Why is it that, in spite of their supposed dominance on the medieval

Knight is a title not a class of soldier.

>>1794719
True. What OP is referring to are men-at-arms (which are technically not 'knights'), although any knights who fought in battles would have likely been men-at-arms.

I think the issue is that infantry warfare basically adapted to account for knights over time, while earlier knights in the time of Charlemagne and the Early Medieval period would have definitely controlled the battlefield.

>>1794691
Because it's not what you have, it's how you use it.

In Agincourt and Crecy the knights were deployed terribly, attacking in such a way that the usual advantages were negated by the terrain, order of battle and many other things.

This is not unique to medieval Europe; it's a recurring theme in warfare.
There was a battle during the US annexation of the Philippines where riflemen were ambushed and butchered with knifes and machetes. Why? Because riflemen lose most of their potency as a military tool when used indoors, as opposed to on an open plain. In their arrogance they let their guard down, and the Flips made them suffer for it.

In the first Battle of Grozny, tanks were used horribly and there were actually factually reports of tank crews getting killed with SWORDS. The tanks were driving in a straight line, so the Chechens blew up the first and last tank, trapping the entire column. Thus making almost everything useful on the tanks a liability.

File: fuck you.jpg (35KB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 960x960px

>>1794719
>it's a semantics post
Congratulations you pointed out the obvious

>>1794691


Knights were the tanks of the medieval battlefield, and like modern armor, there's a huge misunderstanding in how they were supposed to be used.

A man sitting astride a horse is wider than a man standing on foot. He also has some trouble putting his back into a bowshot or a blow. You can't pack them in as tightly (width) which means that for any given length of "front", you can have more infantrymen attacking the enemy than you can have cavalrymen.

Which means that if the cavalry just stand there and trade blows with infantry, they will almost always lose. Not 100% of the time, because you get enough weirdness in the chaos of battle to win some of the time that way, but the majority of the time.

But of course, unless your cavalry commander is an idiot, he won't have his men stand around and trade blows with the infantry. They'll be moving, at the very least using shock power and the momentum of the horse to get a good blow in, before retreating to do it again.

What's more, is that the tactical mobility being on horseback meant that they could be far more able to maneuver somewhere critical, in a way that infantry had trouble with. You can slip around the flank of the enemy main line. If you see an opportunity, or your own men faltering, you can get the cavalry there quickly enough to make a difference. You can chase down a fleeing enemy much more effectively with cavalry than with infantry, and given that's where the majority of the medieval casualty ranks come from, that's actually a very important job, or at the last desperate resort, trying to cover the retreat of your own men when the battle is lost, which again, horsemen can do while infantrymen just get maneuvered around.

Cont.

>>1794691
>>1794748


So yes, they were the dominant arm on the battlefield for a very, very long time. But that doesn't mean they can run headlong into enemies and hope to succeed. In fact, that usually didn't, and was something of a desperation move.

Now look at the battles you've cited, you've got

>A muddy field with a ton of ditches and streams
>Another muddy field, this time flanked by woods
>A force that has been force marching for 18 hours charging up a hill
>Street to street fighting in a city
>A roadblock in a swamp.

Every single one of them have forces that limit mobility, and that's the primary advantage of the knights.

And that you have plenty of battles that go the other way Hastings, Arsuf, Patay, Evesham, Manzikert, Lechfield, any mongol battle you care to name, which have critical to decisive roles of cavalry, with the infantry playing a minor role, if it played a role at all.

>>1794740
>The meaning of words is meaningless

Red roof turtle road heaven cow research plankton biology truss fortress aeroplane hydroponic derivative consciousness empire apple.

>>1794733
>Battle of Grozny
Yeah that was a major embarrasment for Russia.
>"Russian Colonel General A. Galkin reported 225 armored vehicles lost during the first month and a half of the war, including 62 tanks"
The wiki article on Grozny lists it as a Russian victory but holy shit.

>>1794750
Jesus christ man. Have you actually been tested for an autism spectrum disorder?

>>1794759
Velvet ice friend, draw bottle?

