Originally posted by Mindset
YouTube video
whats this supose to show me?
whats this supose to show me?
Originally posted by Mindset
YouTube video
Originally posted by Dum Dum Dugan
This is not really true at all. Not sure why you keep saying bigger and bigger. The bows got bigger, but swords stayed mainly the same through out the mid-evil period.
maybe so, but they are far larger than things like the gladus or short swords that came before them
Originally posted by Dum Dum Dugan
You do realize when they wore bronze armor and so forth it was only in small parts of there body. There be no reason to rely on something to break through it, when most of there body was vulnerable.
thats exactly what I mean. as armor got better, they needed something to get through it. If a small, sharp blade was better than a huge, dull blade, I imagine they would have gone that route.
Originally posted by inimalist
maybe so, but they are far larger than things like the gladus or short swords that came before themthats exactly what I mean. as armor got better, they needed something to get through it. If a small, sharp blade was better than a huge, dull blade, I imagine they would have gone that route.
Here your problem you dont understand history of the event. The reason it referred to the "dark ages" is becuase civilization regressed, they lost there trade routes, books, philosophy ect. Europe went through a time of regression not advancement. Armor was superior to the actual weapons, and this is because they lacked steel. Steel is much stronger and lighter then Iron. You think heavier and bigger is better, but your 100% wrong.
Originally posted by Dum Dum DuganHow long were you taught the Dark Ages lasted?
Yes and? They also did not have any armor on there body out side a shield and perhaps some chest covering. Most of there body was not armored at all. In fight they move away from bronze armor becuase it was simply to heavy.Here your problem you dont understand history of the event. The reason it referred to the "dark ages" is becuase civilization regressed, they lost there trade routes, books, philosophy ect. Europe went through a time of regression not advancement. Armor was superior to the actual weapons, and this is because they lacked steel. Steel is much stronger and lighter then Iron. You think heavier and bigger is better, but your 100% wrong.
It seems like you're considering the entire Middle Ages as the Dark Age.
Originally posted by Mindset
Well, what have we been discussing?What do you see pictured in the video?
Hmmm, I wonder...
Dont know who that guy is, nor do we get to see the sword and what it was made out of. It could been model which is far from the real deal. It also was huge thing of chain only a singkle small bone........
all in all it was a waste of my time.
Originally posted by Dum Dum Dugan
Yes and? They also did not have any armor on there body out side a shield and perhaps some chest covering. Most of there body was not armored at all. In fight they move away from bronze armor becuase it was simply to heavy.
and what? that is the entirety of my point. You are saying a lightweight and sharp weapon like the katana is more effective at killing a person in chail/plate than is a heavy/blunt weapon like a bastard sword.
Given that there have always been lighter, sharp swords in Europe (the rapier for instance), why would longswords become the standard weapon (along with other crushing weapons) if they were the least effective?
like take me through the steps of this regression. How do we get from the invention of a single fused blade and hilt to huge two handed blades if that evolution actually makes the weapon less effective for combat?
Originally posted by Dum Dum Dugan
Here your problem you dont understand history of the event. The reason it referred to the "dark ages" is becuase civilization regressed, they lost there trade routes, books, philosophy ect. Europe went through a time of regression not advancement. Armor was superior to the actual weapons, and this is because they lacked steel. Steel is much stronger and lighter then Iron.
ok, but they advanced in armor?
you are right, the dark ages were surely a time where philosophy and art weren't as prominent as the Greek/Roman/Renaissance era, but the armor example alone shows that not everything "regressed"
also, I thought the idea of the "dark ages" being dark was wholly exaggerated...
Originally posted by Dum Dum Dugan
You think heavier and bigger is better, but your 100% wrong.
no i don't 😕
Originally posted by Mindset
How long were you taught the Dark Ages lasted?It seems like you're considering the entire Middle Ages as the Dark Age.
Originally posted by Dum Dum Duganthe show makes estimates about who would win in a fight based on the efficiency of what the typical warrior being discussed would carry according to experts.
saw the video, dont get what it to prove.Dont know who that guy is, nor do we get to see the sword and what it was made out of. It could been model which is far from the real deal. It also was huge thing of chain only a singkle small bone........
all in all it was a waste of my time.
their opinion>ours
Originally posted by Dum Dum DuganIt shows the defensive capabilities of chainmail.
saw the video, dont get what it to prove.Dont know who that guy is, nor do we get to see the sword and what it was made out of. It could been model which is far from the real deal. It also was huge thing of chain only a singkle small bone........
all in all it was a waste of my time.
They are supposed anthropologists like you're supposed history major.
Originally posted by inimalist
and what? that is the entirety of my point. You are saying a lightweight and sharp weapon like the katana is more effective at killing a person in chail/plate than is a heavy/blunt weapon like a bastard sword.
Yes an iron bastard sword is less effective then a steel samurai blade. Not sure what is so hard to grasp about that.
Originally posted by inimalist
Given that there have always been lighter, sharp swords in Europe (the rapier for instance), why would longswords become the standard weapon (along with other crushing weapons) if they were the least effective?
Except for the fact the rapier came after the middle ages............
Because they were only more effective because they lacked steel...honestly wtf dont you get?
Originally posted by inimalist
ike take me through the steps of this regression. How do we get from the invention of a single fused blade and hilt to huge two handed blades if that evolution actually makes the weapon less effective for combat?
Originally posted by Mindset
It shows the defensive capabilities of chainmail.They are supposed anthropologists like you're supposed history major.