"Agincourt - crossbows" Topic

"look at manuscripts for the draw."

Can you be more precise? Which particular manuscripts?

Look on myarmory swordforum hama or wikipedia and suchlike

e.g.

Monstrelets numbers, not mine for the French van.

Froissart says archers sometimes go before men-at-arms.

Curry is in discussion here with others
link
She is also quite reserved in giving a size for the English army at the battle here.

We need a source,preferably as contemporary as possible which indicates archers could and did shoot indirectly, not a hypothetical line of battle. We cannot know the line of battle but we can give those present the credit for deploying their men as effectively as possible.
Boucicault's battle-plan was sensible and he was highly rated. Erpingham was highly rated by the French and Henry was a warrior, not an armchair general.

We have sources that say archers must and did shoot at targets they could see but nothing for indirect shooting

Without some relevant objective source we can argue anything -Mormonism,for example- and avoid being gainsaid.

We need a source,preferably as contemporary as possible which indicates archers could and did shoot indirectly, not a hypothetical line of battle.

The metaphorical use of "hail" and "storm" to describe how the arrows fell on the French might indicate something other than direct, aimed shooting.

Going by the best eyewitness sources, any way you stack the English, a bunch of archers are deeper than three ranks. They cannot see.

Curry is anything but reserved in her book (page 187)

"For the English army we have much firmer evidence of size. As we saw, the army had been reduced by 2,568 men as a result of the siege [of Harfleur]. Not all of the losses can be differentiated between men-at-arms and archers, but if we simply divide the number equally we can suggest that there were at least 1,593 men-at-arms and 7,139 archers at the battle, a total of 8,732 men. This is a minimum figure, taking the army size at its lowest possible at departure. If the higher Cheshire figures are used, then the relevant figures are 1,643 men-at-arms and 7,632 archers, a total of 9,275 men."

This army will not fit into 700 to 1,000 yards, as its battle formation is described by the eyewitnesses, without being a lot deeper than three ranks of archers (we already know the men-at-arms were four ranks deep).

I don't think that you are going to get any more specific evidence than this. Written references specifically describing training at indirect volley shooting do not exist as far as I know. Actual training "manuals" or specific written details of how archers trained en masse are virtually non existent. But to assume, as you apparently are, that target shooting means that is how ALL the archers, in a large army like the one at Agincourt, shot as if at a mark, is denying the reality of the physical limitations on sight. If an archer could not see to the target, did he then not shoot?

All scholarship that I am familiar with recognizes that longbows were shot like artillery, e.g. Keegan says:

"To translate their purpose into modern artillery language, they had to achieve a very narrow 100° zone (i.e. that belt of territory into which all missles fell) and a Time on Target effect (i.e. all their missile had to arrive simultaneously)."

This is not describing individual archers all shooting as fast as they could and aiming as if at the butts.

Do you have ANY other propotents of what you are asserting here? You seem to be completely solitary. I haven't heard anyone else, until you on this thread, denying that massed archery was achieved by volley shooting deeper than the back ranks could effectively see the target….

Hi

Actually, re re looking at the last page, I suspect we are in basic agreement, but quibbling over nothing.

In any case, everything has been stated and restated in the previous long bow, agincourt, Henry versus Wellington and other threads.

or an illustration of "heat not light"

Rocky

I think later scholarship does not always take into account original sources. Preferring French over English or v.v..You have shot more arrows than John Keegan, Doug.

How about evidence from an individual of the days when the longbow was still a battle-winner. A man who knew others who tookpart in battles where longbows were decisive. he was an advocate of the longbow over emergent firearms.

If such a source does not include in his case an account of the special capabilities of archery for indirect artillery-style shooting when he is seeking to make every point in their favour then what is left to think but that it did not occur.

Sir Iohn Smythe wrote a pamphlet in 1590: concerning the formes and effects of diuers sorts of weapons, and other verie important matters militarie, greatlie mistaken by diuers of our men of warre in these daies; and chiefly, of the mosquet, the caliuer and the long-bow; as also, of the great sufficiencie, excellencie, and wonderful effects of archers: with many notable examples and other particularities, by him presented to the nobilitie of this realme, & published for the benefite of this his natiue countrie of England

In it he goes through the tactical use of longbowmen and the weapons character against firearms.

A key passage in discussing the deployment of archers:(42)

The ancient order of reducing archers into form by our most skilful and warlike ancestors was to hearses, that is broad in front and narrow in flank. As were there 25,30,35 archers in front the flanks would consist of 7 or 8 ranks at the most. And the reason was this, that if they had placed a great deal more than 7 or 8 ranks the hinder ranks would have lost a great dealof ground in the volleys of their arrows at the enemies, concerning the convenient and proportional distances between rank and rank and rank and those before them. As also the sight of the hinder ranks would be taken away , by so many former ranks, from directing their vollies at the faces of their enemies.'

This is in addition to the sources we have on how archers trained and accounts of them shooting.

There was no special tactic devised and trained-for just to be used at Agincourt then dropped thereafter.

Just because you can calculate that the English could have formed a queue at Agincourt does not mean either they did or that they fought in a queue.

There simply is no evidence that archers shot without seeing a target.

It is also incorrect to say longbowmen shot 'time-on target'. Ludicrously anachronistic. Their shooting is described as falling like hail or snow. Now,outside a very bad amateur theatre production where the technician throws a whole bucket of snowflakes over the cast at one go, snow and hail in Denmark falls strongly and evenly with occasional flurries I presume it does so elsewhere .the description refers to a constant heavy falling of arrows not synchronous blasts of artillery.

Whether I am alone or not is immaterial if I think an idea is incorrect and I have evidence it is incorrect then I will stick at it.take David Nichols in his book warfare in Europe
- Source Book or soemthing similar. He states that foot archers and horse archers sent their arrowsinto pre-determined killing zones, unaimed. Think about the idea for more than a second and it is silly.Who determines the killing zone, and how. How does he communicate it to the rest of the army – drop marker flares ? And what happens if the enemy go a bit left and dont enter the predetermined killing zone…….. It's Pythonesque.

Now you can follow Nichols or think for yourself. i know what i do.

The weapons used at Agincourt dictated the way the battle was fought. The situation on the battlefield did not create a new tactic.

"e.g. media.photobucket.com/image/longbowmen/Nephtys/Medieval%20European%20Armour/Longbowmen_02_Colour.jpg

Ah, yes, the picture of the battle of Agincourt from the St Alban's Chronicle.

Neither of the bowmen on the left of the picture has their front foot pointed at the target as you suggest. Indeed one of them appears to be standing with his legs crossed!

Beware of reading too much into a picture such as this. This is stylised artwork painted before artists had a real understanding of perspective.

After all, if you take such details as the archers' posture as correct, then we must believe also that the English men-at-arms fought on horseback!!

Your disagreement with popular scholarship is interesting. I admire anyone who chooses to think for himself over slavish following of popular, even consensual, thinking.

However, you have to convince others if your ideas are going to go anywhere.

Sir John Smythe sounds like he knows his subject! But I notice that he does say 7 or 8 ranks deep. He doesn't say shooting even deeper can't be done, only that the archers deeper than that couldn't see: there is a natural reduction in accuracy. So what's the problem here?

In our games with HYW English, I have seen doubled up ranks (16 deep) used maybe two or three times. Usually, the frontage is wide enough and the English army small enough that they have to fill out the whole frontage in standard depth, not doubled up. I have thought of this before this thread, many times, over the years: and if I were to do a modification of the doubled ranks rule, it would be that the target must also be in doubled ranks or more, otherwise the extra depth of archers shoots and hits nothing (following Smythe's observation that proportional depth is required, "rank and rank and rank" in order for the archers to not "lose ground", i.e. lose the killing zone).

Now you can follow Nichols or think for yourself. i know what i do.

So Keegan is ludicrously anachronistic, and Nichols is Pythonesque! I admire your confidence (let's hope it isn't mere hubris).

Keegan did say that he was using a modern term to analogously show what the English were doing.

And Nichols seems to be describing something that Rocky (ergo, I) understand well: that we have already described here and on other threads: that is that the front ranks (where the best archers are) determine the zone to target, and raise their weapons and call the volley out: the rest of the unit behind doesn't need to see the target, only copy the angle and trajectory. It is the men who have a completely unrestricted view to the target who determine and "pre-determine" a killing zone.

The weapons used at Agincourt dictated the way the battle was fought. The situation on the battlefield did not create a new tactic.

I never said (quite the contrary) that Agincourt was a battlefield displaying new or unique tactics.

Defining volley: okay, so a continuous "deluge" could answer the descriptions. But so too could a single "loose!", sending hundreds of missiles more like a dense cloud every few seconds. I wonder why, and when, the scholars got the notion that the latter method is what was going on?

Hi

Another way to "read" smythe is that he is saying that the deapth of 16 hinders the effect by range.

And he might be saying only the problem is call of shot, not stating each archer sees and aims individually.

even today, standing in a crowd, even being 6' tall, I often have to jump up to see what is blocking us in the hall way…and often cannot.

I think, rather, that the bit you list, PV supports our point rather than your "skirmish drawn large" suggestion.

Rocky

Rocky, skirmish ? where did that come from ?

Smythe says deeper ranks lose range and cannot see,therefore they are worthless.

