>Watch a Hollywood/Western period/fantasy movie.
>Oh boy its a fight scene.
>It's another swordfight.
Why does western cinematography stick to just using swords? It's just endless swordfaggotry.
Very unlike East Asian cinema where you get a lot of polearms and then the exotic meme weapons.
Because swords are cool LMFAO
You've taken the meme too far, knights mostly used swords and swords were pretty common on the battlefield
Game of Thrones features a variety of realistic weapons
I wish ONE movie would use actual sword fighting techniques. Its kind of interesting how even now, everything still uses bullshit hollywood Errol Flynn type of choreography to the point where that is everyones idea of a medieval sword fight and if you showed them something like vid related, they would all claim how bullshit and dumb it looks, even though this is much more exciting and action packed than most sword fights in movies which just end up being two assholes banging their swords together rather than trying to hit the other guy
T.B.H it is for this reason that I found the first half of the 2004 Troy's Achilles-Hector duel magical.
1:24
>youtube.com
It is pretty much the only instance of a spear & shield duel I've ever scene in hollywood movies.
thats an extremely overdramatised fight scene anyway, real life fights were over in like 5 seconds
the sword meme needs to die. nobody used them and they suck ass
>nobody used them
literally objectively false
The only accurate sword fights come from slavs dicking around in the woods
Kingdom of Heaven at least made an effort. In an early scene they make a reference to a guard from Vadi wiktenauer.com
This is in large part because HEMA is still not yet well known enough that it occurs to show and filmmakers to incorporate it. So instead they use shitty theater fencing that only knows how to use swords like cudgels.
Because a sword is the most practical sidearm you can carry even outside the battlefield.
Also culture, I guess, only East Asians- especially Chinese- are autist enough to carry spears in a private capacity.
Knights used lances, tardino
I think Roman Polanski's Macbeth had a pretty accurate swordfight.
youtube.com
Is this thread an excuse to post Adorea webms?
Fantasy movies I can look over since they don't have to be accurate and make up bullshit about this sword is enchanted.
Swords were usually side-arms, like modern pistols.
Primary weapon of a mounted knight was lance, obviously.
Asians didn't carry a spear with them everywhere, and European medieval levy always used polearms or a type of bow as main weapon, swords were mere sidearms since on a battlefield they are ten times shitttier than a polearm.
The fact is that medieval movies always showing swordfights in battles is retarded since everyone carried polearms, it is the equivalent of showing a modern war movie and all the soldiers draw pistols when they get close to the enemy.
Just because its slow doesn't mean it's accurate. It still looks like kids play fighting with sticks.
Rob Roy had a pretty accurate sword fight but movies and TV shows seem to handle more modern styles of fencing far better than medieval fencing in general. Possibly because it's more similar to the military sabre tradition that stage fencing evolved out of
>retarded since everyone carried polearms
again not true at all, did the dismounted english knights at agincourt use polearms?
No they didn't, sword + shield was very common. Earlier middle ages most people like the vikings and saxons were using shields and swords.
I think it's accurate because armour is actually serving its purpose rather than just being aesthetic yet getting cut through like butter.
A few reasons I can think of:
1. Polearms are very fucking dangerous even when blunt, if you don't use a shitty toy then there's a good chance that some ham-fisted Hollywood moron will accidentally brain his buddy in practice.
Because western style polearms aren't associated with the lightweight, unreasonably agile movie versions of eastern ones, depicting them well is gonna be a challenge.
2. Generally people in cinema don't understand actual armed combat one bit. They don't understand swords or shields or spears or polearms or anything really.
For swords there's at least an established "language" for shitty movie fights, but for other stuff I imagine they'll often just shy away from the unknown.
Spear and shield could be really neat to depict, check out how when using them overarm, they become surprisingly effective for parrying other spears
youtube.com
3. The muscles associated with armed melee combat aren't the ones you typically train when going for aesthetics. This is one of the reasons why sword fight choreography is so half-assed, shitty overswings are just easier to do. Polearms aren't so bad in this respect, but one-handed swords and spears especially are very exhausting even for fit beginners, especially spears wielded overarm.
