Captain Gideon | 02 May 2017 2:41 p.m. PST |
This topic must have been mentioned a few times before but I'd thought that I would bring it up again. Can anyone tell me just how large the French Army was at Agincourt? Now I have a few sources one is Osprey Campaign Series book which says: French First Line Up to 2,400 Mounted and 8,000 Dismounted MAA Second Line 6,000 Dismounted MAA and 2,000 Crossbowmen and Archers Third Line 6,000 Mounted Now the other source has it as: 7,000 Mounted 15.000 Dismounted MAA 3,000 Crossbowmen Now the English is always in the 5,000 or more with the bulk of these as Archers. I've also heard that other sources say that the French only had 1,200 Mounted which I don't believe. Also from what I've read some English sources from the time say that the French outnumbered the English 5 to 1 so if the Englsih had around 5,000 then the French would have around 25,000 or so. Can anyone help. |
KSmyth | 02 May 2017 5:08 p.m. PST |
The wonder of Hundred Years War history is that our traditional understanding of "the truth" is changing. The long-held notion that the French had a gigantic advantage in forces is now questioned, though some hold on to the numbers handed down by Col. Burne and others. In her "Agincourt: A New History," (2005) Anne Curry suggests on pg. 192 the French had 12,000 and the English had 9,000. So the English were outnumbered, but not by nearly the margins long suggested. Jonathan Sumption in his book "The Hundred Years War IV: Cursed Kings" (2015) rates the French at 8-9000 mounted men, with a total of 14,000. Sumption estimates the French outnumbered the English by 2:1. If I was a betting man, I'd definitely put my money on Curry and Sumption. |
Captain Gideon | 02 May 2017 6:42 p.m. PST |
Well I'm not a betting man so I'll stick with the older numbers that Col Burne and the others have said. |
uglyfatbloke | 03 May 2017 1:45 a.m. PST |
I'm not a betting man either, but Anne Curry is a very accomplished medieval scholar, which Burne was not and Sumption (despite being a lawyer) is pretty sound. |
willlucv | 03 May 2017 3:08 a.m. PST |
I think the massive disparity in numbers could reasonably be ascribed to Shakespearian hyperbole. Still 25% more troops (according to Anne Curry), against a starving, dispirited diseased English army was still a fair advantage. |
Great War Ace | 03 May 2017 8:12 a.m. PST |
The battle is won or lost in the first engagements. The cavalry charges are almost certain to fail outright. So the demoralizing effect on the advancing French first battle is compounded by the mud and incoming arrow storm. If the French first battle arrives for melee without being shot to pieces it can overrun the vastly outnumbered English MAAs. The longbow will then be rolled up and routed. You don't have to worry about the French second and third battles, because, being stuck in column of battles, their presence is redundant. They either reinforce victory, or they reinforce defeat. Neither case changes the battle one iota………… |
Thomas Thomas | 03 May 2017 8:44 a.m. PST |
Curry and Sumption's numbers are based on actual research into French sources. The "5-1" numbers are mythic figures drawn from English sources or latter mythical accounts. Still the English were substantially outnumbered (and tired and trapped…), they still pervailed. The French started acrosss the field with greater numbers but by the time they reached the English lines were outnumbered and outflanked. Arrow storms (and there morale effects) more than evened the numbers. English: 5-9K (my guess is 7-8); French 12-15K (my guess is a bit less then 15K). Massed in a column of battles the French numbers would have looked huge to the English – hence the wild exaggerations. (Many French sources claim the English outnumbered them – see Hans Delbruck for this arguement). Thomas J. Thomas Fame and Glory Games |
Captain Gideon | 03 May 2017 9:35 a.m. PST |
So if Agincourt is wrong then how about Crecy? At Crecy the English Army under Edward III around 9,000 met a French Army of 27,000 so would this be wrong as well? |
Great War Ace | 03 May 2017 10:54 a.m. PST |
I don't know of any recent examination of Crecy, like Agincourt. That the kingdom of France could raise armies as large as approaching 30K is not an argument, given the evident population of the kingdom (c. 6-8 million throughout most of the Middle Ages, iirc). It was one of the most populated regions of Western Europe. So a maximum effort, by the king himself, could easily enough have raised in excess of 20K, mostly MAAs and on horseback. Crecy was a battle where cavalry charged infantry in prepared positions, armed largely with missile weapons. The opening of the battle by the Genoese mercenary crossbow makes the battle even more interesting than Agincourt from a wargaming point of view. There are a LOT of Genoese crossbows! Their numbers are on a parity with the total English longbow. One-third of the English army, Under Ed III, is refused and never gets into the battle at all; making Crecy even more interesting tactically. The day after the battle there is