Gritty it is, even cringeworthy... as far as accuracy is involved, far from it! Just do some research on HEMA armoured combat and you'll see the difference. Duels took a few seconds not minutes!

"The King" is not accurate because it does not have the pomp, trumpets, shiny gilded display, and colourful banners and shields that would be on a medieval battlefield. I like grit, but I also hate blandness

@@tatumergo3931 well, there`s a lot of difference between HEMA and armoured combat. I do both, and I can tell that the scene in "King" is definitely made by professionals! This is pretty much how you would have to fight, if your opponent can be only damaged through gaps. In HEMA you can hit your opponent everywhere, in armour - to gaps only, and this difference actually changes a lot.

​@@CrazyCriceto . Oh no the term for HEMA is starting to refer to the sport part of it...."FFFUUUGGG"! Yeezus Holy Christ, when the term HEMA used to refer to everything and anything related to Historical European Martial Arts, and now it has become just another one more sport... What's wrong with you people? If it's not obvious already, obviously if in armour you will not be able to strike at any area and expect to get the same results. That's the purpose of wearing armour in the first place! Even more so, you will have to use half sword method to be able to hit intended targets. The swordsmanship ofcourse is all different, and grappling will play a major part in it!.... This I know very well. P. S. Anyways the whole point of my argument is, that the fight is over dramatized. Even if in armour, the fight can end quickly, all that needs to happen is one quick thrust into one of the gaps and fight is over. At worst you get grappled and thrown on your head. One thing is fighting in armour in friendly sparring, and quite another is using sharps and against someone who did high school or college wrestling. And was really good at it also!

@@tatumergo3931 ok, now I understand your point. I think you`re right! The movie either made this combat so long to over dramatize it, or to show the inexpertise of both young fighters. Or maybe both.

Honestly, I can see why they did it as a showrunning team. Its hard to make someone look *so* good at swordfighting with only one sword, against so many people. Getting him to use two swords and twirl them all about the place while he spins around is the best way to make a casual viewer (which was 90% of GOT show's audience) go "Woah he's the best swordsman". Personally, the fact that on multiple occasions they made all 6? dudes attack at the same time and he just parried them all is good enough for me, even if they shouldve just surrounded him and whacked him in the back whilst someone locked up his swords

It’s Dayne lmao, not Dane

@@bigguy9500unfortunately a greatsword is a extremely good counter to being surrounded as if you strike in a circle while advancing your effectively creating a deadzone arround you as if someone gets to close they will suffer a strike from it whoch can effectively allow you to force opponents into simgle engagements, and unfortunately dual wielding is horrible for facing of against multiple opponents its very unlikely that dayne has both his arms as dominant arms he would not be parrying any attacks with his non dominant arm as his opponents would be able to just knock out the blade from that hand or strike with far greater force making the attempted parry usless, there was also a vid with people testing out how effective a greatsword is against multiple opponents and they realized that for that you want to be extremely aggressive as even if your opponent is armored your still wielding a greatsword you wont be cutting threw the armor but the force of such a streak would hurt a lot it wouldn’t kill the enemy, but since daynes sword is dawn it would have been even more effective as its essentially the ultimate counter to getting surrounded its on par with valyrian steel and since its a greatsword he can literally advance at them with overhead strikes that go around him so if anyone is dumb enough to get to close they suffer a possible fatal injury or downright decapitation

yeah, from the point of view of fencing, this scene sucks. From cinematografic point of view though it`s cool. Especially in the eyes of an unprepared viewer, as someone already stated above.

​@@CrazyCricetohis name means alot as well. Everyone knows him to be the greatest swordsman so they are more wary and scared and suffer from a team up point of view. I would of preferred him using a great sword tbh as the extended reAch would have come into play.

Ayyeee someone noticed!

Noted for part 2!

Noted!

Best movie ever

Noted for part 2!

Fr

Not medieval

@@nellyprice the epitomy of Medieval, what are you talking about? vikings are 300 years inside Middle Ages!

Surely vikings dark ages? Got me a googling’ now…..

⁠@@nellypricethe “dark”/medieval/middle age was 470’s-1400’s. The Viking age is generally considered 793-1066. So yeah well within the medieval era. Ironically depending on which particular date chosen for the end of the Middle Ages, The King could actually fall outside of it, despite it being the most traditionally medieval one of the bunch, with Hotspurs death being in 1403 and Agincourt being in 1415

@@brendan9868 yeah googled it after and had a well I never moment - I'd thought dark ages 400-900 ad , medieval 1000- 1400, renaissance 1500- . So I stand corrected Vikings classed as medieval which also called dark ages. Not liking it though 😁

Noted for part 2!

​@@HistoFactory He's referencing the first fight from The King I think 👀

Only part 1, I will make another one considering that!

The last one's pretty inaccurate the dual welder is using 2 two handed swords rather than 2 one handed swords. The difference is a two handed sword will move in your hand decreasing power making it easier to pairy and difficult to swing with any power

​@@HistoFactoryThere was this tournament in Netflix Letters for the King. Can you add that at some point. It was awesome, and I can't find the video.

​@@fredfry5100 thanks I will definitely look it up!

@@HistoFactory 👍

Noted!

nah, sword is very useful against armor! But in this case you have to cease swinging. What you have to do is halfswording (gripping your sword on both handle and blade) and stabbing your opponent to his gaps. Swords are very good for it. I do historical fencing, and we study how it works. A warhammer would be great too, since it can break armor. But an axe... unlikely, I`m afraid. It doesn`t seem like an axe can cut effectively through iron. Although this I don`t know for sure.

I reccomend you a youtube channel called Dequitem. This guy talks very well about armored combat, and shows it even better! And he keep trying different weapons.

@@CrazyCriceto axe doesn’t cut all the way through. However it does make a sizeable dent that can break bones consistently. May not be as effective as the mace but it gives you more defensive options like catching your opponents weapon on the hook of the axe and forcing it out of there hand. And a two handed over head strike from an axe will indeed chop through that armor. Maybe consistently but far more effective than a sword.

Yeah but swords are cooler

It's medieval duels not ancient duels they're from a different time period

You wear armor and you become immortal, right?

@@Aegon18 . Have you ever seen anyone die from been shot at while wearing a bulletproof vest?

@@Aegon18 . If armour doesn't protect you, why wear it?