Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ArmoredSaint" data-source="post: 5879679" data-attributes="member: 54539">Where do you get the idea that they only fought the English and not among themselves during that period?&nbsp; It sounds like you've been watching too much Braveheart...Did you even read that link?&nbsp; 'Cause the rest of the essay is rather starkly at variance with at least part of the statement you picked out.From further down the page:&quot;These weapons were not intended to defeat heavy plate armor with powerful cuts but did evolve from those longswords that were developed for use against armors by thrusting rather than cutting.&quot;&quot;For more than a century two-handed greatswords were used less for&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; fighting against armors and more for open battlefield where pike and&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; halberd formations were combined with firearms...&quot;Just as Derren and I noted above.&nbsp; It's clear that Mr. Clements, the author of that piece, does not believe that such swords were used to try to cleave armour.Further reinforcing my point (groan!&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />&nbsp; ), from the same website:<a href="http://www.thearma.org/essays/armoredlongsword.html" target="_blank">http://www.thearma.org/essays/armoredlongsword.html</a>&quot;Certain&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; tactical basics became apparent early on. The edge of the sword, for example,&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; is relatively useless against plate armour. Most source texts show no&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; edge blows at all. Rather, armoured sword fighting is all about putting&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; the point into a relatively unprotected area.&quot;&quot;The truth of the matter is that plate&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; armour simply is not effectively cut with a sword's edge, in spite of what you will see&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; portrayed in movies and at many Renn fairs.&quot; </blockquote>

[QUOTE="ArmoredSaint, post: 5879679, member: 54539"] Where do you get the idea that they only fought the English and not among themselves during that period? It sounds like you've been watching too much Braveheart... Did you even [I]read[/I] that link? 'Cause the rest of the essay is rather starkly at variance with at least part of the statement you picked out. From further down the page: "[I]These weapons [B]were not intended to defeat heavy plate armor with powerful cuts[/B] but did evolve from those longswords that were developed for use against armors by thrusting rather than cutting[/I]." [I]"For more than a century two-handed greatswords [B]were used less for fighting against armors[/B] and more for open battlefield where pike and halberd formations were combined with firearms[/I]..." Just as Derren and I noted above. It's clear that Mr. Clements, the author of that piece, does [I]not[/I] believe that such swords were used to try to cleave armour. Further reinforcing my point (groan! ;) ), from the same website: [URL]http://www.thearma.org/essays/armoredlongsword.html[/URL] [I]"Certain tactical basics became apparent early on. [B]The edge of the sword, for example, is relatively useless against plate armour. Most source texts show no edge blows at all.[/B] Rather, armoured sword fighting is all about putting the point into a relatively unprotected area." "The truth of the matter is that plate armour simply is not effectively cut with a sword's edge, in spite of what you will see portrayed in movies and at many Renn fairs." [/I] [/QUOTE]

Verification