File: 2bd22e2e-a14e-4fe2-8344-a2b706d7cb46..jpg (77 KB, 703x600) Image search: [Google]

77 KB, 703x600

>>665854893
no. its for cutting down unarmored peasants. in reality its just a very very very long straight razor.
flanged mace master race. caves in or rips off armor, can break or bend other faggot weapons, requires very little faggy ass training.
only sucks if youre a skinny weeb.
go ahead and complain.

>>665854893
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIQJpBDvxIs

Fuck you.

>>665855803
Did swords have any real merit on the battlefield? They look fantastic, but when compared to maces, spears, and flails swords really look bad.

>>665855803
I tend to agree.Katanas are indeed just fancy bullshit.But what about greatswords? Especially if used with halfswording.

>>665854893
Only if you are classing in Autist.

Karambit

>>665856174

Try swinging a flail or a mace in a shield wall.

Sword, saex and spear is where it's at.

>>665854893
Yes, only if folded over a 1000 times.

File: ....jpg (210 KB, 1080x1068) Image search: [Google]

210 KB, 1080x1068

>>665856514
>never seeing deadliest warrior

>>665856755
Ninjas vs Spartans!

No, wait. NINJA THROWING SPARTANS!!!

>>665857028
Spartans win obvs. Because Spartans never die,they just go MIA

>>665856174
depends on what you mean by sword ( I am literally obsessed with this stuff irl ). Do you mean a cutting edge like the western shortsword or long dagger or a katana or a heavy western broadsword?
The western broadsword is basically just an improved mace though. The principle is the weight of a mace applied along an edge rather than a head. It's designed to smash through tissue and flesh and armour and not to actually cut anything. Polearms and spears were quite good in formation. But for individual combat the sword or the flail were really the best options in western medieval melee's.
That said the light katana is very effective as a cutting weapon due to the lack of metal for well made armour in that region. Even the heavy samurai armour is using techniques that are poorly refined for armour specifically, and the smaller build made such armour even more cumbersome. Hence the armour had large gaps, covering only the main areas threatened by ranged weapons and were definitely not as comprehensive or effective as western armours. But for lightly armoured foes the katana is very very effective.
Western broadswords and basically any of the heavier swords weren't for cutting. They had dull edges and were basically just refined bashing along a thin edge. Which actually does a shit tonne of damage to light-medium or un-armoured foes.

only if you're gay

>>665857317
Japan had very little metal so emphasis was on quality of the sword. It was less a mass produced weapon and more of a statement. Hence the way the katana was a samurai's pride and soul.
All said and done though as much as their forging techniques were vastly superiour for swords. Heavy armour was much a mystery to them and medieval western knights would have been overwhelmingly more powerful on a battlefield due to stronger and larger bodies, their horses (increase armour weight and offensive momentum without losing mobility) and the fact that there was no armour or japanese shield designed to take a blow from the extremely heavy weapons that were proliferent through medieval Europe. It would hardly be a fair fight. But these are vastly different situations for the development of combat and samurai were better at refined swordfighting wheras the west had more of a focus on power, strength and bashing the opponent to death with brute force over technique.

>>665857317
>obsessed with this stuff
>everything in the post is wrong

>>665857317
Broadswords..Bastardswords,surely these were go to weapons for heavy armored opponents as well.Don't forget the half swording thing.

>>665857830
haha what is wrong. I collect swords and I know all about medieval history and a fair bit about japanese culture as well. Tell me where I made a mistake.

polish hussar would rape samurai easily

>>665857894
I'm not but I'm trying to summarise for the ignorant /b/. These weapons were designed to bash through heavy armour denting it and crushing bones. Often knights would need alot of help removing their armour after a battle.

>>665857830
The only one thing anon got semi-wrong was about the blades being dull.Depends on the wielder,some sharpened the edges just to get an edge (top zozzle pun) in battle

File: latest-4.jpg (160 KB, 681x900) Image search: [Google]

160 KB, 681x900

>>665854893

>>665854893
Isn't the Bat'leth the most powerful melee weapon of all time?

>>665858046
Often? Always. If a knight fell over,there was always a chance he wouldn't be able to stand up again,or at least it would be very difficult.

>>665858139
hahaha you read about it in tales but sharpening the blade was pointless and actually counter intuitive. If you've ever tried to learn medieval swordplay, you often grab the edge for leverage, and the blade actually wears out a whole lot faster if you sharpen it. The dullness actually makes the blade more durable and less likely to warp or snap. As they were mass produced this happens more often than you'd think. That's why knights also carried flails and the long dagger.

Chainsaw master race!

File: c873d1a335c3.jpg (449 KB, 1920x1152) Image search: [Google]

449 KB, 1920x1152

hi

>>665858324
it would be indeed difficult but not actually impossible unless the horse trapped you down when it dies. If you simply fall off it's not actually very hard if you have a decent physique. That's why footsoldiers targeted the horse. Kill the horse with a spear and trap the knight beneath his horse. Then capture him and hold him for ransom. Knights weren't killed more often ransomed.

>>665857913
Almost all of what you said is a series of myths. A "broadsword" is a bullshit term. If you knew what you were talking about you'd use Oaekshott classification, or at least historical terms, like arming sword, longsword, two handed sword and so on.

No sword is designed like a mace unless it isn't historically accurate. For individual combat a spear is superior to a sword unless you consider confined spaces.

The samurai had good quality armours that the katana couldn't cut. Such designs weren't so scarce. It is true that katanas didn't need to evolve to fulfill better needs, unlike later western blades.

Again, bullshit myths. A longsword typically was slightly heavier than a katana, but also much longer in general, with a much better weight distribution. No western swords were used as "hammers".

>>665858572
Pike?
Really nigga.

>>665858402
Ah,my bad then. Just sucks that such a badass knight with a varied arsenal would get fucked up by a crossbow

>>665858147
Heh

>>665858605
western swords were generally not designed to cut anything. They were dull okay, they were hammers with an edge. It's been a while since I've seen the term oaekshott but I doubt you even know the origin of the term. Japanese swords have excellent weight distribution generally too.
I'm not spouting myths and western swords were used like edge hammers and the swordplay was rough and minimalist and not like your netflix tv dramas.

>>665858646
I think he meant the winged hussars. Aside from cool armour,completely shit

>>665859001
It is shit.

>>665858837
2strong

>>665858675
haha yeah crossbows were bad but your armour could probably handle them at a large enough range. The welth yew longbow would have been the bane of your life though. Bodkin arrows that can go through shield, armour and horse and light tip arrows that just loved to find the weaker points in your armour between the plates.

>>665859001
Samefag.I would imagine an entire battalion of winged polish men shouting kurwa in unison as their battle cry was pretty intimidating

>>665859135
*welsh

File: 20110111032653103.jpg (343 KB, 1000x1000) Image search: [Google]

343 KB, 1000x1000

Naginata up in this bitch.

>>665858964
Absolute bullshit. Both archeological and historical evidence disprove your shitty myths.

But then I bet this is bait.

File: main-qimg-06e0d8c2cfe54f2dea3dd5e170034501.jpg (80 KB, 485x317) Image search: [Google]

80 KB, 485x317

>>665857317
>Western broadswords and basically any of the heavier swords weren't for cutting. They had dull edges and were basically just refined bashing along a thin edge

Myth.

>>665859270
So just cause a blade is dull means it can't cut? Harder to cut with,but still doable.Remember these are edged weapons with heavy weight.A well placed hit could rip through flesh and shatter bone easily

File: 9d470e4f389bb1d28404b664a2ec884c.jpg (542 KB, 1600x1152) Image search: [Google]

542 KB, 1600x1152

this is now a dork thread

>>665859270
>>665859224
there were sharp swords, but the heavier ones benefited more from using the leverage their superior weight and length to give more power. Long knives were well made, heavy two handed swords not so much. An edge also makes it eaisier to deflect off plate armour and would impart less force if it was deflected off a shield (which was also used for bashing, the first thing squires would be taught as part of swordplay to create an opening in their opponents defence and to shift their opponents shield away). You have to be kidding me if you think that heavy swords were in any way designed to cut more than bash.
It's not just historically wrong, but if you've ever tried thinking about it from a combat perspective it's practically dumb.

>>665858646
whole hussars arsenal

>>665859655
I never said they didn't cut, they just bashed alot more. They weren't designed so much for cutting as armour, especially the most basic undercoat chainmail would make it very hard to cut someone. A dull blade also is much more durable and less likely to break. But sure a thin edge with enough force behind it could lop someone to pieces.

>>665859181
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_hussars
forty keks

>>665859814
Meaning shitty pike,shitty flintlock pistol and shitty sabre?

