Were peasants allowed to own weapons and form militias in medieval Europe?
Yes
>>65593256Yes, though who is and is not allowed arms depends on where and when you are exactly, and what you mean by "peasant"
Peasants were not made equal.
Usually yes, but they mostly opted not to, because hunting was already limited to small game or nothing at all, so owning a bow/crossbow/musket/rifle was pointless, since they could catch hares and chipmunks with wire traps and slings. As for protecting their farms, it was the duty of their liege lords, as they were obligated to protect their peasants in exchange for free labor, so whenever bandits started raiding their farms, the lord dispatched a band of household knights to deal with them, not only because he was honor bound to look after his peasants, but also because peasants were responsible for cultivating his food and they were also paying taxes to him, so he had to deal with raiders for practical reasons as well, meaning peasants didn't have to mount a Seven Samurai style peasant militia. Another thing was the scarcity of good quality iron/steel in the countryside, as making crucible steel required advanced metallurgical knowledge and a fuckton of charcoal, something that a village blacksmith both lacked. They probably knew how to smelt pig iron, that was suitable for making farming tools, but that was about it, they didn't know how to make steel and how to forge them into reliable weapons, because they didn't need to. What's the point of learning quenching and spring tempering if you're going to make shovels and sickles for the rest of your life?
>>65593256It depended on the time and location, but generally yes. There was no central body to enforce laws surrounding what peasants could and could not own, and even in cities with guilds and governing bodies, prohibited items were a matter of conduct, not ownership. Cost and skill were the limiting factors, as any blacksmith could make a reasonably effective blade, but design theory was not universal, and those with the natural instinct or learned expertise could easily find more lucrative employment in cities, rather than provide weaponry to farming communities.Militias weren't even considered some paramilitary force, but simply the right of people to enforce their law. Of course actually forming a militia took organisation and a uniting principle, like an outside force breaching the peace, violating religious laws etc. and outside of that the only way to form one was for someone with money to pay shiftless men enough to risk their life, so they were generally indistinguishable from hired gangs.
>inb4 english longbowsIt was a requirememt, not a choice and the only time they were allowed to take them outside were during mandatory practice sessions. It's like modern day Swiss reservists and their service rifles.
>>65593309>charcoalGood point. Charcoal was cheap from the source, but unless you lived along a road that a largescale operation used, there's no way you could afford enough to learn weaponsmithing and then actually make a business out of it. If you can turn a sickle into a decent enough machete with 1/8th the charcoal, why bother trying, and failing repeatedly, to make a sword?
>>65593256Depends on the time and place, type of weapon and even control the local lords had, and if they abided by crown regulations banning or allowing militias
>>65593320Did they have to own their longbows for practice, or were they lent to the users? I've seen how quickly the stave and string wear out, so it seems a bit unfair for some yeoman farmer to be expected to buy and maintain longbows for himself and his sons, when they're already giving up precious time to learn to use them.
Hi grok, what is a peasant rebellion?
>>65593256'medieval europe' comprises a pretty huge area and variety of nations/cultures
>>65593256Yes. No. Maybe."Medieval Europe" is dozens and dozens of different places spanning hundreds of years, idiot. Shit wasn't the same all over.
>>65593256You're posting these on /k/ now?
>>65593256>slop
>>65593256>medieval Europemedieval europe is a thousand years of history for an entire continenttry narrowing it down a bit if you actually want an answer
>>65593318>and even in cities with guildsIn cities, the main struggle was that people didn't own all of the arms required by their legal status, actually. The secondary struggle were carrying restrictions. As in it wasn't always legal to wear your arms whenever you felt like it.Those two struggles mirrored on all communities where ownership of weapons was mandatory, which was the legal norm. The simple liberty to own weapons for shits and giggles is what wasn't really a thing yet - if you were armed, you were organized as part of some type of militia with legal or corporate status and supposed to be ready to stand and deliver for its interests.
