French Armour, English Longbowmen, Agincourt.. EU Rewriting History!

reply to post by generik


I have an over formed right shoulder from 7-8years of archery,biggest bow is 75lb.(approx 34kg)
I also have busted nerve endings on my middle finger from drawing that weight regularly,even though I use 3 fingers.
Damned near impossible to draw with only 2 fingers(for me anyhow).
Those guys who trained from childhood and ended up on 200lb bows must have had huge shoulder muscles,and fingers like iron.
And a heavy bodkin tipped arrow would do serious damage-even if it bounced off armor,there would have been big potential for shockwave injuries,including broken bones and internal bleeding.
Not a nice way to go.

reply to post by buddha


Ha my headmaster told me that story years ago when I was little. Its not a rude gesture, its a proud gesture of defiance, its saying 'we arn't afraid of you and we will kill you!' today it means F off but it should be a defiant gesture that means 'I wont submit to you'.

reply to post by Prozium


You dont have to have been a participant to be proud of something. Its history and some of us enjoy history and like knowing what really happened. To act like history is pointless is really ignorant. You can be proud of what your ancestors accomplished, just like you might be proud of for example your fathers accomplishments. Most of us though just enjoy history and if you dont and think its pointless because it happened a long time ago then maybe you should stop wasting your time in a thread about history and go away.

As much as I usually agree with any anti-EU sentiments, there is nothing in this article that is trying to "rewrite history in favour of the French". It purely measures the effects of wearing heavy plate armour, which is fairly obvious. Carrying any sort of weight around increases energy usage and tires a person out. French heavy armour has long been considered a contributing factor in their defeat.

One point I picked up on in this thread, not sure who mentioned it, is Milanese plate armour. The article doesn't mention Milanese plate anywhere. While Milanese is generally considered a style of armour design, it is best known for it's protective policies. It's true that Milanese plate was all but impervious to longbows in later periods once they developed the ability to temper the armour. If I remember rightly this wasn't until the early 16th century and moved warfare into the pike and musket era. This is the armour that is generally shown in the "mythbuster-type" shows that try to make out that the longbow wasn't able to penetrate plate armour. This was well known. The last real use of the longbow in open warfare (mercenaries fighting in Italy) was against cavalry protected with tempered armour. The longbowmen were massacred. At the time of Agincourt, the longbow was still the supreme battlefield weapon.

One poster mentioned the use of shields. These had gone out of fashion by this point and were seen as an extra encumbrance that wasn't needed by a man in plate armour. The fashion was for use of two-handed weapons for extra offensive capabilities in order to penetrate the opponents plate. It happens throughout history that one development in warfare technology changes the entire face of warfare.

However, french crossbowmen usually had extremely large shields known as pavises in order to shelter behind whilst reloading their crossbows because they didn't have heavy armour. If you look up the battle of Crecy (70 years before Agincourt), the French actually made use of their crossbowmen (unlike agincourt) but attacked before the pavises arrived with the baggage train, so the crossbowmen were murdered by the English archers.

The point about having to train from childhood to develop the strength and ability to use the longbow is extremely valid. Firearms found great favour in later periods despite their amazingly poor accuracy due to the short period of time needed to train a man to proficiency. Wellington is said to have remarked that given a battalion of medieval longbowmen he could have kicked the French out of the peninsula in 6 months.

reply to post by Silcone Synapse


The idea was that so many arrows would find the gaps. Also it might indeed take 3 fingers but with those two missing the 3rd on its own cant draw a bow! There is a guy on some doc videos who uses a full power longbow as well, he is indeed in amazing shape and he used just two fingers with a leather sort of thing on his fingers/hand.

The romans sheilds as well could still be penetrated so that formation isnt as great as the movies make out. The problem is that they cant stay hiding in that formation forever and will get hit when they break. I think the horses would be felled easily by the archers as well, the archers used something like 16 different arrowheads for different things and some were designed to cause maximum injury to unarmoured horses. With heavy sheilds as well it would be a challenge to keep them above your head for so long, during these times sheilds evolved to be much smaller and couldnt protect against a high volly of arrows.

reply to post by CrankyPantsUK

Because history is being re wrote by the EU to make a politically correct history lesson.

