"Battle-line at Agincourt" Topic

Matheo, the problem is the French already had plans to attack the archers. Their cavalry attack failed. However, with 5,000 men, there were enough men in the van to attack both the men-at-arms and the archers.

Rich

Are we there yet?

Doug:
"What's the big mystery created by the cleric's narrative? Helmets pierced in the sides? Easy to corroborate: consider it done, many times over, by modern tests."

Sorry, that is not corroborative evidence. Such corroboration must come from the sources, not modern tests. All a modern test can do is show that a helmet COULD be pierced from the side, not that it actually happened on the field of Agincourt.

Rich:
"The subsequent move was to a position where the forests on either side had narrowed to about 300 – 250 yards."

Now that's one I've not heard before. What evidence can you offer to support this view?

Connard:
"Are we there yet?"

Knowing these guys a bit, probably not … hey! 302 posts and counting!!

Hi

Rich, it is bennet whom you have quoted in the past, and we all have his Osprey that has a thousand yard frontage.

I have seen various assertians about width and arguments to same, none as narrow as 250. Can you suggest WHERE?

And my archery tests and background do not suggest killing plate troops at 330 yards or 250 or anything over 120 or so. Notwithstanding, the issue is this, you have a new model presented in your recent post.

First position, 750 yards, archers in wedges with groups of MAA for the brits. French are an arguing mass.

Brits advance to within 250 or so yards. The archers are in a loose cloud in front of the MAA carrying their bows and their stakes. Putting down the stakes, they fire long range harassing volleys which wake up the french causing them to order their ranks and attack.

300 cav charge. Archers are already staked somehow, someplace, now in the tree line such as the marshall of the france dies on a stake.

Don't you see the problem with your timeline?

The stakes ARE the issue. Lets ignore the pointy part for now, just the idea of a stick in the ground every 2 or three feet in a couple rows deep. An unarmored archer has no problem walking forward, perhaps 20 yards, volleying a few times at range and retreating STRAIGHT back and resuming shooting.

The simple thing is that the harassing fire doesn't stop until the french attack. At any width, you have the problem of the cav reaching the implanted stakes to die. IF the bow are in front, then on the flanks, you have archers scampering on your 250yard field 125 yards, planting stakes and resuming fire before the cav close 250 yards.

The time/distance STILL doesn't work.

Plausable is simple. the army advances in the same formation as first deployment, plnat stakes 250 yards away, advance to 220, fire harassing fire, french advance, archer retreat 30 yard faster than the cav close the distance and resume shooting.

Time/distance works without any trick drill, fancy quibbles and so on.

Rocky

Rich, all this discussion is based on assumptions and preconceptions :) Now, my half-serious wargaming idea to solve the problem was based not on the numbers and forces involved, which can be to some extent agreed upon by checking all those bloody sources all of you mention all the time , but on the preconception that the knight would prefer to fight a knight, or someone more suited to "real" combat than those pesky archers.
Look at it this way: attack on archers fails (for whatever reason). So the French might have thought something like "sure, those lesser beings with bows are a thorn in the arse, but if we smash their nobility, it will be over anyway. Besides – there's more glory, fame and fortune (ransom! ransom!) to be won there. Let's just be done with it".
History – and especially military history – is full of unanswered questions. As an example, I just browsed through one of my books, this one about the battle of Varna, 1444. The Christians were victorious… almost. Hunyadi rallying left wing to support the centre, all he needed was a bit more time to prepare the troops. With most of his army on the run, Murad II was preparing to run himself. Then suddenly, without notifying Hunyadi, young king Casimir launches an assault on Turkish centre, gets himself killed and hands over the victory to Murad.
Why?
We will never know.
Now, to stay on topic – although there is more sources and accounts to study on the battle of Agincourt, some things will never be certain. And for the questions like this – why the French didn't attacked the archers – one explanation is as good as others (unless it's completely stupid). Mine is as well :D

Mike:
". Such corroboration must come from the sources, not modern tests. All a modern test can do is show that a helmet COULD be pierced from the side, not that it actually happened on the field of Agincourt."

What sources can you bring up that state that this DIDN'T happened at Agincourt?

"What sources can you bring up that state that this DIDN'T happen at Agincourt?"

I can't – and thereby lies the problem. The ONLY evidence we have that helmets were pierced in the side is from the Gesta:
"But the French nobility, who had previously advanced in line abreast and had all but come to grips with us, either from fear of the missiles which by their very force pierced the sides and visors of their helmets"
That's it, just one source. No other source corroborates this evidence therefore it must perforce be treated with great caution.

I'm not saying it definitely DIDN'T happen. I AM saying that we cannot prove that it DID.

I know what you mean. However, please note that this one source states that it DID happen. And while no other source supports this claim, there is not one that clearly states that it DIDN'T happen.
And that's my point. Wise man questions everything, and that should be especially true for military (or any history) researcher. However, we cannot claim that the helmets were not pierced (as no source supports that). We can assume that it did happen, as one source claims just that.
Or…
We can do what I always do in such situations: say that "well, this one source states that the helmets were pierced by arrows. So, do we agree to play it that way, or do you want your frenchies be invincible to my english missiles?" :)
And make notes for any further research or consideration that we must assume twofold: variant A – it did, variant B – it didn't.
Now, the reason why I write all this is that you guys are running around in circles, through 7 pages. While a lot of it is interesting, at least half of it is your arguement about sources and their interpretations. You question Rocky's tests, at the same time relying on sources ONLY, and even when there is one source that supports Rocky's research, and none that dismiss it, you question that only source… awww c'mon.
We cannot prove anything from times that distant. So what now, should we leave it all together, sell our miniature HYW armies saying "I cannot play it, because I don't know how it really was"? No way mate :)
Instead of rolling the same arguements over and over again, why don't you guys go on taking each source claim and filtering it through two visions: pierced helmets and non-pierced helmets. And see what the conclusions are. And do the same with every other arguement. Now, that would be interesting :)
Cheers

"However, we cannot claim that the helmets were not pierced (as no source supports that)."

Absolutely

"We can assume that it did happen, as one source claims just that."

Only with great caution since the source is uncorroborated. I prefer to say that is POSSIBLE rather than simply assume it DID happen.

"We can do what I always do in such situations: say that "well, this one source states that the helmets were pierced by arrows. So, do we agree to play it that way, or do you want your frenchies be invincible to my english missiles?" :)"

Sorry, Matheo, you are missing the point. The question is not whether arrows pierced the French helmets or not, it is whether they did so FROM THE SIDES or not. The implication of side hits is that the English archers were sufficiently to the flanks of the French MAA to achieve side hits on their helmets.

This thread is about the battle deployment of the English army, not whether the English arrows could pierce the French helmets. Rocky's tests are therefore irrelevant in this particular case. OTOH they were very relevant to our previous discussion on the effectiveness of the longbow.

"Sorry, Matheo, you are missing the point."

Probably yes, to some extent – my point is in fact the method, not the subject :)
Still, as far as I remember from this thread, the source we are talking about gives us description of arrows piercing through sides of helmets (or I'm completely lost here…), so most of my "on method" opinions stand.

Hi

Matheo, welcome to the pig pen.

I don't get tired talking to e-friends on line on these subjects. Each of us brings different skills and education to the discussion. My friend doug loves to do what I call "religous" arguments. He carefull examines the sources and dismantles and reassembles and obsesses over intidivdual words.

And enjoys it. Rich seems to do the same. THEY believe that you can reach truth by weighing the sources. Mike is similar but differs in the attitude that nothing is really knowable, like you.

I come from a different perspective. More of a "mythbusters" or "weaponsmasters" apporach. I read the sources, but then like to test the reports. The reality is that even the primary sources were likely not expert observers. I "backed" into this. In the day, I was a geek doing computer analysis on airflow and had the skill set to accurately determine the flight envelope of aircraft projects. By extension, in the gaming, I could write the programs to do the same modern approach for, say, spitfires in WW2.

Why bother? Anacdotal first person sources on aircraft performance are always written by the guys who DIDNT get out turned and shot down. Thus, quoting the sources, one can pretty much prove that any major aircraft outturned any other.

When it came to medievals. I just wanted to know what was physically plausable. Thus the shooting. And, with a military background, I did silly things like teach SCA guys various drills to TEST movement and, again, what is plausable.

Thus, I am not really interested in the discussion of WHERE Gesta was. Various sources have placed him all over the place. The question is, how did you come to THIS employment and is it physically plausable?

the source suggests helmets pierced from the side. I can give you the idea that it is physically plausable depending on the design, and that it would only happen at fairly close range…under 100yds. And it would be rare.

As you imply, I assume we are all friends here. And while I am not really interested in arguing the "angels on a pin" approach to history, I learn. I enjoy.

Rocky

Mike, Now that's one I've not heard before. What evidence can you offer to support this view?

It's all in the posting I just presented earlier. Sources say the forests on either side constricted the frontage of the French van. Other sources give an estimate of 5,000 Frenchmen in 20 ranks. 5,000 men in 20 ranks means a frontage of 250 men. Other sources say the English battle line was flanked by the two forest. Since the 17th-century we are accustomed to consider shot and pike to be an integral part of the battle line. In the 15th century this wasn't the case. ‘Battle line' is a modern translation of what would be more properly translated at ‘line of battle' or ‘line of [the] battle[s]'. In other words a battle line was a line of battles. Archers were not part of the battles. What the quote then is saying is that the English line of the battles were also restricted by the forests. This seems to be born out by the following. We know there was approximately 1,000 men-at-arms and they were formed into 4 ranks. Thus the forests on either side forced the two armies into units of 250 men wide, because 1,000 men formed into 4 ranks equals a width of 250 men, the same as the French. Evidently the forests on both sides of the armies only allowed the English and the French to form units 250 men wide.

Connard Sage, Are we there yet?

No, so sit back, shut up, and quit hitting your sister.

Rocky, I have seen various assertians about width and arguments to same, none as narrow as 250. Can you suggest WHERE?

Yes, in this posting.

Rocky, Plausable is simple. the army advances in the same formation as first deployment, plnat stakes 250 yards away, advance to 220, fire harassing fire, french advance, archer retreat 30 yard faster than the cav close the distance and resume shooting. Time/distance works without any trick drill, fancy quibbles and so on.

Perhaps, but there is no evidence, none, that shows the French moving in such a fashion. Therefore lets' look at how long the it would take the archers to move 600 yards. I do a slow jog at around a 17minute mile. [OK so I do a very slow jog] Let's make that 18 minute mile, it's easier to work with. 600 yards is 1/3 of a mile. If the archers do a slow jog it would take them 6 minutes to cover that length. By the way, the sources say it was not muddy where the English marched. If the men-at-arms moved at a walking rate of 3 miles an hour, they would cover the distance in around 20 minutes. [You might check this. While you are dyslectic, I'm mathematically challenged.] This would mean the archers had 14 minutes to place their stakes. So let's say the whole process, from beginning to end, took 30 minutes.

Now how long do you suppose it would take the French, from the time they realized the English were advancing, to get the word spread that the English were advancing, to get their armor on, to join their units, to place the horse armor on, etc.? I think it would take longer than half an hour. So just roughing it like this, I have find no timing problems with what I propose.

Matheo, but on the preconception that the knight would prefer to fight a knight, or someone more suited to "real" combat than those pesky archers.

The problem with that assumption is that knights actually were assigned to attack the archers. They were the mounted contingent of knights. Also, in the past, French knights had no hesitancy to attack English longbowmen. So, there is no foundation to your preconception.

Mike, "What sources can you bring up that state that this DIDN'T happen at Agincourt?" I can't – and thereby lies the problem.

Actually, that is poor logic. I could say there were pixies fighting on the side of the English. What proof do you have that they didn't. Well we have no proof. Does that then establish there were pixies fighting on the side of the English.

This is poor logic because you cannot disprove a negative. It is incumbent upon the person who is making the assertion to prove the likelihood of it happening. As you pointed out just because Doug can do it is not proof that it was done at Agincourt. In fact, we have NO evidence of arrows piercing helmets as the battle was fought. None. Therefore we have no reason to think that such acts were conducted in the course of the battle. So the piercing of the side of helmets has no foundation. Therefore it is not a problem. The quote used by Doug does not say he saw the sides of helmets with arrows sticking out of them. The clause is an adjective clause modifying the phrase "fear of the missiles." We are left with no idea where our cleric got the idea that arrows actually pierced the sides of helmets. As I mentioned, that could have come from trash talking archers. Or it could have come from seeing it after the battle. In this case we are still left with not knowing the circumstances of these piercing. What we do know is that the cleric was not there to see it in person. He was 600 yards in the rear.

Matheo, I know what you mean. However, please note that this one source states that it DID happen.

There is NO source that says this happened. See above. We have no idea where that idea came from. It could be just the boasting of the archers.

Matheo, So what now, should we leave it all together, sell our miniature HYW armies saying "I cannot play it, because I don't know how it really was"? No way mate :)

For crying out loud. It's just a game. If you have fun with Doug and Rocky's game play it. This is not about "how it really was." Shoot, if you want to play zombie HYW and have knights running around with arrows sticking out of the sides of their helmets, go for it. History is also not about "how it really was." History is about what we understand about the period given the written records that have survived.

Doug, Just the Gesta, is all: the ONE source on the baggage that even you should trust as authoritative: the cleric does not speak of an attack on the baggage where he was, simply because the pillagers only attacked the "tail end" of it: a description perfectly in keeping with a waggon train on the move.

The problem with this guess is that the "tail end" never made it to the wagon train. Curry describes (with reference to sources) how this was the king's personal baggage. It was captured before it got to the wagon train. Boy was Ward Bond p??ssed! Evidently the "tail end" meant the tail end of the baggage to reach the wagon train. It wasn't the tail end of the baggage train. With no tail end to the baggage train and no front end to the baggage train we have no reason to suppose the baggage train was on the move. In fact, it was ordered to remain where it was. It did not follow the king into the field. So, no Virginia the writer of the Gesta was not an direct eyewitness to the battle. Everything he writes about the battle was told to him by the participants. With this revelation, a lot of Doug's assumptions fall apart.

The rest of Doug's comments are repeats of earlier comments already answered.

