The Battle of Agincourt, Part Two: Battle Lines Meet

[@peterburt2905]

Arrows from a longbow piercing plate armour at 200 yards?? I'd like to see someone try to replicate that today. 200 yards is a HELL of a long way to shoot a stick. That honestly sounds like a fantastic shot in the dark...literally.

[@mikem9001]

True. A longbow is unlikely to pierce plate armour at any range. They were effective against unarmoured horses, which is why the French by this time mainly attacked on foot. At Agincourt most French casualties were caused by melee weapons. They attacked across fields of waterlogged clay, under storms of arrows which did little damage but were a real nuisance, and there were too many of them crowded together. Contemporary sources say that by the time the French on foot reached the English line, they could barely raise their swords. The English knights and men-at-arms just cut them down, and the masses crowding behind just made it worse. The archers joined in with their mauls and it became a massacre.

[@aleksandarrudic3694]

@@mikem9001 I've seen a video recently here on youtube in which some guys tried to recreate weapons and armor used in the battle as faithfully as possible based on known samples from about the same period and the metallurgy techniques known at the time. The conclusion was simply that the arrow had more or less zero percent chance of penetration, in other words, if any arrow ever penetrated the full-body plate armor, it was some lucky shot between the plates or through the visor. Nevertheless, they concluded that the sheer force of the arrow would cause severe pain even if it did not penetrate, something like hitting a man with a small hammer. I imagine that a French knight who would arrive at the English lines, having received twenty or more arrows by that moment, would be quite shaken and in no condition to fight.

[@qshed]

I shoot a stick 180 yards every Sunday!! But you are right arrows won't penetrate good plate. But most foot soldiers didn't have plate armour if any at all and as a knight if you see all your men at arms falling before you it would not be good for morale

[@peterburt2905]

@@qshed What bow are you shooting Jo?

[@qshed]

@@peterburt2905 currently I am shooting an English longbow 50lbs @ 28 inches draw. but I am building up 75lbs. It is a modern laminate bow rather than a wonky stick.

[@charlesforee7082]

Good discussions here re the capacity or incapacity of the English bow to penetrate plate armor. It's difficult to sort out the various positions on penetration, case hardening, etc., but I would suggest something less technical: If the English bow were capable of easily penetrating the armor of the French infantry, the French would have been aware of that fact. The English bow was not a military secret. If I am correct in this, the French would have been utterly insane to mount a frontal attack on 6000 archers. Wouldn't have happened. No way. They knew what the longbow could do, and they were confident their armor would protect them. And this would have been easy to verify long before Agincourt. I refuse to believe that members of the French elite would have been jostling for places in the front rank knowing something they would have no excuse for not knowing--that their armor would not protect them. The French were certainly hampered by the arrows, but the slaughter was, I suspect, not directly due to them. The march through the mud, exhaustion, lack of communication between front and rear ranks, poor visibility (gotta keep those vision-restricting, suffocating visors down if you can, those damn arrows), and the resulting press must have done a good part of the job. And if you so much as slip and fall down with a couple hundred guys who can't see much pushing behind you... I have seen a video which showed what can happen when people get closely crowded together and even a single person falls down. It's pretty impressive. A lot of guys were falling down at Agincourt, with the press carrying right on over them. Face down in the mud with your comrades being pushed forward over you? Deadliest threat on that field, maybe. I wonder if that wasn't the greatest killer on the battlefield that day.

[@mikev4621]

There was also a theory that the French had been celebrating their victory the night before and may have been hungover for the battle? Clearly a massacre irrefutably ensued, so the English must have had some ongoing advantage throughout - your explanation of mud and congestion is probable ; but consider two things: would the English archers have been able to fire into the melee if many of their own ( unarmoured) comrades were in there clubbing and hammering the fallen knights? ; and, how effective would the archers have been anyway considering their bodily strength must have been severely sapped by dysentery, malnutrition and a long march? Were they on meth or something : )

[@matthewspencer2094]

I'd imagine that's largely true of the approach to the English lines, but as they got close the arrows would begin to penetrate. Close range archers aren't a problem a noble would usually consider. I doubt archers wouldn't usually keep shooting as knights and heavy infantry charge the last 100 yards to their lines. Archers would normally have grabbed a spear or run like hell before that point. Also, plate armor wasn't as protective in the rear. As the near stationary french engaged the English center the archers on the flanks would wrap around their line. Rear armor would offer more protection than being naked I suppose, but the knights would still get cut down like wheat in a field.

[@mikev4621]

I dont think there can have been any effective charges by the French over the last 100 yards: the mud stopped most of the horses and sharpened stakes would have got the rest; then the archers shot the stuck horses, the knights fell down and the lightly clad English went in teams to club them to death; and when the next wave of French came in , the whole process was repeated

[@staceyleeellis9160]

Mike V sounds viscous

[@mikev4621]

you mean thick and slow moving : )

[@Escobar224]

Anyone here coming from the king movie?

[@BelloBudo007]

Yep!!

[@enlightenedterrestrial]

Yeh, the battle was really underwhelming and unrealistic in that movie...

[@Khasidon]

@@enlightenedterrestrial This account seems wrong too-

[@junreaksaa]

The battle is poorly executed and there was a shot where its like from the game of thrones, when john emerge from the mud and chaos of the battle.

[@Khasidon]

@Duncan Sands No it's not.

[@gunneryorkson1259]

It's fact that training with long bow was a way of life and law in Britain. Luck, skill and sheer will carried the day.

[@albertclarke2826]

Someone talking sense. Whatever will we do?

[@pascalxavier3367]

In Crecy, Poitiers, Agincourt, the french used a disastrous strategy; they directly attacked the english who were protected by spikes which stopped the mounted knights; it allowed the english bowmen to sift the french with their arrows. Later the french at last inderstood how disastrous this strategy was and completely changed it. In the battle of Formigny the French didn't expose themselves like they did in previous battles, they shelled the english at long range with their cannons, which were a quite new weapon for the time, and of which the french were the precursors, and the long bows of the english didn't have a range long enough to be able to replicate; this forced the english to uncover themselves and come attack the french; it is at that moment that the britton cavalry attacked, and, unlike in the previous battles, it was efficient, because the english didn't have spikes to stop them and their bows to strike them. The new french strategy proved to be very efficient; the french may have taken time to know how to proceed, but, when they found it, it proved to be very efficient and fatal for the english.

