Originally Posted by
Naga Prince
+Marius+ google evidence portraying the underhand from several different sources, from several different centuries that are in some cases more than 4-5 centuries apart from each other... I just don't see how you can further progress the argument in lack of pictorial (word I never used before till I've seen y'all use it!) evidence.
I'm trying not to be bias, but coming into this thread, Underhand wins. But I digress in my limited knowledge of melee fighting, that both stances have their circumstances that warrant their usage perhaps moreso than the other. If I was stranded in a duel, or both my formation and the enemies lost cohesion and everyone is out for themselves, I'd gladly prefer overhand to strike at their lower half of the body, from my imagination. Yet when I go to strike, I must maneuver my Greek/Medieval shield out the way, opening a large swath of myself to damage too.
Several sources, 4-5 centuries apart? Say no more. On a very lazy search, I found manuscript images from different areas ranging from the 9th to the late 14th century. But there's a catch...
Thanks for necroing this dumb thread.
p.s. if anyone is crazy enough to read the thread from the start, know that I live to learn