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

[Penitent]

Thanks!  That's just the kind of concrete examples I was originally looking for.

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).

[Fringe]

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).

Hmm we've got two very different visions of knights apparently.

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

Not saying the others weren't, but I've never really had a plated soldier come to mind when thinking of the medieval knight.


Another battle that shows the resolve of the medieval knight is the Battle of Dorylaeum. Men at arms and knights alike stood ground to Turkish horse archers and withstood the rather exotic eastern combat.

[Casimir]

These are the kind of Knights that I look at.

visitors can't see pics , please register or login


visitors can't see pics , please register or login

[Penitent]

Off topic: I wish we had that kind of round helmet shown in the right on the upper picture.  I've always wanted that helm in game...

[Bobthehero]

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.

[Penitent]

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.

It looks like the knights did kick ass there, but it looks more like luck than anything else.  A quote from the wiki article for this battle:

"For once the French tactic of a large frontal cavalry assault had succeeded, with decisive results."

So it seems like an exception rather than the rule.
My limited research based on the great information in this thread is that mounted knights were a potent force on the battlefield  during the dark ages and very early medieval period.  After that, their effectiveness was very situational.

I'm now holding the position that mid-late medieval soldiers armed themselves with heavy armor and heavy horses when they could afford to because it kept them safer as individuals and was seen as prestigious...not necessarily because it was the best way to effect victory on the battlefield.

[Casimir]

Yeah, remember that primary sources were also highly biased to a pro-aristocratic depiction of events, meaning praising their role as mounted knights and lessening the role of the foot soldiers.

The training of the knights was by far the most significant edge they had, they trained regularly and from a young age, this gave them more of an advantage than simply their equipment.  Really the greatest boon that mounted soldiers had over foot soldier was their mobility, the fact that they could more easily respond to developing situations and thus change the outcome of a battle.  I'd argue that the central middle ages saw the dominance of knightly warriors, and this only lessened into the late 13th and 14th centuries.

Looking for the success of European Knights means much more than simply questioning how effective heavy cavalry is.

[zagibu]

I think another one of the reasons why knights weren't so often the main reason for win and loss ind battles is because they were pretty few in numbers compared to other soldiers. Even if they really were the killing machines we envision them to be, this doesn't matter that much when there are only 50 of them in an army of a thousand soldiers.

[Casimir]

Also remember the strategic uses of a knight outside of a pitched battle are what made them incredibly useful.  A band of knights could travel around the countryside devestating the land far easier than a group of footmen could.

[Falka]

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,

Pff, you didn't hear about polish cavalry I assume 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kircholm

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.

Swedish troops under the command of Gustav A*dolf 20 years later raped half of the germany during 30 years war, so they definitely weren't bad, just the opposite, but in this battle they've lost against one charge of heavy cavalry, basically having their roots in medieaval. Polish winged hussars weren't all that different from medieaval "knights".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Klushino

Another victory of polish hussars.

Strength
Polish side:
6,500–6,800 men

Russians
30,000 and 5,000 mercenaries

Casualties and losses:
400 vs 5,000

There were more, but it's too late for me already

[Timotheusthereal]

There are a battle that took on the iberian peninsula, where 400 knights faced alone against a (catholic) army and routed them! Help me find the sources of it, I know there are!

[MountedRhader]

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.

I have found that much of the modern media downplays and ridicules European knights and their worth, and their morals and sense of righteousness. It has treated the image of knights unfairly, portrayed them as lustful Hippocrates and adulterers, unfit and not deserving of the widespread praise of the common man as the quintessential good warriors & role models as to what men should strive to be. Of course there were some bad apples, but the noble dead do not deserve to be generalized as such and spat upon.

Indeed, if the knights of old, our ancestors, were just over-hyped nobles, none of these heroic tales or battles would ever have surfaced in the collective mind. It is the European knight that was the greatest warrior of the old world, and the most noble in the light of European values.

Hell, even the pirate beat the knight on deadliest warrior, the American battle-simulator, even though they demonstrated how the Pirate could not pierce the Knight armor with any of his weapons, nor easily avoid the knight due to his horse. Of course, the Knight is not American, so it doesn't matter.

Even so, knights are just men like the rest of us, and easily could have been defeated by any old peasant or archer with a dagger that happened to be around when the disabled knight fell. Keep in mind that this was rare, though. The battle of Agincourt is well-known and made famous due to the rarity of knights being slaughtered.

visitors can't see pics , please register or login



It is not all romanticism and guff. The Knights earned their titles as courageous holy warriors & great spiritual conquerors of old.

[Bobthehero]

I think you're on the other scale of extremeness, imo.

Edit: ON topic, what about the Battle of Arsuf, seems to be the perfect contender for this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Arsuf

[Casimir]

Its a good example however it's worth noting that the battle was held together by the strength of the foot soldiers and the discipline of the knights and footmen. The hospitaller knights charged without orders from Richard who was then forced to commit the rest of his forces. Although winning victory on the day, had richard been able to time his counter attack as he had desired the crusaders could have crushed saladins army potentially bringing victory to the campaign.

[51L3NC3R]

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)