"Battle-line at Agincourt" Topic

Dibble, "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."

Given that Froissart simply does not tell us the results of the bowmen/French men-at-arms encounter, I would be interested in where you got the idea that the bowmen whipped the French with help from the men-at-arms of John of Montfort.

Dibble, "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, I wonder where you get your information concerning the number of bowmen. I have reread Froissart's account and have been unable to find an indicator of the number of bowmen. As to it being a skirmish, Froissart account has the participants calling it a pitched battle. Jonathan Sumption says, "In spite of the relatively small size of both forces, it was one of the bloodiest fights of the period." What is your reasons for calling this more of a skirmish? Or, perhaps I should ask what is your definition of a skirmish.

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

Only part of that is relevant since the assertion is the bowmen were unable to stop a determined advance by the French. But I'm pleased you guys are starting to read about other battles than just the Holy Trinity.

Dibble, " 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.:

As Doug has mentioned, the English used more than one battle formation. The formation used most often is the one you described. However, at Crecy and the first battle line at Agincourt had archers in wedges on the flanks and between battles. However, there is a third formation mentioned in the chronicles. It is mentioned in the writing about Cocheral. They had the archers in the rear of the men-at-arms. When it came time for them to fire they advanced through the ranks of the men-at-arms fired until the French got too close and then retired back through the ranks of the men-at-arms. Froissart seems to indicate that they formed up intermixed with the men-at-arms. But this doesn't seem likely. This would only weaken their battle-line.

Dibble, "the French attacked in their classic three lines, whilst discounting their own Infantry. A course they would take in many battles, to their cost."

Morlaix was in 1342. Crecy was in 1346. In that same year the French caught the English at St.-Pol de Leon and attacked with their men-at-arms dismounted. Between Morlaix and Crecy I only have record of one major action and that was fought at the siege of the castle of Auberoche (1345). If any know of other major fights between Morlaix and Crecy, I would love to hear about them. In any event, it didn't take the French long to learn to dismount.

Rich

Rich

You say:
Dibble,"the French attacked in their classic three lines, whilst discounting thier own infantry. A course they would take in many battles, to their cost.

Where pray, did I make the above statement?

As for Cocherel, I don't care what you think, to me it was just a skirmish, no matter how bloody. My definition of a skirmish has already been quoted.

Hi

I admit I put you off about somehow digitizing the graphs of my bow energy studies, because, as indicated, i gave the results. The body of work behind it is too much.

With the battles, I do understand your problem with too much info. The thing is, I trust you. If you did some of these battles in a format similar to the speculation of the deployment and number options on Agincourt, I would be fine. Outside of the archery, I am not really a medievalist. If bow and crossbow weren't around, I would have even less interest! But a good scenario is gold.

So, in cuneo at the "holy trinity" the french do not attack the bow. And I doubt you can make the arguement that, somehow, the bow retreated and had the frontage coverd by the MAA. Furthere, examples of units passing through each other are passing rare. So, I am back to my first point. Archers are vulnerable, unless protected by a wall or a wall of stakes, or a wall of pavices. Or in the case of some italian (Byzantine daughter states) and Byzantines, a wall of scutati.

I have never seen bow, good bow, great bow, as a battle winner on its own. Just like Musket later. Battles are usually done by systems with combined arms involved.

So, back to the battles were the longbow were vulnerable, I am guessing, no cover.

The "holy trinity" isn't holy to me. Merely convenient for someone with only a passing interest.

Rocky

You say:
Dibble,"the French attacked in their classic three lines, whilst discounting thier own infantry. A course they would take in many battles, to their cost.

Where pray, did I make the above statement?

On page 2

Rich

Rocky, And I doubt you can make the argument that, somehow, the bow retreated and had the frontage covered by the MAA."

I'm suggesting that when Henry decided to move forward he had Erpingham pullout all the archers, divided them into two wings. In this position, the archers covered the advance of the men-at-arms. At the second position the two wings of the archers set up on the two wings of the battle-line of men-at-arms. The supposition based on reasonableness is that the men-at-arms inclined towards each other during the advance in such a way that at the second location they were flank to flank with no archers between. In this position, archers on the extreme flanks of the men-at-arms, the archers could support their men-at-arms.

Rocky, Archers are vulnerable, unless protected by a wall or a wall of stakes, or a wall of pavices.

The problem is there is no way to show that the stakes were used in a way that would stop dismounted men-at-arms from entering the archer's position as quickly as the archers did. There is no written account or archeological account to support such a supposition. The fact that the stakes are mentioned only as a defense against cavalry and the archers could leave and enter the staked position indicate that it was not a defense against dismounted attacks. This being the case, the stakes presented a weak link in the English battle-line which should have been exploited by the French but was not. I'm suggesting it was not exploited because it was not there.

Rich

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

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

"Two wings"; "the battle of archers"; which is it? Waurin and LeFevre borrow from Monstrelet and are vague: Monstrelet specifically says men at arms and archers in the wings: the Gesta says archers between the battles. There is NO problem with any of this: but your supposition, that the Gesta only describes the first position and that the second position changed (when we are told that Hal V kept his army in the same order when he moved), creates endless problems. You have to blatantly ignore specific statements from not just one but TWO of our most detailed accounts. If you are prepared to do that, then what can you prove?

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."

….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.

So assuming that the density of the arrow storm and its duration lengthened because the mud retarded the French advance, isn't a "reasonable explanation" in your mind, as to why the French avoided direct confrontation with the archers. The probability of injury is horribly high in the closing moments of the French advance: the crowd dynamics caused by pulling back from the four points where the archers were deployed would naturally create three columns. Yet the "only other explanation" why the French did not attack the archers is because they weren't there to be attacked? But to hold to this view requires that we dispense with what the Gesta and Monstrelet specifically state regarding where the archers and men at arms were, and the specific statements that tell us that the king maintined the same order as he advanced, that his army had stood in all morning.

I think I am done with this discussion: there isn't anything I wish to repeat.

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

I'm with Rocky: if you could share the details from your database, on just the four battles you mentioned (or any others that you would be willing), I would be most interested in other possible scenarios. Historical battles recreated on the tabletop is my favorite form of wargaming….

On the topic of stakes:

In our rules, stakes award a bonus of +50% versus cavalry, on the initial turn of melee and on each subsequent turn that the stake line remains interposed between the archers and the cavalry.

When infantry attack the stake line, the defending infantry get +25% on the FIRST TURN ONLY. There is a considerably reduced value with stakes compared to cavalry reflected here.

In a refight of Agincourt, the hypothetically allowed French attack on the archers would result in them reaching the stakes, taking one last longbow round, then meleeing against archers that are +25% to their combat value: but all subsequent turns the archers would melee at their normal light infantry combat value versus heavy and "plate" infantry.

Rich, to assume that the stakes with defenders behind them would be some kind of visible but non intrusive element in the melee isn't reasonable. While the French men at arms penetrated through the stake line, they would have to contend not only with going around (or pulling up, trampling down) the stakes, but with each other as they did so: and during those seconds, the archers are shooting directly into their faces, or using the stakes to dodge behind as an auxiliary melee device: it would work in the favor of the archer for the opening moment of the melee (thus the 25% combat value bonus to defending infantry in the initial turn of melee combat under our rules).

(This is the advantage of not using abstraction in rules design.)

1066.us

"This is the advantage of not using abstraction in rules design."

Eh? ALL rules are to a lesser or greater extent an abstraction. Or is that not what you meant?

Not what I meant. Comparatively, you can approach rules mechanisms in a literal, that is "realistic" manner, or you can resort to abstracts. If the weapon system is there, we like to play it, not mix it into some final combat effectiveness value. We model the stakes and their effects; we hve imperial Romans throw their pila or darts then melee what's left, etc.

Dibble," the French attacked in their classic three lines, whilst discounting their own infantry. A course they would take in many battles, to their cost.

Rich
Doh! I didn't even remember my own quotes. Sorry!
I should have said battles instead of lines.
As for them discounting their infantry, I stand by that statement.

As for Cocherel; though the French MAA were dismounted, wasn't it the mounted reserve that swung the day?

Mauron may have seen a collapse of the right wing of bowmen, the opposite happened on the left , the dismounted French MAA being well and truly routed and slain by the bowmen with arrow & hand to hand combat and of course the ‘English'/Breton MAA
A reported formation was: Main battle with bowmen on both wings, on rising ground, backed up with a tree line.

You question my estimated (a few hundred bowmen) numbers at Cocherel. I must admit that I got my numbers from different authors (which vary between 200 & 500 if I remember right) and that's why my estimate is not exact. How many bowmen do you think was present?

The reason why I think that the bowman was a good fighter is because he could be taught the techniques of how to beat a well armed & armoured knight by those veterans who had seen it all before. also don't forget that experience could also be gained through the Chevauchee which would be all the training a novice would need, seeing that it sometimes involved skermishing & small scale storming of strongpoints with perhaps one or two major seiges thrown in, and lasting months…

OOPS! Skirmish (not skermish)

Doug, " "Two wings"; "the battle of archers"; which is it?

A bit of sour grapes?

Doug, "Monstrelet specifically says men at arms and archers in the wings: the Gesta says archers between the battles. There is NO problem with any of this:

Ah but there is a problem. Your assertion that the phrase "He made two wings of men-at-arms and archers" describes the second position is totally wrong. Let me help you here.

Monstrelet, " He had his battle drawn up by a knight grey with age called Thomas Erpingham,

Sound familiar? That just what Waurin and LeFevre said.

putting the archers in the front and then the men-at-arms

Yep, that's what Waurin and LeFevre said. Erpingham drew out the archers and placed them in front of the men-at-arms.

He made two wings of men-at-arms and archers,

Waurin and LeFevre only mention two wings of archers.

You see, Monstrelet and Waurin and LeFevre are all describing the same thing. They are describing how Erpingham pulled the archers out of the first battle position. Monstrelet describes two wings of men-at-arms and in front of them two wings of archers. Waurin and LeFevre only mention the two wings of archers. Thus the archers were taken out and formed into two wings. Behind them was the king's battle accompanied by two wings of men-at-arms. Monstrelet isn't describing the second position at all. He's describing the formation the English formed prior to their advance. You totally misread Monstrelet.

Doug, "but your supposition, that the Gesta only describes the first position and that the second position changed (when we are told that Hal V kept his army in the same order when he moved), creates endless problems."

