How invulnerable were knights in armor, lets say around the high medieval age? I know they got butthurt and tried to ban crossbows as being 'unchristian,' but did platemail and a horse really make you some unstoppable juggernaut in ye old times?
But generally you would be lucky to have armor. Mistakes are not as deadly, and you are invulnerable to blades in most areas. Maces hurt you the same, but they are slow weapons compared to the sword you would probably carry, so you still have advantage.
>>44577621 You're asking in the very wrong place. Try /his/ or something, instead. That said, full plate armour was effective enough for knights to reliably survive on the front lines of battle. Nobles sons and hiers would vie for glory by participating in major battles, and the plate armour they wore give them very little chance of actually being wounded or killed.
Really, the effectivness of plate armour was the primary influence for people adopting bludgeoning weapons, and the rise in popularity of long, thin, straight swords in the late 1600s, such as the estoc, rapier and the smallsword.
Basically, all parts of your body covered by the metal are totally impervious, except to powerful bludgeoning attacks. You still have to watch out for bladed weapons finding their way into the gaps in your armour, however, but as you can see in your picture, armour became very proficient at preventing that.
A mace is going to do a fucklot more damage to somebody wearing a padded jacket than to a guy wearing solid steel plates that absorb the initial shock from their solid nature, along with a padded jacket and possibly maille under that plate. It'll still hurt, but it'll hurt a lot less and you'll probably get a bruise instead of a broken humerus.
>>44578670 >Really, the effectivness of plate armour was the primary influence for people adopting bludgeoning weapons
I hate to tell you this, but the regions where maces remained all-time popular are the ones that used mail and mail-and-plate armour. In Europe, they were pretty much tertiary weapons.
>and the rise in popularity of long, thin, straight swords in the late 1600s, such as the estoc, rapier and the smallsword.
This is BS. "Rapier" covers a whole host of sideswords with complex hilts, estocs start appearing during the 14th century and smallswords primarily were used as dress swords or as officer's swords and rose in popularity around the 17th century - a time when armour had become a non-factor in war and duels.
If this is the best /hist/ can do, they should just tell folks to go read wikipedia.
>>44577621 >say around the high medieval age You're confusing the High Medieval era with the Late Medieval era. I do too, don't stress. High Medieval was 12th century (so think the Crusades), Late Medieval was 14th/15th (the 100 years war).
>>44577621 >How invulnerable were knights in armor, lets say around the high medieval age? Nowhere near invulnerable. They were very tough, but there were various ways to kill them, such as anti-armour weapons or finding gaps in their protection with a dagger.
>I know they got butthurt and tried to ban crossbows as being 'unchristian,' They did not do this, I have no idea where this idea came from.
Platemail is also something that doesn't exist. It's just called plate armour or plate.
>>44577621 To elaborate on the banning of Crossbows, there was a church council that strongly recommended that Christians not use ranged weapons in warfare against one another due to the inhumanity and lethality of it. This included crossbows, bows, and slings. No papal ban on crossbows happened, and knights did not push it because they were butthurt.
>>44577621 Against your average longsword, as long as it was a swinging attack, you were probs gonna be okay. Slashing/cutting damage, you were safe from. HOWEVER, warhammers and flanged maces were literally designed to just crush armor and the person inside it. So.... it depends on your foes. Crossbows, also, murder against armor.
The thing with the crushing weapons was that it dented the plate or it could so bad that it was painful to wear now. Yeah your arm wasn't broken but now your plate had a huge dent in it that probably hurt and made it weaker.
>>44579547 There is transitionary armor, which is what he's probably referring to. When plate armor was only worn over the limbs, and the torso was largely covered with a hauberk and minimal coat of plate coverage over the upper breast.
>>44579596 This makes it sound like blunt weapons are a hard counter against armor. They aren't. Blunt weapons are simply less protected against. You are still very well protected against a mace, and the design of the armor is often made to facilitate glancing blows with maces and hammers that don't transfer their full power.
It's also wrong to say that crossbows murder plate. Some crossbows can penetrate plate, but they were very powerful (and expensive) specialty crossbows used by mercenaries and soldiers for that purpose. Usually requiring a crank to cock. There is no single crossbow. It's more accurate to say that on the high range of crossbow power, with a direct hit at fairly close range, you can penetrate plate armor.
