Blocks your chivalry

...

>peasant who isn't shit and doesn't know shit
You are thinking crossbow

>longbow pierces plate armor meme

While I'm not aware of any primary sources mentioning them for Towton specifically (for some reason, there are a relative paucity of sources about it even compared to other War of the Roses battles), other battles of the War of the Roses mention them extensively whenever you have a pause before battle is joined, like in say, Blore Heath. content.historicengland.org.uk/content/docs/battlefields/blore.pdf

To assume that they wouldn't when it was more or less standard practice for archers is unreasonable.

Blore Heath is the only battle where they are specifically described. I can't help but think people are taking a few scant descriptions from HYW battles and applying them to every single English battle ever. Why would they bother with anti cavalry stakes when fighting other Englishmen, who fight almost entirely on foot?

>Why would they bother with anti cavalry stakes when fighting other Englishmen, who fight almost entirely on foot?
Because Englishmen didn't fight almost entirely on foot, and now you're the one taking occasional actions from the HYW and applying it to the WoTR. I mean hell, Towton was decided when you had a cavalry force barging into the Lancastrian left and routing them, and then the inevitable chase slaughter.

But they did fight almost entirely on foot. Their entire military and even style of armour was geared around it.

[citation needed]

Armour of the English Knight: 1400-1450

They might have been peasants but mastery of the longbow requires years of practice, so they were a step above your average peasant.

Name dropping a book isn't a source. Who wrote this book, where can I find the information you're alleging is in it?

If only there was some website that listed books that you could search?

...

>french should have won a battle in the english civil war

The retarded nature of anglophobes never cases to amaze me

So, in other words, you heard someone quote something with no support out of a book, and that's your "source". Good job, retard.

Hey, did you know that Edward won the Battle of Towton by stabbing the Lancastrians with the third arm that grew out of his head from miles away? It's true! It says it in The Wars of the Roses: Military Activity and English Society, 1452–97

>"...in addition there were horsemen among them. Not that they are accustomed to fight from horseback, but because they use horses to carry them to carry them to the place of combat, so as to arrive fresher and not tired by the fatigue of the journey: therefore they willbride any sort of horse, even pack horses. On reaching the place of combat the horses are given up, they all fight under theblame conditions so that no one should retain any hope of fleeing"

What did Dominic Mancini mean by this in 1483?

No in other words I heard it direct from the world expert in English armour, who wrote the book.

Longbowmen were actually highly valued, well equipped, professional soldiers who were paid well and sought after. They weren't simple peasants by a long shot (no pun intended).

Which you've demonstrated by name dropping a book with no mention as to what the text of it even is, let alone what reasoning and sources are used to come to that conclusion, leaving no ability to cross examine it, you utter tard. Especially since the expertise of the sort you're claiming (By god, who made Mr Capwell the "world expert in English armor" that you're claiming he is) doesn't actually sync up with the claim being made, namely that English did not fight on horseback.

I've posted the entire relevant pages and a 15th primaryb source describing how the English ride to battle then dismount to fight. I imagine it's that whole "phd in the subject of English armour" that makes him an expert in English armour.

Didn't knights almost never die before Agincourt? Like it was more valuable to capture and ransom them, and knights basically saw war as a game anyway?

I could swear there was a battle where a knight died and both sides suddenly stopped fighting. They had a funeral where both sides attended, meanwhile the battlefield was strewen with the bodies of normal soldiers.

>before Agincourt
knights were also slaughtered at crecy

you must have seen a few memes and are basing your whole view on that, take a broader perspective

If I recall correctly, the english killed their prisoners fearing another French attack on their baggage train.

Of course Agincourt wasnt as bad as poitiers, where the French king and 17 nobles were captured and taken to England for ransom

Oh, I had assumed that was someone else, given how the first page talks about how the English disinclination to fight on horseback is overstated and actually lists a cavalry charge (in the HYW, which you've stated upthread is a bad point of comparison to the WotR ) And one guy claiming some 22 years after Towton that the English don't like to fight on horseback, while at the same time claiming that comparisons with a battle 2 years prior to Towton is a bad idea. Meanwhile, we have ACTUAL primary sources talking about cavalry action in the War of the Roses.

archive.org/stream/hallschronicleco00halluoft/hallschronicleco00halluoft_djvu.txt

> Kyng Henry was this day, the beste horseman of his company: for he fled so faste that no man could ouertake hym, and yet he
was so nere pursued, that certain of his henxmcn or folowers wer taken, their horses beyng trapped in blew vcluet : wherof one of the had on his hed, thesaid kyng Henries healrnet.

