Is this what your typical medieval knight would have been like?

Is this what your typical medieval knight would have been like? Having a title and rank in name only, fighting purely for coin without any honor?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I don't know about knights, but barons and up tended to be treacherous rats.

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Warfare was different back then. Not as deadly, your opponents weren't even really trying to kill you, they were just trying to capture you so that they could ransom you later. In many ways it would be more comparable to compare a knight to a modern day police officer rather than a soldier.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >your opponents weren't even really trying to kill you, they were just trying to capture you so that they could ransom you later.
      if you were a noble maybe
      but if you were normal infantry who pays for your ransom?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It was an age where to kill someone you had to physically walk up close (unless you have a bow, but that comes with its own headaches) and personally beat the shit out of them, for every single person you fight, and if someone's running, you have to catch up to them. Really, in battle any big back then, most of the loosing side would just scatter all around with no real way to catch them all. Sure, technically enemy force is beaten, but actual lethality wasn't that high.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          there are plenty of examples of the routed force being chased down
          as well as thousands killed in battles

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It was an age where to kill someone you had to physically walk up close (unless you have a bow, but that comes with its own headaches) and personally beat the shit out of them, for every single person you fight, and if someone's running, you have to catch up to them. Really, in battle any big back then, most of the loosing side would just scatter all around with no real way to catch them all. Sure, technically enemy force is beaten, but actual lethality wasn't that high.

            >your opponents weren't even really trying to kill you, they were just trying to capture you so that they could ransom you later.
            if you were a noble maybe
            but if you were normal infantry who pays for your ransom?

            You get maimed and possibly infected instead. Aren't trying to kill you my ass.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >your opponents weren't even really trying to kill you

      ok sure till you get thrown and drown in mud while a dozen peasants trample you

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >typical medieval knight
    medieval covers a lot of time and a lot of ground. There isn't a typical.

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Knightly honor was a lot like bushido, something largely retroactive that most people didn't give a shit about at the time. So yes.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Obviously, they tried to use those norms to keep the heavily armed morons from doing tribal style war/raiding 24/7.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >something largely retroactive that most people didn't give a shit about at the time
      Eh, a lot of it was retroactive but I think a lot of it was also misunderstood or misinterpreted in modern times. For example you hear a lot about muh samurai honor but, for example, if you read things like The Book of Five Rings, Musashi--perhaps the most mythical samurai of all--says various things that most of us today would consider dishonorable, like the only thing that matters in a fight is winning, and you should do everything you can to give yourself the advantage. Get the other guy drunk? Yes. Stand so the sun is in the other guys face? Yeah. Get him pissed off by deliberately showing up late or fricking around with trash talk? Yes, all good ideas. Better yet if you could get to the area of the duel first so you could kill the other guy long before the duel was even supposed to happen, or maybe ambush him in the street before he even gets there. He also wrote things like fighting with a sword and a shield is stupid because you can kill people more effectively with two swords. He won many of his duels via subterfuge and surprise and a whole bunch of "dirty tricks" completely counter to the idea of muh honorable swordfight like is so common in films or anime of the genre.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Obviously, they tried to use those norms to keep the heavily armed morons from doing tribal style war/raiding 24/7.

      >something largely retroactive that most people didn't give a shit about at the time
      Eh, a lot of it was retroactive but I think a lot of it was also misunderstood or misinterpreted in modern times. For example you hear a lot about muh samurai honor but, for example, if you read things like The Book of Five Rings, Musashi--perhaps the most mythical samurai of all--says various things that most of us today would consider dishonorable, like the only thing that matters in a fight is winning, and you should do everything you can to give yourself the advantage. Get the other guy drunk? Yes. Stand so the sun is in the other guys face? Yeah. Get him pissed off by deliberately showing up late or fricking around with trash talk? Yes, all good ideas. Better yet if you could get to the area of the duel first so you could kill the other guy long before the duel was even supposed to happen, or maybe ambush him in the street before he even gets there. He also wrote things like fighting with a sword and a shield is stupid because you can kill people more effectively with two swords. He won many of his duels via subterfuge and surprise and a whole bunch of "dirty tricks" completely counter to the idea of muh honorable swordfight like is so common in films or anime of the genre.

      Like effectively anything in human history it's all gray. There were some percent people who took honor codes and religious morals/commandments and so on very, very seriously, just like today. There was a much bigger percent of people who did overall believe that the ideals were at least positive things, but were sort of half-assed about it in practice. There were those who didn't really care one way or another. There were those who saw them purely as tools to exploit. There were those who gleefully violated them.

