10 Reasons Knights Were Horrible Warriors

[@Victimiser9000]

The knight didn't die if you didn't feed and water the horse, they reverted to Footmen. Then you had to go spend 80 wood and 100 stone at the Blacksmith to upgrade them to knights again. It was a logistical knightmare.

[@Rawkit_Surgeon]

They're vulnerable to wololo?

[@petestillplays9927]

Wait, we’re supposed to be watering our horses?

[@theuberhunter9698]

@@petestillplays9927 three times a week, in fact. They also need an area to play in with plenty of sunlight. If your horse starts to wilt, try adding nutrients to the soil.

[@BuggyDClown-pc7sc]

Gold, not stone ASTERIENDE

[@peteriwasiutyn2574]

@@theuberhunter9698 Duly noted.

[@Soapy-chan_old]

Imagine saying Tanks weren't effective in wars. the amount of people not seeing the WEREN'T part is so sad.

[@PewPewPlasmagun]

Would depend upon the circumstances... sometimes tanks were not used very effectively despite the cost.

[@Soapy-chan_old]

@@PewPewPlasmagun Obviously when I misapply military equipment, it won't be effective. But no one can tell me when I send a few tanks on an open battlefield or to bombard a city, that tanks would be terrible.

[@mcsmash4905]

@@PewPewPlasmagun but then again anything can happen in warfare , the stupid amount of circumstances is mind boggling at times

[@akba666]

One reason tanks were terrible is because they require gas. 🤣

[@PewPewPlasmagun]

@@Soapy-chan_old If your adversary has effective antitank weapons (ATGMs, guided artillery shells, mines along the way, etc.), these tanks could easily turn into armoured graves on tracks.

[@peaceandloveusa6656]

I like that you mentioned tanks when they said knights were terrible because they were expensive, because that is exactly where my mind went. Knights weren't invulnerable, but they trained constantly and had the best armor money could buy. They were well worth the investment and any difficulties that came with them. Unsurprisingly, tanks had many of the same logistical problems knights did, so they were an almost 1 to 1 comparison for their respective times.

[@ScootrMan]

God damn imagine being such a good warrior that you can compare to a tank

[@justclayhead]

They are also both referred to as cavalry.

[@j.r.mocksly5996]

@@ScootrMan Imagine being such a good brew they refer to you as a potion

[@IngiannOceanstryder11]

They were also a good deterrent against other armies especially if they had no knights in their army

[@icutthings649]

@@justclayhead even in the USA?

[@mouse5637]

8:40 The blind bohemian king went into battle fully knowing he would die. Its actually said that his last words "Toho bohdá nebude aby král český z boje utíkal" which roughly translates to "never shall a czech king run from battle". He basically lead a suicide charge to inspire his knights and soldiers and wasnt just a bumbling fool like the article suggests

[@thhseeking]

Yes, I thought that was very disrespectful.

[@kurtnulf3362]

That guy was a warrior and he went out as one

[@benedictjajo]

Well what do you expect? 21st century soys will never comprehend mediaeval Chad moves.

[@unpointsword]

It's being analyzed by a forever alone in his bedroom. What do you expect ?

[@petrmaly9087]

The charge was most likely to protect the retreating french forces and his own son who was wounded. He and his knights chained their horses together and charged directly into the advancing enemy lines. That much we know from history. To me this sounds like a textbook example of a blocking the enemy from advancing and buying times for your troops to withdraw in order. Not just incredibly honorable and brave, but tactically one of the smartest decisions in the battle.

[@liamdoherty1208]

I think the biggest misunderstanding here by the author is that they think that medieval armies were similar to modern ones. They assume that knights were issued equipment rather than buying it themselves, they assume that knights taxed the logistical system rather than bringing their own support, and they assume that there could have been some kind of standardized training along the lines of basic training and AIT.

[@iivin4233]

There probably was a kind of basic training. But knights would go on to learn advanced skills like modern officers.

[@nikoszaxarias5200]

Exactly this I believe is the reason why the author of the article seems to have done a superficialresearch. He hasn't, however he falls to the trap that many historians fall: judging the events by modern standards and not by the standards of the era they are talking about.

[@GodwynDi]

@@nikoszaxarias5200 Seems more like complete 8gnorance and lack of any awareness of the world. War is always a logistical nightmare. Logistics wins wars. That something takes supply and planning is part of its calculated cost. Sometimes it is worthwhile, sometimes it is now.

[@ShiningDarknes]

Yes exactly. A knight was expected to have an entire retinue on his payroll to support him, hence why they were paid if they had to serve outside their mandatory service. They would only really expect food, water, and feed to be provided to them by the quartermaster. Their equipment and animals are something they have and own already (or in the case of poorer knights the animals would be something they rent since a horse costs a lot to maintain even if you are not using it lol) so the army doesn't pay for that at all. Knights are logistically preferable for this reason since it removes some of the strain for logistics. Logistics has to arm and armor any men-at-arms that do not own their own kit or who's kit is insufficient, they are also responsible for the sheer volume of arrows required for an archer force since archers are not expected to provide their own arrows for the entire campaign.

[@SergioLeonardoCornejo]

Because there are people with what I call Hollywood brain. They watched too much American media and understand the world in terms of what Hollywood taught them. In terms of military, they understand only a fictionalized version of the US military.

[@Nala15-Artist]

7:20 Also, the knowledge that you might possibly be ransomed instead of being killed makes you more likely to surrender. If your enemy surrenders, you won, without having to costly and riskily fight him. Surrender should always be incentivised.

[@billmiller4972]

A video about Roman Legions' logistics would be highly appreciated.

[@tylorfox783]

And the different camp styles

[@thejamaicanpolak3988]

True statement

[@bradleycalkins394]

I'd also like to here about the feudal system itself, specifically how the feudal economy worked. I'm not interested in King Arthur's quest for the Holy Grail, I want to here about how he financed that venture.

[@tyrannicfool2503]

Invicta did one or two videos about that if it interests you

[@neoaliphant]

Especially the marius mule loadout....

