Medieval Soldiers Were IDIOTS! RANT! 

Grab AtlasVPN Christmas deal for 86% OFF + 3 months for FREE atlasv.pn/Metatron !

When will people understand that there’s a difference between “they didn’t know what we know today” and “they were dumb?”

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 😅

Thanks for the name check, looking forward to your Italian opinion of medieval food.

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

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...

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Come now, Metatron. The peasants in RTW armed with pitchforks is a symbol of realism.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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!

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

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.......

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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 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.

Hey Metatron, when can we expect a full community of the sword meetup video ? Im talking you, matt, knyght errant, lindy, and all the other guys out there ?

the , "waiting for command to shoot", when you draw a bow , is driving me nuts in movies..

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.

0:12 "diluted pizza blood" Lol! Metatron blood type : Ragu

_ It's not like the noble diet is healthier than peasant(the disease of kings for example) _ Shad did mention(I forgot which video) in some area the law require everyone to have a weapon so that when war came the lords don't have to rush order weapons(very expensive if you're lucky, if not you just don't have pppay since there not enough to sell) for his new conscripted army

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.

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.

"..stable boys." "Stable boy, polish my chair..." "...as you wish."

The Idea came to me (again) while doing stablework myself funnily enough and it clicked there had to be a vid when Raf and i talked about that. ^^ Nice one you made out of this little ramble :D

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 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.

Thanks for this interesting video. If I may suggest a video for you - the Battle at Hemmingstedt. Its really interesting. A revolt of farmers fighting for independence from Denmark. It also includes the Black Guard or “Schwarze Garde” and their leader Thomas Slentz. Because you were talking about mercenaries.

Greetings from France may be you should have speak about swiss pikemen who were not nobles but « bourgeois » and farmers and who defeat and destroy the ambitions of the Burgundy house at the battles of Grandson, Morat and Nancy crushing one of the finest armored cavalery of that era. Love your work

I love seeing you angry against stereotypes in history p.s. cool mace!

FYI the French word "paysan" - i.e., "peasant" - is still in common use for a person who would be called a "farmer" in English - someone who works the land. The litteral meaning is "countryman": "pays" means "country". Conversely, there is also a word "fermier", which is more technical, meaning a person who rents land from a landlord - a "tenant farmer" in English. As opposed to "métayer", a person who shares the harvest with the landlord - a sharecropper.

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).

As a baker, whole meal bread isn’t just carbs, it’s also a lot of protein; and you can easily get all of your daily protein needs from bread alone, especially when you’re eating the amounts a labourer toiling in the fields eat.

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.

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.

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 once did a project about local medieval/renaissance food in high school. As it turns out, many current local delicacies used to be peasant food in medieval times, and they are delicious even to this day (they would be significantly less spiced in ancient times, but still good). In fact, peasant food is ironically often more tasty and healthy than the food of the wealthy.

I love the channel :)

From what I've heard from rural doctors, farm people are such a resilient bunch, if they chop off their hand while making a fence, they'll finish the fence first before getting their hand reattached. But that can't be true... Right?

Hey Metatron. Great video! I think there was a bit of nuance missing here. While it is wrong to call medieval soldiers “a bunch of dumb peasants,” it is accurate to note the relative lack of professionalism in military organization and tactics during the early and high medieval period, when compared with Ancient Roman or Early Modern armies. “When the crusades began, these men [knights] were not members of full-time standing armies. Most knights were warriors, but also lords or vassals, landholders and farmers-who would expect to give over no more than a few months in any one year to warfare, and even then did not usually fight in established, well-drilled groups. The standard forms of warfare in eleventh-century Europe, familiar to almost all knights, involved a mixture of short-distance raiding, skirmishing-which was usually a ragged affair, characterised by chaotic close-quarter combat-and sieges of the many wood-or stone-based castles littered throughout the West. Few Latin soldiers had experience of large-scale pitched battles, because this form of conflict was incredibly unpredictable and therefore generally avoided. Virtually none would have fought in a protracted, long-range campaign of the sort involved in crusading.” - Thomas Asbridge ‘The Crusdades’

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.

In country where i live us city folks rarely wanted to pick a fight with people that grew up in village because usualy they werebin better physical condition and usually been in their fair share of fights

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. 🖌️

One criticism I’d have with this video is that a lot of the examples of “well trained” levied soldiers ie. Condottieri, legally mandated longbowmen, Swiss pike militia etc. are all specific examples relating to the late medieval period (mid 14th century onward) so should be viewed more as exceptions and not as the rule.

