Talk:Battle of Crécy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Casualties

Who has gone and changed the casualty count? It completely neuters the decisiveness of the battle. Some estimates put French losses at 15,000+. The English Wiki is too easily prone to vandalism by certain foreign parties where in they can feel vindicated in that noone will alter the facts and details of their own languages wiki.

Untitled

A major change in this version is the commander of english troops: ~The English Troops were commanded by Edward III not the Black Prince, he was only 16 at the time. He was however in command of a group in the English Centre and was hard pressed throughout the battle. At the end of the battle he was Knighted by his father Edward III

Vandalism

Someone has vandalized this page. Please correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.249.129 (talk) 11:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

French attack

The French's first attack was thrown by the Genoese crossbowmen, however they did not accidentally smash into the charging French cavalry. They were ran down by them because the dead mercenaries did not have to be paid. Since many of the Genoese crossbowmen, were throwing their crossbowas away so they would not have to make a second attack on the English.

Therefore the numbers of casualties incurred by the French at the battle are disputed by historians. The French after the battle played down this slaughter of their allies because of the political ramifications. That is to say that the Genoese would not provide the light artillery that they so much desired to push back Edwards' army!

Also the French charged fifteen to sixteen, showing true valour, grit, determination and chivalry. One thing to note is that the Bishop of Durham took charge of the defensive line after the King had held him and his men (only a dozen or so) in reserve. The Bishop carried with him a huge ball and spiked chain and shield with which he blew a massive blow against the waves of mounted knights (most of the French nobility). The Black Prince did indeed fight at the age of 16, the King commenting that although it looked at one point as if the French would capture him, actually breaking the line (until the Bishop arrived) that the boy could learn to fight his own battles as he had had to do! _____________

There are a few things missing...

1) The French were so overconfident there were already arguing over who would ransom who. The French King realised this and raised the 'take no prisoners' standard. The English saw this and did the same to unsettle the French.

2) The English deployed a tactic that the Scottish had used against English. It was getting dark as the armies lined up to fight each other. The English chose to mass with a dense forest behind themselves. This prevented a flanking manoeuvre by the French and also funnelled the French into a 'killing zone'. Additionally, as it was getting darker, the English dug pits in front of their positions, to trip the French horses.

3) Battle was joined as darkness fell. The crossbowmen were first into the battle and were decimated by the English. The French knights thought the screams were coming from the English and charged. They ran over the retreating crossbowmen and straight into the killing zone.

4) I can't find the reference (because I have lost the book), but 'This Sceptred Isle' contains a contempory account of the Battle. It states that the French dead were piled so high in front of the English position that the English had to kneel on top of the bodies in order fight the French below them.

5) The blind French guy didn't just get strapped to a pair of knights, he actually commanded troops (mental!).

I'm sorry I can't be of more help with references, but This Sceptred Isle does contain a great description of the battle (and is fully referenced). Crecy really is one of England'd greatest military victories. For some reason not many English people know about it and it is overshadowed by the Battle of Agincourt (the English also executed the prisoners at Agincourt, but this was due to a breakdown in communication caused by some looters trying to steal the crown jewels and the English thinking they had been flanked) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.136.207 (talk) 05:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Some points on this:

Top notes..

I don;t think the the assertion that French ran down the genoese because "a dead mercenary did not have to be paid" is acceptable". The Charge was based in pure anger that themen opaid to lead the line were falling back, and the slaughter of 'genoese' (Realistically Liguria did not have the population to supply these men so Genoese is used as a catch all term by contemporary sources for Italians,) throughout France after the battle shows the anger the French felt towards the mercenaries who would not fight to the death, as the flower of French European nobiulity later would.

1) Most battles started with a 'no prisoners' standard. Once the General felt the battle was won he would call 'havoc' allowing men to break rank and take prisoners. Whilst I will acknowledge that they are after the period, Richard II and Henry Vs articles of war make clear that to take a prisoner before the call of havoc is a capital offence, so there is no reason to see that either army would not take this view at Crecy.

2) This tactic, although applied by the Scots, was common, and promulgated I believe by the Roman Tactician Vegetius, with whom all military leader of the c.14would be familiar. In any case it was most famously used by the Flemish rebels at Courtrai.

3) You are contradicting yourself here, as the French have gone from murdering the crossbowmen to mistaking them for wounded English. Also I know I'm being picky, but decimation specifically refers to the death of 1 in 10 men. In addition the English formation is unknown, although Froissart (who was actually from the low countries, and attached to the household of Phillipa of hainault at the time of the battle) refers to the formation of the Harrow. this has been interpreted many ways

4) Don't read to much into contemporary accounts. They will always refer to a dispute on the losing side where one officer recommends discretion, is accused of cowardice and then goes and gets himself killed pointlessly. they are writing to an ideal, not to history, and it is the historians job to try to build a theiory of the reality

5) Your referring to the King of Bohemia, who was, as his title suggests, not French. IT would have been impossible for someone else to command his men in his presence, although the reality of how this could have worked is open to debate —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philip reid (talk • contribs) 09:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The Effects

there needs to be MORE!!!

wow could you be more vague (82.28.237.200 (talk) 21:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC))

English arrows or mud?

I believe I saw a show on the History Channel which reviewed this battle. They did a study with the long bow and arrows used against french knights. Their study showed that the iron tipped arrows didn't penetrate the french steel plate armour. Instead their study showed it was the "sticky" mud on the battle field which slowed the knights and eventually falling them. The mud would stick to the surfaces of the armour where as "clothed" light armed troops which had no problems killing French nobles did not get stuck in the mud as bad. They were able to use daggers and such to stab the fallen knights in the arm pits, eye slits, and etc. So the study showed it was mud and not english arrows which defeated the charge.

Need to be a bit careful about historical re-enactments of that nature because it's so easy to make some fundamental flawed assumptions. There is a vast amount of nonsense put about by modern amateur researchers. Do please give contemporary chroniclers and professional historians a little more weight. The upshot is that a clothyard bodkin-tipped arrow fired by an English archer from a long selfbow, descending in a parabolic arc 45 degrees at the ground, had an excellent chance of going straight through shoulder plate and down an armoured knight's body. Examples follow of some pitfalls for the unwary.

First, a bodkin arrow is not "iron-tipped". Bodkin refers to the shape which is basically a long pyramidal point - it adds an inch to the clothyard length - and it's forged steel of a kind medieval armourers could easily fabricate in vast numbers. Hammering, heat-treatment, and quenching gives a bodkin Rockwell C hardness of about 40 versus no more than 20 for medieval loricate plate. I have personally seen at engineering school a hand-forged knife edge reach a Rockwell hardness of 64. The first quenching was in horse excrement - that added carbon and god knows what else. I bet if the History channel had tested such a point they would have been more impressed.

Second, a clothyard steel-pointed arrow was a massive projectile, far heavier than modern Olympic-standard arrows, with easily enough momentum to punch through medieval plate using plunging fire. Medieval jousting armour was designed to protect against lances not arrows.

Third, the longbows of the period had a draw weight of nearly 100 pounds! There are those who claim even higher draw weights. Modern bows you're lucky to use a third of that. There is a real dispute about the length of the bow, because of some translations going back to the time of Henry the Eighth regarding the materials of a longbow (dwarf elm, indicating they were fairly short). Archaeologically, the bows recovered from the Mary Rose show that while many were short there were some remarkably long selfbows.

Finally, the longbowmen at Crécy could keep up a rate of fire of an arrow every ten seconds easily. Their biggest problem was how many arrows the quartermaster could supply.

The mud is another matter. Historians have long known the French and Genoese made a gift of the first assault to the English, by actually fighting each other in the mud, making perfect targets for flat trajectory fire from English archers who could approach without worrying about return fire. I'm lucky to possess a personal copy of the 1911 Brittanica which observes (page 390 volume 7) that "soon the first two lines of the French were a mere mob of horse and foot struggling with each other. The archers did not neglect the opportunity and shot coolly and rapidly into the helpless target in front of them." But the mudfighting did not last forever. There were around sixteen separate assaults and most of them happened after dark. The fighting didn't stop till around midnight! by which time "the army of France was practically annihilated; 1542 men of gentle blood were left dead on the field and counted by Edward's heralds," for the loss of fifty English of rank.

Amateur historians of archery sometimes refuse to believe such figures, based on their own experience, the diminutive stature of medieval man, and defective translations of some medieval texts. Despite such criticisms, the consensus of professional historians hasn't much changed. Archers were athletes of long training (ten years to make a longbow archer). English longbowmen had so far advanced in their art that they were almost deformed - the bodies were certainly asymmetric - and contrary to popular belief, "Men living during the early Middle Ages (the ninth to 11th centuries) were several centimetres taller than men who lived hundreds of years later, on the eve of the Industrial Revolution" (Quoting Steckel here). This invalidates a lot of assumptions made by modern revisionists.

 Sdoradus (talk) 23:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

ALL You might wish to look at this article -which discusses the PHYSICS involved in the archery/long bowmen at Agincourt and Crecy: http://www.stortford-archers.org.uk/medieval.htm Truth to tell, BOTH were such overwhelming military victories, I fail to see the 'nitpicking' concerning this article. Sure, it's nice to be able to re-write history, but the fact remains the English archers carried the day (on BOTH occasions - Agincourt/Crecy).

That page no longer appears to exist, but I do believe you sir. Sdoradus (talk) 23:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I read the mud slowed the knights down, making them easy targets for the longbowmen, then after the battle the (?name?) came out with long knives and killed any knights who remained alive on the field, pushing through eye and air and underarm openings in the armour. There is a name for the long knives, which is what these folks were nick-named (I'd have to look it up). The importance being, the common soldier killing nobility anonymously in a non-chivalric manner.Stbalbach 20:10, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I think the long knives you're talking about were called "mercy-givers" or something like it. Prottos007 (talk) 23:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The term you're looking for was "misericord", an ironic adaption of a Latin phrase. It was not a very long knife. It was very thin bladed to get through the visor holes, and just long enough to penetrate the brain through an eye socket. One imagines the last view of an aristocrat as some peasant yobbo (quoting Roger McGough) inserts the point of what amounts to a longish knitting needle through the visor and eye, then stirs.Sdoradus (talk) 23:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

It was the Battle of Agincourt.

EDIT: According to the same show on the History Channel that reviewed this battle, it was mostly due to mud and the basic problem of crowd control which secured English victory over the French.

First of all, the English forces were arrayed on the highest terrain they could find. The eager and overly ambitious French troops decided to attack the English lines along the same level of the terrain, of which a natural chokepoint/bottleneck exists. Second, the English archers switched to melee weapons and attacked the French troops; a move that stunned the French army. In confusion, the French army turned back and trampled on their own troops that were stuck in the mud.

The end result? A French defeat due to French mistakes and lack of discipline. Superior strategy and the introduction of longbowmen did not contribute to the English victory; it was more of a matter of choice of terrain and vigorous defense coupled with French mistakes that led to English victory.

That documentary was about Agincourt, not Crecy. Crecy was very much decided by the longbow. 86.21.225.156 (talk) 19:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

French Knights and Men At Arms vs. Longbows.

One of the problems with the contemporary version of the Battle of Agincourt and the Yeomen vs. Knights debate is that people have lost touch with what medieval weapons and armor were capable of. As one of the previous comments states, the arrows fired by longbows could not in any way penetrate steel plate armor, even at a 90 degree angle. The true purpose of the Bodkin arrow tip is not to pierce armor, but its ease of manufacture.

A good poster on the subject of arrows vs. plate armor is here: http://www.rdg.ac.uk/engin/home/material/ancient/AW_poster.jpg

Sorry but I can't find that reference, it seems no longer to exist. I can tell you that the construction of a bodkin-tipped arrow is a known quantity and the longbows of the period were easily able to give a clothyard arrow sufficient momentum to punch through medieval loricate plate of quarter-inch thickness. Sdoradus (talk) 23:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I also saw the television show on the Battle of Agincourt, and their version makes much more sense than longbowmen piercing plate armor.

