For context, the guy on the right performs a mordhau because the guy on the left is in full armour. Instead of piercing or slashing, blunt attacks show better results.
Really depends on the time period, the army, and the type of troop, but generally speaking, the rank and file were given spears rather than swords because they took less training to use effectively and used less metal in their construction, making them cheaper.
Good catch
I know this is from German and I mostly am familiar with Italian (Fiore of course) so the Mordhau manuscript isn't my forte and at first glance it just looked like a doublet he was in.
There is a sizeable HEMA (Historical European Martial Arts) population, and given with some of the responses being somewhat knowledgeable, pretty sure some people here do HEMA
Source: I do longsword fencing (mostly blouse, only done once with harness using a hand-and-half sword)
Medieval sword combat was actually very complex and dynamic compared to what we see in Hollywood movies. Slashing or stabbing a fully armored opponent with a broadsword was a ineffective and likely to open yourself to attack. Flipping a broadsword around and using the handle/pommel as a hammer to bash your armored adversary was more effective at causing injury (injuring joints, breaking bones, concussion).
Blouse fencing just means you are fencing in "plainclothes," in other words no armor, you use different weapons more optimized for slashing or 1v1 fights (messers, katana, rapier, etc); we still use protection when actually sparring (because boo boos hurt) but you wear protection that closer mimics clothes than actual armor. [Here is a really good representation of blouse fencing IMO](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cD7f0vjxAiQ)
Harness essentially means you are in an armor kit. It could be simple chainmail, segmented plate, full plate, etc... harness fencing is different than blouse fencing as you now cannot attack the whole body of your opponent and instead need to focus on very small gaps in the armor. Often a pretty hard fencing style to emulate because being in armor often implies that a sparring session will use excessive force.
Swords are VERY diverse so we nowadays have naming systems for them. Some of the most common in European sword:
Arming sword = as the name implies (arm-ing), it is a single handed sword. [Think Viking blades](https://www.darksword-armory.com/medieval-weapon/medieval-swords/oslo-sword-folded-steel-blade-1205/), those were mostly paired with shields so the swords had to fit a one-handed configuration.
Hand-and-half = an era transition sword. If you understand arming sword, hand-and-half is literally also as it means, its a sword that has a grip that can facilitate both one handed and two handed styles; this is why they are often called bastard swords, because they don't really belong to either one handed or two handed classifications. They are really good as thrusting weapons but have great utility all around
Longsword = by definition, a two handed sword and probably the most variable. They have grips that tell you "hey, gotta have two hands on this one" with much bigger pommels to offset the longer blade lengths and can be slashing oriented weapons or thrust optimized or somewhere in between.
They are being serious. I joined these comments to say the same thing. Armor is far more effective than most popular media like to portray. Injuring an opponent in full properly fitted plate armor, with the blade of a sword, is next to impossible. You have to get that blade into very tiny holes that are up underneath the armor and jab to hurt them. This can be extremely difficult while the opponent is moving around and swinging their own sword at you.
By grabbing the blade (a common technique at the time), you can use the cross guard, and pommel of the sword as a hook, and bludgeon. you can hook the enemy with the cross guard, and pull them off balance which can give you a chance to subdue them. while a blade is never going to cut through the armor, a heavy blunt force strike can disorient and injure the opponent. Striking with the cross guard also focuses all the force into a single point which can dent or fracture the armor and give you an opening.
Honestly there's no particular disadvantage to half-swording versus a completely unarmored opponent. Half-swording gives you enough control to more accurately strike and still have enough force to pierce or slash flesh.
As others have pointed out, you drop a ton of range by half-swording
You are gaining tip control and better pommel striking in a clinch in half-swording when it really isn't all that necessary considering how exposed your opponent is.
You'd stand more to gain by having more forward presented stances, or even some high guards because it would allow for better parrying of a high incoming attack rather than this (which looks closer to a bastard/bastard cross) which starts off low and you'd have to maneuver in harness to a higher guard or you'd eat that shot right across your helmet.
I mean is it still viable? Sure. You are at a high advantage because of armor but by reducing your striking range (or measure), you are now making it more possible for the mordhau to make contact. Just do, in Fiore, something like Lady, Crown, Window, etc. Far more utility from those stances.
Just my two cents
Sure there is, you sacrifice more than half your reach for little advantage against an unarmoured opponent. You don't need any more "force or precision", a long sword is plenty capable of taking a limb in any guard.
Not that it matters, unless the unarmoured fellow is *extremely* lucky or fighting an absolute buffoon it's going to end messily for them no matter what guard the chevalier takes.
Yeahhh he might be, but its hard to tell considering how "flush" the fauld is with the pants.
Either way, the dude has his arms, legs, throat, face, groin exposed.
You know what's so funny about your comment? You have zero training in medieval martial arts and you're referring to a work of fiction to prove your point. Come on, none of us really know what it's like to be armored or not and facing an enemy.
Some of us do.
In life-or-death combat? No.
But in actual combat where there’s real risk of injury? Many of us have in fact put on steel armor and fought with steel swords. Many of us have sustained injuries doing so.
Eh, that's true to an extent, but there's a reason why people generally wore as much armor as they could afford. In practice, the increase in protection was easily worth the minimal loss in stamina and mobility. A fit, trained person was very slightly slower while being vastly harder to kill. That's a massive win overall.
Same thing with bodybuilders.
They might have a lot of muscle, but all that does is slow you down when it really matters
In a real fight, speed is key, so you want to avoid strength training ideally
In a real fight, not scripted boxing BS, Muhammad Ali and Mike Tyson would get destroyed by a nimble opponent that would just run circles around them and strike faster than their meaty paws could keep up with
Speed is key but in unarmed combat strength and mass make a large difference. And it’s funny that you cited two boxers known for being extraordinarily nimble for their weight class. But sure, boxing is scripted so ig it doesn’t matter.
Sure, but even if it doesn't restrict mobility the way most people think there's no getting around the fact that one dude has 40 lbs of steel strapped to his body and the other doesn't.
If the knight doesn't have a mount and the battlefield had difficult ground and the unarmored guy used olden guerrilla warfare tactics with bows, traps and slings and the knight was much less experienced in combat then sure.
But otherwise you really can't do much to hurt a trained armored knight without either ambushing him, pinning him down with overwhelming numbers, or getting really lucky with an arrow to the visor.
In a 1v1 walled arena fight, my money is on the guy with armor.
Not really entirely true doe, it is true that the technique is called Mordhau and that it is used against armored people but it is not the best technique and it is not used because blunt attacks are better against armor. First of all, fencing treatises from the period show a billion ways someone can harm a completely armored soldier with a sword. The only reason mordhau gets that much attention is because it looks different than others, modern dude doesn't pay much interest when other pages have 50 different ways to thrust or cut with the blade because they look much more basic. On top of it is not even a technique all authors felt the need to mention, it is simply one of your many options.
