Wolf
Active member
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.
JamesK said:Mind you the rules are the knight has his full armor and sword while your soldier is equiped with what is usually used in hand to hand (i.e. rifle with bayonet, KABAR knife) so on and so on.
The idea was that the knight was in full armor during the encounter.
The knight's war involved hand-to-hand combat, yes... But on the larger scale, there were crowds of men and even horses involved -- which are significant factors to consider.
In addition, the battles, back then, in terms of knight combat, was somewhat founded on a brute force concept (the fact that some of their weapons were basically blunt, validates this argument). Therefore, it would be reasonable enough to say that their fighting conditions made it essential to carry the burden of wearing a full set of armor.
However, that doesn't necessarily mean they are generally capable of killing a highly trained, modern day soldier - who may not have had as much hand-to-hand combat experience as the knight, but has some knowledge of it's practice nevertheless - that isn't bound by the same code or physical limitations.
The details of the setting is also very relevant.
It's just hard to say...