[fhayek]

My recollection was that the battle of Agincourt proved the tactical superiority of well trained lowbowmen, whose skill could take down knights in armor from a safe distance. The longbow, propelling a metal tipped arrow, pierced the knight’s armor. The carnage was the beginning of the end for the mounted knight in armor.

[ModelBreaker]

“My recollection was that the battle of Agincourt proved the tactical superiority of well trained lowbowmen, whose skill could take down knights in armor from a safe distance. The longbow, propelling a metal tipped arrow, pierced the knight’s armor. The carnage was the beginning of the end for the mounted knight in armor.”

Always my understanding too. Whether the English were outnumbered or not, a bunch of guys walking around in leather took down a a bunch of guys on horses wearing armor. Horses and armor were one of the main bases the nobility had for controlling the peasants in that era. So it was the symbolic beginning of the end for horses and armor both militarily and as an instrument of oppression.

In fact, I believe it was very illegal then for a commoner to have armor—which just proves that human nature never changes—guys with power always come to the same conclusions.

[sinsofsolarempirefan]

No, that would be gunpowder that did that. Bodkin (armour piercing) arrows could only penetrate good quality plate armour at extremely close range and if the angle was good....

[SuziQ]

My recollection was that the battle of Agincourt proved the tactical superiority of well trained lowbowmen, whose skill could take down knights in armor from a safe distance.

That was my understanding as well. Evened the odds against the French knights on horseback.

[Ole Okie]

The carnage was the beginning of the end for the mounted knight in armor.

And horses collectively breathed a sigh of relief.