Backplates and Back Defense Development

[@knechtor5648]

I know it's not funny but i had to laugh when you said "welcome back" after you said you're talking about backplates like it was some kind of pun.

[@Player_Review]

I actually go to events completely nude and _only_ wearing a backplate. I don't think any soldier historically armored themselves that way, but I enjoy being unique and it makes for a great conversation starter.

[@TheBittersweetFox]

Does it?

[@hawkeye2816]

All these gentlemen in funny blue suits keep asking oddly personal questions.

[@extrasmack]

Interesting observations. Very logical line of reasoning. This type of well documented content is why we sub. Thank you Ian

[@13aceofspades13]

I have learned a ton from watching your videos, thank you for sharing your knowledge.

[@KnyghtErrant]

You're very welcome. I'm glad you're enjoying the videos!

[@calebcothron3556]

"they're not gonna do a loop-de-loop and hit you in the back", but what about the patriot arrow?

[@MALICEM12]

perfect

[@KnyghtErrant]

Gotta watch out for those.... ;)

[@Dhomazhir]

Or the Cursed Backbiting Spear!

[@jancello]

Since it fits perfectly into your time period (but not the geographical area), could you make a video were you interpret and discuss the armour presented in Fiore de'i Liberi manuscripts ?

[@fisadev]

this would be awesome

[@muskyelondragon]

I commend you on an in depth and thoughtful analysis of the subject. I learned a lot.

[@KnyghtErrant]

Thank you! I'm glad that you're enjoying the content.

[@godofimagination]

Why would a knight or man at arms prefer a breastplate over a corrazinna that protects the back? Which one was more common for your time period?

[@KnyghtErrant]

As the 14th century came to a close and moved into the 15th century, the uncovered plate breastplate, and ultimately the plate cuirass would very much overtake the corrazzina as the 'standard' torso protection of the knightly class. It's a lot more streamlined, easier to maintain, and in many cases it's probably considerably lighter because it doesn't rely on all of the small overlaps of steel like a corrazina or brigandine needs to be functional.

[@carlpolen7437]

Is there a difference in mobility, i.e. maille only back like you have, vs. hinged or solid?

[@KnyghtErrant]

If the backplate is made with respect to the way the body moves, and is fitted to the wearer, it should still permit similar mobility. If you stick with me for a while, I will be able to experiment with this very thing in the future, as I will have access to both and plan to show the differences.

[@wienersnitzel7866]

Could u do a video on footmen and peasant armors?

[@FeHearts]

The Winged Hussars had a small metal disk on their back over a thick coat and an animal skin cape to protect their back.

[@grailknight6794]

Polish Hussars are awesome!

[@Overdrawn_]

By the way polish hussars never wore wings in combat. That addicion is for parades only.

[@grailknight6794]

+Overdrawn really? i didnt knew that thnx!

[@Kittenmarines]

It's not in the time period you've been generally concerned with, but could you pretty please do a sallet/gothic armor video? Also, as I've been starting metalworking I've had trouble finding information that is historically accurate on my own, although your videos really helped me understand how the full kit works. Could you possibly make a video where you talk about how one should approach that kind of research?

[@jamesbruce1975]

This lag between the solid breast and back plate may also have something to do with economics. As Ian said the tactical priority is to armour the front and considering the technique for doing so was relatively refined when we see it becoming the new standard of defence, it would be accurate to assume the costs of manufacture would be reduced. Econ 101. But in the case of the back plate it might not be so much a case of lack in knowledge but possibly the sheer cost involved. Thinner plate with more intricate design and tailoring all incur a cost. Perhaps it was just a case of costing three times as much to armour the back rather than the front in solid plate forcing individuals to favour solid breast plates and a combined back plate harness until the process can be refined enough to reduce the cost to a more manageable level. We see the laws of economics lording over so many aspects of daily life and history alike yet it is often not considered. Just a thought :)

[@KnyghtErrant]

Good point, and certainly a possibility that would not surprise me. I wish I had access to more inventories and purchase records but I've never seen any with early backplates to compare against breastplates. Oh how I wish they had digital record keeping :)

[@catsinsummer]

your armor stuff is so interesting! i'm learning a lot. i was surprised this one wasn't in your medieval armor playlist, though. it seems thematically relevant.

