|
ammo mammal posted:Are there any movies or shows with accurate depictions of medieval combat? Some drills based on a fencing book (Lichtenauer) from the 14. century. This long sword style was made for fighting without armor. Obviously, noone ever saw a moving picture of 14. century fencing, so people started interpreting the few existing books. The swords used are fairly accurate for the period in regards of size and weight - they just dont have a cutting edge, no point and are more flexible to avoid injuries: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ln94E9AGYTc Another group based on other sources: https://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=DE&hl=de&v=HC5FIyfI8TA A training video of sword/buckler: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46QpBY73lMk Nektu fucked around with this message at 22:48 on Feb 3, 2013 |
# ¿ Feb 3, 2013 22:31 |
|
|
# ¿ May 4, 2024 13:52 |
|
EvanSchenck posted:There's also a popular image of the importance of parrying that doesn't necessarily mesh with actual practice. I think this probably comes from stage fighting, because clashing sword-on-sword and parrying reads well on stage and is exciting for the audience. This later spread from theater to film, and that's where most people get their idea of swordfighting. There is also sport fencing, in which parrying is very important, but that really bears little resemblance to historical methods of combat. Parrying with the weapon was one among several strategies for avoiding damage, and not necessarily the preferable one. A blow could be defended more efficiently by taking advantage of range, movement, armor, and possibly a shield. It's even more complicated - check out the videos of HEMA groups I posted above. Parry and counter attack were one movement if all went well (and the opponent did not counter your counter). EvanSchenck posted:Shields were specifically designed to block attacks, so they were good for that purpose, but by the later part of the middle ages the use of highly effective plate armor had made them less necessary. Big (full body covering) shields were used like that (aka, to hide behind). The smaller shields (and esp the buckler) were used offensively as well (again, check out the vid I posted earlier). EvanSchenck posted:The advantage of these options over parrying is that they do not require the use of your weapon, so you can do them while simultaneously counter-attacking. Railtus posted:What EvanSchenck says about the importance of parrying is an excellent point. Blocking their weapon with yours was one of the least desirable forms of defence according to medieval swordsmanship. Instead it was better to attack from a safe angle (such as while grappling them with your other hand) or void the blow (dodging, sidestep) and immediately counterattack. The big problem with the way you imagine it is, that you allow the attacker to do what he wants (he wants to kill you), while doing nothing to further your own plans (killing HIM). Even worse, you are not even doing something to hinder him in his undertaking to kill you. All in all a losing strategy. Buried alive posted:I've sometimes heard that english/western European weapons were essentially big metal clubs in the area of 10-20 lbs. Are there any surviving historical examples of those that were intended for combat? Or is that more from the mistaken attitude that katana > all. Or are you talking about the bigger pole arms like halberts? Obdicut posted:Subsidiary question: Since horses tend to be terrified of smoke (and, well, a lot of things) were the war horses of the era trained heavily to desensitize them to blood, smoke, etc? I think you can take it as a given that the warhorses were trained for their job. Apart from that, in many depictions of medieval cavalry you can see big and really sharp spurs and very sharp mouthpieces to keep the horses under control. Obdicut posted:Also a note to those saying that a cavalry charge is still going to take down the front row-- if the horse actually decides to avoid, they're going to suddenly run laterally. Horses can pivot really really freaking quickly-- something that's actually useful in missile cavalry, who can charge right at the infantry and then wheel in front of them to deliver the arrows, javelins, what have you-- and so if the horses actually resisted the charge onto the spearpoints they're more likely to turn away and get in the way of other horses than they are to try to stop and fail or whatever. It would be easier to get it to try to jump over (and perhaps crash down onto) the shieldwall. But mostly I think that a successful charge would mean that the infantry does not stand, but breaks the wall and tries to run away before the horses even hit. Or that there were gaps that could be widened by pushing 1000 pounds of horse into them. Nektu fucked around with this message at 19:25 on Feb 6, 2013 |
# ¿ Feb 6, 2013 18:57 |
|
EvanSchenck posted:Countering the counter is actually the problem with the videos you posted; all of the clashes shown last about a second and are basically kata based on the illustrations and instructions from fechtbücher. We can't actually be sure if those are entirely practical fighting techniques or ads for sword schools. I glanced at some other HEMA videos on youtube that were fights instead of staged parry-ripostes, and most of them look very different. Still: it is the same principle that applies to many asian martial arts today - the forms they pratice are absolutely not 1:1 transferrable to real fights, and still they contain the principles the fighting style is based apon. The problem with HEMA groups (and many martial artists today) is that they only ever learned the drills - they were never taught how to apply them to fighting. They dont do "fight" training, they do "drill" training which can be used as a base, but is not sufficient. Also all HEMA groups and most martial artists today do not train to kill people on the battlefield. Too be honest, I doubt that the old fencing masters outright lied in their writings about their own styles (I have no factual basis for that claim ). It is a given however, that they would present themselves in the most interesting way.
