42 ms·
Could a Peasant Defeat a Knight in Battle?
- heudjdjs 6y agoThis article is garbage.
- Wingman4l7 6y agoSurprised there is no specific mention of the misericorde (a long, narrow dagger that could get between the gaps in armor plates or the holes in visors): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misericorde_(weapon) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misericorde_(weapon)
- magicsmoke 6y agoThat's an expensive non-food-producing piece of metal for an average medieval peasant to have lying around. Much more likely for your average knight to have one though, and as the link says it was used by Polish nobility.
- dodobirdlord 6y agoIt also seems to have been primarily used to kill people who weren’t fighting back due to serious but not instantly fatal injury.
- Aeolun 6y agoIt seems to me that a few peasants, or a group of them would ‘absolutely’ be able to defeat a knight in battle in a theoretical sense. You really only need to drag them off their horse and stab them. But the situation is not like that in any real life instance, as the described situation in France depicts. What the peasants are lacking isn’t so much arms and equipment, as discipline and organisation.
- diffrinse 6y agoYou won't have to deal with an army of knights but litigation backed by an army of lawyers on retainer now
- vondur 6y agoWell the landsknechts of Germany and Swiss Pikeman were the ones who took down the heavily armored knights of the late Middle Ages. Most of them were from common stock. Probably not in a one on one fight though.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- randmeerkat 6y agoIt’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.
- treeman79 6y agoWorking 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.
- dodobirdlord 6y agoNutrition 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.
- barry-cotter 6y ago> 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 became capable of working. Adult height seems to have been unaffected reflecting just how rich the US was comparatively. Complete unfeeling bastards didn’t malnourish children enough to do permanent damage.
- austincheney 6y agoAt 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.
- Forge36 6y agoWas this the battle historians put a lot of blame on the "steel boots"? Peasants had cloth boots which didn't get stuck into the mud as much so they didn't get as tired.
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago>Was this the battle historians put a lot of blame on the "steel boots"? Among other things. It takes more than shoes to get such a one sided outcome.
- willcipriano 6y ago> It takes more than shoes to get such a one sided outcome. If you make them out of cardboard and try to cross the Carpathian Mountains perhaps not. https://ww1blog.osborneink.com/?p=5961 https://ww1blog.osborneink.com/?p=5961
- User23 6y agoThe 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.
- nl 6y ago> 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).
- forgotmypw17 6y agoWhat 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.
- dodobirdlord 6y agoA 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.
- fencepost 6y agoMindset 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-unreasonable comparison today would be "could a civilian kill an armored vehicle?"
- dimitrios1 6y agoWouldn'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?
- bilbo0s 6y agoKnights were mounted. Oftentimes on a mount that itself was armored. The armored vehicle analogy is apt.
- dimitrios1 6y agoThe 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.
- Schiendelman 6y agoA modern civilian doesn’t need to penetrate a tank, just get it stuck and light it on fire.
- fogihujy 6y agoThe same applied to an armoured knight, but it's hard to trap a mounted warrior when you're on foot, just as it would be hard to get a tank stuck unless you know what you're doing. I'm certain that more than one knight died locked inside a burning barn back in the days.
- cmrdporcupine 6y agoIn 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 was reserved for aristocrats only. The response of the Frankish leadership was to come in and massacre the peasants who had defended their own land. Peasant autonomy and self-defense of any kind could not be tolerated.
- agency 6y agoThe more I hear about this feudalism thing the less I like it.
- peterburkimsher 6y agoSupporters of feudalism are down for the Count.
- lb1lf 6y ago-Fun fact: Feudalism (somehow) lingered on until about a decade ago on the channel island of Sark. That being said, aside from the dubious principle, 21st century feudalism on Sark had little in common with its medieval cousin.
- Ichthypresbyter 6y agoWhich makes sense given that it started with the settlement of the island by Helier de Carteret in 1565, well after feudalism in England was on the way out.
- arethuza 6y agoThe last parts of feudal law in Scotland were only removed in 2000: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_Feudal_Tenure_etc._(Scotland)_Act_2000 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_Feudal_Tenure_etc...
- adamnemecek 6y agoSurprised it doesn't mention Hussites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.
