Depends on the type of joint damage you’re talking about. While thighs, knees, and if you’re using stirrups, ankles are all important while riding your joints are not subjected to the same sort of pounding they would be if you were running on foot, particularly while wearing armor of some sort. Joint problems that don’t impede motion but do cause problems with weight-bearing might be an instance where riding works better than being on foot.
Hip problems would be a real impediment for horseback riding, as can some other disabilities. There are a few instances were riding side-saddle can help, but while there are a few instances of men riding side-saddle so far as I know no one has ever ridden a horse side-saddle into a battle.
But not all fighting from horseback involves lances and charging.
When you start talking about folks who have a permanent or chronic injury involved in battle it can get complicated. There’s a long history of modifying saddles/other equipment and/or training horses to work with a rider with a disability, and certainly the higher up in society you were the more likely you could afford or justify such efforts. You’re still talking about non-standard equipment and techniques so generalizing becomes hard.
Its ancient not medieval (though GoT takes plenty of inspiration from anceint history, as well medieval history), but the Argyraspides or Silver Shields are a good example.
They were Alexander the Greats elite troops. Long after Alexander died, and his successors were fighting over the remnants of his empire, they we’re still around. Despise the fact that at that point they were all positively geriatric they still the deciding factor in many battles.
Enguerrand VII, the Lord of Coucy, died in 1397, sometime during captivity the year after he fought in the battle of Nicopolis at age 55 or 56. Coucy was regarded as one of the foremost warriors in Europe by his enemies as well as his own countrymen. Peculiarly for the Middle Ages, Coucy was held in high esteem for his maturity and cool judgement.
I was debating nominating Sir John, my main concern being how well he fit the definition of “badass” (while he started his career as a fighter during the Hundred Years’ War, he’s best remembered for his generalship in Lombardy). On the other hand, leading a bunch of cutthroat freebooters probably required being a better fighter than your second-in-command, at least.
One story that I tripped over about him involved an encounter with a couple of mendicant friars, to whom he gave a coin or two. When they thanked him and wished him peace Hawkwood threatened to take the coins back, saying that wishing peace to a man like him was the same as wishing him poverty.
Winning a battle often depended on killing or capturing the commander. Some commanders might have held back and been well protected by their knights, but the scale of battle was such that sometimes attackers were able to reach the commander and he would be involved in combat. And some definitely “led from the front” to inspire their troops, like Richard leading a cavalry charge at Bosworth Field and as mentioned above Edward I at Berwick.
I could have sworn I read that El Cid was buried in a river bed after diverting it to dig the grave, then diverted back … but I suppose seeing some person skewered with a hundred arrows still seated and heading my way would make me run like hell =)
Ivar Boneless was carried into battle [reputedly] so being crippled in some way wasn’t a barrier if you were determined enough. An Indian had both his hands lopped off, and fitted himself with knives on his stumps and kept on fighting, as did several others in history [reputedly]
Not back then, not really. Authority (political, social) and legitimacy, where the aristocracy was concerned, wasn’t derived from a mandate from god regardless of their actions so shut the fuck up and know your place (that actually came much later, believe it or not, as a reaction to the early Enlightenment). Rather a noble was recognized as a noble (by his peers, by his underlings, and by god who had a vote back then) through his virtues ; the major of which were strength, courage and faith. Strength being paramount. Which means, basically: you got stuck in if you wanted your crew (and your peasants) to not replace you with someone else who did get stuck in and wasn’t no pussy.
I joked earlier about John of Bohemia being a blind stubborn idiot, but the truth is, this is what was at stake for him. It was a chance for him to broadcast to his entire kingdom “hey, I know I’m old and blind and you lot have been talking about that, but I’m still a grade-A badass with the Lord on my side. Don’t believe me ? Hold my beer, watch this.”. His only problem was that the Lord wasn’t with him *that *far :).
And these social attitudes continued well into the Renaissance - Henri the IVth of France famously wore a distinctive white plumage on his helmet at the Battle of Ivry in 1590, and spurred his men onwards by telling them to “follow his white panache” that they would find “where the fighting is fiercest”. And this was an early modern battle, with guns and cannon and grenades and all.
It’s really after the Enlightenment and into the Napoleonic era that generals became primarily, well, what we think of as generals today : grand strategists looking at battles through a looking glass, from atop a hill 20 miles away. Because with the rise of science and the scientific method/way of looking at things, war also became a complex science. And they noted that wars are easier to win when the head honcho with the big plans doesn’t get his head blown off - that his looking like a pussy was less important than winning the war. So that’s when mentalities evolved.
And even then, while Napoleon sat cozy on his horse his field marshals for their part were still often stuck in with the boys and had to if they wanted to be respected by the boys.
Like I said, the story about his corpse leading his knights into battle is legendary and probably not true. (It did make for a memorable ending to the epic movie about him starring Charlton Heston El Cid, though). I haven’t heard the tale of El Cid being buried in a river but such stories are told about figures going back to Attila the Hun.
Sir David Mathew, a Welsh knight, was credited with saving King Edward IV’s life at the Battle of Towton in 1461, and was appointed Royal Standard Bearer in return. He was sixty at the time.
He ultimately made it to the age of 84, but he didn’t die in his bed - he was killed in a brawl with some neighbors
Bookwise Ser Barristan is one of the best fighters in the realm. In the TV show Jamie says he thinks there are maybe three people in the world who might be able to beat him. He does not say who they are but many believe Ser Barristan is one of them.
Sword fighting is a lot of technique so an older person with a lot of experience and practice can be very dangerous. What they lack is the speed and endurance of youth but experience counts for a lot.
I do not know but I would think a 30-ish sword fighter might be the best balance between youthful vigor and speed and well-earned experience.
But back in those days a well trained noble, if they practiced every day with sword masters/whoever, could be super lethal well into their 50’s I would think.
If you were Robert Baratheon who drinks a few gallons of wine every day and gave up on martial practice and exercise you’re going to slow down a lot and not be so dangerous.
Given that he’s buried in the cathedral of Burgos (his native village of Vivar is part of that diocese), burgaleses would be very surprised to discover that their most famous monument is underwater.