"Battle-line at Agincourt" Topic

Now Rich, let's play fair:

"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."

That's your statement I'm challenging here. And your answer is:

"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."

Nope. No proof at all for the archers IN the trees.

Mike, 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?

Oh, I get it, you've just been stringing me along.

Mike, You are still assuming that the figure of "20 ranks deep" is correct.

Assuming? No. I'm asserting based on the written record at the time. If you think that's wrong, by all means prove to me from the records that this is wrong.

Mike, If what Professor Anne Curry says is true:

The only time I have used Dr. Curry's account is when her assertions are back up by reference to the sources. So if you will tell me what sources she uses to back up her claims we can talk.

Mike, And I would take the conclusions of Prof. Anne Curry over yours any day.

My goodness, where did you get the idea that I was concerned whether you accepted my ideas. You prefer Curry's conclusions to mine? Fine, why should I care. I put my ideas out to be challenged. And so far you guys haven't done a very good job of refuting them. I haven't gotten one argument that has stopped me in my tracts.

Rocky, 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.

You're trying to tell me a type 8 bodkin, which because of its weight has only a range of 150 yards, is going to be deflected by some twigs? I'm not buying it.

Rocky, Again, mob versus drill, the ad hoc nature of this doesn't allow this.

I'm sorry but you have failed to demonstrate your ideas on drill and mobs have any relevance for this period.

Rocky, Charge, then perform a 90degree turn.

What source says they charged and then performed a 90 degree turn?

Rocky, Yours is too complex, mine is simple and fits the timeline and time/distance problems.

Unfortunately, yours fails to have any evidence within the chronicle account of Agincourt to back it up. For another you have failed to provide actual evidence of a timeline problem or a time/distance problem. You need to define your timeline and the time/distance parameters. All you have done is to say mine don't fit.

Rocky, And simply, the fights where you insist that the bow died, I am unaware of those fights.

Correction, you are aware of them. I made you aware of them earlier in this discussion. Now you may not be familiar with them but you can download a pdf of Froissarts Chronicle and make yourself familiar with them.

Rocky, But again, were they enstaked?

No. But let me ask you a question. What was the purpose of the stakes?

Matheo, Nope. No proof at all for the archers IN the trees.

I think you are a bit confused about the nature of proof. If all that I have asserted is true then there is nowhere else the archers could be but along the forest edge. A long the forest edge implies some where slightly out and some were slightly out,

Rich

Hi

Rich, archers in the trees….The cav charges, the Marshall dies on a stake. If they are in the trees to the side, and the remaining cav retreated AWAY from the archers, you must needs have two 90degree changes of direction.

That you don't get the time distance thing confuses me.

So, I will try again.

Archers move beyond second position to harass french. Correct? Your skirmish order, at the time you were supporting a thousand yard width, but no matter. Lets give "bow shot away" and "bow shot wide field". Archers in front of the MAA, the wings of cav charge. Archers are ordered to flee, AT BEST some archers need to run twice as fast in a mass as the cav attacking them.

time distance.

And they reach the trees plant the stakes, cave arrive and die. All the while the archers are SHOOTING.

Each of your models require ninja archers.

Now, my model. Second position, 250yards away, french are still arguing or deployed it doesnt matter. Archers following thetime line, advance 20 or 30 yards beyond the stakes, volley. When the french move, the archers move 20 yards, turn and fire again…while the cav charge the 300 and the infantry WALK the 250. Time distance works.

This is the only way to support your "screen" model.

As for your doubting that twigs deflect, I don't know what to say………as a field archer.

Let me direct you out of period, leaves and twigs defelct 556 in nam. NOT STOP, but defelct. ONE degree at the shooter end, is a 5 foot miss at 100 yards, and 10 feet at 200. If they are 90 degrees off to the side in the woods, when the target closes with the english MAA, you are going to get half your shots into the friendlies.

This is all disputing your model based on your stated assumptins.

As for my drill objections. Again, like the math and the archery, it seems the problem of moving thousands of people by drill is beyond your experience. I would suggest your edification by just closely watching drilled troops go to lunch versus rush hour traffic to get a sense of it.

Rocky

In spite of the added commentary by others, this thread is getting boring.

Rich reminds me of the general in the movie, The Mouse that Roared. He insisted on his regulation meals and living conditions, in the cellar of the palace: he saw only that he was a prisoner of war, and was intent on getting his prisoner's rights under the Geneva Convention. He was being invited to dinner IN the palace with the royal family of Grand Fenwick: but no matter how they put it to him, he only saw them as captors and himself as a prisoner who had to fight for his rights as such: he was incapable of seeing anything but the facts as he had imagined them.

Similarly, Rich has this notion that archers are weak; that the French, not being stupid, would have attacked them with their vanguard if they had been there to attack. But because the archers were not a target, they must needs be elsewhere than anywhere in front of the vanguard. If this requires taking them off the field and into the trees, so be it. If this means the French cavalry must turn 90 degrees in order to charge the line of trees, so be it. If this means that many dissenting details (like cavalry routing through the trees AWAY from the archers) must be ignored, so be it. If this means that suppositions argued unsuccessfully earlier on this thread must be forgotten, so be it. If it means that Rich believes he hasn't been successfully refuted ("I put my ideas out to be challenged. And so far you guys haven't done a very good job of refuting them. I haven't gotten one argument that has stopped me in my tracts."), that's okay with me. My purpose in my TMP "life" is not to convince Rich of anything. He can have his little altering constructs: and believe that he has defended them all against all comers.

The old saw applies here: "A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still." Of course, Rich can claim that applies to everyone else too.

The trouble is, he has also claimed that he doesn't mind being shown to be wrong. Yet he has reneged on his agreement that arrows actually pierced the sides of helmets: after first arguing that this was sheer imagination, then admitting that it wasn't, now he says that it was just longbowmen "trash talk."

"Oh, I get it, you've just been stringing me along."

Eh?

"Mike, You are still assuming that the figure of "20 ranks deep" is correct.
Assuming? No. I'm asserting based on the written record at the time. If you think that's wrong, by all means prove to me from the records that this is wrong."

20 ranks deep supported by one uncorroborated source = unproven.

"The only time I have used Dr. Curry's account is when her assertions are back up by reference to the sources. So if you will tell me what sources she uses to back up her claims we can talk."

What sources does she use? All of them. Or haven't you read her book or the extracts quoted above?

"My goodness, where did you get the idea that I was concerned whether you accepted my ideas. You prefer Curry's conclusions to mine? Fine, why should I care."

But you apparently do care. You seem to be at great pains to prove all of us, including Professor Anne Curry wrong.

"I put my ideas out to be challenged. And so far you guys haven't done a very good job of refuting them. I haven't gotten one argument that has stopped me in my tracts."

I don't know what tracts you are reading, so I cannot tell whether you've been stopped in them or not. As for challenging your ideas, we have been for over 350 posts but you seem blind to anyone else's point of view, even when we say here is a possibility … you still shoot it down in flames while not providing one iota of proof for your wild claims about a 250yd wide field and all the archers in the trees.

"I think you are a bit confused about the nature of proof. If all that I have asserted is true then there is nowhere else the archers could be but along the forest edge."

On the contrary, I think YOU are a bit confused about the nature of proof. We can only say something is TENTATIVELY proven if more than one primary source says it happened. Nowhere do the primary sources say the gap between the trees was about a bow shot. Nowhere do the primary sources say the archers were deployed in the trees. Both are therefore unproven.

"If all that I have asserted is true"

That's one enormous BIG IF.

If all that I have asserted is true

Which assertions? The first set (the archers were not in between the men at arms, ergo "not there" to attack); the second set (the archers screened the men at arms until they were ready, then moved to the wings out of the way, and were "not there" to attack); or the third set (the archers lined up on either side of a 250 to 300 yard wide field, in the trees, ergo, were "not there" to attack)?

Your assertions are mutually exclusive, Rich. Which ones are you saying were just assertions? How will we know what the truth is, since nothing will prevent you from creating a fourth contentious batch of assertions, when this latest set doesn't work out any better than the others?

Mike, "Oh, I get it, you've just been stringing me along." Eh?

Good lord, don't tell me that question was for real? These Frenchmen were raised as members of the military elite who had been fighting England for over 50 years and you're asking me to document their experience? The idea is so ridiculous that I thought it was a joke. I think we can take it as a self-evident truth that a member of the French military elite would have an idea of how the English fought.

Mike, 20 ranks deep supported by one uncorroborated source = unproven.

Under your definition, the size of the van being 5,000 is proven even if tentatively. Both the Religieux (on the French side) and the Pseudo Elmham (on the English side) state the van was 5,000 men. Tito said the van was 30 ranks and Pseudo Elmham said it was 20 ranks. So, it is proven that the van was at least 20 ranks. With that established all the other parts fit right in place like a puzzle.

Mike, But you apparently do care. You seem to be at great pains to prove all of us, including Professor Anne Curry wrong.

Trust me, I don't care if you agree with me or not. In fact you are no good to me if you agree. The reason I take great pains is that I enjoy the intellectual challenge and the opportunity it gives me to fine tune my thoughts on the matter. Your opinion doesn't interest me at all. Nothing personal but you don't have the background in medieval military history for your opinion to matter. In return, my opinion should mean little to you. You don't know my background so why should my opinion matter to you. My interests are in your arguments not in your opinion.

Mike, you seem blind to anyone else's point of view, even when we say here is a possibility … you still shoot it down in flames while not providing one iota of proof for your wild claims about a 250yd wide field and all the archers in the trees.

On the contrary, after I post a response I can't wait to your responses. I review them and determine whether there is merit in the response. About possibilities, I don't really look at possibilities. My primary focus is on probabilities. How probable, given the accounts we have of the battle, is it that a particular action actually happened. A good tight argument must be grounded in the sources. There is no way to assess possibilities.

As for my wild claim about a 250 yard wide field, I believe it is now been risen to the level of an official tentatively proven fact, at least by your criteria of proof. As for being in the trees, I should probably rephrase that to being along the tree line. Although if they were in the trees they could fire direct fire down onto any part of the French van. Naw, this wouldn't help Doug. They still wouldn't pierce the side of helmets because of the angle. Oh well.

Rich

"You're trying to tell me a type 8 bodkin, which because of its weight has only a range of 150 yards, is going to be deflected by some twigs? I'm not buying it."

Well, this is exactly where modern tests come handy. It can be deflected. It will be deflected 99% of the time if it strucks "some twigs", no matter the weight. It may not be stopped, but will change direction and loose momentum. That much even I can say from my limited archer experience with a longbow and bodkin.

"I think you are a bit confused about the nature of proof. If all that I have asserted is true then there is nowhere else the archers could be but along the forest edge. A long the forest edge implies some where slightly out and some were slightly out"

Still, you have absolutely NO sources that says the archers were positioned that way. This is your assumption, your proposed idea – valid, but not prooven. And let me repeat again – I'm not dissing the idea, I'm pointing out at the double standard you present in this discussion. You challenge everyone to diss your ideas with proofs from original sources, yet your idea from the beginning is just that… an idea, based on your interpretation of sources mixed with a lot of analysys and thinking. But without the proof as you see it.

Now, the way I see it the discussion should be on equal terms. We can exchange our ideas, and argue which one is more probable, but the moment you say that "my idea is better than yours, even if I cannot produce the proof in the sources and you cannot do the same" it all goes to pieces.

"I think we can take it as a self-evident truth that a member of the French military elite would have an idea of how the English fought."

I agree with the statement that the French nobility would have an idea of how the English fought. The problem is that we don't know what that idea was.

"Tito said the van was 30 ranks and Pseudo Elmham said it was 20 ranks. So, it is proven that the van was at least 20 ranks."

One source says 20 ranks, another source says 30 ranks. In other words neither statement is corroborated therefore is unproven. Taking the lowest common denominator is not a valid proposition. Not only that but since we have one source each for 20 or 30 ranks, one is as much a probability as the other. So by your definition the van could equally have been only 167yds wide. So how wide was the gap between the trees? We have equal probabilities for either 250yds or 167yds. Take your pick. (See, I deal in probabilities too).

And you STILL haven't taken into account the flanking mounted troops (Interesting how you persistently ignore anyone when they mention them …)

"Trust me, I don't care if you agree with me or not."

Fine, so why persist in arguing then?

"In fact you are no good to me if you agree."

???

"Your opinion doesn't interest me at all. Nothing personal but you don't have the background in medieval military history for your opinion to matter."

In spite of the fact that I happen to be a published author on medieval military history.

"About possibilities, I don't really look at possibilities. My primary focus is on probabilities."

A possibility is something that has a probability of greater than zero.
A probability is something that (in the vernacular) has a probability of greater than 0.5 (i.e. more likely than not)
Since a possibility has a probability of >0 then it cannot be completely discounted unless it can be shown to be an impossibility.

