Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[10ebbor10]

Probably the reason we won the battle of the golden spurs.
Take spears, stab horses, stab knights.

Also the fact that french where complete idiots. They recalled their infantery, which was winning the battle, so that the noble cavalery could win the victory using a direct cavelery charge through a field(crossed with ditches and such) towards the heavily armed flemish lines.


((Note: We did loose every other battle in that war))

[RedKing]

*pokes head in, sees thread so far off the rails that it's actually changed into a horsecart, ducks back out again*

[miauw62]

Well, at least we are still talking about violence, and not about space stations.

[Vattic]

Besides, mounted knights were so heavily armored that if they were to become, say, unmounted, it would lead to them being almost unable to stand, walk, or move. There's a reason why only the strongest breeds of horses were warhorses.

Do mounted knights wear different armour than ones on foot or something?

I only ask because plate armour isn't as heavy or difficult to move in as commonly assumed. It's true that you'd need help mounting a horse but I've seen reenactors in accurate recreation armour doing cartwheels and similar. It's also worth noting that unlike reenactors prospective knights would be trained to carry the extra weight from a young age by carrying weights under their clothing.

Edit to add: Some quick reading and it looks like they didn't even need help getting onto horses in battle armour. Sounds like the armour used for jousting was much much heavier, though, so that might be an exception.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Probably not different armor so much as thicker and heaver plates that would otherwise be impractical to move in but would render you more or less invulnerable as long as you stayed on your horse. Well, until the arbalest was invented, anyway. One of the Popes actually issued a bull stating that the use of arbalests on Christians was sinful because it allowed relatively unskilled marksmen to decimate knights with decades of training. Everyone ignored him and used them anyway.

Also, I realized just now that "mark" used to be a word for see/understand and thus the word marksman means one who sees and understands a target, or could literally be called a sightsman, and by coincidence we ourselves call modern aiming assistants "sights".

[miauw62]

RL snipers even usually work in pairs too.
One "spotter" that looks where the snipers shot lands, so the sniper can aim his second shot better and hit. And then the sniper, obviously, the man behind the gun.

[Vattic]

From what I've read it looks like thicker armour like that was only really used for jousting. Armour used in combat is really nothing like what's seen in the media these days. Not being able to get up after falling from your horse is more likely to be because of either muddy ground or the speed you came off the horse causing damage.

Well made steel plate armour would only weigh 20 kg (45 pounds) while modern soldiers often carry much much more.

[scriver]

From what I've read it looks like thicker armour like that was only really used for jousting. Armour used in combat is really nothing like what's seen in the media these days. Not being able to get up after falling from your horse is more likely to be because of either muddy ground or the speed you came off the horse causing damage.

Or thirty peasant stabbing at you with sharp pointy objects.

But yeah, a knight who fell of the horse would have little trouble getting up again unless there was something (or someone) else keeping him down. The whole "immobile knight" thing is a myth. They weren't stupid, they knew losing a horse (or just having to dismount it for any reason) in battle was a real probability, and designed their armours thusly.

[Cthulhu]

Besides, mounted knights were so heavily armored that if they were to become, say, unmounted, it would lead to them being almost unable to stand, walk, or move. There's a reason why only the strongest breeds of horses were warhorses.

Of all the places to see this myth, Bay12 is pretty low on the list of places I'd expect.  Field plate wasn't that heavy, it's less encumbering than a modern fire fighter's outfit.  Even the stuff mounted knights used.  Jousting plate was never used in real battle.

It's still true that once he's on the ground with enough guys on him he's done, just get a knife between the plates.

[Lagslayer]

I wonder how combat chain plate would stack up to modern combat armor.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Alright, fine, I'm apparently not well versed in knightly warfare.

I wonder how combat chain plate would stack up to modern combat armor.

Chain plate and modern armor are trying to stop different kinds of weapons. I don't think you can really compare them.

[Lagslayer]

Alright, fine, I'm apparently not well versed in knightly warfare.

I wonder how combat chain plate would stack up to modern combat armor.

Chain plate and modern armor are trying to stop different kinds of weapons. I don't think you can really compare them.

This is interesting, but a few years old.

An article from last April.

[Zangi]

I'd have to ask you be more specific about the weapons that are used in a medieval armor vs modern armor debate...  since you are not too specific with the armors either...
Since ya know, people can be all over the place with that...

[Willfor]

From the training literature we have available from the time, knights were well aware of all the advantages they had in a combat situation if they wanted to be. However, like all professions that stem from a nobility, there are ways this could be bypassed in a particularly nepotistic fashions.

A "proper" knight would be a devastating force somewhat like a tank rolling through an infantry squad. In order to bring the knight down, the peasants would need to take advantage of numbers, terrain, and the few weaknesses that a knight presents. It takes one hit from a "proper" knight to kill a peasant, while the peasants need to knock the knight down before they can deliver good killing blows.

The realities: Nationalism in Europe came in with the French revolution. Peasant levies didn't care about their Kings for the most part. Especially if they'd been raised for a war they didn't understand, for the petty reasons of a King they'd never seen, and probably only knew the name of as a bit of trivia. They were more familiar with their local lord, and they knew that he was pressured to raise them, and wouldn't hesitate to make their lives miserable if they didn't pay their dues and join him on the battlefield. Nobody wanted to be there, and even the threat of retribution couldn't hold an army together if they took more than 10% casualties. The possibility of battlefield looting -- and city looting in the event of a sack -- had to be kept on the table in order to provide incentive. The constant psychological assault that their lives meant very little in the grand scheme of things kept the peasantry in the mindset that it would be better to run and hide than stand up and defend their own villages. However, there were places where this wasn't the case, obviously, and in those places, peasants could easily take down knights. Especially if the next reality is the case.

Being a knight meant that you were a pretty wealthy person. Just like with all other wealthy people, you have people who 'made it', you have people who are dedicated to the lifestyle who were born into it, and you have people who take for granted that they were born for glory and that life is going to be good to them by rights. You also have people who just don't give as much of a shit as they should in order to keep the system up. Now, imagine trying to run a military where your leaders have fallen into one of the last two types. Sure, any individual knight could be one of those top ones, and be one of the kind who actually could take on 100 peasants with 10 knights. (Spoilers: They only need to kill 10-20 before those peasants start running to shit themselves silly from sheer terror if they are fighting a pitched battle) However, they still need a tactical command structure from which to base a sound plan of battle. If you get a glory hog on top who thinks he knows better by right of birth, well, it is what it is.

In summation: The people behind these titles matters way more than the titles themselves. Warfare in these time periods is far more interpersonal than in times before and times after. There are many more factors that go into whether someone can win than simply the training and the equipment.

[Loud Whispers]

Does the Crown still own all the swans?

Technically there are two families that have permitted ownership of some swans.

_____________________________

More on topic, 40% increase in gun sales after the shooting :/