The knight didn't die if you didn't feed and water the horse, they reverted to Footmen. Then you had to go spend 80 wood and 100 stone at the Blacksmith to upgrade them to knights again. It was a logistical knightmare.
@@petestillplays9927 three times a week, in fact. They also need an area to play in with plenty of sunlight. If your horse starts to wilt, try adding nutrients to the soil.
@@PewPewPlasmagun Obviously when I misapply military equipment, it won't be effective. But no one can tell me when I send a few tanks on an open battlefield or to bombard a city, that tanks would be terrible.
@@Soapy-chan_old If your adversary has effective antitank weapons (ATGMs, guided artillery shells, mines along the way, etc.), these tanks could easily turn into armoured graves on tracks.
I like that you mentioned tanks when they said knights were terrible because they were expensive, because that is exactly where my mind went. Knights weren't invulnerable, but they trained constantly and had the best armor money could buy. They were well worth the investment and any difficulties that came with them. Unsurprisingly, tanks had many of the same logistical problems knights did, so they were an almost 1 to 1 comparison for their respective times.
8:40 The blind bohemian king went into battle fully knowing he would die. Its actually said that his last words "Toho bohdá nebude aby král český z boje utíkal" which roughly translates to "never shall a czech king run from battle". He basically lead a suicide charge to inspire his knights and soldiers and wasnt just a bumbling fool like the article suggests
The charge was most likely to protect the retreating french forces and his own son who was wounded. He and his knights chained their horses together and charged directly into the advancing enemy lines. That much we know from history. To me this sounds like a textbook example of a blocking the enemy from advancing and buying times for your troops to withdraw in order. Not just incredibly honorable and brave, but tactically one of the smartest decisions in the battle.
My understanding was that knights were absolutely dominant on the battlefield for a lot of the early middle ages. When Swiss Pikes showed they could defeat knights it was a huge deal. From there knights stopped being without question the best thing on the field and started to become a more situational unit. Their shock capability was still devastating and continued to be immensely useful at turning a wavering force into a routing one if used by skillful leaders correctly.
There's also something that counter Knight more than pikes, Discipline. From what I know the Infantries during the Middle Ages are usually Levied freemen who would bolster a smaller Men-at-Arms force. These Levies or Volunteers would be very ill disciplined that a sight of a Group of Knights Charging at them could rout them. However after a more semi-professional forces were made who wield pikes and at least know some plan to counter knights these Medieval Pikemen were much more willing to take a charge while the Knight's Warhorse would be facing a wall of sturdy pointy sticks. However no matter how disciplined you're, seeing a thundering charge of Knights from behind will always deletes your Discipline.
Honestly they can't even hold off against viking. That is why Duchy of Normandy was created, to buy off one of the viking invader to fend off others, which lead the creation of Norman.And in hundred years war, Knights were slaughter by English LongBow infantry, which is group of elite soldiers who is both mastered longbow and close combat. They failed their job until Jeanne d'Arc manage to regroup and lead them into battle throw her military genius. So...yeah, knights were the important part of the medieval military, but they are not that all mighty.
@@NekoLilium2012 I think you misunderstood something buddy. First of all first proper heavy cavalry, namely Norman's, conquered England, Sicily, south Italy and defeated Byzantines. Force to be reckon with, it from that point on knights were main part of every medieval army untill Swiss and Hussites show up. Even then to defeat cavalry you need to have highly trained, specially equipped and well commanded force. English who won at Crecy and alike were victorious because of french knights pride that let them to charge without thinking. English weren't using as many knights as French not because they didn't want to, or because they were not so good, but because they were not so rich and developed and France. So yeah, knights were beasts, with flaws yeah but still main force of medieval battle field.
@@NekoLilium2012 Look into the Hundreds year war properly outside of the Great Major Plantagenets victory. Even before Joan of Arc joined, the Valois had a lot of victories. The Valois won the war with their Calvary and technology. The Longbowman were cut down like flies in the later part of the war.
Don't generalize this much! Of course statements like heavy cavalry was more effective in the high middle ages, than in the late middle ages are generally true, but types of military equipment and types of units are situational. Yes things go obsolete, but dont think warfare is some hegelian straight line of progress, like you would research your tech tree in a video game. It is more like a back and forth, people trying out things and sometimes what is a huge deal in a particular situation, is a huge flop in another.
