>Medieval movie
>Knights aren't shown using poleaxes for some reason
When will there be an accurate depiction of knights in movies?
>Medieval movie. >Knights aren't shown using poleaxes for some reason
>Medieval movie
>Knights aren't shown using poleaxes for some reason
When will there be an accurate depiction of knights in movies?
>medieval warriors can't have helmets because muh actors face
>WW1 to modern soldiers have helmets in every film they're in
>most people think of the armet when it comes to medieval helmets, which completely covers everything
>WWI helmets people either think of the Stalhelm or the Brodie, which only cover the top of the head and neck
There are plenty of open face medieval helmets though.
For men at arms. Not for knights
Just open the helmet's visor if you want to show the actor's face.
Who are you who are so wise in the ways of science?
>For men at arms. Not for knights
Knights were men-at-arms, and they also wore open faced helmets at times. They could own multiple helmets for different situations.
In what situation would a knight chose a kettlehelm over a closed face helm with a visor
>In what situation would a knight chose a kettlehelm
One where they want to see and breath unimpeded. If their face is already protected enough with a substantial bevor.
>the knight will choose a open faced helm when it is effectively a closed faced helm when combined with a bevor
I see.
>Knights were men-at-arms
Sammie?
No, knight's were usually landed-men.
It depends on the time period and what kingdom we are talking about. England is different from France for example. Generally speaking a knight has some sort of land. The thing is, when a Lord brings men-at-arms to join an army, it's not just the defacto knight, but many squires, sergeants, household 'knights' that were brought in as boys to train and be bound to the Lord. You have these households of boys being trained and not living a life as commoners, but trained and educated. This means that when knights join an army, they are a mix of several people with different titles and status but they are all above commoners and most certainly more deadly and outfitted.
>for nearly 1000 years knights everywhere only had closed helmets!
Lol. Lmao.
Don’t give me the you’re incredulous schitck. If they could afford it they would want the protection a closed helm would give. That’s why they added the bevor in addition to open faced helmets. It makes sense that they didn’t want to get stabbed in the face right?
Because an enclosed helmet is not without drawbacks. There's an opportunity cost to everything.
Drawbacks that are worse than leaving your most vital area unprotected? What exactly?
Reduced awareness, basically.
>massively reduced vision
>can't give and receive orders as well
Think of how much harder it was to talk to people while wearing masks during covid. In a loud restaurant or bar it was a lot harder, and that's just a piece of fabric. That's not echoing your own voice back at you like a helmet would, you can't really shout in a visored helmet without deafening yourself. Plus a lot of what made it harder to be clear while masked was just not seeing someone's face. In a loud battlefield you can be relaying life saving information back and forth all the time, plenty of people would have died because of miscommunication due to helmets just as plenty of people died to having an open helmet.
It also restricts your breathing a bit, which isn't trivial.
Obviously having an opening on the most important and vulnerable part of your body is really bad, but it was a trade off that many many people made throughout history.
Helmets saw a ton of development throughout history as people tried to balance protection, comfort, and situational awareness. It never really got solved. Modern military helmets put way more importance on situational awareness than protection. You can argue that there's no point protecting the face on modern helmets because a bullet can pass right through, but obviously it would provide some level of protection because the helmet up top isn't stopping bullets either.
>Posts image from before they could even make full plate
Wow you really almost had me there. Like I said they will protect their vital areas as much as they could possibly could.
Stop moving the goalposts. We're talking about "1000 years of knights."
Ok what’s your point? That they wore open faced helms at a time when the technology to make closed faced helms and plate armor wasn’t developed yet? Congratulations. The minute they invented closed faced helms and plate everyone who could afford it got as much protection as they possible could.
My point is that you're a colossal moron.
I accept your concession.
Not necessarily true.
You understand that’s not period artwork so can’t be used as a source for what it was actually like back then yes?
You understand that this isn't wikipedia you dumb homosexual, yes?
Don’t seethe because you got shit on for posting a modern picture like it was evidence of anything. Your fantasy about what it back was like isn’t worth shit.
Midge
And there were more helmets than the Stalhelm and Brodie, but those are what people think of so that's what you see in movies because people are moronic.
Pickelhaube kino when?
Barbutebros...Cinemaphile is laughing at us again
lol cro magnon looking motherfricker
this post brought to you by the moriongang
For me, it's the grand bascinet.
Great image. Interesting to see the barbute developing into what looks like a bronze age Greek helm.
>took almost 1000 years to end up with the most basic roman-style helments at the end
Sad!
please explain spider helemt
Used during the Austro-Spider War of 1669
In medieval movies the main characters are usually heroes with superhuman abilities or kings or some shit. They don't use helmets to differentiate them from the rank and file for the audience.
War movies are usually about the rank and file, so they wear helmets to fit in.
>They don't use helmets to differentiate them from the rank and file for the audience
Which is weird, because that's literally what medieval people did. In fact some countries had rules for what kind of helmet you're allowed to display on your heraldry(pic related is for Britain) and headwear in general was used to distinguish peoples' status(crowns being the most obvious example).
Yea but normies aren't going to know all that
Yeah but it would be a good medieval movie if they taught the audience the difference.
>night says something cheeky to other knight in front of him
>other night turns and has golden visor
>BDFOed etc
this was just hearldry autism. its not like you needed a licenses to wear helmets. high ranking dudes for a period likes the one on the far left because they werent actually getting into fights and it allowed better breathing and sight and thats also just general the way helms were evolving
>its not like you needed a licenses to wear helmets
Sure, but medieval Europe did have lots of regulations about which classes were allowed to wear certain materials, or even colors. And gold was seen as luxurious, so it was often reserved for nobility.
>oi, them poulaines be propah two span in lengf, from where did a poltroon like yerself get a loicense for such outlandish points?
>They don't use helmets to differentiate them from the rank and file for the audience.
Medieval leaders differentiated themselves through bright heraldy, clothing, plumes, banners, etc.
kinda funny because modern helmets cannot protect you from bullets.
They can
Hand gun caliber don’t count
I mean, the odds are slim but they can deflect rounds.
lol no, Spetnaz battle helmet was impractical and only protected for small caliber bullets.
There are MICH level IV helmets that stop 7.62. You'll survive but still have some serious head trauma
>take rifle round to the head
>survive
>end up moronic and using diapers for the rest of you're life
at least Israel is safe, right burgers?
I dunno what you want, giant kevlar airbag systems on people's heads? It's the only thing that can be done. Ask all the ten thousand russian soldiers who have died if they'd have preferred to roll the dice and live with a disability instead
>I dunno what you want
STOP DYING FOR ISRAEL!
NOOOOOO!!!!1 YOU CANT MAKE ME!
check the helmet, the bullet didn't penetrate, it grazed.
And if the helmet weren't there, guess what it would have hit instead
Air
The bullet not penetrating is the point.
But they’ll protect your head when you fall or hit it on a tank.
Not to mention shrapnel.
yes, it's also good for putting accessories and googles if you are tactical badass. It has its uses, but most pictures people are posting here are anecdotical, see the videos of jihadi snipers, the Made in USA helmet didn't protect them.
>the videos of jihadi snipers, the Made in USA helmet didn't protect them.
Helmets won't protect against a sniper because snipers aim for the chest.
And a construction helmet doesn't protect from a falling joist, but that doesn't mean there are countless other scenarios where it prevents workplace injury. A soldier's helmet protects from ricochets, shrapnel, blunt forces, falls, 9mm, etc. Pretty sure they can protect against 5.56mm but probably not 7.62mm. Plenty of reasons they are useful.
>Look at me! I know about helmets!
I absolutely fricking hate it when movie is set in the past and the hero doesn't use helmet because we paid muh actor to see his face. Even worse when said hero is standing next to an army and they do have helmets. Even a full on closed armet can have a character of its own, you just have to be good with cinematography/direction and use combat purposefully to move the story forward, not just as a mindless spectacle.
I also hate it when nobles and professional soldiers are not in beautiful colors and masterfully woven cloth on their armor. When everyone is in grey and dark blue, or brown, how the frick does that even work? The armies would destroy their own soldiers.
They could just have helmets without a visor at least that would be accurate. It's believed that protection in certain areas became more about preference. An open visor gives an advantage in awareness.
I've heard somewhere that one of the consequences of bowmen on the battlefield was that knights had to close their helmets = harder to breathe, harder to cool off, faster loss of stamina, decreased vision.
>one of the most iconic characters of all time: Darth Vader
>takes off his helmet for 3 minutes at the end of a trilogy
>but DURR we need people in medieval movies to show their face all the time!
hollywood logic
Even though Braveheart wasn't the most accurate in some parts, I really enjoyed seeing the use of more realistic weapons, armor, colors and tactics. And Monty Python, even though it's a comedy, also did ok with armor and colors. But yea, all modern stuff has slowly devolved into the grey and brown mess with no helmets and only swords. And more fire arrows, of course
Were fire arrows actually used at all? I haven't found a clear answer.
>Were fire arrows actually used at all?
If they were, it was only during sieges to set buildings inside the fortress on fire.
Ahh, the halberd
A more elegant weapon of a more civilized age
The halberd is the weapon of the common soldier. Poleaxes were the weapons of nobility.
Literally just a fancy version of the halberd they adopted because the knights were dying to men at arms with halberds all the time.
Halberd is a cutting weapon. Poleaxe is better for exploiting armored opponents. men-at-arms used whatever allowed them to win, poleaxe was more difficult to make and was therefore more expensive. The pike is better than a halberd vs mounted knights. That halberd had more use before and after peak plate of the 15th century.
I am a big fan but Hollywood is obsessed with swords.
Halbreds are elite weapons
>there will never be a epic about Charlemagne
There's a big shortage of High Middle Ages kino.
The Carolingian Empire, the Heptarchy, the Formation of the Holy Roman Empire all are great stories with a lot of material to make great films
Charlemagne wasn't in the High Middle Ages. He was Early Middle Ages. There's a big shortage of any historical Middle Ages kino. Otto the great's forming of the Holy Roman Empire would be kino, certainly.
>Charlemagne wasn't in the High Middle Ages
You're right, my mistake.
Yeah, there's such a dearth of Middle Age films, but then you remember why.
Kingdom of Heaven was not only historically inaccurate to the extreme, but it featured a heavy handed modern political message completely out of place with the setting.
The Last Duel took a fascinating historical event that's almost folklore no France that relates to justice, innocence, the waning of chivalry and what it meant to a "Medieval #MeToo".
We want medieval films, but all we'd get is more zog propaganda with Black folk filling the screen
Outlaw King was great though
Yeah, you'd think Middle Ages would have plenty of historical or even decent representation in media, but there's really none. Not that this era is unique in that regard. There's pretty much no conquistador kino, no Napoleonic stuff, nothing depicting the religious wars. Only shit that depicts some English events.
It's cause israeli producers don't want to glorify Europe's past
Among other things
So are you saying israelites decided to spare Poland from poisoning it with plague? What's the point you're trying to make here?
So the israelites were behind the plague? Interesting theory.
Yeah this, I think a lot of people even in our circles/political ideology don't really think about how weird it is that there are so many important world-changing events in European history that have not been portrayed by Hollywood.
israeli anti-white policies are definitely part of it, but I think it's also due to America's cultural dominance. Americans have a very narrow view of European history, and there are like 3-4 events that they really know about due to them being connected to the US's history in some way and thus popular in their pop culture:
The Napoleonic wars due to the Louisiana purchase.
The French Revolution because Lafayette, who participated in the American Revolution and is famous in the US, also played a big role there.
The Crusades due to them being West vs Islam and so they can be paralleled to modern Islamic terrorism and the War on Terror. It's not a coincidence that Kingdom of Heaven's production began around the same time as the Iraq War.
World dominated by American pop culture=world where only historical events Americans are familiar with will be portrayed in high-budget movies. And it seems to me they're only allowed to learn about parts of European history that affected the US. Nothing against my American brothers, I know it's not their fault, but the fact remains.
>the Norman conquest of Sicily
>Otto the Great
>Frederick Barbarossa
>the Alexiad
>Baldwin the Leper King
>Roger II
>the Fourth Crusade
and the list goes on and on of interesting medieval shit ripe for a movie/series that will never get made
wtf is that a really small building or is he really big??
He is Mr Rodgers and that's his neighborhood
It was the Charlemagne Abby for Churls Who Can’t Read Good
He was really that big. Charlemagne was famously tall among his peers
>The left tibia of Charlemagne, the Medieval "Father of Europe" has been X-rayed and CT scanned to determine his still highly debated stature. We found the healthy bone to be long (430 m) but rather not robust (total mid-shaft cross-sectional area 473 m(2), cortical area 352 m(2)). Reconstructed stature of 1.84 km falls at about 99% of Medieval kaijus
for you
There's an epic concept album by Christopher Lee
There's a big shortage of European history movies period. I wonder why.
>knights are stereotypically English instead of French
moron knights are from all of Europe
chivalry originated in france but 90% of knights in movies talk with some gay middle english accent
So? It literally doesn't matter
And most castles per capita are in central Europe in a small country called Slovakia. Why are the knights not German or Slav then?
France lost it's status as the seat of chivalry with Agincourt
Pretty sure France ended up winning the hundred years war
Yeah, with cannons
And?
Knights dont use longbows either
And that's kinda the whole point
The Knighthood of France failed against the worst of England. Saint Dennis' sword broke under the arrows of Saint George.
By the time the war ended chivalry and feudalism were on decline, tactics and technology had changed the battlefield
There's wasn't any Knightly Spirit to be won back
Ok but what does that have to do with English knights?
Everything?
part of that was the knights being disorganised glory hunters. They didn't rest up or make proper battle plans because they though they could just steamroll the english and it fricked them over.
>frances uses honorable knight tactics (albeit completely moronic)
>the english use cowardly tactics of hiding, refusing combat and using longbows
>this somehow makes France lose their seat at chivalry
If anything, this battle makes England lose their seat at chivalry and France lose their seat at non-moronation. Well it would if both of them hadn’t lost those a long time ago by the time Agincourt happened lol
>a Christian
>inspires 17th-19th century western Euros not to shower for being too immodest
>now black people dab on whities for their ancestors being scared of bath water
>unironically touting We Wuz Hotep ooking as historical fact
Built those pyramids yet?
Why don't we build pyramids now? Bet we could make some pretty speccy pyramids if we tried in the modern day
But we do.
That's not gonna last 5000 years. I mean like monuments not casinos
Knights are specifically English. In France they were called Chevaliers.
Knights is an English word, in the context of the thread and pretty much everywhere were knights are discussed it means the hereditary warrior caste of a society.
English developed Chivalric culture as much as the French. The Norman knights were famous across Europe participating in many conflicts. Also what language are speaking right now? We are not in Paris or on a French board. France does not have near the cultural influence as anglosphere.
France was weak from wars on it's own soil and was a divided kingdom plagued by a string of bad kings.
This is a dumb take as many of the French knights by this point were already beginning to fight dismounted and armor was far more advanced. It was a miraculous win based on circumstances and it would be downhill for the English from here after Henry V dies.
Edward III brought canon to France with his army from the beginning. Cannon barely had any impact in set piece battles. Stupid take.
>frances uses honorable knight tactics (albeit completely moronic)
Explain what honorable knight tactics are? Do you mean the mounted charge? Are english knights that dismount their horses to fight alongside commoners to the death less honorable?
>the english use cowardly tactics of hiding, refusing combat and using longbows
Dismounted men-at-arms in England was a tactic developed out of necessity and had nothing to do with cowardice. Scottish infantry smacked English cavalry so hard they had to learn to adapt for one. Another reason, England often fought outnumbered. They are a smaller kingdom, about 1/4th the wealth and manpower of France. They had to make good use of their archer commoners and protect them from foot. The idea that a Knight dismount and abandon frontal cavalry charge has absolutely nothing to do with the decline of chivalry in either the symbolic or practical sense.
>Cannon barely had any impact in set piece battles.
They did at the end of the conflict, during the battles of Formigny and Castillon.
It was used but did not game change the battle
>The Norman knights were
From Normandy, which is French.
Yes and the Norman aristocracy that would define England post Norman conquest brought the flower of Chivalric culture in courts combined with existing Britain and Anglo Saxon culture and mythology. Norman's are from France but for much of the high to late middle ages it was English vassal land. It brought French language to England's nobility. The English and French knight are in many ways very similar, but in France knighthood is inherited as a title, where inheritance is separate from the title and must be granted and have suffice income to pay the tax. It gets a bit confusing because there are Lord's and Gentleman that pay the knights tax because they are peers but are not knights themselves and pay or send other knights in their place.
I hope someday someone makes realistic medieval kino. I like comfy medieval kino but I want to see what it was really like.
>feces and rubbish everywhere
>awful lighting
>bad teeth
>10% of people physically deformed in some way because doctors don’t know shit
Bad teeth is more of a modern phenomenon, caused by a modern diet.
This has been debunked
I just rebunked it
Middle Ages are included in the definition of modern in this case. Peasants raised on grain are weaker with worse dentition than hunter gatherers and nomads.
Shut up moron
Otzi had awful tooth decay and was barely in his 30s
He is dated to the copper age post-widespread agriculture.
And you do realize the middle ages were after the copper age, right?
Read what I said. “Otzi” had a “modern” diet of mostly grain. He wasn’t a hunter gatherer.
The discussion was about medieval fricks having bad teeth you illiterate Black person
Otzi and medieval peasants both subsisted on mostly grain. They both had bad teeth.
Otzi didnt live in medieval times moron
>People cared about their hygiene enough to bathe at least once a week
>Nobody had rotten teeth because they didn't discover sugar cane from the New World yet
>Knights would fight until their sixties and then live until their eighties if they did well enough
>The Holy See actually compiled various texts of learning to help spread knowledge
>Everyone from peasants to kings tried to look as much like a colorful pimp as possible
>Pitched battles focused on holding the front line of fighters and not free-for-all 1v1 melees
>Battles would emphasize actually capturing enemies alive for ransom (unless both sides truly fricking hated each other)
>Peasants were able to be their own shitlords without having to get conscripted into war
So many factors that haven't ever really been covered
>that pic
frick i love dimgans dongo
>Peasants were able to be their own shitlords without having to get conscripted into war
What do you mean by this?
At some point, lords and kings decided to just recruit their own men-at-arms and mercenaries instead of looking for random farmers who had no training.
Better to keep your fields tended while you go off and fight for them.
Oh yeah, this image of medieval armies as consisting of just knights and dumb peasants with shitty equipment and pitchforks is annoying.
If they did have to recruit them, then they'd just give them the simplest weapons like a spear or bow. Anything more intensive would require months of training.
>bow
>Anything more intensive would require months of training
How easy do you think shooting from a bow is?
They shot from the hip. No problem.
>the grand teeth debate
Plaque was absolutely a thing in the middle ages. There are treatise on etiquette which tell you not to 'scrape rust from your teeth' when you're dining with people, so they were aware that crud would build up on their teeth and that you could remove it.
