You have no good source on numbers from anybody on the HYW so your numbers are CRAP.

Anybody's numbers are CRAP.

That is your answer. When the chroniclers vary from 7000-15000 English and 28000-80000 French?

Come on!.

Your assessment of an archer's unit of fire is also crap.  Based on MODERN practice 2 dozen meter long arrows is about all that an archer can comfortably point stand around near him.

We don't have enlistment records to show us how many franklins showed up as archers for Edward and how many of them were actually just the usual spear armed infantry.

Myth explained.

And as I already explained, there are damned  few arrow wounds among all the  French  corpses. We have lots of dagger  and  other STAB  wounds indicating that there were a lot of hostages murdered  post battle.

We may not understand what exactly happened . We  may be the victims of the winners' version of history.

The one thing we can be sure about; is that the Genoese crossbowmen broke under English CANNON fire and ran to the rear. Upon this,  the  French survivors, the Genoese, and the English Chroniclers ALL agree, that the cannon fire had morale effect on the exhausted Genoese out of actual damage inflicted. THAT panicky break to the rear screwed up the planned French assaults more than any British longbowmen did. And it was that confusion, the French claim, that Edward exploited by closing on the French mob and chopping them to ribbons. THAT is also what the archeology suggests, that is what all the French corpses suggest, and that makes evidenciary sense-especially when you consider that most of the Genoese mercenary corpses, themselves, seem to have sword or spear wounds themselves, instead of arrow wounds. The French describe trying to hack their way through the Genoese to get at the English and that this disrupted their attacks. They claim, that this as much as attacking uphill through an English obstacle prepared field is what slowed them down, tired them out and left them easy prey to English MAA downhill counterattacks and forced disengagement.

I believe them.

Herald
 

 

herald sounds knowledgeable as all get out until he lays a whopper on you like the japs building a naval base at diego garcia and dominating the indian ocean based on that.  he's also anything but objective about the british for some reason.

Well what the Japanese did at Truk and we did at Eniewetok is certainly possible at Diego Garcia in the same time period. And there is no dispute that during February 1941 the Japanese cleaned the RN's clock in the Indian Ocean, as in WIPED THE ROYAL NAVY OUT. Whether a follow up there would just postpone Midway is debatable, but they had the means to finish the British as an Indian ocean naval power forever. Remember that the British never defeated the Japanese at sea.

The fact that you Ehran are a naval idiot concerning this is not my fault. You still have that Iraqi barge fiasco to explain.

As for Paul's sources? Who cares? The best science NOW says no to all of his longbow myths.

He can cite anybody repeating the same 19th Century British Romantic malarkey he wants.

Until he comes up with 20th century archeology and weapon proofing that definitively proves his longbow case he, like you, has NOTHING.

Two people, who don't have a clue, agreeing with each other, doesn't impress me.

All I have to do here is reasonably negate unsupported assertions. This I've done.

Have a nice day the both of you.

Herald