The thing that kills me about number 4 is that he says it like we don't have rules of conduct today. In fact, modern rules of conduct are more restrictive in some ways. Also, as you pointed out, just because these rules of conduct exist doesn't mean that people don't flat-out ignore them. That's saying nothing about the rules seen on both sides of the timeline, from Ancient Egypt on up through World War Two. There's nothing unusual about having rules of war, they've been around for a very, *very* long
Imagine agreeing with someone that, whoever the oil belongs to, we *probably* shouldn't be dropping cluster bombs and deploying mines that indiscriminately blow up civilians. (Mines are obvious, but cluster bombs are bad because of how they work, only ~30-40% of the munitions actually go boom, meaning the rest are hanging from trees on their mini parachutes, or half-buried into the dirt ready to blow when the wind pushes it just right. Big nightmare) Also, let's not shoot each others medical units, so that we can recover our wounded and *hopefully* lessen the impact of attrition in our respective countries' populations. What kind of villain would make certain allowances for 'I disagree with you, but let's not nuke each other into the stone age over our little spat'?!?!
A great example of that was the Japanese going out of their way to target medics. American medics in WW2 fighting the Japanese would not wear the red cross because it was basically a bullseye.
7:20 Also, the knowledge that you might possibly be ransomed instead of being killed makes you more likely to surrender. If your enemy surrenders, you won, without having to costly and riskily fight him. Surrender should always be incentivised.
I'd also like to here about the feudal system itself, specifically how the feudal economy worked. I'm not interested in King Arthur's quest for the Holy Grail, I want to here about how he financed that venture.
Another note about ransoming knights, common soldiers were also ransomed, just usually in batches rather than as individuals like knights. War is expensive and armies were always looking for ways to save money or make more of it. It would often be cheaper to ransom back some of your captured men than to equip and train completely new ones. It might not even be possible to rebuild your forces to full strength, depending on how bad your casualties were in a battle and how many people you had available to conscript. Therefore, it was beneficial to both sides to sell back prisoners of all ranks
It's kinda silly selling back the people that will soon attack back at them. Maybe they need some kind of peace agreement or some sort for it to make sense for both party. Or maybe they were confident that they will NOT try to attack them back because they have tried that before and lost (and captured).
@@xdragon2k Given that most wars back then were very short, the odds were that the war would be over before those men managed to reach the front lines again
@@xdragon2k The system "we will return their prisoners to them and they will return ours to us" works here. Everyone understood that it was very easy to lose a battle and sooner or later your people would be captured. And those who returned from captivity were usually unable to fight for a long time, if not forever.
@@alecseusalec3418 So, it's not "I will pay the ransom so I can put them back in battle" more so that you need to do that so the remaining soldiers will be willing to go to battle for you.
@@xdragon2k you are not taking into account the cost of keeping prisoners. you need to give them food and water, which you would rather have your army use, and you have to leave people watching the prisoners instead of doing something more useful. depending on how many men and prisoners you have, you are better off ransoming them back
As a former military combatant i can say that the medievals were so good at battle there are still aspects of the tactics & methods they invented that we use for training & fighting on battlefields today. Yes they are more advanced nowadays naturally but those ancient tactics are the granite foundations our modern fighting systems were built on & w/o a strong foundation no structure can stand.
AFAIK police shield walls for riots are pretty much the same as our ancestors used for war. Sure they were more primitive but they definately weren't stupid.
As someone who lives in the mountains north of Frankfurt (Germany) laughed at "knights have ideals". The knights in this mountains lived from robbing merchants, raiding the villages in the valleys. When the cities (mainly Frankfurt) tried to get rid of them, the knights humiliated the city milicia in battle (formed by pikemen and infantry with crosbows). Only in the 16th century the knights were crushed, after Frankfurt formed an alliance with other states and used canons.
A famous portuguese historian, called José Hermano Saraiva, once said on TV that battles were never fought during the winter, but according to him, it was not only because of the cold, but also because most people had to be ready for harvesting the wheat or else there would be starvation. He debunked some popular "Lusitanian" tale with that notion, among others. May he rest in peace. He was much loved.
That's mostly the case for Antiquity and not as much for the Middle Ages. Hence why the month March is named after the Roman god of war and fertility, Mars.
It's genuinely impressive, and depressing, how that article got so much of the information right but drew the worst, most nonsensical conclusions from it.
It does bring up some important aspects of knighthood. The horse. Feeding and care is important and having the fodder and grain for your horse could be an issue. How was that handled? ANd the squier is something that could be a good post. THe care feeding and training of your suier, especially since they are being trained to become a knight someday.
I like the comparison of a heavy knight to a modern battletank, both have a great value as a shock force but neither are invulnerable to countermeasures. Knights could still be shot by a lucky arrow strike or dismounted with polearms, tanks can be shot by armor piercing rounds, rockets or hit a mine. Both work a lot better in a formation and by striking at the best possible moment.
they work the best with combined arms warfare well almost everything works the best with that doctrine but combined arms is perhaps the most difficult or at least on of the most difficult doctrint to pull of and use constantly in every battle, this is for multiple reasons, if you artillery is low on ammo or you tanks being out of gas but done right in the ideal circumstances it extremely difficult to counter because your enemy have do deal with everything at the same time, if your enemy make the slightest mistake it can be game over for him in that battle.
