"The Effective Archery Debate" Topic

I think that the only way to go about re-fighting this battle is to use as many scenarios and as many re-fights as possible using all the variables (which there are very many) as you can put together. You are right the bow pull-weights, are important, but what is more important is that you enjoy your hobby.
Paul

Yes. As I have said before, there isn't one version of the battle of Agincourt. If you perceive two or more viable scenarios, each can be played out as a wargame to see if your rules work to replicate the outcome. That might be enjoyable. I've done that with Hastings too, but not nearly as much with Agincourt. For one thing, Agincourt comes across as much less uncertain as a scenario than Hastings: there are actual eyewitnesses as primary sources, something Hastings lacks; there are actual muster rolls and other documents surviving telling us a lot about who the major participants were at Agincourt, and the number of soldiers involved is easier to place into a range of probability; the kinds of troops and their strengths are also more clear for Agincourt; the style of fighting is much better documented than for Hastings, with less conjecture, etc. Hastings has more variables (unknowns, really), so I have played it more often to try and understand it better.

Doug
Surely even though Agincourt had eyewitnesses, does that mean it is easy to re-fight? Eyewitnesses can and in this case do contradict each other in all the critical areas of enemy army size, formation, & casualties on both sides, to name but a few.
I agree with what you say about Hastings which is vagueness personified, but as you know that at least we have "some" idea of the military attire, weapons, and even hair styles of the period re: the Bayeux tapestry, but even that has been questioned , the age, who and where it was made & by whom. But I myself think it is the best pictorial account of a campaign from the middle ages. But what also interest me are the buildings, vehicles/ships, and civilians that it depicts. (Not forgetting Halley's Comet)

Back to the longbow question;
When I said that that the bowmen started to fight hand to hand, I didn't mean as individuals, but as units/companies.
Engaging as and when the right opportunity occurred. Also you will agree that the bowmen were light infantry who first disrupt the oncoming enemy, with salvo after salvo of arrows from 300 yards. Then as the range decreased, the trajectory would get flatter, until when the ranges got to a certain distance, individual archers would be able to distinguish vulnerable points in a Foot-Knight/Man-at-Arms armour where he can take deliberate aim, follows the target, then loose in his own time. The whole idea is at long range to deluge; this is to disrupt & break up the formation, and to kill at close range. Both of these methods are the best to guarantee hits and efficient arrow expenditure. When it comes to close range you would need good penetrative power of the bow, thus I say that the 100lb+ bow would be best for defeating plate armour of the time especially as its quality did vary but by how much and exactly how tough it could be is open to question.
As for fire discipline, you may train in loosing multiple arrows in a timed rhythm but in actual battle the fire plan timing would depend on the urgency of the hour.
I was in the Royal Artillery for 10 of my many years in the army, & During exercises we fired on certain fire plans but we also had times where a scenario would be used where a strong advancing enemy needed stopping, in this we were given, fire mission battery, baring & elevation, etc and even though you are still under C.P control, the whole idea was to get as much ordinance as possible on the target area as quickly as possible and believe me we gave it all we had.
It was a 1.55mm FH.70 Howitzer Regiment so you can imagine what it was like in the impact area. I tell you this because what may happen in practice doesn't always apply in reality (the book goes out of the window)
Paul

Paul, your concept of the massed use of the longbow is accurate I am sure: both "artillery" saturation and marksmen aiming directly from pointblank range.

As to the conflicting accounts of Agincourt: we have three eyewitnesses, the Gesta cleric, LeFevre and Waurin: these are our primary written sources (Monstrelet borrows from the latter two). The rest of our contemporary accounts on Agincourt are better called "secondary sources" within a generation of the battle. Those are where the narrative conflicts mostly derive from. The battle was evidently not a neat, cookie-cutter set-piece. It was in the neighborhood of 1,000 yards wide, allowing quite a few variations in narrative.

The Gesta account is clearest because it is the closest to the memory of the event, and possibly because, being located behind the king's center "battle", it offered the least controversial outcome, i.e. the clearest view of what happened.

Remember that on the wings we see the battle open with cavalry charges, which rout back into the wings of the French first "battle": the wings of longbow would also have run out of missiles first, being earlier engaged in long range shooting than the archers near the center. And therefore the archers on the wings would have been the first to engage in hand to hand combat.

The movements of these troops at different times are evidently the cause of the conflicting details of the course of the battle; or even of any apparent conflict determining where troops were placed in relation to each other.

I don't see the conflicts in the accounts of the battle that others see. The eyewitness accounts, especially, harmonize on all the important details. No single eyewitness could see the whole field. So there is no reason to automatically read "this is right, this is wrong" because they don't agree on every point. It is better to assume harmony, since we believe that the eyewitnesses were indeed on the same field, just seeing different things, or the same thing happening from different perspectives.

re: the Bayeux tapestry, but even that has been questioned , the age, who and where it was made & by whom. But I myself think it is the best pictorial account of a campaign from the middle ages. But what also interest me are the buildings, vehicles/ships, and civilians that it depicts. (Not forgetting Halley's Comet)

I get into the Bayeux Tapestry quite a lot too: in case you haven't seen my pages on it (or for the benefit of lurkers and any newbies) link

Doug
I must say that your site looks very interesting but I am unfortunately unable to access it further at the moment due to a connection problem.

If say there was 20 eyewitnesses at Agincourt, you would still find the accounts at variance even though broadly they would mostly concur on the major events of that day it is human nature, we know this to be true because there have been many experiments carried out and have all broadly come up with this result. Don't get me wrong I think that first hand accounts are the pearls of history, but they can also lead us to wrong assumptions.
This is why I suppose that I am, some would say, over- cautious when it comes to the study of history, military & social. When I have gathered up all the facts and possibilities, as you would, I come to a conclusion that ends up being to me personally the best account, but I love nothing more than to be shown new evidence that advances my knowledge in the field of that history.

On the battle overview itself, I broadly concur with you. All we seem to disagree on is detail; you say 70lb bows I say 90-120lb bows. When it comes to the English battle line
I agree with Ann Curry that the bowmen also utilised the tree line on both flanks, though I also think that a three rank line of archers was placed directly in front of the Men-at Arms. That the number of Men-at-Arms was about 1,000 & Bowmen about 5-5,500. As for the French, size and casualties, that is the of the peace. My reckoning is about 24-25,000 and about 6-8,000 dead. Which makes a casualty rate (high) of 1/4 to 1/3 as you know this takes in the prisoner slaying? But hey this was a medieval battle and we know how bloody they could be.

I was perhaps a bit harsh about the Battle of Hastings being vagueness personified as there was at least the William's of Poitiers & Malmesbury, and in any rate the version of events that we have at the moment (as well as the tapestry) make it a good readable account, though I must say that I haven't read up on it for a couple of years. All I do remember was about the shield wall, the archer storm, Duke William showing his face because they thought he was dead, the cavalry charges, & the defeat (in the end) of the Anglo Scandinavians through those old carrots of ill discipline and bad luck.
Just one more thing, is their any vehicles in the Bayeux Tapestry, or am I getting mixed up with what I have seen in illuminated manuscripts and Psalters. (I like to study the artwork and graffiti they contain)

"Hey Mike"!
Where are you; you said you would get back to us in a couple of days.

Paul

Hi

And paul, the basic disagreement is correct. The difference is that when we started the project, if you had asked, I would have "bought" into the 100 pound longbowman super guy as well. There was a disconnect in that I had been an active bow shooter since early childhood and had already built bows as a kid. I Assumed, incorrectly, that "they just knew something".

For me it was different. I got into the physics of how the weapons work. I had no real agenda in that, since childhood, I build stuff. Not just bows, weapons of all sorts and things like model airplanes and cars. (and siege weapons).

My thinking went this way. Looking at that long range engagemnt phase on the first battle, the story about advancing from the stakes to harass and trigger an attack, the range wasn't there suggesting 120# bows. I have argued with myself over the decades about this. I would cheerfully allow 10% of "better" than 75s out there, except for the logistics part, and I would have liked to have some mention of "the best of the best advancing to harass". Something. Ultimately, as I said above, it doesn't matter. "our rules" 75# table might just as well be "your 120".