      Not a whole lot has changed in war over time in that regards, though sure there have been different norms or standards over time, but a lot of norms/"rules" ultimately boil out of basic results of Game Theory and thus pop up again and again in one form or another. But you can look through much better recorded history of warfare, like last 2-3 centuries, and see the same basic patterns, on land or sea.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        this. some Ukrainian and Russians take prisoners and treat them with dignity , most just commit war crimes.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      knightly honour and chivarly came from Black Africans who tought them in their trades

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >WE WUZ KNIGHTS AND SHEEEIT

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      [...]
      [...]
      Like effectively anything in human history it's all gray. There were some percent people who took honor codes and religious morals/commandments and so on very, very seriously, just like today. There was a much bigger percent of people who did overall believe that the ideals were at least positive things, but were sort of half-assed about it in practice. There were those who didn't really care one way or another. There were those who saw them purely as tools to exploit. There were those who gleefully violated them.

      Not a whole lot has changed in war over time in that regards, though sure there have been different norms or standards over time, but a lot of norms/"rules" ultimately boil out of basic results of Game Theory and thus pop up again and again in one form or another. But you can look through much better recorded history of warfare, like last 2-3 centuries, and see the same basic patterns, on land or sea.

      kill all moral relativists and cynics
      >it's all grey bro
      you have been duped into nihilistic inaction

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You must be 18 to post here

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          His argument is truthful, he's just using it in the wrong place.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          historical nihilism is one of the hallmarks of a civilization about to die
          a denial of the principles it is founded upon, a proclamation that they were absent of any true meaning but were merely rhetorical or propaganda devices

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            believing there is any "hallmarks" of a civilization dying is pure horseshit. Civilizations simply change over the course of the years to the point that they've changed so much that a scholar a few hundreds years afterward will say; "Yep, it was a that point that X civilization fell":
            There is not a single civilization that fell overnight or even in less than 10 years. (I hope I don't have to remind you how a government falling is not comparable to a civilization falling)

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              The British Empire losing out on the Great(er) game and getting dismantled by the US post 1945 could be viewed as one of the most rapid imperial disintegrations

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Empire≠Civilization

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I remember when the pope spent decades scheming and releasing papal bulls to try to get knights to stop raiding churches and abbeys for loot and livestock. Do you? I remember when the chivalric code included a section about rape of noble ladies being fine I'd they weren't married and were found alone. Like it is all relative. Do you think Ghengis Khans Mongols didn't see him as an absolute good?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          That is not the point. Whether or not you think it is relative (it's not, there is an absolute morality given by God and it is up to man to adhere to it), if you void your own morality by getting meta and claiming that it is then things begin to fall apart. You have to believe in yourself, you have to believe your system of morality has a right to exist or is better than others.

          If the Mongols were second-guessing themselves and the acts of Chingis, then they'd have gotten fricking nowhere and turned against themselves. Imagine them tearing down statues of the great Khan and calling him a xenophobic oppressor.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >there is an absolute morality given by God

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              I know where I go where I die. I know my purpose in this world. You cannot say the same.

              believing there is any "hallmarks" of a civilization dying is pure horseshit. Civilizations simply change over the course of the years to the point that they've changed so much that a scholar a few hundreds years afterward will say; "Yep, it was a that point that X civilization fell":
              There is not a single civilization that fell overnight or even in less than 10 years. (I hope I don't have to remind you how a government falling is not comparable to a civilization falling)

              Sicknesses have symptoms.

              >There is an absolute morality
              There is no morality, there are no rules, life perpetuates itself through destruction and chaos and your homosexual fricking book isn't going to save you from the eternal nothingness that awaits us all.

              >eternal nothingness
              erm...source?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Sicknesses have symptoms.
                And civilizations are not organisms

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                WRONG!

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                That is not the point. Whether or not you think it is relative (it's not, there is an absolute morality given by God and it is up to man to adhere to it), if you void your own morality by getting meta and claiming that it is then things begin to fall apart. You have to believe in yourself, you have to believe your system of morality has a right to exist or is better than others.

                If the Mongols were second-guessing themselves and the acts of Chingis, then they'd have gotten fricking nowhere and turned against themselves. Imagine them tearing down statues of the great Khan and calling him a xenophobic oppressor.

