Peasant vs knight, who is gonna win?

[Bomb Shot]

If peasant is genius and knight is smart.

[WarHeRo]

is this a fight for life? if so the knight would butcher the peasant as its about experience. if it's some sort of battle that requires brain, idk maybe chess, then peasant would win

[Hobbit XIII]

The very terms alone state the Knight is winning already.

A peasant serves the Knight.

If on a battlefield, if the peasant is a longbowmen and does not kill the knight he will lose two of his fingers (the old two finger salute of Britain comes from this age apparently).

If the peasant wins he will have to convince his own lord to let him keep the ransom of the knight. ..his lord is also a knight.

[abcd]

if the knight took off his armor he could hide as a peasant and disappear, but the smarter peasant would find him eventually.

a smart knight has a hard time finding any particular peasant, on a good day.

[THE LORD]

Knights have better military training and weapons. Of course a knight would win.

[abcd]

Nguyên văn bởi THE LORD:

Knights have better military training and weapons. Of course a knight would win.

those are heavy and farmers work harder all day; their techniques are just not applicable for fighting.

if the peasant ran away the knight would not be able to catch him without giving up weapons, and if the knight is unarmed and the peasant is unarmed then the person with more endurance and speed is going to win a grapple. the techniques are all well-known at this point.

if the knight takes off his armor and leaves his weapons he can fight and catch the peasant. but if they fight in a field the peasant will have the environmental advantage.

the knight would still have their training, without their weapons and armor and in a unknown environment. the fields.

at this point it would be about who could learn from the other one faster.

of course, a peasant would want to fight the knight somewhere besides their own field or their neighbor's fields. such as a secluded area full of traps and weapons only the peasant knows about.

there's a great hagakure story about a peasant killing two drunk knights despite fighting them on his own field with their armor and weapons.

[Xero_Daxter]

Battle Intelligence > Intelligence

It’s also stated that 1 knight is equal to 10 footmen.

[Amuro0079]

How about a genius peasant in a Strike Freedom Gundam vs an army of a million smart knights on horseback? The peasant figures out how to pilot the Gundam in just minutes. What happens next, don't know.

[Talby]

If the knight is on a slightly sloped surface, easy win for the peasant...

[Michael]

Nguyên văn bởi Bomb Shot:

If peasant is genius and knight is smart.

Need more conditions. Like what each is wearing and armed with.

[abcd]

actually it's a good story so I'll tell it.

two knights were drinking in a bar, discussing their appearances. they were quite aggressive and both very defensive about their looks, both insisting that the other was uglier. they repeatedly tried to involve the proprietor in the argument, who instead left the shop unattended and went home.

a peasant happened to walk by, on his way home, and the knights involved him in the argument. so he said they were both so drunk he couldn't tell who was uglier. this upset them greatly, and they drew their weapons and chased the peasant to his field.

as it turns out the peasant had long practiced with his hoe and his axe, having been raided by knights once in the past. at the end of every day he practiced, and at the start he practiced. some days his labors were such that he could practice all day, and others he only had these scant few hours of practice. still, every day he trained with hatred and vengeance in his heart.

when the samurai found him in his field, drunken and winded and clumsy from a life of ease and largely superficial training following a now-distant apprenticeship, they laughed at him. one was killed by a thrown axe and the other ran away while the peasant finished the first off with the hoe.

rather than reporting this incident to his lord, as it would surely cause him to lose much favor, the knight instead waited for the peasant at his field the next day. he spent all day in his neighbor's yard on a hill looking down, eating his meals and digging a privy hole. many times the neighbor came and inquired, and many times he threatened them away.

finally at the end of a long day of work, the peasant rested for a moment before getting ready to stow his tools. the knight came and struck the tired man, who not yet dead put up a fight. however, the hoe was no match for the sword and the knight was no longer drunk or off-guard. the peasant landed many hoe strikes, but they failed to pierce the knight's armor. his woodcutting axe was in the next field, as he had lent it out to his neighbor to allay suspicion should anyone come inquiring.

so after a lengthy fight wherein a wounded peasant landed between 5 and 15 blows, 5 the account of the knight and 15 the account of the neighbors, the knight finally caught his leg and staggered him. finishing him off with one final blow.

he then took the man's wife and forced her to decapitate her husband with a handsaw, as well as bury the man herself. if he came back the next day and found the grave unburied, or moved, then he would assault her and burn down her hut and kill her when he was done.

the concerned neighbors, having fled at the fight's conclusion, found her burying her husband's headless body.

when the lord heard of the knight's behavior, of how he had behaved in a way that embarassed the lord and then harmed the lord's subjects as well as the peasant's faith in the lord, he ordered him to commit suicide and assigned an especially unskilled swordsman as his headsman. a man who had never once successfully cut someone's head off, even after dozens of blows. his performance that day was much the same, the knight finally expiring after some 26 strikes.

in this way a single peasant who trained a few hours a day slew two knights who trained all day and could not control themselves off of the battlefield.

[PaulKrawitz]

Victory or Death scenario:

The Knight lives, the peasant dies.

The Knight has skill, endurance, and high quality weapons and heavy armor.

The peasant has leather, at best, and perhaps an iron sword or a cheap steel sword.

Mind over Matter scenario:

The peasant will most likely win.

[abcd]

Knights are unlikely to have more endurance than a farmer. They are more likely to be stronger though, owing to a diet with more protein and food in it.

[Pieshaman]

If you look at the 300.000 peasants that came in uprise in the 16th century and lost more than 100.000 in a year time against roughly 7000 knights who took minimal losses as in just a few.
I would put my money on the knight.

[abcd]

Nguyên văn bởi Pieshaman:

If you look at the 300.000 peasants that came in uprise in the 16th century and lost more than 100.000 in a year time against roughly 7000 knights who took minimal losses as in just a few.
I would put my money on the knight.

they lost about 50,000 due to starvation.

the other 50,000 came from the knights raiding innocent peasants that weren't involved to make up for the food shortfalls in their own stocks. the knights then claimed this as enemy losses.

neither one could win or risk a pitched field battle. one happened where the knights lost about two hundred heavy cavalry and a couple thousand footmen and the peasants lost around 4000-5000 troops, maybe even 10,000 by some accounts, and then never again. the peasants couldn't conduct a siege, and could not move supplies sufficient to run the campaign without suffering cut supply lines from knight raiders. and the knights simply could not win against that many enemies let alone defend themselves from their neighbors afterwards. they were resorting to guerrilla warfare and slash and burn fighting.

as I understand it a second kingdom tried to intervene and take advantage of the chaos, and found the same thing happening to their kingdom. rebels would flee to their villages and recruit more fighters, who now wanted to attack their own lord, and the knight raiders would attack these villages and loot their supplies. and they couldn't fight the main peasant army any more than the original kingdom could.

two great influential kingdoms receded into obscurity and failure as a result, their wealth and prosperity completely destroyed trying to fight their own people. as well as eachother.

many have claimed the renaissance was an allegiance of the nobility against the people, as the people were harder to extract wealth from when they were raided in wars constantly.

[Pieshaman]

Nguyên văn bởi abcd:

Nguyên văn bởi Pieshaman:

If you look at the 300.000 peasants that came in uprise in the 16th century and lost more than 100.000 in a year time against roughly 7000 knights who took minimal losses as in just a few.
I would put my money on the knight.

they lost about 50,000 due to starvation.

the other 50,000 came from the knights raiding innocent peasants that weren't involved to make up for the food shortfalls in their own stocks. the knights then claimed this as enemy losses.

neither one could win or risk a pitched field battle. one happened where the knights lost about two hundred heavy cavalry and a couple thousand footmen and the peasants lost around 4000-5000 troops, maybe even 10,000 by some accounts, and then never again. the peasants couldn't conduct a siege, and could not move supplies sufficient to run the campaign without suffering cut supply lines from knight raiders. and the knights simply could not win against that many enemies let alone defend themselves from their neighbors afterwards. they were resorting to guerrilla warfare and slash and burn fighting.

as I understand it a second kingdom tried to intervene and take advantage of the chaos, and found the same thing happening to their kingdom. rebels would flee to their villages and recruit more fighters, who now wanted to attack their own lord, and the knight raiders would attack these villages and loot their supplies. and they couldn't fight the main peasant army any more than the original kingdom could.

two great influential kingdoms receded into obscurity and failure as a result, their wealth and prosperity completely destroyed trying to fight their own people. as well as eachother.

many have claimed the renaissance was an allegiance of the nobility against the people, as the people were harder to extract wealth from when they were raided in wars constantly.

ehh I don't think you talk about the same one? I talking about the one inside germany in 1524-1525