/v/ - Video Games

Flanged maces are cool. Imagine one with huge flanges that pretty much go the length of the weapon

>>13767908

Too bad they become useless quickly.

Were spiked maces a thing back then, or am I confusing them with flails? Nevertheless, spikes make everything cooler.

>>13767923

You're thinking of a morningstar

OFFICIAL RANKING OF BEST MELEE

Spears = Warhammers/Maces > Axes > Staves > Lances/Polearms > Shit > Swords/Daggers

The sword meme needs to fucking die. Swords are a shit.

>>13767948

>Polearms > Swords

>When Doppelsöldner with greatswords where used to cut through polearms

>>13767960

I think mideval weapons have a ton of grey area because historians basically had to piece together everything they could find.

>>13767960

>>13767965

Here's an example of what I mean by grey area.

>>13767984

Finally.

Someone else who fills their quiver with swords.

>>13768038

From what I've heard swords are basically the backup weapon when they're not being used for duels.

>>13768038

Swords were a versatile backup weapon, a status symbol and pretty useful in duels or small skirmishes, but usually worse than other, primary weapons in formation warfare.

>>13768055

All this shit depends on the era you are talking about, swords in the Roman times for example don't have the same role as swords in late middle ages. Advancement of armor technology made things different.

But I can safely say that the two weapons used consistently trough all ages are spear and the club. They are cheap to make, easy to use, work in formation, and that makes it the core of any army. My the late middle ages swords couldn't do much against heavily armored soldiers.

Read up on Battle of Barnet, it is an interesting case study of this, due to fog they kinda went too near each other and could only use swords, it wasn't that effective and fighting went longer than usual.

As for sword being sign of officers rank, it isn't really true. Baton is the sign, that is why even later you have European rulers and generals portrayed with baton in their hands.

>>13768081

I get the impression people think combat was exclusively between fully armored knights when in reality that was a fraction of a percent of all fighting.

Most of the time you're dealing with unarmored peasants or lightly armored militia with just a gambeson + helmet + hauberk and MAYBE greaves and/or pauldrons in the latter ages. Also those ultra protective knight helmets that are so iconic were in most cases jousting helmets not for battlefield use. In actual battles something that allowed for greater situational awareness would have been used even if it was somewhat less protective.

So in other words swords might not be able to cut through plate or even most maille and thats when you would break out specialty weapons like maces and warhammers but 90% of the time a sword was the best most convenient method of slaughtering your enemy or even just for keeping the rabble in line.

>Talking about shit you're ignoring the advancement in metallurgy in general which allowed for longer, lighter blades that held edge for longer. Also cleavers, sabres, cutlasses and the like.

That same metallurgy advanced in armor department.

Thing with the swords in the late middle ages is that they didn't have sufficient mass to cut trough the armor of the time. The way you injure the armored opponent is not by cutting trough his armor like samurai ninja katana, but by either piercing it with a spike which concentrates all the pressure to one point and is able to pierce the heavy armor or you use blunt force trauma to shatter the bones or cause stress on his internal organs of the guy inside the armor. That is why they used polearms, picks, maces, projectile weapons. Swords are not good for that.

As for the sabres, cutlasses and the like, they only come to prominence in western Europe after the introduction of firearms which made heavy armor obsolete and made swords viable again. For example Hungarian hussar could use sword because his opponents weren't as well armored as late medieval knights were.

But mind you, you cant look at this topic as a whole. Different regions and historical eras were completely different when it comes to warfare. You cant compare the role of the sword from iron age and late middle ages. Things change and people adapt. Just like today is happening with body armor and rifle calibers. You cant say this weapon is perfect since forever. History of human invention is just adapting and using your ingenuity to gain the edge over others. But it also comes down to compromise, you sacrifice one aspect of weapon to maximize other, so you make it specialized for a certain role. There are no perfect tools, only good tools suitable for certain different things.

>>13768231

Hungary is not in western Europe and neither is Poland, Lithuania, Russia, most of Asia or the middle east. And no, you wouldn't cut the armour if you wanted to use that weapon for anything ever again, you'd twist into chinks and hook the joints. Coincidentally that's something long, pointed blades with their average nine directions of attack excel at.

