Why don't they use realistic fighting techeniques and realistic armor & weapon properties?

Meh full plate weighed about 50 pounds. As much as current day soldiers carry in their backpacks in marches that last much longer than 10minutes. The weight is also more evenly distributed around the body making it less tiring than a backpack. But hey your average Amrifat can’t make it around a grocery store without a mobility scooter.

Full plate armor cost a fortune. The only ones able to afford it are actual knights, so probably 50 people in a country.

What does this have to do with the discussion whether it is heavy or not?

haha
i am not clucking those links
everyt iem somone on the internet talks about real sword fighting
they always
linkto clips where people with no friends and bad hair(why is it always long) and beards and fattish and look like they smell
and they do these super gay fights hahaha always look so stupid
i would bully them in real life

Attached: image.png (500x500, 162K)

No one fights with their pack on.

Shields are for nerds.

Attached: The Duellists.webm (704x400, 2.75M)

STOP THINKING AND CONSUME

This.
Try putting 2kg on your ankles and run 5 km. Good luck shitheads.
inb4metric jokes

>As much as current day soldiers
Current day. Yesterday guys were much smaller so consider into your realistic sword fight.
>current day soldiers carry in their backpacks in marches
Marches. Have you ever seen soldiers do battle with full gear one? Consider this in a gun battle and even worse in a sword battle.
>The weight is also more evenly distributed around the body
Which still reduces overall mobility.
>making it less tiring than a backpack
I really doubt that it's that much less tiring. Might as well add the armor AND a backpack to your knight of yesterday who also had to drag his stuff in a march.
>your average Amrifat can’t make it around a grocery store without a mobility scooter
They should've rolled.

Not an expert or even hobby-expert by any means, nor do I have any idea of which time period you are referring to. However, I do recall reading that 14th century medieval knights were often unable to move in any meaningful manner on an actual battlefield. Once a knight fell of his horse during battle, death was almost a sure thing since he required some two squires to locate him and help him up (he could not do this by himself because he was weighed down by armor) before he was in any position to retreat, much less actually defend himself.

kek

Plate armor weighed less than many modern soldiers' standard packs, and that weight was way better distributed as well. It would likely be less tiring to wear, although it had the disadvantage of being really tough to remove by yourself.

I also think his point isn't that he wants 100% true-to-life realistic swordplay in movies, but rather that if the combat in movies was closer to real life it would actually look better, which I agree with. It would be faster paced, and have way more interesting options available.

Your last point is 100% right though and is exactly why this won't happen (unless some movie is created that's basically the John Wick of medieval combat, where the interesting combat becomes such a feature/selling point that other movies will start to imitate it).

When is Yea Forums going to get off its ass and create its own movie studio where we can put all of these autistic ideas into films? Pretty cool links you shared OP.

>I also think his point isn't that he wants 100% true-to-life realistic swordplay in movies, but rather that if the combat in movies was closer to real life it would actually look better, which I agree with. It would be faster paced, and have way more interesting options available.
yes

>thinks battles started with lines 10km apart
kill yourself paco

here's a challenge for you, hold 8 bags of sugar in your outstretched hand for as long as possible.
then try wearing it in a backpack.
then try evenly distributing the sugar in small pouches across your entire body, legs, arms and head.
then have a surgeon lobotomise you so you can't use the internet anymore.

>describes me
Fuck you you chad wanna be faggot thot foot licking goat fucker I haven't taken a shower because it's too exhausting. You don't understand the ordeal.

>Thinks battles last for 10 minutes
Enjoy dying of overheating inside your plate armor oven.

Attached: Excalibur-3.webm (700x394, 2.95M)

Hell, even if you keep it unrealistic but still have armor work, it looks great:
m.youtube.com/watch?v=CaiU2CZM2ZI

Has there been any half-swording in the Game of Thrones fight and battle scenes? I can't recall any.

They weren't that much smaller, actually. Average height for Northern European males during the middle ages was 68.75" (5'8.75), which is only about 2 inches shorter than now- and that's the overall average. Knights, who were properly fed (being nobles and all) and, generally, more likely to be larger, probably were about average or above average in modern height- plus they trained to a level that modern soldiers just don't even attempt, physicality wise. It obviously would be more tiring to move around in than just clothes, but the benefits hilariously outweigh the drawbacks.

Also, if you're a knight in full plate rather than just breastplate/helm and maybe some other bits, you probably have a horse.

youtube.com/watch?v=nB8tiSMCwRE
Related enough.