>>44579631 This man has the right of it. I've seen people do live steel sparring in full armor, with the specific point that they didn't have to pull any punches. And their weapon of choice was a mace. Granted, it was a light mace with a smallish head, but it was an actual weapon with an iron head. It would have fucking killed you if it hit you on the head without armor.
They swung at each other for real. One of them got hit on the helmet so hard that there was a huge dent on if afterwards, but the man himself didn't even feel it. You would still have had to give him many of those strikes and deform his helmet more to actually get to him.
>>44577621 >>44578137 >Unstoppable juggernaut? Fuck no. eh the medieval western european knight (france england germany italy) were about as close as it got to unstoppable for the period they were in especially before the 14th century
for a time, from about the turn of the millennium to about the 14th century European armies had become completely centered on their knights
knights were so successful that there are accounts of non european armies refusing to meet them in the field for fear of being run over by a european cavalry assault.
this is not to say they didnt have weaknesses nor was it always wise to assault any target. but western european knights were certainly unique in their hardiness. >>44578137 >and you are invulnerable to blades in most areas not really, swords had mass too, and much of the european tactic was to aim and thrust for the soft spots. >>44578137 >but they are slow weapons compared to the sword you would probably carry actually, they weighed about the same. >>44577621 >but did platemail and a horse really make you some unstoppable juggernaut in ye old times the true era when the knights dominance was at its peak was when they used chainmail or a mixture of chainmail and plate by the time they had full plate people were begging to develop techniques to counter such things >I know they got butthurt and tried to ban crossbows as being 'unchristian, i think that was a papal bull right? didnt do shit entire economies were based around crossbow mercenaries >>44578670 >armour they wore give them very little chance of actually being wounded or killed. well it was really good to capture a knight since if you did the tradition was that you would hold them for ransom which they would be obliged to pay >>44579547 >They did not do this, I have no idea where this idea came from. it was a papal bull from the pope im pretty sure probably to do with the peace of god movement
>>44577621 An extra layer of security against swords , spears and the ocasional stray arrow. Mostly helpful for caverlary which what knights were. On foot it provides the same advantage with the disadvantage of beang easy to overpower because you are utilizing more strenght to move in the armour.
>>44580490 >Not sure what it's supposed to stop Same shit as steel helmets. Shrapnel and debris thrown around by explosives (falling rocks and chunks of hard clay killed a lot of guys), as well as the odd ricochet that has lost a decent amount of velocity (still enough to penetrate an un-helmeted skull). The lighter versions for trench assaults, like the 2lb French version designed by General Adrian, were also useful for stopping bayonets and pistol rounds, but proved to be unpopular due to sheer annoyance of having to crawl prone while wearing it. Seeing as you were more likely to be killed by a mortar round than a bullet, being able to stay prone comfortably was more important than being able to take a pistol round to the chest. Also, unlike ye olde plate they weren't really evenly distributed over the body, they were encumbering to run and fight in.
So really the only people who commonly wore it were machine gunners and sappers. Machine gunners because their static and sometimes more exposed positions were far more likely to draw both rifle fire and artillery so they appreciated the extra protection, especially when they had to sit upright to operate their weapon. Sappers because they were often too preoccupied with their job to effectively return fire and they were often working in exposed condition exposing them to incidental fire and artillery.
Also, that picture is from the French test determining how effective they were (without anyone wearing one) at stopping bullets, turns out it wasn't very effective at doing so at actual common engagement ranges (guy on the right).
>>44580637 Fun fact: maces were actually primarily used as policing weapons explicitly because they are LESS lethal, and are more useful for subduing and stunning unarmored foes, like criminals! This is why police forces still use maces today, in fact.
What you're thinking of is something like a FLANGED MACE, which is a very, very specific weapon that has more in common with a warhammer (an actual weapon meant for fucking up armor.) Flanged maces were much less frequently used, probably because they were pretty complicated and expensive to make compared to a warhammer or pollaxe or something, but they messed up armored targets with a completely different principal to what you're thinking. The edged and hooks put their strikes into smaller surface areas, and they "bit" into armor, actually sticking into it. This wasn't necissicarily to poke through and slash or jab the guy inside, but it was intended to make it so the weapons didn't deflect or glace off plates so easily, and could transfer most of their energy into the target.
The biggest problem with fighting armored foes isn't that they are thick and hard to punch through, but because it's impossible not to glance off them with most weaponry. Think of them as more slippery than impenetrable. Plate is all rounded and sloped like that for a reason- many of the steel plates were only a few millimeters thick at most.