Also speaking of blunt force trauma you'd definitely require something right out of an anime to apply sufficient force to harm someone in mail let alone something plated or scaled. Even historically they used spiked arms like goedendag or the morningstar as opposed to relying on sheer weight. There's also the irony in fags calling swords ceremonial when the mace only ever feature prominently in the role of a scepter.

>>13768294

>Hungary is not in western Europe and neither is Poland, Lithuania, Russia, most of Asia or the middle east.

I don't see the point of this remark. What are you trying to say? The concept of what you consider western Europe has no relevance on this topic. That concept of western Europe is very recent one, after second world war. During the middle ages all European countries shared the same or very similar technology, mainly because technological centers were based in few select areas of Europe and were source of almost all weapons and arms, just look up Milanese armor or Passau swords for example. I'm mentioning Passau swords because a lot of them were found in Balkans which you wouldn't consider western European in any case.

>Also speaking of blunt force trauma

It is basic physics, the more mass weapon has the more damage it will cause. Slender swords won't do shit to armored opponent. Here is a very interesting video that showcases that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hlIUrd7d1Q

And also, blunt force trauma.

https://youtu.be/7qHpoeYyfl0?t=40m33s

>>13768329

The Romans did use the sword as their primary weapon, on average. They'd add or take away things as they faced different enemies or through different military reforms, but the gladius was omnipresent throughout it all.

>>13768329

>>13768426

>a shield is a primary weapon

Grade-A retard over here

>>13768460

>implying it's not

Try and get the Great Mace in Dark Souls III. Infuse it to Heavy and destroy everything.

>>13768038

Swords are backup weapons, and nothing more. The only time you should be using a sword as a primary is if you're also using a shield. Even then, shield and spear combos are typically better.

>>13768152

What makes the roman formations good was not the sword. It was the shield.

The sword was just the best thing for use with a massive fuckoff shield, as it was light enough, and easily maneuverable around the massive fuckoff shield.

>>13768749

Depends on what you're using and how you use it. Regardless, no-shield swording is fucking worthless, and only idiots who're going to die in droves against a spear line use them.

Or people who are so armored it doesn't matter. You see that a lot in late medieval stuff. It's why suddenly hammers rose massively in popularity.

With a shield, a spear is better. You lose out the control, but the reach is a massive boon, and assuming you don't have an autistically long spear, as you well shouldn't have when using a shield alongside it, you're not going to have much in the way of issues as far as close combat shit.

>>13767893

Ay yo thats a hammer dawg, thats a hammer dawg, yo dawg hes got a hammer, oh shit..

>>13768785

Spears designed to be used with shields are very, very different from your run of the mill spear, you insufferable dickmongering faggot clearly too obese to so much as lift a sword, let alone actually swing one around.

Longswords when used without shields were only done when armor was so good it wasn't really needed to have a shield. Most times, the fight was about getting a lucky stab, knocking the other guy over, or just slaughtering poorer mooks who couldn't afford to be as well armored as you.

>>13768839

It's literally just the difference between a shorter shaft, and a long shaft.

Heads varied wildly across the lot, but as far as length, you didn't want it to be longer than you were tall, and often it was a bit shorter than that.

Specific spear is dumb when we're talking weapons issued to drafted peasantry, usually lightly at best armored.

You ignored all the other shit said, and also didn't defend the whole "sword was only used when fully armored" bit.

Might as well be telling me a chainsword is better than a lasgun, because some powerarmored faggots can win with one of those, thanks to being basically bulletproof otherwise.

>>13768855

Landschneckts used a large variety of weapons, but ultimately, I point you to the same shit I said in >>13768762

Just swords were only practical when armor was so advanced, people were basically tanks.

As far as the massive Zweihanders, they were basically polearms in their usage, and ultimately not comparable to swords. Might as well be telling me about a Carl Gustav recoilless rifle, in an argument about the best pistol.

>montantes

See above

>spada en daga

Used when armor fell out of style, typically in streetfights, not battlefields.

Ah yes, yet another thread when /v/ discusses medieval weapon.

Might as well post some sword video for inspiration purpose.

Sword fighting is an art.

>>13768718

Another retardo.

Roman shield is nigh useless save for countering archer.