There are several problems with this:

1. First, and most importantly full plate armour was not developed until the early 1400s, almost half a century after the Battle of Crécy had demonstrated the power of the bow over maille. At Crécy, the French knights would have been wearing mainly maille, with large sections of reinforcing plates and possibly the occasional brigandine, and a bodkin point arrow can easily defeat maille. (The illustration in our article was made in the fifteenth century, and is probably not an accurate depiction of the armour worn by the French knights that day). Thus the whole "could longbows penetrate plate" debate is irrelevant for Crécy, although it is more significant for Agincourt. (Even then, joints were maille covered until well after Agincourt).
2. Secondly, numerous historical accounts state, again and again, that they could penetrate plate armour, even if only at close range and not reliably. For example, Dr. William's interesting poster states that his results are all estimates because the museums would not let him shoot holes in the artefacts, however in the early 20th century Dr. Saxon Pope received permission to fire a reconstructed Mary Rose longbow at genuine armour, and it did penetrate. So if your reproduction test doesn't do it, most likely there's something wrong with your test.
3. Third point may explain the second, Dr. Williams suggests a typical 12th century longbow arrow as having a kinetic energy of 80 joules. He doesn't say how he derived this figure but it is low. Other researchers find 100 joules to be a more likely figure, with some perhaps as high as 120 joules [1]. Yes, this did require an immensely strong bowman. That's one reason why it took years of training.
4. Finally, as Dr. Williams observes, the ability of the plates to resist penetration depends very much on the quality of the steel, and it is unlikely that every two horse knight had the best stuff available. Further, his tests are done with 2 mm plate. Actual plate varied in thickness both due to errors in manufacture and to reduce weight in less exposed areas -- didn't matter much if someone fired one arrow at you, but when they put out 60,000 per minute, different story. (This is probably the reason why there is so much argument about this today; so many modern reproductions are done with modern steel plate, which is completely uniform thickness and far stronger than what was available 600 years ago.)

-- Securiger 05:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Your points are well taken, but a Mary Rose longbow? The dang ship wasn't even raised until 1982! Sdoradus (talk) 03:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Another thought, being a point about units. You quote Joules, so are using the modern SI units rather than the traditional English/US systems.

One joule is approximately the energy expended in typing a heavy typewriter (not computer) key. Modern arrows are lightweight affairs from 400 to 900 grains, but a clothyard arrow about 37 inches long from nock to heavy bodkin point - and despite revisionist claims, that was a common standard - could weigh well over 1400 grains (0.2lb or about 0.1kg), with a range of 200m. Allow for an initial speed of 60m/s, that implies a kinetic energy of 180J (and momentum of 6kg.m/s).

This is not terribly high when you recall how heavy old battle arrows and the so-called "war bows" used in the Hundred years war were, by comparison with modern items. Be aware too that for purpose of penetrating armour what counts is not so much the energy as the momentum, for which a heavy arrow is even more important.

Also can I remind people that when longbow archers would shoot en masse, they were not aiming and were firing at a 45 degree angle for maximum range. This had a plunging fire effect; armour intended to deflect a lance was weaker from the top. Sdoradus (talk) 03:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

It's also worth making the point that horses tended to be far less well protected than the knights they were carrying. Barding was a relatively late invention, I don't believe it was used at Crecy. Even after barding, it's not clear how heavily the average horse would have been armoured. Shooting a horse is an effective way of stopping a cavalry charge.

--Merlinme 17:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Really not convinced the balance of this article is correct

Following on from the previous discussion about the effectiveness of longbows vs. knights, I really don't think the balance of this article is correct. The conclusions seem to be based on the principle that the longbow could not have possibly caused casualties by penetrating the knights' plate armour. But they weren't wearing plate armour. As has been pointed out, all over plate armour only came to be commonly used 50 years after Crecy. Crecy is not the same battle as Agincourt. The French knights would have been wearing mail reinforced by plates, which is not the same thing at all; the plates don't cover the whole body and they don't have the same structural strength. Longbows could definitely cause casualties to men armoured like this. The sheer scale of the French losses of knights, and quotes such as:

"[by the end of the battle] the whole plain was covered by men struck down by arrows and cannon balls"

surely reflect this.

To some extent this is all speculative, so please change back if you can find sources to back you up. But in the meantime, I'm going to make some quite radical changes to the article, to reflect what I think would be a more accurate reflection of the effectiveness of the longbow against the armour of the time.

--Merlinme 15:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Also I would question how exactly mud killed the French Knights? or was there an early and isolated previously unrecorded passing of the black death. The fact is a Bodkin arrow at short range was designed explicitly to pierce armour, and the ragged French charges, caused initially by the scuffle with the Genoese, and later by the dead French men and horses meant the English archers were able to to pick off the french as they approached —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.38.5 (talk) 09:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Genoese Crossbows

I quickly read through the article, and while interesting, it doesn't really say which side the Genoese are on, up until the sentence "This battle established the military supremacy of the English longbow over the French combination of crossbow and armoured knights".

I believe you'd need some sort of sentence clearly indicating their allegiance, being mercenaries... Kareeser|^Talk! 14:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

According to Noted military historians R. Ernest and Trevor Dupuy,abt 6000 Genoese crossbowmen were amoung the est 60,000 soldier French army. See the 1986 edition of "the Encyclopedia of Military History".

Did really contemporary sources consider this evidence for the superiority of English crossbowmen over English longbowmen? If that is true, we would need a source. As far as I know, Genoese and Pavise crossbowmen enjoyed a continued popularity after this. Judging from the French chronicler's description that seems like a very unfair conclusion to conclude that this demonstrated the superiority of English longbowmen. This archery vs archery is a fight between better protection and higher penetration (possibly also more ammunition since bolts are typically smaller than arrows) versus more range and higher rate of fire. It goes without saying as to who is superiour will depend on the conditions. In unfavourable terrain (more cover would favour the closer ranged weapon), without their shields, tired and with weapons in very suboptimal condition from rain the Genoese couldn't make a good account of themselves. -Sensemaker

"Pavise"? Do you mean, "from Pavia"? The contemporary sources were first interviewed by Froissart. The 60,000 total included Bohemian troops. The 6000 figure for the crossbowmen comes from Villani, writing a long time after Froissart, who does say fifteen thousand, but that doesn't mean all of them got to the battle. The 60,000 and 6,000 figures can both be found in the 1911 Brittanica article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdoradus (talk • contribs) 02:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Welsh Arrows?

Welsh arrows? Welsh Longbows? No English ones?