>>44577621 The crossbow thing never happened, the Pope just expressed a dislike for missile weapons in general at a papal bull because they did not give the enemy the chance to surrender, it had nothing to do with the fact that they could kill armored men.
As for protection, it was miles better than not being armored. Heavily armored men were very difficult to wound, as one might imagine, but could be brought down. Charles the Bold of Burgundy was killed in such a messy fashion by a halberd to the helmet that his dentist had to identify him by his teeth.
When actually fighting such men, your odds of injuring them simply by hitting them with a sword or even stabbing their with a spear are basically zero. Armored men would have to either be beaten down with heavy polearms, wrestled to the ground and killed or forced to surrender with knives, or have their weaknesses targeted by certain weapons. The Ahlspeiss and the Estoc were supposedly used to target the gaps in armor, though the tales of certain French knight-duelists recount how they were able to strike reliably at the eye-slits in helmets with their poleaxe spikes in friendly duels, and while this could cause bleeding it rarely killed or even seriously injured.
A heavy lance was apparently not terribly well suited to killing a man in plate armor, a recount from French Chroniclers suggested that in facing German pistoleers, French lancers would create a great crash, but "rarely was any man felled by the speer," and basically that firing pistols at point-blank into the thigh or face was more effective.
Arquebus fire and other guns could penetrate armor, though bulletproofing did exist, and such pieces were not uncommon. Orders for dozens, sometimes hundreds of "pots of proofe" (bulletproof lobster-tailed helmets) were made during the English Civil War.
>>44578670 >Try /his/ or something He asked about plate armor, not about religion or mediocre philosophers. Go ask in /sos/, get a free Zell.
I was told by a sparring partner that heavily armoured knights were often mobbed by groups of foot soldiers then killed by something resembling a chisel being hammered into their helmets. Seeing that slowly get closer would be fucking terrifying.
>>44580278 >>44579631 Remember that folks used to go at each other with warhammers at full speed back in ye olde days and though of it as nothing but a good sport where straps and rivets would occasionally break and send non-essential parts of armour flying.
>>44581020 I just poked over to /his/ and saw a guy claiming that medieval soldiers had to rest their swords on their shields before halfswording was invented because swords were so heavy, that spears being common depended on what part of Britain you were in, and something insane about Saxons carrying seaxes being like black people carrying guns or something, all within three or four posts.
>>44577621 It's worth noting that swords were mostly dull, with just the last but near the tip sharpened. Most combat up until fancymen times (17-1800's) was brutal kravmajujitsu grappling, swords were more akin to staves and hammers with a sharp bit, and techniques with them were based around trappimg you opponent's weapon and throwing them to the ground, to either stab their throat, get them in a choke (with the sword) or break their neck.
Their armour made them neigh invulnerable to the average barrage of arrows at long range, but closer and quirrels and long bows could actually put some savage holes in plate, not enough to kill with one shot unless you were touched on the perpee by the luck god, but a half dozen arrows loosed by you and your welsh buddies up near the front lines could royally fuck up plate, like a tin can hit with an ice pick over and over, eventually the arrows could mess it up enogh that you'd look the part of the porcupine's wife.
Latter pikes and guns ruined mounted cavalry's day.
But no, hundred years war wise, you were a tank, and you and your mounted friends would dive into the enemies lines to ruin their day before retreating to catch your breath them harry them again. Which is to say, inflict about 10% casualties or less and they would retreat.
People think it was daggers and shit that was used to find their chinks but that's a load, it's not impossible, but you'd more likely see someone drag the knight down to choke him out with their knife. Or try and pull his helmet off and bite chunks out of his face.
>>44580972 Are you kidding, /his/ is one of the worst boards for anything vaguely historical, those fuck ups are the ones that think "Muh invincible Wehrmacht" and ignore anything that doesn't fit their view.
>>44577621 Swords against good fullplate were mostly useless. A bladed edge is essentially humanity's meta for causing as much damage as possible with minimal effort, which is why they were so popular wherever armor was relatively rare (see:everywhere.)
There were some swords which could probably be said to be more useful than others against plate wearing foes, but it seems more likely that the only way that you're going to fuck up somebody like that with a sword is if you jab them somewhere exposed like the face or the armpit, and it's rather unlikely unless you already rendered them unable to fight back properly.
