Yeah Agincourt casualties were from arrows that penetrated cheap wrought iron at weak spots or gaps, where riders were thrown from horses into the ground or wounded horses trampled into their own lines, or from the crush of soldiers, or soldiers who got trapped under the weight of their own armour drowning or suffocating in their suits and the mud. Also the archers straight up just killing them with daggers and mallets whilst they were stuck on the ground. And maybe a few point blank shots at the end of the battle pierced some of the high end stuff
Fucking hell, what a way to not want to die
Also on the power of the longbow:
Furthermore, the longbow in the hand of an experienced longbowman, packed quite a punch with its capacity to even puncture (early-period) steel armor over a substantial distance. This is what Gerald of Wales, the Cambro-Norman archdeacon and historian of 12th century, had to say about the Welsh longbow (the precursor to the ‘English’ variety)-
…n the war against the Welsh, one of the men of arms was struck by an arrow shot at him by a Welshman. It went right through his thigh, high up, where it was protected inside and outside the leg by his iron chausses, and then through the skirt of his leather tunic; next it penetrated that part of the saddle which is called the alva or seat; and finally it lodged in his horse, driving so deep that it killed the animal.
http://www.realmofhistory.com/2016/05/03/10-interesting-facts-english-longbowman/
Dank
Noting how powerful they were, it goes to show just how effective good plate armour (with padding beneath to boot) was, to be able to weather longbows more or less all right
In a modern test, a direct hit from a steel bodkin point penetrated Damascus mail armour.
However, even heavy-draw longbows have trouble penetrating well-made steel plate armour, which was used increasingly after 1350.
Recommended read in regards to modern testingStrickland and Hardy suggest that "even at a range of 240 yards heavy war arrows shot from bows of poundages in the mid- to upper range possessed by the Mary Rose bows would have been capable of killing or severely wounding men equipped with armour of wrought iron. Higher-quality armour of steel would have given considerably greater protection, which accords well with the experience of Oxford's men against the elite French vanguard at Poitiers in 1356, and des Ursin's statement that the French knights of the first ranks at Agincourt, which included some of the most important (and thus best-equipped) nobles, remained comparatively unhurt by the English arrows."
Modern tests and contemporary accounts agree therefore that well-made plate armour could protect against longbows, however there are a number of caveats to this point; not all plate armour was well-made or well looked after, and there were also weak points in the eye and air holes and joints where arrows could penetrate, meaning that even if the armour was proof against nearly all arrows, being shot at by thousands of longbowmen would have been an uncomfortable experience, physically and mentally. One contemporary French account described the barrage at Agincourt against French knights wearing plate armour as a "terrifying hail of arrow shot".
Oh hey, my armchair general thoughts on the psychological effects turned out to not be total bullshit
That basically makes me Armchair Henry
Author
Topic: Armchair General General - /AGG (Read 140141 times)