There's a reason later legionnaire switches to the barbarian oval shield and LONGER sword i.e. spada.

>>13768892

Which were so big they were basically polearms.

No, Romans used shields with their swords, as already adressed. We're talking about without shields.

Polearms.

In street brawls.

Are you now going to tell me the prison shank is a valid weapon?

That it's better than a spear, because a bunch of cretins use it to kill eachother all the time?

Frag off mate.

>>13768911

Tower shields were amazing in formation. Problem is, if that formation is broke, the lot falls apart. Agains berserk barbs, towershields weren't super great, as they'd routinely break through the lines.

Against more typical enemies the Romans faced, towershields worked great.

Regardless, the shield was far more important than the sword. The shield is what made roman armies so formidable.

>>13768913

Zweihander is not a polearm, nor it is used as polearm.

>>13768913

>Which were so big they were basically polearms.

You're a retard. Compare this

>https://youtu.be/7Ijy8Ky_vrI?t=37s

and this

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYNy_drriXs

And tell me how they are the same. Fucking hell.

>>13768918

Except after the roman, nobody bother using tower shield.

Even the roman stop using tower shield as it goes on, because that shit is fucking cumbersome and is actually useless in CQC.

>>13768926

Not exactly, and not for that reason.

But the reason is what matters.

See, after the Romans, nobody bothered with a standing army any more. Noone wasted time with professional soldiers, outside of shock units, typically heavily armored to the point a large shield doesn't matter so much, and rarely in the numbers that formations could be used.

For a large towershield to be effective, it must be used in very strict, disciplined formations.

If it is not, it falls apart.

Use it in formation, and it's great. Don't, and it's a shitty liability.

>>13768935

Even after the classical roman, there is still the byzantine empire and various medieval states that arm their knights/cavalries even better than the roman legionnaries, they still didn't use tower shields.

The reason is because tower shield becomes more trouble than it's worth and armor becomes better.

>>13768926

>>13768935

Tower shields would have survived the introduction of gunpowder into war anyway, unless they are made out of lexguard or something like that.

>>13768937

Yes, because the main bulk was not these elite heavily armed and well trained troops.

It was no longer practical.

Plus, the nature of warfare started favoring mobility. But, then, mobility was also an issue during roman times. Still, cavalry became much more common.

>>13768946

Mind you a spear is still a good individual weapon, arguably better than the sword.

The problem is portability, carrying a spear all day is stressful, unlike carrying a sword.

>>13768951

Except by the time when the main bulk was heavily trained, they still didn't use tower shield.

The XIV century where the King of France ushered the professional army? They kept the kite shield, the round shield, but no tower shield.

It's really not needed when you have better armor and the round shield is much more versatile and lighter.

>>13768371

And I don't see the point of this dodge and weave bullshit you're trying to spin. Western Europe as a medieval concept - Occident/Occidens is fairly well established as well as to what cultures, customs and technologies it held over the years. Eastern countries always had a tendency towards lighter, mixed units with a heavy focus on lighter cavalry.

There's also the plain lie of firearms invalidating heavy armour as it remained in use well into 1800s in both Europe, Middle East and Asia. It's the role of heavy cavalry that changed Or every country having the same technology. Nigger, there was a world of difference in the funds or sheer material, iron, coal, whatever, a small HRE principality could field compared to a large HRE duchy. Now compare that to what the Emperor or the King of France could do.

>>13768937

You would have to be a special kind of retard to equip cavalry with tower shields in any time period.

>>13768926

I recall some medieval crossbowmen carrying pavises, which are pretty similar to tower shields in size, to take cover while they reload. Might have mostly been a siege tactic, I don't remember.

>>13768964

My point is that even the roman adopt the oval shield used by the cavalries, not vice versa.

And the pavis is deployed by team to counter missile, it's absolutely not used for close quarter.

>>13768914

>Atashi wa shiggy diggy onii-chan

>>13769027

>Not really lol.

Yeah, really, roman armor isn't actually uniformly, the empire is rich, but not that rich.

>Yes there is. Look at the KNEES. The ARMS. And the waist.

They still have more armor than the average naked barbarian.

>Also, the Shield was used as a weapon and to stop projectiles really well too.

