My understanding is that knights required assistance to get into their armour, and as such had a number of squires. What did these squires do once battle commenced? Did they stick close to their patron, or were they formed in seperate units?

If close to their patron, what were their chances? Presumably they didn't wear anywhere near as much armour (otherwise they'd need their own squires!). Did these squires have significantly higher mortality rates? Would squires be more likely to be ransomed than killed?

How did knights convince their horses to charge spearmen? I assume the lance was longer than the conventional spear, but even so - I can't imagine a horse would be thrilled at charging a wall of spikes. Was it through conditioning, and if so, what conditioning was done?

How much extra baggage was required to keep a knight battle-ready, compared to a longbowman or peasant footsolder? Were there any campaigns that were negatively affected by excessive baggage trains, which probably would have been successful if they simply hadn't bothered to bring the knights?

Is the popular view of English vs French armies correct in terms of knight contingents? My understanding was that, at Crecy, the number of French knights outnumbered the entire English army, which was majority archers and footmen (Although I'm aware there are some notoriously ridiculous numbers thrown around regarding the army sizes at Crecy), and that France could raise more knights than any other country in the world, which (according to conventional wisdom) would have meant they had the superpower army of the day.

Just how practical were knights during siege warfare, as besiegers? Would their baggage train cripple the resupply of the besieging army? What about for assaults?

Is it a massive shame that we don't fight battles with knights anymore, because it's much more fun to watch than people shooting at each other from 200-300meters?

What was the 'life cycle' of a 15th century armour? IE how long would it be used from the time it was manufactured to when it was no longer used as armour? Would a gentleman at arms at Flodden wear a harness that had been made prior to Tewkesbury, 40 years before? Might an Imperial Knight in the War of the League of Cambrai wear a 'gothic' harness?

Thanks for doing this AMA! I'd like to know about the composition of English forces in their "expedition" on the continent. How did this change over time? How were they replenished? I imagine that the composition likely became less English and more "French" over time if they relied more and more on local recruits to replenish the ranks.

And considering the length of the conflict, are there still traces of English soldiers settling in those parts of today's France? For example, in the Low Countries we have groups of people who identify themselves as descended from Italian and Spanish soldiers brought there during the Eighty Years' War.

Thanks so much for your answer!

I've always wondered how much labour was involved in making a full set of armour like this one in your collection

It seems like it would be a very intense project. How long would a piece like that take to make and how many people would be involved in its production?

What is your favorite medieval war legend/story?

What's your take on the infamous order allegedly given by Henry V at Agincourt to execute the French prisoners? None of it seems to add up: as far as I'm aware the French sources are largely silent on the matter, and there were prisoners after the battle who obviously weren't executed.

Thanks for doing this AMA! I have a question or two.

How much did full body plate armor tip the scale? Were knights able to withstand most weapon hits?

Also, I know empires like Rome recruited tons of mercenaries and regularly took tribute from client states. Did the English do this at all?

Last question: it seems like France throughout history had an edge on the English, yet they seemed to lose major battles. Why? What did the English do differently?

Nice AMA! Got a couple of questions regarding professionalism in the English armies.

• Do we go from levied peasants to full time professional soldiers, that earned their livelyhood on war during the course of the war?
• Did there exist a core of veteran soldiers that were hired for multiple campaigns?
• If so, what did these men do in peacetime?
• What were their social standing?

Thanks in advance!

Sweet! I don't actually have a question, but I would like to say I enjoy your work a lot. The combination of historical research coupled with first-hand practical experience with the gear makes for an invaluable contribution to the field!

Maybe some people here don't know, but dr. Capwell is an active (high level?) jouster as well. So apart from having a historian's education and mindset, he has also worn real armours, (mock)fought in them, tried to stick people with lances and got stabbed at a bit.

With that in mind, I find dr. Capwell's conclusions much more convincing than those of a theoretical historian that never left the house in 20 years and suffers from gout. Because that man never fought with a sword. Capwell did. And still does, I suppose.

Sorry for fangirling a bit XD

OK everyone, thanks for so many fascinating and thought-provoking questions... I have to take a break as I've got a little person at home who has just switched from unconscious to conscious mode... Must go. I'll check back again later and hopefully get to some more questions! Adios for now... TC

When did the longbow get replaced by muskets, and why was the change implemented? Also why was the longbow implemented in the first place?

OK... I need to run off again... thanks again for making me think and type so fast and in so many different directions. I'll try to come back a bit later on in the evening!

Many thanks for this. I am one of the many who've walked around that amazing collection.

I've two questions.

First, any notion as to how much plate armor was repaired? Looking at the pictures of battles, it seems as though there'd be a constant need to replace popped rivets, perhaps braze cracks- especially on pieces looted from the battlefield. Given the expense, you would think plate armor would be repaired, recycled...used up.

Second, when does armor especially made for jousting come in? Given the number of pieces of 16th c. examples in many museums, it seems like something that far outlasted plate armor on the battlefield.

Hey Tobias! Love the videos you and Matt Easton are doing.

I was curious about keeping the army fed. If Henry V's campaign went through your lovely french countryside, would there be any food left for you? Any interesting stories you've heard about the difficulties in keeping armies supplied as they rove across enemy territory?

First of all, thank you so much for doing this AMA, it's brilliant, I love it! I saw your videos with Matthew Easton, they were grand.

My question is concerning the dynamic increase in the capabilities of the English military that were most pronounced during the time of 1400-1450. In their book, The Dynamics of Military Revolution 1300-2050, MacGregor Knox and Williamson Murray present an article based around the idea that England underwent a revolution in military affairs.

In part, this is explained by the quality of English arms, armour and horsebreeding dramatically increasing from the early 14th century into the 15th. Alongside a new system of battlefield deployment, this culminated in the initial victories against the Scots at Dupplin Moor and Halidon Hill.

Do you agree? Do you believe that the victories against the French in the Edwardian and Lancastrian stages of the Hundred Years War were the result of a dramatic increase in England's fighting capabilities? And, as a secondary question, of the English archer and the English man-at-arms, whom do you believe was the most crucial element in the victories at Verneuil, Agincourt, and perhaps even Poitiers, Crecy and Neville's Cross?

I'm sorry, this is such a long question, I adore this period and I'm hoping to do my Master's Degree on it!

You own one of the most gorgeous and excellent plate harnesses I've ever seen. Can you talk about it some? About how it feels to move in, the maker, the pieces themselves? Was it based on a particular garniture or effigy?

I posted this question here some time back after taking pictures of the Doge's armoury in Venice.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/33rybp/sword_guns_and_other_apparently_historical/

There are some rather cool and wacky weapons including sword guns, gun axes, and pepperbox pistols in an album I linked here http://imgur.com/a/VeZ0h.

How common were weapons of this sort and where / when were they used?

to what extent did looting affect the levels of armour/types of armour available to the less wealthy men? Were the victors just given free reign of the field to strip any armour they liked, and would they likely keep said armours or sell them on?

If this is the case surely after such great victories as Agincourt and Crecy England could field a vastly heavier armoured and decidedly French-looking force?

also got any jobs going spare, I'm in the area...

I'm probably too late for this AMA (didn't get a chance to get to a computer until just now darnit), but can you talk a bit about the way in which the longbow has become such an important part of the English national identity?

I see lots of parallels between the myth of the yeoman English archer taking down the rigid French nobles in the 100 Years' War and the American myth of the farmer taking down his musket and showing the rigid British infantry how warfare should be fought and Lexington/Concord & Bunker Hill.

Do you happen to know when this myth of the supremacy of the English longbow began to first appear in the English historical sources? This myth has also contributed to another common myth about Agincourt which is that the age of chivalry died there because of the devastation of the longbows. How would you address that particular myth?

