Um... what? I am genuinely confused here. I agreed with you...

Froissart mentioned it twice.

But guns are not muskets. It's like saying that a Mark IV is a Panther.

First, so you can use some depictions but not all. Curious. Secondly, this:
Oakeshott page 303-4:

"One may ask why a type of blade which was inherently ineffective against rigid armour came back into use at the very time when plate armour had come to its highest perfection. There are two possible answers. One is that perhaps this very perfection caused fewer and fewer ordinary men-at arms to wear complete harness, for as it became freer, it became more and more expensive, and so beyond the reach of all but the wealthiest. The other is that in Spain and Italy, perhaps on account of the climate, complete plate armour was far less generally worn than elsewhere, and in Scotland it was used by comparatively few noblemen; the average Scot could not afford it and would probably have scorned to wear it anyway. The same argument perhaps applies to the Scandinavian countries and to Hungary. Even in England, France and Germany the tendency was more and more to use comparatively lightly-armoured troops whose defences consisted simply of a sallet or a kettle-hat, a marl coif, a garment like the old coat of plates but now called a Brigandine (or in England a Jack) or a mail shirt, mail sleeves and sometimes legharness, either complete or consisting only of poleyns with large lames above and below to afford a little extra protection for the front of thigh and calf. A cutting sword would be effective agains such troops, particularly if they were dismounted and the sword was wielded by a mounted man-at-arms."

What? Reliance on art has nothing to do with it. Proper science has a lot.

This is a non-statement. You do not even say anything.

I see... So, the polish knights of the 15th century were armed with wooden shields and carried sticks. Great. That's why they won.

In fact they were indistuingishable from the prussian nobleman forming the bulk of the teutonic army.

Please, quote me on this. Please.

But that what is WAS. You cannot dismiss evidence by saying you do not agree with it. It's like saying that Romans had to have stirrups, since it's only logical and they had over a thousand years of experience in mounted warfare.

Why this discussion is definitely spirited I think we are talking about different things. You seem to take small segments into consideration and then make broad statements based on them. That is not how it works. For example: One cannot say that propeller aircraft were useless. They may be NOW. But even that statement is not true.

 

Fixed that for you. The Battle of Tannenberg was fought in 1914 between Russian and German Empires and the Battle of Grunwald was fought in 1410 between the Kingdom of Poland, Grand Duchy of Lithuania and its allies against the Teutonic Order and its allies.

 

As you well know both names are used. Usually Grunwald in Polish history and Tannenberg in western.

 

Are you a broken record?

When did he mention it, and in what context?

No, it's like saying that a Mark IV is a tank. "Musket" is a very general term. Some define it as the sort of weapon that you need to mount on a fork you stick into the ground because otherwise it's too heavy to use.

Much like how some define an arbalest as an early type of crossbow and others use the term to refer to exceptionally heavy steel-bowed crossbows which shoot projectiles with forces exceeding 20 kilonewtons.

... except as plate armour reached its perfection, so did the science of making cheap plate armour, which was not as efficient but was still far better than mail.

And it would still not be a weapon of choice against other knights.

Funny that you say that when you keep referring back to art, such as the Bayeux tapestry or tombstone.

My statement is an inferred "knights are not completely fucking retarded."

Again with the fucking strawmanning. This is why I call you dishonest, you flipping twerp. And the Polish army was not composed entirely of knights.

Sure.

Three inaccuracies, here: knights existed into the 16th century, so the era of knights was hardly ending.
Two: "full plate mail" (lol - plate "mail," seriously?) "considerably lowers your mobility." Completely fucking false.
Three: "isn't as useful in a real battle." Wow. Wow, wow, wow. Not only do you claim plate "mail" didn't completely change the playing board of the medieval battlefield (apparently it's a coincidence that maces and warhammers and pollaxes spiked in popularity after the invention of plate armour) you have the audacity to imply that it's not as useful as mail in a real battle.

False equivalency, here. You have no evidence, here. We see mail covering the gaps in the armour - what we don't see is mail under the plate.

And you have a tendency towards and like of strawmen, selective quoting, false equivalences and generally dishonest debating. How nice of you.

 

Yes and no. Tannenberg is used by Germans and people speaking Germanic languages. Grunwald is used by the rest. But, using two distinctive names for those battles is more logical as they have happened in two completely different eras of warfare.

 

I will get back on you on this later. It will take some digging and I don't have the time. But Oakeshott considered his statements and used them as fact.

No it isn't. A musket is a musket. It is not an arquebus. A handgun, or simply a gun is an appropriate alternative. But a musket is a specific type of blackpowder weapon.

And your argument is?

But our argument began on entirely different grounds. You said that the sword was not the primary weapon of a knight.

Once again I ask you to clarify, which knights. From which period? You make general statements without regard for accuracy.

