Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle? • Hacker News Board

Re: Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?

#231

Post by b0rsuk » Tue, Nov 10, 2020, 11:53 AM UTC

chewz wrote: post #134

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…

A crossbow has several advantages, but it's main advantage is NOT power or armor piercing ability. That is likely a myth perpetuated by armchair historians with poor grasp of physics.

The main advantage of a crossbow is that it's easy to use. Richard Lionheart, the English king, was famously killed by a boy wielding a crossbow. You need no more than 2 weeks to be proficient with a crossbow. To do that with an English longbow you'd need 7 years.

There are various methods of drawing a crossbow that don't require great strength. Here's a (not exhaustive! Missing is for example latchet crossbow.) list of 9 ways to draw a crossbow:

Tod's Workshop

9 MEDIEVAL CROSSBOW DEVICES - How do they work?

-------------------

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IdfmaC_t-Q

In the video, Tod Cutler shows 9 mechanisms used to span a crossbow, some of them require a specially modified crossbow and some don't. Crucially, he shows the numbers for mechanical advantage. Keep in mind the input number will vary. Cranequin is an amazing mechanism, but you only use a single hand. A windlass doesn't have such an impressive ratio, but you can use both hands. A belt may let you use your back muscles as well.

Videos of Joe Gibbs, a 170lb man who can draw a 200lb longbow, show how much effort it is. In one of the videos - I can't locate which one it is - he explains it's no coincidence medieval illustrations show people bending forward when drawing a bow. He draws this way and it lets him put a little more extra into the arrow.

Crossbow can be kept loaded for a long time, and you can line up your shot. This is especially important in sieges. Also, they have a controlled release. My observation is that missile weapons evolved to have more and more controlled release over the ages. Slings and atlatls required lots of skill to use, bow is a bit more controlled, crossbow even more controlled (less things to mess up). Slings were even more powerful than bows but even more training was required.

======================

Now to the power issue. The myth is that they hit extra hard. A light crossbow (loaded by hands, or using a goat's foot lever) actually has power comparable to a short bow. Something like 60-80lbs. Witness a nominally 350lbs failing to penetrate a steel helmet:

Can a 350lb Medieval Crossbow Penetrate Steel Helmets? (16 / 14ga)

--------------

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqGZl5MVFPg

Why? The answer is short power stroke. Just because a bow or crossbow can be drawn with a certain force doesn't mean they impart that force to the arrow! Power stroke is the distance between the end of the bowstring, when fully loaded, and between the front of the bow. Crossbows are inefficient when it comes to transferring energy, especially the ones made using medieval technology and metallurgy. Steel bows are nowhere near as flexible as good wood or modern alloys. This was proven time and again using a chronometer (projectile speed meter).

Heavy crossbows, meaning those loaded with a windlass, hit about as hard as a war longbow, which is 100-120lbs. My numbers are from Tod's Workshop youtube channel.

Both a longbow and a heavy crossbow are strong enough to pierce mail armor - piercing is actually its weakness. Mail is good against slashing blades and blunt objects. Even a light crossbow punctures mail. But they fail spectacularly at puncturing plate:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ej3qjUzUzQg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMT6hjwY8NQ

And a longbow:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBxdTkddHaE

And here is the most powerful traditional crossbow I've ever found on youtube

Shooting a 1257 lb Great Horn Composite Crossbow - version 2.0

----------

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AA5M0QKXtWU

It is 14/15 century, so pretty late medieval tech (Swiss). Crossbows don't get bigger than that. It's practically a very mobile siege weapon.

Another downside of short power stroke is that the crossbow bolt (arrow) accelerates much more rapidly than a bow arrow. So it must be sturdier to withstand the forces, which is why bolts were so thick. A thick projectile has more air resistance and worse armor penetration.

So yes, crossbow is the RPG weapon, but in the sense of "Role Playing Games" and not "Rocked Propelled Grenade".

And here is how much of expertise you need to make crossbows the medieval way:

A Castle Fit For Fighting | Secrets of the Castle (2/5) | Absolute History

----------

https://youtu.be/u6v-3Ai88oM?t=1218

==========================

I hope I've proved that power was not the advantage of crossbows. The weapon had many advantages, and the basic shape of the weapon and its trigger is used to this day in rifles because it's so good.

If power is what you're after, check out staff slings (Fustibalus). This thing is SCARY, it cracks coconuts at a distance.

Slingshot VS. Shepherds Staff Sling

----------

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bFQYNfJqqY

This is a very solid video with measurements.

Re: Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?

#232

Post by hedberg10 » Tue, Nov 10, 2020, 11:53 AM UTC

questionfor wrote: post #159

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 bystand…

Say hello to my little friend waves crossbow

Re: Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?

#233

Post by gadders » Tue, Nov 10, 2020, 12:00 PM UTC

questionfor wrote: post #159

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 bystand…

I always think that the people now that become martial arts champions due to genetics, skill, training etc would be the king's champions 800 years ago. EG: Stipe Miocic would be the William Marshall equivalent - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Marshal,_1st_Earl_of_P...

