10. Knights' vocation was war, not farming - the main reason for giving them land was so that they could support themselves, their men-at-arms, and their horses. They lived like professional athletes and often dropped dead in their fifties thanks to a lifetime of intense physical training, injuries, and wounds that would never completely heal. Knights' skeletons often show deformities in the right arm from using a bow or lance, broken bones, and so on. Gout, arthritis, and pleurisy or dropsy were common ailments for knights who managed to live long enough for the lifestyle to catch up with them. 9. So the Middle Ages wasn't terribly democratic. Who knew? Also, knights often did fight on foot and tended to be the first ones over the wall in a siege because of their skill and armor (which was the main reason they tended not to die - it's damned hard to kill someone wearing a mail coat and a decent helmet who's practiced killing people for _a minimum of fourteen years_). Knights were the shock troops of medieval armies. Special forces operators have a similar role today - they tend to have lighter casualties because their missions are over with quickly, and because they are just that good. It's not because their job is easy or without risks. 8. Before the railroad was invented in the Nineteenth Century, looting and foraging was the only way to keep an army fed during a long campaign. You had to have a _reason_ to do it, and rape was a capital crime in both armies during the Hundred Years' War. In France and England, Knights could be punished for harming women, children, or priests. 7. Well, duh. Do you have any idea how much a knight's equipment costs? Most people can't afford it _today_, in the age of mechanized mass production. Also, bear in mind that most knights didn't own land in their own name and were just glorified tenants on their lord's plantation. Also, one of the expectations of a knight was that he be literate and have at least a basic education, which only the wealthy could afford before the invention of printing. 5. The joust is confined to the Late Middle Ages (when plate armor became standard). For most of the era, tournaments were basically mock battles where anything goes. They went on for days and days, with camps and ambushes and forced marches. You were even allowed to take prisoners and ransom them just like in a real war. It wasn't uncommon to have a few fatalities. 4. Oh, those poor women. Why couldn't _they_ be knights too? How hard could it be to charge into battle wearing fifty pounds of armor, live in a tent, and sleep on a bed of lice and fleas? No way they'd rather sit at home, safe and sound, running their households and raising children, unless they had no choice, right? 3. So which one is it? Did knights have a cushy, easy job where their lives were never in danger, or were they always risking their necks for a lady's favor? They can't both be true. 2. Go back in time to _any_ period before 1850 or so, and you'll find that 99% of the people who have ever lived were poor, ignorant, and lived their whole lives under some form of bondage. Welcome to history, guys. 1. One smack on the face and I get to be a knight? That's _way_ easier than OCS today. I'll take it! :P
Speaking of knight's equipment - it's not mass-produced today. I think, all sets of WORKING armor and arms are forged by hand, that's why they take weeks to complete and cost a lot. And even then they're not that unaffordable (I think, around $2000, mind the exchange rates, for the whole XIIIc. set? Now XVc. is just FREAKING OUTRAGINGLY EXPENSIVE, but hey, we're talking full plate here). Everything else, I won't really argue with (I mean in your comment, not the video).
There are a few cases of women essentially being knights, and a few (very very few) orders that were female. There are also a few stories of women fighting. Though as far as I know no one has distinguished those women as knights or proved that female knights fought... So women could be "knights". But it certainly wasn't because their husband died and they needed to be a knight for him. That doesn't even make sense.
***** The answwer is really simple: because society needs more women to keep up the population. One man can impregnate several women, but one woman can only become pregnant of one man. As far as keeping up the species goes, men are more expendable than women. Add to the fact that men are in fact more capable in a fight than women, and then there's no logical reason to throw women into the fight (except in desperate circunstamces, which has happened several times throughout history),
The Templars took the traditional vows of a monk, including of poverty, but the order was immensely rich - they became the first bankers who would issue a receipt for money at one Priory which could be redeemed at another - and so fair game for trumped up charges of heresy.
@@ryanhull167 no they didn't give all of their money to the church by choice, they where the first bankers! They where so rich! Literally King Phillip of France went to war with them to get their money
@@alecblunden8615 banking as a thing has been around since at least 2000BCE in babylon and as a concept is traced to mesopatamia around 4000BCE they "bank notes" as a concept is Chinese 500yrs before the 1st European equivalent
Huge misconceptions that knights were wealthy and didnt really fight! (history student here). It's simply plane wrong! It is actually the opposite, the knights would usually be the first to storm the ennemy lines, often dying in the process. Many of them had to farm their land with their cerf as well, and they were as much victims of famines as the rest of the population. Also, NO SLAVES IN THE MIDDLE AGES!!! Huge misconception as well!!
actully there where slaves during the middle ages but it was by no means a thing that was in every village/under ever lord but i come from a genuine viking famly with history that has been traced back to the 700s and this village had slaves from around 750 to about 1680 and they where by no means the only village that used slaves. but you will find it hard to see it mentioned in viking history sence it was as common as the sun rise therefore it was never written down to my knowledge
Ok, more are correct in this one are correct than in most top ten things about knights. But so much wrong! Peasants were not lower than cattle, and women did not take their husbands job; and commoners could ride horses into battle; even English longbowmen sometimes mounted steeds to ride to battle, unhorsing to shoot, but regularly getting in the saddle to fight as mounted men at arms. And most "knights" weren't knighted as such; professional soldiers could get wealthy, buy a title, and then, never being knighted, buy armor, a horse, hire a page, etc.
wait this video said that only knights could ride horses to battle? uuuuhhh Man I'm going to have to have a talk with the vast number of mounted non-knights in 14th-15th century when the obligations of the title of knighthood became too prohibitive for most people to maintain so that only a minority of men-at-arms in those centuries were actually knights
It depends on which culture, for example, Celtic culture required or expected Women to fight. He is using British culture, many other cultures in Europe did indeed do as you say. And in Europe there were many cases of Peasants becoming Knights and being Women. Looks at Joan-of-Arc(or Jeanne d'Arc as it is correctly spelled) and Joanna of Flanders.
THANK YOU for writing a summary in the description. Not only is it common courtesy (who doesn't hate wasting their time on videos), but it actually made me watch the entire thing with interest because the summary seemed promising.
8 років тому+319
Horrifying? Is it cold up there in your pretty tower of prettiness?
He is talking about knights of the Dark Ages, not medieval knights after the Crusades. The very first forms of knights were egotistical pricks. Christianity changed all of that. You can trace chivalry all the way back to Christ himself. Obviously, this guy doesn't know where real knights originated from. Godspeed!
