--
Peter Gutmann wrote:
Nobles expected to surrender to other nobles and be ransomed.
Commoners didn't respect this, and almost never took prisoners.
Henry's orders didn't make that much difference, at best they were a
we'll turn a blind eye notification to his troops.
The english army was
James A. Donald [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I find this very hard to believe. Post links, or give citations.
Normally I'd dig up various refs, but since this topic has been beaten to
death repeatedly in places like soc.history.medieval, and the debate could
well go on endlessly in the manner of
--
Peter Gutmann wrote:
That's the traditional Agincourt interpretation. More modern ones
(backed up by actual tests with arrows of the time against armour,
in which the relatively soft metal of the arrows was rather
ineffective against the armour)
I find this very hard to believe. Post
--
Peter Gutmann wrote:
That's the traditional Agincourt interpretation. More modern ones
(backed up by actual tests with arrows of the time against armour,
in which the relatively soft metal of the arrows was rather
ineffective against the armour)
You have this garbled.
According to
R.A. Hettinga [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
These were not the sort of sporting arrows skillfully shot toward gayly
colored targets by Victorian archery societies (charmingly described by Mr.
Soar in later chapters) but heavy bodkin pointed battle shafts that went
through the armor of man and horse.