[@KnyghtErrant]

Whoops, if it's not in the playlist it's because I forgot to put it there. I never use playlists myself so I always forget to organize my videos into them.

[@Rasgonras]

How did they made sure that the belt buckles for backplates weren't cut in battle? Or was that so unlikely that they usually needn't worry about that?

[@Mtonazzi]

Swords and the like ain't cutting buckles nor the leather straps. Perhaps an axe or a polearm, but with such impact, the broken buckle or strap are the least of your problems.

[@Dominator046]

I believe it was encouraged to do this, actually, as a method of damaging the armor to expose the person inside of it. I believe Matt Easton (Scholagladiatoria channel) brought this up. However, I believe we see in some of his highlight videos on helmets how they did this. With metal going over hinges, and with the attachment points being integral to the piece of armor itself. Now, for the back, it's hard to get a good cutting blow to go accurately across a narrow surface area in that kind of way. Hell, in the SCA, raw blunt force 'wrap shots' are typically seen as hard to land, and often strenuous on the wrist. Not to mention, any time you spend trying to damage an opponent's armor, they can spend damaging your face. I think it was a strategy that might've been employed at times, but most often it was a situation you didn't have to be immediately concerned about.

[@hathiphnath]

You always have more than one. It's highly unlikely that all of them fail at once. Plus you aren't giving back to your enemy. If they're at your rear, nobody will bother cutting your straps... they'll thrust you to the back of knee or in the ass, as those areas are relatively unprotected. As for the guy who claimed that swords don't cut through leather straps, that is fundamentally incorrect. Even blunt swords can cut through a leather strap if you get the angle right, especially on a plate backing.

[@KnyghtErrant]

Getting your buckles and straps cut is definitely a secondary concern. In this case they're right in the center of your back, so they're not exposed to the enemy. If they are, then you're surrounded or routed, and you've got bigger problems to worry about. You'll notice on the limbs, most of the straps are on the inside of the limb, closest to the body, again making them less vulnerable. In general, if your opponent is able to focus on small targets, he'll select things like the places only protected by mail (groin, armpits, inside of the elbow etc..).

[@PJDAltamirus0425]

Yeah, and the thing Matt mentioned was when you are wrestling and got your opponent pinned to the ground, not two opponents standing up.

[@TheOhgodineedaname]

I got two questions regarding gambesons actually. 1: Did they get shorter over time? I've seen 14th century illustrations that show full-sleeved gambesons that reach to the knees while some 15th century reproductions barely reach the groin. Did gambesons follow civilian fashion despite covering a smaller area or are the modern reproductions incorrect. 2: I've seen quite a few 15th century illustrations of common infantry wearing a helmet and solid metal breast- and backplate but no discernible arm protection, wouldn't this be a downgrade from a fully sleeved gambeson? Couldn't they wear a sleeved gambeson under the breastplate?

[@KnyghtErrant]

1. Assuming you're referring to the garment used *under* another primary defense, fashion is always a factor, but I think it's more that they followed the trends in torso armor. The long gambesons reaching to the knees are great for a hauberk of mail that does the same. As the haubergeon was adopted with early coats of plates, the arming cote can shrink proportionally and so forth as you get to the plate cuirass. 2. Can you be more specific on what you're seeing them wear on their arms (or point me toward an example)? A munitions cuirass over some sort of stout textile would make sense to me.

[@KnyghtErrant]

The second and third images from Froissart are likely showing quilted jupons worn *over* solid breastplates, like the surviving Charles VI garment (it's fitted for a boy, but it's the same type of garment, note the rust stains on the interior s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/41/3b/14/413b14d11fb3c518fdd2c82884de7d83.jpg). Late 14th century and some early 15th century French images are loaded with over armor quilted jupons. I don't have a good answer for breastplates with no discernible quilted protection other than they were issued munitions cuirasses and by their commander and that was that...

[@vmfjru47]

Can you do a video on sword maintenance? How it was done historically and how best to do it with your own collection?

[@shrekas2966]

im waiting for your videos like game of thrones episodes.

[@hanssmirnov9946]

Interestingly, thing like volleys of arrows and throwing axes were popular because no one was sure where they'd hit. An arrow could glance off someone's helmet and stab you in the heel, or back, or whatever, if you were unlucky. The axes bounced about with similar unpredictability. Of course, they will not hit with great force like this. This doesn't contradict what you say, but is just an interesting bit on the subject. I would not invest very heavily in back protection, some is enough.

