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

31–40 of 326 posts

Re: Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?

#31

Post by derefr »

recuter wrote: post #28
derefr wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Fat, certainly, but being fat doesn't imply you can't swing a sword on a horse. You can have a lot of core strength and good arms, but if you eat a lot of puddings, the muscle will be covered in enough mass that you'll just look fat. (Especially in a portrait you're just sitting for, rather than flexing for.)

As for incompetent knights, I'm genuinely confused: how did they survive in the role for any length of time? (Especially when the only talent pool they would have to recruit underlings from are the very same people they're oppressing. I always figured competence at protecting the outlying villages—where everyone's families live—during invasion, was kinda the reason anyone bothered to work for them at all, rather than towns responding to recruitment attempts exactly the same as invasion attempts, with stoning, boiling oil from the rooftops, etc.)

Re: Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?

#32

Post by JshWright »

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…

> Seems like a not-unreasonable comparison today would be "could a civilian kill an armored vehicle?"

In that case, isn't the answer a definite yes?

Re: Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?

#33

Post by dodobirdlord »

forgotmypw17 wrote: post #10

What this article seems to barely touch upon is that the peasants spent most of their time eking out a living, the rich had free time and a culture of practicing their fighting skills at length, and from a young age, too. I would even say that the equipment was a secondary advantage, though still significant.

A peasant was also very likely to be malnourished, while someone in a position to have been practicing for battle from a young age was likely to have been very well nourished in comparison, especially during critical childhood years. An average military aristocrat probably had 10+ cm of height and 10+ kg of weight advantage on an average peasant.

Re: Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?

#34

Post by paultopia »

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.

But it matters---the same point could be made about the Battle of Poitiers, in which the fancy French noble knights were crushed, mostly by longbowmen. It's silly to ask the question of whether peasants could kill knights without considering the actual ways peasants killed knights...

Re: Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?

#36

Post by HarryHirsch »

User23 wrote: post #23
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...

Yet at Morgarten the Swiss massacred a Habsburg force. Armoured knights need an open battlefield to be effective, in crowded terrain a force made up of peasant fighters equipped with polearms is clearly superior.

Re: Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?

#37

Post by teruakohatu »

crooked-v wrote: post #24
pdonis wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> English longbowman wasn't the usual 'peasant' stereotype, given that they were generally landowners

Can you elaborate. I thought serfdom was still around in 1415 in England.

Re: Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?

#38

Post by purple_ferret »

A Distant Mirror covered some peasant/commoner attempts at rebellion and they seemed to lead to same disastrous results, mostly because of a lack of discipline.

Here's a bit about the Battle of Roosebeke:

>As French lances pierced and axes hacked at the solid mass of bodies, many of whom lacked helmet or cuirass, the dead piled up in heaps. French foot soldiers, penetrating between the men-at-arms, finished off the fallen with their knives, “with no more mercy than if they had been dogs.” Under the attack of the Bourbon-Coucy wing, the Flemish rear turned and fled, throwing away their weapons as they ran. Philip van Artevelde, fighting in the front ranks, tried to rally them, but from his position could exercise no effective command. He lacked the assurance of the Black Prince at Poitiers to retain control from a hilltop above the battle. Borne backward by the mass as the rout spread, he was trampled and killed under the feet of his own forces, as was his banner-bearer, a woman named Big Margot.

Re: Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?

#39

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?

#40

Post by crooked-v »

derefr wrote: post #31
recuter wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Fat, certainly, but being fat doesn't imply you can't swing a sword on a horse. You can have a lot of core strength and good arms, but if you eat a lot of puddings, the muscle will be covered in enough mass that you'll just look fat. (Especially in a portrait you're just sitting for, rather than flexing for.) As for incompetent knights, I'm genuinely confused: how did they survive in the role for any length of time?…

Also, a certain amount of subcutaneous fat is a survival trait when people are regularly trying to perforate you.
Post reply on HN