[@filmandfirearms]

Another note about ransoming knights, common soldiers were also ransomed, just usually in batches rather than as individuals like knights. War is expensive and armies were always looking for ways to save money or make more of it. It would often be cheaper to ransom back some of your captured men than to equip and train completely new ones. It might not even be possible to rebuild your forces to full strength, depending on how bad your casualties were in a battle and how many people you had available to conscript. Therefore, it was beneficial to both sides to sell back prisoners of all ranks

[@xdragon2k]

It's kinda silly selling back the people that will soon attack back at them. Maybe they need some kind of peace agreement or some sort for it to make sense for both party. Or maybe they were confident that they will NOT try to attack them back because they have tried that before and lost (and captured).

[@filmandfirearms]

@@xdragon2k Given that most wars back then were very short, the odds were that the war would be over before those men managed to reach the front lines again

[@alecseusalec3418]

@@xdragon2k The system "we will return their prisoners to them and they will return ours to us" works here. Everyone understood that it was very easy to lose a battle and sooner or later your people would be captured. And those who returned from captivity were usually unable to fight for a long time, if not forever.

[@xdragon2k]

@@alecseusalec3418 So, it's not "I will pay the ransom so I can put them back in battle" more so that you need to do that so the remaining soldiers will be willing to go to battle for you.

[@luansagara]

@@xdragon2k you are not taking into account the cost of keeping prisoners. you need to give them food and water, which you would rather have your army use, and you have to leave people watching the prisoners instead of doing something more useful. depending on how many men and prisoners you have, you are better off ransoming them back

[@dadab22]

Imagine saying "rules of engagement" and ideas of "sparing and taking prisoners" are horrible things.

[@TaoScribble]

Right? Sounds like they're in favor of committing war crimes, then!

[@gruenerkoala]

@@TaoScribble he just played to much total war

[@julietfischer5056]

You can ransom nobles and use the commoners for grunt work.

[@ThatGuyUpThere]

Geneva convention? That has to be a silly medieval kingth thing.

[@socialjihad5724]

Yes, need video on scutage... honestly, a whole video on feudal military service would be pretty sweet

[@Roma_eterna]

Hell yeah!!! I second that!

[@Daves_Not_Here_Man_76]

Yes! I'd adapt that information into my D&D campaigns

[@julesricard5933]

There is a channel called Invictus who make cool videos about rhe subject you should watch the video about the call at arms of a medieval army

[@nicolasmarazuela1010]

As someone who lives in the mountains north of Frankfurt (Germany) laughed at "knights have ideals". The knights in this mountains lived from robbing merchants, raiding the villages in the valleys. When the cities (mainly Frankfurt) tried to get rid of them, the knights humiliated the city milicia in battle (formed by pikemen and infantry with crosbows). Only in the 16th century the knights were crushed, after Frankfurt formed an alliance with other states and used canons.

[@SephiMasamune]

I like the comparison of a heavy knight to a modern battletank, both have a great value as a shock force but neither are invulnerable to countermeasures. Knights could still be shot by a lucky arrow strike or dismounted with polearms, tanks can be shot by armor piercing rounds, rockets or hit a mine. Both work a lot better in a formation and by striking at the best possible moment.

[@yannickbesson1448]

And also combined with infantry

[@funnyjupiter4499]

they work the best with combined arms warfare well almost everything works the best with that doctrine but combined arms is perhaps the most difficult or at least on of the most difficult doctrint to pull of and use constantly in every battle, this is for multiple reasons, if you artillery is low on ammo or you tanks being out of gas but done right in the ideal circumstances it extremely difficult to counter because your enemy have do deal with everything at the same time, if your enemy make the slightest mistake it can be game over for him in that battle.

[@andreoka]

God, metatron, when i find myself actually clicking on your videos im always astonished at how well you articulate and digest the content for us, great communicator and great video, i ABSOLUTELY dreaded history and geography in school, it felt so bland but youtube really highlights the power of a good speaker

[@metatronyt]

My very pleasure friend.

[@TheStraightestWhitest]

If Metatron taught at schools, that entire generation of students would become Grade A historians. Sadly it probably wouldn't be permitted since public schools are about indoctrination, not information.

[@wabakoen5548]

I was shocked when I read this title. For a moment I thought The Metatron had fallen.

[@Lightning_Lance]

The thing to understand about these "ridiculous" medieval laws and customs and codes of honor that people tend to scoff at is that they were made in a time when the lord/king still had final say on how that law was actually executed. In a lot of cases, I suspect that they would purposely make the supposed punishment worse just to scare people into following the law, even when they didn't intend to always punish that severely (although they definitely did, at times, as well).

[@akniusselkin7722]

The lack of standardized training got me because who do they expect the knights to be fighting? A lot of the normal soldiers were conscripted from the peasantry from what I remember and they didn’t get near the training that a knight would receive. I would think that even a poorly trained knight would fair decently against a bunch of farmers with nonstandard weapons.

[@marcchoronzey3923]

The author seems to be under the impression that knights were "kitted" by their lords, when, in fact, knights, much like mercenaries, outfitted their men and themselves and, until they were on the field of battle, usually managed their own logistics. But there are issues with every single one of the author's "points".

[@seanhines8369]

I find it funny how he mentions how in the late Middle Ages armies were composed entirely of mercenaries. Most knights were essentially mercenaries lol

[@flyingpumpkin6124]

Yeah true but ITS also true that multiple wars showed that two idiots with a spear Work better than 1 knight in many cases. Theres a reason why in later stages Knights came Out of Fashion and they Just used pointy sticks

[@yaboy821]

@@flyingpumpkin6124 knights became obsolete because of guns being able to easily pierce armour not because of pointy sticks. If they became obsolete because of pointy sticks they would have been obsolete since the stone age

[@flyingpumpkin6124]

@@yaboy821 ever Heard about the "Bauern kriege" thats what we call IT in Germany. And there we're nö firearms and Knights still sucked balls

[@yaboy821]

@@flyingpumpkin6124 from what i can find (wikipedia) cannons and guns where used in the conflict and in most of the battles the peasants who had no cavalry and were poorly armed where slaughtered with minimal casualties on the other side

[@_pp7473]

@@yaboy821 Knights of the 15th and 16th century were well trained in handling firearms. It wasn't the weapons that made them obsolete but the style of warfare changing that did, as pikemen and pike formations became more and more common and the popular form of warfare in Western Europe. So while the pointed stick didn't make the knight fall out of favor, lots of men with lots of long pointy sticks did.

