Ok, another shameless plug. This version requires Java enabled in I.E. (Netscape works funny). Also it either works funny on the Macintosh or not at all (Mac java emplementation is funny). I feel funny. No sleep. Check it out:
http://www.videoclipstream.com/akamai/lotr/lotr.ht ml
I encoded it from someone else's QuickTime which looked like it was ripped from the Real version.
If you don't want to install RealCrap for unix, you can visit my keynote mirror here and listen to it on Java audio streaming:
http://www.clipstream.com/demo/jello.html
I'm testing out a java audio streaming technology and have encoded Jello's looong keynote using it. The advantages are no RealCrap player needed. If you want to check it out, go here:
http://www.clipstream.com/demo/jello.html
Make sure your browser is java enabled (technology doesn't set cookies, by the way).
Sounds like David Brin's "Sundiver". It's a good book that delves in Brin's later universe where the nature of the relationship between advanced species and their younger cousins is explored. He is aware of but doesn't really go beyond the anthropomorphizing of alien races. I'm glad he followed up with "Startide Rising", a classic. Too bad he didn't end with that, though.
"Correct, and not in dispute, the point was that the tactics used [to defeat knights] required technology that took a very long time to develop."
No no. Not technologically based. Swiss cantons defeated Austrian and allied knights without the aid of crossbows or longbows or gunpowder. How? Ambushing and formations. The use of the halberd (existing technology) and the discipline of massed formations. Flemish towns let knights splash against palisades and trenches and then skewered them. The common thread is motivation and disciplined tactics.
"It was routine for knights to battle armies several times their size and win. I believe National Geographic (possibly Scientific American) quoted some historical references of odds up to 35 to 1."
Yes, it is true that a fully armoured and mounted knight can run down few lightly armoured horsemen and the knights did stay awhile in the Holy Land. However, if you examine the battles of Hattin and Adrianopole, you will see that the knowledge of how to defeat these charging dreadnoughts was not unknown. Let them charge. Even slow them down with lines of infantry, and then harass and pursue them when they retreat to reform and rest. Repeat until knights succumb. The longevity of the crusader kingdoms had more to do with them staying in their nicely built castles than their tactics on the battlefield. (Also, the muslims were scarecely united against them). The assassins, by the way, were not a special unit developed to deal with knights. They were a unique sect who used assassination against both muslim and infidel to gain power in both worlds.
"The various orders of the knighthood had professional military leaders. A person who was to become a knight would start training no later than 12 years of age. They received far more training than any modern army."
Undoubtedly, the average knight was highly trained in personal combat. That does not translate into organization and tactics, however. Especially when faced with an enemy who does not break and flee or wants to fight knight to knight.
As for the evolution of knights to cavalry, yes it is true that being in the cavalry up to the 19th century was considered a plum place to be if you were upper class or nobility. But the function of that cavalry on the battlefield was more influenced by the eastern use of cavalry than it was by knights. Hence the use of the sabre (from the Turkish shamshir) and the prevalence of light cavalry (hussars, chasseurs, their cossack cousins) rather than heavy (shock) cavalry. In the U.S. Civil War while it was still fashionable to ride around in nice uniforms, cavalry was definitely in its scouting and raiding role (certainly not in the dominant role as it was in the middle ages). Your comment about the modern usage of 'cavalry' is pretty interesting. Air cavalry in the form of a flight of Apache attack choppers certainly is pretty 'shocking'. hmmm:)
The biggest enemy of armour in the modern context is infantry and ground. With infantry increasingly armed with powerful anti-tank weapons and the ground increasingly unfavourable to armoured warfare (more urban warfare), the tank may be a bit marginalized. Perfect tank fields such as in Desert Storm are not expected to be future sites of conflict. This is another example of social changes bringing change in warfare. All these factors are interdependent.
"It wasn't missile weapons that defeated mounted armored knights, it was military tactics. This has no basis in reality. As weaponry came along that was capable of countering the knight (mainly the lowly pike), the knight was forced to evolve their tactics. The concept of the knight simply evolved into that of cavalry, and later armored vehicles (tanks). Knights were always fought with knights if pikemen were not available. Much as a modern army sends armor against armor. The formality of the knight only went away when the king of France grew jealous of their financial power."
