From duel to fencing

[Teme]

Come to think of it, I was apparently talking about Agincourt when I though I was talking about Crecy... <sigh> them French locations are all the same to me.

Anyway, the French did learn how to beat the longbow, achieving many victories later in the war.

[Dev]

* I'm surprised you didn't bother with Agincourt. French heavy cavalry were indeed beaten here because they couldn't move. Many made contact with the English but in: so few numbers as to be ineffective; so encumbered with arrows they resembled a spiky metal hedgehog; slipping slimy mud, that they were quickly captured and killed (then or later).

It also helped that the French were trying to climb a steep, muddy hill--during a rainstorm--at Agincourt. Heavy armor or no, slogging up a mud mountain with five thousand longbowmen raining bodkins on you is going to be a losing proposition.

[Mark W.]

Just as an aside, the efficacy of longbow vs. plate is still hotly debated. At the very least, at Agincourt, I think arrows would certainly be effective against the horses, who would fall, sometimes taking the rider with him, and pinning him to drown in the mud. That being said, I'm no historian.

But it is true that knights would often dismount to fight if that's what was needed, and it certainly worked.

-Mark

[Gav]

One historian (Richard Holmes?) made the point that even if the arrow didn't penetrate deep enough to kill, or seriously injure, then it could restrict movement. You could snap off the the wooden shaft but this might leave a steel arrow point stuck in you - if you are peppered with tens [or more] arrows removing enough to avoid movement problems becomes difficult.

Not only that but if Mr Full Helm Plate-Armour missed his target he was left in a quandry. He could remove his helmet (or at least lift the visor if that was an option) so that he could see where his target had gone - opening himself up to the possibility of being sniped - or keeping his helmet on and getting lost (possibily ambushed).

One documentary (Arms and Armour?) showed what happens when you fire a bodkin at plate - it goes through.

[VELISARIOS]

This is complete rubbish.

The english lost at Bannockburn through a combination of training (Robert managed to train his troops to use the schiltron formation effectively), poor fore-planning (they arrogantly presumed that a heavy cavalry charge would wipe the scots from the field*), poor morale, poor weather and luck (they confused a rabble with well-trained troops). This is all on record. This actually has nothing to do with knights being unable to move or get up if they fell over. Complete rubbish.

* They had some reason, shiltrons had been employed by Wallace ineffectively. There is a lot of debate about whether Wallace could have won the battle of Falkirk had he been able to get the tactic to work. The Bruce learned from Falkirk. In any case a better example of how heavy cavalry could beat light troops.




First of all you quote wiki - poor poor research.

Secondly, and do I have to point this out again? Whether the loss was down to poor maneuvaribility (due to weight) is extremely debatable. Look again at the reasons why they lost. The simple fact was that the French chose poor tactics. They did not bother to learn the lessons from elsewhere. At this point the Longbow was the premier weapon of the battlefield. It doesn't matter whether you were on foot or not - shot by enough arrows you are probably dead. Knifed, bludgeoned, drowned in mud - you are dead.



There are other examples of foot-knights in plate fighting effectively. The italian cities made use of extensive mercenary units - many of whom fought in heavy armour on foot - and there are examples from the cursades of foot knights being employed effectively.

As I pointed out earlier the period during which Heavy plate armour was effective was very small. To use it properly you had to choose your ground (this goes for any cavalry), plan your battle (same as any other: pick your terrain, your time of engagement, use your troops effectively) and maintain discipline. The examples you list demonstrate how not to use it. They also demonstrate how quickly people thought of ways to counter the armour - none of this says anything about the individual knights and how they fought.

The simple fact was that the cost vs benefits of heavily armoured knights against lightly armed troops (properly deployed) demonstrate that you were better off with suitable armed peasants. Even the Samurai learned this lesson when they went up against the musket (although to be fair they managed to find a way of dealing with that: toss the foreigners out and ban gunpowder weapons).

The end of plate came about because the enemy learned how to counter it. They learned how to defeat the massed charge, how to penetrate the armour, how to deal with an unhorsed knight (typically with a dagger in a vulnerable area) - but make no mistake these men were fearsome warriors. The idea that they couldn't get up if they fell over, or that they were unable to even get on a horse, or that this idea was anywhere near a normal occurrence*, is just stupid.

* I'm surprised you didn't bother with Agincourt. French heavy cavalry were indeed beaten here because they couldn't move. Many made contact with the English but in: so few numbers as to be ineffective; so encumbered with arrows they resembled a spiky metal hedgehog; slipping slimy mud, that they were quickly captured and killed (then or later).

