Knights are so good to RP. Both a dandy fop and a trained killer. Expects to be respected by everyone. Every peasant they've ever talked to before has been their property. 8th generation to lease this same swath of land from the king. Has a code of honor they are spiritually obligated to perform but actually they can't live up to the demands and nobody else in society even bothers. It's tragic, it's farcical, it's social commentary, it's Lawful Good baby!
Your presence is enough my friend! It's a hard time for a lot of folks but getting notified or commenting like this really does help a ton so I appreciate it.
You don't have to, but it actually does. Even if people don't buy/back every notify link that we get makes it more likely, kickstarter recommends it to new folks. I'm not gonna say I don't want money (I do), but it really does help. (Edited to add this) Also, as someone who has lived hand to mouth before, I recognize that I am immensely privileged to be doing this and I don't expect anything from yall. You watching the stuff I make is genuinely a lot to me.
@DesksAndDorks someone has to take care of the horses, might as well be that cousin of yours mom said you should help finding a job. As you've said on one of your exemples, knightly families were kind like mob families.
Well his degree was probably taught by rapid atheists and feminists who “recontextualize” everything to fit their modern world view. Protecting women like 99% of all civilized societies have done in history = super bigoted and problematic and oppressive, especially since these are white and Christian people. Must be all a ruse so they can abuse people constantly
I forget where I heard it but in my college days a paper proposed the idea that a lot of knights had very colorful armor or at least not plain steel. Assuming this is true, the scenario of a footman seeing a column of knights arrive but they have all these brightly colored tunics, banners, sashes, painted armor, shields I think helps convey the awe they could have felt. “Our knights are here, their colors seen from a thousand yards. They arrive with the colors of our lords and country!”
Later knights (late 15th c.) preferred plain steel. They called it "white armor". Being able to display the intricacies of your plate harness was a status symbol.
Imagine if your ever rent seeking landlord would wear a set of power armour and drive around on a tank. That's what a knight was to a peasant, at least to my understanding.
I'll sign that consent form for a game with murder, torture, body horror, and assault without a second thought, but I draw the line at nauseating puns!
The Hospitaller actually survived way passed the Ottomans. They eventually settled in Malta 🇲🇹 and still hold massive cultural significance there. There’s a whole epic episode about them tangling with the Ottomans for a final time with “the siege of Malta”
(that Greenwich armour was a practical armour, i haven't encountered a "non-practiacal" set of armour. The closest thing to Parade in this period is the tournament. for which you need practical armour. Secondly. I think plate was a lot more common than youre letting on. Especially for the knightly class. Plate harness neing issued to retainer knights is well documented. Although i do appreciate the shout out to my boys in full maille. Very cool video
I tried to make that distinction clear (idk if it came through) because I'd read most parade armor was still functional. Also yes plate was more common but that good full plate was so hard to come by! I'm glad you're enjoying the content!
@@DesksAndDorksConsider adding clarifications like "in the late 13th century, full plate harnesses were rare and hard to come by" because battles like Crecy & Poitiers in the mid 14th Century showed us countless knights and men-at-arms in full plate harnesses.
Love your videos! I have been really enjoying listening to these videos and exploring the low fantasy integration that I love bringing to my games. A small thing for this video since I married a medievalist and have been thoroughly corrected over the years, one of if not the most important part of being a knight would be their horse. It was the symbol of their power and was a key part of knightdom and why so much of their training revolved around them. But given the limitations most tabletop combat horses tend to be hard to fit in. As you said, the devastating power of knights was nearly uncontested for most of the medieval period until the pike and shotte era finally curbed their status. Second small thing, the Knights Hospitaller managed to survive the Ottomans and were only unseated from Malta by Napoleon of all people but survived nonetheless. My father was a corporal in their ranks as they are now basically a Catholics-only Red Cross organization. Just a fascinating thing how of all the military orders they managed to survive and maintain their roles as healers to this day.
Was looking forward to this video and it certainly exceeded expectations. Great work! Minor correction, the hospitallers are still around today though their days as a fighting force ended around the tail end of the 1790s after a run in with revolutionary france - that role had been in decline for a while anyway. If that teaches us anything, it's that France and militant orders do not work well together 😅 The Ottomans did yeet them out of the middle east and later out of Rhodes, but that just precipitated their evolution into seaborne crusaders and privateers, which is a pretty epic story 😁
About the military orders, would the Templars or Teutonic Knights have been tonsured? In movies and art they always seem to have a full head of hair, but why wouldn’t they have had the same haircut as monks of other rules? Ransom culture is such an untapped source of adventure hooks. Imagine the player characters having to guard a knight’s ransom on the way to being delivered, or being part of a raiding party to steal that ransom for themselves. Or the taxes laid to raise a ransom have provoked a peasants’ revolt that now has to be dealt with, preferably without massacring lots of people, or the characters themselves are in danger of losing house and home to those taxes. Or maybe the reason we need to go slay the gold-guarding dragon or loot the wizard’s tower is because we need the money to pay Uncle FitzLeon’s ransom. Maybe the dowry that the beautiful princess brings to her marriage is needed to pay a ransom, but the princess has other ideas. And on and on.
I'd have to look into tonsuring. My guess is it wasn't a requirement for the military wings of the order (it would have been hard to enforce grooming standards like that logistically), but I can't say for certainty. Also, I know! I love and have run ransom plot lines before, and they are great fun.
Tonsures: no order militant was tonsured to my knowledge. But not all monastic orders were either. The templars definitely weren't. When they were founded it was argued that wearing their hair long, rather than having it trimmed in the latest fashions, showed a humbleness and lack of vanity. Then because of their social influence long hair came into fashion and they were soon criticised for having long luxurious well maintained locks, as was the fashion, and that was evidently a sign of their vanity. Lol.
Just recently discovered your channel and I have to say it satisfies an itch for me. I’ve been looking for channel based in fantasy and history. Keep up the good work! Past week been listening while cleaning and relaxing.
Are there plans for your company to eventually make a historical fiction or low fantasy with realistic history depictions tabletop RPG? I think that would be loads of fun
As of right now, we have a 2025 release that isn't specifically low fantasy (the system should allow for a lot of expression), but HEAVILY uses low fantasy concepts and political intrigue for roleplaying. That's about all I can say now, but it's going to be a doozy if the playtest feedback is any indication.
It feels a bit like of ad nauseam to keep mentioning this word "Mercenary" but I was curious about how knights interact with mercenaries. At an initial glance this would seem like to types of people from history that would not have much in common, in the sense that chivalry would seem to be at odds with the idea of exchanging money for violence. However historically we know that quite often mercenary bands worked in close tandem with knights quite regularly. One of the French Kings had such faith in the Swiss that he's said to have refused to take the field if his force didn't have a regiment of Swiss at it's center, and created some weird rules for the Army. Such as forbidding the army from yodeling or eating melted cheese for fear the Swiss soldiers would become homesick and dissert.
Many knights fought as mercenaries bro. In Geoffrey de Charney's (legendary 14th century French knight) book on chivalry, he had an entire section dedicated to how to make money as a knight undergoing mercenary work. 14th century knights were PAID by their lieges when they went on campaign. Sir Jean de Courrouges, another 14th century French knight, was knighted mid-campaign (Admiral Jean de Vienne's royal expedition to Scotland) and so he had to go argue with the royal treasurer in Paris because he was owed twice the money paid to him since he was knighted.
@@AyEhm-ii2dp This wasn’t my question, and the topic of mercenary knights was covered explicitly in this video. One of the chapters is named as such. I asked about how Knights interacted with mercenaries and mentioned a non-noble example.
About the weapons: none are going to penetrate full plate armor apart from maybe a big greatsword or a pollaxe. It's just not possible, even with spiky hammers. However, they make it easy to target weak spots and work for lesser armoured opponents, or, in case of maces, stun someone, thus allowing for ransom later.
Tbh I feel like this video encompasses a lot of why knights are as much a psychological weapon as an actual one. I mean, imagine being some levied peasant and facing down a man who's twice your weight in fat and muscle, wearing armor you are not equipped to pierce, and who you know has been training to kill people for decades.
I stayed to the end of the Q&A, firstly the granite joke is top notch and I can’t wait to see it again with more build-up Second, thanks for making these videos, they’re super interesting and helpful to a history nerd and first-time DM writing my first setting and campaign from scratch (I did choose the hardest path possible to begin DMing DND lol). My setting is more an early modern dark fantasy than medieval low fantasy, but many of the ideas are easily portable into the later time period (as you know, I’m sure, with your using Renaissance examples for medieval ideas and such). But yeah, you’ve gained a subscriber and your ideas are getting out there and being used in the wild, know that your efforts are not in vain!
