How many caveman could a single European Knight take down?
>>64650072Probably a lot I suppose.
'bout 3.50
>>64650072Feels like cavemen would be better equipped to fight knights then peasants given they're naturally strong and are specialized in blunt weapons.
>>64650072Do the cavemen and knight both have infinite bravery? Probably like like 5 neolithic humans could get the jump on the knight. Neolithic hammers would be effective if they tackled the knight to the ground.Assuming morale is at play, probably like 15
>>64650084A caveman is more likely to be using primitive spears or sharpened stonesAlso 'caveman' isn't the same as neanderthals, who were outdone by our ancestors.
>>64650118Neanderthal didnt have ranged weapons, which wouldnt work against Pl8 armorYour bone atlatl wont pierce steel
probably a lot. I'd presume it'd be the first time they tangled with steel so sharp and long and that first sword wound would be an incredible morale crusher.
>>64650118We have massive survivorship bias. Almost everything they would be using day to day would have been bone or wood, with some of the few examples we've found of surviving wood tools being decently sophisticated and filling pretty niche roles. Depends what you want to classify as a caveman, but definitely by the neolithic we had shit like javelins, bows, boomerangs, along with well hafted stone tools that are pretty sophisticated.But even if you push caveman into the paleolithic, Homo erectus had hafting and wielded pretty fucking large stone tools that could blunt force an armored knight to death (pic rel)
>>64650151>it'd be the first time they tangled with steel so sharp[laughs in obsidian]>and longAye fair enough
The thing about military armour and weapons is that they're tactical. They serve a tactical purpose, they are designed for the way soldiers of the period fought.We didn't spend 4000 years developing armour and weapons to better kill cavemen. So one issue, pack weight. A cavemen can run faster in battle, but more importantly can travel huge distances on foot, at a faster march speed. European knights had so much equipment that they couldn't even carry it, they had stewards and pack horses.So if the cavemen just ran away, the knight would have no hope catching them. Next issue, skirmishing. The knight wasn't a skirmisher, didn't have skirmishing weapons, wasn't used to fighting alone. A knight would be supported by squires armed with pikes, bows etc. Even knights with crossbows had a squire to reload the crossbow for them. So if the cavemen just threw rocks, had a sling, threw spears, what would the knights response to that be? A crossbow probably, then an extended period hiding behind the shield. So in all likelihood the caveman could throw half a dozen spears at the knight at very close range, if the first crossbow bolt didn't kill them outright. And the next issue is armour. Chainmail is great against cuts, slashing weapons, it's pretty good armour generally and usually gambeson under it protects against impacts. But a thrown spear has enormous cross sectional energy, gambeson wouldn't be enough. Plate would deflect a spear, a shield would stop a spear from a functional point of view but spears are notorious for ruining shields.The third issue is physical strength. Armour gives an enormous tactical advantage, but there are tactical disadvantages as well. Knights were fighting men, incredibly fit, strong, in their day they would rarely fight anyone stronger, armoured or otherwise. But the cavemen might leverage physical strength in a way that armour wouldn't overcome. As in... using a tree like a giant club. Odds on the knight, but 30:50.
>Slings were found in stone age burials"Hey, fuckass!"
>>64650203OP didn't specify if the knight was on foot or on horseback. I think the knight would be in a much better position on horseback, but on foot grug and pals are closer to his level.>So if the cavemen just threw rocks, had a sling, threw spears, what would the knights response to that be? A crossbow probably, then an extended period hiding behind the shield. Would he? Most knights didn't really seem to like using bows outside of ye old noble hunting competitions and would prefer to close the distance where their decade+ of training can be brought to bear.
>>64650072depending whether the shield has a cross on it or a fedora
>>64650072Knight would probably lose against 3 or 4+ on one if he's on foot. On horseback he could kill an arbitrary amount of cavemen. Any given knight is going to likely be larger, better fed with a superior diet and stronger than even a neanderthal. The biggest (and basically only danger) he faces is getting overwhelmed and wrestled to the ground.
>>64650327It's only a matter of time before Grug gets a arrow or javelin in the horseIf they can hunt mammoth they can hunt a horse
At least three.
>>64650597Difference is a knight's horse has barding. Nothing Grug can lob at the the horse would get through quilted armor, much less plate or mail.
>>64650072Is this ai or a photograph?
>>64650775It looks like some kind of mass battle game.
>>64650775>>64650790It was real. The cavemen were wiped out by knights during the Crusades. W.D. Griffith filmed it, but the reels were lost. Christians killed the cavemen.
>>64650145BONE JAVELINS CAN'T PIERCE STEEL BEAMS
>>64650072Like 10-20
>>64650265Well I sort of assume the knight is without horse, squires, which as I said would be highly unusual for a knight. You really only saw that in tournament fighting. But my reasoning here is that if s knight was unsupported, they'd pick up the pack weapons usually used by the squires, as was appropriate. The knight would certainly like to just charge the cavemen, and would probably try to, but again, cavemen not really known for fighting in formation. Raiders, skirmishers. The cavemen would just run away then resume throwing things, both wise and true to form. So i basically see the knight hiding behind the shield, obliged to return fire with bow or crossbow, neither especially easy when using a shield and in armour. But the knight could tank a lot of stones in half plate, stone spears enormously powerful but not known to penetrate anything. And the cavemen with no real armour could be killed, or seriously wounded, by a single arrow or bolt.
>>64650072I mean, a bunch of cavemen could easily swarm, wrestle to the ground, and kill the knight, but they’d have no idea what they’re dealing with and would probably be pretty intimidated by the dude in alien technology shrugging off their projectiles like they’re nothing.
>>646500720 (zero)
Also I think the question of "how many" is one, two. There's a particular way several people attack a single person, it's called a bum rush. All the bums have to do is surround, knock over the solo fighter.To that end, rather than striking blows they all just grapple, push with objects, hook legs, they won't bother striking until the target is grounded.Knights didn't really fight on foot, they were the latter iteration of Roman cavalry, they were equestrian and when they fight on foot they do so in the equestrian manner- supported by squires. If a knight was alone on foot they just got bum rushed by peasants, lots of historical reports of that. A knight probably couldn't run down s herd of fleeing cavemen either, they're fast. Perhaps if the knight was defending a structure, forcing the cavemen to attack one by one, at close quarters. I think the night would fare much better at night because he could survive unaimed blows, the cavemen would be cut in half. Perhaps the knight fights Arditi. There's precedence for that as well.
>>64652185>Like 10-20Like 10-20 or 10-20?
>>64652238One cave man could get lucky with a rock to the helmet but the guy at stamford bridge fought off 50+ other medieval armor and swords equipped dudes
>>646500721The first unlucky cavemen would be taken out pretty easily but then the hunt begins. Humans are persistence hunters, they'll simply stalk him, wear him down over time. Eventually the knight will be worn down, vulnerable, then it's over.
>>64652471The knight is human, too. He’s not going to be fleeing like a panicked animal. He’s a trained warrior with superior gear.
>>64650072One cause they would all swarm up on him and beat his. During that time period, the European knight was quite short due to a poor diet while the "caveman" was taller due to a wide range of food to eat from wild game meat to various wild vegetables.Even the Bronze Age and Iron Age Central Europeans were taller than the normal Medieval knight.
>>64650072Look at Otzi's loadout and then realize he was the one who lost the fight. They were a people filully equipped and prepared for battle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96tzi
>>64650203You're a retard or a bot, which is it?
>>64652646Cavemen were bigger and taller. The rise of agriculture resulted in a 5inch decrease in height. Hunter/gatherers also benefitted from natural selection so the average caveman was a jacked survivor
>>64652582The knight is alone and he's carrying much more in weight. He's up against a multiple assailants, who can harass him from afar with slings and arrows, it'll be a struggle to get food or rest.
>>64650261Slings doing much of anything at all when struck against armor is the next step beyond people thinking arrowheads punched clean through plate.
>>64652646>>64653706A good portion of knights were likely to came from rich families, so they definitely didn't suffer from malnutrition.
>>64653865*to come
>>64650072Probably like 3. They were well versed hunters and fought many skirmishes.
>>64653865Yeah but it was just daddy paying his son's way into the organization.
A true knight or man at arms will have trained from he was around five to fight in combat. A caveman is at an disadvantage in all areas.
>>64653815The Guanches used them against the Spanish and they worked decently at knocking them off horses
