But what if the guy on the ground has a shield and turns into a human hermit crab? And the possibility of many such creatures forming the infamous crawling phalanx!! No ankle is safe! The horror!!! :O
This is rubbish. Anyone who watches enough historical movies knows that you finish an enemy by standing over them, yelling and lifting your weapon up before swinging so that you give your enemy enough time to roll out the way or stab you in the guts.
+TheSm1thers But only if you are the villain. But then again if you are the hero then you are rarely standing over your foe but instead the one on your back preparing to move out of the way/stab him in the guts.
The only way is to give a monologue, then slowly walk up to them, raising your sword into the air. Don't worry, no other soldiers can intervene, as that would violate the secret rules of pre-WWI battles.
I do actually think some dudes in individual sword duels (not armies) would kick a weapon away and then enter a monologue of some sort or after they have killed him, not all but some would have. there are tonnes of people who start going into a monologue after beating some dude half unconscious to the ground, you can see it in tonnes of fighting videos and sometimes in real life. It would probably be a lot more dramatic since it is someone's life though.
mistercococat peace Makes you wonder if movies actually adapted that from a real world phenomenon or that this is something that exists because movies engrained this in peoples brains.
mistercococat peace Isn't that usually the moment when the guy in the ground gets his second wind and pwns the monologer while he's not looking? At least that's what James Bond and Jason Statham do in that situation.
Monologues make you look cooler anyway, what better way to finish off a duel with your enemy on the ground shaking in fear as his arms are complete broken and you use him/her as a footrest while you make their last few moments humiliating and insulting as you plunge a sharp object directly into their chest to finish them off. Ya
Except when your "Defeated" opponent gets the better of you while you're showing off. Why not "End him Rightly"? Beat Him Down, Throw the Pommel at him, THEN Gloat about your victory.
The ideal way to take out a fallen foe: Hold your weapon up as if you're going to thrust/slash them and give a long, dramatic speech [in the middle of a battlefield] about how they affected their lives negatively and proceed to lower their guard while babbling nonsense. I'd like to thank Hollywood for my historical background.
IceCreamJimmies another fact (thx hollywood): in medival warfare, nobody was allowed to interrupt your dramatic speech, this was a deal of knighly honor. even when surrounded by enemy troops, they had to let you finish your opponent, even if it was one of their dear friends. Also you could aways (similar to pokemon) force the enemy leader to a 1v1 duel in the middle of the battlefield by eye-contact without being interrupted
"Hold up lads, now I know where I the front lines and currently trying to advance but there's this git on the ground so I need to go grab my bow and take a couple point blank shots while I'm right in the open without a weapon for melee."
that is called Stoning, typically used as a punishment for a type of criminal offense... and what if theres no rocks large enough to do more than annoy your fallen opponent?
I have heard tanks are pretty good to finish downed enemies with swords. God - Loyds videos are that kind were you can always go back and rewatch stuff if you are bored because they are so well delivered.
1.Arrow in the knee : - limb of and become a guard. 2. nasty collection of various sharp stuff on your head: - tough luck mate, return to former saved game. 3. lose all 4 limbs because of some Arthur dude: - hop onwards and bite him, if you happen to be Monty Python variant of black knight. 4. Other random wounds and injuries: - ask your dungeon master how many dice you roll and if you are lucky enough. You manage to make a campfire or drink a potion. Otherwise wait a turn and have some nachos and beer.
***** But then how do people consistently die in large numbers during stampedes? The last one in Mecca claimed quite a few lives if memory serves me right.
+Edward Nutt So I'm guessing you've never actually been in a large crowd? OR maybe a concert like a heavy metal concert. "No one is stupid enough..." wrong. Crowd mentality removes critical thinking. In a crowd desperate to push forward, no one is looking down. You are looking forward. Footing doesn't matter because you are being pushed. As any heavy metal fan can tell you, its easy to fall in crowds. Because you don't fall like a tree. You do not stay stiff. Your body crumples and you can fit into smaller spaces. Or one could simply fall at the front. I find it hilarious that you think large groups of people don't trample people to death when it happens all the time, even on black Friday. If people are standing in a formation moving forward do you think they will take a conscious effort to avoid stepping on a dead person or will they not even register them?
Valkanna .Nublet Dueling people throwing pommels and rubber ducks and others throwing carpets on the fallen enemies, just what kind of battlefield is this?
I got a rock. Skall posted something about a large percentage of wounds on skeletons from a particularly bloody battle being to the head and it made me wonder if those wounds weren't actually from injured and fallen foes being dispatched? After all, it was frequently seen as a mercy to put a badly wounded enemy out of his misery, rather than leave him to die slowly, and a head shot was a pretty efficient way to do that. Also, you don't have to avoid, tend to, nor feed a corpse.
+Kerman Guy "Excuse me, kind sir. It appears, you have lost footing, while I was trying to run you through with my blade. Mind if I help you up, so we can try again?"
+naphackDT Thank you very much my fair gentle man. Nothing like a proper fight in the morning to get the blood going. Say we go for a pint of meade at near Inn for a good respite. When the others have finished themselves off there shall be fewer to disagree then we shall present a civil declaration of peace and have another round of meade. Sounds like a jolly good idea. You know the real reason I go to war is to get away from the old battle axe for a little peace and quiet.
Let me restate that. Are there any documented instances in historical combat of people feigning injury to gain advantage? (I applaud and give my +1s to the football and tumblr jokes, even though I am a football fan).
A similar dilemma faced cavalry in Napoleonic times. An effective tactic for infantry to use if facing a lone cavalryman, or small group of cavalry, was simply to throw themselves on the ground. The cavalryman can't reach the prone opponent with his sword as he has insufficient reach, and a horse cannot be made to trample a prone man that he can see, no matter how well trained it is. Solution? Lancers, which were reintroduced to the main armies of Europe by Napoleon, and who could easily skewer a prone opponent. This was why infantry bore a particular hatred for lancers, who could expect to fare quite badly if ever captured by them. Thoroughly enjoyable video series by the way. Congratulations and please keep up the good work.
There are certain angles (and I'm not talking about the Angles here, but rather about the angles), which will offer the advantage to the standing man, namely the two vertical ones, where you stand vertically either to the fallen opponent's head or feet. With the feet I'd say the feet standing out loses him the reach advantage that he enjoyed due to being on the ground, and just above his head is a very difficult position for him to strike at you due to body mechanics. So naturally he will try to grovel his way to a more horizontal position where he can strike at his enemy's feet as you said, while at the same time you will try to circle around him looking for exposed feet or head to attack. Hopefully all that happens while not being disturbed by other wanting to share a bit of the action, because it may take a while.
+Steven Wagner That's the best thing I've read today. It cheered me up heh. Reminds me of a rugby game I was In years ago. I got into somewhat of a disagreement with the opposite prop in the scrum, His first instinct was to just launch a huge clod of dirt right at my face. I'm pretty sure it had chalk or flint bits in it because I remember it hurting way more than the series of clumsy (we were about 14) punches that followed. Lesson learned though, that guy was not trying to win or lose, just hurt me bad. Throw the nearest heavy/spikey thing right at their face =]
It really is interesting how people can die instantly from small things like king hits, and yet at other times prove durable beyond belief. It really is kind of hard to *kill* a human.