Scutage does sound interesting, I for one am interested. Thank you for you wonderful discourse on older times. BTW, love that blue brigandine, looks great.
A flanking attack into the unprotected sides or rear of an infantry unit regardless of what they are armed with is pretty effective. Especially if the opposing side lacks any mounted troops
not entirely necessary if the knights were wielding the large two-handed swords (zweihander), considering it was designed to chop pikes, but yes mounted calvary is always a go-to option in dealing with infantries
In general, you could say that armour on a knight worked. And the longbow worked. As demonstrated by Tod's Workshop in his (and his friends) gigant project as late as today. No one has ever used a method, weapon, armour or style of fighting for generations that did not work.
God, metatron, when i find myself actually clicking on your videos im always astonished at how well you articulate and digest the content for us, great communicator and great video, i ABSOLUTELY dreaded history and geography in school, it felt so bland but youtube really highlights the power of a good speaker
If Metatron taught at schools, that entire generation of students would become Grade A historians. Sadly it probably wouldn't be permitted since public schools are about indoctrination, not information.
The author seems to be under the impression that knights were "kitted" by their lords, when, in fact, knights, much like mercenaries, outfitted their men and themselves and, until they were on the field of battle, usually managed their own logistics. But there are issues with every single one of the author's "points".
The thing to understand about these "ridiculous" medieval laws and customs and codes of honor that people tend to scoff at is that they were made in a time when the lord/king still had final say on how that law was actually executed. In a lot of cases, I suspect that they would purposely make the supposed punishment worse just to scare people into following the law, even when they didn't intend to always punish that severely (although they definitely did, at times, as well).
I find it funny how he mentions how in the late Middle Ages armies were composed entirely of mercenaries. Most knights were essentially mercenaries lol
Yeah true but ITS also true that multiple wars showed that two idiots with a spear Work better than 1 knight in many cases. Theres a reason why in later stages Knights came Out of Fashion and they Just used pointy sticks
@@flyingpumpkin6124 knights became obsolete because of guns being able to easily pierce armour not because of pointy sticks. If they became obsolete because of pointy sticks they would have been obsolete since the stone age
@@flyingpumpkin6124 from what i can find (wikipedia) cannons and guns where used in the conflict and in most of the battles the peasants who had no cavalry and were poorly armed where slaughtered with minimal casualties on the other side
@@yaboy821 Knights of the 15th and 16th century were well trained in handling firearms. It wasn't the weapons that made them obsolete but the style of warfare changing that did, as pikemen and pike formations became more and more common and the popular form of warfare in Western Europe. So while the pointed stick didn't make the knight fall out of favor, lots of men with lots of long pointy sticks did.
The lack of standardized training got me because who do they expect the knights to be fighting? A lot of the normal soldiers were conscripted from the peasantry from what I remember and they didn’t get near the training that a knight would receive. I would think that even a poorly trained knight would fair decently against a bunch of farmers with nonstandard weapons.
This is how I feel when someone who has the basic snopes summary on a subject wants to act like they actually know more than someone like us who is dedicated to the subject
8:42 a modern aquivalent would probably be the "black hawk down" incident. There were many successful missions in Somalia, the battle of Mogadishu is the only thing talked about, exactly bc smth went so wrong that shouldn't have
Not going to lie... I saw the video title and for a split second I was like "what betrayal has set up us!?! What heresy is this!?" But then I remember who's channel it is, great video!! Also this guy is pointing out a lot of broad strokes and sweeping issues that will effect ANY army in history. Like fighting in winter, even to this day. The Russians and Ukrainians are currently digging in for the winter because who the fuck wants to try and mount a winter campaign. Even for the greatest commanders in history operations in the winter are extremely risky and hard.
I love how the guy rests an argument on the crusades, which were rather exceptional, rather than on the fact the medieval warfare was most commonly short range (of course, that's defined by domain, size, it's not computed the same if it's the lord of chinon vs the lord of brouilly than if it's the King of France vs such neighbours as the King of England or the Flemish cities or the duchies of Northern Italy)
I really enjoyed this video. A point about the expense of knights is that they paid for their own arms, armour and equipment. They were obliged under the fuedal system to serve the king/ their lord in times of war
I've only vaguely heard about scutage from a feudal contract option I never use in CK3 so I would love a video or videos about what it actually is, where it was used, and how it effected medieval society
When you were talking about the support needed, I was thinking of aircraft carriers. The largest carrier now carries 75 planes, not all of which are fighter/bombers. Those are the modern equivalent of the knights. That carrier has a crew of 4500 to support those 75 warriors. As for the expense, the carrier cost $13.3 billion to build, just for the ship, plus $50 million apiece for the planes (75 x 50 = $3.75 billion total for the planes).