Although if they were in the trees they could fire direct fire down onto any part of the French van. Naw, this wouldn't help Doug. They still wouldn't pierce the side of helmets because of the angle. Oh well.

Oh, my, goodness.

Rich, picture what you are saying: the French van FILLS the c. 250 yards-wide space between the woods: the English archers are now ALONG the trees, with some in the back INSIDE the woods; that means that all down the alley between the woods (not less than 300 yards of used battlefield, with the archers therefore stacked up so deeply into the trees that only the first few ranks can even know there is an enemy to shoot at), the French are passing IN PHYSICAL CONTACT with the front rank of archers: and yet these archers, although so close that their targets are TOO CLOSE to shoot at directly, must always shoot straight into the air to drop their arrows "like rain/hail."

Your experience with medieval military history, your background, is your province; but this picture, from any archer's perspective, is LUDICROUS, extremely so, by this point….

Hi

Mike, Mat and Doug, I think I get where rich is going on the 'I don't care" but…

He is accepting that we might actually know something that might rattle his opinion. Or as he says "tweek" them.

this explains his morphing battlefield and the attack. But it does seem to make his original question silly.

I think we all bring different forms of expertise here,

T0 the field. Second postion french deployment, Rich has 250 yards being 250men wide(actually, mike, pretty much where one can measure, it comes out at 3' for most times and places until guns) so, we have 5000 men divided by 20 ranks being 250 yards wide.

Except as mike and I have been trying to point out, the cav that charge the enstaked archers on the flanks have to be SOMEWHERE. While there is some evidence of larger horses than most eras, and barding, stirrup to stirrup(or theigh to thigh) from roman times on suggests about 4.5 feet for cav, and a column is commonly 7 deep. 300 cav,the smallest number I have seen, would thus be 64 yards wide on AT LEAST one side. Given a gap so that a little bit of wiggling doesnt make a "trample"…remember the cav leave the field in panic, we need at least another 100 yards.

Now the minimum field is 350 yards wide. Our thousand brits now have 50 yards on both sides for SOMETHING….which, because we know those same cav charged archers and got skewered on stakes, we have at LEAST, Bennet's deployment of archers on the flanks, not in the trees(and Curry's of course).

This still has a problem. 100yard frontage with archers behind stakes sill has the problem that 50 archers deep is unpresented in the era. In fact, with the english long bow, there are statements elswhere that deployments deeper than 8 or 10 require the back ranks on an upslope, which we DON"T have.

If the archers are on the field and if they are 8 deep, then we have 625 yards, which is roughly an 800 yard width.

Or 750 in wedges as Oman and the old guys liked.

Grin.

Rocky

Rocky that's good.

Rocky, 4.5 feet for cav, and a column is commonly 7 deep. 300 cav,the smallest number I have seen, would thus be 64 yards wide on AT LEAST one side.

I'm not tracking how you are getting to 64 yards wide and what it represents. Be back in a couple hours.

Rich

He's saying, that if the unit of 300 (minimum) is 7 ponies deep it is no less than 64 yards wide. If in less ranks, then wider still. At 250 yards wide, and 4.5 feet per horsey, that is 55 knights wide, or, no less than 5+ ranks of pony deep, filling the entire space. In front of the vanguard? Where is there room for "forward projecting horns" that the two wings of cavalry are described as?

Reasons why the 250 to 300 yards wide field is improbable (if not impossible):

1) The French are specifically described as having cavalry like "horns" as wings to the vanguard: improbable even with 300 on one flank only; and completely out of the question if the larger numbers of French cavalry mentioned were in two wings.

2) The English archers never presented a flank to be attacked, which taking station in the woods certainly would have caused to occur.

3) The stakes in front of each archer were toward the direction of the expected attack, toward the French cavalry and vanguard: NOT at ninty degrees to the French frontage.

4) The entire English army was drawn up in a single line of battle, essentially because it needed to fill the entire width of the field between the woods: and that line of battle is specifically stated to be inclusive of the archers.

5) The cavalry charge when it got routed off went straight back into the open spaces on the flanks of the French vanguard, into the vanguard itself, and passed THROUGH the trees (impossible, not just improbable, if the archers were occupying all the woodlands).

6) The French vanguard was at first in a line occupying the entire width of the field; but upon nearing contact with the English men at arms, contracted into three columns to attack the places where the standards were: this precludes the French starting out in said-column of 20 to 30 ranks: the final depth described was not for the initial line formation, but rather the contacting formation.

7) Archers cannot shoot in vollies from the trees; and nothing in the sources for the period shows even a single case of massed archers being deployed in woods to shoot out of them en masse.

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

Reasons why the archers probably were not "pulled" from the original position "intermingled" with the men at arms, and sent forward as a screen:

1) The sources do not state that the archers were separated commands from the three battles of men at arms; the translation of the Latin can be interpreted to mean that archers and men at arms were together in the battles; and many earlier examples of English battles of mixed arms can be shown.

2) The sources do state that Henry advanced in the same order as his army then stood (in the first position).

3) Henry would not have known that the French were not ready to attack his archer screen: his army in this situation would have invited attack piecemeal.

4) The archer screen cannot be fulfilling the source descriptions of advancing and shooting, while at the same time dividing left and right to form wings, scampering off at four or five times the speed of the advancing French cavalry to avoid contact: such a maneuver would require supermen who, even so, could not be shooting as the French advanced, which the sources distinctly state occurred.

5) Nothing in Rich's assertions that the time-motion problem did not exist because the French were arguing can be verified by the sources.

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

Reasons why the OP assertion, that archers were weak and known to be so, is probably untrue:

1) No battle examples have been shown to prove that archers in a defensive position were directly targetted by French men at arms and driven from the field.

2) Archers on other occasions effectively fought hand to hand; and the combination of volley shooting and melee won many victories for the English. This was known by the French prior to Agincourt and the hazard of engaging the English in open battle was appreciated.

3) English armies were mustered increasingly with more archers to men at arms throughout the HYW: a stupid trend if archers were the weakest part of the army.

4) In the last battle ("but one"), Formigny, archers (not men at arms) left the defensive line and contended for the cannon against French men at arms: they obviously felt competent to attempt this. The resulting melee engaging all the available forces of both sides (with archers being the preponderant troops in the English army) remained much in doubt, until French forces arrived and swung the balance: clear evidence that archers were tenacious hand to hand fighters, as Roger Ascham later declared.

5) The last half of the HYW is a development of French tactics to avoid frontal attacks on English armies in defensive positions: hardly to be expected if archers were some sort of weakness.

Mike, In spite of the fact that I happen to be a published author on medieval military history.

Cool. Did you write a book or an article in a peer-reviewed publication? What was the subject? Tell us more.

Mike, agree with the statement that the French nobility would have an idea of how the English fought. The problem is that we don't know what that idea was.

On the contrary, I just discussed it.

Mike, We have equal probabilities for either 250yds or 167yds.

Well, as a published author on medieval military history you obviously understand these figures are estimates. The 5,000 men is an estimate. They didn't have clickers in their hands counting off the number of ranks. The van may not even have been so organized that you could recognize ranks. When I first introduced these figures I believe I indicated they were estimates. If not: Given that the van was estimated to be 5,000 men and given that Tito estimated 30 ranks and Pseudo Elmham estimated 20 ranks and given that Tito's numbers may well be inflated, as Curry suggest, we can feel more comfortable estimating the ranks to be at least 20 ranks (perhaps more). With an estimate of 5,000 men in an estimated 20 ranks, we can safely estimate that the frontage of the van was around 250. Feel better?

Mike, A possibility is something that has a probability of greater than zero.
A probability is something that (in the vernacular) has a probability of greater than 0.5 (i.e. more likely than not)
Since a possibility has a probability of >0 then it cannot be completely discounted unless it can be shown to be an impossibility.

You are right. I erred in trying to make a distinction. Nevertheless, as I commented in the following sentence all possibilities/probabilities must be assed in terms of the written record of the time. So while you may suggest a possibility, it does not have value unless confirmed by the sources.

Rocky, Except as mike and I have been trying to point out, the cav that charge the enstaked archers on the flanks have to be SOMEWHERE. While there is some evidence of larger horses than most eras, and barding, stirrup to stirrup(or thigh to thigh) from roman times on suggests about 4.5 feet for cav, and a column is commonly 7 deep. 300 cav, the smallest number I have seen, would thus be 64 yards wide on AT LEAST one side. Given a gap so that a little bit of wiggling doesn't make a "trample"…remember the cav leave the field in panic, we need at least another 100 yards.

Since the cavalry, when it came streaming back broke into the infantry behind it, I assume the cavalry was initially placed to the front of the infantry. If it was placed to the side then that gap would still be there for them to fall back through. Is that what you are talking about?

Rich

Rocky, 300 cav, the smallest number I have seen

Monstrelet
"Those who were supposed to break up the archers, that is Sir Clignet de Brabant and the others in his company were intended to number 800 men-at-arms, but there were only 120 of them to force a way through the English."

[Le Fevre and Waurin]
[Curry: The wording of this passage in Le Fevre and Waurin is slightly different.]
(Waurin note also, 'The said French had formed a plan which I will describe, that is to say') 'The constable and the marshal had set up a formation of 1,000-1,2000 men at arms of whom half were to advance on the Agincourt side and the other half on the Tramecourt side in order to break the wings of the archers. But when it came to the time to attack they could only find 800 men. Clignet de Brabant was there with the special responsibility of carrying this out. (But when it came to the time there were but 120 left of the band of Sir Clignet de Brabant who had the charge of the undertaking on the Tramecourt side.)

We have 3 sets of numbers here. We have 1,000-1,200 men-at-arms; we have 800 men-at-arms and we have 120 men-at-arms.

Wauren references the 1,000-1,200 to something called the plan the French had formed. I think this has reference to a document found in 1984. This was the original plan of attack written by the French command on how the French should attack the English in the event of a battle. This plan calls for 1,000 men-at-arms to take out the archers.

Des Ursins mentioned the French got together the evening before to discuss a plan of action for the following day. I think it was there that they saw they only had 800 men-at-arms for this mounted mission. However, because of the fighting over precedence in the van, in the morning, there were actually only 120 available for Sir Clignet de Brabant's attack on Tramecourt. For the attack on Agincourt, Sir Guillaume de Saveuses had 300 men-at-arms.

This means there were 420 mounted knights. Using Rocky's estimate of 4.5 feet to a rider this works out to be 1,890 feet or 630 yards. On a 300 yard wide battlefield, this means the these knights formed into approximately two ranks maybe three in front of the dismounted knights. It was not uncommon for lance-armed cavalry to form up in two ranks in the 16th century.

Rich

Mike "The problem is that we don't know what that idea was."
Rich "On the contrary, I just discussed it."

Oh, you mean this from Doug:
"2) Archers on other occasions effectively fought hand to hand; and the combination of volley shooting and melee won many victories for the English. This was known by the French prior to Agincourt and the hazard of engaging the English in open battle was appreciated."

"Since the cavalry, when it came streaming back broke into the infantry behind it, I assume the cavalry was initially placed to the front of the infantry."

As you say an assumption. Another POSSIBILITY is that the accounts are referring to the rest of the French army (i.e. not the vanguard) when they talk about the cavalry braking through the infantry behind.

Of course the question of where the cavalry were deployed revoves around the interpretation of the passage:
"The constable and the marshal had set up a formation of 1,000-1,2000 men at arms of whom half were to advance on the Agincourt side and the other half on the Tramecourt side in order to break the wings of the archers"
- what is meant by "the Agincourt side" or "the Tramecourt side"
- where were the "wings of archers" they are to break?

Mike "The problem is that we don't know what that idea was."
Rich "On the contrary, I just discussed it."

I'm talking about the French plan. They expected the English battle line to have the men-at-arms in the center with the archers on the flanks.

Mike, As you say an assumption. Another POSSIBILITY is that the accounts are referring to the rest of the French army (i.e. not the vanguard) when they talk about the cavalry braking through the infantry behind.

No. the van is specifically mentioned as having been ridden through by these mounted troops. Thus the possibility of it referencing other troops is 0.

Mike, Of course the question of where the cavalry were deployed revolves around the interpretation of the passage: "The constable and the marshal had set up a formation of 1,000-1,2000 men at arms of whom half were to advance on the Agincourt side and the other half on the Tramecourt side in order to break the wings of the archers"
- what is meant by "the Agincourt side" or "the Tramecourt side"
- where were the "wings of archers" they are to break?

The French battle plan was a plan drawn up at the beginning of the campaign. It was up to the commanders on the battlefield to translate that plan into a plan of attack for that specific battlefield. The French expected the English to form formation with the men-at-arms in the center and the archers on the left and right flanks of the men-at-arms. Thus the horsemen were to attack the wings of archers sitting on the left and right flanks of the English men-at-arms. When this got translated to the battlefield at Agincourt, the left and right flanks were referenced by the names of Agincourt and Tramecourt as these two sat to the left and right of the English army.

Rich

On a 300 yard wide battlefield, this means the these knights formed into approximately two ranks maybe three in front of the dismounted knights. It was not uncommon for lance-armed cavalry to form up in two ranks in the 16th century.

This is the 15th, not the 16th century, we are discussing.

And having any number of ranks deep isn't the issue you are creating with the original sources: if the field is only 300 yards wide, there really wouldn't be a "Tramecourt side" or an "Agincourt side" at all: the two named villages would be deeply hidden away in the woods!

A continuous line of cavalry out in front of the vanguard does not answer the description of TWO distinct bodies of cavalry, each on the flanks of the van, with the job of driving off the archers IN FRONT of them.

You would have us believe that the cavalry rode along the front of the archers lining the woods (how did they avoid physical contact during this move?), then wheeled ninety degrees left or right, and engaged the entire length of the woods!

Hi

Rich, actually, 4.5 is stated when someone referrs to cav. I think it is polybius where he uses "just less than 6 roman feet" which in his time would be 10" modern.

Oh, an 7 deep dates from at least greek times.

So, my estimates are cuting you as much slack as possible for your width. Two bodies, 800 men(I like cav), 7 deep columns ca 120 men wide by 6feet, 2 yards, 240 yards JUST for the cav. As they are described as on the sides, your 300 yards, plus 240, plus a minor set of gaps because they aren't sholder to sholder with the infntry, and they are not rubbing against the trees, now up to 600 yards wide.

Those are your numbers.

One could argue that the french horses were bigger.

And you invented the "in front of" part for the cav. You state on the sides attacking the flanks. But then you contradict yourself with "but that was before they saw the brits".

Sadly, would not someone notice 5000 guys standing in the forest?

But lets do some basic sums here. In the trees. Hmm. The french and the british are a bowshot apart. this would be less than 250 yards. Assuming the french now ignore the policy to attack the archers, lets have the whole 250 filled with archers 2500 archers on each side, as close as they can sharing the space with the trees, say, again, 2 yards, then 125 archers each side…and 20 deep. Meaning the stupid brits have the archers where they cannot see or shoort.

And it still doesn't ahve the commander dieing on the stakes.

So, this model doesn't word for distance or the timeline.

We are back to only two plausable deployments for the battle, 600 to 750 yards wide, 250 yard spacing for second position, brits are either 3 battles with 3 wedges of archers, as described by the old guys and the sources OR three battles with wings of archers as described by some. But ALL in front ot the French.

And the french are 20 deep, 250 wide, with a clean gap for the cav to control the flanks as one sees in numerous medieval and renaissance battles.

Routing troops are never neatly dressed in close order when they run. Drill breaks down, mob tactics, and some collide in panic into friendlies.

Rocky

Better, you have the armies separated by a bowshot

"No. the van is specifically mentioned as having been ridden through by these mounted troops."

Where?

"Thus the horsemen were to attack the wings of archers sitting on the left and right flanks of the English men-at-arms. When this got translated to the battlefield at Agincourt, the left and right flanks were referenced by the names of Agincourt and Tramecourt as these two sat to the left and right of the English army."

If the horse were to attack the archers where you put them in the trees it would make far more sense for them to be formed up BEHIND the van. Thus as the van marches forward to deal with the English MAA, the cavalry have a clear space behind them in which to wheel 90deg to left and right and charge them in the trees.

However, this is sounding less and less like the battle recorded by the chroniclers and more and more like a completely fictitious battle that only exists in the mind of a modern commentator.

It would make a convenient movie setting, however. Nice and tight for in-close camera work. No more fictitious than Kevin Branagh's version of Henry the Fifth.

Rocky, Those are your numbers.

No, those are your numbers. As I showed above the number of horsemen were 420. 120 on one side and 300 on the other. As I showed a 300 yard wide battlefield could contain these mounted men-at-arms in 2 ranks possibly three. If you want to use your estimate of 7 ranks then the cavalry on one flank, in front the van, then one flank we have a column of cavalry 17 riders wide. On the other flank, in front of the van, there was a column of cavalry 43 riders wide.

Rocky, So, this model doesn't work for distance or the timeline.

Why do you keep re-inventing the wheel and then say this model doesn't work? If you want to see if my model works then you need to use my assumptions. You can't make up your own assumptions and then say "see, the model doesn't work."

Rocky, And you invented the "in front of" part for the cav.

It is hardly invented. It is the result of a reasoned process. If you disagree then break down the process I used to come to the conclusion that I did and find the error.

Rocky, and 20 deep. Meaning the stupid brits have the archers where they cannot see or shoot.

Before you cast aspersions you might take a look at it as a military problem. You are about to enter what may be a long battle. (It turned out to be 3 hrs) Your archers are not in the best of health anyway. You need archer support for the duration of the battle. To guard against running out of arrows and archer fatigue, I think it makes a lot of sense to hold part of your archers in reserve. Looked at this way, 20 ranks is not stupid. Your firing 10 ranks with 10 ranks in reserve.

Rich

Mike, Rich:"No. the van is specifically mentioned as having been ridden through by these mounted troops." Where?

The Religieux
"But at the first volley of arrows which the archers caused to rain down upon them they turned and fled, to their eternal shame, leaving their leaders stranded in the midst of danger with only a small number of brave hearts. They piled up in great haste towards the centre of the French army [being the vanguard] and, as if they had fled before a tempest, spread terror and confusion amongst their companions.

Chronique de Ruisseauville
"but without any doubt, only few came and when they had made their course against the archers they turned back, because of the arrowfire which their horses could no longer endure, right amongst the vanguard.

Mike, However, this is sounding less and less like the battle recorded by the chroniclers and more and more like a completely fictitious battle that only exists in the mind of a modern commentator.

With all due respect Mike, I've not seen any indication from you that you are informed about the events recorded in the chronicle record. You have failed to use any of them in your arguments. So I don't see where you have the requisite knowledge with which to make such an observation. While I have, at every step, grounded my arguments in the chronicle records of the day.

Rich

Well, Rich, since you are no longer addressing anything I have to say, I guess you concede that you can't find any supportable arguments.

What you do seem to be attempting, is to wear down each of us with a steady rebuttal of niggling details. It is obvious to me, that you are deliberately talking past Rocky and Mike, creating disagreement in order to drag this out until we all weary of trying to understand what you are after: then you can claim the "field" by being the only one left.

You want the archers to be weak: you want the French to have a reason why they didn't attack them: and you have concocted this mess with the archers crammed into and along the trees, without any attention to the details that such an assertion creates. You claim to have used the sources each step of the way. What you do is refer to them to back up each mutually exclusive set of assertions that you make: without apparently seeing how silly and pointless such an approach is.

Why should anyone, reading through this messy thread, take any of your proposals seriously, when they are at such odds with each other?

""No. the van is specifically mentioned as having been ridden through by these mounted troops." Where?

The Religieux
"They piled up in great haste towards the centre of the French army [being the vanguard]"

Chronique de Ruisseauville
"they turned back, … right amongst the vanguard."

Neither of these quotes imply that the mounted troops were in front of the vanguard as you claim. They do however make perfect sense if the cavalry are on the flanks of the vanguard.

"You have failed to use any of them in your arguments."

I just did.

"While I have, at every step, grounded my arguments in the chronicle records of the day."

That, as they say, is debatable. You may have attempted to ground your arguments on your intrepretation of the chronicle records. The fact that your interpretation of the records is completely at odds with everyone else's seems to have completely escaped your notice.

Doug, Well, Rich, since you are no longer addressing anything I have to say,

If you are asking why I no longer respond to your comments, I'll be happy to oblige. I feel no obligation to reply to comments which are intended to be abusive. For some reason you decided it was appropriate to respond with ridicule and sarcasm. This is a loser's hand. I've seen you do this to others with other topics. You may think this is appropriate but I do not. I feel no obligation to respond to people who are having temper tantrums and so I didn't. As to the rest of your comments, they were simply more of your old opinions rolled out yet again. As I mentioned, I'm not interested in your opinions. I'm interested in arguments grounded in the sources. And, you have none. Ergo, no response.

Mike, Neither of these quotes imply that the mounted troops were in front of the vanguard as you claim. They do however make perfect sense if the cavalry are on the flanks of the vanguard.

I'm not really interested in what makes perfect sense to you. I'm interested in how you came to your conclusion. Why does it make perfect sense? Let me see your reasoning behind your conclusion.

Mike, The fact that your interpretation of the records is completely at odds with everyone else's seems to have completely escaped your notice.

Perhaps it is difficult for you to see the obvious. Why would I want to discuss ideas which were in agreement with everyone else? Where's the challenge?

I think we have come to a point of diminishing returns. Unless Rocky has a response for me, I think this very interesting discussion has run it's course. I'm going to feel a real loss. Each morning I looked forward to your comments. I want to thank all of you, especially you Doug, for your participation. I really did learn a lot from you guys. I gained new insights and new issue to be dealt with. And, I could not have gotten them in any other way. Again, thanks.

Rich

"I'm not really interested in what makes perfect sense to you."

If it makes perfect sense to me, then it ought to make some sense to you.

"I'm interested in how you came to your conclusion. Why does it make perfect sense? Let me see your reasoning behind your conclusion."

I would have thought it was obvious, but since you insist …

Postulate:
French vanguard with cavalry on the flanks
English with 3 bodies of MAA and archers btween them, in front of them and on the flanks. Whole English line presents a concave shape to the French (this is necessary because of the width of the field).

French cavalry are ordered to attack the archers on the flanks (the flanking archers are the largest groups of archers so constitute the greatest threat).

The French cavalry attack the archers and are thrown into confusion by the stakes and the volume of archery fire. Seeking to avoid the deadly shafts they move directly away from the archers "piling up in great haste towards the centre of the French army". "They turned back,[from the archers on the flanks] right amongst the vanguard."

"Perhaps it is difficult for you to see the obvious."

No, I don't think so. It is obvious from your last remarks that you have been playing us along all the time. I had my suspicions before, but wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt … seems I was wrong.

"Why would I want to discuss ideas which were in agreement with everyone else?"

Maybe because they are the most probable given the available evidence?

"Where's the challenge?"

I see. So you are just stirring the pot and playing devil's advocate to see which way we jump?

"I gained new insights and new issue to be dealt with. And, I could not have gotten them in any other way."

Not that you have admitted anywhere in this thread what those insights are and what new issues you might have to deal with. I could hazard a few guesses, but no doubt you'd then seek to prove me wrong …

"Unless Rocky has a response for me, I think this very interesting discussion has run it's course."

And so, Rich, having successfully (in his eyes) demolished all opposition to his eccentric views, rides happliy off into the sunset …

Hi

My numbers are a 750yard width, and the brits al la the old guys, three wedges among battles of MAA with second position being ca 250 or so yards from french deployment(after the arguements).

enstaked, the bow advance a bit, to 220, shower long range flight arrows, when the french move, retreat straight back to their stakes and resume fire.

Cav charge when the bow fire harassing fire, deployed on the french flanks and close their 250 yards in a longer time than the bow retreat 20.

Cav die on the stakes, run in loose panic order and flinching away from continued fire disrupt the infantry column.

Infantry advance.

See, my numbers are different than yours.

In several posts, you defend Bennet, and I dispute for his numbers.

In others, you confuse game mechanics with reality by having the bow in a screen.

In others, you state that as the french were 250 x 20, then the field is 250 yards wide (or as small as 167)…and I dispute those numbers using YOUR supplied information.

1)you assume the discription covers all the french, and your number fails for two reasons. 1) it that is ALL the french, then their would still be a gap. The trees aren't a fence, thus irregular. Thus a gap.
2) if the 250x20 referrs to the infantry only, then the cav, as is standard for the period, is on the side, and horse deployment suddenly doubles the width. Your counter is now a thin screen of cav in FRONT of the french battle, which.

3)your deployment, despite what the archers tell you, requires a silly deployment of the archers all up and down the lane, not only in loose order, but shooting through the trees, and doing a complex system of relief for the archers going 40 yards into the trees.

As doug observes. Your premise is that the bow were vulnerable but not attacked, and you "prove" it by coming up with more and more bizzare reasons for the bow to be more and more vulnerable and not attacked.

So, you couldn't defend Bennet, and your personal deployment is nonsense. Not sure what to say.

Remember in the bow thread I said to mike that some of the stuff said about longbow were obviously wrong when read by any archer. Your final point is obviously wrong to anyone who had drilled troops, knows how drill works, and to archers as well.

So, go back and re-read my points in the previous half dozen, each is salient in the light of my experiences.

Rocky

If you are asking why I no longer respond to your comments, I'll be happy to oblige. I feel no obligation to reply to comments which are intended to be abusive. For some reason you decided it was appropriate to respond with ridicule and sarcasm. This is a loser's hand. I've seen you do this to others with other topics. You may think this is appropriate but I do not.

Don't be such a hypocrite, Rich! Name one topic other than my replies to yours, where I am the initiator of sarcasm or ridicule.

We have a "paper trail" so to speak, and as I have said elsewhere on TMP, "One of life's most important lessons to learn is knowing who to blame".

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

You took offense at my tone of objection, instead of countering what I was saying with details: you have never provided ANY details to refute my claim.

Then you started the ridicule, and the condescending attitude, and the priggish approach, to "teach" me a thing or two. I replied in kind (not excusing myself, just stating a fact).

I called you on your use of the four battles you cited: I used the Net to get you to respond, and you did:

"Doug I'm sure you are a very fine archer. However, you make a lousy historian."

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

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

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

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

Then you said:

"Let me see if I have this correct, you skimmed the internet and on the basis of this inept attempt at research you come to the supercilious conclusion that I'm incorrect. You do it in the third person. How rude."

So I suddenly became supercilious and rude: simply because I asked you to quote the passages to show that the battles YOU cited, were actual examples of what you claim (that French men at arms often attacked and ran off English archers, so that by Agincourt they knew the archers in a battle line were some kind of weak link). And I got instant ridicule instead.

And it took you several days of stewing over this for you to reply this way; which indicated to me that you let your impotence in the face of my request (to verify with quotes from sources) get under your skin before your well-considered reply.

We got over that, I thought, and you said:

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

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

I even apologized for my "phony triumphalism" (quoting you).

We now entered into "the Erpingham affair" stage; where you argued that the archers were removed and made into a screen.

Then we saw this exchange: Me: "Two wings"; "the battle of archers"; which is it?"

You:

A bit of sour grapes?

We argued the virtures of Monstrelet, Waurin and LeFevre, with Monstrelet coming out on the bottom, iyho.

This degenerated into this exchange: Rich:

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

"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."

[This was at the outset of the "gaps" argument.]

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

I ignored your tone, implying that my motivation for arguing was to "win." And addressed each of your rebuttals and points directly and specifically.

You then said:

"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?"

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

And what did I get from you?

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

…"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."

Aside from your statement being utterly inaccurate -- I have always shown from the sources how one interpretation is that Henry's center battle had wings of archers with it -- you have upped the personal denigration another notch by this point.

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

Did that work with you?

We exchanged more on "gaps" and sources "getting it wrong" and correcting each other, etc., then you finished with:

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

I said: "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):"

I then launched into yet another feckless comparison of the sources for you to attack.

Your first response?

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

Later:

"How long have you had this problem with denial?"

Me: "You keep whittling away at our sources."

You:

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

And you finally tossed everything I had referenced with:

"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."

To which I finally replied: "BS, Rich."

Then I went ahead and restructured everything, as you had subsequently suggested, just for you, after an observation: "Don't be disingenuous." "I'll thin it down, just for you, Rich:"

We exchanged more, regarding "gaps" and "command control", then you said:

"… 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."

And:

"If you knew about the sources you would understand that Henry is the hero of this chronicle."

I had, by then, had quite enough of your superior airs, Rich, and replied: "You keep the understanding and dole it out to me as I become worthy, please."

You:

"The problem is you don't understand the mentality of the period."

Me: "Rich, I read the same sources you do. How can you be tied to the mentality of the period through centuries of seminal discourse?"

We got to the point where arguing over battles being mixed or not resulted in an impasse, and your "gaps" were down to "three or four feet".

You finally hauled the certificate out (clear evidence to my mind, that in your mind, you had "lost" the protracted exchange):

"Medieval History was one of the four areas I had to be tested on in my written and oral exams for the PhD program. You haven't even come close to reading the same sources I have. And it is with this background that I state you don't understand the mentality of the period."

I responded with: "Since I have not spoken (much) of what I have read, how could you possibly know, bucko?"

You proceded to tell me how I didn't interpret the sources correctly, like you do. I had said: "Your contention that, 'no one battle was very distant from the others', and, 'the three battles were nearly joined', and, 'at a very little distance', means 3 or 4 FEET is absurd."

You got heated up:

I'll tell you what is absurd. It is you, who have no knowledge of late medieval battles and no concept of the need for command and control, telling me, who has studied both, what is absurd. You might get a little knowledge before you start casting aspersions on someone."

God forgive me, I've upset the doctor. I decided to be more careful in my choice of words.

I replied: "Not true, Rich, Doc, whatever. I am interested in pointing out absurdity. As a member of the human race, you must allow yourself to be caught when being absurd. And in this "3 to 4 FEET" thingie, you are, imho, being absurd."

You:

"Doug (the non-observant) I never said medieval battles had files."

"Had you known anything about late medieval battle,…"

"…I know that view is simplistic but hey what can you do."

I ignored your priggish jabs and replied to the content of your posts. I did observe: "Testy, there, Doc. As I said you don't know how much I have under MY belt. I can only guess at how much of those "70 battles" you remember thoroughly: judging by this discussion I have my doubts about that too.

"Shall it be longbows or crossbows at fifty paces, then?"

My attempt at disengaging with humor.

"Now you are showing your ignorance. Bennett is an archer.
"

Me: "Now you are showing your lack of reading for comprehension: I was talking about Bradbury, whom Bennett referenced."

And: "In the context of your criticism of me, you applied my deficiency specifically to understanding how and why the narratives were written, and how and why Hal V waged Agincourt the way he did. In neither case does your criticism show anything about me; but it does show a degree of priggish superiority coming from you. Your investment in your documented education should get you at least that much enjoyment I suppose."

And: "(I would take back the snipishness of the above, if I could, alas it is too late. Sorry for the snipishness.)

"Rich, we are poking each other to no avail."

Another apology on my part.

I proceded to address the points, instead of focus on you, and to disengage.

"Unless you want to discuss stakes now, as I said, this is pretty much hashed out to bloody rags, imho…."

You came back with:

"No way. I haven't given up on you yet. I'm bound and determined to teach you something about late medieval battle."

And you descended into the madness of mixed battles and command control again.

Exchanges followed, and finally you just had to inject:

"Nonsense. Titus' and Pseudo-Elmaham's description of three battles with archers on the flanks doesn't match what the Gesta said. I don't know where you are coming from."

You invited me to go back over EVERYTHING I had written, AGAIN, accusing me of being disingenuous, and:

"Now you show how Monstrelet and the Gesta are talking about the same thing."

"Prove from the sources that both formations had archers flanking all the battles."

I had already done so. You were behaving as if this hadn't been going on for weeks and pages. I got quite frustrated, and began to suspect your intentions in continuing the debate.

"Your OP premise remains unanswered. So intent have you been on talking me into agreeing with your mishmash of myopical "logic" (i.e. focusing on ONE source at a time and trying to make it give the whole picture, and calling that approach "history"), that you've completely lost track of, and ignored, all statements that I made just above to that end.

"….

"As for the rest of your facile dismissal, it is starting to make my brain implode and I won't go there with you anymore."

Your response?

"Doug, "So intent have you been on talking me into agreeing, ….[the rest of the sentence is emotional blather]"

"See, you even misread me. I'm not trying to talk you into anything. I pointed out what the sources said and how you misinterpreted them. If you agree or not, it is you affair.
"

I see the difference here between how we react emotionally, but you obviously don't: notice, that although getting impatient with you, I detailed the source of my complaint. Your response is to call the details of the complaint, "emotional blather", then dismiss it all with "If you agree or not, it is your affair." That is NOT helpful, Rich. Somebody needs to get through to you on this: facile dismissals are not conducive to cogent exchanges of ideas!

You excused yourself with this:

"Doug, wow, you have a whole list of assertions you demand I answer but when I asked you to supply sources for two or three of your assertions you told me, in essence, up yours. I have no problem with ‘no' but then to turn around and demand I answer all these unsupported assertion (many of which I've already answered) is a bit unreasonable."

A whole list of explanations of mine, referencing sources, tossed on the pile. I was about done, I thought (it felt like it). You came across as not able to answer any of the objections I have made.

I replied: "Heh. Rich, still ignoring my challenge of the OP premise, entirely."

I then pointed out how 3/4ths of the French van could not ignore the archer wings. Thus invalidating your earlier assertion, "the archers were not there to be attacked."

I called you on your inconsistent referencing of Monstrelet, you denied it but inadvertently reinforced it (which I gather you discovered days later after thinking it over).

I put forward sources, even the French battle plan, as proof that mixed battles existed (refuting your original assertion, that Livius and P. Elmham were talking only about the men at arms), and your response was:

"When you don't get your own way, you try bullinging, turn churlish and rude. If you wish to discuss the French battle plan, fine. Otherwise I'm finished discussing the battle with you.
"

How can I talk with someone when they start to sulk and pout?

I finally said: "Wouldn't a formal structure and chain of command make the archers at Agincourt part of the "regular army"?

"No? Why not, Rich?

"Because your theory that you've put together (tried to imbue with "life" as this thread has evolved) would wind up still born."

Rich:

"Doug, "Then offer SOMETHING, besides your continued objections, to indicate that it wasn't a single battle command with subcommanders over the elements."

"You've got it backward. One cannot prove a negative. However, one can rebut a positive. Which is what I've done."

Me: "Anyone can do that! What's your point? To claim a successful rebuttal? Okay, you win. Now what?

"You have NOTHING to provide as evidence for a separate command structure for ignoble troops."

Me: "This is a bad habit of yours, Rich: forgetting the things you have already said."

You:

"This is a bad habit of yours of not thinking before you make accusations."

Even-steven so far, I guess, heh.

You tried arguing the nuances of "regular" and "normal" and how that might or might not apply to the "order" of the army. I said: "Blather! Order of what? Now you are going to claim that "order" can be separated to mean something other than the "order of the army." Go argue with yourself. You seem able to do that rather effectively.

"This has become pointless. I am through."

And we have this added priggish gem:

"Doug, as I explained to you at least twice and probably more, the English army was composed of ordered troops, the battles, and the non-ordered troops, the archers. The problem is, you don't pay attention."

We complimented each other, and disengaged, again.

I reengaged with: "(You keep doing this.)

"I told Rocky several days ago, that I was expecting you to finally argue yourself into the obvious conclusion that the French were too "stupid" at Agincourt to attack the archers: and here we have it."

This was in response to your observation,

"On the other hand, the records show that the French were stupid. Instead of preparing to attack the English, they were bickering about who should and should not be allowed to participate in the dismounted van. This bickering allowed Henry to steal that march on them."

You replied in-kind.

"In your dreams. Each time you think you've got me I point out how you screwed up perfectly good English. This is no different. You would think you would stop trying.

"Oh I hate to do this. No I don't. I get a perverse pleasure out of me showing you how you screwed up. OK, here is your most recent screw up."

You proceded to attempt to pull your fat out of the fire (or your feet away from it, your metaphor), by trying to make some difference out of stupid Frenchmen arguing, or stupid Frenchmen refusing to attack the archers, which you could tell didn't fly: you had said the French were not guilty of the stupids, yet you proposed that a different kind of stupid was okay to prove your point.

I pointed this out copiously, and you said:

"Sorry Doug I'm not going to wrangle about it. You wanted my sources and I gave it to you."

Fine with me.

You reengaged with denial of the Gesta cleric as an eyewitness, and around we went. I discovered and emphasized the cleric's "we…were watching", and you tossed it, the pierced sides of helmets, in fact the entire source once the battle starts.

We engaged in the "immediacy" exchange, and your part didn't impress me, because it devolves on who your favorite writer is!

"Your imagination is running wild!"

Now you were really stuck into your theory that the English "stole a march" on the French who were stupidly arguing until it was too late.

I refuted this with extensive transcribing of the sources, to which you replied:

"Show me where Bennett and Curry mention the cleric as an eyewitness. You just make this up as you go."

What an accusation! Six bloody pages into this thread, and you can toss in such a comment? Bleep, Rich! Where do you get off saying stuff like you do?

I didn't let that one go: "And you don't read for comprehension as you go:"

"Doug, "Your little flight of fancy begins to fly, only if the cleric is an utter and complete liar and fabricator."

"Man, you really have an emotional attach to our little cleric. Do you think that's healthy?"

Cute one, there, Richie. Did you feel just a moment of regret/compunction before posting that one? Dawghaus material, that one was. (I don't notify Bill of such bleepy contents on his pages. Others are not so charitable as I.)

"Next is Doug's list of quotes. I had to smile while reading them. But this quote by Doug really cracked me up. It is so typical of Doug discounting what he doesn't like. "It is obvious, that this is a badly arranged passage," This concerns the comment by the eyewitnesses that the French didn't start organizing until they saw the English advancing on them. He does this all the time."

Here's Rich, turning up the personal attack meter again. Dishing it out, but he won't be able to take it.

"However, this does give me another teaching opportunity for Doug on how to read sources."

Oh Goodie! The doc is putting on his professor's cap again!

"Gee what could the French be doing in that time period? Playing whack-the-noodle?

"…Evidently Doug believes that Cochon supports his whack-the-noodle thesis."

And we get "whack the noodle" from you, I lost track of how many times. I could have inserted a counter-jibe of homosexual tendencies in there, but I didn't.

I said: "but if Rich doesn't remember our exchange on the other thread(s) on this exact topic of "eyewitness" status for "our cleric", then I am sorry that I have spent so much time hashing and rehashing this with someone whose memory leaks like a sieve (and if that's the case, you have my profoundest sympathy, and I will truly quit this activity now)."

You countered:

"What? Your sieve working over time."

Fair enough. But you did miss the part about my allowing that you might have a problem remembering. You could have simply said, I remember, and the obligation would have been mine to apologize. I have already done so several times earlier.

"Doug, "How you get anything from them to indicate that the arguing took place on the day of the battle, leaves me completely flummoxed…."

"Oh Doug let's be honest. You started this discussion flummoxed. Just read their accounts. First comes the arguing then the battle with no indication of an evening intervening."

"Obviously, Rich, the French were lounging for hours."

"OMG you DO believe in the whack-the-noodle theory."

"What corroboration are you looking for dearest Doug? Everything I've asserted has been backed up by reference to direct quotes. Nor did I have to distort those quotes as you frequently do. So just tell me, what corroboration did you miss."

FEEL the love, the sarcasm, yeah.

I embarked, again, on a defense of the evidence for the cleric as "eyewitness", not some dude blinded by 600 yards of (uncorroborated) distance.

This is for Doug's benefit. We'll call it remedial historiography…[If I'm going too fast. Let me know.] …The problem is not Curry but rather Doug's understanding of what Curry wrote; but we're used to that.

I said: "Rich, when you cozy up to your self-proclaimed doctorate in medieval studies, and talk this way, all you do is come across, even to my charitable mind, as a total prig."

How kind of you to condescend to my level. Trouble is, Rich, I already know a lot more about that than you doled out. That is another example of acting like a prig.

"And, that's the best Doug can come up with. That is to say nothing. So, if Doug wants to prove the archers were not vulnerable, he needs to come up with something more than "because I said so.""

Now up to almost seven pages of "nothing", just "made it up as I go." Where did I ever accuse you of such feckless behavior? Bleep! Rich, how do you let yourself say such things?

And the biting rejoinder I finally let fly back to you?: "We'll just come to you, Rich, with any other examples of similar writing styles, and let you sort them out for us: real eyewitnesses on this side, fakers using fancy writing on the other side. Trouble is, I can't tell how you tell the difference."

Oo! OO!! That's harsh, Rich, I am soooo sorry.

"OK for a more serious approach to why the archers, on the flanks, were not attacked."

This was immediately after your sarcastic rebuttal. Now it looked like you were saying it was just a joke.

So I said: "Oh, I GET it; your education is more of a joke. You aren't taking any of this seriously. That's a relief, after using so much of my free time on you."

Then, at last, came the first mention of the 250 yard English frontage. I posted: "ROTFLMAO!

"You call this a more serious approach? I think, seriously, Dude, you are either the most forgetful self-proclaimed-scholar I have ever spoken with; or now you are simply having fun, giggling to yourself, seeing how long you can spin this farce out.

"You are no longer treating this subject/thread with enough coherence or consistency to warrant my further attention. I will now go play elsewhere.

"Rocky, give up. This guy, with this latest departure, is acting like a bleep.

"Rich, I don't feel anything but puzzlement, and possibly pity, for you at this point. No offense intended, truly. You are coming across, imho, as some kind of bipolar case. Get help."

I thought I was done, I really, really did.

Then came "This is the House that Rich Built", a really bad piece of pseudo poetry, I admit. My mood was strange; but reading your continued assertions, NOW in support of a field 300 yards wide at the most, was just too much for me. I was weak.

I got only this from you, until today:

"Doug, This is the end.

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

Okay, humor, disengagement.

I posted a number of rebuttals, and some requests that you address them. I am still waiting….

See how it goes? So your "innocent me" claim is baseless. You just can't admit your role in keeping the fire of animosity going, or kindling it to begin with. As I said, it's all about knowing who to blame. You had at least better be able to back it up.

I have not been snarky for two pages now, and you are sulking/pouting. Either do not engage in such exchanges in the first place or grow up.

As to the rest of your comments, they were simply more of your old opinions rolled out yet again. As I mentioned, I'm not interested in your opinions. I'm interested in arguments grounded in the sources. And, you have none. Ergo, no response.

You are reminding me more and more of the manic law student in "The Paper Chase", he who claimed his dissertation was brilliant and he was going to not share it with anyone till it was published.

None? NONE? What have you been reading for months? You and I above anyone else on this subject on TMP, have badgered each other WITH the sources, endlessly it feels like. And you have the balls to claim that I haven't grounded my points in the sources. What a guy!

The same "old opinions" happen to be the OP points that you have failed utterly to answer with all of your reinterpreting and asserting. No matter how many times you quote the same old lines from the original sources, your use of them hasn't answered a single thing, only muddied your premise even more is all.

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

Here's the central point: you and I read the Gesta, which says bodies of archers (in some formation) between the battles of men at arms: we also read MW&L, which (minus Monstrelet's singular statement about men at arms as part of the "wings"), states something quite at variance with the Gesta, to whit, that Henry grouped all his men at arms in the center and put archers as wings to them.

Now, I take the tack that since both sources are describing the same thing, and as honestly as possible, the Monstrelet comment is key to understanding what W&L meant, since they provided fewer details over-all regarding the English setup. To do this, I take their very clear statement regarding Henry's battle as meaning a description of HIS battle alone: this is as viable as your decision to assume that "Henry's battle" means Henry's entire army of men at arms. That is the point at where we diverge.

Because I assume W&L meant Henry's personal battle of the center, it follows that archers as wings to HIS center are between the vanguard and rearguard, ergo, we have archers between the battles of men at arms. To not allow this interpretation requires that the Gesta be mistaken, and Monstrelet's "wings of men at arms" to be a redundant detail pushing said wings against Henry's center of men at arms, in order to jive with W&L literally. But if you take the Gesta as correct, then W&L are talking about Henry's personal command, the center men at arms only; Monstrelet is talking about an actual detail and not speaking redundantly, and all the eyewitnesses are in harmony.

You have decided to not see it this way: even ignoring my recent comment that Anne Curry, an expert in translating Latin texts, says the narrative can be interpreted that archers were between the men at arms.

We have diverged at this point: and pages of debate have followed from there. Because you claimed the Gesta "account as factual", you further explained that he was only talking about the "first position", the one Henry had his army wait in for most of the morning. But by disregarding the Gesta as an eyewitness, you put everything else it said in the category of "possible longbowmen trash talk", or similar inaccurate details the cleric picked up by interviewing participants after the battle: your increasingly inventive assertions on how the battlefield was laid out have relegated the Gesta to the point of nullity once the battle starts (i.e. none of the cleric's first-person-gained details are accurate or trustworthy, says you, with no supported basis for doing so). That is your option: but as Mike has said, you are completely alone in your assertions.

Because you insist on this theory: "The other sources have almost nothing to say about the initial setup. They all describe the second setup: men-at-arms in the center and archers on their flanks.": you are stuck on the dilemma of your OP question: Why didn't the French attack the vulnerable archers?

You've insisted that "they weren't there" to attack. Your theory that "all" the other sources (except the Gesta, and Monstrelet, except when you say he didn't) describe the second setup, with the archers in two huge wings, demands an answer just as assuredly as the theory that places archers between the battles does: because the French line fills the field, and archers, no matter where they are on the open field, are IN FRONT of the French vanguard.

And thus, by tortuous degrees, you have been brought to the point of inventing this incredible setup: where the archers are NOT in front of anyone, but rather "along" the trees, being ignored by the French cavalry wings and vanguard as they move toward the English center (now, the only troops occupying the open field).

As Mike said, you are alone in believing this picture of Agincourt. I have to say, it is the weirdest twisting and turning process I have ever seen on the subject. It has been a perverse pleasure being part of it: of helping play "midwife" to this abortion….

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

And by your parting shot, it does indeed appear that my earlier suspicions were correct: you have been playing at debate, here, and not really arguing seriously for the version that you would pick if your life depended on it.

I don't appreciate being dissembled with. I don't like disingenuous behavior, not even from a fellow HYW "fan".

Take it somewhere other than TMP, Rich Knapton.

Here he is direct from retirement by popular demand of his adoring fans: Rich Knapton. Let's give him a big hand. Er, on the other hand lets give him a small hand. Some may want to take that big hand and knock his teeth out.

Rocky, In others, you state that as the french were 250 x 20, then the field is 250 yards wide (or as small as 167) [No, my estimate was 300 yards]…and I dispute those numbers using YOUR supplied information.

So, my estimates are cuting you as much slack as possible for your width. Two bodies, 800 men(I like cav) [my number was 420], …
But lets do some basic sums here. In the trees. Hmm. The french and the british are a bowshot apart. this would be less than 250 yards. [No my figure was 300 yards]

But your main complaint is the positioning of the cavalry on the flanks of the men-at-arms in the van. This would indicate the field between the two forests was much wider than the 300 yards I estimated. Indeed, the writer of the Gesta does say "And they placed squadrons of cavalry, many hundreds strong, on each flank of their vanguard, to break the formation and resistance of our archers.

But he also wrote that when the van and the English men-at-arms [no mention of archers] met the two forests rested on their flanks

"And when the men-at-arms had from each side advanced towards one another over roughly the same distance, the flanks of both battle-lines, ours, that is, and the enemy's, extended into the woodlands which were on both sides of the armies."

It seems to me that there are three ways in order to account for the cavalry on the flanks of the French van. Envision a battlefield in the form of a staple [U shaped]. The English battle line is at the bottom of the staple connecting the two prongs. Either the French army formed up outside and extending beyond the two prongs. In this case the cavalry entered the field with the van soon following. When the van entered the field and its flanks were then resting on the two fields, it cut off any line of retreat for the mounted knights. Then, in order to retreat the mounted knights had to ride through the van. Or, the term "on the flanks of the van" meant on the sides of the van but in front. Technically speaking this would still be on the flanks of the van.

The other choice is that the prongs of the staple were widened with the distance between the tip of the prong is wider than where the prongs meat the bottom of the staple, in a kind of W shape without the inner wing. In this case, the mounted contingent and the van were within the staple but where they were at was wider than where they would eventually meet the English. The van marched forward at the mounted commands began their attack of the archers. The closer the van got to the English men-at-arms the narrower the field became. When the mounted troops decided to retreat, their retreat was blocked by the van and they had to ride through it.

There's your pick. Any three of the options work for me. Although the W shaped field is hard to reconcile with the way medieval farmers laid out their fields. Almost always their fields were rectangular. The implication for the edge of the forests is that they also tended to be rectangual. Nevertheless, when the French van met the English men-at-arms both flanks were resting on forests.

Rocky, In others, you confuse game mechanics with reality by having the bow in a screen.

You need to read more. It was quite common to have light infantry screen the advance of the heavy infantry. This is where the game mechanics came from.

Rocky, your deployment, despite what the archers tell you, requires a silly deployment of the archers all up and down the lane, not only in loose order, but shooting through the trees, and doing a complex system of relief for the archers going 40 yards into the trees.

So you are telling me that 10 archers in a file are too stupid to move out of their position and let 10 more archers replace them?

Rocky, Remember in the bow thread I said to mike that some of the stuff said about longbow were obviously wrong when read by any archer.

And, I have noticed your ridged preconceptions brought about by modern archery has clouded you to the possibility of archers performing outside those preconceptions. That's why you need a historian.

Rocky, Your final point is obviously wrong to anyone who had drilled troops, knows how drill works, and to archers as well.

Have you drilled troops? I have. Regardless, you have totally failed to show that drilling troops has any relevance to medieval times. I have challenged you a couple of time on this issue and you ignored each one. In order to have drilled troops you must train them to a common cadence. In small groups I called out the cadence. In larger groups you had a drummer sound out the cadence. Swiss used pipers. What did medieval archers use to mark cadence? What, they strummed their bow strings? If you think these troops were drilled explain how and give some evidence of it.

Mike, No, I don't think so. It is obvious from your last remarks that you have been playing us along all the time.

Doug, I don't appreciate being dissembled with. I don't like disingenuous behavior, not even from a fellow HYW "fan".

