"The Effective Archery Debate" Topic

Hi

Hmmm. Again, were to discuss this?

Rich. Part of the problem is that elsewhere in the thread we have people discussing soft pull, short pull "heavy" bows as in mass and dozens of things that make any response to ONE turning confusing a different post.

the "like rain" comes to mind.

As I said, when an arrow is launched at maximum range, the launch angle is 43degrees(45 is usually assumed but drag makes it 43..lots of physics there involving things like sectional density). Impact angle from the same forces is ca 56degrees, not 90.

HOWEVER, one can get 90. As a kid in a indian/mexican neighborhood, old men would teach us proper indian bow construction, and we would, indeed practice shooting straight up to hit a target on the other side of a fence or house. Stupid, I agree, but I don't know that this happened at agincourt.

Penetration is another issue. I have not seen the pierced helmet bit or the data anywhere, nor did I test this, so I stand silent.

What I did discover is that if one uses a proper bodkin it "tips" into the target sometimes, reducing an impact angle of 45degrees to 15 or less improving the chances of penetration.

In most places, "disruption" means the fear of casualties causes a loss of control in the unit. But that fear involves the fact of some people being killed or injured.

As I said, the kill rate from any missile any period is low. Unlike the fanboys I don't believe in the 150# bow superwarrior who shoots and kills every shot. Volley fire exists because a lot of rounds on target, like shrapnel or cannister, produces enough casualties to cause morale problems.

Which means that we may be agreeing but from different directions.

R

Up front I want to apologize about my comments about the Gesta not mentioning "tail end." Evidently when I transcribed the Gesta comments into my note keeping program I had inadvertently left out the term ‘tail'. When I went back and looked at the quote in Curry's book I discovered my error. Again, my apologies. Having said that I must point out that having a "tail end" does not define where the ‘head' end is. We know the clerics position. It was behind Henry's initial battle set up. Since the Gesta mentions the ‘tail end' I think it safe to say that where the cleric stood, behind Henry, was the ‘head end'. And, where the cleric stood was behind Henry and his first initial position.

Curry: "She places Henry's first position at the spot called la Cloyelle, and the French on the higher ground, "at the mouth of the funnel" between the woods at the spot called les Soixante: this establishes the described "1,000 paces" between them."

With all due respect to Ann Curry, she is making certain assumptions about the battlefield which cannot be substantiated in the sources. For example, she is assuming that the battlefield that existed when she walked it looked similar to the battlefield as it existed in the early 15th century. Thus she describes the ‘tunnel' effect of the woods. Over fifty years prior to her writing, Burne walked the battlefield and described it as rectangular; no mention of a tunnel. Ten years after Curry's book Juliet Barker also walked the battlefield and stated it is impossible to describe the battlefield of 1415 as it looks today:

"Most important of all, the woods which six hundred years ago played such a critical part in limiting the field action are gone. Though many trees remain on the periphery, these are of relatively recent growth and cannot be take as the literal boundaries of the original site or even as the direct descendants of the fifteenth-century woodland.

The only real information we can go on is what is contained in the primary sources.

Here is a point in which I disagree with her analysis of what the Gesta wrote.

Curry: "The Gesta's interpretation is that this was to protect the baggage, by not leaving it exposed at a distance from the army.

As I already pointed out, the Gesta linked the weakness of being spread out in the hamlet and its environs to being gathered together for defensive purposes. One may interpret that this also relates to distance from the army but the Gesta does not say that. He only says it was gathered to Henry's rear for the protection of the baggage.

Next let's look at her other two possible reasons for consolidating the baggage and see if they provide any argument for keeping the baggage with the army as it moves to battle with the French. 1. Rear defense. The only attack the French can make to Henry's rear is one developed by swing around the two woods on either side. Henry's initial position had his flanks secured by upper end the woods. Blocking access to the battlefield here, at the top of the woods, provides as good rear support as moving the baggage with the army. In other words, you don't have to move the baggage from this initial position in order to provide rear support for Henry's army.

2. In the case of defeat, to be able to get the baggage quickly away from the battle scene. Now this reason is a good argument for leaving the baggage where it was, near the road Henry had been following before he was stopped by the French. Pulling the wagons through the mud and muck of the battlefield would only slow down the efforts of the baggage to get quickly away in the event of a defeat.

