Was there any medieval soldiers that could hope to take down a knight without relying on sheer luck?

Was there any medieval soldiers that could hope to take down a knight without relying on sheer luck?

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    some outlier of a guy who is like 6.7 could probably kill one in one good swing to the head with a halberd or other heavy weapon, or wrestle one and stab him in the throat or eye, or shoot him with a crossbow. By the time super powerful plate armor was available so were guns.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >muh height is what make a good fighter
      T.retard who never been in a fight

      A 6'7 has far more disvantages in combat than the average guy

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        height = reach and strength cope manlet

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Height = strenght
          Retarded homosexual, manlets put muscle far more easily and are stronger than lanklets on average
          >reach
          if you manage to break their reach then its over for them

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >stronger than lanklets on average
            Nobody is talking about average retard. There is a reason all the worlds strongest men are over 6ft. Bigger skeleton can fit more muscle on it.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >manlets put muscle far more easily and are stronger than lanklets on average
            That's just optics, if a lanklet and a manlet were to put on the same amount of muscle mass on you'd think the manlet put on more than the lank as the change would be more visible on him

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >reach
          Ultimately useless unless you're trying to wrestle home to the ground and stab through a slit.
          >strength
          Manlets put on muscle faster but it's irrelevant. What you need is the STAMINA to keep going against some asshole in plate.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Height means more weight means more strength.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          this, all else being equal you weigh more and can put on more total muscle, also reach totally matters especially in martial arts, a couple of inches is huge, which is why people usually carried as long weapons as they could and went into battle with 27 inch katanas instead of 21 inchers

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Height has nothing to do with actual fight. Unless you are a turbo manlet or a turbo lanklet.

      I've seen 5'10 massive guy take down lanky 6'4 guy with ease.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        You've seen trained medieval soldiers fighting?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >muh height is what make a good fighter
        T.retard who never been in a fight

        A 6'7 has far more disvantages in combat than the average guy

        >manlet cope
        Go to Northern Europe and pick a fight with the biggest Norf you can find.
        They will whoop your sorry little brown ass.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >your Brown ass
          >muh height = whiteness

          Nilotics are the tallest people in the world
          I guess it make them whites too ?
          And yeah most tall people are skinny lanklets easy to take down
          It shouldnt be hard to manage

          If he is too tall, it might even be easier you retarded homosexual

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I guess it make them whites too ?
            According to some Belgian drunkards, it does.

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    You get three of your buddies, bum rush the fag and get him on the ground. Others will restain him while you work him with a rondel

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      > work him with a rondel
      Retard, you restrain him and take him hostage. Knights are worth big money.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      This is the correct answer but in all honesty there is a big chance that he will still kill all of you if you're not very careful.

      Yes, common men at arms and urban rebels just gangbanged them.

      Here's a bunch of French burghers gangbanging one.

      Notice how you need 3 of your friends to go in at once, to even make an attempt.

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    LOOSE

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      The arrow would bounce harmlessly off the knight's armor.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        cope
        bodkins can easily piece plate

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Look up the battle of crecy

          Show me a single video of an arrow piercing actual plate armor.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            plate armor doesn't cover the entire body, especially plate armor from 1100 or whatever, a lot of knights would have been in mail too.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            they cant, but they can give hard blunt force trauma, plus once dehorsed a knight was pretty easy to dispatch. Plate armor limits mobility, plus that slippery grip on plated boots. Most importantly those helms had absolute shit peripheral vision and anybody who has fought in some sort of combat sports know its absolutely necessary for fighting. A dude with a knife with a well timed double leg can easily dispatch ur average knight especially in the thick of a melee. In duels, a warhammer or some type mace with reach would do the trick.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >Plate armor limits mobility

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                yes that dudes not fighting. Fighting requires different type of mobility. Thats like saying those kungfu dudes would do well in a mma fight just cuz they can do somersaults.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Do tel how equipment precisely designed to allow as much combat mobility as possible, aka plate armor, actually restricts mobility significantly

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                ever seen those medieval mma guys? notice how they arent as fast as normal mma guys. In fact they are very slow. Now if u can translate the situation to a historical setting, an agile unarmored english longbowman or a strong swiss farmer with a halberd with minimal armor, who do u think will have greater combat mobility? Add to that fatigue and confusion of prolonged battle and u cant even run in that thing. Plate armor was not designed for mobility, it was designed for protection which it probably was best used for. No matter how much it allowed for mobility, it still restricted combat mobility alot.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                While it restricts movement to a degree and adds weight, thus fatigue, the protection element can not be understated. Armor was used for a long time and probably for a good reason. And even english longbowmen were armored to a degree, if they could afford it.
                So I disagree with the previous statement that "A dude with a knife with a well timed double leg can easily dispatch ur average knight especially in the thick of a melee."

                to me heyday of knights was during early crusades or in spain around 1200s, when there was a lot of element of discipline and fighting prowess. Later battles were too technology focused that restricted their use alot, thats y i hate this plate armor meme so much. Yes its a great set of armor but there are so many things to combat then just one set of armor.,I think it was also the reason y infantry became so dominant and gunpowder was used so frequently becuz knights started suking too much ass.

                I like the gunpowder era. Heavily armored cavalry still played a huge role - and did so until the later part of the 17th century.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                lol i got that from a historical description of an almogavar killing a knight with his knife and another killing three knights with three throwing spears. But i do agree with u that armor is very important, question is how much armor. Knights were shock cavalry for the same reason; they had too much armor to effectively fight prolonged melee in ranks and mostly when they attempted to do that, they were wrecked. That made them excellent shock cavalry but it did came with drawbacks that their opponents fully exploited.
                Also more than gunpowder heavy cavalry was phased out by light cavalry in the east and infantry tactics in the west. Steppe horse riders like mamelukes and slejuks and later ottoman and eastern european horsemen outcompeted them in most ways and development of pike and shot tactics really made their charges very costly against infantry. This was partly due to their equipment, as heavily armored knights could not be used to do complex maneuvers light cavalry can do which was exploited alot.
                So plate armor although was probably the best protective material on paper at least. It did limit combat capabilities by a lot and this resulted in their ultimate phasing out.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >ever seen those medieval mma guys? notice how they arent as fast as normal mma guys.

                I do see very well, I know one regular practitioner in fact, and he would be the first to tell you not to take them as an example. Their armour whilst good is not always up to “knighlty” standards, but the more important factor (in fact the major factor) in their lack of mobility is the absurd amount of padding they wear. You’ll notice their breastplates are rarely as tailored at the waist as historical breastplates, in no small part due to the extra padding. Historical armours would have been used with less bulky gambesons sacrificing protection for…mobility.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                but would they still be more mobile than their counterparts? plus combat mobility is heavily dependent on vision, ur friend will tell u that, does a dude with that helm can compete with a guy in a kettle helm in terms of vision and thus mobility? Not to mention even a sanctioned bout could only imitate a fraction of the combat intensity or fatigue of a melee, how much mobility do u think they had then? especially compared to their contemporaries.
                Most guys today would not be able to fight in that gear, knights were very well trained for the same reason and over time it became apparent that it wasnt worth the cost so they were phased out.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                You would just flip your visor up and have full vision and breathability.
                Visor stays down when getting shot by arrows or on horseback.
                Full plate is lighter than a chainmail hauberk and brigandine armor.
                Not invincible, but anyone fighting 1 on 1 vs one is objectively at a disadvantage... UNLESS its really hot and humid

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                damn i didnt know plate was lighter than brigandine or hauberk, i think its more well distributed than being lighter.
                But still there is so much more to combat than just armor, and although plate provides definite advantage in protection, i think it also takes away alot in ways u can fight so i think really the best judge is historical accounts themselves about knights and their combat. I still maintain that knights of earlier periods performed better than those of later plate armor types.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                yeah I don't think it's lighter, depends on the plate, maybe some really thin plate that doesn't cover the whole body is lighter than mail or coat of plates

                Maybe but some later plate armor was literally bulletproof, of course it's going to be heavier, earlier knights guns weren't even used in combat or didn't exist

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah, It would depend on the plate, but late 15th-16th would be suprisingly light

