Againcourt again....
hippo
production dubbed over by an American reader under the title 'Battlefield
Detectives' which might easily not be how it was originally titled in
Britain. A few observations:
Like most of these made-for-TV programs, the writers seem to over-simplify
to reach a pre-determined conclusion, which in this case, seems to be that
terrain, mud, and crowd psychology were the victors instead of the longbow.
The first of these generalization is that the bodkin point couldn't
penetrate French steel plate armor. Several incorrect presumptions go into
this conclusion:
1) Bodkin points were uniform in penetration which implies identical weight,
shape, density, and material, which we know is impossible given the
varieties of iron available and skills of the many hundreds of smiths which
would have made them.
2) Arrows were uniform in length, weight, and density which we also know is
false since arrows were made for various purposes and to order of the
bowman. Arrows of up to half an inch in diameter have been found in the much
earlier Danish bog deposits and the various woods used would have produced
different weights and strengths.
3) The French wore the new steel plate armor. While this might mostly have
been true for the great nobles, it certainly wouldn't have been for the
lesser ones and their men-at-arms and crossbowmen.
4) The longbow produced a uniform effect. We know they were not made in a
uniform length, thickness, or shape, and that striking energy varies with
weight of arrow, power of the individual bow, range, skill and strength of
the individual bowman.
5) The longbow was not an accurate weapon. This is entirely dependant upon
range. 'Flight' arrows fired at long range were not accurate and were not
intended to be. They were 'area' weapons used to harass and break-up
attacking formations. Heavier arrows fired at closer ranger could be
extremely accurate and other tests show they could penetrate plate armor
depending on its slope at the point of strike.
I don't know if everyone hates these programs as much as I do. Their
'tests', passed on as proofs, are never realistic presuming, as they do,
mass production and uniformity of equipment and its performance. Especially
irritating is their supposed experts go along, presumably for the
money. -the Troll
William Black
"hippo" <hi...@south-sudan.net> wrote in message
news:11fsccm...@corp.supernews.com...
> I've just watched a documentary on Againcourt. It looks like a Brit
> production dubbed over by an American reader under the title 'Battlefield
> Detectives' which might easily not be how it was originally titled in
> Britain. A few observations:
Same name, it's a few years old now.
> Like most of these made-for-TV programs, the writers seem to over-simplify
> to reach a pre-determined conclusion, which in this case, seems to be that
> terrain, mud, and crowd psychology were the victors instead of the
longbow.
That's reasonable, weapons don't fight wars, men fight wars.
> The first of these generalization is that the bodkin point couldn't
> penetrate French steel plate armor. Several incorrect presumptions go into
> this conclusion:
The reality seems to be that they couldn't penetrate consistantly, but the
French weren't wearing full articulated plate.
What the arrows seem to have done is bring people down, and that's not hard
to do.
If you shoot an arrow at a man in armour, even the blunts used in
re-enactment, people are actually knocked down by the impact, other people
fall down when the arrows catch in leg harness, and you get this effect
with reasonably small numbers of men.
Even a dozen re-enactment archers will bring down a few armoured men at
close range.
Most of the French dead at Agincourt suffocated.
This is consistant with them falling over in the mud and other men falling
on top of them.
We'll never know what really happened but the idea of men dying in heaps
pierced through with arrows keeps looking more and more unlikely.
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe
Barbeques on fire by chalets past the headland
I've watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off Newborough
All this will pass like ice-cream on the beach
Time for tea
hippo
"William Black" wrote in message
> "hippo" wrote in message
That's what I thought. Still it wasn't just the horsemen who were killed.
> Most of the French dead at Agincourt suffocated.
How do we know that, lack of damage to the bones from a mass grave?
> This is consistant with them falling over in the mud and other men falling
> on top of them.
How about the guys on top and not in the mud?
> We'll never know what really happened but the idea of men dying in heaps
> pierced through with arrows keeps looking more and more unlikely.
It wouldn't have been necessary. With a constricted space like the field of
battle, only the front ranks would have needed stopping. The piled up dead
would have created a barrier over which subsequent ranks would have had to
climb thereby breaking up the impetus of attack and advantage of mass and
superior numbers. Too, the script writers forget to put the battle in
context with Crecy and Poitier where there wasn't the mud. -the Troll
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
(hippo) wrote:
> Too, the script writers forget to put the battle in
> context with Crecy and Poitier where there wasn't the mud. -the
> Troll
The armour there was reinforced mail at best. Nobody ever claimed
that a bodkin arrow could not penetrate chain. However I can not
remember any military historian claiming that the long bow on it's own
could win battles. The dismounted English men at arms were an
important factor. Off course without the long bow the French would not
have had to dismount most of their forces. At Poitiers that came close
to working. The decisive point was when the Black Prince remounted
some of his men and charged the French foot column.
Ken Young
hippo
<ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote in message
> In article (hippo) wrote:
>
>> Too, the script writers forget to put the battle in
>> context with Crecy and Poitiers where there wasn't the mud.
> The armour there was reinforced mail at best. Nobody ever claimed
> that a bodkin arrow could not penetrate chain. However I can not
> remember any military historian claiming that the long bow on it's own
> could win battles. The dismounted English men at arms were an
> important factor. Off course without the long bow the French would not
> have had to dismount most of their forces. At Poitiers that came close
> to working. The decisive point was when the Black Prince remounted
> some of his men and charged the French foot column.
The program estimates, I think accurately, that there were about 7000
English at Againcourt, 5000 of them archers. The archers also fought as foot
soldiers when the melee part of the battle began. Archers, as bowmen,
certainly didn't win the battles by themselves, but they probably were the
most important factor contributing to English victories of the period. -the
Troll
Vaughan Sanders
At Crecy the knights only had chain mail, by the mid 15th century
they had hardened plate armour designed to deflect the arrows.
A fall from a charging horse brought down by a longbow, when wearing the
later heavy armour would likely prove fatal. The shock wave of hitting
the ground is multiplied the heavier the armour I think.
Jamie
hippo
"Vaughan Sanders" wrote in message
> "hippo" wrote in message
>> > In article (hippo) wrote:
>> >
>> >> Too, the script writers forget to put the battle in
>> >> context with Crecy and Poitiers where there wasn't the mud.
>>
>> > The armour there was reinforced mail at best. Nobody ever claimed
>> > that a bodkin arrow could not penetrate chain. However I can not
>> > remember any military historian claiming that the long bow on it's
> own
>> > could win battles. The dismounted English men at arms were an
>> > important factor. Off course without the long bow the French would
> not
>> > have had to dismount most of their forces. At Poitiers that came
> close
>> > to working. The decisive point was when the Black Prince remounted
>> > some of his men and charged the French foot column.
>>
>> The program estimates, I think accurately, that there were about 7000
>> English at Againcourt, 5000 of them archers. The archers also fought
> as foot
>> soldiers when the melee part of the battle began. Archers, as bowmen,
>> certainly didn't win the battles by themselves, but they probably were
> the
>> most important factor contributing to English victories of the
> period.
> At Crecy the knights only had chain mail, by the mid 15th century
> they had hardened plate armour designed to deflect the arrows.
> A fall from a charging horse brought down by a longbow, when wearing the
> later heavy armour would likely prove fatal. The shock wave of hitting
> the ground is multiplied the heavier the armour I think.
I have actually worn plate armor and it wasn't as heavy worn as is generally
believed (understanding that later fighting armor was different from
tournament armor). Rather than a hindrance I would think it would have been
a life saver when falling during a charge as it would protect the head and
torso of the wearer from being crushed by falling horses and lashing hooves.
The program used for testing a bodkin point with a thin elongated tip which
bent on impact with the test steel sheet. As far as I can remember, bodkin
points didn't require this tip. For penetrating hardened plate, a shorter
less radical point would have been more effective. I have seen examples of
this later point, maybe in Salzburg. -the Troll
Vaughan Sanders
A hammer or a mace was a favourite weapon against armour because the
shock wave transmitted could kill the incumbent, test have shown that a
hard enough blow could dislodge internal organs.
A bit like a motorcycle crash helmet can keep your head in one piece but
can't stop the brain moving if hit hard enough, shaken baby syndrome for
example.
Some of the British Museum listed bodkins here
http://www.hectorcoleironwork.com/Arrowheads.html
A 150lbs longbow could penetrate plate armour at 25 yds, enough to be
fatal with known bodkins of the time. If the first volleys didn't get
the horses, test have shown the arrows that missed acted like a tank
trap and made it difficult for the horses to get through.
Jamie
William Black
> The program used for testing a bodkin point with a thin elongated tip
which
> bent on impact with the test steel sheet. As far as I can remember, bodkin
> points didn't require this tip. For penetrating hardened plate, a shorter
> less radical point would have been more effective. I have seen examples of
> this later point, maybe in Salzburg.
The programme certainly used the long bodkin that was very effective against
mail. It was one of the things that I thought a touch meticulous about it.
However the penetration of the short bodkin against plate is something that
can be debated forever, along with bow draw weight and all the other stuff
people do debate all the time about medieval archery.
I found it a relief to watch something that didn't have English medieval
supermen as its basis. I notice that most people have drawn back from them
in recent years, even Hardy, their great defender.
ray o'hara
"Vaughan Sanders" > A bit like a motorcycle crash helmet can keep your head
in one piece but
> can't stop the brain moving if hit hard enough, shaken baby syndrome for
> example.
i once had a conversation with one of the fools who had the new hampshire
helmet law repealed. he said a helemt killed his friend because the man had
crashed hit his head against a tree and even with the helmet on fracutred
his skull. the brain swelled and they couldn't get the helmet off and the
pressure caused his death. he coulsd't accept the idea that if he fractured
his head with a helmet he would have erased his head without it.
the same with plate armor. if a blow on the armor is fatal the same blow
will be devastatingly fatal without it.
hippo
"Vaughan Sanders" wrote in message
> "hippo" wrote in message
> A hammer or a mace was a favourite weapon against armour because the
> shock wave transmitted could kill the incumbent, test have shown that a
> hard enough blow could dislodge internal organs.
> A bit like a motorcycle crash helmet can keep your head in one piece but
> can't stop the brain moving if hit hard enough, shaken baby syndrome for
> example.
>
> Some of the British Museum listed bodkins here
> http://www.hectorcoleironwork.com/Arrowheads.html
Excellent, the type 7 'needle' was the one used on the program, the type 10
would have been far better against hardened plate.
> A 150lbs longbow could penetrate plate armour at 25 yds, enough to be
> fatal with known bodkins of the time. If the first volleys didn't get
> the horses, test have shown the arrows that missed acted like a tank
> trap and made it difficult for the horses to get through.
That makes better sense than the conclusion reached by the program. Twenty
five yards lethal from behind a line of stakes would break up any mounted
attack unless it came from the flank, rear, or from behind cover. Against
men-at-arms on foot even more volleys could be fired, far more than a line
of musketeers or crossbowmen in the same period of time. -the Troll
hippo
"William Black" wrote in message
> "hippo" wrote in message
>> The program used for testing a bodkin point with a thin elongated tip
> which
>> bent on impact with the test steel sheet. As far as I can remember,
>> bodkin
>> points didn't require this tip. For penetrating hardened plate, a shorter
>> less radical point would have been more effective. I have seen examples
>> of
>> this later point, maybe in Salzburg.
