[QUOTE=Watchman]Just a little reminder, but even if disproportionate amount of the effective fighting power rested on the armoured shoulders of the men-at-arms, the vast majority of troops in Medieval armies were invariably of far lesser calibre of training and armament. Archery might not cause too many outright casualties amongst the elite heavies, but it sure could do a number on their lighter support troops. And when you consider the detail that such lesser troops were employed in as large numbers as possible and unhesitantly thrown into the thick of battle side-by-side with the heavies, this would obviously be of some notable tactical significance.[QUOTE]

When the French fought the English the French used almost exclusivly knights or very high level men-at-arms.

CBR, at Naysbey in the English Civil War it came down to the melee, even when the troops were less than a hundred feet apart. Muskets weren't that effective but they were demoralising. You can't get out of the way, you don't see it coming, it is loud and smoky and it knocks people off their feet. IIRC armour was rated against musket fire, often you'll see breastplates with a dent from amusket ball in, that was a proof of quality.