Scribble Hub Forum

Wasn't there a comment of you here?

Not that I remember, I don't even understand what you have said.

Something like I am not sure this applies here, but I don't remember who it was.

@Assurbanipal_II I did. Logic doesn’t really apply, but I didn’t feel like interacting with anyone a bit after I posted it

How so? Presumed lethality always applies as logic.

Well, taking your first post at face value, if EVERY sword fight ended in 20 seconds, there would still have been sword fighters aplenty. The poster of the thread you saw was obviously exaggerating and generalizing. 20 seconds is still a pretty good estimate for unarmored combat between two equally skilled opponents, though. And armored combat still tended to end extremely quickly.

Yes, and every sniper claims every of their bullet hits. Come on, 20 seconds is complete and utter bs. That is why this saying.

It is mostly BS if the people are armored. Is that what you meant?

Sure. That is why entire battles ended in two hours with everyone dead, right?

Armored battles or special duels, maybe. Besides, we are talking about individual sword fights, one on one, maybe two on two, right? Could you give me examples of the battles you are referring to?

It was an ironic take. There are none. People survived mostly, even on the losing side. Those who were less lucky got injured. And an even smaller percentage actually died. So historically speaking, this idea of quick paced battle is utter nonsense. It took hours for even a few thousand to vanish when in theory apparently we should see them vanishing in minutes.

Sorry, irony doesn’t compute for me when speaking with people who don't speak English as their main language . I consider their words more directly since it isn’t mine either. I do not see why quick paced battle is nonsense between people that want to genuinely kill or disable each other. How long would a sword fight last in your opinion then? Between two armored and unarmored people.