The source for all your LEGO Castle needs!

Hundred's years war favorite battles, weapons, tactics?

Discussion of topics concerning life in the middle ages around the world, including architecture, history, and warfare.

Hundred's years war favorite battles, weapons, tactics?

Postby Patron of the lego » Thu Jul 17, 2008 4:28 am

Ah, 116 years of warfare (or something like that) was fought between the French and English, with a few others like the Flemish and Burgundians.

There were many battles form Verscuil, Agincourt, Poiters, Castillion, and Orleans. Which was your favorite?

Weapons? There were a lot... Which one do you favor?

Hammer: Yes, there hammers mainly used by archers or heavy infantry. It proved its worth at agincourt.

Swords: We all know whats swords were used for and what they could do...

Daggers: Little sharp and pointy swords for the archers and crossbowman.

Longbow: Odd one isn't it, recent history suggest it was as armor piercing as it suggests, but still a grand weapon. Only masters could wield this bow. It got some big wins for the English.

Crossbow: Slow but powerful it was, some shot faster than others, it depends on its strength. A arbalest in 14th century was more powerful than its half wood half horn crossbow counterpart (composite).

A lot of loading mechanisms were employed for it like the rachet, winlass, belt n' buckle and don't forget the goats foot lever.

Bills: A farming weapon turned deadly.

Spears: They have been here for a a while haven't they.

As for tactics well tell me about it.

Patron of the lego

note: if there are other weapons you want to add type it in!
Example: Goenadag
to the ramparts!
Patron of the lego
Posts: 353
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 4:31 am
Location: San Diego, CA

Postby Heir of Black Falcon » Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:31 am

I think its interesting if one looks at the 100 Years War to see how amazing the English victories were. In most cases their armies were smaller, at times much, much smaller. England had max 5 million while France was at somewhere above 20 million. The wealth of France at the onset of the war was immense, likely many times over as high as England could scratch together.

England had a less splintered political system. No Earl of Duke in England was as autonomous as those dukes, counts and other lords of France. Brittany, Burgundy etc all acted like independent kingdoms almost.... unless they needed legal or military help.

I think the main difference was the English has a better working military organisation as well as more tactical flexibility. In the end no matter what is said of the many reasons the French win to me by employing the 'English system' of lots of archers to less men at arms the French win. Its not till Charles makes his Ordinance Companies and Franc Archers that he can really force the English out. Employed the English way of war with amuch higher wealth and population base... hard to take that on.

The second half of the 15th sees a new increase in archers in combat in most european countries. Burgundian armies were immensely heavy to the longbow.

The danger though it to think that one weapon was the key or stand-alone battle winner. You take the men at arms away and the archers have a hard time standing up to that. Verneuil is a classic example. The archers had no men at arms to protect them and their stakes were unplanted. They got wiped off the field. I do not think it had to do with the Italian’s being in superior armour that was impossible to pierce as much as it it an example of weapon limitations. If the real penetration of plate (when you are causing high casualties) is only under 50, 30 or 20 meters and you have stakes and men at arms up its not biggie. But without these are you going to fight a unit of heavy cavalry face to face from the ground? With stakes or better men at arms you can hold them off and keep loosing arrows into them. That said as Keegan has indicated even if the longbow was taking down people at a further distance by killing horses or hitting weak spots in their armour you do not have to kill a great faction, usually less than 10% before an enemy breaks. Usually no one wants to be the last on the field.

So if I had to say one thing regarding the tactics its to keep in mind that the mix troop type, mix retinue is what England really employed for battle winning tactics.

That’s not to say it was not done before the 100 years war but it certainly is apparent at this time.

User avatar
Heir of Black Falcon
Posts: 1967
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2008 3:37 pm
Location: Utah (I'm baaaack)

Postby Danielas » Thu Jul 17, 2008 9:41 pm

Poiters was my favorite battle
God Bless. Danielas

Procrastinators Unite!!!!


Proud soldier of Classic-Castle. As in, I fight against the Legion of the Aggie.
User avatar
Posts: 511
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 12:22 pm
Location: Weather Top or Amon-Sul

Postby Teherean » Tue Jul 29, 2008 5:54 pm

The battle of Hastings in 1066 is my favorite battle of all times. It wasn't the biggest medieval battle, but never has it ever occured that a king would rise or fall with one battle. after Hastings, England was already under the lead of William the conqueror when he marched into london around christmas that year. I have been at the medieval abbey founded by William himself. amazing. On the abbey's grounds the altar of the old church remains, marking the spot where King Harold of England died during the battle. the Abbey's total completion took about 23 years. about the 100 years war, well, I do not really know annything about it.
AFOL, Brony, Yeah... I am a child at heart!

User avatar
Posts: 567
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 12:54 pm
Location: Weert, the Netherlands.

Postby CornLegoCorn » Wed Jul 30, 2008 10:42 pm

I'd say my favorite was the Battle of Crecy in the beggining of the war, for some reason... I always liked it the most.
Lamenting is the opening to the world of night.
User avatar
Posts: 77
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2008 5:50 pm
Location: Illinois

Return to Medieval Life

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest