Tango01 | 03 Oct 2019 9:30 p.m. PST |
… Hand-to-Hand Combat?. "So we want to see what the epic ending to a battle between two of time's most deadly warriors will be? Actually, it's not that interesting. The Marine, my chosen analog for this question, loses, and that is actually not all that surprising. Today, Marines have a great deal of hand-to-hand combat training relative to other modern military units. The Marine Corps even created its own style of martial arts centered on combat called the Marine Corps Martial Arts Program. All recruits are given some degree of martial arts training and knife combat skills in boot camp and then receive far more once they reach their actual units that they will be deployed with…" Main page link Amicalement Armand
|
nsolomon99 | 03 Oct 2019 11:32 p.m. PST |
I think the author of this article has completely missed the evolution of warfare over the last 6 centuries. Warfare has evolved over recent centuries so that today a marine would shoot the knights horse at a range of several hundred meters – problem solved. Yep the knight could yet try walking and dragging his armour and weapons over the distance to get to the marines starting position. Of course, assuming he could do that, by the time he gets there the marine will have moved … and …. so on … and …. umm … when is it that the knight would get into hand-to-hand with a marine?! Duh!! |
HMS Exeter | 04 Oct 2019 3:45 a.m. PST |
Armored knight approaches a squad of Alabama National Guard troops. "I mean to smite you knaves!". Announces the knight. "Are you indicating hostile intent?" Retorts the squad leader. "Aye varlots." Sayeth the knight, as he continues to approach, morning star and shield in hand. After some discussion among the soldiers and a "weapons hot" approval from Company Hq., The soldiers opt to forego their projectile weaponry in the interests of fairness. They have a lively round of rock/paper/scissors to choose their "champion." Pfc. Ed Earl, our modern champion, at some range, attempts to negotiate with the knight. "You sure about this fella?" "Honor demands." Is the response. "Alrighty then." Ed Earl draws his utility blade, and uses it to dig up a medium sized rock. He places it in his utility bag and uses a zip tie to secure it closed. He runs up to the knight, dodges right to side step the shield. He brains the knight from behind, as the armor slows the knight's turn. When the knight comes to, his armor is gone and his legs are bound. A soldier hands him a beer, and says… "Y'all ain't from around here are ya?" |
BattlerBritain | 04 Oct 2019 5:45 a.m. PST |
|
jamemurp | 04 Oct 2019 6:07 a.m. PST |
So the question is who wins in a melee combat where one combatant has been trained specifically for that for the better part of their life, is equipped with the tools specifically designed for that type fight and the other has some hand to hand proficiency and backup tools? Seems a pretty obvious result. It like asking what would happen if an average soldier decided to get into a ring with a professional fighter or decided to race a professional runner. The Marine would also likely lose in hand to hand against a number of ancient and medieval foes equipped for melee. It's not what they are equipped or trained for and ignores their biggest strengths. Why not ask how those longbowmen shape up against a rifleman or an MG gunner? Or how that knight fares against modern "cavalry" such as AFVs, tanks, assault helicopters, etc. Heck, the Marine is more like a modern infantry man-at-arms and a fireteam would devastate much greater numbers of comparable troops from the era of mail or plate.