You see, when you buy a knight yo actually buy a warrior that comes with his own arms, armor, horses, and servants. You don't have to provide any of that to him so the only logistics strain is providing the food, water, and feed for the knight and his retinue. it is actually logistically preferable to have knights than the 5-10 men at arms he is fiscally worth. Let's face it, the 5-10 men-at-arms are dying in the first battle anyway since they have a much lower life-expectancy.
The aircraft carrier comparison is actually pretty clever. Carriers as well as knights are a projection of power. They were there to be menacing and dangerous as much as to actually fight. A King who could muster a large amount of knights was definitely not one to mess around with.
I am English and I hope this helps - 1 - Squires were Knights in training... as in an Apprentice. So he was expected to preform service in exchange for training and this would include cleaning armour, sharpening weapons and caring for the animals, and a squire was expected to fight whenever necessary. Imagine an apprentice blacksmith, in exchange for being trained he would be expected to light the forge, carry the iron and coal, pump the bellows and also make nails, horse shoes and other items which the blacksmith would sell. THIS IS NOT A BURDEN IT IS AN EXCHANGE - SERVICE FOR TRAINING. 2- Scutage was first allowed for a when a nobleman was old and unable to fight but then later used by nobles unwilling to fight but think of the word and what it means now! A scutter is the lowest of the low and that comes from this time period, a noble who pays to avoid combat is a scutter, a coward, someone unworthy of the title he holds. yes he will live but he will never be accepted ever again by any other noble. He is an outcast and it is unlikely that the King would allow his children to inherit his lands and title after his death. 3 - Ransom. You gave a good explanation of the ransom rules but it went both ways, if I am noble and go into combat I want to live through the battle even if things go wrong so I tell my soldiers to take nobles hostage knowing that my enemy will do the same. If I ever have enemy nobles killed without reason then I cannot expect my enemies to allow me to live. Ransom is survival of the richest.
A minor point on #5, if I may. Would you rather (in 2022) have soldiers trained en masse in large groups for force-on-force conflicts that involve division-sized elements make up your hostage rescue team? Or would you prefer 35 pipe hitters who do nothing but train CQB, Hapkido/Jiujitsu, Combat Trauma First Echelon Medical, and Tier 1 Intel Tradecraft, trained by a concert of experts with the most technologically advanced transportation, arms, armor and communications equipment?
Agreed! I don't think I've ever seen a video talking about the potential for PTSD in medieval knights, particularly if they'd undergone something like an extended siege...? (I imagine the literature of the time may reference behavioral changes that could align with our modern understanding of the condition, but I haven't read any of the originals yet...?)
@@anna_in_aotearoa3166 what if those very behaviour changes might be part of the reason for such strict and extensive rules of conduct like without a proper understanding of mental illnesses theyd probably consider it a disciplinary matter right and more rules = more discipline plus probably easier for someone suffering to contorl their behaviour if they have an extensive list of ways to behave and are used to following said rules
@@CaptainPrincess That's a very interesting suggestion! Perhaps particularly in the civilian context, developing stricter notions of chivalric behaviour not just to help manage the hair-trigger tempers and reactions of battle-traumatised combatants, but also to try and curb the age-old problem of "power corrupts", given the already very steep differential of power and weaponry between the nobles and everyone else...? I'm familiar with the origins of the "courtly love" craze, but not so up on details of why specific rules of chivalry became a thing, so looks like I need to do some extra reading! 😏
Good video. Even with a debunking video I'm learning new things about this era. I think it'd be fun to cover scutage. I'm also curious about the "pike and shot" formation you were talking about and how it came about. You're missing the link you said would be bellow, about the gendarms knights.
As a veteran myself I would say that people take some things out of context, at least in my understanding, for example the whole ‘fight fair’ in chivalry seems more to do with not doing to the enemy which you would not like done to you, for example, in modern times if one army used chemical weapons on another, they would then be expected to be chemically attacked back, which is one of those areas people frown upon, and thus both sides avoid using these weapons so the other side doesn’t use them too. At least that’s how I interpret it as a soldier several hundred years in the future, unfortunately people look at war and battles with rose tinted glasses and think it’s all very heroic and glorious. Until you see friends and colleagues in several different pieces while screaming for everyone they ever loved. The people who’ve never experienced that will never understand these kind of warrior codes because they are always misinterpreting them out of context. At least in my opinion.
Often the medieval campaigns were limited in time, due to the necessity to amass great quantity of forage for the horses, so logically an army had to wait until the logistical needs had been extabilished. Bad weather, a scarce harvest or similar could compromise the whole thing. So war generally was limited to late spring/summer, expecially in northern Europe. This happened until 19th century.
