Best Melee Weapon for a Smaller, Lighter Fighter?

Fighting pick

>>32737550
gun is best choice

The truth is size and strength will matter in melee no matter what you do. If the size difference is large you might be able to swing at their legs/gut while your opponent is forced to fight downward.

Find a buddy and you both get swords, have buddy lay on ground and swing at your shins. He might not be able to move, but it isn't easy for you to swing so low and reach far at the same time without getting hit in the shins.

Don't fight from the ground against a standing enemy, the guy on the ground is still disadvantaged.

File: image.jpg (109KB, 720x540px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 720x540px

>>32737550
Checkmate atheists

I guess just pick the weapon you like and get better at it

Spear is a questionable in 1v1, especially if your opponent is using a shield or weapon in his off hand.

Just gotta deflect your stabs and then shank you with a dirk while you back away frantically.

>>32737675
If a spearman has room to move even a shield can be rendered useless. In the hands of a capable spearman, a spear head can be quite difficult to slip past without getting stabbed.

Can a 5' 9'' guy use a greatsword well?

>>32737729
I don't see why not

5 9 is above average height for a male from the Middle Ages

>>32737703
Okay, but that requires for you to be more skilled and worse requires you to not be shorter than the other guy.

I view it like a knife fight, you gonna get stabbed, even if you win.

talking about spears, thinking of buying the cold steel, anyone ever 'used' it

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004YWK74E/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=marketorder-20&camp=1789&creative=9325&linkCode=as2&creativeASIN=B004YWK74E&linkId=a55a7a781ebc7cf3544bb3dcd67ea7c3

>>32737773
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZtkkM14j1s

>>32737797
>all that tracking spam in the link

>>32737729
If you're not pathetically weak, I guess

>>32737797
If you're gonna buy a spear, buy one that a boar can't run up.

>>32737550
The Nips would have us believe a naginata (aka weeaboo glaive) is a good weapon for a smaller fighter, specifically women.

File: image.jpg (45KB, 1800x511px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 1800x511px

how big do you have to be to use this?

>>32737869
if you're not 6'7 you'll crump into a pile of weak manlet and the sword will fall flat down into a stone and get stuck there like excalibur until a tall person comes along to claim it and bang your wife

>>32737863
That is more because women lack the strength for bows and Samurai didn't like other people using swords. Also a polearm takes less hand strength than a sword.

In other words women literally couldn't use any weapon except a naginata. Plus men used naginata way more often than women for obvious reasons.

>>32737869
They're lighter than they look according to the shit I've read. If you're not a 5' girl you could probably train to wield one competently.

>>32737869
Large weapons such as that should be forged with respect to the height of the intended wielder.

>>32737896
Japs have always been eternally anal about weapon authorization.

>>32737939
The sword ban was only in rule after Hideyoshi succeeded Nobunaga.

Even then it's only a sword ban, guns aren't banned, the farmers still get to keep guns to scare away animals.

>>32737935
Where did you read that?

I think I read somewhere that the Roman gladius and tower shield combo is one of the best kit for shorties.

Most the goths, gauls, etc were taller than the average Roman. So the tower shield would negate the superior reach of their opponents and once they were in nice and tight the short swords and short arms were much more effective than a greatsword, axe etc. A stocky manlet will have a lower center of gravity making it easier to carry and use a tower shield.

I think generally a shorter fighter should try and fight on the inside instead of try and out-reach their opponent with all sorts of different weapons. Like how boxers with shorter reaches will just try to keep really really tight to a bigger opponent

File: image.jpg (261KB, 912x1024px) Image search: [Google]

261KB, 912x1024px

>>32738148
Tower shields are the shit.

>>32738148
Id agree that swords and boards make good weapon combos for defensive fighters. Rushing is your friend when your opponent has superior reach.

>>32737815
none of them looks skilled, spear seems to have a light as fuck handle.

on an somewhat related note: spears are terrifying weapons in one one one. you have a poity end, you have a blunt end that can still cave your head in, you have a lot of hard wood on a fucking long lever that will crush bones on a hit and when the other guy is past strikuíng range, trip him or hit him with the middle part so you get some room for a propper stabbing. there is reason every culture around the world got the idea of using a pointy stick and stuck with it for ages.

to answer OP's question: depends on what weapon the other dude has. and you can train anyone who isn't a literal midget how to use larger weapons. will he have the same range as a fuckhuge dude with the same weapon? no? will he be able to make people think twice about entering his effective range? you bet so

>>32738148
Pretty much, but you can do it with a smaller shield as well. The taller the opponent is in relation to you, the less they are able to deal with the little shit that got between their legs and is currently stabbing them in the balls. Shields help greatly with making that initial charge but it can be done with just a weapon alone provided the wielder is skilled.

>>32738148
romans also exelled in formation fighting. for a good reason. alone, a big shield is limiting your manoverability. a lot. combine this with a short weapon and you pray you are really skilled at what you doing and/or your opponent is an absolute moron

>>32737550
There is only one kind of claymore, you probably mean longsword. A longsword is a good option because, despite being much longer than an arming sword and having plenty of room for two handed use, they only weigh 1.5x as much or so. Bastard swords are good options, too. Swords are not by any means heavy if they are properly made, the heaviest sword I have ever held was only 3 kilo. A spear is a nice option but if I am strong and you are weak, I can either

>pull you to me with your spear and negate your reach advantage
>pull your spear right out of your hands

It's a good option in theory but only if you are good with it.

If you are weak, you want a reach advantage, but also don't want something easily grabbed. Halberds, bills, longswords, bardiche; All great options.

Also, /k/ needs more medieval and antiquity weapons discussion.

>>32738391

obv formation is huge with a tower shield but I think it could still be more effective 1v1 than ppl give credit for.

