Okay, i'll try to be brief and clear. I've got someone here who is arguing mounted men-at-arms became obsolete with the introduction of firearms.

So, i strongly disagree and tells him its not the case and it came much earlier. I believe it started with the Battle of Crécy 1346 then Agincourt 1415 wich clearly showed the change in medieval warfare with the use of Lonbows..

Could you back me up so i can point him here :)

Only the arrival of arquebuses in quantity spelled the death knell for Knights.

Crecy was just poor tactics on the part of the French...apparently they never heard of a 'flank attack'.

TerryM

"lost their hedge"? Wasn't that about the time Monty Python went on a quest for a shrubbery?

Longbows were more effective than arquebuses. Longbows were slightly longer ranged. had similar penetrating power, could be shot much more rapidly, were more accurate, and were much less affected by rain. Longbows and arrows were also much cheaper than arquebuses. The major disadvantage to longbows was that gaining and maintaining proficiency was extremely time consuming. A bowman had to practice for hours on a very regular basis. An arquebuser could be trained much more quickly than a bowman and didn't need anything like as much practice to retain proficiency.

I watched a show recently on the History Channel about the Battle of Agincourt. And when the subject of English Longbows came about, they came to the conclusion that the low quality of iron in the tips of the arrows fractured and failed to penetrate the heavy plate of the French knights. The true downfall of the French was the terrain and their heavy armor. The fields that the battle took place on were very muddy, and on top of that, the French had to charge uphill, and had their formations compressed due to a narrowing in the battlefield (I believe forests on each side).

By the time the French knights got to the English lines, their horses were exhausted, and some had even died along the way, unable to carry the immense weight of the armor and rider. The same was true when the French knights dismounted. They got stuck in the mud, and tired very quickly.

The lightly armored English longbowmen and slightly more armored men-at-arms only charged when the French were bogged down and exhausted, and being far lighter than the French knights, they were able to generally stay on top of the mud, and defeat the knights in hand to hand combat. I have also read that quite a few French knights actually suffocated in the mud after they fell over (and fell upon by other knights). And a defenseless knight is an easy kill, dagger through the eye slits.

I believe it was the crossbow that inevitably ended the mounted men-at-arms "invincibility".

@Tank_Guy#3: I wanted to post that. I saw that documentary too.

Anyway, to the OP, i think the truth lies somewhere between the 3 candidates. Extensive use of longbows/crossbows/firearms.

But i believe that firearms rendered heavy armored cavalry completley obsolete. I am sure that cavalry was still used vs crossbows/longbows.

And btw, weren't the horses freaking out when they heard firearms ? I mean, if it worked on humans than why shouldn't it work on horses.

We had a thread a while ago which was an immense argument about whether the English won Agincourt because bows are intrinsically better than knights or for more ad hoc reasons. Let's not go into all that again.

It's worth pointing out that the medievals themselves thought that bows were the most lethal weapons around. The church forbade the use of bows against other Christian armies, on the grounds that they were so lethal their use broke the normal rules of warfare. It was the relaxing of this rule (rather than advances in technology) that led to more widespread bow use later on.

Actully does anyone know in wich battle or conflict saw the last use of heavily armored knights?

I know cavalry was still in use in world war 1 and to some extent the world war 2. But it wasn't knights in plate armor ;)

The end of the heavy cavalry (at least the french heavy cavalry, the most important one) was in the first years of the 16th century. It was the Spanish general Gonzalo Fernández of Córdoba "el Gran Capitán" in his campaigns in Italy who anihilated it using a combination of Arquebuses and pikemen later known as Tercios, in the Battles of Ceriañola (1502) and Garellano (1503).

Twenty years later France had rebuilt his heavy cavalry but was again anihilited even more definitively by the Tercios in the Battle of Bicocca (1522) where the french cavalry was massacred by the arquebuses against zero losses for the Arquebusiers (in Spain when something is very easy or it is a bargain is called a "Bicoca" becuase as easy was to win this Battle). The last important use of the french heavy cavalry was in he Battle of Pavia in 1525, another total defeat for the French army (even the French King Francisco I was captured by the spaniards). IIRC the french heavy cavalry was definitively disbanded after Pavia.

The Swiss Pike squares were quite good at decimating any cavalry if I recall....

It's worth pointing out that the medievals themselves thought that bows were the most lethal weapons around. The church forbade the use of bows against other Christian armies, on the grounds that they were so lethal their use broke the normal rules of warfare. It was the relaxing of this rule (rather than advances in technology) that led to more widespread bow use later on.

Did not the Church ban the use of Crossbows (against Christian Armies), not bows?

But I'm a firm believer in the fact that, a weapons creation is it's own downfall. As it's only a matter of time before a method to kill it is developed.