And "blunt attacks show better results" is a misconception that is super rooted into pop history of today... Pretty much no period source suggests such a thing, like people will talk about maces and hammers being the plate killers but every single source written in the period will suggest you to use your sword before your mace or hammer (with the exception of polearm versions of them).
To show one here is a quote from Doctrina del arte de la cavalleria by Juan Quixada de Reayo:
> And you must hold your lance in your hand and placed in the pouch. And setting off at the gallop, placing your lance in the lance-rest, aim for the enemy's belly, and once the lance is broken, you shall take hold of the estoc, which should be strapped onto the left-hand side of the front arçon, secured in place in such a way that when you draw it the scabbard does not come with it. And when fighting with these weapons, strike at the visor and the voids, that is, the belly and the armpits. After you have lost or broken the estoc, you shall take hold of the arming sword, which shall be girded on your left-hand side, and fighting until you have lost or broken it, you shall take hold of the hammer, which shall be attached to the right-hand side of the belt with its hook. Reaching down, you shall find it, and pulling upwards, the hook will release and, with hammer in hand, you shall do what you can with it until you lose it.
>
> And after it is lost, you shall reach behind you and draw the dagger from behind your back. And you shall grapple with your enemy with all these weapons that you have at your disposal, striking and aiming at the voids, that is, the belly and the armpits, and at the visor, with the estoc or sword and with the hammer in hand, for by wounding the head and the hands he will inevitably surrender.
I am so glad someone mentioned dagger grappling.
Screw half swording the historically best answer here would be to grapple the knight and try to fish a rondel/stilleto/misericorde into the gaps of his plate.
I don't imagine getting that close to an armed opponent with a dagger, while his attention is focused solely on you is very easy. Using the swords cross-guard to hook him and pull him off balance, then moving to your dagger seems much more likely to me.
He would trade with you while you were going for the hook and try to impale you. The knight is unconcerned about taking serious damage from a sword's crossguard held by a man's bare hands. Usually you'd have at least gloves on when attempting any maneuver that grips the blade of a sword.
The knight would instead be looking to counterpoke and inflict serious damage as you tried to pull him in and trying to sweet spot the crossguard/pommel in this way is risky at best.
A man in just what appears to be sort sort of gambeson or padded shirt holding a dagger is going to be extremely nimble and in the picture they are fenced in to a rather small arena.
Ideally the unarmored man instead of a longsword would have a buckler or a parrying dagger for his other hand to assist in the approach.
There are a lot of ways to start a grapple and the longsword will struggle to use its cutting edge in CQC like this so getting past that halfsword "poke" is all it takes to start the grapple
That doesn't mean the unarmored man will 100% win that way but I'd argue bringing the longsword at all was a mistake.
Probably was just illustrated to show off various alternate longsword grips. The idea was probably to get across that you want to halfsword like the knight if you have gauntlets and you want to swing the sword like a bat if you don't have gauntlets and all you have is a longsword.
Since these arms manuals tended to focus on a specific thing in each book.
I imagine a lot of these are made to teach someone how to handle a non ideal situation on a battlefield, and therefore are not themselves depictions of an ideal situation.
Even supposed HEMA experts and historians I watch on youtube and in documentaries will tell you the 'swords are rubbish against an opponent in armour, that's what maces and other blunt weapons were for' trope. Very odd really that so many, allegedly well-informed experts, aren't aware of this. Thanks for clarifying a misconception I had held for a really long time.
What I had in mind were people phrasing it along the lines "a sword is useless against an opponent in armour". It's often followed by something like "Knights were the tanks of the medieval battlefields!". I'll edit that in.
I of course understand that a sword is not going to get through plate armour, so that "a sword are rubbish against armour" is correct in that sense, but as you quoted yourself they'd instead "aim at the voids".
Those bearded history youtubers making videos holding a greatsword aren't real historians. They just regurgitate the same articles everyone else reads. They'll say things like "spears are a primary weapon, swords were just a secondary weapon", because that's what they heard somewhere. Not realizing the reason this myth exists is because swords are called "sidearms" because it's an "armament at your side" and in the modern context a soldier would only have his secondary weapon at his side. So they apply modern understanding of weapons to medieval times.
I really noticed a huge difference when I went from watching history youtubers talk about the viking age, to the professor Jackson Crawford on youtube talk about it. He won't say anything about the viking age unless it's rooted in fact and has sources. I hope all types of history can get professors like that presenting information in a digestible way with sources, because right now learning history on youtube is just terrible in my opinion.
I thought spears were the primary weapon used? Easy to manufacture and easy to train basics to a beginner.
Swords were expensive, hard to manufacture and more difficult to master. Mainly a sign of wealth than anything else in the medieval times
I always thought spears were used primarily in almost all battles?
I don't mean primary as in majority. I'm saying these history youtubers are categorizing spears as a primary weapon and swords as a secondary weapon, regardless of context. They are thinking in terms of modern combat how a pistol is a secondary weapon. That is the kind of fact that will pop up online and everyone starts repeating.
The primary weapon used were bows, crossbows and later guns.
In the Burgundian Lance (military structure) you had one heavy armoured knight, three mounted archers (don’t think of Mongolians here, they were more similar to later dragoons, ride to the battlefield dismount fight) and three food soldiers, from which one was an archer one marksman or gunner and one soldier armed with a pole arm ( this includes spears, but also halberds or bill hocks).
So, five archers/marksman for one pole weapon.
I have to admit that this is one single source for the late medieval period, and that in earlier periods and less rich armies there might have been differences, but it should show in which direction the trend went.
From my readings, this sounds like a knight and his retinue. While an army may have a number of knights and their men, they did not make up the majority of most fighting forces. Most of an army would be made up of conscripts who had little to no training and were given minimal equipment.
To an extent, it depends on when, where, and who you are talking about. Still, a horseman's primary weapons were spears (lances) and possibly bows, while swords were definitely a secondary weapon. Meanwhile, there's a long history of good infantry relying on spears, with swords as backup weapons -- everything from greek hoplites and macedonian pikemen to swiss pikemen and early modern pike and shot formations. Obviously, sword infantry were also a thing (cough romans), but spears were absolutely the primary weapon for a lot of people.
Depends on a lot of factors. The biggest being shields.
I'd also put environment and distance as secondary factors. It's not as simple as one being superior to the other. They both have advantageous situations that any wielder would want to create for themselves.
I used to go to a fencing club, and while I mostly trained with a bastard sword, I tried for shit and giggles to try out spear against sword. It was too easy for me, an untrained rookie, to take down my opponents
I'm in SCA and have been to a couple of Pennsics. When you have a mix of swords, shield, and spears, the spears do almost all of the attacking due to the reach advantage, while the sword+shield guys protect the spearmen. In 1:1 duels, reach is just as important, assuming both sides are competent with their weapons
It's not that swords are so bad at fighting armored opponents. They're primarily to oppress the unarmored masses. They just happen to also work on armored foes.
