"Henry V's archers vs Wellington's redcoats: Who would win?" Topic

You should look as some of the AMerican Indian Battles from early Jamestown to Little Big Horn. Trained for their weapons and battle on both side that should give some examples of bow verus gun.

Fascinating discussion! I notice many have posited "equal numbers", whilst others have thought of the forces actually employed by Henry V and Wellington (not to mention artillery, cavalry and billmen; what the hell have the Inland Revenue to do with this?). Then there's the technical stuff, variously interpreted and deployed. Weather conditions too; given a dry day, and a strong wind behind them, I guess the archers would destroy any formed units in short order, and the latter wouldn't even be able to prime their pieces properly. And Sharpe vs. Robin Hood? Ever seen Errol Flynn escaping, single-handed, from the castle? Got a Gatling-gun for a bow; hardly even needs to aim and leaves piles of dead extras. I wonder to how many Boards this could be crossposted?

I havn't read though all the post, so sorry if this has been brought up.

but what about ammo capsity,

normal load out war 60 round for the musket, in a verry small box to be cept on the belt.

I'm not sure just how many arrows a archer could carry but I doubt it was 60

the archers would basicly spend all there ammo in like 5 minutts. while the musket armed infantry have ammo for the long run

The alien space bats laugh at 70 rounds.

I covered arrows resupply briefly.
There was a reasonably efficient mechsnism in place and spare arrows were a priority.
Even if they only had the ~ 50 it's thought an archer carried into battle I would have thought a non-issue.
The Napoleonic infantry would have been shredded before they get to effective range.
So we're talking about how much ammo they die with unused.

There's an amazing amount of data available about Agincourt. One letter is from Henry complaining about the cost of so many arrows being used and it says how many.
I could find it in my notes if I dug them out…
But it was a lot, many thousands.

Rate of fire of the longbow is approximately 10-12 per minute with an effective range of up to 200 yards. Given the concentration of fire and the fact that the longbowmen would be extremely proficient, I feel that the longbow might just have the edge.

The longbowmen better hope that they kill, wound or otherwise drive off the musketeers before they become exhausted from shooting.

But then again, the longbowmen might run like hell on first volley from the concentrated musket fire of the redcoats, unless you say that they know about muskets.

Lol,, just have to respond to this

Supercilius Maximus, you are right on the money,, end of discussion.

My personal opinion is there is no modern firearm that could match the English bow for rate of fire, range, and accuracy over range until rather recently.. and now accuracy is not an issue because with modern weapons rate of fire over range takes out the advantages of the English longbow.

I seem to remember in practice the English longbow could hit the bull at 300 yards and at a rate of somewhere around 6 rounds a minute.

the drawback it the advantage of tech and particularly the advantages that mass production has over individual quality… time to train the English bowman,,and thus the time to replace losses.

so in a one off,, its the English bowman hands down,, but if a campaign… attrition will get them every time,,,

hehe,, haven't thought of this in a long time..

anvil

CPTN IGLO: velocity of a long bow is about 150ft/sec, the missile will need about 1,5 to 2 seconds to hit the target at 75 yds.

Are you an archer? Because if you are, that's positively the SLOWEST bow in the world you've got there. You're repeating bogus numbers from somwhere.

If you aim directly the missile will hit the ground by a rough calculation at say 25 yds, gravity sets in the moment the projectile is launched. Its an acceleration process and the first 0.5 seconds can indeed be handled by just pointing at the target, beyond this either adjustable sights or a lot of skills are needed.

This makes no sense to a shooter. First of all, you never aim "directly" at anything, ever. There is this paralax view thingie going on with your eyes considerably above the missile, so every shot, no matter what the range, is "triangulated". Out to somewhere between 60 and 75 yards (depending on draw weight), is the limit of "pointblank" range; beyond that, you have to elevate the bow arm above the target increasingly for longer shots. Bow sights are for sissies and target shooters. A "natural" shooter never needs sights. I suspect that the source you are quoting from is considering a bow clamped in some kind of vice, with the arrow perfectly hozizontal, which it never is outside of 25 yards; and, trust me, the drop of an arrow within "pointblank" range is virtually non existent, a few inches at most.

With fire weapons its not so much of a problem, a napoleonic musket did have a velocity of 1200 ft/sec.

Why do I doubt that muzzle velocity? Iirc, muskets with c. 60 grain charges had well under 1000 fps MV. Somebody correct me, please.

A ball would fly 200yds in half a second, not just 25yds like a longbow missile.
gravity is always the same.

Again, your arrow velocity is way too low. In c. half a second, an arrow will reach 100 yards; unless you are shooting a dinky 30 lb. target bow.

In terms of stopping power, you would also have to factor in the larger mass of the arrow. As well, the arrow would focus its energy onto a small point and that point would be steel and not lead. A musket ball is spheroid and soft metal.

On Agincourt. The stakes were indeed used to stop cavalry. And according to the earliest sources, "many" French cavalry horses were impaled on them, so yeah, the French cavalry reached the longbow line. The bows didn't "stop them dead." But decimated them and routed off the rest. The infantry men-at-arms line was also decimated by arrow vollies, disordered by the compacting that occurred as the men-at-arms flinched away from the flanking vollies, and were then subsequently dispatched in melee by the looser, more nimble English men-at-arms and especially longbowmen. The French men-at-arms actually fell over on one another, thus stopping their forward advance and increasing their casualties enormously. The English arrows began a process of destruction that occurred in quickly successive phases, and completed by hand weapons.

On medieval horses being much slower than Nappie horses. No. The weights carried were similar; c. 250 lbs. total: man, 150 lbs; saddlery 40 lbs; armor 60 lbs. What the Nappie cavalryman lacked in armor he made up for in extra equipment that a medieval man-at-arms did not have. I doubt there was even 30 lbs. difference in the weight of equipment/armor between them. If you are considering the fully armored horses, as the French used at Agincourt, that is c. 40 to 60 lbs. more; again, a very small amount of added weight for a large horse to carry. It would affect the horse's stamina, not its forward speed to any significant degree.

Funnily enough on the dining room table I have 24 Riflemen I painted last weekend and 48 Bowmen that arrived in the post on Wednesday.

Decimated means only 10% losses. Sorry people use that term like its is a massive number.

Da olde englishe longbowe did have a velocity of around 150ft/sec with a heavy warbow. very strong bows could have around 180ft/sec. 180 ft/sec is actually the technical limit of the longbow principle. Modern recurves can do up to 250ft/sec.
No bow can do 100 yds in 0.5 sec which would be around 700 ft/sec.

With a 60 gram warbow and 45m/sec(ca 150ft/sec) you have 60 joule of kinetic energy.
give the weapon 60m/sec(ca 180ft/sec)and you have around 108 joule, this is for a very strong bow.

kinetic energy and velocity are the key elements to define the performance of a projectile weapon.

kinetic energy is the working force contained in a projectile.
One might indeed argue if in practice a .25 browning acp round (86 joule) has more stopping power than a 60 joule longbow missile. But don´t compare the 60 joule longbow missile to a 2400 joule musket ball.

Velocity should always be seen in relation to gravity.
Gravity makes a projectile fall around 1 yard in the first 0.5 sec of flight, 6 yards after 1 second and around 20 yds in two seconds.
A projectile, which needs 2 seconds to travel just 100 yds has obviously a grave ballistic problem.
And even if it hits, the on target effect will be minimal by fireweapons standards.
Where do all these longbow myths come from?
perhaps its medieval romantisicm, no problem with this.
This thread is cross posted, I did not join from a dark ages board but from napoleonics , I´m enlighted so to say.

