Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?

medievalists.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 326 posts

Re: Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?

#111

Post by tachyonbeam »

hutzlibu wrote: post #87
JshWright wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Seems like a not-unreasonable comparison today would be "could a civilian kill an armored vehicle?" In that case, isn't the answer a definite yes?

Only if the civilian has a rpg or IED and then he probably would not be a civilian anymore, but a specialized guerilla fighter, if he manages to take out a modern tank.

OTOH you can also trap an armored vehicle into a hole or mud pit, and the people inside can't stay in there forever, there is also such a thing as a molotov cocktail.

Re: Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?

#112

Post by defen »

One thing to keep in mind when imagining "Knight vs Peasant" combat is that it's not like they would be fighting in some sort of idealized battle arena. Knights have horses and peasants do not, which means that barring exceptional circumstances, the knight has the initiative to determine when and where combat happens. People without horses have an extremely difficult time fighting people with horses, beyond just the reality of actual combat. If the horsemen want to raid your supply lines or burn down your countryside or disrupt your trade networks, how do you stop them? They can concentrate forces much more quickly than a foot army can form or react. In the 11th century a few hundred Norman knights conquered Sicily and southern Italy. Even through the 1860s a few thousand Comanche controlled a large portion of the American southwest because there was no good way to fight them.

Re: Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?

#113

Post by Schiendelman »

dimitrios1 wrote: post #69
bilbo0s wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Knights were mounted. Oftentimes on a mount that itself was armored. The armored vehicle analogy is apt.

The mount was not as heavily armored, however, as modern armor vehicles are, and extremely vulnerable to pikemen (as many other commenters here have brought up: the landsknechts). Back to the analogy, a peasant (in the modern sense) is unlikely going to be as able to obtain an anti-tank or armor piercing rounds as easily as a peasant (medieval sense) could pick up a pike.

A modern civilian doesn’t need to penetrate a tank, just get it stuck and light it on fire.

Re: Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?

#114

Post by wyattpeak »

miles wrote: post #109
cmrdporcupine wrote: post #17

In the Annals of St Bertin there's mention of an attack by the Danes (Vikings) on a region of Francia in 859 AD, where the peasants formed an association to defend themselves and fought off the Vikings, and drove them off without the assistance of the Carolingian rulers. This is reported by the Carolingians as brave but immoral, because Charlemagne had banned any such associations or militias, and military service wa…

> the peasants formed an association to defend themselves and fought off the Vikings ... military service was reserved for aristocrats only ... The response of the Frankish leadership was to come in and massacre the peasants Strange that the peasants could fight back a group of Vikings ("the toughest warriors ever" according to National Geographic[0]) but not a bunch of aristocrats. [0] https://www.vikingmartialarts.…

Using "bunch of aristocrats" pejoratively is a thoroughly modern take. Aristocrats were the best fighters in their day. They were the ones with money for good arms and time to train well, besides which fighting was for many of them their profession.

Besides, "toughest warriors ever" sounds more like popular colouring than an academic assessment. I don't know a lot about Vikings but as I understand they were principally raiders, which I would absolutely expect to perform worse than a Frankish aristocrat-led army.

Re: Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?

#115

Post by jdeibele »

crooked-v wrote: post #24
pdonis wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the English soldiers who killed knights at Agincourt were longbowmen shooting from a distance and protected by both terrain and a line of sharpened stakes that prevented the French cavalry from charging them. That is not the kind of direct confrontation that the article is talking about.

It was at a distance at first, but towards the end of the battle the longbowmen gradually advanced into point-blank range and then, as they ran out of arrows, switched to whatever melee weapons they had to mob the incapacitated French men-at-arms and knights. Though it's certainly true that the historical English longbowman wasn't the usual 'peasant' stereotype, given that they were generally landowners (rather than…

https://www.forbes.com/2010/06/16/legal-humor-archery-opinio... says that the English were required to practice the longbow starting before the 13th Century. In 1541 every man 60 and under was to have a longbow and practice it. Many games were then banned for possibly distracting men from archery.

Interestingly there's no information on where the bows were to come from but it sounds like the typical longbowman would have the income to buy it himself.

Re: Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?

