Printable View
Oh yeah, i use depleted cav units as wedge too. Saves time on sorting out their direction.
P.s. Agincourt was won by the English due to many factors.
- The French used crossbows (outranged by longbow).
- The French got stuck-in-the-mud.
- The English had all their longbowmen positioned on elevated left and right flanks.
- Henry V St.Crispin speech gave +3 morale. ~;)
Swordsmen in wedge gets a special bonus v spearmen as they negate the spear rank bonuses. Makes swords a lot better so always use wedge when you face spears. Of course a big difference in upgrades will still give spears the victory..
If I want to exploit holes in a enemy line I use units in columns of 4 files or less as they are better than the wedge formation.
And longbows wasnt the correct weapon against heavily armoured dismounted Men-at-Arms ~;)
The French didnt use their missile units at all as they pushed them aside when their main line of Men-at-Arms attacked. They actually had a lot of archers too (according to at least one source)Quote:
The French used crossbows (outranged by longbow).
CBR
The longbow would have done much against Heav Arm M-A-A because the bodkin arrow was designed to penetrate armour.
Yes it was better at penetrating armour than broad-head arrows. Chainmail wasnt very good versus such arrows but full plate armor started appearing in early 15th century.
Not all would have had such armour by the time of Agincourt but we do know how northern Italian plate armor was produced and exported in big numbers so it wasnt that rare.
Such armour being smooth and angled meant arrows were not that effective against it. Short range shots could still hurt and wound men in arms or legs. If walking into a rain of arrows it would force men to keep their heads and visor down. The combination of wounding and reduced command and control might have had a disordering effect on a dismounted attack but the number of killed men would have been low and arrows alone were not expected to stop such an attack.
With the introduction of plate armour the Men-at-Arms stopped using shields and as shields were good at stopping arrows that does indicate shields werent really needed anymore. Several tests I know of shows that arrows couldnt penetrate torso/head armour at 50 yards but could still go through the thinner arm/leg armour.
At Agincourt the English archers could have shot perhaps something like 150000 arrows against the first French line advancing of about 6-8000 men. If they were so good at hitting their targets as well as penetrating armour, as some people like to think, then the sources would have told a different story of the battle than what we can read. ~:)
CBR
The Longbowmen did not play as bigger part in the winning (with their missiles) as it is commonly thought. The missiles were having less and less effect as the 100 years war dragged on. The key difference with Agincourt and an earlier battle like Crecy is the quality of the armour. As has been said plate was being used far more extensively but the bodkins could still penetrate this (albeit they had to hit from a closer range and the right angle). However, an advancement in armour had been made, steel was beginning to be used. Steel proved to repel arrows and the hey-day of the Longbow was over (IMO).
The biggest part the archers played was in melee, the French heavy infantry headed for the English infantry which was in the centre. The English infantry was of much smaller numbers and the terrain also funelled the French. The wait of numbers and impetuosity of the French half won the battle in itself. The wait of numbers was dreadful as was the mud, a man who fell down would not be able to get back up (if in plate). The archers, deployed on the flanks, were ordered to engage once the French engaged the English men at arms. The French were so cramped they could not swing their weapons and the English were a hell of a lot more maneuverable in their light armour. The longbowmen cut the French down in their droves, the French crowded in and squeezed themselves.
What happened was a complete disaster for the French - the terrain was completely unsuitable for them to fight on. The soil has been analyzed and shown to become dangerous when wet. It becomes like quicksand and sucks you in - it is damn impossible to get out of in plate.
Split thread from the Main Hall.
IMO, the french lost mainly because most of their leaders were silly arrogant bastards, as usual.
The french connetable's plan was perfectly planned, but he forgot that french nobles and retainers were morons
There was a difference in armour but I would say the key difference between the two battles was that at Crecy the French mainly made mounted attacks. Some sources say up to 15 charges were made against the English line. Mounted attacks against a prepared line of dismounted Men-at-Arms might not have been the best even if there were no bows involved.Quote:
Originally Posted by mablung of the heavy hand
Although there was no mud as at Agincourt the English had time to prepare to battlefield and had dug lots of potholes just to disrupt charging cavalry formations. Parts of the battlefield at Aljubarrota has been excavated and shows how extensive it could be done: 100 yards deep belt of holes with one pothole per yard (each one feet square and deep)
Some more info can be found here: The Development of Battle Tactics in the Hundred Years War
CBR
The hill at crecy near wadicourt was one of those hills that look quite small when you are at the foot of the hill but once climbing it is far from easy, especially as arrow fire is destroying you from above. The cavalry if not repelled from the stout men at arms would have had there horses legs broken by trenchs and injured by Caltrops which were dug by the welsh and english light infantry.
It is important to note that the main fighting was launched against the Prince of Wales (Although actual command was under the Earl of Warwick) battle or division as the oriflamme was brought out to show no mercy would be showed to the enemies of France. The Conroi of the French cavalry attacked Edwards lines 16 times with the climatic charge of the Czech horse under Charles of Bohemia being butchered by the Earl of Northamptons division on the the English left now enganging the battered French army in its right flank.
Prince Edwards postion was only reinforced by the great Bishop of Durham with 20 men at arms throughout the eight hour battle, with the French army loosing 1,542 kings, lords, counts and the all other flowers of nobility plus thousands of dead footsoldiers.
During the time the HYW was fought over it became de rigeur for men-at-arms - that is to say, professional warriors in good armor, be they knights, retainers or gay Martians - to be equally good at fighting mounted and on foot. And in large battles most of them usually went on foot, toting swords and axes and assorted polearms.
By Agincourt armour "up to date" would have included generous amounts of solid plate, with mail mostly used to defend the ever-troublesome inner joints. That sort of thing was tough to crack even with a strong crossbow or a recurve composite bow, and rendered the wearer almost imprevious to the utlimately rather primitive longbows. Still, direct hits at close range could still penetrate, especially at the limbs where the plates were usually thinner (to save weight).
Of course, that was the top of the line. Poorer warriors, who made up the bulk of all formations, made do with what they could loot or afford, but on the other hand Frankish heavy infantry carrying large shields and wearing long mail hauberks was sufficiently arrow-proof to screen Crusader horse from Turkish horse-archers in the Middle East... Infantry were generally more resistant to missiles than cavalry, whose mounts were an awfully big and vulnerable target especially before decent barding came to use (at Agincourt the French cavalry wings who initially attacked the British longbowman wings only had the front barding, to save weight and allow speed; horses only started spooking from arrows after the longbowmen managed to chase them off and could shoot at the beasts' unshielded rumps...).
My POV is that our ultimate defeat over there is that even the real location's name has been altered by the victors ; city's name is Azincourt...
That being said, what I had read is that longbowmen didn't make the difference with their bows, rather with their daggers. The weather being so poor that bows were less efficient. And against a knight stuck on the ground, a dagger is a better weapon than a wet bow.
Finally, we froggies should thank you Roastbeafs for Azincourt : there we got rid of this German nobility..... :charge: ~D ~;)
Don't forget the big mallets they'd originally used to hammer in their stake-hedges. I've read many of those buggers had heads of lead. Turned out to work pretty well for knocking down men-at-arms too, and in that mud and in their condition they weren't going to get up very fast...