[NEW MILLETIANS] Please note that all new forum users have to be approved before posting. This process can take up to 24 hours, and we appreciate your patience.
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the
Nexon Forums Code of Conduct. You have to register before you can post, so you can log in or create a forum name above to proceed. Thank you for your visit!
Duel Wielding Idea for Elves
Comments
The English army at Agincourt was comprised of mostly archers and other footmen and as they had been made common in the previous century, usually the entirety of the force would travel mounted and fight on foot when necessary. But also, by this time of the war, both sides relied on paid professional troops, mercenaries or full time troops instead of their regular levies. (This was probably as a result due to the population loss of the war and the Black Death 60-70 years prior). Whereas, in the early phase of the war, common troops were often killed after being captured, by this time, it was also valuable to ransom regular soldiers, in part because they now had money to pay. However, at Agincourt, Henry decided to kill all prisoners, because the English had no supplies to spare, plus their army was diseased anyway, couldn't even take care of themselves. Rather than trying to capture Henry, the French were hesitant to attack and were waiting for more reinforcements which were on the way. I believe there was confusion and a lack of centralized command. They had an opportunity to use their cavalry and mounted knights to defeat the English while the English moved their defensive positions, but failed to take the advantage and ended up attacking only after the English had completed redeploying. As with Crecy, the French failed to make use of their crossbowmen, by changing their deployment plans and placing them in the back line.
Also, the popular currency used on the continent at the time were Florins.
I think the only major battle where the French did themselves in seeking the spoils of war would be the Battle of Pavia.
But back to the topic on portable crossbows, armies preferred using crossbowmen over regular archers, because it was a lot more difficult to train archers and because of law, not many people could use a bow. Bows were used mainly in hunting but only certain people were permitted to hunt. It also took years of training until one became competent at archery. The Welsh were different because, living in a mostly forested and mountainous region, they relied on bows a lot, which is why the Welsh ended up supplying much English force of archers.
Crossbowmen, on the other hand were easy to equip and required very little training and were accurate. The power of crossbows was that the bolts used are armor piercing, which was made them preferable to have over bows. Also, assassins could be equipped with small crossbows and could take out their targets silently.
Smaller crossbows often had a trigger, where the bowman would insert the bolt in place, and firing. Why the larger crossbow with the pulleys and slower rate of fire were used? Because they had more range and could do more damage.
But as mentioned above, dual wielding crossbows may need the same type of ammunition as dual guns, because if only one shot can be fired at any one time with a crossbow, it will be a pain to reload. The only other way is to have a more mechanically advanced crossbow that can hold and fire multiple rounds of bolts before reloading, a revolver version of the repeating crossbow.
Ironically, most of French killed by the English archers were killed with their daggers rather than their bows, as the French, in full armour, fell down in the mud and became helpless.
Whereas the French army was indeed waiting for some Duke and their army or some such thing to show up first, Henry uprooted his steaks and moved his army forward so that the French fell within longbow range and began harassing them. Rather than falling back and calling up their crossbowmen though, the French heavy infantry, comprised of the nobility and their companions gave into their desires and charged. Although Henrys position presented a narrow front to the French which did create a funneling effect, the French heavy infantry still went straight at Henry and amplified the effect even more; and that's because Henry's shield might as well have had a $ painted on it.
Well, archers were made up of huntsmen and some nobles, generally people who had enough status to use a bow. Peasant levies for archers were usually ineffective because of their lack of training. By the 1400s, there were probably a lot more archers that became full-time professionals versus the 1300s. Archers are cheaper in the sense that they were cheaper to equip than other classes of soldiers.
With the Duke of Brabant arriving from the NE and the Duke of Brittany arriving from the West, they would have effectively cut off the English on all sides. The longbow was only effective at a certain range for killing, at longer distances, it was mostly a nuisance for advancing enemies, damaging armor and causing additional weight. Against cavalry, they would aim at the unarmored part of the horse, killing/wounding/or causing the horses to panic. Rather than being helpess in the mud, French cavalry casualties occurred due to being outnumbered as most of them had mostly been scattered off. The infantry suffered from fatigue having to go across the muddy field under fire, they lost from fatigue rather than the English beating them.
The defeat at Agincourt, caused by confusion and a lack of central command. Whereas, at Crecy, where there was a central command it was the overeagerness and rashness that led to defeat. King Philip during the Crecy campaign had decided to use a Fabian strategy, let the English march around the northern countryside aimlessly sacking and looting until they got tired. It was an unpopular strategy that eventually forced his hand to move out.
Indeed the French effort was disorganzied. Like any goldrush, they who get their first get the gold. So it was when those seeking the prize did all that they could to get to Henry first, and, well, the rest is History, as it was for the Happy Few on St. Crispins Day.
