5 ms·

Armor

by reidjs 4y ago

Armor

somenameforme 4y ago
It also would not have been chivalrous to kill an opponent who yielded, so the only ones dying are those who were killed in short order on the battle field, or those who refused to yield in hopeless circumstance.
- birdyrooster 4y ago
  Tis but a scratch
- hprotagonist 4y ago
  "you can't ransom the dead!" and basically all the combatants were noble.
  - varjag 4y ago
    Weren't they all executed in the end?
    - henryfjordan 4y ago
      >All the prisoners were treated well and were released promptly on the payment of a small ransom. https://www.britannica.com/event/Battle-of-the-Thirty https://www.britannica.com/event/Battle-of-the-Thirty
      - varjag 4y ago
        But then again, According to the visitors' guide to the Chateau de Josselin "As evening fell that day, the victor, Captain de Beaumanoir, returned the prisoners to Josselin and had them executed." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_of_the_Thirty#Battle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_of_the_Thirty#Battle
- telchior 4y ago
  Probably much more important than chivalry: you can't ransom off a captive who is dead. Ransoms were really, really large in that period. Five years after this battle, the English captured the French king at Poitiers. His ransom was 4 million gold coins plus, I think, various concessions. The French ended up having to pay a lot of ransoms through the whole war, and as a result, the nobility and crown were so poor they couldn't prevent banditry and famines. Barbara Tuchman's A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous 14th Century is a very engaging account of this period.
  - greesil 4y ago
    My takeaway from reading that book was that if I was a time traveler I'd avoid that place and time. I thought the banditry may have served as inspiration for the middle books of Game of Thrones.
    - MomoXenosaga 4y ago
      I think the religious wars of the 16th and 17th century were worse. Even high nobility was not immune from torture and gruesome executions. You can't bribe a fanatic.
User23 4y ago
In today’s age of firearms it’s easy to not realize just how effective medieval armor was against the weapons of the time. An armored knight was basically a terminator tier threat to lightly armed footmen until the longbow and later weapon advances.
- WalterBright 4y ago
  The recent movie "The Last Duel" featured a duel to the death by two knights. I thought the fight sequence was good, but was amazed to learn it was historically accurate. Observers at the time had actually documented the fight blow by blow, and the movie hewed to it. So if you want to see a best effort recreation of how two heavily armored knights would fight, watch it!

Armor

by reidjs 4y ago

Armor

It also would not have been chivalrous to kill an opponent who yielded, so the only ones dying are those who were killed in short order on the battle field, or those who refused to yield in hopeless circumstance.

birdyrooster 4y ago
Tis but a scratch
hprotagonist 4y ago
"you can't ransom the dead!" and basically all the combatants were noble.
- varjag 4y ago
  Weren't they all executed in the end?
  - henryfjordan 4y ago
    >All the prisoners were treated well and were released promptly on the payment of a small ransom. https://www.britannica.com/event/Battle-of-the-Thirty https://www.britannica.com/event/Battle-of-the-Thirty
    - varjag 4y ago
      But then again, According to the visitors' guide to the Chateau de Josselin "As evening fell that day, the victor, Captain de Beaumanoir, returned the prisoners to Josselin and had them executed." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_of_the_Thirty#Battle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_of_the_Thirty#Battle
telchior 4y ago
Probably much more important than chivalry: you can't ransom off a captive who is dead. Ransoms were really, really large in that period. Five years after this battle, the English captured the French king at Poitiers. His ransom was 4 million gold coins plus, I think, various concessions. The French ended up having to pay a lot of ransoms through the whole war, and as a result, the nobility and crown were so poor they couldn't prevent banditry and famines. Barbara Tuchman's A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous 14th Century is a very engaging account of this period.
- greesil 4y ago
  My takeaway from reading that book was that if I was a time traveler I'd avoid that place and time. I thought the banditry may have served as inspiration for the middle books of Game of Thrones.
  - MomoXenosaga 4y ago
    I think the religious wars of the 16th and 17th century were worse. Even high nobility was not immune from torture and gruesome executions. You can't bribe a fanatic.

User23 4y ago

In today’s age of firearms it’s easy to not realize just how effective medieval armor was against the weapons of the time. An armored knight was basically a terminator tier threat to lightly armed footmen until the longbow and later weapon advances.

WalterBright 4y ago
The recent movie "The Last Duel" featured a duel to the death by two knights. I thought the fight sequence was good, but was amazed to learn it was historically accurate. Observers at the time had actually documented the fight blow by blow, and the movie hewed to it. So if you want to see a best effort recreation of how two heavily armored knights would fight, watch it!