correction, the 60 gram warbow naturally is a 60 gram war missile

OMG I cannot believe I am wading in…
The technical specs are all red herrings, rates of fire, penetration, etc etc.
You forget that The C19th was another country, another world. Simply because of this W would deploy far more men in a far greater number of flexible formation options, together with artillery.
Its not about which weapon could do what to whom, it was the fact that society had changed so completely, that a greater number of reletively healthier men could be put into the field for a longer time.
The maths does not change – ever – seven arrows a minute or three rounds a minute, mass of projectile, joules or whatever, it is society that changes the way armies work, its money that pays for ten times as many soldiers, pays for better food, that pays wages, that men are not beholden to landlords and that 'industry' a concept of little note in medieval times, can produce guns, powder, clothing etc.
If we had've had longbows at…well you would have still had a medieval culture, medieval organisation, medieval imaginations. And you would have been well and truly whooped!
All battles are lost through stupidity, not maths and physics, the side that makes the fewest mistakes, wins. Longbows can only kill if people are stupid enough to stand 'in front' Can't see wellingtons boys fighting fair like that can you? Arti8llery to the front, light companies round the flanks etc etc
Realistically…?
(yeh I know its not realistic any of it)

form what I've read a musketball fiered at 20 paces, could take of an arm or a leg.

the soft lead in the musketball would flatten on impact and make the ball even bigger and do alot of damige to both soft and hard tisue.

the arrow til only do damige to what it hits and make a small narrow wound channel the exact size of the arrows width thats with the Bodkin arrows, the Broadhead arrow would do more damige

Cptn Iglo….

Longbow arrows for penetrating armor were 4 ounces… not 2.

You haven't bow hunted much have you?

Theory is wonderful. You can change it. Reality is a different issue.

A 60 pound bow will take down a large deer just fine. A 150 pound bow firing a 4 ounce arrow…. I don't want to think about it. Folks kill water buffalo with less.

The energy contest is mute.
Both weapons produce enough energy to kill or maim an unarmored man at 100 yards.

The longbow wins the accuracy and rate of fire contest. At 200 yards the longbow is superior. At 50 yards… it depends on guts.

At 400 yards… the 12pd wins.

Joe Collins

BTW…

Here is a rather fun "youtube" video showing armor penetration.

Completely unscientific…. but fun never the less.

link

I wouldn't want to get hit!

Joe Collins

Here´s a clip. Hog hunting!

link

The hog weights around 200 pounds and can be compared to a naked man.
What is interesting is the close range, which is necessary for accurate shooting and penetration.
The shooter aims at the most vulnerable parts of the torso, which is the flank directly behind the front legs.
A perfect shot, still the hog pulls away quite dynamically.
the shot very likely did hit the lung and the hog very likely went down a few minutes later from blood loss.
Good hunting, from a military standpoint unpracticable and no stopping power.

Decimated means only 10% losses. Sorry people use that term like its is a massive number.

Tht's exactly how I intended it. "10%" casualties is an average between the 8% to c. 13% that is statistically the breaking point of units taking casualties. And "casualties" means everyone running away (playing dead or playing wounded enough to not fight anymore), wounded or dead.

Who would win in an axe-fight between Amy Winehouse and Dale Winton?

All of us.

Pat

Amy.

CPTN IGLO: Good hunting, from a military standpoint unpracticable and no stopping power.

Amazing statement. "Went down a few minutes later". Just how quickly do you figure a battle like Agincourt lasted? It probably took the French infantry the better part of five minutes to cross the water-logged, plowed field. Any man who had taken an arrow wound was out of the battle, either at once or in a "few minutes".

There is another thing which kinetic energy studies cannot take into account: the levering trauma of an arrow still IN the wound. A bullet is just stuck in there. An arrow is not only in, it is wiggling and levering all over the place, simply by trying to move at all. A 4 oz arrow is far more incapacitating than a bullet (assuming the same body part penetrated).