[@projectilequestion]

That isn't true, the French learnt their mistakes and adapted far earlier.

[@theirishrevolutionchannel1087]

Hey man, stumbled across you on Reddit. Great video, great content, looking forward to seeing more

[@archetypalhistories7435]

Thank you, I have just started covering the Wars of the Roses with my new videos, I hope you find them to your liking also.

[@stonesinmyblood27]

That was a great history lesson

[@aaronbuckmaster7063]

You must never forget the simple but deadly foe, General Mud. The ground is always the most important factor. I’ve seen that ground. Henry had the high ground. As far as the archers, most of the Mary Rose bows were over 140lbs to 200lbs draw. Those archers were the deciding factor as far as assets were weighed in that battle.

[@CHIL2903]

Correct Aaron, Mud! I was in Azincourt a few years ago talking to an historian, who said that the tapering site of the battle field had been ploughed the days before and it had rained. He didn't say how it was ploughed though, whether by a farmer or the exercising of war horses. Mud in this part of France,as discovered in WWI was very sticky and anyone or thing getting stuck in would have great difficulty in extracting themselves due to the suction, leaving them as sitting ducks for the arrows, mattocks and bodkins of the archers. The bows were also of an enormous draw weight, handled by archers who had been using them since childhood and had skeletal deformities proving the fact. I've seen the videos that try and disprove the fact that the arrows could not have pierced armour but the draw weights used were nothing like the ones used by the medievalists. As to the execution of the prisoners, (away from the battle site) against all the rules of chivalry and huge financial loss, was supposedly done (by the archers and not using bows) because Henry's rear and baggage train was being attacked, possibly by forces from the local castle, Azincourt, (the castle that gave the battle its name) or latecomers to the fight and Henry could not allow these prisoners to link up with those attacking the rear. The best book I've read on this period is Ian Mortimer's 1415, Henry V's Year of Glory. It covers all that was happening in Europe at the time as well, murders, popes and a lot of religious/heretical shenanigans (and first and foremost Henry V was a religious man) and culminating in the battle itself.

[@aaronbuckmaster7063]

You got it. War is fluid and dynamically expansive, even in close quarters. Only people who have been is combat can really understand that. I would like to see one of those medievalists try and draw a 140 pound bow, let alone a 200 pound bow. Even if one of those guys could pull it back to draw weight, they wouldn’t hit a darn thing at distance. Those archers didn’t just rain arrows, they shot at targets. I used to be able to pull and shoot accurately a 120 pound recurve bow. I used it to hunt wild boar. I couldn’t pull that thing back to full draw even if I needed to. When I used that bow, I was 6’4”, a slim 280 pounds and naturally very strong. I could pick up 600 pounds then. But even I wonder if I could have pulled and shot a 200 pound bow accurately. I wish some like you, along with a historian who has been there and has read all the material would make a video of this battle and equipment and living logistics. There’s so much to any battle, especially medieval armies. These guys almost always say the accounts of centuries and millennia past are exaggerated and improbable. I get tired of it.

[@CHIL2903]

@@aaronbuckmaster7063 There has been a tendency for a while now in academia to downplay any past achievements, making them out to be nothing to be proud of, even ashamed of in some cases. Hence the concentration on Henry's killing of the prisoners. How these people can, with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, sat in their dusty libraries, come to these decisions is risible. It could have something to do Shakespeare's jingoistic "account" of the battle, Bill after all was never an historian. The 1940s moral lifting film with Olivier was also responsible for "arrow" storm/cloud myth that still permeates thinking today, same with the armoured knights shot being winched onto their horses. The facts (chronicled) are there was an exhausted, under strength army, having lost many men at the siege of Harfleur They were starving (having to eat acorns) and riddled with disease shadowed and harried, at every turn, by a much larger force and forced into battle at a site not of their choosing. It just happened to be where the French had finally managed to block Henry's route to Calais. It was a sloping site, French on the high ground, tapering as it went down hill and edged with woods either side, making it difficult for heavy cavalry to operate. Given the condition of the ground, the numbers of the goaded French, wanting to get at the English, especially Henry's center (where all the ransom money was, his crown actually took a blow from a sword) the outcome was a foregone conclusion. Archers at point blank range, the oncoming French pressing and having to climb the mounds of dead to get killed in their turn, all the while fearful of French reinforcements turning at any time. They say that history is written by the winners but this battle had chroniclers and heralds from both camps, whose accounts still survive today. There is even a mention of someone getting killed by a gun during the battle (likely that Henry had cannon at Harfleur for the siege but these would have been left behind along with the gunners) but the books I've read didn't elaborate.

[@aaronbuckmaster7063]

Well that gave this old war horse a more painted picture of this engagement than this video did. Thanks. Except for the equipment, medieval wars and engagement isn’t to much different. You have to know your past to know where your going, and so you don’t repeat it.

[@CHIL2903]

@@aaronbuckmaster7063 Most welcome Aaron and you're correct, we forget history at our peril! Seek out a copy of the book I mentioned in my first comment. I think you will enjoy it. Also worth a look, an account by a contemporary Frenchman (not sure if he was present) www.deremilitari.org/RESOURCES/SOURCES/agincourt.htm

[@michaelm3691]

Agincourt is like catnip for Brits

[@Tahkaullus01]

I know right? We can turn anything into a win. Like that time at Normandy.

[@TooJubeJM1]

Tahkaullus01 the aim was to win the war.

[@caractacusbrittania7442]

@@TooJubeJM1 the "aim" of this battle Was no more than to reach calais.

[@TooJubeJM1]

caractacus brittania do you mean Paris or Rheims? Why Calais? That is further North

@@TooJubeJM1 Henry needed to get to Calais because it was the only major port still in English control.