That is technically true, but it feels like calling a chicken a dinosaur. Technically, they've got the closest approximation to dinosaur DNA. In practice, no one is afraid of Chicken Nugget Park.
Hello I'm a layperson and certainly less qualified than you but I think there's a few points that could be expounded upon. When you refer to the elite noble knights it sounds like you're referring to the landholding lords who would owe a Servitium debitum in return for their lands. This as you know was the service owed and was contractually agreed upon between the king and his tenant. However, throughout the 13th century during the several assizement of arms it was found barons had too few or too many knights. On top of this there where several rounds of impressments, announcements where peasants with 40 pounds worth of land (around 1000 acres) were forced to become knights. Why would you not want to become a knight? Knights had military and civil duties, in england at least knights where obligated to perform dury dutie; and by 1300 increasingly involved in the house of commons as officials elected by landholding tenants (each shire had two knights elected by everyone who held land). I think some historians posit this led to a change in knighthood which became more expensive and had greater political duties. One of my history books (i'll check which) posits that men at arms (which it argues refers to all armoured cavalry) was only 20% knights with the rest being either squires or wealthy enterprising peasents. Also during the assizements of arms the quality of equipment a knight is required to have increases, by the 15th century I don't think someone equipped in full mail would be classed as a knight with plate having become a requirement.
For a lay person I think you are incredibly well informed and this all about 100 percent correct. A lot of the stuff that I present I feel like i need to cut down on. The civil responsibilities of knights was originally going to be a longer part of this presentation but got cut down for time also for the men at arms/cavalry it depends largely on the army and the type of relationship had by its wealthy citizenry and the nobility. France and England had very much a more noble focused approach to heavy cavalry (with me at arms taking up.lighter cavalry positions). The holy Roman empire and many of the Italian city states had the wealthy civilian merchant cavalry that you describe. Thank you for the comment. It's seriously well informed and was a lot of fun to read!
So I’m a bit confused. You describe stuff like the siege of Jerusalem as crimes. However I was under the impressions that stuff like the Siege of Jerusalem was standard modus operandi for armies of the time. Like doing stuff like that was just common and normal stuff for people to do.
I bring up sacks not because they were uncommon (it varies depending on the nation state and the parameters surrounding each conflict) but to draw attention to the fact that knights were not opposed to it ans in fact reveled in violence in some cases. What I will add is that the swine of Jerusalem during the first crusade and it's subsequent sacking were seen as particularly barbaric even by the standards of the day. Which is saying something.
@@DesksAndDorks Ah, I see. That much said, and correct me if I’m wrong, but given the fact that things like public executions were seen as entertaining fanfare among the common peoples I’m under the impression revelry in violence was a normal thing in premodern societies in general. (Apparently they’d pour salt on the condemned metaphorical wound by auctioning off his property right in front of him before the deed was done.). Honestly sacking a town of a kingdom you were at war with seems like something the common peasantry would feel comfortable bragging about to friends and family at the local tavern.
I think it's important to consider the context and target of violence in the Middle Ages. Yes, public executions would have been seen as entertainment, but there's a big difference between a single criminal and wholesale slaughter. So much so that the code of chivalry did expressly forbid it (which didn't stop such things, but it's important to note there was an understanding that it was bad enough to be banned). Again, these were people more accustomed to violence and hardship than the modern person, but I think assuming they would be alright with the sack and slaughter of people on a regular basis as a bit of an inaccuracy.
@@DesksAndDorks oh ok, I suppose it makes sense. Though in all fairness if from what I’ve listened to and read about Feudalism is correct, the decentralized and chaotic nature of feudalism and the political and economic instability it normally entails meant that enforcement of the laws was on a very individualistic basis. That is to say the nobles in charge would only enforce laws whenever they felt like it.
That’s not to say there were no outside pressures that would influence their decisions, just that they were less likely to be penalized for their lax in their duties compared to today
Loving the deep dive as always! It enables me to find some cool inspiration to reskin into my own setting (which is neither medieval nor European; more of iron age desert setting) Oh and also I'm glad you mentioned a way to help out with the kickstarter even if I'm dead broke
A note about daggers. Daggers of the late medieval and renaissance eras were not slicing/cutting daggers. They looked more like a railroad spike with a handle than a knife. Called rondel daggers. And they usually had a flat round pommel much like the head of a nail. This is so that you could hold the rondel dagger with one hand and slam your armored fist into the bottom with the other punching through the Chainmail. And they were usually jabbed into very unpleasant places, like the eyeslits, armpits, inner elbow, back of the knees, and of course the groin! Because the joints are the weakest armor points. And as they weren’t cutting daggers (in fact most of them probably couldn’t slice at all) they were probably excruciatingly painful (more than getting stabbed with a sharp knife usually is) because you are getting a relatively dull spike jammed about 8-14 inches into your body
One of the first proper history books I read was 'the Greatest Knight' by Thomas Asbridge, which is an account of the life of Sir William Marshal. What I found interesting was his discussion of chivalry - he caviates it with the fact that chivalry was a very new idea at the time, still in its infancy. He also says that chivalric authors like Chretien de Troyes were writing less about how chivalry was and more about how they felt it should be, which suggests that they didn't consider it to be being practiced properly. For William Marshal's part, his idea of chivalry seems to focus on loyalty and dutiful service of his liege, alongside proper treatment of fellow nobles, something which caused him problems under John's reign when the two ideals clashed. Chivalry didn't serve as some kind of stringent code of honour and sportsmanship (something well demonstrated in tactics used in tournaments and the use of the chevauchet), but more as a soceital expectation of how people were meant to be treated. Who that included often varied from knight to knight, resulting in some pretty deplorable acts. For example, King John had a young relative (if memory serves a nephew) who was another candidate for the throne. King Phillip of France tried to install the kid as monarch, but John captured him and, according to the account of one knight, killed him, something which would have been considered deplorable by most people (as John's treatment of many nobles was considered at the time, hence the barons' revolt). This was evidently something John didn't see as a problem. However, Phillip knew it was considered one, so any time John tried to do negotiations, Phillip demanded that the young boy be shown to be alive and well to ensure good will, something which John never did and gave Phillip license to keep pursuing attempts at territorial expansion into England.
William Marshall is one of my favorite knights of all time and one of the few that seemed to embody the soul of chivalry and chivalric virtue. In many ways, he is the exception that proces the rule.
@DesksAndDorks I found him very interesting. Primarily his unflinching loyalty, which is a testament to strength of character and a strong moral code I think you're right, his reputation is certainly a testament to how much he stood above his peers. Certainly at the time he was considered an exemplar of what chivalry was meant to look like.
He's my legit favorite figure in medieval history. His story feels too insane to not be embellished, and yet from what I've read, it's essentially all true. He's like a hyper intelligent medieval, Forrest Gump it's honestly so much fun reading about his life.
Shadow of the Weird Wizard (the succesor to Shadow of the Demon Lord) has a fun class option of the "questing knight" in the Knight-Errant (lvl 3 expert path, go Fighter at lvl 1, or Rogue of you want to emulate Alwen Scribe from the novel 'The Pariah', I digress.) In addition to your level based class features, the Knight-Errant also gets Fame in populated areas and provides with an armored warhorse, a horse, a mule with 2 saddle bags, a lance, shield, mace, sword, and platemail, and a Paige follower. At lvl 6 they also get a personal Squire. This is, as in history, a sizeable cost in game currency given out as part of the story of this path. If the character foreswears their noble patron or dishonors themselves, they become a Black Knight and no longer get their gear repaired/replaced for free, can no longer display the noble coat of arms and instead of Fame, they have Infamy where in populated areas they are villified instead of lauded. Again, this all "bonus features" of this character path in addition to their actual class skills and stats and powers, which reaolve around nounted combat, fighting with knightly weapons and being generally fearless heroic types. I think it would be fun to start out as a Black Kinght in search of redemption or a patron, just you and your few loyal followers (and allies in the other players in a group game).
Somewhat related, but I'm working on a shadowdark mass combat supplement and this brought up some questions I hadn't found a good answer for. 1. Were knights *the* heavy cavalry of their time, or were there some kind of heavy cavalry equivalent that weren't knight? I have them as separate units, but considering your point that a knights retinue would contain plenty of skilled and similarly armed and armored men-at-arms, I'm thinking it might be more appropriate to roll them together into a single unit. 2. Would unlanded knights be paid a salary or stipend by their leige to accommodate their lack of revenue generation? If so, how much would be reasonable to expect be given? 3. Is there a general rule or metric that can be followed for determining what a reasonable number of knights a given noble might have under their command?
I wish I had this for the q+a! 1. Knights were the heavy cavalry. There were higher cav units and some armored or mounted men at arms but for Europe. There were obviously some retinues that worked like mixed units but those were not quite a unit. 2. Unwanted knights would have been paid but calling it a salary might be a bit of a misnomer. Likely they would have been up front some amount then given cuts of plunder and most likely a place to stay as well as help maintaining their equipment. 3. There isn't a general rule or metric but a good thing to consider is that armies march on their stomachs. A force of 30-50 knights and their retinues would have represented a SIGNIFICANT military force. But that means those animals and people need to be fed and cared for which is a significant drain on resources. Large armies don't happen much in the middle ages. Hope this helps!
Another week, another banger. Raking my brain for feedback, I lost the plot a little bit like halfway-2/3rds through, I don't know if the main hypothesis wasn't reinforced enough there or if I'm just out of it a bit (busy week). I should join the Discord; I've forgotten to
I think it would be a good idea to give some sources for what you talk about in the description, just to back up what you say and your assertions and critiques, not only to understand where you’re coming from, but also to know where you’re getting you information and ideas. I’m speaking as a person with a lot of interest in the cultural, religious and intellectual milieus of medieval age in Europe, the Islamicate world and beyond, as well as having an interest in the ‘low’ or grounded side of fantastical literature, past and present.
I forget the source, it might have been Jim Davis of Web DM, who described chivalry as a way for these men of violence and bloodshed to both act, and be seen as, more civilised amongst high society. That idea has stuck with me ever since.
That's an interesting school of thought, the idea that chivalry would be an outlet for bloodlust rather than a smokescreen. Like most things, I imagine the answer is more nuanced and somewhere in the middle. If you find the source for this quote, please send it my way!
Stumbled across this channel thanks to the Low Fantasy video, and I keep getting interesting history lessons as well as TTRPG ideas. If anyone has any other interesting TH-cam channels that speak about history, please pass them along. I'd love to learn more, but I have trouble focusing on books these days. 😅 And thank you for the video, Desks And Dorks. I'll be sure to subscribe and look forward to what comes next.
If your planning on doing a full video on religious orders and include non-European material I *highly* recommend "Teeth and Claws of the Buddha" which is a great academic atudy on the Japanese sohei and the intersection of class, religion, and politics in Heian/Nara-era Japan.
My favorite primary anecdote from the Fourth Crusade (by far a heinous atrocity by any chivalric standard) comes from a knight who witnessed one of his peers take a couple greek women hostage in a building with very unchristian intentions only for that very same wastrel to be dragged out of the building by two other knights who promptly beat the shit out of him for his unchristian behavior. I remember thinking: wow they had time to do that? During the sack of Constantinople? They somehow noticed? Makes you think. PS: Condottieri are individual mercenary leaders its not a "mercenary army of knights". Each Condottiere would command his own private army (usually inherited mercenary companies), which were certainly not exclusively composed of knights. The most famous would be ppl like John Hawkwood of the White Company or Walter of Brienne and ofc the legend himself Francesco Sforza. But i'd say they were very much around during the medieval ages as mercenary leaders of renown began being called that around the mid 1200s if i remember correctly. Keep in mind there's nothing stopping a knight or even a landed lord from being a Condottiere the word literally means contractor
Playing a low nobility squire turned knight (by himself but never tell him that to his face) was so fun in my last warhammer campaign. Sir Willhelm Friechdebald Haupt-Aubrecht Von Klemensburg, a flamboyant, arrogant, brave, god(s) fearing-man with a taste for women, Tilean brandy, he quickly became the "face" of the group (which was a mistake from the others players even if we had a lot of fun from it)
@@DesksAndDorks Thank, I used the italian condottieri as an inspiration, it turned out that my character was quite alien to the rest of the group (being filthy commoners and foreign barbarians^^)
In regards to the weapon section, thats one of the small issues I have with dnd and pathfinder to a lesser extent, I love being a fighter and using a prefered weapon, but switching to a mace to deal with armor, or a piercing weapon for mail, or a great sword when my armor alone is fine for defence. But because of feats and other mechanics its far better to just specialize into one weapon or weapon type, since for the most part the sword or mace is going to do the same against armor in the game. I know its for either balance, streamlining, or to avoid rule bloat and thats valid, but it does make me sad that caving in someones helmet doesnt give me any mechanical benefit unless its a pesky skeleton
Reminds me of the 'hedge knight' origin in Battle brothers. An extremely bored amateur who decides to take advantage of being rich and being a professional jouster/duelist to become a mercenary in search of extra cash and bloodshed.
I really need to play battle brothers. I love it and routinely watch play through and live streams of it but every time I do a video someone brings it up and it makes me want to try it
@ that’s probably because it’s just generally a good* example of this low fantasy that you constantly describe. As a mercenary not only do you get to see the more worrying aspects of the world, you often get choices to participate in it. You also find out a lot of people don’t give a shit about you, or are actively afraid of you. A lot of your contracts are made by local barons who just want a couple errands done for them, wealthy merchants who are about to trek a dangerous road, and more often than not a gang of peasants who have spent the last year creating a communal chest so they can pay someone to get rid of that troll who keeps eating their kids at night. The best interaction I’ve seen is when you partially complete (more like fail) a caravan contact. The guy paying you is very sheepish when he announces he can’t pay you the intended amount due to the lost cargo. He flinches once you move, and is surprised when you don’t clobber his ass for not paying you the full amount. Which makes sense given historically what happens when you don’t pay your armed and dangerous mercenaries.
I highly recommend reading the Ill Made Knight by Christian Cameron if you really enjoy historical fiction. Does an excellent job portraying history and historical views and behaviors imo
On the safety tools, I find it really useful to have a quick paper with things allowed and not allowed at my table. I, as the DM, decreed that SA just doesn't exist in my world. It's not a thing. Boom, easy. My players insisted, and we all agreed, that they don't want to have children in peril or in places of danger. Not because it upsets them, but because they can't stop killing them or getting them killed. 😅 So yeah, that's now one of our safety tools. As for knights in my world, I love playing knights as Paladins of the Crown. They're enforcers, lawmen, noble leaders. I think of them like the county sheriff and deputies. They follow the law of the land and make sure everyone else does too.
It must've been an inspiring sight for the people, when King Henry wore his armor in public as it got bigger and bigger. I hope he invested in a breastplate stretcher though.
Ballroom dancing is a form of training for knightly combat. Just like how folk dancing from Polynesia to Europe incorporate drills for the use of tool-weapons commoners would have. If you look at the stances a man uses to ask a lady to dance, you'll see a historic fencing guard. The foot work mirros the footwork a highborn swordsman would be taught. Leading is based of judging measure for attacks, parries, and reposts. Twirling the female dancers involves the motions involved in techniques used to "bind and wind" an opposing weapon. Naturally demonstrating good ballroom dancing skill was a way to duel a rival without even drawing a blade.
@@DesksAndDorks It was criminally underrated by most millennial. But when it was on it was my favorite show. And I think the precious fee Hollywood writers with real talent feel the same. Ryan Reynolds played a CIA character named Michael Weston in the movie Safe House. And I just saw an episode of The Rookie with a chill competent CIA agent named Mike Weston. It gives me hope for the entertainment industry.
In terms of both character development and worldbuilding, it makes sense that those who follow a moral code tend to not be as wealthy. They get money from abusing civilian populations and looting. So keep that in mind when building characters- a wealthy knight is wealthy for a reason and may not be an antagonist because of his pompous attitude but because of his tendency to take what he wants.
that makes no sense just because you have wealth doesnt make you less or more moral you just have more wealth, also in the middle ages you cannot go overboard with power abuses the peasants arent as docile as everyone thinks they are and the clergy constantly checked nobles, for crying out loud a freaking emperor was outside on his knees begging for forgiveness towards the pope. modern people severly overrestimate the importance of wealth in the middle ages and very severly underestimate the importance of faith.
If I wasn't already subscribed, your refusal to use AI "art" would have had me racing to hit that button in a heartbeat. Nothing has me on the verge of becoming a neo-Luddite more than that trash built on the stolen work of actual artists.
Calling Richard Leoncoeur a "great knight" is a spicy take. Dude went on a road trip. Got his homies killed. Lost a kingdom. Got kidnapped by fucking bankers no least and had to have his brother buy him out. It's like a poor indie film about a gang from LA.
That may be the best description of Richard's journey and capture ever. In all fairness from most of the accounts it seems like Richard was a house a combat in addition to being the worst ruler possible. The one account of him being beaten easily (when not outnumbered, ambushed or getting kissed by the business end of a French crossbow) was when William Marshall unseated him in one blow then told him he wasn't worth killing. And in fairness to Richard, a statement I hate saying, Marshall was by most accounts the best knight to ever live.
The difficulty with that topic is, what is a barbarian? To the Greeks, the Persians were barbarians. The Romans called the Britons and the Sarmatians both barbarians, even though the two had nothing in common beside being not-Roman. To the Chinese and Japanese, all of us Europeans were barbarians.
I've heard barbarian refers to bearded men, because that was out of fashion in Rome and Greece, but for my money, I don't remember where, so I can't attest to the veracity. It might just be that everyone not in your culture is a filthy savage.
Why do you describe attacking convents as a truly horrific crime, which it is, and then later describe a levy as not a truly horrific crime, which it also is?
@@DesksAndDorks I kind of dislike how Shrek showed knights as incompetent buffoons instead actual trained, ruthless fighters. This started with Monty Python but many media later did that. "No, knights were too stupid to use firearms." - ignoring them purchasing and using such weapons alongside crossbows for themselves and their retinues.
I mean. I'm not really going to Shrek for historical accuracy. But I do agree I don't like that knights are portrayed that way..especially with firearms.
I would beseech you to look into C.S. Lewis' essay on Chivalry. He was a medievalist and very familiar with period sources. It's rather sad to see another deconstruction of Chivalry and the knightly image, simply because some, if not many did not live up to those values. It's a big like saying our own rules of limited warfare against civilians are false in modern times, because it is not always carried out flawlessly. The fact that it is such an enduring archetype in our culture is itself testament to there being more truth than can be easily dismissed. Trying to pick it apart not only misses the truth, but it robs us of our heroes while leaving us at the mercy of our villains.
15:18 I don’t think anyone thinks that, we’re constantly beaten over the head with how evil the Christians were and how innocent the Muslims were, when, if we’re considering the entirety of the crusading period then you’d have to consider the largest massacre to be committed by the Muslims in the siege of acre.
The thing i never understand about the player consent thing is this. You should know what your friends are not going to be ok with. And if you are playing with strangers, what the hell are you doing hosting a game about rap with an e or children getting wrestled by an adult. It just seems like a non existant problem. I get there is a lot of autism in the hobby, but if you know that something should be included in a player consent conversation then you know it runs the risk of freaking someone out
Obviously the best thing to do is to have a monarchlless society where the code of chivalry extends to the common folk. Every man a king, every man protected by the Knight.
...why would you want a monarchless society yet still have powerful martial aristocrats above you..? The entire point of a king is that he is responsible for ensuring his vassals don't abuse their powers, just like they keep him in check. I think you fundamentally misunderstand the feudal structure if you think such a society is remotely sustainable.
I'm not sure if you're talking to me or the other commenter. However I don't think a monarch-less society (or in our case a society without some form.of centralized government with checks and balances) is attainable or desirable. I was insinuating that in general rights seem to have moved closer to the middle of social strata than in the past.
The problem with your "consent form" (which it isn't: consent forms are where the players tell you what will be in the game, not the other way around), is that it locks you into some themes and locks you out of others for the entirety of the campaign. It cripples your ability to improvise. Let's use your idea of the attack on the funeral: if I'm running a campaign, and an important NPC dies, and their enemies would logically want to attack people at their funeral, but I did not put "Death and grieving" on my "consent form," then I'm locked out of that organic story growth. I never told players that there would be a funeral, because I did not know an important NPC would die, so I can't allow the story to develop as it wants to. The way I do things at my table is give people a movie rating - for my campaigns it's always "R" - and I tell them that any and all themes that might fall under that movie rating may occur during the game. If they don't like that movie rating, they don't have to play, but I reserve the right to let the campaign develop as it should. There is no need whatsoever for a GM to kneecap themselves by locking them selves into or out of certain themes during session 0.
The way I use forms like that are they are themes that MIGHT come up. If they don't it's no big deal if they do players are ready. I haven't found them to be limiting or kneecapping at all tbh
@DesksAndDorks Right, but if something isn't on the form, the players didn't consent to it, so there's possibility for conflict to arise if you do. Best to tell them "Here's the general rating of the game. Anything within that rating might happen, door's over there if it doesn't work for you." Adults can handle surprises
The issue with that is that sometimes things happen for folks, and I'd prefer to give those people a way out if they need it in my games while still allowing them to play. Ultimately, giving players an out feels more adult then telling them to kick rocks if something happens.
@DesksAndDorks What do you mean "give them an out?" You seem to be looking at this from a very railroady perspective, where you've already planned out everything that will happen in the campaign ahead of time. It's understandable if you're running exclusively one shots, but that's not fun for most people. Establishing a strict list of themes at the start of a longform campaign is just asking for trouble. People experience hardship, but so long as you aren't specifically targeting someone's trauma at the table, adult players will be able to handle something they weren't expecting. I wouldn't tell someone to kick rocks because something didn't land well with them: I'd tell them to kick rocks if they got argumentative about the themes in the game.
Often I will get people saying I'm not being very chivalrous usually women and I will point out I mean I can be as you want but you are a peasant and have No title so there's no reason for me to be
Imagine working for days on a video about knights only to misspell the word chivalry in the thumbnail.
Couldn't be me 😂
Knights are so good to RP. Both a dandy fop and a trained killer. Expects to be respected by everyone. Every peasant they've ever talked to before has been their property. 8th generation to lease this same swath of land from the king. Has a code of honor they are spiritually obligated to perform but actually they can't live up to the demands and nobody else in society even bothers.
It's tragic, it's farcical, it's social commentary, it's Lawful Good baby!
This may be one of the most succinct posts I've seen on why knights are fun. This is great stuff.
Very much agree! It’s the natural hypocrisy of their position that makes them so human and fantastic to roleplay.
Corny
Booooo
Lore: lawful good
Gameplay: chaotic good.
I am sorry dear Creator of good Content, but i can't ser aside any money right now, so i will do my best with the youtube pleasantries
Your presence is enough my friend! It's a hard time for a lot of folks but getting notified or commenting like this really does help a ton so I appreciate it.
I dont believe you, but okay @@DesksAndDorks
@@DesksAndDorkssame for me
You don't have to, but it actually does. Even if people don't buy/back every notify link that we get makes it more likely, kickstarter recommends it to new folks.
I'm not gonna say I don't want money (I do), but it really does help.
(Edited to add this)
Also, as someone who has lived hand to mouth before, I recognize that I am immensely privileged to be doing this and I don't expect anything from yall. You watching the stuff I make is genuinely a lot to me.
Yeah, constables, henchmen, marshals, lots of knights worked on the stables of other, more important knights.
It's actually hilarious how many knights were legit just stable knights.
@DesksAndDorks someone has to take care of the horses, might as well be that cousin of yours mom said you should help finding a job. As you've said on one of your exemples, knightly families were kind like mob families.
@blvalverde scarily like organized crime families!
Chivalry: misunderstood, misinterpreted and misspelled.
Should I bother watching this?
By the comments he didnt even heard about squires.
@@Robert-wf7xudude has a medieval history degree and talks about squires like 18 minutes in
@@otlatoca4004 dude claims to have a medieval history degree and gets simple shit wrong constantly.
Well his degree was probably taught by rapid atheists and feminists who “recontextualize” everything to fit their modern world view.
Protecting women like 99% of all civilized societies have done in history = super bigoted and problematic and oppressive, especially since these are white and Christian people. Must be all a ruse so they can abuse people constantly
I forget where I heard it but in my college days a paper proposed the idea that a lot of knights had very colorful armor or at least not plain steel. Assuming this is true, the scenario of a footman seeing a column of knights arrive but they have all these brightly colored tunics, banners, sashes, painted armor, shields I think helps convey the awe they could have felt. “Our knights are here, their colors seen from a thousand yards. They arrive with the colors of our lords and country!”
Later knights (late 15th c.) preferred plain steel. They called it "white armor". Being able to display the intricacies of your plate harness was a status symbol.
Imagine if your ever rent seeking landlord would wear a set of power armour and drive around on a tank.
That's what a knight was to a peasant, at least to my understanding.
Yeah, that's pretty accurate. Also, add that they could pretty much just obliterate you whenever you've got it.
Oh gods, the puns. Its Knight Time! Ugh, the agony.
I love it!
The puns will continue until morale improves
I'll sign that consent form for a game with murder, torture, body horror, and assault without a second thought, but I draw the line at nauseating puns!
I wish I could tell you that I could stop but I don't believe I can.
The puns have me too far gone.