>
> The programme certainly used the long bodkin that was very effective
> against
> mail. It was one of the things that I thought a touch meticulous about
> it.
>
> However the penetration of the short bodkin against plate is something
> that
> can be debated forever, along with bow draw weight and all the other
> stuff
> people do debate all the time about medieval archery.
>
> I found it a relief to watch something that didn't have English medieval
> supermen as its basis. I notice that most people have drawn back from them
> in recent years, even Hardy, their great defender.
Why use a point against plate evolved for use against mail? Even though
seriously outnumbered Henry must have had some confidence in victory without
the benefit of rain and mud. The French, with numbers and offensive
capability, had the choice of time and day if not always place.
I agree weight of bow pull and strength of the bowmen would have varied
considerably. -the Troll
Paul J Gans
>> "hippo" wrote in message
Well, this is exactly the conclusions medieval military
historians have come to -- with one exception. They
believe that the English massed the longbowmen on the
flanks since placing them in among the men on the line
would dilute their effectiveness.
The argument is that having the archers on the flanks drives
the horsement toward the center. But there is often not
enough room for all of them at the center and with a crowd
if one horse goes down, lots of others do too.
The English center was (at this period) reinforced by
dismounted knights. It could take a cavalry charge,
especially one that had been "herded" by the archers.
The point about the stakes is that the French were smart
enough to attempt to charge the archers head on. If they
had driven the archers from the field things might have
worked out differently.
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>> "hippo" wrote in message
Not really. Once he decided to move to within a visible
distance of the English he was stuck.
It wasn't the modern world. The French could not show
cowardice and pull back. Half of the King's nobles would
have deserted him if he'd done that.
So he'd cast the dice before being properly prepared.
The English, on the other hand, had done what Edward III
had done many years before. They'd chosen a defensive
site suitable for their forces. And the French would
have to attack -- though it took a bit of goading to
do it.
In this situation the defense had a very strong advantage.
If it had been more modern times, the French would have
sent men around behind the English line for an attack the
next day. And otherwise just sat there. The English were
pinned and could not move without being slaughtered. They
*had* to keep their defensive line intact.
Luckily, notions of chivalry and individual bravery ran
strong among the French. And as the French discovered,
while those traits are admirable and desirable, they can
also get you killed.
---- Paul J. Gans
hippo
"Paul J Gans" wrote in message
I know that was the English tactic at Crecy and Poitiers where archers made
up a smaller percentage of the whole, but if you look at the numbers with
5000 archers out of the 7000 English total that doesn't leave much of a
center. I'd have made a continuous line of archers and used my dismounted
men-at-arms and knights as a reserve behind the lines to respond to any
penetration, problems on the flanks, or for a counter-attack.
The problem with an archer-heavy army is you don't have much tactical
offensive capability and must, perforce, defend in a battle or resort to
sieges. -the Troll
ray o'hara
you should read the agincourt section of john keegan's face of battle.
he speculates that the arghers placed their stakes in a hedgehog pattern
leaving room for men to pass through but not a horse and stood before them,
when the cavalry approched they fell back through the stake field and the
cavalry came acropper on them whereupon the archers who were also armed with
bradswords and axes fell upon them hacking away and asking downed riders the
question"what can you pay?"{ransom}. many were taken prisoner. when the
follow up attacks came henry gave his infamous order to kill the captives
as they were too many to watch and simultaneously defend against the next
wave.
hippo
"Paul J Gans" wrote in message
> hippo wrote:
I agree. The French were between the English and their base at Calais, they
outnumbered the English four to one, the English were weakened by hunger and
sickness while the French were not. It was probably French chivalry which
cost them the battle. -the Troll
Vaughan Sanders
Eddie II used that tactic at Bannockburn and the archers were flanked
and ridden down by the Scots heavy horse.
A single inverse wedge formation was used by Eddie III at Halidon Hill,
the men-at-arms on foot in the centre and the mounted knights held in
reserve. This formation allowed the archers to manoeuvre to meet any
flanking attack, a triple version of this formation was used at Crecy.
Of course picking the right terrain is critical to funnelling the
cavalry through the arrow storm on to the waiting men-at-arms.
Jamie
Vaughan Sanders
"ray o'hara" <r...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:AsydnZY1qaG...@comcast.com...
People do fall from a galloping horse and walk away from it most of the
time without injury, the question is are you more likely to sustain an
injury wearing armour.
If you couldn't get up you would very likely get dispatched by a dagger
through the joints or battered to death with a big hammer.
Apparently it was the archers job after the battle to dispatch the badly
injured, friend or foe.
Jamie
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
(hippo) wrote:
> Rather than a hindrance I would think it would have been
> a life saver when falling during a charge
I was just wondering how much riding you have done? Riding clothing
is except for the hard hat not rigid. When I have fallen or been
thrown being stepped on was the least of my worries. Anyway a medieval
war saddle was shaped to give maximum protection. The saddle horns
were raised fore and aft. Unfortunately while this provided protection
against some blows and being thrown out of the saddle by impact, it
made it much more likely that if the horse went down the rider would
end up under it.
Ken Young
hippo
"ray o'hara" wrote in message
> "hippo" wrote in message
>> I know that was the English tactic at Crecy and Poitiers where archers
> made
>> up a smaller percentage of the whole, but if you look at the numbers with
>> 5000 archers out of the 7000 English total that doesn't leave much of a
>> center. I'd have made a continuous line of archers and used my dismounted
>> men-at-arms and knights as a reserve behind the lines to respond to any
>> penetration, problems on the flanks, or for a counter-attack.