|
# ¿ Feb 6, 2013 21:13 |
|
Railtus posted:Forgive me, but you appear to be responding to the exact opposite of the part of my post that you quoted. Unless you are actually agreeing with me, but the phrase “the big problem with the way you imagine it" kind of implies that you have gotten the wrong impression, because your criticism matches the opposite of what I describe. Railtus posted:What EvanSchenck says about the importance of parrying is an excellent point. Blocking their weapon with yours was one of the least desirable forms of defence according to medieval swordsmanship. Instead it was better to attack from a safe angle (such as while grappling them with your other hand) or void the blow (dodging, sidestep) and immediately counterattack. I also wanted to stress that "evading" multiple attacks is really hard if you actually want to attack yourself - evading multiple attacks basically means that you are continuously running away. I was also talking about a style that was made for longsword fencing without armor and shield, and I should probably have specified that, that is true. If you want to hit, you have to go into his killing zone and somehow neutralize his weapon while scoring a descisive blow yourself. Since I was talking about fighting without armor/shield, parrying with your weapon is NOT the "least desirable" form of defense, it is the only form of defense you have while in his killing zone. Of course your opponent may gently caress up and leave himself open, which would give you the chance of going in without dealing with his weapon (because it is somewhere else). Of course your points about movement and positioning stand. We were probably just talking about different things EvanSchenck posted:The rarity and expense of the manuscripts is the exact reason that we can suspect that the techniques were not commonly used, because it would be a waste to devote that money and effort to depicting techniques that were common knowledge at the time. It's the same reason that when studying medieval cuisine, we have lots of recipes for delicacies but none for staple foods. When books are rare and expensive, you don't record recipes for foods that people eat all the time, because everybody already knows how to make them. You write down the recipes for foods that most people don't know, and are out of the ordinary. People remember and record extraordinary things, not mundane ones. Similarly, a master would probably use a fechtbuch to record techniques that were special, rather than the techniques that everybody used and were foundational to fighting. This doesn't mean that what's in the fechtbücher is impractical, only that they were out of the ordinary and most likely situational in their utility. The saber-fighting instructions for soldiers during the 1800s may be a similar case: they basically boiled down to 8 cuts and some few forms of defense (if I remember correctly). Simple enough to teach quickly to a large number of people, effective enough that many of them would be able to kill somebody in a fight. EvanSchenck posted:It's completely false, and slightly insane. The links that Jorghnassen posted do a good job explaining it. It's also useful to think of what these weapons really are at the most basic level: simple machines, specifically levers and wedges. Swords, axes, maces, and so forth are third class levers, with the grip as the fulcrum, the hands supplying the effort, and the striking surface as the resistance. The cutting edge of a sword or axe, or the flange of a mace, is a wedge, which uses mechanical advantage to separate a target in pieces rather than just smashing it. Nektu fucked around with this message at 22:22 on Feb 6, 2013 |
# ¿ Feb 6, 2013 21:59 |
|
Chamale posted:It also comes down to the fact that some moves are just better than all the others. The best sport fencers nowadays mostly use two parries and a bunch of variations on those two, rather than practicing the other, less worthwhile parries. But it is true - most practical fighting methods concentrate on a limited amount of techniques that are then trained until they can be applied without thinking under pressure/pain/whatever.