The scutum is way worse than the round shield for this reason, the round shield is lighter and much easier to strike with due to the larger diameter. Round shield works well against projectile too, ever since the hoplite phalanx.

>You can do the same with a scutum.

But why do that when scutum is much more cumbersome than the round shield.

>Nah. It was "Abandoned" because the Legionary quit being a Roman soldier and a Germanic soldier, who used their own shit.

Yeah, no, I don't see how germans just supplant every existing roman soldiers, even the eastern romans stopped using the scutum, and these guys were greek/roman, not germanic.

>>13769051

>It was fairly uniform. I'm referring to Legionairies; Actual Romans, not Auxiliaries, you stupid nigger.

Actual romans, even post-marian reform, was not uniform, you can't expect the roman to dress the same in Gaul and in the Middle east.

>Doesn't matter lol.

It matters because why outfit your soldier so much when the enemy is much more inferior? Yet the barbarians still fight with shirt, pants and round shield.

>Doesn't matter. The Legionnaires were able to use it effectively with some time and practice, and were able to use its greater size and momentum to their advantage.

It matters because the round shield is lighter and much more versatile than the scutum.

>Fuck off kek. Phalanxes were abandoned by the Romans for the sake of mobility, and Hoplite Roundshields were Fuck Yuge.

Hoplite roundshield is not as big as the scutum, you can cover the whole body with the scutum, not with the hoplite shield, not to mention, Alexander's phalanx also abandons the larger hoplite shield, preferring the little round shield.

>Read up on the Empire's history then fagget, I'm not here to spoonfeed you on how the Auxiliaries took over the Legions.

Yeah, the germans started getting more numerous in the legion, but it's nonsense that germans replace every romans, late era roman use the oval shield and spada, like the germans, not that they are the germans.

>It might've been because they never really used the scutum in the first place and adopted completely different tactics?

The eastern romans are romans like the western romans, they were the same thing and used the scutum once.

>Then again the Eastern Roman Empire/Byzantines Were pretty shit at fighting anyways.

They fought against the muslim horde for hundreds of years, not to mention, Belisarus re-conquered Rome.

>>13767893

Too bad there isn't a single medieval game that does localized damage and simulates armor properly. Then warhammers would be really cool.

>>13769133

Chivalry. also Mordhau is looking to be pretty great.

>>13769112

>The funny thing is you're wrong but even if you were right you'd still be wrong.

Please explain, because their uniform isn't really uniform, and as said, even the romans abandoned the scutum as it goes on.

>Ask the Europeans in the Boxer Rebellion.

The europeans in the Boxer rebellion had guns and cannons, much more than the chinks.

>Not really.

Yes, really.

>No, they were fuck huge and quite heavy/unwieldy.

They weren't as cumbersome as the scutum, which is much larger.

>Alexander's Phalanx completely abandoned traditional Greek tactics and favored the Sarrissae.

And? The point is that they didn't use the scutum, they in fact used smaller round shields.

>Plus they still had, surprise surprise,a bunch of niggas with swords who worked identically to roman legionairies in terms of tactics.

These men were for flank protection, they weren't frontline troops unlike the romans, and they did not use the scutum nor the large hoplite shield.

>No it isn't kek. The average Roman Legionairy eventually became a Germanic Soldier.

Because the germanic soldier is more cost effective than the roman legionnaire, and everyone figure out long sword > short sword and oval shield > scutum, and they used real spear instaled of the pila.

>>Greeks are now Romans because they call themselves Romans

The eastern romans were a mixed between romans and greeks, with romans leading the group.

>And they got Wrekt.

You know, like the western roman empire did?

>The Byzantine Empire made a grand show of sluicing barbarians and other trouble makers westward by paying them bribes rather than fighting.

Suffice to say, they stayed and fought harder than the western roman ever did, considering the western romans fell a thousand year before the eastern romans.

>Man, you can't stick to a single fucking point, but this is not at all surprising

My whole point is the scutum isn't all that great, which is why it's replaced by round shield/oval shield later on, and nobody uses it ever again.

>you are the same guy who thought the problem with spears was that marching with them was hard.

