Knowing is half the battle

[sirandrew]

I'm going to dispel a myth.  It's about history, so skip this post.  

Imagine the Medieval Knight.  Most people see him as the pinnacle of warfare in the middle ages.  He charges forward, mounted on his barded steed, thundering towards the enemy.  He's the unstoppable juggernaut, the "middle ages version of a tank" as one of my high school teachers told me.  He's invincible, his charge is unstoppable, he is the king of the medieval battlefield.  Only the development of gunpowder weapons neutralized his absolute, complete dominance.  

Everything above is a lie.  It's a myth as bad as the three winged red German triplanes filling the sky in Flyboys.  

Now, I will admit that this myth has a lot of reasons for existing, even a lot of historical reasons.  The strange thing about this myth is that even the military commanders of the middle ages believed it, and they were living in the time, seeing it with their own eyes.  The myth of the dominace of the Knight was something that the nobility of the Medieval period liked to perpetuate.  Showing the Knight victorious against all odds made the nobility look good.  It put fear into the pesantry and assured the nobles their spot in the history books.  It wasn't like there were news reporters on battlefields to question anything that the nobles said.  The people of the middle ages showed the Knight carrying the day in their art, in their stories, in their plays.  It's little wonder that modern society, even many of our schoolteachers,  thinks that the Knight featured so prominently in Medieval warfare.  

The truth of the matter is, the mounted Knight was an albatross around the necks of most military commanders in the middle ages.  They were used, improperly, over and over again, and failed to make much of an impact, if any, on the major military engagements of the medieval period.  The unsung heroes of the Medieval period were the infantry.  Lowborn grunts in armor, armed with milita weapons or bows were the true kings of the Medieval battlefield.  The commander that properly used infantry usually was the one that won.  Commanders that were smart enough to combine solid infantry with skirmishing light cavalry with bows (Read Arabs, Mongols and Turks) were even more deadly.   The medieval mounted Knight usually stood no chance against proper infantry as long as the infantry were steady enough to hold their ground and receive the initial charge.  The mounted Knight failed early and often.  At Hastings William's Knights bounced off the Saxon shield wall until Norman archery finally managed to break it up.  At Hattin King Guy's grand Knightly charge came to nothing as Saladin's light cavalry simply moved out of the way.  At Legano Fredrick of Barbarosa's grand frontal charge met with determined Milanese light infantry who held their ground and crushed the German advance.  At Leignitz the Hungarian/Crusader Cavalry charged into a Mongol army that quickly dispersed before the Knights could make contact, and then butchered them in attacks on the flanks.  At Pepius the Teutonic Order was massacred when they charged twice their number in Russian Serf infantry.  At Crecy the French beat their heads against Edward III's dismounted Men at Arms and Longbowmen for hours, with no success at all.  Tannenberg, Nicopolis, Stirling Bridge, Potiers, the list literally goes on and on.  Mounted knights had proved so ineffective, especilly after the travesty of the Knightly Charge into the Jannisaries at Nicopolis, that by the late 1300's Knights were fighting in the only way they'd truly proven themselves effective, on foot.  In fact, the only great, sucessful Knightly charge that was sucessful in the great battles of the Middle ages came when Richard the Lionheart charged Saladin at Arsuf.  Even then, Richard had held his Knights in reserve for hours, forcing them to stay shielded by a giant box formation of infantrymen.  You wouldn't know this by the art from the period, that only depicts the Knightly charge, not the fact that it only was able to be delivered because of a magnificent feat of feints and combined arms.  

The Knight was a great weapon of war in the medieval world.  However, he wasn't the dominant force we all think we know.  When employed mounted with extensive support by infantry and archery, or when employed dismounted as heavy infantry, the Knight was very effective.  The Knight as a rolling juggernaut that bowled over all in his path like they were harvested wheat, he simply wasn't around.  

I have no idea why I posted this. 

Comments

[therigs.livejournal.com]

You know, if you hadn't posted this, I would never have known it. It makes a lot of sense though, considering how expensive to maintain heavy cavalry would be, especially if they're prissy nobles. For what you'd have to shell out to maintain one knight you could probably grab 10 random peasants and hand them longbows.

I don't know why you posted this either, but thanks.

[sirandrew.livejournal.com]

They were still pretty hard fighters for prissy nobles. The problem is that they refused to accept and understand the role of infantry, ranged attacks and light cavalry in warfare. The Knightly charge could be devestating when used properly, like say when infantry engaged the enemy from the front, set them in place, and then the Knightly charge rolled in on the flank. Frontal charges could even be pulled off when archers and artillery broke up the formations and infantry could be pulled up in time to prevent reserves from flanking the Knights and destroying them. Sadly, most medieval European commanders didn't quite understand that. They were convinced that the Knightly charge, and the charge alone was enough to defeat most opponents. Even when the overall commanders tried to used combined arms, sometimes the Knights just didn't listen. At Crecy, the French Knights rode over their own infantry and mercenary crossbowmen because they were tired of waiting for them to disrupt the English lines. At Nicopolis the King of Hungary begged to be allowed to send his 30,000 infantry and dismounted Knights against the Turks in the first wave, but John the Fearless opened the battle with a reckless Knightly charge anyway because he refused to let the lowborn infantry take from the Knights the glory of the vanguard. Richard the Lionheart at Arsuf had to personally threaten his Knights with extreme punishment to keep them from charging out of his defensive box. Even with that, they still charged earlier than he would've liked, but fortunately it was late enough in the battle and the effect of the English crossbowmen had been enough that the charge worked. The Knights could end up being a good commanders worst enemy. This is why great generals like Edward III, Edward the Black Prince, Henry V and others were very wise in employing their Knights on foot, where they couldn't mess up the whole works and ride off recklessly into battle.

[dirkadarkie.livejournal.com]

I LIKE TO LEARN!

Seriously, I didn't know that shit. Everything you hear about knights seems to be the romanticized view. Good looking out!

[damnukids.livejournal.com]

haha you're a history teacher