#116

Post by austhrow743 »

smogcutter wrote: post #59
austincheney wrote: post #9

At the famous Battle of Agincourt peasants slaughtered thousands of knights. It was a decisive blood bath against a vastly superior force that allowed Henry V’s conquest of France. This is confirmed by eye witness records both French and English.

Ehhh yes, but this gets complicated and interesting in the details. Have you read Keegan on Agincourt? Short story, the popular version of French knights getting bogged down in the mud and shot to pieces with arrows is mostly false, but the English peasants did play a critical role. Far from being mowed down by longbowmen (although they absolutely would have taken a toll, especially on horses), the French cavalry was…

Is it known why they piled into dense columns and pushed themselves on to spears?

Re: Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?

#117

Post by ReptileMan »

wyattpeak wrote: post #114
miles wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the peasants formed an association to defend themselves and fought off the Vikings ... military service was reserved for aristocrats only ... The response of the Frankish leadership was to come in and massacre the peasants Strange that the peasants could fight back a group of Vikings ("the toughest warriors ever" according to National Geographic[0]) but not a bunch of aristocrats. [0] https://www.vikingmartialarts.…

Using "bunch of aristocrats" pejoratively is a thoroughly modern take. Aristocrats were the best fighters in their day. They were the ones with money for good arms and time to train well, besides which fighting was for many of them their profession. Besides, "toughest warriors ever" sounds more like popular colouring than an academic assessment. I don't know a lot about Vikings but as I understand they were principal…

>I don't know a lot about Vikings but as I understand they were principally raiders, which I would absolutely expect to perform worse than a Frankish aristocrat-led army.

In a pitched battle, on a open terrain, in a nice weather with preferably not too soft soil.

Also if you want to find tough people you look them at the extremes - so high north, or up in the mountains or in the deserts.

Re: Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?

#118

Post by jimmyhachahacha »

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #17

In the Annals of St Bertin there's mention of an attack by the Danes (Vikings) on a region of Francia in 859 AD, where the peasants formed an association to defend themselves and fought off the Vikings, and drove them off without the assistance of the Carolingian rulers. This is reported by the Carolingians as brave but immoral, because Charlemagne had banned any such associations or militias, and military service wa…

I don't think these two events, the Danes raid and the rebellion crush are linked outside of one making the author remind itself about the second.

The French translation from Latin http://remacle.org/bloodwolf/historiens/anonyme/annales.htm [859] says:

> Les Danois dévastent les pays au-delà de l'Escaut. Le commun peuple des pays entre Seine et Loire, conjuré entre soi, résiste courageusement aux Danois établis sur la Seine ; mais sa conjuration étant conduite sans prudence, il est facilement défait par nos grands.

Which I would translate (using some true-to-heart adaptation given author period) by:

Danes (norsemen) raid country further the Escaut (probably that river in the north). Commoners from between Seine et Loire (in the center so), which were seceding at the time (secede is way too modern but best bears the sense IMO), bravely resist to Danes camping by the Seine; this secession however being lead without much thought, is easily defeated by our rulers (kings or dukes I'd say, and probably over months).

These annals are telegraph styled, written by multiple authors, etc. They are kind of notes. Yet they are one of the best material over this period of French history :)

Re: Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?

#119

Post by [deleted] »

User23 wrote: post #23
fencepost wrote: post #12

Mindset would likely have played a big part, and battle then vs battle now were very different things. A peasant could absolutely kill a knight but probably not in battle, and the opportunity to do so would be unlikely to arise because the knight would probably not be in a position to be ambushed. For most peasantry the very thought of going after a knight would also be almost unimaginable. Seems like a not-unreasona…

It's a solid analogy, because medieval armor was very effective against the weapons of the time[1]. [1] https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2z7t3k/plate...

[deleted]

Re: Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?

#120

Post by taneq »

hutzlibu wrote: post #87
JshWright wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Seems like a not-unreasonable comparison today would be "could a civilian kill an armored vehicle?" In that case, isn't the answer a definite yes?

Only if the civilian has a rpg or IED and then he probably would not be a civilian anymore, but a specialized guerilla fighter, if he manages to take out a modern tank.

So a civilian can't kill an armoured vehicle, because if they can kill an armoured vehicle they aren't a civilian?
Post reply on HN