Peasant Cannon Fodder: By the Numbers

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Mon Sep 14, 2009 1:35 am

Okay, so, even in Medieval Europe times in real life a guy with a sword and armor could mow down peasants like wheat. Not like one guy against four, but like one guy against twenty.

Um, how? I've heard about two explanations for this, none of them too convincing.

1) The peasants' diet was so bad that they were like sissies. Okay, if this was true then how did peasants do things like use plows and chop wood and whatever? It seems to me that if you can chop wood, you can swing a pitchfork or a scythe.

2) Swords and armor are that much of an advantage. I kind of find that hard to believe; if the guy gets jumped by five guys with knives he'll probably get shanked.

PoliteNewb · Post by **PoliteNewb** » Mon Sep 14, 2009 1:47 am

Couple responses, but let me make the disclaimer that I am not an expert in medieval history, nor do I have any firsthand experience with practice of Western European martial arts.

1.) First, I'm not so sure this was true, unless the guys he was slaughtering with unarmed. Even then, I'd expect him to get fairly mobbed, if the guys he was fighting were desperate enough. The main occasion on which a knight was mowing down peasants was the one where he was riding his freaking horse over them, which tends to help a lot.

2.) As I understand it, swords and especially armor really were a huge advantage. Good armor (plate) protected you well enough that guys seriously fought tournament fights with real (not blunted) weapons, and were fairly confident they wouldn't get hurt too bad. People were injured and killed in these matches, but most of the time the armor seriously protected them pretty well, even from full-on blows from swords and axes. Against improved weapons, I expect the knight would have a very large measure of protection unless he was down and someone was shoving a knife through his eyeslit (a preferred way to kill such dudes, IIRC).

3.) Training and attitude. Knights were seriously hardcore guys...the cavalier attitude I've seen in historical accounts, toward killing and the possibility of being killed, was pretty serious. When you have one guy who is essentially a trained killer and a handful of guys who a.) are NOT trained killers and b.) KNOW the other guy is a trained killer....that's going to give the knight a huge psychological advantage.
This meant the preferred way to deal with a knight would not be to mob him, but to try to kill him from ambush or (better yet) in his sleep, when he's not wearing his armor.

Grek · Post by **Grek** » Mon Sep 14, 2009 2:14 am

Chances are, the peasants do not really want to fight and are just poor, half-starved conscripts. As such, they are generally inclined to just tur around and run away. This gets even worse if they've just been marched several miles, don't have armour, don't have good weapons and have no real military training. Turning your back on the enemy to run away is a very, very poor idea when in meele combat. It will just get you killed.

PoliteNewb · Post by **PoliteNewb** » Mon Sep 14, 2009 2:34 am

Turning your back on the enemy to run away is a very, very poor idea when in meele combat. It will just get you killed.

1.) Depends on how many other guys are involved in the same fight. You might run in the hopes that you'll get away while the enemy slaughters your buddies (or fellow conscripts, whatever).

2.) Turning your back on the enemy is an excellent way to get killed in war, and not just in melee. Right up into the gunpowder period (perhaps the modern age too, I'm not 100% certain) most casualties are inflicted on an opposing force AFTER they have been routed or made to run/retreat. When a person is in combat and their blood is up, seeing an enemy flee is like an encouragement to kill them. Read "On Killing", Dave Grossman...I've seen the principle described elsewhere (including gaming books..."Godlike" had a section on it), but Grossman's book was very accessible.

Josh_Kablack · Post by **Josh_Kablack** » Mon Sep 14, 2009 3:34 am

Lago PARANOIA wrote: 2) Swords and armor are that much of an advantage. I kind of find that hard to believe; if the guy gets jumped by five guys with knives he'll probably get shanked.

Swords and armor and training and horses really are a huge advantage.

One knight does not have to kill/cripple/hurt all 20 peasants in your scenario - after the first 1-5 go down the rest are likely to give up or flee.