I'm afraid the problem is yours. It is again the problem you have with misreading the sources. You wrote, "when we are told that Hal V kept his army in the SAME ORDER when he moved" [my emphasis]

Yes both Titus and Pseudo-Elmham say the army kept its array [you had on page one referenced these two]. But they were not talking about the array described by the Gesta. They were talking about their OWN descriptions of the English battle-line!

Titus describes the English battle line:

The arrangement of the army was this. No one battle was very distant form the others. The middle battle over which the king presided himself and in which he would fight. was located in the field directly against the middle battle if the enemy. To the right of it was the vanguard and also the right wing (ala dextra) [bowmen]. To the left was the rearguard with the left wing (ala sinistra) [bowmen]. The three battles lines were nearly joined."

The three battles were formed close together with the archers on the extreme flanks. When Titus says they kept their usual order, he is talking about the order he described not the order the Gesta described.

Pseudo-Elmham:

"To the middle battle, which he himself commanded, and in which, under the mercy of God, he proposed to fight, he assigned a convenient station in about the middle of the field, so that it might come in contact with the middle battle of the enemy. On his right, at a very little distance, he placed the vanguard, and joined to it the wing [bowmen] stationed on his right. On the king's left was the rearguard of the army, to which the left wing [bowmen] was joined in like manner."

So when Pseudo-Elmham wrote "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." the former array he was referring to was the array he had just described: three battles formed next to each other with bowmen on the extreme flanks.

So for one to maintain the fiction that the second position was a replica of the Gesta's description of the first position one would have to cherry pick quotes, take them out of context and apply meanings to them they never had. There is absolutely no evidence the second battle formation was a replica of the first. The Gesta never said that. Monstrelet never said that. Nor did Waurin, LeFevre, Titus, Pseudo-Elmham. None. In fact, Titus and Pseudo-Elmham describe a battle-line very different from that of that discribed in the Gesta.

I agree with you. There's not much more to say. The first battle formation included wedges of archers between the battles of men-at-arms the second didn't. The second had all the archers on the extreme flanks.

Rich

Hi

Rich, the problem with "the sources don't mention" arguement is that the sources won't mention things like we are discussion. No one, for instance, describes how they re-sharpen stakes. Or that spine matches bow, which is basic, or that targets need different arrowheads, which, again, is obvious to an archer, but not the priestly or noble observers.

I can see the movement through the stakes, as i said which under an attack, won't STOP infantry, as it would cavalry, but would delay it. We have endless examples of troop drill where units can go into an open order, and slowly pass through each other, but not in close order. There are even battles where things are decided because a unit is hit while changing formations.

Stakes are the plausable explanation to your question. The other is that the french are too stoooopid to attack the weak because their nobility requires them to line up for their chance at their equals.

To quote D&D, "I now cast my disbelief spell".

Grin.

A problem I have with your second point is the way command and control would work to draw out the bow and redeploy them as you suggest. It looks too much like a college marching band. A simpler explanation would be "three battles" being left, center right, consisting of bodies of staked bow and MAA.

Rocky

Monstrelet, " He had his battle drawn up by a knight grey with age called Thomas Erpingham,"

Sound familiar? That just what Waurin and LeFevre said.

You are not appreciating that Waurin and LeFevre took their material from Monstrelet.

You see, Monstrelet and Waurin and LeFevre are all describing the same thing.

Really? And the Gesta too, I trust.

They are describing how Erpingham pulled the archers out of the first battle position.

Taking Monstrelet (the clearest, and original of the three), he only describes the positioning of the men at arms and archers, which clearly has men at arms in the wings with archers; and archers behind stakes; as soon as this is done, Erpingham exhorts the troops, tosses his baton in the air, calls out "nescieque", dismounts and joins the king's men at arms: the English yell out at the tossing of the baton, then when they see the French refusing to advance, the English advance and yell again, rest to catch their breath, then the battle starts.

So if we take Monstrelet, Waurin and LeFevre verbatim, the stakes were left behind in the first position; the archers were all literally in front of the men at arms. Yet that doesn't work with the Gesta at all.

The three battles were formed close together with the archers on the extreme flanks. When Titus says they kept their usual order, he is talking about the order he described not the order the Gesta described.

Regardless, his description is not incompatible with the Gesta. The battles ARE separated: "at a very little distance". Sounds very much like the Gesta's description of how far to the rear the baggage was: "at no great distance". And you argued previously (here, on The [In]Effective Archery Debate thread -- Rich Knapton II 10 Aug 2008 12:54 p.m. PST -- assuming that you have two TMP accounts) that "at no great distance" means,

The term "no great distance" is far too nebulous a term to be translated in length estimates.

Now you are arguing that it means almost touching!

If you look at how far apart the three battles likely were with archers interposed, it is well under 200 yards: less even, if the field was narrower than 900 yards, and less still, if the archer bodies between the battles were smaller in numbers than the "wings" of archers. How far apart in your opinion do the battles have to be in order to no longer fulfil the description, "at a very little distance" from each other? (Would you allow that such a distance might also fulfil the Gesta's requirement for the distance of the baggage to the rear of the battleline?)

Titus Livius ends up saying, "The three battles lines were nearly joined." Why not actually joined entirely? Why almost but not quite joined? Why leave gaps deliberately in a line of three battles of men at arms? It makes no sense, unless the battles had something separating them: and a body of archers less than 200 yards wide each would do that.

So for one to maintain the fiction that the second position was a replica of the Gesta's description of the first position one would have to cherry pick quotes, take them out of context and apply meanings to them they never had.

Which is exactly what you are doing!

There is absolutely no evidence the second battle formation was a replica of the first.

Just the clear declaration (by more than one source) that the army did in fact move off in the same order: and the fact that the Livius and Elmham descriptions DO state that the three battles were separated (how much? is in the same nebulous usage of terms as the Gesta's positioning of the baggage behind the battleline), a clear fact without any explanation without the Gesta's clear statement that archers were between them.

"putting the archers in the front and then the men-at-arms"

"He made two wings of men-at-arms and archers,"

Isn't the obvious interpretation of the above also the simplest that Erpingham put archers BOTH immediately in front of the MAA and also on the wings?

I'll put my argument together on the stakes in another post.

Rocky, "A problem I have with your second point is the way command and control would work to draw out the bow and redeploy them as you suggest. It looks too much like a college marching band. A simpler explanation would be "three battles" being left, center right, consisting of bodies of staked bow and MAA."

The problem with your suggestion is one of command. The right battle was under the command of the Duke of York. The center battle was commanded by Henry. The left battle was commanded by Lord Camoys. Each battle was composed of men-at-arms. Archers were never integrated with the men-at-arms. They were placed next to the battles but were not under the command of the battle commanders. Over all command of the archers was Erpingham. The Duke of York, for example, had command of his battle but not the archers on either side of his battle. So, your suggestion would cause all kinds of command problems.

Another problem. It was standard SOP to have archers screen the advance of the men-at-arms. So, you can't have the archers covering the advance if they remain on the flanks of the men-at-arms. For them to cover the advance you have to pull the archers out of their position in the battle line and place them where they can screen the advance.

A much simpler way is the way the sources describe. Imagine the battle line with wedges of archers. This would have made four wedges. If you take Henry's battle standard as the center line of the army, two wedges will lie to the right of the standard and two to the left of the standard. All Erpingham has to do is say "all archers to the right of the standard move forward" and they become the right wing. Then, "all archers to the left of the standard move forward" and they become the left wing. Once the second position has been reach all Erpingham has to do is tell the archers on the right wing to form on the extreme right flanks of the men-at-arms and the archers on the left wing to form on the extreme left flank. Nothing could be simpler.

Rich

Well Gents I have enjoyed this thread and I think Rich makes a compelling auguement.

They were placed next to the battles but were not under the command of the battle commanders. Over all command of the archers was Erpingham.

Modern knowledge does not allow us to make such fine declarations, Rich. In fact we don't know how the chain of command worked from the inside: we can only read how the army was ordered on the field, and suppose how commands were transfered.

But to claim that Erpingham was the commander of all the archers is, imho, untenable: simply because, after he ordered them into their lines, he dismounted and fought as a man at arms beside the king! From there he would have had zero contact with bodies of archers elsewhere.

I am sure that Rocky has the gist of it: that a "battle" was composed of men at arms and archers under a single command: that the archers knew their place on the wings of the battle of men at arms that they were attached to and kept station with it unless ordered otherwise: that the commander of the whole battle was either York, king Henry or Camoys; who each had "sub-commanders" over each wing of archers to his central body of men at arms. But how or even if York, Henry or Camoys had the capability to remain in contact with the subcommanders is not known. If the battles were as physically small as indicated, it is quite possible that all the men in each battle (men at arms and wings) could both see the banners and hear the trumpets directing them all from the position of the commander of the battle, rendering the need for under-officers moot as far as battlefield command went.

Another problem. It was standard SOP to have archers screen the advance of the men-at-arms. So, you can't have the archers covering the advance if they remain on the flanks of the men-at-arms. For them to cover the advance you have to pull the archers out of their position in the battle line and place them where they can screen the advance.

That's fine for other fights but not Agincourt. Screening archers is not shown, unless Mike is right and there were some archers screening the men at arms in the opening phase. That would not require a large number, what, a couple of hundred for each battle?

You are making needless difficulties by complicating this picture, imho. Just like assuming increased difficulty if the archers were under the same command (battle) as the men arms: when in fact such an arrangement would be simplicity itself.

Once the second position has been reach all Erpingham has to do is tell the archers on the right wing to form on the extreme right flanks of the men-at-arms and the archers on the left wing to form on the extreme left flank. Nothing could be simpler.

Except that Erpingham is nowhere near the archers he is supposed to be in sole command of; he's on foot advancing to the second position with the king's men at arms in the center.

It is actually much simpler to assume that the army moved forward and engaged the French in exactly the same battle order as they had stood in all day, the order that Erpingham had made, just as the sources say….

Hi

Rich, I agree in part with your 4 or 3 wedges(from various posts, I am unclear exactly which), the problem is that yelling at thousands of men, "everybody move left" won't work.

In every period the concept of drill is done so that every individual knows where he is supposed to be in relation to his officers. Otherwise, it is a mob and there are endless examples that mobs don't change their positions or fight well. Which is why your simple command leaves me wondering how this would be effected in the few minutes of the french advance.

