Plate armor cartwheels.
- Thread starter GreySaber
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
13 Spider Bloody Chain
Grandmaster Knight
Hmm...I read somewhere that the French knights at Crecy and Agincourt did not wear plate & mail, but just very advanced/thick mail, or at least not big sheets of plate on mail. Is this true?
Aqtai
Sergeant Knight at Arms
13 Spider Bloody Chain said:
Crecy was fought in in 1346, at that time full plate armour had not appeared. The French men-at-arms would have been wearing coats-of-plates over mail hauberks, with plate limb defences, something like this.
By the time of Agincourt full plate was very much in use. Agincourt was lost because of the incompetence of the French commanders. At Bauge in 1421 and Formigny in 1450 English archers were defeated by heavily armoured French men-at-arms.
Damien
Sergeant at Arms
Think of the problems some people have had at mosh pits. Some kid in a tank top and jeans falls down and can't get back up. His inability to rise has nothing to do with weight or encumberance, but is due to the press of human bodies all around him, and the weight of people bearing down on him.
Cirdan
Master Knight
What killed the French at Azincourt was the terrain. They had to walk (for the dismounted men-at-arms) or ride (for the knights) through mud while the English fired arrows at them. The fact that their infantry was in in heavy armour contributed to their defeat since it slowed them down even more than they already were. Had their cavalry found more favourable terrain, however, it could have rapidly charged and the heavy infantry could have then closed on the English positions in relative safety, behind the cavalry. However, the lack of firm footing for the horses meant that large bodies of cavalry could not adavance at sufficient pace.Aqtai said:
What killed the French gendarmes at Pavia was not a "lethal combination of pikemen and arquebusiers" but a hopeless tactical situation. The French king and his heavy cavalry found themselves surrounded, without supporting infantry, in a position where they could not manoeuvre, form up and then accelerate over several hundred metres so as to build up the momentum needed for a charge. Cavalry can not charge from a standstill and cavalry assaulted while immobile gets butchered by just about anything, especially when severely outnumbered like at Pavia. In that situation, the French would have lost to scythe-wielding peasants.
Rameusb5
Regular
I think soft/wet ground is almost as bad as mud in terms of galloping a horse across it.
Terrain certainly WAS a major factor for the English victory at Agincourt. It was a major factor in almost every single one of their victories.
It would be an interesting "what if" to think about how the English would have fared during the 100 years war if the major battles had been fought while THEY were on the offensive. Frankly, I think it would have been a massacre for the attackers, no matter who was doing the attacking.
Terrain certainly WAS a major factor for the English victory at Agincourt. It was a major factor in almost every single one of their victories.
It would be an interesting "what if" to think about how the English would have fared during the 100 years war if the major battles had been fought while THEY were on the offensive. Frankly, I think it would have been a massacre for the attackers, no matter who was doing the attacking.
Cirdan
Master Knight
While i was not there at the time, obviously, I've always read the battlefield was mud and that the French sunk into it up to their knees in some places. This was, suposedly, because the fields had been recently ploughed and the French started at the bottom of a hill, so that the water flowed from the English positions onto the land between the armies where it seeped into the ground. And of course, the french soldiers lucky enough to get out of the mud still had to attack uphill over soggy, but less muddy, ground--and attacking entrenched forces uphill was never easy at the best of times. It has also been claimed the French started their attack with the sun in their eyes (like at Crécy), which would have made their crossbowmen less effective in supporting the attack.
I like that. 'The sun was in our eyes! Can we stop and change ends?'Cirdan said:
To be honest, even if it was only slightly wet, after hundreds of men and horses had already tramped through it, it would have been pretty swampy.Kissaki said:
Even a couple of horses can quickly turn a patch of grass into a deathtrap, let alone a freshly ploughed field.
Aqtai
Sergeant Knight at Arms
Cirdan said:
OK I was simplifying slightly. None the less poor leadership played a major part at Agincourt. The French outnumbered the English (although exact figures are still disputed), and the English men-at-arms like their French counterparts also had to fight full armour and all of them were on foot. The French were not lead by one leader but by a group of squabbling noblemen who all insisted on fighting in the front lines away from their men. At the beginning of the battle both sides were waiting for the other to attack first. When neither did Henry V moved his archers forward several hundred feet so the French would be within range. This would have been the perfect time to attack, the archers were vulnerable as they still didn't have their stakes in place, for some reason the French allowed the archers to move (possible some sort of misguided chivalry) allowed them to get into position and start shooting. The arrows themselves had a minor effect as the most men-at-arms (or gendarmes if you prefer) were heavily armoured, however it did have a detrimental effect on morale, especially since anyone unwise enough to raise his visor for air would have been killed. The initial Frenchl cavalry charge was not big enough to have any effect and just churned up the battlefield creating the muddy conditions which were so devastating for the gendarmes on foot. This is all off the top of my head as it's been a while since I did any reading on this. What is clear is that poor leadership and bad tactical decisions played a major part in the defeat.
I defer to your superior knowledge of Pavia, the fact remains that heavily armoured men-at-arms were defeated by pikemen and arquebusiers.
Cirdan
Master Knight
Well, the main tactical blunder of the French was to give battle on that terrain and at that time. Charging the archers during their movement would not necessarily have ensured victory; the English were still some four hundred metres away after the movement, which was executed with (relative) speed and discipline. A horse can cover that distance very fast under normal circumstances, but here they would have had to keep formations while crossing muddy fields and climbing a hill; combined with the long delay imposed by poor communications, that would hardly have been the swift response needed to exploit such opportunities. At that point in the battle France's best hope was still to lure the English into attacking, since basically, the terrain ensured whoever attacked would lose. The problem was that the English position, combined with their longbowmen, gave them the advantage in ranged combat. I'd argue the French army was not lead by squabbling noblemen; the Armagnac party was very much in ascendance at the court and Charles d'Albret, both by his position as Connétable de France (i.e. commander in chief second only to the king) and by his status as a leading member of the Armagnac faction (his son would marry Armagnac's daughter) was very much in command of the army. Discipline did eventually break down, but only after about three hours of a sustained barrage of arrows. The only way the French could have avoided defeat would have been to withdraw from the battle, something which might indeed have been made impossible by the arrogance of the major nobles. One thing, however--the term gendarme is not applicable at the time of Azincourt; the first gendarmes were created in 1439 by royal ordinance, and they replaced the knights, not the men-at-arms.
And while they were indeed killed at Pavia by pikemen and arquebusiers, what I'm contesting here is the popular notion that firearms made plate armour obsolete. The arquebus was not really more effective than the crossbows it replaced in terms of killing power, and was generally less accurate. It was however more economical (both the weapon itself and especially the ammunition, once black powder was manufactured on a large scale), and of course had greater effects on morale (both in terms of reassuring frinedly troops and of scaring the enemy). However firearms were still, like crossbows, limited to supporting cavalry or infantry and did not change the way wars were fought. Although they may have put more energy than crossbows into their shots, their projectiles were made of soft lead, which is very, very ineffective against hardened steel armour, so that good plate armour was unlikely to be pierced. Modern bullets have a steel shell and lead core, but they did not have the technology to make large ammounts of that kind of ammunition at the time. Blocks of disciplined pikemen and mobile artillery were the real military innovations of the early Renaissance.
And while they were indeed killed at Pavia by pikemen and arquebusiers, what I'm contesting here is the popular notion that firearms made plate armour obsolete. The arquebus was not really more effective than the crossbows it replaced in terms of killing power, and was generally less accurate. It was however more economical (both the weapon itself and especially the ammunition, once black powder was manufactured on a large scale), and of course had greater effects on morale (both in terms of reassuring frinedly troops and of scaring the enemy). However firearms were still, like crossbows, limited to supporting cavalry or infantry and did not change the way wars were fought. Although they may have put more energy than crossbows into their shots, their projectiles were made of soft lead, which is very, very ineffective against hardened steel armour, so that good plate armour was unlikely to be pierced. Modern bullets have a steel shell and lead core, but they did not have the technology to make large ammounts of that kind of ammunition at the time. Blocks of disciplined pikemen and mobile artillery were the real military innovations of the early Renaissance.
Damien
Sergeant at Arms
To summarize: The French have rather consistently been defeated throughout history, largely due to poor leadership. It was a constant problem for them. More than once or twice the French would find themselves, while numerically superior to their enemy and even tactically superior to their enemy, at a complete and total disadvantage due to their leader's ineffectiveness and total lack of tactical sense. Around the time of Crecy and Agincourt -- it wouldn't surprise me if the French were trounced by a battalion of school girls with oversized lollipops.
Iguana-on-a-stick
Sergeant
That's not quite accurate either, since in between Crecy and Agincourt they kicked the English back out of France. Most notably through the superior leadership of Charles V and Du Guesclin. And by not offering battle if it could be avoided.
The French won the hundred years war, let's not forget. They won quite a few pitched battles as well, though none so spectacularly as the English did.
Hmm. Perhaps it would be fair to say that whilst the French generally were bad at tactics, the English were bad at strategy? The strategy they employed against France certainly wasn't very effective. And the success of Charles V I mentioned above was mostly the result of his strategy, I think. Not spectacular success in battle.
The French won the hundred years war, let's not forget. They won quite a few pitched battles as well, though none so spectacularly as the English did.
Hmm. Perhaps it would be fair to say that whilst the French generally were bad at tactics, the English were bad at strategy? The strategy they employed against France certainly wasn't very effective. And the success of Charles V I mentioned above was mostly the result of his strategy, I think. Not spectacular success in battle.
Kaiser Bill
Recruit
Damien" said:
I would contest that. The French didn't really do anything different that most Medieval kingdoms were doing at the time in terms of tactics; the problem was the English tactics that were just a lot better and more effective. The French actually managed to not lose/win the Hundred Years War by changing their strategy entirely- they stopped fighting pitched battles. Realising there was no way to combat the English tactics, they avoided pitched battles and slowly took back castles and towns captured by the English, who did not have the man-power to guard their gains effectively. So it wasn't that the French were poor tacticians per se, the English were just better at the time.
Seems like Iguana beat me to it
Damien
Sergeant at Arms
I think you guys missed the joking tone of my post. I thought I'd tied it all together with the school girls comment, but maybe not. So I'll just say it outright: I was kidding. Poking some fun at the terrible reputation of the French, because when they did lose, they usually lost in the most absurd of ways.
Just playing around.
Just playing around.
There's a bit too much French-hate going around in my dorm at the moment for me to immediately assume its a joke. The idiotic "french never win anything unless led by a foreigner or woman" meme has been getting on my nerves, so I probably would have made the same assumption they did.
Amman d Stazia
Master Knight
yes... The french armies were considered the finest in Europe up until the Borodino campaign.
France had the advantage of being hammered into a nation-state by the hundred years' war. The rest of Europe was still made up of feuding little principalities, ie Germany, Spain, Italy...
After learning very hard lessons from the wars against England, France remained the first military power of the continent for hundreds of years.
Interestingly, the tactics which won the 100 years war for France are the same as those which won the Wars of Independence for Scotland: avoid pitched battle in favour of skirmish, raid, ambush. Capture and destroy fortifications. Deny the English any safe haven.
Guerrilla tactics, which needed mobile troops with light and ranged weapons. The need for such troops must have encouraged alternatives to heavy armour as well as the development of cheap, user-friendly missile technology.
I'd suggest that firearms became so popular because they are so easy to use. Point it , pull a little lever, and then reload. Unlike long- or crossbows, firearms can be reloaded by people with no physical strength, and who have had only a minimum of training.
France had the advantage of being hammered into a nation-state by the hundred years' war. The rest of Europe was still made up of feuding little principalities, ie Germany, Spain, Italy...
After learning very hard lessons from the wars against England, France remained the first military power of the continent for hundreds of years.
Interestingly, the tactics which won the 100 years war for France are the same as those which won the Wars of Independence for Scotland: avoid pitched battle in favour of skirmish, raid, ambush. Capture and destroy fortifications. Deny the English any safe haven.
Guerrilla tactics, which needed mobile troops with light and ranged weapons. The need for such troops must have encouraged alternatives to heavy armour as well as the development of cheap, user-friendly missile technology.
I'd suggest that firearms became so popular because they are so easy to use. Point it , pull a little lever, and then reload. Unlike long- or crossbows, firearms can be reloaded by people with no physical strength, and who have had only a minimum of training.