Re: Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?

#234

Post by alkdjalsdjad » Tue, Nov 10, 2020, 12:01 PM UTC

ransom1538 wrote: post #228

[deleted]

That is the most stupid comparison I have seen lately in HN. A kid "with a grudge and a stick" could likely never "flip you off your expensive shinny horse" because, well, sticks cannot do that. The AK kid can kill you because, I don't know if you are aware of this, AKs can shoot things from distance.

Also, AKs kill you when a shot hits your head/torso. A stick won't kill you on-hit. Being a knight also meant having proper armor and training.

Of course a kid could kill a knight, say, in their sleep, but in that case being a knight would be irrelevant, and the most appropriate description would be: a kid killed a sleeping person.

Re: Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?

#235

Post by z3phyr » Tue, Nov 10, 2020, 12:01 PM UTC

dimitrios1 wrote: post #69

bilbo0s wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Knights were mounted. Oftentimes on a mount that itself was armored. The armored vehicle analogy is apt.

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.

You need a disciplined pike wall that is so cohesive that it does not break! You dont get magical superpowers by just picking up a pike (like you wont become a good programmer by acquiring Borland Turbo C++). You need to train with your comrades.

Re: Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?

#236

Post by z3phyr » Tue, Nov 10, 2020, 12:04 PM UTC

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.

We tend to remember the exceptions out of the countless military engagements that went as planned.

Re: Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?

#237

Post by gadders » Tue, Nov 10, 2020, 12:04 PM UTC

scottlocklin wrote: post #214

questionfor wrote: post #159

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 bystand…

It's not clear that knightly training was as useful as UFC training. Ineffective martial arts were a big deal for literal decades before the Gracie family came along, I guess because people didn't want to put in a mouth guard and see what happens. How often did the knights actually see combat, as opposed to train for combat, and do non-lethal sparring? The one form of training which is of undoubted utility is group t…

>> it's unclear what the non-mounted training was for this sort of thing for most times/places.

That would be the Melee [1]:

"Tournaments often contained a mêlée consisting of knights fighting one another on foot or mounted, either divided into two sides or fighting as a free-for-all. "

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tournament_(medieval)#Melee

Re: Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?

#238

Post by b0rsuk » Tue, Nov 10, 2020, 12:05 PM UTC

Crossbows would totally work, but the problem is getting your hands on enough of them. No single person could realistically make a crossbow. You needed materials from several guilds. In practice, peasants would have to capture an armory already stuffed with crossbows.

The Hussite War Wagons had great success against knights, but it was in the era of early firearms.

Hussite Wagon Forts - A Challenge To Heavy Cavalry In The Late Middle Ages | Late Medieval Warfare

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGUEqszHRwI

Re: Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?

#239

Post by gadders » Tue, Nov 10, 2020, 12:07 PM 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

You need to remember that the horses were warhorses, and were taught to "fight" as well - they would bite, rear up and hit with their hooves etc.

So they would be vulnerable, but the horse itself has a vote.

Re: Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?

#240

Post by blockmarker » Tue, Nov 10, 2020, 12:09 PM UTC

WJW wrote: post #220

kebman wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's one of the reasons the 2nd Amendment was written; to avoid tyrannical rule, and to allow the "peasants" (regular people) to revolt if a tyrant ever took power.

As a European I've always thought that this bit of US law has not aged all that well. Imagine a tyrant takes hold of the US armed forces and uses that to overthrow the rest of government so they can rule alone. The US armed forces have equipment going up to tanks, fighter jets, bombers, drones and nuclear weapons. A militia is going to struggle to field even heavy machine guns, let alone an air force. I doubt they'd…

I have saved a post about this from 4chan, they passed it around on some pro-gun rights forums. Will paraphrase it and spare you the expletives.

"You cannot control an entire country and its people with tanks, jets, battleships and drone or any of these things you believe trump's citizen ownership of firearms.

A fighter jet, tank, drone, battleship or whatever cannot stand on street corners. And enforce "no assembly" edicts. A fighter jet cannot kick down your door at 3am and search your house for contraband.

None of these things can maintain the needed police state to completely subjugate and enslave the people of a nation. Those weapons are for decimating, flattening and glassing large areas and many people at once and fighting other state militaries. The government does not want to kill all of its people and blow up its own infrastructure. These are the very things they need to be tyrants in the first place. If they decided to turn everything outside of Washington DC into glowing green glass they would be the absolute rulers of a big, worthless, radioactive pile of [excrement].

Police are needed to maintain a police state, boots on the ground. And no matter how many police you have on the ground they will always be vastly outnumbered by civilians which is why is a police state it is vital that your police have automatic weapons while civilians are unarmed.

BUT when every random pedestrian could have a Glock in their waistband and every random homeowner an AR-15 all of that goes out of the window because now the police are outnumbered and face the reality of bullets coming back at them.

If you want living examples of this look at every insurgency that the US military has tried to destroy. They're all still kicking with nothing but AK-47s, pick-up trucks and improvised explosives because these big weapons you talk about are useless for dealing with them. ".