As I said, although it is not an enfoced rule, of course, I prefer to outfit my posts with Pics from my own library or other sourrces as I like to see my posts have a little instant "color" added to them.
Again, this is not a rule.
However, I have posted a picture of a German Armor fro about 20 years before Agincourt which fits my pysche/minds view of the Armor of the time and a Map of the second stage of the of the battle.
General Goo, Colonel rain and Henry V's dispositions based on terrain, knowledge of the enemy's armor and tactics seem to have been the contributing factors to the victory
Armor of the time for the mounted chivarly did not fully protect against the mail piercing arrows of the Englsh, and although full Plate armor would have afforded such proctection, it would have limited french mobility under the circumstances even further.
Still, some contend this type of armor was the best compomise of the mail surcoat, the "Pair of Plates" and the full plate armor of later dates.
Eventually, perhaps from cost reasons as mucn as mobility the complexity of "Battle armor" was much reduced by time the 17th century.
If you saw "A Knight's Tale" the Foot armor of "William" for his ground combats was quirkily close to that of the Armor of James II by Richard Hoden, which I may l post later.
This type of armor would have been typical of Cromwell's "new Model Army" and of the 17th century colonists in America,
Rmeber, In terms of loss of life based on percentage of Population, the prize goes to the Losses in "King Phillips War" in Massachusetts where 75% of the Conial population and native american population perished in the nasty little war. (see "the Mayflower" by by Nathanial Philbrick.