[@paulhadfield-lowe]

you do realize that the mud and the terrain had a lot to do with the victory,the majority of welsh and english archers knew that if the rider could not be brought down then they would shoot at the horse,thats why in some pictures you see horses with front armour.The archers did not shoot over the top but straight at em.

[@sandracoffie6338]

Beautifully narrated 👑

[@dereklee7453]

Interesting, but somewhat limited account. Just to take one point on the importance of armour weight. The English Archers were placed between battles of Men-at Arms AND in curving wings on the flanks. This allowed the creation of an Enfilade, shooting into the unbarded flanks of the horses bringing the Knights down, as their horses fell or bucked in pain and terror. Whatever the weight of their armour, the knights were then down in thick mud and in a press of bodies, both horse and human. Not surprisingly It is said many French actually died of suffocation, which means conditions for the armour wearer where it is likely that visors would be opened to facilitate BREATHING, thus leaving the Knight open to arrow in to his face. Interestingly, the same actions and wound that Henry V sustained at the Battle of Shrewsbury when he was 16. I feel there is much more to be said about the arrow storm, where up to 1000 arrows per SECOND could be raining down on the hapless, bogged down French, i.e. say 6 000 archers shooting 10 - 12 arrows per minute equals AT LEAST 60 000 arrows per minute ... 1 000 per second. The conditions of injury and plain terror thus produced amongst horses and men must have been an incredible weapon in itself. I feel there is so much more to be said here than your video covers ... Thank You Derek J. Lee

[@johncoughlan8820]

I think it was definitely a combination of tactical mistakes by the French on the day and Mud definitely helped kill the French. I’ve been to that area and i can tell you the mud is quite peculiar there,it literally sucked my boots off! I can imagine those poor souls falling face down getting trampled and literally suffocating in that mud, While the lightly clad English jump around them stabbing eyes and cutting throats,with no room to move it must have been like a Butchers market. 😞 Can i just say as well that Bodkin arrows shot from a close range directly at armour,can penetrate some armour most definitely and would be lethal. Don’t forget that trained archers can shoot independently too and to be honest a Bow in the right hands ls like an automatic gun shooting death 💀 With Bodkins at close range. That with the confusion,noise,mass of scared men and horses,the mud... Terrifying it must have been.

[@PoliticusRex632]

I don't think that was the way they were used. Initially they would fill the air with as many arrows as possible. Then once the lines met they would run forward for aimed shots at their horses. As the riders fell with their horses the light infantry would jump on the prone knights. Finally, shots into armor from 20 feet or so. That would be my plan anyway.

[@albertclarke2826]

Yeah, nothing to do with the British effort. You revisionist fuckers make me want to upchuck.

[@billdonnell630]

The depiction of the battle is inaccurate. The French were not defeated by arrows. The overwhelviming numbers of French became packed together so tight and incumbered in the mud that they were unable to wield their weapons. The archers attacked the helpless french with knives clubs and other hand weapons and slaughtered them. Tests have proven that arrows from the English long bow at the 200 yards stated could not pierce the French armor. To have a French knigh'st armor being pierced by the longbow would require hlim to be extreemly close to the archer. Other accounts of Agincourt on the Internet do not match the author's description of the battle.

[@lookwaticando909]

similar to Cannae with Hanibal defeats the Romans biggest slaughter in that time

[@benhill2214]

Bill I agree. I've seen tests where arrows fired from those types of bows couldn't penetrate even the ring mail unless fired as close as 10 meters or less. Those romantic stories of the English archers firing long parabolic arcs wouldn't provide enough energy to get through leather armor at those distances.

[@grahamkemp]

You’re missing the (often ignored) impact of the arrows on the French horses: once a knight fell off his horse he could’nt get back up TO HIS FEET, let alone his horse. Horses were lightly armored because of the weight of the massively armored knights. Add in the mud and you get what happened - a slaughter of ridiculously awkward French knights.

[@paganphil100]

Bill Donnell: Its true that arrows fired from modern bows can't penetrate modern plate armour......however, those bows used during the battle were much more powerful than modern ones and the armour available at that time was made from inferior (by today's standards) metal. Contemporary reports of the battle (i.e. by people who were actually there) report that the French knights were "transfixed to their saddles" by the armour-piercing bodkin arrows. Bodkins were used for hundreds of years by many armies before firearms were invented........they wouldn't have been if they hadn't been effective.

[@taskmaster1234]

@@grahamkemp thats another myth of our time. Look up some videos of tests with armors and you can see how easy some of those guys can move in them. Surely they could get back up themselves. This picture of the turtle lying on his back is just plain wrong.

[@Daylon91]

Arrows didnt penetrate plate armour. The only thing the french worried about was there were so many arrows they were afraid of their vision slits. The French knight didnt need a shield BECAUSE of his armour.

[@Sandhoeflyerhome]

Shaped armour helped a lot, plate armour was very effective. Yet at close range you could penetrate it, if the angle of impact was square on, anything else was deflected and was harmless. Seen this in recreation. Long bow, bodkin and representative plate. Nothing got through at distance. But close in sometimes a 3 inch puncture. The horses would not be so lucky.

[@seanb5888]

Many people in the comments are saying the arrows wouldn't have been that effective as they couldn't penetrate plate armor. The fact is metallurgy was not as advanced as it is now, nor was quality control as good to ensure every piece of armor was evenly made. Additionally, if these armor plates weren't brand new they could be weakened due to possible rust or impacts from previous battles. Even so, lets say the plate armor could withstand arrow hits, the entire body was not covered in plate armor. All protection weakens around body joints or you wouldn't be able to move. The arrows could easily have hit the neck, shoulder joints, arms, hands, hip joints, legs and feet given the sheer volume of arrows. While some of these shots may not have been fatal, they would inflict damage from debilitating to almost lethal.

[@leth9320]

Steel armour had come into use a few years before Agincourt. Arrows could penetrate the older cast iron armour but steel was much more resilient. Plus the French knights were very high ranking noblemen who could afford the best available armour and likely it would not have been weakend by earlier battles. I agree that sheer weight of numbers of English arrows would be wearing and would cause casualties. Accounts say that the French had to bow their heads from the hail of English arrows. We also know that French knights WERE dying from arrow fire. We dont know how but they were dying. I think also many French died in the crush in the mud and others were later slaughtered by the bowmen who, unencumbered by heavy armour, ran into the flanks of the French with hammers, knives and clubs and set about the exhausted French knights floundering in the mud.

