French Armour, English Longbowmen, Agincourt.. EU Rewriting History!

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by ChrisF231
Interesting, I never knew the UK-Portugal Alliance dated back that far. I know the British helped the Portuguese

fend off Napoleon. Portugal also fought alongside the Allies in Africa and (I believe, not 100% sure) in France during World War I.

The unsigned alliance is even older, from 1294, but the English had been helping the Portuguese since 1147, when they help the first king of Portugal to conquer Lisbon from the Moors. Where I live (in Almada, on the opposite side of the Tagus river from Lisbon) there are two streets named after English crusaders that helped in the Lisbon siege and that received some lands on this area for it. Their are known in Portuguese as Osberno (probably Osborne in its original version, he wrote a long journal of his voyage to the Holy Land and back) and Liberche.

In 1385, English longbowmen helped the outnumbered Portuguese forces in their wining of the Battle of Aljubarrota against Castilian, French and Italian forces.

Portugal entered World War I to help the English, because of that alliance, and it was because of it that the Lajes air base in the Azores was rented to the English during World War II, in which Portugal was neutral.

After the Spanish armarda that was left wrecked over our English shores we proceeded to protect our lands sith vigour!

Hiisfory will be the judge x

while i will freely admit that i do not know all the details of this particular battle, i will strongly AGREE that this so called article is almost completely WRONG. the so called testing as shown in the video is based on poor testing measures.

as for my credentials. THIS IS WHAT i have done for FUN.
www.youtube.com... www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

now i would think that I KNOW a LITTLE something about both wearing armor, and fighting in armor.

from the op's article

Researchers dressed four historical fight interpreters from the Royal Armouries in Leeds in replica 15th century armour, and put them through walking and running programmes on a treadmill.

Tests on their breathing and stride patterns showed that the energy required to walk in armour was 2.1 to 2.3 times higher than normal, while running was 1.9 times harder.

This rate was higher than the average 1.4-fold increase in the volunteers’ body mass from the weight of the armour, showing that the strain of wearing the full battle attire was down to its positioning on the body, and not just its heaviness.

Dr Askew said: “Carrying this kind of load spread across the body requires a lot more energy than carrying the same weight in a backpack.

“In a suit of armour, the limbs are loaded with weight, which means it takes more effort to swing them with each stride.”

The breast and back plates on a suit of armour would also have increased the load on the muscles used to breathe, making deep breaths harder to take, he added.

yes armor is heavy, but it is most defiantly NOT easier to carry in a backpack then wearing. IN FACT the opposite is true. MY armor (metal full breast and back plates, metal legs and arms, 14 gauge steel helm, metal articulated gauntlets, plus other bits and pieces), is so heavy that i am just about bent over double and can BARELY carry it, in my armor bag (hockey bag). BUT as soon as i put it ON, i only have slightly restricted movement (due to joints, in the armor). IN FACT i can run, jump, get up off the ground quickly, i can EVEN drive my van. yes i have driven quite a few times in it

a helm can slightly restrict breathing depending on type. now any who watched the video of the "test" wimp on the treadmill can see that he DOESN'T even have the VISOR DOWN, so how is his breathing restricted? easy the MASK he is wearing. i have worn similar masks for work, it is EXTREMELY had to breath wearing one. as for the breast and back plates restricting breathing , sorry it DOESN'T. in fact i have NEVER had extra problems with breathing while wearing armor, i will concede that SOME helms have some slight issues, but not the type as used for the test.

i have fought in over 100 degree Fahrenheit heat, rain and mud, even hail (man armor is nice in hail), in snow, and in forests with bogs. while bogs and snow are a pain, they are not much more so then without armor. i have worn armor on marches yes it's tiring, but same for marching WITHOUT armor. i have even SLEPT in armor. guess what no real problem there either.

basically everything about armor in the article is WRONG. the biggest issue is that they took a "guy off the street" as a test subject, when there are thousands out there who do wear armor on a regular basis that would have been MORE then happy to participate. remember those "men at arms" would have been USED to wearing armor. sadly just another example of bad science as done today. the article looks like from a British source. you would think they would have a clue, it's bad enough when Canadians have to tell the museums there that they have the armor on their manikins wrong.

from my understanding , even going by the article about the battle, if they want to lay blame on the french loosing the battle they have to look no farther than the french general in charge. it WAS HIS responsibility to fight or not and WHERE to fight. that was true right up until ww1. if his troops were tired he should have waited if the ground was bad shouldn't have been conned into doing battle there. also going up against longbows with out having any real long range attack capability was pretty dumb. longbows of the time would go through armor no problem. the reason for the loss was french stupidity not because of wearing armor.

