@Metatron so my buddy and I were arguing about which Empire would win in a conflict (assuming they were the only two left on earth) between the Aztecs and the Romans. PLEASE tell us what you think. I say the Romans and he says the Aztecs. When I ask why he doesnt give a straight answer. Help us out brah! :D
I hate tooting my own horn, but you're correct about farmers. We tend to have very heavy physical work (even with modern machinery) and long work days. When I was in the army, people wer surprised how strong and resilent I was, despite being alot more thinner than most guys. And I remember how tough my grandpa was, who was a farmer with even less machine equipment. Farm life creates certain type of resilence
And I'm just a lowly carpenter. And look at us! Using computers n shit! Brawn AND enough brains to use the right tool for the right job.......who'da thunk?😄
@@colmhain Yep, we cut our hands, sweat under weight, and step on manure, yet after a long day, we can smile proudly. ANd we are thought to be dumb by people working in offices, who hate their jobs. Odd life, huh? Honestly, I'm grateful for youtubers like Metatron and Shad, who talk about history while adding the context that helps breaking the misconceptions. This video is prime example of that.
What you say is true to an extent, but in war even if a city slicker is not quite as resilient to begin with, within two to three weeks he will be on par. A U.S. army veteran in the artillery in Vietnam in 1967.
The People of the land, farmers are often mocked as hillbillies and simpletons but they are the most adaptable people, because of their relative isolation they have to know how to do everything on top of being experts in livestock or agriculture and working insane hours. They are the backbone of human civilization and we really should have more appreciation for their contribution to society. I'm from France and here there is big problem with suicide among farmers because their life is so hard and they constantly have the banks breathing down their necks, it's a massive disgrace that almost no one talks about. I tip my hat to Farmers everywhere, you guys and gals are legendary.😎
@@WJS774 That will happen about the time people figure out that being educated beyond their intelligence does not mean that other people don't have the right to fight back if they try to kill them. Yeah I just told on myself what country I'm in.
I like how in movies, when there is a battle going on, both sides just charge like idiots with no plan at all and then fight in a big pool of mud on a dark and cloudy day (because, of course, in medieval times everything was dark and dirty). Oh yeah, and the only wapon they use is a two handed sword.
@@mpetersen6 Naah, these days the king is one of the cool guys with working class street cred, he's just as covered in shit as the peasants and shares their burdens. And if you do see a noble without shit over him, he's the bad guy.
When I was a drill sergeant, i tasked some recruits with removing a boulder. They went at it with a sledgehammer for 15 minutes with no results. Finally, another recruit, a 164cm bull of a man, grabbed the hammer and broke the boulder in three swings. Yes, he was the only peasant around. Farm hands can be freakishly strong next to us city boys.
Its not just strength. Its knowing where to hit. Seeing the "chips" fly off ... seeing how big they are. It doesnt take an 5 minute examination. Its just simple experience. One glance and somehow you know where to hit that thing.
@@kaitan4160 actually there is i have worked i construction for about 15 years and one of the first things you have to teach the green guys is how to swing a hammer. Everyone thinks they know how to swing a hammer because it's such a basic tool but like many things people that work with basic tools on a daily basis know better how to use them. Most commonly people try to grip too high up on the hammer handle because i assume they don't feel comfortable gripping the end of the handle being accurate with their swing. This seems to apply even more to sledge hammers because of the heavier weight. The next most common thing is people wearing themselves out trying to swing the hammer up and down. They don't realize you only raise a hammer up and guide it down and let it do all the hammering with it's own weight. So yes I would say there is a learning curve to the sledge hammer also besides just how to swing it where you hit a rock to break it would be more obvious if you've demoed rocks or stone before
what always blows my mind is that no one questions the capability of the Greek hoplite but they are literally levied troops so why would anyone think the European levies would be any less skilled
The reason is that the Hoplit was basicly a professional Soldier under Alexander the great and this version of the Hoplite is the most visual today. It is basicly the same with a roman legionaries the earlier ones were mediocore soldiers - in later times ca.100-200 b.c. they were the best soldiers of their time.
I'd also note that these "peasants" were men who had to defend themselves, their property, and their families without being able to call on professional Police. Law enforcement was almost entirely about securing noble privileges and resources, not ensuring the common people were safe walking down the streets. A peasant man whose family was being threatened by criminals was not just going to let his women be raped, his cattle stolen, or his home burned down. He didn't just call for the "guards" that didn't exist. No, he grabbed tools and used them. Just as importantly, in most communities, every other man would be rushing to his aid as soon as possible. This is why the most common form of "criminal" we hear about are bandits on the road, ambushing lone travelers. A thief stealing from a town would soon have the town on him and a peasant farmer would have many people around keen not to see their friend harmed. Above all, Medieval folklore and histories are full of stories of "commoners" causing havoc when roused, and the reason would be that a strong man with a big stick who thinks it is worth his while to fight is dangerous.
@@undertakernumberone1 exactly with the Age of Enlightenment squeezed in. There was a vested interest by various academia to disparage the Middle Ages to make their own times seem much better and more enlightened in comparison
@@Gundalf_the_Gray probably made a version without tomato sauce. My Sicilian grandma had at least a dozen non-red sauce based pasta dishes (not lasagna). There was one with olive oil, garden veggies (seasonal) and garlic. Lots of garlic. That is why all the vampires when to Transylvania.
That's absolutely true! My father is 58 and a farmer, and you should see him: still has muscles, is strong like a bull, runs/jumps like an athlete, and waves his machete like a master. If my father is remotely similar to those ol' peasants, then you would not mess with them.
Some people: "Peasant infantry was a joke!" Templar Sergeants, Men-at-arms, pretty much the entire English yeoman class, almogavars: "Are we ALL a joke to you?"
The Moldavian peasants were well equipped, well trained soldiers. They kicked Ottoman ass several times. Like in this fine example : ua-cam.com/video/CKFhubbLQd0/v-deo.html
Yeomen weren't peasants, but land owners. Actual peasants were mostly what we'd call "farm hands", today. Neither were most men-at-arms or Templar sergeants; they were commoners, and often farmers, but usually not of the peasant class.
@@erikjrn4080 IIRC, peasant doesn't *necessarily* preclude land ownership, though does still imply tenancy. I do apologize, as I was using "peasant" as a catchall for commoners (which frankly I should've known better than to do, by now, but I suppose I was just being a bit lazy).
Medieval soldiers were recruited in 9 different ways and they were far from idiots with pitchforks. - The Royal Household - Retinues, retainers, household, _suite_ and _affinity_ - By indenture - Commission of array and the Arrière-ban - Feudal obligation - Voluntary service - Distraint - Mercenaries - Criminals serving without receiving the king’s pay to get a pardon - _‘a ses custages propres’_ *The Royal household* from 1392-93 as an example, was made up of: - 11 Officers - Steward - Chamberlain - Controller of the household - Keeper of the wardrobe - Cofferer - Keeper of the privy seal - Secretary - Almoner - Physician - Surgeon - Dean of the royal chapel - 8 Chamber knights - 25 Clerks - 3 Sergeants-at-arms - 17 Sergeants of offices - 101 Esquires - 10 Huntsmen - 20 Valets of the chamber - 89 Valets of the stables - 80 Valets and messengers - 53 Grooms - 14 Carters - 2 Cleaners Total 433 men. Everyone on the list above from the 7 leading officers to esquires were usually men-at-arms serving as mounted lancers. The rest served as mounted archers in addition to doing their daily tasks and crafts, riding either a hobby or hackney to war. There were often additional menial members as well, serving as foot archers. Edward II had 450-500 men in his household. Edward III had more than 800 men. *The household of lords, earls and dukes.* - Steward - Chaplain - Almoner - Keeper of the wardrobe - Clerk of the kitchen - Receivers of the lords’ manors - Marshal of the stables - Cofferer - The lord’s secretary Armed retainers: - Knights - Esquires - Gentlemen - Valets - Grooms Menial members such as: - Gardener - Slaughterer - Baker - Brewer - Candle-maker - Farrier - Blacksmith - Poulterer - Messengers - Servants When a lord went to war, the household would follow him as men-at-arms, mounted archers and foot archers, billmen and valets, usually down to the lowest servants and craftsmen if they were eligible. They had his livery and maintenance. A lord would usually keep kin, friends and allies in key offices and as armed retainers, his _affinity._ Armed retainers were often younger sons from the gentry without expectations to inherit. This entire group, including menial members were known as _familia._ The size of a household varied. The earl of Devon had a household of 132 men in 1384. The bishop of Ely had 83. John of Gaunt had a household of 115 and a further 150 armed retainers to serve him in need. Thomas, earl of Lancaster had a household of 708 men, but he had 5 earldoms and 2 baronies and an income of £11,000 in 1311. *Recruitment by indenture* was men serving on contracts - often 6 months, sometimes longer. Lords, knights and esquires were granted a commission to gather soldiers on the king’s behalf. The first men to be indentured by a lord would usually be his permanent armed retainers and menial members of the household, the _familia._ Additional soldiers to reach quotas were recruited from the gentry, yeomen, franklin and husbandman class, usually on or in proximity to his land. The household, retainers and indentured men as one group was known as _suite,_ - 'what follows'. These _"peasants"_ were free men and would usually have between £3 to £7 as income per year, and were far above serfs and villeins in status. *Commission of array* is the recruitment of every able-bodied men between 15 and 60 years of age. The king would grant a commission to a knight or esquire to muster the men, often local gentry. Other times it was done by the sheriff or other officials. In reality it was a selection process, and they would only take the best archers and the best armoured men for campaign, but if the task at hand was to repel invaders, every suitable man would be selected. While the indenture process made sure soldiers with horses and good armour served the local lord, the commission of array, on the other hand, made sure soldiers of lower status (yeomen, husbandmen, franklins, free men), made the cut as armoured footmen (armati) and foot archers. It also made sure the large intermediate gentlemen class, merchants, men with a trade and rich artisans, between esquires with £20 per annum and yeomen with £3-7 per annum, did their part too. They usually served as armoured men (often known as armatii or armez) either in garrisons or on ships. They did not qualify as mounted lancers because they lacked the training and the right horses. Hobelars from free cities were often described as _de servito._ In 1341 the king’s council in England envisaged an expeditionary force of 10 earls, 49 bannerets, 589 knights, 1,946 men-at-arms, 1,012 _armati,_ 5,952 archers, 2,000 Welsh archers and 2,000 Welsh spearmen. A planed invasion of Brittany in 1342 was to include 2,000 _gentz armez_ with large lances and burnished bascinets. These armies never materialized. *Feudal obligation.* In theory all the land belonged to the king, but he granted the land to his _tenants-in-chief_ and knights in return for 40 days of service per year - _servitium debitum_ or ‘service owed’. *Voluntary service.* Some lords served at their own expense. By receiving pay they saw themselves as nothing more than mere mercenaries, and it challenged their perceived worth and independence. By 1337 an army entirely recruited by _indenture_ was sent by England to Scotland and everyone after this date was in theory _milites solidarii._ *Distraint.* During Henry III’s reign there was 24 writs on distraint of knighthood. The first came in 1224. This ordered every layman with a knight’s fee (approximately £12 per annum) to take up knighthood. In 1242 it was reissued, and now every layman owning land worth at least £20 a year had to take up knighthood. In 1253 this was reissued with the addition to pay a fine instead. Edward I changed the requirement for compulsory knights service in 1292 to £40. In reality, few men took up knighthood because of the economical burden and responsibilities, but nonetheless they fought as men-at-arms and held the title of esquires. Distraint in the sense of military service was payment of the fine for not taking up knighthood by prolonging the military service owed to the king instead. This practice was abolished by Edward III in 1352. The practice failed to bring them out to fight and only alienated the gentry. *Mercenaries.* In a broader sense, mercenaries were anyone receiving pay in return for military service - _milites solidarii._ That definition, however, is not really helpful when we want to distinguish them from previously mentioned recruitment options. They were usually foreign men without feudal obligation to the king, serving as soldiers for pay. Sought after mercenaries were specialists such as gunners and crossbowmen, but also other professionals such as men-at-arms and pikemen. English archers made a name for themselves, especially in Burgundy and in mercenary companies known as Free companies or Great companies. Other names were _Routiers_ and _Écorcheurs._ *Criminals* serving without receiving the king’s pay to get a pardon - _‘a ses custages propres’._ The person in question would have to hand over a fee for the issue of his charter of pardon. In England in 1346 it was 16s 4d. At the end of the Crécy campaign, Edward III besieged Calais. The total army serving over time numbered some 1,103 knights, 4,022 esquires, 5,104 mounted archers and vintenars, 500 hobelars, 15,480 English foot archers, 4,474 Welsh troops (approximately 50 % spearmen and 50 % foot archers) and 313 masons, carpenters and smiths etc., for a total of 30,996. More than one thousand of these were criminals offered a pardon for military service at the end of the siege. A great number of these were men-at-arms, contrary to most peoples' belief. This idea that medieval soldiers were ill-equipped serfs with pitchforks is a ridiculous idea. It is correct that some were poorly equipped, such as some of the archers and Welsh spearmen raised by commission of array, but they didn't _have to_ be well equipped. In general, soldiers were free men and chosen for service. They were well fed, well payed, well armed with bills, pikes and bows, and decently armoured with a helmet, hauberk/gambeson/jack, mail sleeves, standard/aventail/coif, gauntlets and even chausses. We even see poleyns quite often.
Also I'd like to see those smug idiots thinking they can take on these "Dumb filthy ill equip peasants" that are the Men Of Arms they expect to fight only to find that the first ones they encounter just so happen to be equip with some of the early fire arms of the time. "UrrrR God, heaven forbid they have gunpowder in the middle ages." I mean sure these fire arms weren't exactly developed enough yet to 1-hit a fully armored knight, but after the hellava-mark it would leave on the armor, the men behind them had just the right tools to open that up some more and finish them off.
Reading all that puts to mind that the levee system used in the game Crusader Kings 3, is rather bad if you are of a higher status such as Duke King or Emperor, since in the Feudal system the troops you would be calling together wouldn't only be your own man at arms and the realms levees but also the man at arms and retinue troops of your subject lords. It is rather silly at late game where 95% of your army is just stock levees and what ever your personal household troops may be.
This, is beautiful. I also would like to add, os that most people will ignore how dificult war truly is, they think is only "stupid peasents frontline with knights", but they forget the many aspects of it like strategy, troop moviment, supplies, logitics, etc. In their mind war is a quick battle that end on a day, not a dificult and complicated campaing with lot's and lot's of steps.
@@jonathanwessner3456 that's not the point. If you were a common villain, you prolly wouldn't have any armor at all, depending on era and locale, except for a helm and a shield. His point is, that in most movies, even plate is hacked through in one blow with a sword (not a bludgeoning weapon) swung like a baseball bat. When in reality, if it didn't work, they didn't use it.
I would love to know how the people who think peasants were poorly fed think those same peasants could work in the fields all day long six days a week if they were starving, They probably ate better in nutritional quality than many people do today because of all the garbage we eat. We have more options today, not necessarily better ones. It falls in line with the idea that Nobles always treated their peasants like dirt and barely left them scraps to eat, which would not be very smart on the Noble's part since happy and healthy peasants equal productive peasants which in turn equal more profit for the Noble. 😅
i think it was a bit of a back and forth on that one. they certainly ate but what they ate wasnt always too good, which is why diseases could be quick to take root. you could survive on nutrionally meagre meals, but when shit hits the fan it can go south real quick.
I'll try to find my source, but I remember reading that, from right before the Potato Famine, Irish peasants tended to be larger than their English lords because the potato has such a high concentration of nutrients.
a war longbow required much strenght, even 60kg of draft force (with one hand), and wealthy farmer were the basis of longbow elite archers, they can train all life, they work hard but they were able to eat plentifull calories, proteins, fats and vegetables. only the poorest or the commoners during a famine were malnourished. my grandma, from a small village high in the mountains, told me: when i was a child we didnt had money but our belly was always full (they had farmaland and pastures), so certanly most medieval farmers too.
Thats so true. I hate the common misconception, that nobles treated their subordinates like shit. Nobles were very intelligent and religious men and they were also restricted by law in many things. Of course they used their power position against the lower class, but can you really blame them? Today also big corporations have the upper hand against the lower class working man who has to do everything the boss says, because he has to feed his family and pay rent. Today we have the same thing going on like with the nobles. I could go on about this, but who cares lol
When I joined a reenactment group I felt a massive difference between my first day and even 2 months in. All newbies started on spears but even the vets were scared of us during line combat. During 1 on 1 and 2 on 2 events, we were trashed, but as little as 5 on 5 we held equal potential with anyone especially if led by someone experienced. Guess what I'm saying is, I assume everyone was trained before being sent off because even slight experience feels massive compared to holding a weapon for the first time. Also it feels like line combat severely evens out the playing field because no matter how good you are, most of the time you're killed by something you're not paying attention to. P.S. I can't imagine a lord sending untrained troops to battle. You'd lose the battle along with a bunch of tax payers
I had this exact same experience. Although going in I wanted to use a sword and shield, I can say now that spears are my favorite and I will always grab a spear over a sword if it’s not one on one
@@thecharmer5981*Probably like staring death in the eyes.* T__T I mean, just imagining myself in that situation, I wanna run. On one second the pokey stick seems to be over a meter away from you, *on the very next one it is poking your eye or throat out* _AND_ much faster and harder to see than a sword, WHICH IS ALREADY FAST AS FUCK!
