Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Rykion" data-source="post: 5121582" data-attributes="member: 33035">I'm sorry that you took offense.&nbsp; Nothing I wrote was meant as anything but discussion of a topic, well an off topic. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />My position is simply that knighthood started as a way to guarantee that a nation had access to heavy cavalry.&nbsp; Ancient cavalrymen had to be well off to afford horses and gear, but it wasn't until around the time of Charlemagne that they formed a true noble class themselves.&nbsp; It was a good idea that worked, but a little too well.&nbsp; As the practice grew, knights became the dominant professional military force because of their political and social power.&nbsp; I believe using the resources available to create a more balanced professional military that included well trained and equipped infantry as well as cavalry would have been more effective in most situations and more economical.&nbsp; The vast majority of people would still be serfs, but a freeholder class of relatively small landowners would have been able to provide the soldiery.&nbsp; Unfortunately, that class virtually disappeared as feudalism developed in Europe with the exception of the English yeoman.&nbsp; &nbsp; I certainly agree with all of this.&nbsp; It's also important to point out that feudal states and the concepts of knighthood were still developing in the Viking Age.&nbsp; The concept of knights as the &quot;true&quot; professional soldier hadn't spread throughout Europe.&nbsp; The Vikings themselves were a good indication that a professional infantry force still had a place in warfare.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Rykion, post: 5121582, member: 33035"] I'm sorry that you took offense. Nothing I wrote was meant as anything but discussion of a topic, well an off topic. :) My position is simply that knighthood started as a way to guarantee that a nation had access to heavy cavalry. Ancient cavalrymen had to be well off to afford horses and gear, but it wasn't until around the time of Charlemagne that they formed a true noble class themselves. It was a good idea that worked, but a little too well. As the practice grew, knights became the dominant professional military force because of their political and social power. I believe using the resources available to create a more balanced professional military that included well trained and equipped infantry as well as cavalry would have been more effective in most situations and more economical. The vast majority of people would still be serfs, but a freeholder class of relatively small landowners would have been able to provide the soldiery. Unfortunately, that class virtually disappeared as feudalism developed in Europe with the exception of the English yeoman. I certainly agree with all of this. It's also important to point out that feudal states and the concepts of knighthood were still developing in the Viking Age. The concept of knights as the "true" professional soldier hadn't spread throughout Europe. The Vikings themselves were a good indication that a professional infantry force still had a place in warfare. [/QUOTE]

Verification