[@zacheriahaker2284]

I've always loved how you can tell a story through history

[@deadfishy666]

How can someone who trained his entire life from childhood be a terrible warrior?

[@mcsmash4905]

dont underestimate human incompetence , but then again most of them were competent to say the least

[@Nickname-hier-einfuegen]

If someone with the title "knight" trained or not was his individual decision, so that's hardly an argument either.

[@Zack_P_Panos]

@@mcsmash4905 the Author of this clearly has not studied Medieval history at all.

[@intelektual7678]

Because the author of the article is a keyboard warrior, their knowledge about war has no counter arguments

[@deadfishy666]

@@Zack_P_Panos I didn't either.

[@roguewasbanned4746]

This is how I feel when someone who has the basic snopes summary on a subject wants to act like they actually know more than someone like us who is dedicated to the subject

[@lekharn7950]

Not going to lie... I saw the video title and for a split second I was like "what betrayal has set up us!?! What heresy is this!?" But then I remember who's channel it is, great video!! Also this guy is pointing out a lot of broad strokes and sweeping issues that will effect ANY army in history. Like fighting in winter, even to this day. The Russians and Ukrainians are currently digging in for the winter because who the fuck wants to try and mount a winter campaign. Even for the greatest commanders in history operations in the winter are extremely risky and hard.

[@lionljb]

8:42 a modern aquivalent would probably be the "black hawk down" incident. There were many successful missions in Somalia, the battle of Mogadishu is the only thing talked about, exactly bc smth went so wrong that shouldn't have

[@Svartalf14]

I love how the guy rests an argument on the crusades, which were rather exceptional, rather than on the fact the medieval warfare was most commonly short range (of course, that's defined by domain, size, it's not computed the same if it's the lord of chinon vs the lord of brouilly than if it's the King of France vs such neighbours as the King of England or the Flemish cities or the duchies of Northern Italy)

[@spencervandyke1552]

I think the battle in The King (Netflix) seems like a pretty accurate Medievel battle, a few hundred men who fight incredibly brutally in the mud.

[@sryan9547]

noooooo, that movie was awful

[@metoo7557]

Is that why Knights many times in history fought against superior odds and still won?

[@alexandrugheorghe7974]

You almost had me there for a second. Looking forward to the video.

[@carlchapman4053]

I am English and I hope this helps - 1 - Squires were Knights in training... as in an Apprentice. So he was expected to preform service in exchange for training and this would include cleaning armour, sharpening weapons and caring for the animals, and a squire was expected to fight whenever necessary. Imagine an apprentice blacksmith, in exchange for being trained he would be expected to light the forge, carry the iron and coal, pump the bellows and also make nails, horse shoes and other items which the blacksmith would sell. THIS IS NOT A BURDEN IT IS AN EXCHANGE - SERVICE FOR TRAINING. 2- Scutage was first allowed for a when a nobleman was old and unable to fight but then later used by nobles unwilling to fight but think of the word and what it means now! A scutter is the lowest of the low and that comes from this time period, a noble who pays to avoid combat is a scutter, a coward, someone unworthy of the title he holds. yes he will live but he will never be accepted ever again by any other noble. He is an outcast and it is unlikely that the King would allow his children to inherit his lands and title after his death. 3 - Ransom. You gave a good explanation of the ransom rules but it went both ways, if I am noble and go into combat I want to live through the battle even if things go wrong so I tell my soldiers to take nobles hostage knowing that my enemy will do the same. If I ever have enemy nobles killed without reason then I cannot expect my enemies to allow me to live. Ransom is survival of the richest.

[@cmarkn]

When you were talking about the support needed, I was thinking of aircraft carriers. The largest carrier now carries 75 planes, not all of which are fighter/bombers. Those are the modern equivalent of the knights. That carrier has a crew of 4500 to support those 75 warriors. As for the expense, the carrier cost $13.3 billion to build, just for the ship, plus $50 million apiece for the planes (75 x 50 = $3.75 billion total for the planes).

[@Echo_419]

To add to it, there's also an entire support group JUST for the carrier. I won't go into the specifics, but we all get my point.

[@blackhammer5035]

Knights were, however, extremely poor establishing air superiority, being limited to pointing and throwing things.

[@ShiningDarknes]

You see, when you buy a knight yo actually buy a warrior that comes with his own arms, armor, horses, and servants. You don't have to provide any of that to him so the only logistics strain is providing the food, water, and feed for the knight and his retinue. it is actually logistically preferable to have knights than the 5-10 men at arms he is fiscally worth. Let's face it, the 5-10 men-at-arms are dying in the first battle anyway since they have a much lower life-expectancy.

[@catriona_drummond]

The aircraft carrier comparison is actually pretty clever. Carriers as well as knights are a projection of power. They were there to be menacing and dangerous as much as to actually fight. A King who could muster a large amount of knights was definitely not one to mess around with.

[@cmarkn]

@@blackhammer5035 Not really. Being mounted on a horse was enough to establish air superiority until 1903.

[@CaptainPrincess]

I was hoping theyd talk about knights maybe being arrogant or their combat effectiveness suffering over time because of the ptsd and stuff like that

[@anna_in_aotearoa3166]

Agreed! I don't think I've ever seen a video talking about the potential for PTSD in medieval knights, particularly if they'd undergone something like an extended siege...? (I imagine the literature of the time may reference behavioral changes that could align with our modern understanding of the condition, but I haven't read any of the originals yet...?)