That's the problem with spear if you carry it daily as a self-defense weapon, nobody says anything about spear as a military weapon.

>>13767948

Polearm is a broad category, and includes lances and spears.

GLAIVES ARE BEST WEAPON, ALL OTHER OPINIONS ARE OBJECTIVELY WRONG

>>13769128

>Gets BLOWN THE FUCK

OUT

>Butthurt, whines and sages

>>13768749

>Fiore

Good school, but do you have your book entirely summarized in a poem and yet continue on being one of the most effective swordfighting techniques?

Jung Ritter lere

got lip haben

frawen io ere

So wechst dein ere

Uebe ritterschaft und lere

Kunst dy dich czyret

vnd in krigen sere hofiret

>>13769221

Burn the stick

>>13769225

Stick ash fertilizes the land and you get forest of sticks.

>>13769221

>>13769230

Seal the ashes in jars across 5 corners of the earth.

>>13769218

Swords are garbage. They're no good for piercing most quality armor. They stuck around in the medieval era because they were a status symbol, partially due to their expense. inb4

>but putting the blade through the gaps in the armor

Fuck you, anything with a point is just as useful for that.

>>13769236

The jar breaks with an Earthquake or a mole

>>13769247

Swords were used from antiquity till the 19th century i.e. the Napoleonic war actually.

>Fuck you, anything with a point is just as useful for that.

But a sword is the middlepoint between a spear and a dagger.

>>13769249

TBH all you really have to do is shoot it into the sun so it becomes god and is too powerful to be interested in petty squabbles.

>>13769258

>Forgetting Mad Jack

>>13769258

I know, but I'm specifically talking about their use in the medieval area. Before good plate armor, swords were a viable battlefield weapon for a normal frontline soldiers, hence the gladius being standard-issue for Roman legionnaires.

>But a sword is the middlepoint between a spear and a dagger.

Why would you want a midpoint? Just take the spear.

>>13769277

Even during the plate armor era, longsword and polearms were the main weapons for dismounted knights.

>>13769278

>thats like saying Castles are shit because they were pratically useless against cannon fire.

But that's true. After cannons were introduced from Turkey, castle design changed to more effectively defend against them.

>>13769283

>longsword and polearms were the main weapons for dismounted knights.

>knights

Irrelevant. Knights are nobles who happen to be on a battlefield. They don't fight or win wars alone. The mass of soldiers were peasants.

>>13769284

Idk but he got bored a long time ago.

>>13769308

Your mortal mind will never fathom the divine shortness of God's attention span.

>>13769292

>Irrelevant. Knights are nobles who happen to be on a battlefield. They don't fight or win wars alone. The mass of soldiers were peasants.

Knights usually form the mainline of troops to rally the peasants and mercenaries, and guess what? Even the peasants used cheap ass swords.

>>13769277

>Why would you want a midpoint? Just take the spear.

I already carry the spear, the sword is a nice weapon to have in the scabbard when the spear breaks (and it will).

>>13769236

4 adventurers that fight taking turns appear out of nowhere to gather and unleash the ashes.

>>13769292

>But that's true

Not before cannons were introduced you retard, and swords were still commonplace because spears were mostly a deterrent to everything but cavalry and full body armor was rare as all hell.

>>13769392

>>13769394

I think you oughta study Belisarus's campaign before shittalking any further, he beats the crap out of the Goths and vandals and reclaims Rome for a brief while. The scutum didn't matter shit.

And the whole spear being useless outside of formation is pure bullcrap.

>Fucking Hardly. Round shields were by all accounts fucking huge, and they did not use it for Versatility or any other bullshit you are touting, since it was NEVER USED OFFENSIVELY.

Except the greeks and the macedonians all used the phalanx offensively, and that includes the round shield and sword flankers.

And for the record, the idea of using the scutum to fight offensively is fucking stupid as well.

I double dare you to show me technique where scutum bash is legit.

I've seen round shield bash, I've seen buckler bash, but scutum bash? That's just full fucking retarded.

>>13769431

Swordies are understating spears, and spearchuckers are understating swords.

>>13769460

>Tell me more about how much the Republic and the Early Empire sucked. Those dumb shits would've conquered atleast TWICE as fast if they just used phalanxes amirite?

