Western styles weren’t meant to combat heavily armored units. You aren’t getting through heavy armor with a sword. Unless you use it as a mace (mordhau) or use it as a dagger by half-swording(grabbing the middle of your blade to act more like a dagger) and getting through the squishy bits. At which point, why not use an actual dagger. Also, there are loads of manuals talking about fighting unarmored opponents while you are also not wearing armour.
Grabbing the sword at the middle point was a commonly used technique, as was striking with the pommel or crossbar. Real sword fights looked very different than what we see in movies. There’s a video out there that displays a lot of the actual techniques used by medieval knights, but unfortunately I can’t find it now. It was much more physical, brutal, and effective than the flashy techniques we’ve come to associate with swordfighting.
Well you said “you’re not getting through armor with a sword unless you do these things”, and I was saying “yes, those are things they commonly did”. So they are getting through armor with a sword because they did do those things.
They did those things only if they had to and there was no other way, as a “backup”. They used different weapons for that - maces, warhammers and such. Also, it was worth more to isolate the knight and capture them - so they could ransom them back or use their kit - the armor, weapons etc.
They absolutely aren’t a counter to heavily armoured opponents. Maces and hammers are.
fighting against armored opponents != fighting through armor, the fighting style is designed to target specific points that are exposed on armored opponents, making the style less practical against unarmored, hence like you mentioned, there’s a different manual on it. the fact that there’s a completely different manual on it shows the practicality of how different weapons are under different conditions, hence why there really isn’t any realistic scenario where it’s on any even playing field, because fixing the rules will give the edge to one style over the other.
I said different manual, but it is more of a “different chapter in the same book”. There is a shitload of practicioners of the unarmored parts - that’s what people train mostly as HEMA. “Armoured” fighting is more problematic since it often involves having to throw your opponent, or other dangerous shit. Also not many people can afford full plate / the plastic equivallent.
If you wanted to see a HEMA vs japanese martial arts, all it takes is getting two people who do each together.
Western styles weren’t meant to combat heavily armored units. You aren’t getting through heavy armor with a sword. Unless you use it as a mace (mordhau) or use it as a dagger by half-swording(grabbing the middle of your blade to act more like a dagger) and getting through the squishy bits. At which point, why not use an actual dagger. Also, there are loads of manuals talking about fighting unarmored opponents while you are also not wearing armour.
Grabbing the sword at the middle point was a commonly used technique, as was striking with the pommel or crossbar. Real sword fights looked very different than what we see in movies. There’s a video out there that displays a lot of the actual techniques used by medieval knights, but unfortunately I can’t find it now. It was much more physical, brutal, and effective than the flashy techniques we’ve come to associate with swordfighting.
You are literally saying the exact moves I mentioned in my comment. I practiced HEMA, I know.
Well you said “you’re not getting through armor with a sword unless you do these things”, and I was saying “yes, those are things they commonly did”. So they are getting through armor with a sword because they did do those things.
They did those things only if they had to and there was no other way, as a “backup”. They used different weapons for that - maces, warhammers and such. Also, it was worth more to isolate the knight and capture them - so they could ransom them back or use their kit - the armor, weapons etc.
They absolutely aren’t a counter to heavily armoured opponents. Maces and hammers are.
True. Some of those hammers were ingenuous too, with edges that looked like can opener blades.
fighting against armored opponents != fighting through armor, the fighting style is designed to target specific points that are exposed on armored opponents, making the style less practical against unarmored, hence like you mentioned, there’s a different manual on it. the fact that there’s a completely different manual on it shows the practicality of how different weapons are under different conditions, hence why there really isn’t any realistic scenario where it’s on any even playing field, because fixing the rules will give the edge to one style over the other.
I said different manual, but it is more of a “different chapter in the same book”. There is a shitload of practicioners of the unarmored parts - that’s what people train mostly as HEMA. “Armoured” fighting is more problematic since it often involves having to throw your opponent, or other dangerous shit. Also not many people can afford full plate / the plastic equivallent.
If you wanted to see a HEMA vs japanese martial arts, all it takes is getting two people who do each together.