>>1794750
>Red roof turtle road heaven cow research plankton biology truss fortress aeroplane hydroponic derivative consciousness empire apple
>implying this is a legitimate argument
OP uses 'knights' to refer to mounted warriors who came from the knightly social classes. There were other cavalry on the battlefield but the knights were a class of cavalry historically defined by heavy armour and weaponry.

>>1794761
I'm gonna take that as a no, since you probably would have been forcibly medicated.

>>1794769
Try being correct next time instead of being a retard.

>>1794749
Your post is correct- the terrain of the battles I listed heavily limited mobility. But many of those battles you listed did not involve knights at all (the Turkic steppe warriors who fought at Manzikert, for example, would have been equipped much differently to European men-at-arms).

I'm not disputing the effectiveness of knights against lightly armed infantry (see Patay) or knights as a flanking factor (see Hastings), but rather knights being matched by well-trained, well armed infantry.

>>1794769
listen to him and fuck off

>>1794787

>But many of those battles you listed did not involve knights at all (the Turkic steppe warriors who fought at Manzikert, for example, would have been equipped much differently to European men-at-arms).

Not necessarily. The "Knight" of further eastern places like Poland, Hungary, and Russia would have fought in a manner similar to a steppe nomad, especially pre 12th century or so. By the Atlantic, sure, but not everywhere.

>I'm not disputing the effectiveness of knights against lightly armed infantry (see Patay)

Anon, the "lightly armed" infantry at Patay were the same guys who fought Agincourt. In several instances, they were the exact same people. Even the lightest armored amongst them had better armor than any of Caesar's legions, and they had decent arms. But infantry strung out on the march are going to get rolled up by cavalry, no matter their arms.

>or knights as a flanking factor (see Hastings)

There were no flanking attacks at Hastings, the woods at the slopes of the hill prevented it. Rather, it was the prevention of coutner-charges, and obliteration of the two that tried was where the cavalry proved dominant.

>but rather knights being matched by well-trained, well armed infantry.

And what is your standard for "Well trained, well armed" infantry? Because it seems to me like you're putting the cart before the horse, and defining their level of training and armament by how well they fare against the horsemen.

One should also consider the technological advancements that made mounted armored cavalry less effective. The longbow, hooked bills, more tapered blades on swords, crossbows, etc.. These were being made to counter armored soldiers. With the exception of the longbow, an uneducated peasant could be trained to effectively counter enemy armor with these tools.

>>1794803
>The "Knight" of further eastern places like Poland, Hungary, and Russia would have fought in a manner similar to a steppe nomad
I disagree. When you look at the way the Hungarians fought at Mohi, for example, their knights were equipped in the Western European style (and were decimated by Mongol cavalry archers and lancers). Indeed, Corvinus' reforms in the 1400's, which put the heavy cavalry in a support role rather than being the 'tip of the spear', suggest the change from heavy knights was much-needed.

>Anon, the "lightly armed" infantry at Patay were the same guys who fought Agincourt
This is a fair point. Part of what led them to lose was that they tried the stakes-in-ground tactic again and were shattered by the cavalry. I don't think you could really suggest they were better armoured than Roman legions, given the need for cheap, mobile longbowmen.

Also a fair point about Hastings. But I think you're misinterpreting my words: I'm suggesting that professional infantry armies, rather than peasant levies, had the capability to hold off the knights. The standard by which they are "well trained, well armed" is that they had the means to adapt their equipment to hold back a superior force- for example, the development of the Swiss pikemen, or the Flemish militias with their goedendags.

>>1794740
his point is that Knights getting BTFO isn't a strange thing because Knights were at best, well armored levies.

No one remembers, or even records, all those times the cavalry just tramped infantry.

>>1794836
I meant to say quickly trained

>>1794840
>Knights were at best, well armored levies
I'm guessing this is bait but knights would have been trained and equipped far better than any levies. Noble troops would have had the capability to afford high-quality equipment and training rather than being levied from the harvest to fight with little training.

>>1794836
Longbows actually were much more effective against infantry. The golden age of the Longbow were the English campaigns against the Scots. What was really detrimental to cavalry was organised infantry. Highly trained and disciplined armoured infantry with pole-arm weaponry who are capable as operating in a unit on the battlefield.

