Some questions about medieval knights

[Furious Mental]

I wouldn't rely too heavily on conjecture by a television program. Not saying it is wrong- that is impossible to prove. But as far as I know it is conjecture. One could equally well conjecture that the need for an attendant could be fulfilled by a knight's retainer. More than likely they acted as was convenient in the circumstances.

For example, an account of a battle in the HYW between some free companies mreferred to the men-at-arms on one side advancing in a formation protected by large shields (pavises perhaps) to thwart the longbowmen on the other side. According to the account it worked. On a completely different note, like archers, one thing that English men-at-arms were very good at when they fought on foot was using things like trous de loup and abatis and natural obstacles to obstruct the approach of the enemy.

[Flavius Clemens]

"I wouldn't rely too heavily on conjecture by a television program. Not saying it is wrong- that is impossible to prove. But as far as I know it is conjecture."

Indeed - 'opinion' was the key phrase.

[Watchman]

It would sound rather more likely they usually just formed up in close enough order they didn't have to worry about their sides and rear - since there were only friendlies there. For such frontal shock combat in closed ranks it doesn't really matter much, for either horse or foot, if the helmet screws up your peripheral vision; for the sake of comparision, recall the early Greek hoplites with their "closed" Corinthian helmets or the Eastern cataphracts and their close-fitted anthropomorphic metal face-masks with only small openings to see through. Or the fully visored heavy-cavalry helmets of Late Medieval and Early Modern periods, still in use by some heavy formations in the English Civil Wars.

[edyzmedieval]

Watching each other's back is quite a misconception. If there was a fully fledged battle where the width of the army was matched by the other one, the need for watching the back was pretty useless. Sometimes spearmen were often used in the front line, in order to dissolve the shock of the frontal charge, and then let the knights a row behind to do the killing. Many of the knights were fairly well equipped as they were heavy infantry which was required to do most of the killing.

[Kraxis]

Obviously the knights fought in what can be considered strong formations. At least if they were dismounted.

Being heavy cavalry themselves, they would know what they didn't like to face. Also, the Norman practice of a knee-to-knee line of cavalrymen or the less used diamond/wedge, would indicate that they were neither unruly nor too independant. They were highly trained for cooperation, and as such they would stand their ground in infantryformations. And equipmentwise they were the best you could get.
And as far as I know the early knights generally won if they were dismounted and not surprised versus a mounted foe of similar strength. Obviously they were highly effective infantry.

That obviously begs the question: Why didn't they always ride to battle and dismount, much like the Saxons?
Well, just because the dismounted knights beat up the mounted knights, and generally could paste most infantry as well, didn't mean that it was the most powerful force.
The loss of mobility would be the greatest loss obviously, but the loss of a heavy shock and pursuit would also speak in favour of a greater impact while mounted. Mind you, this would be against non-knights or specilaized troops.
Dismounted they could beat what they wanted (gross generalization, but bear with me), but they would suffer losses they wouldn't suffer otherwise, would be vulnerable in case of a slip-up, and couldn't just move on to a new target after beating a foe. Their potential as a battlewinner would go down the drain as infantry.

As infantry they would be the security for not suffering a loss, as cavalry they would secure the victory. And thus it becomes obvious why an outnumbered force of knights dismounted. They needed to not lose more than they needed to win.

[Watchman]

AFAIK the standard tactical sub-unit of mounted knights was a "squad" of usually five men which tried to stick together and cover each others' backs - a necessary precaution given the tendency of horse-horse fights to dissolve into rather confused swirling melees. It would be right strange if these selfsame "squads" didn't similarly stick together dismounted; close-order infantry normally maintain fomration integrity rather better than cavalry by default, but nevertheless it's always good for a soldier to be surrounded by comrades he's familiar with and knows he can trust. This is particularly important when receiving a cavalry charge, as the infantry "sticking to their guns" and not budging - and therefore failing to provide the horsemen convenient gaps in the lines to plow into - is by far their most important defense and best achieved when the men can count on not only standing their ground themselves, but that their mates will do the same instead of dooming everybody by dithering.

Moreover, combat between close-order infantry always tended to be primarily about hacking a hole in the enemy ranks and pushing into it, therefore starting to compromise their formation cohesion and integrity and thus defray their morale and confidence; an obviously risky and dangerous thing to do (as the man stepping "into the breach" would at least momentarily be functionally surrounded by enemies on around three sides), and greatly benefiting from immediate close support from his mates. Obviously not too many folks would be willing to even try wading into the enemy ranks that way should they not be able to count on with a fair degree of certainty that their comrades would follow without delay.