in melle i need to see what theses guys can do but the knight is a master warrior in armor that far supasses anything else of it's era and while his weapons are very orthidox they are oridox for a very simple reason they work plane and simple and he has mastered those simple weapons to the highest level he will have almost no openings due to his defensive stance and weapons
in range the knight again has the edge with his crossbow which allows him a free shot right off the bat and allows him very easy aim and the chakram is useless aginst the knights armor
as an army i need to know the ground starting distance and such but i would lean again towards the knights due to the ffactt that they are extrimly heavy infintry and in a pitched battle that armor is a massive advatage
on horse back really you want to take on the knights and their massive war horses all covered in Platemail and chain mail
Very wise choice! In the other thread, some people actually thought a Knight can beat up a Samurai in hand-to-hand combat...!
in melle i need to see what theses guys can do but the knight is a master warrior in armor that far supasses anything else of it's era and while his weapons are very orthidox they are oridox for a very simple reason they work plane and simple and he has mastered those simple weapons to the highest level he will have almost no openings due to his defensive stance and weapons
I agree that Knights are good at what they do. But sometimes...that's just not enough. Remember, there are no real modern day knights or samurais or what not, at least none that are implemented in war. There are just training and demonstrations that gives us an idea of how they were in the past. Let me show you some demos of Shastar Vidiya:
Loading Video...
Loading Video...
in range the knight again has the edge with his crossbow which allows him a free shot right off the bat and allows him very easy aim and the chakram is useless aginst the knights armor
That is true. Should I give him a matchlock pistol instead, since they do use those? Chackrams are more like superior javelins in its function.
as an army i need to know the ground starting distance and such but i would lean again towards the knights due to the ffactt that they are extrimly heavy infintry and in a pitched battle that armor is a massive advatage
I'm looking up the Sikhs' wars with the Mughals and Afghans, but in the mean time the starting distance is half a mile apart in Aru Valley, Kashmir, India. Anywhere else it will be a curbstomp in the Nihangs' favor because Knights can't fight in the water or in wet/humid conditions, I think, and deserts lol.
on horse back really you want to take on the knights and their massive war horses all covered in Platemail and chain mail
Do you really want to take on the Nihang and their massive war elephants all covered in Platemail and chain mail? Just kidding, no elephants in this fight, but remember, India is renowned for their Wootz Steel, which is > than steel anywhere else. Interesting fact-The majority of Indian soldiers wore chain mail. Even the Mughals, despite wearing plate armour preferred the use of chain mail as in the blistering heat of India it was very difficult to wear and carry such weight. If soldiers did wear plate armour, it was normally just a breast and back plate to protect the vital organs. If this was the case, the enemy soldiers would simply switch from using bladed weapons and use maces to crush the armour. Most often the maces had a sharp spike at its tip on the head, so it could also be used against mailed soldiers. Or they can just use daggers, like Katars, or hooks used to peal off armor. I'm going to stop here for now.
a named expert might not be a good description of basic skills that would be takeing an outlier and making it average
matchlock pistol instead,
would not matter as late era Gothic armor was bullet proof to pistols as late as the pirate era in the carabien
'm looking up the Sikhs' wars with the Mughals and Afghans, but in the mean time the starting distance is half a mile apart in Aru Valley, Kashmir, India. Anywhere else it will be a curbstomp in the Nihangs' favor because Knights can't fight in the water or in wet/humid conditions, I think, and deserts lol.
hmm okay mostly flat nothing they can't walk though but in a calvery battle they would be severely limited
Anywhere else it will be a curbstomp in the Nihangs' favor because Knights can't fight in the water or in wet/humid conditions, I think, and deserts lol.
actally in a fair fight on even ground like this
the knights have the complete advantage in both rounds
and you are really underselling the knights here they have a hell of a lot of experience fighting in the crusades
ia is renowned for their Wootz Steel, which is > than steel anywhere else
That is true and it is a factor however western Armor is considered one of if not the strongest armors of it's day so geting pst it is going to be a big issue
Interesting fact-The majority of Indian soldiers wore chain mail
maybe but the knights fight chainmail foes almost as offen
armour preferred the use of chain mail as in the blistering heat of India it was very difficult to wear and carry such weight. If soldiers did wear plate armour, it was normally just a breast and back plate to protect the vital organs.
