What if I want knights but not medieval europe?

Want do you want? A caste of warrior elites or heavy armored riders? Because of course you can have both without knights.

>What if I want guns but not industralization?

You had guns before industrialization.

I think knights exist nowadays? But they're all rich old people

The title is still around in some places. But the warrior caste and the heavily armoured lancers are both gone. But since OP's too stupid to specify, or just wallowing in shitposting, we can't tell what he wants or how to make it happen.

What if I want (You)s without effort?

>But they're all rich old people

They've always been that.
They just had to haul their oldest son into armor along with a few of their serfs to carry that shit around with him.

Detto for samurai, except those were also forced to give some training to the serfs to fight as ashigaru.

Dunno if any other cultures had a similar concept but guys like Chinese or Romans just made a modern paid army and left the rich people out of harms way.

though
(...)
adverb
1. however (indicating that a factor qualifies or imposes restrictions on what was said previously).
"I was hunting for work. Jobs were scarce though"

Fuck you, my knights are military commanders who command tank crews manned by retainers loyal to their houses.

Why do you need a medieval setting to have knights?

Seriously, why? Is there actual logic there or are you acting like their primary thematic association is literally the only way you can make use of them?

Knights had to bring soldiers too in most places. 'Serfs' are not leaving the land for military campaigns either except in emergencies.

And Romans did not 'leave the rich out of harms way'. Like in most societies throughout history the officers were nobles/aristocrats and young men of that class were expected to be military officers before they entered politics.

What's a knight?
Usually it means an elite noble warrior.
And that's flexible, especially in fantastic/fantasy words.
Hirdmen, samurai, bogatyrs, frankish prototype of knights, look into the Ethiopian knighthood, play around with jaguar warriors, think what would Zulu have in warrior elite if euros didn't come,

>leave the rich out of harms way
They did. Veteran soldiers served under young rich brats whom they were expected to babysit and teach about war.

Like Samurai or Space Marines?

What you said implied they stayed at home. They were present on the battlefield as officers. It was a cultural expectation for them to be brave and many fought in combat.

And why do we always get people butthurt about the rich every single time this topic comes up?

Persian lancers
Byzantine cataphracts

>And why do we always get people butthurt about the rich every single time this topic comes up?
He's a socialist. Can't you smell it?

>What you said implied they stayed at home.
Nope, not a word about it. They served as officers in the camp and cavalry. Romans favored organized warfare over individual prowess a lot. Sending promising young men of noble families to death would be a waste.

Why are you so butthurt when people point out you're wrong?

Miss, try again

I came here to say this. Alternatively, Egyptian elite armored archers riding war chariots for the novelty's sake.

Hear me out

Atlantis

Magictech Setting
Deep underwater

Lets cook with gas

Or rajas riding war elephants

Their culture still recognised personal bravery.

Your post heavily implied they did not fight or that they were not even involved in the military. They were not even close to out of harms way by any sensible definition as they were present on the battlefield. And anybody who uses the phrase 'young rich brats' during this topic is butthurt or pushing a political agenda.

Just let it take place in Africa.

>Your post heavily implied
It's not, Mr Implier. Learn to read and stop imagining things you want.

But in both those cultures, rich people just bought officers positions in the armies, and served in somewhat higher echelons than the poor fuckers who were pure frontline.
The Roman nobility was incredibly martial. As were the Victorian / Elizabethan englands, despite modernizing armies and making them more meritocratical.
Even in modern armies:
Higher officers require some level of intelligence and foresight --> The people who fill those positions have pretty alright schooling --> They are from the higher middle-class

While grunts are very often people for whom the military was an economic opportunity --> They're from the lower classes.

>They are from the higher middle-class
Maybe in USA which is Roman Republic 2.0

>what are clibinarii
>what are cataprachts
>what are equites exemplarii

Then you make knights in another setting. No need to thank me, I'm just creative like that.

Nope, fucking everywhere.
People of higher socioeconomic status outperform the lower classes in pretty much every field, including military. Better performance -> more ambition & better chance of promotion.

This is not controversial, it is just the harsh truth of demographics.
Even if the military is a perfect meritocracy, the affluent will still rise to the top, because they have been nurtured & raised far better.

Yeah, sure. Here is fresh (You) from me.

You won't get very far if you get angry at people because you wrote in a non clear fashion.

It is not sensible or rational to equate 'keeping the rich out of harms way' with the rich sending their sons to be military officers due to their cultural focus on public service.

Enjoy yourself, Mr. Implier

On average. On average. That is important. I went to school with a kid from a billionaire family, and he's perfectly content using interest to pay the bills, playing videogames and smoking weed all day.

Fuckin' rekt m80

There's a reason for this, and it's not what you think it is.

Being affluent is an advantage in itself. Better food for development, better education and training, better equipment... Sure, some people squander it, but being born wealthy is a massive advantage in a huge number of ways.

This is where the idea of 'meritocracy' breaks down, since that assumes a more even playing field. The people who make it to the top have the power to ensure their families stay at the top, making it harder and harder for other people to actually work their way up due to their inherent disadvantages.

...

I will totally concede that point. Not saying every CO was born with a silver spoon in his/her mouth.

Not him, but a sentence ends with a period.
Also, there should be a comma right before "though".

Seriously, guys, I'm not a native english speaker and even I know those rules.