[@CaptainPrincess]

@@anna_in_aotearoa3166 what if those very behaviour changes might be part of the reason for such strict and extensive rules of conduct like without a proper understanding of mental illnesses theyd probably consider it a disciplinary matter right and more rules = more discipline plus probably easier for someone suffering to contorl their behaviour if they have an extensive list of ways to behave and are used to following said rules

[@anna_in_aotearoa3166]

@@CaptainPrincess That's a very interesting suggestion! Perhaps particularly in the civilian context, developing stricter notions of chivalric behaviour not just to help manage the hair-trigger tempers and reactions of battle-traumatised combatants, but also to try and curb the age-old problem of "power corrupts", given the already very steep differential of power and weaponry between the nobles and everyone else...? I'm familiar with the origins of the "courtly love" craze, but not so up on details of why specific rules of chivalry became a thing, so looks like I need to do some extra reading! 😏

[@joeabbott5277]

As a veteran myself I would say that people take some things out of context, at least in my understanding, for example the whole ‘fight fair’ in chivalry seems more to do with not doing to the enemy which you would not like done to you, for example, in modern times if one army used chemical weapons on another, they would then be expected to be chemically attacked back, which is one of those areas people frown upon, and thus both sides avoid using these weapons so the other side doesn’t use them too. At least that’s how I interpret it as a soldier several hundred years in the future, unfortunately people look at war and battles with rose tinted glasses and think it’s all very heroic and glorious. Until you see friends and colleagues in several different pieces while screaming for everyone they ever loved. The people who’ve never experienced that will never understand these kind of warrior codes because they are always misinterpreting them out of context. At least in my opinion.

[@mattjack3983]

That brigandine armour you are wearing in this video looks pretty awesome. It looks alot the brigandine that Shad wears from SteelMastery.

[@That_Freedom_Guy]

Beautiful art deco electric kettle in the background!

[@auger0073]

This article sounds like something I would write 10 minutes before the due date.

[@daag1851]

5:57 unfortunatelly yes I heard people saying this about modern armor, (as part of argument, that wheeled SUVs are better then Armored Personel Cariers) 8:10 I wonder what the autor things about modern Geneva Convention (and the others)

[@crwydryny]

The long bow used by the English was first developed in Wales this is often referred to as the "Welsh longbow" here in the UK. Then again as a Welshman and archer I may be biased lol

[@visbaluz]

Just got here from todds last video.. Even cheap , not top of the notch plate armor like the used for their tests , proved highly effective vs longbow arrows. The killing blows came from joint hits , NOT by piercing the plate armor (again the cheap /mediocre versions of said armor) .

[@tricksterjoy9740]

From experience: having things hit you while in a “tin can” such as full plate, is not pleasant. Even if the arrow doesn’t find a gap, if they are trying to maintain a formation, or momentum, it will be hindered by a bunch of sharp flying sticks pestering you.

[@tricksterjoy9740]

Arrows are incredibly distracting. Even if they don’t “hurt” you

[@davidhoffman6980]

One of the biggest misconceptions that plague amateur analysis, is the idea that the maximum distance an arrow can fly, is it's maximum effective range: "this bow could shoot an arrow 800 feet; therefore, the archer could kill a man at 800 feet." Arrows loose energy due to drag as they fly, and they slow down. The slower the arrow flies, the less likelihood of penitrating armor, and the less deeply it will penitrate flesh and organs. Additionally, the further the arrow flies, the more it is deflected by wind and other elements, so accuracy declines non linearly as the distance increases. According to Tod of Tod's workshop and professional longbowman Joe Gibs, the maximum effective range where a longbow with a 160lb draw weight can reliably operate is about 50 yards. Beyond that, it's not very effective or consistent.

[@John_on_the_mountain]

Not only did majority of nobility get military training, they also had military experience. This was the time of Kings donning their armor and riding into battle with their troops

[@RagingGoblin]

As someone coming from the literary view of things, I'd greatly enjoy a video about the tension between how knights were viewed in everyday life back in the day, by commoners and noblemen, in contrast to our modern view of knights, which is heavily influenced by the literature of the medieval period -- even though said literature itself held highly idealised views about itself and its own subject matter.

[@nicolaiveliki1409]

logistics did become the reason why knights became obsolete with the improvement of firearms, because even though it was possible to bullet proof armor in knightly fashion against pretty much every firearm produced until the early 19th century, production, distribution of and training with firearms just scale a lot better

[@lodewykduminy9511]

"Tell me you don't know how to verify a source properly without telling me you don't know how to verify a source properly"

[@philsmith2444]

Just like a modern military, medieval armies had a logistics train many times the size of the fighting force trailing behind. Thousands and thousands of wagons carrying foodstuffs, water, wine, ale, tentage, blacksmiths, farriers, fletchers, and wheelwrights and their equipment, the surgeons, clergy, engineers and carpenters for building siege engines, weavers, shipwrights, drovers and their enormous herds, and camp followers of all types, as well as flankers, a rear guard, and light cavalry to protect from raiders. Soldiers need the same things to reach the fight in as good a condition as possible regardless of the era.

[@Klaudiuszeg]

If knight were so useless and bad, then why hungarians and poles invested so heavily into heavy cavalry mainly knight during wars with mongol armies? Mongols avoided fighting heavy armored knights, because their bows and weapons were rendered completely useless against them. Usage of knights and castles was the thing that stopped mongols from advancing further into europe, it was too hard for mongols to fight both things.

[@Ollidol]

When it comes to just hold your ground. It's hard. For exampel when shooting the movie waterloo a bunch of red army conscripts are suposed to form a square and the horses are supposed to ride around them. The men know this, the riders know this. The conscripts break every time the horses come close even though they are 100% safe. Every instinct in your body tells you to avoid the 400kg horse running towards you. Add a few of its friends and it's a wall coming towards you that makes the ground shake.

