"Battle-line at Agincourt" Topic

Thanks Doug.

Rich

Hi

Somewhere in the bow thread I tried explaning the energy stuff in plain english because the vast majority of history buffs do not do math!

Part of the issue, oddly, is that the heavier bodkin absorbs more of the energy of the bow (the concept is referred to as approaching the virtual mass), than a lighter flight arrow does, but the flight arrow being lighter goes ultimately further.

What the armor piercing arrow does is complex. Mostly we never notice that when pressing an object, say a door, it flexes. and "pushes" back. the spine of the brest plate flexes less than the edges, and the arrow needs to strike cleanly to have a chance of cutting into the armor.

the heavier the head, the greater the energy, the more flex and ability to cut. One of the surprises to me of the bodkin specifically is that the wedge triest to pivot the arrow to a 90 degree impact lessinging the chance of deflection.

Now, the conundrum, which I made early in THIS thread was describing the arrows. In steppes tradtion, it is a matter of note that the usual hun or later mongol rode into combat with over 100 arrows, with a mix of flight, anti-armor and broadhead. The same mix existed for the English, but I have not seen a breakdown on the logistics. I have read about wagons full of sheeves of arrow, but not the mix. The mix has to be there. We know they shot long range harassing shots, thus the "flight". We know they hunted, thus broadhead. We know there are bodkins. I don't know if they had mixed sheefs, mixed wagon loads or any of the details of how they resupplied the yeoman.

Anyway, whatever the mass, the aerodynamics are quite good, and "sectonal density" defines "carry" and range(in modern rounds, it is the reason why a 22mag at the same velocity as a 7.62/39 doesn't go as far, why 45 caliber roundball doesn't go as far as 45 conicals.)

I digressed, sorry. The point is that When we see descriptions of "arrows shattering or bouncing" we need more details on the conditions. As an example, a hunting party attcked while with broadheads are going to be totally ineffective against armor, especially with shields.

Which I think I brought up on the first page.

Rocky

Mike, doesn't mention being "well armed" at all.

Well, as Jack Nicholson said "Three outa four ain't bad."

Doug, Agincourt: the source says "Our men" snatched axes from the French and struck them down with them.

Another testament of the ineffectiveness of bow fire. As far as axe snatching, the French and English men-at-arms were already engaged in fighting. Did you ever think that the snatching was from dead Frenchmen? And so we have dazed Frenchmen wandering the field being asked: "Excusez-moi, mai je emprunter votre hache?" "But of course, here."

Doug, You are the most obtuse virtual person (save one other) I have ever conversed with on the Net!

Why thank you. I didn't know you cared. The thing I was stressing was the inability of the longbow to stop an attack by firepower alone. And yes, I know they were behind stakes. But that supposes the French are able to withstand the archers' withering fire and advance to the stakes. Once arriving at the stales, as you pointed out, the archery effect does not increase. Oh I know you say the archers are better able to aim, but as I pointed out that would be negated by the adrenaline surges from seeing the French advance closer and closer.

Also we have precedence: Auray. There the French marched right up the archers, withstanding point blank fire. The archers finally had to engage in close combat because their fire power was ineffective. Why do you think the archers' point blank fire would be any more affective at Agincourt.?

Doug, … nevertheless, stakes would allow maximum time to shoot up the dismounted men at arms, then afford some initial combat edge upon physical contact with the men at arms.

How? The French are already slowed down because of the mud. At that slow speed they would be able to knock aside 3 inch stakes without breaking stride. As to affording some initial combat edge, what are they going to protect the archers' knees? The stakes were only waist high (around 3.5 feet). Just because there were stakes in front of the archers doesn't mean they automatically gave the archers protection. Stakes 3 inches in diameter; set 3 feet apart and rising only to waist level is NOT going to give the archers ANY protection. Come on, you have to be a little realistic about this.

Doug, That's not what you argued: you said "wedges" are crazy and they failed everytime

I said, the idea of wedges in a dismounted attack was crazy. I also said the archers failed to stop any attack with firepower. Therefore, being in the battle line, as you envision, they are then charged with stopping the French in hand-to-hand combat. The idea that nearly naked men with swords, knives and axes could stop fully armored men experienced in hand-to-hand combat is ludicrous. Once it came to hand blows it was all over for archers in the middle of the line of battle.

Doug, Cherry picking from the less reliable sources, still.

His comment fits right in with three other comments. The question then becomes, can you prove him wrong? Beside, you were using him to ‘prove' the nobles fighting for positions occurred the night before the battle. A bit hypocritical don't you think?

[me, 1.) You have failed to show from historical sources that the archer wedges were used in the second position.]

Doug, Only because you have some notion that there was a change. There wasn't.

Why, because you said so? There are no sources which mention wedges in the second position. And, those that said the army remained in their battle line were referring to a battle line in which no wedges existed; they were on the far flanks. So we are left with denying wedges completely or asserting there was a change. Your idea of wedges in the second position is without foundation regardless of what you claim.

Doug, in earlier battles they did attack, at Agincourt they didn't: and the reason they didn't is NOT because the archers "were not there".

Except there is no evidence they were there.

Doug, What he does say is that the falling bodies stopped the French and the back pressure caused them to not be able to fight, but rather get pushed into the weapons of the English and knocked down, dead and living in a "wall" together. But of course, "our cleric" didn't really see any of that.

That is a good point. In fact, lets read the cleric's own words:

"with the result that, in each of the three places where the strong contingents guarding our standards were, such a great heap grew of the slain and of those lying crushed in between that our men climbed up those heaps, which had risen above a man's height, and butchered their enemies down below with swords, axes, and other weapons."

You're right Doug, he didn't see any of that happen. It didn't happen because it has been shown that his account of this cannot have happened. It is physically impossible. So now we have the author of the Gesta writing about things that never happened. Had he been an eyewitness he would have known that such of thing never happened. But he wasn't. We also know he was not above exaggerating the truth. Did he also exaggerate the penetration power of the longbow?

Doug, You are aware, possibly, that the back motion of the English line was deliberate, to "wrong foot" the French contact? (Keegan)

Keegan
"it was individually prudent and tactically sound for the men most exposed to trot backwards before the French spearpoints, thus 'wrong-footing' their opponents (a spearman times his thrust to coincide with the forward step of his left foot)"

This is fine as long as the spearman is standing and then making a thrust with his spear. It has no practicality if the spearman is rushing to smash himself into the opposing line in order to break it. Here the men-at-arms is holding the lance as strongly as possible in order to use the momentum power of his whole body and channel it into smashing into the English. This is not a thrust.

Doug, I would recommend that you stop making our modern experience out as something that has no bearing on corroborating medieval statements about archery effects.

If I thought it had no bearing I would not have asked you archery questions. What I was saying is, just because you can do it in your backyard doesn't mean it was done in the 15th century. Your experience must be corroborated with the sources. If no source corroborates your experience then you need to re-think your experience.

Rocky, You have a sort of point. IF the arrow is shot at the optimum location, the armor will deflect it. What you ignore is the concept of ca 100,000 arrows always hitting the best part and not the weak points and gaps.

What you ignore is there is no evidence of the archers at Agincourt firing in the manner you suggest.

Rocky, And you have "upped the ante". You no longer demand we show arrow fire was effective, but that it, alone, would STOP the french.

Under your scenario of wedges as an integral part of the battle line, they have to be. It is a self-evident truth that almost naked men lacking much experience in hand-to-hand combat cannot effectively oppose men armored from top to bottom and experts in that kind of fighting. Once you get to that position, it's all over for the archers. They can't fall back out of the way and then make quick thrusts on the French men-at-arms. If they fall back they expose the flanks of their English compatriots. Any French that are hurt or dying will simply be stepped over as the archers cannot resist the French forward thrust.

Rocky, The old guys liked their 3 wedges because it did produce the observed combined arms effect.

I'm sorry Rocky but so does having the archers on the flanks.

Rocky, Placing light troops in the line in such a way as to encourage the french to converge rather than trying to push their way through a wall of stakes while taking point blank fire.

This is the antithesis of combined arms. You are channeling the French away from you (the archers) so they will attack your buddies the men-at-arms.

Rocky One the Brits were stupid to have all those useless light troops

I've already explained what I believe to be the function of the archers. So, your comment is simply a useless rhetorical trick.

Rocky two the french were stupid for not wiping them out

Since I have advanced a reason for not attacking the archers on the flank, your comment is yet another rhetorical trick.

Rocky the french were stupid for staking up as they did when they only needed to outfight a thin like of brit men at arms instead of flanking them.

Have no idea what you're trying to say.

Rocky, And then you have "super brits", not as the doughty yeoman, but as the men at arms who in their invulnerable armor cannot defeat the brits with a 5:1 advantage.

But remember, it is 5,000 disorganized French vs 1,000 organized English.

Rocky, I found your summary to be quite valueless. In place of sound ideas we're are treated to cheap rhetorical tricks. This is not conducive to an exchange of views.

Rich

Hi

Rich, you are suffering from a proactive inhibition, thus, whenever a salient point is made, you cannot "understand" as it conflicts with your preconception.

Your "reason" for not attacking the flanks requires several tricks,err, proofs not in evidence. The whole shooting out of the trees, and the whole idea of them harassing in a screen and then scampering to the trees before the french catch them is a bit of rhetoric of its own. You invent the screen, the speed, the deployment based on nothing.

Just as you do by taking a description of the french deployment and inventing a totally new size of the field that requires it to be 1/3ed or smaller than any acceptd version.

Another "rhetorical trick".

Then you add to it by ignoring or denying the issue of the cavalry charge being stopped and driven off without any recognition of the concept of the same armor being killed, and what happens with the cav.

