I don't understand. If most medieval warfare was done

You
are
a
dumbass

>>3174294
Then make me not-a-dumbass.

>>3174288
Most violence in medieval times was not done in organized wars and field battles, but in small scale.
A local feud, band of roving bandits, tavern brawl, and similar stuff was much more frequent. Also, some things simply where solved with sword fighting, judicial duels for example where common.

Most, if not all of these manuals are about civilian duels, usually judicial. Quite a few techniques can be applied by a person fighting in a formation but that's not what they're really for.

>>3174288
How do you fight in formation with a broadsword, praytell? They weren't using swords for the most part if they're a regular infantryman. For polearms there isn't much of an issue translating one on one fighting to formation fighting I'd think. There isn't as much of a reliance on maneuvering.

It's also worth mentioning that most depictions of training you'll find would probably be of wealthier people, and because of that it's not a reliable way to understand how training worked.

>>3174340
>implying medieval fighting was much about trained soldiers doing field battles.

>>3174288
>most medieval warfare was done on formation
and thats where you are wrong.

>>3174709

Please, tell us how you think medieval warfare was conducted.

>>3174288
>One on one fighting did happen on the battlefield
though mostly by the upper class

>Most swordsmanship was trained for duels, self defense, and tournaments,

>>3174814
on a much smaller scale mostly, full out war between entire countries was a comparatively rare even for most of the medieval.
Raids, local feuds and other small scale events where the norm.