"Battle-line at Agincourt" Topic

In response to Rocky's request, I have started a new thread. This is a continuation of the end of the "Recurve composite horse-bow vs. longbow?" topic. It is the intent of this topic to be very specific. It is not why the French lost. The simple question is, given that line A was an approximation of the English battle-line. Why didn't the French attack the archers and threaten the English rear. I continue:

My question: "So I'm left here without an answer as to why the French men-at-arms didn't attack the archers drive them from the battle-line and take the English men-at-arms in the rear? They did it in the past and was successful. Why didn't they do it at Agincourt?"

Doug's response: "And I am giving you the most plausible answer: the timing was off. The mounted attacks were assigned the duty of occupying the longbowmen on the wings. Instead, the cavalry vanished, the longbowmen shot up the French first battle as it advanced to attack the English men at arms, then attacked them hand to hand as well. There was never an opportunity for the French to alter their attack plan once it was launched."

I drew up a sketch of the English and French lines of battle.

link

A is the battle-line as you have described it following the Gesta. B represent the French battle-line contained in their standing orders. C is the French battle-line broken into three columns as you suggested again based on the Gesta. And D is how historians have envisioned the French attack as described by the Gesta.

Battle-line A shows the archers in the center of the English battle-line. As has been shown at Constance (1356), Nogent (1359), Auray (1364), and Cocherel (1364), English archers were simply unable to stop or even seriously impede the French dismounted attacks. And, in some cases the archers were driven from the field by the dismounted French men-at-arms. The inability of the archers to standup to the attack of the French men-at-arms clearly indicate that when it came to hand-to-hand combat having archers in the battle-line one creates weak points in the battle-line. My question is why didn't the French attack these weak points, drive the archers away and take the English men-at-arms in the rear?

Doug's response, There was never an opportunity for the French to alter their attack plan once it was launched." , ignores the fact that the standing orders were to attack as a single unit. The French altered this plan after they had launched their attack by forming three columns partway into their advance on the English. Their standing order has the French formed as in B. Part way through the attack they shift into C.

This shows quite clearly the French were able to alter their plans even after their attack was underway. So Doug's assertion that they couldn't alter the formation once the attack was underway is clearly inadequate. Not only that, but Doug's view of the three columns have the French purposely avoiding the archers. And, as they advanced on the English men-at-arms offering their flanks to be fired upon by the archers. So, I keep coming back to the question: "Why didn't the French attack the weak points in the English line where the archers were positioned. Why did they purposely change formation, avoid the archers and allow the archers to fire into their flanks?"

Mike Snorbens: I said previously:
"My view is that the English men-at-arms formed in three bodies, with archers in the gaps between, on the flanks and also in front of the men at arms. This means that the entire frontage presented by the English army could engage with archery as soon as the French came within range. And indeed, why should they do anything else, since the whole aim (excuse the pun) was to beat the French with archery, if possible before they reached the men-at-arms."

Yes, I recognize that as the Ann Curry gambit. The problem lies in how one translates the phrases "He had his battle drawn up by a knight grey with age called Thomas Erpingham, putting the archers in the front and then the men-at-arms. He made two wings of men-at-arms and archers," One could also interpret that to mean the archers were in advance of the men-at-arms. It does not have to mean ‘directly in front'. Thus the archers in the diagram are in front (in advance) of the men-at-arms but not directly in front.

You asked:
"My question is why didn't the French attack these weak points, drive the archers away and take the English men-at-arms in the rear?"

My answer is that the archers in front of the MAA could withdraw through them, the archers in the gaps conform to this movement, thus forming a second line, so that if the French were daft enough to attempt to take the MAA in the rear they would be in turn attacked in the flank or rear by the archers.

I think these kinds of sophisticated maneuvers were far beyond the capacity of 15th century armies. These were not Sharp's Rifles. And the men-at-arms were not British infantry. With archers falling back between their ranks, and archers falling back on their flanks, and French men-at-arms penetrating where the archers were on the flanks of the English men-at-arms, the French would need to have to swing around and hit the English in the rear. The English men-at-arms would have disintegrated long before they were hit the rear.

Incidentally, your diagrams show the archers in a wedge formation. There is very little, if any contemporary evidence for such a formation and a number of scholars have now dismissed it as a possibility.

From your Muse Ann Curry, "It has been suggested they were arrayed in triangular-shaped formation with the apex towards the enemy." Then she presents another possible translation. " The relevant phase can be interpreted as meaning, however, that each battle had archers within it." But she doesn't not come down on either side of the question. "Logic suggests that whichever interpretation is accepted the archers have to be in front of the men-at-arms." Evidently the outstanding authority of Agincourt certainly hasn't dismissed the possibility (this was in 2005). So what scholars are you talking about?

Rocky: "Your vision on Doug's three columns isn't correct."

Good. That's why I put the setup in graphic form. All that I had from Doug was that they were divided into three columns. The graphic shows three columns. If you will tell me what he meant by that I'll change the graphic.

Rich

What about the fact that the woods tapered inward like a funnel towards the English,the stake barriers, and those pesky crossbowmen that got ridden down? I thought these were things that prevented the French from flanking the English line, also that the woods were too dense to ride through. After so much rain, the fields were supposedly such quagmires that the French charge never got up to speed, and the arrow hit horses were balking at advancing, and in some cases throwing their riders. This leaving obsticals that interupted the second wave's charge.

Much like in the Napoleonic era, where it was frowned upon for Ships of the Line to fire on enemy frigates, unless fired on by them first, it may be similar in nature (assuming you buy they premise that they purposefully avoided the archers).

Granted, the archers would have been firing on the French knights, and men at arms, but maybe they thought they should attack their equals, or near equals first, e.g. the English men at arms. Alternatively, maybe it was best not to attack directly at them, since you might get an arrow through the eyeslit.

Given the thinking of the day, the former might explain at least part of the issue, assuming their armor was proof against most arrows.

Sadly, I doubt we will ever know, definitively.

