Thread 64131305

>your armor is useless because it has weakpoints
bitch, your whole body is a weakpoint without armor
why are people always subscribed to the nirvana fallacy, where if something isnt 100% effective then its bad?

>>64131305 (OP)
that helmet makes you look dumb
its also uncomfy

because retards strawman, it's 'mentally cheaper'

>>64131305 (OP)
Most people are really stupid.

>>64131312
lmao that nigga got a square head

>>64131305 (OP)
Was that slit really enough? Was wearing a 10 pound helmet really effective? What if some guy with a big fat stick decides to fuck you up? What if he gets a good swing and gets you in the back of it and you get a concussion? Where's your helmet now?

>>64131603
>get hit on the head with a big stick: die
>get hit on the helmet with a big stick: entire stick shatters to pieces, you have a bad headache and an aching neck, but you are not dead

>>64131603
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tbwJl5gn58
Pretty much all of these blunt axe hist to the head are lethal and to the body bone shattering. Sharp axe would be simply chopping limbs off. Without armor.

>>64131603
You probably wouldn't get a concussion with a helmet and adequate padding. You'd feel it, but you'd be fine. Without a helmet you could fucking die.
>Was that slit really enough?
It wasn't, especially for ventillation but great helms were worn over another, smaller helmet or just chainmail early on. They were worn by cavalry during charges where you wanted most of your face protected from shit like wood splinters from lances and if combat prolonged you'd take it off to see shit. Eventually this idea evolved into moveable visors so you retain the protection but can open your entire face up if needed.

>>64131307
I've worn helmets like that. They're insanely uncomfy. You can barely see a damn thing, and your breath is trapped in the helmet, which is annoying + exhausting.
You can't fight on foot with them, unless you're in a specially-designated fighting ring, because you keep bumping into shit that you can't see, and your endurance is badly reduced on account of the whole breathing thing.
I think they were exclusively for cavalry, with the heaviest closed helmets specific to sports jousting.
Infantry would always prefer open sallets, kettle hats, etc.

>>64131902
your picture is from the completely wrong period, no one used great helms by then
>>64131305 (OP)
great helms were used by cavalry, men wore smaller helmets under them and took the great helm off when not doing a cavalry charge

>>64131941
No one used great helms on foot ever, unless they were dismounted in battle

>>64131941
Here's a good one from the Holkham Bible, illustrated around 1325
The peers fight as cavalry and are very well armored. The commoners fight as infantry and are less protected, and all of them in open-face helmets.

>>64131782
>But you are not dead
You're just on the floor with a concussion and the guy who hwacked you with the stick is doing you in with his boot knife.
Bonus, he just got himself a slightly used suit of armor. Maybe he'll tie you up and sell you and hmyour horse for random.

>>64132235
Or maybe even ransom

>>64131875
Gee billy, the Lord gave you two helmets?!

>>64132004
only the king has a great helm, the others have visored bascinets
>>64131974
that's exactly what I fucking said, learn to read

>>64131305 (OP)
Autists are prone to black and white thinking

>>64132235
>stunned vs dead
yeah, in the former you could still fight back or run away
in the latter, there is no choice

>>64132235
I think you vastly underestimate the amount of padding that's going to be under one of these, nevermind another helmet. The metal helmet will dissipate blows over large area and the way greathelms are made specifically won't really let your head move to the degree where you'd break your neck easily from a blow.
OP's question rings very true here. Armour is like any other form of protection - if someone has physical access to it and arbitrary amount of time and resources then it will be broken.

>>64132909
non-flanged blunt weapons actually had a very tough time with any helmet, in fact
they would just glance off like a bladed weapon and transfer only a fraction of the force into the target
sure it might hurt like the dickens if the bludgeon was simply that large, but its always better than just dying

>>64132235
a non-reinforced stick would have trouble straight up knocking someone out through a rigid helmet with padding
you can literally hit them so hard with a staff that the staff snaps in half without causing the kind of damage you described
and in any case, the fact that you survived at all gives you a better chance than if you were dead

not to mention forcing the enemy to use a fully committed strike like that to beat your armor with sheer force means that the enemy is now in danger of being counter-struck if he misses
so it still indirectly increases the odds of surviving or even winning, the enemy has to go all out in every attack to stand a chance of injuring you, you can still nick them with quick strikes that dont leave you open

>>64132939
The force from a strike with a quarterstaff will kill an armored knight. Physics doesn't care if you understand it or not.
Helmets (ancient armor) is for deflection. Helmets are very good at that. That is why breastplates are curved. The war hammer, flail, quartestaff were the bain of the armored existence. Arms still break. Direct head strikes still result in death.
Swords, slashes, spear stabs, arrows however are deflected.
This isn't a movie or a video game. The quarterstaff bent and broke swords. The war hammer mounted was devastating.
If you dont understand feel free to go put on the most modern best built football Helmet made with all the best technology we have today and let Aaron Judge put a bat across your head and see what happens. Then if you recover from that try it with a thin sheet of metal and some cloth wrapping.

>>64132235
>You're just on the floor with a concussion and the guy who hwacked you with the stick is doing you in with his boot knife.
He'll be slaughtered by your allies first, now that his weapon is ruined.

>why are people always subscribed to the nirvana fallacy, where if something isnt 100% effective then its bad?

No idea, this class of men ruled the european world for a good 800 years but somehow redditors and other dregs believe you can just push them over and stab them despite your peasant ass looking like a dwarf in comparison

>>64133055
>flail
Found the historilet, flats as commonly depicted simply did not exist. Flails where a peasants weapon which took a chaff sifter and replaced the head with a wooden weight, sometimes with metal bands if they could afford it. It was no armour breaker.
>quarterstaff
Its a stick, it's fine against unarmoured people, against someone in armour your not going to do much. There's a reason there is a move to big double handed pole axes and pole hammers for man at arms towards the end of the medieval period, its because they have a better chance of breaking plate, or jarring the guy inside, but even then it's not a given, there are plenty of videos online of modern Buhurt fighters getting hit by supposed "armour busters" and their armour taking the hit happily.

>>64133184
White room theorycrafting is the bane of everything.

>>64133214
A seven foot ash stick over one inch in diameter has flex acceleration that puts the often steel capped ends at tip speeds plus mass into energy levels you obviously cant fathom. Even modern training one cannot do head strikes at all because even at greatly reduced speeds it crushes modern fencing helmets.
Armor creates glancing blows. When hit square with quarterstaff, flail, hammers wrists and arms, legs still break. You dont seem to understand how armor worked at all. Feel free to wrap your arm with a chunk of horse blanket and a thin sheet of steel and let someone hit it with a full wind up from a 7 foot ash pole over one inch in diameter. You will find out quickly where the weakest points in your joints, tendons and bones are as you go crying to the hospital.

>>64133391
>First assume perfectly ideal conditions...

>>64133214
Listen, the Quarterstaff isn't just a stick, it's also greatly underrated in a melee.
An 8 foot pole can get enough swing behind it to knock your helmet off your body with your head strapped to it.

>>64133421
The quarterstaff is the answer to the less than ideal situations. A poke from reach will break ribs and shatter teeth. It can be used in close or long range. Swords do not fair well against them. Armor that is designed to deflect blades and arrows can be hit square with the staff.
No unarmored bits? Smash away. You should do some research. The quarterstaff is a brutal weapon.

>>64133442
No, you're assuming that every blow will be at maximum force against a stationary target in an environment that allows complete freedom of motion.

>>64133467
No, I'm pointing out that a blow at full force with a quarterstaff can kill an armored opponent and did historically. As i said.
I don't know where you intend to land with the goalposts but when you do, be aware you already lost this debate.

>>64133480
Post video or didn't happen.

>>64133424
Nope, it'll just snap and you'll look stupid. Sticks are toys. Peasant.

>>64133480
It's crazy how militant poorfags are now literally pretending sticks are as good as real weapons.