so chain mail against plate mail and chainmail got it
If this was the case, the enemy soldiers would simply switch from using bladed weapons and use maces to crush the armour
here the thing Knights have thereouen anti armor weapons and frankly they are a hell of a lot more intimateing includeing but not limited to Morning stars, war hammers ,Lucerne's , war picks etc etc those weapons would have torn thoughe chainmail like a hot knife though butter
Or they can just use daggers, like Katars, or hooks used to peal off armor.
thats coll and all but it is so much simpler for the knights just to stab them chain mail is not a resistient to a good stab
@xlr87t3: Martial arts are more developed in non-Western medieval cultures due to the higher portions of wars involved in siege warfare in western cultures at the time. Sieges are important everywhere, but Europe concentrated ALL wealth into wall cities, Non-Western cultures had wealth spread over a much more vast area. Europe is smaller than China, India, and the Middle East/Central Asia. Hand to hand was less focused on relative to duels and war than weapon based combat relative to more dispersed military classes. Hence I give the Nihang the h2h round.
Melee will be interesting. If the knight and Nihang are of equal skill, the knight can get a slim majority due to the size of their shield, and more extensive armor. If the ground favors the Nihang, the advantage turns into a detriment. For all the popular culture about knights, they are designed for sieges and cavalry battle. Which goes with urbanized warfare and breaking sieges.
Dry, flat surface with limited lateral options would skew to the knight. Too much defense and offensive power coupled with limited evasive options for the Nihang.
Open plain with soft soil and humid weather will definitely skew toward the Nihang warrior if innate skill and talent are equal.
Range combat should skew to the knight due to the protection of armor and shield at the edge of range. I do not know the effective ranges of Bows used by the Nihang. But the accuracy for non continental European warrior classes is simply superior to continental European archery. If the Nihang bow is better and the Knight is not British, Nihang win without much difficulty. Longbows had a longer effective range than matchlock guns of the era.
Mass melee should go to the knights. They can go with a phalanx that brings more offensive momentum than the lighter armed Nihang can dominantly overcome. The knight was designed to impose and break out of sieges. Brutal close quarters is where they shine. In reality, the Nihang should win with better ranged weapons and mobility, going head on against armored knights is just bad tactics. The Arab military in the Middle Ages were similarly armored to the Nihang, they won their battles through mobility. They did not have the edge in ranged combat due to the crossbow, so they took serious losses. When that edge faded, mobility and terrain turned the Crusades in their favor. Arab campaigns in Europe failed in the long term as their technological advantages faded.
If the field is favorable for horses, the knight would have more mobility and stamina than armored elephants. They would win.
Personally, I am still too ignorant to say that this is anything else than a draw.
I'm assuming that since these are warrior classes, we are assuming equal skill levels in their respective crafts.
If that picture shows what is typical for the Nihang as far as armor goes, then Knights curbstomp this so bad. Punching through proper Plate armor is much, MUCH harder than people think unless you have exactly the right sort of weaponry. And even then, it still stops a lot of the damage.
H2H, I have no idea.
Melee, Knight's weapons would tear through much weaker chainmail easily. Plus, the weapons are simply more simplistic and thus more direct. Just because weapons are more exotic, doesn't make them better. That sword is curved, which makes it much less effective than a straight-edged stabbing sword against armor. It's simply the matter of the nihang weaponry taking a LOT more effort to get through knight armor than it would take the knight's weapons to get through the nihang's armor.
Ranged, nothing that the nihang have could get through the knight's armor. A throwing disk with a bladed edge? That would just harmlessly bounce off of the knight's armor. And honestly, it's sort of a crud weapon anyways. Seriously, they're pretty slow as far as ranged weapons go, to the point where I'd wager I could dodge them at any sort of range. Crossbows on the other hand are wicked fast and accurate and some can pierce even platemail.
