Weapons of War: The Tsar Bomba

52 years ago today- October 30th, 1961, at the nuclear test site at Novaya Zemlya, the Soviet Union detonated the most powerful weapon ever manufactured by mankind. With a staggering yield of 50 megatons of TNT (that's 50 million tons), the aptly named Tsar or 'Emperor Bomb' was more than twice as powerful as the next most powerful nuke tested. Actual footage of the detonation is below:

The Tsar Bomba was the climax of the high-yield thermonuclear weapons tests conducted by the superpowers in the 1950's and early 1960's. These were the times where the nuclear weapons detonations that we all know were captured on camera (after 1963, the Partial Test Ban Treaty went into effect and all subsequent testing was conducted underground).

Background:

No nuclear testing had been conducted by either the Soviet Union or the United States since 1958. Tensions remained high however, and as the 1960's began, the Soviets wanted to send a very loud message, timing it for the meeting of the 22nd Soviet Congress.

The Bomb:

Staggeringly, the Soviets' original intention was for the construction of a 100 megaton device. However there were numerous problems that began to become apparent as the numbers began to be crunched by the scientists. The first problem was the very high likelihood that the pilots flying the plane that would drop the bomb would be killed in the ensuing blast (as it turned out, they barely had enough time to safely get out of the way of the final 50 megaton version- and that was with a parachute to slow the bomb's fall). The second problem was the very high fallout that the 100 megaton version was expected to generate. It was also calculated that most of the energy of such a large weapon would radiate into space, making it very inefficient.

To reduce these risks, a uranium tamper inside the device was replaced with a lead one. Thus there would be less fissile and radioactive material. This reduced the yield by approximately 50%.

Like all thermonuclear weapons (popularly known as the hydrogen bomb), it was a multi-staged "Teller-Ulam" device. However unlike most, the Tsar Bomba was a three-staged weapon, whereas most thermonuclear weapons only contain two stages (I'll get into the nitty gritty of this science in an upcoming post).

The Test Results:

The bomb's detonation caused the aircraft that dropped it to fall many thousands of meters. The fireball was visible from 1,000 kilometers away. A person standing 100 kilometers from ground zero would still have gotten third degree burns, and windows were broken as far away as Finland. The mushroom cloud stretched into the mesosphere- around 60 kilometers high. The shockwave from the explosion circled the planet three times before it dissipated.

Aftermath:

Fortunately, the Tsar Bomba was far too big to be of practical use as a weapon. It was simply a very huge and ominous show of force. Nevertheless, it increased tensions between the superpowers and set off a new wave of nuclear testing.

The next two years would see the Cold War reach the tipping point of becoming the hottest one in history- the annihilation of civilization almost seemed imminent in the wake of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Cooler heads prevailed in the end, and tensions were reduced through the Partial Test Ban Treaty. As the 1960's rolled on, missile technology improved to the point of allowing smaller, more accurate nuclear weapons to be delivered more efficiently, and monster double-digit megaton bombs became unnecessary.

The Tsar Bomba is ultimately a curiosity- showcasing the destructive potential of man and serving as a dire warning that failure to communicate is no longer an option in the nuclear age.

See Also:

Nuke Calculator at SD.net (This tool allows the user to experiment with varying nuclear weapon yields and see the approximate results)
The Tsar Bomba at Nuclear Weapon Archive Soviet Union Tsar Bomba Cold War Nuclear Weapons Hydrogen

Weapons of War: The Gladius

Photo of a replica Gladius at Wikimedia Commons

Perhaps no weapon was so effective for its time as the vicious Roman short sword- the Gladius. It is the origin of the word Gladiator- he who uses a sword. This weapon was so effective that a number of historians still attribute it to killing more people than any other weapon in history. This is likely a tall tale, but the weapon's effectiveness can also be attested by its long service life- for nearly 600 years a Gladius-type system was the standard infantry weapon of the Republican and Imperial soldiers of Rome.

Metallurgy:

Part of the reason the weapon was so effective, aside from the Roman legionary tactics that were proven superior over most fighting systems of the time at places like Cynosephalae and Pydna, was the composition of the weapon. It had a higher steel content than many weapons it faced off against. Do note though that the swords were not entirely steel, as the technology to make solid steel swords did not yet exist. Typically, a Roman short sword had a soft iron core and steel edges. Nevertheless, it was far superior to the iron or bronze weapons it often encountered.

