Make plate armour finally realistic

[Nightmare798]

(click to show/hide)

I never said horses weren't expensive.  I said they were a necessity and that just because the English tended to fight dismounted did not mean they did not have horses.

You also appear to have overlooked the 2 important entries in your quest to prove how expensive horses were

 Total Armour owned by a Knight (1374): 326s 8d. 
 Knight's 2 Horses (1374): 200s

From your own evidence Knights spent more than 3 times as much money to buy their armour than their horse. 

Thank you for supporting my own argument as well though.  Knight's armour = 326s 8d.  Duke of Gloucester's armour = 2060s.  Where the "armor of the knight in 1374 was probably mail with some plates; same for Gloucester's."  As I said, there was a vast difference betwen average plate armour and good plate armour. 

Sadly there is no comparison to show how much of the 326s was spent on Mail by the Knight, however in the 12th century mail was 100s and between the late 13th and late 14th century the value of money approximately halved (according to the Thatcher's wages).  Therefore at a guess, more than 200s of the total 326s will have been spent on the mail, again supporting (although not proving) my point.

well by saying they couldnt afford horses, i meant that they would rather spend their wad for well crafted suit of plate armor than being unarmored on a horse that has no armor itself. not all nobles were rich enough to afford plate armor and armored warhorse, so they rather bought armor and marched into battle as heavy infantry. knights 2 horses did indeed cost 200s, but no knight was imo foolish enough to ride into battle with unarmored horse. i would rather rely on my legs and heavy steel suit myself...

[Tomas]

well by saying they couldnt afford horses, i meant that they would rather spend their wad for well crafted suit of plate armor than being unarmored on a horse that has no armor itself. not all nobles were rich enough to afford plate armor and armored warhorse, so they rather bought armor and marched into battle as heavy infantry. knights 2 horses did indeed cost 200s, but no knight was imo foolish enough to ride into battle with unarmored horse. i would rather rely on my legs and heavy steel suit myself...

This is wrong in so many ways

1) If light horses were so useless why did the English expressly request Rounceys over Destriers "for swift pursuit" in a 1327 call to arms?
2) How can you chase down and capture an enemy noble for ransom if you have no horse and are weighed down by armour?
3) How can you more easily escape capture yourself without a horse?
4) How can you as a knight distinguish yourself from normal infantry and thus display your status?
5) How can you get hired as a mercenary when you cannot provide your own transportation?
6) Why would you throw away the extra pay that having a horse provided?
7) Why did horses and especially lighter unarmoured horses out last heavy armour?

Yes it would be daft not to have an armoured horse if you were conducting a head-on charge at a defensible position where the enemy has ranged weapons.  However these situations were rare, knights were not required to pass an intelligence test before winning their spurs and horses (unarmoured or otherwise) were still useful in many, many more situations on and off the battlefield.

Basically for a knight it would be a case of buying as a good a set of everything (horse + armour) as they can afford and then work on getting a 2nd better horse and improving the helmet/chest plate with whatever money they earn and don't spend on everything else.  Greaves, gloves, mail, arm plates, thigh plates, horse armour, etc can all be improved over time through looting.

[Nightmare798]

This is wrong in so many ways

1) If light horses were so useless why did the English expressly request Rounceys over Destriers "for swift pursuit" in a 1327 call to arms?
2) How can you chase down and capture an enemy noble for ransom if you have no horse and are weighed down by armour?
3) How can you more easily escape capture yourself without a horse?
4) How can you as a knight distinguish yourself from normal infantry and thus display your status?
5) How can you get hired as a mercenary when you cannot provide your own transportation?
6) Why would you throw away the extra pay that having a horse provided?
7) Why did horses and especially lighter unarmoured horses out last heavy armour?

Yes it would be daft not to have an armoured horse if you were conducting a head-on charge at a defensible position where the enemy has ranged weapons.  However these situations were rare, knights were not required to pass an intelligence test before winning their spurs and horses (unarmoured or otherwise) were still useful in many, many more situations on and off the battlefield.

