What about Holy Hand Grenades?

>>64884838
Tell that to the swiss at marignano. Oh wait you can't, the gendarmes killed them.

>>64884838
High quality plates, i.e. specially fitted to the wearers body, still remained expensive due to the skilled labor which it required. With I'll fitted armors being far more encumbering.
And strong enough crossbows to threaten full plate in the field are cumbersome.

Knights were on their way out due to structural changes, which also lead to a reeimagination of the noble class when it came to their role. Military technology was of secondary importance.
That is why the HYW lead to an increase in central power in France while the German nations didn't and yet both had similar changes in their knights relevance.

>>64884898
I'd give the gendarme their due honor, but they're all dead after the Tercios killed them.

File: do2f7dv80e051.png (971.3 KB)

971.3 KB PNG

>>64884902
>With I'll fitted armors being far more encumbering.
They really weren't that encumbering, a set off munition plate armor is perfectly maneuverable to run around in and do somersaults or what have you, and they were able to be sold for a pittance, only a week's wages for most people.

>>64884902
>Knights were on their way out due to structural changes, which also lead to a reeimagination of the noble class when it came to their role.
The compagnie d'ordonnance want to have a word with you

>>64884911
Yeah they just didn't cover gaps that were created by range of motion and didn't require tight fighting it flexible parts.

File: s-l1200.png (1.2 MB)

1.2 MB PNG

>>64885268
>Yeah they just didn't cover gaps that were created by range of motion
Oh they had those too, obviously a bit of a gap behind the legs but those still would've been protected by gambeson anyways, which could be so tough that it was physically impossible for any human to penetrate it with a sword or knife.

File: images(156).jpg (41.2 KB)

41.2 KB JPG

>>64884838
If gunpowder wasn't brought to Europe, it would likely have gone back to Roman tactics.

>>64885340
...Yeah? How do you suppose that would happen, when the exact opposite trend was occurring where shields were being abandoned for being utterly useless?

>>64884838
Do you mean knight as in a heavily armored cavalryman or knight as a petty noble in the hierarchy of the feudal levy? If the former: no, because heavy cavalry (with full plate) existed well into the 17th century. If the latter: yes, because as you have said yourself: states became ever more centralised and relied less and less on feudal subjects to organise their armies.
>>64884898
French artillery soften the swiss pike formations up so that the gendarmes could charge them. And even then, the french heavy cavalry suffered high losses and were only able to check the advance of the swiss. Only when venetian reinforcements arrived and the losses from the french artillery mounted up did the swiss retreat - in an ordered giant pike square that wasn't pursued.
>>64885340
Maybe; maybe not. The swiss model of a mixture of polearms used fast and aggressively put their mark on the late medieval ages and it lend itself perfectly to the combination with early firearms. In the 15th and 16th centuries some military thinkers experimented with bringing back "sword and shield" infantry (the most well known being the spanish rodeleros) but those never quite left their specialist niche.

File: Flemish_School,_16th_century_-_The_Meeting_of_Henry_VIII_and_the_Emperor_Maximilian_I_-_RCIN_405800_-_Royal_Collection.jpg (2.4 MB)

2.4 MB JPG

As a followup to my previous post: I would imagine that if gunpowder for some magical reason doesn't exist, then late medieval armies wouldn't be too different than in reality. Heavy cavalry would still be a decisive arm but as states grew more organised, large disciplined infantry formations (modeled after the swiss) would become the new prominent character on the battlefield. The swiss Reisläufer devasted several burgundian armies during the late 15th century and those didn't field any artillery pieces - in contrast to the often large artillery trains of the burgundians. The swiss relied on fast movement, both strategic and tactical, and ferocious attacks to outflank their more cumbersome opponents. Interestingly full armor (or partial munition armor) was relatively uncommon amongst the swiss Reisläufer - the majority of those were pikemen but soldiers armed with halberds, bills, battle swords and long axes were also present. So I imagine that this trend would more or less continue and formalise: large formations of pikemen would form the core of those hypothetical armies. Those were then supported by smaller contingents of soldiers armed with shorter polearms and also contingents of (cross-)bowmen. The cavalry would also develop as in your timeline: heavy cuirassiers would be employed for the decisive blow and lighter cavalry would be for reconnaissance, fast flanking attacks and generally the small war.

>>64884838
>pike and shot
>Without shot.

File: Smugjak.jpg (70.9 KB)

70.9 KB JPG

>>64885607
Bows and crossbows are also shot.

>>64885607
early tercio had as many crossbows as arquebusiers in them

File: Pappenheim_Curassiers.jpg (2.6 MB)

2.6 MB JPG

>>64885443
>Do you mean knight as in a heavily armored cavalryman or knight as a petty noble in the hierarchy of the feudal levy?
I personally think the main distinguishing feature of knights is that they are a distinct noble social class. Otherwise, they're just heavy cavalry.

>>64885824
That is certainly the most common understanding. Currently there are several threads related to knights on /k/ and /his/ -I would also qualify a person as a knight if he has been ennobled as such. But this practice only came about in the high middle ages and by the early modern period, one could get a knighthood for soley courtly reasons.

>>64885443
This anon knows his shit. The only reason the heavy infantry of Rome dominated was because ancient cavalry had no stirrups. Medieval heavy cav had stirrups so had much better shock factor.

>>64885742
>>64885748
Crossbows slowly lost the arms race against armor

>>64886336
It should be noted that the Eastern Roman Empire eventually adopted a cavalry-centric army. The Bucellerii, for example, were known for being lancer-horse archery hybrids.

I feel like the bigger loss wouldn't be in army versus army as much as it'd be in siege warfare, no? Artillery and explosives were pretty pivotal in both the breaking and evolution of fortifications. Without them, you're kind of toast - it just won't be possible to match the impact of a bombard with a non-gunpowder weapon, resulting in the sometimes incredibly costly sieges of the esrly middle ages.