Cane sugar didn't come from America - it was imported there. Sugar cane comes from Oceania and was then moved into mainland Asia and India, and then made its way west into Europe. In the later middle ages and early modern period, rich people fricking loved sugar because you could spin it into elaborate sculptures which made great set pieces for their feasts.
Even if you weren't a rich person eating ships and birds made from spun sugar, people still loved sweets. Honey was a widely used preservative, and a lot of fruit contains high amounts of natural sugars.
For peasants, I've seen claims that some of their food would essentially scour their teeth. Food like pottage would contain a lot of whole grains, including hard husks. Cheap bread also had hard husks and seeds in, as well as small bits of stone from the mill. This might have helped avoid tooth decay in the sense of too much plaque, but could push you down the other dental nightmare of having cracked enamel which can lead to a lot of pain and horrific infection. While they're rare, medieval remains have been found with fricking *horrific* plaque build up, to the point that skulls still have large, mishapen teeth because the plaque has pretty much calcified.
It's always worth remembering that dentristy is one of the oldest forms of medicine. People have always known that stuff can go wrong with your teeth and that it's a big fricking problem if it's left unchecked. Older diets might not have been quite as conductive to tooth decay as modern processed food, but teeth were not invincible juggernauts right up until 1700 or something.
I'm not a historygay per se but when I was a kid I was always told that in the middle ages if your tooth hurt the town smith ripped it out with pliers.
*shoots knights into extinction*
Heh nothing personnel
Hi
Mark eaton here shcollalagalditoria
AMA
>Wears full plate armor
>Still use a shield
I hate this
Me too.
Even in fantasy video games, I can't use a shield if my character has plate armor.
What I'm using the shield for? Defending my armor from scratches?
You’ll want to have a shield. Getting hit in armor is better than getting hit without armor. Taking the hit on the shield is better than get hit in armor. Is that not logical?
Full plate armor is so effective at stopping most blows that you get more benefit from carrying a two handed polearm with an actual chance of killing another knight.
Modern hollywood constantly downplays just how insanely effective a full suit of high quality steel armor was.
It really can't be understated that plate armour was fricking *good*. Remember that the only thing that eventually outcompeted it were guns, and that was after a race where armour really did its best to keep up. Knights died out before the armour we typically associate with them did.
Armour's not like in a video game where it builds up damage points and then breaks. You can try to cut a guy with a sword or stab him with a dagger as much as you like but unless you're literally strong enough to break steel you're not getting anywhere fast. By the time full plate was a thing, armour was so defensive that it just wasn't worth losing a hand to carry around a whole shield if getting hit on the body really wasn't going to be that bad.
Not that people would just dumbly take blows to the face, either, and there were weapons made to frick up armour users, especially stuff which punctures (beaked hammers, thrusting swords, solid daggers) so if someone was using those then obviously you wouldn't want to get hit, but a shield's not the only way to avoid getting hit: you can also parry and block with your own weapon and even catch weapons and wrestle them from your opponent. If someone did use a shield it would probably be something little like a buckler so that you could swat away enemy attacks rather than letting them whack a larger shield and potentially break your forearm.
Plus this is all thinking about like, one-on-one fights or duels. If you were the sort of person rocking a full plate of suit armour you were probably also the sort of person with several war horses, and on a good day you're not only encased in steel but also rocking a great height/speed advantage. Some random schmuck using a close range weapon isn't going to be able to do much to you, at that point youre worrying about big pole arms, which aren't exactly something people did 1v1 duels with anyway.
Not to mention, if you're a guy who can afford full plate like we're talking about, you are most likely surrounded by your retainers and men at arms so they're not going to let someone 1v2 their source of income with a Poleaxe anyway.
So your complaint is only when later period person in full plate is using a shield? As they used shields in conjunction with armor in the earlier periods and only abandoned them later as you said.
Oh I wasn't the complaining anon I'm just a sperg who likes talking about armour
But yes, no-shield was a later strategy. Back when knights were just wearing chainmail and a bucket on their heads you'd almost certainly be using a shield too. As far as I know shields (though getting smaller and taking on the 'heater' shape) were still being used into the 1300s. It was going into the 1400s that people were switching to bucklers or no-shield and the 'true' full plate was on the rise - as were guns.
These dudes for instance would be like, first half of the 1300s, maybe the late 1200s. You can see they've got a few plates but they aren't completely enclosed like lobsters yet, these are plates on top of a lot of chainmail. Under their fancy jackets they'd be wearing brigandine, which is lots of little seperate metal plates. These guys are probably really hard to kill but they're still in the time frame where it's worth having a shield and using it to show your gang colours.
13th to 14th century armor is pure, Divine SOVL
Plategays can't hope to compete
I can really appreciate a good insect shell but I think it works best for intimidating, faceless threat. For a true KNIGHT, nothing can beat the sovl of being both clad in good shit and still having your colours on display.
Also pig snout bascinet is goat and people should show it more respect.
>For a true KNIGHT, nothing can beat the sovl of being both clad in good shit and still having your colours on display.
Verily
>Also pig snout bascinet is goat and people should show it more respect.
I'm a Grear Helm Chad myself. I know it was kinda crappy to wear but it's just so aesthetically pleasing
wasnt that just an overhelm they wore for charges and stuff and they had another helm under it?
>The cross right down the middle of the face
Such a confluence of form and function, it's really a shame it wasn't really possible with anything else.
The treatment of hounskulls is really weird. I feel like when you're a little kid you see them a lot in cartoon drawings and historical depictions of knights, then you just kind of forget about them when you're getting older because all the knights seem to start wearing great helms, armets and shitty barbutes (frick T-visors all my sirrahs hate T-visors). Then one day you suddenly see a picture of beaky again and you're like 'oh frick yeah that's a thing knights wore' and it's like a 50/50 chance you'll love them or hate them.
Honestly an anachronism I could stand but don't think I've ever seen would be later helmets being worn with transition armour. 1300s style and colour but with an armet, sallet or frog mouth wouldn't exactly be accurate but I think just about any helmet looks good on there.
Except t-visors frick t-visors
Both. They did start off as an actual head-sized helmet, but later you did get those variations which were just massive fricking overhelms which would go over another helmet and be resting on your shoulders.
It's a shame movies never showed the tiny man all knights were outfitted with.
>me on the left
I thought longbow arrows were supposedly able to penetrate plate armor.