>>
>> The problem with an archer-heavy army is you don't have much tactical
>> offensive capability and must, perforce, defend in a battle or resort to
>> sieges. -the Troll
> you should read the agincourt section of john keegan's face of battle.
>
> he speculates that the arghers placed their stakes in a hedgehog pattern
> leaving room for men to pass through but not a horse and stood before
> them,
>
> when the cavalry approched they fell back through the stake field and the
> cavalry came acropper on them whereupon the archers who were also armed
> with
> bradswords and axes fell upon them hacking away and asking downed riders
> the
> question"what can you pay?"{ransom}. many were taken prisoner. when the
> follow up attacks came henry gave his infamous order to kill the captives
> as they were too many to watch and simultaneously defend against the next
> wave.
I have read it. The problem is there are nearly as many different ideas
about the battle as there are military historians. I understand there were
stakes, it was a tried tactic for archers where they were likely to run into
mounted enemy. Some historians estimate the English dismounted knights and
men-at-arms at as few as 900 and others at as many as 1200 to 2000.
There is no disagreement that the English line was divided into three
battles. There would have been at least the personal knights and men-at-arms
of the leaders positioned with each battle. No feudal noble of the period
would go into battle without them. The Duke of York on the right would have
had thirty retainers as an absolute minimum and more likely a hundred or
more. It is unclear if only the line was divided up with the archers on the
flanks not counted. It's very confusing. -the Troll
hippo
"Vaughan Sanders" wrote in message
> "ray o'hara" wrote in message
> People do fall from a galloping horse and walk away from it most of the
> time without injury, the question is are you more likely to sustain an
> injury wearing armour.
> If you couldn't get up you would very likely get dispatched by a dagger
> through the joints or battered to death with a big hammer.
>
> Apparently it was the archers job after the battle to dispatch the badly
> injured, friend or foe.
The archers became infantry in the melee portion of the battle as I
understand it, including attacking out of their hedgehog of stakes. It is
unclear if they were a part of the feudal levees or professionals hired
directly by the king or some of both. -the Troll
Paul J Gans
I missed Hippo's response to my posting. He's right. The
English never intended to be the attackers. The entire point
of the strategy first used in France by Edward III was to
make the French attack *him*.
The effect was similar to WWI attacks on heavily fortified
trench lines.
And I agree with what you wrote about the archers and the stakes.
---- Paul J. Gans
ray o'hara
professional hires, the whole army was. they were on nothing more than a
glorified looting expedition.
Paul J Gans
>> hippo wrote:
Yup.
However, that was the mind-set then. I'm sure that they
were not really aware that their mind-set limited their
thinking.
We today are perhaps somewhat better in that regard, but
we too are also caught up in the mind-set of 21st century
man.
----- Paul J. Gans
hippo
<ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote in message
> In article (hippo) wrote:
>
>> Rather than a hindrance I would think it would have been
>> a life saver when falling during a charge
>
> I was just wondering how much riding you have done? Riding clothing
> is except for the hard hat not rigid. When I have fallen or been
> thrown being stepped on was the least of my worries. Anyway a medieval
> war saddle was shaped to give maximum protection. The saddle horns
> were raised fore and aft. Unfortunately while this provided protection
> against some blows and being thrown out of the saddle by impact, it
> made it much more likely that if the horse went down the rider would
> end up under it.
I started riding at about the age of nine or ten and have been thrown many
times including at jumps during hunts where getting trampled was of
considerable concern.
I know about medieval saddles which were designed to keep the rider from
being un-horsed by an enemy lance and to give more power to his own as you
say.
I'd much rather be armored for a fall myself. -the Troll
Vaughan Sanders
The "Poll Axe" was the weapon of choice in the 14th century, the hammer
side could cause major injury without penetrating the armour.
http://www.mwart.com/xq/ASP/pid.1777/qx/product.htm
Henry had to initiate the attack as the French had started to make camp,
Henry's stores were exhausted, he could not afford to wait.
The field of Agincourt was between two woods on the road to Calais.
Henry had to tell his archers to up stakes and advance down the incline,
he had archers on each wing with their backs to the woods. He knew from
captured prisoners that the French cavalry were going to concentrate on
the archers and had ordered them to cut stakes.
Jamie
hippo
"ray o'hara" wrote in message
> "hippo" wrote in message
>> The archers became infantry in the melee portion of the battle as I
>> understand it, including attacking out of their hedgehog of stakes. It is
>> unclear if they were a part of the feudal levees or professionals hired
>> directly by the king or some of both.
> professional hires, the whole army was. they were on nothing more than a
> glorified looting expedition.
Depending on perspective that was the case with all wars of the period
except for the king who presumably had other objectives. It does make a
difference for the battle if the archers belonged to the king directly or if
some were a part of feudal levees. -the Troll
hippo
"Vaughan Sanders" wrote in message
> "hippo" wrote in message
[.]
> The "Poll Axe" was the weapon of choice in the 14th century, the hammer
> side could cause major injury without penetrating the armour.
> http://www.mwart.com/xq/ASP/pid.1777/qx/product.htm
>
> Henry had to initiate the attack as the French had started to make camp,
> Henry's stores were exhausted, he could not afford to wait.
> The field of Agincourt was between two woods on the road to Calais.
> Henry had to tell his archers to up stakes and advance down the incline,
> he had archers on each wing with their backs to the woods. He knew from
> captured prisoners that the French cavalry were going to concentrate on
> the archers and had ordered them to cut stakes.
Ugly looking brute.
I know about the different historical perspectives. The problem is they
don't make sense. With archers on the flanks that would have left a 'line'
of only 900-2000 dismounted men-at-arms and knights. At four ranks that's
only a front of 250-500 men or 300 to 600 yards with nothing to back up the
archers. -the Troll
William Black
> Depending on perspective that was the case with all wars of the period
> except for the king who presumably had other objectives. It does make a
> difference for the battle if the archers belonged to the king directly or
if
> some were a part of feudal levees. -the Troll
Not that late it doesn't.
There a lot of debate about who the archers actually were who went to
Agincourt, as three quarters of the army was left behind.
The possibility exists that the archers who went were the ones with horses.
This is because the rate of march is very high, possibly too high for an
army that walked.
Bringing a horse to the war when an archer implies a certain social status
and level of wealth.
hippo
> hippo wrote:
We are, that's true. Goes with the territory. -the Troll
Paul J Gans
Hmmm. I strongly dislike the word "melee" since it
connotes a rough and tumble battle where command and
control have been totally lost, along with any semblance
of order and plan.
This gives a rather wrong view of most medieval battles
including this one.
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
><ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote in message
No, you'd much rather be padded, but if you were armored,
you'd be padded.
What caused the unhorsing at Agincourt of course was that
horses tend to get skittish about being hit by arrows.
They sting something awful.
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>> "hippo" wrote in message
By this time in English history there were no "feudal" levees.
But we get your meaning.
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>> "hippo" wrote in message
>[.]
>Ugly looking brute.
I don't know where your numbers come from, nor do I recall
the width of the field. But it is generally agreed that the
archers were on the flanks with their backs to the woods
(or perhaps even in the woods) while the foot soldiers were
arrayed in several ranks in the open space between the two
woods.
The center was especially reinforced since that is where
the archers would cause the attack to be concentrated.
There was nothing to back up the archers. It is very
difficult to hunt archers in the woods. Men can go
where horses can't.
Individual knights are at a strong disadvantage when
up against several armed foot soldiers. The strength
of the knights came when massed and charging in close
order. "Knee to knee" is the term used.
Can't to that in a woods.
----- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>"hippo" <hi...@south-sudan.net> wrote in message
>news:11g1ud7...@corp.supernews.com...
>> Depending on perspective that was the case with all wars of the period
>> except for the king who presumably had other objectives. It does make a
>> difference for the battle if the archers belonged to the king directly or
>if
>> some were a part of feudal levees. -the Troll
>Not that late it doesn't.
>There a lot of debate about who the archers actually were who went to
>Agincourt, as three quarters of the army was left behind.
>The possibility exists that the archers who went were the ones with horses.
>This is because the rate of march is very high, possibly too high for an
>army that walked.
>Bringing a horse to the war when an archer implies a certain social status
>and level of wealth.
We are past 1348 by this time. I don't think *any* of the
earlier medieval terms apply. Everything was different.
And if I recall correctly, the daily pay for an archer was
rather good.
So no, we are not talking about "serfs" here (although serfdom
was almost gone as a practical matter by this time), but free
men. Archers were free men.
---- Paul J. Gans
hippo
"William Black" wrote in message
> "hippo" wrote in message
>> Depending on perspective that was the case with all wars of the period
>> except for the king who presumably had other objectives. It does make a
>> difference for the battle if the archers belonged to the king directly or
> if
>> some were a part of feudal levees.
>
> Not that late it doesn't.
>
> There a lot of debate about who the archers actually were who went to
> Agincourt, as three quarters of the army was left behind.
>
> The possibility exists that the archers who went were the ones with
> horses.
>
> This is because the rate of march is very high, possibly too high for an
> army that walked.
>
> Bringing a horse to the war when an archer implies a certain social status
> and level of wealth.
Fifty miles in three days? Some German foot infantry divisions averaged
thirty in a single day for days on end and on unmetalled roads during
Barbarossa. The only metalled road in the USSR at the time was the one from
Minsk, or perhaps Warsaw, to Moscow and dating from Tsarist times. The
English Army was not opposed and was only impeded by river crossings. Our
rate of march on foot was supposed to be twenty miles per day on dirt roads
when I was wearing green.
The lack of food in the English force doesn't support the idea either.
Horses forced to march daily require vast amounts of fodder to stay alive.
If you have the baggage train for fodder you can bring food for the
men. -the Troll
hippo
"Paul J Gans" wrote in message
> hippo wrote:
>>> professional hires, the whole army was. they were on nothing more than a
>>> glorified looting expedition.
>
>>Depending on perspective that was the case with all wars of the period
>>except for the king who presumably had other objectives. It does make a
>>difference for the battle if the archers belonged to the king directly or
>>if
>>some were a part of feudal levees. -the Troll
>
> By this time in English history there were no "feudal" levees.
> But we get your meaning.
Right, I mean the retinues of the major nobles. -the Troll
hippo
"Paul J Gans" wrote in message
> hippo wrote:
>>The archers became infantry in the melee portion of the battle as I
>>understand it, including attacking out of their hedgehog of stakes. It is
>>unclear if they were a part of the feudal levees or professionals hired
>>directly by the king or some of both. -the Troll
>
> Hmmm. I strongly dislike the word "melee" since it
> connotes a rough and tumble battle where command and
> control have been totally lost, along with any semblance
> of order and plan.
>
> This gives a rather wrong view of most medieval battles
> including this one.
I'm using the term some historians use and I don't think there was much
control except for those units in reserve or not otherwise engaged. By melee
I mean that period of battle after the initial tactics have played out and
the main lines of both armies are closely engaged. At Cannae it would have
been after the last Carthaginian cavalry unit attacked the Roman rear and
Hannibal's tactics had played out. -the Troll
hippo
"Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:ddr9qr$67g$9...@reader2.panix.com...
The gap between the woods where the armies met was about 900 yards or too
wide to be covered by the 900-2000 English dismounted men-at-arms and
knights in sufficient depth to stop an attack. One or two ranks won't do it.
Most agree there were four ranks which covers 300-600 yards or maybe half of
the gap. -the Troll
hippo
"Paul J Gans" wrote in message
> hippo wrote:
>>I started riding at about the age of nine or ten and have been thrown many
>>times including at jumps during hunts where getting trampled was of
>>considerable concern.
>
>>I know about medieval saddles which were designed to keep the rider from
>>being un-horsed by an enemy lance and to give more power to his own as you
>>say.
>
>>I'd much rather be armored for a fall myself. -the Troll
>
> No, you'd much rather be padded, but if you were armored,
> you'd be padded.
>
> What caused the unhorsing at Agincourt of course was that
> horses tend to get skittish about being hit by arrows.
> They sting something awful.
Then there were the arrows themselves. -the Troll
Vaughan Sanders
Sorry I didn't make myself clear, the archers and stakes formed almost
the whole line not just the wings.
The men-at-arms were split between the Duke of York on the right, Henry
in the centre and Lord Camoys on the left, with the archers between in
their wedge formations.
Three French armies converged on Agincourt in three lines of battle,
Henry stopped two of them and when the third was seen forming up he gave
the order to kill the prisoners, which by then outnumbered his army. The
third attack didn't materialise and the French withdrew.
Jamie
hippo
"Vaughan Sanders" wrote in message
> "hippo" wrote in message
[.]
>> I know about the different historical perspectives. The problem is
> they
>> don't make sense. With archers on the flanks that would have left a
> 'line'
>> of only 900-2000 dismounted men-at-arms and knights. At four ranks
> that's
>> only a front of 250-500 men or 300 to 600 yards with nothing to back
> up the
>> archers. -the Troll
>>
>>
>
> Sorry I didn't make myself clear, the archers and stakes formed almost
> the whole line not just the wings.
> The men-at-arms were split between the Duke of York on the right, Henry
> in the centre and Lord Camoys on the left, with the archers between in
> their wedge formations.
> Three French armies converged on Agincourt in three lines of battle,
> Henry stopped two of them and when the third was seen forming up he gave
> the order to kill the prisoners, which by then outnumbered his army. The
> third attack didn't materialise and the French withdrew.
Now that makes sense and how it must have been. Having all the dismounted
men-at-arms and knights in this single short little line in the middle of
the field and nothing but archers on the flanks made no sense. The two
needed to be mutually supportive all along the line for the whole to
work. -the Troll
William Black
> Fifty miles in three days? Some German foot infantry divisions averaged
> thirty in a single day for days on end and on unmetalled roads during
> Barbarossa.
They may well have done.
Medieval armies didn't.
. Our
> rate of march on foot was supposed to be twenty miles per day on dirt
roads
> when I was wearing green.
With proper boots, motorised supply and a command system that had radios.
> The lack of food in the English force doesn't support the idea either.
> Horses forced to march daily require vast amounts of fodder to stay alive.
The idea of a raid of this type, and at that time of year, is that you
live off the country.
That's why they set out in October.
After the harvest is in but before the weather breaks.
Everyone has a year's supply of everything stashed away.
Medieval warfare wasn't like modern warfare.
William Black
> > By this time in English history there were no "feudal" levees.
> > But we get your meaning.
>
> Right, I mean the retinues of the major nobles. -the Troll
There a reference in 'The Medieval Archer' by Jim Bradbury that implies that
everyone was formally recruited into the king's service as they arrived at
the army mustering point.
Paul J Gans
>> hippo wrote:
The entire point of the English plan was to have their line
hold. That not only means no retreat, but also no advance
no matter how the enemy tries to suck you out of line.
This requires not only discipline, but continual re-inforcement
of the orders by the officers. And clearly they did so.
The French were much more confused. Nevertheless they were
able to transmit orders to the various units to move forward,
stand, or pull back as needed.
One battle that clearly illustrates this is the much earlier
battle of Bouvines where, though not present, King John lost
his northern French possessions.
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
I'll have to go look up the battle. The numbers and the space
don't add up. Further, it means that the knights moving toward
the English in the center would have been out of range of the
archers on the flanks and that was not the case.
---- Paul J. Gans
hippo
"William Black" wrote in message
> "hippo" wrote in message
>> Fifty miles in three days? Some German foot infantry divisions averaged
>> thirty in a single day for days on end and on unmetalled roads during
>> Barbarossa.
>
> They may well have done.
> Medieval armies didn't.
The only reason would be because of ox-drawn supply carts not human ability.
Our
>> rate of march on foot was supposed to be twenty miles per day on dirt
> roads
>> when I was wearing green.
>
> With proper boots, motorised supply and a command system that had radios.
Human capacity for something like marching hasn't changed that much since
medieval times. The Roman Legion could march twenty miles in a day in full
armor and with all its equipment even counting destroying the old night's
fortified camp and building a new one at the end of the day's march. That's
sixty miles in three days.
>> The lack of food in the English force doesn't support the idea either.
>> Horses forced to march daily require vast amounts of fodder to stay
>> alive.
>
> The idea of a raid of this type, and at that time of year, is that you
> live off the country.
>
> That's why they set out in October.
>
> After the harvest is in but before the weather breaks.
>
> Everyone has a year's supply of everything stashed away.
>
> Medieval warfare wasn't like modern warfare.
I know the drill. Horses can't graze on the march and the records show quite
clearly that the English army was starving. It makes no sense to haul around
fodder for horses if you can't even feed your troops. -the Troll
hippo
"William Black" wrote in message
> "hippo" wrote in message
>> > By this time in English history there were no "feudal" levees.
>> > But we get your meaning.
>>
>> Right, I mean the retinues of the major nobles. -the Troll
>
> There a reference in 'The Medieval Archer' by Jim Bradbury that implies
> that
> everyone was formally recruited into the king's service as they arrived at
> the army mustering point.
All the archers or everyone? It would be surprising if the great nobles
didn't have any personal retinue beyond a few servants. -the Troll
hippo
"Paul J Gans" wrote in message
> hippo wrote:
>>> Hmmm. I strongly dislike the word "melee" since it
>>> connotes a rough and tumble battle where command and
>>> control have been totally lost, along with any semblance
>>> of order and plan.
>>>
>>> This gives a rather wrong view of most medieval battles
>>> including this one.
>
>>I'm using the term some historians use and I don't think there was much
>>control except for those units in reserve or not otherwise engaged. By
>>melee
>>I mean that period of battle after the initial tactics have played out and
>>the main lines of both armies are closely engaged. At Cannae it would have
>>been after the last Carthaginian cavalry unit attacked the Roman rear and
>>Hannibal's tactics had played out. -the Troll
>
> The entire point of the English plan was to have their line
> hold. That not only means no retreat, but also no advance
> no matter how the enemy tries to suck you out of line.
All are a simple matter of orders to experienced and reliable subordinate
commanders before the battle and what is meant by tactics.
Controlled disengagement from close combat was one of the most difficult
operations in ancient warfare. Philip of Macedon pulled it off at Chaeronea
but most commanders didn't try it because of the risks of panic and
confusion. Most ancient battles were set-piece with most of the decisions
made before hand.
It's was purpose of reserves to make large adjustments during a battle and
subordinate leaders inside the ranks, or soldiers themselves, to make small
ones. -the Troll
[.]
hippo
"Paul J Gans" wrote in message
> hippo wrote:
[.]
>>The gap between the woods where the armies met was about 900 yards or too
>>wide to be covered by the 900-2000 English dismounted men-at-arms and
>>knights in sufficient depth to stop an attack. One or two ranks won't do
>>it.
>>Most agree there were four ranks which covers 300-600 yards or maybe half
>>of
>>the gap. -the Troll
>
> I'll have to go look up the battle. The numbers and the space
> don't add up. Further, it means that the knights moving toward
> the English in the center would have been out of range of the
> archers on the flanks and that was not the case.
I think Vaughan has it. Unlike most of the maps I have seen of the battle,
the archers must have been inter-dispersed between the three battles of
men-at-arms and dismounted knights as well as on the flanks. That's the only
way the line could have been made to stretch and at the same time provide
nearby armored muscle to back up the archers. It also solves your range
problem. The French would have been within range of archers across the
front. -the Troll
Paul J Gans
>"hippo" <hi...@south-sudan.net> wrote in message
>news:11g2e5n...@corp.supernews.com...
>> > By this time in English history there were no "feudal" levees.
>> > But we get your meaning.
>>
>> Right, I mean the retinues of the major nobles. -the Troll
>There a reference in 'The Medieval Archer' by Jim Bradbury that implies that
>everyone was formally recruited into the king's service as they arrived at
>the army mustering point.
The muster rolls survive as copies.
It is a sad fact that the originals had the name
of every man who was mustered into the King's
service (and likely his place of origin too).
Early modern copyists didn't think that information
about non-nobles was important and so deleted the
names.
The original is now gone. We do have the numbers
but the places of origin are now missing.
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
Paul J Gans
>> hippo wrote:
Yes, all true.
The French did not have nearly as disciplined a force as
the English. In part that was due to "chivalry" and in
part due to the way the French army was gathered.
It was done more in the manner you suggested above. The
nobles were called and they brought their ragtag and their
bully boys with them.
But even so there were orders given to disengage and
they were carried out. Not well, but after a fashion.
Medieval armies were used to carrying out orders. Of
course communication was often a problem, but this
was countered by the fact that the commanders could
often see the entire field of battle and knew what was
going on.
----- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>> hippo wrote:
>[.]
Yes. I've done a cursory look in a few places. I've found
values similar to your numbers in A.H. Bourne, "The Agincourt War".
A quick look in Bradbury's "The Medieval Archer" revealed no
numbers, but my look was quick.
I'm sure that there are details in Anne Curry's "The Battle
of Agincourt, Sources and Interpretations", but while the
damned book has English translations of darned near everything
written at the time and soon after about the battle, there
is no index.
I've read over the years (and listened to discussions) of the
placement of the English archers. The older school of thought
is that there were archers on the flanks ahead of the battle
line and archers in "wedges" in between the three divisions
of the English army. This is the disposition you favor.
The newer school is that there were no archers between
divisions.
Some historians believe one, others the other.
I heard a large debate between Cliff Rogers and Kelly
DeVries one day on the use of the longbow at Agincourt
and Crecy. Both seemed to agree that placing archers
between the battles (divisions) would introduce weak
spots that the French would surely charge.
The argument was over the killing range of the longbow
and the number of chances an archer would have to hit
a charging knight coming at him at 30 or more miles
per hour from a position say 200 yards away.
My calculation makes that about five seconds exposure
time. It was agreed that a good archer might launch
two arrows in that time but that the aim would not be
terribly good.
