8 ms·

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

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-unreasonable comparison today would be "could a civilian kill an armored vehicle?"

dimitrios1 6y ago
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?
- bilbo0s 6y ago
  Knights were mounted. Oftentimes on a mount that itself was armored. The armored vehicle analogy is apt.
  - dimitrios1 6y ago
    The 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 ago
      A modern civilian doesn’t need to penetrate a tank, just get it stuck and light it on fire.
      - fogihujy 6y ago
        The 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.
    - z3phyr 6y ago
      You need a disciplined pike wall that is so cohesive that it does not break! You dont get magical superpowers by just picking up a pike (like you wont become a good programmer by acquiring Borland Turbo C++). You need to train with your comrades.
- zrobotics 6y ago
  No, the comparison to an APC (armored personnel carrier) is apt- knights were armored enough to be nearly invulnerable to the weaponry a peasant would have access to. To compare to something modern, I'm sure enough street protestors would be able to disable an APC and kill the soldiers inside at least some of the time, but the soldiers in the APC could likely win the 40:9000 battle cited in the article. Remember that knights had the height of military technology, this was an age where any iron tool was still extremely valuable. The only thing that would hamper modern soldiers is that from everything I have read medieval knights weren't possessed with any qualms about killing; life in general was much more violent than we experience now. For more reading about this mindset, acoup.blog [0] has an excellent review of Bertrand de Born's work. What struck me is just how casual violence is treated, and that war is a treated as the expected normal condition. The peasantry definitely did not hold these views, but given that the nobility had a vast armament advantage and copious experience in killing I doubt many modern soldiers would be quite so callous. The only modern exception I can think of is child soldiers; but they have been subjected to abuse specifically to train them to be able to commit horrific acts. Maybe I am wrong, but I don't think most soldiers in modern militaries would easily be able to slaughter their countrymen with quite the same abandon. This is speculation, but I suspect that the nobles were able to do this because they viewed the peasantry as semi-subhuman; see the American antebellum south for the types of atrocities that that mindset enables. [0] https://acoup.blog/2020/04/16/collections-a-trip-through-bertran-de-born-martial-values-in-the-12th-century-occitan-nobility/ https://acoup.blog/2020/04/16/collections-a-trip-through-ber...
  - jbay808 6y ago
    Tiennanmen square would be a case in point. I believe that they brought in troops from other areas, because they were alienated enough from the citizens of the city, and the local garrison wouldn't have shot their own neighbours and families.
    - johannes1234321 6y ago
      I might be wrong, but I believe the only soldiers hurt were not on tanks, but foot soldiers after leaving the transport vehicles. However this doesn't fit the "A peasant vs. a Knight" comaprison. A huge mass can also easily stop and defeat a knight.
- questionfor 6y ago
  with an airsoft gun probably :)
User23 6y ago
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_armor_and_effectiveness_in_medieval_age/ https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2z7t3k/plate...
- HarryHirsch 6y ago
  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.
  - medium_burrito 6y ago
    Peut-etre fondue et racelette est la vraie potion magique?
    - lifeisstillgood 6y ago
      Maybe fondue and hard cheese is the true magic potion. So even my bad French can get the translation - it what does it mean? :-) It smells like something out of Asterix - but what is the quote from?
      - medium_burrito 6y ago
        Not a quote, just an Asterix reference- the savage tribes fighting off the (Holy) Roman Empire. Would be unseemly to make it in English.
        lifeisstillgood 6y ago
        Thank you:-)
  - nl 6y ago
    Polearms were always very effective against mounted troops, if they were disciplined enough to use them together. Even in the Napoleonic wars the best defence against cavalry was the square with soldiers using bayonets on their muskets.
JshWright 6y ago
> 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?
- hutzlibu 6y ago
  Only if the civilian has a rpg or IED and then he probably would not be a civilian anymore, but a specialized guerilla fighter, if he manages to take out a modern tank.
  - egsmi 6y ago
    A shovel can be a surprisingly effective weapon if properly employed. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tank_trench https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tank_trench
  - tachyonbeam 6y ago
    OTOH you can also trap an armored vehicle into a hole or mud pit, and the people inside can't stay in there forever, there is also such a thing as a molotov cocktail.
  - taneq 6y ago
    So a civilian can't kill an armoured vehicle, because if they can kill an armoured vehicle they aren't a civilian?
    - tshaddox 6y ago
      That’s not so crazy, is it? “Civilian” is used in the thought experiment to refer to an expected level of training, experience, and equipment. You wouldn’t reasonably expect a “civilian” in this context to have an RPG or an attack aircraft. The clear point of the thought experiment is “would a civilian be able to kill an armored vehicle with the level of training, experience, and equipment that would reasonably be expected of a civilian in this context?”
      - 6y ago
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
zrobotics 6y ago
Huge thing is mindset- one thing the Total War series got extremely right was shock value and the ability to win battles by routing opponents. Getting charged with a horse would be terrifying (speaking from semi-experience, I've been charged by both bull moose and cattle). Nevermind the animal also having someone on top of it armed to the teeth, I can easily understand running away in terror. From my amateur research, this is one of the reasons the Romans were so effective- they weren't always better armed than their opponents, but their culture and training promoted better cohesion. Whereas in the scenario of a medieval peasant facing a knight, even negating the shock value of being charged by mounted troops the knight likely just has far more experience in battle and is less likely to rout. Every peasant revolt I've read about seemed to end with the nobles riding the fleeing peasants down and stabbing them in the backs. Makes one reconsider the modern connotation of the word 'noble', although maybe it was a bit of a euphemism even back then. I know chivalry was much more of an ideal than a creed people actually followed.
- jacobolus 6y ago
  My impression is that chivalry was more about relations between nobles than anything to do with peasants. Feudal lords have pretty much always taken whatever liberties they like with the local people: rape, theft, property destruction, murder, torture, kidnapping, ... Medieval knights were little different than the thug soldiers of any modern criminal gang, except less checked by state power.
  - questionfor 6y ago
    Barbara Tuchman’s “A Distant Mirror” portrays feudal wars as essentially raids to kill some of your neighbor’s peasants rather than your neighbor (who was most likely your relative)
- speeder 6y ago
  Nobility was nobility because they did stuff that didn't get them (directly) paid. Defense, research, some higher level medicine, engineering, etc... They would get money from rents, but were expected to spend that money in weapons, equipment for their civilian profession if they had any (for example building a telescope) etc... And of course it worked MOST of the time, but not ALL the time, sometimes you had people that became infamous, like that "vampire" lady that killed a ton of random people to bathe in their blood...
unnouinceput 6y ago
*could a civilian kill an AI controlled armored vechicle" - something along the lines of T800 from Terminator movie.
ashtonkem 6y ago
That's actually why knights armor was shiny. Remember that this is before chrome and stainless steel; shiny armor means that the armor is steel and maintained at high expense. The knowledge that you've got to go against someone wearing the best armor that the era can provide is going to be a huge blow to morale.

