Udet, what a lucky man!

Exactly true.
Were you able to bring up the site concerning Udet's duel? There is enough on that site to keep a history student occupied for hours.

I wouldn't necessarily conclude that Guynemer's action was chivalrous or stupid. Once Guynemer discovered that Udet's guns were inoperable, what was he to do? Killing him would be the equivalent to shooting an unarmed man in the back as he runs away. I would say a difficult morale decision for most people made under considerable stress. Moreover, Guynemer had no idea what Udet would achieve latter in the war. If Udet would have been killed the next day, I think people would be far less quick to criticize his action.

Seeing as the only evidence that Harold was shot in the eye is the Bayeux Tapestry which itself is ambiguous (the figure of Harold could equally well be the one being cut down with a sword) what evidence exactly do you have that he was unchivalrously sniped from behind? I think we should know!

Vigilantus, You seem to read things into the Bayeaux Tapestry that I don't see. Where ever did you hear that it is the ONLY place
Look again:
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/MEDharold.htm
To answer your question, in a school history book published in the UK.

How could he get an arrow in the eye from behind? As arrows arc it would be impossible for an arrow to enter the back of his head and come out his eye. Simply lawyer logic. We find the french archer not guilty.

Mark

Perry Mason, you aren't. By the simple expedient of turning his head. Remember, it was an attack.
Mounted on horseback, he had passed through French infantry. Were his troopers still behind him? POW! Right in the visor! Direct shot from one of the French foot soldiers he had ridden past.
You get it now, counseror? As a pilot you should be familiar with the head turn scan.

The long bow would not be effective in the situation you describe! In order to hit him at close range the shot would be 'on the up' which would go against all drwings/'accounts' of the incident. While at longer range the fact would be that a norman long bow would have very little effect on a fully armoured knight. You only have to look at the crusades to see that the muslims were incapable of killing more than the knights horses with their archers. You have be extremely unlucky or 300 years later for any real damage to occur. French archer still not guilty unless he was a tourist from the future and packed the wrong bow! Anyway is it possible to turn ones head inside a full helmet?

Mark

This was the day of chain mail, not plate armor. The entire head was turned, not the head inside the helm.
Why don't you just cut to the chase and let me shoot you with one of those "ineffective" long bows? If you examine one and try it, you will find that it is entirely capable of shooting hard enough to lob a lucky shot through the holes in a visor.
I once shot a hold clear through a breastplate with one of thos e" ineffective" composite bows the Turks used. Want to be the target for that, too? The museum curator was so angered (he thought it would deflect harmlessly) that he never spoke to me again.
We have drifted off topic. Want to take it to hate mail...er, email?

No problem, my e-mail is mt5@ukc.ac.uk. Please remeber that i am in the UK so there could be a delay on any returns.

Mark

No problem, my e-mail is mt5@ukc.ac.uk. Please remeber that i am in the UK so there could be a delay on any returns.

Mark