Lie about swords.

As for the Roman swords, it were just daggers. They were rarely used in hand-to-hand combat, because hand-to-hand combat generally unlikely against mobile mounted riflemen or chariots. They apparently used them against heavy riders, trying to hit the legs of the horses during a break the formation.
 
They also did not use real spears, they had darts instead. Although at some point they started using real spears, I don't know why
 
Most likely, pilums (Roman darts) were just a surrogate for bows, since there was no time for slaves to practice archery, and they could not do it technically as part of a formation.
But it were almost useless against cavalry, because they were rarely approached within dart range.
 
In general, the Huns looked at the Roman army as an empty place, it is clear from the speech of Attila
 
He focused on the Goths and Alans. Apparently he hoped that if the allies were defeated, the Roman rabble would simply capitulate without a fight.
 
Their "valor" was based only on fear, they were severely punished if they did not follow the orders of their superiors. This was relevant only if they believed in victory, otherwise there was no point in obeying them.
These were ordinary peasants who wanted to quickly return to the plow
 
And they had nowhere to run, from behind were barrage detachments that killed the fugitives
 
The Huns were not afraid of anything. For them, war was the meaning of life, and death in battle was an honor and a desirable death worthy of a man. Cowardice was inconceivable for them, it would be a shame on their families.
Therefore, medieval knights had a value of complete indifference to death. This was customary in knightly tournaments and in duels, they could easily choose to fight to the death just for sport interest. They could rush into battle with unequal forces, and they could refuse help.
this survived until the 20th century, the hussars behaved in the same way.
 
Knightly virtues are generally a separate topic. In addition to contempt for death, they valued contempt for wealth and money. They could sow an arable field with silver, for example. Contempt for money was part of their culture, they despised merchants.
Besides pure love, sometimes platonic, was considered a virtue.
 
Swords are also not suitable for slashing attacks because they are fragile and break easily due to bloodstock. This is generally an interesting question where this design came from. Maybe it was not a weapon



Totally false. You know nothing about the subject.
 
Even a person who understands the strength of materials could understand this. This is the form of an I-beam, and an I-beam, unlike a shaft or pipe, is strong only under a strictly vertical load, if the metal is brittle, as is usually the case in weapon steel, it will burst. 99 percent of cases of knife breaking occur on the bloodstream, they crack not only across the blade, but also along the bloodstream. Anyone with experience knows this.
 
Everyone who deals with knives knows this. You are a dilettante in melee weapons, it is obvious



I have been a competative fencer longer than you've been alive, my primary knife for combat is a 3,500 Bagwell bowie that was custom made for me.

I know more about knife, and sword fighting than you ever will.
 
I have been a competative fencer longer than you've been alive, my primary knife for combat is a 3,500 Bagwell bowie that was custom made for me.

I know more about knife, and sword fighting than you ever will.
did you know no one gives a shit
 

Forum List

Back
Top