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

121–130 of 326 posts

Re: Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?

#121

Post by weff_ »

ReptileMan wrote: post #117
wyattpeak wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The 'living in harsh conditions makes you a crazy good fighter" is a meme though, as this historian explains: https://acoup.blog/2020/01/17/collections-the-fremen-mirage-...

Re: Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?

#122

Post by wyattpeak »

ReptileMan wrote: post #117
wyattpeak wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They'd be experienced in many different forms of combat, pitched battles were a rarity in most eras, and certainly the early middle ages.

I also don't think toughness is the right metric. We're not talking about brawls, we're talking about trained, well-equipped professionals doing their jobs.

Re: Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?

#123

Post by sonthonax »

samatman wrote: post #105
faanghacker wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have a source for this? This sounds like a fishy story to me based on my understanding of medieval society: 1. Peasants are often called up for military duty as levies (conscripts), to supplement the knights and men-at-arms. Especially when there wasn't a standing army. 2. Authority wasn't so centralized -- these local matters would be the authority of local lords, not the king.

The account you're replying to gave you a source: the Annals of St. Bertin. It's available on Google Books, you have everything you need satisfy your own curiousity.

God, people’s reading comprehension is so poor nowadays.

Re: Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?

#124

Post by unnouinceput »

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…

*could a civilian kill an AI controlled armored vechicle" - something along the lines of T800 from Terminator movie.

Re: Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?

#125

Post by LanceH »

8note wrote: post #97
User23 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

This sounds tautological? Why would people wear ineffective armour?

Knights aren't gladiators. Full armor is effective in the context of a larger fight.

Individually, a knight on foot isn't catching anyone and can probably be poked until exhausted with any stick longer than whatever weapon he's carrying.

Mounted, someone in the ground has little to no chance at all if the horse is capable of moving. On clear ground, the horse is the weapon.

From the wiki page on Agincourt:

"Recent heavy rain made the battle field very muddy, proving very tiring to walk through in full plate armour. The French monk of St. Denis describes the French troops as "marching through the middle of the mud where they sank up to their knees. So they were already overcome with fatigue even before they advanced against the enemy". The deep, soft mud particularly favoured the English force because, once knocked to the ground, the heavily armoured French knights had a hard time getting back up to fight in the mêlée. Barker states that some knights, encumbered by their armour, actually drowned in their helmets.["

Re: Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?

#126

Post by tshaddox »

taneq wrote: post #120
hutzlibu wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

That’s not so crazy, is it? “Civilian” is used in the thought experiment to refer to an expected level of training, experience, and equipment. You wouldn’t reasonably expect a “civilian” in this context to have an RPG or an attack aircraft. The clear point of the thought experiment is “would a civilian be able to kill an armored vehicle with the level of training, experience, and equipment that would reasonably be expected of a civilian in this context?”

Re: Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?

#127

Post by m_mueller »

defen wrote: post #112

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…

Have a look at what's called the 'infantry revolution' started by the Swiss and later the German Landsknechts. Starting in the 1300s, the role of knights in battles got lessened by this, until they were basically only a flanking tool in most armies. It was basically a reinvention of the Greek phalanx.

Edit: This YouTube series shows it best I think: https://youtu.be/6KbroTkaey0

Re: Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?

#128

Post by austincheney »

austhrow743 wrote: post #116
smogcutter wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The geography created a dense and inescapable column of a battlefield. The French army was huge so once you started marching forward you couldn't stop because there were people behind you marching forward. Soldiers were literally pushed onto the wooden stakes because of the crowd and many others were either trampled to death or drowned in the mud while being stepped on.

Re: Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?

#129

Post by austincheney »

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…

Something like 6000 soldiers were taken captive and the captives began to outnumber the entirety of English forces, so the English chose to execute them all as a necessary means of security, but really many of the archers were slaughtering them anyways as a means to loot the bodies.

Re: Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?

#130

Post by smogcutter »

austhrow743 wrote: post #116
smogcutter wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

So while we know from witnesses that this did happen, anything about why is going to involve some conjecture. But from what I recall, there are a few reasons.

The English army was arranged in a single line, with large groups of archers alternating with small groups of men at arms. For the men at arms (on both sides), combat was primarily about winning personal glory, secondarily about scoring some loot. The only way to get either is by attacking the enemy men at arms. No personal upside in attacking yeoman archers (other than, uh, maybe winning the battle. Whoops.)

So you naturally funnel towards the enemy you want to fight. Remember these guys aren’t marching in formation like Romans or early modern pikemen. It’s a loosely organized mass of individuals.

On top of that, the survivors of the cavalry attack on the flanks retreat through the infantry, throwing them into disorder. This also helps condense the infantry as they try to make way for the cavalry.

On top of that, getting shot at by clouds of arrows sucks even if realistically you’re not in a lot of danger. Getting out from in front of the archers would feel safer.

Plus, even if you’re a smart knight who knows you should be attacking the archers, that doesn’t do you any good unless everyone else comes too. Getting caught our on your own is how you get ganged up on, knocked down into the mud, and stabbed through the visor by some dirt farmer with a dagger. Which is exactly what happened to the guys on the edges of the columns. So you stick with the crowd. Once you’re in the crowd, it becomes packed too tightly for you to change your mind.

At the front of the columns, witnesses report the English stepping back at the last moment, causing the leading french to wrong foot their attack and stumble. So it’s chaotic, they haven’t smashed through the English line, but the guys further back have no way of knowing that and keep pressing forwards.

As an aside, I didn’t mean to make it sound like the spears were a particularly English thing. Most on both sides would’ve had some kind of polearm. In mass combat a sword is often a backup weapon.

Post reply on HN