Live data from Hacker News

Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?

medievalists.net

191–200 of 326 posts

Re: Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?

#191
This article is all over the place.

> Confidence and determination and unusual resources also made it possible for groups of commoners to assert themselves during the post-plague period. In the 1300s, the Flemish cities organized themselves as disciplined forces and defeated noble-led armies. Bruges, for instance, had several advantages: it was a populous, rich trading city that could afford to resist the traditional ruling class if the right circumstances occurred; and indeed many citizens were willing to put their lives on the line to achieve their own vision of self-government. The townsmen of Flanders even adopted a scary and non-standard weapon, the goedendag – a combination of a short spear and long club. These commoners (many of whom by this time were more prosperous than earlier generations) had distinctive weaponry and a tactical protocol which made them an effective military and political factor.

This refers to the 1302 Battle of the Golden Spurs where an army of footmen prevailed over a French army of knights. That victory was re-appropriated and romanticized in the 19th century as part of the national mythology of the young Belgian nation.

The reality is far more complex and less rosy then how it is put here by the author.

14th century Flanders saw several uprising and rebellions. The count was also a feudal vazal to the French Crown. As such, the King sent several armies to appease the unruly county between 1302 and 1400, each time crushing those same footmen. Mons-en-Pévele, Roosebeke, Cassel are less known names for good reasons.

As far as the French Crown was concerned, the county of Flanders and it's cities were a strategic pawn in a larger European feudal realm dominated by the conflict with England (Hundred's Years War). The wealth of the cities themselves came from the wool trade with England, and the trade with Southern Europe, later on, in particular, with Lombardy. For instance, the French Crown revoking trade with England was a direct cause of the Artevelde rebellion in 1339.

Moreover, the cities themselves were semi-autonomous, held their own local political and economical interests, and were very much feuding with each other, or their liege lord, the Count of Flanders to preserve their own local autonomy, expand their economic interests and the ability to trade without getting excessively taxed by established feudal elites. In reality, those "disciplined forces" were militia's and warbands which were held together by tenuous alliances when facing the French Army; and would openly fight each other when push comes to shove. The Battle of Beverhoutsveld saw the cities of Bruges and Ghent facing each other off, whereas just 40 years prior, those same cities were allies in that same Artevelde rebellion against the French Crown. [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Beverhoutsveld

The wealth and political power was truly concentrated with the city's patrician elites whereas the majority of citizens were illiterate menial workers with little say in governance of their city. They lived in precarious circumstances and any awareness of the wider political context was limited to their own personal social and economic situation. At best, they would support popular leaders who's interests were perceived as aligned with theirs. While Jacob van Artevelde was seen as a popular hero, he very much belonged to a wealthy urban economic elite who had, equally, every interest to reinstate the English wool trade.

Finally, the Plague happened in the 1350's. Those same Flemish cities were already quite powerful in the late 13th century.

And all of that is just barely scratching the surface of the historical complexity which gets skimped in this article. It's never a good idea to single sidedly focus on the military aspect and try to explain history from that point of view.

Re: Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?

#192

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.

But that period is dark ages not medieval

Re: Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?

#193

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…

Do You have a citation for the 8 inches claim? I found this interesting article while looking: Heights across the Last 2,000 Years in England: https://oro.open.ac.uk/53774/3/53774.pdf

I believe it must have come from Height, Health and History by Roderick Floud, but I can't find a digital copy of that book to link, despite it being 30 years old. The closest thing I could find is another work citing Floud, and only with regard to the difference in height at the beginning of the 19th century. It gives "nearly 6 inches taller", but note that it's comparing 14-year-olds in 1800, when nutrition for the lower classes was on the upswing.

> Floud et al. also showed that men who grew up in urban areas were shorter than men who grew up in rural areas, and that there were significant differences in the heights of men and boys from different socioeconomic backgrounds. At the beginning of the nineteenth century, 14-year-old boys attending the Royal Military Academy at Sandhurst were nearly six inches taller than their counterparts in the Marine Society

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/6876106.pdf (bottom of page 101).

Re: Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?

#194
post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

You require driving license to buy knives and you can't carry them in public without a special license.

...and you continue to avoid naming a country where this is the case?

Re: Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?

#196
post #152
post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The last parts of feudal law in Scotland were only removed in 2000:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_Feudal_Tenure_etc...

Re: Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?

#197

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'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 a…

There's more than one type of "Viking" warrior the Elite Huscarls where effectively professionals and are considered one of the best heavy shock infantry period - this is what they are referring to as Vikings.

Though this is prior to the switch to mounted knights

Re: Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?

#198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

There's more than one type of "Viking" warrior the Elite Huscarls where effectively professionals and are considered one of the best heavy shock infantry period - this is what they are referring to as Vikings. Though this is prior to the switch to mounted knights

> Elite Huscarls where effectively professionals

Yes, definitely. It's just that the raiding parties weren't just consisting of professional warriors. Many were simply farmers with axes, bows and spears, seeking plunder and glory like the others.

Re: Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?

#199
post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 r…

Lob a molatoff cocktail from above and hit the engine intakes and you can get a Mobility kill.

Armour in built up areas is very risky with out infantry support and the APC's would not be just driving around with out having dismounts supporting them.

Post reply on HN