""Peasants army/not true soldiers" a myth ?" Topic

"Do you consider the idea that during medieval times more specifically during the hundred years war and overall during the late medieval the bulk of the armies forces were poorly trained peasants/civilians and not true soldiers a myth ? From my knowledge althought I woulnd't call myself a expert or anything, this was a and was always a ridiculous myth. Real and fully trained soldiers in a massive way were common during that period, for example during the battle of Azincourt it was two army of fully trained and equiped opponents who fought, not some amateurs who got spears a few days ago and just ad the very basics of how to handle it.

As a matter of fact men-at-arms and sergeants should be considered to be professional soldiers, at least surely for the first one. And those were in most of the battles the bulk if not all of the force baring the Knights. So the question is, why people are convinced that most of the medieval army force would be "not true soldiers" ? Why people are convinced that "profesional army" wasn't existant back then ?…"

From here

link

Armand

"Why people are convinced that "profesional army" wasn't existant back then ?" (wrote some bloke on a forum)

I don't think anyone interested in the subject does hold such convictions.

Knights are men at arms

There are some very strange postings on that site and even worse English, even from those claiming to be from the UK.

I don't think comparing the soldiery of medieval times with those of later times, particularly post gunpowder, makes much sense at all. The societies in Feudal Europe were so different then that you end up comparing apples with oranges.

Glup!….

Armand

x2 for 42 Flanker. European societies at war did not always differ by much…..a properly equipped spearman or MAA looked pretty much the same whether they came from France, England, Low Countries, Scotland…..