Unless otherwise indicated, the User agrees that downloading and printing limited extracts of Material held on the University Network is only permissible by a User where it is for that Users personal and non-commercial use only. No part of the Material may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, unless otherwise stated, without the prior written consent of the University or the third party in whom ownership vests.
Read the site more carefully:
Delete that post! No degree.
EDIT: Seriously, it is illegal :)
Read the site more carefully:
Delete that post! No degree.
EDIT: Seriously, it is illegal :)
That's pretty stupid,.. they publish the paper but I can't share it ? Well okey, it's they're right.... You know were to search if you want to read some more...
You're a loser for pointing it out and having him delete the post.
You're a loser for actually listening to someone on the net and deleting it.
You're a loser because I deleted it.
DUN DUN DUN.
The english won because they were defending against the french.
Well lets make the first counterreply and therefore the first flame war!
The english did lose while defending against the french. i.e. After Joan d' Arc arrived... and sure some small skirmishes before.
Who won at agincourt?! Right, get back in your hole knnnnnnnniiiiiiiggit.
I won it, fact, i'm a hero
Who cares about the battle, the only fact that counts is that frenchies failed... AGAIN.
Terrain and french stupidity made the english take that victory.
French cavalry charge failed because of the unploughed land which turned into mud by rain and the spikes which english archers carved to protect them from cavalry. cavalry charged through the spikes and because of the mud some spikes fell down but most remained up and pierced the horses resulting in lots of casualties. The french cavalry retreated and trampled their own members on their way back because of panicing horses resulting in an even less organised army.
Footman also managed to get to the english force but after crawling through 200-300yards of mud while being shot by barrages of arrows having the sun shine in their eyes making them disorientated and losing alot of morale they got beaten by the english force, who in comparison had alot more energy to fight.
Casualties from french are estimated at around 10.000 and english casualties were around 100 according to some sources but most people think it would have been more like 500.
Very very very basic summary, i could also write 3pages by quoting books and sources but that takes to much time and most of you guys know how this battle went anyways because this is one of the most legendary and most spoken off battles in history.
(click to show/hide)
according to this, the average japanese penis is larger than the average american penis...
LOLWUT?
we from croatia are out of league for that chat. toobigsmall
Fix'd for you neighbor :Dtoo small chart for us :P
didnt read none of your posts! english won cuz archers with pointy sticks... and the frenchies are sissies who drown in mud. p.s. does anyone ever have to wonder why france loses a fight? arent they famous for losing? cmon now.
why, icelanders NEVER ^lostfought a war
I'm pretty sure the English only won because they camped with OP longbows and billhooks. Banner balance does it again amirite?Ino rite? so op, they are just a bunch of lame campers, waiting till the timer ran out. The only reason the French attacked was because they got bored and didn't want to lose their multiplier to a draw.
Maybe agaisnt plate alone, but with the padding and the mail the arrow aint passing through.it passes, but ir is not going to cause fatal wound. however englishmen were very fast at releasing their arrows so this knight could have a dosen non-lethal wounds from which he would bleed. if you're lucky and you haven' bleed a lot, google for effects. nasty
Why don't we play the battle on cRPG?because it is game. battle is no game.
15 000 tickets with Horses, Churburg, grealances, and other stuff like this vs 7 000 tickets with longbows and battle fork.
when you watch movies you see people who are shot to jerk back from bullet impact (irl that doesn't happen), but with arrows that happens. imagine you running between two lines of people and everybody throws a little punch at your armor. annoying and exhausting(click to show/hide)
when you watch movies you see people who are shot to jerk back from bullet impact (irl that doesn't happen), but with arrows that happens. imagine you running between two lines of people and everybody throws a little punch at your armor. annoying and exhausting
At agincourt 3 totally un armoured archers armed with knives could take down the best armored knights
today when uniformity of armies is something common and US army is well known of their uberbulletproof vests and helmets you have still dead US soldiers killed by gunfire AND wearing vests and helmets
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDOG_DdhlX8
hear the sound of the pulled bows and the flying arrows, a second before the deathly rain comes down and remember what the french men at Agincourt must have thought.
Ever heard of skill needed to make good plate armor? You know, this one was made in modern times. Plate used by knights were sometimes better sometimes worse :P
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3997HZuWjk
for people who think longbow can kill plated knights
:lol: did you even watch that? He clearly says that this was the type that was used in Vernuill (!?). If you don't know the significance of that then let me enlighten you. This was the first time the milanese steel was used on the field. Agincourt etc. were way before that and this was that one development in steel technology that made the longbow much less efficient. It was the milanese lombard cavalry that used this. For the first time you could easily protect most of the rider and the horse because the steel was much lighter than what came before that which was either really shit quality steel or iron.
[edit to add] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Verneuil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Verneuil)
Yes exactly. That type of a plate armor didn't even excist at the time of agincourt. After verneuil (!?) though we see english getting owned more and more. So battles before this the longbow was hugely effective and after this not so much.
Dude noone wore coat of plates at agincourt. It would've weighted so much the guy would've just collapsed unless it was 1mm thick in which case it would simply shatter on impact. Btw in case you didn't notice in the video they use a bodkin against the armor too. Bodkins where made fast and easy with low grade material since that didn't matter for their intented purpose which was to pierce mail.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3997HZuWjkas an ex-archer both with long and strong bows I was shaken up.
for people who think longbow can kill plated knights
Something that annoys me is "bodkin" arrows in Crpg. From what I've read, these were constructed from cheap, soft metal and were not the most effective at piercing armor. They were used for quantity>quality reasons, to increase the chances of hitting unarmored targets. I think they should be cheap and shitty, rather than the epitome of arrows as they are currently.
http://www.royalarmouries.org/what-we-do/research/analytical-projects/armour-piercing-arrowheads (http://www.royalarmouries.org/what-we-do/research/analytical-projects/armour-piercing-arrowheads)
some people just cant let a thread lay to restidk... someone linked this page for a conversation we were having on an unrelated topic.
and what is the point of bumping a stickied thread?
Realistically: NOT every Frenchman, Knight OR Man-at-Arms, would be able to afford the most cutting edge technology in armour, and some would have only had leathers with a buckler.
Realistically: Most english archers would have had an even more ragtag collection of armour and weapons, EXCEPT that their longbows would have been top fucking notch. They all had decent longbows since the english were realists: Its AWESOME to charge into combat on horseback with your shiney sword, but its archers that win battles. Boring, but you dont die.
2.) After their horses fell dead ... the night must avantage a sticky and muddy ploughed field (in the night before the battle it have rain cats and dogs)
Hell I live in the countryside in England and I know what a ploughed field feels like walking through after rain. I can't imagine doing it in armour, under fire from arrows.
But as a french i can salute the tactical skills of english commander who brings the french to do this battle at this particular place!
A lot of the French knights ended up drowning / being trampled to death in their armor actually due to the mud essentially immobilizing any knight unfortunate enough to fall down in it.because mud gets stuck between cogs...?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDOG_DdhlX8
hear the sound of the pulled bows and the flying arrows, a second before the deathly rain comes down and remember what the french men at Agincourt must have thought.
Supposedly, the English archers did carry mauls, hammers, and mallets, which they used to pound stakes into the ground. These tools could have also pounded french helmets into the ground haha.
A lot of the French knights ended up drowning / being trampled to death in their armor actually due to the mud essentially immobilizing any knight unfortunate enough to fall down in it. Also, the amount of French knights on the field should have been an advantage (they had many more knights), but the field was too small and the French were crowded too closely together to fight an effective mounted battle. These factors combined with many of the other factors mentioned previously in this forum made it a very bloody defeat for the French.
I have to disagree with some people on here though who seem to think that the English Longbowmen were some super elite fighting force. They were good at what they did, yes, (launching large volleys long distances), but when it came to melee they would stand little chance against mounted knights were it not for the many other factors playing against the French in this battle.
sure it's obvious that mounted knights would beat English longbowmen in a fight on an open field
Thats what happened at the Battle of Patay, 1500 knights charged 5000 Englishmen, lost about 100 knights and killed/wounded/captured 2500 Englishmen.
Just saying the weapon alone doesn't win the war ;)
True.
And Leesin, lighter armor for the troops = longbow will be deadly, so instead of reaching the English hill fairly out of of breath and getting cut up, they'll simply be shot?
True.
And Leesin, lighter armor for the troops = longbow will be deadly, so instead of reaching the English hill fairly out of of breath and getting cut up, they'll simply be shot?
Crecy pretty much exposed that.
