Are fighting manuals and martial techniques even practical when it came to medieival warfare? Seems to me you just needed men to stand in formation and poke the enemy's formation with the pointy end and that's about all that mattered. Not all this dancing around and making different stances.
>>16748556A lot of manuals are for dueling; so a lot would probably not be as effective
>>16748574dueling is what happens in warfare
>>16748556They weren't meant for the plebs standing around with spears
>>16748556foot knights armored head to toe didn’t need to engage in the same group formation dynamics of less well armored footmen. It probably would have looked like a giant grappling/pushing match between two forces of dismounted knights. You can only really injure someone in full plate through grappling and then stabbing very small weak points.Or just swing a poleaxe. But results may vary.
>>16748978It's easy to kill someone in full plate even if all you have is a sword.
>>16748984Not if they’re trying not to be killed you fucking doofus
>>16748988Would like to see you avoid getting killed by a Mordschlag
>>16748556>Seems to me you just needed men to stand in formation and poke the enemy's formation with the pointy endYes, because of course 100% of combat in wars involves pitched battles.There are absolutely never going to be situation where you fight individually.You're never gonna have to clear a castle's interior.You're never gonna be ambushed or have to ambush someone.You'll never break formation to any degree. EVER.Swords and cavalry are historical fiction too, all combat ever has always been pike vs pike from the stone age onward.
>>16748556Yes. Many schools of fighting out there exploits people who only know basic drills.The Satsuma schools of fighting overwhelm the fighter with multiple overheads and that creates a predictable defence in which the enemies arm is raised to block and so the satsuma swordsman feints with another overhead and finish with a rising cut at the enemy forearms.
>>16748556Bump
>>16748556Most medieval warfare weren't pitched battles. They were mostly cavalry raids (chevauchée) or sieges. During cavalry raids, small groups of cavalry, sometimes as low as dozens to up to a few thousands, would ride through a country side. During this time, the cavalry would need to dismount to enter towns and basically ransack the place as raiders. On foot, you could encounter a variety of isolated peasants and being trained to kill a few solo was ideal. You could also possibly pick the wrong caravan to raid and encounter enemy knights or men-at-arms, which also meant you needed to fight in small unit tactics instead of mass unit tactics.There were also localized conflicts, where a handful of knights would engage in conflict over something small, like the right to toll a road or water rights to a creek. In that case, you wouldn't assemble hundreds of men - the local baron/count/whatever wouldn't waste the expense. They'd send a few dozen of their household men-at-arms or knights or so. These sorts of conflicts don't get wikipedia pages but make up the bulk of the warfare the average knight would see. Very, very, very rarely would actual royal armies be assembled and smash in pitch battles. So much so that most of these medieval engagements results in lop-sided victories.
>>16748556Yes, particularly when smaller scouting forces accidentally bump into eachother and skirmish.
>>16748996would like to see you try to swing one
I'll never get to be a real swordsman FUCK.I know I'd be great at it i dont care that I would have died in battle. My ancestors got to run screaming across a field with a sick sword or nasty club. FUCK
>>16750636Everything you just listed was domestic affairs. No, pitch battles are not as rare as you say. This sounds like HEMA fag cope. Trying to feel like your dueling is useful. Also, pitched battles are the ones that mattered.>>16748939Sorry, no people did not have duels during battles.
>>16748984If this was true, they wouldn't wear armor, retard
>>16748556>stand in formation and poke the enemy's formation with the pointy endEven if this was all there was to it, it's still something you would be able to do way better if you were highly trained with your weapon. It's like having a basic 1-2 in boxing. You learn it on day one, but a highly trained one is applicable in any fight.
>>16748939brain rotted by movies.grim.
>>16749005Wrong.Formations break all the time thats why losses happen. Even seasoned soldiers can lose their nerve sometimes, but with peasant recruits and immature recruits, you get formation breakage all the time. The #1 training for all military is formation, listening down orders, and usage of weapons. Its been that way since wars were mastered over thousands of years of understanding human psyche.
>>16753054Not only this but in a battle you can only see what's in front of you. The only thing keeping you stead and routed is you being in a formation next to your comrade
