What do you think those battles are famous for, then? Look up the less known, less famous, "average" battles and read of how small numbers of knights would rout masses of regular troops in a head on charge.
Yes I'm sure I'm missing something. Do you have any examples of "average" battles? I mean, the way battles and history are portrayed in the books, it seems like knights were regularly defeated. Maybe they should reconsider which battles they highlight to give a more accurate and even-handed view of history.Well, that's the deal with average battles, they are less documented. :( I would've looked up on some of the battles that, for example, the germanic knights in Livonia took part in, but the only ones i could find info on were the knights would get surrounded and captured due to their overconfidence, rather than the ones where they would win battles by simply plowing through the enemy. Even in those their losses would be far smaller than those of their enemies.
Battle of Hastings 1066. Armoured Norman knights on horse defeat the fearsome Saxon housecarls.
Please correct me if I'm wrong but I thought the reason for the outcome of the battle of Hastings was that the Anglo-Saxons' morale dropped when Harold was hit by a Norman arrow...?
Please correct me if I'm wrong but I thought the reason for the outcome of the battle of Hastings was that the Anglo-Saxons' morale dropped when Harold was hit by a Norman arrow...?There is no written evidence to back up this thesis which is based, along with most knowledge of the Norman conquest, on the Bayeux Tapestry. The earliest written account of the battle, a pro-Norman song of victory, states that Godwinson was hacked down by 4 Knights and mutilated. Nevertheless the death of the saxon king had a dramatic effect on morale and ultimately will have cost them defeat.
Combined Arms Tactics.Both sides used 'combined arms', only one of them fielded heavy horse.
Both sides used 'combined arms', only one of them fielded heavy horse.
Knights weren't just about gear though, they were the professional soldier class that spent huge portions of their day training in combat while the rest of society laboured and only trained a bit (longbows mongols were exceptions, they were peasant class who trained rigourosly with elite weapons).
I like reading about history. I've got a few books on medieval arms and armor, and famous battles from history. They all say how the European Knight was an elite, heavily armed and armored killing machine. They made up the core of any respectable medieval army, even if they were few and a bit disorganized.Basically all your examples are from late Middle Ages when the knight's dominance began to fade. Except for the Crusades, but that is accounted to different climate and geography which made the heavy cavalry tactic less effective.
However, all of the famous battles I read about seem to show how the medieval knight was actually not that effective!
Agincourt: knights defeated by archers and terrain
Most Crusades: knights defeated by more mobile cavalry/ mobile armies
Battle of Legnano: foot soldiers with crossbows defeat an army relying on knights
The Battle of Crécy: "The new weapons and tactics employed marked an end to the
era of the feudal warfare of knights on horseback."
Take a look at that last quote. Was there ever an era where knights on horseback dominated?
Can someone please provide some battles or examples where "thanks to the superior training and use of knights, the battle was one" is an accurate statement?
Knight seem pretty awesome, and romantic, but I'm having a hard time seeing their usefulness based on examples form history! Maybe I'm missing something though. :)
Are the books biased? Or maybe the battles spoken of were exceptions, rather than the norm? Still it seems that the effectiveness of knights on the battlefield is either under-represented or non-existent.
Agincourt: knights defeated by archers and terrain
The Battle of Crécy: "The new weapons and tactics employed marked an end to the
era of the feudal warfare of knights on horseback."
Both times the knights were mostly French, so I think the title of this topic should be.
"Were French knights even any good? (provide examples?)"
A really nice example where Knight changed the outcome of a battle is the "Siege/Battle of Konitz".
The German Knight Order got attacked by the Kingdom of Poland and the Prussian Confederacy.
The German Knights sent a 9.000 (different sources say 7.000-15.000, but most agree on 9.000) man strong army, which was on the way to reinforce Konitz, in which Grandmaster Heinrich Reuß von Plauen and 500 Knights got besieged by the polish and prussian army, which was 18.000 man strong.
The Prussian/polish troops attacked the reinforcement-army of the German Knights in front of the Walls. When the battle came close to the city-walls Grandmaster Heinrich Reuß von Plauen charged out with 200 German Knights and hit the back lines of the polish/prussian army, from where the Polish King Kasimir IV. was commanding his army.
As a result of this attack the polish/prussian army paniced and retreated.
In the end the German Knight Order lost 62 man, while the polish/prussian army lost about 3000, another 2000 got captured as prisoners.
Backstabbing jewrat cav ftw.
