.

Here I am. So, elves. Which elves are you referring to? Specify the source: perhaps the Elder Edda? The Silmarillion? Dungeons & Dragons? Or your own interpretation? Even if you answer, "I MEANT THE CANONICAL ELVES," still provide the most suitable example or examples of similar elves. Without providing an example, discussing elves that exist only in your imagination is pointless. Now, about mounted knights with crossbows. Why not? It's quite possible. However, such a concept was likely not widespread. Knights are heavy cavalry, and their functions differ significantly from those of support troops, such as archers and crossbowmen. A crossbow isn't particularly useful for them. Although, if desired, a squire could follow the knight, ready to hand him a crossbow if he wishes to shoot, and the squire himself could use it if necessary. Lord mentioned that knights were required to be proficient with a crossbow. Again, this is quite plausible. But they likely used it more for hunting than for military purposes. Reloading a crossbow while mounted. The crossbow with a crank mechanism that you provided as an example of a medium-sized one is actually one of the heavy siege crossbows. These were rarely used by field armies, only by besieging forces or the garrison defending against them. Crossbows came in many varieties, including small hunting crossbows that could be reloaded without mechanisms, using bare hands. However, such crossbows offer relatively few advantages over bows. But they can be easily used by a mounted knight. I've come across information stating that there were special hooks attached to either the saddle or the stirrups, which could be used to hook the crossbow for reloading. I don't deny the possibility of this, but I doubt its convenience while the horse is moving. Back to knights. After some thought, I've concluded that I exaggerated the effectiveness of a formation of peasants with spears. No, they wouldn't kill twenty mounted knights in that scenario. Twenty horses and/or knights suffering varying degrees of injury seems more realistic.

Does a thin chainmail turn deadly wounds into minor ones? Does a car protect you from a concrete slab falling from a couple of stories up?

At the very least, it dissipates the energy of the arrow. Why, then, make and wear chainmail, which costs ten cows, requires significant time to create, and adds ten kilograms of weight? If we look at historical sources, King Harald Hardrada was killed by an arrow that hit his throat in 1066 at the Battle of Stamford Bridge. In the same year, at the Battle of Hastings, an arrow hit King Harold Godwinson in the eye, but the accuracy of this information is still debated, and the Bayeux Tapestry continues to spark controversy – under the inscription "Harold is killed," two men are depicted: one with an arrow in his eye, the other struck down by a knight. The throat and eye, of course, were not protected before the advent of steel gorgets and tophelms.

A crowd of horses tramples the peasants and... encounters a wall of trained soldiers, shields and spears, nothing more.

Shields and spears? That's laughable. Polearms capable of effectively countering cavalry must be at least two to three meters long. Try using one effectively with one hand. And look at the image you provided in post 197: the warriors in the first row hold shields and one-handed weapons. Spears and pikes are in the hands of the warriors in the second and third rows. Trained soldiers, huh. The most trained and effective infantry were either townspeople or mercenaries. Townspeople participated in battles either in the event of a major war or when their city was directly threatened. Yes, such men are much harder for knights to defeat. Other troops should come to their aid. And a change in tactics wouldn't hurt.