Two-handed weapons are beloved of movies like Braveheart and TV shows like The Witcher. But historically two-handed weapons only make sense in specific contexts.
Yes, the best kind of armour there is! As we all know, arrows and single-handed swords can penetrate plate armour easily (which begs the question of why people bother wearing it at all), but only an equally powerful plot weapon can penetrate plot armour.
@@SuburbanFox Plot armor is the mightiest of the armors, so shiny it makes enemy archers miss you entirely so we don't know the true effects of an arrow on plot armor as nobody has ever successfully landed a hit on one.
"What about a pointed stick?" "Ooh, ooh, ooh; we want to learn how to defend ourselves against pointed sticks, do we? Getting all high and mighty, eh? Fresh fruit not good enough for you, eh? Well, let me tell you something, my lad! When you're walking home tonight and some great homicidal maniac comes after YOU with a bunch of loganberries, don't come cryin' to me!"
@@conorfoster2337 Not the rangers, nor are their expeditions. Longswords are also more expensive. They have carpenters and plenty of lumber; it would be extremely easy for them to have shields. it still doesn't make sense to have shields homemade, considering they have fuck all for armor apart from gambesons. This is demonstrably a real problem, as arrows drop them like flies, as to slashes that maille or shields would stop cold. They would be utterly fucked against even small but disciplined group with spears.
My impression is that they aren't really equipped to fight as much as equipped to scout and defend themselves if necessary. It's a hell of a lot easier to sneak up on wildlings with a crow cloak and a longsword than wearing mail and holding a spear and shield. If they're good they just don't get noticed. If they get noticed their first choice is to ride away on horses. Only if both those fail do they have to fight, and a longsword isn't a bad choice for that.
I think a show that doesn't get its due is HBO's Rome. In the first episode it shows the Romans fighting in an open formation with shields, using a whistle to signal rank changes and show what happens if you break ranks as the one character does.
i love that show, not many could capture history and weave a plot into it without destroying it historically...special moments like when titus pullo brought down the republic because he got into a card game fight in the suburra. Really enjoyable stuff.
Funny thing: I'm rereading Lord of the Rings right now - I literally just read the part where the fellowship departs Rivendell, and here's what Tolkien had to say about how the fellowship was armed: Aragorn had Anduril (his longsword), and no other weapon. Gandalf carried his staff, and his sword - Glamdring. Legolas had his bow, and arrows, and a long knife at his belt. Gimli wore a coat of iron rings, and had a bropad-bladed axe, and Boromir had a long sword, as well as a shield, while the hobbits all carried short swords (that they took from the Barrows in an earlier chapter), with Frodo having Sting, and a coat of dwarven mail concealed under his clothes. And it is specifically said, that the fellowship set out lightly armed, because their hope lay in secrecy, and their ability to get past unseen, rather than in force of arms.
@Damia Savon There's little description of what Elves or Dwarves or Numenoreans wore before Third Age, but the theme of decline is central to the worldbuilding. Gondor cannot build the structures Numenor could, Dwarves have lost the metalcrafting skills of their forefathers. Noldor, who were the best at crafting among elves aren't a military power anymore. Concerning the fellowship, the only people who really should have a shield was Aragorn and maybe Gimli, depending how good his mail armor is. Hobbits are too small, Legolas is an archer and Gandalf doesn't need one.
Well shields really belong to a battlefield, as do most types of armors. They're too big and often heavy for travelers and pilgrims, taking lots of space and being uncomfortable to carry when you really just want to travel as light as possible. A sword was generally more than sufficient for self defense, maybe together with a bow to hunt for food along the way. Though it would've made sense for some of the members of the fellowship to use a shield during one of the more open conflicts or sieges (like helm's deep), where they could've easily grabbed one from the arsenal.
Zeghart Before they set out from Edoras, Aragorn and Legolas take helms, hauberks, and shields from Théoden’s hoard. Gimli takes a helm and a shield as well.
@@anti-macro battlefield kite shields, sure, but what about bucklers? Swashbuckling is literally the sound of the sheathed rapier next to the shield worn on a hip. MS I.33 (13th century) details it extensively, but it goes back to classical antiquity. Indeed in the film of the same name, the first real fight, Spartacus has one.
@@buffoonustroglodytus4688 Tbh, fighting against monster that can blow stiff wooden structure apart, spell + real serious war range weapon, like 100lb + bow. Or rather, just give me a AK.
@@jintsuubest9331 but they don't always fight in an open space, sometimes they have to engage stuff in difficult conditions and/or in close-quarters. Also, they are travellers, so something like longsword seems to be a fine choice, even necessary. Can't argue the potential usefulness of ranged weapons though.
Good stuff. but Geralt of Rivia is a bad example. He fights humans because they're idiots and keep getting in fights with him. He's not a soldier, he's a monster hunter. Monsters don't, generally, carry spears or other ranged weapons. Since many are also ridiculously strong, avoiding a hit is much more important than trying to 'tank' the hit with armor or a shield. He also needs his off hand free for signs(magic), as others have mentioned. Witchers don't fight in battles, they duel monsters.
@@BrentODell A lot of monsters in the witcher universe have either armour (like scolopendromorph), thick skin or very thick fur which would make cutting with a sword very difficult. Also, a lot of those monsters would have a significant reach advantage over regular human armed with a longsword. It still would make much more sense for witchers to use spears as their main weapon and maybe a sword as a backup one. After all, there is a reason why people used spears when hunting boars and bears.
@Harry Paul I'm not complaining. It's just some simple pondering. In fact, I'm a fan of Sapkowski and absolutely love his books. Besides Sapkowski has also written a couple of historical novels too.
Also, he is right, but also wrong - Witcher doesn't use shield because he is one of the 'special purpose' guys. Monsters he fights can tear shields like paper, so Witchers need to concentrate on not being hit, which is easier if you aren't slowed down by shield. They also have reflexes good enough to dodge or deflect arrows and spears, adding to reasons why they don't really need one...
Honestly, I felt like the helmetless people getting shot in the head/neck just drew attention to how ridiculous it was that they weren't wearing helmets in the first place.
Killed? I dont think he actually died, he got mortally wounded from it and would have died. but thats because geralt hesitated since you know, he doesnt wanna kill innocent scared peasants. Shield wouldnt have saved him then.
@@MrClonedzero Yes in the last book its a debate whether he and Yen lived or died. In the book, he was in a mob and couldn`t really move to defend himself as easily. A shield on his back might have saved him.
@@thomasalvarez6456 he didnt.. in Season of Storms he is still alive 100 years later (epilogue), even though at that time he rather stays incognito (for obvious reasons)
Canonically that was how Geralt died until the video games were made and the wound gave him amnesia instead. Then when the original writer saw how popular the video games got he retconned Geralts death too.