Rich

"Archers were not part of the battles."

So what evidence can you offer to support this statement? Particularly as it is required to prove your battleline frontage of 250yds.

BTW, don't trot out the "Erpingham story" again. He could quite easily have been in charge of all the archers whether they were part of the battles or not.

So what evidence can you offer to support this statement? Particularly as it is required to prove your battleline frontage of 250yds.

It is not required at all. We know from separate sources that the English were around 1,000 men-at-arms. And, that they were formed up in four ranks. A unit of 1,000 men formed into 4 ranks creates a formation 250 men wide. If the French were forced by the forests to form up 250 men wide, then it is reasonable to assume the same was true for the English, especially since the width of their formations was the same. So I don't need this part about the archers being not part of the battles to prove my point.

My thinking on the issue of archers not being part of the battles have already been laid out in discussions with Doug. Tito says the English kept their same order when moving to the second location. He then proceeded to describe only the order of the three battles. From that I drew the conclusion that only the battles were ordered troops. That is to say only they had a particular order in battle. The order was van to the right of the main and rear was to the left. The archers on the other hand had no set order in battle. They could be placed anywhere the commander wanted them.

The Gesta says the archers were placed in between the battles but nothing about them being assigned to particular battles. Then prior to the move Henry had the archers taken out of their position next to the battles and had them lead the move to the new location. Since the men-at-arms, at the new location, were restricted to a width of only 250 men, the only place the archers could be placed was on the extreme flanks. This doesn't disrupt order of the battles. The van remained on the right of the main and the rear on the left.

See, I recounted the story without once trotting out Erpingham.

Rich

"So I don't need this part about the archers being not part of the battles to prove my point."

Yes you do. If (some of) the archers are integral to the battles then the frontage would be greater than 250yds.

"If the French were forced by the forests to form up 250 men wide,"

Alright, where do you get THAT from?

"The archers on the other hand had no set order in battle. They could be placed anywhere the commander wanted them."

Possibly, INCLUDING being an integral part of each battle. Nothing you have said precludes this as a possibility. Combined arms works in both the Tudor period and the ECW. Why do you have such a problem with it in the HYW?

"The Gesta says the archers were placed in between the battles but nothing about them being assigned to particular battles."

Argument from omission. He probably didn't say it because it was common knowledge that a battle consisted of BOTH MAA and archers. Of course, this isn't conclusive proof supporting my position either, but it shows how difficult it is to be certain about anything except properly corroborated (in the words of more than one witness) evidence.

"Since the men-at-arms, at the new location, were restricted to a width of only 250 men, the only place the archers could be placed was on the extreme flanks."

You are forced into this because you constrain the width of the field to 250yds. See how one possibly incorrect supposition compounds potential error?

Hi

I love this!

Ok, ok, your response to the time distance misunderstands the idea, rich. I AGREE with your 600yd advance, and the French going "merde" and forming up. The issue is the time distance/deployment at second position.

Simply, The second position is more than a bowshot away, the english deploy, the bow advance shoot a bit and The french attack.

That is where the time/distance fails. IF the field is any width you chose, Bennet likes a thou, I advocate 700, you like 250…doesn't change the issue. Well it does, if the archers are on the flanks after the french advance WHERE are they actually? If they are IN the trees, you have another whole problem. Even light forest would not allow close order bow volley fire, essentially you are then limited to about 6' per archer in perhaps 2 layers who can shoot and with 5000 archers, we need some 2500 yard..

But I digressed.

The time line, the french 300 cav charge, the marshal of france arrives in the front and empales himself on a stake.

The issue is that you need a model for the brits to harass the french, move back to their stakes in time to skewer the Marshal…..

The only deployment that really works is the brits advance perhaps 20 to 40 yards in front, move BACK to already placed stakes (or a minute or so) while the cav are moving and the french advance. then firing into the advance.

As for "they can be sent anywhere". We have a problem. Watch a crowd leaving a train during rush hour, watch drilled troops. Troops can only be effectively ordered to a new position by being in some formation where a commander can order sergents to get there.

Otherwise, like all mobs, the troops with have fast and slow, and confused and the french would have caught bunches in the open.

Rocky

Mike, Possibly, INCLUDING being an integral part of each battle. Nothing you have said precludes this as a possibility.

This is like the pixie argument. It's not up to me to disprove the combined arms thesis. It is up to you to prove it. And, there is nothing in the sources that even hints at a combined arms thesis. Therefore, there is no reason to suppose that units were organized into combined arms teams.

Mike, "If the French were forced by the forests to form up 250 men wide," Alright, where do you get THAT from?

Both Tito and Monstrelet comment that the forests constrained the frontage of the French troops. If the forests constrained the French army frontage to 250 men, then the forests didn't suddenly open up to allow the English a much greater frontage. The fact that the English frontage was also 250 men would seem to support the idea that the forests confined both armies to a frontage of 250 men.

Mike, but it shows how difficult it is to be certain about anything except properly corroborated (in the words of more than one witness) evidence.

One, there is a total lack of corroboration concerning combined arms teams. Two, if Henry had assigned archers to battles, he took the archers from the battles and placed them into a single unit divided into two parts. The archers advanced separately from the battles. This is confirmed by several authors. So, if they were combined arms teams (of which there is no proof), they certainly didn't behave as combined arms teams. Plus there is no record of the archers being placed back between the battles.

Mike, You are forced into this because you constrain the width of the field to 250 yds. See how one possibly incorrect supposition compounds potential error?

Well, you have my argument in support of my thesis. Find the weakness in the argument. Trying to invent something for which we have no evidence is not the way to go. But I welcome you to try.

Rich

Rocky, Even light forest would not allow close order bow volley fire.

I even have an answer for this. There are two major tree types at the top of the hierachy of trees in northern France: the oak and the birch (a tall slender tree). If the two forests were birch forests and the trees didn't have their leaves, and the lower branches were stripped by the peasantry for fire wood (all of which are possibilities) then I see no problem.

Rocky, The issue is that you need a model for the brits to harass the french, move back to their stakes in time to skewer the Marshal…..

Our two eyewitnesses state it was the English trumpets that initiated the mounted charge. [I think this was the Cecil B DeMille production]. So the issue of the archers may be mute. This seems to be confirmed by Tito, "When within twenty paces of the town of Agincourt they came to the French enemy, with a most sounding of trumpets, they all roused their solders to the fight, they fell upon the enemy and battle commenced."

Pseudo Elmham, following Tito's lead says the same thing. The French charged after the sounding of the trumpets. "When they had approached towards the enemy 's ranks, to the distance of twenty paces, not far from Agincourt, and the sounds of the trumpets rendering the very air, had roused the minds of the warrior to battle, the enemy now first stirring himself, proceeded to meet the English." I am at a loss to find where the French initiated the attack as a result of English bow fire. The nearest I could find was

"They 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."

But this would make it seem the archers fired during their advance. This is highly unlikely since that would mean they began firing while they were still 600 yards away. So, I am forced to say, there was no timing problem because the French mounted attack didn't begin until the English blew their horns.

Rocky, As for "they can be sent anywhere". We have a problem. Watch a crowd leaving a train during rush hour, watch drilled troops. Troops can only be effectively ordered to a new position by being in some formation where a commander can order sergeants to get there. Otherwise, like all mobs, the troops with have fast and slow, and confused and the French would have caught bunches in the open.

But Rocky, we have already explained that sergeants (or their equivalent) existed within the archer units. There were commanders of 10 and of hundreds and perhaps commanders of a thousand. So they were not a disorganized mob.

Rich

"It's not up to me to disprove the combined arms thesis. It is up to you to prove it. And, there is nothing in the sources that even hints at a combined arms thesis. Therefore, there is no reason to suppose that units were organized into combined arms teams."

I quote your response of 10th October:
"Yes, you are correct. I was wrong. Here is what Froissart wrote:

"Then he ordained three battles: in the first was the young prince of Wales … : they were an eight hundred men of arms and two thousand archers, and a thousand of other with the Welshmen: … In the second battle was the earl of Northampton, … about an eight hundred men of arms and twelve hundred archers. The third battle had the king: he had seven hundred men of arms and two thousand archers."

The army was divided into three groups. Each had around 800 men-at-arms and 1,200-2,000 archers."

Historical precedent. There is evidence that the battles at Crecy consisted of both archers and MAA and proved to be a battle winning combination. Why should Henry do anything different? The onus is therefore on you to prove that he DID do something different.

"Both Tito and Monstrelet comment that the forests constrained the frontage of the French troops. If the forests constrained the French army frontage to 250 men,"

This is a tenuous argument to say the least. First of all you use the lowest estimate of 5,000 in the French van, put them in 20 ranks and come up with a frontage of 250 men. The van could have been as many as 8,000 men in which case the frontage expands to 400 men. This is also assuming that the figure of "20 ranks deep" is correct. And you are also forgetting the mounted French under de Brebant and Vendome on the flanks.

To say that the forests constrained the French army can also simply mean that there was not enough room to deploy them in "normal battle formation" with the battles in a single line (like the English) rather than one behind the other. The simplest explanation is often the most likely.

"There were commanders of 10 and of hundreds "

Commanders of 20, vintenars, and commanders of 100, centenars, are documented.

This is the house that Rich built.

This is the supposition, that sits in the house that Rich built.

These are the cherry-picked-over sources, that point to the supposition, that sits in the house that Rich built.

These are the rest of the sources, that disagree with the cherry-picked-over sources, that point to the supposition, that sits in the house that Rich built.

This is the fool, who went to ALL the sources, that disagree with the cherry-picked-over sources, that point to the supposition, that sits in the house that Rich built.

This is the second supposition, in no way related to the first, which Rich made with cherry-picked-over quotes, to thrash the fool with, who went to ALL the sources, that disagreed with the first supposition, that sits in the house that Rich built.

This is the third supposition, in no way related to the second or first, which Rich made with cherry-picked-over quotes, in order to test the sanity of the fool, who had gone to ALL the sources, that disagreed with all three suppositions, which now sit in the house that Rich built.

This is the "funnel" which lay between woods, which exists only in the cherry-picked-over sources, which the three suppositions depend on, which the sorely-taxed sanity of the fool argued against with ALL the other sources, which disagreed with the three suppositions, which now sit in the house that Rich built.

This is the pixie, that sits on Rich's shoulder, which points to more cherry-picking of the sources, to support the "funnel", which lies between woods, in the cherry-picked-over quotes, that depend on the third supposition, which has superceded the second and first, which were all in their turn argued against from the sources by the fool, whose sanity was sorely taxed, by the three suppositions, which all sit in disharmony in the house that Rich built.

These are the tortuous assertions, that the pixie has given to Rich, to provide the "funnel" between the woods, that depend on the third supposition, which has superceded the second and the first, which all stand on cherry-picked-over quotes, which were each in its turn argued against from ALL the sources by the fool, whose sanity was sorely taxed, by the three suppositions, which all sit in disarray in the house that Rich built.

These are the yeomen of England, who lie for 2,500 yards along the 1,000 yards-long battlefield, in the woods along the "funnel", within the third supposition, which exists only within the cherry-picked-over quotes, which were previously used to support the suppositions second and first, which were all in their turn argued against by the fool, whose sanity was sorely tried, using ALL the sources to no avail, against suppositions three, two and one, which all reside now in discontinuity in the house that Rich built.

This is the end.

HOOORRAAAAY!!!

Well argued, both of you…

This is the end? 'Lets hope so…

Paul

Dibble, go read some other postings. We'll finish when ever we want to finish. If that doesn't suit you, fine. Be gone. If we are enjoying it what matter is it of yours.

Mike, Historical precedent. There is evidence that the battles at Crecy consisted of both archers and MAA and proved to be a battle winning combination. Why should Henry do anything different? The onus is therefore on you to prove that he DID do something different.

In order for you to claim "historical precedence" you must first show that Crecy was precedence setting. I doubt you can prove that. The problem is we have too many battles in which archers were not assigned to battles. To assume that Henry did this simply because it was done at Crecy lacks logic.

Mike, First of all you use the lowest estimate of 5,000 in the French van

It also backed up by Curry's work on the number of troops at Agincourt.

Mike, To say that the forests constrained the French army can also simply mean that there was not enough room to deploy them in "normal battle formation" with the battles in a single line (like the English) rather than one behind the other. The simplest explanation is often the most likely.

The simplest answer can also denote simple mindedness. Then English formed in three battles. The French formed a single battle. What is it that you are suggesting was "one behind the other".

Rich

Doug, This is the end.

Ya, ya, ya. We've heard that before. :)))

Rich

Rich

1) Wind your neck in. 2) It is said in jest(a). 3) I did pay you a compliment.

Paul

"In order for you to claim "historical precedence" you must first show that Crecy was precedence setting. I doubt you can prove that."

Firstly, you appear to agree that at Crecy the archers were assigned to the battles. That in itself sets a precedent. For Henry NOT to have done so at Agincourt requires a good reason. You can offer none.

"The problem is we have too many battles in which archers were not assigned to battles."

I'm afraid you're going to have to prove that.

"To assume that Henry did this simply because it was done at Crecy lacks logic."

To assume that Henry knew how the army at Crecy was organised and had no logical reason to change that organisation makes simple sense. On the contrary if he had broken with tradition and organised the army differently, it would be very surprising if none of the chroniclers had even mentioned it.

"The French formed a single battle. What is it that you are suggesting was "one behind the other"."

So according to you the entire French army numbered 5,000 men?

Sorry Dibble you hit one of my very sore spots.

Rich

Rich

Thanks for the apology.

I want nothing more than to see you & Doug contributing to this site as you do, whether at loggerheads or in agreement. It is these types of contributions that gives this TMP site backbone.

Paul

Frankly, I DO enjoy reading this. You guys go on.

Just a side note – combined arms tactics were apparently used in crusades (spears & crossbows), then at Crecy (please, don't expect me to back this up with original, eyewitness sources; it's up to you to support or diss this popular belief). So, historical precedence sounds good to me. Rich, with all due respect, I think this might be a method: to use existing sources on other events if we don't have appropriate sources for given question, because the tactics/thinking/method would be similar. Just my idea of how it's done.