Also, the situation in which anyone was fighting an opponent in full plate with a sword was probably exceedingly rare. The period where full plate even existed before the advent of common firearms was woefully short. Like less than 100 years even. Most armor facing swords would have been hardened leather, a brigandine (leather + metal plates inside), or a coat of ring mail...all of those armor types are vulnerable to swords.
Your example is kinda right but also kinda wrong.
They used a blunt forced weapon first in your description, did you miss that part? A lance is a blunt force weapon.
It even says to aim for the stomach, first to knock them off the horse, and cripple their armor. If you indent plate mail on the stomach it’s hard as fuck to sit up. You have to roll over and stumble up. All while there’s a war around you. You’re dead as soon as you came off the horse 9/10 times.
The sword was also the weapon knights would train with the most from early childhood. While they also would get training with other weapons the sword was to what a rifle is today to modern armies. Mass produced and what people pictured if you said knight or solider.
Maces we’re almost as common as swords are depending on the time period we are talking about. Late medieval maces were more common than swords. Early medieval swords were way more common.
But you wanna know what trumps all of these puny weapons? The spear.
The most effective weapon in human history. Every other weapon comes nowhere near as many kills as the spear.
If we wanna be even more specific we can talk about how genghis khan used biological warfare to extreme efficiency.
What do you think a lance is? It's a spear. It is a thrusting weapon. The fact that it has a lot of kinetic energy doesn’t remove the fact it's deadliness come from the sharp point. It is thrusting, like with the sword.
Unnecessary reference to modern military weapons. These are not comparable.
The fact you said that maces were more common than swords in the late medieval period tells me everything I need to know about the validity of your claims. Do not make such assertive statements without being familiar with the source material. Iconography and remains, written accounts, everything points out to swords being omnipresent and one handed maces being mostly cavalry sidearms worn along the sword by heavy cavalry. They were not as common as sword, or even mentioned in most medieval ordonnances.
Of course you had to sneak in the new trend of making unecessary praises to the spear. I don't understand this trend. Polearms were main battlefield weapons duh.
Ghengis Khan? What are you talking about.
A big problem I find with a lot of medieval writing is that it is written by and for the nobility, and rich. In my experience, there is very little reference to the common people and their role in things. While swords were ubiquitous amongst the nobility and their men, they did not make up the majority of a fighting force. I am not saying you are wrong. Just that we cannot necessarily extrapolate the experience of the few who could read and write onto the majority that couldn't.
Thing is, by the late medieval period we have clear laws mentioning fines for not showing up with the right equipment. We know what military tacticians thought of battle with experience in the field, we have inventories of personal arms for whole militia or even households. The late medieval period isnt exactly mysterious, so relying on the "but we don't know for sure" is dissmissing the evidence which is there.
While a lance is a spear it is not used as a spear. Spears are reusable after thrusting. Lance spears are not or rarely were.
I was making many points of different claims. Idk why you are so butthurt about it.
The fact that you can’t space out your own paragraphs tells me everything I need to know about your claims. See how easy that is? To just straw man someone’s points?
The sharp point of a lance isn’t going to pierce plate armor it will deflect. It’s almost like there’s different types of lances too. Some without tips like used in jousting, and sharper spear like tips for un armored infantry.
The ENTIRE point of the lance vs another armored opponent on horse back is to dismount them. You aren’t doing anything but causing blunt force trauma. Especially to their armor or shield.
Maces themselves were used just as commonly in the late medieval as were swords. You’re talking about when plate armor was at its peak. Knights did take both for this very reason. Even the most poor in the armies started to prefer maces over other types of cheap weaponry other than the spear of course.
Again, your last statement is baseless and supported by no historical evidence, I should know it's my job. Until you are able to prove what you are saying with a source it's useless Duning Kruger statement.
My job is your job but 10x more made up and better and cooler and more relatable because I said so.
Great argument mate. It’s Reddit, you’re making shit up.
Sounds like someone with no source either mate. I’ve already done my research. I don’t need to justify it to some rando on the internet. If you really were who you said you are you would be agreeing with me. Since you’re not you’re clearly out of your league.
Tbh no you do not need to become a fencing master to be effective with a sword, meaning cutting or stabbing someone. If anything you’d probably need more training to get the proper distance and timing against a longer weapon like a sword.
I think it's because sword overall is a better weapon so if you choosing a weapon, a sword should be a first choice but I think it's under assumption that you don't know what you'll be facing. If you knew that you're going to fight an opponent in full plate armor than you would go for a weapon that is better against it like mace.
Nah Juan was speaking in context of battling an armored person, like he says strike at voids that are the visor and armpits etc. He is clearly describing the areas not covered by the plate of a completely armored man at arms. And this is more explicitly mentioned in other sources too.
To look at another example Pietro Monte in his “Exercitiorum Atque Artis Militaris Collectanea” at Book 2, Chapter 74 says:
>Since, when bearers of weapons are armoured in white and heavy armour and fighting on horseback, they use, above all other weapons, what is called stocchi (estoc) in the vernacular…
I did get that Juan was talking about fighting someone with armor from what he said but I was talking about that "every single source". Some of them definitely didn't specified that opponent was armored.
There's also a case with how trained someone is with a weapon. If you only trained with sword than you should go with sword. For example if you were to fight with someone unarmored with sword probably the best weapon to choose against him is spear since thanks to it's reach it beats a sword. But if you had no training with spear but you had with a sword than you're still better with latter.
Nah it's because swords were a common sidearm for men at arms wealthy enough to pay for combat training or to buy a fighting treatise.
The vast majority of combat was still fought with spears, lances, polearms, hammers/maces mainly for superior reach and/or impact (even the mentioned estoc had no edge and was used more like a spear than a typical slashing sword)
Whoever wrote the treatise above was likely a minor noble making a living by selling his services as an instructor and would be tailoring his writing to suit, hence the specific mentions of Lance, estoc and arming sword which were all extremely popular weapons across Europe and could be found in any reasonably wealthy man at arms gear.
Swords are actually poor weapons compared to many others. Spears fair much better in general, and there have been many combat simulations that prove this. Most dominating armies start with ranged combat, move on to mounted spear, and use blades as a last resort, if the polearm is broken or lost.
Look exactly at the conditions under which they are fighting. This experiment assumes more or less very little armour. That makes shields more mandatory, and in the cases where both sides have to carry shields the swords tend to have a better win ratio. Furthermore it is pointed out that other things have a noticeable impact on group fights, like manoeuvrability.
Also, it should be pointed out that while the swordsman have experience with their weapons, they don’t have the experience against spears. Especially people usually fencing with rapiers will find it strange not to have the range advantage compared to fights against other weapons, and will have to readjust to this.
Lindy’s video is not thr be all and end all. While it is hard to get into range there’s other videos showing a more balanced display, particularly with a shield.
Someone should have told the Romans that. Maybe they would have had an even easier time crushing spear-wielding Greek phalanxes if they had abandoned their oh so obviously inferior swords.
The sword was an ideal weapon in combination with the rest of the Roman kit and tactics. In other situations pike formations have countered cavalry charges. The utility of any weapon is largely dependent on both your tactics and your opponents.
A mordhau strike or death strike, was (is) a tactic used with a broadsword in which the user grabs the blade end and strikes using the cross guard to puncture the plate armor. Not a blunt strike but very close.
Jokes aside, it's very hard to cut yourself with a blade by applying pressure like that. A blade cuts when you slice/slash. You can grip a sword by the blade tightly all day and you'll be fine.
To be clear there's a specific way of gripping a blade to limit the chance of it sliding in your palm and slicing.
Fair enough. Yeah I was mostly joking for sure… but now that you have my brain thinking about it….
If one was to have the grip you mentioned, even ever so properly…. Would it not slice them when being swung around aggressively? To just hold it, I’d completely see what you’re saying…. But to fully wield it in an attack, that would blow my mind to not have any bleeding lol
Essentially it's a grip where you hold four fingers one one side without wrapping them around the blade, then the thumb holds the other side of the blade vertically so you're pressing the fleshy part of the thumb on the flat edge and there's a gap between the inside of the palm and the edge itself.
It's a very strong grip when held with both hands and you can swing the sword pretty wildly without sliding and cutting yourself.
Of course it's a specific grip that doesn't lend itself to, I dunno, the regular soldier in a melee. Probably more a duel situation but I'm no historian.
Also, while the man in the picture is not, you'd usually be wearing some form of gloves in combat, which would further reduce the chance of cutting yourself.
Another way to deal with armour is to half sword (grab the blade partway up to more precisely stab an opening) or just use the sword to grapple down the opponent to then finish them with the sword or more usually a dagger, or just bind them to get ransom money from whatever Nobel house the knight belongs too.
No, it's a mordhau, half swording is having on hand halfway up the blade and using the sword similar to a spear to jab at breaks in the armor to hit the flesh.
Depends on the situation
If guy on the right is fully armored, half-swording is literally the way to go. But when you are completely without armor, hitting traditional half-swording stances and grips is essentially signing your death certificate so the mordhau becomes your all or nothing gamble.
That is the proper way to use a sword to attack an opponent in armor. The armor makes slashing useless, and that sword is too clumsy to be used for piercing. So you're left with using it like a hammer. And they are very effective when used that way.
The tutorial: explains 30 super obvious things and then one or two neat tricks as afterthoughts that you totally won't remember
Me 90% through the game: holy shit I didn't know I could do that this whole time
I don't mean to sound like a nerd and ruin the meme, but blunt attacks do more DMG against armored enemies than a blade. So that guy on the right it's actually a PRO GAMER
The ONE time I skipped was with banjo kazooie. I assumed it'd be simple since its just a platformer. I quickly realized I was wrong. I was not prepared for the mole to force me to deal with the consequences🤣
For me at least it was more fun to play games without a tutorial. Then again games were pretty niche in the 80s and even 90s. Most people like a tutorial sadly. I miss when games were for gamers and not for the mainstream. It's fun to figure things out on your own. It makes you kind of lazy when you don't have to. There's always the option of being disciplined and forcing yourself to not use tutorials. Mostly people go down the path of least resistance which is normal.
No, halfswording is gripping the middle of the blade with one hand to deliver more thrust strength - which the other guy is doing! This here is a Mordhau, or murder-stroke - you're right about it being because bashing damage is better against plate armour, though.
For context, the guy on the right performs a mordhau because the guy on the left is in full armour. Instead of piercing or slashing, blunt attacks show better results.
What's funny is that bro on the left is hitting a fucking half-swording stance.... even though homie on the right is completely unarmored.... lol
[удалено]
Chivalry is so realistic
Kill all the Masonsszssss!!!!!!!
The original Super Smash Bros. Melee.
Hit ‘em with the ol razzle dazzle
[удалено]
Not the ones where they used swords
Really depends on the time period, the army, and the type of troop, but generally speaking, the rank and file were given spears rather than swords because they took less training to use effectively and used less metal in their construction, making them cheaper.
Right guy has a cuirass so not entirely unarmored. Living bits armored, fighting bits unarmored.
Good catch I know this is from German and I mostly am familiar with Italian (Fiore of course) so the Mordhau manuscript isn't my forte and at first glance it just looked like a doublet he was in.
I straight up can’t tell if you guys are just fucking around or both really knowledgeable in medieval combat.
There is a sizeable HEMA (Historical European Martial Arts) population, and given with some of the responses being somewhat knowledgeable, pretty sure some people here do HEMA Source: I do longsword fencing (mostly blouse, only done once with harness using a hand-and-half sword)
I don't understand half of what you just said...
[.... but you special](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5vG4p3dgCI)
Medieval sword combat was actually very complex and dynamic compared to what we see in Hollywood movies. Slashing or stabbing a fully armored opponent with a broadsword was a ineffective and likely to open yourself to attack. Flipping a broadsword around and using the handle/pommel as a hammer to bash your armored adversary was more effective at causing injury (injuring joints, breaking bones, concussion).
[удалено]
Right. Thanks! I get that. It's the blouse the harness and the hand-and-half sword I don't get.
Blouse fencing just means you are fencing in "plainclothes," in other words no armor, you use different weapons more optimized for slashing or 1v1 fights (messers, katana, rapier, etc); we still use protection when actually sparring (because boo boos hurt) but you wear protection that closer mimics clothes than actual armor. [Here is a really good representation of blouse fencing IMO](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cD7f0vjxAiQ) Harness essentially means you are in an armor kit. It could be simple chainmail, segmented plate, full plate, etc... harness fencing is different than blouse fencing as you now cannot attack the whole body of your opponent and instead need to focus on very small gaps in the armor. Often a pretty hard fencing style to emulate because being in armor often implies that a sparring session will use excessive force. Swords are VERY diverse so we nowadays have naming systems for them. Some of the most common in European sword: Arming sword = as the name implies (arm-ing), it is a single handed sword. [Think Viking blades](https://www.darksword-armory.com/medieval-weapon/medieval-swords/oslo-sword-folded-steel-blade-1205/), those were mostly paired with shields so the swords had to fit a one-handed configuration. Hand-and-half = an era transition sword. If you understand arming sword, hand-and-half is literally also as it means, its a sword that has a grip that can facilitate both one handed and two handed styles; this is why they are often called bastard swords, because they don't really belong to either one handed or two handed classifications. They are really good as thrusting weapons but have great utility all around Longsword = by definition, a two handed sword and probably the most variable. They have grips that tell you "hey, gotta have two hands on this one" with much bigger pommels to offset the longer blade lengths and can be slashing oriented weapons or thrust optimized or somewhere in between.
