This has nothing to do with history though. Anyone who fights like this, dies in the first minute. There is no technique here, no self-preservation. Any peasant with a club would do better
Cry more Absolutely not. Except for maybe the biggest, most suicidal sociopaths, *People. Did. Not. Fight. Like. This.* People across all ages and locations had the same survival instinct, and swinging like this is stupidly suicidal even for today’s untrained morons, let alone a Norse culture with a rich and old martial tradition, where boys, and sporadically even girls, would have been trained in arms and armor from a young age. These idiots have no idea what they’re doing, even if they have cool kit and act with confidence. They’re the asshole who would have been sent first to get speared because no one would have wanted to fight side by side with them.
Cry more Because you have, like them, no idea what you are talking about. If you kill your opponent at all perils of injury and life of your own body, and die seconds after they die, then you have won nothing. In fact you are worse off than them, for they are dead and have lost, but you are dead and an idiot. If you are actually interested of learning something about Norse martial arts, instead of mindlessly echoing Hollywood’s moronic depiction of bAdAsS ViKinG bErSeRkErS, then I can only recommend you to watch some of the martial reconstructions of Roland Warzecha and his colleagues.
@Cry more It does not. No one, in the history of martial arts around the globe, has ever fought like this. Not in the early days of Sumeria, not in the slave pits of Rome, not in the high days of the norse, not in the duel days of western european aristocracy. Duels were fought in two ways: Until first blood, in which case "being ruthless and quick" is a quick way to get handsniped (as they say in HEMA) and lose the duel. Or they were fought until the death or incapacitation, and in this case "being ruthless and quick" is a quick way to get murdered too, even if you kill your opponent as well. This video is completely ahistorical. It starts with their equipment, specifically their shields, which are atrociously small and thick. A proper Norse round shield would be easily twice that diameter, meaning about four times the surface area to cover your body. The thickness of their awful reconstructions also means that despite their miniscule-, almost buckler-like size, these shields are probably a good bit heavier than a proper norse shield, which tapered to maybe 3mm at the edges. Which would also mean their wildly flailing sword would get stuck in the opponents shield rim instantly, disarming the flailer. But that's the main issue: *They don't fight, they flail.* Children fight like this on the playground. But does that mean boxers, or kung-fu martial artists, or an MMA fighter flails wildly to - again - "ruthlessly and quickly" defeat their opponent? *NO*. They would get outplayed and knocked out within seconds. I am slowly getting the impression that you are either trolling or very young, but in any case, if you want to learn something interesting about a fascinating culture, I will provide you some links: th-cam.com/video/nwy6hmEOSsM/w-d-xo.html This is Roland Warzecha showing his reconstructed fighting norse fighting style, based on body mechanics as well as the properties of sword and shield. th-cam.com/video/oQo7FjxjHSg/w-d-xo.html Here is Roland Warzecha explaining the role of the shield in Norse combat. th-cam.com/video/QqbyRnRKHCM/w-d-xo.html This is Skallagrim, a HEMA practitioner, reacting to this stupid video you're so vehemently and irrationally defending.
@@roryross3878 Fights didn't last 15 minutes. They were done quickly. Battles lasted longer of course but you could always go behind the shield wall if you got tired.
Lmao it sounds so precise in the explanation but it just looks like their beating the shit out of each other Edit: damn I didn’t realize I got this many likes
***** No. There's as much technique as there is in Hollywood - none. Just bashing in extremely suicidal, stupid fashion. Roland Warzecha's videos will give you a much better idea of what viking combat may have looked like, I warmly recommend you check them out. :)
Viking shields were 80-94 cm in diameter, which entirely changes their usage in combat. Shields were the offensive part of the stance, protecting the sword hand, hence the small guard on their swords. The first stance this guy shows with the sword leading in front of the shield, he would be called "Kelle One Arm" very quickly and their shields are similar to bucklers which are used differently than Viking Round Shields. You can't lead with a buckler as it gives you very little reach compared to a Viking Shield. I agree with the parts where he explains how wrong Hollywood is, though. Other than that, there is very little to no actual technique involved in what they show here at all. Use the shield to pin the opponent weapon and arm, then stab or slice whichever body part they expose in the process. High attacks are preferred as you have longer reach straight ahead from the shoulder, it's not rocket science.
What is it with this "if you don't have a video you're wrong" attitude some people have lately? Making a video doesn't automatically make you a expert. Someone in a TH-cam video acting like a expert, aren't automatically a expert. Retarded logic.
Krytern UK Well, it all depends. But when you want proof that vikings didn't fight like foolhardy peasants with no clue, then it's gone too far. Anyway, there's loads of proof provided here. To name the most obvious, for example, why would sword hilts change to fit a change in shield design unless there was an actual stance, strategy and logic behind wielding and fighting with them? I pointed that one out because I don't trust Broseidon and his ilk is capable of grasping that one without assistance... Although it's kinda excusable as people today generally knows as much about medieval combat as the vikings knew about iPhone apps. In the olden times, free norse men were bound by law to own arms and of course even the least skilled knew the basic moves. The guys in this video is just bashing without purpose and anyone fighting like this would be a free dead man really, really quickly. The viking era swords were top heavy, just as the axe, and the strategy with the typical viking shields were similar with the two weapons. Swords just introduced the ability to successfully stab as well as hack. At best, the kind of fighting shown in this video would occur in larger melee's between peasant armies, but they'd most likely not be wearing any decent armor so any kind of hit would most likely make do.
ZeroTheHero My comment was pointed towards Broseldon. He's the kind of idiot who thinks someone in a TH-cam video is automatically a expert and if you don't make a video about why you disagree then you don't know what you're talking about. People like Broseldon are just... Well you know.
Real sword fighting would be nothing like what we see in the movies lol. They didn't try to bang each other's swords off of each other in a technical type away. They literally beat the shit out of each other 😅. We looked like a bunch of chimps fighting with sharp sticks lol.
Excellent video! Makes you realize how horrible the battles must've been. Fights like this would most likely end with many warriors mutilated and wounded beyond hope. Really shines a light on the flawed Hollywood fight scenes where there is the one super bad ass warrior who is undefeated. Or the fighters who go in without armor or with the flashy spinning moves.
"The main part is that you always have the sword in front." This goes against everything I've ever known to be true. My whole world has been turned upside down.
yeah people forget in mosh pits battles this is waht it looked like, no spins, rolls or jump attacks just plain bashing on your enemy. Your techniques of finesse are out the window and remain only in your muscle memory.
@@GanjaMasterBlaster Theres a video by skallagrim about throwing pommels, go watch it to get the joke. Also side, not all swords can have their pommels removed without machinery, there's 1 treatise that references the idea during a duel. Swords that could be threaded the hilt was usually affixed by force or other means to keep it attached if it was removed (threaded pommels were usually custom made anyways)
If you actually want to experience a taste of what it was like to fight with armor, sword, and shield, join your local SCA group and take part in fighter practice. They use rattan (like solid bamboo) swords and hit each other full force. I haven't done it in many years, but it can give you a bit of a taste of what actual combat was like back then. Will make you appreciate your shield, that's for sure.
When I used to do it, I was always told by the combat instructor that they favored smaller shields for training and combat technique as it stops the beginners urge to just hide behind a full sized "war shield" they only used the full size ones in display or actual reenactment shows in the shield wall. At least that's what I was told. Then again a big shield is more of a hindrance in a one on one sword fight from my hazy recollections, I'd prefer a buckler.
okay so they used bigger shields but the principle lies the same because as long as you hold your shield in front of you, you will always be open on the sides; and if you held it at your side you would be open at the front...the shield is only as good as it's carrier.
timmy kingsbury Yeah, and the thing about shields are that the bigger they are, the more protection you get, but large shields are hard to use in fast pace fighting, so you use a smaller shield, like the one in the video or a buckler, which is mostly a weapon rather than a shield, but it's still a shield.
MegaComaSeizureMan historically, shields pretty much were weapons. yes they were defense but do you think shield bashing was uncommon? if i had a buckler and an opportunity, i would punch the opponent in the face with it
So true. Actual combat is very up close and dirty. Not like the glorious battles Hollywood shows at all. There is only one goal in a real battle, to win. Not to show off, to win.
+David n I'm trying to get into the game industry. This is something that I will remember for my entire life. Thank you for such an important piece of insight!
+David n It's the same with European Knights. Although HEMA is far more... technical (it's basically a game of chess, each knight trying to outwit the other,) the people are moving so fast that it looks like a brawl. And yes, knights in full plate armour didn't telegraph their attacks, nor did their weapons seem to be made out of lead. But, I guess it's Hollywood. I'm just waiting for that one fight where it takes everybody by surprise. Hell, I'd do it myself if I had the chance.
+Edward Prince You've lived a looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong and fruitful life my man. Congratulations. Maybe we can meet for an actual sword duel sometime, and then have tea afterwards. All the best my man, and keep slicing away! p.s.--I know where the Holy Grail is buried. How do I know? Because I helped bring it across the ocean 650 years ago, as I was this fearsome, zealous and proud member of that feared, enigmatic and esoteric organization, the Knights Templar. We spirited so many holy relics out of the Old World so as to hide them in the New. I have the Holy Grail buried real deep atop this heavily forested hill in my old neighborhood, overlooking the ocean, Boston Harbor to be exact. I buried it up there during our third expedition to the New World back in 1365 (Oh yes, there were white men in America between Eric the Red and Columbus). Though please don't tell anyone, it's gotta remain a secret! :) :)
Well anytime you wish to take a longship to the coast of Massachusetts let me know my man. I will greet you on the shore (this shore designated by smoke signals). We will get a huge and burning bonfire going, and party non-stop for seven days and seven nights. All the booze and food will be on me! The awesome vibes emanating from our little party/celebration will be such that such awesomeness will reverberate around the Globe at least seven times. It'll be unforgettable! Peace out bro, and LIVE IT UP TO THE MAX!!