Basically for a knight it would be a case of buying as a good a set of everything (horse + armour) as they can afford and then work on getting a 2nd better horse and improving the helmet/chest plate with whatever money they earn and don't spend on everything else.  Greaves, gloves, mail, arm plates, thigh plates, horse armour, etc can all be improved over time through looting.

of course there were many who would afford both good armor and armored horse, but also many had only so big budget to afford either mediocre armor and unarmored horse, or good armor and horse, i would personally go for the first option.
i never said you can escape easily without horse. but if your horse gets critically wounded, you better have some 27th century instaheal medpacks to fix your legs here. chances are, that you can escape more easily when you fuck up close quarter infantry combat, than when you fail a cavalry charge. also, there is always a chance your horse dies in battle. how long do you think a knight can afford to repeatedly buy a horse over and over and over?

you can easily distinguish yourself as a knight, because you have: your coat of arms over an armor. high quality equipment [unless you were a tard and bought unarmored war horse instead of nice set of plate armor...], a long arming sword [although they were quite common among veteran troops], a shield with your very own crest... do i need to continue?

How can you get hired as a mercenary when you cannot provide your own transportation?
you march on foot genius, you act as if all mercenaries were cavalrymen. in fact them being a proffesional infantry was much more common.

Why would you throw away the extra pay that having a horse provided?
of course you  get paid, but there is not always time to get a horse [if you can afford it that is], because soldiers in middle ages were paid either every day, week, or month DURING the campaign, not before.

Why did horses and especially lighter unarmoured horses out last heavy armour?
because horses were vehicles, and because gunpowder was invented, actually heavy armor outlasted horses, as far as i know, a bullet proof vest with ceramic plates can be classified as heavy armor.

usage of horses also fell rapidly after invention of firearms like bolt-action rifles, machine guns, and grenades.

you seem to fail to understand that it was much cheaper for a knight to fight in battle dismounted because: falling of horse would resume in death [and hell horse wont last long enough without armor], he could in heat of battle [now this is a bit loose theory i know, but some knights actually prefered to be closer in action], and also because he could buy top notch armor, rather that mediocre armor and unarmored horse.

[Tomas]

(click to show/hide)

of course there were many who would afford both good armor and armored horse, but also many had only so big budget to afford either mediocre armor and unarmored horse, or good armor and horse, i would personally go for the first option.
i never said you can escape easily without horse. but if your horse gets critically wounded, you better have some 27th century instaheal medpacks to fix your legs here. chances are, that you can escape more easily when you fuck up close quarter infantry combat, than when you fail a cavalry charge. also, there is always a chance your horse dies in battle. how long do you think a knight can afford to repeatedly buy a horse over and over and over?

you can easily distinguish yourself as a knight, because you have: your coat of arms over an armor. high quality equipment [unless you were a tard and bought unarmored war horse instead of nice set of plate armor...], a long arming sword [although they were quite common among veteran troops], a shield with your very own crest... do i need to continue?

How can you get hired as a mercenary when you cannot provide your own transportation?
you march on foot genius, you act as if all mercenaries were cavalrymen. in fact them being a proffesional infantry was much more common.

Why would you throw away the extra pay that having a horse provided?
of course you  get paid, but there is not always time to get a horse [if you can afford it that is], because soldiers in middle ages were paid either every day, week, or month DURING the campaign, not before.

Why did horses and especially lighter unarmoured horses out last heavy armour?
because horses were vehicles, and because gunpowder was invented, actually heavy armor outlasted horses, as far as i know, a bullet proof vest with ceramic plates can be classified as heavy armor.

usage of horses also fell rapidly after invention of firearms like bolt-action rifles, machine guns, and grenades.

you seem to fail to understand that it was much cheaper for a knight to fight in battle dismounted because: falling of horse would resume in death [and hell horse wont last long enough without armor], he could in heat of battle [now this is a bit loose theory i know, but some knights actually prefered to be closer in action], and also because he could buy top notch armor, rather that mediocre armor and unarmored horse.

The key here is in the word "dismounted".  If knights frequently never even bothered to buy a horse at all they wouldn't need to "dismount" to fight.

But at any rate logic appears not to work here and so lets try some definitions instead

Knight:

a. Abbr. Knt. or Kt. A medieval tenant giving military service as a mounted man-at-arms to a feudal landholder.

1. (Historical Terms) (in medieval Europe)
a.  (originally) a person who served his lord as a mounted and heavily armed soldier

1. (in the Middle Ages)
a. a mounted soldier serving under a feudal superior.