"Top 10 HORRIFYING facts you Didn't Know About KNIGHTS" true as many of these are completely false and others greatly exaggerated. Knights were not magically wealthy, nor did they have to be wealthy to be knighted...many knights actually lived in moderate poverty. Furthermore a Knight didn't inherently own land or a lot of land...and were actually in service *to the their lord* and *not the King* ....a lord would have his knights and the local lord owed allegiance to the King. Yes many knights did essentially live out their days and thugs and bandits...but your assertion that all did is simply wrong. As for the 40 days of work, I suggest you look at the amount of work required of a historical peasant or workmen....the answer may surprise you. Your statement about Knight's in battle is almost 100% false. For starters especially in the late middle ages and early Renaissance Knights in increasing numbers actually fought *On foot* and not while mounted. What made them incredibly hard to kill apart from their training....their *several bodyguards* ....and having better weapons...was their *armour* ....furthermore the consequences of a peasant killing a knight were not a formality as you are asserting here. Only Knights could own horses? Arrgh, Your assertion that knights ran around just harassing women is outright incorrect, furthermore women had significantly more power historically than you're giving them credit for. Your point about Knights essentially being packs of bandits in war is pretty much spot on, they pretty much drove the war machine ever onward...and were often with contention with church for their right to kill, loot and pillage. Not to mention many knights often made a complete ruckus at their local church...some even slaughtering the inhabitants there. A lot of Knights were indeed thugs...but that doesn't mean you can attribute every horrible thing under the sun to them. Your statement about Jousting, pretty accurate. One thing you forgot to mention (in relation to their duty to return insults.) is they were often locked in nearly perpetual feuds with each other...with large groups of Knight thugs routinely attacking other groups...almost like a constant gang war between thousands of different gangs.
They were mostly nobles, they just didn't specify that there were "poor" nobles compared to higher nobility... basically "Ye olde merry hood rich" of their time...
***** Mostly nobles..depends on your meaning. If you mean they were granted substantial land, title and wealth by virtue of their birth or rank as Knight and political power...than not really, if by noble you merely mean generally of the upper class than yes.
no sword can cut through full plate armour. simply not possible. hollywood nonsense. you can only go after weak spots (joints) using thrusting. katanas are terrible at that - not a Japanese style of fighting at all. katanas were also very fragile, european swards were more flexible, could absorb impact easier. that means katanas break easier. learn something before making ridiculous claims.
They were both weapons that had positives and negatives. Against unarmored and lightly armored people, nothing is superior to a well made Katana. Against heavily armored targets, any heavy weapon that could crush the armor on the wearer shined. Katana's were smaller and lighter the broad swords but also much sharper. Broadswords were long as hell and heavy but the swords were terrible at cutting
"Broadswords" are one-handed Scottish basket-hilted swords of around the Victorian period. What you are probably referring to is a longsword - they weighed roughly the same as a katana but were indeed longer. Katanas, being thick, fat bladed weapons, have more weight packed into a smaller shape. Longswords were not "terrible at cutting" in fact. Both a katana and a longsword could and were used to kill unarmored people. Both are light and quick weapons with sharp edges that will cut up a person with relative ease. Early period longswords can cut just as well as katanas. Later period longswords cut *slightly* worse in *most* situations, but the difference is so marginal against an unarmored person it frankly doesn't matter. And as for longswords "crushing people in plate"... please. You can't kill a guy in plate with a sword by hitting him. Longswords were used against plate by putting one hand on the blade in a technique called half-swording and maneuvering the point between the gaps of the armor, much like a short spear. I've trained HEMA for 8 years and kenjutsu for 5. Both the katana and longsword are excellent weapons. I would choose the longsword in pretty much any combat situation, but that's just my preference. I prefer the greater speed and agility given by the close point of balance of the longsword, and the reach (anybody who actually knows what they're talking in the slightest about knows that reach is own of the most important factors in a fight with weapons). I also prefer the protection from the infinitely superior crossguard and the more agile and penetrative thrust. Oh, and "katans were smaller and lighter than 'broadswords' but also much sharper?" BS. Smaller? Shorter, yeah. Lighter? Nope. Much sharper? No. Katanas and longswords were sharpened to a very similar degree. It should be noted that European steel was also far superior to Japanese steel - longswords were able to flex without bending whereas historical differentially hardened katana blades (which weebs seem to think are magical super weapons) have a tendency to take a set, or bend, VERY quickly. I know this from experience. One thing I will say the katana has going for it is ease of use. Because of the very wide, thick blade, it is very forgiving in the cut. You have a far greater margin of error. A bad cut can be fixed by the sword, because the stiffness, weight, and high point of balance (which, by the way, makes it much more agile and clumsy to handle) help carry it through the cut.
Dehorsing is incredibly rare in jousting - you score points for shattering your lance against certain parts of your opponent's armour - with the shield symbol on the chest being worth the most, the head being worth less and the torso being worth the least. Dehorsing isn't even the aim of a joust.
+Templar S Thinking the same thing. Kingdom of heaven really shows the Templar in the wrong way. But that's Hollywood. Everyone sees it and believes it.
knights didn't use slaves to build their castles, they hired people and they forced hired people for a low wage, NOT slavery. actually the6 had to follow chivalrous code because it was apart of the law of the land, if they broke certain parts of it they could lose their land or be in house "castle" arrest (can't leave their castle). knights also had a version if Ronin so to say, they were called Knights errant.
no they HAD to follow chivalrous code, they didn't get to "cherry pick" they can face fines, go to jail, go into cattle arrest, or lose their land and title all together. knights were the lowest form of nobility and we're very much subjected to laws of the land.
jousting is a bastardised form of midieval knights, jousting as you saw and showed was only used for entertainment and not an actual sport, and they WEREN'T knights, they were peasants in Armor there to entertain nobility. the age of Knights as warriors had already passed at that time.
+Luke Jacks no wives were not expected to fulfill knightly duties, women in combat was seen in a very negative light (and the greatest Joan of Arc got burned at the stake for being a woman in combat.
actually they treated serfs very well, so we'll in fact that they would house their serfs should the land and village be attacked. as I said knights had to follow a set of laws, and if they did not follow such laws it would be told ti the king of their land and they would need either (above comments)
The idea of a code of chivalry is certainly among the more ridiculous ones. Also, yes, knights could be rich. Most were most certainly not. Some where given a piece of land (which they mostly had to work themselves - the rent and services of their serfs usually wasn't enough to keep their households and fulfill their duties to their lords - so they certainly didn't have a shortage of work) - usually not enough to get rich on though usually enough to maintain their horses, arms and armor. Others were in the direct employ of their lords (and necessarily couldn't get rich that way) or maintained their life by warfare (as soldiers if possible, as mercenaries if necessary). The rich ones were often enough were those with rich families (through noble titles (i.e. land) or a profitable business). Oh, and most knights (like 99%+) didn't risk life and limb in their quest to get laid/married.
There were exceptions, but as a general rule it was true. There are recorded instances of major battles with hundreds of knights taking part and only a few being killed.
Seems like the video makers do not distinguish between war and "battle". Battles were kind of a sport back then, also likely between somewhat befriended sovereigns, to demonstrate their own might. Of course people died in battles but all in all they weren't as cruel and violent as war. Battles didn't take years to be fought. War back then was like war today I'd say. And of course knights died in war.
VaZi Henry the 2th had the prisoners killed after the battle. Disgruntling his own men who wanted the ransom money. It wasn't cricket , so to say. But it put enough fear in the French that they sewed for peace under his terms.
"Armour was so heavy the wearer could barely move" WRONG knights had Armour custom fitted and customized to fit them exclusively, knights could move fine in plate armour
Michael Berthelsen If you have "ever seen jousting", you are either the oldest person on Earth, or you have been watching modern jousting with reproduction armor. That's not a good representation of the original. Better to form opinions based on museum examples of actual armor - battle, jousting, and ceremonial types. They were all different.
Sir Chet, huh? I don't know, it just doesn't seem to roll off the tongue very well. "And now, if your lordship doth allow, may I introduce unto thee Sir Chet of Hoboken."
Since the person who posted this video didn't mention or credit the illustrator of the image used by the thumbnail. It was artwork from the sandbox survival MMO Mortal Online.
Knights really strictly followed the chivalric code, in the peasants revolt in England there were so few knights willing to break it that the king was forced to cave to there demands
"they didn't have to work" how is that a horrifying fact? the first point of this video has already made me pause it and comment because of how stupid it is, Knights didn't have slaves, it was a feudal system, do your research for god sake
I think it was "horrifying" in the sense that, contrary to the romanticized idea we have, knights were apparently actually just some dudes who got everything handed to them and got to keep their shit without really doing anything. I mean, yes it's a feudal system and they had whipping people to do everything else, but you'd think they'd atleast somehow "earn" their keep because they're supposed to be the epitome of what a gentleman should strive to be. Or I don't know, I was a little surprised by that part as well.
Well, most of them trained 24/7. It was almost all their was to their life. Being a warrior. Even beyond being the only "legitimate" cavalry a king possessed, knights were often am elite fighting force even on foot. Just because most modern movies display them as incompetent buffoons does not mean that that is correct... And the Idea that Chivalry = Gentleman is also wrong. Chivalry was something quite personal for each knight and even though there were consistencies between the different codes of honor, not all codes included rules regarding women...
Carl Morgan. These stupid snowflake assholes dont have any idea how hard a soldier then and now have to work ,to stay physically and mentally up to fighting to the death in battle.
From what I’ve read, most army officials or solders are reprimanded severely if they misrepresent the ruling monarchy through bad behaviour. I don’t think it’s accurate to suggest that knights raped and pillaged as if they were power crazed kings of there own right. Small communities would also public shame such conduct not to mention quick uprisings if this were true.
As a student of history, I have to say that your statements where so blanketed and generalized that I can't take this video with eny intellectual sincerity. I can list three knights of the top of my head, one of them the most famous.....William Marshall, who started off a poor knight then self made lord. I can also go into more factual accounts on how knights where actually on many occasions punished or shamed by the clergy and kings for not at least trying to follow the chivalric code but I have a feeling you are going to continue to spout the nonsense of your indoctrinated liberal proffessors. Lastly IL say this, it's obvious that many knights did not live up to their oaths, or that their was a class inequality, but the fact that a society that was post dark age put so much effort into trying to bring civilization up from the ashes, proves that people who each carried out there own stations in a very rough time would laugh in your soft modern face for judging them based on the time YOU live in.
"They did what they wanted because they could" I just watched the Samurai one and all the Parallels in two Cultures that were on opposite sides of the Planet are amazing
+Waldog he was citing a time in history when they called it a harelip. Until people are being burnt or drowned for being cursed or a witch, it isnt a offensive word.
Your understanding of knights and the chivalric code is absolutely wrong. The chivalric code was not a set thing in medieval times and varied greatly. However all knights followed what they knew was the chivalric code.
This tottaly ruined my fantasy of being a knight, i've always loved them and im a HUGE fan medival historical novels and this just ruind every novel i'll ever read.... Thanks alot !
Zoltán Barkóczi i have my doubts aswell. i wanted to google all this but im too afraid that this is all true. fwking silly of me really but i guess i'll just ignore this video.
Well, provided you were born into the right family (that is, with enough rank and money to have you knighted before the environment had gotten the best of you), you could've lived by the romantic ideals and, I guess, be a knight a lot of people would respect. That would be a reputation to maintain, but not without profit, since whoever you sworn loalty to would see you as a higly valuable resource, since you'd be a lot less likely to defect or betray your lord for any reason whatsoever. What's weird is what would you do if an order you'd been given contradicted your code of honor. For instance, you are to lead a squad of men against a rival lord's village and fuck it up to strip his resources. Fine, but the people who are going to get directly hurt are unprotected civilians, and there's definitely no honor in hurting them - if anything, you are more or less expected not to do such a thing. On the other side, disobeying is disloyalty, and feudal disloyalty is like the worst falsehood there was. I've no idea how to sneak out of a situation like that. Besides, if you have a code of honor, you're not to sneak out of situations.
Hoàng Nguyên chastity belts are a myth, the armor was really massive in the 15c only, and even then it won't that much heavier than the modern military gear (and by that I don't mean demolition armor and helmets, just the normal infantry armor, equipment and arms). Everythinng else you said is just about right, AFAIK (this whole comment should be considered AFAIK, narurally).
Don't forget that when knights were called upon to go into battle or even participate in a joust, either type of armor took Ages to take off and often led to knights defecating in the armor since they didn't want to (or have the time to) have the armor removed just to use the bathroom. Also, some of your facts are only correct depending on the time and/or location of the "knights" you are talking about. Knights were widely used for hundreds of years by multiple nations and they were all different in at least some way.
Wow you included Geoffrey Chaucer played by Paul Bettany who also played Vos Dryden in Star Wars & Jarvis aka Vision in Iron Man and Avengers that's amazing Simon.
I'm sorry but you can't agree to disagree about facts. Your video had some wrong "facts" in it and those that were correct were exaggerated. This is not a matter of opinions, this is a matter of actual historical facts, you can't just agree to disagree.
being a knight is somewhat romanticised and is incredibly brutal but remember knighthood was an empty title when it was romanticised but dark ages to late medevil they were advanced troops being of noble birth was a plus but even this wasnt concrete knights were commander's raiders looters pilligers and this was all apart of chivalry. chivalry isn't just about how to socialy act as a knight but militarily as well
Nah, is because it was a bad time to live in.. Especially if you were a commoner, mad rulers, non-existent hygiene, constant wars & The Black Death. Not a fun time.
You dont strike me as someone who's been in combat before so let me just let you know. Going to war is a lot of work, regardless if you're hard to kill or not. Physical labor is involved and it is much harder when people are trying to kill you.
You need to be alot more specific when it comes to videos like these. There are a vast number of different kind of knights. A fact that is true for one of them might be false for another.
he is talking about all the knights in general, he is talking about the fantasy idea or romantization that people have about knights, in ich in reality they were nothing like that.
The reality of chivalry is that it isn't anything in particular. There are countless ways one could define chivalry; a code of conduct, guidelines, battlefield etiquette, being good cavalry (which is actually the closest definition to it's roots), simply being a good fighter, grit, religious loyalty, etc.
#10 Some other warriors were like this also: "When not engaged in warfare they spend a certain amount of time in hunting, but much more in idleness, thinking of nothing else but sleeping and eating. For the boldest and most warlike men have no regular employment, the care of house, home, and fields being left to the women, old men, and weaklings of the family. In thus dawdling away their time they show a strange inconsistency - at one and the same time loving indolence and hating peace" - A Roman historian on Germanic warriors
The slap to the face was the final time in their lives they were to be struck without retaliation in defense of their honor, and was also used as a reminder of their oaths.
quit bullshiting about knights the armor made them nearly impossible to kill they where tanks and cavalry could be defeated using spears and you do mention most being lords because they where which means they should be cleanly because they had servants and the whole bathing 3 times a year
my spelling had some issues but my grammar was fine. I did not add punctuation and that is on me but my sentence structure is completely fine. so maybe you should know more about our language before claiming something like that.