This is far from Hollywood, yes but a lot more of the shield should be included. We suspect that in many cases with the larger shield that they were a weapon concealment item as well as a defensive tool. Look at certain cuts from Fechtbuch I.33, although much later than the depiction of time in this video, it is acknowledged that certain principles of shield or buckler fighting stay the same. Other depictions of Viking age fighting show the cutting arm covered slightly by the shield which itself is held in a less flat-on manner to the opponent. The shield is a flanking tool which creates blockages. If a right handed cut is delivered to your left, holding the shield out far and pushing it into the armpit thus creating a wall between the opponent's arm and you would be a far better idea; plus we know very bio-mechanical techniques such as these existed. You are not going to bash your way through mail armour with the edge of a sword.
You guys should check out "Sword & Shield Fighting with Roland Warzecha". This video is also about how vikings fought but I think its more authentic. I appreciate the good work of the guys in this video but they should watch what Warzecha is talking about.
they know each other. Roland and Kelle are in the same Viking Reenactment Scene here in Germany. And they started nearly to the same time...very long ago. They have only different fighting styles and meanings...but both are big personalities here and amazing nice charakters. ...and some of the old ones..still fighting..with big...and small shields... th-cam.com/video/JFKTJxzDuFc/w-d-xo.html
While Hollywood is definitely far from realistic, these guys aren't spot on either, the way thy were showing it would be the way a movie or the new guy would fight. Any expierienced fighter from that time would know a well placed strike is a lot better than flailing around trying to hit something important, in a decent fight between to guys you would usually see them circling each other while putting in quick strikes to vital areas. And every so often they would use their shield to bash or distract the opponent or they would try and hit the legs to either disable them or make them move their guard lower.
As Falahk07 has said, you almost never go for the leg in a fight, it decreases your reach and leaves you open. Also shields are not used offensively as people have come to believe- most people believe a myth that you would bash your opponent with the boss of your shield- that requires you to get up close and within range of your opponent's sword. The shield's primary purpose was defence, as the sword was the attacking weapon. (Note, Vikings didn't even really use swords, widely. Swords were a rich man's weapon, as they were both expensive, and required skill to forge. Most vikings wielded one-handed axes, that were cheaper to make and more readily available, as they were used as tools. As for these guys using chain-mail in their re-enactment, that also was a rich man's armour- your average everyday viking wore no armour at all, just a linen shirt, and carried a shield and an axe- swords and armour were too expensive and maybe 1 in 10 men had them).
Mining Forge If we're talking about Viking shields in dueling the shield was far from being defensive only. You're right about strking with the shield boss however there are many offensive applications for the shield. I'd recommend you to watch?v=dkhpqAGdZPc
Odin would be proud & honored to watch those recreate so superbly & amazingly the exact fighting techniques of their long ago forebears, very proud & honored! A special place in Valhalla awaits those two champion swordfighting extraordinaires. Odin!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Great video instruction. I taught a Fencing class for 15 years, and the most difficult thing for me was to convince my students to forget everything they ever saw in a movie about using a sword. For those who were slow to catch on to this concept,, pain was always the best teacher. Also,, very vital point about a real fight having circular motion. Keep the videos coming.
They're onto something, and this is a good video to introduce people to the realities of historical combat, but once they start fighting they just fall apart. Both of them get hit a dozen times per exchange and that's just ridiculous. That's not how experienced fighters want to go about it, whether they be using fists or swords. I for one wonder if these two fought so willy-nilly all the time, or just for the cameras. Also remember that the best fighters were undoubtedly far scarier and meaner in a fight than any re-enactor will ever be, because it was life or death and a great deal of knowledge has been lost since those times. There are accounts of soldiers in more recent centuries who dueled with knives inside moving carriages, one arm tied behind their backs, who stabbed their opponents many, many times without receiving so much as a scratch in return. Imagine people that well-versed in killing, only... vikings. And just about every other culture with warriors, for that matter. They didn't often live to a ripe old age, but they could do things that would seem as unbelievable to us as guns and bombs might have seemed to them. And most of the archeological evidence found to date suggests larger shields, which changes how the fighting works. But buckler-sized shields existed back then too. No need to nitpick there.
WisdomThumbs i think you're onto something about shield sizes. vikings used larger round shield. this changes the way they fought. they held the shield sideways, presenting the edge to the enemy and used it more offensively to ward off blows and to create openings for their own blows.
johnbr59 The shield was the principal weapon, the sword and axe behind it was just there to capitalize on openings. Vikings had some crazy shieldbinds.
Also nothing about how he explains the wrong technique for the sword. Sticking your arm out in front of your shield like he says would do nothing but get you're arm hit and yourself disarmed
Judging from this short video, they still don't know what they are doing. Attacking with the shield and sword at the same time is the best approach, and these guys are just standing there doing 1 2 1 2 1 2... Plus I disagree with the sword always being held in front, it makes your hand a very easy target, and a shield edge thrust against his shield, blocking out his sword and turning his shield, would open him up for the simultaneous sword attack.
Yeah, the fact that most early medieval European swords lack significant hand protection strongly indicates that the shield needs to protect the sword hand.
I have a minor complaint, that being the length of the sword handles, traditionally Viking (and Indian) sword handles had a maximum length of 9cm, this was meant to fit the hand snug and give the user a more firm grip, also encouraging cutting with the elbow and lower hand rather than the wrist and forefingers. However their handles appear to be around 11-12cm long.
jackson edwards I think the extra length was to accommodate the giant mittens they are wearing. the 9cm handle might be a bit too snug with the protective gear on.
9cm was the actual length of the handles from swords in that time period, as in antiques and relics found throughout Denmark, Sweden and Britain had 9cm handles.
jackson edwards What about hand size? Hands might have been smaller on average back in those times. Since people were shorter at least it's a possibility.
I learned a few things. 1 - I would die laughing if I saw people fight each other like that 2 - this video is the best lesson I've searched for and there is people like him teach me that thank you 3 - it is how reality looking like for our honored warriors back in the day it's all about killing or getting killed. That's terrifying 4 - we all can do the same if we get to the edge of our survival instic 2022/02/04
That's because it's a duel. Large shield are mostly only used on the battlefield during a war. Big shields are big to clock incoming arrows and the like but there's no point in using on in a duel. All a big shield in a duel would do is slow you down. A smaller, lighter shield (or even buckler) is preferred.
Pat Moon Actually these shields are too small to do all of the jobs they are indended to. This video is rubbish. Thry to watch this one on YT: Sword & Shield Fighting with Roland Warzecha
Just want to note, this isn't necessarily how the Vikings fought. After all, they didn't exactly write down how they fought in manuals unlike late medieval period stuff. This is just an educated guess based on how the weapons/armour/whatever perform. Unless people started actually fighting to the death with these things we probably won't know for sure what the most effective way of using these weapons was.
Rebypox I think it may be because they have their chain mail on. I think the Vikings probably used such huge shields usually because they didn't have much in the war of armour. After all, they were farmers mainly, they just raided as a hobby for some extra loot. XD
Nope, Having a with a cntergrip, that's less than 1 meter in diamater is not very effective, A bigger shield is just better. I could go into a bunch of detail as to why, but I don't have the time.
Rebypox I wouldn't say so. After all, bucklers, which are significantly smaller than the shields shown here were used to great effect for personal defense.
+Egill Fairhair Not quite, the armor they were wearing would have deflected and outright negated most of those blows. The only way a slashing sword would break that mail would be at optimal distance and hitting with close to the tip of the blade. Generally speaking, killing blows dealt by swords were stabs. Bet you ass both would have likely been combat effective even after the points at which they stop.
I noticed the younger one take three guard strikes to the head and neck. Even with mail or a helm, that's gonna daze a fighter and leave a potentially fatal opening. Their strikes themselves aren't the kill shots, it's that they both take multiple hits that shouldn't really be taken the way they take them.
Egill Fairhair Oh don't get me wrong, there were plenty of killing blows. But there were also plenty that were simply not. And I also won't argue that I doubt the validity of their claims. And You're 100% correct that a good hit to the head will effectively nearly guaranteed a victory simply by way stunning. In other words, yeah lol I agree.
I went in skeptical to begin with, considering how little solid evidence we actually have regarding how Vikings fought. What's here seems like it could be accurate, but coming from HEMA and using mostly longswords, I can't help but feel like half of it seemed like they were just punching at each other.
Egill Fairhair That and honestly spears were much more common weapons for Norsemen, followed closely by axes. Cheap and effective. Swords for the Norse were more status symbols.
I didn't know this world had so many masters of arms in viking warfare and dueling fighting. I humbly salute the comment section of all these awesome experts correcting others. I shall eagerly await all your videos on how to fight the correct way so you can show these how it's done... correctly..
That's not how you fight with a viking shield. They had no hand protection, no even on the sword itself. The shield is the main weapon, the sword is there only to exploit the openings your create with it. That's why it was not attached to the arm.
,,It would be accurate", no it wouldn't. If you think movie tochniques are ANY good ( literally, ANY good ) in a real sword fight, you obviously never have been in such fight.
Mateusz Jesionkowski Read chirstian comment again please... he was saying IF they fight like that in the movies. he is not saying that curent movies swordfights are accurate, they would be accurate IF they fight like this in the movies...
The reason they don't fight in movies like that is simple. This sort of combat does not look flashy. It looks, dirty and brutal and fairly straightforward
They're just beating on each other with swords. Cuts like that aren't going to get through the mail, even with a sharp sword. Someone else said they look like they're just slapping each other and that's basically what they're doing. Lol.
@@BARONWODENRIC Against mail, sure but that’s going to just injure them and not going to kill them during the actual battle. They’re still a threat and actually trying to exploit their armor’s weakness is a better idea
Seems like whether it’s empty hand fighting or weapons fighting, it’s always about presenting a constant threat while using footwork to get the right angle to gain the advantage in a split second and then to maintain that advantage til the opponent is incapacitated.