Shape and Form:

The shape of the sword was another hefty advantage (especially when coupled with a classic legionary's other equipment, most notably the Scutum and Pilum). Livy writes as to the effectiveness of the Gladius against a typical Roman opponent- a Gallic warrior with a large sword and shield:

With a breast full of courage and silent wrath Manlius reserved all his ferocity for the actual moment of conflict. When they had taken their stand between the two armies, while so many hearts around them were in suspense between hope and fear, the Gaul, like a great overhanging mass, held out his shield on his left arm to meet his adversary's blows and aimed a tremendous cut downwards with his sword. The Roman evaded the blow, and pushing aside the bottom of the Gaul's shield with his own, he slipped under it close up to the Gaul, too near for him to get at him with his sword. Then turning the point of his blade upwards, he gave two rapid thrusts in succession and stabbed the Gaul in the belly and the groin, laying his enemy prostrate over a large extent of ground. He left the body of his fallen foe undespoiled with the exception of his chain, which though smeared with blood he placed round his own neck. Astonishment and fear kept the Gauls motionless; the Romans ran eagerly forward from their lines to meet their warrior, and amidst cheers and congratulations they conducted him to the Dictator. In the doggerel verses which they extemporised in his honour they called him Torquatus ("adorned with a chain"), and this soubriquet became for his posterity a proud family name. The Dictator gave him a golden crown, and before the whole army alluded to his victory in terms of the highest praise.

- Livy, The History of Rome, Vol. II, 7.10

However accurate this story of champion warfare is, it highlights the maneuverability that the compact Gladius would have offered to a Roman soldier. Made primarily for stabbing (but not exclusively reliant on it, as many believe), the Gladius needed only a short, simple movement into the enemy to deliver a killing blow. While a heavier broadsword made its motions through the air for a hack or slash, a Roman legionary with his Gladius could deliver a short, simple, and far more lethal puncture wound to the enemy.

The Gladius truly was a short sword. At most it was only about two feet long. Unlike a Greek that fought primarily with a spear that could reach at minimum around eight feet (the Dory) and at maximum up to eighteen (the Sarissa), Roman combat was the definition of "up close and personal." It took incredible courage to do what the Roman legionary would have had to do. The Gladius itself was seemingly a call to courage.

Replacement:

However, as good as it was, not even the Gladius could last forever. Toward the end of the 3rd century it began to be replaced by a longer sword- the Spatha, a weapon that had always been the blade of the Roman cavalry. The movies and even documentaries you see of the Roman legionary brandishing his classical Gladius against the barbarian hordes in the latter days of Rome are untrue. His equipment had changed significantly by then. Perhaps it was due to the increasingly important role of cavalry in warfare, or due to the smaller size of the shield as the rectangular Scutum was replaced by an ovular shield and the Spatha was a better companion to it than the Gladius. It being a response to the increased conflicts with the Sassanid Persians, who were heavily reliant on cavalry seems plausible. A sword as short as the Gladius, after all, isn't exactly ideal for fighting a man on horseback.

Though its days as the primary weapon of the legionary were over, it stood the test of time. The M16 system, the primary armament of the U.S. military's infantry, is regarded as an extremely well-balanced weapon, one that has stayed true for the past half century. The Gladius lasted many times longer, a time span that testifies to its effectiveness on the battlefield.

See also:

An interesting discussion about the Gladius' replacement with the Spatha 
Richard F. Burton- The Book of the Sword, ch. 13
Roman Military Equipment: Weapons Roman Republic Empire Weapons Gladius Short Sword

15 Decisive Battles - A Response to a Critique

A few days ago (while in the planning stages for this blog, no less), I found an interesting critique of Sir Edward Creasy's classic 15 Decisive Battles of the World. It's stood the test of time and is basically required reading for any student of military history, amateur or professional. Subsequent authors are very much indebted to him, and my own book (which I try to write on and off, but the pains of research compounded with my serious laziness always get in the way) on the critical battles of the world is a direct descendant of his.

Best picture I could find of him.

While I agree with a decent portion of the list of his battles chosen, I also concur with "Never Felt Better" that it is dated somewhat, and while I'd likely include nearly all of them on a list of top 100 battles, I'm not sure I'd include them in a list of top 15.

Cutting to the chase, I'll list the battles, list Never Felt Better's reaction to whether they should be included, and my own answer to whether to the question of inclusion as well as a brief response.