MetalSlimeHunt Yup, killing someone instantly generaly means; brain, upper spine, or heart. Injuring anything else often is just a wound, even mortal wounds don't always put someone out of action. That's why attacking a weapon hand is so good, if they can't hold a weapon, it's easy to finish them off.
Unintentional Martyr You bleed when shot with a bullet, that's what usually kills you. A laser would cauterize the wound instantly. So like I said, unless it instantly disintegrates you, bullets are probably better.
Alternatively, the attacker could use there shield, particularly if it's got a flat bottom end, the a rectangular sheild, to pin the downed soilders weapon to the ground and then charge in for the kill. Also, the attacker could charge and jump, sheild first, onto the downed enemy. If you land partially on the downed soilders weapon, and partially on the downed soilders torso, you can immobilize the downed enemy from counter attacking you, while you go for a quick fatal blow. Mind, this needs to be done quick, to get you back on you feet to fight the rest of the enemy and hence, not have the rest of the enemy go in for a quick stab at you while you're facing down onto the downed enemy. Alternatively, once the downed enemy is dealt with, the attacker could then have his companions behind him attack the remaining enemies from a standing position, while on the ground, the attacker can now attack the enemies ankles, etc, as the enemy is caught between defending against the attackers at standing height, and this attacker at ankle height. The attacker on the ground would need to be quick to turn his/her shield around to face the standing enemies blows though. Like jumping down onto the downed enemy, shield first, pinning the downed enemies weapon to the ground in the process, quick stab to a fatal area if the downed enemy. Jump up and back quickly, half squatting, obe leg behind for support, shield facing the standing enemy. Your comrades behind you can then face the enemy at standing height, while you can engage the same enemy at this lower, slightly different angle. Thus separating the enemies attention between you and thus being a presumably far more mentally taxing opponent.
This reminds me of the little used ancient roman formation known as the creeping larvae. It consists of a straight line of soldiers with swords and pikes creeping along the battlefield at ankle height, sweeping and poking the enemy's feet ruthlessly until they cower for mercy and beg for surrender. Frighteningly effective as the enemy could never reach them down there.
2 options as far as I can tell: the spear one is very obvious, but assuming the foe has fallen with his feet toward the advancing opposite army and his head towards his own retreating forces (that is to say, he falls backwards, and not forwards upon injury) then it seems one could easily reach down, even with a sword or some similar weapon, and simply hack off one or both of his legs until blood loss quickly KOs or kills him. No?
***** Well if he fell face-first, this entire discussion pretty much becomes a non-issue, and if he fell face-first (ie. with head towards the advancing army) and then rolled onto his back, his head becomes very vulnerable to throwing things, such as rocks and debris, and also he can't see very well what's directly behind his head / 'above' him, and he'd be pretty easy to deal with.
al-Bakh'kam You seem to be making the mistake of thinking these are the only two ways someone will fall down in battle. Keep in mind that a battlefield can be a very chaotic environment, and a wounded opponent could fall down any number of ways depending on the wound, his momentum, etc. Hence, why I said that your previous example was *very* situational.
al-Bakh'kam Sure, you throw rocks and debris at his potentially armored head (keep in mind it's a battlefield) while he flails wildly in your direction. While you're busy throwing debris at the guy the enemy advances and you have your guard down.
Palpetinus I find it really easy to imagine a situation where you're advancing with say 10 of your guys, given that charges don't tend to be in groups of one, and it's not that tricky for one of the group to grab a heavy chunk of stone or debris of any large, bulky kind and to fling it out at the guy's head. As a general rule of thumb, chucking things have greater range than flailing, so that's not a problem.
In a 1v1 a spear would be more effective in finishing a wounded soldier on the ground. But in a larger battle setting in which you are still fighting the foe and must move onto your next target quickly. The Shield would be more effective paired with a Sword. Your foe attemps to strike back at you with his sword or chosen melee weapon. Using your shield you block his attack and either slash at his arm to disable his arm or stab at his gut or neck. The process is safer and quicker allowing you to move onto another enemy while still staying safe from possible other enemy attacks as you finish him off.
I read something about how that was this big use of a two-handed bearded axe. It's got incredible leverage and range, excellent for piercing armor on a downed foe.
LMFAO I nearly pissed myself with that "You are still a danger to those around you, particularly, one hopes, to the enemy. SO..." Do you script this or are you just a comic genius naturally?
NOOOOOOOOOOO!!! Don't finish off a fallen foe! By killing him/her/it, you only stoop to THEIR level, you become as bad and naughty (yes, very naughty, bad!) and it's such a dishonorable thing to begin with! Rather, you should share a long, loud and lengthy conversation with them, about how their evilness/naughtiness/lack of hygiene/etc. got them to this point, and how by genuinely being sorry about everything they did, they can attain forgiveness and redemption! ........... Actually, forget all that rubbish, just finish 'em.
Grab a Polearm and stick them with the pointy end? An excellent lesson on weapons 101. I'm glad I subscribed to this channel just for the sheer entertainment value. Even if you already know what he's saying, he at least makes it fun to hear it again. Wish some of my former instructors from my school days could have done that.
As an ex-MP, I actually have some real-world experience with this issue. In Riot-Control training, when a "rioter" fell, the front rank would keep advancing as the 2nd and 3rd ranks reached out between those in the front rank and subdue and drag off the fallen "rioter" before he could do much else. I imagine that with the improved reach of an actual spear versus that of a riot control baton, it would be even easier. (Also, much of the riot control training we did was based on that of the Roman Legions, who used actual spears in riot control. You really had to be ticked off to riot in that day, and even more so to continue rioting when you saw the Legionaries form up into their echelon and begin advancing!)
Spears also isn't of help if you are on the ground. This weapon is useful if you are using it both hands and hold it in the middle of the shaft. If you hold it at the end, the weight of the weapon pulls it down. If you eventually were holding it pointing someone's face, single parry sends it away and you're done.
During my basic training we were taught to neutralise the enemy. This was explained as either killing him or render him incapable so that he causes problems for his comrades to recover and/or tend to him.
"Help I've fallen and I can't get up!" ... "no worries I'll lend you this spear"...."really? couldn't you help defend me or carry me away or something?" .... "nope it's the spear or nothing"
People on their last legs can make some pretty good plays in moments of desperation, focus, and adrenaline. We in the gaming biz call this a "Clutch" as you grasp victory from a moment that seems like an inevitable loss.
See, this actually leads into something I've been wondering about recently. Conventional wisdom holds that the fighter that has the higher ground has the advantage in a fight. I can see how this makes sense from a battlefield perspective, as it affords you better sightlines and makes the enemy have to fight gravity just to get to you. But conventional wisdom also holds this to be true in a one-on-one duel, with one person just standing on a table or up a short flight of stairs. Personally, I haven't found this to be the case. In my childhood playground fights, I found that taking the higher ground meant my opponent could more conveniently hack at my legs while staying out of range of a counter-attack, for exactly the reasons he talks about here.
This is a great point. I'd imagine this is one of the reasons why greaves were so common in the Roman army, since they didn't break formation to deal with something like fallen foes. But then again, most enemies of the Roman empire didn't have much more than spears and knives until the high Medieval period, and you can't exactly use a spear if you're lying on the ground. Therefore I imagine there wasn't much danger from fallen enemies swinging swords around. Great video!
Offer him a cup of tea. But seriously, it's a lot harder to shoot someone when you are crippled on the ground on your side or not in a proper shooting position, I can argue a spearman would kill you before you had the chance.