The argument is done backwards. That is, for some reason, there is a "romance" to the super bow. Thus "120/150" sounds more impressive than "75-80", even though we can agree that the long range engagment was about 220-250.

As a bow maker and a guy doing the math from known bows and shots, they might have had inefficient 150# bows.

Not relevent to the discusion of effect and range.

R

Just one more thing, is their any vehicles in the Bayeux Tapestry,…

One. link

…a three rank line of archers was placed directly in front of the Men-at Arms…

Or, at least one of the English battles of men at arms at one stage in the conflict had archers in front of it, and it got reported by an eyewitness and written down.

Again, we don't have to assume that a graphic detail applied to the entire English army. As chaotic as battles are, the sections of the battle front would be "colored" by the movements of troops there. For instance, what was going on in front of the English Right would not be identical to what happened on the English left, or the center.

Depending on what details have survived in our written sources -- also dependant on where the eyewitnesses were standing -- we only have a general picture of a battle compiled from glimpses at the time, influenced by the outcome.

Sorry I have not been here for a few days, Real Life intervened!

This has been a very interesting and lively discussion but I feel that it has more or less run it's course and we are going round in circles. I would like to thank everyone for their contributions. It has been a full and frank exchange of views and happily without rancour. I have learned a few things along the way and I hope that is true for others.

I thought it would be useful to summarise my view of the conversation:
1. There are two (somewhat opposing) schools of thought on the subject of the English longbow in the HYW and the WOTR.
2. Doug and Rocky's view, based mainly on Rocky's research, is that the most common bow had a ~70lb draw weight but that the Mary Rose bows represent the "top 10%" of archers.
3. Me and several others feel that in the absence of any other archaeology, it is fair to assume that the MR bows represent the common standard (i.e. 100lb plus draw weight)
4. In fairness to both points of view, neither can be proved undeniably. This is evidenced by the fact that we have all stuck to our opinions and no-one has been swayed by the opposing view.
5. Unless and until further evidence comes to light, we shall have to "agree to differ". No doubt this subject will come up on TMP again and I will be happy to discuss it again.

So, thanks everyone, it's been fun. I propose to bow out of the thread at this point.

Mike

I don't care what the draw weight is – bows in most games and most history are portrayed as being more effective than machineguns in WWI, certainly much more effective than massed musket fire against unarmored targets (even discounting rate of fire differences).

It doesn't matter how many you fire, a knight in full armor is essentially impervious to them except at point blank range – when he'd still be very well protected. Arrows lose too much energy too fast and have too little mass in the first place to have long range penetrating power, and it's just very difficult to get a clean hit on a fully armored target.

That's why most bow fire should be treated as area fire for interdiction in most games – with the longbow being more effective because of its range (and you would think, the skill of the archers in getting arrows where they are needed at long range).

Agincourt was about mud and stupidity, but that's not the way the winners wanted to remember it.

Rocky
I don't think there is a romance to the 150lb longbow, just the argument that it did exist and was used in battle. I think it was but not in anything like the amounts that some people wish to believe. If there was any at Agincourt, then it was in the hands of a select few.
As for the range question, I look at the natural laws of battle and can come to the right conclusion in the same way that we for instance know that a Roman legionnaire carried about the same optimal 'fighting' weight as those of today and has been that way for practical reasons throughout history; that weight is around the 60lb mark. The 'average' marching speed was about 12-15 miles per day. But always remember there were exceptions.
Re-reading what you wrote about testing arrow penetration & your experiments on armour you made up, gives you the wrong information on penetration and penetrative power. You see, armour /arrow heads weren't made by using modern plate/steel foundry methods. The plate armour & steel of the medieval period was more impure & thus soft/brittle, and also not all the armour would have been the latest or of the best quality.
Lastly the pull-weight is irrelevant when it comes to ‘battle' ranges, but its effect is crucial at all ‘battle' ranges.

Mike
You say
Oh and another example of uniqueness in military history, The Baker rifle. Only the British had this weapon in the Napoleonic wars. Assuming all we had to go on was a handful of such weapons from archaeological excavations, then according to you we would have to discount them because they had not been found anywhere else!

But wouldn't it be assumed by some that all the British infantry used the baker rifle, when it was only used by the 60th & 95th Rifles, 1st & 2nd Light Battalion K.G.L, some Cacadores battalions, Brunswick Oeles & one or two other specialist units. The only correct conclusion would have been that it was a British made weapon.
As an example this shows how evidence could totally mislead. So I say "be aware"

Number6
If you have read all my threads, you will see that I have not stated that the killing would have happened at long range (Unless they are lightly armoured, though there may have been a few lucky shots on the heavier armoured). I think that anyone would begin to be in serious danger when the ranges start to fall below the 50 Metre/Yard mark, and at risk at 100-50Metre/Yard mark.

Doug
Thanks for this very interesting discussion. Though we differ in our views, we certainly show a passion for history. (‘Oh for a time machine') "Cheers mate"
If you still have something to say on this subject, I will be only to glad to carry this thread on.
Paul

"But wouldn't it be assumed by some that all the British infantry used the baker rifle, when it was only used by the 60th & 95th Rifles, 1st & 2nd Light Battalion K.G.L, some Cacadores battalions, Brunswick Oeles & one or two other specialist units. The only correct conclusion would have been that it was a British made weapon.
As an example this shows how evidence could totally mislead. So I say "be aware"

You are quite correct. I was using the Baker rifle example to counter the view that the 100lb plus bow was not the common bow because "no one else used it"

Hi

Dibble:You see, armour /arrow heads weren't made by using modern plate/steel foundry methods. The plate armour & steel of the medieval period was more impure & thus soft/brittle, and also not all the armour would have been the latest or of the best quality.

I am not sure how you drew this conclusion. No where did I state I didn't understand the originals. Saxton Pope was allowed to test originals, I wasn't. However, as my first training was in archeology under Prof.Dibble, i was well aware of the origianal materials and techniques. I wasn't clever enough to try making new improved stuff.

To digress, as you mention the Baker. I have weapons of those periods. And I use period molds and techniques. I hve even knapped flint for my indian stuff.

Thus your made a basic error in the assumptions.

Now, to the heavy bows. I might have gotten my sums wrong. My day job then was doing math from data on bad guy aircraft on their performance capabilities. I didn't get my sums wrong in this area, and I have to promise that the math is a lot more complex. There are really two choices. Quality boyers and archers with 75# or poor quality 100s. Doesn't change the discussion. I have no problem if the assertian is that their 100s weren't very good!

This one confused me:Arrows lose too much energy too fast and have too little mass in the first place to have long range.

Lets see:
50 calibre round ball 190 grains
Flight arrow 450 grains.
Bodkin pointed arrow 1000 grains.

One would not argue that a 190 grain roundball from my hawkin wouldn't penetrate a knight at 100yds(1200fps). Yet this has inferior momentum versus a 1000grain bodkin at 250fps.

Might rethink that one.

Rocky

"Saxton Pope was allowed to test originals, I wasn't."

No, he didn't. There is no evidence that he even saw the originals.

Rocky:

There are really two choices. Quality boyers and archers with 75# or poor quality 100s. Doesn't change the discussion. I have no problem if the assertian is that their 100s weren't very good!

Except that it has been my understanding that across the board the average archer pulls less than 70#, the cream of the crop pull at c. 70 lbs, and the best of the best pull that heavy 100+ lb bow. I have argued this as outside evidence from other archer nations. And then we have the fact that in the WotR the average bow is 50 lbs, not 70, with the 1/10 pulling the beefy bows like are from the MR.

Mike: I am guessing that Pope's commentaries on "originals" are from a different book. Iirc, Pope wrote several on the bow and related subjects.

Number6 20 Jul 2008 7:32 p.m. PST
I don't care what the draw weight is – bows in most games and most history are portrayed as being more effective than machineguns in WWI, certainly much more effective than massed musket fire against unarmored targets (even discounting rate of fire differences).

