5 ms·

One 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

by defen 6y ago

One 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 ago
Have 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 ago
  I'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 ago
    There 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 ago
Knights 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.
- motoboi 6y ago
  Yes, they did. Lot of physical demanding tasks, but no, they were in a almost constant state of sub nutrition to be stronger that a modern working class person.
  - creativityEng 6y ago
    It should be noted that practicing hard movements will train the PNS to fire all at the same time. No extra muscle necessary.
questionfor 6y ago
I always wonder how much a liability a horse was during medieval combat. Sure speed and maneuverability are great but up close it seems that horse is quite vulnerable to attacks on the legs for example with long bladed weapons. You can’t really protect horse’s legs with armor
- varjag 6y ago
  Horse is a large animal IRL, killing it or even seriously injuring with a blade is not trivial. And when there's a knight with a lance or a longsword on top, you might not even get one shot at it.
- watwut 6y ago
  You can leave the horse behind and continue by walk if you think it gives you advantage. The speed and maneuverability here is not just about during combat, but mostly about ability to do long term plan and maneuver.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- Sander_Marechal 6y ago
  Being the target of a cavalry charge is absolutely terrifying even for hardened soldiers. There is very little chance of fighting effectively when everyone around you is fleeing or being pressed together. And you're being charged by a 2-ton armored war machine. Or dozens of them. I'm a reenactor. It's even terrifying when you know it's fake and you know you're safe. Knights did loose horses though. They all took multiple war horses with them to battle (a "lance" usually consisted of one knight, multiple warhorses and a regular horse for travel/supplies and several servants). When they lost their horse, they fought their way back to their own side and got on the next horse.
  - questionfor 6y ago
    > When they lost their horse, they fought their way back to their own side and got on the next horse. Oh interesting, so it was basically expected? Not a force majeure? I always thought losing a horse back then was a really big event for the knight, borderline tragic - a big financial loss, a highly increased likelihood of dying (getting stuck under the horse etc etc)
koonsolo 6y ago
That's why the peasants in the battle of the golden spurs used a river to make a swamp. Which took the advantage away from the cavalry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Golden_Spurs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Golden_Spurs
- Cthulhu_ 6y ago
  Famously redone in 1939 or 1940 in the Netherlands to try and slow down the German invasion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Netherlands#Dutch_defensive_strategy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Netherlands#Dutc...) ; actually TIL the system was built in the 17th century.
Balgair 6y ago
A good counter example is the Battle of Poitiers in 1356. There, the English archers not only defeated the French nobility in melee' but captured a good many of them, a total catastrophe for France. Though this battle may be the exception that proves the rule, more than anything. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Poitiers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Poitiers
- justin66 6y ago
  The English similarly defeated France at the prior Battle of Crécy, as well. They are not great counterexamples in the "Knight vs Peasant" argument because you're talking about an entire English army led by an English prince. In the slightly larger-scope argument of knights vs footmen in combat, sure, it's a very good example.

by defen 6y ago

m_mueller 6y ago

Have 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 ago
I'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 ago
  There 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 ago

Knights 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.

motoboi 6y ago
Yes, they did. Lot of physical demanding tasks, but no, they were in a almost constant state of sub nutrition to be stronger that a modern working class person.
- creativityEng 6y ago
  It should be noted that practicing hard movements will train the PNS to fire all at the same time. No extra muscle necessary.

questionfor 6y ago

I always wonder how much a liability a horse was during medieval combat. Sure speed and maneuverability are great but up close it seems that horse is quite vulnerable to attacks on the legs for example with long bladed weapons. You can’t really protect horse’s legs with armor

varjag 6y ago
Horse is a large animal IRL, killing it or even seriously injuring with a blade is not trivial. And when there's a knight with a lance or a longsword on top, you might not even get one shot at it.
watwut 6y ago
You can leave the horse behind and continue by walk if you think it gives you advantage. The speed and maneuverability here is not just about during combat, but mostly about ability to do long term plan and maneuver.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
Sander_Marechal 6y ago
Being the target of a cavalry charge is absolutely terrifying even for hardened soldiers. There is very little chance of fighting effectively when everyone around you is fleeing or being pressed together. And you're being charged by a 2-ton armored war machine. Or dozens of them. I'm a reenactor. It's even terrifying when you know it's fake and you know you're safe. Knights did loose horses though. They all took multiple war horses with them to battle (a "lance" usually consisted of one knight, multiple warhorses and a regular horse for travel/supplies and several servants). When they lost their horse, they fought their way back to their own side and got on the next horse.
- questionfor 6y ago
  > When they lost their horse, they fought their way back to their own side and got on the next horse. Oh interesting, so it was basically expected? Not a force majeure? I always thought losing a horse back then was a really big event for the knight, borderline tragic - a big financial loss, a highly increased likelihood of dying (getting stuck under the horse etc etc)

koonsolo 6y ago

That's why the peasants in the battle of the golden spurs used a river to make a swamp. Which took the advantage away from the cavalry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Golden_Spurs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Golden_Spurs

Cthulhu_ 6y ago
Famously redone in 1939 or 1940 in the Netherlands to try and slow down the German invasion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Netherlands#Dutch_defensive_strategy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Netherlands#Dutc...) ; actually TIL the system was built in the 17th century.

Balgair 6y ago

A good counter example is the Battle of Poitiers in 1356. There, the English archers not only defeated the French nobility in melee' but captured a good many of them, a total catastrophe for France. Though this battle may be the exception that proves the rule, more than anything. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Poitiers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Poitiers

justin66 6y ago
The English similarly defeated France at the prior Battle of Crécy, as well. They are not great counterexamples in the "Knight vs Peasant" argument because you're talking about an entire English army led by an English prince. In the slightly larger-scope argument of knights vs footmen in combat, sure, it's a very good example.