Talk:Galatine Prime/@comment-24040624-20160801154953/@comment-76.174.238.253-20160825025246

Yo. Yo. Yo.

You're being an idiot.

First, Mael said nothing about it -needing- to be dull to strike armor, he gave examples of weapons that -were-, sure, but didn't say that they had to be. He even said they needed weight(heft) to deliver shock, not that they needed to be dull. He even later stated that a vast majority of swords were very sharp, even longswords and the like of what everyone was talking about.

@Apoc, you kinda missed the proof of the standard Scottish and Irish claymore and greatsword did have double handle width blades at the -base- at -least-. The first pic showed that, and is historically accurate and you posting a bunch of german and english two-handers doesn't help your case. @Idaeus III - Your pick kinda debunked your own argument, look pixel-for-pixel at the last two swords on there. Both have blades that may not look thick in width, but are both near double the width of the handle. And 'murderstrokes', as their name suggests, were suposed to be used to strike the head/helm to cause significant trauma to either fully disorient enough for a killing blow or kill outright. The technique was not made to deal with armor as a general purpose function.

GG, #youredoingitwrong.