Exactly. A mass of knights in an army made it the armored division of the time. Have them assault a comparable force fortified atop a hill after having to cross a river, you'll get a defeat: Azincourt. Have them attack a line battle, or a not completely fortified comparable army, and even a limited unit can crush the entire enemy army: Patay. Also, yes, you could arm many more men for the price of one knight. Men that would need to eat, too. And would be sorely needed for agriculture, farming, etc. Populations weren't that large then. Knights, and men at arms with comparable equipment were efficient professionnals beating superior numbers of cheaper troops. Don't know if the article is clickbait or stupidity, but there's a definite possibility it's actually both.
A lot of these criticisms apply to cavalry in general, which was a decisive force in warfare until the 20th century. I'd love to see how well that author would stand his ground with over a ton of horse, armor, and man bearing down on him, especially if his formation was already broken. I've tried it, my brothers and I all had horses growing up so we had mock battles that could get pretty violent at times. Infantry on the ground are at a severe disadvantage against cavalry in melee because a good horseman has so much more agility, height, and reach. Properly trained horses are a lot tougher than a person would be when it comes to receiving blows, so you can use the horse's body as a shield if it's armored. You can also use its feet as a weapon by crowding the infantry, and if a horse steps on your foot under command (They'll normally lift their foot when they feel that they haven't stepped on something solid, which your foot wont' be in a second) you aren't getting back up. And of course, that's assuming you don't break on the charge. We didn't, because we KNEW horses wouldn't charge an unbroken line. They'll stop short, even if you're armed with pillows, unless they're trained jumpers, in which case you MIGHT get them to jump. As far as the horse knows, the person standing in front of it is a predator, though, and just as strong as a horse, so they'll usually balk. But most infantry don't know that, and even if they do, the horse will charge until the last possible second, which may well throw the rider on top of you. (Well-trained horses will try to avoid this, because their rider is their security in their minds. They know other horses won't mess with them, which in turn makes them think NOTHING will, since naturally, everything thinks like a horse if you're a horse) It's better than getting hit with a horse, but not, you know, a LOT. The problem is compounded when there are multiple horsemen, because if ANY infantry waver, all the horses will try to go to the spot where the break is, which means a lot of crowding and trampling. All infantry have to do is look away or turn and the horse won't see them as a scary predator obstacle any more. In fact, in horse language, (They do have a rudimentary language) doing that tells the horse that you don't care what it's doing and aren't going to eat it. It'll run right over you if you look at your buddy to make sure he's holding, unless you've got a pike or something. There's are good reasons knights were SHOCK CAVARY, and why they were so good at it. Armchair revisionists wouldn't notice many of these. But horsemen would.
Soo i think that the person that wrote this kinda knows a bit of history but they misunderstand it. Kinda like the meme: " he a little bit confused but he's got the spirit".
5:57 unfortunatelly yes I heard people saying this about modern armor, (as part of argument, that wheeled SUVs are better then Armored Personel Cariers) 8:10 I wonder what the autor things about modern Geneva Convention (and the others)
2:20 - Fighting in winter was stupidly difficult throughout all of history and almost never practiced until the 20th century, and it still continued to be exceptionally difficult. Winter weather just about stopped the Russians conquering Finland in the Winter War and only a few years later the same when Germany invaded Russia and nearly reached Moscow. But at least they didn't say knights needed cranes to get on their horses and drowned in mud when they fell or couldn't get up after being pushed over.
@@joelbilly1355 it never is. Each javelin missile costs like 75-100 thousand dollars if I remember correctly. So it isn't cheap at all, and a tank gun shell is a fraction of that cost, and is more effective at taking out armor actually as it cannot be intercepted by active protection systems and is only marginally affected by the heaviest and most expensive ERA blocks. A missile team cannot lead a charge, it cannot be used on the offensive, it cannot provide support fire for advancing infantry, its only value is to give infantry a fighting chance against armor and only when they are in a defensive position. Meanwhile a tank can do all of the above and is also much better at holding a defensive point. Not only because of armor and hull down tactics, but because nowadays a tank can detect a missile team from range and a tank shell is always faster than a missile; an attacking tank would have an easier time detecting and shooting and hitting first against a defending missile team than against a defending tank. The last time AT missiles were used to a large extent and to a large degree of success was in the early seventies during the 6th of October war. But back then tanks (in general) didn't have thermal sights, active protection systems, or hunter killer fire control systems. Back then an advancing tank had a really hard time detecting and accurately hitting a defending missile team at range. That is no longer the case in this era. Also, even under those ideal circumstances, AT missile teams were not used on the offensive; during the crossing, egyptian tanks took positions to cover the infantry until they deploy their defensive positions, the AT teams were effective only on the defense, only after territory objectives were already taken and fortified after the tank-enabled offensive phase. So, if your strategy doesn't include letting the enemy overtake your territory and engage them in opportune traps for slow attrition while they are occupying your territory and key strategic locations at will, you are better off with a tank than 20 missile teams. The IDF's biggest setback during the latest Lebanon War was having an armored column retreat from a trap with total war losses of let's say 40 tanks were hit (hit, not destroyed and not disabled beyond repair), while during a real war in the seventies against an actual army with combined arms command it would lose 400 tanks in a day. AT guerilla tactics mean that you have the enemy already occupying your territory, hunted maybe, under attrition, but not stopped. Even if you never plan to use your army offensively and would willingly let go of all the benefits of a tank in offensive operations, to stop a tank you still need a tank. Hunting enemy armor after your front lines have been breached isn't a victory, it's merely surviving. There is a historian and consultant called Nicolas Moran who have a very good video on this. The Chieftain is his RU-vid channel name. He has a very good video on this and with much better details.
