Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?

Post by damnencryption » Tue, Nov 10, 2020, 9:29 AM UTC

brazzy wrote: post #163

damnencryption wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if modern peasants can fight and win against the knights. You can't own a knife in many countries without a license let alone a gun. It's all tracked. There are targeted missiles, drones, autonomous guns, surveillance, radar, bombs, tear gas, tasers, tanks, bullet and knife proof clothing, exoskeleton, etc available to the knights. Knights are many times more organized than they have ever been in history. Re…

> You can't own a knife in many countries without a license What kind of bullshit propaganda is that? There isn't a single country in the world that requires a license to "own a knife". > let alone a gun. It's all tracked. There are targeted missiles, drones, autonomous guns, surveillance, radar, bombs, tear gas, tasers, tanks, bullet and knife proof clothing, exoskeleton, etc available to the knights. However, there…

Post by inglor_cz » Tue, Nov 10, 2020, 9:33 AM UTC

questionfor wrote: post #162

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…

I always wonder how much a liability a horse was during medieval combat. Sure speed and maneuverability are great but up close it seems that horse is quite vulnerable to attacks on the legs for example with long bladed weapons. You can’t really protect horse’s legs with armor

Post by 7sigma » Tue, Nov 10, 2020, 9:36 AM UTC

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

Post by dodobirdlord » Tue, Nov 10, 2020, 9:42 AM UTC

nradov wrote: post #100

dodobirdlord wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nutrition in childhood, especially early childhood, is extremely critical to development. The average person historically was remarkably short, generally because of childhood malnourishment. Simply being properly nourished in childhood would have led to a huge height and weight advantage (also probably considerable advantages in brain development). Even into the 18th century the average height of an officer in the Br…

There certainly was a difference based on nutrition, but the English longbowmen still had to be quite strong. Those bows had heavy draw weights.

Post by lonesword » Tue, Nov 10, 2020, 9:42 AM UTC

Sander_Marechal wrote: post #170

questionfor wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always wonder how much a liability a horse was during medieval combat. Sure speed and maneuverability are great but up close it seems that horse is quite vulnerable to attacks on the legs for example with long bladed weapons. You can’t really protect horse’s legs with armor

Being the target of a cavalry charge is absolutely terrifying even for hardened soldiers. There is very little chance of fighting effectively when everyone around you is fleeing or being pressed together. And you're being charged by a 2-ton armored war machine. Or dozens of them. I'm a reenactor. It's even terrifying when you know it's fake and you know you're safe. Knights did loose horses though. They all took mult…