@Snowscorpion: Oh yes, they are vastly more skilled. Since the age of 7, Spartans went through more pain and rigiorous training than any other warrior in the world.
Oh and just for classification, real Knights never wore all that armour in real battle, it was more for celebratory and honorary events. Do your history homework.
Some knights began intense physical training at 6. As for training difficulty: the Maori, some Samurai, the Oathsworn Champions of the Gauls, and the Knights of the Crusading Orders (Knights of Santiago, Knights of the Temple, Knights of St. John, and Knights of the Noble Orders of the Teutons) were all forced to enter mandatory training. Additionally, in the Hundred Years' War, professional armoured cavalry (AKA knights) were known to train 7-8 hours a day, daily, in full armour, lifting weights and practicing swordsmanship for hours on end. It was not uncommon for Iberian, Arabic, and steppe-nomads to offer their services as riding tutors.
What made the agoge special was that it was enforced through the laws of Lycurgus; without it, one could not have the full rights of a Spartan citizen. One thus had social status depending both on martial skill and documented training. The emphasis of Spartan training was collective discipline and individual reliability, not on individual prowess.
My advice as a minor in the probabilities of UCTR (unconventional collective tactical results), or just science in general, is not to make absolute statements. There are always outliers, or incorrect data collection. It's alright to make generalisations, but don't stereotype. The line of best fit is almost never followed all throughout (when it is, hallelujah, take a picture).
Depends on the knight; we talking a wandering adventurer, the son of a king, the son of a baron, or the son of a knight? The French and Gothic knights certainly did wear advanced full-suits of heavy plate, whether on foot or mounted. True, such armour weighs from 30-70 lb., but that's about the same weight as the modern USA infantryman's FBO.
@Snowscorpion: Quit taking everything so seriously, I'll leave it up to you to do the research yourself. But here's a few facts. Only the richest knights could afford plate armour resembling what you've seen in the Deadliest Warrior match-up. Even though it allowed for maximum protection, it would mostly be seen in jousting arena's and rarely on the battlefield due to restricted mobility and vision. You'd probably only ever see the King wearing all this armour or perhaps a few of his lieutenants. Most knights, could barely even afford chainmail and a helmet. If lucky, they would have armour for their arms and legs, but it usually just consisted of the former.
Now, on to the battle. Yes, I agree that if the Knight was wearing the plate armour, the Spartan would have much trouble penetrating it due to weaker weapons. So the Knight has the advantage in weapons and armour, but the Spartan is still much more skilled than the Knight, which unless he can disarm, will do him no good.
So yes, the Knight would most likely win this encounter if he was fully armoured.
I didn't see the match-up… but it really depends on the time period. In the Hundred Years' War, almost every knight was expected to have plated greaves, vambraces, gauntlets, and a plate cuirass, not to mention a plated, angular helm. However, in the Third Crusade, knights were clad in chain-mail and pothelms mostly.
As I said… 'much more skilled' is a very tentative term. Remember, knights tended to be descended from Germanic noble warriors, who were regarded as the best and strongest. The Spartans all had to go through the agoge. In terms of natural talent and stature, the knights have the advantage, and some knights did start their training at 5-6.
@SilverGalford: Why?A Knight's Templar were some of the greatest warriors ever imagined,and they are seen as wonders of warfare.
@shadowknight666:
Please tell me your joking cain lol.
This has been changed to a Chainmail-clad Knight's Templar.
The Knights of Solomon's Temple were certainly great warriors… but perhaps not the greatest. I do remember accounts of the Battle of Legnica, though, where Mongols surrounded the Templars and wore them down one by one. At one point, they unleashed a group of a hundred men to deal with twenty-something exhausted Templars, and those hundred men decided to close the distance and engage with swords. It… didn't end well. Each knight slew 3-5 Mongol veterans before succumbing. The Golden Horde mandate from then on was: "Knights aren't invincible… but never engage them in close combat."
As to the actual fight:
Neither should really have much of a noticeable advantage in skill; if we're pitting the average Franco-German Ritterbruder against a Spartan hippeis (best on best), then we'd have to go with the Ritterbruder by quite a lot. Both are highly trained men at their prime. The knight would definitely have a size/strength advantage, but the Spartan is trained for short-duration high-intensity shoving wars, so I'd give the Greek a sprint advantage.
Both have a pole-arm; the knight's weakness is that he can't use his shield and the halberd at the same time, whilst the Spartan can use both spear and shield together. The halberd is a one-hit KO without shields; it was made as an armor-piercing weapon, and was used in conjunction with pikes against knights and condottieri by the Swiss. The spear is less powerful, and lacks the hacking/thrusting/hooking versatility of a halberd, but the jabs are fast and it is lighter. It then comes down to shield and sword. Here, we see the weakness of the hoplite: its focus on phalanx combat means that the Spartan's reflex is to directly interpose his shield, and, while much more skilled than the average Athenian hoplite at the sword, he isn't too much of a swordsman compared to a Roman/German sword-fighter (this is how the Romans beat the Greco-Macedonian phalanx; break cohesion, engage the individuals with swords). Knights were trained more for individual combat, and would be trained in tilting and deflecting the shield, as well as more advanced sword techniques.
In terms of armour, they're both fairly evenly matched. Assuming we're now using chain-mail for the knight, that is. If he's wearing half-plate or full-plate, the knight has a massive advantage.
At the end of the day, the knight would probably win, even with chain-mail. However, certain Spartans might be skilled enough to triumph; on the other hand, some knights would also be so exceptionally skilled as to demolish the Spartan. We're working off averages here.
Ultimately, it comes down to 3 things: the training, and the back of the warriors, as well as the ideals.
Knightly training focused on individual prowess, fitness, and potency. Spartan training focused on immense discipline and logistical resourcefulness. Knights were trained to be individually exceptional, whilst Spartans were trained to keep their army together against all odds (and then Leuctra happened…). In a one-on-one combat… one was trained directly for it.
Knights were chosen based on genetics, albeit accidentally. The ancestors of a knightly house tended to be the best Germanic warriors, and those genes of fitness get passed down. All Spartans were picked from the citizenry; those who could afford it and were already in the city, picked by circumstance instead of natural advantages. Knights were very well-fed, and the nutrition showed in their stature, whilst Spartan youths were starved to teach them to be economically resourceful.
Finally, the ideals.
Knights were meant to protect the weak and uphold the strong. It didn't matter as to his individual patriotism or loyalty to the state; what was treasured was his individual honour and prowess. Spartans, on the other hand, were meant to protect the city-state, right or wrong. What was treasured was that he would never break the formation. Spartans were raised in the shadow of the king, Lycurgus, who commanded them to follow these orders. Knights were raised in the shadow of their ancestors, who had gathered together to fend off the Magyars and Vikings, and were forced to this by necessity.
Not all knights/Spartans were this way, of course; as I said there are always outliers.
Log in to comment