File: 1443456706569.gif (1 MB, 392x400) Image search: [Google]

1 MB, 392x400

>>665859985
>kek

>>665859923
but they are thin edged with alot of force behind them. The main goal wasn't to cut but they could easily make it's way through unarmoured flesh.

>>665859985
yep, i meant that shitty sabre which was sharper than your overhyped katana

>>665859655
What you describe would work for an axe.
You can't cleanly cut a piece of bread by pressing straight down with a knight, you need to drag the edge.

The post pic clearly show a clean cut which no dull blade could achieve.

has anyone got the gif of the broadsword breaking a katana

ITT: Weeaboos

>>665860150
it works for an axe because the axe has many times more force behind it than you pressing with a knife, and if you scale it right the knife would cut through too.

>>665860127
Katana is a shit weapon for any situation.
Japan just loves using it because "muh heritage"

>>665859752
>You have to be kidding me if you think that heavy swords were in any way designed to cut more than bash.
>It's not just historically wrong, but if you've ever tried thinking about it from a combat perspective it's practically dumb

Then why design heavy swords in the first place, instead of issuing heavy maces, poleaxes, or warhamers?

>>665860127
I'm not the squinty eye fancy but shit sword lover OP. I just say that polish hussars were shit

>>665860326
physics doesn't make exceptions cause you use a different word.

>>665857153
Jesus fucking christ, good old Reach. I loved this last mission where you just have to slaughter as many aliens as you can

>>665860385
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_hussars
check out that link again if you find them beeing shit

>>665860364
because hitting with alot of force along a small edge ( a small surface area) is much more likely to break through armour than hitting with alot of force over a large area (a large area). Idiot. Also poleaxes whilst powerful are much easier to block (but you have to move quickly inside the swing or else). Warhammers were rare and generally not that effective but certainly easier to make, heavy maces similarly. Also bishops fought with maces as edged weapons weren't allowed by the church during the many many holywars.

>>665860647
oh and I meant that maces were easier to produce and soo much more common than swords.

File: chainsaw2.jpg (15 KB, 384x280) Image search: [Google]

15 KB, 384x280

>>665854893
It's the most autistic melee weapon of all time. Chainsaw is the most powerful.

>>665859752
Two handed swords were designed to cut too.

Whatever your twisted logic makes it, historical evidence combined with archeological evidence are enough to disprove your myths.

But even if you think about it, swords make horrendous mace designs. The fact alone that it would require edge alignment shows how idiotic you sound.

File: images (2).jpg (21 KB, 458x321) Image search: [Google]

21 KB, 458x321

Gladius for a trained man
Flanged mace for untrained man
Katana for chopping through pajamas while their sleeping.

>>665859214
Agreed

>>665860859
Stupid, you know they are designed to turn off once the catch on clothing.

>>665860940
>>665859720
>>665859270
>>665859214
>>665858572
>>665855803
>>665854893
Fags.
>>665858147
Fuck.

>>665854893

They were a good sword made painfully slowly from shit steel, but don't surpass a great sword made from good steel.

File: guy_fieri.jpg (244 KB, 620x412) Image search: [Google]

244 KB, 620x412

>>665861110
This guy gets it.

File: tumblr_nk0xu2yemB1qbrih3o2_1280.jpg (102 KB, 1085x545) Image search: [Google]

102 KB, 1085x545

>>665860647
>much more likely to break through armour than hitting with alot of force over a large area (a large area)
Most heads of poleaxes and maces were pretty small, especially accounting for flanges.

>whilst powerful are much easier to block (but you have to move quickly inside the swing or else)
Pretty sure the functional mechanics of a Zweihander were little different.

>idiot.

File: P1160764cc.jpg (18 KB, 420x441) Image search: [Google]

18 KB, 420x441

>>665861048
That's a pretty flimsy argument, fag. A. Sensors can be disabled. B. It has to catch. A sharp chain would prevent that.

>>665860887
why do swords make a poor design for a bashing weapon? The weighting is good for a faster strike and balancing power whilst still usable for a parry stike. And the edge alignment is perfect to gain momentum with a swing and hit with alot of force over a thin edge. A bashing weapon doesn't have to be round. Flails are superior to maces and a mace is a short range bashing weapon, wheras a heavy sword is a longer ranged bashing weapon. The longer range improves the shearing power much like an axe.
I know my history and the myths and I know that I'm right but even more so, these weapons were refined for killing. Hence the physics would have to match up. A smaller surface area with a force applied will do more damage.

>>665859214
How is a naginata not automatically superior to a katana?