Along with turning twice through 90 degress, once as a charge, and second as a mob.

And then you fail to address the concept of the numbers involved.

And then you cannot seem to realize that a modern bodkin is no different that a vintage and the arrow cannot psychically KNOW what the bow was. Added to the new concept that NOW modern replica long bows must be superior to period because modern arrow tests do have enough energy to penetrate armor.

And NOW you invent a new idea for the french that they lose with 5to one superiorty because they are "disorganized".

What magic disorganized them.

Then the illogical conundrum that these same disorganized french would not be "disorganized" by being shot at or hit by people while the french push through the stakes. I assume you have the french with at least 3 hands, two to grab and move stakes while fencing with a third.

So, in essence, the bow is useless and hiding in the woods, for you, and the french get disorderd and that accounts for the brits outfighting 5:1…actually more than that. Lots of french casualties leading to the rout and few brits, meaning the brits are "pure of heart" and fighting like ten men. And, this is the good part, being identical and usually related to the french.

Or the older model. In the last 150 yards, the 5000 english long bow shoot 6 volleys a minute for about 4 minutes….120,000 arrows of which about 3600 effective hits, producing, with overlap, a reduction of about 2000 MAA in the french ranks, meaning that the French MAA who tries to force his way into the stakes is facing 3:1 or poorer ratio of light troops with hammers and such, and 1500, having spent a lot of time stepping over the bow casualties try to face 1000 fresh, and fail morale and run away.

A great deal more plausable that your rhetorical gymnastics.

Rocky

Hi

Oh, and your fine motor control problems with threatened archers is another fabrication where you invent something never mentioned in the sources and then use this to prove other points.

I COULD accept this for renaissance muskets, but there is no comparison with working around pouring a small vial down a barrell around a live match with archery.

Rocky

"Well, as Jack Nicholson said "Three outa four ain't bad."

Er … no. Here are your original THREE quotes:

"And so at the first encountre there was a sore batayle, and truely the archers shot at the beginnyng right fiersly; how-beit, their shotte dyde lytell hurt to the Frenchemen, they were so well armed and pavysshed.

Then there is this one,

And whan the]archers were forwarde, than they shotte fieraly togyder, but the Frenchmen were so well armed, and so strongely pavyssed, that they toke but lytell hurt.

But, this is my favorite.

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

"The French are already slowed down because of the mud. At that slow speed they would be able to knock aside 3 inch stakes without breaking stride."

- while struggling to advance at all in all the mud … Have you ever tried to "knock aside" a 3" stake that had been hammered into the grond while being shot at at point blank range?

No, neither have I.

Did you ever think that the snatching was from dead Frenchmen?

Except it doesn't read that way. Of course, I like your suggestion better! But HOW did the Frenchmen get so dead, in such numbers to be remarked upon (i.e. rendering a supply of dead men's weapons lying about)?

His comment fits right in with three other comments.

Let's not count up the lesser sources and decide that the view that has the most less-credible references must be the correct one! There are more sources stating the absolute deadliness of the arrows. So what?

Beside, you were using him to ‘prove' the nobles fighting for positions occurred the night before the battle. A bit hypocritical don't you think?

Correction: I was "using" DesUrsins, all the sources in fact, to prove that your assertion, that the arguing was going on while the English "stole a march", was baseless.

Why, because you said so? There are no sources which mention wedges in the second position.

Because that would be redundant? If there was no change, and "advanced in the same order" meant the entire battleline, then there would NOT be any mention of "wedges" or any changes from the first position. The narrators were not writing "the battleline that Henry built", repeating everything they had already said.

And, those that said the army remained in their battle line were referring to a battle line in which no wedges existed; they were on the far flanks.

Except Monstrelet, and Curry stating unequivocally, that the text can be taken to mean archers intermingled between the battles of men at arms.

You believe the moderns and their popular support of their "new" (apple cart tipping) theory: the causes against such an arrangement have been argued above: you still take the modern view (even Curry doesn't, bringing up the difficulty of so many archers being out of range of the French column). Since you do, you have extended this to mean that the archers "were not there to be attacked".

Except there is no evidence they were there.

Just the cavalry charge INTO them, and they didn't move. Just their subsequent attack of the vanguard, penetrating THROUGH it to the mainguard (impossible from the trees). Everything, Rich places the archers in "a single battle line" with the men at arms.

It didn't happen because it has been shown that his account of this cannot have happened. It is physically impossible.

When, where, and with what evidence, has this new assertion of yours "been shown"?

Had he been an eyewitness he would have known that such of thing never happened. But he wasn't. We also know he was not above exaggerating the truth. Did he also exaggerate the penetration power of the longbow?

He was seeing men with their heads well above the masses below, as they stood on the bodies of the fallen: two or three feet higher would have looked "twice as high" in retrospect. Exaggeration is not necessarily conscious in this kind of situation. He saw many more French than were there ("thirty times out number", iirc, just describing the van, again iirc). Other than the numbers of the enemy, and the height of the "wall" of fallen, what else was he exaggerating? Oh, the penetration of the arrows? Well, I guess this means that you have back-pedalled to, "he imagined all those arrows protruding out of helmets on French corpses after the battle". That's what shooting tests are for! The Gesta's stated power to penetrate helmet sides and visors has been verified, many times over.

Keegan
"it was individually prudent and tactically sound for the men most exposed to trot backwards before the French spearpoints, thus 'wrong-footing' their opponents (a spearman times his thrust to coincide with the forward step of his left foot)"

This is fine as long as the spearman is standing and then making a thrust with his spear. It has no practicality if the spearman is rushing to smash himself into the opposing line in order to break it.

Why don't you take this up with Keegan at the first opportunity. He also says that linear battles are nothing more than a collection of individual combatants. A man does not smash himself into a line: he finds himself facing an OPPONENT, with a face and intent. This is duplicated hundreds of times along the front.

Here the men-at-arms is holding the lance as strongly as possible in order to use the momentum power of his whole body and channel it into smashing into the English. This is not a thrust.

Oh, my, goodness. You have seen this in vision, or what? The French held their shortened lances in a static position and the only energy applied was their own body's forward movement? LUDICROUS!

What I was saying is, just because you can do it in your backyard doesn't mean it was done in the 15th century. Your experience must be corroborated with the sources. If no source corroborates your experience then you need to re-think your experience.

Richie, you have it exactly. And if you recall back over the recent (and distant) exchanges, that is EXACTLY what we (especially Rocky) have done. We didn't play with bows and arrows in our "backyard", then go looking for sources to back up what we discovered for ourselves. What we did was READ the sources, go, "what's this?" And then head out to validate or disprove what we had read. Our experiences with penetration, etc., do validate details like the Gesta's, "pierced the sides and visors of their helmets."

What you ignore is there is no evidence of the archers at Agincourt firing in the manner you suggest.

You're impossible when you keep repeating the same 'ol same 'ol lines as if you don't read/hear the stuff we say. The GESTA, Rich, and the cavalry charges as described, being turned away by horses being pierced; the other period source material showing direct shooting (especially the wealth of depictions in illustrations), the "shooting for a wager" (i.e. picking TARGETS) AT Agincourt: there is plenty of evidence to show that direct, aimed shooting took place: there wouldn't be any other practical way to shoot AT the French when they closed to within 100 yards. (There, I said it all again, despite my firm resolve days ago not to bother.)

Rocky, The old guys liked their 3 wedges because it did produce the observed combined arms effect.

I'm sorry Rocky but so does having the archers on the flanks.

Not your way it doesn't. The archers are never involved in the battle until they attack by leaving the stake network. You have them leave the woods, and they must instantly contact both the van and mainguards, in flank, and envelope the rear: this is not how the sources describe the sequence, at, all. So your way there is no combined arms, just two entirely separated attacks going on: men at arms along the front, archers on the flanks of BOTH French battles at the same time, with no connection whatsoever. The way the sources (and the "old guys") show it is the French pressing away from the archers into a mass of three columns, which are then subsequently attacked frontally and in the flanks hand to hand: THEN, entrances into the vanguard are made, and through them, they finally reach the mainguard, which routs away with the dregs of the van. Combined arms: shooting up, then finishing off with everyone involved in the melee (not cowering "naked" in the woods until it looks safe enough to come out and steal a battle axe from a dead Froggy).

Not wishing to start a tangent but why would you need to 'knock aside' a 3ft stake? You step around it if your on foot. Does anyone really believe they were the Archers planted the stakes like a miniature pallisade, all in a line, touching? I'm just asking.

Did you read all the exchange above? The stakes AT THEIR WIDEST SPACING, would be placed every three feet (close order archers stopping where they are, facing 180 degrees, pounding their stakes in, then withdrawing behind them and facing back to sharpen them): in alternating rows, from the front, the network would have stakes every 1.5 feet. In close order, a phalanx of men at arms on foot would be trying to "step around" each stake into the same spaces. If they picked their way through, taking turns to step in behind the men in front, that would TAKE TIME. Which is the whole point of defending any fortified line: more time to shoot up an enemy trying to assault you.

Rocky, Oh, and your fine motor control problems with threatened archers is another fabrication where you invent something never mentioned in the sources and then use this to prove other points.

Before you start calling people liars you aught to do a little research first. Get on the net and see what adrenaline surges do to one's ability to aim. I do expect an apology for being called a liar.

You also intimate I have made other lies. Give examples or give an apology

Rich

Mike, Er … no. Here are your original THREE quotes:

The fourth was des Ursins.

Rich

Doug, Correction: I was "using" DesUrsins, all the sources in fact, to prove that your assertion, that the arguing was going on while the English "stole a march", was baseless.

Don't BS me Doug. Des Ursins was your only source.

Doug, Except Monstrelet, and Curry stating unequivocally,

Sorry Doug Curry is not a source and Monstrelet was corrected by TWO eyewitnesses. You have nothing.

Doug, When, where, and with what evidence, has this new assertion of yours "been shown"?

One of the studies on Agincourt, I forgot which. I want to say Bennett but I'm not sure. You should know. You studied all this.

Doug, A man does not smash himself into a line: he finds himself facing an OPPONENT

Gesta,
"And in the melee of spears which then followed, they hurled themselves against our men in such a fierce charge as to force them to fall back almost a spear's length."

They found themselves an opponent? Now that's LUDICROUS! Maybe afterwards.

Doug What we did was READ the sources, go, "what's this?

This is exactly what I have been warning about. Here we have people with no experience in interpreting historical sources trying to determine what they said. Had you actually done that you would have seen that all your direct fire experience meant little in a battle in which the archers fired "rainbow" fire.

Doug, You're impossible when you keep repeating the same 'ol same 'ol lines as if you don't read/hear the stuff we say

I have to. The stuff you say doesn't prove anything.

1. The GESTA There is now plenty of evidence to show the Gesta was not an eyewitness and was not above "embellishing" the record.

2. the cavalry charges as described, being turned away by horses being pierced Poitiers proves that that fire could not have been direct fire.

3. there is plenty of evidence to show that direct, aimed shooting took place: there wouldn't be any other practical way to shoot AT the French when they closed to within 100 yards.

First if there had been all that evidence to show direct, aimed fire you would have presented it but you haven't because there isn't any. Second your argument depends on the archer being in the main battle line but you have failed to show that the archers were in those places. Therefore this is no evidence of direct fire.

Doug You have them leave the woods, and they must instantly contact both the van and mainguards, in flank, and envelope the rear: this is not how the sources describe the sequence, at, all.

If you are going to describe what it is I say, at least do it correctly.

Doug The way the sources (and the "old guys") show it is the French pressing away from the archers into a mass of three columns

No, that's the way you and perhaps the "old guys" read it. The sources say the French they formed three columns in order to pierce the English battle line.

Doug, (not cowering "naked" in the woods until it looks safe enough to come out and steal a battle axe from a dead Froggy)

Cheap rhetorical trick. That's not what I said and you know it.

Rich

Don't BS me Doug. Des Ursins was your only source.

You are being argumentive or forgetful. Back up and research your own thread, Rich. I quoted ALL the sources that said anything about the French wanting to pack into the vanguard.

Sorry Doug Curry is not a source and Monstrelet was corrected by TWO eyewitnesses. You have nothing.

Curry is talking about the Latin translation, and Monstrelet is one of the Big Three Burgundians: the foundation upon which Waurin and LeFevre built their narratives. Nothing W&L said (which was little enough anyway), makes Monstrelet mistaken: except to you, part of the time.

One of the studies on Agincourt, I forgot which. I want to say Bennett but I'm not sure. You should know. You studied all this.

Sorry, Rich, Bennett is not a source.

Keegan said the bodies could in NO WAY pile high enough to be higher than a man: he allowed two or three feet at the most. Which is what I said would look like the exaggerated description that the Gesta cleric reported. What was your point again?

Gesta,
"And in the melee of spears which then followed, they hurled themselves against our men in such a fierce charge as to force them to fall back almost a spear's length."

They found themselves an opponent? Now that's LUDICROUS! Maybe afterwards.

You deny that melees are a collection of one on one combats? (allowing for places where two take on one of course, but you know what Keegan means)

And this is certainly funny! YOU, quoting the Gesta to prove that whole lines of faceless warriors hurl themselves at each other without seeking out targets to kill! The Gesta eyewitness would have been close enough to see the lines contact, but nowhere near close enough to see spear thrusts! (there must be a term for this thing you do, oh yeah, flip-flopping to win a point)

This is exactly what I have been warning about. Here we have people with no experience in interpreting historical sources trying to determine what they said. Had you actually done that you would have seen that all your direct fire experience meant little in a battle in which the archers fired "rainbow" fire.

And direct fire too.

But you never address what the copious original artwork and clear literary descriptions actually mean when showing direct, aimed shooting: you just deny it altogether.

1. The GESTA There is now plenty of evidence to show the Gesta was not an eyewitness and was not above "embellishing" the record.

"Now plenty of evidence"? When did this come up? I must have missed it. Remember all the confusion about how far back he could have been? Curry even not being clear on that. Not one iotta of evidence places the baggage where you insist it had to be. (oh, Bennett, but he's not a source) Circumnstantial evidence and context in the narrative show it much closer in order to accomplish the stated (and hypothesized) reasons for moving it from the encampment. I am so glad that I can recap so concisely now, and don't have to spell any of this out for you anymore. It is increasingly easy to refute each time you toss out another, "the cleric was not an eyewitness, the baggage was 600 (1,000) yards to the rear."

2. the cavalry charges as described, being turned away by horses being pierced Poitiers proves that that fire could not have been direct fire.

Not a chance. The cavalry charged the open spaces and were shot down and routed. It was precisely direct fire from behind the hedges and wagons. If you want "rainbow" fire, show it. Froissart simply confirms the volume of the vollies making advancing all but impossible. You can't draw "rainbow" fire from it at all. ("Rainbow fire", crap, what a term: Rocky was simply referring to angling upward to a maximum of c. 45 degrees to get maximum range, i.e. arrows arcing like a "rainbow": not shooting vertically into the air to drop arrows on a target 10 to 50 yards away! But you take it how you want to.)

First if there had been all that evidence to show direct, aimed fire you would have presented it but you haven't because there isn't any.

Just our three eyewitnesses is all. Bowed heads to protect visors from being pierced, is not required if arrows are dropping straight down. And we have the visors and sides of helmets actually being "PIERCED." The helmets were there to see after the battle, still on the corpses where they had been shot from the sides just before closing. What more do YOU NEED?

Second your argument depends on the archer being in the main battle line but you have failed to show that the archers were in those places. Therefore this is no evidence of direct fire.

Richie, it doesn't matter in what configuration the archers were drawn up: they were within archery RANGE. Even in your convoluted (latest) setup, IN THE WOODS, the end of their lines still touch the men at arms in the center: you're just saying that in the woods the archers were "not there to be attacked", not physically "not there". What IS impossible with your setup, however, is "rainbow" fire, at, all. Most of the arrows wouldn't even make it out of the trees.

If you are going to describe what it is I say, at least do it correctly.

I am not describing what you say: I am describing what you have not seen that is in complete conflict with what you say: the battle as reported. If your setup had been how it happened, then the battle as reported could not have happened.

The sources say the French they formed three columns in order to pierce the English battle line.

Sure, the other possible cause was just "the chaplain's" over-active imagination. You lied months ago, when you said that you changed your mind and that there were helmets pierced in the sides. (You want to drop it now, because you know that the prisoners shot through the sides of their helmets theory doesn't fly: W&L specifically stating that their helmets were removed, and that they were CUT all over their faces. So you are lying, Rich.)

Cheap rhetorical trick. That's not what I said and you know it.

You said, archers that get attacked run away; you said they are "nearly naked" (is that the important part that I exaggerated?), and that they took axes from dead men. So, combined, your assertions add up to, "cowering naked in the woods until it looks safe enough to come out and steal a battle axe from a dead Froggy."

---------------------------

You offered not ONE rebuttal, or piece of evidence to support your setup: which still fails on the battle as reported, the impossibility of shooting from trees, the impossibility of cavalry turning 90 degrees in the middle of a charge INTO the trees, the impossibility of the French vanguard not contacting the English archers down the entire length of the woods as they focus only on contacting the men at arms; and your continued use of the Gesta while claiming it is bunkum picked up by listening to "longbowmen trash talk", put together by someone who was no eyewitness (ergo, how can you resort to him AT ALL, when you have done everything to destroy his narrative for the battle-proper?).

I quoted ALL the sources that said anything about the French wanting to pack into the vanguard.

Yes, and I corrected them for you which left you only des Ursins

the foundation upon which Waurin and LeFevre built their narratives.

And I pointed out where W&L presented a corrected picture of what actually went on.

Sorry, Rich, Bennett is not a source.

I didn't present him as a source. You even got that wrong.

What was your point again?

The Gesta is not above exaggerating.

but you know what Keegan means

Yep and both you and he are wrong as I showed.

The Gesta eyewitness would have been close enough to see the lines contact, but nowhere near close enough to see spear thrusts! (there must be a term for this thing you do, oh yeah, flip-flopping to win a point)

Only you claimed he was an eyewitness. Flip flop: you and des Ursins = he's reliable when you want to use him but unreliable when I use him. It's really all about your inability to interpret these sources.

"Now plenty of evidence"? When did this come up? I must have missed it.

No doubt.

Not a chance. The cavalry charged the open spaces and were shot down and routed.

So, you don't know anything about the battle of Poitiers either. I'm not surprised.

And we have the visors and sides of helmets actually being "PIERCED."

I had said I believed the writer of the Gesta saw helmets that were pierced. Now I have seen that he was not above embellishing the truth, I'm not so sure. We have no idea where he got that idea of sides of helmets being pierced.

I am not describing what you say?

No.

You lied months ago, when you said that you changed your mind and that there were helmets pierced in the sides. … So you are lying, Rich.

You see people, a lie is an intent to deceive. But Doug doesn't understand that. In his black and white thinking you either agree with him or your are lying. No wonder he such a terrible interpreter of these sources.

But you never address what the copious original artwork

I've tried to teach you how to interpret these sources. Now you want me to teach you medieval art interpretation. No way. You have absolutely no talent for interpretation.

You offered not ONE rebuttal

They have already been offered. And, I have no interest in offering them again. In fact, that's all you have presented here: arguments which I have show to be bogus. I'm bored with you responses. They have all been offered before and shown to be bogus. And, this is all you have. Therefore, I wish you good gaming and I hope to see you at a conventions some time. That goes for both Mike and Rocky. Bye.

Rich

Hi

My phone, and therefore the DSL were down for the weekend…look at all the fun I missed!

Rich, you assert I called you a liar. You later define "liar" as a deliberate effort to decieve.

I made neither point.

You FABRICATED the assertian out of no where that fine motor control would be such that, in a close apporach the longbow would run rather than shoot. While insisting Doug produce a written source proof for assertians like this, you present none for your assertian.

Then you make an unsupported assertian which I dispute as an archer and someone who has gone hand to hand with actual weapons.

Thus, I didn't acuse you of willful deceit, but of making a bald unsupportable assertian as a base to prove other points which are equally unsupported.

I haven't called you a liar ever. I point out that you make assumpions and assertians based on neither sources, evidence or experience, and then use various circular bits of reasoning to close your own circle.

The basic one is that archers weren't effective, and the brits were stupid to have them, and the french were stupid to not attack them to cover a flank. But then the french weren't stupid because they didn't attack the archers because they weren't there!

To make this work, you invent a new version of the battlefield. A brilliant observation that has never occoured to anyone else, that instead of a 700m wide or so field, it was only 250 with the french crammed in sholder to sholder….which isn't from any source, but you making assumptions not in evidence.

R

I quoted ALL the sources that said anything about the French wanting to pack into the vanguard.

Yes, and I corrected them for you which left you only des Ursins

Don't make me laugh: you TOSSED the rest of the sources.

the foundation upon which Waurin and LeFevre built their narratives.
And I pointed out where W&L presented a corrected picture of what actually went on.

And I pointed out that W&L's added details were meant to be MORE, added to Monstrelet; not to replace it: if they had meant to replace Monstrelet's ("wrong" -- Rich Knapton) account, they would have addressed it or left it out altogether. They added the Erpingham details to augment Monstrelet, not "correct" him. You will note, that they address the purported "200 archers" in ambush at length; and allow that the story is widely accepted, but that there are good eyewitnesses who deny it altogether: that's an example of W&L "correcting" the common narrative in Monstrelet.

Sorry, Rich, Bennett is not a source.

I didn't present him as a source. You even got that wrong.

::sigh:: I was just tossing your objection with my citing Curry, back in your face for citing Bennett, immediately after saying Curry isn't a source.

The Gesta is not above exaggerating.

I accept that, clearly. The points of exaggeration, however, are clear to discern: the size of the French host, and the height of the "wall" of fallen bodies; that's about it.

Only you claimed [the cleric] was an eyewitness. Flip flop: you and des Ursins = he's reliable when you want to use him but unreliable when I use him. It's really all about your inability to interpret these sources.

Curry says he was an eyewitness. You and a few others, like Bennett, have made up this absolute distance back that he must have been from the fighting.

I cited Des Ursins in response to you citing him; and before that, I cited him along with every other source that had ANYTHING at all to say about the French "arguing" over precedence in the vanguard. Other than that, I consider Des Ursins to be largely unreliable and I don't quote him any more than the other sources of lesser value.

So, you don't know anything about the battle of Poitiers either. I'm not surprised.

Rich Knapton, resorting to pushing buttons again. I won't respond to that further piece of your priggishness.

I had said I believed the writer of the Gesta saw helmets that were pierced. Now I have seen that he was not above embellishing the truth, I'm not so sure. We have no idea where he got that idea of sides of helmets being pierced.

NOW you see he could exaggerate? And you tell me I don't know how to interpret the sources: I knew, the very first time I read the Gesta myself, that the "wall" was impossible, the numbers of the French impossible, and the "God did it all for the English" an example of exaggeration for political purposes. Welcome to the club, lately, Rich: the Gesta writer was human and had an agenda, just like everyone else. Wow.

You see people, a lie is an intent to deceive.

Or self-deception.

But Doug doesn't understand that. In his black and white thinking you either agree with him or your are lying. No wonder he such a terrible interpreter of these sources.

You're the one demonstrating a black and white definition of what lying is.

Attacking me personally, your last resort. I have pointed out (as clearly as black and white, in print, we have it; here, look at your own words) that you denied the Gesta details about arrows piercing helmets, you said:

And now to the Gesta. At no point did the writer say this actually happened on the battlefield. What did happen is the French, who had been advancing, suddenly stopped and divided into three columns. The writer is musing as to why the French did this. He suggests that EITHER the French were afraid of the power of the missile fire OR this was a maneuver to pierce the English line. We know the latter was true which makes the former untrue. The French were not afraid that the sides and visors of their helmets would be pierced. You see, this was all hypothetical for the writer. -- Rich Knapton 13 Jul 2008 8:53 a.m. PST: "The Effective Archery Debate"

The writer of the Gesta is trying to get into the heads of French to see why they stopped. He's guessing as to their motivation. Clearly he was wrong with the arrow in the helmet guess. In an either/or statement the true statement makes the other statement false. Now, was that a possibility on the battlefields of the HYW? Perhaps, but we have no evidence of such a feat. Remember, this is a guess from a cleric who was 900-1,000 yards in the rear and his own army was blocking any sight of the French.

Nevertheless, you are in the position of saying that this possibility, dreamed up by some cleric who couldn't even see the action, is proof that archers fired perpendicular at Agincourt. And, you claim this despite what numerous primary sources said. It is much more reasonable to simply accept what the sources said; especially since there was a sound tactical reason for this plunging fire.

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

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

Doug: "The piercing was a fact occurring."

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

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

So the fear was the piercing? In other words, the French feared the power of the missiles which pierced helmets and visors. This doesn't change the fact that this was an opinion of our cleric. He was 700 yards to the rear praying. Since we have no corroboration that helmets were pierced, we can take that opinion with a grain of salt. He wasn't there to see this happening. And, the people who were there, Waurin and LeFevre, don't mention any such fantastic feats.

I don't think I said the bow fire was not a threat. It certainly was. As the sources mentioned, the men-at-arms bowed their heads so the arrows would not pierce their visors. I simply said that given the bowfire was high-angle plunging fire there was little fear of helmets being pierced by the arrows. Visors yes. Helmets no.

-- ibid, further down the thread

And finally the admission of having been mistaken:

You both responded with incredulity that the arrows would be directed upward and allowed to fall upon the French. I find this incredulous because I have already given you a very good tactical reason for this kind of fire. I have also given you the probable results of this type of fire and how it helped the English to win. But all you can think of is direct fire. And since you think any other type of fire is ridiculous, you grasp at straws to show that the archers fired in the only manner you think should be done.

So there you have it. Except for one thing. Originally I dismissed the Gesta comment about arrows in the side of helmets as fantasy [emph mine] because this was his first experience of battle. But Doug convinced me that the cleric actually did see helmets pieced in the side by arrows. The question is where did he see this. It wasn't during battle. He was too far away. Since this was his first battle, it would not have been in an earlier battle. It is doubtful that he saw such examples of the power of the bow while growing up. As a cleric he was probably from a noble family but was a younger son with no rights of inheritance. Younger sons generally entered the Church at a rather young age. So, where had he seen helmets with arrow sticking out of the sides of helmets?

Then I realized that after battle it was the duty of the clerics to deal with the dead. As a cleric it would have been his job to enter the battlefield, after the battle, and prepare the dead for burial. I'm satisfied this is where our cleric saw the dead with arrows piercing their helmets. -- Rich Knapton 06 Aug 2008 3:12 p.m. PST

How could this be any more clear? You have changed your mind back to your original premise; which means that you are only being truthful if you admit that you have in fact changed your mind back to that assertion: that the Cleric was making up the detail of helmets being pierced in the sides, or it is a detail we cannot trust because we don't know where he got it, so just toss it (especially if we can't visualize BOTH indirect shooting AND direct, aimed shooting).

You could have admitted that you flip-flopped back to not believing the Gesta. But I feel that I have had to drag it out of you!

I've tried to teach you how to interpret these sources. Now you want me to teach you medieval art interpretation. No way. You have absolutely no talent for interpretation.

So you keep insisting, when I can clearly point out the mistaken notions you have about what I know or think that I know. In just this response alone: you wiggle out of rebutting my points by resorting to personal attacks upon my knowledge and even my intelligence: intimating that your precious time is being wasted to even consider it. You don't even see the enormous effrontry of your attitude! I don't know whether to feel sorry for you or just ed off to have allowed myself to give you any serious attention at all.

You offered not ONE rebuttal

They have already been offered. And, I have no interest in offering them again. In fact, that's all you have presented here: arguments which I have show to be bogus.

BOGUS? Your setup is what's bogus. It has been challenged at all points along the way, by THREE of us, and all the "old guys", and every modern historian we have cited along the way; and you haven't supported a SINGLE THING with source material that is consistent. Manifest impossibilities have been pointed out to you repeatedly: and you have the hubris to claim that rebutals by you "have already been offered."

Mostly you just ignore what is said and then claim that you have already shown proofs of your setup from the sources. You never have. The moment you cite a source, it has been shown to be impossible to interpret your way because the best source-based statements disagree. You simply turn away from them.

You're not bored, you're helpless and tossing in the towel far too late to quit this little sad debate gracefully. You are being dishonest (there, I didn't say you are lying).

Bye

(Why do I doubt that Rich is through here? Oh, I am transferring my response earlier, saying "I quit", then coming back for more abuse.)

TMP link And yet another thread on this seemingly perenial subject. I am having fun, in a perverse sort of fashion….:)