201–210 of 326 posts
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.
An English longbowman was paid more in real terms than a Squaddie is today
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
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…
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…
I question your use of "seceding" for "conjuré". As far as I understand, the connotation of ~seperation from a whole~ is absent in the original french which I'd argue speaks more of the spontaneous and unsanctioned nature of this militia's constitution.
As in "le peuple ..., conjuré entre soi" could be adapted to "the people, having organised to take arms"
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…
That's why the peasants in the battle of the golden spurs used a river to make a swamp. Which took the advantage away from the cavalry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Golden_Spurs
Earlier 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.
But that period is dark ages not medieval
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
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.
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…
Yeesh, sort of the exact opposite of a 2nd Amendment right to bear arms.
Crossbow - 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 g…
I don't think that's true either, plate armor should give good protection against arrows and bolts.
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
You can leave the horse behind and continue by walk if you think it gives you advantage. The speed and maneuverability here is not just about during combat, but mostly about ability to do long term plan and maneuver.