My take. especially since he can block arrows and is not meant to fight battles. Sooo, yeah, like he said, the witcher has a very niche role to play on the battlefield... none actually.
@@HanSolo__ Nope, in books, he sometimes went for fight if he really had too, and simply dodged of deflected crossbow bolts. First episode, in which he blocks two one after another is best example of it.
"You're a hero in a fantasy film or production? Here, here's a two-handed sword. " Every movie. Every show. You'd think they'd use the chance for the hero to have a colorful shield.
Woah, now. What's this nonsense about heroes and color? Don't you know that colors are racist and the only good hero is a brooding antihero in all black with psychopathic tendencies?
Legolas, Gimli, Frodo, Sam, Merry, Pippin, Theoden, Eomer, Eowyn, Boromir, Faramir, Thor, Tyrion Lannister, and that's avoiding characters that aren't spellcasters. And if they ever make the Legend of Drizzt into a film that's dual wielding scimitars, and if they ever make Legend of Zelda into a film you'll get your colourful shield.
Not to mention the beauty of that shield being used for defence and offence. Shields, quite often, were used as a weapon during combat. I find a good fight between sword (or axe) wielded with a shield much more interesting than a 2H hack and slash fight. More realistic too.
"Experts" like Matt love to bang on about how vitally important shields are, but in my own extensive combat experience, the most valuable tool a warrior has is their ability to load from the last save...
I remember playing a lot of Mount&Blade Warband, and the game REALLY illustrates the points you make in this video very well. It's actually impressive how close to realism the game's combat gets sometimes, even though it's rather simple. What I really recognized was when you said "The first thing you do if you lose your shield is find another one". Hell yeah, unless you were an archer behind cover, you'd ALWAYS have a shield. Otherwise some random flying object could knock you out. Even with armor, you couldn't take too many hits, and if you were hit in the head that was pretty much it.
My horse archer character with the 4 slots filled up with a bow and 3 quivers disagrees. (although shields are mandatory for sieges unless you plan on sitting 5 miles away from the castle picking off the defenders)
@@DocSeal exactly! In a skirmish you can get away with no shield because the chance of being hit is pretty low if you keep moving. But during a siege you can't really do that.
The main point when playing Mount and Blade multiplayer is that if you ditch armour, you should also ditch clothing and run around in your underwear with the biggest twohander you can get for extra speed (it feels a bit 'you see Ivan' ). Admittedly you hope to find three extra shields to strap all over your body.
@El Bearsidente As far as reins and control over the horse is concerned, wouldn't horseback archers from various cultures have some way to resolve the issue of keeping both hands free, considering the fact that both hands are required to operate a bow and arrows? A similar system could be used to control the horse and keep both hands free for the two-handed weapon. What I'm interested in is the effect being astride a horse would have on the biomechanics inherent in using a two-handed weapon and the methods to deal with it.
@El Bearsidente There was a period around the late 15th century where armour was extremely tough but weapons hadn't yet caught up. Lances became sort of useless for a period because the necessary weight to penetrate plate armour was such that knight/men at arms would break their arms gaining the necessary speed. In this era, I imagine cavalry may have pivoted to some different weapon set to potentially deal with the change, but if that happened I am unsure. (Heavy cavalry regained its usefulness for breaking charges with the development of couches for lances, meaning knights could carrier heavier lances and charge at greater speed. My source for all of this is 'War and Chivalry: Warfare and Aristocratic Culture in England, France, and Burgundy at the End of the Middle Ages' by Malcolm Vale, an excellent book I would recommend for anyone interested in some of the topics addressed on this channel).
"Firstly, we have a steel sword. Siderite steel, sourced from a meteorite. Forged in Makaham, a dwarven work for sure. Total length is forty and a half inches, the blade itself is twenty-seven and a quarter. Perfectly balanced, the weight of the blade precisely equals that of the handle, the total weight surely falls below forty ounces. The finish is simple, but elegant." Doesn't sound like a huge zweihander to me.
@@hjorturerlend In the polish material it's often portrayed as a sort of long handled sabre type weapon that can be used one handed or gripped with two hands. The Games/US TV show made a lot of compromises in regards to some stuff, excluding some signs etc. or some of Geralts typical style. The Games have those style of weapons too, but not as the "Witcher Style" weapons.
I agree with you, but when talking about the Witcher we must remember that he is not fighting on the battlefield. He is a monster hunter so he doesn't have to defend against spears, rocks or arrows from ghouls, strigas, dragons etc. And on top of that he is supposed to have super human strength, speed and reflexes plus a bit of magical abilities. I'm not saying that a shield would hurt, but from what lore I know he needs a free hand to cast the signs (magical spells) so a longsword which can be used either 1 or 2 handed is a perfect weapon for him. Although a bit more armor would make sense (but I don't know what he's supposed to wear in the books.
All I know of the Witcher is from the games and coming from the games, I can say that a heavy gambeson, multi-layered chainmail or both at the same time is useful all the time and fits with Witcher fighting techniques.
Simply: When talking about Witcher you have to remember to not talk about Witcher. Witcher's aren't humans' their fighting styles aren't really for humans mainly, their weapons aren't for humans mainly. It's little like me trying to say if psychic of Asari in ass Effect is realistic. They don't teach us about mind of monogender, blue chicks who are developing in way making 100 y.o. teenager and no fencer around can say how to fight unexisting monsters while being superhuman.
Love it. I’m a high fantasy writer and I’ve learned a lot about combat and armor from your videos. I’m trying to use it and help my stories be more militarily realistic and practical than others. Appreciate you sharing your knowledge!
@Adrianna. I am also trying to write a story in high fantasy. Which is part of why I love these videos also to try and get the realism. Anyway, Good luck with your writing.
As a fellow writer, I’d also suggest getting hands-on and trying some of this stuff yourself. Many HEMA, archery, kendo, etc. clubs will let you come out and try it once or twice with club equipment. Even if you don’t take up the sport, it’s definitely worth an evening to give it a try.
As someone who is a huge fan of both historical combat and high fantasy, I support the idea of realistic combat, but entertainment and story supercede realism in high fantasy. George RR Martin wrote some of the most interesting high fantasy books I've ever read and he had a tendency to knock out the main character, or put them in a position where they couldn't see the battle, presumably because he didn't know how to write interesting battle scenes. I'm not trying to tell you how to write, or how I think you should do it, just pointing out that I, as a reader of something marketed as fantasy am not expecting Sun Tzu.
Witcher is a fantasy.. Witchers are supposed to be a lot faster than ordinary humans due to mutations.. they have to be, to be able to fight certain superfast monsters.. thats why their armor is purposely made to protect against monster claws etc, not human used weapons.. their combat style is different because of the same reason. things that would not work for ordinary human, works for them due to that speed and inhuman reflexes (they are told to be able to deflect crossbow bolts with the sword) So, while its completely inacurate from historical perspective, its ok in terms of fantasy world they are part of. Witchers are not supposed to be soldiers. they do not meddle in human affairs, they are not mercenaries somebody could hire to fight their wars... they are "pest control" guys practically :)
@@faramund9865 both Cintrian and Nilfgaardian soldiers were in plate armor.. Nilfgaardians used axes and slashing type swords, while Cintrians used standard swords, but occasionally also had shields...
@@armageddonbound it look stupid, but functionally, its fine.. it has good coverage, shoulders protection, they wear padding underneath... just that stupid overlay...
I mean, the Witcher did dodge and block a crossbow bolt.. I don't think "some guy off to the side with a throwing spear" is going to be much of a threat to him. All of that logic and reason goes out the window when your protagonist is a magical being capable of moving incredibly quickly and with ridiculous reflexes.
The Witcher book saga is actually quite detailed when it comes to combat, including descriptions of slashes and cuts using actual fencing terminology. The swords also get a detailed description, including materials, length and weight. Obviously the showrunners thought that's "too nerdy" and the games didn't help either. It makes perfect sense for a Witcher to carry a hand-and-a-half steel sword. Geralt is expecting he'll get into trouble and will need to defend himself - but he's not a soldier. It's a self-defense weapon primarily, prioritizing versatility and speed of deployment. If you're going to get jumped by three thugs in an alley, a large shield isn't going to do you any good. The silver sword is a single-handed sword and it also makes sense, if you're going to fight beasts that can attack you from any angle. Also, I suppose they're expensive to make. And yes, SPOILERS, Geralt is ultimately done by a "sharp stick" wielded by a young peasant.
@@gabzdark07 Nope. Sapkowski hate games and gamers and he would never make them canon (he wouldn't even without hate about them, he's proud as author and he won't let anyone to make canon story about his work). Actually he, himself wrote story he excluded from canon too, and that's probably story you are talking about, but it was printed in 2000 and it was asid to not be part of whole _Witchers_ world, not even ALT ending). But yep, Sapkowski made it unclear if Geralt actually died. Plus it's Yennefer. And Sapkowski wrote only one story after games were made and it's pre-Saga I believe.
using the witcher as an example is silly because the guy is a monster exterminator. A shield isn't going to be very useful against a monster's teeth and claws, especially when you have superhuman abilities that allow you to dodge
I disagree. I feel some monsters like the Striga, sure. But going by the TV show, against the kikimora for example, I feel a Shield would have been helpful (against the ghouls as well). But Geralt seems to be often portrayed as a brawler/grappler in the show so he seems to like to wrestle with monsters.
@@glenbe4026 I'd complain that he should be using something like a boar-spear instead of a sword, rather than that he should be using a sword and shield. He should be fighting like Oberyn Martell in GoT instead.
It's perfectly fair to criticize the show for depicting warriors other than Geralt poorly. But you're right that those criticisms don't work with the main character. I get that Matt probably hasn't read the books or played the games and the TV show did a truly awful job of explaining what Geralt's deal is, apparently expecting that everyone who would want to watch this would already be familiar with the series. They need to remain agile and mobile for their mutations to help them in battle and, above all, they need to be able to free a hand at a moment's notice to cast signs. Given his special abilities and other powers Geralt's weaponry and relative lack of armor make perfect sense. Now, the Nilfgaardian soldiers, on the other hand...
The main issue with his weapon set is not his lack of a shield, but him using a longsword (even a magic silver one), when fighting monsters like that. Where is the half pike, the big axe, the crossbow, the snares? Using those superhuman abilities to jam a spear in the kikimoras face seems far less hazardous than trying to get within the reach of its claws in order to reach it with his magical silver sword. He would need les magic silver for his spear tip as well.
That was something of an unplanned accident that resonated unexpectedly well with the fans. In the script Indy was supposed to have a long dramatic swordfight with the Arab champion, but when the day came to film the scene Harrison Ford was ill and didn't feel up to the strenuous physicality involved. He asked the director if Indy couldn't just shoot the guy, the director agreed, and a great movie moment was born. The poor actor who played the Arab guy had trained for months to prepare for the scene.
Well, there's no problem in wearing a studded biker jacket and wielding a single one-handed sword without a shield, so long as you're sure you're a main character.
Fully agreed with you if we are talking battlefield conditions, more armor and more helmets for everyone! But, (i don't know how many people here are into pen and paper role playing games) but what about away from battle fields? I've had this conversations with the people in my group as well as on forums and online RPG sites, and to me at least, it seams highly unlikely that a person would walk around, ride, eat, sleep and just generally hang about in any sort of meaningful armor. And i'm not even talking specifically about the Witcher here, that has its own lore reasons why he may abstain from shields and heavier armor. I'm talking about your generic wandering adventurer, your protagonist in role playing games, that is so often portrayed in movies. I mean, can imagine yourself, no matter how well trained and in how well a shape and conditioning, spend your entire day in 40-60 pounds of armor, or bobbing around with a 6ft spear and a 20-30 pound shield? I mentioned this because fighters (as a RPG class) are often portrayed in heavy armor (maille, lamellar, plate) and with shields. It's not just that these classes are portrayed as proficient in their use, but they are also always equipped in them for all intents and purposes, except maybe when they are sleeping. But try and spend your entire day in your heaviest winter clothing and your might get some different impressions. Or imagine trying to get into the town inn or tavern and getting stuck with your heavy boar hunting spear or shield as you walk through the door or pass by other people. My point is, battlefield equipment isn't the most practical solution for everyday encounters. Certainly not for a wandering band of adventurers. It's the main reason why people used bucklers, small and short swords as well as rapers for personal defense and-or dueling. Does this mean that your typical dungeons and dragons band would always fight in clothing or maybe some light armor? Of course not. But i would add the heavy battlefield equipment as maybe part of a baggage train. And our intrepid adventurers would only done it for special encounters, when they knew in advance they were going into some heavy melee or in a full scale battle. Most of the time though? Probably not. I mean, you probably can't even put on the heavier armors on your own without someone assisting you, let alone put it on it time, if things get heated up all of a sudden. In that context, i also can't see most of the Hollywood heroes having armor most of the time. If take say, LOTR as an example, i would let Aragorn go without armor and helmet through the entire first movie and most of the second (which if memory serves is what Tolkien did in the books), and only fully gear him up for battle, just before Helm's Deep. Anyways, sorry for the long rant, but it is an interesting topic after all. Cheers!