200 vs 200? No difference. The armor difference would make an even BIGGER difference. A note on the whole "Nihang chose to use chain over plate because it is hot and wears you out faster in hot environments" is perfectly valid in a war, where troops are under constant wear and have to move around between battles a lot with limited food and water, but in a single battle where both groups are assumed to be at top form at the beginning of the battle it would make less difference.
Horses? Same, honestly. Again, warhorses with armor, and the knights still being better armored themselves, plus crossbows and whatnot. It really doesn't matter.
Hey, I'm back! You thought this debate was over? I was just gathering all my information, which took me over a week, with school and stuff! Let's get this thing going!
a named expert might not be a good description of basic skills that would be takeing an outlier and making it average
Well, there are no other known (and living) teachers publicly teaching the art of pre-gatka Shastar Vidiya. The man is an outlier because of his views on alcohol, drugs, and religion. Not his fighting styles.
would not matter as late era Gothic armor was bullet proof to pistols as late as the pirate era in the carabien
It can be pistol or rifle. The Nihangs use them both (unless you want to keep it to pistols). And the only "bulletproof" armor is the extremely heavy ones that make the knights move slow, nearing the 17th century. And only the breastplate would be "proofed". Now, someone tried to compare the Akali Nihangs with the Crusade Arabs, who are similarly armed. I'm going to be blunt-the Nihangs are better. They both use speed, mobility, and efficiency/tactics as an advantage, but the bulk of the Muslim army consisted of light cavalry which may have worn only a padded overcoat instead of the mail hauberk. So armor is not too important, and Nihang turbans are more protective (and damaging and useful) than the Muslim’s helmets. Also, while Christian Knights and Muslims usually carry 1-3 weapons, Nihangs carry and make use of 5-6 weapons.The Muslims usually outnumbered the Crusaders, but the war was surprisingly even. The Mughals outnumbered the Sikhs, but the Sikhs won through skill. Along with having their own unique & exotic martial arts, they are usually much more formidable than the Muslims (who they defeated), and more of a match to the Templar knights.
actally in a fair fight on even ground like this
the knights have the complete advantage in both rounds
and you are really underselling the knights here they have a hell of a lot of experience fighting in the crusades
Where is that area in that picture? I don't see how they have the complete advantage over their opponents, especially round four. The Nihang have plenty of experience fighting the Afghans and the Mughal army (both of which use armor/cavalry almost as good as the Crusaders), and later the British Army. All accounts show that they are/were blatantly better at fighting then their enemies, especially h2h.
"An Afghan [guard] tried to get hold of one [imprisoned] Singhni. She grappled the Afghan to the floor and pounded in his ribs. The fiend screamed in agony. Three or four more guards then came. Taking one Afghan's sword, the Singhni swiftly cut down these other three. Other 'Singhnia' took hold of their swords, and, like cheetahs, they drew them and attacked. In showing them the pleasure of touching Sikh women, they had wounded thirty and killed ten. The other guards stood back, afraid and refused to come near and fight. Without orders, they fired arrows and muskets upon the women."(Giani Gian Singh, Panth Parkash, (Bhasha Vibhag Punjab, 1987), 905-906.)
The Battle of Chamkaur is as epic as the Spartan 300 or the 47 Ronin. Tens of thousands of Mughal soldiers (metaphorically “over one million”) surrounding the small fort sheltering Guru Gobind Singh (they wanted his head), being distracted by the Guru’s 40 men. The Guru had decided to send out a single Sikh warrior every now and then, to fight and die for the Khalsa. This was to display the unconquerable spirit of the Khalsa and the fearlessness of the Sikhs in facing the heaviest odds. At intervals a Sikh would charge out from the main gate of the fortress. He would challenge the might of the Mughal army and die fighting on the battlefield. It is alleged that the Sikh warriors were able to engage the Mughal troops in majority due to training in the Sikh martial art of "Shastarvidya". All the Sikhs guarding the Guru were killed in the battle. In spite of their numerical strength, the Mughal soldiers were unable to kill or capture the Guru, who escaped. Yeah, I copied and pasted most of that, but still, their skill is legendary!
