Battle of Agincourt

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Wikipedia
The English archers were thrown forward in wedge-shaped salients. Many archers were naked below the waist due to the continuing dysentery of the march, and the Englishmen's last meal was four days previous. Once in formation, the archers were not allowed to leave and had to relieve themselves where they stood.

[/ QUOTE ]Where's William Castle when we need him?

[ QUOTE ]
The French always had the advantage of population, so they always took the "cannon fodder" approach to warfare.

[/ QUOTE ] This is surprising to read. In which instances did the French adopt the "canon fodder" approach? The Napoleonic Wars show quite the oposite, in fact. Where did that "always" come from?

If you are referring to the numerical asymmetry between the invading English and the defending French, it is usually the case that the invader is numerically inferior to the invaded population, generally speaking. (The "cannon fodder approach" in World War I was a universal "approach" and not a French specialité.)

[daveymck]

There was a documentary on UK tv last year that questioned the popular beliefs of the battle. They set up experiments to show that the longbows and arrows in use could not have pierced the armour of the attacking French and that the mud and overcrowding had more of an effect on the battle, allowing the non armoured archers to run out and engage in hand to hand combat which is likely what killed the majority of attackers rather than the arrows.

Not sure if other scholors support this theory or not.

[Exsubmariner]

Have I unintentionally authored a poo thread? Perhaps I should retitle it as "a famous day without pants." [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[Andy Ross]

[ QUOTE ]
...with their superior numbers and Crossbow men

[/ QUOTE ]

This is purely from memory, but I don't think that the French crossbowmen were capable of any significant action that day. They were soaked from the rain, and their bowstrings were damp, rendering the weapons almost useless. The string for the English longbow, on the other hand, had an easily removable and replaceable bowstring, so they had kept their strings out of the rain.

[miajag]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...with their superior numbers and Crossbow men

[/ QUOTE ]

This is purely from memory, but I don't think that the French crossbowmen were capable of any significant action that day. They were soaked from the rain, and their bowstrings were damp, rendering the weapons almost useless. The string for the English longbow, on the other hand, had an easily removable and replaceable bowstring, so they had kept their strings out of the rain.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe that was at Crecy, not Agincourt, but I could well be mistaken.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
There was a documentary on UK tv last year that questioned the popular beliefs of the battle. They set up experiments to show that the longbows and arrows in use could not have pierced the armour of the attacking French and that the mud and overcrowding had more of an effect on the battle, allowing the non armoured archers to run out and engage in hand to hand combat which is likely what killed the majority of attackers rather than the arrows.


[/ QUOTE ]Location, location, location.

[Andy Ross]

You're right: it was at Crecy. Wikipiedia mentions the weather effects on the crossbow strings at Crecy, and not at Agincourt. It was just my imperfect memory digging out something that sounded familiar, and therefore right.

[LittleOldLady]

[ QUOTE ]
You're right: it was at Crecy. Wikipiedia mentions the weather effects on the crossbow strings at Crecy, and not at Agincourt. It was just my imperfect memory digging out something that sounded familiar, and therefore right.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am bumping this to pass along a URL which may be of interest to all you military history buffs:
www.deremilitari.org

This gives access to an extensive collection of primary and secondary sources on medieval and early modern warfare. The site contains the writings of the most respected military historians of the period. For example, check the what's new section for comments on Crecy by Kelly DeVries.

(Wikipedia is, of course, not reliable because any fool can write any nonsense and post it, and when someone knowledgeable does write an entry, any fool can come along and change it. At the moment the medieval historians are discussing whether and how to monitor wikipedia, since every time an expert removes some misconception about the Middle Ages, some dunce puts the erroneous material right back in.)

[Andy Ross]

Thanks very much: I love this stuff. The uni that I did my degree at had a phenomenal libary for compilations of these sorts of things. I'd wander through there reading whatever seemed interesting. The uni that I'm doing my postgrad work at has nothing like this, and I greatly miss it. You've made my life that little bit better.