Knight vs. conquistador

what should the stupid solders name be

  • conquistador

    Votes: 6 40.0%
  • dragoon

    Votes: 9 60.0%

  • Total voters
    15

Users who are viewing this thread

cellodude

Veteran
well its my turn to start one of those "horrid who would win fight threads"
i think a knight would defendant beat a conquistador
but a conquistador might have a matchlock so....
 
Conquistador is Spanish for conqueror, I don't believe a Conquistador was a basic unit like a night.
More a person like Cortez.
 
You probably mean a Dragoon?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragoon

In short, a sort of late Knight that used fire arms and used metal armour. Used both on foot and on horse.

Sort of the prime Cavalry before the cavalry you saw in the time of Napoleon..
 
stygN said:
You probably mean a Dragoon?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragoon

In short, a sort of late Knight that used fire arms and used metal armour. Used both on foot and on horse.

Sort of the prime Cavalry before the cavalry you saw in the time of Napoleon..

In the case of that, it would obviously have to be a Dragoon. Knights didn't develop into lighter, faster cavalry for nothing.
The use of gunpowder weapons, and the ability to outride the knight with a lighter load is the winning factors.
 
I fully agree. The age of the Knights came to an end when gunpowder entered the battle. No use in having a heap of metal on you if it don't stop the bullets.. The Dragoons still had some armour, but that was simply because people still used pointy things in war, not every soldier had gunpowderweapons. And I've also heard that the breastplate the Dragoons had was able to stop bullets.. not sure though, it would have to be pretty thick. But then again, if that was the only piece of heavy armour they had, it would still be a rather light outfit all together..

(And yeah.. I know that it was probably not called "Gunpowder".. Blackpowder or Schwartzenpulfer or whatever...)
 
Lord Kehm said:
stygN said:
You probably mean a Dragoon?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragoon

In short, a sort of late Knight that used fire arms and used metal armour. Used both on foot and on horse.

Sort of the prime Cavalry before the cavalry you saw in the time of Napoleon..

In the case of that, it would obviously have to be a Dragoon. Knights didn't develop into lighter, faster cavalry for nothing.
The use of gunpowder weapons, and the ability to outride the knight with a lighter load is the winning factors.

A conquistador is not a Dragoon.
It's simply the name applied to the Spanish, they could have been simply footmen armed with a pike and a sword or an areqebus or they could have been a horseman.
Needs more definition.
 
stygN said:
I fully agree. The age of the Knights came to an end when gunpowder entered the battle. No use in having a heap of metal on you if it don't stop the bullets.. The Dragoons still had some armour, but that was simply because people still used pointy things in war, not every soldier had gunpowderweapons. And I've also heard that the breastplate the Dragoons had was able to stop bullets.. not sure though, it would have to be pretty thick. But then again, if that was the only piece of heavy armour they had, it would still be a rather light outfit all together..

This is a nit-pick I know, but relevent for the conquistador-era.

Early gunpowder could be resisted by plate armour, in fact, a standard method of 'proofing' plate armour was to shoot a bullet at it - the dent would be engraved to draw attention to it, as a way of demonstrating that the breastplate could stand up to the firearms of the time.
 
@ Redcoat - Mic: Yes I know, I just suggested the Dragoon. Suggested that the original poster got his name wrong or something. I'm not saying that a Conquistador is a Dragoon, just saying that he might have meant a Dragoon..

@ Kasimir: Interesting, I did not know this. But, as the gunpowderunits evolved they would certainly be able to harm a knight of the old type, right? Even the Arbalest was feared among the knights of the old.. (quote from link below) "Arbalests were sometimes considered inhumane or unfair weapons, since an inexperienced arbalestier could use one to kill a knight who had a lifetime of training."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbalest

The earliest common used handguns were called "Hand cannons", just a tube sealed in one end with a small hole on the longside near the sealed end. Pack it with powder, slip a bullet in, ignite with torch or similar manually through the small hole, boom. The earliest mass produced "Hand Cannons" are known to have had about the same power as the Arbalest, but severely less accuracy. It was however really easy to mass produce, and you could basically hand it out to fresh recruits on the eve of battle and they could use it without much problem. When it entered the stage there was 3 (including Hand Cannons) main ranged weapons, the Hand Cannon, the Arbalest (or similar Crossbow) and the Longbow.

