If French didn't have armours in AZINCOURT.....

[Turkhammer]

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. 

[Turkhammer]

OMG WHAT I DID WITH THIS THREAD ????

Why so upset?  It's just a discussion albeit impassioned on one side.  Keep calm.

[Oberyn]

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.

[Turkhammer]

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.

[Turkhammer]

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?

[sF_Guardian]

OMG WHAT I DID WITH THIS THREAD ????

Zou fed the trolls and ragers...

[Oberyn]

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.

[Tavuk_Bey]

either way they would have surrendered..

[Overdriven]

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.

[Turkhammer]

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.

[Turkhammer]

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.

[Loar Avel]

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 . =)

[Oberyn]

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...

[CrazyCracka420]

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.

[CtrlAltDe1337]

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%