Without assuming the draw weights, and testing for them somehow, you are just guessing without any facts. That's not a good approach for game design, imho.

You are not accounting for the numbers of weapons employed here: if you put up a "phalanx of 5K machineguns, I am sure you would be able to tell instantly that they are a gazillion magnitudes more effective than any warbow. Same with musketry, though not as dramatic a difference: we had this out on that fascinating and loooong thread comparing Wellington's muskeets to Henry V's archers: and Rocky even play-tested an "Agincourt" encounter of French musket attacking the English formation Hal V deployed at Agincourt: the upshot was, that if the French attacked in line they got creamed by the longer range massed saturation capabilites of the longbow; but if the French attacked rapidly in column and deployed into line in the face of the longbow men, the outcome was very ugly for both sides and the French could win that way. The point being, that the longbow was superior the smooth bore musket, both in rate of fire, saturation of a given area with missiles, and accuracy as well. Damage to an unarmored target is plenty deadly with either weapon: but the trained archer was a much better shot, both individually and en masse, than musketry ever was. If you play rules that allow musketry to outshoot bows in the kinds of numbers the English typically deployed in their HYW battles, then your rules are not simulating reality.

It doesn't matter how many you fire, a knight in full armor is essentially impervious to them except at point blank range –

Nobody is arguing otherwise that I can tell. But when you drop upwards of 200K arrows on 5 to 8,000 men, even the long range volume is going to find some effective hits. Up close and personal, the damage just gets insane: as I said, do the math(s): at pointblank range, 400 to 500 Frenchmen (those in the outer/exposed ranks) are getting impacted every five seconds by c. 1,500 arrows: how many seconds does it take for them to be knocked down or out of action?

Agincourt was about mud and stupidity, but that's not the way the winners wanted to remember it.

There are maybe two references to the mud, and almost every contemporary source, English and French, talks about the effective archery. The French sources emphasize the disunity among their ranks and assign blame to Armagnac and Burgundian.

I was trying to draw this discussion to a conclusion, but oh well.

"And then we have the fact that in the WotR the average bow is 50 lbs, not 70, with the 1/10 pulling the beefy bows like are from the MR."

Why is this a fact? What evidence can you offer to support it?

"Mike: I am guessing that Pope's commentaries on "originals" are from a different book. Iirc, Pope wrote several on the bow and related subjects."

Again, no one has offered any evidence to support this. I quoted from the book "Hunting with the Bow and Arrow" by Saxton Pope. If he wrote others then please supply a quote and a reference.

Unless you support such claims with evidence they are worthless.

Rocky
where am I wrong in my assumptions about the baker rifle & the fact that you have not used original metals.
Please don't think I am being rude, but it is very difficult to understand the gist of your arguments.
You can do all the experiments you like, and it may bring you closer to understanding. But unfortunately it will not give you many of the answers.
If you wish to have an argument about the Baker Rifle, please use the Napoleonic site, I,m sure we could debate it together with others.
Paul

"And then we have the fact that in the WotR the average bow is 50 lbs, not 70, with the 1/10 pulling the beefy bows like are from the MR."

Why is this a fact? What evidence can you offer to support it?

I am asking Rocky: since he seems to not have any trouble believing "all" yeomen pulled 100 lb longbows (crappy ones, in that case, compared to modern 70 lb longbows which are better): and yet part of "my outside evidence" is founded on earlier things Rocky has explained to me about proportions of any given nation's archers pulling bows of a given weight: and in the WotR army list we have made up, I see, "Longbow note: total bow 3 [70 lb] may not exceed 25% of total longbow; total bow 4 [100 lb] may not exceed 10% of total longbow". This is because the average archer (anywhere in the world) was not up to using a 70 lb warbow, but nevertheless was mustered in the domestic armies of the period: for the armies mustered to go to France in the HYW, only the best were mustered, the average archers were left home.

Rocky is going to have to weigh in with the "other books" that Saxton Pope wrote. I have not read any of them.

Hi

Paul, glad to meet your real name!

Ok, the gist of my arguments are these: in this thread and others, everyone argues to the extremes.

We have the magic longbow fan boys who selectively quote sources that "prove" the longbow is superior to all others, being british is to be superior AND the bows were 150# and killed at 350meters like machineguns. As "6" alludes to.

And we have the "magic armor" fan boys who conclusively prove from an original source that AN arrow bounced, and, therefore arrows never kill they only annoy.

MY point is that I have read those conflicting sources and did testing and came to a conclusion in the middle. And sitting in the middle, I get bashed by both sides. Like Mike and 6 I read the sources and decided to test and learn about what was plausable.

As an aside, Saxton Pope wrote a tract called "A study of Bow and Arrow" describing, as a university prof, having access to museum bows. He aslo wrote some athro books including a book about the last of an obscure indian tribe in the northwest called "Ishi: the last of his tribe" that includes a bit on how indian archery differeed from longbow. They even made a movie out of that one.

Paul, when you talked about my materials, I didn't get were discussing "Baker", but longbows and arrows. As for "Baker" I have shot an original. I don't own one currently, however, nor do I still own my French Trade Musket. I do have civil war vintage stuff that I still own and shoot, but that is a different discussion.

the point I was trying to make was that "number 6" misunderstood what he was told, or mis typed when he said arrows didn't have enough "mass" to penetrate.

R

"Paul, glad to meet your real name!"

How odd, Dibble has been identifying himself with his real name Paul since he first posted on this thread!!

"As an aside, Saxton Pope wrote a tract called "A study of Bow and Arrow" describing, as a university prof, having access to museum bows."

Which bows in which museum did he have access to?

Mike (from the Game Design thread, so as to not hijack it):

No I have NOT misunderstood. [Rocky,] You say here that you cannot state precisely many bowmen or French there were. Yet you and Doug have insisted that you have replayed Agincourt many times as a wargame and can thus prove what bow weights were in use. If you do not know how many men there were present at Agincourt, how can you possibly use such playtests to prove anything?

(Oh no! Medievals bleeding over onto the rest of TMP)

And I think you missed a point here: we have played VARIANTS of Agincourt, to take into consideration the different numbers: English, 900 to 1,500 men at arms and 4,000 to 7,000 longbowmen (iirc, the most I have ever used is 5,000 longbowmen); French 5,000 to 8,000 men at arms in the first "battle", 400 to 700 mounted men at arms in each wing, with 4,000 crossbow shooting in open order (or not at all, as all sources but the Gesta say that they were not used or don't mention them).

Rocky has reputedly played Agincourt many more times than I have (I have done Hastings many more times than Rocky has).

The best version of Agincourt I have played, at least twice, was with c. 1,500 English men at arms and billmen, with 4,000 archers, versus 6,000 French plate and heavy men at arms and 1,000 "cataphract" cavalry: a secon French "battle" of mostly heavy men at arms of somewhat lesser strength has not made any difference in that they never get to the melee before the first "battle" is beaten, then get shot down even easier than the first "battle" does.

"And I think you missed a point here: we have played VARIANTS of Agincourt, to take into consideration the different numbers:"

You still don't get it, do you?

If the games you play are VARIANTS of "Agincourt", then they are not refights of Agincourt but "what ifs". In other words you are saying:

1. IF the armies at Agincourt consisted of these numbers and
2. IF the table layout accurately matches the real life battlefield (in scale) and
3. IF the frontages occupied by the miniatures accurately match the frontages of the equivalent troops in real life and
4. IF the rules accurately reflect the weapons effectiveness and
5. IF the rules accurately take into account all the imponderables of real life, such as weather, command and control, morale and so on.

Then the game MIGHT possibly have some coincidental resemblance to the actual battle. Since many of the above cannot be determined with any degree of confidence then the likelihood of meeting the above criteria is vanishingly small.

To claim that you have "played Agincourt" many times is at best wildly optimistic and at worst self delusion.

"1,000 "cataphract" cavalry:"

Cataphracts? In the 15th century? I can only assume you are referring to mounted knights with metal horse barding. What evidence is there for these at Agincourt?