>>65593256Yes if they were free. It was the responsibility of any free man (be he of the nobility or a commoner) to serve in war. But as they were also responsible for providing their own equipment there was a lot of investment that had to be taken. And already in the 9th century did many peasants enter contracts of bondage, which made them some kind of serf (there were many different kinds), in order to escape this compulsory military service as serfs were exempt from this duty. With time and changes in legislation the number of free farmers reduced drastically. And (organised) militias were only really feasible in urban areas as here a given institution (often a guild) could easily control and direct it's members, their equipment and their tasks. There were also "Defensive Farmers" (Wehrbauern) which in german states were especially dedicated persons who lived in the border regions and had to serve as the first line of defense. Those were technically serfs but their liege exempted them from the corvee and tithes so that they could arm themselves adequately. I think other european states had similar groups.>>65593328Usually they bought and owned all of their equipment. In England however there were some royal arsenals for bows and more importantly vast quantities of arrows.>it seems a bit unfair for some yeoman farmer to be expected to buy and maintain longbows for himself and his sonsBeing a yeomen was tied to your economic station and land ownership. In fact you were fined if you neglected your equipment.
>>>/his/Unironically better board for like 80% of /k/ threads
>>65593309>What's the point of learning quenching and spring tempering if you're going to make shovels and sickles for the rest of your life?You need to learn þat shit specifically to make scyþes & axes & tool knives. At least in England all blacksmiþs also were required to know how to make steel to be able to fulfill orders for þe Crown when þey needed more spears, axes, swords, & armor.Reminder þat Steel is about if it's been hardened or not, not if it's a certain chemical makeup. If þe Crown asked for Steel'd arrow heads he wants case hardened arrows.>>65593256
>>65593441Forgot to add All þat's been said about requirements to be armed.In many German cities (1300s to 1500s) it was a legal requirement for all men in þe city to own a sword so þey could come to þe cities defense in þe event of a siege.In England EVERY man was required* to own a bow of a certain poundage, 20 arrows (1 sheef), a spear, a sword, a helmet, & a shield.*As of þe 1200s at least. As time went on þey would also be required to own armor>>65593320You are, however, incorrect about þe Englishmen not being allowed to take þeir bows out outside of þeir mandatory 2 hours of practice on Sundays. Þe law was only þat you MUST own a bow & a sheef of arrows & þat no sport but archery may be play'd on Sundays. If you have spare time any oþer day of þe week it was encouraged to get in more range time, just not required.
>>65593256No, weapon ownership was invented in 1776 by George Washington, and medieval peasants all died in the Black Plague about 20 (give or take) years earlier.
>>65593256Of course not, they could only use tools. Even knives which were considered too long for this role were forbidden. All kinds of improvised weapons like forks, flails or scythes had to be used by peasants if they wanted to join the medieval democratic process.Only the British aristocracy was short-sighted enough to equip their peasants with weapons and look where it brought us. The industrial revolution, horseless wagons, computers, twice longer life expectancy and all that crap.
Assize of arms were obligations to be able to bear certain weaponry if you had certain wealth. I found the Spanish commune ones kind of cute in how if you were of sufficient wealth you were required to serve as a caballeros villainos (horseman). If you did not have a horse they confiscated some of your property, bought you a horse, gave you a horse.So I guess in Umaverse history you'd be required to feed and house an Uma and if you didn't they'd forcibly assign you an Uma.
>>65593309>Another thing was the scarcity of good quality iron/steel in the countryside, as making crucible steel required advanced metallurgical knowledge and a fuckton of charcoal, something that a village blacksmith both lacked. They probably knew how to smelt pig iron, that was suitable for making farming tools, but that was about it, they didn't know how to make steel and how to forge them into reliable weapons, because they didn't need to. What's the point of learning quenching and spring tempering if you're going to make shovels and sickles for the rest of your life?Blacksmiths were part of a guild and the guild made sure every member knew how to make decent tools before they became journeymen and went out into the world. I wish over confident retards like you would shut up.
>>65593256Dude, the peasants were the livestock. It was to provide for its owners and that's it. The "nobility" was constantly bashing each other's skulls to enlarge their possessions of peasants and carrying weapons was their strict prerogative.
>>65593256>Were peasants allowed to own weaponsYes, depending on what part of Europe they were in they might have been expected to keep arms.>and form militiasIt's not like today, where anyone can form a militia (Black Panthers, Oath Keepers, 3 percenters, etc.), but back then the local lords would levy a militia when called into service to the nobles.