|
# ¿ Feb 6, 2013 22:21 |
|
Vivoviparous posted:In a similar vein, is there historical documentation that shows the effect cultural traumas like The Inquisition had on society, like how Japan is still affected by the bombing or Germany is still affected by WW2 or the southern United States is still affected by Reconstruction? I read a book about it some years back, and the author described that the pest caused all human relationships to shatter - down to parents leaving their children if they got sick, and even (small) children leaving their parents if it was the other way round. She also described that this total breakdown of all human relations, compassion and companionship caused a horrible, horrible time after the pest was finally gone. Like bandits not only robbing people, but torturing/killing them without good reason and contrary to their own interests (after all, who will you steal bread from if you kill everybody).
|
# ¿ Feb 21, 2013 15:15 |
|
Godholio posted:I'm not seeing any reason why a sword would have to be particularly sharp. You're not really slicing in any way that strength or angle won't make up for keenness. More like clubbing, which even if it doesn't get through the adversary's protective clothing is going to make an impact...with leather or cotton particularly, but even against metal armor (and against that, you're not getting through even with a razor edge).
|
# ¿ Mar 14, 2013 08:44 |
|
Sexgun Rasputin posted:Awesome. I don't think there are any better movie swordfights than the duel at the end of Rob Roy, but I thought this movie did Medieval violence pretty well: Nektu fucked around with this message at 18:15 on Sep 22, 2013 |
# ¿ Sep 22, 2013 18:07 |
|
Sexgun Rasputin posted:Well, no. Not at all really. They fight back to back across about fifty feet. James Purefoy hops on a horse and takes off right when the Danes assemble into a shield wall and kill the gently caress out of the Templars. I like this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTYz439cA5w (still has its problems - the vikings dont wear helmets and still dont suffer head injuries even though the saxons keep hitting over the shields, and that the saxons for some reason forget to cut below the shields into their unprotected legs and groins). Also this axe-fighting scene starting at 8:37 in this vid: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFaWwa17Ma0&t=517s Edit: vvvv Hahahaha, right you are. But when was the last time a movie showed something like unit cohersion and shieldwall fighting? That show is trying surprisingly hard to have decend fight scenes (instead of spartacus-like bullshit). Nektu fucked around with this message at 23:24 on Sep 22, 2013 |
# ¿ Sep 22, 2013 22:59 |
|
Railtus posted:If anyone else starts watching Vikings, I should give you the heads up that it really underestimates the role of armour in medieval (or Viking age) combat. The very first scene shows someone getting stabbed through what looks like a brigandine (out of period, so let's pretend it's a gambeson), while the heroes wear only cloth shirts. Railtus posted:At 1:08 it seems further away. However, to need such a large arc at those distances would imply a fairly weak bow, and a fairly weak bow would be less likely to penetrate the shield. A combination of direct shooting and arc shooting is possible to make it harder for shields to cover all the necessary angles though, though in the video it looks like they’re shooting at 45 degree angles. Based on my personal experiences with archery I would also say that the arrows shown in the scene would not even come close to penetrate those shields like shown - but thats somewhat understandable, because its so hard nowadays to find actors that are willing to jump in and help out after their predecessors got killed by an arrow on scene Sexgun Rasputin posted:Yeah, but running is the exact opposite of the thing you need to be doing with your body while you draw a bow. It's like if he won a duel by sticking the sword between his legs and waving it around like a penis. And yea, the actors technique was bad, that bow had probably a really low drawweight to allow him to do it at all, and it would have been better to just stop for the half second it takes to shoot instead of running on - still, a snapshot like that is possible and lady luck may be on your side regarding the whole "yea, I hit it" thing. Also the hit he scored does not look like a killshot, but any surprise-arrow-in-the-back is enough to distract someone for the 5 seconds it took him to run past. Asking a historic question again: did the vikings even use bows in warfare or were they only known as hunting weapons? Nektu fucked around with this message at 15:04 on Sep 24, 2013 |