Which is proper science. I cannot understand how you continue to deny it.

Which is your opinion and has no bearing on the discussion.

I do not get you. You can state general statements and use sarcasm and I cannot? You said that Teutonic knights fought easterners who were not as armed as them. That is not true. It may be the case with Lithuanian from Samogitia but not with knights (boyars) from Smolensk or Polish knights, who fought (as historical evidence proves) head to head with western equivalents.

And you're right. It wasn't completely composed of knights but they formed an overwhelming majority. 51 banners of Poles alone are recorded. Banners of KNIGHTS.

Wasn't ending? I mean, really? The last battle fought primarly by knights was the aforementioned battle of Tannenberg (or GRUNWALD as some might want to say). And the Hussities proved the power of knights... definitely.

Why was not plate mail used in general warfare? Economy always wins.

I see... So despite that you see mail under plate, and that chainmail was worn under plate for the previous 120 years or so, you continue to deny it. Tell me what you are smoking.

I try to talk about facts. Not conjecture. And use proper terminology with dates!

---------- Post automerged at 00:57 ---------- Previous post was at 00:53 ----------

You're right, it does make more sense. But it doesn't change the fact that Tannenberg is prevalent in many scientific publications. And people more often (at least in my personal experience) recognise Tannenberg 1410 than Grunwald.

 

Okay, so I don't know anything about swords or fighting in the middle ages but in Kingdom of Heaven, Liam Neeson says that you should always take the high guard or la poste de falcone with a sword.

What did fighting actually look like between knights? I watched that ARMA prize video and most of them clutch the hilt to their bellies and if they have shields don't really keep them close to their bodies.

 

Plate Mail wasn't limited by cost. The top end museum quality plate tended to be really expensive, but if you needed it you could get a low quality plate that wasn't as nice and wouldn't be a "perfect" fit on the cheap, and if you were going to battle you'd buy at least the cheap quality.

Also keep in mind knights were low nobility so they weren't exactly dirt poor.

Also, IIRC, the number of people that actually fought in battle was pretty fucking low, and is often massively over-exaggerated due to fantasy novels and movies.




History is so fucking interesting. Even among historians, small or large things can be hotly contested. You can find vast disagreements over any number of things. It's not an exact science, that's for sure. Even the famous, most large battles could have numbers varying widely. The Battle of Grunwald for instance can have numbers of 27k to 65k depending on who you were asking.

 

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL2D4363CB9ECD68CD

An entire youtube playlist done by Hammaborg using the Gladiatoria manuscripts on fighting in armor with swords.

 

It seems in these type stories are making cavalry the end all be all. I know there were weapons like the poleaxe and halberd to minimize their capabilities. My question is how much did they hinder the cavalry?

 

A complex answer this one. To summarise: A polearm was developed to give infantry an edge against cavalry. Battles of Morgarten 1315, Sempach 1386, Nafels 1388 and let's not forget that Charles the Bold, the last great western knight, died from a halberd during the siege of Nancy in 1477. It was a frightening weapon which proved its usefulness time and time again.

Then it developed into the pike of the 16th and 17th century and together with the musket held the battlegrounds of Europe till the 18th century.

 

Horse cavalry were so overwhelming because of their mobility and the sheer momentum they brought with them. A horse stampedge alone can trample a formation of men without a great deal of effort. Add in human training and a rider and you've got one of the deadliest weapons you'll ever see.

The job of pikemen was to nullify that advantage. A horse can't carry momentum over a wall of corpses. Pikes were designed specifically to kill the front ranks of horses and force the rest to slow down. Cavalry in a static battle lost every single time. It's just too unwieldy to swing a sword from a stationary horse at guys running around on the ground. The pikes were meant to force a stationary battle.

It didn't always work, but it was very effective nonetheless and it turned cavalry from the overwhelming 'I win' button of the middle ages into a powerful tool that needed to be used cautiously.

 

"If the enemy infantry was equipped with polearms and fought in tight formations it was not possible to charge without heavy losses."

It could hinder them a lot, if they were fool enough to charge into a wall of polearms. But a nice, properly outfitted mounted force (with cavalry archers and heavy cavalry lancers) could pepper the enemy infantry with arrows to soften the lines before the charge, or try and get them to break rank with a 'fake' charge and retreat.

Otherwise, knights would dismount and fight on foot.

 

No horse will charge a wall of pikes, it's a reasonable animal. They simply stopped or turned around. That's why cavalry was best used against a disorganised enemy.

As it was overwhelmingly proved during the Napoleonic period when horses would not charge men with bayonets on their muskets. Cases where cavalry broke an infantry square in that period were excedingly rare (under 5, I believe).