The longbow had massive range, rather good strength and when used in mass its area accuracy was impressive, the drawbacks however was that you had to be very well trained to use the longbow, so in short it was sort of the best weapon in a way, but it took massive training to use it properly.

The Arbalest (or similar Crossbow) was rather expensive and hard to make, but it had great force, great accuracy, and you needed rather little training to use it.

The Hand Cannon had (as said) rather good range and power, but poor accuracy, really easy and relatively cheap to mass produce, and you needed little training.

So, whats the conclusion? The Longbow and the Arbalest was the prime weapons of its types, the Hand Cannons were the prototypes of its type. The matchlock firearm was used as early as 1440s by the Turks, and by 1520 almost everyone used matchlocks instead of the old Hand Cannon. Its really only the method of ignition that had changed, but as the years went, better and better firearms were made.

So yes, I can believe that the prime platemail could withstand the early Hand Cannon, but as the years went by it became obsolete.

(However, we still use heavy armour.. now we call it Panzersteel.. You might say that the modern Tanks are todays version of the old armoured knight..)
 
Assuming the conquistador was a dragoon, I don't think a knight would lose. The dragoon would have maybe one shot from a relatively inaccurate firearm, and then have to contend with a knight charging at him. I only have a vague impression of how the Spanish were armed in the Americas, but the picture I have in my mind of a Spanish dragoon would be a horseman armed with a gun and a sword and buckler (am I just thinking of MTW 2? Probably). The knight would surely have a long lance, and so the conquistador would be at a disadvantage. Besides, the dragoons weren't designed with fighting other cavalry primarily, were they? There advantage is that they are musketmen with good battlefield mobility, and can ride down and pursue as need be. They wouldn't have been very experienced at charging against heavy cavalrymen.
 
Something really doesn't want me to post, because every time I start writing a reply something happens...

Obviously, firearms have come a long way since medieval times.  :lol: More than enough to defeat a knight of old.  :razz:

According to wikipedia (early modern warfare), by 1670 massed firearms in a frontal attack rendered plate armour obselete, and by 1650 firearms could kill an armoured man from a distance of 100 yards. That is the mid-17th century. As far as I know, firearms were being used back in the 1300s (14th century).

The time of the Conquistadors was around the 15th-16th centuries (the Battle of Otumba was somewhere between 1415 and 1425 if I remember correctly), so I am talking about the firearms of the time.

Matchlocks and dragoons have been mentioned earlier in this thread... I think a matchlock is a downright stupid weapon to use from a moving horse, since firing a matchlock weapon means holding a lit match while carrying a lot of gunpowder on one's person. If the horse is moving at any appreciable speed, then matchlock weapons are more dangerous to the man using them than the enemy.

Add the inaccuracy of a smoothbore firearm, and the difficulty of shooting from a moving horse, and then factor in that firearms of the 15th century are not that deadly against plate armour, and the evidence favours a knight against a dragoon-like conquistador from the same period.

But if the conquistador shot the knight's horse, then retreated on horseback to reload, before approaching and firing again, the fight becomes very cruel and one-sided.
 
Depends on the first shot, if the dragoon manages to shoot the knight, it's obvious who wins :lol:
However: if the knight doesn't get hit, he's pobably already reached the dragoon and slaughered him
 
Hmm.. This is interesting.. I never realized that you should take the Dragoon that was used at the time when there still existed armoured knights.. And yes, the earliest Dragoons (don't know if the earliest Dragoonlike units were called Dragoons, but the thing that eventually became Dragoon. Lets just call it Dragoon) would have rather poor firearms.. But as soon as 1 handed firearms came, the Dragoons used them. As far as I know a rich or well valued Dragoon could have more then 1 firearm. He could have several one handed guns so that he would be able to fire more then 1 bullet at the knight.

And.. This discussion is of course the unlike event that a single armoured knight would duel a single Dragoon. This could of course happen in the midst of the battle, but if it happened in the midst of the battle the Dragoon would be likely to have spent his bullets already and would then face a much stronger melee unit, so in the midst of the battle the Dragoon would probably loose.

But, say there was a duel. They both start 1000 meters or so away from eachother and are to fight to the death. Lets say its the latest and greatest knight VS a rich and valued and well trained Dragoon. And lets presume that the bullets of the Dragoons guns could penetrate the knights armour at around.. oh.. lets say 50 meters, that's pretty fair I think. And lets say the Dragoon had 3 or 4 guns.

