crusader knights with the templars and hospitallers against Napoleonic calvary without guns just swords who would win?

[jackwei]

i say crusader knights since they could fight on ground too and were good fighters and more bloody and hungry, but on the other hands the napoleonic times calvary were good and use to charging infantry and had lighter swords, but they had no shields. i dunno still a tough one hard. does any have a good analysis who would win?

[dragases1453]

I'm quite sure Templars or Hospitallers would have won..i mean they jad a good shield(the kite one), a long spear and fantastic swords...Napoleonic cuirassiers couldn't win against crusader cavalry...

[jackwei]

just as i expected in the crusader the days they had stronger swords too and were more ruthless and hungry for blood especially with the brutality in those days the napoleonic calvary are good fighters too but face it the templars or hospitallers would wipe the floor with them.

[Kaapeli]

Without pistols knights have the obvious advantage.
Even with pistols it could go either way because even in Napoleonic times cavalry fights were often decided by the sword.

[Harbringerxv8]

Do the Templars/Hospitallers have armor? Because the armor back then was distinctly more thorough than the armor of the Napoleonic Era (which was very limited, seeing as how everybody used guns at the time).

[HeracliustheVictor]

A heavily armed and armored man who is used to closehand combat against a man who has just a breastplate and relatively weak sword. Hmm Im going to have to go with the knight.

[UnderdawgIV]

Of course hands down the templars or any heavily armoured knights/gendarmes from the middle ages would win against a relatively 'light' (by the middle age standard) cuirassier (The heaviest cavalary of the Napoleonic Wars).

But they we in different eras in different eras of warfare. The heavily armoured knight was designed to break formations of also armoured infantry formations while the cuirrasier was designed to break up formations of unarmored infantry (musketmen/riflemen; line infantry). If you use the Templar in the Napoleonic Wars, they would be too slow and probably just shot down by volley after volley from the concentrated fire of Napoleonic infantry.

[Kretchfoop]

Of course hands down the templars or any heavily armoured knights/gendarmes from the middle ages would win against a relatively 'light' (by the middle age standard) cuirassier (The heaviest cavalary of the Napoleonic Wars).

But they we in different eras in different eras of warfare. The heavily armoured knight was designed to break formations of also armoured infantry formations while the cuirrasier was designed to break up formations of unarmored infantry (musketmen/riflemen; line infantry). If you use the Templar in the Napoleonic Wars, they would be too slow and probably just shot down by volley after volley from the concentrated fire of Napoleonic infantry.

I think Underdawg is right on the money here. The two were designed under very different circumstances to fulfill different roles on the battlefield. It would be somewhat similar to asking who would win in close combat, a Roman Legionary or a WWI soldier who couldn't shoot his gun. It's not really a fair comparison.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

I think Underdawg is right on the money here. The two were designed under very different circumstances to fulfill different roles on the battlefield. It would be somewhat similar to asking who would win in close combat, a Roman Legionary or a WWI soldier who couldn't shoot his gun. It's not really a fair comparison.

Quite. Once again, these "who would win" threads prove themselves exercises in total silliness.

And the Templars etc would not have had "heavier" or "stronger" swords. Both their swords and most of the swords of the Napoleonic Era would have been about 2-2.5 lbs. That's because most one-handed swords in the whole of history were 2-2.5 lbs. Even rapiers, which people seem to assume were very light weapons (largely thanks to Hollywood and the feather-like weight of fencing rapiers), were also 2-2.5 lbs.

Medieval swords were not heavy - they weighed the same as later rapiers and just about any other one-handed sword: 2-2.5 lbs.

[UnderdawgIV]

Quite. Once again, these "who would win" threads prove themselves exercises in total silliness.

And the Templars etc would not have had "heavier" or "stronger" swords. Both their swords and most of the swords of the Napoleonic Era would have been about 2-2.5 lbs. That's because most one-handed swords in the whole of history were 2-2.5 lbs. Even rapiers, which people seem to assume were very light weapons (largely thanks to Hollywood and the feather-like weight of fencing rapiers), were also 2-2.5 lbs.

Medieval swords were not heavy - they weighed the same as later rapiers and just about any other one-handed sword: 2-2.5 lbs.

Meh, ... the "wonders" erm... stereotypes perpetrated by the 4th branch of the government erm... Hollywood. Hey, what can you do?

How about a zheiwander? How much would such a thing weigh? Not that it has much relevance to anything. *Realizes the total inefficiency of asking such a question when one can simply google it, but still leaves the question there*

[Aether]

Quite. Once again, these "who would win" threads prove themselves exercises in total silliness.

And the Templars etc would not have had "heavier" or "stronger" swords. Both their swords and most of the swords of the Napoleonic Era would have been about 2-2.5 lbs. That's because most one-handed swords in the whole of history were 2-2.5 lbs. Even rapiers, which people seem to assume were very light weapons (largely thanks to Hollywood and the feather-like weight of fencing rapiers), were also 2-2.5 lbs.

Medieval swords were not heavy - they weighed the same as later rapiers and just about any other one-handed sword: 2-2.5 lbs.

Of course you are right about the weight but don't forget the most important factor is balance, the balance in early medieval weaponry was different and made the sword heavier then later swords, medieval european swords come forth from vikinger (year 900) and celtic swords so say's "The sword in the age of chivalry" (Ewart Oakeshott 4th edition)where the heavy side was the hilt and pommel while you also have to consider the fuller and the riser later on which defined the better sword. Of course the Spatha used by the cavalry auxiliaries of Romans (german, ghauls mostly) was again seen as the same type of swords in the 14th and 15th century with the narrow pointed blade.

[Holger Danske]

How about cavemen vs ewoks?

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

Of course you are right about the weight but don't forget the most important factor is balance, the balance in early medieval weaponry was different and made the sword heavier then later swords,

If a sword weighs the same as another sword, it therefore can't be "heavier" - it weighs the same. All differences in balance do is change the way it "handles" and moves the "sweet point" on the blade forward or back. Many medieval swords were "back weighted", as befitted slashing weapons. Later medieval swords - like the estoc - were balanced differently, since they were both slashing and stabbing weapons.

That doesn't make a medieval sword "heavier" than an Napoleonic weapon and it certainly doesn't make it either superior or inferior.

medieval european swords come forth from vikinger (year 900) and celtic swords so say's "The sword in the age of chivalry" (Ewart Oakeshott 4th edition)where the heavy side was the hilt and pommel while you also have to consider the fuller and the riser later on which defined the better sword.

A fuller or riser didn't make a sword "better", it simply changed the amount of effort and skill required of the smith to make the sword well-balanced while maintaining a suitable, weildable weight.

Of course the Spatha used by the cavalry auxiliaries of Romans (german, ghauls mostly) was again seen as the same type of swords in the 14th and 15th century with the narrow pointed blade.

Spathae were primarily slashing weapons. Fourteenth and Fifteenth Cenutry swords were primarily stabbing weapons. Chalk and cheese. The former has a flat cross-section, straight edges and a rounded point. The latter have diamond cross-sections, tapering edges and acute points. The two types of blade couldn't be more different.

[Aether]

Spathae were primarily slashing weapons. Fourteenth and Fifteenth Cenutry swords were primarily stabbing weapons. Chalk and cheese. The former has a flat cross-section, straight edges and a rounded point. The latter have diamond cross-sections, tapering edges and acute points. The two types of blade couldn't be more different.

Here you are mistaking, many earlier swords we see returning in the later centuries so the diamond shaped return in 14th and 15th century swords, as well as the broad bladed swords, how I know? Well the same book I recommended earlier the sword in the age of chivalry but he uses many different sources to proof his statements, stabbing is wrong to say that 14th and 15th century where only that when you have many manuscripts of 15th and 14th century where they teach thrusting, cutting and grappling and so on, so no I'm not convinced in your statement of 15th century to be used solely for stabbing when you see that armor plate weren't frequently used in southern parts of europe. An example of the diamond shaped sword from the coronation of the virgin by giovanni bellini 1474 or the german Dürer in the Bayern national museum. Or in the Henry Kinsbey Collection de Cosson an Laking italian diamond flat shaped.


The fuller was needed to make a better balance and lessen the weight of a sword and to make the sword more flexible when the riser made mostly at the tip of the sword, (not all swords but many) would be to make the sword stronger at that part, while I was in the Brussels museum I asked to weigh a couple of swords and the earlier swords weighed more in my hand then the later medieval swords, I know that they weight the same but the fact is that with the earlier swords I would have a faster fatigue then with the latter which proofs that it is heavier not in kilo's but in balance. I must admit the swords weren't in great shape so it could be the balance was totally unbalanced and no I didn't touch it with my hands we had to wear white gloves and I didn't swing it so I don't have a real feel of it but still the difference was noteable. Ad I found another one in the museum of Paris mid 15th century the sword is similar to the one attributed to Henry V in Westminster abbey. And another sword second half of the 15th century a typical sword like in the drawings of Schöngrauer also diamondshaped and late 15th century for the Arch Duke of Milan philip the Handsome.

[generally amusing]

What a long, pointless title.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

Here you are mistaking, many earlier swords we see returning in the later centuries so the diamond shaped return in 14th and 15th century swords, as well as the broad bladed swords

There were some broad-bladed weapons in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Century, but the narrower, highly tapered and diamond-sectioned blades were most common. And they are nothing like spathae.

how I know? Well the same book I recommended earlier the sword in the age of chivalry but he uses many different sources to proof his statements,

I know. I first read Oakeshott's Sword in the Age of Chivalry 22 years ago and often refer to my copy and to several of his other books.

stabbing is wrong to say that 14th and 15th century where only that when you have many manuscripts of 15th and 14th century where they teach thrusting, cutting and grappling and so on, so no I'm not convinced in your statement of 15th century to be used solely for stabbing

I didn't say "solely", I said the diamond-sectioned swords of that later period were designed primarily for stabbing. That doesn't mean they were used solely for stabbing. And I'm quite aware of the range of attacks and techniques used in that period - I learned medieval fencing alongside one of these guys.

The fuller was needed to make a better balance and lessen the weight of a sword and to make the sword more flexible when the riser made mostly at the tip of the sword, (not all swords but many) would be to make the sword stronger at that part, while I was in the Brussels museum I asked to weigh a couple of swords and the earlier swords weighed more in my hand then the later medieval swords, I know that they weight the same but the fact is that with the earlier swords I would have a faster fatigue then with the latter which proofs that it is heavier not in kilo's but in balance. I must admit the swords weren't in great shape so it could be the balance was totally unbalanced and no I didn't touch it with my hands we had to wear white gloves and I didn't swing it so I don't have a real feel of it but still the difference was noteable.

So, as I said, we're talking about a difference in balance, not weight. Having used both earlier, highly back-weighted swords without fullers etc and the later ones, I'd say you wouldn't become fatigued faster with the earlier ones, you'd just have to get used to the different balance. As we keep agreeing - the weight is exactly the same. Adjusting to different balances, on the other hand, takes practice.

[Raven D.]

It is not that sure that the knights will win. Sure, they would surely have more experience in swordfigthing, but their heavy armor also makes them slow. If you are under many pounds of armor you can´t move as swiftly as with a simple uniform. Many of the napoleonic soldiers would wait for their moment to strike and hit the crusaders at vulnerable spots. Wait for the emeny to strike, evade, use the moment and strike. Also the Knights would be tired soon, and if everything fails, the napoleonic people could still run away.

[Odovacar]

Hmm...in my humble opinion, the napoleonic cavalry without pistols would be surely defeated.
The medieval knights won mail hauberks, had shields, helmets.
They were melee specialists. The napoleonic cavalry could surely fight longer without armour, only problem is that they would not survive that long enough
They could not hurt the knights who would just butcher them. Maybe that's why light cavalry used not engage heavy cavalry directly one by one in Middle Ages?
It would be a horrible massacre. Like boxing with a steel robot....

[Evan_Kikla]

God God who the hell cares?

[lencal]

My vote goes with the Napolionic Cavalry..why? Tactics !! The French cavalry would be too fast, they would be able to cut the horses from under the knights and once on the ground a foot soldiers rarely survives against cavalry regardless of his armour, if knocked to the ground the heavily armoured knight would be a sitting duck ( like the French at Agincourt ). So, given that Napoleonic Cavalry have the advantage in speed and hit and run tactics, they should win. As we all know the main ingredient to win a battle or a sporting contest is SPEED !!