How were Knights in plate armor killed?

Apparently, wearing full plate armor, made you nigh invincible in combat. Swords, spears, axes etc. would all bounce off of your armor. Even most arrows would be nullified by a solid set of plate armor.
So how do you kill a Knight?
Apparently, people say you have to stab them in the joints or the visors. But that seems impossible to do in combat, especially when the knight is moving and on a horse, probably in formation with a hundred to a thousand other fricking knights.
Some people say you take them to the ground and then draw a dagger and stab them to death in the joints. But again, that seems impossible to do if a Knight is in formation.
Other people say to use a Halberd, Spear, Poleaxe, or some other kind of polearm. But how would these kill a knight if they can't penetrate the plate armor? You run into the same issue as above where you still have to target the joints or visor, which seems impossible to do with enemies moving in formation.
Really, the only strat that I can see consistently working is taking a blunt weapon, and then trying to deliver concussive damage to the brain, ribs, or organs. But blunt weapons don't seem to be that popular if you look at the manuscripts of knights fighting or even medieval literature like Le Morte De Arthur.
So I just don't get it. HOW did you kill a Knight.

Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68

DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68

Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    https://win.tempiocavalleriaitaliana.it/public/biblioteca/pubblicazioni/Wallhausen%20Johann%20Jakob%20Engravings%20From%20Ritterkunst_Art%20Militaire%20a%20Cheval.pdf

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      When mounted, the full force of a lance carried by thousands of pounds of horse will normally cause significant blunt force damage to the recipient. If the force of the lance drives into a weak point of the armor (joints, visor) the recipient is fricking dead.
      On foot, it’s a game of whose martial prowess allows them to either bludgeon to death their opponent quick enough, or to force a sharp point into a weak point of the armor.
      Also crowd crushing could kill fully armored men; sinking into mud, drowning, crushed and trampled.
      Also musket balls could kill a fully armored man. But it depended on how thick the armor was. Later cuirasses were thick enough to deflect musket balls, but it wasn’t possible to make a full suit of such weight and density.

      Both Aztec Javelins and English longbows have been known to penetrate plate armor and plate armor has also been known to bounce off light cannon pieces. Both are true because plates were not made equal. Heat treat fails were actually quite common in Early Milanese suits and it took until the age of Innsbruck manufacturing to have standardised tempered suits rated for pistols and maybe small arquebuses. Even with super heavy suits only the cuirass was proof for large muskets.

      You also have to look out for shrapnel, large cart guns, someone hammering your unbraced sallet with a maul, getting thrown off horses etc.

      So basically, lances, trampling them, concussive damage, or shooting them with a gun, bow, or crossbow.
      Did Halberds and other polearms ever come into play with killing knights? I know for example that the Swiss Mercenaries and Landsknechts were highly sought after, and I know their preferred weapons were polearms. Did they simply bludgeon knights to death with the blunt pieces of halberds? And if that was the case, how did the pike only formations approach knights?
      Take pic related for example, how could the Swiss Mercenaries here kill the knight? He's in plate armor and they're wielding pikes. So shouldn't their weapons bounce off of him?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        They literally did bludgeon them. Sir John Smythe just advises soldiers to grug smash people in the helmet and thrust at the face. A lot of Men at arms raised their visors after the lines met.

        In regards to the Pikes, it was a very rare occasion for Men at Arms to charge into an formed line. Even the Poles, with their incredibly long lances were afraid to commit to such a dangerous formation and had to rely on good infantry and artillery to break the lines down in places.

        >Ours in a brave charge ramming fences, with which the enemy treacherously strengthened their defence, and plunging into pikes with chests, suffered a lot of damage in horses

        Primary sources to history of the Polish art of war, volume 5, Ed. Zdzisław Spieralski, Jan Wimmer, Warsaw 1961, p. 190

        If you imagine a horse that you've raised for several years and costing as much as multiple houses dying to a single charge then there is less impetus for people to sacrifice their horses.

        If you arm your cavalry with barding to mitigate the pike then they just become heavy and cumbersome as cataphracts again and have to rely on lighter cavalry for support.