[@pauls064]

Experiments have been done on armor of the era. Even at close range, bodkins do not penentrate.

[@Hinata.Sakaguchi]

Hi where do you edit this?what did you use for animating?

[@alvashoemaker8536]

Fascinating...!! 👍👣

[@brIceni-x4w]

There are many things that just don't make sense about Agincourt, but my primary question would be; If the English longbow couldn't penetrate armour then why the hell did the English bet almost everything they had on it's implementation in battle? We know that various tactical advantages were gained by the English in the run up to battle. The best likely being the capture of French battle plans, also field position and conditions but these were things that could never have been taken into consideration when the English were assembling their men, provisions and plans before confidently embarking for French shores.. Why at that stage did they choose to take an overwhelming percentage of bowmen, apart from economics of course? There's no way they'd take themselves off into foreign lands where an incalculable amount of variables could afflict their odds without being pretty confident that they could, at the very least, take on several thousand well armoured opponents with well armoured horses, all without favourable conditions. They simply wouldn't have left English shores if this was in any serious doubt. Could it be that the Mary Rose bows were something akin to training bows or made for different purposes like close range, ship to ship fighting? I believe that the bow was a way of life at that point of English history. Every man would likely treasure his bow just as much as his wife. Tailored to his unique style and physique by a local expert. It would be a very personal weapon. Perhaps comparable to the Japanese Katana in cost, complexity and expertise of manufacture. He would train with that bow and get to know it like the back of his hand. Dare I say that he would've been like a whale out of water with a stock bow made by the hundreds like the Mary Rose examples. There would be many, many bow builders, fletcher's and blacksmith's each vying for acclaim and prestige, the rate of of improvement must've been astronomical, much like the arms races of the 20th century except each medieval village and town had competing experts all improving designs and competing at the many archery competitions county wide and nationally where designs would be compared and improved upon again. The designs would be closely guarded, never written down for fear of being stolen, only passed down to trusted sons or apprentices. Could it be that they eventually created something that the English King and his commanders felt confident enough in working very effectively.. Effectively enough to leverage their own lives on whilst facing unknown odds against well armoured, battle hardened Frenchmen? They knew the horrors of war. They would've been pragmatic and assumed that they would be at a numerical disadvantage while in someone else's 'back yard'. They knew they needed an advantage. Again, I repeat, they could not rely on having any favourable conditions. Were the relatively tiny numbers of English heavy footsoldiers and cavalry considered so good that they bet their lives on them guaranteeing a good shot at being victorious? Or, could it be that they knew full well they could rely on a potent weapon that was proven to kill armoured men at distance? A weapon they clearly had much faith in.. A weapon we have yet to, or perhaps, never will unearth or find in he historical record.

[@localbod]

Does anyone have any idea how long it would take to sharpen the wooden stakes that were carried by each English archer to create a defense obstacle against the French cavalry? My point is that to present an obstacle to put the horses off, the stakes would need to be of a diameter of at least a couple of inches. So how do you knock a wooden stake into the ground without blunting the pointed end that would be projecting towards the direction of the enemy? Or would the stakes be simply pushed into the earth to a sufficient depth to be sturdy enough at an angle? Perhaps I'm missing an obvious solution.

[@7121976]

Very well explained !!

[@rempuiafanai7103]

Doesnt matter if the arrows pierced armor or not, the amount of blunt trauma recieved would knock/stagger a lot of people or killed if they fell from their horses.

[@maureenbernhardt1934]

I love this part of history 💝

[@Vidis88]

Not if you are a frenchman ^^

[@rarjunglist]

The way in which you describe the arrows cutting down full plate armored knights is ludicrous, arrows cannot penetrate steel plate of this time period even at close range. However small areas of the body were vulnerable, but even then they would have chain mail and thick cloth padding beneath that.

[@haha-jx5ui]

just what the froggies thought??? big mistake

[@rarjunglist]

@@haha-jx5ui no not a mistake

[@rossbaglin5872]

A lot of work has gone into this, and Part 1 of the 2-video series is great, making clear the strategic background. But this presentation is not persuasive and relies too much on the longbow myth. Suggest reading John Keegan’s magisterial book “the Face of Battle” for a better summary of the archers’ real role, which was as much about ground action as archery.

[@egorall]

A few comments. 1. Bowmen could not keep up a 'hail' of arrows more than a few minutes without drastically cutting down the rate of fire. Basic body physiology. 2. The bowmen shot at relatively close range and tests done against armor show that even bodkin arrows shot with 160 lb war bows at 10-15 yards doesn't penetrate breast plate armor. 3. Unlike the English, the French knights wore a jupon over their breast plates, which slightly dampened the impact of arrows, but more importantly, reduced collateral damage as deflected arrow damage was greatly diminished. 4. The French were well aware of the effectiveness of English bowmen and how best to counter them. They had planned to ride them down with heavy cavalry before the two sides were even within sight of each other. That had proved effective in the past. The problem with this plan at Agincourt was that the English had their sides protected with trees/shrubs and so couldn't be flanked by cavalry, and the archers were all ordered to each plant a 6' stake in front of their lines to ward against a frontal assault by cavalry. Agincourt was won for several reasons, but the two biggest was the rainfall making the battlefield slick and muddy, and the inability of the French cavalry to be able to outmaneuver and run down the bowman formations.

[@albertclarke2826]

Yeah, why not. The British weren't even there. You make me puke with your stupidity.

[@johnk1639]

People arguing about how the battle unfolded like they were there. There will always be speculation about the exact details.

[@T_bone]

One source says the Archers for the French were mercenaries and had taken the wrong arrows, bringing barbed arrows for use against horses and other unarmored archers. When the tried to run back to get the bodkins to fire at the Men-at-arms the back line of French Knights cut many of them down thinking they were fleeing the battle.

[@Daylon91]

"Mercenaries that had taken the wrong arrows" I'd ride over them too.

[@theangrycheeto]

I think they were missing their pavice shields as well

[@ImperialScribe]

Great video.

[@archetypalhistories7435]

Thank you, I'm really glad to know my content is reaching people :)

[@chocksaway100]

Brilliant account of the brutal bloody battle of Agincourt Henry giving the order to execute all prisoners so as to preserve his momentum is a paticulary chilling fact .

[@leth9320]

They only executed the prisoners who wouldn't command a large ransom. Marschalle Busiceau himself was captured and taken to England where he died in 1421.

[@Sandhoeflyerhome]

I stayed for two nights at Tramcour, walked the area and visited the museum. Its a flat area, not a valley or a pass as you describe. Mainly farm land. Good soil. I am a keen archer. I can hit the bull easily repeatedly at 30 yards. I can not hit much at 60 years. Nothing at 100 yards. As for 400 yards I do not think any low tech bow of the period ever reached out to 400 yards. Volley fire would be the most effective method of defencive fire.

[@albertclarke2826]

What a completely puerile argument you present.

[@pauls064]

@@albertclarke2826 his argument is 100% spot on. The land there is almost dead flat, and arrows would not reach 400 yards as has been proven hundreds of times in experiments and recreation. You reply is puerile.

[@PolluxA]

The English forces were not 8,000. Gesta, an eye witness, said 900 men-at-arms and 5,000 archers. This correspond well with other sources who said the French had 10 times more men-at-arms than the English and 6 times more men in total. This idea about 8,000 English is from Anne Curry, and she is wrong. Her methodology is as skewed it gets. She maximizes the English numbers and minimizes the French. She did her calculations based on the sick lists Henry V ordered to be made at the end of the siege at Harfleur. But she does not take into consideration all those who left before this, or those who were too sick to leave and stayed at Harfleur when Henry V marched off. Neither does she take into account that the sick lists are probably incomplete, partially because Henry V decided to pay everyone who died in 1417. On the French numbers she first uses Berry's Herald, but then, for some unknown reason decides to outright ignore several thousand men from some of the major magnates. Orléans, Bourbon, Nevers and Brabant had 2,500 men together according to her. Berry's Herald have this number at around 3,400. She also ignores Bar, Roucy & Braine, who had 600 and 200 men respectively. She's off with 1,700 on her 8,000 men-at-arms. In addition to this you have individual men-at-arms, probably at least 300. The total number of French men-at-arms was therefore 10,000, as pointed out by several of the sources, Berry's Herald being one of them. The French didn't have 500 crossbowmen and 1,500 archers. They had 4,000 archers. In addition to this, according to Monstrelet, they had 1,500 crossbowmen. The cavalry force consisted of 1,200 on the flanks and 600 in the rearguard as a reserve. However, only 420 actually participated in the charge because Henry V marched on the French lines and took them by surprise. Of heavy infantry, they had 8,200 and at least 1,600 well armoured gros valets. However, because only 420 of the cavalry force attacked, the rest fought as dismounted men-at-arms, bringing the total up to 10,580. If we give allowance for 1 well armoured gros valet for each knight, 2 for each baron/baili/leading officer/x-duke, 4 for each earl/bishop and 8 for dukes, we have 1,554. If 3/5 of the newly knighted esquires had 1 well armoured gros valet, we have 1,854 as a total. Because the sources are in agreement on 1,600 gros valets in the second division while they at the same time say the first division was as big as the second, it's probably likely that there was around 200 very well armoured gros valets in the first division, following the major magnates. Therefore the first division had 4,800 men-at-arms and 200 gros valets and the second had 3,400 men-at-arms and 1,600 gros valets in addition to 780 from the cavalry force. A total of 10,780 heavy infantry. The remaining men-at-arms had at least 1 valet each in the third division. That is 8.431 valets mounted on their master's warhorses. But these men didn't participate in the battle. Neither did the archers, because they routed after a few volleys. Each man-at-arms had 1 page too. The total number of men and boys were therefore approximately 36,000, or 6 times more than the English, as pointed out by the sources.

[@marcmonnerat4850]

In the middle of a civil war, the King of France could never have fielded such a large army. Most of the knights were from Flanders and Northern France.

[@tattoofthesun]

Can you possibly lighten the music in future videos? It’s a little too pensive for the video and makes it feel more dark, whereas your presentation could be uplifted by a better, brighter soundtrack

[@Egilhelmson]

The final ‘t’ in Agincourt was pronounced even in the Middle French of the time, let alone Middle English.

[@RonaldReaganRocks1]

The mud defeated the French, just like Waterloo. The mud is going to favor the side that is lighter (the English unarmored bowmen), and the side that doesn't try to move, and takes a defensive posture (the English).

[@matc21]

Of course an American tries to belittle an English victory.

[@PortmanRd]

Henry just like Wellington chose the battlfield.

[@thephilosopherofculture4559]

8m30. No arrows falling from above. The English arrows were shot almost horizontally which is how they were so effective in mowing down the French. Sources write that French knights were afraid to catch an arrow in the slits of their vizers / head-gear. This would not have been a concern if the arrows would have fallen from above. For centuries, and until this day, the power of the longbow has been underestimated from the moment it went out of use.

[@sosig6445]

Also while according to test the longbow CAN'T penetrate a plate armor, they almost always use the best quality steal for the armor, and always fire the arrow at the center where it was the thickest. In reality many soldiers wore armor made of wrought iron sense tempered steel was expensive, and the english would aim for the know weakpoints insteas of the thick brestplate.

[@KeithTingle]

Someday time travel will be possible and we can get some drone footage of what really happened in Agincourt

[@rarjunglist]

are you insane, joking, or just plain stupid?

[@tobiasriling6356]

There are plenty of shooting tests "English war bow vs. plate armor" available on KZbin and they clearly indicate that even very good shots at distances of not much more than 10 to 20 yards could at best leave a dent in the armor. Even chainmail with textile armor underneath would offer very good protection against arrows and crossbow bolts. Not to understate the effectiveness of war bows against lighter infantry and horses, of course, but their role in this battle seems exaggerated. Dismounted knights carrying two-handed weapons would still be nearly imune to arrows or bolts of any kind, after all, there is a reason why these knights survived the cavalry charge to keep fighting on foot afterwards in the first place. However, their armor would certainly slow them down significantly on muddy ground, which would put the archers, who would enter the battle as light and nimble infantry, once they were out of arrows, in a better position. There are actually other examples of battles where outnumbering forces of mounted knights would blindly charge into a line of well positioned infantry protected by pikes and baricades on muddy ground. These often enough ended, like Agincourt, in a surprising and devastating defeat. The answer why these defeats happened is certtainly never as easy as a magical weapon that could penetrate armor at 200 yards distance. Once of the most important factors is probably hybris - ambitious leaders without tactical training or instincts making horrible decisions at tremendous cost.

[@robertlight5227]

Agincourt is an important pivot point of history proving the emergent supremacy of projectile warfare, (with arrows and later with bullets, shells and bombs) over percussive combat (with swords and spears.) Projectile warfare is with us for 'good.' Gone is the supposed romance of an Achilles or Arthur swinging their steel for the crouching pot shots of AKs and M-16s today.

[@robertlight5227]

@Umbrella Corp. Agent I said projectile. Artillery is merely the next step after bow and arrows.

[@ATPMolloy1]

the English "Size" the day?

[@davidclaassen6977]

Longbows were not able to penetrate plate... A coat of plate maybe (although unlikely) would be able to be penetraded between the smaller plates.. although not punctured directly through it. The power of the english longbow was not in its ability to kill armored opponents outright but in harrying them all the way up to the archers lines. Imagine you being fully protected by mail, gambeson and a coat of plate being hit by 10 arrows at the same time... this will have the power of 10 jackhammers landing on top of you. Therefore you will not die of punctures but rather be stopped in ur tracks with severe bluntforce trauma... pls stop propegating the myth of the armor penetrating longbow and see it for what it rlly was

[@GodofAnger2002]

Not to mention the archers didn't just have bows, but light armor and melee weapons as well so once you do make it to their line, they are ready to fight, fresh and unbattered and have very high morale compared to getting pelted with arrows your whole advance forward as you mentioned. It's a true fight of supporting units assisting the main heavy line on ideal ground.

[@benhill2214]

@Manchago Manchago From what I've read it was that soft ground that was the trap. They were both leery of taking the initiative, and I doubt the French would have sent their horses and heavily armed men across that field if they realized how muddy it would get.

[@CHIL2903]

@@benhill2214 Correct Ben, it was the suction making progress impossible, not to mention the press from those behind wanting to get a share of the prisoners and the ransoms they would command.

[@artfuldodger9312]

David, Firstly, what you say is generally correct. French Armour at the time was extremely well manufactured and using slopes and various inclinations in the Armour, arrows were generally ineffective at full penetration of steel plate even at short distances. With that said, because high quality steel was expensive many soldiers especially foot soldiers, who were generally lower in rank then their mounted counterparts, could not afford full steel plate Armour of the grade necessary to prevent arrow penetration. In this case, wrought iron Armour or Armour mix and matched from different craftsmen was used which a) decreased the overall effectiveness of the Armour and b) caused certain parts of the Armour, especially limb Armour, to be relatively much weaker than breastplate Armour. In this case it would be safe to say that while the French had superior Armour, the prohibitive cost allowed English long-bowmen to still remain effective at least on ground troops

[@davidclaassen6977]

Of course these men were a weapon of volume so to say. But still even at closerange a bodkin fired from a warbow will not penetrate a well made gambeson, yet a flat hunting point might just do the job. Again I think the amounr of actual penetration deaths were less the thought. What I imagine is the french vanguard of footmen advancing within say 15 meters of the english before the archers unleashing a hail of arrows causing the french line to disrupt and people to fall over (imagine being hit in the head with a bodkin whilst enclosed in your helmet, hello hernia) after which the contignent of french is severly reduced in figthing effectiveness after which the English footmen quickly make small charges to mop up before moving back to the line waiting for the next wave with prisoners being escorted away to the back. Again not so much death from arrow but more a chaos of which the English took advantage.

[@NatSatFat]

I believe you are wrong about the English Archers loosing 100,000 arrows at start at long range (as arrows would not have got through the Frenches armour). more probably would have held their fire untill it was close range staight on, then let go their numerous arrows at the sides of the French Armour, certainly NOT straight on.

[@mikem9001]

The English archers would have very little chance to shoot at the sides of the French armour. Longbows were effective against mounted knights because the horses were not armoured, but had little effect on knights or men-at-arms on foot. Which is why the French by this time mainly attacked English forces on foot. The storm of arrows at Agincourt would have caused few casualties in the main attack, but added to the difficulties caused by bad overcrowding in the French line, and the thick mud they attacked through. Contemporary sources say the French on foot could barely lift their swords by the time they reached the English line, and were immediately cut down.

[@NatSatFat]

@@mikem9001 Very reassonable reply

[@patio87]

7:55 No plate armor was being penetrated by arrows. Can't believe you actually said that, and from 200 yards!!!!!! Wow wee! Those must be like 1000 lb bows or something.

[@Daylon91]

"Ballista!"

[@harryzero1566]

Disease may have reduced the numbers of the English (archers), but their arrows would have still brought a considerable number of French victims. This fact is not emphasised when the disparity of the two sides is marveled at by history and historians.

[@shotleylad]

It seems some people do not understand that English low bows were much more powerful than modern copies.

[@Chechen_Kavkaz]

Not really, modern copies of the same bows are just as strong, they use the same materials and technique. The arrows wouldn't penetrate plate armor, or even if they could penetrate, wouldn't do any damage. But with the sheer amount of arrows fired they could easily hit less armored parts of the body, like the arms, legs and neck. And many of the forces were also men-at-arms, who wouldn't have as much plate armor and would be less armored than the actual knights.

[@mikem9001]

@@Chechen_Kavkaz Good points. I would add that Henry used his archers (firing at long range) to taunt the French chivalry to launch an attack against him, across very muddy ground. The hail of arrows as they attacked probably didn't inflict many serious casualties, but it added to the French exhaustion by the time they reached the English line.