The average modern day soldier can routinely spend anywhere from 8-30 hours in full battle rattle. Those kits can weigh between 40-60lbs easy. Ballistic plates, ammo, comm gear, etc. Not to mention a rifle weighs more than a sword.
Matt have made several videos on the difference between sidearms (like swords and bucklers) and battlefield weapons (like polearms and big shields) and how ease of carry is a really important factor in how someone would equip themselves historicly. Regarding armor I actually wore a quite significant amount of armor for the first time in my life recently and even if my back got tired I could do it for most of an entire weekend. So if someone was used to wearing armor I am sure that person could were armor almost all of the time without it being to much of an inconvinience (probably not fullplate though since you need help to get that on and of and it would get in the way for many things). Many helmets are pretty heavy though and vizors restrict breathing and vision. From what I understand knights often had a squire or servant carrying their helmet and didn't wore it until a fight was about to start. A openfaced helmet like a kettle hat would be easier to were though. To conclude I belive you could realisticly arm your rpg-adventurers (assuming a cool-temperate climat), with something like gambeson, chainmail shirt and/or breastplate, a kettlehat or similar openfaced helmet, sword and buckler and perhaps a bow or polearm depending on their role in the group and what they expect to be fighting. Hope this post is not to long and rambling but as you said... it's an intressting topic
There's a good argument for lighter armour being worn more often, kights an the like striping down to just a mail shirt an open helmet. Its is protective against most threats while comfortable.
@@simoneriksson8329 and if not having someone else or a pack horse carrying the heavy duty battle gear, the helmet would often be fitted with a strap or chain to hang from the body or backpack, just like modern soldiers use carabiners on EVERYTHING to hang helmet, gas mask and other cumbersome or heavy or useful with short notice gear from loops on their combat webbing/plate carrier or backpack.
@@SonsOfLorgar just as I had published my response I thought to myself "I should have wrote something about how these things would lead to adventurers bringing pack animals and/or servants/ squiers on their adventures much more often than it is depicted in most rpgs" so thanks for bringing that up :). Of course you could strap a big helmet to you pack or person and under some circumstances perhaps you would but that will be alot of extra kilos to carry allowing you to carry less other kit or making you tire sooner. That tradeoff could be made into a intresting tactical choiche in an rpg if done right :)
In Medieval Japan up until the middle of the 16th century most foot soldiers, regardless of circumstance, would have used the naginata as their primary weapon if they didn't have a bow. Take a look at the painting "Night Attack on the Sanjo Palace," dating to the 13th century. Most of the foot soldiers, as in all periods of Japanese history, were not that heavily armored either. Often just the chest and back without even a helmet. The naginata was by no means a specialized formation weapon. Of course you are right for most times and places regarding two handed weapons, but it's interesting to look at the exceptions.
@@jintsuubest9331 I think that's unfair. With magic as defense instead of a shield, and speed/strength covering the need to use a one-handed sword as well as clear references made to his sword being lighter then most medieval swords in the books, he essentially using a shield and longsword without the heaviness difficulty that most people might encounter. Furthermore, he actively uses pirouettes in his combat a lot in both the books and the show. While this is debatable in one-on-one combat, it serves to extend 360 vision at least sporadically while moving fast enough to become a harder target. He's basically a sword/shield with more reach and a free hand and less vision obstruction and that's where these criticisms fall flat. I see them done for Star wars a lot as well. You can't bring logical armaments that are limited to strength and speed factors into a fantasy analysis. You wan't realistic, stop watching shows with wizards in them before you take issue with the weaponry used. Make arguments against Troy and 300, not Star Wars and The Witcher. If you choose to go into that universe unless the story backs in on itself, you can't bring rl logic.You can only argue the usability based on the parameters put in by the story itself.
@@TheIfifi No it really doesn't. He still uses it against griffons and shit, which is ridiculous. And spears beat swords even without armour, if you have the space to use it (which he often does). More to the point, he should equip himself for the job, just like he does with potions. It's laughable that he'll hunt down rare ingredients for some special counter potion then take a fucking longsword to hunt a griffon.
Yeah, def some flaws with his arsenal. Hell, a halberd could do wonders against some of these monsters who can simply outreach him. He's at a huge disadvantage with a sword. Now he has to work to get inside their range to deliver a fatal blow. I think the biggest argument going for him is speed and agility and strength. If he can move fast enough you can argue a shield would slow him down and likely the materials you might make one out of might be insufficient for a lot of these supernatural attacks. He's strong enough so can use a 2 handed sword like a one handed sword while still getting the beneficial strike power from it's weight. His sword is lighter then most medieval swords as referenced in the books though so I guess it's only reach and momentum advantage. The thing is he kind of does have a shield with his magic so a lot of these comparisons fall out of context. I guess the biggest negative is the unseen assailant from the back at which point we can counter that with the amount of pirouettes in his combat technique allowing him to extend 360 vision and his speed making him hard to hit. I think maybe these videos that take issue with reality are badly founded against a story with magical properties heavily influencing it.
Shield and sword will make fights less interesting? I don't think so. You can show intensity of the fight without flashy-whirly-jumpy stuff. E.g.: Akira Kurosawa films. It would be more realistic and emotionally immersive. Availability of CGI made modern directors think they can create amazing movies. They overuse technology and try to compensate for bad script and "acting". It doesn't work.
It's largely a visual thing. Using a two-handed weapon lends itself well to long, sweeping motions that create lines that are easy for the eye to follow and anticipate, while keeping the silhouette of the actors clear. Shields are rather the opposite, concealing part of the actor's silhouette and constraining the range of their movements. Of course it is quite possible to make a fight featuring shields interesting, but all other things being equal, larger weapons lend themselves easier to visually intense and impressive choreography.
Completely agree, but, most of the time, these "adventurers" were travelling. Hardly anybody fancies travelling with a shield, unless a horse could carry it, like your spear or some javelins. And if you only are going to carry a sword and a knife or dagger, better to have a bastard sword, just in case? Even if is not a longsword, at least a hand and a half sword makes things versatile... Also, if Hollywood loves two handed weapons, why not giving more of them quarterstaves? They would be way more realistic for these adventurers when marching around without horses. So yes, OK for swords as side weapons, but more staves and missile weapons are needed.
Machete?? In the jungle, yes, very useful. And when did I mention to travel with two handed swords? Side swords and a quarter staff or bow would be my suggestion. If the side sword is a hand and a half (slightly longer grip) so be it. But not a longsword. They are cumbersome unless you are 6'5
Me: It's hilarious like my Dragonborn is waking around whole map in heavy armor Internet: Hey, you should carry shield, dozen of javelins, and spear ot two too. Without getting rid of sword as spear can break. Of course, in reality f.e. hussars were fighting with polearms and swords plus firearms. In reality hussars were traveling with whole bunch of people as army, had few poorer nobles with them and fe personal horses. In reality hussars weren't even traveling armored all the time. And actual "missile weapon" is damn Stinger.
@@Petaurista13 I mean if the Dragonborn can afford a suit of plate armor forged from magical metal and the souls of demons, he or she can probably afford a pack animal of some sort to carry it around.
Geralt wore decent armor(except for a helmet lol) the majority of the time it just wasn't shown well in the series. Also... he had magic. He used a magical shield called Quen that protected his whole body.
If all these 'heroes' are so vulnerable against a pointed stick... imagine how terrible they'd be against fresh fruit! Or worse, A SHRUBBERY (scare chord)!
I see where you're coming from but I think your criticism of the Witcher is somewhat unfounded. He's a monster hunter. Not a soldier. And he is most often engaged in 1v1 combat against his prey. Sure, he fights humans on occasion. But given his profession and what he fights the majority of the time, it wouldn't make much sense for him to be toting around a shield to ward off arrows and javelins. Also, Witchers can deflect crossbow bolts like Jedi deflect blaster shots. On top of that, he has minor spells he can use, one of which projects a force shield, which serves as a substitute for armor and can defend him from shots he doesn't coming (and thus doesn't deflect). Maybe a spear would be better at hunting beasts than a sword. But he fights human shaped monsters too, and he needs to do so in both urban and wilderness environments, indoors and outdoor, while also having to go from town to town for work. So the convenience and portability of a sword in a sheath makes more sense logistically.
@MaximumNewbage The thing I like most about your comment is that you realize that it's a fantasy and magic exists, unlike most of the sticks in the mud in these comments
@@corneredfox A weapon twice the length of a gladius's blade wouldn't be any longer than a 2h sword. And it'd have less blade surface so it'd be a worse sword than an actual longsword at serving as a sword. As a spear it's insanely short length would make it a spear that lacks the main thing that makes spears good: reach combined with a nimble point.
@@corneredfox this isn't theoretical. There were weapons in the medieval period developed specifically to fight huge, massively strong creatures that are much bigger than a human. Those weapons are called "bear spears." They weren't wielded in combination with a shield. So really, the criticism of The Witcher should be that he is using a sword when he should have a spear, not that he isn't using a shield when he should be.
@@j.f.fisher5318 Boar/bear spears definitely would be more practical when Witchers are fighting something massive like a dragon or something, but witchers fight everything from massive mounds of flesh the size of a tree to humanoid monsters (such as ghouls and drowners), and in the case of the smaller monsters often multiple at a time. Spears aren't very practical at fighting multiple opponents at once, and while you could "hold off" multiple human opponents by essentially intimidating them with quick thrusts, doing the same to bloodthirsty monsters would probably just end with a single one skewered while the rest swarm you. Given Witchers have superhuman strength, reflexes and stamina and whatnot (regularly deflecting arrows/crossbow bolts at close range), I think it makes sense for them to use a longsword and light armour because of the diversity of their opponents. In an ideal world, witchers would don plate armour when fighting weaker monsters or humans, use a spear and lightweight clothing when fighting huge beasts (as armour won't do much good), use a one-handed or bastard sword when fighting in small spaces, etc. But as they're often short on coin and they're constantly traveling and moving around, I think light armour (although the show's "studded leather" armour is a bad choice, the armour that inspired Geralt's TV armour uses maille instead of metal studs on top of the leather which makes more sense) and a longsword is a decent compromise. TL;DR - Witchers fight a massive variety of opponents in a massive variety of environments, and they're constantly traveling. Heavy/plate armour is too hard to maintain and carry around, and having a multitude of weapons for every situation is impractical. A good longsword is a good compromise between versatility, weight, and reach.
@@corneredfox The balance would be shit dude. And just because the optimum place to cut is the center of percussion doesn't mean that's what you'll always end up cutting with. What you described is just a vastly crappier 2h sword that has none of the advantages of a spear whatsoever.
Ignoring the fact that some of the figures in that are probably well embellished and not fully concrete, that soldier probably wasn't wearing a two handed weapon with no armor... And was in the best possible situation to deflect or avoid such projectiles, being in a very narrow path with them right in front of you, and not being surprised by projectiles, etc from the side or anywhere else (and you can't see coming).
Perhaps the soldiers at the vanguard (the first to meet the Berserker) did not carry any projectiles with them. They may have been huskarls, or perhaps levies that had spent their ammunition on the previous Norwegian contingent that tried to hold them off before.
It may not be historically accurate, but they do cut a more impressive silhouette and the large motions look more dynamic. Understandably, a film director tends to look for the more impressive silhouette over history. I can dig it, inaccurate though it may be. There's entertainment, then there's history. Sometimes they intersect but most of the time... Nah.
Well a maul is real tool, basically a sledge hammer with one side slightly shaped like an axe or into a point. It is where people get the popular image of a warhammer.
English archers fought with lead mauls at times. We don't know exactly what these were like, but a 16th-century military manual describes them as having five-foot long shafts & five-inch top spikes. I suspect they amounted to budget pollaxes.
Of course maul existed. You cna find women in museum, I've doubt geeks put them there. "Hey Fred, let's tooss our game replicas into that hole to prank archaeologists working there that those are real wepaons"
It often makes sense when an "adventurer" in film doesn't want to lug around a shield and heavy armour on their travels but its crazy how often scenes involving armies are lacking them.
Anyone even remotely heroic would be well able to do all their travelling, adventuring & fighting in decent armour & kit. Our soldiers today often cary more weight than most ancient & medieval troops. They lived far more active lives &were given the time & training to get used to the gear.
I feel like the lord of the rings does this kind of thing fairly well. Of Course the Fellowship isn't equipped as good as possible, they were trying to avoid fighting as far as I can tell. A Longsword like used by Aragorn is good enough for Self defence I suppose. Larger Bulks of soldiers often use shields, pointy sticks and missile weapons (although often armour diesn't function as supposed). And before soem of the battles, for example the one at Helms deep, the Characters of the fellowship actually armour up. Remember Giumli complaining about the Chainmail from Rohan?
in the real canon (the books) Gimli already wears a coat of mail from his homeland (which is affirmed to be better) and is gifted a shield by Theoden, which he wears proudly until it is lost in the fighting. He also loses his iron cap which is cleaved in half. The mail of Rohan actually shields Aragorn from detection by Sauron, although he later reveals himself anyway. Boromir alone carries a shield, because as in this video states he is used to fighting with both shield and sword. Aragorn has lived the life of a Ranger so he is not used to a shield. He did travel to Gondor in his youth as well as Rohan but is not known to have adopted a shield.
@@arnoldmolnar6782 Yeah it doesn't really matter mate it is just to make the scenes more watchable. I was only being funny lol. But yes he is very quick
Not really true. I thought about this, but he carries a steel sword on his back, and his silver sword on his horse. I know the steel is used for some super natural foes, but it really just illustrates that most of the monsters in his world are all too human ;)
@@collegeoffoliage6776 another point is i think that a witcher will propably fight very rarely on a battlefield with humans, but after monster hunting the second most common combat he will experience would be probably for self defense as a civil person who gets in some kind of argument with people, because they are for example racist or stuff like that. In this role a shield would be not that practically, because you need your two to do stuff and you don't want to always carry around a big fucking shield. Maybe a buckler with a one hand sword could be an option for him but i think its also not a problem that he have instead a bastard sword, it just serves his purpose good enough in my opinion.
I loved the scene from Troy where Achilles fought Hector. Spear and Shield looked really good. Also the part in 300, where Leonidas went ahead of the line in the 1st battle. I also really like the duel in 13th Warrior where they have 3 shields each. Not sure, how accurate is it, and the winner also was 1st to lose his shields, but it's nice nonetheless :)
I recently saw "Reclaiming the Blade" on El Rey. I wondered why you weren't interviewed when your school was showing off. Then I realized you were. It took several shots for me to recognize you with that beard!
Hi Matt, I really love your content! I don't want to defend Witcher series in any way, and if your arguments are an attack towards any other characters than Geralt, I don't disagree with you. But from watching this I had a vibe that some of these arguments were targeted mostly at Geralt as being, as you call it, a hero character with a 2-handed weapon. First of all -> Geralt is a character created not in a TV series and not even in the games, its a character created in book series written by Andrzej Sapkowski many years ago. TV series don't introduce all the details on why things are how they are, and they even change some (which I personally hate, but irrelevant here). In the book series, witcher is a profession focused entirely on killing monsters. Monsters in Sapkowski's world are often magical creatures or in other way posses inhuman strength. In such context: 1. you don't need to protect yourself from typical battlefield-like projectiles 2. armor and block isn't very effective (as it's said in the books, something like "no one and nothing can block griffin's attack", and they learned how to dodge them instead) 3. speed is crucial - that's why witchers are mutants created by alchemy, herbs, and magic, allowing them to be very strong and fast, and to use normally-poisonous potions and elixirs to further increase their speed and reflexes 4. Witchers use signs: lesser magical spells helpful in combat, that require you to use your hand to execute Witchers "typically" weren't fighting in any battlefield-like environments. This is simply not their specialization. The reason why in both books and TV-series Geralt is actually doing that is mostly due to lore reasons and/or self-defense, and the reason why he is so good at it is merely an effect of his mutant strength and speed capabilities. I think the reason for misinterpreting this character is a result of TV-producers cherry-picking only some facts from the books which don't fit the rest very well. For example, I agree that seeing Geralt as this huge slow dude that constantly drops his sword doesn't go well with this type of armor+weapon combination, which would probably be ok in his actual context. Let me know what you think! (And read the books if you like Witcher, they are pretty cool!)
Now I love Matt. I love his show. But I have a feeling that in a few years it will be videos of what looks like nosferatu waving a sabre at the camera and screaming the word context over and over for half an hour.
The hero character isn't quite so bad for lacking shields, as they are usually travelers first & foremost, and often travelling trackless wilderness (although a buckler would then apply in some "historical" contexts). The bigger problem is when actual military forces lack things like shields or helmets, and that's common too. Unforgivable. I think the directors & whatnot simply feel they are portraying a hyper aggressive force when they have a horde armed with all 2 handed weapons, but indeed, such morons would only be dangerous to civilians & themselves, and even civilians like shepherds et all would shoot them dead at awful rates & they'd be no danger at all to actual military forces. Dumb indeed. There isn't that good an excuse for heroes/protagonist/villains/antagonists though; the answer is clearly to just give them distinctive shield covers, helm crests, surcoats, and so on, so they ARE immediately identifiable to the viewers. The bit about shields "inconveniently" blocking line of sight is still there, of course, which is exactly the real life point...they often block the line of sight for a missile as well as for a camera. LOL. Still, a distinctive shield would mitigate. It's often a matter of cost & being cheap, I expect, skimping on decoration to distinguish; something many actual historical warriors absolutely often did.
Reminds me of Rollo in Vikings... the guy wants to storm a castle full of crossbowmen without any type of armor nor shield, only a big axe. In reality he would have died very quickly.
Preaching to the choir here but our modern perception of history have made spears into a niche weapon from being the king of the battlefield, with its sucessor being a gun with a bayonet(essentially a spear when it doesn't go bang bang). Even as little as 100 years ago, cavalry still used lances with small arms in the Eastern front, where miles and miles of land made it a viable weapon for skirmishes, or the Persian front, where again both swords and lances had its use. So, even after retirement the old King could bite hard. It's just weird to see a historical battlefield in movies, tv, games without loads of spears, when in artwork you can see hundreds of them for a handful of other weapons. Of these, most were swords used as a backup weapon.
I totally agree. I was very disappointed to see no spears and lances in Kingdom Come: Deliverance - it is quite pathetic. The developers made such a fuss about their ''realistic'' hand-to-hand-combat, but these important weapons are missing? The same is true for fantasy RPGs like Skyrim, where you get lightning emitting whatsoever but no spears or lances. It is quite telling how the focus shifted. But it is not only a thing in depictions of western warfare but it is also true, for example, in media about non-european warfare. For the Samurai, the main weapons were spears (Yari) and bows, the sword (Tashi or Katana) was just a backup. But I suppose that besides lacking knowledge it is assumed by the producers that an authentic depiction would be just less impressive in movies or video games for the audience.
"Funny isn't it? The human was impervious to our most powerful magnetic fields, yet in the end he succumbed to a harmless sharpened stick!" ―Robot General
@El Bearsidente Very good point. It's annoying especially considering that low rank soldiers in the Witcher universe (in books) are literally referred to as "shieldbearers".
@El Bearsidente Battles in the books: Realistic descriptions of moving units, importance put on the experience of soldiers and their morale, communication is a big part of strategy. Battles in the show: Loose cavalry rushes an army made of loose infantry men, then they split into Hollywood 1-on-1es.
