中世纪的欧洲骑士在军事上真的有用吗？
Were medi European knights actually militarily useful?
译文简介
当然有用。骑士是一群身着重甲的人，他们骑着最好的马，所有闲暇时光都在为战争做准备。
正文翻译
Were medi European knights actually militarily useful?
中世纪的欧洲骑士在军事上真的有用吗？
中世纪的欧洲骑士在军事上真的有用吗？
评论翻译
很赞 ( 1 )
收藏
, Expert on WW2, specializing in German AFV's & tactics
Were they useful?
They were more than that. They dominated the battlefield for hundreds of years with their heavy horse charge.
Heavily armoured, riding atop massive purpose-bred heavy war horses (Destrier, Friesian, Andalusian, War Horse (Shire), they wielded couched lances which could skewer any man unfortunate enough to get speared during a charge, never mind the juggernaut that was the mass formation of horses plowing through infantry formations.
Used to shatter enemy formation that were withered by archers or flanked in the heat of battle, there were few instances of enemy units withstanding a well-timed heavy horse charge
Dismounted from their horses for siege battles the Medi Knight was formidable as well, with lifetimes of martial training with swords, axes, flails, maces, hammers and shield, they were worth many common infantrymen on the field:
他们有没有用？
他们可不止“有用”。他们以重装骑士的方式主宰了战场数百年。
他们身着厚重的装甲，骑着巨大的特制重型战马，他们挥舞着长矛，可以刺穿任何不幸在冲锋中被刺中的人，更不用说大规模的马队就是在步兵队列中犁行的巨无霸。
在粉碎被弓箭手削弱或在激战中被夹击的敌方阵型时，很少有敌方单位能够承受重型骑兵的冲锋。
在攻城战中下马的中世纪骑士也是很厉害的，他们一生都在接受剑、斧、矛、锤和盾牌的武术训练，他们在战场上一个能顶值许多个普通的步兵：
Alexander White
, History BA and MA from Oxford Brookes University
Absolutely. Knights were a solid mass of heavily armoured men mounted on the best horses, who had the leisure time to prepare for war. A well placed charge from your knights and men at arms could rout an entire army. And if you used them as the English did, dismounted to protect the longbowmen, it was still a solid line of heavily armed and armoured men protecting your more vulnerable troops. There was nothing more fearsome, one for one, than a knight in Medi warfare. Except perhaps a better knight.
One of the lesser known aspects of how useful they were is that during the Mongol invasions of Europe, Fortifications and defences get a lot of credit, but contemporary Hungarian accounts consistently describe the armoured knights in the Western style being the troop type the Mongols struggled against until the numbers eventually overwhelmed them. As you got further west, these troop types increased in number (they were a relatively new, albeit highly trained, corps in the Hungarian armies) and are reckoned to be one of the factors in the halting of the Golden Horde; a lot of people think that the Golden Horde withdrew for funereal rites, which was either a coincidence or a convenient excuse, because as well as the difficulty against heavily armoured knights, the European terrain was starting to become unfavourable to Mongolian warfare, which relied on a lot of room to maneuvre. The castles and keeps alone may not have been enough to make them turn back; the Mongols were quite sophisticated at siege warfare.
，牛津布鲁克斯大学的历史学学士和硕士学位
当然有用。骑士是一群身着重甲的人，他们骑着最好的马，所有闲暇时光都在为战争做准备。骑士伴随士兵的一次精心准备的冲锋可以击溃对方整个军队。如果你像英国人那样使用他们，即让骑士下马保护长弓手，这仍然是一条由全副武装和装甲人员组成的坚固的保护着你更脆弱的部队的防线。一对一的的时候，在中世纪的战争中，没有什么比碰到一个骑士更可怕的了。也许除了碰到一个更好的骑士之外。
在蒙古人入侵欧洲期间，欧洲的防御工事和防御系统得到了很大的赞誉，骑士的作用却鲜为人知，根据当时匈牙利人的记述，他们一直描述的是西方风格的装甲骑士是奋力抵抗蒙古人的部队类型，直到对方的人数最终压倒了他们。当蒙古人进一步向西走时，这些兵种的数量进一步增加（他们是匈牙利军队中相对较新的兵种，尽管训练有素），并被认为是阻挡金帐汗国进军的因素之一。很多人认为，金帐汗国的撤退是为了举行蒙哥的葬礼，这要么是一个巧合，要么是一个方便的借口，因为除了难以对付全副武装的骑士之外，欧洲的地形也开始变得不利于蒙古人的战争，而蒙古人的战争依赖于大量的机动空间。而仅仅是城堡和堡垒可能还不足以让他们回头，因为蒙古人在攻城战方面相当成熟。
, amateur historian
Were medi European knights actually militarily useful?