This is quite silly, they do not strike towards the hands or the head or the less protected parts of the arms because they don't actually want to hurt each other and then they think that putting your hand in front of the shield is a good idea because they have special rules that no real person ever would follow in a life or death fight. Look at any sort of fighting with shield or buckler and the shield is used to protect your hand exposing it is just a very bad idea in almost all circumstances, they attack the most armoured parts of their opponent and people watching this think that this is how real combat work?? why strike the mail, he tells you to attack only the parts protected by mail and padding, this is not at all how to kill someone, you go around the opponents armour, you keep your hands safe with your shield
Those less protected parts would not be protected at all for most soldiers you'd face on the battlefield. These guys are wearing good armour for the time.
They still specifically tells you how to strike the most armored bits and to always keep your sword forward while showing the hand in front of the shield, they are of of course trying not to hurt eachother but are simply more gritty version of stage-fighters since they are very clearly taking (very sound and logical) steps to make sure no one is hurt. It is most likeley not the way the vikings faught however since they would have parcticed how to cut hands, arms and heads, wich are generally prime targets in any cut-centric fencing style. I am guessing they have based their system partly on scottish backsword/broadsword and targe styles being one of the closest geographically to scandinavia. but since those are much later and use basket hilted swords keeping the sword always in front is a perfectly valid idea, but the viking era swords have quite poor hand protection, wich is not much of a problem as long as you have a shield and use it to protect your sword hand. My point is if they fought as if their opponent might fuck their hands up even if they are not going to do it you will probobly get much closer to the style used at the time, they are gaming their own rules in order to fight as well as possible after the paramaters they have set out and they are good at it, but they follow their rules and parameters, not the historical ones.
And they don't THRUST. They have a sword for gods sake. Yes you can cut with a sword but they have chainmail on them and the most efficient way is to thrust. I know that they don't want to hurt each other but a gambason under that armor will solve the issue. And this is nothing like hema aswell. But there is the fact that a figt in a battle is much more different then a duel but whichever the case this is some shitty fighting.
Great explanations, then when it comes to the demonstration it just looks like a free for all & almost windmilling. I can't imagine any combatant would want to fight this way in reality, as they get hit as much as they are hitting.
Im no expert on sword and shield, but if he sticks his hand out in front of him like he ist doing at 1:05, he's going to loose his fingers. Viking swords had no pronounced cross guards because the used their shield properly and knew how to protect their hands...
also medieval and viking battles were often times heavily one sided. in close proximity and those large numbers all it took was one slip up in defense and it would turn into a massacre.
Not with armor and shields. Even less so in a battle where you'd have support of your comrades. Line of friends on the sides added much more to defense than a line of enemies on the other side added to danger. Casualties in the battle itself were generally low throughout the Medieval age - most people died when their ranks broke and they started fleeing (especially if enemies had lot's of cavalry or something impeded escape - than you could have whole armies wiped out). Try wearing a reenactor's armor. Even with a sharp blade - you almost can't be cut (and the gaps are on the back or in extremely hard to reach places). Blunt force is caught by the padding - it won't make a difference until you really get pounded or it's a massive slam. You're only in imminent danger from heavy and spiked weapons designed for penetrating armor, but they've got pretty short reach. If you've got a shield and comrades on both sides with shields of their own - you're pretty damn hard to get rid of. Enemies have to pull this apart, get a lucky attack with a pole-arm at sb's eye, or wear your stamina down so that you will be unable to keep defending effectively.
Those shields are really odd. They are too big to be bucklers and way too small to be contemporary viking shield. Findings of shields are around a hundred centimeters, the largest being 105 cm and smallest are around 80 cm. Quite naturally, the fighting techniques are thus much different from these small shields. Futhermore their use of maille is not precise, the ordinary warrior would not have the wealth for such equipment. Contempt for hollywood fighting is fine, but this is not much better. Atleast if you aim for Viking period fighting.
Comments like this should be paid more attention to. Look people, look up lectures on Viking age fighting, rather than relying on guys that are essentially actors.
These shields are very small, like bucklers. Viking shields where most commonly 70-90 cm in diameter. 80-84 cm being most commonly found. I can't depict how the vikings fought because the only surviving evidence remaining is their weapons and armor. The common warrior had only a shield for his defense. Spears, axes and seaxes being common weapons. Helmets and maille was used by the richest who could afford it. A maille hauberk could be as expensive as buying a good sports car in comparison with today. So, I would not say this would be accurate of how they did fight. I practice a lot of HEMA and in unarmored combat one can not be as reckless as only bashing on your enemy to try and hurt him. It is easy to kill.... if you don't mind getting a fatal cut yourself in the process. A lot of technique is required and using the shield offensively can be a good defense as well as a way to injure an opponent.
I once had someone tell me this: "This is why heavy two handed axes and maces were rightfully feared. The weight brought down upon foes killed more than the edges (which blunted throughout fights anyway). A well aimed smack with those two-handed weapons could break bones, dislodge arms or crack skulls. Even when opponents blocked with their shields, the sheer power from gravity and leverage and weight distribution could be devastating." Now I ask, is that true? Ta :)
Alec Steele once forged a flanged mace, suitable for both one and two handed use depending on the wielder. He'd forged knives, daggers, swords, axes, arrowheads... But he said that just holding that item scared him, that it was the single most dangerous object he had ever created. He was hesitant to even hold it and move with it. I'd reckon it's true.
This is intense. I can't imagine how terrifying it must have been to be in a battlefield with 4 or 5 enemies constantly within "cutting distance" from myself.
I can imagine. The very few written accounts of battles from that time, suggest very few people every lived. You may have survived the battle, but you were usually badly hurt. You would soon die by infection, or blood loss.
Cyborgslayer404d This is incorrect. Causalities in early and late medieval period were fairly low. There are very few written accounts because most peoples were to a large extent illiterate.
Pandoras Apple This is the exact reason why the vast majority of battles in history were Sieges and not Open Field battles like Hollywood likes to focus on - fighting army against army was a high risk, low reward situation.
FINALLY men who know what real combat is like. I teach JKD and even without weapons we have to hold way back so as not to seriously injure our training partners. Also huge on Medieval, Viking and Eastern weapons. My line is Scot Highlander mixed with Norman. Much respect, Kelle and Gernot
Do some research on the Hebridean Norse-Gael Gallowglass Warriors who came pouring out of the western Scottish Highlands beginning in the mid 13th Century, with most seeking to serve as highly paid, super skilled, uber dependable, powerfully motivated & notoriously ferocious mercenaries over in Ireland, under various chieftains & lords (helping to stave off & beat back the once inexorably encroaching Anglo-Norman advance that had been usurping Gaelic sovereignty)! The Scottish (& eventually Irish) Gallowglass were the Western European Samurai of their era (1250-1600!), as professional, badass & die hard as they come!
2:42 No this is not the way how Wikings or any other warriors used to fight with a short sword and shield. They're just randomly slashing and bashing each other. Most warriors trained for hours and had lots of techniques. A shield wasn't there to absorb the slash of your opponent but more to engage and move in into your opponent. Skilled warriors could disarm their enemies with their shield.
Ladies, My ancestors fought Naked Haha!.....Respect these guys can fight.....own your environment/field on which you fight, the Celts and Vikings mastered this.
Yeah, shields are way too small, and they barely use them effectively. There's no real strategy or technique behind these two besides just running towards the other and swinging your sword at them. Plus they say it's a good idea to keep your sword out, but that's an invitation for someone to cut off your arm.
it must be hard for Vikings to kill each other because of their armour; chain mail are pretty much slash proof. Axes and spear would of done much of the killing but, I dout any blow would of been an instant death. if its me, I rather fight a battle where death was instant than slow and painful.
Because you're afraid of the pain? Vikings weren't when they were in their "rage mode" so it was good to get even a few seconds more to live so they could maybe kill or injure a few more people in those extra seconds or even minutes that the armor gave them, and then drift peacefully out of their bodies and into a new one.
pian yes, who aint? warrior in the old days or not every body is scared of pain or else you would of seen historical depiction of people walking on fire for fun. but death as a warrior i wouldn't be afraid, cus if I was a warrior, I would adopt philosophy of the Spartans or samurai n so on. my point was; I rather fight the good fight without any amour than to fight a good fight with amour. pain is not really a question cus if you look forward to an honourable death then pain is necessary regardless of how it was delivered.. I would prefer a quick one rather than a slow one, bad thing about armour is even if your escape ur life with your life and the battle was won or lost, you will soon die from wound infections 1 or 2 months down the line, I rather die there n then..get me?
ur right about chainmail not protecting you from pole arms, and arrows but axes is still slash weapon, regardless of power, yes u will high get knocked out and have ur limbs chopped off, but that's why they have shields....anyway all I said was chainmail is pretty much slash proof..not anything else so I don't know why u acted like u had ants down your pants..for no reason really.
nie mam Nah, a good thrust to the openings... Viking helmets were not at all good.. the neck was often exposed, the eyes, the mouth ,etc. They had the goggle helmets being the best protection for head gear they owned. Now, if we were talking Gothic Knights, the story is different.
nie mam Assuming you have the same weapon set, the reality would be that you could simply keep your exposed side covered. Have you read Vegetius? The reason why stabbing worked for the Romans a lot was because they had shields to cover them. Although with chainmail, its more a stabbing game anyway for the most part in viking. Same thing that worked for the Romans would have easily worked for vikings.
The head was not as viable a target as it may seem to be. When you go for a head shot, you create a huge opening for your opponent. Chances are, you will not even hit their head, but you will be mortally wounded for trying.
The northern saxonian (todays north german) shields of the early 9.CT were this size, but yeah, for a reenactment of a viking fight they're a bit to small.
No. I still don't buy that it was like that even back then. Especially considering here it is one on one I think the action would indeed be much slower and finesse because it is very much different using real swords here they are fake, you are not worried about mistakes but back then it was real and every single move counted one vs one so in my opinion it would not be as hack and slash as portrayed here, but actually more dramatic and intense and slow paced.