The knight definitely was the decisive factor in battles during a certain period. When society was almost completely feudal, from the 11th century till the 13th century, knights were the exclusive elite warrior caste. In those times there were no significant cities or trade. The bulk of the people worked on the lands of the nobility. The nobilitys only purpose was warfare, they were trained from childhood to be a knight. The enormous gap in skill and equipment between the knights and the other soldiers, lightly equipped levied peasants, made them the decisive factor in pretty much any battle.
Battles during these times were poorly documented, but also most likely much smaller than the battles between nations and religions later on. Lords pretty much governed their lands independently, wars were quite small. Kings had little power and there was no sense of nationality at all. So its a lot more difficult to find battles like that.
As the feudal system started to crumble, so did the combat prowess of the knight. Cities and trade grew quickly, which tried to free themselves from the restraints of the nobilitys rule. The gap between the peasant and knight, was filled with rich commoners, able to outfit themselves with some armor and pikes and crossbows. Cities had money and mercenary bands started to form, which, like the knight, were experienced in warfare and were much more capable in dealing with a heavy cavalry charge.
Yet, knights were still a force to be reckoned with. Just the fame of those battles you mentioned, shows how much knights were feared and what a exception it was that the infantry army successfully defeated knights, mostly due to poor conditions for cavalry, a good defensive position or extreme fatigue.
If you wanna see heavy cavalry dicking on infantry look at the Anglo-Norman conquest of Wales and invasion of Ireland. (particularly the battle of dublin in which 100 knights took on 1000+ Irish/Danish forces and won)
(longbow is an old old old weapon, and not uniquely British by any stretch of the evidence, the only advantage the British ever had was numbers, and even then it's debatable if they worked against plate).
You just have to take a look at the prices for armors, warhorses and good weapons at that time. No one would have payed those prices if it wasn't any effective, even if he did swim in money. :D
As far as I know, the long bow is not effective against plate, but you are right in saying that is debatable.
It was damn effective alright, don't care if you got some metal covering your chest...a 100-150 pound longbow is going to knock the breath out of you, not mentioning that it might be directed into the cracks of the plate, if it didn't find that spot on its own. If it did make solid contact though, and didn't ricochet, then that's one hell of a hit to be taking. Basically plate just increases your survivability chances. If you did just walk off a hit, it was either a defective shot or there was a lot of distance, and personally I don't think I could even do that.
As for the whole iffy conversation about the credibility of the Medieval knight, they were damn effective. A cruel, strong man on a large horse, decked out in a suit of mail (or in the later ages maybe some plate,) charging at you with lances and other atrocious weapons should definitely be given a commendable amount of respect.(click to show/hide)
Well, this is probably a topic for a different thread. I think we should make a new thread "were long bows effective against plate?" Some things to note is that longbows were used at a distance (100 meters or more) and used in "volleys" -- far, wide-arching shots. By the time the enemy was close enough to aim individual shots at creases in the armor, the archers are already drawing their swords or withdrawing. So, most arrows would have struck a knight from hundreds of feet in the air down on to his head and shoulders. Steel plate armor is hella-tough, and it would be hard to pierce it with a bow at far range. The horses, however, were not usually as heavily armored and suffered greatly. Same with non-plated men-at-arms. If arrows did make it into the joints of plate armor, it was more incidental than anything else.
So its yet to be seen if long bows were "effective" against plate, and what "effective" even means!
By the way, I think those guys can be classified as knights. They aren't the 14th-15th century warriors we envision wearing full plate armor, but they were probably minor nobility or at least landowners that served their lords as heavy cavalry. At its most basic, that's pretty much all a knight is (though I'm not expert).
Yeah its pretty darn iconic. I think the Nord round helmet or something is similar tho.
I'll say it again, the Battle of Patay is a great example of knights kicking ass.
I think mounted cavalry is very highly romanticised, against a professional force of infantry a cavalry charge is null, and attempting to charge anyway would result in heavy losses on the cav side
But it hasn't been my experience studying history that cavalry charges win battles they're just dramatic looking so captured the imagination of artists, and of course they were the nobility,
Chodkiewicz, having smaller forces (approximately a 1:3 disadvantage), (...) the Hussars quickly re-grouped their battle formations and charged at the Swedish lines.
The fighting lasted barely 20 to 30 minutes, yet the Swedish defeat was utter and complete. The army of Charles IX had lost at least half, perhaps as much as two-thirds, its original strength. The Polish-Lithuanian losses numbered only about 100 dead and 200 wounded, although the Hussars, in particular, lost a large part of their trained battle horses.
Strength
Polish side:
6,500–6,800 men
Russians
30,000 and 5,000 mercenaries
Casualties and losses:
400 vs 5,000
Yes I'm sure I'm missing something. Do you have any examples of "average" battles? I mean, the way battles and history are portrayed in the books, it seems like knights were regularly defeated. Maybe they should reconsider which battles they highlight to give a more accurate and even-handed view of history.
However, preoccupied with his own wing of the Russian forces, he lost track of the other sectors and failed to coordinate a defense against the counterattack by the Lithuanian light and Polish heavy cavalry, which until then had been kept in reserve.
The Lithuanian and Polish light horse and tartars attacked the overstretched center of the Russian lines in an attempt to split them. At the crucial moment the cavalry of the Grand Duchy seemed to waver, then went into retreat. The Russians pursued with all their cavalry reserves. The Lithuanian tartars and Polish cavalry, after retreating for several minutes, chased by the Russians, suddenly turned to the sides. The Russian cavalry now found themselves confronted by artillery concealed in the forest. From both sides, Polish and Lithuanian forces appeared and proceeded to surround the Russians. Ivan Chelyadnin sounded retreat, which soon became somewhat panicky. The Russian forces were pursued by the army of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania for five kilometers.
Siege of Malta 1565
Knights of Malta victory, repulsed Ottoman forces (which took losses from failed assaults and sickness)
Wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Malta_(1565)
Battle of Hastings 1066. Armoured Norman knights on horse defeat the fearsome Saxon housecarls.
The battle of Agincourt is well-known and made famous due to the rarity of knights being slaughtered.
The Knights didnt really win the battle technically. Both Harold and his brothers I believe were shot by arrows. The battle was almost lost due to the shieldwall of the saxons. The Normans just couldnt penetrate it.
It was the repeated feigned retreats of the cavalry that broke up the shield wall thus causing the archers to have an effect. Both elements worked effectively together but 'European knights' clearly showed themselves to be an effective fighting force. Look at R.A. Brown's discussion of the battle of Hastings or J. Gillingham's work on William the bastard at war, they both make a far more detailed and convincing argument than I can on the forums.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Golden_Spurs
Frisian rebeliants won against French Cavalry. Frisians had weapon aka Geodedang - one of 2h from crpg.Winners found on battleground 7 hundreds of golden spurs.
Im not denying that Knights werent effective, because IMO, Knights were a dominant force to be reckoned with. Just saying for this battle. Since they feigned retreats and didnt really do to much fighting until the end when the shieldwall broke. So Im just showing they didnt show much fighting prowess or shock and awe tacticts to just crush something on the battlefield.
Oh man yeah, The Great Siege!
This was one of the main ones I was gonna use. Still waiting for the movie on this one. =P
Varying reports of numbers always differ, but basically a small force of about 600 Knights (of Malta/of Rhodes/SMOM/of St John), combined with regular force of around 3,000-6,000 mercs & soldiers defended Malta for several months against a pretty massive force of Ottomans. About 200 - 250 ships, with reportedly somewhere between 40,000 - 60,000 Turks. Janissaries, Saphis, Hashish Assassins, Corsairs, all part of the bundle of fun.
It was pretty much a medieval Alamo, except the Alamo won, lol. Although they may not have if Spanish reinforcements hadn't finally arrived.
Another good one though is when King Baldwin and the Knights Templar attacked Saladin at the Battle of Montisgard. This was about 2 yrs before the Battle of Hattin where shitloads of Knights were wiped out in the desert.
1177, Baldwin, with only about 400-500 Knights and maybe 5,000+ regular infantry, surprises Saladin (who really didn't think Baldwin would attack being so outnumbered). Saladin had something like 26,000 Saracens, but before they could get set up for any kind of quick defense, Baldwin smashed into them and total disarray pretty much won the fight. Saladin himself barely got away, but according to accounts we have today, somewhere around 23,000 casualties - either dead or wounded - were inflicted on the Saracens. The Templars lost around 1,200 total. Not sure how many of them were Knights.
That is true. Good ol bodkin arrows and English longbows slaugtered the French, mainly due to the landscape. The French had to march through a lot of mud and loose ground. So essentially they were fish in a barrel for the elite English Bowmen.