Considering the romans never conquered quite as fast as Alexander did, I would agree, the romans had logistics and number, their tactics wasn't the best of the world.

>I can say from practice that it isn't. It's utterly worthless and incredibly easy to defeat someone wielding a spear if you've got a longsword or just a shield, really.

Or you just fight someone incredibly sucky with a spear. See video:

>Phalanx, not the ROUND SHIELD you goddamn dirt-eating moron. They never ever fought in Close quarters because the whole point of a Phalanx was preventing that.

Except the phalanx got flanked regularly, so what do you think the phalangites did, just run away and break formation? Nope, they were protected by the sword and shield-ers, or they whip out their own sword.

>You'd say this with zero knowledge on the matter and the physical inability to walk 10 steps without dropping to your knees in fatigue, of course.

I assume your video is meant to prove a point? Because that looks a shitton less effective than a germanic warrior with a longsword and a round shield.

>Yeah man, i agree, it's retarded, that's why the Romans ended up getting just destroyed by those Gaullic and Greek masterminds with Round shields.

For the record, the gauls used the scutums, the romans simply copied it.

And the greeks were giving Rome hell until they run out of soldiers.

>>13769487

This is probably a better video on how a good spearman would perform, then again, this particular sword/shield guy looks like he just sucks.

Also for the record

- round shield were used thorough history

- long sword were used thorough history

- pikes were used thorough history (even in medieval age, the scots were famous with the pikes)

The scutum i.e. tower shield? Only used against as pavise, and even then as stationary emplacement, not actual melee equipment.

>>13769529

>Holy shit you actually are this retarded.

How exactly? Alexander conquered much faster than the romans.

>10 Years of Practice and they're still sucky? Man, you got me, they just sucked, and that was why it was easy to defeat someone with a spear.

That's true though, you just might someone who sucks.

>Well, you already got BTFO on asking about "Muh scutum bash!", so your lack of knowledge on how to actually fight is not surprising.

For your knowledge, in that particular fight, they weren't using scutum to bash, they were using scutum to strike, and quite stupidly, giving their whole body away as they open up their arm to strike with the shield.

>That has nothing to do with what I said. Greeks did not use their shields offensively.

Except they did, they used shield for bashing, for pushing formation, and to protect themselves in CQC, jesus christ man.

>No they didn't lmao.

They did, the iberians for example used both the scutum and gladius which the roman copied.

>Rome won where Greece did not, through superior tactics.

Look up Pyrrhus the great, many fights where about the romans unable to beat the phalanx frontally, so they had to feign retreat and lured the phalanx into uneven terrain in order to flank them, pray tell, you don't need the scutum to do that, in fact, that's just a matter of tactics, not equipment.

>Afterall, the Romans did come about to abandoning the shitty phalanx you keep harping on about because it was worthless against the Italian tribes.

Against the gallic tribes actually, the romans were getting their ass raped by various Gallic kings until they decide to copy their loadout i.e. sword and shield with throwing spear.

>You are retarded and your lack of experience only makes it more painful to watch.

Excuse me? It doesn't matter if the sword is thrusting or slashing, what matters is reach, and the spear owns that. The sword can mitigate this by having a sword, or having a longer sword, or better skills but spear has the reach advantage. There are various manuals on spear in duel in both european and eastern accounts, please educate yourself.

>>13769561

>The sword can mitigate this by having a shield*

>>13769453

Because it wouldn't be a scutum bash. Duh.

>>13769585

No, that's the point, you are making a scutum that is only suitable for duel since that small size means it's useless against missile fire.

It's destroying the point of the scutum.

>>13769597

Well, these videos are proving you wrong man.

>Okay bud.

Okay, every other shield warriors were keeping shield close to their body, or using it to bash, not to strike i.e. leaving your body wide open.

>No they didn't. Protecting yourself is not offensive, and Phalanxes would usually end up falling apart if they got flanked. Are you fucking retarded?

Except using the shield to bash and push up enemy formation is indeed using it offensively.

>Implying the Romans didn't adopt their tactics from the Italian tribes

For their sword and shield? Nope, they copied that from the gallic warriors..

>Maybe if they'd dropped all their scutum they woulda done better though, right? A retard like you would actually think that.