>>64885275
>eBay filename
Link the auction

>>64885824
I personally like to specify 'armoured lancers' when talking about the traditional battlefield role of the knight to avoid confusion

File: Screenshot 2026-02-21 at 12-14-03 _k_ - Weapons - Catalog - 4chan.png (460.6 KB)

460.6 KB PNG

>>64884838
>>64841722

>>64885264
Which weren't noble knights but "professional" soldiers, partially made up out of former mercenaries, raised by the french king.
Which is exactly what I said, wrapins and military technology didn't kill knights, structural changes and a strengthening of the central authority did.

>>64885340
Come to think of it, legions were a sort of like and shot formation of the era.

>>64886336
>Medieval heavy cav had stirrups so had much better shock factor.
Nonsense debunked by experiment.
https://www.academia.edu/33789994/AN_EXPERIMENTAL_INVESTIGATION_OF_LATE_MEDIEVAL_COMBAT_WITH_THE_COUCHED_LANCE

>>64888496
Structural changes of society changed way heavy armoured cavalry was raised.
Instead of feudal service replaced by salary men. But armoured cavalry remained.
It was eventually killed by development of gunpowder weapons.

>>64884838
I'm kinda sad for the discovery of black powder being so early. 19th century mechanical artillery could have been so fucking kino.
Mere hobbyists with trebuchets have gone over 1km in range with a pumpkin and even supersonic (very tiny ammo, rubber band operated).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdXOS-B0Bus&t=800s

>>64891828
That would certainly punch a hole into a wagon fort.

>>64888497
EVERYTHING has been some combined arms combination of
>melee and ranged

rapechink has gone totally off the rails
what blew up this time?

File: 1667055787433742.webm (1.6 MB)

1.6 MB WEBM

rapechink rn

File: Terciosmarchando.jpg (2.3 MB)

2.3 MB JPG

>>64885601
Organize those other soldiers into mini-blocks at the corners of each pike block and you've got an early bastioned Tercio.

>>64893961
I'm not sure if it would be necessary for (cross-)bowmen to be arranged in the bastions. It was done with arquebusiers and musketeers to ensure a steady rate of fire through countermarch but this issue isn't present for bows and crossbows.

>>64884838
The interesting alt-hist scenario is imagining gunpowder being developed in Europe centuries before schedule. It would have rapidly sped up the process of the disestablishment of the monarchies, noblemen, and landed gentry - and lead to a continent of militiamen who were more focused on their own business and rights than national prestige and empire. A Europe defined by 'adequate defense at the coastline, and nothing more'.

>>64894347
I doubt that. Gunpowder weapons appeared in Europe by the middle of the 14th century and none of the monarchies were abolished because of that.
>A Europe defined by 'adequate defense at the coastline, and nothing more'.
Wdym?

>>64894450
I was picturing it arriving in the 9th century, when monarchies and nations were still very much 'works in progress', and not the well established monaliths that they became in OTL.

>Wdym?
Read up on Smedley Butler, don't take too much of it at face value, but start with that quote.

>>64894306
>hollow square with crossbowmen inside instead of artillery

>>64894347
That sounds an awful lot like China's and Korea's strategies post-Khanate, and it didn't exactly work out for them.

>>64894891
I'm sure that they were doing as well as they could.

>>64894496
>I was picturing it arriving in the 9th century, when monarchies and nations were still very much 'works in progress',
Even then, the guys with many big sticks (in this case firearms instead of spears and swords) will just create their kingdoms.
>Smedley Butler
I did some brief research into him. This quote works well in the isolationist and non-interventionalist circle of some 1930s us-american politicians and members of the military - especially when considering the person of Butler. But that's not a line of thinking that was popular (or even existend) in early medieval Europe. And a Europe "of militiamen who were more focused on their own business and rights" would, by the understanding of Butler, lead sooner to imperialist and profit driven wars.

>>64894347
>a continent of militiamen who were more focused on their own business and rights than national prestige and empire. A Europe defined by 'adequate defense at the coastline, and nothing more'.
If you introduce gunpowder to Europe ~300 years earlier, either this means that we reach the emasculated globalist EU in 2026 by 1726, complete with all the imperial conquests and world wars along the way, or we actually keep the empires

>>64891664
Cuirassiers literally still existed in World War I.

>>64895667
Automatic weapons really was the death-knell of cavalry in most of its duties beyond recon, though with how stubborn its proponents are you still see them pop up here and there in modern wars up to the last month.

>>64895719
I believe the US used some in Afghanistan.

File: 1666061554696644.jpg (70.2 KB)

70.2 KB JPG

Ok why is there gook sperging in a medieval armor thread? My time preference isn't high enough for this shit.

the chinks are really going all out with the firehose
is there a Tiananmen 2.0 happening?

>>64896199
>Zero Han women were handed out to foreigner
lol keep telling yourself that
I could get a PRC chink whore right now for $150

>>64894450
>Gunpowder weapons appeared in Europe by the middle of the 14th century and none of the monarchies were abolished because of that
Gunpowder weapons dismantled feudalism. Nobles and their castles lost military value and monarchies transformed into absolute monarchies (and were diging their future craves by that). Revolutions are impossible in fuedal countries. Peasants can't take castles and knights would cut them to ribbons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacquerie

Completely different thing when monarchy tried to manhandle American colonists armed with the same muskets red coats had.

File: FX74MkpX0AMFQ1e.jpg (279.4 KB)

279.4 KB JPG

>>64895667
>Cuirassiers

>>64896214
amazing, literally everything you said is wrong

File: Minute_Man_Statue_Lexington_Massachusetts_cropped(4).jpg (183.7 KB)

183.7 KB JPG

>>64896219
Everything I said is right.
Fuedalsim is heavy cavalry raised from nobles who served for land. Also they had military viable castles as family homes.

Gunpowder changes that meta to musketeers spam, who first served as mercenaries latter just concripted as slaves similar to notorious Xerxes army.
Military was fully centralized in hands of the Absolute Monarch, his money, his arsenals producing guns and gunpowder, officers serving for coin, his concript slaves. Feudal castles dismantled and lost military value not able to withstand siege artillery. New type of fortification (star fort) appeared to counter canon but it was expensive and kings prohibited private ownership of star forts anyway. But problem with absolute monarchy is it's main military power is hordes of concripes armed with muskets and proles can assemble same force. Unironically power to the People.

>>64896237
Holy midwit.
Even the black death had more of an effect on european social structure and feudalism than gunpowder.

>>64884838
>Even if gunpowder didn't exist, pike and shot would've become the new meta

isn't pike and shot literally pikes and guns?...wtf do you mean

>>64896301
See Sun King's military

File: images.jpg (3.9 KB)

3.9 KB JPG

>>64894891
You fool! You have summoned an ancient annoyance with your careless words!
>>64896214
Feudal structures existed well into the 19th centuries. Serfdom and other forms of personal bondage were only largey abolished in Europe by the middle of the 19th century and in some places like Russia even later. England was the only noticable outlier where this occurd already in the 15th and 16th century.
>>64896237
>Fuedalsim is heavy cavalry raised from nobles who served for land.
Hard kek
Feudalism is an ill defined term as a whole. But the basic three factors were: a noble class with martial duties towards a senior authority figure, passive income for the aforementioned noble class through land ownership and legislative, judicative and executiuve rights of the aforementioned noble class on their land (the latter part is far more nuanced as not every petty nobles had those three functions of state power). All those three factors existed in some capacity and constellation well into the 19th and even 20th centuries.
>>64896308
The result of a crackdown on the french nobility after Louis XIV. and his supporters were able to decide the Frone for them.

>>64896366
>England was the only noticable outlier
France too
in general, the further westwards you went, the less serfdom there was

>Hard kek
why bother, you know he's retarded
>the basic three factors
the fourth and most important factor would be greater emphasis placed on obedience and loyalty to one's lord rather than to civil statutes and legislation

>>64896366
serfdom and personal bondage where abolished or abandoned in all of western and central Europe well before the 18th century
in some regions like Northern Italy and Flanders they got rid of it before they got rid of it in England
russia being the outlier was such a market exception because they held on for it so, so much longer
what a lot of people confuse is the French formally banning it pretty much across continental Europe and it ending.
serfdom had ended by then no one had simply bothered to formally ban it
it was simply abandoned when it was no longer relelvant
just like there's no formal bans on riding a horse and cart on the highway.
why would you need to go out of your way to ban that, nobody is doing it anyway

oh sick, the chinkcel is here

>>64896366
>All those three factors existed in some capacity and constellation well into the 19th and even 20th centuries.
clutching at straws here

outside of backwater shitholes like Poland and Sweden and asiatic slave owning states like russia serfdom was nigh eliminated by the late middle ages much like slavery of Christians was by the high middle ages before that.
>Feudalism is an ill defined term as a whole.
it's literally just a system of land ownership in exchange for limited military service, typically hereditary, as founded by Charles Martel. such a system is essentially exclusive to Europe and has severely weakened by the gunpowder and centralization of the states in the 15th century. by the time of Versalles the system was feudal in the name only and with the same retarded stretch you could consider modern unelected government seats feudalism as well. only marxist dipshits that use "feudalism" as a moniker for anything preceding industrialized market societies see an issue with that.

>>64899736
>in exchange for limited military service
wrong
>exclusive to Europe
wrong
>weakened by the gunpowder
wrong
>centralization of the states in the 15th century
right
>with the same retarded stretch you could consider modern unelected government seats feudalism as well
well, if the boot fits, the system is what it does
>only marxist dipshits that use "feudalism" as a moniker for anything preceding industrialized market societies see an issue with that
wrong

File: 1666031634793805.png (1.3 MB)

1.3 MB PNG

>>64899740
>no arguments
i rest my case

>>64899745
>picrel
jej
alright, you have amused me enough to warrant an explanation

>in exchange for limited military service
our entire system of taxation originates from feudal taxes; and in addition to military service there were also levies of manpower for general labour, food, cash, and other supplies, failure to provide through mismanagement of their landholding could see a manor lord stripped of his position

>exclusive to Europe
India, China, and Japan all had similar systems, not sure about Egyptian but likely as well, given the possibility of Greek and Roman influence, sharing of ideas, and Hellenism

>weakened by the gunpowder
Gunpowder is just another in a series of civilisation-paradigm-shifting technological and military developments throughout human history
Protestantism arguably had a greater impact; one could also mention the Renaissance, printing press, crop rotation, and rise of the middle class (in the classical sense of the word, not the statistical)

>with the same retarded stretch you could consider modern unelected government seats feudalism as well
this and the related vote farming is the biggest issue of the last 3 decades and probably ultimately the cause of the destruction of Western civilisation
Americans should be familiar with the issues of activist judges and Supreme Court-packing, but these are just the hot-button symptoms out of a whole panoply

>only marxist dipshits that use "feudalism" as a moniker for anything preceding industrialized market societies see an issue with that
I'm not a Marxist dipshit; it is generally accepted that historical feudalism has a much wider scope than you thought; feudalism might be argued to exist still today (and is growing stronger), and some political theorists might even argue that feudalism is the natural state of human organisation

>>64899761
>our entire system of taxation originates from feudal taxes
ok, now Roman empire is feudalism too, lol
>nd in addition to military service there were also levies of manpower for general labour, food, cash, and other supplies
it depends on the time and region and originally it was only military aid, with retinue.
>India, China, and Japan all had similar systems
if everything is feudalism then nothing is, retarded dipshit.
>Protestantism arguably had a greater impact
protestantism did nothing against feudalism except encourage further fragmentation and fractionalization of society. gunpowder destroyed the castles as the foundation of land control and ownership and destroyed the knightly class as the ultimate and decisive force on the battlefield, also concentrating the production in the hands of centralized factories tied to the state authorities for saltpeter.
>it is generally accepted
among marxist dipshits, among normal sane humans it's absolutely not.
>feudalism might be argued to exist still today (and is growing stronger)
again, your retarded moniker for absolutism, monarchism, warlordism or whatever you wish to call the ever-present tyrannical and unrestrained rule that's existed for as long as human societies did is completely redundant and does nothing but hijack and demolish the term for an actual, specific system of society that differed from those in quite a few respects.

>>64899766
>ok, now Roman empire is feudalism too, lol
you may not like it, but that's what feudalism is
look into what governorship of Roman provinces entailed
Pompey, Caesar, Herod, and Matthew are all good examples of lords and vassals
>it depends on the time and region
yes
>originally it was only military aid, with retinue
food and labour as well
"originally" when? how far back are you going to set the cut-off, and what are your grounds for that dateline?
>if everything is feudalism
except that's not what I said, fuckwit. these civilisations all had the same common traits as European feudalism, you just don't know it and now you're sperging out over your own ignorance
>gunpowder destroyed the castles
except castles resisted cannon and mounted cannon of their own well into the 18th century, fuckwit
>destroyed the knightly class as the ultimate and decisive force on the battlefield
your timelines are off. peak noble control was achieved in the early 18th century, but full plate was obsoleted over a century before. the knightly class adapted well to gunpowder actually, so no, while gunpowder did kill the "knight in full harness", it didn't kill the knightly class until the French Revolution
>among marxist dipshits
not at all
>does nothing but hijack and demolish the term for an actual, specific system of society that differed from those in quite a few respects
well I don't insist upon it, though there are many common traits to what is called "bastard feudalism"
but all of this is way above the head of an uneducated fuckwit like yourself who can't even describe classic high-medieval feudalism, so fuck off

>>64899780
>you may not like it
there's nothing to like or dislike about blatant retardation.
>food and labour as well
nope.
>"originally" when
when feudalism was founded during Charles Martel's rule in the 8th century.
>except that's not what I said, fuckwit
except you actually did, fuckwit.
>these civilisations all had the same common traits as European feudalis
except that they had none, just a typical power vertical with an absolutist rule and warlord henchmen.
>except castles resisted cannon
only for a short while and housing a smaller garrison, effectively turning them from centers of influence that could hold for years and needed massive forces to defeat into a speedbump.
>your timelines are off. peak noble control was achieved in the early 18th century
another example of illiterate retardation with zero basis in reality. noble overreach at the permission of the state has zero to do with feudalism.
>it didn't kill the knightly class until the French Revolution
it did and romanticizing and stretching the definition of the knightly class doesn't help your case in the slightest. it literally made them irrelevant over time even if militant aristocracy still existed.
>not at all
yes at all. you're the only subhuman retards equating medieval feudalism to other eras.
>well I don't insist upon it, though there are many common traits to what is called "bastard feudalism"
aka the weakened, declining and rudimentary form of feudalism that was fading out of existence. good job retard, you played yourself.
>who can't even describe classic high-medieval feudalism
i've done it multiple times already and every time you just threw a bitch fit and shat out more retarded claims about how india is totally like medieval europe because it had warlords.

>>64899796
>there's nothing to like or dislike about blatant retardation
on the contrary, I find much to dislike about yours.
Good day.

File: thus of ould.png (537 KB)

537 KB PNG

>>64899828
when you're this dumb all reason looks like the opposite, i suppose

>>64899766
>>64899780
Marxism and it consequences were disaster for history study. It lumps everything under "le feudalism le aristocracy exloitators" without recognizing real world nuisance and differences.
Like differences between original fuedalism and feudalism of absolute monarchy. Warrior elites vs tax collectors with privileges.

File: Marxism basically.png (288.6 KB)

288.6 KB PNG

>>64899946
Marxism is basically an authoritarian oligopoly anyway. The only reason it is still popular on campuses is because 1) young adults are naive and impressionable, and 2) armchair academics are naive and tyrannical.
from there it leaks into politics, because most politicians and bureaucrats today are career politicians and bureaucrats, meaning they have never done a day's actual work that isn't political, or spending someone else's money.

>>64899946
as jurist I hate how they just blow over that feudalism is a series of contractual relationships.
you get to work my land and you need to do x,w and z for me under conditions a, b and c
those contracts where changing all the time and every single one of them was different
there was no boilerplate "the feudal contract"
that's the same as them claiming that a labour contract from the start of the industrial revolution is the same as a modern one.
sure it's still a labour contract but just about every thing other than "you will work for me for pay" has changed.

File: Huey Lewis And The Digits.png (1.7 MB)

1.7 MB PNG

>>64900000
'To each according to their needs, from each according to their ability' is how slave plantations are managed.

>>64900005
even serfdom evolved into basically rent with different conditions over time, where instead of a fixed sum you pay a portion of your harvests(which was generally a more secure and palatable amount in case of poor harvests) and do some labor for a fixed amount of days(which could fuck you up if you had to do it instead of doing your harvest). obviously you could be born into serfdom but you could either pay a paltry sum for your freedom because there were enough people to work the land or just run away and the lord wouldn't be able to do jack shit about it if you made it to the lands of some other feudal a distance away even if he knew you were there and many cities relied on the influx of outsider population and actively sheltered and protected escaped serfs.

