"Battle-line at Agincourt" Topic

"Mike. Mostly, when I think about time and discance and these problems, I try to find the oldest sources I can. "

The Roman passus (pace), actually a double pace, was 5 Roman feet. The gradus (half pace) was 2.5 Roman feet. link That far enough back for you?

"Mike your Guesta bit doesn't support your story with the trees."

Um … not me. I think you mean Rich.

This whole wrangling over the pace is stupid. There is not a single definition for pace. This is from Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48

"Ordinarily the pace is estimated at two and one half linear feet; but in measuring distances by stepping, the pace is extended to three feet (one yard) or to three and three tenths feet (one fifth of a rod). The regulation marching pace in the English and United States armies is thirty inches for quick time, and thirty-six inches for double time. The Roman pace (passus) was from the heel of one foot to the heel of the same foot when it next touched the ground, five Roman feet [also known as the double-pace]."

Since a yard is .091 meters one is well within their rights to say a pace is roughly a meter.

Rich

"but in measuring distances by stepping, the pace is extended to three feet (one yard)"

Don't you understand what that means? The idea is that when you are measuring distances you force your step longer so as to make it "roughly a yard". Haven't you ever done that when estimating distances on the ground? It is not a very comfortable way of walking (unless you are 7 ft tall).

It has absolutely nothing to do with the medieval measurement of pace or the military pace. Both of these are derived from the Roman double pace of 5 feet op. cit.

"each row would be offset c. three feet…"

Ack! I mean, one and a half feet offset.

Hey doug

That WW2 post under your monika belongs to me, it was in response to a post about the 1942 Dieppe raid. How it got on this site is anyones guess. All I can say is that it is an un-edited draft.

Though its not technically my fault, I apologise for this occurrence.

Paul

Have you seen MY post anywhere else? That was weird.

Not yet, ill keep my eyes open though.
Paul

Hi

Mike, sorry, didn't mean to do that.

And a roman "foot" is a modern 10 inches! Rich is utterly correct, there is no set "pace" or, for that matter "Cubit". Part of that old historical research thing should include understanding the details. You and I know about the roman pace and how it is measured.

It is sloppy scholorship to assert details like this. It really does make a difference, the difference between a roman pace, about 24 modern inches, and a yard or meter. We are talking about expanding the distance by 50% in the first place, and another 10 in the last.

Or shooting through trees!

And it dodges the issue. rich has presented a couple new variants of the fight to "test" both require new facts not in evidence, and things never shown by either side anytime before or after this particular fight.

Throw in the sub variants that require odd things out of the archers, like running from in front of the attack while planting stakes and shooting at the same time an getting to the trees before anyone gets Kacked by the french.

Rocky

"Mike, sorry, didn't mean to do that."

OK, no problem.

"And a roman "foot" is a modern 10 inches! "

Um … sorry have to disagree with you. 1 Roman foot = 11.65 inches.
That makes the Roman gradus (half pace) 29.125 inches
link

"And it dodges the issue. rich has presented a couple new variants"

Yeah, I know, but Rich being picky likes to hit us with such details …

What the…! Totally unheard of. A topic with 410 postings!

Why is this OLD thread showing up as a new thread today, and listed as on the "Manufacturing" board??? The BUG is infiltrating TMP, again: and as far as I know, it all started with that theft of my edited post above….

Doug, 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."

I often cannot respond right away. What I was pointing out to you is that what we insist on doesn't count. What counts is what we can prove from the documentary sources. This is not a personal view.

OK, the rest of the stuff can be set aside for now. I finally got you, and I presume Rocky, talking about the positioning of the stakes. This, seems to me, critical. This is what I'm envisioning. Take a chess board. Turn it so one of the corners is facing you. You have an corner facing away and two corners facing to the left and right. Draw a line from the left corner to the right. Cut the board in half along this line and remove the top half. We now have a triangle shape board. With the apex of the triangle facing you, place imaginary stakes at the corner of each square. This is what I envision when the Guesta say wedge shape and Henry told the archers for one line to offset another. The archers would stand in the middle of each square behind the stake to it's front.

I'm sure the real wedges were not so pointed but you get the idea. Now, if you want one more rectangular than triangular let me know. But do we have an agreement as to the basic design of the wedge, archers and stakes?

Rich

The actual, over all shape of the formation is not really knowable. As I have argued for: the most probable way that they got "wedges" was to angle the line of archers forward, and where the ends met, voila! you had the apex of a hollow wedge-shaped line.

But yes, your creative way of showing how each archer was positioned "between" the two men in front, is how it would look.

Doug, Expecting the archers to stand each behind his own stake, with a stake pointing at his back, is daft! Especially if the line is being attacked by men at arms: imagine how that would work out, with archers trying to dodge amidst the stakes, with rows of stakes behind them. No way.)

Agreed.

Rich (to be continued have to run 5 miles]

Ah, and you caught an edited out bit of text: bound to happen, sooner or later. But we agree, even though I decided it was a point that didn't need to be emphasized (thus the cut).

Sorry, I was too tired after running. But to continue. A terminological change. The men-at-arms are not close order troops. Close order troops are like 16th century pikemen. Each had a particular order within the unit. Battles were ordered because they maintained an ordered position in the line of battles. The men-at-arms composing the battle were more like ‘compressed'. Some may be 3 feet apart. Some may be 2.5 feet, others 3.5 feet, some may have actually been rubbing shoulders. The disorganized compressed, the ones who could not use their weapons because the unit was too compressed, didn't affect the first three ranks. You can look it up if you disagree. The front ranks could easily adjust their positions based on the obstructions on the battlefield (with in reason). They certainly could adjust their lateral positions with regards to 4" stakes.

In the wedge itself there were natural straight corridors through the wedge and between spikes. I created a visual image of an archers wedge (triangle).

link

Where the lines of the wedge cross is where a spike is placed. It is assumed that the distance between stakes are roughly three feet (I don't know the actual spacing). The straight line through the wedge represents the natural corridors for the men-at-arms. [I only created four lines but you get the idea.] The archer will occupy a position within the white space of the squire (diamond). The line also represents the advance of a man-at-arms. Notice, every archers engaged in hand-to-hand combat will have to face two French men-at-arms. Since the French are using lances (the sources say the front ranks of the French were armed with lances), the archers will not be able to get close enough to use his weapons (sword, small axe, mallet, long knife) effectlively.

As to the archers just behind who are speculated to be firing arrows at the visors of the French, they are probably not for a couple of reasons. First, when someone is facing eminent threat of death, adrenaline floods the body. This is an involuntary reaction. The archers could do nothing about this. This strengthens the large mass muscles; those needed for fight or flight. It does this at the expense of the fine motor muscles needed for aiming. Thus, ones ability to aim would be severely degraded. Under such circumstances, arrows aimed at the visors will more than likely miss. The result will be ricochets many of which will bounce sky-ward and backward falling on the archers behind the front line archers. The result will be a lot of injured archers. This is what happened at Poitiers. The archers fired point blank at the oncoming armored mounted men-at-arms. The arrows bounced off the French, curved back around, and fell on the archers themselves. Under all these circumstances, I doubt the archers would stick around to face those lances.