@@arnowisp6244 well we usually have a side arm, like a dagger or short sword. It’s very interesting, generally the strategy is to knock away their spear and get In close enough to stab them with your side arm. The spears main advantage is its reach, but if you can get close enough then the only way they can get you is by striking with the shaft or a side arm. My strategy was to grab the shaft with a hand, move forward and try to strike them in the gut before they could react. If you have a shield it becomes much easier, as rushing and using the shield to knock away the spear is a very effective strategy in one on one combat
Thank you for giving a detailed explanation of Medieval soldiers. The movies likes to give the idea of a highly skilled warrior chopping through enemies who are little better than scarecrows. There is also the person with toothpicks for arms who's a skilled archer. Popular cinema and reality don't seem to mix.
You can blame the Victorians for the bad reputation of the medieval era. Indeed that reputation got carried forward, and it is only recently that historians and archeologists have the evidence and data to debunk most of those myths. The industrial revolution really inflated their egos and made them way too cocky.
IMO, a lot of that misinformation comes from what I call the Century of Myths, aka 19th Century. Soooooo many "common truths" about ancient and medieval times were pronounced by European intellectuals so sure of their own superiority.
@@kamaeq It unironically has to do with a lot of anti-Catholic bias in the English speaking world. Even as England and the US were relatively cosmopolitan, up into the 20th century there was incredible distrust and hatred for Catholics, which led to a lot of mythologizing a shittier version of the middle ages, this combined with an increasingly non religious, and by extension increasingly suspicious of religion, academic class spent more time confirming their own anti-religious, anti-Catholic biases by making up objectively false narratives about historical events (such as the complete fabrication that is the common telling how why Galileo was arrested, it was for calling the pope a sniveling moron, not because he proposed helio centrism, or the portrayal of catholic courts as kangaroo courts, despite them actually being the method that carried roman ideals of a fair trial from the classical era into the modern one). 19th century English speakers believed this because they were protestant, moderns believe it because they are desperate to expunge the important role religion played in the establishment of many modern, and well respected institutions.
@@GR20000 I'll give that one a point, although perhaps with a bit less weight because similar narratives were used against Jews. Not so much against Protestants generally, but the lack of a strong central authority gives more play to compromise and Protestants who didn't compromise were also vilified. The Enlightenment period actually set science back as in the rush to return to the Greek original documents, centuries of research were discarded. The 19th Century was plagued by the rise of those who must deny Deity by all means, elevating the State, Science or both (mainly for nonscientific types of science) to the position of Deity. The threads of these myths can be traced through the 20th Century into this one. That would be a longer discussion than UA-cam comments could handle. I do thank you though, I hadn't specifically considered anti-Catholicism as one of the threads involved. Merry Christmas
@@kamaeq For once, the Victorians only have PART of hte blame. The Renaissance started with "those stupid medieval morons are just so dumb compared to the shining antiquity and our rediscovery of it's beacon of wisdom!" That created the trend.
@@undertakernumberone1 We also got "thinking God's thoughts after Him" from that period. The key is the rejection of God and the arrogance to think people of other times and places are inferior, which occurs in the 19th Century. It wasn't just the Victorian Brits, it spanned Western culture. The Victorians and Germans are often just more obvious, but the French jumped in early during the late 18th during their revolution.
They seem to forget that most villages had a Sgt at Arms, and were REQUIRED to attend weekly training if they were part of the troop levy. The Sgt was a fully trained soldier, who gave these people basic practice in tactics and weapons. They may not have been professional soldiers, but, they were trained in fighting. Especially the archers
said sargeant at arms is usually the village elder himself or a relative (e.g son, brother, cousin) who has returned to the village as a veteran from a conflict, they're also responsible for arming and armoring their respective lord's levies and would be given a portion of what the taxman collected from the village, (although this does depend on how greedy or pragmatic a land's lord is) of which is probably why the perception of levied soldiers being barely armed untrained peasants are because a common occurence would be the Sgt-at-arms would be a bastard and pocket the gold and be lax with training, thus when the time comes to call the levy to arms they show up with barely anything
Also, the levy most of the time was really mostly just "a number of troops outfitted in such and such a fashion" with no mention as to who those troops actually were and would most of the time just be the knight and his retinue. Even hired mercenaries counted toward the levy. Peasants were more often than not just left to work the land, make money which could be taxed and pay for actual soldiers.
@@rrenkrieg7988 lords would remove the head of that selfish lord, I remember reading the king author removed the head of a knight for sending peasants in first, as knights would be one wielding heavier anti cav or knighted weapons like heavy spears while depending on wealth of the lord elite presents would get Helberts or heavy spears. so yes swords were a primary weapon but those were great heavy swords with blunted guards to turn them into hammer when needed. so army formations knights footmen cav for rear and flanking guard preants middle or edge formation, archers in back or king author whom used his archers 2 to encircle the French in the 100 years war and almost. but knighted footmen we’re front an center
This reminds me of the Ashigaru, who were once poorly equipped mobs, before they professionalised during the Sengoku period, their arms and armour improved, which allowed them to become the backbone of Sengoku armies.
Honestly, the Wheel of Time books are one of the most authentic feeling depictions of medieval infantry. Yeah, you've got the cliche noblemen who behave as though battles are decided by the cavalry... But then you've got the normal infantry who are made up of everything from farmers, to Knight class men that do the bulk of the work with polearms, bows, and crossbows. Hell, there's one bit where a character mops the floor with a couple of nobles with a quarterstaff, to which their instructor tells them to never underestimate an opponent simply because they're a farmer with a staff. Great series, a shame it hasn't gotten a good adaptation to screen yet.
You know that when it does get adapted to screen, it will be butchered though. Because "hIsToRiCaL aCcUrAcY iSn'T eNtErTaInInG". People act like a battle can only look cool if it's completely stupid. Personally I think a disciplined and orderly battle would be much more impressive to see. Well-disciplined killing machines are more impressive than disorderly mobs.
Brandon Sanderson's The Way of Kings also depicts infantry quite well, although the existence of shard blades and shard plate changes the paradigm a great deal. No peasant is gonna survive for very long against a man with almost impenetrable armour and a sword that can slice through metal like butter.
People really don't seem to understand two main things: A) Every "peasant" you send to war is a man with a job. If you use your peasants as cannon fodder as Hollywood would like you to believe they did you will end up with depopulated fiefdom, a crashed economy, empty grannaries and an empty treasury. That's why long campaigns are the exception and when they happen they heavily rely on mercenaries. And B) 90% of an army to this day wil be ordinary schmucks who really don't want to die. War is about manouver, if you essentialy smash your troops into the enemie's and rely on your individual soldiers fighting prowess you are a truly horrible general...
the issue they forget is cannon fodder does not win wars. As George S. Patton once said- No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making some other poor dumb bastard die for his count using peasants as cannon fodder makes less sense than in the World Wars- Medieval Battles could be lost by panic and route spreading thus having poorly trained troops who are "just there to be cannon fodder" would only invite panic when these disposable troops panicked and ran from the field (running is a lot harder in modern war since you most likely will just die tired) but it was easy way to live on a medieval battlefield as long as you did not get run down by Horsemen. Peasants with pitchforks were of course a real thing- many of the poorly trained peasants on battlefields were hastily mobilized militias drawn up to help defend the realm. But they were not there to be cannon fodder but out of desperation.
Exactly this. What lord would throw away his money making capacity? Most are greedy AF and while penny pinchers, they knew throwing away their workforce was worse
Kinda reminds me about what Emperor Basil II did to Bulgarian soldiers after he won against them: blinding 99 soldiers out of 100. And it's truly devastating to Bulgarian economy in long term. Not only you make the soldiers useless to work on the fields, you're still have to feed them as well, worse than depopulated fiefs.
@@jeroylenkins1745 Honestly the single biggest issue is in the middle ages feeding an army is one of your biggest concerns and a major cost- even if the peasant conscripts were not paid in anyway (their motivation would not be much if this was the case)
I think that nearly all of our 'pop culture' understanding of medieval life is to take the squalor, disease and poverty of the industrial-era but just relocated to the countryside with pig-crap instead of smoke. I do worry that whenever I try to 'talk up' the lives, intelligence and achievements of medieval people that I am often in danger of over-correcting and presenting it as tolkien's shire type of experience to people instead.
@@als3022 I'm not confident that even the cities were really like that just because of how small the population of a city was back then. Though probably the experience would be different inside a cramped walled city of the continent rather than the sprawling towns in england. I just don't know enough to even begin to really know !
@@als3022 I have to disagree, modern cities have a lot of infrastructure to make sure that they are clean. For one, there is no animal husbandry going on inside the city limits, as there was for large parts of the past. Also, they have things like sewage and waste disposal infrastructure. Yeah some cities have parts where these systems don't work anymore, but overall, our cities are way cleaner than most of the time in the past.
I think it was extremly dependent on the where and when. In some eras and areas peasants were slaves in all but name in others they were far more independent. In Iceland there existed somewhat of a peasant aristocracy with wealthy farmers taking the part of the nobility in mainland Europe while the poorer ones were barely above serfdom (and slavery (thraeldom) was also present). I think in large parts of Europe the general position of peasants became worse over time. Btw the same was true in the Roman empire starting with predominantly free farmers and ending up with with a more or less pure slave economy as far as agriculture was concerned.
Also something people don’t tend to remember: Vikings! Most Vikings were farmers before they decide to undertake a sea expedition either for trade or for raiding. When the trading/raiding is done and they go back home, they went back to their FARMS. Farmers who fight part-time can and has been very good soldiers.
Vikings also rowed their own ships. Rowing is a great all-around exercise that develops power and stamina in the legs, core, arms, and chest. My guess is They were probably some of the fittest warriors in history.
@@mjfleming319 I'm not sure there are many people who doubt that Vikings were fit. If anything they're probably more often thought of as elite warriors with all the prestige that comes with it. Or infamy, especially if you're British. But that's probably also why a lot of people seem to not know that most of them were farmers. It clashes with the fierce warrior/raider stereotype. And speaking of that, they were more often traders than raiders, especially in the east.
Good that you addressed physicality and physical attributes of the medieval people. Both peasants and knights were mad strong, probably a lot stronger and with higher physical endurance than the average person today. Most modern people really can't conceptualize how doing hard physical work for 10 to 12 hours a day since early childhood can train your body.
Oh we are definitely physically weaker as a species ( as a whole) now because of technology. Sure you’ll have some very disciplined gym heads, but man 10-12 hours of work every day until you die is gonna make your body into stone
I served in the military for 10 years as a lieutenant. The best soldiers where the ones from small vilages. The ones that grew up doing hard, mostly manual work from dawn to night fall. Most complaints came from city boys not used to being pushed so hard. In fact one of those "farm boys" stayed in his unit even during weekends. When I asked him why, he said that the army was like a summer camp. 3 meals a day and hardly and work :) if he went home he would have to work thro the weekend and guard duty was so much better!
This does funnily remind me some of the best individual soldiers in past wars like WW1 and WW2, happened to be farmers, bus drivers, mechanics, etc. Meanwhile soldiers that came from a highly educated background like teachers tended to be the first one killed. Never underestimate the people who keep everyday life going.
I mean, if you give someone with a highly educated background a job as a frontline rifleman then yea, they won't do as well as a farmer. But they'd make good medical personnel if they have a background in medicine, not every job in the military is frontline combat
I'd say highly educated backgrounds keep daily life going. I like having working electronic and mechanical devices. I like having schools that can be trusted (more or less) to educate kids. I like not dying of cholera thanks to doctors and scientists. And I like that the mass panic of an economic recession doesn't happen as often when investors make careful decisions.
My Dad, who was conscripted into the army in WWII, told me this story about an overbearing sergeant who was a regular soldier. The sergeant was being very disparaging about the skills of the conscripts. My Dad said "If you professionals were so bloody good, you wouldn't need us. All you've ever fought are poorly armed natives."
@@davidhyams2769 Did your dad get disciplined for that (If he said it in front of the sergeant I can bet he got his head bashed in, especially back then when physical violence was allowed in punishments)? Also, it is fairly standard in all armies for the Drill Sergeant to disparage the recruit in order to break them down as an individual and enforce a fighting mentality. It also gets them conditioned to the pressures of battle.
The era as a whole hard to judge, because skill is going to vary wildly from early to late Medieval: Viking raiders aren't go to last long against gunfire and masses of crossbows, regardless of their reputation, because that's a matter of discipline instead of strength or ferocity. As to eating, one of the big parts of the Magna Carta reforms was the Charter of the Forest, which was made to prevent the King trying to monopolize forests for hunting, fishing, and so on. That it was seen as a right for all freemen, or at least, those who owned property that included forest, help's to show how big a deal hunting was, so there was clearly an expectation for having access to meat.
About eatin: They had pigs, sheep and other animals to eat. Hunting was for furs and entertaining. The meat wasn't the primary objective except when there was a famine on going, there's barely no protein gain in hunting an animal for days, even if it's a wild roar, when you have the friendly counterpart in the farm. Ancient hunting, with bow and spear, was totally different to nowdays with gunpowder... They had to pursue the animal for days... And for small animals, it was pretty much just check the traps
This weird modern conceit that people in the past were dumb because they didn't have iPhones or whatever, is hubris wrapped in ignorance. Also, a lot of people today should be the last to criticize someone else's intelligence.
I think it is the same instinct that causes humans to struggle figuring out how to respect their elders. These people are really old, so that must mean I'm better experienced than them.
not modern at all. Renaissance people started to shit on the medieval period already, because it was neither the bright classical antiquity nor the Renaissance. And then came the victorians...
I think the biggest thing a lot of people tend to forget about history is that no matter the date, culture or learning, we are all still just humans and have the same fundamental thought process and "brain power".
@Your friendly imperialist neighbor considering how your lowly hard working ancestors would prolly be just as insufferable and filled to the brim with character flaws, because you know, humans, it prolly wouldnt be that great.
my grandparents you could defined as peasants. they were self sufficient what today might be called local, organic and off grid. they owned around 6 fields and 2 woodlots scattered around the parish. their fuel was wood, which they chopped themselves and transport the wood in cow/ox drawn fixed axle carts. they made their own corn and rye bread, they had a water mill to grind grain, they made their own butter and olive oil. I can tell you one thing my grandmother's brother was a lanky skinny 60 year old and he could out chop anyone half his age from the city. townspeople would look down on rural people but they would never mock them to their face. Other thing peasants know how to do is kill things quickly without fuss.
My family was exactly the same, from southern Italy, very tough people both phisically and mentally. I was born in urban Argentina and got some muscle, but in comparison I'm weak.
When you can kill gigantic farm animals, humans probably don’t seem so hard., I mean, this isn’t medieval, but David probably killed a lot of large and dangerous animals defending his sheep. A man, even a very big one, was probably one of the easier things he’d killed, even at his young age.
I find it amazing how our judgement of food availability is skewed according to our modern perceptions. What would be considered expensive food today is not the same as what was considered fancy in the medieval period. Staple fitness meals - wild fish, complex carbs and tons of vegetables, would have been readily available to the peasants living in the countryside. Such a contrast to burgers, fries and sugar of the modern day.
Just look at Colonial America. In a few colonies, indentured servants protested about being fed lobster more than three times a week. Back then lobster was considered almost a garbage food. It was plentiful and cheap.(technically its still plentiful, but only certian sizes are allowed to be harvested and sold to keep up the breeding stock and prices)
When I was doing my National Service in Singapore, we had to dig shellscrapes (shallow trenches just deep enough for an infantryman to lie prone inside) during our field camp. With everyone being city boys with no experience digging, it took hours for us to complete our own individual sections (the expected standard was 45 minutes). However, the neighbouring platoon had this skinny African dude who grew up on a farm, and he dug like crazy and finished the entire platoon's shellscrapes. Never mess with a farmer.
One more important thing to remember is also: when and where in the medieval period are we talking about. In the early medieval period("dark ages") the stereotypical levied peasants were quite common while Western Europe high to late medieval they were near nonexistent, replaced by the better equipped and trained mercenary. This would be the one thing I could criticize about this video, that you kinda put mercenary and levy in one category. The two were very distinct with very few overlaps or contact points (early Swiss mercenaries). While at that, there is also the 3rd category of medieval non-noble soldier not to be forgotten, the city citizen militia (mostly resembling modern reservists in function). So yes, technically the stereotype of poor equipped peasant levy did exist, but it was in context of a time where the comparative noblemans arms and armor would get you laughed out of a 15c landsknecht company.
What about peasant hunters who would catch the “expensive” animals like rabbits and pike? Did they sell the quarry to their nobles? Or did they just eat and enjoy it?
Seriously, yeah. The Norse warriors who raided the early English kingdoms actually weren't too well equipped unless they were relatively wealthy. Some only had their Seax and their Hunting Bow, and look how successful they were.
A peasant is somebody who work the land. Sure a peasant could go hunting, but hunting wihout permission is called poaching and that could be punished. So if they did do it, they would not be open about it. The noble also owned the forest and all the game living inside. Noble employed hunters who would hunt and take care of the forest and wildlife. And yes, poaching was a problem also back in the middle ages. But again, it depend on when and where exactly we speak.
@@francoishelfer6645 Peasants are not that simple, there are layers to peasants. Mind you, anyone not a noble or royal was a peasants, from hunters to merchants to farmers to artisans.