I think you meant Adalwulf lol and yes, when I read that I also thought "But if they had lighter armour, more of them would have simply died to arrows alone regardless of the terrain and fatigue"
I think that's exactly what happened, whilst the few men at arms held the line and fought off any French that made it through, the archers would run forth with their mallets and daggers and kill/capture the knights that had been dismounted into the marshy earth, having next to no armour it was far easier for them to move in that kind of terrain
I agree with this sentiment. Reading stats about the troop line up i know that they had more longbowmen than man at arms, least those accounts lie. Also i have two points to share, forgive me if they have already been mentioned.
2. Before this battle there was another where a LOT of french nobility died. Mostly of the older generation. These were hardened men fighting in the contested territories, having been fighting there for years. This new group that came in from the south and eastern parts of France, if i remember correctly, were a lot younger and inexperienced in combat, and also were probably drunk. One could imagine that they were quite arrogant having outnumbered the English king with so many knights, making camp and getting rowdy with their obvious superiority... Little did they expect to be attacked by the smaller force.. perhaps they laughed when they saw such a sight... perhaps that rather than battle formations that were coherent the french had little leader ship at all, with most men mustering forth and charging blindly with their local lords.
Not really, the reason the thread is stickied is because as soon as realism and medieval warfare is brought up all the anglo's starts masturbating over Azincourt and Crécy, the only two battles they ever learned about because their primary education system is a circle-jerking propaganda fest.You're intelligence is sooo impressive. Can I lick it?
The "longbow can shoot through plate armour at five hundred meters!!&111!!" is pretty much the western equivalent of "katana is best sword that can cut through anything!!&!!111". Both things got thouroughly romanticized in respectively the Victorian era and the Edo period.
You're intelligence is sooo impressive. Can I lick it?
Speaking first hand as someone whos gone through the english education system studying history at every level i can say this is bullshit.
The lower education levels focus primarily on modern history and Tudors, Agincourt romanticism comes from weak arse popular history, not academic stuff.
Exactly I never was taught about Agincourt or Crecy, didn't think I ever had a lesson on the Hundred Years War. History was my favourite subject, I remember the only year I did a Middle Age subject was in like year 4. After that there was quite a lot about the Tudors but mainly about boring old Henry VIII. I remember all the subjects I learnt in secondary school History. Year 8 was Native Americans (I have no fucking idea why). Year 9 was mainly WW2 and the causes of it. Year 10 and Year 11 was more WW2, Russia, Prohibition, Treaty of Versailles and all that shit.
Also the reason we probably don't learn about the Hundred Years War is because we lost in the end. Whats the French Education System like with WW2, I'm interested in how they teach it.
Point stands your assumptions about the British education system are wrong.
Fine, make it American education system then, I have personally experienced it there. Also I really really doubt Shakespeare's St Crispens Day speech never featured at all in your education, or the ridiculous worship of the longbow as the weapon that supposedly ended the "knight". There's a reason it is such an enmeshed part of anglo pop history, that shit doesn't just happen in a vacuum. I stand by my earlier comments in this thread, every single time medieval battles are brought up, you can bet that any anglos will bring up Azincourt and Crécy, often with the longbow can shoot plated knight at xxx yards! meme. It's the reason for the existence of the stickied thread after all.
Also I really really doubt Shakespeare's St Crispens Day speech never featured at all in your education, or the ridiculous worship of the longbow as the weapon that supposedly ended the "knight".
Fine, make it American education system then, I have personally experienced it there. Also I really really doubt Shakespeare's St Crispens Day speech never featured at all in your education, or the ridiculous worship of the longbow as the weapon that supposedly ended the "knight". There's a reason it is such an enmeshed part of anglo pop history, that shit doesn't just happen in a vacuum. I stand by my earlier comments in this thread, every single time medieval battles are brought up, you can bet that any anglos will bring up Azincourt and Crécy, often with the longbow can shoot plated knight at xxx yards! meme. It's the reason for the existence of the stickied thread after all.
5) French battle strategy traditionally
1) Defending against the French
2) Small professional veteran army(which had to fight or die) vs a Hastily formed up coalition of French Nobles.
3) Defenders had gradual incline advantage with deep mud and stakes.
4) The dreaded longbow
5) French leadership and battle strategy was not existent as they traditionally relied on overwhelming numbers
and brute strength to win battles.
They really need to make an updated movie on this epic struggle.
Mel Gibson is making a movie on it, he plays a French Knight, France wins.
Gibson wouldn't abase himself to play a frenchie.
He would if it involves killing and beating the English, he hates us.
Irrelevant, everyone hates the English. Even your own neighbours, they probably more than anyone.