[@chemina8541]

and the 400kg is on the low scale. That said, 400kg is frightening enough!

[@RogerValor]

When you want to play an Archer on your Roleplay Ultima Online Shard, but hate how much the fight system favors plate armored nobility

[@brandonwilliams6221]

Anyone notice that when he moves he looks like the footage is being fast-forwarded? Made me check my KZbin playback speed.

[@basedimperialism]

The fact knights existed is proof that they were incredible useful. If they weren't effective at their tasks, kingdoms wouldn't have spent so much money so their aristocracy that helped run the nation could go die pointlessly riding on top of an expensive, trained, pure-bred, 800-pound war beast.

[@tik608]

From my understanding in college, knights were extremely a dominating force just not in the way we think. They were tanks when used to suppress peasants/serfs, which made them unstoppable.

[@charlescook5542]

Cavalry were not only effective against peasants...who comes up with this stuff. Just look at the first crusade when the Normans were outnumbered in completely foreign lands but managed to win Antioch. They had to overcome a siege and a pitched battle afterwards.

[@dennit1221]

​@@charlescook5542 Cant agree more with you. Just imagine a grown man around 180 pounds + 60 pounds of armor on top of a 990 pound horse + 30 pounds of horse armor = +- 1250 pounds charging towards you at full speed, while being literally invulnerable because of his armor as long as you dont have dedicated weapons to pierce through it. Good luck trying to stop that lmao.

[@vinceblasco]

Rafa I’m going to need you to put googly eyes on that frogs head helm.

[@cernunnos8344]

They really thought Kings had to pay for the gear of each individual knight like it's a video game 😂

[@bugfisch7012]

Well, all of this sounds like a description of my noble family (Bredow, Mark Brandenburg, later Prussia)... One of the most famous story is about "The pants of the knight of Bredow", where the Knight von Bredow litarly "couldn't" go to war, because his pants were washed and still wet... But our family saga is, that the devil took inventory on earth and put all the bad nobles in one sack. When he flew over Brandenburg, the sack got stuck on a church tower and the Bredows fell out again. Since then this place and ancestral seat of the Bredows is called Friesack. So we're actually not really a family of heroism and stuff like this anyway =D

[@ZekeLeviJr]

Not a word about how they were dependent on coconut shells for the clopping noise.

[@ChristophelusPulps]

A better premise for that article would have been "Why knights weren't as dominant in medieval warfare as commonly believed."

[@OculusNon]

I'm going to make a comment that is also a question here. People keep pointing out that long bows could pierce mail armor and they could be fired at 12 rounds a minute. But to do that they had to have a 100+lbs draw. How long could they fire that bow like that and still be capable of defending themselves from the knights that don't die. The archers were human, exceptional ones but still human. And more then 100lbs on your upper back is quickly exhausting. I have done heavy lifting for decades now, and I've worked out with that kind of weight, trust me even with years of experience 12 reps with that takes alot out of almost anyone.

[@helloworld-wy4vq]

Dear knight fans, if knights are so useful and effective then why are they not still in use? Checkmate.

[@thatfrenchguy9140]

well, knights were the tanks of their time. warmachines today are also dependant on quite heavy logistics. It takes 7 or 10 technicians and ground personnel to keep any one plane aloft in a campaign. Compared to that you could even argue that knights were relatively efficient. And as for effectiveness... The guy quotes battles of the 100 year war. Well in that time period, you find battles like that of Patay, where about 200 French knights routed 5000 english footmen. The English used the tactics and battle plan of Agincourt and Crecy, but only managed to kill 3 of them.

[@frankhainke7442]

Until into the 19th century war was avoided in winter. And when poured Carl von Clausewitz you will find that he wrote about logistics and bad streets and things like this. Because still was always a problem.

[@porcus123]

10 reasons why modern armies are bad every soldier needs 10 people for logistics

[@PewPewPlasmagun]

Small arms are useless here is 10 reasons. Reason 1: 99% of casualties come from long range weapons PERIOD.

[@Knoloaify]

??# Modern armies are trash because they underperform in harsh winters.

[@Hurb2]

I would love to see a video about types of Roman camps

[@ang3r3dv3t]

Awesome video, really breaking down the article with historical facts.

[@DrelvanianGuardOffic]

"Knights were a logistics nightmare because they.. brought someone to help carry and tend to their armor as well as soldiers to fight for them.." "The CEO was a logistical nightmare because he had a secretary to answer his phone calls and a go-for to file his paperwork and fix coffee for him." I feel like they don't understand what "Logistics" means.

[@stephenezell993]

So glad to see Louen Leoncoeur's knights mounted behind him in some shots. For the lady of the lake...

[@joshualandry3160]

I think the Sharpe series actually does a good job explaining the pike vs horse even though it is during the Napoleonic wars. It only worked if the formation was able to form up and this made them vulnerable to other attacks. In addition the formation would easily break apart from inexperienced men loosing their nerve. It turns out commanding real people isn't as easy as computer games because sometimes they just don't follow orders.

[@breadlord2855]

We're Knights of the Round Table. We dance whene'er we're able. We do routines and chorus scenes With footwork impeccable. We dine well here in Camelot. We eat ham and jam and spam a lot. We're Knights of the Round Table. Our shows are formidable, But many times we're given rhymes That are quite unsingable. We're opera mad in Camelot. We sing from the diaphragm a lot. In war we're tough and able, Quite indefatigable. Between our quests we sequin vests and impersonate Clark Gable. It's a busy life in Camelot. I have to push the pram a lot

[@StallionStudios1234]

Should meet up one of these days and catch up. I am still close to the NPI office

[@CMAzeriah]

OP: Pikes made them obsolete! Polish Hussars: *Hollows lance to make it lighter and longer*

[@guardiandevil3]

The "no standardized training" thing really gets my goat. I like that goat too and don't want them to have it. Further more while a tournament was probably a fantastic reason to keep your fighting skills sharp claiming that was the reason they were there is stupid and wrong making the person writing this article not only wrong but stupid too. Thank you for coming to my TedTalk

[@michaelgriffith2379]

How about a video about the Roman Armories, who made all of their weapons.