One final question: Are you aware of any modern testing of longbows which has been done against full harness (i.e. plate + mail + surcoat + gambeson) and that also uses a full strength warbow? I've seen many "tests" performed in various documentaries, but almost all of them seemed to be testing warbows in the 120lb range. Matthew Strickland & Robert Hardy in The Great Warbow make the argument that the top end for the English warbow of the 100 Years' War was closer to 160-180lbs.

From my own understanding of the events of the Hundred Years War, French artillery was a contributing factor to the defeat of the English, especially with the Battle of Castillon. What did the English do to counter French artillery or did the English not act quick enough to stop the French artillery superiority?

When the English and French intervened in the Castilian Civil War, were there any striking differences between the Iberian Catholic military tradition, forged primarily through conflict with Iberian Muslims, and the English and French military traditions, forged primarily through conflict with each other? (With respect to arms and armor, or other aspects of war?)

(Hypothetical examples: did the French find it strange that the Aragonese and pro-Henry Castilians had cavalry that rode with short stirrups and low-saddles, compared to the more stable but restrictive, high-cantled saddle of a French homme d'armes? Did the pro-Pedro Castilians find the long self-bows used by the English strange, being used to smaller composite bows?)

What was the most effective weapon to take into battle against a dismounted, fully armored knight?

A question on the practise of ransoming, from what I've read and heard it seems like that ransoming prisoners was a good way to earn cash for soldiers. However I've always figured that ransom was something more for the knights or nobility and that foot soldiers were outta luck although it seems like this wasn't the case. So if I'm an English archer or man at arms and I capture myself a Frenchman, how do I go about ransoming them? Do I just keep him tied at my side all the time? Would I have any sort of enforceable claim to my prisoner, or would I have to keep an eye on him to make sure one of my comrades didn't steal him?

And what about if I managed to capture a Knight or someone noble? Could an average soldier ransom a highborn, or did all noble captives get divided up among the nobility of the winning side?

From the Nine Years' War and the development of the national debt, war spending has offered stimulation to at least certain sectors of the economy, particularly government contractors. Can you speak to the economic effects of pre-modern warfare (beyond the obvious destruction near sites of conflict)?

One topic I've found interesting, and frustratingly elusive, is the equipment of the average soldier. What kind of armour would the average foot soldier (men-at-arms or longbowmen) have worn during the Hundred Years War and how would that have developed alongside changes in full plate? Can you recommend any good books/articles on the subject?

I've read that the French knights were bogged down in mud and muck as they charged the English, and this allowed the longbowmen to easily pick them off. Was the weather the biggest factor that led to England's victory? If the weather was not in England's favor, do you think the battle would have turned into a French victory? If so, how do you think history would have changed?

How common was horse armour? How much impact did it have in the horse mobility?

Are there any periods that leap out to you where there was a noticeable shift in the design of armor, perhaps during moments when the English came across an enemy whose tactics/weaponry they had not encountered before?

When dealing with artifacts, how difficult is it to distinguish between objects from the period and reproductions and is that something that has to be done frequently?

Okay - so the bulk of what I know about the 100 year war comes from a book I read as a kid - "The White Company" by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. Have you read it, and what's your thoughts? In particular I remember the discussions of the jacquerie (?), the role of mercenaries, the role or bowmen

Since then I've read a few other series of novels on the subject (the Harlequin series by Bernard Cornwall) but still the White Company has stuck with me the most.

Thanks for doing this AMA it was a pleasent surprise to see this morning. I am current and undergrad studying archaeology and history and I have a great interest in medieval arms and armor. Could you offer any advice for someone interested in entering your field?

To what extent could plate armour accommodate weight changes in the wearer? Did knights have to maintain their weight to continue getting wear from their armour?

I would be interested in how armor "research" worked. How were improvements made and how did armorer figure out which changes worked best? Did they solely rely on feedback from the battlefield in kind of live trial and error attempts? Or were there craftsmen dedicated to those improvements?

OK, I'm back! I'll have a go at a few more...

It seems as though your building off the arguments posited by Victor Davis Hanson and later engaged by John Lynn.

my question then is how you frame your work as being the 'English Way of War'? more specifically, what makes the English way of war different from that of other Western Europeans? further, if historians often posit 'the rise of the West' as being a product of a Western way of war, are there similar implications for the English way of war?

unfortunately I have to be fairly selective with what I read these days, as I prepare for comps. but if your work fits within the general historiography of military traditions and the rise of the West, I may very well have to take a look.

On the topic of longbow arrows, most of us have probably examined the famous studies that prove that penetrating a suit of plate armor was extremely difficult, but would the person on the other side of the armor still not sustain injury if struck with a heavy warbow (similar to how a modern bulletproof vest still leaves bruises), even if it wasn't necessarily lethal, and could these injuries be debilitating enough to keep them from fighting effectively?

How much were pikemen used by English armies in the Hundred Years War? I've heard mixed things about pikes being used, but based on the effectiveness of Swiss pike squares mixed with halberds. Would something similar used by England?

On that note, where were mercenaries recruited from by England? Was there particular recruiting grounds preferred by England, or would they be recruiting from the same lot as France?

Thanks for doing this AMA!

Regarding an English and French knight, were there clear differences between the gear they used? Did one side have superior craftsmanship in armour/design? Also was a certain technique/weapon preferred by the knights on each side?

It seems there is the general "idea" that French knights were superior to their English counterparts and I wasn't sure where the idea came from.

Many thanks for doing this!

Cheers

Hi, thanks for doing this AMA. I have a few questions:

1.- How widespread was horse armour, and if not very much, then how did they manage to make cavalry charges effective in the presence of enemy archers?

2.- In this AMA, you've mentioned a book by Anne Curry regarding recruitment. Is it The Fifteenth Century: Concepts and Patterns of Service in the Later Middle Ages?

3.- Dr. Remy Ambühl, form Southampton University has done research that suggests widescale prisoner ransom and exchange was possibly common even for the cases of lower ranking soldiers. Have you encountered any evidence to either support or refute that theory?

So how does solid-lance jousting compare to balsa? Does it hit harder? How are the lances made?

How were soldiers recruited? I suppose it was more than the Medieval stereotype of "here's a spear, peasant. You're a soldier now." How professional were they? Where did they get their weapons? You speak of the longbow being decommissioned from the royal armies of England in favour of the musket, so was there a central authority that decided how men would be equipped?

What would a fight between 2 armored knights look like if they both had very expensive late 14th or 15th century armor?

In movies we always see a bunch of slashes and alot of sword on sword contact but I know that wouldn't be effective.

No question here. Just wanted to save I've loved the videos you've done with Matt Easton. If I wasn't on the other end of the pond, I'd definitely make a point to check out the collection.

During the Hundred Years War, were there any major differences between French armor and that of the English in the 15th century?

What did you do for your Tier 3 at Hampshire College?

What language barriers do you run into when you engage with contemporary texts? What's the most amusing text (could be a manual or even a receipt) you've encountered?

This has probably been asked, but I can't seem to find it - how actually effective was armor in history? Movies and games tend to depict it as negligible and easily pierced or slashed to pieces, but how much force would actual, batte-ready armor actually protect against? Would a knight in full plate be effectively invulnerable except at places like the eye slits, or would a sword be able to injure them with a swing somehow?

I am wondering where weapons like the longsword, or montante found their use?

I'm saving this for later. I've always had an immense love for medieval warfare. Though I don't have anything to ask personally, I want to thank you for doing this AMA. It will give me a lot of interesting content to read over!

Actually, I do have a bit of a small question. In a lot of works, we see people wearing leather armor as a "light-weight" (or maybe cheaper) alternative to metal armor. Was this something that was actually done in history? I would think that leather armor would be so prone to damage and ineffectual at mitigation that it would be functionally useless in combat.

EDIT: Considering most standing armies had enough money to armor their warriors effectively, I would have to think that if this kind of thing was done, it would be mercenary units, or maybe hedge knights, who might not necessarily have a lot of spare money on hand.

