How to kill a knight in full plate armour?

[starki]

Stab him with the pointy end, It is known.

[alienarea]

Landmines

[1918me]

Nukez.

If that fails, you could probably wear them down. I mean, knights used to die from heatstroke in heavy armor, and that must be heavy as **** to move in, so it wouldn't take much effort to tire 'em out.

[Skahaz mo Kandaq]

Wildfyre worked pretty well for the Mad King on Rickard Stark.

Yes, if you were Aerys you would use fire and just roast them. Sort of like baking a potato wrapped in foil.

For the average warrior, we know there are "weak" areas in the armor. Bronn found one.

[rmholt]

Landmines

Poison. The Plague that got Vylarr. Mels Smoke Monster. Push em off a cliff. Drag them behind a horse. PLONK them

[Alester Florent]

I agree with you. Mayhaps the myth that a knight in full armor was extremely cumbersome, clumsy and as flexible as a college student wrapped in a metal trashbin - is partly derived from the jousting competitions? If I remember my history correctly, in those contest the armor did not need to be flexible except to protect the wearer and to help him hold the lance?

I think the major factor in the myth is the Whiggish historical trend in vogue at the time (and which still isn't fully dead) that from the fall of Rome onwards history represents a straight line of unalloyed progress in every respect. An historian approaching the subject would probably be starting from the perspective that Mediaeval armour would suck, or that the people of that era weren't clever enough to develop sophisticated armour, because it's what he would expect. Working from that assumption, it's not difficult to find a few pieces of evidence - tournament armour, the Earl of Warwick at Barnet, "my kingdom for a horse" - that superficially support it.

Then there's the jingoistic nonsense that creeps in - the myth of the "little ships" against the Spanish armada (outright lies), the longbows at Agincourt, and so on. Military history has suffered from it for generations, particularly at the popular level.

As has already been mentioned repeatedly, relatively few soldiers on a Mediaeval battlefield would have been armoured in full plate. A lot of melee combat revolved around wrestling rather than the theatric "clashing of swords" - this was one of the reasons that, as armour improved, knights on foot discarded their shields. The extra hand was more valuable. Although vulnerable in places, armour was obviously designed ti minimise weak spots and direct force away from them: killing a knight who was fighting back with a bladed or stabbing weapon would have been very difficult. Knocking them down and then finishing them off would have been a better solution.

Then again, of course, a lot of the time the point was not to kill them. Enemy knights and nobles were a lot more valuable as hostages than corpses. It depends on the nature of the conflict, of course. During the Wars of the Roses (and the War of the Five Kings) killing the senior enemy commanders was more desirable than usual.

[Pallantides]

Crossbow at a decent range will do it, especially if it hits a weaker area like a joint. GRRM alludes to this real-life analogy where various knights call Crossbows dishonorable, something that was felt in the actual Middle Ages. Though just as IRL, in Westeros the whole dishonorable angle still doesn't stop them from being used.

I'm surprised gunpowder weapons haven't been introduced yet, though I suspect the far Eastern regions of Essos will have them.

Interestingly, while it is common to see such things as knights saying crossbows were dishonourable, in 14th and 15th century fighting manuals, specifically the German ones, but you do see it in Italian ones too, is a fairly substantial amount of material given to knights fighting with crossbows, both using them on foot and horseback. Del Ray's manual for example indicates that if you're using your sword and must switch to your crossbow on horseback, to place your sword between your thigh and the saddle leather, and shoot the crossbow, and if you have to use the sword once more, to take hold of it and use the crossbow to parry strikes as though it were a shield.

Talhoffer's manual shows how you should brace the crossbow upon your left arm while on horseback to stabilize your shot.

So while knights may have disparaged the use of a crossbow, it appears they were fairly proficient with it themselves. If anyone wants more info on this, I suggest you look into picking up "Medieval Warfare Magazine, Volume 2 Issue 2". It has an article specifically dealing with the subject of combat conducted on horseback by knights.

[HouseHarrison]

Interestingly, while it is common to see such things as knights saying crossbows were dishonourable, in 14th and 15th century fighting manuals, specifically the German ones, but you do see it in Italian ones too, is a fairly substantial amount of material given to knights fighting with crossbows, both using them on foot and horseback. Del Ray's manual for example indicates that if you're using your sword and must switch to your crossbow on horseback, to place your sword between your thigh and the saddle leather, and shoot the crossbow, and if you have to use the sword once more, to take hold of it and use the crossbow to parry strikes as though it were a shield.

Talhoffer's manual shows how you should brace the crossbow upon your left arm while on horseback to stabilize your shot.

So while knights may have disparaged the use of a crossbow, it appears they were fairly proficient with it themselves. If anyone wants more info on this, I suggest you look into picking up "Medieval Warfare Magazine, Volume 2 Issue 2". It has an article specifically dealing with the subject of combat conducted on horseback by knights.

Well I think by the 14th/15th centuries the outlook had changed a lot, as Knights behaved more pragmatically when it became clear the tactics of the early 100 Years War were no longer viable. It's also not surprising to see Knights act a bit hypocritical themselves, as first and foremost they were professional soldiers looking to fight in an efficient manner beyond their rhetoric.

As for disparaging crossbows, I think the best example is the Pope banning them (except against non-Christians) in the early 1100's, something done under pressure from a lot of Knights who were frustrated by the crossbows effectiveness.

[Khal Pono]

I know how to fuck up a knight in full plate armor..... MAGNETS, BITCHES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(sorry, I just watched the season premiere of Breaking Bad. It didn't disappoint.)

[The Bloody Boar]

There's a lovely bit in "Knight with Armour" by Alfred Duggan (a seriously underrated author) where a crusading knight gets onto the wall of Jerusalem and then an Arab boy with a dagger slits his achilles heel causing him to bleed to death - and nothing he could do about it.

[rmholt]

There's a lovely bit in "Knight with Armour" by Alfred Duggan (a seriously underrated author) where a crusading knight gets onto the wall of Jerusalem and then an Arab boy with a dagger slits his achilles heel causing him to bleed to death - and nothing he could do about it.

He bled from his Achilles heel? people get chronic Achilles tendinopathy from the intrinsically poor blood circulation.

On the other hand, if he cut the Achilles tendons, laming the guy and THEN cut something a little more vascular, OK. Did his knight lack greaves and sabatons? Seems like you could have plenty of dorsi flexion with the proper coverage/lobstering without exposing the Achilles tendon. More info?

[Scipio Africanus]

An historian approaching the subject would probably be starting from the perspective that Mediaeval armour would suck, or that the people of that era weren't clever enough to develop sophisticated armour, because it's what he would expect. Working from that assumption, it's not difficult to find a few pieces of evidence - tournament armour, the Earl of Warwick at Barnet, "my kingdom for a horse" - that superficially support it.

Actually early medieval armour did "suck", it was not until later in the 14th century that armour was developed to withstand most arrows and bolts. So, eh, there was at least unalloyed progress in that department. ;)

But yes you're right at least at Pointiers (1356) and Agincourt (1415) bodkin arrows were not the main reason so many armoured knights died. The English had other tricks up their sleeves to counter armoured knights charging.

As for the OP, it was very hard killing an armoured knight especially once advanced armour was developed in the 14th century. Usually, as per the aforementioned battles, or the battle of the Golden Spurs (1302) the layout of the terrain (muddy, ditches, stakes) and impatious knights running over their own retreating footsoldiers/crossbowmen were the cause of the armoured cavalry charge failing.

Once an armoured knight was unhorsed (and if he survived the fall and wasn't wounded) he'd be more killable, but not from direct blows but by having several people pulling the knight down (easy in muddy or broken terrain) and stabbing thought the vulnerable parts with a long dagger.

[Talleyrand]

If you've only got a sword, smack them with the pommel and then stab their eyes.

[Lord Hound]

Use a Warhammer to stun him. Then crush his bones.

[SeanF]

Actually early medieval armour did "suck", it was not until later in the 14th century that armour was developed to withstand most arrows and bolts. So, eh, there was at least unalloyed progress in that department. ;)

But yes you're right at least at Pointiers (1356) and Agincourt (1415) bodkin arrows were not the main reason so many armoured knights died. The English had other tricks up their sleeves to counter armoured knights charging.

As for the OP, it was very hard killing an armoured knight especially once advanced armour was developed in the 14th century. Usually, as per the aforementioned battles, or the battle of the Golden Spurs (1302) the layout of the terrain (muddy, ditches, stakes) and impatious knights running over their own retreating footsoldiers/crossbowmen were the cause of the armoured cavalry charge failing.

