You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

General and Strategy Discussion
Moderated by John the Late

Hop to:    
Welcome! You are not logged in. Please Login or Register.8 replies
Age of Kings Heaven » Forums » General and Strategy Discussion » The English Long Bow Vs Real Armor
Bottom
Topic Subject:The English Long Bow Vs Real Armor
ephestion
Squire
posted 05-13-20 00:42 AM CT (US)         


"To love Christ -means not to be a hireling, not to look upon a noble life as an enterprise or trade, but to be a true benefactor and to do everything only for the sake of love for God." —St John Chrysostom
"When one returns to the Greek; it is like going into a garden of lilies out of some, narrow and dark house." -Oscar Wilde.
AuthorReplies:
Kataphraktoi
Squire
posted 06-21-20 01:28 PM CT (US)     1 / 8       
I saw that video quite a ways back. Its a good one to debunk armchair historians who think longbows can skewer three knights at once with a single shot at 300meters. Probably weak points in the armour, hits to the face, rear, or directly from behind account for most actual kills.

"Excellent could be any map that has the quality of a ES random map or ES scenario. AoK is an excellent, award winning game. That's where I'd start." -AnastasiaKafka

"Hard work is evil. Bitmaps are stupid. Working on a scenario for more than one afternoon is stupid. Triggers are stupid. Testing your own scenario is stupid. The world is stupid. You are the Greatest." -Ingo Van Thiel
Dave3377
Squire
posted 06-24-20 07:45 PM CT (US)     2 / 8       
Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't archers leave more armored men wounded than killed? And then they were typically wounded, captured, and ransomed back?

My understanding is that that is why Agincourt was SO devastating to the French. Not only did they lose a large army, but many of the wounded and captured aristocracy were executed when the English feared they were being flanked through the woods and attacked from the behind.

Again, armchair history buff, so correct me if I am wrong.
Kataphraktoi
Squire
posted 06-26-20 11:24 AM CT (US)     3 / 8       
Sorry, that was a terrible term to use there. I am also an armchair historian and general.

"Excellent could be any map that has the quality of a ES random map or ES scenario. AoK is an excellent, award winning game. That's where I'd start." -AnastasiaKafka

"Hard work is evil. Bitmaps are stupid. Working on a scenario for more than one afternoon is stupid. Triggers are stupid. Testing your own scenario is stupid. The world is stupid. You are the Greatest." -Ingo Van Thiel
Charging_Knight
Squire
posted 06-26-20 01:53 PM CT (US)     4 / 8       
What about the arrows on horses who were much less armoured. That would be worse and cause the horses to fall. Then English footmen could easily kill the dismounted knights.

Domus Dulcis Domus --- Home Sweet Home...ZzZzZzZzZ
Dave3377
Squire
posted 06-29-20 06:30 PM CT (US)     5 / 8       
Sorry, that was a terrible term to use there. I am also an armchair historian and general.
No need to apologize! I am very happy to admit when I am not an expert! I have learned a lot from the armchair historians and legit historians who have frequented these forums over the years.

What about the arrows on horses who were much less armoured. That would be worse and cause the horses to fall. Then English footmen could easily kill the dismounted knights.


I have wondered about this too. I am not sure that dismounted knights are vulnerable per se. The English routinely dismounted their knights to bolster their infantry lines. What may have been a factor is the vulnerability of a knight immediately after the horse fell. If the horse falls on on the knight's leg that is an obvious issue. Even if the knight falls cleanly away from the horse, he still needs to get off the ground before he is cut down.

The French dismounted many of their knights after Crecy perhaps for that reason. "The Earl of Douglas, commanding the Scottish division in the French army, advised King John that the attack should be delivered on foot, with horses being particularly vulnerable to English arrows." But that is from wikipedia and has no citation! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Poitiers.

