cRPG
Off Topic => Historical Discussion => Topic started by: pepejul on July 25, 2012, 01:42:11 pm
-
Scientist publication : very interesting : http://www.leeds.ac.uk/news/article/2259/heavy_metal_hardens_battle
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
-
..then they'd have been shot up even more?
-
They surely no charged without plates :mrgreen:
-
shields or armor, without either they'd surely lose.
-
shields or armor, without either they'd surely lose.
Frenchs just use Rafale and Leclerc, no need for tincans with blockhelp...
-
Of course its hardening moving but knights are used to it.
-
Already responded to it in french forum, just gonna repeat myself here. Of course if they take some random guy off the street who isn't used to wearing armor he's not going to be at peak physical performance. A modern soldier's equipment is heavier than medieval armor, you give all the shit to someone who hasn't trained to move and run and travel with it of course the poor fuck will be out of breath and not in any shape to fight.
edit: Oh and I think at Azincourt there was no full "plate" armor as we imagine them, which came a little after. Afaik this period's heaviest armours were transitional types
-
kind of dumb to be wasting your time researching this, there was obviously a lot more to warfare than efficient calorie retention.
-
Their steel shod feet got stuck in the mud after they were unhorsed or dismounted. It became exhausting to keep picking up pounds of mud with each step. The cloth or leather shod feet of the English did not retain mud to any comparable degree, enhancing the mobility and stamina. Not the whole answer but certainly a contributing factor.
I heard the French whined about a ranged nerf after the battle.
-
When it was obviously chadz fault for not seting the weather up properly.
-
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 tons 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 once "medieval warfare is brought up all the anglo's start masturbating over Azincourt and Crécy, the only two battles they ever learned about because their primary education system is a circle-jerking propaganda fest."
-
My thread was full of peace..please don't bring anglo-french-war-arguments there...
-
Oberyn are you French? I'll put your emotional outburst down to Gallic impetuousness. Usually your posts are intelligent and free from ad hominem attacks. I feel safe from the charge of being "a fucking moron" when I say that I believe that many of the encumbered French knights were dispatched by archers, using long daggers and war hammers. These men would have had cloth wrapped feet. I'm sure the French knights were locally out numbered, exhausted and many were probably prostrate when dispatched with a stab through a lifted visor, under an armpit, or smashed on the helmet with a hammer.
I'll paste what I think is a fair summary from another web site.
Agincourt is the only well-known battle in history where a columnar attack struck a linear defence and failed to break it. The French did not use shields, as their plate armour was proof against almost any weapon powered by human muscle. I believe this was a mistake, as we know the arrowstorm caused them a great deal of trouble: the knights advanced looking at their feet, so the crown of their helms rather than their visors faced the arrows. The arrows probably produced disabling wounds such as broken fingers, penetrations where the arrow struck points of articulation covered by mail, and we know at least one noble was killed by an arrow in the mouth. At Flodden, 100 years later, the Scots gentlemen in the front line were protected by arrow-proof armour, but also pavises wielded by shield-carriers.
If an arrow did penetrate, its residual energy would be determined by the strength of the armour it had defeated. By 1415, a very few Italian and German smiths had just learned how to make plates of the size of breastplates incorporating at least some percentage of the strongest of the four types of iron crystal. Over the next hundred years they learned how to produce very thin corrugated suits of armour, which was as strong or stronger, but which weighed as little as 30kg. These would have been expensive for the richest nobles. By the same time, primitive gun-barrels could be mass-produced cheaply.
The English line was protected by stakes, that helped to break up the formation of attackers and impede cavalry [the sharp end was hammered into the ground, and then the blunt end sharpened]. Heavy cavalry, as always, had the advantage that they could close the range fast enough that they were exposed to few arrowshots, however horses were particularly vulnerable to any projectiles. All men-at-arms present [on foot] are usually technically described as "dismounted cavalry".
The BBC documentary suggested that mud produced by the type of soil on the field is good at forming an airtight seal when in contact with a necessarily smooth surface, and breaking this affinity might have been hard for those men-at arms who fell. The mud would have also reduced their surefootedness, especially if they were pulled over backwards by several varlets. Overall one gets the impression that many of the Frenchmen who got into trouble were probably outnumbered individually, however the fighting been men of quality was very intense and the king's beloved brother was killed in it. Agincourt seems to have been a battle that was a "losing game" from the start due that combination of circumstances that is always at the root of all accidental disasters, one of which was the very highly developed ideas of honour possessed by the attackers that so influenced their battlefield behaviour. This eventually became apparent the the French third line, after the other two had been fed into it. The scale and consequences of the disaster was enormous, given the number of important dead, to which was added consequent social and legal disruption in the aftermath. We can put this battle alongside Midway as an "incredible victory".
-
many of the encumbered French knights were dispatched by archers, using long daggers and war hammers. These men would have had cloth wrapped feet. I'm sure the French knights were locally out numbered, exhausted and many were probably prostrate when dispatched with a stab through a lifted visor, under an armpit, or smashed on the helmet with a hammer.
The British army had twice as many archers as knights+foot infantry combined, but the archers had no need to physically engage. The 2k infantry and 1k knights did most if not all of that work.
Agincourt is the only well-known battle in history where a columnar attack struck a linear defence and failed to break it.
.....lol? What qualifies as "well known"? Anglo people know about it? Then yes, that's probably accurate.
The French did not use shields, as their plate armour was proof against almost any weapon powered by human muscle.
Wrong, as he himself points out later on. The vast majority of the knight's armor was "transitional" and not the later more widespread full plate armor
By 1415, a very few Italian and German smiths had just learned how to make plates of the size of breastplates incorporating at least some percentage of the strongest of the four types of iron crystal. Over the next hundred years they learned how to produce very thin corrugated suits of armour, which was as strong or stronger, but which weighed as little as 30kg. These would have been expensive for the richest nobles. By the same time, primitive gun-barrels could be mass-produced cheaply.
The English line was protected by stakes, that helped to break up the formation of attackers and impede cavalry [the sharp end was hammered into the ground, and then the blunt end sharpened]. Heavy cavalry, as always, had the advantage that they could close the range fast enough that they were exposed to few arrowshots, however horses were particularly vulnerable to any projectiles. All men-at-arms present [on foot] are usually technically described as "dismounted cavalry".
The BBC documentary suggested that mud produced by the type of soil on the field is good at forming an airtight seal when in contact with a necessarily smooth surface, and breaking this affinity might have been hard for those men-at arms who fell. The mud would have also reduced their surefootedness, especially if they were pulled over backwards by several varlets. Overall one gets the impression that many of the Frenchmen who got into trouble were probably outnumbered individually, however the fighting been men of quality was very intense and the king's beloved brother was killed in it. Agincourt seems to have been a battle that was a "losing game" from the start due that combination of circumstances that is always at the root of all accidental disasters, one of which was the very highly developed ideas of honour possessed by the attackers that so influenced their battlefield behaviour. This eventually became apparent the the French third line, after the other two had been fed into it. The scale and consequences of the disaster was enormous, given the number of important dead, to which was added consequent social and legal disruption in the aftermath.
This is all more or less accurate afaik.
We can put this battle alongside Midway as an "incredible victory".
Yes, obviously it is not a battle that has been completely romanticized during the Victorian era and propagandized for hundreds of years. Just the fact that this guy fucking compares it to Midway of all possible battles...let me guess, you're American?
-
OMG WHAT I DID WITH THIS THREAD ????
-
So you think the archers just stood by when their arrows were gone or the French were too close to risk firing? Hardly likely.
Do you have an example of another well known battle where a columnar attack struck a linear defense and failed to break it? Any example will do, even one unknown to "anglos". I recommend dropping the chauvanism for a more productive discussion.
Yes, I'm American, but I did not write that post. I think there is some validity in comparing the two battles as incredible victories. On paper, the victors of both battles did not have a good chance of winning.
