Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And that is only when they wanted to kill the knight.
Knights were worth small fortunes in ransom money, so there was a big incentive to keep them alive if possible. Then factor in that the knights on side "A" often had more in common with the enemy knights on side "B" than they did with their own peasants serving as hastily mobilized infantry.
Not only would the victorious knights be displaying cowardiance by allowing a helpless opponent whom they could well be familiar with to be killed, but it was also best not let the friendly peasants become too accustomed to killing knights- lest they get tempted to turn their weapons around one day.
Yup that is true.
Although I've read that the Swiss troops of the middle ages didn't practice this taking of knights for ransom. They killed everyone. Not sure why.
And deadly troops they were with there halberds.
I am curious about exactly what combat was like back in the day, with two in particular.
1. In movies set during the middle ages or there abouts we often see lots of men just charging at each other clashing, and just swinging their swords/shields/whatever weapon they had at each other, but what was it really like? Like say you could go back in time and (from a safe distance) witness something like a battle from the 30 years war or some other battle from medieval times, what would it actually look like? Would you see men's heads getting cut clean off and flying through the air, men getting their arms and legs cut off etc.?
John Keegan's The Face of Battle deals with these questions in the section on Agincourt. I highly recommend it.
Although I've read that the Swiss troops of the middle ages didn't practice this taking of knights for ransom. They killed everyone. Not sure why.
Maybe the mountain born swiss were mostly yeoman and did not have a lot of knights around to enforce social protocols? Also, the ransoms were brokered noble to noble. The brokering nobles then took a cut from both the ransomers and the ransomee. If the Swiss did not have a lot of nobles, their ability to initiate the ransom negotiations and then collect the cash was going to be diminshed.
In contrast to the Swiss, the wars between the Italian city states usually followed protocols to a letter. A significant number of the combatants, both minor nobility and common born were mercenaries and had no personal interest in the cause. Rather, their main interest was living to collect the pay check. Cities and combatants switched sides frequently. These factors gave another incentive not to be too lethal.
The protocols not only extended to the treatment of prisoners, but how they fought. One observer in Italy witnessed several battles involving thousands of combatants fighting hand to hand, with bows and with early fire arms / artillery. As each side followed unwritten rules about how to employ their weapons, and when to let the other side "escape", the number of fatalities were few.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeledaf
John Keegan's The Face of Battle deals with these questions in the section on Agincourt. I highly recommend it.
Though I have not read Keegan's book in years, more recent studies suggest that relatively few French knights were killed at Agnicourt in actualy combat of any sort. Rather, eager French knights and a fatal funnel at the English end of the field led to massive pile up and crowd crush. A very hot day mixed with plate armour then led to even more deaths by heat exhaustion.
Still other French knights were murdered after they were captured when the English king received word of a French relief column and panicked. He then ordered the prisoners killed despite chivalrous and cash based objections.
Though I have not read Keegan's book in years, more recent studies suggest that relatively few French knights were killed at Agnicourt in actualy combat of any sort. Rather, eager French knights and a fatal funnel at the English end of the field led to massive pile up and crowd crush. A very hot day mixed with plate armour then led to even more deaths by heat exhaustion.
Still other French knights were murdered after they were captured when the English king received word of a French relief column and panicked. He then ordered the prisoners killed despite chivalrous and cash based objections.
Do revisit Keegan. Of particular interest to me was his description of the ordeal of the English troops, standing in a cold rain for hours, many suffering from dysentery and thirst, strapped into mail. The crush of French knights you describe was also referred to by Keegan, and most were slaughtered by English foot soldiers armed with axes, hammers, and swords. Whether one describes that as actual combat or not (sure sounds like it to me!) is a matter of opinion; but keep in mind that like most early engagements of English and French armies, Agincourt was primarily a contest between mounted knights and infantry.
Do revisit Keegan. Of particular interest to me was his description of the ordeal of the English troops, standing in a cold rain for hours, many suffering from dysentery and thirst, strapped into mail. The crush of French knights you describe was also referred to by Keegan, and most were slaughtered by English foot soldiers armed with axes, hammers, and swords. Whether one describes that as actual combat or not (sure sounds like it to me!) is a matter of opinion; but keep in mind that like most early engagements of English and French armies, Agincourt was primarily a contest between mounted knights and infantry.
Someone mentioned Bernard Cornwell earlier. He has an excellent historical novel on Agincourt (called, naturally, "Agincourt"). I read it last year and although it brings nothing new to the account it vividly describes the combat as well as the campaign leading to this battle as well as the impact of the longbow.
I also read that Keegan book, but it's been a few years.
Someone mentioned Bernard Cornwell earlier. He has an excellent historical novel on Agincourt (called, naturally, "Agincourt"). I read it last year and although it brings nothing new to the account it vividly describes the combat as well as the campaign leading to this battle as well as the impact of the longbow.
I also read that Keegan book, but it's been a few years.
Thank you and the other poster for the reference to Cornwell. I have not read him, but I certainly intend to now.
I found it fascinating that the three battles Keegan chose to analyze -- Agincourt, Waterloo, and the Somme -- were in such close geographical proximity. So many ghosts must haunt that part of Flanders/Picardy. I visited there once: cold rain, mud, undulations in the terrain which must have been fought over savagely. And many many crosses and monuments.
How little we Americans know of that level and frequency of warfare on our homeland. How fortuante we are; how innocent we remain.
Do revisit Keegan. Of particular interest to me was his description of the ordeal of the English troops, standing in a cold rain for hours, many suffering from dysentery and thirst, strapped into mail. The crush of French knights you describe was also referred to by Keegan, and most were slaughtered by English foot soldiers armed with axes, hammers, and swords. Whether one describes that as actual combat or not (sure sounds like it to me!) is a matter of opinion; but keep in mind that like most early engagements of English and French armies, Agincourt was primarily a contest between mounted knights and infantry.
I will give it another read as the city library has it. The computer recreation that I saw emphasized the crowd crush short of the English line as the main killing factor (software was originally designed to predict crowd flow and potential fatal pile ups in stadiums, airports and the Meccan pilgrimage). As a side note, the documentary also stated that the software demonstrated that a key delay in the Gettysburg battle of the US civil war was caused by a "log jam" lasting hours when too many Confederate soldiers entering the town from three different directions tried to advance through the town's few streets.
I will give it another read as the city library has it. The computer recreation that I saw emphasized the crowd crush short of the English line as the main killing factor (software was originally designed to predict crowd flow and potential fatal pile ups in stadiums, airports and the Meccan pilgrimage). As a side note, the documentary also stated that the software demonstrated that a key delay in the Gettysburg battle of the US civil war was caused by a "log jam" lasting hours when too many Confederate soldiers entering the town from three different directions tried to advance through the town's few streets.
Interesting. I was unaware of the incident you describe regarding Gettysburg.
About Agincourt: the pileup of French knights seems certainly to have occurred. My understanding, though, is that English foot soldiers and archers adminstered the coup de grace to most if the French horsemen as they lay or wallowed on the ground, encumbered with armor.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