1. Marathon, 490 B.C.

NFB- Yes
Me- Yes

This battle singularly changed the mindset of the Greeks and showed them that they could defeat the seemingly invincible Persian juggernaut if they used their troops properly. It is monumental for what it established- namely that Persian invincibility was a myth, and the superiority of disciplined Western arms over the numerical advantage of Asiatic forces, a paradigm which has more or less held true ever since. Marathon is even more important in that it prevented a Persian takeover of Greece, which would have radically altered the entire history of the world by changing Western Civilization just as it was being born. Marathon is in my opinion the most important battle ever fought by man, and it is rightly included in Creasy's list.

2. The Siege of Syracuse, 415-13 B.C.

NFB- No
Me- No

While this battle was definitely important in weakening Imperial Athens and irrevocably destroyed the power of its navy, setting the stage for its fall, the Peloponnesian War still dragged on for another decade. Furthermore it is far from clear that Athens could have prevented Rome's rise, as Creasy implies, should she have been successful in this siege. Athens was beset with enemies and did not seem to command the resources that would have allowed a successful invasion and conquest of mainland Italy anytime soon.

I do think that Never Felt Better understates the importance of this expedition for its time in some way, but whether it should be included on a list of top 15 most important battles is far from certain.

3. Gaugamela, 331 B.C.

NFB- No
Me- Yes

Gonna have to disagree with this one. Given his position, Alexander was facing disaster and annihilation if he were to be defeated in the middle of the Persian Empire's heartland. Alexander's tactical masterpiece successfully crushed the power of the Persian Empire, which, although already greatly weakened, replaced it with the richness of Hellenistic Civilization, the blending of Eastern and Western thought which would go on to profoundly influence the world's development.

Given the lay of the land, Alexander's remoteness from his natural route of supply, and his long avenue of retreat, this really was an all or nothing affair, which had he failed at, would have quashed any inroads he'd already made.

4. Metaurus, 207 B.C.

NFB- No
Me- Yes

Disagreeing here as well. While the Battle of the Metaurus didn't end the 2nd Punic War, it was the last significant Carthaginian offensive that could have threatened the well-being of Rome. The destruction of Hasdrubal's army shattered any hopes for a resurgence of Hannibal in southern Italy, and confirmed his position as a chronic, though manageable problem for the Romans. Given the Roman overseas offensives in Iberia and other places in the Mediterranean, it was only a matter of time before Carthage's final defeat. The fact that the Metaurus is overshadowed by Zama and Cannae is irrelevant for Creasy's purposes.

5. Teutoburg Forest, 9 A.D.

NFB- Maybe
Me- Maybe

I agree that this one is tricky. It permanently ended Roman attempts to occupy Germania, and thus prevented that country from being Latinised as Gaul, Iberia, and other places in Western Europe were. The effects of this on the language and culture of those countries to the northeast of the Rhine can't be underestimated. Germania would later go on to be a major source of immigrants that would plague the Empire in its latter days.

Creasy's other main argument however was that should the Elbe-Danube frontier be established instead of the Rhine-Danube one that came to be the Continental boundary of the Roman Empire, the dominion of Rome would have lasted longer than it did. The desirability of this boundary and the feasibility of occupying Germania and turning it into a profitable province has been questioned by modern historians.

While Teutoburg ranks among the worst defeats in Roman history, it did not stop the wheels of Rome from rumbling forward.

6. Chalons, 451 A.D.

NFB- No
Me- No

Agreed. It is far from certain that Chalons was a predictor of the socio-political makeup of the coming Middle Ages. The rapidity with which Attila's empire disintegrated upon his death in 453 suggests that there would be no lasting permanence to Hunnic hegemony north of the Danube, and that this power was of no long-term significance to the Germanic-Christian political and cultural order that supplanted Roman imperial authority after the dissolution of the Western Empire.

The victory was a strategic one, the last victory of Imperial Rome, and greatly weakened Attila's forces, but it wasn't as important as Creasy and the tradition he followed says that it was. Its inclusion on a list of the supposedly most important 15 battles in world history is therefore dubious.

7. Tours, 732 A.D.

NFB- No
Me- Maybe

This one is certainly controversial in the modern study of military history. While it was a relatively minor clash, the Muslims never again attempted military action in Europe north of the Pyrenees following Tours. Furthermore, the victory strengthened the position of Charles Martel and helped lead to the Carolingian Dynasty, giving Charlemagne a strong position and country to govern.