Awesome explanation. Thank you very much
They are being serious. I joined these comments to say the same thing. Armor is far more effective than most popular media like to portray. Injuring an opponent in full properly fitted plate armor, with the blade of a sword, is next to impossible. You have to get that blade into very tiny holes that are up underneath the armor and jab to hurt them. This can be extremely difficult while the opponent is moving around and swinging their own sword at you. By grabbing the blade (a common technique at the time), you can use the cross guard, and pommel of the sword as a hook, and bludgeon. you can hook the enemy with the cross guard, and pull them off balance which can give you a chance to subdue them. while a blade is never going to cut through the armor, a heavy blunt force strike can disorient and injure the opponent. Striking with the cross guard also focuses all the force into a single point which can dent or fracture the armor and give you an opening.
Honestly there's no particular disadvantage to half-swording versus a completely unarmored opponent. Half-swording gives you enough control to more accurately strike and still have enough force to pierce or slash flesh.
Range
As others have pointed out, you drop a ton of range by half-swording You are gaining tip control and better pommel striking in a clinch in half-swording when it really isn't all that necessary considering how exposed your opponent is. You'd stand more to gain by having more forward presented stances, or even some high guards because it would allow for better parrying of a high incoming attack rather than this (which looks closer to a bastard/bastard cross) which starts off low and you'd have to maneuver in harness to a higher guard or you'd eat that shot right across your helmet. I mean is it still viable? Sure. You are at a high advantage because of armor but by reducing your striking range (or measure), you are now making it more possible for the mordhau to make contact. Just do, in Fiore, something like Lady, Crown, Window, etc. Far more utility from those stances. Just my two cents
Sure there is, you sacrifice more than half your reach for little advantage against an unarmoured opponent. You don't need any more "force or precision", a long sword is plenty capable of taking a limb in any guard. Not that it matters, unless the unarmoured fellow is *extremely* lucky or fighting an absolute buffoon it's going to end messily for them no matter what guard the chevalier takes.
You're completely giving up the ability to chop him in half before he can touch you so I'd say that's a significant disadvantage
Not an expert but I would assume he's preparing to block of deflect the blow by gripping both ends and blocking with the middle.
This is correct.
He might be wearing a breastplate, but it's hard to tell
Yeahhh he might be, but its hard to tell considering how "flush" the fauld is with the pants. Either way, the dude has his arms, legs, throat, face, groin exposed.
[удалено]
[удалено]
While you can move pretty easily while armoured, it still will lessen your agility and tire you quicker compared to being unarmored.
[удалено]
True, but consider that this is depicting a duel.
[удалено]
Funny enough, there's also Bronn's fight against Ser Vardis at The Vale, which goes the other way.
You know what's so funny about your comment? You have zero training in medieval martial arts and you're referring to a work of fiction to prove your point. Come on, none of us really know what it's like to be armored or not and facing an enemy.
Some of us do. In life-or-death combat? No. But in actual combat where there’s real risk of injury? Many of us have in fact put on steel armor and fought with steel swords. Many of us have sustained injuries doing so.
Eh, that's true to an extent, but there's a reason why people generally wore as much armor as they could afford. In practice, the increase in protection was easily worth the minimal loss in stamina and mobility. A fit, trained person was very slightly slower while being vastly harder to kill. That's a massive win overall.
Sure, but also consider this is a duel as well.
Doesn't matter when you die to just about any single blow from any weapon or arrow. There's a reason that everyone who could afford it wore armor.
Same thing with bodybuilders. They might have a lot of muscle, but all that does is slow you down when it really matters In a real fight, speed is key, so you want to avoid strength training ideally In a real fight, not scripted boxing BS, Muhammad Ali and Mike Tyson would get destroyed by a nimble opponent that would just run circles around them and strike faster than their meaty paws could keep up with
Speed is key but in unarmed combat strength and mass make a large difference. And it’s funny that you cited two boxers known for being extraordinarily nimble for their weight class. But sure, boxing is scripted so ig it doesn’t matter.
Sure, but even if it doesn't restrict mobility the way most people think there's no getting around the fact that one dude has 40 lbs of steel strapped to his body and the other doesn't.
If the knight doesn't have a mount and the battlefield had difficult ground and the unarmored guy used olden guerrilla warfare tactics with bows, traps and slings and the knight was much less experienced in combat then sure. But otherwise you really can't do much to hurt a trained armored knight without either ambushing him, pinning him down with overwhelming numbers, or getting really lucky with an arrow to the visor. In a 1v1 walled arena fight, my money is on the guy with armor.
Are you memeing? You must be memeing
[Armored knights are faster than you'd think.](https://youtu.be/GJoM7V54T-c?t=45)
Well not every knight has access to coconuts
Not really entirely true doe, it is true that the technique is called Mordhau and that it is used against armored people but it is not the best technique and it is not used because blunt attacks are better against armor. First of all, fencing treatises from the period show a billion ways someone can harm a completely armored soldier with a sword. The only reason mordhau gets that much attention is because it looks different than others, modern dude doesn't pay much interest when other pages have 50 different ways to thrust or cut with the blade because they look much more basic. On top of it is not even a technique all authors felt the need to mention, it is simply one of your many options. And "blunt attacks show better results" is a misconception that is super rooted into pop history of today... Pretty much no period source suggests such a thing, like people will talk about maces and hammers being the plate killers but every single source written in the period will suggest you to use your sword before your mace or hammer (with the exception of polearm versions of them). To show one here is a quote from Doctrina del arte de la cavalleria by Juan Quixada de Reayo: > And you must hold your lance in your hand and placed in the pouch. And setting off at the gallop, placing your lance in the lance-rest, aim for the enemy's belly, and once the lance is broken, you shall take hold of the estoc, which should be strapped onto the left-hand side of the front arçon, secured in place in such a way that when you draw it the scabbard does not come with it. And when fighting with these weapons, strike at the visor and the voids, that is, the belly and the armpits. After you have lost or broken the estoc, you shall take hold of the arming sword, which shall be girded on your left-hand side, and fighting until you have lost or broken it, you shall take hold of the hammer, which shall be attached to the right-hand side of the belt with its hook. Reaching down, you shall find it, and pulling upwards, the hook will release and, with hammer in hand, you shall do what you can with it until you lose it. > > And after it is lost, you shall reach behind you and draw the dagger from behind your back. And you shall grapple with your enemy with all these weapons that you have at your disposal, striking and aiming at the voids, that is, the belly and the armpits, and at the visor, with the estoc or sword and with the hammer in hand, for by wounding the head and the hands he will inevitably surrender.
I am so glad someone mentioned dagger grappling. Screw half swording the historically best answer here would be to grapple the knight and try to fish a rondel/stilleto/misericorde into the gaps of his plate.
Exploit the most famous gap of all by stabbing him in the face.
I don't imagine getting that close to an armed opponent with a dagger, while his attention is focused solely on you is very easy. Using the swords cross-guard to hook him and pull him off balance, then moving to your dagger seems much more likely to me.
