Maces in Vidya

There's nothing quite so satisfying as panning your opponents skull with a blunt instrument

Give me designs, why they are good, and why they aren't warhammers with picks on the other endyou can't beat it

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=5hlIUrd7d1Q
youtu.be/7qHpoeYyfl0?t=40m33s
youtu.be/7Ijy8Ky_vrI?t=37s
youtube.com/watch?v=nYNy_drriXs
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Flanged maces are cool. Imagine one with huge flanges that pretty much go the length of the weapon

I always liked the big ass castlevania maces.

Let me tell you, that was going to be my first choice and is my first second. But the warhammer is one notch better due to it's versatility.

Aesthetically the flanged maces are my favorite though

Too bad they become useless quickly.

Were spiked maces a thing back then, or am I confusing them with flails? Nevertheless, spikes make everything cooler.

You're thinking of a morningstar

OFFICIAL RANKING OF BEST MELEE

Spears = Warhammers/Maces > Axes > Staves > Lances/Polearms > Shit > Swords/Daggers

The sword meme needs to fucking die. Swords are a shit.

...

Not him but, is a morningstar not technically a mace?

I think mideval weapons have a ton of grey area because historians basically had to piece together everything they could find.

Here's an example of what I mean by grey area.

Swords best everything..even arrows

Finally.

Someone else who fills their quiver with swords.

I can understand the usefulness of swords, think about it.
When everyone is training with these weapons they know the reason they aren't training with swords is because they don't have the time required to learn how to use them properly.
A swordsman who has put the time and effort into learning how to properly wield his weapon is more likely to win any engagement his blade can reach due solely to the versatility his weapon and experience offers.
On another note anyone with a head on their shoulders wouldn't go into battle with a weapon he doesn't feel he knows well enough, so facing a swordsman as anyone else had to be an intimidating experience.

t. macefag

From what I've heard swords are basically the backup weapon when they're not being used for duels.

I'll fill your quiver with sword


The usefulness of swords come from their versatility, their design in that you don't need to put in as much effort in stabbing (when stabbing is adequate) or flicking as opposed to swinging every time like you're chopping wood.

So does your average musketmen and every well trained soldier ever.

Not necessarily. One of the biggest innovations in field war during the 1400s were dismounted man-at-arms using lances on foot. I mean, it's still sharp, heavy, has reach and several groups of two man can punch a hole in enemy formations.

You'd generally want to thrust either and they're rarely that long in actuality if designed for swinging. Too long a handle equals shit leverage and causes problems with other fighters or terrain.

Or he can take a cleaver and go ham. Give the best mace ever to a dip and he'll twist his back, let it fly from his hand or carry the momentum and bash his own foot or whatever.

Swords were a versatile backup weapon, a status symbol and pretty useful in duels or small skirmishes, but usually worse than other, primary weapons in formation warfare.

Dark Souls 2 has an amazing mace, and it's a starting weapon you can take right up to end game because it's useful against armour and so many of the enemies are boring armoured knights.
It also has really tight animations so you can swing it in narrow spaces without clanging walls.


Swords were more of a badge than a first-choice weapon of war. Swords, more than any other weapon, are designed for killing people, so being able to wear a sword, instead of carrying a bow or a spear which might be used for hunting, was a sign of privilege.


Pretty much. Even the fucking samurai of hoborobu nippon put more emphasis on skill with a bow than a katana, because killing your enemy before they get in sword range (like with a spear or a pike or a fucking arrow) is always preferential to CQC.

All this shit depends on the era you are talking about, swords in the Roman times for example don't have the same role as swords in late middle ages. Advancement of armor technology made things different.
But I can safely say that the two weapons used consistently trough all ages are spear and the club. They are cheap to make, easy to use, work in formation, and that makes it the core of any army. My the late middle ages swords couldn't do much against heavily armored soldiers.

Read up on Battle of Barnet, it is an interesting case study of this, due to fog they kinda went too near each other and could only use swords, it wasn't that effective and fighting went longer than usual.

As for sword being sign of officers rank, it isn't really true. Baton is the sign, that is why even later you have European rulers and generals portrayed with baton in their hands.

...

I'd go one step further and say that swordfags simply rewrote history. Everyone knows empires were made with sticks.


Talking about shit you're ignoring the advancement in metallurgy in general which allowed for longer, lighter blades that held edge for longer. Also cleavers, sabres, cutlasses and the like.

I get the impression people think combat was exclusively between fully armored knights when in reality that was a fraction of a percent of all fighting.

Most of the time you're dealing with unarmored peasants or lightly armored militia with just a gambeson + helmet + hauberk and MAYBE greaves and/or pauldrons in the latter ages. Also those ultra protective knight helmets that are so iconic were in most cases jousting helmets not for battlefield use. In actual battles something that allowed for greater situational awareness would have been used even if it was somewhat less protective.

So in other words swords might not be able to cut through plate or even most maille and thats when you would break out specialty weapons like maces and warhammers but 90% of the time a sword was the best most convenient method of slaughtering your enemy or even just for keeping the rabble in line.

That same metallurgy advanced in armor department.
Thing with the swords in the late middle ages is that they didn't have sufficient mass to cut trough the armor of the time. The way you injure the armored opponent is not by cutting trough his armor like samurai ninja katana, but by either piercing it with a spike which concentrates all the pressure to one point and is able to pierce the heavy armor or you use blunt force trauma to shatter the bones or cause stress on his internal organs of the guy inside the armor. That is why they used polearms, picks, maces, projectile weapons. Swords are not good for that.

As for the sabres, cutlasses and the like, they only come to prominence in western Europe after the introduction of firearms which made heavy armor obsolete and made swords viable again. For example Hungarian hussar could use sword because his opponents weren't as well armored as late medieval knights were.

But mind you, you cant look at this topic as a whole. Different regions and historical eras were completely different when it comes to warfare. You cant compare the role of the sword from iron age and late middle ages. Things change and people adapt. Just like today is happening with body armor and rifle calibers. You cant say this weapon is perfect since forever. History of human invention is just adapting and using your ingenuity to gain the edge over others. But it also comes down to compromise, you sacrifice one aspect of weapon to maximize other, so you make it specialized for a certain role. There are no perfect tools, only good tools suitable for certain different things.

Hungary is not in western Europe and neither is Poland, Lithuania, Russia, most of Asia or the middle east. And no, you wouldn't cut the armour if you wanted to use that weapon for anything ever again, you'd twist into chinks and hook the joints. Coincidentally that's something long, pointed blades with their average nine directions of attack excel at.