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                You would just flip your visor up and have full vision and breathability.
                Visor stays down when getting shot by arrows or on horseback.
                Full plate is lighter than a chainmail hauberk and brigandine armor.
                Not invincible, but anyone fighting 1 on 1 vs one is objectively at a disadvantage... UNLESS its really hot and humid

                Also, forgot to add.
                Even an unarmored fighter won't be fast enough to exploit the "slowness" of full plate.
                To keep up the unarmored fighter must be all over the place, exhausting himself equally if not more than the plate wearer.
                But in the end it all comes down to skill.
                In legal duels sometimes a fighter who where considered less skilled would be issued full plate vs unarmored opponent, just to even it out.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                the slowness will not be exploited by jumping around an unarmored opponent, it will be exploited by stricking fast and unpridictably before the knight has time to react. A knight in full plate will have slower reaction reaction than his counter part due to vision and mobility.
                Hence i said if a swiss farmer with a halberd with a reach advantage comes down at him there is very little a knight can do to avoid him and even if his armor protected him by the time he will recover from first him he wud have sustained 3 more.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                He will have zero visual imparment if his visior is up.
                Besides a knight could have an halberd too, amongst other polearms.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                but he wud be slower and less maneuverable than an unarmored guy, also helmets of all types impair vision, especially peripheral vision which is very important in combat. Another important point is once off his feet a knight was very easy to kill especially for lightly armored foe.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Slightly slower, not enough to make it worth fighting unarmored.
                As for how much vision is blocked would depend on the type of helmet I suppose, but most helmets with visor up wouldn't impair it much. losing 5% vision is worth when it protects your head from cuts, if we go back to Norman knights then it would be mail coif and skullcap it wouldn't impair it whatsoever.

                This video doesn't prove anything but it showcases some stuff

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                i think in duels it would be worth it to go unarmored, video was good though both guys were fairly nonathletic, but made me think that a flail with slight reach advantage would fuk up a knight pretty bad.
                Also in the video the knight was reacting a lot and the unarmored guy had the initiative, this maybe becuz they dont have skill of medieval fighters but if unarmored guy had reach with any kind of blunt weapon he might win easily.
                But in general sense u right, armor especially plate did provide a definite advantage at least on paper, in duels. In battles tho its a whole different game with so many intangibles, So conclusion would be that on paper its wiser to wear plate but if u dont have it, there are lots of ways it can be dealt with.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                True, it doesn't make you immortal.
                In some legal duels, one guy would be required to wear plate for some reason (lack of skill, or some other reason, the details are lost in time)
                And true, blunt strikes would fuck you up.
                But unarmored even a slight cut could disable you, dooming you.

                As for battle, armor is vital for the protection vs missiles alone, only on extreme weather conditions would stripping armor make any sense.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >i think in duels it would be worth it to go unarmored
                it's another "LULZ is being absolutely retarded" episode

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >sir knight, you need to hold still so i can aim at these specific weakspots. please do not resist
                do all you idiots think a knight would be completely obvlious to the weaknesses in his armour? sure you can try to exploit them but for some reason a lot of people seem to think this was a trivial matter, as if your opponent isn't trying to do the same thing. or even better, just abandon all your armour so getting hit anywhere is lethal like this idiot

                but he wud be slower and less maneuverable than an unarmored guy, also helmets of all types impair vision, especially peripheral vision which is very important in combat. Another important point is once off his feet a knight was very easy to kill especially for lightly armored foe.

                is trying to suggest
                >just aim for that one spot bro, it's easy to do, not like you're in any dangerous situation yourself or anything. he's slow as a turtle and can't see anything lol. just teleport behind him and it's over

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                u dumbass nobody is saying a knight has to hold still, in fact its good to get the mutherfuker as moving as possible. The point was to get someone or something to defeat a fully armored knight in plate. Nobody is saying armor is useless but there are a lot of ways one can defeat a knight in plate and some matchups will be surprisingly easy.
                Armor found its most utility in battles where probability of getting hit is maximum, in duels that probability goes down significantly. And nobody is saying it will always be easy, but there are situations and weapons that put a fully armored knight at a severe disadvantage compared to less armored opponent.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >but there are situations and weapons that put a fully armored knight at a severe disadvantage compared to less armored opponent.
                which ones? a swimming contest?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                the whole point of that video was showing half swording techniques because against a heavily armored opponent that's your only chance when you only have a sword on you because you're not going to slash through anything.
                sure it's not impossible to defeat a knight in such a way wile unarmored but trying to suggest it's not an enormous disadvantage is some level of stupidity i can't really wrap my head around.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                can also bash him in the head or wrestle him and stab him with a knife if you are a lot stronger

