The Myth of the Mounted Knight

[Nerthus]

"The Myth of the Mounted Knight" by James G. Patterson:

http://www.the-orb.net/non_spec/missteps/ch3.html

[Prussian]

Interesting article, it's rather fascinating how in recent years military historians are reconsidering their research upon this subject. I also tend to think a lot of misconceptions are harboured in confusing even lighter armoured foot soldiers with actual (true) knights on foot.

A Tapestry Depicting a Templar Foot Knight

Another fallacy is the belief that knights constituted the majority of the medieval army. The truth is that most armies in the Middle Ages were predominantly made up of infantry, and the knights themselves often fought on foot.

Indeed keeping in mind that costly armour (that is the full suited variety used by the majority of true knights)could only be afforded by wealthy figures with status of the period. Hordes of (True)Knights as the bulk of the army is a pure exaggeration which gives rise to the myth, but despite this they had importance & status on the field.

A good example of how Medieval forces were composed is that of the structure of the Teutonic Order\'s forces.

Even amongst the mounted element, true knights were in the minority. A related misconception is that the charge of heavily armored cavalry was irresistible to any force not similarly constituted.

Again true, Cavalry charges are best supported by Infantry, not much has changed in the sense of warfare in the truth that Armour is also best supported by Infantry in terms of modern land Warfare.


Though despite all this I still find the Icon of the mounted Knight a symbol of power.

[Perun]

Interesting article Bayerisches, thanks for posting it.

Id comment more, but Ive been chronically fatigued lately.

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Aeternitas

Tradition tells us that Charles Martel’s epic victory over the Saracens at Poitiers (Tours) in 732 effectively saved the Christian West from Islamic domination. Whether or not this battle played the pivotal role so often ascribed to it is open to debate.

It was probably little more than a bruise. The Moors there were an advanced party which was far away from its center of operations, raiding and looting the area.

What saved Christian West was the lack of personnel and logistics of the Saracens, and the long centuries which the Hispanics resisted them and fought them back. Some early chronicles tell us of combats being held day and night, without rest.

But anyway, Gibbon "the Archiver" made up his own story.

[Agrippa]

Though despite all this I still find the Icon of the mounted Knight a symbol of power.

A mounted and fully equipped knight was a great force and only greater numbers and disciplined units could stand him. But finally, he was best used as charger in very specific situations, some described above, and there were just not enough of them on the field for being decisive in the "usual medieval battles".
Against infantry in formation with good pikes it would have been just suicide to charge. Hastings is a nice example, as mentioned above, for the power of knights for specific tasks, using their mobility and speed.

[Prussian]

Originally Posted by Agrippa

A mounted and fully equipped knight was a great force and only greater numbers and disciplined units could stand him. But finally, he was best used as charger in very specific situations, some described above, and there were just not enough of them on the field for being decisive in the "usual medieval battles".

Indeed very specific situations, the difference between his demise or his opponents demise. Yes although there have been some battles where large amounts of Knights were fielded, it usually was not the case in the average & more usual battles of the period.

Originally Posted by Agrippa

Against infantry in formation with good pikes it would have been just suicide to charge. Hastings is a nice example, as mentioned above, for the power of knights for specific tasks, using their mobility and speed.

Right, not a multi-purpose troop but one for a very specific role. Only Effective like any other troop in what their purpose demanded. Largely depending on the situation they can either be overly effective or ineffective & expossed, depending on the element of battle they face.

[Nerthus]

The Poitiers event is regarded as a crucial historical point but of course this fact is always open to debate. Though a lot of historiographers preach objectivity, few of them actually wrote an objective history. The thing is information sources for historiographers concerning the battle in question were old Christian chroniclers which don't count as too objective or scientific.
Not that Gibbon's work is one of the best, after all one of the reasons it was so succesful was the fact that his way of writing is attention-catching and stimulates the reader's imagination.

[Perun]

Originally Posted by Aeternitas

Though a lot of historiographers preach objectivity, few of them actually wrote an objective history.

Well then theres also the question of whether or not pure objectivity is possible or even desireable. One certainly should not be completely biased, but often trying too hard to be objective often leads one down the path to being sterile as a historian. Just my thoughts.

[Nerthus]

Originally Posted by Perun

Well then theres also the question of whether or not pure objectivity is possible or even desireable. One certainly should not be completely biased, but often trying too hard to be objective often leads one down the path to being sterile as a historian. Just my thoughts.

Pure objectivity, just like pure anything else cannot really be achieved IMO. Let's not forget that a lot of history is written from books - it doesn't include traveling, research activity at the site in question, access to the original source etc. - and thus there are cases in which it doesn't even represent the opinion or view of the curent writer, but that of the former. In such cases the work of the historian is resumed to assimilation of information and syntethis. Even if the writer forms his own opinion on the facts, it can be based on a previous and already formed opinion. Even if not having a certain bias is humanly impossible IMO, striving as close to objectivity as one can get can be a goal and I think this is what historiographers really meant.

[Faísca]

Originally Posted by Agrippa

A mounted and fully equipped knight was a great force and only greater numbers and disciplined units could stand him. But finally, he was best used as charger in very specific situations, some described above, and there were just not enough of them on the field for being decisive in the "usual medieval battles".

Against infantry in formation with good pikes it would have been just suicide to charge. Hastings is a nice example, as mentioned above, for the power of knights for specific tasks, using their mobility and speed.

One must not forget the armour is usually heavy, and in later times it was getting heavier and heavier to try to avoid ballistic projectlies; thus, a knight on a horse is powerful whilst on the horse, because if the knight was thrown out of it, and such did happen often, it is more than certain he would be a dead knight in a glimpse, either from the fall or killed by the enemy due to its lack of defence.

[Prussian]

Originally Posted by Johannes de León

One must not forget the armour is usually heavy, and in later times it was getting heavier and heavier to try to avoid ballistic projectlies

Yep especially being pierced by bolts fired from Cross bows among others, very effective against suit/plate armour. Afterall that was it's main purpose for design, to fire shots to pierce armour. Though of course with plain old chain mail armour, one was also open to arrows as well. Long bow men were generally effective at long range against knights both on foot or charging.

With regards to a death blow from such a fall, it's much like dying any heavy hit even one's that can occur these days. If the fall is hard enough it can be almost assured you'll die with the weight of armour. Warfare it's certainly rough business.

[Faísca]

Originally Posted by Prussian

Yep especially being pierced by bolts fired from Cross bows among others, very effective against suit/plate armour. Afterall that was it's main purpose for design, to fire shots to pierce armour. Though of course with plain old chain mail armour, one was also open to arrows as well.

Imagine the craze it was when gunpowder started being wide accepted... That's perhaps the main reason why such armors lost their use. If they were light, the bullets would trespass it, if they were hard enough not to let bullets pass through, they would be too heavy to carry. Therefore they became useless in battle.

[Prussian]

Originally Posted by Johannes de León

Imagine the craze it was when gunpowder started being wide accepted... That's perhaps the main reason why such armors lost their use. If they were light, the bullets would trespass it, if they were hard enough not to let bullets pass through, they would be too heavy to carry. Therefore they became useless in battle.

Great minds think alike, I was just thinking of mentioning that.

But yes you're totally right the gradual evolution of gunpowder eventually brought this unique age to an end. Though some of earlier devices used to fire projectiles had their use, but were slow in loading & just as dangerous for the user as to the intended victim in the case of powder exploding as they fired.

Just think of it if you were one of those early handgunners, you'd be praying as you fired it, hoping it fires right & kills your opponent instead of you, very dangerous game.

[Perun]

Originally Posted by Aeternitas

Pure objectivity, just like pure anything else cannot really be achieved IMO. Let's not forget that a lot of history is written from books - it doesn't include traveling, research activity at the site in question, access to the original source etc. - and thus there are cases in which it doesn't even represent the opinion or view of the curent writer, but that of the former. In such cases the work of the historian is resumed to assimilation of information and syntethis. Even if the writer forms his own opinion on the facts, it can be based on a previous and already formed opinion. Even if not having a certain bias is humanly impossible IMO, striving as close to objectivity as one can get can be a goal and I think this is what historiographers really meant.

Those are certainly valid points. What I was trying to get at(and these will be my last words on the topic, since I dont want to drift the thread, unless you want to continue this discussion elsewhere) is that too many historians lack any conviction and thus make their historical inquiries dull and boring.

Wheras ancient historians wrote their histories with a strong conviction towards the topic. If they wrote about a famous battle, they did so as to present a great heroic struggle. If on a famous person, to present a great example to the nation or of a great villian. They basically told history in the sense one would tell a great story. Of course they resorted to artistic license at times, and that should certainly be avoided by modern historians. But the notion of presenting the facts in an exciting way(as the ancient historians) is still of great value.

I think that spirit has largely died among historians nowadays and is one that should be recaptured. Sadly it's viewed that being convicted in writing history is somehow destroying the essence of history, or merely presenting myths. Not true.

Take for example Hrushevsky's History of Ukraine. It's very factual and well received by academics. But Hrushevsky wrote the piece of out a strong conviction in the validity of Ukrainian nationhood and presenting to the Ukrainian people their strong heritage. He's not just presenting myths, in fact he debunks many(particularly the Normanist theory). So he combined wrote history in an academnic yet still exciting fashion, presenting the story of Ukraine's path through history.

And damnit, I just lost my train of thought. Oh well, surely you get my main point?

[Perun]

Originally Posted by Johannes de León

Imagine the craze it was when gunpowder started being wide accepted... That's perhaps the main reason why such armors lost their use. If they were light, the bullets would trespass it, if they were hard enough not to let bullets pass through, they would be too heavy to carry. Therefore they became useless in battle.

Yet you cant forget that old ideas still come back. Need we forget that many designs of bullet-proof vets and such are modelled after medieval armour. There's one suit I read about that uses a system quite similar to chain-mail.

Helmets came out of fashion for several centuries untill being revived during World War I, and many of them were modelled off medieval designs.

[Perun]

Originally Posted by Prussian

But yes you're totally right the gradual evolution of gunpowder eventually brought this unique age to an end.

whats probably most interesting about the development of gunpowder was that its dominance on the battlefield had little to do with its accuracy or deadliness per se. It had to do with the fact that during the Renaisance there was a general revival in interest in things Greeco-Roman. This included their battle formations.

Guns up untill the 19th century were highly inaccurate. Yet put a bunch of men armed with guns in a phalanx-like formation, and they'll prove devastating.

Certainly a blow to the notion of that technology and weaponry determine the evolution of warfare. In fact the long-bow and the musket did not necessarily by themselves make the armoured knight obsolete.

A good book to read about that is The Dynamics of Military Revolution, 1300-2050 edited by MacGregor Knox