Read what I wrote again. And this time please dob't cut anything off.
You're arguing that something that literally began as series of rural local uprising was fought by nobility and rich urbanites. Gotcha.
It did not popularize any such thing, use of flails in combat is recorded as far back as 5th crusade and likely dates further back. And while peasants saw plenty of fighting during Hussite wars, as all Hussites were considered heretics and crussades were declared against them, they were not part of Hussite armies.
First of all... the imagery of Bohemian flail-wielding peasant fighting Germanic knight was even used by contemporary German bishops as appeal for support of the crusades. After said "flowers of Germanic nobility" got soundly trounced by unwashed masses yet again. It's also something mentioned in most of the sources I'm familiar with, in one way or another, but bugger if I'm going to dig those books out right now, especially since most aren't in English anyway.
Secondly, just because it was something in use earlier on, does not discount the point that it was something that saw (as attested by various sources that survived) unusually high use in that specific conflict. Possibly because the long-hafted flails were not just readily available and effective against targets' armor, but also because they were something that could be used much better from within the confines of a Wagenburg than other weapon types. Lastly, to claim that "peasants were not part of Hussite armies" shows complete ignorance of the subject matter. I'd suggest starting with "Warrior of God" by Victor Verney. There aren't a lot of decent English sources for that lamentably overlooked conflict, but it should provide you with at least some basics.
Except they did not:
Henris II Assize had required that all freemen with 40-100s. of land or 9-20 marks of chattels should serve with bow, arrows and sword.
Are you for real?
Page 481-482 of the Assize
https://archive.org/details/closerollsofreig04grea/page/482
Rough translation for the lowest-status, courtesy of an internet stranger (since I can about remember "puella pulchra est" by now):
Those with goods valued at 10 marks must have sword, knife, bow, and arrows (gladium, cultellum, arcum et sagittas).
Those with goods valued between 40 shillings and 10 marks must have scythes (falces), knives (cultellos), guisarmes (gysarmas), and other small arms (et alia arma minuta).
Those who live in the woods that can come out must have bows and arrows (arcum et sagittas), or they can have bows and piles (arcus et pilettos).
That's the "Omnes eciam alii qui possunt habere arcum et sagittas extra forestam habeant; quite vero in foresta arcus et pilettos." part on page 482
According to historian Clive Bartlett, the English armies of the 14th century, including the longbowmen, mainly comprised the levy
[..]
Sorry, no peasants there.
You're literally citing a source telling you that the armies were mainly peasants.
It was used. It was used in it's original Latin form "servus".
https://www.etymonline.com/word/serf
And they are not mentioned in Assize of Arms.
Maybe because "serf" is a late 15th century term, and the Assize is 13th? I mean, just a wild guess.
Except all this nonsense about "peasant armies" implies specifically poor unarmed and untrained serfs
No, that's your baseless assertion.
They were poorly armed and poorly (if at all) trained, compared to any of the "professional" warriors they would face, much less the life-long training of the noble warrior class. At least outside of cities (and Italy in general) where the population tended to be comparably wealthier, but statistically constituted much lower percentage of general population than rurals.
not relatively wealthy and small in number free farmers who held their own land and did not own service to a lord. Majority of feudal peasants were serfs -people who did not held any land, instead worked and lived on the land of the lord.
You mean like the "people who live in the woods" from the Assize?
Oh, and by the by, if you read on THAT subject (I'd suggest
the Gies' work as a decent starting point), you'll learn that English freeman was anybody from a seasonal worker with just a shirt on their back of their own, to a wealthy landowner. Which is why the armament requirements were given based on personal wealth, not the legal class or subclass they belonged to.
I don't see peasants mentioned in any of the cited examples. Mere fact that those laws require people to own weapons and armor shows that they don't talk about poor peasantry.
Won't see what you don't want, I guess.
You're literally citing examples of peasant levy and claiming they weren't peasants because they did not belong to (according to you, anyway) specific sub-class of peasants.