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                and meanwhile all you have to do is avoid all hits as your whole body is exposed
                such a trivial matter one seriously has to ask himself why they even bothered putting armour on

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                dude imagine if that unarmored dude had flail or a halberd or any blunt heavy instrument with reach advantage, the knight was done.
                U guys are too busy working with stat points to realize how combat works, once u are in a disadvantageous position it becomes surprisingly easy to beat u, no matter how much armor u have.
                Not to mention there are hundreds of battles in which guys in full plate got shagged by less armored opponents, and i admit it gives u an advantage on paper but in actual combat there
                are so many more factors than armor, especially in duels.
                The entire object was to get someone to beat a fully armored knight and i think we can safely conclude that there are lots of ways a knight in plate in plate can be dealt with.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                all these baseless assumptions jesus christ

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >but there are situations and weapons that put a fully armored knight at a severe disadvantage compared to less armored opponent.
                which ones? a swimming contest?

                dude check out hussite wars, burgundian wars, battle of morgarten,agincourt, so many conflicts in which heavily armored, mostly plate, were absolutely wrecked by less armored and outnumbered opponents.
                There are certain principles to combat, like reach, type of weapon and armor, terrain, skill, maneuverability, strength and so much more. If a fighter understands them, combat can become surprisingly easy as demonstrated by these battles. Knights in plate are not invincible and while they had advantage on paper, their historical performance proves that there is so much more to combat than just quality of ur armor.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                nagger if the knights at agincourt were marching towards the english in only light armour they would have been long dead before even reaching the english
                and there's a lot more to it than just armour obviously but "if armour was so good then why did they sometimes lose" sounds pretty stupid and childish.
                if you were going into combat would you honestly refuse the best protection time had to offer if you had the option? were people in the middle ages and early modern period just dumb when they kept developing more and more protective armour and sometimes paid fortunes for it?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                You can easily tell he isn't running very fast in that video. It's not like wearing a tin-can but it still limits you.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >plus that slippery grip on plated boots
              Sabatons don't cover the sole of the footwear. Still, slipping was an issue for everyone - especially when the ground became muddy and churned over during intensive fights.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                yea leather was very smooth. Knights were mounted for a reason. The myth that plate armor made them invincible fighters is as bad as the katana myth.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >he myth that plate armor made them invincible fighters is as bad as the katana myth.
                True, nothing is invincable/unconquerable. But knights were nevertheless not easily beatable opponents.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                to me heyday of knights was during early crusades or in spain around 1200s, when there was a lot of element of discipline and fighting prowess. Later battles were too technology focused that restricted their use alot, thats y i hate this plate armor meme so much. Yes its a great set of armor but there are so many things to combat then just one set of armor.,I think it was also the reason y infantry became so dominant and gunpowder was used so frequently becuz knights started suking too much ass.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >spain around 1200
                you mean when they got btfo by moorchads?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Knights were mounted for a reason
                Because horses are op?

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >knights fought alone
              How are you going to defeat a knight surrounded by other knights?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >cope
          >bodkins can easily piece plate
          /thread

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          where does this propaganda come from ? Ppl actually believe it ?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I wonder the same thing about the retards who think arrows couldn't pierce plate, Youtube sensationalist quackery.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Imagine unironically thinking that longbows have the same power as a rifled musket. Arrows often got stuck in fucking chain mail, not even piercing the gambeson underneath. At Agincourt the Enligsh arrows mainly killed the French horses, who were very lightly armored, most of the knights then dying from getting crushed by their horses, trampled by other knights, or their throats slit by men at arms. The frenchies armor wasn't even peak plate armor, which wouldn't come for another hundred years, and yet it was still quite sufficient to protect them from direct hits from longbows.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Look up the battle of crecy

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        english longbows or crossbows used be the likes of the genoese and swiss were perfectly capable of piercing heavy plate armor

        Look up the battle of crecy

        on top of crecy
        >what is the battle of agincourt

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Crossbows, probably but definetely not bows.
          Agincourt is this

          the english won because they had knowledge of the French battle plan and fortified their position with pikes to protect against cavalry, that and being shot at forcing the french to go on foot visor down uphill through heavy mud which meant they were completely out of breath when reaching the english lines where they were defeated in a melee
          there were instances where infantry walked to the archers and things went quite differently

          Because early firearms were so much more effective than longbows and crossbows. Clickbait addled retards

          >1600
          >early firearms
          ok retard

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        english longbows could easily go through a knight and pin him to his horse like a thumbtack

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        [...]
        Show me a single video of an arrow piercing actual plate armor.

        The arrow would bounce harmlessly off a knight's breastplate. *If* it was absolutely first rate plate steel, which not all knights could afford; many could only get second-rate steel or even just iron, which would not stand up to a direct hit by a bodkin.

        However, an arrow didn't need to penetrate the breastplate to incapacitate a knight. Arrows shot from a longbow could pierce armour along the arms and legs at moderate rage, particularly at the joints and the thinnest parts like the hands. If you're on a battlefield and you get an arrow in your thigh then for practical purposes you're out of the fight.

        Even more problematic, longbows didn't even need to penetrate to make fighting difficult, because visors were extremely vulnerable to arrows. The French at Agincourt (the ones who survived, at least) described having to walk towards the English looking directly at the ground, because the alternative was get an arrow in the face. It made it almost impossible to coordinate anything because you could see fuck all, you were surrounded by thousands of other people who could see fuck all, and every so often one of them would drop because an arrow had found a weak point in their armour. Very quickly getting shot became a secondary concern, as tripping over someone who'd fallen and being trampled by those behind you could be just as deadly.

        And lets not forget that the Medieval knight preferred to fight on horseback, and being snug in plate armour is no help at all if your horse gets shot from under you.

        The French had the best knights in Europe and they did not take the English longbow lightly. None of the chronicles of Crecy or Agincourt say 'oh, the arrows weren't a problem because of our plate armour'. A longbow might look useless when you're just shooting one against a lone breastplate, but under battlefield conditions they were terrifying.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >The French at Agincourt (the ones who survived, at least)
          plenty survived alright, at least right after the battle ended. the battle became known for its unusual high amount of POW's to the point they were killed off because the english felt that they became a threat.
          why did they capture so many knights? why were knights who apparently were severly wounded still seen as a risk?
          by the way the one leading the cavalry charge also survived and spent the last 6 years of his life in captivity so presumably his wounds weren't severe if any.
          how do you explain that?

          >And lets not forget that the Medieval knight preferred to fight on horseback, and being snug in plate armour is no help at all if your horse gets shot from under you.
          why didn't the english at patay just shoot the french horses but instead decided to get slaughtered by less than 200 knights?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      cope
      bodkins can easily piece plate

      Based and Long Bowed

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Be more skilled than the knight. Have your comrades at your side and fight in a disciplined formation.

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    A Turkish sipahi or those almogabar dudes

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    An unarmoured master swordsman using half sword and blunt strikes

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Medieval period is long as fuck so there are multiple kinds of knights. Knights during the early medieval period wore chain mail, so a arrow from a strong bow, bolt from a crossbow, strong hit from a spear might kill the knight, but the beat bet is blunt weapons. Later knight started using plate so it became harder to kill them, but during this time period gunpowder was used in Europe so a shot from a rifle would do the trick, also blunt weapons evolved, there were warhammers, pole hammers, ravens beak, maces, war picks and other.

    tl; dr; Early knights could be killed by piercing mail armor, later knights could be killed with gunpowder weapons. Also blunt weapons could kill them all.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Depends on what you define as early Middle Ages, for almost the entire periods knights just didn’t exist. Charlemagnes miles weren’t the same thing for example.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      I've always wanted to see some High Medieval soldiers equipped with poleaxes, warhammers etc absolutely rend a post Marian Roman legion

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Not easily. However knights were still very vulnerable to halberd strikes, stray arrows, and crossbow bolts.