[@Langharig_Tuig]

At first I thought: "Yeah, I can think of a few reasons medieval knights are flawed, let's hear... oh no, it's one of those article!" As for if there's any decent point. I guess the terrain point isn't too bad. Could tie in with a point about logistics and mobility. But that's also a bit of a point against certain "meta", to use a gaming term. The Greeks/Macedonians had the meta of the phalanx and improving that, and suddenly come the romans who had a different formation and used swords as their main weapon. And boom. Meta shift. Same for medieval knights. They are "slows" and can't really travel geared up, so they are very vulnerable to ambush attacks. But somewhy it just wasn't the meta to do ambush attacks (on armies) that often.

[@ryanpiercy3390]

Honestly, I think the expensive was the most reasonable. Yes, we have expensive modern tanks, but the only thing soldiers on foot couldn't realistically fight in sufficient numbers was a well built fortification like a castle, they would need siege equipment for it. A modern tank can do quite a bit of damage on most fortifications though. Simply put, knights were an investment, if you want a huge but temporary army, you turn to masses of peasants and give them cheap equipment and some basic training. If you want loyal, determined, and exceptionally trained, elite cavalry, you want knights. You don't spend as much on regular soldiers as you do on common infantry today either so it makes sense that you would spend more on your best. While it is true that knights would buy their own equipment, they had to have resources to do so. This usually meant letting them have a fief of some sort or a stipend given by a noble who held a fief.

[@taigensolken6459]

for me it seems this person forgot that knights didn't just charge straight into the front of enemy formations, that there was such a think as cavalry tactics where they used there mobility to flank or rear charge units, as no matter how effective a pike is vs cavalry its not going to do a thing if its pointing in the other direction if the unit is pre occupied by fighting infantry.

[@aleksahrnjak4311]

I thought it was the title of your video and I was lost for a moment...

[@magicpyroninja]

That writer inspired me I'm now going to go and write a book on how to properly coach football even though I've never played football don't know much about football and don't like football I'm going to teach people how to do it

[@PetarSon]

There is a second part of that video where they test arrows against armor and it's pretty awesome.

[@josepnebotrius872]

Another example of Knights being defeated by infantry is the battle of Cefis. 1311. Because the Catalan company tricked the Frankish army heavy cavalry inside a swamp.

[@MatthewBendyna]

The Crusaders of the First Crusade weren't payed but were drawn by the promise of glory and loot.

[@Aeimos]

Thank you for defending my people against this slander!

[@davidhoffman6980]

@7:12 "Why would you ransom defeated knights and get loads of money when you could just kill them and get nothing at all?

[@mihaelrozental7787]

As costs go Kaser Maximilian 1 created the famous Landskneht, because he thought the knights were not cost effective. So in that aspect they might have a point. Another point is that archer thing they are mostly wrong, but rag-tag nomadic horsed archers (Mongols) fought against Knights Templar in Hungary and Poland, and won when out numbered (Mohi for example) so there is that. On the other side battle of Klushino damonstrated how effective a knight charge could be (granted winged hussars are not exactly knights but nevertheless). I think they were effective when used right like the Tank in your example will not be effective even against a weaker enemy if not used correctly (Vietnam...). Or am I wrong, would be very happy to hear your thoughts. Thanks for your content and sorry about the long comment, got a wee bit carried away. P.S. please do something about the Hussite wars I think they are a good example of heavy cavelry vs heavy infantry in the late mediaeval period.

[@josepnebotrius872]

Knight as individual was a wealthy person that had the means to equip with the finest equipment available and was trained since childhood to fight and to stand the weight of his equipment. So is strange say that Knights were useless. Also logistic point is very strange I mean crusaders knew and had knowledge (even got access to Roman and Byzantine manuals) of logistics. Even for a modern army moving from one side to another has logistics as a major problems PE the Western desert campaign was won by the allies in WW2 because of logistics. Another point about winter. Winter has been challenging to fight always. Normally most campaigns ended before winter is because the non professional levies had to tend the fields.

[@ShinobiM116]

You said the longbow (in the context of Agincourt) wasn't welsh? That appears to be a misconception I have held. Was the longbow just English then or where was it from?

[@xaina222]

Actually alot of recent event made alot of people questioned the effectiveness of tanks in modern combat. This author probably read some of that article and extrapolated it to medieval knights

[@Usammityduzntafraidofanythin]

Are knights truly tanks in comparison? It depends on the era. Knights were meant to smash against an enemy line, whereas maybe modern tanks do the same due to the danger of hidden anti-tank elements in enemy territory if a tank keeps driving. However, WW2 tanks often penetrated deep into enemy lines in order to encircle the enemy. In modern times, there is a lot more things that are a danger to tanks, and so the encirclement tactic has faded to some extent. Tank tactics in modern times involve sustained pressure and support of infantry, who are needed to do much of the probing and penetration of an enemy line. Tanks are there to destroy hard points of resistance, and their armor helps them remain in the fight, while their speed lets them establish contact with enemy vehicular elements or arrive where needed in defensive roles - hence "sustained pressure" and "versatility". Knights would just... charge into the enemy line and smash them; and if they ended up on foot, they might enter a sustained melee - but this isn't so much "sustained pressure", as just a better form of ancient infantry. Knights were more like reusable missiles that could also serve as infantry. They were somewhat versatile, but the number of roles they served in seems limited compared to any tank in history (except maybe a WW1 tank). Knights are still cool - they continued the tradition of heavy cavalry, which itself opened up tactical options of both maneuver and line warfare that didn't exist prior in ancient times. Also, they were pretty good as "heavy" infantry - ie. infantry that is intended to command a field (ie. remain on the field to prevent loss of the field, since concentrations of enemies tend to move away from wherever they go) and be a focal point of pressure on the ancient battlefield (usually armored so that they can stay in a fight longer).

