Why did knights suck so bad?

Knights were the epitomy of hand to hand warfare. They were mounted of giant horses, guilded in the most advanced and expensive armour available and trained from infancy in weapons and exercises which had evolved for nearly 1500 years of constant war in europe and in other environment in different strategic situations. The only improvement modern science could add is new materials, helmets in ww2 were based on knight's helmets because they were that advanced.

Yet all knights ever did was fight each other and conquer jerusalem, for a while. In theory they should have been like the mongols, sweeping across the globe and mowing down anything they can come into contact with, in theory. In fact the "primitive" nomadic mongols were superior in combat when they came into contact with western knights. In hundreds of instances knights have charged into swamps or bottle necks and ending up tripping over each other before being hacked to death by peasants armed with pole weapons or longbows, charging into pikes, dying of dehydration, starvation and plague, sinking to the bottom of the sea in their armour and all sorts of instances of military incompetence and stupidity.

Knights were organised, they would form into a circle formation if they found themselves flanked, they trained in the use of all sorts of weapons, pikes, halberds, light cavalry tactics, assaulting walls etc.. Surely someone sometime must have realised if knights didn't charge headlong into death traps all the time they could become the most effective fighting force possible?

I imagine that conquering vast reaches of the world would have more to do with social organization than individual combat competence. The localized, fragmented social structure of Western Europe made world conquest highly unlikely. The crusades were the closest thing they managed, and they were terribly hard to get off the ground and generally short-lived.

Also the battlefield situations you mentioned mostly had to do with strategic decisions made by incompetent or backward-looking commanders and had little to do with the individual knights military ability. When used properly, knights were the most formidable troops in Western Europe and among the most formidable in the world.

Ajax

I have no doubt that this will be move, but here we go.

Knights were very well trained, and well armed. The heavy armor they wore was a major factor in there victories as well as there defeats. Weapons an tactics were always being developed to deal with armor. Polarms, war hammers, crossbows, all came out of the need to deal with armor.
Then you had the fact that there were different orders of knights. Each with slightly different rules and organization. They all were basically ruled by a church that was more interested in a few goals rather then fighting in any type of strategic way. I mean at one point the pope out lawed crossbows.
So there armor held them back, to a point. There rules held them back, and there church held them back. They never had a chance.

1. Disunity
2. Pride
3. Greed
4. Politics

Oh yes, I'd meant to mention pride, too. Thanks Roark. Often tactical expediency was ignored in favor of personal fame.

Ajax

And there weren't so many of them. There were a lot more peasants with polearms and crossbows.

Pride, incompetence,expenses...

and moved to the Monastery.

I'd take this to the next level:

Social and technological progress rendered the knights obsolete. Especially socioeconomic progress - maintaining one single knight (a guy who didn't produce anything, just consumed a huge share of the net product - a 150 serf families had to work night and day just to support a single knight and his men at arms) to the expense of a 100 or more guys, was not feasible nor wanted after the west re-evaluated the medieval social structures and went back in time to reestablish Graeco-Roman democratical and republican models.

It was counterproductive and technological progress rendered it also countereffective (but not before the knights had long become obsolete due to social reasons).

Personally I think we answered this one at Agincourt...

And at Courtrai, Sempach, Bannockburn, Nicopolis, Morgarten, Hattin,...

1. I doubt knights were ever the absolute best warriors on the planet. They may have been rather formidable when used in the proper ways, but as always, there are other types of military men who can defeat them with ease. Knights were in effect 'designed' to deal with each other and would have had to fight in concert with other types of soldiers to be efficient. Most instances of knights completely faltering on the battlefield is when they tried to fight 'non-knights' without any support from other arms.

2. Lack of funds and numbers: The knights, being an elite, were indeed very few in number when compared to, for example, Mongol warriors. Also, being a knight is obscenely expensive. One has to pay for one's armour, weapons, horses (yes, multiple ones), retainers, etc. There simply wasn't enough to go around.

3. Lack of vision. I seriously doubt if any medieval European ruler ever contemplated conquering the entire world. Medieval man had no concept of the world as a whole (at least, not as we see it today). Sure, they knew of some world conquerors (the best known is and was Alexander the Great), and they knew the concept of 'us' (European christendom) and 'the other' (the Islamic world, pagan tribes, etc.), but they probably never desired to 'rule the world'. Nevertheless, medieval christendom and its knights actually did conquer large bits of planet that previously were not theirs: Spain, large parts of Eastern Europe and the Holy Land. Most likely, the pope's (in particular Urban II) effort to divert the knight's energy to other regions of the world is what culminated in the crusades, and to my knowledge they were in effect the only real example of a planned (actually not even really planned) 'conquering spree' I know of.

4. Lack of organisation. There is one thing knights liked to do best: fighting other knights. It's hard to get them united against a common enemy. The best example of such an effort is in effect, again, the crusades (especially the first one), and even those proved to be a miserable failure in this respect. Quarrels at home were the reason for more then one crusader to return from his quest. It's just easier to attack your neighbour instead of someone far, far away whom you've never met before.

5. Knights were a social as well as a military elite and as such were subject to all the vices that accompany such status, such as pride, avarice, greed and the likes. Also, because of this they usually had pressing business at home, one of the reasons people during the later crusades preferred to stay home.

6. One might die whilst on a conquering quest. Another reason I believe why people became less than enthusiastic to go on crusade. Especially because if one was far away, one is also far away of fame at home and a proper christian burial and all the nice things accompanying that that make you go to heaven.

There are probably more reasons as well (I could probably think of some juridical as well), but I've got to go now, so maybe later.

The European knight developed into what was possibly the single most effective shock cavalryman in the world. Alas, that was a bit of an overspecialization, and led to a bit tunnel-visioned approach to the massed lance charge (namely trying to use it in situations where it probably wasn't a good idea). Add to this the fact that knights were feudal troops with all the accompanying issues with things like discipline, training, communications and cohesion, and you can see why large numbers of them could become tactically rather intractable. But then again feudalism is a pretty sucky and inefficient system to run anything with; it's not really so much a system in itself as something that was improvised to deal with the lack of a system.

Generally speaking their biggest problems always stemmed from the fundamentally fragmented nature of the feudal structure. The assorted lords mostly deployed their troops against each other in an attempt to take over each others' territories, and the extremely complex webs of interlaced feudal obligations in practice meant that a baron who in the last war was the first to gather under your banners might well be staying entirely neutral in the next one or join the enemy should his personal interests dictate and feudal obligations allow. Moreover, even the knights, among the most professional and well-trained of feudal troops (not counting some mercenaries), were actually a sort of part-time militia; their obligations to serve their feudal superiors were only for a certain number of days a year, after which they - like any other troops - had to be paid or they'd go home; and most feudal lords didn't have the kinds of liquid assets needed. This also meant that their actual experience with the nitty-gritties of "soldiering" were rather limited. While they weren't quite as much "sunday soldiers" as the old Greek hoplite militias had been, the feudal troops were ultimately just trained and equipped part-time amateurs and not true professionals.

That showed too. In the Late Middle Ages the effectiveness of feudal armies started rising rapidly if and when they were put on a more organized and professional footing, commonly with quite detailed specifications of equipement, chains of command and so on. The Burgundians were one of the best at this (although they got eventually trod on by the emergent Swiss), but for example the French army became a rather leaner and meaner machine after the Ordonnances du Roi reforms were passed (given that then they kicked the English off the mainland inside decades). The English had been on a more "professional" footing from the beginning of the Hundred Years' War already (troops sent over the Channel were essentially state-paid mercenaries who often made a career out of soldiering), and the fact that the French weren't was one of the Brits' biggest advantages in the HYW.

Lets not minimize their accomplishments.

The knights helped dramatically extend the borders of Western civilization. The period of their spread, the so-called Twelfth Century Renaissance (really from about 1050 to 1250), saw Europe finally come of age and become a real rival to the much older and much richer civilizations of Byzantium and Islam.

