Knight-Killing Weapons

[RapierFighter]

Here are some weapons that proved to be a real threat to the knight in plate armor. I have a natural tendancy to root for the underdog, and the common infantryman was certainly an underdog in most cases when taking on a knight. I am in the Society of Creative Anachronism, and have witnessed many experiments with well-made plate. The sword has low value, the spear almost none. These weapons were strange in some cases, but were interesting in their ability to break through plate. But then, a knight was rarely a fool, and was unlikely to just sit there and allow himself to be hit. He was fighting back, and thus, it was heart as much as hardware that could bring down a knight.

And many of these weapons worked so well that knights even used them on each other.

1. Ahlspeiss (eel spear): A staff weapon with a three or four foot long piercing blade tapering to an extrememly sharp tip, with a roundel where the staff met the blade to provide protection for the hand.

advantages: A strong thrust could penetrate deeply into plate and skewer its wearer. The blade was long and could parry a sword stroke, and was extremely difficult to break.

disadvantages: The ahlspeiss was heavy, requiring two hand and thus there was no shield. To provide the force to break through plate, a strong blow had to be executed. If the blow missed, the weight of the spear could carry the user forward off his feet, with obvious negative results.

appearance: http://medieval.mrugala.net/Armes/Images/Ahlspiess.jpg

2. Mace: A short weapon with a wooden or steel handle that ended in a weight desinged to bludgeon. Often the bludgeon was fitted with spikes, studs, or flanges to increase the force of the strike.

advantages: The weapon was short and quick, and a trained man could recover from a missed attack and defend himself. The weight made a parry against a sword particularly effective. A strike to a helemted head could incapacitate a man long enough to finish him off.

disadvantages: Not many. Sometimes repeated blows might be needed against a strong suit of plate. You don't want to take too long with killing a man.

appearance:
http://www.ringgame.net/SecondAge/weapons/mace.jpg
http://www.goodvevil.com/wiki/images/6/63/Mace.png
http://suzilla.home.comcast.net/weap/mace.jpg

3. Morning Star (or military flail): Essentially a mace with the bludgeon seperated from the staff with a short length of chain.

advantages: The chain added a great deal more power to the blow. A single strike to an armored head could bring a man down. The length of chain also meant that an attempt to parry with a sword would result in the blade getting entagled with the chain, and possibly yanked from his grasp.

disadvantages: The morning star was difficult to use, and was more dangerous to the user without considerable training. It was also exhausting for the user. A missed or a weak blow left the user vulnerable. The weapon needed to be kept moving to be effective, which was difficult for a soldier dodging about.

appearance:
http://www.aai.ee/~ingmar/creation/flail.jpg
http://userpages.umbc.edu/~just1/sch...ject/flail.jpg

4. Lucerne Hammer or Bec de Corbin: a pole weapon five or six feet long, with a serrated hammer on one end, with a rearward facing claw and a thrusting spike.

advantages: The hammer could crush armor, and the claw and spike could punch through. Also, with a steel buttcap, the butt end could strike with considerable force. A knight could be kept at bay or forced on his back foot.

disadvantages: Not many. A knight with a sword had to be really good to prevail against this weapon.

appearance:
http://art-connection.de/pic.400/S40...er.hammer3.gif
http://fervalaka.free.fr/Images/Armes/Armes12/Bec01.jpg

5. Warhammer: Imagine a bec de corbin short enough to be used one-handed.

advantages: When used with a shield, this was a deadly combination. A hammer strike could daze a knight long enough to stike with the claw.

disadvantages: Only useful at close range, allowing a knight to get close enough to hit with the sword.

appearance:
http://crimlaw.blogspot.com/hammer.JPG
http://www.zyworld.com/MedievalArmou...ith%20beak.jpg

Oh there are others, but why don't you tell me about them? In the end, these weapons were a stop gap measure more than anything esle. A temporary solution until a weapon could be developed which forver rendered armor obselete. The Welsh Longbow certainly could puncture plate, but kingdoms on the continent didn't use them. THis is the weapon that forver ended the rule of the knight on the battlefield.

Matchlock Musket
http://www.therifleshoppe.com/528_Full_Stock_Web.jpg

Please reply. Let's see what you think.

[Pruitt]

It mainly depends on where you were and what the local knights used. Flemish peasants favored one of my favorites, the Gudendag (sp?). It looked like a long baseball bat with spikes in the head and one on top. The spike on top was used to defend against warhorses. Once you dehorsed the knight, you aimed for a joint or the head. The spikes were good at penetrating plate, but did you really want to risk it getting stuck there?