>>64131305 (OP)
There’s no CAS EVAC coming to save you, and you fight better knowing you are already dead.

Armor is a larp

>>64133480
Lmao youre a fucking faggot dude, we get it, you play pnp RPGs as a some queer elf with a staff.

>>64133667
>anon dies immediately and stops hindering everyone around him
wow you're right, thanks

>>64133675
Nigga you think there’s TEAMS? Shit goes sideways and I am raping/murdering anyone I want until I get shot in the back of the head.

>>64133756
Which we established is immediately, leaving everyone else better off. Thank you for your sacrifice.

>>64133759
Thank you for your wife and daughter’s warm holes, and all your guns/ammo. Go back and play more call of duty nerd.

>>64133772
>He's going to rape my nonexistant wife and daughter before dying
holy shit you're even dying a virgin to save some pussy for the rest of us, me and the rest of the squad will never forget your sacrifice anon, thank you for not wearing armor.

>>64133214
> Found the historilet, flats as commonly depicted simply did not exist.
NTA but historylet Redditor detected.
EVERY culture has a weapon like the flail. The Mongols had the kisten, the Persians the kabastin, the Japanese the chigiriki, the Chinese had a half-dozen different types including the famous meteor hammer, and I could go on all day. They're also very well attested in European art and sculpture from the 14th through the 17th centuries.
There's one pop-history article that claims that these weapons were myths, but it selectively cherry-picks evidence to support its very weak claim, and it shouldn't be taken seriously. Of course retarded Redditors just took it and ran with it.

>>64133784
>flail
>leather armor
>linothorax
the trifecta of retards who watches youtubers and took everything they said as fact. The redditor simply cannot help but "well akshually" and insert their incorrect take that none of these existed.

>>64133792
Yeah, they just parrot whatever they're told.
In general, you can learn a lot about how prevalent weapons were by looking at the antique market. Flails are pretty common. Nowhere near as common as swords, daggers, spears, and flanged maces, but more common than spiked maces, horseman's axes, and lots of other stuff. Picrel went to auction pretty recently.
There are some weapons that NEVER turn up on the antique market. The Japanese kanabo is one of them. In years of searching, I've never seen one. Though swords and jittes are a dime a dozen, and the Japanese also have their own flails. . .

>>64131305 (OP)
I’ll never understand how people tolerated the problem on not being able to see shit

>>64133929
>you can learn a lot about how prevalent weapons were by looking at the antique market
That sound like a dumb way to learn about stuff
How do you even know it's not fake? Or that it wasn't just a show piece? Those were often made years after the era those weapons were supposed to be used.

>>64133954
Reckon it was better than risking arrow or stabbing implement to the face

>>64133633
>>The short staff is most commonly the best weapon of all other, although other weapons may be more offensive, and especially against many weapons together, by reason of his nimbleness and swift motions, and is not much inferior to the forest bill, although the forest bill be more offensive, the short staff will prove the better weapon -G Silver
Sorry kid. Its just better
>>Literary and visual sources give many valuable clues as to weapons and techniques. Quarterstaffing is an ancient form of English stick fighting, and crosses all social boundaries. It is found from earliest times, throughout the middle ges, and into the 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th and 20th centuries.
Its funny how you dont know but you think you know

>>64134010
>Here is some guy who has never fought in a medieval battle telling you about how useful a weapon is
>bro totally everyone used them, the british did in the renaissance and victorian era!
Don't care

>>64133954
You dont need to see once your horse is riding towards the faggots

>>64134017
>>here is some guy who was alive during the period, was an instructor of many weapons and had more duals than you can count bit i know better because I lost a fight once to a girl in middle school

>>64134027
>during the period
Is "the period" just anything older than last week to you? When are greathelms from like OP posted? You don't know. I'll answer because you're retarded. The 1200s to 1300s. When did George Silver write about the quarterstaff? 1599 and 1605. He was also a retarded fartsnuffing britbong who just wanted to talk about how great ingerlond was, and since they were retarded poorfags all they had to fight with were sticks. Same reason morons go on and on about longbows, other fartsniffing bongs who centuries later started gushing about how great the longbow is at winning a single battle in a war they lost to catestrophic effect on England.

It's a cope, and a cope from centuries later than "the period." You retarded subhuman.

>>64134068
Im right, you are wrong, sucks to be a tard like you.

>>64133055
>The force from a strike with a quarterstaff will kill an armored knight. Physics doesn't care if you understand it or not.

The stick would snap from the force it's applying before it would hit you with enough force to knock you out through a helmet.

>>64133391
>A seven foot ash stick over one inch in diameter has flex acceleration that puts the often steel capped ends at tip speeds plus mass into energy levels you obviously cant fathom

Anon if you could actually fathom it you would be posting numbers instead of trying to argue vaguely.

>>64134079
>writer talking about unarmored duels from centuries later is totally relevant to medieval warfare
yeah sure retard, you got a loicense for that opinion?

>>64134085
Brilliant deduction. Except we can see that isn't remotely true. We can see that through the history of sports. A 100mph ball gets hit with an ash stick with a handle thinner than an inch moving at 75+ mph resulting in an exot speed of over 100mph and the wooden stick is fine. Hockey, field hockey, irish curling, cricket.
I dont think you have a fucking clue how things work. I think you are a little dipshit that has Dunning-Kruger syndrome and a bit of the downs to boot.
Go get an ash staff over an inch thick and rap it into a tree a few times. As hard as you can. Or your whore mom or one of her John's cars. Your hands will give up stinging before the staff breaks.

>>64134116
A ball is not an armored skull. We know of course that you are wrong, and are a brit who is butthurt he can't buy butter knives without written permission.

>>64134123
Things you were wrong about today, quarterstaff, all physics, history, and what country is am from. Nice constancy tard.

>>64134131
>quarterstaff
you mean the stick. The worst weapon ever made. We made real weapons because it is useless.
>all physics
Ah yeah, a ball connected to nothing is the same as hitting an armored knight. The physics are the same.
>history
Ah right, 1200 is 1600, of course. They're all the same if you think the stick is the only invention that matters.
>country
Oh so you're a brown shitstain jeet who wishes he was English, that's even worse holy shit why would you admit that wtf is wrong with you, disgusting

>>64134135
Again your lack of knowledge combined with your arrogance is astonishing.

>>64134161
>lack of knowledge
You mean calling out your dimwit brown ass. That's not lack of knowledge, it's the opposite.
>nooo listen to my 17th century source on unarmored dueling, it's totally relevant to 13th century armored warfare!
nobody will ever take this seriously. But you think a "source" is just quoting any random article you read and that makes you right.

Internal monologue lacking subhuman filth.

>>64134169
You seem very angry that you are wrong. You see you have decided what is factual to you based on very little actual fact. Its all feelings for you. Im not brown but you have decided I am because it fits your needs. You struggle to understand how a simple stick could be so good because you are drawn to shiny things and points. You ignore the fact that all pole arms are in fact just the quarterstaff +. Everyone trained in them. The techniques translate from one to the other. Hand position, blocks, strikes ect. The fact that with a spear striking was done downward with the shaft itself is beyond your grasp. The fact the spear was held in quarters and used exactly like a quarterstaff in close range fighting is too much for you to handle.
>>it would just snap
No Lil tard, no.

>>64134116
>Brilliant deduction. Except we can see that isn't remotely true. We can see that through the history of sports. A 100mph ball gets hit with an ash stick with a handle thinner than an inch moving at 75+ mph resulting in an exot speed of over 100mph and the wooden stick is fine. Hockey, field hockey, irish curling, cricket.

Baseball bats and other sports implements do break, quite often in fact. And the amount of force in these situations you are describing aren't comparable because both objects, the bat and the ball, are adding force to the interaction not just one. The total force exerted on a baseball is a combination of the force of the throw and the force bat while with a staff and a helmet, the staff is only one adding force into the equation.


Also still can't actually come up with the numbers for how much force a quarterstaff does to a head can you?

>Your hands will give up stinging before the staff breaks.

Oh woah, it'll sting my hands before it breaks????? Yeah you sure need to apply a lot of force to make your hands sore.

>>64134206
>still seething because he posted a 17th century source about unarmored dueling, trying to argue about 12th century armored warfare
>refuses to address it
Hey why did nobody use quarterstaffs on the battlefield ever? It's because they're not weapons. Your source was also invalid as the author was a shill who just wanted to fawn over the great english weapon, the stick.

It can't do anything to armor. Ever. It will just break. Then you die.

>>64134209
Almost smart enough to understand the physics behind a baseball hit, still not smart enough to understand he just proved my point.

>>64134222
Why is kicking a ball not the same as kicking a block of steel?
>wtf I can kick a soccer ball and it doesn't break my foot, I can obviously kick an armored knight!

>>64134217
>>it will just break
All pole arms by your logic are now worthless as the staff itself is not strong enough to withstand a downward strike without the added weight on the end or weak points on attachment.
You are truly a fucking moron.

>>64134234
Well yeah, Polearms broke all the time. That's why people always had sidearms.

However polearms had a stabby bit on the end, that's what made them useful. The stick part was the weakness.

>>64134228
>>why does kicking a ball rolling at me hurt more than kicking a ball that is stationary?
FIFY

>>64134241
>>thats why people had sidearms
For the love of fuck you are a god damn retard

>>64134242
But anon, neither hurts. However, kicking a fully grown man encased in solid steel is nothing like kicking a ball. Because it's kicking a ~200lbs object covered in steel. It's not going to move when you hit it. Unlike the ball. Meaning all the force is going back to you.
>>64134250
It is though. What is your problem retard? Going straight back to hoplite warfare, the longest phase of battle was when the polearms broke and swords were drawn. Spears breaking was an accepted and expected part of warfare.

>>64134241
I have met some drooling mouth breathing fucking idiots in my day but holy hopped up shitballs you take the cake. You are by far the dumbest motherfucker I have ever encountered.

>>64134259
Of course I am, because you will never learn. When you discover you are wrong you double down and dip into cognitive dissonance. So your only coping mechanism to me, who proves you wrong about all the retarded non-sequitor bullshit you spout is to cry that I'm dumb and your inbred brown ass is correct.

You will always be stupid because all of your ancestors were stupid. You will never learn anything, because the first factoid you latch onto will always be correct in your mind, even if it is immediately disproven.

>>64134255
One, the head does not weight 200lbs. It weighs 8lbs and is connected to a flexible structure of muscle and tendon at the core of is a spine. I am weirded out you are so dumb you are still rolling with your retard level analogy.
2 the hoplites carried multiple spears. They fought with the first few lines all using spears and swords were used by the front line under and around shields.
>>pole arms breaking was an accepted part of warfare
Yes, and claiming because they can break they are not a viable and deadly weapon is fucking retarded. Thats you. Thats the argument you are trying to make. So stop little Timmy the tard.

>>64134282
The problem is spears have a pointy bit. That's what makes them a weapon. Your cave man unga bunga stick doesn't. That's why it sucks as a weapon and only one butthurt bong retard liked it.

>>64134265
Show your work dicklet. Where have you proven anything? I won't wait because you have shown zero anything. The only expert anything posted was a quote by me. Thats it.

>>64134289
>expert
You mean a retard who was just writing bullshit about how anything British was good. He also was writing exclusively about unarmored dueling, while you are trying to say that applies to medieval armored warfare. It doesn't.

A source isn't any random link to one moron who had an unpublished manuscript you know.

>>64134286
The problem is nobody told you spears were used in multiple ways including striking with the butt end, and downward strikes with the shaft. A spear was not limited to its tip.
Dude, seriously. Its obvious at this point you have zero actual experience here. Just stop before you sound any dumber. If that is even possible. Im done with you. I actually feel bad for you at this point. Im embarrassed for you its so bad.