Once an armoured knight was unhorsed (and if he survived the fall and wasn't wounded) he'd be more killable, but not from direct blows but by having several people pulling the knight down (easy in muddy or broken terrain) and stabbing thought the vulnerable parts with a long dagger.

Actually early medieval armour did "suck", it was not until later in the 14th century that armour was developed to withstand most arrows and bolts. So, eh, there was at least unalloyed progress in that department. ;)

But yes you're right at least at Pointiers (1356) and Agincourt (1415) bodkin arrows were not the main reason so many armoured knights died. The English had other tricks up their sleeves to counter armoured knights charging.

As for the OP, it was very hard killing an armoured knight especially once advanced armour was developed in the 14th century. Usually, as per the aforementioned battles, or the battle of the Golden Spurs (1302) the layout of the terrain (muddy, ditches, stakes) and impatious knights running over their own retreating footsoldiers/crossbowmen were the cause of the armoured cavalry charge failing.

Once an armoured knight was unhorsed (and if he survived the fall and wasn't wounded) he'd be more killable, but not from direct blows but by having several people pulling the knight down (easy in muddy or broken terrain) and stabbing thought the vulnerable parts with a long dagger.

Crucially, at Crecy and Agincourt, the English were an army, while the French were simply a collection of warriors, none of whom was actually in charge.

WRT the O/P, a knight was vulnerable if unhorsed, or if he fell. Arrows rarely penetrated the best plate armour, but the force could knock a knight off his feet, and completely disrupt a mounted charge.

Pole axes, pikes, battle axes, swords, could all be used to batter a knight into unconsciousness, even if they didn't penetrate his armour.

[E-Ro]

Actually early medieval armour did "suck", it was not until later in the 14th century that armour was developed to withstand most arrows and bolts. So, eh, there was at least unalloyed progress in that department.

Mail was vey good protection, very few had it becaus it was so expensive, but its almost as good as plate.

[Alester Florent]

The armour wouldn't have sucked relatively to the weapons of its time, though. Weapons and armour tend to develop in step with each other. A weapon is developed to be effective against the armour of its day, and armour then develops to protect against that weapon. When a new weapon appears the instinct is to cry foul (as with the crossbow) but before long a way to deal with it has been worked out.

The bow remained effective for most of its history, not because of its penetrative ability, accuracy or range (which were inferior to that of the crossbow) but because of its rate of fire. While it's not going to kill many well-armoured troops it will hurt unarmoured ones and kill horses, disrupting advances and generally making a nuisance of itself. Huns, Magyars, Pechenegs, Turks, Mongols... Englishmen - it was an extremely effective weapon for a thousand years or so. But it wasn't a magic bullet; it had to be used within a tactical system to make use of its capabilities and minimise its deficiencies. Popular history and cultural recollection tend to simplify everything, but it was the combination of longbow, pike and an unusual professionalism for a feudal army that made England successful in the 14th century, not the longbow alone. Plus, of course, you don't train archers, you grow them, which makes them a long-term investment and simply unavailable to most commanders.

I think we need to be careful about what we're calling full plate, too, and also remember that the Hundred Years' War lasted a hundred years (on and off) with corresponding developments in technology. It's also probably worth pointing out that, despite some spectacular victories, England lost the war comprehensively. The knights at Crecy would mostly have been wearing mail, even the elite ones.

[rmholt]

How is chainmail made, must have been by hand?

[E-Ro]

Yes, it was made by hand, and as with all things some was good quality and almost immune to slashes and good against thrusts, some was not so good. And while plate eventually became mass produced and available to everyone mail remained expensive due to the work that goes into it.

[Scipio Africanus]

Yes, it was made by hand, and as with all things some was good quality and almost immune to slashes and good against thrusts, some was not so good. And while plate eventually became mass produced and available to everyone mail remained expensive due to the work that goes into it.

Chainmail is indeed much more labour intensive to make then Plate. All those rings you have to forge and combine...

Ultimately though both chainmail and plate weren't up to scratch when arquebuses were issued among the infantry on the field. But al least the plate breatplate went on in service amongst the Polish Hussars and French Cuirassiers.