"Battle-line at Agincourt" Topic

Hi

Rich, one, I am a classic dislexic, which means that even when typing, letters appear, disapper and move around for me. Often typing slower than I think, my fingers insert a letter from an upcoming word.

Two, I am unsure where the boundries are on this subject. I thought Dib was addressing a point on the deployment and movement by referring to the shock, and was repling that this wasn't an issue on the deployment or movement.

three, "hydrostatic shock", you are correct that doug is wrong, I didn't actually do more than skim doug's post. He isn't the missle/physics/math guy in the discussion (ballistics expert). He is an archer, and we chuckle often about movies and archery (night arrows!).

four, Mike you are correct that I don't believe it was a wall of stakes and actually suggest more of a checkerboard due to the "move beyond" part of the narrative. But the point was suggested by Rich that the archers were the vulnerable part of the line. It seems that this ignores the stakes as a factor. The MAA must pass through the stakes, in armor, less nimble than the yeoman, they would not just be running through the stakes to attack the supposedly vulnerable bow. I was addressing the concept of them being vulnerable.

five:And a lot of the objecttions to the "kings party, bow on wings" suggestion has always been in my mind. As an archer and someone who has been in a few real fights with actual steel and stuff, I always preferred the Oman layout. I cannot prove anything. I am unaware of a primary point suggesting a single group of MAA in the center with "wings" thrust forward towards the french. And my objection would be in agreement with Rich. the trees would at least allow some MAA to pass into the flanks. But wedges of stakes with archers in the center removes the "vulnearable" idea.

R

Rich, when all the eyewitness sources are compared; when we take into account the other sources that give more full information on important aspects, such as Henry's decision to advance in the same order as his army was in, in the first position, we arrive with the conclusion that (however large or small the bodies were) we have three bodies of men at arms; a center of the king's own, and two wings of men at arms with archers; these three bodies of men at arms were separated by archers between: how large these archer units were is not to be determined. We have "wings" of archers with the "wings" of men at arms, and the archers in the "wings" reach and penetrate into the woods. As the archers are "in front", and the Gesta specifically describes the formation of the archers between the battles of men at arms to be "cuneos", whether meaning "en herce" and projecting "in front" of the men at arms as "wedges" is arguable. As the French divide into three distinct columns to target the English banners, i.e. the battles of men at arms, I don't see how you can realistically ignore the clear statements of the Gesta, and assume that the men at arms in the "wings" were contiguous to the king's center battle.

The Gesta really is the "fly in the ointment" of such a theory. If you are prepared to dismiss "our cleric", then I don't see that any real discussion of the battle is possible; as I cannot see any valid reasons for such a dismissal of the clearest-written, most immediate to the time, account of the battle….

dibble 11 Sep 2008 7:09 p.m. PST
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….

I can't tell where you are reading this from and don't recall reading it myself. Please provide book and page, thank you….

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.

That's not what you meant here though

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:

and you're contradicting yourself

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:

I'm making the point that some hits by arrows were immediately fatal – or nearly so, and that generalisations such as yours are exactly that

the bones, ligaments, joints, brain, are not usually hit in a way to render the body incapable for further action.

and you know this how?

Included in my post was, "…but bullets also have hydrostatic shock capabilities and damaging capabilities that arrows do not.

I saw it…I knew that already. It doesn't address any of the above though. You're comparing apples and oranges

Connard, I am not going to discuss "what I meant" on this thread further: Rich doesn't like it and he started this topic, so I am going to respect that.

"I was speaking to masses of men being shot by masses of arrows."

That must have been quite difficult – did they take any notice of you, or were they too busy dodging the arrows? :-)

:) I finally got it

Rich

My broad ideas are stated above. Obviously there must have been other smaller units attacking other parts of the ‘English' line. These types wouldn't have been the more heavily armoured types that assailed the main battle in the centre; these were the cream of French society attacking the cream of the ‘English. The ultimate goal of any knight is to defeat his equals-peers in single combat. Even the ‘English' knights would have been annoyed at seeing an enemy knight killed by a soldier of low birth.
Those sent to attack the bowmen were lesser types and were beaten by arrows, hand to hand combat, and that other big factor; the conditions. You may not like it but the bowmen were more proficient in hand to hand combat than we think. Don't forget that I also think that the bowmen had a "sprinkling" of Men-at-Arms units along the wings to help out the bowmen when it came to melee. Perhaps this may be why the Gesta mistakenly mentions that there were three main battles.
So as I see it the French did try to beach the wings but were as comprehensively beat as the rest.

Because a Unit of Bowmen ran in one battle; doesn't mean they would run in all battles.

Rich I hope this is the kind of thing you want on your thread.

Paul

Doug

The Ann Curry quotes are taken from her Agincourt (A new history) I haven't got the book with me as I am on another computer elsewhere. I cannot recall the page number, though I think it is in the chapter describing the day of battle. If you want me to be more specific then you will have to wait until Monday, when I will be able to have the book at hand.

Paul

Rocky, "Rich, one, I am a classic dyslexic, which means that even when typing, letters appear, disappear and move around for me. Often typing slower than I think, my fingers insert a letter from an upcoming word."

My response was meant as humor. I have the utmost respect for you.

Rocky, "Two, I am unsure where the boundaries are on this subject. I thought Dib was addressing a point on the deployment and movement by referring to the shock, and was replying that this wasn't an issue on the deployment or movement."

I thought I was clear. I took the Gesta position as relevant for this discussion and asked why the French men-at-arms didn't penetrate where the archers were located according to the Gesta description.

Rocky, "four, Mike you are correct that I don't believe it was a wall of stakes and actually suggest more of a checkerboard due to the "move beyond" part of the narrative. But the point was suggested by Rich that the archers were the vulnerable part of the line. It seems that this ignores the stakes as a factor. The MAA must pass through the stakes, in armor, less nimble than the yeoman, they would not just be running through the stakes to attack the supposedly vulnerable bow. I was addressing the concept of them being vulnerable."

The stakes were used to keep out mounted attacks. The stakes had to be far apart enough to allow the archers to come out and go back in. So they are not going to keep men-at-arms out. No one said anything about running. All the men-at-arms have to do is make sure the archers don't fire into their eye slits. As Doug pointed out elsewhere, up close the arrows will have lost a lot of their power. So, the vulnerable idea remains.

"five: And a lot of the objections to the "kings party, bow on wings" suggestion has always been in my mind. As an archer and someone who has been in a few real fights with actual steel and stuff, I always preferred the Oman layout. I cannot prove anything. I am unaware of a primary point suggesting a single group of MAA in the center with "wings" thrust forward towards the French. And my objection would be in agreement with Rich. the trees would at least allow some MAA to pass into the flanks. But wedges of stakes with archers in the center removes the "vulnerable" idea."

But the sources have already said the forests on either side forced the French into funneling the French attack.

Doug, "I don't see how you can realistically ignore the clear statements of the Gesta, and assume that the men at arms in the "wings" were contiguous to the king's center battle."

