Posts: 2,121 Location: Northern Utah
Tue 28 Aug, 2012 4:27 pm
Timo,
We need to get away from the
Agincourt prisoner killings as where the major or even a large number of deaths comes from. This is just not supported by evidence, from now or then. Anne Curry has made it real easy to see the trend. Open her book to the back and it becomes clear any one pushing this has ulterior motives. Few contemporary accounts put many, let alone most of these killed at the time of the massacre. Even French accounts. The number is likely only in the hundreds. Out of the dozens of accounts there are about 3 that state this. Several of which have many key aspects of the battle rather confused and clearly not as good as the eye witnesses accounts. Looking at the total dead this number is not something we should ignore, but was only a small percent of them.
Further By
Crecy and especially
Poitiers plate armour was way common for men at arms.... not head to toe but way common. In fact it was required in English law for men at arms to be largely covered in plate- mail is not even mentioned most of the time, though it comes up very often in inventories. Now for armed men and other infantry and troops mail was likely more common as stand alones without plate but the information is highly clear that English men at arms we largely using plate by this point. By the 1330s
Edward III has aketons, plate gaunts and pairs of plates and
bascinet as minimum requirements. With in a few years they are required for footmen and archers to have pairs of plate. There was a great deal of plate by the start of the 100 Years War.
That said I think your point remains. Most arrow strikes were not kills, perhaps not even knocking guys out of the battle. I figure some men at arms looked like pin cushions by the time the crossed the field. That said this is likely true for most weapons. The Wisby finds indicate several strikes and a kill being common.
RPM