Would you consider special forces to be modern Knights
You have to be 18 to use this site, bud.
Knights weren't some supersoldier, they were just rich landowners that ruled over some peasants.
So your avarage mall shopper
>>29464420
None.
Our current centralized government, military bureaucracy and industry means soldiers do not have to be supported by feudal system and buy their own military equipment.
KKK
>>29464420
Knighthood holds more political meaning than just being trained and having access to prohibited weapons and armor.
Hell, the merchantt guild leaders were so wealthy and held influence that they could own armor and be defacto knights.
Professional mercenaries or men-at-arms could be well trained and funded to be just as good as knights or better.
Anything that is specialized infantry. E.g US Ranger and British Royal marine commandos.
>>29464420
historical knights were such because they could fund a horse. That's pretty expensive in upkeep cost.
following how military tradition evolved over the years from knights -> noble officer corps, modern officers are the closest thing to knights, but not really in any functional sense.
>>29464420
better question, who is the modern equivalent of templars
>>29464953
ISIS
>>29464420
>special forces
>welfare whores
=peasants
>Knights
>nobility and decked out in tacticool armor whose parents are landowners that the peasants pay tax to
=trust fund gear queer tripfags
Na
>>29464420
Prince Harry is the closest modern equivalent to a knight because for all practical purposes, that's what he is. He's probably one of the only people on earth that checks all the boxes.
>>29465006
Tell me where the bad veteran touched you, Ms. Shaffer.
>>29464420
No
Knights held political power
There was a much larger difference between a knight and a levy than a professional soldier and a special forces
There really is not comparison. I always find it so stupid when people compare modern troops to Spartans or Vikings or some shit like that. We can't even begin to imagine how harsh the environment of those ancient soldiers was, you can't compare that to how comparatively easy we have it today, especially with how we're either allied or co-dependent with everyone that could match us in the field.
>>29465089
>Vikings
The thing that gets me is how the fuck they got places. By ship. Open ships. No belowdecks. So you get to sit in the North Atlantic, being sprayed by freezing water, for fucking days. Your only protection is fucking furs, your only way to keep warm is rowing.
Christ fuck that so much. I literally can't even begin to imagine how miserable it must have been.
WTF tripcode are taking over the board
>>29464420
>Would you consider special forces to be modern Knights
no. what?
>>29465035
no. what?
>>29465089
>Knights held political power
no. what?
this place makes me fucking cringe sometimes.
>>29464553
>rich landowners
not even.
low end landowners with military obligations. the actual definition of a knight is complicated and changed over time. they could be both the lowest rank and highest ranked of the aristocracy, as high born sons would often live as knights before they inherited. it's a bit complicated.
>>29464798
this is probably the best answer in the thread.
>>29465089
not really, no. for one, a soldier today, even and infantry grunt, carries far more equipment than at any time in history. ancient armies were a lot less mobile than modern light infantry even without vehicles. usually when confronted with harsh weather the main approach of your ancient soldier was to freeze to death. i am not even joking.
sssssnake
>>29465382
no. what?
>>29464420
Aircraft carriers in a global context.
Armored transports/tanks in a local context.