"I think these kinds of sophisticated maneuvers were far beyond the capacity of 15th century armies. … With archers falling back between their ranks, and archers falling back on their flanks, and French men-at-arms penetrating where the archers were on the flanks of the English men-at-arms, the French would need to have to swing around and hit the English in the rear. The English men-at-arms would have disintegrated long before they were hit the rear."

The idea that medieval armies were incapable of even moderately complex tactics is losing support in academia. The tactics employed in some battles of the WOTR are really quite sophisticated. Bearing in mind that the English army at Agincourt was not a feudal mass of poorly trained troops but rather trained professional troops then such simple evolutions are quite possible.

What about the fact that the woods tapered inward like a funnel towards the English,the stake barriers, and those pesky crossbowmen that got ridden down? I thought these were things that prevented the French from flanking the English line, also that the woods were too dense to ride through. After so much rain, the fields were supposedly such quagmires that the French charge never got up to speed, and the arrow hit horses were balking at advancing, and in some cases throwing their riders. This leaving obsticals that interupted the second wave's charge.

You're mixing up Crecy and Agincourt: there were no crossbowmen "ridden down" at Agincourt.

And the contemporary sources for Agincourt describe routing French cavalry riding into the woods, so they were not dense enough to absolutely forbid horses moving through them.

The "funnel" effect of the woods should not be exaggerated: it is very slight today and probably always has been.

There was no "second wave charge": the second battle of dismounted men at arms moved up and began to get into contact only after the first dismounted battle had been defeated and was routing back on them. In effect the second "wave" never amounted to anything except getting in the way and causing more death to the first "wave" (the danger of fighting in column of divisions in any period).

Hi

My friends, I think we could spawn about 4 discussions out of THIS one. Grin.

I think it is cool that, with time, we are writing more as friends rather than contenders.

I dispute the "15th century" idea. I would step aside and note that in 15th century italy, one commonly sees fairly sophisiticated drill. The compairson with "sharpe's rifles" is one of the traps we tend to fall into. That is, there is a concept in psychology called "proactive inhibition" the short version is that what one knows gets in the way of new learning. If one starts with Nappy, it is easy to get confused when reversing to earlier, presumably, more primitive eras. Rather, the problems with a thin 2 or 3 deep line are very different from the drill when troops are commonly 8 to 20 men deep.

But I digressed.

If memory serves, it is commonly shown that the layout is tree to tree, with wedges of stakes interspersed with MAA. The practicality of the 3 wedges of stakes with archers verus one is one I prefer as an archer understanding those limits.

And we need to define how we mean our terms. By nappy standards, all "lines" qualify as a column being very deep and working with following the file leader rather than the super thin nappy line where sergents with spontoons dress the line. This changes the dynamic of how a unit advances and how it exploits a flank.

As I said, we could have a lot of very geeky topics started here. Outside of the 6 regulars, does anyone CARE?

Grinning.

R

I think the major issue at Agincourt was the mud – the French did not have sufficient time to get up to speed to make a charge and walking into combat against longbowmen protected by stakes is never pleasant. So, regardless of which formation they were in – if you have a mass of men slow moving into archery fire – not charging – then it makes for a killing ground – especially when if you fell your chance of drowning in the mud were near the same as that of being hit and actually killed by the arrows in the first place. Just my musings based on my scant reading on the battle.

Rocky, please don't bring in Napoleonics. In the words of those two famous social critics Cheech and Chong, "We don't need no stinking Napoleonics!" As far as disputing the 15th century idea, you can't. That's when they fought. With regards to war in Italy, except for a short period with the White Company, they were fought with urban militia infantry and knights or, when urban militia were no longer used, by just mounted knights. Let's investigate the wars in northern France in terms of how wars were fought in northern France.

Mike Snorbins: "Bearing in mind that the English army at Agincourt was not a feudal mass of poorly trained troops but rather trained professional troops then such simple evolutions are quite possible."

Not even remotely. Late medieval battles were won when one side pierced the battle-line of the other. The battle-line that was pierced then disintegrates. Your view would give the French open channels to walk through the English battle-line. No late medieval battle-line could sustain that. In any event, we have no account of the English battle-line being pierced like this. So we are back to the question why didn't the French attempt to pierce the Engish battle-line by going through the archers?

Rich

Rocky: "Your vision on Doug's three columns isn't correct."

Good. That's why I put the setup in graphic form. All that I had from Doug was that they were divided into three columns. The graphic shows three columns. If you will tell me what he meant by that I'll change the graphic.

Rich

You don't show any "base" to the French first battle as it divides into columns.

I don't believe that it separated at the "base", because I don't believe the division into three columns was intended until they got to the point of doing it. The extreme pressure engendered by "flinching" away from the arrow strikes (c. 1,500 direct shots every five seconds into 400 to 500 exposed outer rank men at arms), tended to squeeze the French first battle into three forward slogging columns: as I said already, more like appendages extending toward the English battles. At the "base" of the three forming columns was still the main mass of c. 5,000 men pressing forward, aware only of the near-vertically dropping arrow storm from the archers in the back ranks: unaware of the killing ground that their front rank brethren were trying to wade through: and totally unaware of when the "wall" of fallen comrades was forming across their front: the rear mass in the "base" of the French first battle kept pushing forward, causing that "tumbling effect" noted so clearly and graphically described in the Gesta. Keegan says it began to form down the sides of the columns as well, and then the French men at arms were effectively stopped. All inner, forward pressure simply set up an irresistible force on those in melee contact, causing them to be pushed into the English, and trip over the fallen, mingled with the wounded and the dead, adding to the "wall" of the living who could not get to their feet again.

The timing of this twin phenomenon -- the growing "wall" of fallen bodies along the front and flanks of the French columns, and the continuing forward pressure from the inner mass of French men at arms -- is what forms our explanation of why the archers did not get attacked. Certainly there were French men at arms who thought that attacking the archers was the smart thing to do in the circumstances: but because of events, we ought to conclude that their opinion was smothered in the crowd dynamics of the disaster. Any individual men at arms who tried to break ranks and rush the stakes were no doubt quickly dispatched.

It boils down to reality compared to the hypothetical pre-planning of the French to rush the archers: the French might have planned to attack the archers as part of an assault on the entire English battle line, but the reality of the arrow storm ruined that plan.

At Agincourt, we possibly see the paramount example of the English arrow storm at its peak of efficient application: the muddy ground allowing the longer time for the arrows to take greater effect: the horrendous mass of the arrow vollies at an intensity like in no previous battles: the complete lack of experience of the French with such an ordeal (there would not be any way to train for such an experience): all formed conditions to make them slow, flinch away from the arrows, and compress into the three columns that finally, feebly made contact with the English men at arms.

"Not even remotely. Late medieval battles were won when one side pierced the battle-line of the other. The battle-line that was pierced then disintegrates."

No, the battle line that is out-flanked disintegrates.

"Your view would give the French open channels to walk through the English battle-line. No late medieval battle-line could sustain that."

Why not?

"In any event, we have no account of the English battle-line being pierced like this. So we are back to the question why didn't the French attempt to pierce the English battle-line by going through the archers?"

True. The only suggestion I can offer to your question is the one that has been expressed before, that is the French had this preconceived notion that they were knights and therefore did not fight archers.

I was wondering whether anyone could direct me to some books regarding the battles mentioned in the initial post, ie: Constance (1356), Nogent (1359), Auray (1364), and Cocherel (1364. My books have very little real information on these confrontations and I think the answer to all is hinged exactly on what happened at these battles. Prior tactical methods obviously being a future tactical predictor, at least until a change occurs in the tactical system.

For instance interspersing archers with dismounted MAA seems unlikely as they were, as you say, a weak point. At the risk of stating the obvious, the archers are a 'weak point' primarily because they are not 'designed' for hand to hand which as a result makes them vulnerable to heavy troop types. This means that interspersing 'weaker' troop types with your heavy troops is a flawed tactic, in that should these weaker units would be the first to break when contacted, which would leave the MAA with exposed flanks and gaps through to the rear of the battleline. The solid battleline is no longer unified nor strong! But then, alternatively, for the sake of argument, lets endow the weaker archers with sufficient firepower to halt such an enemy attack. Conceivably, this would mean the archers would no longer be regarded as a weak point? Again, this seems unlikely, because the archers firepower was neutralised, (apparently at those battles mentioned) which means the archers would have been best positioned, as was done at Agincourt and other battles, on the flanks of the battleline where you could suitably protect them using natural terrain or man made obstacles while not obstructing nor endangering the main heavy battleline.

To counter such a deployment, the French at Agincourt used dismounted MAA to deal with the English MAA and simultaneously ATTACKED THE WEAK POINTS of the English battleline, ie; the archers, using 1,500-2,000 mounted knights under Brabant, Vendome and Saveuse, who had been positioned on either side of the dismounted vanguard division. These mounted knights would have been forced to deploy in depth due to the compressed nature of the battlefield (this is only according to my calculations on frontages and widths etc) which would have exposed them to the flanking fire of the archers who were deployed on the flanks and angled slightly forwards (en herce??). Consequently, the mounted French faced with stakes, mud and flanking fire inevitably failed in their attempt to defeat the 'weaker' units of the English army.

As to placing archers in front of the MAA, is there any source that mentions such a deployment? The thought of 1000+ or even 500 archers moving back through the MAA must have been a major concern should it have occurred. Perhaps smaller numbers could get away with it and not disrupt the MAA?

I would also ask why it was that the French crossbowmen were situated behind the vanguard battle? The crossbowmen would have had zero utility! Was it a measure to protect them from the English longbows? Perhaps a natural precaution following their one sided exchange at Crecy.

Doug, "I don't believe that it separated at the "base", because I don't believe the division into three columns was intended until they got to the point of doing it. The extreme pressure engendered by "flinching" away from the arrow strikes (c. 1,500 direct shots every five seconds into 400 to 500 exposed outer rank men at arms), tended to squeeze the French first battle into three forward slogging columns:

If I understand your position the French didn't have any plans of forming until forced to do so by archery fire. But is this archery coming from the front or the flanks? It sounds like it is coming from the flanks as I don't see forming wedges as a response to direct fire to their front. However, that's just me. So I have to ask, is this fire from the front or the flanks?

Rich

Captain Insano, you are right to be a bit confused about the placement of the archers. There are two positions on the matter. Both positions are based upon primary sources. The first position has the archers interspersed on the flanks of each of the three battles of English men-at-arms. This is based on the eyewitness account by a cleric with the English army. The other position is that the men-at-arms were deployed in a single battle with the archers on the flanks of that single battle. This is based on two eyewitnesses to the battle: LeFever and Wauren – both had military experience.

As to the crossbowmen, they were designated to advance with the French men-at-arms to provide fire support. However, the nobles and knights making up that dismounted unit refused to allow them to take their positions and drove them from the field. They refused to allow the lessor orders to have any part in the obvious defeat of the Englsih.

Rich

Rich Knapton – I dont know about you but it appears as though Wauren and LeFever probably got it right, after all as you state, they have military experience. I cant say for sure, until I can locate and read what the cleric actually wrote, but for now I can only put forward my superficial and patronizing assessment that the poor old man was perhaps unable to correctly appraise the deployment due to military inexperience.

Take this hypothetical for a moment.
Cleric: "What the deuce is going on old boy?"
MAA: "Well old man, as you can see we are deployed in three battles with archers on the flanks."
Cleric: "Of course, I can see that, now what about the French?"
MAA: "They are in three battles. And by the way what the hell are you drinking?"
Cleric: "Holy water my boy."

A day or month or year later the cleric perhaps writes the following; 'The English archers on the flanks of the three battles.' My point is that he was not of a military mind then not understanding what he saw then, more than likely not even understand any such information relayed to him. Again, this all hinges on exactly what the cleric wrote, and simply ignore my ramblings.

I do have the Anne Curry book, but at the moment 90% of my books are buried in boxes and not all accessible. If you could tell me whether the cleric's version (or the others for that matter) are actually paraphrased in the Curry book then I might consider it worthwhile to spend a day shifting and sorting through this veritable mountain of trunks to locate it?

As to the archery fire, I would definately say it came from the flanks, perhaps not at true right-angles but it happened because the left and right archer battles were projecting forward at an angle (perhaps 30-45 deg?) from the flanks of their own centrally placed MAA battle. This gave them an excellent field of fire, especially with their long range. I think also that a force receiving archery fire from the flanks would not only degrade morale but it would also considerably widen the chances of arrows finding those weak points in armour that is so often mentioned. I have to repeat though, even though it was flanking fire, I would not say it was true enfilade.
The archers opposite flanks were of course anchored on the woods. After walking through some of these woods in Europe I can see how they prevented effective movement and disrupted unit cohesion, something stated by writers throughout history for any period. The heavily armoured knight with barded horse would surely be at an even greater disadvantage. Fleeing cavalry are a different matter, cohesion is no longer an issue, and in fact it seems whenever such broken units contacted forests or other terrain they ceased being a unit altogether.

I'll stop rambling right about . . . now

The flanking fire also then explains, not just the greater effectiveness of the archery fire, but also the fact the French MAA flinched towards the centre.This would not have occurred if they were simply receiving fire from their front and from all along the line. In such a case they would have instead flinched (recoiled) backwards.

If I understand your position the French didn't have any plans of forming [columns to attack the English battles] until forced to do so by archery fire. But is this archery coming from the front or the flanks? It sounds like it is coming from the flanks as I don't see forming wedges as a response to direct fire to their front. However, that's just me. So I have to ask, is this fire from the front or the flanks?

Rich

From the front initially, and into the flanks of the entire first battle initially from the "wings" of archers angled forward to the woods. And as the French first battle got to within c. 50 yards, the effect of face-on fire had caused those two points in the French line to recoil, while the extreme ends of the first battle had been compressing inward due to the flanking fire of the English archer wings; at the same time the forward pressure from the rear, added to the sideways pressure of trying to avoid the arrows, created the "bulges" in the French line toward the English battles as those opposite the English battles strove through the mud to make melee contact: as the French battle shifted into this three-pronged formation, it presented direct flanks for the "bastions" of English archers between the battles, and the archers on the extreme wings. Inward flinching from this flanking fire further compressed the now-formed columns causing the massive pressure described as the French inability to even raise or use their weapons.

Hi

Cappy, the point rich is pushing is that with these weak troops on the flanks, why not sweep them away and take the British MAA from flank and rear.

Rich, The thing I was addressing is the sweeping "no 15th C army" point. I know more about the civic militia who weren't much like northern euro militia. And they could do some interesting work. I agree, that is a digression.

MY point is that all of us have read too many sources that sort of imply that the brits were supermen. But dismissing that, in response, both sides were hapless troops who couldn't do much except fight and die is overstated.

Cap…i agree about these other battles rich refers to. I should sit down and read about them, I am not sure what I have on hand for them. AJP Taylor(I think) did a two volume history on the war, and I only have one of the volumns, and I am not sure that I have the RIGHT one for the research.

Rocky

The other position is that the men-at-arms were deployed in a single battle with the archers on the flanks of that single battle. This is based on two eyewitnesses to the battle: LeFever and Wauren – both had military experience.

Let's quote the source.

Monstrelet, who bases much of his account on Waurin and LeFevre, is the only one of the three to clearly say anything about battles and wings. "[The king] had his battle drawn up by a knight grey with age called Thomas Erpingham, putting the archers in the front and then the men-at-arms. He made two wings of men-at-arms and archers and the horses and baggage were placed behind the army."

This suggests clearly to me that "his battle" refers to the men at arms and archers of the king's own main battle in the center; because in addition to "his battle" Erpingham ordered two wings of men at arms and archers. This dovetails perfectly with the English order of battle described in the Gesta.

By contrast, Waurin and LeFevre can only say: "…the king of England ordered a veteran knight, Sir Thomas Erpinghom, to draw up his archers and to put them in the front in two wings. … He rode with an escort in the front of the battle of archers after he had carried out the deployment, and threw in the air a baton which he had been holding in his hand. Then he dismounted and put himself in the battle of the king of England…."

Was there only ONE ("the battle") of archers? No, because Erpingham was told to organize two wings of archers. Was there only one battle ("the battle") of men at arms? No, because Erpingham took his place on foot with "the battle" of the king of England, implying that there was more than one. Taken altogether, I conclude that Waurin and LeFevre are the ones guilty of being vague; and the more specific, graphic details of Monstrelet and the Gesta are reliable.

Besides, as I have emphasized already, tactically the only way bows can be employed effectively is if they are within c. 100 yards of the men at arms: and this arrangement is impossible on a field 700 to 900 yards wide if the English men at arms are all grouped in one battle in the center with all the archers divided into two massive wings….

I dont know about you but it appears as though Wauren and LeFever probably got it right, after all as you state, they have military experience. I cant say for sure, until I can locate and read what the cleric actually wrote, but for now I can only put forward my superficial and patronizing assessment that the poor old man was perhaps unable to correctly appraise the deployment due to military inexperience.

Go read then. The Gesta cleric doesn't write like he's old. I always envisioned a fairly young man, but that's just me. He did say that he sat on horseback "at the rear of the engagement" during the entire fracas. His clearly detailed description of the English order of battle cannot be easily dismissed by those who are "invested" in the theory that the English men at arms all were in the center together.

And disparaging the Gesta writer on the grounds that he was not a warrior isn't logical either: he demonstrates an eye for military details, which could mean that he was once a military man himself before taking orders, or perhaps the younger son of the nobility, as most chaplains and greater were (younger sons commonly being chosen to the enter the church): coming from the nobility or a previous military background would make him cognizant of what he was seeing. And interested in the battle AS a battle too.

