"Footmen" based 'Knights' and 'Knighthood'?

[The Ubbergeek]

Another odd idea, albeit based on something else - I was thinking about it for my fantasy world...

We know knights. Warriors using horses and all (in theory), cavalry and also societies and groups, nobility, etc....

But in ATL, can we have a distinct, different from of knighthood appearing in Occident, by example? (Probably tied to the question of horses-based warfare was really destined or not to rule after Rome felt for a while..)

One based not on the cavalry, but on 'mere' infantry?

Heavy infantry for sure probably... Maybe a still-pagan Europe? With Rome living some more, with different legions? maybe using Rome and Ancient Greece (Sparta! Macedonia!) as models...

Societies of foot knights may probably more united, solidified, a team spirit - esprit de corps - maybe, less individual glory.... 'Legions' of Mithra or 'Phalanges' of Greece?

All in all, can footmen based knights and their institutions exist, how, and how would they be different from OTL knights and cie?

 

[Keb]

All in all, can footmen based knights and their institutions exist, how, and how would they be different from OTL knights and cie?

They did exist in the various states of post-Roman Europe. It was quite popular in the British isles where there weren't as many horses (in particular, IIRC, Harald Godwinson participated in the Saxon shieldwall). The Franks set their nobles up as heavy cavalry and the idea spread from there until, eventually, just about every noble was mounted.

The advantages of having a mounted nobility significantly outweigh the disadvantages too heavily not to transit to a mounted nobility when the opportunity presents itself. The only method I can think of to have an infantry-based nobility is to either keep horses too scarce or too small for combat (and even then you're only delaying the inevitable until the groups can find an external source of good horses) or have Celtic culture become dominant instead of Roman. Their nobles liked it up close and personal (and, when possible, on foot).

 

[The Ubbergeek]

Could it be united, tied with what is possible the anti-cavalry tactic before massive firearms and all, pikemens, polearms, spears, etc?

Could a footman knighthood like this exist in by example Alt Swisterland? 'Her Deutchlands Spartakists', 'Soldaten der Christ helveticos' something like that? (sorry for the terrible grammar surely..)
Or maybe surviving Hussites power, keeping horses for carts... Probably too late, thought.

 

[Keb]

Could it be united, tied with what is possible the anti-cavalry tactic before massive firearms and all, pikemens, polearms, spears, etc?

I'm afraid I can't really help. I know some about antiquity and the modern era, but the era in between is something of a blank spot which is why I offered the pre-Roman PoDs.

Either way, what your propose is difficult to do. Horse-drawn chariots played a significant part as the transport of heroes as early as the bronze age. You could retain chariots as a method of transportation to and from battle (in fact, it was what the Celts did, throw a couple of javelins, then disembark and fight on foot) ... but once horses become capable enough to carry a rider who can fight from horseback the development of a mounted elite becomes a near certainty.

You could retard the development for awhile by preventing the invention of the stirrup, but even before the event elites of the armies (both Roman and Diadochi) were mounted.

An infantry-based aristocracy isn't impossible. The Norse did it (because, well, their horses weren't anything to write home about), the Saxons, the Scots, the Irish and the Welsh did for awhile, but after the 10th/11th century or so cavalry became the dominant, deciding arm of the army ...

The problem comes from the nature of aristocracy. The moment a specific style of fighting provides glory and gain, then it's going to be adopted and infantry doesn't offer nearly the same advantages as the cavalry. The cavalry was the deciding factor in a battle, therefore glory could be gained by fighting on horseback. You'd need a PoD to severely restrict the usefulness of cavalry at all and that would require going pretty far back.

I wouldn't say it's inevitable, but it is very, very difficult to prevent this sort of development. But, as I said, I'm not familiar enough with the Middle Ages to be able to postulate something within that period.

 

[Elfwine]

Perhaps something where disciplined steady infantry is normal, which cuts down on the advantages of horsemen vs. footmen in battle considerably.

I'm not sure you can make fighting on foot preferable to fighting on horseback even then though. But you need it as a start - spears are optional, I think.

 

[Tobit]

Would the Byzantine Cataphracts fall under the effects of the POD?
In general I think that heavy infantry wouldn't be able to defeat light ranged cavalry such as the Mongols when they come.

 

[Elfwine]

Would the Byzantine Cataphracts fall under the effects of the POD?
In general I think that heavy infantry wouldn't be able to defeat light ranged cavalry such as the Mongols when they come.

They're heavy cavalry, but I don't think they're knight-like in any other sense (though obviously they're not serfs)

And its not as if heavy cavalry defeated the Mongols, so does it matter?

 

[Marc Pasquin]

The idea would be to have them be seen as an elite in some way, maybe give them a weapon that require a specialist training and/or that is expensive to maintain (like the artilley for example).

 

[Flocculencio]

Perhaps something where disciplined steady infantry is normal, which cuts down on the advantages of horsemen vs. footmen in battle considerably.

This is it- in a situation where the majority of troops are peasants with pointy sticks with a leavening of paid, trained warriors, a noble on horseback has a much greater advantage than a noble on foot. On foot he's not much more effective than any other trained footman. On horseback (in a situation where arming and supplying a mounted warrior is probably too expensive for most non nobles) he's king of the battlefield.

If you have a situation where large numbers of disciplined infantry can be trained and armed effectively, of course, this advantage decreases (which is essentially what happened IOTL)

 

[Johnrankins]

The idea would be to have them be seen as an elite in some way, maybe give them a weapon that require a specialist training and/or that is expensive to maintain (like the artilley for example).

Agreed, one reason knights rode horses was that they were expensive and so they could distinguish themselves from the "peasant rabble".

 

[Elfwine]

This is it- in a situation where the majority of troops are peasants with pointy sticks with a leavening of paid, trained warriors, a noble on horseback has a much greater advantage than a noble on foot. On foot he's not much more effective than any other trained footman. On horseback (in a situation where arming and supplying a mounted warrior is probably too expensive for most non nobles) he's king of the battlefield.

If you have a situation where large numbers of disciplined infantry can be trained and armed effectively, of course, this advantage decreases (which is essentially what happened IOTL)

Of course, the catch 22 is that when the peasants are never trained to be steady foot, they never come off as anything but useless rabble, so no one ever trains them as anything more, so the dominance of the noble horseman who are trained to fight is greatly inflated.

 

[The Ubbergeek]

This is it- in a situation where the majority of troops are peasants with pointy sticks with a leavening of paid, trained warriors, a noble on horseback has a much greater advantage than a noble on foot. On foot he's not much more effective than any other trained footman. On horseback (in a situation where arming and supplying a mounted warrior is probably too expensive for most non nobles) he's king of the battlefield.

If you have a situation where large numbers of disciplined infantry can be trained and armed effectively, of course, this advantage decreases (which is essentially what happened IOTL)

It's why I also had 'knighthood', chevalerie and all - add a mysttique, ideas, codes, to form something around it, a core to unite the ranks...

Not just knights as unities of battle, but the whole deal around.

 

[Elfwine]

It's why I also had 'knighthood', chevalerie and all - add a mysttique, ideas, codes, to form something around it, a core to unite the ranks...

Not just knights as unities of battle, but the whole deal around.

That developing around specifically footmanry seems less likely (wonder what it'd be even called - chivalry after all derives from its function), as there's less to set the knights (no reason we can't use the term) apart.

 

[The Ubbergeek]

Well, I can see an easy source - legacy of Rome. 'Legionaires,, maybe. Or Phalanges, in a world where ancient Greece remained mighty...

 

[Elfwine]

Well, I can see an easy source - legacy of Rome. 'Legionaires,, maybe. Or Phalanges, in a world where ancient Greece remained mighty...

Phalanges, sure. Legionaries, I doubt it. The sword-and-shield-and-pilium man never had the kind of mystique to begin with that would make it The Few, The Proud, the Knighthood.

 

[The Ubbergeek]

Phalanges, sure. Legionaries, I doubt it. The sword-and-shield-and-pilium man never had the kind of mystique to begin with that would make it The Few, The Proud, the Knighthood.

Not sure for Rome. It was still an empire remembered by many, much closer in history... and somes of those barbarian leaders kinda invocated it, like Franks.

 

[Elfwine]

Not sure for Rome. It was still an empire remembered by many, much closer in history... and somes of those barbarian leaders kinda invocated it, like Franks.

True of Rome culturally, but not militarily. No one spoke of the Roman legions as models except in the East (Constantinople, in other words) and well after the degradation of chivalry (in the other sense of the word from honor and so on).

 

[Marc Pasquin]

A bit ASB but what if the use of swords by the nobility is so ingrained with the image of that group that they are the only one allowed to use them and the rabble can only use quarterstaves ?

 

[The Ubbergeek]

A bit ASB but what if the use of swords by the nobility is so ingrained with the image of that group that they are the only one allowed to use them and the rabble can only use quarterstaves ?

Note that apparently, swords is indeed REALLY tied to nobility in much of earth's cultures who have it.. a lot of warriors actually, specially lower classes, used things like axes or maces, who are efficient in their own ways, cheaper and easy to use too. Or spears and polearms - the later, notably, coming also from peasants tools at times...

So, maybe a knighthood of 'rabble' using such things, maybe tied to a renewal of religion maybe... ideas could be interesting to see...

Odder even; knights of.. the bows? Samurai-like kyudo-like mystics?

 

[Marc Pasquin]

Odder even; knights of.. the bows? Samurai-like kyudo-like mystics?

I actualy thought about crossbows before but it seemed like it might stretch the "footmen" definition a bit.