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

[Turboflex]

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).

Even if you take away the gear advantage it would be like spartans vs persian conscripts, legionnaires vs barbarian rabble, thin red line vs zulus/maharats or delta force vs some shitty african militia. Elite, disciplined soldiers have always had a HUGE advantage over a rabble no matter the gear.

That said the pre-1300 era was one where some gear and individual prowess went really far. After that time, new weapons and doctrines came into effect which limited the impact of elite knights vs peasants. Crossbows, then muskets were range knight killers that didn't require extensive training. The doctrines of oike phalanx formations and later tercios also empowered the the relatively untrained vs the elite.

[Casimir]

Too my knowledge no, the Saxons had no cavalry at Hastings.  However 'Knights' who are bound to their lord in military service via fiefdoms were not present in Anglo-Saxon England, while it was in Normandy. It was these warriors who won William his victory against a heavily armed enemy in a superior tactical position.

Combined arms tactics is a rather general term indeed, but the use of melee and ranged infantry is a combined force.  The only addition to this that the Normans have was the cavalry, and it was that which gave them their advantage on the field.

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).

Be careful when comparing Knights to professional soldiers, both existed and although they often overlapped they were different things.  Professional soldier (such as mercenaries) are not bound to a liege lord.  The Knight is a social class, it represents the bond between the Man and his liege lord.  The obligation of providing military service whether he himself did it or paid for a professional soldiers to do so in his place.

[Penitent]

Great insights and discussions so far guys!  I think I have a better understanding of knight's effectiveness in battle relative to historical periods.

[CtrlAltDe1337]

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.

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.

Composite bows do not work well in a wet climate like Europe: the glue comes apart and the weapon is useless.  Thus, before the invention of crossbows, there weren't any very effective ranged weapons.  Cavalry gave you a tremendous mobility advantage and absolutely destroyed infantry formations.  It wasn't until heavy crossbows, English/Welsh longbows, and gunpowder came around that knights began to lose their luster.

[Penitent]

Yes, it's true.  I've been reading some more, and knights were in fact the epitome of martial potency in the late dark ages and early middle ages in Europe.  In fact, the word for soldier at one point literally meant "knight."  So armies made of of knights and foot soldiers were essentially referred to as "true soldiers and other guys" more or less.   I could look up the latin/early french words but I don't have the book with me.

Pretty interesting stuff!  The post-roman empire but pre-Charlemange era is my new favorite time period to learn about, but a difficult period to find history on. 

[Siiem]

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?)"

[Kansuke]

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?)"

Go back in your hole !

[Paul]

French knight were considered to be the best of the best at that time. It was stupidity and arrogance that lost them some of the battles, not their lack of strength.

[isatis]

and bad general

and that goddam honor!!

[HarunYahya]

According to Journal of Sir John Cornwaille , Charles d'Albret was shouting "Nerf les archers" in Agincourt.
Yet they gave jumpshots back...

[Tyr_]

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.

[Torben]

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.

[Tyr_]

Backstabbing jewrat cav ftw.

Seems like they never had access to this
http://forum.meleegaming.com/general-discussion/fair-cav-behavior-on-battle-servers/
 

[Harafat]

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.

This about sums it up.

[Janis_Corp]

Look battle of Liegnitz = Mongol army defeat polish,teutonic,hospitaller knight armie

Battle of Mohacs = Ottomans defeat hungarians  incl. germans,polish and co. with alot of gunpowder

Battle of Nicopolis = Ottomans defeat a Crusader armie, battle same like azincourt

the Hussit wars = Peasant,rebels defeat against Knight armies

Flemish Pikemen against knights