Welcome to the club. They already did that to American - actually British colonial history.
The First Thanksgiving Hoax

Here is more on the rewriting of history:

... Over the last quarter-century, historians have by and large ceased writing about the role of ruling elites in the country's evolution. Or if they have taken up the subject, they have done so to argue against its salience for grasping the essentials of American political history. Yet there is something peculiar about this recent intellectual aversion, even if we accept as true the beliefs that democracy, social mobility, and economic dynamism have long inhibited the congealing of a ruling stratum. This aversion has coincided, after all, with one of the largest and fastest-growing disparities in the division of income and wealth in American history....Neglecting the powerful had not been characteristic of historical work before World War II. ... hnn.us...

History teaches us very important lessons and therefore it is carefully rewritten to get across the message our MASTERS wish us to learn....

reply to post by cheesyleps

Excelent post


I personally think that this is an attempt to rehabilitate this utterlly defeated French army and lessen the feats of ordinary Englishmen (and Welsh and Irish contingent).

Kicking up a fuss about it may seem petty to some, but as you know, give the EU an inch and befpre you know it soveriegnty is gone and history for future generations gets sanitized and changed to suit their aims.

Screw them!

Those ancient warriors stood up for our future and we should stick up for their past.

Thanks for all the informative posts

A very interesting read!

All this talk of Longbows has got my fingers twitchy-I am heading off to the woods to shoot of a few dozen arrows.
I may even give Pierre my french buddy a call,see if he wants to re enact Agincourt with me...
I doubt he will though...he never does for some reason.

Pluck Yew.

Originally posted by Silcone Synapse
All this talk of Longbows has got my fingers twitchy-I am heading off to the woods to shoot of a few dozen arrows.
I may even give Pierre my french buddy a call,see if he wants to re enact Agincourt with me...
I doubt he will though...he never does for some reason.

Pluck Yew.

Lol

Pluck yew too! Haha

As a 40 year old man, I would soo like to play that game!


I would love to have a crack with a longbow, I think I will look for some archery clubs myself, although i wouldnt hang around if i forget my glasses!

reply to post by CrankyPantsUK


It only took 3 days for the Normans to invade England so of course the French are no match for them.

Originally posted by bluemirage5
reply to post by CrankyPantsUK

 

It only took 3 days for the Normans to invade England so of course the French are no match for them.

The Norman army landed in 1066 gained control of England by 1077 and put down the last remnants of battle in 1088... all in all...hardly 3 days.

While the Normans themselves where mostly Northmen..

reply to post by bluemirage5


What people forget is that the English Army had to march from Yorkshire to Hastings within 3 weeks to fight at Hastings. They where knackered. Look at the dates on the following info:-

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by thoughtsfull


Absolutely correct. These Nosemen were so much trouble, that the French crown granted them lands in Normandy in order to stop them pillaging the French countryside. Do you realise that if and when William becomes King he will also become the Duke of Normandy? Full circle or what?

reply to post by thoughtsfull


If you look at past history, it took only 3 days for them to invade all of England and the Saxons were no match for their distantly related Norman cousins. Of course it took alot longer to take full control; we all know that.

reply to post by TheLoneArcher


You are correct. Nice touch to that, huh?

reply to post by bluemirage5


Actually, the Normans had it a tad easier than that. Duke William expected to meet stiff resistance on approaching London. In fact, he was greeted with open arms and recognised as the legitimate successor to the crown. There was resistance from the Saxon population of course, but this was brutally put down and there was never a real pitch battle after Hastings.

My wife is of Norman decent and we both belong to a Viking association based in Normandy. On a couple of occasions we have taken our drakar down the Seine and re-enacted the pillaging of Paris.

reply to post by TheLoneArcher


It was'nt quite like that because the Saxons amoured up to await their arrival.......and were tricked in to thinking the Normans were coming in from the East I think it was.......and the Normans arrived from the South and West, coming up behind them. I will need to scratch up on my history but that was the jest of it and the rest was history.

reply to post by bluemirage5


Hummm, maybe I will have to look through my books again. I certainly know there was never a battle for London.
But, if I am wrong, then I stand corrected. Thank you.

It would be interesting to know what England, or indeed the British Isles would be like today if the shield wall had held at Hastings.

reply to post by TheLoneArcher


Both my great grandfathers were Normans too, one of them was the first to ever marry a Saxon....and the last.

reply to post by bluemirage5


I am originally from the Midlands, the town of the DeMontforts. My name is derived from the French Moulin. I would be intereste to follow my line back and see where it leads.

I should not actually mention that down here where I live. The DeMontfort family are hated by the locals for what he and the French army did during the Albigensian Crusade.