ASK : The most common "Peasant / Lower Class" Weapons of War?

After reading about the lowest troops medieval and ancient generals use in war, I'm quite aware that in a hurry, they could be armed with anything they have at hand, and there could be regional variations (the steppe and central asia use more bows)

But still, assuming a typical ancient to medieval (pre reinessaince) armies, when peasants or other lower rung of society are called / conscripted in times of war, will most of them are equipped with short spear (wicker/wooden shield optional), axes (that usually used for cutting wood), or simple short bows they usually use for hunting?

And I'm quite aware that they could come in combo, for starters, middle eastern armies often has archer regiments drafted from peasants who also carry spears for close combat.
 
There's huges difference between "low class" in medieval armies between the Early Middle-Ages, Classical Middle-Ages, and Late Middle Ages.

In the first case, theoritically every free man have to participe to plaids.
Bow and arrows for the less fortunate, for the others a spear or a scramasax, sometimes an axe, an angon or a shield (basically everything that have an use in everyday life)
Even semi-free or servile population could participe in warfare, restricted as frankish lidi or plainly under the orders of their patrons as visigothic or burgondian slaves, sometimes lombardian.

Erwig's law mention that for every man (Goth or Roman) shall bring 10 slaves to war, equipped with weapons (Be wary, even at this period, the king complained that the ratio wasn't even 1:20)

It changes with Carolingians, mostly due to the military technology advance, that ask for cavalry-based armies.; but is maintained in different places as Anglo-Saxon fyrd where the military service is still due.

For the most part of Classical Middle Ages (up to XIIIth century, roughly), the peasants are imbelle : theorically, they doesn't fight, or don't play a great role.
In reality, you have the participation of pedites, habitatores more or less obligatories in the levies, critically for general war or to defend the land : you don't have that of a distinction between building/repairing a wall or a castle, and participating to defense for the poor peasants (roughly 6/10 of the population)

The weaponry is rudimentary and often based on agricultural tools, but influenced the devellopement of war weapons : flail, war scythe or bills are obvious exemples (from flail, scythe and billhook).
Bow and spears are as well present, if relativly less.

Places as Spain have a more important place in warfare for peasantry, but still place themselves in a general tendency : pedones are issued from cities, and caballeros villanos highlight a popular cavalery that must have been close to their Frankish equivalent that evolved up to forming the knight (milites) classes, but had a role more similar to italian communal cavalry.

Peasants (both poor and more wealthy) in this period are essentially forming a more or less passive infantry : contrary to what is broadly said, they weren't "cannonfood" though.

The pitched battles weren't admittedly their place, and they were more skirmishers and archers than expected to fight more directly as knights (but as well middle-class or high-class peasants whom equipement was more elaborated), because (among other reasons) they were expected to not being able to hold well formations, and their role was essentially auxiliary (both in pitched battle and sieges)

It changes with the mid-XIIth century.
With the rise of an urban and peasant infantry with a greater role, poor peasantry place declined, while other parts of peasantry maintained or grew on their side.

Infantry bodies, as mercenaries, evolved often from poor peasantry; but they formed their own entity at this moment. The evolution, aforementioned, of agricultural tools to weapons could be a symptom.
Peasants can still be raised in levies (especially in lands lacking men such as Jerusalem, Scotland or Switzerland), but the equipement of the poorer fighters is interesting.

It doesn't means poor peasantry cease to be integrated, but the specialisation of the roles they hold before (such as archery in England) is more about selecting the fighters (Simon de Monfort iun 1264 didn't proposed anything different) in a general trend were cities and selection takes a greater importance, in par with mercenaries (that are after all, a consequence of the former).

As for the equipment, revolts as Jacqueries point that the use of agricultural tools, as well equipment taken on fallen fighters, was probably the rule.
 
Peasants (both poor and more wealthy) in this period are essentially forming a more or less passive infantry : contrary to what is broadly said, they weren't "cannonfood" though.

The pitched battles weren't admittedly their place, and they were more skirmishers and archers than expected to fight more directly as knights (but as well middle-class or high-class peasants whom equipement was more elaborated), because (among other reasons) they were expected to not being able to hold well formations, and their role was essentially auxiliary (both in pitched battle and sieges)

Hmm, so, in classical medieval age, the peasants acts as skirmishers instead of poor quality line infantry then? Did they are often placed to screen the main infantry formations (like peltastai / velites) or held as reserve behind the line?
 
Hmm, so, in classical medieval age, the peasants acts as skirmishers instead of poor quality line infantry then? Did they are often placed to screen the main infantry formations (like peltastai / velites) or held as reserve behind the line?

Would say that either being held in reserve, or (slightly) more likely guerilla warfare harrassing the opponent army on the move. Using them as screens is likely only a way to get lowered morale as they would easily break and flee through the infantry formations.
 
AFAIk, at least in Poland, wooden maces were quite popular among peasants. Also, javelins and, of course, axes.
 
What is the definition of 'poor/peasant' applying at the trime and place? I find it hard to envision the lowest orders of society marched off to war, and in any medieval law I am aware of, military service obligations were part of membership in some kind of structure - citizenship in a town, land tenure in a village, guild membership or some such bond. By the standards of the day, those are not necessarily notably poor people (though to us, most of them would look third-world). Those at the margins of society would rarely afford purpose-made weapons of any kind (and often were forbidden them).

But as the esteemed Catiline writes, you really need to answer this for specific regions and times. There is one thing I would point to, though: Do not underestimate the military value of such levies. I have looked at this for latze medieval and early modern Germany, bit I suspect things were not systemically different elsewhere in Europe. Certainly the peasantry were not meek or unused to arms. Martial sports (wrestling, singlestick play, staff fighting and shooting the crossbow and firearms) enjoyed great popularity, with regional competitions advertising prizes and attracting competitors from hundreds of miles away. Many communities even required young men to exercise with weapons, and there was a market for fighting instruction met by freelance fencing masters. If you were to go into a village or town and grab a labourer, journeyman or cottar of military age, the chances he'd be able to at least competently acquit himself with a halberd or pike were pretty good. That was the recruiting reservoir of the great Swiss and German mercenary armies of the 15th and 16th centuries. Look a bit harder and you'd be likely to dig up decent marksmen, too.

Regarding weapons, we know that corporate bodies (cities, guilds, parishes) and recruiters maintained stores of these which suggests to me that people in general did not own weapons of war. That may well have been different in earlier ages, when military obligation and social status were more immediately connected.
 
Hmm, so, in classical medieval age, the peasants acts as skirmishers instead of poor quality line infantry then?

"Peasant" is a too broad word, that covers (chronologically and sociologically wise) many and diverse realities : from the poor peasant to the wealthy landowner that was more close to the milites (knight), passing to "middle class" peasant...

For poor peasantry : Yes
You did have a medieval infantry but either trained for (dismounted knights for example, but as well huskarls) or urban/semi-urban infantry that was more useful, especially after the XIIth century : more disciplined, more skilled, and more motivation.

I'm under the impression poor peasantry was raised essentially for local problems and when you didn't have much other choice; or in siege defense (if the peasant are going to refugee themselves, they could at least make themselves useful, isn't?)

Did they are often placed to screen the main infantry formations (like peltastai / velites) or held as reserve behind the line?
It's hard to have a definitive opinion : peasants were theorically considered imbellae, non-fighters, so you simply don't have much mention of these, if at all.

Their equipment prevented them to play a tactical role during the battle, and it was probably more "para-tactical" : preparing the terrain, harassing the army, maybe finishing the wounded and plundering the corpses.
You could have them playing a part in archery, but even there skilled men (even if recruited among peasantry) probably played a greater role.
 
Top