This kills the knight

Is it true that unarmored manlets with bows and pointy hammers brought an end to 1200 years of armor development even before firearms took over?

Crecy and Agincourt seem to be the case for that
In both battles, the entire French nobility got BTFo by some non-noble English archers (yeah yeomen were not peasant tier but still not noble)

...

it's not wrong. All the armor in the world didn't help the frogs after charging a muddy field and getting stuck in it and not being able to stand up, allowing the English to stick sharp blades in the weak joint armor and visor

because clearly the barrel is so weak that it will explode, rather than just be forced back by recoil.

mauling a knight in the mud means jackshit to " bringing an end to 1200 years of armor development even before firearms took over"
also a reminder the english meme bowmen got slaughtered at Patay which highly affected the outcome of the war, something the britshits like to forget

and? the armor still isn't going to do jack shit if a peasant lands a blow in the helmet with a billhook or halberd
Advances in metal and weapon quality made the armor meme tier
All the top tier armor we see today came AFTER the 1500 as ornamental pieces
A fully armored knight that can't see shit through his visor won't do much when he gets swamped by some peasant levy and thrown to the ground

the way he's holding that gun feels very sexual

what'd your point? armour doesn't make you invulnerable so therefore you shouldn't bother at all?
>Advances in metal and weapon quality made the armor meme tier
>All the top tier armor we see today came AFTER the 1500 as ornamental pieces
>mfw

Something Something Freud something something Phallic something something penises.

Longbows did more damage than guns.

Anglo historiography folks.

well of course, with my englander yew longbow i can shoot thru solid harden steel ingots without any problem

WE

well i think thats just shadow and not a black guy but

WUZ

this feels too genuine to be bait, this is actual retardation

>brought an end to 1200 years of armor development

No one has professional made the claim but to me it looks like the coat of plates that turned into the plate we know about may of been a development of byzantine cavalry armor. The reason is likely is do to first regions to be big users of it, Norway and Sweden, having deep trade links with the Byzantine Empire. A lot of their armor in the 10-12th century is already know to have Byzantine design influences.

So Plate has a design history of about 1600 at the time of the battle of Crecy.

> brought an end to 1200 years of armor development

Plate moved foreword in design and use after Crecy and Agincourt, it did not fall out of use do to those events. A great example of it is the armet helmet (aka the dark souls knight helmet) which was invented around 1420.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armet

> firearms

That did not kill use plate either.

What DID kill the use of plate was the march & counter march system of warfare during the 30 years war. Basically commanders learned that getting to favorable ground before the enemy was the winning factor in battle back in those days. End effect was that one would get to the good ground first, the other army would fall back would out fighting to try and threaten a different target. So armies would chase either other for months.

So how do you improve your army in that style of warfare? Early effort focus on light artillery and aggressive cavalry tactics.That did work some what but not as well as taking off every once of useful but not needed equipment in a army. Both for the soldier and the supplies train. March just that touch faster, get the good ground first, and then give orderly pursuit to the withdrawing enemy army. This revolution in military thinking caused European powers to became the world leaders in land based conflicts.

>Standing in front of their own men they faced the archers with their chests so solidly protected by mail and plate and leather shields, that the arrows were either fended off directly or broken in pieces by the hard objects or diverted upwards...
Almost every 16th-century armour you see today is field armour made for actual battle, like pic related.

Here's something for the Anglos to remember: An entire continent doesn't suddenly change its style of war because a minor kingdom won three battles in France with unorthodox tactics.

>record scratch
>freeze frame
>Yup, that's me. You're probably sondering how I ended up in this situation.

>french knights

When I am dead and cut open, they shall find Patay and Formigny and Castillon and Ravenna and Ceresole inscribed upon my heart.

retard

Did knights use squires sexual relief? I know this is an odd question but this type of thing seems common if you look at history. Like Greeks and Romans and byzantines are known for being degenerate but no one ever talks whether or not medieval era kingdoms were degenerate.

TÜRK Warrior > wh*Te """knight"""

Most likely some did, but it probably wasn't common with the numerous amount of cheap hookers available.
Heretic.

youtube.com/watch?v=N9wsjroVlu8

Scheeeeeeiße

>ottoman armor
meme by itself

Funny how french image abroad went from
>charging forward with retard strenght
to
>best army in the world
to
>cheese eating surrendering monkey
with seemingly no brake

All the fighting-class nobles where killed and only the wine connisseur nobles where left to breed.