Also speaking of blunt force trauma you'd definitely require something right out of an anime to apply sufficient force to harm someone in mail let alone something plated or scaled. Even historically they used spiked arms like goedendag or the morningstar as opposed to relying on sheer weight. There's also the irony in fags calling swords ceremonial when the mace only ever feature prominently in the role of a scepter.

...

I don't see the point of this remark. What are you trying to say? The concept of what you consider western Europe has no relevance on this topic. That concept of western Europe is very recent one, after second world war. During the middle ages all European countries shared the same or very similar technology, mainly because technological centers were based in few select areas of Europe and were source of almost all weapons and arms, just look up Milanese armor or Passau swords for example. I'm mentioning Passau swords because a lot of them were found in Balkans which you wouldn't consider western European in any case.

It is basic physics, the more mass weapon has the more damage it will cause. Slender swords won't do shit to armored opponent. Here is a very interesting video that showcases that.

youtube.com/watch?v=5hlIUrd7d1Q

And also, blunt force trauma.

youtu.be/7qHpoeYyfl0?t=40m33s

The Romans did use the sword as their primary weapon, on average. They'd add or take away things as they faced different enemies or through different military reforms, but the gladius was omnipresent throughout it all.

I meant the Scutum.

I got your main weapon right here.

Grade-A retard over here

You have a poor imagination user.

...

...

...

>>>/cuckchan/

>hoplite derived from the aspis or sometimes refered to as hoplon (meaning weapon) the hoplites carried into battle
it's literally in the name ,the roman scutum was simply the evolved form of that warfare adjusted to the times and terrain

"Aspis" is the proper name for the shield, "hoplon" being an incorrect modern word taken from the Greek "hopla" meaning equipment in general (as in "panoply", for instance).

>(often in the plural) instruments of war: arms, armour, weapon
you can't even copy and paste correctly,embarrassing

I'll fill your ass with swords

Billhook > all your shit

Try and get the Great Mace in Dark Souls III. Infuse it to Heavy and destroy everything.

Swords are backup weapons, and nothing more. The only time you should be using a sword as a primary is if you're also using a shield. Even then, shield and spear combos are typically better.

this is the dark souls of b8

What makes the roman formations good was not the sword. It was the shield.
The sword was just the best thing for use with a massive fuckoff shield, as it was light enough, and easily maneuverable around the massive fuckoff shield.

I am the sword and I am lethal against any weapon; lances, axes and dagger are worthless against me. I can become extended or withdrawn; when I get near the opponent I can enter into close play, perform disarms and abrazare. My art is to turn and to bind; I am expert in defense and offense, and always strive to finish in those. Come against me and feel the pain. I am Royal, enforce justice, propagate goodness and destroy evil. Look at me as a cross, and I will give you fame and a name in the art of arms.
- Fiore dei Liberi, 1410
Come at me bro.

Depends on the opponent's armor. For knights, generally the lance was the first weapon and the sword second. Followed by maces and such after that. What is important to note with that, is that the lance breaks quite quickly since you keep ramming it into fuckers, so in essence the sword is a good as a primary weapon because a knight knew his lance would be gone soon enough. Other than that, before the development of plate armor many knights loved the falchions as a primary weapon, when armor was not as prevalent but shields of all kinds were. The falchion types 1bcd, 2 and 3ab absolutely fucking wreck shield-users of all kinds. As a side-note, note that Messers and Falchions are from a design point of view only different in the hilt construction.
Also, falchions are not heavy axe-swords, they're light and sharp swords meant to absolutely destroy unarmored opponents and sometimes to pierce through maille with the sharp tip in the model 2.

As far as the Roman legionnaires are concerned, you are mostly right. But when it comes to centergrip shields and bucklers, you're wrong. "Viking shields" for example are used as the primary weapon and the sword or axe or spear is the "tactical" weapon when you know you have created an opening with your shield first. It's complicated.


Swords make me feel tingly inside.

Wrong. By having a longer lever and using it only one hand you limit yourself to 3 usable moves and with very little control. Certainly, you get distance and defense, but your offense falls off entirely, so much so that the Macedonians just abandoned the shield altogether in their sarissa in their off-hand(they had it hanging on a strap) as did most Europeans once tercios grew popular. And in the latter, note that the pikes were to keep enemies at bay, while the arquebusiers did all the work.

With a shield, the sword is hands down the single best weapon to have. Be it a small buckler or a large scutum, the sword gives you the most control and most offensive ability you can have.

Depends on what you're using and how you use it. Regardless, no-shield swording is fucking worthless, and only idiots who're going to die in droves against a spear line use them.
Or people who are so armored it doesn't matter. You see that a lot in late medieval stuff. It's why suddenly hammers rose massively in popularity.

With a shield, a spear is better. You lose out the control, but the reach is a massive boon, and assuming you don't have an autistically long spear, as you well shouldn't have when using a shield alongside it, you're not going to have much in the way of issues as far as close combat shit.

...

Ay yo thats a hammer dawg, thats a hammer dawg, yo dawg hes got a hammer, oh shit..

Spears designed to be used with shields are very, very different from your run of the mill spear, you insufferable dickmongering faggot clearly too obese to so much as lift a sword, let alone actually swing one around.

Longswords when used without shields were only done when armor was so good it wasn't really needed to have a shield. Most times, the fight was about getting a lucky stab, knocking the other guy over, or just slaughtering poorer mooks who couldn't afford to be as well armored as you.

Now you've invented some "run of the mill" spear, to justify the use of a spear with a shield, eh? Show me an example of both, then since while I try to actually name specific era weaponry, you're just happy call anything and everything a spear, hiding behind a veil of vagueness and bullshit.
Fuck no. Harnischfechten & armizare are a fucking thing, with detailed techniques and explanations, you mongoloid dumbfuck. It's nice to know that you know literally nothing about swords yet feel compelled to make definitive statements about them anyhow.

...

It's literally just the difference between a shorter shaft, and a long shaft.
Heads varied wildly across the lot, but as far as length, you didn't want it to be longer than you were tall, and often it was a bit shorter than that.
Specific spear is dumb when we're talking weapons issued to drafted peasantry, usually lightly at best armored.

You ignored all the other shit said, and also didn't defend the whole "sword was only used when fully armored" bit.
Might as well be telling me a chainsword is better than a lasgun, because some powerarmored faggots can win with one of those, thanks to being basically bulletproof otherwise.

Landschneckts used a large variety of weapons, but ultimately, I point you to the same shit I said in
Just swords were only practical when armor was so advanced, people were basically tanks.
As far as the massive Zweihanders, they were basically polearms in their usage, and ultimately not comparable to swords. Might as well be telling me about a Carl Gustav recoilless rifle, in an argument about the best pistol.

See above
Used when armor fell out of style, typically in streetfights, not battlefields.

So you don't actually know, got it.
So short spear. And no, generally you wanted it longer. Even quarterstaves ought to be taller than you are.
See harnischfecthen you retard.
See blossfechten you retard. Hell, over 90% of the time the sword was used without armor because you also used it as a sidearm. Literally see every fencing manual every with a blossfechten section. Christ.
???

Bullshit. You can use a spear 7-8 feet long one-handed E-Z. 9 Feet if you are tall and strong. They were on average just that long.


Most prominent being BIG FUCKING SWORDS to fuck up STUPID SPEARMEN WITH BIG SPEARS.
Yeah I forgot that the Romans were massive fuck ups, those stupid idiots and their swords, must be why their empire fell so quickly
Not to mention that Armor never made 'people like tank's.
Fuck off, they were swords.
Fuck off, they were swords.
Fuck off, they were swords AND mini-swords and they kicked fucking ass.

The greatest mace.
The solid iron ones are the best but unfortunately you need to be about 15 foot tall, red, and wear tiger skin underwear to wield those properly.

Ah yes, yet another thread when Holla Forums discusses medieval weapon.

Might as well post some sword video for inspiration purpose.

Sword fighting is an art.

Another retardo.

Roman shield is nigh useless save for countering archer.

There's a reason later legionnaire switches to the barbarian oval shield and LONGER sword i.e. spada.

Which were so big they were basically polearms.

No, Romans used shields with their swords, as already adressed. We're talking about without shields.

Polearms.

In street brawls.
Are you now going to tell me the prison shank is a valid weapon?
That it's better than a spear, because a bunch of cretins use it to kill eachother all the time?
Frag off mate.

Are you talking about in formation or in a skirmish/one on one? Because I've found that anyone who tries for a proper spear with a shield just gets bound and closed in on. You want a short spear, because a long spear is murder on the wrist if you want to do more than one attack. Sure, you have defense and distance, but against anyone who gets you in a bind, you are fucked.

I need to make the part 2 vid with the techniques into a webm.

Unf. I can get behind these.

Tower shields were amazing in formation. Problem is, if that formation is broke, the lot falls apart. Agains berserk barbs, towershields weren't super great, as they'd routinely break through the lines.
Against more typical enemies the Romans faced, towershields worked great.
Regardless, the shield was far more important than the sword. The shield is what made roman armies so formidable.

Zweihander is not a polearm, nor it is used as polearm.

You're a retard. Compare this
>youtu.be/7Ijy8Ky_vrI?t=37s
and this
>youtube.com/watch?v=nYNy_drriXs
And tell me how they are the same. Fucking hell.

Except after the roman, nobody bother using tower shield.

Even the roman stop using tower shield as it goes on, because that shit is fucking cumbersome and is actually useless in CQC.

Not exactly, and not for that reason.
But the reason is what matters.
See, after the Romans, nobody bothered with a standing army any more. Noone wasted time with professional soldiers, outside of shock units, typically heavily armored to the point a large shield doesn't matter so much, and rarely in the numbers that formations could be used.

For a large towershield to be effective, it must be used in very strict, disciplined formations.
If it is not, it falls apart.
Use it in formation, and it's great. Don't, and it's a shitty liability.

Even after the classical roman, there is still the byzantine empire and various medieval states that arm their knights/cavalries even better than the roman legionnaries, they still didn't use tower shields.

The reason is because tower shield becomes more trouble than it's worth and armor becomes better.

Tower shields would have survived the introduction of gunpowder into war anyway, unless they are made out of lexguard or something like that.

You are retarded.
I feel like your fat neckbeard comment from before was pure projection.
No they weren't. You do understand they were used by the Military right?

Formations of course. Using a spear out of formation seems retarded, even if it's short.

Holy shit this nigger actually believes this revisionist bullshit. I bet he thinks the berserker units from Total War are a real thing.

Yes, because the main bulk was not these elite heavily armed and well trained troops.
It was no longer practical.
Plus, the nature of warfare started favoring mobility. But, then, mobility was also an issue during roman times. Still, cavalry became much more common.

Mind you a spear is still a good individual weapon, arguably better than the sword.

The problem is portability, carrying a spear all day is stressful, unlike carrying a sword.

Except by the time when the main bulk was heavily trained, they still didn't use tower shield.

The XIV century where the King of France ushered the professional army? They kept the kite shield, the round shield, but no tower shield.

It's really not needed when you have better armor and the round shield is much more versatile and lighter.

Yup.
To elaborate on this, see this
and the second picture. The greatswords have similar proportions to the longsword(in the middle), thus it is a relatively nimble and quick weapon whereas a spear is more front heavy. Even with a buttcap, the point of balance and moment of inertia are completely different. The pdf is an indepth study into how that works, if anyone cares.

And I don't see the point of this dodge and weave bullshit you're trying to spin. Western Europe as a medieval concept - Occident/Occidens is fairly well established as well as to what cultures, customs and technologies it held over the years. Eastern countries always had a tendency towards lighter, mixed units with a heavy focus on lighter cavalry.

There's also the plain lie of firearms invalidating heavy armour as it remained in use well into 1800s in both Europe, Middle East and Asia. It's the role of heavy cavalry that changed Or every country having the same technology. Nigger, there was a world of difference in the funds or sheer material, iron, coal, whatever, a small HRE principality could field compared to a large HRE duchy. Now compare that to what the Emperor or the King of France could do.

You would have to be a special kind of retard to equip cavalry with tower shields in any time period.


I recall some medieval crossbowmen carrying pavises, which are pretty similar to tower shields in size, to take cover while they reload. Might have mostly been a siege tactic, I don't remember.

My point is that even the roman adopt the oval shield used by the cavalries, not vice versa.

And the pavis is deployed by team to counter missile, it's absolutely not used for close quarter.

It's good yeah, but you need a formation to really make use of them, like the Greek Phalanxes n shit. Otherwise any nigger with a gladius or a prison shank could just step past your minimum poke distance and have a field day.
Just toss it on a cart or lean it on your shoulder. It ain't hard.


But that's bullshit.
Roman Legionairies were VERY well armored. The Scutum/Tower Shield fell out of use because the Roman Army simply quit using it. No joke, that's the main reason why it just wasn't a thing; Romes army became dominated by Germans (Krauts ruining all that is beautiful again!) and shit, who used round shields and kite shields. Hell, the Romans originally went from the round shield to the scutum when they adopted the maniple system.
Well, the other reason might be because the Scutum was much more expensive to make than a round or kite shield, but I can't really confirm that.