-
OMG WHAT I DID WITH THIS THREAD ????
Why so upset? It's just a discussion albeit impassioned on one side. Keep calm.
-
There is absolutely no validity to the comparison of Midway to Azincourt. It was a naval battle, for one. Victory was achieved by military intelligence (i.e cracking the weaboo codes) more than anything. It's also pointed as the turning point in the Pacific War, from which Japan never recovered it's naval superiority. I know it's hard to believe, but the english did not win the hundred years wars. Mind blowing, I know. Then there's the whole separated by hundreds of years of military technology thing.
Literally the only thing that link the two battles together is that they were great victories by...anglo forces. What a surprise.
-
There is absolutely no validity to the comparison of Midway to Azincourt. It was a naval battle, for one. Victory was achieved by military intelligence (i.e cracking the weaboo codes) more than anything. It's also pointed as the turning point in the Pacific War, from which Japan never recovered it's naval superiority. I know it's hard to believe, but the english did not win the hundred years wars. Mind blowing, I know. Then there's the whole separated by hundreds of years of military technology thing.
Literally the only thing that link the two battles together is that they were great victories by...anglo forces. What a surprise.
I already pointed out that the point of comparison might be the unlikely outcomes given the Order of Battle in both contests. Here is the reason I say that. (Quoted from another website)
Knowing what the enemy plans is not always enough, especially when it has a much larger force. It was the weaboo Navy's greatest operation ever. They concentrated an Armada of 162 warships under the command of Admiral Yamamoto, their best naval commander.
The weaboo fleet was organized in five forces :
Forward patrol - 16 submarines which advanced ahead of the main force. Their task was to detect the American carriers as soon as possible, and possibly attack them.
Aircraft carriers - 4 large aircraft carriers commanded by Admiral Nagumo, carrying 250 aircraft and Japan's most experienced naval aviators. Their task was to attack Midway and then to attack the American carriers, once they arrive.
Invasion force - 12 cargo ships carrying 5000 weaboo Marines, escorted by 2 battleships, 6 heavy cruisers, and many destroyers. Their task was to bring the weaboo Marines to Midway and then provide them with very heavy artillery support.
Battleships - a mighty force of 7 battleships and a light aircraft carrier. Their task was to intercept the American carriers once they were located, and with their mighty guns sink anything not sunk by the weaboo aircraft.
Diversion force - 2 light aircraft carriers, 2 heavy cruisers, and 4 large cargo ships carrying Marines. Their task was to attack and invade the Aleutian islands near Alaska in parallel with the attack at Midway.
Against this mighty Armada, the American force in the battle of Midway included :
Aircraft carriers - 3 aircraft carriers. Enterprise, Hornet, and the quickly repaired Yorktown, escorted by some heavy cruisers and destroyers, which were no match to the Japanese battleships in case of a naval gun battle.
Midway Island - with 115 fighters and bombers based in it, it was like a stationary but unsinkable aircraft carrier.
You already are aware of the disparity of forces at Agincourt.
On your other point about them both being great Anglo victories. You must be aware that the US sailors, pilots, soldiers and Marines who participated in the battle of Midway were from many diverse ethnic and national back grounds. I bet some were even from a French heritage. So to correct you, it was a great American victory.
But we've let your anglophobia drag us away from the original question of whether French armor at Agincourt was a disadvantage on the day of the battle.
-
So you think the archers just stood by when their arrows were gone or the French were too close to risk firing? Hardly likely.
Do you have an example of another well known battle where a columnar attack struck a linear defense and failed to break it? Any example will do, even one unknown to "anglos". I recommend dropping the chauvanism for a more productive discussion.
Yes, I'm American, but I did not write that post. I think there is some validity in comparing the two battles as incredible victories. On paper, the victors of both battles did not have a good chance of winning.
Care to address my first two questions?
-
OMG WHAT I DID WITH THIS THREAD ????
Zou fed the trolls and ragers... :wink:
-
Yes, the US is in fact made of many different nationalities, but don't tell me there's not a much greater identification with the UK than literally any other European country, not only linguistically but culturally, but the language is really the main thing. Language isn't just a tool, there are tons of things transmitted through it, it's why Shakespear is idolized and almost deified as opposed to any number of other european playwrights or authors, be they german or french or russian or what have you. They wouldn't self-identify so greatly with the past of another nation otherwise . I've been to the sad sorry excuse for what passes as public schools in the US, heck I've spent half my life in the US, I feel my utter disgust for blatant jingoistic bullshit is justified given that I have personal experience of it.
And there's literally dozens of examples of outnumbered forces triumphing in the face of great adversity during the middle ages, so why Midway? It's a deliberate attempt to link two incredibly dissimilar battles, from two incredibly dissimilar times and with dissimilar outcomes. Again, the one thing you could say about them is that they were both won by a side that spoke english.
-
either way they would have surrendered..
-
The British army had twice as many archers as knights+foot infantry combined, but the archers had no need to physically engage. The 2k infantry and 1k knights did most if not all of that work.
The books I've read on the subject have all stated that the archers did infact get involved in the melee at various occasions. Archers were frequently armed with all manor of makeshift weapons so they would certainly of had the capabilities.
-
Yes, the US is in fact made of many different nationalities, but don't tell me there's not a much greater identification with the UK than literally any other European country, not only linguistically but culturally, but the language is really the main thing. Language isn't just a tool, there are tons of things transmitted through it, it's why Shakespear is idolized and almost deified as opposed to any number of other european playwrights or authors, be they german or french or russian or what have you. They wouldn't self-identify so greatly with the past of another nation otherwise . I've been to the sad sorry excuse for what passes as public schools in the US, heck I've spent half my life in the US, I feel my utter disgust for blatant jingoistic bullshit is justified given that I have personal experience of it.
And there's literally dozens of examples of outnumbered forces triumphing in the face of great adversity during the middle ages, so why Midway? It's a deliberate attempt to link two incredibly dissimilar battles, from two incredibly dissimilar times and with dissimilar outcomes. Again, the one thing you could say about them is that they were both won by a side that spoke english.
As I've said multiple times that's not the only thing you can say about the two battles. But you won't listen to what I'm saying. I don't know why he chose Midway. His choice makes perfect sense to me as an example.
Sorry for your bad experiences in school in the US. I'm sure there is no equivalent jingoism in the schools in whatever country you've spent the other half of your life in. But if you're going to allow it to color every interaction and see some sort of anglo conspiracy in every context you will be a little unbalanced.
-
The books I've read on the subject have all stated that the archers did infact get involved in the melee at various occasions. Archers were frequently armed with all manor of makeshift weapons so they would certainly of had the capabilities.
That's been my impression also Overdriven. John Keegen wrote and excellent analysis of the battle.
-
He made an english post? Give them our French answer!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xm11yAXeegg&feature=related
And by the way, because it's a good one
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqC_squo6X4
Watch 35 min and 20 seconde, there even a sprinter in armor . =)
-
My experience in US public school was perfectly fine, if what I wanted to learn is the use of drugs and the constant self-division of people based on race, religion and nationality, or be expected to swallow whatever bunch of bullshit whole as opposed to, you know, actually learning critical thinking skills. And no, no public schools from any of the other 4 developped and developping countries I grew up in had anything as similar as the deification of historical figures (Founding Fathers, Washington, other early presidents). Certainly none of them attempted to teach me a play straight up developped intentionally as propaganda during the Victorian era as a source for a medieval battle happening hundreds of years before.
Also, what fucking conspiracy? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/mitt-romney/9424524/Mitt-Romney-would-restore-Anglo-Saxon-relations-between-Britain-and-America.html
Do you think this is rare? We are part of an Anglo-Saxon heritage, and he feels that the special relationship is special, the adviser said of Mr Romney. I guess he just pulled that shit out of nowhere, because clearly it isn't something that is hammered constantly in what passes for the study of history in the US...
-
The books I've read on the subject have all stated that the archers did infact get involved in the melee at various occasions. Archers were frequently armed with all manor of makeshift weapons so they would certainly of had the capabilities.
That's what I read as well. That they had lightly armored archers who got involved in the melee by using hammers and longer dagger type weapons. Especially if they were able to get behind any knights who were slowed down from the mud, or were actually on the ground struggling to get up. Or by getting behind or beside any knights engaged with their own infantry.
-
Already responded to it in french forum, just gonna repeat myself here. Of course if they take some random guy off the street who isn't used to wearing armor he's not going to be at peak physical performance. A modern soldier's equipment is heavier than medieval armor, you give all the shit to someone who hasn't trained to move and run and travel with it of course the poor fuck will be out of breath and not in any shape to fight.
edit: Oh and I think at Azincourt there was no full "plate" armor as we imagine them, which came a little after. Afaik this period's heaviest armours were transitional types
I think they did have full plate at that time, but it was probably only the richest and most powerful nobles who had it. Otherwise I agree 100%
-
Just one question : does the blue plastic choking device used in the video accurately represents what would having the visor down be like ?
-
Just one question : does the blue plastic choking device used in the video accurately represents what would having the visor down be like ?
nou, thats how inhalers looked like during that period.
-
All I know is that Oberyn seems pretty butthurt that the French having their asses kicked hard by the English in these battles is known world wide.
-
English used my old friendchers and French were out of MW Arbalest.
AGINCOURT LOST
-
Bernard Cornwell mentioned milanese plate armor wearing french knights in his historic novel "Azincourt" according to him , it was a very common armor and it's made out of finest steel and it was really easy to move in it because those armors were designed very cleverly .
Frnech knights were using the finest technology armors and weapons only problem , they were using wrong gear in wrong place and in wrong time . Main reason of that crushing defeat was being undisciplined and poorly commanded.Frenchies didn't give a single fuck about 6000 archers shooting at them , they rushed english knights and the king to capture em alive for ransom.
They were walking through mud under rain of arrows (not a very bright idea apperantly) , most of them weren't using shields thinking their armor renders them invincible (I have the same feeling when i wear my heavy yawshan but it ends when i get killed by single headshot from someone with rus/longbow and bodkin arrows) and Henry was very determined he believed that they'll reach Calais with no harm because he's the true ruler of France and God is with him , supporting his cause. His men was loyal to him and he had intellect and experienced knights .
It wouldn't change the result if french knights were using lighter armors and shields or something else .
They were undisciplined , poorly commanded and they had no strategy at all.
Seriously even NA players don't charge at enemy knights under rain of archers , they kill the archers first...Blame Charles D'albret and his "loyal" knights not armors nor any other thing.
-
Lack of armor would've killed them either way, this is pretty stupid.
-
French with Air support could win easily....
-
Seriously even NA players don't charge at enemy knights under rain of archers , they kill the archers first...Blame Charles D'albret and his "loyal" knights not armors nor any other thing.
Dude, if they charged the archers they'd just kite!
-
is this the point where i remind everyone about my fondness of turtles?
-
All I know is that Oberyn seems pretty butthurt that the French having their asses kicked hard by the English in these battles is known world wide.
Yeah and the English got beaten by scottish riff raff peasants with long wooden sticks and frying pans. "French" normans, Anglo Saxons, Scandinavians (Hell even the niggas of britain [Irish] did it at one point). Bugger... Even the fkn Welsh riding on Sheep as battle mounts would probably beat the English had they not stolen some Welsh invention of wood and sinew.
-
real english pple are Scots and Irish...
Saxons and vikings are Continentals...
Normands are French...
M I right ?
-
bitch please, celts are the true brits. Wales is the most British part of the UK.
-
Jihad!! Oops wrong topic :oops:
-
real english pple are Scots and Irish...
Saxons and vikings are Continentals...
Normands are French...
M I right ?
No, Normans are norse settlers. Saxons and Vikings were (not anymore, praise allah) Germanics, the english were what? Anglo?
I believe Franks are the ancestral pussies.
-
We are all from Africa anyway so there are no real Brits.
-
agree that +9001 :mrgreen:
-
Why you moving away from this thread. If french didn't have armours they would run a lot faster therefore saving themselves.
-
Why you moving away from this thread. If french didn't have armours they would run a lot faster therefore saving themselves.
They don't run they surrender... Silly Djavo.
-
I would truly invade the shit out of france if i knew there's Alizee somewhere in france :D
-
I would truly invade the shit out of france if i knew there's Alizee somewhere in france :D
I would just invade Alizee.
-
I would truly invade the shit out of france if i knew there's Alizee somewhere in france :D
Shes 60 now and she lives in Monaco on my yacht.
-
The battle that history forgot: Sharpe creator Bernard Cornwell says the little-known victory at the Battle of Poitiers more than 600 years ago was one of the greatest military triumphs in British history
By BERNARD CORNWELL
PUBLISHED: 01:19, 4 October 2012 | UPDATED: 01:31, 4 October 2012
At dawn on September 19, 1356, an English army found itself trapped and facing battle outside the city of Poitiers in central France. The soldiers were so short of water they had given their horses wine to drink just to keep the beasts alive. Even drunken horses were better than dead ones.
There was a river close by, but it was impossible to carry enough water for 6,000 men and thousands of horses up the steep hill to the position where the English were trapped. The enemy, the army of France, was almost twice as strong. But that would not stop the English force from fighting its way to one of the greatest victories in our military history.
It has always seemed strange to me that we remember the Battle of Crecy and we celebrate the Battle of Agincourt, but most people seem to have forgotten Poitiers — the other great victory in the Hundred Years War — yet it was just as remarkable a triumph. In some ways, even more so.
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
Savage: A 14th century illustration shows the Battle of Poitiers, between the French and the English in 1356
At Agincourt, the English were outnumbered at least five to one, but the fighting at Poitiers was much harder. For the French nobles were desperate to drive their hated foe from the land and back across the Channel after years of bloody conquest.
Their king, Jean II, was a little more circumspect, for he could remember the crushing defeat the English had inflicted at Crecy in northern France ten years earlier. On that occasion, a 16-year-old Edward of Woodstock, the Prince of Wales — son of Edward III — had made a name for himself.
Since then, the French had tended to avoid battle because they feared the deadly accuracy of the English longbowmen. So they shut themselves behind stone walls in castles and fortified towns. The English response was to mount raids known as chevauchees.
The army advanced slowly across the countryside; killing, pillaging, raping. In 1355, the prince had led one such assault across southern France, from the English base at Bordeaux to the Mediterranean and back. They had captured castles and towns, burned villages, and taken vast amounts of plunder in a relentless expedition.
Such a chevauchee achieved three things: it enriched the invaders, it weakened the enemy’s economy and so reduced the amount he could tax his subjects, and finally, it might, just might, tempt the enemy to come out of their castles and face the English in open battle.
That is what happened in 1356 when the Prince of Wales, by then an accomplished commander in his mid-20s, struck north out of Gascony, which was English territory, and aimed his rapacious army at the heartland of France, a dagger thrust towards Paris.
The plan was to join up with another English army coming out of Normandy, but that plan failed when violent weather forced the prince to retreat back to Gascony. The French king assembled his army and followed.
The English were travel-weary, the French were fresh. The English were weighed down by wagonloads of plunder, and so King Jean II’s army slowly overtook the prince’s army until, on September 17, the two armies were so close that a battle seemed unavoidable.
The prince, knowing the French were close, had taken refuge on a high, wooded ridge close to the village of Nouaille. It was a strong position.
An enemy wanting to attack him would need to come uphill through tangling vineyards and, more importantly, the English had massed behind a thick hedge, which represented a fearsome obstacle for any attacker.
The prince — who came to be known long after his death as the Black Prince — may have taken up a strong position, but the evidence still suggests he would have preferred to avoid battle because of his inferior numbers.
But the French were also wary of those devastating English longbows that unleashed ash-shafted, steel-tipped arrows with fearsome accuracy.
The French crossbowmen were no match.
At Crecy, the French had attacked on horseback and the English arrows had ripped into the stallions, causing dreadful pain, death and horror. So at Poitiers, the French resolved to fight largely on foot, because a man’s armour would be more likely to stop the arrows.
And it was on the morning of September 19 that the French king overcame his doubts and ordered an attack.
Seeking to protect his plunder, the Prince had ordered part of his army and his baggage train to cross the river and march away southwards. But the river crossing went wrong, the planned English retreat was stalled and the French soon saw the commotion in the valley. They sent horsemen to attack the English left wing, and ordered an uphill advance on the main position.
The Battle of Poitiers had begun. The Chandos Herald, the poem written about the life of the Black Prince, describes it thus: ‘Then began the shouting, and noise and clamour raised and the armies began to draw near. Then on both sides they began to shoot; there were many a creature who that day was brought to his end.’
The first French attacks were by cavalry mounted on thundering warhorses that would have made the ground shake as they thundered across the field — a terrifying sight for the line of Englishmen waiting to receive them.
The French had collected their most heavily armoured stallions, ridden by plate-armoured men, who made their charges with the intention of shattering the archers on the English wings.
For a time, it worked. The horses were hung with leather and mail, their faces guarded by plate armour, but only the fronts of the beasts were so protected.
As soon as the archers realised the animals’ flanks and rears were unarmoured, they moved to the side and shot the attackers into bloody ruin — as scores of horses collapsed under their masters in floundering terror.
English men-at-arms moved into the chaos and slaughtered fallen riders. And it was a gruesome business. Death came through horrific injuries inflicted by lead-weighted maces and battle-axes, hammers, spikes, poles and knives.
But this was no more than a setback for the French, whose main attack did not depend on the horsemen.
It was made by armoured men advancing on foot, and we know that this attack reached the prince’s line, and that there was savage hand-to-hand fighting that lasted some hours while exhausted men slashed, stabbed and wrestled for their lives.
That French attack on foot was led by the dauphin — the king’s heir — but it failed to break the disciplined English line. Eventually the king, seeing that his eldest son’s attack had not broken the enemy, ordered the dauphin to retreat to nearby Poitiers, where he would be safe from capture.
But King Jean himself was in no mood to abandon the struggle. He marched his men up the slope and through gaps in the thick hedge, where they flung themselves on to the exhausted English line.
The close fighting began again, but the English prince was a master strategist, and chose this moment to unleash a surprise attack that would turn the tide decisively in his favour.
He sent about 200 horsemen around the rear of the French army — led by a Gascon lord but including some English archers. They managed to reach the enemy’s rear without being detected, and then they charged. When they slammed into the back of the king’s force of infantry, the French panicked and fled.
Hundreds of English soldiers then mounted their horses and followed, and in a nearby field — called the Champ d’Alexandre — the flower of French chivalry was cut down. It was a slaughteryard, and at its end 2,500 were dead, and half the great lords of France were among the 3,000 prisoners taken by the English, as was King Jean himself.
He was forcibly taken to London and paraded through the streets before being thrown in the Tower, to show what Englishmen had achieved near Poitiers on that September day in 1356.
The tale of the Black Prince’s victory is a magnificent story, unfairly forgotten, but worth remembering. Because there was a battle, long ago, and great deeds were done.
n 1356 by Bernard Cornwell, which tells the story of the Battle of Poitiers, is out now (HarperCollins, £18.99).
-
I would truly invade the shit out of france if i knew there's Alizee somewhere in france :D
haha rigth she is pretty hot but she sing shit :D
-
I would truly invade the shit out of france if i knew there's Alizee somewhere in france :D
you would sink in the mud, chubby