    Of course how well armored they were and how well trained varied from kingdom to kingdom, decade by decade.

  9. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    A lowborn professional, probably mercenary. Random peon levies didn’t fight on the field.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      At the battle of "éperons d'or" an army of flemish peasants defeated an host of french knights and killed them all. Good weapon against knights are blunt weapons or piky things, War hammer is a good exemple, flemish peasants had weapon that were basicaly a big pointy Iron head on a stick and they could either Pierce with the head or use the stick as blunt weapon.

  10. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    There are numerous historical sources that recount the defenselessness of a downed knight

    this is what they would've been up against

  11. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Longbows fare best against plate armor when they can sustain massed, rapid fire at very short range. That is how you best ameliorate the twin risks of missing and striking the wrong parts of the armor.

    Agincourt is a textbook example - the textbook example - of fighting a battle so as to concentrate the sustained shooting of a vast number of archers on armored foes at very short range. That is how the English arrows were able to tell against the French even when the French advanced on foot, denying the English any horses to shoot at.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      the english won because they had knowledge of the French battle plan and fortified their position with pikes to protect against cavalry, that and being shot at forcing the french to go on foot visor down uphill through heavy mud which meant they were completely out of breath when reaching the english lines where they were defeated in a melee
      there were instances where infantry walked to the archers and things went quite differently

  12. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Yes. Get to the fortress. Or make a wagenburg

  13. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Soldiers had their own armor, shield, and weapons. They would have been at a disadvantage but there are a dozen other factors in a battle to contend with that could have helped them. The knight could be exhausted, have dysentery, be injured from previous fights, be on uneven ground, etc. Or they could just flat out be more skilled than the knight.

  14. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Catch him by surprise with a bucket of boiling oil to the face visor should do nicely.

  15. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Varangians had some initial success against Norman knights, which was rare. Also Robert the Bruce spent a year training an army which successfully fought and won against knights, using some innovations on Norse and Anglo-Saxon fighting formations. I'd imagine most of those soldiers weren't knights or even nobility at that point.

  16. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Yes, common men at arms and urban rebels just gangbanged them.

    Here's a bunch of French burghers gangbanging one.

  17. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >lmao you push him over and I'll stab him with my dagger

  18. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    The knight fears the pitchfork

  19. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I can't believe people on LULZ still believe in le longbow destroys Knights when basically the entire Edwardian stage of the war, archers were useless in 80% of battles. It was the strategy and tactics of men like Edward III, Henry of Lancaster and the Black Prince which won the day, not the archers. Notably for the last two, they usually didn't play a significant role at all.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >It was the strategy and tactics of men like Edward III,
      Who decided to pack their army with longbowmen,who according to you were apparently useless and left all the fighting to a handful of English knights

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >who according to you were apparently useless and left all the fighting to a handful of English knights
        Didn't say that. In all of the Black Princes battles, his longbowmen were by far the least useful of his soldiers. At Poitiers they accomplished nothing and the battle was won by the infantry alongside the dismounted knights. During his Spanish campaign they quite literally didn't do anything. Henry of Lancaster in his campaigns made his decisive blows with cavalry. Only Edward III himself actually won those crushing victories due to Longbowmen. His other principal commanders did not.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >At Poitiers they accomplished nothing
          They defeated the german knights and then took part in repelling the first division

          French army advances on foot for fear of longbows

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Who decided to pack their army with longbowmen
        not really
        there was a law that any man earning more than a certain amount would have to provide the crown with soldiers. and longbowmen where simply the cheapest alternative so that is what they got.

  20. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    A disciplined warrior-poet from Japan would just need to take one swing that he has been practicing for most of his life, reinforced by his zen-like focus and robotic need to perfect his technique in whatever action he takes in life. The Knight would be vomiting blood before he even reaches for his pathetic excuse for a "sword", but the blood surprisingly paralyzes the Samurai warrior as the phlegm-infused germanic spit comes in contact with his hand, the precious Katana melts as he lays on the ground convulsing into a tribal rhythm that activates the Knight's barbarian spirit, he frantically attacks the poor Samurai without even remembering how he got into this situation, he only sees that he is attacking a strange slant-eyed draugr. Knight wins no question.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      you aren't funny, nobody is falling for this terrible bait and it isn't 2002 where they might, kill yourself

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      ngl had me in the first half

  21. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Soldiers would buy Helmet>Gamberson>Gauntlets>Armguards>Chest armor(Plate,Brigandine,Hauberk whatever you could afford)>knee/thigh protectors
    After that you upgrade what you want, but the most important pieces are aquired in that order

  22. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I cant remember where I heard this, but there is allegedly an English treatise that tells you where to break glass bottles to get the shards into the opponents armour. I reckon a determined gammon with some bottles and a mace could give a knight a run for their money.

  23. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    So getting shot in a heavy steel breastplate with a musket leaves a dent but an arrow will just punch straight through it? Sounds legit.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Because early firearms were so much more effective than longbows and crossbows. Clickbait addled retards

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >that picture proves it all
      looks like he fell on a round rock

  24. 2 months ago
    Anonymous
    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Retard. They didn't use any of the anti-armor bodkin points for this experiment. They literally know nothing about history.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        none of them work

        and this is not "history", this is trivia

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          There's plenty of types of bodkins and the ones they've shown are not designed for armor piercing.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            ?t=57

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              They tested only tested one or two variations of bodkin arrowhead types. With such a limited dataset their wild claims are invalidated.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                post videos or youre just looking for something that never actually happened in common fights where arrows and plate armor were involved

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Imagine basing your entire worldview off of youtube

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Imagine basing your whole worldview off of shit you made up.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Better than basing it off of shit other people made up.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous
              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                110 pound draw weight and they pierce the fuck out of that plate. Just imagine the damage a bodkin actually designed to pierce plate and higher draw weight would do.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                "breastplate"

                thats tin

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Cope lmao

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                He's right.

                The design of the armour itself should tell you that it's not made from properly treated steel. Whenever archers were facing cavalry without being protected by organised infantry formations or other types of fortifications they were effortlessly mowed down.

                Take look at this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ej3qjUzUzQg

                Also take a look at this battle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Patay; If archers could penetrate armour reliably, do you think that would have been the result? There is no evidence in historical sources stating that archers could reliably penetrate armour. If they would have been able to, full plate armour would have never been developed in the first place because longbows were around before full plate armour, and if you could simply shoot at people - what's the point? But plate armour was around for hundreds of years longer than the longbow.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >He's right.
                No he's not homosexual. It's listed as mild carbon steel in the video. 110 pound draw weight yew bow and hand forged war bodkins. You're both coping retards I'll have you know.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                You have no evidence to back your point besides a video showing shoddily made armour made from thin sheet metal - which looks completely anachronistic and nothing like anything that was actually worn.

                If your video shows the correct result, how come the videos in

                He's right.

                The design of the armour itself should tell you that it's not made from properly treated steel. Whenever archers were facing cavalry without being protected by organised infantry formations or other types of fortifications they were effortlessly mowed down.

                Take look at this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ej3qjUzUzQg

                Also take a look at this battle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Patay; If archers could penetrate armour reliably, do you think that would have been the result? There is no evidence in historical sources stating that archers could reliably penetrate armour. If they would have been able to, full plate armour would have never been developed in the first place because longbows were around before full plate armour, and if you could simply shoot at people - what's the point? But plate armour was around for hundreds of years longer than the longbow.

                and

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBxdTkddHaE

                where they used armour made by skilled craftsmen and had actually skilled archers with historically accurate bows shoot at them, how come they couldn't penetrate?

                Frankly, you have no idea what you're talking about and unless you can provide actual historical sources to the contrary, you'll have to live with people calling you a retarded bullshitter who is talking out of his ass.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Tod, is that you? Sorry your little stunt got debunked, next you're going to ramble on about how flails were never used in medieval times.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Just compare the finish you complete retard. Has the armour on the left ever seen a hammer? You see how thin and flimsy it is, and if you look at the local deformations you'll easily see that it's not properly treated.
                In Tod's video they explicitly tested hardened and unhardened arrows to see whether it made a difference. They employed fletchers and archers who actually knew what they're doing - not to mention actual armour smiths.

                And again: if arrows could penetrate armour, why was plate armour around longer than longbows? Why did people make it ever more intricate long after longbows were gone? How come no sources bother to mention how effortlessly armour was penetrated and how pointless it was to wear it? How come every time heavy cavalry actually met archers head on, e.g. at Verneuil or Patay they completely shat on them and rode them down with minimal losses? Wouldn't you expect a different result?

                You have no answer to these questions because you're a retard talking out of your ass.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >no chaimail underneath
                >nor gambeson
                >directly strapped to stationary object
                i mean it's obviously larp armour but they're not even pretending to make it a historically accurate test in any way

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >>no chaimail underneath
                Nothing unusual here, having no mail under plate was a thing, if anything it was something that got more and more common during the 15th century.
                >>nor gambeson
                As it should be, unless you are one of those who just call everything textile of gambeson

                Not defending that test, but dont trash on it by one the only things that it didnt do wrong

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Nothing unusual here, having no mail under plate was a thing, if anything it was something that got more and more common during the 15th century.
                correct. however, small detail: by that time advancements in metalurgy ment the protection they provided was so great chainmail or gambeson was no longer deemed necessary so it started to get abandoned.
                So this discussion always revolves around mid to late 14th century plate because not even the most delusional anglo would try to claim an arrow has any chance of defeating plate from the 15th century or later.
                they can't be that stupid right?
                r-right?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                correction: agincourt was in 1415 and this has been debated to death so i might be a few decades off in my post but the point remains

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >by that time advancements in metalurgy ment the protection they provided was so great chainmail or gambeson was no longer deemed necessary so it started to get abandoned.
                We have mentions of only sleeves and skirts of mail in inventories since the early 14th century, indicating that for some, just these might have had some use in some way near a century before a the advacements of the golden age of plate armor. Ironicaly the Italians which were at the forefront of the golden age were the ones who kept using mail under plate and sometimes using it together with mail sleeves(or gussets) and a skirt of mail. And gambesons, and i mean the 20+ layers kind of gambesons, under armor is an idea ive seen being scrutinised even for purely mail armor. For anything during and after the transitional plate period of the 14th century, the consensus seems to be an overral nope. What seems to have been used is a lightly padded or only a few layers sort of arming garment, but in the 15th century it seem to have been mostly replaced by arming doublets that are simply described as being stout.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >We have mentions of only sleeves and skirts of mail in inventories since the early 14th century
                i think that's a bit early in the context of full armoured knights.
                but is it wrong to say that generally the increased quality of breastplates led to the abandonment of mail underneath?
                also, the context of these tests is pretty much always an english longbow versus french armour during the HYW. was it common for the french elite to only wear a breastplate in the late 14th- early 15th century? i was under the impression mid to late 14th century plate wasn't exactly of great quality.

  25. 2 months ago
    Anonymous
  26. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Get two buddies with you. All of you use spears with metal tips

    Job done. He can’t reach you with a sword while you’re using a spear. Especially with two other spears printing him

  27. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Do you mean hand to hand and melee fights or range too?

  28. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >This kills the plate-armored knight
    Seethe.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous
      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous
        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >he posts more cheaply made armour not based on anything anyone has ever worn

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Cope

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          If arrows work that well, why didn't the longbowmen simply shoot the knights? Maybe it's because longbows don't work that well after all, which is why the French knights simply rode over them with minimal losses.

          It was not until the age of the musket that ranged weaponry could half a cavalry charge. And even then it was risky for infantry and required quite a lot of discipline.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >mark stretton
          into the trash it goes

  29. 2 months ago
    Anonymous
  30. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Crossbows. There was a reason why kingdoms outlawed it, because a simple peasant with no combat training can easily take down a an experienced knight.

    Failing that, a couple of soldiers with maces would work too. Hell, a well placed swing from a quarterstaff would cave a knights head in, helmet or no helmet.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Crossbows
      that's a myth.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Crossbows. There was a reason why kingdoms outlawed it, because a simple peasant with no combat training can easily take down a an experienced knight.
      Will this crossbow ban bullshit ever die or historylets will keep parroting this crap forever?

  31. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

Your email address will not be published.