Most historians agree that most personal combats would've been over very quickly, a lot of the time resorting to wrestling each other to the ground etc.
Its a very situational thing tbf. I fight between to fully plated up Knights may have taken an age to reach a conclusion. However throughout much of history you've had situations where well trained and well equipped warriors have been outnumbered by ill trained and ill equipped warriors. In those sorts of situations a fight might well be over really quickly i.e. a spear shot to an unprotected shoulder/face.
At 1:40, sword positioning, I've wondered how that would differ from I.33, sword and buckler of the middle ages. Sword styles had stayed the same, with the Type X blade dominating. Mail armor was the same, shield use had changed though. This fight manual seemed to focus on unarmored sword and buckler. Any ideas?
+The Juggernaut I know lol they fight like untrained savages. I don;t think the vikings ever dueled. Also one of the guys could end the other with one swift move to the left or to the right and just point the stick at him. Boom dead.
+The Juggernaut You guys watch too many hollywood movies this is how fighting is done just with more thrusts they didnt use in the video because it would be harmfull for them
I am no expert on fighting (so please correct me if i am wrong) but reaching with your hand beyond your shield should result in loss of a hand also you have a targe shield (not buckler) so it makes no sence to move it torwards your enemy (you can block all his blows by holding it higher/lower or moving it left/right) unless you want to push him or protect your hand (neighter of which were done).
I am sorry, but their fighting has no basis in historical fact or martial tradition. - Their shields are too small. -There is no technique at all. -There are no shield binds. - No active work with their shields. - No blade binds (even though they were rare compared to shield binds). - Their grips are wrong on their swords. - Their swords lack historical gip lengths. - "Our system is based on hitting the enemy". Every fighting system is based on and MORE IMPORTANTLY not get hit. They don't understand at all how to protect yourself. - They are excluding the head as targets. Sure, that is a safety thing, but then you can't say that vikings fought that way. The head is the most important target. - Lateral movement (when he talks about going in circles) is extremely important in any martial tradition. But if they were using historical shield sizes, it wouldn't work like that. That is why you need to use shield binds to manipulate the opponents shield so that you CAN attack him from the front. Lateral movement is used to change the center so that you have more leverage in a bind. You won't be able to take a step in a side direction and just strike around your opponents shield if you have any sort of semi-competent opponent. - When they strike they PULL BACK their shields. This is nonsense. Viking era weapons lacked hand guards and crossguards because you used your shield to cover your striking hand. They have valid criticisms against the hollywood style of fighting. But what they are proposing themselves instead is pure nonsense.
@@ragnarulfhediin6606 I think you vastly misunderstood my comment. I called the guys in the video bad fighters who do not fight like vikings did. Vikings had a very good and technical martial tradition.
Unless you have armor for your arms and hands which we don’t believe would have been common for Norse raiders this fighting style would be great for loosing fingers, also great for being disarmed when the tendons get severed in your fore arm. Also a shield gives more coverage when it’s held out more toward your opponent it closes an entire line to your head and torso.
I feel like many idiots who watched the part where they were hitting the shield took that as a demonstration. No, idiot, that was showing why a frontal attack wouldn't work..... That was not saying "this is how to do it" The part AFTER that when he demonstrates how he approaches and tries to attack the weak points WAS saying" this is how you do it". All these comments talking about how they were flailing the swords against the shields are making me facepalm. Did you even listen to the man's words?
You could just rediscover it. Go by the same sort of equipment they used and start from there -- it really isn't out of the ordinary to achieve at the same set of moves when starting from similar initial conditions. What this video tells me is that Vikings fought like spastic hamsters on meth instead of like the badasses the movies told me about. :'(
I don't know. Dark Souls taught us we need to roll a lot during a fight.
Haha! Exactly. Plus, shoving your fist up someones a hole, to crush their spine or something. :) That must be how the vikings really fought.. CROM!
You Forgot to throw the controller
the sidestep he talks about is like backstab fishing lol
Play Mount And Blade.
Khergits!!!
The son: I'd like to pursue a career in music-
The dad: Shutup and swing your sword at me!
Son: wh-what?
Dad: SHUTUP AND HIT ME!
Son - I want to be a poet
Hagar the horrible - no
Son: but dad I...
Dad: shut the fuck up and put that fucking chainmail on...
I love the enthusiasm this man has for his culture and history. Always a pleasure to see someone bringing history to life.
This has nothing to do with history though. Anyone who fights like this, dies in the first minute. There is no technique here, no self-preservation. Any peasant with a club would do better
Cry more Absolutely not. Except for maybe the biggest, most suicidal sociopaths, *People. Did. Not. Fight. Like. This.* People across all ages and locations had the same survival instinct, and swinging like this is stupidly suicidal even for today’s untrained morons, let alone a Norse culture with a rich and old martial tradition, where boys, and sporadically even girls, would have been trained in arms and armor from a young age. These idiots have no idea what they’re doing, even if they have cool kit and act with confidence. They’re the asshole who would have been sent first to get speared because no one would have wanted to fight side by side with them.
Cry more Because you have, like them, no idea what you are talking about. If you kill your opponent at all perils of injury and life of your own body, and die seconds after they die, then you have won nothing.
In fact you are worse off than them, for they are dead and have lost, but you are dead and an idiot.
If you are actually interested of learning something about Norse martial arts, instead of mindlessly echoing Hollywood’s moronic depiction of bAdAsS ViKinG bErSeRkErS, then I can only recommend you to watch some of the martial reconstructions of Roland Warzecha and his colleagues.
@Cry more It does not. No one, in the history of martial arts around the globe, has ever fought like this. Not in the early days of Sumeria, not in the slave pits of Rome, not in the high days of the norse, not in the duel days of western european aristocracy.
Duels were fought in two ways: Until first blood, in which case "being ruthless and quick" is a quick way to get handsniped (as they say in HEMA) and lose the duel.
Or they were fought until the death or incapacitation, and in this case "being ruthless and quick" is a quick way to get murdered too, even if you kill your opponent as well.
This video is completely ahistorical. It starts with their equipment, specifically their shields, which are atrociously small and thick. A proper Norse round shield would be easily twice that diameter, meaning about four times the surface area to cover your body. The thickness of their awful reconstructions also means that despite their miniscule-, almost buckler-like size, these shields are probably a good bit heavier than a proper norse shield, which tapered to maybe 3mm at the edges. Which would also mean their wildly flailing sword would get stuck in the opponents shield rim instantly, disarming the flailer.
But that's the main issue: *They don't fight, they flail.*
Children fight like this on the playground. But does that mean boxers, or kung-fu martial artists, or an MMA fighter flails wildly to - again - "ruthlessly and quickly" defeat their opponent? *NO*. They would get outplayed and knocked out within seconds.
I am slowly getting the impression that you are either trolling or very young, but in any case, if you want to learn something interesting about a fascinating culture, I will provide you some links:
th-cam.com/video/nwy6hmEOSsM/w-d-xo.html This is Roland Warzecha showing his reconstructed fighting norse fighting style, based on body mechanics as well as the properties of sword and shield.
th-cam.com/video/oQo7FjxjHSg/w-d-xo.html Here is Roland Warzecha explaining the role of the shield in Norse combat.
th-cam.com/video/QqbyRnRKHCM/w-d-xo.html This is Skallagrim, a HEMA practitioner, reacting to this stupid video you're so vehemently and irrationally defending.
@Cry more Okay, this is leading nowhere, you are trolling. Have a good day in whatever sorry hole you live in.
I want to see a 10 hour version of just these two guys just bashing the living shit out of each other.
Can't cause they will not last 15min at that pace.
+1
@@roryross3878 why not??? Give me a good reason why they can't yeah they will have to take a break and get some water and food that's it
@@roryross3878 Fights didn't last 15 minutes. They were done quickly. Battles lasted longer of course but you could always go behind the shield wall if you got tired.
@@xJohan.Liebertx Its tyring.
The son looks like a folk hero
And the dad was a former legend
But not from Hollywood plz
Father looks like Eirik Jarl, with brown hair.
Link what are yer doing
ahh your finally awake
looks like a catfight but with swords and shields
+Fenrir of ink Sandoval No, that's what it looks like. He was commenting on the way it LOOKS not what was happening
+Fenrir of ink He's not Jon Snow.
+green3y3guy You have watched too many movies.
+green3y3guy Have you seen cats fight? That shit is brutal.
Real fighting (armed or unarmed) is never pretty. Even sparring doesn't do it justice. Fight look like cats fighting because cats don't fuck around.
Lmao it sounds so precise in the explanation but it just looks like their beating the shit out of each other
Edit: damn I didn’t realize I got this many likes
That's exactly what they are doing, no technique, just beating.
***** No. There's as much technique as there is in Hollywood - none. Just bashing in extremely suicidal, stupid fashion. Roland Warzecha's videos will give you a much better idea of what viking combat may have looked like, I warmly recommend you check them out. :)
they're*
Wild Man Yeah it does but I think it's looks better from a further view you can tell they are using skill a bit better, but I agree it does
that's what any fight is. It looks so pretty during drills and demonstrations, but when an actual fight starts things get very messy.
"Have you ever heard of The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim?"
These guys: "You mean the "Real life simulator?"
it's such a overrated piece of Todd.
... Wii Sports boxing was based on the Vikings?!
Them dudes have got a badass last name. "Longbow"
Lol thats oddly sexual
@Burak Kurt hahha
@Burak Kurt mine means pen owner word by word, I'm from Iran.
Good catch. The Vikings relied more on their bows than a buckler slap match.
