Can medieval noble women knights defeat male mobs?

Jul 2018
15
China
#1
If a woman trained in combat and put on the best plate armor of the 15th century, can she beat a male mob wearing a leather armor?

As far as I know, a good plate armor is very expensive, and few people can afford it except the nobility.


If she can ride a horse, can she beat more male mobs?

For example: she can use the horse to kick off the enemy's shield.


This leads to a new problem:

Does a Knights composed of pure women have the power to destroy outlaws (eg: heroes of the greenwood, terrorists, mountain bandits ...), if they have a good commander?

Of course, they can’t fight the regular army, because their equipment has no significant advantage over the regular army.




I didn't find lady's plate in google, but it is said Joan of Arc was measured for a full suit of plated armor that was custom-made so that it would fit close to her body.
 

Attachments

Jan 2009
1,209
#2
Not that this is historical, but...


If the women in question have been fully trained as knights, they'd be as skilled as male knights, and while probably lacking in strength due to their gender, they would still be stronger than the average lady. Given better nutrition, they might even be comparable in size with the average peasant. Since it doesn't take that much strength to kill a man with a sword, when the man is untrained and not wearing good armor (mob, you said), I think they would easily cut their way through rabble, especially if they are on horseback.


Now if they are alone (and especially on foot), they suffer from the same disadvantage as a lone male knight: being ganged up on, tripped, pinned down and then getting a close-up view of a dagger going into their eye and brain.


Against a regular army, they would be at a disadvantage against male knights, especially on foot as the male knights would be stronger and hence able to hit harder with poleweapons and being able to use those poleweapons longer before getting tired. And move in the platemail. But they would be comparable to young male knights, who haven't bulked up yet. They wouldn't be useless.


As for the armor, a female armor looks pretty much the same as a male one. Forget about those fantasy boob-corsets. A woman in armor would bind her bosom, and it would be very difficult to tell her apart from a man in armor. Indeed, this is a plot point in some medieval romances.
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
8,663
#3
For example: she can use the horse to kick off the enemy's shield.
Complete warhorse fantasy. Horses are do not have great vision, how are they going to determine who is friend and who is foe? A horse throwing it's weight around unexpectedly would also danger to it's own rider, horses can only really kick directly backward, not that useful and they are basically stationary with the weight on the front legs, stopping momentum , a mounted combatant will generally want to use there mobility which would be stopped by such a more. Front legs required rearing up which makes the horse extremely vulnerable, stops forward momentum and makes the rider unable to use their weapons. The qualities of a good warhorse, is steadiness, obedience to commands, not randomly doing actions which are just as likely to harm friends and ene4mies and heavily disrupt what the rider is doing.
 

Chlodio

Ad Honorem
Aug 2016
3,641
Dispargum
#4
The Lipizzaner Stallions are trained to jump straight up into the air and kick out with all four legs fore and aft then land on all four hoofs. The trick has a military origin. It was intended to be used if the rider was ever surrounded by a mob of enemy soldiers. On command, the horse would jump and kick, hopefully driving back the enemy swarm and giving horse and rider a chance to escape. The trick, however, is of late development, and I doubt any knights' horses were trained to do it. With all the armor both knight and horse wore, I question if any knights' horses were strong enough to jump so high.

The best way to use a horse to disarm someone is to charge, using the horse's momentum to knock the shield away. Horses naturally dislike running into things and would have to be trained in advance to do such a thing as knock someone over. The horse would not charge someone on it's own. It would have to be commanded to do so by its rider. Trampling is similar. Horses dislike walking or running on anything other than solid ground, but warhorses can be trained to trample someone.
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
8,663
#5
The Lipizzaner Stallions are trained to jump straight up into the air and kick out with all four legs fore and aft then land on all four hoofs. The trick has a military origin. It was intended to be used if the rider was ever surrounded by a mob of enemy soldiers. On command, the horse would jump and kick, hopefully driving back the enemy swarm and giving horse and rider a chance to escape. The trick, however, is of late development, and I doubt any knights' horses were trained to do it. With all the armor both knight and horse wore, I question if any knights' horses were strong enough to jump so high.
.
Of no real military value. It's more or less random whats the chances that the enemy happens to be directly in line with the legs, in a confused melee, the horses legs can easily get entangled in trees or other horses, armored people it's a very low percentage random move. I serious doubt it had any military origin, It's a show on control which is what those horses are all about.

Surrounded by enemy the last thing you want to do is slow or stop, momentum, speed is your ally

Military it's about fighting information with cohesion. Really if your surrounded you already done something really poorly training for totally unusual cases is not effective training.
 

Chlodio

Ad Honorem
Aug 2016
3,641
Dispargum
#6
The jump and kick isn't really about hitting anyone although a rider in such a position would take any advantage he could get. The jump and kick is more about intimidating the enemy swarm into taking several steps backwards which is a very instinctive response. When a horse jumps and kicks, people back off.