Three definitions from different dictionaries and yet all three feel the need to speak of the knight's horse.

Next some wikipedia quotes (not always the most reliable I know, but i figured i'd throw them in anyway)
Historically, in Europe, knighthood has been conferred upon mounted warriors.[1]

Knighthood in the Middle Ages was closely linked with horsemanship (and especially the joust) from its origins in the 12th century until its final flowering as a fashion among the high nobility in the Duchy of Burgundy in the 15th century. This linkage is reflected in the etymology of chivalry, cavalier and related terms (see Etymology section below). The special prestige given to mounted warriors finds a parallel in the furusiyya in the Muslim world, and the Greek hippeus and the Roman eques of Classical Antiquity.[2]

Knighthood as known in Europe was characterized by the combination of two elements, feudalism and service as a mounted warrior.

This one is the important one though....
In the Early Medieval period any well-equipped horseman could be described as a 'knight,' or miles in Latin.[14] In the course of the 12th century knighthood became a social rank with a distinction being made between 'milites gregarii' (non-noble cavalrymen) and milites nobiles (true knights).[15] As the term 'knight' became increasingly confined to denoting a social rank the military role of fully armoured cavalryman gained a separate term, 'man-at-arms'. Although any Medieval knight going to war would automatically serve as a man-at-arms, not all men-at-arms were knights.

So prior to the 12th century you could not be a knight without a horse and after that if you were a Knight you were expected to have a horse.  Either way knights had horses.

Finally you need to stop thinking about this from a 21st century point of view with 20/20 hindsight on military tactics and weapons.  What you would have done has no bearing on historical facts and is therefore completely irrelevant.  I personally would have fought with a long bow even if I had the rank of Baron and was rich.  Does this mean that all Barons fought as archers! (that's rhetorical btw)

[Nightmare798]

(click to show/hide)

The key here is in the word "dismounted".  If knights frequently never even bothered to buy a horse at all they wouldn't need to "dismount" to fight.

But at any rate logic appears not to work here and so lets try some definitions instead

Knight:

a. Abbr. Knt. or Kt. A medieval tenant giving military service as a mounted man-at-arms to a feudal landholder.

1. (Historical Terms) (in medieval Europe)
a.  (originally) a person who served his lord as a mounted and heavily armed soldier

1. (in the Middle Ages)
a. a mounted soldier serving under a feudal superior.

Three definitions from different dictionaries and yet all three feel the need to speak of the knight's horse.

Next some wikipedia quotes (not always the most reliable I know, but i figured i'd throw them in anyway)
Historically, in Europe, knighthood has been conferred upon mounted warriors.[1]

Knighthood in the Middle Ages was closely linked with horsemanship (and especially the joust) from its origins in the 12th century until its final flowering as a fashion among the high nobility in the Duchy of Burgundy in the 15th century. This linkage is reflected in the etymology of chivalry, cavalier and related terms (see Etymology section below). The special prestige given to mounted warriors finds a parallel in the furusiyya in the Muslim world, and the Greek hippeus and the Roman eques of Classical Antiquity.[2]

Knighthood as known in Europe was characterized by the combination of two elements, feudalism and service as a mounted warrior.

This one is the important one though....
In the Early Medieval period any well-equipped horseman could be described as a 'knight,' or miles in Latin.[14] In the course of the 12th century knighthood became a social rank with a distinction being made between 'milites gregarii' (non-noble cavalrymen) and milites nobiles (true knights).[15] As the term 'knight' became increasingly confined to denoting a social rank the military role of fully armoured cavalryman gained a separate term, 'man-at-arms'. Although any Medieval knight going to war would automatically serve as a man-at-arms, not all men-at-arms were knights.

So prior to the 12th century you could not be a knight without a horse and after that if you were a Knight you were expected to have a horse.  Either way knights had horses.

Finally you need to stop thinking about this from a 21st century point of view with 20/20 hindsight on military tactics and weapons.  What you would have done has no bearing on historical facts and is therefore completely irrelevant.  I personally would have fought with a long bow even if I had the rank of Baron and was rich.  Does this mean that all Barons fought as archers! (that's rhetorical btw)

we are not arguing there what makes knight, knighthood is a social status not defined by any actual equipment. you say that knight without steed is not knight...that is false. while they were trained to fight mounted, they were equally effective on foot and made an excelent heavy infantry should they chose to or were ordered to. of course they would have a horse for transportation, but in the battle they did not necesarily had to fight mounted...

now i will quote wikipedia there

While light cavalry had been used in warfare for many centuries, the medieval era saw the rise of heavy cavalry, particularly the European knight. Historians are uncertain when the use of heavy cavalry in the form of mounted shock troops first occurred, but the technique had become widespread by the mid-12th century.[25] The heavy cavalry charge itself was not a common occurrence in warfare.[26] Pitched battles were avoided if at all possible, with most offensive warfare in the early Middle Ages taking the form of sieges,[27] or swift mounted raids called chevauchées, with the warriors lightly armed on swift horses and their heavy war horses safely in the stable.[28] Pitched battles were sometimes unavoidable, but were rarely fought on land suitable for heavy cavalry. While mounted riders remained effective for initial attacks,[29] by the 14th century, it was common for knights to dismount to fight.[30] Horses were sent to the rear, and kept ready for pursuit

Finally you need to stop thinking about this from a 21st century point of view with 20/20 hindsight on military tactics and weapons.

huh, where did actually spoke about 21st century military tactics at all?

also we are going heavily off topic there.

this argument was originally about cost of plate armor, which indeed could cost same, or even less that a warhorse.

[Tomas]

I'll highlight the important points in your own quote

While light cavalry had been used in warfare for many centuries, the medieval era saw the rise of heavy cavalry, particularly the European knight. Historians are uncertain when the use of heavy cavalry in the form of mounted shock troops first occurred, but the technique had become widespread by the mid-12th century.[25] The heavy cavalry charge itself was not a common occurrence in warfare.[26] Pitched battles were avoided if at all possible, with most offensive warfare in the early Middle Ages taking the form of sieges,[27] or swift mounted raids called chevauchées, with the warriors lightly armed on swift horses and their heavy war horses safely in the stable.[28] Pitched battles were sometimes unavoidable, but were rarely fought on land suitable for heavy cavalry. While mounted riders remained effective for initial attacks,[29] by the 14th century, it was common for knights to dismount to fight.[30] Horses were sent to the rear, and kept ready for pursuit

Also another wiki quote for you (this is becoming a bad habit though  )

Knights were expected to have at least one war horse (as well as riding horses and packhorses), with some records from the later Middle Ages showing knights bringing twenty-four horses on campaign.[12] Five horses was perhaps the standard.[42]

Knights still bought horses, regardless of how much they were used in the middle of a pitched battle.  You could not save money as a knight by scrimping on your horses and yes this includes war horses.

[Nightmare798]

I'll highlight the important points in your own quote

Also another wiki quote for you (this is becoming a bad habit though  )

Knights were expected to have at least one war horse (as well as riding horses and packhorses), with some records from the later Middle Ages showing knights bringing twenty-four horses on campaign.[12] Five horses was perhaps the standard.[42]

Knights still bought horses, regardless of how much they were used in the middle of a pitched battle.  You could not save money as a knight by scrimping on your horses and yes this includes war horses.

ya they did, but they were also common to fight on foot. the point is that some rather spent on protection than horse, also you could easily save your money on horses, well bred armored horses were common prize in tournaments you know , along with land, money blahblah blah and so on...

also as i said, they would rather not risk a battle on unarmored horse, as a stray arrow would mean their death. most knights did not die by weapon, but rather by fall...

i am seriously starting to lose the line of disscusion there, we are arguing over the question if knights had or had not to fight on foot [i will say on foot to avoid confusion], while this really depends on knights budget, preferences, and commands.

also i wonder about other thing: how much field usage did sword and shield combination found on battlefield? when you think about it, swords were actually pretty cheap by 14th century [see the pricing], and shields were no more expensive. i mean polearms are nice weapons and all but they are very prone to outflanking [which is why pikemen suffered so much under rodeleros]

[Tomas]

We are arguing over this.

[for example english foot knights who wore plate armor, yet they fought on foot because horse was too expensive for them.]

I have never disputed that knights fought on foot a lot of the time, but your reasoning is false.  It did not matter how expensive war horses were - as a knight you had to have one complete with all the trappings.  The decision by the English to fight on foot at Crecy and Poitiers was a purely tactical decision.