Btw, I flubbed in that earlier post, when I said "half a second to reach 100 yards." We are not in great disagreement. Except that I am skeptical that "180 feet per second" is the upper limit of the longbow. Do you have the source that has tested and established that claim? I admit that I have no direct experience with testing fps. I have a "modern recurve" of c. 55 lbs. draw weight, and it flips sticks out to 100 yards in well under 2 seconds, I can assure you. Stronger ("warbow") draw weights will be even faster than that.

Where do all these longbow myths come from?
perhaps its medieval romantisicm, no problem with this.

Heck no. Earlier studies of the Mary Rose longbows say that in a finished condition the bows are actually c. 80 lbs. draw weight. This "100+ lbs." business is an on-going argument on TMP (just the other day, we were going into it again, albeit not nearly as long as a year ago). The "myths" surround such things as rate of fire and accuracy claims, not the effects which can be demonstrated. The thing that made the English use of the bow so lethal was the volume of well-drilled "fire." Nobody in Western Europe had anything like it. And even the Steppes horsearchers would not accomplish the sheer saturation of an area that the English could accomplish. There was no way to train to face such an "artillery" barrage: first exposure to it was the real deal, for man and horse. Discounting (even some of the above) claims for the longbowman, we have at the very least 6 rounds per minute in volley, and 12 rounds per minute for individual, aimed shooting at pointblank range. The volume of received missiles therefore remains c. the same at any range: at pointblank range, only the front three or four ranks can see to shoot, the rear ranks cannot shoot at all, but the rate of shooting is at least twice as fast and at will, and aimed. It is accurate to say, that beyond pointblank range, the longbow was an "arrow storm" weapon that did little outright wounding against heavily-armored targets, but inside pointblank range, it became the deadly target weapon of the legendary English archer (because all the best archers would be in the foremost ranks), combining accuracy (to pin point the weakest spots of the target's harness) with the greatest velocity attainable.

Hi

Ig, I agree, there are a lot of myths purpetrated here. I may be in an interesting position of being an active owner and shooter of the bits being refrenced.

First: longbow. Longbow is a bad term, all "long" bows aren't comparable to the longbows at agincourt which are fairly sophisticated devices. And the engagement ranges suggest an average 75# draw weight. Oriental composite bows at that weight are significantly more efficient. And one should observe that some of these types did successfully engage musket against the Russians in the 18th century(crimean tarters) our of musket range, similarly with in "the raj".

Those are your examples. Someone above suggested the american indian/brits encounters. Sadly, american indian bows,even long ones don't show the sophisticated boyer work, nor long range arrows of the english. It just insn't that simple. American indian bows weren't so good, that they didn't take up the musket when offered.

Other myth. "joules". Joules assumes what shooters call the "wadcutter" profile. This is how much energy it takes to punch a hole as if the actual area of the bullet is on issue. The difference is that the arrow, especially a broadhead works by cutting. If you are not an archer, think of how many joules it might take for me to knife you in an alley, or cut yourself while slicing veggies…or even a "paper cut". Arrows don't do "shock", the kill by bloodletting.

Although, famously, Saxton Pope took a 800# grizzly at some 120 yard off an 85# bow made off of a Mary Rose stave. The broadhead cut THROUGH the spine having cut through the breastbone, internal organs first. Something a musket wouldn't do.

Another "apples and oranges". Shooter geek stuff. The usual musket has an MOA of 36. That means that if clamped in a vice, and fired as a string of 3 rounds, all the rounds will hit randomly within 36" of the aimpoint. Meaning a 6'tall man has a less than 50/50chance of being hit at 100yards. A decent archer will put them all in your chest, the moa being about 4.

In both sides of this, the issue isn't the weapon, but the military system and how the assets and deficits are used.

Crap, there were other myths repeated, but I am too lazy to go back and read so I can point them out.

R

Spot on, wyeayeman.

The tinplated feudalists would have exhausted their gold trying to take places that were impregnable by their technology, or had their own places knocked down on top of them.
In the field they'd face a far more agile enemy that could hit them from far away with artillery and come at them from all sides in more or less co-ordinated fashion. They'd have a job even getting organised for a fight.
And the Perfidious Duke would bribe them all with rum and tobacco anyway.