>>64134297
>dude please stop you're making me look bad
You are making yourself look bad. There's no downvotes here shitstain, you have no power just like the quarterstaff.

A useless weapon extolled by one retard in an unpublished work he would have been laughed and challenged, and killed, for publishing by any random Italian with a sword lmao

>>64131941
>no one used great helms by then
Anon you had fags still using antiques from before Rome fell in medieval warfare, a person's kit was dictated by what was immediately on hand.

>>64133624
Plenty of historical evidence that even unarmed peasants can kill a knight.
The only thing stopping them was the fear of God.

>>64134569
And there are far more cases of armored knights putting down peasant revolts. In most cases where peasants had some success, they were armed and armored, often upper class guild members, not dirt farmers.

>>64132909
Yeah, a properly made greathelm the bottom edge will hit your collar and stop your head from tilting past a certain point. You can still get your neck broken by rotational force though, which is why these eventually evolved (after development of the solid cuirass) into the frog-mouth helm and grand bascinet, which were actually fixed to your breastplate, and had so much room inside you could actually rotate your head independently of them.

>people arguing that a blow from a wooden stick could kill a fully armored knight
sticks with rock or metal heads couldnt do that
hell, even flanged maces were not actually able to do that

>>64131307
>that helmet makes you look dumb
YOU'RE DUMB FAGGOT

>>64133424
>An 8 foot pole can get enough swing behind it to knock your helmet off your body with your head strapped to it.

and a shotgun can blow a guy 20 feet backwards if shot in the chest...

>>64131782
You ever heard of a tbi/neurogenic shock?

>>64135068
>get hit by a stick: die
>get hit by a stick with a helmet: not dead
you are literally just using the nirvana fallacy mentioned in the OP
equating a lesser injury to a mortal injury and pretending they are the same thing

Just read the thread, this stick-obsessed guy is a fucking retard lmao
>y-yeah sticks were just able to knock a fully armored knight’s head clean off
>that’s why armored foot soldiers completely dominated warfare for hundreds of years and usually slaughtered forces without good armor
>and why everyone with the money to do so who thought they might go up against fully plate armored opponents would buy actual armor defeating weapons instead of trying their luck with stick that would only ever glance off and impart minimal momentum to an armored opponent

armor helps on so many of the layers of the survivability onion

>dont be engaged
if you have armor on, then enemies without the proper weapon will just outright avoid you if they can help it

>dont be hit
the enemy will either have to deliberately aim at weakpoints or use fully committed strikes, which makes it easier for you to block them or parry them, since the range of attacks at their disposal is much smaller

>dont be penetrated
the obvious function of armor
which it does very well

>dont die
metal is pretty tough, even if you hit with enough force to get through it, most of the force is absorbed by the armor
a full force spear thrust from someone on horseback might pierce your armor, but the tip will be arrested at a certain point
whereas wearing no armor at all would result in it going all the way through and into your lungs

about the only negative is if you are supremely armored, then you might have worse vision and could be blindsided
but then comes the magic of just taking the helmet off, or having visored helmet
or having a good middle ground of a helmet that isnt quite as protective but still has good field of vision

>>64135121
>Just read the thread, this stick-obsessed guy is a fucking retard lmao

I'm pretty much picturing this for every time they say something:

>>64135056
Your mom can blow a guy 20 feet backwards and take the shot on her chest

>>64131305 (OP)
You could call it poorfag mentality, but I see it as being more of an issue with anyone who's never really needed safety equipment before, and I mean NEED. If you've worked with microorganisms, high voltage, high temperature etc. then you know that you need to invest in your own safety by acquiring the best PPE you can reasonably afford. Is the $250 arc flash kit your employer provides, to meet their bare minimum insurance standards, going to do the same job as the $1500 kit you buy yourself? Mostly. That mostly, however, can be the difference between being carted off to a costly hospital stay with permanent nerve damage, or walking away with a greater appreciation of your own mortality to sit through a 45 minute safety video. The kind of people who think armour is useless because it can be beaten, are the same people who take safety squints literally.

>>64135177
>enemies without the proper weapon will just outright avoid you
The pre-pre flare air combat strategy.

>>64133480
Can you direct me towards the historical account where an armored combatant was killed by an unarmored man with a quarterstaff? I train & compete in Buhurt and think knights are cool as hell but there's a certain quality to killing a superiorly equipped man with nothing but a caveman club that I find deeply appealing.

I mean, there's an easy way to settle this. One anon wears a helmet, and the other doesn't. They take turns hitting each other in the head with sticks and see who passes out first.

>>64136667
I’m assuming because of the obvious omission both anons are naked and thus the sticks are their penises. And I assume the first that ejaculates would pass out first, but I’m assuming because that’s not always the case with me. I’m not gay or anything but what u mentioned integrated with my interpretation with the addition of a little oil it could be an interesting affair to watch. The arena could be some unreal tournament 2004 deathmatch maps, like hyperblast 2, so it’d be something to look forward to in the future, because. This will happen.

>>64135121
>>64135184
>Guy responds to himself to justify his retarded POV
History disagrees with you. Pick up a book and start reading you sub-room temperature IQ mouth breathing retard.

>>64134805
Against a foot soldier a blunt weapon can absolutely do that.
If you're talking about someone in extremely well made jousting armor maybe not, but the extremely heavy tournament armor is harder to fight in. A skilled practitioner can knock a knight on his ass and the fight is over. A knight in lighter armor can get up and keep fighting, but tournament armor forget it. The heavier the armor the more protection it offers, but with less mobility. That's why they rode big muscley ass destriers in combat. You're not knocking a knight on a destrier out with a stick.

>>64137522
>A knight in lighter armor can get up and keep fighting, but tournament armor forget it.
That is victorain boomer bolloks.
here literally knights in tournament armor. >>64131832

>>64138894
Did i not specify tournament jousting armor? That's about the only thing that's going to take a quarterstaff smiling. It's designed to take an impact to the helmet and keep the rider alive.
But yeah tournament jousting armor is a pain in the ass to move in, if you're not on a destrier and someone trips you, you're fucked.

>>64140915
>That's about the only thing that's going to take a quarterstaff smiling
Most helmets can take a hit from a wooden staff

>>64131307
you talk like a fag, and your shits all retarded

>>64140918
Okay, you're about to get your bell rung by a guy who is considered a master with multiple types of weapons because these kinds of guys usually are, what helmet are you wearing and how many inches of padding do you think it's going to take to protect you from a full impact from a weapon that only weighs about 4 pounds yet can scatter every bone in your rib cage if he hits you just right with it?
Once? not a chance, these are faster than mauls and just as lethal.

>>64140952
You are seriously overselling the staff here

>>64137491
Sorry nigger, not a samefag, sorry that multiple people were making fun of your retardation lmao

You know, I feel like I've seen knight threads on /v/ where they at least actually link sources and post manuals when arguing over spears and swords. I don't think I've seen a single instance of that here. Astounding work, /k/.

>>64141021
>/v/ where they at least actually link sources and post manuals when arguing over spears and swords
>I don't think I've seen a single instance of that here. Astounding work, /k/.
What are you talking about? Dont you remember your previous life?

>>64133442
>You should do some research
I thought you were supposed to make arguments then provide your own evidence to back them up. Don't expect other people to find your evidence for you, unless you're one of those pricks who's just going to discard every bit of evidence that inconveniently doesn't align with your argument.

>>64140915
watch video

>>64141038
my previous life was Shaolin from For Honor

>>64135177
Also a nice set helps the likelyhood of being ransomed instead of killed

>>64131305 (OP)
>full plate armor
>doesn't stop 9mm
it's not armor

>>64141045
>fake weapons
>fake armor
>people still falling over and not being able to get up
Strange of you to provide evidence supporting the other guy. Also, all of it is just retards wailing on each other while being completely blind. You could run in circles around a knight wearing all that shit until he died from exhaustion.

>>64141777
>777
We got a winner over here, >>>/his/ autists on suicide watch