You can argue both sides but there is truth to all of this. If you ever read the popular history "Distant Mirror" by Barbara Tuchman she gives plenty of evidence that knights were defeated by a combination of social change, economic change as well as by technology. Firstly, it is true that there was plenty of technology available to bring down the average armoured knights. That has already been covered. However, there had to be the will and organization (tactics) to use it. In Tuchman's book she gives plenty of examples where noble haughtiness (honor! honor!) won over common sense. ex. Let's charge the well entrenched English and their massed bowmen over a muddy field! Against middle eastern horsed bowmen, the flower of chivalry were commonly slaughtered by lighter, but better lead muslim soldiery who followed professional military leaders rather than squabble amongst themselves over who gets to charge first. Knights were a class of people who did not simply evolve into different categories of military units. Knights somehow transforming into tanks, indeed. The nobility were forced to open their ranks and share power with the bourgeois as the economic power of towns grew. Inevitably, this meant that military leadership was no longer an accident of birth but also required some element of professionalism. Towns that sent off and financed cadres insisted upon it. Some knights may have morphed into heavy shock cavalry, but the utility of cavalry on the battlefield went through a few phases, ending up during Napoleonic times in their ideal support roles of scouting, masking, harassing, and mopping up. A modern army does not ideally send armour against armour. Ideally, a modern army sends armour against desk clerks.:) Also medieval knights were only too happy to skewer peasants who are running away.
"As to rapiers, yes, they are pretty ineffective on a battlefield, being better for a duel, however, I believe that a part of their design is to slip in between the small cracks in armor and such. I could be wrong, though. (A good deal of the point of a rapier is to look nice, though:), which I feel they do very well.)"
They certainly do look great. Even in fashion the rapier underwent many changes, eventually becoming mostly ornamental as the smallsword which looked as pretty but was a lot lighter and less unwieldy. These types of weapons were useful both on the duelling field but also in the regular type of drunken brawling that goes on when haughty male types get together and down a few ales. Also, during these times banditry was a scourge on travellers so I imagine any type of blade would have been nice to have.
"I believe(more meant to one of the later replies, but I don't want to answer all of them individually, and it is related to this:) that gunpowder did change things, as when people are shooting at you, it is probably more important to be mobile. The pike probably helped a bit, but that has been around far longer than gunpowder, since before the times of heavy armor."
mmmm.. mobility is always nice, especially when you might want to run away (it happens) but against the type of gunfire arrayed on the field in these set piece battles, getting hit was more of a matter of chance than whether you were mobile or static. Among its effects, the advent of mass produced gunpowder made it necessary for organization to appear again on the battlefield as only well-directed, mass gunfire was likely to have any effect on the enemy. No more rabble parting so the knights can go a'charging. Although considerably less accurate than a good bowman, massed gunfire put lots of power in the hand of the average conscript, which at medium to close range would either butcher the enemy or at least scare them away.
"As for swords being replaced by firearms, that was no revolution. Swords were commonly issued to soldiers all the way up through the US civil war. It took centuries for the sword to be replaced by the gun. And even it today's modern army a bayonett fixed to the end of a rifle (emergency sword) is standard issue."
Being issued gear and actually using it are separate matters. Hand to hand combat after the introduction of mass field fire tactics (lines and volleys) were uncommon outside of skirmishes and the regular pitchforking of helpless people (civs and routed enemy). Bayonets even at the time of Marlborough were issued and displayed more for morale than for actual use. Most would choose to run in the face of a pressing charge from a formed up enemy than actually cross swords or bayonets with them. As for their facility against cavalry, the bayonet did not replace the pike in utility, but it may have given soldiers enough of a morale boost so that they would stay together and not rout (allowing cavalry to run them down individually). Today's bayonet drills are a joke, little more than physical exercise. Bayonets are best used for digging out trenches and opening ration containers.