That is true and it is a factor however western Armor is considered one of if not the strongest armors of it's day so geting pst it is going to be a big issue
The maneuverability and speed is just as big of an issue as well, and what type of knight are we speaking of that is in this fight? Are we talking about the Templar Knights? Regardless, the initial charge (used mostly by the Franks) is not the be all and end all of it. The Nihangs can spread out, and confuse, divide, and conquer. So to speak. Or scare the horses with their muskets. Not as onesided as many would think.
here the thing Knights have thereouen anti armor weapons and frankly they are a hell of a lot more intimateing includeing but not limited to Morning stars, war hammers ,Lucerne's , war picks etc etc those weapons would have torn thoughe chainmail like a hot knife though butter
Yeah but most knights don't use two weapons at the same time, at least not in any efficient way. And knights thought daggers were dishonorable, because it was used stealthily and hidden. You can really see the contrasts between these two cultures!
thats coll and all but it is so much simpler for the knights just to stab them chain mail is not a resistient to a good stab
A stab from a pole weapon can go through even plate armor, but non-thin swords like broadswords have to get around the chain-mail.
The maneuverability and speed is just as big of an issue as well, and what type of knight are we speaking of that is in this fight? Are we talking about the Templar Knights?
Well you did post in the OP, a Knight that does resemble a Templar. :P
Well, there are no other known (and living) teachers publicly teaching the art of pre-gatka Shastar Vidiya. The man is an outlier because of his views on alcohol, drugs, and religion. Not his fighting styles.
still it is an outligher
It can be pistol or rifle. The Nihangs use them bot
what era is this because guns from the 16th and back are no selled by armor it is the purpose of the arms race armor is devloped to counter weapons and weapon's to counter armor.
nd the only "bulletproof" armor is the extremely heavy ones that make the knights move slow, nearing the 17th century.
incorrect they had that practice for some time
and you seem to be under the impression that these suits of armor do not limit you as much as you might think yes it makes you slower but not cripplingly outherwise there would be no point in wearing it in battle
he Muslims usually outnumbered the Crusaders, but the war was surprisingly even. The Mughals outnumbered the Sikhs, but the Sikhs won through skill.
keep in mind the Crusaders where invading and on top of that all of their resources had to travel by sea ( which was exceedingly dangerous ) and the locals where hostile and there opponents have a home tilde advantage so there is an apples and oranges thing going on here
ens of thousands of Mughal soldiers (metaphorically “over one million”) surrounding the small fort sheltering Guru Gobind Singh (they wanted his head), being distracted by the Guru’s 40 men.
-.o I am already taking this with a grain of salt outherwise you are implying theat each can somehow take a few thousand men
e Guru had decided to send out a single Sikh warrior every now and then, to fight and die for the Khalsa. This was to display the unconquerable spirit of the Khalsa and the fearlessness of the Sikhs in facing the heaviest oddsAt intervals a Sikh would charge out from the main gate of the fortress. He would challenge the might of the Mughal army and die fighting on the battlefield
otherwise known as wasting valuable manpower -.- Knights might have the rules of Chivalry but they are pragmatist on the battlefield, they dont send there own on sucide missions they fight for honnor not death
t is alleged that the Sikh warriors were able to engage the Mughal troops in majority due to training in the Sikh martial art of "Shastarvidya".
lets be honest here the MA had nothing to do with this the topgrahy and the fort where what allowed them to stall for time there is no way in hell a singel human no matter how well equiped and skilled can take on a 1000+ people
and is this a historical event? and if it is who told it? I am willing to bet the Sikh did
The maneuverability and speed is just as big of an issue as well,
true and i agreed that this is a factor however no matter what you say the trade off from speed to protection is a well thought out one while there speed is less the knight can take infinatly more punishment then the Nihang and this is before considering his shield
and what type of knight are we speaking of that is in this fight? Are we talking about the Templar Knights?