Hi Gav,
The people of the Italian cities used the heavy armor but they are not knights and they do not wear full plate armors.They were foot soldiers with half plate armor. I do not say for them. There were foot soldiers and they wear heavy armors like the 'black legion' (the German mercenaries).

http://www.cantabrianet.com/minimimi...egion_1505.jpg
(the above pic. is from miniature)
http://www.st-mike.org/german/images/lkarmor1.jpg

The great German warriors which fought with the flaunchburg sword. But they were foot soldier. All their live trained to fight like this.

I have my objection for the knights (and I mean the heavy cavarly of the late Mediaval chronical era and renesance).
Like the following:

http://www.knightsandarmor.com/knight3.jpg
or
http://www.imperialweapons.com/armour/700-am.jpg
or
http://tongtao.com/image/metmuseum/knights01.jpg

How do you suppose to fight this knights if they fall from their horses in the mud? It is to difficult to go up.

Look the folowing:
'Polish king Sigismund August II wore this suit of armor in battle in the 16th century. The armor was quite flexible but extremely heavy, and a soldier in a suit of armor usually needed help to mount a horse. During the late Middle Ages, fully plated armor evolved from the more penetrable earlier suits to provide more complete protection to warring knights.'

http://images.encarta.msn.com/xrefme...0/T040811A.jpg

There was an example of a king of England. He was fight his enemies and an arrow-what else killed his horse. The king fall and lay down helpless. His enemies has seen his fall and run against him to kill him. The king see them but he can not stand up because his armor was so heavy and he lay down helpless. His enemies try to kill him but his armor was so perfect and nothing can hurt him and he laught against them. Then some knights come and help him.

In Crusades era there are no heavy armors(plate armors etc). There are chain armors. And offcourse this knights fight very good even without their horse.

I agree with you about how the plate armor stop used. And offcourse the knights and the heavy cavarly were the true terror in a battlfield. I speak only for specific cituations.

CU all
and be healthy

[Inquartata]

The business about knights being unhorsed and then slain on the ground while unable to get up probably goes back to one famous incident: I think it was a Philip of Burgundy during the Swiss Wars, but a quick search by someone who knows what terms to enter should turn up the incident. I think in that case the terrain was also muddy, and the foot kept the knight from being able to rise with polearms.

Kill a Duke this way and you are likely to get a myth built up about it.

At Agincourt not only was the field muddy but there was a great press of men which impeded them from rising once they had tripped or been knocked over. The English wreaked great death amongst the French dismounted knights with mallets, and more were probably killed by suffocation. Not much supprt there for the unwieldiness of armour.

There is a contemporary document which asserts that a knight who could not vault into his saddle in full harness without using the stirrups wasn't much of a knight.

One of Henry VIII's tournament armours was used in designing the space suits for the US space program. It was a model of flexibility and articulation. Those people knew what they were doing.

[AllenJ]

Armor such as this:
http://images.encarta.msn.com/xrefme...0/T040811A.jpg
was never intended to be used in battle. This is parade armor. There is still the misconception that people run into when they read that armor was very heavy. This is such a relative term. What may be very heavy to a pencil pusher doing a write up for a museum certainly is not very heavy to a guy who is in shape and regularly works with the stuff.

There is never a point in time where people only fought with one type of weapon or used one type of sword.

The facts are these- Real historical armor was not so heavy that people could not get up if knocked down nor had to be hoisted into saddles. Armored fighters were on foot as well as on horses and fought well both ways. Armor is effective. It is not impenetrable. Not everyone fought in armor. Some fought in partial or no armor...and fought well. Gary Worsfield has no idea what he's talking about.

I may or may not continue reviewing this article. It is just so horribly bad that it would take forever to get through the whole thing. I think the point is made that it is not a reliable source of information. There are mountains of myths and misconceptions out there about the history of swordsmanship. And it is only through our own research that we find out what they are, and to stop taking the word of any hack that writes something on the web and gives himself a fancy french title.

I suggest anyone who has further interest in this stuff to read anything here:
http://www.thearma.org/essays.htm
http://www.fioredeiliberi.org/
http://www.schielhau.org/
http://freywild.ch/i33/i33en.html

These are places where people know what they are talkign about and can back their research up with period info as well as modern practice.

[Gav]

Thanks AllenJ,

Some good points there.

