[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/his/ - History & Humanities


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



Were peasants allowed to own weapons like crossbows and swords in the medieval age?
>>
Yes. Many had pitchforks and scythes though.
>>
>>8965243
what's a peasant gonna do with a longsword?
>>
>>8965243
In Japan's medieval age, peasants were allowed to keep matchlock guns
>>
>>8965243
Why would I, as a Lord, want my serfs to own weapons they can use to skewer me when they finally revolt?
>>
>>8965243
Depends on where.
>>8965403
Because contrary to hollywood peasants and the noble class generally got along most of the time. If they didn't, revolts would be the norm, not the exception, and there would have been alot more wars in Medieval Europe. You'd want your serfs to be armed so they can be better soldiers when you employ them in your army.
>>
>>8965282
stab someone
>>
>>8965403
So that when your rival lord in the next valley over declares war on you, you'll have armed people to rally into a local militia instead of having to bankrupt yourself hiring professional mercenaries who are as likely to pillage your own lands as those of your enemy.
>>
>>8965403
Because you have a suit of armor to cosplay as medieval iron man
>>
>>8965243
No. They could not afford them - swords were too expensive and crossbows were regulated.

They would have bows and maybe a dagger or seax though
>>
File: D2s8cxrWsAIocW7.png (216 KB, 680x382)
216 KB
216 KB PNG
>>8965282
FIGHT
>>
>>8965412
This. For the most part lords weren't in their fiefs they were off campaigning or tournamenting and their wives were often the stewards of the estate
>>
>>8965243
Crossbows were extremly common because they were easy to use and maintain. Until late middle ages swords were more regulated so they mainly had really long daggers.
>>
>>8965403
maybe treat them a bit better
>>
>>8965243
What do you think a Ninja was Anon?
>>
>>8965243
Depends when and where.

In certain parts of Europe, peasants *may* own weapons. However peasants may balk at doing so due to a) cost and b) point. Like why would you own a weapon if you're protected by the Lord and his Knightfaggots anyway? That said a peasant could afford decent serviceable weapons like a short sword, maces, axes, clubs, a medium strength crossbow. But of the commoners the most well armed wasn't the medieval peasant: it was the Burgher. Living outside the feudal structure, he was responsible for his own safety, and as such many European cities required citizens/burghers to own weapons, serve a term in the militia, or pay Scutage tax. And burghers were rich enough to be fully fucking strapped.

In stark contrast to Medieval Europe, Chinese peasants were definitely allowed to own weapons by sheer fucking necessity. In China, law enforcement was the job of the army, but the army could only police areas close to military garrisons (i.e. in and near cities and military camps). For the rest of Chinesedom who mostly lived in the countryside, law enforcement was their responsibility. As such, they were not only allowed to own weapons, but were empowered to do so, so long as Peasant Militia actions were overseen by county prefect (a cunt overseeing 3 villages) to ensure that the law was being carried out. Ironically this prevalence of among the Chinese peasants and their fighting experience thanks to policing actions partly explains why several dynasties have been brought down or greatly suffered by rebellions in Chinese history. Nevertheless the Emperors- despite knowing these dangers- never stopped the peasants from arming themselves due to the cost of such a policing action and the benefit of locals policing themselves.
>>
File: Peasant.png (338 KB, 778x658)
338 KB
338 KB PNG
>>8965403
1) Because they can help law enforcement in your fief and.
2) Because an armed peasant poses no threat for you.

Seriously, for most of history, weapons ownership by """"civilians""" was not an issue. An armed peasant with very little to no training in martial/military skills usually proved no match to professional warriors and soldiers.

It was only when easy to use, force multiplier weapons (for example: a gun) became a thing and state monopolization of violent force in order to aid state centralization, did weapons ownership of "civilians" became an issue.
>>
>>8965243
Why the fuck would you waste money buying a crossbow as a poorfag peasant struggling to own land?

A knife is all you really need to defend yourselves from wolves and shit if you’re a hardy physical worker. Like if you worked on a farm. Or something.
>>
>>8965403
Because if you were a less terrible and abusive lord you would then have armed peasants capable of defending the country and fighting wars instead of rebelling
>>
>>8966568
An assassination specialist employed by Hattori Hanzo?
>>
yes they were allowed, this isnt D&D where the lord have magnetic scanner shifting through stables for weapons

did they have a sword? ofcourse not
a sword is a fucking expensive luxury for a peasant, which he cant yield, and nobody to train with
they usually had a dagger though, for skinning and shit

>muh civilians owning weapons
no, fuck off americans, FUCK OFF
peasants revolted, all the fucking time, they grabbed their pitchforks and straightened the scythes and went to loot and pillage then trampled by trained and armored nobility and their followers


what goes through your mind seriously, your american exceptionalism believes if you bring out a crossbow and point it at your lord, he will not skin you alive? and burn your whole shack down? maybe he wont do anything, but the rest of the locals will break every bone in your body for bringing the wrath of the nobles to the village, stupid retards
>>
>>8967390
We have been living in delusional American boomer hyperindividualist land where every braindead retard thinks they are secretly a superhero with UNTAPPED POTENTIAL that could make the world bend to them. People see themselves like movie stars or video game heroes, no matter how useless or stupid they are. The belief in epic quirky rebellions of random people defeating serious professional armies is deeply ingrained in American post-60s culture, and many Americans even believe the American revolution was essentially a bunch of quirky rebels defeating an evil empire with spunk and determination.
>>
>>8967390
Anon calm down
>>
>>8967399
>>8967390
i know you can smell the burger fumes off half the posts whenever this shit comes up
>>
>>8967399
so this is the famous incel rage I’ve heard so much about
>>
>>8967476
cope
>>
>>8965243
Depends on where in Europe. More likely in Western Europe and especially likely in Northern Europe. It was for example impossible to have a feudal system in Sweden because all peasants were heavily armed and burnt down the castles of the tax collectors
>>
>>8967375
Weapons were often heirloms. When the massgraves outside of Visby were excavated it was found that many peasants were armored in chainmail that was a couple of centuries old
>>
>>8965243
A peasant having a crossbow or a sword during that time is like an average US citizen having a heavy machine gun with explosive tipped rounds and grenade launchers. It's just was way too expensive for them and they had no practical uses for them when bows and axes/clubs/spears were far more readily available.
>>
Small hunting bows were most definitely very common, hunter gatherers can produce them themselves. Agricultural tools could be repurposed.

In theory a well to do peasant, like a ploughman or a carpenter, might be able to save some money and eventually be able to afford something requiring specialized manufacturing like a crossbow or a sword, 2nd hand, however most would not bother. After a war there might be a proliferation of weapons with ex-soldiers squirreling them away and the price dropping.

There were sometimes efforts to strip the civilian population of weapons, however likewise this was expensive for rulers, their soldiers would need proper oversight to make sure they do the job properly and it would contribute to general disorder. The Tokugawa enacted a policy to remove weapons from commoners after the sengoku jidai and continued it thereafter, if a commoner was seen with a weapon they had the legal means to take it from them, though I imagine after generations of peace it was rarely enforced.
>>
In the late middle ages in certain areas men above a certain income threshold were expected to have weapons for a regular muster.

Here's a 15th century Scottish example:
>And that no poor man nor unprovided be charged to come to any raids in England, and that each man whose goods extend to 20 marks be furnished at least with jack, with sleeves to the hand or else a pair of splints, a sallet or a pricking hat, a sword and a buckler, a bow and a sheaf, and if he can not shoot that he shall have an axe and a targe either of leather or of board with two handis on the back. And throughout all shires they are to be warned to provide for such things and to come and make their 'weapon-showing' before the sheriffs, bailies or stewarts of regalities on the morning after the law days after Yule. And whoever comes not bearing as appropriate, after his fault, is to be punished in his goods, and so forth their 'weapon-showing' is to be continued from 30 days to 30 days, etc
>>
>>8967375
>implying all peasants were poor
>>
File: Engelbrekt.jpg (15 KB, 181x278)
15 KB
15 KB JPG
>>8965243
In Sweden yes which the nobility bitterly got to experience when they tried to raise the taxes.
>>
>>8966912
An actual good answer!
>>
>>8965243
I think when peasants were levied into armies they usually got to keep the weapons afterwards, or at least I read that anyway? But most peasants didn't get to use swords or crossbows because those were damn expensive, they usually had pikes, axes, and maybe slings, slings were pretty common in the early days.
>>
>>8965282

One of the games I have a love/hate relationship with.