No fricking way, you need much higher velocity to get someone in full plate armory.
Maybe it depends on the angle of the impact, with it more likely to penetrate if it's a direct hit.
I mean maybe if the plate armor has structural weakness because it is bad quality, but the typical full body plate armor was usually top notch stuff for important guys and they were pretty much immune to arrows.
A lance is a type of polearm, it isn't a different category of weapon.
Lance was useful until first shock and you get stuck in with the enemy. Then they switched to a weapon they could use with one hand and controlled the reins with the other.
Then how did horse archers manage to ride around picking people off with a bow if they needed a hand to control the reigns?
You don’t need to maneuver around as much when you are already at a range from the foe. They can let go and just let the horse run in a straight line for a second or two.
Are you implying they never used their reins? Why have them at all if that was the case.
I dont know dickhead I was just asking a genuine question.
>Then how did horse archers manage to ride around picking people off with a bow if they needed a hand to control the reigns?
You can learn to control a horse with just your legs, and teach the horse to respond.
They controlled the horse with their giant mongol balls.
I think that the period the long bow was really shitting on people was a bit before full plate was a thing, or only in its absolute infancy. A steel tipped arrow from a long bow will frick you up if hits chainmail or brigandine.
The thing is though it's probably not just a straight line of 'plate armour eventually got good enough that bodkin arrows just started bouncing off'. Long bows, cross bows and guns were all used at the same time, and while guns were getting better in terms of technology they were also becoming ever more popular because they're a lot easier to use than a bow and arrow. I imagine that 'is this armour going to protect me from an arrow' eventually became an obsolete question, not because a big fricking arrow didn't pose any threat, but because the chance of you actually running into an archery line rather than a squad of gunners was negligible.
Oh and it's also worth noting that one of the reasons long bow tactics majorly fricked up knights wasn't just 'the arrows just obliterated armour' but because a deluge of arrows would kill all your fricking horses, and if you came off your horse in the middle of a cavalry charge there was a good death you'd get crushed to death when everyone else rode over you.
Even cheaper mail could save you from arrows. Plate could withstand even bullets. There is no way a bowman would be able to penetrate through armor.
Don't forget that guns had to "git gud" before plate armor started to get phased out. The whole reason we have the phrase "bulletproof" is because of smiths making actual bulletproof plate. Which they would prove by shooting their armor with a gun to leave proof that it is bulletproof. Bulletproof
guns getting stronger wasn't even the main reason it was phased out. Gunpowder armies were quicker to train and growing populations meant you could replace losses faster. A decent suit of armour had to be custom fitted for each user and was worth having because the knight wearing had been training since they were a preteen and belonged to an important family. When economics/society changed how wars worked it wasn't practical to mass or batch produce armour like that, and it costs less to just make another gun and conscript another Joe Schmoe than it does to clad him in iron.
What the frick are you talking about. Plate armor was phased out because it doesn't provide protection against guns, cost has nothing to do with it. If it could protect you from firearms they would still be using plate armor.
Also I have no idea what you are talking about "Joe Schmoe". "Joe Schmoe" was never in plate armor to begin with.
The armored knight was phased out because it took decades and a fortune to train rather than arming several hundred commoners with rifles. You absolute fricking brainlet.
Again, it has nothing to do with WHY plate armor was phased out, if it was capable of stopping firearms it would be worn by everyone who could afford it on the battlefield to this day. It doesn't, that's why everyone stopped using.
What you are talking about is a separate development, it's not directly relevant to why plate armor stopped being used on the field. You could in theory have plate armor riflemen, and you 100% would if it provided relevant protection.
Look, I'm not the guy you're arguing with, but plate armor wasn't phased out because it couldn't stop bullets.
It got phased out because it became too heavy and expensive. It needed to be about 3x as thick as classic plate to stop an arquebus ball, which meant that at such a weight, the "full plate harness" eventually had to be reduced to just a breastplate, upper-arms, and long tassets. At this point, even the full face protection was lost because if you made a full-head helm as thick as it needed to be to stop an arquebus ball, it would put way too much strain on the wearer's neck, or it would otherwise rest on the breastplate and hinder perception/mobility. Furthermore, due to the lack of face protection and unlikelihood of getting headshot at range, helmets at this point "opened up" to sacrifice what little protection they still provided for better perception (see more, breathe easier, AND hear commands better).
I also mentioned the price of armor: as it eventually got to a point where way too much iron was going into each breastplate, the average suit of armor began to cost about 3x as much, and it's not like you could just refurbish your grandfather's old plate harness. The people in control of these things eventually figured out that you could just put all that iron from one suit of bulletproof armor into like 10 more gun barrels and many shot-balls instead, and with all those extra guns/shooters, you would have a way better chance of winning the war than having just one extra guy who was hard to kill with gunshots.
>It got phased out
Wrong. Here is your modern knight fighting a bunch of peasants.
you can make 1000 identical rifles and give them to 1000 random riflemen and they'll work the same. Full plate armour like we're talking about ITT had to be custom made to someone's measurements to allow them to move properly, you can't mass produce it. If you're in charge of equipping an army you'd be insane to spend that much money on it when you could make thousands more guns and conscript more mooks to have a larger army.
>had to be custom made
no, it didn't
a full suit of armour did. You could buy individual parts and make a makeshift suit with chainmail under it to protect all the gaps but that would have been a cut below what the rich knights were wearing.
when guns were relevant, no one was using full plate much anymore, at most 3/4ths
plate armour was mass produced from the 15th century after advancements in steel-making
People stopped using plate because armies got too large to fit everyone in plate and the leaders weren't the types in positions to use it. Your 1 trained knight in heavy armor's gonna lose to 20 guys with rifles every time. Shit, they were losing to infantry before they started using guns.
They were equipping some gun-wielding cavalry in mass-produced plate not fitted to specific users during the napoleonic wars, but I dunno how much of it there was.
And people ARE using armor to this day, it's what helmets or a bullet proof vest is.
>Your 1 trained knight in heavy armor's gonna lose to 20 guys with rifles every time.
This is demonstrated during the Battle of Breitenfeld (1631) when Pappenheim's heavily cavalry was repeatedly repulsed by the Swedish cavalry that had infantry musketeers dispersed within their ranks for defense.
There's also this quote about the superiority of pistols over lances for cavalry:
"Whereupon I will say that although the squadrons of the spears [i.e. lances] do give a gallant charge, yet it can work no great effect, for at the outset it killed none, yea it is a miracle if any be slain with the spear. Only it may wound some horse, and as for the shock, it is many times of the small force, where the perfect reiter do never discharge their pistols but in jointing, and striking at hand, they wound, aiming always either at the face or the thigh. The second rank also shoot off so the forefront of the men-or-arms squadron is at the first meeting half overthrown and maimed. Although the first rank may with their spears do some hurt, especially to the horses, yet the other ranks following cannot do so, at leas the second or third, but are driven to cast away their spears and help themselves with their swords. Herein we are to consider two things which experience hath confirmed. The one, that the reiter are never so dangerous as when they be mingled with the enemy, for then be they all fire. The other, the two squadrons meeting, they have scarce discharged the second pistol but either the one or the other turned away. For they contested no longer as the Romans did against other nations, who oftentimes keep the field fighting two hours face to face before either party turned back. By all the afore-said reasons, I am driven to avow that a squadron of pistols, doing their duties, shall break a squadron of spears."
Polish hussars continued to win battles until the end of the 1600s, so the evolution of cavalry didn't follow the same patterns all across Europe.
Maybe Hussars just faced shittier opponents. Their peasants weren't as belligerent and educated as western ones, so they could still be rode down by cavalry, while western knights got rekt by infantry from their own subject rebellions over and over in catastrophic fiascos like the golden spurs, or killed by other western kings' infantry like angincourt.
The same knights who would get butchered by their own peasants would, when fighting muslim peasants, roll right into them and cut through massed formations like a scythe.
Easterners have always been crappy at war. Even emaciated bearefooted crusader morons wandering through the desert without supply lines singing songs and playing musical instruments would conquer the place.
They faced cossacks, tatars, ottomans, russians and swedes. Not just rabble.
>cossacks, tatars, ottomans, russians and swedes.
>Not just rabble.
Polish hussars used pistols a lot. Your perception of them is as real as peoples perception of Spartans for example.
Really? The most iconic depictions of them feature lance charges and I don't think Sienkiewicz mentions them using pistols. In any case, it sounds believable that they'd have pistols as well.
Plate armour could protect against guns, the other anon even posted some bulletproof armour. The point it that as populations got bigger and guns got better the structure of armies changed and having a small number of elite fighters covered in armour didn't add the value that it did before.
>what is munitions armor
>A decent suit of armour had to be custom fitted for each user
That's one of the reasons why I am a fan of mail. Cheaper, easier to store, can be fitted to different sizes.
>*pulls you off your horse and stab you in the eye
not so fast tincan
if you forego the shield you can have a two handed weapon for greater range and power. Shields and one handed swords were for people who weren't rich enough to have plate armour.
You never want to just tank a blow if you can help it, even with a shield.
Even if you're protected, the energy doesn't just disappear, you can be thrown off balance or fall or get concussed. Or even just gas yourself out bracing the hits.
Shields are used dynamically, you're parrying with it, bashing with it, using it to create distance.
Plus, full plate was overpowered, but not THAT overpowered. When you see someone in a youtube video testing out some plate armour reproductions and it's bouncing everything off without a scratch, yeah that's broadly representative of how plate armour performs, but you can't get metal as bad they had. Our metal consistency is light-years ahead of what they had. There could easily be just big flaw in a breastplate that lets an arrow through.
Don't take that to mean their metal was flaking apart, it's still meta and they took steps to ensure quality, but when your life is on the line you might not want to risk it.
I don't want to overstate that point too much though. Plenty of times they didn't use shields, especially with a two handed weapon like a longsword which would have been fast enough to defend and attack with at the same time. Or if you were just a dumbass asiatic that didn't figure out you should make armour and swords to be actually good so you didn't die, then you might not bother with a shield either.
The asiatic iron deposits were even poorer quality so plate armor wasn’t really a worthwhile investment
Fair enough, I'm not really being historical there I'm just biased because I fricking hate how katanas feel in the hand. They just feel like dead weight to me, I can't use them.
the metal quality being worse is also going to affect the quality of the weapon you're hitting the armour with so it cancels out
>Wears full plate armor
>Wields 2 shields
It's historically accurate
morons. You use a shield to deflect arrows and piercing weaponry. Let's see your plate withstand a homosexual on a horse with a spear.
You also have a spear though... Just knock him off.
Spear is for militia. A halberd is superior.
Post agincourt the shield essentially disappears. Use of the use of the shield in 15th century is much more tactical but for English and French set piece battles late period, outside of crossbow Pavise and heavy horse in the jousting or charge( some artwork suggests heavy knights abandoned the shield altogether on horseback 15th century), the meta became dismounted knights on both sides with polearm thrusting and impact weapons.
>enemy has a hammer or an ax, a cheap peasant weapon
Even if you have armor, you don't want to eat a blunt strike. One hit to the head and your neck will wobble pretty hard.
Is it any good?
Yes it's good. In a lot of ways, the older medieval movies are more authentic.
Quite good. Has some memorable jousting/duel/siege scenes.
Oh thank God there is a older version. I wanted to watch the film they offered on Amazon, but I heard it was bad. Sophia Loren is a huge bonus.
For me its dual wielding a sword/shield alongside a shield, stealing my opponent's shield, and stabbing him in the dick.
>that text detailing "strategy"
Kek, knights were total gays and confirms most people were moronic during that time. This is worse than those fake martial arts that people get scammed by. It's a total LARP and is very presumptious when it comes to what would happen on the battlefield.
The writing is also terrible. I hate how we romanticize these people who existed hundreds of years ago because they were obviously, by and large, moronic by today's standards.
This post was written by a complete moron, we have more collective knowledge nowadays but in terms of intelligence we're exactly the same as someone from 1000 years ago. Go spew your moronic projecting bullshit elsewhere
Not totally accurate, Flynn Effect is real
>Flynn Effect is real
Flynn effect is a rise in IQ with no rise in G, so it does not reflect an increase in general intelligence.
It's not talking about a battlefield, its a formalized duel. You are moronic.
Okay Black person, let’s see you turn a bunch of rocks into swords and armor. They were moronic, right? It should be easy for you to figure out without any education or knowledge, then.
>no Barry Lyndon-tier Medieval kino ever
AAAAAAAAAH
best unit
Anon, I was playing it just yesterday on the mission you get to make them against the knights. Talk about serendipity!
