There is no reason to not use a sword if you're an adve

I don't care where you came from, /k/ or /his/, but you have to go back.

Battle axes and maces and such were still useful for penetrating armor.
Also spears would be enormously useful as well.

Also the reason it was common by then is because of improved techniques for making steel. In a D&D world you can't assume that it will be set in a 14th century equivalent. In a more dark ages world or even just a more borderland/post apocalyptic world axes, clubs and such would be very common.

>>49872289
>axes
>penetrating armor

maybe in fucking Skyrim

File: irrelevant.png (263KB, 729x457px) Image search: [Google]

263KB, 729x457px

>>49872187
>it's the 9th iteration of "le axes r bad meem" thread

yeah I suppose axes weren't really for armor.

But implying that axes in combat is "meme shit" is just wrong. Scandinavian raiders and huscarl troops from the 8th-11th century used them all the time. And fransicas were used by the Franks quite a bit as well.
Even into the late Middle Ages battle axes saw use.

File: paladincecil.jpg (31KB, 350x500px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 350x500px

>>49872187

The sword became the symbol of warfare not because it was anyone's first choice, but because it was everyone's second. Any professional warrior knows you want as much distance between you and your enemy as possible: the first weapon you'd want, then, is either something ranged, or a polearm. You would use your sword when the enemy was close enough that your first choice was no longer practical, but if things went well for you, you'd preferably never use your sword at all. One had to be prepared for the worst, and the common sword was compact, easy to carry and quite versatile, being able to slash the unprotected and stab through the armored, as well as serving all the functions of a big knife.

The sword became a symbol of justice because, given their choice, a soldier would never use it to attack. The sword was a weapon to use when the enemy came upon you, not when you yourself were the aggressor.

So, I'm sure an adventurer would want to CARRY a sword, and one should not carry a weapon one doesn't know how to use. But it would not be their primary weapon unless they had to limit the amount of equipment they could carry.

>>49872383
Wow raiders used axes against unarmed people how fucking impressive. ISIS often uses knives to decapitate people so I guess they are stronger than guns.

>>49872410
Cool bullshit but once plate armor got good enough unmounted knights quite often carried longswords as their weapon of choice alongside poleaxe. You don't really know anything about history other than popculture bullshit right?

>>49872187
But my adventurer is an aging woman with a dedicated guardian spirit

>>49872187
A dagger is light, easy to conceal, and just as much a deterrent to a common thug.
A club is comparably effective with a much lower learning curve than a sword no matter which way you slice it.
If the setting is based on anything before the 14th century, a good sword'll likely be pretty pricey.
Besides whatever reason an individual might have to not carry a sword.

>>49872430
Good thing considering how prevalent plate armor is in fantasy almost no setting seems to be pre 14th century then.

>>49872303
axes deliver a lot more force, allowing you to break bone under mail, its also a lot harder to block with a shield, while it coudnt penetrate plate, not much really could

it also delivers a deeper wound, so if you manage to land a hit in, it will be a lot more debilitating making it easier to follow up strikes

while an axe has many drawbacks, if you miss your swing its hard to get your balance, you couldnt really parry, and you needed a lot of space to build up swing speed, but no weapon i perfect and you there would be many scenarios where a weapon could be useful

Norse raiders didn't only fight unarmed people.

Did you forget that they invaded the Saxons, sacked Paris and warred amongst each other?

You can tell that this guy is a blatant troll from his posting style.

>>49872501
Where plate is concerned: what about a mace?

>>49872511
>vikings were good because they killed other vikings!

kek

also whole one sack of Paris compared to how many times they attacked unprotected targets and how often they lost pitched battles is hardly impressive.

It's also worth noting they held swords in higher regard but not everyone could afford one. They weren't axe fanboys.

>>49872593
well, ok a mace is the classic counter to heavily armored people, although rigid plate would actually provide protection from a mace strike, unlike mail which would not

so plate turns a lethal strike into a slightly less lethal strike

The Dane axe was just an objectively good weapon and you're wrong. Vikings raided lots of settlements and they got into lots of battles too, as far as the Mediterranean, they were good fighters. Battle axes were even still good in the 14th century.

