Hypothetical question: Roman era soldier vs. medieval footsoldier

[Metalstrm]

Imagine that you had to pit an average Roman legionnaire or any other footsoldier of that era against an average medieval footsoldier/dismounted knight. Who do you think would win, given their technology and technique?

(disclaimer: I do not know much about medieval warfare, so by dismounted knight I'm imagining the stereotypical knight in full body armour and all that goes with it)

I'm guessing the medieval soldier, given the full armour, but who knows..

[bovi]

The roman legion depended on discipline rather than individual skill. This matchup is not a good one.

[brymht]

Exactly. I'd even venture to say the if 1 cohort of experienced Roman Legionaries were pitted against a like numbe rof standard medieval soldiers, the legionaries would win easily.

In a head ot head 1 on 1 matchup, I'd have to bet on the medieval soldier.

[QuintusSertorius]

The roman legion depended on discipline rather than individual skill. This matchup is not a good one.

Except given later legionaries were professional, full-time soldiers, I think it's dangerous to assume they weren't capable individual, as well as collective fighters.

[We shall fwee...Wodewick]

The problem is you say medieval soldier. That can mean anything from a villager given a helmet and a pike, to a foot knight in shining armour. From my personal knowledge, foot soldiers were mostly peasants, and the aristocracy fought on horse bakcs, and that very few foot soldiers were a well trained proffessional fighting force (English Longbowmen came close, but lacked training in extensive melee).

[beatoangelico]

on 1v1 I don't know, it depens on many things, especially the equipment of the medieval guy (plate? mail? two handed weapon?), in a group vs group fight romans would have for sure a big advantage

[Metalstrm]

Ok so then I rephrase: consider a cohort of roman soldiers against an equal number of medieval knights for that matter. I think medieval soldiers did fight in units, correct me if I'm wrong, but perhaps their style of fighting was more oriented towards a one-on-one kind of combat?

[Jolt]

Ok so then I rephrase: consider a cohort of roman soldiers against an equal number of medieval knights for that matter. I think medieval soldiers did fight in units, correct me if I'm wrong, but perhaps their style of fighting was more oriented towards a one-on-one kind of combat?

I'd have to bet in the medieval knights. They were basically walking tanks, and while the initial pila attack would kill many before the real fight began, once they were in melee range, I doubt a legionary carrying burdened by armor and a tower shield would effectively pierce the Knight's armor (Considering the knight would use the shield) The only chance would be to fight until the knights were exhausted (Provided that they stayed with a sufficient number to continuing defending themselves properly. Then the legionaries basically needed a good bash on the knight with their shield, throwing the exhausted man into the ground with his armor. The sheer exhaustion with the armor made sure the knight could do little to raise himself up in time before the legionary found a breach in the joints of his armor and shouved his gladius up there.

[QuintusSertorius]

Uh, no one ever "pierced" armour. They might get through joints or weakened links, but the idea of punching through steel plate is ridiculous.

Furthermore, the idea that anyone would fight in armour which made it impossible to get up again is equally silly.

[Tellos Athenaios]

It all depends on where they are from. For example Parthians were not especially renown for their quality infantry either; and the mercenaries from Flanders were well regarded...

[beatoangelico]

european medieval knights do not fight on foot unless in very rare situations (and furthermore the heaviest late medieval plate armor was so heavy that fight on foot was simply impossible), and thus they were not trained at all to fight in a close formation and such. On the other hand plate is almost invulnerable to shortswords like the gladius.

[QuintusSertorius]

The plate might be, the joints covered with chain, straps, or just about any other bit that affixes the plate to the body or to another piece of armour isn't "invulnerable".

Again there is no way someone would ride into battle wearing armour that prevented them fighting on foot. That's a myth. Same as the one suggesting knights had to be lowered onto their horse by a winch.

Equipment alone is a pretty poor measure upon which to judge the myriad different factors at work in a combat.

[Gothic]

The roman soldiers would probably just screw the gladius and try to twist the knight's head until it popped. A legionaire would probably be trained to fight dirty a lot more than a medeival knight would. That would give him an... edge. :duel:

[cmacq]

By Medieval I'm assuming you mean around AD 1300, and by average footsoldier/dismounted knight you mean an upper class Euro-warrior. Also by using the word pit you mean a hand to hand and/or sword fight. Finally, by using the term average in both cases I assume you imply that all other factors are relatively equal. As the design of and materials used to make the weapons and armour were very much improved the Medieval average footsoldier/dismounted knight would slice through the average Roman legionnaire (which I assume you date from 1st to 3rd centuries AD) like butter. Plus the one on one type of combat would also favor the average Medieval joe.

[QuintusSertorius]

Training (who's better at handling their weapons and managing the fight)
Morale (who's mentally better prepared for the fight)
Physical condition (who's in better shape)
Equipment (who's stuff is better)
Environmental conditions (who's better adapted to them)
Situational conditions of the fight (is someone surprised? do they start at range?)

Are just some of the factors involved. Yet a lot of people are talking as though equipment is the only thing that matters - when it simply isn't. Furthermore, I doubt their equipment is significantly different in terms of quality. Mail-armoured legionary against mail-armoured knight, we're not talking massive differences.

[antisocialmunky]

Does this only apply to western Europe? And at what time period? I mean... the Chinese were pretty awesome too and the Romans would have pooped themselves to fight those rocket powered arrow racks and stuff.

And don't even get me started if we throw Katanas into it. I saw one cut through a tank on the internet once. :-D

And yes, I was mocking eurocentrism and kantanaism(my equipment would pwn your equipment because it has more mindshare).

[Pezlu]

Mmmh... I'd bet on the medieval knights.

After all, weren't the legionaries surpassed by the heavy use of cavalry by barbariians? I'm not speaking of horse archers, but of "heavy cavalry" (though undisciplined and without stirrups), for example by the franks? Didn't this lead to a "cavalrization" (nice word :P) of the roman army in the late period?

I'm not a historian at all, but I've read these things somewhere... if I'm wrong correct me. :sweatdrop:

However, if this is true and a barbarian army mostly made of "cavalry" (individual "knights" probably, just fighting together) could beat a roman foot-based army, or at least inflict heavy losses, I guess the more technologically advanced medieval knights would have easy time, even if they were undisciplined.

[QuintusSertorius]

After all, weren't the legionaries surpassed by the heavy use of cavalry by barbariians? I'm not speaking of horse archers, but of "heavy cavalry" (though undisciplined and without stirrups), for example by the franks? Didn't this lead to a "cavalrization" (nice word :P) of the roman army in the late period?

The late "legionaries" of the 3rd/4th century AD, and those of the late 1st century BC to first century AD have little in common besides their names. Recruited from different peoples, trained differently, different equipment and so on.

[Pezlu]

The late "legionaries" of the 3rd/4th century AD, and those of the late 1st century BC to first century AD have little in common besides their names. Recruited from different peoples, trained differently, different equipment and so on.

Mh, obviously. Didn't think about that. :shame:

That makes the whole thing different, but I'd still bet on the knights on a direct face-off. However, as you pointed out before, there are a lot more variables other than equipment... we could just say for simplicity of our "hypothetical experiment" that they start out in the same "state"; meaning:
no-one's surprised
they have the same morale (impossible in real life I think, but this is hypothetical)
they are fully rested
they have the typical training of soldiers of their kind (some questions of the meaning of "typical" could arise here)

However, what about the terrain? We could say "A flat plain, so no-one has higher ground etc. etc."; but a flat plain is an OBVIOUS advatage for the knights, who can charge easily. If they fight in the woods, horses are almost useless, and the legionaries would have the upper hand. If they fight anywhere, the terrain would be more suited to one or the other...

You were right, I don't see any easy way out of this...

[eliad91]

I take the bet on the legionaries,
The medieval soldiers fought as individuals and sometimes got out of order,the romans fought like one big machine,diciplained,stayed in formation,defended well and attacked,etc.
The medieval soldiers wont be able to breech the roman formation with ease.

[Tellos Athenaios]

If it's knights v. legions? Definitely knights. I think it's almost unfair: full time professional soldiers with money for equipment, training etc. etc. versus temporary conscripts...

[General Appo]

Just one thing here, most medieval footsoldiers were just peasants with merely no formal training, while knights were full time professionals trained from birth to make war. To compare such an individual to a Roman Legionary is totally wrong, no matter if you mean the mainly peasant army of the Republic or the more proffesional soldiers of the very late Republic and early to mid Empire. Against an average unit of western european footsoldiers the average unit of Roman legionary´s would almost certainly win.

[QuintusSertorius]

If it's knights v. legions? Definitely knights. I think it's almost unfair: full time professional soldiers with money for equipment, training etc. etc. versus temporary conscripts...

Depends which era you're talking about. Late Republican/Early Principate legionaries were professional, full-time soldiers, far more disciplined than a medieval knight. They were most certainly not "temporary conscripts".

Something else nothing has mentioned, if we're talking on a grand scale, Roman logistics allowed them to keep much larger armies in the field than medieval commanders. Their talents in that arena surpassed everyone outside of the modern era.

[beatoangelico]

Mmmh... I'd bet on the medieval knights.

After all, weren't the legionaries surpassed by the heavy use of cavalry by barbariians? I'm not speaking of horse archers, but of "heavy cavalry" (though undisciplined and without stirrups), for example by the franks? Didn't this lead to a "cavalrization" (nice word :P) of the roman army in the late period?

I'm not a historian at all, but I've read these things somewhere... if I'm wrong correct me. :sweatdrop:

However, if this is true and a barbarian army mostly made of "cavalry" (individual "knights" probably, just fighting together) could beat a roman foot-based army, or at least inflict heavy losses, I guess the more technologically advanced medieval knights would have easy time, even if they were undisciplined.

cavalry become more available to germanic peoples over the time, but they were still overwhelmingly foot based in the V century, there weren't "true" knights until IX - X century

[Watchman]

Late-Medieval soldiery would eat the Legions for breakfast, pretty much. They weren't just at least as professional (armies got increasingly "professionalised" from the High Middle Ages onwards), they had an increasingly crazy advantage in sheer hardware. Even the common infantry started sporting monolith breastplates and close to complete limb defenses, in addition to the rapid proliferation of high-quality weaponry among all ranks.