And, to be a bit picky (all for the sake of discussion :D ), you seem to take as the facts only the statements that are made not by one, but by several sources (quite good approach imho, I do the same when researching napoleonic memoirs). But then, you go with something like:

"I even have an answer for this. There are two major tree types at the top of the hierachy of trees in northern France: the oak and the birch (a tall slender tree). If the two forests were birch forests and the trees didn't have their leaves, and the lower branches were stripped by the peasantry for fire wood (all of which are possibilities) then I see no problem."

This is opinion as good as others. However, I have a feeling that if one of your adversaries used THAT to back up his theories, you wouldn't even treat him seriously :)
In other words (on more joking note: this should be the name of this thread): what sources can you produce that support that? :D

You guys go on.

I want nothing more than to see you & Doug contributing to this site as you do, whether at loggerheads or in agreement. It is these types of contributions that gives this TMP site backbone.

Oh, well, in THAT case: I do have more to say on the most recently (third supposition) idea that Rich has concocted, in order to keep the archers from "being there" in the first place. Everything he's done on his thread has been toward that end: "the French vanguard did not attack the weak archers at Agincourt, because the archers were not there."

(And of course, part of the entertainment value here on TMP has to be people like me, who say, "Fine, have it your way; have a nice day; I am not talking to you anymore": and then just keep coming back for more abuse. That's something like massochistic tendencies, I believe it's called….)

"This is the end" was meant to be the start of the twelvth line in "The House that Rich Built", which suddenly cut off. (believe that if you can)

Anyway. Rich now has kept the archers out of the way of the French vanguard by removing them entirely into the flanking woods: this is necessary, because the sources clearly state that the English battleline filled the space between the woods, and we know that only 900 to 1,600+ English men at arms were in the battle: and we know (from Rich) that ONLY the men at arms were referred to as the "ordered part of the army", ergo, the only part noticed filling the space between the woods. We have no less than 5,000 and upwards of that to over 7,000 archers to dispose of.

Curry says the English army was not small according to the views of the day, and not that much smaller than the French army (at c. 12,000 all told).

So we now have (according to Rich) a field 250 to 300 yards wide, and ALL the archers lined up at right angles to the three battles, in the trees defining the field. We also now have woods cleared of the lower branches, such that the archers can stand in "close order" and shoot out from amongst the trees. This is necessary to keep the archers from being stretched out in open order: such that, in order to utilize them, they would require (as Rocky says) c. 2,500 yards of frontage (on a field only c. 1,000 yards long).

Okay, so we have woods as "cover", which contain all the archers in close order: and into this alley of death ride the 300 (or 1,000-plus, whichever source you go with) French cavalry.

What's wrong with this picture? Everything!

The sources do NOT depict the French cavalry facing ninety degrees to their own vanguard; they are specifically stated as forming "projecting horns" to it, poised to attack the archers behind their stakes. No mention whatsoever of the trees in this showdown is offered by ANY source.

For Rich's picture to be right, the French cavalry would have to turn right, ninety degrees, and charge the woods! And then, when they rout off, where do they go? Directly AWAY FROM the woods, not into them, as the sources claim. Many of the routed cavalry rode away through the trees, and others rode through their own vanguard. This is impossible to view with Rich's latest permutation of, "the archers were not there for the vanguard to attack."

What begs the question further is why would Henry send archers into woods open enough to shoot from yet dense enough to provide cover, yet not dense enough to keep a cavalry charge off? It makes no sense, at, all.

Pointing the right and left flanks of your entire army DIRECTLY at the enemy and waggling them like private parts from the enticing shade of the trees, would be inviting the French mainguard and rearguard to move into the woods for a little game of whack the yeoman….

Mike, Firstly, you appear to agree that at Crecy the archers were assigned to the battles. That in itself sets a precedent. For Henry NOT to have done so at Agincourt requires a good reason. You can offer none.

Interestingly, I found another battle in which it seems archers were assigned to battles: Auray. However, I found two battles in which the archers were on the flanks: Mauron and Nogent. Now, if we turn to our sources, Tito and Pseudo Elmham describe the English battle line with archers only on the flanks. In addition, the orders for the French should they meet the English in battle assumes the English will have their archers on the flanks. So, if there was a precedence it was to have the archers on the flanks and not distributed among the battles.

On both occasions in which archers were assigned battles it is clear about the assignment. In other words the author would say something to the effect that each battle was assigned X amount of archers. At Agincourt we are only told the archers were placed between the battles and then withdrawn from the battles. So I return to my comment. There is no foundation for supposing the existence of combined arms teams at Agincourt.

Mike, "The French formed a single battle. What is it that you are suggesting was "one behind the other"." So according to you the entire French army numbered 5,000 men?

When the French van broke that was the end of the battle. The existence of men behind the van had no effect on the winning of loosing of the battle. We are told by some sources that these men left the battlefield after the defeat of the van. In essence the battle was between 7,000 Englishmen (6,000 archers and 1,000 men-at-arms) against 5,000 French men-at-arms. The total number of men in the French army is not a factor as they played no part in the battle.

Rich

Matheo, This is opinion as good as others. However, I have a feeling that if one of your adversaries used THAT to back up his theories, you wouldn't even treat him seriously :)
In other words (on more joking note: this should be the name of this thread): what sources can you produce that support that?

Man, you guys are good at holding my feet to the fire. Unfortunately no source bothered to describe the fauna at the site of the battlefield. The conclusion is supposition. During Medieval Warm period the field was probably as we see it now: approximately 900 yards by 1,000 yards. Then two things happened: the beginning of the Little Ice Age and the plague. The plague wiped out 1/3 of the population in Northern France. This hit the rural areas harder than the towns. The reason being that losses in the towns were made up by people from the rural areas leaving those areas to replace the losses in the towns. In England over 1,000 villages were abandoned. Much of the land that had been worked was now abandoned. In a number of cases forests encroached on what had been worked land. This extension of forests, because of the onset of colder, wetter climate, would have been made up of birches rather than oaks. Oaks don't like this kind of weather; birches do. So, if there was an encroachment of the forests on this end of the battlefield, as seems likely, the growth would, in all likelihood, would have been made up of birch trees. At least, so goes my reasoning.

Rich

Unfortunately no source bothered to describe the fauna at the site of the battlefield.

FLORA, Rich, fauna is animal life.

The plague wiped out 1/3 of the population in Northern France. This hit the rural areas harder than the towns.

Absolutely, uneqivocally, untrue.

First of all, there is no consensus on how big the population drop was during the epidemic. Over the entire last half of the 14th century, the epidemic plus recurring outbreaks (endemic) of plague probably totalled 1/3 of the population wiped out. As the c. rural population was 90%, it follows that most of the loss was rural; but the towns and cities emptied. Paris, iirc, lost over 90% of its population for years: most of it simply ran off, and helped spread the plague by so-doing. The plague first appeared in the urban centers, then spread to the countryside.

So, if there was an encroachment of the forests on this end of the battlefield, as seems likely, the growth would, in all likelihood, would have been made up of birch trees. At least, so goes my reasoning.

But to assume that an earlier, larger population, just 60 years before, had farmed between Agincourt and Tramecourt on a frontage of c. 1,000 yards, then this field had gone to mature forest, with the lower limbs stripped for firewood, by 1415, is a wild assertion!

"However, I found two battles in which the archers were on the flanks: Mauron and Nogent. Now, if we turn to our sources, Tito and Pseudo Elmham describe the English battle line with archers only on the flanks. In addition, the orders for the French should they meet the English in battle assumes the English will have their archers on the flanks. So, if there was a precedence it was to have the archers on the flanks and not distributed among the battles."

But that does not preclude them being normally attached to the battles, but in some cases detached to deploy on the flanks.

"At Agincourt we are only told the archers were placed between the battles and then withdrawn from the battles."

You are arguing from omission again.

"So I return to my comment. There is no foundation for supposing the existence of combined arms teams at Agincourt."

Based on precedent from both before and after Agincourt we can suppose the existence of combined arms battles at Agincourt. Alas, like many other thjings there is no prooof either way.

"The total number of men in the French army is not a factor as they played no part in the battle."

But it is a factor in describing the French army's deployment. When the French deployed they hoped (expected?) to win. The fact that the whole army broke after their vanguard was defeated is neither here nor there.

Hi

matheo, you are corrct, there are other instances of combined arms involving europeans. The problem is that of deciding that it exists outside of known events.

A digression, I apologize to the rest. During the dark ages, the byzanties developed a combined infantry unit where archers were attached to scutati in the usual ratio of banda for banda. Unfortunately a drill that has the spear defending the bow for melee, and the bow shooting beyond spear range is complex and needs a lot of work. Mostly, europe didn't follow this trend. I expect it was a matter of expense.

Anyway, this apporach was continued not only in byzantine practice, but in SOME parts of europe referred to as "daughter states". This evolves into the late medieval italian "coronella" which is where we get the term "colonel" as a command rank. At this time it consisted of two banda of spear, one of sword and buckler and two of missle (first crossbow, then gun). But again, all though this period, these units weren't copied in the north.

The argument can be made against these combined units in the HYW english simply because it isn't there! The crusaders were using italians for their crossbow and combined units. The britsh didn't. What they did was have the bow protect themselves by placing statkes where a true combined unit would have a drill where the bow shoot from behind a screen of MAA.

Now, europeans often do ATTACH missile deployed on the sides of the MAA who are expeced to fire and then run behind the MAA if attacked which may be like the events rich describes in some of his other battles. It often comes to a bad end, but it is cheap and requires no extra drill.

Now, back to rich. Oh, one more digression. I sometimes get frustrated when someone clearly didn't get a point.

But again, I would love to have this face to face over a burger with napkins to draw on! Given how often the longbow comes up in discussion, this is clearly something that fires up a lot of TMPers.

But to rich.

What I see is that you are too wedded to the vague idea of the size of the field. Lets start with burches.

Burches with or without leaves is kinda irrelevent. English massed volley fire is often evinced by up to 16 deep firing in mass…as we discussed elsewhere as a type of "artillery" analog. This requires a method where someone in the front can call out the range and distance to the target. It doesn't produces a LOT of hits, but a lot more hits than if only the guys with the clean line of sight can see, and thus is popular thorugh history. This is why you have back to the hittites and assyrians and others with pavice bearers and associated bows in mass fire contexts.

IF the archer are in the burches, they cannnot see the commander for the orders. There is only individual shooting, not volleys. AND, this is the good part, IN the trees, shooting, as the target moves, lots of arrows are going to be deflected by branches. Some percentage of these will deflect to hit friendlies.

i am sure THIS would have been noticed.

Which means, i am back to either Bennet, with a central MAA body and a funnel of archers in stakes on a diagonal funneling the french OR the more traditional 3 wedges of archers interspaced with battles of deep MAA units. No interesting drill, no special commands, just would work.

AND the answer to Rich's original question. The battles where the bow were trashed by MAA probably involved no wedges of stakes and MAA support with closed flanks.

Ta DA!

Rocky

Doug, my figures comes from Robert S. Gottfried, The Black Death: Natural and Human Disaster in Medieval Europe. Where are you getting your information from.

Rich

Mike, Based on precedent from both before and after Agincourt we can suppose the existence of combined arms battles at Agincourt.

[All battle mentioned are before Agincourt.] There are simply no grounds for that supposition. You have two battles in which combined arms were used. You have two battles in which they were not used. Plus from the experience of the French, their supposition is that the English will fight with archers on the flanks. This is also consistent with Tito's and Pseudo Elmham's thought on the placement of the archer. Given that, the preponderance of evidence is that the normal tactical setup to be battles in a line, archers on the far flanks. This, however, can be altered at the desire of the commander. That the commanders at Crecy and Auray chose to assign archers to the battles does not in anyway mean that Henry did. And we have no evidence this happened. Now, there's a supposition I can live with. ☺))

Mike, But it is a factor in describing the French army's deployment.

I don't see how. The knights and nobles in the van refused to allow others of lower status to participate in the attack of the English. We have evidence that commanders from these lower status units [men-at-arms but not of the status of the those in the van] left their commands to join the van. The reason many of these units simply faded away is that they were leaderless

Rocky, But again, I would love to have this face to face over a burger with napkins to draw on! Given how often the longbow comes up in discussion, this is clearly something that fires up a lot of TMPers.

Cool, at Historicon, you're buying.

Rocky What I see is that you are too wedded to the vague idea of the size of the field

I see no alternative given what the sources have said.

Rocky, "English massed volley fire is often evinced by up to 16 deep firing in mass.

This is irrelevant given we have no idea how they were formed. They may well have been formed 20 ranks deep with only 10 firing until out of arrows and then replaced by the other 10 ranks. This would allow 3,000 archers to fire at a time.

Rocky, IF the archer are in the birches, they can not see the commander for the orders.

Rocky, they are not in the center of the forest! Nor do they need to see the commander. When Erpingham tossed his baton, he indicated where he wanted the archers to focus on when firing. When the enemy gets to that location, they fire. Another way to command the archers to fire is to have a commander tell his immediate archers to ‘aim'. When they lift their bows, all the archers lift their bows. When the commanded archers fire, all the archers fire. The basic location of where to fire has already been indicated by Erpingham. If we are dealing with ten ranks of archers, some can be out of the tree line and some can be within the tree line. This is what I'm thinking of when I say tree line.

picture

It doesn't look to me like a lot of arrows would be deflected. Especially since they will be firing "rainbow" fire.

Rocky, Which means, i am back to either

Sorry Rocky neither of those two scenarios will work. You still haven't shown how the archers are going to fight off the advancing men-at-arms. You have to show that the stakes would make a material difference. And, you haven't. TA DA

Rich

Doug, my figures comes from Robert S. Gottfried, The Black Death: Natural and Human Disaster in Medieval Europe. Where are you getting your information from.

Rich

The Black Death, by Philip Ziegler. And Tuchman's A Distant Mirror, and N. J. G. Pounds, An Historical Geography of Europe 450 BC – AD 1330 (he compares to post plague figures and talks about population distributions).

Curry (Agincourt, A New History, pages 188-92): "The difficulty is knowing what all of these terms (acies, cuneos, etc.) mean. The Latin vocabulary does not translate easily. The deployment in Titus Livius and the Pseudo-Elmham could indicate that there were three battles of men-at-arms, but positioned close together across the field, and that the archers were on the wings to the far right and left. We must remember, however, that no indication of the types of troops in the battles and wings is given by these two writers. All their formations could be made up of both men-at-arms and archers."

Rich, of course, rejects that possibility entirely.

Continuing: "After all, the retinues that made up the army were, save for the special archer companies, made up of both kinds of troops. The problem is knowing whether the administrative structure of the army also determined its deployment at battles or other engagements. Did retinues fight together, or were the different kinds of troops separated from each other? Or was there a middle way, where some mixed retinues were kept together and others separated by type of soldier?…"

I think it is obvious, that only very large retinues had the possibility of remaining together. The smaller retinues and individuals were massed under an over all commander.

She continues: "…The real difficulty comes over the positioning of the archers. The implication of the Gesta is that the archers were in groups between the main battle and its wings of van and rearguard. It has been suggested that they were arrayed in trinagular-shaped formations with the apex towards the enemy. The relevant phrase can be interpreted as meaning, however, that each battle had archers with it."

So much for Rich's, "There is no foundation for supposing the existence of combined arms teams at Agincourt." And, "That the commanders at Crecy and Auray chose to assign archers to the battles does not in anyway mean that Henry did. And we have no evidence this happened. Now, there's a supposition I can live with."

Curry: "Logic suggests that whichever interpretation is accepted, the archers have to be in front of the men-at-arms. There are similarities here with Monstrelet's description of the English deployment. Here Henry drew up his battle ('fist ordonner sa bataille'), putting the archers in the front and then the men-at-arms ('mettant les archers au front devant et puis les hommes d'armes'). Monstrelet then adds that Henry made two wings of men-at-arms and archers with similar arrangements ('et puis fist ainsi comme deux eles de gens d'armes and d'archers'). Monstrelet's wording could be taken as meaning that the archers either stood in lines in front of the men-at-arms or that they were grouped into units in a forward position. In these interpretations, the army is protected by forward-placed outworks of archers behind stakes. This would tally with the little that there is in the account of the Religieux on the English position. In the speech which the author assigns to Henry, he has the king say that 'our 12,000 archers will range themselves in a circle around us to sustain as best they can the shock of the enemy.'

"….Historians have warmed to the idea of the archers being (placed solely) on the flanks because it prevents both them and their stakes getting in the way of the men-at-arms as they move forward."(?)

I don't understand how, in discrete "blocks" of archers, that they could in any way interfere with the movement of the men at arms between said-blocks. Anybody care to hazard a theory on what difficulty Curry is mentioning here?

Continuing: "…It is possible that all of the archers were placed behind stakes on the flanks at the battle. However, there two reasons why it is unlikely that was the only place Henry put them. The first is their sheer number -- well over 7,000. It would have been extremely difficult to divide this number between each flank and still allow enough space to fire." (She appears to be agreeing with the objection that Rocky and I have to putting so many archers so far away from the men at arms as to be rendered useless in supporting them.) "The second reservation is the wording of the Gesta, which can imply a positioning between the battles. This cannot be wholly dismissed, since the author was clearly trying very hard to describe something distinctive. As we have seen, several other writers imply that the archers were in front of the men-at-arms. My conclusion is therefore that Henry positioned most of his archers on the flanks but that there were also smaller groups placed between and in front of the men-at-arms. In the case of those archers on the flanks, their formation would extend for some distance down each side of the field. This would expose the advancing French men-at-arms to a long barrage of lateral fire. The archers at the front could add to the effect by bursts of forward fire and then move out of the way when the advance came too close."

Looks like Curry and Mike Snorbens are in exact agreement.

The reason many of these units simply faded away is that they were leaderless

Not according to Waurin and LeFevre, who give plenty of names of commanders for the main and rearguards.

picture

It doesn't look to me like a lot of arrows would be deflected. Especially since they will be firing "rainbow" fire.

I had thought that this thread had morphed about as far as possible into lala land, but I was wrong! Back to borrowing from your earlier assertion that ALL shooting was lobbed to drop arrows as vertically as possible. You are impossible to deal rationally with. But I shall participate so long as this activity continues to ammuse me. (No more claims that I am done with Rich, no siree!)

It is obvious from the narratives, that the archers did not have to fight off men at arms, in any scenario. They ATTACKED the French, like earlier at Auray. You continue to deny direct fire, even though Curry, an expert in Latin translation, says the side and visors shots actually occurred. You therefore don't see how many if any French men at arms could have even been wounded: so you are left wondering why the French didn't attack the archers in the scenarios which clearly put them in front of the advancing attackers. And the only reason is that the arrow storm rendered such an attack impractical if not impossible: Agincourt field is not like earlier fields: there is a much larger archers to targets ratio, and all the rest we have hashed out already.

"[All battle mentioned are before Agincourt.]"

I have already pointed out that combined arms units were common in both the Tudor period and the ECW i.e. after Agincourt.

"There are simply no grounds for that supposition. You have two battles in which combined arms were used. You have two battles in which they were not used."

But that is also supposition. You are assuming that because the archers were deployed on the flanks they were somehow no longer part of the three battles. As I have said this can be explained by detaching the archers from their normal position within the battles.

"Plus from the experience of the French, their supposition is that the English will fight with archers on the flanks."

More supposition – you have said so yourself!!

"I don't see how. The knights and nobles in the van refused to allow others of lower status to participate in the attack of the English."

The French were organised in three battles just like the English. The vanguard (i.e. leading battle) was in front with the other two behind. All the jostling for position is where the knights from the other two battles try to get in on the action after they realise that the field is not wide enough for all three battles to deploy normally. Interesting – the French battles were "combined arms" as well, since each consisted of a mix of well armoured knights and troops of lesser status.

This is what I'm thinking of when you say tree line.
picture

"Looks like Curry and Mike Snorbens are in exact agreement."

Thanks, Doug!

""[All battle mentioned are before Agincourt.]"

I have already pointed out that combined arms units were common in both the Tudor period and the ECW i.e. after Agincourt."

Something just struck me – battle of Towton. Longbows, right? Lots of them. And dismounted MAA. It's not that far after Agincourt… I'm not saying that this was some kind of tactic, or common to english XV c. armies. But it left me thinking… solid line (almost a mass) of archers loosing all they have, and moments before they are attacked by advancing enemy, their own MAA advance THROUGH them to fight melee. No "combined arms" per se, no complex manouvres – just a simple signal for MAA to advance.
What do you think? Could something like this be done at Agincourt? How would the possibile knowledge of this kind of manouver alter the setup of English Army?

Oh, and to Rich – no mate, I'm not holding your anything to fire ;) it's just that you usually diss any point like the one with trees you made yourself, because it cannot be proven by sources. I don't really want you to bring any sources, I'm just pointing at possible double-standard in this discussion :) (please, don't take it as a flame, because it's not).

"But it left me thinking… solid line (almost a mass) of archers loosing all they have, and moments before they are attacked by advancing enemy, their own MAA advance THROUGH them to fight melee. No "combined arms" per se, no complex manouvres – just a simple signal for MAA to advance."