Ask yourself this simple question, you have this bunch headed your way with long pointy lances pointed at you, if you don't get out of the way, you will get bowled over. You might be thinking that the average infantry man fought with a spear, wouldn’t that be a good defense against a cavalry charge?
The answer is yes, however, if you are in a formation to defend yourself from the knights then you are now a great target for archers. Spread out to deal with the archers and you are easier for the knights to mow down.
, 业余历史学家
中世纪的欧洲骑士在军事上真的有用吗？
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
问问你自己这个简单的问题，有这么一群人拿着长长的尖头长矛朝你走来，如果你不闪开，你就会被打倒。你可能会想，一般的步兵都是用长矛作战的啊，难道这不是对骑兵冲锋的一种很好的防御吗？
答案是肯定的，然而，如果你列队防守骑士，那么你现在就成了弓箭手的绝佳目标。散开来对付弓箭手，你就很容易被骑士们砍倒。
It is an age old military truism that the most effective military force is a combined arms force: infantry, cavalry, and some sort of ranged weapon.
一个古老的军事常识是，最有效的军事力量是一支联合武器部队：步兵+骑兵+某种远程武器部队。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Give them two ways to die- where the defense for one makes them more vulnerable to the other
给他们两种死法--对其中一种的防御使他们更容易受到另一种的伤害
Yes. Warfare was a game of Paper, Rock, Scissors. Even, I’d say, up to and including the Napoleonic era.
没错。战争是一种"剪刀石头布"的游戏。我想说的是，甚至包括拿破仑时代。
In some ways,it still is.
在某些方面。现在依然如此。
Yup, play any ole RTS game like Age of Empires and you learn all about what counters what, they should use them to teach history classes IMHO.
是的，玩任何像《帝国时代》这样的RTS游戏，你都能了解到什么兵种克制什么，他们应该用这些游戏来教历史课，在我看来。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Pikemen need their own ranged weapons such as archers or arquebusemen like the Spanish Tercio square.
长枪兵需要己方的远程武器支持，如弓箭手或像西班牙方阵的火绳枪兵。
S. Patrick Maiorca
angincourt was another example, the English archers and spearmen held off French knights since the English successfully suppressed the French crossbowmen.
阿金库尔是另一个例子，英国的弓箭手和长矛手挡住了法国骑士，因为英国人成功地压制了法国的弩兵。
Read my answer: Georges Gritsis's answer to Why did the English win Agincourt if arrows couldn’t penetrate plate armour?
14 years later at the battle of Patay, the mounted knights wiped the archers out.
请看我对另一个问题的回答：乔治格里茨的回答：如果箭不能穿透板甲，为什么英国人赢得了阿金库尔？
在14年后的帕提战役中，骑马的骑士们将英国弓箭手们一网打尽。
No shit, the main thing I see with agincourt is the fact that knights were very hard to take down and yet a bunch of alcoholics from an island with arm deformities beat some of the finest cavalry men in western Europe. Its normally the other way around.
不骗你，我对阿金库尔的主要看法是，骑士是很难被打倒的，然而一群来自一个小岛的手臂畸形的酒鬼却打败了西欧最优秀的骑兵。而在通常情况下，情况恰恰相反。
Georges Gritsis's answer to Why did the English win Agincourt if arrows couldn’t penetrate plate armour?
Henry V wisely sexted the right spot to give battle with his weakened troops and the French constable Charles d’Albret was foolish (lacking adaptive thinking or plainly stupid?) to let his opponent pick the best possible spot to make his stand, instead of harrowing him on open terrain where his more numerous cavalry could envelop and be brought to bear.
