Agincourt

[ArchonAlarion]

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.

[Leesin]

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.

[Bobthehero]

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.

[Leesin]

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.

[Bobthehero]

Just saying the weapon alone doesn't win the war ;)

[Adalwulf]

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.

[Leesin]

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.

[Bobthehero]

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?

[Leesin]

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"

[Adalwulf]

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.

[Overdriven]

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 

[Bobthehero]

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  fixed.

[Thucydides]

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.

[engurrand]

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.

[CrazyCracka420]

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