European swords were of a higher quality steel.

File: 1452560092283.jpg (247 KB, 1224x1445) Image search: [Google]

247 KB, 1224x1445

>>665857317

> I am literally obsessed with this stuff irl
>The western broadsword is basically just an improved mace though. The principle is the weight of a mace applied along an edge rather than a head. It's designed to smash through tissue and flesh and armour and not to actually cut anything.
>for individual combat the sword or the flail were really the best options in western medieval melee's.
>the fucking flail
>Western broadswords and basically any of the heavier swords weren't for cutting. They had dull edges and were basically just refined bashing along a thin edge. Which actually does a shit tonne of damage to light-medium or un-armoured foes.


>being so full of shit

>>665861277
look at the range. Yes a mace works due to the sharp flanges but against a shield or heavy armour this chance falls and the damage you do is much less than a successful heavy sword strike. The striking edge section of a 1.2m sword both has greater range and sheer power than your short mace. The mace was a weapon designed for much closer combat and interchangable with the long knife which could be slipped between the gaps in a knights armour.

File: turning_someones_world_upside_down.gif (873 KB, 500x250) Image search: [Google]

873 KB, 500x250

>>665854893
I don't know about katanas but I knoe what a nodachi is good at;
>the filename

File: A-10_Thunderbolt_II_In-flight-2.jpg (2 MB, 2353x1266) Image search: [Google]

2 MB, 2353x1266

> best melee
> BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRT

>>665856617
A knife? Really?

>>665861388
>these killing weapons were refined for killing

You don't know a thing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLWzH_1eZsc

>>665861655
>this
yeah sure just carry around a 6 feet tall 90 pound sword and you'll be fine

>>665860940

>gladius

sure it worked great for the romans but when you pit it against any swords, or actually any weaponry at, all from the medieval period, it has way too little reach to be usable in most combat scenarios. sure it would make for a decent backup weapon and someone skilled enough would be able to make do with it in a pinch but in generally in melee combat, more reach=victory.

>>665861525
you can say I'm full of shit all you want but even without bringing in references, if you have any understanding of applied forces and logic of combat you'd see I'm right. A sharp edge would be less effective for a number of reasons, the fact that they are more easily deflected and less durable the formost.
If you know what you are doing a flail is much much more powerful than you'd expect due to the small high density tip being small and somewhat sharp flanges and the speed at which it can reach.
You can use memes all you like, facts are facts.

>>665859655
>less than 3kg
>Heavy weight

>>665861603
>due to the sharp flanges but against a shield or heavy armour this chance falls
That's the whole point of the flanges.

>and the damage you do is much less than a successful heavy sword strike
[citation need]
Plate armor was developed with swords in mind , as well as arrows and various other weapons. If you can show proof of a blunt heavy sword doing anything to plate, be my guest.

> 1.2m sword both has greater range
Sure. As do poleaxes.

> sheer power than your short mace
[citation need]

File: 1446592153332.jpg (10 KB, 200x200) Image search: [Google]

10 KB, 200x200

>>665861988

> facts are facts
> A sharp edge would be less effective for a number of reasons
> the fact that they are more easily deflected and less durable the formost.
> facts are facts


mate please stop, you're killing me here

File: bigger_isn't_always_better.gif (3 MB, 511x288) Image search: [Google]

3 MB, 511x288

>>665861655
you just fucked with the wrong bleachfag m8

Fuckit; I don't give a fuck anymore. Heavy swords were fucking blunt because it worked better like that despite what the common media and fantast drams on netflix perpetuates. A blunt sword lasts longer, isn't as easily deflected and honestly doesn't need to be razor sharp to cut anything because it has a shit tonne of momentum. If you look up real history, pay attention to archaeology and not stories, go check out a museum and relics or have actually practised with a heavy sword you'd understand. But I guess I can't argue with cutty weeb fanatics who idolise game of thrones and lord of the rings. A SHARP CUTTY HEAVY SWORD JUST DOESN'T MAKE ANY FUCKING SENSE!!!

Anyway's you guys are dumb and stick to your fantasies too strongly so I'm out.

>>665858572
go play like a passive faggot and mash r1 some more

>>665861472
try and use one in a cramped space.

>>665862243
any matter in any thickness can compromise its structure if hit with enough speed,so the skinny dude should be able trying to hit it as fast as possiblr rather than trying to use the speed to look for an opening.