Doug, do you know what a killing zone is ? Nichols obviously doesnt. getting a target into effective range is not a killing zone. getting a target into a crossfire is.

'losing ground' means reduced range – simple.

convenient and proportional distances between rank and rank means good and equal spacing within the formation of the archers.The target'sformation is not mentioned.

How would horse archers tell each other where and when to shoot ? because if Nichols model doesnt work for horse archers then his model doesnt work. but then he churns out lots of books so he must be right.

perhaps popular scholars spend too-long inside to see what the weather does ? OR they watched Olivier's film when they were young. Probably both.

a big problem with calling out ranges ( a cncepti have not ever read about in an ancient or medieval source. ),if you want to have that set up, is how it is done:
a) the callers are looking in the wrong direction to advise their file
b) they must wait to see the fall of shot, so firing rate is reduced
c) how do they communicate where they are shooting to inumerate colleagues ( right lads, a tug of a goats ear to left and down a bit with the next arrow)
[ I thinkthis is partly because you do not understand that instinctive shooting is not explainable to another person]
d) the rear men, as rocky says, cannot see all
e) the view the rear men have of the front mens bows is acute and so very difficult to mimic
f) all bows and arrows and men shooting are different
g) once the range has fallen to about 120 yards half the men or more cannot shoot for fear of hitting the front ranks in the back of the head. this gets worse as the enemy get near.
The paradox with this technique is that as the shot becomes more accurate and more lethal with reduced range so can fewer men shoot. Can that be good tactics ?
there is the second paradox which you stated, Doug, which is that aiming is detrimental, apparently to the success of the tactic. Two paradoxes, sounds like carelessness.

Given these problems, it seems to me that simply getting your expert archers where they can see the rabbit and letting them get on with it is both better and more likely, and we have evidence forit.

Doug, do you know what a killing zone is ?

You still have a killing zone without a crossfire: it's where the missiles fall.

Reduced range isn't a problem, because as Smythe says, the flanks are shallow: even a double-depth formation isn't too deep to have an effective long range: the ranks of archers weren't standing any further apart than necessary to clear each other's weapons in front.

The target'sformation is not mentioned.

I see the archers' formation as determined by the implied anticipation of the enemy formational depth.

How would horse archers tell each other where and when to shoot ?

I think that in the case of horsearchers we are dealing with formations where the archers themselves are spaced in open order even though their horses are as close together as they can manage and still maneuver: so the archers can literally see the target at all times. Volley shooting would not be used: but instead, the continuous dropping shots, directly aimed, that you have proposed for foot archers.

perhaps popular scholars spend too-long inside to see what the weather does ? OR they watched Olivier's film when they were young. Probably both.

Your disdain is showing, and I don't think that it is justified. Here's what I think: scholars have ready access to far more original sources and earlier studies than you or I do. And to assume that they get their information from thinking too much indoors watching Olivier's Shakespeare movies is ludicrous.

a big problem with calling out ranges…

Rocky's territory here. I get all my information on the technicalities from his study of the early source material. I don't know if he will dredge up this stuff from literally decades ago, but I tend to doubt it. He says "Daughter State of the Byzantine Empire" is one book which addresses some of these screened and deep shooting tactics/drill. I remember that much off-hand.

The apparent difficulty of enemy targets getting inside 100 yards (within pointblank range) is not a problem: because the rear ranks would still lob higher trajectories to drop missiles from an almost vertical angle, while the front ranks which can actually directly aim shoot as quickly as they can: i.e. they cease volley fire inside pointblank range: the darget, as at Agincourt, would be getting hit from above and in front at the same time.

Aiming is the most effective shooting; but at longer ranges, and in large masses, increasing the number of missiles increases the number of hits, though they be mere chance….

I only use contemporary sources Doug. I dont take a book like Curry's or anyone else's over the original sources. But some reference of some kind is needed to support an assertion. Even Curry is open to criticism but we are not discussing that here.

I see reenactment as having value sometimes and othertimes not.But dont underestimate the weight of popular writers warping popular conceptions. I have heard Bernard Cornwell at a book discussion of theArthurian series and he was convinced – and got the audience toconcur,that 'dark age warriors' were all drunk or berserk otherwise they could not face the fight. he had a basic misunderstandin g of the Gododdin poem. I take it we know better, assuming the individual wants to live more than a few seconds, sober is recommended.

Keegans book was written before even Hardy's modern study oflongbows and much more has been experimented with and written since. Such as the workon the Mary Rose material. Interestingly, ILkka in his 2004 dissertation on the age of horse archers says Treadgold, Southern and Dixon or Nicolle totally neglect tactics or add nothing to studiesof ancient warfare. Disdain ?