There is also the traditional weapon of choice, the Pike. The pike was used to kill or wound the warhorse. Once on the ground, your men at arms would engage the knight.

Even better would be if the knight had fell down and for some reason could not easily get up. Anybody with a dagger could strike at the eyeholes, under the arms, groin or the rear of the suit of armor. To make the armor light and manueverable, you had to leave gaps and not every suit armored the back well. You certainly would not armor your connection to the warhorse either.

Fighting knights was a combined arms team approach. You need missile throwers, light troops, men at arms and pikemen.

Pruitt

[RapierFighter]

The Gudendag, the beast that wasted the French at Courtrai. I like that one.

Good points you made there. I wanna party with you.

[Franklin1864]

I'd have to go with the longbow.

Advantage: A knight cannot hit what he cannot reach. Fast rate of fire. Good penetration.

Disadvantage: Very long learning curve. It took regular practice for quite a while in order to become proficient with the longbow, while teaching someone to use a crossbow was fairly straight forward and simple. I beleive this is the reason the longbow fell out of favor...

Example: The Hundred Years War (Crecy, Poitiers, Agincourt)

[tanker55]

What about the battle axe

Advantages:kill in one hit, long.

Disadvantages:heavy could throw you of balance takes a little bit to recover from swing.

[MajorSennef]

This theme (how to bring down your social betters) seems to be quite popular in these egalitarian times and I must admit delightfully attractive to ponder about. Being (all specialities stripped away) infantry myself I have given this some thought 'how would I bring down an armed and horsed knight in the Middle Ages?'
To turn it into something I can relate to, I think one should compare it to: how would I take on a tank?
1. Only accept the right men in your company: I remember how it was when my entrenched position was being rushed by tanks during an exercise. Earth started to shake and sand filling the trench, it required willpower not to run. I guess a thundering cavalry charge has the same effect Your men should also have the cool of nerve to remain steady.
2. Good weapons which can do the job. Pointed stakes to fight from (Agincourt) and one or several winning ME weapons, my favourite being the 'goedendag', see my posts in 'favourite ME weapon', but wouldn't say no to the armour piercing crossbow or longbow. Ahlspiess is perhaps to heavy, but halberd seems to be a very competent weapon against knights.
3.Good weapons alone might not be enough. Like rapierfighter observes: knights, like tankers, are not stupid so you should not fight them on terms which favours them, like on open land. Choosing the terrain is important: Courtrai field is crossed by brooks, so no charge; Agincourt was flanked by forest, so no flanking movements. I don't think knights can be tempted to attack woods or built-up areas.
4. Darkness or really nasty weather favours infantry! So preferably I'd give battle the evening/night before the battle arriving at the opponents' camp after a forced night march. I may find my opponents preparing for battle or drinking/sleeping. Attack with fire (torches carried in clay urns which will be broken the moment of attack) will bring the odds to my side. But even heavy rain/snow at the regular battlefield will favour me more than the knights.

[Mountain Man]

The longbow was a fearsome weapon, but armor makers learned to temper plate armor which rendered it invulnerable to longbow arrows. Just as today, every advance in one weapons system leads to advances in all others affected by it. The knight was the MBT of his day, and all the rest was anti-tankweaponry of the period.

Additionally, skilled longbow men were costly weapons en masse. They were not conscripts; they sold their skills on themarket.

The crossbow was an excellent weapon, but it's slow rate of fire left it's user vulnerable on the field of battle for critical moments.

The slow progress towards gunpowder weapons turned the small battlefields into huge ones filled with the previously unimaginable horrors of more modern forms of warfare...and not a single suit of armor in sight.

[TacCovert4]

Until now, when armor has finally reached a strength where it can defeat the average infantryman's weapon for a short period of time.

[liba85]

Originally Posted by TacCovert4

Until now, when armor has finally reached a strength where it can defeat the average infantryman's weapon for a short period of time.

Like the Dragon skin body armor.. But weren't the knights slow and cumbersome.

[Bow]

Originally Posted by Franklin1864

I'd have to go with the longbow.

Advantage: A knight cannot hit what he cannot reach. Fast rate of fire. Good penetration.

Disadvantage: Very long learning curve. It took regular practice for quite a while in order to become proficient with the longbow, while teaching someone to use a crossbow was fairly straight forward and simple. I beleive this is the reason the longbow fell out of favor...