@@hrodvitnir6725 That's actually almost good. I reality cavalry wouldn't switch to gallop until even closer than 100 meters. Otherwise, horses would quickly get tired not to mention it would be impossible to keep the formation during a prolonged gallop.
@@kamilszadkowski8864 Yeah but they actually stand still untill like 200 meters and then goes onto spurr the horses, rewatch the episode and you'll se.
I like your videos Matt, but you barely touch upon The Witcher unlike what the thumbnail indicates, and as you mention in your most recent video on using reverse grip with swords, you haven't even watched the show. Sorry to say it, but this is just pure clickbait.
I once had an online discussion with someone who claimed that an off-hand dagger was better than a shield. The "reasoning" was that shields were used in ancient times and early middle ages, whereas more modern troops like musketeers have ditched the shield. I tried to explain, but there's just no getting through to some people.
@@123Juniiorr Well, to go into a bit more detail (this is my thoughts and understanding of the subject, I might be wrong ofc), I'd claim the off-hand dagger definitely never superceded the shield. First of all, for the musketeers, the sword was only a back-up weapon (their main battlefield weapon being - not surprisingly - the musket). Secondly, in a fight or a battle, an off-hand dagger is inferior to a shield in every conceivable way. Its only advantage is convenience -- if you're just going about town, going to the inn or the market, hauling around a shield is a substantial inconvenience, whereas a dagger is easy to carry around, especially if you're already carrying a sword. To the extent that the musketeers (and other men of the Renaissance and Enlightenment periods) ever fought with sword-and-dagger, I believe this is the reason -- not that it was better than sword-and-shield, but that people couldn't be bothered carrying a shield around when they weren't planning on using it.
Hollywood movies do not usually depict actors wearing helmets because it makes them less recognisable at a glance, and it helps the audience to identify specific characters if you keep their faces visible. Similarly, if the character is hiding behind a shield the whole time, you won't be seeing much of their faces, and the shield tends to hide a lot of the advanced choreography that the studio is paying top dollar for. Shields don't just stop spears being thrown at you, but they also act as a visual barrier that stops the audience from seeing beyond it. The reason why hollywood movies do not depict realistic armour is not out of ignorance, but out of practicality for visual storytelling.
Yes, while Geralt is primarily a monster hunter, and has enhanced reflexes plus literal magical shield, it is still noticeable how every other character in the Witcher tv series is also lacking a shield. Even in the battlefield scenes.
You forgot one twohander which was used in basically every historic battlefield situation: The bow. Joking aside, a twohander is way more realistic than a duel wielder.
I think shields are often, symbolically, associated with cowardliness. Or, at least, going without one is peak heroic imagery. Throwing caution to the wind, throwing oneself into the fray without thought to one's own safety... its kind of sacrificial imagery honestly.
But real, historical and even modern armies to what defensive tech they use, realize bravery is one thing, stupidity is another; and bring as much protection as your situation can warrant. Hollywood and co just seem to think stupidity is 'bravery' and to forego it I guess.
Which is dumb considering "cowardice" at the time was used for early routs, idleness and desertion. No one in their right mind would think defense = fear.
Another reason why HEMA needs an animated film/show. 2d drawings and 3d models don't get hurt, don't need training and are able to look 100% historical accurate while looking heroic without needing to spend thousands of €£$ on good armour. I'm sure any weapon combination can look cool if it's animated. We just need good animators and artists and a HEMA expert. Just imagining the posibillities makes me feel impotent
Who *sniped* a high prince with a simple spear? A rock and sling (Goliath of Gath), a sprig of mistletoe (Baldur), an normal arrow (Harold Godwinson), a crossbow bolt (Richard The Lion-Hearted), or own goal bullet (either Gustavus Adolphus or Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson), maybe, and only the first became a "That DUDE".
the funny part about Richard I's death was that it was by the castle's cook, who had earlier waved saucepans and ladles to deflect arrows. Richard was shot with a crossbow bolt though, and most records say it was a lucky shot as it was in the small gap between mail and helmet.
I always blamed this on sheer inconvenience of carrying a shield around, since these hero types are often adventurers who travel a lot. Especially in Geralt's case since first, he needs to be able to free his off-hand to cast magic, and second since he only really is supposed to fight monsters that likely won't have any ranged weapons, having extra reach and power helps more than having a shield.
@@lostmarimo The size of it would again make it inconvenient, besides it's not uncommon that he has to fight in close quarters. A longsword/bastard sword is kind of in the perfect middle ground in terms of power/reach, convenience and versatility, for the job of being a witcher.
a lot of people seem to be ignoring the fact that the weapon needs to be silver to be effective against monsters. geralt has a significant amount of time to prepare for each monster contract, but he wouldn't realistically be able to just go buy a silver spear at a blacksmith. in the witcher universe silver weapons are only really made and used by witcher guilds. the real question here is, how effective is a shield against monsters? it really depends on the monster. if you were fighting something like a gorilla, it might just grab your shield and use it for leverage to throw you around, so having a shield might be pointless, and force you to use a shorter sword than you otherwise could with two hands. that being said, i don't see why he couldn't carry some silver spear heads in his bags. that way if hes preparing to fight a monster, he could have spears fashioned for the fight. even if the spears break during the fight he can retrieve the heads and reuse them. but obviously the reason why this isn't done is because its a fictional fantasy world.
Case in point on the armour thing: Emperor Julian the Apostate. Ran out onto the battlefield without his breastplate, trying to be a hero and rally his men. Caught a javelin in the liver for his trouble and bit it not a day later. Get dressed before you leave your tent, kids.
Oh Hollywood. Hand to hand combat is the same. Everyone wants to see striking. But we know that grappling and submissions are the core of fighting.....but not very exciting to watch.
Because making a full armor suit is goddamn expensive. The bois of Cintra essentially wore pikeman armor which is a lot cheaper to make: www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/22730
@@faramund9865 Hahaha. Yeah, right. A full, lavish nobleman's armor will be super expensive, but all they need to have is it done cheaply, and camera effects after if need be. They don't need to be up to standards for actual combat use because it's fake. Beside, the budget in some of these movies and shows? They can definitely afford it. Unless you are talking about a budget restricted B-Film.
@@adrianbundy3249 it is a feedback loop, like fashion. Gygax created the idea of "studded leather armor" (extra ironic that in the early D&D materials they include brigandine but suggest it probably didn't really exist hahaha...cries) then fantasy authors and movies picked that up, then it became fashion. It would probably be cheaper now to make decent-looking fake plate armor out of plastic, but that's the fashion for rogueish warriors now. I'm glad that the design of Geralt's armor with the bands of studs lets me pretend there might be brigandine under it, if I can ignore that there are clearly gaps between the bands so it obviously isn't brigandine but whatever. If I only watched fantasy shows that don't have $h!t armor I wouldn't watch fantasy.
