Peasant Cannon Fodder: By the Numbers

[Parthenon]

The only example I know of peasantry being effective in war was the English longbow peasants. Basically because they were paid to train every day. And even then they did as little melee combat as possible.

[mlangsdorf]

Yeomen might not have been of rank & blood, but they certainly were not peasants.

Also, at least at Agincourt, they contributed primarily through melee. After the French foot knights got bunched up in the mud, the archers came in from the flanks and started smashing them with two-handed hammers.

[name_here]

Actually, first they absolutely slaughtered the mounted knights. The horses couldn't wear the armor that the knights did, so most of the mounted knights got their horses shot out from under them, or their horses were scared by non-fatal shots. The men-at-arms, meanwhile, wore 50-60 pounds of armor, which was a terrible idea for walking up a muddy hill and then attempting to fight. So agincourt is not a very good example.

[cthulhu]

It's the same reason the israeli's beat the arabs in 1973 despite being massively outnumbered and having equal technology.

Equal technology? The Israelis had nukes...

Aside from the arguments promulgated, there was no way the Isreali's could actually use them. They know now as then that any attempt to use nuclear weapons will result in their destruction.

The only time they'd use them is if they were going to go down anyway. It didn't even feature in Egyptian or Syrian war planning.

But anyway, the various OPFOR had superior technology in other areas, so blegh. And if that's still an issue, rewind to the war of independance which is much of the same thing on a larger scale.

The only example I know of peasantry being effective in war was the English longbow peasants. Basically because they were paid to train every day. And even then they did as little melee combat as possible.

These guys were peasants in the same way that US Marines are 'civilians'

English longbowmen were effectively professional soldiers, and many of the guys on the field that day had been fighting for years.

Actually, first they absolutely slaughtered the mounted knights. The horses couldn't wear the armor that the knights did, so most of the mounted knights got their horses shot out from under them, or their horses were scared by non-fatal shots. The men-at-arms, meanwhile, wore 50-60 pounds of armor, which was a terrible idea for walking up a muddy hill and then attempting to fight. So agincourt is not a very good example.

Even if it hadn't been muddy, they were still probably in trouble. The french needed a major change in tactics to make that winable. Which they later did - fighting almost exclusively on foot in disciplined formations with heavy armour gives you the right counterpunch.