File: Gastraphetes-370356019.jpg (37.1 KB)

37.1 KB JPG

>>64884838
>Just with high-power crossbows and even more plate armor than before.
makes me wonder if the ancient greeks ever tried this using the gastraphetes weapon

>>64894347
Monarchies reached the height of their authority and control after, and in large part BECAUSE OF, gunpowder.

why's rapechink melting down over Koreans again?

>>64903722
probably chinese new year or smth

File: ux9uyw7g6gh.jpg (32.8 KB)

32.8 KB JPG

>rapechink keeps losing
lmao

>>64899736
>serfdom
Made up shit.
>Their violent corruption, our noble campaign contribution, their filthy bribes, our persuasive lobbying
To your average European peasant the only outlier was Russia, where peasants were de facto slaves. Later it become Russian projection on the rest of Eastern Europe, and as such, the "serfdom" term was born.

File: 1678732366225237.jpg (88.9 KB)

88.9 KB JPG

J A P A N E S E G R A N D F A T H E R

>>64904872
serfdom absolutely was a thing but it wasn't slavery
you didn't own serfs like you would a slave. and trust me there was plenty of slavery going around in Western Europe during the early middle ages.
Serfs had right to a plot of land and because they had a right to that land they had duties to the owners of that land.
because land was the scarce resource that meant that the owner of the land was in a position where they could exploit their serfs.
however of time economic development, the moderating influence of the Church (who where also the largest landowners and the ones that treated their serfs the best) and the possibility to appeal to those above your lands owner in the feudal chain. let to gradual shift where serfs started getting the better and of the relationship. switching between being a serf and a free farmer also became a lot easier.
often it would be the land's owner pressuring their serfs to make the switch so he could tax them more and in cash instead of service and/or kind.
in any case you could pretty much always stop being a serf. but that would mean you'd have no land to form and thus no food and income.

but in russia none of those developments happened. in fact it got worse for them during the high middle ages. and russian landowners and their legal system didn't differentiate between owning the land and owning the serfs.

the whole communist "working class are serfs" narrative comes form how horrible serfs got treated in russia right up to the middle 19th century.
by the time that the US was tearing it's self apart over slavery the russia had just abolished serfdom

>>64884905
You mean the dudes who had more guys with guns than with pikes? Yeah that really proves that guns didn't kill knights.

>>64884838
>Regardless of whether gunpowder was ever invented or not, knights were still on their way out. Plate armor had made mass producing armor cheap and quick, and enabled poor peasants to be armed with armor nearly on par with that of knights,
Why did knights exist before the adoption of plate armour when the only difference between a knight and a regular milites was his noble status and lifetime training? Why did knights persist after the development of large semi-professional armies of non-nobles like the English Yeomanry and archers of the French ordonnance companies?

>with kings able to order several thousand sets of plate armor built
Soldiers acquired their own equipment up until the 18th century when you started to see official patterns of weapons and standards of uniform. Even then soldiers still often paid for their equipment even if they didn't select and purchase it themselves.

>thus centralizing power under the kind and reducing the importance of knights (whose largest virtue had been owning enough land and wealth to afford good armor before).
And being a soldier trained from near birth who was willing to and incentivized to engage the enemy in a particularly aggressive manner because death in battle was less likely than capture meaning being aggressive was a (relatively) low risk high reward action.

>Likewise, the ability to cheaply equip his own troops with state-owned armor allowed unit formations of much higher disciplinary standards than seen before.
The higher standards came about through reforms of government and commissioning of ordinances in order ensure either universal standards of training for men of a certain social class (like the English yeomanry). Either way both were useless without a central state rich and powerful enough to both enforce ordinances and fund standing armies.

File: 4357524332746346.jpg (129 KB)

129 KB JPG

>>64904905
>serfdom absolutely was a thing but it wasn't slavery
I don't claim that serfs were slaves. I claim Russia didn't have peasants and serfs, they had slaves.
>but in russia none of those developments happened.
I agree. In fact I would claim that Russia never actually adopted feudalism. Feudalism is seen as backwards 'n shit, but it actually got checks and balances. Medieval and early modern Russia never had any checks and balances. I won't comment on the modern one.
>US was tearing it's self apart over slavery the russia had just abolished serfdom
Abolished "serfdom" in declaration only. Their shitty system existed there till the middle of the 20th century
Russia, or the correct name - Muscovy, "westernized" itself via Peter the Great, and later it memed itself into some kind of core European country, but before that it obviously wasn't the case. They were never seen as European, if you check the old maps, they will be most likely marked as some variant of Asia/Orient/Barbarorum, or at best as Kievan Rus for cartographers who didn't get the whole Mongol invasion memo. Muscovy as a place was completely unknown pre 16th century to Europe, and was never seen as European.
>Russia is ruled by czar and every person there is a slave to him, even the clergy. Also they are extremely gay for some reason
>t. Sigismund von Herberstein

>>64905010
>I don't claim that serfs were slaves. I claim Russia didn't have peasants and serfs, they had slaves.
Not the Anon you're debating, but yeah, for all intents and purposes Russian serfs were slaves in all but name. In medieval Europe serfs were tied to the land, in Russia they were tied to their owner. In medieval Europe you couldn't just fucking sell serfs like you could in Russia.

>>64904933
>Why did knights exist before the adoption of plate armour
Because full-body chainmail was expensive and you generally needed men of status and land to be able to afford it.

>>64904872
>Later it become Russian projection on the rest of Eastern Europe, and as such, the "serfdom" term was born
smells like Balkan cope

>>64905010
>it actually got checks and balances
extremely minimal ones to the point of there virtually not being any

>Their shitty system existed there till the middle of the 20th century
alright, I'll bite
prove it

>>64905010
>Medieval and early modern Russia never had any checks and balances.
>>64905016
>Russian serfs were slaves in all but name. In medieval Europe serfs were tied to the land, in Russia they were tied to their owner. In medieval Europe you couldn't just fucking sell serfs like you could in Russia.
It was going back and forth.
Initially Russia had to categories of serfs: serfs and kholops
It came out from Viking conquest of Russia who installed themselves as aristocracy and kings.