If I went back in time I'd still be a manlet kek

>Also, if you're a knight in full plate rather than just breastplate/helm and maybe some other bits, you probably have a horse.
This

No, because the average audience member would think they'd cut their fingers off trying to half-sword or mordschlag.

the shit sound effects of "footsteps" in the second video is thoroughly irritating.
spastics overdoing it and reusing the same carrot being chopped knuckle crack sound for every fucking step.

>Plate armor weighed less than many modern soldiers' standard packs
That's very debatable considering the different amount of current day gear and different layouts of the armors themselves + armor and shield differences. The difference is near meaningless between them anyway. Even the smaller not full plate armor reduces your mobility significantly if chasing after someone in their sleeping linens.
Not to mention shit nutrition and all other manner of medieval health hazards would fuck you up also.
>that if the combat in movies was closer to real life it would actually look better
I doubt that also. Have you ever seen a real street brawl? They look like shit and it's near impossible to act something like that out of the sheer bloodthirstiness of it. With swords it'd be way harder and more dangerous and it would still look like shit.
>It would be faster paced, and have way more interesting options available.
There would be way less options and you can choreograph fast pace.

I never got the whole you tube "medieval fighting realism" gig. Literally thing they're all weirdos who do those explanation videos. Every real fight I've ever been or saw is just clashing meatheads.
I'd honestly rather have some dance to fake movie fight, though I too would like them to be done better.

Attached: Henry VIII armour3.jpg (3198x1311, 788K)

>team of professional swordfighters happen to be close to amateur actors and movie makers
who would'st of thunked

>half sword fetishist wants his fetish shown

Here's a challenge for you. Put on your 8 bags of sugar as comfortably as you can and run around your house for a good few minutes while swinging a stick. Doesn't even have to be a metal stick, a broom will be fine.
Just don't trip on all your sword kung fu moves you learned off of youtube.

>doesn't realise that metal conducts heat away from the body and keeps your naturally cool
>has never worn armour
>thinks battles last for hours

muh half swording

he got fat

they deliberately inserted the same sound effect 500 times, that isn't a problem of being amateur, that's being fucking stupid cunts.

here's a challenge for you, coat your dilators in arsenic and stuff them all in at once,then cut your throat for good measure.

MH'BOYY

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (290x382, 27K)

Calm down, kid. You're not in a video game anymore.
You're in a movie and its a comedy for us, a tragedy for you.

>Average height for Northern European males during the middle ages was 68.75" (5'8.75)
Exclude the current day migrant shit skins, and the average northern man is 6'2". PewDiePie is getting shit because he's a manlet in Scandinavia.

How do you all get cucked so easily over there when you're all giants? I'd literally be a midget if I lived there.

Not using a dueling glove or a parrying dagger is for dead men.

utube is full of street fights.
nothing impressive about them.
only ones of note are where trained people are involved and deal with multiple untrained
people in clean, efficient movements.

haven't you killed yourself yet tranny. you're disgusting and brain damaged.

I know, it's horrible. Basically you're a racist if you're native. We are fucked and cucked.

kikes.
infilitrating and subverting over decades, taking advantage of civilised people and using their social cohesion against them, with trillions used to fund it all.
it's like asking someone tough how they had their house burgled while they were at work.

Good genetics will prevail I hope.

>dem accurate costumes and period-appropriate hairstyles

Attached: 1368912252527.png (356x301, 21K)

Because the people writing and directing this crap are limp wristed leftists who find lifting a starbucks cup to be a strenuous activity.

This is real fighting techniques:

youtube.com/watch?v=966ulgwEcyc, not whatever they did in those clips

>Average height for Northern European man
>Northern European
How much of the medieval world population did the average Northern European man took?
But to tell you the truth, I don't even buy how they figured the height of the average Northern European man.
>Knights, who were properly fed (being nobles and all)
Knights were definitely not all nobles and the whole well fed doesn't make you "taller". IT does make you more buff and stronger so you can bear the armor though, that is true.
>they trained to a level that modern soldiers just don't even attempt
They practice fighting a lot, but had no concept of fitness at all. That came way after WW1.
>the benefits hilariously outweigh the drawbacks
See, the main benefit is to have protection in the neck of battle. Also in the neck of battle you don't have fancy moves and 1v1s, but you chop every guy you can find who is not looking at you.
>you probably have a horse
You'd have then either armor the horse which would reduce it's mobility or be prepared to have it cut down by the unarmored peasants, throwing you on the ground with way more than enough time to club you in.

rage will prevail. the only thing that will end it is if absolute fury arises amongst the populace.

