"How the Longbow Ended Knights in Shining Armor" Topic

"Here is the short version: In the summer of 1346 the English kicked the snot out of the French in one of the most lopsided military victories of the Middle-Ages. It was the first of the major stompings of the French by the English in what is now known as the Hundred-Years War. At issue was who should rule most, if not all, of France: Edward III of England or Phillip VI of France. But that is somewhat beside the point. If you are studying for the SAT exams and do not care about more, stop here. That is all you need to know to answer a standardized test or perhaps a crossword puzzle.

What is important about this battle is that it is one of the first examples of the rise of disciplined infantry as the real rulers on the battlefield.

Driving into the tiny farm village of Crecy, in early spring when the chill is still in the air of northern France, can be spooky. Completely bare streets. Not a soul walking around, or even cars parked on the streets, making the town seem abandoned. This is a curious thing in such a densely populated nation as France. But it does appear at that time of year to be a de facto ghost town. Or perhaps something else…"
Full text here
link

Amicalement
Armand

Silly article. Knights in "shining armour" survived far beyond the death of the longbow as a battlefield weapon; only massed blackpowder firepower did end the "shining armour" on battlefields. Also, disciplined infantry was impervious to cavalry since long before and for long after the longbow was introduced and forgotten on the battlefield…

They did get a few wins, but in very unique circumstances.

Without stakes, pits and caltrops, muddy fields, and woods and rivers to hide behind, and poor tactical decisions by their opponents, up to and including knights only wanting to fight fellow knights and ignoring the bowmen, a lot of the longbowmen would be on the losing end of the battles.

One brief one I read about, after Agincourt, in France, saw the English army routed by French knights, since the bowmen blew their ambush, and were hunted down in short order. Their army fled from the woods/bushes they were hiding in, along the road, and they lost badly. I forget the name of the battle, but it was during the latter stages of the HYW.

Battle of Patay (1429)?

If the longbow ended knights "in shining armor" it must have spent several centuries procrastinating or something.

Yep, that sounds like it.

Yep, article is mostly . Though it is a Daily Beast history piece, so not particularly surprising.

-Will

Economics killed the knight in shining armour. When populations grew and standing armies were created, it was cheaper to put unarmoured mass of troops who could take down any knight.

Largely the bow -caused- the knights in shining armour rather than the other way around. The smooth, shiny plate was intended to defeat projectile weapons (OK, and lances) after the earlier multi piece large plate armours proved vulnerable (e.g. Visby).

I wish I could get paid for writing crap!

(smile)

Amicalement
Armand

Actually the knight in shining armor survived up through the 1590s or so. When they got beat up by other cavalry armed with sword and pistol. Cheaper to train a swordsman then a Lancer in full armor.

The article simplifies a complex tactical trend and so can be easily picked apart by purists.

Crecy was an important milepost on the long road to armies of trained foot being able to at least stand off chivalry able to afford better armor, training and other equipment (including warhorses). Missiles weapons were the key and increased in effectiveness starting with crossbows, then longbows and finally gunpowder (often not as effective as better bowmen but much easier to train).

It lead to a democratication of armies and perhaps also of society. The English yeoman were a bit ahead of the curve but hard to reproduce explaining why the mounted knight remained effective.

No special conditions were needed for yeoman archers to defeat knights. Crecy was an open field with a moderate slope. Some sources suggest the English dug pits (others deny this) but if mere pits could defeat mounted knights all foot would have adopted them. Stakes were used only in the latter part of the HYW to counter barded horses and simply to run up the scored if possible (think machine guns but with barbed wire added in – not literaly but as an example of complimenting defense systems).

Obviously knights like large open flat areas and foot esp missile men liked constricted rough ground. So one could argue both needed "special conditions". Considering the nature of most battle fields (not to mention weather) the missile men are more flexiable than the knights.

Patay (1429) is a poor counter arguement as it involved a force of only 500 yeoman archers against 1500 French Knights. To make matters worse as the archers ambush position was revealed by a leaping stag, they tried to fall back on the main army which misinterpreted the retreat as general fall back and also started retreating. The archers were run down while trying to catch up with the retreating main body. The "English" (largely False French) men-at-arms, unprotected by archers, were then in turn run down by the French knights.

Noble knights in heavy armor represented a real threat to even the stoutest of foot. The ability of the yeoman archers to meet and generally beat them remains a remarkable achievement. Neither weapon system should be underestimated.

TomT