I agree momentum was far more important than a horse kick. The Lipizzaner jump and kick was predicated on the assumption that the rider got surrounded when already standing still or at a slow walk. I was in the military and we spent a lot of time training about what to do when things go really wrong. You can't just train on the assumption that things will always go well or according to plan.

Standard issue cavalry horses were not trained to Lipizzaner standards. The Lipizzaners were more for gentleman officers who could afford to buy the best horses and who had the time to practice exceptional horsemanship skills. I mention the Lipizzaner jump and kick as a better way to fend off a surrounding swarm of enemies than a misguided hope of kicking someone's shield off their arm. The key point is that the horse would have to be trained in advance to do it. The horse won't spontaneously do it in mid-battle.
 
Last edited:
Jan 2015
2,860
MD, USA
#7
Hoo, where to start? Is it safe to assume that you already know this is a copmletely fantasy scenario? There probably are accounts of women actually raised and trained to fight as knights, but they would have been *exceedingly* rare, complete anomalies. And Joan of Arc was not one of them! Nor were the rather more numerous women who led the defence of castles, or gave orders to troops on campaign.



But you've got quite a few misconceptions about the real medieval world as well, it seems.



If a woman trained in combat and put on the best plate armor of the 15th century, can she beat a male mob wearing a leather armor?

The only leather armor in use was hardened leather plate worn sometimes in lieu of steel plates by *the nobility*. It was simply an occasional substitute for steel, and was not considered "cheap" or common, nor was it worn by mobs or peasants.


As far as I know, a good plate armor is very expensive, and few people can afford it except the nobility.

True! *Good* plate armor was very expensive, and custom made from good steel. However, by the 15th century there was a huge industry in cheap munition armor, cranked out to equip common troops. It was not as well-fit as custom armor, nor did it cover the body as completely, and it would not be quite as resistant to weapons as high-quality armor of the same weight. But it was still excellent protection.


If she can ride a horse, can she beat more male mobs?

Noble women could all ride, the big difference would be combat training and riding a warhorse.


Does a Knights composed of pure women have the power to destroy outlaws (eg: heroes of the greenwood, terrorists, mountain bandits ...), if they have a good commander?

Of course, they can’t fight the regular army, because their equipment has no significant advantage over the regular army.

Well, there are plenty of women who fight regularly in modern sport combat like the Society for Creative Anachronism. I don't know how many of them are likely to defeat the *best* male fighters, but then most *men* don't defeat the best male fighters, either! And these are mostly women who were not raised to combat as children, it's a weekend hobby they took up as adults. So I have no doubt that women could fight competently on the battlefield. But there is FAR more to it than that, you're talking about fundamental changes to every aspect of society: gender roles, social order, politics, religion, you name it. It simply isn't going to happen.


Furthermore, "outlaws" and bandits frequently were unemployed soldiers! Don't count on them being dirty guys in rags with sticks.


Overall, I'm not sure what you're trying to find out, here. Was it physically and physiologically possible to train a woman from a childhood to fight as a knight? Sure! Did it happen more than once or twice a century? Nope.


I'm sure someone will come up with a glaring exception from Lower Elbonia about some all-girl Royal Guard or something! Doesn't mean it was an accepted thing in other places.


Matthew
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
8,663
#9
I watched this video from youtube:



It says "There's manuscript evidence that actually shows horses being trained to kick, to strike out at a shield that's held by a attendant."
hugely skeptical. TV history tends to be a lot of rot. "manuscript evidence" does not sound something that's cut and dried. Have to actually see and translated manuscript.

Kicking backwards has a lot of power but not really directed, and likely to be your own side and stops the horse.

rearing and strong forward stops the horse, and while imposing trick migt terrify peasants, will not work against experienced fighters, step forward under and gut the horse, unarmored belly.

Either case serious cost to mobility.

If you in a confused melee the horse isn't goi8ng to have any way of determining friend from foe.
 
Jul 2018
15
China
#10
Noble women could all ride, the big difference would be combat training and riding a warhorse.
The horse is the most powerful weapon that a knight has.

As we know that in Middle Ages only nobility can learn horsemanship and only nobility can have the best horses (eg: Lipizzaner).

So the female knight should be much stronger than the ordinary soldier.

Is that correct?


Furthermore, "outlaws" and bandits frequently were unemployed soldiers! Don't count on them being dirty guys in rags with sticks.
They can have Plate Armor and Lipizzaner Stallion?

If they haven't, they still not very strong.


Overall, I'm not sure what you're trying to find out, here.
In fact, I am looking for some famous female knights in medieval.

Can you recommend some such female knights, including their biographies and historical novels? :lol:
 
Last edited: