Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorien  I think you're overlooking the basic point of the arrow. It isnt designed to hit the knight. its designed to hit the bigger target, ie the horse or the massed ranks of peasant scum. a knight on his back in the mud isn't a threat to anyone, and barding was even less common than armour. Killing a knight was a bit of a fluke. |
Yes the majority of the French knights at agincourt died from being crushed and stood on. Some even drowned in the mud. The battle was faught in funnel shaped valley, with the English army at the small end and the French at the wide end. Once the Longbowman started to rain down their arrows, the French had no real option but to charge. But they got bogged down in the middle because of the mud and no room to manouver and the arrows kept on coming. The best thing about the story was that it was a tired, starved, diseased and defeated army which was trying to get back to England that beat the French creme de la creme. The French thought it was going to be an easy charge in and kill em all affair.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessica Nubtus Once armour continued to be developed, of course, the effectiveness of bodkins continued to wane. This is assuming an early stage of plate armour... |
I dont think thats true. I think the arrow continued to haunt the Knights. How dare the peasants kill them!!! The next invention to completely negate the need for plate armour was the musket!