"Agincourt, bow fire, and summing up" Topic

GRPitts,
Since the French never deployed more than 5000-6000 men-at-arms in the 1000 yards battle front at a single time, a space where the English deployed 8000-9000 men without problem the crowding simply couldn't have been as bad as Battlefield Detectives suggest. Their entire theory is based on erronous French numbers. New research has revealed that the French army was roughly 50% smaller than previously thought, some 12000 men, not 25000. And of these not much more than 8000 fought at all.

From the reports it seems that the French stream into the English (ragged from the Causities).

The Three columns could be explained as the Fallen French mainly infront of the Archers. The English shot gaps into the line.

Lord Ghee

I still subscribe to Keegan's view of the battle. It is the account that seems the most feasible. Armor penetration means little as compared to the mud, disorder and mass of troops literally having to step over each other.

Capt. Gars,

You seem much more convinced about the numbers than am I, and even if so, as John states, the battlefield conditions were much more of a factor. Regardless of the numbers you wish to entertain as factual, even the 12,000 you state would have had significant issues traversing the field, and really changes nothing.

12,000 or 20,000, or 30,000, the French could simply not deploy properly and bring their numbers to bear. They could not manouver. They were literally "stuck in the mud", and I guess that says it all.

- Greg

Greg

GrPitts,
The numbers have narrowed down considerably thanks to new research using better sources than the notoriously unreliable medieval chroniclers. The English army has been proved to be much larger than assumed while the French fielded a much smaller force.

But the issue isn't one of 12.000, 20.000 or 30.000 troops deploying in an area 1000 yds wide. It's about 8500-9000 troops advancing in 3 groups. First the at most 500 mounted men-at-arms, then the Vanguard of some 5000 men-at-arms and finaly the Main Battle of some 3000 men-at-arms. The 4000 or so crossbowmen and archers presentas well as the (numbers not known) gros varlets and varlets d'armes never took any part in the action.

Since the English were able to deploy an army some 8000-8600 men-at-arms and archers without any crowding problems the French simply cannot have experinced such with formations than were roughly 45-60% smaller. If the French experinced crowding problems the source of thos eproblems were somethign other than too many troops deployed in too small an area.

The idea that the Frenc were 'stuck in the mud' is an exaggeration of the significant problems caused by the mud. The Battlefield Detectives test of the mud was interstign but alos contaiend flaws such as the assumption that th emen at arms would have steel soles on their sabatons (foot armour), most sabatons in fact have no sole and are worn over an ordinary pair of leather shoes. Many men-at-arms would also have removed their sabatons entirely to improve movement. Period sources make it quite clear that the French coudl both move and manouver through the mud albeit at a high price in exhaustion.

The Battlefield Detectives test of the mud was interstign but alos contaiend flaws such as the assumption that th emen at arms would have steel soles on their sabatons…

No kidding! I haven't seen BTs' stuff, only heard people comment on it (usually negatively), and seen that one link (above) to a webpage on the Agincourt battlefield analysis. But to assume steel-soled armor is the most absurd bit of ignorance I have heard of. If there were ever such things used, it would have been only when mounted (where potentially the bottom of the foot could be a vulnerable area in a melee with infantry).

I agree with Cap'n: crowding would have been a problem for the English as well, if the field was posing such a dramatic hazard as to crowd four men at arms into each square meter.

Keegan's account formed the basis of our research into the effects of longbow fire, when we were making up our rules, lo, these thirty years agone.

Well then, there you have it gents. Two different trains of thought. As is always in the case of history, you choose the one you think makes most sense to you and go with it.

All the best!

- Greg