And then you had the knights. Trained in pretty much all aspects of hand-to-hand combat both mounted and foot since their early teens, and armed with the best money could buy; these guys had by and large dumped shields by the mid-1400s because those weren't needed anymore with the advent of fully mature articulated plate armour, which also in practice required powerful two-handed weaponry to get through (and even that with difficulty - period accounts of duels fought with pollaxes for example tend to refer to sparks flying as blows glanced off the armour)... Pit an unit of these steel monsters against double the number of Legionaries, and they'll eat the poor sods for breakfast. It gets very hard to win when you can't even hurt the other guys, and they demolish your shield and armour with contemptuous ease...

In earlier periods it depends. Well-trained soldiers were, well, well-trained wherever you went; it was just that in many parts of Europe this category only included the knights and the other "feudal professionals" like sergeants, the main job of the humbler troops tending to be to form a solid anchor for the cavalry to operate around. On the other hand, while those defensive formations tended to be functionally static they were also rather difficult to break frontally - and on the wings, the natural domain of the cavalry, the Medieval guys with their extreme specialisation in lance-based shock tactics would have a very distinct advantage over their Roman peers (up to and including cataphracts, actually; knights could defeat considerably heavier armed cavalry by sheer shock power), potentially making the life of the latters' infantry centre very difficult indeed. (Chivalry had a bad habit of occasionally chasing their defeated opponents off the field and forgetting they were supposed to turn the flanks of the enemy centre instead, but this was neither an universal pehnomenom nor something unknown in Antiquity either.)

[Watchman]

The roman soldiers would probably just screw the gladius and try to twist the knight's head until it popped. A legionaire would probably be trained to fight dirty a lot more than a medeival knight would. That would give him an... edge. :duel:No, not really. (http://www.thearma.org/essays/getting-punchy.html) You actually sometimes read of knights opting to grapple with daggers rather than employ longer weapons, especially in breach assaults and similar "in your face" tactical situations.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

On the other hand, knights in plate armour and legionaries in plate armour? There's an interesting match-up.

[Fenrhyl]

Well, considering early middle ages, i'd say, burgundian, frank or saxon infantry would be on par with earlier roman soldiery. Other folks were not fond of infantry.

[Watchman]

Knights still win in training hours put in, though. That's about the same as Late Medieval Knight vs. Late Medieval Sword-And-Shield Man, and all other things being equal the former tended to win those match-ups. (The Medieval swordsmen had way better swords too...)

[QuintusSertorius]

Late-Medieval soldiery would eat the Legions for breakfast, pretty much. They weren't just at least as professional (armies got increasingly "professionalised" from the High Middle Ages onwards), they had an increasingly crazy advantage in sheer hardware. Even the common infantry started sporting monolith breastplates and close to complete limb defenses, in addition to the rapid proliferation of high-quality weaponry among all ranks.

And then you had the knights. Trained in pretty much all aspects of hand-to-hand combat both mounted and foot since their early teens, and armed with the best money could buy; these guys had by and large dumped shields by the mid-1400s because those weren't needed anymore with the advent of fully mature articulated plate armour, which also in practice required powerful two-handed weaponry to get through (and even that with difficulty - period accounts of duels fought with pollaxes for example tend to refer to sparks flying as blows glanced off the armour)... Pit an unit of these steel monsters against double the number of Legionaries, and they'll eat the poor sods for breakfast. It gets very hard to win when you can't even hurt the other guys, and they demolish your shield and armour with contemptuous ease...

In earlier periods it depends. Well-trained soldiers were, well, well-trained wherever you went; it was just that in many parts of Europe this category only included the knights and the other "feudal professionals" like sergeants, the main job of the humbler troops tending to be to form a solid anchor for the cavalry to operate around. On the other hand, while those defensive formations tended to be functionally static they were also rather difficult to break frontally - and on the wings, the natural domain of the cavalry, the Medieval guys with their extreme specialisation in lance-based shock tactics would have a very distinct advantage over their Roman peers (up to and including cataphracts, actually; knights could defeat considerably heavier armed cavalry by sheer shock power), potentially making the life of the latters' infantry centre very difficult indeed. (Chivalry had a bad habit of occasionally chasing their defeated opponents off the field and forgetting they were supposed to turn the flanks of the enemy centre instead, but this was neither an universal pehnomenom nor something unknown in Antiquity either.)

I don't buy it. Marginally better armour coverage, some specialised gimmick-weaponry for dealing with heavy armour. Nor am I convinced there was a step change in quality of weapons across the eras. The Celts who manufactured and/or designed Roman weaponry were no slouches when it came to metalwork.

I don't think there's any edge at all as far as professionalism or training go; legionaries didn't have any duties besides training for war, marching and building things. As you say, well-trained soldiers are well-trained soldiers.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Oh, there's a huge rise in weapon and armour quality by the time you come out of the Migration era and enter the dark ages, swords go down by between 1/3-1/2 in weight and they get sharper and less prone to breakage as well. Armour is the same, Roman metalwork is really quite poor in a comparison of averages.

[Tellos Athenaios]

If I may put it very simply, and grossly oversimplified: it's a difference between a lot of iron, and a lot of steel. One of roughly 1400 years of intensive development.

When we get to the knights, we talk cataphracts, basically. Kataphraktos means (fully) 'covered' i.e.: covered with armour.

[QuintusSertorius]

Oh, there's a huge rise in weapon and armour quality by the time you come out of the Migration era and enter the dark ages, swords go down by between 1/3-1/2 in weight and they get sharper and less prone to breakage as well. Armour is the same, Roman metalwork is really quite poor in a comparison of averages.

But we're not talking about Roman metalwork. They were pragmatic enough to use peoples who were better than they were at it, like the Celtic and Iberian peoples for both weapon designs and the actual production.

Nor could you realistically assert there was a continuous, ever-improving, stream of progress in the application of technology from one time to the other.

[Watchman]

Yup. In The Archaelogy of Weapons Oakeshott titles the chapter discussing the developement of Medieval armour as 'The Complete Arming of Man', for very good reasons.

It's not just that metallurgy itself got better (what with the developement of the early furnaces in the whatwasitnow, 1300s or so); the designs of weapons and armour also evolved. For example take the breakthrough swordsmiths achieved around the turn of the first millenium, when they figured out how to make a long sword suitably taper towards the tip so that its handling improved without compromising cutting power; at this point the designs started moving away from the old spatha derivations (themselves more or less direct descendants of the good old La Tene sword) and going quite their own ways. At first you got blades ever better optimised for the cut, to cleave through the ever more prevalent mail, with little design quirks added in so the edge and the blade survive such abuse. This, as well as employing axes and falchion-type chopping blades against well-arnoured men instead, worked for a while, but the more solid the armour got the less these could (literally) "hack it". Ergo the parallel developement towards first cut-and-thrust blades and later distinctly thrust-oriented stiff blades, to get a point throught the few gaps in a full harness (or even through it; powerful enough two-handed thrusts could still punch through even solid steel plate if the attacker managed a square hit, and the armour wasn't unduly reinforced), and the increasing popularity of maces and powerful staff-weapons to deal with the matter with the proverbial "bigger hammer" method.


I don't think there's any edge at all as far as professionalism or training go; legionaries didn't have any duties besides training for war, marching and building things. As you say, well-trained soldiers are well-trained soldiers.Soldiers, if they can get away with it, will happily spend all their time playing dice in the barracks, shooting the shit, and/or chasing tail in the town. By what I've read of it the Romans had quite a bit of trouble actually maintaining training standards in peacetime, when the rank-and-file and officers alike found more pleasant things to do easily enough.
They got their wages and rations anyway, after all.

And that was the post-Augustan genuinely professional legions.

Knights were something quite different, namely, a warrior aristocracy for which it was no small matter of sheer class pride, status, prestige and outright identity to devote considerable time and effort to mastering their weapons; and when it comes down to it, Medieval society being as safe and peaceable as it was and the aristocracy being as ready to take offence from perceived slights from peers as it was ("court etiquette" was in fact originally instigated by monarchs fed up with their knights and barons constantly slaying each other in duels of honour, to at least partially curb the pointless bloodletting by introducing a formal code of conduct to minimise personal conflicts), they also tended to get regular enough hands-on practice.

Heck, the Church repeatedly (and in vain) sought to ban tournaments because of the numbers of fatal injuries among the participants...

[Gaias]

This reminds me of the The Medieval European Knight vs. The Feudal Japanese Samurai? (http://www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm). Indirectly related but most of the premises would be the same.

[Xurr]

If I may put it very simply, and grossly oversimplified: it's a difference between a lot of iron, and a lot of steel. One of roughly 1400 years of intensive development.

When we get to the knights, we talk cataphracts, basically. Kataphraktos means (fully) 'covered' i.e.: covered with armour.


Not to rain on your parade but it wasn't "intensive development". In fact a lot of technology was lost during the dark ages. Rome at her height was far superior to middle ages technology in many ways. Granted there were some improvements to armor construction, but the majority of armor worn by your average middle age soldier was a knock off of something already perfected in the Classical age.

[Watchman]

Arms and armour, due to the distinctly Darwinian dog-eat-dog character of their developement, were alas specifically one aspect that didn't suffer too much (other than from the economic collapse, which made the high-end stuff that much rarer). A couple of new ideas and designs in fact got introduced to Europe during the Migration Period/Dark Ages, and, as already mentioned, sword design took quite a step forward at the beginning of the second millenium.

Plus true sabres were first invented in the 7th-8th century AD in the Pontic steppe.

As armour went, well, mail and scale were mail and scale pretty much everywhere you went (add in lamellar if you're including Eastern Europe and Byzantium). However, the Byzantines picked up "splinted" (built up of multiple parallel rectangular plates) lower limb defenses from the Avars, and developed an improved version of lamellar; in "Catholic" Europe during the Middle Ages proper good old mail first began proliferating explosively, and then began getting first reinforced and then outright replaced by stuff that put the best the armouries of Antiquity could put out to shame, hands down.

Nevermind the already mentioned advances in the very production process of the iron itself and sundry other important stuff.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

But we're not talking about Roman metalwork. They were pragmatic enough to use peoples who were better than they were at it, like the Celtic and Iberian peoples for both weapon designs and the actual production.