A quick thought. Assuming you are in a battle line, even running on adrenalin you take an immobilising hit. It will take you a second to think in a rational manner. Yes you may try to defend yourself automatically but you would be surrounded by blows coming here. there and everywhere. How strong would a blow be from an individual lying on the floor? In most cases a weakness caused by a hole in the shield wall would be exploited. Whether or not there is a handy spearman you are unlikely to stand back. If it was me I'd just drop my shield momentarily to catch a potential sword stoke (who would go into battle without a shield?) or simply lift my foot out of the way and brain the miscreant. Ones best defence is ones feet.
I guess a modern example of this problem is the fight between Muhammad Ali and Antonio Inoki. It was a fight with what were basically pre-modern MMA rules. And in this fight, Inoki realized that he basically stood no chance against Ali in an actual standing fight, and laid down on his back, his feet up in the air and ready to kick. Ali, who was a boxer and thus mainly knew how to fight someone with his fists, quickly realized that he actually couldn't get the man, no matter how much he circled and tried. Meanwhile, Inoki could kick at Ali from his position, enough so that he managed to cause a wound. And when Ali actually tried to go in and do something, Inoki actually managed to kick him down and elbow him in the face. It pretty much devolved into Ali circling the prone man and trying to shout at him so that he'd fight. And after fifteen rounds, it all ended with a draw. So obviously, lying down in a situation where your opponent actually can't just walk away and has to deal with you can have some merit. Of course, if your opponent is not obliged to deal with you, lying down gives him a good opportunity to run off since you've just neutralized yourself. Or possibly throw rocks at you.
+Goodly That would vary greatly from time period, and combatants involved, but if your too wounded to fight, your probably not going to be useful as a slave. And most serious wounds were fatal due to infection. So most the time no. If your uninjured and surrounded and they'll take you as a slave then yeah it would work sometimes. If your not surrounded your best bet would be to run.
when you lie on the ground, you can move your sword arm around your upper torso and your head, protecting them rather well, but you will have problems covering your feet or your belly. depending how you fell (backward - feet towards the enemy, or forward - head towards the enemy), you could be dead in a second if he just (maybe circles you a bit and then) reaches down 'a bit' to hack at your unprotected lower body.
scything at the ankles would be effective, if not for the shields carried by 80+% of troops since primitive warfare. plant the shield at your feet, reach over top and stab into the fallen enemy while your friends continue to push the line. not to mention almost all front line troops were armed with spears until Rome modernized their usage.
this seems like the kind of situation where playing dead would be the wisest choice of action. at least until someone gets close to you, then you can spring up and bite their kneecaps
I'd say it's a fairly specific injury that allows you to be dangerous yet immobile. In reality you're likely to be struggling for consciousness due to shock. It's also quite likely that you will have a blindside from which an enemy will finish you off. And that sort of Monty Python "I'll bite your legs off" mentality wasn't really expected of most soldiers.
What about coming in from 'below' (near the legs)? In general proportions, a guy can reach his hand down to his knee, and then it's a foot-and-a-half from knee to ankle, so even with a three-foot sword, a guy will have slightly less than a foot-and-a-half reach beyond his feet, and he can't swing very well, so most blows will be rather weak, while the guy standing up with a similar three-foot sword can jab at his leg from out of range. Now agree he can try to bring his legs in, but if he has a leg injury that might not be possible.
I remember a good 7-8 years ago I played a Lord of The Rings Fellowship&two towers video game on Gamecube. (the third film hadn't been made yet). To perform a "deathstrike" or "finishing move" on a downed enemy: Aragorn would turn his blade upside down in his hands, one hand on the first grip and the other on top of the pommel and stab downwards like you would with a knife. Except he wouldn't lean forward, he would sort of kneel down while stabbing straight down. His sword is pretty much middle between long sword and viking sword in terms of length, so his knee pretty much has to touch the ground next to the enemy to get that far down. Plus of course, he won't be happy with just a little stab, he feels the need to stab all the way through the player to the guard. Legolas would spin his knives to point-down both at the same time and lean down to stab them. His knives only have like 30cm of blade ish. Same thing, a thrust doesn't count unless it's balls deep. Gimli (the dwarf, so he really doesn't have a long reach) only has an axe that has about 25cm beyond his front hand (and about 15cm to the middle of the blade where you preferably wanna hit) (he has a ridiculously wide grip). He would engage the grounded enemy from the front and get far enough over him that he could chop the enemy in the head without having to reach for it much. To top it off, this had to be the very strongest chop he could muster, and for whatever reason that means that much slower. Basically his legs would be on each side of the shoulders of the fallen enemy, and his legs are short. Lets just say I hope as you say dwarves are infertile like mules, cause they're gonna be anyway with that behaviour. This is what people think finishing moves are. There was an interview with one of the creators where people asked why they didn't do more thrusts. One of the answers was that you have to "get so close to thrust". This is what people really believe.
junoguten On the other hand, a very real, and pretty brutal way to finish someone on the ground (particularly if they are in armour) is to put the top spike of your halberd on them and then stomp on the side spike. So it ends up something like stomping a shovel into the ground to dig it in.
I'd now like to imagine a vast army of medieval soldiers on the battlefield, all lying on their backs, flailing swords and spears at the ankles of a mobile army.
Gosh, I love your videos! I have a request too! I have just recently started learning to dance, and my ultimate goal is to lean Lindy Hop. I like your dance and etiquette videos very much, would you like to do a dancing for beginners series or something like that? Besides the current trend of historical videos, of course! :D
In a non-battle context you could also try getting behind him. Of course that would not be self-defence anymore since in a non-battle context you could just walk away. Might be possible in a skirmish too. Or you could have plate boots and kick him in the face/fix his weapon on the ground with your foot (or a halberd if you got one).
Last time I checked a bunch of guys with spears and giant can opener things went around and killed the injured. Seems like fun, and they get to keep what ever they find.
This plays out similarly in MMA. If your opponent is on the ground on his back, his feet presented toward you, to strike him is extremely dangerous, as you can get a whopping kick to your torso, head, even your legs (which can cause quite a lot of pain). To try to tackle on top of him you run the same risk of being kicked and now you've lost your mobility. Of course, only so much jockying and footwork will go on before the ref will force you to allow your opponent to his feet.
I think we are taking the disorientation (and the enemy wanting to kill you as fast as possible) factor out of this, for example if somebody knocks you to the ground it might take a few moments to register it or begin to resist but by that point they could already be on top of you stabbing at you, or have trampled you or preoccupied your weapon hand before you could get into a position to resist. The point being that not a lot of people are going to have this chance at a final resistance if they are knocked over, which i am seeing a lot of comments assuming would be highly common.
