I know acoup is popular here but this really struck me: """ It will be little surprise then, that the infantry of armies of this sort generally performed poorl

I know acoup is popular here but this really struck me: """ It will be little surprise then, that the infantry of armies of this sort generally performed poorly – that was part of what made the knight so successful in his hey-day: there simply wasn’t a lot of effective infantry around """ (European) Infantry of the pre-modern period was ... badly trained and generally not very good. Which is why people paid for mercenaries - who were not super soldiers, just well trained and equipped. And frequently specialised in a particular weapon. Fascinating ! Plus this - a 500 year trip through the medieval arms race : """ So, for instance, mail armor provided great protection from one-handed cutting swords and OK protection from one-handed spears. As that armor becomes more common, you see in turn the development of anti-mail weapons (arrows with bodkin points, crossbows and maces, along with swords with more pronounced stabbing points). In response to that, you see the development of ‘transitional’ armors (coat of plates, brigandine), which use metal plates to frustrate those kinds of attacks. In response to that, you see the development of weapons (like the rondal dagger) designed to strike at gaps in that kind of protection, which in turn prompts the development to fuller protection (the full plate harness). And in response to that you see the development of war hammers, military picks and eventually guns designed to defeat that kind of armor. """