How fat are you? What you’re saying is the equivalent of
> If i can run 30minutes straight, then I can wrestle for 30 minutes straight.
A ruck march isn’t a fifth as intense as hand to hand combat, how do you not realize this?

It's back when Ridley Scott cared.

Nigga if you cant easily carry 50 pounds on you, you should kill yourself lanklet. Thats fucking nothing.

Being well fed does make you taller though, lack of nutrition as a teenager has a massive effect on growth. Thats part of why most countries have had a growth spurt in height in the past century

My point exactly.
You find a video called realistic swordfighting or whatever and you watch it only to see some metal neopagan looking dude dancing around with his lightened sword like in the movies. No brutal realism at all.
With the trained fighter taking out multiple stick people in street fights, same thing with a well fed, well trained, fully armored knight. All he'd have to do is just walk around the battle field swinging his sword with strength and cutting down people like tree sapling. No karate sword shit at all.

See, again, you keep saying past century and things of today.
Back in yesterday there was no concept of nutrition, you mostly ate shitty cooked meat and stale bread. Only on season could you even eat fruit if you even wanted to and your vitamin and mineral stability was more in the hands of God than yourself, making growing taller an issue, especially if you had the additional hazards of labor and too much roughhousing.

>Heavy armor mobility:
>youtube.com/watch?v=qzTwBQniLSc

are you dense? you think they can do that for hours on end during a battle? hockey players can barely do 2 minute shifts on the ice going at full speed, that's why shift rotations are constantly happening.

they actually needed a crane to put knights wearing full plate on their horses

>You MAY be able to move half okay for the first 10 min. in battle, but once you reach fatigue point, your knees will go popcorn and every step you take will be like taking a shit that doesn't want to come out.
finally someone who knows what they're talking about
also that hollywood being cheap is hacks is spot on as well

Attached: big fucking sword.jpg (620x414, 27K)

diet has a massive effect on reaching your maximum potential height.
look at the last generation of chinks and japs who have eaten western diets, they are six inches taller than their parents.
medieval people are fairly well because wild food was still around, fish in the rivers and so on, but wealthy people, meaning more or less any professional fighting man, could eat beef regularly along with all the other foods. for a growing boy, the son of a wealthy man, this means all available energy and material for developing his skeleton and muscles during puberty.
skeletons provide the estimate average heights, as well as limited records.
being fit in those days was a natural byproduct of life. they lived it, they didn't need to practise it. no machines in the modern sense.
physical training has been around for thousands of years though, see the olympics.

>>Knights, who were properly fed (being nobles and all)
>Knights were definitely not all nobles

nta, but knights were, per definition, noble. Often stated is that all knights fought as men-at-arms (men clad in armour), but not all men-at-arms were knights.

t. studying history in uni

Carrying 50 pounds (~22kg) through terrain is different from carrying the same amount of groceries home, even if your groceries are in an ergonomic backpack, user. I'm not sure of the point you're trying to make here (or the user you're replying to), but context plays a large role on the subject at hand.

Attached: 1381731858369.jpg (250x250, 8K)

>full plate weighed about 50 pounds
>current day soldiers carry in their backpacks in marches
the point is you're fitting and singing a sword around on top of all that

Swords are for nerds.

youtube.com/watch?v=EvKJcxa8x_g

Attached: Charlotte Hope.jpg (2000x2997, 1.84M)

Yeah but directors are lazy and the standard for fighting in films is really low. They don't want to make things harder for themselves by raising the bar.

Because shit like this is expensive, and the average viewer doesn't need it to be impressed. It's 100% cutting corners for the dosh.

I hate it when memes go to the opposite extreme.
Full plate wouldn't limit mobility that much, but having 20kg+ of armor on you would certainly fatigue you quite faster.
Also, not all plate armor was splendidly crafted artwork that weighs little. Much of it was heavy as fuck.

>You MAY be able to move half okay for the first 10 min. in battle, but once you reach fatigue point, your knees will go popcorn and every step you take will be like taking a shit that doesn't want to come out
Henry V wants a word with you.