As the other anon posted swords are a largely symbolic weapon, they represent the best of noble and chivalrous Christian Europe. Not to say that they weren't used.

There's also one key piece of analysis that were missing here in this thread. Swords were designed more or less to fight humans (obviously) but more specifically other swordsmen. An adventurers going up against a beast like an owlbear, ogre or troll with a sword could be a very bad idea because the idea would be to strike from range and poke it with spears. All the parries, ripostes and disarming tactics of a swordsman would be pretty useless. Not to mention how ineffective a sword would be against a thickly scaled creature.

Of course this doesn't really play out in D&D because it's not realistic at all and you can use a shovel and kill a dragon.

>>49872619
In D&D I usually rule it as blunt metal weapons ignoring some of the AC bonus from plate armor. Rather than simulating the actual disadvantages of a mace or warhammer, though, I have leather or cotton armor be slightly more resistant to that type of damage.

>>49872830
>they were good fighters

explain why they lost majority of fights then

>>49872850
strangely, one of the best ways this was modeled in a way that is fun was runescape

each armor and weapon a had a different value against slashing, piercing, crushing, so if your weapon wasnt getting past his plate, you could switch to stabs, which it was worse at but you at least expect a few of your hits to get through

>>49872865
This isn't /his/. Go there if you want to argue about how the vikings were less than impeccable in their military conquests. One would have to be delusional though to deny to massive influence of the Norse military forces in dark ages and pre-crusade Europe. They raided up and down the continent (and no it didnt always just involve shitting on unarmed villagers, any serious raid is going to have to face the resistance of a militia/retinue of a local lord), many of them served in the famed Varangian guard of the Byzantine Emperor, they were highly prized mercenaries in Italy and Sicily, and they fought battles of plunder and conquest up and down the rivers of Central and Eastern Europe. They were a legitimate force, they "lost" because they were generally unorganized and highly divided, also rather tribal and warlike towards each other. Also Christianity. It sure as fuck wasnt because "LOL dude axes SUCK", considering that axes have been used in combat for thousands of years before and then hundreds of years AFTER the Vikings were a distant memory.

Now back to adventurers and swords

>>49872187
Polearms and polearm-sized swords are better, though.

>not using a grappling lance

>>49872954
and the pike was king of all polerarms

there was no reason to use any other weapon

>>49872430
>A club is comparably effective with a much lower learning curve than a sword no matter which way you slice it.
Bullshit. A sword might have a lower learning curve but I'm willing to bet and untrained faggot with a sharp sword will do more than an untraned faggot with blunt stick.

>>49872501
>axes
>penetrating plate
It might cause blunt force trauma but good fucking luck otherwise. The axe was meant to foul shields, not chop through steel armor.

If you want to penetrate plate get out your rondel. And then stab em in the joint.

>>49872187
>There is no reason to not use a sword if you're an adventurer
Axes, maces, and hammers are more effective against heavily armoured foes.

TLDR this whole thread

OP is a fag and this thread is bait. There are a a million fucking reasons why an adventurer might not use a sword.

>>49872412

Axes were used famously in battle by the Saxons and the Varangian Guard.

Hey does anyone have that Matt Easton copypasta?

>>49872950
>Christianity

lmao tell that to Hakon the Good who raided despite being christian or Sweyn Forkbeard

>>49872989
That's not how you spell halberd...

So what's the best system for simulating the properties of different weapons and armour?

>>49872187
Spears are still a better everyman weapon

Spears are cooler than axes, a spear was used by Saint George to kill a dragon.

>>49873760

Followed by other polearms.

File: Saint_george_raphael.jpg (220KB, 788x1036px) Image search: [Google]

220KB, 788x1036px

>>49873785
But said dragon was fucking lame on every depiction he was roughly dog sized and looked scared, weak and defenseless. This is downright animal abuse.

