Why doesn't film/tv get medieval sword fighting fight, why do they just try to pointless bash at iron plates with a sword?
Why doesn't film/tv get medieval sword fighting fight, why do they just try to pointless bash at iron plates with a sword?
Why doesn't film/tv get medieval sword fighting fight, why do they just try to pointless bash at iron plates with a sword?
what do you mean
They had complex swordplay and martial arts
which film and tv never show
xena had lots complex stuff
no it didn't
lifting the visor and stabbing seems unsportsmanlike
There are no rules in a street fight.
do you think real fights (not duels) looked like this?
Maybe not as fast, but yes. If you were walking along a country lane or in a town ally and some ruffians tried to waylay you you would draw your sword and defend yourself
Sounds like you read too many fantasy books
>all the fecht books written at the time and used by real swordsmen at the time were wrong
there are more books today saying trannies are women than the opposite. Are trannies women too anon?
>a manual on swordfighting is the same as peoples psychological condition
You said none of these things
it was left unsharpened close to the hilt
>You said none of these things
>most swords at the time didn't even have sharp edges since slashing and cutting had no effect on plate.
you either replied to the wrong post, or you're moronic.
>a manual on swordfighting is the same as peoples psychological condition
both are books stating facts. Those can be wrong. Like trannies are woman or halfswording. Also even if you believe halfswording was real (its not) its not really medieval technique
dilate and seethe
i accept your concession shadiversity
that's a Cinemaphile post and hence incorrect
fair enough. but your post about my post being incorrect is incorrect too therefore making my post correct. Until i made this post. So to inb4 and break the loop:
this whole post is incorrect
incorrect and debunked. see:
Were these actually used in combat?
Yes
The 'fechtbuchers' (fight books) were written by fencing masters with life experience who taught people that could have to defend themselves or fight in duels
reality is in regular combat someone would bash an armoured helmet in with a hammer or other blunt means. not saying half swording is unrealistic and not real but i think this is feudal lord snobbery at some points of being the best at killing another knightly man using finesse and your beautiful blade (which you also had because of status) rather than what a soldier would plainly do - grug smash
>reality is in regular combat someone would bash an armoured helmet in with a hammer or other blunt means.
see
They had blunt force weapons specifically designed to take on fully armored men-at-arms
and the longsword developed to attack the weakpoints in armor
just because someone can do something doesn't mean it was the best thing to do so or that prolific. most armies did not contain loads of armoured troops and swords and when armour was found, it was killed by any means necessary including gay wrestling, blunt force trauma, spiked weaponry and blades to weak points ranging from any old sword to very small thin knight killing daggers. I've even read of drowning knights.
they didn't break down into individual fights
they fought in tight formations
formations exist until they dont
once you lose formation the battle is over. see hastings
see those eye slits?
>every knight who had died from an arrow at Agincourt had been shot in the eye slit
>he doesn't know about halfarrowing
armpit, inside elbow, etc
the English had 4-6,000 archers
they had prepared the battlefield in advance and had the high ground
>armpit, inside elbow, etc
>the English had 4-6,000 archers
Bows can't shoot thru armor Jessica, thus the English bowmen were used to shoot the French horses and unarmored support troops, forcing the French to slog thru the mud and engage the English (who ere defending prepared positions) in hand-to-hand combat
Cope, seethe and dilate Frenchie.
agincourt never happened
How come?
it was fake, propaganda for the english to strengthen their claim to the french crown by divine right. there is no village of agincourt, only an "azincourt", you'd think the numerous scribes who claim to have been there would at least know the name of the place in which they claim the battle was fought. even today, no one actually knows the location where the battle was said to have taken place, and no historical artifacts of the battle have ever been found.
>a battle with not even 7000 casualties
>hurr there aint nothin left after 600 years!
lol
>7000 deaths 600 years ago: no evidence
>22,000 deaths 2000 years prior to agincourt at the battle of thermopylae: plenty of evidence
He probably means the longbowmen where not that decisive in the battle. Stakes and muddy terrain, plus a reckless french charge where more damaging to the french than the arrows
I think you are projecting something onto it that isn't really there
Sure, but the vast majority of actual knight-on-knight combat involved wrestling your opponent to the ground and stabbing him in the neck with your dagger until he stops moving, which typically doesn't make for very intriguing combat.
You still have to do this in most European cities
I presume you could afford a sword you weren't doing that without an armed guard.
Hard to say. I will incline for in the most cases, yeah. Depending of the rival expertise. Swords evolved from plain old bashing weapons designed to use force and momentum to do damage, to weapons designed to attack weak points on plate armour. And even that as plate became more common also did axes and blunt weapons. A poleaxe quickly replaced the sword as the dismounted knight's weapon of choice. But theory is still there, preserved and if you're capable enough you can use it to suit your needs, even if the rival is unpredictable
Swords coexisted along with all those other weapons
>Swords evolved from plain old bashing weapons designed to use force and momentum to do damage, to weapons designed to attack weak points on plate armour.
Please don't ever post about swords on this website ever again.
No
A move has it grabbing the sword by the edge, something you'll do with gauntlets, and another kicking a man's balls
This is not an instructive on how to fight accurately or efficiently, it looks like a self-thaught booklet made by an autist shut in-monk that was never in fight
I will never get tired of Anons' insistence on gainsaying on literally any subject as if they have all the knowledge of it
I may be wrong, but it's the same chance of being wrong as a couple morons taking anything old and written they can find, and using it as law, completely ignoring the fact that there were also morons back then
Yes, also morons that could write and draw
Do you think people never bother to verify a primary source?
>hey guys heckin HALFSWORDING
Sharty is your home.
Why do you think you’re too good for your home
What the webm doesn't show is how the guy is out of breath after this single roll and has to rest for minutes if he wants to keep moving.
Same here, the webm is a montage omitting indications of exhaustion from these seemingly simple movements.
What I'm trying to say is people underestimate the importance of economy of movements to preserve strength in actual combat or battle which last longer than edited videos and have mortal stakes. In this context, strive for realism doesn't leave place for spectacle.
>What the webm doesn't show is how the guy is out of breath after this single roll and has to rest for minutes if he wants to keep moving.
burgerbro... actual knights weren't skinnyfat redditors who take their car to the convenience store one block away
yes they were. they were sitting at home whole winter not doing shit. They jsut drank beer and ate bread. Regular amerifat today is in better hsape than medieval knight
>doubling down to try and make it seem like you were only pretending to be moronic all along
ahahaha homosexual just take the L you're anonymous, your precious little fragile ego is safe
cope and seethe. half of medieval kings were fatties just as everyone from gentry and above
knights spent a great deal of time practicing in their armor, especially running
This is toy armor for historical reenactments. You can dent it simply through punches and kicks.
>punching iron plates
Those are aluminum or tin or something, it's not real armor.
>everything that disagrees with me is wrong
why isn't it bending
A suit of field plate weighed ~55 pounds. It's perfectly possible for a trained man to move well with it on. Modern soldiers carry much more weight into battle.
No it isn't
>muh exhaustion
you dont suppose people practiced do you?
I only read about knights on the early 1000s, but I can tell you, they expended their whole time training or practicing their skills hunting and dueling, with plenty of meat on their diets. Specially during the unruly days of the early medieval ages was a common thing for bands of knights leaving their castles and attack another band. Usually with the purpose of raiding their neighbors. They made a reconstruction of a knight skull found on England and they saw how he was built like a rugby player because of his habits of food and training
>when any truly literate and learned man of the world knows and has seen that the world is Venice and nothing more
>I swear on me mum I'll bash yur fookin head in innit
> t. Fatass
>What the webm doesn't show is how the guy is out of breath after this single roll and has to rest for minutes if he wants to keep moving.
lmao real life is not like your shitty dark souls videogames, you fat piece of shit.
redditswording
you cant just attach reddit to any word and expect it to be an insult
this post is begging to be attached to a crying soiak face
typical response of a redditcat
That doesn't work.
>That doesn't work.
t. redditfork
Why? Because some dude drew pictures of those moves ages ago? Is there proof they were widly deployed?
Yes they were written about in the fechtbuchers
>Why? Because some dude drew pictures of those moves ages ago? Is there proof they were widly deployed?
Aristocrats, and “Men at Arms” , whether actual knights, or well trained mercenaries, would have had a certain amount of training with these types of skills.
“Tournaments” were used to show others that you were trained, or those who you employed, or who owed fealty to you, were well trained.
