Regardless of whether gunpowder was ever invented or not, knights were still on their way out. Plate armor had made mass producing armor cheap and quick, and enabled poor peasants to be armed with armor nearly on par with that of knights, with kings able to order several thousand sets of plate armor built, thus centralizing power under the kind and reducing the importance of knights (whose largest virtue had been owning enough land and wealth to afford good armor before). Likewise, the ability to cheaply equip his own troops with state-owned armor allowed unit formations of much higher disciplinary standards than seen before.Even if gunpowder didn't exist, pike and shot would've become the new meta. Just with high-power crossbows and even more plate armor than before.
What about Holy Hand Grenades?
>>64884838Tell that to the swiss at marignano. Oh wait you can't, the gendarmes killed them.
>>64884838High quality plates, i.e. specially fitted to the wearers body, still remained expensive due to the skilled labor which it required. With I'll fitted armors being far more encumbering.And strong enough crossbows to threaten full plate in the field are cumbersome.Knights were on their way out due to structural changes, which also lead to a reeimagination of the noble class when it came to their role. Military technology was of secondary importance.That is why the HYW lead to an increase in central power in France while the German nations didn't and yet both had similar changes in their knights relevance.
>>64884898I'd give the gendarme their due honor, but they're all dead after the Tercios killed them.
>>64884902>With I'll fitted armors being far more encumbering.They really weren't that encumbering, a set off munition plate armor is perfectly maneuverable to run around in and do somersaults or what have you, and they were able to be sold for a pittance, only a week's wages for most people.
>>64884902>Knights were on their way out due to structural changes, which also lead to a reeimagination of the noble class when it came to their role.The compagnie d'ordonnance want to have a word with you
>>64884911Yeah they just didn't cover gaps that were created by range of motion and didn't require tight fighting it flexible parts.
>>64885268>Yeah they just didn't cover gaps that were created by range of motionOh they had those too, obviously a bit of a gap behind the legs but those still would've been protected by gambeson anyways, which could be so tough that it was physically impossible for any human to penetrate it with a sword or knife.
>>64884838If gunpowder wasn't brought to Europe, it would likely have gone back to Roman tactics.
>>64885340...Yeah? How do you suppose that would happen, when the exact opposite trend was occurring where shields were being abandoned for being utterly useless?
>>64884838Do you mean knight as in a heavily armored cavalryman or knight as a petty noble in the hierarchy of the feudal levy? If the former: no, because heavy cavalry (with full plate) existed well into the 17th century. If the latter: yes, because as you have said yourself: states became ever more centralised and relied less and less on feudal subjects to organise their armies.>>64884898French artillery soften the swiss pike formations up so that the gendarmes could charge them. And even then, the french heavy cavalry suffered high losses and were only able to check the advance of the swiss. Only when venetian reinforcements arrived and the losses from the french artillery mounted up did the swiss retreat - in an ordered giant pike square that wasn't pursued.>>64885340Maybe; maybe not. The swiss model of a mixture of polearms used fast and aggressively put their mark on the late medieval ages and it lend itself perfectly to the combination with early firearms. In the 15th and 16th centuries some military thinkers experimented with bringing back "sword and shield" infantry (the most well known being the spanish rodeleros) but those never quite left their specialist niche.
As a followup to my previous post: I would imagine that if gunpowder for some magical reason doesn't exist, then late medieval armies wouldn't be too different than in reality. Heavy cavalry would still be a decisive arm but as states grew more organised, large disciplined infantry formations (modeled after the swiss) would become the new prominent character on the battlefield. The swiss Reisläufer devasted several burgundian armies during the late 15th century and those didn't field any artillery pieces - in contrast to the often large artillery trains of the burgundians. The swiss relied on fast movement, both strategic and tactical, and ferocious attacks to outflank their more cumbersome opponents. Interestingly full armor (or partial munition armor) was relatively uncommon amongst the swiss Reisläufer - the majority of those were pikemen but soldiers armed with halberds, bills, battle swords and long axes were also present. So I imagine that this trend would more or less continue and formalise: large formations of pikemen would form the core of those hypothetical armies. Those were then supported by smaller contingents of soldiers armed with shorter polearms and also contingents of (cross-)bowmen. The cavalry would also develop as in your timeline: heavy cuirassiers would be employed for the decisive blow and lighter cavalry would be for reconnaissance, fast flanking attacks and generally the small war.
>>64884838>pike and shot>Without shot.
>>64885607Bows and crossbows are also shot.
>>64885607early tercio had as many crossbows as arquebusiers in them
>>64885443>Do you mean knight as in a heavily armored cavalryman or knight as a petty noble in the hierarchy of the feudal levy?I personally think the main distinguishing feature of knights is that they are a distinct noble social class. Otherwise, they're just heavy cavalry.
>>64885824That is certainly the most common understanding. Currently there are several threads related to knights on /k/ and /his/ -I would also qualify a person as a knight if he has been ennobled as such. But this practice only came about in the high middle ages and by the early modern period, one could get a knighthood for soley courtly reasons.
>>64885443This anon knows his shit. The only reason the heavy infantry of Rome dominated was because ancient cavalry had no stirrups. Medieval heavy cav had stirrups so had much better shock factor.
>>64885742>>64885748Crossbows slowly lost the arms race against armor
>>64886336It should be noted that the Eastern Roman Empire eventually adopted a cavalry-centric army. The Bucellerii, for example, were known for being lancer-horse archery hybrids.
I feel like the bigger loss wouldn't be in army versus army as much as it'd be in siege warfare, no? Artillery and explosives were pretty pivotal in both the breaking and evolution of fortifications. Without them, you're kind of toast - it just won't be possible to match the impact of a bombard with a non-gunpowder weapon, resulting in the sometimes incredibly costly sieges of the esrly middle ages.
>>64885275>eBay filename Link the auction
>>64885824I personally like to specify 'armoured lancers' when talking about the traditional battlefield role of the knight to avoid confusion
>>64884838>>64841722
>>64885264Which weren't noble knights but "professional" soldiers, partially made up out of former mercenaries, raised by the french king.Which is exactly what I said, wrapins and military technology didn't kill knights, structural changes and a strengthening of the central authority did.
>>64885340Come to think of it, legions were a sort of like and shot formation of the era.
