>>508926 "Look, the best I can do is $45. I'm the one taking a risk here, I can't go any higher. I have to store it, frame it, get it appraise, there will be overhead costs, plus I'm not even sure how long something like this is going to sit in my store and take up inventory space"
>>509071 >This is sort of how it would've went, if the other guy was in armour. However because he isn't in armour, the armoured man has no reason to half sword or anything. Amen, just mind your distance and strike the pleb down.
You were right. The chanfe from military channel to american heroes channel wasnt nearly as bad as history channels change but its still really bad. Its like 40% FBI crime shit, 40% hitler conspiracies, and 20% miscellaneous shit that is sometimes okay but usually just reruns of their old programming thats often only played during late night/ early morning
Holding the blade end was a legitimate tactic in sword fighting after gauntlets became common equipment, so think after the first crusades. Armour was heavy and although those swords aren't that long, a claymore sword can be very difficult to hold just by the hilt.
Before then, you'd more likely find infantry supporting the blade end with the sides of their shield. Swords were shorter though, in fact many would prefer axes due to not being professional soldiers and it being lighter.
>Watch something decent on history channel in the morning >finishes, just leave my tv on and mute it, see some viking longship shit on later and I'm like hey what's this, this might be interesting >unmute it >"HOW DID THE NORSE EXPLORE SO FAR SO EARLY? IS IT POSSIBLE THAT THEY HAD ALIEN TECHONOLOGY?" >mfw
one of my favorites has to be "WHY WAS GOLIATH (of david and goliath) SO BIG? WAS IT POSSIBLE THAT HE WAS AN ALIEN?"
>>509801 Except that's not what half-swording is for, and claymores wouldn't be used until the 15th century. Half-swording was used to execute more forceful and accurate thrusts, particularly against armored opponents.
I like WW2 shit so that's what I've watched mainly, and some non historical military documentaries. I got caught up in the WW2 documentaries they got and I'm a bit autistic about it.
WW2 in colour is the best unbiased historical run through of WW2 with a lot of great footage . Not really any first hand accounts of stuff though, it's mostly fact based, and doesn't go super into detail of most battles.
WW2 in HD is pretty shit information wise, it basically skips directly to 1941, focuses almost entirely on americans, and ignores overall strategy and goings on in the war, it just kind of follows a few people and their accounts.
Just started watching Apocalypse: the second world war. Seems to be a good mix of both with more graphic footage and a bit more dramatic tone.
The are a lot of general historical documentaries about non military stuff and older military stuff, but unfortunately those are the minority, and I haven't gone through it a whole lot yet. Far too much of it is WW2, something about jesus, something about the kennedy assanination, or the titanic or some shit.
>>509858 Spears were common, yes, but for whatever reason more so in the south than the north. You think a seax was common because Saxons were noted for carrying them, more likely this was a stereotype the contemporary British had for the barbaric, ruthless Saxons who were becoming ever common in the east, kind of like how we call black gangstas thugs for their stereotype that they carry guns.
An axe was common in north and eastern European peoples because it had many purposes, not just for fighting, so it would be expected that all men carry one at all times. It wasn't common because it was a useful fighting tool, but because it was useful for everything else and okay for fighting. A spearmen would easily clean up an axeman, of course.
>>508926 This actually looks more like history than any of the shit they have been playing. Hitting armored opponents with your hilt is a viable strategy. Are they turning it around or something? Or do they still have all the shitty reality shows, and pawn shows?
>>511224 Are you going to contend that most gauls wore armor, now?
They didn't. Rome, when not engaged in civil war, fttypically fought people with veyr poor armor-either few peopel had any, in the case of gauls and germanics, it had poor coverage, in the case of other italians, and some hellenes or it was textile and readily beaten, in the case of most hellenics.
And the retard clearly goes off of pop cultuer history, so i'm commenting on a subject he can easily picture.
It's simpler than explaining the mechanics behind two hands>one.
>>511262 >linothroax is shitty armor It's either textile or leather, both of which are meiocre agaist cutting blades.
>poor coverage IT'S A FUCKING VEST. THE THIGHS AND ARMS ARE FULLY EXPOSED.
>Didn't have a bigass shield nor wore a helmet at least Specifically noted as too small to defend them against javelins in numerous battles, from northern italy into britain, and shields can be forced aside, especially by other men with shields.
>>511282 >It's either textile or leather, both of which are meiocre agaist cutting blades. Wow, are you imagining Linothorax as this thin-y sheet of leather/fabric that's easy to part? Ok bro. >IT'S A FUCKING VEST. THE THIGHS AND ARMS ARE FULLY EXPOSED. Yeaaah, except there's the pteryges and -since this is the diadochoi period- a form of cheires or arm braces.
Not to mention Successor-Era Greeks had all sorts of armor by this point in time. They had lamellar, plate cuirasses, and chainmail too given that like the Romans, Greeks fought with/alongside Celts.
Not to mention Romans did not have any leg protection at all.
>>509840 >the Roman short swords didn't need to be held even with two hand for a precision thrust. First of all, guiding a blade in between the gaps of plate armour requires a lot more precision. But even if we ignore that, it should be perfectly fucking self-evident that the longer your sword gets the more difficult it would obviously be to accurately thrust. Not to mention that shortening your sword gives you greater leverage and makes it more stiff, less likely to flex, etc.
>dozens of books written by dozens of different people across a number of centuries, with the aim of teaching people to fight for their lives >meticulously reconstructed from numerous sources and confirmed to work as they say >some random guy says it's bullshit, because....
>>512564 Fair enough. The Mordhau or murder strike has its name for a reason, and that for sure is not to be less lethal. The whole gallant knight in full armor in battle is bullshit. Full plate and longwords combo where used around the 100 years war, a time where the classic knight was in demise for a 100 years or so and mass armies took the field over. The Swiss for example had a standing order to kill all prisoners because the whole prisoner taking enterprise distorted their ranks. The then started to ransom out the bodies of nobles.
The techniques for harnischfechten are mostly for judical duels, the sword was chosen as a weapon because of it is significance as a symbol of justice amongst the Germanic culture, not because it was particularly effective against armor. Armor was worn when both participants where member of the noble stand. Most harnischfechten sources with swords describe such judical combat. See Thalhofer or Ringeck for this.
There are techniques for battlefield use against armor, those usually have a dagger somewhere and are mostly about wrestling down your enemy and give him the coup de grasse with your dagger.
Sorry, but that romantic knights on battlefield 1v1 duel in shiny armor scenario got me triggered.
>>509824 >look for popular tales >pick up uncommon characters and call them aliens >pick up common characters that do expectacular feats and say they were using alien technology >provide no proof besides "what if..." >get paid turbodollars enough for you to live banging hot chicks with your pumped up physique >occupy more than half of history channel's grid
glad to see so many people are interested in history channel now
>>514268 Most people who train armored or battlefield swordsmanship rarely actually strap on the armor. Assuming your stances and techniques are right there should be little difference between wearing it and not wearing it.
The technique is called half-swording, and it's legit. It was used to make sword thrusts more precise by holding the blade. There are ways of doing it without hurting yourself but it's easier with calloused hands.
> "Greeks fought with and alongside celts" > Implying that your average everyday Athenian citizen would be bothered to to spend the ridiculous amount of money required to buy most of the armors you mentioned > Memes, the post
To refute the last point, the Romans didn't require very much leg armor because they had fucking huge shields that covered their whole front to fight behind and a shit ton of friends who stood directly next to them
So did the majority of people who fought in ancient conflicts. For the majority of people fighting in ancient armies (as in much of history) you just used what you could afford. The cost benefit of owning such equipment, especially if it's not even necessarily being used regularly, made it extremely rare to see stuff like full metallic cuirasses even among the most wealthy nobles.
>Religious documentary >history channel >ehhhhhhhhhh >okay I'll give it another shot >MARY MAGDALENE WAS JESUS'S WIFE AND THE TRUE ANCIENT ISRAELI'S BELIEVED IN THE AEONS, GOD ALSO HAD A WIFE >turn off t.v. Why do they also push Gnosticism so hard? I met a person who was self-proclaimed Cathar and directed me to a History Channel documentary to try and convert me >I went to a physiologist and they told me I had past lives >I REMEMBER NOW! I was a Priest who took it up the bum in the woods, preaching the truth that the ebul catholics hid in the vatican archives!
>>515560 a few reasons. For one in japan there was a lot of cultural inertia between 1630 and 1860. Now contrary to popular belief Japanese marital arts changed quite a bit in this period, but alot got preserved because it was associated with the bushi and other social institutions like shinto shrines.
That said, alot of the sengoku era arts as well as the edo era are extinct and only survive in material preserved in their successors.
Also many arts were reworked into methods for education and combat sport when Japan opened back up.
IN Europe different swords went out of fashion, and once that happened the older material was usually forgotten, Things like boxing and wrestling had less rules in the past, but were transformed as time went by.
>>515560 >while western martial arts are mostly lost to the ash heap of history? Theres hundreds of manuals remaining tough. Unfortunately the only remaining living forms of western martial arts are sports fencing, boxing and several forms of folk wrestling and stick fighting. Portuguese Jogo do Pau might the the one closest to having an unbroken lineage.
>>515460 BotN is a joke, everyone laughs about you, no one takes you serious. Deal with it.
>>515560 Fun Fact: "Medieva" Era Asian Martial Arts are as lost to time as western ones.
Most the current Asian martial arts are from the 1700's. This is evident in: -Japanese martial arts stemming from the Edo peace, in which shitloads of samurai had nothing to do. -Kendo losing its anti-armor moves. -Chinese weirdo Kung Fu from the underground martial arts practices following the famous weapons ban of 1700's Qing. -Also the fact that two-handed Chinese swordsmanship is lost to time as the Qing period Chinese preferred one handed swords as they were mostly cavalrymen and armor disappeared in the battlefield at the time.
The good thing however is that East Asians are bureacratic as fuck and wrote everything down. Including manuals on martial arts.
The methods of looking into older Asian Martial Arts are similar to HEMA's methods as we speak.
>>516301 kendo never really had armored techniques, it stems from unarmored kenjutsu. Though in general those styles that did survive with armored combat survived in the country side, relatively isolated from popular treads.
Kendo itself really didnt reach its modern form until the 20th century.
>>509824 I have only the german version of the History Channel (because well, iam german) and one time they had the following "documentary" running on tv:
>Something about Mayans, Aztecs and Incas >Gold was very valueable because of Alien Gods >Aliens vanish, People in America are unhappy >they build all their awesome Pyramids for the only purpose to attract the alien overlords back to earth >but wait, there's more: The tech to build those structures isn't Human! >Did Aliens helped the Humans to build Structures to lure other Aliens back to earth? >They were talking about two different races of aliens at that time in the documentary >The spaniards came and wanted the Gold >where the conquistadores also aliens?
Why? who lets people write shit like this? I mean, speculating is one thing, but creating a whole scientoligy-like theory about ancient wonders is rather hilarious. Erich von Däniken would be proud lol.
>>510715 >>511231 Nothing is wrong with this haggling shit on tv, but tv channels (atleast here in germany) finance themselves in two ways: A SHITTON of commercials and sometimes they're exclusive to some kind of special cabel company, but most channels here are viewable without paying extra. Shit like Hitler or Aliens or fat hagglers attract more views, so more people watch commercials which means more money. Sure, documentaries about well, real events are nice, but lets face it: Germany has about 80million citizins, 40million are between ~ 18-50 the rest is below or above that. From those 40million, about 20million enjoy tv shows that are informative about something, but not all of those are interested in History or science or what ever. So you have a tiny number of individuals who would love to see shows like early History Channel played. The rest likes Haggling or is so old that the threw their money at the screen on some kind of teleshopping bullshit.
>>509824 This. Some time i`ll tune into some shit without checking what program it is, i`ll keep watching it because it has interesting shit then all of a sudden some dude starts talking about aliens and i realize it's ancient aliens. Happened to me 5 times now.