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    When mounted, the full force of a lance carried by thousands of pounds of horse will normally cause significant blunt force damage to the recipient. If the force of the lance drives into a weak point of the armor (joints, visor) the recipient is fricking dead.
    On foot, it’s a game of whose martial prowess allows them to either bludgeon to death their opponent quick enough, or to force a sharp point into a weak point of the armor.
    Also crowd crushing could kill fully armored men; sinking into mud, drowning, crushed and trampled.
    Also musket balls could kill a fully armored man. But it depended on how thick the armor was. Later cuirasses were thick enough to deflect musket balls, but it wasn’t possible to make a full suit of such weight and density.

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    most knights didnt die in battle, their armor worked
    many of the deaths counted in battles were actually from the killing of captured soldiers afterward
    so i dont believe many battles in an open field really ended in much bloodshed
    >taking a blunt weapon, and then trying to deliver concussive damage to the brain, ribs, or organs
    if you've ever put on armor you'd realize just how useless blunt weapons are against you, the denting doing shit is a complete meme, you can look at videos of people doing buhurt getting nailed full force with a mace on the helmet and it doing nothing
    i've heard the experience being described as literally nothing more than just hearing and recognizing that the hit happened, and maybe being a bit winded from whiplash, but you feel no pain under armor against a blunt blow, even to the head

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      also heres a really good video showing just how pathetic maces are against armor

      the sword the other guy is using is blunt, but you can tell that the mace used would easily kill anyone out of armor, yet it just keeps sliding off like its nothing

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        heres another good video, where they both use maces
        you'll also notice that in both of these videos, you have the answer to your question OP
        "how did knights in armor die?"
        in every case you can see on this guy's channel, the only decisive part of the fight is where they're both on the ground and have knives in their hands

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBTG9To3sls
        heres another good video, where they both use maces
        you'll also notice that in both of these videos, you have the answer to your question OP
        "how did knights in armor die?"
        in every case you can see on this guy's channel, the only decisive part of the fight is where they're both on the ground and have knives in their hands

        But you don't have time to pull a knight to the ground, wrestle them, and then slowly stab them to death in a pitched battle. A knight is never by themself in a battle. They'll be backed by dozens or even hundreds of other knights in battle fighting side by side with them in formation, and they'll also probably be on horses too.
        So grapple and stab may work in a 1v1 duel, but it's 100% not going to work in a real battle. Which thus begs the question, how did one kill a knight?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          the heat of battle makes it a lot easier to wrestle people and focus on individual 1v1s than you think
          i also dont say this without evidence, theres plenty of depictions where knights are clearly grappling eachother with sidearms and daggers, and in the same book there'll also be neatly arranged armies with their spears
          its clear that the artists depicted the battle devolving into that sort of fight
          >they'll also probably be on horses too
          lol, cavalry loved doing that shit too, pic rel

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >the heat of battle makes it a lot easier to wrestle people and focus on individual 1v1s than you think
            So did armies break out of formation once a battle started? That's something I'm actually really curious about.
            >cavalry loved doing that shit too, pic rel
            kek

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >So did armies break out of formation once a battle started?
            Knights did not make up the majority of armies.
            But generally it could be expected that a knight could keep himself from shitting his pants and running away if things got heated; differently than less trained soldiers, who fought in giant masses of spearmen.
            This is also why knights wore so much heraldry as well as carrying large banners. You could quickly identify the guys on "your side"

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Knights did not make up the majority of armies.
            >But generally it could be expected that a knight could keep himself from shitting his pants and running away if things got heated;
            So Knights were more like elite shock troopers who would advance ahead of the rest of the army, then?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >So Knights were more like elite shock troopers who would advance ahead of the rest of the army, then?
            basically
            or if their commander was smart, they'd wait until the opportune moment to charge in. but "functioning separate the rest of the army" would hold true for most knights (except, I suppose, officers of the units of footmen, some of whom would be minor nobility)

