Richard the Lionheart's fancy new Helmet

[Sedalia Dave]

 

 

 

 

[Forty Rod SASS 3935]

Wouldn't it make more sense to attack the horse and then take a man wearing clumsy, heavy armor once he's on the ground trying to stand up with all that weight?

 

A armored man on a horse is an active opponent.  An armored man on the ground is a heavily laden frightened, man desperate to escape from lighter, more agile ground troops.

[Hardpan Curmudgeon SASS #8967]

29 minutes ago, Forty Rod SASS 3935 said:

Wouldn't it make more sense to attack the horse and then take a man wearing clumsy, heavy armor once he's on the ground trying to stand up with all that weight?

 

A armored man on a horse is an active opponent.  An armored man on the ground is a heavily laden frightened, man desperate to escape from lighter, more agile ground troops.

 

But... but... but, would that be honorable and chivalrous?   

[Pat Riot]

Chivalry in Battle. A concept developed by rich men so that they couldn’t lose everything on the battle field, I’m sure. 

[Smuteye John SASS#24774]

5 hours ago, Hardpan Curmudgeon SASS #8967 said:

 

But... but... but, would that be honorable and chivalrous?   

Worked- more or less- for the English long bowmen at Agincourt. 

 

The Frogs had figured out that a mounted charge uphill into their fire was suicide, so they decided to take the heavy cavalry off of their horses and march them uphill, through a freshly plowed field and after several days of rain into the same arrow storm. 

 

Once the French finally made it up to sword and axe range of the center of the English lines, all of those lightly armored long bowmen on the flanks grabbed their hand weapons and turned it into a street brawl in ankle deep mud.

[Ozark Huckleberry]

10 minutes ago, Smuteye John SASS#24774 said:

Worked- more or less- for the English long bowmen at Agincourt. 

 

The Frogs had figured out that a mounted charge uphill into their fire was suicide, so they decided to take the heavy cavalry off of their horses and march them uphill, through a freshly plowed field and after several days of rain into the same arrow storm. 

 

Once the French finally made it up to sword and axe range of the center of the English lines, all of those lightly armored long bowmen on the flanks grabbed their hand weapons and turned it into a street brawl in ankle deep mud.

You got there just ahead of me. 

 

I watched one of those dokoomentrees on Agincourt -- not only was the battlefield wet with rain, but the mud there is that particularly soft and sticky kind that'll let your foot plow on down into it then suck the boot right off your foot if you ain't careful.

 

Armored knights on foot never had a chance, even if the bowmen had been stark naked and whackin' 'em with a stick.

[Dawg Hair, SASS #29557]

Don't know, I rather like Monty Python's version.

[Smuteye John SASS#24774]

1 minute ago, Ozark Huckleberry said:

You got there just ahead of me. 

 

I watched one of those dokoomentrees on Agincourt -- not only was the battlefield wet with rain, but the mud there is that particularly soft and sticky kind that'll let your foot plow on down into it then suck the boot right off your foot if you ain't careful.

 

Armored knights on foot never had a chance, even if the bowmen had been stark naked and whackin' 'em with a stick.

It had just been plowed for winter wheat, it had set in to raining the day after it was plowed and had rained for several days prior to the battle.

 

And the Frogs tried to march- in full plate- several hundreds of yards through that.  There's several cases documented of folks on both sides drowning when they fell face down in the mud.

 

By the time the Frogs got there, they was wore out.  The archers waded out amongst them- armed with mauls, poleaxes and such -and just swarmed them.  The knightly types weren't used to actually fighting (Killing? Yeah  Riding down?  Yeah  Fighting?  No) common soldiers- much less when at a disadvantage.  A gang of very strong men- and archers were all very strong men- attacking in coordination from different angles until the knight went down was the rule of the day.   Once down, a maul or a raven's beak to the helmet or a dagger to the gaps in the armor finishes the job.  The English men at arms had to remind the archers of ransom because they were just killing the French when they got them down.

[Subdeacon Joe]

7 hours ago, Forty Rod SASS 3935 said:

Wouldn't it make more sense to attack the horse and then take a man wearing clumsy, heavy armor once he's on the ground trying to stand up with all that weight?

 

Horses are valuable.  Remember that in this period you got the plunder from your fallen opponent.  

 

7 hours ago, Forty Rod SASS 3935 said:

A armored man on a horse is an active opponent.  An armored man on the ground is a heavily laden frightened, man desperate to escape from lighter, more agile ground troops.

 

The armour used in tilting at a later time is what you are describing.  Battle armour, say full plate, would weigh maybe 60 pounds to 70 pounds and was well distributed.  I'll grant that getting knocked off a horse, or having a horse you are riding go down with you on it, can leave you a bit stunned and disoriented with or without armour.  But full kit doesn't have you moving like Frankenstein's Monster.