Submitted by autism_guy_69 t3_zjw9dr in history
Hyphenated_Gorilla t1_izx44j2 wrote
Reply to comment by Regulai in How many knights in Armor would be on a battle field? by autism_guy_69
The Tapestry are as much propaganda as it is history, chainmail is time consuming to make, up to a YEAR for a single suit. Hides, padded armor, wooden and even layered clothing were the most common.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sw2UDtU2SgM
I had to respond to your nonsense about Knights being impossible to kill as well, Maces/Morning stars changed that game immensely while ropes wold be used as well. Yes you have decent mobility however it's still limited. Yes I've fought in it.
Regulai t1_izxapq7 wrote
It's just one example, but it's highly universal to most depictions.
Yes it's time consuming but this is the medieval era, everything is time consuming to make and labour is cheap, and we aren't even getting to the used and handed down armor. Hides and wood would not at all have been common armour outside very specific cases (usually nomadic groups). Gambeson was worn, but by literally everyone.
For the most part peasants don't fight (outside rebellion), it's literally a big part of the whole deal with being a peasant. Foot soldiers would have mostly been part of a knight/warriors entourage (servants, yeomen and otherwise) generally of a higher "middle" class and wealth then peasants even if they aren't nobles.
And don't be so pedantic about knight durability. Obviously you can kill a knight but there is a radical difference in how easy it was once plate came into being while they are actively defending themselves. And even in earlier era's there are numerous great examples showcasing just how absurdly durable knights were; for example in many famous crusader defeats, you can find that the number of executed after battles closely lines up with total number of knights, furthermore defeat most commonly came because they literally got too exhausted to move, rather than because too many of them had died.
Hyphenated_Gorilla t1_izxbfy3 wrote
Peasants were used as shock troops as were slaves by pretty much every civilization, they were used to wear down the other side, life had little meaning for most of history.
It still does not in much of the world.
Overall you cannot view history from our lens, it's not realistic.
You cannot say "Well labor was cheap" skill was not so common and they simply did not have the time and the resources to do what you and many historians claim.
Moreover it belies the fact that propaganda and exaggeration served to better the Empire. "Look, they have this many fully armored men" no probably a fraction at best. Writings were also used to pump up their nobility, think of basically most of history filled with Ego's larger than life.
Norumbega-GameMaster t1_izxnx4z wrote
The only time medieval peasants went into direct combat was when they were in open rebellion, or when they were defending their hometowns. They would not have traveled with an organized military force as they would be more a hinderance than a help from a logistics perspective.
And the idea that life had little meaning is just not accurate.
War_Hymn t1_j02m3xj wrote
>And the idea that life had little meaning is just not accurate.
I mean for one, peasants were valuable as agricultural workers on a medieval noble's estate. It seems unwise to throw their lives away in battle when they could better used at home tending the crops and making you income.
Norumbega-GameMaster t1_j03yhgk wrote
The idea that historically people have only been valued for their economic worth is a very limited and foolish reading of History.
War_Hymn t1_j04hbkl wrote
I'm just making a pragmatic counter point against the poster saying that the lives of the common people were meaningless. Obviously, people were more than just economic resources.
Regulai t1_izxd20x wrote
First we are talking about a particular time period and secondly...
no... just no.
Yes in many other historical periods or regions levying pesants and slaves was common, however there are few if any accounts of them being used as some kind of suicide softening force....
They might have been used as skirmishers to throw javelins/rocks but wouldn't be expected to fight in close combat...
The closest parables might be the Turks who would use a defense in depth strategy however the slave soldiers were there elites not the sacrifices, or the pre-marian Romans who had there youngest in the first row, but these were middleclass children not poor. The poor wern't even allowed to join the army.
War_Hymn t1_j02pdqn wrote
And even when these peasant-based military forces did exist, the people fielding them eventually realize they were not ideal when fighting had to be done away from the homeland or for an extended time, and start to establish smaller but better trained/equipped forces to replace or supplement them. We see that transition happen in the Heian period of Japan (which saw the rise of the samurai warrior class) and Eastern Han in China.
In the case of early Republican Rome, a free citizen had to have wealth and property amounting to at least 150 drachmae (a silver drachmae at the time amounted to one day's wages for a skilled labourer) to be even considered for military service.
Even with the English archers in the Hundred Years War, most were middle-class gentry/well-to-do peasantry who had the means and income to afford their own military equipment and time to train for war/fight on extended campaign. Or were part of a noble's military retinue who was provided with equipment and income by their liege. With the latter, it'll be rather poor standing for a noble at the time to bring a band of poorly armed, rag-tattered peasants to a fight instead of a loyal/trusted, well-equipped and trained band of retainers.
Imtiredcanistop t1_izy5hnv wrote
As I’ve said before, the English Long bowmen butchered the gentry, it was part of the reason the English won at Agincourt
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments