Sir, that is not how you hold a sword sir.

Opalance said:
Sir, that is not how you hold a sword sir.

http://sallesaint-george.com/wp-content/uploads/armor.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/ui6T3MV.jpg

Opalance said:
Sir, that is not how you hold a sword sir.

SimperinFool said:
http://sallesaint-george.com/wp-content/uploads/armor.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/ui6T3MV.jpg

Large swords like that tend not to be very sharp, mainly because they don't have to be. Yes, it does have an edge on it, it isn't blunt, but you can't chop your fingers off if you hold it that way.

Also, every part of a greatsword was designed to be a weapon. The pommel and crossguard are both invariably designed with heavy pointy bits designed to put very deep dents in armor. Don't know if you've ever seen an authentic suit of armor, but it's made of sheet metal. It's fairly easy to beat up, with enough effort. Really, it's the arming outfit worn under the armor that is giving you the most protection.

H3xx said:
Large swords like that tend not to be very sharp, mainly because they don't have to be. Yes, it does have an edge on it, it isn't blunt, but you can't chop your fingers off if you hold it that way.

Also, every part of a greatsword was designed to be a weapon. The pommel and crossguard are both invariably designed with heavy pointy bits designed to put very deep dents in armor. Don't know if you've ever seen an authentic suit of armor, but it's made of sheet metal. It's fairly easy to beat up, with enough effort. Really, it's the arming outfit worn under the armor that is giving you the most protection.

Indeed you are correct

H3xx said:
Large swords like that tend not to be very sharp, mainly because they don't have to be. Yes, it does have an edge on it, it isn't blunt, but you can't chop your fingers off if you hold it that way.

Isn't that a misconception, though? From what I understand, it's more a case of skin being tough enough to protect against a cut, since the edge would just be pushing into the meat of your hand rather than slicing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwuQPfvSSlo

H3xx said:
Large swords like that tend not to be very sharp, mainly because they don't have to be. Yes, it does have an edge on it, it isn't blunt, but you can't chop your fingers off if you hold it that way.

Also, every part of a greatsword was designed to be a weapon. The pommel and crossguard are both invariably designed with heavy pointy bits designed to put very deep dents in armor. Don't know if you've ever seen an authentic suit of armor, but it's made of sheet metal. It's fairly easy to beat up, with enough effort. Really, it's the arming outfit worn under the armor that is giving you the most protection.

Yeah first of all you probably wouldnt be halfswording with a 'Greatsword' you would be halfswording with a longsword. Greatswords were used to get past pikes and pole based weapons, not to take on heavily armored foes.Also from the guard type on his sword, and hilt length, and fact that its single edged, its pretty obviously meant to be a one handed sword.

Swords did have to be very sharp back then, and they definitely were.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fP3OdCGdmQg

And lastly, I dont think you've ever seen a real suit of armor, if its a well made piece it wont be easy to beat up at all without a nice blunt force weapon.
https://youtu.be/5hlIUrd7d1Q?t=35s

Habsburg1337 said:
Yeah first of all you probably wouldnt be halfswording with a 'Greatsword' you would be halfswording with a longsword. Greatswords were used to get past pikes and pole based weapons, not to take on heavily armored foes.Also from the guard type on his sword, and hilt length, and fact that its single edged, its pretty obviously meant to be a one handed sword.

Swords did have to be very sharp back then, and they definitely were.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fP3OdCGdmQg

And lastly, I dont think you've ever seen a real suit of armor, if its a well made piece it wont be easy to beat up at all without a nice blunt force weapon.
https://youtu.be/5hlIUrd7d1Q?t=35s

While the length of the greatsword was indeed meant for reach, the actual fighting style required to use it was essentially half-swording. That's why it had a secondary handle and pommel built into it just about the original, to give the wielder more control over it.
Example of secondary handle.
Second of all, Every part of a sword is designed to be a weapon. The pommel and ends of the crossguards are usually designed to be blunt puncturing tools. A quick punch with the handle or strike of the pommel is very easy to do.

Also, I have worn a combat ready suit of armor, and the museum in my home town has an original suit of plate maile. Both are surprisingly thin metal. Slightly softer than that of a car panel. It's as easy to dent as well. When wearing plate male, the metal is there to protect you from sharp, pointy bits. The Arming jacket underneath the maile is there to protect you from bludgeoning weapons. You're going to get dents and holes in your plate. That's what smiths are for.

H3xx said:
While the length of the greatsword was indeed meant for reach, the actual fighting style required to use it was essentially half-swording. That's why it had a secondary handle and pommel built into it just about the original, to give the wielder more control over it.
Example of secondary handle.
Second of all, Every part of a sword is designed to be a weapon. The pommel and ends of the crossguards are usually designed to be blunt puncturing tools. A quick punch with the handle or strike of the pommel is very easy to do.

Also, I have worn a combat ready suit of armor, and the museum in my home town has an original suit of plate maile. Both are surprisingly thin metal. Slightly softer than that of a car panel. It's as easy to dent as well. When wearing plate male, the metal is there to protect you from sharp, pointy bits. The Arming jacket underneath the maile is there to protect you from bludgeoning weapons. You're going to get dents and holes in your plate. That's what smiths are for.

That is not a secondary handle, they are parrying hooks for catching poles and the like, and the bottom part is blunt because it doesnt need to be sharp. Seriously dude, try halfswording that close to the hilt.. its really not that effective.

on your second point, I never disputed that, No shit sherlock. I was saying that the idea that swords werent sharp was bollocks.

Third off, read my post again. "Its not easy to beat up without a blunt weapon." and its not even just to defend against "pointy bits" the way its designed is to disperse the force of weaponry evenly when it hits the armor. its rounded on the front of the breastplate and is fluted so that if anything hits it it deflects the blow. Thats part of plate design as well as defending against the blade of weaponry.

also gambesons dont protect you any better against blugeoning weapons than plate does. You cant wear plate without a gambeson, so the plate is already as effective as a gambeson with the plate on top of it.

It is helpful when its UNDER plate but if you take a polehammer to the chest with just a gambeson on, you can expect an entire chest cavity collapse. Gambesons defend best agaisnt cutting weapons.

Habsburg1337 said: Some stuff that was right, a lot that was wrong.

Please educate yourself with this video.

And also this video on half-swording

H3xx said:
Please educate yourself with this video.

And also this video on half-swording

I wish I could record myself trying to grab the ricasso of a montante and half sword with it so I could show you just how retarded it is.

Its a ricasso. Alot of swords have them. It is not a secondary handle you dumbfuck. If they wanted you to be able to choke that far up onto the blade they would just make the handle bigger. If you are halfswording you want to grab NEAR THE TIP, so you can control THE TIP.

Please go practice some actual HEMA before trying to site Skall videos as proof for your own idiocy.

Please keep insults to yourself.