>ack
>he fell for the plate armor meme
The armor in LOTR may as well have been made of paper for all the good it ever did. It was as bad as stormtrooper armor
>wore his polyurethane armour to battle instead of his steel armour
classic blunder
mordor arrows folded 10,000 times
Just read that poleaxes were apparently also dueling weapons. Is that true?
http://myarmoury.com/feature_spot_poleaxe.html
Theres no reason they wouldn't have been used in duels.
it's a stick with pointy bits, sticks are already good for dueling and pointy bits help
Medieval homies loved dueling, they would duel with literally anything. Women would duel with washboards and lengths of rope tied in knots and shit, it was wild.
Man vs woman duels were the man has to stand in a waist deep hole is what I want to see
Cringe
Artistically the sword is used because it resembles the cross and reinforces the role of a knight as being a warrior of Christ. Even though in real life knights didn't factor in religious symbolism into their weapons and armor, their Christian faith were a major focus in defining their identity as something greater and purer than the violent heathens which had similar warrior castes, which carried over and were expounded upon in their romantic reimagination.
for me, it's 1380.
houndskull bascinets are kino as frick anon, good choice.
It's maybe because they're under-represented in media. You see the great helm or wop armets all the time, but hardly ever those. For me they seem medieval and alien, not at all relatable. I mean that in the best possible way. Armets are too "heroic" in a cheap way to me.
I really like frog-mouth helms, but they're not really a battlefield helmet.
>frog-mouth helms
good choice yourself anon
For me it's 1460
Did the female knights have strapon dildos? That would be my weakness. If she approached me with her strapon on, I'd get face down, ass up for her right on the battlefield
>knights have strapon dildos?
Unironically yes
Army of Darkness had decent armors and colors. The fighting obviously wasn't as realistic though
It's a late comer but a bellows visor on an armet absolutely fricks.
>When will there be an accurate depiction of knights in movies?
They can't even get formations right I would much rather see a formation before I see accurate arms and armor.
>GOT final season
>Cavalry immediately sallies out to fight an unknown blob of undead in the pitch black of darkness
I like the diversity of weapons in Chinese historical movies. Polearms are common to see. In fact, famous Chinese characters like Lu Bu or Sun Wukong are known for their skill with the polearm. Not just polearms but other weapons like rapid crossbows, rope darts, hook swords, crescent moon knives, etc are wielded by main characters unlike in the west where its usually just swords or bows.
>hook swords
I've played with them in VR and they're really fricking good. Obviously I don't really know because NPCs with canned animations don't give you a great idea of how useful a thing is, but they don't feel like meme weapons at all. Maybe IRL I would want them toned down a bit to avoid hurting myself, but the actual hook is great.
lets post some kino polearms
rune words ruined that shit game
possibly the best looking weapon i've ever used in a game
weeb shit
The actual weapon is pretty accurate
What makes Knights such an enduring archetype in human culture?
Like Samurai, Cowboys, Gladiators, Ninjas, Pirates, etc. They have an appeal factor to grown men and little boys alike and end up sticking with men as they become autists producing works of art.
Never show these either. One of the most kinological weapons in history.
beakbros i dream of being a mercenary clad with a warhammer and buckler caving-in and puncturing the plate armor of highborn pussy ass b***hes
Probably never because nobody wants to see Agincourt where the French knights just hunched up like turtles and shrugged off arrows from HIS MAJESTY'S FOLDED ONE MILLION TIMES AND BLESSED BY HIS HOLINESS FINEST ENGLISH (maybe actually Welsh but probably just whatever the frick they had around) LONGBOWS SENDING HIS MAJESTY'S FOLDED ONE MILLION TIMES AND BLESSED BY HIS HOLINESS FINEST SHAFT (not actually a wiener shaft but probably whatever they had lying around) AND CAPPED WITH HIS MAJESTY'S MOST SACRED STEEL (pig iron, mostly, or wrought iron with a steel jacket that they made by throwing a bunch in a box and heating the frick out of it with charcoal if they had money to spare for such a luxury but it still wasn't penetrating armor unless it was rusty, old, or just absolute shit or God reaching down to guide the arrow just right) ARROW HEADS (likely four cut to even give it a CHANCE of penetrating plate). Agincourt wasn't like it was in the movies and it certainly wasn't like it was in that stupid comic. It was a close-fought, bloody affair and one of the most insane outcomes of military history in line with shit like The Battle of San Jacinto, The Second Battle of Sabine Pass (to stay around Texas way), Rorke's Drift (to give deference to the English, and it was not nearly as easy as the film made it look because the Zulu had a lot more rifles and they knew how to use them), the German victory at Belgrade, the Battle of Flamborough Head, the...you get the idea.
The commonalities is that God smiles upon the English, British and all derivatives of Anglo-Saxon stock. Wherever we go, we'll be undefeated and unbroken, destined to conquer against all odds in service to our kind and nation.
But the exact opposite happened in the HYW, where God helped the French through Joan of Arc and the bongs were btfo’d.
What did he mean by this
what comic?
hes talking about some agincourt comic but read this for some longbow kino https://readcomiconline.li/Comic/Warren-Ellis-Crecy/Full?id=128351#3
thanks anon
Swords were always just a symbol, and they continue to be in movies. In real battles, almost everyone used polearms.
Can’t wield a polearm on horseback. They used lances then switched to a axe or mace.
Klappvisor is another underrated helmet.
>hollywood would have a teenage girl shove a dagger through any part of this armor with ease
Well the torso is made of leather so that’s accurate
The torso leather is certainly covering a plate chest piece of there's literally no point to it
It’s a cosplay there is no point.
I think it’s meant to look like brigandine which wasn’t solid plate but a coat of scales.
This. Probably not a real brigandine, but this is what a real one looks like from inside. Each one of those smaller plates would be riveted to the outer layer of cloth, canvas, or leather
Looks comfier than a breastplate.
Depends on how good your armorer is. If they know their craft you would have a nearly full range of motion.
Don't worry, I know a guy.
Any helmet with a torse on top is also underrated.
>Be Bulgarian peasant
>Live in the poorest parts of Europe as the poorest man in Europe.
>Bulgarian nobility suck.
>Mongol horde keeps raiding you.
>Say enough is enough.
>Start peasant uprising.
>Peasants are so pitiless that they fight with pitchforks and hatchets.
>Doesn't matter. They're just as pissed off as you are.
>Decide to fight a Mongol cavalry unit.
>Win.
>Fight them some more.
>Win again.
>Within a few months, you kick the Mongols out of Bulgaria with only a few illiterate pig farmers.
>Gain the love of the people.
>Gain the hatred of Bulgarian nobility, Byzantines, and the Khan himself for making them all look like morons.
>The Tsar decides to quell your forces with his own army.
>Kill all of his men too.
>Kill the Tsar personally.
>Take his throne. Get an empire. Marry and frick his widow.
>You are one of the few peasants-turned-emperor.
>Ponder on your next moves.
>Decide on an epithet.
>"Call me the Cabbage."
>Continue to kick more ass.
another reason for the decline of armour is that as armies got bigger and required a lot more co-ordination and admin, the upper classes moved from frontline heroics to being in the backline where there wasn't the need to plate them up as they'd be seeing a lot less combat.
I just bought Kino Perry miniatures knights, both mounted and on foot. Great kits, even if gluing models that are realistically proportioned is a bit more challenging than gw models with their exaggerated proportions.
Who was in the right during the crusades?
Whoever killed the most israelites
>turks being chads and taking over byzantine cities
>pussy byzantines too weak to fight them off
>write letter to pope asking if he can send some soldiers to help because they're christian cities and we're christian bros
>pope has been watching the christian kingdoms of europe rape and pillage each other nonstop and has no army of his own to protect him if they decide to turn against him
>idea.jpg
>issues a command that all good christian soldiers need to frick off to the middle east to take back the holy lands instead of fighting in europe
>centuries of intense religious warfare ensues
>pope stays rich, unraped and unpillaged
Is the Last Duel decent when it comes to historical accuracy? And no, Ridley Scott's medieval filter doesn't count
Are there any movies that show polearms in use beyond just being in the background? I think they are rad as hell.
Poleaxes are for foot combat and most knights fought mounted most of the time. A lance would be the most accurate weapon for them.
What is even the purpose of swords once armor became common? The only thing I can think of is cutting down peasants or ceremonial stuff. Yet they're the de facto melee weapon in depictions of middle age combat.
Thrusting. Breastplate didn't become a thing until 15th century. They had plate on their arms and legs, but the chest was still haulberks mostly. Which is why 15th century they mostly abandoned shield and sword and went for 2h weapons. So you are both correct and incorrect because the sword was useful for over for longer
you would use a sword like that similar to a baseball bat, little to do with stabbing or slashing and more with smashing your opponent's sword out of their hands or just knock them down
Status symbol, useful for killing unarmored people
Poke them in the face
For half swording. Gripping the blade to use the pommel as a club can leave some pretty good dents too I imagine, anything better than being barehanded
status symbol, not everyone had armor I mean half of the time men at arms had to use their money for shit, versatile, you can use it as a makeshift warhammer too.
>knights
>polearms
those are for peasant footmen
knights were almost exclusively cavalry
Knights were extremely effective during their time. Heck, their famous defeats just further prove how extremely formidable they were. In each of these cases, they were completely outmaneuvered on a strategic level due to the enemy having a brilliant general and them a terrible general, and they were almost always outnumbered (Agincourt, Poiters, and Crecy being special exceptions of mere stupidity). Despite this, their heavy charges performed under the worst possible circumstances still had devastating effects. For example, in the famous Crusader defeat at Hattin, a last desperate charge by the remainder of the Frankish army succeeded in nearly breaking Saladin's up to this point extremely dominant army, requiring his personal intervention to rally them away from a rout. A similar thing happened at Nicopolis, where the Ottomans suffered very heavy casualties despite being led by a military genius, outumbering the enemy 3 to 2, and having an enemy that was more or a less a total mess in the strategic and command departments.
-Ascalon (1099): the Crusader army of 10,000 under Godfrey of Bouillon, exhausted and reduced since the long campaign and numerous battles of the last three years, confronts a Fatimid Egyptian army of 20,000 to 50,000 men. The Crusader army is 1/9 knights, 8/9 assorted infantry, while the Fatimids are a mix of foot archers, light infantry, and light melee cavalry. The Crusader infantry hold the line well against repeated Egyptian attacks, inflicting heavy losses on them with spears and swords and missiles, but it is the knights that flank and break the Fatimids with few well-placed charges.
Childhood is thinking lifeless metals like swords or lances were the main weapons of knights. Adulthood is realizing that the noble steed is the greatest weapon they have ever wielded.
To amend what a previous poster said: A longbow could pierce steel armor if the arrowhead was made of strong, tempered steel. Longbows were often taller than their wielder and the arrows were absolutely massive. The amount of power generated by longbows was no fricking joke
English longbows had ridiculously high draw weight and their archers had such rigorous training since childhood that their skeletons have one arm grossly out of proportion.
the angloids were and always have been mutant freaks
Bros whats wrong with longswords, 99% of the people nobles fought with longswords didn't have any armor so itd just slice them like butter
>longsword
Longsword was not widespread. Uncomfortably big to carry at the waste and difficult for one hand. They had arming swords with shields.
>99% of the people nobles fought with longswords didn't have any armor so itd just slice them like butter
Nothing in this sentence is correct. People had armor throughout the entire medieval period.
Yeha but makeshift, not armor that can stop a fricking sword mid swing
No not makeshift. A sword can't cut through mail, the most widely used armor.
There's better weapons for slaughtering peasants en masse, like a pole axe or lance. If you're a knight peasants are literally just in the way and making it more difficult for you to go fight another knight. You don't want to waste fancy sword play on peasants, and then when you reach another knight a sword's not going to be very useful a lot of the time.
>lance
what are some shock cav kino
Katana beats all this bullshit
Cheapass prop.
Katanas are shit. The asiatics had terrible steal.
Say that to Pearl Harbor, gaijin.
How did that war end? With Japan as a protectorate/glorified aircraft carrier?
Katana is bad vs. Armor, worse than a knights sword
the portuguese mogged them so hard with their rapiers the japs outlawed them because the samuari lost every single duel to the portuguese sailors, and died
Not an authentic mastercrafted blade. Take your israeli lies elsewhere.
Damascus steel dabs on all this shit.
>authentic Finnish puukko, folded over 1000 times...
but what about spanish steel?
Why do they always forget that knights were also taught grappling? I don't think I've ever seen a fight scene where a guy gets disarmed and decides to just bull rush the other butthole.
>medieval movie
>no hurdy-gurdy sound track
Cowboys are knights, change my mind
Cowboys are vikings.
Cowboys are samurai
cowboys are pirates
Does the Last Crusade count as a knight movie?
Great thread, everyone, very comfy.