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

[Garond_PL]

Polish- Lithuanian forces raped Knyazstwo Moscovskiye so much

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

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.

[dreadnok]

I read that the mongols embarrassed the knights templar

[Draggon]

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)

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.

[Draggon]

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.

[Tom Cruise]

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

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.

[Tom Cruise]

 The battle of Agincourt is well-known and made famous due to the rarity of knights being slaughtered.

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.

[Garond_PL]

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.

[Casimir]

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.

[Tom Cruise]

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.

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.

[bruttus]

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.

it where the Flemish, not Frissians that beated the French Cav

[Casimir]

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.

You said the knights didn't win the battle, while clearly they directly contributed to the final victory.  There was a lot more to cavalry and knightly tactics than simply shock and awe, the question here is whether they were actually any good.  Their mobility, training and discipline was just as important as their fighting prowess, something that clearly distinguished the knight.   By not fighting and by repeatedly retreating then reforming they showed that they were disciplined thus able to pull off high risk strategies.

[Turboflex]

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.

Haha yeah the turks made a porno about 1453 but not this??

[Fringe]

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.

It wasn't just Templars present at the battle. Many knights of Jerusalem and the Hospitaller order were also present along with many lords.

[B3RS3RK]

There is a reason for the development of knights in europe; They were, initially, the equivalent of tanks today; Almost invincible with massive power to deliver death upon enemies.However, just like with modern tanks, people developed weapons that were effective against them - bodkin arrows, crossbows and guns in the case of knights.But do weapons like rocket launchers or other anti-tank weapons render tanks obsolete?No, they don´t, because they are still able to perform out their initial role, just like knights - it´s just that they have an effective counter now, which, cleverly utilized can ensure victory for the opposing party.

[Bobthehero]

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.

No
No
No
NO NO NO NO NO they killed the horses and possibly the lightly armored troops, but its dismounted english knights that made the kills, the longbow is nearly useless vs plate armor.