Beautiful. I almost forgot the thread existed while reading it.
Do they have a Polearm Dynamics book for Zweihanders and Montantes? Or a Prison shank dynamics book?

It's even arguable that every goddamn (or even the majority of) roman legionnaire dresses like this to battle.

If they have this much of armor, there's no need for the scutum.

You can do shield wall with round shield, if you think this way the scutum is nigh useless and why they abandon it later on.

Not really lol.
Yes there is. Look at the KNEES. The ARMS. And the waist. There is no such thing as too much armor, and the Scutum could take a fucking pounding without the Legionairre taking any real damage from it; Seriously even in Armor like that if you got stabbed hard as fuck, you'd feel the blow and it'd hurt a bit.
Also, the Shield was used as a weapon and to stop projectiles really well too. It was very versatile and went along really well with the Stabby Stabby, also called the Gladius.
You can do the same with a scutum.
Nah. It was "Abandoned" because the Legionary quit being a Roman soldier and a Germanic soldier, who used their own shit. Same reason the Pila fell out of use and the Gladius became the Spatha. Different equipment, different tactics, different people.

...

Yeah, really, roman armor isn't actually uniformly, the empire is rich, but not that rich.
They still have more armor than the average naked barbarian.
The scutum is way worse than the round shield for this reason, the round shield is lighter and much easier to strike with due to the larger diameter. Round shield works well against projectile too, ever since the hoplite phalanx.
But why do that when scutum is much more cumbersome than the round shield.
Yeah, no, I don't see how germans just supplant every existing roman soldiers, even the eastern romans stopped using the scutum, and these guys were greek/roman, not germanic.

It was fairly uniform. I'm referring to Legionairies; Actual Romans, not Auxiliaries, you stupid nigger.
Doesn't matter lol.
Doesn't matter. The Legionnaires were able to use it effectively with some time and practice, and were able to use its greater size and momentum to their advantage. It worked perfectly for the Gladius as well.
Fuck off kek. Phalanxes were abandoned by the Romans for the sake of mobility, and Hoplite Roundshields were Fuck Yuge. Easily as cumbersome, if not more, than the Scutum.
Because it ain't, see the above.
Read up on the Empire's history then fagget, I'm not here to spoonfeed you on how the Auxiliaries took over the Legions.
You're really activating my Almonds here. It might've been because they never really used the scutum in the first place and adopted completely different tactics?
Then again the Eastern Roman Empire/Byzantines Were pretty shit at fighting anyways.

Actual romans, even post-marian reform, was not uniform, you can't expect the roman to dress the same in Gaul and in the Middle east.
It matters because why outfit your soldier so much when the enemy is much more inferior? Yet the barbarians still fight with shirt, pants and round shield.
It matters because the round shield is lighter and much more versatile than the scutum.
Hoplite roundshield is not as big as the scutum, you can cover the whole body with the scutum, not with the hoplite shield, not to mention, Alexander's phalanx also abandons the larger hoplite shield, preferring the little round shield.
Yeah, the germans started getting more numerous in the legion, but it's nonsense that germans replace every romans, late era roman use the oval shield and spada, like the germans, not that they are the germans.
The eastern romans are romans like the western romans, they were the same thing and used the scutum once.
They fought against the muslim horde for hundreds of years, not to mention, Belisarus re-conquered Rome.

The funny thing is you're wrong but even if you were right you'd still be wrong.
Ask the Europeans in the Boxer Rebellion. You give your dudes the best you can, so you can win with the least amount of losses. This is good for Morale and your own economy since soldiers do not stop existing after they retire.
Not really.
No, they were fuck huge and quite heavy/unwieldy. The Aspis was not a primary weapon unlike with the Roman's Scutum.
Alexander's Phalanx completely abandoned traditional Greek tactics and favored the Sarrissae. Well, it's more Phillip's Phalanx than Alexanders. Plus they still had, surprise surprise,a bunch of niggas with swords who worked identically to roman legionairies in terms of tactics.
No it isn't kek. The average Roman Legionairy eventually became a Germanic Soldier. The Auxiliaries took over the Legion. Hence, why the Scutum, Pila, and other Roman Equipment and tactics fell out of practice, you dumb nigger.
t. Retard
And they got Wrekt. The Byzantine Empire made a grand show of sluicing barbarians and other trouble makers westward by paying them bribes rather than fighting. When push came to shove, they got whooped over and over and over again in actual warfare.
Man, you can't stick to a single fucking point, but this is not at all surprising considering you are the same guy who thought the problem with spears was that marching with them was hard.

...

...

Too bad there isn't a single medieval game that does localized damage and simulates armor properly. Then warhammers would be really cool.

Chivalry. also Mordhau is looking to be pretty great.

Please explain, because their uniform isn't really uniform, and as said, even the romans abandoned the scutum as it goes on.
The europeans in the Boxer rebellion had guns and cannons, much more than the chinks.
Yes, really.
They weren't as cumbersome as the scutum, which is much larger.
And? The point is that they didn't use the scutum, they in fact used smaller round shields.
These men were for flank protection, they weren't frontline troops unlike the romans, and they did not use the scutum nor the large hoplite shield.
Because the germanic soldier is more cost effective than the roman legionnaire, and everyone figure out long sword > short sword and oval shield > scutum, and they used real spear instaled of the pila.
The eastern romans were a mixed between romans and greeks, with romans leading the group.
You know, like the western roman empire did?
Suffice to say, they stayed and fought harder than the western roman ever did, considering the western romans fell a thousand year before the eastern romans.
My whole point is the scutum isn't all that great, which is why it's replaced by round shield/oval shield later on, and nobody uses it ever again.
That's the problem with spear if you carry it daily as a self-defense weapon, nobody says anything about spear as a military weapon.

Also, a drawing of a hoplite in comparison.

No, hoplite round shield is not as big as the scutum.

Polearm is a broad category, and includes lances and spears.
GLAIVES ARE BEST WEAPON, ALL OTHER OPINIONS ARE OBJECTIVELY WRONG

>Gets BLOWN THE FUCK
OUT

Good school, but do you have your book entirely summarized in a poem and yet continue on being one of the most effective swordfighting techniques?

Jung Ritter lere
got lip haben
frawen io ere

So wechst dein ere
Uebe ritterschaft und lere

Kunst dy dich czyret
vnd in krigen sere hofiret

Literal pleb

An AK-47 beats all your shitty knives and sticks quite frankly.

Burn the stick

Stick ash fertilizes the land and you get forest of sticks.

...

Seal the ashes in jars across 5 corners of the earth.