>>49873750
Song of Swords.

>>49873832
How many dragons have been felled by an axe or sword? None.

Anyways you know who uses axes and swords? Women, further proof swords and axes are the inferior weapon to spears and maces.

Who cares? It's fantasy. If someone wants to use an axe in your group's roving gang of assholes, let them use an axe.

>>49873866
I killed a dragon in Skyrim with a sword.

>>49873894
Only because there's no spears in Skyrim

File: 1473548597649.png (739KB, 874x682px) Image search: [Google]

739KB, 874x682px

>>49873866
>How many dragons have been felled by an axe or sword? None.

No dragons have ever been felled, by anything, ever. Dragons aren't real. You can kill them however you want. Kill them with the a sword, kill them with a spear, kill them with the sick power of rock 'n roll.

>>49872422
>alongside poleaxe

You are aware which in the sword/poleaxe combo was the primary weapon, right? Hint: It's not the sword.

>>49873929
There are no dragons thanks to Saint George who slew one with a spear

>>49873972
there was no sword/poleaxe combo to begin with you are both retarded

>>49873446
Cultural stragglers trying to hold on to a dying tradition. Once the north was largely Christianized the raids werent long to go after.

>>49872187
1) Blade alignement with swords is a bitch. With axes their curve does half of the alignement wor for you, with blunt weapons you don't have to worry about it.
2) Axes don't have scabbards, that's why they are inherently worse as sidearms then swords.

>>49874050
"combo" means you go to battle with a poleaxe in your hands, while sword is in your sheath in case you happen to need it. Not wielding both simultaneously (which is practically impossible)

>>49874119
No one bothered with having a fucking sword as a sidearm if he had a poleaxe.

>>49872187
The only reason people used shit like axes and hammers for weapons in the first place was because that's all those shmucks had. Swords were designed to be a weapon from the get-go, so yeah, obviously if you had a choice you'd go with a sword.

Then again, maybe my newly adventuring former woodsman's son didn't have a choice and an axe is what I'm starting with because you didn't explain where he got the fucking sword from.

>>49872187
Here's your (You), now go kill yourself

>>49874147
Everybody carried daggers tho, and those things with 30cm long blades were more like short swords than steak knives.

>>49872187
Most fantasy games take place in settings where technology has advanced to the point where armour is a thing and where there are bigger, more dangerous things to fight than men or wolves.

We know that the flanged mace developed in response to mail, and was later largely replaced by the warhammer when plate armour became widespread.

Swords, in response to armour development changed drastically into rigid, narrow-pointed versions with less and less cutting capability and more focus on attacking with the point, from horseback or halfswording etc, and where relegated to side-arm status among proffessional soldiers for much of the late medieval era.

If you're going to be a logicfag about it, a sensible adventurer would carry a polearm, since most fantasy settings have monsters and shit and going up against something with 10x your bodymass with a sword is an incredibly retarded idea that's only facilitated by abstract game rules in games for people who should be playing wow instead of wasting their time. Even hunting something like a bear with a sword and armour would be an incredibly dangerous and stupid idea, yet somehow characters do that with ogres and dragons and shit.

The simple truth is that no weapon is "best" it's all very situational.

If you're murdering bandits or peasants or hacking your way through goblins, then yes, a sword would be king, but the moment someone puts on proper mail or better, you'll be reaching for a weapon with more impact, like an axe, mace or warhammer, and as soon as the big uglies show up you'll want a boar spear or lance, and the moment YOU have enough armour to fight on foot without a shield, you'll throw away all your one-handed weapons in favour of halberds, pollaxes, glaives or the aforementioned spears.

We don't need to have this discussion every week, history has already explained it all to us in depth and detail.

>>49874435
Archaon has a sword and he rekt entire Warhammer.

>>49874476
GW writers destroyed an entire world with Word, but I wouldn't try to fight off a band of brigands or any dragons with a laptop or a pen.

