yarbelk

Some of those weapons were designed to put 6 inches of steal through your skull. (Cappoferro). Nakedness optional. video of practice https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPc41wIZPLg You should watch Guy (person in black) sparing, dispassionate and precise even when using sharps Though for more understandable instruction (if you're going to read it - cappoferro is badly organized), look at fiore dei liberi A bunch of people have intonate that swords are clumsy and tiring to use, ineffective and will get you killed. They are if you're doing it wrong. but then so i swimming - if you don't know how. If you look at historical battles with 'primitive' weapons - they went on for hours - hours of constant parry, stabbing slashing, bashing, breaking of arms, stomping. The fighting systems that came into existence around these are predicated on that you will be doing it for a Long Time and if you get too tiered - you Die. probably painfully. If you can do any of these fighting styles - you have a Huge advantage when it comes to killing things with melee weapons. Especially if you use the melee weapons of choice -> Pollaxe, Billhook, glaive &c. swords are a sidearm. and hard to make. Pollaxe -> 3 spikes and a hammer head on a length of wood. The problem is that most of this knowledge is that it is only really contained in books. And if you're trying to learn from a book, and you botch it. you Die. means those first few steps are a bit more important than, say, learning how to build box from a book. Any way. I cant see how using a machete (designed for trees) would be better than using a back-sword (designed for bodies - I believe some of the US armed forces still use this sword as a dress sword) could ever be considered a better tool for dismembering bodies. Seriously, if I want to kill lots of people with melee weapons, I'd go to the guys who did it for a living, and do what I could to use their skills and equipment. Argument: they were made for hurting people a bit and making them run away. Not really, they were made for spilling their guts all over the floor. breaking there arms in 3 places then stomping on their skull. So just adapt a bit. Skip the guts part and go straight for the skull. As for shields, I can understand the arguments about them being tiring. But how is it worse to have a zombie clawing or pulling on your shield when the alternate is to have a zombie clawing and pulling on your arm/face/chest/clothes? (Also, you could use a buckler... Metal dish with a handle you old. good for punching, or interposing between your face and rotting teeth.) Full disclosure - I do Cappoferro and Fiore - so I am moderately partial to them as a means of bodily harm.

Well, I can think of at least 2 weapon's off the top of my head that are very good blunt weapons, and one handed: Mace and the Horseman's Pick (warhammer with long stabby back). Arguably, the horseman's pick is both a bashing and a stabbing weapon. these would both be silly to use two handed - they are designed as force multipliers.