a large skirmish between a reconnoitering English force of 500 MAA and 2K archers, and newly arrived French troops from Rouen, led by the archbishop, and the prior of the Hospitallers, plus bodies of communal militia foot that had not arrived soon enough to participate in the main battle the day before. Oman's account is quite detailed and his sources fully listed. He believes in the estimated disparity of numbers, giving the French at least three to one. But of course, this "advantage" was never realized, because of the piecemeal, disorganized attacks of the French. As I said, nothing on the order of recent Agincourt research has been done for Crecy that I know of. I've heard of new narratives (see the Wikipedia article sources, e.g. "Ayton and Preston"?), but I don't know how much original research they are based on. Anyway, they don't dispute the numbers………… |
Captain Gideon | 03 May 2017 3:23 p.m. PST |
Since I'm building my French and English Armies for Agincourt I'm basing them on what information I have on hand with the English around 7,000-8,000 and the French 25,000-27,000. That's how I plan on going to do my game. |
KSmyth | 03 May 2017 7:04 p.m. PST |
Three major works have been written about Crecy since 2005. But heck, who needs 'em with Wikipedia and Osprey available. Captain Gideon, I'll only close with this observation--you asked the question. |
Great War Ace | 03 May 2017 8:20 p.m. PST |
Except for Hastings and Agincourt, I am definitely behind in my reading, KS………… |
Captain Gideon | 03 May 2017 8:56 p.m. PST |
KSmyth I know I asked the question but I only have 2 reference books and I had to ask the question. |
Johnp4000 | 04 May 2017 3:39 a.m. PST |
At the time of Crecy, didn't the French have more of France to recruit troops from compared to the early 15th century? I am unaware of any other HYW battle that has attracted the same attention as Agincourt or had whole books dedicated to them. I think the question would be, could the French supply and provision such a large army? How could such a large army deployed into such a constricted area,although the sources simply that a lot of French troops remained unengaged. It is also interesting that in the post Agincourt period, the French fight more successfully with smaller armies. |
Great War Ace | 04 May 2017 7:24 a.m. PST |
Yes, absolutely the French could muster that large of an army, and feed it; at the expense of the local peasantry. And also, yes it could not engage the English army except piecemeal. Most of the French army both at Crecy and Agincourt never came into engagement range. And at Crecy most of the French army never even saw the English army. It got dark before the communal militia and late arrivals got to the battlefield. Most of the French army had second thoughts during the night and left. Apparently, there are "whole books" dedicated to Crecy, now. I will have to pick up some of them. I haven't even read all the "old" books on the subject, or even all of the most well-known. Currently, I am reading Brune's "The Agincourt War" volume. Heh! I didn't even know until now that his HYW history was divided into two volumes. So, in reverse order, I will read "The Crecy War", which goes from Crecy to 1360, after I am done with "The Agincourt War". |
Great War Ace | 05 May 2017 6:18 a.m. PST |
|
uglyfatbloke | 05 May 2017 9:39 a.m. PST |
If Andrew Ayton has written something about Crecy it's got to be worth a look; he's a fine scholar. |
Thomas Thomas | 05 May 2017 12:20 p.m. PST |
Not sure where the th 27K numbers come from for Agincourt but Curry has carefully researched the issue an arrived at 12-15K. Agincourt is post the bubonic plague and the start of the Burgundian defection (so very few Burgundians) in addition large contingents from Brittany did not arrive in time for the battle and finally a large part of the French muster was held back to guard the king (not present at the battle). One French sources says they intended to raise 9K but probably got more latter. As to Crecy, Clifford Rogers has done great work on the battle. Edward III in a letter post the battle said the French had 12K (of which 8K were knights/esquires). This matches with Villani who reported the French muster at Paris had 8K "cavalieri" and 6K Genoese crossbowmen. Villani also gives the incredible figure of 60K "foot sergants". Few if any foot other than the crossbowmen appeared in the battle so this can be discounted. TomT |
Captain Gideon | 05 May 2017 4:45 p.m. PST |
Tom regardless of what the new information says I'll stick with the numbers I have and build my Armies my way with the English at 7,000 to 8,000 and the French at 25,000 or so. Michael |
Great War Ace | 05 May 2017 5:12 p.m. PST |
That's a huge amount of work, Gideon. Especially since 25K do not appear simultaneously, en masse, on any battlefield in the HYW that I know of. And certainly, they don't get into the fight, even if they were there. That entire third battle at Agincourt rode off. You could recycle your dead guys to form a third battle. That's what I would do, if the third battle unhistorically got into the fighting. This is even more true for Crecy, where very large numbers of French never arrived in time to fight. |