I do have the Anne Curry book,…

Which one? She is the editor of "The Battle of Agincourt, Sources and Interpretations"; and the author of "Agincourt, A new History".

The Gesta account of the battle begins on page 34 in the former book, and Curry's narrative of the battle proper begins on page 199 in her own book.

The flanking fire also then explains, not just the greater effectiveness of the archery fire, but also the fact the French MAA flinched towards the centre.This would not have occurred if they were simply receiving fire from their front and from all along the line. In such a case they would have instead flinched (recoiled) backwards.

You said it quicker than I did. :)

Pressure from the sides is required to compress the French toward the English battles, i.e. to cause an involuntary forming of three columns between the advanced archer bodies.

Of course, this could all be moot, IF the French really did practice battlefield snobbery and tried to pretend the archers were not there!

"As to placing archers in front of the MAA, is there any source that mentions such a deployment? The thought of 1000+ or even 500 archers moving back through the MAA must have been a major concern should it have occurred. Perhaps smaller numbers could get away with it and not disrupt the MAA?"

"Monstrelet, who bases much of his account on Waurin and LeFevre, is the only one of the three to clearly say anything about battles and wings. "[The king] had his battle drawn up by a knight grey with age called Thomas Erpingham, putting the archers IN THE FRONT and then the men-at-arms. He made two wings of men-at-arms and archers and the horses and baggage were placed behind the army."

Its our old friend the Gesta again, a man sitting on a ‘horse' many hundreds of yards behind the ‘English' Battle line who gets all and sundry taking his account as verbatim whilst dismissing Le Fevre & Waurin, who were both in the front line.
A) The reason for the French Men-at-Arms bunching is obviously because the vast majority of arrows were coming in from the flanks.
B) The French Men-at-Arms went for the one and only place where the Royal & high Lords standards were situated, and that was in the ONE main battle in the middle of the ‘English' line.
C) No-one knows how wide the battlefield was, or how dense the tree line(s) were.
D) The stake line would have been planted in depth.
E) Not every single Bow unit would have been engaging the main enemy onslaught; maybe a few Men-at-Arms "sprinkled" in amongst the Bowmen would have been guarding against the possibility of a flanking attempt & also "shooting up" any other targets of opportunity. (Henry wouldn't have put all his eggs in one basket)
F) The mud precluded any fancy manoeuvre by the attacking armoured foot knights. It was hard enough just to walk forward without slipping, sliding or falling.
G) The mud is the only major factor that can be experienced to this day with any accuracy.
H) Don't put all your faith in Ann Currys New History account as most here seem to be. Though it is good overall, try other authors like, Juliet Barker, Christopher Hibbert, and John Keegan. All are easy to get hold of and very good reads.(Especially Barkers)

Paul

From the front initially, and into the flanks of the entire first battle initially from the "wings" of archers angled forward to the woods. And as the French first battle got to within c. 50 yards, the effect of face-on fire had caused those two points in the French line to recoil, while the extreme ends of the first battle had been compressing inward due to the flanking fire of the English archer wings; at the same time the forward pressure from the rear, added to the sideways pressure of trying to avoid the arrows, created the "bulges" in the French line toward the English battles as those opposite the English battles strove through the mud to make melee contact: as the French battle shifted into this three-pronged formation, it presented direct flanks for the "bastions" of English archers between the battles, and the archers on the extreme wings. Inward flinching from this flanking fire further compressed the now-formed columns causing the massive pressure described as the French inability to even raise or use their weapons.

OK if I have this correct, the archers at the end English battle-line curved towards the forests on either flank. The French got to within 50 yards of the archers in their wedge formations. The archery fire forced the French, in front of them to recoil. The archery fire on the flanks of the French forced the flank men-at-arms inward. This pressure created three bulges in the French line. Pressure from the rear forced the French line to adjust to these newly formed columns. Interesting. I especially like the "The French got to within c. 50 yards."

Doug you know and I know that the fifty yards is pure fantasy. There is no source that states that. What Monstrelet says is, "So they advanced a little against them, but then made a retreat." Monstrelet does not name the cause of this retreat. But he does say this was early in the advance. You have them forming columns at the end of the advance.

But it still doesn't answer why the rest of the French (those not in the columns) didn't attack and drive away the archers in the wedges and then follow up. (see my graphic)

link

Why didn't those, not in the columns, attack the archers?

Rich

I apologize for calling the cleric 'old'. And it would be interesting to determine whether he DID have a military background. That in itself may be very enlightening as to just how effective 'his eye for details' really was. And thanks for the Curry page numbers, I shall now spend a day lifting boxes and fighting off Redback spiders. The Monstrelet quote is also very interesting.

Waurin and LeFevre = "…the king of England ordered a veteran knight, Sir Thomas Erpinghom, to draw up his archers and to put them in the front in two wings. … He rode with an escort in the front of the battle of archers after he had carried out the deployment, and threw in the air a baton which he had been holding in his hand. Then he dismounted and put himself in the battle of the king of England…."

A=archers. M=MAA (Each letter roughly 500 men.)

000 -------FRENCH ARMY-------- 000
000 000
000 A A 000
000 A A A A 000
000 A A M M A A 000

BAGGAGE

As per Monstrelet = "[The king] had his battle drawn up … the archers in the front and then the men-at-arms. He made two wings of men-at-arms and archers … "

000 -------FRENCH ARMY------- 000
000 000
000 A A 000
000 A A A A A A 000
000 A M M A 000

The only real difference here is that there are some archers in front of the MAA, but from reading that passage it doesn't really alter the deployment. The left wing consisting of some MAA and archers. The right wing of some MAA and archers and kings battle; some MAA with archers in front.