# ¿ Sep 24, 2013 14:37 |
|
Railtus posted:Vikings definitely used bows in warfare. There are quite a few examples of bows being mentioned in battles or sagas, including by some very high-status individuals, giving the impression that a bow was respected as a weapon of war. Some examples here - http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/manufacturing/text/viking_bow.htm The thing about eastern-style composite bows is interesting - I had no idea that those where actually used that far north. I guess trade or looting made it possible to get a few up there. Sexgun Rasputin posted:The only reason horse archery is feasible is because 1. you can keep your posture straight while riding Sexgun Rasputin posted:and 2. there's a point in a horse's run where all four feet are off the ground and you have a split second of stability (while your posture is perfect) to loose your arrow. Sexgun Rasputin posted:Neither of those things is possible while running. It would be more realistic if he did some kind of running jump and loosed in midair, which is still ridiculous but something I've seen done. It is also (as I said above) completely true that it would have been far better to just stop for the half second you need to take the shot. I also entirely see your point, and Im also not saying in the least that you are wrong. Lets just leave it at that, or we will spend ages sperging about it Sexgun Rasputin posted:Ugh. When I go try to shoot while running today and end up sending an arrow through my neighbor's window I'm suing everyone in this thread and Something Awful LLC. I advise you to retain counsel ASAP. Sexgun Rasputin posted:In the beach scene they're shooting 32 inch+ war arrows with massive broadheads that a low poundage bow probably couldn't even propel further than maybe a few hundred feet even with a big arcing sky draw like that. The arrows would be carrying almost no energy when they arrived at the target. Sexgun Rasputin posted:There's no explanation for the archery in that scene, it doesn't make sense on any level. What the hell, vikings? Nektu fucked around with this message at 20:39 on Sep 24, 2013 |
# ¿ Sep 24, 2013 19:56 |
|
tonberrytoby posted:They shot some actual arrows at Toshio Mifune back in the days. And it looked really cool. Sexgun Rasputin posted:There is no conceivable way that actual arrows were actually shot at actual human beings for a tv show, no matter how low the poundage. Not when it was cheaper and safer to build what is clearly a model of a shield wall with dummies inside. Dummies that look like lumpy bags with boots sticking out the bottom. I really like that viking show and maybe got somewhat carried away. It is still a good show that contains surprising amounts of actual history for a history channel show, and all of you should watch it . Nektu fucked around with this message at 21:25 on Sep 24, 2013 |
# ¿ Sep 24, 2013 21:17 |
|
Those bows are awesome. They look and feel like a toy (really light and small, the garnish colors and decorations dont help), are a bitch and a half to string, and shoot like the devil.InspectorBloor posted:Other composite designs do not differ so greatly in their performance. What sets the turkish bows apart is the use of relative light arrows. Parthian, Mongol and Magyar designs are for very heavy arrows Normally there is a lower threshold for arrow weight that you cannot go under without risking damage to the bow. Lighter arrows require a smaller amount of energy to make them leave the bow, and all the stored energy that is NOT transferred to the arrow will crash into the bow itself/the string and especially the place where the string is attached to the bow. Are the turkish bows just better at handling that stress? Is it just that, or is there more behind the optimization for heavy/light arrows?
