European Archery/ Agincourt/crecy/etc

[Timo Nieminen]

Originally Posted by Chris Evans

The reason that video caught my attention is that it pointed out that there was more to that epic battle than what the more popular renditions would have us believe.

An interesting exercise on the effectiveness of the English longbow is to (a) write down the best estimate of the number of men-at-arms killed on the French side ("men-at-arms" = "armoured soldiers", so knights and other well-armoured soldiers), (b) write down the best estimate of the number of English archers. Then calculate (a)/(b), which is the maximum possible average number of men-at-arms killed per archer. Some French men-at-arms were killed by things other than arrows - at Agincourt, many (most?) of the French men-at-arms killed were killed when Henry V ordered the prisoners to be killed.

Compare this result with outcomes expected if the more extreme propaganda of arrows slicing almost unimpeded through enemy armour was true.

Clearly, the longbow, and English archery in general, was effective (at least often enough to justify the investment). Perhaps not the superweapon it is sometimes claimed to be. Better to appreciate the weapon for the reality, rather than the fiction.