@@j.f.fisher5318 To be honest, the thing that bothers my sensibilities the most isn't even the failure of medieval equipment across the armies and characters to be sensible. It is finding movie/TV examples of generalship in media; as a fan of medieval/older battle strategy... It's truly scary - if you were a soldier led under some such thing. "Oh, we have an advantage just sitting here shooting for a bit longer? CHARGE IN NOW FOR EPICNESS!"
Why would soldiers guarding bridges or acting as a bodyguard use a great sword instead of a spear/shield? Seems like if you're trying to hold a position in the open or protect a VIP you'd want some shields to protect against missile fire, and be able to form some kind of wall when necessary.
"and be able to see more of it" and I think this is a really key point in film we wanna be able to see the moves and in a real fight you don't want to telegraph them
While I agree with the point in general, heroes in movies are frequently adventurers and not regular soldiers on a battlefield, and Geralt in the Witcher is not a soldier at all; he's a traveling monster hunter, presumably with very specialized needs. And haven't you said in previous videos that a full-sized shield is not practical to carry around as a traveler or adventurer?
But what about late-medieval pikemen, halberdiers or billmen ? Often, they were commoner troops wearing varying degrees of armor. Swiss pikemen often didn't have heavy armor, only a helmet.
A witcher is a pest exterminator, not a battlefield combatant. They should probably have more protective equipment than they do, like helmets. They do have a shield, one comprised of magic, which like their grenades did not make it into this season of the show.
Helmet problematic due to noise, sound muffling and blocking peripheral vision, best I could see Geralt wearing is something that look like an antique leather football helmet without the ear protection.
We often talk about how soldiers were equipped in battle but I'm curious to know how these ancient soldiers were equipped in the city, lets say patrolling the streets... I guess I could google it but I'd rather scholagladiatoria it...
I choose to subscribe to the idea that the Nilfgaardians are wearing plate armor with the wrinkly leather over it. Makes that odd costume design easier to swallow since i loved the show so much. And Geralt is a superhuman monster slayer who has magic and can parry arrows. So criticizing him as if he were a normal person seems odd. He's literally not even human.
they all wear armor of varying qualities with the wrinkly black facing, that way you can't tell if you're fighting a guy wearing a steel breastplate or a guy with a gambeson
A Witcher can deflect arrows with his sword. It's just something he can do. They are also just tanking blows because they have increased regeneration. And it doesn't make sense for you to compare these heroes to soldiers who fought in battles. The Witcher isn't a soldier and doesn't march to battles. He wanders the lands looking for assassination jobs. For that he has no use for shields. He only needs to concentrate on putting out damage and being mobile. His longswords are basically glorified sidearms
And for more than 1 arrow same time he can use Quen. And if somebody want to claim it's magic and we can't talk about magic while discussing realism... well than we shouldn't discuss monster hunters.
something that I hate of the Hobbit is that even with a charater called Thorin OAKENSHIELD they still make him never use a shield in all three movies, save if you want to call a tree branch a shield
Fabio Varra I wouldn't call it a shield. I'd call it more of a hybrid between a shield and a gauntlet. But that was actually the idea of Thorin's actor, Richard Armitage. He felt that because that tree branch saved his life, surely he would have kept it and heirloomed it and made it a functional form of defense in some way. And I actually really liked that idea.
@@Petaurista13 no it was his nickname, not his father and neither his grandfather were called Oakenshield I don't think dwarves of the Middle Earth had any surname
1 It is said that Thorin’s shield was cloven and he cast it away and he hewed off with his axe a branch of an oak and held it in his left hand to ward off the strokes of his foes, or to wield as a club. In this way he got his name. -- Appendix A
I'd love to hear more about European Javelins in the medieval period. I'm somewhat familiar with indo-persian and African javelins from later periods, but I don't think I've ever even seen a European one.
They definitely exist. There are well preserved examples from the crusader period in the middle east I think. There are also pictorial representations from Ireland and I think maybe France. They were called angons during the dark ages.
Arguably the most famous almogavars were the Catalan Company. At one point they were hired by the Bizantine empire, which failed to make payment, and pretty much laid waste to the place, conquered a sizable portion of Greece and gave it to the crown of Aragon.
The hunting of Mammoths by prehistoric humans. don't fight it head on, lead it into a trap, run it off a cliff, use the environment to your advantage. In other words the equipment doesn't matter unless you're fighting humans. A tiger will rip you to shreds, an elephant will crush you, and a bear will do both regardless of the armor you're wearing. Yes there are historical analogs but they support his unorthodox approach to fighting. Being unorthodox, and using our brains not just to make and use the pointy sticks but to avoid their use unless absolutely necessary against the most dangerous animals (because getting up close and personal usually gets you kiled) is what gave humans an edge over bigger stronger creatures in our world too.
the best weapon against monsters would be a spear, or some kind of polearm though, with a bow/crossbow. but whatever, it's fantasy, and swords look cool.
@@insanecuckooman8342 Witcher does use other weapons against creatures. In fact, he fits the right tactics and weaponry into certain types of monsters. He also does use traps.
@@qckngdcks A smart warrior would not willingly give advantage to the enemy. A Navy Seal of The Year wouldn’t go into battle with just his pistol even though he is way more skilled than his typical enemies. A real monster hunter would use something like a spear and shield probably too. However, there are no real monsters hunters ;-) As much as I like Geralt he is about as realistic as Naruto.
@@qckngdcks I don't know how his fighting is portrayed in general, I only saw the first episode monster fight (and I don't remember the books). That monster was an absolute menace and I question the ability of cutting/slashing weapons to chop off limbs of monsters like that. Even simple fur or thick hide (or gambeson) has fantastic stopping power against slashing. I imagine the same would go for huge lizards (dragons, basilisks..), their scales might act like a form of plate armor. I agree with the shield argument though. Taking a full on smack from a monster weighing 100s of kilograms would be a death sentence in any armor. Which means that Geralt has to dodge most of the attacks, which makes him one unbelievable kung fu ninja. Which he basically is, so I guess this whole 'argument' is kind of pointless ;-)
Hey Matt, off topic but I notice the carved wooden item to the left of the shield behind you on the wall, what is it? There was one in a display cabinet of the headmaster's meeting room at my old school and no one staff or student could tell us what it was and it's bugged me ever since!
Some authors knew that a long time ago. Here's Longinus Podbipięta ('With Fire and Sword' by Henryk Sienkiewicz) with his back against a giant oak tree, fighting off dozens of opponents with his great sword, before he gets pinned from a distance with bow arrows. upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/92/Podbipieta.JPG