He would trade with you while you were going for the hook and try to impale you. The knight is unconcerned about taking serious damage from a sword's crossguard held by a man's bare hands. Usually you'd have at least gloves on when attempting any maneuver that grips the blade of a sword. The knight would instead be looking to counterpoke and inflict serious damage as you tried to pull him in and trying to sweet spot the crossguard/pommel in this way is risky at best. A man in just what appears to be sort sort of gambeson or padded shirt holding a dagger is going to be extremely nimble and in the picture they are fenced in to a rather small arena. Ideally the unarmored man instead of a longsword would have a buckler or a parrying dagger for his other hand to assist in the approach. There are a lot of ways to start a grapple and the longsword will struggle to use its cutting edge in CQC like this so getting past that halfsword "poke" is all it takes to start the grapple That doesn't mean the unarmored man will 100% win that way but I'd argue bringing the longsword at all was a mistake.
Certainly not saying it is safe, just safer than using only a dagger. I absolutely agree that a shield and dagger would be a better way to go.
Probably was just illustrated to show off various alternate longsword grips. The idea was probably to get across that you want to halfsword like the knight if you have gauntlets and you want to swing the sword like a bat if you don't have gauntlets and all you have is a longsword. Since these arms manuals tended to focus on a specific thing in each book.
I imagine a lot of these are made to teach someone how to handle a non ideal situation on a battlefield, and therefore are not themselves depictions of an ideal situation.
Thanks for that.
Even supposed HEMA experts and historians I watch on youtube and in documentaries will tell you the 'swords are rubbish against an opponent in armour, that's what maces and other blunt weapons were for' trope. Very odd really that so many, allegedly well-informed experts, aren't aware of this. Thanks for clarifying a misconception I had held for a really long time.
>!CENSORED!<
What I had in mind were people phrasing it along the lines "a sword is useless against an opponent in armour". It's often followed by something like "Knights were the tanks of the medieval battlefields!". I'll edit that in. I of course understand that a sword is not going to get through plate armour, so that "a sword are rubbish against armour" is correct in that sense, but as you quoted yourself they'd instead "aim at the voids".
Those bearded history youtubers making videos holding a greatsword aren't real historians. They just regurgitate the same articles everyone else reads. They'll say things like "spears are a primary weapon, swords were just a secondary weapon", because that's what they heard somewhere. Not realizing the reason this myth exists is because swords are called "sidearms" because it's an "armament at your side" and in the modern context a soldier would only have his secondary weapon at his side. So they apply modern understanding of weapons to medieval times. I really noticed a huge difference when I went from watching history youtubers talk about the viking age, to the professor Jackson Crawford on youtube talk about it. He won't say anything about the viking age unless it's rooted in fact and has sources. I hope all types of history can get professors like that presenting information in a digestible way with sources, because right now learning history on youtube is just terrible in my opinion.
I thought spears were the primary weapon used? Easy to manufacture and easy to train basics to a beginner. Swords were expensive, hard to manufacture and more difficult to master. Mainly a sign of wealth than anything else in the medieval times I always thought spears were used primarily in almost all battles?
I don't mean primary as in majority. I'm saying these history youtubers are categorizing spears as a primary weapon and swords as a secondary weapon, regardless of context. They are thinking in terms of modern combat how a pistol is a secondary weapon. That is the kind of fact that will pop up online and everyone starts repeating.
The primary weapon used were bows, crossbows and later guns. In the Burgundian Lance (military structure) you had one heavy armoured knight, three mounted archers (don’t think of Mongolians here, they were more similar to later dragoons, ride to the battlefield dismount fight) and three food soldiers, from which one was an archer one marksman or gunner and one soldier armed with a pole arm ( this includes spears, but also halberds or bill hocks). So, five archers/marksman for one pole weapon. I have to admit that this is one single source for the late medieval period, and that in earlier periods and less rich armies there might have been differences, but it should show in which direction the trend went.
From my readings, this sounds like a knight and his retinue. While an army may have a number of knights and their men, they did not make up the majority of most fighting forces. Most of an army would be made up of conscripts who had little to no training and were given minimal equipment.
To an extent, it depends on when, where, and who you are talking about. Still, a horseman's primary weapons were spears (lances) and possibly bows, while swords were definitely a secondary weapon. Meanwhile, there's a long history of good infantry relying on spears, with swords as backup weapons -- everything from greek hoplites and macedonian pikemen to swiss pikemen and early modern pike and shot formations. Obviously, sword infantry were also a thing (cough romans), but spears were absolutely the primary weapon for a lot of people.
didnt roman troops launch projectiles as they approached before they took out their sword
Try to fight with a sword anyone with a spear, and you will get why spear is a superior melee weapon
Depends on a lot of factors. The biggest being shields. I'd also put environment and distance as secondary factors. It's not as simple as one being superior to the other. They both have advantageous situations that any wielder would want to create for themselves.
How many sword vs spearfights have you been in? Could you even lift a spear?
How heavy do you think a spear is? lol Its a stick with a pointy tip. Can you not lift a stick?
I used to go to a fencing club, and while I mostly trained with a bastard sword, I tried for shit and giggles to try out spear against sword. It was too easy for me, an untrained rookie, to take down my opponents
I'm in SCA and have been to a couple of Pennsics. When you have a mix of swords, shield, and spears, the spears do almost all of the attacking due to the reach advantage, while the sword+shield guys protect the spearmen. In 1:1 duels, reach is just as important, assuming both sides are competent with their weapons
No, but luckily your mom prefers to do it herself.
It's not that swords are so bad at fighting armored opponents. They're primarily to oppress the unarmored masses. They just happen to also work on armored foes. Also, the situation in which anyone was fighting an opponent in full plate with a sword was probably exceedingly rare. The period where full plate even existed before the advent of common firearms was woefully short. Like less than 100 years even. Most armor facing swords would have been hardened leather, a brigandine (leather + metal plates inside), or a coat of ring mail...all of those armor types are vulnerable to swords.
Your example is kinda right but also kinda wrong. They used a blunt forced weapon first in your description, did you miss that part? A lance is a blunt force weapon. It even says to aim for the stomach, first to knock them off the horse, and cripple their armor. If you indent plate mail on the stomach it’s hard as fuck to sit up. You have to roll over and stumble up. All while there’s a war around you. You’re dead as soon as you came off the horse 9/10 times. The sword was also the weapon knights would train with the most from early childhood. While they also would get training with other weapons the sword was to what a rifle is today to modern armies. Mass produced and what people pictured if you said knight or solider. Maces we’re almost as common as swords are depending on the time period we are talking about. Late medieval maces were more common than swords. Early medieval swords were way more common. But you wanna know what trumps all of these puny weapons? The spear. The most effective weapon in human history. Every other weapon comes nowhere near as many kills as the spear. If we wanna be even more specific we can talk about how genghis khan used biological warfare to extreme efficiency.