Cases when cavalry defeated infantry, Kircholm 1605, were special. In that instance lances were LONGER than infantry pikes and they stabbed from beyond their reach.

 

So EinStern...do you reddit because I know there's a reddit for Historians where people ask questions specifically for historians to answe and I think you'd be awesome at it. Seriously, look it up if you haven't already.

/thread derailment

 

That's not really correct. The advantage of the length of the pike was that it increased the 'stand off range.' Horsemen would generally attempt to spear the men with their increasingly long lances without allowing the infantry to retaliate. However, the increased length of the pike forced the cavalry to get longer and longer lances and wheel away earlier and earlier. Horses wouldn't charge sharp points, and their riders knew better than to do something suicidal like that anyway. The cavalry maintained their advantage through cleverness - though they would often strategically dismount even so.

Cavalry were effective not because of overwhelming charges against organized opponents (any time cavalry charged up against a force of infantry who did not break and remained in some semblance of a formation, they suffered heavy casualties, no matter whether they had pikes or not) but due to their ability to break the enemy's morale, their mobility, and intelligent maneuvers. Naturally, the objective of all battles is to break the enemy's morale, not to kill them.

The advantage of infantry against cavalry is unit cohesion and having sharp points, not so much the length of the weapon. The benefit of the length was for stand off purposes and because you could bring more points to bear - the increased amount of points actually being more useful in infantry vs infantry combat.

One of the very first uses of pikes in the middle ages was actually by dismounted knights who realized their lances were really long, and thus useful for stabbing infantrymen.

 

While I agree with the rest of your post, this section intrigued me. When and where did you hear this idea? While the spear was the predominant (most commonly used) weapon of the early middle ages, never have I encountered an opinion that knights used lances (a weapon not suited for fighting on foot, due to its lightness, though that changed when armour became heavier and, in consequence, lances became heavier) while dismounted. They would most likely use a sword, or a mace, if it wasn't available. When did knights use lances as pikes?

Polearms, similarly to a crossbow, were the great equalizers of the middle ages. They allowed common folk to kill armoured knights.

 

I don't know even a tenth of the military history some people in this thread command, but from personal experience - which maybe doesn't mean much - playing M&B: Napoleonic Wars, which is a pretty accurate historical portrayal of the period, I can tell you that cavalry are the be-all-end-all.

During a line-battle in Napoleonic Wars, you basically "roleplay" as an actual soldier during the period. You learn all about formations and tactics from your commander, and you execute them on the field.

I was in a large company of musketeers, that is to say, most of us had muskets, a few of us had swords, the captain had a pistol. There were about thirty of us.

First of all, when a cavlary charge happens there's almost no warning. Gunshots and explosions everywhere, we were marching up a hill when somebody suddenly shouted through mumble, "Cavlary! Defensive format-" and then we got trampled over and our numbers were reduced by half. Shocked and shaken, an enemy platoon climbed to the top of the hill we were on, and we got gunned down. The cavalry didn't use any muskets, just swords (and pikes I think? I forget).

On a good day, you get advanced warning, you see or hear the charge coming. Everyone is generally marching in a loose double or single file formation, and then you suddenly rush to cluster up into a clumped up ball. People in the front get on their knees and bring their bayonets out. Others in the center do the same. The charge still happens, but they can't charge head-on or risk being impaled, so damage is significantly reduced. But even so, a company still takes considerable shock damage and there's a ton of energy used, mentally and physically, to pull off a maneuver like that. The cav group usually doesn't lose much either, maybe a rider or two. They just keep moving, attacking other groups after they ride past, or if they hit you hard, they circle around again and finish you.

Now, that isn't medieval warfare, but it's kind of close. Tactics would be different, I think, there would be fewer small groups of units, more blobs? I don't know how formations worked before guns, but I imagine similar things would happen. Cavalary are just really, really strong. In M&B, cavalry charges decide most battles. The side with the better/more riders has a huge advantage on the field, even when guns get involved (though muskets do ultimately make horse charging suicide).

 

This issue is complex and warrants a thorough explanation. First of all a cavalry only charged, as in spurred their horses to the highest degree, in the last segments of advance, when they were very near the enemy.

Secondly, direct command of a battle gave the commander time and opportunity to order his troops into the correct formations. See the battle of Vimeiro in 1808, where Wellington maintained control of his forces and managed to issue orders (outmanouvre) the French. Or the battle of Tanneberg 1410, when the Polish King commanded from a hill, while the Order Grand Master went into melee.

We must not forget these matters when discussing historical battles.

But, cavalry is good if the enemy breaks or flees. Against determined, well armed infantry it failed. Crecy, Agincourt and all the battles against Swiss I mentioned earlier prove it.

 

Cavalry in Mount and Blade is OP simply de to it's mechanics. They can turn on a dime and swing their lances around at absurd angles.