The Swiss Pike squares were quite good at decimating any cavalry if I recall....
This is the key point. Even against the heaviest cavalry, 8-10 meters of pike will stop a charge. The Swiss maintained their independance, against much better armed and armored French, not to mention more numerous, largely because of their use of pikes. Cordoba made pikes an offensive force, and the Spanish were the best for over a century, until Gustov II Adolf fully introduced field artillery at Breitenfield in 1631. Bouncing cannonballs tend to break up tight formations.

J

I disagrre. The key point was the use of the arquebus. While the large swiss pikemen formations were a formidable weapon along the 15th century and insipired the pikemen formation in the Tercios it was the arquebus that made finally the diference against the heavy cavalry. In fact during the wars Spain vs France at the 16th century the Swiss pikemen were with the French side. In the battles of Ceriñola, Garellano and Bicocca the swiss pikemen merceneries were indeed fighting for the french side and were as decimated by the arquebus formations as the french heavy cavalry was. For instance at the battle of Bicocca 15000 Swiss pikemen were massacred by 3500 arqquebusiers. Finally in Pavia when the French situation was desperated, the Swiss, doing credit to his traditional neutrality, changed side and joined the imperial army.

Did not the Church ban the use of Crossbows (against Christian Armies), not bows?
Yeah, one might have to look into the reasons for a ban.

I.e. it might not just have been a question about lethality, but also about who was getting killed.
Longow arrows and crossbow bolts make no distintion for social status. Actually, it can be argued that they are weapons specifically suited for taking out knights.
This was a big no-no for class conscious medieval aristocrats (to which we can count pretty much all the popes). Killing commoners in battle was all right and proper, but when people of quality bought it, there would be an upproar.

Which is why for instance mercenaries were banned at times, and when captured in battle they were routinely massacred by the aristocrats. The aristos also hated the specific weapons of the mercenaries, the long pole weapons (for taking riders down) and the slim bladed, long daggers (for getting through armour). "Les routiers" were all about killing knights. Very disturbing.

Using crossbows, daggers and pole-weapons was considered extremely base by medieval knights under any circumstance. Jean de Joinville in his "Life of St Louis" always commets on fights being "noble" and stand up, if those involved used the lances, swords and maces.
But he is disgusted when the king's brother Charles of Anjou in a frustrated moment during the crusade in Egypt picks up a crossbow and starts taking out the Egyptian engineers working on the opposite side of the river they're trying to cross. (Charles was a major arsehole of course.):king:

Even though mounted knights seems to have always had a disadvantage to pike formations and basically have no edge over pikes, mounted knights didn't go away until after repeatedly losing to forces that extensively used arquebus and cannon. I vote for the arquebus for finally forcing European warfare into gunpowder mode and eliminating any edge that pre-gunpowder forces may have had in combat.

I have to disagree, it wasn't weapons ( longbow/ arguebus/ pike ) but the men using them. The fall of the knight started the day discipline returned to infantry. Others beside the swiss used pikes and failed. It was their training and discipline that suceded, not their pikes.

Yeah, one might have to look into the reasons for a ban.

I.e. it might not just have been a question about lethality, but also about who was getting killed.
Longow arrows and crossbow bolts make no distintion for social status. Actually, it can be argued that they are weapons specifically suited for taking out knights.
This was a big no-no for class conscious medieval aristocrats (to which we can count pretty much all the popes). Killing commoners in battle was all right and proper, but when people of quality bought it, there would be an upproar.

Do you have any sources for this? I was under the impression that the ban was imposed at a fairly early stage in the Middle Ages (the similar Peace of God and Truce of God, which banned monks from fighting and banned fighting on holy days respectively, originated in the early eleventh century). Not a time when popes were particularly noted for being aristocrats; besides, I'm not sure that these were papal innovations at all.

IIRC In the wars between France and Spain in Italy, the French hired lots of Swiss pikemen, but they were defeated by the Spanish gunners

Do you have any sources for this? I was under the impression that the ban was imposed at a fairly early stage in the Middle Ages (the similar Peace of God and Truce of God, which banned monks from fighting and banned fighting on holy days respectively, originated in the early eleventh century). Not a time when popes were particularly noted for being aristocrats; besides, I'm not sure that these were papal innovations at all.
IIRC I got most of that from Goerges Duby's "The Sunday at Bouvines" and Zoé Oldenbourg's "Le bûcher de Montségur".

But I'll try to have a look see specifically for missile weapons and the isse of a ban on them, since I'm less positive about that than I am about the merenaries and their wicked ways.:)

IIRC In the wars between France and Spain in Italy, the French hired lots of Swiss pikemen, but they were defeated by the Spanish gunners
Spanish musketeers, destroyed French heavy cav., and a fairly common recognition of an event as the first hurrah of fire arms are things that by some is said to characterise the battle of Pavia, 1525.
Dunno about the Swiss pikemen tho. (I seem to recall France fighting these guys rather?):)
http://www.geocities.com/Yosemite/Campground/8551/arquebus.html

They fought in all sides against all sides at some moment. Generally like any merceneries Swiss pikemen were where the thought profit was. For instance during the war for Milán in 1510 there were Swiss merceneries in both sides, first with the French and later with the papal league. At the battle of Novara they changed side with the german Landsknecht merceneries, hired by the french, who curiously had been fighting with Fernandez de Cordoba, against France, some years before. European politics were caothic in those times.

About the main topic i think that it was the Battle of Cerignola, 20 years before Pavia where the "paradigm" in land battles changed from the use of a core formed by heavy cavalry to more static infantry formations centered around the gunners. However it seems France continued relying on his prestigious but outdated heavy cavalry until Pavia.

The Battle of Cerignola was fought on April 21, 1503, between Spanish and French armies, in Cerignola, next Bari, Southern Italy.

Spanish forces, under Gonzalo Fernández de Córdoba, formed by 8.000 men, with more than 1000 arquebusiers, and 20 cannons, defeated the French, 32.000 men, mainly heavy cavalry and Swiss pikemen, with about 40 cannons, and led by Louis d'Armagnac, Duke of Nemours, who was killed.

Despite being outnumbered 4:1, Gonzalo Fernández de Córdoba, called "El Gran Capitán" (The Great Captain), had many strategic advantages, he had occupied the heights of Cerignola, and entrenched his soldiers with walls, trenches and stakes, and his artillery was better placed than French one. Most of his forces were infantry troopers, which he had formed in new units called "Coronelías", that were the seed of the "Tercios", armed with a mix of pikes, arquebuses and sword, had revolutionized the Spanish army, too centred in cavalry during the X-XV centuries, due to the "Reconquista" against the muslims.

This army was facing an almost feudal French army, with the preponderance of heavy armoured cavalry, and with a high number of Swiss mercenaries, but at the same time, this army had more artillery than the Spanish one. This paradox would be constant through the first half of XVI century in French armies.

The battle began with a charge of the French cavalry, against the center of Spanish army, but was disbanded by the heavy artillery fire twice. The next assault tried to force the right flank, but it was broke by a storm of fire from the Spanish arquebusiers, which killed Duke of Nemours. Given the command to Swiss Command Chandieu, the Swiss infantry attacked along with the cavalry, but this attempt was again driven back by the arquebusiers, during the assault Chandieu died, this forced the French army to retire in disorder, the moment in which Spanish infantry countered. The result was a total French defeat. It is considered the first battle in history won by gunpowder small arms.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cerignola

I have to disagree, it wasn't weapons ( longbow/ arguebus/ pike ) but the men using them. The fall of the knight started the day discipline returned to infantry. Others beside the swiss used pikes and failed. It was their training and discipline that suceded, not their pikes.


I agree.


The Roman legions had no trouble dealing with cavalry charges
(armoured or unarmoured) armed with axes, lances, swords etc.

It was the light unarmoured horse archers which could attack
and then ride away without coming near that caused them the
greatest difficulties, and they were the reason why the Romans
later tended to supplement infantry with significant light cavalry.


Now the invention of the stirrup made some difference
to the shock impact of a cavalry charge. I have no doubt
that this was very significant in cavalry on cavalry impact.
But a man on a charging horse already has a knock them over
impact on infantry even without a stirrup, and it is difficult to
see how a slightly heavier lance would benefit against infantry.

The medieval ruling classes were unwilling to equip infantry
with proper iron weapons, and let them train as formations.
It was just too dangerous, the peasants might get ideas.

So they'd only issue their people with quality weapons before
the battle or at the start of a campaign which provided no
real opportunity for them to train, individually or in formation.

You make a very interesting comment.

I agree.


The Roman legions had no trouble dealing with cavalry charges
(armoured or unarmoured) armed with axes, lances, swords etc.

It was the light unarmoured horse archers which could attack
and then ride away without coming near that caused them the
greatest difficulties, and they were the reason why the Romans
later tended to supplement infantry with significant light cavalry.


Now the invention of the stirrup made some difference
to the shock impact of a cavalry charge. I have no doubt
that this was very significant in cavalry on cavalry impact.
But a man on a charging horse already has a knock them over
impact on infantry even without a stirrup, and it is difficult to
see how a slightly heavier lance would benefit against infantry.

The medieval ruling classes were unwilling to equip infantry
with proper iron weapons, and let them train as formations.
It was just too dangerous, the peasants might get ideas.

So they'd only issue their people with quality weapons before
the battle or at the start of a campaign which provided no
real opportunity for them to train, individually or in formation.


i agree, happens when there is no actual large standing armies, only nobles with weapons:)

on a side note mongolian bow and arrows were able to pierce knights armor