>Note also that the men-at-arms advanced in
>a sort of shuffling crouch... etc

That was the basis of my own interpretation: most of the French casualties were caused hand-to-hand, but only because of the tactical effect of the longbow.

You're right, though, shear volume of arrows and patchy plate armour has to account for a good few casualties.

I still don't think the longbow is as decisive as people make out. It's an important weapon, and part of the 1300s military revolution, but very much just one weapon in the armoury.

For example, at Shrewsbury, 12 years earlier, longbows seem to have killed a lot of men, but even so, the battle turned on close-quarters combat. IIRC it was the same for most of the Wars of the Roses battles: Barnet had the mother of all melees, Tewkesbury was settled by the clash of battles, as was Bosworth.

I shall now have to collect examples and get back to you.

(I must admit to a knee-jerk reaction thanks to the traditional English portrayal of the longbow as an uber-proletariat-Feudal-oppressor-slayer: sturdy working Englishmen taking down effete French knights etc.)

Thanks for the metalurgy piece. Isn't it time you had your own blog?