Was agincourt the result of military genius on behalf of the English or autism/bad leadership on the French side?
>>838729
autism, certainly
>>838729
Both?
>>838747
>I will put my powerful longbow men in a good position so they will be hard to reach
Surely this cant be considered as genius
>>838729
Both.
The French had a good plan, engage with infantry and hit flanks of archers with cavalry. Only the cavalry charged first into a row of spikes and the survivors than crashed into the French infantry throwing their formation in disorder. The English moved in and routed them that way.
>>838764
are the muddy fields a meme?
wanting to do battle thinking the momentum was on their side doomed the french
>>838775
No they were a factor in it too.
The french were also arrayed 20 ranks deep and so closely pressed together some couldn't even lift their weapon or use it against the English.
The descriptions of Cannae immediately spring to mind where the Romans were so closely pressed together they got slaughtered where they stood.
>>838795
Appreciated bro
>>838775
No. The mud around Agincourt is sticky and clumpy even in hot weather. Freshly ploughed and rain the night before? It would have been horrible.
Pic highly related.
>>838817
and then the heavy armour, weapons and horses didnt help.
Was the long bow as deadly as they say?
>>838757
Why not? Positioning your troops where they can do the most damage and take the fewest losses is 99% of tactics. What did Wellington or Napoleon do that was so different to that?
>>838845
fair enough. I guess after playing total war so much it doesnt seem that special
>>838835
Remember that the archers defeated the French in melee combat, their archery didn't stop either the infantry or cavalry charge.
>>838875
This.
Agincourt was a battle between the French and English knights and men at arms, with the archers seeing limited action. The English chronicler who claims to have been there barely mentions them.
>>838845
>What did Wellington or Napoleon do that was so different to that?
Wellington, not much.
But then again he wasnt a military genius
Napoleon did prowess of monoeuvre warfare
>>838835
>>838875
>>838888
The archers surely played some role, but the mud did much more to defeat the French than arrows
>The plate armour of the French men-at-arms allowed them to close the 1,000 yards or so to the English lines while being under what the French monk of Saint Denis described as "a terrifying hail of arrow shot".
>In any case, to protect themselves as much as possible from the arrows, the French had to lower their visors and bend their helmeted heads to avoid being shot in the face—the eye and air-holes in their helmets were among the weakest points in the armour. This head lowered position restricted both their breathing and their vision. Then they had to walk a few hundreds yards through thick mud, a press of comrades and wearing armour weighing 50–60 pounds (23–27 kg), gathering sticky clay all the way. Increasingly they had to walk around or over fallen comrades.[50]
>The surviving French men-at-arms reached the front of the English line and pushed it back, with the longbowmen on the flanks continuing to shoot at point-blank range. When the archers ran out of arrows, they dropped their bows and using hatchets, swords and the mallets they had used to drive their stakes in, attacked the now disordered, fatigued and wounded French men-at-arms massed in front of them.
>The French could not cope with the thousands of lightly armoured longbowmen assailants (who were much less hindered by the mud and weight of their armour) combined with the English men-at-arms. The impact of thousands of arrows, combined with the slog in heavy armour through the mud, the heat and lack of oxygen in plate armour with the visor down, and the crush of their numbers meant the French men-at-arms could "scarcely lift their weapons" when they finally engaged the English line.[5
The retarded French commander who decided to charge on foot (aka run) for 1km in a muddy field while wearing heavy armor is more to blame for this than English archers or military genius
>>838875
when you say they bet them in combat you have to remember most of the soldiers were practically dead or knee deep in mud
>>838888
The French however claim the archers fought quite bravely in melee combat beating the shit out of the French.
>>838925
>The plate armour of the French men-at-arms allowed them to close the 1,000 yards
At 1000 yards naked skin would be enough. The range of said arrows is not much over 300 yards.
>>838939
Sure........................
>>838959
> they dropped their bows and using hatchets, swords and the mallets they had used to drive their stakes in, attacked the now disordered, fatigued and wounded French men-at-arms massed in front of them.
Those are words of a french eye witness.
>>838974
doesnt sound very brave desu
>>838974
>using hatchets, swords and the mallets they had used to drive their stakes in, attacked the now disordered, fatigued and wounded French men-at-arms
Wow, another moment of glory, for the English'men'
>>838988
Yes, clearly they should have bandaged their wounds, given the a cup of tea and let them get their breath back.
Disregard the French were flying the Oriflamme, their sacred banner that signified they were to give no quarter and take no prisoners.
>>838835
>Was the long bow as deadly as they say?
Even if you assume every casualty at Agincourt was caused by an arrow, which is unlikely given the course of the battle, you only have a few thousand French casualties against a similar number of English archers shooting several arrows per minute. There would have been tens of thousands of arrows in just over a minute of shooting, maybe hundreds of thousands considering how many hours the battle may have lasted, but not nearly as many casualties.
So it couldn't have been as deadly as some people say.
>>838729
>military genius on behalf of the English
Not so much military genius as sound tactics and well trained, well equipped troops.
>autism/bad leadership on the French side?
in hindsight we can see that the French made some very stupid decisions, but at the time the situation they saw was that they were facing an army that they outnumbered almost 10-1 (not counting archers, which weren't usually much of a factor in medieval battles), which was weakened by fatigue, hunger and dysentary.
Remember, the French had originally planned on waiting - it was Henry who started the battle by attacking. At which point they had a choice of either committing to the battle, and trust that their huge numerical advantage would make up for any other issues, or withdraw from a far inferior force. Given that henry had already pillaged his way across nothern france and was trying to make a run for the channel, the French couldn't very well turn back, and say to anyone who asked 'well, we caught up to the English butcher, but we didn't think 10-1 odds was quite enough of an advantage so we let him go.'
>>839047
We live in an age where projectile combat is the norm. So a lot of novice "history buffs" want to think that the bow was a lot more powerful than it was. The main focus of the bow was to disorientate and nerf an incoming charge. The possible wounding/killing that would happen when volleys were fired was a fringe benefit of the main goal. Of course, if you could get your archers around the flanks after the lines have met then let the fun begin.
>>839150
>so brits
kek, brave*
>>839139
>bows weren't really there to kill people, they were just to break up charges
no.
Bows were't used to break up charges because bows weren't used much at all. The typical shortbow, which a peasant might hunt with, didn't have the range or power to be much use in battle. The most common ranged weapon of the medieval period were crossbows, which because of their reload times were mainly used during sieges, where the user wasn't likely to get charged at. Crossbows were generally used for skirmishing on the battlefield - to drive away opposing skirmishers, or to soften up the main body, and then withdraw before any charge happened. But in order to use a crossbow effectively on the battlefield you had to have well-trained men with high-end machines, which meant large-scale crossbow use was generally a rarity.
The English longbow, on the other hand, is a different story. To the best of my knowledge, the English were the only ones to field mass formations of infantry archers in Europe at that time. And they were most certainly there to kill the enemy. The usual tactic was to set up a strong defensive position, including stakes to stop cavalry charges, and then launch volley after volley into the opposing force. The men-at-arms were there to defend the archers, and cavalry was only a skirmishing force. While it's true that longbows couldn't cause fatal wounds to armoured opponents except at point black range, to say that they weren't deadly is a little disingenuous. Firstly, there were generally plenty of enemies on the battlefield who didn't have top-quality plate armour. Against iron or leather, the longbow was definitely deadly. Secondly, if a French knight is trapped under the corpse of his horse, bones broken by the fall, with arrows in his arm and hand (where the armour was weaker) it's a little pedantic to point out that technically it was the guy who came along later with a knife who actually killed him.
>>839151
The word is synonymous, really.
>>839264
Also, the longbow was used as a ambush weapon by the Welsh, who would sneak up close enough to the English column that the arrows would penetrate armour, loose a few volleys, then run away leaving a lot of dead an injured Englishmen (or charge, leaving even more dead Englishmen).
>>839151
it's okay, everyone understood what you meant
The reason the French lost was because they chose a position that blocked the English route to Calais but didn't offer many other advantages. The French commanders wanted to force the English to negotiate, and stall for even more reinforcements to arrive from Burgundy, Brittany, Orleans and Normandy. They didn't seem to expect that the English would actually attack them. Historically, the English would wait in defensive positions. But the English archers advanced and began firing on them. The heavy infantry that made up most of the French army were useless in defensive. The minimal French cavalry could not charge in the mud and was not heavily armored enough to storm through arrow fire. So basically the French routed and were chased down by the more agile English archers and killed.
>>838729
autism
>>838925
>The retarded French commander who decided to charge on foot (aka run) for 1km in a muddy field while wearing heavy armor is more to blame for this than English archers or military genius
I still can't understand why Marshal Boucicaut couldn't exercise discipline towards the nobles.
>>838925
>armour weighing 50–60 pounds
doubt.png
>>839351
see>>839114
The French *were* waiting. Then Henry attacked. At which point there was no way in hell that the cream of the French nobility were going to run away from a hugely inferior force (especially given the fact that Henry had already seriously damaged their prestige by raping northern France unopposed for months).
So partly the lack of adherence to the French commander's plan was a matter of pride (which makes it sound rather trivial, but a lord with a poor reputation is going to start finding that his peasants question why they bother paying their taxes). Also, it was a straight money issue. You got to ransom your captives, and it was first come first served; no one wanted to be the guy who got stuck with the sickly fifth son of some impoverished minor earl.
>>839150
How is standing and fighting a superior force, in both numbers, training and equipment, when your own army is weak and short on supplies, not brave?
The French were the ones attacking and were fully intent on killing the entire English army (and depending on the source did murder the priests in the English baggage train).
They were disordered, fatigued and wounded by their idiotic advance on the English. It's not like the perfidious Albionites stumbled across a bunch of already wounded, bedraggled Frenchies and beat them up. The opposite in fact.
>>839413
>then herny attacked
Henry advanced
>>839323
What?
>>839426
Well,so we can say that the English were more or less in the same conditions are the Germans during the Normandy landings
Would you call that exceptionally brave?
>>838925
You know, for some reason, this reminds me of the tactical stupidity of Pickett's charge at Gettysburg.
>>839559
Yes I would.
How were they not brave, outside of braindead "hurrr dey evil gnatsis durrr" jingoism?
>>839276
Yea, of course...
>>839706
>>839657
They were brave like any soldier, but not outstandingly
>>839264
>The English longbow, on the other hand, is a different story. To the best of my knowledge, the English were the only ones to field mass formations of infantry archers in Europe at that time. And they were most certainly there to kill the enemy. The usual tactic was to set up a strong defensive position, including stakes to stop cavalry charges, and then launch volley after volley into the opposing force. The men-at-arms were there to defend the archers, and cavalry was only a skirmishing force. While it's true that longbows couldn't cause fatal wounds to armoured opponents except at point black range, to say that they weren't deadly is a little disingenuous. Firstly, there were generally plenty of enemies on the battlefield who didn't have top-quality plate armour. Against iron or leather, the longbow was definitely deadly. Secondly, if a French knight is trapped under the corpse of his horse, bones broken by the fall, with arrows in his arm and hand (where the armour was weaker) it's a little pedantic to point out that technically it was the guy who came along later with a knife who actually killed him.
You mean well, but the other guy is closer I think to the truth. Again, if English archers were there to inflict casualties, they wouldn't be forced into melee time after time while only scoring a small percentage of casualties total. I think every amateur and even professional military historian today can benefit from reading a modern military guide to infantry tactics. A lot has changed of course, but there are plenty of basic principles that are really timeless.
Longbows couldn't cause fatal wounds to armored opponents even at point blank range for one thing. You didn't need top level plate armor either as good chain or brigandine with a padded coat underneath worked well, too.
The kind of shooting English archers did wasn't battlefield sharpshooting like a company of skirmishing riflemen, but an organized volley maximizing range and rate of fire.
>>839486
What?
>>839780
>modern military guide to infantry tactics
I mean I suppose you could draw parallels between the way the longbow was used and modern concepts of suppression but it'd be a bit disingenuous. for starters modern infantry doctrine is inherently offensive: You suppress the enemy in order to enable your own forces to manouevre into a position from which they can assault the enemy. If attacked you counterattack at the first available opportunity. Compare that to the HYW English doctrine, which was to draw the French army onto (relatively) static field positions
>>839802
It's not about suppression, which is more a tactic for skirmishing, so much as it's about battlefield control, denial of territory, and mass.
English archers could effectively deny the enemy the ability to gather forces in any region within their shooting range. An enemy force, though not under major deadly threat, would be unable to keep horses, unarmored support, or even fully armored troops without suffering major problems with cohesive movement and discipline.
This means an assault on the English line would have to begin beyond the range of the longbow, then carried through the whole distance while a rain of arrows forces the advancing troops to huddle, raise shields or lower faces, and try and keep the same formation they started with until they finally reached the English line.
Almost all accounts of battles with the English have the French managing to reach the English lines, but they also regularly include lots of examples of French knights outnumbered by the English despite the French army's superior numbers overall.
In effect, they were doing the exact same job muddy fields and field works were meant to do
>>839871
>but they also regularly include lots of examples of French knights outnumbered by the English despite the French army's superior numbers overall.
source?
>>839897
Well for example, in the Battle of Poitiers, the French outnumbered the English 2:1.
Yet Froissart records:
>“There Sir Geoffroi de Charny fought gallantly near the king. The whole press and cry of battle were upon him because he was carrying the king’s sovereign banner. He also had before him his own banner, gules, three escutcheons argent. So many English and Gascons came around him from all sides that they cracked open the king’s battle formation and smashed it; there were so many English and Gascons that at least five of these men at arms attacked one gentleman. Sir Geoffroi de Charny was killed with the banner of France in his hand, as other French banners fell to earth.”
This was the King of France with the Oriflamme banner itself, and yet when they clashed with the English line they were outnumbered 5:1.
>>839920
Also, even if we assume archers were there dropping knights before they could even make it to the line, even if we exaggerate and say all 2500 French casualties dropped immediately from arrow shot, that would still leave the French with a slight numerical advantage. So how did a French charge leave the King of France so outnumbered?
>>839780
>Again, if English archers were there to inflict casualties, they wouldn't be forced into melee time after time while only scoring a small percentage of casualties total.
why not? The fact that they couldn't kill every single advancing enemy doesn't mean they couldn't cause significant casualties.
>Longbows couldn't cause fatal wounds to armored opponents even at point blank range for one thing.
this is just untrue. Modern testing has shown that longbows can penetrate most armour except steel plate, and even steel plate could only protect the vital organs in the chest. And the trouble with modern tests in a lab is that they usually pick the strongest part of a soldier's armour, the breastplate, to test. e.g.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3997HZuWjk
So the hard of thinking take that to mean that longbows were useless against knights in full armour. The thing is, the armour over the rest of the body is a lot weaker, especially at the extremities and at the visor. So what you'd expect to see - and what chroniclers at the time recorded - is knights getting arrows in their hands and feet, and their neck and face. Contemporary descriptions of Agincourt say the French were forced to march across the field looking straight at the ground to avoid getting arrows through their faceplates. And again, this is knights in full plate we're talking about. Every other rank of soldiery would have been far less well protected. Longbows might have had difficulty causing wounds that were immediately fatal, but they could certainly cause extensive casualties.
There's another important thing that hasn't been mentioned: horses. A longbow could most certainly take down a horse, and if the archers had stakes in place to protect themselves they could, and did, wreak absolute havoc against any cavalry sent against them.
>>839978
If there's a lot of casualties by longbows, it would have been accounted. Which account said that?
>>839920
>This was the King of France with the Oriflamme banner itself, and yet when they clashed with the English line they were outnumbered 5:1.
Strange things happened at Poitiers. The withdrawal of the Duke of Orleans, in particular. The fighting wasn't as simple as the French attacking and the English defending, I don't think. I should also note that when King John charged the English archers - which weren't especially numerous at Poitiers to begin with - were nearly out of arrows, and John's troops were noted to have been in good order. I don't think English archery caused John's reserve to be heavily outnumbered when it renewed the assault.
>>839978
>why not? The fact that they couldn't kill every single advancing enemy doesn't mean they couldn't cause significant casualties.
It's the 'cause significant casualties' part that's still in question, because the numbers just don't add up even when we're being overly generous in assuming all or most casualties were caused as a result of an arrow killing or just incapacitating someone.
>this is just untrue. Modern testing
There's a modern test for everything these days. I'm partial to sticking with Royal Armories tests for one thing, but even then the rest of this supposition is a big stretch. Sure, other pieces of armor were likely thinner and weaker than the breastplate. But remember the test was done in the most ideal condition imaginable - a perfect perpendicular shot at maximum speed. What's the chance that would happen while aiming at an arm or leg of a marching/running Frenchman? I know about the references to knights getting arrows in certain places, but notice how the regions you mentioned are places that are quite difficult to armor in the first place. And that knights had to bow their heads only shows that they wouldn't want an arrow through their visor, but that they felt perfectly safe letting arrows bounce off the top of their helmets and not punch through their skull. Unique references of arrow wounds are all usually special case stories, about a single knight getting an arrow where he didn't expect it, but never about whole lines of men suffering these kinds of wounds the way they describe what happens in melee.
Also, horses were already mentioned here >>839871
>>838729
Autism....100%.
The concentration and distribution of forces is completely up to commanders, and should be based on terrain, the situation, and the enemy. This is where French leaders FAILED miserably, and got their asses handed to them as a result.
>>839897
It's called local superiority.
Just because you outnumber somebody doesn't mean you'll be able to actually use them all at the same time. Terrain limitations, defensive positions, and obstacles can all be used to channel an enemy and limit their ability to mass their forces to attack you, giving you a local superiority in numbers....despite being "outnumbered".
You can only fit so many dudes in a hallway, for example...
>>840267
>1415
> using the term " first world"
>criminals and bandits
>for fighting the army that is attacking you, after they get tired from running to attack you
>>840267
t. butthurt frog
>>840267
I mean, yeah, they probably didn't ever march in step, but you're really underselling them.