Precisely.

"What do you think? Could something like this be done at Agincourt? How would the possibile knowledge of this kind of manouver alter the setup of English Army?"

See my previous comments on this (very long) thread. Great minds … !!

Curry seems to think so.

Mike, "Plus from the experience of the French, their supposition is that the English will fight with archers on the flanks." More supposition – you have said so yourself!!

But the difference is the French supposition was based on experience. Your's is based on a couple of lines in a translated chronicles. Not the same thing. Now if you can show by the sources that they acted as a combined arms team at Agincorut that would be something else. However you cannot. Therefore there is no reason to assume such an arrangement existed at Agincourt. Plus, there are a number of reasons, already mentioned, to suppose they were not so configured.

Matheo, it's just that you usually diss any point like the one with trees you made yourself, because it cannot be proven by sources.

We have sources that say the forests, on either side, constricted the frontage of the French van. We have a sources which states the van was around 5,000 men in 20 ranks. 5,000 men in 20 ranks equals 250 yards. Ergo, there was a gap of 250 yards between the forests. Looks like proven to me.

Matheo, But it left me thinking… solid line (almost a mass) of archers loosing all they have, and moments before they are attacked by advancing enemy, their own MAA advance THROUGH them to fight melee. No "combined arms" per se, no complex manouvres – just a simple signal for MAA to advance.

Now all you have to do is go to the sources and see if they confirm your supposition. As far as I can tell from studying the sources there is little to support that thesis. There is, however, one earlier battle that does match this description but I forget it's name. The English held a defensive position with the archers in front of the battles. When the enemy approached to within shock range, the archers fell back through the ranks of the men-at-arms. I think I mentioned this in an earlier posting.

Rich

"But the difference is the French supposition was based on experience. Your's is based on a couple of lines in a translated chronicle. Not the same thing."

No, not the same thing at all. But I'd prefer to base my views on a a couple of lines in a translated chronicle any day compared to "experience". Where is this "experience" documented?

"We have a source which states the van was around 5,000 men in 20 ranks. 5,000 men in 20 ranks equals 250 yards. Ergo, there was a gap of 250 yards between the forests. Looks like proven to me."

You are still assuming that the figure of "20 ranks deep" is correct. You are also assuming that the gap constrained the French vanguard to form deeper than it would have done had the gap been wider. It is IMHO far more likely (as I said before) that the gap was not wide enough to permit more than one battle to deploy in fighting formation and hence the report that they were "constrained". Personally I think the depth of 20 ranks is too deep for any practical purpose and that the French van forned up in less ranks but I cannot support that view from the sources

And you are also still forgetting the mounted French under de Brebant and Vendome on the flanks.

"As far as I can tell from studying the sources there is little to support that thesis."

If what Professor Anne Curry says is true:
"My conclusion is therefore that Henry positioned most of his archers on the flanks but that there were also smaller groups placed between and in front of the men-at-arms." then there is evidence to support the thesis. If the archers are in front of the MAA then one must pass through the other before hand strokes. And I would take the conclusions of Prof. Anne Curry over yours any day.

Hi

Mike.. Anne Curry OVER Rich…tsk tsk tsk.

Rich, as an archer, the naked birch don't help the issue. I loose up at 40 degrees, I randomly brush twigs, they randomly deflect in various directions, i am just as likely to volley into friendlies as the bad guys.

Nope.

Second, your supposition of 250yards wide by 20 ranks deep has a couple of unpresedencted concepts. Again, mob versus drill, the ad hoc nature of this doesn't allow this.

Most of this is based on your piling assumptions on assumptions….and ignores the time line.

300 to a thou cavalry are tasked with charging the bow(one or both flanks or?) and the attack is defeated with nasty losses, and folks being impaled on the stakes.

your scenario has stakes WHERE? Charge, then perform a 90degree turn.

Further, how DEEP and WHERE are the archers in the trees.

Back to command and control in those trees.

You say I haven't proved my points, but I think I have. Yours is too complex, mine is simple and fits the timeline and time/distance problems. The Cav charge into stakes in front of them, they don't bring archers to melee, but most pulling up before the stakes, get shot at close range. French infantry approach, stakes present a problem of giving the yeoman one or two unconteste shots in the face while they try to shove their way through the stakes. The easiest course is to attack the MAA where they can trade blows. As the melee engages and firing into the melee becomes dangerous for the friendlies, the yeoman pick up hammer and knife and attack the MAA in flank and rear.

And simply, the fights where you insist that the bow died, I am unaware of those fights. But again, were they enstaked?

Rocky

Hi

Oh, and I am really unlikely to ever make Historicon. 2500 mile drive for me.

R

Mike: You are still assuming that the figure of "20 ranks deep" is correct. You are also assuming that the gap constrained the French vanguard to form deeper than it would have done had the gap been wider. It is IMHO far more likely (as I said before) that the gap was not wide enough to permit more than one battle to deploy in fighting formation and hence the report that they were "constrained". Personally I think the depth of 20 ranks is too deep for any practical purpose and that the French van forned up in less ranks but I cannot support that view from the sources

Curry (page 184): "The vanguard as deployed on the day probably absorbed the two wings under Vendome and Richemont. It is this that explains the observation of Titus Livius and Pseudo-Elmham that the French formation was too broad for the field. It is also possible that the French battles were not one directly behind the other, as historians have tended to assume, but were obliquely positioned, so that they stretched across the field as well as containing many rows of men."

She does a good job of covering it all, the possibilities, I mean. Rich can't have his cake and eat it too, however: the field would have to be closer to 1,000 yards across, if the French van, main and rearguard were all stacked in echelon many (20 to 30) ranks deep.

And then there are the two "horns" of the mounted cavalry, lined up opposite the archers.

I have caught Curry out before (not emphasizing the "we…were watching" claim of the cleric, which is at least as valuable as his explanation that he was on horseback "at the rear of the battle").

And here she really goofs. On page 183, she says: "The Burgundian chroniclers (i.e. Monstrelet, Waurin and Le Fevre) do not give figures for the main battle or the rearguard, but they do for the van, which they claim contained 8,000 men-at-arms, knights and esquires, 4,000 archers and 1,500 crossbowmen, giving a total of 13,500."

Yet the Monstrelet account distinctly says: "In the main battle were ordered as many knights, esquires and archers as in the vanguard. [Le Fever says merely, that 'in the main battle were ordered a number of knights, esquires and archers, whose leaders were the dukes of Bar, etc.']".

I make this point simply to emphasize that Curry is not of herself a source, but like us only an imperfect interpreter of such (although one of considerable repute, whereas we bicker in ignominy :) ). She is clearly wrong in this claim, that the Burgundian chroniclers (sic) do not state how numerous the mainguard was. Of course, this is only Monstrelet, who Rich says elsewhere, "got it wrong": perhaps he did here too: perhaps we should just dispense quoting from him altogether where he varies from W&L. But the sub point is, also, that none of the three here state the same thing, or agree (Waurin in fact is silent on the strength of the mainguard): which is a point I brought up limiting the value of these shared chronicles (whereas, the Gesta is one author, the most copious in detail, the closest to the event, AND an eyewitness as well).