[HN Gopher] 60 knights paused a war to fight a battle royale ___________________________________________________________________ 60 knights paused a war to fight a battle royale Author : drdee Score : 73 points Date : 2022-09-21 22:29 UTC (2 days ago) (HTM) web link (www.historynet.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.historynet.com) | [deleted] | hprotagonist wrote: | the combat of the thirty is indeed quite famous in some circles. | | Reenactors, in particular, love it: | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amm1gFbfPN0 | jasonjamerson wrote: | I don't think I understand how they were going full out and so | few died. | rightbyte wrote: | You underestimate how ceremonial battles were. | Tuna-Fish wrote: | That's not it at all. Armor and tight ranks are really, | really good at keeping people alive right up until gunpowder | weapons. | | It was entirely normal for armies of several thousand people | on each side to clash and have <1% casualties for an hour or | more. And you can tell this is not because of some ceremonial | reasons because of what happens when ranks of one side | finally break, because then the side that manages to hold | cohesion will absolutely slaughter the losers. | towaway15463 wrote: | Go watch some videos of modern melee tournaments where the | participants are in full armour. Armoured combat essentially | turns all weapons into blunt objects unless you manage to get | a point of a sword into a gap which is hard to do while being | pummeled over the head. | gkfasdfasdf wrote: | It seems from the wiki article that the loosing team was | executed - or am I reading it wrong? | | > As evening fell that day, the victor, Captain de Beaumanoir, | returned the prisoners to Josselin and had them executed. | reidjs wrote: | Armor | somenameforme wrote: | It also would not have been chivalrous to kill an opponent | who yielded, so the only ones dying are those who were killed | in short order on the battle field, or those who refused to | yield in hopeless circumstance. | hprotagonist wrote: | "you can't ransom the dead!" and basically all the | combatants were noble. | varjag wrote: | Weren't they all executed in the end? | henryfjordan wrote: | >All the prisoners were treated well and were released | promptly on the payment of a small ransom. | | https://www.britannica.com/event/Battle-of-the-Thirty | birdyrooster wrote: | Tis but a scratch | telchior wrote: | Probably much more important than chivalry: you can't | ransom off a captive who is dead. | | Ransoms were really, really large in that period. Five | years after this battle, the English captured the French | king at Poitiers. His ransom was 4 million gold coins plus, | I think, various concessions. The French ended up having to | pay a lot of ransoms through the whole war, and as a | result, the nobility and crown were so poor they couldn't | prevent banditry and famines. | | Barbara Tuchman's _A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous 14th | Century_ is a very engaging account of this period. | renewiltord wrote: | A bit confusing. The challenge was: | | > _Armed at all points, and on our steeds--and Heaven defend the | right!_ | | The battle was decided by | | > _Breton squire Guillaume de Montauban leapt on his charger and | rode straight into the English ranks_ | | The outcome was | | > _Though his mounted charge may have represented a breach of | etiquette, the outcome proved such a crushing blow that the | English could not carry on and effectively capitulated._ | | Why is that a breach of etiquette if you're on the horse and you | all agreed to be on your horses. But assuming for whatever sake, | that this _was_ a breach, that makes the whole story absolutely | hilarious. It is reminiscent of the Indiana Jones scene where | Harrison Ford pulls out a gun to shoot a guy who does sword | tricks. | | Hahaha, what a bunch of suckers. | suoduandao2 wrote: | 'leapt on his charger' implies that he attacked very quickly, | perhaps after the battle had officially started but both sides | were still in fact glaring at each other and getting ready. I | imagine it being a bit similar to a boxing match which begins | when the bell rings, but opponents will typically touch gloves | as a sign of respect before actually fighting. Sometimes a | fighter will use this moment to sneak in an unexpected attack | and catch his opponent off guard - well within the rules, but | considered poor sportsmanship. | anigbrowl wrote: | They had already fought for several hours earlier in the day | and then paused for lunch. After resuming, the English lost | one of their leaders but kept fighting and bunched up | tightly. As far as fighting on foot goes goes, this made it | impossible for them to win but also impossible to defeat | given the number of fighters available. | | The modern equivalent would be ending a gun battle by driving | an armored truck through the enemy group. | anigbrowl wrote: | The elaborate formalities of historical combat probably evolved | as a way to minimize casualties. It's a pattern that appears | over and over in military anthropology, where the goal of most | conflict was to command good territory or carry off women. | Going all-out to annihilate your enemy tribe completely was the | equivalent of nuclear war. | Wohlf wrote: | It's also much deadlier for the winners to not let the | opposing side retreat/surrender, if people feel trapped | they'll fight to the death. | towaway15463 wrote: | Ransom money and family relations or treatment of the | hostages the enemy had were probably the big motivators. | bombcar wrote: | I wonder if the breach of etiquette was that it was a squire | who charged, not a knight. | towaway15463 wrote: | Combat like this without