i was assuming crusades to late era knights
Regardless, the initial charge (used mostly by the Franks) is not the be all and end all of it. The Nihangs can spread out, and confuse, divide, and conquer. So to speak. Or scare the horses with their muskets. Not as onesided as many would think.
and you think they are the only ones with tactics? the knights are not just going to take theses tricks lying down considering there equipment they can easily splite there forces into wedges ( typical tactic) and attack all moveing groups
And scarring the horses is a huge ask these hourses are born ,bred and trained for war they are so tall they tower over modern racing horses by the time Guns have come into play they have been trained to avoid being scared by them. and keep in mid these horses will charge into a pike wall without pausing they are bred to be fearless weapons of war
Yeah but most knights don't use two weapons at the same time, at least not in any efficient way.
incorrect they carry backup weapons into battle they carry at least 2 into battle
And knights thought daggers were dishonorable, because it was used stealthily and hidden. You can really see the contrasts between these two cultures!
Yes they viewed stabling someone in the back to be cowardly they also viewed charging out by yourself with no back up and no plan as a stupid as hell move.
A stab from a pole weapon can go through even plate armor, but non-thin swords like broadswords have to get around the chain-mail.
unlike curved swords like the Nihang use western swords are deshgined for Both slashing and stabing and they are trained in both. and pole weapons are easier to prect and block then swords and both knights and Nihang use them and the knights simply have more versatile ones
Nihang style and knight style are two very different types of fighting.
If they were to fight by the Knights "Honor"fighting rules, then ofcourse the Knights will win because in their rule is to fight face to face without daggers and no trickery. And they mostly use brunt and force to throw their opponent off guard, that is why they have so much shield, armor, and sword strength. And the nihangs werent trained to fight like that because mostly the mughals they faced were quick attack/looting villages(meaning not honorable) and a LOT more in majority, so nihangs had to learn use of gorilla tactics and speed more than brunt.
The nihang fighting skill is also honorable but with different rules: no stabbing in the back, no attacking from behind, no attacking weaponless/women/old/children, they use skill to win-like self defense techniques and they fight to die or injure at vital points in body.
If they were to fight:
The knight has an advantage when they are approaching eachother because he can try slashing at the nihang and other long strikes and stabs, the nihang can dodge or deflect with the dhal somewhat, but to get to nihangs advantage he must get closer.
The nihang can bang the knights head with the dhal-nihang shield. And cause the knight a little disadvantage. Then he would most likely aim to injure the knight at place the armor is not protecting or most weak-at, like the joints, for example: the armpit, the wrists, the hip, side of the ribs, etc, and last option to kill-the slit in the helmet.
Therefore, most likely the knights would view the Nihang fighting as "not honorable", and they would never fight at all
The knight would have a hard time combating at hand to hand Closeness because he would be wearing stiff plate armor and not have the same fast twisting weapons, so the nihang could move faster with less armor and use the small weapons like kirpan etc.
So at different points in the fight, one or the other would have the advantage, I cannot determine who will ultimately win.
@jjj: I agree with most of your points but I feel like alot of people underestimate the speed of knights. They may not be as fast as those not in armor but they are no where near slow. They were trained while in armor for the direct reason so that they would need to build the strength needed to fight long periods of time in this armor.
So while it was heavy armor they were no where near cumbersome and were surprisingly quick.
Hmm, maybe i have underestimated their speed...but for most part it is believed that the knights fought like cavalry and in big groups, therefore they were accounted for as a huge force rather than each individual's speed.
But Nihangs as mentioned in sikh history fought individually against always a greater number than themselves, so everytime each individual counted.
That is why i concluded that the knights would have more brute and strength rather than speed- and nihangs vice versa.
Do u have an example of reading or video of a knights fighting tactics? That i can understand your view better by perhaps.
A nihang will have the advantage of speed while the Knight have the advantage of defensive. If the knight desides to go to the offensive nihang can be more than likely tire them out easily being in light armor makes your more agile. But if the knight keeps his ground He'll be able to tire the nihang out, it's all about brains and strategy atp.
Log in to comment