The result would be the same if the formation was thin extending rectangles, on either side of the battles, such as Bennett suggests. The stakes would still be in checkerboard fashion leaving the archers as vulnerable as they were in the wedge formation. The archers simply wouldn't hang around once the men-at-arms began to enter their spike reinforced positions. To do so would be certain death.

Regardless of stakes, archers could not anchor the flanks of the English men-at-arms, either in the formation the Gesta suggests or in the formation Bennett suggests. This means we need to reject these two formation. It also means the English men-at-arms need to have their flanks resting on the woods not the archers. And, this is what the sources suggest. Given the above, the only place the archers could be are along the edges of the woods extending outward from the three battles. This suggest a U shape or staple shape with the men-at-arms being the base and the archers the arms.

Rich

Hi

Mike, I had seen that, but the problem is from my archeological background. The sources indicate a height requirement of 5'10 for the legionary, and no such show up in digs. They are always essentially pre-modern italians who average 5'4 like the civilians. Thus, you have the offer that to make the military requirement work, 10inches!

Notice how I just disagred with mystelf when talking about roman cav and infantry spacing!

I was doing a "rich" in playing with the numbers to get a reaction.

Rocky

Hi

rich, lets see if I understand, you prove wedges, then with odd logic make it U to "prove" archers hiding in the trees.

Could you cite the source where arrows bounce up and come down and injure archers? (actually, another point that makes no sense, I have shot through a target into a brick wall, bounced arrows aren't carrying enough energy to bemore than thrown sticks….it is like the "falling bullet" thing).

Anyway, having had a wild boar charging me with only spear in hand, I know personally, that your idea that the archer run away rather than take the shot. But no matter.

You cannnot demonstrate that enstaked archers ever did this, run before contact with the stakes. If they didn't run when the cav died on the stakes, they ain't gonna run with trudging infantry.

So, again, your suppositions make no sense and end up not proving the initial idea which is silly in my view.

Rocky

Hi

I ment to tell you that a lot of this reminds me of the bit in "Carry On Cleo" where the british inventor shows his new improved wheel. It is square so that it won't roll backwards down the hill, or forwards and get away from you.

Grin.

Another problem with your MAA as an ordered mob is requiring another odd visual. People in a "battle" 20 deep, and the front rank advances and there is a hesitation as each rank ad hoc waits for the next which means every advance acts like an accordian. Opening, closing, people getting it wrong and tripping. Which, again, isn't in any source I am aware of. Earlier in a previous post, you discuss file leaders and closers, as did I, as essetial for the march….but here you dismiss them. Everyman DOES know his place.

I am finding your rantionalizatins for your ideas getting sillier by the day.

Rocky

The straight line through the wedge represents the natural corridors for the men-at-arms. [I only created four lines but you get the idea.]

Have you calculated how "wide" those direct "corridors" are? Each stake is between two others, in alternating rows, c. 1.5 feet apart. If each stake is 3" in diameter, that leaves only c. 15" of open space between them. Men at arms, carrying cut down lances in two hands, are perforce going to have to turn sideways to negotiate the 30+ feet of depth that the stake network covers. Try it, I am sure you won't like it.

This strengthens the large mass muscles; those needed for fight or flight. It does this at the expense of the fine motor muscles needed for aiming.

Poppycock. The only fine muscles used are the fingers of the right hand, being used in this case as a "trigger" to hold the string back for no more than a second at a time. The rest of the muscles are being used in precisely the same manner as any other fighting: and long before "you" can come within range of sticking "me." That stake network is DEEP, and "you" have to weave/force your way through it sideways -- not conducive to fighting, having a narrow alley constricting you front and back!

This is what happened at Poitiers. The archers fired point blank at the oncoming armored mounted men-at-arms. The arrows bounced off the French, curved back around, and fell on the archers themselves.

Never heard that! Source, PLEASE! "Chapter and verse…."

The archers simply wouldn't hang around once the men-at-arms began to enter their spike reinforced positions. To do so would be certain death.

You discount the direct hits on the majority of those in the three front ranks in the vanguard: many of them were bleeding out by the time they got to hand-strokes with English men at arms and archers (that would explain their feebleness noted so clearly by the Gesta). The archery had seriously vitiated the combat capability of the French. You think the archers would not know this?

At both Auray and Agincourt, the archers DISARMED the French and used their weapons against them: they moved out from their battleline and ATTACKED, not waiting for the French to finish coming to them.

Regardless of stakes, archers could not anchor the flanks of the English men-at-arms, either in the formation the Gesta suggests or in the formation Bennett suggests….

Well, of course, that's what your thread is all about! "The archers were not there to be attacked."

However, you still haven't graphically shown how the archers can be "along" the woods, both outside and inside the trees: how the French cavalry can run away THROUGH THE TREES, when the sources clearly say they routed AWAY FROM the archers: and finally, how the French vanguard can come up to the English men at arms and not physically contact the archers.

"The sources indicate a height requirement of 5'10 for the legionary, and no such show up in digs. They are always essentially pre-modern italians who average 5'4 like the civilians. Thus, you have the offer that to make the military requirement work, 10inches!"

Does your archaeological background include a study of Hadrian's Wall? On the Wall there are mile castles and turrets spaced some 540yds apart (two turrets between each mile castle). 540yds = 1620ft. *3 = 4860ft = 1 Romam mile. A Roman mile is defined as 1000 double paces (passi). Thus 1 pace (passus) = 4.86 modern feet, thus 1 Roman foot = 11.664 inches.

Rocky, Rich, lets see if I understand, you prove wedges, then with odd logic make it U to "prove" archers hiding in the trees.

Rocky, I am finding your rantionalizatins for your ideas getting sillier by the day.

Before you begin to belittle someone's ideas it's best to show that you have a grasp of those ideas. If you can't follow the development of ideas it's best not to criticize. Other wise you look silly. I defended the first position formation but not the second. I said there was a military function to be performed using the wedge formation in the first setup but not in the second. You need to focus a bit more on what I write and less on focusing on how to belittle what I write.

Doug, Have you calculated how "wide" those direct "corridors" are? Each stake is between two others, in alternating rows, c. 1.5 feet apart. If each stake is 3" in diameter, that leaves only c. 15" of open space between.

Ridiculous. I knew all those lines would confuse you. What it means is that 1.5 in front and to the right of you is a 3" stake. All you have to do is shift slightly 3" to get around it. All it would probably take is a slight lean. Then 1.5 feet in front and on the left is a 3" stake in which you shift or lean 3" to the right. There is no real corridor there only a perceptual corridor. At any individual stake there is 3 feet on either side for getting around a 3" stake.

link

Also, as I said before, we don't know if the stakes are set 3 feet or 4 feet or 5 feet apart. That is only a guess. All the space that is needed is to insure a horse cannot get around those stakes. The point being, that even at 3 feet there is no way the stakes are going to hinder the French men-at-arms

Rich, "This strengthens the large mass muscles; those needed for fight or flight. It does this at the expense of the fine motor muscles needed for aiming."

Doug, Poppycock.

In a sense you are right. How that sentence should have been written is "It does this at the expense of the fine motor functions, and complex motor functions needed for aiming."

The fine motor functions would be grasping the arrow and getting it "loaded". The large mass muscles perform what is called gross motor functions. In this case it would be the pulling back of the bow string (with arrow in it.) The complex motor functions or hand-eye coordination necessary for aiming is used to aim the weapons. Both the fine motor functions and the complex motor functions degrade when adrenaline is dumped into a person's system. And, therefore would degrade the ability of archers to aim. Thanks for pointing my error out.

Doug, Never heard that! Source, PLEASE! "Chapter and verse…."

Froissart, check battle of Poitiers.

Doug, You discount the direct hits on the majority of those in the three front ranks in the vanguard.

Regardless of any damage that may have been done, archers were never able to stop a determined attack by men-at-arms. I don't see any reason why they would be able to do that here. Besides, any man unable to continue would be replaced by a man to his rear.

Doug, Well, of course, that's what your thread is all about! "The archers were not there to be attacked."

No Doug. You're confused. Here we are discussing why archers would not be able to stop the advance of French men-at-arms even when stakes are present. To this point you have failed to show how the spikes would materially help the archers slowdown the advance of the French men-at-arms. As for aiming for the eye-slits, forget it, highly unlikely. And, Rocky seems more focused on zinging me than on the issue at hand.

Rich

Doug:
"Well, of course, that's what your thread is all about! "The archers were not there to be attacked.""

Rich:
"No Doug. You're confused. Here we are discussing why archers would not be able to stop the advance of French men-at-arms even when stakes are present."

I think you're the one that is confused.

"To date no one has come up with a good reason why the French didn't attack the archers. They were the weak link in the battle-line. The only reason I can think of is that the archers were not attacked because they were not there."
Rich Knapton, 10 Sep 2008

If as you claimed on 10th September that the archers were not attacked because they were not there, why are you now discussing why archers would not be able to stop the advance of the French men-at-arms?

In case anyone is interested, the model 1838 cap was standard throughout the army. In tunic colour, the cap had only piping and not a band as in the rest of Germany. Once again the Bavarians went their own way.

! It happened AGAIN (glad I saved my post on the clipboard) The BUG is definitely back….

Ridiculous. I knew all those lines would confuse you. What it means is that 1.5 in front and to the right of you is a 3" stake. All you have to do is shift slightly 3" to get around it. All it would probably take is a slight lean. Then 1.5 feet in front and on the left is a 3" stake in which you shift or lean 3" to the right. There is no real corridor there only a perceptual corridor. At any individual stake there is 3 feet on either side for getting around a 3" stake.

You don't see a problem with men in full plate, weaving/leaning between the stakes, at speed ("like a knife through butter", heh), staying out of each others way all the way through the 30+ feet of enstaked ground? As I said above, half the men at arms would be smacking into each other: and the resulting caroming off into stakes, falling down, etc. would be UGLY. To avoid this entirely the attacking men at arms would have to be six feet apart. Which we know was not the case at all, since even the third rank back could hardly raise their weapons properly because of the press.

Also, as I said before, we don't know if the stakes are set 3 feet or 4 feet or 5 feet apart. That is only a guess.

Stick to the PROBABALITY, Rich. The archers are not 4 or more feet apart; they are packed as close together as functionally possible; which we all agree is c. three feet frontage per man.

The fine motor functions would be grasping the arrow and getting it "loaded".

Which is why veterans are placed in front?

Froissart, check battle of Poitiers.

I just reread his account of Poitiers. There was nothing in it like you suggest. And Rocky is right, anyway, that any caroming arrows off plate would be utterly spent and harmless.

You didn't quote the "verse" to prove your point: all you ever do is say, "go and read it yourself."

Regardless of any damage that may have been done, archers were never able to stop a determined attack by men-at-arms. I don't see any reason why they would be able to do that here. Besides, any man unable to continue would be replaced by a man to his rear.

Not a chance. The conditions at Agincourt made everything in this statement of yours impossible: the previous muscling to get into the front ranks, would not let any man finally placed there to give way to an inferior behind himself. There was no training to replace front ranks charging the enemy en masse! And no physical way to do so in any case, since the entire formation was straining at their maximum attainable speed to reach the English battleline. Finally, upon arriving within hand strokes, the front ranks were still on their feet, mainly and for the most part. Nobody on this thread has argued that longbow shooting every STOPPED a French charge by dismounted men at arms. Yet you keep insisting that is what is being argued for. Longbow shooting weakened the fighting capacity enough to win the subsequent melee. Which is exactly what happened at Agincourt.

No Doug. You're confused.

Boyhowdy! Do you enjoy being confusing, Rich?

Here we are discussing why archers would not be able to stop the advance of French men-at-arms even when stakes are present.

So I am supposed to forget that for eight pages you have been arguing for "the archers were not there to be attacked"? It is obvious to me that your tangent to point out the manifest weakness of a stakes network is just to show that they played no part in causing the French men at arms to avoid the archers. Which in light of your recent (third supposition) picture, of the archers entirely lining the woods, is pointless anyway: since you keep avoiding the "picture" of your battle setup that will convince us how it all works. The stakes are not even necessary if the archers are lining the woods, as the trees should stop any cavalry attack. There would not be mention in the sources that the woods, "and closes and hedges" provided flank cover to the English army, if those obstacles were not considerable enough to prevent an attack or movement through them to get in the English rear. So where do the stakes (now a redundancy) figure into this picture?

To this point you have failed to show how the spikes would materially help the archers slowdown the advance of the French men-at-arms.

Hardly failed. Just can't seem to get through to you, is all. But I haven't quite given up on that, as this response should prove. I invite you, now, to show how men at arms could "weave/lean" through the stakes, set 3 feet apart as your illo shows, and not smack into each other.

Draw a scaled man at arms, or pair of them, to show how much space they take up, then how far they could lean to pass around the points of the stakes, and NOT touch each other, when both of them make for the same "hole" between a given pair of stakes. I already know that there is ZERO room, since they start into the stake network in close order (no wider apart than three feet frontage per man): and I already also know that the front row of stakes prevents the man in front of each stake from entering the network: which means the formation is at least 50% slowed down already by the stakes initially in the way. All those stacked up "20 to 30 ranks" behind are going to impale those men (half of the front rank, anyway) on the stakes unless they find a way through as they arrive: which further means that each "hole" between the front rank of stakes already has two men making for it upon arrival: which exacerbates the problem of who is going to make for the next set of "holes" in the second line of stakes: and even if this were not problem enough, we now have each "hole" between each stake in each subsequent row entered half the time by two men at arms at the same time: and once this mess is sorted out enough to allow each forwardmost man at arms freedom to pass through without hinderance from his fellows, he is now in "open order" and approaching massed, close order archers who are all-the-while shooting at him: any man at arms getting there is facing superior numbers. Your imagined "close order" charge through the stakes "like a knife through butter" is a pure fantasy.