Also it usually wouldn't be one knight vs 20 peasants - it would be a group of several knights/cavalry against a much larger group of conscripts - and before the longbow/ crossbow/ breachloader/ repeater/ assault rifle, that means that the horses' high mobility lets the knights choose their engagements

Doom · Post by **Doom** » Mon Sep 14, 2009 3:55 am

During the conquest of south America, puny 'armies' of a few dozen Spanish, on horseback, with steel armor, consistently trashed armies of native American indians wearing feathers and using stone clubs...the latter weren't lacking in courage or ferocity, and while probably very poorly led, were probably still much better than any peasant army.

Fuchs · Post by **Fuchs** » Mon Sep 14, 2009 7:34 am

On the other hand, lightly or not armored Swiss pikemen did a good showing against knights - I'd rate training more than armor.

angelfromanotherpin · Post by **angelfromanotherpin** » Mon Sep 14, 2009 1:25 pm

Doom314 wrote:During the conquest of south America, puny 'armies' of a few dozen Spanish, on horseback, with steel armor, consistently trashed armies of native American indians wearing feathers and using stone clubs...the latter weren't lacking in courage or ferocity, and while probably very poorly led, were probably still much better than any peasant army.

That was mostly a familiarity problem. They'd never seen or even heard of cavalry before, and didn't know any of the basic counter-tactics.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Mon Sep 14, 2009 2:55 pm

Pfft, that's nothing compared to the British introducing Africa to firearms and artillery shells.

"Sir, they're beating on their wooden shields with their wooden clubs."
"By George, whatever for old boy?"
"I think it's to make rather a lot of old noise and intimidate us, sir."
"Haha, well, have a turn beating on their shields with cannonballs, will you? There's a good chap, we'll show them noise and intimidation, what!"
"Good show, sir."
"Quite. Tea's ready, fancy a cuppa?"
"Rather."

mean_liar · Post by **mean_liar** » Mon Sep 14, 2009 5:21 pm

Lago PARANOIA wrote:Okay, so, even in Medieval Europe times in real life a guy with a sword and armor could mow down peasants like wheat. Not like one guy against four, but like one guy against twenty.

Those numbers sound a little high... also, it depends on what you mean by 'peasant'. There weren't really too many infantryman that weren't professional mercenaries in the Middle Ages.

Your rationale #2 is the correct one - armor just was that badass.

Aharon · Post by **Aharon** » Mon Sep 14, 2009 6:11 pm

@Conquest of Latin America
It should also be mentioned that Cortéz would probably not have succeeded without the support of local enemies of the aztecs. Better equipment or not, he initially only had 300 soldiers - attrition would have been on the side of the aztecs.

In the noche triste, 270 spaniards were killed despite their superior weapons. But at that time, Cortéz already had gained allies, and additional spanish troops had reached the mexican coast.

K · Post by K » Mon Sep 14, 2009 7:05 pm

I think it's important to remember that feudal society is based on making sure the nobles had power and no one else did. A lifetime of intimidation means that your average peasant is more likely to cringe than stand his ground.

By the same token, crossbows were made illegal in Europe shortly after their invention basically because they allowed peasants the ability to kill armored knights easily and at a distance. There is a reason why pike technology is "rediscovered" in various times in history, even though it is only a long pointy stick.

Also, don't underestimate the nutrition factor. A child can chop wood and sow fields, but that doesn't mean a pile of children can outfight a trained athlete. Malnourished peasants don't have the muscle mass to hold a lance, much less wear meaningful armor and when a grazing blow from a club can mean a bruise, a grazing blow from a sword can easily be death.

Doom · Post by **Doom** » Tue Sep 15, 2009 12:16 am

Aharon wrote:@Conquest of Latin America
It should also be mentioned that Cortéz would probably not have succeeded without the support of local enemies of the aztecs. Better equipment or not, he initially only had 300 soldiers - attrition would have been on the side of the aztecs.

In the noche triste, 270 spaniards were killed despite their superior weapons. But at that time, Cortéz already had gained allies, and additional spanish troops had reached the mexican coast.