|
# ¿ Sep 26, 2013 15:53 |
|
Babe Magnet posted:
And what the gently caress is that hole with the little lid for? Edit: one of railtus links already answered that... While I can see the general usefulness of a lantern shield, that particular exemplar in the photo has, uhm, much of everything. Do we have information whether the guy who ordered that actually used it? Or was it just some rich kid playing "Dude, you gotta see my new Nektu fucked around with this message at 19:40 on Sep 27, 2013 |
# ¿ Sep 27, 2013 19:29 |
|
Railtus posted:The ceremony for knighthood could be ornate as having baths, vigils and ritual clothing or it could be as straightforward as being hit by another knight (the last blow he should receive unanswered). Ahhh, humans
|
# ¿ Nov 8, 2013 08:03 |
|
Railtus posted:Oh yes. It started off with a forceful box on the ear or neck. Later on it became a gentle stroke with the flat of the sword on the neck. Eventually the custom became a tap on either shoulder or both. (oh god, I want to see this).
|
# ¿ Nov 8, 2013 19:32 |
|
The point made above about horses giving superior mobility is most certainly true. Have a video from 1920 to see how mobile and cross-country-capable horses can be: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOyvimZuF5o At least check out those drops at 3:30 http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=nOyvimZuF5o#t=209 A note however: Horses that are capable in body and mind of dealing with those harsh obstacles so easily are the result of a long and most rigorous breeding, selection and training program. If a horse developed problems in its movement aparatus due to the strain of that training (or if its character proved to be unsuitable), not only the single horse but the whole bloodline was removed from the program. So that video does not really give any proof about the capabilities of medieval horses - it just shows what was possible in 1920. Another video showing off mobility that could be used during an actual fight: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-TvUnmUP1k This mobility is also the result of high breeding and years of rigorous and highly skilled training. Dont expect any horse to be able to do that. Railtus posted:On your biggest question, I would say horses have pretty good balance and stepping on people might break the person’s leg, but the flailing weapon would need to get a solid hit to break the horse’s leg, and it would be difficult to get a good angle or to hit with enough force. And galloping horses are not THAT fast - normally its around 20-40 km/h (for our modern breeds). Yes, highly bred race horses can go up to 60, but those are specialists and they run on perfect ground. Doing an all-out gallop on unsure ground is just asking for a broken neck of horse and/or rider (and yes, horses do that in nature - but only when they are fleeing head-over-heels from something. They also dont have a rider on their back who fucks up their balance and makes it harder for them to keep upright). Go find a car that moves with 30 km/h (around 20 mph), and you will have no problem stabbing it with a spear or hitting it with a sword/club in a somewhat aimed fashion if its just going by you and you are close enough. If its coming right at you, hmm, who knows. A spear would just be ripped from your fingers when 1000 pounds of horse ram into it. Yea, you would injure it, but I doubt that a spear would be able to penetrate through the sternum (which shields that area) or the ribs and all that muscle into the heart/lungs which you would need for a killshot. Railtus posted:Mounted units breaking through crowds seemed to be consistently successful, judging by eastern accounts of Frankish charges. Against Fatamid infantry a Frankish cavalry charge was fairly reliably successful. I have also heard accounts of French knights riding through a Swiss pike square (I can’t remember exactly where at the moment) and the Swiss pike square just reforming behind them. Generally speaking, discipline of the infantry is a major factor; if they can recover from the initial shock then they can essentially surround and mob the cavalry. Edit: heh, someone posted the same video as I: DandyLion posted:Although I have not had the pleasure to play with any highly trained horse in practice mounted combat, I can surmise that there is a severe misconception of agility regarding them. There are several breeds of horse that still resemble in size, speed, and agility the destrier's of old, and I can assure you a mounted knight on a well trained warhorse could have danced