>>65593256>>65593309Levied troops were often expected to keep arms.But it depends on the time period and place.
>>65593256When? Where? What sort of weapon? What sort of peasant?
>>65593256Well a fucking pitchfork, as pictured in your post and a fucking axe and a fucking bow are all weapons and at the same time essential tools for "peasants".So yes, obviously, you fucking retard.
>>65593256It depends on where and when and what you mean by peasant. Medieval covers a VERY wide time period with vastly different norms. The early medieval period, vastly more than half of Europe was still tribal. Forget being 'allowed' to own weapons, not owning weapons meant you were a slave.More or less however through the entirety of the medieval period peasants not only could own weapons, but often were required to by law.
>>65593441>>65593457This guy’s into hardcore thorn.
>>65593640> I wish over confident retards like you would shut up.Same goes for you. Guilds and their regulations were confined to certain cities.
>>65593457>In England EVERY man was required* to own a bow of a certain poundage, 20 arrows (1 sheef), a spear, a sword, a helmet, & a shield.>*As of þe 1200s at least. As time went on þey would also be required to own armorI'm assuming you're talking about free peasants and yeomen/proto-yeomen and not any of the kinds of bound peasant farmers. I don't see how anyone who couldn't afford to purchase some of a lord's farmland could afford to purchase weapons.
>>65593633Oh no, how terrible.
>>65593481Murican education hahahahah
>>65593418then explain all the peasant revolts that always go like this;>peasants revolt because of high taxes/foreign invasion>they have no military weapons>they have no cavalry>they have no military training>they have no military organization>they get absolutely and easily trashed by a professional military force>peasant militia officers get publicly tortured, hanged, decapitated, dismembered, burned, disemboweled etc. to discourage anyone from ever forming a militia again.
>>65593309>since they could catch hares and chipmunks with wire traps and slings.>yeh, I'll just walk over to the WIRE STORE and buy some snares
>>65595433>explainKings are mean.
>>65595442yeah but if every peasant was somehow super armed and organized in militias these peasant revolts would not have been so one sided. the logical conclusion is that peasants werent allowed to own arms and most certainly strictly forbidden from forming militias.something is off with the narrative.
>>65593441Homestuck-ass typing quirk
>>65593256>Were peasants allowed to own weapons and form militias in medieval Europe?Yes? Assuming they could afford it.Monarchs and Lords didn't give a fuck what you were doing, as long as you paid your tithe and didn't fuck around.
>>65595433>>65595448What mental illness is going on here.
>>65595433The revolting peasants were not Free Men but rather some kind of bound serf and thus were not eligible for war service, didn't own weapons and weren't expected to train with them. And the few free farmers, petty nobles and urban bourgeois that joined those revolts weren't enough to tip the scales. >>65595448Not every peasant was eligible to be armed and even the armed free farmers were not organised in militias. Did you even read my post?
peasents were too blind to see most starsthey worked every daythey WOULD like doritos
>>65595448No one in this thread ever said anything about peasants winning revolts if they had weapons and militias, that's something your schizo head made up. The deck was obviously stacked against peasant revolts, in terms of leadership, organization and political aims. It should be obvious that even if the super militias in your imagination existed, many individual peasant militias loosely organized into a local (peasant rebellions were almost always local) army with ad-hoc leadership can't stand up to the entire organized military strength of a country.
>>65595716mutt educationNo more than 10% of peasants were freemen (not exactly free either kek), the rest were serfs, that is slaves in all but the name. The difference between slaves was that they could not be bought and sold separately but only together with the land they were bound to. And that, due to the agricultural characteristic of their occupation (which they were born to and couldn't change) they didn't have the enforcer with a whip over their heads all the time. They HAD to work to not starve themselves.>were Roman slaves allowed to own weapons and form militias?kek
>>65595963Are you illiterate? Nothing you wrote contradicts what >>65595716 said.
>>65596166impossible to contradict schizobabble tho>80% of well equipped population couldn't ever defeat the whole military strength of similarly eqiupped 5% because they lacked leedershhip!!!
>>65595619>they worked every daythey had many more days off yearly that we have now. 1/3 of the whole year was holy days, with no working.
>>65596224Nonsense. They worked half of the time for free on their owner's estate and the rest on their allotted subsistence farms. (as the peasants were generously given the right to sustain themselves lol. Seriously)And pre-mechanization agriculture would not allow the farmers to "not work" for 100 days a year kek.
Is this thread just some sperg spouting pop-history fuddlore.
>>65596243I don't think so. I could only endure the illiterate mutts with their "sure thing bro, absolutely!" for so long.
>>65596246inb4>medial peasant were actually cowboys bro! Defending us from sandniggers and shieet!!
>>65596260They were, yeah. They both raised cattle and defended us from sandniggers.
>>65596260>>65596264>defended us>usWho the fuck is us nigger? You think you would have been a lord back in the day? You fuckers are prime peasant material.
>>65596269>usAll of Christendom, you disgusting savage.
>>65596269>You fuckers are prime peasant material.I am flattered, nothing psychopathic in me. And the peasants DID try to get rid of these pedos.
>>65593256In medieval norway, pre and during the civil war all free men owned swords, people would think you were a thrall after the reforms of Magnus Lagabøte in the 1300s all men were required to own swords, axes spears bows, arrows and the very richest had to have ships for combat too. during the 1600 these laws where modernised to all men must own guns, until all weapon laws was abolished with the signing of the constitution in 1814 and we embraced the kiked enlightenment
>>65596452People would think you were a thrall if you didnt own a sword pre 1300, forgot to finish the sentence
>>65593256So, by peasant I’m going to do a highly inaccurate thing and define that as freeman commoner/non-serf without peerage or title. By weapon, I’m going to include both purpose built weapons and dual use weapons/modified tools. By militia I’m going to just define that as any organized group of people coming together for defense, protection, or aggression.>commonersThere are many places where this gets hazy with power dynamics because often times rich merchants and guild members could wield more power and influence than people with noble titles. In some cases, towns and villages had charter agreements with the regional nobility which left them more or less autonomous. In other situations, you could expect what you often see in media where some local blue blood is the boss. In both cases, everything from town watch and militias over to raised levies of conscripts existed. You could even have random pilgrims declaring themselves to be a fighting force to defend themselves and others, or persecute themselves and others as necessary. Literally any of these types of groups could and did resort to banditry, piracy, mercenary work, and the like. Or they didn’t. The legality of this was often a matter of debate. You could have Cletusbert, and Yokelduff going around smacking random merchants along a road in service to the church (who they of course were tithing to) as armed pilgrims with the full legal sanction of Archbishop Larcenies X, while Lord Inbrederic VI declared them bandits. This gets even more complicated and confusing the more different sources of authority exist in an area. Throw in a border with the lands of Sultan Sodomy The Magnificent, or Billy of Tangerine and it only gets more muddled.>weaponsthis is /k/. Anything can be used as a weapon. Sometimes purpose made weapons were restricted, but often times they were just too expensive for some random to own. A whole host of things that ended up as purpose built weapons started off as tools.
>>65596471>weaponsAs has been said, many societies either required or expected a freeman to have some type of weapon. This was far from universal however, and despite many different attempts at what we would call arms control, it remained very simple to use a tool on the battlefield unmodified. Get the village blacksmith to do a little work though and suddenly your flail or scythe is a legitimate, if perhaps low quality weapon. So. There you go.
>>65596239>And pre-mechanization agriculture would not allow the farmers to "not work" for 100 days a year kek.Grain agriculture is designed around minimizing efforts. That was the point. You drop seeds into the ground and most of the years just waiting
>>65593309>Another thing was the scarcity of good quality iron/steel in the countryside, as making crucible steel required advanced metallurgical knowledge and a fuckton of charcoal, something that a village blacksmith both lacked. They probably knew how to smelt pig iron, that was suitable for making farming tools, but that was about it, they didn't know how to make steel and how to forge them into reliable weapons, because they didn't need to. What's the point of learning quenching and spring tempering if you're going to make shovels and sickles for the rest of your life?You can't convince me some guy churning out nails and shovels all day every day wouldn't try a new hardening technique he learned about in a pub during county fair or at his sister's wedding two town over.
>>65593441>>65593943>>65593457/k/ is a thorn board now‽