At least you are arguing "slow down", now, and not "keep out." In our rules, stakes give the first round of melee (only) a +50% combat value bonus to defending infantry versus attacking infantry, and if the infantry defending are missile troops, they get one last shot into the attackers before resolving melee. All that the defending of such terrain obstacles does is buy time and provide a modicum of combat advantage: it gives the defenders an edge, that is all.

Hi

Mike, I know about hadrians. That was the point I was making about disagreeing with myself and sources. Roman legionaries were not 5'10" despite the requirment, well until they were recruited in the imperial period from ethnic celts and germans.

Rich, I apologize if you took offense. I don't know what to say here. Your new deployment requres not only facts not in evidence, but circular reasoning and a number of other assumptions that fail, if for no other reason, that "Occam's Razor".

In this case, the old guy's deployment and reasons work because they are simple and don't require either physical or mental gymnastics.

Rocky

"In this case, the old guy's deployment and reasons work because they are simple and don't require either physical or mental gymnastics."

Well said, Rocky!

I could very nearly quote the late lamented Dean Swift. But not quite.

Doug, Rocky, Mark, just a few postings earlier I made the following notice to focus on the positioning of the spikes within the wedge. It would be nice if you actually read my messages. Here is what I wrote just a couple of postings ago.

OK, the rest of the stuff can be set aside for now. I finally got you, and I presume Rocky, talking about the positioning of the stakes.

I said it was critical to understand this and see the weakness of this positioning in order to understand why Henry made the choice he did. Some of you have been complaining that we've gone all over the map with these discussions. This is a chance to get a little clarity on at least one issue: the inability of the stakes, even with archers to provide the English men-at-arms flank protection. We need to see how porous positions with spikes and archers are to advancing foot men-at-arms.

By the way, my position on the changes I suggest were developed long before I entered this discussion. I haven't changed my view at all. You have misread them.

Doug The stakes are not even necessary if the archers are lining the woods, as the trees should stop any cavalry attack.

That's why I proposing the archers being part way out of the woods and partway in the woods. They are nether totally in the woods nor totally out of the woods.

Doug, I invite you, now, to show how men at arms could "weave/lean" through the stakes, set 3 feet apart as your illo shows, and not smack into each other.

Fog god's sake this is not the three stooges. One man-at-arms takes the place vacated by the archer. So he always has three feet in which to fight.

Doug I already also know that the front row of stakes prevents the man in front of each stake from entering the network

I have this image of the man-at-arms in front of the first stake walking into to it and it hitting right between the eyes. Nonsense. Men are adjusting their positions so they bypass the 3" stake. You then have 2 men-at-arms attacking one archer. Then one of the men-at-arms takes the position vacated by the archer. In the mean time, men-at-arms are doing the same to archers in the 2nd rank. A single man-at-arms takes the place of those archer and steps into their vacated position so they are flanking the center man-at-arms. And so on as they march through the wedge. At no time are the men-at-arms more than a 3' frontage from any other man-at-arms. See my illustrations,

link

link

In illustration B the two arrow in a single box means the man-at-arms has a choice of which box to enter next. In all probability the advance of the men-at-arms is a combination of the two approaches. While the men-at-arms are advancing in the center, other men-at-arms in the front rank are attacking the wedge on the flanks. This is how I envision the men-at-arms marching through the wedge killing archers.

Once they have cut their way through the wedges, they are in a position to take the English men-at-arms in the rear. This is what I meant by the "weakness of this battle formation". If the English had presented such a tactical formation, some of the French men-at-arms would have cut their way through the wedges and taken the English from the rear.

Rocky, "In this case, the old guy's deployment and reasons work because they are simple and don't require either physical or mental gymnastic"

But then you have to explain why the French didn't cut their way through the wedges and then take the English in the rear.

Rich

Mark? Who's Mark?

By the way, my position on the changes I suggest were developed long before I entered this discussion. I haven't changed my view at all. You have misread them.

Impossible, Rich. Your "three suppositions" cannot exist together, ergo, you are either developing your "position on the changes", or you are jerking us all around (as has been suggested/opined).

The[ archers] are nether totally in the woods nor totally out of the woods.

Yes, I get it already. Now you are saying this is necessary ALSO to keep the stakes. So we have stakes parallel to the tree line, for the front ranks of longbowmen; the back rankers are just hanging back in the trees.

Fog god's sake this is not the three stooges. One man-at-arms takes the place vacated by the archer. So he always has three feet in which to fight.

(Nice Freudian slip of the fingers, there Rich, "Fog", hehe, cute.)

Ferpetesakes, Rich, this isn't make it up as you go either. Stakes are a drill. We have ZERO evidence that men at arms used them. The one source which mentions stakes as if the entire English army was screened by them is not one of the best sources, nor particularly clearly written or detailed. Here's the reason why this matters: French men at arms, crammed together closer than three feet per man, are not going to wriggle into the stakes network "like a knife through butter", are they? And without drill by companies to decide who moves left or right to weave through the stakes, you will end up with chaos as men at arms bang into each other.

Nonsense. Men are adjusting their positions so they bypass the 3" stake.

They could not adjust position AT ALL because they were compressed due to incoming arrows and the mud and attempting to focus into three columns to attack the English battles. Any desire on their part to actually attack the stake line was rendered virtually impossible by the conditions.

Hypothetically, IF they could have kept straight ahead and attacked through the stakes network, you might have a point: the men directly in front of the gaps would move in, and the men on one side or the other would step in directly behind them, and then you would have weaving/leaning lines of men at arms threading swiftly through the alternating rows of stakes.

This is begging the question of "woulda coulda shoulda." To make baldfaced claims that this is how the French men at arms on foot always behaved when facing stakes, has no supporting evidence. And we have plenty of evidence that they either deliberately didn't hazard the attempt, or the conditions at Agincourt made such a plan impractical, then impossible.

You then have 2 men-at-arms attacking one archer.

You haven't even gotten through the many rows of stakes yet. The archers are still getting their "free shots".

Then one of the men-at-arms takes the position vacated by the archer. In the mean time, men-at-arms are doing the same to archers in the 2nd rank.

Huh?

See my illustrations,

My, goodness. "A" looks exactly like what I was saying: men at arms crashing into each other. In case you are thinking that this illustrates your "two men at arms on one archer": I shouldn't have to remind you that the archers are not THERE: they are lined up behind a line of stakes many rows deep, waiting in close order, shooting at pointblank range.

In illustration B the two arrow in a single box means the man-at-arms has a choice of which box to enter next.

Again, no archers are there: they are waiting and shooting from behind the entire network (behind the base of the triangle/wedge). And you can now clearly see the difficulty for the men at arms, as each little arrow moves toward the open spaces on either side of the stakes: and smack into each other at least half the time.

Once they have cut their way through the wedges, they are in a position to take the English men-at-arms in the rear. This is what I meant by the "weakness of this battle formation".

Except, Rich, the archers facing such an attack are not there: they are NOT standing amidst their own stake network, with each archer having a stake pointed at his back. You AGREED.