It sure wouldn't make a difference, the scutum didn't make the roman legionnaire invincible against the phalanx.

>Except that's wrong, you dumbass. They adopted that equipment long, long, looong before they even fought with the Gauls. God, you're so fucking illiterate it's painful.

That's actually wrong, Brennus the Gaul was wrecking the romans phalanx with his charge tactics, thus the romans learned the gauls and abandoned the phalanx.

>What matters is reach, and that's Rome got conquered by Macedon

All I know is that renaissance tactics went up aping Alexander's pike and lance, not Roman sword and shield.

>I've practiced HEMA for 8 Years

Yet you know naught about spear used in duel, nigger you lie.

>Grade A retard material you are.

It's the only type of tower shield used post-antiquity. Fucking everyone else were using round, kite and heater.

>>13769620

All I have to say is you are not using the scutum used by roman legionnaire in field battle.

>>13769645

For that vid, no.

>>13767893

>>realistic melee combat

Melee combat hasn't changed programically since Quake1's shovel. Until more impressive programming happens for melee it won't matter your weapon because the algorithm will still be shit.

>>13769677

Yeah. And arena shooters where the pinnacle of gaming. And other memes.

>>13769657

>No they aren't. You admitted that you were wrong about one, and one wasn't even using a sword, but a fucking rapier of all things. The one I posted showed how retarded you were.

Huh? No, my videos didn't show rapier vs spear.

>>I-It don't count, bashes don't live you open, what the hell do you mean strike,

You bash, as in the position from holding the shield up front then bashing it to the side, not unlike these romans were they were vertically striking with their scutum.

>They never did. Phalanxes did not get so close and literally remove their reach advantage that they could shield bash ANYONE.

Except you know, phalanx got flanked, and their flankers have to protect them by using sword and shield, this is not to mention the hoplite phalanx era spear was shorter, thus means the battle would become shield pushing.

>No they didn't. The scutum is literally the same one used by the fucking Samnites. They adopted the Maniple system while fighting Italian Tribes, you moron.

There is many origin of the scutum, but the point remains, the gauls also used rectangular shields like the scutums.

>Nobody said it did, but you did just say I was right in that the Romans whooped the shit out of the phalanx.

Through their tactics and logistics, not because of their superior equipment.

>You're a double retard now since you are implying Phalanxes were shit and the Scutum/Gladius combo was better all along.

Not all phalanx was made equal, the gallic charges were able to break greek hoplites even before Roman time, still, it would have been a different history with a pike phalanx, Macedonian style.

>I know exactly how to use one in a Duel, and it is literally all about keeping your enemy as far away as possible with your reach advantage. It's so fucking easy to get past that, however, that it's better to just use a sword.

I would like to see your video dueling someone proficient with a spear.

>Don't care. It was not a Scutum and was not used in any way whatsoever like a Scutum.

Nobody else uses the scutum post-classical history, hell, modern police officer uses their tower shield more like pavise than scutum.

>Cool story bro. Did you know that every civilization since the dawn of Man has used Daggers and Knives, though?

What does that have to do with everything? The point remains that the scutum was replaced by superior shields.

>>13769674

Except my context is the scutum used by roman legionnaires which were bigger and more cumbersome, you are deviously using some small ass rectangular shields to deflect the point.

>>13769686

Ghoul2 which is what JKO and JKA used had some neat animation transforms but the damage system is the same Quake algorithm of a hit within a triangle in 2D space registering a message to the server to handle damage.

The system needs to be improved more than that where weapons themselves are objects which registers with hit and force and animations deform based on these actions. Its totally possible but its not an investment in AAA wants to take because if done well in Single-Player the net code would be terrible and if simplified for Multiplayer, the only place where companies make money now', it wouldn't play as well as the Single-Player.

You can see this simplification apparent in JKA Single-Player versus Multiplayer.

