Re: OT: Historical Amnesia

From: Patrick Powers (frisbieinstein_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 11/01/04 

Date: 31 Oct 2004 19:58:23 -0800

timo@physics.uq.edu.au (Timo A. Nieminen) wrote in message news:<53fa7cee.0410300043.33961bad@posting.google.com>...
>
> But, fundamentally, 10:1 is just plain wrong. 10,000 men-at-arms +
> 15,000 mostly useless infantry versus 1000 men-at-arms + 5,000 very
> effective longbowmen (who also fought very well in close combat) is
> not 10:1 odds, despite mediaeval tendencies to only count the
> bigshots.
>

Quite true. The reason I did that is because it is common for a
small, trained, determined force to defeat a much larger rabble. I
don't know how well-trained the respective men-at-arms were. Still,
25,000-to-6,000 odds are quite long enough.

> Think "mudpit". 250 knights and 250 horses flailing about in mud.
>
> Well, there were about 10,000 French men-at-arms, but they couldn't
> all charge at once. Add to that disorganisation and incompetence, and
> the numbers in the first attack were smaller than one would have
> expected success from.

Everything had to go right (or wrong, if you are French) for the
English to win. It was like the nine planets arranging themselves in
a line. A freak occurence.