Rich Knapton 10 Nov 2008 4:23 p.m. PST
Doug, Expecting the archers to stand each behind his own stake, with a stake pointing at his back, is daft! Especially if the line is being attacked by men at arms: imagine how that would work out, with archers trying to dodge amidst the stakes, with rows of stakes behind them. No way.)

Agreed.

That means that, once driven into the ground, the archers withdrew behind the rows of stakes. And the stakes buy them time for a "free shot" (which in our rules means half a minute to shoot right up to melee contact).

Hi

Consider WHERE. 5000 archers with 5000 stakes. NOT in their backs. This means that your tidy checkerboard interspaced with archers is wrong.

Consider, say 4 rows of stakes, minimum, And the archers behind. Actually, I expect that the MAA were NOT weaving through the stakes, but trying to push them down or cut them down. But it would be more like a thicket than anything.

thus, as the old guys said, would cover the flanks.

Oh, and a further problem. If your archers are half in, and half out of the trees lining the sides, this presents a "stupid" french argument AGAIN. Remember, you have a field where the french march down the sides filling the whole space, but not crushing the line of flanked archers in front of them at each edge. Your "U" would be vulnerable as you insist, but it didn't happen.

I think you are arguing from a proactive inhibition. Having decided in the first place that archers are useless, you have constructed a revision based on a prejudice.

Or as we call it in science, not historiacal, analysis, "observer bias".

R

Here's another very practical way to make the stakes even closer together than 3 feet.

The archers advance. They stop. On command, the first rank turns 180 and plants their stakes, resharpens as needed, and passes swiftly back through the ranks of other archers to the rear, turns 180 and waits, getting bows and arrows ready. While each rank is passing back through, the next rank advances the very short distance to where the stakes are being set, plants their stakes in a slightly offset position, and close enough to barely allow a man to slip through sideways, not in a straight line. By the time the last rank of archers remains, the network would look at least twice as dense with stakes (and half as deep on the ground) as Rich's illustrations (the solid wedge shape would not exist, ever, except on paper).

This entire process with experienced units would take at most half a minute per rank. So if the unit felt that it was in danger of being charged and contacted before it could be completed, they would resort to the first model that I suggested: where the entire unit plants at the same time, 3 feet apart, offset in "checkeboard" fashion.

If the time allowed, then the tighter, more effective network would be set up instead. And, as Rich has so convincingly argued, the French were manifestly unready to move to attack until the English second position was all in place and waiting.

The archer wings to the men at arms would send out companies in a skirmish line to goad the enemy into attacking: that way their need to skedaddle back behind the stakes wouldn't be inhibited by too many ranks.

First the correction. The quote about arrows ricocheting back on the bowmen is by the chronicler Geoffrey le Baker. His account can be found in Barber's Life and Campaigns of the Black Prince Here is the quote,

"For the cavalry, designed to ride down the archers and protect their companions from them, stood besides the other French troops and offered the archers as a target only the forequarters, which were well protected by steel plates and leather shields, so that the arrows aimed at them either shattered, of glanced off heavenwards, falling on friend and foe alike."

I'm assuming that since the archers were directly in front of the French barded knights they were firing at a 90 degree to their front. Some of those arrows would be falling on them.

OK, back to our scheduled broadcast:

So the archers placed their stakes then withdraw behind them. Why didn't you say so? I thought the archers made a small step to the right or left so there would be no stake to their immediate rear. Actually, I like that idea. It would explain why the archers could be a bit further out of the tree line. The advancing French were reluctant to attack the archers on their flanks because they would have to change direction and negotiate the stakes in order to get to the archers. In the mean time the archers could simply pull back into the forest to their rear. So the French simply slogged on to attack the English men-at-arms Ya, I like that idea. Thanks.

However, as an explanation for protecting the flanks of the men-at-arms it sucks. The French drop their lances, grab their axes, maces, and swords and simply smash their way through 3" stakes set 3' apart. The archers, you say, now have "free shots"? What are they going to shot at? The stakes are waist high so the French have to glance down in order to smash them. This means no eye slits to fire at. If the wedges were in advance of the English men-at-arms then the last rank of stakes is in line with the front rank of men-at-arms. So as the French erupt from the stake emplacements they are faced with unarmored archers packed into the space between the battles. They need to now stop the French. If they don't, and are driven back, the flanks of the battles become uncovered.

What have the stakes accomplished? Nothing! You want to slow down the French men-at-arms? They've been slogging through the mud to get at the English. How much more "slowed down" do you need. The idea of firing through the eye slits is a joke. This whole tactical position versus an attack on foot is stupid.

This is what I've been saying all along. If the archers are placed, in the second position, between the battles, they will end up having to fight hand-to-hand with the French. The French will simply drive them back uncovering the flanks and rear of the English battles. If you like the old guys explanation, then you better go back and read their arguments because your arguments suck.

Rich

Hi

So, rich, now you have the MAA filling the gap between the trees, then somehow doing WHAT?

If the stakes are there as a barrier and the french ignore them, then they must contract?

"Free shots, now you are saying they are arrow proof at close range? Oh, right, I remember you saying that several "longbow" discussions before.

I am sure that SOME arrows are deflectd and some deflected up and maybe back. But such spent arrows aren't dangerous.

So, your ultimate premise is that arrows are useless against the MAA, therefore they ignore the brits after the brits have driven off the mounted?

Now your, what?, 5th model. Still doesn't work.

Bodkins can penetrate the armor, giving an archer several free shots at your upper torso while you push aside, down, hack stakes which can only result in letting your buddies kill brits or capture and ransom…Na.

Still doesn't work.

R

The French drop their lances, grab their axes, maces, and swords and simply smash their way through 3" stakes set 3' apart.

Yes, taking the time to do so.

The archers, you say, now have "free shots"? What are they going to shot at? The stakes are waist high so the French have to glance down in order to smash them. This means no eye slits to fire at.

It is taken as a given, that the men at arms are ALWAYS ducking their heads, stealing an upward glance only as extreme need requires! Your point misfires entirely: because visors are only one potentially weak area. Every joint and join in the pieces of armor is THIN, and there are always exposed areas. I emphasize the visor shots simply because the Gesta and W&L do so, and I am sure that getting hit anywhere on the head is by far and away the most disconcerting blow to receive from a missile. (As an archer, I would be aiming for the face/head at such a range myself: knowing that if I miss my "mark" the shot still has another 20 to 30 ranks behind!)

If the wedges were in advance of the English men-at-arms then the last rank of stakes is in line with the front rank of men-at-arms. So as the French erupt from the stake emplacements they are faced with unarmored archers packed into the space between the battles. They need to now stop the French. If they don't, and are driven back, the flanks of the battles become uncovered.

"Unarmored", and with jacks and some mail, and lots and lots of veterans there.

Your scenario seems to maintain that just as soon as the men at arms reach the archers the latter will flee. The sources don't portray yeomen like that; the words of Roger Ascham (which I quoted twice back there) also tell us of their reputation in England. There would be a melee.

If the shooting was as ineffective as you evidently believe, then sure, the men at arms would arrive within hand strokes in good shape, in close order (after beating down all the stakes in front of them), and the archers would lose.

I believe I have never varied from the point being made: that archers' shooting was anything but ineffective: its tole taken on the men at arms was severe, both wounding and disruption/disorientation and exhaustion (diminished will to fight).

You have the arrows doing nothing worth mentioning.

This whole tactical position versus an attack on foot is stupid.

Your picture of it certainly is. I won't argue that. You have arrows doing nothing. You have men at arms smashing down stakes (in any density, it doesn't matter) and "passing through them like a knife through butter". You have archers running away. So yes, indeed, the French were absolutely stupid to not attack the archers in the first place.

So the archers placed their stakes then withdraw behind them. Why didn't you say so?

I (we) did from the first time this aspect came up. But you didn't get that picture: mainly because of operating from a strong preconception, and our less than admirable communication methods :)

I thought the archers made a small step to the right or left so there would be no stake to their immediate rear.

Whoa! there isn't any place in the stakes network where there isn't a stake that would be in an archer's rear. Standing directly in front of the stake he drove in himself, would put two stakes a few feet behind to his left and right: a step to the left or right, a mere one and a half feet, would then uncover himself and he would have a stake jabbing him in the back. The nearest stake at his back, if he stood behind his own stake, would be two ranks behind himself: still dangerous if he had to back up in a melee.

How can it be visualized as an effective defense if the stakes are in the midst of the archers? Each archer is protected by only ONE stake, instead of the entire unit being protected by the total depth of the stake network.

Actually, I like that idea. It would explain why the archers could be a bit further out of the tree line.

I don't see it from your description that follows.

The advancing French were reluctant to attack the archers on their flanks because they would have to change direction and negotiate the stakes in order to get to the archers. In the mean time the archers could simply pull back into the forest to their rear. So the French simply slogged on to attack the English men-at-arms Ya, I like that idea. Thanks.

Impossible. You need to try and illustrate this. It won't work. How does the French vanguard, lined up facing perpendicular to the woods, have stakes pointing at them? As the vanguard (of your imagined battlefield) fills the space between the trees, it also touches the stakes set along the tree line in the open, and simply kicks them over as they advance: the stakes are pointing toward the open field, and the extreme ends of the vanguard would encounter them laterally, not head-on.

This is what I've been saying all along. If the archers are placed, in the second position, between the battles, they will end up having to fight hand-to-hand with the French.

And should do alright, if Crecy, Poitiers and Auray are any precedent.

The French will simply drive them back uncovering the flanks and rear of the English battles.

Except in those earlier battles, the archers actually did the attacking.

If you like the old guys explanation, then you better go back and read their arguments because your arguments suck.

Really, now, Richie Rich. You are being rude again. Attacking "the messenger" instead of the message. In one post, "stupid" and "your arguments suck."

You've had my arguments clearly given: archery was effective, and combined with mud and the stakes, there was no feasible way to attack them at Agincourt: and (or) the vanguard was obeying the original plan to attack only the men at arms.

This most unsupported "picture" of yours, that all the archers were along and in the woods (ergo, "not there to be attacked") is further away than ever from showing even a modicum of demonstration.

I ask you again, to resort to the old guy's method of drawing up a battle map. Please show how the stakes inhibit the cavalry, first, then the vanguard passes by without the archers being reachable, and yet can shoot into the vanguard without the trees being in the way.

Curry, p. 401: "…Burne was right in seeing the significance of the archers as more than a role as artillery to soften the French attack before it could reach the English lines. He sensibly stressed 'that glittering initiative', which led them to drop their bows and enter the melee, to kill with knives, daggers, and even stakes. This was what for him carried the day for the English."

That's a good passage, indicating the effectiveness of archers as melee combat troops.

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

Here's your additional challenge, Rich, in composing a battle map: show how the archers, along the woods, can emerge and attack the French vanguard without immediately also coming into contact with the mainguard: a clearly sequential occurance according to the sources, where the van was penetrated, entered into and THEN the mainguard was subsequently attacked, only after the van was virtually defeated. If the archers are lining the woods, their frontage would extend down toward the French camp and envelope the main and even reach to the rearguard. Emerging from the woods would cause the archers to take both van and main in flank and rear at the same time.

Doug, Really, now, Richie Rich. You are being rude again. Attacking "the messenger" instead of the message. In one post, "stupid" and "your arguments suck."

Au contraire, mon ami. I find all of you bonhomie et sans reproche. But it's not my fault your arguments suck.

Doug, You've had my arguments clearly given: archery was effective, and combined with mud and the stakes, there was no feasible way to attack them at Agincourt: and (or) the vanguard was obeying the original plan to attack only the men at arms.

I quite understand your position. I love how you cherry pick. You have the archers attacking at Auray. You conveniently left out the part where the archers had to join the fray because their archery fire was ineffective.

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

Then there is this one,

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

But, this is my favorite.

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

Here they march right up to the archers and bitch kicked them all the way back to the channel. [a bit of poetic license]

But you think the mud and the stakes made the difference at Agincourt. Well the mud and bowfire didn't stop the French from slogging up to the English men-at-arms and driving them back eight to ten feet [a spear length] As des Ursins commented, "The French were scarcely harmed by the arrow fire of the English because they were well armed."

But you think the three inch stakes placed three feet apart and sticking up three and a half feet [waist high] are finely going to make the archers effective? Any advantage [and that's debatable] will be offset by the additional adrenalin pumping through the archers' bodies affecting their muscle control as the men-at-arms get closer. Like in my third example, there is no reason to expect the archers at Agincourt to be able to stop the French men-at-arms from marching up to them and breaking their array then taking the English men-at-arms in the flanks and rear.

You know the definition of crazy? It's trying something that has failed every time but expecting a different outcome the next time it is tried. This is the case with your fantasy about archer wedges. The idea is crazy. However, you my friend remain sans repoche.

So, there you have it, the archers would have been no more effective at stopping French men-at-arms in this theoretical tactical position of wedges than they were in the other battles mentioned above. You see, it's not what you can do in your backyard with a bow and arrow that counts. It is what the record says happened that counts. Since there is no way the archers could survive if placed on the battle line, my suggestions is the only plausible suggestion.

Rich

I quite understand your position. I love how you cherry pick. You have the archers attacking at Auray. You conveniently left out the part where the archers had to join the fray because their archery fire was ineffective.

Around again.

I left out nothing. I simply didn't repeat the WHOLE THING AGAIN. Auray and Agincourt: the archers shoot up the dismounted French men at arms, then go out and take weapons away from them and kill them where they stand. The archers don't wait, because they will lose the opportune moment to attack a disordered, wounded, exhausted foe.

"Ineffective", how, exactly?

Here they march right up to the archers and bitch kicked them all the way back to the channel. [a bit of poetic license]

Sure, English armies lost sometimes. Again (and yet again), you quote how the French did the assault, but you do not SHOW anything about the English position. Staked, fortified, defending a natural obstacle, or out in the open? No way to tell from your quotes, (again and yet again). That is important to drawing comparisons to Agincourt. But rather than accuse you of "cherry picking" sources, I will ascribe it to preconceived expectations.