I believe you are referring to Yeomen, who were indeed commoners, but also landowners, part of the rise of the new middle class following the effects of the Black Death. But even then, there weren't so many landowners in the early part of the 1400s, I believe most of the archer pool for the English were still Welsh.
I still don't think the main objective was to capture Henry for money, that's just a bonus. But it was greed that led to Henry to go to war. The demand of Aquitaine along with a ridiculous dowry to marry the daughter of Charles VI. The French renegotiated a different dowry sum and a larger portion of land to which the English decided they wanted more.
Both sides needed money of course, but the French were more productive than the English and economically fared better than the English, who had their economy turned to ashes by Edward III who had defaulted on high interest rate loans.
Henry was lucky he got the victory at Agincourt, because overall, the other parts of his campaign was a disaster. Besieging Harfleur took way too long and made his army diseased, he decided to cut across Normandy to Calais which led to Agincourt, in which he was able to escape.
Despite the crushing blow to the French army, he was unable to capitalize immediately to pose a direct threat to Paris, and they didn't get any momentum until the death of Charles VI, and the succession crisis following that that led to the Anglo-Burgundian alliance against the Armagnacs.
For the French, Henry, being a Richard-head asside, was the prize on the field. Their avarice gave them the tunnel vision needed to concentrate them further than the confines of the battlefield did.
No, Henry likely ordered the execution due to being incapable to hold the captives for the rest of the campaign and from the frustration that the campaign had gone rather poorly. There were more prisoners than the remaining English force could keep an eye on for the remaining trip to Calais. The English had a sick army with little provisions. The French captives, other than being fatigued from crossing the muddy field were mostly healthy, and little mistake and the prisoners could've turned the tables on them, especially with 2 other French forces nearby. So, other than keeping the highest ranked nobles, everyone else had to die. There weren't too many French soldiers in this battle that didn't have status, probably only the crossbowmen.
Bounties were not common and not issued before battle to the regular army. Mercenaries would have received bounties, but they would have the terms written on their contracts for each mercenary group employed. To the French, Henry wasn't worth much, but they wanted to beat him badly. Henry was the one who needed money, which was why he resumed the war in the first place.
By this time, only the few remaining levied soldiers would be subject to fighting for their lives. Professional soldiers and anyone with a rank, which included squires and men-at-arms would be able to usually persuade the enemy for mercy and ransom.
Which was what I had said in several consecutive replies?
There are strategic effects to his decision as well. By executing most of the prisoners, it creates a mental shock to everyone else (when news spreads). That would be one way that will lead to nearby French forces to pause and think what on Earth was he thinking violating the common codes of engagement, and two, the intended reinforcements no longer had an numerical advantage to take on the English by themselves.That would allow him to get to Calais unscathed and also a strategic effect was that due to the casualties to a considerable amount of nobility, knights, and people holding office as a result of executions, it was nearly crippling to French governance, law and order.
Due to the not so great campaign, the English were weakened themselves, but the French would be sidelined for years because of the time needed to restore order to the country, in which they had struggled to do until the ascension of Charles VII.
His goal was to get to Calais, not engage the French in open battle. And it's every commander's responsibility to think of all the logistics and supply necessities for their force to survive a campaign and it's all part of the calculations to make such a decision.
His immediate goal was to be able to see the next sunset. A commander can't be thinking about logistics when he's in the middle of the fight of his life.
I'm pretty sure the decision to execute the prisoners happened after the main part of the battle had passed and they were not under any further immediate threat at the moment. It's not like they were in the middle of fighting and he was screaming "kill them all." That's the stuff for Shakespeare and other drama.
Of the actual events and what is recorded down in history yes, but I'm pretty sure he must've weighed the costs of if the French did quit the battle, they would have to drag a couple thousand prisoners for 50 miles to Calais with other French forces tailing them. I would say it's at least another 3 days march back then.
Yes, and people can write frigging anything they want in the history books as well. All I'm saying is that there are other factors that could have influenced his decision while you keep dabbling over the same facts over and over again.
I don't know why we started debating the events of Agincourt here, but I think it's time to stop because we are going nowhere but into the abyss from derailing this topic.
And elsewhere.
I wasn't alone in that.
Sounds good to me.
Guess it's time to rout like the French army.
If they are lead properly they do well enough; Napolean (At least until his enemies had finally learned how to fight him), Ms. D'Arc, and Chucky the Hammer proved that. On the other hand, no less than Aurther Wellesley himself, when asked about his assessment of Waterloo, put it best: "They came at us in the old manner, and we dispatched them in the old manner"; ouch!