Swords issued to officers after the age of Marlborough were part of the uniform and most officers were glad to be rid of their encumbrance for everyday wear.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, another shameless plug. This version requires Java enabled in I.E. (Netscape works funny). Also it either works funny on the Macintosh or not at all (Mac java emplementation is funny). I feel funny. No sleep. Check it out: http://www.videoclipstream.com/akamai/lotr/lotr.ht ml
I encoded it from someone else's QuickTime which looked like it was ripped from the Real version.
If you don't want to install RealCrap for unix, you can visit my keynote mirror here and listen to it on Java audio streaming: http://www.clipstream.com/demo/jello.html
I'm testing out a java audio streaming technology and have encoded Jello's looong keynote using it. The advantages are no RealCrap player needed. If you want to check it out, go here: http://www.clipstream.com/demo/jello.html Make sure your browser is java enabled (technology doesn't set cookies, by the way).
Sounds like David Brin's "Sundiver". It's a good book that delves in Brin's later universe where the nature of the relationship between advanced species and their younger cousins is explored. He is aware of but doesn't really go beyond the anthropomorphizing of alien races. I'm glad he followed up with "Startide Rising", a classic. Too bad he didn't end with that, though.
Subcontracted for the job will be the Drax Corporation...
"Correct, and not in dispute, the point was that the tactics used [to defeat knights] required technology that took a very long time to develop."
:)
No no. Not technologically based. Swiss cantons defeated Austrian and allied knights without the aid of crossbows or longbows or gunpowder. How? Ambushing and formations. The use of the halberd (existing technology) and the discipline of massed formations. Flemish towns let knights splash against palisades and trenches and then skewered them. The common thread is motivation and disciplined tactics.
"It was routine for knights to battle armies several times their size and win. I believe National Geographic (possibly Scientific American) quoted some historical references of odds up to 35 to 1."
Yes, it is true that a fully armoured and mounted knight can run down few lightly armoured horsemen and the knights did stay awhile in the Holy Land. However, if you examine the battles of Hattin and Adrianopole, you will see that the knowledge of how to defeat these charging dreadnoughts was not unknown. Let them charge. Even slow them down with lines of infantry, and then harass and pursue them when they retreat to reform and rest. Repeat until knights succumb. The longevity of the crusader kingdoms had more to do with them staying in their nicely built castles than their tactics on the battlefield. (Also, the muslims were scarecely united against them). The assassins, by the way, were not a special unit developed to deal with knights. They were a unique sect who used assassination against both muslim and infidel to gain power in both worlds.
"The various orders of the knighthood had professional military leaders. A person who was to become a knight would start training no later than 12 years of age. They received far more training than any modern army."
Undoubtedly, the average knight was highly trained in personal combat. That does not translate into organization and tactics, however. Especially when faced with an enemy who does not break and flee or wants to fight knight to knight.
As for the evolution of knights to cavalry, yes it is true that being in the cavalry up to the 19th century was considered a plum place to be if you were upper class or nobility. But the function of that cavalry on the battlefield was more influenced by the eastern use of cavalry than it was by knights. Hence the use of the sabre (from the Turkish shamshir) and the prevalence of light cavalry (hussars, chasseurs, their cossack cousins) rather than heavy (shock) cavalry. In the U.S. Civil War while it was still fashionable to ride around in nice uniforms, cavalry was definitely in its scouting and raiding role (certainly not in the dominant role as it was in the middle ages). Your comment about the modern usage of 'cavalry' is pretty interesting. Air cavalry in the form of a flight of Apache attack choppers certainly is pretty 'shocking'. hmmm
The biggest enemy of armour in the modern context is infantry and ground. With infantry increasingly armed with powerful anti-tank weapons and the ground increasingly unfavourable to armoured warfare (more urban warfare), the tank may be a bit marginalized. Perfect tank fields such as in Desert Storm are not expected to be future sites of conflict. This is another example of social changes bringing change in warfare. All these factors are interdependent.
"It wasn't missile weapons that defeated mounted armored knights, it was military tactics. This has no basis in reality. As weaponry came along that was capable of countering the knight (mainly the lowly pike), the knight was forced to evolve their tactics. The concept of the knight simply evolved into that of cavalry, and later armored vehicles (tanks). Knights were always fought with knights if pikemen were not available. Much as a modern army sends armor against armor. The formality of the knight only went away when the king of France grew jealous of their financial power."
