Sword vs Helmet

Channel 4
Weapons that made Britain - Sword

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• Sword
• Helmet
• Cutting
• Armour
• Armor

[Novantii]

thrusting > cutting

hence why katanas suck ass unless youre fighting a guy armored in a hanes t shirt (which is about what most japanese were armored in, so fair enough)

[italok9]

The more i know about medieval armory, the more i believe that maces and any kind of weapons that causes blunt damage was the best choice of weapon to draw in battle.

[TheRudio2011]

@Novantii you are missing the point of sword fighting its in the technique of wielder.Heavy armor has many weaknesess that can be pierced so thats why samurai would have great chance to win.Not to mention he would be 1000x times faster.

[JohnRaptor]

@Novantii The cut vs. thrust debate has been going on since swords existed. If one were definitively superior to the other, the debate would have ended thousands of years ago. Both have their uses and advantages.

Also, samurai wore iron armor in battle.

[HaNsWiDjAjA]

@GregorMar

BTW I saw a lot of edge on edge contact in those videos of szabla fencing, which would've rendered the swords blunt very, very rapidly. Unless the szabla is only sharpened for the first six inch or so of the blade, which was actually common with cavalry sabers.

[HaNsWiDjAjA]

@GregorMar

That show is incredibly flawed from a historical point of view, after all the shooting there is conducted by amateurs. Of course any weapons in the hands of amateurs are rather unimpressive.

For example of how well a musket can perform in the hand of experts, I'd recommend this:

/watch?v=ytk7rN1u_6k

Do you have any proof of szabla cutting through steel? I've never actually seen ANY sword cutting through QUALITY tempered plate armor. It's just not done.

[GregorMar]

@HaNsWiDjAjA Stupid is your comment, you have no idea how was fighting with szabla, what is the most funny about medieval and swords speaks such yound Americans as you who knows shit about medieval, only from films made in Hollywood. Szabla was used against ARMORED men it cut steel 0,5 cm root. And as to musket watch this it confirms everything what I said about musket: /watch?v=ZZukxamOoVE

Everything is showed there so there is no sense even to argue with you.

[HaNsWiDjAjA]

@GregorMar

This is a rather stupid comment, a two handed sword is generally always superior (in a duel on foot) to a one handed sword without shield. Think about it, all else being equal the two hander will have superior speed and striking power, as well as better point control for precise stabbing if necessary.

The szabla is best for fighting unarmored opponents ON HORSEBACK in a melee, that's its function. The hussars also carried koncerz, palasz and czekan to handle other comers.

[HaNsWiDjAjA]

@demomanchaos

I do know that, just thought it's fun to point out.

BTW, knights were not ineffective by firearm equipped infantry, specifically they were made obsoelete by 'reiters', heavy cavalrymen armed with pistols. The proportion of heavy cavalry in European armies did not decrease after the 16th century, if anything they actually increased. The heavy horsemen however became more professional and discarded the lance (ineffective against plate armor).

[demomanchaos]

@HaNsWiDjAjA They had cannons during the 13th century, but knights were around into the 16th century. What killed off knights is that its much cheaper and easier to arm 1000 peasants with matchlocks and a few days of training than train a handful of knights.

It is indisputable, a melee army will defeat a ranged army in melee. The only question is can the ranged army do enough damage to the melee guys before they get into melee.

[HaNsWiDjAjA]

@demomanchaos

But the artillery of those "people" would tear static formations of medieval bowmen apart. That's how in the end the French managed to beat the English during the Hundred Years War.

[HaNsWiDjAjA]

@GregorMar

I do have to protest your claim that up to 1850 the musket was a very weak weapon. If it's as weak as most people believe, it wouldn't have replaced the bow as the predominant missile weapon all over the globe by the 1700's, ease of use notwithstanding. Properly loaded and used by a skilled individual (and becoming a crack shot with a musket is a he** lot easier than with a bow), a musket is really not inferior to the bow in the areas of accuracy and range, and superior in power.