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

41–50 of 326 posts

Re: Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?

#41

Post by jcranmer »

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.

The Battle of the Golden Spurs would be a better example, with several French nobles (such as the Marshal of France and the Constable of France!) ultimately losing their lives to pikemen. All the more surprising because this was pretty much the first battle in Medieval history where the side with the most knights lost (quite badly).

Admittedly, the Flemish side wasn't exactly peasantry but largely townspeople in guilds, although in terms of the classic three-tier model (nobility, clergy, peasantry), they would have fallen into the last class.

Re: Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?

#42

Post by ynac »

It makes one wonder how the modern equals would do?

Yes, we have street fights / protests between "soldiers" and pedestrians. Each equipped with their standard tools - lopsided as they may be. The question becomes more of a matter of context for a modern battle.

What is a modern knight and what is a modern peasant in 2020 and also, what locale?

(We could also use a booklist for this discussion - I keep bringing back scenes from Pillars of the Earth)

Re: Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?

#43

Post by dimitrios1 »

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…

Wouldn't a more apt comparison be someone armed with a 9mm pistol trying to take on a trained soldier with advanced anti-ballstic armor and plating, and an accurate rifle?

Re: Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?

#44

Post by dodobirdlord »

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.

Nutrition in childhood, especially early childhood, is extremely critical to development. The average person historically was remarkably short, generally because of childhood malnourishment. Simply being properly nourished in childhood would have led to a huge height and weight advantage (also probably considerable advantages in brain development). Even into the 18th century the average height of an officer in the British military was about 8in more than that of the enlisted men.

On top of that a knight would have eaten a lot more fat, meat, and vegetables than a peasant, who would have lived almost entirely on bread. This wouldn’t have left the peasant totally protein-starved because it was bread made from whole grains, but a knight would have been getting much better returns on their exercise throughout life due to their more varied diet.

Re: Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?

#45

Post by jackcosgrove »

adamnemecek wrote: post #19

Surprised it doesn't mention Hussites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hussites . Peasants (given they were armed with fire arms, one of the first large scale uses of firearms) defeated five(!!!) crusades.

My favorite part about the Hussites was that they used war wagons with cannon mounted on them, which is basically mobile artillery.

Re: Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?

#46

Post by agency »

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #17

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.

Re: Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?

#47

Post by bashmelek »

teruakohatu wrote: post #37
crooked-v wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"If you want to train a longbowman, start with his grandfather." Being a longbowman took extensive training and practice.

Re: Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?

#48

Post by bschwindHN »

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.

> longbowmen shooting from a distance and protected by both terrain and a line of sharpened stakes

Ugh, camping snipers.

Re: Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?

#49

Post by dodobirdlord »

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 by and large ate pretty poorly, and their diet consisted mostly of bread. They also had an unfortunate tendency to under-nourish children during lean times, because the adults still needed to be well fed so that they could farm. This is the reason why the average height of a European man has increased more than 6 inches since the Middle Ages.
Post reply on HN