:) Also medieval knights were only too happy to skewer peasants who are running away.
You can argue both sides but there is truth to all of this. If you ever read the popular history "Distant Mirror" by Barbara Tuchman she gives plenty of evidence that knights were defeated by a combination of social change, economic change as well as by technology. Firstly, it is true that there was plenty of technology available to bring down the average armoured knights. That has already been covered. However, there had to be the will and organization (tactics) to use it. In Tuchman's book she gives plenty of examples where noble haughtiness (honor! honor!) won over common sense. ex. Let's charge the well entrenched English and their massed bowmen over a muddy field! Against middle eastern horsed bowmen, the flower of chivalry were commonly slaughtered by lighter, but better lead muslim soldiery who followed professional military leaders rather than squabble amongst themselves over who gets to charge first. Knights were a class of people who did not simply evolve into different categories of military units. Knights somehow transforming into tanks, indeed. The nobility were forced to open their ranks and share power with the bourgeois as the economic power of towns grew. Inevitably, this meant that military leadership was no longer an accident of birth but also required some element of professionalism. Towns that sent off and financed cadres insisted upon it. Some knights may have morphed into heavy shock cavalry, but the utility of cavalry on the battlefield went through a few phases, ending up during Napoleonic times in their ideal support roles of scouting, masking, harassing, and mopping up. A modern army does not ideally send armour against armour. Ideally, a modern army sends armour against desk clerks.
"As to rapiers, yes, they are pretty ineffective on a battlefield, being better for a duel, however, I believe that a part of their design is to slip in between the small cracks in armor and such. I could be wrong, though. (A good deal of the point of a rapier is to look nice, though:), which I feel they do very well.)"
They certainly do look great. Even in fashion the rapier underwent many changes, eventually becoming mostly ornamental as the smallsword which looked as pretty but was a lot lighter and less unwieldy. These types of weapons were useful both on the duelling field but also in the regular type of drunken brawling that goes on when haughty male types get together and down a few ales. Also, during these times banditry was a scourge on travellers so I imagine any type of blade would have been nice to have.
"I believe(more meant to one of the later replies, but I don't want to answer all of them individually, and it is related to this:) that gunpowder did change things, as when people are shooting at you, it is probably more important to be mobile. The pike probably helped a bit, but that has been around far longer than gunpowder, since before the times of heavy armor."
mmmm.. mobility is always nice, especially when you might want to run away (it happens) but against the type of gunfire arrayed on the field in these set piece battles, getting hit was more of a matter of chance than whether you were mobile or static. Among its effects, the advent of mass produced gunpowder made it necessary for organization to appear again on the battlefield as only well-directed, mass gunfire was likely to have any effect on the enemy. No more rabble parting so the knights can go a'charging. Although considerably less accurate than a good bowman, massed gunfire put lots of power in the hand of the average conscript, which at medium to close range would either butcher the enemy or at least scare them away.
"As for swords being replaced by firearms, that was no revolution. Swords were commonly issued to soldiers all the way up through the US civil war. It took centuries for the sword to be replaced by the gun. And even it today's modern army a bayonett fixed to the end of a rifle (emergency sword) is standard issue."
Being issued gear and actually using it are separate matters. Hand to hand combat after the introduction of mass field fire tactics (lines and volleys) were uncommon outside of skirmishes and the regular pitchforking of helpless people (civs and routed enemy). Bayonets even at the time of Marlborough were issued and displayed more for morale than for actual use. Most would choose to run in the face of a pressing charge from a formed up enemy than actually cross swords or bayonets with them. As for their facility against cavalry, the bayonet did not replace the pike in utility, but it may have given soldiers enough of a morale boost so that they would stay together and not rout (allowing cavalry to run them down individually). Today's bayonet drills are a joke, little more than physical exercise. Bayonets are best used for digging out trenches and opening ration containers.
Swords issued to officers after the age of Marlborough were part of the uniform and most officers were glad to be rid of their encumbrance for everyday wear.