- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Medieval battles
Posted on 8/13/16 at 3:09 pm to prplhze2000
Posted on 8/13/16 at 3:09 pm to prplhze2000
quote:
Edit: you mean swords don't just slide through well made plate armour as if it was butter?
And swords weren't massive chunks of metal wielded slowly with two hands. Not many anyway. Medieval warriors weren't lacking in common sense and were quick and skillful with swords. I think people underestimate how strong and lean Warriors were back then due to training and diet.
2
Posted on 8/13/16 at 4:06 pm to biglego
Not necessarily true. The Romans used much smaller swords compared to those used by the Gauls and Germans. They used those big swords en masse. One reason the Romans would beat them. They would wear out from swinging them so much while the Romans would stab, block with shield, stab, block, stab, block, rinse, repeat
Posted on 8/13/16 at 4:32 pm to biglego
I agree.
But I'll add: Swords are good weapons but they're awful primary battle weapons. They take a lot of room to use and are less effective against armor than other weapons. Especially in medieval times when swords were quite a bit longer.
But I'll add: Swords are good weapons but they're awful primary battle weapons. They take a lot of room to use and are less effective against armor than other weapons. Especially in medieval times when swords were quite a bit longer.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News