[@KnyghtErrant]

It's a probability game. What are the odds an arrow is going to take a wild glance, hit you in the back and still have enough energy to penetrate mail *and* several layers of textile padding to deliver a significant injury to the individual?

[@hanssmirnov9946]

Knyght Errant Considering the number of soldiers in the world wars who never had to fire a shot or saw anyone shoot at them... not very high.

[@gussie88bunny]

A question about plate thickness. I understand the different areas of the harness are often quite different thicknesses. In the late 14th-early 15th century period, how thick were the central front, front but to the sides, front faulds, etc compared to the back plates?

[@KnyghtErrant]

Plate armors, especially things like helmets and breastplates, tend to display differential thickness. So the center of the breastplate would be considerably thicker than the outer edges of the breastplate. I will try to quantify this concept in a future video with some actual historical data.

[@gussie88bunny]

+Knyght Errant Well that sounds complicated, thicknesses varying throughout each plate. Doesn't sound like something we modern rolled steel folks could readily replicate. Groovy knowledge Sir, I look forward to it, thanks.

[@KnyghtErrant]

Yeah, it's a lot easier to do when you hammer the plate out from a bloom originally, because you get to control the thickness during the manufacturing process. Modern reproductions get some varied thickness during raising, dishing etc... but when you start from a perfectly uniform sheet, it's not quite the same :)

[@lalbus1607]

I have a doubt. Why did in the early 15th century the covered single piece breastplate became progressively less popular? And thanks for your videos, you are indeed a scholar with very serious content.

[@BlueNades1]

I guess because it would have made moving your hips from side to side harder. In fact, starting from the 15th century breastplates were divided in two sections to make movement easier, this of course also added another layer of protection

[@faenrir11]

How likely do you think it is to loose armour parts due to straps being cut? It's something I've wondered about for awhile and noone seems to touch on the subject when discussing armour. Also, why choose 14th century for your harness? Aesthetics, historical context, cost of manufacture as opposed to later, more sophisticated styles?

[@KnyghtErrant]

Most armor has a number of straps, so if a strap is incidentally cut, the armor should stay in place pretty well. Most straps aren't totally exposed either. If your enemy has the center of your back for instance, it means you're surrounded or your formation has been routed, both of which put you in a position where your straps are the least of your concern. I don't think they present a juicy enough target to an opponent compared to the more traditional targets on an armored opponent like the throat, armpits, groin etc... The transitional armor of the late 14th and early 15th century have always been my favorite. I think there's a lot of interesting and unique armors to come out of the period because there was so much innovation and experimentation going on. I like it from an aesthetic point of view, but I also love the historical backdrop of the Hundred Years War and the other events going on throughout the decades surrounding the turn of the 14th / 15th century. The late 15th century is a close second for me, but my first love will always be the tail end of the 14th into the beginning of the 15th.

[@faenrir11]

thank you for the detailed reply!

[@JETWTF]

Question to be considered is, was the backplate needed or was it a "keeping up with the jones'" type of thing? I really do not see it being required, if your enemy is already behind you then no amount of protection is going to save you. textile under mail should be plenty.

[@ennisanderson2719]

I've read that originally, the use of the backplate was considered cowardly. They thought that the front was all that was necessary. If you got a back wound it was considered you got it running away. What do you guys think ?

[@fisadev]

I wouldn't say it's real without any historical source. Specially since in modern times we tend to exaggerate that honour mindset over the practical one, which in reality was way more applied to fighting. I'm not telling it's impossible that someone somewhere had that idea, it probably happened, but I wouldn't think it was the mainstream reason without evidence to back it.

[@duchessskye4072]

No, that is not the case. In fact, running away was not cowardly at all. Routing is most often the cause of defeat for an army, and it's actually a good tactical thing too sometimes. Imagine this - two armies clash. One is slowly getting the advantage. Now the smaller army can stay (which considering human nature is very very hard to imagine) and get massacred, or they could run away and fight them later when they were in a better position. Running away in battle is not shameful, especially if you'd end up losing anyway. You'd just die for nothing.

[@stoker1931jane]

Running away before a battle had even started, or had clearly started to tip into one side winning, was considered: "cowardly". If no command; "to retreat" was given yet. During The Wars of the Roses both armies had "Prickers" (special rear-guard soldiers/watchmen) who would force fleeing soldiers back unto the battlefields. ✌🏻

[@Attilargh]

I've understood that great bascinets were sometimes attached to the body armour. Was this done before solid back plates became a thing?

