Sir Gandy is correct. An early armored knight would stand little chance against an AK-47 or an M-16 assault rifle, where as, a modern soldier would probably fall with a well-placed sword thrust or cut. Funny how time repeats, yet still contradicts it's self. You have a warrior clad from head to toe in the best steel available(at the time), and one round of full-metal jacket will take him out. Then you have a modern soldier dressed in Kevlar. Modern body armor has gaps in it just like early plate. A good thrust with a ballock dagger...done deal.
Post by Jordan Williams on Aug 6, 2018 6:49:05 GMT
From the article
In addition to the combat training, the chivalry code of conduct followed by the knights bounded them to be more of a soldier in every aspect, keeping all the skills intact at every time.
So this is more comparing the knightly class to a U.S. Marine of the rank of private (given another snippet of the article states that "knights could starts fighting whenever while a marine has to be ordered to) than of two equals of different armies and time periods.
I also disagree with much of the article's claims. For one thing, not all medieval warriors or soldiers were knights. They were also supported by levies of foot soldiers and "men-at-arms." A much closer comparison would be with the samurai class of warriors in Japan. Both were warrior classes exclusively (at least during the medieval period, later in Japan) and were trained as such from their youth. I do not think today's Marines or other so-called (militarily) elite could be described as a warrior class as such. In addition I think that both the code of chivalry in Europe and Bushido in Japan were more of an after the fact codes of principles rather than things which governed behavior during the warring period which largely came to an end by the 17th century in both places. The warring period was mostly followed by a long period of relative peace in Japan, while in Europe, larger armies of foot soldiers were fighting the wars instead of knights on horseback. An essential element of the knightly period was the horse, by the way.
For one on one combat, I don't know. There is also the ancient Spartan hoplite, who was in many ways similar to the European knight, though for different reasons. But they were also raised by childhood to be soldiers, mainly to be able to suppress the large slave population in Sparta, in a way similar to the Southern gentry before the war, who also were associated with horses. But strictly speaking, as far as the Marines go, it should be limited to just the officers and in the same way, the Southern gentry were also the officer class.
Interesting subject, nevertheless. One might wonder if there is a military class (as opposed to a knightly class) in the United States.
It's an almost impossible comparison to make. You could just as well make comparisons between a WW1-era fighter and one of today's modern fighter jets. Both are aircraft..designed to engage and shoot down other aircraft..but there's no real comparison between their capabilities.
No, not at all. Men have changed very little, either physically or mentally, since the time of the ancient Greeks. The technology has certainly changed, to be sure, if that's what is being compared. The effectiveness of the man himself, all other things being equal and often they are, depends on his training, his organization, his health and physical condition and his dedication, not to mention how well led he is.
There is a series of monographs comparing opposing soldiers in wars of the last hundred years or so, most of whom were fairly equal in technology at the foot soldier's level. But everything else about them was usually different. Maybe that's why they were fighting to begin with.
Post by theophilus736 on Sept 20, 2018 17:27:18 GMT
For what its worth, modern body armor would stop a sword, as would most modern helmets. The modern soldier would get wrecked if hit in the limbs though. Still, a knight in armor with sword or a modern soldier with knife in hand, not as drastic of a difference as people might think. Although the soldier would still be at a huge advantage because of weapon reach. With a sidearm or rifle? Knight is dead every time outside of the reach of his sword.
redscorpion: I have become and expert in Chink-Click-Pow style as taught by the CZ school of Gun-Fu.
Nov 17, 2019 3:59:57 GMT
lebleuchevalier: Red, my method is to call Stelio Kontos when there is a problem.
Nov 17, 2019 3:25:29 GMT
redscorpion: The best approach is mixed MA- learn karate to fight with the hands, Thai boxing to fight with the feet and legs, learn Brazilian JJ for the ground, and Western boxing and wrestling when it comes to fists and grapples. Then by a gun.
Nov 17, 2019 3:21:42 GMT
redscorpion: I've been studying Filipino MA through an old Army bud of mine (until I blew my knee out). It's good for what it is, but it's not the ultimate fighting style. It's a great academic study,and a good tool to have in my bag of tricks.
Nov 17, 2019 3:19:04 GMT
nerdthenord: That's awesome. One of my female friends (who I had a huge crush on until she politely turned me down last year. We are still good friends though) is half Filipino so I am interested in their stuff.
Nov 17, 2019 2:31:23 GMT
lebleuchevalier: Actually, I did some dry runs with this tonight and it thrusts remarkably well.
Nov 17, 2019 2:26:15 GMT
AndiTheBarvarian: Thrusting with it may be challenging.
Nov 17, 2019 2:25:17 GMT
lebleuchevalier: If you're referring to that shameless showoff, Legolas, he had two knives strapped to his back. And that elephant (Tolkien called them oliphants) only counted as one!
Nov 17, 2019 2:24:48 GMT
christain: And yes, the design is incredible!
Nov 17, 2019 2:23:38 GMT
All original submitted content is protected under our general copyright and is the property of Sword Buyers Guide Limited. Do not re-publish or otherwise distribute the content here without first obtaining permission from the forum administration. All rights reserved.