Were European knights even any good? (provide examples?)

[Penitent]

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.

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.

[Penitent]

Battle of Arsuf   
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Arsuf

It seems this battle, and those of the early crusades, were won by the superior force of knights.
By the mid 1300's, crossbows and tactics evolved enough to make knights much less efficient.  So I guess the age of the mounted knight was early medieval times (prior to 1300's).  I learned something new!

If anyone else has other battle example, please share.

[[ptx]]

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.

[Torben]

even at gunpowder age,  soldiers equipped like former nights were a feared weapon.  google Haselrig's Lobsters

[Penitent]

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.

[Prinz_Karl]

We should ask ourselves the question if they were even disadavantaged towards other units. Tactics can do wonders and certainly knights can fall to it. I personally think heavier armor (we should totaly not relate to the game this is something different) is only beneficial regarding its protection against any kind of weapon damage compared to lighter armor, their arms are heavier, too. This is of course increasing their effectivity.

From my point of view it's therefore a slight misunderstanding. So if knights were defeated it was not because they were ineffectiv but because the tactic of the opponent was superior. Lighter armed units surely would have been fighting worse.

[[ptx]]

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.
Also, what Prinz_Karl said, their heavy armor made them near invulnerable to most of the stuff that the average soldier/drafted peasant was armed with, so them just charging head-on, slaughtering hapless lowborns (that didn't have a high morale to begin with) would result in a rout real fast.

[Tibe]

Well the Germanic Livionian knights where known as the "Livionian Brothers of the Sword" at first. The first battle they fought against pagan peasants they lost. "The Battle of Saule" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Saule . But I think it mainly consisted of like 100 knights or so. Rest where lightly armed troops on the Sword Brothers side. Thou im also 100% certain those "light" troops on the knights side where still 2 times better equiped and better trained than the pagan peasants. So its sorta like proof, depends on your point of view. Thou pagans had 1k more troops(farmers  ). One of the first battles that happened in Livionan grounds against pagans vs crusaders. After that humiliation they joined the Teutonic orders Livionian branch.

Than there was "the battle of Wesenberg" Livionan knights against Russia. Livionians lost again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Wesenberg_(1268) . They lost due to lack of manuverability of the heavy knights.
 
There were also the Scottish Independence wars that where kinda peasants vs knights. Watch "Braveheart" or read wiki

Overall....as much as I know(which is kinda medium knowledge). I belive the heavy knights dominated in the early medieval era. Before they started working on  equiping massive armies with weapons  that whould counter heavy armor an and tactics that whould take advantage of the knights immobility. Like for instance wide range use of armor piercing bodkin arrows, warhammers etc.

[Teeth]

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 nobility’s 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 nobility’s 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.

[Casimir]

Battle of Hastings 1066.  Armoured Norman knights on horse defeat the fearsome Saxon housecarls.

[Franke]

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...?

On topic: I agree with the guy who wrote that the reason that the battles you wrote down here are so famous is that the knights were (surprisingly) beaten there. You can also add the battle of Morgarten in which the Swiss, fighting for their independance, defeated an army, mostly composed of Austrian/German knights.

The knights (or, more generally spoken heavy cavalry) were surely the decisive factor in open field battles for many decades if not centuries. Their dominating role was only broke when the opponent learned how to counter (large masses of pikemen) or avoid (light cavalry and horse archers of Mongols or Saracens) the massive impact of their assault.

[Bobthehero]

The Crusaders generally kicked the asses of the Saraceens during the first Crusades, because the Saraceens charged head on the knights, and were ill equipped to deal with their gear. According to the book I read (forgots its title, and it was in French, sorry ) even when outnumbered the Crusaders won most direct battles.

Edit: Also read about the Battle of Patay, it pretty much tells you how Agincourt would have went had the French got the drop on the English.

[Christo]

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...?

Combined Arms Tactics.

[Casimir]

Hastings may not be the best example but it is a rather famous battle, and the Knights played a great significance in it.

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.

Charging uphill at a shieldwall, not one of the best uses of cavalry however, be it a ruse or not.



@OP i wouldn't mind dragging up some of my old lecture nots and finding some references on early medieval warfare.  Early / High medieval period is when the knight was the pinnacle of military strength, whether mounted or on foot. Battles such as Bannockburn and Courtai (battle of the golden spurs) proved that knights were not undefeatable, yet still remained a fearsome force.

[Christo]

Both sides used 'combined arms', only one of them fielded heavy horse.

Well, one could argue that having all kinds of troops, infantry-archers-cavalry at your disposal, and using them to support eachother, is what I'd call combined arms. The Saxons had any cavalry by the way? I don't recall such a thing. That can't be as "combined" as the Norman army.