[@KnyghtErrant]

We see back straps even on regular bascinets sometimes attached to the back of corrazzina or coat of plates.

[@Attilargh]

+Knyght Errant Oh, that is interesting to know, thanks!

[@SpikeyNorman47]

From your experience, does armored combat involve alot of strength and grappling? Im a smaller guy and I'm just wondering how important size is in armored combat.

[@KnyghtErrant]

I would say it depends on the type of combat. For instance, single combat in a Judicial Duel or Deed of Arms type setting can and does involve grappling in armor. Strength and size can give you a distinct advantage, but so does proper technique and structure. A person who may be weaker than another, but has good structure and understanding of the art, can leverage more strength where it counts (as it would in throwing or disabling your opponent). That is an oversimplification and doesn't account for the very strong *and* very skilled opponent. Also, it is not to say that size and strength are unimportant, nor is it to say that skill and strength are somehow diametrically opposed or mutually exclusive; One should strive for both. Now in an actual warfare setting, where you are in a formation of similarly equipped men-at-arms and fighting in a line, the pure individual strength advantage you see in 1 on 1 combat may be somewhat lessened by the nature of the fighting.

[@SpikeyNorman47]

Thanks for the reply! I mean to say perhaps size as in tall or short. I'm a relatively short guy and almost everyone is taller than me(I'm 5'8, 160-65 lbs). I know you can always build strength but when it comes to the reach and leverage advantage taller people have I just wonder if being smaller just makes you inherently worse or that there's a way to deal with taller/bigger opponents in armor.

[@KnyghtErrant]

All other things being equal, the taller person will always have an empirical advantage by virtue of having longer reach, and a taller person can always put more mass on their frame than a shorter person. The shorter opponent needs to make up for it in different ways though. When it comes to grappling, sometimes a lower center of gravity can be an advantage over a taller opponent, especially in armor when your CG shifts up because of the weight of the components. There are so many different variables at play, that being shorter never makes you a non-viable fighter or incapable of beating bigger opponents, but I'm not going to tell you that being big and tall doesn't come with certain advantages.

[@SpikeyNorman47]

+Knyght Errant ok I see what you're saying. Thanks for clearing that up for me! No one I ask ever seems to have an answer :p I figured you'd be the best on armored fighting anyway. Thanks again! Love your videos!

[@brendandor]

Could the three plate back plate have sliding rivets to increase mobility?

[@thomasbevis4078]

Could you talk about plackards?

[@CarnisChampion]

hello, I am looking in to making a swedish crossbowmen outfit. so far it has been hard to find any info on how they actually where outfitted, do you have any pointers or suggestions?

[@docjjp]

What's the most complex / protective armor that an individual man-at-arms of the 14th/15th century could put on without assistance? It seems like just about all plate armor requires more than one person to dress.

[@KnyghtErrant]

Most of the lower body stuff can be put on by yourself. With my personal armor, everything from the waist down requires no assistance. The mail shirt can be done by yourself as well. In many cases, the arms, depending on where they are pointed, will require help. If the shoulder armor, spaulders or pauldrons depending, will usually require assistance. The breastplate and backplate will almost always require help for proper placement and fit. Some people have some creative ways of trying to get in their armor without help, but it usually takes a lot longer, is impractical, and will never get everything exactly where you want it. It was never designed to be done by oneself.

[@conncork]

Just one small thing, why don't you have a late 14 cent hairstyle like Black prince Edward 111 etc.

[@KnyghtErrant]

The facial hair I can do... the hair on my head will never be straight enough for the page boy bowl cut :)

[@thor97470]

Great vid

[@secutorprimus]

Since this video is talking all about back protection in the 14th and early 15th century, why do you still not wear a backplate? Is there any sort of advantage to not wearing one? Or is it just more comfortable?

[@KnyghtErrant]

My living history group does scenarios in the 1380s as well as the early 15th century. So when we're in 1380s mode, since I've elected to wear an uncovered breastplate, it's much easier to document them being worn just over a shirt of mail. We like to show variety in our group's presentation and our group's knight already wears a full pair of plates (the black covered cuirass I show in the Coat of Plates pt 2 video). I am having a more dedicated early 15th century cuirass made for the future, but I will retain my current breastplate for earlier scenarios.

