Jump to content
Sturgeon's House


Contributing Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

597 profile views

Volkswagen's Achievements


Newbie (1/3)



  1. My point is that he is being extremely unscientific and dishonest. Other than that I'm not quite sure what are you trying to say. Did you take a look at his sources?
  2. That video is fucking awful piece of shit and because of it, I now have super-aids. Just first few points that come to mind: -Dude has a PhD in physics, not in history, which is why it's a bit shady to use it so overtly in a video about history. -the scale of battles are horribly uneven; capture of single frigate (without bloodshed) is considered good enough for jihad and made no distinction to events where tens of thousands of people get killed. Obviously he is trying to inflate the map with his fucking dots. -stops counting crusades after the third one ??? (there are still 4th-9th crusades, reconquista, Albigensian crusade, Hussite wars, All the Swedish, Lithuanian, Prussian etc. crusades), some of them are obviously between christians or uneventful (6th crusade IIRC) but the same should then apply to "jihads" as well. -counting almost all muslim conflicts regardless of who is fighting who and what is the motivation behind said conflict (Civil wars between muslims e.g. in Granada 1482-1484 or abbasid succession war in 811, defending from enemy campaigns (Granada conquest by Castillian forces, didn't have time to check but it seems that all of reconquista is somehow counted only as jihads but not crusades..). -counting dishonestly bizarre events as jihads, such as; French exile of jews in 1306(???), 1999 Kosovo war, Turkish invasion of Cyprus, or counting possibly small skirmishes as battles (hard to say as there are no sources for these and the description is vague as hell). 831 Spain war 832 Spain war 833 Spain war 834 Spain war 835 Spain war 836 Spain war and lot more from Spain with no sources. -he's trying to evoke this muslims vs christians/western world by wording things vaguely ("..primarily battles against classical civilizations of rome and greece" ???) -framing every muslim conflict as a way to enslave, rape and murder everyone non-muslim, but romantisizing crusades as just helping bretherens. -pretending that every single one of these battles were fought because of religious reasons. -cramming together ~1500 years of history, hundreds of millions of people from hundreds of civilizations and simplifying them to homogenic muslims and christians. If you want to have super-aids as well, go check his sources: http://cspipublishing.com/statistical/charts/Islam-BattlesDate.pdf
  3. Huh. I think I misread something then. Time to read it again, properly that is.
  4. Don't you think Norway gets a little unreasonable statistics for one really high victim count attack? I have also doubts on validity of the statistics in areas where it is basically war during those years. Could be interesting to see what that map would look like if it was 1998-2018.
  6. When I open that blog post, it's in georgian. Am I the only one who has it so?
  7. You can watch the rest of the sa80 videos in advance if you use the playlist he made some time ago.
  8. That first one is about a month old video, but don't know about the second one.
  9. I watched those Lindybeige videos and several points came into my mind: - Reach is a relative statement: if the target zone is hands and face/neck, then at maximum extension overarm should have better reach. If the target is low or mid - then underarm has more reach at maximum extension. - If the enemy has large shields like aspis or lots of armor, the need for long reach is not so relevant anymore. - Whilst cutting with onehanded spears is quite hard (other than pulling/pushing), the binding is very important in order to safely thrust and defend yourself. - You can thrust at the same targets (like 45 degree on the side) with overarm, but with both it is sometimes problematic to thrust to your left since you are crossing your body and thus turning your right side to the enemy. (little break so it's easier to read) - You really don't have to hold the spear from the middle all the time, you can let it slide in thrust or just move it further back for moments only (just like in underarm). - Stabbing at the feet is a relatively dangerous thing to do, since you have to extend more into it (thus bringing your head closer as your reach is shortened), this is not a problem if you have a big reach advantage to begin with. - Knocking the spear aside is harder to do against overarm because your grip is closer to the weak of the weapon (the point), and it is easier to do against underarm since the point is further away from the hand holding it. - If you're in overarm and your spear is being knocked to the right, you can use the momentum to bring the buttspike in front. (Lindy is a hack fraud) - Parrying with the underarm can be weaker if it is done with the weak part of the weapon (pointy end). - Ofcourse you don't always have to even parry at the legs since you can just move them (or if you have greaves). - Also consider that if your primary targets are head and arms -> you might want to have the strong of your spear closer to them. - Your spear doesn't really bump into your comrades face if you angle it even slightly towards the ground + depends a lot on the formation used. Underarm has similar problems if the formation is very dense. - Like usual, Lindy cherrypicks a lot of the evidence to support his view. If something is against his view it must be because the source is wrong and if it supports him it must be right. - Wtf is 'heroic' or 'dramatic' to an ancient Greek or medieval Frenchman is probably different to what is heroic or dramatic to us. - Almost all fighting manuals show different overarm strikes and almost never in any heroic or dramatic context. (This is longer than I planned) - The fact that Rambo is unrealistic has zero bearing on art created 1000+ years before it. Obviously not everything can be taken as a truth without consideration, but it should be remembered that in some cases the people who made the fucking art might have actually been trained on weapon usage. It is not uncommon for people to be forced to own weapons in case of war in various times and places. - Again cherrypicking art in discussion about duels v. formations. - Is his reenactment group allowed to thrust into faces? - Sometimes it is better to close the distance to the enemy rather than stay further away. - Grabbing the enemy spear is just as easy regardless of the grip used. What is more important is how stationary the weapon is and how close it is to the enemy. - Yeah, shoving matches are stupid, but you don't need to resort to it with overhand. Just some other considerations: - You don't get to choose what your enemy does, so you should be able to use both grips for maximum flexibility. - Sometimes you might not get to choose even what you use (in a hurry for example), so better to know how to use both. - What are the targets of your enemy? What are your targets the enemy is trying to hit? Do you have equally long weapons? Do you have armour? Do you need to be more squared or more side on to the enemy? All in all, use both when needed and don't be a retard. Please tell me if my rambling doesn't make sense. Some pics of both over- and underarm .
  10. What I meant with lineage is a non stop continuation of evolution if that makes sense. As in evolution of atgeir might have gone "extinct", and later on when the need for polearms came back - some other solution was created or taken. The translation 'halberd' is a bit confusing; did they translate it to that because that's the only polearm they knew and somewhat fit the description? But yeah, whilst I won't try to guess the possible shape of that weapon, I wouldn't be surprised if it was something pretty basic like early voulges, winged-spears and suchlike. I remember having seen that blog, it is really good!
  11. In means of functionality, pretty much yes - but I doubt there is any direct "lineage" between the two. Also wouldn't something like partizan fit more as a successor, considering it doesn't have a axe-like blade? PS. a bit older version of "halberd":
  12. I don't completely disagree with Lloyd but I'd like to remind that once again, not all halberds are uniform in shape. Sometimes the cutting blade is canted, other times it's straight, and sometimes the spike/spearhead is long and stubby - other times it has a ability to cut and is short. The halberds Lloyd show in his video are mostly from late 15th century to late 16th century so it could be just a preferred look of the time. I would also like to point out that the shape of the lower part of the cutting portion will probably be a better indicator to if you wan't to do more of a pulling-cut with the weapon. + That chop motion he does when he talks about stab vs chop is way overblown (you don't really have to load up so much with a long polearm to inflict damage). h
  13. Basically the ones that are numbered from 30 to 60 are all for warfare, so pretty much all of them. Had to find a better res picture.
  • Create New...