Female Archers are the funniest shit ever.

incorrect.
he would be able to cut through a lot of people, but not like he was cutting the grass while blindfolded.
swordplay would have been taught to a well-off lad from before puberty. it is all about efficient movement, and it wasn't karate, but martial arts wasn't just an Asian thing, martial means of war, and it was just as developed in Europe, just in a different manner.
it was their livelihood, so that's all they spent their time doing.

delet

Attached: Sue Brunning British Museum5.webm (1000x837, 1.92M)

You overestimate how healthy the average nobleman's son was and underestimate how frail the average poor folk were.
>being fit in those days was a natural byproduct of life
It wasn't, true they moved more and did more labor and no doubt were stronger than your average user today, but with modern fitness, a well trained guy from today could easily outperform the best what nature produces from yesterday.
The wild foods and meat is only half of the truth since food preparation was horrible and food rots real fast. You ate what you could only at certain times of the year which unbalances your diet.

FETCH ME THE BREASTPLATE STRETCHER

I sometimes think HEMAfags, while perhaps well studied on the theory, don't fully comprehend the human nature/mind of medieval period. They seem to simply practice a different kind of an idealized fighting style.

Oh and also.
>physical training has been around for thousands of years though, see the olympics
It was in Greece and to a lesser extent in Rome, but even then, it was used for certain sportsmanship for uniquely gifted men. Even so it was nowhere near the calculated bull training regimes we have today.
And the average noble man or his son wouldn't give jack shit about fitness either way since it takes great time and effort to achieve even the most minuscule of results.

not true in the slightest.
just because they didn't have faggoted fad diets advertised on the tv about cholesterol, doesn't mean they didn't know what to eat.
talk to your grand parents, or great grandparents. they all knew what was healthy food and what wasn't. it is biologically built into us, craving what is required.
modern food with artificial flavours and colours replicates what our body is looking for without providing what those flavour and colour and smell signals should, which is what makes it so unhealthy.
I bet you think people 100 years ago thought the earth was flat.

>LOL REALISM WAAHHHHHH Y U NO

Really? And oh look someone is now complaining about muh low magic bawwwww
you cunts are annoying

they actually made that up a couple of hundred years ago, actually.
your misconceptions are based on 1800s misconceptions when they didn't investigate things properly, actually.

>knights were, per definition, noble
Not all nobles were the same.
Most were hardly any better form than the farmers they ruled over.
>Often stated is that all knights fought as men-at-arms (men clad in armour), but not all men-at-arms were knights
In a dire battle, which most of them were, you'd have to be a pretty high ranking noble for your commander not to send you into the mist of death if you could bear armor and swing a weapon.

>tfw want to get into HEMA but theres no clubs nearby
It's all jiu jitsu kung fu shit. Fuck this world

They're just Flynning, though. Terrible.

This is where I’m fine with movies and tv shows taking aritistic liberties. Real medieval battles would be boring as fuck, everybody knows it. No one wants to see out shape dudes stumbling while swinging swords

>realistic fighting techniques
Real fights were not a sports event. There really wasn't much technique involved apart from hacking and slashing.

Because realistic fighting is boring and lacks cinematic tension.

>swordplay would have been taught to a well-off lad from before puberty
Naturally, but it was taught by battle hardened warriors and not the youtube fancy ass 1v1 duelist.
Which goes into;
>martial means of war, and it was just as developed in Europe, just in a different manner.
It doesn't matter where it was developed in. You have your European pansy ass duelists, you have your Japanese dojos with thousands of styles.
But to cut a man down all you really need is a good, strong swing. To fight a man you need movement and have a really good grasp of basic weapon movement, which they were taught well, not just the nobles. Some people even have a natural affinity for fighting.
But all the special technique and overly fancy movement bullshit is just a sales gimmick. Always was, always will be.

Unironically BJJ, as gay and ground shit as it is, is probably still more athletic and useful than fucking HEMA. I have never seen a HEMA group that had more than 2 semi-fit guys.

even watching some nerd give a powerpoint presentation of a real medieval battle (e.g. youtube.com/watch?v=SU1Ej9Yqt68) is more exciting than the garbage they translate it into on the big screen

>doesn't mean they didn't know what to eat
They did not know what to eat. They ate what they could, they did not give a shit about what their food contains.
>modern food with artificial flavours and colours replicates
This is a very superficial thing to say. If you buy cheap and shit foods, yes. But if you invest in farmer's markets or grow your own foods, you technically can eat just as well as the medieval man with the added benefit of refrigeration and proper cooking, which makes the food far more valuable in its nutrition.
>I bet you think people 100 years ago thought the earth was flat
It's actually what they did believe. Granted, not all. But most of them didn't know how to read to begin with, so...

my gym bro friend can't even pull my 80lb bow.

and to op. i think it's how the hollywood's target audience, the everyday american.

I doubt the normal audience will remember john wick being a better action film than fast and furries.

and when hurt locker can win the oscar over District 9, you know realism ain't the first thing hollywood cares about.

youtube.com/watch?v=-Szo9Hqrd7s

e5 punches an e6, but he is pissed off so it's ok

100 years ago was the 1920’s user, you’d probably have to go back 300 years for the majority to think the worlds flat

>which it doesnt
It absolutely does. That's why fury warriors used to wear leather during BC.

And bows arent for women. Bows with a halfway decent battle draw weight require more strength than pretty much any other hand weapon of the time.

yet there are strong man challenges from before 1900 that still haven't been matched today.
with apparently no idea about nutrition and no training, according to you.
people only a few generations ago in general were stronger, because everything was manual. housewives with huge forearms from scrubbing or mixing or grinding in the kitchen.
eating seasonal food is supposed to be healthier, and there are widely popular modern diet regimes based on it.
as to a "drugged up computer analysed 8 hours a day trained multi millionaire athelete" from now beating a guy from 1400, maybe, but endurance is not generally something trained, and those modern athletes are highly specific in their disciplines, not to mention the fact that it is irrelevant and not the discussion in the first place. instead it is "a guy in armour could move around and fight in armour that was specifically designed to allow him to be able to move around and fight since it was a matter of life and death".
But yeah, no one wore armour and swords didn't exist until 1920.

>medieval

Attached: mis.jpg (350x234, 22K)

>gym bro
>can’t even pull 80lbs
Thats probably a techique issue, that or he’s not that strong.
Also, why do you have an 80lbs draw? Moose?

noble hobbies were focussed on hunting while is a form of combat recreation.
Romans spread across Europe, taking their customs and technology with them.
There are training manuals available from the middle ages in France, England, Germany etc.

>ITT: pointless arguments by users with no relevant qualifications for what they're discussing
Can't we just agree that a higher level of historical accuracy and/or authenticity in duel-scenes in movies would be more enjoyable?

>Not all nobles were the same.
>Most were hardly any better form than the farmers they ruled over.
I fail to see your point here. My point is that to be a knight, you had to be noble. The social structures in 11th century to 16th century western europe stipulated that knighthood was exclusive to the nobles. By knight, I mean the social class. This is my point. I'm not trying to be smug or condescending, user, I'm trying to find the source of disagreement here.

>In a dire battle, which most of them were,
How would you define a dire battle?

>you'd have to be a pretty high ranking noble for your commander not to send you into the mist of death if you could bear armor and swing a weapon.
Was it not the *privilege* the nobles to fight? The peasants laboured, the clergy prayed, and the nobles fought - in simplistic terms that was how medieval western european society was built.

Attached: 1363549198368.png (344x341, 10K)

maybe he just not used to pulling heavy weight that isn't a cable machine haha

IDK why i had such a big bow, maybe because im a big guy>?

I guess it's a question of taste, but everytime one of these generic battles with jump cuts and shaky camera starts my brain just goes numb and my enjoyment level drops down to 0, I don't want things to 100% realistic and boring, but without some grounding it's impossible for a film to convey actual weight and stakes to a battle.

start your own. advertise it in the local paper "partners wanted for HEMA, wooden sword etc practice".
figure it out, go to training days every few months to learn more techniques.

here, didn't mean to quote @114835249 the first time, only the second. I'm trying to not point fingers, here.

What advice do you have for someone looking to get into archery but has no idea where to start? I need a goddamn hobby.

h-haha - you t-took my b-bait,.. fool!

Attached: 4qYsmxL.png (680x576, 770K)

>nerd
given that 2/3 of the world uses computers and the internet every single day, I think the word 'nerd' has lost its meaning.
if you are checking facebook 20 times a day, or uploading pictures on instagram for internet pals every day, you're a nerd.
point that out to anyone saying someone is nerdy.

>IDK why i had such a big bow, maybe because im a big guy?
Most people would only use a 55lbs for standard deer and boar, the only reason I could see an 80lbs being used is for bear or moose and would be a specialized bow.
And a bow like that would be expensive and not usually used by someone who thinks
>if i big then me use big bow
How long ago did you actually have this bow? I don’t think it was actually 80lbs mate

>doesnt't realise people wore layered clothing along with armor
>battles do last for hours

he makes dozens of long, detailed videos about ancient battles for fun and then uploads them to youtube. that's a nerd.

well, owning a traditional bow is better than owning a crossbow or a compound bow cuz it's harder to learn, hints feels better when you get good at it.
if you want to kill ppl, crossbow is WAAAAYYY better at getting the job done.

but both hobby make you look like an autism and need a range for you to practice. like for me, i have a lot of alone fun time with my bow, but i have way more family fun time with my cold steel practice sword that i can play it with my cousins in the backyard.

desu, i don't quite remember the actual draw weight. I remember choosing a bow that is strong enough to kill a deer, that's what i remeber. so it's prob above the minimun weight limit for deer hunting.

