420chan now has a web-based IRC client available, right here
Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
Name
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the float Name#Password
Comment
[*]Italic Text[/*]
[**]Bold Text[/**]
[~]Taimapedia Article[/~]
[%]Spoiler Text[/%]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace text[/pre]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists
File

Sandwich


Community Updates

420chan now supports HTTPS! If you find any issues, you may report them in this thread
Late medieval thread by Nathaniel Bledgenidge - Mon, 24 Apr 2017 17:01:04 EST ID:aLFu7iIl No.57163 Ignore Report Quick Reply
File: 1493067664811.jpg -(302917B / 295.82KB, 1000x485) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 302917
Does anyone have any good lectures, essays etc on the decline of knights as a class and the decline of feudalism in general?
Also, general late-medieval, renaissance thread.
>>
Alice Gepperham - Mon, 24 Apr 2017 20:15:29 EST ID:7WnIrah9 No.57164 Ignore Report Quick Reply
my plebian understanding is that the decline of the knights was directly associated with the rise of gunpowder-based weaponry, since peasant faggots could kill devout knights who trained in melee combat since childhood, knighthood became less and less relevant, until it was reserved for pop stars
>>
Alice Gepperham - Mon, 24 Apr 2017 20:19:35 EST ID:7WnIrah9 No.57165 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57164

oh also i just remembered the Battle of Agincourt is considered by some to be the beginning of the end of medieval knight warfare, since some british archers who were losing the battle at first got lucky and a large number of french knights got caught up in some mud and got utterly rekt, ranged combat became the norm after that.

here is a nice video about the battle
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDnKciXrmnc
>>
Hannah Cucklelutch - Thu, 27 Apr 2017 11:03:07 EST ID:nLTvpZ14 No.57166 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57164
You are dumb.

>>57165
You are dumb.

Knights didn't fade because gunpowder-based weapons. Knights faded because power shifted from local nobles to kings and emperors.

Plate armour wasn't reliably penetrable until the 18th century. Before that, the only plate armour that show actual bullet holes are basically cannon holes from low-caliber cannons. Hell and even going from the 19th century up, plate armour was still occasionally used in specific scenarios like trench warfare in WW1 and in WW2 by special forces and engineers doing explosive removal.

And the Battle of Agincourt is a perfect example of what makes a medieval knight so terrifying. The French lost all their horses to English longbowmen, marched through the mud towards the English lines despite getting shot with arrows the entire time and TOOK NO LOSSES! The longbowmen did NOTHING to the French knights.

The French knights then reached the English lines and engaged in melee, but without the momentum of a cavalry charge they were outnumbered surrounded and were forced to surrender with minimal losses.

You can literally look up historical records of the battle of Agincourt and the whole idea of French knights getting wrecked by longbowmen is something the English made up to feel better about losing the 100 Year War horribly.
>>
Samuel Socklechadge - Sat, 29 Apr 2017 08:46:04 EST ID:0tPR540z No.57171 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57164

They could already kill the nobles before that with crossbows or like the Swiss by fielding peasant armies that just ripped them off their horses with hooks.
>>
Ebenezer Dishson - Wed, 03 May 2017 16:28:00 EST ID:8gNEOVqK No.57176 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57171
pike armies weren't truly effective until the PIKE AND SHOT era, before that the only other instance of successful pike armies were thousands of years prior during the hellenistic period (300-100BC or so) in the eastern Mediterranean, but these were combined arms forces using javelinmen, archers, cavalry and more flexible infantry formations in concert with blocks of pikemen, not just big groups of dudes with spears and no backup. The reason the swiss could use pikemen earlier than the rest was because they fought in mountain passes where the enemy cavalry couldn't just circle around and assfuck them from all different directions like a normal battlefield of the era. Once gunpowder showed up, however, the only threat to the slow-loading gunners were cavalry, and enough pikemen arrayed throughout the formation to ward off a cavalry charge became the best strategy. The spanish perfected the idea with the tercio. Maurice of Orange came in the 17th century with some new ideas, mostly in the organization and logistics of how to run the army, but also some tactics lifted from old roman sources, and Mauritian tactics dominated for the most part until the Swedes started assblasting the baltic region and everyone started doing things the Swedish way for a while. knights didn't go away just because of gunpowder, but it was a huge reason for why they disappeared so fast. Crossbows didn't revolutionize tactics on the battlefield the same way, you mostly used them like regular skirmishers except they load really slow and they have to be basically stationary, unlike archers who can move about the field a bit easier and can load their bows much quicker (but require more training and don't usually have as much power behind their shots as a crossbowman would, depending on the draw weight of the bow). Knights disappeared because of gunpowder, the growing obsolescence of the economic & political system they used to prop themselves up, and the end of the crusades + reconquista as well as the opening of the new world, which left less need for knights and more need for sailors, explorers, merchants and bureaucrats to open up, preside over and regulate new trade routes with exotic goods. Being a knight wasn't even the best game in town anymore, when you can get way richer as a good explorer or conquistador, instead of fighting petty wars over this lord or that's watering hole or stone quarry back in europe.
>>
Hugh Fuckingson - Mon, 08 May 2017 21:56:45 EST ID:PV4WwnlL No.57183 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57166 you are an asshole for calling people dumb, not knowing something does not make you dumb, does it? anyway, weren´t english longbows known for their ability to pierce armor effectively?
>>
Lydia Dartbanks - Tue, 04 Jul 2017 11:32:22 EST ID:YYFtDXxk No.57210 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Surely the rise of castles contributes somewhat to the decline in battlefield effectiveness, since the use of a horseback knight is only practical in a pitched battle.
>>
Phoebe Wavingnine - Mon, 10 Jul 2017 07:31:35 EST ID:n86/MK/a No.57214 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57183
Longbows didn't do shit against armour. Retarded English propaganda. Mail was great against arrows, so people invented crossbows. And then people invented plate armour to stop crossbow bolts.