While the battle indeed sprung from a Muslim raid, had they not been firmly repulsed by the Franks, they may have made plans for actual conquest in the future. At any event, this is not what happened, and Muslim power was contained in Iberia.

For these reasons, I generally agree with Creasy's viewpoint, though whether or not I'd include it on a list of top 15 most important battles is something I'd need to consider later (and hope to, if my book goes well).

8. Hastings, 1066 A.D.

NFB- Yes
Me- Yes

William the Conqueror established a very strong monarchy in England in contrast to the feudal system on the Continent, radically altered the government of England and refined the Anglo-Saxon systems, gave the English language a huge makeover, established new demographics in the country, and Hastings was, as Never Felt Better says, the last notable use of Shield Wall tactics in Medieval Warfare.

9. Orleans, 1429 A.D.

NFB- Yes
Me- Yes

Orleans was the crisis point of the Hundred Years War. What appeared to be a hopeless cause for the French patriots was at this moment turned into a winnable war by what could only be described as a freak miracle- Joan of Arc. The French would go on to win the conflict.

Had the English and French Crowns been united as they were expected to be before the lifting of the Siege of Orleans by Joan, the entire history of the world would have changed radically. This battle, like Marathon, is one that is automatically included in any list of most important battles in world history.

10. The Spanish Armada, 1588 A.D.

NFB- Yes
Me- Yes

This battle is another automatic inclusion. If the Spanish had successfully landed troops in England, the history of the world again would have changed fundamentally. The champion of Protestantism at the time would have been lost, severely threatening the Dutch Revolt, and the further march toward modern democratic institutions that accelerated during the Wars of the Three Kingdoms to come less than forty years after Elizabeth I's death would not have occurred.

Oh, and there sure as hell would not have been a British Empire.

11. Blenheim, 1704 A.D.

NFB- No
Me- Yes

While it is indeed, largely overshadowed by another battle that will be mentioned later, I have to disagree with NFB here. Though Blenheim did not end the War of the Spanish Succession, it permanently destroyed Louis XIV's fondest hopes of French hegemony in Europe. France would not recover its position of military domination until the rise of Napoleon, and by that time Britain had firmly established itself as the greatest power in the world.

And hey, while it may not have demonstrated any new tactical developments, it was a monumental strategic masterpiece. As the old saying goes "'Twas a Famous Victory."

12. Poltava, 1709 A.D.

NFB- Yes
Me- Yes

Another one that can't really be questioned. This battle was the turning point of the Great Northern War and decided the fates of two nations. The Swedish power and prestige was irrevocably destroyed and the Russian planted in its place.

13. Saratoga, 1777 A.D.

NFB- No
Me- Yes

I wonder why he didn't think this one should be included. While it's true that American independence was not established by the outcome of the battle, it led to international recognition of the United States of America, starting with France. Great Britain therefore needed to divert resources that could have been used against the rebellious colonists against powerful European enemies, turning what had once been a backwater rebellion into a world war. Furthermore, the victory at Yorktown would never have been possible without the French fleet.

While it's arguable that another battle could have resulted in a similar outcome, there is one more important portion to consider- had Burgoyne been victorious, he may just have been able to join up with Howe or Clinton in 1778 to take total control of the Hudson and cut New England off from the rest of the colonies, achieving Britain's highest war aim from the start. Should such a condition have been met, it is more than likely that the American rebellion would have ended.

14. Valmy, 1792 A.D.

NFB- Yes
Me- Yes

While little more than a short artillery duel, Valmy protected the fledgling French Revolutionaries. By failing to crush the Revolution at its birth, the international coalition arranged against the revolutionary forces failed entirely, and not even the destruction of Napoleonic France could stop what had been unleashed in 1789.

15. Waterloo, 1815 A.D.

NFB- Yes
Me- No

Here's a unique one. I disagree with Creasy and NFB not because they included it, but because I believe it should not be included on a list of 15 most important battles to the world.

Waterloo is in my opinion, one of if not the most overrated battle in history. Yes, Napoleon met his final defeat on that field, but I believe it's because of the mystique of Napoleon that the battle has been seen as so decisive, and not the fundamentals of the situation.