How did improvements in the design, materials, and construction of armour for people translate into improvements in the design of barding?

Any more general information on the history of barding would be appreciated as well.

At the Battle of Shrewsbury in 1403, I have heard that Henry Percy (aka Harry Hotspur) was killed by an arrow in the eye when he lifted his visor. When did knights start to wear helmets with only a slit for the eyes? Would this incident have been an encouragement to do so, or had knights already have that option?

Quick questions about the 100 Years' War- I am lucky enough to live in the Dordogne in France and live near several of the bastide towns. Are there records of these being attacked and fought over during the war(s)?

Also, I have toured many of the châteaus around and very few of them ever seem to mention ever being assaulted/sieged. Were wholesale sieges extremely uncommon? Seems to me it would be an expensive undertaking to camp outside a massive castle for months on end trying to starve out armies.

edit: a word

Thank you for doing this AMA, and thank you for doing the informative videos with Matt Easton ( scholagladiatoria ). I have a question I hope you can answer. How would the armor differ between the different soldiers in a Hundred Years War era army, for example how many would have plate, how many would have mail and so on? And did this differ a lot between the French, English, Burgundians and other armies fighting in the HYW.

How did the armored cavalry of the Horse and Musket era (certain regiments of dragoons, cuirassiers, etc.) develop out of the heavily armored men at arms or knights of the late medieval period? Or is there a definite disconnect between knights and later heavy cavalry units?

I read somewhere awhile back that an English longbowman could fire between 12 to 15 arrows a minute, and that estimates suggest the bowmen at Agincourt initially were collectively firing 1,000 a second. Is this plausible?

What was the training regimen like for the average foot soldier? Were combat skills something you grew up with, was it learned on the battlefield, or did they have some approximation of modern day boot camps prior to a campaign?

Could Longbow arrows or Crossbow bolts pierce full plate armor like the nobility wore?

Bit of a weird question, but...

Can you rank European powers in your period of expertise, in terms of which possessed the military, economic, other supremacy? You stated specifically the 14th to 16th centuries - how many times did domination change hands in that time?

So excited that you're doing this AMA and congrats on the new book!

I saw a recent interview with you on youtube (here) where you made a very convincing argument that the efficacy of the longbow against full plate armor was a result of a "numbers game" where the efficacy of arrows relied on lucky hits through weaknesses/gaps in the armor. Given the number of archers and their presumed rate of fire this makes 100% sense, but I also am curious as to how much of the efficacy of the long bowmen was also due to the French insistence of riding into battle mounted? I imagine that a press of startled/dying horses would be catastrophically deleterious to any assault. On a related point, can you comment as to what we know as to the longbow's effectiveness in (say) the Wars of the Roses where armor technology was comparable to Agincourt but where both sides fought on foot?

Is this still active? It's not about your current work per se (which I love), but how does one get into your field? I live in America and we have a severe lack of medieval and renaissance museums for obvious reasons. History is a hobby for me (I'm in my 2nd year of university), but it's one I'm passionate about. The problem is there aren't any jobs in the field of renaissance curating. What makes history a career and not just a passion?

Tobias! Huge fan of yours. You are an inspiration to me as an re-enactor and your gorgeous suit of 15th century armor was what got me into studying medieval arms and armor in the first place. Do you still joust?

For a more topic related question: What is the key difference between flemish and milanese armor? was there a large amount of hybridization between italian and german styles?

Where do you ride in London?

Hi you've got a really cool job!

Was wondering, what piece do you like most in your curation? And what how did a smith make his steel back then? I'm an engineer and I can't imagine there was standard steels in that time frame.

Thanks for doing this ama

Sorry if this question is not what you are used to hearing. I remember going to one of the museums in New York City probably the Met. I dont remember why or how I remembered this but I vividly remember seeing a few suits of armour that had very defined genital armour. I was wondering how common this was or if it was just something out of the norm?