I believe it's a commonly held mis-conception that it was only Welsh archers - there were some, but by no means did they outnumber the English archers in armies of the time. I'm off to do some more research (outside of Wikipedia) before I edit, but I shall return! --Gavinio 23:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Knerlo 01:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Knerlo== Size of armies ==

The numbers in the box are different to those in the article itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.241.3.112 (talk) 22:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the numbers need to be looked into. This edit specifically calls out having pulled numbers from the German Wikipedia simply because they appeared more plausible, and without citing any external source. -Harmil 13:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Just To Add ≤I would just like to add that to my knowledge, that the bowmen where a mix of Welsh & English in total of around 5000 on foot and another 2000 on horse. And that the English also employed a practice that was picked up from the Saracens from the earlier crusades of horse archery. the English also adapted there long bows more efficiently for more power taken from the smaller composite bows, which made the longbow more powerful in the right hands than we think. Another thing I would just like to add, fighting in or without armour is exhausting, stabbing cutting and thrusting to kill someone in armour in mud seems hard work. Try running in mud for a short while a combination of deadly arrows, cannon, mud, barricade of dead bodies, and then the use of spearmen, men at arms and the bowman’s the mercer givers. Also include the slaughter of the Genoese crossbowmen by the French knights and the crushing and friendly fire damage done by the continues charging of the Frence is in my mind that gave aid to a more bloody battle. The English tactics where good, I note that, Poitiers and Agincourt also won the day with bow, ether the French are consistently unlucky or tactics and bow where a big part in winning the three battles.'June 2nd 2008'Carucatus —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cracatus (talk • contribs) 11:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I have edited some of the numbers as they seem to be incorrect, it is highly unlikely that there were 60,000 French soliders participating in the battle and 47,000 of them died. I have cut the numbers down to the more accurate 30,00 (as was said by first-hand English accounts). I have also cut down the number of French casualties to 12,00 although I do not know the number of dead Genoese Crossbowmen. It can be assumed that nearly all of them died (they could fire about three bolts a minute compared to the English/Welsh Longbow that could fire up to 12 arrows a minute!) as they were the first to engage in battle against a technologically superior enemy.

no such thing can be assumed!! It is clearly stated in the accounts that the crossbowmen withdrew when they could not make way and were at best massacred by the French. Given that it is equally doubtful that the French indulge in completely massacring their allies instead of fighting the enemy the casualty rate cannot be deducted that way! 84.154.10.170 (talk) 22:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Solar Eclipse?

Several historical accounts of the battle describe a large flock of crows above the battle field, a violent rainstorm and an eclipse of the sun. The only substantiation I have for this is in Our Island Story. Does anyone have a better authority? It would be good to include some information about these. --Gilgongo (talk) 20:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

NASA's eclipse database gives no indication of such an event. Algebraist 13:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Those accounts mentioning an eclipse all stem from a single bad transcription of what Froissart actually wrote, which was "une esclistre". This was a middle French (français moyen) word derived (not without dispute) from a Norman word similar to "glisten". It means "lightning". It does not mean "Eclipse". Sdoradus (talk) 01:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

The first paragraph of "Aftermath" has been vandalized, though I can't see how it was done to correct it. drh (talk) 15:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Infobox Edits

Trip Johnson, your infobox edits to Battle of Crécy do not make sense. Your source, whose reliability in questionable at best, says "Numbers in the French army are uncertain but may have been as high as 80,000 including a force of some 6,000 Genoese crossbowmen." You have 24,000 cavalry + 6,000 archers = 30,000. With the kill figures, 100%+ of the French were killed? I am assuming this is a typographical error, and no intentional. Please review and edit as necessary. If intentional, please substantiate. Thank you. Alphageekpa (talk) 09:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

That is not me who keeps putting the numbers down to 24,000 cavalry. And unless you can give me concrete evidence that BritishBattles is unreliable (I don't see why it is, it cites secondary sources) I will be continuing to use it. (82.28.237.200 (talk) 23:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC))

Then track down those secondary sources, cite them, and spare us the contradictions, shoddy scholarship, and dubious material. Albrecht (talk) 18:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I can't seem to find any other source with numbers that high. I think we may not be dealing with a NPOV source here. Everyone likes to think the enemy outnumbered them by four or five to one; it makes you much more heroic. --therealhazel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.173.129.162 (talk) 23:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a popular sport to dispute figures of "four or five to one" but consensus among historians does appear to be just that, and has been for a long time. Most of the works begin with the figures from Froissart - a French writer, not English - who agrees the odds were of that order. My 1911 Brittanica gives about 20,000 combat effectives for the English ("The total force was 3900 men-at-arms, 11,000 English archers, and 5000 Welsh light troops" and for the French, "the whole force was probably about 60,000 strong". See Vol. 7 pg. 389d. Brittanica does note that different editions of Froissart have "a different estimate". That may reflect the progress of his own studies. It's clear that attempting a proper accounting of forces was very hard, though there were eyewitnesses on both sides who did record what they saw. More success is had from indirect indicators like the number of transport ships and the money owed in war pay. Sdoradus (talk) 01:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Of Course...?

Thought maybe this comment in regards to the crest of the Black Prince should be edited a bit..."being the crest of the Surrey Cricket Club and of course the Welsh Rugby Union." Why "of course" the Welsh Rugby Union? Did the Rugby Union fight in this battle? Or perhaps they played a bit during the fight...? Wolf 63.76.209.49 (talk) 18:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

74,000 cavalry

Who wrote that? Stopped by 6,000 archers? That's a joke. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Unless the French where completely unarmed and unarmoured. But you know historical sources: they are completely biast. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.114.131 (talk) 19:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Who mentioned 74,000 cavalry? Perhaps you mean the 24,000 cited earlier? Regardless, the 6,000 archers refers to the Genoese crossbowmen on the French side. The English archers numbered 11,000. Sdoradus (talk) 01:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Privy Wardrobe???

Under summary in the 6th paragraph and the second line the article cites a "English Privy Wardrobe" as being a source for historical information on this battle. This sounds like a false name. Can anyone confirm this reference?? Elwingstarbreeze (talk) 14:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

'English Privy Wardrobe' refers to the possessions of the King of England. These were accounted of in written lists many of which survive and are indeed a source of the period. What is now known as the Jewel Tower of the Tower of London complex was built to house Edward III's treasures and weapons was known as the King's Privy Wardrobe (i.e. the king's private storage).

see: http://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/building/palace/estatehistory/the-middle-ages/jewel-tower/

The Genoese crossbowmen

There seems to be a lot of guesswork about the number and conduct of the mercenary crossbow troops, which is odd because nearly all the essential scholarship has been done for centuries, starting with the chronicler Froissart - who made a point of being as accurate and truthful as he could. Modern archaeology can offer new insights but there's wide agreement on events.

For example, general agreement is that 6000 crossbowmen made it from the point of disembarkation (Harfleur) to the battlefield at Crécy, but Froissart stated there were 15000 hired. That's not surprising; the first arrivals were thrown straight at the enemy so the Genoese had no time to draw up their full numbers. It was six lieues (leagues) they had to travel - about twenty kilometres. In one day. Carrying their crossbows and shields (pavises).