So far all the above seems to assume that both sides will just stand and fire at each other, or maybe the musketeers will charge the archers. But what if they maneuver? Would one side maneuver better than the other? Also, are the musketeers allowed to send out skirmishers?

I was thinking the samae thing…. a aline of redcoats preceded by a skirmish screen that pricked away at the archers and drew their fire would tip the balance a lot.

Say 200 metres range if using rifles, by the time the musketeers advance the archers would be knackered and maybe out of arrows too.

Are the musketeers allowed to send out skirmishers!!!!!!!!
Think holistically.
Wellingtons redcoats were not stupid. They would do the best that their tactics allowed to address and beat the problem. That would include use of artillery, out flanking, skirmishers and a regiment of light dragoons ready and waiting.

LOL….

CPTN IGLO

Hog equal to a human?

Don't do much hog hunting do you? Well, I don't either… I do have a lot of friends that do.

Looks as if we will have to disagree. Suffice to say the longbow has more than enough power to kill at 200 yards- a human anyway.

You can take your musket and go hog hunting.

Don't get out of the vehicle! (of course you would be a fool to get out with a longbow as well… or even a .30-06!)

Most folks I know carry 12 gauges with slugs…
(They don't get out of the vehicle either!)

Never saw the interest in hog hunting anyway….

Cheers…

Joe Collins

Here is another great video….well, not if your French… these boys aren't politically correct…

They claim 100pd draw to 182pd for the big fellow.

link

Ok… Ok… another good video… the last I will post…

BTW… I suggest Strickland and Hardy's book on the subject. Bert Hall's book on gunpowder is also highly recommended.

Joe Collins

Great video it may be, but it shows how difficult it must have been to hit a target of little depth at longer ranges. There is no beaten zone, the arrows falling nearly vertical to the ground. Muskets fired at similar ranges would not have to be fired at such a high elevation. Suggestions that a longbow outranged a musket are simply not true.

I notice that the accuracy of musket fire is derided in the majority of these posts, but when referring to longbow fire, there is a tendency to focus on the exploits of individuals. Tests performed during the Napoleonic wars showed a surprising degree of accuracy was achieved by average soldiers during target practice, even at ranges of 200 yards, but this was never seen on a battlefield due to many factors. This must surely also have applied to longbowmen, especially if under return fire – theoretical accuracy has never been achieved in the heat of battle and therefore any reference to target shooting with bows should be disregarded.

There has also been reference to American Indian firepower, and the fact that their bows were not comparable with a longbow. This may be true, but the woodland indians adopted the musket in preference to the bow, when their normal engagement range would have been less than 100 yards. This calls into question the advantages that may have been gained by a the bow's higher rate of fire.

Given early muskets were difficult to use, and presented considerable danger to the user, why did they replace the longbow? By 1810 they may have been easy to teach, but the early ones were inferior to bows- so why keep on?

They claim 100pd draw to 182pd for the big fellow.

What *bleepy* form! They couldn't stand in close formation doing that "my bow is too tough for me to pull" dance. Did you notice the one guy trying not to massage his left shoulder in front of the camera? Showing off with bows far to strong for the user. What does that prove?

Here's another thing we seem to have overlooked….these archer boys are going to shoot (apparently with some accuracy) at long range at a very shallow target. Not only are they going to be shot at themselves (something blocks of Scots spearmen or lines of French chivalry tended not to do) but their main target is going to be deployed many metres behind a skirmish line- these gadgees are not only shooting at the archers thus putting them off, making them use their arrows and strength…they are going to be making a lot of smoke with their fire.

Now just how accurate are these arrows going to be when they try to shoot the line of redcoats?

The more I think about it the less likely a victory for King Hal's boys is going to be.

Suggestions that a longbow outranged a musket are simply not true.