Saying that levied troops aren't as good as knights or men-at-arms is like saying that the infantry aren't as good as the SAS or Delta. Technically true but I'm still not going to pick a fight with a soldier.
6:17 Play Kingdom Come Deliverance if you want to be immersed in the concept of "which food belongs to which class". You see, the game has a poaching mechanic where you lose reputation if you're caught selling wild meat from hares, boars, and deer, because they all belong to the king/nobles. You also get penalized for selling meat from cows and pigs because those animals belong to the peasantry you stole from. Naturally, the game has a neat "stolen goods" mechanic to help you determine what you can and can't sell to normal people, while you can sell anything to the black market traders. Whatever the case, I highly recommend this game for how much research the devs put into it.
Sadly the combat system is unusable. The mouse gestures are so complicated and my hands are shaky (no health problem, just not used to precise small movements)
@@cardboardbox191 You can sell any meat that wasn't stolen, or any meat that you cooked yourself (weird game mechanic). The game also doesn't factor in chickens the same way pigs and cows are, in that you can straight up butcher a random chicken in full view of NPCs and they won't care, but if you butcher the other animals, they will summon the guards on you.
I think there are a lot of farm implements that have very similar battlefield weapons. Bills (tree pruners), and scythes had combat variants, as you mentioned a pitchfork could easily be replaced with a spear, I suspect that at least some peasants had experience using long knives to clear brush, etc. Thus, an experienced commander would find out what his draftees had experience with and equip them accordingly.
Victor Hanson would like to have words with these commentators. Medieval freemen were spirited soliders who enabled Christendom to keep Islam and the Huns at bay. Petty landowners have always made the best infantry.
I mean, it's true to a point that men at arms were intended to "pad the numbers". There wouldn't be enough knights to fill entire armies with most of the time, so medieval armies would need a backbone of large infantry formations. But it's rather silly to assume that they got no training. Any ambitious commander worth his salt would make sure that his peasants got as much training as possible. And let's not forget that archers were drafted from the peasantry, after basically being encouraged and indoctrinated to train archery every day since they were children. Years of training archery combined with farm work will inevitably create some pretty buffed and competent men for battle. Peasants also had some rather nice incentive to perform well in battle, since not only did warfare entail the promise of looting, it was also one of the only ways to improve your station in society since peasants who stuck out well in battle could get battle promotions and some might even get knighted if they showed that they had the right stuff for it.
„Worth his salt“ is an interesting figure of speech. Is it from a work of fiction, is it a real idiom, or was it (Just) a typo? Because if it’s real, it sounds very interesting. No matter what, I want to use it in my novel, haha!
@@undertakernumberone1 Well the historical accuracy of using salt as payment due to it's supposed extreme rarity has been disputed. But the phrase is definitely taken from this idea. 😊
Sir John Hawkwood started as a Long Bowman but was able to climb the ranks and become the commander of the White Company. A famous mercenary force in the Italian Wars.
Keep in mind too, that spanning the many centuries through Roman Republic, Empire, then western & eastern Empire, the Roman military was not always at the top of its game either. Every military force that has been around any length of time has periods when its better and periods when it is subpar. And i know you have consistently factored that in as well in your talks, Metatron.
A number of people seem to forget that, following the restructuring of the Roman army in the late 3rd & early 4th centuries, a large number of the soldiery were designated as ‘limitanei’, literally “riverbank soldiers” but more accurately frontier troops. Early in the period they were still considered full soldiers, but from the late 4th to their disappearance from the records in the 7th century they were either a paid or self-sustaining militia. During the Tetrarchy, Rome has shifted from using an active frontier defence (basically, frontier troops alternatingly raiding and friendly dealing with the tribes beyond the frontiers) to a defence-in-depth strategy, where the limitanei would initially engage an enemy force, then retreat into their forts and engage in harrying tactics while the heavyweights, the cometatenses (the standing army) and the palatini (the elite forces), would engage with the invading forces. This, by the way, is why I think that the narrative about all of the Roman army leaving Britain is bunkum. By the time that the Notitia Dignitatum was drawn up in the late 4th century (probably with some of the Western offices updated around 420), the Legio VI and the majority of the troops in northern Britain were all designated as limitanei, and would not typically be deployed afield. That, coupled with the fact that most of Constantine III’s commanders who are named in the texts are Germanic (probably Franks) suggests that the army that Constantine III took across to Gaul was probably a combination of the cometatenses and barbarian foederati, either previously stationed in Britain at the time or, to me more likely, hired on once Constantine landed. Anyway, back to the point. A large part of the late Roman army (in the western Empire, at least) were probably very similar to the army of the early Republic - a semi-trained citizen-soldiery rather than a professional fighting force, and probably not significantly different from the levies of the 12th to 14th centuries in Europe.
The Man-At-Arms misrepresentation frustrates me. While yes, some could have been peasants, the Man-At-Arms was basically any manner of well-trained, professional soldier ranging from a low-ranking infantry pikeman (typically a new recruit) to a mid-ranking cavalry officer knight (typically a veteran from a low noble status). These were men who served at all times and constantly trained. The veterans were typically well-versed in military tactics and strategies, particularly those who rose up to leadership levels. They were also very well supplied in terms of weapons, armor, and other battlefield necessities. They made up the bulk of every standing army and garrison of cities, castles, and fortresses. These were the men who stood guard at the gates and entrances of political buildings, as well as those hired as guards by the wealthy. They also patrolled the streets of cities as well as the roads and territories surrounding those cities. Yes, most nations would levy troops from the peasantry during wars and certain types of military campaigns. Yes, these levies could make up anywhere from 40-65% of the troops of such armies. But these men were strong and fit from their daily labors. Also, many of these men were skilled hunters with both bow and spear. So it's not as though they had no experience at all. Furthermore, some nations required weekly training in some martial manner for men of ages 16-40. This was usually done in practicing with the bow, but many lords would hold gatherings where their personal Men-At-Arms would work with the local men in training with various blades and polearms. Even the levies would know how to fight within their specific unit, and would be well-enough equipped to get the job done. Another point, not all of the levied peasants and commoners were done so for the purpose of combat. Many levies were also artisans pulled into service to act as blacksmiths, fletchers, medics, messengers, livery hands, cooks, wagoners, etc to supply the army with whatever needs that might arise.
yep. Logistics is half the battle. If your men are hungry, with no arrows or bolts and carrying rusted, barely functional weapons they’re gonna lose fights they’d normally win
A loss of a standing military and return to militaries ordered almost like bronze age ones. But we don't dismiss early Greek (Mycenaean), Egyptian, or any of those individual supplied levied armies
Most important qualities in a medieval soldier? Know how to use your weapon as it was intended to be used, be able to do manual labor, don't run away, and don't chase someone who's running away from you. Being able to kung fu dance didn't really enter into it.
Kinda hard to imagine to call someone an idiot who’s wearing armor and carrying a weapon that can kill you.Kinda reminds me of a skateboarder attacking a dude holding a rifle.
I believe that the medieval soldier had to be efficient in combat. And they were. The best example of it - wars with Czech protestants after Jan Hus was killed. Of course, there were famous Czech knigts, but the majority of the army were simple Man at arms. And they did show the european knigts how to fight.
You do know that during the 14hundreds standing Armes were still ... uncommon? So European Armies were still comprised of mostly Man at Arms too. I mean the Hussite Wars started 1419. The First European Coutnry to re-establish an standing Army was France in 1430´s. 1434 were the last Battles (after initiating peace talks btw) with the Hussite. Or simpler said, at the Time the Hussite Wars came to an end, France came back with the standing Army Idea. Hungary followed them then. And the First standing Army on European Soil (since the Western Roman Empire) was by the Ottomans. i just say this because i know someone will point that out.
@@kaitan4160 I do, and please forgive me for using the term too widely. Quick thinking and even quicker texting. I am perfectly aware of the issue, but still, thank you for your response.
Pottage was a real feature at peasant tables, but I suspect it was more of a survival food and something that, when dried, could be taken to the field with some table beer for use as an instant meal. Peasants also had bread that was quite nutritious, especially when peas, bits of carrots, and other veggies to add to the bakery.
Any of us that have done Manual Labor for a lengthy period of time, have the same result. I was a skinny 6'4" 140 lb youngster when I was hired by the Dept. of Interior. Two years later, I was a 6'4" 210 lb guy that was built like a Fullback. I couldn't even wear regular cut jeans. 75 lbs on your back walking up and down mountains averaging 13,000 feet tends to physically alter your body. In spite of the machinery, farming is still hard, back breaking 7 days of week work, and it doesn't stop at 5:00 pm.
Honestly, the Brettonian Men at Arms were some of my favorite models from GW. That whole line of models was fantastically characterful. I feel like the rules didn’t live up to the models. A polearm hedgehog or shield wall should have been much more effective than it was. Great video. Thank you for the knowledge, and the trip down memory lane.
then State Troops would've been needed to be a good bit stronger as well, since they are ususlly (at least for the default, Reikland) better trained, better fed and equipped with higher quality equipment.
I agree! That's why I have 80 men at arms from Bretonnia :D when I play, people tell me I shoudlnt field them because no One uses them in tournament play, but I still do because FUN
I don't play Warhammer (not the physical games at least), but it seems to me that a regular line of infantry wouldn't stand much chance against a horde of chaos-warped monstrosities as tall as houses^^ Maybe the stats are adjusted to fit the setting?
@@rhorynotmylastname7781 I disagree. The multiple points makes it easier to block, heavier and more difficult to thrust due to increased weight, more expensive due to increased use of metal. To back up my claim we can just look at reality, a spear is used far more often than a trident and bident (basically multiheaded spears) and increasing the number of points wont do any more good. That being said, stick with metal points is still better than no stick at all
I'm 50, 260#, and I've been a carpenter/home remodeler for over thirty years. Basically, a modern peasant. I have no idea how much I can bench press, but I can carry a pair of 5/8" 12' sheetrock all day. I can also remove one brick from a wall with an 8# sledge hammer. I also bowhunt. I haven't trained in combat since childhood, but I have thrown hands. In short, I am not a dude to just blow off and not take seriously as a physical opponent.......
@@metatronyt, thank you. And there is no reason that same logic shouldn't apply to the past. Which is why I really like watching shows like yours and other members of the Fellowship of the Sword.
I'm right with you. I've been a bagger at the grocery store, the guy to put up the weekly delivery at a fast food place (about 100 boxes up to 50lbs each), a soldier, and now a bus driver dealing with heavy luggage.
Love this topic. Always blows my mind that people forget that medieval peasants were more than likely stronger and more resilient than most modern body builders. Weve gotten soft and project that softness onto others.
Small correction. Bretonnian Men At Arms are ruminants of older editions. In 4th, Brets were basically French with gunpowder and they had regular, trained infantry called M@A. In 5th you had a reboot, which changed them to Arthurian style, mixed Anglo- French. M@A name stayed, but now they were describing peasant levy. 6th Edition (the one you have miniatures from) gave us grimdark and really poor starving peasants. And they kept the name.
I was reading about the battle of Campaldino in 1289 recently, and it seems like infantry armed with spears, crossbows and clubs played a very important role though arguably in support of the aristocratic cavalry. One of my resolutions to to learn Italian so I can better understand Medieval and Renaissance Italian history.
I recently read a book about the battle of Varna in 1444 and one of the points highlighted in the book was how Ottoman soldiers, especially Janissaries were incredibly disciplined and organized and thus didn't feel the need to be heavily armored relying more on mobility and defensive firepower then armor. It clearly worked since heavy armored mounted knights and men at arms did little to effect the outcome of the battle. It dawned on me that the European style of war in the middle ages was fundamentally about insuring that the peasant class could never organize themselves into becoming a highly effective force on the battlefield. Since it would be a serious threat to the nobility who ruled over them.
At the end of the day, janissaries were slaves while knights were noblemen. It's not a surprise that survivability was not as important for the former as it was for the latter.
@@romaliop Janissaries went through a long 10 year plus training process and thus were a major investment for the Ottomans. Written accounts state that their lack of armor was more of a tactical decision then a lack of concern for their welfare.
@@larkturner7136 A valuable asset is still vastly different from being an important person in your own right. The former were outfitted from a top down perspective, while the latter outfitted themselves and were ultimately the ones who decided how much value they saw in their own personal survivability. The knights were basically a warrior class and as such, of course they were always conscientious of the need to be able to put the lower classes in their place if need be. However, the janissaries as an institution were not much different in this regard. They too were in a privileged position in the class hierarchy due to them being slaves of Christian origin, who always owed their allegiance directly to the Sultan. In the end they also much resembled the warrior class that the knights had once been, albeit at this point the European military tradition had already moved on from such a system. Ultimately they even played a big part in the decline of the Ottoman Empire by holding onto inefficient and outdated military tradition while also extorting more and more privileges for themselves.
As a security guard in Australia, 6"5 I go to the gym a lot and try to take care of myself despite maybe liking takeout a bit too much. But I'm extremely strong physically and also grew up as a farm boy. I was talking to another security guard doing a job uo in a country town called Weipa where a lot of wiry farmers were coming to this one event and getting on the piss. Now a few of them played up and he could not believe how strong these farmers were. And I told him, these guys get up at 0400 every day, six days a week, they work all day with heavy machinery and a lot of manual handling. They survive on very little food and they do this for years. So while they aren't built like gym junkies, they are insanely strong.
Many medieval soldiers didn't actually want to fight, they only enlisted in order to save up money for colle- ... oh wait nevermind, wrong time period.
I think that the idea people weren't well fed stem from the fact that tragedies and bad situations like wars and plagues are focused on in media like Hollywood, because its where you get the juicy stories, when in reality most of the time people had food to eat. during winter they could fish and live off food harvested from the growing months. The only reason people starved was if something pervented them from growing/gathering and storing food. And suprise suprise, being stabbed or coughing out intestine due to Plague is very good at stopping people from harvesting food.
Or famine years. Also depends on when on the medieval period. If in the ealt medieval period food was plentiful and you had population booms due to a Warming Period. When the Little Ice Age started you get much more famine years and plagues. Why the first centuries of the medieval period you see population growth and after in the later period you see more stagnant population numbers. But that is ecological not cultural
Throughout the Middle Ages there were gigantic markets for mercenary units, sometimes almost completely outsourcing the business of warfare to the mercenary class. These units often had no fixed allegiance to the state, working as contractors for the highest bidder. This early form of capitalism created an environment where armies had to be trained to some extent anyway. Private armies increased their value through high levels of training and discipliine and often high requirements on the physical abilities of their applicants, as show the Vikings or the Landsknechts. Thus, official state forces like knights had to be equally well-trained to be even able to compete. Assuming that you could venture on the battlefield without preparation is stupid, since in the most settings of history this would be suicidal and humans normally don't like doing things that would surely lead to their death or imprisonment.
I mean you could argue that Prussia came out of one Christian Mercenary Group. "The Teutonic Order was knights and not mercenaries mimimimimi" ... Yeah Knights that were really good at building Forts and Bastions and got paid quite well by Kings and Unions to build these defensive Lines .... So they got paid for Warfare ... Mercenaries.
The problem isn't just that the average medieval infantryman levy wasn't professionally trained on a regular basis as part of a standing army in formation tactics/maneuvering in a unit, it's that western european medieval warfare was unsophisticated and until the strategikon of Maurice they didn't even have any proper military doctrine, standards or protocols. During that time the byzantines had a professional standing army of about 90 thousand troops all trained in standard late roman/byzantine doctrine, similar things can be said about the sassanids. You can see obvious results of these western medieval shortcomings at the battle of the ice, where a materially superior force of teutonic knights were destroyed in battle by a bunch of untrained peasants in a pike formation (because the teutons simply decided to charge into the tight formation without knowing any better). A similar event happened at the battle of the spurs, battle of Necopolis and even during the failed portugese invasion of morocco (where the entirety of portugese nobility was wiped out). These humiliations eventually led to the infantry revolution, as mounted knights became less prevalent in war nations would have to rely on professional standing armies of infantrymen.
Meanwhile in Medieval India- "Hey are you tired of being a farmer" "Do you want adventure" "Do you want to increase your social status and your caste with the help of looted gold" "Has your father taught you the basic skills of swordsmanship" "Join your Kings Army right now" (Experience may Vary)
Another thing to consider with levied troops is that war far was common and levies frequently called. If a levy wasn't being called to defend their home county, they were being called to fight with their lord in some foreign adventure. I think it would be pretty safe to assume that a levy infantryman who had reached middle age was already a veteran of at least one campaign. On top of this, by the 14th century most localities had some form of militia. England's longbow statutes are probably the most famous, but cities in France often had their policing needs provided on a rotating basis among the guilds, which provided training and equipment to their members. The Flemish and Swiss had their city/canton pike units which were trained on a regular basis and each had their share of victories against armies comprised of knights. The successes of peasant revolts all across Europe in the 14th and 15th centuries really bear this out, as well. While they may have been defeated, it was usually because the leaders were caught, not because they were defeated on the field.
Great video I love how medieval levied troops are portrayed like this but other one throughout history get a pass. For instance archaic and classical Greek Hoplites who were largely,although with exceptions, not professional soldiers.
I used to work in a warehouse which by modern standards is physically demanding, but no where near as demanding as manual agricultural work. Even then I felt like I was in incredible shape. Medieval peasants were probably about as fit as professional athletes today.
Regarding the "peasant" soldiers, one of the villages relatively near me in Cheshire basically exists because of a pair of lower class soldiers. The first may have even been of peasant class. He came back from the Battle of Crecy with war-booty and commissioned the building of the church. By the time of his grandson the family were firmly yeoman class and that grandson was the leader of a small company of mounted archers at the Battle of Agincourt. He came back even richer and had the church rebuilt and extensive stained glass installed.
I appreciate you showcasing and talking about your Bretonians, I have often seen them in the background of your videos and wondered when they were going to get a mention. Painting minis while listening to your video. 🖌️
I remember Shadiversity discussing a book about the prevalence of arms and armour in Germany (by Tlusty). He made a interesting observation - since you could not call in the police within a minute, or the Army and Air Force, just about everyone had to have at least some kind of weapon - and was probably trained to use it for his defense to some degree. Villagers and farmers had to be able to chase off the occasional roving band of thieves and such. Towns were defended by the Citizens mainly, supporting the small town guard (if they even had one…). So I would think, even levied troops would have at least some training - maybe lacking a bit about formation work and such, but they sure knew how to whack someone to death and not get whacked back. And farmers or craftsmen and such, working long hours, could probably wield most weapons with ease. GIve them a few lectures about how formations work, train them, and you may have a useful army at hand.
I like how people are quick to say that "Peasants" and "Commom Soldiers" are nothing to knights and tend to forget how deadly and dangerous they could be. Just search The Hussite Wars and Jan Žižka and you will see how "Peasants" can became a kingdom worse nightmare. Great Video as always my friend, keep on debuking those bad tropes.
Seeing how the Hussite Wars was a religious War. Yo ucan bet that "professionals" were involved there too. For sure there were Knights and Soldiers and Guards and whatnot. I mean 85% of the People in Böhmen were "utraquists". Bethlehemites, Lutheraner (sorry dont know the translation there) made up the Movement against the Catholics there. 452 Nobles did send an Protest to the council of Constance after Jan Hus got burned. Read that again, Nobles. So this Movement wasnt a "pure Peasant Movement". It rather was an Army like most others. Lead by Nobles, and consisting of Knights and Soldiers and peasants.
It is funny that the lower classes ate the better bread. Thank you for this video; I have recently gotten interested in food throughout history and cultures. As to your question, I can't recall ever having met someone who looked down on medieval soldiers, but then again, I met few people interested in the middle ages or history. Sweeping statements about the middle ages should be made with great care. It lasted about 1000 years and involved a vast area, so many cultures, and dynamics.
I seem to remember a decree by Charlemagne about levied troops that basically said that only men who could afford a minimum of equipment (and supplies for a certain amount of days) were required to show up at the established place and date
I think the casual medieval enthusiast, such as myself, would be alarmed at how few peasant levies were used in European armies prior to the Hundred Years War. (I'm sure there were exceptions to this phenomenon, my area of study is in English history.) This was due, one assumes, to the fact that the war season coincided with the planting/harvesting season. Peasants were needed in the fields rather than on campaign. Traditionally, the rate of levy was one man for every seven hearths in a village. Compare Richard the Lionheart leaving his Angevin territories for the Holy Land with an equal number of foot soldiers and mounted knights with the battle of Agincourt, where archers outnumbered knights and squires about six to one.
I think peasant levies were more commonly used in defensive wars, or wars in which the peasants wouldn’t have to go very far. For example, in the “First Hundred Years War” from 1159 to 1259, local levies from Gascony were actually used pretty frequently by the English kings since the theatre of war was mostly in France, but rarely did they ever bring over levies from England itself. It was the knights who may come from England.
Love your insight on history bro, thankful the universe has brought you to us. Not a history fanatic but man this stuff is so interesting even just to learn something new.
Spears and later pole arms were one of the most commonly used weapons for infantry. They are relatively cheap and easy to make (at least compared to other weapons), offered reach and power in attacks, and were relatively easy to train a soldier in its use. So long as you can get a unit to maintain order in a formation and cover the basics of spacing, defense and attacking then you have a fairly effective fighting force in the space of a number of weeks.
The other thing about the Medieval period in movies: mud. It's everywhere. No colors, just grey and brown. It's the expected stereotype, as if Medieval people just like wallowing in mud all of the time. Eating gruel, wearing mud, and terrible soldiers--the expected stereotypes of an era that was actually quite rich and colorful in so many ways.
I’d argue that food in the Middle Ages was much healthier and nutrient rich than today, we have so much processed and synthetic food full of chemicals and additives often made in factories, whereas medieval food was straight from the land and naturally sourced without a slew of chemicals added
well yeah but we have much more diversity and our diet is much more rich in sugars, fat etc making it not equal or healthy but more efficient, numerous and cheap.
Thank you! I hate this stupid myth and I have no idea why it is so pervasive and long lasting. It boggles my mind that no one wants to give the medieval soldier any credit or research. I also like how someone has finally decided to talk about the common medieval soldier instead of the knight for once as this is a subject that is incredibly overlooked.
I would expect anyone who labors manually frequently to know their way around any sort of bladed implement pretty well. It makes me think of when I was young and got the chore of chopping thistles with a machete; I was pretty proficient at throwing an effective cut just by doing work alone. Considering that daggers/knives comparable in length were pretty common I think that anyone coming off the field or out of a workshop would be pretty handy with a sword, if not by technical training the body mechanics alone would deliver pretty darn solid cuts.
Knowing how to cut is only the first step on learning how to use a sword. Swords are complex weapons that take years of practice to become somewhat proficient with. This is why levies would generally be armed with simpler weapons that resembled the tools they used in everyday life (axes, cleavers, clubs, pole-arms etc.). And you can bet that they were efficient with them. There is plenty of examples of armies consisting mostly of knights and other professional soldiers being defeated by armies consisting of common levies.
Cutting something/someone when hitting them with a blade is not hard. It's the hitting part that is, mainly because unlike thistles, a person tends to actively try to prevent that and stay alive. Very frequently by using their own weapon of some sort to put the other person at risk of getting harmed while trying to harm them.
Infantry of the medieval era likely had a very good sense of (at the very least their own) biomechanics, due to the amount of self-dependence that they had to do to survive. They also likely knew their personal strengths and limits better than most people today, for the same reasons, which I feel is something that a lot of people now don't really know. A lot of people would have known basic orienteering and survival skills, too, right?
One common aspect of the “idiots with pitchforks” idea is the perception that peasant levies were only called up in times of dire need. If we bear in mind the common dictum that any privilege enjoyed for six months becomes a right, one can see the error in that idea. If peasant levies were only called upon for rare occasions, they would have been completely unreliable. How long would it take to raise them? Dunno. How many can you field? Dunno. What gear do they have? Dunno. Would they show up at all? Dunno. Guys, they might just be irregular troops, but you still have to feed them and get them from A to B. Logistics takes planning, and planning requires knowledge. At the very least, peasant levies would have to be raised a couple of times a year, just so the nobles would know their numbers, who has a spear & shield vs who had a bow vs who had a sling (yep, still used in medieval armies), how long it would take for each village or shire’s levies to muster (and then to join up into a larger force), and for the peasants to know what to bring, what not to bring, and where to meet up. Remember, everyone isn’t hearing about the call-up over the radio here; at best, a herald rides into a village or hamlet and blows a trumpet. The peasant in the field, or his farmhouse, or wherever, hears the trumpets and goes, ‘crap, time to go home and dig out the spear and shield.’ The goodwife hears the horn and starts packing up his kit (and mentally prepares herself to do both his work and her work until he gets back from whatever idiot thing His Lordship wants now). None of this is accidental.
And they practically stopped to call up peasant levies towards the Late Middle Ages indeed. Giving a spear, a shield and a helmet to a basically untrained peasant worked only as long as professional soldiers were few (thus leaving some logistic and tactical space for someone else) and the armament was comparatively simple. And in the 14th century when you put a bunch of moderately well-armed peasants (a very rare occurence by itself) against a bunch of military professionals with expensive up-to-date equipment... then Visby happens. And the worst part is that those *untrained and usually poorly motivated* peasants will produce nothing but still consume a lot of food and other resources (which still was a big logistic pain). So who do we see on the fields of the Hundred Years' War? Chiefly feudals (who were paid compensations for being raised but still mostly hoped for prisoners, loot and trophies) and expensive mercenaries (hired individually or en masse); granted, not all the mercs actually were professionals, but the core was.
@@Alexey_Selivanov It really depends on the specific region you are talking about, and when you are talking about. Italian armies heavily transitioned to primarily mercenary armies fairly swiftly, (comparatively) centralized countries like England had citizen *and* mercenary regular forces, and less centralized countries continued to rely on a mix of levies, men-at-arms, and the knights. That said, we’re now talking about the late medieval period. Levies were more a feature of the early- and high-medieval periods. Of course, mercenary forces were used at least from the 1100s on up; but they were not preferred, as they were less likely to fight standing battles and more likely to attack supply chains and the enemy’s ability to make war.
It's hard for those who are pampered to put themselves in the shoes of those who labored. A lot of misconceptions about historical warfare seems to have stemmed from people who use their fingers to turn pages instead of tools to labor, and these bookworms believed that plate armor are "clunky", medieval swords are "heavy club like weapons, unlike the foil", and peasants to be "weaklings forced into battle" as they may see themselves if they were put in that situation. I'm glad these perspectives are changing, and videos like these help a lot in helping people discover the truth!
People often forget how much tougher life was for the average person in the past. People had to do a lot of manual labor which made them physically strong and had to handle physical disputes themselves since police forces were almost nonexistent. I remember reading somewhere that in the greek phalanxes, endurance and stamina were considered more important than any individual skill at arms.
What I would like to hear you talk about is the "skills plateau" How long would it actually take to train a first class medieval soldier (whether its knight/infantry/archer) and how long until you reach a plateau? Like, no knight will ever be able to take on 10 other knights at the same time, the limit will always be maybe 2. But how long until a knight could reach that limit of taking a 2 to 1 fight? Likewise, it is extremely unlikely that a peasant soldier will ever take on a knight simply because of equipment, but how long until he becomes a "veteran" who's more or less reached the skills limit? For comparison, the skills limit of the typical 100m race is about 11 to 12 seconds, Olympic athletes can reach 9.x seconds but your typical athlete won't ever reach less than 11 seconds, and that would take 3 to 4 years of training *assuming they have the physical capacity* .If they don't reach it in 3 to 4 years, chances are that they will never reach it. So what would be the equivalent to, say train a modern fit individual to become indistinguishable from a knight?
It's not just training it's also maintaining the skill and keeping them ready to levy, a knight had a greater obligation to stay on campaign or as a garrison force for longer.
I am a Medieval weaponry professor. In the 15th century, New evidence has shown that there was a class of peasant soldiers called Skythias. They would just be naked and raise their arms, armpits unshaved, sweaty, and unwashed for a week. They normally go into battle first and their horrible armpit odor scares people away. The battle of Midway, 1586, was won via this method. But during the battle of Stalingrad, the Russians found out that wearing a mask helped immunise them to this tactic and all the Prussians were cut down.
@@MrDibara "Can't fret over a few broken eggs Jack! I'm making the mother of all omelets here!" - Senator Scipio Africanus to "Mad" Jack Churchill during the Battle of Endor, probably.
My opinion is that, in absence of uniforms, it should have been hard for a soldier to smash at 100% speed in the heat of battle without knowing if he's killing friend or foe. I guess after the first shock, a battlefield should look like a huge bunch of very tired and dirty men waving maces and asking each others if they were from Brandenburg or Saxony.
And they didn't simply charge into each other. They formed 2 organized lines and advanced very slowly, and only when they were extremely close they started pushing, so the lines wouldn't mess up and they would know who's friend and who's not.
@@warbandplaysAU9178 it's kind of hilarious how many people don't understand this today, when we see these exact situations play out during protests between two political factions where no guns are involved. The people form battle lines and don't really push into each other, unless they have shields. And they very much wear colors and sometimes even banners to make sure they know who the "good and bad" guys are.
In many ways, peasants actually ate better than the higher classes. For example, a very common disease among the rich was gout, which was caused (as well as nowadays) by the consumption of large amount of meat (especially red meat).
A missing piece of the historical picture was the use of javelin and War darts as am opening duel between lines. It would look amazing on the big screen before charging or advancing under that storm. Especially as Many projectiles didn't kill you but made you punch drunk or bruised or fatigued if hit enough.
I totally agree, we actually have a case from the late middle ages were the difference between soldiers and farmers with pitchforgs was made very obvious, the farmers rebelion in germany is a good example and we even get the perspective of someone who had the experience to compare both, Götz von berlichingen (gotz of the iron hand) was a knight and got selected as a military leader of the rebellion, he ditched them soon after, complaining that it is Impossible to work with them because they neither have skill or dicipline to achieve even a small victory against trained soldiers. He was a very interesting person in General, might be worth a video ;)
Grab AtlasVPN Christmas deal for 86% OFF + 3 months for FREE atlasv.pn/Metatron !
Hoo boy, I was quick today lol
@@Velitesmaniple same bruv
@Metatron so my buddy and I were arguing about which Empire would win in a conflict (assuming they were the only two left on earth) between the Aztecs and the Romans. PLEASE tell us what you think. I say the Romans and he says the Aztecs. When I ask why he doesnt give a straight answer. Help us out brah! :D
Yt comment: "commoners soldiers are a bunch of untrain idiots"
Medieval pedites: laughing in combat formation.
by all accounts, medieval battles were all manouvre and tactical use of terrain was a decisive factor
I hate tooting my own horn, but you're correct about farmers. We tend to have very heavy physical work (even with modern machinery) and long work days. When I was in the army, people wer surprised how strong and resilent I was, despite being alot more thinner than most guys. And I remember how tough my grandpa was, who was a farmer with even less machine equipment. Farm life creates certain type of resilence
Much respect to that!
And I'm just a lowly carpenter. And look at us! Using computers n shit! Brawn AND enough brains to use the right tool for the right job.......who'da thunk?😄
@@colmhain Yep, we cut our hands, sweat under weight, and step on manure, yet after a long day, we can smile proudly. ANd we are thought to be dumb by people working in offices, who hate their jobs. Odd life, huh?
Honestly, I'm grateful for youtubers like Metatron and Shad, who talk about history while adding the context that helps breaking the misconceptions. This video is prime example of that.
What you say is true to an extent, but in war even if a city slicker is not quite as resilient to begin with, within two to three weeks he will be on par. A U.S. army veteran in the artillery in Vietnam in 1967.
The People of the land, farmers are often mocked as hillbillies and simpletons but they are the most adaptable people, because of their relative isolation they have to know how to do everything on top of being experts in livestock or agriculture and working insane hours. They are the backbone of human civilization and we really should have more appreciation for their contribution to society. I'm from France and here there is big problem with suicide among farmers because their life is so hard and they constantly have the banks breathing down their necks, it's a massive disgrace that almost no one talks about. I tip my hat to Farmers everywhere, you guys and gals are legendary.😎
When will people understand that there’s a difference between “they didn’t know what we know today” and “they were dumb?”
When people are no longer dumb.
Probably about the time that people understand that there's a difference between being intelligent and educated. I'm not holding my breath.
@@WJS774 And that also there is a difference between knowing and having comprehension of what you know.
Never, people like to view their own time as the best.
@@WJS774 That will happen about the time people figure out that being educated beyond their intelligence does not mean that other people don't have the right to fight back if they try to kill them.
Yeah I just told on myself what country I'm in.
I like how in movies, when there is a battle going on, both sides just charge like idiots with no plan at all and then fight in a big pool of mud on a dark and cloudy day (because, of course, in medieval times everything was dark and dirty). Oh yeah, and the only wapon they use is a two handed sword.
It looks so damn cool though.
I love how their lines break apart, despite them using shield walls and such
And you can always spot the king because he's not covered in shit.
@@mpetersen6 Naah, these days the king is one of the cool guys with working class street cred, he's just as covered in shit as the peasants and shares their burdens. And if you do see a noble without shit over him, he's the bad guy.
@@mpetersen6 hahaha
When I was a drill sergeant, i tasked some recruits with removing a boulder. They went at it with a sledgehammer for 15 minutes with no results. Finally, another recruit, a 164cm bull of a man, grabbed the hammer and broke the boulder in three swings. Yes, he was the only peasant around. Farm hands can be freakishly strong next to us city boys.
i coulda done that easy
Its not just strength.
Its knowing where to hit. Seeing the "chips" fly off ... seeing how big they are. It doesnt take an 5 minute examination. Its just simple experience. One glance and somehow you know where to hit that thing.
@@kaitan4160 there's also familiarity with the tool and how your body works in that situation.
@@Ghorda9 Worked in Industrial deconstruction for Years.
There is not much familliarity with a Sledgehammer.
@@kaitan4160 actually there is i have worked i construction for about 15 years and one of the first things you have to teach the green guys is how to swing a hammer. Everyone thinks they know how to swing a hammer because it's such a basic tool but like many things people that work with basic tools on a daily basis know better how to use them. Most commonly people try to grip too high up on the hammer handle because i assume they don't feel comfortable gripping the end of the handle being accurate with their swing. This seems to apply even more to sledge hammers because of the heavier weight.
The next most common thing is people wearing themselves out trying to swing the hammer up and down. They don't realize you only raise a hammer up and guide it down and let it do all the hammering with it's own weight.