Everybody is gansta until they have to fight the peasant levy in mud

Umberto Eco has a nice phrase about this "When, in the 10th century, the cultivation of legumes began to spread, it had a profound effect on Europe. Working people were able to eat more protein; as a result, they became more robust, lived longer, created more children and repopulated a continent." And I think that Spain had legumes and rice since the 8th and 9th century

I'm reminded of a story Modern Survivalist shared of a steel worker (I think in Argentina? can't find the link) who's house was invaded by three thugs. Two of which had guns. They were intent on his wife for a moment and he grabbed a katana off the wall and laid into them. He wasn't a swordsman. He had no training. He made up for it in enthusiasm. The police were able to find the three thugs by following the trail of blood. The very wide trail of blood. Professional training is nice and increases your effectiveness, but, don't mess with a big burly man with a sharp pointy object fighting for his life.

How's it said? "Civiliation is built on the Breakers, The Bakers, and Candlestick Makers."?

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

To be fair men-at-arm Bretonians are well equiped in all the art. Helmets, weapons, mail, shields.

It's funny you mentioned samurai, they had plenty of fodder troops. Every civilization except Sparta had elite units and less skilled/outfitted units. And Sparta's not here anymore.

In medival ages in many German municipalities it was law that peasants had to train regularly with weapons in order to be able to defend theselves - or more the property of the nobility - from hostile armies until an friedly army could arrive for help. And it was very common that peasents carried swords. You can find a lof of documents in which were regulated, what kind of weapons peasents were allowed to carry. In the most cases to prevent peasents to raise against the nobility with better arms, for example by defining the length of swords by social class.

If modern experience is anything to go by, the average farmer is much smarter than the average professional soldier.

Also - tending to fields was communal thing. They were able to act as cohesive unit - since field work was done by groups under comand. So they were ready to be turn into military. In medieval Poland there were even "command ranks" durring field work - ekonom and karbowy (tallyman) that were commanding working pesants.

Another point that people miss about the common Medieval man: Hunting. There were a lot more people with access to rural areas back then, with lots of wildlife, and hunting means knowing how to use a bow or crossbow. It's not like in a game where anyone can do it. Some would hunt to survive, others for sport. this also includes the gutting and skinning of anything killed, which means skill with a knife No, Hollywood, people did not use child-size warhammers in hand-to-hand combat... or at all, for that matter; they were rather small-headed.

Have you ever read Bernard Cornwell's novels set in the Hundred Year's War? The Grail Trilogy, 1356, and Agincourt. So good. Really well written. I would like to think the author's account of how the Soldiers lived and fought was pretty accurate. Made them out to be pretty competent with their skill set. These novels felt very researched in their subject matter.

so im friends with a good few historical military buffs, and one thing i've heard about peasant soldiers is that, "Peasants who fight for crown and country tend to be the first to die, where as peasants who fight for homestead and hearth are often the ones coming home."

Talhoffer drawings shows what may happen when you dont protect your unarmored striking hand with your buckler when you extend your arm, Manuscript I33 shows how to do it, sword or mace make o difference, you should cover that hand with the buckler.

In many regions, family feuds and raids by pirates, vikings, or nomads were common. Peasants in those areas would've had experience in battle long before being sent on campaign.

I like your points. A few of mine Tactics yes, formations - not always. Though I feel like the term 'formation' would need to be formally defined in this context. Tactics and formations take on different forms depending on situation, culture, overall mindset... Formations though mainly depend on an actual mindset twords battle specifically. As for charging. I agree that charging manicly is dumb, however charging itself is a tactic to amp up the troops. Something similar to this is seen in the Lord of the rings the two towers, at the battle of helms deep. As the orcs are outside chanting, singing and generally making noise in tune to the music. This is to 'put them in the mood for battle ' so to speak. For some warlike cultures this is pretty important.... But I could go on for hours about that. Yes, there is the "slow marching of armies twords one another in formation..." But that tends to be the more battle hardened or professional armies. Or, warlike cultures.

I think here in sweden there was a law that you were only allowed to feed the servants salmon 6 times a week, it was considered cruel and inhumane to have someone eat a "trash" fish like salmon more than that

As inaccurate as the game can be, anyone who has played Medieval II: Total War and beaten campaigns in the game will tell you medieval soldiers were not pushovers. This is especially the case for someone who took the time to read the descriptions, or played mods like Deus lo Vult that expanded unit rosters to be more historically accurate. There was such a variation of troop types in the medieval world that the stereotypes get tiresome. It's like people think medieval Europe was entirely made up of French and English people. A look at the Irish will give good examples of an effective medieval fighting force that was radically different than others in Western Europe. I'm not saying games are a good historical source, but historical games can encourage youth to look into history and learn about these things. The world might be a smarter place if more kids had played Medieval II growing up. :P

regarding diet, there is one more important context to mention. third of the the year of the catholic calendar was fasting ( for example every friday) and should not eat meat. curiously enough, fish was not considered meat, so there was huge market for fishes like carp

I believe that the whole disciplined-line-dissolves-into-a-mass-brawl in movies has two antecedents: First The Great War started out with lines of troops drawn up in good order, marching towards the enemy and very quickly (not quickly enough) they learned the lessons of the Italian-Ottoman war of 1911/12 and the formations broke up into individual soldiers scrambling forward as we typically see in movies. This has become the standard idea of warfare ever since: modern weapons are devastating against packed groups of men, so everyone spreads out across the battlefield. Furthermore, the huge numbers of troops committed to even a modest attack exceeds the numbers of troops present at medieval battles, armies in the 20th Century were so huge as to entirely occupy an unbroken line hundreds of kilometres long, rather than the conglomerations of armed men moving as independent groups from place to place, only occupying a relatively small area at most. Thus we, at the far end of the 20th Century, have a vastly different view of the conduct of warfare than anyone up until 1914. This is reflected in movies, giving the viewer what the viewer expects to see as 'normal' combat operations, rather than small (by our standards -- the whole Norman army is basically a single division in modern terms) bands of armed men moving through the land. Second, in movies, the director needs to show the lead actors emoting their way through the scene, and the hero facing down the villain, which is very hard to show if they are but one more helmed figure in a collection of helmed figures (let's face it: emotions don't show up in face plates at all well). So they need to show the one-on-one hero vs. villain combat so we know the good guy from the bad guy and we can see the hero winning over the bad guy who despairs at the end (yay). Thus it is necessary to create a battle which will allow the individual lead characters to 'see' each other and fight one-on-one to the end. Of course this isn't how it happened, but realism makes for boring cinema. Or, it is perceived to make for boring cinema. I believe that one could make good cinema, but it would require talent beyond the skill of most directors. As to the question of training, I don't know what your experience is, but I can tell you that being on the ground while a horse charges towards one, even without the added thrill of a rider bent on driving a spear through the breast, is a very gut-watering experience. It requires a very well-trained and thus disciplined group of soldiers to stand firm against a group of armed men on horses thundering towards them without breaking. Napoleonic soldiers took weeks to train to stand in squares against cavalry. True this can be done on the march, but it also isn't something that just happens and standing shoulder to shoulder in a mass doesn't guarantee the levy won't break, as recorded on several historic occasions. Trained troops did withstand armoured cavalry charges, but it took weeks to train and prepare them. So you are absolutely correct: whether a levy of pikemen stood or broke depended on training and anyone taken into an army can be trained, especially when training mostly consists of working shoulder-to-shoulder and staying in formation under intense pressure.

One thing that puzzles me is how many people on medieval battlefields were non-combatants or semi-combatants. I mean, if a knight had servants who would do things such as providing the knight with spare lances when the knight does multiple charges in succession, or people whose job was to take care of captured combatants, because if someone is 'collecting' captives during combat, he is not fighting. Yet supposedly much of the capturing happened in the middle of combat, not just afterwards when the combat is already over. Or servants supplying water to troops, or collecting arrows from the ground for reuse... I guess many of people doing these jobs were simply low-ranked soldiers, but weren't there also non-combatants doing those jobs, so that actual combatants could focus on fighting? Yet we rarely see any of that in the movies.

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.

Hey Metatron, I think a good idea for one of your next videos would be the topic of medieval cuisine. Certainly it would be interesting for many people to know more about the medieval common world. How they lived, what they ate and what dished the people of the medieval time used to make. Lots of love for you and your Content

Never underestimate someone who does physical labor for a living.

Thanks for the video Metatron. I had a long obnoxious New Year's weekend and I needed a video like this. This may actually ring true to a lot of the videos you have about medieval society but here it goes- I feel the biggest culprit skewing our current views of the medieval period is the people of the enlightenment period. They were the ones that declared the eras before them 'the dark ages' (which includes the medieval period). They did this to elevate their 'reinventing the wheel' because they felt the previous generations were less intelligent and thus lesser than them. Fortunately time prevailed and in the 1900's occurred, where the brightest and smartest declared themselves to be 'the modern era'. This meant that everything before them was to some level pre-modern, lumping the medievals with the enlightenment (probably to any enlightenment person's dismay). Thank God for Tolkien and others like him who found value in 'the trash', and helped us start to improve the medieval's reputation. As for the western obsession with samurai, ninjas, and all things Eastern Pacific warrior, I think our familiarity with western warriors and the exotic unknown nature of the eastern ones makes us undervalue our history and overvalue the 'fancy'. Because in the heart of all of us is an inner 2 year old that always thinks someone else's toy must be better than the one in hand.