circles around an infantryman. Probably the best modern representation of what I'm talking about could be seen in bullfighting. My favorite is a Lusitano named Merlin https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fz8BiTtoLp8 (keep in mind a bull is faster and more agile than a human). These horses were capable of strafing, juking, ducking and any other type of agile motion you can imagine. They could run flat out sideways, backwards, and spin on a dime. I imagine riding on one in battle and fighting against infantry would be analogous to going to war on foot against opponents in wheelchairs. Frostwerks posted:This is loving awesome. gently caress you romney and your dressage bullshit. Obdicut posted:To me, you seem to be taking the very odd position that the stirrup and tree were really not a big deal. Can you explain their widespread adoption by cavalry forces? Is your contention that the tree-and-stirrups strategic effects (less fatigue for the horses, allowing quicker training) are much more important than the greater range of motion and other effects on weapon usage, and that the latter are just a bonus, or what? Stirrups make it very, VERY much easier to keep your balance in a crisis situation, when the horse suddenly moves. You also can get up easier Nektu fucked around with this message at 19:34 on Dec 31, 2013 |
# ¿ Dec 31, 2013 19:06 |
|
DandyLion posted:What evidence would you like? The HEMA communities love affair with poor pictographic interpretations leading to the 'Lazy Vom Tag' (guard resting on the shoulder)? The resent renouncement and contradiction of the Krumphau interpretations as seen by some of the more recently ostracized ARMA members (now HEMA alliance captains). I could go on, but I suspect (and have had enough experience arguing with people in this situation) to realize that nothing short of me showing them, or anyone else who would actually really like to understand something via a practical demonstration, just how wrong they are and why they are wrong. If you or anyone else is amenable to meet, I would be happy to demonstrate any confusion or counter-idea they may have (and if I am proven wrong, which has happened on several occasions, I will stuff my face with humble pie). Making broad generalizations of ARMA and John Clements through cherry picked details is no better than ad hominems, and cutting tatami with a blunt sword can be done any number of ways. The fact that you give so much credence to a few video interpretations merely to back up your misguided view speaks volumes to your academic rigor. Have you ever test cut? There is only one way to settle this
|
# ¿ Feb 4, 2014 18:35 |
|
Have some vids of tournament longsword-fights that contain a surprising amount of technique and dont just degenerate in wild flailing around: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lP4szqcrik https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=strh2GBMlf8 Edit: Changed the order of the vids (this one has a kinda bad camera angle...) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0BAbMs_bqE And this is how it looks in training (I really like that exchange and the next one): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjT4JepA-Vc&t=92s Or this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ln94E9AGYTc Nektu fucked around with this message at 15:34 on Feb 17, 2014 |
# ¿ Feb 17, 2014 08:34 |
|
I wounder if those swords were sharp. Even considering that noone in that mob really had the intend to kill, I would have expected more injuries. Check out 0:56 to 1:03 where blue turban chases yellow turban down the stairs - it looks as if he gets a clean overhand cut to yellow turban's back. Or maybe the camera angle is just bad, and the distance was off. Edit: On second thought - yes those swords were sharp, why assume otherwise? Edit 2: Well, no. I'm still amazed that those images dont show injuries... Nektu fucked around with this message at 09:45 on Jun 8, 2014 |
# ¿ Jun 7, 2014 10:54 |
|
Rabhadh posted:Isn't he only using a 20lb bow or something, totally useless on the battlefield. It made sense for them because enemies were at most wearing a loincloth and the arrowheads were dipped in feces. An arrowhit (even from a light bow) is enough to bring the target to a disadvantage in the following melee, and the feces ensure a relatively high effectivity in the long run if the target has no access to antibiotics. Edit: vvvv I'm not. Im just saying that if you use some form of poison, you don't necessarily need to shoot an arrow through somebody (shooting it into somebody is enough). Nektu fucked around with this message at 08:03 on Jul 15, 2014 |