>studies history fervently to dispel old myths and give an accurate presentation of events as contemporary historiography would have it to the broader public
>"lol nerd"
You sure showed him, user.

Attached: 1363367230330.jpg (500x500, 40K)

Only about 10% of the male population are giants though, they suffer from a lack of allies. The 90% beta males all banded together and ran the country into the shitter.

it's yet another myth pushed in the 1700 and 1800s, that "people thought the earth was flat", it is traceable in literature of the time.
globes were commonly used for hundreds of years, and proof of the earth being spherical dates back to Egyptian times.
what most people confuse it with is the misconception of the earth being the centre of the solar system instead of the sun, and even that was about 600 years ago.
all your talking points come from pop-culture, and those come from modern stupidity and lack of research rather that the people of the past being stupid.
the same with "people only lived to the age of 30!!" and "people were only 4 foot tall a hundred years ago" and "people are everything without any thought and lived like goats or rats".
Start reading instead of wildly guessing.
Look for a recipe book from those times, or try searching for "diet in medieval times".
It is the modern portrayal that they were all mindless beasts of burden.

calm the autism dweeb

are you over 50 or something?

>choreography that is less entertaining than GoT, Vikings or Last Kingdom
>still not realistic with all those wild swings
worst of both worlds desu

No, GoT also makes the habit of treating steel plate like plastic.

just went back to the site where i bought it, yeah. it's a 55lb bow

BOW YA SHITS!

historically records are full of texts that mention knights dying of exhaustion in the sun

>less entertaining than GoT
lol no

bait but i'll take it
lol yes
youtube.com/watch?v=VM9wWtHozCM

What do you need to know? A good hunting bow normally has a 40-60lbs draw strength, compound bows are what I’d recommend for starters as they’re simpler, cheaper and easier to store. Practice arrowtips are not the same as hunting arrow tips. Also you need to wax the bowstring
Then it’d probably be in the 50-60lbs range. 70lbs is bear
archerystream.com/bow-draw-weights-for-hunting-different-animals/
I have doubts about an 80lbs-er

>But to tell you the truth, I don't even buy how they figured the height of the average Northern European man.

You literally just dig up skeletons and measure them and make an average. Its not rare for old grave sites to be discovered and excavated here in Europe often during construction work.

haha so based and funny xD

Not quite, I'm currently studying for a degree in history at a local university.

Which is why I kinda like Historia Civilis, he strives to portrays historical battles in more accurate terms compared to more popular youtube channels while not avoiding pitfalls like dramatisation or oversimplification for the sake of viewer interest . Some channels like Simple History or Extra Credits sometimes give an outdated, dramatised or factually incorrect version of events. Historia Civilis is by no stretch perfect (I don't really watch his videos), but he is better than many.

i think the problem with that short video is we don't really have enough time to resonate with the characters in the video, what's the stake, what's the motive. so it's just 2 guys fighting each other with swords. like.........oh, cool. so what.

here is the best fight scene in tv show

youtube.com/watch?v=B5JCqfbdGJk

I prefer reading specialist literature myself. Part of my objection is that all these channels tend to give one definite interpretation of battles, even in cases where the exact progression of events is unclear and subject to varying interpretations.

>youtube channels while not avoiding pitfalls like
Meant to write "... while AVOIDING pitfalls like"

Attached: 1349674600819.jpg (432x288, 42K)

>studying or having any interests apart from drugs
lol, nerd

the GoT fight scene is stronger. actually it's not the fight choreography that makes it so powerful: it's the superb acting of the audience members and how it's chewing inside them.

still happens now to modern troops, even in training.

>a thousand cuts while some guy dances with a stick
I guess if you have the mind of a kid.

>channels tend to give one definite interpretation
Preach, man. I think presenting several interpretations is definitely a good thing.

You got me.

Attached: 136715543665.jpg (396x396, 32K)

Medieval girls used 150lb bows for sport

>Carrying 50 pounds (~22kg) through terrain is different from carrying the same amount of groceries home,

Yes which is why most armies didn't march over rough terrain but rather stuck to roads and also had a shitload of animals that carried the heavy shit.