Unless I was in some retrofuture hacking setting or meta-rpg about people writing books or campaigns, obviously.

>>49874624
You're mad because no noteworthy character aside from that faggot Sigmar uses a Warhammer.

>>49872187
Swords were expensive. Took a lot of work. Axes were cheap; cast into rough shape, forge, sharpen.

>>49874679
In most fantasy settings they are cheap as fuck and in real world they weren't that expensive either from 14th century onwards.

>>49874679
This is entirely hinging on what specific period or region you are talking about, and you didn't cast axes into shape unless you're for some reason talking about the bronze age, iron and steel was forged into shape (from billets/ingots/whatever that were cast into shape during the ore smelting, they were usually round, oblong or bar shaped)

During the (trigger warning for armchair historians) "dark ages" a sword was a high-status, grossly expensive item that took a lot of skill and cutting edge metallurgy (for the time) to produce, but near the end of the medieval period, which a lot of fantasy tends to be modeled on, metallurgy and arms manufacture in general had reached a point where there was such a thing as a cheap, shitty sword.

"Swords were expensive" is a useless statement without any detail or qualifying information since the history of sword usage and manufacture encompasses everything from snubnosed swords created by weaponshmiths considered borderline wizards out of ingots imported from faraway lands, or painstakingly assembled from soft iron and poorly understood steel and forged together, all the way to a booming weapons and general blacksmithing industry with comparatively high quality steel and iron being churned out in big centres of commerce and widely available.

>>49872187
That bald youtube guy makes pretty terrible videos. You really shouldn't believe anything he says.

>>49872865
Something something history is not a perfect record, something something the vikings probably just stole shit where they could and if they got repelled the english called it a victory even if some outlying farms got pillaged.

Smaller raiding parties striking beyond their own boarders in a medieval time period arent trying to get into protracted battles because they dont have any lifelines at all. Its them vs the world.

>>49874925
Wow so they were just a bunch of thieves how fucking impressive. Truly they deserve their reputation of fierce warriors.

I like maces.

>>49874119
Its not practically impossible it just isnt practical against armor.

>>49875033
Cunt.

>>49872920
And nobody gave a shit and went for scimitars and other fast and highly damaging weapons because differences were too small to make any change.
Nobody in free servers used warhammers or battleaxes, for example.

>>49874948
Why are you so weirdly cranky about vikings?
If nothing else, they were popular as mercenaries with lead to institutions like the Varangian guard, and England was a cunthair away from being Danish.

The fact that a bunch of raiders from a low-population, inhospitable region left a mark on the continent as well as the british isles is pretty impressive, but there's no need to take it personally.

>>49875520
>low-population

Scandinavia was overpopulated at the time

made a typo, wanted to say "couldn't penetrate plate, but really not much could"

>>49875520
I bet hes some Christfag who has a complete rage boner for pagans and the image of the badass Viking because muh Catholic monks were preserving the knowledge of Europa.

>>49872430
>A dagger is light, easy to conceal, and just as much a deterrent to a common thug.

>Getting in a knife fight
>When you could have a sword
No, never.

>>49872187
There's no reason to use a melee weapon. Period.

>>49874948
No they were raiders and they fought battles that had predictable and favorable outcomes.

>>49874836
Matt Easton the best of the SwordTubers, mostly because he knows what he's talking about and often sources his statements.

>>49873010
>An untrained faggot with a sharp sword would do more damage than an Untrained Faggot with a blunt stick

yeah. To himself.

Sord is hard.

Clubs were cheap, easy, and reasonably effective against most people. Now you're still going to get owned by a fucking knight or mercenary, but if you're untrained that's happening anyway.

That's why spears made up such a large portion of the armies of medieval lords.

>there is a reason why post 14th century everyone used a sword as his sidearm
>a sword as his sidearm
>as his sidearm
>his sidearm
>sidearm

You know, the weapon you use when your real weapon can't be.

Swords have good utility, but they're not the supreme weapon.

>>49875746
And they still got BTFO

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Battles_involving_the_Vikings

>>49874948
Odin said it was cool

>>49876409
Odin also drank semen of hanged corpses he''s not the one to talk.

>>49876471
Semen is good for you

Odin said so

>>49873076
Axes with a great deal of leverage and a certain kind of design expressly designed for fighting, yes.

And only really for your average blow.

With sufficient technique and skill one can use the point of a thrusting sword to aim for chinks much more easily.

It's probably more efficient to just use a warhammer of course, because they are very, very good at penetrating armor.

File: 1473790481177.jpg (658KB, 1110x684px) Image search: [Google]

658KB, 1110x684px

This thread is dildos.

/tg/ is the equivalent of that guy who took Philosophy 101 and thinks he's figured out the meaning of life. Every weapons thread is a circlejerk of people with half the facts arguing against people with none of the facts.

You brought this on yourselves. I award you no points and may God have mercy on your soul.

File: 1377058765203.jpg (8KB, 200x282px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 200x282px

>>49876558
>very very good at penetrating armour
Don't make it sound like it was made to specifically penetrate armour, because nothing was.

The whole point of the spiked element of a mace or a warhammer was to bite into the plate armour so it doesn't get deflected wholesale, and transfer all the forces through it, causing more damage.

As for all the people arguing how axes aren't great against anything but unarmoured peasants, just no.
Axes will strike harder against anything than a sword can due to having more weight and how said weight is distributed, but it's more cumbersome. Like the mace, but more manageable. It won't cut through armour, but it'll do more than if you'd just strike at it with a sword. What's more, it'd do quite a bit against chainmail unlike a swordstrike due to aforementioned force..

>>49872187
>Taking advice from /tg/

>>49872187
>fighting beasts of all sizes with a sword
>being this retarded

>>49874020
>polearm users never carried a sword as a sidearm

you're retarded

>>49877835
Name some knights who used swords in addition to poleaxe you idiot.

>>49872187
Again, as many others have said, sure thing for the closest combat maybe as they are the most popular sidearm of all time, but there are overall far better options for primary weapons.

During Greek/Roman times a Spear and Shield were far more useful leading to Phalanx formations.

During the medieval era the most dangerous army were considered the English longbowmen so overall it was longbows that dominated. Otherwise it was either cavalry using lances or giant polearm formations inspired by the spear n shield stuff the Greeks/Romans were doing.

Even in the east, the original dangerous reputation of Samurai didn't come from muh nippon steel folded 10000000 times, while many of those guys had katanas as their secondary weapon their reputation as effective badasses came from them being horse archers not expert swordsmen. The reputation was later appropriated by not as dangerous guys just walking around with swords who did none of the shit that gave the Samurai their rep.

I shouldn't even have to give Genghis Khan's example considering how he has whooped some levels of all of the above through just horse archers.

As far as I can see, honestly I think only Vikings ever used the sword as a primary weapon, and funnily enough it seems that they are the ones that get bundled up with axes when it comes to fantasy and revisionist cliches.

>>49877974
>every knight and heraldry was recorded in history.
First off, no.
Second, nobody went to war with just one weapon. Swords were a staple for knights, and they'd carry something heavier and a shield.

>>49878127
>muh longbows xD

France won that fucking war and those thousand times folded bows didn't do much in battle of Patay

>>49878194
>knights carrying a shield in the same era when they used poleaxes

lmao shields were ditched once plate armor got good enough that's exactly why they used a two handed fucking poleaxe to begin with

>>49872187
There's no reason not to carry a sword if you can.

But your primary weapon should be whatever you please/whatever magical bullshit you find

Too many fucking retards are missing the point of the thread
>muh polearms

yeah so many adventurers carry dedicated battlefield weapons right? I would totally bring a fucking halberd with me on my travels after all it's so convenient to carry it around all the time as opposed to having a sword in my sheath. Swords were like handguns people carried them in case some shit will go down in their daily life no one walked around with fucking pikes just like no one now walks around with rifles besides adventurers usually don't fight pitched battles but small level skirmishes often in cramped space which is when swords shine.

>>49878206
Yes and no. France won the earlier stuff in the medieval age but was getting their shit kicked in by the Hundred Years War by longbowmen who made a big difference in the amount of French lives lost vs British. Not to mention that I didn't shit on cavalary using varieties on spears, lances, and polearms and said those guys were very important, too.

>>49878274
>no one ever carried a backup weapon ever

golly jee you're a moron

>>49878274
>lmao
> shields were ditched
They still had them you fucking nonce, they weren't ditched. The same reason why they'd carry an arming sword/cavalry sword or a longsword. On top of a broad dagger or a rondel when they'd have a heavier weapon.

Knights still used poleaxes but they weren't limited to just using said poleaxes like you seem so fucking adamant in suggesting. They didn't go to war with everything they could. Even though they'd have it carried by horse or squire so they could pick and choose.

And are you serious suggesting that any sane person is going to go into an open engagement with no shield, especially against hundreds of archers and crossbowmen with Bodkin head arrows and bolts, with or without a full plate, chainmail and gambeson?

>>49878473
*they did

fucking phoneposting

>>49878383
A typical DnD fighter would possibly be far more effective though if they are on a horse with a spear/polearm/lance weapon than if they are on foot using basic ass sword and shield.

Most super effective if they are horse archers.

>>49878473
>they still had them

maybe in fucking tournaments

who used them you tard? Everyone switched to two handed weapons shortly after plate armor was invented. Did halberdiers, archers or poleaxe wielding knights also had a shield in their third arm? No. Kill yourself.

File: vikings btfo.jpg (363KB, 1532x763px) Image search: [Google]

363KB, 1532x763px

>>49872511
You're right. They fought armed people and fucking lost.

Vikings are a meme.

>>49878559
>bringing a horse and cavalry pole arm with you to the dungeon

Great idea!

>>49878761
Then how did they manage to control large parts of the British isles and parts of modern France?

Pagan magic?

>>49878798
They got Normandy to serve as buffer zone and protect the land from other vikings.

>>49878798
They got blown the fuck out by Charles the Bald and barely survived. Charles however wanted to create a buffer between his good Christian people and the constant heathen invasions so he made a vassal state out of the vikings he pushed out. The Vikings agreed because they were only raiders because Scandinavia is a shitty place to live in an agrarian society.

Britain and Ireland also BTFO Vikings whenever they got a competent organized army. Vikings only existed because they were able to prey upon the disorganization of the immediate post roman era as centralization went the way of the dinosaur and most people only had small poorly trained militias to defend against invaders- if even that. But whenever Vikings faced proper militaries instead of levied rabble, they fucking lost.

>>49878761
Did you know that despite losing the vast majority of his battles, George Washington is widely considered to be a skilled, successful general? It's almost like quantity of arbitrarily-declared wins/losses is a meaningless distinction!

Vikings weren't "good" or "bad" fighters because that's far too broad a generalization to have any weight. Some of them were "good," some were "bad," and unless you physically lived at the time and met every single Viking warrior to assess his skill level in person, there is no way you or anyone else can say with any authority whether there was a majority one way or another.

>>49872422
Once plate armor got good enough so had guns and we're back to shooting first, stabbing a motherfucker with your sword or bayonet second.

>>49878883
George Washington is considered a good general because despite losing every fight, he somehow managed to survive with most of his men intact.

Normally when you lose a battle, you lose your army. Good ol George meanwhile either was a wizard or had divine protection (probably divine) considering every time he had to retreat something crazy happened. Like the British suddenly fucking up, a fog setting it and serving as a smokescreen, not to mention he even got shot something like three times in the Seven Year's War yet didn't get hurt.

That said George was a completely shit general when looked at his actual record, and as a American the idea that Americans liberated themselves is a bullshit myth drummed up for propaganda and wounded pride after the War of 1812. We were a French proxy war after the Seven Year's War used as pawns to get back at the French after they had lost the big one.