Indeed, the Noche Triste pretty much illustrates the point: on foot, horses and men totally weighted down with gold, with no defensive position while literally being attacked from all sides in the worst possible hostile situation (trying to withdraw from a hostile city across a bridge, with the natives having all the boats they could want), and outnumbered 10 to 1, probably by a wider margin, Spanish casualties were a couple hundred (reports vary, Cortez puts it at less than 200, and considering he's representing it as a horrible disaster, I doubt he's underestimating much). He had, maybe, 1000 Spaniards, plus several thousand native allies--certainly those allies were useful, but that's a different issue entirely than what Lago is asking.

THAT's how much of an advantage in weaponry and armor they had....even completely without mobility and barely able to fight back, still very difficult to harm.

Fuchs · Post by **Fuchs** » Tue Sep 15, 2009 7:28 am

Doom314 wrote:
Aharon wrote:@Conquest of Latin America
It should also be mentioned that Cortéz would probably not have succeeded without the support of local enemies of the aztecs. Better equipment or not, he initially only had 300 soldiers - attrition would have been on the side of the aztecs.

In the noche triste, 270 spaniards were killed despite their superior weapons. But at that time, Cortéz already had gained allies, and additional spanish troops had reached the mexican coast.
Indeed, the Noche Triste pretty much illustrates the point: on foot, horses and men totally weighted down with gold, with no defensive position while literally being attacked from all sides in the worst possible hostile situation (trying to withdraw from a hostile city across a bridge, with the natives having all the boats they could want), and outnumbered 10 to 1, probably by a wider margin, Spanish casualties were a couple hundred (reports vary, Cortez puts it at less than 200, and considering he's representing it as a horrible disaster, I doubt he's underestimating much). He had, maybe, 1000 Spaniards, plus several thousand native allies--certainly those allies were useful, but that's a different issue entirely than what Lago is asking.

THAT's how much of an advantage in weaponry and armor they had....even completely without mobility and barely able to fight back, still very difficult to harm.

I do not think armor was that important there - again, see Morgarten. Similar set up - armored knights and support forces hemmed in and attacked at a disadvantage.

souran · Post by **souran** » Tue Sep 15, 2009 1:17 pm

Some historical notes:

Cortez and the other great spanish explorer/conqueror types were very good at self promotion.

HOwever, their croniclers were not so bad as to completely forget all the native support that these individuals recieved. Cortez started from the coast and walked/rode to the aztec capital. After demostrating the their military prowess against some light scouting opposition, a large number of natives from tribes that had been conquered by the aztecs began to follow the spanish. Many of these brought weapons with them.

Basically, Cortez's arrival and his demand for all the wealth of the whole empire helped spark a civil war.

This basic scenario would replay it self many times in the colonial period. Oppressed groups were more than willing to provide aid to the european explorers. Only to discover that the european powers were also determined to subjugate them.

On the central thesis: good armor is amazingly valuable. One thing to look at is the number of weapons that were developed for breaching armor that are long thin knives or picks. Whats more, the historical record indicates that the way these weapons were used was that one or two guys would hold the armored man down and one guy would go to work with the knife or pick.

The impication is that most weapons were actually fairly poor for inflicting cripling damage to a man in full armor. What you hopped to do was stun or concuss your foe, drag him down and then kill him.

cthulhu · Post by **cthulhu** » Wed Sep 16, 2009 5:12 am

It's the same reason the israeli's beat the arabs in 1973 despite being massively outnumbered and having equal technology. Training, disicipline and individual capability (initative, leadership, flexibility and knowledge) go a long way.

When you have massive firepower and unrivaled defensive systems (swords, shields and plate) compared to your opponents, they are screwed.

MartinHarper · Post by **MartinHarper** » Wed Sep 16, 2009 10:28 am

cthulhu wrote: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...

Quantumboost · Post by **Quantumboost** » Wed Sep 16, 2009 2:18 pm

Nukes only barely count as technology for the purpose of warfare. You pretty much aren't going to use them in an actual war unless the existence of your country is actually threatened in that particular situation.

So for a technology comparison, nukes are best left out of the picture entirely until we get to a war for continued existence.

PoliteNewb · Post by **PoliteNewb** » Wed Sep 16, 2009 10:29 pm

MartinHarper wrote: Equal technology? The Israelis had nukes...

Did nukes play any part whatsoever in how those conflicts turned out? No. So how did they play into whether or not the technology was equal?

If me and another guy fight it out with knives, it doesn't matter if I have an M-16 sitting on my gunrack at home. We have equal technology.

Draco_Argentum · Post by **Draco_Argentum** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 8:33 am

Quantumboost wrote:Nukes only barely count as technology for the purpose of warfare. You pretty much aren't going to use them in an actual war unless the existence of your country is actually threatened in that particular situation.

The US plan in 1961 was to nuke the USSR and China if the USSR tried to take Berlin. The joint chiefs estimated 600 million casualties, including 100 million from outside the USSR and China. That figure does not include the Soviet counter attack, people dieing in fires or deaths after six months. The view you expressed is the fantasy that gets promulgated because it makes the government not look like evil madmen.

TavishArtair · Post by **TavishArtair** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 9:31 am

( I don't know how this happened. )

Akula · Post by **Akula** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 9:33 am

As I understand it, that wasn't the plan in the 1980's. Did the government stop being evil madmen sometime in the 70's?

TavishArtair · Post by **TavishArtair** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 9:34 am

War is not about any single fight. The M-16 on your gunrack will change the plans people have to attack you, and the attack plans that you might design. The element that you are missing from the nuclear equation is political... in WW2 we learned the power and horror of nuclear warfare. In Vietnam enough political pressure was assembled to effectively derail a war effort, contributing to and exacerbated by a series of humiliating retreats.

The reason significant quantities of Afghanistan are not green glass right now is because the political (and actual) fallout would have been too great to justify it. So instead we bombed the fuck out of it. Much more eco-friendly.

But the nuclear threat will always provide deterrence, even if no one acts on it. You don't want to give a country that has nuclear weapons the impression that any other hope of winning is lost... because they will lash out by then. So you can't attack them head on. You can't aim for their centers of command. Because if you amass all your power and fight them and you actually win you will have lost everything that they had their warheads pointed at. This is a fundamental disadvantage for an army that could use numbers to overpower their opponent. If the only way you can win is by gnawing away and harrying and just making your opponent so tired they want to give up, rather than actually crushing them...

It would be more accurate to say that someone who has nuclear weapons always has a weapon in hand, but rarely if ever strikes with it. But you still don't want to put yourself in range of that weapon, still, because if you are struck with it, it will almost assuredly be fatal.

Draco_Argentum · Post by **Draco_Argentum** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 9:42 am

Akula wrote:As I understand it, that wasn't the plan in the 1980's. Did the government stop being evil madmen sometime in the 70's?

The Carter Doctrine "Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force."

Any means necessary is a semi veiled reference to using nukes.

FatR · Post by **FatR** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 7:42 pm

Returning to the initial question: the combination of training, real weapons, armor, warhorses, and confidence, born of all that, created overwhelming material and psychological advantage of knights, and, for that matter, any professional warriors, over peasants. That's why wars were mostly waged by professonals from Portugal to Japan, and militias only rarely were any good on the battlefield. While it was theoretically possible for wealthier peasants to obtain at least some equipment and training, it was so ardous, that people generally just weren't doing that, if they were living in a state, capable of providing them at least some form of security.

And while a bunch of sufficiently brave or desperate peasants could dogpile a professional, what would they do, when neighboring knights gather to crush the rebellion/the rest of mercenary band returns for revenge? They have no organization, and no discipline, so their chances in open battle are extremely slim.

The Gaming Den

Peasant Cannon Fodder: By the Numbers

Peasant Cannon Fodder: By the Numbers

Re: Peasant Cannon Fodder: By the Numbers

Re: Peasant Cannon Fodder: By the Numbers