So yes I would say there is a learning curve to the sledge hammer also besides just how to swing it where you hit a rock to break it would be more obvious if you've demoed rocks or stone before
what always blows my mind is that no one questions the capability of the Greek hoplite but they are literally levied troops so why would anyone think the European levies would be any less skilled
Simple, it's the violence inherit in the system.
I blame the marketing department for that one.
cause one is called ''hoplite'' and another is called ''peasant'' :D
The reason is that the Hoplit was basicly a professional Soldier under Alexander the great and this version of the Hoplite is the most visual today. It is basicly the same with a roman legionaries the earlier ones were mediocore soldiers - in later times ca.100-200 b.c. they were the best soldiers of their time.
@@dhackmann3974 Legionary were NOT the best soldiers of their time. Nope Nope and nope. Sure they were one of the best but probably not the best
I'd also note that these "peasants" were men who had to defend themselves, their property, and their families without being able to call on professional Police. Law enforcement was almost entirely about securing noble privileges and resources, not ensuring the common people were safe walking down the streets. A peasant man whose family was being threatened by criminals was not just going to let his women be raped, his cattle stolen, or his home burned down. He didn't just call for the "guards" that didn't exist. No, he grabbed tools and used them. Just as importantly, in most communities, every other man would be rushing to his aid as soon as possible. This is why the most common form of "criminal" we hear about are bandits on the road, ambushing lone travelers. A thief stealing from a town would soon have the town on him and a peasant farmer would have many people around keen not to see their friend harmed. Above all, Medieval folklore and histories are full of stories of "commoners" causing havoc when roused, and the reason would be that a strong man with a big stick who thinks it is worth his while to fight is dangerous.
Uh... Peasants didn't have property, technically speaking they WERE the property, Feudalism and such.
@@shotgunatthedisco6909 Freemen could own property. Serfs were bound to their land.
@@shotgunatthedisco6909 there were free peasents.
@@kesmeseker9593 fair nuff, but my point stands, most people back then didn't own the land they lived on.
thats why every settlement had a militia of some sort.
Hollywood is to blame for many historical inaccuracies.
Start with Renaissance writers and Victorians. Hollywood only continued that.
Victorian's are a big one
As well as centuries of literature
@@undertakernumberone1 exactly with the Age of Enlightenment squeezed in. There was a vested interest by various academia to disparage the Middle Ages to make their own times seem much better and more enlightened in comparison
@@RoninDave much like people today disparage people from the recent past- or say 100 years ago and before.
Thanks for the name check, looking forward to your Italian opinion of medieval food.
My very pleasure, my liege! The lack of tomatoes Is gonna be a problem, I foresee..
@@metatronyt How did our medieval forebears ever get by without lasagna? 😦
@@Gundalf_the_Gray probably made a version without tomato sauce. My Sicilian grandma had at least a dozen non-red sauce based pasta dishes (not lasagna). There was one with olive oil, garden veggies (seasonal) and garlic. Lots of garlic. That is why all the vampires when to Transylvania.
@@MrRabiddogg that sounds delicious!
Did Italians even eat before the import of Tomatoes?
That's absolutely true! My father is 58 and a farmer, and you should see him: still has muscles, is strong like a bull, runs/jumps like an athlete, and waves his machete like a master. If my father is remotely similar to those ol' peasants, then you would not mess with them.
Now imagine a thousand of him
@@ChadKakashi more like multiple thousands, depending on the nation and time period
If he's anything like you describe him, I doubt most people nowadays could be able to beat him in a fight. I doubt I could lol
@@APerson-ws4cw Dude. His father would likely he the last to give up on the fight. Mental headspace palys a part in war.
@@arnowisp6244 Uhh, yeah. I was saying I'd lose to him lmfao
Some people: "Peasant infantry was a joke!"
Templar Sergeants, Men-at-arms, pretty much the entire English yeoman class, almogavars: "Are we ALL a joke to you?"
@@tommykirk3403 Yeah, not to mention pirates and fishermen.
"Peasant infantry was a joke."
"Tell that to my longbow!"
The Moldavian peasants were well equipped, well trained soldiers. They kicked Ottoman ass several times. Like in this fine example : ua-cam.com/video/CKFhubbLQd0/v-deo.html
Yeomen weren't peasants, but land owners. Actual peasants were mostly what we'd call "farm hands", today. Neither were most men-at-arms or Templar sergeants; they were commoners, and often farmers, but usually not of the peasant class.
@@erikjrn4080 IIRC, peasant doesn't *necessarily* preclude land ownership, though does still imply tenancy. I do apologize, as I was using "peasant" as a catchall for commoners (which frankly I should've known better than to do, by now, but I suppose I was just being a bit lazy).
Medieval soldiers were recruited in 9 different ways and they were far from idiots with pitchforks.
- The Royal Household
- Retinues, retainers, household, _suite_ and _affinity_
- By indenture
- Commission of array and the Arrière-ban
- Feudal obligation
- Voluntary service
- Distraint
- Mercenaries
- Criminals serving without receiving the king’s pay to get a pardon - _‘a ses custages propres’_
*The Royal household* from 1392-93 as an example, was made up of:
- 11 Officers
- Steward
- Chamberlain
- Controller of the household
- Keeper of the wardrobe
- Cofferer
- Keeper of the privy seal
- Secretary
- Almoner
- Physician
- Surgeon
- Dean of the royal chapel
- 8 Chamber knights
- 25 Clerks
- 3 Sergeants-at-arms
- 17 Sergeants of offices
- 101 Esquires
- 10 Huntsmen
- 20 Valets of the chamber
- 89 Valets of the stables
- 80 Valets and messengers
- 53 Grooms
- 14 Carters
- 2 Cleaners
Total 433 men.
Everyone on the list above from the 7 leading officers to esquires were usually men-at-arms serving as mounted lancers. The rest served as mounted archers in addition to doing their daily tasks and crafts, riding either a hobby or hackney to war. There were often additional menial members as well, serving as foot archers. Edward II had 450-500 men in his household. Edward III had more than 800 men.
*The household of lords, earls and dukes.*
- Steward
- Chaplain
- Almoner
- Keeper of the wardrobe
- Clerk of the kitchen
- Receivers of the lords’ manors
- Marshal of the stables
- Cofferer
- The lord’s secretary
Armed retainers:
- Knights
- Esquires
- Gentlemen
- Valets
- Grooms
Menial members such as:
- Gardener
- Slaughterer
- Baker
- Brewer
- Candle-maker
- Farrier
- Blacksmith
- Poulterer
- Messengers
- Servants
When a lord went to war, the household would follow him as men-at-arms, mounted archers and foot archers, billmen and valets, usually down to the lowest servants and craftsmen if they were eligible. They had his livery and maintenance. A lord would usually keep kin, friends and allies in key offices and as armed retainers, his _affinity._ Armed retainers were often younger sons from the gentry without expectations to inherit. This entire group, including menial members were known as _familia._
The size of a household varied. The earl of Devon had a household of 132 men in 1384. The bishop of Ely had 83. John of Gaunt had a household of 115 and a further 150 armed retainers to serve him in need. Thomas, earl of Lancaster had a household of 708 men, but he had 5 earldoms and 2 baronies and an income of £11,000 in 1311.
*Recruitment by indenture* was men serving on contracts - often 6 months, sometimes longer. Lords, knights and esquires were granted a commission to gather soldiers on the king’s behalf. The first men to be indentured by a lord would usually be his permanent armed retainers and menial members of the household, the _familia._ Additional soldiers to reach quotas were recruited from the gentry, yeomen, franklin and husbandman class, usually on or in proximity to his land. The household, retainers and indentured men as one group was known as _suite,_ - 'what follows'. These _"peasants"_ were free men and would usually have between £3 to £7 as income per year, and were far above serfs and villeins in status.
*Commission of array* is the recruitment of every able-bodied men between 15 and 60 years of age. The king would grant a commission to a knight or esquire to muster the men, often local gentry. Other times it was done by the sheriff or other officials. In reality it was a selection process, and they would only take the best archers and the best armoured men for campaign, but if the task at hand was to repel invaders, every suitable man would be selected. While the indenture process made sure soldiers with horses and good armour served the local lord, the commission of array, on the other hand, made sure soldiers of lower status (yeomen, husbandmen, franklins, free men), made the cut as armoured footmen (armati) and foot archers. It also made sure the large intermediate gentlemen class, merchants, men with a trade and rich artisans, between esquires with £20 per annum and yeomen with £3-7 per annum, did their part too. They usually served as armoured men (often known as armatii or armez) either in garrisons or on ships. They did not qualify as mounted lancers because they lacked the training and the right horses. Hobelars from free cities were often described as _de servito._
In 1341 the king’s council in England envisaged an expeditionary force of 10 earls, 49 bannerets, 589 knights, 1,946 men-at-arms, 1,012 _armati,_ 5,952 archers, 2,000 Welsh archers and 2,000 Welsh spearmen. A planed invasion of Brittany in 1342 was to include 2,000 _gentz armez_ with large lances and burnished bascinets. These armies never materialized.
*Feudal obligation.*
In theory all the land belonged to the king, but he granted the land to his _tenants-in-chief_ and knights in return for 40 days of service per year - _servitium debitum_ or ‘service owed’.
*Voluntary service.*
Some lords served at their own expense. By receiving pay they saw themselves as nothing more than mere mercenaries, and it challenged their perceived worth and independence. By 1337 an army entirely recruited by _indenture_ was sent by England to Scotland and everyone after this date was in theory _milites solidarii._
*Distraint.*
During Henry III’s reign there was 24 writs on distraint of knighthood. The first came in 1224. This ordered every layman with a knight’s fee (approximately £12 per annum) to take up knighthood. In 1242 it was reissued, and now every layman owning land worth at least £20 a year had to take up knighthood. In 1253 this was reissued with the addition to pay a fine instead. Edward I changed the requirement for compulsory knights service in 1292 to £40. In reality, few men took up knighthood because of the economical burden and responsibilities, but nonetheless they fought as men-at-arms and held the title of esquires. Distraint in the sense of military service was payment of the fine for not taking up knighthood by prolonging the military service owed to the king instead. This practice was abolished by Edward III in 1352. The practice failed to bring them out to fight and only alienated the gentry.
*Mercenaries.*
In a broader sense, mercenaries were anyone receiving pay in return for military service - _milites solidarii._ That definition, however, is not really helpful when we want to distinguish them from previously mentioned recruitment options. They were usually foreign men without feudal obligation to the king, serving as soldiers for pay. Sought after mercenaries were specialists such as gunners and crossbowmen, but also other professionals such as men-at-arms and pikemen. English archers made a name for themselves, especially in Burgundy and in mercenary companies known as Free companies or Great companies. Other names were _Routiers_ and _Écorcheurs._
*Criminals* serving without receiving the king’s pay to get a pardon - _‘a ses custages propres’._ The person in question would have to hand over a fee for the issue of his charter of pardon. In England in 1346 it was 16s 4d. At the end of the Crécy campaign, Edward III besieged Calais. The total army serving over time numbered some 1,103 knights, 4,022 esquires, 5,104 mounted archers and vintenars, 500 hobelars, 15,480 English foot archers, 4,474 Welsh troops (approximately 50 % spearmen and 50 % foot archers) and 313 masons, carpenters and smiths etc., for a total of 30,996. More than one thousand of these were criminals offered a pardon for military service at the end of the siege. A great number of these were men-at-arms, contrary to most peoples' belief.
This idea that medieval soldiers were ill-equipped serfs with pitchforks is a ridiculous idea. It is correct that some were poorly equipped, such as some of the archers and Welsh spearmen raised by commission of array, but they didn't _have to_ be well equipped. In general, soldiers were free men and chosen for service. They were well fed, well payed, well armed with bills, pikes and bows, and decently armoured with a helmet, hauberk/gambeson/jack, mail sleeves, standard/aventail/coif, gauntlets and even chausses. We even see poleyns quite often.
Also I'd like to see those smug idiots thinking they can take on these "Dumb filthy ill equip peasants" that are the Men Of Arms they expect to fight only to find that the first ones they encounter just so happen to be equip with some of the early fire arms of the time.
"UrrrR God, heaven forbid they have gunpowder in the middle ages."
I mean sure these fire arms weren't exactly developed enough yet to 1-hit a fully armored knight, but after the hellava-mark it would leave on the armor, the men behind them had just the right tools to open that up some more and finish them off.
Reading all that puts to mind that the levee system used in the game Crusader Kings 3, is rather bad if you are of a higher status such as Duke King or Emperor, since in the Feudal system the troops you would be calling together wouldn't only be your own man at arms and the realms levees but also the man at arms and retinue troops of your subject lords. It is rather silly at late game where 95% of your army is just stock levees and what ever your personal household troops may be.
This, is beautiful.
I also would like to add, os that most people will ignore how dificult war truly is, they think is only "stupid peasents frontline with knights", but they forget the many aspects of it like strategy, troop moviment, supplies, logitics, etc.
In their mind war is a quick battle that end on a day, not a dificult and complicated campaing with lot's and lot's of steps.
@@Geraduss Just so happens that a mere video game Crusader Kings 3 isn't a good yardstick for how actual historical armies were raised / maintained...
@@Geraduss CK2 is more accurate but no game is 100% accurate yet
I love how people wear armor that is protective as cardboard in movies.
Actors are allergic to things that cover their faces as well.
truthfully, if you were from a poor village, you would pretty much have paper armor
@@jonathanwessner3456 a gambesom aint paper.
@@jonathanwessner3456 that's not the point. If you were a common villain, you prolly wouldn't have any armor at all, depending on era and locale, except for a helm and a shield. His point is, that in most movies, even plate is hacked through in one blow with a sword (not a bludgeoning weapon) swung like a baseball bat. When in reality, if it didn't work, they didn't use it.
It's probably made of cardboard
I would love to know how the people who think peasants were poorly fed think those same peasants could work in the fields all day long six days a week if they were starving, They probably ate better in nutritional quality than many people do today because of all the garbage we eat. We have more options today, not necessarily better ones. It falls in line with the idea that Nobles always treated their peasants like dirt and barely left them scraps to eat, which would not be very smart on the Noble's part since happy and healthy peasants equal productive peasants which in turn equal more profit for the Noble. 😅
Depends on the year. Famine years are a thing. On average it's very true.
i think it was a bit of a back and forth on that one. they certainly ate but what they ate wasnt always too good, which is why diseases could be quick to take root.
you could survive on nutrionally meagre meals, but when shit hits the fan it can go south real quick.
I'll try to find my source, but I remember reading that, from right before the Potato Famine, Irish peasants tended to be larger than their English lords because the potato has such a high concentration of nutrients.
a war longbow required much strenght, even 60kg of draft force (with one hand), and wealthy farmer were the basis of longbow elite archers, they can train all life, they work hard but they were able to eat plentifull calories, proteins, fats and vegetables.
only the poorest or the commoners during a famine were malnourished.
my grandma, from a small village high in the mountains, told me: when i was a child we didnt had money but our belly was always full (they had farmaland and pastures), so certanly most medieval farmers too.
Thats so true. I hate the common misconception, that nobles treated their subordinates like shit. Nobles were very intelligent and religious men and they were also restricted by law in many things. Of course they used their power position against the lower class, but can you really blame them? Today also big corporations have the upper hand against the lower class working man who has to do everything the boss says, because he has to feed his family and pay rent. Today we have the same thing going on like with the nobles. I could go on about this, but who cares lol
When I joined a reenactment group I felt a massive difference between my first day and even 2 months in. All newbies started on spears but even the vets were scared of us during line combat. During 1 on 1 and 2 on 2 events, we were trashed, but as little as 5 on 5 we held equal potential with anyone especially if led by someone experienced.
Guess what I'm saying is, I assume everyone was trained before being sent off because even slight experience feels massive compared to holding a weapon for the first time. Also it feels like line combat severely evens out the playing field because no matter how good you are, most of the time you're killed by something you're not paying attention to.
P.S. I can't imagine a lord sending untrained troops to battle. You'd lose the battle along with a bunch of tax payers
I had this exact same experience. Although going in I wanted to use a sword and shield, I can say now that spears are my favorite and I will always grab a spear over a sword if it’s not one on one
@@thecharmer5981 Curious. What does one on one Spear combat look like?
@@thecharmer5981*Probably like staring death in the eyes.* T__T
I mean, just imagining myself in that situation, I wanna run. On one second the pokey stick seems to be over a meter away from you, *on the very next one it is poking your eye or throat out* _AND_ much faster and harder to see than a sword, WHICH IS ALREADY FAST AS FUCK!
@@arnowisp6244 well we usually have a side arm, like a dagger or short sword. It’s very interesting, generally the strategy is to knock away their spear and get In close enough to stab them with your side arm. The spears main advantage is its reach, but if you can get close enough then the only way they can get you is by striking with the shaft or a side arm. My strategy was to grab the shaft with a hand, move forward and try to strike them in the gut before they could react. If you have a shield it becomes much easier, as rushing and using the shield to knock away the spear is a very effective strategy in one on one combat
That last bit is why it wasn't common to kill a ton of peasants.
Thank you for giving a detailed explanation of Medieval soldiers. The movies likes to give the idea of a highly skilled warrior chopping through enemies who are little better than scarecrows. There is also the person with toothpicks for arms who's a skilled archer. Popular cinema and reality don't seem to mix.
You can blame the Victorians for the bad reputation of the medieval era. Indeed that reputation got carried forward, and it is only recently that historians and archeologists have the evidence and data to debunk most of those myths. The industrial revolution really inflated their egos and made them way too cocky.
I've been looking for someone to point this out in here; I was just about to do it myself.
Someone needs to put together a list of all of our modern misconceptions of history being the Victorians fault, it would probably be quite extensive.
This type of propaganda goes further back. The Enlightenment created most of these myths. Which the victorians just took and spread even wider.
@@jerry250ify Thinkers always have to assume they are so enlightened and on top of the world even when if left to their own devices they would starve.
@@jerry250ify yeah, the term medieval also comes from enlightenment that doesn't wanna to be associated with those "uncivilized" People.
"Sometimes I feel the Medieval Period is the most misunderstood period of all"
That's not just a feeling Metatron. That's just spewing facts.
IMO, a lot of that misinformation comes from what I call the Century of Myths, aka 19th Century. Soooooo many "common truths" about ancient and medieval times were pronounced by European intellectuals so sure of their own superiority.
@@kamaeq It unironically has to do with a lot of anti-Catholic bias in the English speaking world. Even as England and the US were relatively cosmopolitan, up into the 20th century there was incredible distrust and hatred for Catholics, which led to a lot of mythologizing a shittier version of the middle ages, this combined with an increasingly non religious, and by extension increasingly suspicious of religion, academic class spent more time confirming their own anti-religious, anti-Catholic biases by making up objectively false narratives about historical events (such as the complete fabrication that is the common telling how why Galileo was arrested, it was for calling the pope a sniveling moron, not because he proposed helio centrism, or the portrayal of catholic courts as kangaroo courts, despite them actually being the method that carried roman ideals of a fair trial from the classical era into the modern one). 19th century English speakers believed this because they were protestant, moderns believe it because they are desperate to expunge the important role religion played in the establishment of many modern, and well respected institutions.
@@GR20000 I'll give that one a point, although perhaps with a bit less weight because similar narratives were used against Jews. Not so much against Protestants generally, but the lack of a strong central authority gives more play to compromise and Protestants who didn't compromise were also vilified. The Enlightenment period actually set science back as in the rush to return to the Greek original documents, centuries of research were discarded.
The 19th Century was plagued by the rise of those who must deny Deity by all means, elevating the State, Science or both (mainly for nonscientific types of science) to the position of Deity. The threads of these myths can be traced through the 20th Century into this one. That would be a longer discussion than UA-cam comments could handle.
I do thank you though, I hadn't specifically considered anti-Catholicism as one of the threads involved. Merry Christmas
@@kamaeq For once, the Victorians only have PART of hte blame. The Renaissance started with "those stupid medieval morons are just so dumb compared to the shining antiquity and our rediscovery of it's beacon of wisdom!"
That created the trend.
@@undertakernumberone1 We also got "thinking God's thoughts after Him" from that period. The key is the rejection of God and the arrogance to think people of other times and places are inferior, which occurs in the 19th Century. It wasn't just the Victorian Brits, it spanned Western culture. The Victorians and Germans are often just more obvious, but the French jumped in early during the late 18th during their revolution.
They seem to forget that most villages had a Sgt at Arms, and were REQUIRED to attend weekly training if they were part of the troop levy. The Sgt was a fully trained soldier, who gave these people basic practice in tactics and weapons. They may not have been professional soldiers, but, they were trained in fighting. Especially the archers
said sargeant at arms is usually the village elder himself or a relative (e.g son, brother, cousin) who has returned to the village as a veteran from a conflict, they're also responsible for arming and armoring their respective lord's levies and would be given a portion of what the taxman collected from the village, (although this does depend on how greedy or pragmatic a land's lord is)
of which is probably why the perception of levied soldiers being barely armed untrained peasants are because a common occurence would be the Sgt-at-arms would be a bastard and pocket the gold and be lax with training, thus when the time comes to call the levy to arms they show up with barely anything
Also, the levy most of the time was really mostly just "a number of troops outfitted in such and such a fashion" with no mention as to who those troops actually were and would most of the time just be the knight and his retinue. Even hired mercenaries counted toward the levy. Peasants were more often than not just left to work the land, make money which could be taxed and pay for actual soldiers.
@@rrenkrieg7988 lords would remove the head of that selfish lord, I remember reading the king author removed the head of a knight for sending peasants in first, as knights would be one wielding heavier anti cav or knighted weapons like heavy spears while depending on wealth of the lord elite presents would get Helberts or heavy spears.
so yes swords were a primary weapon but those were great heavy swords with blunted guards to turn them into hammer when needed.
so army formations
knights footmen cav for rear and flanking guard preants middle or edge formation, archers in back or king author whom used his archers 2 to encircle the French in the 100 years war and almost.
but knighted footmen we’re front an center
Never heard of seargent of arms! I want to write a character like that now.
This reminds me of the Ashigaru, who were once poorly equipped mobs, before they professionalised during the Sengoku period, their arms and armour improved, which allowed them to become the backbone of Sengoku armies.
Honestly, the Wheel of Time books are one of the most authentic feeling depictions of medieval infantry. Yeah, you've got the cliche noblemen who behave as though battles are decided by the cavalry... But then you've got the normal infantry who are made up of everything from farmers, to Knight class men that do the bulk of the work with polearms, bows, and crossbows. Hell, there's one bit where a character mops the floor with a couple of nobles with a quarterstaff, to which their instructor tells them to never underestimate an opponent simply because they're a farmer with a staff.
Great series, a shame it hasn't gotten a good adaptation to screen yet.
You know that when it does get adapted to screen, it will be butchered though. Because "hIsToRiCaL aCcUrAcY iSn'T eNtErTaInInG". People act like a battle can only look cool if it's completely stupid. Personally I think a disciplined and orderly battle would be much more impressive to see. Well-disciplined killing machines are more impressive than disorderly mobs.
Well there is the Amazon series, it was decent as long as you turn your book fan off and watch it for what it is.
Brandon Sanderson's The Way of Kings also depicts infantry quite well, although the existence of shard blades and shard plate changes the paradigm a great deal. No peasant is gonna survive for very long against a man with almost impenetrable armour and a sword that can slice through metal like butter.
People really don't seem to understand two main things: A) Every "peasant" you send to war is a man with a job. If you use your peasants as cannon fodder as Hollywood would like you to believe they did you will end up with depopulated fiefdom, a crashed economy, empty grannaries and an empty treasury. That's why long campaigns are the exception and when they happen they heavily rely on mercenaries. And B) 90% of an army to this day wil be ordinary schmucks who really don't want to die. War is about manouver, if you essentialy smash your troops into the enemie's and rely on your individual soldiers fighting prowess you are a truly horrible general...
the issue they forget is cannon fodder does not win wars. As George S. Patton once said-
No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making some other poor dumb bastard die for his count
using peasants as cannon fodder makes less sense than in the World Wars- Medieval Battles could be lost by panic and route spreading thus having poorly trained troops who are "just there to be cannon fodder" would only invite panic when these disposable troops panicked and ran from the field (running is a lot harder in modern war since you most likely will just die tired) but it was easy way to live on a medieval battlefield as long as you did not get run down by Horsemen.
Peasants with pitchforks were of course a real thing- many of the poorly trained peasants on battlefields were hastily mobilized militias drawn up to help defend the realm. But they were not there to be cannon fodder but out of desperation.
Exactly this. What lord would throw away his money making capacity? Most are greedy AF and while penny pinchers, they knew throwing away their workforce was worse
Kinda reminds me about what Emperor Basil II did to Bulgarian soldiers after he won against them: blinding 99 soldiers out of 100. And it's truly devastating to Bulgarian economy in long term.
Not only you make the soldiers useless to work on the fields, you're still have to feed them as well, worse than depopulated fiefs.
And most importantly the need to pay higher wages to the remaining peasants and freedmen.
@@jeroylenkins1745 Honestly the single biggest issue is in the middle ages feeding an army is one of your biggest concerns and a major cost- even if the peasant conscripts were not paid in anyway (their motivation would not be much if this was the case)
I think that nearly all of our 'pop culture' understanding of medieval life is to take the squalor, disease and poverty of the industrial-era but just relocated to the countryside with pig-crap instead of smoke.
I do worry that whenever I try to 'talk up' the lives, intelligence and achievements of medieval people that I am often in danger of over-correcting and presenting it as tolkien's shire type of experience to people instead.
To be fair medieval cities were like that. But then all cities everywhere are like that. Even today. More people the more disgusting it gets.
@@als3022 I'm not confident that even the cities were really like that just because of how small the population of a city was back then. Though probably the experience would be different inside a cramped walled city of the continent rather than the sprawling towns in england. I just don't know enough to even begin to really know !
@@helenFX It was a still a problem, although not as absurdly so as popularly depicted.
ua-cam.com/video/x59HjhbSaiI/v-deo.html
@@als3022 I have to disagree, modern cities have a lot of infrastructure to make sure that they are clean.
For one, there is no animal husbandry going on inside the city limits, as there was for large parts of the past.
Also, they have things like sewage and waste disposal infrastructure.
Yeah some cities have parts where these systems don't work anymore, but overall, our cities are way cleaner than most of the time in the past.
I think it was extremly dependent on the where and when. In some eras and areas peasants were slaves in all but name in others they were far more independent. In Iceland there existed somewhat of a peasant aristocracy with wealthy farmers taking the part of the nobility in mainland Europe while the poorer ones were barely above serfdom (and slavery (thraeldom) was also present). I think in large parts of Europe the general position of peasants became worse over time. Btw the same was true in the Roman empire starting with predominantly free farmers and ending up with with a more or less pure slave economy as far as agriculture was concerned.
Also something people don’t tend to remember: Vikings! Most Vikings were farmers before they decide to undertake a sea expedition either for trade or for raiding. When the trading/raiding is done and they go back home, they went back to their FARMS. Farmers who fight part-time can and has been very good soldiers.
Just think: Farmers made up the militaries of kingdoms for thousands of years before professional soldiers were even thought of.
Vikings also rowed their own ships. Rowing is a great all-around exercise that develops power and stamina in the legs, core, arms, and chest. My guess is They were probably some of the fittest warriors in history.
@@mjfleming319 I'm not sure there are many people who doubt that Vikings were fit. If anything they're probably more often thought of as elite warriors with all the prestige that comes with it. Or infamy, especially if you're British.
But that's probably also why a lot of people seem to not know that most of them were farmers. It clashes with the fierce warrior/raider stereotype.
And speaking of that, they were more often traders than raiders, especially in the east.
Good that you addressed physicality and physical attributes of the medieval people. Both peasants and knights were mad strong, probably a lot stronger and with higher physical endurance than the average person today. Most modern people really can't conceptualize how doing hard physical work for 10 to 12 hours a day since early childhood can train your body.
Oh we are definitely physically weaker as a species ( as a whole) now because of technology. Sure you’ll have some very disciplined gym heads, but man 10-12 hours of work every day until you die is gonna make your body into stone
@@mackiemark5149From expirience: Most gym bros can't take 8h working with lumber as good as Greg, this dude who was born on a farm.
I served in the military for 10 years as a lieutenant. The best soldiers where the ones from small vilages. The ones that grew up doing hard, mostly manual work from dawn to night fall. Most complaints came from city boys not used to being pushed so hard. In fact one of those "farm boys" stayed in his unit even during weekends. When I asked him why, he said that the army was like a summer camp. 3 meals a day and hardly and work :) if he went home he would have to work thro the weekend and guard duty was so much better!
This does funnily remind me some of the best individual soldiers in past wars like WW1 and WW2, happened to be farmers, bus drivers, mechanics, etc. Meanwhile soldiers that came from a highly educated background like teachers tended to be the first one killed.
Never underestimate the people who keep everyday life going.
I mean, if you give someone with a highly educated background a job as a frontline rifleman then yea, they won't do as well as a farmer. But they'd make good medical personnel if they have a background in medicine, not every job in the military is frontline combat
I'd say highly educated backgrounds keep daily life going. I like having working electronic and mechanical devices. I like having schools that can be trusted (more or less) to educate kids. I like not dying of cholera thanks to doctors and scientists. And I like that the mass panic of an economic recession doesn't happen as often when investors make careful decisions.
My Dad, who was conscripted into the army in WWII, told me this story about an overbearing sergeant who was a regular soldier. The sergeant was being very disparaging about the skills of the conscripts. My Dad said "If you professionals were so bloody good, you wouldn't need us. All you've ever fought are poorly armed natives."
@@davidhyams2769 Kudos, that burning knight cuts deeps, with Salt of the Earth.
@@davidhyams2769 Did your dad get disciplined for that (If he said it in front of the sergeant I can bet he got his head bashed in, especially back then when physical violence was allowed in punishments)? Also, it is fairly standard in all armies for the Drill Sergeant to disparage the recruit in order to break them down as an individual and enforce a fighting mentality. It also gets them conditioned to the pressures of battle.
The era as a whole hard to judge, because skill is going to vary wildly from early to late Medieval: Viking raiders aren't go to last long against gunfire and masses of crossbows, regardless of their reputation, because that's a matter of discipline instead of strength or ferocity.
As to eating, one of the big parts of the Magna Carta reforms was the Charter of the Forest, which was made to prevent the King trying to monopolize forests for hunting, fishing, and so on. That it was seen as a right for all freemen, or at least, those who owned property that included forest, help's to show how big a deal hunting was, so there was clearly an expectation for having access to meat.
It was a matter of discipline in both cases, the only differing factor there is that one side has guns.
The matter would depend as always on training. Either in traditional fashions or in a "professional" fashion.
About eatin:
They had pigs, sheep and other animals to eat. Hunting was for furs and entertaining. The meat wasn't the primary objective except when there was a famine on going, there's barely no protein gain in hunting an animal for days, even if it's a wild roar, when you have the friendly counterpart in the farm.
Ancient hunting, with bow and spear, was totally different to nowdays with gunpowder... They had to pursue the animal for days... And for small animals, it was pretty much just check the traps
This weird modern conceit that people in the past were dumb because they didn't have iPhones or whatever, is hubris wrapped in ignorance.
Also, a lot of people today should be the last to criticize someone else's intelligence.
I think it is the same instinct that causes humans to struggle figuring out how to respect their elders. These people are really old, so that must mean I'm better experienced than them.
not modern at all. Renaissance people started to shit on the medieval period already, because it was neither the bright classical antiquity nor the Renaissance.
And then came the victorians...
I think the biggest thing a lot of people tend to forget about history is that no matter the date, culture or learning, we are all still just humans and have the same fundamental thought process and "brain power".
@Your friendly imperialist neighbor
considering how your lowly hard working ancestors would prolly be just as insufferable and filled to the brim with character flaws, because you know, humans, it prolly wouldnt be that great.
True words! 👍
"..stable boys."
"Stable boy, polish my chair..."
"...as you wish."
A farmer once came to our house to get a tractor engine. He was small, 5'7, yet he deadlifted 500 kg onto a trailer.
Come now, Metatron. The peasants in RTW armed with pitchforks is a symbol of realism.
Ah, yes. Everyone knows it's the ABSOLUTE EPITHOMY of realism, right? xD
BARBARIAN PEASANTS
I've allways believed the peasants in Heroes of Might and Magic 3 was the epiphany of historical correctness!
Fighting full peasant armies was soooo funny lol
You meant M2TW right? Peasants in RTW used knives.
my grandparents you could defined as peasants. they were self sufficient what today might be called local, organic and off grid. they owned around 6 fields and 2 woodlots scattered around the parish. their fuel was wood, which they chopped themselves and transport the wood in cow/ox drawn fixed axle carts. they made their own corn and rye bread, they had a water mill to grind grain, they made their own butter and olive oil. I can tell you one thing my grandmother's brother was a lanky skinny 60 year old and he could out chop anyone half his age from the city. townspeople would look down on rural people but they would never mock them to their face. Other thing peasants know how to do is kill things quickly without fuss.
My family was exactly the same, from southern Italy, very tough people both phisically and mentally. I was born in urban Argentina and got some muscle, but in comparison I'm weak.
When you can kill gigantic farm animals, humans probably don’t seem so hard.,
I mean, this isn’t medieval, but David probably killed a lot of large and dangerous animals defending his sheep.
A man, even a very big one, was probably one of the easier things he’d killed, even at his young age.
I find it amazing how our judgement of food availability is skewed according to our modern perceptions. What would be considered expensive food today is not the same as what was considered fancy in the medieval period. Staple fitness meals - wild fish, complex carbs and tons of vegetables, would have been readily available to the peasants living in the countryside. Such a contrast to burgers, fries and sugar of the modern day.
remember, Lobster used to be a staple of the peasantry, it was not a high end food til later
Just look at Colonial America. In a few colonies, indentured servants protested about being fed lobster more than three times a week. Back then lobster was considered almost a garbage food. It was plentiful and cheap.(technically its still plentiful, but only certian sizes are allowed to be harvested and sold to keep up the breeding stock and prices)
I dunno about you, but in Germany that's also readily available ^^
Although the fresh fish kind of depends on where you live.
I bet ulcerative colitis, colon cancer, IBS, Chrons and the like weren't as common back then.
@@phildicks4721 Watching Townsends seafood videos, I can see why they’d complain.
When I was doing my National Service in Singapore, we had to dig shellscrapes (shallow trenches just deep enough for an infantryman to lie prone inside) during our field camp. With everyone being city boys with no experience digging, it took hours for us to complete our own individual sections (the expected standard was 45 minutes). However, the neighbouring platoon had this skinny African dude who grew up on a farm, and he dug like crazy and finished the entire platoon's shellscrapes. Never mess with a farmer.
One more important thing to remember is also: when and where in the medieval period are we talking about. In the early medieval period("dark ages") the stereotypical levied peasants were quite common while Western Europe high to late medieval they were near nonexistent, replaced by the better equipped and trained mercenary.
This would be the one thing I could criticize about this video, that you kinda put mercenary and levy in one category. The two were very distinct with very few overlaps or contact points (early Swiss mercenaries). While at that, there is also the 3rd category of medieval non-noble soldier not to be forgotten, the city citizen militia (mostly resembling modern reservists in function).
So yes, technically the stereotype of poor equipped peasant levy did exist, but it was in context of a time where the comparative noblemans arms and armor would get you laughed out of a 15c landsknecht company.
What about peasant hunters who would catch the “expensive” animals like rabbits and pike? Did they sell the quarry to their nobles? Or did they just eat and enjoy it?
Seriously, yeah. The Norse warriors who raided the early English kingdoms actually weren't too well equipped unless they were relatively wealthy. Some only had their Seax and their Hunting Bow, and look how successful they were.
A peasant is somebody who work the land. Sure a peasant could go hunting, but hunting wihout permission is called poaching and that could be punished. So if they did do it, they would not be open about it. The noble also owned the forest and all the game living inside. Noble employed hunters who would hunt and take care of the forest and wildlife. And yes, poaching was a problem also back in the middle ages. But again, it depend on when and where exactly we speak.
Hunting was for the wealthy, if a peasant hunted game it was poaching.
@@francoishelfer6645 Peasants are not that simple, there are layers to peasants. Mind you, anyone not a noble or royal was a peasants, from hunters to merchants to farmers to artisans.
@@boredfangerrude and there was game that WASN'T reserved for nobility.
Saying that levied troops aren't as good as knights or men-at-arms is like saying that the infantry aren't as good as the SAS or Delta. Technically true but I'm still not going to pick a fight with a soldier.
The old, "But would you say it to his face?" defence. ;)
6:17 Play Kingdom Come Deliverance if you want to be immersed in the concept of "which food belongs to which class". You see, the game has a poaching mechanic where you lose reputation if you're caught selling wild meat from hares, boars, and deer, because they all belong to the king/nobles. You also get penalized for selling meat from cows and pigs because those animals belong to the peasantry you stole from. Naturally, the game has a neat "stolen goods" mechanic to help you determine what you can and can't sell to normal people, while you can sell anything to the black market traders. Whatever the case, I highly recommend this game for how much research the devs put into it.
Sadly the combat system is unusable. The mouse gestures are so complicated and my hands are shaky (no health problem, just not used to precise small movements)
what meat can you sell?
@@cardboardbox191 You can sell any meat that wasn't stolen, or any meat that you cooked yourself (weird game mechanic). The game also doesn't factor in chickens the same way pigs and cows are, in that you can straight up butcher a random chicken in full view of NPCs and they won't care, but if you butcher the other animals, they will summon the guards on you.
I think there are a lot of farm implements that have very similar battlefield weapons. Bills (tree pruners), and scythes had combat variants, as you mentioned a pitchfork could easily be replaced with a spear, I suspect that at least some peasants had experience using long knives to clear brush, etc. Thus, an experienced commander would find out what his draftees had experience with and equip them accordingly.
People thinking "just peasants, just farmers" never got into a brawl with someone who spent entire life doing heavy building work.
Victor Hanson would like to have words with these commentators. Medieval freemen were spirited soliders who enabled Christendom to keep Islam and the Huns at bay. Petty landowners have always made the best infantry.
No one fights harder than the Yeoman farmer.
I mean, it's true to a point that men at arms were intended to "pad the numbers".
There wouldn't be enough knights to fill entire armies with most of the time, so medieval armies would need a backbone of large infantry formations.
But it's rather silly to assume that they got no training. Any ambitious commander worth his salt would make sure that his peasants got as much training as possible.
And let's not forget that archers were drafted from the peasantry, after basically being encouraged and indoctrinated to train archery every day since they were children. Years of training archery combined with farm work will inevitably create some pretty buffed and competent men for battle.
Peasants also had some rather nice incentive to perform well in battle, since not only did warfare entail the promise of looting, it was also one of the only ways to improve your station in society since peasants who stuck out well in battle could get battle promotions and some might even get knighted if they showed that they had the right stuff for it.
„Worth his salt“ is an interesting figure of speech. Is it from a work of fiction, is it a real idiom, or was it (Just) a typo? Because if it’s real, it sounds very interesting. No matter what, I want to use it in my novel, haha!
@@robinrehlinghaus1944 nope. its real. There was a time when salt was used as (part of) soldier's salaries, due to the worth of salt.
@@undertakernumberone1 I think it was ancient rome who paid with salt, right? I remember that's where the word salary came from.
@@undertakernumberone1 Well the historical accuracy of using salt as payment due to it's supposed extreme rarity has been disputed.
But the phrase is definitely taken from this idea. 😊
Sir John Hawkwood started as a Long Bowman but was able to climb the ranks and become the commander of the White Company. A famous mercenary force in the Italian Wars.
Keep in mind too, that spanning the many centuries through Roman Republic, Empire, then western & eastern Empire, the Roman military was not always at the top of its game either. Every military force that has been around any length of time has periods when its better and periods when it is subpar. And i know you have consistently factored that in as well in your talks, Metatron.
A number of people seem to forget that, following the restructuring of the Roman army in the late 3rd & early 4th centuries, a large number of the soldiery were designated as ‘limitanei’, literally “riverbank soldiers” but more accurately frontier troops. Early in the period they were still considered full soldiers, but from the late 4th to their disappearance from the records in the 7th century they were either a paid or self-sustaining militia.
During the Tetrarchy, Rome has shifted from using an active frontier defence (basically, frontier troops alternatingly raiding and friendly dealing with the tribes beyond the frontiers) to a defence-in-depth strategy, where the limitanei would initially engage an enemy force, then retreat into their forts and engage in harrying tactics while the heavyweights, the cometatenses (the standing army) and the palatini (the elite forces), would engage with the invading forces.
This, by the way, is why I think that the narrative about all of the Roman army leaving Britain is bunkum. By the time that the Notitia Dignitatum was drawn up in the late 4th century (probably with some of the Western offices updated around 420), the Legio VI and the majority of the troops in northern Britain were all designated as limitanei, and would not typically be deployed afield. That, coupled with the fact that most of Constantine III’s commanders who are named in the texts are Germanic (probably Franks) suggests that the army that Constantine III took across to Gaul was probably a combination of the cometatenses and barbarian foederati, either previously stationed in Britain at the time or, to me more likely, hired on once Constantine landed.
Anyway, back to the point. A large part of the late Roman army (in the western Empire, at least) were probably very similar to the army of the early Republic - a semi-trained citizen-soldiery rather than a professional fighting force, and probably not significantly different from the levies of the 12th to 14th centuries in Europe.
Everybody is gansta until they have to fight the peasant levy in mud
The Man-At-Arms misrepresentation frustrates me. While yes, some could have been peasants, the Man-At-Arms was basically any manner of well-trained, professional soldier ranging from a low-ranking infantry pikeman (typically a new recruit) to a mid-ranking cavalry officer knight (typically a veteran from a low noble status). These were men who served at all times and constantly trained. The veterans were typically well-versed in military tactics and strategies, particularly those who rose up to leadership levels. They were also very well supplied in terms of weapons, armor, and other battlefield necessities. They made up the bulk of every standing army and garrison of cities, castles, and fortresses. These were the men who stood guard at the gates and entrances of political buildings, as well as those hired as guards by the wealthy. They also patrolled the streets of cities as well as the roads and territories surrounding those cities.
Yes, most nations would levy troops from the peasantry during wars and certain types of military campaigns. Yes, these levies could make up anywhere from 40-65% of the troops of such armies. But these men were strong and fit from their daily labors. Also, many of these men were skilled hunters with both bow and spear. So it's not as though they had no experience at all. Furthermore, some nations required weekly training in some martial manner for men of ages 16-40. This was usually done in practicing with the bow, but many lords would hold gatherings where their personal Men-At-Arms would work with the local men in training with various blades and polearms. Even the levies would know how to fight within their specific unit, and would be well-enough equipped to get the job done.
Another point, not all of the levied peasants and commoners were done so for the purpose of combat. Many levies were also artisans pulled into service to act as blacksmiths, fletchers, medics, messengers, livery hands, cooks, wagoners, etc to supply the army with whatever needs that might arise.
yep. Logistics is half the battle. If your men are hungry, with no arrows or bolts and carrying rusted, barely functional weapons they’re gonna lose fights they’d normally win
A loss of a standing military and return to militaries ordered almost like bronze age ones. But we don't dismiss early Greek (Mycenaean), Egyptian, or any of those individual supplied levied armies
Most important qualities in a medieval soldier? Know how to use your weapon as it was intended to be used, be able to do manual labor, don't run away, and don't chase someone who's running away from you. Being able to kung fu dance didn't really enter into it.
If modern experience is anything to go by, the average farmer is much smarter than the average professional soldier.
"They're just peasants, nothing to worry about." Are the famous last words of many a nobleman and his retinue.
Kinda hard to imagine to call someone an idiot who’s wearing armor and carrying a weapon that can kill you.Kinda reminds me of a skateboarder attacking a dude holding a rifle.
Kyle the hero
Oh well played Ryu, well played indeed. LOL
Based
Modern automatic assault rifle: 😔
Flail: 👌😃
@@shelbyspeaks3287 what’s an assault rifle?
I believe that the medieval soldier had to be efficient in combat. And they were. The best example of it - wars with Czech protestants after Jan Hus was killed. Of course, there were famous Czech knigts, but the majority of the army were simple Man at arms. And they did show the european knigts how to fight.
You do know that during the 14hundreds standing Armes were still ... uncommon?
So European Armies were still comprised of mostly Man at Arms too.
I mean the Hussite Wars started 1419.
The First European Coutnry to re-establish an standing Army was France in 1430´s.
1434 were the last Battles (after initiating peace talks btw) with the Hussite.
Or simpler said, at the Time the Hussite Wars came to an end, France came back with the standing Army Idea.
Hungary followed them then.
And the First standing Army on European Soil (since the Western Roman Empire) was by the Ottomans. i just say this because i know someone will point that out.
@@kaitan4160 I do, and please forgive me for using the term too widely. Quick thinking and even quicker texting. I am perfectly aware of the issue, but still, thank you for your response.
Pottage was a real feature at peasant tables, but I suspect it was more of a survival food and something that, when dried, could be taken to the field with some table beer for use as an instant meal. Peasants also had bread that was quite nutritious, especially when peas, bits of carrots, and other veggies to add to the bakery.
Any of us that have done Manual Labor for a lengthy period of time, have the same result. I was a skinny 6'4" 140 lb youngster when I was hired by the Dept. of Interior. Two years later, I was a 6'4" 210 lb guy that was built like a Fullback.
I couldn't even wear regular cut jeans. 75 lbs on your back walking up and down mountains averaging 13,000 feet tends to physically alter your body. In spite of the machinery, farming is still hard, back breaking 7 days of week work, and it doesn't stop at 5:00 pm.
Never underestimate someone who does physical labor for a living.
Honestly, the Brettonian Men at Arms were some of my favorite models from GW. That whole line of models was fantastically characterful. I feel like the rules didn’t live up to the models. A polearm hedgehog or shield wall should have been much more effective than it was.
Great video. Thank you for the knowledge, and the trip down memory lane.
then State Troops would've been needed to be a good bit stronger as well, since they are ususlly (at least for the default, Reikland) better trained, better fed and equipped with higher quality equipment.
@@undertakernumberone1 No arguments from me. But I’m a big fan of armies of human infantry.
I agree! That's why I have 80 men at arms from Bretonnia :D when I play, people tell me I shoudlnt field them because no One uses them in tournament play, but I still do because FUN
@@metatronyt *aims Imperial Iron Companies* 80 men at arms you say? 😜
I don't play Warhammer (not the physical games at least), but it seems to me that a regular line of infantry wouldn't stand much chance against a horde of chaos-warped monstrosities as tall as houses^^
Maybe the stats are adjusted to fit the setting?
If he had a pitchfork I’d still wouldn’t want fight him, have people seen what a well taken care of pitchfork can do?
They haven't. They probably have no concept of how dangerous a pitchfork is in the hands of someone with murderous intent
@@vicenteabalosdominguez5257 It's literally just a multi-headed spear. It would be an extremely effective battlefield weapon.
just ask Geralt of Rivia.
Well, every farming tool is an weapon in right hands!
@@rhorynotmylastname7781 I disagree. The multiple points makes it easier to block, heavier and more difficult to thrust due to increased weight, more expensive due to increased use of metal. To back up my claim we can just look at reality, a spear is used far more often than a trident and bident (basically multiheaded spears) and increasing the number of points wont do any more good.
That being said, stick with metal points is still better than no stick at all
I'm 50, 260#, and I've been a carpenter/home remodeler for over thirty years. Basically, a modern peasant. I have no idea how much I can bench press, but I can carry a pair of 5/8" 12' sheetrock all day. I can also remove one brick from a wall with an 8# sledge hammer. I also bowhunt. I haven't trained in combat since childhood, but I have thrown hands. In short, I am not a dude to just blow off and not take seriously as a physical opponent.......
I totally agree and I respect that
@@metatronyt, thank you. And there is no reason that same logic shouldn't apply to the past. Which is why I really like watching shows like yours and other members of the Fellowship of the Sword.
Beware an old man in a profession where men die young.
Hell yeah. Modern day peasant. I'm with ya!
I'm right with you. I've been a bagger at the grocery store, the guy to put up the weekly delivery at a fast food place (about 100 boxes up to 50lbs each), a soldier, and now a bus driver dealing with heavy luggage.
Love this topic. Always blows my mind that people forget that medieval peasants were more than likely stronger and more resilient than most modern body builders. Weve gotten soft and project that softness onto others.
Small correction. Bretonnian Men At Arms are ruminants of older editions. In 4th, Brets were basically French with gunpowder and they had regular, trained infantry called M@A. In 5th you had a reboot, which changed them to Arthurian style, mixed Anglo- French. M@A name stayed, but now they were describing peasant levy. 6th Edition (the one you have miniatures from) gave us grimdark and really poor starving peasants. And they kept the name.
I was reading about the battle of Campaldino in 1289 recently, and it seems like infantry armed with spears, crossbows and clubs played a very important role though arguably in support of the aristocratic cavalry. One of my resolutions to to learn Italian so I can better understand Medieval and Renaissance Italian history.
0:12 "diluted pizza blood" Lol!
Metatron blood type : Ragu
I recently read a book about the battle of Varna in 1444 and one of the points highlighted in the book was how Ottoman soldiers, especially Janissaries were incredibly disciplined and organized and thus didn't feel the need to be heavily armored relying more on mobility and defensive firepower then armor. It clearly worked since heavy armored mounted knights and men at arms did little to effect the outcome of the battle. It dawned on me that the European style of war in the middle ages was fundamentally about insuring that the peasant class could never organize themselves into becoming a highly effective force on the battlefield. Since it would be a serious threat to the nobility who ruled over them.
quite the assumption....
At the end of the day, janissaries were slaves while knights were noblemen. It's not a surprise that survivability was not as important for the former as it was for the latter.
@@romaliop Janissaries went through a long 10 year plus training process and thus were a major investment for the Ottomans. Written accounts state that their lack of armor was more of a tactical decision then a lack of concern for their welfare.
@@larkturner7136 A valuable asset is still vastly different from being an important person in your own right. The former were outfitted from a top down perspective, while the latter outfitted themselves and were ultimately the ones who decided how much value they saw in their own personal survivability. The knights were basically a warrior class and as such, of course they were always conscientious of the need to be able to put the lower classes in their place if need be.
However, the janissaries as an institution were not much different in this regard. They too were in a privileged position in the class hierarchy due to them being slaves of Christian origin, who always owed their allegiance directly to the Sultan. In the end they also much resembled the warrior class that the knights had once been, albeit at this point the European military tradition had already moved on from such a system. Ultimately they even played a big part in the decline of the Ottoman Empire by holding onto inefficient and outdated military tradition while also extorting more and more privileges for themselves.
@@larkturner7136 Didn't janisseries rely on gunpoweder during the Ottoman expansion, hence they were more akin to the new model army?
As a security guard in Australia, 6"5 I go to the gym a lot and try to take care of myself despite maybe liking takeout a bit too much. But I'm extremely strong physically and also grew up as a farm boy.
I was talking to another security guard doing a job uo in a country town called Weipa where a lot of wiry farmers were coming to this one event and getting on the piss.
Now a few of them played up and he could not believe how strong these farmers were. And I told him, these guys get up at 0400 every day, six days a week, they work all day with heavy machinery and a lot of manual handling. They survive on very little food and they do this for years. So while they aren't built like gym junkies, they are insanely strong.
Grandad was a farmer and in WWII. He was built like a brick shithouse and still chopping his own firewood up until he passed at 90.
Many medieval soldiers didn't actually want to fight, they only enlisted in order to save up money for colle- ... oh wait nevermind, wrong time period.
lol, it's almost like we've come full circle once again ^.^
“Either you join the Imperial Guard or you starve”
I think that the idea people weren't well fed stem from the fact that tragedies and bad situations like wars and plagues are focused on in media like Hollywood, because its where you get the juicy stories, when in reality most of the time people had food to eat.
during winter they could fish and live off food harvested from the growing months.