Nor could you realistically assert there was a continuous, ever-improving, stream of progress in the application of technology from one time to the other.

Gallic metalwork is no better than later Swedish or Frankish work, it is more crude in many ways. Iberian blades are not of the same quality as those coming from Tolado 500 years later. Weapons and armour have a pretty regular curve compared to, say, sanitation.

Blades almost always got better, especially because it was the "barbarians" bringing the good skills with them. What went to crap was organisation and administration.

Actual analysis indicates Roman weapons and armour were hit and miss, some of the famed Imperial Gallic helms weren't even symetrical, so I have been told.

[Ibn-Khaldun]

well ..
Roman era soldier vs. medieval footsoldier without any weapons and without any armour on one-on-one combat - romans would win ..
Roman era soldier vs. medieval footsoldier using swords and no armour .. think that medieval guy have much more chance to win then the roman guy ...
if they both would use there best weapons and armour then i think medieval guy would win ...
but if you talk about unit of legionaries against the same number of medieval footsoldiers then i have the feeling that romans could win the day ..
legionaries were disciplined and the could hold the line for a long time .. they were teached this way..
medieval guys (and i mean average footsoldier') would hope to brake the enemy with one charge .. if that didn't happen then they would retreat ...
:juggle2:

[Watchman]

medieval guys (and i mean average footsoldier') would hope to brake the enemy with one charge .. if that didn't happen then they would retreat ...*groan*
...no. Just... no, OK ? You're thinking about the cavalry, and even there repeated charges against a stubborn opponent were the norm - just look at how many times the horsemen attacked at, say, Hastings or Grecy...

The infantry more often than not wasn't good for much except holding the line, but tended to do that quite well; knights tended to find it prudent to either go for the flanks or let their own infantry and/or missile guys soften them up first. (Hastings being a pretty good early-period example.)

And that's only the early/middle period lower-quality infantry. The better infantry, common enough in some parts all the time and everywhere later on, was quite capable of maneuvering offensively and for effect.
Roman era soldier vs. medieval footsoldier without any weapons and without any armour on one-on-one combat - romans would win ..Erm - why ? More likely they'd be evenly matched, although as grappling actually tends to be more effective one on one for assorted reasons (as witnessed in assorted "freefighting" type bouts), and that's specifically what Medieval Europeans nigh-universally practiced (it was a popular enough peasant pasttime, and kings and emperors had personal "wrestling-masters"), it could be postulated the Medieval guy might even have a slight advantage...

[cmacq]

*groan*
...no. Just... no, OK ? You're thinking about the cavalry, and even there repeated charges against a stubborn opponent were the norm - just look at how many times the horsemen attacked at, say, Hastings or Grecy...

The infantry more often than not wasn't good for much except holding the line, but tended to do that quite well; knights tended to find it prudent to either go for the flanks or let their own infantry and/or missile guys soften them up first. (Hastings being a pretty good early-period example.)

And that's only the early/middle period lower-quality infantry. The better infantry, common enough in some parts all the time and everywhere later on, was quite capable of maneuvering offensively and for effect.Erm - why ? More likely they'd be evenly matched, although as grappling actually tends to be more effective one on one for assorted reasons (as witnessed in assorted "freefighting" type bouts), and that's specifically what Medieval Europeans nigh-universally practiced (it was a popular enough peasant pasttime, and kings and emperors had personal "wrestling-masters"), it could be postulated the Medieval guy might even have a slight advantage...

Watchman, as always I believe you've doted all the eyes on this tread, rather well.

[QuintusSertorius]

Not to rain on your parade but it wasn't "intensive development". In fact a lot of technology was lost during the dark ages. Rome at her height was far superior to middle ages technology in many ways. Granted there were some improvements to armor construction, but the majority of armor worn by your average middle age soldier was a knock off of something already perfected in the Classical age.

Well, I'd say that was more significant in the case of big projects that required a good deal of organisation and central control, such as road-building and the like. What's telling in some of those examples are not only that later peoples lacked both the skills and logistical setup to replicate them, but that they were also incapable of demolishing them either. Some of the later acqueducts, for example survive today because people couldn't destroy them to steal building materials. Consider that they've lasted mostly intact for two millenia.

[russia almighty]

Thank god we've got watchman. I think our romanophile friends would shit them selves if Zak came here......

[Hax]

We need Pez to run in here and scream Lorica Segmentata.

To be honest, I think the Roman legionaries would win. A cohort of them against a cohort of Medieval foot knights, yeah.

[cmacq]

Liv'in the dream...

with ones head, topping the pike.

[Parallel Pain]

I follow Watchman

Can't win if you can't even hurt the enemy.

[Tabeia]

The medieval warriors(considering they're dismounted knights, not peasants) would win against the roman legionaries because they had better weapons and armor.

[mini]

Medieval foot knights.

I'd like to see what a broad sword/bastard sword does to a roman plywood shield, or a 2hander. Which is what the romans hid behind to use their tooth picks to stab the enemy loins and kidneys.

Areas well protected by superior armor in the medieval era.


I've got nothing but admiration for the Romans, but you can't beat a full millenium of evolution, even if half of itwas spent in so-called 'dark ages'.

[cmacq]

In one felt swoop, of the claidheamh mor, all but cleved stem to stern. I think I've heard this old sound before?

Now, previously on Battlestar Galactica...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60og9gwKh1o

...to prove theres always some significance in the seemingly pointless.

All right...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Zs1xGH4zgE&feature=related

And to be fair...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LUrF2Kv7fw&feature=related
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCN_CAsMHiI&feature=related

[mini]

In one felt swoop, of the claidheamh mor, all but cleved stem to stern.

Exactly. And face it, Roman fighting style depended on hiding behind the shield and strike from there.
Hard to maintain if your shield is reduced to firewood in 2 or 3 swings.

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

I order to get enough energy to break a shield you would have to make a large swing with a broadsword, this would leave dozens of openings in your stance that could easily be exploited by a small stabbing sword.

[QuintusSertorius]

I order to get enough energy to break a shield you would have to make a large swing with a broadsword, this would leave dozens of openings in your stance that could easily be exploited by a small stabbing sword.

And let's not forget all that space increases the frontage required. Which means each man with a zweihander could find himself locally outnumbered two or three times over.

Yet again people are overestimating the importance of equipment, to the exclusion of all other factors.

[mini]

Just didn't know the roman shields were as sturdy as medieval shields.

And what kind of foot soldier are we talking here?
I assume that for example men-at-arms, or dismounted foot knights from england, fought more organized than for example gauls/germans.

As to valour etc.. i don't think there was more individual valour in roman than in medieval era. Just more discipline in a front line at most.

[Jolt]

Uh, no one ever "pierced" armour. They might get through joints or weakened links, but the idea of punching through steel plate is ridiculous.

Furthermore, the idea that anyone would fight in armour which made it impossible to get up again is equally silly.

What the zell? Noone ever pierced armor? Then what you're saying is that Foot Knights would be invincible no? Well, the gladius might not have been the ideal weapon (Could really only be used in joints), but crossbows and longbows could penetrate armour decently. Furthermore, you have poleaxes and halberds, all capable weapon of penetrating Plate Armour. Not so ridiculous to me.

Did anyone mention "impossibility"? As far as I can tell, Plate armour isn't very light and in consequence of a knight falling to the ground (Even a fresh one) I don't imagine the guy just leaping off the ground back into vertical position, Bruce Lee style. It would take his time to cope with the weight of the crash and raise himself up. Furthermore while he is on the ground his defensing menueverability is scarce. Moreso an exhausted knight. I'd suggest you look into a dagger called "Misericord" which was normally used, like other daggers in the sequence of the knights falling to the ground.

EDIT: And don't forget I was speaking in the hypothetical battle of some legionaries against some foot knights.

[cmacq]

What part of one on one, Steel vs Iron and reach vs no reach, with all else equal, don't we understand? Such a fight may last 10 sec if that. Ask yourself, if your life depended on it, would you want steel and reach or iron and no reach and you have your only answer.

[Metalstrm]

I order to get enough energy to break a shield you would have to make a large swing with a broadsword, this would leave dozens of openings in your stance that could easily be exploited by a small stabbing sword.

Do you think that you'd be able to pierce that titanic armor with a small stabbing sword? I really doubt that.

I'm for the medieval guys too.

Nice replies btw everyone :D Especially Watchman.

[QuintusSertorius]

What the zell? Noone ever pierced armor? Then what you're saying is that Foot Knights would be invincible no? Well, the gladius might not have been the ideal weapon (Could really only be used in joints), but crossbows and longbows could penetrate armour decently. Furthermore, you have poleaxes and halberds, all capable weapon of penetrating Plate Armour. Not so ridiculous to me.

No, it means people go for weak points around the plate, which are much more vulnerable. Which is precisely what I said.

Arrows and quarrels might pierce mail easily, but plate, less so. Depends on the range and the plate in question, par exemple:

Arrow v plate video 1 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRXwk4Kdbic)
Arrow v plate video 2 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3997HZuWjk)


Did anyone mention "impossibility"? As far as I can tell, Plate armour isn't very light and in consequence of a knight falling to the ground (Even a fresh one) I don't imagine the guy just leaping off the ground back into vertical position, Bruce Lee style. It would take his time to cope with the weight of the crash and raise himself up. Furthermore while he is on the ground his defensing menueverability is scarce. Moreso an exhausted knight. I'd suggest you look into a dagger called "Misericord" which was normally used, like other daggers in the sequence of the knights falling to the ground.

EDIT: And don't forget I was speaking in the hypothetical battle of some legionaries against some foot knights.

No it's not light, but it's well-distributed and the weight spread around the body. Furthermore the men in question are trained in the wearing of it and capable of moving around normally. They suffer from heat fatigue and tire faster as a result of being in an enclosed suit, but the idea that all you had to do was knock them over and they were finished is myth.

In fact a re-enactor's website (http://www.planetsimon.co.uk/ecorcheur_new/articles_armour.htm) has some useful info on the point:


Contrary to popular belief, "field harness" (the full plate armour worn on the battlefield by noblemen, officers and professional soldiers) is very flexible and wearable. Although weighing somewhere around 90lbs (about 6½ stone, or 40kg) for a full "suit" or harness, the armour of the late 15th century was beautifully engineered to move with the body. A modern soldier would be expected to wear an equivalent weight on his shoulders in his backpack alone - wheras a suit of armour is pointed (laced) onto the body via a strong arming jack (you will be familiar with wearing a lighter version of the jack, the jacket). This spreads the weight and allows much better freedom of movement.

A fit man can easily get up, run around, vault onto his horse and even turn a somersault in full harness. Indeed, movement is restricted and the wearer would tire quicker, but there's a few other points to remember:

Owners of full harness were the upper classes of medieval society: Nobles, officers and professionals. They would have had the best diet, and plenty of time to train. Nobles especially were expected to train in the martial arts from childhood, and would naturally become adept at the skills needed to wear armour. They would also have developed the right muscle groups and stamina required.

And:


Many of the myths we're discussing here have come about from casual study of surviving harness. Many of the best suits of field harness were re-used when they became redundant or damaged: Steel was moderately expensive and the thin, high quality steel plate in a harness would have been converted, recycled and adapted into a host of other things over the centuries.

Many of the surviving examples are actually made for the joust or tournament. These "sport" harnesses could be up to an inch thick in places and designed purely to protect the rider or foot-combatant. These examples have largely survived as centrepiece displays in grand houses and castles, and have given the generally accepted view that armour was impractically heavy. Jousts were the "extreme sport" of their day, and the idea was not necessarily to kill your opponents but to have fun. These tournament armours were ridiculously heavy, and often a knight would need to be winched onto his horse by servants, or in the case of foot tourneys have heavy extra plates screwed or clipped on. But at sporting events like a joust, you would naturally have your household staff with you, and plenty of time to get ready, unlike in the heat of battle. The "suits" couldn't be more different to those used "for real".

Or if you prefer, visually (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMuNXWFPewg). Modern soldiers carry greater weight in equipment, and not as well distributed around their body either.


Do you think that you'd be able to pierce that titanic armor with a small stabbing sword? I really doubt that.

You mean the same way even shorter, smaller and lighter blades like the aforementioned miserichord could pierce armour joints?

If you're thrusting, rather than cutting, weapon length is a lot less significant.

[Metalstrm]

If you're thrusting, rather than cutting, weapon length is a lot less significant.

Fair enough, but I don't think you'd be able to give the small weapon enough momentum to pierce or heavily deform plate armor. A longsword, well, you could slash and strike with the tip, which might pierce through.

Anyway, looking for weak spots in the medieval knight's armor wouldn't get the legionary very far I think. Ok, so he might be able to stick his little dagger in the armpit or elbow or wherever there's a joint. The angered knight would follow by chopping the legionary's head off with one huge swing, while he is still congratulating himself that he managed to get through the knight's armor.

[QuintusSertorius]

Fair enough, but I don't think you'd be able to give the small weapon enough momentum to pierce or heavily deform plate armor. A longsword, well, you could slash and strike with the tip, which might pierce through.

You don't have to pierce plate, you just go for the articulated joints.


Anyway, looking for weak spots in the medieval knight's armor wouldn't get the legionary very far I think. Ok, so he might be able to stick his little dagger in the armpit or elbow or wherever there's a joint. The angered knight would follow by chopping the legionary's head off with one huge swing, while he is still congratulating himself that he managed to get through the knight's armor.

Stick a blade into someone's armpit, and they bleed to death very quickly. As well as potentially having a major organ damaged (lungs and heart are both neatly close to the armpit).

If said knight is relying on huge swings, he needs more space to operate than the legionary, and will likely be facing off against two or three legionaries occupying the same amount of frontage. What's he doing while the legionaries mates are taking advantage of the opening he creates lifting his sword for this big swing?

[mini]

fending them off with a kryptonite katana of course

[Metalstrm]

You don't have to pierce plate, you just go for the articulated joints.



Stick a blade into someone's armpit, and they bleed to death very quickly. As well as potentially having a major organ damaged (lungs and heart are both neatly close to the armpit).

If said knight is relying on huge swings, he needs more space to operate than the legionary, and will likely be facing off against two or three legionaries occupying the same amount of frontage. What's he doing while the legionaries mates are taking advantage of the opening he creates lifting his sword for this big swing?

I have my doubts about piercing the joints (shouldn't they be protected by mail beneath or something of the sort?), and these weak spots were really small. The heart is near the middle of the chest, and as long as the legionary doesn't stick the sword/dagger through the armpit parallel to the chest (towards the heart), which in my opinion is nigh on impossible to do, I don't think there is a danger of piercing the lung.

As for one knight requiring more space, I think that way they would be able to flank the Roman cohort and use their lack of cohesiveness to their advantage.

[QuintusSertorius]

I have my doubts about piercing the joints (shouldn't they be protected by mail beneath or something of the sort?), and these weak spots were really small. The heart is near the middle of the chest, and as long as the legionary doesn't stick the sword/dagger through the armpit parallel to the chest (towards the heart), which in my opinion is nigh on impossible to do, I don't think there is a danger of piercing the lung.

You don't even need to pierce the heart; there's the aorta and pulmonary arteries, as well as a mass of other blood vessels in the central chest cavity, all of which will bleed you very quickly.

These weak spots were big enough to be common targets, and let's not forget aside from those on the body, there's the face.


As for one knight requiring more space, I think that way they would be able to flank the Roman cohort and use their lack of cohesiveness to their advantage.

There's not much "advantage" in being locally outnumbered. The Romans fought those with big weapons needing wider frontage many times, and beat them. It's not an edge.

[Metalstrm]

You don't even need to pierce the heart; there's the aorta and pulmonary arteries, as well as a mass of other blood vessels in the central chest cavity, all of which will bleed you very quickly.

These weak spots were big enough to be common targets, and let's not forget aside from those on the body, there's the face.
[\QUOTE]

I agree about the face as long as it's not also covered, but my question was how are you going to pierce the chest cavity of the soldier if you're standing in front of him, he's got a small uncovered area about his armpit, which is protected from the side by the armor on his arm, your only chance of getting through being when he's lifting the sword. Though not very fast, I wouldn't think these guys were exactly slow.

[QUOTE=QuintusSertorius]There's not much "advantage" in being locally outnumbered. The Romans fought those with big weapons needing wider frontage many times, and beat them. It's not an edge.

I agree, but the modes of warfare were not compatible. I think both sides would have to rethink their approach if they were to fight each other. The knights would easily outflank them or outright fight their way through them cause of their heavy armor and maybe surround them. At that point Roman disciple would break down.

[Jolt]

No it's not light, but it's well-distributed and the weight spread around the body. Furthermore the men in question are trained in the wearing of it and capable of moving around normally. They suffer from heat fatigue and tire faster as a result of being in an enclosed suit, but the idea that all you had to do was knock them over and they were finished is myth.

In fact a re-enactor's website (http://www.planetsimon.co.uk/ecorcheur_new/articles_armour.htm) has some useful info on the point:



And:



Or if you prefer, visually (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMuNXWFPewg). Modern soldiers carry greater weight in equipment, and not as well distributed around their body either.

If you're thrusting, rather than cutting, weapon length is a lot less significant.

Nice amount of information. Do not forget I originally mentioned that fatigue would eventually overcome the knights, and I have my strong doubts, no matter how prepared the knight is, that he can lift 40 kgs when he's basically out of strength. A simple bash would make an exhausted knight fall and colapse, leading to an almost certain death or surrender. Still, the way that guy rose from falling from the horse was impressive. As for modern soldiers, they could carry 100 kgs for all I know because of two reasons: First, and more importantly, they don't have fight in melee, like the knights do. Secondly, normally, the vast majority of the weight they carry is in the backpacks they carry, which contrarily to the armour, is relatively easy and if by some reason they fall down, all they have to do to defend themselves is: Roll over if necessary, with little physical strength needed, use the machine gun which also requires little physical strength, and can do it while proned, which can't be done with a knight, since they have to raise to defend themselves properly. So weight has little significance in modern soldiers for the issue in discussion.

[Jolt]

I have my doubts about piercing the joints (shouldn't they be protected by mail beneath or something of the sort?), and these weak spots were really small.

The armpit is the most easy target to attack really. The Armour only protects the upper part of the arm to allow the said arm to move leaving the armpit open.

http://www.planetsimon.co.uk/ecorcheur_new/images/gothic.jpg

Even if you miss and hit the chest plate, there a chance it will slide into the armpit. But then again, a legionary to attempt that will have to put beside his shield and stretch his entire arm for a full piercing of that body part, leaving him exposed to a counter-attack by the knight if he failed.

[QuintusSertorius]

I'd favour the Romans in this encounter to a degree, but there's a lot of misconceptions about armour here.


Nice amount of information. Do not forget I originally mentioned that fatigue would eventually overcome the knights,

Well your issue there is how long "eventually" is. Everyone tires, and fighting is an exhausting activity. Heat is usually the biggest worry, along with it's accompanying dehydration. Guess what - Romans and knights both would be suffering with this. Though a man with a proper plate harness will have much more trouble bleeding off heat than a man in the lorica hamata.


and I have my strong doubts, no matter how prepared the knight is, that he can lift 40 kgs when he's basically out of strength.

40kgs, spread relatively evenly across the body being moved by a guy with muscles trained through years of exposure to exactly those kinds of stresses.

Have you ever trained to fight? Training is always much harsher than the reality might be, so your body is able to cope. That's why the Romans trained with deliberately heavy weapons and shields. So in the real thing it would be easy by comparison, since you've got lots of other things to be worrying about.


A simple bash would make an exhausted knight fall and colapse, leading to an almost certain death or surrender.

Nope, not likely. These guys weren't dominoes, they were well-trained and invariably aggressive and motivated.


Still, the way that guy rose from falling from the horse was impressive.

He's an older guy who wasn't trained anything like knights were.


