Who would win in Hand-hand combat?

the_13th_redneck said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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...
 
Knights stood little chance against the English at Agincourt. The English archers put there bows down and set about them with clubs and knifes and in a short space of time the bodies of the knights were six feet high forming a barricade of the dead.
 
Never underestimate the effect of the English longbow, it was the #1 armour-piercing weapon of those days, and a band of archerers would put up a barrage that nobody could get through.

As for clubs and knifes, the club would be the perfect tool for knocking a knight or armoured infantryman over, and the dagger, knife, or any blade could be stabbed through the slots in the armour.
 
LeEnfield said:
Knights stood little chance against the English at Agincourt. The English archers put there bows down and set about them with clubs and knifes and in a short space of time the bodies of the knights were six feet high forming a barricade of the dead.
Click to expand...
This was only capable because the french knights had bottlenecked into a pile of Arrow shot dead,impaled horses(on stakes and were trying to dismount from injured mounts when set upon by vastly superior numbers. NOt a one to one scenario
 
I did a research paper on Agincourt and here are my 2 cents.

The French did not advance in the morning and allowed the English to advance and anchor their flanks to the woodline.

The English say that the Longbow won the day yet the Longbowmen ran out of arrows, engaged the French in hand to hand and the battle went on for 3 more hours. Many of the French knights were wearing the best armor available and many wounds were superficial. Modern tests revealed that even at point blank the Longbow failed to pierce French armor.

The mud stuck to the French's armored feet more than the leather boots of the English Longbowmen. A recent test showed that it took almost 50 lbs of force for a French knight to lift a foot out of the mud. Those who fell in the mud never got back up and many drowned in the mud. The mud immobilized the French knights and not the Enlgish Longbowmen.

THe French were too tightly packed together to begin with. As they advanced, the terrain forced them closer together. The bodies of the dead horses from the failed cavalry charge did not help the advance. By the time the French reached the English knights, many of them could not even draw their weapons.

My conclusion is that Agincourt was a French disaster rather than a stunning English victory
 
Last edited:
Doody;436184 My conclusion is that Agincourt was a French disaster rather than a stunning English victory[/quote said:
Which amounts to the same thing I guess. The French newspapers next morning said it was a disaster; the English newspapers reported a stunning victory. Both reports were true. This is the nature of warfare.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
AussieNick said:
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.
Click to expand...

Come on Nick have a little fun!!! on land the polar bear in water the shark(if its a big one!) as for the duke and the count i'd say 50/50
p.s. if you ever have to fight a polar bear,dodge right as they are all left handed. also their fur isnt white its translucent also if you shaved one it would be black...oh dear going :eek:fftopic: or mad.....
 
sven hassell said:
Come on Nick have a little fun!!! on land the polar bear in water the shark(if its a big one!) as for the duke and the count i'd say 50/50
p.s. if you ever have to fight a polar bear,dodge right as they are all left handed. also their fur isnt white its translucent also if you shaved one it would be black...oh dear going :eek:fftopic: or mad.....
Click to expand...

Sorry for the SPAM, but I just had to express my... LOL!

Lefty for life. :salute:
 
Jean Reno, one of the very few French who actually understands, and speaks, the English language.
 
AussieNick said:
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.
Click to expand...


OK - since it has been raised we can put it to the test:smile:


Who wins , to the death - Leopard or Crocodile ?


Careful now.
 
Last edited:
Getting back to the OP...

Ready Doody post on Agincourt, hes absolutly right. I'll add a few extra details.

Full Plate has certain weak points where there is little or no protection such as the elbow, knee and groin. The English longbowman at Agincourt discovered that hitting those areas would bring down even the most armored of knights who were helpless as they were strapped by their own immobility.

So my theory of how this hypthetical scenario would play out would be that the soldier would flank the knight and strike where the armor was weakest (knee or groin), thus immobilizing him. Once on the groumd a Knight is totally helpless...
 
Last edited:
Don't know about that one actually. I find it hard to believe someone could place a well placed arrow into the groin or elbow of a knight on horseback, especially when in motion. A salvo of several arrows however, could find these places out of sheer volume. Of course, taking out the horse would be a lot easier and would have the same sort of effect.
 
It was reckoned that an English bowman could put an arrow threw the slit in the visor of a knights helmet. There again every one was forced to train with a bow in England for many years and all other sports were banned. There used to be compulsory practice for hours on end after church, the bowman did so much practice that there was distortions to muscles and joints and there bodies can be identified becuase of this.
 
the_13th_redneck said:
Don't know about that one actually. I find it hard to believe someone could place a well placed arrow into the groin or elbow of a knight on horseback, especially when in motion. A salvo of several arrows however, could find these places out of sheer volume. Of course, taking out the horse would be a lot easier and would have the same sort of effect.
Click to expand...

Sorry I didn't elaborate enough. Not with arrows with melee weapons.

At Agincourt the English Longbowmen ran out of arrows, the French Knights were dismounted and stuck in the mud, the longbowmen finished off the French men at arms with hand to hand weapons by targeting weak points.

LeEnfield

True. But the archers generall fired them in volleys which allowed for greater range and also better penetration of plate as arrows entered from an angle as opposed to a direct fire shot which was used in hunting game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top