[@hanssmirnov9946]

Have you made any videos on weight distribution of front and back armour? Some people have gone so far to claim you cannot have breastplate and no back plate, or that your back armour has to be as heavy as your front armour, or else your armour is too unwieldy to wear.

[@KnyghtErrant]

The armor is far too light to have to worry about 'balancing' it in the back. The weight isn't hanging off the front anyway, it's distributed around the circumference of the waist via the strap, so it doesn't make you front heavy. It's also close enough to the body that there's no lever-arm to make it feel front heavy. If the physics isn't convincing enough for them, then the historical record of commonly showing more protection on the front of the body than the back should do the trick. If not, they're basing their opinions on nothing substantive.

[@hanssmirnov9946]

I have seen a lot of non-substantive opinions thrown around. That's why I love channels like this, that not only do and share good research, but demonstrate it thoroughly.

[@williampoucher174]

I'm aware it's a little late, but how anachronistic would it be for a later 15th century man at arms to wear just a breastplate? Is there precedent, maybe because he wanted to reduce weight or couldn't afford the backplate, or would it simply be unrealistic?

[@KnyghtErrant]

There are lots of examples of breastplates being worn without backplates well into the 15th century, _but_ it's all about context. Earlier in the 15th century you still see it a little more commonly on certain upper class armors, but as time goes it's usually on lower infantry or archer armors. A lot of later period knightly armors have their cuirasses built in a way that you can't really wear it without the backplate, and it wouldn't really be a typical way to wear it anyway as a heavy horseman for example. So less and less typical for men-at-arms the later you go, but not so far-fetched for more mundane troop types.

[@williampoucher174]

@@KnyghtErrant that's really useful, thanks. Does that mean it would be innacurate to wear just a breastplate whilst also wearing full arm harness and gauntlets? If it were about affording it then I fear it might be.

[@KnyghtErrant]

The term 'man-at-arms' already implies a fully equipped soldier with a complete armor. Historically, in most cases to be paid as a 'man-at-arms' one must demonstrate that they meet the minimum equipment requirements to qualify which would have been prescribed beforehand, sometimes by law. It depends on the specific time and place as to what that equipment might be. What I have found modernly, is that depending on what type of kit someone is trying to develop, the less 'backstory' required to justify atypical equipment choices, the more historically cohesive the end result will be. In the situation you described, I think the scenario of 'couldn't afford a backplate' would be a stretch for someone otherwise fully equipped during a period and region where a complete cuirass was normal equipment.

[@stoker1931jane]

@@KnyghtErrant, did the lower class soldiers "have the right" to strip the fallen enemy soldiers, of their kit & armour, after they had won/survived a battle?! Sometimes it's being shown in movies, that weapons are being gleaned/collected after a battle is done by soldiers who also check if everyone is really dead. And I bet civilians/looters roamed battlefields looking for scraps/booty?!

[@widowpeak6142]

I would have expected something so...obvious to have developped earlier. But then again, being it from the back is pretty unlikely.

[@docstockandbarrel]

Medieval ladies don’t want none unless you got backplates hon.

[@MaciejNaumienko]

Is "saloon door" back protection a historical term? ;)

[@martshearer498]

"Wings" 1423 Inventory of Henry Bowet, Archbishop of York "Et de xvj. s. receptis pro uno pectorali alias brestplate in ij. partibus, cum ij. wynghes, cum iij. bokeles, et quinque pendandes cum x. barres de argento et deaurat'." 16s. - a pectoral, also known as a breastplate, in 2 parts (breast and plackart), with 2 wings (saloon doors), with 3 buckles and five 'pendants' (strap ends) with 10 bands of silver and of gold.

[@martshearer498]

"Rear-doos" Lydgate, 'Troy Book' "An hol brest-plate with a rere-doos," A whole breastplate with rear-doos. (Perhaps from the Dutch word 'doos' - a box or case, or perhaps rear-doors?)

[@KnyghtErrant]

No, it's just a modern term to conveniently describe the way they work. Mart has covered the historical terms.

[@MaciejNaumienko]

Thanks for the answers both of you, but this was more of a joke attempt rather than a real question. :) Great quality content as always.