@@mahmoodali5043 an abhrams tank costs $8 million vs $250,000 for the javelin missle system per unit and that's current figures. A javelin armed crew needs minimal training and for the same price you can have 32 in place for every abhrams. That's just the current state of the battlefield, with antitank weapons designs slightly ahead of tank designs. Tank designers if they haven't already will have to come up with countermeasures to make tanks less vulnerable while still allowing tank designs to be cost effective. I'm thinking there will be some sort of system on western tank designs that if they are targeted by a javelin missle system once detected something like a crows turret maybe with a gattling gun or 50 cal will automatically target the javelin crew and take them out before they can fire or as NATO are now operating on the digital battlefield any other unit whether it be a drone, aircraft, attack helicopter, other tank, artillery unit or even naval assest may become aware very quickly of that javelin missle and be able to fire before or slightly after the javelin missle is fired. Whole new battlefield even for infantry, stuff like that crows system where a 50 cal or auto cannon can be attached and they can fire more accurately than a sniper rifle, single or auto fire, see in the dark, thermal imaging, detect movement, computer assisted targeting etc so infantry will need some sort of countermeasure for that.
@@joelbilly1355 I'd also point out that what we see is only the successful attempts in the Ukraine war media. We don't see the 5 missile misses and the missiles that were intercepted by active protection systems and the times the missile team was detected and fired upon before it had the chance to fire. I'm bad at remembering numbers, but if my memory doesn't betray me here, the Lebanon war saw something like 800 AT missiles fired. Out of which 40 tanks were confirmed hit or disabled. If that attests to anything, it's to how tough a tank is to kill. There is also the propaganda side. The Ukrainians have every right to defend their country, but when their published numbers add up to the enyire Russian armed forces being destroyed many times over if those numbers were correct, we should take those figures with a grain of salt. Tactical ineptitude is also rampant in that war. We see many clips of lone Russian and Ukrainian tanks. Any officer worth his salt would not send a tank alone except if they are 100% sure the opposition do not have a single AT weapon. Sending a tank alone is like sending an infantry squad alone and complaining that the foot soldier is outdated when that lone squad gets inevitably taken out. Since we are on this channel, it's like sending unsupported cavalry without siege weapons or ladders against a tower, or asking archers to charge enemy cavalry on an open field.
@@joelbilly1355 Accidentally deleted the comment where i was saying that you are absolutely right, and both ideas are being implemented. Active protection systems are seeing rapid development and are on the track you described. However, it would take much trial and testing to implement an automated AT team hunting system that is safe to use around friendly infantry. And for the infantry's response; Light tanks are back in fashion with countries such as the US, Russia, China, Germany, Sweden, Japan, and to some extent France and the UK. Sometimes called Light tanks outright, and sometimes called some new shiny name but are practically light tanks in the end. They serve to provide mobile protected firepower and fire support for infantry on the offensive, are much cheaper than main battle tanks (MBT), and just tough enough to require the same firepower to take them down as that dedicated to anti MBT use. Heavy autocannons (caliber 50-75mm) are also seeing a return to fill the gap in capabilities between anti-MBT weapons and light anti-unarmored vehicle weapons. As always, the arms race between armor and projectile won't stop. But the biggest news is the return of light tanks for infantry support and to fill the role of a tank when the opposition isn't heavy enough so you don't need a 6-11 million dollar MBT to do it You called it, that indeed is where global military systems development is going.
Just got here from todds last video.. Even cheap , not top of the notch plate armor like the used for their tests , proved highly effective vs longbow arrows. The killing blows came from joint hits , NOT by piercing the plate armor (again the cheap /mediocre versions of said armor) .
From experience: having things hit you while in a “tin can” such as full plate, is not pleasant. Even if the arrow doesn’t find a gap, if they are trying to maintain a formation, or momentum, it will be hindered by a bunch of sharp flying sticks pestering you.
The long bow used by the English was first developed in Wales this is often referred to as the "Welsh longbow" here in the UK. Then again as a Welshman and archer I may be biased lol
One of the biggest misconceptions that plague amateur analysis, is the idea that the maximum distance an arrow can fly, is it's maximum effective range: "this bow could shoot an arrow 800 feet; therefore, the archer could kill a man at 800 feet." Arrows loose energy due to drag as they fly, and they slow down. The slower the arrow flies, the less likelihood of penitrating armor, and the less deeply it will penitrate flesh and organs. Additionally, the further the arrow flies, the more it is deflected by wind and other elements, so accuracy declines non linearly as the distance increases. According to Tod of Tod's workshop and professional longbowman Joe Gibs, the maximum effective range where a longbow with a 160lb draw weight can reliably operate is about 50 yards. Beyond that, it's not very effective or consistent.
Not only did majority of nobility get military training, they also had military experience. This was the time of Kings donning their armor and riding into battle with their troops
There were a few successful cavalry charges against the Ottomans in, _checks notes_ , 1917 during WW1. See e.g. the Battle of Beersheba, where Australian mounted infantry overran entrenched positions defended by Turkish infantry and German machine gun and artillery units, where the commander later notes that the speedy charge of the horses greatly reduced the casualty rate compared to if they had done a standard marched charge.
"The 20th and 21st century soldiers were horrible fighters because they had an idealized understanding of battle. They were expected to follow the so-called "laws of war" which prohibited killing civilians or pretending to surrender before opening fire on the unsuspecting enemy, required humane treatment of POWs and generally stood in the way of just massacring the enemy using every opportunity available."
As someone coming from the literary view of things, I'd greatly enjoy a video about the tension between how knights were viewed in everyday life back in the day, by commoners and noblemen, in contrast to our modern view of knights, which is heavily influenced by the literature of the medieval period -- even though said literature itself held highly idealised views about itself and its own subject matter.
This guy should read the accounts of The Great Siege of Malta of 1565... In the fully evolved version, an armoured knight was something to behold! A handful of knights would kill dozens in a sortie. And to have a knight being repeatedly shot at and remaining unfazed as he hacked through enemy after enemy, only to be stopped by a half dozen men jumping on him to hold him down, spread his legs, while another literally stuck an arquebus in his crotch and shoot him in the only non plated area to kill him... such accounts really give you a new perspective on how effective knights were. The amount of gore, blood, mud, heat, dust, thirst, desperation and guts, honour and mental fortitude can only leave you with respect to the men of old. And mind you, their opponents were not to be looked down upon, they were formidable in their own right.
When it comes to just hold your ground. It's hard. For exampel when shooting the movie waterloo a bunch of red army conscripts are suposed to form a square and the horses are supposed to ride around them. The men know this, the riders know this. The conscripts break every time the horses come close even though they are 100% safe. Every instinct in your body tells you to avoid the 400kg horse running towards you. Add a few of its friends and it's a wall coming towards you that makes the ground shake.
logistics did become the reason why knights became obsolete with the improvement of firearms, because even though it was possible to bullet proof armor in knightly fashion against pretty much every firearm produced until the early 19th century, production, distribution of and training with firearms just scale a lot better
From my understanding in college, knights were extremely a dominating force just not in the way we think. They were tanks when used to suppress peasants/serfs, which made them unstoppable.
Cavalry were not only effective against peasants...who comes up with this stuff. Just look at the first crusade when the Normans were outnumbered in completely foreign lands but managed to win Antioch. They had to overcome a siege and a pitched battle afterwards.
@@charlescook5542 Cant agree more with you. Just imagine a grown man around 180 pounds + 60 pounds of armor on top of a 990 pound horse + 30 pounds of horse armor = +- 1250 pounds charging towards you at full speed, while being literally invulnerable because of his armor as long as you dont have dedicated weapons to pierce through it. Good luck trying to stop that lmao.
Just like a modern military, medieval armies had a logistics train many times the size of the fighting force trailing behind. Thousands and thousands of wagons carrying foodstuffs, water, wine, ale, tentage, blacksmiths, farriers, fletchers, and wheelwrights and their equipment, the surgeons, clergy, engineers and carpenters for building siege engines, weavers, shipwrights, drovers and their enormous herds, and camp followers of all types, as well as flankers, a rear guard, and light cavalry to protect from raiders. Soldiers need the same things to reach the fight in as good a condition as possible regardless of the era.
I think this article was simply poorly titled. It should have been called “Ten drawbacks to Medieval Knights.” But I think they correctly gambled that a more controversial, if wholly inaccurate, title would get them more and interest.
If knight were so useless and bad, then why hungarians and poles invested so heavily into heavy cavalry mainly knight during wars with mongol armies? Mongols avoided fighting heavy armored knights, because their bows and weapons were rendered completely useless against them. Usage of knights and castles was the thing that stopped mongols from advancing further into europe, it was too hard for mongols to fight both things.
I think a lot of this article’s premise comes down to one of two things: 1. Probably being given an indefensible brief of the article to write by a higher up. And 2. Defining “effective soldier” using post Medieval measures. Sure, by the standards of someone reckoning from perspective of the total industrialized war, knights don’t seem effective. But that’s not the context they exist in. Although the debate of fewer high quality units vs many lower quality ones will probably be eternal, surely it must have been far easier for small kingdoms in a per-industrial period, where wars were usually local in nature, to equip and train a few noblemen to very high standard than to try and raise a large army. Equally, whilst it’s true that a Knight has a big logistical cost, so would a large Army. So, I think that in the context of the Middle Ages the Knight makes a lot of sense economically, in a way which is hard for someone coming from an industrial society contemplating total war to grock.
The fact knights existed is proof that they were incredible useful. If they weren't effective at their tasks, kingdoms wouldn't have spent so much money so their aristocracy that helped run the nation could go die pointlessly riding on top of an expensive, trained, pure-bred, 800-pound war beast.
Well, all of this sounds like a description of my noble family (Bredow, Mark Brandenburg, later Prussia)... One of the most famous story is about "The pants of the knight of Bredow", where the Knight von Bredow litarly "couldn't" go to war, because his pants were washed and still wet... But our family saga is, that the devil took inventory on earth and put all the bad nobles in one sack. When he flew over Brandenburg, the sack got stuck on a church tower and the Bredows fell out again. Since then this place and ancestral seat of the Bredows is called Friesack. So we're actually not really a family of heroism and stuff like this anyway =D
I'm going to make a comment that is also a question here. People keep pointing out that long bows could pierce mail armor and they could be fired at 12 rounds a minute. But to do that they had to have a 100+lbs draw. How long could they fire that bow like that and still be capable of defending themselves from the knights that don't die. The archers were human, exceptional ones but still human. And more then 100lbs on your upper back is quickly exhausting. I have done heavy lifting for decades now, and I've worked out with that kind of weight, trust me even with years of experience 12 reps with that takes alot out of almost anyone.
i gotta say... the advent of the web and its growth has done so much for a lot people when it comes to understanding and studying history, opening doors for us to better understand the human component through the ages but for others... well... it allows them to spew these sort of articles (if you can call them that). what can you do but what you, metatron, do... face these click-addict baiters head on and end them rightly! as always, thanks for your work, your time, your patience and civility. truly, a chivalrous medieval knight you are sir 😁 cheers
well, knights were the tanks of their time. warmachines today are also dependant on quite heavy logistics. It takes 7 or 10 technicians and ground personnel to keep any one plane aloft in a campaign. Compared to that you could even argue that knights were relatively efficient. And as for effectiveness... The guy quotes battles of the 100 year war. Well in that time period, you find battles like that of Patay, where about 200 French knights routed 5000 english footmen. The English used the tactics and battle plan of Agincourt and Crecy, but only managed to kill 3 of them.
Until into the 19th century war was avoided in winter. And when poured Carl von Clausewitz you will find that he wrote about logistics and bad streets and things like this. Because still was always a problem.
Main point of knights is it was seen as necessary for up to 60 men necessary to jump a knight with heavy casualties Being dismounted, caught with visor up and terrein make this number smaller or a detriment Moving just as fast as others on most terrein, trained to carry more weight than their armour from reletively young age, access to manuscripts presenting techniques and narrowing down them to the most versatile, good training with a sword ( more versatile and light than many others but more skill needed ) able to afford the best, dealing with up to 3 layers of armour at thrir peak In other words hard to balance in a video game as they are close to directly better
I think there are some journalists that are so much of a journalist that they will say whatever they have to in order to say things like "shocking" and "you've actually been wrong this whole time"
The funny thing is that tanks are beginning to become obsolete due to cheap and effective ATGMs. The same way I imagine guns made knights in plate Armour far less cost effective.
"Knights were a logistics nightmare because they.. brought someone to help carry and tend to their armor as well as soldiers to fight for them.." "The CEO was a logistical nightmare because he had a secretary to answer his phone calls and a go-for to file his paperwork and fix coffee for him." I feel like they don't understand what "Logistics" means.
I think the Sharpe series actually does a good job explaining the pike vs horse even though it is during the Napoleonic wars. It only worked if the formation was able to form up and this made them vulnerable to other attacks. In addition the formation would easily break apart from inexperienced men loosing their nerve. It turns out commanding real people isn't as easy as computer games because sometimes they just don't follow orders.