>Some auclhors write, that this battaill was fought so ncre hande, that kyng Edward was constrained to fight his awne persone, & fought as sore as any man of his partie, and that the erle of Warwicke, whiche was wont euer to ride on horsebacke. from place to place, from ranke to rankc comfortyng his men, was now aduised by the Marques his brother to relynquisiie his horse, and trie the extremitie by hande strokes, whiche if he had been on his
horsebacke, might fortune to haue escaped.

1/2

r3.org/richard-iii/the-battle-of-bosworth/bosworth-contemporary-tudor-accounts/

>While the battle thus raged between the front lines in both sectors, Richard learnt, first from spies, that Henry was some way off with a few armed men as his retinue, and then, as the latter drew nearer, recognised him more certainly from his standards. Inflamed with anger, he spurred his horse, and road against him from the other side, beyond the battle line. Henry saw Richard come upon him, and since all hope of safety lay in arms, he eagerly offered himself for this contest. In the first charge Richard killed several men; toppled Henry’s standard, along with the standard-bearer William Brandon; contended with John Cheney, a man of surpassing bravery, who stood in his way, and thrust him to the ground with great force; and made a path for himself through the press of steel.

And I had assumed that even you wouldn't be that retarded and hypocritcal.

A cavalry charge which ends in the cavalry out running the rest of the army who are on foot and being slaughtered.

Halls chronicle, written years after the Wars of the Roses had ended? That extract talks about king Henry fleeing on horseback and Warwick riding around to organise the battle, then being killed BECAUSE HE WAS ON FOOT.

You're actually using BOSWORTH of all battles as an example of typical English tactics? Richard and his retinue are the only ones in his army who are mounted and guess what happens to them? They fuck up and get torn to pieces by INFANTRY.

>I've posted the entire relevant pages and a 15th primaryb source describing how the English ride to battle then dismount to fight.
Except when they don't, and when it doesn't work, and when your head is so far up your own ass that you can't see without applying magic to clear out your navel.

Were the English as cavalry happy as say, the French or the Castilians? No. But to claim they fought Saxon 1066 style, of fighting on foot all the time, is simply wrong. Your own 'sources' don't claim that, and at this point, I have no idea what you're even trying to argue, nevermind how a guy with a PHD, while well educated, is hardly the "world's expert" on a subject that isn't connected to the claim you've made.

>You're actually using BOSWORTH of all battles as an example of typical English tactics?
No, no I'm not. Learn to read. I know it's hard, but you should actually try looking at other people's statements and working from there instead of building elaborate strawmen as to how they say what you want them to say.

Look at what I actually wrote you overly aggressive fuckwit. "Almost entirely on foot". ALMOST. A handful may be on horseback. Commanders, scouts, scourers or the ambiguously named "spears" etc. Clarence charging off by himself and getting killed doesn't mean the rest of his army wasn't entirely infantry. Henry running away from a battle on horseback doesn't mean that the rest of his arm wasn't entirely infantry. Warwick riding around to get his troops into position, then dismounting to fight, has no bearing on the rest of his army being entirely infantry. Richard keeping his personal retinue on horseback, then being killed by infantry, has no bearing on the remainder of his army being on foot.

Why mention Bosworth at all then if you weren't using it to back up your point?

Why mention armour? Because unsurprisingly, their armour reflects their fighting style. English armour being much more enclosed that continental examples, completely encasing the legs to protect what would be guarded by the horse and saddle, and huge pauldrons to protect from overhead blows that would be rare on horseback but much more common on foot. This is in addition to a lack of lance rests.

BTFO

Longbows are hard as fuck to use and require you to train almost daily for many years to even git gud with them
There were a plethora of laws passed in the 11 and 1200s that mandated that every man who was able between this age and that age had to train with a bow a certain number of days a week

I didn't know what battle knight-killing started, I just know a lot died at Agincourt.

Maybe not, but it definitely kills horses and a dagger to the eye-hole definitely pierces plate armour. I'd say it's even more hectic that the English went around pulling off helmets and slitting throats then just sitting behind their stakes and twanging away.

crecy was a huge deal because it was the first battle where a large number of knights died, which wasn't supposed to happen