Thanatoast

Gotsta go with the ones with the greatest firepower...the namesake of a currently lousy baseball team in my town.

squiddy

PIRATES!

Johnny Depp. Nuff said.

ju'iblex

strong yes, nimble, not so much... handstands is a little incredible for my tastes. From what i remember, knights always had assistants because most of them couldn't get back up if they fell over, or at least, not without great effort. IMO, one broomstick to put them off balance, then they're on the ground, and you have a nice wide range of finishing blow choices to exact before they can get back up again.
safety in numbers, and chopping off peasants' heads ain't hard when you're up on a horse and swinging around a sword like there's no tomorrow.

the mongols on the other hand were quite good matches for knights, and all they were using was bow, arrow, and some leather/silk armour.

Secular Elation

I remember when I was between the ages of 8-13, I had this awesome pirate Halloween costume. Damn I miss that thing.

The Lone Ranger

Actually, that's a myth. It's commonly believed, but a myth nonetheless.

Armour was always made so as to restrict the user's movement as little as possible. Otherwise, it would be suicidal to wear it into battle. Since the weight is distributed over your body, a person in good condition can run and jump while wearing armour, and he can get right back up again if he should fall.

I've seen a guy in full plate and chainmail do cartwheels to demonstrate just how much mobility well-made armour allowed its wearer.

Cheers,

Michael

erimir

Ninjas are so unbelievably bad-ass that it makes my genitals hurt to think about it.

BolshyFaker

Pandas . Every time.

tensorproduct

I've heard this of samurai, who would often have to be winched onto their horses before a battle, so I wouldn't be surprised if it was also true of knights.

Godot

And how can you argue with that?

'Course, if the monkeys had been listed on the poll...

GunnerJ

See the Lone Ranger's post, and this link.

Let's see how this works considering:

So, all of a sudden, the broomstick KO is only a viable option if fully two-thirds of what made knights effective, their horses and their weapons, are taken away?

Cavalry horses were bred fierce. They could kill just by kicking and rearing, or by simple trampling. Even if you take away the horse, how likely is it that you can actually connect with your pole-arm? Unless your skill with a staff equals or surpasses that of the knight's skill with the sword, chances are he'll parry.

And even if he has niether horse nor blade, if he can catch the boomstick (possible) and pull it away (likely, unless you're stronger than the knight), you can expect a facefull of gauntlet.

(And s far as saftey in numbers goes, knights were the cream of the crop, the nobility. There were many more commoners with spears than there were knights.)

Exactly. They used the advantage of distance and mobility. Not broomsticks.

Bottom line: if knights were as easy to take out as you suggest, they wouldn't have been the standard of military comabt throughout the whole Middle Ages.