Quote:
|
I have never argued the great impact of the archer in the 100 Year's War; however, in each of the England's greatest victories (Crecy, Poitier and Agincourt), it was lack of any coherent French strategy, and the congenitally moronic hubris of their knights (it must have been inherent, as it kept recurring) that caused their destruction. If they had not charged and merely waited on English supplies to run out, then King Phillip would not have run blindly alone through the night, King Jean would not have been captured and sent to London (rather the Black Prince may well have taken his turn in Paris), and Henry V's little army would have been starved into submission.
|
Well, doesn't that just back up my claim that the Dwarven army was superior, at least man-for-man? For an army composed almost entirely of archers to beat a heavily armed, experienced army of veterans, the circumstances must be just right. The dwarven army was rash, sure, but the Elvish was backed into a corner, indecisive and underarmed. The dwarves had to break through, and that was all.