Well, the problem is that the definition of "knight" itself also varies from place to place, and from time to time. Some of the confusion here also seems to stem from the fact that we're using "knight" in many places where we ought to have referred to "mounted men-at-arms" in general. Let's face it. How relevant is a discussion about the social status of the knight to the question originally posted in the first post? We're supposed to talk about tactics and the management of arms here, not about the definition of this social class or that.
| Lafayette C Curtis wrote: |
| Well, the problem is that the definition of "knight" itself also varies from place to place, and from time to time. Some of the confusion here also seems to stem from the fact that we're using "knight" in many places where we ought to have referred to "mounted men-at-arms" in general. |
Very good point. If the discussion needs to involve the social standing or wealth of the knight, then the first questions should be "what century?" and "Where?"
At one time, that's all that distinguished a knight from the rest-- the ability to afford a horse. Early in the use of the term "knight", it only meant a young male trained in arms (who could presumably afford a horse as well).
But you're right, this is getting off topic.
Another issue that should not be neglected when it comes to shock cavalry, and the effect of lances is that the main purpose of the charge is to break the enemy formation, not kill everyone in it.
Once the formation breaks, a more organized or agressive foe will have a definite upper hand. Once the formation breaks, the enemy will be more concerend with retreating than attacking you, which means a small force can attack a larger one and survive.
(This tactic is still used by riot police breaking up large gang brawls; run into the crowd, and hit as many people as you can, and make them run before they realice that you are 20 and they are 200...)
To do this, you need to make the people that are the closest to you that they are going to die if they do not move. And, a mounted charge is a very good way to convince whoever is standing in the way that he is going to die.
If it does not work, you are screwed.
Cavalry charges are do or die, high risk affairs, with potential for both epic succsess and epic failure.
There is a reason lance cavalry is the epithome of martial courage.
It takes huge amounts of guts to smash yourself and your horse into a crowd of enemies doing 40km/h...
Once the formation breaks, a more organized or agressive foe will have a definite upper hand. Once the formation breaks, the enemy will be more concerend with retreating than attacking you, which means a small force can attack a larger one and survive.
(This tactic is still used by riot police breaking up large gang brawls; run into the crowd, and hit as many people as you can, and make them run before they realice that you are 20 and they are 200...)
To do this, you need to make the people that are the closest to you that they are going to die if they do not move. And, a mounted charge is a very good way to convince whoever is standing in the way that he is going to die.
If it does not work, you are screwed.
Cavalry charges are do or die, high risk affairs, with potential for both epic succsess and epic failure.
There is a reason lance cavalry is the epithome of martial courage.
It takes huge amounts of guts to smash yourself and your horse into a crowd of enemies doing 40km/h...
| Lafayette C Curtis wrote: |
| Well, the problem is that the definition of "knight" itself also varies from place to place, and from time to time. Some of the confusion here also seems to stem from the fact that we're using "knight" in many places where we ought to have referred to "mounted men-at-arms" in general. Let's face it. How relevant is a discussion about the social status of the knight to the question originally posted in the first post? We're supposed to talk about tactics and the management of arms here, not about the definition of this social class or that. |
Lafayette,
You are right, this is getting out of topic. The social status/wealth is tough relevant in the question if an average knight
could afford himself 3 to 5 Great Horses as Gordon mentioned, necessary for the lance after lance strategy .
We are speaking of a period of centuries and a whole continent.
Please don't think that I am not fascinated by medieval knights. History is a major part of my proffesion.
Cor
| Elling Polden wrote: |
| Another issue that should not be neglected when it comes to shock cavalry, and the effect of lances is that the main purpose of the charge is to break the enemy formation, not kill everyone in it.
Once the formation breaks, a more organized or agressive foe will have a definite upper hand. Once the formation breaks, the enemy will be more concerend with retreating than attacking you, which means a small force can attack a larger one and survive. (This tactic is still used by riot police breaking up large gang brawls; run into the crowd, and hit as many people as you can, and make them run before they realice that you are 20 and they are 200...) To do this, you need to make the people that are the closest to you that they are going to die if they do not move. And, a mounted charge is a very good way to convince whoever is standing in the way that he is going to die. If it does not work, you are screwed. Cavalry charges are do or die, high risk affairs, with potential for both epic succsess and epic failure. There is a reason lance cavalry is the epithome of martial courage. It takes huge amounts of guts to smash yourself and your horse into a crowd of enemies doing 40km/h... |
However, the better-trained men-at-arms at least were able to wheel quickly if they saw the charge wasn't going to succeed. I seem to recall reading an account in a chronicle where a dismounted knight commented that the enemy were disciplined because their horses all wheeled to the right when they realized they couldn't break the infantry formation he was standing in, not milling and crashing and jostling into each other as he had seen a less experienced bunch of men-at-arms do earlier in the battle.
| Cor Böhms wrote: |
| You are right, this is getting out of topic. The social status/wealth is tough relevant in the question if an average knight
could afford himself 3 to 5 Great Horses as Gordon mentioned, necessary for the lance after lance strategy . We are speaking of a period of centuries and a whole continent. |
Well, yes. In 15th-century England, for example, the knight's social strata was the gentry but a man of the gentry was not a "knight" unles he took up service as a man-at-arms. The ones who didn't were called gentlemen or country squires. A knight there wasn't always able to afford three to five horses but he had to if he wanted to keep that name, so he often borrowed or took up loans in order to be able to bring along the several horses required of a man-at-arms. This, I think, was the reasoning behind Gordon's quote--quite an English one, which was fitting since as far as I know his research is focused on English military history.
The story was obviously different in places like Germany with its unfree ministeriales knights, or Poland and Hungary where the task of defining a "knight" seems to have been quite a headache.
| Lafayette C Curtis wrote: |
|
However, the better-trained men-at-arms at least were able to wheel quickly if they saw the charge wasn't going to succeed. I seem to recall reading an account in a chronicle where a dismounted knight commented that the enemy were disciplined because their horses all wheeled to the right when they realized they couldn't break the infantry formation he was standing in, not milling and crashing and jostling into each other as he had seen a less experienced bunch of men-at-arms do earlier in the battle.. |
Oakeshott believed that all warhorses were trained to always turn to the right as standard. It seems Destrier [pronounced Des-tree-A] (Or the word for a proper top notch warhorse) comes from the latin Dexter, meaning righthanded. Many scholars seem to think this means 'lead from the right' or that the squire lead the horse from the right side, but Oakeshott believes it means the horse is trained to lead with it's right leg, making it easier to 'escape to the right.'
As in a joust you would want to pass on the left, it being your shield side, and the side your lance is more inclined to face if you hold it tight, if you suddenly need to get away, the direction you need to go in is always going to be to the right, because if you go left you run into each other, and no one wants that.
So you train the horse to default to a right leg leading stride so it does not need to change stride before turning to the right.
I'm not entirely sure why a horse can turn better in the direction of it's leading leg, but I'm not much of a horseman, nor a quadruped, so I cannot comment, I merely accept that Oakeshott, a better horseman then I, has the right of it.
| Lafayette C Curtis wrote: | ||||
However, the better-trained men-at-arms at least were able to wheel quickly if they saw the charge wasn't going to succeed. I seem to recall reading an account in a chronicle where a dismounted knight commented that the enemy were disciplined because their horses all wheeled to the right when they realized they couldn't break the infantry formation he was standing in, not milling and crashing and jostling into each other as he had seen a less experienced bunch of men-at-arms do earlier in the battle.
Well, yes. In 15th-century England, for example, the knight's social strata was the gentry but a man of the gentry was not a "knight" unles he took up service as a man-at-arms. The ones who didn't were called gentlemen or country squires. A knight there wasn't always able to afford three to five horses but he had to if he wanted to keep that name, so he often borrowed or took up loans in order to be able to bring along the several horses required of a man-at-arms. This, I think, was the reasoning behind Gordon's quote--quite an English one, which was fitting since as far as I know his research is focused on English military history. The story was obviously different in places like Germany with its unfree ministeriales knights, or Poland and Hungary where the task of defining a "knight" seems to have been quite a headache. |
So than it is more "narrow ", according to what you say, We are talking here about an English knight in the 15Th. century,
who, in a way, was also unfree of his (feudal) Lord. In Germany the ministeriales became to form a class at the begining of the 11Th century. In the 13Th century they start melting together with the "freien vasallen" (Knights of noble birth) in the
"Ritterschaft". Around that period most of the ministeriales were not unfree. I don't find the time now to provide you with examples. I will come back on that one. Medieval Europe though was not only formed by England, France and Germany (Poland and Hungary). Another thing is: ( Gordon) how can the crown force an untrained merchant to become a Knight ? Taxing him like crazy to sponsor the campaigns is another thing!
| Cor Böhms wrote: |
| ( Gordon) how can the crown force an untrained merchant to become a Knight ? Taxing him like crazy to sponsor the campaigns is another thing! |
Through a choice of either pay the fees associated with becoming a Knight, or pay even higher taxes to not become a Knight. Some merchants chose the latter route, since there were of course other duties and responsibilities associated with Knighthood that they did not wish to be encumbered with.
The Paston Papers (ca. mid-15th Century) have several references to this sort of occurance, and the practice was continued well into the 17th Century by the English Crown. By the 15th Century (certainly in England, so I must limit my comments to that time and place) Knighthood was far more a social and political office than a rank of warrior, thus one could have Knights who did not fight, and Men-at-Arms, fully outfitted and accoutred, who were not Knights.
I'm sure that the Continental experience was somewhat different, and the various monarchies experimented wth other inventive means of raising funds for their various expenses.
Gordon
This can go on for weeks. Maybe better not. Merry Christmas and all the best for 2007, Gordon!
If you should want some heraldic advice, you're welcome.
Cor.
If you should want some heraldic advice, you're welcome.
Cor.
| Cor Böhms wrote: |
| This can go on for weeks. Maybe better not. Merry Christmas and all the best for 2007, Gordon!
If you should want some heraldic advice, you're welcome. Cor. |
Thank you for the kind offer. And Merry Christmas in return.
Cheers,
Gordon
| Gordon Frye wrote: |
| By the 15th Century (certainly in England, so I must limit my comments to that time and place) Knighthood was far more a social and political office than a rank of warrior, thus one could have Knights who did not fight, and Men-at-Arms, fully outfitted and accoutred, who were not Knights. |
Er...you couldn't really have a knight who did not fight at that time. A man of knightly social standing who did not fight was a man of the knightly class, but not a knight. He would simply have been a member of the gentry. The 15th-century English laws stated this quite clearly--a man of knightly rank who did not fight was entitled to all the social privileges of a knight except the name of "knight" itself.
| Lafayette C Curtis wrote: |
|
Er...you couldn't really have a knight who did not fight at that time. A man of knightly social standing who did not fight was a man of the knightly class, but not a knight. He would simply have been a member of the gentry. The 15th-century English laws stated this quite clearly--a man of knightly rank who did not fight was entitled to all the social privileges of a knight except the name of "knight" itself. |
I was unclear in my manner of putting this, my apologies. I should have stated that with the "political" knight (as it were), their primary function and service was not fighting, where as in prior centuries it most certainly was. At least this has been my understanding heretofore.
One thing that occurred to me is that what constituted a well-accoutred and outfitted "Knight" in say 1000 AD, would have made only a paltry Anglo-Scottish Border Stave or Polish Pancerni 500 years later, let alone an homme d'armes. And that as much time has passed since the latter to today as separated them from the former. No doubt this is the basis for much of the disagreement going on here. A lot can happen in 500 years.
Cheers,
Gordon
Ah. Yes. If you were referring to the knightly class rather than the more specific category of people officially called "knights," then that makes sense.
| Gordon Frye wrote: |
|
That good Milanese (or any other well made armour) is lance-proof is not the question, though. Even the very best armour still has its "chinks", and it's hitting those places where the armour is not, or where it's thinnest, was the object of the exercise. In fact Puvinel in 1623 was still advising young men to work at hitting VERY small objects with the lance, that they might aim for, and hit, the eye-slots of their enemy's helmet. Even if you didn't get inside, the resultant hit on a helmet is pretty punishing, as Rod can well attest! (So can some of his opposing jousters! :D ) |
Might I ask if force of impact itself would be enough to cause injury even though armour itself would remain intact? :) And what would it be like against armoured infantryman?
Hello Everyone,
I’m curious about the lance and shock tactics of the earlier period Knights or mounted men at arms. In the age of maille, in the 12th and 13th centuries, there were obviously no Arrets and Grapers to transfer the energy of impact to a cavalryman’s cuirass. Yet, according to many historical sources Knights of this era used their lances in couched technique. During this earlier period, Knights or mounted men at arms were used to attack both other cavalry and infantry formations. This brings several questions to my mind, hopefully some of you experienced researchers and practical jousting reenactors can help with.
Using the couched lance technique seems perfectly logical when attacking another formation of cavalry. I assume one just had to rely on his saddle and stirrups to remain horsed on impact. :eek: However, when charging a formation of infantry, would the mailed Knight use his couched lance against a man in the first line, and then plan to let go of the lance after impact? Or, would it maybe make more sense to aim the lance tip at a man in the second rank, and count on the horse to trample the first guy anyway? Would the mass and momentum of the Knight and charging horse provide enough energy for the couched lance tip to penetrate a shield? Or conversely, would it make more sense in those circumstances for a Knight to wield his lance in a looser or overhand grip to strike downward over the poor foot soldier’s shield? I imagine holding the lance in loose or overhand grip would also make it much easier to let go of immediately after impact. Are there any existant historical sources which talk about differences in technique for shock charges against cavalry vs Infantry?
Thanks,
Christian
I’m curious about the lance and shock tactics of the earlier period Knights or mounted men at arms. In the age of maille, in the 12th and 13th centuries, there were obviously no Arrets and Grapers to transfer the energy of impact to a cavalryman’s cuirass. Yet, according to many historical sources Knights of this era used their lances in couched technique. During this earlier period, Knights or mounted men at arms were used to attack both other cavalry and infantry formations. This brings several questions to my mind, hopefully some of you experienced researchers and practical jousting reenactors can help with.
Using the couched lance technique seems perfectly logical when attacking another formation of cavalry. I assume one just had to rely on his saddle and stirrups to remain horsed on impact. :eek: However, when charging a formation of infantry, would the mailed Knight use his couched lance against a man in the first line, and then plan to let go of the lance after impact? Or, would it maybe make more sense to aim the lance tip at a man in the second rank, and count on the horse to trample the first guy anyway? Would the mass and momentum of the Knight and charging horse provide enough energy for the couched lance tip to penetrate a shield? Or conversely, would it make more sense in those circumstances for a Knight to wield his lance in a looser or overhand grip to strike downward over the poor foot soldier’s shield? I imagine holding the lance in loose or overhand grip would also make it much easier to let go of immediately after impact. Are there any existant historical sources which talk about differences in technique for shock charges against cavalry vs Infantry?
Thanks,
Christian
| Jaroslav Kravcak wrote: |
|
Might I ask if force of impact itself would be enough to cause injury even though armour itself would remain intact? :) |
Probably. Well, maybe. Depends.
I can't speak from earlier sources, but rather from later 16th Century sources, so my information may differ from what researchers find in earlier manuscripts and letters.
According to some of the sources I've read, they suggest that even a broken, blunted lance properly employed was sufficient to dismount an opponent. Once an armoured horseman was dismounted, he was pretty much out of the equation of that particular fight. That was sufficient, with no actual need to kill him. (However one could argue that the impact of hitting the ground from a fast moving horse could be enough to incur fatal injuries.)
When writing in the 1580's, Francois de la Noue noted that "it would be a miracle if any were killed by the spear [lance]", as armours had become so much heavier in response to firearms in that period. He goes on to complain about the heaviness of these selfsame armours, noting that men were "arming themselves in stithes [anvils]". He further mentions that in earlier years men could wear their full armour comfortably all day long without negative effect on their bodies, while the newer armours would break down even a young man quickly. Thus one may infer that with the heavier armours, it be came less and less likely that lances would do the trick, and more important to arm armoured horsemen with pistols to properly ensure the defeat of the enemy.
I suspect that the reason for de la Noue's remark is that at some point at least, lances WERE effective against most armour, at least some of the time. Since the glancing surfaces of the armour determines at least some of it's effectiveness, then when the lance doesn't glance off, chances were probably good that it could find a weak spot to enter and disable the wearer.
| Jaroslav Kravcak wrote: |
| And what would it be like against armoured infantryman? |
As far as effectiveness against armoured Infantry, I guess it all depends upon the situation. If they are in a solid pike square, the chances of running them down are limited (though not out of the question. See Cerisole and Dreux as examples of French hommes d'armes charging into unshaken infantry squares). On the other hand, if these same armoured infantrymen are in retreat and disorganized, even a blunt lance wielded from a charging horse will easily knock a fellow down, though perhaps not directly injure him. One of the benefits of plate is that if nothing else it spreads the impact of such brute-force weapons out a fair amount, allowing the body to better absorb the shock.
I believe that the bottom line is that an armour is more likely to be compromised without injury to the wearer, than the wearer being injured (where protected by the armour) without the armour being defeated first. That doesn't mean that he'll be in any condition to continue to fight, however.
I hope that somewhat answers your question.
Cheers,
Gordon
Thx for exhaustive reply. :)
Many things are impossible to understand just by theorizing like for example what would it look like or mean to go through whole pikesquare if it had 4000 or so men inside or how would charges of heavy cavalry at Marignan be executed. (If I remember correctly Francis I mentioned in one letter that 30 charges were performed per unit- would it be something like attack, try to hit someone with lance and retreat to make them stand still for a while for cannon to fire? Are there any surviving documents describing how would such a charge be executed and training for it in details?)
Once again thank you for asking its always something new for me to remember.
Many things are impossible to understand just by theorizing like for example what would it look like or mean to go through whole pikesquare if it had 4000 or so men inside or how would charges of heavy cavalry at Marignan be executed. (If I remember correctly Francis I mentioned in one letter that 30 charges were performed per unit- would it be something like attack, try to hit someone with lance and retreat to make them stand still for a while for cannon to fire? Are there any surviving documents describing how would such a charge be executed and training for it in details?)
Once again thank you for asking its always something new for me to remember.
Page 3 of 3
You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
All contents © Copyright 2003-2006 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum