major liability
Active member
Unless the modern day soldier has ammunition, the knight will win. I would not like to face someone in full plate with a bayonet attached to an empty rifle.
Who would win in Hand-hand combat?
justin1552
Hurr Durr
Plus, knights were trained for sword-to-sword, or in certain cases, hand to hand. And the modern day knives probably couldn't stand against a old fashioned longsword.
ObjSRgtLw
Active member
word man
justin1552
Hurr Durr
Chuck Norris, man, Chuck Norris.word man
Wolf
Active member
Armor Plating is good and all... But it doesn't guarantee victory. Especially when it can restrict your movement -- or even, in the knight's case, breathing.
Speed and agility is what may determine a victor in this scenario (note: it is highly likely the soldier would have the advantage in terms of freedom in movement)... But, then again, that is assuming our hypothetical soldier is agile and quick enough to keep up with a professional swordsman.
However, like I said earlier, you can't know who will win... Because there are different types of soldiers and different types of people. You have to give more specific details. The question presented is too vague.
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
Knights spent their whole lives learning how to fight with their weapons. Your average soldier nowadays doesn't spend a whole lot of time with learning to bayonet their opponents if at all. It would be a no contest. The Knight would win easily.
sven hassell
Active member
:m16shoot::horsie:
Definately! The medieval knight trained from childhood daily in hand to hand combat. The European Medieval martial arts are not frequently discussed but they are very similar to those in the east including the skill of swordsmanship.
Even against a special forces hand to hand instructor the religiously fanatical (therefore fearless) and from childhood trained knight would have thousands of hours more of martial arts training. Assuming the two were matched for weight,fitness,age etc.. then it would be no contest.
The popular image of the knight as an idle aristocrat who swordfights as a hobby is untrue. They were similar to samurai in both martial skills, religious fanatacism (therefore no fear of death) and swordsmanship.
Also have you ever worn plate armour? with mail underneath you are practically inpregnable to stabbing weapons.(hence rival knights using maces,axes,blunt broadswords etc.. to batter their opponent into submission).Take this into consideration too. The knights greatest weapon was his mount.No leggy,worried arab pony, but a creature more akin to a charging rhino in bodyweight and size(check out stats. on belgian warhorses or shire x clydesdales they are monsters!).
Even the best trained soldier today would be F***ed! unless he had ammo in which case the knight and his mount would be turned into 3/4 ton of dogmeat and scrap metal by one 203round!
Definately! The medieval knight trained from childhood daily in hand to hand combat. The European Medieval martial arts are not frequently discussed but they are very similar to those in the east including the skill of swordsmanship.
Even against a special forces hand to hand instructor the religiously fanatical (therefore fearless) and from childhood trained knight would have thousands of hours more of martial arts training. Assuming the two were matched for weight,fitness,age etc.. then it would be no contest.
The popular image of the knight as an idle aristocrat who swordfights as a hobby is untrue. They were similar to samurai in both martial skills, religious fanatacism (therefore no fear of death) and swordsmanship.
Also have you ever worn plate armour? with mail underneath you are practically inpregnable to stabbing weapons.(hence rival knights using maces,axes,blunt broadswords etc.. to batter their opponent into submission).Take this into consideration too. The knights greatest weapon was his mount.No leggy,worried arab pony, but a creature more akin to a charging rhino in bodyweight and size(check out stats. on belgian warhorses or shire x clydesdales they are monsters!).
Even the best trained soldier today would be F***ed! unless he had ammo in which case the knight and his mount would be turned into 3/4 ton of dogmeat and scrap metal by one 203round!
ObjSRgtLw
Active member
Knights faught honorable or at least were trained to do so (even if they may had certain useful knowledge of other 'tactics'). I don't think a knight learned primarily how to fight in a bar-brawl or something like that. And a knight without a weapon was useless (armor too heavy etc.) everything else is just Hollywood.
Today special commando units are trained to do nasty combat without honor, whatever kills your opponent fast is allowed.
I think one german KSK commando would easily kill a Knight in hand to hand combat, with time also the knowledge for hand to hand combat has evolved and thats what is being trained today. Don't forget that a knights didn't get very old so it may be hard to say that they had a life full of experience... modern commando units come up with comparable experience, i think its only more intense, many missions in a small period.
There was a tv-show which compared a ninja with a modern soldier (not only hand to hand) entertaining but it was crap- the tests were totally stupid and its difficult even to compare them in one simple aspect like hand to hand combat. :salute2:
Today special commando units are trained to do nasty combat without honor, whatever kills your opponent fast is allowed.
I think one german KSK commando would easily kill a Knight in hand to hand combat, with time also the knowledge for hand to hand combat has evolved and thats what is being trained today. Don't forget that a knights didn't get very old so it may be hard to say that they had a life full of experience... modern commando units come up with comparable experience, i think its only more intense, many missions in a small period.
There was a tv-show which compared a ninja with a modern soldier (not only hand to hand) entertaining but it was crap- the tests were totally stupid and its difficult even to compare them in one simple aspect like hand to hand combat. :salute2:
sven hassell
Active member
The Tower Fechtbuch in the British museum shows how German medieval (11th-14th century) knights fought. It wasnt with honour(thats hollywood!) it was simply to kill. They were the eqivalent of KsK commandos of their time but whos entire training was based around hand to hand and started at 5yrs old.Even a novice Knight at 16 would have 11 years daily hand to hand training. And yes you germans were the most fanatical then!
ObjSRgtLw
Active member
I guess you got me there with the honor-thing i must admit. But it depends on which period and what function.
But you're right, the tournaments did include different disciplines with hand to hand combat involved (Buhurt or sword combat which did not rarely end with hand to hand combat)
i whink i was referring to hollywood in case of fighting effective in heavy cavalry armory- you can'T tell me that a light armoured commando unit would lose against a heavily armored knight... he would just dodge until the knight would stand down...
Hollywood presents paper-armory and what they are doing with their swords there... i faught with real swords against a swords-master and after 5-7 parrys i almost blacked out...
But you're right, the tournaments did include different disciplines with hand to hand combat involved (Buhurt or sword combat which did not rarely end with hand to hand combat)
i whink i was referring to hollywood in case of fighting effective in heavy cavalry armory- you can'T tell me that a light armoured commando unit would lose against a heavily armored knight... he would just dodge until the knight would stand down...
Hollywood presents paper-armory and what they are doing with their swords there... i faught with real swords against a swords-master and after 5-7 parrys i almost blacked out...
Last edited:
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
And I would believe that knights of the old times and people in general in fact, were FAR more fit than people nowadays. Let's say both parties put their armor off... the knight is used to being weighed down by heavy armor all across his body. By losing the armor, it would have the effect of injecting the guy with adrenaline. His movements will be so fast... I'm sorry, again, it's simply no contest.
Even if we got a modern infantry platoon to go fight in those times, it wouldn't be as easy as most people think. The bad guys with their medieval weapons would be able to find a chance to surprise the rifle platoon with a lobbed arrow strike from the blind side of the ridge line etc.
Even if we got a modern infantry platoon to go fight in those times, it wouldn't be as easy as most people think. The bad guys with their medieval weapons would be able to find a chance to surprise the rifle platoon with a lobbed arrow strike from the blind side of the ridge line etc.
AussieNick
Forum Digger
What a stupid question - It's like asking who would win between a shark and polar bear, or perhaps a French Duke and an Italian Count..... It doesn't really matter.
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
No it's a pretty good question which makes us realize this:
People of the past were not stupid or incompetent.
Except Korean people of the past... they were stupid and incompetent.
People of the past were not stupid or incompetent.
Except Korean people of the past... they were stupid and incompetent.
84RFK
Active member
Ah, don't forget that there was quite a difference between armour used for actual battle, and "tournament-armour" back in the dark ages.
And the technology of armour constantly improved untill they had to make them thicker and heavier in order to withstand a bullet from the contemporary firearms that came to use.
The knights armour for battle at the peak of it's refinement, and before the gunpowder changed it all, was by no means heavy and it didn't actually hamper the knights movement much either.
Being reasonably agile and in good shape the mediaval knight would present a tough nut to crack for anyone who was out of ammo.
Given the construction of the armour an oponent would have to literally batter the armour hard enough to make dents that would restrict the knights movement, or give him a concussion.
Piercing the armour with a blade was only feasible in the joints, in dents, or in certain angles, unless you were weilding a war-axe or "Luzern-hammer"..
If the ammo was all spendt my choise would be to keep a safe distance and use the advantage of better fotwear to outrun the knight.
And the fight between a modern army versus a bunch of warriors with mediaval equipment was illustrated when the 21st. Lancers clashed into a large force of Dhervishes at the Battle of Omdurman in 1898.
They won, but the battle took it's toll on the 21st. Lancers as they lost 24% of their force.
And the technology of armour constantly improved untill they had to make them thicker and heavier in order to withstand a bullet from the contemporary firearms that came to use.
The knights armour for battle at the peak of it's refinement, and before the gunpowder changed it all, was by no means heavy and it didn't actually hamper the knights movement much either.
Being reasonably agile and in good shape the mediaval knight would present a tough nut to crack for anyone who was out of ammo.
Given the construction of the armour an oponent would have to literally batter the armour hard enough to make dents that would restrict the knights movement, or give him a concussion.
Piercing the armour with a blade was only feasible in the joints, in dents, or in certain angles, unless you were weilding a war-axe or "Luzern-hammer"..
If the ammo was all spendt my choise would be to keep a safe distance and use the advantage of better fotwear to outrun the knight.
And the fight between a modern army versus a bunch of warriors with mediaval equipment was illustrated when the 21st. Lancers clashed into a large force of Dhervishes at the Battle of Omdurman in 1898.
They won, but the battle took it's toll on the 21st. Lancers as they lost 24% of their force.
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
Like I said... not as easy as people would think.
84RFK
Active member
would be aeasier to run and find some ammo...no way any one can chase for long in a full body armor
I must agree with our IDF tankist here, run and find some ammo would be priority #1.
Given that the battle armour would only weigh down the knight by some 10-15 kilo all together I wouldn't see that as much of a problem concerning the running part, we carry more weight in our modern equipment...