None of Curry's tactical suppositions provide a reason for having the baggage follow the English army through the mud of the battlefield. He didn't need the cleric to observe the battlefield as that was the job of his heralds. In the event of a defeat, Henry would want he stuff to get quickly away and not to have fight the mud in order to do so. The logical step is to have the baggage near the road where it can get quickly away.

Doug: "Yet the baggage cannot remain immediately behind where Henry's first line was, or else moving them "no great distance" from the encampment would simply reproduce too much separation with the army: …"

Too much separation for what? Where it was, behind the first battle position, provides rear support and it allow the baggage to get away quicker than if it had to first fallback through the mud.

Doug: "…; worse even, since "no great distance" cannot be the same as "1,000 paces"?!

Why not? The term "no great distance" is far too nebulous a term to be translated in length estimates.

Doug: "For moving it at all to make any tactical sense, it must remain "at no great distance" where the army was moving to." [Doug emphasized ‘to' with italics. However, I'm too lazy to learn how to do this with my posts.]

Tis not true. As has had been pointed out there are several good tactical reasons for keeping the baggage back behind Henry's first battlefield position.

Doug: "this means that the Gesta's description of the French advancing as the English advanced is correct."

But the Gesta does not say the French advanced as the English advanced. The Gesta says, "he advanced towards the enemy and the enemy also advanced towards him." Henry advanced towards the French and the French advanced towards the English can easily be read as sequential movements. First the English advanced and then the French advanced. But this points up the weakness of trying to establish an accurate account from a single source. Wauren and Lefevre give much better accounted of the English and French movements than does the Gesta. Even Tito gives a better more detailed account of the movement of these two armies.

Doug: "It should be getting obvious, that if Curry is at all accurate in reconstructing the English encampment position, first English army position, second English army position, French encampment, battle engagement position, that there is not even 600 yards between the first position and second position where battle was joined."

If she is accurate. The only way to check her accuracy is to cross-reference her statements with the sources. If she is placing the armies closer that what the sources say, then I suggest her estimates of positions if off.

Doug: "…despite all your efforts to fix him in place, …"

I'm not fixing him in place the sources are.

Doug: "Rich, Tito ONLY got his information secondhand; he wasn't there, but "our cleric" was."

That's simply not true. Tito is getting his information from the same people that the cleric used to get his information about the battle. Neither were eyewitnesses of the battle. Both had to rely on the participants of the battle for their description of the battle.

Doug, "Really? Can you quote where she says he was a poor battle witness?"

I don't have to. If you look at one of my responses above you will see where I quoted her and the highlights I used to emphasize that point.

Doug, "I'm not calling you weak, just your argument."

Oh, I never took it as a personal comment. I have a wife for those."

Doug, "You toss the point entirely: to be describing accurately what made the French bunch into three attack columns, "our cleric" must see pierced helmets on the ground at that place where the columns were formed; not here and there and everywhere else. Pierced helmets anywhere else BUT there would make "our cleric" a manipulator of facts to suit his narrative. We have no reason to assume he was that kind of writer."

All I rejected was the Gesta's guess that it was fear of the power of the longbow that made the French split into three columns. The comment about piercing helmets was only used as an example of the power of the longbow.

Doug, :[that] would make "our cleric" a manipulator of facts to suit his narrative."

Of course he was a manipulator of facts to suit his narrative. All the chroniclers were, not just him. His point in writing his chronicle was not to present an ‘objective' view of the battle. Rather, his objective was to show the power and majesty of Henry V. For a terrific discussion of this fact read Curry's section on ‘The End of Battle and the Killing of the Prisoners' in "Agincourt A New History" beginning on page 212.

Rich

With all due respect to Ann Curry, she is making certain assumptions about the battlefield which cannot be substantiated in the sources. For example, she is assuming that the battlefield that existed when she walked it looked similar to the battlefield as it existed in the early 15th century.

She does quite the exact opposite. Are you even reading the same books I am?

Thus she describes the ‘tunnel' effect of the woods. Over fifty years prior to her writing, Burne walked the battlefield and described it as rectangular; no mention of a tunnel. Ten years after Curry's book Juliet Barker also walked the battlefield and stated it is impossible to describe the battlefield of 1415 as it looks today:

Funnel, not tunnel, effect: the woods were wider apart at the French end and narrowed the field between toward the English end.

We can assume that contour elevations of a plowed field today would be almost identical to the contours of the very same plowed field in 1415. She was comparing original sources about the English and French camps being visible to each other the night before the battle; and the position of the French army agreeing with the sources as well. Curry admits that the woods today are not the same as in 1415. Let's not make this any more difficult than it already is.

