Agincourt was a mistake for the French because they were too confident of victory and also the terrain didn't help them since the area was meant to be marshy and not great for charging horses... Its not an entirely representative battle.
Terje said:And as the French knight was way more mobile than the Roman Legionaire, the Legion would have been slaughtered as well.
Ozz said:not in a muddy vinefield.
The French tactics were unworthy of the intelligence of an earthworm.
a headon piecemeal charge into a sausage grinder.
The romans would have waited until nightfall (3 hours) or flanked the
woods with a column.
Terje said:The ground was that bad?
Hmm. Once again I am mislead by the Viscount of Alamein and his faulty History of Warfare...
Dell19 said:The Romans didn't always have wonderful generals either...
joacqin said:the soil which sucked stuck men
Khaghan said:No, thats overlooking the obvious, only the early Caroginian army befoer Charlegmane might have some toruble considering their lack of stirrup and archery. But Charlemagne's army was quite discipline, with heavily armed cavalry tha are irresistible in charging power, its archers were composite type and was mor powerful than any Roman missile.