I don't ignore the Gesta at all. I take his account as factual.

Titus Livius: "The usual order of the English, established by the king, was maintained; the first battle line proceeded, then second and the third followed straight after."

Pseudo Elmham: "The King thought it difficult and hazardous to depart from his position, yet to avoid greater dangers, with the greatest intrepidity he set his army an example how they should direct their march toward the enemy, preserving, however, the order of their former array."

Both are true with regards to the men-at-arms. But not so with the archers. The archers were pulled out of their places and placed in front of the men-at-arms to screen the advance of the men-at-arms. This was a standard tactic for approaching the enemy used by both sides. Remember Crecy? It would be simple to place them on the outside flanks of the men-at-arms. Thus, the Gesta's account is only good for the initial setup, not the second setup with men-at-arms in the center and archers on the flanks.

So you Doug, I don't have to discount the Gesta's account. What he described was the initial setup. He has almost nothing to say about the second setup. The other sources have almost nothing to say about the initial setup. They all describe the second setup: men-at-arms in the center and archers on their flanks.

Rich

Dibble, "My broad ideas are stated above. Obviously there must have been other smaller units attacking other parts of the ‘English' line. These types wouldn't have been the more heavily armoured types that assailed the main battle in the centre; these were the cream of French society attacking the cream of the ‘English."

The 5,000 attacking knights drove out all the lesser fighters before advancing on the English. So, there were no lesser types.

"The ultimate goal of any knight is to defeat his equals-peers in single combat.

That is not how late-medieval battles were fought. The goal was to penetrate the enemy battle-line. Once that was accomplished the penetrated battle-line would dissolve as men attempted to get out of there.

Even the ‘English' knights would have been annoyed at seeing an enemy knight killed by a soldier of low birth.

Hardly, the men-at-arms and archers fought and died together.

"Those sent to attack the bowmen were lesser types and were beaten by arrows, hand to hand combat, and that other big factor; the conditions."

As I pointed out there were no lesser types.

"You may not like it but the bowmen were more proficient in hand to hand combat than we think.

Why do you think this has anything to do with what I like or dislike? It doesn't matter what we may think about the fighting prowess of the archers. He had no armor and no real weapons training, other than for his bow. The man-at-arms is an expert in hand to hand fighting. Not only does he have armor, he has the skill come by years and years of training.

"Don't forget that I also think that the bowmen had a "sprinkling" of Men-at-Arms units along the wings to help out the bowmen when it came to melee. Perhaps this may be why the Gesta mistakenly mentions that there were three main battles. So as I see it the French did try to beach the wings but were as comprehensively beat as the rest."

The English men-at-arms were outnumbered 5-1. Why would they further dilute their strength by putting small numbers of men-at-arms in with the archers. Beside, there is not a shred of evidence that anything like this was done.

"Because a Unit of Bowmen ran in one battle; doesn't mean they would run in all battles.

That was not the point. The point was archers were simply unable to stop a determined attack on their positions by dismounted men-at-arms.

Rich

Rich
You say 5,000 Attacked I would say 6-8,000 French attacked; the "juicy" lords had the best positions in the onslaught. Those of lesser, let us say, "Notoriety" would not be at the forefront but at the sides and rear & as the battlefield narrows they would have tried to attack the only enemy open to them; the bowmen.
Perhaps I should have explained what I meant by lesser units. I don't mean the archers or crossbowmen etc, who were sent packing

As for you saying: "The point was archers were simply unable to stop a determined attack on their positions by dismounted men-at-arms"

Are you saying that this would always happen all of the time?

You say:
"The English men-at-arms were outnumbered 5-1. Why would they further dilute their strength by putting small numbers of men-at-arms in with the archers. Beside, there is not a shred of evidence that anything like this was done".

I am not trying to prove anything. I am just trying to pose a different scenario
I don't pretend that I know how many ‘English', French there were at the battle. Nor do I know the formations of each army, the size/actual location of the battlefield, or even the duration of the clash itself. If you do then you had better close this thread and write a definitive book

I sir would only ever state the mud, and that Henry beat the French at a place called Azincourt on the 25th October 1415 as fact.

Doug

The Ann Curry quotes are taken from her Agincourt (A new history) I haven't got the book with me as I am on another computer elsewhere. I cannot recall the page number, though I think it is in the chapter describing the day of battle. If you want me to be more specific then you will have to wait until Monday, when I will be able to have the book at hand.

Paul

Got it, thanks.

Page 194. "In many ways, his account of the battle is vague and bland." "In many ways" is an important inclusion: she goes on to specify military details such as Waurin and LeFevre provide. The disappointing aspect of the Gesta is, that while the most immediate account to the event, and while by far the most thoroughly detailed from start to finish for the whole campaign, the battle itself is not replete with "military" details per se, being more concerned to show Henry's just cause in the eyes of God (the apparant motive behind it being written). Curry says the cleric "would have been several hundred yards away", but her own construction of where the baggage was on the night before, and how Henry moved it to maintain the same ralationship to the army ("at no great distance"): in addition to the preference for the battle taking place at or very near the road that crosses the field between Tramecourt and Agincourt picture , would put the baggage a lot closer, imho, than "a few hundred yards away". We've been over this elsewhere: but I don't think that the fact of the French dividing into three columns would have been hard to see even three hundred yards away, to a man sitting on horseback. The specific detail of helmets pierced frontally and from the side, would have been obvious to "our cleric" through subsequent examination of the battlefield. Where the dead fell would be in agreement with what he had seen earlier from a distance.

As Doug pointed out elsewhere, up close the arrows will have lost a lot of their power. So, the vulnerable idea remains.

Huh? Are you referring to within c. 6 to 10 feet? No archer is going to shoot with a man at arms in his face like that. In our rules, "missile in melee" would include a shot at maybe 10 feet, but inside that would a wasted (and most likely lethally stupid) effort. Nothing in the picture we conceive of how the archers used their stakes requires that each man stand directly behind the stake he's driven into the ground. The entire unit could fall back a few paces, leaving the enstaked ground slightly out in front of themselves. A close order line of attacking enemy men at arms would have to negotiate (weave through) the stakes to reach the archers: or pause to pull them up and drop them, etc. Either way, for a few precious, deadly seconds, the archers would have a last shot or two before the French finally got to hand strokes. It didn't happen that way (according to any written details we have, anyway), but it could have.

Titus Livius: "The usual order of the English, established by the king, was maintained; the first battle line proceeded, then second and the third followed straight after."

Pseudo Elmham: "The King thought it difficult and hazardous to depart from his position, yet to avoid greater dangers, with the greatest intrepidity he set his army an example how they should direct their march toward the enemy, preserving, however, the order of their former array."

Both are true with regards to the men-at-arms. But not so with the archers. The archers were pulled out of their places and placed in front of the men-at-arms to screen the advance of the men-at-arms. This was a standard tactic for approaching the enemy used by both sides.

