XPost: soc.history.war.misc, soc.culture.scottish, alt.religion.   
   hristian.presbyterian   
   XPost: alt.religion.christian.baptist   
   From: cequka@iprimus.com.au   
      
   "William Black"  wrote in message   
   news:ejc6hc$15g$1@news.freedom2surf.net...   
   >   
   > "Raktizer Omheit"  wrote in message   
   > news:45590c74_1@news.iprimus.com.au...   
   >>   
   >> "William Black"  wrote in message   
   >> news:ej9g84$agu$1@news.freedom2surf.net...   
   >   
   >>>>> How do you k now it was a ploughed field?   
   >>>   
   >>>>> Because I read about it somewhere, i.e. an account written by one of   
   >>>>> the English soldiers there?   
   >>>   
   >>> There are no soldier's accounts of Agincourt.   
   >>>   
   >>> Where did you read it?   
   >   
   >> In an introduction or footnote written by a modern historian to the   
   >> account of the battle written by the royal chaplain of King Henry V who   
   >> was at the actual battle site.   
   >   
   > Which book.   
   >   
   > Besides, how else could the French knights have sunk   
   >> knee deep into the mud at Agincourt unless it was ploughed, and unless   
   >> recent heavy rains had preceeded the beginning of the battle. The valley   
   >> which they attacked in was quite narrow, with a brook running through it,   
   >> and was hemmed in on three sides by forested hillocks back in 1415.   
   >   
   > Because it's at the confluence of two rivers.  It's marshy.   
   >   
   > I know that because I've been there.   
   >   
   > The better accounts of the battle mention this as well.   
   >   
   >>>>>> i.e. after the English and Welsh longbow archers had used up all   
   >>>>>> their arrows.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> 1.  What Welsh archers?   
   >>>   
   >>>>> The ones who were actually there, William, face to face with their   
   >>>>> enemy, and with none of the advantages of today's technology. i.e. the   
   >>>>> genuinely brave.   
   >>>   
   >>> There is no evidence for large numbers of Welsh archers at Agincourt.   
   >   
   >> But there were some, even if not in large numbers.   
   >   
   > Evidence please.   
   >   
   >>>>> 2.  How do you know they had no arrows left?   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>>> And how do you know otherwhise William?   
   >>>   
   >>> I don't.   
   >>>   
   >>> You seem to.   
   >>>   
   >>> How do you know?   
   >> From a modern historian, can't remember exactly where.   
   >   
   > So you made that up.   
   >   
   >>>   
   >>> Were you there? Besides, if they   
   >>>>> still had the arrows left, they would still be using them, rather than   
   >>>>> needlessly risking themselves in hand-to-hand combat.   
   >>>   
   >>> When did the archers enter hand-to-hand combat at Agincourt?   
   >   
   >> After they had used up their arrows. They carried swords and hatchets   
   >> with them, and they also had alongside them dismounted men-at-arms with   
   >> swords, as well as footsoldiers armed with billhooks.   
   >   
   > Actually they carried mattocks...   
   >   
   > I assume you read this in abook you can't remember the name of either.   
   >   
   >>>>> 2.  We do not know the archers used bodkin points,  we assume they   
   >>>>> did. They may well have had a mixture and used 'type 16' as well.   
   >>>   
   >>>>> William, they would have used any weapon available which would have   
   >>>>> given them a greater chance at meeting their self-preservation   
   >>>>> instinct.   
   >>>   
   >>> You stated,  quite categorically,  that they used bodkin points.  I   
   >>> asked for proof of this.   
   >>>   
   >>> Do you have any proof?   
   >> William, you should become a lawyer! I do know that as French armour   
   >> became designed to deflect arrows, the English developed specially tipped   
   >> arrow points in order to shear through it, otherwhise they would have not   
   >> bothered to use them at Agincourt in 1415, the many battles after   
   >> Agincourt fought in France between the English and French until 1453, or   
   >> at the Battle of Guinegate in 1513 against the French cavalry, when they   
   >> fired a massed volley of longbows into their flanks,   
   >   
   > Bows are shot,  not fired.   
   William, you sur are a pedantic "wonder"( i.e. really a bore ). I had my   
   suspicions a few threads back that you are one of those types who just loves   
   to argue for the pure sake of it, but I decided to play along with the   
   charade in order to see where this thread with you would end, and as much as   
   I wanted you to prove me wrong, you proved me right when I suspected that   
   you would end up as an underwhelming, "robotically induced" anticlimax. The   
   only advice I can give you is to go to one of those nations where euthanasia   
   is allowed, or the laws against it are not strictly enforced. You probably   
   are one of those who will end up in everlasting hell, but you can make it   
   less worse for your self by speedily terminating your own life as possible.   
   Personally, I have no more interest in this thread, and from here on I   
   presumably decide not to participate anymore, you will presumably decide of   
   your own free will to respond in the same manner.   
   > --   
   > William Black   
   >   
   >   
   > I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.   
   > Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland   
   > I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate   
   > All these moments will be lost in time,  like icecream on the beach   
   > Time for tea.   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)