                [...]
                kill all moral relativists and cynics
                >it's all grey bro
                you have been duped into nihilistic inaction

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous
          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >There is an absolute morality
            There is no morality, there are no rules, life perpetuates itself through destruction and chaos and your homosexual fricking book isn't going to save you from the eternal nothingness that awaits us all.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              gays like you only believe in gray morality mostly because you are unable most likely out of insecurity to come to terms with the fact that there is a right and wrong it is just that humans are imperfect mortal beings who make mistakes but they are able to improve and get better

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Like it is all relative.
          Post gun

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Obviously, they tried to use those norms to keep the heavily armed morons from doing tribal style war/raiding 24/7.

      [...]
      [...]
      Like effectively anything in human history it's all gray. There were some percent people who took honor codes and religious morals/commandments and so on very, very seriously, just like today. There was a much bigger percent of people who did overall believe that the ideals were at least positive things, but were sort of half-assed about it in practice. There were those who didn't really care one way or another. There were those who saw them purely as tools to exploit. There were those who gleefully violated them.

      Not a whole lot has changed in war over time in that regards, though sure there have been different norms or standards over time, but a lot of norms/"rules" ultimately boil out of basic results of Game Theory and thus pop up again and again in one form or another. But you can look through much better recorded history of warfare, like last 2-3 centuries, and see the same basic patterns, on land or sea.

      https://i.imgur.com/eTpAHvS.jpeg

      You must be 18 to post here

      GRRM and his consequences have been a disaster for the human race.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Land furthest to the West
        >Westeros
        >Land of the magical college Learnia

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >>Land of the magical college Learnia
          wait wut?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >what's that south of here?
          >Sussex
          >and east?
          >Essex
          >West?
          >Wessex

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            These mean South Saxons, East Saxons, and West Saxons

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Not a single one of those posts can be associated with ASOIAF except maybe the idea of grey morality, which exists in basically all of fiction. Stupid homosexual.
        >t.fantasygay

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          ASOIAF doesn't make the claim "good" doesn't exist, merely that being a good king is a herculean effort analogous with martyrdom.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Are you moronic? Samurai literally killed themselves if they felt they failed their lord. You don't do that if you're just cruising along. Modern bushido is mostly made up but they absolutely did adhere to it.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The Knights and Samurai did take their codes of honor seriously; the Knights of Malta basically handed their territory to Napoleon out of a misguided sense of chivalry, and the Samurai held steadfast to the ideals of Bushido facing down the fun-loving parade organizers known as the Imperial Japanese Army.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Napoleon should have won.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The last samurai isn't a documentary
        The vast vast majority of shogunate forces fought in the exact same manner as the IJA, ie like contemporary white men

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Is this what your typical medieval knight would have been like?
      No. KDC takes place in early 15th century Bohemia.

      You are a reverse Don Quijote, instead of reading chivalry stories, you have brainrotted your little brain by reading revisionist fantasy centered in the medieval period.

      Yes. Most knights were landless sons. Or the sons of landless sons. How do you think there were enough to matter. Depending on where it was very hard to become a knight and most would be Squires or just nobles fighting as men at arms which was the military unit.

      Human society was started by hunter gatherers tribal, who realized that you could also hunt other tribes, not for their flesh, but for their resources and little/young girls. This forced these tribes to make their best fighters protect the tribe, but this creates a problem. If you train to fight, you do not have time to hunt, gather, and eventually farming and herding, so their society organized in a way that those who worked the land paid tribute to those who protected them, and the best warriors became rulers, instead of the best hunters. Eventually those societies grew to such a level that the chieftains had large amounts of wealth, and started to invest that affluence back into their societies. Those who fought, for most of human history have been nobility, like the greeks/macedonians, and so were knights in Europe, albeit minor nobility. Most knight were small landowner that had peasants working their fields, while they trained and managed their small estates.

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Jesus Christ be praised

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Some were like this, some were not, and some were both

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The thing about medieval warfare is that battles were ridiculously expensive and generally not worth it for either side.
    What does make economic sense is hitting your enemy's supply lines, ambushing nobles while they're travelling and extorting them for ransom.
    If I have a big enough army to defeat your army, you probably know that, so you're not going want to sit around and fight. If neither side is sure, then neither side are likely to commit.

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    War is a for profit venture and it's a complete aside from the honor side of things

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >fighting purely for coin

    that's called BASTARD FEUDALISM, which has some advantages and disadvantages.

    obviously great in case a kingdom doesn't have enough land or titles to parcel out for new lords or knights.

    disadvantage of such a system was that knights/lords who fight for money are much less loyal than landed/titled ones since they could easily take their wealth and flee the country.

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yes. Most knights were landless sons. Or the sons of landless sons. How do you think there were enough to matter. Depending on where it was very hard to become a knight and most would be Squires or just nobles fighting as men at arms which was the military unit.

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Depends a lot of the time. Knights where from simply any man with a horse, mail and sword, or some one than had some noble blood and was mainly a parasite.

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >typical medieval knight
    which period and what do you mean by "typical"

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    There is a distinction to be made between knights (the ones with the title) and men at arms (a generic catch-all that included knights but the majority were simply men who were armed the same, but with lesser quality equipment). As an actual knight, you would be a recognised and embedded part of the social order, with passive income source that doesn't directly come from fighting. Instead fighting would be a prestigious social obligation. This might sound like splitting hairs, but it is an important distinction. There could be a young knight without any wealth, but such a situation was unlikely to last long. Meanwhile, the vast hordes of lesser nobility (or even not, the term man -at-arms doesn't really care) without the wealth, prowess or status to become a knight would be mercenaries, or find whatever employment they could in peacetime, typically as garrisons or retainers.

    Knights, of course, span a huge period of time and geography, so a lot varies. Initially what became knights were not a prestigious lot. They were a military caste that while of higher status and wealth than serfs and villeins etc were not considered nobles and could best described as a mixture of military serfs and landless mercenaries. As time passed and the expense of knighthood grew, the wealth required acquired a veneer of prestige from that led to the elite class eagerly calling themselves knights and all knights as nobles. This happened around the 11th century. But for those original knights, now nobility and called men at arms now that knights were now a title for the high nobility, life had not changed much.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The increasing professionalisation of medieval armies however, meant more stable income, more opportunities for advancement and in general. A man at arms with some wealth (minor or great) could fight an battle, then never fight again, devoting himself to whatever it is that noblilty get up to when not fighting. Alternatively, he could become a professional, constantly fighting. Maybe he would climb up the ranks and eventually become rich or influential to be someone of note, or perhaps become a vassal/retainer to someone important. Or he may well just simply fight for the rest of his life, until too old to continue.

      Honor would had been been a extension of reputation and pragmatism . With those who could afford it the most trusting in chivalry, especially when it comes to the rules governing ransoms while war itself would had been lead by pragmatism (not that there was actually many chivalric rules regarding combat in the first place). For example, there are many accounts of prisoners given "freedom" in order to gather their own ransom. Of course, such a thing would be highly practical - if captured again, a man with a poor reputation for honouring the rules of ransom would hardly be likely to be given a second chance. Chivalry-wise, shanking another kngiht in his sleep would had been considered rather impolite, but not a deep transgression of honour.

      tl;dr
      Yes, the majority of "knights" for most of history would had been been fighting for a mixture of social obligation and money.

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Typical medieval knight
    No such thing
    What does your typical early modern infantryman look like?

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    That's over 800 years man. Later knights which what you are most used to were kind of aristocracy or actual warriors who were brought in due to skill. That's a mix but usually there is loyalty. Mid knights were mainly Mercs. Old knights were roman cavalry family and rich peoples person armies.

    The idea of "nations" comes in and out of history. Sometimes people just lived in places and paid mercs to not kill them and protect them. The mercs worked for a central boss who had like 200 mercs on the payroll and he'd rule over 5000 people in some random village town in Germany protected by a river on 3 sides.

  16. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Your fake father is a piece of shit of not even paying him and his crew for their services.

  17. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yes, but they would have used spears, who the frick is in the cut with only a sidearm cuh?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah I dunno why but Kingdom Come Deliverence did not implement polearms
      An armored man-at-arms would have used an axe or poleaxe depending on the era and its level of armor development

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Enemies use polearms sometimes, but you need a mod to really use them in the same way as other weapons, otherwise they're like temporary power ups.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Stop it with this fricking meme bullshit
      A 15th century khomie isnt going to be using a fricking spear
      Swords weren't just sidearms either, it's absolute moronic fudd shit to think that's all they were
      The fricking ROMANS got rid of spears did swords, then took over the world for frick sake

  18. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >ctrl+f henry
    >0/0

  19. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Hell no.
    Knights for most of medieval history specifically held "Knightly Living" as a big bragging right and social attribute to lord their greatness.

    "Knightly living", can basically be boiled down to being honourable, and demonstratably not living in fear of the same things peasants or normies fear (poverty, destitution, famine, violent death, injury etc).
    An enormous part of this was actually proving you don't feel compelled to hoard goods or money, but instead spread it out in anything from charity, to camaraderie, to simply being a cool dude and using your prize money to pay for booze for everyone.

    This was admittedly a mostly Knighty circles only thing, but it was both a chance to boost your social perception, network, and general image of being unconcerned with material wealth against honour (which was pretty much everything to a Knight in daily life) and an incredibly important feature of proving yourself a 'true' Knight.
    There would also have been an immense social pressure to eschew material wealth as not doing so is practically a signal to everyone else that they're not a true or proper knight, which is a career ender.

    A Knight in the medieval period was something between a police officer, taxman, and local sports celebrity, but they did actually occupy a minor religious role in society. That of an armoured, 'impervious' warrior, appointed and sent by God to protect his people.

    Honour and reputation were incredibly important things to that particular warrior caste, and a good part of it was clearly and overtly not doing peasant things like hoarding wealth.

  20. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Kingdom Come Deliverance is a whitewashing anti-POC facist + racist power fantasy simulator made by fragile racist and homophobic white supremacist Euro man-babies.
    The same goes with all of its racist "fans"

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      lmao white people weren't bad until colonialism. the middle ages was before that. stop b***hing that you're not always the center of attention.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Good.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Medieval Ages is when the white people were killing each other. What are you even complaining about? If a black person moved to Europe before modern medication was developed they would have children with Rickets. Shut up Hollywood.

  21. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    no
    for starters that kit is utterly mismatched with pieces of armor that are from utterly different time periods as much as 100 years apart, like the brigandine which is 50 years too late for the game and the limb armor which is 50 years too early
    >b-but maybe they used the old stuff because it was cheap
    the majority of evidence points toward splinted armor having been completely abandoned by this time period
    also he'll get raped the instant he goes into combat because he chose a collar instead of an aventail attached to the helmet which is what even peasants had
    anyways about whether a knight was just a poor idiot wandering around with a title, no
    atleast, its an overgeneralization, because a lot of battles involved poor ass knights like those, but they werent the standard, and most knights simply wouldnt go out fighting unless there was a need to
    the knights who usually went to battle did so because they needed money

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >like the brigandine which is 50 years too late
      What? No it's not. You're a total idiot.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        its a leeds brigandine, you only see that shit worn with gothic armor, its far too late for the period
        i dont mean brigandines in general of course
        if you can show me a depiction of a guy wearing transitional armor and a leeds brigandine, then go right ahead

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >i dont mean brigandines in general of course
          my bad for not reading your whole post and realizing you're not a moron, sorry I jumped the gun

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            no, i forgot to specify that it was a specific kind of brigandine

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >also he'll get raped the instant he goes into combat because he chose a collar instead of an aventail attached to the helmet which is what even peasants had
      I don't think that he will be instantly decapitated for having last generation's neck protection.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        very few people who had the option with a bascinet chose not to wear an aventail
        sure maybe its not a death sentence, but its just a nonsensical choice by the game designers
        in fact most of their designers are pretty shit at armor design, its like they looked at chinese stuff on ebay and went "oh this is what they wore"

  22. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Brigandine
    Yeah, that's segments of metal plates with a cloth covering. A knight isn't very useful alone and needs a retuine and ideally a squad or company of knights and accompanying soldiers.

    Running around self employed like a D&D party is cruising to get imprisoned.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Running around self employed like a D&D party is cruising to get imprisoned.
      they actually did that sort of thing suprisingly, theres plenty enough historical accounts of it
      of course, it didnt last for very long until the different countries realized there was an issue with letting mercs run around the countryside
      it wasnt so much of an issue before because it was the hundred years war and the black death that jumpstarted it
      english soldiers got left in france during a long period of inactivity with the war, so instead of sailing back to england with nothing to show for, they went down into the italian states and found work there
      theyre known as the condotierre, eventually they got replaced by native italian mercenary groups though

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >A knight isn't very useful alone and needs a retuine and ideally a squad or company of knights and accompanying soldiers.
      He does
      from left to right:
      >Dangler
      >Stephen Fletcher
      >The Stone
      >The Bearman Brothers
      >Jakey

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *