cRPG

Off Topic => Historical Discussion => Topic started by: cmp on January 19, 2011, 06:42:06 pm

Title: Agincourt
Post by: cmp on January 19, 2011, 06:42:06 pm
Discuss and don't spam the other forums with Agincourt related stuff.
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Babelfish on January 19, 2011, 06:43:44 pm
HAHAHHAHAH <3
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Gorath on January 19, 2011, 06:46:05 pm
HAX.

Teh End.
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: BD_Guard_Bane on January 19, 2011, 07:19:06 pm
Read the site more carefully:

Quote
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 User’s 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.

Delete that post! No degree.

EDIT: Seriously, it is illegal :)
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Bensbane on January 19, 2011, 07:43:28 pm
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...
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Ishar on January 19, 2011, 07:54:04 pm
Well maybe because they get money for the paper.
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Balton on January 19, 2011, 08:00:14 pm
Read the site more carefully:

Delete that post! No degree.

EDIT: Seriously, it is illegal :)

You're a loser for pointing it out and having him delete the post.

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 actually listening to someone on the net and deleting it.
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: cmp on January 19, 2011, 08:14:31 pm
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.
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Gorath on January 19, 2011, 08:21:27 pm
You're a loser because I deleted it.

DUN DUN DUN.

/win
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Siiem on January 20, 2011, 03:21:14 am
The english won because they were defending against the french.
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Timotheusthereal on January 20, 2011, 07:54:21 am
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.
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Siiem on January 20, 2011, 08:57:50 am
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.
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Timotheusthereal on January 20, 2011, 09:26:32 am
Who won at agincourt?! Right, get back in your hole knnnnnnnniiiiiiiggit.

HERPDERP!
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Nick_Larking on January 20, 2011, 07:57:58 pm
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.
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Boss_Awesome on January 20, 2011, 08:52:00 pm
 Agincourt never happened.  It was all made up as part of a propaganda campaign.    Horses didn't arrive in Europe until the late 1800's when they swam there from Africa.  Metal armor was never used in the middle ages, it simply got far too hot in the sun.  Most armor was made from corkboard or reconstituted papyrus (the predecessor of cardboard).  While bows were common in the middle ages, arrows were not invented until 1782 when Silus Arrowoner accidently launched his serving spoon by way of longbow into the leg of an unknown tavern patron.  Previously bows had only been used as musical instruments.  Bar maces and morning stars were a common site in the middle ages, but were only used as hunting weapons as deer in that era were very tame. 
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: DrKronic on January 20, 2011, 09:32:30 pm
The battle of agincourt was won by the english because the opposing side was french

Also if u start placing weaponry and tactics that have defeated the french in battle in a pile you're going to instead end up with a list of anything ever made that has a possibility of harming or shaving the target
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Olwen on January 20, 2011, 09:48:47 pm
I won it, fact, i'm a hero
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: krampe on January 21, 2011, 10:26:32 am
Battle of Agincout

Olwen vs. his pet bunny
Prize to Claim: a nibbled carrot
Olwen won! (he has enough vitamine A now and don't need glasses)
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Siiem on January 21, 2011, 10:32:43 am
I won it, fact, i'm a hero

visitors can't see pics , please register or login
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Mtemtko on January 22, 2011, 12:14:17 am
Who cares about the battle, the only fact that counts is that frenchies failed... AGAIN.
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Connasse on January 22, 2011, 03:40:48 am
Who cares about the battle, the only fact that counts is that frenchies failed... AGAIN.
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Guerridon on January 22, 2011, 03:43:22 am
Azincourt funny battle
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Neostralie on January 22, 2011, 05:06:21 am
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.

You forget on thing, in the end French wins.
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Whalen207 on January 22, 2011, 07:05:02 am
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Thucydides on January 22, 2011, 10:03:30 am
(click to show/hide)

according to this, the average japanese penis is larger than the average american penis...

LOLWUT?
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Siiem on January 22, 2011, 10:31:12 am
according to this, the average japanese penis is larger than the average american penis...

LOLWUT?


Derp derp derp usa has more then twice the population of japan... bound to be alot of people there with Thucydides sized wangs.

Gotta give props to the cRPG community, making a battlefield topic turn into a average sized penis contest. I suspect Vic will come on here and post a subject on which demographic has the longest vagina hole... or possibly tightest.
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: FICO on January 22, 2011, 11:32:10 pm
we from croatia are out of league for that chat. too big
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Mtemtko on January 23, 2011, 02:18:06 am
we from croatia are out of league for that chat. too big small

Fix'd for you neighbor  :D
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: FICO on January 23, 2011, 12:11:19 pm
Fix'd for you neighbor  :D
too small chart for us :P
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Matey on January 25, 2011, 09:32:56 pm
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.
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Kalam on January 25, 2011, 10:23:17 pm
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.

