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

21–30 of 326 posts

Re: Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?

#21

Post by pdonis »

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.

Most of the English soldiers who killed knights at Agincourt were longbowmen shooting from a distance and protected by both terrain and a line of sharpened stakes that prevented the French cavalry from charging them. That is not the kind of direct confrontation that the article is talking about.

Re: Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?

#22

Post by socialdemocrat »

treeman79 wrote: post #11
randmeerkat wrote: post #8

It’s not just weaponry, most of fighting is nutrition, I’m surprised the article doesn’t discuss that. Given that the article says the knights and their weaponry were correlated to wealth and power, I would expect the knights to be better fed than the peasants as well.

Working the field all day is going to make someone tough and lean. If it’s a particular lazy knight that enjoys too much food, well. Would be an interesting overlap of nutrition vs fitness vs indulgence.

Doesn’t matter how much you work in the field if you are not fed properly. You cannot build muscle without protein. Knights worked out a lot and eat well.

Re: Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?

#23

Post by User23 »

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…

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...

Re: Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?

#24

Post by crooked-v »

pdonis wrote: post #21
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.

Most of the English soldiers who killed knights at Agincourt were longbowmen shooting from a distance and protected by both terrain and a line of sharpened stakes that prevented the French cavalry from charging them. That is not the kind of direct confrontation that the article is talking about.

It was at a distance at first, but towards the end of the battle the longbowmen gradually advanced into point-blank range and then, as they ran out of arrows, switched to whatever melee weapons they had to mob the incapacitated French men-at-arms and knights.

Though it's certainly true that the historical English longbowman wasn't the usual 'peasant' stereotype, given that they were generally landowners (rather than tenant farmers) and were actually legally required to take a certain amount of regular practice weekly with the bow.

Re: Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?

#25

Post by derefr »

treeman79 wrote: post #11
randmeerkat wrote: post #8

It’s not just weaponry, most of fighting is nutrition, I’m surprised the article doesn’t discuss that. Given that the article says the knights and their weaponry were correlated to wealth and power, I would expect the knights to be better fed than the peasants as well.

Working the field all day is going to make someone tough and lean. If it’s a particular lazy knight that enjoys too much food, well. Would be an interesting overlap of nutrition vs fitness vs indulgence.

> lazy knight

That might be possible, but is it likely? A knight is basically a medieval super-soldier: an individual with a huge amount of ongoing personal+state investment going into their ability to project power on the field.

Even if they're also a feudal lord who lives within their own holdings (and therefore someone who's not beholden to anyone around them, only to a distant king) everyone working for them is putting a lot of work into keeping the knight's equipment, their horse, etc. maintained and ready to go.

Wouldn't those same people push the knight themselves — for their own sakes! — to stay fit, as another kind of "maintenance"? Wouldn't there be mass resentment within a lazy knight's power structure, that would lead to said power structure toppling or mutiny-ing?

Re: Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?

#28

Post by recuter »

derefr wrote: post #25
treeman79 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Working the field all day is going to make someone tough and lean. If it’s a particular lazy knight that enjoys too much food, well. Would be an interesting overlap of nutrition vs fitness vs indulgence.

> lazy knight That might be possible , but is it likely? A knight is basically a medieval super-soldier: an individual with a huge amount of ongoing personal+state investment going into their ability to project power on the field. Even if they're also a feudal lord who lives within their own holdings (and therefore someone who's not beholden to anyone around them, only to a distant king) everyone working for them is…

Nope, there were a lot of fat and/or incompetent knights. I assure you.

Re: Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?

#29

Post by gtpedrosa »

pdonis wrote: post #21
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.

Most of the English soldiers who killed knights at Agincourt were longbowmen shooting from a distance and protected by both terrain and a line of sharpened stakes that prevented the French cavalry from charging them. That is not the kind of direct confrontation that the article is talking about.

Your comment regarding the archers reminded me of "The Grail Quest" book series by Bernard Cornwell

Re: Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?

#30

Post by obmelvin »

xwdv wrote: post #13
randmeerkat wrote: post #8

It’s not just weaponry, most of fighting is nutrition, I’m surprised the article doesn’t discuss that. Given that the article says the knights and their weaponry were correlated to wealth and power, I would expect the knights to be better fed than the peasants as well.

Peasants ate very well, they had to, in order to work the fields. Salmon were considered peasant food, a peasant would go by the river and fish one up for lunch. Then probably eat some kind of pottage, and bread. Maybe eggs. I'd wager peasants can be tough as fuck, it's only question of how well trained and equipped they are for fighting.

> Peasants ate very well, they had to, in order to work the fields.

If one doesn't care about the health of their workers, actually, one doesn't really need to feed them much.

Post reply on HN