>>49873866
Sigurd>St George.
Gram>Shitty sticks.

>>49878773
There would be an arming sword or a close ranged weapon of choice for those moments as a secondary weapon of course. Though if we go by the horse archer example and that person uses archery in the dungeon the secondary sword will be used even less.

Claustrophobic dungeons aren't that common though in PnP RPGs so it's again, relegated more as a secondary weapon than the main thing.

File: 1429210317815.jpg (1MB, 1870x3148px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1870x3148px

>>49874435

Wrong.

There's no situational, only the halberd.

If you find yourself in a situation where a proper halberd won't save you, you clearly walked into a situation where no weapon known to the medieval man could have.

On a more serious note, any serious "fighting man" adventurer probably would probably be armed with a halberd, appropriate armor for a common soldier of his time and finally a sword for backup and city use. Magicians and other specialists would probably skip something as cumbersome as a polearm though and just carry the sword in case their magics/stay in the shadows/singing powers fail them.

>>49878560
> halberdiers
you're fucking retarded if you think they were the same as knights.

and if you honestly think they all "switched" to two handed weapons you're out of you tiny delusional mind. go back to highschool and actually listen to the teacher this time yeah?
Its fucking common sense that they still had shields. In fact, they used shields in combat and less in tournaments.

You cant even use the moniker "two handed weapons" properly because if you had even an ounce of knowledge on this you'd know longswords and bastard swords were the most common weapons used by the english and french. Polearms were limited to specialized troops and less commonly knights.

And did you completely skim over the open engagement and archer part? You have no fucking clue what you're talking about. I suggest you kill yourslef and remove your stupidity from the masses you goddamn bint.

And they didn't have to have the shield on their arm all the time. they had a wago n or squire like I've mentioned previously to hold it for them, and in battle there was such a thing as a sling that they use for shields.

As for them switching their weapons entirely due to plate was when they started favouring rapiers and baskethilts over flat out sword to stab at weaknesses in the armour rather than to try bash through it you uneducated filth.

Try actually reading through what I wrote instead of blabbing what you think is right because you were too stupid to acknowledge historical references.

>>49872187

Yes there is. Plate makes an opponent practically invulnerable to swords. Hence maces and polarms being a thing.

No one weapon is superior jagoff. Let people do what's fun.

>>49879157

>Dirty europoors is a good example on how to do combat

lmaoing at your life mate

the asians just called, they want to tell you to not use shitty regional powers that could barely keep control of a country the size of fucking france as a measuring stick for good understanding of pre-gunpowder warfare

>>49879200
kek

>>49878931
France didn't begin sending aid to American forces until a year after hostilities started, didn't offer direct military assistance until 1778 following the American victory at Saratoga, and didn't engage in any major land operations until 1781.

File: 1379278970907.png (320KB, 492x381px) Image search: [Google]

320KB, 492x381px

>>49879200
We're talking about plate armour and the like, c'mon man.

>What is the 100 year war
>What is War of the Roses
>Asia mostly used lamellar or rendition of scale and chain
>No plate
pls

>>49874435

screencapped for future threads, thank you

>>49879279
And we were eating shit and getting shat on by the British until that help came from France. Until the French showed up our 'war' was basically a series of defeats with an occasional victory.

>>49879200
How's that Mongol cock taste Chinaman?

I wouldn't know because the Hungarians bounced the Mongols off of Europe with walls of stone and corpses.

>>49875752
Go to bed, Matt. You're drunk.

>>49872511
Vikings where dark age gang bangers stealing everything that wasn't nailed down because Norway fucking sucked and they starved to death in winter otherwise. You're basically saying we should all use rusty knock off brand 9mms instead of assault weapons because the Bloods and Crips rack up plenty of bodies with these powerful weapons.

>>49872412
You two guys are the only other people in this thread, right? Have fun at your sleepover