So let me get this straight...

So let me get this straight. Not only is knights using shields inaccurate because plate armor caused them to stop carrying them, but even the swords are impractical because against a fully armored opponent a mace was the preferred weapon? Knights are just a big hoax?

>against a fully armored opponent a mace was the preferred weapon?
Any blunt weapon would do.

They still used swords after the adoption of full plate, it just wasn't the absolute go-to pick anymore

Remember, most of the time they didn't actually fight other knights.
Either they were on horseback and used a lance, so a sword was a back up weapon in case the lance broke or they got demounted. Or they were fighting peasants in which case the sword is much more useful. If they ran into another knight on foot they could also carry a hammer or mace on the side or in a worst case scenario, half swording is still a thing.

Plate armor wasn't used for very long. For most of history the best armor was chainmail.

Late MA knights or men-at-arms would have plate-armour and only small shields (like bucklers or Brechschilde), they used a wide variety of weapons and also had swords like the estoc to deal with heavy armour. For the early and high MA knights would certainly have shields (kite shields or heater shields for example). They are also depicted or described as having swords and lances as primary weapons, since they were enough to deal with the common mail-armour in use at that time.

They did use shields and swords.

Sword has usually been a sidearm, but always used.

In their heyday, knights didn't actually wear plate, so your whole issue is moot.
The stereotypical historical knight would be pic related, notice the mail armour, the shield and the sword.

>Plate armor wasn't used for very long
TIL 1400-1914 isn't a long time

The medieval period was from 500 - 1400 AD. Plate armor only became popular around 1300 AD.

>1400-1914
You do realize that for most of that period knighthood was a social rather than military distinction right? It would be retarded to say knights used plate mail for a long time when by mid-15th century knights stopped being preponderant on the battlefield, substituted by gendarmes and other more soldierly forms of heavy cavalry.

More like 1450-1650.
Just a breastplate isn't "plate armor".

It is. It's not "full plate armour"

Knights in full plate is mostly a meme. The high time of the knight was over at the end of the 13th century, long before full plate became a thing. and before that, it was mostly mail.

And before any adhs kiddy starts with
>but there was heavy cav even with Napoleon
This guy is right Knight is mostly a social distinction and function in the feudal society, by the end of the 13th century society changed, and post Plague society was completely different, sure there was now nobles in full plate, but they had hardly anything to do with the classic medieval knight of the stories.

For reference, here are some real medieval knights, no plate, with swords.

user that's obviously chainmail, and codexes weren't always literal, see the griffin breathing fire on the lord

Yeah, what I said, no plate, because hey, it didn't exist in the 12th century yet. And the Codex Manesse is pretty accurate for it's time.

What are you on mate? Plate armour came late in the timeline of knights.

>The house of Manesse was in origin a family of merchants who prospered and became the most wealthy family of the medieval city of Zürich. Rüdiger I Manesse (d. 1253), the father of Rüdiger II, was the founder of the noble family, and sat in the city council for close to forty years.
OY VEY

>all merchants are automatically implied to be jewish or jewy
I do wish this meme would stop. Commercial civilizations have been considered the apex of social development for centuries by now, you people are anachronistic as all fucks.

Are you stoned?

Okay well first off plate armor didn't become a thing until the late medieval period (roughly 1300 to 1500 AD), while knights were at the height of their battlefield dominance in the high medieval period (roughly 1000 - 1300 AD). Also what you really mean when you say "knight" is "professional heavy cavalry", a social class that used its hereditary wealth to purchase horses and the best arms and armor available to make themselves incredibly effective killing machines.

Also swords were used commonly up to and including WW1. They are a versatile side arm, even against heavily armored opponents. Of course knights used plenty of other weapons as the situation called for, being professional warriors they usually had an assortment of them as well as the knowledge of when to use certain weapons. On horseback lances and spears were incredibly effective, but in a close quarters melee you want something you can swing, stab, and hack with, and a sword is ideal for that.

what's the point of a sword when you can have a bayonet that doesn't get stuck in the trench walls due to it's small size?

WW1 cavalry used sabers, mostly because they where not riding in trenches.

>a knight is defined by his armour

The majority of people believes just this.

When using one handed weapons knights would use shields, since armour isn't 100% invincible.

Knights did use swords AND other mace thingys. I don't know why but for some reason many seem to think soldiers had only one side arm. A knight with a lance, shield, sword, mace and knife would not be uncommon. When facing lightly armoured people you would use the sword that is easier to maneuver. When facing heavy you would use the mace.

No you're just a moron lacking in any understanding of nuance.

The griffin thing is like pic related, a decoration ususally associated with the knights heraldry. Whether or not they were actually worn into battle is a different question.