The Hospitaller actually survived way passed the Ottomans. They eventually settled in Malta 🇲🇹 and still hold massive cultural significance there. There’s a whole epic episode about them tangling with the Ottomans for a final time with “the siege of Malta”
Nuns, friars, and monks are not part of the clergy. An ordained monk can be, but an unordained monk is not.
(that Greenwich armour was a practical armour, i haven't encountered a "non-practiacal" set of armour. The closest thing to Parade in this period is the tournament. for which you need practical armour.
Secondly. I think plate was a lot more common than youre letting on. Especially for the knightly class. Plate harness neing issued to retainer knights is well documented. Although i do appreciate the shout out to my boys in full maille.
Very cool video
I tried to make that distinction clear (idk if it came through) because I'd read most parade armor was still functional.
Also yes plate was more common but that good full plate was so hard to come by! I'm glad you're enjoying the content!
@@DesksAndDorksConsider adding clarifications like "in the late 13th century, full plate harnesses were rare and hard to come by" because battles like Crecy & Poitiers in the mid 14th Century showed us countless knights and men-at-arms in full plate harnesses.
The truth behind castles is that most in europe were originally Tax collection points as much as if not more than strategic vantage points.
Love your videos! I have been really enjoying listening to these videos and exploring the low fantasy integration that I love bringing to my games.
A small thing for this video since I married a medievalist and have been thoroughly corrected over the years, one of if not the most important part of being a knight would be their horse. It was the symbol of their power and was a key part of knightdom and why so much of their training revolved around them. But given the limitations most tabletop combat horses tend to be hard to fit in. As you said, the devastating power of knights was nearly uncontested for most of the medieval period until the pike and shotte era finally curbed their status.
Second small thing, the Knights Hospitaller managed to survive the Ottomans and were only unseated from Malta by Napoleon of all people but survived nonetheless. My father was a corporal in their ranks as they are now basically a Catholics-only Red Cross organization. Just a fascinating thing how of all the military orders they managed to survive and maintain their roles as healers to this day.
Ugghhhh the horse is such a glaring omission on my part and would have been worthy of an entire section. I appreciate you pointing that out!
3:57 Later plate armour had plate for a lower head. Often they were A LOT bigger then the real one.
Was looking forward to this video and it certainly exceeded expectations. Great work!
Minor correction, the hospitallers are still around today though their days as a fighting force ended around the tail end of the 1790s after a run in with revolutionary france - that role had been in decline for a while anyway. If that teaches us anything, it's that France and militant orders do not work well together 😅
The Ottomans did yeet them out of the middle east and later out of Rhodes, but that just precipitated their evolution into seaborne crusaders and privateers, which is a pretty epic story 😁
I did not know they became privateers that's awesome.
@DesksAndDorks Yep! You're in for a treat :)
This is what I really like about Pendragon as you are trying to uphold the ideals of a knight while also having to be a person ingolf in violiance.
About the military orders, would the Templars or Teutonic Knights have been tonsured? In movies and art they always seem to have a full head of hair, but why wouldn’t they have had the same haircut as monks of other rules?
Ransom culture is such an untapped source of adventure hooks. Imagine the player characters having to guard a knight’s ransom on the way to being delivered, or being part of a raiding party to steal that ransom for themselves. Or the taxes laid to raise a ransom have provoked a peasants’ revolt that now has to be dealt with, preferably without massacring lots of people, or the characters themselves are in danger of losing house and home to those taxes. Or maybe the reason we need to go slay the gold-guarding dragon or loot the wizard’s tower is because we need the money to pay Uncle FitzLeon’s ransom. Maybe the dowry that the beautiful princess brings to her marriage is needed to pay a ransom, but the princess has other ideas. And on and on.
I'd have to look into tonsuring. My guess is it wasn't a requirement for the military wings of the order (it would have been hard to enforce grooming standards like that logistically), but I can't say for certainty.
Also, I know! I love and have run ransom plot lines before, and they are great fun.
Tonsures: no order militant was tonsured to my knowledge. But not all monastic orders were either.
The templars definitely weren't. When they were founded it was argued that wearing their hair long, rather than having it trimmed in the latest fashions, showed a humbleness and lack of vanity.
Then because of their social influence long hair came into fashion and they were soon criticised for having long luxurious well maintained locks, as was the fashion, and that was evidently a sign of their vanity. Lol.
Damn, wish I could save comments because this post is great inspiration
@@GnarledStaffbro just screenshot it
Just recently discovered your channel and I have to say it satisfies an itch for me. I’ve been looking for channel based in fantasy and history. Keep up the good work! Past week been listening while cleaning and relaxing.
Thanks man! Really hoping you enjoy the rest of the content too!
Are there plans for your company to eventually make a historical fiction or low fantasy with realistic history depictions tabletop RPG? I think that would be loads of fun
As of right now, we have a 2025 release that isn't specifically low fantasy (the system should allow for a lot of expression), but HEAVILY uses low fantasy concepts and political intrigue for roleplaying.
That's about all I can say now, but it's going to be a doozy if the playtest feedback is any indication.
It feels a bit like of ad nauseam to keep mentioning this word "Mercenary" but I was curious about how knights interact with mercenaries. At an initial glance this would seem like to types of people from history that would not have much in common, in the sense that chivalry would seem to be at odds with the idea of exchanging money for violence.
However historically we know that quite often mercenary bands worked in close tandem with knights quite regularly. One of the French Kings had such faith in the Swiss that he's said to have refused to take the field if his force didn't have a regiment of Swiss at it's center, and created some weird rules for the Army. Such as forbidding the army from yodeling or eating melted cheese for fear the Swiss soldiers would become homesick and dissert.
Many knights fought as mercenaries bro. In Geoffrey de Charney's (legendary 14th century French knight) book on chivalry, he had an entire section dedicated to how to make money as a knight undergoing mercenary work.
14th century knights were PAID by their lieges when they went on campaign. Sir Jean de Courrouges, another 14th century French knight, was knighted mid-campaign (Admiral Jean de Vienne's royal expedition to Scotland) and so he had to go argue with the royal treasurer in Paris because he was owed twice the money paid to him since he was knighted.
Yes, it was against chivalry to fight for money. But you could still find some other reason to fight (and get precious presents afterwards)
To that point many knights found plenty of leeway and loopholes around the "law" of chivalry particularly when powerful patrons wanted something
@@AyEhm-ii2dp This wasn’t my question, and the topic of mercenary knights was covered explicitly in this video. One of the chapters is named as such.
I asked about how Knights interacted with mercenaries and mentioned a non-noble example.
@@TheWampam No it wasn't wtf. Cite a single source for that.
About the weapons: none are going to penetrate full plate armor apart from maybe a big greatsword or a pollaxe. It's just not possible, even with spiky hammers. However, they make it easy to target weak spots and work for lesser armoured opponents, or, in case of maces, stun someone, thus allowing for ransom later.
Of course I know about the ransom culture of the medieval age. In CK3, human trafficking is my number one export
Loooool that is true for ck3
Tbh I feel like this video encompasses a lot of why knights are as much a psychological weapon as an actual one.
I mean, imagine being some levied peasant and facing down a man who's twice your weight in fat and muscle, wearing armor you are not equipped to pierce, and who you know has been training to kill people for decades.
YES. 1000 percent this.
I stayed to the end of the Q&A, firstly the granite joke is top notch and I can’t wait to see it again with more build-up
Second, thanks for making these videos, they’re super interesting and helpful to a history nerd and first-time DM writing my first setting and campaign from scratch (I did choose the hardest path possible to begin DMing DND lol). My setting is more an early modern dark fantasy than medieval low fantasy, but many of the ideas are easily portable into the later time period (as you know, I’m sure, with your using Renaissance examples for medieval ideas and such). But yeah, you’ve gained a subscriber and your ideas are getting out there and being used in the wild, know that your efforts are not in vain!
Hey man, I really appreciate it! Comments like this make my job so worth doing.
Re: Knights Hospitaller - they lost holdings to the Ottomans, but they *technically* still exist today.
That is technically true, but it feels like calling a chicken a dinosaur. Technically, they've got the closest approximation to dinosaur DNA. In practice, no one is afraid of Chicken Nugget Park.
@@DesksAndDorks They did rule Malta for a long time after the Ottomans kicked them out of Rhodes, though.
A pretty neat video and source of inspiration.
Hello I'm a layperson and certainly less qualified than you but I think there's a few points that could be expounded upon.
When you refer to the elite noble knights it sounds like you're referring to the landholding lords who would owe a Servitium debitum in return for their lands.