# ¿ Jul 15, 2014 07:12 |
|
NLJP posted:The argument from the crossguard being where it is does seem sensible but it doesn't then actually talk about WHY it's there in the first place. The crossguard is where it is because you need a way to protect yourself from the attacking blade. Nektu fucked around with this message at 22:31 on Jul 16, 2014 |
# ¿ Jul 16, 2014 22:27 |
|
NLJP posted:I was merely criticising that first video in the post I quoted for using 'well the crossguard is there so welp this is how it was done' as prima facie evidence. That's all well and good and sure, might have been the obvious way to use a sword but it made no attempt to explain WHY. If having the crossguard perpendicular to the edge would have provided any advantage, our ancestors would have killed people with perpendicular crossguards. Look back at the first technique in the video I posted: its really simple, really effective and would not be possible with a perpendicular crossguard. NLJP posted:That's fine but I think some of us would like to know why as well as just the pure 'this is what was done'. Mind you I'm probably being real dim here. Or course this also means that it is really easy to develop incorrect reconstructions - there is no longer a natural selection going on that could easily separate the wheat from the chaff. Look at modern sport fencing to see the difference: technique still develops in that because people are still using it in earnest (according to its rules). Nektu fucked around with this message at 07:25 on Jul 17, 2014 |
# ¿ Jul 17, 2014 07:14 |
|
Rabhadh posted:It's why the suicide lunge is a thing in sport fencing but you obviously wouldn't do it in a real sword fight. Different rules of the game.
|
# ¿ Jul 17, 2014 09:07 |
|
Dirty Job posted:Sport fencing is an entirely different beast, and I really hate it when HEMA-nerds get all butt hurt about it. It's like hunters getting mad at paintball enthusiasts. ( if you cant stand medical descriptions of the effects of bladed weapons. No images or somesuch though). The Dubious Quick Kill, part 1 The Dubious Quick Kill, part 2 The author crossreferenced descriptions of classical duels with modern forensic information about blade wounds and tries to find out if the more gruesome descriptions of duels can be true. The result: people die suprisingly hard, even when hit with a meter of sharp steel. Its also basically impossible to predict the effect a hit will have - be it that the mortally wounded fighter would stay alive and active for a few more seconds (more than enough to counterattack) up to a man that survived and stayed active for several days after he got stabbed in the heart. I guess that means that those discussions that often pop up after a double hit ("Yea, but my attack was totally more deadly!") are completely useless. You could also spin that into an argument to support giving points for afterblows: the attacker has to protect himself not only until he is in the target, but until he is in the clear again.
|
# ¿ Jul 17, 2014 16:57 |
|
I think earlier in the thread we were sperging about whether its possible to shoot a bow while moving. Check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Lnv9Pr3AWSw#t=97 A bit earlier he is shooting while jumping. Edit: I hope that I did not save that link because I found it in this thread Nektu fucked around with this message at 19:38 on Jul 18, 2014 |
# ¿ Jul 18, 2014 19:33 |
|
JaucheCharly posted:Speaking of bladed weapons, you know a competent smith who could make me a shamshir? The planned usage has a big influence on the sword you need...
|
# ¿ Jul 23, 2014 14:26 |
|
Rhymenoserous posted:A street sword. For crimefighting. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ug0SooC6hVY Edit: owait, this is even better http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=-YvCcAJ5gn0#t=75 Nektu fucked around with this message at 19:57 on Jul 23, 2014 |
# ¿ Jul 23, 2014 19:53 |
|
HEY GAL posted:The sword can be, if you're a douche, ~~a sacred mystical brotherhood~~ or whatever, Oh my. Short and sweet and to the point. Edit: vvvv I wasn't criticising. I was complimenting you. Nektu fucked around with this message at 14:21 on Jul 28, 2014 |
# ¿ Jul 28, 2014 13:32 |
|
Verisimilidude posted:I've heard of rubber heads for pole weapons, but I haven't seen them either. It's a shame because I remember way back from before I started in HEMA I saw this video and it got the ball rolling for me with how sweet the techniques are.