>>1794839
Mohi and warfare after the 1400s in general often involved gunpowder

What I think OP is hinting at is the 'infantry revolution' thesis, by which the medieval period saw infantry turning from levies towards professional armies and organized forces. It should be noted, though, that without cavalry it was much more difficult to mop up forces (and gain a decisive victory) after a battle.

>>1794854
The point is they could effectively penetrate armor at a certain range. I.e. Agincourt.

>>1794853
>knights would have been trained
the role of chivalry and the trained knight in general is greatly overstated and didnt really come about until well after that nonsense with Elanor of Aquitane. Most generally knights were trained to ride a horse, beyond that they were levies. Most knights never fought a battle in their life and had to deal with harvests themselves. Yes, most knights did in fact rely on their own harvests for income and even feeding themselves well into the late middle ages.

>>1794866
Can you provide a source for any of these claims?
You're suggesting that
>knights were generally only trained to ride
>knights never fought a battle
>knights took part in harvests (I absolutely doubt this)
>knights relied on their own harvests

>>1794865
wrong
it is heavily implied by historical sources that the english foot infantry and leadership were the deciding factor and not the longbow. Tests of 150lb+ longbows vs typical plate armor of the day confirm that longbows were ineffective against armor (these tests were close range) and were almost certainly ineffectual at long range. Therefore role of the longbow had been theorized to be more important in the breaking up of formations or the spooking of horses perhaps more than anything else

>>1794857
Gunpowder weapons were unreliable and did not comprise a significant factor in European warfare until about the early to mid-16th century

>>1794865
There is little evidence that longbows were particularly good at penetrating armour. That Agincourt was lost had more to do with other factors than the armour penetrating capabilities of longbows. Had the longbow been exceptionally good at penetrating armour then the battles at Verneuil or Patay would have looked differently. Modern tests have also shown that only at really short distance point blank hits (20m or below) there's a chance of penetration and if archers get the opportunity for such shots then the cavalry is almost inside their formation already and they're likely to get overrun. Not to mention that the development of plate armour didn't halt there, during the early 15th century it was at its very beginning and only improved well into the 16th century right unto its decline in the 17th.

Of course that doesn't mean that longbows weren't formidable weapons, but it's rather unlikely that their purpose was to snipe heavily armoured knights out of the saddle.

>>1794876
I cannot, these are the words of a professor of mine. Conversely can you provide any evidence, or even proper discourse that knights were trained at all? There is almost 0 evidence of a trained warrior class in Europe, other than their role under the system of feudalism and those under the direct control of a king or high ranking/prestigious ruling institution.
Other than that it is well documented that most knights were farmers and didn't simply sit in service to their lord until battle was joined. Most knights and nobles were only marginally better off than their fellow laymen; They owned land (usually) but often that landholding title was all that distinguished them from peasants, especially as you move farther east. I'm not really sure why you question that part of my statement because its a pretty well established part of Medieval sociology. As far as "knights largely never fought in battles" i might be conflating that with later era samurai, who lived in a generally more peaceful era. That being said, its not a huge step in my mind as even the most experienced soldiers only had fought in maybe 6-7 battles given that a campaign often only involves 1-2 battles and can only be fought for a few months in a year.
Knights WERE probably a better fit for soldiers than peasant, both psychologically (from what little experience or training they had plus the fact they had more to lose than a peasant) and as far as equipment goes (horse and armor, weapons were fairly cheap and most people, had them but swords were slightly more expensive).

>>1794894

>Agincourt
>Out of the saddle

A near stationary target stuck in the mud you mean?

And of course plate armor improved. As new weapons were designed to beat protection, protection too advanced.

>>1794891
the did comprise a significant role at Mohi, though the Hungarian loss there had more to do with Mongolian strategy than it did European vs Mongolian tactics.

>>1794915
whether they are in a saddle or not, they couldnt reliably penetrate that armor at point blank range, let alone across a field

>>1794839
>When you look at the way the Hungarians fought at Mohi, for example, their knights were equipped in the Western European style (and were decimated by Mongol cavalry archers and lancers).
The Hungarians were not yet fighting in a western style. This is specifically what changed with the military reforms of King Béla IV in order to prevent future invasions. The Hungarian answer to the Mongols was heavily armoured knights, crossbows and castles - and it worked. The Mongols were defeated by the Hungarians in their second invasion attempt.

>>1794839
>I disagree. When you look at the way the Hungarians fought at Mohi, for example, their knights were equipped in the Western European style


Which is post 12th century...... .

From Dezsö Dercsenyi, describing an 11th century battle (Kerlés, if you care)

>.the Comans had now taken up their position on the summit of the mountain, but the more brave and bold of the archers came half-way down the slope in order that they might prevent the Hungarians from climbing the mountain. They began to rain down thick showers and tempest of arrows upon the cohorts of the King and the Duke. But some of the most renowned soldiers among the Hungarians rushed upon the archers, and many of them they killed upon the flank of the mountain; very few of them, lashing their horses with their bows, were able to make their way up to their comrades. King Salomon was possessed with an audacity of fury, and by an ascent so steep that he had almost to crawl he climbed up with his men towards the pagans, who poured down upon him a heavy rain of arrows. Duke Geysa, who was ever prudent, climbed by an easier slope and attacked the Comans with arrows. HIs brother Ladislaus at the first charge killed four of the bravest of the pagans and was gravely wounded with an arrow by the fifth, but him also he soon killed. By divine mercy he himself was quickly healed of his wound. The wretched pagans fledunder the terrible blows of death dealt by the Hungarians

Which has both sides using mounted archery against each other.
1/2

>>1794839

> a fair point. Part of what led them to lose was that they tried the stakes-in-ground tactic again and were shattered by the cavalry. I don't think you could really suggest they were better armoured than Roman legions, given the need for cheap, mobile longbowmen.

Of course I can. Brigandine was the standard armor for a 15th century English longbowman. And I'd wager Brigandine against either a segmata or a hamata any day. Brigandine is awfully tough stuff.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Brigandine,_Italian,_c1470,_Royal_Armoury,_Leeds_(internal_view).JPG

>I'm suggesting that professional infantry armies, rather than peasant levies, had the capability to hold off the knights.

Except when they didn't! Patay was a professional band of yeoman getting crushed under hoof. I'd struggle to call the Ottom an Janissaries of the 15th century as anything but professional, well trained, well armed infantry, but they could lose to cavalry forces, like at the Iron Gates, or at Hermannstadt. They could also win, like they did at Mohacs or Zlatitsa.

ANY infantry force carries within it the capability to hold off the knights, they just need to be able to pit their advantages in raw lethality over the horsemen's advantage in that lethality+mobility package. Whether their ability to actually do so comes from training, armament, professional elan, leadership, terrain, or just dumb luck isn't directly material, and you can find examples of pretty much any of them.


2/2

>>1794691

Let's assume that by 'knights' you intent to mean heavy cavalry.

The period of heavy cavalry dominance was really very short. Say from X century to XIII. That sort of coincides with the apex of feudalism. So there's the answer. In a period of intense interfeudal warring and slow economic growth, it's this knight class the ones that can afford the military equipment and the dedication to military duties. So knights would fight knight. It was common to carry infantry an archers as well, but this was for the most part poorly equipped peasant levies. The general socioeconomical landscape changed radically in the XIV century, and this led to both the social and military demise of the heavy cavalry-knight class.

>>1794691
Here's the thing, people tend to think about medieval armies as if they had matching uniforms or they were well equipped uniformly. That is not so, bulk of the armies were probably levies and such. Portrayal of European armies as heavily armed, armored is coming from movies and exaggeration in historical records, and I guess bias because everyone wants to be few but valorous.

It is true that there is not a viable method for an unarmored soldier to beat an armored one consistently. However if you actually look at armored warfare, it's basically wrestling since there is no point in swinging a sword against armor. So imagine 10 guys with long sticks surrounding an armored knight with a sword, they would just poke him to make him fall and then strike him with knives through gaps in armor. Why do people think humans actually run mindlessly against armored opponents? Why don't people realize pikes and spears were the weapon of choice in medieval times for a reason?