On whose "authority" do you make this distinction: that the archers were not part of the "former array"??

I don't ignore the Gesta at all. I take his account as factual.

….

Thus, the Gesta's account is only good for the initial setup, not the second setup with men-at-arms in the center and archers on the flanks.

I don't see how you can pass over the three columns. If the men at arms were all massed in the center there would be only one French column/battle. But if there were three columns, there were three points in the English line that were targetted for attack (where the banners were, the Gesta tells us). What separated the three places in the line where the banners were, were bodies of archers. Military details provided by Waurin and LeFevre tell us that archers were also in the wings with men at arms: this is a typical medieval array, of center (mainguard), right (vanguard) and left (rearguard) in line. And it is so-called in the sources.

I don't have to discount the Gesta's account. What he described was the initial setup. He has almost nothing to say about the second setup.

Because it didn't change! It is the description of the first setup which makes sense out of the Gesta's description of the French three columns.

Hi

Rich:"The stakes were used to keep out mounted attacks. The stakes had to be far apart enough to allow the archers to come out and go back in. So they are not going to keep men-at-arms out."

The implication that the ONLY point is to keep out the mounted is an assumption that I don't support. Advancing beyond the stakes and firing is a basic point, but out of the 5k or so in the first battle, only 10% were mounted. The layout of the stakes is a problem. If, as Mike likes, they are 6 deep, then we have a wall of stakes. Which isn't conducive to the discussion of passing in and out. A checkerboard works better, but the issue is that a man in full armor isnt as nimble as a unarmored archer. If the stakes delay the MAA for 5 seconds, that is another arrow at point blank range. I hold, however, that the deployment was such that the MAA had to batter the stakes away or down, meaning even more time with those shots at point blank range.

I still want to know more about the fight where the archers ran… bet there were no stakes involved or an unprotected flank.

Rocky

Yep, unprotected flank it is, in one example at least.

Rich's opening post:

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.

I did a search for info on Rich's battles listed as English defeats "because the archers" couldn't stop a French attack.

Constance is only found as a church or council of that name, of a daughter Pedro the Cruel or Constance of Arles (no battle reference whatsoever), and 1356 only turns up in connection with Poitiers -- our TMP topic "Agincourt: why did the French lose?" is also listed :). Nogent also only brings up the TMP thread discussion. There is this pic picture , which though small and fuzzy does seem to depict the English archers getting skewered at "Nogent". Auray is a Anglo-French victory: and the English seem to have been attacked in their siege lines (that had to be better than mere stakes). Finally, Cocherel is not a case of English tactics being overcome by French armor: but rather a French feigned retreat, followed by an Anglo-Navarrese pursuit, and an ambush into their flank by du Guesclin's reserve (which I assume was mounted for the job).

Thus we see the error of drawing conclusions from a list of vaguely treated battles: one of which was actually an English victory (shared with the French on their side). The armies in these battles appear to be polyglot, English and French or Spanish, which changes completely the claim that they compare to Agincourt in any way.

Doug, "Because it didn't change! It is the description of the first setup which makes sense out of the Gesta's description of the French three columns.

You don't need the archers to explain the three columns. The Gesta said the three columns were aimed at the banners of each of the three English banners. They weren't created because there were archers in between.

Gesta: "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"

See link

The graphic is a good pictorial presentation of the Gesta's description. And it fits with how other sources describe the English battle-line.

Doug, "On whose "authority" do you make this distinction: that the archers were not part of the "former array"??

[Le Fevre and Waurin], After the discussion had taken place between the two battles [English and French] and the emissaries had returned to their own men, the king of England ordered a veteran knight, called Sir Thomas Erpingham, to draw up his archers and to put them in the front in two wings. Sir Thomas exhorted everyone on behalf of the king of England to fight with vigour against the French. He rode with an escort in 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 who was also on foot between his men and with his banner in front of him, Then the English began suddenly to advance uttering a great cry which much amazed the French."

[Chronique de Ruisseauville]: "They came very quickly, the archers in front running without armour and with their breeches hanging down."

[Thomas Walsingham]: "With the banners raised, he ordered his men to proceed in order. He made the archers go first from the right and also from the left."

As I said, Henry told Sir Thomas Erpingham to reposition the archers and place them in front of the army, in two wings, They covered the advance of the army. Only the men-at-arms kept their original positions. Since the archers were redeployed into two wings, it was easy for them to set up on the flanks of the battle-line of men-at-arms.

[Jean Juvenal des Ursins]: " They [French] began to march until arrowfire occurred from both sides."

Clearly des Ursins is drawing a verbal picture of archers on either flank of the on coming French. Thus at the time of the attack archers were positioned on the flanks of the English men-at-arms. There is no sense that he was describing the French moving between the wedges of archers.

The comments of Titus Livius and Pseudo Elmham about the army moving forward "in their former order" pertains only to the men-at-arms. It doesn't include the archers. These were pulled out and repositioned in front of the men-at-arms to cover the advance. Once in the new position, as Le Fevre and Waurin said, the two battle were placed on the flanks of the kings battle and the archers were placed on the flanks of these men-at-arms. In this position, the archers could fire at the oncoming French from both sides as described by des Ursins.

Doug, " did a search for info on Rich's battles listed as English defeats "because the archers" couldn't stop a French attack.
Constance is only found as a church or council of that name, of a daughter Pedro the Cruel or Constance of Arles (no battle reference whatsoever)"

Doug I'm sure you are a very fine archer. However, you make a lousy historian. A historian would not turn to the web for his information. He would turn to the chronicle sources of the period. I suggest you do the same. And, I didn't say the English lost all these battles.

Doug, Thus we see the error of drawing conclusions from a list of vaguely treated battles.

No, what we see is the error of really poor research.

Rich

By the way Doug, you forgot a dot after www in your link to the picture.

Rich

Rocky, "The implication that the ONLY point is to keep out the mounted is an assumption that I don't support."

That's fine. Everyone is allowed their own opinion. However, the sources only reference mounted attacks when mentioning the stakes. I've not read a single account by a major historian that didn't reference the stakes as protection from mounted attacks. In fact some have commented that the stakes would not have protected against an attack by dismounted men-at-arms. The thinking is if archers could go back and forth between the stakes the men-at arms could also go in between the stakes. So while your explanation is yours, it is not an accepted explanation. The only way your suggestion would work is if the archers called over some of their own men-at-arms to measure the width between each stake to insure archers could squeeze through but not men-at-arms. This is highly impracticable and nowhere referenced in the sources. I would assume this would have a deleterious effect on firing as each archers was squeezed in among the stakes.

Rich

dibble 11 Sep 2008 7:09 p.m. PST
"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…."

Doug, "I can't tell where you are reading this from and don't recall reading it myself. Please provide book and page, thank you….

Page 194.

Rich

You don't need the archers to explain the three columns. The Gesta said the three columns were aimed at the banners of each of the three English banners. They weren't created because there were archers in between.

And what were the bulk of the French men at arms doing while a tiny fragment of their battle went forward in "columns" to attack the English banners? Your illustration makes no sense out of what the Gesta says.

Only the men-at-arms kept their original positions. Since the archers were redeployed into two wings, it was easy for them to set up on the flanks of the battle-line of men-at-arms.

So you go with much later non-eyewitness acounts; and even Waurin and LeFevre wrote years after Monstrelet, apparently borrowing from HIM. (I mistakenly attributed Monstrelet to Waurin and LeFevre earlier: the trouble with all three of these accounts is that they obviously overlap and so rather than three distinct sources, we have a blunge of three in one: who the most credible eyewitness was is lost to us.) Monstrelet clearly places archers on the wings, AND men at arms as well.

Here's the real problem with your assertion that only the archers moved out of the first position, while the men at arms remained as they were: the men at arms NOW have two big gaps between them where the archers had been: if the men at arms move to close these gaps and form a contiguous line, how is that fulfilling the chroniclers who claimed that Henry advanced maintaining his original order?

Doug I'm sure you are a very fine archer. However, you make a lousy historian. A historian would not turn to the web for his information. He would turn to the chronicle sources of the period. I suggest you do the same. And, I didn't say the English lost all these battles.

You implied it by being vague, then; because your list of earlier battles was meant to illustrate how longbowmen can't handle French men at arms on foot attacking them.

I only used the Web to show that other than your saying so, nobody on this thread knows anything about your claims that these battles show what you say they do, i.e. that the English archers could not stop an attack by dismounted French men at arms. You ought to provide author, "chapter and verse", when you cite examples as proofs.

You as much as say the Web is crap for historical research, but don't refute any of the things I said: if the battle details I provided (scant though they be) are in error, show it. You have not supported your claim that these earlier battles are evidence that English archers were not strong enough to defeat, or see off, a French attack.

I have raised some serious doubts about your conclusions. Rocky has asked for more information: at the very least, state the sources ("chapter and verse") that provided you with the information to make such a claim. You only make criticism of my little jab at your conclusion, based on what information there is on the Web being at odds with said-claim. And you provide the defense of a personal attack. Dandy.

"You ought to provide author, "chapter and verse", when you cite examples as proofs."

Hmmm …. now where have I heard that sentiment before? :-)

Hi

Rich, I would offer that the yeomen aren't mentioned by name or commander unless a noble shows up. Thus, the concept that no one discusses what the yeoman were doing doesn't state anything one way or another.

This is actually related to the concept expressed elsewhere that the british MAA did all the damage dispite being vastly outnumberd. Most of the army are bow. Most of the french are infantry, placing stakes for 5000 archers to hold off 300 mounted doesn't make much sense.

And you state that the archer ran in other situations without suppling details(and implying a british defeat).

Two of your battles are mentioned in sources I own, the other two are not, and none of them mention this rabbiting of the archers. So, politely, out of curiosity, where did this come from.

When the library failed, I looked on the net and the only mention I found were posts by you on other forums.

It is clear that the brits made the big battles famous to us in english, but ulitmately lost the war.

But again, the question is not who is right or clever, but the issue of the assertian. You ask a question about why the French didn't attack the archers. Unless the French were stupid, there must be a reason. YOU assume that the stakes were only for horse, and then make more assumptions about how stakes work. I am GUESSING that if the archer ran, there were no stakes. Stakes are just for stopping an attack, but also for delay. With no pressure, the archers might go through a "thicket" of stakes, but attacking under pressure, such a thicket might produce, say 30 seconds of working through the stakes while being shot at as the difference in the situation.

R

"Most of the french are infantry, placing stakes for 5000 archers to hold off 300 mounted doesn't make much sense."

But did the English actually know that? Wasn't it a tactical decision on the part of the French to attack dismounted rather than mounted?

"Stakes are just for stopping an attack, but also for delay. With no pressure, the archers might go through a "thicket" of stakes, but attacking under pressure, such a thicket might produce, say 30 seconds of working through the stakes while being shot at as the difference in the situation."

Exactly. Stakes will stop a mounted attack, in the same way that pikes did in later period. They will not stop a determined attack on foot, even if they are spaced closely together. Archers are vulnerable to mounted attack hence the need for stakes.

BTW, a propos of nothing, your continued misspelling of the word "assertion" amuses me :-)

Yeah, and for years on end I spelled "missile", "missle." Through repeated exposure to my misspelling, Rocky was corrupted into seeing it that way and took up the misspelling too. I did get Rocky to stop spelling Convenience, "convience." It drove me nuts and I finally wrote him about it: then he made me aware that "we" had been misspelling "missile" in all our rules writing: and I made the discovery that it was my original mistake and not his (earlier correspondence from Rocky to me had the word "missile" spelled correctly). Mike, you are easily amused. ;)

In case you didn't know about Rocky's dixlesia, read the post at the top of this page.

"Yeah, and for years on end I spelled "missile", "missle.""

Yeah, that's because you Americans mispronounce that word!

"Mike, you are easily amused. ;)"

Yeah, probably!! ;-)

Rich:

And, I didn't say the English lost all these battles.

But you did say,

"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?"

You have not shown that the French ever deliberately attacked bodies of archers, drove them from the field in the earlier battles you cite, and then attacked the men at arms.

In fact, I pointed out that at Cocherel the English were defeated because they left their defensive position and were attacked in the flank by the French reserve (I got this from the crappy Net). You need to address the fact that this battle does not suit your purpose of using it as an example of attacking archers and "driving them from the battle line".

Your use of Auray is falacious as well. I have dug out my Froissart and found Auray. Interesting. He says what you observed, about the French armor and shields rendering the arrows ineffective ("they hurt not"). But then he says something quite contrary to your position, vis-a-vis that the archers were some weak point the French could sweep away (and the English would be stupid to position to invite attack): "Upon this, they flung away their bows, and being light and able men, threw themselves upon their adversaries, and seizing from them several battle-axes, fought with these weapons most valiantly and with great success." I am not saying anything about the literal truth of Froissart's claims here: only that your use of Auray to prove your point is not justified. (And the French lost.)

Doug

Sorry about not quoting the chapter (9: The Fight, 25 October 1415, & the page number 194). I should have mentioned this in my original thread.

Though we don't see eye-to-eye on this subject, I hope you will understand why I don't rate 'Henrici Quintini' when it comes to the battle itself, and Curry's ‘A New History as just another theoretical book on the subject. It doesn't answer any questions; just more arguments.

As for the battle of Auray; the French got a good old "kick-in" by the ‘English' Bowmen with help from the Men-at-Arms of John of Montfort. The French as you would know, had the Pavisse

Cocherel (Cockerel) only had a few hundred Bowmen present in a battle that consisted of about 1,500 a side, (perhaps a couple of hundred more on the French side) more a skirmish than a battle…

Again at Nogent the French had the pavisse also the benefit of fresh reinforcements.

The prototype formation for success against the French seems to have been laid down by Northampton at Morlaix, where the bowmen were formed up on the wings, with the Men-at-Arms in the centre, the tree line also coming into play, ‘for different reasons'. The position was on a gentle slope, pits were used instead of stakes, and the French attacked in their classic three lines, whilst discounting their own Infantry. A course they would take in many battles, to their cost.
(Attacked in the same old way; defeated in the same old way….)

Morlaix, I thought, utilized town militia in the first attack: which was seen off by arrow storm even before it reached the hidden pits. (there were also Genoese and Bidet mercenaries but I don't know when, if at all, they got involved) The second attack ran foul of the pits, and by then the English were pretty much out of arrows and withdrew into the trees at their backs to face the final attack. It was more of a draw than a win, but since the English were faced with total destruction at the outset, survival can always be a winning resolution!

We ought to not draw the conclusion (from Morlaix) that all English armies (no matter what their size) formed up all the men at arms in the center and all the archers on the wings. At Morlaix the earlier proportion of men at arms to archers was used, closer to 50/50: that changes everything when bow effective range is considered. By Agincourt, archers made up 4/5ths to 5/6ths of a typical English army, which put the matter of effective range as the forefront consideration: the archers on the wings of each battle had to be able to effectively reach enemy attack on the battle.

Hi

I guess, mike, it is a difference in perspective. I have been in the position of only being able to attack someone by first giving him a minute or two of attack with no response. My response is to attack someone I can just JUMP on. part of the story behind agincourt, if memory serves, is the marshal of france losiing to a stake through the chest of his horse. But this only works if, at the last moment, he tried pulling up. Otherwise the momentum of 1200 pounds of horse would have had the corpse crashing through a couple rows of someone. Sort of like the one time a brit square was broken in the napoleonc wars. There is no perfection, but having to give a minute while the archers shoot at you point blank would be a very nasty experience.

Which is why I don't see the stakes as an impregnable situation, and not just a anti horse tactic. As for the "dismounted" part. That is part of the story line, of course. That the archers left the stakes to advance into range to harass the french into the attack means that they were dismounted already, or they would have rushed down. And if on foot, no reason for the archers to retreat behind the stakes unless they saw them as a useful tool.

R

"part of the story behind agincourt, if memory serves, is the marshal of france losiing to a stake through the chest of his horse. But this only works if, at the last moment, he tried pulling up."

Yes, but the point is (oops, excuse the pun!) is that a horse will naturally shy away from such a barrier (stakes, pikes, whatever) before coming into contact with it. The only way a horse will get itself impaled is if it is more afraid of it's rider than the barrier in front of it.

The only way a horse will get itself impaled is if it is more afraid of it's rider than the barrier in front of it.

Or if (as Keegan implies as a possibility) the charge results in an accidental collision: such as could occur if several ranks of cavalry in close order had built up momentum, and the front rank decided to pull up too late and the following ranks pushed them on. I don't see that as having happened at Agincourt, though. Rather, the cavalry got feathered/shafted and started to break back, and only a small fraction of them actually got amid the stakes, at very slow speed I imagine.

Hi

Mike, actually, horses will crash into walls and whatever. WE live in ranch country, I have been riding since 3. A horse will try to walk through walls. A rancher gaming friend in our group loves to tell the story of being offended by something and running straight THROUGH a wall with thorn hedges 8 feet high "making a 'dusty' sized hole" Which stands today. I am convinced that the horse pulling up is the HUMAN explaining he wasn't the coward, the horse was.

Rich…I am unsure why you are angry at doug. Do you really mean to assert that one can only write rules if he knows the initmate details of every fight in history? There would be no published rules if that were the criteria.

And I don't think doug ever asserted he was an expert. WE have been looking at this for a long time and I don't know much of anything. SOMETIMES, like the horse statement above, I have an idea of what might not be true.

Now, I have only the common sources, not the originals in this subject. I do have originals, say, with the secret history of mongols, or Taybhugas manual on archer(all in translation), but I don't know about these battles.

You assert that in these battles archers alone could not stop french MAA. And I cannot dispute it, but we need to know more than your assertians. For instance, while you detail the french MAA had pavises, there is no mention of numbers, terrain ir stakes. Even better, in more modern times, volleys by 2 line brits didn't always stop the french either, but then concluding that muskets didn't work because they didn't always work in every situation is illogical.

So, if you have docs on 70 lesser battles that give the details, please share. I am not asking, neither is doug that you GIVE us the original, just lay out what you know. I am assuming you are an honest observer.

So, pick the battle, numbers, terrain, equipment…even educated guesses.

Back to my point. Were these failed longbow enstaked? We know that sometimes they used pits with spikes and caltrops.

The essence of the above is that the longbow failed in these instances, and you ask us to explain why but without the details, the question becomes semi-rhetorical. Obviously, longbow were no good, because in 70 battles longbow failed, but at Agincourt they won with good die rolls.

I am sure you don't mean it this way, but that is the way it comes across.

Rocky

"Constance is only found as a church or council of that name, of a daughter Pedro the Cruel or Constance of Arles (no battle reference whatsoever, …
Thus we see the error of drawing conclusions from a list of vaguely treated battles: one of which was actually an English victory"
Let me see if I have this correct, you skimmed the internet and on the basis of this inept attempt at research you come to the supercilious conclusion that I'm incorrect. You do it in the third person. How rude.

I noticed as I addressed each of your objections, your comments became testier and testier. And then you whine about "you provide the defense of a personal attack. Dandy." There was no personal attack. There was the simple observation that, since you thought the use of the net was an adequate method of opposing what I had to say, you are a poor historian. If you can't continue a discussion without putdowns and supercilious comments then let's stop discussing the topic.

You fancy yourself an authority on late medieval battle. You even wrote a set of wargame rules for this period. Then, to my surprise, you admit you know nothing of these battles. I have a database of over 70 descriptions of late medieval battles some are from primary sources and others from secondary sources. How can you be an authority if you don't even know about these battles and have studied them. I shouldn't have to give chapter and verse on these battles. You should already know them as part of your research on the time period. This was the assumption I made when mentioning these battles.
Look at how I began this discussion. I reiterated what you had written so that we could be clear about what is being discussed. You write the French divided into three columns. I drew that up exactly how you stated it. This gave you the chance to respond to say that is not what you meant. I'm sorry that you can't return the effort. It seems like you want to score points rather than having a reasonable discussion. A much better response would have been to say "Are you trying to say … " In that way I could have further explained what I meant by that as you were able to do with the column statement.

So, you have to decide what it is you want. Do you want to take cheap shots at my statements or do you want to have a reasonable discussion. I welcome criticism but it would be nice if you would first make sure of my intent before you start shooting at the hip and declaring victory.

With that, I'll break down my statement so you can see what I meant.


Me, "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?"

It has three parts, 1 Why didn't the French attack the archers in the battle-line. The implication here, which is part of the assertion, is that archers cannot stop a determined attack. 2. Drive them from the battle-line 3. Take the English in the rear. Only part 1 is the issue. Part 2 is an assumption based on the idea that light infantry cannot stand up to armored heavy infantry. Part 3 is the natural consequence of part 1 & 2. I'm assuming we agree on part two. The question becomes does part 3 always hold. No. What could stop part 3? (1) The English could break and run before they are taken from the rear. (2) The English could make adjustments such as falling back to a better defensive position, or (3) the French could ignore the backs of the English and continue on for the baggage. None of these actions negate part 1, the assertion that the archers were unable to stop the attack.

Your statement, "They did it in the past and was successful" relates only to the assertion that archers are unable to stop a determined French attack. Therefore, your assertion, in fact, I pointed out that at Cocherel the English were defeated because they left their defensive position and were attacked in the flank by the French reserve." while true is totally irrelevant. As I pointed out, this is not a question of the English winning or losing. It is a question about whether the archers could halt a French attack by men-at-arms. If you look it up in Froissart you will find they could not. So, this battle suits my purpose to a T.

You statement, "Your use of Auray is fallacious as well" is equally incorrect. Auray does an admirable job of illustrating my point. Let's look at you quote from Froissart (by the way, I commend you for going to Froissart rather than the net).

"Upon this, they flung away their bows, and being light and able men, threw themselves upon their adversaries, and seizing from them several battle-axes, fought with these weapons most valiantly and with great success."

Here is the quote I use from an older 16th century translation. I prefer this translation because the translator doesn't carry the assumptions of modern translators.

"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. … Than tharchers, who were bygge men and lyght, cast away their bowes, and entred in amonge the Frenchemen that bare the axes, and at the first metyng, they pulled out of some of the Frenche-mennes handes their axes, wherwith they fought after ryght hardely."

Both translation show the archers incapable of stopping the French dismounted attack (as you also pointed out). The difference between your translation and mine is that my translation does not include the phrase "with great success." My translation simply ends with ", wherwith they fought after ryght hardely." The problem your translation is we have no idea what the translator means by "great success." Does it mean the beat the French men-at-arms? Does it mean they stopped the French advance? Does it mean they slowed the French advance. Or, does it mean they stood awhile before being smashed to hell? My account simply says they met and fought, leaving us no idea of the outcome of that encounter either. So we are left not knowing the outcome of the fight between these two.

But all is not lost. Froissart wrote:

"but thanne sir Hugh Caurell, who was in the wynge, and had a great batayle of good men of warr, sawe his company out of ordre than he drewe thyder and sette them agayne in ordre, the whiche dealynge gretly aveyled them that day."

A flank was crumbling. There is a good probability that this was the flank where the 
French were fighting the archers. Sir Caurell had to go over there and make adjustments. He probably shifted some of his men, we are told he had a large company, to counter the French attack which the archers simply could not hold back. IF this is true then it is an example of #2 of why the natural consequence failed to occur.

I'm not using this as PROOF that the French drove off the archers. We don't know. All we know is the archers were unable to stop the French advance through bowfire, which was my assertion.. I simply presented this other, in the spirit of discussion, to show what might have happened.

In any event, I think that the four battles I mentioned ably showed the French could not be stopped by archers. With that as a given, it is incumbent upon anyone who wishes to assert wedges of archers were interspersed between the English battles why the French didn't attack these weak points, drive the archers back, and THREATEN the rear of the English battle-line.

If you want to have a good discussion with assertions and counter assertions that's great. If you want to play the game of gotchya and declare yourself the winner, I'm not interested in that. It's up to you.


Rich

Well that's kind of out of order. I put it up then discovered I failed to put in the proper marks and deleted it. Unfortunately Rocky got to it before I could delete it. So, the above is what Rocky is referencing.

I don't have time to respond. I have to go to the gym lift weights then run 7 miles. But I will say I'm not mad at Doug. However, I dislike the use of almost non-existent research and then superciliously declare to everyone that I'm wrong. I don't mind being wrong. I openly admitted I was wrong when I thought the Gesta had made up the assertion about arrows piercing helmets. So I don't have a problem admitting when I'm wrong. There is a polite way to point things out and a rude way. Doug took the rude way with a cheap shot and phony triumphalism. I don't respond well to those tactics.

Rich

"A rancher gaming friend in our group loves to tell the story of being offended by something and running straight THROUGH a wall with thorn hedges 8 feet high "making a 'dusty' sized hole" Which stands today."

Now that's really interesting, thanks.

"I am convinced that the horse pulling up is the HUMAN explaining he wasn't the coward, the horse was."

Which does a good job of explaining why stakes are a good anti-cavalry device. The rider doesn't want his horse to impale itself on a stake – a good warhorse is expensive. Not only that, but once the horse crashes into the stakes, then there is a good chance the rider will be unhorsed and suffer the consequences.

You fancy yourself an authority on late medieval battle.

Point to where I ever claimed to be an "authority" on anything.

I think I understand a few things well. Especially in the 11th century military venue. Outside of that period, not so much confidence.

You even wrote a set of wargame rules for this period.

Of course I wrote rules. And combined with Rocky's input, and that of many friends who favored research into periods neither of us has a particular interest in, we arrived at our rules including the armies lists. I don't claim 100% historical accuracy for even the 1066 period army lists I did, let alone the HYW.

Then, to my surprise, you admit you know nothing of these battles.

I used the known battles commonly treated, not every middling fracas that got mention in one chronicle!

I have a database of over 70 descriptions of late medieval battles some are from primary sources and others from secondary sources.

Cool! Share, please: just the details of the four battles you cited as evidence that the longbow could not win against a determined attack by dismounted men at arms. (Note, I said "win", not stop.)

How can you be an authority if you don't even know about these battles and have studied them. I shouldn't have to give chapter and verse on these battles. You should already know them as part of your research on the time period.

Sorry to disappoint you. Not an authority here, just an aficionado.

You were requested to provide "chapter and verse" and the reason was given: we waited: nothing from you. I goaded you with what I could find on the Net, questioning the accuracy of your application of these early battles to the subject of archers being some kind of "weak link" in the battleline, incapable of winning against a determined French attack by dismounted men at arms. I get ridicule for using what the Net had, which was practically nothing: indicating, of course, that your database is not known by the Net, is it?

It seems like you want to score points rather than having a reasonable discussion.

Everyone likes to "score points". But let's be reasonable: the main thrust of this and other discussions is to learn. Being BSed is not part of that. If what you claimed is BS, then it should be called BS. I was waiting for you to validate your claims.

None of these actions negate part 1, the assertion that the archers were unable to stop the attack.

Rich your original question is lost in the discussion that followed: instead of "why didn't the French attack the archers", now you are saying that archers never stopped a French attack. And you are right! They stopped Scots attacks, and at Morlaix they stopped an attack by town militia; but French men at arms on foot? Never that I know of. That wasn't the dispute! You were saying the archers were known to be a weak point if presented for attack. Froissart disagrees. The archers don't by themselves stop the French dismounted men at arms: not in the earlier 14th century battles, and not at Agincourt either. But their arrows play an important part in the winning combination. Auray reads like a version of Agincourt! The French are not greatly hurt by the arrows, but are discomfitted enough to allow archers to go to the offensive and disarm them and use their own weapons against them. Weapons snatched out of French hands is a detail mentioned in the sources for Agincourt.

I'm not using this as PROOF that the French drove off the archers. We don't know. All we know is the archers were unable to stop the French advance through bowfire, which was my assertion.. I simply presented this other, in the spirit of discussion, to show what might have happened.

No. You are saying the archers are a weak point, to show why it is wrong to assume the Gesta first position was assumed in the second position: you assert that the English didn't in fact put archers between the men at arms: without any basis at all, and manipulating the sources to mean something that they don't say.

Here's your original question:

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?

I don't see "clearly" in any of this. I want to see archers driven from the field in earlier battles to show what you assert. I haven't seen any evidence of that so far.

As Rocky says, the lack of stakes or pots, etc., and the relative numbers of archers to attacking men at arms, and the ground, etc., all could play a role in interpreting the outcome of any of these other battles, as these things do for Agincourt: the difference being, we DO know quite a bit about all these aspects for Agincourt, whereas we know nothing for the other battles: we have no ground to examine and no details of the kind provided for Agincourt.

In any event, I think that the four battles I mentioned ably showed the French could not be stopped by archers. With that as a given, it is incumbent upon anyone who wishes to assert wedges of archers were interspersed between the English battles why the French didn't attack these weak points, drive the archers back, and THREATEN the rear of the English battle-line.

I already did above. To reiterate: the combination of conditions imposed upon the French first battle a murderous arrow fire such as they had not experienced in living memory. The mud slowed them down and exhausted them to such a degree that the number of impacting arrows was multiplied: which was also a function of the ratio of archers to French targets being much higher than in any of the earlier battles. The French were without adequate shields at Agincourt; the armor of the day wasn't alone up to the job of providing security against arrows in that quantity. The French flinched inward and back away from the impacting points that the wings and two "wedges" of projecting archer formations threw at them: the French in front of the three English battles, not nearly so harassed by arrows, were encouraged by the crowd dynamics toward the English men at arms, thus forming the columns.

Doug took the rude way with a cheap shot and phony triumphalism. I don't respond well to those tactics.

I apologize. That was not intended. I was getting testy because quite a few posts had requested you to provide actual details for this discussion, to show that archers were known to be a weak link if attacked in hand combat.

You claim the second position at Agincourt did not include the "wedges" of archers between the three battles of men at arms that the Gesta clearly described for the first position. To bolster that assertion, you have made reference to four exemplary battles of the 14th century where the French closed with archers: I have called them on the details I have, and asked you for the rest.

So far, nadda from you on Constance, Auray is problematical in its lack of graphic details, Nogent is also nadda from you, and Cocherel remains entirely irrelevant because it isn't an example of a defensive English position and bow fire against a determined attack by dismounted French men at arms….

"You claim the second position at Agincourt did not include the "wedges" of archers between the three battles of men at arms that the Gesta clearly described for the first position."

The Gesta clearly describes archers between the men-at-arms.
It does not clearly describe those archers as being in "wedges". To quote your own comment above:

"and the Gesta specifically describes the formation of the archers between the battles of men at arms to be "cuneos", whether meaning "en herce" and projecting "in front" of the men at arms as "wedges" is arguable."

But all is not lost. Froissart wrote:

"but thanne sir Hugh Caurell, who was in the wynge, and had a great batayle of good men of warr, sawe his company out of ordre than he drewe thyder and sette them agayne in ordre, the whiche dealynge gretly aveyled them that day."

Which battle is this describing?

Hi

Rich, I am genuinely intersted in these 70 fights, if for no other reason than the scenario possibilites!

Mike, back to the three wedge option, this is a case where I am tied to my experiences with drill. It would work easier to have the archers between MAA as groups in wedges than as individual archers. There are a few historical parallels in the past with shield bearers and archers (hittites and assyrians and the like) but those are static which causes problems with the "advance" phase. Similarly, there are a number of examples with units of bow and heavy spear tied together where the heavies protect the missile, byzantine, some itialian militia and the like. In the first, there is no real drill but static deployment, in the second, the missile is still separate and drilled to march and fire from behind the heavies. And I understand how that drill would work. But the mixed unit that some are taking from the Foissart quote has a couple problems. One, I cannot think of british armies doing this elsewhere. And I cannot figure out the drill and command structure. Meaning I am back to preferring the assumption of Oman versus the above assumption.

Dunno' What is your best guess? Grin.

Rocky

Connard Sage 18 Sep 2008 8:40 a.m. PST

But all is not lost. Froissart wrote:

"but thanne sir Hugh Caurell, who was in the wynge, and had a great batayle of good men of warr, sawe his company out of ordre than he drewe thyder and sette them agayne in ordre, the whiche dealynge gretly aveyled them that day."

Which battle is this describing?

Auray, 1364.

The Gesta clearly describes archers between the men-at-arms.
It does not clearly describe those archers as being in "wedges".

You can tell that I believe in the forward-angled archer lines. But more important than that is accepting that the archers are there in the first place. I don't see any progress with Rich on this point.

"It would work easier to have the archers between MAA as groups in wedges than as individual archers."

Who said anything about the archers just being individuals? We know they were organised in 20s and 100s. Being organised in groups (units?) doesn't mandate a "wedge" formation.

"But more important than that is accepting that the archers are there in the first place. I don't see any progress with Rich on this point."

Agree with you there, Doug.

Rocky: " And I don't think Doug ever asserted he was an expert."

I didn't either. I said he claimed to be an authority.

Rocky, "Back to my point. Were these failed longbow enstaked? We know that sometimes they used pits with spikes and caltrops.
The essence of the above is that the longbow failed in these instances, and you ask us to explain why but without the details, the question becomes semi-rhetorical. Obviously, longbow were no good, because in 70 battles longbow failed, but at Agincourt they won with good die rolls."

I may be coming across that way but your reading is not accurate. I didn't say longbows were no good. They just couldn't stop a determined advance. I didn't say that in 70 battles longbows failed. I said I have a database of 70 accounts of late medieval battles centered around the HYW.

As to providing details, this is not a master's thesis. I make certain assertions and if you disagree with them your certainly welcome to look them up. If you ask me, I will even tell you my sources. I asked dibble his sources. I also looked up the battles accounts he mentioned to see if I agree (I didn't). Asking me to provide all the details is like me asking you guys to provide movies of your shots so I can see for myself. If I think you are wrong, it is incumbent upon me to proved proof you are wrong (or at least a good counter assertion from other experts). Ask me where I got my information. I'll tell you. You can then look up the account in Le Bell, Froissart, Monstrelet, the Berry Herald etc..