Don't be bated by the Canadian strawman. He is secretly french.
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: FICO on January 26, 2011, 09:23:44 am
why, icelanders NEVER lost a war
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Rheinhardt on January 27, 2011, 02:43:14 am
why, icelanders NEVER ^lostfought a war
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Diomedes on January 27, 2011, 02:53:47 am
I'm pretty sure the English only won because they camped with OP longbows and billhooks.  Banner balance does it again amirite?
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Vammo75 on January 27, 2011, 12:37:25 pm


The Cod Wars in the '50s and '70s.
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Roran Hawkins on January 30, 2011, 04:04:12 pm
The French mounted knight charged trough a plowed and muddy field, turned into a complete mess by the rain, right into the English arrowrains, wich panicked their horses, their horses ran away, fell, ran onto the sharpened trees infront of the archers, in other words, one big chaos of falling horses. Then, their infantry charged and did the same (mostly dismounted knights) Their progress was slower, since they weren't mounted, and they got even more arrows on them. The French cavalry tried flanking the English positions but they got repelled.


Imagine running trough knee-deep mud, with a full suit of armour, and weapons. Not that easy. Add arrow rain of longbows: chaos.
After the French leaders were killed, the French started to rout.





Is this a good theory?

Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: FICO on January 30, 2011, 06:59:11 pm
nah... it lacks dicks
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: CtrlAltDe1337 on February 03, 2011, 09:46:02 pm
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.
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: woody on February 03, 2011, 10:58:34 pm
Ever seen a test of warbow 150lb draw plus bodkin arrows vs plate at 50 yds? Dead tincan. Not talking about bullshit tests with 70lb bows fired by 12 stone guys - longbowmen were so strong it warped their bones and their ligiment attachments to bone were massive.

If you have no need to answer why English plus Welsh won at Crecy, Poitires, Agincourt etc etc.

Also helped when tincans got to the wooden spikes these guys flattened them with picks/sledges/axes - big men with heavy anti armour weapons

Terrain, dismounted english knights with polearms, bad weather, appalling french leadership, missing troops due the French regions essentially hating each other all contributed, but Warbows won it.

Longbowmen only ceased to rule battlefield due to the training and big guys needed was huge investment which guns did not need.


Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Bobthehero on February 04, 2011, 06:13:22 am
Maybe agaisnt plate alone, but with the padding and the mail the arrow aint passing through.
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: FICO on February 04, 2011, 08:14:15 am
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
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Quirian on February 04, 2011, 12:53:47 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRXwk4Kdbic
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: FICO on February 04, 2011, 01:48:22 pm
i like when "can arrow pierce armor" thread appears


i say http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPankbXL3d0&feature=related
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: FICO on February 04, 2011, 02:06:32 pm
my view on "archers won battle against heavy armoured knights" is that it was like today news. it was victory. that's clear. there are few ways how to make win bigger. that's also excuse to french nobility why they failed - uber weapon. the real cause why did french lost is that their cavalry charge wasn't so quick due to mud. also on pictures you can see french cavalry uniformed, but in reality in armies of that time there was no such thing. every noble and peasant had to take care of their equipment and food. so french noble cavalry armour could range from simple chain to thick plate (not every nobleman was very rich). much of mounts were not even armoured. even in crpg you can see smile on face of xbowman when he sees big target

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
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: woody on February 04, 2011, 04:12:14 pm
The caveat I put in was that the Warbows used were as per the Marie Rose ones calculated at 150lb plus and 50 yards or less.

Having seen this done they do go through. I would like to see the assumptions used, weight of arrows etc used as the base for the u tube clip because these are crucial.

No-one disputes the bows that all but a few modern bowmen can use do not penetrate armour and there are many clips of these failing but these are irrelevant. What matters is the bows and heavy arrows used at Agincourt. 
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Matey on February 05, 2011, 02:40:51 am
yeah i wonder what kind of quality plate most of the guys had too; also dont forget there are weak points for any suit of armour, often visors and the like and archers were pretty scary accurate; with that many arrows flying around, yeah even if they dont punch through the chest piece theres a lot of guys with arrows through their eyes.
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Bobthehero on February 05, 2011, 06:17:30 am
I doubt it, the arrow were fired en masse in an arc patern, unless the knight were looking upward no arrow could get in their visor.
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Roran Hawkins on February 05, 2011, 09:43:05 am
You forget the effect of morale and the wounded men.

They are wrestling through a mudfield, say like almost kneedeep. Then it sarts raining arrows from the biggest calibre bow in their known world. The skies turn pitch black, the French knights suddenly bathe in shadows, and see let's say 700 arrows decending at them. The ones not rich enough to have plate armour start to panick, scaring the others. Even the platearmours can get pierced on the weaker spots, and getting hurt isn't fun either, especially with all the mud, when you fall, you get trampeld and will drown in the mud.

I think almost not all of the Frenchmen really died from arrows. (apart from battle kills when they reached english lines) I think wounded Frenchmen who got shot just fell in the mud, grabbing the arrow that suddenly appeared inside their leg, and fall in the pool of mud. They can get trampled by their mates, and shot again. But they will drown idf they stay lying there.
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: FICO on February 05, 2011, 10:49:05 am
as stated above, moral of troupes had BIG influence on battle. most of those horrific numbers of people died in battle were of noteworthy people. peasants often were not counted correctly (or at all) and most killing happened during routing or retreat
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Pecores_Roland_Culet on February 05, 2011, 11:08:49 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zp9izmeUl9s

We can't made a real pack like the begin of this video. Thats a problem for me.
We can't walk or sprint and we are never tired.
To made historical think we need an realistic gameplay first...
We need 3 different speed and a fatigue jauge.
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Matey on February 05, 2011, 11:14:14 am
you can always read the book by bernard cornwell, he does research pretty good. i liked his version. french fuck up, mud, arrows, wooden stakes, and beefy fuckin archers with angry melee weps.
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Neostralie on February 06, 2011, 11:00:16 pm
Why don't we play the battle on cRPG?