They would move closer and closer, the Dragoon would either have to wait for the knight to get closer to be able to penetrate the armour, or ride away from the knight at a slower speed then the knight so that the knight would get close enough for penetration but still be too far away to harm the Dragoon. If he picks the first solution he would get
good aim, but little time to fire and try to get out of the knights way, and if he picks the second solution he would be rather safe, but have a much poorer aim.

So yes, I agree, the Knight would probably win.. But, if you took the late Dragoon vs a prime knight I think the Dragoon would be better off, with much better firearms, more accurate and powerfull.

As for the equipment: Yes, a horse, a breastplate, a helmet, maybe bracers, 1 or more sword or other melee weapon, a small shield, like a buckler (I guess he could have a larger shield too) and 1 or more firearm.

And yes, the Dragoon was meant to be an infantry who could ride a horse if necessary, so he'd start on foot with a musketlike firearm, and then move on to use the horse and smaller firearms if required. However, as the years passed the Dragoon became more and more cavalry related instead of infantry related, and at the end of its use it was the main cavalry, so a mounted unit that could also fight on foot rather then a infantry unit that could also fight on horse.

But for the Dragoon vs Knight I'd assume the Dragoon would be better off on horse then on foot. Maybe not though.. If he was light and really, really agile he could try and dodge the charge of the knight and either shoot or try to stab/slash the horse and try to dismount the knight for then to try and "out agile" him when they were both on foot.

I'm picturing the Dragoon preforming a "Indiana Jones Roll" to avoid the charge and then pwn the horse.

But still... A knight was a formidable fighter on foot as well.. So unless the Dragoon is able to shoot him I think the knight would win..

EDIT: @ Kasimir: Sorry, you posted while I was writing so I didn't catch your post right away.

The matchlock was not ignited by holding a match/torch, it was a really, really slow burning fuse that you lowered down into the gunpowderchamber of your gun. It was rather safe, but the fuse could twist a bit so you'd miss the hole. While on foot and with lots of time (IE at least a second or two) you could rearrange the fuse, but on horseback it would be harder.

As for your gunpowderpoach to explode/ignite during combat is rather improbable since you would have the pouch around 40-50 cm (around 1,5 feet) away from your fuse at the closest (IE having your pouch on your left hip or left side of saddle and your gun on your right eye, other way around if you had left mastereye), and when you reloaded your gun with powder you'd remove the fuse. You could have a small metal container some place easy to reach, like on your right side of saddle, or in front of you to place the burning fuse in. And, since the fuse was slow burning the risk of glowing debris from it would be rather low, so the gun would not go off due to this either.

It is mainly the poor accuracy and power that reduce the efficiency on horseback, not the risk of blowing yourself up.

As for the early use of hand guns.. The earliest use in rather large scale is dated to 1260, but it is not certain that they used handguns at that time, just some writings about it, not any "real" evidence. But along 1300+ the hand cannon was used. On that note, there is a sculpture from the 1100 displaying a weapon that looks like a hand cannon.

However, as said, the earliest guns was unable to take out heavy armour, but during 1500-1600 quite a lot happened. So, there could be an armourpiercing firearm that could kill a late heavy armoured knight.

Actually, it had to be, since the use of heavy armoured knights ended much because of heavy armour not being protective enough and therefor obsolete. So we can not say that the Dragoon would loose cause his guns could not penetrate armour.

So yes, it all depends on where the Dragoon hits, and if he hits at all...
 
Only reason I pick a specific era of troop is because it was meant to be knight vs conquistador - and dragoon was suggested as a possible interpretation of conquistador. It's not mandatory, since there is a viking vs samurai thread even though the viking age and samurai age do not overlap.

Obviously a late dragoon has the advantage over a knight, on the grounds that the knight was in decline as the dragoon was on the rise - meaning the dragoon was at least better adapted to the warfare of the period.

The main source I use (for convenience) is wikipedia, but here is what I found on matchlocks.

An inherent weakness of the matchlock was the necessity of keeping the match constantly lit. Being the sole source of ignition for the powder, if the match was not lit when the gun needed to be fired, the mechanism was useless, and the weapon became little more than an expensive club. This was chiefly a problem in wet weather, when damp match cord was difficult to light and to keep burning. Another drawback was the burning match itself. At night, the match would glow in the darkness, possibly revealing the carrier's position. The distinctive smell of burning match-cord was also a give away of a musketeer's position (this was used as a plot device by Akira Kurosawa in his movie Seven Samurai). It was also quite dangerous when soldiers were carelessly handling large quantities of gunpowder (for example, while refilling their powder horns) with lit matches present. This was one reason why soldiers in charge of transporting and guarding ammunition were amongst the first to be issued self-igniting guns like the wheellock and snaphance.

The matchlock was also uneconomical to keep ready for long periods of time. To maintain a single sentry on night guard duty with a matchlock, keeping both ends of his match lit, required a mile of match per year.

And on the arquebus, specifically, arquebus compared to archery.

An arquebus was also significantly more dangerous to its user. The arquebusier carries a lot of gunpowder on his person and has a lit match in one hand. The same goes for the soldiers next to him. Amid the confusion, stress and fumbling of a battle, arquebusiers are potentially a danger to themselves. Early arquebuses tended to have a drastic recoil. They took a long time to load unless using the 'continuous fire' strategy, where one line would shoot and reload while the next line shot. They also tended to overheat. During repeated firing, guns could become clogged and explode, causing pieces of metal and wood to break off, which could be dangerous to the gunner and even those around him. In this context it should be added that reloading an arquebus requires more fine motor skills and movements than reloading a bow or crossbow. This is a disadvantage in a combat situation since stress has a very negative impact on fine motor skills.

And on muskets...

The rise of firearms led to thicker and heavier armour, from 15kgs in the 15th century to 25kgs in the late 16th century.[7] Armour 2 mm thick required 2.9 times as much energy to defeat it as armour 1 mm thick.[8] The need to defeat armour gave rise to the musket proper referring to a heavier weapon, firing a heavier shot, which had to balance on a rest.

Sometime around 1630-60, at least in England, the musket barrel was cut down from 4 feet to 3 feet[10] at about the same time the rest was given up. The arquebus seems to disappear as the musket got lighter. The number of musketeers relative to pikemen grew, partly because they were now more mobile than pikemen.[11]

This part tells me that muskets and plate armour were somewhat balanced against each other. A musket was clearly powerful enough to change armour designs, but until 1630-60 muskets that could penetrate a knight's armour were not easily portable and probably not reasonable weapons to use on horseback - which makes the musketeers very vulnerable to cavalry. Hence pike-and-shot warfare.

However, bullets don't need to penetrate plate armour to injure a knight - the impact can do that, causing heavy bruising that would slow the knight down. Or knock him off his horse. Or kill his horse. All of these are effective ways to weaken a knight in battle.

Slightly off-topic tangent...

Personally I don't believe it was the longbow, or the musket, or any single weapon which rendered knights obselete on the battlefield. It was more to do with the structure and logistics of armies. Advances in weaponry reduced some of the effect of knight's armour, but that wasn't enough by itself.

In the later Middle Ages, rulers began employing more professional soldiers, demilancers, pikemen, musketeeers. While the knight began his training from an early age and typically could afford better equipment than most soldiers, the difference was less than before. The average soldier was becoming better trained and equipped.

Organised tactics such as pike-and-shot formations were able to resist heavy cavalry. Massed volleys of longbowmen were becoming more effective as massed volleys. The emphasis in war was less on the man and more on the unit. The knight spent years in training as a page and then squire, and all that investment in one man became a less and less valuable investment as one could have a large professional army that could do the job.

End tangent.
 
Yikes... It seems that my brain fondling was a bit off then... That long post of mine was based mostly on intuition, and some fast reading on wikipedia.. And at one point (that have not been mentioned) my thinking was way off.. This is regarding the shape of the projectile.. You would need much more power to pierce armour with a round ball then with a pointy bolt/arrow tip that was made for the job...

And, as you say, platearmour was improved to withstand the improvements of the firearms.. You are also true when you say that you don't have to penetrate the armour to hurt the guy inside (just as an example, I've seen pictures of guys who have been shot by a Desert Eagle .337 while wearing a bulletproof vest, and yes, the vest took the bullet, but the guy broke a few ribs, his skin got "knocked" apart, and it really did not look pleasent at all! Still, better then getting a hollowpoint from a .337 flying through your chest..).