Swords are garbage. They're no good for piercing most quality armor. They stuck around in the medieval era because they were a status symbol, partially due to their expense. inb4
Fuck you, anything with a point is just as useful for that.

The jar breaks with an Earthquake or a mole

Swords were used from antiquity till the 19th century i.e. the Napoleonic war actually.

But a sword is the middlepoint between a spear and a dagger.

TBH all you really have to do is shoot it into the sun so it becomes god and is too powerful to be interested in petty squabbles.

...

It was very uniform. Auxiliaries are what dismembered that Uniformity. And they didn't abandon the Scutum; Auxiliaries, which replaced the legionaires, did not use it.
Wow, their Soldiers were more well equipped than the enemies? Contradictory to what you said? Amazing!
No, not really. The Romans specifically abandoned the Round Shield when they adapted to more mobile and versatile fighting tactics in favor of the scutum, you goddamn moron.
Yes they were. Go ahead and use one; You aren't bashing shit with it. And they didn't either, which is why Hoplite Shields weren't Embossed. They were purely defensive. They, much to your surprise, used Spears in a phalanx formation to fight, they did not close the distance and fight up close as the Romans did. Although this left them with shit mobility and a terrible weakness to anyone flanking them.
Yet they still adopted Roman Tactics. Interesting, isn't it?
Woah woah woah, Round shields cost less than Scutum, and normal javelins cost less than Pilum? It's almost like you're just repeating what I said.
No, not really. Different tactics require different equipment. The Romans, if you recall, went from Oval shields and round shields to the scutum. There was no great revelation about them being superior, you illiterate tard.
No. Go look up, or rather, if it's possible, read about the History of Byzantium. They were fucking greeks, nigger.
The Western Roman Empire did not persevere, and it had nothing to do with the Scutum since at that point they were all Auxiliary. By your logic they abandoned the Scutum and then got destroyed. Although, it was in reality due to the Byzantines bribing people to leave them alone and go plunder Western Rome instead.
Not really, see the above.
And you'd be wrong. It was extremely effective and useful. Otherwise the Empire wouldn't have ever been made in the first place.
And you'd still be wrong; Different tactics require different equipment. Nobody adopted the Roman Legionary's tactics again, instead, we went back to styles similar to the Greeks, using Spear walls and round or Kite shields. Neither of which were used in close combat, but rather, because they are cheap and easy to make, much like spears are. Are you seeing a pattern here, or does your plebeian mind prevent you from recognizing such things?
Are you a double retard then? Nobody carried a spear around as a self defense weapon. They were fucking worthless outside of a formation.
Except you did, and now you are trying to cover your retardation.
Furthermore, to illustrate the point, the Greek Hoplites were, in many ways, Armored better than the Romans, yet they still adopted Phalanxes and Big fucking shields. Your idea that being as well armored as the Roman Legionaire was meant you shouldn't use a shield is utterly fucking retarded.

I know, but I'm specifically talking about their use in the medieval area. Before good plate armor, swords were a viable battlefield weapon for a normal frontline soldiers, hence the gladius being standard-issue for Roman legionnaires.

Why would you want a midpoint? Just take the spear.

You're a fucking idiot, thats like saying Castles are shit because they were pratically useless against cannon fire.
And full body armor was rarely by common footsoldiers.
Are you a Burguer?

Even during the plate armor era, longsword and polearms were the main weapons for dismounted knights.

Then why'd he make man in the first place?

But that's true. After cannons were introduced from Turkey, castle design changed to more effectively defend against them.


Irrelevant. Knights are nobles who happen to be on a battlefield. They don't fight or win wars alone. The mass of soldiers were peasants.

Nah nigga. Halfswording is some real shit. You can easily defend yourself with a Sword and get control over the enemy and their weapon, and then knock them over and go for the killwith a Dagger/Sword point, or let your buddy witha bigger, unwieldy weapon take care of them.

Idk but he got bored a long time ago.

Your mortal mind will never fathom the divine shortness of God's attention span.

Here's the point, it wasn't, it was fucking impossible to carry that much armor in different climate, you are seeing one or two roman soldiers and assume everyone to wear iron armor.
They did abandon the scutum, even the heavier troops in late roman era, the palace guard did not use the scutum.
Yes, better weapons, not better armors.
No, really, the romans abandoned the spear and round shield because they decided to copy the way the gallic soldiers were fighting i.e. with sword and shield when said gallic warriors defeated the phalanx, and then later they copy the germanic warrior with longsword/spada and oval shield.
I personally haven't used either scutum or the round shield, so I cannot speak from it.
Phalanx can be used to push as well as to defend, they were substitute to flank but in their front was unbeatable, either moving forward or downward.
Wut? Alexander phalanx were invented before the romans invented maniple, this was not Roman tactics.
Yes, and cost lesser = better for the army.
Yes, really, reach is everything in formation combat, a spear is better than the pila, and the spada is better than the gladius due to reach, and the oval shield is lighter and cheaper, thus better than the scutum.
The romans never switched away from the oval shield, their cavalries still used it, they just used the scutum for centuries before re-switching back to the oval shield.
They were romans mixed with greeks, or is this some kind of alternative history where the greeks, conquered by the romans, somehow went up and made their own empire?
The eastern roman used the oval shield and round shields and they beat all the barbarian tribes that raided and vandalized Rome. The scutum wasn't the thing that keeps the Roman empire together.
Wrong, see Belisarus.
And guess why nobody uses roman tactics again, it wasn't because roman tactics were somehow too expensive for the world, because it's fucking outdated, and spear, round shield and longsword serve better as weapons than shortsword and tower shield.
Yes, there are people who carry spear as a self-defense weapon, knight, peasant, police, it isn't viable all the times because it's a long weapon, and the spear is a good individual weapon, not just formation weapon.
I didn't.
Except they used round shield which cover less than the scutum, and the Macedonian pike phalanx used a fucking tiny fucking shield.

Nice try.

Knights usually form the mainline of troops to rally the peasants and mercenaries, and guess what? Even the peasants used cheap ass swords.

I already carry the spear, the sword is a nice weapon to have in the scabbard when the spear breaks (and it will).

4 adventurers that fight taking turns appear out of nowhere to gather and unleash the ashes.

Not before cannons were introduced you retard, and swords were still commonplace because spears were mostly a deterrent to everything but cavalry and full body armor was rare as all hell.

They did. That is the way they were equipped, and the variations, if fucking any, would be small as shit would not justify just having a big fucking shield like you are claiming.
Holy shit, all you are doing is saying "NO, THEY DIDN"T rather than refuting the point. The Auxiliaries took over the legion AND THEY DID NOT USE THE SCUTUM, You utter fucking retard.
Doesn't matter, they were still better equipped. Only a retard would purposefully abandon armor just because the enemy isn't clad in armor either.
No, that's 100% wrong. They abandoned Phalanxes to deal with the Tribes of Rural Italy. the Scutum specifically came from the Samnites. The gauls had literally nothing to do with this.
I have. You are 100% incorrect on all of your bullshit armchair general fantasizing.
Doesn't matter. They did not use their shields as offensive weapons, or really as weapons at all, unlike the Romans. The Phalanx was powerful due to the existence of Spears and their ability to fight several ranks deep. It's why the Sarrissae of Phillip were so goddamn effective since they used small bucklers and relied entirely on their reach.
Speak english nigger.
It wasn't Alexander's phalanx you uneducated tard. And I am referring to the Sword Bearers/Foot Companions, you blithering moron.
If you can foot the cost, that is 100% Wrong. If it had been affordable to equip every peasant with Chainmail, they'd have done so.
Ah yes, that's why the Romans lost to the Greeks and the Macedonian Empire once ruled almost all of Europe and the Middle East.
Except they aren't. By your same logic the Romans ended up getting fuckined destroyed when they "abandoned" the Pilum, the Gladius, and the Scutum. You aren't even internally consistent. Further, the Pilum weren't spears, they were throwing weapons, Javelins, you moron. And they quit being used because they were more expensive than a standard javelin. Likewise, the Scutum, while great, was not adopted by others due to its cost.
Glad we got that under control; They were Greeks and continued to use Greek tactics, rather than Roman ones. Not a fucking surprise. Then againtheir tactics still sucked, so go figure.

They did not beat them, they paid them off and told them to go west. Learn your history you stupid nigger.
Completely irrelevant. Belisarus's conquests did not undo what they did nor the fact that their Empire absolutely paled in comparison to the OG Republic or even the normal Empire.
Sorry, but I'm not a faggot like you, I don't guess, I actually figure out why. And the reason is simple: Costs, and Tactics. Nobody else adopted the Legionairre's fighting style because there was no need to. Not because of your retarded believe that Scutum were shit and round shields are da beszt!
Ah, so that's why those Outdated roman tactics ended up dominating everyone using the Superior, Updated tactics. Or, you're just a fucking moron who probably couldn't figure out which end of the spear he's supposed to stab with.
Not really. The image of town guards wielding spears and such does not coincide with reality; They used swords, because spears are utterly ineffective in close quarters or out of formation. A guard in a tower, or a gatehouse, *might* use one, but then that's also debatable.
Knights and Peasants most certainly did not carry around spears as self defense weapons. Knights carried around Swords, both as Status symbols and because they were effective even out of formation. Peasants didn't because you aren't carrying around a spear for your day to day business, they kept Knives. The Germans even had a sword that was, by their laws, technically a knife, developed for self defense purposes.
Wrong. It is useless outside of a formation. IF anyone gets past the tip of the spear, it's rendered utterly worthless in a split second. With its unwieldly length on top of that, it's just not effective to use outside of a formation.
Yes you did, you stupid nigger. You will just go back and forth saying "NUH UH" and desperately trying to cover up the fact that you are a retard.
Fucking Hardly. Round shields were by all accounts fucking huge, and they did not use it for Versatility or any other bullshit you are touting, since it was NEVER USED OFFENSIVELY. In short, you are a retard who thinks that being armored means you should abandon shields entirely, while the Romans, who went on to conquer practically every single fucker who got in their way, proved you wrong.

get a room already you homos

I think you oughta study Belisarus's campaign before shittalking any further, he beats the crap out of the Goths and vandals and reclaims Rome for a brief while. The scutum didn't matter shit.

And the whole spear being useless outside of formation is pure bullcrap.

Except the greeks and the macedonians all used the phalanx offensively, and that includes the round shield and sword flankers.

And for the record, the idea of using the scutum to fight offensively is fucking stupid as well.

I double dare you to show me technique where scutum bash is legit.

I've seen round shield bash, I've seen buckler bash, but scutum bash? That's just full fucking retarded.

...

Swordies are understating spears, and spearchuckers are understating swords.

That's one super small scutum.

At that point, why not just carry a round shield, or better a buckler?

Tell me more about how much the Republic and the Early Empire sucked. Those dumb shits would've conquered atleast TWICE as fast if they just used phalanxes amirite?
I can say from practice that it isn't. It's utterly worthless and incredibly easy to defeat someone wielding a spear if you've got a longsword or just a shield, really. And the longer their spear is the more fucked they are.
Phalanx, not the ROUND SHIELD you goddamn dirt-eating moron. They never ever fought in Close quarters because the whole point of a Phalanx was preventing that. The whole point was being able to fightmore than 1 rank deep. It's why the Sarrissae were so effective.
Then again, by your shoddy logic, the Sarrissae were actually trash and Phillip of Macedon was an idiot since the only time they were ever used again was when Pike formations became popular in the Renaissance; And even then they were supplementary to the guys with the guns, rather than doing the real job themselves.
You'd say this with zero knowledge on the matter and the physical inability to walk 10 steps without dropping to your knees in fatigue, of course.
Done. I bet you're such a stupid nigger you've never even seen a shield used outside of some shitty hollywood movie.
Yeah man, i agree, it's retarded, that's why the Romans ended up getting just destroyed by those Gaullic and Greek masterminds with Round shields. Fuck, if only they had been smart enough to use round shields, the Romans might've been able to conquer those guys.

Considering the romans never conquered quite as fast as Alexander did, I would agree, the romans had logistics and number, their tactics wasn't the best of the world.
Or you just fight someone incredibly sucky with a spear. See video:

Except the phalanx got flanked regularly, so what do you think the phalangites did, just run away and break formation? Nope, they were protected by the sword and shield-ers, or they whip out their own sword.
I assume your video is meant to prove a point? Because that looks a shitton less effective than a germanic warrior with a longsword and a round shield.
For the record, the gauls used the scutums, the romans simply copied it.
And the greeks were giving Rome hell until they run out of soldiers.

This is probably a better video on how a good spearman would perform, then again, this particular sword/shield guy looks like he just sucks.

Also for the record
- round shield were used thorough history
- long sword were used thorough history
- pikes were used thorough history (even in medieval age, the scots were famous with the pikes)

The scutum i.e. tower shield? Only used against as pavise, and even then as stationary emplacement, not actual melee equipment.

Holy shit you actually are this retarded.
10 Years of Practice and they're still sucky? Man, you got me, they just sucked, and that was why it was easy to defeat someone with a spear. Well, you already got BTFO on asking about "Muh scutum bash!", so your lack of knowledge on how to actually fight is not surprising.
That has nothing to do with what I said. Greeks did not use their shields offensively. Your supposed versatility literally would not even matter. Your claims are nothing but tripe based on nothing.
You got utterly fucking wrekt and it's obvious to everyone at this point. Stop posting, it's shameful.
No they didn't lmao.
Not really lmao. Rome won where Greece did not, through superior tactics. Afterall, the Romans did come about to abandoning the shitty phalanx you keep harping on about because it was worthless against the Italian tribes.
Furthermore, on the video;
You are retarded and your lack of experience only makes it more painful to watch. There is a reason Spears were always used in Formations. Only a blithering idiot like you would go "OH, I BEG TO DIFFER!" and proceed to spew this much bullshit to justify their incompetence.

How exactly? Alexander conquered much faster than the romans.
That's true though, you just might someone who sucks.
For your knowledge, in that particular fight, they weren't using scutum to bash, they were using scutum to strike, and quite stupidly, giving their whole body away as they open up their arm to strike with the shield.
Except they did, they used shield for bashing, for pushing formation, and to protect themselves in CQC, jesus christ man.
They did, the iberians for example used both the scutum and gladius which the roman copied.
Look up Pyrrhus the great, many fights where about the romans unable to beat the phalanx frontally, so they had to feign retreat and lured the phalanx into uneven terrain in order to flank them, pray tell, you don't need the scutum to do that, in fact, that's just a matter of tactics, not equipment.
Against the gallic tribes actually, the romans were getting their ass raped by various Gallic kings until they decide to copy their loadout i.e. sword and shield with throwing spear.
Excuse me? It doesn't matter if the sword is thrusting or slashing, what matters is reach, and the spear owns that. The sword can mitigate this by having a sword, or having a longer sword, or better skills but spear has the reach advantage. There are various manuals on spear in duel in both european and eastern accounts, please educate yourself.

...

Because it wouldn't be a scutum bash. Duh.

No, that's the point, you are making a scutum that is only suitable for duel since that small size means it's useless against missile fire.

It's destroying the point of the scutum.

I can confirm that is not true. The spear is simply not practical outside of a formation. It gets far worse the more people you have too.
Okay bud.
No they didn't. Protecting yourself is not offensive, and Phalanxes would usually end up falling apart if they got flanked. Are you fucking retarded?
Good job retard.
Wouldn't be possible with other phalanxes, and in the end the Romans still whooped em good. Maybe if they'd dropped all their scutum they woulda done better though, right? A retard like you would actually think that.
Except that's wrong, you dumbass. They adopted that equipment long, long, looong before they even fought with the Gauls. God, you're so fucking illiterate it's painful.
Okay bud.
I've practiced HEMA for 8 Years and I've read more manuals on the subject than times you've left your computer chair, keyboard warrior. You've admitted you can't even walk the distance to get out of your own house, and you want others to take your advice? Haha, no.
Grade A retard material you are.

Well, these videos are proving you wrong man.
Okay, every other shield warriors were keeping shield close to their body, or using it to bash, not to strike i.e. leaving your body wide open.
Except using the shield to bash and push up enemy formation is indeed using it offensively.
For their sword and shield? Nope, they copied that from the gallic warriors..
It sure wouldn't make a difference, the scutum didn't make the roman legionnaire invincible against the phalanx.
That's actually wrong, Brennus the Gaul was wrecking the romans phalanx with his charge tactics, thus the romans learned the gauls and abandoned the phalanx.
All I know is that renaissance tactics went up aping Alexander's pike and lance, not Roman sword and shield.
Yet you know naught about spear used in duel, nigger you lie.
It's the only type of tower shield used post-antiquity. Fucking everyone else were using round, kite and heater.

You only had to say cool vid and my bad

All I have to say is you are not using the scutum used by roman legionnaire in field battle.

Duh.

For that vid, no.

No they aren't. You admitted that you were wrong about one, and one wasn't even using a sword, but a fucking rapier of all things. The one I posted showed how retarded you were.
They never did. Phalanxes did not get so close and literally remove their reach advantage that they could shield bash ANYONE.
No they didn't. The scutum is literally the same one used by the fucking Samnites. They adopted the Maniple system while fighting Italian Tribes, you moron.
Nobody said it did, but you did just say I was right in that the Romans whooped the shit out of the phalanx.
You're a double retard now since you are implying Phalanxes were shit and the Scutum/Gladius combo was better all along.
Yeah I forgot about the Macedonian tactics of using Muskets and Sabers, I need to read up on that some day.
I know exactly how to use one in a Duel, and it is literally all about keeping your enemy as far away as possible with your reach advantage. It's so fucking easy to get past that, however, that it's better to just use a sword.
Interestingly, you tend to get the best results with Spears if you also keep a Dagger in hand to switch to when you lose your reach advantage. But a stupid nigger like you wouldn't know that.
Don't care. It was not a Scutum and was not used in any way whatsoever like a Scutum.
Cool story bro. Did you know that every civilization since the dawn of Man has used Daggers and Knives, though? Almost every soldier has had a Dagger or a Knife as a part of their equipment. Daggers and Knives, are by far, the best weapons ever made, since everyone had one.

All you had to say was my bad and cool vid. This is sad.

Melee combat hasn't changed programically since Quake1's shovel. Until more impressive programming happens for melee it won't matter your weapon because the algorithm will still be shit.

Yeah. And arena shooters where the pinnacle of gaming. And other memes.

Huh? No, my videos didn't show rapier vs spear.
You bash, as in the position from holding the shield up front then bashing it to the side, not unlike these romans were they were vertically striking with their scutum.
Except you know, phalanx got flanked, and their flankers have to protect them by using sword and shield, this is not to mention the hoplite phalanx era spear was shorter, thus means the battle would become shield pushing.
There is many origin of the scutum, but the point remains, the gauls also used rectangular shields like the scutums.
Through their tactics and logistics, not because of their superior equipment.
Not all phalanx was made equal, the gallic charges were able to break greek hoplites even before Roman time, still, it would have been a different history with a pike phalanx, Macedonian style.
I would like to see your video dueling someone proficient with a spear.
Nobody else uses the scutum post-classical history, hell, modern police officer uses their tower shield more like pavise than scutum.
What does that have to do with everything? The point remains that the scutum was replaced by superior shields.

Except my context is the scutum used by roman legionnaires which were bigger and more cumbersome, you are deviously using some small ass rectangular shields to deflect the point.

