If you’re like me and you need something a little swordy to tide you over until “Game of Thrones” comes back for its sixth season next year, allow me to suggest the most enjoyable medieval combat film you’ve never heard of: “Brave Sword.”

Actually, it’s called “Ironclad,” but I call it “Brave Sword,” as that seems just as relevant to the specific subject matter of the film as “Ironclad” does, which is to say it sounds generically swordy. Just like the movie!

Directed by Jonathan English, this 2011 modest-budget transatlantic indie is set in the early 13th century during the First Barons’ War, a little-discussed period of English history when signatories to Magna Carta promptly reneged on the deal and set about killing each other. By the end of the conflict, the French Dauphin was King of England (briefly).

Against that historical backdrop, we basically get a retelling of “The Magnificent Seven” (which itself was a retelling of “Seven Samurai,” yes I know, nerds). A righteously rebellious baron crisscrosses the countryside, assembling a ragtag posse of crack warriors from adventures past for one more desperate stand — defending Rochester Castle in a siege against the vastly larger forces of King John. It’s great fun.

“Ironclad” will also scratch your “Game of Thrones” itch by bringing you plenty of what has become one of the latter’s signature features: hyper-realistic medieval violence and gore.

For a movie you haven’t heard of, the cast is phenomenal. The Archbishop of Canterbury, who sides with the rebels, is played by the elegant and intimidating Charles Dance (Tywin Lannister from “Game of Thrones”). And who plays sniveling, duplicitous, physically small King John Lackland? None other than Paul Giamatti. How perfect is that?

Giamatti, in fact, has one of the best monologues of his entire oeuvre in this film that you’ve never heard of. [SPOILER ALERT] Toward the end, when John finally gets the rebel baron in his grasp, the tiny, insecure king who inherited his crown from his crusading brother, Richard the Lionheart, dresses the rebel down for daring to question his authority.

“I was born to be a king! It is my birthright, given to me by God!” John howls. “And it is all now questioned by you!” Honestly, it’s one of Giamatti’s finest moments in a career brimming with fine moments.

“Ironclad” will also scratch your “Game of Thrones” itch by bringing you plenty of what has become one of the latter’s signature features: hyper-realistic medieval violence and gore. I’ve had tough conversations with myself about why I enjoy this, and I’m sure that caveman bloodlust is among the reasons, but that’s not all.

As a medieval history buff, I’ve often wondered what the weapons and fighting techniques of the period would actually have done to a person’s body. It wasn’t all sudden, inconspicuous épée pricks resulting in little more than bloodstained shirts, like in Errol Flynn movies. Plenty of the Hound’s leviathan sword swipes from “Games of Thrones” should have convinced you of that by now.

What would happen if you hit somebody downward, really hard, with a longsword, right where the shoulder meets the neck? If you look at old illustrations of the overhead guards that knights would take with their swords, you know they must have sometimes struck their opponents that way. What would it do? Well, in “Ironclad,” we get to see one theory, gruesomely realized.

This absurd imposition of contemporary values on 13th century events permeates “Ironclad,” which has a political message that can be summed up as, “England, FUCK YEAH!”

“Ironclad” also has many B-movie attributes. John’s gang of Danish mercenaries, present throughout the film, all talk like Jawas, for some reason (except for their brawny blonde leader, seen above on the right, whose accent is intermittent). There’s a troublingly homophobic subplot involving a cowardly noble whose lack of sexual interest in his beautiful young wife is presented as a character flaw. This leaves her conveniently available to the badass male lead who, despite being a Knight Templar with a vow of chastity on his résumé, is definitely, totally into that.

There’s some predictable historical inaccuracy in the film, though that itself I find to be an illuminating look at how contemporary Brits view their history.

You know how Americans cling to the dubious notion that their revolution was a popular uprising against a foreign oppressor, and not a power grab of the continent’s landed gentry? (Yes, I know it was probably both.) The British, apparently, have an even more misguided idea that Magna Carta was about guaranteeing freedom for the common man, instead of protecting the property rights of barons and assuring them a role in government.

This absurd imposition of contemporary values on 13th century events permeates “Ironclad,” which has a political message that can be summed up as, “England, FUCK YEAH!”

Still, you should watch “Ironclad.” There’s trebuchets and Dane Axes and James Purefoy resolving a hostage situation by driving a sword through the captor’s open mouth. It’s pretty awesome. And it’s on Netflix. And “Game of Thrones” is, like, 10 months way.

Just don’t watch the sequel.