How is it possible for ordinary footsoldier to defeat a knight army?
How can they pierce plate armor to kill knights?

The cherry on top comes from charging into a narrowing front between two forests so your knights are squeezed together and have to slow down, making perfect target practise. Repeat endlessly and stupidly until the ground is a quagmire, and knights drown in the mud, crushed under the other French dead.

The clincher was when one of the charges actually reached the English lines; they could have turned the archers and lightly armoured infantry to sushi, and won the battle anyway, but instead headed for the baggage train to loot it, and gave the English time to reform and repulse them.

It is important to note the English men at arms were not strictly footsoldiers, but were trained and prepared to fight on horseback as the French (if not quite so well, at this point - Bauge, 1421), and would have thought themselves of little to no account were they not prepared to do so.

--------------------

Archers would be very effective at very close range, but do you think that they would risk getting a shot off at a charging fully armoured soldier if they were that close. They more than likely resorted to the hammers they had used to drive their stakes in the ground and or their swords. With the exception of the unarmoured rears of the French mounts, the French were pretty inpenetrable to the arrow storm reigning down on them, unless it was a lucky shot in a joint or eye slit. So I think that these are some factors for the French loss:
1. some fear/respect of the archers (whether or not arrows are penetrating, think of the psychological effect and deafening noise it would make)
-the archers were more lightly armoured if at all and thus more nimble in the rain soaked freshly plowed field and leather and cloth have more give in mud than steel.
-English archers had a name of fear that had been attached to them since 1346 at Crecy.
-archers had no hope of surviving if captured, so they fought in sheer desperation besides.

2. The English army had been a cohesive group on the march and fighting for many months. The French were made up of many different lords and noblemen who had really never fought or trained together and thus did not have the inner structure to support their frame.

3. Think of marching over a sopping wet field that was just churned up by advancing then terrorized fleeing warhorses, crashing through your ranks along with a hail storm of arrows and the fear that maybe just one of those arrows might slip through and kill you. Now add the fact that the mud is clinging to your shoes and greaves and since the steel is not porous (sp?) you get sucked in. Then figure the fatigue of advancing through that for over 400 yards and stepping over and fighting over fallen comrades, and wind up facing an enemy that has been resting, staying in one place awaiting your advance, all ready bolstered in confidence by turning the tide of a cavalry charge.

Okay, blah, blah, blah. I've said too much but that's my information.

[ 12-16-2007: Message edited by: Trollope ]

--------------------

--------------------

What was surprising about the latter is that the protection for the horses had advanced to the point where the English were shocked to see them able to close. Presumably the small mounted reserve had more complete armour on their horses than was the previous case.

--------------------

--------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by chef de chambre:
I saw a deer at a large (30,000 reenactors present) ACW battle reenactment, try to get away trapped between the lines, just lie down and give up, and literally she died of fright. Only blanks were fired, of course, but her senses were overwhelemd.

---

Did it end up in the pot?

--------------------

Cheers

We have a small herd hereabouts that keeps eating our shrubbery, and the housing is too dense to allow for legal hunting in most areas. People will say, we keep building houses in the deers natural environment, but this neighborhood has been here for more than 30 years. Basically, they have no natural predetors, and a strong anti-hunting lobby.

--------------------

Cheers

--------------------

1. Cannot hunt deer mounted (nor hunt a real fox mounted)

2. Cannot hunt deer with dogs

3. cannot hunt with a crossbow, unless a handicapped person in a wheelchair.

I could take a deer most weeks of the year shooting out of my kitchen window - but not legally.

[ 12-17-2007: Message edited by: chef de chambre ]

--------------------

quote:

---

I could take a deer most weeks of the year shooting out of my kitchen window - but not legally

---

Awww, sure you could! Just sit in a chair and shoot with a crossbow! And those deer were fixin to break into your house for more food, anyway! XD

that is awful to hear about the deer at the ACW event, that must have been awkward to watch happen

--------------------

Andy V.
You're friendly neighborhood Roman Dude

--------------------

I think you can only use "leashed" tracking dogs on limited large game in certain state owned areas. If you hunt on a private property, other rules apply.

I'm currently putting together a page for our web site.

--------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by Guillaume de Channynge:
What you need is a deerhound chef!

Cheers

---

Whippet or IG's for bunnies, maybe a smooth coated saluki for big ticket critters.

Need something that will live at least 12 - 15 years.

--------------------

Cheers

--------------------

Is there prohibition against using a javilien of some kind in your yard

maybe break out the ole lawn darts

--------------------

Somebody in the neighborhood must be feeding them - no favour to the deer, who are losing their fear of humans.

--------------------