Captain Insano, I appreciate your enthusiasm. You comments are well thought out. And, there are several topics on the Medieval Board that discusses the setup of the English battle-line. However, the subject of this topic is given that the archers were setup as wedges between each of the English battles, why didn't the French pierce the battle-line at these weak spots?

Rich

Sorry the diagrams came out as COMPLETE RUBBISH.

I thought perhaps digging up the roots of it all might help establish some answers. Bye now.

Rich

Because the first and only "main" assault attacked the kings battle, which was made up with almost, but not all, the Men-at-Arms, & situated in the middle of the ‘English' line.
When the other French units saw how the first fared, they decided: B****r this for a game of soldiers, I'm off… Seeing the cream of their nation destroyed in front of their very eyes for no gain, must have been very demoralising. Seeing people fall in their thousands by arrow storm (Mainly being knocked off of their feet by the arrow impact) must have been a hellish sight. Though many of them weren't killed or wounded, they must have floundered in the quickly deteriorating field, and those observing must have realised how futile a further attack over the same ground would be.

Paul
(Thats what I think)

Hi

I couldn't find anything useful on the 4 minor post Crecy battles. did find discussions from Rich repeating other places his points here. Grin.

The vulnerable archers… Would those be behind a wall of stakes? Imagine being an MAA trying to force the planted stakes while the guy behind the stake is shooting at point blank range at your eyes. You might be overthinking how vulnerable they were.

The other battles, you refrence that earlier less armored troops with shields, and even imply pavices specially made for the effort MIGHT have been a possible solution. But without knowing how many archers, it is difficult to say more.

I notice, Rich, and it amused me, that you quibble with Doug's 50 yard note, but are sanquine with dibbles "hundreds of yards" placement for Gesta. I don't see enough room here for some of the assertians.

Dibble, arrows are not going to be knocking people off their feet except in movies.

Rocky

Doug you know and I know that the fifty yards is pure fantasy. There is no source that states that.

Fifty yards is a good average of the middle of "pointblank" range for a warbow. At that point the French STILL had many long seconds to go to make melee contact with the English battles.

What Monstrelet says is, "So they advanced a little against them, but then made a retreat." Monstrelet does not name the cause of this retreat. But he does say this was early in the advance. You have them forming columns at the end of the advance.

But it still doesn't answer why the rest of the French (those not in the columns) didn't attack and drive away the archers in the wedges and then follow up. (see my graphic)

That's closer: but I wouldn't make the French "columns" into wedges (just a quibble as an artist).

Because they were still getting shot at (the archers closer to the base of the "wedges" were shooting into the flanks of the advancing columns, while the archers forming the "points" were still shooting directly ahead, i.e. perpendicular to the English and French battle lines as a whole.): aimed, direct fire at the eyes mainly! They were still flinching back, not advancing into that mortal abuse.

Or, they were all doing their best to punch through and over the English men at arms and ignoring the archers (in which case we could illustrate three separated columns as you first elected to do).

We'll never know for sure which, or if both factors were at work in forming the physchological dynamic that caused the French to avoid the archers.

But I don't believe that this battlefield snobbery is what occured: I take the effect of the arrow fire -- and the disuadance factor fo the stakes -- to be the cause of the columns and the French avoidance of the archers: i.e. I don't buy the "stupid French chivalry", "social blindness", etc., theory.

Rock, QUIBBLE = "a slight objection or criticism." My point was the 50 yard note could not have happened as the formation changed early in the advance and not at the end of the advance as Doug outlined. This is not a slight objection. That is, unless you meant ‘quibble' as a put down.

As far as not commenting on dibbles assertions on the placement in the Gesta, as I explained to him the question is why didn't the French men-at-arms attack the archers. The formation change by the French is germane to the archer question. It is Doug's assertion that the power of the longbow forced the French to recoil and then to form the three columns. Thus the power of the longbow was funneling the French into three columns. But as I pointed out, the French formed that formation long before they were materially affected by the longbow fire.

As far as fear of arrows being aimed at their eye slits, this never stopped the French before. In one battle the longbowmen fled rather than face the French men-at-arms in combat. And, in another, the bowmen dropped their bows and did stand to fight hand-to-hand. In neither case was the attack stopped by fear of aimed arrows into the eye slits.

Rich

"The vulnerable archers… Would those be behind a wall of stakes? Imagine being an MAA trying to force the planted stakes while the guy behind the stake is shooting at point blank range at your eyes. You might be overthinking how vulnerable they were."

How close together do you think these stakes were? The stakes were intended as an anti-cavalry defence (the points at the height of a horse's chest) not necessarily as an anti-infantry defence as well.

Doug, "Fifty yards is a good average of the middle of "pointblank" range for a warbow. At that point the French STILL had many long seconds to go to make melee contact with the English battles."

That wasn't my problem with the statement. My point is that this fire power had nothing to do with forming of the three columns. They were already formed before long before the French got within fifty yards of the English bowmen.

Doug, "That's closer: but I wouldn't make the French "columns" into wedges (just a quibble as an artist)."

The reason I put them into wedges is that the intent of the French was to pierce the English battle-line. This is best done using a wedge formation.

Doug, "I don't buy the "stupid French chivalry", "social blindness", etc., theory."

Neither do I.

Doug, "We'll never know for sure which, or if both factors were at work in forming the psychological dynamic that caused the French to avoid the archers."

I agree, To date no one has come up with a good reason why the French didn't attack the archers. They were the weak link in the battle-line. The only reason I can think of is that the archers were not attacked because they were not there. Look at Monstralet's comment that you provided

"[The king] had his battle drawn up by a knight grey with age called Thomas Erpingham, putting the archers in the front and then the men-at-arms. He made two wings of men-at-arms and archers and the horses and baggage were placed behind the army."

This could easily be interpreted as Henry's battle flanked by the other two battles which were in turn flanked by the archers. If there were around 1000 men-at-arms formed into 4 ranks (as recounted by sources) then the English battle-line was about 250-300 yards wide (1000 men in 4 ranks = 250 men per rank). With the archers thrust forward on each flank to provide fire from the flanks, the English battle-line could be well covered.

