as the question implies, my understanding of the European 'knights' were that these guys were purely melee specialists, NEVER, or only very rarely using ranged weapons like bows, crossbows, r even slings/ javelins, on the battlefield.
and they only started using any ranged weapon with the introduction of the cavalry wheel-lock pistol, with later renaissance 'knights' using pistols as well as lances and swords

is it really true that the knights almost NEVER used ranged weapons in battle either when mounted, dismounted, on ship or on either side of a seige? or is this one of those really widely believed, but untrue myths

unlike their eastern counterparts, i.e my understanding is that, russian boyars, and polish/ hungarian noble cavalry would often use the tactic of throwing javelins, as well as middle eastern sipahis, and samurai, which were often horse archers.

Well, don't quote me on any of this, but if I recall, King Richard I was known to have used a crossbow from time to time. And unless I'm much mistaken, one of the pope's later said that it was his use of such a sinful weapon that led to his death at the hands of the same device.

And it says here, that he was said to have used the crossbow to pick off enemy soldiers from the battlements. Of course that's on wikipedia so take it with a grain of salt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_I_of_England

Of course this isn't to say that it was common practice, but knights certainly did use ranged weapons fro hunting so they must have gotten pretty good with them, good enough that they wouldn't hesitate to pick them up and use them should the situation call for it. At least that's my opinion. I'm sure someone more learned than I can give you a much better answer.

indeed, one book, by christopher gravett, makes that point, that they trained to use them but ONLY for hunting or sport

personally that seems foolish, and while knights were motivated (supposedly) to want to be seen looking brave and flighting skillfully in in hand to hand combat

it doesnt seem logical that one would spend all that time, learning to use a weapon, and not try to use it in war
although, conversely, learning to use a bow to snipe at a boar or fox at a distance is quite different from learning to shoot at people who are shooting back AT you.

Well, since I just recommended Tirant Lo Blanc, the late-15th century novel about knighthood to somebody else, It also comes into my mind when I read this topic.
Of course knights did use ranged weapons. You can find several examples there, including thoughts about it and knighthood in gerneral.

I don't think you can make general of the kind "somebody never/always used this or that" in the middle ages, especially when it comes to knights and weapons. I mean, they were highly-.training warriors. Of course the used whatever was necessary.

Well, part of the equation is that using a bow or crossbow simply isn't practical for a knight about to go into action on a typical battlefield. He's on horseback, for one thing, and armored, usually in a closed helm, and already juggling a shield and lance. Not really possible to do anything effective with a longbow at that point!

During a siege, it's all different. Lots of sitting around in camp with not much to do, so grabbing a bow and taking potshots would be amusing.

There would always be at least a little of the chivalry factor, of course--fighting at close quarters is *proper* for a knight! It's amazing how many battles were lost simply because someone refused to do something that was considered unmanly or unchivalrous. Possibly that wouldn't matter if peasants needed to be mown down and couldn't be reached in the usual way!

So in a way it was just practicality and logic--leave the archery to those best equipped for it, and the close combat to the knights. That generally worked well enough, and natural conservatism would make people loathe to do something different.

Matthew

ii was thinking pre 1500, since after that even gendarmes and other men at arms/ knights had a pistol or two,

and i forgot to mention javelins but i think theres a lot more evidence of knight throwng spears around in battle.
matthew does make a good point about usng a bow while on horseback while charging with a lance.

but then again, theres no reason why, once the charge has impacted, and assumng the cavalry havent gotten bogged down n melee fighting, riding away a little bit, letting off an arrow or two then buggering off to get a new lance to ME seems a smart idea.

I can recomend Gordon Frye's feature article "From lance to pistol", which explains the relation between melee and missile cavalry quite well.
In short, melee cavalry are more agressive than missile cavalry, who will prefer to fire at long range and turn instead of charging to contact. During the renaisance, this was offsett by the pistols armour piercing capablities exceeding those of the lance.
Once armour disappears from the battlefield, cavalry start charging with swords in hand once more.

Outside their role as shock cavalry, or heavy infantry, knights would readily use bows. Archery is even listed among the knightly virtues in some sources.

In the Iberian peninsula, fighting as light cavalry (a la gineta) was not a problem for most of the knights, and one of the basic weapons for that kind of warrior are the javelins or darts.

Alfonso the IIIrd of Aragón, while defending his kingdom from the French attack in 1285 was the target of another javelin (one azcona muntera to be precise) thrown by a Navarrese knight (the queen of Navarra had married the king of France the previous year). The knight was wearing a breastplate? (peto) and iron bevor (gola de acero).

If you wanted examples of knight bows or crossbows instead javelins, in the early XVth century, Pero Niño, a castillian knight who did several naval raids in Northern Africa, England and the Channel Islands, was a famous crossbowman, but I will have to look in his near contemporary biography if he used it in combat too.

Another thing that has to be considered is that not everyone armoured was a knight, even if they were frequently fought as mounted troops. So if you have an illutration of a person in at least 1/2-3/4 armour shooting a crossbow was not necessarily a knight.

Maximillian chose to depict himself shooting a crossbow. If there was some sort of stigma associated with that weapon then it is unlikely that he would have distributed a public image associating himself with it.

I suppose it probably depends to some degree on what you mean by a knight..

Early on, knight was more like a job description (describing a heavy cavalry) - later it was more a title/measure of status and not necessarily a frontline soldier.

But then, I wouldn't be surprised if the answer was the same regardless :D

Not a historical perspective and just a tactical one: I could see Knights or heavy cavalry carrying bows or crossbows as a backup weapon useful if unaccompanied by a force of missile troops and having to deal with harassing attacks by horse archers they can't close with, or if attacked when travelling or in camp.

If forced to fight on foot in a purely defensive context following an ambush having some missile weapon available could be useful. ( Note, a sling as emergency survival missile weapon has the advantages that carrying a sling is not a burden and found rocks are often easy to find ).

Some types of heavy cavalry at different time periods and cultures would also carry bows with their kit.

Most scholars of subject today agree more or less that significant part of battles between Poland and Teutonic Order, for example, like most famous Grunwald/Tannenberg involved a lot of mounted crossbowmen shooting at enemy positions, taking covers between 'heavier' riders engaging in melee when necessary etc.

In general lord/highly situated knight entourage usually involved a lot of retinues with crossbows or perhaps bows, and since knights serving as other knights retinue etc. weren't uncommon at all in 15th century - due to simple wealth differences for example - I think it's pretty safe to say that many, in particular less wealthy knights could be using crossbow a lot, at least talking about Eastern Europe in general.

Talhoffer has plates demonstrating mounted crossbow against mounted lance. So it may not have been uncommon for people of high station to go about with a crossbow and occasionally find themselves in a scrape. That said, I think this would have been less likely to take place in a battlefield context amongst massed heavy cavalry.