Oh my, what evidence indeed: just pictorial, artifactual, textual, and consensus amongst scholars: that "hand picked" and other similar descriptions of the men at arms chosen to charge the archers were the best armored on the best armored horses. Just that kind of evidence. "Cataphract" in quotes means armored horses in any age (it's what we use rather than "barded").

Why do you even play wargames, Mike?

Of course your list of "IFs" applies to every single battle in history. They are ALL "what ifs", even the most clearly documented. But IF the written sources are to be believed at all, and IF the weapons can be tested at all, and IF the possible range of numbers can be known, and IF the battlefield exists with little or no question, and IF the other effects of weather, physical conditions, proportion of troops, commander influences, etc. and etc., can be known within reason: then we should be able to apply a simulation to the battle and come away with acceptable results.

The French can and do win Agincourt: rarely, when played as exactly as the French "played" the original. But the English can lose: the refights do not guarantee anything. And since there was in fact only ONE Hastings or Agincourt, we don't know how likely victory by the losing side might have been. That's the fun of gaming historical battles: to see how often the historical winners continue to win.

Some battles, e.g. Lake of Antioch, are simply improbable wins by the side that won historically: but they can be engineered to be possible: again, if your rules work historically: and that achievement is best accomplished through something more than mere guesswork.

Hi

So, since we know nothing, might as well play Warhammer.

Mike you don't seem to realize there is a difference between "not knowing precisely" and "not knowing what is plausable". You admit that you compared sources and decided on a truth, but won't allow us the courtesy of reading the same sources and then adding in things like math and physics and testing and coming to a conclusion as a valid approach.

R

Sorry for being so late. To recap, my disagreement with Doug concerns how the English arrows where shot: were they fired perpendicular as direct fire weapons or fired using high-angle arching fire to fall down upon the French as indirect fire. Doug, among other things, insists the writer of the Gesta makes the statement that arrows could penetrate French helmets and this was a fact occurring on the battlefields of the HYW. He quotes from the Gesta (the caps represent his highlighting).

"But the French nobility, who had previously advanced in line abreast and had all but come to grips with us, either from fear of the MISSILES WHICH BY THEIR VERY FORCE PIERCED THE SIDES AND VISORS OF THEIR HELMETS, or in order the sooner to break through our strongest points and reach the standards, divided into three columns, attacking our line of battle at the three places where the standards were."

Doug: "The piercing was a fact occurring."

It was not a fact occurring. The fact occurring, which our cleric made up, was the FEAR that English arrows would penetrate their helmets. There is no evidence that the French even held this fear. Monstrelet does mention the French were worried about arrows penetrating the visors of their helmets. "Then the English sounded their trumpets loudly and the French began to bow their heads so that the arrow fire would not penetrate the visors of their helmets." No mention that they were worried about arrows penetrating helmets.

Doug: "Why are you quibbling over your own semantics and meaning? Whatever degree you imagine for "pointing downwards", it isn't how the Gesta eyewitness describes what the arrows were doing to the French armor."

The Gesta doesn't describe what the arrows were doing to the French armor. He was describing what he thought was the fear the French had. And, he was wrong. As to why I was clarify what I wrote, you are as bad at interpreting what I said as you are interpreting the sources.

Doug: "And furthermore, scattered eyewitness descriptions of the penetrative effects of crossbow and longbow missiles: the famous 12th century description of a Welsh arrow transfixing a knight's mailed thigh and saddle and penetrating to the fletching right into the body of the horse, pinning him to his mount."

Here are some 14th CENTURY descriptions of the effect of arrows on 14th century armor.

Constance (1356): "The archers began to aproch and shote feersly: the Frenchmen who were well armed and pavysshed suffred their shotte, it dyd theym no great hurt"

Nogent (1359): "Than the Frenche fotemen came into the felde, a ix. C. of them, who had pavesses, and therby they brake the array of the archers, for their shot coud nat hurt them, they were so sure pavesses."

Auray: (1364) "….; how-beit, their shotte dyde lytell hurt to the Frenchemen, they were so well armed and pavysshed.

Here is a description of the arrow effect written by a man who lived at the time of Agincourt. He interviewed veterans of the battle and read the major chronicles.

"The French were scarcely harmed by the arrow fire of the English because they were well armed."

This is not a rousing endorsement of the power of the longbow. They certainly lend no credence to the idea that arrows were penetrating helmets.

In line with what was written about the lack of effect on the part of English archery on French armor, there is no source, NOT EVEN THE GESTA, that records they witnessed arrows penetrating French helmets. It is generally agreed that the writer was Henry's confessor. If this is true then this was his first battle. So your whole theory rests on a guess by a priest who had never seen a battle before. You do this in the face of a number of testimonies stating arrows were falling downward like rain or hail. It's quite clear to me that as a modern archer, with your obsession with penetration, you brought pre-conceived ideas about how the bow should be used to the study of Agincourt. You are trying to fit the sources to match your preconceptions.

WHERE WAS THE CLERIC?

We have established that regardless of the position of the writer of the Gesta he does not mention arrows penetrating helmets. He only claimed that this is what the French feared. He doesn't even say he interviewed that French to confirm that was their fear. So, the position of the cleric is immaterial to the question of arrows penetrating helmets. We simply have no proof that arrows penetrated helmets.

Nevertheless, Doug your claim for the position of the cleric is entirely without foundation. Let's take your quote from the Gesta and examine it.

""And so [the king] decided to move against them sending for the army baggage in order to have it AT THE REAR OF THE ENGAGEMENT…"

The army is at it's initial position. This is where the king thought that the battle would be fought. The king decides to move forward. However, he first wants to put the baggage behind him in one protected spot because French pillagers were getting ready to plunder.

"And at that time French pillagers were watching it from almost every side, intending to make an attack upon it immediately they saw both armies engage"

In other words, Henry did decide to advance but first he ordered the baggage to be taken out of the village and set up to the rear of his existing position (the position he held prior to his moving forward). Almost all of the baggage had reach the rear of his initial position when he ordered his army to advance. The men-at-arms advanced. The archers advanced. The baggage ….. stayed where it was at his rear. We have NO record of the baggage advancing with the army. Our cleric stayed behind with the baggage.

"But then, indeed and for as long as the conflict lasted, I, who am now writing this and was then sitting on a horse among the baggage at the rear of the battle, and the other priests…."

And he was at the rear of the battle. He was 600-700 yards to the rear (2 bowshots, that's how far the army marched). I had earlier written 900-1,000 yards but this was the approximate length of the battlefield.

By taking the baggage out of the village, it was necessary to form the baggage into a defensive position by which it could fight off the French pillagers. There is not a single source which said the baggage followed the army as the army moved towards the French. Therefore we are left with the understanding that the baggage remained where Henry had first ordered it to form up. Therefore, even though it was 600-700 yards behind the army, it, and our cleric were still at the rear of the army. With the cleric 600-700 yards to the rear and the English army between him and what the French were doing, he was hardly an eyewitness of what was going on during the battle.

Doug: "Note: the king's baggage was originally intended to be left at the camp site of the night before in the hamlet. But Henry ordered it brought up so as to be in the rear of his army, when he upstaked and moved away from the hamlet."

You're wrong. He ordered the baggage to be formed up at the rear of his army BEFORE he moved off. Once the formation was nearly complete, he moved off with the men-at-arms and archers. There is nothing there that says he wanted the baggage to keep up with the army as the army moved out. There is no one who says the baggage kept up with the army's advance. This is simply a misreading of the sources.

Rich

"Oh my, what evidence indeed: just pictorial, artifactual, textual"

And you still do not give me ONE quote from a primary source that says that armoured horses were used by the French at Agincourt? Surely not too much too ask?

"Why do you even play wargames, Mike?"

Because I find them entertaining. However, I make no claims as to authenticity and certainly do not use games to prove history. I might use history to prove a game, but that is a completely different proposition.

"Of course your list of "IFs" applies to every single battle in history. They are ALL "what ifs", even the most clearly documented. But IF the written sources are to be believed at all,"

When they disagree with each other, as is sadly all too often the case, it makes you wonder.

"and IF the weapons can be tested at all,"

How can you test the weapons, if non exist?

"and IF the battlefield exists with little or no question,"

That applies to VERY few medieval battlefields.

"and IF the other effects of weather, physical conditions, proportion of troops, commander influences, etc. and etc., can be known within reason:"

But that is the problem, we often do NOT know within reason.

"then we should be able to apply a simulation to the battle and come away with acceptable results."

See all the above. Ain't no such animal. We in the UK gave up on the whole "simulation" idea years ago. You are apparently somewhat behind the times.

"Mike you don't seem to realize there is a difference between "not knowing precisely" and "not knowing what is plausable". You admit that you compared sources and decided on a truth,"

Of course I know the difference! I do not need to know precisely, because I CANNOT know precisely. I know what is plausible, but you have repeatedly rubbished my view without providing an alternative that is any more plausible than mine. I did NOT "decide on a truth". I have my own view, but I have never claimed it was the truth.

A further thought:

"You admit that you compared sources and decided on a truth, but won't allow us the courtesy of reading the same sources and then adding in things like math and physics and testing and coming to a conclusion as a valid approach."

I am quite happy with you reading the same sources as me and coming to a different point of view. What I take issue with is your adding in things like maths, physics and testing. If your maths, physics and testing were based on actual weapons then fine, but because this is not possible you are forced to make so many assumptions as to render your maths, physics and testing worthless.

Your apparent knowledge of the processes of historical analysis and the scientific method seem somewhat scanty.

"That's the fun of gaming historical battles: to see how often the historical winners continue to win."

No, the interest in gaming historical battles is firstly to see if the rules usually generate a historical outcome (i.e. history proves the rules, not the other way round). We call this calibration. Secondly to put the players "in the commanders shoes" and see if they can achieve better.

Rich: We have established that regardless of the position of the writer of the Gesta he does not mention arrows penetrating helmets.

A mere semantics game. That's all this is. You can have your belief about what the worthy cleric actually meant: the words as translated in Curry clearly describe an actual fact, it is only the fear which is not surely known, but is assumed (and rightly so!).

We simply have no proof that arrows penetrated helmets.

We wouldn't, except that Rocky and I have done it effectively enough. Go ahead: take even a simple field tip (hardly a sharp-edged point) and shoot it into plate that is 1mm or slightly less. No contest, straight on, out to the pointblank range of the bow. Many others have shot the bows and will tell you the same. Arrows penetrate armor. (Your 14th century examples ALL have "pavises" involved; even Agincourt had "pavised" French in the first "battle", but evidently only in front, for it is the side-on shots that do the noticed damage, i.e. the enfliading arrows as the French came in close and passed between the forward-angled archer "herces").

In other words, Henry did decide to advance but first he ordered the baggage to be taken out of the village and set up to the rear of his existing position (the position he held prior to his moving forward). Almost all of the baggage had reach the rear of his initial position when he ordered his army to advance.

Most of the day was spent waiting in the initial position out in front of the hamlet. There was no question that the baggage was ordered out of the hamlet when the king ordered his army to engage the French. Read it again.

Mike Snorbens 23 Jul 2008 11:34 a.m. PST
"That's the fun of gaming historical battles: to see how often the historical winners continue to win."

No, the interest in gaming historical battles is firstly to see if the rules usually generate a historical outcome (i.e. history proves the rules, not the other way round). We call this calibration. Secondly to put the players "in the commanders shoes" and see if they can achieve better.

No = yes, or visa versa. I read what you write and it sure seems like the same thing I am saying.

How, pray tell, can you put any of yourselves "in the commander's shoes", when you have just rubbished attempts to even know where said-commander was during a given battle? "Achieve better" is then merely falling for a simplistic sort of mental (monkey spanking, as I believe that particular "m" word gets bleeped).

"I read what you write and it sure seems like the same thing I am saying."

No it isn't. Just demonstrates yet again that you do not understand what I and others have written here. I'll try and spell it out for you one more time:

Doug and Rocky:
- Design a set of rules.
- Play a game using those rules
- Claim that the game "proves" the history because the game gives a historical result with a particular type of bow and not with another one.

Mike:
- Design a set of rules
- Play a game using those rules
- If the game produces a historical result consistently (e.g. the English win an Agincourt-like scenario most of the time) then the rules appear to reflect the historical accounts.
- If (and only if) the rules have been successfully calibrated against historical scenarios (which is the best we can hope for given all the unknowns) then they are a suitable vehicle for having a go at "what ifs" (i.e. putting the player "in the commanders shoes").

It is not necessary to know exactly where the commander was in a historical battle since most wargame rules provide only a small advantage to a unit accompanied by the commander.

"Achieving better" is a catch all concerned with looking at the performance of losing commanders as well as the winning ones. If a player taking command of a force that lost a historical battle either wins or loses less badly then the historical commander the he has clearly "achieved better".

There, now which bit of the above don't you understand?

You will find a lot of discussion about game design along these lines in the pages of "The Nugget" the journal of Wargame Developments (who have been designing wargames at least as long as you have and in some cases even longer)

"i.e. the enfliading arrows as the French came in close and passed between the forward-angled archer "herces")."

There is considerable doubt that the term "herce" refers to forward-angled archer blocks or wedges. Even the previously understood translation of the word "herce" as "harrow" is regarded by some as incorrect and that the word is more correctly translated "hedgehog".

Note that no contemporary chronicler uses the term "herce" in the context of Agincourt. ("The Medieval Archer" by Jim Bradbury, Boydell & Brewer 2006)

But then you have probably not read the same books as I have.

Richard
The 'English' archers had the same trouble with the Scottish foot-Knights ( Nevilles Cross 1346) probably because the armour was supplied by the French. And also again, more problems at Poitiers 1356.
What we do know is that the armour was thickest at the front but I personaly think that the sides would have been vulnerable to penetration which is another reason for the bowmen to be arrayed on the flanks. but again I personaly think that vulneralbility for Men at Arms/Foot-Knights would have been about 50 yards to point blank from side impacts.

Rocky
why are you going on about the British longbow being superior. I would say that its not the bow but the man. You see, what we have is the (I believe Matthew Strickland coined it)first universal soldier, the best of his day, a professional of his art, confident, determined, and who knew he was superior to any Johnny foreigner.
The reason I mentioned the Baker Rifle was in reply to a thread posted by Mike on the previous page

you say
So, since we know nothing, might as well play Warhammer
I say
Im sorry to dissalusion you, but that is all you are doing but without the magic

You say
you don't seem to realize there is a difference between "not knowing precisely" and "not knowing what is plausable". You admit that you compared sources and decided on a truth, but won't allow us the courtesy of reading the same sources and then adding in things like math and physics and testing and coming to a conclusion as a valid approach.

R
I say
you can do what ever you like but please understand that it is'nt history, its a game…

And again i will signe off with my name which is!
Paul

Sorry about the spelling & grammar

Doug, "As to the conflicting accounts of Agincourt: we have three eyewitnesses, the Gesta cleric, LeFevre and Waurin: these are our primary written sources (Monstrelet borrows from the latter two). The rest of our contemporary accounts on Agincourt are better called "secondary sources" within a generation of the battle. Those are where the narrative conflicts mostly derive from. The battle was evidently not a neat, cookie-cutter set-piece. It was in the neighborhood of 1,000 yards wide, allowing quite a few variations in narrative.
The Gesta account is clearest because it is the closest to the memory of the event, and possibly because, being located behind the king's center "battle", it offered the least controversial outcome, i.e. the clearest view of what happened."

This is very misleading. For a much better discussion of the nature of the sources for Agincourt, I recommend Ann Curry's "The Battle of Agincourt: Sources and Interpretation." She goes into detail about each source. Here is what she wrote about the writer of the Gesta (the highlighting caps are mine):

"It is generally agreed that the Gesta offers the most reliable account of the CAMPAIGN.
Not only is the Gesta useful because it is written so soon after the event, but also because it was written by a priest accompanying the English army throughout the campaign of 1415. In addition it seems to be a wholly independent account which did not draw on other works, unlike many of the sources we shall encounter. His position in the baggage train thus enables him to tell us that Henry ordered the train to be placed in the rear BUT PREVENTS HIM FROM SAYING ANYTHING CONCLUSIVE ABOUT HENRY'S ADVANCE TOWARDS THE ENEMY (he simply says that Henry advanced towards his enemy and the enemy to him; the change of English position is not clear at all) OR THE BATTLE. [p 25]

Eye-witnsess accounts are not the sole definition of a primary source Take Jean Juvenal des Ursins, Histoire de Charles VI, roy de France, for example. He lived at the time of the battle. He had access to accounts of the battle which no longer exist and he interviewed veterans of the battle. He is considered a primary source even those his writing didn't appear until 1430s or 1440s.

As for the writer of the Gesta being an eye-witness, he was positioned 600-700 yards to the rear of the battle. He was screened from seeing the action by the English army and by the distance between him and what was going on at the battlefield. Also, by his very admission, he was engaged in prayers with the other clerics while the battle raged. After all, that was the job of the clerics. (See my discussion above.)

Rich

As for the writer of the Gesta being an eye-witness, he was positioned 600-700 yards to the rear of the battle. He was screened from seeing the action by the English army and by the distance between him and what was going on at the battlefield. Also, by his very admission, he was engaged in prayers with the other clerics while the battle raged. After all, that was the job of the clerics. (See my discussion above.)

Rich

I have both of Curry's books on Agincourt: where did you think I am getting this stuff from?

You emphasize her observation that the Gesta account is not conclusive (even though it is the clearest account we possess), then still insist on 600-700 yards to the rear (well, at least our priest is getting closer! :) ). You have no basis for this assumption other than a particular view that you get from the way it reads: which I do not share in because of obvious factors. Why would Hal V move his baggage at all out of the Hamlet? Why move it to follow his army as it advanced? The Gesta gives the reason: to prevent his baggage from being pillaged. Only the "tail end" of it got attacked, and the rest was "in the rear of the engagement": that phrase is very illustrative of how close in the rear of Henry's army his main baggage was during the battle. Henry deliberately brought his baggage up to be "in the rear of the engagement", so that it would be safe: it wouldn't have been safe 600 to 1,000 yards to the rear.

Praying priests also watched and recorded the battles of the middle ages. It was their job to watch. I see no reason why you want to reduce our best eyewitness to "no eyewitness". What motivation do you have for thinking such a thing?: when the Gesta author takes pains to point out exactly where he was and his physical position -- on the back of a horse. He could see OVER the heads of infantry. That seems to be the point of his bothering to get those details clearly set down….

Mike: There, now which bit of the above don't you understand?

You will find a lot of discussion about game design along these lines in the pages of "The Nugget" the journal of Wargame Developments (who have been designing wargames at least as long as you have and in some cases even longer)

I don't understand why you keep bringing up that we "prove history" with wargaming. I have said that Agincourt as a wargame "proves" 70 lb longbows: ASSUMING that Rocky's math is correct, which I take on faith that it is. He's already said that the math is much simpler than the math he was doing at the same time on Soviet aircraft, and that he got that right. The chance that he got Klopsteg, Nagler, et al. the physics wrong is not likely. Therefore, if the bow that we use against the French is the correct one, our rules prove either a 70 lb weapon as the "warbow" of the English, or that a poor quality 100 lb weapon was (but then we have Rocky's earlier statements to me, that 70 lbs was the standard warbow draw weight of practically everybody around Europe and Asia; so having all 100 lb pullers at Agincourt would need explaining). Nowhere did Rocky or I ever say that the outcomes of our Agincourt refights "prove history." Only that the refights don't work with 100 lb longbows in our rules.

I can't see any real difference in our rules-to-history approach here: we "calibrated" the armies lists and missile tables and other rules mechanics through playtesting historical battles. By getting historical outcomes, according to the probability that we are in possession of a fairly accurate description of what occurred, we are showing that our rules do produce historical outcomes. All the variations caused by conflicting details can also be tested to see if they still result in a historical outcome. I would go so far as to claim that the conflicting details tested in gaming that produce a common divergence from the historical outcome are evidence (not proof) that those details are not in fact part of what occurred in the historical battle.

I don't see how Brit game designers, no matter how long they've been "in the business", form some sort of elite consensus by which all other game designers are to be held up to comparison.

Doug: "Praying priests also watched and recorded the battles of the middle ages. It was their job to watch."

No Doug, that was the job of the heralds.

Doug: "I see no reason why you want to reduce our best eyewitness to "no eyewitness". What motivation do you have for thinking such a thing?"

How about historical accuracy.

BACK TO PIERCING HEMETS AND THE POSITION OF THE CLERIC.

OK Doug, here is Dr. Curry's transaltion.

"But the French nobility, who had previously advanced in line abreast and had all but come to grips with us, either from fear of the missiles which by their very force pierced the sides and visors of their helmets, or in order the sooner to break through our strongest points and reach the standards, divided into three columns, attacking our line of battle at the three places where the standards were."

Our cleric writes the French had been advancing line abreast. They then divided into three columns.. He questions why. He comes up with two suggestions or guesses. Remember, he is not there to see this. He is 600-700 yards to the rear behind the English line praying with the other priests. His first guess is that the French were afraid of the power of the missiles which our cleric claims could pierce helmets.

"either from fear of the missiles which by their very force pierced the sides and visors of their helmets"

To review, the cleric suggests that the French divided into three columns because of the fear of the English missiles. The supposed fear rested upon the idea of arrows penetrating helmets. The penetration is not a fact by itself. It only illustrates why the cleric thought the French feared the English missiles. Is there any evidence that the French did indeed fear the missiles and their supposed power. No. We have evidence that the French feared the arrows might penetrate their visors but not that the arrows would penetrate their helmets.

You cannot pull out the penetration statement and use it as a stand alone statement, as you are doing. It is an idea which supports another idea and cannot stand alone without the first idea. It was only used to illustrate why the French were thought to have feared the missiles. If the French did not fear the power of the arrows then there is no reason to suppose the arrows were so powerful they could penetrate helmets.

We know the French did not divide into three columns because of fear of the power of the English arrows. It was done to penetrate the English line. There is no evidence that the French, on foot, feared the ‘power' of the English bow fire. We also have good reasons to suppose they did not (read my comments on the lack of effect in other battles). If the French were not worried about the power of the missiles then we need not suppose that missiles could penetrate helmets. The cleric's whole thought is predicated on the French fearing the missiles. If the French didn't fear the missiles then the whole thought, including penetration, is nullified. To say the French were not afraid of the missiles but that the missiles could penetrate their helmets is dumb.

You say the idea that arrows could penetrate helmets is proven by your point-blank fire. But the only evidence you have that the archers fired point-blank fire is the idea that helmets could be penetrated by arrows. It's circular. We know helmets could be penetrated by point-blank fire and we know they fired point-blank because it was said the helmets were penetrated. To put it even more simply, We know the one because of the other and we know the other because of the one. That's pretty lousy reasoning.

POSITION OF THE CLERIC

Doug: "Most of the day was spent waiting in the initial position out in front of the hamlet. There was no question that the baggage was ordered out of the hamlet when the king ordered his army to engage the French. READ IT AGAIN." (my caps)

I'll do better than that. I'll write it out so you can read it.

"And so he decided to move against them sending for the army baggage in order to have it at the rear of the engagement lest it should fall as booty into the hands of the enemy."

Henry decides to move but before he does he orders the baggage to be taken out of the hamlet and placed to the rear of his position. (Presumably because he thought it could be better protected there.)

"(He had previoiusly arranged that this baggage, together with the priests who were to celebrate the divine office and make fervent prayer for him and his men, should await him the aforesaid hamlet and closes, where he had been the night before, until the fighting was over.)"

The cleric himself says it was his job to stay behind and celebrate divine office and to make fervent prayer.

"But once, however, the king thought that almost all this baggage had reached his rear, [praises to Jesus, Mary etc.], he advanced towards the enemy and the enemy, too, advanced towards him."

The king waited in his initial position until almost all the baggage had reached the place he had assigned to it at the rear of his initial position. Once almost all the baggage was there, he and his army move out. There is not the slightest indication that the baggage moved from the site behind Henry's initial position. There is certainly no source describing the baggage following the army across the battlefield. He order his baggage to form behind his initial position BEFORE he moved not WHEN he moved.

So our cleric is back with the baggage, behind Henry's initial position, on horseback, leading the other clerics in celebrating the divine office and making fervent prayer (while the heralds recorded what was happening on the battlefield). He wasn't there to see arrows penetrate helmets. And, since this was his first battle, I think we can take his comment about arrows penetrating helmets with a grain of salt. Especially since the French never thought this.

Rich

Hi

Mike, first, I see you are sanquine with Rich's proving that archery doesn't hurt armored troops, they merely "fear" it.

Two, you assert, (this must be our fault for not being clear):
Doug and Rocky:
- Design a set of rules.
- Play a game using those rules
- Claim that the game "proves" the history because the game gives a historical result

Which isn't true. You have it backwards. We were using other peoples rules and were unhappy. I was unhappy with things like how archery works in other rules. As an archer and analyst, I decided to research bow itself. So, I did as much as I could on surviving bows, and doing testing. You are correct, my replicas were replicas. But they are closer than just guessing. You decided on 250yard effective, without any understanding of how bow/arrows work and penetration. I decided based on engagment ranges and tests and physics. Still don't see how this is invalid. AFTER I had the data in hand on bow effectiveness at range, as well as crossbows and javelins, and darts and throwing axes and martiobarbuli…..i drew up rules to reflect this in game scale. Started with physical data And THEN designed to reflect this. AND THEN tested the rules by walking though battles to see if history was possible in the way the rules worked. So, essentially, you got it all backwards.

And here is the real part. I don't say "trust me i read the sources and came to a conclusion". I say, " this is how I enumerated the physics and applied it to the rules".

Disagree that it is possible, fine. But just saying "I don't know, therefore you don't know" is a little silly.

Paul, I do apologize for not noticing you were using your name. It is one of my pet peeves about "internet land", that people often hide and then use that as a way to get away with bad behaviour. Sorry.

To your point. I spent some decades working for a think tank that has a basic premise that you can do analysis and predict what will happen, and that is derived from the conceit that you can do this by looking at past actions. Since "kreigspiel" planned the various German excesses in the last 150 years, it is considered real that one may actually game with realistic results. As I write this, your government and I do these sims all the time to antcipate future events. Looking back is easier.

So, while some brits have dismissed the whole idea of "simulations", I think that falls into the catagory of an opinion based on unsupported assertians. That MOST wargame designs are fantasy doesn't imply or infer or prove that ALL design is a waste of time.

Rich, sometimes I feel like Galileo when he said "but still it moves!" (that is a joke). I have made armor, it might not be as wonderful as YOUR armor, but how wrong can it be? I have shot it and penetrated. Will all arrows hit and penetrate. Of course not. At agincourt, the suggestion is that 200,000 arrows produced ca 5000 effective hits. That is why you do volleys. Similarly, even today, tens of thousands of rounds of 7.62 is are fired in combat for a few hits, yet no one suggests that wearing kevlar lets you stride forward and kill people with swords.

The basic argument about "bows don't work" is that the alternative is that 25,000 french MAA were defeated by 2000 british MAA and 5000 unarmored infantry with hammers. OR?

Paul again "Rocky
why are you going on about the British longbow being superior. I would say that its not the bow but the man. You see, what we have is the (I believe Matthew Strickland coined it)first universal soldier,"

Again, I have failed to be clear. I have never said the english longbow is superior. And I agree about the "universal soldier" idea. Your argument might be with Mike. What I said was that 70pound draw weight is typical, hisortically, for pro and semi-professional warbow world wide. 150 would be unprecidented and one of the reasons I disagree with the non-archers who read one book and decide on 100-150 bows.

Here is why understanding bow and archers matters. The first basic bow design is called a "self bow", this is just a curved stick with a string. And as draw weight goes up a few things happen. It gets more and more inefficient(less energy to the arrow versus draw weight), secondly, one side of the bow works under compression and the outer side works by steaching. The more the draw weight as reflected by thickness, the more the bow will break at the wrong time. Solutions include carefully shaping the bow all through its length from handle to tip.

Another solution is to make it longer. "Longer" reduces the differences. HOWEVER, there is no free lunch. The larger the bow, the more energy is lost just moving it around.

Another solution is to change the materials. For instance, one can have the outer part of the bow use animal sinew instead of wood, sinew streaches without breaking. And making the inner face horn which has been decalcified and becomes good under compression.

The ultimate superior bow prior to modern materials is one where there is a thin strip of wood with sinew on one side and horn on the other. Meaning that at 70#, you can make a bow under 4# that returns as much as 30% more energy than a comparable long bow.

With bow, at one end you have the classic light small game bow, and at the other hand, you have the extraordinary steppes "compostite" bow, with longbow falling somewhere in the middle range of performance.

The 5000 at agincourt were the select 5000 out of a population of some 150,000 or so yeoman archers. In short, having studied the detail bow part, the bow was middling, the archers picked were select, but hardly supermen.

Rocky

"i.e. the enfliading arrows as the French came in close and passed between the forward-angled archer "herces")."

There is considerable doubt that the term "herce" refers to forward-angled archer blocks or wedges. Even the previously understood translation of the word "herce" as "harrow" is regarded by some as incorrect and that the word is more correctly translated "hedgehog".

I know that "herce" likely refers to the way the archers stood in relation each other; and have said that this is standing in "checkerboard." The forward projecting formation is implicit in the effects of the arrows on the colums of French. (also Walsingham says that the "cloud of arrows flew again from all directions", which would be impossible unless the archers were enfilading)

Note that no contemporary chronicler uses the term "herce" in the context of Agincourt.

I thought that the original word in the Gesta was rendered "herce" by some translations. In Curry it is "wedges", signifying a forward projecting archer formation, with the men at arms refused between each "wedge" of archers. (otherwise, piercing the "sides of helmets" would be impossible)

"I don't understand why you keep bringing up that we "prove history" with wargaming. I have said that Agincourt as a wargame "proves" 70 lb longbows:"

Er … you just said it. Again! "Agincourt as a wargame "proves" 70 lb longbows" – that seems pretty clear to me.

"Only that the refights don't work with 100 lb longbows in our rules."

This is based on one HUGE assumption, that the effectiveness of 100lb bows (and 70lb bows come to that) are accurate in your rules. You attempt to demonstrate that Rocky has done all the maths and physics to "prove" this (although I note that you don't understand it yourself and take it "on faith"). I contend that if proving rules are accurate by doing all the physics was actually possible then we would all be designing rules using such proven techniques. Fact is, we don't BECAUSE THERE ARE JUST TOO MANY VARIABLES TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT. Heck, we can't even agree on the penetrative power of a longbow (see discussion above).

By the way, have you found the reference for the barded horses at Agincourt yet?

"I don't see how Brit game designers, no matter how long they've been "in the business", form some sort of elite consensus by which all other game designers are to be held up to comparison."

They don't. Although I'd like to point out that recreational wargaming started in the UK (I believe a guy called Featherstone had something to do with that) and that some of us over here have been designing wargames (many wargames, not just the one set) for a lot longer than you. The credibility is in the depth of experience. Also you may not have noticed how wargames have been getting simpler over the years. The claims to "simulating warfare of a bygone age" are long gone. Now we freely admit that we are playing games with toy soldiers. Which is exactly why the game has to be tested against history, not the other way round.

"you assert, (this must be our fault for not being clear):
Doug and Rocky:
- Design a set of rules.
- Play a game using those rules
- Claim that the game "proves" the history because the game gives a historical result

Which isn't true. You have it backwards."

Er … no, see below.

"You decided on 250yard effective, without any understanding of how bow/arrows work and penetration."

No, I took the figure from the studies of people far more skilled than I.

"I decided based on engagment ranges and tests and physics. Still don't see how this is invalid. AFTER I had the data in hand on bow effectiveness at range"

See above for why you cannot be certain as to how effective a longbow was.

"i drew up rules to reflect this in game scale … AND THEN tested the rules by walking though battles to see if history was possible in the way the rules worked."

Precisely, you designed a set of rules. You then used your "accurate" rules (they must be accurate because you worked them out "scientifically") to prove history.

"So, essentially, you got it all backwards."

Nope, seems – from your own words – that I pretty much got the size of it.

"The 5000 at agincourt were the select 5000 out of a population of some 150,000 or so yeoman archers."

This is another statement that does not appear to be based on fact. Do you understand how archers were recruited in the 15th century?

"I thought that the original word in the Gesta was rendered "herce" by some translations. In Curry it is "wedges", signifying a forward projecting archer formation, with the men at arms refused between each "wedge" of archers."

The Latin is: "intermisisset cuneos sagittariorum suorum cuilibet aciei"
Editors of the Gesta (e.g. Taylor and Roskell) were influenced in their translation of the Latin 'cuneos' as 'wedges' by the traditional view of English formations as propounded by earlier authors such as Oman and Burne, and most recent commentators have preferred the more neutral 'unit' or 'formation'.

The Latin word for wedge is 'cuneus' (pl. cunei) hence the confusion.

Rich:

"But once, however, the king thought that almost all this baggage had reached his rear, [praises to Jesus, Mary etc.], he advanced towards the enemy and the enemy, too, advanced towards him."

The king waited in his initial position until almost all the baggage had reached the place he had assigned to it at the rear of his initial position. Once almost all the baggage was there, he and his army move out. There is not the slightest indication that the baggage moved from the site behind Henry's initial position. There is certainly no source describing the baggage following the army across the battlefield. He order his baggage to form behind his initial position BEFORE he moved not WHEN he moved.

Except earlier it says: "…our king… made ready for the field, which was at no great distance from his quarters {in Maisoncelles, the "hamlet"), and…" (then follows the dispostion of the English) "…the enemy astutely kept at a distance to our front and came no nearer to us.

"When by so delaying, they had used up much of the day, both armies standing still and neither moving a foot towards the other, the king realized that the enemy host were putting off the asault he had been expecting them to make…."

(See? "initial position", waiting with the hamlet at his rear, and much of the day gone: baggage already in place behind the army's "initial position": it doesn't say anything about the baggage having been moved at all. It's still where the king originally ordered it to be.)

"And so he decided to move against them sending for the baggage in order to have it at the rear of the engagement" (and not far to the rear, still in the hamlet). Henry ordered the baggage to move up. And it was in the course of this move of the army and the following baggage that "…directly battle was joined [the pillagers] fell upon the tail end of [the baggage]."

(See? The baggage is on the move: "But once, however, the king thought that almost all this baggage had reached his rear… he advanced towards the enemy." And once "…battle [is] joined [the pillagers] [fall] upon the the tail end of it." There is no "tail end" of the baggage at the hamlet for the pillagers to attack; and no battle joined until the English have advanced from their "initial position". Our cleric is on his horse "in the rear of the engagement" (with "most all" the baggage, the other priests: and the heralds too, see below).

His first guess is that the French were afraid of the power of the missiles which our cleric claims could pierce helmets.

"either from fear of the missiles which by their very force pierced the sides and visors of their helmets"

You have revealed the weakness of your semantics argument: "could pierce", and "pierced". The Gesta writer says the fear was the piercing ("which by their very force pierced…"), not that they feared helmets could be pierced.

(Earlier comparison on another thread: you are evidently not aware, that a 4 oz missile impacting at c. 180 fps has the same energy as a .357 bullet: but all concentrated on an accute point. Bullet versus arrow: it becomes a comparison of raw, blunt kinetic energy versus the efficiency of a cut: like trying to push your finger through an apple, then using even less energy to easily thrust a nail entirely through it.)

There is no evidence that the French, on foot, feared the ‘power' of the English bow fire.

The two options, of which our cleric the Gesta writer was unsure: whether the French bunched into three columns because of flinching from the arrows, or, because of previous design. He could not tell which. In fact it does not matter. The dividing into columns compressed the French, which further hampered their fighting capacity and slowed them down.

At such an immediately close range as this provided the archers, each round of arrows into the French during this brief phase would have been very injurious or lethal: but only an archer who has shot arrows into sheet steel would know that fact.

To say the French were not afraid of the missiles but that the missiles could penetrate their helmets is dumb.

You say the idea that arrows could penetrate helmets is proven by your point-blank fire. But the only evidence you have that the archers fired point-blank fire is the idea that helmets could be penetrated by arrows. It's circular. We know helmets could be penetrated by point-blank fire and we know they fired point-blank because it was said the helmets were penetrated. To put it even more simply, We know the one because of the other and we know the other because of the one. That's pretty lousy reasoning.

Empirical experience is hardly circular anything!

You seem to be arguing from the conviction that arrows don't really pierce plate armor: which is not dumb, it's just plain ignorant.

I've done it. And it therefore becomes interesting to hear/read non archers claim that the Gesta writer didn't know what he was seeing. His testimony is proof that our modern weapons are no more or less effective than the longbows he saw in action. If you read the Gesta and say, "How is that possible? I believe that steel is impervious to arrows:" then you go out and TEST IT yourself: that breaks the circular, lousy reasoning by showing what actually works. This verifies the original sources: that claim deadly arrows and even supply such nice, specific details as saying where the arrows were penetrating and from which direction!

Instead of denigrating the Gesta writer, you could, as a researcher/game designer, be blessing his (unknown) name. These kinds of specific, graphic details are so very, very rare.

So our cleric is back with the baggage, behind Henry's initial position, on horseback, leading the other clerics in celebrating the divine office and making fervent prayer (while the heralds recorded what was happening on the battlefield).

Except that other sources don't allow the heralds any better position to see what was going on: they were evidently grouped together (Vita Henrici Quinti, Curry, page 61): "The priests and chaplains of the king were ordered to remain in divine prayers and supplications, and with the heralds in their tabards took up their offices." So have it your way: the heralds had an equally sucky "view" of the battle.

And, since this was his first battle, I think we can take his comment about arrows penetrating helmets with a grain of salt. Especially since the French never thought this.

Except Monstrelet (French) says (Curry, page 160): "…the French bowed their heads so that the arrow fire would not penetrate the visors of their helmets." (Waurin and LeFevre): "The French began to bow their heads, especially those who had no shield (pavaix), because of the English arrow fire. The English fired so vigorously that there were none who dared approach them, and the French did not dare uncover themselves or look up."

So much for not fearing the arrows, huh? This is the opening of the French advance, so there is no reference to side-on damage (as the Gesta mentions).

Mike Snorbens 24 Jul 2008 12:44 p.m. PST
By the way, have you found the reference for the barded horses at Agincourt yet?

Yes: Walsingham (Curry, page 52): "…sending the mounted men ahead who were to overwhelm our archers by the barded breasts of their horses…"; The Religieux (ibid, page 106): "…1,000 crack men at arms who had the best mounts…"; Chronique de Normandie (ibid, page 186): "…the French had appointed 300 horsemen in armor…" (redundant, "in armor", because horsemen are always armored, but the horses usually are not)

The credibility is in the depth of experience.

I'm good then: I have designed and co-designed games for over three decades: long enough to know what works and what does not.

Also you may not have noticed how wargames have been getting simpler over the years.

Ours was "the first of the simple" gaming approaches. The basic game was completed in the late 70's. Many rules systems since then have gone possibly too far the other way, too simplistic (over-abstracted).

Now we freely admit that we are playing games with toy soldiers. Which is exactly why the game has to be tested against history, not the other way round.

Always was our original approach. Rocky responded well. We started with information, we questioned it, we tested and researched and duplicated to get confirmed information; then the rules derived out of that, and we played historical battles to see if the rules as conceived and carried out simulated historical results.