Indeed on open terrain, cavalry would advance rapidly before charging from a distance of 300 yards which normally they would cover in less than 30 seconds. Thus, it was always advisable for missile troops to fight a defensive battle on terrain disadvantageous to cavalry charges, shielded behind stakes and with supporting heavy infantry close by. These ideal conditions were all met at Agincourt.
sexting the right terrain allowed the outnumbered English army to bottle neck their opponents, slow them down in mud and slaughter them with ranged weapons.
乔治格里茨对“如果箭不能穿透板甲，为什么英国人能赢得阿金库尔？”的回答：
亨利五世明智地选择了正确的地点与他虚弱的部队交战，而法国官员查尔斯-德-阿尔布雷特则愚蠢地（缺乏适应性思维或就是单纯地笨）让他的对手选择最好的地点来安营扎寨，而不是在他更多的骑兵可以包围和承受的开阔地形上骚扰对方。
事实上，在开阔的地形上，骑兵会迅速推进，然后从 300 码的距离开始冲锋，而通常他们会在30秒内完成冲锋。因此，对于远程部队来说，一定要在不利于骑兵冲锋的地形上进行防御战，在木桩后面进行掩护，并在重装步兵附近进行支援。这些对于远程部队来说理想的条件在阿金库尔都得到了满足。
选择合适的地形，使人数众多的英国军队能够扼住对手的咽喉，在泥泞中拖住他们的后腿，然后用远程武器屠杀他们。
The knights’ armored cavalry charged towards the long-bowmen, but were unable to outflank them because of the encroaching woodland and unable to charge through the barrier of sharpened stakes that protected the archers. It has been argued that the longbows' main influence on the battle at that point was injuries to horses: armored only on the head, many horses would have become dangerously out of control when struck in the back or flank from the high-elevation, long-range shots used as the charge started.
On the other hand archers had a field day against lightly armored French infantry slowly wading through mud. Indeed French men at arms needed around 6 minutes to cover 300 yards to reach the English line.
阿金库尔的土地刚刚耕种过，被雨水浸泡过，被茂密的林地包围着，对英国人十分有利，因为它很狭窄，也因为法军士兵必须蹚过齐膝深的泥浆。
一身装甲的骑士们向英国的长弓手发起冲锋，但由于林地的存在，他们无法包抄，也无法冲破保护弓箭手的尖桩障碍。有人认为，当时长弓对战斗的主要影响是对马匹的伤害：只在头部穿了装甲的马匹，在冲锋开始时被高空远射击中背部或侧面时，许多马匹会变得危险地失去控制。
另一方面，英国弓箭手要对付可以在泥泞中缓慢地穿行的法国轻装甲步兵。但是法国人需要在6分钟内走完300码的路程才能到达英国人的防线。
In conclusion using large contingents of longbow-men was an effective and cheap way to fight a war, providing they were used properly, swiftly moving from one defensive position into an other.
The French, lacking a central authority with political control over the many noble feudal Lords, had difficulties at creating a cohesive force with adaptive and clear tactical thinking.
Obviously the irrational concept of mass charging -on foot- fast firing ranged weapons continued until WWI, with bayonet charges against machine guns firing in enfilade.
在这6分钟内，5000名弓箭手能够向密密麻麻的敌人发射总共180000支（或每个弓箭手36支）弓箭，导致6000人死亡，受伤人数不详。
总之，只要使用得当，从一个防御阵地迅速攻击另一个防御阵地，使用大型长弓手队伍是一种有效而廉价的战争方式。
法国人由于缺乏对众多贵族封建领主进行政治控制的中央权力机构，在建立一支具有适应性和清晰战术思维的有凝聚力的军队方面遇到了困难。
显然，大规模冲锋--步行--快速发射远程武器的非理性概念一直持续到一战，比如用刺刀冲锋来对抗机枪的包围射击。
The Hundred Years war is not the poster child for the superiority of longbow archers. The English lost the Hundred Years war. The reason Agincourt and Cressey stand out is because they were the exceptions not the rule. When properly used and properly led armored knights were extremely effective, why else go to all the expense. After they became ineffective, they faded away. European rulers wanted to win and generally used what was effective and what they could afford.