Holden people in Mid evil Europe bathed more than 3 times a year, and the downfall of the knight was archer. Archers were commoners who were trained and paid wages. Also the cross bow and gun powder didn't help the knight either.
Actually, knights were in danger of getting killed by many things. Crossbows were already in vogue before the First Crusade, and Longbows made it easy to pierce Knightly armor without the long load time of the crossbows. Add to that the fact that the enemy knights are going to be in your face, and you won't be having a good day.
Well English knights fight on foot, and u sound English u should now about that, not presenting knights to be better then else just because they have horses, also lower class man at arms uses horses, light cavalry, mounted archers...
To the defense of knights: While they didn't have to work much, this mostly applies due to a rather narrow definition of work. In their everyday lifes, they kept the order in their domain, fought nearby bandits, reduced the thread by wild animals by hunting, honed their skills in tournaments, hunts and regular training and trained their knaves. There also was a whole lot of traveling Furthermore, they were not that rich. Of course, compared to the average peasant, they had a pretty comfortable life. Due to horrible infrastructure, they too hungered during famine and while they had their feasts, in everyday life, their food was rather plain. There also is the factor that castles are build for protection - not for easy heating. Your argument for jousting to be pay to win falls flat. Different from what movies make you believe, you usually won jousts by breaking lances at your opponents shields. Deliberately attacking the head was a foul and a murder attempt. The ridiculous heavy jousting armor existed because jousting still was very dangerous. So, it was just a safety feature - and a sign of status of course. Of course, they still were mostly unsupervised people with cutting edge weaponry. So yeah, many mistreated their serfs and even ignored the little rights serfs had. People always have been assholes.
Queen - "Come to bed darling"
King - "Not until I've thought of a name for my soldiers"
Queen - "k night"
King - "You're a genius"
it isn't really funny if you know they were called knechts
@@BelieverOfChrist2 so
Hey guys today we are counting down on 10 ten HORRIFING facts about knights
1). They didn’t have to work
10. Knights' vocation was war, not farming - the main reason for giving them land was so that they could support themselves, their men-at-arms, and their horses. They lived like professional athletes and often dropped dead in their fifties thanks to a lifetime of intense physical training, injuries, and wounds that would never completely heal. Knights' skeletons often show deformities in the right arm from using a bow or lance, broken bones, and so on. Gout, arthritis, and pleurisy or dropsy were common ailments for knights who managed to live long enough for the lifestyle to catch up with them.
9. So the Middle Ages wasn't terribly democratic. Who knew? Also, knights often did fight on foot and tended to be the first ones over the wall in a siege because of their skill and armor (which was the main reason they tended not to die - it's damned hard to kill someone wearing a mail coat and a decent helmet who's practiced killing people for _a minimum of fourteen years_). Knights were the shock troops of medieval armies. Special forces operators have a similar role today - they tend to have lighter casualties because their missions are over with quickly, and because they are just that good. It's not because their job is easy or without risks.
8. Before the railroad was invented in the Nineteenth Century, looting and foraging was the only way to keep an army fed during a long campaign. You had to have a _reason_ to do it, and rape was a capital crime in both armies during the Hundred Years' War. In France and England, Knights could be punished for harming women, children, or priests.
7. Well, duh. Do you have any idea how much a knight's equipment costs? Most people can't afford it _today_, in the age of mechanized mass production. Also, bear in mind that most knights didn't own land in their own name and were just glorified tenants on their lord's plantation. Also, one of the expectations of a knight was that he be literate and have at least a basic education, which only the wealthy could afford before the invention of printing.
5. The joust is confined to the Late Middle Ages (when plate armor became standard). For most of the era, tournaments were basically mock battles where anything goes. They went on for days and days, with camps and ambushes and forced marches. You were even allowed to take prisoners and ransom them just like in a real war. It wasn't uncommon to have a few fatalities.
4. Oh, those poor women. Why couldn't _they_ be knights too? How hard could it be to charge into battle wearing fifty pounds of armor, live in a tent, and sleep on a bed of lice and fleas? No way they'd rather sit at home, safe and sound, running their households and raising children, unless they had no choice, right?
3. So which one is it? Did knights have a cushy, easy job where their lives were never in danger, or were they always risking their necks for a lady's favor? They can't both be true.
2. Go back in time to _any_ period before 1850 or so, and you'll find that 99% of the people who have ever lived were poor, ignorant, and lived their whole lives under some form of bondage. Welcome to history, guys.
1. One smack on the face and I get to be a knight? That's _way_ easier than OCS today. I'll take it! :P
Speaking of knight's equipment - it's not mass-produced today. I think, all sets of WORKING armor and arms are forged by hand, that's why they take weeks to complete and cost a lot. And even then they're not that unaffordable (I think, around $2000, mind the exchange rates, for the whole XIIIc. set? Now XVc. is just FREAKING OUTRAGINGLY EXPENSIVE, but hey, we're talking full plate here).
Everything else, I won't really argue with (I mean in your comment, not the video).
People say "women couldn't be knights" like that's a bad thing for women, lol.
There are a few cases of women essentially being knights, and a few (very very few) orders that were female. There are also a few stories of women fighting. Though as far as I know no one has distinguished those women as knights or proved that female knights fought...
So women could be "knights". But it certainly wasn't because their husband died and they needed to be a knight for him. That doesn't even make sense.
***** It's all fun and games, until someone dies from an injury in battle, an infected injury post battle, or from the plague.
***** The answwer is really simple: because society needs more women to keep up the population. One man can impregnate several women, but one woman can only become pregnant of one man. As far as keeping up the species goes, men are more expendable than women. Add to the fact that men are in fact more capable in a fight than women, and then there's no logical reason to throw women into the fight (except in desperate circunstamces, which has happened several times throughout history),
"Knights were rich"
*Shows a Templar Knight which was dirt poor*
The Templars took the traditional vows of a monk, including of poverty, but the order was immensely rich - they became the first bankers who would issue a receipt for money at one Priory which could be redeemed at another - and so fair game for trumped up charges of heresy.
@@alecblunden8615 Simon Whislerberg Shekklestein
That's templar knights, they gave everything to the church by choice.... lmao c'mon now
@@ryanhull167 no they didn't give all of their money to the church by choice, they where the first bankers! They where so rich! Literally King Phillip of France went to war with them to get their money
@@alecblunden8615 banking as a thing has been around since at least 2000BCE in babylon and as a concept is traced to mesopatamia around 4000BCE they "bank notes" as a concept is Chinese 500yrs before the 1st European equivalent
"Names like Quintin or Chet." well excuuuuuuuuse me.
Not gonna lie, I was hoping your name was quinten chett
I would totally make a great Chet.
Duude i also thought he was quitin chet
Yeah.....! I was another one here praying for a ‘Quintin Chet’ reveal!
Huge misconceptions that knights were wealthy and didnt really fight! (history student here). It's simply plane wrong! It is actually the opposite, the knights would usually be the first to storm the ennemy lines, often dying in the process. Many of them had to farm their land with their cerf as well, and they were as much victims of famines as the rest of the population.
Also, NO SLAVES IN THE MIDDLE AGES!!! Huge misconception as well!!
Actually most suff in there is wrong. I do like the rest of your videos, but this one is outrageously wrong
actully there where slaves during the middle ages but it was by no means a thing that was in every village/under ever lord but i come from a genuine viking famly with history that has been traced back to the 700s and this village had slaves from around 750 to about 1680 and they where by no means the only village that used slaves.
but you will find it hard to see it mentioned in viking history sence it was as common as the sun rise therefore it was never written down to my knowledge
History student huh? Maybe you should be a spelling student. Maybe go online before your 11-3 shift at wendy's.
Its easier to say something trendy and gritty online, since they dont have to back it up with data. This generation is doomed,sadly..
@@thomasmills339 Maybe listen to his intention and point instead of saying that his spelling is wrong therefore his point is wrong
Ok, more are correct in this one are correct than in most top ten things about knights. But so much wrong!
Peasants were not lower than cattle, and women did not take their husbands job; and commoners could ride horses into battle; even English longbowmen sometimes mounted steeds to ride to battle, unhorsing to shoot, but regularly getting in the saddle to fight as mounted men at arms.
And most "knights" weren't knighted as such; professional soldiers could get wealthy, buy a title, and then, never being knighted, buy armor, a horse, hire a page, etc.
They didn't even need to buy titles. All you really needed was land, and anyone could buy armor if they had money.
Land and title? Same thing, really.
wait this video said that only knights could ride horses to battle?
uuuuhhh
Man I'm going to have to have a talk with the vast number of mounted non-knights in 14th-15th century when the obligations of the title of knighthood became too prohibitive for most people to maintain so that only a minority of men-at-arms in those centuries were actually knights
HereTheArtBegins Time machine? You can borrow mine.
It depends on which culture, for example, Celtic culture required or expected Women to fight. He is using British culture, many other cultures in Europe did indeed do as you say. And in Europe there were many cases of Peasants becoming Knights and being Women. Looks at Joan-of-Arc(or Jeanne d'Arc as it is correctly spelled) and Joanna of Flanders.
THANK YOU for writing a summary in the description. Not only is it common courtesy (who doesn't hate wasting their time on videos), but it actually made me watch the entire thing with interest because the summary seemed promising.
Horrifying? Is it cold up there in your pretty tower of prettiness?
+Warriors of the West he's got yah there best get on it
lol
He is talking about knights of the Dark Ages, not medieval knights after the Crusades. The very first forms of knights were egotistical pricks. Christianity changed all of that. You can trace chivalry all the way back to Christ himself.
Obviously, this guy doesn't know where real knights originated from.
Godspeed!
Ghost Hawk pffff. Good ol' Christian whitewashing
Epith D Chivalry is not dead, sir.
Godspeed!
Going back to these older vids and seeing younger, beardless Simon is kinda funny haha
So jousting back then was basically like an EA game during medieval times XD
I couldn't imagine having diarrhea in that armor 😳
@@aproe610 😆
Why did I read this, can’t unthink that
@@Butterflylion1 😆😂
Absolute clickbait title.
“They didn’t have to work much”
“They didn’t die in battle much”
HORRIBLE!! 😱
Women were forbidden from doing all the "coolest jobs" he says.
"Top 10 HORRIFYING facts you Didn't Know About KNIGHTS" true as many of these are completely false and others greatly exaggerated. Knights were not magically wealthy, nor did they have to be wealthy to be knighted...many knights actually lived in moderate poverty. Furthermore a Knight didn't inherently own land or a lot of land...and were actually in service *to the their lord* and *not the King* ....a lord would have his knights and the local lord owed allegiance to the King.
Yes many knights did essentially live out their days and thugs and bandits...but your assertion that all did is simply wrong. As for the 40 days of work, I suggest you look at the amount of work required of a historical peasant or workmen....the answer may surprise you.
Your statement about Knight's in battle is almost 100% false. For starters especially in the late middle ages and early Renaissance Knights in increasing numbers actually fought *On foot* and not while mounted. What made them incredibly hard to kill apart from their training....their *several bodyguards* ....and having better weapons...was their *armour* ....furthermore the consequences of a peasant killing a knight were not a formality as you are asserting here. Only Knights could own horses? Arrgh,
Your assertion that knights ran around just harassing women is outright incorrect, furthermore women had significantly more power historically than you're giving them credit for.
Your point about Knights essentially being packs of bandits in war is pretty much spot on, they pretty much drove the war machine ever onward...and were often with contention with church for their right to kill, loot and pillage. Not to mention many knights often made a complete ruckus at their local church...some even slaughtering the inhabitants there. A lot of Knights were indeed thugs...but that doesn't mean you can attribute every horrible thing under the sun to them.
Your statement about Jousting, pretty accurate.
One thing you forgot to mention (in relation to their duty to return insults.) is they were often locked in nearly perpetual feuds with each other...with large groups of Knight thugs routinely attacking other groups...almost like a constant gang war between thousands of different gangs.
wow man this was informative. thanks !!
Thank you for clearing up some of the inaccuracies, from the information I've read about knights this was a bit confusing to me
Carmen Parker It probably would be, I will grant them that this is one of the more accurate videos I've come across...sadly.
They were mostly nobles, they just didn't specify that there were "poor" nobles compared to higher nobility... basically "Ye olde merry hood rich" of their time...
***** Mostly nobles..depends on your meaning. If you mean they were granted substantial land, title and wealth by virtue of their birth or rank as Knight and political power...than not really, if by noble you merely mean generally of the upper class than yes.
number 2 killed me. "its so unfair why dont they die like the rest of us" "because the amount you pay on food i spend 10 times more on my armor"
no sword can cut through full plate armour. simply not possible. hollywood nonsense. you can only go after weak spots (joints) using thrusting. katanas are terrible at that - not a Japanese style of fighting at all. katanas were also very fragile, european swards were more flexible, could absorb impact easier. that means katanas break easier. learn something before making ridiculous claims.
They were both weapons that had positives and negatives. Against unarmored and lightly armored people, nothing is superior to a well made Katana. Against heavily armored targets, any heavy weapon that could crush the armor on the wearer shined. Katana's were smaller and lighter the broad swords but also much sharper. Broadswords were long as hell and heavy but the swords were terrible at cutting
"Broadswords" are one-handed Scottish basket-hilted swords of around the Victorian period. What you are probably referring to is a longsword - they weighed roughly the same as a katana but were indeed longer. Katanas, being thick, fat bladed weapons, have more weight packed into a smaller shape.
Longswords were not "terrible at cutting" in fact. Both a katana and a longsword could and were used to kill unarmored people. Both are light and quick weapons with sharp edges that will cut up a person with relative ease. Early period longswords can cut just as well as katanas. Later period longswords cut *slightly* worse in *most* situations, but the difference is so marginal against an unarmored person it frankly doesn't matter. And as for longswords "crushing people in plate"... please. You can't kill a guy in plate with a sword by hitting him. Longswords were used against plate by putting one hand on the blade in a technique called half-swording and maneuvering the point between the gaps of the armor, much like a short spear.
I've trained HEMA for 8 years and kenjutsu for 5. Both the katana and longsword are excellent weapons. I would choose the longsword in pretty much any combat situation, but that's just my preference. I prefer the greater speed and agility given by the close point of balance of the longsword, and the reach (anybody who actually knows what they're talking in the slightest about knows that reach is own of the most important factors in a fight with weapons). I also prefer the protection from the infinitely superior crossguard and the more agile and penetrative thrust.
Oh, and "katans were smaller and lighter than 'broadswords' but also much sharper?" BS. Smaller? Shorter, yeah. Lighter? Nope. Much sharper? No. Katanas and longswords were sharpened to a very similar degree. It should be noted that European steel was also far superior to Japanese steel - longswords were able to flex without bending whereas historical differentially hardened katana blades (which weebs seem to think are magical super weapons) have a tendency to take a set, or bend, VERY quickly. I know this from experience.
One thing I will say the katana has going for it is ease of use. Because of the very wide, thick blade, it is very forgiving in the cut. You have a far greater margin of error. A bad cut can be fixed by the sword, because the stiffness, weight, and high point of balance (which, by the way, makes it much more agile and clumsy to handle) help carry it through the cut.
Adam Hradil s
in wich part the video is talking about katanas?
Dehorsing is incredibly rare in jousting - you score points for shattering your lance against certain parts of your opponent's armour - with the shield symbol on the chest being worth the most, the head being worth less and the torso being worth the least. Dehorsing isn't even the aim of a joust.
Which knights? Early, mid, late medieval, what region, kingdom, Empire? Is like saying all soldiers are the same. This is a stupid dumb list
Isnt it already kinda obvious that it's in Medieval Ages and in Europe
Considering his is british, this is probably about anglo saxonic knights...
Laitharex wait who?
YES THE TEMPLARS WERE NOT DOING THE MOST OF THE LIST
+Templar S Thinking the same thing. Kingdom of heaven really shows the Templar in the wrong way. But that's Hollywood. Everyone sees it and believes it.
Is it horrific to not have to work?
And being unlikely to get killed in wars?
Aren't these the opposites of horrifying?
knights didn't use slaves to build their castles, they hired people and they forced hired people for a low wage, NOT slavery. actually the6 had to follow chivalrous code because it was apart of the law of the land, if they broke certain parts of it they could lose their land or be in house "castle" arrest (can't leave their castle). knights also had a version if Ronin so to say, they were called Knights errant.
no they HAD to follow chivalrous code, they didn't get to "cherry pick" they can face fines, go to jail, go into cattle arrest, or lose their land and title all together. knights were the lowest form of nobility and we're very much subjected to laws of the land.
jousting is a bastardised form of midieval knights, jousting as you saw and showed was only used for entertainment and not an actual sport, and they WEREN'T knights, they were peasants in Armor there to entertain nobility. the age of Knights as warriors had already passed at that time.
+Luke Jacks wives would only take care of the castle and legal matters on their land if their husband was at war, and or died.
+Luke Jacks no wives were not expected to fulfill knightly duties, women in combat was seen in a very negative light (and the greatest Joan of Arc got burned at the stake for being a woman in combat.
actually they treated serfs very well, so we'll in fact that they would house their serfs should the land and village be attacked. as I said knights had to follow a set of laws, and if they did not follow such laws it would be told ti the king of their land and they would need either (above comments)
Went patiently through the video. Still waiting the HORRIFYING part to kick in.
watch out for the edge.
I knew all the ones that were true, but some were just stupidly wrong.
Such as?
^women taking up armor and fighting for their husbands if they died
The idea of a code of chivalry is certainly among the more ridiculous ones. Also, yes, knights could be rich. Most were most certainly not. Some where given a piece of land (which they mostly had to work themselves - the rent and services of their serfs usually wasn't enough to keep their households and fulfill their duties to their lords - so they certainly didn't have a shortage of work) - usually not enough to get rich on though usually enough to maintain their horses, arms and armor. Others were in the direct employ of their lords (and necessarily couldn't get rich that way) or maintained their life by warfare (as soldiers if possible, as mercenaries if necessary). The rich ones were often enough were those with rich families (through noble titles (i.e. land) or a profitable business). Oh, and most knights (like 99%+) didn't risk life and limb in their quest to get laid/married.
And there were many famous Women Knights, Jeanne d'Arc, for example.
Stacie Meier Not really, not to mention Joan wasnt a knight
As soon as he claimed the goal of jousting was to poke each other in the face, I was done.
07:12
"Lesson number 1, assume everyone wants to hit ya, cause they do Pod, everyone wants to hit a fooking squire"
They barely had to work= “Horrifying?”
Henry the 5 killed most of the French knights in one bloody day. I would not say they hardly got hurt in battle.
There were exceptions, but as a general rule it was true. There are recorded instances of major battles with hundreds of knights taking part and only a few being killed.
Seems like the video makers do not distinguish between war and "battle". Battles were kind of a sport back then, also likely between somewhat befriended sovereigns, to demonstrate their own might. Of course people died in battles but all in all they weren't as cruel and violent as war. Battles didn't take years to be fought. War back then was like war today I'd say. And of course knights died in war.
VaZi
Henry the 2th had the prisoners killed after the battle. Disgruntling his own men who wanted the ransom money. It wasn't cricket , so to say. But it put enough fear in the French that they sewed for peace under his terms.
"Quentin or Chet." I lol'd.
"Armour was so heavy the wearer could barely move" WRONG knights had Armour custom fitted and customized to fit them exclusively, knights could move fine in plate armour
I think that was referring only to the armor used in jousting.
he was on about jousting armour.
LargeBanana Thanks thats actually a good idea
Brandon Furness i'm glad you understand quickly.
Michael Berthelsen
If you have "ever seen jousting", you are either the oldest person on Earth, or you have been watching modern jousting with reproduction armor. That's not a good representation of the original. Better to form opinions based on museum examples of actual armor - battle, jousting, and ceremonial types. They were all different.
#10 - Knights barely did any work! Scandalous!
#4 - Women who were widowed to knights had to pick up their work! How cruel!
Next video should be
Top 10 HORRIFYING Fact You Didn't Know About RABBIS
Sir Chet, huh? I don't know, it just doesn't seem to roll off the tongue very well. "And now, if your lordship doth allow, may I introduce unto thee Sir Chet of Hoboken."
more like "10 totally unnacurate myths we took out of our butts about knights"
*inaccurate
Half of these aren't even common misconceptions. They're literally made up for this video...
Since the person who posted this video didn't mention or credit the illustrator of the image used by the thumbnail. It was artwork from the sandbox survival MMO Mortal Online.
Knights really strictly followed the chivalric code, in the peasants revolt in England there were so few knights willing to break it that the king was forced to cave to there demands
Here’s an interesting topic to cover. Top 10 Reasons Why Siegfried Schtauffen is the Dark Knight of Soul Edge.
"they didn't have to work" how is that a horrifying fact? the first point of this video has already made me pause it and comment because of how stupid it is, Knights didn't have slaves, it was a feudal system, do your research for god sake
I think it was "horrifying" in the sense that, contrary to the romanticized idea we have, knights were apparently actually just some dudes who got everything handed to them and got to keep their shit without really doing anything.
I mean, yes it's a feudal system and they had whipping people to do everything else, but you'd think they'd atleast somehow "earn" their keep because they're supposed to be the epitome of what a gentleman should strive to be. Or I don't know, I was a little surprised by that part as well.
Thank you! he also misses the fact that most knights were not as stupidly rich as he claims
Well, most of them trained 24/7. It was almost all their was to their life. Being a warrior. Even beyond being the only "legitimate" cavalry a king possessed, knights were often am elite fighting force even on foot. Just because most modern movies display them as incompetent buffoons does not mean that that is correct...
And the Idea that Chivalry = Gentleman is also wrong. Chivalry was something quite personal for each knight and even though there were consistencies between the different codes of honor, not all codes included rules regarding women...
Carl Morgan. These stupid snowflake assholes dont have any idea how hard a soldier then and now have to work ,to stay physically and mentally up to fighting to the death in battle.
samurai's...knights...modern cops...I'm sensing a pattern here...
From what I’ve read, most army officials or solders are reprimanded severely if they misrepresent the ruling monarchy through bad behaviour. I don’t think it’s accurate to suggest that knights raped and pillaged as if they were power crazed kings of there own right. Small communities would also public shame such conduct not to mention quick uprisings if this were true.
"Horrifying facts"
"they were hardly killed in battle"
OMG THE CLICKBAIT IS HORRIFYING
And now I know that Mount & Blade is one of the most realistic medieval games ever...
Top 10 horrifying facts about how badly women were treated by men #Feminism
Seriously, is this about Knights or feminist propaganda?
it is about knights and the real historic facts about them and no some fantasy make believe that people have about them.
But i don’t get what is horrifying here?
when being confirmed in the Catholic church, a bishop lightly slaps the person being confirmed on the face. A remnant of the code of chivalry?
You do not understand knights do you?
well i am now going to have a long KNIGHT
L
At least you tried
i know that pun will be haunting me for KNIGHTS to come XD
Don't worry, if you suffer from knightmares you can properly extinguish those by exhausting yourself serfing in the daytime.
+TopTenz should win the award for most hyperbolic video titles on earth.
As a student of history, I have to say that your statements where so blanketed and generalized that I can't take this video with eny intellectual sincerity. I can list three knights of the top of my head, one of them the most famous.....William Marshall, who started off a poor knight then self made lord. I can also go into more factual accounts on how knights where actually on many occasions punished or shamed by the clergy and kings for not at least trying to follow the chivalric code but I have a feeling you are going to continue to spout the nonsense of your indoctrinated liberal proffessors. Lastly IL say this, it's obvious that many knights did not live up to their oaths, or that their was a class inequality, but the fact that a society that was post dark age put so much effort into trying to bring civilization up from the ashes, proves that people who each carried out there own stations in a very rough time would laugh in your soft modern face for judging them based on the time YOU live in.
"They did what they wanted because they could" I just watched the Samurai one and all the Parallels in two Cultures that were on opposite sides of the Planet are amazing
I never expected simon to be such a SJW.
what does SJW have to do with this, considering that he is actually speaking the truth about the knights and no this fantasy about them.
@@capscaps04 women didnt take up the job of their dead husbands for example
@@hephaestus9901 so ge completely made that up? doubt it
@@capscaps04 Literally less than 4 of his points were actually right
Simon, your videos are good.
My Middle name is Quentin and I'm poor.
You are in good company my dear sir. 99% of the world is "poor"
my name doesn't matter and i'm poor. ; - ;
I'm so poor I couldn't even afford a name. So I stole this one
working is good, ya
I'm so poor I can't afford to pay attention... Look, a bug!
Lmao, that last dude reached into his soul for that slap!
top tenz i don't think you should say HORRIFYING and YOU DIDn't Know cus i know some things and they aren't all HORRIFYING
Hahaha you have a new fan here
and here comes all these knights wannabe who gets offended for insulting their precious knights.
top ten facts about vikings pls
TopTenz 6:00 You'll have to excuse me, but your use of the term "Hare Lip" is offensive and hurtful. It is called a "cleft lip".
+Waldog are you kidding me?
+Waldog he was citing a time in history when they called it a harelip. Until people are being burnt or drowned for being cursed or a witch, it isnt a offensive word.
how about a top 1 fact: vikings don't exist.
Ndasuunye they existed
they were privateers working for the Danish king
The idea of the slap in the face was that it was to be the last time that individual suffered such an indignity without avenging it.
They sound a bit like frat boys.
Your understanding of knights and the chivalric code is absolutely wrong. The chivalric code was not a set thing in medieval times and varied greatly. However all knights followed what they knew was the chivalric code.
This tottaly ruined my fantasy of being a knight, i've always loved them and im a HUGE fan medival historical novels and this just ruind every novel i'll ever read.... Thanks alot !
Zoltán Barkóczi i have my doubts aswell. i wanted to google all this but im too afraid that this is all true. fwking silly of me really but i guess i'll just ignore this video.
well they were good att pillaging and raping just as any other warrior at the time.
Well, provided you were born into the right family (that is, with enough
rank and money to have you knighted before the environment had gotten
the best of you), you could've lived by the romantic ideals and, I
guess, be a knight a lot of people would respect. That would be a
reputation to maintain, but not without profit, since whoever you sworn
loalty to would see you as a higly valuable resource, since you'd be a
lot less likely to defect or betray your lord for any reason whatsoever.
What's weird is what would you do if an order you'd been given contradicted your code of honor. For instance, you are to lead a squad of men against a rival lord's village and fuck it up to strip his resources. Fine, but the people who are going to get directly hurt are unprotected civilians, and there's definitely no honor in hurting them - if anything, you are more or less expected not to do such a thing. On the other side, disobeying is disloyalty, and feudal disloyalty is like the worst falsehood there was. I've no idea how to sneak out of a situation like that. Besides, if you have a code of honor, you're not to sneak out of situations.
Elwood Blues That was rude...
Hoàng Nguyên
chastity belts are a myth, the armor was really massive in the 15c only, and even then it won't that much heavier than the modern military gear (and by that I don't mean demolition armor and helmets, just the normal infantry armor, equipment and arms).
Everythinng else you said is just about right, AFAIK (this whole comment should be considered AFAIK, narurally).
Don't forget that when knights were called upon to go into battle or even participate in a joust, either type of armor took Ages to take off and often led to knights defecating in the armor since they didn't want to (or have the time to) have the armor removed just to use the bathroom.
Also, some of your facts are only correct depending on the time and/or location of the "knights" you are talking about. Knights were widely used for hundreds of years by multiple nations and they were all different in at least some way.
SJW' made list....
lol what?
Social Justice Warrior, I think.
Just because he mentioned that being a woman during the Medieval Era sucked?
How would it be sjw?
Yes because mentioning that women were treated like shit in the past automatically means you want to micromanage free speech to make everything PC.
If I was a king I would only knight the most pure of heart he or she must be kind helpful willing to do what is needed for the betterment of the realm
Screw that, I want knights that would be loyal to me
@@TheHandofDestiny yep that's what I was getting at lol
How are these “horrifying”
Wow you included Geoffrey Chaucer played by Paul Bettany who also played Vos Dryden in Star Wars & Jarvis aka Vision in Iron Man and Avengers that's amazing Simon.
Most facts of this list weren't surprising, and quite known as far as I know.
***** Agreed.
***** Samurai? We're talking about the quality of facts from the Knight video. ;)
That is the UA-cam community for you. ;) But let's agree to disagree on this one, aye? :)
+TopTenz I'll let you know my opinion!
I'm sorry but you can't agree to disagree about facts. Your video had some wrong "facts" in it and those that were correct were exaggerated. This is not a matter of opinions, this is a matter of actual historical facts, you can't just agree to disagree.
being a knight is somewhat romanticised and is incredibly brutal but remember knighthood was an empty title when it was romanticised but dark ages to late medevil they were advanced troops being of noble birth was a plus but even this wasnt concrete knights were commander's raiders looters pilligers and this was all apart of chivalry. chivalry isn't just about how to socialy act as a knight but militarily as well
This is so laughably inaccurate. Don't recommend!
How so
?
@@natestathes Look at the other comment of the guy who wrote an essay about it
Because every knight, from every country, from every historic period was exactly same thing...
...the ones we know of were pretty much this. There are always outliers, but those are often ledgends like every knight from Aurtuian tales.
Why were the middle ages called the dark ages?
Because there were so many nights.
Nah, is because it was a bad time to live in.. Especially if you were a commoner, mad rulers, non-existent hygiene, constant wars & The Black Death. Not a fun time.
because there was no fidget spinners.
LOL
*applause*
Being slapped across the face...the horror, the horror.
we need knights to counter islam today
Moataz Alzhree But some Crusaders would work quite nicely
Moataz Metro, don't encourage his behavior
It's like saying being rich is horrible and those who are are bad but you wouldn't hesitate even for a second to be in such position
Dang, I clicked on this video but didn't expect to be attacked like that (My name Quinten btw).
This is really specific to medieval France, not all of Europe
You dont strike me as someone who's been in combat before so let me just let you know. Going to war is a lot of work, regardless if you're hard to kill or not. Physical labor is involved and it is much harder when people are trying to kill you.
ay, lmao. watch out boys, we have a tough warrior here.
That was interesting, entertaining and funny as hell.
😆
And a complete lie
@@hephaestus9901
Didn't say it was factual.
You need to be alot more specific when it comes to videos like these. There are a vast number of different kind of knights. A fact that is true for one of them might be false for another.
he is talking about all the knights in general, he is talking about the fantasy idea or romantization that people have about knights, in ich in reality they were nothing like that.
Great video
So much hasn't changed in the power of the elite
Horrifying? Very misleading title. Being allowed to be a jerk and only work 40 days a year doesn’t exactly sound horrifying
5:40 Gwen and Lancelot from Merlin! yes, that's all I got out of this😂
The reality of chivalry is that it isn't anything in particular. There are countless ways one could define chivalry; a code of conduct, guidelines, battlefield etiquette, being good cavalry (which is actually the closest definition to it's roots), simply being a good fighter, grit, religious loyalty, etc.
Jaime lannister approve
And The Mountain
+Isaiflamand kwetcalo and loras tyrell
How does Loras Tyrell end up in company with the previous two?
#10
Some other warriors were like this also:
"When not engaged in warfare they spend a certain amount of time in hunting, but much more in idleness, thinking of nothing else but sleeping and eating. For the boldest and most warlike men have no regular employment, the care of house, home, and fields being left to the women, old men, and weaklings of the family. In thus dawdling away their time they show a strange inconsistency - at one and the same time loving indolence and hating peace"
- A Roman historian on Germanic warriors
7:32 TYWIN LANNISTER ARTWORK :p
The only thing that's horrifying is the historical inaccuracies in this video
not exactly 'horrifying'......
+TopTenz so if I slap you,would you become a knight?
Never the less, pretty interesting.
The slap to the face was the final time in their lives they were to be struck without retaliation in defense of their honor, and was also used as a reminder of their oaths.
Why tf are people saying this video is SJW? There's no political bias to this video as far as I can tell.
This is what happens when someone who knows nothing at all about knights doesn't let that stop him from making a video about them.
so GoT got it mostly right
You should check out the Hound's view on them Knights.
Game of Thrones is practically English history with some names changed.
"Horrifying" "Highly unlikely to be killed"..... doesn't sound that bad at all.
quit bullshiting about knights the armor made them nearly impossible to kill they where tanks and cavalry could be defeated using spears and you do mention most being lords because they where which means they should be cleanly because they had servants and the whole bathing 3 times a year
Out of preschool already, little Tim? Learn basic Grammar before you try to insult someone's knowledge, kiddo.
my spelling had some issues but my grammar was fine. I did not add punctuation and that is on me but my sentence structure is completely fine. so maybe you should know more about our language before claiming something like that.
+Draugr Death Overlord perhaps you should practice what you preach. His comment had intellectual quality to it, somethings yours lacks
armor talked about, was about being knocked off the horse during the jousting tournament. Nothing to do with battle
Holden people in Mid evil Europe bathed more than 3 times a year, and the downfall of the knight was archer. Archers were commoners who were trained and paid wages. Also the cross bow and gun powder didn't help the knight either.
They didnt have to work? Soo horrifying
So basically, Knights were some of the biggest jerks in history.
Yeah pretty much. There were some expections of course, but overall yeah they were self-entitled jerks with shiny toys.
Rich kids always have been and always will be jerks
yes, but not jerks in general. all nobility in history all over the world were some kind of jerks.
Facefish its a propaganda, things are out of context. Both samurai and knight video. Go watch metatrons responce.
Actually, knights were in danger of getting killed by many things. Crossbows were already in vogue before the First Crusade, and Longbows made it easy to pierce Knightly armor without the long load time of the crossbows. Add to that the fact that the enemy knights are going to be in your face, and you won't be having a good day.
Generalizations much?
only speaking the truth.
@@capscaps04 no truth here fanboy
Finally some truth not fairytales for kids
Well English knights fight on foot, and u sound English u should now about that, not presenting knights to be better then else just because they have horses, also lower class man at arms uses horses, light cavalry, mounted archers...
To the defense of knights:
While they didn't have to work much, this mostly applies due to a rather narrow definition of work. In their everyday lifes, they kept the order in their domain, fought nearby bandits, reduced the thread by wild animals by hunting, honed their skills in tournaments, hunts and regular training and trained their knaves. There also was a whole lot of traveling Furthermore, they were not that rich. Of course, compared to the average peasant, they had a pretty comfortable life. Due to horrible infrastructure, they too hungered during famine and while they had their feasts, in everyday life, their food was rather plain. There also is the factor that castles are build for protection - not for easy heating.
Your argument for jousting to be pay to win falls flat. Different from what movies make you believe, you usually won jousts by breaking lances at your opponents shields. Deliberately attacking the head was a foul and a murder attempt. The ridiculous heavy jousting armor existed because jousting still was very dangerous. So, it was just a safety feature - and a sign of status of course.
Of course, they still were mostly unsupervised people with cutting edge weaponry. So yeah, many mistreated their serfs and even ignored the little rights serfs had. People always have been assholes.