They couldn't do it: they had to leave the shields behind. That also explains their retreat, which so disgusted those brave French knights in their armour. The commanders should not have used crossbowmen against longbowmen. The proper use is from fortifications or against armour.

Crossbow quarrels are good against dismounted men-at-arms because a quarrel will defeat armour. Against a longbow archer you face rate-of-fire issues. A clothyard (37") broadhead arrow was as effective as a quarrel against unarmoured targets. In the time it took a crossbowman to reload the English could run within range, fire, and retreat. Sdoradus (talk) 22:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

'End Of Chivalry' More French Propaganda

Re: First paragraph

"The combination of new weapons and tactics has caused many historians to consider this battle the beginning of the end of classic chivalry." Which historians?

Section: Aftermath, First paragraph

"These were long daggers which were inserted through the unprotected underarms and into the heart, or through visor slits and into the brain. This was against the chivalric codes of warfare, since peasants were killing knights; knights were also dying from anonymous arrow shots rather than face to face in combat with peers."

Um, nonsensical, knights had been dispatched this way for many years prior to Crecy and missile shots was a favourite tactic to bring down armoured cavalry. No, I think that the first paragraph was designed to suggest that the 'honourable' French were beaten by a 'dastardly' enemy as per usual when the reality is it's just more sour grapes by the loser against the winner. I suggest the paragraph is irrelevant and needs removing unless citations from the 'many historians' are attached and the paragraph put in context.Twobells (talk) 21:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, where to start ? At first, can you try, in the discussion board of an article dealing with France or the French or the Frogs or whatsoever, to keep your own 'sour grape' down ?

At second, who was the most famous knight who died at Crécy ? A pal who was admired by both the French and the English ? A pal who was considered to be the quintessence of chivalry at that time according to Froissart ? A French chronicler we love to quote when it comes to the numbers of French and English involved at Crécy and others battles of the Hundred Years' War.

Not a French as we all could have believed, that was John the Blind, King of Bohemia and Count of Luxembourg. Don't you think it was possible that the death of this 'King and Knight's Quintessence' have been seen as a possible end of chivalry ?

I don't see where is the 'dastardly enemy' there, Edward III used far better efficient tactic and weapon to win, that's all. 90.9.154.74 (talk) 13:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Ribauldiquin

The "History Channel" recently reconstructed the most likely appearance and use of a Baulidquin and concluded that it was a multi barreled cannon mounted on wheels, not neccessarily the single barrled cannon shown in the article. The barrels were mounted alongside each other and discharged almost simultaneously. Several of these weapons firing all the barrels together must have been a devastating barrage

It was the first machine gun and must have caused hideous carnage amongst the charging French Knights. It was against all the accepted customs of chivalry to be killed by a cannon ball or a commoners arrow, so who would admit to either?

Perhaps the argument about the casulaties caused by the cloth yard arrow can be resolved by assuming that there were also considerable casuaties due to cannon fire.AT Kunene (talk) 09:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Danes?

Being a Danish Medieval and military historian I was much surprised to see the article claiming Danes were at Crécy. I find that highly unlikely and would very much like to know the source for this. Even on the Military History Mailing List, where many a very competent and knowledgeable military historian contributes, no one could give me a source for this information.

It is in fact rather more likely (though still quite unlikely) that there might have been Danes on the French side in the 100-Years-War as Denmark and France were often allied in the 14th and 15th centuries (the French were interested in Danish naval power against the English). The Danes were, however, busy warding of the Hanseatic League and Holy Roman Empire, so I would say Danish participation in Crécy is something that belongs more in the realms of a historical novel than in documented fact. I would dearly like to know a source for the information though, and I would love to be proven wrong.

PalleRasmussen (talk) 08:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)Palle Rasmussen, Ma. History, www.ask-viking.dk

Looks suspicious: no edit summary and it was the only edit the IP contributor ever made [2]. (Thanks to WP:WIKIBLAME for the link.)--Old Moonraker (talk) 09:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Where are the citations?

This is a good article but needs some serious citations. Most are absent and some others lead to nowhere Mugginsx (talk) 21:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The editor in the section above was just asking for citations as to the fact that Danes that engaged in this battle. He or she is not alone. I would like to know the citation for that and some other statements as well as whomever put the banner on the article.

Also, zero losses at Atoleiros.[9] - Really? That is hard to believe and the citation that is supposed to back it up also goes nowhere. In the Wiki article entitled the Battle of Atoleiros this statement appears:"... In the short battle that followed, the Castilian cavalry was unable to break the Portuguese formation, suffering heavy losses." Unfortunately, it too states no losses to the Portugese, It is uncited. It is unbelievable that any medieval battle during that time produced "zero" losses. Even if there was complete surrender, usually someones were made examples of, if only to make a point as to the discomfiture the enemy caused the victors.

This was a great battle and this article could also be great if shored up and either cite sources to back up important statements or delete them. Mugginsx (talk) 22:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I put Wikiblame to work again. The IP contributor who made the Battle of Atoleiros addition was a significant contributor to the ensuing Battle of Aljubarrota, although the material was uncited there as well. I'll try to find a ref for this and adjust the text if needed. The "Danes" material (above) looks like vandalism and may be deleted outright.--Old Moonraker (talk) 06:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, failed; the 885 "me too" hits on Google derive from here. Will add a {{cn}} tag, hoping someone else has better luck. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Took out unreferenced material that was in there for years. This is also rampant on some of the other Hundred Years War articles, and also unreferenced for YEARS. It is too bad that some of these editors seem to think they do not have to work as hard as the rest of us. Mugginsx (talk) 21:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Removal of approximations

Moved from Mugginsx Talk page

Please don't perform outright removals of figures regarding forces in historical battles, as you did in Battle of Crécy. You not only removed unsourced (through basically sound) figures in the infobox, but actually blasted approximate figures that were well-referenced. The nature of historical research of this kind is not exact, but that doesn't mean it's "UNKNOWABLE"[1], as you have suggested. You can't simply blast away useful information because you personally don't agree with it.

Peter Isotalo 20:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Basically sound? What is that. A new Wikipedia guideline? I have read many books on the battles of the Hundred Years War and no one knows the amount of forces or casulaties, including Froissart and it is preposterous to say that 11 Noblemen killed, 1,542 knights killed, 2,300 Genoese Crossbowmen killed Several thousand infantry killed and then put "citation needed". That is unacceptable in Wikipedia. Same with Forces and Casulaties. I have changed it to say "an approximation". The rest is pure conjecture. Mugginsx (talk) 21:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

By basically sound I mean it seems to correspond with what I've seen academic historians write about Crécy, but I don't have a specific citation right now. You're technically right that unsourced information should be removed, but in this case you're basing your removals on a sweeping generalization that these kind of facts are utterly "unknowable". That's not a reasonable interpretation of the current state of medieval historical research.