reserve cavalry likely devolved into | dismounted melee immediately after the first charge. They would | have started mounted, charged with lances, became embroiled in | close combat, eventually dismounting or being pulled off, then | melee combat on foot. | | The squire in question probably broke ranks and ran off and | mounted his steed and then flanked his opens at full charge and | just ran them over. That's usually the job of reserve cavalry | to smash formations of foot soldiers but they agreed to not | have any reserves so it could be considered against the terms | they agreed to even if he was taking part in the fight from the | start. | peteradio wrote: | > Guillaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaume ... de ... Montauuuuuuban!!!!! | | > Goddamnit Guillaume... | beckingz wrote: | He had his chicken it was time to go! | david422 wrote: | Harrison Ford was originally supposed to do a giant sword | fight. But then for several reasons, it was shortened and the | outcome was much better: | | https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/raiders-... | some_random wrote: | This might be the lamest nitpick I've ever written, but isn't a | Battle Royale an individual/small team fight to the death? This | is just a small fight between two teams. | Archelaos wrote: | Yep, and it requries computers. It is clearly a use avount la | lettre. The title is to be understood as a play on words: | "Battle Royale" == "Fight in the most royal manner possible". | -- Whether it's a good play on words is for the reader to | judge, though. | troutwine wrote: | > Yep, and it requries computers. | | Does it? Wrasslin' has had Battle Royals as long as I've been | alive and conscious and I'm sure -- although I can't find the | reference now -- that English bare-knuckle boxers used to | have Battle Royals in the mercantile period for non-trivial | money. | Archelaos wrote: | This is not essential for my main point. I did not want to | be exhaustive. I only wanted to stress the avount la lettre | aspect. As long as we have no medieval source for the term, | you may choose whatever more or less contemporary meaning | that seems fit as the modern scopus of the word play. | otikik wrote: | If all the members of both teams are kings or queens, then it's | a Royal Battle. | blendergeek wrote: | I clicked the link really curious to learn why 60 knights | engaged in a Battle Royale Death Match (every man for himself, | fight to the death). I was disappointed to learn the click bait | title had taken me in and all I would get to read about was a | 30 on 30 arranged battle. | jovial_cavalier wrote: | Its recent usage is largely an allusion to the film from 2000. | The title refers to a contest where members of a graduating | high school class are pitted against each other to the death. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_Royale_(film) | mkl95 wrote: | Yeah this is a Last Team Standing. | taskforcegemini wrote: | team deathmatch? | Nowado wrote: | Deathmatch tends to focus on frags. | mkl95 wrote: | Can you respawn? | lapetitejort wrote: | That is to be determined. I'll try to let you know if I | respawn. | fsckboy wrote: | people try to nail down definitions of words that are only | loosely defined. You know the fight scenes in movies where a | fight breaks out in a bar, and before you know it, everybody is | fighting everybody? That's a battle royale. Is it a fight to | the death? not usually. Have some people used that phrase to | refer fights to the death? yes. | | https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/battle_royal#English | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_royal | | books.google.com search "battle royale" in the 19th century, | you'll see talk of ladies squabbling and how to conduct a mass | cock-fight | blendergeek wrote: | A Battle Royale is when multiple combatants fight each other | and they are not organized into teams. | | Here, the title qualifies Battle Royale with "Death Match" | implying that this Battle Royale is to the death. | fsckboy wrote: | lower case, battle royale is just an expression in English | that anybody is free to use to describe a conflict that had | some aspect of getting out of control. | | > _...and they are not organized into teams. Here, the | title qualifies Battle Royale..._ | | but in this incident they _were_ organized in teams | Kiro wrote: | Not lame at all. You wrote what everyone _except_ lamers | immediately thought of. | andirk wrote: | Is it true the knights mostly fought the peasantry and rarely | other knights? | seizethecheese wrote: | I found this link to be much better for understanding what | happened: | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_of_the_Thirty | arcticbull wrote: | It's also playable in Age of Empires 4 heh. | apetresc wrote: | I played through that mission and was thinking "Wow, they | must be taking huge liberties with the historical accuracy | these days. There's no way this actually happened." | | Well, shows what I know. | kipchak wrote: | The seeming after the fact politicization of the battle | hundreds of years later interesting. On the "French" side it | turns from a fair fight between good men to honarable nobles | defending the peasants from foreign mercenaries, and on the | "English" side it's remembered as a loss inflicted partially | due to dirty tricks by the "French". | jcheng wrote: | > According to the visitors' guide to the Chateau de Josselin | "As evening fell that day, the victor, Captain de Beaumanoir, | returned the prisoners to Josselin and had them executed." | | Yeouch | | Edit: Or maybe not? | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32956302 ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-09-23 23:00 UTC)