Doug, And by your parting shot, it does indeed appear that my earlier suspicions were correct: you have been playing at debate, here, and not really arguing seriously for the version that you would pick if your life depended on it.

And Mike challenged me that I was too strenuous in my arguing. I must be trying to convince you guys of my ideas. I fought you tooth and nail until you became abusive. There is no validity too that charge.

Dissembled = "conceal one's true motives, feelings, or beliefs"

Sorry, doesn't work. My motive was to throw ideas out and let you tear them to pieces. I even told you I had written a article. You even commented on that fact. So where did I conceal my true motive?

Disingenuous = "typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does."

That one certainly doesn't fit. One of the charges against me was that I was claim to know more than was actually there. I neither dissembled nor was I disingenuous.

Doug, Take it somewhere other than TMP, Rich Knapton.

Several people contributed comments to the effect they enjoyed this face-to-face (figuratively), tooth and nail, back-and-forth discussion. I also enjoyed it, I'm sorry you didn't.

I can't nor am I inclined to respond to that tirade. If there is something that you still wish to discuss about any aspect of the battle or to challenge any idea I put forward, feel free to do so. But please, do not be abusive about it.

Rich

Several people contributed comments to the effect they enjoyed this face-to-face (figuratively), tooth and nail, back-and-forth discussion. I also enjoyed it, I'm sorry you didn't.

Oh, but I DO. What I find tiresome, is you bailing out every so often, accusing me of being rude, or a bully, etc. You don't need to inject sulky comments trying to show what an unfair debater I am. I see those tactics as dissembling for sure; and disingenuous too, because you pretend that you don't know or remember your own snarky, priggish jabs along the way.

When the mounted troops decided to retreat, their retreat was blocked by the van and they had to ride through it.

And through THE WOODS, Rich. Your options do not include any possibility of that occurring. Yet it did. Not all or even most of the cavalry rode through their own vanguard; just those out of control that bolted back into them. I take it from my reading, that these were mostly riderless horses, which, getting right up close to the wall of men at arms, could not see a way around it, and went through it instead. The horses near the woods rode around the ends of the condensing vanguard, and through the trees as well.

I notice that you quote from the Gesta, now. Oh, the irony. How can you, when you've done all possible to make the cleric a -poor commentator for the battle-proper? And how, pray tell, do you decide which details "our cleric" passed along, are worthy of consideration? This is called, "picking over the sources", and you know it is, and now you're doing it just to score some kind of advantage in a stupid word-play. You are still not arguing for any version of Agincourt that you actually BELIEVE, or would pick if your life depended on it….

Here's another detail that shows your 20 to 30 ranks-deep vanguard, completely filling the space between the woods, is impossible: the horses which fouled the vanguard burst through it, correct? Please, tell us how this is possible at such a depth! I have never heard of any horse smashing its way through 20 ranks deep of heavy, close order infantry, the best of its day no less.

Doug, Oh, but I DO. What I find tiresome, is you bailing out every so often, accusing me of being rude, or a bully, etc.

Perhaps you've learned your lesson and will no longer inflict upon us long abusive tirades.

Doug, And through THE WOODS, Rich. Your options do not include any possibility of that occurring. Yet it did. Not all or even most of the cavalry rode through their own vanguard; just those out of control that bolted back into them. I take it from my reading, that these were mostly riderless horses, which, getting right up close to the wall of men at arms, could not see a way around it, and went through it instead. The horses near the woods rode around the ends of the condensing vanguard, and through the trees as well.

It was from your readings that you had the writer of the Gesta with the army rather than 600 yards back where the sources say. So don't be surprised when I question ‘your readings'. I would like to see reference from the sources to back up any of this reading. It sounds like pure fantasy to me. As such it is not worth commenting on. By the way, a few of the mounted men-at-arms rode through between the archers and the woods, not the van and the woods.

Doug, I notice that you quote from the Gesta, now. Oh, the irony. How can you, when you've done all possible to make the cleric a -poor commentator for the battle-proper? And how, pray tell, do you decide which details "our cleric" passed along, are worthy of consideration?

I don't know what gave you that opinion. I've never had a problem with the Gesta. The problem I always had was with your asinine interpretations of the Gesta .

Doug, Here's another detail that shows your 20 to 30 ranks-deep vanguard, completely filling the space between the woods, is impossible: the horses which fouled the vanguard burst through it, correct? Please, tell us how this is possible at such a depth! I have never heard of any horse smashing its way through 20 ranks deep of heavy, close order infantry, the best of its day no less.

What? Are you saying that the sources are lying?

Rich

"What? Are you saying that the sources are lying?"

Rich said:
"No. the van is specifically mentioned as having been ridden through by these mounted troops."

To which I replied:
"Where?"

Rich then quoted the sources thus:
The Religieux:
"But at the first volley of arrows which the archers caused to rain down upon them they turned and fled, to their eternal shame, leaving their leaders stranded in the midst of danger with only a small number of brave hearts. They piled up in great haste towards the centre of the French army [being the vanguard] and, as if they had fled before a tempest, spread terror and confusion amongst their companions.

Chronique de Ruisseauville
"but without any doubt, only few came and when they had made their course against the archers they turned back, because of the arrowfire which their horses could no longer endure, right amongst the vanguard."

However, what Rich fails to realise is that neither of these sources actually claim that "the van was ridden through by these mounted troops."

So, no, Rich, the sources are not lying, it is your interpretation of those sources that is inaccurate. The sources offer corroborated evidence that the mounted troops fell back into the van, but no evidence at all that they rode through.

Where did you learn source analysis?

Perhaps you've learned your lesson and will no longer inflict upon us long abusive tirades.

…I don't know what gave you that opinion. I've never had a problem with the Gesta. The problem I always had was with your asinine interpretations of the Gesta.

So short abusive tirades are okay then?

What other abusive adjectives, to describe my calling your bluffs, distortions, denials and ignorance, are you going to try on for size?

It was from your readings that you had the writer of the Gesta with the army rather than 600 yards back where the sources say. So don't be surprised when I question ‘your readings'.

Quote it. Where do any of the sources tell us how far back the baggage was? You know that's a rhetorical question, because there isn't one that does.

And the way you get to believe in your "600 (1,000) yards back", is by reading it into the combination of statements as given. I have said your conclusion (shared by many, for the same reasons) is mistaken. As I take the Gesta literally, but as an imperfect document, I get an entirely different view of where "our cleric" likely was.

I would like to see reference from the sources to back up any of this reading.

Presto! Go back and read over the earlier threads, and this one: I have quoted the precise passages, and expounded on them at length. If your memory needs a jog, the rereading should be good for you.

By the way, a few of the mounted men-at-arms rode through between the archers and the woods, not the van and the woods.

"It sounds like pure fantasy to me." So you have archers turning back the cavalry, such that few even reached the line of stakes at all, yet the routing cavalry manage to ride between the archers and the woods -- the woods that the archers are occupying and shooting out from???

Hi

Rich, "modern archery"…. I guess you mean archer done in modern times. None of the refrenced archers is done with other than replicas of period equipment. Which in other threads I talked about at length. My curiosity was to test the plausability of things, not disprove things.

But I am confused why modern archery equipment would change the discussion about shooting through the trees.

You said 300 paces, then confused it with 300 yards.

Yes I have drilled troops. Even better, gotten groups to let me teach them roman drill and swiss drill tested some of the ideas behind tercio/coronella drill and a few others to watch them.

I cannot keep track of your changing timelines. Most recently, you have the french and brit MAA advancing towards each other, and now dismiss the cav.

The time line shift seems to you to keep inventing new deployments.

I agree, modern in step cadence type drill wasn't done in medieval periods. They DID march in columns which implies a few things.

But I AGREE, these weren't drilled troops in a modern sense. The problem is that most of your ideas would require same. Your "archers replacing ranks" is a case in point. Besides there being zero evidence of this, you miss the salient part of knowledge. How does anyone know when to do this? And, in essence, if I agree with the archers in the woods, then you are back to the "stupid french" explanation. You have a 250yard wide french column, rubbing sholders with the trees interspaced with archers and no frenchman marching past these guys doesn't strike out against the archers.

Each of the odd revisions you do fail on every point.

We are back to the old guys 700yd field, and 3 wedges and three battles of MAA, or Bennet's 3batttles of MAA in the center, and 2 wings at a diagonal on a 1000yard field.

And both of them are based on the premise that enstaked, the light infantry of the archers are not as vulerable as you assume. Back to the answer from the beginning, stakes.

If you want us to address your ideas, it would be more useful to address them one at a time.

Rocky

Mike, However, what Rich fails to realise is that neither of these sources actually claim that "the van was ridden through by these mounted troops."

Here is a test. It is an open book test.

The sources offer corroborated evidence that the mounted troops fell back into the van, but no evidence at all that they rode through. Your quote.

Once inside the vanguard do they:

A) Yell "Mon dieu, que faisons-nous?" then turn their horses around and back out of the van

B) Continue through the vanguard with dismounted men-at-arms trying to make room for them.

Remember, this will account for 100% of your grade.

Doug, So short abusive tirades are okay then?

Yes short abusive tirades are OK. However, they must be accompanied by abject groveling for forgiveness.

Doug, Quote it. Where do any of the sources tell us how far back the baggage was? You know that's a rhetorical question, because there isn't one that does.

There isn't ONE quote. It requires several used in conjunction with one another. This is a common occurrence in historical analysis.

Doug, I have said your conclusion (shared by many, for the same reasons) is mistaken. As I take the Gesta literally, but as an imperfect document, I get an entirely different view of where "our cleric" likely was.

Correction, my conclusion is not shared by many. It is shared by all, except you. And, you get a different view by making things up. Your assertion lacks ANY grounding in the sources.

Doug, Presto! Go back and read over the earlier threads, and this one.

So, you have none. Fine. We'll move on.

Doug, So you have archers turning back the cavalry, such that few even reached the line of stakes at all, yet the routing cavalry manage to ride between the archers and the woods -- the woods that the archers are occupying and shooting out from???

Now how can I take you serious when you write rot like that. Quote my assertions correctly or not at all.

Rocky, But I am confused why modern archery equipment would change the discussion about shooting through the trees.

Both you and Doug have used your archery experience to declare what was done and what was not done on the medieval battlefield.

Rocky, You said 300 paces, then confused it with 300 yards.

I'm using a convention used by other historians, including Dr Curry, of making the pace roughly equivalent to the yard. It is not exact I know. But it is not too far off either.

Rocky, I cannot keep track of your changing timelines. Most recently, you have the french and brit MAA advancing towards each other, and now dismiss the cav.

You need to separate my assertions from those I quote. If I am referencing something that was referenced by quotes, then the idea was the person I quoted and not my idea.

Rocky, You have a 250yard wide French column, rubbing shoulders with the trees interspaced with archers and no Frenchman marching past these guys doesn't strike out against the archers.

Why should they? For them, winning the battle consisted of crushing the English men-at-arms not by chasing archers.

Rocky, And both of them are based on the premise that enstaked, the light infantry of the archers are not as vulnerable as you assume. Back to the answer from the beginning, stakes.

The Gesta wrote, and he [Henry] positioned 'wedges' of his archers in between each 'battle' and had them drive in their stakes in front of them, as previously arranged in case of a cavalry charge.

He didn't write "in case of a cavalry and infantry charge." And, for a good reason: the use of the stakes were designed to keep out cavalry not infantry. I have frequently challenged you to show how the stakes could be used to keep out infantry and you have refused to so. To insist on something that can't be proved is by definition obstinacy. So, either show how the stakes could be used as a defense against infantry or stop insisting on something that can't be proved.

Rocky, If you want us to address your ideas, it would be more useful to address them one at a time.

Then I suggest the three of you get together and decide what idea is to be address. I end up answering three separate attacks on three different ideas.

Rich

"Once inside the vanguard do they:

A) Yell "Mon dieu, que faisons-nous?" then turn their horses around and back out of the van

B) Continue through the vanguard with dismounted men-at-arms trying to make room for them.

Remember, this will account for 100% of your grade."

Funny guy. My answer is C) – dunno, you tell me and then back it up from the sources

"I'm using a convention used by other historians, including Dr Curry, of making the pace roughly equivalent to the yard. It is not exact I know. But it is not too far off either."

Well, I've never come across that "convention" and certainly wouldn't follow it. A 20% difference adds up to rather a lot when any reasonable distance is involved.

300 paces = 250yds

"Then I suggest the three of you get together and decide what idea is to be address. I end up answering three separate attacks on three different ideas."

I see. So we are attacking you, are we?

Doug, So short abusive tirades are okay then?

Yes short abusive tirades are OK. However, they must be accompanied by abject groveling for forgiveness.

Since neither of us is likely to comply, we'll just have to either agree to not get along (virtually, at least), or ignore each other. Which shall it be?