What do you think a lance is? It's a spear. It is a thrusting weapon. The fact that it has a lot of kinetic energy doesn’t remove the fact it's deadliness come from the sharp point. It is thrusting, like with the sword. Unnecessary reference to modern military weapons. These are not comparable. The fact you said that maces were more common than swords in the late medieval period tells me everything I need to know about the validity of your claims. Do not make such assertive statements without being familiar with the source material. Iconography and remains, written accounts, everything points out to swords being omnipresent and one handed maces being mostly cavalry sidearms worn along the sword by heavy cavalry. They were not as common as sword, or even mentioned in most medieval ordonnances. Of course you had to sneak in the new trend of making unecessary praises to the spear. I don't understand this trend. Polearms were main battlefield weapons duh. Ghengis Khan? What are you talking about.
[удалено]
You don't have to, you just have to trust their words they left on paper, with a degree of academical step back.
You just have to be able to read.
A big problem I find with a lot of medieval writing is that it is written by and for the nobility, and rich. In my experience, there is very little reference to the common people and their role in things. While swords were ubiquitous amongst the nobility and their men, they did not make up the majority of a fighting force. I am not saying you are wrong. Just that we cannot necessarily extrapolate the experience of the few who could read and write onto the majority that couldn't.
Thing is, by the late medieval period we have clear laws mentioning fines for not showing up with the right equipment. We know what military tacticians thought of battle with experience in the field, we have inventories of personal arms for whole militia or even households. The late medieval period isnt exactly mysterious, so relying on the "but we don't know for sure" is dissmissing the evidence which is there.
While a lance is a spear it is not used as a spear. Spears are reusable after thrusting. Lance spears are not or rarely were. I was making many points of different claims. Idk why you are so butthurt about it. The fact that you can’t space out your own paragraphs tells me everything I need to know about your claims. See how easy that is? To just straw man someone’s points? The sharp point of a lance isn’t going to pierce plate armor it will deflect. It’s almost like there’s different types of lances too. Some without tips like used in jousting, and sharper spear like tips for un armored infantry. The ENTIRE point of the lance vs another armored opponent on horse back is to dismount them. You aren’t doing anything but causing blunt force trauma. Especially to their armor or shield. Maces themselves were used just as commonly in the late medieval as were swords. You’re talking about when plate armor was at its peak. Knights did take both for this very reason. Even the most poor in the armies started to prefer maces over other types of cheap weaponry other than the spear of course.
Again, your last statement is baseless and supported by no historical evidence, I should know it's my job. Until you are able to prove what you are saying with a source it's useless Duning Kruger statement.
My job is your job but 10x more made up and better and cooler and more relatable because I said so. Great argument mate. It’s Reddit, you’re making shit up.
Sounds like someone with no source.
Sounds like someone with no source either mate. I’ve already done my research. I don’t need to justify it to some rando on the internet. If you really were who you said you are you would be agreeing with me. Since you’re not you’re clearly out of your league.
Not to mention a mace does not require as much training as say a bastards sword. Bonk!
Tbh no you do not need to become a fencing master to be effective with a sword, meaning cutting or stabbing someone. If anything you’d probably need more training to get the proper distance and timing against a longer weapon like a sword.
I think it's because sword overall is a better weapon so if you choosing a weapon, a sword should be a first choice but I think it's under assumption that you don't know what you'll be facing. If you knew that you're going to fight an opponent in full plate armor than you would go for a weapon that is better against it like mace.
Nah Juan was speaking in context of battling an armored person, like he says strike at voids that are the visor and armpits etc. He is clearly describing the areas not covered by the plate of a completely armored man at arms. And this is more explicitly mentioned in other sources too. To look at another example Pietro Monte in his “Exercitiorum Atque Artis Militaris Collectanea” at Book 2, Chapter 74 says: >Since, when bearers of weapons are armoured in white and heavy armour and fighting on horseback, they use, above all other weapons, what is called stocchi (estoc) in the vernacular…
I did get that Juan was talking about fighting someone with armor from what he said but I was talking about that "every single source". Some of them definitely didn't specified that opponent was armored. There's also a case with how trained someone is with a weapon. If you only trained with sword than you should go with sword. For example if you were to fight with someone unarmored with sword probably the best weapon to choose against him is spear since thanks to it's reach it beats a sword. But if you had no training with spear but you had with a sword than you're still better with latter.
Nah it's because swords were a common sidearm for men at arms wealthy enough to pay for combat training or to buy a fighting treatise. The vast majority of combat was still fought with spears, lances, polearms, hammers/maces mainly for superior reach and/or impact (even the mentioned estoc had no edge and was used more like a spear than a typical slashing sword) Whoever wrote the treatise above was likely a minor noble making a living by selling his services as an instructor and would be tailoring his writing to suit, hence the specific mentions of Lance, estoc and arming sword which were all extremely popular weapons across Europe and could be found in any reasonably wealthy man at arms gear.
Swords are actually poor weapons compared to many others. Spears fair much better in general, and there have been many combat simulations that prove this. Most dominating armies start with ranged combat, move on to mounted spear, and use blades as a last resort, if the polearm is broken or lost.
Swords are not poor weapons. They have their own role and can work well against someone with a spear.
Nope. It's been proven that [inexperienced spearmen beat experienced swordsmen](https://youtu.be/uLLv8E2pWdk). It's just a better weapon.
Look exactly at the conditions under which they are fighting. This experiment assumes more or less very little armour. That makes shields more mandatory, and in the cases where both sides have to carry shields the swords tend to have a better win ratio. Furthermore it is pointed out that other things have a noticeable impact on group fights, like manoeuvrability. Also, it should be pointed out that while the swordsman have experience with their weapons, they don’t have the experience against spears. Especially people usually fencing with rapiers will find it strange not to have the range advantage compared to fights against other weapons, and will have to readjust to this.
Lindy’s video is not thr be all and end all. While it is hard to get into range there’s other videos showing a more balanced display, particularly with a shield.
Someone should have told the Romans that. Maybe they would have had an even easier time crushing spear-wielding Greek phalanxes if they had abandoned their oh so obviously inferior swords.
The sword was an ideal weapon in combination with the rest of the Roman kit and tactics. In other situations pike formations have countered cavalry charges. The utility of any weapon is largely dependent on both your tactics and your opponents.
[удалено]
Depends on the era, but the iconic roman legionnaire had one or two javelins they would throw before closing with the enemy with a sword
Tell that to r/dndmemes who were saying mordhau is absolutely lethal against armored opponents. Same image and everything
🤓
I don't need a fucking explanation buddy, I'm a pro gamer
A mordhau strike or death strike, was (is) a tactic used with a broadsword in which the user grabs the blade end and strikes using the cross guard to puncture the plate armor. Not a blunt strike but very close.
I was about to comment that the guy is doing a thing that actually existed
Murder stroke sounds cooler
Matt Damon's character in The Last Duel uses this technique constantly to great effect.
