Is guns eradicating the knights a true claim or just a meme?

>see agincourt

this meme again, i can't even tell anymore if it's sheer ignorance or just bait

As a socio-economic class, they were losing power because of the rise of Free Royal/Imperial Cities, which were exempted from their control and started to gain wealth and power. In the military, you can see that as the early modern rise of trained infantry, which was primarily made up of citizens, rather than of serfs or peasants. Kings also connected themselves to cities and citizens (partly to peasants and serfs, too, with the restriction and eventual abolishment of serfdom), to curb the power of the high nobility. Thus the rise of the early modern state in West Europe.

That entirely depends on what you believe a "knight" is.
If, by "knight", you mean an heavily armed man with a horse whose main tactic revolves around charging with a lance, then cannons, guns or pikes didn't phase him out. They were still around in the Italian Wars, and well into the 1600s with the gustavian tactics. Cavalry was useful until WW1, and even used effectively by the soviets against the White Russians at a time where automatic weapons and artillery existed.
If by knight, you mean the noble cavalry man, then they were still around ; Even with the heavy cavalry becoming less important in the battlefield (But not obsolete : What changed is how much of them there is in the army, but if used at the right moment they could still do a lot of damages), nobles still found places to exist within an army paid by a king and as courtesans. Though they were much more disciplined than the knights of old they still held to chivalric principles, larping as Arthur or Charlemagne (Pic related).
If by knights you mean "feudal knights", then the Black Death and the building of modern states eradicated them in the XIVth century.

t. butthurt fr*gs

The arrows killed the horses not the knights.
A long bow wouldn't do shit to a more heavily armour knight from late 15th century.
That's exactly why the long bow phased out not to long after Agincourt.

You mean a battle fought mostly between French knights and men at arms versus English knights and men at arms both on foot?

>he believes a prehistorical weapon that could not penetrate a simple infantryman's gambeson is the greatest evidence of british martial courage

Crécy, Poitiers and Agincourt were all victories brought by the french lack of discipline, the terrain and the men-at-arms rather than the longbows. At Agincourt the decisive moment of the battle was when the english archers dropped their bows and rushed into the melee, not when they used their arrows.

>the long now phased out not to long after Agincourt

Define not to long? Because longbows continued to be used throughout the 15th century and well into the 16th century, being deployed at Flodden and Pinkie Cleugh alongside black powder weaponry.

This. English army was laughably obsolete in 16thC. It even gets funnier if you compare them with other Europeans.

They weren't very common after the 100 years war.
I know they were used after, even in the English civil war by the Scottish highlanders pic related.

If by knights you mean heavily armored cavalry then yes. Guns didnt make cavalry obsolete until ww1 but they did make trying to fully armor a man pointless.
Cuirassiers breastplates werent even close to bullet proof altho I suppose they would protect against lances and sabers which were still used by cavalry at the start of ww1.

>after the Hundred Years War

Like the Wars of the Roses? Which saw both sides almost exclusively use longbows?

>obsolete
>litterally fucks the high tech Scots in the mouth at Flodden.

>Cuirassiers breastplates werent even close to bullet proof
depends on the time period i suppose
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proofing_(armour)

That's it. I'm sick of all this "Masterwork Gun" bullshit that's going on in the d20 system right now. Longbows deserve much better than that. Much, much better than that.
I should know what I'm talking about. I myself commissioned a genuine Longbow in England for £15,000 (that's about $20,000) and have been practicing with it for almost 2 years now. I can even shoot through slabs of solid steel with my Longbow.

English bowmakers spend years working on a single Longbow and fold it up to a million times to produce the finest bowstaves known to mankind.

Longbows are thrice as powerfull as European guns and thrice as accurate for that matter too. Anything a gun can shoot through, a Longbow can shoot through better. I'm pretty sure a Longbow could easily completely pierce a knight wearing full plate with a simple horizontal shot.

Ever wonder why medieval Europe never bothered conquering England? That's right, they were too scared to fight the disciplined bowmen and their Longbows of destruction. Even in World War II, German soldiers targeted the men with the Longbows first because their killing power was feared and respected.

So what am I saying? Longbows are simply the best ranged weapons that the world has ever seen, and thus, require better stats in the d20 system. Here is the stat block I propose for Longbows:

(One-Hunder pound Exotic Weapon)
1d12 Damage
19-20 x4 Crit
+2 to hit and damage
Counts as Masterwork

(Two-Hundred pound Exotic Weapon)
2d10 Damage
17-20 x4 Crit
+5 to hit and damage
Counts as Masterwork

Now that seems a lot more representative of the penetration power of Longbows in real life, don't you think?

tl;dr = Longbows need to do more damage in d20, see my new stat block.

>t. Mad Jack Churchill
10/10

The medieval knight began to dissapear with powder weapons, yes. But the cannon came first around the 1400s.

When euros got a good handle of powder and realized any retard could hold a gun and shoot, heavy armor quickly became obsolete as mercenary bands using simple pike and shot combinations routed them with ease.

"Professional" (read well trained and organized) standing armies did the job. Pikes, guns or wagons were only auxillary.

On the contrary, the condottieri mercenary system was king in the 1500s

Not an expert on Italian wars, but
>The decline of the Condottieri began in 1494, with the first, great foreign invasion in a century: the French king

I should correct myself though, since of course merceneries played major role up to the 30 years war. But merceneries are profesionals, not honorable feudal lords charging each other frontally.

You absolute retard. Pikemen used armour as well, and armour went out of use at the same time as pikes.

I apoloize, I got my centuries wrong. Though condottieris weren't the only mercenaries, just the first.

I think we disagree on this: I wouldn't call mercenaries professionals. Not medieval ones at least.

Yes, as shot was pdrfected and turned into muskets

But in that period when guns where shitty hand cannons you shot once and threw them to the ground, the pike was king.

(And heavy armor wad useless)

m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ej3qjUzUzQg

Knights just became officers.

It is not a meme.

There were a mere 9 years between the battle of bosworth field and the Italian wars when the French brought multitudes of field guns. What were you doing in 2009? The pace of change in this era was very rapid and the reasons are obvious. Guns just go straight through armor. PANG! There really isn't much more to it than that. It is a simple observation but that doesn't make it stupid or wrong.

While professional soldiers and cavalry continued to use plate armor and lances in the knightly fashion up until the flintlock, Knights as a class fell out of favor rapidly. Warfare was no longer a noble pursuit, it was a gamble.

>High tech Scots

Dude I'm Scottish and what the fuck are you talking about the English were way ahead of the game we only beat them because their commanders were overconfident idiots.

I didn't say they were effective in WW1, I said they were still used. "Heavily armored man on a horse" didn't vanish for centuries.

dumb phone poster

Do you have a counter argument or not?

>lindybait video
>argument

>Scots beat the English at Flodden

Fucks sake.

The Scots at Flodden were using the latest cannons versus the English armed with bows and bills like it was still the Wars of the Roses.

Show us where he messed up method-wise.

>Scottish bullets flew over the English heads while the English cannon was effective: the one army placed so high and the other so low.[46]
>a hail of arrows, an incident celebrated in later English ballads. Hall says that the armoured front line was mostly unaffected
The scots were armed in a defensive manner (pikes), but had to attack because they failed to use their artillery and probably had no shot to speak of either. They were like the arabs of today, copying a more advanced ally and buying a few toys from them without truly understanding why it works for them.