The only thing I could find in the TD archive for Agincourt was an old video post from 2013 but one of our American friends has beat me to the punch with a very good post on the subject.
A great piece, click to read.
Damned Yankees, coming over here and stealing our history :)
Link is wrong, should go here http://xbradtc.com/2015/10/25/the-battle-of-agincourt-and-the-airland-battle-doctrine-3/
…in fairness, their history as well – certainly if their ancestors were from these parts. And arguably more broadly…there is a decent thesis to be advanced that the military primacy of the Yeoman-Archers who made up the bulk of our armies from 1350 until about 1550 fundamentally changed the relationship between classes during that period, and opened the way for the constitutional revolution that ended here with the Glorious Revolution of 1689, but was taken forward by the Cousins just ninety years later in Philadelphia…you can’t oppress people who can kill you nine times out of ten at a hundred yards out; a different settlement is required in those circumstances.
Great film as well, in either the Olivier or Branagh version…
GNB
Now, that, sir, is an interesting thesis.
@XBradTC…obviously, there’s a good deal more to the gradual emergence of a particular kind of liberty under law in these Islands…but it’s quite striking that our European neighbours were keeping serfs (over whom their Master had the unlimited power of life and death) at a time when our entire male population was required by law to train for war from seven years old…and key events like the Peasant’s Revolt in 1381 were actually much more akin to a disciplined Tax Revolt by self-organised members of what we would think of as the working and middle class than an outbreak of mob violence. Interesting also that the Swiss and the Townsmen of the Netherlands produced disciplined and well trained infantry as well…and in both cases moved to forms of representative government much more quickly than their neighbours…
The big question is which came first…did a change of the relationship between master and man make it safe to train “labouring men” as soldiers, did the need to train them as soldiers force a different relationship, or was there a feedback loop between both processes?
Wherever it started, by the time of Agincourt the English Army mostly comprised well trained country boys whose NCO’s were the sons of the most prosperous farmers in their own village, whose Officers were the sons of the squire, and whose Generals were familiar local noblemen “bred up for war”. It was profoundly different to their antagonists whose only effective non-noble infantry were mercenaries (townsmen from the Netherlands or Italy)…and who were perfectly happy to ride over their own peasant levies when it suited them.
GNB
Umm, stretching a vague association slighty…
“It’s not an accident that the AH-64D Apache is nicknamed “Longbow” as they were intended to slip along the flanks and attack the second echelon of Soviet forces before they joined the battle”.
@TAS…maybe they study our military history more closely than we do, at least if they are pursuing a military career? Wouldn’t surprise me at all…there is more than one HMAF participant hereabouts who believes “all history is bunk”… :-(
GNB
Longbow is the fire control radar, not the helicopter it sits on.
The original Apache helicopter predates the Longbow radar mounted D variant by twenty years or so. I don’t believe that the adoption of AH-64D brought with it any substantial change of doctrine regarding the use of attack helicopters in the US Army.
The actual connection between the Longbow fire control radar and medieval longbows is that they are both made of wood. The exterior case of all Longbow radars are handcrafted from English yew, and are incidentally made by the same firm of coopers that constructed the first British atomic bomb, out of oak.
Cheers Brian, made me chuckle!
[decom_attached_image_1446505460416]