As for modern soldiers, they could carry 100 kgs for all I know because of two reasons: First, and more importantly, they don't have fight in melee, like the knights do. Secondly, normally, the vast majority of the weight they carry is in the backpacks they carry, which contrarily to the armour, is relatively easy and if by some reason they fall down, all they have to do to defend themselves is: Roll over if necessary, with little physical strength needed, use the machine gun which also requires little physical strength, and can do it while proned, which can't be done with a knight, since they have to raise to defend themselves properly. So weight has little significance in modern soldiers for the issue in discussion.

It's highly relevant because the weight is a non-issue for normal operations. Especially if it's well-distributed, and more importantly you're trained and accustomed to it. Modern soldiers have everything on their back, which can be easily dumped if they're surprised.

The only situation in which it's a real hindrance is in water. Swimming and armour are a bad mix.


I agree about the face as long as it's not also covered, but my question was how are you going to pierce the chest cavity of the soldier if you're standing in front of him, he's got a small uncovered area about his armpit, which is protected from the side by the armor on his arm, your only chance of getting through being when he's lifting the sword. Though not very fast, I wouldn't think these guys were exactly slow.

Men don't fight standing square on to each other, especially not if they've got a shield. They lead with the shield side. Furthermore they don't simply stand at a distance trading blows without ever closing. The armour covering his armpit and groin is necessarily more vulnerable than that on his chest. Armour on the legs is deliberately lighter than that on the torso, to reduce the overall weight.

Standard legionary attack was to slam into someone with their shield, hopefully knocking them to the ground, and while they were prone stabbing them in the groin.

They weren't slow or clumsy; that's the whole point of training in the use of armour. So that in battlefield conditions you are able to act and not be worrying about it.


I agree, but the modes of warfare were not compatible. I think both sides would have to rethink their approach if they were to fight each other. The knights would easily outflank them or outright fight their way through them cause of their heavy armor and maybe surround them. At that point Roman disciple would break down.

They're perfectly compatible. The knights as described by many of you are fighting the same way Gauls did.

[Metalstrm]

And you still believe the Romans would win?

[Obelics]

actually romans could stand even the fireguns.... look at this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZILuOi8r4I8&feature=related

anyway turing on the topic, have you people considered the ideology that stands behind the two army?
I thing the medieval knights could have switched in a sort of God bersekers mode, during the fight, thinking that god "want" you kill your enemy can make the difference, even against a disciplined army, think on the fast muslim arab expansion etc.

[Mr Frost]

Watches in horror as the thread heaves its' vast bulk from the abyss , throw back its' hoary skull in rage and bellow its' hateful challenge to the Gods .

Fly you fools , fly !

[General Appo]

[QUOTE=Obelics]actually romans could stand even the fireguns.... look at this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZILuOi8r4I8&feature=related
[QUOTE]

Best shit ever! Hilarious.

[SaberHRE]

This discussion makes little sense, as both sides of the barricades can argue on and on.

First of all the questions has to be precised. Which part of the Middle Ages are we looking for. Are we comparing a legionary against a 12 century seargent-at-arms or against a 14 century man-at-arms. Whast arms and armour are involved etc.

Secondly, there are a lot of misconceptions about medieval warfare itself.
The knight was far from being a selectively bred warrior, who trained his whole life etc. No, by 13century most knights were only landed aristocracy, who were either involved in purchasing or acquiring more land, and were involved more with administrative issues. Most of the fighting was done by a mixture of semi-professional seargentry(and then men-at-arms) with local levies and some mercenaries.

BUT assuming that we take a legionnaire against let's say a 13 century Crusader seargent, or against a 15 century Hussite veteran infantry, the legionnaire would lose.

Quintus Sertorius spoke of the legionnaire's advantage in terms of discipline, training etc. When it comes to semi-professionals such as the seargents and professional infantry, they were not so far behind a legionary. The only thing they might have lacked was the superior engineering skills(although Richard's englishmen could impress a romanophile with the construction of a wooden castle in Cyprus).

Further concerning the armour, the Gothic armour presented there is incomplete. It usually included a round or rectangular rondel which protected the armpits well. Whereas the groin would be protected by extended faulds.

Further the mail worn by 15 century included plated parts for the armpit(something discovered soon after Benevento, when the French who were taking heavy pounding from German mercs, found out that they could pierce the mercs in the armpits and reach the heart thus killing them. The Germans themselves where already using by this time coat-of-plates. They would soon start making plated armpits parts).

Something not mentioned yet was the stirrup which gave the Knights, The Huns and the Barbarians who adopted it a GREAT advantage as one could charge without fearing of falling out of the horse.

[Metalstrm]

To be honest, when I first presented the question in the original post, I had in mind a high middle ages crusader of the late 11th century. I don't know whether they had developed complete body armor by then, so there..

I don't understand why everyone is going for a late middle ages kind of knight.

[SaberHRE]

Probably because that's how the popular view of the "word" knight looks like.

[The General]

Hypothetical question: Spanish Tercio vs US marines

[SaberHRE]

Stalingrad sort of siege, with hand to hand warfare, the Spaniards would eat the yanks.

[Tellos Athenaios]

To be honest, when I first presented the question in the original post, I had in mind a high middle ages crusader of the late 11th century. I don't know whether they had developed complete body armor by then, so there..

That is the nature of these boards, you start with x and end up on Mars... :shrug: Or (worse?) bartix.

Anyways I still think the knights would win given their (improved compared to the Roman era's) body armour & arms, as well as the fact that in those days knights were just that: the heavily armed bodyguard & personal crackforce of some sort of lord.

Point is, if you pit legions against knights, then from a simply tactically minded point of view: you pit ordinary soldiers against elite troops. That makes for a hughe difference.

[Conqueror]

So that should be either common soldier vs common soldier or elite vs elite. But did Romans during time of classical legions even have any elite soldiers worth talking about?

[Jolt]

So that should be either common soldier vs common soldier or elite vs elite. But did Romans during time of classical legions even have any elite soldiers worth talking about?

CA says: "Arcani."

[Metalstrm]

Or I could always ask it in a different manner to even more complicate manners :D

Imagine a war between a medieval kingdom (say England) and Rome. Who would win?

[facupay123]

first post!!!

in my opinion in the 1 vs 1 fight the knight would win easily.


please correct me if i'm wrong, i'm not a historian. the gladius was more like a stabbing/very fast cut weapon that would not work very well against the ultra heavy full body armor of the knight while the knight could use his enormous two handed longsword to cut trought the lorica segmentata with one swing.

also the knight could be a fanatic that would kill the damn roman pagan even if it is the last thing he would do.




Hypothetical question:Acrani vs berserker or head hurler vs desert axemen:egypt:

[Metalstrm]

I like your first post :balloon2:

The knight would do anything to kill the Roman. Even if he had to fight with his teeth. Yay go medieval brutality :smash:

[Jolt]

From that point of view, knights were invincible mother f*****s, who, since they were religious fanatics would kill every single infidel even if it was the last thing they would do. Unfortunatly. Many of them died very easily.

Even a Fanatic knight surrounded by 3 peasants armed with knights and forkpitches could easily be killed.

[Lysimachos]

Hypothetical question:Acrani vs berserker or head hurler vs desert axemen:egypt:

That should be easy to answer, just play some custom battles and you'll see :laugh4:

[Metalstrm]

From that point of view, knights were invincible mother f*****s, who, since they were religious fanatics would kill every single infidel even if it was the last thing they would do. Unfortunatly. Many of them died very easily.

Even a Fanatic knight surrounded by 3 peasants armed with knights and forkpitches could easily be killed.

I'm going to go a bit out of the time-frame here, but when the Ottomans besieged my country in 1565, the Knights of Malta had a huge kill-loss ratio hehe. Normal accounts give a 10:1 kill ratio and some go even as far as 12/13 or so.

An angered knight is something you should stay away from, especially if you are not Christian. :smash: :whip:

[Maeran]

To be honest, when I first presented the question in the original post, I had in mind a high middle ages crusader of the late 11th century. I don't know whether they had developed complete body armor by then, so there..

I don't understand why everyone is going for a late middle ages kind of knight.

I started a response yesterday that didn't. But I gave up because there are so many variables that it would have become a really long way of saying 'it all depends'.

Hamata and mail are one and the same thing. Romans from most periods would try to get close under cover of their shield and try to stab really hard with the gladius- which if you're lucky could bust the mail open, but might wind the medieval fighter (I'll not say knight here) long enough to find some other way in.

The medieval fighter could be using one of several types of differently used sword, a mace (bad news for our Roman since the shield could get smashed), axes, pikes, halberds and similar (less effective in 1 vs 1, but as good as the Macedonian phalanx done as a group). Even spears, good old fashioned pointy things never go out of fashion until you get guns (how about a late period knight with Italian full plate armour and a mace combined with a one shot hand cannon?). So his style could be anything, but unless he's fencing or using a gun, it is unlikely to be anything that the Roman could not find a parallel for in his world.

[Xurr]

Hypothetical question: Spanish Tercio vs US marines


Semper fidelis.

[chairman]

This is one of my favorite kind of threads, so I'm going to have to come in on side of the medieval knight, be he from the 12 th cent. or the 15th cent., especially if it's the latter. By the time you get to the later middle ages, armor and weaponry had reached a level of perfection that greeks and romans could only dream of. It might be helpful to use the Hundred Years' War and the American Civil War as examples. At the beginning of the ACW, the armies of 1861 could have fought in 1815 (almost). The same with the 100 Years war: the armies of Crecy and Poitiers could for all intents and purposes have fought at Hastings. However, by the end of both wars, a revolution in weapons technology had taken place. In America, by war's end, there was machine-gun prototype and a semi-automatic rifle. In France, iron armor of chainmail and partial-plate had been replaced by steel alloy full-plate. There is no comparison. Even if you were to have early and late 100 years' war armies fight, the later army would win. Someone else mentioned, Roman and roman-era armor was not made of steel but of non-alloyed iron (the only coming close to steel were Hispanic swords whose cores had metal approaching steel but not quite there).

And on the subject of Roman shields being able to protect him from blows until he could "get in close", realize that if the falx was able to slash through roman LS, then medieval arming swords would effortlessly cleave wooden shield, iron LS or LH and iron helm, all without doing anything the knight wasn't used to. Shields were abandoned in the late middle ages because they had become both useless and irrelevant.