Captain Gideon | 05 May 2017 11:01 p.m. PST |
Great War Ace it all depends on the rules I use and whatever scale it has for example if the rules have a 60-1 figure scale then 2,400 Mounted Knights/MAA comes out to be 40 figures,so if in the first Battle 10,400 and the second Battle of 8,000 that's about 306 figures which is not that big regarding the number of figures but I need to find a set of rules that has a figure scale of 60-1 or better. It's just going to take time and in my game(whenever it happens)if there's 25,000 French at Agincourt you can bet your ass that I'll have 25,000 French if at all possible. |
Puster | 06 May 2017 2:27 a.m. PST |
Tom regardless of what the new information says I'll stick with the numbers I have I just wonder why you ask for numbers here when you do not intend to change your setup regardless of the actual information? Curiosity, I assume, but you could have stated that upfront before some here start to dig out the information with the intend of providing you with a more historical authentic gaming experience. |
Warspite1 | 06 May 2017 4:36 a.m. PST |
Coming late to this party as I have been away… Recent authors have suggested that many of the French cavalry did not arrive in time to take part in the charge and yes, I have no idea on what that claim is based upon. I merely repeat. Secondly… just because X-number of French were present at the battle, how many actually took part or could claim to have fought? One television documentary a few years ago suggested that Agincourt was rather less an English victory than a French crowd-control disaster on a scale many times greater than the Hilsborough football disaster: link The above link is for non-UK readers. In the case of Agincourt, the battlefield is a shallow ridge with the two castles either side of the battlefield being barely visible to each other. This means that the highest point of the ridge is the driest ground and the best going, the edge slopes would have been muddier and worse to walk upon. Added to this the vast number of French nobility would have wanted to fight (and then ransom) the small number of English nobility clustered around their banners in the centre. Finally you get a natural 'funnelling' from any stakes, etc. The net result is that the French 'knights' in the front ranks all clustered in on the small English centre where the French nobility created a press so thick that they could not raise their arms to strike. Worse, anyone falling over would become a trip hazard to others behind while also risking trampling and suffocation as people trod on them or fell over on them. English victory or French disaster? You pays your money and makes your choice on this one. Barry Lance and Longbow Society |
Great War Ace | 06 May 2017 6:32 a.m. PST |
The Agincourt "picture" depends on how the English are arrayed. And I have never bought into the modern assertion that the entire English center was the MAAs. On the basis of longbow range, without archers between the MAA battles, most of the archers' shot would not even be able to reach the French column. The archers would be standing with nothing to shoot at while the first battle went in. And the "funneling effect" is dependent on the center, higher ground being drier, and the French MAAs knowing this ahead of time. Plus, the muddier, sloping ground on both flanks would drag the ends of the battle back, thus pulling the crowd apart. It's one thing to assume that the French all tried to crowd into the middle. It's quite a different story to show how this was even physically possible. I've been all over this before, it seems countless times. |
Warspite1 | 07 May 2017 7:50 a.m. PST |
@ Great War Ace The older interpretations of many battles – which I grew up on in the 1960s and 70s – were the result of Victorian and Edwardian historians and antiquarians making their own guesses based on the flimsiest evidence. So – at Agincourt – we have their invention of 'herces' as V-shaped wedges towards the enemy resembling a Vauban-style fort. The herce reference actually comes from Crecy and is a metaphor for orderly ranks… "arrayed in the manner of a herce…" etc. However the Agincourt herce looks good on a page, and that's probably the only place it ever existed. With regard to the separation of the three MAA (Men-At-Arms) blocks, the situation can be debated either way. However the killer argument – for me – is that the French still had enough impetus to score an initial pushback and drive the English backwards by many paces before their attack ran out of steam. If the English MAA had been in three separate blocks the English line would have been far more vulnerable, the three separate blocks would have been simply enveloped by this on-coming horde of French 'knights'. On the other hand, if the three MAA units are standing together then the English core presents a single face and one which the French have funnelled in upon, driven to the centre either by the state of the ground, the incoming bow fire, French greed for ransoms or the archers' stakes. This appears the more plausible argument but I concede ANYTHING is possible. Until someone comes up with a 1415 aerial photograph of the battle we will never know. Barry |
Great War Ace | 07 May 2017 1:07 p.m. PST |
If we didn't have specific, eyewitness description of how the French divided into three attack fronts to "reach where the standards were" I'd not keep arguing the point. But we have three clearly delineated battles of MAAs, each with archers as the wings. Lining up, the touching wings would have had a "wedge" look, since the archers were out in front of, or advanced before the MAA. This contact of archers wings only occurs between the battles, not on the extreme wings of the whole army. If the MAAs were all grouped contiguously, the French would not have had three places where the standards were to aim at. The forward, flanking archer shot would not have pressured the French battle into three attack fronts as described, because there would have been no such flanking shot except from the extreme wings; which, as I have pointed out, would have mostly been out of range anyway. We know that side-on shooting occurred, because the arrows "pierced the sides of helmets". It was surmised at the time that this is what caused the French to break into three columns; plus, of course, the resulting three-pronged attack "where the standards were". Probably both intent and physical force of flanking arrow shot contributed to the single face of the French battle dividing into three fronts and closing. Your "killer argument" has an answer in wrong footing your opponent. The English battles were thin, only four ranks deep. I don't have trouble believing that, as experienced and homogenous as they were, that they could concertedly back off "about a spear's length" and waste what little of the French forward momentum it had, even causing the front line to fall down in their exhausted condition as they thrust their shortened lances at the English MAA. We know that the front rank did fall, and the still pressing up inner ranks tripped and fell over the fallen, forming a low wall of the prostrated. I don't see how any of this requires that the English MAA all be in a single body. And eyewitness descriptions to the contrary, plus the range of the longbow, form my two-part "killer counterargument" against such an assertion. Taken altogether, the "old guys" got it mostly right, even with their Victorian smugness. Modern efforts to rethink this have not produced a more believable model…….. |
Great War Ace | 07 May 2017 1:27 p.m. PST |
Barry, you seem to be new to TMP. This thread forms the most "epic" interchange on all things Agincourt. I was "Daffy Doug" at the time. TMP link |
uglyfatbloke | 08 May 2017 1:52 a.m. PST |
I'm not an Agincourt buff at all…not even a little bit…but I 'm very aware of the influence that antiquarians with little or no knowledge of the general nature of the communities and armies involved (and/or writers who have an agenda) continue to have on our perception of battles…for example the enormous gulf between that Oman has to say about Bannockburn and what the source material actually tells us. This has been a very interesting discussion and I'm glad to have followed it; thanks to all who have contributed. |
Warspite1 | 08 May 2017 12:39 p.m. PST |
@ uglyfatbloke I used to work with an amateur Egyptolgist and to while away the quiet moments at work- she and I used to b*tch to each other about how both Egyptology and medieval history have been bedevilled by previous generations of historians. We both singled out the Victorians and the Edwardians for crackpot theories or the collective snatching at straws which have made it into the modern history books. They also coined terms of 'historical shorthand' which we still use today. "Wake up Fred, the Bronze Age starts today…" etc. One gripe I have is the so-called 'Wars of the Roses' a 'shorthand' term which appeared once in the 18th century but which became popularised after Sir Walter Scott wrote 19th century romantic novels on the period. If one hopped into a time machine and went back to 1471 and asked any English people about 'The Wars of the Roses' no-one would know what you were talking about. The House of York made a little use of a white rose or a white rose with sun rays among many other badges. But the red rose only appears/reappears around 1483/84. The only noted contemporary name for the period was 'the Cousins War' but a better modern term might be 'The Retinue Wars', 'The Livery Wars' or 'The English Dynastic Wars' (EDW). I personally favour the latter as 'EDW' rolls off the tongue as easily as the later 'ECW' the English Civil War. Another good example of Victorian 'history' is the Battle of Bosworth where the battlefield has now been relocated about a mile and a half after modern archaeological evidence placed the battle away from Ambion Hill. The Victorians chose the original site because of Richard's Well. Just because he camped there does not mean he