You are right in that casualties and the size of armies in medieval battles are difficult to ascertain in the exact numbers we're used to from early modern or modern battles. The size of these forces are by necessity approximations. However, that certainly does not equate to an "anything is possible"-attitude in describing pre-modern military history. I have just been reading a very interesting work (Rogers 2007) that uses Crécy as an example to discuss the often highly lopsided nature of casualty figures in medieval battles, and why very figures concerning killed knights are perfectly believable. The uneven casualties is because most kills occured when the losing side lost cohesion and routed. The very exact number of killed knights is because these people were of the nobility or at least high-standing retainers of nobility. The death of these individuals left clear traces in records and any dispatch with reports on battle casualties about high-ranking individuals would have to be quite exact since those on the receiving end would eventually find out about those killed anyway. The very simple reason is because they would have known these fallen men personally.

So if anything, I would say that the casualty figures should be considered quite believable, though naturally less exact when it comes to the common men among archers, crossbowmen and the infantry. If there are different approximations of the total size of the armies among historians, there should be some sort of discussion of what the most common approximations are. The infobox can easily summarize this with a "c." or "2,000-3,000" and such. And I would like to stress quite adamantly that the sources that should be used in these case should only be works by professional historians. Anything else would amount to original research.

Peter ^Isotalo 09:00, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Only Peer-reviewed historians. Still they are estimates and should be stated as such. No one liviing today was there. No one living then counted them in the heat of battle and there are no records to suggest the casualties were from anything but memory. True many of the nobles were well-know, certainly, Charny, Earl of Warwick, etc. but not ALL were known. An examples is that John of Ghistelles is said to have perished at the Battle of Crecy AND the Battle of Poitiers. Mistakes are made even in modern warfare but fortunately we have DNA and computer files to give certainty to the facts, when dna is available. Even so, soldiers, including POWs names are still unaccounted for from Korea and Vietnam and names, especially common names have caused glaring mistakes in modern records.

At any rate, you must follow Wikipedia guidelines. When they are estimates you MUST state them as estimates.Mugginsx (talk) 14:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability states "It must be possible to attribute all information in Wikipedia to reliable, published sources that are appropriate for the content in question. However, in practice it is only necessary to provide inline citations for quotations and for any information that has been challenged or that is likely to be challenged." I will read the source, if it is a credible one, then I will not challenge. Since it is clear that Sumpton is estimating, it still must say "estimated or approximate" Mugginsx (talk) 14:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:CITE adds to this statement ."...However, editors are advised to provide citations for all material added to Wikipedia; any detail risks being unexpectedly challenged or even eventually removed."

WP:BURDEN WP:UNSOURCED The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You may remove any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source.

There's nothing in any of those guidelines that says we have to put "estimates" before everything, nor in any guidelines I've ever seen. Not even in for infoboxes. So that appears to be your interpretation of them, and it doesn't at all agree with how FAs and GAs on pre-modern battles are written. And why would you insist on inserting that particular word before figures that are in of themselves approximate like "fewer than 100 killed" and "c.11,000-13,000 infantry"?

If you're concerned about presenting a nuanced account of pre-modern battles, I really recommend that you help out by looking up what various historians have to say about the credibility of the size of forces and casualty figures. It'll be a lot more useful to readers than removal of information and putting "estimated at" before every imaginable figure.

Peter ^Isotalo 15:39, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

You were the original editor. You should never have inserted the figures without reference (which you have now fixed) and without adding they are approximate or estimated figures. Does someone really have to tell you that the figures in a medieval battle need to state they are estimated? The burden is on the original editor. Mugginsx (talk) 16:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

As to the "fewer" that you added - that is allowing an assumption that there were not more that one hundred. You cannot make that assumption either for the same reasons given previously. Mugginsx (talk) 16:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I haven't added any new figures without referencing them. I re-added older figures that other editors had added and that you had previously removed, including some that were properly referenced. Those that weren't referenced I reinserted with a fact-tag. This was to allow for discussion. You didn't agree with that and removed them. I haven't re-added them and I have conceded that references are needed, so there we are. I would not remove figures like that myself, but I'm not going to dispute their current absence. We appear to be in agreement on that point.

I added "fewer than 100" because that's how I understood what the reference said. Like you've pointed out yourself, it's generally better to avoid highly exact figures when describing pre-modern battles. (The 1,542 figure for French men-at-arms killed seems to be oft-quoted by other historians, though, so I believe there's some merit to it.) If you feel that is an assumption on my part, please feel free to check the reference I've used, or add other references, as I suggested above.

Would you like to comment the issues I brought up in the last post, btw? The difference between your own views on editing and those of the community seem to be somewhat at odds there. It might be good to straighten this issue out.

Peter ^Isotalo 17:00, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I have supplied the Wp:guidelines that I felt appropriate. I am not aware that the general community disagrees with them. They have not been revised. I had the right to remove unreferenced and unverified material and I did so. If some un-peer revied historian seems to think he knows what no other historian knows, that does not make it fact.

This is an encyclopedic article and contains facts or, where facts are not possible, approximations which are well-documented. We cannot express estimates or approximations as facts, which is what was done here. If I stated that you entered the material and I was in error on that, I apologize. I did not come to wikipedia to argue or become controversial. I stick to the guidelines and if I am in error, I removed or agree to the removal by someone else. This conversation, while interesting in that you seem to state you are referring to the entire community, ignores the fact that the present guidelines are the consensus. By the way, if you wish to use your expertise to correct errors, you might start with the Hundred Years' War articles (4) which are full of errors and, except for myself and a handful of other editors, is completey uncited and has been so for years. There is much work to be done there and you would be doing Wikipedia a big favor in correcting it. You are a good editor and have produced much good material and I mean that sincerely. We will have to agree to disagree on this minor issue. Mugginsx (talk) 17:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Your insisting on slapping an "estimated" before every figure isn't dictated by any policies nor is it used in promoted articles (which are judged by the community to fulfill all relevant policies). WP:V or WP:CITE really has nothing to do with this since what you're insisting on is about a particular style. If you want to improve articles you should look at how things are done in FAs and GAs on pre-modern battles. I also recommend checking out Template:Infobox military conflict which has recommendations on usage that are generally considered to be entirely acceptable by the community.

And try to keep in mind that the infobox is supposed to be a general summary of the article. It is not expected to adhere to the same level of detail as the main article text, but rather to be a general overview. No one would expect it to be the solid, indisputable source of objective "facts". Inherently approximative wording like "c. 500" or "4,000-6,000" is considered to be an acceptable method of conveying vagueness.

Peter ^Isotalo 00:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if this is ofgany help but, the 1542 figure is the count that the heralds made of those of the French knights and squires that had been killed near to the Prince of Wales. It does not include the several hundred men-at-arms that were killed in other locations once the French were routed. As stated above there was no count of the infantry that were killed, however most escaped the battlefield as they had been held in line, and fled once the English mounted their horses and chased after the fleeing French knights. Additionally the 1542 count does not include those that were killed the following day as the English searched for remnant groups of French in the woods and ditches. A 2000 reserve column marching from Abbeyville was surprised and routed by the earls of Warwick, Northampton and Suffolk. John lilburne (talk) 22:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

That's good to know, John. Do you by any chance know of the details of positions among historians concerning the size of forces and casualties?

Peter ^Isotalo 00:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you John for your scholarly information, as always. Mugginsx (talk) 12:27, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

As an aside, here is another account of the battle of Crecy where they count the dead (Froissart states) They made just report of that they had seen, and said how there were eleven great princes dead, fourscore banners, twelve hundred knights, and more than thirty thousand other. http://www.luminarium.org/encyclopedia/crecyfroissart.htm (I do not know what "princes" meant to Froissart and, as John said, these would have been dead which were in close proximity to the Prince of Wales.) Mugginsx (talk) 18:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Sumption is normally reasonable on these things as he's had access to the French muster records of the period. However, he gives no precise figures, for Crecy. Not all of the knights and squires were recorded, none of the infantry, nor were the casualties amongst the Genoese either on the battlefield nor how many were killed during the massacre order by Philip at Amiens. John lilburne (talk) 20:00, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you John and Peter, I will remember that and read Sumpter, remembering his limitations as well. You made the article look much better Peter. Mugginsx (talk) 10:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

More on numbers: Ormrod in his biography of Edward III (Yale University Press 2011) puts the French losses on the day at 1500-2000 men-at-arms, with some 4000 men-at-arms and Genoese killed in the aftermath (according to the campaign report of Edward III - details in "Wars of Edward III" Clifford J. Rogers 2010. John lilburne (talk) 19:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Use of primary sources and other iffy refs

I've noticed that the article contains a considerable amount of material that is referenced only to primary sources, particularly Froissart. In some cases there are reference Nicole (2000) and Amt (2001), but judging by how the article content is written, even most of those seem to really just be references to translations.

WP:PRIMARY explicitly recommends against relying solely on primary sources when referencing articles. There are tons of excellent, easily obtainable scholarly material in print, so there's really no excuse for not using it. Summarizing history by relying only on contemporary chronicles is considered to be original research, since it amounts to Wikipedia editors interpreting history without referring to the acknowledge experts in the field.

Peter ^Isotalo 19:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Peter, I am using a translation and interpretation of Froissart by a scholar and NOT the primary Froissart chronicle, so it is NOT the use of a primary source within Wikipedia's meaning. Mugginsx (talk) 17:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

A translated Froissart's chronicles is still Froissart's chronicles. Unless otherwise stated, it should be assumed to stay as close to the original as possible, without "correcting" factual errors or balancing it out with other sources. It's still a primary source and should not be used as a principle reference.

Peter ^Isotalo 18:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, using an author's interpretation and correction to Froissart is not a primary source and has never been considered so. The translated manuscript without annotations, corrections or notes, would be considered the primary source. Mugginsx (talk) 22:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, but that makes very little sense. A translated text is still the same text. Any historian would consider a translation of a primary source a primary source. You don't alter Froissart's perspective merely by rendering it in a different language. And you certainly don't provide readers with balanced information by presenting an historical event from a single chroniclers perspective. If you choose not to use reliable, readily available secondary sources by established modern historians, as is prescribed by WP:OR, it's up to you to provide a valid reason to do so. If there are really are interpretations and corrections, you should expect them to be specified in each individual case.

Peter ^Isotalo 09:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

If you have a translation which is edited by someone else, is translated from one language to another (a form of editing), is published (printed, bound, distributed & sold) and has more than one version, and indicates critical evaluation, you have a secondary source. Mugginsx (talk) 15:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY has a good description of a secondary source as "a work that interprets or analyzes an historical event or phenomenon". A translation of an historical source involves no analysis or interpretation unless it is specified with detailed commentary. The sources you refer to simply don't have any kind of detailed analytic comments. You're free to express your opinion that it is somehow "indicated", but you should be able to prove this by more than just implication and impressions.

Peter ^Isotalo 17:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Froissart, unfortunately is a poor source, he was 9 years old when the battle of Crecy took place. He started writing his chronicles in 1361 when he was employed by Queen Philippa so he's relying on the anecdotes of the English at least 15 years after the event, when most on the French side were dead. One thing that is troublesome with the article is the first paragraph on the battle, this section was added some years ago by an IP with working from an account that has a strong POV against the French and a poor command of modern English. According to Sumption's account the vanguard of the French Army came across the English who were drawn up in battle order at Crecy waiting for them. Most of the French equipment and infantry were strung out along the road back to Abbeyville, and a number of units hadn't even reach Abbeyville. The vanguard consisted of the Cavalry and the Genoese both of whom had been on the road for several hours, and the Genoese equipment was miles away in the rear. The French had a conference late in the morning to decide what to do, experienced leaders cautioned to wait, but other including Philip argued to attack. Sumption argues that politically Philip could not afford to let Edward slip away. He could not have another event where the two armies where within striking distance, on French soil and NOT to take the battle to the English. At 5 pm the French attacked. John lilburne (talk) 20:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

That was not my work as you know but I have been given excellent sources as well by another editor and will order and read them as well as listening to your fine advice John. Thank you once again. Mugginsx (talk) 11:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Peter, I have been reading more closely your statistics and find that I owe you an apology for your statistical estimations. It seems that I jumped to the wrong conclusion without doing proper research Mugginsx (talk) 17:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind comments, Muggins.