>>665859752
2H swords WERE designed to cut you dumb fuck. They are an evolution of the roman spata, which was basically a slashing double edged 1h sword. Most of the death by blade were not on the battlefield but a few days after from an infected wound. So you'd better make sure your edge is sharp and dirty (Just smear some poo along the edge).
http://www.thearma.org/essays/2HGS.html#.VQkqSeEggz0

Katana are just bad at everything except slicing cause shit tier Iron, heavier than any western counterpart, useless against any kind of armor that is not made from fucking PLANTS.

>>665862166
okay one last thing. You do get the physics of pendulums, distance and forces right. You increase the distance and speed you have more momentum which over the same stopping time equals more force. If you have 2x as much or more speed, having a little less weight isn't a big issue. You get that don't you? Or did you not do physics?

>>665862459
>hasn't posted one bit of proof
>spergin
Oh, he mad anons.

>>665854893
Ehhh. I'd go with a crowbar myself. Useful as a weapon and as a tool. Just a great thing all around.

>>665862704
it's late; I've given up, but I figured the physics spoke for itself.

File: cc2.jpg (37 KB, 600x400) Image search: [Google]

37 KB, 600x400

>>665862459

>Heavy swords were fucking blunt because it worked better like that
> A blunt sword isn't as easily deflected and honestly doesn't need to be razor sharp to cut anything because it has a shit tonne of momentum.
> If you look up real history, pay attention to archaeology and not stories, go check out a museum and relics or have actually practised with a heavy sword you'd understand.
>implying you've done any of those
> A SHARP CUTTY HEAVY SWORD JUST DOESN'T MAKE ANY FUCKING SENSE!!!
> you guys are dumb and stick to your fantasies too strongly so I'm out.
>fantasies
>I'm out.

bye mate, thanks for the laughs

>>665857153
117 RIP

>>665862762
then again; /b/ ain't big on science are we?

File: 1449880958149.jpg (28 KB, 500x619) Image search: [Google]

28 KB, 500x619

IF U MES WITH ME I AM GOIN TA PUNSH U

>>665862459

>A SHARP CUTTY HEAVY SWORD JUST DOESN'T MAKE ANY FUCKING SENSE!!!

just out of curiosity, how heavy would you say "heavy sword" actually was?

>>665862656
>You get that don't you? Or did you not do physics?
I do. You still haven't explained why the tip of the sword, with a whole lot less weight applied, would have done so much better than a poleaxe or mace.

>>665863089
>>665862655
>>665862166
>>665861277
>>665860887


>taking that guy seriously

you disappoint me anons

>>665861938
Topkek. Gladius just evolved into spatha which evolved into 1h swords... Also combat reach is not that important when you are in CqC as a formation.

>>665863089
the momentum once a stopping force is applied gets applied rapidly from the length of the blade to the point of impact. Even a heavy sword can be swung quite alot faster than a mace can due to the length difference. So much so that the net force you end up applying is a bit bigger. Also you have greater reach with a sword but you also can't swing as rapidly as a mace. Each weapon has it's pros and cons.

>>665863352
You are seriously kidding me? right? You do get why the romans didn't use the gladius as their main weapon right? Throughout history the spear has been a popular formation weapon DUE to it's range.

>>665863352

>Gladius just evolved into spatha which evolved into 1h swords

maybe, but we're talking about the gladius here not what it evolved or didn't evolve into

>combat reach is not that important when you are in CqC as a formation.

reach is still very important but in any case, i was assuming 1v1 duel

>>665863538
every roman soldier carried a gladius, but their spear was their principal weapon. The gladius was good for single combat or against sparse foes but the spear is better for formation fighting.

>>665862978
I don't think he realize that a heavy sword is ligther than a gaming laptop...

>>665863677

god dammit man. you've given the secret away. how is he supposed to make a fool out of himself now?

>>665863803
You don't realise that the replicas you buy nowadays are alot lighter than they were back then. Replicas are made from lighter meal, are thinner and heavy swords are swung fast. I know that they're not as heavy as a gaming laptop but you hold it at full length and swing it repeatedly at top speed and at the very least your shoulder and joints will hurt like hell. You do get that the "weight" of a heavy sword also considers the leverage distance right? Archimedes principles right?

>>665864101
put that gaming laptop on a stick and swing it. It's alot harder isn't it and seems much heavier doesn't it?

>>665863677
>>665863803

nvm mate, he managed>>665864101

>>665864282
all things aside, cutty or bashy aside. you understand that leverage is real right? I'm less worried now about trying to convince you of the nature of swords and more curious about your knowledge of basic principles now.