|
# ¿ Jul 29, 2014 15:24 |
|
HEY GAL posted:What do y'all do about ankle pain? Should I ask the martial arts thread?
|
# ¿ Jul 31, 2014 10:42 |
|
HEY GAL posted:It's more like an ache than like the feeling of an injury. Rabadh, I think that's good advice but there's a baseline of activity that I can never stop doing, because I have a backpack full of books and no car. I end up walking at least an hour a day carrying heavy poo poo just in my daily life. If you dont really have a qualified trainer to check your technique, I would suggest that you find one if it turns out that HEMA practice is the source for those pains. Maybe go to a weekend seminar or something that has more qualified people and ask those? Or maybe a physical therapist can give suggestions?
|
# ¿ Jul 31, 2014 11:09 |
|
Rabhadh posted:So I'm not sure if this has been discussed before but what are peoples opinions on whether Celts/Romans/Vikings did or did not wear padded armour under their maille?
|
# ¿ Aug 24, 2014 18:36 |
|
Randarkman posted:It consisted of two to three layers of mail armor with cloth padding between each layer and then a tunic or jacket over the last layer (with the top rings sewn into it). But now im curious about how the effectiveness of this composite armor compares to a full metal breastplate. Nektu fucked around with this message at 21:53 on Sep 5, 2014 |
# ¿ Sep 5, 2014 21:49 |
|
Randarkman posted:not padded cloth, just padded with cloth. or rather the mail rings were sewn into the cloth, and you had 2 or 3 layers of this. Sources say that Saladin in his coat looked unarmored but for his collar being really stiff.
|
# ¿ Sep 6, 2014 07:16 |
|
Max Manus posted:Optional second question: What would happen if something like the Minié ball is invented at the same time as the first rifles? Suddenly you would have accurate and long range firarms that can hit targets at well over 400 meters, and I imagine that would have a bit of an impact on the battlefield at the time. The next war would probably have been especially bloody because of the mixture of outdated tactics combined with modern weapons (as in WW1).
|
# ¿ Sep 11, 2014 17:22 |
|
ManOfTheYear posted:Like Wallerstein has techniques where you grap the opponent's fist from the air and you elbow lock it, you can't do that to a trained fighter.
|
# ¿ Sep 12, 2014 07:22 |
|
Siivola posted:A fun thing to note about Fiore is how he shows counters and counter-counters to techniques. This clearly isn't a self-defense manual, but a framework for making sure the opponent gets properly stabbed to death.
|
# ¿ Sep 12, 2014 16:39 |
|
Verisimilidude posted:Here's the first video in Dustin Reagan's "You Pick the Technique" series. It features a play from Meyer's chapter 10, which states The attacker was in a comfortable stabbing-distance for the defender multiple times. Had the defender kept up a threat while parrying, his sword would have been inside the attacker the first, or at latest the second time the attacker swung his sword behind his own head. Nektu fucked around with this message at 07:39 on Sep 30, 2014 |
# ¿ Sep 30, 2014 07:35 |
|
|
# ¿ May 4, 2024 13:52 |
|
Verisimilidude posted:The context of most fechtbuchs is such that you have a student of a master fighting a common fencer. While this video is focusing on Meyer, which I don't particularly study, the Liechtenauer tradition has a similar context where you're learning the "master strokes" which are built to defeat what was referred to as "common fencing", IE the common way of fencing without proper training. It's part of why it is believed that Liechtenauer wrote his fechtbuch in cryptic verse. In order for the "master strokes" to stay within the circle of his students, they were purposefully written to be difficult to decode. Verisimilidude posted:Sometimes it's just impossible given the time available to make a "good" parry, so a "bad" parry suffices well enough by keeping you alive. Verisimilidude posted:The reality of this drill is that you probably wouldn't use it against a trained fencer, but the mechanics it teaches both the attacker and the defender are important.
|
# ¿ Sep 30, 2014 20:49 |