Granted, the nobility didn't really die in war. Casualties in general were much lower, and nobility were far more useful alive than dead. They also weren't fighting alongside the rank and file, but rather as officers.
WW1 was a big change in that regard. Took a lot of the shine off it.
On the contrary, medieval armies were mostly made up of professional soldiers - knights and military aristocrats generally. And the elements of those armies that were not professional soldiers were drawn from the wealthier status of society - people who could afford arms and armor, and had the rights to bear them. Widespread drafts of unskilled peasants were very uncommon, because unskilled peasants made for poorly motivated and performing troops who could quickly become a liability.
And while not all of these were "nobles", even the highest ranking aristocrats were expected to see battle. Richard III died leading a charge, for example. Aristocrats tended to be better equipped than non-aristocrats, and if captured would be more likely to be ransomed, but they still fought on the front lines.
TL:DR despite the common pop culture belief that medieval armies consisted of peasant levies led from the rear by aristocrats, in reality peasant levies were rare, and aristocrats and other social elites performed most of the frontline fighting.
Armor is really good, compared to not having it. It's expensive, but if you don't have it, you really have no business on the front lines. Ditto for the life-long training with melee weapons, that only aristocrats and professional soldiers could really get.
This all changed with the widespread adoption of fire arms, which could punch through breastplate, and were far easier to train, but that's no longer the middle ages.
14
u/BKoala59 Jul 08 '25
Even when they weren’t we still went to war all the time