Armored longbow men vs. Scots Guard

**SirGrotius** · 10-06-2006, 16:38

I noticed in maybe the MP blog that the blogger mentioned how British Longbow men were weakened in order to improve game balance.

Do we have word if flaming arrows are in or out? I always used them because I thought they looked cool, but found them a bit weird especially when they were used as often as they were. I assume this was very ahistorical.

**Dracula(Romanian Vlad Tepes)** · 10-06-2006, 20:27

In the battle of Agincourt the longbowmen had no effect.Their arrows couldn't pierce the France armor.But they had an effect with their swords because the france knights ignored inferior soldiers like longobowmen.The knights wanted to kill the british lords and king.

**Philippus Flavius Homovallumus** · 10-07-2006, 00:50

Thats not quite true. The Longbowmen's arrows got between the joints in the knight's armour, through their visors and generally caused mayhem. At 50 yards they would go through armour.

More importantly, not all warbows were simple weapons. Some were actually compound contruction, at the very least many were made from layered strips of yew. This improved power and durability.

**Dracula(Romanian Vlad Tepes)** · 10-07-2006, 07:07

That is true but the longbowmen didn't won the battle of Agincourt.

**Furious Mental** · 10-07-2006, 09:19

Invariably it's the case that no single tactical unit wins the battle although some might be more important than others. However you said the longbow had no effect and quite frankly that is rather difficult to believe, not least of all because unless the whole French army was wearing plate armour from head to foot the arrows were obviously going to find a vulnerable area and kill or injure people.

**Dracula(Romanian Vlad Tepes)** · 10-07-2006, 13:15

Yes that's true but they didn't killed so many men.They killed more with their swords because the French knights ignored the longbowmen.The battlefield won the battle for the english.If it was a normal battlefield the French would have won.

**spong** · 10-07-2006, 15:34

Yes and no.
As I think was mentioned elsewhere the English longbowmen combined with (as you mention) the difficult terrain significantly hampered the French charge/advance, the French were weakened enough for English troops (including the archers) to wade in and massacre the disorientated French knights - the common misconception is that the massed archer fire at Agincourt caused massive casualties, they did cause casualties but it was the disruption of the archer fire and muddy ground that left the French vulnerable and therefore gave the English an advantage in the melee. It's just the sort of situation which explains the evolution of thin stabbing daggers in medieval warfare, walking around the battlefield finding crippled knights and stabbing through their visors and joints in the armour.