With the help of kung-fu - yes
Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?
131–140 of 326 posts
Re: Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?
#132In 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.…
The Vikings might not have been looking for a fight, just some easy plunder.
It happens that prey can fight of the predator. The prey if fighting for its life. The predator might not want to risk even an injury rather than just finding the next opportunity.
Re: Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?
#133Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Ah, the young people...
https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20171003-proof-that-peo...
Re: Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?
#134Crossbow - armor-piercing weapon was the RPG of Middle Ages. There were constant attempts to ban crossbows.
Second Lateran Council banned use of crossbow against Christians.
> And Western knights did not like it. Their armor protected them from most weapons they would face with the exception of the longbow, a weapon that took years to learn and decades to master. But crossbows could slice right through the armor at greater range than even a longbow, and shooters could be trained in hours or days.
https://www.wearethemighty.com/mighty-history/catholic-churc...
Re: Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?
#135Mindset 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…
Huge thing is mindset- one thing the Total War series got extremely right was shock value and the ability to win battles by routing opponents. Getting charged with a horse would be terrifying (speaking from semi-experience, I've been charged by both bull moose and cattle). Nevermind the animal also having someone on top of it armed to the teeth, I can easily understand running away in terror. From my amateur research…
My impression is that chivalry was more about relations between nobles than anything to do with peasants.
Feudal lords have pretty much always taken whatever liberties they like with the local people: rape, theft, property destruction, murder, torture, kidnapping, ...
Medieval knights were little different than the thug soldiers of any modern criminal gang, except less checked by state power.
Re: Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?
#136One 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
I'm not talking about pitched battles though; more the logistics of even engaging horsemen in battle if you don't have your own horses.
Re: Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?
#137Mel Gibsons Apocalypto has some great fight scenes, and probably one of the best foot chase scene on film. The ending scene is a sort of target practice of skilled warriors with a weapon vs an unarmed prisoners given a head start to try and escape. It becomes pretty apparent what a huge advantage a weapon in skilled hands is. https://youtu.be/rM8Fxd9svzA
I love Apocalypto! Thanks for bringing it up.
Re: Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?
#138In 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 wonder if one day in the distant future, humans will each have their own autonomous mutually assured destruction devices hovering around them at all times, almost like a guardian angel. It would even the playing field in some ways.
Isn’t the second amendment about exactly that?
Re: Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?
#139Earlier 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…
Aristocrats were also better fed as well
Re: Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?
#140In 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 l…
Thanks for providing the direct citation, which is more specific than just "Annals of St Bertin."
> 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.
Sound's like the parent comment's description oversimplified things. I knew it sounded off.