As des Ursins commented, "The French were scarcely harmed by the arrow fire of the English because they were well armed."

Don't start going for the much less credible sources, please: others in the same category claim that ALL the arrows killed, or that fifty and sixty died at a time here and there. Hardly reconcilible, are they? The eyewitnesses are our primary sources for determining the effects of archery, and they agree that the arrows were effective.

Any advantage [and that's debatable] will be offset by the additional adrenalin pumping through the archers' bodies affecting their muscle control as the men-at-arms get closer.

So archers always sucked at hand to hand combat because of the adrenalin rush? No? Then why would experienced archers have any trouble directing their arrows swiftly into a target that they know they will have to melee with if it does get that close? By your logic, all missile weapons are ineffective in combat because the "fine motor muscle control" is screwed by the adrenalin. That's what training and experience are for.

You know the definition of crazy? It's trying something that has failed every time but expecting a different outcome the next time it is tried. This is the case with your fantasy about archer wedges. The idea is crazy. However, you my friend remain sans repoche.

"Failed every time"?? What are you on about now? The English WON their field battles the great majority of the time using the "same old way." Care to show examples that disprove that?

I don't have a fantasy about "wedgies": the archers' actual formation is the lesser point, the arguable one. The fact that they get side-on shots is verified in the sources, so the archers are definitely angled forward (ahead of their men at arms). If where the ends of these angled lines touched produced an apex that writers referred to as a "cuneos", and moderns call it a "wedge", that is just a case of terms of description.

Since there is no way the archers could survive if placed on the battle line, my suggestions is the only plausible suggestion.

Your suggestions are sooo implausible in sooo many ways (I will not count them, again): and you have addressed NOT ONE of the objections raised.

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

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

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

Interesting how in each one of these quotes, the reason given for the ineffectiveness of archery is because the targets had pavises. Is there any evidence for the French at Agincourt having pavises? (I assume you know what a pavise is?)

Waurin and LeFevre mention that SOME men at arms had pavises, which is taken to mean shields. By 1415, the great majority of men at arms no longer carried shields.

Perhaps Agincourt is an example of how the longbow caught targets at their most vulnerable moment in the evolution of plate armor. The newer steel had not as yet become commonplace. By mid century cap-a-pie plate of the better steel did not need a shield to resist arrows more effectively. But I am surmising that in 1415 shields, which had largely been discarded to allow two-handed weapon use, would have still been a very good idea.

Hi

Mike, i was going to jump on the pavice mention as well. A pavice is usually described as a larger shield, and often, at the time, had a spike in the bottom so that it could be planted.

from my backyard experiences, a pavice is more effective than plate. Simply, the arrow passing through the wood, say a bodkin, produces a lot of drag on the shaft that radically slows the arrow down. Essentially, a "spent" arrow by the time it hits your armor. A thinner shield carried on the arm is less effective, and, unlike a pavice, cannot be hidden behind.

but I could not chime in as I was out flying airplanes yesterday. Something I WAY prefer to medieval combat.

I think we have come round to first prinicples….Wargamer perceptions. Rich often falls into the extreme idea. No arrow is ever dangerous…..to argue agains the "longbow porn" gamers. So, in one part of his mind, I think he misses the concept that Doug and I as archers don't automatically fall into the "magic longobow" group. It is a very real difference to say that at range, the archer is only getting .9% effective hits verus "magic longbow, one shot one kill like Carlos".

I don't know the details about Auruy, but, again, I expect that there were three differences here. No pavice, no reloads being the two obvious ones from Rich's posts.

Rocky

Doug, The archers don't wait, because they will lose the opportune moment to attack a disordered, wounded, exhausted foe.

Wrong! They joined the frey because their archery fire was ineffective, i.e., it couldn't hurt the French!

Doug, Again (and yet again), you quote how the French did the assault, but you do not SHOW anything about the English position.

How would defensive positions increase the fire-power of archers?

Doug, The eyewitnesses are our primary sources for determining the effects of archery, and they agree that the arrows were effective.

Oh really? Did they stop the French advance? Tell me what did they do other than bunch up the French?

Doug, So archers always sucked at hand to hand combat because of the adrenalin rush?

No, in your fantasy you placed them on the line of battle so they had to stay and fight hand-to-hand or uncover the flanks of the battles.

Doug, "Failed every time"?

Yep. I know of no account where the archers stopped a determined attack.

Doug, The fact that they get side-on shots is verified in the sources, so the archers are definitely angled forward (ahead of their men at arms)

We know there was archers from their flanks. The sources said so. They advanced 150 yards under this flanking fire, from the archers lining the woods.

Mike, Interesting how in each one of these quotes, the reason given for the ineffectiveness of archery is because the targets had pavises

Oh right. The French thought that the pavices gave them an unfair advantage and so they threw them away. Come on get real. I think you need to read the quotes again and get them right.

"their shotte dyde lytell hurt to the Frenchemen, they were so well armed and pavysshed"

"but the Frenchmen were so well armed, and so strongely pavyssed, that they toke but lytell hurt."

And then we have des Ursins: "The French were scarcely harmed by the arrow fire of the English because they were well armed."

Rocky, I think we have come round to first principles

I agree, historical sources versus shooting bows and arrows in your back yard. I couldn't have said it better myself. Wait, I did say it.

Here is what you have failed to do.

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

2.) You have failed to show that had they been there they would have stopped the French attack at these wedges. You guys placed them on the battle line. If they leave that position the flanks of the battles become uncovered and the English are crushed.

3.) You have failed to show that the archery fire did material damage to the French vanguard (other than making them bunch up and hinder they ability to fight). After being under all that flanking fire the French were still able to drive the English battles back at least a spear length and almost broke their array.

4.) Finally you have failed to show that your modern experience with bows and arrows is directly applicable to the 15th century. Have you had enough?

Rich

"Oh right. The French thought that the pavices gave them an unfair advantage and so they threw them away. Come on get real. I think you need to read the quotes again and get them right."

They were your quotes not mine. In particular, your third quote:
"Than the Frenche fotemen came into the felde, a ix. C. of them, who had pavesses, and therby they brake the array of the archers, for their shot coud nat hurt them, they were so sure pavesses."

doesn't mention being "well armed" at all. I like the way you cherry pick your own quotes to make your point.

And you haven't answered my question. What evidence is there for the French at Agincourt having pavises? By the way the word is "pavises", not "pavices".

"You have failed to show from historical sources … "

Equally you also have failed to show from historical sources that your wild ideas about archers in the trees are anything more than flights of fancy.

Wrong! They joined the frey because their archery fire was ineffective, i.e., it couldn't hurt the French!

Agincourt: the source says "Our men" snatched axes from the French and struck them down with them. As the English men at arms have plenty of hand combat weapons of the best sort, "our men" obviously refers mainly to the archers, as they are described using whatever weapons they had on hand or could pick up. How could they do this if they are "weak" in hand to hand combat? And at Auray earlier, the archers did the same thing. Sounds like a similar effect due to the arrow storm. If the French are weakened enough to let many of the archers disarm them, then they were at least weaker than the archers! And how did that happen?