BTW, good points on all sides, and I still stand in reverence of the great wealth of knowledge of Watchman. Ave Imperator!

Chairman

[General Aetius]

Wasn't the original question about an average medieval soldier against an average Roman soldier. the average Roman soldier was definatly superior to the average medieval soldier. heavily armed and armored knights were far from been the norm. armor was much too expensive for the normal foot soldiers of the middle ages and the average Roman soldier wore quite effective armor.
Infantry of the middle ages wore mainly simple cloth protection reinforced with mettle and leather in vital points. Only with the reintroduction of heavy pike men in the late middle ages was extensive armor worn by infantry.
It seems to me that this thread is rambling on about heavily armed knights and cavalry when the question was not about the elite warriors of aristocracy but about "averages".

General Aetius

[Gebeleisis]

i bet on the roman one,
the knight in full armour didnt have ,i think, any type of mobility,hard armour made him tire(sP) fast the legionaire would repetively block the knights swings with his scutum,and have a final blow when the knight is tired.
the romans were much more trained then medieval knights imo!

[Tombles]

It's been stated already, the knight had great mobility in their armour. Why wear it, if it makes it impossible to move? The first step of defence in any of the knightly martial arts is to move out of the way of a blow. Seems a bit strange to wear something that impedes that by a large amount, no? Consider also that knights trained in it, and trained a LOT. It was their purpose as nobility, to be the elite soldier. They began training at an early age (6 was the earliest, I believe) and trained daily, going through very rigorous exercises. The more elite knights trained and had skill comparable to Spartans. Compare to this, a proffesional soldier who has a life beyond his soldiering and training, the legionaire. Is he well trained? Yes. Is he as well trained as someone who devotes their life to fighting? No.

Also, I very much doubt it that the knight would be swinging blindly at the legionaire. Contrary to popular opinion, longswords and zweihanders were used more for stabbing than 'slashing' (cutting was used, being a very controlled version of slashing, but not as frequently as a point attack). After all, they were used to fighting their equally well-armoured counterparts from the enemy's ranks, and your blade will never get past their armour if you're hacking away like a lumberjack. Instead, the point would be used to infiltrate gaps in the enemy armour.

Of course, if we're talking earlier, mailed knights, they would probably not be using longswords anyway. Shorter swords and maces were the order of the day, along with a kite shield. 1v1 the knight would still demolish his opponent, his superior training and slightly better equipment winning the day. A group of each, though, is a far more open contest. Though the knights were quite capable of fighting as a unit, it wasn't something they trained for extansively, and so the romans' experience of fighting groups of individual fighters as a unit might win through.

[Watchman]

You know, most of this thread has thus far consisted of ignorant bullshit being thrown around. By far the majority of the people issuing any number of oh-so-definite-sounding statements here patently don't know the first thing about Medieval warfare and the associated gear, or much any other relevant issue for that matter.
The exceptions such as Tombles above are, sadly, rare indeed.

This comes from someone who's actually read on the topic a whole lot, and even trained longsword fencing a bit.

[russia almighty]

Yeah...most people assume medieval infantry=peasants thrown a stick and a shield. Serfs weren't armed as far as I know. Infantry was the lower middle class and up who could afford some sort of armor, and a wide variety of weaponry (and for someone in a city, some of the stuff might even be covered for them).


Too many bad movies and uneducated teachers=failure.

[alatar]

I'm enjoying lurking and reading some nice posts:beam: .


Looking at recreated amour from the 15th century, you do see so many things which people assume to be right shown to be true.
Mainly to do with longwords being used to swing like an axe at the enemy.

[QuintusSertorius]

You know, most of this thread has thus far consisted of ignorant bullshit being thrown around. By far the majority of the people issuing any number of oh-so-definite-sounding statements here patently don't know the first thing about Medieval warfare and the associated gear, or much any other relevant issue for that matter.
The exceptions such as Tombles above are, sadly, rare indeed.

This comes from someone who's actually read on the topic a whole lot, and even trained longsword fencing a bit.

Funny, because in spite of coming down on the side of the legions, I've actually been debunking a lot of the nonsense about the restrictions armour places on you.

[Watchman]

You may notice I did not identify any particular culprit. Talking about camels when you don't know what an icthyologist does is common enough in both camps far as I can tell. :shame:
...although the pro-legion crowd does do it a bit more.

[lobf]

You know, most of this thread has thus far consisted of ignorant bullshit being thrown around. By far the majority of the people issuing any number of oh-so-definite-sounding statements here patently don't know the first thing about Medieval warfare and the associated gear, or much any other relevant issue for that matter.
The exceptions such as Tombles above are, sadly, rare indeed.

This comes from someone who's actually read on the topic a whole lot, and even trained longsword fencing a bit.

...That helps.

[SaberHRE]

It's funny you say so watchman you mention that, because most of the fencing techniques were not even used in battles. So before you decide to throw filth at people, reconsider that.

This is supposed to be a discussion thread, not a forced compulsory learning thread.

[Watchman]

I take it you don't quite understand the full meaning of the term "fencing", then ? :inquisitive:

You know I only start talking down to people when I have a real reason to. You just gave another right there.

[lobf]

Just tell what you know. Considerate rational people will take it in and appreciate it. The brick-headed among us won't be convinced of anything anyways, and calling people fools and providing no substance of your own does nothing but bring down the entire discussion.

Now of course I'm not saying you have no substance. Not at all. I trust your alleged experience in these matters. I'm just saying present your evidence and leave out the anger.

[cmacq]

Just tell what you know. Considerate rational people will take it in and appreciate it. The brick-headed among us won't be convinced of anything anyways, and calling people fools and providing no substance of your own does nothing but bring down the entire discussion.

Now of course I'm not saying you have no substance. Not at all. I trust your alleged experience in these matters. I'm just saying present your evidence and leave out the anger.

Don't call me a brickhead, I resemble that! Maybe somebody needs a nap?

[delablake]

an interesting idea for the new Steven Spielberg movie...Time Slip II
the Roman army commanded by Vespasian, consisting of of 60.000 men busy wiping out the Jewish forces in 69 AD, gets "mesmerized" and pops up in the same area, say around 1100 AD, amidst the aftermath of the first crusade.

whom will they fight?
whom will they help?
would they end up going to Constatinople, Eastern Rome?
how would people react to the fact that a Roman Emperor was about?
would anybody still speak enough Latin to communicate with them?
would everybody call everybody a pagan?

the ensuing battles must be nice...

[Chris1959]

I haven't read all this thread but my two penne'th.

C1st AD Cohort versus Dismounted English men at arms from Agincourt, the men at arms win.

2 legions versus the English at Agincourt, Legions win.

And stoking controversy. Most medieval foot soldiers were not armed peasants, most people did not like arming the peasantry at the time. I believe one reason the Anglo/Welsh archery was not copied say in France was the nobilities reluctance to arm the lower classes.

[Tombles]

It's funny you say so watchman you mention that, because most of the fencing techniques were not even used in battles. So before you decide to throw filth at people, reconsider that.

'Fencing' generally refers to any martial art involving a sword (or other melee weapons) as the primary weapon. Obviously, olympic fencing of today would get you killed if you went onto a battlefield. That's because today swords are a weapon for sport, not war. But back then it was far more serious. Lords would pay huge sums of money for fencing masters such as Fiore to train knights (and increasing numbers of the more common soldiery as time went on). Why expend so much money if the knights were going to forget it all on the battlefield and start hacking and slashing like some Hollywood movie star?

I've no personal experience of longsword fencing myself. Rather, I've read a considerable amount about it. Unfortunately, there's no WMA centres near where I live for me to put it into practice

[SaberHRE]

Tumbles you just contradicted yourself by defining the word 'fencing' and then mentioning the olympic discipline of fencing. Obviously the many eastern martial arts involving weapons are not called fencing.

Further you seem to confuse what the word knight actually means. As I stated before a knight was in the middle ages mainly a landed aristocrat, who by 13 century saw few actual combat. Lords never actually spent money to train a bunch of knights. In every muster or other roll of mobilization, there is a mention of ready-professionals, who are now as men-at-arms. Such men were initially descendants of poorer knights and the seargent-at-arms class, who could not keep up with the trends of nobility and who often were never actually knighted. Although I'm not saying the knightly class turned completely civilian, but truth is that the men who fought for Charles V and Charles VII were men-at-arms with small following of aristocrats(who usually served as officers).

Further, although I wouldn't dare to say that knights did not use medieval fencing manuscripts, I will dare to say, that the master actually aimed their manuscripts at civilian readers rather then the war veterans. I assume students and burgher wannabe soldiers would have taken up such lectures.

[Metalstrm]

Tumbles you just contradicted yourself by defining the word 'fencing' and then mentioning the olympic discipline of fencing.


I have tried, but failed, to see a contradiction in what Tombles said. Sorry.

Though I'm far from an expert on fencing, what Tombles said makes complete sense, except that maybe fencing is usually restricted to the European and western world. Then again, I might me be mistaken in this last statement, which I would completely accept.

There seems to be a certain fear of accepting one's mistakes. Acknowledging a lack of knowledge does not make anyone (not referring to anyone in particular) any less intelligent.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Further you seem to confuse what the word knight actually means.

Uhm... Knight, means 'knecht', i.e.: (personal) servant. It's got nothing to do with landed aristocracy, except perhaps for serving them. <_<

[SaberHRE]

@TA

In german Ritter and knecht are words which have completely different meanings. Ritter is basically german for knight. Whereas a knecht could mean anything from a personal attendant to a plain servant, and even further to armed followers. I don't understand where did you get the idea that knight=knecht.

@metalstrm

The only thing I wouldn't disagree with Tombles in his post is his claim that lords would pay a lot of money for the training of "their knights". That was not how lords hired soldiers. Knights theoretically served a lord in exchange for land grant, and done so due to feudal obligation. However in practice the Lord often payed the knight, as warfare required more the the obligatory 40 days of service.

And the contradiction about the definition of fencing:

"'Fencing' generally refers to any martial art involving a sword (or other melee weapons) as the primary weapon"

Bushido is an art which revolves around the sword.

Yet Bushido is not called fencing.

And of course I apologize if anyone has sensed antagonism in my post. Showing antagonism in a discussion is certainly not my goal.

