[quote]Way to miss the point, dude. Specifically the point that in Deadliest Warrior and other such programs they use cheap butted mail.[/quote]

Still fallacious because you are trying to be and edgelord with a claim I get sourced by deadliest warrior and to discredit me overall which hasn't really worked. 

[quote]Historical steel is not automatically crap because it's old. Historical steel was of fairly high quality, especially by the renaissance, and while we do HAVE better steel today, we don't usually USE better steel. Even the linked video's mail was made with steel worse than historical steel, because the guy making it is an idiot.[/quote]

It doesn't mean that but it is generally true and one again, even if made better they would be much, much worse maintained. 

[quote]Except they don't, they tell you to grab your sword by the blade and thrust with it. Alternately, it tells you to reverse your weapon and strike with the guard and pommel, but not with a zweihander. Swords are also terrible against armour just in general, which is why they were, with very few exceptions, sidearms. The zweihander was a primary weapon, but it was also a specialty weapon for defeating pike formations, as it was capable of knocking multiple polearms aside to the soldier could get past their points. It also only worked because the soldiers wearing them had plate armour and you can't stab through plate.[/quote]
Oh but it does. I've done HEMA in continental Europe and Canada, you are explicitly told to go for a slashing motion at the armpits if they are not protected by the rosettes that came into use later. Swords in general were also duelling weapons often seen in conjunction with plate. 


[quote]Oh yes, surely people actually trying things and them not working is less evidence than your completely unbacked word. [/quote]
https://youtu.be/EDkoj932YFo?t=391
longsword stabbing through plate, along with grorious nippon steel cutting power elsewhere in the video. Because videos mean everything right? 


[quote]Except that's not true. The tuck was designed for half-swording, it's an unsharpened, puncturing blade and it was used to thrust between plates, as it STILL couldn't penetrate them. Polearms can also be used this way, but the weightier ones were just used to bludgeon the target. As for lances, those are cavalry weapons. While I don't doubt that in some instances a lance might penetrate lighter plate, that's because it was being used from horseback and has an immense amount of power behind it, and even then it's likely the lance shaft will snap.[/quote]
Oh but it is. It could, in fact and it did. If it was designed for half-swording it would just be a pick and the designer would be done with it. A two handed sword will be able to put more force into a thrust and certainly be better at penetrating through a man's plate. You're also ignoring my arguments, giving fun facts about lances whilst carefully skirting what I say and what I am saying leading me to believe you are a troll. If a longsword is able to be used as a lance for going at a bugger in plate, a zweihander is not so unfathomable. 

[quote]Further, all full plate was made to resist firearms, firearms predate full plate. It also isn't that hard to resist them.[/quote]

Now I am certain you are a troll, especially since I now see the few posts you have in the many days here and seem to not actually do shit on the site but this. Firearms were made in mid 1300s and could easily penetrate most plate they went up against, but were dismissed for proper combat (especially in Europe) until later in the 1400s. Meanwhile, breastplates and cuirasses of all sorts were made earlier in the 1300s and followed quickly with plate for the rest of the body, not to mention one-piece helmets being in use since long before. 

[quote]I have never found a single source that ever mentioned soldiers without daggers. Not only are they invaluable tools, but grappling was common and daggers outperform other weapons while grappling.[/quote]

Just because you haven't heard of something doesn't mean it exists. A dagger =/= many types of knives a soldier can take as a tool and you assume that a soldier is going to be grappling. Standing armies would not find it necessary to hand out daggers like candy as you propose because if your various formation perform assigned functions they would find grappling even less prominent.

arrivederci troll