The only real information we can go on is what is contained in the primary sources.

Not true. Whenever we have the actual field, largely unchanged (a rare occurance for medieval battles), we are most fortunate. Although Curry admits, "Locating the armies on the ground is impossible, however", she goes on to give it her best shot: the best of any writer to date that I have seen. (I like this girl's mind!)

As I already pointed out, the Gesta linked the weakness of being spread out in the hamlet and its environs to being gathered together for defensive purposes. One may interpret that this also relates to distance from the army but the Gesta does not say that. He only says it was gathered to Henry's rear for the protection of the baggage.

You are not taking into account the Gesta's description of where the baggage/camp was in relation to Henry's first position: "…at no great distance…" He orders the baggage to move in order to remain "at no great distance", otherwise, why move it in the first place?

Curry points out that the first position was where Henry could see the French (what could be more necessary!). That means the English army had to be where "la Cloyelle" is on the map or even closer to Agincourt; that means the baggage in its original position also must be "at no great distance", i.e. in practical contact with the army.

The logical step is to have the baggage near the road where it can get quickly away.

If the baggage was strung along the track between Tramecourt and Agincourt, that would work well enough. Personally, I think the "baggage ready to run" hypothesis is only partially feasible: in the event of a defeat, given any time to reach the baggage at all, the army would have gotten to horse there at once and grabbed any instantly retrievable items possible, then fled, leaving all the wagons behind.

Doug: "Yet the baggage cannot remain immediately behind where Henry's first line was, or else moving them "no great distance" from the encampment would simply reproduce too much separation with the army: …"

Too much separation for what?

To make use of the baggage as per Henry's original plan (first position). In that original position the baggage/camp was "at no great distance". Moving it up would only make sense if Henry was intending to reestablish the same proximity of baggage park to the army's battle line.

Where it was, behind the first battle position, provides rear support and it allow the baggage to get away quicker than if it had to first fallback through the mud.

As I said, wagons would be abandoned anyway, imho. Only a mounted force could get away from a mounted pursuing enemy.

And imho your picture of the woods back then is not accurate: you seem to see the woods as an impenetrable obstacle to French movement, yet defeated cavalry are described as moving away through the woods. All the woods could do was slow down an enemy move and defeat a charge by horsemen, and probably limit missile fire as well (as would be expected).

Doug: "…; worse even, since "no great distance" cannot be the same as "1,000 paces"?!

Why not? The term "no great distance" is far too nebulous a term to be translated in length estimates.

I have told you what "at no great distance" means to me in wargaming terms. You continue to be nebulous, and seem here to prefer keeping it that way. I don't work like that.

So, how do you define "close" then? Or "far away"? Or "too far away"?

I should think, given the combined details in the Gesta, that "rear" and "behind the engagement" and "at no great distance", plus his detail that he was mounted (i.e. could see over the heads of infantry between himself and the French), all combine to give a clear picture of a baggage line not very far at all from the conflict. But you can choose your own mileage.

[Doug emphasized ‘to' with italics….]

(Diversion to reveal some HTML tags -- leave the periods out when you do it: <.q.>text<./q.>

puts text into a quoted text box: (only on TMP, interfacing with Bill's Site codes)

<.q.> at the first of each paragraph, followed at the end of the entire quoted part by the same number of ending tags <./q.>, puts quoted boxes inside each other.

. I use that to separate the original quote and the response, that I am responding to. <.i.>text<./i.> italicises the text in between the tags. <.b.>text<./b.> bolds the text between the tags. End diversion.)

Henry advanced towards the French and the French advanced towards the English can easily be read as sequential movements.

It doesn't really matter, except to help locate the actual contact for battle on the field: I go with the obvious reading (as you so consistently advise, not reading less obvious meanings into the text), as does Curry, and have the French move forward as soon as they can see the English doing so.

If she is accurate. The only way to check her accuracy is to cross-reference her statements with the sources. If she is placing the armies closer that what the sources say, then I suggest her estimates of positions if off.

She's not perfect, but she's a stickler for accuracy. She HAS used ALL the sources, and refers to them throughout her own book on Agincourt: it's how she managed to place the armies where she does. So go double-check her yourself: I have.

Neither were eyewitnesses of the battle. Both had to rely on the participants of the battle for their description of the battle.