[@biggiemongusmemethief7714]

Sir drew: "so you have chosen death"

[@lonwof2105]

The person who made this article didn't research WHY knights came into existence and were preferred over infantry. I.e. your heavy horse can ride infantry down if it's in the field. Furthermore if you have your own infantry and can pin down the enemies lines and THEN charge them with heavy horse from the flank or rear... It's just over at that point. There is a whole arc of cavalry evolution that went on throughout the classic period up to the late medieval period. But in the author's defense. They did pick a time period which was at the end of the knight's period of greatness. Agincourt really changed the deal. The longbow was putting an end to knighthood and then that work was taken up by the gun over time. I'm not agreeing with the author's premise but they did at least pick the time period most likely to agree with their position.

[@Texano5-0]

Metatron, have you made a video on the Spanish Tercios?

[@Briver64]

A scutage video would be neat. 🤔

[@computerguy-gw7ms]

great video. You should have this person watch the knight of hope.

[@Dowlphin]

When an article has a "fact checked by", it is already disqualified. Because you know that checking facts is the job of the writer, so that label is a virtue signaling reference to a censorship regime. And since it is also not an editor reference, who has always been someone doing second level checking of articles at news media, we know what to expect. 1:50 No, you stumbled with the English there. 😉 What a consistent system that today's tabloid press is referencing ancient sensationally exceptional reporting and ignoring the 'boringly common' norm. The overall concept of the article is a linguistic distortion. The claim is *why knights were bad,* but the method is *in what ways* knights were bad, which is a clickbaity way of wording *downsides/weaknesses of knights.*

[@MrDUneven]

So knights had absolutely useless and expensive armour that the wore just for looks, they could be defeated by bowmen, by infantry, their horses were useless because lack of food and maybe could be used in flat terrain but against maybe just other knights or something, they were logistical burden, burden for kings who had them in their armies just to show off to those peasants maybe, they spent their days training but this was also useless because they could be defeated so easily by anyone. It's like the writer thinks that knights had that tinfoil armour as a fashion statement. Makes you wonder why the medieval people even bothered with the whole concept. It must be that medieval aristocrats just appeared out of nowhere, made the systematic system of oppression with useless knights on the top and the peasants could have just formed democracy if they worked together or something. Writer of that article has never seen a horse in their life. Or punched anything.

[@never2late_mtb349]

This reads like an article from Buzzfeed. Ransoming. Let's have a look at a few times in history where that didn't actually work so well for captured or downed knights. The battle of Agincourt. I'm pretty sure that many of your commenters already know this but I'm going to mention it anyway. Henry, fearing that the large number of prisoners taken would actually re-arm and re-join the fray ordered them killed. How many were actually killed before the threat that caused him to make the decision dissipated isn't known, but it's agreed that many were. But it's a case of medieval pragmatism overruling medieval chivalry. The effectiveness of the bow wasn't in penetrating armour, it was in forcing the French to advance slowly with their visors down, uphill, through the mud. By the time the got to the English battle line they were exhausted. The archers then joined in from the flanks using mallets. Ironic that the writer mentions Agincourt but not these well known points, which contradict a couple of their items. The Wars of the Roses. Knights from both sides were routinely killed after capture, regardless of their rank. The Duke of York (Richard III's father) being a case in point. Medieval politics in this case. As I understand it a knight could only yield to another of rank. So, if he's surrounded by a bunch of archers (as at Agincourt) or spearmen, he's toast. At Crecy the archers and spearmen advanced after each French assault dispatching any injured knight they found on the spot. Before returning to their positions. No prisoners were taken until the following day. The King of Bohemia and all his retinue, were pulled from their horses and killed. No one gave a crap about how much they were worth. The Battle of Verneuil 1424 underlines both that knights and men-at-arms were excellent warriors, and that being a high ranking noble was no guarantee of buying your way out. Without giving too much away for those that want to read about it. One faction on the battlefield was wiped out to the last man, including a duke, in an act of revenge. It also demonstrates how well armoured knights were all but impervious to archers. This was a fun video 😃

[@travisking9895]

Loved the comparison with tanks! A heavily armoured, highly mobile unit, they really are very similar. In both cases, because of the overwhelming effectiveness of knights and tanks, other weaponry advanced in an attempt to counter them (crossbows and rocket launchers especially), which in turn led to changes in armour, particularly thickness and coverage. It wasn't until firearms became more advanced and common that knights armor started to become obsolete, after centuries of dominating the battlefield. The list did mention crossbows, and suggested that armour was incapable of stopping a bolt, and even if it were, a crossbowman could just target the horse, which ignores the existence of horse armour, which was just as much a part of a knight's equipment as their own armour.

[@queennecra]

I mean "Adherence To Chivalric" Ideals is not a bad point. It is entertaining to imagine some modern day bloke, writing lists like this going back, challengeing a knight, trying to call out some random chivalrice technicality to get an imaginary advantage only to be torn to shreds by a man in in full plate, weilding a dinner knife and fork because he can't be bothered to pick up actual combat weapons for this peasent maniac with a smug grin, waiting for him to kneel.

[@mcsmash4905]

welp we do have some cases of knights being rather ˝chivalric˝ like for example Pierre Terrail de Bayard , but at the same time he doesnt represent every single knight on the battlefield and people like him could be considered a rare bunch

[@Ryanfinder226]

Most people don’t even have an accurate ideal of what chivalric ideals were though. They weren’t as pretty and good guy as everyone thinks

[@williamjenkins4913]

@@Ryanfinder226Chivalry was basically obey your lord. Anything else is literally dime store romance novel BS.

[@MikeTyukanov]

@@williamjenkins4913 Nope, it was "obey the church" first, the duties to the lord are secondary, and (what's very important) they are mutual. If your lord betrays his oaths, you are free to betray yours. Which did a lot of confusion in the time of Avignon Popes, when two or three church hierarchies existed simultaneously and it could be that your lord is a partisan of a pope in Avignon, but your bishop is a supporter of a pope in Rome, and who would you listen to?

