I am reading a book about this battle. Very interesting. Apparently one witness said that English arrows fell so thick and fast it looked like it was snowing (they were fletched with white goose feathers). Despite being heavily outnumbered the English won the battle because nothing could beat the English longbowmen. The V for victory sign comes from that time. English archers would jeer at the French by holding up the 2 fingers they used to pull the bowstring, to show them that they could fight on. The French were *terrified* of longbowmen.
Learn the battle of Patay, that's a great one too! And also the battle of Carillon, of Bouvines, of Fontenoy, of Formigny, of Castillon, of Taillebourg...
No mention that the French King flew his personal pennant, the Oriflamme, in honour of St Denis the patron saint of France. When this is flown " no quarter " is given to the enemy. That's why the English army gave no quarter in return. Total war.
Poor Genoeses. Had a 28 kilometer march, was led into battle as a vanguard against the English, didn’t have their pavise shields to protect against the longbows longer range and higher rate of fire, then got beat by their own knights when running away.
Thanks for this, one minor point, the English stood at Crecy in part because the French had all but cut off their line or retreat (much the same happened at Agincourt). A bit of general info: English war bow (longbow), usually about 6 feet to 6 feet 6 inches long (longer than usually shown in movies, was drawn past the ear. Men spoke of "standing in the bow". Range of a good bow made of Yew and a trained man, 5 to 600 yards, effective range 2 to 400 yards, at 50 to 100 yds not even the best Milan armour could resist an amour piercing longbow arrow. At 200 yds a bowman would be mocked by his peers if he missed his target more than twice in twelve. Rate of fire was 12 per minute hence the war bow sometimes being called the "medieval machine gun". Archers also carried a nasty long thin dagger ideal for finding gaps in armour and helmets, and usually a sword or axe, very few wore amour. At that time the production, transport & storing of English arrows was very highly organised; it needed to be. Really my subjects are 'marine' (www.frickers.co.uk/art) but as I grew up in longbow country...
gordon, you are supremely ignorant. you bought into every myth. it has been tested. even at point blank a 180 pound bow with a bodkin tip could not penetrate a 4mm breastplate. they couldn't hit their target consistently at 200 yards shooting every 5 seconds. those were not even aimed shots. this is just physics, which we now understand, unlike the times when those myths generated. the range was 5-600 yards, but not with the heavy war arrows they used in battle. you should really do some research before regurgitating old myths, claiming them to be facts. also, bowmen were pretty well armed, we know this from period art and literature. breast plate, arm and even leg protection was common.
paleo, they haven't managed to penetrate real armor at all at any distance with any tip. there is a big difference between a thin steel drum and a 3-4mm curved breastplate. stop spreading misinformation. i used to believe these myths, but i have seen the tests, the arrow didn't even damage the armor. and they tested 180 lbs bows with bodkin at close distance.
@@rohadtanyad8908 The idea that the English longbow was an ineffective weapon is nonsense the sheer number of arrows caused mayhem they did`nt have to be so accurate against a large body of men.Only the best armour stood up to the onslaught worn mainly by the nobility due to the prohibitive cost which most of the French troops could`nt afford. An English longbow man did`nt wear breastplates either they were too cumbersome and costly in any case and their secondary weapon was a thin bladed dagger for thrusting through the visor of any prone knight, they were always lightly armed but deadly.
Great fun, loved this, and the choice of music is perfect. However, you've missed the most important part of the battlefield, which determined the disposition and movements of both armies. From the Route de Fontaine in the south almost to Wadicourt in the north, the Vallee des Clercs is lined to the west with a 45-degree overgrown bank ranging from 2 to 6 metres deep, over which an armoured man-at-arms would have trouble passing, and a mounted knight had no chance at all. This meant the French had to march in close formation up the Fontaine road under the arrows of the English and Welsh archers on the ridge to the west, and then deploy across the Black Prince's battle-front, all the while being shot at distances of around 200 yards before they even began to advance. The huge disproportion in dead between the two armies suggests very few of the French charges even closed with the ranks of English men-at-arms and archers and Welsh archers and spearmen, as your enactment suggests. But however many actually did, they didn't come in long lines up the valley stretching across the battlefield between Crecy and Wadicourt. Edward's choice of battlefield, like Wellington's 470 years later, was one of the key determinants in deciding the outcome of the battle.
