Soldato
My fists.
Come at me bro!
Come at me bro!
Folded or unfolded?
Couple of very good ones, too, but I'd advise emphasis on the 'opinion' part in particular when it comes to Matt Easton at Schola Gladiatora...
They often had a servicable knife on them and even priests were noted to have at least a knife at their back when going about their daily business... but most would have had something like a quarterstaff - It's usually a far better weapon against anything shorter, anyway, and records of legal procedings show the staff was by far the most common weapon carried by people. It's also cheap, nigh-on free, really. Cudgels were pretty common, too. Local Sherrifs had their equivalent of beat coppers, called Tipstaffs because their version of a Police truncheon was a 6' quarterstaff with the tips (upper and lower 6") shod in iron... Ain't gonna try knocking their helmets off!!
But swords were very, very expensive. In the 1500s a simple Broadsword would cost around 40 shillings, which was a good month's wages for a skilled artisan (ie middle-upper class). Commoners, peasants and labourers had no hope. Rapiers were over a hundred Pounds and very much the domain of the flashy rich folk.
The hypothetical enemies in this seem to be bloodthirsty zombie dire wolves/bears/gorrillas, or something, since they're attacking you non-stop and with utter, hellbent committment just like a Skyrim NPC.... and yet you're not allowed to respond as if you too are in Skyrim. *shrug*
I loved the Wallace!
A friend of mine used to work there and we'd hire out the meeting room downstairs to train and spar in. He took me to the restoration rooms, where they made replicas for display while keeping the originals safely tucked away, and I got to swing around a couple of swords. I thought they were excellent replicas, wonderfully light and well-balanced just around the crossguard... until the guys pointed out they were still working on the replicas - These were the REAL 15th Century blades - EEK!!!
I was very embarrassed, until my friend told me the guys pulled the same thing on him... except he did it with the Sword of Ranjit Singh, the guy who founded the Sikh Empire. It hit home later when he saw all these Sikhs coming in, kneeling down and worshiping the thing when it was up on display!!!
I remember reading a lot about a (The?) Wisby Coat of Plate in the stuff he gave me. IIRC, it was one of the main items from which a lot of research was drawn.
The whole thing started because David had his own replica Brigandine, I assume from his Tudor re-enactment work, that he kept on display in the Wallace... and it fitted me perfectly. I wanted one immediately and even had a bash at making my own from leather and some steel sheet from B&Q - Don't find that many dead fighters lying around in Reading... well, none from whom you can scavenge bits of plate armour for your own Brigandine anyway!
Other than the almost universal knife, I'd say a club of some sort would be much more common in most situations for most people. A quarterstaff is really rather bulky to be carrying around routinely.
By the late medieval period, swords could be bought for less than a shilling in England. There are references to swords being as cheap as 6d by the end of the 14th century. A day's pay for a man at arms. Metallurgy improved a lot in the latter half of the middle ages and England had plenty of resources for it, so metal items became a great deal cheaper. A good sword was still expensive and flashy good swords very expensive, but mediocre swords were cheap. Different kettle of fish earlier in the medieval period, when swords were very expensive indeed.
Commoners hardly ever wore swords, but not because they were hugely expensive. It was illegal in many places and generally pointless to most people anyway. Why would a commoner need to carry a sword for daily medieval life in their home village or town?
What medieval weapon would you choose in a life or death situation?
Examples:
2 Gorillas are attacking you
A polar bear is attacking you
A pack of wolves are attacking you
What would have been your weapon of choice?
Unless the polar bear is just looking for someone to optimise their database queries I'm probably out of luck.
He is full of sources and resources... but he's also regarded a complete wassock by almost all of his contemporaries. Partly because he averages about 10,000 Sword Forum posts a year jibbering on about his stuff! But I find there are some fundamental errors in his opinions, to the point where he goes against the very sources he uses to substantiate his ideas, ignores universally accepted historical fact, or comes out with something that even people not involved in any martial arts can see will not work. On the surface he's fine, if a bit up himself, but when you get down to the detail he really does pull stuff out of his backside sometimes. I recall one particular quarterstaff video he did on YouTube that attracted an army of ridicule, with a number of other noted researchers doing response videos to (quite politely) disprove the crap he'd just come out with.He emphasises that it's opinion when it is opinion and that he provides extensive references to sources. I think he's a much better source than you think he is.
Club = Cudgel, pretty much. They're so similar, they're often regarded as the same, although I like to think of a cudgel as being longer, hence its use as a training sword.Other than the almost universal knife, I'd say a club of some sort would be much more common in most situations for most people.
And yet it was SO often used in combats, assaults, fracas, and the like, at least in England. It likely wasn't a full-on battlefield Longstaff or even Quarterstaff, but something around 5-6' anyway.A quarterstaff is really rather bulky to be carrying around routinely.
You wouldn't really want to trust your life to anything poor quality, though. The sword of a standard suitable for any Scholler starting in a 'school of fence' around 1180 was about 40 shillings, but this didn't really change until the mid-1600s. Company of Maister records, mainly around Prize playing, were pretty good at setting down costs and fees for their students. I think this last part is also a factor, since the fees for tuition and membership were also quite expensive for commoners... and yet, it was a bone of contention that the rich nobility would rather pay hundreds of Pounds to learn inferior weapon-handling from foreign instructors of flawed systems, than learn their own country's ways, simply because the other was fashionable!By the late medieval period, swords could be bought for less than a shilling in England.
Swords specifically?It was illegal in many places and generally pointless to most people anyway.
If you need a knife for daily EDC defense, a sword would be better... but a staff is even more betterer and more readily available, as are things like forest bills and mauls.Why would a commoner need to carry a sword for daily medieval life in their home village or town?
One of the difficulties in primary source is the what is the interpretation of a club and a quaterstaff, in a lot of court rolls where weapons are referred to club and staff seem interchangeable as those recording were often ignorant of or saw no need for a specific definition
Ammunition grade swords were famously next to useless and many treated them susoiciously as generally when used with any force they would fail
In many area's the illegality wasn't only down any sense of danger of arming a common population but one of social strata and maintaining the status quo, regardless of the cheapness of a low grade blade, a sword in the English psyche was (and to some extent still is) a symbol of status and local sumptuary laws and definitions could dictate the legality of public show.
In some ways, yes. The distinctions of categorisation in a court of law have become more important, perhaps.I get a definite impression that a lot of the wish to have precise categorisation is a modern thing.
There is (was) a massive and obvious difference between hitting someone with a cudgel and hitting them with a quarterstaff, especially when harm is intended and this can give reason as to the person's intent to merely harm, or almost certainly kill. Kinda like going out to hit someone on a bicycle, versus doing it in an HGV.I get the impression that people often didn't consider specific and complex categorisation as being necessary or particularly useful. e.g. Robert killed John by hitting him in the head with...do the details matter? It's murder whether it was a club, a quarterstaff or an axe handle or anything else.
The sword has long since been as much a symbol as a practical tool. It was usually a secondary weapon anyway and many people had them as simply wallhangers, much in the same way we do today.True, but they were there. Although I suppose it could be argued that the really cheap ones weren't really swords as such and would be better classified as sword-shaped objects.
Depends on his weapon.The lone fighter defeating a dozen enemies at once is something that requires the most powerful of allies - the script writer
Intersting stuff
Interesting stuff
Depends on his weapon.
Against six fairly well trained swordsmen, I should only need a 6' quarterstaff and the space to swing it. More opponents are actually easier than fewer, in that respect.
It's easier with a polearm, though, as you can move your weapon faster than they can move their bodies and they're also further slowed if they have to move around their buddies, especially if they want to avoid hitting each other... which is hilarious when it happens!!that can be an issue in hand-to-hand combat too, attackers can hamper each other and you can grab one and use him to block another etc.
that can be an issue in hand-to-hand combat too, attackers can hamper each other and you can grab one and use him to block another etc.
It's usually a mix of the above, to varying degrees.1 versus many will mostly come down to the skill involved - if you have one highly functioning i.e. mentally able to think through the fight, well trained with a lot of actual fighting experience (not just play/training fights) against several not particularly intelligent, skilled or experienced opponents it is an entirely different story to 1 versus several people who are reasonably competent.
that can be an issue in hand-to-hand combat too, attackers can hamper each other and you can grab one and use him to block another etc.
Indeed... not for any reasons of martial inaccuracy. Just don't watch them!!You need to stop watching Steven Seagal films.
[..]
There is (was) a massive and obvious difference between hitting someone with a cudgel and hitting them with a quarterstaff, especially when harm is intended and this can give reason as to the person's intent to merely harm, or almost certainly kill. Kinda like going out to hit someone on a bicycle, versus doing it in an HGV.
The sword has long since been as much a symbol as a practical tool. It was usually a secondary weapon anyway and many people had them as simply wallhangers, much in the same way we do today.
Depends on his weapon.
Against six fairly well trained swordsmen, I should only need a 6' quarterstaff and the space to swing it. More opponents are actually easier than fewer, in that respect. My instructor could do nine and talk us through what he's doing at the same time, but we suspect he's possibly superhuman!!
Against six fairly well trained swordsmen, I should only need a 6' quarterstaff and the space to swing it. More opponents are actually easier than fewer, in that respect. My instructor could do nine and talk us through what he's doing at the same time, but we suspect he's possibly superhuman!!