Main character sucks, engine fun
>>
>>8965243
Didn't they even institutionalise militias? I seem to recall that since there was no police armed peasants would be in charge of catching criminals.
>>
>>8968351
In Medieval Europe, peasants levies are fucking rare, if not a thing entirely.

In areas where it happened- i.e. China- the state armed them and trained them for a year. Then they get sent home in peacetime or sent to the front during wartime.
>>
>>8967375
>Why the fuck would you waste money buying a crossbow
To get meat? Some hunters actually preferred them to guns for quite a while.
>A knife is all you really need to defend yourselves from wolves
what the fuck
>>
>>8968363
>In Medieval Europe, peasants levies are fucking rare
That's completely wrong.
>>
>>8968394
Fyrds aren't peasants.
Yeomenry aren't peasants. Peasants in medieval Europe in general had no business in war since they don't have the training necessary.

You're most likely mistaking Urban Militias for peasant levies, as cities did levy burghers into service since cities are outside the feudal system. Burghers are also able to own their own a decent kit of weapons & armor, and had training and even experience due to the terms of militia/law enforcement service that cities often required of their citizens.
>>
Why do libs think disarming peasants today is a good idea
>>
>>8965243
In England they were forced to if they were not serfs
>>
>>8965243
It depends. Sometimes there were laws restricting ownership of certain types of weapons for commoners (swords and crossbows mostly), sometimes there were few rules covering it, and sometimes peasants were required to own a certain amount of military equipment so they could fulfill military obligations.
>>
>>8965444
Just keep the weapons locked in the armory until you need them, town guard and knights act as officers
>>
>>8968363
Both sides, France and England, used peasant levies in the Hundred years war (England more than France). In fact, it was a big deal that commoners with longbows kicked all the Mercenaries asses at Crecy. They even had a law that every able bodied man, even peasants, had to practice with long bows every week in case they were needed to battle. Peasant levies most certainly were a thing.
>>
>>8966940
kek
The chad peasant.
>>
>>8967516
>It was for example impossible to have a feudal system in Sweden because all peasants were heavily armed and burnt down the castles of the tax collectors
Where my taxes?
I'm a burn this castle down if you don't give my taxes back.
The taxes paid for the castle.
I'm burning it anyway.
>>
File: Wolf size.jpg (133 KB, 607x1080)
133 KB
133 KB JPG
>>8968380
Wolves do give up if one of them get seriously injured but i agree with you, what the fuck?
>>
>>8965397
And used them. The lifespan of a battle deserter was on average extremely short because villagers all had weapons to protect themselves and once the battle was over, there were pretty good prizes put on said deserters' heads.
>>
>>8968380
There are people today that prefer to hunt with crossbows. My neighbor likes them because they're quieter than guns.
>>
>>8966136
KNAVE! I shall cleft you in twain
>>
>>8969034
Aren't wolves attack an extremely rare circumstances?
Hell even when I went to see them at the zoo they didn't want to be spotted by humans.
>>
>>8965243
A peasant can't afford a sword. They would own spears and farming equipment that could be used to fight.
>>
every peasant had a longbow with which they could snipe a Frenchman at 400 yards no problem
>>
>>8969488
They didn't snipe, they didn't even try to be particularly accurate. Longbow training was about everyone shooting at the same range at once, so they trained by aiming for one of two posts in the ground, one at long range and one at close range. You didn't even have to hit the post, you were okay as long as you hit the ground close to it.
>>
File: Implying_.jpg (36 KB, 640x360)
36 KB
36 KB JPG
>>8968938
>Elite conscripts of lower classes
>Peasant levy
>>
>>8969557
>Elite
>Conscript
Pick one
>>
>>8969409
>Aren't wolves attack an extremely rare circumstances?
Its not like most of Europa spent 1500s onwards to 1800s to EXTERMINATE the wolf. Via bounties, hunting parties, decree, and whatnot.
Because they where such a menace.
And it still took 300 years to do so. Afterwards the urban population and density exploded, leaving little to no wildlife left for actual cycles of fauna.


But you are thinking about it wrong. It doesn't matter if its eagles, wolves, bears, medium cat animals, the leftover large cats before they where driven out, or even just poachers. Or predators that is large enough to hunt sheeps or hens.
If you don't have some kind of weapon, you or your lifestock could get maimed. And both are too precious to let it get maimed volunterely.
Have you read 16th century literature depicting the lower classes? It always mentions, guns/slings/staffs/bows and extreme hiking. And often heroic willingness to fight to the death, even if that is just a brag.
>>
>>8966912
Armed Burghers: The Night Watch by Rembrandt van Rijn
>>
>>8969584
Sinosphere did Conscripts.
Which means you recruit, train, use.
Swedes eventually caught on and did the same, and at some point the rest of the continent caught on, and eventually it lead to the philosophy of Total War after a few centuries.

Meanwhile if you institute mandatory drills from childhood, that isn't conscription. That is pre training, which is a vital part to why Nomads turn to conquer and burn down everything before the 1900s.
>>
File: Beast-of-Gevaudan.jpg (350 KB, 749x445)
350 KB
350 KB JPG
>>8969409
>Aren't wolves attack an extremely rare circumstances?

They were more common in the olden days. In one case in France it got so bad that they had to call in the army to kill a group of wolves that had killed over 100 people, mostly women and children.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/beast-gevaudan-terrorized-france-countryside-180963820/an
>>
>>8969409
wolves never attack humans, and the gevaudan meme >>8969726 was a big wild dog
>>
>>8967925
this
>>
>>8969731
So they killed a big dog because it was giving all the white girls the knot?
>>
>>8969731
>t. wolf
>>
>>8967516
>Burn a stone castle
>>
>>8969788
Everytime this is said, we are less likely to believe you the next time.
>>
>>8966940
pretty good answer, kinda sad that guns invalidate years of training ngl
>>
>>8966912
administration before the railway and telegraph seems like the most frustrating thing ngl
>>
>>8968362
werent those duties entrusted to the lord, since they had jurisdiction? although cities and communes would have to do this by militia of course
>>
File: Gustav_Vasa_i_Mora.jpg (73 KB, 680x450)
73 KB
73 KB JPG
>>8968415
I don't know about other countries, but here in Sweden, peasants were a force to be reckoned with, especially in the 1400s and early 1500s. The Kalmar Union wouldn't have ended without them.
>>
>>8965282
>>8968360
Got da reference
Henry is dry af and a male version of basic bitch archetype
Love the game tho and its mechanics and setting
>>
>>8969790
Stone does burn at a hot enough temperature. Great Fire of London, Great Fire of Chicago, and Great Fire of Boston all record stone buildings being destroyed by fire. In fact, there's an example of an actual stone building in the Great Fire of London being destroyed, St. Paul's Cathedral. It's well documented that it was difficult to remove what wreckage remained after it burned down because it was primarily made of stone held together by lead.
>>
>>8968809
>lock all your arms and armament for your countrys peoples in one place
lol dumbass
>>
Seeing lots of people itt are confusing peasants with serfs
>>
>>8965243
yes, they just couldn't afford them
>>8965282
duel his lord for ownership over his lands and titles
>>
>>8965412
>and there would have been alot more wars in Medieval Europe
There were a lot of wars in medieval Europe
>>
>>8965243
In China, yes. This was to protect against bandits/raiders.
>>
File: Wagenburg.jpg (747 KB, 699x543)
747 KB
747 KB JPG
>>8967399
>peasants could never beat professional armies
>>
>>8965397
yes...until Hideyoshi confiscated all of them
>>
>>8965962
FOR THA NORF!
>>
ask yourself, in the context of a medieval peasant, the following
>why would i buy a weapon when im protected?
>why would i not be allowed to have a weapon in case the lord needs an urgent militia?
>why is op such a faggot?
>>
File: 46-46563f54d1.jpg (112 KB, 462x1272)
112 KB
112 KB JPG
>>8965243
Depends on the area and the authorities. In pagan areas all free men were allowed to have weapons.
>>8968380
>>8969034
Its not really as crazy as you think. People have hunted creatures much bigger and much more dangerous on the regular with melee weapons, at least historically.
>>
>>8972191
>Hussites
Mostly urban militia.
>>
>>8965243
Depends on the local lord.
Crossbows are cheap, punch through armor, and easy to train a person with. perfect weapon for your massed formation of cheap levys if you've got the population and tech for it.

