Since my search has turned up a variety of different things regarding the Medieval Knight, here's hoping someone here has studied them and actually knows a few things that pages on the internet don't really explain well or just have nothing at all.
Q 1. Did the Knights learn any specific H2H fighting? I'd wager so, but I can't really find much on it. They do wrestling? Boxing? What?
Q 2: How important was the horse to a Knight? I know that they rode them into battle and all that, but I mean like...relationship wise between the Knight and horse? Was like the horse sacred? If someone messed with a Knight's horse, were they beaten black and blue or worse?
Q 3: Did they use bows/crossbows for hunting or sport? I've read around that they didn't use them for combat, because they were deemed as cowardly weapons. But would they use them for hunting or for sport?
1. Honestly don't know. I never saw much talk of h2h but I wouldn't be surprised. Have to be able to defend yourself if you get disarmed. Every military force has some form of h2h.
2. Probably depended on the knight.
3. Pretty sure knights used bows/crossbows for long distance and when sitting up top barricades. Archery was definitely a thing.
Q 1. Did the Knights learn any specific H2H fighting? I'd wager so, but I can't really find much on it. They do wrestling? Boxing? What?
Yes, knights were taught basic 'h2h' techniques, but it was mostly focussed on grappling and bringing down an opponent. It was not like MMA or karate or anything.
These images from the Late Middle Ages give you an idea of the type of combat I am talking about.
Q 2: How important was the horse to a Knight?
Very
I know that they rode them into battle and all that, but I mean like...relationship wise between the Knight and horse?
Hmm, not sure. I guess it depended on the knight in question. I am sure some of them would form a relationship with their horse, especially the poor knights who could only afford one horse. Others though, probably not.
Was like the horse sacred?
No, animals in the middle ages were mostly seen as dumb and humans as vastly superior, even in the case of horses. They were still a commodity, albeit less so than livestock.
If someone messed with a Knight's horse, were they beaten black and blue or worse?
I am sure the knight in question would not be amused. Horses were expensive, and trained coursers (light and slender horses used for combat) and destriers (heavier ones used for jousting) were worth more than a farmer could hope to earn in years. Torture and mutilation was not uncommon, so if you laid your hands on a knight's property (especially as a commoner), you could expect severe reprimanding.
Q 3: Did they use bows/crossbows for hunting or sport? I've read around that they didn't use them for combat, because they were deemed as cowardly weapons. But would they use them for hunting or for sport?
Yes, most knights stayed far away from bows in combat, as they liked to get their hands dirty. They were used during hunting, although the spear was also popular but more dangerous.
Also Cpt, if you know about the Templar Knights I was wondering, were they allowed to talk to females? Or were they just not suppose to have anything to do with them period? I could never find a real solid answer, other than they weren't suppose to accept assistance or kisses/hugs.
More or less. When push came to shove I am sure some punches were traded, especially since a mailed gaunlet could easily kill someone who lost their helmet. But it was not ideal as it was seen as shameful to resort to fist fighting and knights would prefer to capture other knights.
I have never read an account of them not being allowed to talk to women. They were only required to take vows of chasity (and poverty, piety and obedience to the order), which included not getting married, screwing and kissing. Some of them kept their vows, others didn't.
To be fair though, a lot of Templar knights would not see women on a regular basis.
@wolfrazer: Knights only, they usually did not give a shit what common foot soldiers did. They were mostly out for personal glory (especially the French) and they would often totally disregard the chain of command and charge into battle, even if that meant running down their own foot soldiers.
One of my favorite generals of all time, Bertrand Du Guesclin, was a low born knight who was despised by his fellow French knights for partaking in guerilla tactics against the English, even though he was actually very successful in doing so. He once fought an English knight named Thomas of Cantebury and during the duel he got rid of some of his protective clothing to regain some of his mobility. He threw himself on top of the guy and nearly beat him to death with the pommel of his dagger. Needless to say that gained him a reputation as an uneducated brute.
Oh actually I do have one more Q(well actually 2).
Were the Knights experts in just swords/lances? Or did they also master daggers, axes, spears, etc whatever other weapon was common for the time? I've read that they have, but again just wanting confirmation.
Was there a great disparity between a regular Knight and Templar Knight? I know the latter had better equipment? Or the best equipment they could have for the time.
I mean I've read around that the latter were some of the most BA warriors in history, but I just wanna know further if there's any truth.
Or did they also master daggers, axes, spears, etc whatever other weapon was common for the time?
Yes they did. A knight was supposed to be able to use every common two-handed weapon.
Was there a great disparity between a regular Knight and Templar Knight? I know the latter had better equipment? Or the best equipment they could have for the time.
I guess because the Templars specifically devoted their life to the church, they were seen as more honorable. But every knight was supposed to follow the 'code of chivalry', which included:
Fear God and His Church
Serve the liege Lord in valour and faith
Protect the weak and defenceless
Live by honour and for glory
Respect the honour of women
In practice though, not every knight took this very seriously. Templar Knights were also more likely to come from nobility than regular knights as far as I can tell.
But I mean as far as combat goes, were they better? Or would it just be the gear?
I have read one account of them being somewhat of an 'elite' force, so marginally better than regular knights. I am also confident they would not shame their order by having subpar gear.
But I heard that the Templar Knights had enough strength with their sword, to cleave a man in half with one blow. Any truth there?
It is not very likely, but not impossible, given one had a good sword, an opponent who wasn't too well armored and one got a good strike in and didn't get his sword stuck in the rib cage.
Loading Video...
This guy cuts through two pigs in one stroke with a zweihander and the sword even goes inches deep into a skull. Pretty cool stuff.
@cpt_nice: Interesting, alright just curious. I also saw in Ironclad, Thomas(Templar Knight) cleave a man in half with one swing and then heard about how a RL Templar could do the same. So was wanting to see if there was any truth.
Yeah I figured, they've also been referred to as the Special Forces of their day so alright, just wanting to be sure.
At any rate, think that's all my questions answered, so thanks again!
@cpt_nice: Oh one more question, lol I know I keep saying this is my last Q, but they keep popping up.
Regarding spears and bows, how good was a Knight's accuracy with them? Or did they not throw spears? I'd imagine they weren't as expertly with the bow, given they used them for hunting purpose or sport...but just curious.
Q 1. Did the Knights learn any specific H2H fighting? I'd wager so, but I can't really find much on it. They do wrestling? Boxing? What?
The short answer is yes, they were taught limited hand-to-hand martial arts. There're fragmented records of wrestling and boxing being practiced all over Medieval Europe. German knights were taught Kampfringen, or unarmed grappling. In the early 15th century, Fiore dei Liberi, an Italian knight, documented in the Flos Duellatorum comprehensive fighting techniques that included grappling. That being said, most martial arts that knights were trained in revolved around melee weapons. The environment in which knights fought didn't really lend itself to unarmed combat.
Q 2: How important was the horse to a Knight? I know that they rode them into battle and all that, but I mean like...relationship wise between the Knight and horse? Was like the horse sacred? If someone messed with a Knight's horse, were they beaten black and blue or worse?
Unless they were cavalry, a horse was simply a mode of transportation. Knights, contrary to popular belief, weren't all horsemen, although nearly all of them were adept at horseback riding. Also, I highly doubt it was customary to form such a bond with your horse. I'm sure some knights did, but it was probably not very common. However, I think if you messed with a knight's horse, you'd be in trouble regardless. I mean, if you messed with a Medieval person's anything, they'd probably be pissed. Stuff was hard to come by back then.
Q 3: Did they use bows/crossbows for hunting or sport? I've read around that they didn't use them for combat, because they were deemed as cowardly weapons. But would they use them for hunting or for sport?
First off, knights didn't use crossbows and such in combat because there were designated archers for that. Knights were trained, educated soldiers that understood the tactical importance of ranged weaponry in battle and were more than likely trained in their use as well so they definitely didn't deem them cowardly. Due to chivalric code, though, knights obviously wouldn't pull out a hand crossbow during a duel or something. Second off, knighthood didn't necessarily mean you were part of the military. "Knight" was an honorific title as well as a military rank, so many noble land owners were called knights. Regardless, knights weren't always in combat, and I'm sure that being the noble men they were they'd enjoy a good hunt occasionally.
@wolfrazer: As far as horses are concerned, they were most certainly central to society back then, much like how cars are today. It's just fantasy nowadays paints this picture that knights and horses had some sort of sacred bond when to some, a typical horse was like a Honda in today's world. Basically, Arthas' relationship to Invincible wasn't as common as you'd think. They were expensive, though, and sort of necessary as a status symbol and a simple means of transportation so I suppose in some sense, they were very important.
@echostarlord117: Hm noted, any thoughts though about the Templar Knights towards women? Like were they allowed to talk with them at all? Or were they just to steer clear of them completely?
@wolfrazer: I'm not entirely sure on their relationship with women. I know Templars had to be entirely chaste to the point of not having any physical contact with women, even their own family, but I doubt they were banned from speaking with women. There were probably situations in which they had to speak with women. In any case, Templars were weird. They could rarely eat meat and had heavy restrictions on what they could wear. If I lived back in those days, the last thing I'd want to be is a Templar, especially knowing what ended up happening to them.
By the way, Templars were considered heavy cavalry so they were typically equipped with horses and squires. If any knights had bonds with horses, it'd have been them.
@echostarlord117: I figured they'd at least have the ability to talk with them, given their protective role with pilgrimage and all that. Also yeah, i figured they'd be the ones more highly to have a relationship with their horse and follow the Code of Chilvery greater than a regular Knight.
Also yeah, royally sucked what happened to them. Wasn't it just because the King of France(?) was jealous of them or something? Something about the Pope I think too, I just recall there was some absurd reasoning.
Log in to comment