Knights Are Useless In War

Discussion in 'General Chat' started by Alexander Valdimir, Jan 13, 2018.

Tags:
  1. Nimroth

    Nimroth Someone

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2016
    Messages:
    4,072
    Likes Received:
    3,615
    Reading List:
    Link
    And it needs to be mentioned that a heavy cavalry unit often might not get more than one or two charges in a battle since they need to reorganize themselves after each charge.
     
    Sabruness likes this.
  2. BlaszczeM

    BlaszczeM Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2016
    Messages:
    523
    Likes Received:
    239
    Reading List:
    Link
    Knights in novels and games are usually superhuman, yes, but they are not the only superhuman ones, so I think if two people of roughly the same level fought, one a knight in heavy armor, on foot, with a sword, against someone if light armor, like leather+chaimail, and a mace, the second one would win more times.
    As for swords themselves; it's annoying how in fantasy novels they use sword against monster or beasts. There are clearly better weapons. Literally anything else would be better: spears, hammers, axes, greataxes, war spikes. Even the heavy greatswords would be better, though only because they would be like axes. Swords are useful almost only against humans. And unarmored at that. Against people in armor the best weapon is a hammer, a war spike, a lance, even an axe would be better. With a sword, to deal real damage, you can only stab the gaps between armor. Of course, if your opponent is unarmored, then you can just hack them with a sword - it's not like clothes will stop a sword.
     
  3. SilverFeather

    SilverFeather [Seeker of Yuri]•[Likes tomboys]

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2016
    Messages:
    732
    Likes Received:
    435
    Reading List:
    Link
    That is untill you put the fantasy metals in the mix, then again fantasy favors leather with dragon leather and stuff... ah whatever, if we go with two equal superhumans facing eachother it is all about the weapon performance, in which a hammer that is good for opening cans *cough* I mean beating someone in plate armor would win, I mean chain mail is supposedly good against swords, so if you want to compare you would have to give them the same weapons, meaning chain guy would need a sword instead of a mace, or each would need a weapon effective against the other armor, and even then it would be a duel of skill, ah yea chain mail is pretty heavy too, a bit lighter than plate but not that much, and protects less spots than plate...

    Leather? I am still wondering if a leather armor could provide proper protection...
     
  4. BlaszczeM

    BlaszczeM Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2016
    Messages:
    523
    Likes Received:
    239
    Reading List:
    Link
    A proper leather armor with chainmail would easily protect you from a sword, even a stab. Though you'd still get hurt from blunt force. And if both heavy armored and light armored individuals used swords, then the armored one would probably win more.
     
  5. Nimroth

    Nimroth Someone

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2016
    Messages:
    4,072
    Likes Received:
    3,615
    Reading List:
    Link
    I could be wrong but I would assume that chain mail would more often be paired with cloth armor, unless the hardened leather is used for things such as helmet, shield or arm/leg protection.
    Plenty of examples of metal and hardened leather used together to make a single piece of armor though such as brigandines.
     
  6. ToastedRossi

    ToastedRossi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2017
    Messages:
    3,635
    Likes Received:
    3,513
    Reading List:
    Link
    What is this silliness? Heavy cavalry like knights were extremely effective on the battlefield. That's why they were considered the elite arm of just about every single major military for over a thousand years! Even groups that we don't think of as having knight-equivalents, like the Mongols, maintained a large body of well-trained heavy cavalry because what they could contribute was unmatched by any other troop type.

    Also, the example of Agincourt is not very convincing. First, Agincourt was fought in muddy terrain so the French knights dismounted to advance on foot. Second, the English had a fair number of heavily-armored knights and men-at-arms themselves. And finally, the English ended up losing that war, and very badly at that. It's not as if the French stopped using knights throughout the war, indeed they proved to be very effective in lots of other battles.

    Sure, but if executed properly, knights won't have to charge very many times. Most infantry units will shatter at the first contact unless they're elite troops, and it's very rare to have unmounted elite troops. This is why heavy cavalry was the predominant military arm up until the Swiss pikemen saw their heyday.
     
    AliceShiki likes this.
  7. Nimroth

    Nimroth Someone

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2016
    Messages:
    4,072
    Likes Received:
    3,615
    Reading List:
    Link
    I was just pointing out that the charge need to be well timed since the unit can become scattered even if the charge is successful.
    Heavy cavalry definitely made up the core of "most" medieval armies, it just isn't like a total war game with the cavalry charging all over the place for the whole battle.
     
    AliceShiki likes this.
  8. ToastedRossi

    ToastedRossi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2017
    Messages:
    3,635
    Likes Received:
    3,513
    Reading List:
    Link
    Oh for sure. Cavalry charges have to be planned properly otherwise you'd end up squandering your most valuable tool. Still, with the amount of protection knights have, they're the most likely arm to recover from a botched attack.

    But if anyone is going to talk about the lack of military realism in books, the number one thing that I'd point to is how hyped up swords and katanas are. These were almost never primary weapons for soldiers, and they often weren't even that good as backup weapons. These weapons weren't very good against armor, and they didn't have the best reach, and they couldn't really be employed in a formation. What they were were symbols of authority that got good propaganda.
     
    Nimroth likes this.
  9. Nimroth

    Nimroth Someone

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2016
    Messages:
    4,072
    Likes Received:
    3,615
    Reading List:
    Link
    Swords did have some use as primary weapons, but mostly in combination with a shield, and even in those cases the shield was usually more important than the sword.
    Aside for that yeah swords are usually overhyped, especially the katana...
     
    AliceShiki likes this.
  10. Sena

    Sena Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2015
    Messages:
    719
    Likes Received:
    913
    Reading List:
    Link
    Swords were very useful as side-arms, good for defending yourself at close range. They're lightweight, much easier to carry around than a polearm, and not everyone you fight is going to be fully armoured (especially outside of the battlefield; consider samurai being allowed to carry swords in public).

    Heavy swords were also extremely effective, but those were usually unsharpened blunt weapons, not the slashing/stabbing weapons that most people imagine swords to be.
     
  11. ToastedRossi

    ToastedRossi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2017
    Messages:
    3,635
    Likes Received:
    3,513
    Reading List:
    Link
    Don't get me started on shields! They're the most common combat gear on soldiers up until the gunpowder era. Even berserkers used them! I hate the depictions of so-called warriors with no leg armor for this reason. Artists base them on Roman legionaries but forgot that the legionaries didn't need leg armor because they had gigantic shields!

    Axes and maces and daggers were generally more effective against European adversaries. While not every opponent is going to be armored, you'd want to equip yourself against the most dangerous foes.
     
  12. BlaszczeM

    BlaszczeM Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2016
    Messages:
    523
    Likes Received:
    239
    Reading List:
    Link
    I think the cloth armor is a gambeson, which is a thick jacket/shirt hybrid, mostly made from cloth, and I think leather
     
  13. ToastedRossi

    ToastedRossi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2017
    Messages:
    3,635
    Likes Received:
    3,513
    Reading List:
    Link
    That's right. The gambeson serves two important purposes. The first is that if you get hit by an attack, the metal armor will absorb the force and spread it over the gambeson, without the extra layer, the body will suffer a lot more impact damage. The second is that bare metal on skin will not only chafe horribly, but it can rub your skin off.
     
    AliceShiki likes this.
  14. BB_Tensei

    BB_Tensei [Crystal Operator][Jack of all Trades]

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2017
    Messages:
    852
    Likes Received:
    5,402
    Reading List:
    Link
    Knights are indeed useless, as they keep getting into strange situations with the Demon King's slimes, tentacle monsters, orcs, goblins, ogres (though those tend to go for elves more), and other such lower shelf demonic mooks. Then there's those knights that just NTR their sworn lord in front of him for hours on end. I'd rather rely on a magician squid demihuman, those at least are niche and have evolution potential.
     
    AliceShiki likes this.
  15. Molen

    Molen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2016
    Messages:
    255
    Likes Received:
    268
    Reading List:
    Link
    and dont forget about those "knight in shining armor" that somehow always depicted riding an unicorn

    the weird thing about heavy infrantry/cavalry is : it is mainly exist only in europe and some asia countries.
    i never heard about heavy infrantry in america(north/south), asean region, africa, or australia.

    i heard that the chinesse use paper armor that is more effective than knight armor.

    many novels and movies always talk about the knight obligation/code/whatever-it-is-called, does this "obligation" really exist? i mean, most knight only has a low noble position, so how can they "protect the weak, uphold justice, etc2"?

    btw, when sieging a city, does heavy infantries(like knight) also attacking the walls with stairs and siege tower? how effective are they on a siege?



    these knight discussion remind me of how the templar destroy constantinople because of debt...
     
  16. ToastedRossi

    ToastedRossi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2017
    Messages:
    3,635
    Likes Received:
    3,513
    Reading List:
    Link
    There are two requirements for employing heavy armor. Good metallurgy and an appropriate climate. Places that didn't see the use of heavy armor are going to fall under at least one of these. For example, the Japanese had poor-quailty iron, so their soldiers didn't have much in the way of metal armor. In Africa, climate is the bigger deal breaker as metal armor is very uncomfortable in hot and wet climates. Still, there are groups that did wear heavy armor, such as the Mamluks.

    No.

    They're very effective. If someone is doing their darnedest to kill you, it turns out that wearing a nice piece of steel is a pretty good idea.
     
  17. deepon

    deepon One who inevitably awakens

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2016
    Messages:
    1,176
    Likes Received:
    1,415
    Reading List:
    Link
    Well, everything is tailored to a purpose and thus must also have a counter. eg: guns to kevlar to armor piercing rounds, similarly, normal infantry to knights to pikemen/ground traps
     
    Sabruness likes this.
  18. Ai chan

    Ai chan Queen of Yuri, Devourer of Traps, Thrusted Witch

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2015
    Messages:
    11,278
    Likes Received:
    24,346
    Reading List:
    Link
    Well, there's actually an article written on that subject. http://mandarinmansion.com/articles/Chinese Paper Armour.pdf

    It did say in the article that the paper armour could stop a Khitan heavy arrow, which makes it roughly as good as a steel armour. I'm guessing that it's an armour used by city militias and navy since wearing steel will ensure that you sink to the bottom and denying the state the ability to reuse the steel. Their main benefit seems to be they're very light while maintaining similar defensive capability as common steel armour of that time.

    How legit is the article? I don't know, I'm not an anthropologist. Go argue with the guy. The list of references is still impressive, though.
     
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2018
    AliceShiki likes this.
  19. asriu

    asriu fu~ fu~ fu~

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2016
    Messages:
    18,546
    Likes Received:
    18,145
    Reading List:
    Link
    this thread is funny and fun to read at same time
    really~
     
    AliceShiki likes this.
  20. ToastedRossi

    ToastedRossi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2017
    Messages:
    3,635
    Likes Received:
    3,513
    Reading List:
    Link
    No doubt, paper and cloth armors had their practical applications. However, they're never going to be as good as steel armor because if they were, everyone would adopt it instead of going with steel. What we see though, is that everyone who had good access to steel would get it if they could afford it. I'd imagine that paper and leather armors would be used by soldiers who couldn't afford something better, or they'd use it in conjunction with a steel breast plate.
     
    Ai chan likes this.