Weirdly, I have memories, remembered emotions and feelings from long before my lifetime. I could rationalise this as imagination or remembering old films or some such. Mostly they are fragmentary Drinking from a leather cup, something I have ever done, but I know the feeling of that wet leather. The most unfragmentary "memory" is of a battle just as you describe it. I was on the left, behind something we called a scrape, a sort of shallow ditch with the earth thrown up on one side as a hastily dug rampart. We also dug "trips" shallow ditches or holes covered in brushwood as impediments to cavalry. The left was a gentle hillside the summit heavily wooded, with a sprinkling of our archers in I remember the reassurance that gave me strangely. To my right front downhill was a sunken road. Mostly I remember a sort of pity for the disorganised rabble, particularly those on the road, I also felt a sort of relief and almost amusement that my previous anxiety was unwarranted. I feel quite young in this "memory" and someone was reassuring me that everything was going to be alright. I wish I could give a coherent account of a battle, I can't. The feeling is that it mostly took place away from me, although I do feel the excitement and anxiety of going forward from our position to "collect" things. I know weird right I'm no new age tin foil hat wearer, I've had this inside me for at least thirty years and never told anyone, strangely it's a sort of comfort to me and I truly do not fear death, it holds no terrors for me, this life, this time, this lesson is why I'm here now
How can you see thousands of men slaughtered by arrows then go and do the same thing insane, you covered this battle superbly my Ancestors were hard as nails different breed of men back then. England till i die !
Check out the battle of Patay, it's a great one too! And also the battle of Bouvines (really incredible), the battle of Carillon, of Fontenoy, of Denain...
Débatteur Respectueux you took your time to learn how to actually win a battle, even worse since you got your ass kicked by the English a multitude of times over.
Débatteur Respectueux i prefer english victories but my favorite french victory is the battle of Castillon the cannons killing the english is just so satisfying
My readings about this battle gave a huge advantage to selection of terrain by King Edward. A large rip in the earth s surface was between the armies and the French were funneled into the MBA piece by piece. Causing the breakup of formations and a mass assault. No sign of that here.
Weather also played a part ,the crossbowmen from Genoa didn't wax there bow strings and it rained ,their bows were rendered useless ,they had no choice but to retreat ,the advancing calvary slid in the mud and were hampered by the fleeing mercenaries ,the yeomen did wax there bow strings ,being Englad and wales were rainy counties.
I've visited the site of the Battle of Crecy. There are some excellent information boards explaining how the battle went and the French admit they messed up big time with their tactics.
Agincourt has been done so many times! Patay would be much better! It's also an incredible battle! Or Formigny, Castillon, Orléans, Bouvines, Taillebourg, Fontenoy, Carillon, the Chesapeake... All great ones!
It's so very sad to see the warfare taking place in the comments between the English and French. I'm English and I'm not going to be childish and join in with the pathetic debate. Let's all hope that our differences are all in the past, so that we may never draw each other's blood again. The English have won many victories over the French, even glorious ones, and so too have the French over the English. We have opposed each other; we have fought side by side. Between Napoleon Bonaparte and Alexander The Great (the two main contenders), my personal opinion from several decades of military enthusiasm and study is that Napoleon is THE greatest military commander that has ever lived. I'm an ex-military man myself and I'll reiterate that I hope our great and proud nations never fight against each other ever again... for we are now both very equally matched and both nuclear powers! What took place in the past let's LEAVE in the past... and move forward together in our fight against other threats from other nations and militant groups. I'm a Remainer, BTW, and believe in "strength in togetherness". We didn't even win the Battle of Britain alone (and in no way could have), but with the critical help from many other nations' pilots (500+). (Any Brit or Frenchman or anyone else who wishes to throw offence at me regarding anything in my comment, go right ahead... for your arrows will pass way over my head and I shall not even look back! 😊)
I was just thinking the same thing mate. It's ridiculous isn't it. Nearly as ridiculous as the reason men fought in these medieval wars. Some king who has everything he needs, gets bored, wants more, starts a war and everyone else has to suffer. And people swore allegiance to this stupidity. The English hierarchy of this time period were from French descendants anyway, William the conqueror was the son of a French Duke and upon victory allocated much of England to his Norman/French followers. I suppose it does make history very interesting though.
