Thats why I always keep a bag of popcorn in my backpack

I Was Just Thinkin That😂

last year I saw two guys fighting/training like these while I was jogging.First I was a bit worried but then tought let them have their fun...harmless people

"Stop pulling each others hair"

*Pulls out blade* Finally, my time has come

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!!!

Insult mom's casserole!? I've got five sons, you're out.

Nice name bro

Hunter N broooooo

The Human Spider that explains my father (he’s long gone thank the gods)

"Their methods are as true to life as possible." *father chucks an axe into sons back*

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: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/pN2pacueqrW3o4E.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. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/pbefaqmb3dCsg5s.html Here is Roland Warzecha explaining the role of the shield in Norse combat. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/h9eSrLWft7Gsc4E.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.

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...

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.

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

it's such a overrated piece of Todd.

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

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.

😂

OUch my pride of knight =D

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

+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.

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

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?

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 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...

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)

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.

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 KZfaq 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 KZfaq 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 ;)

Reminds me of my first few hours playing kingdom come

Usually, the simplest maneuvers are the most effective.

+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

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

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... kzfaq.info/get/bejne/gKx7h62p36rZdpc.html

+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.

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.

I was right the whole time

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.

HEMA is later medieval. These guys are doing early medieval / Viking Age - Eastern style (with full armor and hitting each other).

,,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

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.

Winded in short order.

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.

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.

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

+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.

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.

+ 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.

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.

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.

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

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.