If it’s on a rifle sure, what about just the bayonet?

My first thought was John “mad jack” Churchill of Great Britain in WWII, who went to battle with a longbow, a Scottish broadsword, and a set of bagpipes, but that’s not what you were asking… there was Thomas butler an African American fencing master from Louisiana, but that was more around the revolution so again not what you were asking…. Nothing really comes to mind honestly, rapiers we’re required for majors down and used frequently, but so we’re bayonets which could be considered a short sword?

I’ve changed no such argument, i stated the archers defeated the “tank-like” knights, and that is fact.

Never mind that that single battle resulted in either the death or capture of half the French nobility… you can argue semantics i suppose, and say that the longbow didn’t kill the knights, but the archers tired em out then poked em with knives instead, but that’s just foolish

You realize you can go to the Wikipedia page and read the whole account of the battle right? Like…. It says that the English archer was very effective at wounding the unarmored horses and causing a rout of the Calvary which then tore threw their own infantry ranks, the armored foot soldiers had to keep their visors closed to protect from the lucky arrow finding the weakest part(eye and breathing holes) thus making it hard to see and breathe…by the time the French men-at-arms reached the archers they were mostly wounded or heavily fatigued, and the archers use knives, hatches, clubs, or short swords to decimate the French…. So….. my argument that the longbow would won that battle would hold water you pompous buffoon

What you’re basically saying is the outnumbered English basically got lucky the inept French decided to fight up a hill in the mud and just kept marching like lemmings to their death. Arguably one of the supreme powers of the day was not that inept.

You don’t get it, I’m aware the longbow themselves didn’t kill armored knights, but you don’t have to blow up a tank to render it a battlefield casualty. You wound a knight, get em stuck in the mud, make them advance on foot vs horseback so they’re exhausted, it effectively defeats them.

Didn’t the French use horses? and didn’t the English target horses because a thrown knight was usually a useless knight? Add that to the quagmire that was the battlefield and i would say that the archers decimated the French nobility.

As I’ve said before, the English Long bowmen butchered the gentry, it was part of the reason the English won at Agincourt

Say that to the English long bowman! They would beg to differ