In reality, Napoleonic France was already crushed. It was exhausted both military and financially from all of Napoleon's wars. One in five men born between 1790 and 1795 had been killed in the course of Napoleon's undertakings, and the disastrous Russian campaign of 1812 permanently shattered his military effectiveness.

Beyond that, his enemies learned his tactics and stratagems from fighting him for so many years, and the Russians and Austrians had already mobilized a massive army to march into France and crush him. Even had Napoleon won at Waterloo, the ultimate outcome was never really in doubt.

Blenheim was far more decisive in the international balance of power as far as I'm concerned.

Conclusion:

Overall, I find myself agreeing with most of Creasy's list. The battles he chose weren't always the most famous or glamorous, but they were for the most part indeed decisive in their own ways. If we were to expand the list, to one of top 50 or 100, I'd probably find myself including even the ones I outright disagreed with for inclusion here, but they would just be ranked lower on the list.

So, what are your thoughts? Sir Edward Creasy 15 Decisive Battles of the World Never Felt Better Critique

This Day on the Battlefield: Agincourt

The Morning of Agincourt, by Sir John Gilbert

What an excellent and iconic anniversary to begin this blog on! Exactly 598 years ago on today, October 25th, one of the most celebrated battles in English history took place, the one that Shakespeare crafted perhaps the most famous speech in history to commemorate. And even though Shakespeare's account of the battlefield in his play was obviously a fictional one, it seems that it at least could have been real.

But the Battle of Agincourt was more than a simple tale of a band of brothers, or even the place where chivalry died (it never truly lived, and was a dying form of warfare as early as a century before), but it was a brutal killing ground, where the flower of the French nobility was destroyed without mercy. It was also a dramatic representation of what could have been- nearly swinging the pendulum of the Hundred Years War in total favor of the English, were it not for the miracle of the Maid of Orleans fifteen years later.

Political Background:

Henry V came to the throne in 1413, succeeding his father, Henry IV. Though rebellions ravaged the country during his father's reign (as he was of questionable legitimacy, usurping the throne and setting the stage for the Wars of the Roses later in the century), Henry V ruled over a stable country. With peace at home, Henry focused his energies on events in France.

The France of this time was not the powerful and stable kingdom it would come to be in the coming centuries. It had a turbulent nobility and vastly reduced territory compared to what it would come to govern. Many lands in what is today France were actually domains of the English king, a leftover inheritance from the earliest Plantagenet kings of the High Middle Ages. In addition to the fundamentals of the kingdom being weak, the French king at the time, Charles VI, was himself a weak ruler. Civil strife was rampant throughout France.

A young, strong monarch like Henry V was only too happy to take advantage of the situation and began to make some demands on Charles, namely: money, recognition of English dominion of certain French lands, and the hand of the French Princess, Catherine of Valois in marriage. The two sides went back and forth over negotiations, but could not come to an agreement. When negotiations failed, Henry V reignited the Hundred Years War.

The Campaign:

Henry set sail for France in August 1415 with an army of around 14,000 men. The northern city of Harfleur was sacked after a long siege, and Henry moved to the east through Normandy. This was not the wisest decision. While it was meant to be a show of force and a message to the French that their king could not protect them, it was now October and the campaigning season was coming to a close. In the meantime, Henry's army weakened by the usual casualties of the time: disease. Additionally, Henry was quickly followed on his march by the gathering French army, which outnumbered his own by as much as 4-1, or as little as 2-1, if some recent work is to be believed.

Composition of the Forces:

The French army, under the nominal command of the Constable of France, Charles d'Albret, was a balanced force composed of noble men-at-arms, crossbowmen, and mounted knights. The English army on the other hand, was composed primarily of longbowmen- around 3/4 of the army. In the center of the English line, Henry V stood prominently, with a crown welded to his helmet, making himself a target for every French soldier on the battlefield.

Henry V, in his crowned helmet, by Harry Payne

Time, that crucial intangible that can't be trained or deployed by a general, was on the side of the French. The English army's condition was deteriorating, and the French blocked their avenue of retreat back to England. Furthermore, the prospect of reinforcements to the French was very real. With this in mind, Henry knew that he needed to make the opening movements and provoke the French into an attack.

The Battle:

Map of the battle, with lines by Andrei nacu

Henry's first move was to take his line and move it forward, to within longbow range. Henry's line moved its stakes to defend against a French advance, hammered them into the ground, and began to shoot volleys of arrows at the French line.