[@praevasc4299]

@@mcsmash4905 And chivalry didn't mean not using an advantage in a deadly battle, it meant showing mercy for those who surrender, being kind to civilians, etc. Definitely not deliberately acting stupid in a fight to allow the enemy to defeat me.

[@18karatsofcommunism]

To be fair, tanks, especially modern ones, ARE often regarded as slow, expensive, heavy and ineffective against modern anti-tank missiles which also cost orders of magnitude lower than tanks (reminds me of a knight armor vs crossbow kind of situation). So yeah, it's accurate that knights are similar to tanks but it's also true that tanks are kinda crap now since the invention of a modern version of crossbow

[@CrescentGuard]

The thing that kills me about number 4 is that he says it like we don't have rules of conduct today. In fact, modern rules of conduct are more restrictive in some ways. Also, as you pointed out, just because these rules of conduct exist doesn't mean that people don't flat-out ignore them. That's saying nothing about the rules seen on both sides of the timeline, from Ancient Egypt on up through World War Two. There's nothing unusual about having rules of war, they've been around for a very, *very* long

[@Predator20357]

It’s like the writer forgot why there are things called War Crimes, those are in fact Rules of Conduct

[@Bladeofdeath311]

"Hey! No shotguns America!"

[@Briselance]

@@Bladeofdeath311 US in the 1st WW: **J. Jonah Jameson laughter** "Wait, you're serious? Let me field eve more of them."

[@deleteman900]

Imagine agreeing with someone that, whoever the oil belongs to, we *probably* shouldn't be dropping cluster bombs and deploying mines that indiscriminately blow up civilians. (Mines are obvious, but cluster bombs are bad because of how they work, only ~30-40% of the munitions actually go boom, meaning the rest are hanging from trees on their mini parachutes, or half-buried into the dirt ready to blow when the wind pushes it just right. Big nightmare) Also, let's not shoot each others medical units, so that we can recover our wounded and *hopefully* lessen the impact of attrition in our respective countries' populations. What kind of villain would make certain allowances for 'I disagree with you, but let's not nuke each other into the stone age over our little spat'?!?!

[@swaggadash9017]

A great example of that was the Japanese going out of their way to target medics. American medics in WW2 fighting the Japanese would not wear the red cross because it was basically a bullseye.

[@rachdarastrix5251]

Knight's Father: "Ok, you are 8 years old. That means your military training begins today." Knight: "But father, this article says I don't get military training."

[@SpecterSensorial]

That is the neat part

[@StoutProper]

Better to be a Welsh bowman, you don’t start training with a full bow until you’re 14

[@cmanningdeal6228]

"Young man, IS that article your Father ?" "No , Father." "Your training begins today..."

[@reddytoplay9188]

@@cmanningdeal6228 Wife/Mother: **whispers** "They must never know".

[@williamblackfyre4866]

8 seems kind of old...I imagine they were playing in the yard with wooden swords at 4-5 and getting some kind of instruction. My kids have some plastic swords and love to smack each other with them.

[@Justjustinp]

Imagine being an infantry unit who has been fighting for hours and seeing a group of knights routing your force and the guy who wrote this article says “all you have to do is hold your ground.” And then you look back at thousands of tons of force from those horses coming straight at you.

[@joelbilly1355]

Imagine your in an infantry unit and you see a group of knights routing your force and the guy leading the army telling you to hold is Robert the Bruce at Bannockburn

[@vijayvijay4123]

Brave heart

[@acefreak9561]

@@joelbilly1355 lmfao

[@filmandfirearms]

I feel like he took the principle that it's far better to be on the defense than the offense, which is a very true statement and is a core of military strategy all around the world even today, despite first being observed literally thousands of years ago. It's part of the concept behind paratroopers. He then misinterpreted that to mean that defending is easy, which it absolutely is not

[@hippo5231]

Nothing butters my toast like a heavy cavalry charge, lances leveled and hooves thundering.

[@alexadamson9959]

“Archers could easily penetrate armour” Todd’s workshop: “am I a joke to you?”

[@troypaton7087]

Just watched the new one!

[@tyrannicfool2503]

I guess it could depend on the timeframe to be fair

[@macekreislahomes1690]

And what armor, ammunition, and bow is involved.

[@alexadamson9959]

@@troypaton7087 wait. What new one? Edit: OH FUCK YES!!!!

[@danielrosen2219]

Chainmail is easily penetrated in his tests.

[@AlexanderWernerJr]

I would also mention that good longbow archers were probably not cheap either. You had to train them regularly, preferably from a young age, and you had to pick the ones with the most talent for wielding that weapon (strength, accuracy, resilience, etc.). They also needed armor, hand weapons and good war arrows, so I'm pretty sure that the top tier archers did not go campaigning for a loaf of bread and a pint of ale. Maybe one should say: Good soldiers in general were not cheap, regardless of their profession.

[@AlexanderWernerJr]

@@Dezkoi Very interesting indeed!

[@IIISWILIII]

Longbow men had to be strong AF as well to consistently draw those longbows.

[@AlexanderWernerJr]

@@IIISWILIII Absolutely. Not a job for weaklings. Or female elves. :)

[@swaggadash9017]

@@IIISWILIII They found bodies of archers with deformed spines because the bows they used were so powerful, constantly firing them actually messed with their spines.

[@drzaius8430]

Yeah, actually bowmen where more expensive especially if they had notes of record. Basically they had seals out right saying this guy served at this battle, a good archer could save many knights and everyone knew this and english long bows where known to drop armor. BUT!!! Archers had a very difficult finding work despite this because of a funny fact, fakers. Records show archers where not often nobles so really it's a gamble, pay for this expensive unit who runs more then a knight as you have reasons to question their skills or a some peasant hunters who just have to aim and cost 1/4 the amount then run after they fire. Gonna be a archery then hope your contracted otherwise work will be hit and miss.