To the stakes. You are correct that pits, ditches, caltrops were all used. In fact the peasants in Friesland defeated the Count of Holland through the use of ditches. However, notice that these were all used to defeat a mounted foe. It is speculated and pretty well accepted that Henry told his archers to fashion stakes after he had captured a copy of the standing order that mounted forces were to be used to ride down the archers. The English army was marching along just fine without spikes for the archers. This is the first use of stakes in northern Europe.

Before we can assert that the spikes were also effective against dismounted men-at-arms we need to have some evidence that the spikes were used in this fashion. We have none! In accounts that mention the spikes they are always mentioned as an anti-cavalry tool. This is mentioned at the time of Agincourt but also after, There are no archeological evidence that pikes were placed close together enough to keep out the men-at-arms while allowing the archers to squeeze through.

The only account we have of archers and stakes being used in the middle of the English battle-line is from the Gesta. In that account, the writer describe Henry's first battle setup, not the second. We are told the army moved out in the same order but this could only have meant the men-at-arms. The accounts are clear that the archers were taken out of their positions and placed in two wings to cover the English advance. The logical thought is that when reaching the second position the two wings of archers were placed on the wings of the battle-line which was composed of all men-at-arms. This agrees with a number of other accounts.

Rich

Sorry guys, I know you are waiting with bated breath (or was that bad breath) for the enlightenment you are so waiting to receive but I'm off to a two day kayak symposium. I'll pick things up when I get back.

Rich

The accounts are clear that the archers were taken out of their positions and placed in two wings to cover the English advance.

Repeating this doesn't make it any more true. The "wings" of archers are there implicitly if each battle has wings of archers and the battles (and their wings of archers) line up next to each other: the extreme ends of the English battleline will defacto be archers. Nobody has to be moved out of "the same order" at all. And assuming the Gesta writer saw "the same order" in the second position, as the first that he described, compares exactly with Monstrelet.

I'll wait….

Hi

Rich, you seem to think I am challenging your assertian. As you point out, this isn't in prepration for a paper. I am asking, and trusting, you as a gamer to be honest and not insisting you prove ANYTHING. I am just asking about the details. This isn't, except for the archery part, my area of interest. I would just like more info on the battles, gamer to gamer.

To your thread, you assert that there are times the longbow didn't stop an attack. But you make your point without any justification except the assertian. So, I have no doubt that there were times when the bow didn't stop an attack, one need only look at the better known War of the Roses fights (I have OMAN for that!grin).

But the devil is in the details. It isn't that they failed in these instances that matter, is that why in one and not the other.

Just as the old endless debate about line versus column in the 18th century.

I expect, and this your area by claim, that when they failed, either there were small numbers, or they had nothing between them and the attackers except air.

I just resisted a mention of a parallel from Gonsalvo de Cordoba.

R

I'm back. Did you miss me? I think Historicon should be up here in Puget Sound where we can all go kayaking. Perhaps we can replay Lepanto in kayaks!

As to Rocky's request for detail, I have 70 accounts of battle. It is simply impractical for me to go through each one to extract the details requested. What I suggest is to get a hold of Froissart's Chronicles and the Chronicles of Monstrelet. Froissart should be easily available and maybe free on the internet. Try Google books. Monstrelet should be available at a University near you. In addition, I would recommend Oman and Jonathan Sumption's two volume history of the HYW up to 1360s (I think that's where he ends it).

As to the battles under question, I believe the archers were out in the open.

Rocky: "This is actually related to the concept expressed elsewhere that the British MAA did all the damage despite being vastly outnumbered. Most of the army are bow. Most of the French are infantry, placing stakes for 5000 archers to hold off 300 mounted doesn't make much sense.

You're reading history backwards. When Henry told the archers to prepare stakes, he had no idea how many mounted men-at-arms he was to face. Historians believe that Henry got a copy of the campaign notes from the French is when he ordered the stakes to be made. All that he knew was there was to be a major attack on the archers by these mounted troops.

Rocky, "YOU assume that the stakes were only for horse, and then make more assumptions about how stakes work."

I don't assume anything. I have read the sources and when stakes are mentioned they are mentioned with reference as defense against mounted attacks. They are never mentioned as defense against a dismounted attack. Read Monstrelet.

Rocky, "To your thread, you assert that there are times the longbow didn't stop an attack. But you make your point without any justification except the assertion. So, I have no doubt that there were times when the bow didn't stop an attack, one need only look at the better known War of the Roses fights (I have OMAN for that! grin).
But the devil is in the details. It isn't that they failed in these instances that matter, is that why in one and not the other."

OK let me rephrase that. In all 70 accounts, I have never once read where longbow fire could stop a determined dismounted attack.

Doug, "Repeating this doesn't make it any more true. The "wings" of archers are there implicitly if each battle has wings of archers and the battles (and their wings of archers) line up next to each other: the extreme ends of the English battle-line will defacto be archers. Nobody has to be moved out of "the same order" at all. And assuming the Gesta writer saw "the same order" in the second position, as the first that he described, compares exactly with Monstrelet."

I've already presented that argument but I can repeat it. This is from Le Fevre and Waurin the two eyewitnesses,

the king of England ordered a veteran knight, called Sir Thomas Erpingham, to draw up his archers and to put them in the front in two wings

Henry ordered Erpingham to draw up Henry's archers and put them in the front in two wings. We can ask where is he going to draw them up from. There is only one place and that is the battle-line. Henry didn't order Erpingham to draw up the archers on the extreme flanks. He didn't order him to draw up only a portion of the archers. Therefore when he said draw up my archers he meant all the archers.

I am assuming that Erpingham drew up the archers to the front of the men at arms. To draw them up to the rear wouldn't make much sense. At this point ALL the archers have been withdrawn from the battle-line. Erpingham is then ordered to take those archers and place them into two wings. This makes the archers a single unit or battle with two wings.

"He rode with an escort in front of the battle of archers after he had carried out the deployment"

Erpingham and a small escort rode to the front of the battle of archers in their new deployment [from the battle-line to a position covering the English advance]. Erpingham then dismounts, joins Henry and the English army begins it's advance. From my reading of 70 descriptions of battles of this period, I have noticed when one army advances, archers are placed to the front to screen the advance.

The archers are now in two wings. At the second position, the most reasonable assumption is they set up on the extreme flanks of the men-at-arms. This agrees perfectly with Monstrelet.

Doug, "You claim the second position at Agincourt did not include the "wedges" of archers between the three battles of men at arms that the Gesta clearly described for the first position."

That's not exactly how things fell out. What I said was because we could not come up with a reasonable explanation why the French didn't attack the archers within the English battle-line, the only other explanation for why they weren't attacked was that they were not there as they had been in the first setup.

I think this was from Mike "and the Gesta specifically describes the formation of the archers between the battles of men at arms to be "cuneos", whether meaning "en herce" and projecting "in front" of the men at arms as "wedges" is arguable."

One of the translations of cuneos is ‘wedge'. We call Sumerian writing cuneiform because they were based on a series of wedged shape marks.

Rich