As I am unaware of any evidence that the archers were organized with file leaders and closers, or sergents with spontoons to dress a thin line, and drilled to move in column and so on, I am sort of of the opinion, that what you describe isn't as "easy" as suggested. Especially with "first position" being in wedges with stakes. The drill of "folling the leader" by moving more open by files then passing into the stakes, and doing a reduction when the french advance is a known drill. And, as I mention in the stake thing, going from column advance under pressure when meeting the stakes, to an open order or checkerboard is difficult under fire and explains things.

"Student body right" works with an 11 man football team, but nothing larger.

If were were discussing this at dinner, you would see the wry grin on my face over my cup of coffee.

Rocky

Your whole argument has crumbled and now you are scrambling around clutching at straws in order not to lose face.

Straw one: " You are not appreciating that Waurin and LeFevre took their material from Monstrelet."

This is called "they are eyewitnesses when I need them and but knockoffs when I don't."

It is clear you don't understand the relationship between Monstrelet, Waurin and LeFever. Let's let Dr. Curry explain it to you.

There can be no doubting the importance of the accounts of all three writers. Monstrelet's chronicle was subsequently much used in both England and France, providing much material for sixteenth-century historians in particular. Wauren and LeFevre were both present at the battle, and although their chronicles were less used by early historians, they have been much exploited by recent writers on the battle and seen as particularly valuable because both writers were present at the battle.
A more problematic issue, however, is the relationship of their writings to the work of Enguerran Monstrelet. … There seems to be little doubt that both Waurin and LaFevre drew extensively on Monstrelet. The fact that they often say the same thing has been taken as proof of the veracity of their accounts. … we do need to look at all three chronicles together [side by side by side]. … In the translation below, I have decided to use Monstrelet as the main text as it is the earliest, at least in terms of completion. I have indicated where LeFevre and Waurin vary from Monstrelet by using bold type for what was essentially their shared account."

Now this has significance for the two accounts between LeFevre/Wauren and Monstrelet. Curry writes at this point in the chronicle LeFevre and Waurin diverge considerably from Monstrelet. The only reason to diverge from Monstrelet's chronicle is because both thought that his account was either not clear or wrong in some aspect. Since both were eyewitnesses, they wanted to set the record straight. Therefore their account is more accurate than Monstrelet's. Sorry Doug.

Straw two. This is called "it all depends on what the meaning of ‘is' is."

Doug, "The battles ARE separated: "at a very little distance". Sounds very much like the Gesta's description of how far to the rear the baggage was: "at no great distance".

If I have this correct, you think "at a very little distance" and "at no great distance" means the same? You're really stretching for this one. Let me help you. You want to know what Pseudo-Elmham meant by "at a very little distance". No problem. Titus explains, it means "the three battles lines were nearly joined." See that wasn't so hard.

Doug, "Why leave gaps deliberately in a line of three battles of men at arms? It makes no sense, unless the battles had something separating them: and a body of archers less than 200 yards wide each would do that."

And you think ‘nearly joined' means a gap of 200 yards?? Under those guidelines when the Gesta said the baggage was "at no great distance" he must have meant the baggage was in England. We both agree there were gaps separating the three battles. You ask why the gaps? And, the only thing you come up with to explain the gaps is wedges of archers 1,500 strong? You've been at this for way too long. Let me help you find a more reasonable explanation for the gaps. Now the vanguard was under the command of the Duke of York. The rearguard was under the command of Lord Camoys. Henry commanded the main battle. Let me see, how about the gaps being there for command and control. That way I don't have to define ‘nearly joined' as 200 yards.

But here's the kicker. While the Gesta sees gaps between the battles being filled with archers, Titus and Pseudo-Elmham sees gaps WITH NO ARCHERS. Both place all the archers on the extreme flanks of the army. Neither places archers between the three battles. For these two to be in agreement with the Gesta they would have to describe archers between the battles. BUT THEY DON'T. Nevertheless, you would have the fact there were gaps as proof there were archers. That's weird. No Doug. Gaps do not prove there were archers there. They only highlight the need for command and control even in the late middle ages.

Doug, stop clutching for straws. Let this one be. You can't win them all.

Rich

Doug, "That's fine for other fights but not Agincourt. Screening archers is not shown."

Chronique de Ruisseauville, "They [English] came very quickly, the archers in front running without armour and with their breeches hanging down, always firing on the French, and our men of France advanced in fine fashion and without rushing."

Thomas Walsingham, "Having thus spoken, he ordered the banners to be raised, saying 'Because the enemy tried most unjustly to block our path, let us advance against them in the name of the Trinity and at the best hour of the whole year.' 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."

Why did you think Henry had Erpingham draw out the archers put them into two wings, in front of the men-at-arms, in a single battle?

Doug, "It is actually much simpler to assume that the army moved forward and engaged the French in exactly the same battle order as they had stood in all day, the order that Erpingham had made, just as the sources say…."

Perhaps, but you will have to take that up with Henry. It was he that told Erpingham to draw out the archers, place them in two wings in front of the men-at-arms. This was done in order for the archers to screen the advance of the men-at-arms as any decent late medieval army would do. Regardless of what you think should have been done, Henry saw it differently.

Rocky, "In every period the concept of drill is done so that every individual knows where he is supposed to be in relation to his officers."

Rocky, are trying to tell me the archers could march from Harfleur to Agincourt without any problem but couldn't move 600 yards without file leaders, closers, sergents with spontoons to dress a thin line? This is the middle ages for heavens sake. :) Besides just because we don't know the command structure for the archers doesn't mean they didn't have one.

Rocky, "Rich, I agree in part with your 4 or 3 wedges(from various posts, I am unclear exactly which), the problem is that yelling at thousands of men, "everybody move left" won't work."

Now you're pretending to play dense.:) Erpingham and his boys ride over to a wedge of archers. The sub-commanders move to the front so they can hear what Erpingham has to say. Erpingham says to them, "I want you blokes to have your men pull up stakes (or leave them based on what a particular chronicler says) then move forward and cover the men-at-arms. Since you guys are the center right wedge I want you to link up with the archers on your right. On my mark, get set, ALLER!" [English nobles spoke French] Once they arrived at where Erpingham wants them, he raises his hand and shouts "ARRRETER" The bowmen then all begin looking at each other saying "What did he say. He's speaking that damn French again and I can't understand what the hell he's saying." Once things are straightened out, Erpingham (the wannabe frog – I've been at this way too long) gathers the subcommander around and says "You blokes there, I want you to put your men on the flank of the men-at-arms. And you guys over there, I want you to take your men and put them on the flank of these guys here (or something to that effect). Once finished with the new disposition, he rides back to Henry and the boys, dismounts, walks up to Henry and says "What the hell is taking your guys so long? Now I have to walk and I'm too old for this sh&t." (or something to that effect)

You've got the imagination to write good rules why can't you imagin how the archers could advance 600 yards? :) After all they are screening the advance of the men-at-arms not marching down the Champs-Elysees.

Rocky, "If were were discussing this at dinner, you would see the wry grin on my face over my cup of coffee."

Ya and I would be spewing hot cholcolate all over the place trying not to choke.

Rich

The only reason to diverge from Monstrelet's chronicle is because both thought that his account was either not clear or wrong in some aspect.

"The only reason?" Try this one for size: neither Waurin or LeFevre were literate men. They had Monstrelet's account recited to them, then, as participants they dictated any further details that their eyewitness memories could supply, and voila! you then had three accounts instead of just one.

Since both were eyewitnesses, they wanted to set the record straight. Therefore their account is more accurate than Monstrelet's.

Interesting, isn't it, that neither Waurin or LeFevre actually added any details to the passages we are discussing here: in fact, their versions are less detailed, as per the English array: Monstrelet supplies us with a better visual of the entire English army array.

If Monstrelet's details had been at variance with fact, you might expect Waurin or LeFevre to counter such details with the truth. But neither says anything at variance with Monstrelet's picture of the English army's array; they just don't say as much about it as Monstrelet does.

If I have this correct, you think "at a very little distance" and "at no great distance" means the same? You're really stretching for this one.

Not stretching: just asking you to define what these terms mean to you. So, the baggage is in England, uhuh. That's helpful.

And you think ‘nearly joined' means a gap of 200 yards??

No, well under 200 yards. And decresingly, the narrower the field is. It is very conceivable that the gaps between the battles were well under 100 yards.

And, the only thing you come up with to explain the gaps is wedges of archers 1,500 strong?

Where did I assigne a number? In fact, I posited that the "wedges" might be smaller than the wings (I have played Agincourt this way, in fact).

….Now the vanguard was under the command of the Duke of York. The rearguard was under the command of Lord Camoys. Henry commanded the main battle. Let me see, how about the gaps being there for command and control. That way I don't have to define ‘nearly joined' as 200 yards.

Okay. Now you've really lost me. To keep your theory afloat, won't you now have to supply other examples of battles where a contiguous line actually had gaps left in it to provide "command control"? I can't even imagine one. Ever. A contiguous line, taking full advantage especially of a narrow field to guard the flanks, is NOT going to spread to fill the space by leaving holes in their phalanx!?

You have earlier said, "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?" If archers to your mind are "weak points" to be exploited, how much weaker would empty gaps in a line be? How BIG are these gaps going to be, to maintain anything noticeable enough to even mention?

(Or we can go with the obvious explanation that all the sources agree on: that the array was the same in both first position and as the army advanced. This is typical medieval practice. Evidence from other campaigns: off the top of my head, Hastings has the invaders lined up in the same order as their native lands in relation to each other: clear evidence that on the mainland, William had mustered his army to fight in a prearranged and drilled order. The Black Prince arranged his army in the same order that it had followed passing into Spain, at the battle of Navarret. In both examples the archers, infantry and cavalry were all ordered into battles together.)

Why did you think Henry had Erpingham draw out the archers put them into two wings, in front of the men-at-arms, in a single battle?

Explain to me, with a picture, how you would show "a single battle" that is at the same time "two wings"

It is clear from all the accounts, that "in front" and "first" means the archers were advanced ahead of the battles of men at arms and engaged the enemy first. It doesn't mean that "wings" must be stationed in front of the men at arms screening them. "Wings can't be in front of a center anyway, or else they form a first line, or skirmish line, not "wings".

Your response to Rocky is entertaining, if we are at an end here. Otherwise, it is productive of nothing but injecting confusion. (e.g. Rocky was saying that there were NOT thin lines, spontoons, file openers and closers, etc; that in fact command and control was rudimentary, requiring a minimum of what your little scenario portrays: adhoc organization with the help of a sub officer corps, ON THE FIELD, in the face of the enemy army a few hundred yards away!).

Hi

Rich, I have no problem with advancing 600 yards(not sure why that number).

My objection isn't that they could, the archers, advance from their stakes, fire flight arrows to harass the french and then retreat back to the stakes when the french advance.

The problem i have, and perhaps I am misunderstanding, your concept that after advancing, shooting, retreating, now Epingham has everyone withdraw back, again, taking their stakes and moving to the flanks and re-advancing, planting and facing the french, who have been marching forward all the time.

I agree, IF that is what you see here, it makes no sense to NOT attack these vulnerable archers.

Which is why I keep falling back on the illos from the 1820s with the wedges and the like. 1000 men at arms cannot cover the field, the wedge and wing deployment does the job with the 6 or 7 thou. I have drilled real people, and I can see how to effect this version with the limits of medieval drill, but not the other.

So, back to the vulnerable part. If they do "body left" as a mob without files and leaders, then they are vulnerable.

And the coffee comment is ment to lower the "heat" level. Some of the posts I see express a lot of anger that none of us would show face to face over dinner during the same discussion.

Rocky

Doug, "The only reason?" Try this one for size: neither Waurin or LeFevre were literate men.

If true, totally irrelevant.

Doug, But neither says anything at variance with Monstrelet's picture of the English army's array; they just don't say as much about it as Monstrelet does."

So you are saying that Monstrelet's account of how the archers were formed to screen the English advance was more detailed than that of Waurin and LeFevre. I would like some quotes of comparison to prove that.

Doug, " It is very conceivable that the gaps between the battles were well under 100 yards."

How far under: 50 – 25 – 3? All this from ‘the battles were nearly touching'?

Doug, "To keep your theory afloat, won't you now have to supply other examples of battles where a contiguous line actually had gaps left in it to provide "command control"?.

No, Agincourt is enough. It makes a hell-of-a-lot more sense given the battles were nearly touching than inventing make believe archers who the authors don't even mention being there.

Doug, "Or we can go with the obvious explanation that all the sources agree on: that the array was the same in both first position and as the army advanced."

But we can't. You've failed to present a single account to prove that.

Doug, "Explain to me, with a picture, how you would show "a single battle" that is at the same time "two wings"

What is this remedial medieval warfare? Are you telling me that you can't visualize a unit split into two wings?

That's it? You've channeled Waurin and LeFevre and know they were illiterate. From "the battles were nearly touching" you would have us believe this meant there was enough room to play football or soccer between the battles. You can't envision a unit composed of two wings. You have completely failed to show a single description from any source about the second battle line having archers on either side of the main battle. All you are doing is making unsubstantiated claims in the face of countervailing evidence. This is silly.

Rich

Rocky, "The problem i have, and perhaps I am misunderstanding, your concept that after advancing, shooting, retreating, now Epingham has everyone withdraw back, again, taking their stakes and moving to the flanks and re-advancing, planting and facing the French, who have been marching forward all the time."

I see the problem, I'm not saying that at all. The first battle line had the archers on either side of the main battle. The French do not advance. Henry decides to advance. He has Erpingham pull out the archers to screen the advance. At the second battle line, the archers are placed on the extreme flanks of the men-at-arms. The French cavalry charge. The archers fire. This is the first time they have fired. After firing they come out from behind their stakes to finish off the fallen French. So the firing and advancing and retreating behind stakes occurs at the second battle line after Erpingham has them setup in this second position.

So the question of why the French didn't attack the wedge of archers is a hypothetical question. "IF the archers had been formed in wedges at the second battle line, why didn't the French attack these weak positions?" The answer: they didn't attack the archers in this second line because the archers were never there.

This, of course, leads to the hypothetical question of whether archers behind stakes can effectively beat off a French dismounted attack. I'm saying, regardless of the existence of stakes, no they can't. The space needed to come out and then retreat back in means the stakes would not hinder an attack by French men-at-arms.

Rocky, "So, back to the vulnerable part. If they do "body left" as a mob without files and leaders, then they are vulnerable."

In the Napoleonic wars, when the French sent out clouds of skirmishers to screen the advance of the army were the light infantry vulnerable. Sure, but that misses the point. They were there to provide protection for the army while it advances on the enemy. The same is true here. The archers screened the advance of the men-at-arms to at least to slow down a French attack, should it happen, while the English men-at-arms were on the move.

The clouds of light infantry were not a mob. They had sub-commanders insure some kind of order. The same with the archers. It is highly likely that there was a sub-command structure for the archers as well (perhaps based on tens). They too would insure that the battle of archers would not breakdown into a mob.

As far as the coffee, I knew what you were doing and replied in kind.

Rich

So you are saying that Monstrelet's account of how the archers were formed to screen the English advance was more detailed than that of Waurin and LeFevre.

I have never said anything about archers screening anything.

The array is what I am talking about: being the same as the Gesta's description throughout.

I would like some quotes of comparison to prove that.

Read it yourself: Monstrelet is the ONE who clearly says that the "wings" of the English army (that is the sections on either side of Henry's center) contained both archers AND men at arms: neither Waurin or LeFevre have anything to say about the wings of the army.

You've channeled Waurin and LeFevre and know they were illiterate.

You channeled them and said the "only" explanation was that they needed to correct Monstrelet: I simply offered another explanation as to how and why they relied on Monstrelet to compose their own narratives. Very few people back then were literate, and even fewer of the warrior class than other classes; so the chances are that both of them were unlettered men. Again, the point is that you ought to not make such unfounded claims; there are other equally likely or more likely explanations.

From "the battles were nearly touching" you would have us believe this meant there was enough room to play football or soccer between the battles.

Hardly, and your continued misconstruing of what I did say is not helpful.

You continue to refuse to propose what, "at a very little distance", means: you are content to disparage my picture of what it might mean (a place big enough to contain a unit of archers, anywhere from say 30 yards to 160 yards wide), but you will not say what the distance had to be in order to be a noticable gap between the battles: thirty feet? fifty? what??

(I find it interesting how modern depictions, e.g. Osprey's campaign battle maps, show the English men at arms in a single phalanx with no gaps at all: more assumptions, content to completely ignore what the eye witnesses and other original source narratives say. "Nearly touching" is not touching; it means that there were gaps between the battles of men at arms that could clearly be seen and noted in the narratives -- ergo, easily seen and exploited by the French. Only when we accept Monstrelet and the Gesta do we come up with a reason for the battles being separated at all. Waurin and LeFevre do not supply any details in this regard.)

You can't envision a unit composed of two wings.

No. Because the way you would have it is all the archers in a single "battle" mass screening the three battles of men at arms as the entire army advances; then this single unit of archers somehow becomes TWO WINGS, dividing hither and thither literally in the face of the enemy. That is TWO UNITS, not one: whereas the Gesta and Monstrelet have FOUR UNITS of archers; and the other sources say that the army advanced in the same order as it had stood originally.

You have completely failed to show a single description from any source about the second battle line having archers on either side of the main battle.

No, I have completely failed to convince you. I've repeated all of this several/many times by now!

The archers between the battles are there because they are mentioned in the first place and nothing changes. (as the other sources say) Because they don't specifically mention the stakes in the second position does that mean they weren't there? (the Gesta and others say they were) Gaps in the line of men at arms are either empty air (a whole lot weaker than a body of archers!) or filled with yeomen. If you take out the Gesta's "wedges" between the battles, you have changed the array and gone against the clearest two accounts describing how and why Henry moved his army forward.

All you are doing is making unsubstantiated claims in the face of countervailing evidence. This is silly.

I agree it is silly. But aren't we having a grand time?

Hardly unsubstantiated. You have the same source books I have referred to. Above, both of us have had recourse to the TWO most detailed accounts of what went into moving Henry's army, and how it remained in the same order as it advanced to initiate the combat. How is that unsubstantiated?

There is no countervailing evidence except in your own mind's eye: you started this thread to propose that the wedges of archers on either side of Henry's battle (separating the three battles) were in fact not there. You keep twisting and turning to make that hypothesis a fact, and it is you who have failed to address a single objection that I have shown.

The latest of which is: If the archers are weak points (to your way of thinking) that the French would have (should have) exploited, then how much weaker are TWO BIG HOLES in the English line? The French columns would have targetted ANY HOLES and split the English army into three pieces.

By suggesting that HOLES could be there instead of "weak archers", you point out an even greater mystery than your OP does!

Are you prepared to claim that the battles were nearly touching, yet were clearly NOT touching such that this feature gets into the chronicles, and yet the French did not see these obvious weak spots and went for the standards ansyway?

….The archers screened the advance of the men-at-arms to at least to slow down a French attack, should it happen, while the English men-at-arms were on the move.

No way. 5/6ths of the army are not going to be sent out to screen the advance of 1/6th! The archers practically WERE the army.

"They had sub-commanders to insure some kind of order. The same with the archers. It is highly likely that there was a sub-command structure for the archers as well (perhaps based on tens)."

Vintenars in charge of 20 men
Centenars in charge of 100 men

"No way. 5/6ths of the army are not going to be sent out to screen the advance of 1/6th! The archers practically WERE the army."

Why not? Bear in mind that the REAL fighting is done by the MAA, maximising their advantage by protecting them initially with a screen of archers makes tactical sense, partcularly as there were so few of them.

Hi

In the nappy period, training skirmishers was a serious problem for several reasons we won't go to here. But the reason was simple. "a cloud" of skirmishers draw ineffective musket fire due to the natural issue of musket shooting at the nearest target.

So, we have the new assertian that 5/6ths of the army is screening the important part.

From WHAT?

And back to the suggestion that archers only annoy MAA and the brits fight 5000 MAA with 1500 and win.

OR, alternately, the stakes did slow the MAA in close order (versusu the LI moving out in open) and thus, dissuaded the MAA from attacking the bow giving them a couple free close up in the face shots……….when there was the possibiltiy of russhing with numbers on the british MAA who are of value in a ransom.

Rocky

Doug, "I have never said anything about archers screening anything."

See, that's your problem. You should have. As I showed above all three were talking about Erpingham setting up the archers to screen the advance of the men-at-arms.

Doug, " … anywhere from say 30 yards to 160 yards wide"

Since you only need around 100 yards in order to play football or soccer, I stand by my statement. You would have us believe that almost touching means there was enough room between battles to play football or soccer. That's ridiculous. All most touching means there is nothing between the two battles but space. You cannot be almost touching with 1,000 archers (see I made the number smaller) in between. Then almost touching would be between the battle and the archers. Saying almost touching precludes the fact of anything existing between the two.

So you want me to guess how far apart they were. They were far enough apart so that the commanders could exercise command and control over their battles yet close enough that the French could not exploit the gaps. Since the sources don't provide an exact number, it would be useless for me to do so. I wasn't there.

Doug, "Only when we accept Monstrelet and the Gesta do we come up with a reason for the battles being separated at all. Waurin and LeFevre do not supply any details in this regard."

Let's look a bit more about accepting Monstrelet's account. Monstrelet got all his information second hand. He wasn't there. Waurin and LeFevre were there. Not only that but Waurin, as herald, would have written up an account of the battle shortly after the battle. That was his job. He probably still had a copy of that account to refer to. Waurin and LeFevre, the only two eyewitnesses, corresponded together about their individual chronicles. So we have two eyewitnesses corresponding as they worked on their chronicles and one of them has an account they had written right after the battle. Monstrelet was not an eyewitness. What was it you said about eyewitnesses trumping accounts of people who were not there?

Another thing we know is that our two eyewitnesses do not agree with Monstrelet's account of the Erpingham account. We know that because they didn't accept Monstrelet's account of this affair and wrote their own account. In other words, Monstrelet got it wrong and they were setting the record straight.

Maybe we can see what was wrong with Monstrelet's account. Here is Monstrelet's account of the Erpingham affair.

"He had his battle drawn up by a knight grey with age called Thomas Erpingham, putting the archers in the front and then the men-at-arms. He made two wings of men-at-arms and archers, …"

Now for Waurin's and LeFevre's account,

After the discussion had taken place between the two battles 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.

Do you see the difference? Neither Waurin nor LeFevre put the command of the men-at-arms under the command of Erpingham. They state he was placed in the command of just the archers. Erpingham would never have been in command of the men-at-arms. This would place the commanders of all three battles, including the king, under his command. There is no way Henry would place Erpingham in control of the whole army. Evidently Waurin and LeFevre, our eyewitnesses, saw the mistake and corrected it. Erpingham did not make two wings of men-at-arms and archers. He only drew out the archers and put them into two wings. Monstrelet's account is wrong. Remember, eyewitnesses (with a record of the account made only days after the battle) trumps accounts of people who were not there.

There you have it. No unsubstantiated theories but a clear well-thought out exposition substantiated by eyewitnesses. Erpingham was not in command of the men-at-arms. He did not put them into two wings. He was in command of only the archers. He prepared them to screen the advance of the men-at-arms. When the army advanced on the French, the archers, in two wings, went first (as shown by sources above) screening the rest of the army. Once in the second position, the two wings of archers formed up on the two extreme wings of the men-at-arms with no make believe archers between the battles.

I really recommend you drop this now. You are making assertions that look ridiculous.

Rich

Rocky, "So, we have the new assertion that 5/6ths of the army is screening the important part. From WHAT?"

It is not an assertion. It is a statement of fact supported by primary sources. What we have is light infantry screening the heavy infantry from a sudden attack from the enemy's heavy cavalry or infantry. There is a reason why troops take minuses for being attacked while on the move.

Rocky, And back to the suggestion that archers only annoy MAA and the brits fight 5000 MAA with 1500 and win."

Why do you keep minimizing what I say? The archers disrupted the advance of the dismounted French. Formed troops always get bonuses for fighting disorganized troops. The English could hack and hew while the French were all crammed together.

Rocky, "OR, alternately, the stakes did slow the MAA in close order (versus the LI moving out in open) and thus, dissuaded the MAA from attacking the bow giving them a couple free close up in the face shots……….when there was the possibility of rushing with numbers on the British MAA who are of value in a ransom."

The French were now out of order. Meaning they were moving independently of each other. Their order would have presented no problem because they had none. As for ransoms, the French had already boasted of hacking the archers to bits. Following your suggestion, that the men-at-arms flowed around the archers in order to just attack the English men-at-arms, creates a big problem. Since the archers were in wedges in advance of the men-at-arms, the French would have to pass by the wedges to get to the English men-at-arms. Doing this would open their flanks and rear to the archers in the wedges. It would be better to take the archers head on so they could not fire into the flanks and rear of your army.

Rich

You cannot be almost touching with 1,000 archers (see I made the number smaller) in between. Then almost touching would be between the battle and the archers. Saying almost touching precludes the fact of anything existing between the two.

So you want me to guess how far apart they were. They were far enough apart so that the commanders could exercise command and control over their battles yet close enough that the French could not exploit the gaps.

So the narrative notices a SOP of a miniscule empty space between the battles: WHY?

Gaps noticed are gaps produced for some reason. They are not SOP in a continuous phalanx of men at arms! They are not necessary to maintain command control (they might be necessary to prevent you and me from getting our miniatures units mixed up!)

Let's look a bit more about accepting Monstrelet's account. Monstrelet got all his information second hand. He wasn't there. Waurin and LeFevre were there.

Monstrelet got his info from veterans of the battle. Why would Waurin and LeFevre need to (choose to) base their accounts on Monstrelet then?

Not only that but Waurin, as herald, would have written up an account of the battle shortly after the battle. That was his job.

Supposition! Assumption!

Nobody knows what Waurin or LeFevre were in the battle, or where they were. It is LeFevre (aged 19 at Agincourt) who "seems to have been in the service of the heralds" (Curry p. 135), not Waurin (aged 15 at the time).

"It is generally agreed that neither Waurin nor Le Fèvre began to compile their chronicles until mid-century. Also there is clear evidence that their accounts were interlinked and interdependent. Indeed, both admit as much. A more problematic issue, however, is the relationship of their writings to the work of Enguerran Monstrelet…. Monstrelet presented his chronicle to Philip the Good, duke of Burgundy, in 1447. There seems little doubt that both Waurin and Le Fèvre drew extensively on Monstrelet…. if what we have before us is a case of copying, then there are difficulties in using them to confirm each other and we do need to look at all three chronicles together. Surprisingly, this has never been attempted before." (Curry is the first scholar to reexamine all three in the same place at the same time)

Another thing we know is that our two eyewitnesses do not agree with Monstrelet's account of the Erpingham account. We know that because they didn't accept Monstrelet's account of this affair and wrote their own account. In other words, Monstrelet got it wrong and they were setting the record straight.

Wrong: they don't disagree with Monstrelet: neither says anything that cannot be in agreement with the earlier and more fulsome description. As I said already, Waurin and LeFevre say LESS about the English array, not more, and no corrections.

Do you see the difference? Neither Waurin nor LeFevre put the command of the men-at-arms under the command of Erpingham. They state he was placed in the command of just the archers. Erpingham would never have been in command of the men-at-arms.

Much ado about nothing. Nowhere do any of the three state that Erpingham was in COMMAND of anyone. Henry had given him, as the most experienced veteran in his army, the duty (honor) of calling the men to their ranks and overseeing the establishment of the array. That was all. (It would be the same thing if a friend ours laid out our miniatures, and then we took over maneuvering them from that original layout.)

Evidently Waurin and LeFevre, our eyewitnesses, saw the mistake and corrected it.

They corrected nothing: they said less than Monstrelet about it, and more vaguely at that. Henry "ordered" Erpingham to set the array; he didn't give him command.

Monstrelet's account is wrong.

You keep whittling away at our sources. Now you are down to Waurin and LeFevre only. If you pare away their use of Monstrelet, they will make virtually no sense.

Once in the second position, the two wings of archers formed up on the two extreme wings of the men-at-arms with no make believe archers between the battles.

AND, only 1/6th of the total army agreeing with Livius and the Elmham, that "Henry consulted with his most experienced officers on whether he should 'advance with his troops in the order in which they stood.'" (My emphasis: not "men-at-arms", troops. Livius and Elmham's writer got their information from vets of the battle too; but you are not going there, because they weren't eyewitnesses? They are the only ones to give us detailed information on the why and how of Henry's decision to advance and attack: if their accounts were refuted in any way by our three eyewitnesses, I would take the latter over either Livius or Elmham: but our eyewitnesses, though saying little, do not disagree, so we can trust these two more fulsome accounts on this: we have no other option in any case, since they are all we have on the subject.)

I really recommend you drop this now. You are making assertions that look ridiculous.

Rich

I will hazard looking more ridiculous, by making a comparison of the above and foregoing posts of ours, and our claims on the sources (this isn't meant to be comprehensive, but should prove my point: which is: that I have reconciled the original sources far more completely than you have, because you have this notion of how the English army ACTUALLY operated, and are either ignoring source material in refutation of your theory, or make assumptions out of thin air that have no basis whatsoever in the original sources or evidence):

Gesta: states that there were archers between the battles of English men at arms (Rich says only in the initial – first – position), that the battles did not therefore touch each other. After the English advance, the French attacked "the archers who were on both sides of our army" with cavalry (implicit in this is that "wedges of [Henry's] archers in between each 'battle'" included archers on both sides of all three battles throughout (but Rich claims that in the second – advanced – position that the archers between the battles moved eventually to the ends of the army as "wings). The Gesta says also "[Henry] drew up only a single line of battle" (Rich claims that advancing changed all that into two lines: archers – 5/6ths! of the army – advancing to "screen" the men at arms – 1/6th). So much for the Gesta.

Monstrelet: says clearly that men at arms and archers composed the "wings" of the army: implicitly necessary, in order to agree with the Gesta, are archers between the battles of men at arms, and in fact nothing Monstrelet says or does not say prohibits this (Rich now says that "Monstrelet got it wrong").

Waurin and LeFevre: say that Erpingham "put [the archers] in the front in two wings". Since the Gesta clearly says the English army was in a single line, this can only be reconciled if we take "in front" to mean advanced closer to the enemy than the battles of men at arms: i.e. the "wings" were angled forward. So far, I have not ascribed to a single detail that makes it necessary for me to ignore any declaration by any source (Rich, on the other hand, has already tossed Monstrelet's "wings of men at arms and archers" because that is impossible to reconcile with all the men at arms being in the center, and Rich has given us TWO battlelines, 5/6ths of the army advancing to "screen" 1/6th, the men at arms). Waurin and LeFevre also say that Erpingham rode in front "of THE battle of archers" (my emphasis): which I rectify by assuming that all references to Erpingham apply only to Henry's center, or, if the entire army, then only the moment that Erpingham tossed his baton in the air, which places him fairly in front of one of the "battles" of archers flanking the king's men at arms, before dismounting and taking his station next to the king (Rich takes a literal ONE battle of archers now out in front of the men at arms, thus ignoring the Gesta's "one battleline" arrangement, by claiming this was only true in "the first position" but not after the advance began.

Titus Livius and Pseudo Elmham: now we come to the two most fulsome sources on how and why Henry decided to literally "up stakes" and advance on the French. Both are in agreement. Livius says of the English array (the same order since leaving Harfleuer): "No one battle was very distant from the others. The middle battle, over which the king presided himself and in which he would fight, was located in the field directly against the middle battle of the enemy. To the right of it was the vanguard and also the right wing. (emphasis is mine) To the left was the rearguard with the left wing. (ditto) The three battle lines were nearly joined." The Elmham says: "….to the middle battle, which [Henry] himself commanded, and in which, under the mercy of God, he proposed to fight, he assigned a convenient station in about the middle of the field, so that it might come in contact with the middle battle of the enemy. On his right, at a very little distance, he placed the vanguard, and joined to it the wing stationed on his right. (emphasis is mine and very important!) On the king's left was the rearguard of the army, to which the left wing was joined in like manner. (ditto) What we have here is a perfectly harmonious detail with the previously quoted sources: the Gesta's "wedges" between the battles are of archer "wings" to them, meeting to form apexes toward the French: note that Henry's battle has its own "wings" which were "at a very little distance" to the vanguard and rearguard. Clearly what I have been saying all along was the case: each battle had its own "wings" of archers, the outermost troops being the wings of the vanguard and rearguard extending into the trees on either hand (the troops that the French cavalry charged as noted in the Gesta). So far, I have agreed with all the sources (Rich has tossed Monstrelet, the Gesta – since he claims it only describes the first position and says nothing about the second at all – and he has not noticed that Livius and the Elmham actually insist that Henry had "wings" on his own battle, which he "joined" to the right and left battles "at a very little distance": Rich would have this mean empty space of no significance, SOP for command control purposes, between the actual battles of men at arms: but that is pure supposition without any evidence from source material).

On the all-important topic of Henry's advance, Livius says: "Then [Henry] said to his men, 'Advance banners'. Then he stood with his battleline in the order in which they stood, having exhorted all his men to go into battle with the enemy. The usual order of the English, established by the king, was maintained; the first battle line proceeded, then the second and the third followed straight after." I.e. in echelon of battles, because we already know that the wideness of the field precluded more than a single battleline, as the Gesta says. The Elmham says: "…[Henry] firmly believing that the French were not inclinded to move from their position, consulted the most experienced officers of his army whether he should advance with his troops, in the order in which they stood (emphasis is mine), towards the enemy who refused to come towards him. Having fully considered the circumstances of so important an affair, they prudently determined that the king should march with his army towards the enemy, and charge them in the name of God….The King thought it difficult and hazardous to depart from his position, yet to avoid greater dangers (of waiting and growing weaker while the French grew stronger), with the greatest intrepedity he set his army an example how they should direct their march towards the enemy, preserving, however, the order of their former array(emphasis is mine). (Rich would have this empirically clear statement apply only to the men at arms, disregarding the rest of the "troops", the 5/6ths of the English army that were archers. This is without foundation, a huge supposition based on nothing but Rich's own hypothesis.)

Turning his hypothesis -- that there were no archers between the battles in the second position -- into a theory, we "test" it with the sources and find it wanting on the following accounts:

There are clear statements in the above sources that the English army advanced into battle preserving the exact array in which they had stood in the first position; that said-array consisted of a single battleline, not two with archers advancing "screening" men at arms, then dividing off to form two "wings" (nothing in this claimed maneuvering has the first evidence from the original source narratives).

That single battleline comprised three battles of men at arms and their "wings" of archers each, which nearly joined each other and were separated only by "a little distance": which, if we are talking about each battle being c. 300 to 500 men at arms, flanked by "wings" of c. 833 to 1,167 archers each, I can well believe to have been anywhere from 10 to even 100 feet: the archers, being mobile, would easily close the gaps between their ends by falling back a little (into a straighter line) and spreading a little thinner if need be, i.e. no gaps for the French to exploit in fact; yet leaving some maneuvering room, and the space that Rich "needs" to "maintain command control" between the battles.

The English array that engaged the French was the same as that in the first position, and the array of the evening previous, and comprised the order of march since leaving Harfleuer. There was no adhoc redistrubuting of the troops into an unrecognizable formation (according to the narratives) of all men at arms in a single phalanx, with the archers in a forward line "screening" them, and finally in the center with all the archers on the wings, as the latest theories claim/favor (and which in any case denies the clearly stated separation of the men at arms into three distinct battles).

Rich does not deny that the separation between battles was there, but says it was SOP "for command control purposes": which, if that were true, would never be a feature requiring specific mention by the chroniclers: and would in fact weaken the English line far more than the question of archers being some kind of "weak link" for the French to exploit, as proposed in the OP of this thread!

But if we stick to ALL the sources quoted above (our best of the lot, including our three eyewitnesses), we can harmonize them at least on this point: of what formation the English army was in, both on the march, the night before battle, that morning, and finally as it advanced to bring on the battle.

If advancing from their first position was at all hazardous to Henry's mind (as the Pseudo Elmham insists it was), how much more hazardous would be advancing and performing adhoc formation (O.B.) changes in the face of the enemy! I maintain that the sources do not support such a theory: that Rich's theory is flawed by inconsistency with what one or more of the sources say: that he has concocted details to explain what occurred that are without any foundation, i.e. cannot be pointed to any evidence for their reality: and that what I have been saying all along is entirely harmonious with all the above sources and requires no elaborate explanation or imagination to make work what the sources describe….

The French were now out of order. Meaning they were moving independently of each other. Their order would have presented no problem because they had none.

"Out of order" requires defining. And a return to the original sources works best: the Gesta clearly describes an actual forward press of the French columns that drove the English men at arms back about a "spear's length." The only internal trouble with the French "order" was being in too much "close order." I.e. compression (what we refer to in our rules as the "Adrianople rule", which reduces combat value to Zero along the pressure points). They were moving forward all the time, and the English had to contend with a sharp, brief melee to finish them off.

Following your suggestion, that the men-at-arms flowed around the archers in order to just attack the English men-at-arms, creates a big problem.

Who said anything about "flowing around the men at arms"? That would mean we ascribe to the notion that the French deliberately (stupidly) ignored the archers as beneath them, which if you recall neither of us (nor Mike) believes was the case. This repeating of the same stuff is done for me, really, this time, I think. I believe that the French met such an unanticipated "storm" of arrows so distrupting, frightening and injurious, that they flinched away from the direction of those rapidly repeated impacts: that produced an inward (that is to the rear) pressure directly in front of the archers, and inward (that is to the side) pressure from the flanking fire: these four massive pressure points caused the crowd dynamics to produce the columns moving toward the English battles of men at arms.

(and that's the last time I am going to say that)

Doug, "Gaps noticed are gaps produced for some reason. They are not SOP in a continuous phalanx of men at arms! They are not necessary to maintain command control.

Evidently Doug know nothing about command and control on the medieval battlefield?

Doug, Monstrelet got his info from veterans of the battle. Why would Waurin and LeFevre need to (choose to) base their accounts on Monstrelet then?"

Correction, Only part of their chronicles were copied from Monstrelet. They took pains to correct what they thought was incorrect in Monstrelet's account, like the Erpingham affair.

"Not only that but Waurin, as herald, would have written up an account of the battle shortly after the battle. That was his job."

Doug, "Supposition! Assumption!

You're right. It was LeFevre who was the herald and had written up an account of the battle because that was his job. And, he probably kept a copy of it.

Doug, " Wrong: they don't disagree with Monstrelet: neither says anything that cannot be in agreement with the earlier and more fulsome description. As I said already, Waurin and LeFevre say LESS about the English array, not more, and no corrections."

Part of the ‘fulsome' description by Monstrelet can be accounted for by the error of putting Erpingham in charge of the whole army. Besides, the last time I look number of words was not the criteria of an accurate account. What matters is not ‘fulsomeness' but accuracy.

Doug, "Much ado about nothing. Nowhere do any of the three state that Erpingham was in COMMAND of anyone. Henry had given him, as the most experienced veteran in his army, the duty (honor) of calling the men to their ranks and overseeing the establishment of the array. That was all."

How long have you had this problem with denial? Erpingham never had the honor of calling the men to their ranks. Henry only gave Erpingham the honor of commanding the archers to move forward and screen the advance. See Wauren and LeFevre. He also placed himself at the head of the archers. But perhaps that was just a photo op.

Doug, " They corrected nothing: they said less than Monstrelet about it."

The reason Wauren and LeFevre had less to say is that Monstrelet had put in too many things that were incorrect. You will windup with fewer words that way.

Doug, "You keep whittling away at our sources."

I prefer to think I'm correcting your terrible interpretations of those sources.

Doug, My emphasis: not "men-at-arms", troops. Livius and Elmham's writer got their information from vets of the battle too; but you are not going there, because they weren't eyewitnesses?

What's Doug complaining about? He's the one who establish eyewitnesses trump guys that were not there.

Doug, "AND, only 1/6th of the total army agreeing with Livius and the Elmham, that "Henry consulted with his most experienced officers on whether he should 'advance with his troops in the order in which they stood."

Damn straight those troops advanced in the order in which they stood. The men-at-arms were nearly touching with no imaginary archers in between. All the archers were on the extreme flanks as Livius and Pseudo-Elmham said. [You must include the ‘Pseudo' to differentiate this author from Elmham another author.] The archers went first followed by the men-at-arms.

That's it? Monstrelet is more correct because he used more words? I warned you about that your grasping at straws would get more ridiculous.

Rich

PS I would be happy to remark on your next set of comments but you need to some of those huge paragraphs into smaller paragraphs so I can follow what you have to say.

"That single battleline comprised three battles of men at arms and their "wings" of archers each, which nearly joined each other and were separated only by "a little distance": which, if we are talking about each battle being c. 300 to 500 men at arms, flanked by "wings" of c. 833 to 1,167 archers each, I can well believe to have been anywhere from 10 to even 100 feet:"

So now you have your "wedges" of archers with a curious gap in the middle of each wedge?

