Lie about swords.

i
 
Fictitious conquests of the Vikings?
Yes, I think that with this they want to blabber the artifacts of the Huns, such as Hungarian runic records in Scandinavia, Irish and so on. It is known that the Vikings were hucksters, but nothing is known about the fact that they had military affairs at any acceptable level, apart from the predatory raids on the peaceful Sami
 
After the Parthians destroyed the Roman army, they entered the Colosseum, fired at the nobility and issued coins "Parthian victory" in Rome. In fact, after that there was no separate Rome as an independent state. It was called Rome only for propaganda purposes, it was an appendage of Parthia at the time
Where did you come up with this bullshit? The Parthians never conquered Rome as their war was in the Middle East. I wondered why I never heard of it. It never happened.
 
Most likely this is the reason for the appearance of Mithraism in Rome, which they are trying to pass off as Christianity.
 
It was not just the defeat of Rome and the surrender of the army. It was annihilation.
 
Let's compare the descendants of the Vikings in northern Europe and the descendants of the Huns in southeastern Europe. Which of them is more like warriors?

6myzhskaia-odezhda-v-zhenskom-garderobe-chylki.jpg


i
 
Someone believes that these dystrophies and pot-bellies in stockings and wigs at least could participate in robberies of the civilian population?
 
"swords" of the legionnaires were the size of a knife for chopping cabbage in the kitchen, no more than 60 cm. These are not swords at all, just long daggers
Different sword for different uses. The gladius, which you're discussing above, was indeed almost exclusively used for stabbing. It was designed to stab around, under, and over the shield wall known as a phalanx. Plus they were bronze and didn't hold an edge for shit. A kanta, made from high quality steel was for cutting as well as stabbing, and an English broadsword was for cutting exclusively, basically an axe with a full length head. Material, culture, and fighting styles all contribute to how battles or duels are fought.
 
Different sword for different uses. The gladius, which you're discussing above, was indeed almost exclusively used for stabbing. It was designed to stab around, under, and over the shield wall known as a phalanx. Plus they were bronze and didn't hold an edge for shit. A kanta, made from high quality steel was for cutting as well as stabbing, and an English broadsword was for cutting exclusively, basically an axe with a full length head. Material, culture, and fighting styles all contribute to how battles or duels are fought.


English (not really, it's form is common throughout Europe) broadsword most assuredly used the tip as well.
 
Yes, I think that with this they want to blabber the artifacts of the Huns, such as Hungarian runic records in Scandinavia, Irish and so on. It is known that the Vikings were hucksters, but nothing is known about the fact that they had military affairs at any acceptable level, apart from the predatory raids on the peaceful Sami
Oh, shut up! Stop spreading lies.
 
This is true. I see no reason to believe that there were any other Vikings, except for worthless hucksters and robbers. No traces of such "Vikings" have been found


Wow, the ignorance is strong in you.
 
Let the idiots believe the yellow articles for the cattle, I only look at scientific and objective facts
 

Forum List

Back
Top