- jackcosgrove 6y agoMy favorite part about the Hussites was that they used war wagons with cannon mounted on them, which is basically mobile artillery.
- isolli 6y agoYes, with special mention to Jan Žižka, the mastermind behind the tactics that allowed peasants to defeat crusaders. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_%C5%BDi%C5%BEka https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_%C5%BDi%C5%BEka
- User23 6y agoIf that peasant is Big Pier[1], then yes! [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pier_Gerlofs_Donia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pier_Gerlofs_Donia
- holidayacct 6y agoUnlikely, nutrition might be a problem.
- quotha 6y agoEven in the contest between man and steer, the outcome is not certain.
- stjohnswarts 6y agoSometime you eat the bar, and sometimes the bar eats you.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPVLyB0Yc6I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPVLyB0Yc6I
- drak0n1c 6y agoFor those interested in medieval military, Invicta, the excellent history Youtube channel, has a recent documentary "How to Raise a Medieval Army": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2cm-rsDfjw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2cm-rsDfjw
- yuskii 6y agoWith enough patience, anything is possible ^_^
- purple_ferret 6y agoA 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.
- ynac 6y agoIt 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)
- Beached 6y agomodern night would be a standard equiped military soldier from a first world country. modern peasant would be an average civilian from a third world country?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- C1sc0cat 6y agoIl just leave this from Kipling "A scrimmage in a Border Station- A canter down some dark defile Two thousand pounds of education Drops to a ten-rupee jezail. The Crammer's boast, the Squadron's pride, Shot like a rabbit in a ride! " You'd just change "ten-rupee jezail" to a second hand AK And plenty of "third" world civilians have guns
- damnencryption 6y agoI 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. Recent incident in Nigeria where military massacred the protestors: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-54630592 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-54630592 How do you protect yourself as a peasant against the Knights?
- 6y ago
- jungletime 6y agoMel Gibsons Apocalypto has some great fight scenes, and probably one of the best foot chase scene on film. The ending scene is a sort of target practice of skilled warriors with a weapon vs an unarmed prisoners given a head start to try and escape. It becomes pretty apparent what a huge advantage a weapon in skilled hands is. https://youtu.be/rM8Fxd9svzA https://youtu.be/rM8Fxd9svzA
- sillysaurusx 6y agoI love Apocalypto! Thanks for bringing it up.
- Waterluvian 6y agoI need help understanding how a lance is practically used. Wouldn't you impale one person and immediately lose your lance or fall off your horse trying to hold it?
- jackthehammer 6y agoYes. Or, if afoot, warriors could brace the lance (against a rock or with the foot) in the ground and direct the speartip into a charging horse. A line of lances/pikes kills or fatally wounds horses and unseats their riders. Riders can be killed or trapped if their horse falls on them. And once on the ground a knight in armor is virtually helpless b/c he has little mobility. He could easily be killed with blows to the neck or head with a rock or tree limb. A handful of dirt stuffed into his mouth would quickly suffocate him.
- jacobwilliamroy 6y agoA few ideas for how peasants can defeat a knight: 1) Use disguises to approach in circumstances where a knight is vulnerable 2) Surprise arson in the middle of the night 3) Pit trap 4) Deadfall trap With outside resources from wealthy parties interested in influencing the land in which the peasants live, a guerilla war can be sustained for several years.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- MichaelMoser123 6y agohttps://www.britannica.com/technology/military-technology/The-age-of-cavalry-c-400-ce-1350 https://www.britannica.com/technology/military-technology/Th... Britannica is telling quite a lot on how technology and society changed. What is fascinating is that a switch to offensive weapons seem to have helped with bringing about a society with more equal opportunities as compared to feudalism: there was no point to maintain feudalism, when a few mounted and armored warriors could no longer defeat huge crowds of peasants. There were other factors as shortage of working hands due to the great plague, so that they had to pay for labor instead of the usual practice, but i guess you can't reduce anything that big to a single factor, as usual. In ancient history you had a similar theme: The bronze age came with small elite armies and expensive charriots, later larger crowds of warriors with cheaper arms made of iron defeated them, and that also came with opportunities for more people and more egalitarian religions, more accessible syllabic writing system - lots of things became more inclusive.
