Medieval Madness (A show idea challenge)

I think the sword was more of a status symbol than a primary weapon.

There's also the myth that armor was worthless against guns, hence its demise.
The myth that castles were always cold and damp.
various myths about the cutting power of swords.

we could have a study on what a medieval weapon REALLY looked and worked like. case in point - a mace wasn't a little metal ball on a short stick.

The myth that Knights only fort Knights with Lance and mace etc. At Crecy Edward had his Knights fight dismounted elbow to elbow with pike and bow, while the French Knights lumbered up a muddy slope. At Agincourt Shakespeare wrote that many of the French Knights drowned in the blood and the mud, basically weighed down by their armour.
Common men and some/most Knights could not afford armour, chain mail and a stout leather jacket were worn for protection. Weapons of the common soldier included the "Bill" and the Halberd, period dependant.
You cannot say for example that a weapon was used exclusively, it was situation dependant. A mounted Knight in close quarter combat with another Knight would use a mace battle axe or hammer, weapons totaly useless against a man with a pike.
Interesting idea, I hope it makes its way to a testable myth.

also, the myth that water + armor = immediate drowning.

(I have fought for hourlong stretches in armor, and done somersaults in armor)

The knights at Asincourt couldn't get back up because they were being walked over by a thousand men-at-arms. In fact it seems that the knights may not have drowned but been trampled to death.

my understanding is that severe tactical errors were also involved.

accounts suggest the biggest issue for the french was wading through deep mud uphill in close quarters. I normally wore a barred helmet, but midway through my career, it was determined that the particular combination of helmet and gorget I wore was not sufficient - if I happened to take a pike to the face at the same time another person was thrusting upwards with his sword riding against my torso, the tip MIGHT slide in behind my helmet and hit my chin - so I was required to wear a leather drape on the chin of the helmet - and that SIGNIFICANTLY reduced my breathing efficiency. - the accounts mention that the men at arms had to charge with their visors down due to the heavy archery fire - which would have the same effect, only more so. the account as cited in wikipedia says that the men at arms were too tired by the time they reached the English lines to even raise their weapons.


(guess we don't get to upload images any more)

The only thing the French managed to do correctly was intercept the English army.
They sat there and watched when the English re-positioned their archers, something that took most of the morning as the archers had to pull apart and then rebuild their anti-cavalry fortification leaving them open to a cavalry charge. Then when the French cavalry was in a perfect position to hit the English lines from the rear they decided to run off after the English wagon-trains instead.
Last of all they decided on a frontal attack against prepared defences (which as I said they had sat there and watched being built) down a narrow corridor that prevented them from flanking the English lines and allowed the English archers to concentrate their fire.

Of course the armchair general usually fails to understand that the basic reason the French did so badly was that they lacked clear leadership. The English army was a unified force with a clear leadership (the King). The French army was a collection of dukes, most of whom had been busy fighting each other until they woke up and realised that having an English army walking through Northern France as if they owned the place* didn't look that good. So the French lacked clear leadership, and in effect was commanded by a committee - which never turns out well.
If the French army had possessed a clear leadership things would probably have gone badly for the English, if only because even the most timid commander would probably have unleashed his cavalry when the English archers were moved. Failing that plan B would have been to have just sat there and waited. The English were out of provisions at the time of the battle, and they would either have been forced to attack the French or seek terms by the next morning had the French not attacked them.

(*Of course the English DID think they owned the place, Henry V had a claim on the French Throne. In fact the entire campaign was about getting the French nobility to accept this - because nothing says 'I am your rightful King' more than invading another country, beating up everyone in your way and stripping the land like a pack of locusts.)

yeah, the sensible thing would've been to bottle them up and let them marinate in their own juices. one problem with that is that the English had a longer archery range. it's hard to pin down an enemy who can shoot you before you can shoot them.

the longbow does have a range and rate of fire advantage over the crossbows that were common with less practiced archers. using bodkin arrows, DIRECT fire can penetrate poor quality armor.

in this case, the difference between the english archers and french archers would compare to the difference between a rifle and a carbine. and, really, according to accounts cited on wikipedia, the repositioning of the english archers put them in position to lob a few arrows into the french lines - which triggered the decision to charge.