History Forum / General / British History / November 2003

I was watching a tv program "battlefield detectives" (History channel on
Canadian TV), in which they insinuated that the English (or Welsh)
archers at Agincourt had little or no impact. It stated that the English
arrows were made of cheap iron and could not penetrate the French armour
made of steel. Their (the tv program) theory was that the French cavalry
was beaten back by the archers who inflicted wounds on the horses and
the French knights on foot just got bogged down in the mud where the
battlefield narrows causing a 'pile-up' in the bottleneck with the same
results that one can see today in huge tight crowds such as at soccer
matches and concerts etc. I know that the French thought it was going to
be a cake-walk and that many of their knights wanted to fight on foot so
they could easier capture and ransom the English knights and king (more
difficult than being on horseback and having to somehow clamber down in
the middle of a battle to take their prize without some other
unscrupulous bugger on foot nipping in and taking their prize).

Now I have quite a bit of trouble believing all this. Sure the French
knights on foot did become bogged down and thousands died due to
suffocation or drowning in the liquidy mud. But you can't tell me that 5
thousand or so longbow archers, each unleashing approx 8 to 10 arrows a
minute (50 to 55 thousand arrows a minute) did not have a dramatic
effect and did not take their toll. I was also suspicious of the longbow
they used for test purposes, when he drew it back it only came to the
tip of his nose. That I am sure is not a Welsh longbow. As far as I can
remember it was a 'mighty' bow that needed a lot of strength just to
draw it (the guy in the test as at least 60 and was about 160lbs
dripping wet) never mind raise and aim it, and do it again and again.

Anyone else see this or a like minded program. What were/are your
thoughts, whether you saw it or not.

Cheers,
William.