Swords? fuck no. Those things are expensive.
Spears and axes! They're affordable and they kill shit just as well.
>>
>>8965243
Most footsoldiers couldn't even afford a sword, I doubt a peasant could.
>>
>>8969790
The core moat is going to be fine.
But joinery might be made of lead joints, just like modern structures tend to use iron rebar for reinforcement.
Additionally a lot of the structure itself might use wood as reinforcement, meaning the upper structure can collapse. The wood might be cured or petrified, or just coated.

So it leads to a fun series of events where the wood/interior catches on fire, which leads to the lead joinery melting, and then it might collapse, leading to further dis figuration from the force of the collapse.
In a modern structure you could see a similar issue if the rebar gets damaged, since it will rust, expand, and then damage the concrete if the concrete do not properly cure with age.

>>8972585
>3rd picture
Is that the super large Condors? Those where rad.
>>
>>8971071
>country
>Middle Ages
We’re talking about minor estates here, and who said there is only one armory?
>>
>>8969925
kinda awesome, you mean
>>
>>8972165
>There were a lot of wars in medieval Europe
But not a lot more
>>
>>8969925
Gun requite years of training as well nigga. A musketeer is incredibly drilled, requiring the knowledge of cleaning and maintaining the weapon as well as the loading phases which could be subdivied into 13 parts. He must always retain that the cord will burn and make contact right. He needs keep his charge sacred and treat tender. When countermarching the fuse must remain away from others even whikst running and whilst marching the powder must be dry. The pan should be neat and blown off of excess or otherwise risk prefire.

This is only to fire the gun. Additionally he needs to retain extreme fire discipline as to not waste unit cohesion which may even decide the battle. Some musketeers are far more well drilled and leads to significant improvements.

For armies severely lacking in pikes it was also important to maintain some knowledge of melee. Musketeers often did most of the fighting whilst the pikes maintained close guard.

A clear example is that a Chinese banner musketeer could only hit a target from 100 meters 3/10 times whilst a Korean could hit it 6/10 times.

Fresh conscripts would often blow their charge preemptively one after another and be left completely outshot or run over by cavarly.
>>
>>8969925
Even with a gun you still need:
1. Good cardio(several months of training)
2. A few weeks training on how to react to enemy fire/ambushes
3. Marksman training, both hipfire and actual stances. Month or two of training
4. How to work as a squad, months to years of training
5. Moral while under fire, and how to retreat to regroup(months)
Its basically in the same ballpark as melee training. And you want some close quarter training on top of that, since time and time again has proven that a madman with a shovel that is close enough isn't stoppable by some guy who is farsighted and clumsy.
>>
>>8972585
>In pagan areas all free men were allowed to have weapons
>tfw when looking at the data of burial sites in Western Europe with spears decreasing from 500 to 1000
Sad!
>>
>>8965282
Keep it around until the lord calls to arms, dealing with local bandits.
>>
>>8976101
Wood decomposes, and weapons can be sold, donated, recycled or inherited
>>
>>8967390

wtf i love my overlords now
>>
>>8965243
too expensive, it'd be the modern equivalent of buying a battleship at full price on middle class wages. even the nobility ended up in hock to get their equipment
>>
>>8965412
also if the relationship was that antogonistic it makes it kind of hard to explain why the peasantry inevitably sides with the aristocracy against republicans
>>
>>8968380
peasants and hunters are two different social stations entirely. a peasant might do some poaching on the side, but he already had a reliable supply of meat because that's literally what peasants do
>>
>>8965243
yes, but swords and crossbows are expensive to maintain so why bother when good ol' pitchfork will do in a pinch
>>
File: medieval_footsoldiers.jpg (242 KB, 847x1000)
242 KB
242 KB JPG
>>8973147
>Most footsoldiers couldn't even afford a sword, I doubt a peasant could.
wat nigga?



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.