Serfs was a peasants tied to the land, it was natives villages who submitted to pay Vikings tribute. They do in fact had priveleges, can't sell them without land, they could change their lord. With time privileges erodes. In 1497 serfs were limited to change lord to one day in year in St George Day. In 1580 changing lord's was "temporary" banned, in 1649 banned permanently. Fun fact even after som much time passed Russia has old saying " вoт тeбe бaбyшкa и Юpьeв дeнь!"

Kholops were equalent of Scandinavia thralls. Full slaves. Kholops were POWs or debt slaves. Very popular in Russia was self bondage putting your freedom or freedom of your children as collateral against debt, curious enough such debt contract document was called a "Kabbalah note", huh?

Over time rights of serfs eroded and privileges of fuedals increased. Post Peter the Great serfs became slaves, perks of Autocracy. But some Russian Emperors tried to change it. In 19th century there were edicts to limit landless sells of serfs, and selling them taking out if family.

tldr serfdom in Russia wasnt full slavery all the time it had fuedal complexity but indeed was more brutal than in western Europe and held longer.

>>64905478
The Byzantines were well armoured and the Normans kicked their shit in to the point that they drove them from Italy and nearly toppled the empire.

File: 1642460076201.png (83.8 KB)

83.8 KB PNG

It's hilarious how easy rapechink is to bait.

>>64905010
>In fact I would claim that Russia never actually adopted feudalism.
Genesis and initial form of feudalism was quite different from Europe indeed.
In Europe fuedalism othen started around former Roman Villa. When people came under protection of ruler of this Villa (or coerced to do so). Feudalism was rural and feuda lived nearby and was involved in everyday life of his subjects.

In Russia it was viking conquest. At first Vikings just sailed along rivers and raided surrounding villages. Then they decided they don't war to sail so far and started to found their settlements on rivers near iiaged they gonna to pillage. For long time Russian nobility (Vikings) cane out if their fortified settlements and collected tribute just once a year. Rest of the time they didn't interacted with their subjects at all. Vikings settlements turned into towns. It was great contrast with Europe where fuedals lived in castles in rural areas near subjects. Towns were free citizens and much more advanced in trades and everything.
In Russia fuedal Vikings lived in towns they build and overall were muxh more advanced in everything compare to subjects. Subject were stone age tribals lived in far away villages and ruled themselves, once a year Konung and his army clad in mail came to take tribute from villagers (basically Viking raid but villagers voluntary surrender).

>>64905653
>extremely minimal ones to the point of there virtually not being any
That's not true at all, rulers absolutely had to deal with clergy and nobles, and even commoners had a thing or two to say. Each decently sized town or city had a great deal of privileges. No such thing in Muscovy, the clergy didn't exist, the cities had only one right and that is to be burned down and all residents slaughtered on the whim of the tzar, boyars didn't have any power to oppose the tzar either.
>prove it
Remember what Russia actually is, it's not the big stain on the map it pretends itself to be, it's the city of Moscow and the Pidorsburg. The emancipation of serfs was done in "Russia", because when some foreigner visits those two cities, they inevitably ask the questions
>wait, are those men fucking each other bums
>what are those people, why are they being traded over
and screaming at them
>you simply don't understand the mysterious russian soul!
works only so well

But that wasn't the case for the rest of Russia, where at worst they simply didn't care, or at best they used loopholes to trade slaves either way.
>t. Бopиc Юpьeвич Кepжeнцeв
And don't even start me on kolkhoz system
>>64906091
Russia is not a Kievan Rus. The latter were heavily influenced by Vikings, the former, by Mongols.

File: 3f97012ba29dfa8998b4ef5d01970f0f.jpg (70.9 KB)

70.9 KB JPG

>>64905922
byzantines were similarly or less armored than the normans, with similar general kit of a metal helmet+hauberk shirt, but normans typically had kite shields and some had even more armor, while byzantines used round or oval shields of various sizes. byzantines didn't use full mail suits until centuries later but those were quire rare among normans at the time too.

normans were among the most well equipped and protected warriors of their time, even without full suits of mail with long sleeves and hose. byzantines would even adopt their kit themselves after some time, although their soldiers wouldn't have the wealth to cover themselves head to toe with mail unlike western europeans, where this would become very common protection by the late 12th century.

>>64905890
>With time privileges erodes. In 1497 serfs were limited to change lord to one day in year in St George Day. In 1580 changing lord's was "temporary" banned, in 1649 banned permanently.
they also initiated larger and larger campaigns to seek out and catch escaping serfs following their flight from the poor norse lands south, and increasing the time that the serf is up for capture so slave hunters could hunt for people that escaped 5, 10, 15 years ago and bring them back to their owner for ransom or sell them off to someone else.

>tldr serfdom in Russia wasnt full slavery all the time it had fuedal complexity
nah, even if there was some nuance and legalese about it in the end there wasn't any incentive or power for the slaves to push back against their owners' abuses and nobody to reign the slavers in so they could do whatever the fuck they wanted even if this is supposedly against the will of the tsar. the "feudal" complexity of it is merely a footnote compared to the situation as a whole and it's much easier and more fitting to think about it as slavery with extra steps and quirks than as brutal, abusive and fleeting serfdom.

the latter was going on in Scandinavia and Poland where despite the brutality and exploitation it could be observably and feasibly distinguished from slavery, in the real world, not just on paper.

