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

151–160 of 326 posts

Re: Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?

#151

Post by fogihujy »

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'm certain there were some great fighters amongst the Vikings; after all, they have an entire age named after them and their raids. Viking was an activity, not a people though, and the Vikings were mostly Norse peasants trained to fight with shields and basic weapons like spears and axes. There was an elite class and a small class of professional warriors too, but they weren't really a majority.

Apples and oranges and all that.

Re: Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?

#152

Post by lb1lf »

agency wrote: post #46
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 more I hear about this feudalism thing the less I like it.

-Fun fact: Feudalism (somehow) lingered on until about a decade ago on the channel island of Sark.

That being said, aside from the dubious principle, 21st century feudalism on Sark had little in common with its medieval cousin.

Re: Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?

#153

Post by fogihujy »

rags2riches wrote: post #132
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.…

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.

This is pretty much it. The Viking raids were, mostly, a way of obtaining loot and thralls, and it gave the peasantry an opportunity to attain an otherwise unattainable amount of wealth, and a way to Valhalla if things went wrong.

Re: Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?

#154

Post by fogihujy »

Schiendelman wrote: post #113
dimitrios1 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The same applied to an armoured knight, but it's hard to trap a mounted warrior when you're on foot, just as it would be hard to get a tank stuck unless you know what you're doing.

I'm certain that more than one knight died locked inside a burning barn back in the days.

Re: Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?

#155

Post by 7sigma »

pluto9 wrote: post #148
7sigma wrote: post #142

If you want to see what a fully trained knight in armour can do see this video. https://youtu.be/8vYFFx4whoE There's a reason why they used hammers in battle. Was more ffective to bash the armour than try to cut between the plates

I'm not sure a cheesy short film with a ridiculous choreographed fight scene is the best example of "what a fully trained knight in armour can do". This isn't reality, it's someone's imagination.

Yeah it's cheesy but it's quite accurate that it shows how hard it is to kill someone clad in chain mail and full armour. The bandits are not very well trained although they do try to stab between the plates bit it's still very difficult to do.

Also the guys doing the videos are re enactment pros and yes what they do is a bit theatrical, but other YouTubers specialising in this area have said it's quite legit. I'll link to video when I have a chance

Re: Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?

#156

Post by ReptileMan »

wyattpeak wrote: post #122
ReptileMan wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

If you look at European warfare after the collapse of the Roman empire and before the Siege of Vienna it was basically a wave of ass kickers coming from central asia and getting their ass kicked by the next wave coming from central asia.

Re: Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?

#157

Post by brazzy »

zrobotics wrote: post #72
dimitrios1 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't a more apt comparison be someone armed with a 9mm pistol trying to take on a trained soldier with advanced anti-ballstic armor and plating, and an accurate rifle?

No, the comparison to an APC (armored personnel carrier) is apt- knights were armored enough to be nearly invulnerable to the weaponry a peasant would have access to. To compare to something modern, I'm sure enough street protestors would be able to disable an APC and kill the soldiers inside at least some of the time, but the soldiers in the APC could likely win the 40:9000 battle cited in the article. Remember that…

> No, the comparison to an APC (armored personnel carrier) is apt- knights were armored enough to be nearly invulnerable to the weaponry a peasant would have access to.

No. A knight prone on the ground was very easy to kill very quickly - just stick a dagger through the visor. There is nothing comparable a civilian today can do to an APC.

Additionally, a single knight on a horse was not that hard to take down using relatively easily-available polearms, at least to a group of peasants. It doesn't scale down linearly - 40:9000 is a very different matter than 1:200, because a charge of 40 mounted knights is still inescapable death to the part of the enemy force they're charging at. A single knight would be much less terrifying even to a relatively group of peasants.

Re: Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?

#158

Post by lifeisstillgood »

medium_burrito wrote: post #66
HarryHirsch wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet at Morgarten the Swiss massacred a Habsburg force. Armoured knights need an open battlefield to be effective, in crowded terrain a force made up of peasant fighters equipped with polearms is clearly superior.

Peut-etre fondue et racelette est la vraie potion magique?

Maybe fondue and hard cheese is the true magic potion.

So even my bad French can get the translation - it what does it mean? :-)

It smells like something out of Asterix - but what is the quote from?

Re: Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?

#159

Post by questionfor »

People who suggest that knights could be defeated by peasants in one-on-one or even one-on-many combat often overlook that many (or most?) knights spent their time practicing how to kill people in combat. Peasants on the other hand were busy tending to their land or cattle or doing whatever they had to survive. The modern analogy for adult peasant fighting an adult knight would be a bar fight between a random bystander and a UFC fighter. Now imagine the UFC fighter is wearing armor (and is trained to fight in armor) and is equipped with a deadly weapon of his choice (and has been training to fight with it). If you think there is a remote chance for any outcome besides death of the knight’s opponent (also death at the moment and in a form of the knight’s choosing), try going to a local boxing gym (or jiu-jitsu club etc.) and challenging one of their trainers, then multiply the results by 10 (in trainer’s favor).

I can’t imagine how 10+ years of training could not give a knight an infinite advantage even if we equalize the combatants in terms of equipment.

Also knights were training to fight since they were children, so in our hypothetical bar fight the pro-fighter’s skills would be along the lines of those of Floyd Mayweather (who started training when he was 9). Surely the knight may be less gifted, but that matter should really concern other knights and not peasants :)

49 vs 9000 scenario described in the post seems grotesque but I think, limiting the number of slain civilians by knights’ stamina and assuming that any resistance is negligible is more than reasonable.

Re: Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?

#160

Post by pluto9 »

7sigma wrote: post #155
pluto9 wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure a cheesy short film with a ridiculous choreographed fight scene is the best example of "what a fully trained knight in armour can do". This isn't reality, it's someone's imagination.

Yeah it's cheesy but it's quite accurate that it shows how hard it is to kill someone clad in chain mail and full armour. The bandits are not very well trained although they do try to stab between the plates bit it's still very difficult to do. Also the guys doing the videos are re enactment pros and yes what they do is a bit theatrical, but other YouTubers specialising in this area have said it's quite legit. I'll l…

I can believe that individual slashes and stabs are ineffective against metal armor, sure. But this video makes it seem like a knight could take down a whole crowd of enemies by himself. This is what fighting that many people at once actually looks like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CmRo7uECEg

Several people knock or drag the victim to the ground while the rest take turns beating him. In the movies when the hero goes to fight 20 dudes, at any given time 18 are standing around doing nothing while he lays waste to them two at a time with flawlessly executed martial arts moves. That's pure theatrics, and no amount of armor or training or general badassery can make it a reality.

Post reply on HN