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            https://i.imgur.com/vmoMHJ2.jpeg

            also i'd like to add that lances and spears really werent a game changer against armor, atleast not between two cavalrymen
            out of most of the manuscript images i see the cavalry appear to ditch their spears up against other cavalry in favor of short weapons
            this is the real reason why swords were so common, not because they were a sidearm, but because they actually were necessary
            [...]
            i wouldnt say they necessarily broke formation, like you can usually kind of tell where each line starts and begins, but the line becomes very blurred
            the formations were also generally small, making it easy to stay together while becoming a shitfest
            [...]
            >Knights did not make up the majority of armies
            you'd be suprised sometimes
            most battles were small, but there were plenty of men at arms and knights
            you didnt need to levy your entire town over a dispute

            Do you guys have any books you'd recommend for reading on Knightly warfare?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I'll keep it real with you; I've learned this through osmosis and intuition.
            I couldnt point to you an exact book, and part of why that is that feudal armies were extremely variable due to the nature of, well, feudalism.
            suffice it to say, the king* shouldered more and more of the responsibility of payment of soldiers as the Middle Ages grew to a close. Early on, it was just by feudal obligation (i.e. the dukes owe fealty to the king, the counts to the dukes, and so on, and once you get to the "knights" (those who ran the classic "manors" of the Middle Ages), these knights were obligated to bring a certain number of additional footsoldiers when the time for war came; HOW they did it was up to the knight).

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            i disagree with that, i'd say knights and men at arms made up the bulk of the fighting force, while less armored individuals were more likely to be in the back of the same formation
            but that doesnt mean they were "shock troops"
            of course, i'm just speaking for dismounted troops, cavalry would've been more like what you're speaking about
            one interesting note is that theres evidence for the use of mounted archers/crossbowmen, which werent actually archers who shot from horseback, but used the horses to maneuver around the battlefield, then dismount and start shooting from there
            i believe they typically were armored aswell

            [...]
            Do you guys have any books you'd recommend for reading on Knightly warfare?

            theres not many surviving texts on that sort of thing, most of what we have is from the early renaissance and paintings of battles from manuscripts
            you should watch knyght errant though, he owns a full plate harness and does a lot of videos on the topic, but most of it is on the armor itself rather than warfare, yet it still changes how you view things
            https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC1T4KJG1L_kTrP9RcdU5Csw
            you should also have a look through this website, which is where i've been getting manuscript paintings from to study
            https://manuscriptminiatures.com/
            i'd also reccomend you find out information on the condotierri, which were german/italian mercenaries fighting in italy, and their successors, the landsknecht (they would've fought differently, but they were armored and have a lot of information)

            I'll keep it real with you; I've learned this through osmosis and intuition.
            I couldnt point to you an exact book, and part of why that is that feudal armies were extremely variable due to the nature of, well, feudalism.
            suffice it to say, the king* shouldered more and more of the responsibility of payment of soldiers as the Middle Ages grew to a close. Early on, it was just by feudal obligation (i.e. the dukes owe fealty to the king, the counts to the dukes, and so on, and once you get to the "knights" (those who ran the classic "manors" of the Middle Ages), these knights were obligated to bring a certain number of additional footsoldiers when the time for war came; HOW they did it was up to the knight).

            feudal levies began to die off by the time of plate armor, infact i'd say feudalism as a whole was kind of dying off
            in italy several different city states were at war with eachother in the late 1300s and early 1400s, and despite being at war and having dense cities full of people none of them were able to provide armies for themselves, and as a result they were entirely reliant on mercenaries (the previously mentioned condotierri)
            the hussite wars are likely also a good example of this

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >in italy
            well thats the thing I was saying. everything looked different whether you were in France, England, Scotland, Scandinavia, Russia, Italy, and so on; making generalization extremely difficult lol

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            also i'd like to add that lances and spears really werent a game changer against armor, atleast not between two cavalrymen
            out of most of the manuscript images i see the cavalry appear to ditch their spears up against other cavalry in favor of short weapons
            this is the real reason why swords were so common, not because they were a sidearm, but because they actually were necessary