This as you know was the service owed and was contractually agreed upon between the king and his tenant. However, throughout the 13th century during the several assizement of arms it was found barons had too few or too many knights. On top of this there where several rounds of impressments, announcements where peasants with 40 pounds worth of land (around 1000 acres) were forced to become knights.
Why would you not want to become a knight?
Knights had military and civil duties, in england at least knights where obligated to perform dury dutie; and by 1300 increasingly involved in the house of commons as officials elected by landholding tenants (each shire had two knights elected by everyone who held land). I think some historians posit this led to a change in knighthood which became more expensive and had greater political duties.
One of my history books (i'll check which) posits that men at arms (which it argues refers to all armoured cavalry) was only 20% knights with the rest being either squires or wealthy enterprising peasents.
Also during the assizements of arms the quality of equipment a knight is required to have increases, by the 15th century I don't think someone equipped in full mail would be classed as a knight with plate having become a requirement.
For a lay person I think you are incredibly well informed and this all about 100 percent correct.
A lot of the stuff that I present I feel like i need to cut down on. The civil responsibilities of knights was originally going to be a longer part of this presentation but got cut down for time also for the men at arms/cavalry it depends largely on the army and the type of relationship had by its wealthy citizenry and the nobility. France and England had very much a more noble focused approach to heavy cavalry (with me at arms taking up.lighter cavalry positions). The holy Roman empire and many of the Italian city states had the wealthy civilian merchant cavalry that you describe.
Thank you for the comment. It's seriously well informed and was a lot of fun to read!
So I’m a bit confused. You describe stuff like the siege of Jerusalem as crimes. However I was under the impressions that stuff like the Siege of Jerusalem was standard modus operandi for armies of the time. Like doing stuff like that was just common and normal stuff for people to do.
I bring up sacks not because they were uncommon (it varies depending on the nation state and the parameters surrounding each conflict) but to draw attention to the fact that knights were not opposed to it ans in fact reveled in violence in some cases.
What I will add is that the swine of Jerusalem during the first crusade and it's subsequent sacking were seen as particularly barbaric even by the standards of the day. Which is saying something.
@@DesksAndDorks Ah, I see. That much said, and correct me if I’m wrong, but given the fact that things like public executions were seen as entertaining fanfare among the common peoples I’m under the impression revelry in violence was a normal thing in premodern societies in general. (Apparently they’d pour salt on the condemned metaphorical wound by auctioning off his property right in front of him before the deed was done.). Honestly sacking a town of a kingdom you were at war with seems like something the common peasantry would feel comfortable bragging about to friends and family at the local tavern.
I think it's important to consider the context and target of violence in the Middle Ages. Yes, public executions would have been seen as entertainment, but there's a big difference between a single criminal and wholesale slaughter. So much so that the code of chivalry did expressly forbid it (which didn't stop such things, but it's important to note there was an understanding that it was bad enough to be banned).
Again, these were people more accustomed to violence and hardship than the modern person, but I think assuming they would be alright with the sack and slaughter of people on a regular basis as a bit of an inaccuracy.
@@DesksAndDorks oh ok, I suppose it makes sense. Though in all fairness if from what I’ve listened to and read about Feudalism is correct, the decentralized and chaotic nature of feudalism and the political and economic instability it normally entails meant that enforcement of the laws was on a very individualistic basis. That is to say the nobles in charge would only enforce laws whenever they felt like it.
That’s not to say there were no outside pressures that would influence their decisions, just that they were less likely to be penalized for their lax in their duties compared to today
that kickstarter pitch was great, well done sir
I appreciate it my friend. I'm trying to get better at that instead of just saying: look cool thing.
So I really appreciate the feedback!
Loving the deep dive as always! It enables me to find some cool inspiration to reskin into my own setting (which is neither medieval nor European; more of iron age desert setting)
Oh and also I'm glad you mentioned a way to help out with the kickstarter even if I'm dead broke
Iron age desert is still pretty goated!
I love the historical influences RPGS videos. You are great at talking about these things!
I really appreciate your channel, your videos provide so much useful information for world building!
Glad you're enjoying it!
A note about daggers. Daggers of the late medieval and renaissance eras were not slicing/cutting daggers. They looked more like a railroad spike with a handle than a knife. Called rondel daggers. And they usually had a flat round pommel much like the head of a nail. This is so that you could hold the rondel dagger with one hand and slam your armored fist into the bottom with the other punching through the Chainmail. And they were usually jabbed into very unpleasant places, like the eyeslits, armpits, inner elbow, back of the knees, and of course the groin! Because the joints are the weakest armor points. And as they weren’t cutting daggers (in fact most of them probably couldn’t slice at all) they were probably excruciatingly painful (more than getting stabbed with a sharp knife usually is) because you are getting a relatively dull spike jammed about 8-14 inches into your body
One of the first proper history books I read was 'the Greatest Knight' by Thomas Asbridge, which is an account of the life of Sir William Marshal. What I found interesting was his discussion of chivalry - he caviates it with the fact that chivalry was a very new idea at the time, still in its infancy. He also says that chivalric authors like Chretien de Troyes were writing less about how chivalry was and more about how they felt it should be, which suggests that they didn't consider it to be being practiced properly. For William Marshal's part, his idea of chivalry seems to focus on loyalty and dutiful service of his liege, alongside proper treatment of fellow nobles, something which caused him problems under John's reign when the two ideals clashed. Chivalry didn't serve as some kind of stringent code of honour and sportsmanship (something well demonstrated in tactics used in tournaments and the use of the chevauchet), but more as a soceital expectation of how people were meant to be treated. Who that included often varied from knight to knight, resulting in some pretty deplorable acts. For example, King John had a young relative (if memory serves a nephew) who was another candidate for the throne. King Phillip of France tried to install the kid as monarch, but John captured him and, according to the account of one knight, killed him, something which would have been considered deplorable by most people (as John's treatment of many nobles was considered at the time, hence the barons' revolt). This was evidently something John didn't see as a problem. However, Phillip knew it was considered one, so any time John tried to do negotiations, Phillip demanded that the young boy be shown to be alive and well to ensure good will, something which John never did and gave Phillip license to keep pursuing attempts at territorial expansion into England.
William Marshall is one of my favorite knights of all time and one of the few that seemed to embody the soul of chivalry and chivalric virtue. In many ways, he is the exception that proces the rule.
@DesksAndDorks I found him very interesting. Primarily his unflinching loyalty, which is a testament to strength of character and a strong moral code I think you're right, his reputation is certainly a testament to how much he stood above his peers. Certainly at the time he was considered an exemplar of what chivalry was meant to look like.
He's my legit favorite figure in medieval history. His story feels too insane to not be embellished, and yet from what I've read, it's essentially all true. He's like a hyper intelligent medieval, Forrest Gump it's honestly so much fun reading about his life.
Shadow of the Weird Wizard (the succesor to Shadow of the Demon Lord) has a fun class option of the "questing knight" in the Knight-Errant (lvl 3 expert path, go Fighter at lvl 1, or Rogue of you want to emulate Alwen Scribe from the novel 'The Pariah', I digress.)
In addition to your level based class features, the Knight-Errant also gets Fame in populated areas and provides with an armored warhorse, a horse, a mule with 2 saddle bags, a lance, shield, mace, sword, and platemail, and a Paige follower. At lvl 6 they also get a personal Squire. This is, as in history, a sizeable cost in game currency given out as part of the story of this path.
If the character foreswears their noble patron or dishonors themselves, they become a Black Knight and no longer get their gear repaired/replaced for free, can no longer display the noble coat of arms and instead of Fame, they have Infamy where in populated areas they are villified instead of lauded.
Again, this all "bonus features" of this character path in addition to their actual class skills and stats and powers, which reaolve around nounted combat, fighting with knightly weapons and being generally fearless heroic types.
I think it would be fun to start out as a Black Kinght in search of redemption or a patron, just you and your few loyal followers (and allies in the other players in a group game).
If anyone is interested in William Marshal, the People Profiles did an excellent fyll length video on him.
Somewhat related, but I'm working on a shadowdark mass combat supplement and this brought up some questions I hadn't found a good answer for.
1. Were knights *the* heavy cavalry of their time, or were there some kind of heavy cavalry equivalent that weren't knight? I have them as separate units, but considering your point that a knights retinue would contain plenty of skilled and similarly armed and armored men-at-arms, I'm thinking it might be more appropriate to roll them together into a single unit.
2. Would unlanded knights be paid a salary or stipend by their leige to accommodate their lack of revenue generation? If so, how much would be reasonable to expect be given?
3. Is there a general rule or metric that can be followed for determining what a reasonable number of knights a given noble might have under their command?
I wish I had this for the q+a!