Imagine...

proudly

Attached: manchildren.jpg (850x400, 64K)

Longbows capable of piercing steel plate are usually estimated to be around 75-100lbs for draw strength user. So no.

So it's only interesting because you care about the characters, but we are arguing about fight choreography.

God im so lonely and horny

steel plate as a test isn't useful.
150lb is required to penetrate plate, chain, leather and felt.

People couldn't just eat chicken tendies every day to grow large. If your diet is 90% moldy buckwheat gruel you won't see big gains.

Attached: 1451283398122.jpg (479x444, 62K)

spending £500 on a private show on chaturbate will solve both problems.

>Longbows capable of piercing steel plate

Attached: hqdefault.jpg (480x360, 16K)

>The only ones able to afford it are actual knights
thats even better though, have the pleb pheasant soldiers wear mail and gambeson with the named characters usually already lords be the only ones in full plate. the lords get to realistically plough though under equipped pheasants with a few bodyguards to back them up

>£500 to masturbate
Just hire a hooker for half the price.

>Yes which is why most armies didn't march over rough terrain
Armies on the march have traditionally stuck to the roads whenever possible and feasible, but for reasons all-together different from the weight of their armour. Now we're talking about logistics, which is an entirely different beast. The burden borne by the men and draft-animals is taken into consideration, but it's by no means /the/ reason why armies stuck to roads.

To be quite honest, saying that armies stuck to roads due to the weight of the soldiers' armour is a gross oversimplification.

not true.
They lived off salmon, rabbit, wild herbs, bread and anything else that they came across.
50% of the land wasn't covered in concrete in those days, and the countryside wasmt devoid of life.
as for hollywood's "lord killing anyone who caught an animal in the woods", it was only in regards to game animals like deer and boar, the rest was "fair game".

t. nerd

>being able to use .t
nerd

Holywood intentionally wants people to be stupid.

They used to have this meme that firing from the hip was how you used guns. Only when humiliated do they eventually change their depictions.

Even if they know better, they have a strong desire to promote retarded shit just to make the audience a little stupider.

cringe

I'm not saying its because of the weight of the armor, its a general statement about how much each soldier would carry at all during a march. They'd obviously carry as much as they could but if they needed to transport more stuff they had beasts of burden to help them. If they can't march in full armor, they put the armor on the beasts. This is a matter of logistics as well. Using roads allows both horses and men to carry more things on their person because the march overall becomes easier since you're walking on flat terrain.

If you're marching over rough terrain in full armor, well, I mean yeah its absolutely going to be hard but mostly because you're basically walking around in the woods or some shit not so much because you're walking around with 22 kgs on you.

shit

holding the gun sideways with your trousers around your ankles is the real way.

"A fortune" isn't really true. IIRC on average it cost a few month's wages.

ROTC fag here. you never fully get used to carrying 45lbs of shit on your back and walk on the road or off road, it always suck.
but it suck less after you get use to it.
but can you believe the combat load of a us marine machine gunner during desert storm was around 80lbs, and their road march load weights around 120lbs.

tho, considering how roman legion have soldiers carrying their own shit, their tent and entrenching tools all on their body (i think they have a donkey for every 10 men, tho)
it must be a good way to make soldiers stronger and faster on it's feet (help the force to keep up a high tempo)

if your small troops can move alot faster than enemy's bigger but slower force, then you will be able to defeat in detail

Attached: file.png (2000x2000, 1.32M)

prob depends on the time frame

early roman period, most soldiers uses spear

while during roman empire, soldiers get to use steel short sword and at the end of rome, soldiers go back to using spear.

>It bothers me that plate armor is always shown to make you slow, which it doesn
how a loser you gotta be to know this kind of shit and to be bothered by that? i really wonder

these are literally the height of choreographed actions scenes. The broadsword one in particular is complete bullshit

real dueling with broadswords, especially in a chaotic battle environment, is clumsy and messy and tiring. Your "realistic" scenes are just hong kong wire-fu with medieval weapon props.

full plate was expensive but some form of plate armour was pretty much ubiquitous by the 15th century. Towards the end of the Hundred Years' War the French had thousands of knights in full plate armour, and armoured horses as well. Foundries across Europe churned out vast quantities of good quality harnesses

>road march load weights around 120lbs
A motorised march or foot march? If latter, is USMC infantry not motorised?

120lbs (~54kg) through hilly forest for days on end is living hell.

