Submitted by autism_guy_69 t3_zjw9dr in history
Imtiredcanistop t1_izz6xww wrote
Reply to comment by IBAZERKERI in How many knights in Armor would be on a battle field? by autism_guy_69
Didn’t the French use horses? and didn’t the English target horses because a thrown knight was usually a useless knight? Add that to the quagmire that was the battlefield and i would say that the archers decimated the French nobility.
IBAZERKERI t1_izz8oxo wrote
do some research dude. seriously theres a bunch of videos about this subject.
its a myth the english nobility used as propaganda.
much like carrots improving your eyesight.
Imtiredcanistop t1_izz92sj wrote
You don’t get it, I’m aware the longbow themselves didn’t kill armored knights, but you don’t have to blow up a tank to render it a battlefield casualty. You wound a knight, get em stuck in the mud, make them advance on foot vs horseback so they’re exhausted, it effectively defeats them.
IBAZERKERI t1_izza7qe wrote
yes. i do. you are the one thats displaying a complete lack of understanding here. not me
Superb_Tiger_8376 t1_j0655ix wrote
I once read it was a plowed field and that made it worse.
Imtiredcanistop t1_izz9ada wrote
What you’re basically saying is the outnumbered English basically got lucky the inept French decided to fight up a hill in the mud and just kept marching like lemmings to their death. Arguably one of the supreme powers of the day was not that inept.
IBAZERKERI t1_izz9mu0 wrote
yes. this is what im saying and its the truth. they were that inept. atleast in this battle. the mud absolutely hampered there ability to both advance and retreat
Imtiredcanistop t1_izzb92u wrote
You realize you can go to the Wikipedia page and read the whole account of the battle right? Like…. It says that the English archer was very effective at wounding the unarmored horses and causing a rout of the Calvary which then tore threw their own infantry ranks, the armored foot soldiers had to keep their visors closed to protect from the lucky arrow finding the weakest part(eye and breathing holes) thus making it hard to see and breathe…by the time the French men-at-arms reached the archers they were mostly wounded or heavily fatigued, and the archers use knives, hatches, clubs, or short swords to decimate the French…. So….. my argument that the longbow would won that battle would hold water you pompous buffoon
Imtiredcanistop t1_izzbhae wrote
Never mind that that single battle resulted in either the death or capture of half the French nobility… you can argue semantics i suppose, and say that the longbow didn’t kill the knights, but the archers tired em out then poked em with knives instead, but that’s just foolish
IBAZERKERI t1_izzbo7s wrote
yes, ive read the wiki, ive also watched numerous other videos on youtube that go indepth into things such as weather, tactics, armorment, commanders and more.
your the one thats changing the goalposts after being called out for making fallacious claims and now resorting to name calling. i think you need a rag to whipe all that paint off your face you clown. grow up
Imtiredcanistop t1_izzc82e wrote
I’ve changed no such argument, i stated the archers defeated the “tank-like” knights, and that is fact.
Superb_Tiger_8376 t1_j0658yr wrote
Choosing the right battlefield is not luck, though. They might have taken position their intentionally, knowing it would be hard for the knights.
funkmachine7 t1_j02zy91 wrote
The French got off an walked.
It was not the first time they had faced english archers.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments