Could a pair of daggers ever beat a sword? Seems like it would never happen given a sword's reach and weight.
>>29070022
Yeah, but don't forget he was a FOOKIN' LEGEND
throw knife
ez frag
>>29070022
I think that exact thought was intended to speak to his skills as an assassin.
>>29070022
An ice pick could defeat a guy with a sword. It's all about context.
>>29070098
Matt pls go.
>>29070022
Find a way to negate the sword's reach.
Depending on the construction of the daggers you could also Parry>Bind>Shank him with the other hand.
IRL? No. You have to seriously fuck up to be beaten by twin daggers when you have a long sword.
But you're forgetting that he was a FOOKIN LEGEND IN GIN ALLEY.
If all things were completely equal, no.
But real life doesn't work that way.
>>29070022
If you're the Legend of Gin Alley, anything is possible
Ambush him with a cup of coffee
>>29070022
A spear and a dagger would win more often than not.
Two daggers is stupid though.
Poleaxe wins.
>inb4 swordfag butthurt
"Where's me FOOKIN! TEA!!!!!!!"
>>29070022
It's possible but not probable.
>>29070022
Fairly certain the show showcases the reason why the knives were superior. Small enclosed space and a vast difference in fighting styles, morals and conduct.
Of course, what knight would be caught dead by some funny looking dickhead with two knives when every knight should be carrying a mace, a knife and whatever else he's trained with for close quarters combat.
Conor McGregor with his fists would defeat any neckbeard swordsman in this thread.
>>29070245
>spear and dagger
for what purpose
why not sword and dagger
why not spear and shield
why not two hand spear
>>29071321
Why not spear and spear? Let's ride this retard train all the way to OP central
>>29071321
Spearmen are known to strap knives to their shoulders/thighs so they can counter attack whenever they miss
Spear and shield are the classic though. But it is still subjective to the type of battle
>>29071321
Using a spear with a small buckler and a knife was a very popular and effective style in Roman times.
>>29070022
>Could a pair of daggers ever beat a sword?
Daggers, propably not.
But poleaxes and longswords are famously countered by simple bucklers and maces which are smaller and lighter than a shortsword. Take that as you will
When that show deviates from the source material, the writing markedly declines in quality.
>*cough* stannis *cough*
>>29071387
Huh?
I'm pretty sure that the buckler has yet to be invented. Roman legionaires used tower shields, one-handed spears, and gladius.
>>29070022
only in vidya
>>29070022
Stay out of his reach till he gets tired, then wait for an opening and gut. Easier if he's wearing full plate and is slow and heavy as shit.
>>29071321
>>29071364
You can never have too many knives.
Never. Your reach is important as fuck, the cunt would get sliced in half immediately, it doesn't matter how much of a FOOKIN LEGEND you are, you're fucked if you try and take on a sword with a couple of bullshit daggers.
>>29070022
Sure, but the one with the daggers would be at a considerable disadvantage.
>>29070022
Not unless they were possessed or something.
Normally they just sit there until a person picks them up and uses them.
I suppose if they were possessed they could beat a sword. I am not sure what they would beat it into though.
>>29070098
>ice pick could defeat a guy with a sword. It's all about context.
I guess if the ice pick happened to get securely placed, pointy side up, on a spot where the guy with the sword was accustomed to flopping without looking?
Is that what you mean by context?
>>29072481
He's not just a FOOKIN LEGEND, he's a FOOKIN LEGEND IN GIN ALLEY!
>People actually think that only one weapon was carried by soldiers
Peasant milita? Yeah. Maybe just a spear.
Trained soldiers? Multiple weapons.
>>29071804
except when you're swimming
>>29070957
>Small enclosed space and a vast difference in fighting styles, morals and conduct.
This.