The only reason people starved was if something pervented them from growing/gathering and storing food.
And suprise suprise, being stabbed or coughing out intestine due to Plague is very good at stopping people from harvesting food.
Or famine years. Also depends on when on the medieval period. If in the ealt medieval period food was plentiful and you had population booms due to a Warming Period. When the Little Ice Age started you get much more famine years and plagues. Why the first centuries of the medieval period you see population growth and after in the later period you see more stagnant population numbers. But that is ecological not cultural
Throughout the Middle Ages there were gigantic markets for mercenary units, sometimes almost completely outsourcing the business of warfare to the mercenary class. These units often had no fixed allegiance to the state, working as contractors for the highest bidder. This early form of capitalism created an environment where armies had to be trained to some extent anyway. Private armies increased their value through high levels of training and discipliine and often high requirements on the physical abilities of their applicants, as show the Vikings or the Landsknechts. Thus, official state forces like knights had to be equally well-trained to be even able to compete. Assuming that you could venture on the battlefield without preparation is stupid, since in the most settings of history this would be suicidal and humans normally don't like doing things that would surely lead to their death or imprisonment.
I mean you could argue that Prussia came out of one Christian Mercenary Group.
"The Teutonic Order was knights and not mercenaries mimimimimi" ...
Yeah Knights that were really good at building Forts and Bastions and got paid quite well by Kings and Unions to build these defensive Lines ....
So they got paid for Warfare ... Mercenaries.
The problem isn't just that the average medieval infantryman levy wasn't professionally trained on a regular basis as part of a standing army in formation tactics/maneuvering in a unit, it's that western european medieval warfare was unsophisticated and until the strategikon of Maurice they didn't even have any proper military doctrine, standards or protocols. During that time the byzantines had a professional standing army of about 90 thousand troops all trained in standard late roman/byzantine doctrine, similar things can be said about the sassanids. You can see obvious results of these western medieval shortcomings at the battle of the ice, where a materially superior force of teutonic knights were destroyed in battle by a bunch of untrained peasants in a pike formation (because the teutons simply decided to charge into the tight formation without knowing any better). A similar event happened at the battle of the spurs, battle of Necopolis and even during the failed portugese invasion of morocco (where the entirety of portugese nobility was wiped out). These humiliations eventually led to the infantry revolution, as mounted knights became less prevalent in war nations would have to rely on professional standing armies of infantrymen.
Meanwhile in Medieval India-
"Hey are you tired of being a farmer"
"Do you want adventure"
"Do you want to increase your social status and your caste with the help of looted gold"
"Has your father taught you the basic skills of swordsmanship"
"Join your Kings Army right now"
(Experience may Vary)
Another thing to consider with levied troops is that war far was common and levies frequently called. If a levy wasn't being called to defend their home county, they were being called to fight with their lord in some foreign adventure. I think it would be pretty safe to assume that a levy infantryman who had reached middle age was already a veteran of at least one campaign. On top of this, by the 14th century most localities had some form of militia. England's longbow statutes are probably the most famous, but cities in France often had their policing needs provided on a rotating basis among the guilds, which provided training and equipment to their members. The Flemish and Swiss had their city/canton pike units which were trained on a regular basis and each had their share of victories against armies comprised of knights. The successes of peasant revolts all across Europe in the 14th and 15th centuries really bear this out, as well. While they may have been defeated, it was usually because the leaders were caught, not because they were defeated on the field.
Great video I love how medieval levied troops are portrayed like this but other one throughout history get a pass. For instance archaic and classical Greek Hoplites who were largely,although with exceptions, not professional soldiers.
I used to work in a warehouse which by modern standards is physically demanding, but no where near as demanding as manual agricultural work. Even then I felt like I was in incredible shape. Medieval peasants were probably about as fit as professional athletes today.
Regarding the "peasant" soldiers, one of the villages relatively near me in Cheshire basically exists because of a pair of lower class soldiers. The first may have even been of peasant class. He came back from the Battle of Crecy with war-booty and commissioned the building of the church. By the time of his grandson the family were firmly yeoman class and that grandson was the leader of a small company of mounted archers at the Battle of Agincourt. He came back even richer and had the church rebuilt and extensive stained glass installed.
I appreciate you showcasing and talking about your Bretonians, I have often seen them in the background of your videos and wondered when they were going to get a mention.
Painting minis while listening to your video. 🖌️
I remember Shadiversity discussing a book about the prevalence of arms and armour in Germany (by Tlusty). He made a interesting observation - since you could not call in the police within a minute, or the Army and Air Force, just about everyone had to have at least some kind of weapon - and was probably trained to use it for his defense to some degree. Villagers and farmers had to be able to chase off the occasional roving band of thieves and such. Towns were defended by the Citizens mainly, supporting the small town guard (if they even had one…).
So I would think, even levied troops would have at least some training - maybe lacking a bit about formation work and such, but they sure knew how to whack someone to death and not get whacked back. And farmers or craftsmen and such, working long hours, could probably wield most weapons with ease. GIve them a few lectures about how formations work, train them, and you may have a useful army at hand.
I like how people are quick to say that "Peasants" and "Commom Soldiers" are nothing to knights and tend to forget how deadly and dangerous they could be. Just search The Hussite Wars and Jan Žižka and you will see how "Peasants" can became a kingdom worse nightmare.
Great Video as always my friend, keep on debuking those bad tropes.
Seeing how the Hussite Wars was a religious War. Yo ucan bet that "professionals" were involved there too.
For sure there were Knights and Soldiers and Guards and whatnot.
I mean 85% of the People in Böhmen were "utraquists". Bethlehemites, Lutheraner (sorry dont know the translation there) made up the Movement against the Catholics there.
452 Nobles did send an Protest to the council of Constance after Jan Hus got burned.
Read that again, Nobles.
So this Movement wasnt a "pure Peasant Movement". It rather was an Army like most others. Lead by Nobles, and consisting of Knights and Soldiers and peasants.
It is funny that the lower classes ate the better bread. Thank you for this video; I have recently gotten interested in food throughout history and cultures. As to your question, I can't recall ever having met someone who looked down on medieval soldiers, but then again, I met few people interested in the middle ages or history. Sweeping statements about the middle ages should be made with great care. It lasted about 1000 years and involved a vast area, so many cultures, and dynamics.
How's it said?
"Civiliation is built on the Breakers, The Bakers, and Candlestick Makers."?
I seem to remember a decree by Charlemagne about levied troops that basically said that only men who could afford a minimum of equipment (and supplies for a certain amount of days) were required to show up at the established place and date
I think the casual medieval enthusiast, such as myself, would be alarmed at how few peasant levies were used in European armies prior to the Hundred Years War. (I'm sure there were exceptions to this phenomenon, my area of study is in English history.) This was due, one assumes, to the fact that the war season coincided with the planting/harvesting season. Peasants were needed in the fields rather than on campaign. Traditionally, the rate of levy was one man for every seven hearths in a village. Compare Richard the Lionheart leaving his Angevin territories for the Holy Land with an equal number of foot soldiers and mounted knights with the battle of Agincourt, where archers outnumbered knights and squires about six to one.
I think peasant levies were more commonly used in defensive wars, or wars in which the peasants wouldn’t have to go very far. For example, in the “First Hundred Years War” from 1159 to 1259, local levies from Gascony were actually used pretty frequently by the English kings since the theatre of war was mostly in France, but rarely did they ever bring over levies from England itself. It was the knights who may come from England.
Love your insight on history bro, thankful the universe has brought you to us. Not a history fanatic but man this stuff is so interesting even just to learn something new.
Thank you very much! I'm glad to hear
Spears and later pole arms were one of the most commonly used weapons for infantry. They are relatively cheap and easy to make (at least compared to other weapons), offered reach and power in attacks, and were relatively easy to train a soldier in its use. So long as you can get a unit to maintain order in a formation and cover the basics of spacing, defense and attacking then you have a fairly effective fighting force in the space of a number of weeks.
The other thing about the Medieval period in movies: mud. It's everywhere. No colors, just grey and brown. It's the expected stereotype, as if Medieval people just like wallowing in mud all of the time. Eating gruel, wearing mud, and terrible soldiers--the expected stereotypes of an era that was actually quite rich and colorful in so many ways.
I’d argue that food in the Middle Ages was much healthier and nutrient rich than today, we have so much processed and synthetic food full of chemicals and additives often made in factories, whereas medieval food was straight from the land and naturally sourced without a slew of chemicals added
also the animals were healthy so meat and eggs and milk were healthier
well yeah but we have much more diversity and our diet is much more rich in sugars, fat etc making it not equal or healthy but more efficient, numerous and cheap.
Thank you! I hate this stupid myth and I have no idea why it is so pervasive and long lasting. It boggles my mind that no one wants to give the medieval soldier any credit or research.
I also like how someone has finally decided to talk about the common medieval soldier instead of the knight for once as this is a subject that is incredibly overlooked.
I would expect anyone who labors manually frequently to know their way around any sort of bladed implement pretty well. It makes me think of when I was young and got the chore of chopping thistles with a machete; I was pretty proficient at throwing an effective cut just by doing work alone. Considering that daggers/knives comparable in length were pretty common I think that anyone coming off the field or out of a workshop would be pretty handy with a sword, if not by technical training the body mechanics alone would deliver pretty darn solid cuts.
Knowing how to cut is only the first step on learning how to use a sword. Swords are complex weapons that take years of practice to become somewhat proficient with. This is why levies would generally be armed with simpler weapons that resembled the tools they used in everyday life (axes, cleavers, clubs, pole-arms etc.). And you can bet that they were efficient with them. There is plenty of examples of armies consisting mostly of knights and other professional soldiers being defeated by armies consisting of common levies.
Cutting something/someone when hitting them with a blade is not hard. It's the hitting part that is, mainly because unlike thistles, a person tends to actively try to prevent that and stay alive. Very frequently by using their own weapon of some sort to put the other person at risk of getting harmed while trying to harm them.
Infantry of the medieval era likely had a very good sense of (at the very least their own) biomechanics, due to the amount of self-dependence that they had to do to survive. They also likely knew their personal strengths and limits better than most people today, for the same reasons, which I feel is something that a lot of people now don't really know. A lot of people would have known basic orienteering and survival skills, too, right?
One common aspect of the “idiots with pitchforks” idea is the perception that peasant levies were only called up in times of dire need. If we bear in mind the common dictum that any privilege enjoyed for six months becomes a right, one can see the error in that idea. If peasant levies were only called upon for rare occasions, they would have been completely unreliable. How long would it take to raise them? Dunno. How many can you field? Dunno. What gear do they have? Dunno. Would they show up at all? Dunno.
Guys, they might just be irregular troops, but you still have to feed them and get them from A to B. Logistics takes planning, and planning requires knowledge. At the very least, peasant levies would have to be raised a couple of times a year, just so the nobles would know their numbers, who has a spear & shield vs who had a bow vs who had a sling (yep, still used in medieval armies), how long it would take for each village or shire’s levies to muster (and then to join up into a larger force), and for the peasants to know what to bring, what not to bring, and where to meet up.
Remember, everyone isn’t hearing about the call-up over the radio here; at best, a herald rides into a village or hamlet and blows a trumpet. The peasant in the field, or his farmhouse, or wherever, hears the trumpets and goes, ‘crap, time to go home and dig out the spear and shield.’ The goodwife hears the horn and starts packing up his kit (and mentally prepares herself to do both his work and her work until he gets back from whatever idiot thing His Lordship wants now).
None of this is accidental.
And they practically stopped to call up peasant levies towards the Late Middle Ages indeed. Giving a spear, a shield and a helmet to a basically untrained peasant worked only as long as professional soldiers were few (thus leaving some logistic and tactical space for someone else) and the armament was comparatively simple. And in the 14th century when you put a bunch of moderately well-armed peasants (a very rare occurence by itself) against a bunch of military professionals with expensive up-to-date equipment... then Visby happens. And the worst part is that those *untrained and usually poorly motivated* peasants will produce nothing but still consume a lot of food and other resources (which still was a big logistic pain). So who do we see on the fields of the Hundred Years' War? Chiefly feudals (who were paid compensations for being raised but still mostly hoped for prisoners, loot and trophies) and expensive mercenaries (hired individually or en masse); granted, not all the mercs actually were professionals, but the core was.
@@Alexey_Selivanov It really depends on the specific region you are talking about, and when you are talking about. Italian armies heavily transitioned to primarily mercenary armies fairly swiftly, (comparatively) centralized countries like England had citizen *and* mercenary regular forces, and less centralized countries continued to rely on a mix of levies, men-at-arms, and the knights.
That said, we’re now talking about the late medieval period. Levies were more a feature of the early- and high-medieval periods. Of course, mercenary forces were used at least from the 1100s on up; but they were not preferred, as they were less likely to fight standing battles and more likely to attack supply chains and the enemy’s ability to make war.
It's hard for those who are pampered to put themselves in the shoes of those who labored.
A lot of misconceptions about historical warfare seems to have stemmed from people who use their fingers to turn pages instead of tools to labor, and these bookworms believed that plate armor are "clunky", medieval swords are "heavy club like weapons, unlike the foil", and peasants to be "weaklings forced into battle" as they may see themselves if they were put in that situation.
I'm glad these perspectives are changing, and videos like these help a lot in helping people discover the truth!
People often forget how much tougher life was for the average person in the past. People had to do a lot of manual labor which made them physically strong and had to handle physical disputes themselves since police forces were almost nonexistent. I remember reading somewhere that in the greek phalanxes, endurance and stamina were considered more important than any individual skill at arms.
I love seeing you angry against stereotypes in history
p.s. cool mace!
English law requires every man to do 1h of archery training every Sunday. This law was never repealed so in theory it is still required today.
What I would like to hear you talk about is the "skills plateau"
How long would it actually take to train a first class medieval soldier (whether its knight/infantry/archer) and how long until you reach a plateau?
Like, no knight will ever be able to take on 10 other knights at the same time, the limit will always be maybe 2. But how long until a knight could reach that limit of taking a 2 to 1 fight?
Likewise, it is extremely unlikely that a peasant soldier will ever take on a knight simply because of equipment, but how long until he becomes a "veteran" who's more or less reached the skills limit?
For comparison, the skills limit of the typical 100m race is about 11 to 12 seconds, Olympic athletes can reach 9.x seconds but your typical athlete won't ever reach less than 11 seconds, and that would take 3 to 4 years of training *assuming they have the physical capacity* .If they don't reach it in 3 to 4 years, chances are that they will never reach it.
So what would be the equivalent to, say train a modern fit individual to become indistinguishable from a knight?
It's not just training it's also maintaining the skill and keeping them ready to levy, a knight had a greater obligation to stay on campaign or as a garrison force for longer.
I love the channel :)
I am a Medieval weaponry professor. In the 15th century, New evidence has shown that there was a class of peasant soldiers called Skythias. They would just be naked and raise their arms, armpits unshaved, sweaty, and unwashed for a week. They normally go into battle first and their horrible armpit odor scares people away. The battle of Midway, 1586, was won via this method. But during the battle of Stalingrad, the Russians found out that wearing a mask helped immunise them to this tactic and all the Prussians were cut down.
_"That's a nice argument, senator, but why don't you back it up with a source?"_
@@MrDibara "Can't fret over a few broken eggs Jack! I'm making the mother of all omelets here!" - Senator Scipio Africanus to "Mad" Jack Churchill during the Battle of Endor, probably.
Fight in Russia naked?
My opinion is that, in absence of uniforms, it should have been hard for a soldier to smash at 100% speed in the heat of battle without knowing if he's killing friend or foe. I guess after the first shock, a battlefield should look like a huge bunch of very tired and dirty men waving maces and asking each others if they were from Brandenburg or Saxony.
Except they did have uniforms or specific colours they wore. Many soldiers wore tabards of even just coloured sashes around their waist
shields, surcoats and other manners of differentiating oneself from the enemy would have existed.
And they didn't simply charge into each other. They formed 2 organized lines and advanced very slowly, and only when they were extremely close they started pushing, so the lines wouldn't mess up and they would know who's friend and who's not.
@@warbandplaysAU9178 it's kind of hilarious how many people don't understand this today, when we see these exact situations play out during protests between two political factions where no guns are involved.
The people form battle lines and don't really push into each other, unless they have shields. And they very much wear colors and sometimes even banners to make sure they know who the "good and bad" guys are.
In many ways, peasants actually ate better than the higher classes.
For example, a very common disease among the rich was gout, which was caused (as well as nowadays) by the consumption of large amount of meat (especially red meat).
A missing piece of the historical picture was the use of javelin and War darts as am opening duel between lines.
It would look amazing on the big screen before charging or advancing under that storm.
Especially as Many projectiles didn't kill you but made you punch drunk or bruised or fatigued if hit enough.
I totally agree, we actually have a case from the late middle ages were the difference between soldiers and farmers with pitchforgs was made very obvious, the farmers rebelion in germany is a good example and we even get the perspective of someone who had the experience to compare both, Götz von berlichingen (gotz of the iron hand) was a knight and got selected as a military leader of the rebellion, he ditched them soon after, complaining that it is Impossible to work with them because they neither have skill or dicipline to achieve even a small victory against trained soldiers.
He was a very interesting person in General, might be worth a video ;)