Comment Re: the bigger they are the harder they fall (Score 1) 160
"Correct, and not in dispute, the point was that the tactics used [to defeat knights] required technology that took a very long time to develop."
No no. Not technologically based. Swiss cantons defeated Austrian and allied knights without the aid of crossbows or longbows or gunpowder. How? Ambushing and formations. The use of the halberd (existing technology) and the discipline of massed formations. Flemish towns let knights splash against palisades and trenches and then skewered them. The common thread is motivation and disciplined tactics.
"It was routine for knights to battle armies several times their size and win. I believe National Geographic (possibly Scientific American) quoted some historical references of odds up to 35 to 1."
Yes, it is true that a fully armoured and mounted knight can run down few lightly armoured horsemen and the knights did stay awhile in the Holy Land. However, if you examine the battles of Hattin and Adrianopole, you will see that the knowledge of how to defeat these charging dreadnoughts was not unknown. Let them charge. Even slow them down with lines of infantry, and then harass and pursue them when they retreat to reform and rest. Repeat until knights succumb. The longevity of the crusader kingdoms had more to do with them staying in their nicely built castles than their tactics on the battlefield. (Also, the muslims were scarecely united against them). The assassins, by the way, were not a special unit developed to deal with knights. They were a unique sect who used assassination against both muslim and infidel to gain power in both worlds.
"The various orders of the knighthood had professional military leaders. A person who was to become a knight would start training no later than 12 years of age. They received far more training than any modern army."
Undoubtedly, the average knight was highly trained in personal combat. That does not translate into organization and tactics, however. Especially when faced with an enemy who does not break and flee or wants to fight knight to knight.
As for the evolution of knights to cavalry, yes it is true that being in the cavalry up to the 19th century was considered a plum place to be if you were upper class or nobility. But the function of that cavalry on the battlefield was more influenced by the eastern use of cavalry than it was by knights. Hence the use of the sabre (from the Turkish shamshir) and the prevalence of light cavalry (hussars, chasseurs, their cossack cousins) rather than heavy (shock) cavalry. In the U.S. Civil War while it was still fashionable to ride around in nice uniforms, cavalry was definitely in its scouting and raiding role (certainly not in the dominant role as it was in the middle ages). Your comment about the modern usage of 'cavalry' is pretty interesting. Air cavalry in the form of a flight of Apache attack choppers certainly is pretty 'shocking'. hmmm :)
The biggest enemy of armour in the modern context is infantry and ground. With infantry increasingly armed with powerful anti-tank weapons and the ground increasingly unfavourable to armoured warfare (more urban warfare), the tank may be a bit marginalized. Perfect tank fields such as in Desert Storm are not expected to be future sites of conflict. This is another example of social changes bringing change in warfare. All these factors are interdependent.
No no. Not technologically based. Swiss cantons defeated Austrian and allied knights without the aid of crossbows or longbows or gunpowder. How? Ambushing and formations. The use of the halberd (existing technology) and the discipline of massed formations. Flemish towns let knights splash against palisades and trenches and then skewered them. The common thread is motivation and disciplined tactics.
"It was routine for knights to battle armies several times their size and win. I believe National Geographic (possibly Scientific American) quoted some historical references of odds up to 35 to 1."
Yes, it is true that a fully armoured and mounted knight can run down few lightly armoured horsemen and the knights did stay awhile in the Holy Land. However, if you examine the battles of Hattin and Adrianopole, you will see that the knowledge of how to defeat these charging dreadnoughts was not unknown. Let them charge. Even slow them down with lines of infantry, and then harass and pursue them when they retreat to reform and rest. Repeat until knights succumb. The longevity of the crusader kingdoms had more to do with them staying in their nicely built castles than their tactics on the battlefield. (Also, the muslims were scarecely united against them). The assassins, by the way, were not a special unit developed to deal with knights. They were a unique sect who used assassination against both muslim and infidel to gain power in both worlds.
"The various orders of the knighthood had professional military leaders. A person who was to become a knight would start training no later than 12 years of age. They received far more training than any modern army."
Undoubtedly, the average knight was highly trained in personal combat. That does not translate into organization and tactics, however. Especially when faced with an enemy who does not break and flee or wants to fight knight to knight.
As for the evolution of knights to cavalry, yes it is true that being in the cavalry up to the 19th century was considered a plum place to be if you were upper class or nobility. But the function of that cavalry on the battlefield was more influenced by the eastern use of cavalry than it was by knights. Hence the use of the sabre (from the Turkish shamshir) and the prevalence of light cavalry (hussars, chasseurs, their cossack cousins) rather than heavy (shock) cavalry. In the U.S. Civil War while it was still fashionable to ride around in nice uniforms, cavalry was definitely in its scouting and raiding role (certainly not in the dominant role as it was in the middle ages). Your comment about the modern usage of 'cavalry' is pretty interesting. Air cavalry in the form of a flight of Apache attack choppers certainly is pretty 'shocking'. hmmm
The biggest enemy of armour in the modern context is infantry and ground. With infantry increasingly armed with powerful anti-tank weapons and the ground increasingly unfavourable to armoured warfare (more urban warfare), the tank may be a bit marginalized. Perfect tank fields such as in Desert Storm are not expected to be future sites of conflict. This is another example of social changes bringing change in warfare. All these factors are interdependent.