I have noticed in a couple of these battles that the English/Welsh archers are shown using quivers,according to all the research I have read,the arrows were stuck in the ground and loosed as quickly as possible
Nice video. Perfect way of learning. Only complaint is that Adrain Boult is credited as composer, whereas the music is Vaughan Williams's 4th & 6th symphonies (obviously conducted by Boult). Music fits well, but I'm sure old Ralph would have liked his due.
An average long bowman could have 3 arrows in the air, and one on the draw at the same time, and a professional longbow man could have 4 in the air, and one on the draw, so that could mean anything between 18,000 & 24,000 arrows in the air, all at the same time. The arrows were not drawn from the quiver, but were stuck in the ground in front of the bow men
I didn’t know a good part of the Battle of Crecy was fought at night. The flaming arrows shot by English long bows must have been a great psychological weapon for King Edward III. Very interesting presentation. Thank you for this upload.
yes. very well done. This format should make history learning at schools a breeze. One battle is 20 minutes so you could cover 3 in one day and 15 in one week. If there are 25 weeks in one academic year a total of 375 battles could be covered. That would bring the history student from Alexander the Great to the Battle of Kursk. HOmework would be watching RU-vid. Please send this to local education.
سلام عليكم و رحمة الله و بركاته اذكروا الله وصلوا على سيدنا الحبيب المصطفى محمد اللهم صلِ على سيدنا محمد و على آله وصحبه كما صليت على سيدنا ابراهيم وعلى آل سيدنا ابراهيم في العالمين انك حميد مجيد❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️ياحي ياقيوم برحمتك استغيث اصلح لي شأني كله ولا تكلني الى نفسي طرفة عين❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️ اللهم اغفر للمؤمنين و المؤمنات و المسلمين و المسلمات الاحياء منهم و الاموات🌹❤️ في حديث رواه مسلم في الصحيح: ثلاثة لا يكلمهم الله ولا ينظر إليهم يوم القيامة ولا يزكيهم ولهم عذاب أليم: المسبل إزاره، والمنان فيما أعطى، والمنفق سلعته بالحلف الكاذب، هذا من باب الوعيد عند أهل السنة والجماعة ليسوا كفاراً بل من باب الوعيد والتحذير والترهيب، المسبل يدل على أنه كبيرة من الكبائر، والمنان في العطية الله جل وعلا قال: لا تُبْطِلُوا صَدَقَاتِكُمْ بِالْمَنِّ وَالأَذَى [البقرة:264]، والمنفق سلعته بالحلف الكاذب، اللي يقول: والله إنها علي بكذا، والله إني شريتها بكذا، والله إنها ...... بكذا وهو يكذب حتى ينفقها يمشيها ويأكل أموال الناس بالباطل هذا وعيد شديد يدل على أن هذا من الكبائر من كبائر الذنوب مثل الحديث الآخر: ثلاث لا يكلمهم الله ولا يزكيهم ولهم عذاب أليم: شيخ زاني -شيخ شايب- وملك كذاب، وعائل مستكبر، هذا يدل على أن الزنا مع الشيخوخة مع كبر السن يكون أعظم من الزنا في الشباب أكبر إثماً، وهكذا الملك الكذاب إثمه أكثر؛ لأنه قد أعطاه الله الملك وأغناه الله عن الكذب فما الحاجة للكذب، وعائل مستكبر مع فقره يستكبر، الغني قد يحمله الغنى لكن هذا مع كونه فقير يستكبر هذا يدل على أن الكبر طبيعة له وسجية له نعوذ بالله فاشتد بهذا إثمه نسأل الله العافية لا حول ولا قوة إلا بالله. نعم. المقدم: جزاكم الله خيراً سماحة الشيخ.
@@paganphil100 Don't forget Patay, where the French crushed the English who were 4 times as numerous. They also beat them at the battle of Formigny, of Castillon, of Orléans... Much later they stopped the British who were helped by half of Europe at the battle of Malplaquet. Not to mention when they beat coalised Europe 5 times in a row from 1792 to 1809 (Austerlitz, Jena, Friedland, Eylau, Arcole, Marengo...)
The english show the force multiplying effects of being in a good position against a tired enemy who didn’t form up all at the same time instead in dribs and drabs. The english longbowmen destrung their bows before the battle to keep them dry whereas the french crossbow men did not. Edward was just a better commander
Ther publication notes for this video incompletely identify the background music. Most of the way through, it's actually the Fourth Symphony of Ralph Vaughan Williams. At 18:22, his Sixth Symphony picks up. Both of these symphonies were written roughly around the time of WW2. At around 21:04, Sir Adrian Boult, the conductor, is incorrectly identified as the composer.
