"12th century foot knights?" Topic

Hi Everyone:

I am new to Medievals. I ordered the Lion Rampant rules and a bunch of excellent mounted and foot knights from Crusader Miniatures. However, when I skimmed the Lion Rampant rules, only one of the army lists allow foot knights. Were foot knights common in the 12th Century? If not, why are there so many companies who produce foot knights?

Thanks in advance,
Matt

From what I understand a foot knight is simply a mounted knight who got down from his horse temporarily. A knight might choose to fight on foot for tactical reasons (defending/storming a fortification, rough terrain) but this was more common later in the Medieval period. During the War of the Roses almost all combat was fought on foot. I believe in Lion Rampant you do have the option to dismounted your mounted knights at the beginning of a game? I've read so many rules!

Remember, those army lists are sample retinues. You can build your own retinue any way you want.

LT

Because the look so very dangerous and cool Matt :) all those coats of arms colours and tin canned top to bottom how can one resist, As for rules the old WHA rulers allowed for largeish units of them and I'm sure the modern rules do today as well. Lion Rampart are ultra great rules and I'm sure you'll have lots of fun and they are tweekable too let quite a few other lists have Foot Knigits :D paid for in mercenary gold.
Cheers here's to you enjoying a great new period.

In Lion Rampant foot knight would be Foot Men at Arms as is the case with Mounted Men at Arms who represent mounted Knights or professional mounted heavy cavalry.

As brass1 stated you can create your retinue in any way you want. The only limitation to your retinue are those stated on page 28 of the rule book, which are for a 24 point retinue. Although you can field smaller or larger point retinues but from what I have seen and played 24 points is a good 1-2 hour game tops. To reprise the limitations:

Your retinue consists of 24 points of units, constructed as follows:

No more than four units or 12 points of any unit type (whichever is lower) inclusive of upgrades.

1 leader model that is an integral part of one unit and may not join other units.

That is it and so simple. As an example I could have three Foot Serjeant units at 4 points each and I have hit the 12 point limit. I could not add a fourth unit. There are a ton of possible combinations possible for retinue construction within these simple rule limitations.

Currently I am building a 13th Century Western Medieval retinue that consists of the following:

1 x Mounted Men at Arms = 6 points
1 x Foot Men at Arms = 6 points
1 x Mounted Yeomen = 4 points
2 x Foot Serjents 4 pts each total = 8
Total = 24 points

However, I could swap out the Mounted Yeomen and replace them with a 4 point unit of Crossbowmen. I could also drop the Foot Men at Arms and go for more numbers by adding in two 3 point Foot Yeomen units to represent a more levy heavy foot force. It all depend on what you like.

It was already a common tactic to have some knights fight on foot in the 12th century, e.g. King Stephen fought on foot at Lincoln. The point of Lion Rampant is you design your retinue, the included ones are examples, and not GW style diktat.

Brass1 & Kallman: I understand that warband construction is flexible in Lion Rampant. I was asking if it was historically accurate to have foot knights in 12th century Europe.

Frothers: This is the type of historical information I was looking for.

Germans almost always preferred to fight on foot. The German contingent in the Second Crusade outside Damascus attacked on foot, across a stream, no less.

As mentioned, Anglo-Norman armies routinely dismounted. The Battle of Northallerton (The Standard, 1138) was entirely dismounted on the English side, and only the Scots fielded a few score or hundred mounted troops. The dismounted knights formed up as the front ranks to "stiffen" the shire levy.

French armies of the period tended to attack as mounted troops.

Italian armies had dedicated infantry and cavalry. At Legnano is was the infantry, surrounding their carroccio, that absorbed the attack of German cavalry until their own scattered cavalry rallied and returned to charge into the German flanks and rear.

In Spain infantry was paramount in field battles, cavalry in raiding and skirmishing. Dismounted cavalry was the norm, but not all of it. Usually a mounted portion was retained.

And of course in the Crusades a great many knights fought on foot, often because of a shortage of horses….

OK Hydra Studios I was unclear based on your post. Mea Culpa. As Great War and Forthers states, yes, definitely, mounted knights and other men at arms often dismounted and would shorten their lances to make them more useful as spears. Frothers offered the excellent example of the Battle of Lincoln.

The reason for dismounting is really quite simple. Determined infantry will beat mounted foes almost every time as horses will not charge home against an unwavering wall of sharp pointy objects. The Battle of Bannockburn is an excellent example of this. The mounted knight was best as a raiding or as a flanking harassing force or would be devastating against undisciplined or disrupted ranks or fleeing foot.

Foot knights are simply dismounted, so just build them. I am not aware of any "knights" being trained as infantry from the start, though.

>Germans almost always preferred to fight on foot.
I do disagree to that one, though. Too sweeping a comment on all Germans over several hundred years. Just look at the battle of the Lechfeld to start. The German knight on the whole will not differ much from the Frankish, English, Polish or Catalan (to name but a few) in combat behaviour, even when the odd army, period or incident seems to indicate this.

I ordered the Lion Rampant rules and a bunch of excellent mounted and foot knights from Crusader Miniatures.

Out of curiosity, if you bought your models from Crusader Miniatures, why are you specifically interested about 12th century? I don't think Crusader makes any dedicated figures for that century.

I am not aware of any "knights" being trained as infantry

I don't think they were necessarily and at Bourg-Theroulde (1124) they complained about having to do it. Similarly, at Saule(1236) the German contingent refused to dismount. But it was still often done, by a part of the knightly contingent, in order to stiffen foot against mounted opponents. In that respect it was a defensive tactic.

Since Lion Rampant is a skirmish game such tactics aren't really the game's focus of course.

I am not aware of any "knights" being trained as infantry from the start, though.

All "knights" were trained to fight on foot as well as mounted.

Yes, but some were more trained than others. Germans had the most dedicated foot combat training. French had the least training. Anglo-Normans were right up there with the Germans but I'm seeing Germans winning if it came to a melee between their MAA and England's MAA. Yes, I know, this is a subjective judgment….

horses will not charge home against an unwavering wall of sharp pointy objects.

Actually they will, especially when said horses are stallions, bred and trained to charge home. The problem is their being able to retain sufficient cohesion and impetus to break firm foot.

We had a whole thread about this very recently. So perhaps any discussion on this should go there? TMP link

Similarly, at Saule(1236) the German contingent refused to dismount

That appears to be a bit of a myth. The Livonian Chronicle has them refuse to fight on the grounds that "We do not wish to fight here. If we should lose our horses, we would have to use our feet." William Urban, the translator, took this to mean they didn't want to fight dismounted, but that doesn't make much sense – if they dismounted they'd have to use their feet whether they lost their horses or not, and they didn't fight mounted either until the next day when the Semgallians gave them no choice.