Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwup238 | Hacker News Reader

> I imagine it would be a pretty big deterrent for your average conscripted peasant. These are people who likely have no formal training, very little personal stake in the outcome of the battle, and the crappiest protection.

It very much depends on the historical context. Your average conscripted peasant during the middle ages would be arriving as part of their lord’s retinue. If they broke rank or ran away from battle, everyone including their parents, siblings, neighbors, and potential lovers would hear about it back home (and never let them live it down). Most conscripts at that time fought alongside their fellow villagers and farmers, not random professional soldiers. They maintained unit cohesion through social pressure rather than training and drills.

View on HN

> Your average conscripted peasant during the middle ages would be arriving as part of their lord’s retinue.

Most peasants during the Middle ages did not fight at all, except in revolts and uprisings, usually with terrible outcomes.

If they were taken along for the (military campaign) ride by their feudal lord, it is most likely they would have avoided the battlefield altogether, providing auxiliary services, e.g. setting up camp, feeding the horses, cooking, tending to their liege, etc.

Conscription was not really a thing until the mid-Renaissance (roughly), and the vast majority of battles in the Middle ages was fought by nobility, ranging from lower class to dukes and lords.

Surprisingly close to a standing army, when looked at from a certain angle. Only that it's not taxes going to the central authority and then getting paid to warriors, but warriors getting assigned an area to tax, and keep their cut as compensation for their military readiness.

(of course when looked at from just a slightly different angle, it's also indistinguishable from a protection racket)

For war as a different type of racket, there is of course the book the decorated general Smedley Butler wrote [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket].

Terry Jones' documentary of medieval times made the point that the nobility was pretty similar to an organized crime family. Of course, he wasn't aiming at scholarly accuracy but trying to give viewers the flavor.

It is not an incorrect comparison, superficially it is hard to tell the difference between organized crime and the legitimate government, they both provide the same "services", protection for a portion of the profits.

There is a sort of equivalency in a corporation and a government, I would even say a corporation is a government, it is the ruling apparatus for a group of people. Organized crime is a corporation that is trying to operate outside the law of it's parent operation.

I like to joke that the reason the government is so hard on organized crime is that they don't like the competition.

But really organized crime should be suppressed because it is a brutal warlord style government.

Archers were themselves generally peasants or freemen. You’re talking about a huge stretch of time and a wide range of cultures so absolutes are less true than trends.

Conscription and use as it applied to semi professional soldiers like archers was very much a thing because they were quite useful. By semi-professional I mean their training was encouraged rather than subsidized by the governments outside of wartime.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assize_of_Arms_of_1252 “Whereas the people of our realm, rich and poor alike, were accustomed formerly in their games to practise archery – whence by God's help, it is well known that high honour and profit came to our realm, and no small advantage to ourselves in our warlike enterprises... that every man in the same country, if he be able-bodied, shall, upon holidays, make use, in his games, of bows and arrows... and so learn and practise archery.”

_Very_ loosely related, but I'm reading The White Company by Conan Doyle to my kid, which pretty much describes this exactly.

Henry the 3rd’s decree about practicing archery drills regularly across the peasant population really worked out well for the English during the 100 Years War- they were able to field high numbers of dangerous and skilled ranged warriors and allowed for the massive victories like Crécy and (of course) Agincourt.

Yes but we should be careful with the word “drill” as I’m not sure how much formal and coordinated training occurred vs just being told to go to the archery range before or after work every day. A quick search didn’t tell me the details.

Not that I think you’re claiming this, but the Assize of Arms 1252 certainly didn’t mean archers were training in volley fire.

I believe it was legal obligation on the weekends- so in that way it was semi formalized. I think the results of the English bowmen speak for themselves, but I don’t think volley fire was necessary or present on the battlefields of the 100 years war.

Armies had a lot of more or less professional infantrymen, be they in the retinue of a lord or knight (and they could be peasants even if a peasant would generally have no reason to go to war, and the lords would have few motivations/legal means to constrain serfs to go), mercenaries (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_company), or common-law prisoners (a bit as the Russians did in Ukraine).

Free families would often have to send someone to war if the local lord called.

In the medieval era in Europe few were generally professional, in the sense that it was their full time job even in peacetime. Like you said the Kings retinue would be one of the few exceptions. Since the collapse of the (Western) Roman Empire there just wasn’t the concentration of resources in Europe for maintaining standing armies. Most were effectively a reserve force, somewhat akin to the. National Guard in the US hat could be “called up” in the event of a war.

Military mercenary companies were absolutely a thing (probably as early as 10th century, although they were also definitely a thing during the Roman empire), but they were very different from your typical peasant.

Conscription and Mercenary companies became more prevalent as the scale of warfare increased, and the early gunfire which necessitated coordinated volley fire.

Mostly incorrect.

Archers were levied. Peasant forces were often self-armed, and either levied or bought with promised wages.

Nobility led, and owned the best armor, but were hardly the only ones on the battlefield.

> They maintained unit cohesion through social pressure rather than training and drills.

Historical times were brutal. If they were defending their home, losing the battle would result in their home being pillaged and their family enslaved or raped. That would be a great motivator to not run

> losing the battle would result in their home being pillaged and their family enslaved or raped.

Only true in certain times and places, mostly sacking besieged towns cities where it was done in order to pressure the defenders of the next siege to surrender with terms rather than fight to the end.

Not all historical societies had slavery. It declined hugely in medieval Europe - the Normans abolished it in England, for example (people forget this because of the revival of slavery in early modern times, and of course its continuation in other cultures) not long after they conquered the country.

Routs happened. Indeed they were common. If social pressure could not prevent people running from battle, dooming their comrades and also greatly increasing their own risk of death, don't tell me no one looked for cover when being shot at for fear of appearing cowardly.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com