I wish I could remember where I read it, but I recall reading about a duel (in Italy I think?) where a young nobleman with little experience ended up having to go against a renowned duelist. His family sent him to one of the best teachers possible, and since the teacher didn't have enough time to train him to properly fight, he came up with some bullshit where the nobleman would stay low (crouched or semi-prone or the like?) and be incredibly defensive. The technique proved both effective at keeping the nobleman alive, and also turned the duel into such a fiasco that the renowned duelist eventually yielded instead of prolonging such an embarrassing spectacle. Does this ring a bell for anyone? Lindybeige
An interesting note about what you said regarding striking someone's ankles/lower legs from a standing position (which you said exposed your head and neck when you bent over) - in the battle of Visby (or maybe Gondland(sp?)) the skeletons that were exhumed by archaeologists were found to have, in some cases, as many as 6 or 7 wounds to the lower legs/calves/shins - visible as notches in the thick legs bones of the soldiers. So, oddly enough, the attackers clearly were striking the legs of their opponents - and the angle of the strikes demonstrated that they were made while the recipients were still standing, and not after they had fallen to the ground. The presumption of the archaeologists being that the lower legs were the least armored areas - although I would add that you also have very large arteries in the legs that, if penetrated/severed would lead to a rapid bleed out death. This without requiring you to even have to deal with the person's upper plate or mail armor. So apparently, in spite of how open such strikes might leave the attacker to a counter strike, it clearly was deemed worth the risk and must have been effective - given how prevalent those wounds were on the battle casualties at Visby. Now - its possible that this was a tactic used specifically on people that were perhaps not as well trained as the attacker (as at Visby - in addition the attackers had a significant armor advantage over the defenders and its thought that it is possible that the attackers could almost go at them with relative impunity and not even have to worry too much about the return strikes - thus making the leg-hacking tactic more viable. Incidentally, there was even evidence of soldiers who's legs were completely severed with a sword slash - one that went right down at an angle through someone's ankle bone and took off their foot and another who's legs were both severed below the knee (again the slash coming at an angle that indicated the victim was standing at the time of the injury). There is a really interesting BBC special on the battle as part of a series, which is where I obtained this information. It's on CZcams if you've not seen it already - the most interesting part I would say is actually where they show the actual armor that was dug up from the mass graves and they postulate that the armor represented a transitionary style of armor that fell between brigandine type armor of multiple plates sewn together and the full plate armor that was starting to appear in its earliest forms at the time of the battle of Visby.
Maybe kicking some dirt into your opponent's face would do the truck too. They can still swing their sword around aimlessly but you will have an easier time blocking a hit and closing in.
This would have been another advantage for those who could afford some sort of greave or ankle padding. Feet and ankles were also vulnerable to attack when in the shield wall as mos shields didn't cover that far down the body escpecially when raised to protect the head.
Better option: Just wait for the incapacitated party to bleed to death. Should only be a couple minutes, working around them that long shouldn't be hard. If you can't wait, throw rocks. That's safe, and there's not much they can do about it. Though it is slower than just double teaming them.
But what if the guy on the ground has a shield and turns into a human hermit crab?
And the possibility of many such creatures forming the infamous crawling phalanx!!
No ankle is safe! The horror!!! :O
alfa0i0omega They need to learn to duck walk. "Master your ass!"
In chivalry: mw, you can defeat this by overhead striking. :P
Usammity of course you got the yahtzee pro-pic
Yourantsally
What do you mean 'of course'? Quit judging me shitlord, check your privilege.
alfa0i0omega You'd do what you'd do with other annoying crabs - step on it....stomp it.
alfa0i0omega crawling phalanx haha i keep that one ....flamked by my limpin' cavalry haha
This is rubbish. Anyone who watches enough historical movies knows that you finish an enemy by standing over them, yelling and lifting your weapon up before swinging so that you give your enemy enough time to roll out the way or stab you in the guts.
+TheSm1thers But only if you are the villain.
But then again if you are the hero then you are rarely standing over your foe but instead the one on your back preparing to move out of the way/stab him in the guts.
yu nofun Very true.
Mountain vs the viper vibes
Gods, I hate that trope. Particularly memorable in The Patriot.
Right? That's just common decency
smh at rude people nowadays
The only way is to give a monologue, then slowly walk up to them, raising your sword into the air. Don't worry, no other soldiers can intervene, as that would violate the secret rules of pre-WWI battles.
I do actually think some dudes in individual sword duels (not armies) would kick a weapon away and then enter a monologue of some sort or after they have killed him, not all but some would have. there are tonnes of people who start going into a monologue after beating some dude half unconscious to the ground, you can see it in tonnes of fighting videos and sometimes in real life.
It would probably be a lot more dramatic since it is someone's life though.
mistercococat peace Makes you wonder if movies actually adapted that from a real world phenomenon or that this is something that exists because movies engrained this in peoples brains.
mistercococat peace Isn't that usually the moment when the guy in the ground gets his second wind and pwns the monologer while he's not looking? At least that's what James Bond and Jason Statham do in that situation.
Monologues make you look cooler anyway, what better way to finish off a duel with your enemy on the ground shaking in fear as his arms are complete broken and you use him/her as a footrest while you make their last few moments humiliating and insulting as you plunge a sharp object directly into their chest to finish them off.
Ya
Except when your "Defeated" opponent gets the better of you while you're showing off.
Why not "End him Rightly"? Beat Him Down, Throw the Pommel at him, THEN Gloat about your victory.
"If there were two of me... that is to say, if I had a friend..."
Story of my life, Lloyd
So the most effective person on the battlefield is a mobile dwarf with a long weapon?
+The Business Cat Dwarfs for the win!
When you say it, it sounds hella fun concept for a character.
BFME2 Phalanx FTW
now we know that Celts were good only to scare romans away, since they were very tall
xD
The ideal way to take out a fallen foe:
Hold your weapon up as if you're going to thrust/slash them and give a long, dramatic speech [in the middle of a battlefield] about how they affected their lives negatively and proceed to lower their guard while babbling nonsense.
I'd like to thank Hollywood for my historical background.
IceCreamJimmies Is this when I trust my Rapier in to your chest. I have seen the Three musketers (1993)
IceCreamJimmies Don't forget to telegraph your final blow, so the enemy can escape on the last second.
IceCreamJimmies another fact (thx hollywood): in medival warfare, nobody was allowed to interrupt your dramatic speech, this was a deal of knighly honor. even when surrounded by enemy troops, they had to let you finish your opponent, even if it was one of their dear friends.
Also you could aways (similar to pokemon) force the enemy leader to a 1v1 duel in the middle of the battlefield by eye-contact without being interrupted
+Obe lion yea, like Legion Commander in dota 2 ;)
ScienceDiscoverer Get Aghanim's Scepter, then I think it's more viable.
I'll keep this information in mind for next time.
lel
lol
What happened last time?
Hey you never know we could have an apocalypse tomorrow and then in 50 years or so we could be having medieval warfare all over again
Lol
"If I want to attack you - not that I do understand this is just notional"
So polite!
*sees title* Hm
*clicks* Hum
*Scrolls comments*
*Finds the one mentioning pommel throwing* Success. Bye now.
What is pommel?
@@averagehuman3788 The bottom piece of a sword hilt, and when unscrewed can be used to end anyone rightly.
FredyD.Great I did the exact same thing
@@averagehuman3788 the most dangerous piece of the sword
homosapien #XX09 a infamous Nazi General
Q: how to properly finish off your enemies
A: fire arrows of course
No, obviously you need fire pommels.
God damn you all. *LOL*
Even for honour says throw your pommel at your enemy
"Hold up lads, now I know where I the front lines and currently trying to advance but there's this git on the ground so I need to go grab my bow and take a couple point blank shots while I'm right in the open without a weapon for melee."
Bah you throw a pommel to end them rightly
So, theoretically, the strongest army is a bunch of swordsman lying on their back with bows as a backup weapon?
But what if the enemy walks around your army so far away that the bows can't hit them?
i have a theory
why not just pick up the closest rock
and then throw it at the guy on the ground and then repeat it
that is called Stoning, typically used as a punishment for a type of criminal offense... and what if theres no rocks large enough to do more than annoy your fallen opponent?
i would do that
Throw his friend's sword, presumably by the time you're dealing with someone in this position someone has dropped something sharp or heavy
I have heard tanks are pretty good to finish downed enemies with swords.
God - Loyds videos are that kind were you can always go back and rewatch stuff if you are bored because they are so well delivered.
But what if they are Japanese?
It's not the sword that's the issue. It's what's on his chest.
The sword too, mighty nippon steel is known for cutting through tanks.
Scything at the enemy’s ankles? Sounds like a good way to “de-feet” him.
1.Arrow in the knee :
- limb of and become a guard.
2. nasty collection of various sharp stuff on your head:
- tough luck mate, return to former saved game.
3. lose all 4 limbs because of some Arthur dude:
- hop onwards and bite him, if you happen to be Monty Python variant of black knight.
4. Other random wounds and injuries:
- ask your dungeon master how many dice you roll and if you are lucky enough. You manage to make a campfire or drink a potion. Otherwise wait a turn and have some nachos and beer.
Its sound easier to play dead and ignore everything and hope for the best
+Basler Jones If your side loses, the mopup team will kill you.
If your side wins, they might kill you too.
+GhostInTheShell29 Unless you are worth a lot of money. Then you can just be ransom
*****
But then how do people consistently die in large numbers during stampedes?
The last one in Mecca claimed quite a few lives if memory serves me right.
+Edward Nutt
So I'm guessing you've never actually been in a large crowd? OR maybe a concert like a heavy metal concert.
"No one is stupid enough..." wrong. Crowd mentality removes critical thinking. In a crowd desperate to push forward, no one is looking down. You are looking forward. Footing doesn't matter because you are being pushed. As any heavy metal fan can tell you, its easy to fall in crowds. Because you don't fall like a tree. You do not stay stiff. Your body crumples and you can fit into smaller spaces. Or one could simply fall at the front.
I find it hilarious that you think large groups of people don't trample people to death when it happens all the time, even on black Friday. If people are standing in a formation moving forward do you think they will take a conscious effort to avoid stepping on a dead person or will they not even register them?
+Stopcontact Or his warhorse (800 kg) steps on you.
Came for the pommel jokes, got just that. Satisfied.
because he didn't mention anything about ending them rightly.
Same lol
I prefer the carpet option.
It has the added effect of tidying the battle field up a bit too.
Valkanna .Nublet And it really ties the battlefield together.
Lazyguy22 and it might summon the Dude
Valkanna .Nublet Dueling people throwing pommels and rubber ducks and others throwing carpets on the fallen enemies, just what kind of battlefield is this?
A fun one :p
Valkanna .Nublet but from where u will get a carpet
I got a rock.
Skall posted something about a large percentage of wounds on skeletons from a particularly bloody battle being to the head and it made me wonder if those wounds weren't actually from injured and fallen foes being dispatched? After all, it was frequently seen as a mercy to put a badly wounded enemy out of his misery, rather than leave him to die slowly, and a head shot was a pretty efficient way to do that. Also, you don't have to avoid, tend to, nor feed a corpse.
What you dont understand is that you have to unscrew your pommel and throw it at your opponent to end them rightly.
Alexy Guadalupe I want someone to unscrew my pommel.
Alexy Guadalupe i was looking for this comment
Alexy Guadalupe Then kick back for some quality entertainment, watching rabbits shooting arrows at dogs.
Alexy Guadalupe Goddamn you. I just laughed my arse off; thank you Skall.
How to finish off a fallen foe: extend your hand and help him up.
+Kerman Guy "Excuse me, kind sir. It appears, you have lost footing, while I was trying to run you through with my blade. Mind if I help you up, so we can try again?"
+Kerman Guy And while pretending to help them, you pull a cloak-and-dagger and dent their skull with your mace, right?
+naphackDT Thank you very much my fair gentle man. Nothing like a proper fight in the morning to get the blood going. Say we go for a pint of meade at near Inn for a good respite. When the others have finished themselves off there shall be fewer to disagree then we shall present a civil declaration of peace and have another round of meade.
Sounds like a jolly good idea. You know the real reason I go to war is to get away from the old battle axe for a little peace and quiet.
COUGH queer COUGH.
Becomes a friend aka a finished foe.
Are there any documented instances of people feigning injury to gain advantage?
lukutiss1324 Star Trek
lukutiss1324 Soccer Games
lukutiss1324 Tumblr
The Hobbit
Let me restate that. Are there any documented instances in historical combat of people feigning injury to gain advantage? (I applaud and give my +1s to the football and tumblr jokes, even though I am a football fan).
Never really thought about the injured on the ground. Really makes sabatons and other leg armor make a lot more sense on dismounted troops
The quality of the comment section is pretty much as good as:
I used to make pommel jokes like you. But then I took an arrow to the knee.
1:33 thanks for explaining, I thought you were gonna jump from the screen and attack me
You're welcome
I love that apathetic "stab, stab, stab. Eventually I will get to you"
i'm just here for the pommel jokes
+Tom Salati but they're not even good
+Nevets t. Smith ikr
Nevets t. Smith You sound as though you've felt the wrath of a Rightful Ending.
Yeah, me too
Tom Salati
Me too
I love how he always refers to hypothetical fellow soldiers as 'friends'
A similar dilemma faced cavalry in Napoleonic times. An effective tactic for infantry to use if facing a lone cavalryman, or small group of cavalry, was simply to throw themselves on the ground. The cavalryman can't reach the prone opponent with his sword as he has insufficient reach, and a horse cannot be made to trample a prone man that he can see, no matter how well trained it is.
Solution? Lancers, which were reintroduced to the main armies of Europe by Napoleon, and who could easily skewer a prone opponent. This was why infantry bore a particular hatred for lancers, who could expect to fare quite badly if ever captured by them.
Thoroughly enjoyable video series by the way. Congratulations and please keep up the good work.
There are certain angles (and I'm not talking about the Angles here, but rather about the angles), which will offer the advantage to the standing man, namely the two vertical ones, where you stand vertically either to the fallen opponent's head or feet. With the feet I'd say the feet standing out loses him the reach advantage that he enjoyed due to being on the ground, and just above his head is a very difficult position for him to strike at you due to body mechanics. So naturally he will try to grovel his way to a more horizontal position where he can strike at his enemy's feet as you said, while at the same time you will try to circle around him looking for exposed feet or head to attack. Hopefully all that happens while not being disturbed by other wanting to share a bit of the action, because it may take a while.
Of course, hacking at the feet of an immobile man does nothing to make him stop fighting. Taking off the head will do it... the feet, not so much.
Or just pick up a big rock and throw it on the fallen foe.
+Steven Wagner That's the best thing I've read today. It cheered me up heh. Reminds me of a rugby game I was In years ago. I got into somewhat of a disagreement with the opposite prop in the scrum, His first instinct was to just launch a huge clod of dirt right at my face. I'm pretty sure it had chalk or flint bits in it because I remember it hurting way more than the series of clumsy (we were about 14) punches that followed. Lesson learned though, that guy was not trying to win or lose, just hurt me bad. Throw the nearest heavy/spikey thing right at their face =]
+Steven Wagner Especially if he says Jehovah - but not until he blows the whistle.