1. Knights were the heavy cavalry. There were higher cav units and some armored or mounted men at arms but for Europe. There were obviously some retinues that worked like mixed units but those were not quite a unit.
2. Unwanted knights would have been paid but calling it a salary might be a bit of a misnomer. Likely they would have been up front some amount then given cuts of plunder and most likely a place to stay as well as help maintaining their equipment.
3. There isn't a general rule or metric but a good thing to consider is that armies march on their stomachs. A force of 30-50 knights and their retinues would have represented a SIGNIFICANT military force. But that means those animals and people need to be fed and cared for which is a significant drain on resources. Large armies don't happen much in the middle ages.
Hope this helps!
i always stick around to the end - its a mark of respect for one and also i get a preview on upcoming puns...
Another week, another banger. Raking my brain for feedback, I lost the plot a little bit like halfway-2/3rds through, I don't know if the main hypothesis wasn't reinforced enough there or if I'm just out of it a bit (busy week). I should join the Discord; I've forgotten to
Glad you liked it! I think i may have let the bits about chivalry go on too long.
I think it would be a good idea to give some sources for what you talk about in the description, just to back up what you say and your assertions and critiques, not only to understand where you’re coming from, but also to know where you’re getting you information and ideas. I’m speaking as a person with a lot of interest in the cultural, religious and intellectual milieus of medieval age in Europe, the Islamicate world and beyond, as well as having an interest in the ‘low’ or grounded side of fantastical literature, past and present.
Love the channel.
Thanks man!
Abelard, tell this man who I am and why I am complimenting him
I forget the source, it might have been Jim Davis of Web DM, who described chivalry as a way for these men of violence and bloodshed to both act, and be seen as, more civilised amongst high society. That idea has stuck with me ever since.
That's an interesting school of thought, the idea that chivalry would be an outlet for bloodlust rather than a smokescreen. Like most things, I imagine the answer is more nuanced and somewhere in the middle.
If you find the source for this quote, please send it my way!
Stumbled across this channel thanks to the Low Fantasy video, and I keep getting interesting history lessons as well as TTRPG ideas. If anyone has any other interesting TH-cam channels that speak about history, please pass them along. I'd love to learn more, but I have trouble focusing on books these days. 😅
And thank you for the video, Desks And Dorks. I'll be sure to subscribe and look forward to what comes next.
Should be more coming soon!
Mate you misspelled 'Chivalry' in your thumbnail.
Lol I know. What sucks is I didn't misspell it on the other 2 thumbnails so now I just have to look at this horror.
🥳🫂👍🏿
We even do a Re:Zero at the end of arcs and campaigns
If your planning on doing a full video on religious orders and include non-European material I *highly* recommend "Teeth and Claws of the Buddha" which is a great academic atudy on the Japanese sohei and the intersection of class, religion, and politics in Heian/Nara-era Japan.
I HAVE A NEW BOOK TO READ
My favorite primary anecdote from the Fourth Crusade (by far a heinous atrocity by any chivalric standard) comes from a knight who witnessed one of his peers take a couple greek women hostage in a building with very unchristian intentions only for that very same wastrel to be dragged out of the building by two other knights who promptly beat the shit out of him for his unchristian behavior. I remember thinking: wow they had time to do that? During the sack of Constantinople? They somehow noticed? Makes you think.
PS: Condottieri are individual mercenary leaders its not a "mercenary army of knights". Each Condottiere would command his own private army (usually inherited mercenary companies), which were certainly not exclusively composed of knights. The most famous would be ppl like John Hawkwood of the White Company or Walter of Brienne and ofc the legend himself Francesco Sforza. But i'd say they were very much around during the medieval ages as mercenary leaders of renown began being called that around the mid 1200s if i remember correctly. Keep in mind there's nothing stopping a knight or even a landed lord from being a Condottiere the word literally means contractor
Gotta love a Bodkin.... whether as a dagger or as an arrowhead it was a fearsome piercer of armours.
Playing a low nobility squire turned knight (by himself but never tell him that to his face) was so fun in my last warhammer campaign. Sir Willhelm Friechdebald Haupt-Aubrecht Von Klemensburg, a flamboyant, arrogant, brave, god(s) fearing-man with a taste for women, Tilean brandy, he quickly became the "face" of the group (which was a mistake from the others players even if we had a lot of fun from it)
I'll be honest reading that description it sounds like a LOT of knights in real history!
@@DesksAndDorks Thank, I used the italian condottieri as an inspiration, it turned out that my character was quite alien to the rest of the group (being filthy commoners and foreign barbarians^^)
In regards to the weapon section, thats one of the small issues I have with dnd and pathfinder to a lesser extent, I love being a fighter and using a prefered weapon, but switching to a mace to deal with armor, or a piercing weapon for mail, or a great sword when my armor alone is fine for defence. But because of feats and other mechanics its far better to just specialize into one weapon or weapon type, since for the most part the sword or mace is going to do the same against armor in the game. I know its for either balance, streamlining, or to avoid rule bloat and thats valid, but it does make me sad that caving in someones helmet doesnt give me any mechanical benefit unless its a pesky skeleton
A video on rogue, thieves, assassin's and their guilds would be cool!
Nice content. Keep it up
Thanks man its much appreciated!
Reminds me of the 'hedge knight' origin in Battle brothers. An extremely bored amateur who decides to take advantage of being rich and being a professional jouster/duelist to become a mercenary in search of extra cash and bloodshed.
I really need to play battle brothers. I love it and routinely watch play through and live streams of it but every time I do a video someone brings it up and it makes me want to try it
@ that’s probably because it’s just generally a good* example of this low fantasy that you constantly describe.
As a mercenary not only do you get to see the more worrying aspects of the world, you often get choices to participate in it. You also find out a lot of people don’t give a shit about you, or are actively afraid of you. A lot of your contracts are made by local barons who just want a couple errands done for them, wealthy merchants who are about to trek a dangerous road, and more often than not a gang of peasants who have spent the last year creating a communal chest so they can pay someone to get rid of that troll who keeps eating their kids at night.
The best interaction I’ve seen is when you partially complete (more like fail) a caravan contact. The guy paying you is very sheepish when he announces he can’t pay you the intended amount due to the lost cargo. He flinches once you move, and is surprised when you don’t clobber his ass for not paying you the full amount. Which makes sense given historically what happens when you don’t pay your armed and dangerous mercenaries.
I once met a member of the hospitaller order. Not a knight, just a member of the order, helping with a flood in Valencia. Pretty based.
I highly recommend reading the Ill Made Knight by Christian Cameron if you really enjoy historical fiction. Does an excellent job portraying history and historical views and behaviors imo
I have not heard of that one, but I will give it a try!
@DesksAndDorks he's awesome. He even uploads videos of himself medieval fencing on TH-cam. Very much something you'd enjoy
I love watching hema practioners at a high level compete. Some of it is so awesome.
I did the subscribe, using this for writing
An ancient agreement 🤝
Kyle - if you ever come to the UK i will drag you to Leeds and spend a day with you in the Royal Armouries just watching you get giddy...
Dude I would love to do that. That sounds like an epic time
On the safety tools, I find it really useful to have a quick paper with things allowed and not allowed at my table. I, as the DM, decreed that SA just doesn't exist in my world. It's not a thing. Boom, easy. My players insisted, and we all agreed, that they don't want to have children in peril or in places of danger. Not because it upsets them, but because they can't stop killing them or getting them killed. 😅 So yeah, that's now one of our safety tools.
As for knights in my world, I love playing knights as Paladins of the Crown. They're enforcers, lawmen, noble leaders. I think of them like the county sheriff and deputies. They follow the law of the land and make sure everyone else does too.
That's something I've done a few times as well usually as part of my lines veils. Also paladins of any kind are so good!
Very Instructive
"Henry VIII had to have his breastplate stretched several times throughout his reign."
Henry VIII is Robert Baratheon confirmed?
I'm actually fairly certain he served as one of Martin's key points of inspiration.
It must've been an inspiring sight for the people, when King Henry wore his armor in public as it got bigger and bigger. I hope he invested in a breastplate stretcher though.
Loooooooooooool I imagine it was definitely a sight that's for sure
FOR THE ALGORITHM!
I salute you for your service brave soul.
This video brought to you by Lines and Veils like a ttvpn. (This is good)
Hell yeah
🤘
Commenting only because of 'KNIGHT TIME" ❤️
I'll take it!
well when they go into battles without the potion seller's strongest potions, what did you expect?
Ballroom dancing is a form of training for knightly combat. Just like how folk dancing from Polynesia to Europe incorporate drills for the use of tool-weapons commoners would have. If you look at the stances a man uses to ask a lady to dance, you'll see a historic fencing guard. The foot work mirros the footwork a highborn swordsman would be taught. Leading is based of judging measure for attacks, parries, and reposts. Twirling the female dancers involves the motions involved in techniques used to "bind and wind" an opposing weapon.
Naturally demonstrating good ballroom dancing skill was a way to duel a rival without even drawing a blade.
As a wise man once said. Not all duels are fought with weapons.
@DesksAndDorks "Violence perceived is violence achieved." From the hit show Burn Notice.
@flyboymike111357 dude burn notice was so so so good.
@@DesksAndDorks It was criminally underrated by most millennial. But when it was on it was my favorite show. And I think the precious fee Hollywood writers with real talent feel the same. Ryan Reynolds played a CIA character named Michael Weston in the movie Safe House. And I just saw an episode of The Rookie with a chill competent CIA agent named Mike Weston. It gives me hope for the entertainment industry.
In terms of both character development and worldbuilding, it makes sense that those who follow a moral code tend to not be as wealthy. They get money from abusing civilian populations and looting. So keep that in mind when building characters- a wealthy knight is wealthy for a reason and may not be an antagonist because of his pompous attitude but because of his tendency to take what he wants.
It's really interesting in some of the accounts I've read it does seem like the violence or seizing of assets is almost transactional
that makes no sense just because you have wealth doesnt make you less or more moral you just have more wealth, also in the middle ages you cannot go overboard with power abuses the peasants arent as docile as everyone thinks they are and the clergy constantly checked nobles, for crying out loud a freaking emperor was outside on his knees begging for forgiveness towards the pope. modern people severly overrestimate the importance of wealth in the middle ages and very severly underestimate the importance of faith.
If I wasn't already subscribed, your refusal to use AI "art" would have had me racing to hit that button in a heartbeat. Nothing has me on the verge of becoming a neo-Luddite more than that trash built on the stolen work of actual artists.
Calling Richard Leoncoeur a "great knight" is a spicy take. Dude went on a road trip. Got his homies killed. Lost a kingdom. Got kidnapped by fucking bankers no least and had to have his brother buy him out.
It's like a poor indie film about a gang from LA.
That may be the best description of Richard's journey and capture ever.
In all fairness from most of the accounts it seems like Richard was a house a combat in addition to being the worst ruler possible.
The one account of him being beaten easily (when not outnumbered, ambushed or getting kissed by the business end of a French crossbow) was when William Marshall unseated him in one blow then told him he wasn't worth killing. And in fairness to Richard, a statement I hate saying, Marshall was by most accounts the best knight to ever live.
This is going to be good! Do one for barbarians!
Aye aye capn!
The difficulty with that topic is, what is a barbarian? To the Greeks, the Persians were barbarians. The Romans called the Britons and the Sarmatians both barbarians, even though the two had nothing in common beside being not-Roman. To the Chinese and Japanese, all of us Europeans were barbarians.
I think that difficulty is what would make it so interesting to do as a video
I've heard barbarian refers to bearded men, because that was out of fashion in Rome and Greece, but for my money, I don't remember where, so I can't attest to the veracity. It might just be that everyone not in your culture is a filthy savage.
Correct. It's actually one of the reasons vikings are often described as dirty despite having good hygiene practices.
Why do you describe attacking convents as a truly horrific crime, which it is, and then later describe a levy as not a truly horrific crime, which it also is?
I'll be honest I had not considered that because of how widespread a phenomenon it was but yeah you're right it would be.
I mean, have you seen Shrek or Game of Thrones? Knights were far more often mocked than not.
Never thought I'd hear Shrek brought up for historical comparison but I'm here for it.
@@DesksAndDorks I kind of dislike how Shrek showed knights as incompetent buffoons instead actual trained, ruthless fighters. This started with Monty Python but many media later did that.
"No, knights were too stupid to use firearms." - ignoring them purchasing and using such weapons alongside crossbows for themselves and their retinues.
I mean. I'm not really going to Shrek for historical accuracy. But I do agree I don't like that knights are portrayed that way..especially with firearms.
"chilvary" is dead indeed
I cannot believe I punted that spelling.
Hah, granite, I get it.
Lol crushing it.
you goated
Appreciated my friend!
For the algorithm
I would beseech you to look into C.S. Lewis' essay on Chivalry. He was a medievalist and very familiar with period sources. It's rather sad to see another deconstruction of Chivalry and the knightly image, simply because some, if not many did not live up to those values. It's a big like saying our own rules of limited warfare against civilians are false in modern times, because it is not always carried out flawlessly. The fact that it is such an enduring archetype in our culture is itself testament to there being more truth than can be easily dismissed. Trying to pick it apart not only misses the truth, but it robs us of our heroes while leaving us at the mercy of our villains.
15:18 I don’t think anyone thinks that, we’re constantly beaten over the head with how evil the Christians were and how innocent the Muslims were, when, if we’re considering the entirety of the crusading period then you’d have to consider the largest massacre to be committed by the Muslims in the siege of acre.
or why the crusades were called in the first place
🥳 🫂 👍
🙇♂️
The thing i never understand about the player consent thing is this. You should know what your friends are not going to be ok with. And if you are playing with strangers, what the hell are you doing hosting a game about rap with an e or children getting wrestled by an adult. It just seems like a non existant problem. I get there is a lot of autism in the hobby, but if you know that something should be included in a player consent conversation then you know it runs the risk of freaking someone out
ah yes, the knights hospitlers..............................
Hospitallers*
Obviously the best thing to do is to have a monarchlless society where the code of chivalry extends to the common folk. Every man a king, every man protected by the Knight.
As history has expanded, we've gotten that, but it isn't hard to see why members of the entrenched knight class wouldn't want such a thing.
...why would you want a monarchless society yet still have powerful martial aristocrats above you..? The entire point of a king is that he is responsible for ensuring his vassals don't abuse their powers, just like they keep him in check. I think you fundamentally misunderstand the feudal structure if you think such a society is remotely sustainable.
I'm not sure if you're talking to me or the other commenter. However I don't think a monarch-less society (or in our case a society without some form.of centralized government with checks and balances) is attainable or desirable. I was insinuating that in general rights seem to have moved closer to the middle of social strata than in the past.
@@DesksAndDorks Not you bro, the commentor.
@@AyEhm-ii2dp it was a joke
Left a like just for the AI comment
💯
Your not meant to understand it, your modern boy.
Lol
The problem with your "consent form" (which it isn't: consent forms are where the players tell you what will be in the game, not the other way around), is that it locks you into some themes and locks you out of others for the entirety of the campaign. It cripples your ability to improvise. Let's use your idea of the attack on the funeral: if I'm running a campaign, and an important NPC dies, and their enemies would logically want to attack people at their funeral, but I did not put "Death and grieving" on my "consent form," then I'm locked out of that organic story growth. I never told players that there would be a funeral, because I did not know an important NPC would die, so I can't allow the story to develop as it wants to.
The way I do things at my table is give people a movie rating - for my campaigns it's always "R" - and I tell them that any and all themes that might fall under that movie rating may occur during the game. If they don't like that movie rating, they don't have to play, but I reserve the right to let the campaign develop as it should. There is no need whatsoever for a GM to kneecap themselves by locking them selves into or out of certain themes during session 0.
The way I use forms like that are they are themes that MIGHT come up. If they don't it's no big deal if they do players are ready. I haven't found them to be limiting or kneecapping at all tbh
@DesksAndDorks Right, but if something isn't on the form, the players didn't consent to it, so there's possibility for conflict to arise if you do. Best to tell them "Here's the general rating of the game. Anything within that rating might happen, door's over there if it doesn't work for you." Adults can handle surprises
@@distance7721well put
The issue with that is that sometimes things happen for folks, and I'd prefer to give those people a way out if they need it in my games while still allowing them to play. Ultimately, giving players an out feels more adult then telling them to kick rocks if something happens.
@DesksAndDorks What do you mean "give them an out?" You seem to be looking at this from a very railroady perspective, where you've already planned out everything that will happen in the campaign ahead of time. It's understandable if you're running exclusively one shots, but that's not fun for most people. Establishing a strict list of themes at the start of a longform campaign is just asking for trouble.
People experience hardship, but so long as you aren't specifically targeting someone's trauma at the table, adult players will be able to handle something they weren't expecting. I wouldn't tell someone to kick rocks because something didn't land well with them: I'd tell them to kick rocks if they got argumentative about the themes in the game.
You can do the same for the Waffen-SS
Often I will get people saying I'm not being very chivalrous usually women and I will point out I mean I can be as you want but you are a peasant and have No title so there's no reason for me to be