Ghoul2 which is what JKO and JKA used had some neat animation transforms but the damage system is the same Quake algorithm of a hit within a triangle in 2D space registering a message to the server to handle damage.

The system needs to be improved more than that where weapons themselves are objects which registers with hit and force and animations deform based on these actions. Its totally possible but its not an investment in AAA wants to take because if done well in Single-Player the net code would be terrible and if simplified for Multiplayer, the only place where companies make money now', it wouldn't play as well as the Single-Player.

You can see this simplification apparent in JKA Single-Player versus Multiplayer.

Twist it any way you like but end of the day you're too much of a bitch to acknowledge a double dare. Sad!

You got BTFO, just admit it and leave, you sore loser.
Haha, no. Shield pushing is a myth. It was never a thing and never happened. Congratulations on revealing how retarded you are; You actually buy into shit that never happened. It's not surprising when you probably have no fucking clue how to hold a sword let alone how they might be used.
They took it directly from Italian tribes, the Samnites in particular. You were 100% Wrong in saying they copied it from the Gauls.
No, their equipment was pretty superior too.
Keep talking Armchair General, maybe your sophistry can get you out of this embarrassment.
Scroll up, faggot.
Don't care. I already explained why it fell out of use and why nobody bothered to go back to Roman tactics. Your shallow, childish view of weapons "progressing" was demolished with that, though, so you'll probably ignore it.
Not at all. I was counting modern Riot Shield tactics out since it's modern, but in that case you are even more retarded since we have a perfect example of Roman Tactics with Shields being adopted and used wonderfully. Scutum and Riot Shields are practically one in the same in application and shape, although Riot shields are slightly bigger and lack a boss.
If you wanna argue that the usefulness of a weapon is dependent on how often it was used, which you have, then Knives and Daggers are the greatest weapons ever made, even better than Guns.
Your 'point' has been BTFO repeatedly. Inferior shields of lesser quality and easier make were used in place by peoples who were used to using these inferior shields, and had few to no alternatives, and that's literally all there is to it. But reading up on the history of the Romans would be far too great a challenge for you, clearly, so we should take your keyboard warrior speculations for proof.

When did this thread become 100 fucking posts of two autists bashing each other over the scutum?

You haven't got an ounce of taste, nigger.

When I decided today was the day I refuse to back down in the face of a really stupid nigger.
Now quit asking and post more sideswords.

Some people think that morning stars were exclusively torture implements, but it seems clear that there were several examples that were used as weapons in war. The "morgenstern" (literally just morning star in German) and "godendag" ("good day" in Dutch) were polearms with spiked mace heads that were used in war. The weapons in your second image match that profile fairly well, except with a longer shaft. The name "holy water sprinkler" is usually used when referring to the torture implement, specifically, which was a wooden morning star with long spikes. But also, this guy is 100% right. It doesn't help that until relatively recently many "experts" just copied what earlier historians (namely Victorians) wrote about medieval history, which was frequently very inaccurate.

That used to happen all the time though, back in the day. Kings used to take anybody they could, so sometimes Joe the local village pisspot would show up to the big battle with just a tunic and a big stick.

Why would you lump a weapon for wealthy horsemen which was used for a very specific purpose and then thrown away with a weapon category which was used by all classes of infantry and was known for its versatility and great variety in design?

Mustering troops was a responsibility left to feudal lords, and in most kingdoms it would in fact be considered a gross overreach of power if the king were to do something like muster one of his vassal's troops without even asking them about it. Most kings didn't wield absolute power per se, the "real power" still lies with the feudal lords who preside over most of the actual land. This changed over time but that political dynamic is what usually defines the feudal or medieval era.

This depends on the time period and whims of your local lord. Some ambitious lords would train their subjects and afford them good equipment so they could actually perform in battle. A good example of this on a kingdom scale was England's long-standing law which requires all men to practice longbow training once a week. If a lord was contractually or socially obligated to bring troops for a campaign and he was going through tough times, he might resort to sending in some peasant losers as a token tribute, but on a practical level I believe most commanders would consider them not much better than "filler" that makes the army look bigger.

Goedendag, godendag means day of the gods.

We study Fiore and Lichtenauer, with a dash of Meyer and vadi. Fiore was most likely a student of Lichtenauer, after all.

Getting a meaty hit with a blunt weapon in Exanima feels incredible

Historyfags make the best autism. I don't even know if anything I've learned from their exchange is correct, but I'm enjoying watching it.

...

It's cool seeing /r/askhistorians discussion qualities on Holla Forums.

...

I just wish it was more than a glorified tech demo.

intellectual checkmate, nerd.

u avin' a giggle, m8?

Well of course:

Daggers are simply better.
>someone will think im 100% serious despite obvious use of a meme

burn the stick then eat the ashes

My bad, I'm half-German not Dutch, so I tend to get the German correct, but Dutch looks like a monkey trying to speak German to me.

I love Exanima's combat, but Christ are they taking forever with the non arena parts. The dungeon crawl currently in the game is a tedious slog, of which the first hour or so is spent carefully avoiding everyone as much as possible because you have no real equipment (although the metal stake is surprisingly decent). Arena is also tedious as fuck, and it's extremely easy for your Expert skill fighter to die just because you got unlucky just like in real life but that doesn't make it fun, no sir it doesn't. I would like Arena a lot more if it was much faster to train dudes, or if there were less tiers to train them through.

Musket confirmed best polearm.

But now you're the stick

If you pause and forfeit right after you're killed your guy survives
But yeah, you're absolutely right. Everything that isn't combat feels like absolute garbage in this. Hopefully Sui Generis will correct this somewhat.

/his/ was a mistake

I'll give you a sword and scrotum.

/Thread

...

Screw that fancy footwork and I'll just drop a rock on them.
>punctuation in memetext

The romans destroyed everybody because they were organized.

None of the weapons is the best. Everything have their uses at right time and right place. That includes bare hands.

...

Don't mind me.

is there a word for medieval-themed /k/ autism?

Smiting.

Just fuck my shit up fam.

they never took out dragging or the slow ass swinging so it's literally just a glorified chivalry mod. just wait for butterlord instead

I wonder, if is that true that Mordhau forums is full of memers?

They're not taking purchases because Valve forced them to close the shop

Flails are the most criminally underused weapon in video games.

did she died?

I'm always amazed at the /k/ enthusiasts that come out in these threads
we truly have the best Holla Forums around

The 1h mace from dark souls is pretty nice. Feels chunky, does lots of damage. I love how you can beat the entire game with the base class weapons like this.

yall fucking plebs for not appreciating a polearm that is also sexy as fuck
Daofags need not apply

They're surprisingly good in DnD crpgs though.