15 000 tickets with Horses, Churburg, grealances, and other stuff like this vs 7 000 tickets with longbows and battle fork.
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: FICO on February 06, 2011, 11:48:41 pm
Why don't we play the battle on cRPG?

15 000 tickets with Horses, Churburg, grealances, and other stuff like this vs 7 000 tickets with longbows and battle fork.
because it is game. battle is no game.
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: woody on February 07, 2011, 09:43:03 pm
Morale affected every battle - usually Battlefield casuality figures in battle for this period were 10-15% for losers and less than 5% for winners. this was mainly due to as soon as one side started losing they ran.

Agincourt was very unusual for so many deaths, Juliet Barker in her excellent book Agincourt (best I've read on the subject), details how the casualties amoungst the French nobles were incredibly high.

Part of what is unusual is that although the merc x bowman broke the astonishing bravery of the french knights, aided by poor communications between the cavalry waves, meant many were killed by bows and hand and hand.

The other effect of arrows even at range is bludgeon like blows, which under the volumes fired by the English (Welsh) could actually stun as well as demoralise.

Bottom line - take away Longbows French win.
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: ManOfWar on February 10, 2011, 03:18:30 am
Americaaaaa!! o wait wrong thread

But yes the longbow is what won the day
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: bruce on February 10, 2011, 03:58:07 pm
According to some sources, by the time the French footmen reached English lines (the cavalry attack was of course a utter debacle) - they could barely swing their weapons from exhaustion. Perhaps the biggest effect of archery on armoured people was that they had to advance with visor down, trudging uphill through mud - visor down severely inhibits your breathing (which is why you generally put your visor up during melee). Of course, archers protected with wooden palings and firing from 3 sides prevented a direct cavarly assault.

Furthermore, they were too crowded - numbers don't help when all you get is people crowding you from behind (countless melee battles from ancient times to now, from Marathon, Cannae, etc have demonstrated this concept quite well) - the narrow field of battle prevented the French from using their numbers to outflank and overwhelm the enemy. Finally, the charge of the british archers vs their exposed flanks (they managed to push the english men at arms back somewhat) destroyed the french, which found themselves exhausted, huddled together and semi-encircled.

If you look how the battle unfolded, it was a classic move, the earliest recorded one about 1800 years old at the time of Agincourt: the enemy attacks the center, the forces holding the center fall back, then your flanks charge the now overextended and semi-encircled enemy. For bonus points deploy cavalry to cut off routing enemies, if it's possible / you have any available.

What really won the fight is English picking the ideal position and the French impetuously and foolishly attacking it, which is a recurring theme through that war. The English catastrophic defeats (like, eg. Patay) were also generally those where the opposite held true, longbowmen or not.
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Janis_Corp on February 10, 2011, 06:22:06 pm
although i dont like english ,but they got a discipline professional army in this time.

The battle of crecy

The france lose the battle because their knights were too proud and arrogant beacause is sheared a dirt of the discussed Battle Procedure,and attack when the wanted.

so they ran on the genuas Xbowmen, after than their horses killed from the arrows ,after that they had to continue on foot,and in the mud could the British knight give them the rest
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Alex_C on February 10, 2011, 07:00:27 pm
Agincourt was the one with the trenches and the machine-guns right?
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: FICO on February 10, 2011, 07:26:05 pm
(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

i think that lowered visor was no problem,
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: bruce on February 10, 2011, 08:05:59 pm
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

Yeah. Well, the crossfire only happened when they met the English line and pushed the main segment back, basically presenting the English with a lovely envelopment situation. I mean, yes, arrows were effective at fatiguing them, especially in combination with terrain, but they lost to one of the oldest strategies since the beginning of written history.
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Bobthehero on February 11, 2011, 03:23:38 am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Patay

Boink
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: AlfalphaCat on February 14, 2011, 09:15:54 am
I am in all senses sorry and apologize in advance, I am afraid I did not read the thread.

The battle of Aginhearts was won my mud...that was from my own strangled perspective.  We faeye have been known to be wrong.   :wink: :wink: :D :D
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Paul on February 14, 2011, 10:36:08 am
Patay

1500 frenchmen defeating 5000 english. Damn archery nerf...
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Roran Hawkins on February 14, 2011, 05:07:44 pm
Nope, the English were taken by suprise when trying to start their favorite tactic.
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: FICO on February 14, 2011, 05:24:09 pm
"hey, la hire! it's five o' clock we should return home from scouting. you never know where those longbowmen are... wait! wait! aren't those guys on hill english longbowmen?! what are they doing? they're all sitting on ground and babbling... let's surprise them!"


excavations done at that hill in 2010. recovered among longbows, knives, helmets and swords also broken pottery and tea leafs. with further chemical analysis it was discovered that some pots contained milk
Title: Re: Game speed / Pure classes & hybrids / Teamplay
Post by: Centurion on February 17, 2011, 06:39:34 pm
At agincourt 3 totally un armoured archers armed with knives could take down the best armored knights
Title: Re: Re: Game speed / Pure classes & hybrids / Teamplay
Post by: Xant on February 17, 2011, 06:41:38 pm
Find out how many kills the archers actually made at Agincourt. It was a ridiculously small amount considering the number of archers and shot arrows.
Title: Re: Game speed / Pure classes & hybrids / Teamplay
Post by: Siiem on February 18, 2011, 12:24:07 am
At agincourt 3 totally un armoured archers armed with knives could take down the best armored knights


Lies, they used spoons as blunt weapons.
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Furax on February 20, 2011, 09:30:51 am
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


Hah, yeah makes you think, in the future will people be randomly discussing "could AK's penetrate kevlar"?
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Adamar on February 23, 2011, 11:55:06 pm
Guys just remember that although the STEEL plated french knights were made almost invulnerable to arrows with IRON arrowheads, at that time their horses weren't. That coupled with shitty terrain explains the cav fail at agincourt.
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: owens on February 24, 2011, 08:20:37 am
Maybe the French couldn't afford there upkeep and had to resort to using sumpter horses and practice shields. Unable to couch because of the incline their yellow and blue toy shields broke and they were slaughtered by the archers whose light Armour made upkeep reasonable.

The moral of the story is to sit in NA servers with a shortened spear and straw hat until you earn some dough
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Korgoth on February 27, 2011, 02:27:52 am
English Win

Archer Spam is a valid Tactic
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Merten on February 28, 2011, 11:22:03 pm
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Arrowblood on March 02, 2011, 05:41:42 pm
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.
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Butan on March 02, 2011, 06:36:50 pm
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.


This tells us that if you want to survive against a 40 man archer squad, you have to be the size of an owl.
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Thucydides on March 31, 2011, 06:02:47 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3997HZuWjk

for people who think longbow can kill plated knights
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Dravic on April 03, 2011, 12:24:50 pm
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
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Thucydides on April 03, 2011, 11:00:31 pm
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

yes some plate were badly made and shattered when struck. However we aren't talking about shoddy made plate vs longbow, we're talking about plate in general.Plus, i am willing to be that a coat of plates would have a similar effect, and those were widely avaliable to knights by the 12th century.
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Joxer on April 05, 2011, 11:09:32 pm
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)
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: [ptx] on April 05, 2011, 11:23:34 pm
Haven't you guys come to a conclusion here already? Come on, hurry up!
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Thucydides on April 05, 2011, 11:38:00 pm
: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)

"for those who think longbows could kill plated knights"

not "why agincourt was lost"

however, the coat of plates were of ample protection at the time. Frankly it could easily stop a longbow shot at any range except point blank. Agincourt was lost because of the terrain advantage the british had, and the dumb as rocks military ability of the french. Who charges into an area that restricts your field of movement when you have superiority in cav and numbers? They should have starved the british, but like Pompey at Pharsalus they would rather have a decisive victory than a certain one, honor over strategy.
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Joxer on April 06, 2011, 07:31:53 am
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.
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Thucydides on April 06, 2011, 08:25:38 am
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.

i would disagree somewhat, like i said the coat of plates provided ample protection against arrows except at point blank, however not everyone can afford a coat of plates. Longbows were highly effective against the lightly armored scots or welsh, but against well armored knights and men at arms, not so much.

Anyways, my post was in response to a dude in the 80 man NA server who claimed that longbows can pierce plate. I posted it here because i didn't want to start a whole nother thread just to beret his ass
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Joxer on April 06, 2011, 02:25:58 pm
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.
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Arrowblood on April 06, 2011, 03:43:13 pm
I agree. :lol:
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Thucydides on April 07, 2011, 12:29:12 am
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.

knights would use them. Furthermore Transistionals would be in full swing by agincourt, providing effective coverage to troops. However, horses were not covered in plate so that would explain the effectiveness of longbowmen against cavalry charges. The battle of Poitiers is an example of this.
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Roran Hawkins on April 08, 2011, 11:37:01 am
howmany archers where there? Let's say 2000 archers (probably wrong)

If you, with great armour and stuff, have to run across a muddy field, while you know that roughly 2000 arrows will come down at you every 12 seconds?
You have heard horrid tales of kings getting shot, and how accurate some archers are.
You know that it's luck based if you don't get hit, and that if you get hit and fall (not die) you will get trampled by your brothers in arms and drowned in mud.
And you know that when you reach their lines there will be fresh english knights and footmen who slaughter you while you are exhausted from dragging your entire equipment trough a muddy mess, continously holding your shield up?
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Joxer on April 08, 2011, 03:24:30 pm
Try more close to 11.000 :D
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Original_Sin on April 14, 2011, 11:40:11 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3997HZuWjk

for people who think longbow can kill plated knights
as an ex-archer both with long and strong bows I was shaken up.
+1 for the video.
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Alex_C on April 15, 2011, 02:00:49 pm
i think the spanish one this war becouase they hda canons and blew all the other pepole away wit them
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Thucydides on April 15, 2011, 05:30:43 pm
Ultimately though, the jews won because they owned all the banks :lol:
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Bobthehero on April 15, 2011, 07:58:36 pm
That was until USA and Russian nuked the living shit out of everything.
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Thucydides on April 16, 2011, 12:08:54 am
Then jesus came down to earth and fought mikhail gorbachev, the antichrist, and led all his followers to his kingdom of god in Alabama.
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: FICO on April 16, 2011, 12:36:42 pm
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Roran Hawkins on April 19, 2011, 11:02:22 am
 :shock:
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: woody on May 14, 2011, 05:55:10 pm
English won for the same reason they won Crecy, Poitiers etc etc.

Simple argument: they did large scale real life tests of warbows vs plate knights and they were massacres. End of.
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: ArchonAlarion on May 31, 2011, 09:57:18 pm
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)
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Tzar on June 07, 2011, 08:20:22 am
King henry handed out MW xbows to hes 2h/pole infantry just before the epic brave french knights charged their lines..  :lol:
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Blackzilla on August 29, 2011, 02:48:00 am
bump* ;)
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: MrShovelFace on August 29, 2011, 04:31:34 am
some people just cant let a thread lay to rest

and what is the point of bumping a stickied thread?
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Grey on August 29, 2011, 05:03:41 am
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)

The broadhead and bodkin where of similar value in materials tbh....the BOWS on the otherhand, well, they were imported to England, not native in any way, and so many were needed several parts of Europe suffered terrible damage to the topcover of their forests, infact some monarchs begged the Pope to ban the export of the bowstaves to England. England on the other hand imposed a tax on ANY ship wishing to do business in ANY British port had to bring a number of bowstaves (this went up or down) per tonne of goods.

The longbow cannot be valued enough tbh, it was manditory for all men to practise weekly, and they would start at around age 6, by the time they were 18-20, they could hit a man 8 out 10 times at 200 paces. And that was the average ones.

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.
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Blackzilla on August 29, 2011, 02:33:41 pm
some people just cant let a thread lay to rest

and what is the point of bumping a stickied thread?
idk... someone linked this page for a conversation we were having on an unrelated topic.
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Merten on August 29, 2011, 09:14:12 pm

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.

1.) Only a few percents of their horses was armoured, and one arrow strikes really fast a horse in his charge down ... with devastating consequences for the rider.

2.) After their horses fell dead ... the night must avantage a sticky and muddy field (in the night before the battle it have rain cats and dogs) ... for a well armoured Knight, also he is a good damn athletic guy, that would be the hell.
And in this misery you will be rained by arrows (because a english archer would be able to send in 10 seconds 6 - 8 arrows on his way!) ... the consequences ... their attack will lost his coordination and the charge change to a muddy survival trip ... and then they arrive the english lines, full of waiting english men-at-arms ... not funny.

3.) And last but not least ... at the attack of the second wave of french knights (on foot) the archers running out of arrows ... but they not flee ... no with their lighter gear and with his axes and hammers they attacking the tired french knights from the flanks ... swift and dirty ... that was the end of chivalry and it became (once more) a victory for the professional infantry of the late medieval times.
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Bobthehero on August 29, 2011, 09:24:39 pm
It was not the end, the French used the same strategy at Patay, where they utterly crushed the English.

Edit: You should read up on the Loire Campgain, five straight French victories.
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Merten on August 29, 2011, 09:35:59 pm
/Sign

... but in these case the french timing was perfect and the english have that not expected ...

EDIT: And i have never would say that the french has nothing know about war in these times  :wink:
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: LordBerenger on August 29, 2011, 09:42:00 pm
Pretty hard mission to beat in Age of Empires 2 Conquerors Expansion.

The frenchies just spam knights and burgundy spam my old friendchers, spearmen like crazy. And those goddamn castles on the way and finally those french Paladins when u have to bring Henry back to England.
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Overdriven on August 29, 2011, 09:58:08 pm
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.
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Merten on August 29, 2011, 10:40:41 pm
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.

/SIGN
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Thucydides on August 31, 2011, 03:39:34 pm
so are we in agreement that it was terrain that defeated the french and not the longbow per se?
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Blondin on August 31, 2011, 03:44:48 pm
Agreed.

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!
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Merten on August 31, 2011, 04:06:32 pm
Agreed.

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!

/sign
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Herald_Hardrata on September 04, 2011, 06:38:56 am
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.
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: FICO on September 06, 2011, 01:01:43 am
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...?
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Adamar on October 15, 2011, 05:23:23 am
 Those English archers would still be effective against the French knight's horses(which weren't armoured in plates at the time), and any low tier soldier who wasn't protected by a shield.
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Bobthehero on October 15, 2011, 06:28:28 am
They had plate armor avaible during the end of the 14th century, Agincourt battle happened in 1415, do the math.
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Adamar on October 16, 2011, 06:25:02 pm
Dont take wikipedia as a refference. At that time The french knights had plate armor, their horses, still maille.
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Bobthehero on October 16, 2011, 07:35:29 pm
Yeah I know, that means the archer could kill the horses, they still couldnt do squat agaisnt the knights themselves, unless some idiot looked up just to receive an arrow in face.
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Adamar on October 16, 2011, 10:46:28 pm
Ye that was my point. Horses go down, riders get hurt and stuck in the mud.
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Elric_de_Melnibone on December 11, 2011, 05:38:39 am
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.