If anyone wants to see some of the stuff we've been talking about I remember that Channel 4 did a series of programmes (Arms and Armour I think; available from the National Armoury in Leeds) demonstrating some of the concepts we've been talking about in easy to understand half hour episodes. IIRC: the episodes on Swords, Armour and shields are really interesting. I'd also recommend War Walks (presented by Richard Holmes). His depiction of Agincourt is especially good (and his books aint bad either).

[AllenJ]

Just read this today and felt this was appropriate to share here:
"That there are persons of mistaken ideas in almost ever Art or Science, is what few will deny. Yet I am inclined to believe there are more erroneous opinions entertained with reguard to the Art of using the Sword than on most other subjects."
Joseph Roland, "Amateur of Fencing" 1809

[JyJy]

One documentary (Arms and Armour?) showed what happens when you fire a bodkin at plate - it goes through.

HI!

Well, I saw a documentary where they shot a bodkin at plate - that
bodkin bent and didn't go through. So what's the truth about bodkin vs
plate?

JyJy

[Inquartata]

That if the experiment wasn't with a period bodkin, shot from a period bow at period armour, we still don't know.

[JyJy]

That if the experiment wasn't with a period bodkin, shot from a period bow at period armour, we still don't know.

It was a period bodkin and a period bow, I don't know about the plate
they used.

JyJy

[VELISARIOS]

And History channel is good one and War and Civilization.

[VELISARIOS]

No AllenJ.
This armor : http://images.encarta.msn.com/xrefme...0/T040811A.jpg
belongs to the Polish king Sigismund August II wore this suit of armor in battle in the 16th century. And there were and other armors like this one and used from kings, prince, and rich knights.

[AllenJ]

It was a period bodkin and a period bow, I don't know about the plate
they used.

JyJy

The breastplate is a variable as well. If it's made the way the period ones were or not and at what distance it was shot at. As I mentioned above there is also the issue of the real target being a moving one. In addition the breastplate would be worn with a gambeson or some sort of padding underneath. All that would change the results of the experiment as well.

[AllenJ]

No AllenJ.
This armor : http://images.encarta.msn.com/xrefme...0/T040811A.jpg
belongs to the Polish king Sigismund August II wore this suit of armor in battle in the 16th century. And there were and other armors like this one and used from kings, prince, and rich knights.

Granted he may have worn it TO the battle but there is no way he is going to be fighting. Especially by the 16th century, you aren't going to find very many members of nobility doing the actual fighting. Thats what they had their army for.

[JyJy]

The breastplate is a variable as well. If it's made the way the period ones were or not and at what distance it was shot at. As I mentioned above there is also the issue of the real target being a moving one. In addition the breastplate would be worn with a gambeson or some sort of padding underneath. All that would change the results of the experiment as well.

HI!

Distance was something like 20- 30 meters. Plate was square piece of 'steel they would have used those days', against haystack.

They used bodkin and other kind of arrowheads (which had better piercing
properties, I can't remember what it was called), both made of iron.
So, were bodkins made of iron or did they use steel?

JyJy

[Mark W.]

I may or may not continue reviewing this article. It is just so horribly bad that it would take forever to get through the whole thing.

I for one would like to see you continue, if only for the fact that I haven't been able to stomach his whole article thus far. Seriously, though... someone needs to match him point for point, and perhaps turn it into an online article. Since you've already made such a fine start, might as well finish to the bitter, bitter end.

-Mark

[VELISARIOS]

Perhaps
Because many leaders went to battle but they did not fight.

[AllenJ]

HI!

Distance was something like 20- 30 meters. Plate was square piece of 'steel they would have used those days', against haystack.

They used bodkin and other kind of arrowheads (which had better piercing
properties, I can't remember what it was called), both made of iron.
So, were bodkins made of iron or did they use steel?

JyJy

Ah! Theres the reason why it might have been able to penetrate. If you notice, breastplates arent square bits of steel and people running with gambesons underneath aren't hay. Look at how most breastplates are curved or angled on the front:
http://www.myarmoury.com/albums/disp...album=12&pos=9
http://www.myarmoury.com/albums/disp...lbum=12&pos=59
http://www.myarmoury.com/albums/disp...lbum=12&pos=57
http://www.myarmoury.com/albums/disp...lbum=12&pos=63
http://www.myarmoury.com/albums/disp...lbum=12&pos=76
http://www.myarmoury.com/albums/disp...lbum=12&pos=96
http://www.myarmoury.com/albums/disp...bum=12&pos=142

It would be much harder to hit on target with the angles like that. (thus the reason breastplates were done that way)