I stick two fingers up at the french .
This insult came from this battle.
you use two fingers to shoot a bow.
the frogs use’t to cut them off.
V

bet not many of you knew that?

Originally posted by Muckster
I thought it was a well known fact that the Armour played a major part in the victory, and it had nothing to do with the quality. There had been heavy rain before the battle and the ground was boggy, as a result the French (with their heavy armour) were slow and less nimble.

They had the numerical advantage but we had the tactical advantage and utilised it.

I really do not see a "Euro" conspiracy here... but then i am not an expert and am just going from my memory.

Peace

That's what I remembered being taught in school years ago.

reply to post by generik


I agree with you 100%. We had to train regularly in full NBC suits. The old S6 respirator was a bitch to work and run it. Breathing was a pain when you were walking, however, having to run and fight wearing one of these was pure hell. Plate armour, whilst heavy, is not that difficult to move around in. We reglaurly carried over 100lbs in our bergens, and that was damned heavy and difficult over broken terrain.

The defeat was simply down to French tactics and the awsome hitting power of the English long bow. These bad assed weapons could down a knight in full plate from quite a distance.

Since moving to France, from Blighty, I have spoken to many amature historians who are conviced that the sneeky English tricked them into fighting that day. I even met one who was convinced that the French won at Trafalgar and that HMS Victory was sunk and the one sitting at Portsmouth is in fact a replica.

A euro conspiracy based on the battle of Agincourt! You have got to be freaking kidding! I think some of you need to get out more. Half a walk. Go to the pub. Meet some people. Switch off the laptop!

Honestly this is a sad sad desperate thread.......

reply to post by CrankyPantsUK


Well 300 spartans did hold of a million Persions (for a while) during the battle of Thermopylae...

reply to post by CrankyPantsUK


agree with you on this one the idiots proporting this rubbish have not taken into account they where accustomed to wearing armer and would be used to wearing and fighting in it
there is no comparison to a medieval night and a soft modern man who has enjoyed the comforts of the 20th century so yes there finding's are probaly just hot air
sorry to the french but you did get your ar**'s kicked but isn't it time we all left the past in the past these numpties that are saying this should learn to keep there gobs shut rather than making up excuses and causing devision between people

reply to post by JakiusFogg


My favourite passage from Shakespeare's Henry V

Act 3 Scene 1

Enter KING HENRY, EXETER, BEDFORD, GLOUCESTER, and Soldiers, with scaling-ladders

KING HENRY V

Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more;
Or close the wall up with our English dead.
In peace there's nothing so becomes a man
As modest stillness and humility:
But when the blast of war blows in our ears,
Then imitate the action of the tiger;
Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood,
Disguise fair nature with hard-favour'd rage;
Then lend the eye a terrible aspect;
Let pry through the portage of the head
Like the brass cannon; let the brow o'erwhelm it
As fearfully as doth a galled rock
O'erhang and jutty his confounded base,
Swill'd with the wild and wasteful ocean.
Now set the teeth and stretch the nostril wide,
Hold hard the breath and bend up every spirit
To his full height. On, on, you noblest English.
Whose blood is fet from fathers of war-proof!
Fathers that, like so many Alexanders,
Have in these parts from morn till even fought
And sheathed their swords for lack of argument:
Dishonour not your mothers; now attest
That those whom you call'd fathers did beget you.
Be copy now to men of grosser blood,
And teach them how to war. And you, good yeoman,
Whose limbs were made in England, show us here
The mettle of your pasture; let us swear
That you are worth your breeding; which I doubt not;
For there is none of you so mean and base,
That hath not noble lustre in your eyes.
I see you stand like greyhounds in the slips,
Straining upon the start. The game's afoot:
Follow your spirit, and upon this charge
Cry 'God for Harry, England, and Saint George!

Originally posted by buddha
I stick two fingers up at the french .
This insult came from this battle.
you use two fingers to shoot a bow.
the frogs use’t to cut them off.
V

bet not many of you knew that?

I did! Princess Ann probably does too! lol!

Rainbows
Jane

ITT

Englishmens talkin proudly about wars they never participated in


Guys, seriously, it happened a so long time ago before your birth....why dont you just stop for a second and reconsider the situation you're talkin about ?

I mean, seriously, French or English, nones care about who won .

And none the less, nones of you participated in, so no reason to be proud about it...

but i guess talkin to you ins kinda pointless

Originally posted by malcr
A euro conspiracy based on the battle of Agincourt! You have got to be freaking kidding! I think some of you need to get out more. Half a walk. Go to the pub. Meet some people. Switch off the laptop!

Honestly this is a sad sad desperate thread.......

Hey!

What do you think I was doing when I wrote the OP?

Thats right

getting drunk with mates

In the sober light of day this still pisses me off!

My advice to anyone interested in the subject is to read Agincourt by Bernard Cornwall

It is a story yes (a bloody good one!) but it is based on historical fact!


The English Archers ghosts are sticking their two fingers up to the godamned frenchies and the article!

reply to post by CrankyPantsUK


most were unarmoured poorer class of soldiers. Also Horses had little or no armour, the French perished when they fought on foot and the english archers actually fought very hard hand to hand to defeat them. The arrows took out many horses =, its been shown that the longbows couldnt penetrate the knights armour, only at extreme close range. But without horses knights can be easily overwhelmed on foot by numbers of swaming enemy

Originally posted by CrankyPantsUK
In a recent experiment it has been shown that French armour denied the French victory at Agincourt, however their armour was the best quality from Milan.

And there was 60000 French on their home soil against 3000 half starved and diseased Englishmen whose Longbowmen would have won the battle regardless.

Even though sick and out numbered the English destroyed a 6 to 1 force of Frenchmen who were healthy, well armed and equipt yet was defeated on their own soil by the equivilant of the English chav or American redneck, and not noble knights that the French thrown at us.

Why is this important?

Because history is being re wrote by the EU to make a politically correct history lesson.

As an Englishman this is a profound insult and afront to my culture and history.

It will not stand!
BS Linky

*Ahem* Not sure why you liken our troops to chavs...That's more of an offhand insult to those brave men than anything the EU could conjour up is it not?

Originally posted by buddha
I stick two fingers up at the french .
This insult came from this battle.
you use two fingers to shoot a bow.
the frogs use’t to cut them off.
V

bet not many of you knew that?

I did-but I am not sure how accurate this is,as the battle longbows would have been very heavy to draw with two fingers alone(you are talking over 100lbs of force,and up to 200lb.)
Try drawing a 150lb bow with two fingers!!
Finger guard or not,that would take some serious finger power.
I have a 75lb recurve,and a couple of home made longbows and can't pull them with two fingers alone-3fingers is much easier IMO.

Maybe they used their thumbs to lock the two fingers in place over the string,and they may have actually shown 2fingers and a thumb,which over time changed to just 2fingers?

I often wondered about Agincourt-didn't the french have decent shields with which to fend off the arrows-I mean even the Romans knew about "turtle formation" with shields-you know the sort of tactics modern day riot cops use when under attack.

Originally posted by Suspiria

Originally posted by CrankyPantsUK
In a recent experiment it has been shown that French armour denied the French victory at Agincourt, however their armour was the best quality from Milan.

And there was 60000 French on their home soil against 3000 half starved and diseased Englishmen whose Longbowmen would have won the battle regardless.

Even though sick and out numbered the English destroyed a 6 to 1 force of Frenchmen who were healthy, well armed and equipt yet was defeated on their own soil by the equivilant of the English chav or American redneck, and not noble knights that the French thrown at us.

Why is this important?

Because history is being re wrote by the EU to make a politically correct history lesson.

As an Englishman this is a profound insult and afront to my culture and history.

It will not stand!
BS Linky

*Ahem* Not sure why you liken our troops to chavs...That's more of an offhand insult to those brave men than anything the EU could conjour up is it not?

Maybe so,

But there was no council estates at the time to compare the people in a modern context lol

How about extremly poor people and not rich knights won the battle (as usual)

Sound better?

Originally posted by clintdelicious
reply to post by CrankyPantsUK

 

most were unarmoured poorer class of soldiers. Also Horses had little or no armour, the French perished when they fought on foot and the english archers actually fought very hard hand to hand to defeat them. The arrows took out many horses =, its been shown that the longbows couldnt penetrate the knights armour, only at extreme close range. But without horses knights can be easily overwhelmed on foot by numbers of swaming enemy

tired knights wearing armor, with OVERWHELMING numbers, being overwhelmed by a lesser force of barely armored, sick, starving men. yeah ok, like that's plausible. so 1 barely armored Englishman overwhelmed over 6 armored knights, most likely with both forces on foot. must say those knights must have been incredibly incompetent.

just so you don't claim that the knights were knocked over and couldn't get up. that is a misconception based on JOUSTING armor. i can tell you from personal experience that there is no more difficulty getting up while in armor then without it. any knight can fight on foot. if they can't then they are peasants dressed as knights who wouldn't be able to fight on horseback either. guess what training typically comes first? fighting on foot. gotta learn to use a sword on the ground before on horseback. no claims of problems due to wearing armor made for sitting on horses either. i have seen horseman's armor being used on foot all the time with no ill effect, (a lot of people think it's pretty so that's the armor they make or buy.

longbows can't penetrate armor? wow it's been proven time and time again that even a piddly 100lb longbow CAN penetrate armor. and the English longbow men likely used 120-200lb longbows. this from a ten second search on you tube. www.youtube.com... now before you say the arrows are bouncing off they are STILL penetrating, which would wound, and cause great pain. even today with Kevlar vests, even if doesn't penetrate can still be knocked out or even suffer massive internal damage. and this is a pretty good example of being on the receiving end of vollies of arrows. www.youtube.com...

so even if say only 1 in 20 arrows would penetrate you would STILL look like swiss cheese. not to mention of course that armor has spots with very little protection and when thousands of arrows are raining down on you there is a pretty good chance of being hit there.

also English longbow men have been found with skeletal deformities, like thicker arm bones on one side as would be needed to support a heavier musculature. they were FORCED to train from a young age, thus building up the muscles needed, to wield such high powered bows.

It has been claimed that drawing the bowstring back to your cheek bone is equivalent to lifting a 100lb block of concrete with two fingers. To cultivate the special back and shoulder muscles needed it would have been necessary to medieval peasants to have trained from a very young age. This had long-term consequences for the longbowmen. For example, the skeleton of an archer found in the wreck of the Mary Rose showed he had thicker bones in his right arm than his left and a deformed right shoulder from drawing the bow. Other evidence suggests that using such a high-tension weapon often left longbowmen with physical deformities.

www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk...

reply to post by CrankyPantsUK


You are a student of military history? You need to get cracking on the books mate!

reply to post by generik


Well said. These longbows were serious pieces of weaponry. Additioinally, the arrows were fitted with specially designed armour piercing heads, that would penetrate the plate and lodge itself deep into the knights flesh. The men the wielded these bows had incredible upper body strength.

For those interested, may I suggest reading Azincourt by Bernard Cornwell. Although it is fiction, much of the book is based on historic records of the battle and the events that lead to the confrontation.

reply to post by generik


BRAVO! Im glad someone knows what they are talking about! A suit of armour spreads the weights evenly across the body. Look at soldier today, they carry lots of weight on their packs when travelling, but when engaged in fighting they take them of and begin to fight.

I hate these experiemets. The people they use are so far from a real knight or soldier of the time. They would grow up preparing for battle and even modern experts are few in number. At this time almost every battle ready man from grunt to nobleman would have some good knowledge and training. This means that the elite (the knights) would have been taught very very well, we think of samurai as being true martial arts warriors, but we were training in our own western martial arts for just as long. It annoys me when people think we wernt as talented as the east in this aspect. The men would have been very used to fighting in armour and if it made it too hard to fight it would not have been worn to such an extent.

They should be asking people like yourself to do this experiment who know what they are doing. They should also only select reenactors who have a very high level of fitness as any soldier of the time would. This was also an age that was very physical and soldiers and knights alike (just like Henry) would be very fit and strong men.

This battle was won using tactical smarts on our part and also French mistakes as well. Most people are not aware that our archers fought very ferociously hand to hand as well after they had fired their arrows. Offcoarse I am biased, but I am inclined to believe that our military was far more skilled than the French at this time. Look on youtube and there are some interesting docs about these battles, also about new arrowhead technology that allowed greater armour penetration than every seen before art this battle I believe (I could be wrong it may be Crecy)