>>10558171>A horse is an advantage no matter what your pathetic argument isI NEVER said the opposite, I just said that the falling from a horse wouldn't even the plain field between a knight and a soldier or closing them together as much as you think
>Wearing platemail like that would make it almost impossible to be agile enough to battleI see these terms "agility" "mobility" being thrown around... who gives a shit, they're not ninjas, they didn't avoid blows by moving to the sides, they just fucking tanked it with their armor, in fact the use of the shield, with the advancement of plate armor, fell into unuse, because of how much plate was protective and the advantage that a two-handed sword would give you instead
>You would be more efficient with no armor at allWOOOOOOOOOOOOOW
Any medieval historian would have beaten you to death right now for saying something this stupid, armor is everything and even just one piece more can make significant difference, duel or war that it is. And the fact that they went into more and more protective plate is testiment to the fact that it IS more protective and useful than ANY previous attempts, 300 years of plate armor to be exact
>The horse adds a level of adaptabilityAgain I never said that, horses are amazing at war and a horsed knight would certail thrash a walking knight
>YOU are an idiot to say that a spear cannot pierce through platemailTry it, I mean they were onion shaped EXACTLY to deflect blows and the mace and warhammers werre indeed the most used weapons at the time, but what do I know....
>If I had the force of my horse behind a spear I would be able to pierce ANY modern or medieval platemail you put on a dummyDude, people were piercing themselves with heavy ass spears (that by the way couldn't even be used in war because of their weight) on horses as a fun little distraction game and then they immediately got up and continued with their day, what the fuck are you talking about?
continue...