@@AR-rg2en mine means grater lol
Viking shields were 80-94 cm in diameter, which entirely changes their usage in combat. Shields were the offensive part of the stance, protecting the sword hand, hence the small guard on their swords. The first stance this guy shows with the sword leading in front of the shield, he would be called "Kelle One Arm" very quickly and their shields are similar to bucklers which are used differently than Viking Round Shields. You can't lead with a buckler as it gives you very little reach compared to a Viking Shield. I agree with the parts where he explains how wrong Hollywood is, though. Other than that, there is very little to no actual technique involved in what they show here at all. Use the shield to pin the opponent weapon and arm, then stab or slice whichever body part they expose in the process. High attacks are preferred as you have longer reach straight ahead from the shoulder, it's not rocket science.
real life fights with swords are quick and horrible, I think technique is one of many factors involved
What is it with this "if you don't have a video you're wrong" attitude some people have lately? Making a video doesn't automatically make you a expert. Someone in a TH-cam video acting like a expert, aren't automatically a expert. Retarded logic.
Krytern UK Well, it all depends. But when you want proof that vikings didn't fight like foolhardy peasants with no clue, then it's gone too far.
Anyway, there's loads of proof provided here. To name the most obvious, for example, why would sword hilts change to fit a change in shield design unless there was an actual stance, strategy and logic behind wielding and fighting with them?
I pointed that one out because I don't trust Broseidon and his ilk is capable of grasping that one without assistance... Although it's kinda excusable as people today generally knows as much about medieval combat as the vikings knew about iPhone apps.
In the olden times, free norse men were bound by law to own arms and of course even the least skilled knew the basic moves. The guys in this video is just bashing without purpose and anyone fighting like this would be a free dead man really, really quickly. The viking era swords were top heavy, just as the axe, and the strategy with the typical viking shields were similar with the two weapons. Swords just introduced the ability to successfully stab as well as hack.
At best, the kind of fighting shown in this video would occur in larger melee's between peasant armies, but they'd most likely not be wearing any decent armor so any kind of hit would most likely make do.
ZeroTheHero My comment was pointed towards Broseldon. He's the kind of idiot who thinks someone in a TH-cam video is automatically a expert and if you don't make a video about why you disagree then you don't know what you're talking about. People like Broseldon are just... Well you know.
Krytern UK Yeah, I got that. My response was partially to you (first paragraph) but mostly to everyone, and particularly Broseidon ;)
I can see why Hollywood doesn't want the fighting style in their movies lol
Real sword fighting would be nothing like what we see in the movies lol. They didn't try to bang each other's swords off of each other in a technical type away. They literally beat the shit out of each other 😅. We looked like a bunch of chimps fighting with sharp sticks lol.
@@shenmue5507 Not true in the slightest.
@@shenmue5507 parrying is what you are trying to say and it was a real technique at one point in time.
@@gilbert4394 it's unnecessary if you have shields and most people at that time already have good shields
@@shenmue5507 there's different styles fool
"This is how the way to fight"
godofimagination wheres your german??
These Vikings *dey no de wae*
+Big man H No tolerance to a harmless meme that you could simply ignore, faggot alert.
That was gonna be my witty comment :/
But you made it three years ago.
@@willludwig1356 german?
Wish my name was Longbow. Life would be so much easier
Yes, I imagine having the girls refer to you as "Stumpy" makes you play a lot of Solitaire.
You are Shortbow? I am sorry, but you can manage with that.
My name is Biggus Dickus.
Tigershark88 or T Rex 1000 my friend has the same name
He has a wife you know
disrespecting there ancestors.. using a sword and shield, BAH.
Excellent video! Makes you realize how horrible the battles must've been. Fights like this would most likely end with many warriors mutilated and wounded beyond hope. Really shines a light on the flawed Hollywood fight scenes where there is the one super bad ass warrior who is undefeated. Or the fighters who go in without armor or with the flashy spinning moves.
ouch, my chain mail.
😂
OUch my pride of knight =D
"The main part is that you always have the sword in front."
This goes against everything I've ever known to be true. My whole world has been turned upside down.
it looks like teenage girls slap fighting but with sword and shields
They were demonstrating why attacking the shield from the front did not work. He showed you how to go around, but it seems nobody pays attention.
yeah people forget in mosh pits battles this is waht it looked like, no spins, rolls or jump attacks just plain bashing on your enemy. Your techniques of finesse are out the window and remain only in your muscle memory.
Combat isn't elegant.
Exacly
DirtyBird760 Go back with your fantasized & choreographed fights...
shame they can't throws pummels... those are deadly as fuck.
AaronThePaladin The only way to end him rightly!
That would be mass slaughter. There would be no victors only survivors.
That would be a real good way to end them rightly... unfortunately the pommels aren't threaded...
Throwing your pommel would be the last thing you wanna do, because then your sword woulf fall apart
@@GanjaMasterBlaster Theres a video by skallagrim about throwing pommels, go watch it to get the joke.
Also side, not all swords can have their pommels removed without machinery, there's 1 treatise that references the idea during a duel. Swords that could be threaded the hilt was usually affixed by force or other means to keep it attached if it was removed (threaded pommels were usually custom made anyways)
If you actually want to experience a taste of what it was like to fight with armor, sword, and shield, join your local SCA group and take part in fighter practice. They use rattan (like solid bamboo) swords and hit each other full force. I haven't done it in many years, but it can give you a bit of a taste of what actual combat was like back then. Will make you appreciate your shield, that's for sure.
It's amazing how the simple things help you win a fight. This was a great watch.
Usually, the simplest maneuvers are the most effective.
This looks better than in movies, it looks so fierce!
Why are there shields so small? The average viking shields were around 32-36in.
When I used to do it, I was always told by the combat instructor that they favored smaller shields for training and combat technique as it stops the beginners urge to just hide behind a full sized "war shield" they only used the full size ones in display or actual reenactment shows in the shield wall.
At least that's what I was told.
Then again a big shield is more of a hindrance in a one on one sword fight from my hazy recollections, I'd prefer a buckler.
okay so they used bigger shields but the principle lies the same because as long as you hold your shield in front of you, you will always be open on the sides; and if you held it at your side you would be open at the front...the shield is only as good as it's carrier.
timmy kingsbury Yeah, and the thing about shields are that the bigger they are, the more protection you get, but large shields are hard to use in fast pace fighting, so you use a smaller shield, like the one in the video or a buckler, which is mostly a weapon rather than a shield, but it's still a shield.
MegaComaSeizureMan historically, shields pretty much were weapons. yes they were defense but do you think shield bashing was uncommon? if i had a buckler and an opportunity, i would punch the opponent in the face with it
Netflix boy Detected
I literally googled "elegant sword fighting" to get this
Funny, I got here after googling "stylish sword fight"
So true. Actual combat is very up close and dirty. Not like the glorious battles Hollywood shows at all. There is only one goal in a real battle, to win. Not to show off, to win.
+David n
I'm trying to get into the game industry. This is something that I will remember for my entire life. Thank you for such an important piece of insight!
+David n It's the same with European Knights. Although HEMA is far more... technical (it's basically a game of chess, each knight trying to outwit the other,) the people are moving so fast that it looks like a brawl. And yes, knights in full plate armour didn't telegraph their attacks, nor did their weapons seem to be made out of lead.
But, I guess it's Hollywood. I'm just waiting for that one fight where it takes everybody by surprise. Hell, I'd do it myself if I had the chance.
Ulfric Ruthgardsson
HEMA is a shop where i'm from :)
Ray Adnyana Is it? Does it contain swords and such, or is it something like a sports shop?
Ulfric Ruthgardsson
It's worse. It sells pencils for 10 box. plastic sausage for 5 box. gloves for 8....
Only sportwear they have is underwear.
I am an actual Viking from early European History, and this video is inaccurate.
+Edward Prince You've lived a looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong and fruitful life my man. Congratulations. Maybe we can meet for an actual sword duel sometime, and then have tea afterwards. All the best my man, and keep slicing away!
p.s.--I know where the Holy Grail is buried. How do I know? Because I helped bring it across the ocean 650 years ago, as I was this fearsome, zealous and proud member of that feared, enigmatic and esoteric organization, the Knights Templar. We spirited so many holy relics out of the Old World so as to hide them in the New. I have the Holy Grail buried real deep atop this heavily forested hill in my old neighborhood, overlooking the ocean, Boston Harbor to be exact. I buried it up there during our third expedition to the New World back in 1365 (Oh yes, there were white men in America between Eric the Red and Columbus). Though please don't tell anyone, it's gotta remain a secret! :) :)
+Taylor Ahern Yeah, just been chilling in Scandinavia for a few centuries or so.
Well anytime you wish to take a longship to the coast of Massachusetts let me know my man. I will greet you on the shore (this shore designated by smoke signals). We will get a huge and burning bonfire going, and party non-stop for seven days and seven nights. All the booze and food will be on me! The awesome vibes emanating from our little party/celebration will be such that such awesomeness will reverberate around the Globe at least seven times. It'll be unforgettable! Peace out bro, and LIVE IT UP TO THE MAX!!
+Edward Prince vikings spoke an other language, do you?
this video isnt most accurate but this is how it mostly looked
This is far from Hollywood, yes but a lot more of the shield should be included. We suspect that in many cases with the larger shield that they were a weapon concealment item as well as a defensive tool. Look at certain cuts from Fechtbuch I.33, although much later than the depiction of time in this video, it is acknowledged that certain principles of shield or buckler fighting stay the same. Other depictions of Viking age fighting show the cutting arm covered slightly by the shield which itself is held in a less flat-on manner to the opponent. The shield is a flanking tool which creates blockages. If a right handed cut is delivered to your left, holding the shield out far and pushing it into the armpit thus creating a wall between the opponent's arm and you would be a far better idea; plus we know very bio-mechanical techniques such as these existed. You are not going to bash your way through mail armour with the edge of a sword.
This is what happens when you don’t do the combat tutorial and learn the combos, but instead just press buttons.
I completed Kingdom Come Deliverance this way.
TheIfifi LOL!! Me too 🙈
Q Click Q click Q click
@@TheIfifi riposte strikes are all you need
@@yungchangsta Reminds me of AC 1
so true ^^D no control whatsoever xD
That feel when you will never see a viking battle to the death with sharp swords.
You guys should check out "Sword & Shield Fighting with Roland Warzecha". This video is also about how vikings fought but I think its more authentic. I appreciate the good work of the guys in this video but they should watch what Warzecha is talking about.
they know each other. Roland and Kelle are in the same Viking Reenactment Scene here in Germany. And they started nearly to the same time...very long ago. They have only different fighting styles and meanings...but both are big personalities here and amazing nice charakters.
...and some of the old ones..still fighting..with big...and small shields...
th-cam.com/video/JFKTJxzDuFc/w-d-xo.html
While Hollywood is definitely far from realistic, these guys aren't spot on either, the way thy were showing it would be the way a movie or the new guy would fight. Any expierienced fighter from that time would know a well placed strike is a lot better than flailing around trying to hit something important, in a decent fight between to guys you would usually see them circling each other while putting in quick strikes to vital areas. And every so often they would use their shield to bash or distract the opponent or they would try and hit the legs to either disable them or make them move their guard lower.
Newbie, not movie*
in many cases its bad to aim for a leg in a duel since that would drastically decrease your reach
As Falahk07 has said, you almost never go for the leg in a fight, it decreases your reach and leaves you open. Also shields are not used offensively as people have come to believe- most people believe a myth that you would bash your opponent with the boss of your shield- that requires you to get up close and within range of your opponent's sword. The shield's primary purpose was defence, as the sword was the attacking weapon. (Note, Vikings didn't even really use swords, widely. Swords were a rich man's weapon, as they were both expensive, and required skill to forge. Most vikings wielded one-handed axes, that were cheaper to make and more readily available, as they were used as tools. As for these guys using chain-mail in their re-enactment, that also was a rich man's armour- your average everyday viking wore no armour at all, just a linen shirt, and carried a shield and an axe- swords and armour were too expensive and maybe 1 in 10 men had them).
Mining Forge If we're talking about Viking shields in dueling the shield was far from being defensive only. You're right about strking with the shield boss however there are many offensive applications for the shield.
I'd recommend you to watch?v=dkhpqAGdZPc
Mining Forge
Strike with the rim. Center grip allows this.
Odin would be proud & honored to watch those recreate so superbly & amazingly the exact fighting techniques of their long ago forebears, very proud & honored! A special place in Valhalla awaits those two champion swordfighting extraordinaires. Odin!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Honestly, they just look like they're aimlessly flailing at each other.
I was right the whole time
Fascinating. Love these historical reenactments that bring to life what's read in books and seen in illustrations.
Great video instruction. I taught a Fencing class for 15 years, and the most difficult thing for me was to convince my students to forget everything they ever saw in a movie about using a sword. For those who were slow to catch on to this concept,, pain was always the best teacher. Also,, very vital point about a real fight having circular motion.
Keep the videos coming.
Up here in the north. Looking good lads 🇸🇪🇸🇪🇸🇪
They're onto something, and this is a good video to introduce people to the realities of historical combat, but once they start fighting they just fall apart. Both of them get hit a dozen times per exchange and that's just ridiculous. That's not how experienced fighters want to go about it, whether they be using fists or swords. I for one wonder if these two fought so willy-nilly all the time, or just for the cameras. Also remember that the best fighters were undoubtedly far scarier and meaner in a fight than any re-enactor will ever be, because it was life or death and a great deal of knowledge has been lost since those times. There are accounts of soldiers in more recent centuries who dueled with knives inside moving carriages, one arm tied behind their backs, who stabbed their opponents many, many times without receiving so much as a scratch in return. Imagine people that well-versed in killing, only... vikings. And just about every other culture with warriors, for that matter. They didn't often live to a ripe old age, but they could do things that would seem as unbelievable to us as guns and bombs might have seemed to them.
And most of the archeological evidence found to date suggests larger shields, which changes how the fighting works. But buckler-sized shields existed back then too. No need to nitpick there.
WisdomThumbs i think you're onto something about shield sizes. vikings used larger round shield. this changes the way they fought. they held the shield sideways, presenting the edge to the enemy and used it more offensively to ward off blows and to create openings for their own blows.
johnbr59
The shield was the principal weapon, the sword and axe behind it was just there to capitalize on openings. Vikings had some crazy shieldbinds.
WisdomThumbs
Give me a dansaxe and I'll show them how "the way to lose" looks
Also nothing about how he explains the wrong technique for the sword. Sticking your arm out in front of your shield like he says would do nothing but get you're arm hit and yourself disarmed
Dueling and fighting in a mass battle are very different, in a duel you have time and space to give, in a battle both are quite compressed.
Judging from this short video, they still don't know what they are doing. Attacking with the shield and sword at the same time is the best approach, and these guys are just standing there doing 1 2 1 2 1 2...
Plus I disagree with the sword always being held in front, it makes your hand a very easy target, and a shield edge thrust against his shield, blocking out his sword and turning his shield, would open him up for the simultaneous sword attack.
The opponent going for the arm makes him vulnerable so he dies
Yeah, the fact that most early medieval European swords lack significant hand protection strongly indicates that the shield needs to protect the sword hand.
Props to the son for getting every single clue and not standing there like an "Whut".
I have a minor complaint, that being the length of the sword handles, traditionally Viking (and Indian) sword handles had a maximum length of 9cm, this was meant to fit the hand snug and give the user a more firm grip, also encouraging cutting with the elbow and lower hand rather than the wrist and forefingers. However their handles appear to be around 11-12cm long.
jackson edwards I think the extra length was to accommodate the giant mittens they are wearing. the 9cm handle might be a bit too snug with the protective gear on.
9cm was the actual length of the handles from swords in that time period, as in antiques and relics found throughout Denmark, Sweden and Britain had 9cm handles.
jackson edwards I know, but those 2 are wearing what looks like giant sized mittens.
I see, well that may be a possibility then.
jackson edwards What about hand size? Hands might have been smaller on average back in those times. Since people were shorter at least it's a possibility.
I learned a few things.
1 - I would die laughing if I saw people fight each other like that
2 - this video is the best lesson I've searched for and there is people like him teach me that thank you
3 - it is how reality looking like for our honored warriors back in the day it's all about killing or getting killed. That's terrifying
4 - we all can do the same
if we get to the edge of our survival instic
2022/02/04
The shields are a bit small.
That's because it's a duel.
Large shield are mostly only used on the battlefield during a war.
Big shields are big to clock incoming arrows and the like but there's no point in using on in a duel.
All a big shield in a duel would do is slow you down. A smaller, lighter shield (or even buckler) is preferred.
I agree. Their shields were clearly made from plywood. I think they were probably using smaller reproduction shields just for demonstration purpose.
Jared VanMeter
Thanks, I did not know that.
Pat Moon Actually these shields are too small to do all of the jobs they are indended to. This video is rubbish. Thry to watch this one on YT: Sword & Shield Fighting with Roland Warzecha
Ariovistvs Can't stand Roland personally. So muh of what he does is full of crap.
That fight at the end was fueled by emotion.
"Mom loves me more!"
"No!!! She loves ME more!"
It's amazing! We're accustomed to watch sword fight in movies, but the real fight is more dangerous and aggressive. Congratulations from Brazil!
Just want to note, this isn't necessarily how the Vikings fought. After all, they didn't exactly write down how they fought in manuals unlike late medieval period stuff. This is just an educated guess based on how the weapons/armour/whatever perform.
Unless people started actually fighting to the death with these things we probably won't know for sure what the most effective way of using these weapons was.
+ every person would have a preferred method. There might have been a few schools of fighting but every person brings their own twist on it
Except that their shields are way too small, which makes a huge impact on fighting style.
Rebypox I think it may be because they have their chain mail on. I think the Vikings probably used such huge shields usually because they didn't have much in the war of armour. After all, they were farmers mainly, they just raided as a hobby for some extra loot. XD
Nope, Having a with a cntergrip, that's less than 1 meter in diamater is not very effective, A bigger shield is just better. I could go into a bunch of detail as to why, but I don't have the time.
Rebypox I wouldn't say so. After all, bucklers, which are significantly smaller than the shields shown here were used to great effect for personal defense.
God please someone get these guys to their local HEMA group.
HEMA is later medieval. These guys are doing early medieval / Viking Age - Eastern style (with full armor and hitting each other).
I had to do a presentation the last week about vikings and I used this video like a example , It worked a lot, thank you :)
I love how the fights between these guys would involve each of them dying five or six times before it was over.
+Egill Fairhair Not quite, the armor they were wearing would have deflected and outright negated most of those blows. The only way a slashing sword would break that mail would be at optimal distance and hitting with close to the tip of the blade. Generally speaking, killing blows dealt by swords were stabs. Bet you ass both would have likely been combat effective even after the points at which they stop.
I noticed the younger one take three guard strikes to the head and neck. Even with mail or a helm, that's gonna daze a fighter and leave a potentially fatal opening. Their strikes themselves aren't the kill shots, it's that they both take multiple hits that shouldn't really be taken the way they take them.
Egill Fairhair Oh don't get me wrong, there were plenty of killing blows. But there were also plenty that were simply not. And I also won't argue that I doubt the validity of their claims. And You're 100% correct that a good hit to the head will effectively nearly guaranteed a victory simply by way stunning. In other words, yeah lol I agree.
I went in skeptical to begin with, considering how little solid evidence we actually have regarding how Vikings fought. What's here seems like it could be accurate, but coming from HEMA and using mostly longswords, I can't help but feel like half of it seemed like they were just punching at each other.
Egill Fairhair That and honestly spears were much more common weapons for Norsemen, followed closely by axes. Cheap and effective. Swords for the Norse were more status symbols.
imagine dedicating your life to a complete farce..
Fascinating! I've always loved sword fighting! You guys rock! I look forward to seeing more of your videos! You just earned a new subscriber! :)
I didn't know this world had so many masters of arms in viking warfare and dueling fighting. I humbly salute the comment section of all these awesome experts correcting others.
