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

91–100 of 326 posts

Re: Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?

#91

Post by MichaelMoser123 »

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.

longbows had a big role in the battle of Agincourt. It was part of a wider switch from very expensive defensive armor and warriors on expensive horses (that were eating a lot of grain) towards stuff that could kill at a distance. The middle ages isn't one monolithic period, it's quite a complex business. See https://www.britannica.com/technology/military-technology/Th...

Re: Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?

#92

Post by hutzlibu »

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...

Still, with a dagger and skill, you could penetrate allmost all armor.

Not very helpful in 1 vs 1 for the peasant, but in the chaos of the battlefield, very possible. And like others have mentioned: with a polearm and skill, much better chances for the peaseant.

A disciplined force of polearm carriers could have (and did) defeat full armored knights. But there is the greates difference: a peasant usually was not in the position to receive military training at all, while the knights were trained for war since being childs.

Re: Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?

#93

Post by nl »

User23 wrote: post #18
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.

The English peasants were a special lot. England had an archery mandate going back to at least the 13th century so we're not talking about random untrained peasants. Also lots of things went right for the English and wrong for the French at Agincourt.

> Also lots of things went right for the English and wrong for the French at Agincourt.

This is true, but one should note that the Battle of Crécy 70 years earlier had shown the same pattern.

(Although of course there were many other battles in the 100 year war where bowmen were not as decisive).

Re: Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?

#94

Post by briefcomment »

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…

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.

Re: Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?

#95

Post by faanghacker »

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…

Do you have a source for this? This sounds like a fishy story to me based on my understanding of medieval society:

1. Peasants are often called up for military duty as levies (conscripts), to supplement the knights and men-at-arms. Especially when there wasn't a standing army.

2. Authority wasn't so centralized -- these local matters would be the authority of local lords, not the king.

Re: Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?

#96

Post by jxramos »

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…

Yeesh, sort of the exact opposite of a 2nd Amendment right to bear arms.

Re: Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?

#97

Post by 8note »

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...

This sounds tautological? Why would people wear ineffective armour?

Re: Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?

#98

Post by zrobotics »

lostlogin wrote: post #67
barry-cotter wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The average person historically was remarkably short, generally because of childhood malnourishment. I believe the average member of the House of Commons was visibly shorter than the members of the House of Lords at least through WWII. Certainly Americans were obviously taller than Europeans until after WWII. Even American slaves were taller and children were generally malnourished until about seven when they becam…

This checks out - thanks. The below article makes mention of a fact that may complicate things though - big strong slaves were worth more. Presumably slave owners had this in mind so had an ulterior motive for feeding slaves better. It’s one bleak subject. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11718681_The_Height...

Super horrible, but consider that slaves were incredibly valuable. The middle class of farmers in the antebellum south would barely have been able to afford one, the plantation owners were stupendously wealthy. This, in part, explains why the south was able to wield such outsize political influence.

Very bleak, but slave owners had a large economic incentive to make sure their slaves were fit for work (although that didn't cause qualms on other, more brutal forms of mistreatment). The only way they treated them well was in providing food, but that wasn't due to kindness but more from the same motivation to feed a team of draft horses well. It's tough reading, but some of the ledgers kept by plantation owners really drive the point home that they viewed slaves more akin to livestock than people. And they somehow justified what they were doing as christian and moral.

Re: Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?

#99

Post by magicsmoke »

damnencryption wrote: post #64
ynac wrote: post #42

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…

I wonder if modern peasants can fight and win against the knights. You can't own a knife in many countries without a license let alone a gun. It's all tracked. There are targeted missiles, drones, autonomous guns, surveillance, radar, bombs, tear gas, tasers, tanks, bullet and knife proof clothing, exoskeleton, etc available to the knights. Knights are many times more organized than they have ever been in history. Re…

Knights still have to be fed and armed with the taxes of peasants, and they'll follow the orders of the societal structure that funnels them those taxes. You protect yourself by getting involved in politics and shaping the economic and cultural power balance of your society so you don't get to a point where you need to use violence against state security forces. Once you reach that point, you've already lost.

Re: Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?

#100

Post by nradov »

dodobirdlord wrote: post #44
treeman79 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Br…

There certainly was a difference based on nutrition, but the English longbowmen still had to be quite strong. Those bows had heavy draw weights.
Post reply on HN