[Metalstrm]

Fair enough, but the word "knight" has its origins in the word "knecht".

[lobf]

Proof?

[Metalstrm]

Proof?

Any reputable dictionary.

Try Merriam-Webster for example.

Or an etymology dictionary, like www.etymonline.com, which uses many reputable sources (listed).

:yes:

[Tombles]

True enough, fencing is not normally a term applied to Eastern martial arts that use swords. But that doesn't mean it doesn't actually cover them. The average layman wouldn't call medieval swordfighting 'fencing' either. But that's what it is, because fencing is the discipline of using swords. It's just that most people wouldn't refer to such martial arts as such, because of the connotations the word fencing has in modern times about a sport developed in Europe. Those connotations make no difference to the actual meaning.

Also, I may be mistaken on this, but isn't Bushido a way of life rather than a martial art?

[SaberHRE]

True enough, fencing is not normally a term applied to Eastern martial arts that use swords. But that doesn't mean it doesn't actually cover them. The average layman wouldn't call medieval swordfighting 'fencing' either. But that's what it is, because fencing is the discipline of using swords.

That is true.

And yes, I'm sorry, I mixed up the terms. It's not Bushido, but Kendo.

[Watchman]

"Bushido" specifically comes from the words bushi, meaning the original Japanese feudal warrior class from the lowliest spearman to the most elite cavalryman, and do, "way" or "art" (as in Judo or Kendo or what-have-you), meaning in other words roughly "the way of the warrior" (or perhaps rather "the way of being a warrior"). You know, the whole ideology-purpose-in-life-code-of-behaviour shebang.

"Kendo" (and for that matter, in principle at least just about all the -do -suffixed Japanese martial arts you care to think about) is more specifically the "Art of the Sword" - its relationship to the old blood-and-guts Kenjutsu (roughly, "skill of sword(smanship)" or thereabouts) is roughly the same as that of modern tournament fencing to the rapier fencing of the Renaissance or the smallsword fencing of the 1700s.
Ie. it'd get you killed pretty fast in a real fight, although obviously any training is better than none at all... at least you can die trying to do something worthwhile. ~;p


Anyways, as for what knights historically were, that's actually a somewhat complex issue closely tied to the very complex topic of how the European system of "fortress feudalism" developed over the years. Originally they were simply any bigwig's personal "guard", "hearth" or "household" troops, an essentially direct continuation of a rather old Germanic tradition. They formed the most readily mobilised "fast response" part of their lord's army as well as its hardest and most loyal core, as well as often enough acting as his trusted representatives and enforcers in peacetime. Usually they received most of their equipement and upkeep from their boss, and in return were basically "on duty" 24/7 and could devote considerable time and effort to honing their combat skills - although you usually couldn't even get into those forces in the first place if you weren't already a pretty tough dude, anyway.

Now, after Charlemagne's empire went apart after his death and the first millenium AD was drawing to a close, the assorted little princedoms and wannabe statelets of Europe had a whole new military challenge to chew on, namely, a real plague of quite mobile and militarily rather formidable raiders. The Moors were wont to occasionally raid over the Pyrenees into southern France and other Mediterranean Muslim powers by ship into Italy, the Vikings were a real pain wherever their ships could readily bring them (ie. most of western Europe), and the Hungarian-Magyars, the latest in a long line of steppe nomads to set up shop in the Pannonian plain, at times mounted forays quite far into southern Germany.

Long story short, the realisable answer was found to lie in the creation of local "area control" systems of fortifications and the establishement of a pool of regional heavy cavalry forces that could be quickly called up to catch up with and hopefully defeat the devils; in other words, the feudal heavy cavalry that soon developed into the knights. This by necessity involved devolving a lot of authority and command down the chain of command into the hands of assorted local aristocrats.

This solved the problem of regional defense against such unpleasant foreigners effectively enough. An unintented side effect which the weak monarchies of the time were quite incapable of preventing was that in the process the local barons in practice aquired the direct control of quite potent military forces as well as extensive systems of defensive fortifications, and could as such quite freely defy their nominal superiors if they happened to feel like it - that massing together enough military force to get them back in line in practice required persuading other feudal lords to add their respective private armies to those of the monarch for the purpose did not exactly help things.
Most realms then spent the better part of the Middle Ages slowly re-imposing central authority on these runaway regional strongmen.

The developements in the British Isles were similar but somewhat different in parts, as the crown managed to keep a closer control on the fortress network and the household troops, rather than developing into heavy cavalry, instead continued the older Germanic/Viking practice of fighting as heavy infantry (although they used horses for strategic mobility). The Anglo-Saxon huscarles (lit. "house-men" or "men of the house(hold)" or thereabouts - a direct Scandinavian loanword) at Hastings were more or less the final iteration of this principle in the main isle at least before the Norman conquerors brought the heavy-cavalry system from the Continent.

I'd incidentally be willing to bet that this historic difference in the developement of the lords' armed retinues is the main reason English retains the old Germanic concept of "(armed) servant" (orig. knicht or knecht or thereabouts) for the class of feudal warrior pretty much every single Continental language (including the Scandinavian ones) took to calling by a term derived from "rider" or "horseman".


Anyways. Without delving too deeply into the related socio-economic-political developements, soon enough the line between the mounted &#233;lite warrior and the feudal landowner class had became blurry enough to, for all practical purposes, effectively cease to exist; the knights (or "chivalry", as that specific type of feudal cavalry is sometimes called) mutated from the armed personal retinues of the landowning class into a full-blown landed warrior aristocracy. IIRC this change was pretty much complete already by something like the middle 12th century or so, but the exact dates aren't really important. (As a curio detail, in Germany there long existed besides the "mainstream" feudal cavalry the local peculiarity of ministeriales - knights who were legally the slaves and property of someone else. Talk about every eejit wanting to do things his own particular way those days...)

At which point at the latest "sub-enfeoffing" of their assorted fiefdoms started rather getting out of hand, as every landed knight found it useful enough to have a small army of armed underlings of his won to call on, nevermind now that as the size of the contignent the feudal contracts required you to bring with you (and furnish for local defense and whatnot) naturally depended on the size and wealth of your landholdings too...

Everybody also took to the practice of primogenitural inheritance with gusto (the earlier experiments in dividing property among all sons, as for example the Lombards practiced in northern Italy around Charlemegne's time, having proven... problematic... for the readily apparent reasons), which left a whole lot of younger sons "all dressed up and no place to go" - they had the training and equipement of the warrior class, but no estates to support themselves with. Many took the holy orders and joined the hierarchy of the Church; others became what was IIRC known as "knights bachelor", taking up armed service in their elder siblings' households; others became "knights errant", seeking out wars to earn themselves a living in and, perhaps, one day win themselves a fiefdom of their own. Some also became something of professional tournament competitors, which could be a quite lucrative business indeed if you were good at it, and wealthy widows in possession of some real estate for some odd reason tended have little difficulty attracting suitors...

Not too long after this, under the usual pressures of figuring out new ways to display differences in rank and status, the specific status of "knighthood" began developing an entirely different meaning. It no longer meant just any aristocratic cavalryman, but rather one who had undergone specific (and increasingly prohibitively expensive - by Late Middle Ages even most upper nobility could no longer readily afford it) ceremonies and been formally granted the title by a suitably vested authority (usually, a monarch). This is where most of that weird stuff about fasting a night praying before the cross on cold flagstones and suchlike chiefly comes on. Similarly, "dubbing" had originally simply meant the lord officially giving a new retainer the tools of his trade, arms and armour, as well as the warriors actually donning those for battle (some early literary sources talk about both Christian and Muslim soldiers "dubbing" before battle, ie. gearing up); whereas the "touching shoulder with sword" thing had IIRC originally been a simple ad hoc ceremony by which a squire (ie. a knight-in-training) was formally recognised as having earned the rank of full knight by valour in battle, more often than not carried out immediately after or even during said battle...

The catchall term for a fully trained and armed warrior instead became "man-at-arms", or some comparable equivalent.

As one scholar summed the arc in a book on the history of knighthood, "at the beginning no knight was an aristocrat; at the end, every knight was an aristocrat but not every aristocrat was a knight", or thereabouts (going by memory here).


SaberHRE is, methinks, rather badly getting the original feudal warrior class mixed up with the much later courtesy-rank status-symbol lay orders of knighthood (which monarchs found an useful cheaper alternative for rewarding distinguished underlings with than land grants and suchlike were)...

[NeoSpartan]

ladies and gents this IS the reason why I love this forum.

I learned something today :yes:

[russia almighty]

Where the **** have you been neo?

[SaberHRE]

"Bushido" specifically comes from the words bushi, meaning the original Japanese feudal warrior class from the lowliest spearman to the most elite cavalryman, and do, "way" or "art" (as in Judo or Kendo or what-have-you), meaning in other words roughly "the way of the warrior" (or perhaps rather "the way of being a warrior"). You know, the whole ideology-purpose-in-life-code-of-behaviour shebang.

"Kendo" (and for that matter, in principle at least just about all the -do -suffixed Japanese martial arts you care to think about) is more specifically the "Art of the Sword" - its relationship to the old blood-and-guts Kenjutsu (roughly, "skill of sword(smanship)" or thereabouts) is roughly the same as that of modern tournament fencing to the rapier fencing of the Renaissance or the smallsword fencing of the 1700s.
Ie. it'd get you killed pretty fast in a real fight, although obviously any training is better than none at all... at least you can die trying to do something worthwhile. ~;p


Anyways, as for what knights historically were, that's actually a somewhat complex issue closely tied to the very complex topic of how the European system of "fortress feudalism" developed over the years. Originally they were simply any bigwig's personal "guard", "hearth" or "household" troops, an essentially direct continuation of a rather old Germanic tradition. They formed the most readily mobilised "fast response" part of their lord's army as well as its hardest and most loyal core, as well as often enough acting as his trusted representatives and enforcers in peacetime. Usually they received most of their equipement and upkeep from their boss, and in return were basically "on duty" 24/7 and could devote considerable time and effort to honing their combat skills - although you usually couldn't even get into those forces in the first place if you weren't already a pretty tough dude, anyway.

