There's whole lot of myth re the longbow.
Effective, yes. Effective as the myth portrays it, no.
Agincourt myths? The battle of Agincourt was probably one of the if not the best documented battles of the middle ages.
Love how a thread on the F-35 has ended up discussing the longbow!!
Agreed!! And looking at just the numbers it would be difficult indeed to argue that the longbow did not play a significant role. Henry V had 7000 archers and 1500 infantry arrayed against 8000 to 10,000 infantry and 1500 cavalry. The French also had 4000 archers and 1500 crossbowmen, but failed to use them. Their tactics failed to exploit their weaponry to best advantage and because of that, despite being numerically superior (by more than 6 to 1), they lost the battle.
Yes, the terrain influenced the outcome tremendously, but that can be viewed as being part of the tactics. The chosen battleground favored the English forces, which were heavily weighted toward archers who become light infantry at the merge, with light infantry having an advantage on a muddy battle field.