Knights Are Useless In War

AFAIK they lasted for some time more than just Rome.

Granted, they were more prevalent back then because the conflicts also involved more people and all that, but they did have their fair of usage during middle ages...

I'll admit that war history is one of my weakest points of history knowledge (yeah, because nobody wants to talk about the interesting parts of history on uni, let's talk about the history of Portugal from the unification to the great navigations... Again. Just like we did in Elementary, Middle and High School... *sighs*), but I do know some about Military history throughout the middle ages and I did hear of it having some highlight for a while. (I think last I heard of Shield walls was around the 600-800, unsure, it's been a while since I last read about it.)

Pretty sure it didn't exist by the 1000s, but this doesn't change the fact it was used... Or at least I'm pretty sure it was.

 

Quite sure OP was mad about how OP knights in novels could be. So drop the talking about the rl knights and start to realize that novels are fictions.

 

It really looked like he was talking about knights IRL... Knights in novels are dumb, they use horses to clash right in the middle of two humongous armies, making the mobility of the horses... Useless.

 

Eh, shield walls remained in use for as long as shields was popular, the most famous medieval example would be the battle of Hastings.

 

Tapestry sucks as a source of tactics information, to be honest. Yes, you can hand out even barn doors to peasants and make "shield wall", but that is not a battle formation as such (compared to testudo or even phalanx). Harold's hird took a hilltop defensive position and did not really move much while being assaulted by William's cavalry. And there was no

that I initially replied to.

 

This thread might as well say that Alexander the Great's Companion Cavalry, the Samurai, Huskarls or any fighting elite of any culture is useless. Lots of the initial arguments were based on long standing misconceptions and misinformation about history, arms and armour and the context in which they were applied to.

Agincourt actually is a good example of why full plate works if you do the math on how many arrows were loosed in comparison to the distance it takes for the French to reach the English line and how many did the English took as prisoner (before killing them), also the English side has knights and men-at-arms as well though English doctrine at the time prefers knights fighting on foot instead of being a cavalry unit. Looking at this specific battle and ignoring the other more deciding factors that lead to the English victory in favor of one measly "fact" that supports your argument is simply a case of confirmation bias.

 

They do. Sometimes perception is better protection than sensory deprivation, knights and men-at-arms fighting in the melee with their visors raised or removed are often depicted in medieval art there are also period documentation of armouries selling a bascinet with more than one visor as a set. The danger of getting hit by a projectile to the face lessens when you're in the melee where the enemy can't loose arrows at you without hitting their own, Henry V's case where he took an arrow to the face was when he was drinking water before the charge iirc...

 

Except medieval armies isn't quite as focused on peasant conscripts as you seem to believe, the armies might be smaller than in antiquity, but the core of armies was still very much made up of professionals, either directly employed or mercenaries.
Peasants was economically important to landowners, they wouldn't be thrown straight into battle with no training unless you are out of options.

 

*nod nod* AFAIK, medieval war was essentially fought by nobles, not by peasants, it was part of the noble's duty to fight while it was the peasant's duty to plant...

Or at least it was what I learned in High School, once I entered uni I discovered that most of the stuff I heard in HS about history wasn't very accurate, but... I suppose there is some degree of accuracy in it, since they wouldn't tell straight lies to my face just for the sake of pretending to teach history... *grumbles about the lack of war history classes on uni*

In any case, AFAIK, medieval wars had most of their warriors as well-trained soldiers. So it should be pretty possible to use complex battle formations.

 

Well most would be free commoners if I remember correct, ones that could afford their own weapons and possibly some armour and would sign up on their own in return for pay, those would usually be part-time soldiers, and even then training in formations could be a life or death difference, and no one would want to pay for people that just go and die in their first battle anyway.
And that is not counting full-time soldiers employed by various rulers or mercenary companies that could be in the size of thousands of people.

 

Sure, and nobody used barn doors either. It was just an example. Armies were mostly ragtag bunch, with quite loose coordination, due to all the feodalism system.

However, militias and conscripts were quite common. Especially in poorer areas, where it was difficult to gather the required of men-at-arms ("poor knight" stuff, who in extreme cases, despite having to actually do farming themselves, were required by law to bring 'n people' when called)

 

*doesn't really know anything with historical basis about mercenaries*
*grumbles about lack of war history on uni (again)*

Hmmmm... I can understand commoners that can afford their weapons to go to wars, I assume it did happen with some frequency, though I have to wonder if their numbers were actually bigger than the number of nobles, since... Well, battle gear wasn't exactly cheap.

But I really have no idea on the numbers to argue on that... *cwies*

 

But the fact is that they did manage to do just that. And you still aren't understanding that battles were completely different back then. They would go back to their camps in between waves. Honestly, disease and infection killed more soldiers than actual combat. Death by enemy weapon was probably only the fourth or fifth biggest killer of soldiers. War was weird back in the day and you didn't have to be prepared for movement like today's soldiers. That's why a successful ambush used to be so devastating. Guys just wouldn't be able to grab their weapons and armor in time. Because, as you have said, it was practically impossible to eat that crap for too long.

 

That depends on circumstances. If the opposing forces are well-trained, well prepared and were able to set up sufficient anti-cavalry emplacements prior to battle then a full knight charge could actually be more deadly to the knights than their opponents. Conversely to your statement, if the knights lost their momentum then they would lose their effect. They were many cases where charges were stopped and lost momentum only for the stopped knights to be overrun and killed or captured by waiting infantry.

 

Well knights do not give so much attention during the battle but they were also a part of a victory on a battle, because if they were not and the only person that could fought the battle is the king, then the war could be more boring or easily to be defeated or invade.. well knights also played to protect their beloved kingdom, family in fear of slavery so they fight for death for the sake of their safety and protection..

 

Wich is useless? Their armor or their profession? If it's useless nobody will use them for hundred years. Your ancestor is not fool. The fact that the exist for more than hundred years is proof that they're effective in battle. Do your research first kiddo..

 

I think they all have a purpose. But as of the moment I dont know their purpose too?

 

legionare?! YOU WEAKLING. GET TO MY BARBARIC MAGNIFICE. THE VIKING KNIGHT LEVEL!

wearing a full gear with the marauder movement as if i only have but an axe!

also. knights were op And expensive. one failure you gave does not nullify Their dominance in thousands of wars.
but if you were to mention a certain ottoman general who died by tripping And drowning in a puddle due to the weight of his armour. then yea. thats an insult beyond any.


ps. breaking a heavy steel shoulder plate hurts like hell. we need armour for the wrist!

 

I don't think so. They're somehow useful

 

Knights in novels and games are 99% of the times superhuman so comparing fantasy with rl stuff is no good

Then again some armors were pretty easy to move in, heavy yes, but not impossible to carry, I might not be a wiseman when it comes to wars of the old age, and my country might have one of the trashiests methods to teach history, but one thing I think, knights were either elites with porper armors that could be used in combat, or nobles with heavy armors to protect their ass from dying while giving orders

Also who used swords in the old? common soldiers kinda used spears because higher reach = higher chances to live while killing the other, swords were used by nobles for duels or romance, mostly romance, armor could still protect you from a spear though... that why there were also many blunt weapons...