Make sure there are no women around.
It really is interesting how people can die instantly from small things like king hits, and yet at other times prove durable beyond belief. It really is kind of hard to *kill* a human.
MetalSlimeHunt Yup, killing someone instantly generaly means; brain, upper spine, or heart. Injuring anything else often is just a wound, even mortal wounds don't always put someone out of action.
That's why attacking a weapon hand is so good, if they can't hold a weapon, it's easy to finish them off.
I hope the aliens that invade us in the future don't have laser guns.
Unintentional Martyr Honestly, unless said laser disintegrates you instantly I don't see how it's worse then being shot.
Jane Murphy It probably burns, and might disintegrate. So yes, worse than bullets.
Unintentional Martyr You bleed when shot with a bullet, that's what usually kills you.
A laser would cauterize the wound instantly.
So like I said, unless it instantly disintegrates you, bullets are probably better.
Alternatively, the attacker could use there shield, particularly if it's got a flat bottom end, the a rectangular sheild, to pin the downed soilders weapon to the ground and then charge in for the kill.
Also, the attacker could charge and jump, sheild first, onto the downed enemy. If you land partially on the downed soilders weapon, and partially on the downed soilders torso, you can immobilize the downed enemy from counter attacking you, while you go for a quick fatal blow.
Mind, this needs to be done quick, to get you back on you feet to fight the rest of the enemy and hence, not have the rest of the enemy go in for a quick stab at you while you're facing down onto the downed enemy.
Alternatively, once the downed enemy is dealt with, the attacker could then have his companions behind him attack the remaining enemies from a standing position, while on the ground, the attacker can now attack the enemies ankles, etc, as the enemy is caught between defending against the attackers at standing height, and this attacker at ankle height.
The attacker on the ground would need to be quick to turn his/her shield around to face the standing enemies blows though.
Like jumping down onto the downed enemy, shield first, pinning the downed enemies weapon to the ground in the process, quick stab to a fatal area if the downed enemy. Jump up and back quickly, half squatting, obe leg behind for support, shield facing the standing enemy. Your comrades behind you can then face the enemy at standing height, while you can engage the same enemy at this lower, slightly different angle. Thus separating the enemies attention between you and thus being a presumably far more mentally taxing opponent.
Well obviously you have to End Them Rightly by unscrewing your pommel and bashing your opponent's brains in with it.
This reminds me of the little used ancient roman formation known as the creeping larvae. It consists of a straight line of soldiers with swords and pikes creeping along the battlefield at ankle height, sweeping and poking the enemy's feet ruthlessly until they cower for mercy and beg for surrender.
Frighteningly effective as the enemy could never reach them down there.
2 options as far as I can tell: the spear one is very obvious, but assuming the foe has fallen with his feet toward the advancing opposite army and his head towards his own retreating forces (that is to say, he falls backwards, and not forwards upon injury) then it seems one could easily reach down, even with a sword or some similar weapon, and simply hack off one or both of his legs until blood loss quickly KOs or kills him. No?
al-Bakh'kam That is *very* situational, and again, a spear would get the job done much quicker...
***** Well if he fell face-first, this entire discussion pretty much becomes a non-issue, and if he fell face-first (ie. with head towards the advancing army) and then rolled onto his back, his head becomes very vulnerable to throwing things, such as rocks and debris, and also he can't see very well what's directly behind his head / 'above' him, and he'd be pretty easy to deal with.
al-Bakh'kam You seem to be making the mistake of thinking these are the only two ways someone will fall down in battle. Keep in mind that a battlefield can be a very chaotic environment, and a wounded opponent could fall down any number of ways depending on the wound, his momentum, etc. Hence, why I said that your previous example was *very* situational.
al-Bakh'kam Sure, you throw rocks and debris at his potentially armored head (keep in mind it's a battlefield) while he flails wildly in your direction. While you're busy throwing debris at the guy the enemy advances and you have your guard down.
Palpetinus I find it really easy to imagine a situation where you're advancing with say 10 of your guys, given that charges don't tend to be in groups of one, and it's not that tricky for one of the group to grab a heavy chunk of stone or debris of any large, bulky kind and to fling it out at the guy's head. As a general rule of thumb, chucking things have greater range than flailing, so that's not a problem.
In a 1v1 a spear would be more effective in finishing a wounded soldier on the ground. But in a larger battle setting in which you are still fighting the foe and must move onto your next target quickly. The Shield would be more effective paired with a Sword. Your foe attemps to strike back at you with his sword or chosen melee weapon. Using your shield you block his attack and either slash at his arm to disable his arm or stab at his gut or neck. The process is safer and quicker allowing you to move onto another enemy while still staying safe from possible other enemy attacks as you finish him off.
How to finish fallen foes? EASY! Just unscrew your pommel and end him rightly!!!!!!
I read something about how that was this big use of a two-handed bearded axe. It's got incredible leverage and range, excellent for piercing armor on a downed foe.
LMFAO I nearly pissed myself with that "You are still a danger to those around you, particularly, one hopes, to the enemy. SO..."
Do you script this or are you just a comic genius naturally?
The whole persona is an admitted scripted act. A good one. But not his natural persona
That is the most logical narration of screaming in pain on the floor I have ever encountered. Bravo.
NOOOOOOOOOOO!!! Don't finish off a fallen foe! By killing him/her/it, you only stoop to THEIR level, you become as bad and naughty (yes, very naughty, bad!) and it's such a dishonorable thing to begin with! Rather, you should share a long, loud and lengthy conversation with them, about how their evilness/naughtiness/lack of hygiene/etc. got them to this point, and how by genuinely being sorry about everything they did, they can attain forgiveness and redemption!
...........
Actually, forget all that rubbish, just finish 'em.
Seems straight forward, a great explanation of combat strategy when hindered by injuries. ~Nate the Nerdarch
If I had a sword I would just unscrew the pommel and throw it at him to end him rightly.
Grab a Polearm and stick them with the pointy end? An excellent lesson on weapons 101. I'm glad I subscribed to this channel just for the sheer entertainment value.
Even if you already know what he's saying, he at least makes it fun to hear it again. Wish some of my former instructors from my school days could have done that.
Was the carpet tactic a real thing? Because if it was, that's morbidly hilarious.
+Birdie McChicken
I am pretty sure it was a joke.
It actually seems somewhat viable, aside from the hassle of carrying around sufficiently thick carpets.
joke
As an ex-MP, I actually have some real-world experience with this issue. In Riot-Control training, when a "rioter" fell, the front rank would keep advancing as the 2nd and 3rd ranks reached out between those in the front rank and subdue and drag off the fallen "rioter" before he could do much else.
I imagine that with the improved reach of an actual spear versus that of a riot control baton, it would be even easier.
(Also, much of the riot control training we did was based on that of the Roman Legions, who used actual spears in riot control. You really had to be ticked off to riot in that day, and even more so to continue rioting when you saw the Legionaries form up into their echelon and begin advancing!)
I was going to make a pommel joke but 150 other people beat me to it
Spears also isn't of help if you are on the ground. This weapon is useful if you are using it both hands and hold it in the middle of the shaft. If you hold it at the end, the weight of the weapon pulls it down. If you eventually were holding it pointing someone's face, single parry sends it away and you're done.
Personally I prefer taking my tower shield and jumping so I can perform a downward metallic body slam. That's also how I make wine.