Or perhaps they were just mimicking the English. "The French attributed their defeat to the solid body of dismounted British ... Apparently now convinced of dismounted combat's superiority, the French knights again sent their horses to the rear." https://books.google.com/books?id=j45jszRgkOgC&pg=RA3-PA19&lpg=RA3-PA19&dq=french+attributed+english+victory+to+their+dismounted+knights&source=bl&ots=lXi1n_4h7T&sig=ACfU3U3tUt_NyD20VfKFlBwzMxnossjWww&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwinh_TJlKjqAhVORqwKHQjGAxwQ6AEwCnoECAwQAQ#v=snippet&q=longbow&f=false

Mounted or dismounted, the French were attacking uphill through the mud against an entrenched position, so it didn't end well (Crecy, Poitiers, & Agincourt).

I also have to wonder how many arrows it takes to fell a horse? A deer will run for a while after being hit by a bow. A horse is heck of a lot bigger. I don't see anyone being cruel enough to test that with a historical reenactment!

I found this, but I don't see any references at a glance and some of the argument I believe have been debunked (that only draft size horses can carry heavily armored knights). https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4fdpym/how_did_war_horses_do_against_arrows/
Kataphraktoi
Squire
posted 07-01-20 10:16 AM CT (US)     6 / 8       
The French dismounted many of their knights after Crecy perhaps for that reason. "The Earl of Douglas, commanding the Scottish division in the French army, advised King John that the attack should be delivered on foot, with horses being particularly vulnerable to English arrows." But that is from wikipedia and has no citation! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Poitiers.
Yeah, the wiki is good mostly for finding references to other, more solid actual references IMO because nearly everything on there is just someones opinion. Even the quote there was most likely just the Earl of Douglas's own opinion, which by virtue of being an actual commander and also living in the era obviously has a ton more credibility than a moderners opinion, but still an opinion nonetheless. It needs to be tested out on a battlefield and the results recorded meticulously.
I also have to wonder how many arrows it takes to fell a horse? A deer will run for a while after being hit by a bow. A horse is heck of a lot bigger. I don't see anyone being cruel enough to test that with a historical reenactment!
RE cruelty; No one would ever be crazy enough to implement my idea, but you know the large prisoner populations in USA, Russia, and some other countries? You could round up the worst offenders and get a pair of ten thousand man armies equipped with cheap factory mass produced historical gear for actual re-enactments and pit them against each other every so years as new 'recruits' join. Moral issues aside, any monetary expenditure would easily be justified by the wealth of historical knowledge gleaned. IMO!

"Excellent could be any map that has the quality of a ES random map or ES scenario. AoK is an excellent, award winning game. That's where I'd start." -AnastasiaKafka

"Hard work is evil. Bitmaps are stupid. Working on a scenario for more than one afternoon is stupid. Triggers are stupid. Testing your own scenario is stupid. The world is stupid. You are the Greatest." -Ingo Van Thiel
Dave3377
Squire
posted 07-01-20 01:53 PM CT (US)     7 / 8       
Yeah, the wiki is good mostly for finding references to other, more solid actual references IMO because nearly everything on there is just someones opinion.


Absolutely! I believe I have seen a similar argument in an old enclyclopdeia of military history from the 1970s (I think it's this edition of this book: https://www.abebooks.com/encyclopedia-military-history-3500-B.C-present/30664359186/bd?cm_mmc=ggl-_-US_Shopp_Trade-_-new-_-naa&gclid=Cj0KCQjw6PD3BRDPARIsAN8pHuFc1fi1AgM8hUhjmtXV4nX8pFuzu8ExiC6fcVD3jjjnwMyWly9IUHoaArR_EALw_wcB). But I don't have it handy. Even in that book there are claims that were once regarded as fact that have been debunked since (e.g., the Battle of Adrianople was what gave rise to cavalry replacing infantry as the dominant military arm in the west). Thus, I tend to want to see the reconstructive evidence.
Dave3377
Squire
posted 12-09-20 11:04 PM CT (US)     8 / 8       
His whole channel is cool. I enjoyed this one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCf-CnjbWcg

Not quite scientific (they need far more data points given the variability in plate thickness and such), but still cool.
You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Hop to:    

Age of Kings Heaven | HeavenGames