Example: The Hundred Years War (Crecy, Poitiers, Agincourt)

Bit of a bitch if it rains and your bow cord gets wet though..good for keeping knights at a distance in good weather....for close up an personal in the wet nothing would beat the large studded club ( forgot the name)

per ardua ad astra

[Mountain Man]

Liba - not really. Darwinism pretty much guarantees that slow, cumbersome knights died off rapidly. In reality, these were small - by our standards - but husky, strong little buggers who could chop away all day without rasing a sweat. I once visited a reconstructed Viking village in Norway - I was astonished to find that the Viking males were barely above five feet tall, based on the height of their doorways and the length of their beds. The knights of old were the same - short, but strong as apes.

One thing the movies have never got right is the anatomy of a swordsman. A real swordsman of the time was abnormaly developed in the right shoulder and arm from the countless hours of extra exertion using his weapon and training with it. I imagine some of them must have looked like humpbacks after decades of swinging heavy weapons.

[MajorSennef]

Originally Posted by MountainMan

Liba - not really. Darwinism pretty much guarantees that slow, cumbersome knights died off rapidly. In reality, these were small - by our standards - but husky, strong little buggers who could chop away all day without rasing a sweat. I once visited a reconstructed Viking village in Norway - I was astonished to find that the Viking males were barely above five feet tall, based on the height of their doorways and the length of their beds. The knights of old were the same - short, but strong as apes.

One thing the movies have never got right is the anatomy of a swordsman. A real swordsman of the time was abnormaly developed in the right shoulder and arm from the countless hours of extra exertion using his weapon and training with it. I imagine some of them must have looked like humpbacks after decades of swinging heavy weapons.

Good point Mountain Man! During visits to museums and castles I often saw armour on display which would only fit people smaller then us. So it is easy to believe people wearing them were smaller than we are. However museum guides informed me that the armour was meant for display and to show the craftsmanship of the armourer rather than meant for use.
Real medieval armour for use in battle was much bigger but very rare these days. The idea that medieval people were smaller than our generation's, so the guides said, was wrong and based on generations who lived in slums during and after the Industrial Revolution (C19). Medieval knights could be compared to healthy living athletes and were in no way diminutive.

[Mountain Man]

Based on diet and so forth, the average person in medieval times pretty much had to be small. The sheer caloric intake that sustains a modern man, 2000 or more calories per day, simply was not available to any but the very rich. Research your own family tree and note that each generation was taller than the last, the benefits of changing socio-economic status, better diet and increased caloric intake. A six-foot man today is nothing special, but he would have been a giant back then. In fact, you can find this "fact" in old books, which often mention someone being "a giant of a man, fully six feet tall". Obviously, the average guy was considerably shorter.

I have seen those suits of armor myelf, but I never bought into the "window display" theory. Time was money to the armorers, and the idea of someone spending hundreds of hours meticulously crafting a very fine suit of armor just to show it off never made any sense. Mostly, the armorers of old relied on word of mouth about their products, which were seen on the battlefields, admired and thus sought after. There were no TV commercials or display windows to decorate in medieval times.

One museum I went to in England had personal armor of several notables including one of the kings, about which the guide directed our atention to the diminuitive stature and specifically mentioned that men of old were smaller in stature. These were personal suits of armor and not display models. What was most interesting, however, were the often huge and elaborate codpieces on the suits; apparently, personal hubris is nothing new no matter what century.

[String]

Indeed, the skeletons of medieval knights are quite easily identified because their right hand is usually 1-2cm longer than their left.

[Pruitt]

MoutainMan,

I must be a genetic abnormality. I topped off at the same height as my father and grandfather. Now for my Mom's family, I might be considered tall, until you take a look at my Great Grandfather who was over 6 foot tall. Only one of my grandparents was probably denied nutrition growing up, and he was the 5'9" one! My baby Brother probably is a throwback to GGF as he got over 6 foot tall, but he got red hair to boot, so I came out ahead!

Certain areas of Europe, like Scotland, continued to grow large people well up until the Industrial Age. When all those Highlanders started crowding into the slums of Edinburgh and Glasgow, we find they could not forage for a better diet. The 1st Battalion Black Watch before 1914 averaged over 6'4" in height, taller than the Guards!

Once people got away from the pastoral and agricultural life is when nutrition began to suffer. As for me, I am going to blame the lack of growth on my part to my four Great Grandmothers, all of whom stood under 5 feet tall! Nutrition is important, but so is genetics!

Pruitt