On Saturday, September 20, 2014 1:55:48 AM UTC-4, Phil W Lee wrote:
Jeff Liebermann considered Fri, 19 Sep 2014

08:30:26 -0700 the perfect time to write:



On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 19:02:45 +0700, John B. Slocomb

wrote:



I thought that both Richard III and his brother were partial to having

the knights fight on foot. Something about the commonality being a bit

more enthusiastic about fighting if they thought that the mounted

Gentry couldn't run away if things got a bit sticky?



That's certainly one reason. Dismounting knights was also a useful

mechanism for preventing a premature charge on horseback, a serious

problem as the nobility of the day was not accustom to following

orders.



In general, one attacks on horseback, but defends dismounted. For

example, in order to use defensive breastworks, one has to be on foot.



The English used hordes of archers to compensate for any lack of

mounted knights. That worked well because the storm of arrows

targeted the opposing horses, not the knights.



It has been demonstrated that against armour prior to "proof armour"

of the 17th century, designed to protect against musket balls, bodkin

point arrows were well capable of penetrating plate armour - it was

exactly what they were designed for.

For a very long time we laboured under a false impression as to the

draw weight of the typical English longbow, apparently having

forgotten the age from which archers were required to train, how

regularly, and therefore how strong they were.

The large number of bows recovered from the Marie Rose allowed

archaeologists to re-create bows of the same dimensions and test them,

and they found that the power would have averaged over 50% higher than

had previously been thought, and in some cases (presumably the

medieval equivalent to our modern sniper rifles) were more than

double. There are very few people these days who are actually capable

of drawing a longbow of medieval strength - we simply don't train for

it from a sufficiently early age.

The result was most of

the mounted knights never made it to the battle line or were seriously

out of formation without a horse.



Somewhat later, there was the dragoon, who is mounted infantry. These

would use a horse to get to the battle line quickly, but fight

dismounted. This was useful when using cart and plow horses that were

not accustomed to battle or carrying the weight of an armored knight.



I'd understood that the principle advantage of the dragoon was that he

was faster around the battlefield than anything else (not having the

60Kg handicap of the knight's armour).

Thus he could be deployed rapidly to exploit weaknesses on the other

side, or shore them up on one's own.



There were also new defensive weapons, the poleaxe and halberd, which

were probably what ended the superiority of the mounted knight. These

were basically a can opener on a stick, which worked well against the

armor of the day, but had to be used on foot.



To be fair, there is far too much controversy as to the manner of

death to be certain if he was or was not wearing a helmet:



Not anymore.

Forensic pathology is a well advanced science, and once they have the

remains to work with, they can quite easily ascertain the cause of

most violent death, as occurs in battle.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bosworth_Field#Engagement

"The Burgundian chronicler Jean Molinet says that a Welshman

struck the death-blow with a halberd while Richard's horse was

stuck in the marshy ground. It was said that the blows were

so violent that the king's helmet was driven into his skull."



But now they've examined his skull, which shows no sign of that.



which suggests that he was wearing a helmet. However:



"The identification in 2013 of King Richard's body shows that

the skeleton had 10 wounds, eight of them to the head, clearly

inflicted in battle and suggesting he had lost his helmet."



Whether he lost his helmet or intentionally removed it is not easily

determined.



Yes, there is no way of knowing if he took it off himself to aid

visibility in the foot battle, or it was removed by his enemies once

they had overwhelmed him.

Once overwhelmed, his helmet would have been removed even if they had

managed to find a way through his armour (which would undoubtedly have

been of the best quality available, and with few if any

vulnerabilities) and killed him in some other fashion - however none

of the non-head wounds apparent on the bones are in places which would

be even slightly vulnerable with armour still in place.

They would have done that to ensure identification even if not

necessary to actually kill him.

However, several of the head wounds would have been fatal even

individually, never mind in combination, so it is unlikely that they

were insults to the corpse - they would have wanted to ensure he could

still be recognised so that they could display him to prove their

victory.

While it is theoretically possible that a fatal wound could be

inflicted which left no damage to the bones, it is regarded by the

experts as vanishingly unlikely through good quality armour of the

time.

So it is highly likely that he was alive when his helmet was removed,

although, of course, we have no way of knowing if he was still

conscious.

ffffffffffffffff

While it is theoretically possible that a fatal wound could be
inflicted which left no damage to the bones, it is regarded by the
experts as vanishingly unlikely through good quality armour of the
time.
So it is highly likely that he was alive when his helmet was removed,
although, of course, we have no way of knowing if he was still
conscious.

not for trial....

a common Bell helmet does not prevent fatal blunt impacts

so highly likely....when his helmet was removed ?

WHAT HELMET ?

Richard, was alive because he was wearing a helmet ?

Richard was dead because he was not wearing a helmet

Now for the Perth news....

Sic cyclists. including Richard 3, were run down by a city bus this morning, all walked away from the incident wearing helmets....