On the part about matchlocks being silly dangerous... yes.. you could hurt yourself.. but then again, you could cut yourself on your sword, or fire your arbalest through your head while reloading it.. And yes, in this 1 on 1 duel, the conquistador/dragoon could indeed hurt himself with the firearms/gunpowder.. No weapon is safe, but I do not think the matchlock was super dangerous.. As your quote from wikipedia say: "It was also quite dangerous when soldiers were carelessly handling large quantities of gunpowder (for example, while refilling their powder horns) with lit matches present.", note the part that say "With lit matches present" and "carelessly handling". This means that accidents did happen, but modern soldiers hurt themselves and friendly units as well. Its just bad luck. Of course, handling gunpowder is more dangerous then a Arbalest or sword, but I don't think big accidents happened all the time..

And about the matters concerning the decay of armoured knights: I am sorry if I made you think that I said that firearms alone was the cause of the decay, I only meant that it was part of the reason. I'm not the best writer in this forum, so I tend to make people misunderstand me  :sad:
 
No apology needed - my tangent was mostly general preaching, not a specific retort to anything you said. :razz:

I never thought of split skin from the impact. I will remember that (I write fiction as a hobby, with a German squire as the main character - who is probably going to get shot soon  :lol: ).

Obviously I can neither ride a horse nor use a matchlock firearm properly, so I am probably overestimating the dangers involved - it just seems like the bouncing on a fast-moving horse while trying to load a firearm which required a lit match to work is a recipe for disaster... which would really all be reasons for the dragoon to use a wheellock instead. Main reason I brought up my doubts about matchlocks is because the very first post mentioned it as if it was likely to be the deciding factor in the battle - I see it as a risky weapon difficult to use on horseback, inaccurate against a moving target and not all that likely to penetrate armour. Smoothbore firearms worked in massed volleys, but not so well at picking out specific targets until they became rifles instead.

"What are you ducking for? They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist-"
 
Yikes! Big, big, BIG mistake by me!! I misplaced the Dragoon by nearly 200 years!! Of course they didn't use matchlocks.. Blargh.. I get so damn stupid sometimes..

But.. As you say the Dragoons used Wheellock (or similar/later ignitionmechanism) it means that it could reload and fire rather safely while riding.. Still not easy, but at least possible..

As for skin splitting on impact.. I would not use the word "split", I'd rather use the word "crush".. It looked like a bruise from hell, like you had hit him multiple times with a meat tenderizer (look at the picture of it, not a nice thing, http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41CV82HHVGL._SL500_AA280_.jpg). I searched and searched to try and find a picture of the impactwound after a Desert Eagle (or other powerfull weapon) vs bulletproof vest, but I could not find it.. Found a lot of other grotesque pictures though  :???:
 
So, the question has changed to what should the stupid soldier's name be - conquistador or dragoon.

My question to the pollmaster, what do you envisage the conquistador as? Is he a man with a musketoon and breastplate on a horse? Is he a heavy cavalry in half-plate armour with lance and sword? Is he a pikeman in mail armour? Is he a rondalero with sword and buckler? Basically, the name dragoon is only appropriate if the knight's opponent is supposed to be a dragoon.

In short, the name depends on what kind of training and equipment the soldier should have.
 
A conquistador was usually a poor man, a peaseant, that would go to the New world to try to make fortune.
They didn't necessairly mounted horses or wore armour.The first Conquistadores, that is.
Later, when rich (and poor but fine equipped) men started to invade the Americas, they started to use plate armours and better weapons.
 
i envisioned the conquistador with a matchlock musket( very unaccerate but able to punch through armor) and with a rapier and buckler9 absolutely useless for getting through armor) and no horse. 
 
cellodude said:
i envisioned the conquistador with a matchlock musket( very unaccerate but able to punch through armor) and with a rapier and buckler9 absolutely useless for getting through armor) and no horse.

In that case the knight would have a very easy fight (assuming he is mounted). All he needs to do is avoid the first shot and then he can just crush the guy with a charge. Muskets tended to rely on massed volleys, so a 1 vs 1 gives the advantage to the knight. Also, the point about many muskets needing stands is important, because if the knight moves to the side the musketeer needs to adjust his stand, which can be difficult to do in time

Basically the conquistador-musketeer would get one shot against a moving target with a very inaccurate weapon. That would be his only chance.
 
Back
Top Bottom