I shall eagerly await all your videos on how to fight the correct way so you can show these how it's done... correctly..
That's not how you fight with a viking shield. They had no hand protection, no even on the sword itself. The shield is the main weapon, the sword is there only to exploit the openings your create with it. That's why it was not attached to the arm.
Why don't they fight like this in the movies? Not only would it be accurate but it looks even more brutal
,,It would be accurate", no it wouldn't. If you think movie tochniques are ANY good ( literally, ANY good ) in a real sword fight, you obviously never have been in such fight.
Mateusz Jesionkowski Read chirstian comment again please... he was saying IF they fight like that in the movies. he is not saying that curent movies swordfights are accurate, they would be accurate IF they fight like this in the movies...
My bad.
Lol Hollywood is fake..this is how the real sword fight is
The reason they don't fight in movies like that is simple.
This sort of combat does not look flashy. It looks, dirty and brutal and fairly straightforward
+Museum Secrets - you probably should watch some Roland Warzecha / Dimicator videos...
Fighting with melee weapons would be absolutely terrifying.
"This is how a real fight looks like, you don't know shit about it"
-People who don't know shit about it either
Yeah a real fight would be less of a blocking and attacking and more like tackling the guy and beating his face in
This is outdated fighting
@@mizzy8655 ?
@@mizzy8655 how does that make sense
@@mizzy8655 it’s like 1000 years old
They're just beating on each other with swords. Cuts like that aren't going to get through the mail, even with a sharp sword. Someone else said they look like they're just slapping each other and that's basically what they're doing. Lol.
You know, mostly blunt effect kills the opponents. Internal bleeding, broken ribs etc
@@BARONWODENRIC
Against mail, sure but that’s going to just injure them and not going to kill them during the actual battle. They’re still a threat and actually trying to exploit their armor’s weakness is a better idea
@@BARONWODENRIC The gambesons are there to reduce the blunt force trauma, an axe would better concentrate that force than normal swords such as these.
Interviewer: So what's so special about viking sword fighting?
Viking: We try to HIT the enemy.
Interviewer: ohhhhh *jots in notebook*
Seems like whether it’s empty hand fighting or weapons fighting, it’s always about presenting a constant threat while using footwork to get the right angle to gain the advantage in a split second and then to maintain that advantage til the opponent is incapacitated.
This is quite silly, they do not strike towards the hands or the head or the less protected parts of the arms because they don't actually want to hurt each other and then they think that putting your hand in front of the shield is a good idea because they have special rules that no real person ever would follow in a life or death fight.
Look at any sort of fighting with shield or buckler and the shield is used to protect your hand exposing it is just a very bad idea in almost all circumstances, they attack the most armoured parts of their opponent and people watching this think that this is how real combat work?? why strike the mail, he tells you to attack only the parts protected by mail and padding, this is not at all how to kill someone, you go around the opponents armour, you keep your hands safe with your shield
Those less protected parts would not be protected at all for most soldiers you'd face on the battlefield. These guys are wearing good armour for the time.
They still specifically tells you how to strike the most armored bits and to always keep your sword forward while showing the hand in front of the shield, they are of of course trying not to hurt eachother but are simply more gritty version of stage-fighters since they are very clearly taking (very sound and logical) steps to make sure no one is hurt. It is most likeley not the way the vikings faught however since they would have parcticed how to cut hands, arms and heads, wich are generally prime targets in any cut-centric fencing style.
I am guessing they have based their system partly on scottish backsword/broadsword and targe styles being one of the closest geographically to scandinavia. but since those are much later and use basket hilted swords keeping the sword always in front is a perfectly valid idea, but the viking era swords have quite poor hand protection, wich is not much of a problem as long as you have a shield and use it to protect your sword hand.
My point is if they fought as if their opponent might fuck their hands up even if they are not going to do it you will probobly get much closer to the style used at the time, they are gaming their own rules in order to fight as well as possible after the paramaters they have set out and they are good at it, but they follow their rules and parameters, not the historical ones.
And they don't THRUST. They have a sword for gods sake. Yes you can cut with a sword but they have chainmail on them and the most efficient way is to thrust. I know that they don't want to hurt each other but a gambason under that armor will solve the issue. And this is nothing like hema aswell. But there is the fact that a figt in a battle is much more different then a duel but whichever the case this is some shitty fighting.
@@kreynus5137
Agreed but they do have gambesons on, as seen in part 1.
Great explanations, then when it comes to the demonstration it just looks like a free for all & almost windmilling.
I can't imagine any combatant would want to fight this way in reality, as they get hit as much as they are hitting.
Winded in short order.
"So this is how the way to fight" with his matter-of-fact face gets me every time
Im no expert on sword and shield, but if he sticks his hand out in front of him like he ist doing at 1:05, he's going to loose his fingers. Viking swords had no pronounced cross guards because the used their shield properly and knew how to protect their hands...
Yes but it's also quite easy to pull your arm back and strike the striking hand of your enemy, it kinda works like bait.
More than likely most fights probably only lasted a few seconds before one of the combatants was hit and seriously injured.
also medieval and viking battles were often times heavily one sided. in close proximity and those large numbers all it took was one slip up in defense and it would turn into a massacre.
Not with armor and shields. Even less so in a battle where you'd have support of your comrades. Line of friends on the sides added much more to defense than a line of enemies on the other side added to danger. Casualties in the battle itself were generally low throughout the Medieval age - most people died when their ranks broke and they started fleeing (especially if enemies had lot's of cavalry or something impeded escape - than you could have whole armies wiped out).
Try wearing a reenactor's armor. Even with a sharp blade - you almost can't be cut (and the gaps are on the back or in extremely hard to reach places). Blunt force is caught by the padding - it won't make a difference until you really get pounded or it's a massive slam. You're only in imminent danger from heavy and spiked weapons designed for penetrating armor, but they've got pretty short reach. If you've got a shield and comrades on both sides with shields of their own - you're pretty damn hard to get rid of. Enemies have to pull this apart, get a lucky attack with a pole-arm at sb's eye, or wear your stamina down so that you will be unable to keep defending effectively.
This guy knows his shit, and even the areas where there were gaps, it was protected by heavy cloth (srs), chain-mail, and hard leather.
until that arrow got into that knee!!! xD
Those shields are really odd. They are too big to be bucklers and way too small to be contemporary viking shield. Findings of shields are around a hundred centimeters, the largest being 105 cm and smallest are around 80 cm. Quite naturally, the fighting techniques are thus much different from these small shields. Futhermore their use of maille is not precise, the ordinary warrior would not have the wealth for such equipment.
Contempt for hollywood fighting is fine, but this is not much better. Atleast if you aim for Viking period fighting.
Comments like this should be paid more attention to. Look people, look up lectures on Viking age fighting, rather than relying on guys that are essentially actors.
Mason Munts NorseWinter Agree to both of you.
These shields are very small, like bucklers. Viking shields where most commonly 70-90 cm in diameter. 80-84 cm being most commonly found. I can't depict how the vikings fought because the only surviving evidence remaining is their weapons and armor. The common warrior had only a shield for his defense. Spears, axes and seaxes being common weapons. Helmets and maille was used by the richest who could afford it. A maille hauberk could be as expensive as buying a good sports car in comparison with today.
So, I would not say this would be accurate of how they did fight. I practice a lot of HEMA and in unarmored combat one can not be as reckless as only bashing on your enemy to try and hurt him. It is easy to kill.... if you don't mind getting a fatal cut yourself in the process. A lot of technique is required and using the shield offensively can be a good defense as well as a way to injure an opponent.
I am sure there were different schools on fighting back then too. There never is one size or style fits all in war.
I once had someone tell me this:
"This is why heavy two handed axes and maces were rightfully feared. The weight brought down upon foes killed more than the edges (which blunted throughout fights anyway). A well aimed smack with those two-handed weapons could break bones, dislodge arms or crack skulls. Even when opponents blocked with their shields, the sheer power from gravity and leverage and weight distribution could be devastating."
Now I ask, is that true?
Ta :)
Alec Steele once forged a flanged mace, suitable for both one and two handed use depending on the wielder. He'd forged knives, daggers, swords, axes, arrowheads... But he said that just holding that item scared him, that it was the single most dangerous object he had ever created. He was hesitant to even hold it and move with it. I'd reckon it's true.
This is intense. I can't imagine how terrifying it must have been to be in a battlefield with 4 or 5 enemies constantly within "cutting distance" from myself.
I can imagine. The very few written accounts of battles from that time, suggest very few people every lived. You may have survived the battle, but you were usually badly hurt. You would soon die by infection, or blood loss.
Cyborgslayer404d This is incorrect. Causalities in early and late medieval period were fairly low. There are very few written accounts because most peoples were to a large extent illiterate.
Pandoras Apple This is the exact reason why the vast majority of battles in history were Sieges and not Open Field battles like Hollywood likes to focus on - fighting army against army was a high risk, low reward situation.
Cyborgslayer404d I also read that usually every battle ended up in a massacre to one of the sides
Pandoras Apple Vikings had shrooms and mead for the fear lol
And how would you fight in a line during the battle?In so called viking wall?
It always fascinated me how did the real battle look like.
Jam your straight blade into openings, or hook shields with your axe so another can attack the exposed targets.
How does this have so many upvotes? This definitely looks like hollywood fighting...
FINALLY men who know what real combat is like. I teach JKD and even without weapons we have to hold way back so as not to seriously injure our training partners. Also huge on Medieval, Viking and Eastern weapons. My line is Scot Highlander mixed with Norman. Much respect, Kelle and Gernot
Do some research on the Hebridean Norse-Gael Gallowglass Warriors who came pouring out of the western Scottish Highlands beginning in the mid 13th Century, with most seeking to serve as highly paid, super skilled, uber dependable, powerfully motivated & notoriously ferocious mercenaries over in Ireland, under various chieftains & lords (helping to stave off & beat back the once inexorably encroaching Anglo-Norman advance that had been usurping Gaelic sovereignty)! The Scottish (& eventually Irish) Gallowglass were the Western European Samurai of their era (1250-1600!), as professional, badass & die hard as they come!
2:42 No this is not the way how Wikings or any other warriors used to fight with a short sword and shield. They're just randomly slashing and bashing each other. Most warriors trained for hours and had lots of techniques. A shield wasn't there to absorb the slash of your opponent but more to engage and move in into your opponent. Skilled warriors could disarm their enemies with their shield.
No
Skyrim taught me to just swing my axe and sword randomly and tat no foe would survive this
This is how the way to fight.
Respect for the cameraman for going back in time to get this video
How come that those guys still have both eyes?
Ladies, My ancestors fought Naked Haha!.....Respect these guys can fight.....own your environment/field on which you fight, the Celts and Vikings mastered this.
jared Ó Súilleabháin My family are mainly English but a large part of our ancestory goes to Ireland. Respect from England mate
"So this is how the way to fight."
When that guy says it, I believe it.
Wow Respect I can't imagine how heavy is his Uniform....
Not much...
That's light, it's not armor, it's what they wear under the armor.
im no expert in viking combat techniques, but several masters told me if i want to see how NOT to fight, they showed me this vid, Lmao.
Yeah, shields are way too small, and they barely use them effectively. There's no real strategy or technique behind these two besides just running towards the other and swinging your sword at them. Plus they say it's a good idea to keep your sword out, but that's an invitation for someone to cut off your arm.
And with reason lol .This video is fucking bulshit.
War should be fought like this with our leaders upfront.
it must be hard for Vikings to kill each other because of their armour; chain mail are pretty much slash proof. Axes and spear would of done much of the killing but, I dout any blow would of been an instant death. if its me, I rather fight a battle where death was instant than slow and painful.
Because you're afraid of the pain? Vikings weren't when they were in their "rage mode" so it was good to get even a few seconds more to live so they could maybe kill or injure a few more people in those extra seconds or even minutes that the armor gave them, and then drift peacefully out of their bodies and into a new one.
pian yes, who aint? warrior in the old days or not every body is scared of pain or else you would of seen historical depiction of people walking on fire for fun. but death as a warrior i wouldn't be afraid, cus if I was a warrior, I would adopt philosophy of the Spartans or samurai n so on.
my point was; I rather fight the good fight without any amour than to fight a good fight with amour. pain is not really a question cus if you look forward to an honourable death then pain is necessary regardless of how it was delivered.. I would prefer a quick one rather than a slow one, bad thing about armour is even if your escape ur life with your life and the battle was won or lost, you will soon die from wound infections 1 or 2 months down the line, I rather die there n then..get me?
my point was I rather die instantly than slowly...lol. good point though.
if it was about survival; I would go in fully plated and so on...then we be talking.
ur right about chainmail not protecting you from pole arms, and arrows but axes is still slash weapon, regardless of power, yes u will high get knocked out and have ur limbs chopped off, but that's why they have shields....anyway all I said was chainmail is pretty much slash proof..not anything else so I don't know why u acted like u had ants down your pants..for no reason really.
He forgets about the head. Its a viable target and vikings often aimed for it.
But head was protected by very strong helmet, i think you would do something only with an axe. And it's easy to miss
nie mam Nah, a good thrust to the openings... Viking helmets were not at all good.. the neck was often exposed, the eyes, the mouth ,etc. They had the goggle helmets being the best protection for head gear they owned. Now, if we were talking Gothic Knights, the story is different.
Thesocraticbreed Yse but you can expose yourself if the enemy will dodge your hit. I guess it's a bad idea.
nie mam Assuming you have the same weapon set, the reality would be that you could simply keep your exposed side covered. Have you read Vegetius? The reason why stabbing worked for the Romans a lot was because they had shields to cover them. Although with chainmail, its more a stabbing game anyway for the most part in viking. Same thing that worked for the Romans would have easily worked for vikings.
The head was not as viable a target as it may seem to be. When you go for a head shot, you create a huge opening for your opponent. Chances are, you will not even hit their head, but you will be mortally wounded for trying.
Theres something relaxing about hearing metal and wood clash.
Those are some REALLY small shields for Viking/Scandinavian fighting.
The northern saxonian (todays north german) shields of the early 9.CT were this size, but yeah, for a reenactment of a viking fight they're a bit to small.
@@westphalenglocke9491 Not just a bit. A Viking shield was minimaly 70 centimeters in diamater, these look like 30 or 40.
No. I still don't buy that it was like that even back then. Especially considering here it is one on one I think the action would indeed be much slower and finesse because it is very much different using real swords here they are fake, you are not worried about mistakes but back then it was real and every single move counted one vs one so in my opinion it would not be as hack and slash as portrayed here, but actually more dramatic and intense and slow paced.
i'd imagine those who were used to battles wouldn't be that slow if they were practiced with their shields.
Most historians agree that most personal combats would've been over very quickly, a lot of the time resorting to wrestling each other to the ground etc.
Richard Bendall Ya I don't agree. I can think for myself thank you very much.
***** yep whatever you say..............
Its a very situational thing tbf. I fight between to fully plated up Knights may have taken an age to reach a conclusion. However throughout much of history you've had situations where well trained and well equipped warriors have been outnumbered by ill trained and ill equipped warriors. In those sorts of situations a fight might well be over really quickly i.e. a spear shot to an unprotected shoulder/face.
I love respect my ancestors and the culture. And my Saxon Celtic viking roots respect from England🏴
At 1:40, sword positioning, I've wondered how that would differ from I.33, sword and buckler of the middle ages. Sword styles had stayed the same, with the Type X blade dominating. Mail armor was the same, shield use had changed though. This fight manual seemed to focus on unarmored sword and buckler. Any ideas?
Only thing me and my dad did was actually fist fighting when he was drunk, good practice.
The armor is just about the only thing that is historically accurate in this video.
wtf did I just watch 😂 looked like kids hitting each other with pool noodles
+The Juggernaut I know lol they fight like untrained savages. I don;t think the vikings ever dueled. Also one of the guys could end the other with one swift move to the left or to the right and just point the stick at him. Boom dead.
+Havock exactly man.. lol this whole video is cringe worthy
+The Juggernaut At the time. Vikings had the most experience. But yeah, all at the time was shit at combat i gues......
+viktor reynisson lmfao
+The Juggernaut You guys watch too many hollywood movies this is how fighting is done just with more thrusts they didnt use in the video because it would be harmfull for them
I am no expert on fighting (so please correct me if i am wrong) but reaching with your hand beyond your shield should result in loss of a hand also you have a targe shield (not buckler) so it makes no sence to move it torwards your enemy (you can block all his blows by holding it higher/lower or moving it left/right) unless you want to push him or protect your hand (neighter of which were done).
I am sorry, but their fighting has no basis in historical fact or martial tradition.
- Their shields are too small.
-There is no technique at all.
-There are no shield binds.
- No active work with their shields.
- No blade binds (even though they were rare compared to shield binds).
- Their grips are wrong on their swords.
- Their swords lack historical gip lengths.
- "Our system is based on hitting the enemy". Every fighting system is based on and MORE IMPORTANTLY not get hit. They don't understand at all how to protect yourself.
- They are excluding the head as targets. Sure, that is a safety thing, but then you can't say that vikings fought that way. The head is the most important target.
- Lateral movement (when he talks about going in circles) is extremely important in any martial tradition. But if they were using historical shield sizes, it wouldn't work like that. That is why you need to use shield binds to manipulate the opponents shield so that you CAN attack him from the front. Lateral movement is used to change the center so that you have more leverage in a bind. You won't be able to take a step in a side direction and just strike around your opponents shield if you have any sort of semi-competent opponent.
- When they strike they PULL BACK their shields. This is nonsense. Viking era weapons lacked hand guards and crossguards because you used your shield to cover your striking hand.
They have valid criticisms against the hollywood style of fighting. But what they are proposing themselves instead is pure nonsense.
Yet they were some of the if not greatest fighters of the 750 to 1100 era
@@ragnarulfhediin6606 I think you vastly misunderstood my comment. I called the guys in the video bad fighters who do not fight like vikings did. Vikings had a very good and technical martial tradition.
@@huskarl768 yes indeed they did
@@huskarl768 my bad
Very historical shields..... Damn to small
kim lindblå well there have been some shield as small as 17 in. In diameter so idk but yeah I agree for the most part
0:18 He sounds so german lmao XD im german myself
Unless you have armor for your arms and hands which we don’t believe would have been common for Norse raiders this fighting style would be great for loosing fingers, also great for being disarmed when the tendons get severed in your fore arm. Also a shield gives more coverage when it’s held out more toward your opponent it closes an entire line to your head and torso.
I feel like many idiots who watched the part where they were hitting the shield took that as a demonstration. No, idiot, that was showing why a frontal attack wouldn't work..... That was not saying "this is how to do it"
The part AFTER that when he demonstrates how he approaches and tries to attack the weak points WAS saying" this is how you do it".
All these comments talking about how they were flailing the swords against the shields are making me facepalm. Did you even listen to the man's words?
This is like box or martial art, you have to move.
Did you travel back in time and learn how to fight like a Viking?
Yes.
You could just rediscover it.
Go by the same sort of equipment they used and start from there -- it really isn't out of the ordinary to achieve at the same set of moves when starting from similar initial conditions.
What this video tells me is that Vikings fought like spastic hamsters on meth instead of like the badasses the movies told me about.
:'(
Alejandro this video is bullshit though XD
Lmao they’re literally just are swinging the shield and sword at each other
Like you wouldn't do the same
@@IcchiNutz If you're smart you don't.
@@Ulfheodin what does intelligence have to do with it?
@@IcchiNutz Fighting like this is fucking stupid, anyone who tries to score a hit would find that dumb
Their kit is so cool. The fancy stuff is neat and all but this comes off as quite authentic.