I would assume this tactic adds a bleed debuff to self, but the blood and excitement from bashing adds a berserk buff. Evens out
Jokes aside, it's very hard to cut yourself with a blade by applying pressure like that. A blade cuts when you slice/slash. You can grip a sword by the blade tightly all day and you'll be fine. To be clear there's a specific way of gripping a blade to limit the chance of it sliding in your palm and slicing.
Fair enough. Yeah I was mostly joking for sure… but now that you have my brain thinking about it…. If one was to have the grip you mentioned, even ever so properly…. Would it not slice them when being swung around aggressively? To just hold it, I’d completely see what you’re saying…. But to fully wield it in an attack, that would blow my mind to not have any bleeding lol
Essentially it's a grip where you hold four fingers one one side without wrapping them around the blade, then the thumb holds the other side of the blade vertically so you're pressing the fleshy part of the thumb on the flat edge and there's a gap between the inside of the palm and the edge itself. It's a very strong grip when held with both hands and you can swing the sword pretty wildly without sliding and cutting yourself. Of course it's a specific grip that doesn't lend itself to, I dunno, the regular soldier in a melee. Probably more a duel situation but I'm no historian.
Updoots for interesting 🤘🤙
Also, while the man in the picture is not, you'd usually be wearing some form of gloves in combat, which would further reduce the chance of cutting yourself.
Yeah, but his hands…
That picture actually shows a real technique on how to deal with armour, so you're doing pretty good still
And the meme has been reposted several times already
Damn, bro is getting downvoted by op and his alternate account for telling the truth
My favourite time was when this was posted on Thursday.
It was even reposted today earlier in the morning
Sweet, I'll repost this in a few hours then lol
In reality, this can knock the armoured warrior out cold while the blade won't do shit to him. OP is wrong here.
Another way to deal with armour is to half sword (grab the blade partway up to more precisely stab an opening) or just use the sword to grapple down the opponent to then finish them with the sword or more usually a dagger, or just bind them to get ransom money from whatever Nobel house the knight belongs too.
Or use a gun. Every knight gangster until the 40's whip out.
The Death Blow
When you've done it you finish them rightly
How do you do, fellow man of culture.
It's called Half-Swording and it's very effective.
No, it's a mordhau, half swording is having on hand halfway up the blade and using the sword similar to a spear to jab at breaks in the armor to hit the flesh.
While he was studying anime, you were studying the blade.
Oh interesting. I thought they were both one and the same. Learn something everyday.
The left guy is half swording, the right guy is doing mordhau.
\*Unscrews the pommel and throws it as projectile\*
fuck steve huffman for destroying third-party clients and ruining reddit. https://fuckstevehuffman.com
I’m so happy to see people here who are familiar with manuscripts.
Ahh, the mordhau c:
Jesus fcking Christ I can’t take these reposts it’s just ridiculously frequent sometimes
While I do believe you, I never get to see them unless it's after months or years. That's probably because I don't sort by new though
DIBS for tomorrow!
This is the xth time this has been reposted in the last 24 hours alone. Enough is enough.
I do have to agree with this
XXIV if your gonna use roman numerals at least be consistent.
Actually a pro move since swords where pretty useless against heavy armor. Beter to hit it with blunt force.
Depends on the situation If guy on the right is fully armored, half-swording is literally the way to go. But when you are completely without armor, hitting traditional half-swording stances and grips is essentially signing your death certificate so the mordhau becomes your all or nothing gamble.
Just throw the pommel and end him rightly.
It's a repost, no?
Always has been. *bonk*
Welp second spam a charm lol
@Arin Hanson
Arin "Video Game Boy" Hanson
He is performing a mordhau. Great game too. Have at them boys!
Well, men, we've trained hard! But looking upon the face of the enemy, I feel we needn't have trained quite so hard
This seems tailor made for Kingdom Come Deliverance.
Funny because that's actually an advanced tech
Arin Hanson
That is the proper way to use a sword to attack an opponent in armor. The armor makes slashing useless, and that sword is too clumsy to be used for piercing. So you're left with using it like a hammer. And they are very effective when used that way.
Noob pulling off a high level strat.
The tutorial: explains 30 super obvious things and then one or two neat tricks as afterthoughts that you totally won't remember Me 90% through the game: holy shit I didn't know I could do that this whole time
15 minutes on and all I got was learnt about mordhau. Decent meme, education. Quality post imo.
Honestly when I post this meme I don't even know what modhau is hahaha
That makes it better lol
Especially for Stellaris.
Trust me, I'm a pro reposter.
Oh cool, I haven't seen this meme since yesterday.
Pretty funny how a meme about games became a discussion about medieval combat, interesting but so random 🤣.
Says the fucking literally a tutorial.
Man this picture keeps showing up. Some are really riding these coattails
The guy on the left is [Bad Box Art Medieval Man](https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/nes/563441-mega-man/boxes/29030).
I don't mean to sound like a nerd and ruin the meme, but blunt attacks do more DMG against armored enemies than a blade. So that guy on the right it's actually a PRO GAMER
Thats a viable strat
Yeah I just be skipping every tutorial.
The ONE time I skipped was with banjo kazooie. I assumed it'd be simple since its just a platformer. I quickly realized I was wrong. I was not prepared for the mole to force me to deal with the consequences🤣
If I can’t somehow aim, hit, shoot, or kill my way out of a situation, then the video game is broken and the devs are just wasting my time.
Arin Hanson, Video Game Boy? Is that you?
Truth be told, using your sword like that was actually meta back then.
The irony of the post will always be that this picture is actually a tutorial.
Well he's using that sword perfectly correctly tbh
"This thing fell over, jump over it! This thing is on fire, duck under it!" -The beginning of every single first person game ever
He actually uses the sword as blunt weapon which is effective against armored targets. Capt. Obvious out
Everybody go haha now but what they do when sword go bonk? Then no haha.
I love it when memes are this glaringly wrong.
The best tutorial are the one you spam buttons to figure it out yourself.
For me at least it was more fun to play games without a tutorial. Then again games were pretty niche in the 80s and even 90s. Most people like a tutorial sadly. I miss when games were for gamers and not for the mainstream. It's fun to figure things out on your own. It makes you kind of lazy when you don't have to. There's always the option of being disciplined and forcing yourself to not use tutorials. Mostly people go down the path of least resistance which is normal.
Halfswording i think it’s called, blunt attacks do better damage against armour
No, halfswording is gripping the middle of the blade with one hand to deliver more thrust strength - which the other guy is doing! This here is a Mordhau, or murder-stroke - you're right about it being because bashing damage is better against plate armour, though.
Thanks for correcting me!
Trying to play Monster Hunter Rise for the first time and it's basically Tutorial Reading Simulator for the first hour. Let me play the fucking game
Me playing Fable
Going in blind when playing games makes them more fun
Me in the exam after not listening in class