The knights helped turn the tide of the Reconquest in Spain, which had been dominated by Muslims until this time. Spain remains predominantly Christian to this day, due to this.

Knights spread Christianity and Western institutions into Central and Eastern Europe, often by conquest. The Teutonic knights were particularly successful in this regard-- Prussia was taken from Pagans, Hungary and Poland converted to Christianity.

Knights also took back much of the Mediterranean, like Sicily and the Balearic Islands, as well as a host of smaller crusader states from Malta to Rhodes, Crete and Cyprus.

In 1204, Knights took the lead in a military feat that every barbarian and Muslim people had dreamed of for nearly 1000 years: the conquest of Constantinople. In fact, the Fourth Crusaders took it twice in less than a year, when army after army, from Vikings to Arabs to Bulgars, had failed.

Finally, the knights led the conquests of the crusades. This was a remarkable achievement (the First Crusade in particular) given the technologies of the Middle AGes: to project a force of tens of thousands into a foreign, alien land, march it through thousands of kilometres of enemy territory, and set up colonies/crusader states that endured for two centuries. Nothing quite like it had ever occured (even the initial phase of Muslim conquest expanded, they didn't simply project a force thousands of kilometres away from their nearest base.)

The question is an interesting one. But do be aware of the remarkable accomplishments of Western armies in the high Middle Ages, led as always by an armoured spearhead of knights.

big horses.carrying armored men.quickly deliver the blow or it will not fall at all. europes geography was pretty tight.a charge at close quarters by heavy cavalry will destroy most units,but put them on a plain, and well light cavalry will run circles around them.and lets not call the mongols "primitive" once they understood siege warfare, and had engineers, few if any fortresses could stop them.i believe that no city withstood them for more than a year.also politically europe was shattered into so many states, that any effective unity, for any length of time was almost impossible. (mongols had similiar problem, temujin solved it)also i believe that many times out of pride and impeteousity, they would charge alone, unsupported. bad idea, you dont have to knock the knight off, just hamstring the horse(of course destriers "danced" to prevent that)knights seem to be a call back to the sinlge battle of champions,or a battle between the elite.
im a big man,6'6 295,i have a big horse, 17 hands,she cant run for a long time with me.were both heavy,we hit someone,well there gone.if not we get tired and become easy pickings.
now ive rambled enough.haha!~:joker:
:knight: -wheres my bloody horse?

:charge:

they could have been awsome shock troops but due to ther lack of menueverability they were pretty quickly dispatched in a press, of course they demanded they remain in the press so many needlessly died, plus it was not uncommon to see knight riding over (and killing) his own peasent infantry. so pride and idiocy led to there battlefeild inefficiency.

It is the social structure that was lacking most for large conquests.

Feudalism was a very localised form of loyalty and was not good for creating multilayered large countries. It also was not the best form for creating a civil service.

The Knights equipment might have been excellent, the socio-economic conditions just did not support Empire building.

Horses. Along with armour they make knights almost impossibly expensive. They fall prey to any number of ailments, dislike extremes of temperature, require constant care and attention. They slip and slide on wet or stony ground, they break legs and lose shoes. Big warhorses (not steppe ponies) need a diet of cereals and hay, they cannot just forage, so a knights army would be weighed down by a baggage train of farriers, grooms, fodder wagons etc. They cannot be ridden for days on end and stay fresh for battle. So an army of knights, unlike an army of cavalry, has poor mobility.

The army cannot afford to travel with herds of destriers in tow, so when horses are killed in battle, fall lame, succumb to colic etc, they cannot be replaced. The knights either fight on as infantry or (more likely) go home to get replacements.

In the same way that the German tanks in WW2 were developed into awesome monsters, invincible in battle but mechanically unreliable and fuel hungry, so the warhorse was developed into a weapon of war that was effective on the battlefield but impractical in other ways. It made more sense, strategically and economically, to develop armies of horse-killing infantry that could be sacrificed and replaced when necessary. The aristocracy, the men who could afford horses and armour, eventually tired of being killed by peasants and the armoured knight disappeared.

Even so, if the armoured horseman could be manouvred into position and his charge unleashed at the correct moment, he remained an awesome figure on the battlefield until the machine-gun finally rendered him obselete. The cuirassier of the Napoleonic era, with his huge horse and bullet-proof armour, is a development of the medieval armoured horseman. But as proven at Waterloo, disciplined infantry still had the beating of him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bregil the Bowman

Horses. Along with armour they make knights almost impossibly expensive. They fall prey to any number of ailments, dislike extremes of temperature, require constant care and attention. They slip and slide on wet or stony ground, they break legs and lose shoes. Big warhorses (not steppe ponies) need a diet of cereals and hay, they cannot just forage, so a knights army would be weighed down by a baggage train of farriers, grooms, fodder wagons etc. They cannot be ridden for days on end and stay fresh for battle. So an army of knights, unlike an army of cavalry, has poor mobility.

---

Just thought I should add that most knights who could afford it would not use the same horse for both travel and combat, so knights could in fact ride for days on end and still have a fresh destrier for combat.

This thread started out rather bad with an uncritical and obviously unresearched depreciation of knights, but I must say it has spawned some very insightful and well written posts. Perhaps all these detrimental myths about European knights will die soon, as a student of medieval history I'm getting a bit weary of them. So, for all of you who still believe heavy armoured knights can't even get back on their feet if felled from their horses; I've seen a knight do not only that, but he then proceeded to sprint until he caught up with his horse, and then he hoisted himself up in the saddle. All this while wearing Milanese full plate. :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartakus

This thread started out rather bad with an uncritical and obviously unresearched depreciation of knights, but I must say it has spawned some very insightful and well written posts. Perhaps all these detrimental myths about European knights will die soon, as a student of medieval history I'm getting a bit weary of them. So, for all of you who still believe heavy armoured knights can't even get back on their feet if felled from their horses; I've seen a knight do not only that, but he then proceeded to sprint until he caught up with his horse, and then he hoisted himself up in the saddle. All this while wearing Milanese full plate. :bow:

---

Agreed,

I have just finished part of my degree program on medieval warfare and as you say, a lot of rumour has become accepted as facts...

Knight armour was not that heavy, it weighs less than a Infantry soliders pack today. The super heavy stuff is the ornamental stuff, actual battlefield armour is very rare today, hence the misconception.

Indeed, knights were certainly not an ineffective force (certainly not so tactically; strategically, that is to be debated). They indeed did penetrate the unpenetratable Constantinople -- with the help of the Venetians, mind you. And those Venetians did most of the work ;)

Their problem did not lie in their effectiveness in combat. It lay in their internal discord and arrogance as a military and social elite. They viewed all as below them, as barbarians, unworthy of their attention -- in war, meaning they didn't really bother to examine their enemy.

That is: on the outset. At Legnica, or Varna, this proved lethal. However, in the age of the Crusades the knights of Outremer learned to adapt and were quite an effective force -- just horribly outnumbered. And, well, they still had a very hard time facing determined armies of the Muslim kingdoms surrounding them. They needed outside help -- yet the disasters of 1101, the capture of Bohemond (and later his son Bohemond II), and the Second Crusade cut the land route. From there it was just a matter of waiting until the Italian Republics that monopolized Latin shipping to the Holy Land chose money over principles (the Sicilians being a bit too pragmatic anyways to go crusading).

Conclusion -- the knights were tactically very effective, in theory. Their internal discord, and their natural arrogance towards their enemies, cost them many times. Robert Guiscard and, much later, the actions of the Serbian contingements at the Kosovo Fields and Ankara show that the knights could be a very powerful force on the battlefield, however.

Edit: On armor; indeed, the lack of high-quality steel in plate armor and its equal distribution over the body made it quite an agreeable thing to wear, really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roark

1. Disunity
2. Pride
3. Greed
4. Politics

---

You've summed that up alot more quickly than I could.