>>6277834>still no evidence of heavy armored foot soldiers like those mounted on horses, but offers his expert opinion on how ye olden timey generals should have ordered their troops.The people of modern times are always right and know better than the primitive man.
Also, you're still ignoring the fact that mercenaries were very well paid, enough to afford better armor. They still limited it to breast plates and other important vital areas, because they needed to be mobile.
Not like knights standing around guarding the archers and phalanxeses.
>the English lost using that tactic It's actually a common tactic and was used by the scotts too.
>if people today are able to hike 40 miles wearing more than 80 lbs of gear in 20 hours just to qualify for a modern SFExcept these guys are walking/jogging to their encampment, IF they don't have a IFV or armored carrier to stick it all on. They leave all this shit behind in a battle. They're only carrying around 20lbs of equipment/armor into a fight, unlike the 80lbs that you see on the knights in your picture, which is far more extraneous, which we know from that Popular Mechanics article's research makes them almost twice less effective than your normal foot soldier.