[@JosefGustovc]

Another depiction of a solid (for me) backplate. imgur.com/1MUpfdp Seems to be French or German and dating toward 1390-1400.

[@Dhomazhir]

Why do you think it was more normal to see lamellar, CoP, brig, and scale defense incorporate a back defense?

[@KnyghtErrant]

First reason is pure ease of manufacture. More plates, more scales, more lamellae, and poof you've got a back. It doesn't require the careful shaping of a large solid piece of quality iron or steel (which you may not even have access to depending on the exact time frame). Later coats of plates do present a bit more of a challenge than scales or lamellar because the plates start to get bigger and more shaped you have to solve more complex problems, but it leads into the second point. The engineering problem of mounting the things is already solved, in the case of CoPs riveting plates to a foundation is already known tech. Innovating the hinged and well shaped backplate, or later the solid or riveted backplate required a leap that the other armors didn't have to overcome in order to protect the back.

[@worldfamousgi86]

Your harness sort of reminds me of what's described to be worn by Christian in the Pilgrim's Progress, just saying

[@Stephen_Curtin]

It's a shame you didn't mention that wearing a breastplate, without backplate, continued on well into the 15th century e.g. the mid to late 15th century surving jack from Lubeck, designed to be worn with a standalone breastplate. Perhaps if there is enough material this could be content for another video.

[@KnyghtErrant]

That's a good point. I even have a friend who fights in that exact setup with a very nice Lubeck reproduction and standalone kastenbrust style breastplate. I was a little too focused on the late 14th century transition in this one I think. Maybe in a future video!

[@Stephen_Curtin]

Anyways it's just a thought. Keep up the good work.

[@marcelogonzalez8547]

In the book The Art of War by Machiavelli circa 1520 it mentions that most armies of the time (this means contemporary to when the book was written) equipped their troops with breast plates but no back plates, and no mention of mail, in fact it actually mentions that he considers the lorica segmentata of the romans to be superior for offering back protection as well. The way it's described, only armored cavalry or knigths had full plate armor, and regular troops, mostly pikemen, usually employed in stopping the cavalry, made extensive use of breast plate only with no other armor than a helmet and no back plate. Hope it helps.

[@PJDAltamirus0425]

Well, if you are in tight formation, your back is pretty much guarded by the body of a another man.

[@shrekas2966]

11:25 battle of bastards. it looked like rave party, not battle.

[@KnyghtErrant]

Yeah, the Battle of the Bastards did fall into that 'movie battle' trope in that regard. The piles of bodies was kind of ridiculous too. One thing I really enjoyed about that episode though was that they did a really good job showing how hard the impact of cavalry really is.

[@shrekas2966]

Knyght Errant I like holywood movie battes. Everybody picks a partner like in a party and "dances". The final scene looks like a moshpit. When i saw the amount of bodies i literally laughed :D really, it was horrible as representation of medieval warfare, but i am human so i laughed.

[@KnyghtErrant]

Don't get me wrong, I loved the episode, and thought it was a ton of fun to watch. That being said, from a historical point of view there were some pretty bad errors in there, made worse by David Benioff's claim at the end that historical sources back up bodies piled higher than Wun Wun on his tippy toes.

[@shrekas2966]

Knyght Errant yeah, from entertaiment perspective it was so intence and i was glued to screen. Some moments i thought jon or davos might die.

[@masterdisaster7013]

In the histoire de France, you see Knights wearing solid breast plates. I think this manuscript is from 1400. Is this document a prove for solid back plate at the end of the 14th century?

[@KnyghtErrant]

It's hard to say with any sort of certainty, but it's likely that the solid backplate was probably at least being experimented with in the 1390s from what I can tell.

[@ME-hm7zm]

Raises the question, not begs. Peeve of mine, sorry.

[@YenzQu]

A "cuir ass" needs a "rear do"! :D

[@ILoveDashie20]

hai i liek spudr00nz

[@JustGrowingUp84]

That fits so well with the profile picture...

[@ILoveDashie20]

TheFilthyCasual sry bout le autism

[@fanofshrimp]

I'm sorry but please stop... everything

[@AGermanFencer]

An elaborate easton-trolling fits with the profile pic? I cant see how. Also I really do like spadroons. Dont know why they are so unpopular... Well... compared with other modern swords i like them. ^^

[@AGermanFencer]

@Reed Noss Or maybe you should.