A metal tower shield? That'd be awfully heavy.
@@dogman9291 Why this works so well ;)
During my basic training we were taught to neutralise the enemy. This was explained as either killing him or render him incapable so that he causes problems for his comrades to recover and/or tend to him.
This is why I like ranged weapons
Every sword with an unscrewable pommel is ranged weapon that does't just end them it ends them rightly.
"Help I've fallen and I can't get up!" ... "no worries I'll lend you this spear"...."really? couldn't you help defend me or carry me away or something?" .... "nope it's the spear or nothing"
can't find a video about europian martial arts without a comment with an "end them rightly" joke
It is said that only the Chosen Pommel, when thrown at such a powerful meme, can end it rightly.
300 did this spot on. Front lines came in with swords and then there was a wave following up that did the stabbiness of those wallowing around!
Your videos are so interesting.
People on their last legs can make some pretty good plays in moments of desperation, focus, and adrenaline. We in the gaming biz call this a "Clutch" as you grasp victory from a moment that seems like an inevitable loss.
whats with all the pommel jokes?
anybody please help?
Inside joke from a channel called Skallagrim.
ok thanks!
+Jude O Cathain finish him rightly
I see it for months now, it's just annoying and not even funny.
bcgroi's just mad because someone threw a pommel at him in fencing class.
See, this actually leads into something I've been wondering about recently. Conventional wisdom holds that the fighter that has the higher ground has the advantage in a fight. I can see how this makes sense from a battlefield perspective, as it affords you better sightlines and makes the enemy have to fight gravity just to get to you. But conventional wisdom also holds this to be true in a one-on-one duel, with one person just standing on a table or up a short flight of stairs. Personally, I haven't found this to be the case. In my childhood playground fights, I found that taking the higher ground meant my opponent could more conveniently hack at my legs while staying out of range of a counter-attack, for exactly the reasons he talks about here.
"how to finish them off" hrhr
RIGHTLY
This is a great point. I'd imagine this is one of the reasons why greaves were so common in the Roman army, since they didn't break formation to deal with something like fallen foes.
But then again, most enemies of the Roman empire didn't have much more than spears and knives until the high Medieval period, and you can't exactly use a spear if you're lying on the ground. Therefore I imagine there wasn't much danger from fallen enemies swinging swords around.
Great video!
Flavius Aetius You can use a spear on the ground, you just can't really put any of the shaft behind you.
Jane Murphy You can't lunge either.
Yeah that was my point with the spear, it would be really unwieldy on the ground.
What if the guy on the ground has a machine gun?
Offer him a cup of tea.
But seriously, it's a lot harder to shoot someone when you are crippled on the ground on your side or not in a proper shooting position, I can argue a spearman would kill you before you had the chance.
Ishak Ince Nuke the site from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.
Orbital strike his ass
no, violence is never the answer! offer him a cup of tea and discuss ducklings
"throw a carpet over him and then run across him"
Man, that's brutal, I really hope there were more spears than carpets in the past
Or, you could just use a .45 to finish them off. No spear buddy required.
gurgy3 I don't think throwing a blunt(ish) bullet at someone will do much damage.
***** Plate mail tended to stop muskets.
***** Oh i'm sorry, i didn't know there were perfect examples of modern guns in the 17th century -_-
***** Oh, my mistake, i forgot govan existed.
Every combat analysis by Lindybeige ends with "they should just use a spear, instead."
Haven't looked at the comments yet, bracing for pommels
jokes on him, i love getting my ankles scythed
What about a pointed stick?
A quick thought. Assuming you are in a battle line, even running on adrenalin you take an immobilising hit. It will take you a second to think in a rational manner. Yes you may try to defend yourself automatically but you would be surrounded by blows coming here. there and everywhere. How strong would a blow be from an individual lying on the floor? In most cases a weakness caused by a hole in the shield wall would be exploited. Whether or not there is a handy spearman you are unlikely to stand back. If it was me I'd just drop my shield momentarily to catch a potential sword stoke (who would go into battle without a shield?) or simply lift my foot out of the way and brain the miscreant. Ones best defence is ones feet.
a simple answer to thy question, throw thy pommel at him.
Make sure you end him rightly
I wish I'd known this yesterday, really woulda come in handy. Maybe tomorrow
what if the other guy has a katana?
Ted Striker Them you just need to swing the katana once and the entire enemy army will have their heads cut off.
Hn Henrique
Precisely.
Ted Striker In that case, according to the most venerable and ancient scrolls of Bushido, he has already won the battle
Raphet Kchotto Yes, feed the trolls!
Raphet Kchotto
An X-rated comment?
This channel is basically wendover for spears. Or wendover is lindybeige with planes. Whichever you prefer.
you could throw the pommel at them.
I guess a modern example of this problem is the fight between Muhammad Ali and Antonio Inoki. It was a fight with what were basically pre-modern MMA rules. And in this fight, Inoki realized that he basically stood no chance against Ali in an actual standing fight, and laid down on his back, his feet up in the air and ready to kick.
Ali, who was a boxer and thus mainly knew how to fight someone with his fists, quickly realized that he actually couldn't get the man, no matter how much he circled and tried. Meanwhile, Inoki could kick at Ali from his position, enough so that he managed to cause a wound. And when Ali actually tried to go in and do something, Inoki actually managed to kick him down and elbow him in the face. It pretty much devolved into Ali circling the prone man and trying to shout at him so that he'd fight.
And after fifteen rounds, it all ended with a draw. So obviously, lying down in a situation where your opponent actually can't just walk away and has to deal with you can have some merit. Of course, if your opponent is not obliged to deal with you, lying down gives him a good opportunity to run off since you've just neutralized yourself. Or possibly throw rocks at you.
Couldn't people beg for mercy on the battlefields?
+Goodly That would vary greatly from time period, and combatants involved, but if your too wounded to fight, your probably not going to be useful as a slave. And most serious wounds were fatal due to infection.
So most the time no. If your uninjured and surrounded and they'll take you as a slave then yeah it would work sometimes. If your not surrounded your best bet would be to run.
Ah, interesting.
+GhostInTheShell29 But you could still be ransomed
Atler the Dark Good point, that was common at times in history, forgot about that. So slightly better chance at survival then.
when you lie on the ground,
you can move your sword arm around your upper torso and your head,
protecting them rather well,
but you will have problems covering your feet or your belly.
depending how you fell (backward - feet towards the enemy, or forward - head towards the enemy), you could be dead in a second if he just (maybe circles you a bit and then) reaches down 'a bit' to hack at your unprotected lower body.
Army of dwarf spearmen. Gg
It's good to know these things, because I plan on partaking in medieval combat someday.
scything at the ankles would be effective, if not for the shields carried by 80+% of troops since primitive warfare. plant the shield at your feet, reach over top and stab into the fallen enemy while your friends continue to push the line. not to mention almost all front line troops were armed with spears until Rome modernized their usage.
this seems like the kind of situation where playing dead would be the wisest choice of action. at least until someone gets close to you, then you can spring up and bite their kneecaps
I'd say it's a fairly specific injury that allows you to be dangerous yet immobile. In reality you're likely to be struggling for consciousness due to shock. It's also quite likely that you will have a blindside from which an enemy will finish you off.
And that sort of Monty Python "I'll bite your legs off" mentality wasn't really expected of most soldiers.
who are these plonkers who keep dislikeing your videos? Down with that sort of thing! Have a nice day!
...the first thing to do is go down with your opponent, and ask him how he feels,...its these little touches that endear us to each other...
what great advice, I'll make sure to use it next time i'm in medieval warfare
What about coming in from 'below' (near the legs)? In general proportions, a guy can reach his hand down to his knee, and then it's a foot-and-a-half from knee to ankle, so even with a three-foot sword, a guy will have slightly less than a foot-and-a-half reach beyond his feet, and he can't swing very well, so most blows will be rather weak, while the guy standing up with a similar three-foot sword can jab at his leg from out of range.
Now agree he can try to bring his legs in, but if he has a leg injury that might not be possible.
This outro music is 👌; the TDP at the end pleased me greatly.
I remember a good 7-8 years ago I played a Lord of The Rings Fellowship&two towers video game on Gamecube. (the third film hadn't been made yet).
To perform a "deathstrike" or "finishing move" on a downed enemy:
Aragorn would turn his blade upside down in his hands, one hand on the first grip and the other on top of the pommel and stab downwards like you would with a knife. Except he wouldn't lean forward, he would sort of kneel down while stabbing straight down. His sword is pretty much middle between long sword and viking sword in terms of length, so his knee pretty much has to touch the ground next to the enemy to get that far down. Plus of course, he won't be happy with just a little stab, he feels the need to stab all the way through the player to the guard.
Legolas would spin his knives to point-down both at the same time and lean down to stab them. His knives only have like 30cm of blade ish. Same thing, a thrust doesn't count unless it's balls deep.
Gimli (the dwarf, so he really doesn't have a long reach) only has an axe that has about 25cm beyond his front hand (and about 15cm to the middle of the blade where you preferably wanna hit) (he has a ridiculously wide grip). He would engage the grounded enemy from the front and get far enough over him that he could chop the enemy in the head without having to reach for it much. To top it off, this had to be the very strongest chop he could muster, and for whatever reason that means that much slower. Basically his legs would be on each side of the shoulders of the fallen enemy, and his legs are short. Lets just say I hope as you say dwarves are infertile like mules, cause they're gonna be anyway with that behaviour.
This is what people think finishing moves are.
There was an interview with one of the creators where people asked why they didn't do more thrusts. One of the answers was that you have to "get so close to thrust". This is what people really believe.
junoguten On the other hand, a very real, and pretty brutal way to finish someone on the ground (particularly if they are in armour) is to put the top spike of your halberd on them and then stomp on the side spike.
So it ends up something like stomping a shovel into the ground to dig it in.
Jane Murphy Brilliant! I love it :-)
I'd now like to imagine a vast army of medieval soldiers on the battlefield, all lying on their backs, flailing swords and spears at the ankles of a mobile army.
Gosh, I love your videos!
I have a request too! I have just recently started learning to dance, and my ultimate goal is to lean Lindy Hop. I like your dance and etiquette videos very much, would you like to do a dancing for beginners series or something like that? Besides the current trend of historical videos, of course! :D
In a non-battle context you could also try getting behind him. Of course that would not be self-defence anymore since in a non-battle context you could just walk away. Might be possible in a skirmish too. Or you could have plate boots and kick him in the face/fix his weapon on the ground with your foot (or a halberd if you got one).
Last time I checked a bunch of guys with spears and giant can opener things went around and killed the injured. Seems like fun, and they get to keep what ever they find.
This plays out similarly in MMA. If your opponent is on the ground on his back, his feet presented toward you, to strike him is extremely dangerous, as you can get a whopping kick to your torso, head, even your legs (which can cause quite a lot of pain). To try to tackle on top of him you run the same risk of being kicked and now you've lost your mobility. Of course, only so much jockying and footwork will go on before the ref will force you to allow your opponent to his feet.
I think we are taking the disorientation (and the enemy wanting to kill you as fast as possible) factor out of this, for example if somebody knocks you to the ground it might take a few moments to register it or begin to resist but by that point they could already be on top of you stabbing at you, or have trampled you or preoccupied your weapon hand before you could get into a position to resist. The point being that not a lot of people are going to have this chance at a final resistance if they are knocked over, which i am seeing a lot of comments assuming would be highly common.
Thank you for clarifying that you don't want to attack me. I was worried for a bit there.
I wish I could remember where I read it, but I recall reading about a duel (in Italy I think?) where a young nobleman with little experience ended up having to go against a renowned duelist. His family sent him to one of the best teachers possible, and since the teacher didn't have enough time to train him to properly fight, he came up with some bullshit where the nobleman would stay low (crouched or semi-prone or the like?) and be incredibly defensive. The technique proved both effective at keeping the nobleman alive, and also turned the duel into such a fiasco that the renowned duelist eventually yielded instead of prolonging such an embarrassing spectacle.
Does this ring a bell for anyone? Lindybeige
So basically if you just got a ton of dudes to lie down on the ground with spears you can hold off entire armies by just swinging at their ankles.
An interesting note about what you said regarding striking someone's ankles/lower legs from a standing position (which you said exposed your head and neck when you bent over) - in the battle of Visby (or maybe Gondland(sp?)) the skeletons that were exhumed by archaeologists were found to have, in some cases, as many as 6 or 7 wounds to the lower legs/calves/shins - visible as notches in the thick legs bones of the soldiers. So, oddly enough, the attackers clearly were striking the legs of their opponents - and the angle of the strikes demonstrated that they were made while the recipients were still standing, and not after they had fallen to the ground. The presumption of the archaeologists being that the lower legs were the least armored areas - although I would add that you also have very large arteries in the legs that, if penetrated/severed would lead to a rapid bleed out death. This without requiring you to even have to deal with the person's upper plate or mail armor. So apparently, in spite of how open such strikes might leave the attacker to a counter strike, it clearly was deemed worth the risk and must have been effective - given how prevalent those wounds were on the battle casualties at Visby. Now - its possible that this was a tactic used specifically on people that were perhaps not as well trained as the attacker (as at Visby - in addition the attackers had a significant armor advantage over the defenders and its thought that it is possible that the attackers could almost go at them with relative impunity and not even have to worry too much about the return strikes - thus making the leg-hacking tactic more viable. Incidentally, there was even evidence of soldiers who's legs were completely severed with a sword slash - one that went right down at an angle through someone's ankle bone and took off their foot and another who's legs were both severed below the knee (again the slash coming at an angle that indicated the victim was standing at the time of the injury). There is a really interesting BBC special on the battle as part of a series, which is where I obtained this information. It's on CZcams if you've not seen it already - the most interesting part I would say is actually where they show the actual armor that was dug up from the mass graves and they postulate that the armor represented a transitionary style of armor that fell between brigandine type armor of multiple plates sewn together and the full plate armor that was starting to appear in its earliest forms at the time of the battle of Visby.
Maybe kicking some dirt into your opponent's face would do the truck too. They can still swing their sword around aimlessly but you will have an easier time blocking a hit and closing in.
This would have been another advantage for those who could afford some sort of greave or ankle padding. Feet and ankles were also vulnerable to attack when in the shield wall as mos shields didn't cover that far down the body escpecially when raised to protect the head.
Better option: Just wait for the incapacitated party to bleed to death. Should only be a couple minutes, working around them that long shouldn't be hard.
If you can't wait, throw rocks. That's safe, and there's not much they can do about it. Though it is slower than just double teaming them.