I'll dodge the whole main argument and just counter this one:

The french knights mainly wore helmets, and they wouldn't hear those arrows coming from inside.
Believe me.

I have trouble hearing people when in full gear.
That's why you use alot of hand signs, battle horns (and the likes), or VERY LOUD SHOUTING.
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Arrowblood on December 14, 2011, 06:02:21 pm
i think the englishmen had mauls with croushtrough for the sticks infront of them.
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: ArchonAlarion on December 17, 2011, 08:13:52 am
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.
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Leesin on December 22, 2011, 07:48:43 pm
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.

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

The french knights would have struggled after falling off their horse into the mud, considering the extra weight they were wearing and the force of them hitting the marshy earth after falling off of a horse, I would imagine that they would have sunk in deep enough to make it difficult to get up, especially if your feet or an arm got stuck into it, the suction makes it difficult to pull out. Then being killed or captured by what they would call 'peasants' must have really damaged their ego's lol.

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.

All of the factors against the French in the battle are thanks to Henry and his tactics, sure it's obvious that mounted knights would beat English longbowmen in a fight on an open field where everything is 'fair', but battle is not fair and superior tactics and posistioning can guarantee a victory for even the smallest of armies fighting against a larger opponent. Unlucky for the French that we had a bunch of awesome archer spam and the perfect posistion Henry chose to fight them in.
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Bobthehero on December 23, 2011, 09:20:16 pm
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.
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Leesin on December 23, 2011, 09:48:33 pm
Thats what happened at the Battle of Patay, 1500 knights charged 5000 Englishmen, lost about 100 knights and killed/wounded/captured 2500 Englishmen.

Yeah, that would happen when an army is mostly composed of Longbowmen in a 'fair' battle, well the Longbowman were not ready so they pretty much had no chance. But this thread is about Agincourt so let's not derail it.
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Bobthehero on December 24, 2011, 12:59:47 am
Just saying the weapon alone doesn't win the war ;)
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Adalwulf on December 24, 2011, 05:00:42 am
One of the greatest English military victories, the Anglo-French Battle of Agincourt, could have turned out differently if the French had worn lighter armor, a new study suggests.

Fought on Oct. 25, 1415, during the Hundred Years' War, the battle was a sort of medieval equivalent of David and Goliath, with the French knights significantly outnumbering (possibly as much as six to one) Henry V's soldiers.

Historians have attributed the unexpected English victory to a number of causes, including the English's army use of the longbow.

But according a study which investigated the limitations of wearing a medieval armor, the French lost the battle before the fight had even started.

"The heavily armored French knights advanced towards the English men-at-arms across terrain made extremely muddy from recent ploughing, over night rain and an earlier French cavarly charge," a team of researchers from the Universities of Leeds, Milan and Auckland wrote in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B journal.

Simply put, the French army was knocked out by fatigue.

"By the time they got to the enemy they would have been exhausted and easily killed," said lead researcher Graham Askew from the University of Leeds Faculty of Biological Sciences.

this is how they lost in a nutshell.

Answer = stupidity and horrible commander.
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Leesin on December 24, 2011, 05:38:57 am
Just saying the weapon alone doesn't win the war ;)

Oh yeah of course it doesn't, a weapon is just one factor amongst many other factors, the more boxes you can tick the more chance you have to win and the bigger your victory may be, which is what happened at Agincourt. The French were a powerful force with many greatly trained Knights, but the organisation needed was just not there, the three major English victories, Agincourt, Crecy and Poiters pretty much exposed that.
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Bobthehero on December 24, 2011, 08:53:21 am
True.

And Adalwulf, 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?
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Leesin on December 24, 2011, 12:35:12 pm
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?

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"
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Adalwulf on December 24, 2011, 04:44:47 pm
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?

Nah, they probably would have won a Pyrrhic victory just on numbers alone.
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Overdriven on December 24, 2011, 08:06:36 pm
Crecy pretty much exposed that.

Haha o yeah Crecy. One of my fav examples of French army disorganisation. Marching one by one to battle as you arrive on the battlefield after a march...such a good idea. Cocky buggers  :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Bobthehero on December 24, 2011, 09:24:51 pm
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"

Yes meant Adalwulf  :oops: fixed.
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Thucydides on December 25, 2011, 01:55:19 am
the dumb part was the decision to charge instead of maneuvering to cut off the english supply line and force them from that easily defensible position.

Hur dur french military tradition hur.
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: engurrand on February 05, 2012, 11:34:39 pm
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.

1. During that time England was suffering a bit of civil war, nothing too revolutionary but some internal fighting and bandits. I heard rumor that a lot of these bandits were simply recruited to go reclaim the throne lands in the south, thus the idea of a "longbow man" as a unit is stupid, rather these were deadly men who were no doubt skilled with melee as well.

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.
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: CrazyCracka420 on February 10, 2012, 07:30:47 pm
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.

You referring to:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Poitiers_(1356) ?  That was 70 years before Agincourt
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Ronin on June 07, 2012, 02:17:35 pm
SAVE AGINCOURT!

NERF RANGED!

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Tzar on July 17, 2012, 03:38:57 am
because its basically a statement that the devs don't use realism in their way of balance and thank god for that.
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Oberyn on July 17, 2012, 12:44:10 pm
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.
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.


The brits were in a defensive position, mud was no factor for them either way, and you must be a complete fucking moron if you think the british foot soldiers were armored only in cloth or leather. The french were exhausted by the time they reached the brit stakes because there was quite a long corridor of churned up mud to get through, under a hail of arrows.
There's ton of other "pointless" research into medieval warfare, this one is as valid as any, the only reason this one is publicized so much is because "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."
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Molly on July 17, 2012, 01:06:42 pm
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.
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?
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Oberyn on July 17, 2012, 01:09:25 pm
You're intelligence is sooo impressive. Can I lick it?

Your*, and no. Theres something else you can lick though...:3
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Casimir on March 13, 2013, 06:22:23 pm
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.
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Overdriven on March 13, 2013, 06:44:53 pm
Yup I never even learned about Agincourt or Crecy. I learnt about those in my own time from various popular history books/docs. My history classes from primary to secondary went through Romans, Hastings, Tudors, WW1, WW2 and civil rights movements. Oddly never went anywhere near Napoleonic era or anything between Hastings and Tudors.
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Korgoth on March 14, 2013, 02:15:01 am
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.
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Oberyn on March 15, 2013, 03:52:27 am
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.

I actually wrote my dissertation on a WW2 subject for the history portion of the Baccalauréat. As far as what is taught, a lot of the historical focus obviously rests on events in or by Germany, Italy, Britain, USA, USSR, Japan and China, but a lot of time is devoted to the conditions that lead to the disaster of the Battle of France, from the political divisions in the 3rd Republic (specifically the rise of communist and fascist parties), the failure of the Maginot Line and the outdated military doctrine of old WW1 veteran generals (interestingly enough the Maginot Line was actually an unfinished project, the original plans drawn up right after WW1 called for a line of defenses stretching all the way to the Atlantic, but the Depression and political upheaval from the 30's onward made it an unpopular project for various governments, and it underwent many revisions before construction even began).

The Battle of France itself obviously also features prominently. Too much time, imo, was devoted to the Free French and DeGaulle, although understandably. The Vichy régime and the Résistance I remember spending some time on as well. My paper was about the mystification of the Résistance postwar when compared to it's impact during the actual war, and how it's ranks only started swelling when the 'Murcans landed in Normandy. The popularity of the Free French on metropolitan French soil followed similar patterns.Previous to that the ranks of the Résistance were largely composed of both extremes of the political spectrum, the same commies and fascists that destabilized the 3rd Republic so badly.

:edit for spelling
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Casimir on March 15, 2013, 04:38:45 am
Point stands your assumptions about the British education system are wrong.
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Oberyn on March 15, 2013, 04:45:00 am
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.
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Overdriven on March 15, 2013, 12:12:21 pm
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.

Never even heard of St Crispens Day speech. Had to google it. Only Shakespeare I was taught was Midsummer Nights Dream and The Tempest. Both of which I can't stand. My history teachers were always female. Which meant I spent a lot of time on Henry VIII/feminism/civil rights and other wishy washy stuff. Then when it came to anything slightly related to war I knew more than they did :| I think the only violent stuff covered in Medieval period for me was the murder of Thomas Becket. So no, the longbow actually featured 0 in my education. Again that all came from popular fiction/non-fiction and documentaries which I read/watched in my own time. Most people I know actually know very little about the longbow. You simply aren't taught it. However, if you read Bernard Cornwell you will have an over-inflated sense of the importance of it.

But I agree that Crecy and Agincourt are brought up all the time. Just your reasoning for it is wrong. I think it's more to do with popular historians than the education system.
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Casimir on March 15, 2013, 02:50:48 pm
The thing is the battles figured massively in the medieval Psych of the English monarchy after the period. Crecy and Potiers were used as evidence of Gods support of their claim on the French crown, Agincourt was used by propagation by the Lancastrian dynasty to justify their usurpation of the English crown. These battles supposedly prove that their reign was mandated by God, their victories were his will.

Of course you can't ignore them, they were significant battles, if not for military tactics or strategy but for cultural development.  They are significant pivots of the hundred years war, something which helped to define the cultures of England and France.

I'd agree there can be a over emphasis of their importance by some English academics, but that could be true of any battle in any country. The education system as a whole really doesnt put that much importance on them.

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".

Nope, i also did the tempest and the merchant of Venice.  My entire education I was told that the 'rise of mass infantry' and the 'development of gunpowder weaponry' lead to the fall of the knight. 

Also 12th century warfare is way more interesting than this shit...
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Penitent on March 15, 2013, 05:22:09 pm
Oh yeah, well my grandfather fought in Azingcourt and he was the general of all the archers.  He had the biggest longbow that was made out of of an entire You Tree and some ropes.  It was so big and powerful that he used a hundred spears as an arrow.  He was able to draw the bow with only one hand and when he shot the French peoples all of them died.  Then the arrow kept going around and around to kill someone else.  Then it went all the way to the french king's castle which was 100 miles away by horse and then it broke the castle and wend around and around to hit the french king.  It went through his plate armor and then killed him and then he died.

So I think I know something about this, OK?
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: CrazyCracka420 on March 15, 2013, 05:34:40 pm
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.

I come from Minnesota, one of the states with a better education system than most, and they never got into the history of European battles in the middle ages.  There may have been a slight touching on some of the western European wars and a glossing over of the rest of the conflicts in history around the world, but it's mainly in regards to American history when it comes to wars and battles. 

The only time I was exposed to European wars was in a junior high class called "Music and Related Arts" which had a lot about music and arts, but also a very large part of it was in regards to wars and battles.  We had to take a "musical" class in junior high, and instead of choir or band I choose this (very good choice I might add). 

here's a brief description I found
-
This course is for those students not wishing to participate in a performance
group. This course presents an overview of the importance music has
played in the development of our world. It presents a synthesis of history,
art, architecture, drama, literature, poetry, technology, with a focus on
music. The ultimate goal of the course is to help the student become a dis-
criminating listener to music of all eras and realize the important relation-
ship of music and the arts to life in contemporary society.
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Bobthehero on April 26, 2013, 09:22:03 pm
I assume the longbow is good agaisnt most armor, near useless agaisnt plate armor, this test (http://www.currentmiddleages.org/artsci/docs/Champ_Bane_Archery-Testing.pdf) seem to agree, basically, the reason they have it is because not every has properp late armor, at least that's my assumption.
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: zagibu on May 10, 2013, 04:20:40 pm
Even if a needle bodkin goes through plate like butter at the right angle, it will bounce in 95% of the cases, because the angle is almost never right in a battle. Remember, plate armor is not a plane perpendicular to the arrow shot.
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: 51L3NC3R on June 09, 2013, 05:12:22 pm
One factor is that the English had the advantage in terrain. the French column advanced through thick mud and woodland, cost them stamina when they got to the English knights meeting them...flanked by archers on both sides (protected by stakes against cavalry)
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Roran Hawkins on August 14, 2013, 03:49:26 pm
I think this page sums it up.

http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_battle_agin.html


It's a fucking great explanation.
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Matim on February 07, 2014, 08:38:23 pm
NERF GAY LONGBOWZZ1111
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Osiris on February 08, 2014, 01:02:02 am
Winning against the odds and outnumbered always make it into popular culture :D

The one thing the longbow was very good at was shutting down the enemy archers/xbows because the English just had more of them And more importantly imo was pretty much neutralizing the french cav. You can not charge cav across the battlefield into that many archers. The horses would be cut to pieces and then you reach stakes.
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Arrowblood on November 05, 2014, 12:21:45 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-2KLuAH4GYhttp://

I guess the english army at agincourt existed mainly of men like him or stronger.
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: MiniPrima on August 22, 2015, 08:03:28 pm
the commander guy was a commander til he got an arrow to the knee, he then became a not-commander commander and screwed up because lighting got him when he stroke a pose for a selfie while his horse tried to eat a stone off of a dead soldier's sword
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: BoneSaw on August 23, 2015, 04:53:25 pm
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.
                         
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Siiem on August 26, 2015, 01:21:54 pm

5) French battle strategy traditionally

visitors can't see pics , please register or login
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: pepejul on August 26, 2015, 03:24:33 pm
Please, it's AZINCOURT not AGINCOURT....

https://www.google.fr/maps/@50.4484143,2.1250604,11.75z

Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Leesin on August 28, 2015, 10:05:13 pm
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.
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Siiem on August 29, 2015, 10:37:55 pm
Mel Gibson is making a movie on it, he plays a French Knight, France wins.

Gibson wouldn't abase himself to play a frenchie.
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Leesin on August 30, 2015, 09:00:27 pm
Gibson wouldn't abase himself to play a frenchie.

He would if it involves killing and beating the English, he hates us.
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Siiem on August 30, 2015, 11:37:25 pm
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.
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Casimir on August 31, 2015, 04:38:11 am
Irrelevant, everyone hates the English. Even your own neighbours, they probably more than anyone.

50% of the English hate the other 50% and within those 50% most of them hate each other as well.
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: woody on August 31, 2015, 06:33:53 pm
A test using a 75 lb longbow, to simulate a 100lb longbow, which was way below the wieght of the warbow anyway. Add in the fact the heavier draws were effective because used much heavier arrows, please do some proper research if you doubt this, and you have a test using a .22 calibre rifle with .22 ammo, to simulate a .303 firing .22 ammo, the work out whether a .50 cal firing .50 cal ammo would do something. If you cannot see the absurdity of this I give up.
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Paul on September 04, 2015, 01:27:06 pm
The biggest problem I have with simulating a high poundage bow at distance with a lower draw weight at almost point blank is the impact angle. The short distance shot has a perfect 90 degree angle that penetrates the front vertical part of the armor. In reality the only parts that could be hit with such an perfect angle on distance(air friction) are the shoulder parts of the armor and the helmet - areas that would be exceptionally thick for obvious reasons(melee). Other parts would be hit in a less-than-ideal way with then increased effective armor thickness and would lead to more bounce-offs than the point blank test suggests.

On the other hand at close distance the inner oscillation of an arrow should be way bigger than after 100 yards which could occationally lead to bounce offs that wouldn't happen with a settled down arrow at distance. This one is highly speculative though and probably depends on a lot factors like oscillation frequency compared to the translational velocity.
Title: Re: Agincourt
Post by: Macropus on September 17, 2015, 03:02:10 pm
An interesting discussion on Agincourt battle.