Garlix wrote:James Caruthers wrote: One thing I noticed in medieval romance was the accounts mostly used weapons and armor as emblems of rank, which goes to the rigid class system. There weren't many stories I can think of where the knight used something other than a sword (arming sword) or lance, even though some of the stories were written in the late medieval period, when arming swords were falling out of favor and militias were becoming the future. This reality would have been at odds with the courtly ideals and beliefs a knight would have had about class structure.
In France, bearing a sword was the symbol and privilege (oops!) of Nobility right until the Revolution. You see paintings of salons from the late 18th century - and you can recognize the nobles as they actually carry a sword in the goddamn salon!
https://pages.wustl.edu/files/pages/sal ... nsalon.jpg (look for the long gray pointy things extending from their hips- sword sheaths).
Meanwhile in Medieval England, millions of commoners had longbows and were required to learn how to use them proficiently, leading to predictable ass-kicking of our precious heavy knights and mercenary crossbowmen during the Hundred Years' war. Thank god for gunpowder (and Joan of Arc-ekicker :dance: ).
That's not the actual 'why' (at least as I learned it). The actual why was France's army was feudal, disorganized, and the command structure a disaster while the English Army was a professional, well-organized and well-commanded army. Early on the differences were recognized, however, it took a lot of major defeats for the reforms attempted by King Jean and then Charles the V to sink in and started changing the French army.
Once the French went to a professional army under Charles the VII, and fielded it's superior field-artillery, that was it for the English and their pike/archer formations.
However, even as badly organized and lead as the French army was, they almost won at Agincourt which is why Henry V had the prisoners executed. Also, Agincourt wasn't won by the longbow of popular claim via Shakespeare and myth.
The truth is the French armor of that time was very much resistant to the English bodkin points in the critical areas ,though somewhat vulnerable to wounding on the limbs. It was the fact they were struggling, on foot, knee-deep in mud across 200+ yards while wearing extremely heavy armor, carry weapons, and struggling to breath through their closed visors that made them easy prey for the archers who, by the time the French got to the lines were mostly out of arrows, were quite able to slaughter them with heavy weapons that out-reached the exhausted knights far shorter arms and otherwise move-away from counterattack due to superior mobility and freshness.
Think about it. You probably weigh all of 150lbs. You're carrying your weapons, your shield and 50lbs of plate armor. You're 'charging' through 200 yards of mud on foot. Your weapons are, probably, a broadsword and a dagger which are fine from horse, but not-so-fine against infantry with larger weapons. So by the time you get to the English lines, you've been hammered like crazy by tens of thousands of arrows from the 5000 English longbowmen. Even if the arrows didn't kill you, they hit hard and staggered you, maybe even wounded you. The few horses still alive are trampling anyone in sight. You're exhausted. You can't see. You can't breath very well.
And now you have these incredibly strong bowmen who have set their bows aside and are beating you to a pulp heavy axes, sledges, mallets, billhooks, etc. while you can't reach them...
Yeah, it was a slaughter. But still, the French second-line rallied behind the Duke of Brabant and almost carried the day. So in the end, it was a very close thing and had the third line advanced through woods instead of fleeing the battle, Agincourt would have a different story to it.