I have Acies Contra Alani, strategikon, Vegetius, the peri strategikes, Aelians tactica. Non include tactics for shooting in deep formations. The best i consider one can attribute to them is a chucking of missiles over preceeding ranks once combat is joined. Shooting over is specified for contact with cavalry, when the target can be seen over the infantry in front. Front rankes may be equipped with bows and shoot before close combat, or allow shooters amongst them, but no overhead shooting

It is difficult to understand how you think Smythe describes an enemy formation, he writes about the archer's formation only.

'the hinder ranks of archers should have lost a deal of ground in the vollies of their arrows at their enemies, considering the convenient and proportionate distinction bewtwixt rank and rank and the ranks before them, as also that the sight of the hinder ranks should have been taken away by so many former ranks from directing their volleys of arrows towards their enemies faces'
(this version from Bennet in Curries 2000 compendium)

Matthew Bennet considers there was no more detailed command at Agincourt other than Erpinghams'Now strike'. The complex process of fire control you envision simply has no supporting evidence and there is no supporting evidence for shooting without seeing a target.

If you have no supporting historical evidence I will not reply further but I still look forward to debating any subject.

Why not come to Agincourt in 2015 and we get enough archers to test things out ?

It is difficult to understand how you think Smythe describes an enemy formation, he writes about the archer's formation only.

I don't think that the Smythe passage you quoted is very well written. But it is obvious that when talking about shooting with ranks of archers, that there is an implied target: and as Smythe is addressing accuracy this includes comparative ranks of depth of the target area: the deeper (past eight ranks) formations would include less returned effectiveness for the depth especially if the target formation does not "rank and rank" (or, rank for rank) c. equally with the depth of the archers. Bennett's translation is no more clear, because the original is rather muddy.

You would allow, I suppose, that IF the French depth was the same as the archer depth, that the rear ranks of archers having a shorter range wouldn't matter, because the front ranks would elevate to target the rear of the enemy, knowing that the entire volley would then fall on the whole length of the target. In fact, it would be pointless to have the front of the archer formation aim to volley the front of the enemy: that would mean that virtually all of the archer formation behind would drop their arrows in front of the enemy!

I can't add historical references much beyond the Agincourt stuff: I have books specifically about that and pretty much general reading outside of that (unless you want to drag Hastings into this somehow :) ).

Your allowing that 8 ranks is good enough definitely falls well within a reconstructed depth for Agincourt. You seem to think that Smythe says everyone up to that depth could see to shoot. I (and Rocky) say "no way could the back half see anything, ergo, volley on command was required". So we aren't disagreeing on depth (altho we seemed to be initially) but we are questioning how this shooting was done.

Once inside pointblank range, direct, aimed shooting at individual quickest rate of fire would take over volleying by the entire formation: any volleying from the rear would tend increasingly toward the vertical (and in any case is implied, not shown, as I cannot imagine the English simply having three-quarters of their archers standing uselessly as the enemy closed).

I agree, getting enough archers together to try this out would be cool. 2015? An Agincourt reenactmant? I hadn't heard. I am going to keep my eyes and ears open for THAT (it is my second fav battle, after all)….

Hi

The thread was about crossbows, I expect that the next two pages being another longbow discussion suggests the question was answered.

As for PV. I would suggest a new thread. It is pretty easy to assert "you are wrong and I know stuff"

The thing is that is a different thread. Why not lay out agincourt according to your reading then we can actually discuss what you old as opposed to what is happening now.

What I am reading PV is you seem to feel you asked questions you already knew the answers to. If you already KNOW, share.

One of my day jobs was working for pentagon think tank doing analysis of this sort of thing. And "busman's holiday" stuff applying the same approaches for fun to non-modern fights is done for fun.

so, lay out YOUR version.

As an aside, the mentioned command and conrol for horsarchers are suggested in various local, period bits (Secret History of the Mongols among others) is done with horn signals and by using horse tail standards to direct and communicate.

Rocky

"The thread was about crossbows, I expect that the next two pages being another longbow discussion suggests the question was answered….Rocky"

Indeed my answer was.

Cheers

Chris

I have not idea why I type 'Indeed my answer was.' I should have typed,

Indeed my question was answered.

salaam

thats a bit too trite, rocky. you managed to give some support for your mongol maneouvres but if others do it its over-egging. i looked for evidence from your point of view but there is only one circumstantial point. one hypothetical battle line for agincourt.
i explained why playing with the layout of the field is pointless above. the discussion came to be about shooting in deep formations, not the agincourt battle line.
anyway we managed to get through the process without much disparagement or textual violence. aurevoir.
->>>-------------> >>>----------->
->>>----------> ->>>------------>_____
->>>------------> >>>-------------> (merde)___ >>>---------->
->>>-----------> ->>>------------>

What, are, you, doing, plastic?