"the archers, being mobile, would easily close the gaps between their ends by falling back a little (into a straighter line) and spreading a little thinner if need be, i.e. no gaps for the French to exploit in fact"

And in so doing their formation is no longer a "wedge", but "a straighter line"?

Sorry Doug but your latest entry is the worst writing I have seen from you yet. You have huge paragraphs with quotes and commentary all mashed together. You have this terrible tendency to break up your exposition with parenthetical comments making it difficult to read your assertions. You have unclosed parentheses and parentheses within parentheses. You have authors quoting with no quotes. You mix your assertions with partial quotes implying the author of the quotes and your assertions are one. In other words your posting is quite unreadable.

Suggestion, take all the cute little parenthetical comments out. Just present what you have to assert and don't bother with comments about what you believe I'm trying to say. That's my job. When quoting from the sources separate the quote from your comments. Don't mix your comments with partial quotes and present them as the thoughts of the person quoted. Try to be succinct. Above all, quit trying to say what I mean. Again, that's my job.

Rich

BS, Rich. (And it isn't my latest entry: I was addressing your comments to Rocky: and correction on that: I meant, "flowing around the archers").

You are obviously not going any further with this. What I said is clearly written enough to get the gist, IF you are interested at all.

I haven't suddenly descended into incomprehensibility, Rich. I am the same writer, yesterday, today and likely tomorrow: by now you should be accustomed to my "style" (see? quotes, used in this instance to illustrate a qualified use of a word, in this case, meaning that I might have a writing style but you might take exception to that: quotes I also use to extract passages from a book: surely you can tell the difference).

I suggest that my second to last post (the one with the "HUGE paragraph") contains all that is required to explain my problems with your theory: which in a nutshell is: you extract bits of the sources that you want to support your theory, and create manifest and numerous conflicts with the other clear statements in other sources: I, on the other hand, work with them to harmonise the details as much as possible: and in this case (the order of the English army) I have harmonized all three eyewitnesses according to Livius and P. Elmham saying that the army moved in the same order as it had always been in since leaving Harfleuer: you, however, do not reconcile the sources with your largely created picture of the English order of battle: in fact you create more problems than there are. Now you excuse yourself by claiming that you can't understand what I am saying! (my paragraphs are suddenly too long, etc.)

If you are even slightly patient, you can work your way through it. I used quotes properly (allowing for human error in a couple of spots), nothing confusing, really.

Don't be disingenuous.

The reason Wauren and LeFevre had less to say is that Monstrelet had put in too many things that were incorrect. You will windup with fewer words that way.

Then in denying that the "200" archers were in the meadow near Tramecourt, they should have simply left Monstrelet's mention of that detail out. Instead, in correcting him, they indulge in a lengthy explanation. In correcting someone, it is not typical behavior of the writer to simply excise the material and press on without explanation or elucidation: the fact that Waurin and LeFevre have less to say than Monstrelet on the ordering of the English army is evidence that they simply gave their own version of that part without any reference to Monstrelet at all: they, if correcting him, would have inserted more, nor less, verbiage than in Monstrelet.

What's Doug complaining about? He's the one who establish eyewitnesses trump guys that were not there.

Only a problem when a non eyewitness and eyewitness are at variance. In the case of Livius and P. Elmham, their details ADD to our understanding and do not contradict anything the three eyewitnesses have to say.

So now you have your "wedges" of archers with a curious gap in the middle of each wedge?

Possibly. What practical difference would a gap make? The firepower would not be lessened if a few yards lay between the ends of the "wings" of archers.

"the archers, being mobile, would easily close the gaps between their ends by falling back a little (into a straighter line) and spreading a little thinner if need be, i.e. no gaps for the French to exploit in fact"

And in so doing their formation is no longer a "wedge", but "a straighter line"?

That would only have occurred if the French had in fact attacked the entire line, instead of "flinching" away from the areas in front of the archers. Since the sources give us a graphic description of the French keeping their heads down, and pressing into each other so tightly that they could hardly lift their weapons to use them, it seems obvious that to the archers' point of view there was no imminent attack upon themselves, and they remained in their forward angled positions and continued to pour arrows into the flanks of the forming columns until they ran out of ammo. Had the French managed to engage the staked line, the archers would have fallen back during the melee, until their lines would have drawn even with the battles of their own men at arms: that would have closed the gaps between the battles.

Hi

OK, I will try to be more clear.

First your statements that leave me puzzled(doug does this to me all the time…so trying to clerify)

"What we have is light infantry screening the heavy infantry from a sudden attack from the enemy's heavy cavalry or infantry. There is a reason why troops take minuses for being attacked while on the move." With" Formed troops always get bonuses for fighting disorganized troops" And then the french are some how magically crammed together.

I fear you are falling into a wargamers trap of "the rules, therefore" thinking.

If the archers are screening in front, to prevent an easy french attack, then the archers are vulnerable and would be showing a lot of casualties. But "disruption" which is vague, means that after cutting their way through the trash, the english have such "bonuses" that they fight as 4 men.

With that gamer thinking, I understand your concern about the vulnerability of the archers. But the french aren't stupid, and they didn't kill masses of yeoman, therefore we are left with only one possible explanation, the wedges, stakes and such worked.

R

I'll thin it down, just for you, Rich:

Livius says of the English array: "No one battle was very distant from the others. The middle battle, over which the king presided himself and in which he would fight, was located in the field directly against the middle battle of the enemy. To the right of it was the vanguard and also the right wing. To the left was the rearguard with the left wing. The three battle lines were nearly joined."

The Pseudo Elmham says of the English array: "….to the middle battle, which [Henry] himself commanded, and in which, under the mercy of God, he proposed to fight, he assigned a convenient station in about the middle of the field, so that it might come in contact with the middle battle of the enemy. On his right, at a very little distance, he placed the vanguard, and joined to it the wing stationed on his right (emphasis si mine). On the king's left was the rearguard of the army, to which the left wing was joined in like manner."

As to the decision to advance, they say:

Livius: "Then [Henry] said to his men, 'Advance banners'. Then he stood with his battleline in the order in which they stood, having exhorted all his men to go into battle with the enemy. The usual order of the English, established by the king, was maintained; the first battle line proceeded, then the second and the third followed straight after." I.e. in echelon of battles, because we already know from Livius that the "battlelines" were arranged side by side. (the Gesta agrees: one line)

P. Elmham: "…[Henry] firmly believing that the French were not inclinded to move from their position, consulted the most experienced officers of his army whether he should advance with his troops, in the order in which they stood, towards the enemy who refused to come towards him. Having fully considered the circumstances of so important an affair, they prudently determined that the king should march with his army towards the enemy, and charge them in the name of God….The King thought it difficult and hazardous to depart from his position, yet to avoid greater dangers, with the greatest intrepedity he set his army an example how they should direct their march towards the enemy, preserving, however, the order of their former array." (which is a single line here too, as the Gesta agrees)

These two accounts AGREE with the Gesta, Monstrelet and Waurin and LeFevre, that "three lines" means three battles arranged side by side (only your misconstruing of Waurin and LeFevre causes you to put the archers into a line "screening" the men at arms).

Therefore, a single battleline agrees with all the sources, and the P. Elmham agrees with the Gesta in placing archers ("wings") on either side of Henry's center to join with the vanguard to his right and rearguard to his left. The total descriptive material makes the order of battle of the English army conclusive, but ONLY AFTER all the apparant inconsistencies are reconciled as I have done.

I have no inconsistencies left to reconcile, regarding the O.B. of the English array. You, on the other hand, have ascribed to several/many inconsistencies; and have created some of your own out of whole cloth.

Is that succinct enough for you?

"Possibly. What practical difference would a gap make? The firepower would not be lessened if a few yards lay between the ends of the "wings" of archers."

Well, firstly a gap would mean that the formation could no longer be described as a "wedge". Secondly a gap woould be an obvious target for the French advance (exposed archer flanks).

"it seems obvious that to the archers' point of view there was no imminent attack upon themselves, and they remained in their forward angled positions"

So why did you suggest that they did close the gaps?

These two accounts AGREE with the Gesta"

No they don't. Neither mentions archers between the battles. The term ‘nearly touching' precludes anything being between them.

Pseudo-Elmham
"On his right, at a very little distance, he placed the vanguard and joined to it the wing stationed on his right. On the king's left was the rearguard of the army, to which the left wing was joined in like manner."

Henry placed vanguard next to Henry's battle on his right. Henry's right wing (singular) of archers were then joined to the right flank of York's battle.

Main – Van – Archers

Henry did the same with the rearguard on his left. When joined it looked like:

Archers – Rear – Main – Van – Archers

This is not at all like the Gesta's.:

Archers – Rear – Archers – Main – Archers – Van – Archers

Henry's right wing means the right wing of the army. That's why it is called a ‘wing'. It is the furthest unit on the right and left. That's why when it is mentioned it is mentioned in the singular. There is only a right wing and a left wing. The right wing was attached to the van and the left wing was attached to the rearguard.

Titus
"To the right of it [Henry's battle] was the vanguard"

Main – Vanguard

"and also the right wing (ala dextra)."

Main – Van – Ala (archers)

"To the left was the rearguard with the left wing (ala sinistra).

Ala – Rear – Main

"The three battles lines were nearly joined." In other words there was nothing between the battles.

Ala – Rear – Main – Van – Ala

Titus and Pseudo-Elmham's descriptions agree with each other but not with the Gesta. You are misreading these authors.

Titus then states,

"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."

Rearguard
……..Main
…………Vanguard

[I hope that comes out right. I'm tired of deleting postings]

Titus doesn't mention the archers. Evidently the archers were not considered part of the normal order the army. The order of the army was would seem to be established by the heavy infantry. This would fit with the aristocratic approach to viewing an army.

We start with the Gesta description we have:

Archer – Rearguard – Archer – Main – Archer – Vanguard – Archer

Wauren and LeFevre state Erpingham had orders to draw the archers out of the battle line and place them in front of the men-at-arms.

"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."

Now we get:

Rearguard-Main-Van
…….Archers Archers

[the archers are supposed to be in front of the three battles]

Now the army advances with archers leading the way:

[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 we see above the archers are in two wings, on the right and on the left. Titus tells us the battles advanced in echelon order. This preserves command and control. When they get to the second position is was easy to swing the two wings left and right and we get the position described by Wauren and LeFevre:

Archers – Rearguard – Main – Vanguard – Archers

When the battles form up in the second position the battles are nearly touching but not quite. This allows each commander to control his battle during the coming fight. Simple as can be with all the sources agreeing. That should be plain enough for anyone.

