Sorry if this has been said, I only read first couple of posts. Thought I would just clear a few things up as I teach history at a high level.
* Knight is the term for a noble and did not really mean that this man would fight in full plate and horse back. Full plate armour was stupidly expensive ( Imagine in todays terms kitting your best guys out in something similar to Batman's outfit in regard to protection. Knight was more the term for a man of noble birth or who had aquired this title through deeds to a kingdom. He would have generally fought on horse but would ; for game purposes, be considered Light Cavalry. Your average Count or even Duke could not field any heavy cavalry due to the insane cost of not only arming but also training these men ( riding a horse at pace in something as heavy as full plate AND timing your attacks on an enemy takes years of training which costs money.)
* 1066 , some could argue William won this due to his "heavy cavalry" in history and time specific examples and purposes William's "knights" were in game terms "light cavelry" as they wore leather over layed with mail and used lances (spears)
* The only "TRUE" heavy cavalry of the period would have been Teutonic or Crusader Knights. The idea of men in full plate bearing down on an enemy with leveled lances (in abundance at least) is a Hollywood invention.
In regards to Heavy Cavalry in this game, other than a few forgivables, Paradox generally does its homework + some. Id suggest that they more or less have the ratio of heavy cav spot on.
You have got to remember, the Crusader state knights , especially Templars were feared and respected across Europe because they pretty much were the one major Heavy Cav regiment in existence at the time. Thats where they forged thier reputation and pretty much where we get the idea of heavy cavalry.
Hope this clears some things up
Sorry but this is so annoying and incredible that I have to reply to this post before completely reading through this topic...
Please provide your credentials. You say you teach history at a high level? What do you mean by that? From what you have written I have to assume you at best studied general or modern history, certainly not medieval history or even better medieval history focused on military events...
Lets get some things straight concerning this topic.
1) A knight is not necessarily noble (as a previous poster already mentionned, there are such things as ministeriali who were serf knights (and this system is not unique to in the HRE, there are clear examples in Flanders for instance also similar systems in France). Note also that not all noblemen are knights in the strict terms. Certainly early in the medieval period knights and nobility tended to be entirely separate. Later on knighthood became ever more codified and controlled meaning that by the end of the middle ages every knight was indeed also of noble birth (but not every nobleman in arms a knight)...
2) The technical innovations that gradually lead to what we today understand as knights in battle were improved stirrups (there are indications that as far back as the Celts a form of stirup (single stirup) existed in Europe, but this was insufficient to perform true shock tactics) and a new saddle. These two technical innovations allowed a new doctrine of cavalry tactics away from skirmish and towards shock. The Bayeux Tapestry shows a number of armoured cavalry men (the german term Panzerreiter might be better in this discussion than knight as many men could be trained, equipped and expected to fight like knights without being actually knights) riding with couched lance (while some scenes still portray light cavalry with spears held in fencing/throwing position). For a while after this type of cavalry was introduced to Europe (again, stirup, saddle and couched lance) training and equipment greatly improved making heavy cavalry the determinant factor on the battle field. Some of those improvements were training in single- as well as formation combat (tournaments, the name even stems from the practice of chargeing and turning around to reform before the next charge), training horses as dextriers (recent scholars, that is actual professionals, like Lehnarts are convinced that the term destrier is not derived from the horse being led by a squire with the right hand, but instead describes either a natural- or trained-right_hand_galoper (sorry I'm not too familiar with english language riding terminology, this is a horse that easier bends to the right (aka a left hander), any rider will know that most horses are naturally right handed (left bent) and this would be very difficult to train away (explaining the cost of true destriers), a right_hand_galoper would greatly increase the effectiveness of couched lance tactics as the entire horse's body is bent to the right and therefore the lance can easily be crossed over the horse's neck once the horse is brought to the canter/galop (final phase of the charge)) etc. By the way, a knight's (or other heavy cavalryman's) horse of the 12th, 13th or 14th century was a relatively light horse compared to modern breeds, that is archeological finds have demonstrated that horses in general during the medieval period rarely exceeded 16 hands and their built was not robust (yes Hollywood invented som things, such inventions are heavy armour (I'm a re-enactor in addition to having studied history, believe m I'd know if armour were really heavy to wear or greatly inhibitting movement) or heavy horses). Its most important trait was not strength but flexibility. Anyhow there were a number of other reasons that eventually reduced first the number of heavy cavalrymen and then their importance...
3) Why would Templar knights in particular be more heavily equipped than other knights of their time? The Templars are in fact renowned for using antiquated armour and to some degree military doctrine. Otherwise they were issued from the exact same classes of people as other knights and or heavy cavalrymen (to note, many Templar sergeants (servientes) in arms were in fact also trained as heavy cavalry (the major exception being Turcopoles), probably even more strict selection by birth. Some of the advantages Templars might have had early on were more actual experience of combat (particularly against the light cavalry of the Turks), relatively high discipline (fight as long as the banner is raised, if the banner falls raise a new banner if possible, otherwise rally to the Knights of the Hospital (again sorry for the english, Hospitalitter in german). One of their disadvantage during the middle to late period of their existance would have been prohibition from participating in tournaments (then again by the 14th century when the Templars were disbanded, tournaments had become far removed from realistic battle practice)...
4) Why would the chainmail (and no, modern research makes the old notion of leather gambesons/aketons be it as stand alone armour or worn under mail at Hastings unlikely, yes a few rare examples might have existed, so rare that they were specially noticed in Norse Sagas, fabric gear (most likely layers of linen, outer layers of linen with a cotton fleece (not sure it's the correct english term, German "Filz" or more exacly "verfilzt" or "gefilzt") were probably only introduced during the Crusades and are the origin of the term aketon (derivate from Arab)) of the Hastings period be considered light armour? It is the heaviest (the word heavy can lead to much confusing when talking about armour, chainmail is not so heavy or inflexible as one might think, once worn on the shoulder and over the belt (very important as mny don't realise the role the belt plays in wearing chain armour) weight is well distributed and correctly manufactured mail will still permit good movement of the wearer (badly assembled rings can do the exact opposite, but no one at the time would have made that error) available at the time. It was only in the the late 13th century that pieces of plate armour started to appear (note that even plate can be easily worn and remain flexible and should not be confused with Hollywood heavy armour). But even then plate or chain armour would not be the determining factor to differentiate between heavy and light cavalry...
5) So what defines heavy and light cavalry from a military point of view? Heavy cavalry is the type that executes predominantly (not exclusively) shock combat, while light cavalry is trained and equipped for skirmish and/or missile combat. That is a heavy cavalryman could be wearing no armour at all if he is still trained and expected to fight in close quarters (see greek cavalry of antiquity where riders often only wore helmets and shields as armour). A light cavalryman on the other hand could be wearing heavy (how I hate that word in this context, again it's not physically heavy) armour, yet not be trained to charge the enemy (best example Turkic cavalry during the crusades who often wore chainmail of similar, sometimes even better, quality to Crusader cavalry, yet were not trained and therefore inneficient in shock combat. A good example someone else mentionned would be 19th century cuirassiers whom no one would call light cavalry, yet were armoured and trained for shock (which at times involved fire arms, though no longer I believe in the 19th)...
Sorry but no time to continue this (very late) reply. but the very notion that Templar cavalry was feared in Europe is silly. Respected to a certain degree definitelly, but also at times laughing stock of other knights (even more so of other orders like the Teutonics)...
Anyhow, I will try to write up a more organised viewpoint on these issues, whenever possible with numbers and sources...
P.S.: As I ask for credentials I will give mine. I studied history for 2 years (not much at all, but enough to learn how to read sources critically), none of that studying involved medieval or military history. Since then I've worked in jobs unrelated to the field of history or military matters. But I kept on reading about all periods of history with a particular (but by no means single) focus on military matters. CK-I motivated me for the first time to delve into medieval history as well as connected topics (heraldry). I have since become somewhat of an expert for local medieval history (and by that I don't mean reading general history books, I mean going through the source documents as well as keeping up to date on local research). I have written a few articles on local topics (such as the dating of the town I currently inhabit, which I believe to have narrowed down to a time frame of maybe ten years, incidentally almost twenty years later than some official histories would have it and 50 years earlier than some others). I have also moved into medieval re-enactment (of the A type as Germans would say, that is the ones looking for authenticity, as far as that can be achieved with unfortunatelly limited resources) and going ever further towards experimental archeology. For some time now I've been doing research on various history/wargame topics, this last year as one of the lead designers for a project. In short I know my stuff, though I continue to learn more every day. But there is one thing I cannot stand, that is someone else stating to belong to accademia (which might be true or not, but certainly not a recent scholar of continental European medieval military history) and then make statements wildly contradictory of expert opinions...