The actual use of these skills might be armed fights or duels in the city square after drinking, or in conflicts with strangers or muggers on highways while traveling.
In actual large scale conflict, knights and men at arms would likely do whatever they could to prevent getting killed, or to kill the other guy.
Most higher skill techniques in battle were probably more used to kill riff raff or lower skilled and lower armed and armored opponents.
Being able to disarm higher class opponents meant you could take those opponents as “hostages” to ransom.
Actual high skill fighting techniques were used though.
If you look at the various battles of the crusades, the battles were casualties snd losses are recorded tend to show much higher casualties on the muslim sides, unless the number of muslim troops was significantly higher than the number of crusader knights.
>swordplay
Real soldiers used polearms.
Swords are for telling people you are nobility.
Not true
Very true. To the point where the only way swords could compete outside of personal dueling was to become polearms themselves.
Swords didn't distinguish nobility and were frequently carried by polearm users
Short swords, dirks, were carried.
Swords are a symbol of prestige.
And you have conceded the fact that soldiers used polearms.
You have now shifted the goalpost to
>well they had other weapons, too!
A dirk was carried by many noble highlanders in the 18th century as well as by commoners. Short sword is not a medieval term. Commoners had swords.
>18th century
What a late stage era to cherry pick to.
There were regions throughout the middle ages where commoners were completely forbidden from owning weapons., Some just had bans on swords. Some made weaponry mandatory - but almost always it was spear or bow that mandatory.
Not swords.
Swords - especially around the time of the longsword which OP was specifically talking about - were for nobility.
I mentioned that because dirks are famous for being part of the highlanders' costume in 1745, ie calling attention to the fact that they have very little to do with the middle ages. On your other points you are either persisting in being wrong or semantically weaseling.
That admission alone shows that it wasn't just a status symbol.
Long dagger/short swords were around for much longer than that. I mention dirk just to give an example of size.
You have been consistently deflecting to things not in the scope of OP to make a point that holds no accuracy.
you are wrong.
Soldiers used polearms. Not swords.
They used polearms AND swords
well, it really was still a status symbol, the Man at Arms was still a servant and a minor landowner in some cases. To Serve implies a status, either to a knight or a lord. The knight also serves to a Lord. The sword was a piece of craft, dificult to make an expensive. To a knight or a Warrior it justified the cost. To a peasant it was more valuable a farming tool or a new cow. The sword as a status symbol comes from the value a determined social class gave it to it.
thats hilarious you moron, for instance during the neoplionic wars aka the 1800s only officers carried swords it was in fact illegal for anyone but officers to carry a sword, this was true of all nations involved, you frickwit
Now that you can trust.
he's right. At some point the knight became part of an arms race. Often being in a disadvantage against a peasant with a blunt or piercing weapon, or even a crossbow. Plate armour also made impossible for a sword to penetrate it, so the knights often dismounted and used poleaxes and halberds to gain an advantage against another plated knight. So the sword became more a status symbol than a actively used weapons
Again, commoners had swords too
depends of the commoner and the time period. Man at Arms and similar servants may had money for a sword. But a medieval peasant would had a farm tool or a simple spear. Weapons like the Bill and the Voulge where originally farm tools turned into weapons as the armies became more profesionalized. And even by the time armies became profesionalized like for example the French Army post the Hundred Years Wars, the sword wasn't as important compared to the Pike or the Halberd
see
please see the subsequent posts going on about Poleaxes
The cringe is unbearable. No Medieval knights weren't doing kung fu with swords moron, it was literally just poking at each other with sticks or swinging maces/trying to slide daggers in through the gaps
that's not medieval fencing you idiot. That's clearly late medieval/early rennaisance fencing. Developed by italian masters trying to make schools of fencing and preserving unrecorded knowledge
>why do they just try to pointless bash at iron plates with a sword?
because that's what almost all medieval combat was, especially after the development and proliferation of full plate armour. most swords at the time didn't even have sharp edges since slashing and cutting had no effect on plate.
>because that's what almost all medieval combat was
No, it wasn't.
A sword is not cutting plate iron.
As plate developed the one-handed Arming or Knightly Sword evolved into the two-handed Longsword. One of the ways it could be gripped was with one hand on the blade allowing greater dexterity in its control, almost like a prybar, to try to stab into the weak points of the armor, gripping it this way would also allow you to parry and use the pommel to bash or quickly flip it around to grip the blade with both hands and use the crossguards as a hammer to bash the helmet of an armored opponent. Have we ever seen this "murder stroke" in film or tv?
But even more importantly was the Poleaxe, this developed specifically to fight an armored opponent. It had a hammer to deliver blunt force trauma, an axehead to crack through joints, and a spear tip to pierce them.
>A sword is not cutting plate iron.
exactly what i wrote.
>to try to stab into the weak points of the armor
i.e. not cut or slash, as i wrote.
>grip the blade with both hands
meaning the blade is not sharp edged, as i wrote.
thanks for agreeing with me, anyway.
we have zero evidence any of the wacky bullshit on treatises were actually used
we dont even have evidence that halberds were used in war
>*hints blunt*
>dude what if like nothing we know is real
are you moronic?
>most swords at the time didn't even have sharp edges since slashing and cutting had no effect on plate.
What the frick is the point of posting this moronic shit?
So, you admit you have no idea what you are talking about.
Now we are making progress.
yes they did, the blade close to the hilt, an area called the ricasso, was left unsharpened to allow it to be held
that's a modern misconception. it was left unsharpened for three reasons:
a) because it kept the blade strength on longer blades given only the upper 2/3rds were used for cutting in most fights
2. because sharpening was a time consuming process and this made it 50% faster
Depends entirely on how good the choreographer is.
because HIMA gaygs are absolutely unbearable and no one wants to bother with them on set. Can you imagine having that shadiversity prick on your set every day? Constant squealing about sword pummels and double axes..
*dismounts, captures and ransoms your knight using farming equipment*
>1513
>medieval
Yes Anon, 1513 is part of the medieval age, good.
>billmen and archers did not exist pre 1500s
Cope homosexual
Because it actually was just bashing at iron plates, only with a mace.
None of that HEMA shit happened.
The medieval studies scholar demographic is kinda small and not terribly lucrative.
Because genuinely getting gud at sword fighting takes years of training, plus trying to do it legitimately has a lot of safety risks which can lead to lawsuits
>a-anon am I doing it right I feel so silly! teehee!
and then she trips, grabs you, falls over, and you land on top of one another
And then she sleeps naked with you and the boys.
this was a good idea for a film
>we dont have a lot of money so lets focus it inside a castle under siege
but badly executed with too much cheese
Kino. That is some good gore. It has that movie feel that doesn't feel like so real Im watching liveleak but that the fictional man I was watching is totally dead for real in this fictional world I was only fictionally invested in. When movies get TOO GOOD at violence I legit want to call the police. Now thats me who is a legit martial artist HEMA geek having a spooksies. Imagine box office karen and the superman shirt flabby israelite film distributors being mailed all sorts of angry Hays Code tier b***hings en masse.
>"HELLO OFFICER I JUST WITNESSED A MURDER!"
>"Where?"
>"In Hollywood"
>"!"
>"on the set of this movie!"
>"?'
>"IT WAS REAL ONG!"
>ackshually blocking a sword with a staff like that is an excellent maneuver because the sword would lose its sharpness or straightness before even cutting an inch of wood as our engineers showed in this test and
ZzZZZZZzzzz
>movie is on!
Cool! Did you see that guy get chopped in half?
Aaaaah! What. An. Actor!
Movies should use more axes and hammers
That camerawork is unbelievably terrible.
A claymore would probably do that wouldn't it.
Of course not you fricking moron, you’ve been watching to many chink cartoons.
How far would it go into the human body Mr. Scientist?
can't see what's going on because they interspliced 40 different clips per minute from 3-4 different scenes and lit it with a candle.
cuts used to be a minute and a half long, these are a tenth of a second.
That's why most soul armors don't have a solid core, still silly as hell that you run around and chug like running.
does it have liquid hydrargyrum in the hollow core?
>horses charging into a line of pikes
Yeah right, this is equine propaganda.
If needs must.
>companies arranged such that they can't fire diagonally without putting their allies in the crossfire
Bravo ingerland!
it doesn't matter if they can shoot or not. The squares make a solid wall of bayonets making impossible for the enemy cavalry to break through
n-nani!?