Just some thoughts.

Rich

But as I pointed out, the French formed that formation long before they were materially affected by the longbow fire.

We can't know that from the sources. "Retreated a little" doesn't equate with "formed three columns." And the theory of forming columns at long range is refuted by the Gesta's mentioning of helmets being pierced in the sides and THEN the columns forming. If the only flanking fire the first battle was subjected to was longer range from the wings of archers only, then the battle would have been compressed into a single column; but we have three.

To date no one has come up with a good reason why the French didn't attack the archers. They were the weak link in the battle-line. The only reason I can think of is that the archers were not attacked because they were not there. Look at Monstralet's comment that you provided

"[The king] had his battle drawn up by a knight grey with age called Thomas Erpingham, putting the archers in the front and then the men-at-arms. He made two wings of men-at-arms and archers and the horses and baggage were placed behind the army."

This could easily be interpreted as Henry's battle flanked by the other two battles which were in turn flanked by the archers. If there were around 1000 men-at-arms formed into 4 ranks (as recounted by sources) then the English battle-line was about 250-300 yards wide (1000 men in 4 ranks = 250 men per rank). With the archers thrust forward on each flank to provide fire from the flanks, the English battle-line could be well covered.

Just some thoughts.

Rich

Which as I have said before I can't buy, because of the huge number of archers not engaged in facing the French: and the lack of any reason to form three columns, which the Gesta clearly says occured.

It boils down to whether or not you believe the Gesta was smoking something or not.

I have confidence in such clearly written and verifiable sources. Nothing he said is internally inconsistent. The details he provided can be substantiated through testing. Nothing he says is in direct conflict with the other eyewitnesses: taken together they form a clearer picture of a medieval battle and its constituent "parts" than any other I know of.

Dibble, arrows are not going to be knocking people off their feet except in movies.

Rocky

So you know the affect that a deluge of arrows would have on people struggling in a quagmire.
Tell me what movies show this phenomenon.

Paul

It was argued on another thread months ago, the almost utter lack of kinetic energy in a 4 oz arrow compared to even a modest handgun.

The "knockdown" power of guns is also portrayed in movies incorrectly: what is occurring when someone falls down or over is hydrostatic shock. "OMG I've been SHOT!!!" If someone falls down they are reacting to the shock of the realization that they've been shot: not falling over from the impact (kinetic) energy. If a gun had that amount of energy, it would also knock the shooter on HIS kiester.

Arrows/bolts PIERCE, not crush, their way into the target. Although the kinetic energy compared to bullets is very small, it is all focused initially on the smallest of points, and the missile CUTS its way in. Very different principle compared to bullets.

Targets of arrows/bolts bleed to death: there is very little if any structural damage.

Bullets, otoh, smash things like bones and arteries and muscle tissue, etc. Massive bleeding occurs with either kind of missile: but bullets also have hydrostatic shock capabilities and damaging capabilities that arrows do not. (unless a lucky hit happens to severe some major artery or nerves, or penetrate a joint or similar).

You are assuming that what the Gesta described in Henry first setup is how Henry setup his second line. The Gesta does not describe the second setup except to say that the archers could fire on the flanks of the oncoming French. This could reflect a setup with the men-at-arms in the center and the archers on the flanks. Every other account that describes the English setup, men-at-arms in the center and archers on the flanks, describes Henry's second battle-line. This would explain why the archers were not penetrated by the French men-at-arms: Henry changed his battle-line.

Rich

Hi

Paul, even people getting shot do not leap back, fly through the air or are NOT knocked down by the KE of the bullet. IF such happens, it is because the missile hit a ganglion and the target did the movement.

Dead and injured mostly just fall, not "knocked">you said "knocked off their feet". That is a quibble, but it didn't happen.

Mike. I won't use my assumptions but the ones you stated another day when we discussed this. IF the archers are 6 deep and all the stakes are IN FRONT of the formation then for every archer, there are 6 stakes in front of him. If, as described, they are pounded in the ground facing the french and then sharpened, I think that means a stake planted in the ground every 6 inches, or nearly a solid wall.

Starting in the early iron age, archers commonly had pavices with a spike on the bottom protecting them while they shot(and I think there are medieval wood cuts showing a similar practice..I am fond of one involving a crossbow that derkreigspeilers or someone replicated back in the 70s), the discussion would not see these planted shields as a wall as "open and no problem". Thus, I think the vulnerability of the archers is overstated by Rich. MEN on foot shoving their way through a wall of stakes with weapon in hand? Hacking at the stakes? Sheathing their weapons and pulling them out? Pick your scenario. The guys on the other side are shooting at you at point blank range with bodkins.

Rich, I wasn't trying to insult you. A basic point here is that, as stated above and elsewhere, we are e-friends discussing this over e-coffee or other drinks. I would never take an attittude on line that I would not take face to face, and I don't insult friends.

My "quibble" was that you were quibblig with the 50 yard point Doug's(implying less or more, but perhaps an average), but had no problem with Paul putting Guesta hundreds of yards away.

I do wish I knew more about those other battles that you refer to. Though I seem to remembe reading that Auray was a win for the brits. I suspect that the times the longbow failed, it was the system that failed, massed fire with protection of stakes and support of extra-heavy MAA in a controlled position.

Rocky

A couple of points! Apropos of nothing much:

The "knockdown" power of guns is also portrayed in movies incorrectly: what is occurring when someone falls down or over is hydrostatic shock. "OMG I've been SHOT!!!" If someone falls down they are reacting to the shock of the realization that they've been shot:

I suggest you review the term 'hydrostatic shock'. It doesn't mean what you think it means.

Which coming from an expert on ballistics raises some other questions…

Targets of arrows/bolts bleed to death: there is very little if any structural damage.

Tell that to king Harold. Or anyone else who has ever been struck in the head or torso by an arrow. Beware rash generalisations, and again, rethink what you mean by 'structural damage'

"Mike. I won't use my assumptions but the ones you stated another day when we discussed this. IF the archers are 6 deep and all the stakes are IN FRONT of the formation then for every archer, there are 6 stakes in front of him. If, as described, they are pounded in the ground facing the french and then sharpened, I think that means a stake planted in the ground every 6 inches, or nearly a solid wall."

Of course, the underlying assumption here (we are beset with assumptions, aren't we?) is that EVERY archer had a stake. Is this categorically stated in any of the primary sources? A primarily anti-cavalry defence would not need to be nearly so dense.

Also, stakes every 6 inches would not only prevent the French from attacking the archers at hand strokes, but would also prevent the archers moving through the stake line to attack the French in flank.

Doug/Rocky

I am not saying that they (the Men-at-Arms) are lifted & thrown backwards. What I am saying is that multiple impacts to the body would cause people to fall, (knocked of their feet) especially in the slippery conditions they were moving in.
Don't try to teach me about the affects of gunshot trauma. I have "unfortunately" seen the affects on many occasions, and have only ever witnessed people falling/stumbling to the ground.
And if that happens then they are: ‘knocked off their feet'. If they aren't, then they are still running at you/away or for position.

Doug/Rocky

When I asked: What movies show this phenomenon? I meant of where a person is knocked of there feet by an arrow. As all I see is a dramatic clutching of the arrow shaft followed by an equally dramatic fall or topple from the 'battlements'.

And just to let you know, there is no set way to react to gunshot/shrapnel impact. Some can be very strange indeed….

Doug/Rocky

Please now can we get back on message, as I don't see what gunshot trauma has to do with Agincourt(unless we bring the reported firearms that were in the battle into the discussion)& personal recollections aren't the thing I wish to reminisce in on a Thursday night In St.Albans. (UK)

Rocky, "My "quibble" was that you were quibblig with the 50 yard point Doug's(implying less or more, but perhaps an average), but had no problem with Paul putting Guesta hundreds of yards away."

Now you've done it Rocky. I may quibble on occasion but I will have you know that in my whole life I have never quibblig! My point with dibble is that his subject about where the author of the Gusta was was not germane to this topic. And you guys talking about knocking people down and movies, get off my topic. Go start one of your own.

Rich

The Gesta is mentioned many times in this thread as being the main witness to the setup of the 'English' army. Curry; 'who you all seem to be quoting' says: "His account of the battle is vague and bland, & "It is not easy to use his account to unpick Henry's battle plan, and impossible to gain much from it about the French actions….

What I am trying to say is that if the Gesta is used in this thread to argue the positioning & account for the movements of the day then surely it is relevant, especially when it comes to my hypothesis about the single battle with flanking bowmen. (As well as in front of the Men-at-Arms) As I see it, the Gesta ‘Henrici Quintini' is the fly in the ointment.

I don't think the flanking bowmen were in wedges, but in shallow arcs, the ends of which curved away from the enemy but the two wings of the army curved round & into the tree-line on either side of the battle field. Those in the tree-line didn't need stakes. The rest I have already outlined

"Because the first and only "main" assault attacked the kings battle, which was made up with almost, but not all, the Men-at-Arms, & situated in the middle of the ‘English' line.
When the other French units saw how the first fared, they decided: B****r this for a game of soldiers, I'm off… Seeing the cream of their nation destroyed in front of their very eyes for no gain, must have been very demoralising. Seeing people fall in their thousands by arrow storm (Mainly being knocked off of their feet by the arrow impact) must have been a hellish sight. Though many of them weren't killed or wounded, they must have floundered in the quickly deteriorating field, and those observing must have realised how futile a further attack over the same ground would be".

Surely the stakes would have been planted in depth and in a checkerboard pattern. To have a single line would have made it easier to breach that line of defence.
(Defend in depth)

I think that you Rich are trying to discount the roll played by the bowmen. As I said in another thread

Let's not go down the road of the "longbow was no good" revisionists. A king would not jeopardise his kingdom, his army & his self by taking three-quarters of his strength in useless Bowmen, on a scheme to run amuck in a huge country with a so called best army in Christendom. I'm not saying that the Bowmen were ‘THE' battle winning element of the ‘English' army, just that they were as large a part of its success.

Dibble, I have asked you and others not to highjack my topic. Yet you continue to try to do so. This is extremely rude. There are topics already out there discussing what you want to discuss. If you don't like them, start your own. But, don't highjack mine.

Rich

You are assuming that what the Gesta described in Henry first setup is how Henry setup his second line. The Gesta does not describe the second setup except to say that the archers could fire on the flanks of the oncoming French.

There is good reason for assuming exactly the same formation in the second position as the first: Anne Curry (Agincourt, A New History, page 199):

"The fullest account of Henry's decision [to advance] is found in Titus Livius and the Pseudo-Elmham, both chroniclers who drew on information from the commanders present. Since it was obvious that the French were showing no signs of wishing to make the first move, Henry consulted with his most experience officers on whether he should 'advance with his troops in the order in which they stood.' Their advice was that he should…."

I suggest you review the term 'hydrostatic shock'. It doesn't mean what you think it means.

The kinetic energy impacting the body sets up a shock wave through the tissues surrounding the impacted point; and being 75%+ water, thus the term "hydrostatic" shock. But although very much a blow to the system because of the affected surrounding area, it isn't enough energy to literally knock a person off their feet; that was my point.

Targets of arrows/bolts bleed to death: there is very little if any structural damage.

Tell that to king Harold.

And you make the point of individual exceptions. I was speaking to masses of men being shot by masses of arrows. Generally, there is no structural damage, but only bleeding out: the bones, ligaments, joints, brain, are not usually hit in a way to render the body incapable for further action. Included in my post was, "…but bullets also have hydrostatic shock capabilities and damaging capabilities that arrows do not. (unless a lucky hit happens to severe some major artery or nerves, or penetrate a joint or similar)."

(Sorry, Rich, for the tangent)