Well, that's what this little back-and-forth is all about isn't it? I say, "eyewitness", and you say, "blind praying priest a sixth of a mile away". Tito was NOT THERE. "Our cleric" was, the instant the battle was finished; he didn't have to rely on what others told him about where the dead were piled, how many prisoners were shot through the temples, had their brains scattered or their throats cut; what people said immediately afterward, etc. and etc. One is an eyewitness account; the other is writing ONLY from what others told him.

Doug, "Really? Can you quote where she says he was a poor battle witness?"

I don't have to. If you look at one of my responses above you will see where I quoted her and the highlights I used to emphasize that point.

Of course you don't have to. But to not oblige with what you have your fingers on, and make me waste my time looking (when we have requoted ourselves, each other and the sources already), is not friendly or polite.

Of course he was a manipulator of facts to suit his narrative. All the chroniclers were, not just him.

There's a difference in deliberately changing/distorting facts to suit some agenda, and misleading with false graphic details.

An utter lack of bodies pierced through their helmets where the French divided into three attack columns, would make the statement about WHY they divided into a false one.

That didn't work the way I intended: (Diversion to reveal some HTML tags -- leave the periods out when you do it: <.q.>text<./q.>

puts text into a quoted text box: (only on TMP, interfacing with Bill's Site codes)

<.q.> at the first of each piece of text, followed at the end of the entire quoted part by the same number of ending tags <./q.>,

puts quote boxes inside each other. I use that to separate the original quote and the response, that I am responding to.

<.i.>text<./i.> italicises the text in between the tags. <.b.>text<./b.> bolds the text between the tags. End diversion.)

Found it (I wish you were more cooperative):

Rich Knapton 23 Jul 2008 5:31 p.m. PST

"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]

Nowhere does Curry say the Gesta writer was a "poor witness". She simply cautions us on the limitations in his narrative: it does not give a "conclusive" description of the movements or events of the battle. No single source ever does that.

Hi

I just realized what has happened in this "debate".

Essentially, each of us is quoting a source, hardy, pope, curry et al, on the basis of "they say this and prove you wrong, except I will ignore them when they disagree with ME"

Grin.

And none of this answers the original thread question!

R

I will be away for c. a week. Ttfn.

Doug, "Of course you don't have to. But to not oblige with what you have your fingers on, and make me waste my time looking (when we have requoted ourselves, each other and the sources already), is not friendly or polite."

I don't have to. Meaning I've already addressed the issue. I find that is neither unfriendly nor impolite. It is a simple statement of fact. You object it is a waste of your time to have to look up my earlier response. Had you read my earlier response you would not have had to ask the question. It is a bit irritating to provide the answer, with quotes and all, and then asked to answer it again as if I had never answered before. As far as a waste of time, I think it far easier for you to look up my earlier response, since you obviously didn't pay it any attention in the first place, than for me to replicate what I had already written.

Doug, "Nowhere does Curry say the Gesta writer was a "poor witness". She simply cautions us on the limitations in his narrative: it does not give a "conclusive" description of the movements or events of the battle. No single source ever does that."

Except when this is the only source she singles out for that warning.

Rocky, "And none of this answers the original thread question!"

Original question, "Why is it so difficult for the effectivenes of the English longbow to be credited on the battlefield – or have I been reading and watching dodgey material?"

It seems to me that discovering in what manner the arrows were fired is germain to the question. The issue between Doug and I is on the manner of firing. Whether it was perpendicular or high-angle plunging or both. This comes down to whether the writer of the Gesta was an eyewitness to the battle.

Rich

Doug, "Not true. Whenever we have the actual field, largely unchanged"

There is no documentary proof for that statement. For all we know the woods on both sides could have been destroyed several times and we would not have even known it. As Juliet Barker wrote, " Though many trees remain on the periphery, these are of relatively recent growth and cannot be take as the literal boundaries of the original site or even as the direct descendants of the fifteenth-century woodland."

Doug, "One is an eyewitness account; the other is writing ONLY from what others told him."

I think you are a bit confused about what an eyewitness is. An eyewitness is one who is reporting what he actually saw. Gesta was too far away to actually see the events going on during the battlefield. Thus what he reports about the battle had to be told to him by participants of the battle. In this case he is in the same boat as Tito. Tito also has to depend, for his information, on people who were actually on the battlefield. Take for example the Pseudo-Elham. Much of his information came from Walter Huntington who fought alongside Henry. Now, Huntington was an eyewitness while the writer of the Gesta was not. He was 600 yards to the rear with the baggage.

Doug, "An utter lack of bodies pierced through their helmets where the French divided into three attack columns, would make the statement about WHY they divided into a false one."

We already established it was a false one. The reason they divided was to attack the English at three points in the English battle lines where the command flags were located.

Doug, "She's not perfect, but she's a stickler for accuracy. She HAS used ALL the sources, and refers to them throughout her own book on Agincourt: it's how she managed to place the armies where she does."

I've prepared another posting discussing her account of how far apart the armies were.

Rich

OK, Gesta tells us the clerics and the baggage were gathered behind Henry. Tito has Henry telling the clerics to stay where they are while men-at-arms and the archers march off. Henry assigned certain ‘servants' to remain with the baggage to help protect it. These were not domestics. Archers were often called ‘servants'. Henry ordered the baggage to form behind him. He told them to stay there and assigned certain soldiers to help protect the baggage. The question is now how far back from the battle was the baggage.

Curry probably gives the best discussion of positions on the battlefield. However, she warns us, "It is impossible to plot positions on the map since we do not know where either side established themselves." [p 173] … "Locating the armies on the ground is impossible, however." [p 198]

Nevertheless, she goes on to record the different estimated ranges between the English and French lines from the various chroniclers. "Titus Livius, 250 paces" This I think is an error. Titus states "The enemy armies were distance from each other for scarcely two or three bow shots." [p 60]. I don't know where she got the 250 paces; "LeFevre and Waurin, with a distance of a quarter of a league mentioned [1,500 yards]". "Monstrelet expresses the gap as three bowshots." A bowshot can be taken to be around 150 metres. [p 174]" "Walsingham gives the distance between them at the outset as 1,000 paces which we can take to mean about 1,000 metres." "Given the debate on how far the longbow could reach, it is interesting to note that the Pseudo-Elham gives the distance as three bowshots, perhaps 450-500 metres."

Here's a recap of the estimated distances between the English and French lines.

1. Titus Livius, ………………….250 yards
1a. Titus Livius, three bowshots …. .450 yards (correction)
2. LeFevre and Waurin, …………..1,500 yards
3. Monstrelet, three bowshots, ……..450 yards.
4. Walsingham, ………………….1,000 yards
5. Pseudo-Elham, three bowshots,…… 450-500 yards

So which estimate did she chose with her attempt to locate the armies on the ground?

"From my reading of the field, the most likely position for his line is on a rough alignment with the church and chateau of Tramecourt, in the area described on the map as Le Cloyelle." [p 198] … "This suggests first English position also fits well with the distances between his lines and those of the French. Measuring 1,000 metres northwards places [the French] front line in the area on the map called Les Soixant."

She chose Walsingham's estimate of a 1,000 yards. This means the baggage and the clerics were 1,000 yards to the rear of the Henry's 2nd battle line.

Notice, those who presented linear measurements (LeFevre, Waurin, and Walsingham) pretty much agree for a distance of around 1,000 yards. Titus Livius, Monstrelet, and Pseudo-Elham describe the distance in bowshots, 450 yards. The only reason the these three present such a shortened distance is the arbitrary range of 150 yards assigned to a bowshot by Curry. It makes no sense that Monstrelet would be that off from LeFevre and Wauren. Both Titus and Pseudo-Elham got a lot of their information from the officers who had fought in the battle. In fact, much of Pseudo-Elham's information came from Walter Huntington who fought along side Henry. Curry doesn't attempt to reconcile these two groups; why such a discrepancy? I think Curry is off by a factor of 2. The actual interpretation of a bowshot is closer to 300 yards. This would make Monstrelet, Titus, and Pseudo-Elham's estimates of three bowshots closer to the two eyewitness of the battle, LeFevre and Wauren, and Walsingham, whom Curry followed. Three bowshot would be around 900 yards. Thus I think the distance between the two armies was about 900-1,000 yards.

Rich

Hi

Rich, i have repeately outlined my approach with primary and secondary sources, doing math, and testing both the sources and math in the real world to reach a conclusion.

I am unclear what your conclusion on the subject is and what it means.

so, were arrows responsible for killing frenchmen or was it all the melee?

R

The bowmen were to disorganize the French so the English men-at-arms would have the advantage in the hand-to-hand combat.

That is, however, beyond the scope of the question for this thread. :)))

Rich

Hi

Rich, so start a thread!

I am unclear on what you mean!

So, start the thread, present your thesis. I expect to learn from you.

R

What? For Free? You'll just have to wait for the published article.

Rich

Doug, "Nowhere does Curry say the Gesta writer was a "poor witness". She simply cautions us on the limitations in his narrative: it does not give a "conclusive" description of the movements or events of the battle. No single source ever does that."

Except when this is the only source she singles out for that warning.

And she said the reason for the warning: the Gesta is so complete and detailed compared to all the other sources, that it is tempting to use only it for a seminal narrative examination of the battle. So Curry's warning was to not use only the Gesta, not that the Gesta was a poor source!

Doug, "Not true. Whenever we have the actual field, largely unchanged"

There is no documentary proof for that statement. For all we know the woods on both sides could have been destroyed several times and we would not have even known it. As Juliet Barker wrote, " Though many trees remain on the periphery, these are of relatively recent growth and cannot be take as the literal boundaries of the original site or even as the direct descendants of the fifteenth-century woodland."

It isn't the woods, Rich, it's the contours, the line of sight, that is critical. Surely that has not been changed a jot by farming, since the field was farmed at the time of the battle, the villages are still villages and still there, etc. The woods are not germane to the subject of locating Hal V's first and second postions, (ergo, the camp "at no great distance" from the first postion), and the French camp: equally important is establishing the most likely contact point, which depends on the accuracy of combined sources to provide the most likely picture: which says the French and English camped within sight of each other. Curry established the most likely place for the English first postion, the rest follows: the woods are only germane to the effects on limiting battle frontage.

I think you are a bit confused about what an eyewitness is. An eyewitness is one who is reporting what he actually saw.

Hardly confused. No one (but you, so far as I know) says the Gesta writer was not an eyewitness to the battle. He was eyewitness to the aftermath of the battle, at the very least, mere minutes after the fighting was concluded.

Curry is critical in assessing that the Gesta contains no "conclusive" description of the movements of the armies to engage, or the progress of the battle as a whole; that's all; she doesn't infere anywhere that the cleric was blind to events.

Waurin and La Fevre are remiss in more details than the cleric is; but actually the three combined provide almost all the important details; all of the other sources are merely auxiliary by comparison.

Doug, "An utter lack of bodies pierced through their helmets where the French divided into three attack columns, would make the statement about WHY they divided into a false one."

We already established it was a false one. The reason they divided was to attack the English at three points in the English battle lines where the command flags were located.

This is not accurate recollection on your part, then: you at first flatly denied that helmets were in actual fact pierced at all, and said it was the cleric's imagined explanation for why the French bunched into three attack columns. Then you accepted that helmets were in fact pierced in the sides, but that these could only have been prisoners! The stated TWO possible causes for the bunching into three attack columns were fear of helmets being pierced or prior design on the part of the French. Naturally the cleric did not know enough, even after asking questions, to satisfy himself that it was wholely one motivation or the other; so he stated both: a clear indication of a conscientious writer who wants to get his facts right.

So for the arrows piercing the sides of helmets to be a viable explanation at all, there would have to be numbers of French dead out in front of the English line where the bunching into three columns took place; not lying in heaps only behind the battleline where the prisoners were murdered.

A bowshot can be taken to be around 150 metres.

Assuming a longe range shot, it would be closer to 250 to 300 yards.

She chose Walsingham's estimate of a 1,000 yards. This means the baggage and the clerics were 1,000 yards to the rear of the Henry's 2nd battle line.

Nope. Not according to her excellent map ( picture ):which would place the second position not even 500 yards away from the first position. She chose Walsingham's because it places the French best in agreement with the statements on where they camped.

Curry is evidently dependant on the writings of others for her archery range understanding: your assessment of the distance being "300 yards" is correct: actually the longest shots with a longbow are in excess of 300 yards, making 1,000 yards plus.

We're just going to have to disagree on the meaning of "eyewitness or not" for "our cleric."

I place the baggage directly behind Henry's second position to maintian the same relationship as the original, "at no great distance": you don't want to: that's fine.

I end by saying that both direct and plunging shots were employed. You insist on plunging shots only: which makes absolute mockery out of the Gesta's specific eyewitness detail about the French actively being killed through the sides of their helmets as the battle was in progress. Do as you will. I believe I have said all I can on this subject (and repeatedly at that)….

I'm done.

Rich