Never underestimate factorz that doesn't belong to an individual's resources
The power of motivation!
My friend.
Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?
241–250 of 326 posts
Re: Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?
#242In 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…
Fair enough, I'm no medieval scholar, I am/was merely commenting with the interpretation that Chris Wickham (who is) had in his book "The Inheritance Of Rome", where he begins his chapter "The caging of the peasantry" with a brief discussion of this event (and a translation that looks a bit more like the one done from the Latin by the other commenter).
He does point out that the meaning of "incaute" is ambiguous here, but the salient point still stands: that military service was forbidden from the common people and that an organized common people was not allowed, and dangerous. It is speculative but he comments that these peasants may have felt they were following in the footsteps of their grandfathers who would have rightfully assembled for defense in time of need, and in fact that had formerly been the prerogative of free peasants.
So the point still pretty much stands regardless, the language speaks of free peasants self-organizing as a threat and an easily defeated one.
Re: Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?
#243Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder if one day in the distant future, humans will each have their own autonomous mutually assured destruction devices hovering around them at all times, almost like a guardian angel. It would even the playing field in some ways.
The "slap drone" of Iain M. Banks' culture performs a similar function in a different way: IIRC, convicted murders are allowed out, but followed forever by an autonomous drone that will stun (slap) them to prevent further crimes.
You're misremembering a detail: the term isn't "slap drone", but "drone slapped" – as in, you'll be slapped with an electronic ankle bracelet in drone form. That drone doesn't necessarily have to physically hurt or stun you to prevent you from doing something bad; even at the time when Player of Games (in which this concept is explained) is set, drones are powerful and sophisticated enough to displace or physically restrain someone with their field effectors.
Also, if you murder someone, you won't be invited to parties anymore.
Re: Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?
#244Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s not a requirement, but it certainly helps.
it depends on who gets the arms. there is no "the people" as a single entity and interests when there is a revolt. if everybody is armed, the supporters of the tyrant are going to be armed as well. But with better equipment.
That would be true if it was just civilians fighting, but the military is usually on the side of the tyrant.
It’s mathematically better, I think that armed populace has a higher chance of revolt vs armed loyalist populace + armed military than unarmed populace vs unarmed loyalist + armed military.
And I also think the reasoning is that the anti-tyrannical populace will be much larger than the pro-tyrannical populace since if the tyrant has the support of the people then are they really a tyrant.
Re: Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?
#245[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…
I read your post, totally agree. I was so embarrassed i deleted it.
Re: Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?
#246Earlier 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.
You don't need the right to bear arms to revolt to tyrants. There is no similar right in any other part of the World, in every other part of the World there have been revolts, sometimes much larger than US has ever witnessed. Many countries have also revolted against USA, that more often than not has been the tryrant.
To be fair, unarmed revolts have always been crushed unless they were supported by foreign militaries (like the US.) I'd like to see a citation of a single unarmed revolution that succeeded.
edit: the armed right wing of the US could easily decide that they didn't like the outcome of the election, and change it. The volunteer military and national police forces entirely constructed to prosecute the drug war are overwhelmingly right wing. Second amendment warriors tend to own more guns than they have fingers and toes. That the civil service and the majority of patrician-generals at the top support the result of the election would be no hindrance.
The purpose of being armed is really to force the opposition to massacre you. A right-wing revolution as described above would probably have fewer than a couple of thousand casualties. It's very easy to still feel like the good guy if the only casualties of your revolution were a few of your most deeply committed archenemies (i.e. a few lefty militia types.) It's a lot more difficult when you're hurling artillery into normal civilian neighborhoods.
There were plenty of Northern Irish neighborhoods into which UK military and the police simply couldn't operate without negotiating with a representative of that neighborhood.
Re: Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?
#247Earlier quoted context omitted.
The "slap drone" of Iain M. Banks' culture performs a similar function in a different way: IIRC, convicted murders are allowed out, but followed forever by an autonomous drone that will stun (slap) them to prevent further crimes.
You're misremembering a detail: the term isn't "slap drone", but "drone slapped" – as in, you'll be slapped with an electronic ankle bracelet in drone form. That drone doesn't necessarily have to physically hurt or stun you to prevent you from doing something bad; even at the time when Player of Games (in which this concept is explained) is set, drones are powerful and sophisticated enough to displace or physically r…
Thank you! That sounds about right. Must put Player Of Games on the re-read pile.
And yes, I remember not getting invited to parties is the ultimate sanction.
Re: Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?
#248Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Thanks for providing the direct citation, which is more specific than just "Annals of St Bertin." > 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. Sound's like the parent comment's description oversimplified things. I knew it sounded off.
No, the text is ambiguous, but the main point about forbidden peasant autonomy and the "easily defeated" peasantry still stands. Look at the translation from the Latin in the other comment.
Re: Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?
#249Earlier 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…
Remember those guys who let their house guest attack the US a little under 20yr ago? Last I checked they're in the process of getting their country back.
The "but they have tanks and nukes" argument has been long debunked. To actually run an oppressive nation you need boots on the ground which requires very strong support from a very sizeable minority (e.g South Africa, Northern Ireland). The less firepower the peasants have the smaller the minority you need is. You can't fight a insurgency with tanks and bombs without destroying the things you seek to protect. If you're England crapping all over Ireland or if you're the US crapping all over Iraq you can kind of make it work as long as you have political will and keep the death tolls low because your supply lines and political support are isolated from the violence (notice how quickly the Troubles wrapped up once the bombs started going off in England). It's much harder to fight an insurgency when people are sabotaging your supply chains. See the 4chan copypasta someone else posted for other details.
Re: Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?
#250Earlier 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…
The US military is the militia >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_%281946%29