Nothing saying that's not exactly what they did, but throw any depictions of plate wearing knights having a sword duel straight into the trash. The opening moves were probably more like trying to wrestle the fuck out of each other.
>>44581168 There's a difference between dull and blunt, smartass. There isn't too much of a point to really trying to sharpen the parts of the sword that don't do anything anyways. Keeping an edge sharp in a battlefield situation isn't exactly a walk in the part.
>>44580637 >I don't know how to physics No it doesn't. The solid plate absorbs even more of the force, preventing it from moving directly into your flesh. The padding under the armor absorbs the shockwaves passing through the metal, much like a ballistic vest. Finally, the kinetic energy travels through that padding, having been greatly dulled by the armor and thus giving you a rather nasty bruise opposed to a broken rib.
Plate armor does not amplify concussive force at all, dumbass.
>>44581020 Also reading at the armory website- lances weren't even that effective against maille armor, let alone plate. It really was rolling the dice when it came to spears. One guy walked off a direct lance strike to his hauberk like it was nothing. Another guy got double penetrated with the lance popping through his front and back, yet survive miraculously.
>>44581267 From what I've read, the last 1/5th of the blade was sharp, like a spear or throwing knife tip. The rest being mostly a dull diamond cross section with fuller. The old manuals from the time (Italian and german surviving ones) depict men holding the whole of the sword to trap their opponents, thrust like a short spear, or sometimes even swing the guard like a hammer.
I can't really see a good reason why you would sharpen the whole blade either, the process is labour intensive, and they weren't into slashing like the samurai were, or chopping/slashing, like much of the middle east with yatagans khopesh what have you. Plus the edge would just chip on the rare occasion you blocked /parryed instead of just dodging.
>>44581283 You are the one making an outlandish assertion here you imbecile. What led you to believe that swords were differentially sharpened? What is YOUR evidence? Mine is that we have many accounts of swords cutting peoples' limbs and heads off, and none that I have ever seen have suggested that only the last six inches were sharpened or whatever.
This is an Occam's Razor thing. Why should we assume that the sword was only sharp on part of it unless we are told so? The "false edge" on many swords was called as such for a reason, they saw fit to mention that, but not this unusual sharpening pattern that you speak of?
>>44581351 Halfswording (holding the sword by the blade) does not imply that the entirety of the weapon was not sharp. We have in modern days reproduced this technique and people have done it on camera with sharpened swords without dismembering themselves. I myself have never heard of a period weapon having such a design.
And the reason that you might sharpen an entire sword is that you might want to USE the entire sword. Not every enemy is heavily armored, and combat can be chaotic and ranges are not always under total control. How foolish would you feel to strike a man as he closes, only to find that because your sword was dull, it could not cleave his jack and inflicted no significant injury to him? Why would you risk this?
>>44581351 >The rest being mostly a dull diamond cross section with fuller.
Uh, Anon? Have you ever actually worked with... tools? Like chisels? Our teach would not let us use those unless they were sharp enough to shave off hair, so I got no idea why you'd think that a diamond cross-section would prevent a sword from being as sharp as the owner wants it to be. And you can actually hold a blade safely in your hand, no problem, as the cutting action only really starts once you draw it across your skin.
>I can't really see a good reason why you would sharpen the whole blade either, the process is labour intensive, and they weren't into slashing like the samurai were, or chopping/slashing, like much of the middle east with yatagans khopesh what have you. Plus the edge would just chip on the rare occasion you blocked /parryed instead of just dodging.
The exclusive use of edge-on-edge parries is a movie thing and there are draw actions shown in medieval and early modern manuals that don't make too much sense unless the blade's reasonably sharp for at least two thirds of it total lenght. Another good reason to have a reasonably sharp edge is that it will cut easier, meaning it'll be more forgiving of sloppily delivered strikes (which kind of is a problem in a fight, I'd say).
Pic related, this beauty provides better defence then any snooty knights plate armour. Coupled with a good axe [s] and a few shrooms from the priests [/s] and any warrior can become unstoppable on the field of battle.
>>44581616 My school was really fucking underfunded. Constant strikes about the pay, headmaster was incompetent, teachers had passed the point of despair, and I was one of the few pupils who gave a shit.
It got a new headmaster during my last few months, and I've heard it's improved immensely though.