The cavalier attitude of the French nobility now showed itself, and this above all else was to be Henry's biggest advantage. The volley of arrows provoked the French knights, completely unassisted, into a charge. Henry's position was well-defended: his army was situated behind the stakes at his front that were supremely effective in repelling horses, between woods that would protect its flanks. The French knights simply held the English archers in contempt, totally forgetful of the crushing victories they achieved under Edward III and the Black Prince (Crecy and Poitiers) less than a century before. They fully expected them to break and flee before a massive, thundering charge of horse.

Phase I:

It is also here that an important medieval myth is busted. The longbow was not a magical weapon that could easily penetrate the full plate armor that the noblest French knights would have worn at the time. Experiments done by Mike Loades and others suggest that it was only at extremely close range (around 30 meters or less), that an arrow could penetrate a breastplate of the period. It was instead the lightly-armored horses that would have been the primary target of the English archers. A far bigger and easier target to hit, the longbows did their job to perfection. The cavalry charge was a disaster, and the wounded, panicked horses turned the already muddy ground into a slush, all the while disrupting the advancing foot soldiers behind them.

Phase II:

The French men-at-arms, in their heavy plate armor, advanced through the mud and sludge of the field, slowly toward the English line, under a heavy barrage of arrows. The march (which would have been around three football fields in length) must have been exhausting to the heavily-armored warriors, who would have been stuck in the mud, having to exert great effort to even move forward, not to mention the density of the crowd on the field that added even further complications.

The result became an almost Cannae-like situation, with the French being completely unable to maneuver and simply waiting to become casualties, while the much lighter and more mobile English troops could do their grisly work with almost no resistance. The situation of the campaign was turned on its head in the battle itself- the English were fresh, and the French were terribly exhausted. It was indeed, like a turkey shoot to the English.

At some point, the English baggage train was attacked, but this was only a minor nuisance and did not affect the outcome of the battle.

The Slaughter:

It was here that the most infamous act of the battle occurred, and where as the legends go: "chivalry died." The amount of French prisoners taken in the second phase of the battle was astounding. Fearful that the prisoners would aid the enemy in the event of another attack, Henry had most put to the sword.

Tactically, this was in fact the right thing to do, and Henry is not faulted by Monstrelet or other chroniclers of the time for doing so. He could not risk that the prisoners would rise up and attack his army in the event of another French advance.

Aftermath:

Henry returned home to England, as one might expect, a hero, seen by all as a warrior who snatched victory from the jaws of certain defeat and death. This is a powerful image that has lasted down to this day, and challenges to it have understandably been fiercely resisted. The romance spun by Shakespeare and the importance of the battle to the English national consciousness cannot be overstated.

The victory for its time was decisive. It rapidly united the country and quashed any questions as to the right of Henry's line to the throne- for a time. No greater sign of favor from God could be seen in the eyes of a medieval man or woman. In the meantime, France continued to deteriorate into civil war and dynastic rivalry, and in just a few years, Henry had his claim to the throne of France recognized by Charles VI, in favor even over his own son, and gave the English king the hand of his daughter, Catherine of Valois, in marriage.

What had been a miracle for the English seemed to decisively tip the balance of power into their favor, until Joan of Arc arrived on the scene and took her place in history by breaking the Siege of Orleans in 1429, in what was an equal miracle.

Assessment:

The French really did more to defeat themselves in this battle than the Englishmen in arms under their glorious king did. Through their callous disregard of the English longbowmen, the strong position of the English army, and the muddy, confined terrain that would work against them, it would indeed have taken a miracle for them to achieve victory that day.

Tactically, the battle highlighted the continued and increasing importance of ranged weapons and combined arms tactics. It can in many ways be seen as a further step towards the coming Pike and Shot era of warfare, with missile troops firing volleys toward the enemy combined with a smaller portion of melee troops to defend them from a cavalry charge. Though the role of the longbow against armor has been overstated, it was still a supremely effective weapon that was faster to reload than the crossbow and had a longer reach. Ironically, the French, who had a more balanced army, totally failed to use the combined arms tactics that the English used to great effect.

Perhaps the real take-away from Agincourt was not that chivalry was dead, but rather that a new man on the battlefield was gathering far more respect: the common soldier, who could not be ignored as inferior. This was a lesson Joan of Arc and other warriors to come would not forget.

Happy Saint Crispin's Day! Battle of Agincourt Hundred Years War England France Shakespeare