There is a cure for ignorance, if only the ignorant one wants to be cured. However, if there is a cure for arrogant analism, the afflicted one is hardly ever worth the effort. Nevertheless, and for any one still following this who is NOT an arrogant ass:
Knights of the period did not carry lances into battle; lances were a cavalry weapon of a later period. All were armed with swords. Beheading was not the usual result of battle with the type of sword carried by knights of that day; their swords were thrusting swords, not slicing swords (like the Japanese Katana). Any dismemberment was the result of hacking, and not the main intent of battle with these weapons (usually not worth the extra time in a pitched battle). The Knights Templar wore leather undergarments, sometimes in their later days with something like chain mail over them, covered by a white tunic with a red cross; they did not wear what most modern paople think of as "a suit of armor," which did not exist at the time. Many were footsoldiers and had never sat a horse.
You, "SIR," need to study your history more carefully. And, you need to learn not to give forth on that of which you know nothing, including persons whom you do not know.
I am a practiced horseman with many hundreds of hours on Quarter-horse, Thoroughbred, Paso Fino and American Saddlebred. You know nothing of the tools I possess, which include swords (as well as firearms), and you certainly know nothing of my possession of wit to use them, much less my experience in using them.
Get a life, Bud.