Notice, that they are loosing at too high an angle, past 45 degrees. That always produces a vertical impact with a tip-heavy arrow (and less maximum range too, btw).

Given early muskets were difficult to use, and presented considerable danger to the user, why did they replace the longbow? By 1810 they may have been easy to teach, but the early ones were inferior to bows- so why keep on?

That has been covered: guns are CHEAP to make and EASY to learn. Read the posts above.

"Given early muskets were difficult to use, and presented considerable danger to the user, why did they replace the longbow? By 1810 they may have been easy to teach, but the early ones were inferior to bows- so why keep on?"

Heavy armour and horse armour defeated the longbow in the 15th Century. Since the longbow was no longer a war-winner, it was no longer useful to train endlessly to use the weapon. The crossbow was far easier to learn and this was itself replaced by the arquebus by the 1520's. The arquebus was a relatively useless missile weapon, but was easier to teach and use. Infantry used large pike blocks to ward off cavalry for the next 150 years.

I doubt if a gun was cheaper to make than a bow.
making precise round tubes was still sort of high tech, steel was still an expensive material, your local blacksmith couldn´t make one. European fireweapons over centuries were highly in demand outside europe,nobody did ask for bows,even stone age societies could make them. there was actually some sort of rudiment industrial infrastructure needed to produce fireweapons in some quantities.There was a propellant in the form of black powder needed, which did require some sort of a basic industrial infrastructure too, powder was not cheap.
Matches alone did cost a fortune.
As a weapons system guns must have been much more expensive than bows.

And about the training,the ancient egypts, the greeks,romans,persians, virtually everyone including the inkas and atztecs did practice archery on a grand scale, It should not be forgotten that archery was essentially massed shooting which did require just levelling the weapon at a certain angle.

If a projectile weapon has at least 20 times more destructive energy and a 6-8 times higher velocity there are no excuses needed actually.

Muskets flints need changing, the bore fouls the men are trained not to aim at a tatget.

If screens of rifemen are allowed the so should screens of archers.

Better start running redcoats!

Running off to the flanks, that is.

Henry has at most 8 thousand men. Because of his problems with organsation and micro-organisms in the water. Wellingtons army has the s too, but because of organisation, societal influences, technology and money he has a lot more men. He is comparatively well supplied. His Army is better organised. He has small bodies of men that he does not need to keep an eye on and can send them through woods or round the flanks. Not only that they can run away for a bit and have a breather whilst someone else has a go at dislodging the archers.
Its just not a fair fight at all. To win Henry absoloutely needs W to advance without a care in the world.

Actually, one can glean a tiny insight into this silly 'what if' by looking at some particular battles.

The mercenary English archers in Charle's service did a solid job defending the Gruenhag against the Swiss Vorhut (which would have constituted several thousand gunners and crossbowman).

Of course these "gunners" were skirmishing and in no way had the drill and efficiency of any of Wellington's men, still…

It was only when missile supplies ran low for the English and the Swiss finally took advantage of their superior numbers and turned the Burgundian flank that the Gruenhag fell.

Hi

well, as I said, a better example is the musketeers of Peter the Great versus the crimean tartars. The short version is that after killing a lot of musket, peter paid mongols to come kill the tarters, and then paid them a lot more to go home….several time zones!

I can teach anyone to shoot musket in an afternoon. I can get you to 3rpm in a day. The "surprising" accuracy of muskets is at a company front.

As for the ease of bow. I am afraid that what I keep seeing is that people who aren't archers or boyers being pretty dismissive based on no information or background.

The "armor had defeated longbow in the 15th century" idea seems to ignore "Agincourt" happening in the 15h. Or the War of the Roses.

On the other hand as a life long archer, I consider Hardy and Strickland to be nothing more than "Bow Porn". They heavily overstate about everything.

Rocky

"As for the ease of bow. I am afraid that what I keep seeing is that people who aren't archers or boyers being pretty dismissive based on no information or background."

"I doubt if a gun was cheaper to make than a bow.
making precise round tubes was still sort of high tech, steel was still an expensive material, your local blacksmith couldn´t make one"

Rocky,,your statement applies here too.. shouldn't make assumptions about things you know nothing,or very little, about,,,

anvil

ha,ha
no problem, I´m able and willing to learn.
Again, egytians,assyrians,greek,persians,chinese,inkas,atztecs, all did use archery in quantities,it should not be sold as a science, military archery was quite simple.

And about making weapons, only modern people can think that pressure resistant iron tubes are not something special.
stone age societies could make bows, sometimes even very good ones. Has anybody ever discussed the quality of indian or mongolian guns.

As said, I´m able and willing to learn.

"The "armor had defeated longbow in the 15th century" idea seems to ignore "Agincourt" happening in the 15h. Or the War of the Roses."

Well, if Agincourt had been the last battle of the 100 YW, much of France would now speak English. The reason it doesn't is because the French cavalry got better armour and put it on their horses as well. If all you arrows are bouncing off, you don't get to stop many cavalry charges.

Besides, it's the only reason I can think of as to why the longbow didn't stay in heavy use.

I AM interested in the Crimean Tartars though. I'd like to get into Eastern Renn and the Tartars vs Muscovites (or Poles) issue is an interesting one.

Cavalry armour didn't do it – it was cannon, avoiding battle in favour of sieges, having a far more professional army by then and – just maybe – making greater use of archers themselves.
Which all points to a big win for the lad with the nose.

Patay and Formingny were open field battles, won against the longbow without many problems.
Carl the bold did have english longbowmen, crossbowmen, artillery and some arcebusiers, and he could rely on field fortifications. Still the swiss gewalthaufen went in like a knife through warm butter three times in a row.
They were mostly without armour,only the front ranks did carry a cuirass.
The appearance of modern maneuvrable infantry like the swiss did change things considerably.
Its actually no wonder that the moving tin cans at Againcourt,nearly all on foot, had to fail. Many of them did just fall over their feet on the slippery ground.

And it should not be forgotten that medieval battles were still social events.
Success for every participating knight did mean to bring home the costly warhorse unhurt and ideally a noble prisoner for ransom, these people had no sense for tactics, often they were very old or otherwise hampered.
One of the charges at Crecy was led by the blind king of Bohemia, tied to his horse and held by two fellow knights.
The English during the 100 years war did indeed introduce a modern success first,chivalry second approach.
Their successes were based on sound tactics and not superior weaponry, once their opponents did adapt , there was nothing more to gain.

If only 50% percent of the claims about the longbow were true, they should have conquered the world, but the 100 years war was lost, which is all to often forgotten.

@RockyRusso

"the musketeers of Peter the Great versus the crimean tartars. The short version is that after killing a lot of musket, peter paid mongols to come kill the tarters, and then paid them a lot more to go home….several time zones"

Crimean Tatars were part of the Ottoman Empire in the beginning of the the reign of the Great Peter. The only campaign vs. the Turks that did result poorly was that of 1710-1711. In this campaign, the Turks did mobilze more quicky and deeply than expected and surrounded the Army of the TSAR Peter with 3x – 4x the number of men. A negotiation favorable to Turks resulted.

Most will say that the Tatars themselves are exactly the remaining peoples from the Golden Horde of the Mongols.

The Khanate of Kazan was a Tatar land also, independent of the Mongols from 1438. In 1552, the city was conquered by Russia under Ivan the Terrible and the majority of the population was massacred. There was a indepedency later, that was suppressed.

There was also a good poplulation of Tatars in Greater Lithuania, more or less in now north Volhynia and Belarus. It was not conquored by Russia until the 1790's.

But these places are not near the Crimea in any case. In 1774, The Crimean Khans fell under Russian influence with the Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca. In 1783, the entire Crimea was annexed by the Russia.

I am very eager to learn about the TSAR Peter and Mongols.

- un ami