Question about Armoured Combat

[LafayetteCCurtis]

Although, when it comes to books on Agincourt, I'd rather recommend Anne Curry's. Or a direct study of the primary sources, but this last one is not for everyone.

[Brent Lambell]

I got into a debate with some friends about armoured combat, a friend of mine has put forth the idea that a fighter can defeat a heavier armoured foe by evading melee unit the heavier armoured fighter becomes tired enough to allow the lighter fighter to easily finish off the heavier fighter. I disagree with the idea, in battle it would be impossible to preform moving like that with all the other enemies and allies around and even in a duel I am doubtful. I am sure if such a tactic was possible it would of been mentioned by one of the masters. So what do you all think.?

I think we need to get back on subject. In my opinion, the weight of the armor was a factor. One of many, yes. I can only imagine that the warriors who could afford the armor must have been very fit and strong men. But in a bad situation, the armor seemed to be a liability here.

[Shane Smith]

I got into a debate with some friends about armoured combat, a friend of mine has put forth the idea that a fighter can defeat a heavier armoured foe by evading melee unit the heavier armoured fighter becomes tired enough to allow the lighter fighter to easily finish off the heavier fighter. I disagree with the idea, in battle it would be impossible to preform moving like that with all the other enemies and allies around and even in a duel I am doubtful. I am sure if such a tactic was possible it would of been mentioned by one of the masters. So what do you all think.?

I think we need to get back on subject. In my opinion, the weight of the armor was a factor. One of many, yes. I can only imagine that the warriors who could afford the armor must have been very fit and strong men. But in a bad situation, the armor seemed to be a liability here.

My personal experience training in armour tells me that I can wear it all day and train intensely. Training isn't war certainly, but I'd rather have it than not if arrows and stray blows were flying. In a group combat, you can't see every blow coming I'm sure and your armour may well cover that possibility in many cases.

[Jason Taylor]

I also have to add that medieval tactics was hardly based on "honor rather than science." There were stupid commanders then as now, but the best medieval commanders were quite capable of conducting various strategic and tactical moves to get effective results.

True, of course, but I seem to remember seeing a reference on something (probably the Discovery or History Channel) about this battle. What I remember was a reference to battle tactics being decided, in a way, by honor, because many of the French knights rushyed straight for the banners of the most valuable enemies--i.e., the ones they could vanquish, and, if I remember correctly, ransom. So there was a degree of tactical decision based on the honor of the participants, though of course, finance sounds much more important. Also, I'm going to qualify this by saying that it was a while agpo that I saw the thing, and my details may be slightly off.

Jason

[LafayetteCCurtis]

That wasn't really tactics--rather a breakdown of tactical order because the inefficiency of the French command-and-control. But anyway, this phenomenon wasn't really all that prominent at Agincourt, not if we compare it to Crecy (which was probably one big messy brawl, if the primary sources are to be trusted).