WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2025 Poal.co

(post is archived)

[–] [deleted] 3 pts

Historical European martial arts.

[–] 7 pts

The thing is, that's not how armored people fought each other. It was much more brutal and physical. This is the Hollywood romanticized version of it.

[–] 5 pts

Definitely. Have you seen the ultra violent full armor competitions from Europe? There's tons them on YT and even ones with 16 X 16 battles. Here's a good short knockout vid in full armor https://youtu.be/VlCQ2pBob5Q?si=mPcYxVyHvgPkPnij

[–] 3 pts

I have not. Will check them out. Ty.

[–] 1 pt

Yes, no stabbing in these matches.

[–] 2 pts

Exactly. Slicing is dumb for armor. Armor's primary purpose is to defend against slicing and piercing (stabbing). This is why axes, hammers, maces, and to a lessor degree, spears, were all preferred against armored targets. Swords were a backup weapon or primarily used against unarmored targets. A back up to your sword is the dagger. The reason why it's long and slim is because it's designed to pierce through armor gaps, perhaps passing through ring mail, and still be long enough to create a lethal stab into something vital.