Peter ^Isotalo 19:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

To whomever makes References into Notes on Hundred Years War articles

What if some editor wants to put a Note about something relevent to the article. This is often done. Since some editors are now calling References NOTES, than what are NOTES to be called? Mugginsx (talk) 21:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

A superscripted number (or other symbol) that refers to a comment of some sort that is not part of the main text is always a note, no matter its contents; see note (typography). Since Wikipedia does not have a multi-page structure as in printed books or PDFs, all of our notes are technically endnotes, though the term "footnote" is nevertheless used a lot without any real consistency. It's technically incorrect to call any note on Wikipedia a footnote since they per definition require a multi-page structure with footnotes at the bottom of each page, but that's really just a technicality. You can always "notes" to refer to either type, and you can place a comment as well as a source citation in one (example)

There has been a trend fairly recently on (English) Wikipedia to have two separate sets of notes (example), sometimes even to completely exclude references from commentary completely by using notes after commentary notes (example; an overly complicated method in my view), but this is a fairly odd variant that is likely exclusive to certain Wikipedia articles. Outside of Wikipedia, I have have seen commentary notes and reference notes separate only once, and that was in a Swedish textbook on ethnology, an academic discipline where writers often use parenthetical references placed in the text itself. I'm sure there are other examples, but they're extremely rare and as far as I know not recommended that much in manuals of style.

I recommend checking out WP:CITE and WP:FN where much of this is described.

Peter ^Isotalo 17:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation Peter. It seems like a newer trend to me and one I think is confusing to the readers as in one of the examples you provided. Mugginsx (talk) 11:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

weasel words - lack of definitive opinions?

Took out what might be considered weasel words. Removed the tag. As to opinions, many authors are represented here. How definitive can one be in a 1346 battle. Really now. Looks like a template looking for an place to land. If anyone has something more definitive to add to the article that is fine. Looked up weasel words and the explanation itself seems to use weasel words.Mugginsx (talk) 13:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, I am unweaseling as I understand it to mean in wp:MOS. Mugginsx (talk) 17:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Second template

It would he quite helpful for you to explain as indicated here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Too_few_opinions If you have a source showing an additional opinion then please enter into the article with that source. Thanks, Mugginsx (talk) 17:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

End of Chivalry/ English cheating

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WO6amkFxRuA&feature=g-u-u At 23:00 the video explains how the French fought hand to hand, while the English used long bows and cannons to bombard from a distance, essentially ending chivalry.

-G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.17.225 (talk) 03:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Map of the Battle of Crécy

Good morning, this is the first time I try to edit something on Wikipedia, I hope to be helpful. I was looking for this battle's map. I think that the one on this page actually is not really clear. Why the french army is red and the English one is blue and not the opposite? Why does different kind of soldiers use the same symbols (Genoese Crossbowmen and English Long-bowmen are both dot) ? There is no legend... I was thinking to re-design the map, do you think that I can try or it is going to be completely useless for sure? --Lorenzo.piazzoli (talk) 14:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Map of the Battle of Crécy

Hi all, i would like to use this image, i think could be useful. --Lorenzo.piazzoli (talk) 10:01, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Longbow crossbow

The section in the article Longbow versus crossbow is full of OR

text copied from Longbow versus crossbow

The crossbow was favoured as it required less physical strength to load and shoot than a longbow, and could release more kinetic energy than its rival, making it deadlier at close range. It was, however, hampered by slower, more difficult loading, its cumbersome shape and its range, in which the longbow had the advantage. Later developments in more powerful crossbows in the 15th century, such as the windlass-span crossbow, negated these advantages, while advances in bow technology brought to Europe from armies on crusade introduced composite technology; decreasing the size of the crossbow while increasing its power. A common claim about the crossbow is a reload time of one bolt every 1–2 minutes. ...

This analysis as it does not take into account the draw lengths of the bows which because the crossbow had a relatively short draw length had to be much more powerful to impart the same force to the projectile. But that is besides the point because the comparison of power does not really matter at this time both bows could penetrate armour. It does not matter which was the more powerful, providing they could do the job.

To put in into a modern context: at the moment there is a debate going on in the American and British armies whether they need to start to use 7.62 rounds as standard rather than the 5.56 (back to the future), this is because although both rounds will kill a man at normal battle field ranges, to penetrate modern body armour they may need to use a more powerful round -- the disadvantages are that it probably means that the British would have to drop the current style of rifle and as each round is heavier and larger this reduces the number of rounds a man can carry. So clearly given the disadvantages of the larger round unless those are outweighed by its advantages, use the smaller round.

The advantage of the longbow was that not only could it be used as a direct fire weapon like the crossbow, it could always outrage a crossbow because it was an effective weapon in indirect fire. Crossbow men tended to fire directly at their target with perhaps some elevation (much like musket) but they were limited by the design of a crossbow to how much elevation they could use and still see the target. In comparison the English and Welsh archers were trained in firing arrow storms the distance of which was up to about 300 meters (see English longbow#Range). How devastating this could be against other men using projectile weapons (and so less well armoured than men-at-arms) can be seen in the the battle that took place in Britain between opposing bodies of longbow men at the battles of Bryn Glas (1402) Shrewsbury (1403) where elevation on a slope was the factor, while at the Battle of Towton (1461) it was the wind.

I have provided no sources so I am not suggesting any of this be included in the article but rather the other way round that the analysis that is there is removed.

-- PBS (talk) 21:06, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Emboldened by the lessons of tactical flexibility and utilisation of terrain learned from the earlier Saxons, Vikings, Muslims and the recent battles with the Scots...

Elaborate on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.213.86 (talk) 15:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

English propaganda

The english are extremely fond of rewriting history the figures need to be checked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8084:2163:2300:D811:2118:D775:AD65 (talk) 08:29, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Upgrade planned

Greetings to the contributors and watchers of this article. It seems to have languished as C class for some time and I feel that it deserves better. I am intending to give it a major overhaul, and hopefully get it to FA. Having got seven Hundred Years' War articles from 1345 and 1346 to FA over the past five months, with more in the pipeline, I feel that I have some idea of what I am doing.

Obviously, this being Wikipedia, I am hoping that other editors will freely step in to make this article as high quality as we can. Regards. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:43, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Fictional accounts

I am unconvinced that this section adds anything to the article. None of them seem especially notable in themselves. All are referenced to themselves as their own sources[!] If there is to be such a section and any work of fiction involving Crecy is included, it could easily become several times larger than the rest of the article.

So I am blanking, but not deleting, this section pending consensus. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:33, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: - I agree that Fictional accounts and "Depictions in modern culture", also shown in Robert the Bruce, really should not be included in articles. They really belong to the book, movie or actor related articles. Regards Newm30 (talk) 14:45, 9 May 2019 (UTC)