Were knights even worth it...

It's true, they got blown the fuck out several times by doing a meme charge into spikes or spears in the medieval times, Calvary was more effective during the roman times and not again intill the late late medieval period

>They got rekt by peasants on multiple occassions

That is nothing new.

>they often cared more about their own ass than the kingdom so they were not exactly stalwart defenders of the realm.

Have you even read a book on the middle ages?

>They fucking sucked and the crusades prove it.

That one conflict where Europeans with heavy cavalry managed to carve out and hold a kingdom for 200 years surrounded by enemies?

Calvary is used to fighting other Calvary or to chase down routing units and slaughter them. Of course horses are terrible at running into a wall of spikes, that's just bad tactics from the commander. If calvary is useless then why was it present in every relevant army ever

English archers were paid about a fourth to half of what a contemporary men-at-arms was paid.

we aren't talking about Calvary in general, but Knights.
Commanders that knew how to use you archers would blow them the fuck out too, but discipline was generally terrible till post 1500+'s, so often times there were big fuck ups.
See here for a decent version:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Nicopolis#Battle
ignore the artist pics
>he French charge crushed the untrained conscripts in the Turkish front line and advanced into the lines of trained infantry, though the knights came under heavy fire from archers and
>were hampered by rows of sharpened stakes designed to skewer the stomachs of their horses.
>Chroniclers write of horses impaled on stakes, riders dismounting, stakes being pulled up to allow horses through, and the eventual rout of the Turkish infantry, who fled behind the relative safety of the sipahis.
>Coucy and Vienne recommended that the French pause to reform their ranks, give themselves some rest and allow the Hungarians time to advance to a position where they could support the French.
>They were overruled by the younger knights who, having no idea of the size of the Turkish force, believed that they had just defeated Bayezid's entire army and insisted on pursuit.
>The French knights thus continued up the hill, though accounts state that more than half were on foot by this point, either because they had been unhorsed by the lines of sharpened stakes or had dismounted to pull up stakes.
read the rest.
note not only the ways to deal with mounted men, plus the general confusion between the leaders, and everyone gathered around their own local banners as the base form of organization.
Western knights fighting a disciplined eastern army usually lost.
Western knights fighting other western knights, who ever one usually just had the better peasants. and/or more of them. This continued till the twilight of the medieval, dawn of the early modern period

French tactics down from the time of Caesar until Napoleon can be summed up in a single line.

Wherever I go, I must also charge

kek

Agincourt was won by the weather moreso than by the archers.

This is what happens when the knights get a clear charge:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Patay

Most of the defeats on the French and English side during the hundred year war were attributable to bad command and discipline rather than inefficient knights. Longbows couldn't do jack to a heavily armoured knight on a barded warhorse.

It's another "knight is a type of soldier you build in a RTS, not a complex social and economic rank with military obligations, that all fluctuate wildly in different time periods" episode.

Agincourt was a battle between French knights and men-at-arms and English knights and men-at-arms. The archers are a side event even in the English chronicles.

If knights are so fucking great why they can't deal with my Crypt Fiends?

Certainly a good investement
Best when complemented by yeomen
The thing about cavalry is the mobility it offers and the fear it instils, even with a charge infantry still beat them

you can always find one off examples. the English also had bad placement there.
> the weather
well the english were able to keep their bow strings dry under their hats before stringing them and the french crossbowmen were not.
> The archers are a side event even in the English chronicles.
>English:
> ~1,500 men-at-arms
>~ 7,000 longbowmen
>archers side show.
no
>. Longbows couldn't do jack to a heavily armoured knight on a barded warhorse.
thats wrong though. No one shoots modern longbows right. Under three hundred yards they weren't supposed to miss and they could wreak a mounted knight. Everybody thinks longbow men were either scatter shots or closerange target shooting, both is wrong.
Knights were important in battles, but the day was usually won by men-at-arms, or dismounted knights

...

>there were more of them so that means they did more

No.

Tercios are peasants

Knights were the elite soldiers of medieval Europe but only for like 300 years and they were constantly evolving and their code was never anything more than an ideal and was never really even a popular concept other than for about 30 years in the later 12th century.

Contrast to the Samurai, who I'm not saying were better or worse, but who existed with a particular code for much longer and much more stable.

I hope by ''code'' you don't mean chivalry or bushido because both are horse shit.

>The French cavalry, despite being somewhat disorganised and not at full numbers, charged towards the longbowmen, but it was a disaster, with the French knights unable to outflank the longbowmen (because of the encroaching woodland) and
>unable to charge through the forest of sharpened stakes that protected the archers. John Keegan
>argues that the longbows' main influence on the battle at this point was injuries to horses: armoured only on the head, many horses would have become dangerously out of control when struck in the back or flank from the high-elevation long range shots used as the charge started
I've read other sources as well, they all seem to say the archers were the factor that won the battle with their side having less numbers. IT certainly wasn't the mounted knights.
also this
> a complex social and economic rank with military obligations, that all fluctuate wildly in different time periods

also this

I do, chivalry was way more horse shit than Bushido, is my point.

>the arabs didn't have heavy cavalry.
>the europeans were just knights and didn't rely on christian levantines and horsearchers themselves.

burrow is OP.

>humans have their most useless unit have true sight.

There weren't any mounted knights on the English side at Agincourt.

Well if you read about the period you know what I am talking about.

If the English didn't have knights (or equivalently equipped and trained men at arms) at Crecy or Agincourt the few French knights who reached the English lines would have been able to hold their own until more French arrived. The English would not have been able to recuperate before the next wave, then it would be a battle of numbers which they would lose.

Not really, the English bowmen were heavily armoured and armed besides their bows, they could have taken the knights fairly equally in melee.

It's more efficient to have more poorfags carrying pikes wearing shitty armor than a richfag wearing full plate on a horse.

By the time of Crecy they weren't heavily armored and the few times that the French did reach longbow wielding folks they slaughtered them.

> No one shoots modern longbows right. Under three hundred yards they weren't supposed to miss and they could wreak a mounted knight
>Everyone is wrong and I'm right.

are you two drunk. fiends are like 80% of the reason to ever make knights and even if gyros weren't needed as the only unit that can deal with destroyers you could still use reveal from your arcane tower.