fought there! @Great War Ace In paragraph two of your main reply you appear to refer to the so-called Victorian 'herces', the archer wedges. There is no contemporary evidence for these, they seem to have been born out of Victorian/Edwardian dinner table theorising over the port and cigars. Most modern interpretations place the archers in lines with the left and right flank lines slightly thrown forward to give flanking fire. One author has pointed out the similarity between these archer wedges and 'Vauban' style fortification and has theorised that the Victorians were applying 'Vauban'-style thinking to explain the apparent effectiveness of the longbow. Any formation more complex than a simple line is also unlikely as at the start of the battle the entire English line pulled up stakes and advanced and then replaced those stakes before firing and stinging the French into the attack. Getting the stakes in while the French watched us inside of bow range was one thing, do you think the French would have waited for us to arrange wedge shapes of archers as well? English longbowmen were not the Brigade of Guards; like any medieval army their manoeuvring skills were limited to advance, retire and simple wheels, in line or column. As it was the French flanking cavalry which were 'stung' by the English bow-fire first, and then subsequently advanced and charged, the flanking archers can hardly have been out-of-range, can they? The entire English line was in range from the time they halted and replaced their stakes. The flanking archers disrupted the cavalry first and, once the cavalry fell back and were no longer a threat to the archers, the longbow were free to come forward, out of the line of stakes, turn slightly inwards and flank the oncoming mass of French MAA. Barry |
Thomas Thomas | 08 May 2017 3:14 p.m. PST |
There at two eyewitness accounts that say the English MAA were in three groups with archers in between (hence the French dividing into three groups to avoid the arrows and ability of the archers to shoot at close range. We also have several contemporary accounts from other battles which have the English forming into groups of MAA with archers in between (and on the wings). Just in case eyewitness and multiple primary source accounts matter in such debates… (For those just browsing: English formation of alternating groups of archers – probably the better armored ones – with MAA is well attested in both source and better secondary accounts.) TomT |
Great War Ace | 08 May 2017 7:28 p.m. PST |
@Barry: "Wedges" are usually understood to be solid and triangular. And I agree, that formation would be tricky. But forward projecting, or angled lines of archers, that meet at the forwardmost end, because battles lined up beside each other, would create the impression of a hollow "wedge", without all the trickiness. You allow archers to come out from behind the frieze of stakes, and "turn slightly inwards". The same ability is used to defend each battle of MAA with flanking archers. As I said, I've argued this to death over the years. That's because to me it is simple: bows with limited range are not going to be placed way out on the wings out of range of the battles of MAA. Oh, small groups on the extreme wings might be stationed to prevent outflanking through the woods. But nothing like the numbers that the modern models assert. The main mass of archers were mustered with each of the three battles. The battles were roughly identical. In effect, each MAA center with its attached wings of archers were like three, separate armies. York had his, Henry had his and Camoys had his. They started out slightly echeloned, with Camoys on the left the furthest back. These are also the "three lines" referred to in at least one source, which started forward one after the other (not in column, as some have suggested!). The Gesta definitely implies forward projecting archer formations between the battles of MAA. But I have always argued for the archers being mustered in a forward angled position, thus inviting attack on the MAA inside a field of enfilading shot. This was accomplished at Agincourt. The Gesta specifically mentions how helmets were pierced in the sides…………… |
Thomas Thomas | 12 May 2017 1:18 p.m. PST |
At Vernuil the English do not seem to have used their "standard" formation of alternating archers and MAA. The longer range may partially explain the success of the Milanes breakthrough (though horse armor with a higher steel content certainaly contributed). The combined arms aspect of the HYW (powerful foot, missile and mounted troops) provides great rock paper sisor dynamics – making for fun games and lots of variety. TomT |
Great War Ace | 12 May 2017 7:36 p.m. PST |
Iirc, at Verneuil there were a lot of Scots archers. The English archers were opposed to them. But the main feature of the battle is the unreadiness of the English archers in the face of cavalry. Had the Milanese (or was it the French cavalry?) not gone off and attacked the baggage train, after riding through the English archers, it would have been a different battle! |