[Runequest] Shameful question.

[Peter Brink]

royce at efn.org skrev 2011-08-25 06:12:
> Hi, Guys,
>     I have a shameful confession.  I confess.  I've been watching trashy
> and shamefully sensationalist TV show called "Deadliest Warrior" on
> netflix.  I've watched several episodes, with hilarious matches such as
> ninja versus spartan hoplite and 17th century pirate versus 15th
> century knight.
>     I'm not interested in who would win, but rather how effective are the
> pre-gunpowder weapons.  The halberd looked great, by the way.
>     Anyways, my question is, would you happen to know if these
> demonstrations are realistic?
>     (If they are, then I will never question RQ3 location hit points again.)
>
>     Sincerely,
> Asher

Well for a start, the defensive value of shields are underestimated IMO. 
This site, 
http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/manufacturing/text/arms.htm , 
have a lot of info about Viking age weapons and tactics. Those who have 
experience in re-enactment can probably judge the value of their 
opinions better than me, but to me much of it seems plausible.

The problem is also that while east-asian societies have maintained 
their martial-arts we in the west have not. If one studies renaissance 
(and middle-age) fencing manuals one quickly realizes that kicks, 
punches and grappling manoeuvres where an integrated part of the weapons 
skills of the days. The shield can also be used in many more ways than 
to just deflect a blow.

Since the eastern arts and western traditions are different it will not 
come down to what style is, generally speaking, most efficient but 
rather to the individual warriors ability to deal with the unknown. How 
will the fighter handle new and foreign ways of using weapons, of 
combining weapons, shields, punches, kicks and grapple manoeuvres? That, 
and not the style, weapons or armour, will be the decisive factor.

/Peter