Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Snoo-81723 t1_izwp2zj wrote

Reply to comment by thegagis in How many knights in Armor would be on a battle field? by autism_guy_69

battle of Grunwald there was circa 50 000 knights together on both sides . On battlefield knight in full armour was like tank - unstopabble .

6

Hyphenated_Gorilla t1_izx3dus wrote

Estimates are incredibly high even at 40k, no where near that would have been fully armored, mass production simply did not exist.
The Teutonic were the better armored and probably about 10-15k .

People forget that life was generally meaningless to the common man and cannon fodder was common.

6

Snoo-81723 t1_izxddi5 wrote

both sides uses probably same weapons and aromours . Teutonics must adapt to fight in Samogitia forests and using lightly armors and shorter pikes . Lithuanian and russian forces were using that same. Polish knights were armed in western way. As for mass production Teutonic have big manufacture were produce weapons on big scale - in Malborg castle were over 100000 crossbow tip in stock.

2

TheLateHenry t1_izzg7lx wrote

There were about 66,000 combatants total in that battle. There is NO WAY that nearly all of them wore full plate armour. I agree with the previous poster - 10-15k is more likely.

5

Imtiredcanistop t1_izy4tpp wrote

Say that to the English long bowman! They would beg to differ

−4

IBAZERKERI t1_izyzion wrote

the Battle of Agincourt, where the fable of longbowmen crushing armored french knights is massively overblown. in truth it was mud and a hill that won that battle. most of the knights killed were stabed to death with knives after having to slowly slog through mud and becoming exhausted.

theres plenty of youtube videos exposing this lie and showing that an arrow fired from a longbow would at the very very best, leave a small dent.

so sorry to have to tell you this. But you and your mythical english longbowmen are wrong.

11

Imtiredcanistop t1_izz6xww wrote

Didn’t the French use horses? and didn’t the English target horses because a thrown knight was usually a useless knight? Add that to the quagmire that was the battlefield and i would say that the archers decimated the French nobility.

1

IBAZERKERI t1_izz8oxo wrote

do some research dude. seriously theres a bunch of videos about this subject.

its a myth the english nobility used as propaganda.

much like carrots improving your eyesight.

3

Imtiredcanistop t1_izz92sj wrote

You don’t get it, I’m aware the longbow themselves didn’t kill armored knights, but you don’t have to blow up a tank to render it a battlefield casualty. You wound a knight, get em stuck in the mud, make them advance on foot vs horseback so they’re exhausted, it effectively defeats them.

2

IBAZERKERI t1_izza7qe wrote

yes. i do. you are the one thats displaying a complete lack of understanding here. not me

−1

Imtiredcanistop t1_izz9ada wrote

What you’re basically saying is the outnumbered English basically got lucky the inept French decided to fight up a hill in the mud and just kept marching like lemmings to their death. Arguably one of the supreme powers of the day was not that inept.

2

IBAZERKERI t1_izz9mu0 wrote

yes. this is what im saying and its the truth. they were that inept. atleast in this battle. the mud absolutely hampered there ability to both advance and retreat

3

Imtiredcanistop t1_izzb92u wrote

You realize you can go to the Wikipedia page and read the whole account of the battle right? Like…. It says that the English archer was very effective at wounding the unarmored horses and causing a rout of the Calvary which then tore threw their own infantry ranks, the armored foot soldiers had to keep their visors closed to protect from the lucky arrow finding the weakest part(eye and breathing holes) thus making it hard to see and breathe…by the time the French men-at-arms reached the archers they were mostly wounded or heavily fatigued, and the archers use knives, hatches, clubs, or short swords to decimate the French…. So….. my argument that the longbow would won that battle would hold water you pompous buffoon

5

Imtiredcanistop t1_izzbhae wrote

Never mind that that single battle resulted in either the death or capture of half the French nobility… you can argue semantics i suppose, and say that the longbow didn’t kill the knights, but the archers tired em out then poked em with knives instead, but that’s just foolish

3

IBAZERKERI t1_izzbo7s wrote

yes, ive read the wiki, ive also watched numerous other videos on youtube that go indepth into things such as weather, tactics, armorment, commanders and more.

your the one thats changing the goalposts after being called out for making fallacious claims and now resorting to name calling. i think you need a rag to whipe all that paint off your face you clown. grow up

−2

Imtiredcanistop t1_izzc82e wrote

I’ve changed no such argument, i stated the archers defeated the “tank-like” knights, and that is fact.

1

Superb_Tiger_8376 t1_j0658yr wrote

Choosing the right battlefield is not luck, though. They might have taken position their intentionally, knowing it would be hard for the knights.

1

funkmachine7 t1_j02zy91 wrote

The French got off an walked.
It was not the first time they had faced english archers.

1