How would defensive positions increase the fire-power of archers?

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

I think you KNOW that that is not what I meant. The combo of shooting the attacking men at arms up, then defeating them in the melee, is dependent on everything being set up so that such a series of shocks works. ERGO! the battleline of the English matters a lot. At Verneuil, not long after Agincourt, the archers get ridden right through by the French (Lombard) cavalry, precisely because they had no stakes out. In a fight against a dismounted foe it would matter less initially, because being slow and on foot they would get shot about more thoroughly; but then as we agree, stakes are mainly for holding off cavalry: nevertheless, stakes would allow maximum time to shoot up the dismounted men at arms, then afford some initial combat edge upon physical contact with the men at arms. So the ground and how it benefits the archers is very important to know in comparing results from different battles.

Doug, The eyewitnesses are our primary sources for determining the effects of archery, and they agree that the arrows were effective.

Oh really? Did they stop the French advance? Tell me what did they do other than bunch up the French?

Frightened, disoriented, wounded and killed them. Only someone not believing what he reads in the documents would not see this clearly.

No, in your fantasy you placed them on the line of battle so they had to stay and fight hand-to-hand or uncover the flanks of the battles.

You're the only drunk in a room full of sober people, Rich. If you plan on tipping the apple cart, you need more than assertions, suppositions, contradictions and imaginitive fancy for your ideas.

I know of no account where the archers stopped a determined attack.

That's not what you argued: you said "wedges" are crazy and they failed everytime. Of course, based on your continued assertions that the archers "were not there to be attacked", in context of that, I know that you are saying something utterly wrong here. Or do you have other theories (completely at odds with the chronicles) that claim the archers were not drawn up where they could have been attacked at Poitiers and Crecy?

We know there was archers from their flanks. The sources said so. They advanced 150 yards under this flanking fire, from the archers lining the woods.

If you restrict the archers to only extending out from their men at arms 150 yards into the woods, you have just stacked three-fourths of the archers on the battlefield behind one-fourth: that's considerably more useless yeomen than your "20 deep", where 10 ranks shoot till tired, then are replaced by the back 10 ranks. You don't think any of these things out before you post them!

And then we have des Ursins: "The French were scarcely harmed by the arrow fire of the English because they were well armed."

Cherry picking from the less reliable sources, still; Richie won't quote the "every arrow shot killed" and "here died fifty and here sixty". It's all BS of course, and so is the DesUrsins' observation that the French weren't hurt at all by the arrows.

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

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

2.) You have failed to show that had they been there they would have stopped the French attack at these wedges. You guys placed them on the battle line. If they leave that position the flanks of the battles become uncovered and the English are crushed.

Obviously. But the archers didn't leave the battleline; nor did they at Auray, Poitiers and Crecy, and numerous other battles. They shot, then they fought and the French died. The fact that the French didn't press an attack on the archers at Agincourt just points to the singularly nasty combination of bad circumstances against the French: in earlier battles they did attack, at Agincourt they didn't: and the reason they didn't is NOT because the archers "were not there".

3.) You have failed to show that the archery fire did material damage to the French vanguard (other than making them bunch up and hinder they ability to fight).

That's quite a lot by itself. If the arrows were not doing anything to the men at arms other than bouncing off, there is no reason why they would bunch up in the first place.

After being under all that flanking fire the French were still able to drive the English battles back at least a spear length and almost broke their array.

Really, almost broke their array? That's putting it extremely, imho. And where do you get that from? The only eyewitness who said anything about the effect on the English men at arms was our cleric (who you insist didn't know what he was looking at). What he does say is that the falling bodies stopped the French and the back pressure caused them to not be able to fight, but rather get pushed into the weapons of the English and knocked down, dead and living in a "wall" together. But of course, "our cleric" didn't really see any of that (says you): he just knew that when the English line got driven back he was imagining that they were in greater danger than they really were, and so dicided to pray for deliverance right then.

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

4.) Finally you have failed to show that your modern experience with bows and arrows is directly applicable to the 15th century. Have you had enough?

Not me. Until you get some bow shooting experience, I would recommend that you stop making our modern experience out as something that has no bearing on corroborating medieval statements about archery effects. And you would then also never again make such fallacious claims about how massed archers could shoot out of woods, etc….

Hi

In the "Celebrated Ride from Ghent to Aix", the verse describes an extreme long range ride, indicating how the horses tire and how heroic the whole thing was.

In more recent times, various horsemen have replicated the ride. The horses were, of course, not hundreds of years old and neither was the horse tackle.

Similarly, the "marathon" was only done with modern runners, not 2500 year old greeks.

Shooting modern replicas is a method for testing the plausabilty of some of the stories. In some case, from the "yeoman superman/bow porn school" you have people promoting stories that cannont really be replicated. My favorite was one in Featherstone describing cutting standing rigging on a ship down with a broadhead.

the "Robin Hood" splitting an arrow has been replicated endlessly. Difficult, unusal, but replicated.

Thus, it is a method of testing the two extremes. The "magic yeoman" stuff fails when you try it. And the "invulnerable armor" fails when you try it. Both extremes are wrong.

And here is the deal, Rich, you have yet to demonstrate how an arrow just like the origianals would KNOW the bow loosing it wasn't made in 1415. Energy is energy.

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

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

The concept of "combined arms" is in place here. It is analogous to say that modern armies don't need artillery as the enemy will still get in rifle range anyway. And no point in haveing rifles as 'nam proved they will get to baynet range.

The old guys liked their 3 wedges because it did produce the observed combined arms effect. Placing light troops in the line in such a way as to encourage the french to converge rather than trying to push their way through a wall of stakes while taking point blank fire.

And you have two "stupids" with your view. ONe the Brits were stupid to have all those useless light troops, and two the french were stupid for not wiping them out, and the french were stupid for staking up as they did when they only needed to outfight a thin like of brit men at arms instead of flanking them. And then you have "super brits", not as the doughty yeoman, but as the men at arms who in their invulnerable armor cannot defeat the brits with a 5:1 advantage.

Rocky

Got an archery question. Roughly speaking penetration is mass X velocity. Assuming velocity is not instantaneous, how far must a #8 bodkin fly before reaching optimum velocity (assuming a 50-70 lb. longbow)?

Rich

Even I can answer that one: the velocity builds as the bow limbs leap forward upon release and return to rest; the instant the nock leaves the string the arrow has 100% of the energy it is ever going to get.

Thanks, Doug.

So you are saying that the longbow has approximately the same penetrating power at 10 yards that it does at say 100 yards with some falloff but not a lot.

Rich

Yes. Negligible loss of power. Actually, when shot without elevating past c. 43 degrees, the arrow velocity does not drop significantly throughout the flight path. An arrow is very clean: it loses a little to gravity going up, picks up a little due to gravity coming back down: the main loss is drag. The weight of the arrow determines maximum range.