Is that real? Did he died?
you didn't see the camera on the left?
Did he die on set???
no i think the horse did it
thats not a set they are filming on location
did he die on location
no he was taken to the hospital
Now thats a pedantic way to avoid any interest in answering the question. If its outside of a studio and youre lugging more than an iPhone and youre staging more than a selfie, its a set.
Have you ever heard of "I Can't Believe It's Not Buttrape?" Or the dead midgets in The Wizard of Oz?
Or Alec Baldwin's shooty tooties?
Why do we trust film people so much with their movie magic to get away with decieving us with anything?
wrong a set is built a location is a place they go to shoot the wizard of oz for instance is all sets no location shooting, that scene from Last Tango in Paris you posted for instance is a set
Wrong because outside of your industry outside of academia quizzes your jargon can be understood in a new context. I can call the Fallout TV show Fallout 5 and I can call Fallout the original game Fallout 1 because it rolls off the tongue easy and lay people understand the redundant overly informing message. You dont need to tell non film people about the C47 (wooden clip things)
nope you're just wrong thats really all their is too it
It could just as easily be a real apartment for sake of argument
true in fact I'lladmit I was wrong about that one it was infact an apartment in paris the Rue de l'Alboni, Passy, 16, Paris, France which would make it a location shoot rather then a studio or backlot shoot aka on set
got any more of this? Looks fricking awesome.
its from the netflix movie The King. pretty kino tbh
?si=k1H8ka4PAOmgnuBh&t=46
Sometimes I think women are more into ancient history than men. When I was studying history in my local uni I found out that most of the egyptologists and medieval experts, both in research and teaching, where women
they often are
most men into "history" know almost no history, and think history is knowing about various battles
Women’s career choices should just be 3 Wife, librarian or chef.
This webm needs sound my dudes. Goddamn gays won't allow audio webms on here.
>Um your majesty we have a release catch, please don't cut our rope we only have so many replacements
Luv Warwolf, h8 Scots. Simple as.
Hi have you got any screen caps of any of the Swords ie Henry V and The Dauphin from The King 2019?
>throw a gladius from far away so it sticks in someone
I could do it.
>Squeals like a pig when dies
What did Ridley Scott mean by that
lol why does the flail to the back of the head from a galloping horse not even phase him? This shit is embarrassing
it hit the templar and downed him, are you stupid?
not bad for a blacksmith
israelite propaganda.
We've got a real-life Templar in our midst here.
If I was alive back then and they sent me into battle at the first part of the battle when it's absolute chaos i'd lay down and cover myself with mud and slowly crawl away from everyone then move to another village and start a new life and just keep repeating this process.
Kino fantasy film and armour.
White people are always like: Man those mud races are so uncivilized and violent, now let me tell you about our long history of stabbing each other over petty disputes.
we were stabbing eachother sophisticatedly though
Damn, Cinemaphile has better history threads than Cinemaphile now.
I doubt they're real historians in Cinemaphile at all
It's jaut haploautists, /misc/ bait, and christians vs athiests now.
Cinemaphile has a mix of wannabe historians and people who just like to be entertained.
we always have
Excalibur is really the WORST for accurate armored combat.
But who cares? What they offer is so much better for the movie.
Armour?
Based spears.
Crawling around and stabbing the legs seems like a good strategy, why didn't phalanxes have crawler brigades embedded in them?
>poor little man-at-arms boy
Uhm acktually there is no proof knights ever wore armor or fought using swords. And there is no proof horses ever existed...
achetualy bow and arrow can't feasibly exist as the wood would just break and the string wouldn't ever carry enough power to send an arrow which would travel more than ten feet let alone puncture the flesh of another soldier let alone if he was wearing leather or plastic armour while the string was still thin enough to be able to pull.
top tip, ballistae - not ballastas *sigh* but I digress, were a thing? but they weighed several tons and never existed outside of a few minor skirmishes in the roman capital itself, that bei48nrnng rome
I agree horses are not real the israelites invented them to control people.
tell me anons, how much did the dual wielding knight in game of thrones actual trigger your collective autisms?
Swards galore.
This is the one of the few historical sword fight scenes I've seen that actually looks somewhat realistic
It was choreographed by William Hobbs who did a bunch of movies