|
emckinney | 04 Oct 2019 8:40 a.m. PST |
|
magical monstrous steve | 04 Oct 2019 8:46 a.m. PST |
Napoleon's Imperial Guard could probably outperform Marines at close order drill but why would we care? The job of an army is to impose their will over a foe. While I like ahistoric matchups as much as the next grognard, this comparison is a little too much off point for my taste. |
Tango01 | 04 Oct 2019 12:33 p.m. PST |
(smile) I understand that it's about a hand to hand combat… not at distance…. Amicalement Armand
|
dapeters | 04 Oct 2019 12:52 p.m. PST |
Yes Roman success in to the north was not about individual weapons prowess. In fact that the problem with the middle ages prowess and little else. |
Legion 4 | 04 Oct 2019 1:11 p.m. PST |
Short Answer – modern troops will kick butt ! |
Uparmored | 05 Oct 2019 4:31 a.m. PST |
It's the Final Countdown! |
Gaz0045 | 05 Oct 2019 5:36 a.m. PST |
Try a LAW on an armoured knight…..or a Charlie G! |
Legion 4 | 05 Oct 2019 8:13 a.m. PST |
Generally speaking the current human is bigger and stronger than their Medieval counterparts. |
Cerdic | 05 Oct 2019 8:41 a.m. PST |
Reading the full article, the writer is pretty much spot on. It assumes no missile weapons or grenades. Just body armour and edged weapons. Of course the knight wins. His kit is designed for this. The modern body armour is designed to stop bullets not swords. The knight has trained since boyhood to do just this. A modern soldier is principally trained to fight at a distance. And Legion's last point about body size? Yes, if you are talking about the population in general. But knights were a military caste. Their ancestors had got that status because they tended to be bigger and stronger than the average person. They intermarried among their own caste, helping to keep those 'big' genes in the family. They also had access to much better nutrition than the average medieval person, again helping them to be bigger and stronger than average. Overall, if you take modern technology away, a modern person really, really, really wouldn't want to take on a medieval knight… |
Tango01 | 05 Oct 2019 12:27 p.m. PST |
I'm with Cedric…. Amicalement Armand
|
Lion in the Stars | 05 Oct 2019 12:41 p.m. PST |
|
Uparmored | 05 Oct 2019 7:49 p.m. PST |
Then there was Conan. He ate the same gruel as all the other slaves but I guess he just had the genes.. |
Gunfreak | 06 Oct 2019 1:37 a.m. PST |
Yes Roman success in to the north was not about individual weapons prowess. In fact that the problem with the middle ages prowess and little else Actually no, the medieval knight was superbly-drilled, trained to fight in tactical units as small as 15 men or as large as several hundred. They spend months each year training in large mock battles, and other types of training. |
Mobius | 06 Oct 2019 6:23 a.m. PST |
Of course the knight wins. His kit is designed for this. The modern body armour is designed to stop bullets not swords. The knight has trained since boyhood to do just this. A modern soldier is principally trained to fight at a distance Right. No weekend Alabama NG warrior is going to beat a knight. First of all they probably wouldn't understand each other even if they both spoke English. Next the NG soldier would have to hold back at first lest he is dealing with a drunk re-enactor. |
Keith Talent | 06 Oct 2019 8:13 a.m. PST |
There is lot of pointless nonsense on TMP these days… |
Legion 4 | 06 Oct 2019 8:54 a.m. PST |
A modern soldier is principally trained to fight at a distance. With modern tech it is a much more efficient and effective way to fight. Plus our modern tech is very good at killing large numbers of the enemy, fairly quickly, generally. E.g. my modern Mech Infantry Co. had about as much firepower as a WWII Infantry Bn, pretty much … But of course we are talking a 21st Century Troop vs. Medieval or Ancient warrior.
And Legion's last point about body size? Yes, if you are talking about the population in general. But knights were a military caste. Their ancestors had got that status because they tended to be bigger and stronger than the average person. They intermarried among their own caste, helping to keep those 'big' genes in the family. I was not there so I'm going to take you word for it … Overall, if you take modern technology away, a modern person really, really, really wouldn't want to take on a medieval knight… But our modern troops are professionals. Not the average modern human. Even in reports today, many of our allies mention how much bigger and stronger the average US troopers are. And if you take away modern tech, what is the modern troop using ? Knight, Roman, Spartan armor & weapons too ? There is lot of pointless nonsense on TMP these days… Yes … e.g. What if had a B-52 at Waterloo ? |
Swampster | 06 Oct 2019 1:47 p.m. PST |
Average height of skeletons in the Towton graves and on the Mary Rose was about the same – 5' 7". This is very similar to a wide swathe of the world today*, though the changes in diet have lead to a rapid increase in height in younger generations. Since knights tended to have more regular food supply, they were more likely to achieve more of their height potential. I've worked on 13th century skeletons that the on-site experts reckoned as at least 6'. *Some countries do have substantially taller averages. The Netherlands and the Scandie countries have mean male heights of about 5' 10.5" (180cm) for younger men. This is about the average height of US Marines in their mid-20s in 1995 (according to a paper in Military Medicine). |
Thresher01 | 07 Oct 2019 2:33 a.m. PST |
To be fair, a lot of our troops are beginning to look like, and be equipped very similarly to the knights of olde, with body armor made of ceramic plates, kevlar, etc., etc.. See their knee and elbow pads too. Will it be long before they are fully armored in new, high tech gear? I suspect if they can solve the weight and heat issues, that will come, eventually. The powered skeletons to assist and enhance strength may help with this also. Sci-Fi becomes reality, and what is olde is now new again. |
Legion 4 | 08 Oct 2019 7:27 a.m. PST |
*Some countries do have substantially taller averages. But I would venture to say, that again, troopers today are generally more muscular. I.e. More muscle mass than in the distant past. But again I was not there … in the distant past, that is. I've never work on skeletons … Save for about 5 we found along the Imjin River near the ROK DMZ in '85 IIRC. We turned them over to the UN. Then we gave them back to the PRC at a ceremony at Pan Mun Jom. Could not tell you if they were big, small, etc., just a bunch of bones [with some PRC Forces artifacts] that have been there since about '53 … The artifacts, Higher HQ put in the 2ID museum at Div. HQ … Where these remains were found were most likely KIA'd by US Forces. It was in the US Sector in '53 and then even in '85. Will it be long before they are fully armored in new, high tech gear? From what I understand they are working on it. I.e. Talos/Ironman suit, probably more. |
Asteroid X | 08 Oct 2019 11:27 p.m. PST |
A height requirement of 5' 7" was recorded in 367AD for the Roman legions (I believe this was the new shorter requirement from the prior 5'10" minimum in order to recruit more for the legions). Vegetius wrote in the 5th century the ideal height was 5' 10" and that the cavalry alae and the 1st Cohort should be at least 5' 8". As for the Marine "martial arts" program, I've witnessed it personally and it's really not that good … |
Legion 4 | 09 Oct 2019 2:01 a.m. PST |
As for the Marine "martial arts" program, I've witnessed it personally and it's really not that good … It's just basic Hand-to-Hand combat training "spiced up" a bit. Not meant to turn anyone into Chuck Norris, etc. As in the Army, etc., it's as much about confidence building as HtH Cbt training. As a modern soldier, your primary killing device is your personal weapon, e.g. M16/M4, etc. Again in modern warfare it is all about killing at longer ranges efficiently and effectively in larger numbers. HtH is a secondary skill, almost a last resort. Of course in Iraq and elsewhere. Which limits using supporting fires for fear of collateral damage, e.g. FA and CAS. It appears sometimes it becomes house to house – room to room. So possibly HtH, using a knife may prove useful. If you can't service the target(s) with your ranged weapon, i.e. M16/M4. Of course any training that increases combat readiness and lethality is a plus. We[in the US Army] used to train HtH many times when off duty. We had a number of officers who were highly rated Black Belts etc. Even though we had some "formal" training at one point or another, in HtH including knife fighting. Obviously it's generally easier to eliminate a target with a knife than with bare hands in most situations it would seem. Depending on the skill levels, etc.,. |
Gunfreak | 09 Oct 2019 7:08 a.m. PST |
