Post ancestors :)

problem is just that youraverage rebelling peasantdoesnt have access to such things, only pikes andself-made weapons, which, for a untrained fighter wont work well anyway, comparing to a lifetime of trainig for knights, if they arent already cut down by archers or footsoldiers

Attached: my ancestor smiley face.jpg (736x643, 96.01K)

Yes exactly, knights were really excellent at mowing down barely armored levymen, a man at arms which would cost a fraction of a knight could easily neutralize a knight with a mace blow to the knee or a hammer blow to the shoulder, even a crossbowman or a longbowman.

we need to go back

Attached: .jpg (338x500, 36.28K)

VGH..

Attached: 64532.jpg (1343x907, 394.65K)

>a man at arms which would cost a fraction of a knight
Most men at arms were Knights. The next largest (in England) were Esquires, which were generally just as wealthy as Knights but haven't been Knighted or decided not to be.
>easily neutralize a knight with a mace blow to the knee or a hammer blow to the shoulder,
Even the earlier Crusader Knights were known to fight for hours relatively unharmed because their armour was able to stop any real injury from arrows and from charges from the Turkmen.

>could easily neutralize a knight
apperantly not, considering it didnt happen that often, not even speaking of the crusader knights which mow down muslims, unlike the peasants which got mowed down by muslims

also with >if they arent already cut down by archers or footsoldiers

i meants the rebelling peasants, since they almost certainly had no archers, and just about any peasant rebellion in europe was crushed

I love them so much.
They're honestly so funny.

I play Chiv and Mordhau and am thus an expert on mediaeval European warfare.

Nice fictional history, the crusader knights were only good for mass slaughter of civilians, meanwhile the armies of salahudin crushed the myth of the invincible knights forever at the battle of hittin.
>Even the earlier Crusader Knights were known to fight for hours relatively unharmed because their armour was able to stop any real injury from arrows and from charges from the Turkmen.

They were not fighting for hours they were ignoring the skirmishing of the turkic horse archers.

I dont fucking remember explicitly pitting the knights against peasants, i was talking about 2 conventional armies.

you literally said peasants in your first post

Attached: assassin-s-creed-assassins-4380.jpg (1332x850, 227.5K)

yeah, a peasant with a mace, i was trying to get the point across which is any person with a good mace could kill a knight.

Fun times :)

Attached: Stockholms blodbad_KoB_Sv. HP_GI_A42.jpg (1000x762, 156.07K)

>They were not fighting for hours they were ignoring the skirmishing of the turkic horse archers.
I refer to this passage
>The Hospitallers and their detachments had kept ranks all that day; but now they immediately urged their horses to a gallop and charged manfully into the enemy
From the Chronicle of King Richard page 253.

>meanwhile the armies of salahudin crushed the myth of the invincible knights forever at the battle of hittin
Pretending like one battle represents once century worth of military tradition in Outremer is stupid. The Battle of Ascalon was an overwhelming Crusader victory thanks to the Heavy cavalry. This does not mean that the Fatimid armies were all incompetent and worthless. Saladin's first campaign against the Kingdom of Jerusalem was a military disaster that nearly cost him his life at Montgisard, neither does that single battle represent the entirety of the Ayyubid military history. You're just being disingenuous.

Borde inte du jobba?

Är hemma idag

>>The Hospitallers and their detachments had kept ranks all that day; but now they immediately urged their horses to a gallop and charged manfully into the enemy

Ok, they kept ranks, do you actually think this means continuous fighting for hours?
>Pretending like one battle represents once century worth of military tradition in Outremer is stupid. The Battle of Ascalon was an overwhelming Crusader victory thanks to the Heavy cavalry. This does not mean that the Fatimid armies were all incompetent and worthless. Saladin's first campaign against the Kingdom of Jerusalem was a military disaster that nearly cost him his life at Montgisard, neither does that single battle represent the entirety of the Ayyubid military history. You're just being disingenuous.

sorry its hard to ignore such a decisive battle with ramifications and consequences that lead to total muslim victory in the region, the crusaders never recovered from this defeat, but the muslims recovered easily from every defeat they were dealt.

Attached: file.png (616x473, 545.99K)