百年战争并不是长弓弓箭手优势的典型代表。英国人在百年战争中失败了。阿金库尔和克雷西之所以这么显眼是因为他们是例外而不是普遍规则。当正确使用和正确引导重装骑士是一种非常有效的战争手段时，领主们为什么还要花钱去搞其他东西。而在重装骑士失效后，他们也就消失了。欧洲统治者想要获胜，通常会使用有效且他们能负担得起的东西。
I only brought up Agincourt since it was an example of how spearmen and archers worked together. The English had a lot going for them mainly they had time to prepare a defensive position and then the French crossbow line broke down.
我之所以提出阿金库尔，是因为它是一个长矛手和弓箭手如何合作的例子。英国人做了很多事情，主要是他们有时间准备防御阵地，然后是法国人的弩箭阵被打崩溃了。
Except that most deaths were POW’s killed by the English, what now would be a war crime and even back than wasn’t custom. Almost nobody died from arrows.
The English won because of there high manoeuvrability in difficult terrain (mud and forest) and because of the mistakes the French made.
阿金库尔大多数死亡的人是被英国人杀死的战俘，这放在现在就是战争罪，甚至在当时也不容于世俗。几乎没有人死于箭矢之下。
英国人的胜利是因为他们在困难的地形（泥地和森林）上有很高的机动性，也因为法国人自己犯的错误。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
The great advantage of cavalry, other than you're sitting on 750kg ol muscle trained to be a weapon, is that you are mobile and can quickly reposition on a battlefield to attack at different angles.
Henry V realised that his only chance of winning at Agincourt was to place his wall of defenders at the narrowest point in the field where his men left no space (because if the trees) for the French knights to circle behind them.
Because the Knights couldn't spread out, they made a bigger target for the archers. Admittedly, most knights wore armour that would prevent an arrow from penetrating it, however, the horses wore little or no armour, so made an easy target. Having hundreds of dead and dying horses thrashing about on the battlefield makes it increasingly difficult to mount additional charges.
Once armoured knights are on foot, they are far more vulnerable, as the weight of the armour will slow and tire them very quickly.
除了坐在一个重达750公斤的被训练成武器的肌肉猛兽上面之外，骑兵的最大优势是你的机动性，可以在战场上迅速调整位置，从不同角度进行攻击。
亨利五世意识到，他在阿金库尔获胜的唯一机会是将他的防御墙放在战场上最狭窄的地方，在那里，他的人没有留下任何空间（因为有树）让法国骑士对他们进行绕后攻击。
因为骑士们无法散开，他们就成了弓箭手的待宰的目标。诚然，大多数骑士都穿着铠甲，可以防止箭矢穿透，然而，马匹几乎没有穿铠甲，所以很容易成为目标。有数以百计的死掉的马和垂死的马在战场上乱窜，使其越来越难以发起额外的冲锋。
一旦装甲骑士步行，他们就更容易受到伤害，因为装甲的重量会使他们很快就慢下来并感到疲惫。
It’s not enough to have spear. You need to have the will to stand in place and wait for the charging knights that are coming towards you. Facing down a group of charging knights is much more terrifying than it sounds.
光有长矛是不够的。你需要有站在原地面对向你冲锋的骑士的意志。面对一群冲锋陷阵的骑士，实际经历比听起来要可怕得多。
Pikemen were actually professional soldiers, that were trained not to break formation.
Your every day peasants with spears in their hands would get out of the way.
The knights were the modern day equivalent of tanks. You can bet your ass if I see the thing coming I will get out of its way.
Fair point about the archers, though. Have not taken that into account.
长矛步兵是职业军人，他们被训练成不会轻易破坏队形。
让农民手持长矛上战场他们肯定抵挡不住。
骑士就相当于现代的坦克。你可以打赌，如果我看到那东西来了，我一定会让开。
不过，关于弓箭手的说法很有道理。我还没有考虑到这一点。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
I have always wondered why archers are depicted with sidearms like swords. Wouldn’t it make sense for archers to also carry spears to fend off cavalry? Well, I’m sure there was a reason.
我一直想知道为什么弓箭手被描绘成像剑一样的副武器。弓箭手也携带长矛来抵御骑兵不是很合理吗？不过好吧，我相信这是有原因的。
They’re heavy and get in the way. If they did carry them, it would reduce their effectiveness as archers, and slow them down. It worked out better to have specialised troops that could support each other, rather than trying to create an omnisoldier.