[This is the final posting. If the diagrams are screwed up, tough!]

Rich

"Possibly. What practical difference would a gap make? The firepower would not be lessened if a few yards lay between the ends of the "wings" of archers."

Well, firstly a gap would mean that the formation could no longer be described as a "wedge".

The shape is peaked. The separation must not have been very much.

I admit, I only noticed the P. Elmham detail about the vanguard and rearguard a couple of days ago transcribing it for this thread: "On his right, at a very little distance, he placed the vanguard, and joined to it the wing stationed on his right". That definitely leaves a noticable gap between the archer "wings" (noticable enough to get mentioned in the narratives). I don't know how big that gap would have to be to eliminate a "wedge" shape; or how small it could be to still be a remarkable enough gap to get mentioned?

Secondly a gap woould be an obvious target for the French advance (exposed archer flanks).

Not if the arrow storm kept them from even noticing it. I envision so much confusion, heads down and all, and pressing away from the arrows, that the French never even threatened to attack the stakes at all.

"it seems obvious that to the archers' point of view there was no imminent attack upon themselves, and they remained in their forward angled positions"

So why did you suggest that they did close the gaps?

I didn't mean to. I don't know how you got that from what I wrote.

Henry placed vanguard next to Henry's battle on his right. Henry's right wing (singular) of archers were then joined to the right flank of York's battle.

Except that the wording doesn't allow that without twisting: "On his right, at a very little distance, he placed the vanguard, and joined to it the wing stationed on his right". On "his right". Wouldn't it be more properly stated on "their right", if the referenced wing was on the right of the van? The wording establishes the possessive context: Henry's right, the right of Henry's battle. Interposing the vanguard and rearguard places their extreme ends of the entire English line as their own right and left respectively, not Henry's: he's in the center, after all.

Seems perfectly clear to me, because it agrees with the other sources: and I happen to believe they each did a credible job describing the same thing. You don't, obviously.

Titus and Pseudo-Elmham's descriptions agree with each other but not with the Gesta. You are misreading these authors.

Or you are. One of us is.

Since my interpretation agrees with them all, I will go with it.

Titus doesn't mention the archers. Evidently the archers were not considered part of the normal order the army.

Just how does that make any sense? In all the accounts of the campaigns of the HYW, the numbers of archers are mentioned along with the numbers of men at arms! They made up 5/6ths of the whole army by 1415, increasing to that proportion throughout the 14th century. Your observation is untenable.

"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."

How do you get, "Erpingham had orders to draw the archers out of the battle line" from that? You are wedded to your concept and reading things into the wording that aren't there, imho of course. "In the front" means like wings angled forward to engage the enemy first, that's all.

When the battles form up in the second position the battles are nearly touching but not quite. This allows each commander to control his battle during the coming fight. Simple as can be with all the sources agreeing. That should be plain enough for anyone.

"…the battles are nearly touching but not quite". Oh, that is precise. Close enough to not be a weak point, far enough apart to help the mindless minions not get confused and start fighting for the battle next to theirs.

For all your effort to explain the positioning, you've still not reconciled how the Gesta can be right for the first position, and something so different can be possible for the second position, and Livius and P. Elmham not be completely up in the night with their insistance that Henry's army maintained their same and usual order.

You can now explain how it was possible for empty air to be stronger than interposed archers. I will wait….

(Sorry you aggravated so much over your diagrams: TMP is not user friendly that way.)

"I didn't mean to. I don't know how you got that from what I wrote."

You said:
"the archers, being mobile, would easily close the gaps between their ends by falling back a little (into a straighter line) and spreading a little thinner if need be, i.e. no gaps for the French to exploit in fact"

Would and could. Woulda, coulda. But didn't. If the French HAD attacked, the archers woulda, coulda, fallen back and closed the line.

It seems reasonable to me that this "gap" between battles had this deliberately intended advantage: the forward angled lines of archers could create enfilading fire into the flanks of the attackng columns going for their men at arms; and there was maneuvering room sufficient to withdraw before an attack upon themselves, if such occurred, thus maintaining the line, and shooting up the enemy men at arms as they toiled through the stakes in super-close order.

"Except that the wording doesn't allow that without twisting: "On his right, at a very little distance, he placed the vanguard, and joined to it the wing stationed on his right". On "his right". Wouldn't it be more properly stated on "their right", if the referenced wing was on the right of the van? The wording establishes the possessive context: Henry's right, the right of Henry's battle. Interposing the vanguard and rearguard places their extreme ends of the entire English line as their own right and left respectively, not Henry's: he's in the center, after all."

I'm afraid you're wrong. On his right dos not denote possessive context. It denotes location respective to Henry, i.e., it was located on Henry's right. It cannot indicate on Henry's immediate right because that is where Henry stationed his vanguard. Thus we have two archer units on the flanks, one on the right and one on the left. This wing, which was on the right, was attached to the van's right.

"Wouldn't it be more properly stated on "their right", if the referenced wing was on the right of the van?"

No because the army was Henry's. It was his archers and his battles. Therefore the archers were on Henry's flank even though the van was interposed between Henry's battle and the archers. If you knew about the sources you would understand that Henry is the hero of this chronicle. Everything is relative to Henry. You can't read this as if it were written today. This is what I mean when I wrote you have no training in reading the sources.

"Henry's right, the right of Henry's battle

However, it does not mean nor does it say to Henry's immediate right. It can't because the Van is to Henry's immediate right. Everything to Henry's right, including the archers, is on Henry's right.

"Just how does that make any sense? In all the accounts of the campaigns of the HYW, the numbers of archers are mentioned along with the numbers of men at arms! They made up 5/6ths of the whole army by 1415, increasing to that proportion throughout the 14th century. Your observation is untenable.

It is quite tenable. The problem is you don't understand the mentality of the period.

"How do you get, "Erpingham had orders to draw the archers out of the battle line" from that? You are wedded to your concept and reading things into the wording that aren't there, imho of course. "In the front" means like wings angled forward to engage the enemy first, that's all."

I believe you are the one projecting. The source say nothing about wings angled forward. It says the archers were placed in front of the men-at-arms. In front means in front. Your description makes no sense at all.

The Gesta is clear that Henry drew up the first battle position. Henry placed the battles and the archers not Erpingham. You would have Erpingham, instead of Henry, ordering the tactical position which makes no sense. The king was there. It was he who ordered the tactical position. The Gesta is quite clear about that.

Follow the flow of events. After the army was ordered by Henry, he receives a delegation from the French. After that meeting Henry decides to move. He then calls Erpingham to place the archers in front of the men-at-arms.

Wauren and LeFevre
"AFTER the discussion had taken place between the two battles 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."

You see, Henry orders Erpingham to draw out the archers and place them in two wings AFTER his meeting with the French. The meeting occurred while the English army was arrayed in it's first position. Thus, Henry ordered his battle line. He next receives the French emissaries. Then, and only then, did Henry order Erpingham to place the archers in front of the men-at-arms. By this time he had decided to move against the French. Placing archers in front of the men-at-arms was SOP for advancing on the enemy. One of the problems the French had was they drove their archers away. These archers were supposed to screen the French advance. The French at Crecy sent their archers in first. Henry was doing the same. He placed his archers in front of his men-at-arms in preparation for the advance. The archers then lead the advance.

Wauren and LeFevre,
"Straightway the English approached the French; first the archers, of whom there were a good 13,000 began with all their might to shoot volleys of arrows against the French for as long as they could pull the bow"

Chronique de Ruisseauville,
"They came very quickly, the archers in front … "

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."

The only way these statements can be reconciled with the initial setup is if someone had taken the archers from their position in the battle line and placed them in front of the rest of the army. This, of course, is what Erpingham did. This all agrees with the chronicle records. You theory does not. Your theory does not reflect what was SOP for the period. Had you read more about late medieval battle you would have known that.

"For all your effort to explain the positioning, you've still not reconciled how the Gesta can be right for the first position, and something so different can be possible for the second position, and Livius and P. Elmham not be completely up in the night with their insistence that Henry's army maintained their same and usual order.

Actually I think I did a pretty good job. You don't want to recognize it. You still want to insert your own meanings into the text in order to twist them to try to get them to say what you need them to say.

"You can now explain how it was possible for empty air to be stronger than interposed archers. I will wait…."

You don't have to wait long. It is simple. I would have thought you would have thought of it. All most touching could easily mean a file width's away. In other words, about 3-4 feet away. The English were arrayed in 4 ranks. Any Frenchman entering that empty file would be attacked on their flanks by the English in the rear ranks. It would have been suicide for anyone to enter that empty file. The reason Henry assigned York and Camoys to command the vanguard and rearguard was so they could command the men in these battles. If you have one big line then Henry ends up commanding everything and doesn't need York and Camoys. So, you leave a space, about the size of a file, so these lords can provide command and control for their battles. If you had studied other battles you would know that.

It's really simple once you read what the sources have to say instead of trying to twist them into what you want them to say.

Rich

That should read "Any Frenchman entering that empty file would be attacked on HIS flanks."

RICH

Would and could. Woulda, coulda. But didn't. If the French HAD attacked, the archers woulda, coulda, fallen back and closed the line.

Is this special historical techno speech? :))

Rich

Hi

It is doug blather!

OK. I had a fun few minutes a while ago reviewing Bennet's discussion on this, making similar assertians and denials, without your screen, rich.

The tale. Lets do this like figs! No need to write things out…just letters. "A" is 500 archers, M is 500 MAA.

19th century, Oman and Keegan:

A A A
A A MM A A MM A A

With double ended stakes, repeately picked up, and replaced. and presumably resharpened.

Modern, Curry, Bennet and all:

A A
A A
A A
A M M M A

More or less, screen limits.

And "the screen".

A A A A A A
A A A A A A

MMM

The screen sort of ties into Bennets "checkerboard" supposition.

The third, I agree with Rich, it makes no sense that such a checkerboard screen didn't result in the vulunerable archers being massecred. Bennet and others assert that the archers joined in AFTER the French and British MAA fought, so I don't like screen.

but I think the first two versions are plausable, and the stakes make a differnce depending on how you see the stakes being planted. Reasoning backwards, the stakes must have been a workable defense against the MAA or the french would have killed archers, then walked in from the flank.

Rocky