Agincourt and the Longbow

[rik_uk3]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uy7DT_FTms0

This is really worth a watch.

 

[Biker]

I watched this very documentary about 4 weeks ago. Fascinating stuff.

I also saw a documenatry years ago on TV that said that at that battle a gunpowder small cannon was used for the very first time in anger and it killed an enemy soldier, it did clarify who had the gun though, the British of the French. Little factoid for you there.

 

[boatman]

Interesting video but nothing really new. Most of it is in John Keegan's book Face of Battle. Odd sound effect when a bow was drawn, I have never known a bow creak like that and would discard it if it did.

 

[HillBill]

Seen it before, it was proved to be inaccurate. The arrowheads they tested were neither properly made or sharpened and the power with which they tested it was much less than generated by the longbows of the time. The longbows were very effective. the English archers could loose 60,000 arrows per minute between them. Weather they took out knights or horses made no difference. A unhorsed knight was so much scrap metal in that mud. Most of the french knights were killed by daggers through visors. But were taken out of the fight by longbows. The english fought smart, the french fought like idiots relying on the power of a cavalry charge, in deep mud, uphill, with trenches dug infront of the english positions. To top it all the english had dysentry and had been chased half way round france before the battle. They got caught which is the only reason they fought, they were retreating and got cut off from the coast. They had to fight, so they did.

 

[Mesquite]

Seen it before, it was proved to be inaccurate. The arrowheads they tested were neither properly made or sharpened and the power with which they tested it was much less than generated by the longbows of the time.

You forgot to mention also that the arrowheads tested were bodkin points designed for penetrating chainmail, not plate armour.

 

[HillBill]

Aye, forgot about that one.

You forgot to mention also that the arrowheads tested were bodkin points designed for penetrating chainmail, not plate armour.

 

[Cromm]

As has been said before you didn't have to stick it in them to kill them. The shock force of the arrows hitting the armor would destroy the organs in the body. Nice.

 

[Wayland]

As has been said before you didn't have to stick it in them to kill them. The shock force of the arrows hitting the armor would destroy the organs in the body. Nice.

As both an archer and a former armourer I'm not quite sure where you get that idea from.

 

[Ogri the trog]

The shock force of the arrows hitting the armor would destroy the organs in the body. Nice.

I'm sure that given a reasonably accurate shot, the dents produced by arrows might prevent the armour from moving as it should - what I am less sure about is that Orc sized siege weapons were used at those battles.

Ogri the trog

 

[John Fenna]

Armour piercing arrows or not - If I saw some one drawing a bow on me I would run away as fast as my Milan armour would let me!
This goes double if I knew that the folk aiming at me knew they were trapped like rats in a barrel and had no option but to fight mean and viciously ...
Add mud and sharp knives (sounds like a typical Welsh meet!) and I would not be seen for dust!
Perhaps I am just more of a scaredy than Jonny Frenchman (or wiser with hindsight)!

 

[rik_uk3]

I'd always thought of school boy history, all the arrows falling from the sky etc which now turn out killed the horses and the archers went to town hand to hand so to speak.

Another good one
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsCkgX2epFw great stuff.