Connection ErrorBad RequestThis page went staleSession ExpiredSign in requiredForbiddenNot FoundToo Many RequestsServer ErrorBad GatewayService UnavailableGateway TimeoutHTTP Version Not Supported
Session Expired
Your session has expired. Please log in to continue.
Sign in required
You need an account to do that. Sign in or create one — it only takes a minute.
This page went stale
Your security token was rejected, usually because the page sat open too long or you signed in elsewhere. Nothing was saved. Reload the page and try again.
Request Failed
We encountered an issue while processing your request.
Please check your internet connection and try again.
Well, still, we shouldn't forget that real life isn't a computer game where all units of the same type have the same weapon.
What's the point of saying that? I already know that not all weapons are the same.
Initially, yes, a bastard sword most likely appeared as an adaptation of a simple sword for cavalrymen, because a two-handed sword was too heavy for them, and it was difficult to reach the infantry with a regular one-handed sword without falling off the horse, and only in the second place was the problem of the weight of the two-handed sword. But to claim that a bastard sword is a weapon for mounted knights is incorrect; for example, our Alexander Nevsky fought with a bastard sword, but he was neither a knight nor a cavalryman.
Was I denying that it was used only by cavalrymen? I just clarified what it was originally created for.
correcting incorrect comments with a smart look is absurd
Clarifying, first of all. Secondly, they are correct.