And then guns came on the field. Guess what happened? Plate armour stayed functional up until WW2 (among elite troops) and up until the end of the Korean war, people used brigandine armour (small steel plates sewn onto fabric) as bulletproof vests - mind you, the fabric was no longer regular fabric like in medieval days but a mesh of bulletproof plastics.

>>57210
Err, castles predate knights mate. And no, horseback soldiers remained in use up until WW1 although they didn't act as cavalry anymore, but more like mechanized infantry of today (get out of vehicle/get off horse, go do infantry things, get back in vehicle/get back on horse).
>>
Charlemagne - Sat, 12 Aug 2017 11:16:18 EST ID:7moSACzs No.57251 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1502550978210.jpg -(93558B / 91.37KB, 1280x960) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>57214
>mail was great against arrows, so people invented crossbows
What? Crossbows have been in use since the 6th century BC in Asia and in some form or other since the 5th century BC in Europe.

The primary advantage over bows was that it required less training to use, so much like early guns, you could show a bunch of nobodies how to load it, stick them in a big formation and point at the enemy. You are correct that they could punch through plate armor, however.
>>
Charlemagne - Sat, 12 Aug 2017 15:06:21 EST ID:7moSACzs No.57252 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57165
>>57166
It's correct that arrows did little to the French army, besides perhaps drop a few horses. However, the English archers still had a part to play in this.
What rekt the French cavalry was the fact that the longbowmen had previously set up a series of spikes in the ground, and when they saw the French committed to their charge, ran behind them.

Later in the battle, when the larger French army was utterly locked in place by the narrow field and thick mud, groups of the archers began singling out men-of-arms on the outskirts/those stuck in the mud and gangshanking them with daggers. This was part of what made the propaganda value of the battle so great at the time: it was one thing to be captured or killed by a noble of equal rank to you, but it was dishonorabru as fuck to be stabbed in the mud by a bunch of filthy peasants.

Check out John Keegan's The Face of Battle for a good book on Agincourt specifically.
>>
Priscilla Handergold - Tue, 15 Aug 2017 17:32:29 EST ID:9CoQeyOj No.57253 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57210
The opposite actually, castles made taking and holding territory practically impossible so warfare evolved into almost ritualized pitched battles of armies meeting eachother face to face on the field. It wasn't until siege tactics and weapons advanced to the point medieval castles were obsolete that European warfare became about maneuver and siege, and you see cavalry getting lighter and more about control and disruption of communication and supply lines around this time.
Castles were also a symptom of the increasing feudalisation of society, and that brought along more and more of the professional warrior class of knights who could afford horses and armour with it. Eastern Europe never had this to the same degree the west did (especially France) and so they kept light cavalry raiding tactics, which were eventually reintroduced to the West as Hussars.

Funny enough a similar thing happened again hundreds of years later when advanced star forts loaded to the gills with cannons started controlling the countryside and you started to see pitched battles with thousands of musketeers unloading into eachothers lines from near point blank range.
>>
Ebenezer Tillingham - Tue, 15 Aug 2017 19:19:47 EST ID:bayldp7v No.57254 Ignore Report Quick Reply
You got to read up on the plague as an important factor for the decline of feudalism.
>>
Albert Chanderwater - Sat, 19 Aug 2017 03:02:54 EST ID:rbK+gS1r No.57257 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57251
I should have said I talked about European war crossbows specifically. As you said, the chinese had crossbows in antiquity, and the Picts had hunting crossbows in the early medieval period.
>>
Charlemagne - Mon, 21 Aug 2017 13:58:25 EST ID:6zd51tsO No.57258 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57254
The impact the plague had on medieval society is pretty crazy when you start looking into it. Entire noble estates are abandoned/wiped out and then claimed by whoever happens across it, art becomes morbid and twisted, population scarcity causes peasant strikes and revolts because labor is suddenly in major demand, and you get crazy stories like how a pope at the time spent years wrapped in layers of blankets between two fires because they thought heat dissuaded disease.

>>57257
>The crossbow is portrayed as a hunting weapon on fourPictish stonesfromearly medieval Scotland(6th to 9th centuries):St. Vigeans no. 1,Glenferness,Shandwick, andMeigle.[49]The use of crossbows in European warfare is again evident from theBattle of Hastingsuntil about the year 1500. They almost completely superseded hand bows in many European armies in the 12th century for a number of reasons.

From Hastings to the 12th century we're predominantly seeing chain and padding for armor. It was in regular use before the rise of plate armor in the late Middle Ages.
>>
Charlemagne - Mon, 21 Aug 2017 14:22:12 EST ID:6zd51tsO No.57259 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57258
Disregard the crossbow bit, I'm an idiot and forgot what your original point was.
>>
Nigel Fanham - Mon, 18 Sep 2017 19:51:06 EST ID:bo3asBrW No.57265 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57258

It showed me the one positive example about humanity. Towns became more independent and dirty farmers proved to be able to understand and create great works of culture, philosophy and politics within a few generations and without church support. Literally people who spend most of their time knee deep in mud evolved into great painters, architects and writers. We think humanity is constantly devolving but there are regrowing ressources that clearly don't rely on a genetic advance.


Report Post
Reason
Note
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.