(if you know that overarm/underarm lindybeige video, the hilarious truth about it is he doesn't understand spears because he's weak)
That video is actually awful
They totally abandoned even the most basic principles of HEMA and real combat with a shield, such as DON'T PUT YOUR SHIELD BEHIND YOUR BODY YOU FUCKING RETARD
Adorea is overrated, but at least they're trying
>Asians didn't carry a spear with them everywhere
Yes they did because the spear is the cheapest weapon a peasant can afford and in addition Chinese law enforcement relied on armed civilians in the countryside to keep the peace.
Sidearm is a fucking loaded term and I wish people would stop using it for swords. Swords were not the medieval version of semi-auto pistols, they were far more useful than that.
Yes, they were "sidearms" in the sense that you carried them on your belt and had a different weapon in your hands. But this isn't because the polearm, bow or spear was necessarily the better weapon, it's just that you can't carry a polearm in a scabbard on your hip.
If we're dealing with the early middle ages and before, then sword & shield is probably at an advantage compared to the spear. In this case it's really just that spears are cheap, and good in tight formations. But in a more open skirmish-type situation (let's say, a viking raid or so), the sword will absolutely have the advantage.
Why? Because spears have been hyped up on this site so much people have utterly forgotten the downsides.
The first is what happens when a spearpoint interacts with a shield. It doesn't take much force for the tip to get very slightly into the wood. The spear isn't really stuck, but the guy with the shield has enough control now to manipulate the spear.
Here's a demonstration with a sharp sword on a wooden buckler that illustrates this brilliantly, skip into the middle to ge to the good stuff:
youtube.com
So if you're doing the B-BUT MUH REACH argument, consider that the spear only needs to get in contact with the shield for a brief moment to give the swordsman the necessary opening to rush in.
And before you say it, no, you can't just magically shorten your grip to fight up close. That shit takes time, especially when you're only using one hand.
So the alternative is to fight with an already shortened grip, at which point swords are just objectively better for close range anyway.
1/2
It's just kinda difficult to fence with lances.
swords are the most aesthetic
To be honest I think that this is the core of the reason why we tend to see them more than other weapons in film and TV. The sword is sort of an icon and other weapons don't really interest the audience the way it does
i fucking quoted the wrong post, god dammit
2/2
As for later in history, consider that with polearms, you again don't just have a sort of "ultimate melee weapon" as some people seem to hype them up here.
Let's go with the halberd as an example because it's fucking cool, and obviously a superb weapon.
So the advantages of the halberd are that it's usually pretty damn long, it has a stout, useful point, an effective cutting edge and a hook at the back that is multifunctional. Also as a consequence of its sheer length, it can deliver plenty of blunt force too.
So what's the problem then?
Well first of all, such length is, pardon me, a double edged sword. Yeah, you get all that reach and the power, but when somebody does get past you, you'll have to react quickly and adjust that grip, and past a certain point you'll now have lots of halberd protruding from beneath your lower hand that will get in your way, or possibly hit the guy behind you in the nuts or something.
Also, when hitting somebody, you have to hit them with the head. Even if you're going for blunt force, the haft just won't deliver nearly as hard a blow. This means that as with all polearms, you actually need to be quite precise with your range estimation if you want to deliver an effective hit, though if you fuck up you might still get lucky and be able to hook your opponent at least.
Meanwhile, if a guy with a shorter weapon gets past your point, he's at an advantage. Most polearms don't have hand protection, cutting the hand or just delivering a hard enough strike if it's armoured could cause enough injury to impede its function. Not to mention that parrying up close will be awkward.
There's also the simple fact that fighting could take place in areas where such polearms just are too big.
tl;dr, swords being "sidearms" doesn't mean they're worse weapons for when you lose your primary, they're complementary weapons that do what the primary weapon can't.
why didnt he hit him with his shield when he locked his hand AAAAAAAAAAHH
sword of dying guy was made by pajeet windlass steelcrafts for the shitty 2010 ridley scott rustle crow robin hood origin story
The most common civilian's weapon in China was the Duan Jian/Dao (Short sword/short saber).
It was relatively cheap, even a peasant can afford it.
Go home, Lindy.
sauce pls
GODS I WAS STRONG THEN
Call me crazy, but that sort of makes sense in cinema
"Sidearms" are typically associated with "American" duels. The High-Noon gunfight consists of two men with revolvers, not shotguns or rifles.
Meanwhile it's more "European" to have men charge at each other with lances or have sniper duels.
Hollywood makes them both, but still, that might be part of the reason, even if it's not all of it