            >the heat of battle makes it a lot easier to wrestle people and focus on individual 1v1s than you think
            So did armies break out of formation once a battle started? That's something I'm actually really curious about.
            >cavalry loved doing that shit too, pic rel
            kek

            i wouldnt say they necessarily broke formation, like you can usually kind of tell where each line starts and begins, but the line becomes very blurred
            the formations were also generally small, making it easy to stay together while becoming a shitfest

            >So did armies break out of formation once a battle started?
            Knights did not make up the majority of armies.
            But generally it could be expected that a knight could keep himself from shitting his pants and running away if things got heated; differently than less trained soldiers, who fought in giant masses of spearmen.
            This is also why knights wore so much heraldry as well as carrying large banners. You could quickly identify the guys on "your side"

            >Knights did not make up the majority of armies
            you'd be suprised sometimes
            most battles were small, but there were plenty of men at arms and knights
            you didnt need to levy your entire town over a dispute

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >yet it just keeps sliding off like its nothing
        Probably because the spikes are made out of rubber, moron.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          they dont fight with shit like that, they're not pussies
          but if you're not convinced then watch

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBTG9To3sls
          heres another good video, where they both use maces
          you'll also notice that in both of these videos, you have the answer to your question OP
          "how did knights in armor die?"
          in every case you can see on this guy's channel, the only decisive part of the fight is where they're both on the ground and have knives in their hands

          you can clearly hear metal hitting metal

          https://i.imgur.com/GdiFti1.png

          Buhurt armors aren't accurate at all. They are made uniform on all sides with rolled steel that has been heat treated and has modern alloys that pre modern steel could not have such as manganese (which makes heat treatment ever so more effective) They also have a lot less impurities in general and the dimensions of a lot of buhurt armor are often exaggerated to save one from injuries a field armor would have to sacrifice for march.

          you're right, buhurt armor isnt the best analog, but i would still say that its representative of the kind of protection you'd expect anyways
          also, people in buhurt use their armor without repairing or fixing dents and replacing parts for years because its an expensive hobby, yet it still holds up fine
          on the other hand, medieval knights and men at arms fought rarely and would've had funds to fix and replace their shit

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      By outnumbering them, hitting them really fricking hard, and then getting something in the gaps.

      I own armor. I can get smashed with whatever and be fine, but half a dozen guys hitting me hard with polearms all at once means I'm getting knocked over or at least disoriented for a second.

      You're still a huge threat, trying to grapple people in plate when you're not in plate is really difficult and you can assume you'll take casualties, but that's life.

      Can confirm, I can't even really tell what's hitting me most of the time, if I don't see it come in, it's just an impact of some sort.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Buhurt armors aren't accurate at all. They are made uniform on all sides with rolled steel that has been heat treated and has modern alloys that pre modern steel could not have such as manganese (which makes heat treatment ever so more effective) They also have a lot less impurities in general and the dimensions of a lot of buhurt armor are often exaggerated to save one from injuries a field armor would have to sacrifice for march.

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    This thing.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      you needed a really massive one to get through armor, or do anything comparable to the bows of the period
      and even then the range you'd have for being able to penetrate plate was too short to fire more than once
      not that its ineffective with a formation of them, but they're not an end all solution

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Apparently, people say you have to stab them in the joints or the visors. But that seems impossible to do in combat, especially when the knight is moving and on a horse, probably in formation with a hundred to a thousand other fricking knights.
    >Some people say you take them to the ground and then draw a dagger and stab them to death in the joints. But again, that seems impossible to do if a Knight is in formation.
    Both correct. You couldn't kill a knight in formation. You waited for the formation to be disrupted, by uneven terrain, confusion, what have you, then ganged up on individual knights and did the stabby stabby with fish hooks and daggers.

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Theres many ways, not necessarily easy, but that was the point.

    Weakspot: armpit, eyes, groin, some armor doesnt protect the back of the legs.

    Its very exhausting to get repeteadly hit by impact weapons, it wont hurt but you still gotta have the stamina to put up with that.

    Since we talk about full gothic plate there is also gunpoweder weapons available.
    You can also hope that his armor is old/shit and gives in after a while.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *