Bullshit.
I bet you have fricked up teeth that chew crumpets with your tea, daily and you know every word to "Rule Britannia".
Post handgun and electrical outlet.
The pike was the weapon of the urban middle-class, not the peasantry. Pike formations needed soldiers who were disciplined and used to working together to be effective. That required frequent drill performed as a unit. Peasants dispersed among small villages or isolated farms couldn't easily gather together, but it was trivial for guild craftsmen and the petty bourgeoisie to meet just outside the town's walls for a few hours every month.
What killed off the knight wasn't the gun or even the pike itself. It was the gradual resumption of trade after the chaos of the Fall of Rome and the Viking Age. Trade led to prosperous cities, well-off citizens could form organized militias, and a well-regulated militia could sometimes stand up to a cavalry charge.
/k/ might not like it, but the truth is the pike would be the weapon of the big city liberals.
I'm sorry you don't like two well-established historical terms and a poetic description of the end of the tenured cavalryman's dominance on the battlefield.
>fall of rome >viking age
Those are the bookends of the Early Medieval Period.
n1gger, cavalry armies stomp everything after the fall of rome, thats how muzzies can get so far in europe. The end of the viking age similarly saw an increase of cavalry use. In fact the fricking knights as we know today are arguably created during the end of the viking age (or rather high middle age) during the 11tch century. So the the time you called "the death of the knight" is actually the period for the birth of the knight. Fricking hell, I hate pseuds so much I am going to barge to your house and kill your entire bloodline if only I know where you live.
>the pike would be the weapon of the big city liberals
"Liberals" and "conservatives" as we know them from American politics would pretty much be reversed in medieval times. The self-reliant, free-market, self-defense advocating self-made man who advocates for less government overreach would be in the city, armed with his pike and crossbow. The big-government advocate who relies on the state for his defense would be the rural serf.
Except conservatives are still for fascism, and “free market” is just a code word for being a sharecropping wage slave fellating the unquestionable Job Creator.
>When you don't know what Capitalism is, so you call it Fascism, because you don't know what that is either.
You know what?
You're so moronic that you don't even deserve the (you).
Apart from the inappropriateness of trying to fit modern politics to medieval times, both urban citizens and countryside peasantry hated the guts of the nobles, and wouldn't hesitate to overthrow the then-current order if they thought they would get away with it. Of course, having done so, the peasantry and citizens would then be at each other's throats because their values and concerns were so different beyond agreeing the nobles sucked. Indeed, they were often used as a counterbalance against the other, keeping the noble's caste system intact. There were often peasant or citizen revolts, but I can't think of one off the top of my head where they joined hands.
>The self-reliant, free-market, self-defense advocating self-made man who advocates for less government overreach would be in the city
Medieval guilds were completely antithetical to the concept of free markets.
>/k/ might not like it, but the truth is the pike would be the weapon of the big city liberals.
Has there been any period of history in which the ruralet has won against the urbanite? Half of 20th century history "and then millions of farmers starved so the cities would stay fed."
Is there some kind of deep resentment at play in the rural psyche?
Cities are synonimous with agglomerations of power. You have examples of medieval fights between the cities and the nobility, but peasants vs city folk is not really a thing during the period since those two groups weren't competing for power.
I guess if you count the battle of the golden spurs as a victory for the city folk you should count the followup (pic) as a victory for the rural people.
Apart from the inappropriateness of trying to fit modern politics to medieval times, both urban citizens and countryside peasantry hated the guts of the nobles, and wouldn't hesitate to overthrow the then-current order if they thought they would get away with it. Of course, having done so, the peasantry and citizens would then be at each other's throats because their values and concerns were so different beyond agreeing the nobles sucked. Indeed, they were often used as a counterbalance against the other, keeping the noble's caste system intact. There were often peasant or citizen revolts, but I can't think of one off the top of my head where they joined hands.
>both urban citizens and countryside peasantry hated the guts of the nobles, and wouldn't hesitate to overthrow the then-current order if they thought they would get away with it >Of course, having done so, the peasantry and citizens would then be at each other's throats because their values and concerns were so different beyond agreeing the nobles sucked. >Indeed, they were often used as a counterbalance against the other, keeping the noble's caste system intact.
Citation needed, everything you said was taken out of your ass, I imagine.
I'm sorry you don't like two well-established historical terms and a poetic description of the end of the tenured cavalryman's dominance on the battlefield.
>fall of rome >viking age
Those are the bookends of the Early Medieval Period.
I guess "viking age" is fine, but concepts such as "fall of Rome" and specially "death of the knight" haven't had a place in serious historiography since about the 1970s.
>/k/ might not like it, but the truth is the pike would be the weapon of the big city liberals.
Has there been any period of history in which the ruralet has won against the urbanite? Half of 20th century history "and then millions of farmers starved so the cities would stay fed."
Is there some kind of deep resentment at play in the rural psyche?
>Has there been any period of history in which the ruralet has won against the urbanite?
Pretty much all medieval period.
Rural fuedals ruled the land. At best urbanits could hold defense inside their city walls and maintain semi independency.
Hate to break it to you but peasants would not have been allowed halberds outside of wartime service in a noble levy. You might be allowed a dagger but weapons of war were heavily regulated.
>Not using the superior billhook to skirt these laws.
'Tis an agricultural tool, m'lord.
>billhook
Britbong detected
'Murican, actually but yes, I am also indeed, the Eternal Anglo.
Bullshit.
I bet you have fricked up teeth that chew crumpets with your tea, daily and you know every word to "Rule Britannia".
Post handgun and electrical outlet.
reminder the ~~*church*~~ banned crossbows because ~~*they*~~ are afraid of armed normies
Christ, next they'll be coming for our assault scythes
The pike was the weapon of the urban middle-class, not the peasantry. Pike formations needed soldiers who were disciplined and used to working together to be effective. That required frequent drill performed as a unit. Peasants dispersed among small villages or isolated farms couldn't easily gather together, but it was trivial for guild craftsmen and the petty bourgeoisie to meet just outside the town's walls for a few hours every month.
What killed off the knight wasn't the gun or even the pike itself. It was the gradual resumption of trade after the chaos of the Fall of Rome and the Viking Age. Trade led to prosperous cities, well-off citizens could form organized militias, and a well-regulated militia could sometimes stand up to a cavalry charge.
/k/ might not like it, but the truth is the pike would be the weapon of the big city liberals.
English sheep are indirectly responsible for many of the freedoms we today take for granted.
> fall of rome
> viking age
> death of the knight
I hate historylet so much its unreal.
I'm sorry you don't like two well-established historical terms and a poetic description of the end of the tenured cavalryman's dominance on the battlefield.
n1gger, cavalry armies stomp everything after the fall of rome, thats how muzzies can get so far in europe. The end of the viking age similarly saw an increase of cavalry use. In fact the fricking knights as we know today are arguably created during the end of the viking age (or rather high middle age) during the 11tch century. So the the time you called "the death of the knight" is actually the period for the birth of the knight. Fricking hell, I hate pseuds so much I am going to barge to your house and kill your entire bloodline if only I know where you live.
>fall of rome
>viking age
Those are the bookends of the Early Medieval Period.
>the pike would be the weapon of the big city liberals
"Liberals" and "conservatives" as we know them from American politics would pretty much be reversed in medieval times. The self-reliant, free-market, self-defense advocating self-made man who advocates for less government overreach would be in the city, armed with his pike and crossbow. The big-government advocate who relies on the state for his defense would be the rural serf.
Except conservatives are still for fascism, and “free market” is just a code word for being a sharecropping wage slave fellating the unquestionable Job Creator.
>When you don't know what Capitalism is, so you call it Fascism, because you don't know what that is either.
You know what?
You're so moronic that you don't even deserve the (you).
Apart from the inappropriateness of trying to fit modern politics to medieval times, both urban citizens and countryside peasantry hated the guts of the nobles, and wouldn't hesitate to overthrow the then-current order if they thought they would get away with it. Of course, having done so, the peasantry and citizens would then be at each other's throats because their values and concerns were so different beyond agreeing the nobles sucked. Indeed, they were often used as a counterbalance against the other, keeping the noble's caste system intact. There were often peasant or citizen revolts, but I can't think of one off the top of my head where they joined hands.
holy shit the historylets itt
>The self-reliant, free-market, self-defense advocating self-made man who advocates for less government overreach would be in the city
Medieval guilds were completely antithetical to the concept of free markets.
Cities are synonimous with agglomerations of power. You have examples of medieval fights between the cities and the nobility, but peasants vs city folk is not really a thing during the period since those two groups weren't competing for power.
I guess if you count the battle of the golden spurs as a victory for the city folk you should count the followup (pic) as a victory for the rural people.
>both urban citizens and countryside peasantry hated the guts of the nobles, and wouldn't hesitate to overthrow the then-current order if they thought they would get away with it
>Of course, having done so, the peasantry and citizens would then be at each other's throats because their values and concerns were so different beyond agreeing the nobles sucked.
>Indeed, they were often used as a counterbalance against the other, keeping the noble's caste system intact.
Citation needed, everything you said was taken out of your ass, I imagine.
I guess "viking age" is fine, but concepts such as "fall of Rome" and specially "death of the knight" haven't had a place in serious historiography since about the 1970s.
>/k/ might not like it, but the truth is the pike would be the weapon of the big city liberals.
Has there been any period of history in which the ruralet has won against the urbanite? Half of 20th century history "and then millions of farmers starved so the cities would stay fed."
Is there some kind of deep resentment at play in the rural psyche?
>Has there been any period of history in which the ruralet has won against the urbanite?
Pretty much all medieval period.
Rural fuedals ruled the land. At best urbanits could hold defense inside their city walls and maintain semi independency.
Halberds are for officers you filthy peasant
>Halberds are for officers
Sergeants only get to carry a mere spontoon.
If it's a hunting blade, cc is completely legal in some states. 😉
Hate to break it to you but peasants would not have been allowed halberds outside of wartime service in a noble levy. You might be allowed a dagger but weapons of war were heavily regulated.
It's kind of spotty and the concern was more about the carrying of arms than the owning of them; and this also depends upon where and when one is.
Sword Chads win again.
If you want a win for actual peasants then this is one of the best examples.