dimitrios1 6y ago

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?

bilbo0s 6y ago
Knights were mounted. Oftentimes on a mount that itself was armored. The armored vehicle analogy is apt.
- dimitrios1 6y ago
  The 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 ago
    A modern civilian doesn’t need to penetrate a tank, just get it stuck and light it on fire.
    - fogihujy 6y ago
      The 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.
  - z3phyr 6y ago
    You need a disciplined pike wall that is so cohesive that it does not break! You dont get magical superpowers by just picking up a pike (like you wont become a good programmer by acquiring Borland Turbo C++). You need to train with your comrades.
zrobotics 6y ago
No, the comparison to an APC (armored personnel carrier) is apt- knights were armored enough to be nearly invulnerable to the weaponry a peasant would have access to. To compare to something modern, I'm sure enough street protestors would be able to disable an APC and kill the soldiers inside at least some of the time, but the soldiers in the APC could likely win the 40:9000 battle cited in the article. Remember that knights had the height of military technology, this was an age where any iron tool was still extremely valuable. The only thing that would hamper modern soldiers is that from everything I have read medieval knights weren't possessed with any qualms about killing; life in general was much more violent than we experience now. For more reading about this mindset, acoup.blog [0] has an excellent review of Bertrand de Born's work. What struck me is just how casual violence is treated, and that war is a treated as the expected normal condition. The peasantry definitely did not hold these views, but given that the nobility had a vast armament advantage and copious experience in killing I doubt many modern soldiers would be quite so callous. The only modern exception I can think of is child soldiers; but they have been subjected to abuse specifically to train them to be able to commit horrific acts. Maybe I am wrong, but I don't think most soldiers in modern militaries would easily be able to slaughter their countrymen with quite the same abandon. This is speculation, but I suspect that the nobles were able to do this because they viewed the peasantry as semi-subhuman; see the American antebellum south for the types of atrocities that that mindset enables. [0] https://acoup.blog/2020/04/16/collections-a-trip-through-bertran-de-born-martial-values-in-the-12th-century-occitan-nobility/ https://acoup.blog/2020/04/16/collections-a-trip-through-ber...
- jbay808 6y ago
  Tiennanmen square would be a case in point. I believe that they brought in troops from other areas, because they were alienated enough from the citizens of the city, and the local garrison wouldn't have shot their own neighbours and families.
  - johannes1234321 6y ago
    I might be wrong, but I believe the only soldiers hurt were not on tanks, but foot soldiers after leaving the transport vehicles. However this doesn't fit the "A peasant vs. a Knight" comaprison. A huge mass can also easily stop and defeat a knight.
questionfor 6y ago
with an airsoft gun probably :)

User23 6y ago

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_armor_and_effectiveness_in_medieval_age/ https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2z7t3k/plate...

HarryHirsch 6y ago
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.
- medium_burrito 6y ago
  Peut-etre fondue et racelette est la vraie potion magique?
  - lifeisstillgood 6y ago
    Maybe fondue and hard cheese is the true magic potion. So even my bad French can get the translation - it what does it mean? :-) It smells like something out of Asterix - but what is the quote from?
    - medium_burrito 6y ago
      Not a quote, just an Asterix reference- the savage tribes fighting off the (Holy) Roman Empire. Would be unseemly to make it in English.
      - lifeisstillgood 6y ago
        Thank you:-)
- nl 6y ago
  Polearms were always very effective against mounted troops, if they were disciplined enough to use them together. Even in the Napoleonic wars the best defence against cavalry was the square with soldiers using bayonets on their muskets.

JshWright 6y ago

> 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?

hutzlibu 6y ago
Only if the civilian has a rpg or IED and then he probably would not be a civilian anymore, but a specialized guerilla fighter, if he manages to take out a modern tank.
- egsmi 6y ago
  A shovel can be a surprisingly effective weapon if properly employed. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tank_trench https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tank_trench
- tachyonbeam 6y ago
  OTOH you can also trap an armored vehicle into a hole or mud pit, and the people inside can't stay in there forever, there is also such a thing as a molotov cocktail.
- taneq 6y ago
  So a civilian can't kill an armoured vehicle, because if they can kill an armoured vehicle they aren't a civilian?
  - tshaddox 6y ago
    That’s not so crazy, is it? “Civilian” is used in the thought experiment to refer to an expected level of training, experience, and equipment. You wouldn’t reasonably expect a “civilian” in this context to have an RPG or an attack aircraft. The clear point of the thought experiment is “would a civilian be able to kill an armored vehicle with the level of training, experience, and equipment that would reasonably be expected of a civilian in this context?”
    - 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

zrobotics 6y ago

Huge thing is mindset- one thing the Total War series got extremely right was shock value and the ability to win battles by routing opponents. Getting charged with a horse would be terrifying (speaking from semi-experience, I've been charged by both bull moose and cattle). Nevermind the animal also having someone on top of it armed to the teeth, I can easily understand running away in terror. From my amateur research, this is one of the reasons the Romans were so effective- they weren't always better armed than their opponents, but their culture and training promoted better cohesion. Whereas in the scenario of a medieval peasant facing a knight, even negating the shock value of being charged by mounted troops the knight likely just has far more experience in battle and is less likely to rout. Every peasant revolt I've read about seemed to end with the nobles riding the fleeing peasants down and stabbing them in the backs. Makes one reconsider the modern connotation of the word 'noble', although maybe it was a bit of a euphemism even back then. I know chivalry was much more of an ideal than a creed people actually followed.

jacobolus 6y ago
My impression is that chivalry was more about relations between nobles than anything to do with peasants. Feudal lords have pretty much always taken whatever liberties they like with the local people: rape, theft, property destruction, murder, torture, kidnapping, ... Medieval knights were little different than the thug soldiers of any modern criminal gang, except less checked by state power.
- questionfor 6y ago
  Barbara Tuchman’s “A Distant Mirror” portrays feudal wars as essentially raids to kill some of your neighbor’s peasants rather than your neighbor (who was most likely your relative)
speeder 6y ago
Nobility was nobility because they did stuff that didn't get them (directly) paid. Defense, research, some higher level medicine, engineering, etc... They would get money from rents, but were expected to spend that money in weapons, equipment for their civilian profession if they had any (for example building a telescope) etc... And of course it worked MOST of the time, but not ALL the time, sometimes you had people that became infamous, like that "vampire" lady that killed a ton of random people to bathe in their blood...

unnouinceput 6y ago

*could a civilian kill an AI controlled armored vechicle" - something along the lines of T800 from Terminator movie.

ashtonkem 6y ago

That's actually why knights armor was shiny. Remember that this is before chrome and stainless steel; shiny armor means that the armor is steel and maintained at high expense. The knowledge that you've got to go against someone wearing the best armor that the era can provide is going to be a huge blow to morale.