If you are just going to shitpost and cannot even post proper responses why are you here?

People forget how important food is for your brain, especially when you're a baby. Breastfeeding your baby (which you can easily do if you're rich, or have a job that gives you a lot of free time after becoming a mother) will make a significant contribution to the intelligence of your child.

Formula milk isn't bad. But it's not good either. It lacks the electrolytes.

That is what he was saying.

Who needs medieval Europe?

I meant; if the military, as an isolated structure, rewarded its employees purely based on performance, and we ignore all other factors that might cause rich people to rise to the top (like officers of affluent background identiying with, and promoting other people of affluet background, etc.), even then, we would probably still see the affluent rise to the top, because of their privileged upbringing simply leaving them with greater personal resources, health, intelligence, etc.

I didn't mean; "suppose all of society is an idealized utopia"

I still don't quite understand these new "burns" you kids are doing.

Paladins were never a real thing. Gygax came up with them because he wanted a variant of the Fighting Man specced into anti-undead, originally vampires, just like his clerics. The word comes from a fictionalized account of the 12 peers of Charlemagne's court. They aren't any kind of knight, because they were never real.

>anybody who uses the phrase 'young rich brats' during this topic is butthurt or pushing a political agenda.
Has the world seriously gone so far to hell that you can't hate on rich people anymore?

Fuck rich people, by the way. Kill the burgeoise.

OK, well as a native speaker, I can tell you adverbs do not require commas unless they are listed or have special emphasis.

There's nothing wrong with writing writing "The man progressed through the book slowly." and has a subtly different emphasis than "The man progressed through the book, slowly." The first is just a statement of fact, whereas the second stresses the slowness of his reading.

The reaction of the original response doesn't make sense if the error being called out was just missing the period, especially on an anonymous imageboard.

And before some sperglord calls out "writing writing" I have dyslexia, these things sometimes get missed.

I want to kill poor people who elect rich corrupt oligarchs too.

Well user might just make it big one day and be one of the rich people, so you better be nice and untax them.

If this thread falls into /pol/-territory, don't blame /pol/ this time.

>Well user might just make it big one day and be one of the rich people,

It is extremely unlikely to happen.

Assuming you aren't just trolling, no its not morally acceptable to hate people just because they have more money than you.

Only jealous people, political extremists and the mentally ill do that.

When I get in a deep dark misanthropic mood, I just laugh it off.

It's like watching someone pour gas all over themselves, and light themselves on fire, suddenly screaming about how it hurts and they want it to stop.

Was this childish strawman really necessary? Being this hateful is just pointless.

Monks aren't knights user

>What if I want knights but not medieval europe?
then you want glorious Culter Dei.

The implications that being an officer necessarily has to do with quality or real merit in modern militaries makes me think you've never been in one.

>I want to kill poor people who elect rich corrupt oligarchs too.
Only if we also kill the somewhat rich people who conspire to give us no choice but to vote for rich corrupt oligarchs.

I think you're going to have an accident soon, maggot.

Technically the ancient romans had knights

>fictionalized

>morally acceptable
And into trash it goes.

Do research on Sasanian Persia.

Join the Klan.

medieval Russia?
medieval Georgia?
medieval crusader Jerusalem?

paladins are knights of Charlemagne, they are why knights became popular.

Paladin is literally "friend of charles"

My favorite futuristic implementation of knights were those assholes in Aldnoah Zero who each ruled over a orbital castle and had their own overpowered relic mech that completely dominated the battlefield. On all levels except historical they were truly knights.
Too bad the anime itself sucked.

Forgot to mention that they died to some kid who found the chink in their armor or kicked up sand in their face or pushed them in the water. As I said, knights.

Kshatriyas. Go zooming around in chariots shooting motherfuckers with your bow.

>From French paladin, from Italian paladino, from Late Latin palatinus (“palace officer”), derived from palatium (“palace”). Doublet of palatine.
You'd think a word for "friend of Charles" would have "charles", "karl" or "karolus" in it.

It's Charlebro

You mean 3.0.
2.0 was the British Empire.

Modern Knights?

And in a supers setting if you don't want to just play a literal knight dude who is also a superhero you can basically play a kamen rider.
Your transformation is your armour, your bike is your steed and you can have any special toyetic weapons you possibly want from simply a sword or a mace to a fancy transforming rod that can switch to the likes of a pollaxe for on foot and a lance for some super jousting while on your bike.

>Samurai
So... a warrior who uses a bow, a spear and a treasured sword at his side while wearing demonic looking armor, obsessed with personal glory and honor?

Not that hard.

Then you have early guns?

Or all those godlike fantasy smiths decided they wanted shootbangs so got together with some alchemists and created the legendary weapon known as the "Boomstick".
A man armed with one has the power of a king, a man armed with two has the power of a god.

no, it actually comes from ancient rome. it shares the same root as palace (comes from, guess what, palatin) and paladins were originally, iirc, praetorians.

Fuck yeah

>Paladin is literally "friend of charles"

Crusades.

This man speaks the truth.

DEUS VULT!

Veterans got to stay at the back
Initial roman army was no-plebs-allowed

You're a fucking retard and should shut the fuck up about everything

Fully armoured people are cooler looking than vain assholes running around without a helmet.

More heroes should wear their helmets.

>what is reformed army
Eat shit, loudmouthed idiot

American and Canadian knights?

...

...

...

...