>>64906193
>Russian czars had totalitarian rule and all warlords absolutely had to obey the czar and there was no need to balance power between nobles and no war of succession whatsoever

>>64906333
>muscovite power vertical failed sometimes when the tsar was deposed after losing the stranglehold on his warlords, this means there were checks and balances, gotcha

>>64905010
you claimed that
> Later it become Russian projection on the rest of Eastern Europe, and as such, the "serfdom" term was born.
serfdom was absolutely a thing in Western Europe. but it wasn't the near slavery it was in russia.
in the same way that they both had a social and military role you can call a knight.
but no one would put a Western and russian next to each other and say they are the same
>In fact I would claim that Russia never actually adopted feudalism
I think that's a bit of a stretch. but it certainly wasn't as well developed as in Western and especially Southern Europe
>>64905653
>extremely minimal ones to the point of there virtually not being any
not at all there's plenty of documentary evidence of Western serfs taking who owned the land to court and winning.
so much of it in fact that we have letters with nobles bitching about how they lost, again.
the Church played a major role in this. not just because it was a major land owner pretty much everywhere and thus set the norm. but because they would go to bat and hard for any perceived infringements on a serfs ability to properly exercise his Christian faith.
local abbeys where also important due to them often mediating and arbitrating disputes between land owners and the serfs that worked that land. more often than not finding in favor of the serfs. and we have pretty good documentation on all of that due to how many primary sources that survive.

>>64906336
>only happened once, trust me bro
>only one (1) civil war during the whole Principality of Moscow period
>please believe

>>64906340
>Western serfs taking who owned the land to court and winning
serfs or villeins? that is the crucial distinction here
the cases I'm aware of (English) were villeins

>>64906348
>>only happened once, trust me bro
>strawman that nobody said
it's ok to seethe that your entire history is one of unbridled slavedom, pidor

>>64906348
>serfs or villeins?
both
Church courts or other legal proceedings held in or organized by religious institutions didn't give two figs about the specific relation between lord and servant. just that the servant would be free (enough) to express his religious life.
in both cases you could abandon the land (the specifics of how, when and if it would cost you aside) and you'd be as free as any man.
also to third parties the distinctions isn't matter

>>64906348
one specific case I remember was of a German lord writing to an abbot.
his complaint was that he had the right to levy a fine for marring out side of his demise.
but every time he tried to levy it the Church interjected and found in favor of his serfs. because he could not bar them from marring and they could not marry those in hes demise due to the then very wide definition of incest by the Church.
the abbots reply being that missing out on the fines was a lot cheaper than having more masses said for him and that was the end of it.

keep in mind that the abbot probably controlled more land and thus had more serfs working said land than the lord. so he had every incentive to find in favor of the lord to line the monasteries (and thus his own pockets) and ofc that the abbot was himself from the nobility and even distantly related to the complaining lord.

>>64906367
>>64906389
>German lord
ah, I see
just about all of what I've read about medieval lifestyle has been English, and as you know, serfs were comparatively rarest in medieval England, let alone lawsuits by serfs

>>64906404
I'm sure there where plenty in England as well. if you start digging into primary sources or just academic literature you'll find plenty about it in English too.
those are just the kinds of things that fall between the cracks due to legal history being a bit of a niche field.

Mr Schizo, do you have any opinions on Albania? I've always been curious

you can tell he's made text files for this spamming because it's full of dead links.

Oh so that's why the thread keeps bumping.
Rapechink is throwing another pissbaby tantrum.

>>64904890
You seriously made him cry this time.

>>64907042
I haven't seen him this mad since I brought up the fact I knew a Korean dude who fucked like three Chinese chicks. It's impressive that he's been at it for what two hours at this point?

>>64906899
>you can tell he's made text files for this spamming because it's full of dead links.
Every schizo does that, it's in the manual they get when they hand in their sanity.

You really think anyone writes those chains of a dozen posts by hand?
One, sure. Maybe two or three shorter ones.
After that it's copypasta but only of their own OC reformatted from random out-of-context sources that agree with them.

>>64906899
>>64907467
frankly the constant spamming and captcha-solving is more implessive than the copypasta. personally I wouldn't have the patience to do all this even if I have a folder full of pasta on hand

File: rapechink seething.png (107.4 KB)

107.4 KB PNG

>>64907042
L fucking MAO

>>64906306
>nah, even if there was some nuance and legalese about it in the end t
It HAD nuances. But in Russia nuances were stripped off completely and all serf turned into slaves in the beginning of 17th century. On the other side in Western Europe in teh 17th century serfdom pretty much ended. So we have system when Russia had 3 centuries, 17-19th of total peasants slavery when Europe didn't, and this is how things were remembered.

>>64907489
>personally I wouldn't have the patience to do all this even if I have a folder full of pasta on hand
Maybe he bought a pass?
If it was captcha and a VPN then he wouldn't be getting 3day b&s.
4chan is pretty good at identifying VPNs also but they're permitted for passes because mods can b& the pass instead of the IP.

>>64908916
What did the Japanese mean by this?

>>64908658
if rapechink was on a pass he'd have been banned by now

>>64907923
>It HAD nuances
they weren't relevant enough for any comparison. you keep latching on them over and over but just like i said they didn't mean anything in reality where their position was effectively indistinguishable from slavery, which wasn't completely unrestricted or unconditional either when present in Europe.
>n the other side in Western Europe in teh 17th century serfdom pretty much ended
a completely arbitrary date you pulled out of your ass to defend your slave owning shithole.
>So we have system when Russia had 3 centuries, 17-19th of total peasants slavery when Europe didn't
we also have muscovy having commonplace slavery at every point before that when it was ended in Europe by the 11th century, as well as vastly different conditions that bring muscovite serfdom strictly into slavery territory even during the best of times, as compared to every other kind of serfdom around the world and every slave ownership system too. Roman slaves had better treatment and more rights than muscovite "serfs".
>and this is how things were remembered.
nope, this are and will be remembered as muscovy always existing as a slave owning asiatic state wearing the skin of a european nation, similar in name only.

hang yourself subhuman slave rapebaby.