[@mikev4621]

If I was in good armour, and I could feel arrows pinging and bouncing off me , I'd be laughing my head off, not getting stressed

[@mustafabeer1791]

@@mikev4621 Yeah, until you got stuck in the mud then it's game over!

[@phillipalexandercarr1462]

1422 was an important cosmological alignments similar to today

[@bansengkhoo564]

Why was Normandy hostile? Were the English rulers Normans themselves?

[@r.eticdu1371]

The Plantagenets Dukes of Normandy, Anjou, Aquitaine and Kings of England did not want to pay tribute to the kings of France for their possessions in the Kingdom of France. They were declared felon and their possessions confiscated. The King of France Philippe-Auguste (1180-1223) had taken over Normandy and most of the possessions of the plantagenets. In 1346, there remained in France at the Plantagenet only part of Aquitaine.

[@inachu]

I prefer fighting Agincourt via the old DOS game called CASTLES 2 . Great game!

[@chrish7336]

As Aleksandar mentioned in a previous post there was a group of craft masters/historians who recreated the materials best as possible for the armor, long bow, and arrows. ( kzbin.info/www/bejne/enPblYehmcl7l6c ) 200 yards was very possible but not to penetrate the armor. It was suspected by the length of bows, materials used etc that they had been using a long bow with a 160lb draw (this is the weight used in the testing). My compound with a 60lb draw could fire at 120yds but would bounce off the target using field tips. Archers for England were well trained and accurate no doubt and the arrows could penetrate the Chainmail armor that would also be worn especially at close range (minute 13.49 in the above mentioned video). Chain mail was not designed to fight arrows. The Long Range effect (300-400 yrd) of the archers would be more as a warning and with luck might penetrate skin based on the make up of the arrow heads. At 200 yrds catching an open spot on the body could penetrate This may even make it appear that it was piercing the armor even if it technically didn't. The recreation done proved that even at 25 yards the arrow would not penetrate the armor, it would however hit with enough force to damage the armor and knock the wearer back. This would very much be like wearing a bullet proof Vest today and with being hit with non armor-piercing bullets. It will knock you back and you'll feel it but your not seriously injured. Close range as mentioned in this article could knock back the attacker and even potentially take their breath away. Add to that the outer cover that some would be wearing over the metal plate and it would given the appearance of penetrating as they potentially fell back from the blow.

[@junreaksaa]

French died by the fall from their horses after the arrows knocked them down. Probably many had their neck broken.

[@Daylon91]

Arrows wouldn't knock u from your horse...lmao when the horses were wounded or killed by the arrows and fell then the knight would fall off. Have u ever seen a medieval saddle lol "arrows knocked them off their horses" lol

[@theangrycheeto]

@@Daylon91 I think he meant the arrows that knocked down (or fell) the horses.

[@docbailey3265]

The use of mortars and hand grenades doesn’t get enough attention. The English were quite good with them. The French did not get close enough for their flamethrowers to be effective.

[@JRos-qc6kw]

At the French victory decisive and final battle of Castillon (1453) the English army was chopped and crushed by the French artillery of Bureau brothers.

[@Marmocet]

400 yards is likely an overestimate of the range of the longbowmen's arrows because it implies an improbably light arrow. A maximum range of 200-300 yards is more likely. Heavier arrows won't fly as far as light ones, but generally speaking, they're better at retaining their momentum and are more effective at penetrating their targets deeply enough to inflict serious wounds.

[@Daylon91]

400 yards to just rain down arrows and piss off the french. Joe Gibbs shoots a 160 ibs longbow 400 yards maximum

[@Marmocet]

@@Daylon91 Best case scenario: *Bow efficiency:* 80% (this is a _very_ generous assumption, especially for a bow of this type shooting a very light arrow) *Arrow mass:* 5 grains per pound of draw force (51.8 grams) - actual arrows would have weighed at least 40% more than this to prevent energy left over in the bow from causing the bow limbs vibrate and snap. *Arrow diameter:* 15/32" (Doable with natural materials with a little extra engineering to compress the arrow shaft wood from 16/32" diameter; any thinner with a wood arrow and the forces exerted on it by a 160# bow would cause it to snap during launch.) *Arrow drag coefficient:* 1.61-1.75 *Altitude at launch:* 100m above sea level Under these assumptions, using a little Newtownian physics, you get the following: *Distance maximizing launch angle:* 39.5 degrees *Flight distance:* 341.4 meters (373.4 yards) *Launch velocity:* 80.56 m/s (264 fps - unheard of for this type of bow). *Arrow velocity at impact:* 45.21 m/s (148.3 fps) *Arrow K.E. at impact:* 52.98 J *Arrow Momentum at impact:* 2.34 Ns Getting hit by this arrow at its maximum range would be a bit like getting hit by an arrow from a reasonably well made 40# draw weight target shooting bow shot from a distance of ~5 meters, although the target arrow would penetrate better than the longbow arrow because the target bow's arrow would be subjected to less violent acceleration forces during launch and so could be narrower and therefore focus its force on impact in a smaller area. To get a 400 yard longbow shot, even with an improbably efficient longbow shooting an arrow that is lighter than what could probably be achieved using natural materials available during the medieval period, you'd still need a stiff tail wind. EDIT: And/or to be shooting from a hillside.

[@Daylon91]

@@Marmocet nah man u need at least 8 grains per pound for what poubdage they were shooting. He didnt mention whether there was wind but yea shooting with the wind on your back would help it alot

[@solomonstemplers]

A lot of conspiracy theorists here: accepting the facts that longbows were not capable of penetrating the armour of the day and there's been a few vids up proving thus i guess its correct but what we don't take into account is the fact that longbows are used in vast numbers at this time they must have had some use and must have been effective at some stage, I mean after all the evidence and testing what is the key factor missing to explain the outcome there was a reason for so many archers, I don't imagine for a second it was because they were cheaper any commander would not make that decision based on that factor alone they would also have to be effective the campaign was all about winning after all not just a walk around france showing off with 6000 useless archers. I also refuse to believe that the majority of french had the best armour as the expense to buy it was not afforded to the majority. Its also been proven that at 20yrds longbows do penetrate heavy armour and i can imagine a volley of as much as 6000 arrows at that range something is bound to stick.Also horses don't voluntarily run into spikes and are also reluctant to keep galloping forward after being shot with an arrow they are dumb animals but not that dumb this most definitely would have been folly by the french.