>>13767960

Some people think that morning stars were exclusively torture implements, but it seems clear that there were several examples that were used as weapons in war. The "morgenstern" (literally just morning star in German) and "godendag" ("good day" in Dutch) were polearms with spiked mace heads that were used in war. The weapons in your second image match that profile fairly well, except with a longer shaft. The name "holy water sprinkler" is usually used when referring to the torture implement, specifically, which was a wooden morning star with long spikes. But also, this guy >>13767965 is 100% right. It doesn't help that until relatively recently many "experts" just copied what earlier historians (namely Victorians) wrote about medieval history, which was frequently very inaccurate.

>>13768038

>Anyone with a head on their whoulders wouldn't go into battle with a weapon he doesn't feel he knows well enough.

That used to happen all the time though, back in the day. Kings used to take anybody they could, so sometimes Joe the local village pisspot would show up to the big battle with just a tunic and a big stick.

>>13769780

>Kings

Mustering troops was a responsibility left to feudal lords, and in most kingdoms it would in fact be considered a gross overreach of power if the king were to do something like muster one of his vassal's troops without even asking them about it. Most kings didn't wield absolute power per se, the "real power" still lies with the feudal lords who preside over most of the actual land. This changed over time but that political dynamic is what usually defines the feudal or medieval era.

>tunic and a big stick

This depends on the time period and whims of your local lord. Some ambitious lords would train their subjects and afford them good equipment so they could actually perform in battle. A good example of this on a kingdom scale was England's long-standing law which requires all men to practice longbow training once a week. If a lord was contractually or socially obligated to bring troops for a campaign and he was going through tough times, he might resort to sending in some peasant losers as a token tribute, but on a practical level I believe most commanders would consider them not much better than "filler" that makes the army look bigger.

>>13769771

>godendag

Goedendag, godendag means day of the gods.

>>13769215

We study Fiore and Lichtenauer, with a dash of Meyer and vadi. Fiore was most likely a student of Lichtenauer, after all.

>>13768460

>Guaranteed replies

It's cool seeing /r/askhistorians discussion qualities on /V/.

>>13770028

>slices the musketball in midair then teleports behind you

intellectual checkmate, nerd.

>>13770041

>disappears in a puff of smoke only to stab you from behind with my bayonet

u avin' a giggle, m8?

>>13769738

>knives and daggers are the greatest weapons ever made

Well of course:

>the virgin gun;

>needs ammo to do its job

>loud and thus useless for stealth

>requires constant cleaning to be ready at any moment

>using it as a bludgeon or to block could render it useless

>promotes soyboy physique

>has had to show improvement over time

>the chad dagger;

>silent and deadly - guaranteed to put a fucker in the ground

>always ready to mess someone up

>only needs to be cleaned after it is used and not even then

>can be used as bludgeon, a main gauche, can opener - limitless uses and no complaints

>promotes testosterone-filled trim but muscular build

>perfect since its inception

Daggers are simply better.

>someone will think im 100% serious despite obvious use of a meme

>>13769221

burn the stick then eat the ashes

>>13769842

My bad, I'm half-German not Dutch, so I tend to get the German correct, but Dutch looks like a monkey trying to speak German to me.

>>13770032

I love Exanima's combat, but Christ are they taking forever with the non arena parts. The dungeon crawl currently in the game is a tedious slog, of which the first hour or so is spent carefully avoiding everyone as much as possible because you have no real equipment (although the metal stake is surprisingly decent). Arena is also tedious as fuck, and it's extremely easy for your Expert skill fighter to die just because you got unlucky just like in real life but that doesn't make it fun, no sir it doesn't. I would like Arena a lot more if it was much faster to train dudes, or if there were less tiers to train them through.

>>13770520

I'll give you a sword and scrotum.

>>13770565

/Thread

The romans destroyed everybody because they were organized.

is there a word for medieval-themed /k/ autism?

>>13775957

Smiting.

>>13776050

they never took out dragging or the slow ass swinging so it's literally just a glorified chivalry mod. just wait for butterlord instead

>>13776161

I wonder, if is that true that Mordhau forums is full of memers?

>>13776050

They're not taking purchases because Valve forced them to close the shop

Flails are the most criminally underused weapon in video games.

>>13768038

>second webM

did she died?

I'm always amazed at the /k/ enthusiasts that come out in these threads

we truly have the best /v/ around

>ctrl-f nagi

yall fucking plebs for not appreciating a polearm that is also sexy as fuck

Daofags need not apply