>>513511 Adding to what you said, in actuality a battle was between hundreds to thousands of people, when you see a few twenty or so people fighting on screen it does a real injustice to the actuality of combat. If you committed to fighting a single person out of formation without your allies by your side, the enemy would beset upon you from all sides and either wrestle you to the ground and kill you or strike a weak point while you were distracted. The exception to this would be the rout.
>>513511 >The techniques for harnischfechten are mostly for judical duels It depends on what you mean by "techniques".
A lot of the armoured fencing content you see in Talhoffer focusses on judicial combat, however one of the earliest depictions of the typical half-sword stance in use against armour is from around 1410; depicting the King of France doing it during the Battle of Poitiers. If you found yourself armed with a longsword, facing men in armour, then you'd likely attempt to make use of armoured fencing techniques, i.e. thrust the sword into gaps of the armour. However, a longsword obviously wouldn't be your first choice. And in most judicial duel depictions a sword is not used alone either. They used three knightly weapons: spear, longsword and dagger.
And this is also described in a later (Early Modern) poem by the Meistersinger Hans Sachs on the origin of Martial Arts.
[...] Dergleich vor kurtzer zeyt noch meer War noch der rbauch beym teutschen adel, Wo einer fand am andern dadel, So erfordert er in zum kempffen, Da einer thet den andern dempffen, Ghrüst zu roß inn feld oder schrancken. Wer lag, der lag, an (on) alles zancken. Zu fuß man auch der zeyt noch kempffet. Gerüst eyner den andren dempffet Inn drey wehren, schwerd, dolch und spieß, Wo einer auff den andern stieß, Verwundet oder gar umb-bracht.
>>517526 >A lot of the armoured fencing content you see in Talhoffer focusses on judicial combat, however one of the earliest depictions of the typical half-sword stance in use against armour is from around 1410; depicting the King of France doing it during the Battle of Poitiers. Thats really interesting, thanks for this! At least I wasn't off with the 100 years war. Still, likely an artistic dramatization, if you are King and need to take refuge to halfswording, something went very wrong in the first place.
>>517526 >They used three knightly weapons: spear, longsword and dagger. Those are the classics, but the weapons for judical duels where set in the Gerichtskampfordnung of the respective town or area, and they differ from place to place and time. Judical duels originate in the pre Christian Germanic tradition, and the sword was always the symbol of justice, spear and dagger where later additions.
>>517526 >Wo einer fand am andern dadel, >So erfordert er in zum kempffen, >Da einer thet den andern dempffen, >Ghrüst zu roß inn feld oder schrancken.
I would need the full context, but these rows rather indicate a challenge duel between nobles rather than a set judical duel ordered by court. Not saying that spear, sword and dagger where not the knightly trinity at the time,
>>517526 >It depends on what you mean by "techniques". I was mostly referring to Pseudo von Danzig and Ringeck, both likely wrote about combat and judical duel as well, and the later Thalhofer who was judical duel mostly.
>>517554 >Its similar to HEMA m9 Except that you guys neither spar nor test. And as long as you don't verify techniques in a non cooperative setting, it is hardly more than folk dance with swords. You can see that on the guy on the left, awful footwork, he just asks to be rushed.
>>517548 That's because only a few of us came over from /k/.
Things like HEMA are a completely separate branch of historical learning and it is very rarely covered in books unless said book is specifically about it. Some books I've read go in detail about the methods used to produce the weapons and armor, or might make note of a technique that made a group stand out, but never have I seen say a book on warfare in Japan before the Mongolian invasion discuss Japanese horse archery technique.
>>518027 >Things like HEMA are a completely separate branch of historical learning and it is very rarely covered in books unless said book is specifically about it. Try http://www.pragmatische-schriftlichkeit.de/ A pragmatic manuscript is anything not ecclesiastical, those folks find, transcribe and do initial research on every bit of paper from the medieval (and early modern) that is not church related. Many German HEMA manuals where discovered via them, but theres everything included from alchemy to book-keeping, often in the same manuscript.
>>518033 >It's Wushu m8. Its the bit of Chinese martial arts that's more into fitness that weapons combat. Sorry, wasn't aware of that. Lifelong fencer here, can't help it, but I get triggered easily by bad footwork.
>>518027 >That's because only a few of us came over from /k/. Never mind, /k/ is actually even worse, In fact, they are rock bottom tier. /his/ is mid tier, /tg/ is ok tier. HEMA has a general over on >>>/asp/, theres infos about sources and stuff in the OP if you are interested.
>>518089 /k/ is high to low tier. A year ago it had several competent people but would also have the idiots who thought vikings were great warriors, and the katana wasn't useless for most of its lifetime.
Warband threads on /vg/ is where I think most people went, and now several are coming to /his/
>>518013 >if you are King and need to take refuge to halfswording, something went very wrong in the first place. Of course. The King was captured during that battle after all. The point is: things may go wrong in battle and if you find yourself facing an armoured opponent with a sword, then it doesn't seem too far fetched to use it like a short spear rather than an edged weapon, simply because edged weapons aren't all that effective against armour.
>Judical duels originate in the pre Christian Germanic tradition, and the sword was always the symbol of justice, spear and dagger where later additions. I'm not too certain about that. You have descriptions of Holmgang type rituals which also made use of spears. I'd be surprised if swords were more common than spears in this context.
>these rows rather indicate a challenge duel between nobles rather than a set judical duel ordered by court. Not saying that spear, sword and dagger where not the knightly trinity at the time Given the fact that he says
>Ghrüst zu roß inn feld oder schrancken. "schrancken" in this context means a ring, i.e. some sort of regulated duel, which I'd say definitely refers to a judicial combat. And there's also the issue that he specifically refers to the three weapons you see depicted in judicial trials all the time in Talhoffer, Mair, etc. - of course you also see Pollaxes, but in my experience spear, sword and dagger are much more commonly depicted within the judicial combat context.
>>519057 I guess I should correct myself and say it was useless during most of the time period in which it is most remembered where the forging of katanas went for the more decorative style, and focused on bringing out the hamon. This is when the katana became largely a display item more than a carried weapon.
>>519096 It's difficult to not underhype it when in the whole of Japanese warfare its major period of purpose is completely forgotten by common people of today to make way for the remembrance of a period in which it was a stupid fashion item that wasn't even forged for battle purpose.
>>519287 even during the edo period, there were many smiths producing practical blades, and the edo period produced some excellent fencers, its just that these people were exceptions rather than the rule, nearly ten percent of the population was ennobled as "samurai" and society could not support that number of warriors during peace time.
However the connection between samurai and the sword goes back further than the edo era, even during the sengoku era, fights between spearmen were refereed to as tachi uchi, or clashing swords, The sword was the weapon of a noble, as opposed to the utilitarian spear. and most sengoku era martial arts started students with the sword before moving onto battlefield weapons like the yari and naginata.
>>519119 How does it look silly? You simply grab the sword by the blade in order to accurately thrust it into weak spots of your opponent's armour. I don't see how it's any different from using a spear in terms of technique.
>>519327 >its just that these people were exceptions rather than the rule This is part of my point. You're right that there were smiths still producing practical blades but these were heavily outnumbered by smiths who took instead to decorative aspects of the weapon rather than practicality. I'll admit many people like me are harsh on the katana out of hatred for the culture of today that worships it so I stepped over a line in calling it useless.
>>519455 Is that actually a thing though? Usually, western swords are depicted by Hollywood as crude, blunt objects meant to bludgeon people to death.
It's more that people themselves overestimate the sharpness of swords, not necessarily the media. It should be self-evident though that a weapon that is meant to be somewhat robust cannot be all too sharp, since otherwise it would be too frail to be actually used.
>>519557 Swords in media tend to be portrayed as able to cleave limbs of in one weak swing. They also get the portrayal of being able to stab cleanly through someone, and be pulled out easily particularly in the ribs.
I've yet to see a movie or tv show where someones sword gets lodged in someones ribs.
>>513499 Because they're fighting with blunted weapons and not actually trying to kill each other. That's like saying eye-gouges aren't viable combat techniques because nobody uses them in MMA. >IMCF Fighting Runles >3. Prohobited Fighting Techniques in Melee >3.1 Thrusting is forbidden and grounds for immediate sanction >3.1.9 Twisting against the natural direction of a joint and/or painful holds
>watching history channel over Christmas >for once see an interesting looking program >has to do with 14th century Native American settlements >suddenly they bring out this crazy-haired wacko who starts talking about how the Americas were originally discovered by some legendary Crusader Knight who buried his lost treasure in Nova Scotia I think that perfectly sums up how the History Chanel does things now.
>>519073 >"schrancken" in this context means a ring, i.e. some sort of regulated duel, which I'd say definitely refers to a judicial combat. No, it means a tournament place for jousting. >in armor on the horse, in the field or between 'bars'
>>519350 it just looks silly for someone to have a weapon and not using the part meant for killing to attack. just like people using musket butts to break the enemy faces instead of the bayonet - it works and soldiers did it way too often; specially untrained units - but it still looks strange when you hit your opponent with the wooden back of your weapon when you have a shinny steel attachment made for that exact purpose
>>517102 In Bulgaria there are examples of two-sided axes dating back to the Late Bronze Age (pic related, from Chernykh's Mining and metallurgy in Ancient Bulgaria, 1978). My lector's opinion is they were made especially for cracking skulls. Just as you said, I think it would have been impractical. Similar axes are found in the Early Iron Age, too, though their two sides may have different function (an axe and an adze).
>>523147 If you're doing this technique with bear hands, then it was a pretty big problem.
Even with armor, there is evidence to suggest that people cut their hands using this technique, some even lost fingers. Supposedly, however, the soldiers did this because they did not feel like killing the enemy. They felt like being a little 'nicer' to the other army, in all seriousness.
Ironclad is a fun action romp with lots of gore and fighting, James Purefoy hacking up vikings with a giant sword and Brian Cox losing a fight with a castle wall. It doesnt pretend to be anything else. I don't get why everyone apparently has a massive problem with it.
>>514299 They do when their going to war you half wit.
>Assuming your stances and techniques are right there should be little difference between wearing it and not wearing it.
What? Why would the armored knight need to use a half sword technique against an unarmored opponent? He could use the full range of his sword, gaining a reach advantage, and cut the peasant down by hitting him virtually anywhere.
>>523147 You would be wearing plate or mail gauntlets, it's not directly against your hands or yes it would just slice the fuck out of you. Swords were sharp for this reason, to keep your opponents from simply grabbing them even in swords which had very little to no cutting power.
On another note this technique was not used to improve accuracy you proles. The idea is to jam the sword into any gap in the armor, force it in, and then use it as a lever to knock down your opponent or muscle him around to get the blade in deeper. By holding the sword like that you sacrifice range for power and control.
> It should be self-evident though that a weapon that is meant to be somewhat robust cannot be all too sharp, since otherwise it would be too frail to be actually used
It can be very sharp, harder more brittle steel will HOLD and edge better but you can still sharpen softer steel to very sharp edges.
>>517102 There are a few in exhibits in Turkey, a couple of animu level huge ones clearly to show off, but most were relativelysmall. I'd guess the double blade was to turn it when you lost the edge in one side.
>>518106 >and the katana wasn't useless for most of its lifetime. I like the katana because it feels like the absolute underdog. Inferior material, design and very limited techniques for lack of exposure to other cultures. You'd really have to work it out to make it useful.
>>508926 This is not originally history channel, its an old documentary called Medieval Fightbook, the guy in the red John Clement is generally considered the best medieval martial artist in the world.
Also the guy in the knights suit gets a concussion lol.
>>530700 Halfswording means to grip the sword on the handle and at the middle of the blade, This seems to have been pretty 'common'. in the sense that there are many historical techniques described in several manuals. You still wouldn't do it against unarmored opponents, or at least only use it as a dirty special surprise trick, like closing in into a bind, half grip, stab to the neck.
Mordhau is the technique where you reverse the blade. This is one single technique, which is also described in several manuals, but in my opinion this is more of a last ditch effort when you have no other chances to inflict damage. You can do a lot of damage, but you are also very vulnerable.
>>529809 never said that - just said that most untrained soldiers would use their muskets/rifles as clubs to hit their enemies much more often than they used the bayonets because they were not trained enough to know how to properly hit using bayonets.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.