But I would venture to say, that again, troopers today are generally more muscular. I.e. More muscle mass than in the distant past. But again I was not there … in the distant past, that is. old fart We have sources for what might be a typical "knights training regime" it's quite intense, most and lots of strength training. But also indurance. So a knight who was actually interested in the marital art could be quite ripped. Not John Cena or The Rock(though some might reach that level too) but they would be quite muscled. Also hight isn't so much depended on regular food supply, most people in the medieval world had food security, barring an actual famine. Even the lowest farmer usually grew enough to keep his family well enough fed. But it would mostly be porrage, other cereal foods like bread. Fatty food like butter would be seen as a semi common luxury, depending on where you lived. But there would be relatively little red meat, and that's one of the main keys. You can be well fed on barley and fish. But if you want to grow tall, beef and to a lesser extent pork is important. The Japanese have actually grown quite a bit on average the last few generations, as they added beef to their regular diet instead of just fish, rice and vegetables. Same is now seen in China as you get a more wealthy middle class. But they are lagging several decades behind the Japanese. |
Legion 4 | 09 Oct 2019 1:36 p.m. PST |
it's quite intense, most and lots of strength training. But also endurance. The same with many in today's military. But there would be relatively little red meat, and that's one of the main keys. Very true … meat protein is important to growing muscle mass and strength. could be quite ripped. I used to lift weights and was a gym rat much of my life. Even managed a gym for 16 yrs, after I got out of the Army. Getting "ripped" is generally difficult even today. I don't think even intensely trained medieval Knights, would have a hard time doing that unless they were very under fed. You have to build a lot of muscle mass before you change your training and diet to get "ripped". I'd think the Knight would not be ripped based on today's standard. They may have lean muscle mass. But no where are big as anyone today. I don't think many understand how sports figures, movie stars, etc. Actually how difficult it is to build big muscles and then get ripped. And in many cases those "musclemen" of today, have "pharma" help. |
Puster | 14 Oct 2019 2:18 a.m. PST |
May I cite this from the webpage given:
To compare the two is not appropriate I tend to agree both to their conclusion and especially this statement. |
Legion 4 | 14 Oct 2019 7:23 a.m. PST |
|
dapeters | 14 Oct 2019 12:13 p.m. PST |
Gunfreak with respect I have to ask for your sources? Particularity this: "trained to fight in tactical units" given the turn over in retinues makes this highly unlikely (read Hans Delbruck appendices.) Yes a knight or gentlemen at arms might have been vigorously trained and might still enjoy some sort of sparing and may look forward to the next test of arms but who was going to ensure that this guy continued to seriously train? |
Gunfreak | 14 Oct 2019 1:14 p.m. PST |
|
Lion in the Stars | 15 Oct 2019 11:54 a.m. PST |
There is an immense difference between the old job-oriented exercises and modern deliberate strength training. And even more with the development of the 'combat athlete' model of military physical fitness testing. I'd bet that the average grunt today could pick up a medieval knight overhead (probably 220lbs or thereabouts, assuming a 160lb knight and 60lbs of gear), before slamming said kaniggit into the ground on his back. Granted, our Grunt would need to get past the sword and board first, but modern training is all about explosive speed and power in the middle of a run. |
Gunfreak | 15 Oct 2019 12:38 p.m. PST |
They did deliberate strength training. Including lifting big logs and stones. Jumping both with and without gear. Except for modern equipment, the training would look quite similar. The main difference ofcourse is that in modern armies every one receives the same training. While for a knight it was based on how much he actually cared about Marital arts. If you were just fop, with money and title's but cared not the military aspect, then naturally you'd skimp on the training. If however you cared for the martial part of your class, you could be a superbly drilled, superbly athletic man. |
dapeters | 15 Oct 2019 12:38 p.m. PST |
Gunfreak read that, all be it a long time ago and that's not the take away I got. The religious orders and the Swiss were the real exceptions particularly for discipline in keeping order. In Bert Hall's work, he suggest that actually the leaders had to be very good to try to incorporate the lack of discipline in their forces. |
Gunfreak | 16 Oct 2019 8:08 a.m. PST |
And J. F. Verbruggen book is exactly to debunk the older text, and apparently the later text that didn't bother reading J. F. Verbruggen but read Oman instead. His book lays out the training, discipline, he uses several historical battles to show the complex cooperation between formations of knights etc. |
dapeters | 16 Oct 2019 11:54 a.m. PST |
IIRC J. F. Verbruggenwas about the success of infantry. Citing battles were Knights and men at arms were not a major influences. |
Legion 4 | 17 Oct 2019 7:42 a.m. PST |
Of course Medieval Knights could use magic if they had Merlin or someone like that on their side … |