The English are only ever taught about this battle of Crecy and the other one in Agincourt. They are never taught about all the other battles they got wiped out in. Having said that, this is a fantastic video. It really does get you down to the court to see how the large formations moved about in reality. Reading maps does not do justice to many battles.
Load of rubbish. We never got taught this at school. I personally knew nothing of Agincourt or Crecy until I was about thirty years of age. But you believe what you want for the sake of your xenophobia.
This is great! Still, from my studies I would point out a few mistakes: 1) Glossing over the lack of shields among the Genoan infantry is a common thing done by English historians to promote the superiority of the longbow. However I strongly believe that this was the actual reason for failure of the infantry line. 2) French infantry composed not only of crossbow men, but also Italian spear militia, who had stopped the first French cavalry attack. 3) John of Bohemia wasn't leading the second French cavalry battalion, but the third one. However his son, Charles (future emperor Charles IV.) was among the knights . 4) The lance, primary weapon of the chivalry cavalry is usually a one hit weapon. Commonly a knight would draw his sword to cut his way back to the rest of his warband to get a new one. However when the second battalion cut through the first English line, they only wanted to harass the second line and to return back for the lances. The attack of English reinforcements kept them locked on the position from which there were no escape. Also cavalry iis only strong when it can move. Being trapped from both sides have meant a lots of casualties. 5) John had no other choice than to charge, even though he was blind at the moment. His oldest son was trapped and soon to be killed. Even though it sounds like a bad idea to make a blind man leader of one of your battalies, no one from the french army expected the third cavalry battalion to even take part in the battle. Also he saved most of the men captured between the lines (it is definitely not true they were already dead before the charge even started, Charles died in 1376) 6) This is a thing you did right, only without mention. There was 6 French cavalry battaies. However it is true that we have no record about the fourth and the fifth. Hope this will get to you and you reply. Thank you
Neat addition to the video. What a mess. Seems to me, it would have been different if more time could have been spent setting up the French plan instead of them having to go directly into battle.
The thing was, that French had no time to spare. English were on a run. they were avoiding battle for a month, even breaking the code of chivalry by sneakig away durring a time given to them by French for the battle preparation. Nobody on he french side expected resistance, not this heavy.
Their shields we in the wagons which is why the Genoan commanders requested they don't start battle until they arrive. While the crossbow was an excellent weapon the reality is the longbow was superior both in range and the number of arrows per minute. I agree with points 2,3,and 4. Cheers
One historian mentioned the rain the rain soaked the string on the crossbows and made them ineffective. The longbowmen took there strings off and kept them under there caps to keep them dry.
Odd text and Frederic is right to point out that the English did not have it all their own way during the Hundred Years War, not by half, but at Crecy under a great King, arguably England`s greatest, the French lost. Very good animation indeed.
Not a rational choice of font particularly when presented to be read against the clock. An entirely redundant cliche to employ as visual shorthand signalling content of an historical nature. As if no-one had noticed.
John Adams, this was the first battle of the hundred years' war, not the only one, and drawing conclusion on a single battle is a nonsense. Ultimately England lost the war, not France. Here are few battles that England lost during that war: Patay with 2500 english losses for just 100 french, Brossinière with 1500 english losses for 1 (one) french, Montargis, Formigny with 3800 english losses for 600 french, Castillon with 4000 English losses for 100 french, without mentionning Orléans won by 17 years old Jeanne d'Arc. This said, the video is excellent and I really enjoyed watching it. It makes it much easier to understand the dynamic on the battlefield than getting into the details of each movements on the battlefield and try to understand how they weight on the course of the battle itself. Thanks !
Typical comment from a frenchman - this was fought on your territory frenchboy and you had the rest of Europe helping you. The English were always massively outnumbered and still won all the major battles.The fact that the French had to wait for a 17 year old girl to come and rescue them says it all! The French continued like this forever hauling up their main flag - a white one -' at the earliest possible opportunity . They were forever having to rely on the UK to come and bail em out - not that we ever get any thanks for it.. lol
Let’s remember that the Hundred Years’ War was actually a group of many wars fought between approx hundred years. The fists face, as so other ones, was definitely won by the English
You are probably mixing wars and centuries. During that war England -not UK- got support from Burgundy to claim the french crown. England controlled Guyenne around Bordeaux, Normandy, and most of West of France. The french king controlled instead what was East of that until a line North-South between Reims and Avignon roughly. The 17 year old girl you mentioned was not already captured by English allied from Burgundy on most of the battle I mentioned. And by the way if there are many white flags on the french side, it simply because it used to be the king of France flag until the Revolution. And for the thanks, I respect a lot the British who died during WWI in France, and I've made it clear on previous posts. I like also History but I see too many stupid comments taking over facts, so if you want to learn use internet to do so. If you are just frustrated, please go somewhere else.
@Chris Parnham What the English have always had throughout the centuries is discipline and professionalism. This served us well. It's why were were able to overcome numbers and better tech sometimes. It's essentially why the British Empire was the only hyper power in history. Not even the Americans can come close to matching the power the Empire had
Dave. I have a question please, I see archers with green tunic. Is it right, and is it the origin of Green Jackets, for Robin Hood in the book, and for english snipers sometimes called like that ?
Genoese crossbowmen were typical Italians, run away at the first hint of trouble. I once read that the Bishop of Durham was at Crecy, killing Frenchmen with his mace. Can't see a Bishop doing that these days!
Not at all fair ,promoting the idea of Italians as cowards. The Swiss guard are Italian ,selected for their outstanding courage. Rain in the field had rendered the unwaxed crossbows useless ,there was no cause for them to remain. in the field at Crecy.
Splendid job all around. I've read about Crecy before, but this is the first time I really understood what actually happened. I do have a few questions: 1. When the English knights fought on foot, did they wear full armor? Common sense would say no. But common sense isn't normally found on battlefields. 2. What was the relationship between Edward, III and his son, The Black Prince? That comment about "let the boy earn his spurs, no reinforcements" leads me to believe Edward III was King first and maybe, father way down the line. True or not? 3. Did the English really use fire arrows at the battle? 4. Did they use cannon? If , yes, with what effectiveness? I was truly impressed with the bravery of the French, but appalled at the stupidity of their King and commanders. This is not to disparage the English soldier; he, too showed great courage. My view (no expert by any means) is the French leadership lost this battle more than English leadership won it. You can't charge into massed firepower (longbows) and dug-in infantry without mass casualties and (usually) catastrophic defeat. Reminds me of the American Civil War battles of Fredericksburg, Cold Harbor, and Franklin waged five centuries after Crecy. Foolish commanders (Burnside at Mary's Heights, Grant at Cold Harbor, and Hood at Franklin, Lee at Gettysburg) threw masses of soldiers across the open against dug-in troops on good ground armed with deadly repeating weapons (rifles rather than longbows). The only difference between Crecy and these battles centuries is that, the Civil War defenders used rifled, fast-loading weapons and not Longbows. Bravery rarely trumps technology and good tactics/strategy then, now and in the future. Will we never learn? (This last statement not only regards military leadership, but also on the utter stupidity of war)
Very well made! How did your game run so smoothly with all those masses of troops? And what mods did you use? Some of the troop colors and blood effects look different.
That's not true. English army had 5 cannons at Crecy, and used cannons in siege of Calais same year. Earliest combat use in Europe was probably by arabs in Spain in late 13th century. In 1453 at the last siege of Constantinople turks used giant bombards cast by german and hungarian engineers, which implies the technology was quite advanced by then.
Giovanni Villani writes of the guns: The English guns cast iron balls by means of fire...They made a noise like thunder and caused much loss in men and horses... The Genoese were continually hit by the archers and the gunners... [by the end of the battle], the whole plain was covered by men struck down by arrows and cannon balls.
@Varangian Guard Very few English died in the battle but of disease during the campaign. Most of the casualties in the American Civil War also died of disease and not combat.
Typical comment from some frenchmen below - this was fought on your territory frenchboy and you had the rest of Europe helping you. The English were always massively outnumbered and still won all the major battles.The fact that the French had to wait for a 17 year old girl to come and rescue them says it all! The French continued like this, forever hauling up their main flag - a white one -' at the earliest possible opportunity . They were continuously having to rely on the UK to come and bail em out - not that we ever get any thanks for it.. lol
Sorry, but have you heard of the battle of Patay? The French crushed the English who were almost 4 times as numerous. Google the battle of Bouvines, of Fontenoy, of Denain... All incredible French victories against much more poweful armies. France also beat coalised Europe 5 times in a row from 1792 to 1809. No one esle has EVER done that. Austerlitz is one of the greatest victories of all times, not to mention Arcole, Marengo, Jena, Friedland, Eylau... The French also stopped the islamic invasion of Europe in 732 (battle of Tours).
Ho, and by the way you must be very ignorant of France to say that: in Normandy there are british flags in a lot of villages, on the main place, in front of the town hall... But the British never thanked us for saving your army at the battle of Dunkirk, allowing you to defend your country against the nazis. You forgot that, how strange.
www.economist.com/christmas-specials/2016/12/24/how-norman-rule-reshaped-england Lol, don't forget who reshaped the English country and restructured the economy, Plus you know... facts: www.militaryfactory.com/battles/french_military_victories.asp
@@debatteurrespectueux7560 During Dunkirk, some British forces stayed behind to fight a rearguard action, to allow 230K British and 100K French to escape back to the UK, only to fight Germany another day.
@@rockinbillyboy "some British"... But espacially the French! They did pretty much all the work at Dunkirk, fighting to cover the British retreat. Thanks to the French's sacrifice, the British could defend their Island. But it didn't prevent them from murdering french soldiers at Mers El Kebir, bombing massively French cities in Normandy, raping French women...
One thing is certain,you know nothing about Crecy.The English lost 2 knights and 80 men,and where did your 1/2 amillion troops come from on your animation.Are you American,because your representation had all in common with Hollywood,and damn all to do with history.
good but a bit of artistic licence , one of the best accounts was written by a French clergymen , there was under 6000 british,. French dead 26,000 total force over 31,000 not counting the thousands of wounded who must have died from injuries. it was written English archers had shot so mamy arrows that their fingers bled
@leslie graham , we (the English) had Welsh and Irish with us , not many but enough to mention . And Britain was a place before England as the Roman's and Greek's new of it . The united Kingdom came later when the king of Scotland became the English king (by request) he then formed the UK . Not having a go , just setting the record straight .
He's got to make a video about the battle of Patay! Or about Formigny, Castillon, Orléans, Taillebourg, Bouvines, Carillon, the Chesapeake, Fontenoy...
Si tratta di una ricostruzione digitale della battaglia di Crecy, avvenuta nel 1346, di grandiosa spettacolarità. Sul piano filosofico della comunicazione sociale, il presente video trasmette agli spettatori l'ideale delle masse di esseri umani in armi che diventano artefici di primo piano dello sviluppo della storia al pari delle minoranze aristocratiche in posizione di comando, o in misura superiore a queste ultime. Io Gianluigi Cofano mi pongo pertanto come il filosofo ufficiale nel mondo di questo video su un episodio della Guerra dei Cento Anni.
@@jadawin10 and your typical of the European mentality. I understand the dislike of the English. It must be galling to have them fight the germans for you because you lack the courage. You wonder why Britain voted to leave the EU.
@@christosshugeh9573 The English never fought for the Swiss. And in WWII they returned with their tails between their legs on their island, to wait for help ...
If the Genoese weren't exhausted and had their shields, they probably could stand their ground against the archers. They had superior technology. That counts for something...
The English Longbow dominated the battlefield for a long time. A Professor told of the training and arm strength one had to have to master it. Not the Soi Boys of today.
Excellent video ... but.. BUT... what about the CANONS ! In 1346 ! WTF Bro ?! Did u smoke when u choose to add this fire weapons on most famous war of the Middle-Age ?! Except that strange detail, Epic video for a huge battle, even if i feel sad that happened in such an unfair context of such stupid pride, confidence's excess, undiscpline, leaders incompetence on French side (and also, i hope English will agree, lack of honor on their's). It makes that great feat at first sight, a little beat niggard, but as we say in present new virtual's battlefields "Good Game" and no hard feelings :)
+Antoine Bruxelle. I don't know what the fuss is about. The use of gunnery at the Battle of Crecy is correct, and everybody knows the English army had bombards at Crecy. Gunnery was also used in 1347 at the siege of Calais.
Symphony dont gel with whats neen shown. Sorry bro bit had to turn it off. It was more suited to a black n white old motion picture. Maybe a silent movie about an d naval battle imvolving vikings and the like. Just my opinion. :)