它们很重，而且很碍事。如果弓箭手们真的随时带着长矛，就会降低他们作为弓箭手的效率，并拖慢他们的速度。用专门的部队相互支持，而不是试图创造一个万能的士兵，效果会更好。
The archers at Agincourt carried stakes for protection from cavalry.
阿金库尔的英国弓箭手就带着木桩，以保护自己免受骑兵的攻击。
Michael Burke
Medi Cavalry is something that’s been on my mind a lot lately. I’ve been questioning how effective it would actually be.
I’ve heard that horses won’t just plough into a group of people, and that makes sense, I could see if a line was more than 3 or four people deep the horse would just trip over the people.
So how was mounted melee cavalry actually useful? I don’t see using a sword as being all that useful if the guys on foot have spears. When I see cavalry charging at people with lances or spears it looks to me like that style of attack would only work once, with the spear or lance getting lost in the attack. Meaning they’d have to come in waves, find people not in a formation, if they make a successful attack they’ve lost their weapon and have to go back for a new one.
Archery from horse back makes a lot of sense.
Forcing them into a less favourable formation for archers makes sense too.
中世纪骑兵是我最近经常想到的东西。我也一直在质疑它的实际效果如何。
我听说马不会直接冲进一群人中，这是有道理的，我觉得如果冲进超过3或4个人的队伍中，马就会被人绊倒。
那么，近战骑兵到底有什么用呢？如果步兵有长矛，我不认为剑对骑兵有什么用。当我看到骑兵用长矛或长枪冲向人们时，在我看来，这是一种一次性的攻击方式，长矛或长枪会在攻击中丢失。这意味着骑兵的攻击必须一波接一波，而且要去找那些不挤在一个队列中的落单的人，如果他们攻击成功，他们就失去了武器，还得回去找一个新的。
从马背上射箭倒是非常合理的选择。
迫使他们进入一个对弓箭手不太有利的队形也有道理。
First, the closest thing to cavalry vs infantry in a modern-day would be police using horses in a riot
They are gently riding through the crowd since the goal is to get them to dispurse. As I stated in my answer you’ll have archers or musketeers firing at the other side. Now the worse place to be if you are cavalry would be in a crowd of spearmen since they would have the advantage. Which is why the concept of combined arms has always been essential in warfare.
首先，在现代，最接近骑兵与步兵的情况是警察在暴乱中使用马匹
他们轻轻地骑马穿过人群，因为目标是让他们驱散。正如我在回答中所说，除了骑兵，你还会有弓箭手或火枪手向对方射击。现在，如果你是骑兵，最糟糕的地方就是被围在长矛手的人群中，因为他们会有优势。这就是为什么联合武器作战的概念在战争中一直是必不可少的。
I’ve only really been around those police horses once, at a soccer game in Liverpool UK, really impressive beasts, first time being slightly scared of a horse.
While I’m sure if one of these horses collided with a human the human would get absolutely wreaked. But if the human has some plate armour the horse isn’t coming out of the collision unscathed either. I know the horses wore armour as well in many instances but even so, using the horse as a battering ram has got to injure the horse too, I’m thinking of it’s legs.
It’s mostly charging cavalry that I’m having trouble imagining as effective other than to scare groups of people. I can’t see how the horse isn’t in as much danger as the guy on foot and other than using projectile weapons it doesn’t seem smart to rush horses into crowds of people.
Would they mostly skirmish at the edges rather than getting into close melee combat? Outflank for more of a distraction to create a rout rather than being hugely effective at getting kills?
我只真正接触过一次这些警马，那是在英国利物浦的一场足球比赛中，这真的是令人印象深刻的野兽，我第一次对马感到有一点害怕。
虽然我确信，如果这些马与人相撞，人绝对会被撞死。但如果人有一些板甲，马也不会在碰撞中毫发无伤。我知道马在许多情况下也穿着盔甲，但即便如此，把马当作撞锤来用也会使马受伤，比如它的腿。
我很难想象，除了能吓唬一群人之外，拿来冲锋陷阵的骑兵会有什么效果。我看不出骑在马上和步行的人有什么不一样的危险，而且除了使用投射武器进行远距离风筝外，骑着马冲进人堆里似乎并不明智。
他们会不会主要用于在边缘进行小规模战斗，而不是进入近身肉搏战？用以包抄分散注意力以制造溃败，而不是主要用来进行高效地杀伤敌人？
First most soldiers had shields and padded jackets for armor. Next as stated before combined arms teams are an important part of warfare so one of the cavalry's jobs was to get the enemy infantry to bunch up so they would be better targets for archers and balistae. Lastly the lance was the cavalry's main weapon though the bow wasn't unheard of especially in the east. So if the enemy is still in a tight formation it would be better to impale them on your lance and run back to avoid getting into a melé.
So spearmen in a formation are good against cavalry which makes them good targets for archers. Cavalry can be hard for archers to hit since they are fast but since archers tended to be lightly armored they are easier for Cavalry to run over so they fought in formation with spearmen. So using modern unit terms a regiment might have a company of archers one of spearmen and one of cavalry
首先，大多数士兵都有盾牌和加垫的外套作为盔甲。其次，如前所述，联合武器部队是战争的重要组成部分，所以骑兵的工作之一是让敌人的步兵集中起来，这样他们就会成为弓箭手和弩炮的更好的目标。最后，长矛是骑兵主要使用的武器，尽管用弓箭的也不是没有，特别是在东方。因此，如果敌人还在一个紧密的队列中，最好的做法是用长矛刺死他们，然后往回跑以避免陷入困境。
所以排成阵列的长矛手很适合对付骑兵，但这又会使他们成为弓箭手的好目标。而由于骑兵的速度很快，敌方的弓箭手很难击中他们，但由于弓箭手往往是轻装甲的，他们很容易被骑兵撞倒，所以弓箭手会与长矛手组成队形作战。所以用现代的单位术语来说，一个团应该有一个弓箭手连，一个长矛兵连和一个骑兵连。
That’s pretty much the point of cavalry in the first place.
To disrupt and scatter.
This is why full-gallop charges dont occur that often in real life as the horses could get killed tripping over the infantry line.
Sure, hundreds of horses falling over and crushing groups of infantry actually is a viable tactic to cause casualties but that means losing your horses too in the process…and those guys are expensive.
Instead, most cavalry units mostly slowly trotted to the enemy lines (like that video) and forcing the enemy to scatter away or move around an enemy’s flanks to force them to move into a disadvantageous position.
Cavalry pretty much did this from the roman ages to the Napoleonic wars with a few exceptions of course.
So pretty much, you were correct in that assessment.
这几乎是骑兵的第一要义。
即扰乱和分散。
这就是为什么在现实生活中不经常会发生全线冲锋的原因，因为马匹可能会被绊倒在步兵线上而死亡。
当然，成百上千的马匹摔倒在地，碾压成群的步兵实际上是一种可行的可以造成伤亡的战术，但这意味着在这个过程中你也会失去你的马匹......而这些家伙是很昂贵的。
相反，大多数骑兵部队大多是慢慢地跑到敌人的防线上（就像那段视频里一样），迫使敌人分散开来，或者绕过敌人的侧翼，迫使对方进入一个不利的位置。
从罗马时代到拿破仑战争，骑兵几乎都是这样做的，当然也有少数例外。
所以差不多，你的评估是正确的。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
I think that the idea is to either:
Defeat the enemy cavalry and then flank the enemy infantry. In this case, melee cavalry seem to be very good at what they did. or,
Hope that the enemy infantry are undisciplined conscxts and flees before you get to them, and then chase them down and massacre them. I understand that this worked sometimes.
But, if this doesn’t work, I think you are right. I understand that horses would just stop rather than crash into a wall of spears.
我认为，骑兵的作用要么：
1.打败敌人的骑兵，然后包抄敌人的步兵。近战骑兵似乎非常擅于此类事情。或者，
2.希望敌人的步兵是没有纪律的征召兵，在你接近他们之前他们就逃跑了，然后你就可以追击并屠杀他们。这种情况时有发生。
但是，如果这些都不起作用，我想你是对的。我也认为马匹会停下来，而不会撞上一堵长矛森森的墙。