[@beterc0re20]

Nice video, when can we expect more?

[@archetypalhistories7435]

Thanks, I plan on making a series surrounding the Wars of the Roses next, Hopefully having my first video on it out by next week focusing on Richard II and the Origins of the conflict.

[@thegroovee]

12 arrows per minute?!?! Are u mad??? Do u know the amount of effort to sho a long bow? More like 2 to 3 arrows per minute

[@johntillman6068]

Revisionist figures for French force numbers are wrong. Shakespeare was right. The odds were five to one, ie about 6000 English and Welsh against around 30,000 French combatants. True, the third French line and many crossbowmen and archers weren't engaged, but they were there. The first two lines and light infantry missile troops which did fight still numbered at least 20,000. What revisionists overlook is that every man-at-arms, whether a mounted knight or fighting as a heavily armored foot soldier, had a gros valet, a less well equipped, but still effective, mounted combatant servant, in addition to his largely non-combatant squire. Camp followers aren't counted, but would have been numerous. The third line was probably composed mainly of gros valet servants. Hence, roughly, 10,000 men-at-arms and mounted knights, an equal number of mounted gros valet attendants, and thousands of light infantry. The latter might have been as few as 4000-5000, but could well have numbered another 10,000, with more arriving during the day of the battle, as men at arms as well. English forces included fewer than 1000 dismounted men-at-arms and perhaps 5000 archers, plus some camp guards and horse holders.

[@TheAaronExperience]

Been there. This is where Chivalry died 604 years ago when Henry killed his prisoners. It's a low rounded and long hill with the trees at the low side of the hill on both sides so I'm not too sure about your comment about archers having 'elevated positions. Attacking combatants (the French) would be marching slightly up hill too and would naturally be inclined to the top and center of the hill, where they massed and were slaughtered by the British archers and Men at Arms. The effectiveness of the arrows to penetrate plate armor is still in question, but certainly did cause panic which was helpful.

[@rowdyyates4273]

Chivalry is ok if you know that your prisoners are going to play "the game" if not survival is gonna be the "game" to play, in reality there are no rules for war, do what you have to do to win and go home alive!!!

[@TheAaronExperience]

@@rowdyyates4273, I'm saying this is the place and time that historians agree the Chivalric code died because the English king killed his prisoners, which was against chivalric code.

[@pegjames188]

Chivalry never existed for those without money.

[@TheAaronExperience]

Well, ya. The name itself implies at the very least the equine class, so...it's not cheap to keep horses. But, the point is, Chivalry was a thing and this is where it died.

[@johngrindley169]

@@TheAaronExperience ; Chivalry didn't die, there are hundreds of acts of chivalry over the following years and centuries in any class status. At Agincourt the chivalry was not respected because of the fear the battle may turn against the English and the prisoners would not respect their surrender terms. but The code of chivalry did not die at Agincourt. To say Chivalry died at Agincourt is just some authors way of saying the code of chivalry was ignored, the king and his aristocratic knights respected the code of chivalry by not killing the prisoners themselves, they kept their hands clean by letting the lowly archers do the killing. The code of chivalry was not extended to the common soldier. There was no ransom to be made from them, neither could they receive a surrender from a knight, capture him yes, but not accept his sword as surrender, so, the King and his knights were in the clear. The common soldier would be blamed and punished by death if caught.

[@PoliticusRex632]

French tactics were abysmal. A cavalry charge in two opposing columns would've annihilated the English. Failure to secure the wooded flanks with their thousands of light infantry was inexcusable.

[@garychynne1377]

classic

[@enlightenedterrestrial]

Although the story was enjoyable, the movie 'The King' did real injustice to the real events of the battle. The engagement itself looked like if I was watching Braveheart mashed with Battle of Bastards. People suicidally running into each other and disorganizedly fighting individual duels all over battlefield, all the while rolling in the mud. Fucking bullshit.

[@aussieshooter5358]

All the French know how to do, is make love with their faces!

[@Jaded-Wanderer]

Don't forget about food, wine and mathematics.

[@aussieshooter5358]

@@Jaded-Wanderer umm yeah I forgot about that :)

[@T_bone]

"The King" what a disappointment... I mean slap your head disappointing.

[@baluyotkerrsone.5856]

so english heavy infantry is the best

[@davesmith9844]

French troops running away... never!

[@albertclarke2826]

The French lost.......................again. Not enough cheese?

[@pauls064]

Shockingly poor history for this age. It is repeating the old, debunked myths of a hundred years ago. We know conclusively that the battle did not play out as described in this video.

[@Dennis-DK2]

What a nice bed time story, to make the english think they are better and worth more than they are, but hey it worked so who am i to say this lie is bad.

[@ArchieFatcackie]

Who won?

[@dovahderps9239]

nope, I despise the stereotype that the English longbow could wreck plate armor because several controlled tests have proven otherwise. stop spreading this lie please

[@jamesk8730]

He said it could pierce LOW QUALITY armour. The armour used in Tod's video ( the one I assume you're referencing ) is relatively high quality. Tod himself even said that his test doesn't prove that arrows never pierced plate armour, only that the arrows they used in that test shot from the bow they used didn't pierce the armour they used. Mark Stretton has done tests against lower quality (but still historyically accurate) armour and has been able to pierce it relatively easily. The use of a heavy arrow helps a lot with this, in Tod's test they used a 1200 grain arrow, meanwhile Mark Stretton was using arrows of around 1700 grains if I recall correctly.

[@dovahderps9239]

James K I stand corrected

[@ralphseelisch9040]

You are propagating inaccurate information. You obliviously not an expert.

[@onlylexus]

You know little about archery! I am a master archer, much of what you state here is not accurate.

[@gregoryjackway]

crap