Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You may be conflating a long sword with a broad sword.
You seem to be the expert on lies.It's a lie
While idiots talk about their understanding of weapons, adequate people see clear signs of a piercing weapon: a straight blade and a groove (bloodstream) are common. The only difference is in width. the width is most likely due to the poor quality of the metell in the first samplesNope. The broadsword has a point, and it is very effective. Long sword is a D&D term for the most part. The hand and a half, or bastard sword is a long broadsword, and then you get to the two handed sword, called by many names.
Broadswords too had many names depending on who made them. The number of fullers would change, but the overall shape and dimensions were the same.
While idiots talk about their understanding of weapons, adequate people see clear signs of a piercing weapon: a straight blade and a groove (bloodstream) are common. The only difference is in width. the width is most likely due to the poor quality of the metell in the first samples
Let the idiots believe the yellow articles for the cattle, I only look at scientific and objective facts
While idiots talk about their understanding of weapons, adequate people see clear signs of a piercing weapon: a straight blade and a groove (bloodstream) are common. The only difference is in width. the width is most likely due to the poor quality of the metell in the first samples
It is called bloodstream in another way lol
I have never heard before that they tell tales about saving metal and other nonsense, this is the latest fashion. Handmade knife makers called it bloodstocks.Yeah IGNORANT people call them that.
Because they are ignorant.
Although the Romans won from time to time, no one considered them to be real warriors. They were just slaves, trained to walk in formation under shields. They were able to defeat only the West of Europe. In the area of Sormatia they were powerless against cavalry. Rome did not expand eastward. Expeditions in Asia also collapsed.
Now I see your problem. You have read too many fantasy novels. The Roman Legonaire WAS a soldier, soldiers will beat warriors every time. Warriors fight for individual glory, soldiers fight for their nation or a cause. Warriors fight single person fights, soldiers fight organized battles. The Romans were far from slaves, Legions were made up of free Roman citizens throughout the glory days of the a Republic and Empire, only at the end were Roman citizens too proud to serve and that was the downfall of Rome. Rome thrived because Romans were great adapters, they adapted ideas and equipment from their enemies and usually improved them.Although the Romans won from time to time, no one considered them to be real warriors. They were just slaves, trained to walk in formation under shields. They were able to defeat only the West of Europe. In the area of Sormatia they were powerless against cavalry. Rome did not expand eastward. Expeditions in Asia also collapsed.
You really need to read some history. The Romans had their own cavalry, the auxiliaries they hired were light cavalry and horse archers to supplement the Legion’s organic cavalry.There was no cavalry. They hired federates for this
He’s never heard of Constantinople.What the fuck are you blabbering about. The history of the Eastern Roman Empire is well known, as is the further history as the Byzantine Empire.
I have heard about the Bulgar imperators and payments to the Huns.He’s never heard of Constantinople.
Most likely the word Viking originally meant the same as the Count and Viscount. All three words have the same meaning co-ruler. That is, it is the co-ruler of the king vi-king. exactly the same meaning had the word kagan - co-ruler of the khan.
