Why are both sides in the water? It seems like staying on land and attacking people in the water as they try to climb out would work better. Props for the mallet backswing though.
English longbowmen waded into the river the English had to cross, and successfully drove back French crossbowmen from the banks.
So French cavalry rode into the river to kill the English longbowmen, but were stopped by English men-at-arms.
The French were driven back as more and more English arrived to help, and in the end broke ranks and fled.
So yeah, the French were in a much superior position occupying the banks, the English were absolutely forced to cross, and the French lost half their men in the battle, against light English casualties, due to their inability to deal with English longbowmen.
Which is kind of the running gag of the Hundred Years’ War.
Huh. I’d have thought wading throw a hip-height river with a drawn bow would be just about the absolute worst for a longbow. But maybe it’s not that bad if you get through fast enough?
I’m pretty sure damaging your bow while fighting your way across the river is better than keeping it sheathed while getting slaughtered by the French.
I’m also pretty sure they had spare bows in their wagon train.
On quick read: The French had crossbowmen on one side and the English longbowmen on the other. The French? men-at-arms were crossing the river to take out the longbowmen, and they were met by English melee fighters. Sounds like it’s worth a more in-depth read, the whole Hundred Years War is pretty interesting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blanchetaque
Why are both sides in the water? It seems like staying on land and attacking people in the water as they try to climb out would work better. Props for the mallet backswing though.
English longbowmen waded into the river the English had to cross, and successfully drove back French crossbowmen from the banks.
So French cavalry rode into the river to kill the English longbowmen, but were stopped by English men-at-arms.
The French were driven back as more and more English arrived to help, and in the end broke ranks and fled.
So yeah, the French were in a much superior position occupying the banks, the English were absolutely forced to cross, and the French lost half their men in the battle, against light English casualties, due to their inability to deal with English longbowmen.
Which is kind of the running gag of the Hundred Years’ War.
Huh. I’d have thought wading throw a hip-height river with a drawn bow would be just about the absolute worst for a longbow. But maybe it’s not that bad if you get through fast enough?
I’m pretty sure damaging your bow while fighting your way across the river is better than keeping it sheathed while getting slaughtered by the French.
I’m also pretty sure they had spare bows in their wagon train.
On quick read: The French had crossbowmen on one side and the English longbowmen on the other. The French? men-at-arms were crossing the river to take out the longbowmen, and they were met by English melee fighters. Sounds like it’s worth a more in-depth read, the whole Hundred Years War is pretty interesting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blanchetaque