>>665864101

so how many kgs would you say a "heavy sword" would weight back in the day?

>>665864437

oh, don't you worry about me mate, i'm just fine. the only thing you should be worried about is the pile of shit you have instead of a brain

File: a93c11683237fa874022b2b48343367f.jpg (8 KB, 111x720) Image search: [Google]

8 KB, 111x720

>>665854893
gg

>>665854893
Well, I'm gonna have to agree. As much of a fanboy I am for the chainsaw I'd say the agility of the katana makes it a fuckin sick ass weapon.

>>665864447
given that the heaviest 'battle' replica in my small collection is 1.2m and weighs just shy of 2kg, I'd say about 2.2kg. Which is very very heavy if you consider the length and leverage.
To be honest if I swing my hardest and fastest it's hard not to overbalance if I don't carefully place my stance.

>>665864538
haha no I'm going to medschool with top scores in my state. But I guess if you think I'm such an idiot you might want to avoid ever going to the doctors then. hahaha

>>665864875
for reference I'm also probably not a weeb. I do go outside, I do have friends and I'm not a fat fuck.

>>665864875

>if you think I'm such an idiot you might want to avoid ever going to the doctors then

if all doctors were as idiotic as you, i'd be all for that alternative medicine hippie shit. thankfully they're not.

>>665864696
You're pretty fucking weak btw lol
2kg is literally nothing
Source I lift 14kg dumbells occasionally
>Not swole tho
FeelsBadMan

>>665854893
no the most powerful weapon is a knife in the hands of a jihadfighter chopping heads of kufr

>>665865026
yeah but I meant if you think I'm that dumb, you might want to avoid going to the doctors in case by chance I'm ever your doctor...

>>665864696

>if I swing my hardest and fastest

you're almost never supposed to swing your hardest and fastest. have you never read any historical manuals?

>>665865189

also thankfully, there's 0 chances of that happening. we're not even in the same continent

File: 89MSG_m.jpg (11 KB, 500x333) Image search: [Google]

11 KB, 500x333

>>665854893
HALBERD
A
L
B
E
R
D

>Kills Horsemen with spear part
>Kills armored foes with spike part
>Wrecks peasants with Battle-Axe part
>being a faggot and not chosing this weapon

>>665865128
I have 10kg dumbbells but I don't reckon I'm that weak (though I weigh only 70kg at 1.8m, so I'm a bit light). There is alot of momentum behind that 2kg if you swing at top speed. Try it sometime. With a good stance I'm fine and I practiced alot so I can swing very fast. This requires some specific muscle groups. Buy a sword and try it. You'll understand quickly.

File: .532.jpg (61 KB, 800x560) Image search: [Google]

61 KB, 800x560

you guys better shut the fuck up
or else

Poop on a stick. Prove me wrong

>>665865347
Based fucking halberd.

Also good for dental work.

>>665865285
I get that a fullblown swing is dumb. That said if you can be sure you hit them. Swinging with all your weight behind it to get a powerful swing can decide a fight. But you don't make every swing like that god no.

File: 426.jpg (52 KB, 730x590) Image search: [Google]

52 KB, 730x590

>>665865611
yas

File: 1372852321947.gif (925 KB, 212x176) Image search: [Google]

925 KB, 212x176

>>665859720
>pointy calves

>>665865347
oh yes halberds are very scary. Especially if someone is strong enough to use it effectively. Great against peasants, designed to deal with cavalry and smashes/slides into heavily armoured foes through basically any of it's specialised blades.

>>665865285
also how do you know we live on different continents? I mean you are most likely right but how? also I plan on leaving this country when I'm older and qualified.

>>665865685

if you get that a fullblown swing is dumb then why would you ever use it as an example to try to make a point?

this is a new level of retardedness

>>665865994

that's easy, i know an ameritard when i see one

>>665865994

> I plan on leaving this country when I'm older and qualified.

please don't. you're not needed or wanted here

>>665854893

Claymore/Zweihander > Pistol loaded with blanks > Katana

(Not counting polearms as melee weapons because they're supposed to be used in formations)

>>665866011
haha you do use a fullblown swing but it's rare. It was more to express that it's not actually that easy to swing a heavy sword quickly due to the distance from the body and weight. You need a surprising amount of strength and controlled application of force to wield one.

>>665859720
what the fuck is wrong with her legs