>>44581643 Actually silk armour just doesn't tear when shot, making it easier to remove bullets and minimise contamination of the wound.
It was originally worn because of the fun little fact that the most common debris removed from a musket ball wound was the teeth and bone of other soldiers, which aside from being absolutely disgusting, caused some severe infections.
This thread is so full of wrong with just a little bit of right. If you want a good education on historical arms and armor, go onto youtube and watch Matt Easton's videos. He's a HEMA practitioner and historian with a lot of personal and scholarly knowledge.
>>44580354 >actually, they weighed about the same. It's not a weight thing, it's a balance thing. A good sword will have it's center of gravity somewhere around the hilt, which makes it faster and easier to swing. A mace or other blunt weapon will have it's center of gravity concentrated towards the tip. This gives more weight to the blows, but it also makes it slower as it's harder to gain momentum.
>>44579547 I was under the impression crossbows were looked down on for being unchivalrous as any peasant can properly use one with minimal training compared to say, a bow, not to mention just as lethal.
>>44577621 >>How invulnerable were knights in armor, lets say around the high medieval age? I know they got butthurt and tried to ban crossbows as being 'unchristian,' but did platemail and a horse really make you some unstoppable juggernaut in ye old times?
What you need to understand is that good quality wargears were expensive as fuck in those times. The OP armor would probably as expensive a whole village of peasants.
Armor like that was the top quality shit in those times. There was no mass production factory. In most armies it was not unusual that that half of the army was not much more than basic foot soldiers with shit quality wooden spears with metal point, or archers with similarly shit quality bows that barely kill people with leather on, depending on where it hit.
When you put up the best things money can buy (armor, weapons, warbeat, training etc.) to the lowest level shit of course it doesn't compare.
>did platemail and a horse really make you some unstoppable juggernaut in ye old times?
Look if you ever saw modern real life police cavalry in action against street riots you will know that just a line of horses charging at you is usually enough to scare the fuck out of most people and make them run for their lives, and in those cases they are just trying to scare people off. A horse alone can fucking kill a human like nobody's business.Now imagine that they are trained with a trained and equipped rider and actually mean business and are out to kill you.
They weren't called Juggernauts because they were invulnerable, it was because they could reliably break the lines of unfortified enemy foot soldiers and because of their equipment they were better equipped than most other cavalry. There was no reliable way to stop it unless you fortify/trap the position that is why it was the best that the era could offer.
Against a rain of arrows the armor was alright while they charged but they also had, you know, FUCKING SHIELDS to protect them.
>>44581399 And besides, why wouldn't you sharpen a sword all the way down if you were bringing it to a battle? Surely you're not going to use it to take on armoured opponents, instead of a more appropriate weapon?
Full plate after the first half of the hundred years war could be penetrated by longbows with 1/4th poound, bodkin point arrows, or heavy crossbows with bodkin point bolts at 20 metres. The armour could not be cut through, but a heavy blow could dent it. A heavy blow with a small point such as the pick end of a warhammer may pierce plates.
The best way to take down an armoured knight is to hit him where he is not armoured. In the visor, the joints and the like. That, or hit him with a warhammer enough to rupture internal organs or smash in plates
So there are a number of factors that contribute to this.
Firstly, plate armour of course is very strong. Swords and axes would be deflected off of the armour rather than exerting their full force on the guy in it. Spears would do the same if they didn't hit a joint in the armour, the same goes for arrows and bolts (while the people above are right that they can penetrate plate the chances of it going through the armour rather than being deflected off is slim).
Then you have the fact that this armour was owned by very very rich people, which means they also likely have been trained very very well and are on a big fucking horse.
So you have a guy who is in very strong armour, who is trained far better than most others on a giant fucking horse. They were very very powerful compared to a standard infantryman. That being said, tripping a knight with a polearm or just sheer force and then ramming a bodkin through their visor was the standard way to deal with them.
>>44581907 >Full plate after the first half of the hundred years war could be penetrated by longbows with 1/4th poound, bodkin point arrows No it couldn't. There was recently a large study done on it and it was found unlikely-to-impossible. It conclusively didn't happen at Agincourt.
Scott M. Rodell mentioned in "Chinese Swordsmanship" that the swords in the style of Taiji fencing he learned are sharpened in three zones indeed, with the sword's stärke being the bluntest and the region around the schwäche the sharpest. The middle zone, according to him, should still be at least as sharp as a chef's knife though, which is still pretty damn sharp by any standard.
If this is a historical combat thread, I have a somewhat silly question:
I've been playing a lot of Dark Souls. I want to know if it's feasible for someone to switch between sword + shield and 2handing a sword, on the fly, during a fight, like in the game. Is this something that you can't really do, or did people do this?
>>44581020 >Charles the Bold of Burgundy was killed in such a messy fashion by a halberd to the helmet that his dentist had to identify him by his teeth. How can one man fuck up this hard?
>Rule the richest realm in all of Europe >Have an army that can match France or England >Burgundy just got out of the Hundred Years War without too heavy losses >"Let's fight France again, this time without England!" >Lead a charge from the front >Die >No heir >France absorbs Burgundy
Seriously, if it wasn't for him perhaps Burgundy would've persisted well into the modern day. Hell, there might not even be a Netherlands because it's all Burgundy.
Even if performed successfully, it'd be a one-time thing as you'd have to drop the shield and sword to the ground to get the other weapon ready. And that's assuming you got an attendant handing the two-hander to you unsheated.
It's frankly not impossible to drop your weapons, but it isn't exactly adviceable as it means that you're unarmed and the other guy can pretty much attack you any way he wants with all he got.
>>44585275 but what if you weren't trying to draw an entirely new weapon, you were just trying to 2hand the weapon you already had on you? would it be unfeasible to have the shield hanging off of you by some sort of strap until it was needed again?
>>44585871 Some would. I certainly wouldn't want to try and use a zweihander one-handed, but things like longswords have been depicted in use one-handed, even used with shields. They're just more practical in both hands, but then, having a shield is really practical too.
the burden of proof, as they say, is on the one making the extraordinary claim.
The idea that swords were not sharp is, frankly, nonsense. From my experience handling a rather terrifying number of originals, I would say that the medieval sword from norman conquest to c.1350ish is invariably sharp throughout, and normally honed to a sort of sharpness somewhere between a well-shaped woodworking chisel, and a very sharp steak knife. From around 1350 on, you start getting diamond-section blades, where the sharpness varies a little more. Some - not all - are relatively thick, and as a result end up with fairly obtuse angles at the cutting edge. By which I mean a cutting edge might just be 45 degrees, or maybe 50 degrees, rather than the 30 degree angle of an earlier sword edge.
the net result is, these blades cut a little less effectively, the thicker cross-section takes more effort to go through. Saying they are blunt, however, is utterly incorrect.
>>44586144 Not this guy, but just to chip in: With the speed and force of a sword swing hat level of sharpness is more than enough to fuck up even tough materials like cloth, and the diamond-section weapons were less efficient on the cut but give point like mad cunts.
>>44578137 >I learned everything I know about weapons from playing a lot of elder scrolls.
>>44578670 The estoc came into use in the 14th century, Rapiers have nothing to do with plate armour, they became popular mainly as a civilian weapon developed from military versions that came into use when wearing armour was in decline, because of changes in tactics and technology (gunpowder) A rapier is NOT a sword to use against armour, it's a sword to use when people stop wearing armour. It has very little in common with the estoc that was often used like a short steel spear, rather than a sword (halfswording etc)
>>44585005 >>I've been playing a lot of Dark Souls. I want to know if it's feasible for someone to switch between sword + shield and 2handing a sword, on the fly, during a fight, like in the game. Is this something that you can't really do, or did people do this? Well if you just dropped your shield I'd imagine it'd be pretty quick. Course if it's strapped to your wrist at multiple points, it'd probably take longer.
Don't expect to put it back on in the middle of a melee.
>>44585362 >but what if you weren't trying to draw an entirely new weapon, you were just trying to 2hand the weapon you already had on you?
You still gotta wear it somewhere, and historically everybody seemed to have carry their twohanders on their shoulder and used them as their primary weapon.
You could do the Huscarl-thing and carry the shield strapped to your back while you chop away with your twohander, but you'd still have to drop the sword on the ground and nestle around with your shield and scabbard to make the switch, which again is going to take more time than it takes the other dude to run you through.
>would it be unfeasible to have the shield hanging off of you by some sort of strap until it was needed again? Not really. It's just that then you'd have a board wildly swinging all around yourself, getting in your way.
Thread replies: 97 Thread images: 9
Thread DB ID: 363282
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 firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.