Now, after Charlemagne's empire went apart after his death and the first millenium AD was drawing to a close, the assorted little princedoms and wannabe statelets of Europe had a whole new military challenge to chew on, namely, a real plague of quite mobile and militarily rather formidable raiders. The Moors were wont to occasionally raid over the Pyrenees into southern France and other Mediterranean Muslim powers by ship into Italy, the Vikings were a real pain wherever their ships could readily bring them (ie. most of western Europe), and the Hungarian-Magyars, the latest in a long line of steppe nomads to set up shop in the Pannonian plain, at times mounted forays quite far into southern Germany.

Long story short, the realisable answer was found to lie in the creation of local "area control" systems of fortifications and the establishement of a pool of regional heavy cavalry forces that could be quickly called up to catch up with and hopefully defeat the devils; in other words, the feudal heavy cavalry that soon developed into the knights. This by necessity involved devolving a lot of authority and command down the chain of command into the hands of assorted local aristocrats.

This solved the problem of regional defense against such unpleasant foreigners effectively enough. An unintented side effect which the weak monarchies of the time were quite incapable of preventing was that in the process the local barons in practice aquired the direct control of quite potent military forces as well as extensive systems of defensive fortifications, and could as such quite freely defy their nominal superiors if they happened to feel like it - that massing together enough military force to get them back in line in practice required persuading other feudal lords to add their respective private armies to those of the monarch for the purpose did not exactly help things.
Most realms then spent the better part of the Middle Ages slowly re-imposing central authority on these runaway regional strongmen.

The developements in the British Isles were similar but somewhat different in parts, as the crown managed to keep a closer control on the fortress network and the household troops, rather than developing into heavy cavalry, instead continued the older Germanic/Viking practice of fighting as heavy infantry (although they used horses for strategic mobility). The Anglo-Saxon huscarles (lit. "house-men" or "men of the house(hold)" or thereabouts - a direct Scandinavian loanword) at Hastings were more or less the final iteration of this principle in the main isle at least before the Norman conquerors brought the heavy-cavalry system from the Continent.

I'd incidentally be willing to bet that this historic difference in the developement of the lords' armed retinues is the main reason English retains the old Germanic concept of "(armed) servant" (orig. knicht or knecht or thereabouts) for the class of feudal warrior pretty much every single Continental language (including the Scandinavian ones) took to calling by a term derived from "rider" or "horseman".


Anyways. Without delving too deeply into the related socio-economic-political developements, soon enough the line between the mounted élite warrior and the feudal landowner class had became blurry enough to, for all practical purposes, effectively cease to exist; the knights (or "chivalry", as that specific type of feudal cavalry is sometimes called) mutated from the armed personal retinues of the landowning class into a full-blown landed warrior aristocracy. IIRC this change was pretty much complete already by something like the middle 12th century or so, but the exact dates aren't really important. (As a curio detail, in Germany there long existed besides the "mainstream" feudal cavalry the local peculiarity of ministeriales - knights who were legally the slaves and property of someone else. Talk about every eejit wanting to do things his own particular way those days...)

At which point at the latest "sub-enfeoffing" of their assorted fiefdoms started rather getting out of hand, as every landed knight found it useful enough to have a small army of armed underlings of his won to call on, nevermind now that as the size of the contignent the feudal contracts required you to bring with you (and furnish for local defense and whatnot) naturally depended on the size and wealth of your landholdings too...

Everybody also took to the practice of primogenitural inheritance with gusto (the earlier experiments in dividing property among all sons, as for example the Lombards practiced in northern Italy around Charlemegne's time, having proven... problematic... for the readily apparent reasons), which left a whole lot of younger sons "all dressed up and no place to go" - they had the training and equipement of the warrior class, but no estates to support themselves with. Many took the holy orders and joined the hierarchy of the Church; others became what was IIRC known as "knights bachelor", taking up armed service in their elder siblings' households; others became "knights errant", seeking out wars to earn themselves a living in and, perhaps, one day win themselves a fiefdom of their own. Some also became something of professional tournament competitors, which could be a quite lucrative business indeed if you were good at it, and wealthy widows in possession of some real estate for some odd reason tended have little difficulty attracting suitors...

Not too long after this, under the usual pressures of figuring out new ways to display differences in rank and status, the specific status of "knighthood" began developing an entirely different meaning. It no longer meant just any aristocratic cavalryman, but rather one who had undergone specific (and increasingly prohibitively expensive - by Late Middle Ages even most upper nobility could no longer readily afford it) ceremonies and been formally granted the title by a suitably vested authority (usually, a monarch). This is where most of that weird stuff about fasting a night praying before the cross on cold flagstones and suchlike chiefly comes on. Similarly, "dubbing" had originally simply meant the lord officially giving a new retainer the tools of his trade, arms and armour, as well as the warriors actually donning those for battle (some early literary sources talk about both Christian and Muslim soldiers "dubbing" before battle, ie. gearing up); whereas the "touching shoulder with sword" thing had IIRC originally been a simple ad hoc ceremony by which a squire (ie. a knight-in-training) was formally recognised as having earned the rank of full knight by valour in battle, more often than not carried out immediately after or even during said battle...

The catchall term for a fully trained and armed warrior instead became "man-at-arms", or some comparable equivalent.

As one scholar summed the arc in a book on the history of knighthood, "at the beginning no knight was an aristocrat; at the end, every knight was an aristocrat but not every aristocrat was a knight", or thereabouts (going by memory here).


SaberHRE is, methinks, rather badly getting the original feudal warrior class mixed up with the much later courtesy-rank status-symbol lay orders of knighthood (which monarchs found an useful cheaper alternative for rewarding distinguished underlings with than land grants and suchlike were)...

heh, I must say: Sir, I am in awe :yes:.

I cannot argue with certain points of your posts, especially on the origin of the knights and their relationship to early hearth troopers. I'd like to elaborate on the Carolingian military system, but perhaps in a different thread.

I'll sum it up:

My point in the previous posts was that by 12th century, Knights were often no longer a Lord's personal troopers as it was in Germanic system. And most warfare would be done by semi-professionals, who were possibly descended from younger sons of knights.

Concerning however the younger sons themselves, initially in the pre-chivalric period(before the appearance of troubadours and knigthly honour codes and etc.), they returned to being semi-hearth troops known generally as seargents and then men-at-arms. In later years the distinction between the knights and the military men-at-arms group was so great, due to the fact that many burghers and even richer peasants joined the men-at-arms group. In an attempt to preserve their privileged status and to distinguish themselves from the "commoners" the Knightly class began forming into a purely aristocratic class, learning to sing, dance, read, supporting art etc etc.

And just some interesting facts:

Watchman mentioned dubbing a knight during battle, one such famous example was with the Polish knightly families who bore the 'Jelita' coat-of-arms.

According to the legend their ancestor fought for Wladyslaw Lokietek, and during the battle was so badly injured his guts were basically falling out from him. The King in an act of gratitude decided to make him a knight, and gave his children the coat-of-arms of 'Jelita', or Guts.

The process of dubbing itself is interesting. In Kingdom of Heaven Balian is slapped upon his dubbing. I remember reading that this did occur and symbolised the awakening of a young man into the cruel world, in which he as a knight should protect the weak and innocent(however this comes from a much later period).

Dubbing itself might be a process derived from the ancient exchange of gifts, where the liege accepted gifts from the vassal, and also gave gifts to the vassal to indicate in content with the man. This sort of ceremony was common in many cultures.

[Obelics]

i think the whole question is, well, stupid... and i cant believe there are people who, in a seriously manner, try to resolve it, with a sort of scientific speculation on the armaments, on the type of steel, on the training etc. Ok nothing against this kind of "divertissement", me too, I enjoy to thing on to some parallels, or to some what if etc... i like it. But i dont understand "really" how can somepeople analize the "thing" like if there is a way of coming to a certain "truth" through a sort of scientific speculation. That's really silly.

How can we come to a certain result, making a parallel by two ages so different in every aspect, i really dont know. Im not only speaking of technology. There are some difference in technology for sure and im not enough espert on the technological matter to state something.
But i can remember a course of Antropology i frequented some ywars ago at the university, and there was this funny example:
there is this "new kind of man" that started to born from the XVIII century. This sort of self-made man was so different from the previous man, of the pasted ages, that there we can see a pivotal point, well expressed by the hstory of Robinson Crusoe. The example that was made, was that Robinson, in the romance, was capable, as he was cast in the isle, he was capable of organizing himself in a way to survive, just counting on its own forces and intellect.
Now in that course, it was stated how before, people casted away on isles, in the most part of the cases, left themself to die. in a sort of what we could call today "depression". Cause their system of valours, was "so much" fixed on the surrounding social and moral ambient, that as this "conditions" would have been suddendly disappeared, then his whole interior world would have crushed.
Now that example, is just to say how important are the valour sistems that are behind a kind of man, of whatever age. we will never be enough sure on how adaptable was the sistem of valours of a medieval man, in an unexpected situation. If we imagine him, lost in a different time-frame, where all the thing that are familiar to him, have vanished, i bet his soul vould have been crushed.
The same thinking on a ancient man. But just for fun, if i try to speculate, i can thing that the sistem of valours of an ancient man, was peraphs more adaptable, so according to my silly speculation, he could have reacted better.
Again if we want to see it totally in a different manner, still silly, we can thing that the ancient man, would have been even worse than the medieval, cause his sistem was not more adaptable, it was more weak and less "definite". And the sistem of the medieval man was not unadaptable, but was more fixed=more strong. It all depends on how you see the matter, and we will never be sure. As an example, someone could say that the ancient Ulisses, was a kind of man very similar to the kind of man born after the Reinassance. So the ancient man could have reacted better to the unexpected situation, and the medieval man, would have simply left himself to dye, depressed, having nothing to fight for.

So i sayd that just to say, that the question, can be funny to speculate on, but will be always uncertain, and it's silly to try to reach the "Truth", just talking of the technology and of the training system of the knights etc...

the real fact is that in this kind of parallels, there are two different types of Man, and we dont know what man would prevail on the other. The variables are too much.

[cmacq]

Not to draw too fine a point, but actually it was Alexander Selcraig, and he survived four years and four months.