Agincourt

The archers used their bollock/roundel daggers, or hammers etc to finish off felled French knights in the mud, amidst the chaos in front of the English/Welsh lines.

They would have slotted their knives through the visor of the downed and semi-defenceless man and into their brains via their eyes, into the softest part of the the head.

The few other exposed bodyparts - armpits and genitals- wouldn't have been as rapidly fatal, and speed was necessary when outnumbered in an uncertain battle still raging(even henry ordered the massacre of French captives when in doubt).

Originally posted by marco Even if Knights are on ground/under horses/wounded they can defend themselves withswords ou maces. So it's extremly difficult et and quite impossible for a footsoldier to finish heavy armored knights with daggers. How can they do?

Actually, knights fighting other knights on foot in full armour often used weapons other than swords; weapons designed specifically for the purpose of defeating armour. These include the Rondel daggers, the warhammer, and the flanged mace. They all work on the same principle, they are small (and therefore fast) weapons which focus the force on a relatively small point, enabling either penetration, or concussive impact transferred through the metal. When swords were used, the typical practice was to thrust with one hand held halfway along the blade to guide it (into vulnerable parts like the armpit or visor) and press it. It was not really an ideal weapon against armour, although it had better reach than most of the specialized weapons. Other specialized weapons would include spike-like hammers - sometimes mounted on poles (eg Lucern hammer).
   

Originally posted by antisocrates The first and the most important thing to remember is that the knights did not wear plate armor; rather, they wore transitional plate, which was more cumbersome (more uncomfortable, more restrictive, weighed more!) and less protective. Fully developed gothic harness was more than capable of stopping not only longbows, but also arquebus balls at 20 paces. Furthermore, longbows made little impression on true plate armors that French knights wore after Agincourt.

The longbow actually had a great deal more penetrative power than the firearms of the period, which were very low velocity and did not feature shells but simply round shot (and not out of a rifled barrel, either).

Knights at Agincourt were not in any sort of half-plate but in early Gothic harnesses. The only exposed areas were the back of the legs. Arrows did indeed penetrate the armour. It all depended on the angle of incidence; a good proofer knew from what angle to take his shot so that it would deflect. Like the sloping glacis on modern tanks, the main principle behind plate armour was to deflect rather than catch a blow; the armour is intricately sloped so as to ensure blows are directed away from vital areas and off the armour altogether, or towards the most reinforced parts. Peppered with a volley of arrows from all angles, not even a full harness could provide 100% protection. Moreover, the archers were using specialized chisel arrows, designed specifically to penetrate plate armour in a manner similar to an awl punch. It wasn't until the 16th century that armour could reliably provide protection against longbows.

Contemporary paintings from the time show that knights were wearing full harness and that it was indeed penetrated:



In fact, full harness was normal long before Agincourt.

One contemporary account describes a longbow piercing plate greaves, piercing the padding underneath, piercing the leg, emerged through the other side and piercing the greaves again, piercing the saddle of the mount, and penetrating deep enough that the mount was killed and the rider pinned to it by the leg.

It's not really penetration of the armour that killed in most of the battles, however. Alot of people in full armour could, theoretically, have emerged from sustained showers of arrows totally unharmed, counting only a minor few casualties among them - say, if they adopted a turtle formation on top of having plate armour. The problem: the showers caused mass confusion and panic, as medieval armies were largely undisciplined. Mounts were killed, and many died in what was effectively a stampede. Those knights who stampeded over their own infantrymen and dismounted knights and got close to English lines (protected by stakes) faced another danger posed by the longbow; no arquebusier was a marksman, but the longbowman could hit an apple at 80 paces (300 paces for the best of them). And no matter how good the armour, there were weak spots - like the visors. Trapped in mud caused by rain, the knights were easy prey.

Also, in battle, alot of people wouldn't have their visor down anyway. It restricted vision too much. People often forego safety when it is excessively uncomfortable or constraining, and undisciplined, eager, overconfident French nobles were hardly above this sort of behaviour.
    

Edited by edgewaters - 09-Jul-2006 at 03:48

Originally posted by Saber Edgewaters, about the pictorial source you presented. It’s very limited by the fact that it was drawn probably by some town artist, who have never fought or even seen the effect of the bow. However we cannot beat him for that, as he has the artistic license to draw whatever he wants.

Unknown artist, yes. But for that matter, so is the Bayeux Tapestry ....

On the other hand again, the main armour employed during the HYW and that era, was the Milanese white armour, which wasn't really that of a protection against missile weapons. Assuming the mud and close distance between men-at-arms and the English Longbowmen, some if not many may have been killed, wounded, injured by the bow.