>>838925
>General Mud
>General Winter
Looks like even mother nature doesn't like the French.
>>840034
>What's the chance that would happen while aiming at an arm or leg of a marching/running Frenchman?
They didn't aim at all. They fired en masse and let statistical probability do their work for them.
which is in fact what you said here, >>839780
>The kind of shooting English archers did wasn't battlefield sharpshooting like a company of skirmishing riflemen, but an organized volley maximizing range and rate of fire.
so I don't know why I'm having to explain this. Or did you think the fact that they didn't aim at specific points meant that they never hit weaker spots.
>>840348
Not him, but the longbow being deadly is pretty much a meme.
Wearing a gambeson is enough to stop an arrow
>>840434
>but the longbow being deadly is pretty much a meme.
You got that from a television documentary, didn't you?
You can't believe everything you see on TV
>>840442
>You got that from a television documentary, didn't you?
Not really. It's just the lack of evidence of arrows penetrating armour and common sence that made me open my eyes.
But go ahead and show me some test proving otherwise.
Also based Matt made a video about it and he makes some solid points
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1WZLVZYBwQ
>>840348
That kind of shooting would have even less likelihood of hitting armor at a perfect angle at top speed, raining down from above at a distance or allowing maybe one or two volleys at flat trajectories.
It's just a very reaching theory, with statistical probability working against the idea more than it helps.
>>840348
Toby and Matt discussed it during the Agincourt showcase. It seems that the archers didn't do arc shot, but did it the usual way. It still couldn't inflict a lot of mortality.
>>839559
yes, same as the British running from their boats onto the beach in artillery and shell fire were brave. Most warfare requires people to consciously put themselves into real mortal danger. It's just that this board has some contingent with a British hate boner that tries play done everything they ever did or achieved.
At Agincourt, the English did the same thing they always did: picked a good defensive position and shot the enemies with tons of arrows while they advanced. That was a tactic that had been proven enormously successful in many previous battles against French and Scots.
Thirty-five years later, at Formigny, the French simply bombarded the English with artillery from out of bow shot, forcing them to first lose their defensive position and then the battle.
>>838934
And that English Archers =/= meme rag wearing Robin Hood archers in the public mind. Archers of the time were either well trained levy troops who were also well equipped or professional mercenaries. They would have been wearing maille or a coat of plate, which goes a long way to increasing one's durability.
>>839364
Plate armor weighs exactly that anon.
>>838729
I think it was just picking a good battleground and then executing frog prisoners in a panic once the English thought they were going to be overrun by reinforcements.
I read somewhere so don't entirely quote me on this that most of the mounted combatants actually survived and just had arrows sticking out of their armour, it was just horses and shit that got bogged down so that lead to a loss of momentum (the ground obviously didn't help either) and cohesion.
>>838729
This battle was over analyzed to hell and back. It was a generic battle, hundreds like it were fought, the french won most, and won the war.
I really wish autits would stop bring it up so much, channeling their inner XxX420XxX sniper pride.
>it was the everyday man against the french nobility charging!!!
There were like 50 people charging, and the english archers were all high class elite and well paid pros.
It was a slugfest, hand to hand combat, looking at your guy in the eye as you sword him up. Read a fucking book.
>>842304
>tells others to read a book
>gross misrepresentation of both the French and English armies at Agincourt
Top line armour of the period was effevmctivly proof against English arrows at range.
The number of nobles and Knights who could afford the better armour was limited. Three quarters of the French force where in lesser quality armour. Made with poor quality metal or second hand, polished with sand and viniger for years. This armour was not effective defence against the heavy English arrows.
This has been hard for me to prove over the years, no one kept poor quality arms and armour only the best quality has survived. It can be inferred from contemporary documents including probate records that state that x pieces of armour being of want have been sold to such and such for the price of the metal.
To all the people saying padding/gambeson stops an arrow, that still doesn't stop the force of the impact, modern vests can stop bullets but they don't stop the force of being hit by one
These arrows would have broken rips, collar bones etc they would have definitely broken the bones on your hands and feet
catching a few arrows on your shield would have probably completely numbed your arm
and getting hit on the head even with a top of the line helmet you'd have been stunned, maybe knocked out
arrows would have also scared the fuck out of a horse, even an armored one, imagine how a horse would react to being pelted with rocks
>>842881
'no'
>These arrows would have broken rips, collar bones etc they would have definitely broken the bones on your hands and feet
>catching a few arrows on your shield would have probably completely numbed your arm
At point blank range. From that point you might as well pull out your warhammer and bash them in the face, which is what they did at Agincourt.
>and getting hit on the head even with a top of the line helmet you'd have been stunned, maybe knocked out
This is completely wrong. If it hits you on the top of your helmet, it means the arrow comes down from a rather high angle, meaning it has travelled a very long distance.
Also, an arrow loses it momentum exponentially, so from a large distance it does basically nothing but making you turn the visor down, so you don't get hit in the eye.
>>842881
>>842444
Armors are made to glance off impacts. Gambesons are made to absorb, not to stop. A bullet travels at a much faster velocity than an arrow. Even when using primitive black powder the difference was significant. Consequently, arrows dip much faster than bullets, and the force behind it also decreases, requiring arc shots to travel far. Not to mention this the thick English arrows, as >>842444 said. That's why, a comparison between an arrow shot with modern bullets is unconvincing.
>These arrows would have broken rips, collar bones etc they would have definitely broken the bones on your hands and feet
But then again, if we imagine a lot possibilities, why not also imagine that the English archers shot poorly, probably because they were starving? We can speculate a lot, assisted by sciences but sometimes it might not be the best approach for history.
Again, if people are claiming that longbows inflicted a lot of mortality, which account said that? I'm interested on that.
>>842987
An arrow loses momentum when fired straight yes, but if fired in an arc it would regain at least some of this momentum when its coming back down,
Like throwing a stone, at close range you'll inflict damage, at long range throwing it straight it will lose momentum but if you throw at an arc gravity does its work
I've seen lots of these tests where bows are fired straight at a target, but the weight of an arrow head coming down in an arc would be like dropping a stone from height on someone
>>842990
Same as above
If we've got any massive nerds here I'd love it if they calculated the weight of an arrow head and calculated the speed it would be dropping from height, this all might be bullshit assuming arrowheads aren't heave enough and can't be fired high enough
>>843027
Am only a simple pleb with mad musings but I can't see how my idea is too crazy
>>843027
What.
Are you sure that's how gravity works?
>>843043
the higher something is the harder it hits the ground, so the higher an archer fired his arrow the harder it hit
Thats that I'm trying to say
>>843027
>but if fired in an arc it would regain at least some of this momentum when its coming back down
>some
Exactly.
>>843049
Calculating the final velocity of a falling object isn't that hard if you know the friction coefficient of the said object.
However i have no clue what that would be for an arrow, but i've read it's pretty shitty because of the flechings and shit.
Check out Schola Gladiatoria channel. With Toby on armors of Agincourt now. Keep in mind that not only knights, man-at-arms also wore good armors.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukvlZcxNAVY
>>843064
>but i've read it's pretty shitty because of the flechings and shit.
Mind describing more?
Anyway, it seems that the use of long arc shot is also disputed >>840780. As this picture shown, they were worried for the visor and the breathing holes. Meaning that the English shot "straight" toward them.
>>843064
>>843150
Alright, i've done the reading and the autism. I've found a graph with the drag coefficient of an arrow in function of the speed. From here on i'll assume a value of 2.
From
boogwereld.nl/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/medieval_arrows.pdf
i have assumed an arrow mass of 60 grams, diameter of 1,2cm, a 700N pullweight with a draw length of 75cm, resulting in an arrow leaving the bow at about 60m/s.
I've also assumed an angle of 45° at which the arrow is shot.
The final velocity then also becomes about 60m/s, which is very high actually. I thought it would be lower.
Anyways i've plugged the differential equations in my calculator and the results are:
>a range of 200m
>arrow velocity of about 40m/s when hitting the ground
So the arrows loses about half the kinetic energy and about 30% of its momentum.
These values are actually better than i had expected; i thought it would lose more energy, but then again 60 gram is quite a lot for an arrow and i've assumed the best case scenario for the archer.
Is there a way too see the names of all of those who participated in agincourt?
I mean, is there even records... ?
>>843203
>a 700N pullweight with a draw length of 75cm
You sure about this? Seems like there are lots of disagreements.
>Estimates for the draw of these bows varies considerably. Before the recovery of the Mary Rose, Count M. Mildmay Stayner, Recorder of the British Long Bow Society, estimated the bows of the Medieval period drew 90–110 pounds-force (400–490 newtons), maximum, and Mr. W.F. Paterson, Chairman of the Society of Archer-Antiquaries, believed the weapon had a supreme draw weight of only 80–90 lbf (360–400 N).[2] Other sources suggest significantly higher draw weights. The original draw forces of examples from the Mary Rose are estimated by Robert Hardy at 150–160 lbf (670–710 N) at a 30-inch (76.2 cm) draw length; the full range of draw weights was between 100–185 lbf (440–820 N).[9] The 30-inch (76.2 cm) draw length was used because that is the length allowed by the arrows commonly found on the Mary Rose.
Nice job, by the way.
>>843225
I've just assumed the very best case scenario so there's no bullshitting about x and y being better or higher.
>>843218
Please respond.
>>843218
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Agincourt#Notable_casualties
>>842429
The english archers were elite troops, well equipped and well payed.
The charge was very small, and half assed.
The battle was the french dismounting and walking forward, getting shot a lot, and then the english dropping the bows and walking forward.
Some stabbing later the french rout and the english win.
A question for all the people in this thread who don't seem to believe that longbows were that important: why the hell did the English place such huge importance in having good longbowmen if they didn't do all that much damage?
>>843523
The practice of archery was associated with masculine moral virtue, and there was an idea that if a man wasn't practicing archery then he would take up immoral and illegal pasttimes like dice, cards and bowling.
>>843523
A good soldiers was more than his statistical damage value like some video games tend to reduce battle to.
>too poor to make good bows
>make a bunch of huge ass bows instead
>call them "long bows" because of how clever we are
>win one battle due to mud
>the "long bow" goes down as one of the greatest military inventions in human history
>>843523
Not inflicting many casualties =/= not being important.
Given that the bulk of the casualties in any medieval and early renaissance battle was inflicted in the post rout pursuit, done predominantly by cavalry, you could just as easily ask
>Why did they bother bringing any infantry at all?
And it would be equally stupid. Bows give lots of advantages. They're vital in siege warfare, on either end of the walls, since they can inflict damage well in the slower paced and longer distance skirmishing. It's demoralizing to sit through an arrow barrage, even if it's not killing anyone; a lot of the troops of the period wouldn't have the discipline to sit through such a thing, and would charge even if it was a bad idea. They're quite capable of wounding or even killing horses. They allow you to focus a bit of extra firepower on a particularly critical section of the battle, where it might be difficult or impossible to bring more hand to hand troops.
Furthermore, longbows were extremely deadly in earlier epochs, when armor wasn't as well developed. Crecy wasn't all that far behind Agincourt in time, and there the longbows did devastate and slaughter. The plate harnesses that you started to see were a relatively recent invention, and longbows were behind the curve.
>>843617
All western European vertical bows were "long bows". They were called long bows to differentiate them from the common crossbow.
Lots of battles were won by longbows, but they are generally overrated by their fans. Notably they often think that a longbow could penetrate any armor, could snipe people from 240 yards away, and was a better weapon than the muskets that replaced them.
>>843621
>Crecy wasn't all that far behind Agincourt in time, and there the longbows did devastate and slaughter.
Unprotected and exhausted crossbowmen and horses.
>>843617
>too poor
>he doesn't know that England was importing yew wood for bows
>he doesn't know that yew doesn't grow straight enough for bows in England due to the weather
>here thinks that the longbows fame comes solely from Agincourt
>not Poitiers, Crecy, Homildon Hill, Verneuil, Towton, Flodden etc etc etc.
>>843218
There's an "Agincourt Roll" of the combatants on the English side. Unfortunately the only copies left are incomplete. You can find it in the appendix of the "History of the Battle of Agincourt" (1833) by Nicolas Harris.
There's also an online database that includes the English muster rolls from 1415 by Anne Curry.
Many names of the French combatants are included in the book "Azincourt" (1865) by Rene de Belleval. He derived the names mainly from the lists of the slain in contemporary chronicles.
Judging from the incomplete Agincourt roll and the Gesta Henrici Quinti by an English chaplain that was there, the English army at Agincourt probably numbered 6,000 including 5,000 archers.
Several independent French chroniclers state that the French army had 10,000 men-at-arms. Besides this would be half as many archers and crossbowmen plus tens of thousands of pages and servants.
Also, bumping the explanation for why the French lost: >>839323
>>844222
The online database is http://www.medievalsoldier.org/
>>843621
>They're vital in siege warfare,
yeah, but we're not talking about siege warfare
>It's demoralizing to sit through an arrow barrage,
Why would it be? Given that the knights would know the capabilities of their armour, why would they be demoralised if it offered almost complete protection? If it's not killing anyone, or if it's only causing a few casualties, then medieval forces were perfectly capable of just standing and taking enemy arrow fire. At the battle of Dorylaeum crusading forces stood for hours under Turkish arrow fire until their reinforcements arrived.
>They allow you to focus a bit of extra firepower on a particularly critical section of the battle, where it might be difficult or impossible to bring more hand to hand troops.
If all that 'firepower' did was bounce of enemy armour, why bother? Hardened knights would hardly break if they were being shot at by arrows that they knew couldn't hurt them.
Let me say this one last time: if longbows were only an ancillary factor, henry wouldn't have brought 7000 of them to France. You don't base your entire army around longbows if all they do is annoy your opponents. Every piece of evidence about the middle ages that we have says that the people of the time thought that English longbows were a fearsome weapon, and I am far more inclined to believe the accounts of people who actually had to use them, and the people who actually had to face them, than random youtubers.
If armour really offered almost total immunity from arrow wounds, longbows would have fallen out of use. But they didn't - they kept on being the mainstay of English military power right through the golden age of armour design, right up until the point where artillery and other firearms actually made them obsolete (and incidentally the fact that they did fall out of use when artillery came into play disproves >>843550's rather desperate theory that they were only used for sentimental reasons).
>>845767
>and the people who actually had to face them
In Agincourt? Such as?
>>839364
Plate armor weighs a lot but it's distributed across the entire body.
>>843727
Composite bows are better. Same poundage in a smaller package. But they are harder to make.
>>838817
Would the farmer be responsible for clearing the field of bodies?
>>845767
>yeah, but we're not talking about siege warfare
You might not be, but Henry was certainly thinking about it. Or have you gotten how you only got to Agincourt because of how the siege of Harfleur turned out?
>Why would it be? Given that the knights would know the capabilities of their armour, why would they be demoralised if it offered almost complete protection? If it's not killing anyone, or if it's only causing a few casualties, then medieval forces were perfectly capable of just standing and taking enemy arrow fire. At the battle of Dorylaeum crusading forces stood for hours under Turkish arrow fire until their reinforcements arrived.
Were your mother and father brother and sister? Do you really think people are just organic robots? That fear, panic aren't essentially irrational factors? That even modern soldiers, who are trained and conditioned at a level undreamt of by 15th century standarsd, can crack from being fired at ineffectively over a long period of time? That for every example you can bring up of people standing firm under an ineffective arrow hail, I can bring up one where they reacted stupidly, like say, Towton?
>Let me say this one last time: if longbows were only an ancillary factor, henry wouldn't have brought 7000 of them to France. You don't base your entire army around longbows if all they do is annoy your opponents. Every piece of evidence about the middle ages that we have says that the people of the time thought that English longbows were a fearsome weapon, and I am far more inclined to believe the accounts of people who actually had to use them, and the people who actually had to face them, than random youtubers.
Name ONE confirmed French soldier killed by arrow fire at Agincourt. One name. Reflect on how longbows were quite literally a weapon that the British had used for centuries by this point, mostly against armors inferior to what the French were fielding by 1415.
>>845767
>random youtubers
Top lel
These guys actually practise what they write/teach, unlike your usual historians. Plus, they actually followed closely the eyewitness account on Agincourt, almost without contradicting them.
>>845767
>if longbows were only an ancillary factor, henry wouldn't have brought 7000 of them to France. You don't base your entire army around longbows if all they do is annoy your opponents
You don't build an army from scratch like a vidya game. You get what you have, what you can afford, and what you can mobilize in a timely fashion. It just so happened that in the years leading up to the HYW, a lot of English soldiers who were veterans of the preceding wars with Wales and Scotland were archers, useful at siege, useful in raiding and skirmishing, useful against enemies with fewer or less talented archers, and plentiful.
>>845955
>Name ONE confirmed French soldier killed by arrow fire at Agincourt. One name
it's not like the chroniclers made a list of every casualty and their cause of death. I might as well ask you to name a French knight who was killed by a mace.
>That fear, panic aren't essentially irrational factors?
yeah, actually. Seriously, are you really trying to say that a large body of armed men who were the cream of France's military would panic when fired at by weapons that they knew couldn't hurt them? Because that makes absolutely no fucking sense.
>That even modern soldiers, who are trained and conditioned at a level undreamt of by 15th century standarsd, can crack from being fired at ineffectively over a long period of time?
when has this ever happened?
>>840267
>First world
The USSR existed in 1415?
>>846042
>You get what you have, what you can afford, and what you can mobilize in a timely fashion
You don't go to the expense of shipping thousands of men over to France who aren't going to be of any use in a pitched battle. If longbowmen were really as useless against French knights as you people seem to think, Henry would have foregone them and just made do with a few hundred extra men at arms.
I'm starting to feel like I'm the only sane one here. I can't be the only person who sees that the idea that three quarters of the English army at agincourt was just there for decoration is just ridiculous, can I?
>>846065
>it's not like the chroniclers made a list of every casualty and their cause of death. I might as well ask you to name a French knight who was killed by a mace.
You might want to read up on the Histoire de Charles VI, which in fact does talk about French knights who were brained by mallets, but curiously, not those who died by arrows.
>yeah, actually. Seriously, are you really trying to say that a large body of armed men who were the cream of France's military would panic when fired at by weapons that they knew couldn't hurt them? Because that makes absolutely no fucking sense.
Yes, I am, because it fucking happened before and after and is recorded to have fucking happened. Look up Neville's Cross. Look up Towton. Look up shell shock. People do crazy and yes, often stupid things in the heat of battle, reacting to things that cannot in fact hurt them.
>when has this ever happened?
Have you ever heard of WW1? Trench warfare? Why do you think armies of both sides fired mortars that couldn't penetrate the sort of deep trenches that were being seen everywhere in 1915-16, even when nobody was going over the top? Why don't you look up Operation Husky, go check out Patton's infamous slapping incidents, and how his men got "Combat fatigue" as they called it then? What about going through a trawl of Bomber Command's interviews of their pilots, how they were perennially more afraid of flak than of night fighters, despite the latter killing them far more frequently than the former? Go look up how many "lacking moral fibre" discharges you got.
And be sure to pull your head out of your ass. You'll have trouble doing your reading without a clear navel.
>>846099
>If longbowmen were really as useless against French knights as you people seem to think, Henry would have foregone them and just made do with a few hundred extra men at arms.
If the longbow really was such a magical superweapon, wouldn't other armies have used them massively as well?
>>846099
Soldiers are always of use in pitched battle, and that's what longbowmen were. They dug earthworks, put up stakes, fought in the front lines with mauls and swords, skirmished, ran down routers, what have you.
No one said the longbowmen were useless. Most of us (sane) ones are saying the use of a longbowman wasn't about his K/D ratio with his Legolas bow, it was about the soldier himself and what his shooting, his manual labor, and his discipline could do for the English army in a variety of circumstances.
You don't ship thousands of men across the Channel hoping for a pitched battle. You've got plenty of other priorities.
>>846099
>Longbowmen
>Only firing arrows.
You are aware that the French line collapsed when the longbowmen joined the melee, right? Real life isn't like Rome: Total War, where units fight with one and only one weapon, and are completely useless outside of their narrow battlefield role.
That same yeowman with his longbow also probably had some fairly decent armor of his own and could fight in hand to hand once he either ran out of arrows or the enemy got too close. "light infantry" and "missile troops" were pretty interchangeable.
>Henry would have foregone them and just made do with a few hundred extra men at arms.
Do you understand how feudal mobilization works? I don't think you do.
>>846134
No, because they're not English. They couldn't wield the strongest bow in history that is the English Longbow from Wales.
>>846145
Even in Total War you can order your archers to engage in melee, if I remember correctly. I once flanked the enemy infantry line with archers because my cavalry was elsewhere.
Henry positioned the archers on the flanks too, right?
>>846160
>Henry positioned the archers on the flanks too, right?
Obviously.
>>846112
>Look up Neville's Cross. Look up Towton
the actions there were only irrational if you proceed from the assumption that English arrow fire wasn't significantly dangerous
>Look up shell shock
are you seriously saying that the entire army, at the start of the battle before the fighting had started, was suffering from shell shock?
>Why do you think armies of both sides fired mortars that couldn't penetrate the sort of deep trenches that were being seen everywhere in 1915-16
shellfire caused plenty of casualties. Even after deeper trenches and helmets became a thing, you could still get lucky (or unlucky, depending on your point of view)
as for the rest of your post - are you seriously trying to twist my previous statement, that the French army at the beginning of the battle of Agincourt was unlikely to be so demoralised that they'd panic over arrows that couldn't hurt them, into 'morale was never a thing, ever'? Because that's just embarrassing.
I'd love to watch you idiots dig yourselves in deeper, but I am getting really tired of this. So I'll let a professional historian explain to you why you're retarded
http://militaryrevolution.s3.amazonaws.com/Primary%20sources/Longbow.pdf
and if you want to humiliate yourselves further then that's your business.
>>846671
>http://militaryrevolution.s3.amazonaws.com/Primary%20sources/Longbow.pdf
Your source is so full of shit i don't even know where to start
>>846671
>are you seriously saying that the entire army, at the start of the battle before the fighting had started, was suffering from shell shock?
Battles like Agincourt followed a long and usually grueling campaign full of ambushes, disease, starvation, and tired feet.
>>843027
>Like throwing a stone, at close range you'll inflict damage, at long range throwing it straight it will lose momentum but if you throw at an arc gravity does its work
How the fuck do you not realize that friction exists?
>>843064
Archer here:
It's shit. I don't know the math, but i've shot enough to know that I want the flattest trajectory possible. Always. Forever.
>>843203
Bow are not 100% efficient.
A considerable amount of the power fails to go into the arrow, and instead produces sound, makes the strong (and bow) vibrate, slowly damages the limbs, and contributes to simply damaging the arrow instead of propelling it.
Non-modern bows are particularly bad in these regards, which is why you don't hear of OM SNIPER archers in history. The sheer amount of movement the weapon experienced meant it wasn't precise enough.
700n for a draw is also exceptionally high. Only the absolute top of the line professionals would have such weapons.Most men were not such elites.
>>845767
>At the battle of Dorylaeum crusading forces stood for hours under Turkish arrow fire until their reinforcements arrived.
They also routinely broke ranks, and everyone who wasn't a knight full on fucking panicked.
Don't misrepresent shit to make a point you stupid cunt.
>>846099
Ah. I see. You're the kind of moron who doesn't know that the archer were also well known for their skill in close combat.
>>846965
>>846942
>when that one really angry guy enters the thread to shout at people instead of correcting them
>>846671
>the actions there were only irrational if you proceed from the assumption that English arrow fire wasn't significantly dangerous
And from the accounts of the arrows bouncing off of helmets, yes.
>are you seriously saying that the entire army, at the start of the battle before the fighting had started, was suffering from shell shock?
No, try reading what I wrote instead of strawmanning it. I'm saying that what frightens and what obliterates are often different things.
>shellfire caused plenty of casualties. Even after deeper trenches and helmets became a thing, you could still get lucky (or unlucky, depending on your point of view)
See, this is where strawmanning comes in. Mortars are not the sum total of all shelling. And yes, in a way, it's quite like the arrow fire of the 15th century. If you say, left your visor open, you could die if you got hit in the face. Bad luck to you. Doesn't mean you had people dropping dead left and right of bowfire.
>are you seriously trying to twist my previous statement, that the French army at the beginning of the battle of Agincourt was unlikely to be so demoralised that they'd panic over arrows that couldn't hurt them, into 'morale was never a thing, ever'
No, that's not what I said. I said that it was likely to cause them to enter in the attack, which is again demonstrated amply in other battles.
>http://militaryrevolution.s3.amazonaws.com/Primary%20sources/Longbow.pdf
A "source" that deals only in passing with Agincourt and the battles chronologically close to it, and notes that armor was very heavily modified around the 1430s precisely to deal with the threat that bows and arrows produced. He's also very intellectually dishonest when dealing with Agincourt, preferring to ignore the other chronicles, like the St Denis one, which say that the arrows were ineffective.
Clear navel anon, clear out your navel.
>>846671
I can't find this account by John Lydgate. What I found is a poem championing Henry V, falsely attributed to John Lydgate.
http://www.deremilitari.org/RESOURCES/SOURCES/agincourt.htm
This is Monstrelet's account. He wrote that the van division (seems like the first division) suffered casualties from arrows, and the arrow barrage caused massive panic and disorder. The English longbowmen immediately took advantage of the moment, and rushed into melee, slaying the division. The second division thereby had to fought them while being demoralized, because of the van division's collapses. The rear division simply ran away.
If we consider St. Denis' account too, I highly doubt the claim. It seems that most of the casualties came from routing troops, by melee.
Various comments about arrows losing effectiveness at range have caused me to do a bit of science.
Measure the effectiveness of a livery arrow at point blank and at range.
100# English lingbow, Osage not yew because I'm poor. Cronk speed at two meters 188 fps.
Livery arrow, 34" 1/2" dia at the fore, 3/8 at the nock, 7" goose feather fletching, horn reinforced nock, iron short bodkin point. Weight 1125.4 gn
First test. Full draw shot into the ground at two meters.
Result, the arrow penitrated five inches into dry beach sand.
Test two. Full draw shot at forty five deg elevation.
Result. Arrow flew 244 meters impacting at sixty degrees, the arrow penetrated five inches into dry beach sand.
Test three. Full draw shot at eighty deg elevation.
Result. Arrow penetrated six inches into dry beach sand impacting at minty degrees thirty meters down range.
Conclusion.
An arrow with a high weight to drag ratio will regain energy on the decent.
Anecdotal.
My bow and arrow combo can penitrate the door skin of an f150. If it does not hit the window winder it will pen the door card as well.
>>847509
The bodkin mentioned before
>>847509
The fletching.
>HYW was a war between England and France
It was a French civil war between French families for the throne of France. Yeah, some soldiers were English, but they fought for their French overlord.
>>838845
Because it's tactically obvious?
>>846134
Other armies could have used longbows, but you have to remember that the longbow was made from yew, which not a lot of European nations had access to and the sheer amount of training afforded to longbowmen meant that they were an investment that would only pay off in about a decade. The only reason the English were able to field such good quality longbowmen was because training with the longbow was engrained in their culture. Almost every boy from the age of 14 practiced every Sunday. A popular English saying from the time was: "If you want to train a good longbowman, start with his grandfather"
>>838729
A sprinkle of all I guess.
Most famously the battlefield of Agincourt has a very awkward soil that when wet becomes sticky.
It had rained so a men at arms who lost footing had a hard(er) time standing up again.
To add insult to injury the british had for financial reasons compensated with more archers.
The French aristocracy on the other hand had a sound strategy that was abandonned supposebly to engage "worthy" foe.
It is said that they practically ignored the archers who now in close range had a piercing chance and gave no quarters to any unfortunate enough to fall down which may seem cruel but so many prisoners were amassed that they posed valid threat whilst the main force was still beeing held at bay.
>>847652
>tfw all chroniclers refer to the war as a fight between England and France
>tfw reality is totally opposed to your meme analysis
>>846138
This, this, a million times this!
You can do more with 7000 men than you can with 1000. It's basic numbers. Just like today you're not in battle 24/7, even during sieges. Tents need to be put up and taken down, latrines need to dug, carts and wagons loaded and unloaded, food prepared, equipment checked and repaired, orders and messages delivered, barricades and defences put up and a million other things to do to keep an army going. 7000 men, especially if they're only part time soldiers and things like blacksmiths, cartwrights, grooms, butchers, cooks, porters etc in their normal life, will do this more quickly and efficiently than 1000 men who are minor gentry and used to getting other people to do those things.
That those 7000 men can shoot and harass the enemy from range and then close in and engage them hand to hand alongside the knights and men at arms is only part of their functions.
>>847509
>Test three. Full draw shot at eighty deg elevation.
Result. Arrow penetrated six inches into dry beach sand impacting at minty degrees thirty meters down range.
This would imply that the arrow would have about the same speed as fired from point blank as in your first test, which is impossible.
I think dry sand penetration might not be the best way to measure the momentum of an arrow.
In school, we learnt that the English archers fired in such a way that the French horses turned to avoid them and ended up running back through their own lines, trampling most of the French soldiers to death.
Now I think about it, I'm pretty sure our teacher was just seeing how much bullshit he could get away with.
>>838925
>charge on foot
No option really. Cavalry generally doesn't work well against prepared archers in good terrain trained to fire at individual targets because there's no good way to armor a horse.
If we're going to play armchair general, the decision to attack at Agincourt instead of elsewhere was the main issue. Blame overconfidence in numbers.
thump
>>838939
Archers were well-armored (not as well-armored as knights). They wore mail shirts and plate greaves and pauldrons. Some of the richer ones wore pretty good shit. They were also required to have a sword and a buckler on top of their war bow and arrows. It's only Greek history faggots who love to point out how lightly armored archers are.
>>838729
bad leadership, crecy on the other hand was raw skill, french btfo