>>64910540
>we also have muscovy having commonplace slavery at every point before that when it was ended in Europe
Serfs and kholops were separate categories in Russia until early 17th century when Peter turned everyone into kholops.

Also /k/ relevant thing, sometimes kholops/slaves had pretty high status and treatment. Muscovite fuedals othen were required to come to military service not alone but bring equalent of the lance, several troops of different level of gear, less than himself, but othen needed to bring 1-3 combat riders which him. Othen these troops legally where kholops, fuedal choose among best slave men who lived in his manor and turned them into his wingmen. These lads were well fed and had good relationship (slave -master of course but nevertheless good enough) with their lord, first of all in combat these lads would be riding behind you with warbows in hands. You don't want them been weak and angry at you.

>>64910577
>Serfs and kholops were separate categories in Russia
that's not relevant to the fact that serfs were still treated like slaves regardless.

how much are you going to shit out your vatnigger cope while ignoring this simple point?

It might just be me, but I'm starting to get a feeling that Schizo-san might not like the Japanese. Just a hunch tho.

>>64884872
Thou shalt count to three

>>64884838
>knights were still on their way out.
I don't know why you nerds gush over knights when they're roaming around in 400 man cavalry formations and every pissant baronry has like 1,200 knights.

Okay sure, they're a petty lord, but they're not that special.

>>64885824
>the main distinguishing feature of knights is that they are a distinct noble social class
Does this apply to samurai in nippon as well? Are they similar in that way?

>>64912493
NAYRT but yes, samurai basically had the identical feudal setup with medieval Europe
the Jap rice economy revolved around their version of the English "hides of land", i.e. how much land could produce how much rice which was regarded as the basic minimum to feed one person for one year.

this was the "koku", a measure of uncooked rice grains amounting to about 155kg. think of it as a kind of minimum wage; it was regarded as the minimum required to keep a person alive, if not exactly in great health. 1 koku of rice would work out to roughly 1lb of rice a day, or about 600 calories. (vegetables, fish, and meat were not assessed in this system.) the word was also used to assess land; 1 koku of land meant an area sufficient to grow that much rice.

the average samurai was enfeoffed a bit of land of about 70 to 140 koku. this is not a lot, as a samurai's manor usually had about 50 people to work the land with, and it cost at least 30-40 koku to equip the samurai for war, not to mention all the other farm upkeep and repairs etc. the poorest samurai was recorded as having only about 30 koku so not only did he do most of the work, he probably also had to hire himself out as a soldier for pay. this is where those Kurosawa tropes come from.

in addition to all this a samurai had their form of military service quotas, requirements for annual ceremonies (inspection), and could be summoned to their warlord's court at any time.

>>64895719
What spelled the end of the cavalry was the improvement in motor vehicles. What really limited cavalry in in the western front, where this retarded meme comes from, was barbed wire and C3, not machineguns.

>>64896217
man black riders are so cool

>>64912575
>1lb of rice a day, or about 600 calories
there's a miscalculation, the calories are for cooked, not dry rice. cooked rice doubles to triples in weight from absorbing water so the dry rice is significantly more calorie dense. 1500 kcal isn't nearly enough for a physically active male but not so outlandish as 600 kcal either.

>>64895667
The names and titles of cavalry units still existed, reason being to preserve tradition and continuity. In terms of doctrine, the dragoon model of mounted infantry plus the ability to charge was the cavalry meta of the time. The cavalry of the time also had their own machine guns as well. How things were envisioned at the time was that the machine-guns would pin the enemy alongside dismounted infantry, while the mounted men would ride to the flank and charge. It was a mixed bag in terms of effectiveness but far cry from the normiecattle view that all they had was swords.
t.Knower

>>64914055
ah yeah you're right
I thought it looked a bit iffy

>>64884838
>Plate armor
minor factor.

The real revolution was the ability to support and train masses of pike formations using the increasingly centralized state resources of france, spain, and Austria.

Even still, it simply made heavy cavalry a secondary arm rather than kill it. But yes, guns were not the direct reason and pikes doctrine were a more direct reason, Guns wouldn't be decissive by themselves until at least the 1700s or 1800s.

>>64912575
>>64914055
The calories needed wouldn’t only come from rice and was added onto via foraging and fishing. It is said Japanese peasants would even collect the fallen leaves of trees to store as food against famine.

>>64909348
>if rapechink was on a pass he'd have been banned by now
$20 is $20.
I suppose he might buy new ones too.

>>64884902
>Knights were on their way out due to structural changes, which also lead to a reeimagination of the noble class when it came to their role. Military technology was of secondary importance.

True. It's fascinating to look at war as a branch of sociology, you can even do the reverse and think about the kind of army a society of today would make.

>>64884838
>5 crossbowmen
>5 different ways of cocking their crossbows
Was it autism?

>>64923062
Getting them all accepting the same size of bolt was already a headache unto itself.

>>64906273
That's hardly enough difference to justify the complete superiority of Norman cavalry to Taghmata cavalry, the cataphracts, and the Varangian Guard (which was nearly annihilated during the campaigns of Robert Guiscard with them being routed, fleeing to a church, and burned alive.

>>64923062
Yes. Before special schools, Autistic merhcnts and prince's sons were sent of to design new crossbow cocking methods.

I kind of wonder by integrated goatsfoot wasn't a thing a la skyrim.
>>64923119
A part of it was also just doctrine. Franks were known for being particularly studdorn in the charge where others would circle back. for good and ill.
>>64923072
was it? wouldnt think it would matter all that much since the bolt sits on top of the rail.