With my enrollment in a "warfare in the modern world" course I will, if people are intrested, post the classes most recent topic.

The title of the thread is the current one.

Discuss.

I think that would be cool.  Tell us what you learn.  I know very little of the battle other than the fact that mud played a key roll.

Ignorance.  The French discounted the ability of peasant bowman to thwart an assault by the flower of chivalry.   It became self evident that those peasants weren't schooled in the pleasantries and gentlemanly conduct of warfare.  Sorry about that old boy.

don't forget the mud

25 Oct. 1415 The battle of Agincourt

The battle was something King Henry wanted to avoid. He was low on supplies, food, and his men were very tired after running around northern France fighting.

On his way back to the port of Calais, and then to home, he got caught between two forests. The only way through this area was between them however; the french were waiting on the other side. The French had calvary and infantry, while the English had very little horse and mostly archers and infantry.

The english archers brought or made large wooden stakes to protect them as they fired volley after volley into the french. After the first volley however the French charged with calvary and infantry.

As stated above the land was very muddy and made worse by the charging horse, this slowed them down and gave the archers enough time to punish the French for every step. The French reached the English lines however they were  worn out from the long walk through the mud and taking heavy casulties. The French tucked tail and ran.

History says the English (who were vastly outnubmered) lost only a few hundred men while the French lost several thousand.

The French however won the "Hundred years war" which this battle was a part of.

While the fighting was going on several English supply wagons were raided by the French. Henery's men caught some of the raiders. Henery ordered they be killed, however, the English only killed a few because the rest could be ransomed off again once they reached England.

This battle was significant for a few reasons.
1) A numerically superior army was defeated on their own ground by a tired smaller force.
2) Archers with english long bows came on the scene.
3) The archers were more than just a new weapon they also threw the whole fudeal system into chaos due to the fact....these were COMMONERS! (only the "noble" could fight , commoners were low class and lacked the skill and God given right to fight in war)
4) This one of the first instances of an army using commoners with the Nobles. The commoners were paid and this is how we get the name "infantry" - comming from the word infant or low class. and Soldier - sold from germanic language meaning money, or paid.

Quoted: 25 Oct. 1415 The battle of Agincourt The battle was something King Henry wanted to avoid. He was low on supplies, food, and his men were very tired after running around northern France fighting. On his way back to the port of Calais, and then to home, he got caught between two forests. The only way through this area was between them however; the french were waiting on the other side. The French had calvary and infantry, while the English had very little horse and mostly archers and infantry. The english archers brought or made large wooden stakes to protect them as they fired volley after volley into the french. After the first volley however the French charged with calvary and infantry. As stated above the land was very muddy and made worse by the charging horse, this slowed them down and gave the archers enough time to punish the French for every step. The French reached the English lines however they were  worn out from the long walk through the mud and taking heavy casulties. The French tucked tail and ran. History says the English (who were vastly outnubmered) lost only a few hundred men while the French lost several thousand. The French however won the "Hundred years war" which this battle was a part of. While the fighting was going on several English supply wagons were raided by the French. Henery's men caught some of the raiders. Henery ordered they be killed, however, the English only killed a few because the rest could be ransomed off again once they reached England. This battle was significant for a few reasons. 1) A numerically superior army was defeated on their own ground by a tired smaller force. 2) Archers with english long bows came on the scene. 3) The archers were more than just a new weapon they also threw the whole fudeal system into chaos due to the fact....these were COMMONERS! (only the "noble" could fight , commoners were low class and lacked the skill and God given right to fight in war) 4) This one of the first instances of an army using commoners with the Nobles. The commoners were paid and this is how we get the name "infantry" - comming from the word infant or low class. and Soldier - sold from germanic language meaning money, or paid.

According to THC the bowman actually weren't that great of a asset in this fight as their arrows actually could not penetrate the steel armor the french were wearing. The demonstrated it as well the tips on the arrows would just bend.  The real factor was the mud and soft soil. The french litteraly got bogged down in it and made for easy pickings. Also another factor was that the french started in an area that was wider than where they were going to so their line was getting more and more compresses as the moved. People tripping and falling, getting stuck in the mud. A mess it was.

It was that show where they recreate the historic battles or whatever. interesting stuff though.

Quoted: I was always under the impression that the arrows from the Longbow could go through armour.

So are/were most people, but according to the info from the show the metals used in the bow tips was softer metal than that used in the making of armour.

Were the test bows actual 6'+ long bows, firing arrows set for a draw to the ear and bodkin tips? I'd imagine that they actually performed best on the horses. Falling from a charging horse in front of the other's hooves couldn't have been healthy.

Quoted: Were the test bows actual 6'+ long bows, firing arrows set for a draw to the ear and bodkin tips? I'd imagine that they actually performed best on the horses. Falling from a charging horse in front of the other's hooves couldn't have been healthy.

That I don't remember(it's been a bit since I saw the show)but the tips yes they were bodkin tips. The thing is that the tips were made from a softer metal then the armor was(according to the show). Next time they have the show on again I'll tape it or something.

The arrows could not penetrate the head or chest armor.  They were effective however against the arms and legs as well as the knight's horses.

Back to the mud.  It had been raining for days prior to the battle which took place in a field that had just been plowed.  In some places the mud was waist deep.  There were many soldiers that died from drowning. One of the advantages this gave the English is that they were lightly protected and some even barefoot making them much more mobile in the mud versus the heavily armoured French soldiers.

Quoted: With my enrollment in a "warfare in the modern world" course I will, if people are intrested, post the classes most recent topic. The title of the thread is the current one. Discuss.

Uhhhh do you go to SMU?

Cause I'm in that class.

(I realize it says MI in your locaton but maybe you're just from there?)

You get out about 2 weeks before school started?

Nope I go to a community college here in Michigan.

My instructor is 25 yrs retired Army, taught at west point, and several other accomplishments. Great guy to learn from.

Quoted: Nope I go to a community college here in Michigan. My instructor is 25 yrs retired Army, taught at west point, and several other accomplishments. Great guy to learn from.

Check out the hometown forums. Great group of guys over there.

Quoted: Nope I go to a community college here in Michigan. My instructor is 25 yrs retired Army, taught at west point, and several other accomplishments. Great guy to learn from.

That's nuts. Have the same course taught here. We were just discussing the same battle. Our prof is a Israeli Army Volunteer vet and a former USMC officer.

Well, it might be a bit redundant but hre's another link...
http://www.geocities.com/beckster05/Agincourt/AgBattle.html

No suprise really that a mass-produced bodkin point from a longbow could be deflected off of expensive plate armor from a master smith.  However the fact that these arrowheads were the point of choice indicates that they did have considerable value.  Armor was privately purchased, the quality of said armor would presumably vary.

Also, as other have pointed out, a bodkin point travelling at the velocities inherent to a 130-140 pound draw could at least partially penetrate chain mail, and even an inch-deep wound inflicted by a point firmly wedged in place by chain mail would be debilitating.

It is of interest to note that, this late in the Medieval Period, picks and bodkins (??? daggers consisting of only a spike) appear.  Both with short, stout points designed specifically to punch a hole in armor or mail, the pick wielded like a club, the bodkin like a dagger.

How many of the French fell to longbows is open to question, but surely many must have, as well as the horses.  The link implies that it was the effects of the English arrow storm that launched the impetuous French charges after four hours of waiting.

Of course what really did in the French was their own egos and disunity, as well as ingrained contempt for fighting commoners.  The English common soldiery however, hard-bitten campaigners with no illusions of nobility, had nowhere to run.  Perhaps the real import of those Agincourt longbowmen might be that they were an early precursor to a modern army.

Point of trivia, in England one shoot someone the bird not with a single raised finger but with a sort of backwards "V" for victory sign.  British lore has it that this obscene gesture dates from this same era when English archers were threatened by the French with the amputation of their bow fingers if captured.  These same archers defiantly holding up these same fingers to the French prior to altercations.

I recall reading somewhere that the English army was stricken with persisitent dysentery during this campaign, many soldiers fighting at Agincourt naked from the waist down.  Edward himself died of a similar afflication in France a few years later.

Birdwatcher

Not to try to hijack this thread but NOT everyone wore plate armour some had padded Jacks and some still used chainmaile as for a helm and body armour to be "Arrow proof" that was not the case. In the surviving samples or arms and armour there are many "suits" of armour that equate out to be around 18 Ga. steel. Metal then was a little different in relation to temperament and quality i.e. purity then it is now. To say a bodkin point could not pierce armour is a little far fetched. If you want to take a "knight" out of the fray you cut his horse down from under him then pick him open like a crab while he is down. Also is the misconception of a "knight" being lifted by wench on horseback due to the weight of armour later in the period the armour became thicker and harder due to two factors tilting "jousting" and the use of firearms on the battle field. I have added a few pictures to show you where I am coming from basically I do a 14th. Century German man at arms "knight for hire" impression on the weekend a little more hands on non of the fighting is choreographed it is all live action real speed nothing pulled.

I have an mp3 file of Kenneth Branagh's excellent "Band of Brother's" speech.  I will gladly send it to anyone who wants it.