I mean, it covers you enough that you don't need a ton of finesse, so as long as you have a strong back to lift and pivot with you don't need a ton of finesse. And as for the gladius you really just need to master that one upper-cut stab. You just need patience and a build like a little pack-mule for it is all.

>>32738492
Or I could just... Not get close enough for you to stab me and take advantage of the fact that you can't see me unless you are peeking around it.

File: image.jpg (74KB, 1714x1102px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 1714x1102px

Unless you're a weakling I see no reason why a shorter guy couldn't use an axe, especially the two handed ones.

>>32738492
well, for one on one, there are rennesaince manuals for a long as shield and a sidesword. basicallis is cover your front foot, crouch behind it, slowly aproach and cut the other guy as soon as he has swung at you. but a gladius is shorter then that. so you have to open yourself a little more and you have more openings. the romans (depending on where on the timeline we are talking of course) had a lot of training routines, so people knew of course what they were doing. still i'd say you'd want a longer sword and a smaller shield for one on one. alternate polearms and good armor, if you have something fitting.

I thought about buying one of the glock knives and occasionally making a spear out of it just to fuck around with.

>>32737877
This is true, happened to me three years ago.

>>32738522
Yeah that's a good point. I think visibility is an even bigger issue than maneuverability with tower shields. No way around that one

File: Thermopylae[1].jpg (122KB, 640x494px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 640x494px

>>32737550
What everyone else in your phalanx is carrying. You gonna try and be different, you little faggot?

>>32737863
Women edo naginata were nothing like earlier periods O-naginata, shaft was smaller, blade as well, more streamlined and not as long.
Basically, they were what the longsword is compared to a large two-handed sword.

>>32737550
Most weapons are fine for a smaller fighter? Manipulating most weapons isn't that HARDEST thing in the universe, physically. Most swords, for example, range from 2-5lbs, up to and including big dumb two-handed ones. The real problem boils down to how the weapon is used, skill level, and physical difference between opponents.

For example, rapiers aren't heavy (they aren't really any lighter than other one-handed swords, though), but the stances in which they are used constantly require you to be threatening your opponent with the point, often meaning that you're standing with a sword out at a partially extended arms length from you for extended periods. You're going to need more endurance for that kind of thing.

Part of the reason why spears are so prevalent through human history is that not only are they cheap to produce and very effective, but generally speaking you can give any shmuck a spear, give them a cursory understanding of the basics, and they're pretty much good to go. Without disparaging advanced spear-fighting, which is fucking terrifying, it's not so much that skinnier/weaker combatants were better suited to spears so much as that more experienced and profession fighters simply were not as often out of shape, and your average bloke could do OK with a spear and tended not to be in the best shape compared to a professional.

The truth is, just pick something you like and that is useful, and get good at that while working out. There are no shortcuts.

>>32737550
>larger weapons (claymores, axes, ect.)
Just as a reminder but "claymore" aren't massive two-handed sword but basket hilted broadsword.
And then, axes were usually fairly short, shorter than swords of the same weight, you can go into poleaxes territory but they aren't that big either, usually same lenght as the user's height, just like a spear really. Halberds aren't axes.

Spear is great to negate size difference and play the range advantage, but typically, shields or any form of passive protection (armor for starters or large shields in general) can greatly diminish the range advantage.

>>32737550
>opponent grabs tip of your spear, pulls and stabs you in the back
spears suck if your aren't with a formation, against cavalry or plan to throw it. for 1 v 1 you'll want a mace, axe, sword or hammer

File: image.jpg (65KB, 466x558px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 466x558px

>>32740741
>nothing personal, kid

The longer your weapon is the better, generally. Reach is an enormous advantage.
If you have a spear and the other guy has a sword, he's going to get a hole poked in him before he can even reach you more times than not, assuming equal relative skill levels.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8RWLxlzTiM
Sword+buckler guy wins like 1 in 10 engagements.

>>32737635
Size and strength is overrated
It helps, definitely, but if you're good you can overcome a stronger opponent, especially with weapons, where strength means less and technique shines..

>>32737703
Shields are very hard to get around if the guy using it knows how not to be an idiot.

I like spears, but people need to stop thinking they are better than they are.

Alright roll-call
Who here actually dues a weapons-based martial art?

A lot of bullshit happening in here, maybe the policy about lurking before posting should also apply if you have no experience fighting with weapons. Not being a dick, just a suggestion

>>32740741
Yeah thats why they're one of the most effective weapons in history

Long spears excel when you are part of a cohort. The enemy is within the reach of three rows of spear tips simultaneously, maybe even more. The large shields are there to deflect arrows and similar. But I can't think of any soldier even back in antiquity who did not also carry a short sword of some kind for the close and personal threats.

>>32741980
With bladed weapons and light or no armour, this is true.
With effective armour (or less effective melee weapons) other things may be more true.

In reply to >>32737550 A spear is a good choice. Two hands on a bigass lever makes most people plenty strong, and reach is nothing to sniff at. A spear user who can go quickly high to low attacks and drive an opponent back is a hard person to kill.

>>32742220
The concept of the sidearm has been around almost as long as the... arm, I guess.

>>32742243
Locks, binds, and maintaining your centre of balance are incredibly important for armoured fighting (I'm talking plate armour), and yes, strength helps with grappling, but whichever two handed weapon the select man-at-arms is using, it is a big lever as you mentioned about the spear, which makes strength even less of a factor if you know what you're doing.

>>32737869
Giant.

>>32737869
Normal size
You don't use that kind of sword like a regular longsword, you use sweeping motions and maintain momentum to move it fast.

>>32737729
Jap manlets wield the nodachi fine, so I don't see why not.

>>32737869
If you can hold 5-8 sticks of butter with both of your hands, you can use that