Doug, Quote it. Where do any of the sources tell us how far back the baggage was? You know that's a rhetorical question, because there isn't one that does.

There isn't ONE quote. It requires several used in conjunction with one another. This is a common occurrence in historical analysis.

I said that! You've put the cleric waaay back there, because you trust non eyewitness sources and let them trump his personal account: the ONLY source actually positively located WITH the baggage. How is that permissible? I thought that unless a non eyewitness source could be corroborated as correct, we are not to allow such to have superiority to an eyewitness source. And the only other commentaries on the baggage are much less reliable: some of them stating errors that can be shown: so not to be considered as even enlightening, much less refutory, of the cleric's account.

Doug, I have said your conclusion (shared by many, for the same reasons) is mistaken. As I take the Gesta literally, but as an imperfect document, I get an entirely different view of where "our cleric" likely was.

Correction, my conclusion is not shared by many. It is shared by all, except you. And, you get a different view by making things up. Your assertion lacks ANY grounding in the sources.

Again, you make such an extreme assertion that you miss your mark by a mile: Curry, et al. assume a distance of several hundred (even to 1,000) yards back for the baggage; but they either don't examine why they say this, or they are vague/uncertain about it. Note, that Curry (as I pointed out way back there, but you clearly didn't read or comprehend, or even notice it, because you never responded to it) contradicted herself: she said "several hundred yards" to the rear, yet posited that the baggage was drawn up close enough to provide rear protection to the battleline, and a chance to get to the horses and escape in case of a defeat: neither, NEITHER, hypothesis, is answered by keeping the baggage back where it had spent the night.

You will please notice (this time), that Curry does admit that the baggage was moved away from the camp. The only vaguery here is "how far?". Only you insist that the baggage move was only to form it up in a defensive position because it was until then "scattered all over the place."

So your assertion that you are in good company and I am alone is not founded on reality at all. The sad fact is that writers copy each other until someone points out the error of their ways. And I am 100% confident, that if I could sit down with any of our seminal writers (who we enjoy quoting so much), that I could convince them that, at the very least, the question of where the baggage was during the battle is utterly open to drawing your own conclusion. Which, as I said is where you and I diverge: you insist on waaaay back there, and I insist on within 100 yards.

Doug, So you have archers turning back the cavalry, such that few even reached the line of stakes at all, yet the routing cavalry manage to ride between the archers and the woods -- the woods that the archers are occupying and shooting out from???

Now how can I take you serious when you write rot like that. Quote my assertions correctly or not at all.

You: When the mounted troops decided to retreat, their retreat was blocked by the van and they had to ride through it.

Me: And through THE WOODS, Rich. Your options do not include any possibility of that occurring. Yet it did. Not all or even most of the cavalry rode through their own vanguard; just those out of control that bolted back into them. I take it from my reading, that these were mostly riderless horses, which, getting right up close to the wall of men at arms, could not see a way around it, and went through it instead. The horses near the woods rode around the ends of the condensing vanguard, and through the trees as well.

By the way, a few of the mounted men-at-arms rode through between the archers and the woods, not the van and the woods.

Your words. You confuse yourself. This is not conducive to keeping my attention. I want to discuss your assertions about the BATTLE, so I can destroy them: not go over and over and over your own conflicting statements that you don't even remember making less than half a page ago!

Rich, you have used graphics ONCE, at the beginning of this thread: you obviously have an adaptation for such: why don't you cook up a nice illo of your battlefield, as you visualize it NOW. That way you can show us HOW the archers in the trees can still allow "a few of the mounted men-at-arms [to ride] through between the archers and the woods, not the van and the woods."

Both you and Doug have used your archery experience to declare what was done and what was not done on the medieval battlefield.

Of which experience you have none. Or you would instantly see the impossibility of what you suggest: archers in ANY kind of density whatsoever, cannot shoot out of trees (required to be in density enough to constitute a "woods"), at any angle you care to mention, period, end of discussion. You dismiss what you have not experienced. The type of bow is immaterial to the situation.

Rocky, You have a 250yard wide French column, rubbing shoulders with the trees interspaced with archers and no Frenchman marching past these guys doesn't strike out against the archers.

Why should they? For them, winning the battle consisted of crushing the English men-at-arms not by chasing archers.

Why? Because according to your assertion, the archers are drawn up "along" the trees, some in and some out: and the French vanguard "fills the space between the trees", even getting compressed as they go down the "funnel" toward the narrower end. That means, that the ends of the vanguard column, AND the archers, for 300 yards, are merging!!!

You can have the vanguard ignore the archers, but only if they don't touch in the first place. And of course, ignoring them means stupidity (in your scenario here).

Every permutation of this battlefield you come up with has not vanished the archers from being attackable. This latest attempt is the most laughable of them all.

French men at arms on the ends: "Excuse a moi", as they push through the archers and refuse to attack them….

I have frequently challenged you to show how the stakes could be used to keep out infantry and you have refused to so.

Who ever (other than you) said, "keep out"? Slow down, impede, buy a few moments of crucial time: yes, stakes would do this to ANY close order formation. Stakes would work against cavalry better than infantry, because of the less maneuverability of horses and their larger size. But compacted heavy infantry coming up against a network of sharpened stakes would have a few moments of difficulty as the front ranks penetrated and threaded their way through the network (probably even uprooting or pushing down the stakes in passing): the archers would have one or more final shots right into the faces of the men at arms as this occurred.

Only you insist on an all-or-nothing approach: your thinking is two-dimensional, Rich: you do not see the time-motion aspects of this. It isn't a case of "keeping out", it is a case of slowing down the enemy. Cavalry insisting on rushing the stake line, as did a few unfortunate individuals, wind up with impaled horses, thrown riders, and the coup de grace being performed by archers as the knights lie on the ground. This potential lethality would not be a factor against dismounted men at arms: but their undeniably compact formation could not push en masse into the archers with stakes holding at least half of the front rank men at arms from making contact. The stakes are THERE initially, after all.

"A pace is roughly a meter". Curry is not correct here, also. She's not godlike in her observations, but a mere mortal such as we.

Mike, My answer is C)

Buzz. WRONG! You just failed your course on Historical Document Interpretation. Go immediately to Remedial Historical Document Interpretation. Do not pass GO. Do not collect $200. USD

Mike, Well, I've never come across that "convention" and certainly wouldn't follow it.

Ahhh OK.

Mike, I see. So we are attacking you, are we?

I see your problem. You poor thing, you can't read. I said you were attacking my ideas, not me. Now, some people think they are the same. But, they are not. Maybe a course in Remedial Reading is in line with Remedial Historical Document Interpretation.

Rich (always willing to help!)

Hi

Rich, sorry, a pace isn't close to a yard or a meter. You and curry are just wrong.

As I know you also dabble in other periods, I direct you to those periods discussing drill and that a pace varies from army drill to drill and is never a yard or close. 18 at the smallest, 24 the most common.

Two, yup, we quote our modern archer WITH REPLICAS OF ANTQUE EQUIPMENT. Do you really assert this makes a substantive difference?

Your latest "why should they" attack the archer in the tree shooting at "brush of sholder" range is just ….I was about to be rude here. Your original question is "why didn't they attack the vulnerable archers" and now you answer to your own satisfaction.

In essence the noble french disdained killing the guys who were killing them.

And it still doesnt address the timeline. Cav charge, the commander dies pinned on a stake and the horses run away, and the infantry close, but now the stakes are abandoned for a mass rush for the trees.

As for my not answering about why stakes, you keep ignoring the answere. Picture attaking the guy down the street behind his white picket fence. It is short enough to climb over, but all the while he is 2 paces back and shooting at you point blank. The fence doesnt stop you, but it does slow you and you take hits.

or crossing a ford. The shallow water is no impediment except in SPEED. History is replete with examples of this being a fatal tactic, trying to attack across a ford.

or a hedge.

or a hedge of stakes.

Rocky

"Buzz. WRONG! You just failed your course on Historical Document Interpretation. Go immediately to Remedial Historical Document Interpretation. Do not pass GO. Do not collect $200.00 USD USD"

Perhaps you could offer some evidence from the sources as to why my answer is wrong? I do npt rfead into source material things that are simply not there. I may suggest such as possibilities but that is all. We have already showed how you have conclusively failed your course in Historical Document Interpretation.

"I see your problem. You poor thing, you can't read. I said you were attacking my ideas, not me. Now, some people think they are the same. But, they are not."

No, you obviously feel they are the same since when we attack your ideas you seem to take it personally (see most of the rest of this thread).

"Maybe a course in Remedial Reading is in line with Remedial Historical Document Interpretation."

Snide remarks doth not a historian make.

Doug, Since neither of us is likely to comply, we'll just have to either agree to not get along (virtually, at least), or ignore each other. Which shall it be?

How about a third way. We treat each other as friends who happen to disagree. We give each other the benefit of the doubt. No gratuitous abusive attacks. But every now and then we slip in some really choice sarcastic remarks of a non personal nature.

Doug, Which, as I said is where you and I diverge: you insist on waaaay back there, and I insist on within 100 yards.

It is not what we insist on that counts. It is what we can prove from the documentary source. You have shifted from right behind the army to a couple of hundred yards to the rear to now 100 yards to the rear. Is this your final estimate? Now I am perfectly will to step through how I came to my conclusion if you are willing to do the same. Then we can criticize each others observations.

Doug, Your words

Yep my words criticizing how you for your portrayed my earlier thoughts.

Doug, That way you can show us HOW the archers in the trees can still allow "a few of the mounted men-at-arms [to ride] through between the archers and the woods, not the van and the woods."

I will be happy to discuss this with you. But I first would ask you your interpretation of the relevant passage by the Gesta. This is not a trick. There are a couple of ways this could be interpreted and I want to understand your interpretation.

Gesta:
But soon, by God's will, they were forced to fall back under showers of arrows and to flee to their rearguard, save for a very few who, although not without losses in dead and wounded, rode [p 35] through between the archers and the woodlands and save, too, of course, for the many who were stopped by the stakes driven into the ground, and prevented from fleeing very far by the stinging hail of missiles shot at both horses and riders in their flight.

Doug, Of which experience you have none.

Yes, but I have experience in historical document interpretation of which experience you have none.

Doug, You dismiss what you have not experienced.

Have you tried to fire out of the edge of a birch forest of the type which looks like what I showed? I think not. So, you have none experience in firing from the edge of a young birch forest.

Doug, getting compressed as they go down the "funnel" toward the narrower end.

No funnel. The fields were laid out rectangularly not as funnels. Thus the forest edge on either side would have a rectangular shape.

Doug, Every permutation of this battlefield you come up with has not vanished the archers from being attackable.

I have already laid out the tactical reasons for the men-at-arms for not chasing after the archers. It seems you need to come up with a tactical reason for the men-at-arms to go chasing archers than trying to brake the English men-at-arms.

Doug, Who ever (other than you) said, "keep out"? Slow down, impede, buy a few moments of crucial time: yes, stakes would do this to ANY close order formation.

You have been reading tooooo many wargame rules. You know, the rules which state that close order troops cannot penetrate woods or things like woods (like stakes). In real life a dense formation like those of the advancing French men-at-arms, would immediate, upon coming to the stakes, go "unformed" and penetrate the stakes like a hot knife through butter. That is unless you can prove the stakes were close enough to impede the French men-at-arms in some way.

Doug, but their undeniably compact formation could not push en masse into the archers with stakes holding at least half of the front rank men at arms from making contact.

Doug you keep putting yourself into traps that you can't prove. It's not like they were locked arm-in-arm. Just because they are in a dense formation does not mean that stakes are going to impede their advance. How big around do you think these stakes are? Six inches? How is six inches going to impede those men-at-arms.

Doug, "A pace is roughly a meter". Curry is not correct here, also. She's not godlike in her observations, but a mere mortal such as we

In what way is a pace not roughly a meter? Actually you can't answer that because there is no exact measurement for the term ‘roughly'. As such there is not an incorrect nor a correct answer. All you can say is that you disagree with the difference being referenced as ‘roughly'. Her exact words were, "Walsingham gives a distance between them at the outset as 1,000 paces which we can take to mean 1,000 meters." Now you can disagree with that estimate but it is not a correct or incorrect statement.

Rich

"It is what we can prove from the documentary source."

Exactly the point we have been trying to make all along.

"Yep my words criticizing how you for your portrayed my earlier thoughts."

Um … you seem to be having a problem with grammar now.

"Yes, but I have experience in historical document interpretation of which experience you have none."

We only have your word on your experience. You equally cannot prove what experience Doug has or has not on historical document interpretation.

"Have you tried to fire out of the edge of a birch forest of the type which looks like what I showed? I think not. So, you have none experience in firing from the edge of a young birch forest."

And where is the documentary evidence that these two woods in particular were made up of "young birches"? In my visits to France (including the Somme) I have seen the same sort of mixed woodland we have in England. So there is no evidence that these woods were either all birches or even "young". Did you not look at the image I supplied of "birch woodland"?

"No funnel. The fields were laid out rectangularly not as funnels. Thus the forest edge on either side would have a rectangular shape."

As a general principle woods in England and France do not follow reactangular lines. What evidence can you offer from the sources that these particular ones did?

"than trying to brake the English men-at-arms."

spelling too.

"That is unless you can prove the stakes were close enough to impede the French men-at-arms in some way."

I presume you meant to say "close enough together". Equally you need to prove they weren't.

"In what way is a pace not roughly a meter?"

1 pace = 30 inches
1 meter = 39 inches (to the nearest inch)
=> a pace is not roughly a meter by 9 inches

I don't know where Rocky gets his 18 to 24 ins from. link

I suppose Mountbatten decided to "kill off" 170 Commando's & Naval personnel at St Nazaire on a whim. Perhaps he was a secret psychopath, or just a hater of Canadian khaki wallah's. Anyway he was sent out to the far east where he did a very good job. (And it kept him away from all of those "offshore" Brits & French)

All I seem to read/hear is of alternate histories from Crecy to the Falklands' all aimed at British history. One of the reasons you wouldn't get these authors trying to reassess U.S history because they know that there books wouldn't sell.(A bloody good job) And the other is due to having a Anglophobic axe to grind.

Fraserdw
Please name these Canadian historians so I can judge their evidence for myself.
As for the British defending the empire with the colonies blood. It was France and the free world that was being defended. I have relatives (English) from both World wars intered in France, Belgium & the cold waters off Norway. The blood of "ALL" of the empire was spilt for freedom and peace, and yes so as stupid people like yorself can write such a blatant untruth that you have posted above. And at this time of year people should remember the sacrifices made by "ALL" the nations of the world for the freedom we have today.

Paul
And at the going down of the Sun, and in the morning. 'We will remember them. (& God bless em)

Aiiieeee!! THE BUG is BACK! It happened when I saved an edit to the following post.

Somewhere on TMP (I am guessing 2WW board of some stripe), my Agincourt post appeared, under someone else's moniker.

But every now and then we slip in some really choice sarcastic remarks of a non personal nature.

Okay. That can be fun.

Trouble is, as Mike observed, you seem to have taken criticism of your views personally: e.g. the first time on this thread, where I called your four example battles an "error of drawing conclusions", and no evidence of French men at arms running archers off the field: it took you several days, but your response was to take personal offense where none was intended, at, all.

It is not what we insist on that counts. It is what we can prove from the documentary source.

Which cannot be done, either way, ever. We cannot prove any one thing/way from the sources. They do not have the detail (usually) nor do they agree particularly well (alas, the failure of two or more humans to come up with the same story of a singular event that each shared observation of).

You have shifted from right behind the army to a couple of hundred yards to the rear to now 100 yards to the rear. Is this your final estimate?

When we first discussed this way back on the (In)effective Archery Debate thread (iirc), I asked you what "at no great distance" was, defined by you: and I told you that my definition would be within 100 yards. More than that I was, and am, willing to concede, but not so far back that "our cleric" could not personally observe the details he described, vis-a-vis, the arrows piercing helmets, the columns forming to attack the three areas where the standards were, and the English line driven back "about a spears length". I don't know, but I am guessing that such details would not be observable outside of 200 yards, probably closer for the arrow effect details (I allow, also, that this added detail could have been picked up from walking the field, asking questions of the fighters, and seeing where the French were carpeting the ground just a score or two of yards in front of the English battleline, with arrows through their visors and sides of their helmets: making the point at where the cleric had earlier seen the French divide into three columns possibly due to the effects of the arrows from the flanks: but "our cleric" also had heard of the French battle plan and so he did not know if the forming of three columns had occurred as pre-planning or fear of the arrows, so he said either-or).

Now I am perfectly will to step through how I came to my conclusion if you are willing to do the same. Then we can criticize each others observations.

To what purpose? To disagree again/still? I know I haven't forgotten what you have repeated on this head. And if I reminded you or made clear something that you missed the first three times around, I doubt you would be convinced anyway.

I do recall very clearly your insistance that the baggage was only moved to form it into a defensive position (lately, from being "scattered all over the place", a notion you did not have the first time we argued this on said-previous thread). You got quite impatient with me "reading into it what isn't there": when I insisted that the Gesta's reason why the baggage was moved from the camp of the night before was to get it into a position "in the rear of the engagement", i.e. to maintain the same relationship the first position had to the camp/baggage. And how that would not happen if Henry simply grouped it and left it where it was the night before: ergo, no reason to refer to the baggage as being moved so as to be "in the rear of the engagement" at all, since that could be true as long as the baggage was ANYWHERE BEHIND the army.

Gesta:
But soon, by God's will, they were forced to fall back under showers of arrows and to flee to their rearguard, save for a very few who, although not without losses in dead and wounded, rode [p 35] through between the archers and the woodlands and save, too, of course, for the many who were stopped by the stakes driven into the ground, and prevented from fleeing very far by the stinging hail of missiles shot at both horses and riders in their flight.

No trouble at all. Taking the "old traditional" setup of ALL Henry's troops being in a single, intermingled line between the woods, with a few archers reaching into the trees: the frontal assault of the cavalry was mostly turned back and routed the way they had come, i.e. back along the flanks of the van and mainguards, and clear to the rearguard (as said): but, some ("a very few") escaped being stopped by the stakes and hail of arrows, and, being on the extreme ends near the trees, managed to get in there and ride off around the English flanks, but not without taking further casualties. So from where the cleric was sitting, he could see "a very few" French knights making an escape through the edge of the trees, and away.

Yes, but I have experience in historical document interpretation of which experience you have none.

There you go again. BS Rich! I have the originals, translated into English by competent experts. Anyone in my position can experience interpretation of historical documents, once he understands what they are saying.

Or are you now, at this late juncture, going to claim to be an expert linguist as well? Expert in Latin, Old French, are you too, Rich? You'll have to understand, that if you claim such, never having alluded to this ability previously, I will not believe you.

Have you tried to fire out of the edge of a birch forest of the type which looks like what I showed? I think not. So, you have none experience in firing from the edge of a young birch forest.

We are not talking about the edge. We are talking about 10 and more ranks of archers DEEP. I have shot in trees and experienced the unseen branch making my arrow disappear as it deflected it away to God alone knows where. In the first place, you don't shoot in trees UNLESS you have what appears to be a reasonably clear shot.

No funnel. The fields were laid out rectangularly not as funnels. Thus the forest edge on either side would have a rectangular shape.

The closer the van got to the English men-at-arms the narrower the field became. When the mounted troops decided to retreat, their retreat was blocked by the van and they had to ride through it.

So you are giving up this option? Iirc, at least one source mentions the decreasing frontage as the French got closer. So you shouldn't be too hasty.

Also, fields followed the natural lay of the land. They would seldom be rectangular. I don't know where you get that notion from.

It seems you need to come up with a tactical reason for the men-at-arms to go chasing archers than trying to brake the English men-at-arms.

I never said they didn't try! I have offered reasons why they failed.

You are the one claiming some mystery here: why the French didn't attack the vulnerable archers, when they had in earlier battles. You need to come up with a reason why they didn't, not I.

You have been reading tooooo many wargame rules. You know, the rules which state that close order troops cannot penetrate woods or things like woods (like stakes).

Do you (any of you) know of a decent set of rules which allows CLOSE ORDER formations of hundreds or thousands of troops, to penetrate WOODS? I do not. And there is a reason: it didn't happen. The troops must perforce open up and file through. Or, in the case of a network of stakes, tear them out or trample them down, first.

In real life a dense formation like those of the advancing French men-at-arms, would immediate, upon coming to the stakes, go "unformed" and penetrate the stakes like a hot knife through butter.

LOL! BS too. No formation in a compressed condition can uncompress "immediately." Each man at arms getting between the forwardmost stakes, would find another, one pace in, pointing at his chest: he would have to weave left or right, or pause long enough to knock the stake down or pull it out: to either side of him his comrades are doing the same, and half of them are banging into each other as they dodge the stakes in front of themselves: and all of this as they move into a hail of arrows in their faces. The archers have the entire network of stakes in front of their close order line. Any men at arms actually penetrating through to the last row of stakes now has two to one odds against himself: or, alternately, if the stakes are trampled and uprooted instead, while the men at arms stay in close order, then this takes time! Or are you going to insist that six foot-long stakes, rammed into the ground with leaden mauls, are like toothpicks that can be brushed aside?

That is unless you can prove the stakes were close enough to impede the French men-at-arms in some way.

"Prove". Heh, that word again. Why have you tossed "probability", Rich? You said that was the correct approach, waaay back there. Remember?

How big around do you think these stakes are? Six inches? How is six inches going to impede those men-at-arms.

I doubt that they were six inches thick. At six feet long, that would be a very heavy piece of timber indeed! I reckon 3 to 4 inches thick, and still plenty heavy. When pounded into the ground with a heavy leaden maul, just how easy do you suppose a stake was going to be to remove or trample flat? Your vision of "immediately" is not only improbable, but impossible.

The probability is, that there was one stake set every c. three feet in each row: each row would be offset c. three feet (because that is how the archers formed up, in order to shoot between the shoulders of the men in front), so that from the front an approaching enemy would see stakes set every one and half feet. The archers advanced on a frontage of c. three feet per man: stopped, did a 180, pounded their stakes in, turned sideways and slipped in behind the stakes, 180 about-face, sharpened them with a few blows of a dagger or shortsword ("coustille"), and prepared to shoot. Now, the French men at arms came on originally in a similar spacing; but by the time they had compressed during the advance through the arrow storm, they were far tighter together than that: then they come to the stake network. Before that point the archers are already behind the whole thing: so the French men at arms have a yards-deep "fence" of stakes in "herce" shape: which means that if the stakes are not removed/trampled down, they must be negotiated -- weaved through -- by each man turning sideways, in full armor, blinded, and staying out of each other's way. "Immediately". Hah, hah….

I would love to try this out: get a few dozen reenactors in full plate (with fencing helmet mesh over their visors to protect their eyes), and an equal number of archers using rubber blunts and full strength warbows, with their "herce" of stakes in front of their line: then see just how "immediately" the platies can get through the network of stakes to hand strokes with the archers: and have observers counting the number of arrows hitting the visors of those guys, then ask them how much they liked that part afterward! I don't believe that such an experiment would provide me with any surprises; but I would be very surprised if you, Rich, didn't change your above statements, about stakes being resistant like "butter", entirely.

Hi

Rich, I HAVE done that shot. Sadly. i was a kid, an old navajo, my best friends uncle, was teaching me how to make my own bows and arrows and hunt small game. (You can find a refrence on this form of teaching called "Ishi: last of his Tribe" by Saxton Pope.) And, indeed, the tiniest twig will deflect an arrow. Just as I later learned it would deflect a 30-06 or a 556.

Mike. Mostly, when I think about time and discance and these problems, I try to find the oldest sources I can. If you go back to the renaissance and 18th century, you will find various definations of "pace" and "double pace". Moder US army paces ae always defined for modern parade ground conditions. Older refrences have shorter "pace" for the simple reason of carrying 30 to 50 pounds of kit on uneavan fields is the issue. Thus, various armies define the pace as 18 to 24. "At the double" is jogging in formation with Porte arms.

Oh, and no "pace" anywhere is ever a meter long. The closest I know of is, i think, a french "double pace" defined as not a step, but a left right left double step at 36 inches.

Mike your Guesta bit doesn't support your story with the trees. It seems to be saying what happened to the horse that made it INTO the stakes and didn't die and where they retreated. Back towards their van OR into the trees. Which can as easily support either Bennets MAA in the center with enstaked archers on the wings, or the older guys "3 wedges". But not your sevearl "screen" or "in the trees".

Remember, people were reported to have DIED on the stakes.

As for your having the MAA go "unformed" to pass through the stakes is really interesting. But I suspect it is another reflection of YOU reading too many rules. I gotta rat out Doug, he doesn't collect and read rules like I do!

But lets consider your idea of "go unformed". How is this effected? In order for it to happen, you need SOME to somehow chose to stop while others address the stakes. But while UNFORMED and passing through the stakes like knife through butter, besides this fantasy, that means each MAA who "passes" is confronting at LEAST 2 archers. Or to put it another way, they are now "disordered" and in "open order", meaning when contacted being outnumbed and getting flanked.

Still not vulnerable.

Oh, and while the second rank of archer shoot past their buddies during the passage to get point blank shots.

And, without showing where THEY turned 90 degrees to attack the trees, we are back, again, to either Bennett and Curry's 2 wings, MAA center, or the old guys 3 wedges.

Rocky