And people without armour wouldnt even have a chance to survive long enough to even get exhausted.
Antiarmor retards are beyond my comprehension.

well, it was iraq.

i saw a INS post of some marine scout sniper talking about how he carries 200lbs of gears to do a mission.(all the usual personal protection gear and a radio and 2 rifles) and that guy looks like he is over 200lb himself too. just gonna say "nice boots"

They should probably keep their shields up when they swing instead of leaving their faces open

about 10% of arrows at agincourt penetrated steel armor. and if so, only at weak points
>source: toby capwell

now you're arguing against a strawman

Yes, I too watched Mauler's stream with Shadiversity critiquing various fight scenes.

I thought this was going somewhere but then I realised why this got made into a webm, hahaha, well done

you don't really need to penetrate the strongest chest plate

an arrow hit on your legs will disable your movement, and a hit on those smaller piece of the armor should blunt your arms and shoulders quite a lot. and a blunt hit on your head will surely fuck your six sense up.

what movie?

>If latter, is USMC infantry not motorised?
Its never fully motorized. During Desert Storm you had the blitzkrieg forces and the supply-and-occupy forces. Its the same with Operation Barbarossa, yes there's a front line but there's also tons of shit going on behind the front lines that's literally just trucks and boots on the ground.

youtube.com/watch?v=_uWz2PXXTDg
mostly GoT

Do you mean to ask what fights they critiqued? They did a bunch from Game of Thrones, a fight by two HEMA guys Shad suggested, Troy, a fight from "The Deluge", Oldboy for some reason, and then Aragorn fighting the Urukhai at the end of The Fellowship of the Ring

>The Deluge
emmm. is this some kind of polish "the last samurai" kind of movie?

youtube.com/watch?v=ljExTEPNFnM

>200lbs
>all the usual personal protection gear and a radio and 2 rifles

Is it just the maneuver elements that are motorised?

Attached: 23rf.png (419x238, 84K)

Former 0331 here. Those numbers are correct, but it's not a combat loadout, it's a full supply loadout you're carrying between operations points. It's a fucking nightmare of a walk and it sucks. The reason you do it walking is to train for environments vehicles won't work on.
If you had to fight in that shit you'd get fucking mauled, so there's all sorts of quick releases to drop your main pack which cuts like eighty pounds off your load.
Fighting kit, depending on your MOS, is in the ballpark of like forty pounds at the heaviest, and that's really pushing it. Like, most crew-served weapons you'd carry anywhere are about 60 pounds split up between three people (accounting for ammo and other random shit like spare barrels). And most modern missions don't require you carry shit that's specialized for trench and anti-tank warfare.
I don't even know what the fuck a motorized march is or what the load would be. If you're talking about a convoy, then it's all the same shit but in the back of a seven-ton or maybe an MRAP these days.
The Marine Corps has mechanized units but that's the LAR guys. Generally, victor units are unspecialized or lightly specialized because the mission needs are constantly changing. Like, I never got a fucking second of helicopter training as a machinegunner because I didn't need any, but guys that went on a MEU before me had to do something like four months of ropes and crash evac and embarkment training before they got on their ship.
And all that's probably different now because it's been ten years since I got out.

Dude, like thousands of military personnel suffer heat injuries in the summer every year just standing around in cloth uniforms.

>Is it just the maneuver elements that are motorised?

Those are the ones that have to be motorized. Have to.

The rest you motorize based entirely on your capability and need. If you're doing something like desert storm, you're basically going all-in and you're sending as many men as you can. In such a scenario you can't motorize every unit. Even if you got the trucks, APC and jeeps, its a matter of gasoline, spare tires and all that noise. Tons and tons of logistical problems goes into this.

So you make sure that you have a hardcore, completely decked out front line that can advance as quickly as they can, and then you have a solid wall of men backing them up. If the front ever falls back, they'll fall back into a solid wall of men armed to the teeth and with all supplies. If those guys ever get attacked you have the air force and navy to provide them air support who are also preparing any area for any fast moving forces.

This is how militaries today work. "The army" isn't just guys with rifles, there's people working on making sure that those guys with rifles get their mail on time, making sure they get their bolongese before the expiration date and so on. There's people that go on mission nobody ever talks about and there's people that take cities. The propaganda obviously wants to make you think that if you join up you'll be the hero but most of the time they'll just look at your resume and decide that you're better value as the guy that puts on the tires in some workshop in Virginia.

>I don't even know what the fuck a motorized march is
It's my country's terminology directly translated; you get to sit in a motor vehicle instead of using the apostles' horses. Anyways, thanks for the input. too.