- dkersten 6y agoI think it was Metatron or maybe Shadiversity on youtube talked about this once and I remember one point in favour of the Knights is that they dedicate a lot of their lives to training while peasants don't, so one advantage that Knights have is that they are simply better trained, many having trained from a young age.
- jojobas 6y agoThis is why the church banned the use of crossbows against Christians. It was deemed unfair for a peasant to instantly kill someone who trained all his life.
- defen 6y agoOne 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 reality of actual combat. If the horsemen want to raid your supply lines or burn down your countryside or disrupt your trade networks, how do you stop them? They can concentrate forces much more quickly than a foot army can form or react. In the 11th century a few hundred Norman knights conquered Sicily and southern Italy. Even through the 1860s a few thousand Comanche controlled a large portion of the American southwest because there was no good way to fight them.
- m_mueller 6y agoHave a look at what's called the 'infantry revolution' started by the Swiss and later the German Landsknechts. Starting in the 1300s, the role of knights in battles got lessened by this, until they were basically only a flanking tool in most armies. It was basically a reinvention of the Greek phalanx. Edit: This YouTube series shows it best I think: https://youtu.be/6KbroTkaey0 https://youtu.be/6KbroTkaey0
- defen 6y agoI'm not talking about pitched battles though; more the logistics of even engaging horsemen in battle if you don't have your own horses.
- m_mueller 6y agoThere are enough examples of victories of pure infantry armies against knights from that time period. I think your points apply more in the period between 1000 and 1300.
- raducu 6y agoKnights and aristocracy held their power through force, so there is no question that knights could overwhelmingly defeat peasants. However, what is often missed in the depictions of peasants is that they were much stronger than modern folk, they did kill animals quite often, they did fight other peasants quite often. Free peasants were a different story from bound peasants, mountain peasants a different story from low lands. I know because my grandparents were peasants from a mountainous region, you did not want to mess with those peasants. I could go all they about the acts of aggression, strength and bravery I've witnessed (same on the contrary). Such a peasant would not fight in pitch battle, but would simply burn their crops, take their cattle and sheep up the mountain and return in autumn when armies would go back home. They would setup ambushes, mostly targeting guides, but they were quite opportunistic. It was remarkable reading Xenophon's account of fighting mountain people in ancient times -- while I did feel his disgust for them, the sense was that they could be quite dangerous when fighting on their home turf.
- avodonosov 6y agoWith the help of kung-fu - yes
- chewz 6y agoCrossbow - 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 greater range than even a longbow, and shooters could be trained in hours or days. https://www.wearethemighty.com/mighty-history/catholic-church-banned-crossbow-warfare/ https://www.wearethemighty.com/mighty-history/catholic-churc...
- Ichthypresbyter 6y ago>Second Lateran Council banned use of crossbow against Christians. Not sure if this is actually true. The council (specifically Canon 29) refers to ballistarii and sagittarii. Ballistarii may mean either crossbowmen or slingers, while sagittarii means archers. So there is no way of reading this as referring to crossbowmen alone- the ban is either against both crossbowmen and archers, or it's against slingers and archers and doesn't mention crossbows at all. Some commentators suggest that this canon is intending to prohibit archery contests- similarly, Canon 14 of the council condemns tournaments. Others point out that at the time of the council, the Pope was at war with King Roger of Sicily, whose armies employed large numbers of Muslim archers (not crossbowmen). The canon means that the Papal armies could shoot at Roger's Muslim soldiers, but Roger's Christian officers would be excommunicated if they ordered their men to shoot back... Text in Latin: http://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/es/index3.htm http://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/es/index3.htm And in English: https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/basis/lateran2.asp https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/basis/lateran2.asp
- chewz 6y agoThanks for your input. This is the reason I love HN ;)
- CorrectHorseBat 6y ago> 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 greater range than even a longbow, and shooters could be trained in hours or days. I don't think that's true either, plate armor should give good protection against arrows and bolts.
- 7sigma 6y agoIf you want to see what a fully trained knight in armour can do see this video. https://youtu.be/8vYFFx4whoE https://youtu.be/8vYFFx4whoE There's a reason why they used hammers in battle. Was more ffective to bash the armour than try to cut between the plates
- pluto9 6y agoI'm not sure a cheesy short film with a ridiculous choreographed fight scene is the best example of "what a fully trained knight in armour can do". This isn't reality, it's someone's imagination.
- 7sigma 6y agoYeah it's cheesy but it's quite accurate that it shows how hard it is to kill someone clad in chain mail and full armour. The bandits are not very well trained although they do try to stab between the plates bit it's still very difficult to do. Also the guys doing the videos are re enactment pros and yes what they do is a bit theatrical, but other YouTubers specialising in this area have said it's quite legit. I'll link to video when I have a chance
- pluto9 6y agoI can believe that individual slashes and stabs are ineffective against metal armor, sure. But this video makes it seem like a knight could take down a whole crowd of enemies by himself. This is what fighting that many people at once actually looks like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CmRo7uECEg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CmRo7uECEg Several people knock or drag the victim to the ground while the rest take turns beating him. In the movies when the hero goes to fight 20 dudes, at any given time 18 are standing around doing nothing while he lays waste to them two at a time with flawlessly executed martial arts moves. That's pure theatrics, and no amount of armor or training or general badassery can make it a reality.
- 7sigma 6y agoThe video you linked to is a basically a brawl in the street in the 20th century with non armed combat. Apple to Oranges. I also agree with you about martial arts movie where a single guy takes on 20 people, not very realistic. (however have a look at how a guy can hold off multiple opponents in non armed combat https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8_zWBQXZj4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8_zWBQXZj4) Here we are talking about a fully trained knight in his peak condition with really good armor and sword. The bandits/peasants in the video are not very well protected and don't seem to take advantage of their numbers due to inexperience/fear factor. Also in the video he does fight 3 or 4 people at once and they do try and make him fall to the ground, but again he is trained and knows how to keep his distance and stay upright and he also takes damage. You could argue that it might be not 100% realistic, but I think it does show the effectiveness of knights. I mean think about it, if a knight could be taken down by a bunch of peasants, why did invest so much time and money on knights and armour. Here is the video review by Skallagrim https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x80hOR42szg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x80hOR42szg
- questionfor 6y agoPeople 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 bystander and a UFC fighter. Now imagine the UFC fighter is wearing armor (and is trained to fight in armor) and is equipped with a deadly weapon of his choice (and has been training to fight with it). If you think there is a remote chance for any outcome besides death of the knight’s opponent (also death at the moment and in a form of the knight’s choosing), try going to a local boxing gym (or jiu-jitsu club etc.) and challenging one of their trainers, then multiply the results by 10 (in trainer’s favor). I can’t imagine how 10+ years of training could not give a knight an infinite advantage even if we equalize the combatants in terms of equipment. Also knights were training to fight since they were children, so in our hypothetical bar fight the pro-fighter’s skills would be along the lines of those of Floyd Mayweather (who started training when he was 9). Surely the knight may be less gifted, but that matter should really concern other knights and not peasants :) 49 vs 9000 scenario described in the post seems grotesque but I think, limiting the number of slain civilians by knights’ stamina and assuming that any resistance is negligible is more than reasonable.
- scottlocklin 6y agoIt'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 tactics, but it's unclear what the non-mounted training was for this sort of thing for most times/places. You're also probably discounting what peasant style manual labor (and hobbies, which include beating the shit out of each other with fists, clubs, etc) does for your combat ability. Hand and wrist strength is a huge deal in pre-firearms days, and peasants were at least 3-4 standard deviations stronger in these ways than average people now (really: that much -I've fooled around with building hand strength and it's bonkers how strong people can get in this domain). People basically exerted their strength through simple hafted tools all day; makes them good at exerting their strength through simple hafted tools all day. Regarding group tactics; peasants had lots of games which could have helped them with this. For example, Hurling[0], and I'm sure there was lots of stuff like Calcio Storico[1]. The real advantage the knights had (beyond equipment, like horses and the morale of feeling superior to the peasant) was probably nutrition. They spent most of their downtime hunting, feasting and eating meat, and between wearing heavy armor and their strength oriented workouts, the knights were probably pretty jacked. 50 or 100lbs of muscle and fat and 6-8" of height helps a lot. I don't have references in front of me for this, but David Willoughby talks about some of this in his book, and I'm sure you can see it in skeletons of Nobles versus peasants (aka Nobles will have larger skeletons with 'deformities' at the muscle attachment points). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurling [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVJEvtkFKBc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVJEvtkFKBc
- arethuza 6y agoAs with so many things I suspect it comes down to leadership and tactics - if you get to choose and prepare the ground a small lightly armed force could definitely defeat a much larger force of heavily armed mounted knights. The Battle of Loudon Hill (1307) is a good example - look at the map: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Loudoun_Hill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Loudoun_Hill 'Crossing the T' in a land battle! This battle was included at the end of the Netflix movie 'Outlaw King', which although it includes a fair number of inaccuracies is perhaps better than most and at least is reasonably close to what happened (which is more than I can say for some comparable more famous movies): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3G-n_t_JE8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3G-n_t_JE8
- koonsolo 6y agoNice that they mention the brave Flemish peasants ;). Although the picture of the goedendag (=good day) is incorrect! Flemish myself, in schools we learn about Battle of the Golden Spurs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Golden_Spurs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Golden_Spurs). It's probably the battle we are most proud of, because us peasants stood up against a fancy French army. As it was taught to me, we drove the enemy cavalry into a swamp, and were able to use our goedendag (accurate picture here: https://www.liebaart.org/figuren/goedendr.jpg https://www.liebaart.org/figuren/goedendr.jpg) to push them off their horses and pierce through the chain mail.
- georgianar 6y agoThis Man brought my Lover back In less than 3 days, i saw wonders, my Lover came back to me and my life got back just like a completed puzzle… am so happy.. thanks to Robinson.buckler@ {{yahoo}} com,, for saving my life. Mr Robinson is the best I’ve ever met! He also cured us from Herpes with his herbal remedy thanks ……https:// https:// r o b i n b u c k l e r. com…………^" _____________________________
- CaptArmchair 6y agoThis article is all over the place. > Confidence and determination and unusual resources also made it possible for groups of commoners to assert themselves during the post-plague period. In the 1300s, the Flemish cities organized themselves as disciplined forces and defeated noble-led armies. Bruges, for instance, had several advantages: it was a populous, rich trading city that could afford to resist the traditional ruling class if the right circumstances occurred; and indeed many citizens were willing to put their lives on the line to achieve their own vision of self-government. The townsmen of Flanders even adopted a scary and non-standard weapon, the goedendag – a combination of a short spear and long club. These commoners (many of whom by this time were more prosperous than earlier generations) had distinctive weaponry and a tactical protocol which made them an effective military and political factor. This refers to the 1302 Battle of the Golden Spurs where an army of footmen prevailed over a French army of knights. That victory was re-appropriated and romanticized in the 19th century as part of the national mythology of the young Belgian nation. The reality is far more complex and less rosy then how it is put here by the author. 14th century Flanders saw several uprising and rebellions. The count was also a feudal vazal to the French Crown. As such, the King sent several armies to appease the unruly county between 1302 and 1400, each time crushing those same footmen. Mons-en-Pévele, Roosebeke, Cassel are less known names for good reasons. As far as the French Crown was concerned, the county of Flanders and it's cities were a strategic pawn in a larger European feudal realm dominated by the conflict with England (Hundred's Years War). The wealth of the cities themselves came from the wool trade with England, and the trade with Southern Europe, later on, in particular, with Lombardy. For instance, the French Crown revoking trade with England was a direct cause of the Artevelde rebellion in 1339. Moreover, the cities themselves were semi-autonomous, held their own local political and economical interests, and were very much feuding with each other, or their liege lord, the Count of Flanders to preserve their own local autonomy, expand their economic interests and the ability to trade without getting excessively taxed by established feudal elites. In reality, those "disciplined forces" were militia's and warbands which were held together by tenuous alliances when facing the French Army; and would openly fight each other when push comes to shove. The Battle of Beverhoutsveld saw the cities of Bruges and Ghent facing each other off, whereas just 40 years prior, those same cities were allies in that same Artevelde rebellion against the French Crown. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Beverhoutsveld https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Beverhoutsveld The wealth and political power was truly concentrated with the city's patrician elites whereas the majority of citizens were illiterate menial workers with little say in governance of their city. They lived in precarious circumstances and any awareness of the wider political context was limited to their own personal social and economic situation. At best, they would support popular leaders who's interests were perceived as aligned with theirs. While Jacob van Artevelde was seen as a popular hero, he very much belonged to a wealthy urban economic elite who had, equally, every interest to reinstate the English wool trade. Finally, the Plague happened in the 1350's. Those same Flemish cities were already quite powerful in the late 13th century. And all of that is just barely scratching the surface of the historical complexity which gets skimped in this article. It's never a good idea to single sidedly focus on the military aspect and try to explain history from that point of view.
- koziserek 6y agohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x80hOR42szg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x80hOR42szg One of more reasonable youtubers analysing a video of one of the most entertaining/realistic video producers in the topic
- known 6y agoIRA was started by a Peasant and it defeated British 'Knights' And Pol pot was a Peasant and he defeated American 'Knights' https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pol_Pot https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pol_Pot https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Republican_Army_(1919%E2%80%931922) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Republican_Army_(1919%...
- thelastname 6y agoCzech Hussites did just that. Using primitive firearms and a clever strategy.
- ransom1538 6y ago[deleted]
- alkdjalsdjad 6y agoThat 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.
- ransom1538 6y agoI read your post, totally agree. I was so embarrassed i deleted it.
- b0rsuk 6y agoCrossbows 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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGUEqszHRwI
- ExcavateGrandMa 6y agoNever underestimate factorz that doesn't belong to an individual's resources The power of motivation! My friend.
- ashtonkem 6y agoI was actually trained in ~15th century longsword (modern term) fencing, in the Italian school. We actually had a drill called the "villains blow"[0] designed to deal with an untrained assailant attempting an overly strong top down blow. The basic story is that a peasant (villain basically means "poor" back in the day) has gotten their hands on a sword and would like to express their displeasure about how their life is going on you. It's scary how effective the drill is, during slow speed training you have to actually fight to slow the weapon down. At speed it'll end an engagement with one blow; someone chopped in the neck tends to stop fighting very quickly. In a sword fight between a trained person and an untrained person, the trained combatant will win convincingly the vast majority of the time. Beyond that there were fairly complex drills about fighting multiple opponents when unarmored, which we never practiced because it's a logistical nightmare. It can be done, but it's going to be very hard to pull off; you effectively have to move in a way to make your opponents interfere with each other. Doable, but since unarmored longsword fencing is a very high stakes game, chances are even if it works you're leaving with an interesting scar and perhaps fewer fingers than you started with. One manuscript (I forget which) had some section that basically said this "if you find yourself set upon by five or more peasants while in harness (hard plate), stand as you will and cut them down one by one". It is extremely hard to kill someone wearing full plate armor if they're standing and prepared. You either need overwhelming numbers, specialized weapons designed to defeat hard armor, or they need to be knocked down onto the ground first (there's a reason "he fell" was a euphemism for death in combat). Ideally (if you're not the knight), you'd like to see all three. This is what happened in Agincourt, where freaked out English archers (who wouldn't be ransomed if they lost) swarmed and drowned the exhausted French knights in the mud while beating them to death with hammers for good measure. As an aside, the difficulty of getting up in armor is vastly overstated[1]. Yes, plate armor is heavy, but any armor that you can't move in is a death trap, plus the vast majority of this stuff was worn by men who would be in fantastic shape, since fighting was their only job. The problem with plate armor isn't that it's impossible to get up in, the problem with plate armor is that it's impossible to get up when you're being opposed. Think less "I can't get up" and more "I can't get up with another guy on top of me trying to kill me". Plus while armor is heavy (50-60lbs isn't unusual), it's not that heavy; for comparison a typical Marine might carry 100-200lbs into Afghanistan. [0] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yTH0ADnBZg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yTH0ADnBZg [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzTwBQniLSc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzTwBQniLSc