>for a given value of sword
>late middle ages
>most people
Ahhhhhh…. Now we're getting closer to the truth. Would have been nice if you bothered to qualify these things instead of in effect making sweeping claims that included
>everyone
>high quality sword
>early middle ages
>>513720
Those stats are for 1800, I dont have stats for middle ages other than estimates.
9d8d24 No.513763
>>513762
Hey moron, they used wood planks as tableware too. Next you'll be telling me a piece of wood the size of a plate was worth over $1500 in today's money (how'd peasants ever manage to build wood-framed daub and wattle houses then?). This is olympic gold medalist-tier mental gymnastics.
0719e0 No.513765
I'll ask here instead of the QTDDTOT: do you smell at least some bullshit in the traditional Plutarch's version of "Crassus vs Parthians"? I mean, Romans had a goddamn shields. They weren't that easy to defeat with those small arches and also it's not like Plutarch was such a quality historian as Thucydides or we have plenty of other sources describing those events.
c29261 No.513776
>>513765
man i really wish i had an answer to your question but ive been tring to read through primary sources in order and i bought a shit copy of xenophon and ive been hung up on that ever since
6001c4 No.513794
>>513722
Except feudal soldiers extend to high medieval and late medieval, and everyone got sword in those eras.
e78e80 No.517265
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
Recommended for swinging things more effectively with two hands.
c56c34 No.517273
>>512024
>were ridiculously important before 1800s
You think status symbols aren't important anymore? You're probably virtue signalling 24/7 and then you come here and say this much shit.
c16582 No.517329
>>512302
This looks like something straight out of 40k.
ac51a2 No.517334
>>517329
>No chainsaws.
>No Aquila.
>No Chaos iconography.
>It isn't 200ft tall.
>It's not even on fire.
That shit is far too subtle for 40k.
ed5e57 No.517398
>>511925
In the moden world a wood axe or baseball bat is best because it's easiest to explain to a judge why you had it.
36b95b No.517399
>>517265
These guys have a very unusual zornhau interpretation. Looks like they're hedging all their bets on the thrust, but zornhau ort starts as a zornHAU, a cut, first and foremost. If you were attacking with a plan to cut against the opponent, you would never use those body mechanics. Not unless you knew the opponent was about to throw a snipey and uncommitted oberhau that allowed you to go straight in with the ort, which these guys do.
It's not all bad, but look at 1:05. The guy defending with a zornhau doesn't even contact the opponent's sword and receives an incidental cut. If it doesn't parry while hitting the opponent, it isn't a fucking zornhau.
94285c No.517400
>>511925
Anything with versatility built into mind. I'd say don't limit yourself and find out what is practical to you. For me, I like a medieval weapon that serves a multi purpose role. The poleaxe or bardiche comes to mind for me.
>Long reach and keeps foes at bay
>Looks intimidating
>Axe head for chopping
>Spike/Spear head for thrusting
>Blunt end for crushing
>Only downside is that it can be heavy, so hit the gym and train for endurance and strength
>Length might be a problem in limited space or close quarters, but can be dealt with proper training
Zweihanders can almost be thrown into the same category as polearms since they have an incredible amount of reach. It can be also effectively be used as a polearm in the same matter as well.
One day I would love to create and forge first pic related and train with it.
>t. faggot who owns an authentic halberd and bardiche
e78e80 No.517446
>>517399
you're so fucking full of shit. I bet you didn't even bother to research videos before you came up with this. First off you totally missed the purpose of the video which is to show a "Zornhaw "Ort"", emphasis on point, which is where two zorns meet and only one gains the center line for a thrust. Secondly you're either deaf or blind, or both because the sound I heard was metal on metal of one feder clearly parrying the other and gaining the center line.
Also don't talk about body mechanics when there are countless shit tons of videos disproving you of not only fencers using these body mechanics in competition, but also plenty of unarmed combat showing this is how you strike with full body rotation. There are even examples in the sources on medieval combat of this shit if you're too dogmatic. Try swinging any mastercut with full rotation and you'll know what it's all about.
36b95b No.517454
>>517446
If there are countless videos disproving me then link one where they use this same body structure. I've seen em all, although I try to keep my research limited to primary sources and not Youtube. Probably 95% of other interpretations involve stepping out to the opponent's right side and throwing a cut almost into plow, with the left arm kept straight. Like you're actually trying to set aside a strong and committed cut.
The zornhau ort is not a different technique than the zornhau, it's response when you gained the center but weren't in range to hit with the cut. At least that's how the manuals seem to treat it. Logically that means it should be indistinguishable from a zornhau until the moment the thrust is needed.
Before you get too triggered keep in mind there's almost no technique in HEMA that everyone agrees on. It's just what you can make happen under pressure and I think what's shown in this video would be risky under pressure at best.
dacb84 No.517473
>>517454
>>517446
Less talking, more practicing.
The thing with HEMA internet talk fight is that most of the time the analyst's skills just cannot back up all their analysis.
e78e80 No.517510
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>517454
>>517473
>there isn't a cut
>there isn't a step
>"I've seen em all"
>he is only limited to the primary sources
Thats your problem. You don't know what the fuck the sources are telling you because you don't drill enough or spar skilled enough opponents. The video is so clear I shouldn't have to spoon feed you competition videos of this shit happening, but since you've "seen em all" already you should know that this can be done this way. It's not like we don't see this already enough in baseball, football, golf, rugby, cricket, hockey, etc. No it's not that you're not good enough to figure out how to over power your opponent's cut with one that has more structure behind it, no, the interpretation is just too risky for HEMA thats it.
You're interpretations are limited to whatever weak pressure testing you put them through. I'll provide ONLY ONE video of more talented fencers than yourself one of which happens to have been in the above video.
Dustin Reagans, Axel Pettersons, Martin Fabians, Anton Kohutovics, Lee Smiths, Arto Famas, Roland Warzechas, Jake Norwoods. These are all fencers that you should look at before you start burying your head in the books.
36b95b No.517531
>>517510
>the only way you could possibly disagree is a lack of experience
>baseless assumptions: the post
I'm not burying my head in anything, I fight in tournaments. Since you brought up Axel Petterson, be sure check out his hour-long seminar on the zornhau where he clearly demonstrates a more conventional structure. I've seen material by every one of the fencers you listed so don't waste your time.
309c62 No.517535
>>513794
If your definition of "feudal" is synonymous to "medieval" then you might as well throw 19th century Russia and China in there, famalam.
e78e80 No.517552
>>517531
I've seen it too, referenced it again. Their approach is virtually identical except Kohutovic is displacing the cut in real time with the greatest amount of torque. Again your whole arguement being that Kohutovic throws a riskier oberhau is because YOU don't train like him. Otherwise his technique matches how the books say and he has proven that he can throw it without risk in his bouts.
73b909 No.517648
Polearms arm my pole, if you know what I mean.