I seem to remember reading that javelins are an exception to the usual rule that missile weapons are not fitting for knights, but I can't find this reference anywhere. Does anyone have a page reference?
Would it be reasonable to allow player knights to hurl one (or more) before a mounted charge? What about before a charge on foot? Would they do so in the same round as melee or the round before?

Maybe; I'd say that in the early periods, lances should count as javelins in the same way they count as spears. The Bayeux Tapestry seems to depict Norman knights throwing their lances, and I seem to recall some source grumbling that knights shouldn't tie pennants onto their lances because that makes throwing them impossible.

Perhaps it can be used instead of a mounted charge: yes, it deals less damage and doesn't get the bonus, but it is lower risk, especially against greatspears.

I seem to remember reading that javelins are an exception to the usual rule that missile weapons are not fitting for knights, but I can't find this reference anywhere. Does anyone have a page reference?

Yes, page quotes are always welcome.
The earliest period would allow javelins, and bows or cross bows for that matter.
The prohibition is that such weapons are not chivalrous, because true knights meet face to face, not over a cowardly missile distance.


Would it be reasonable to allow player knights to hurl one (or more) before a mounted charge?

No. The distance is too great

What about before a charge on foot?


Would they do so in the same round as melee or the round before?

I'd make it a separate action

The earliest period would allow javelins, and bows or cross bows for that matter.
The prohibition is that such weapons are not chivalrous, because true knights meet face to face, not over a cowardly missile distance.


Does that mean during the early period all missile weapons are allowed for knights without loss of glory and/or honor? Under what circumstances would they be fitting? When would prohibitions against the use of ranged weapons by knights develop?

Knights would use them hunting, or against peasant and other non-knightly opponents.

Knights would use them hunting, or against peasant and other non-knightly opponents.

During all periods or just during the earlier ones? Would that apply to all missile weapons or only javelins (crossbows seem particularly unkinghtly)?

All I have are a handful of anecdotes of questionable relevance, and only kind of half-remembered from books I don't have on hand at the moment, so take it as you will.

In the First Crusade, chronicles like the Gesta Francorum don't specifically condemn the Turks for using bows and arrows (indeed, on at least one occasion they are praised for their prowess, saying that if only they were Christians they would be among the best knights in the world). More importantly, the Franks themselves sometimes use ranged weaponry: in a sympathetic chronicle Bohemund of Taranto is described as climbing to the top of a building during the storming of Jerusalem and sniping with a crossbow, while Anna Comnena describes a naval battle in which one armed priest uses a crossbow to great effect (though not a knight, there's a good chance that if the priest wears a sword and full chainmail then he is from knightly extraction and likely to act according to a knightly paradigm in battle; do note that I have nothing to back up my wild speculation). Later, Richard the Lionheart is described as wielding a crossbow during the siege of Acre.

Wandering even further afield, in late medieval tournaments it was apparently common for encounters to involve knights throwing spears at each other before fighting hand-to-hand http://willscommonplacebook.blogspot.com/2007/02/merle-vs-de-chargny-1435-thrown-lance.html and http://willscommonplacebook.blogspot.com/2011/06/fighting-on-foot-in-lists-with-spear-or.html

ANYWAY, to bring this mess to some kind of point, it seems that ranged weaponry was perfectly fine in certain circumstances, either as a prelude to hand-to-hand fighting, or in circumstances that did not allow for hand-to-hand fighting (sieges, naval battles). Again, though, I'm pretty out of my depth.

Does that mean during the early period all missile weapons are allowed for knights without loss of glory and/or honor? Under what circumstances would they be fitting? When would prohibitions against the use of ranged weapons by knights develop?

Like so much else in KAP, there is a GM decision required here
Historically the change was gradual
but it has to do with chivalry

chivalry is the exaltation of knighthood
It focuses entirely on what knights do, are and have
concerning weaponry in particular, chivalry assumes a disarming of everyone else, especially the commoners--chivalry is a class thing, with a purpose that includes defining what the differences are
The respect that knights have for each other, taking ransom over killing, is based on their chosen method of killing--that is, face to face (in part so a surrender can be taken).
Anything that interferes with this kind of "proper combat" is unknightly, unchivalrous
Missile weapons--cheap and impersonal--are peasant weapons, unchivalrous
knights don't use them against each other

NOW, one interesting side of the whole chivalry issue is whether or not to be chivalrous against a foe who is not. If the enemy is chivalrous there is no question, even if they are foreigners from Byzantium, Scandia or Cornwall.
In truth, anything goes against those inhuman curs that are beneath good manners and chivalry
Ambush, ganging up, using missiles--anything goes
There are no ransoms, so there is no need to take prisoners (except for political purposes)

Practical shortcomings exist--missile weapons become increasingly difficult to use with increased quality of armor

The most significant factor of when your campaign should begin this "rule" is: what's your gaming group say? In the post-conquest eras King Arthur begins promoting chivalry quite aggressively. It spreads and will reach your kingdom eventually. Outland kings just reject it.
But what does YOUR group say about riddling the non-chivalrous enemy from afar with bows?

Finally,
A famous king was killed because he would ride out each evening to shoot crossbows at the enemy being besieged in a castle, and an enemy bowman took advantage of this habit to shoot back and put an arrow through the king's gorget--he eschewed his best armor because it hampered with his shooting.
so, even kings and princes COULD go shooting, but ber warned by history!!