As a result there was general agreement that the
archers were most likely on the flanks, not in the
line.
DeVries felt that the archers would inflict significant
damage both on men and moreso on horses. Rogers
argued that the damage would be minimal because
riding "knee to knee" the horsemen presented a
small target per person.
But in the end the consensus was that it didn't
matter. In any event the arrow shots would have
the effect of causing the French line to compress
even more, pushing it together toward the reinforced
center of the English lines.
The result was that if one horse tripped, it brought
down half a dozen with it.
And that is what seems to have happened. Many of the
dead drowned in the mud as their horses went down with
them underneath, and more horses fell on top of those,
and so on.
I know that I've cast more fog than light onto the
situation at Agincourt, but that's the nature of medieval
military history. Mainly conjecture.
---- Paul J. Gans
hippo
"Paul J Gans" wrote in message
> hippo wrote:
>
>>"William Black" wrote in message
>>> There a reference in 'The Medieval Archer' by Jim Bradbury that implies
>>> that
>>> everyone was formally recruited into the king's service as they arrived
>>> at
>>> the army mustering point.
>
>>All the archers or everyone? It would be surprising if the great nobles
>>didn't have any personal retinue beyond a few servants. -the Troll
>
> Everyone.
That's something I didn't know. Thanks. -the Troll
hippo
> hippo wrote:
The problem with the French was their command. The king was nuts and the
rest were jockeying for power in the vacuum left by the king's insanity.
D'Albret managed the strategic movement of his army well enough but couldn't
just before or during the battle. There was a second Marshal in the ranks
and five or six Dukes including those of Orleans and Brabant so d'Albret was
only leader as prima inter pares. Most decisions were probably made by a
committee of the ten or so most powerful nobles. In the English army there
was no doubt as to who was leader.
Henry fought in the ranks of dismounted knights and men-at-arms. It would
have been impossible for him to control overall events once the armies met.
He made a good plan., chose competent subordinate leaders, got his army to
the field with the greatest local tactical advantage he could manage,
brought the enemy to battle and fought his battle from within the ranks in
local command of one third of his force at most. There was little or no
communicating going on until the prisoner issue cropped up near the end. As
I said, ancient battles were set-piece affairs with little generalship
needed or possible once the battle had been joined except for the deployment
of reserves who were not engaged. In the case of Agincourt there were no
reserves to deploy except perhaps for the king and his immediate
entourage. -the Troll
hippo
> hippo wrote:
[.]
Archers disposed in wedges between the three battles is the only scenario
which makes sense. There were just too few English dismounted men-at-arms
and knights for any other to be possible. The only disagreement in the
sources is the number of English dismounts which is from 900, the most
modern estimate, to a maximum of 2000. The 5000 archers could easily have
been disposed between the three battles and on the flanks at 1000 in each
position.
The only mounted attack was a sloppy affair in small numbers early in the
battle against the flanking archers. It was not supported by the rest of the
French line and easily dealt with by the archers alone. There may have been
no more than three or four hundred attackers against maybe 2000 archers.
For the main effort the French could advance only slowly because they were
on foot, packed together by the narrowing of the gap between the woods, and
slogging through the mud. Lethal range for a longbow varied but it must have
been pretty effective at 25 yards and against a solid mass couldn't miss.
Under those conditions it would take half a minute or more to cover 25
yards, more than enough time for the average archer to get off four or five
aimed shots. Climbing over the fallen would have slowed the French down even
more. Assuming a 25 yard lethal range, the archers, if formed up as I
assume, could have controlled more than half of the 900 yard wide
battlefield. -the Troll
William Black
Everyone.
The one thing a king on campaign didn't need was people wandering about who
could claim that as someone else was dead they're going home now/going to
fight for the other lot/want some money to stay.
William Black
> Henry fought in the ranks of dismounted knights and men-at-arms. It would
> have been impossible for him to control overall events once the armies
met.
Defensive armies behind a fixed position and with secure flanks don't need a
lot of orders.
'Hang on chaps, we're winning' is adequate.
William Black
> Human capacity for something like marching hasn't changed that much since
> medieval times. The Roman Legion could march twenty miles in a day in full
> armor and with all its equipment even counting destroying the old night's
> fortified camp and building a new one at the end of the day's march.
That's
> sixty miles in three days.
Only if they've got roads.
No metalled roads in medieval Europe, well, not many and none where Henry
was going.
It's not the oxcart thing, although that's relevant. It's getting the
buggers out of bed and on the road.
No parallel lines of advance, everyone walks down the same road.
Henry's army probably stretched four or five miles, it took a couple of
hours to get them on the road, any hold up and everybody stopped (No MPs to
sort out traffic jams and the van must keep contact with the rest of the
army) and it takes a couple of hours to arrive and a couple more to set up
camp and cook food.
So, assuming the rearguard gets on the road three hours after dawn and
you've got to stop and camp three hours before dusk you've only got six
hours marching, assuming no serious hold-ups or burnt bridges or nasty
ambushes or sickness in the ranks...
At Agincourt the soldiers went into battle without breeches, many of them
had dysentery...
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe
Barbeques on fire by chalets past the headland
I've watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off Newborough
All this will pass like ice-cream on the beach
Time for tea
.
William Black
> I heard a large debate between Cliff Rogers and Kelly
> DeVries one day on the use of the longbow at Agincourt
> and Crecy. Both seemed to agree that placing archers
> between the battles (divisions) would introduce weak
> spots that the French would surely charge.
>
> The argument was over the killing range of the longbow
> and the number of chances an archer would have to hit
> a charging knight coming at him at 30 or more miles
> per hour from a position say 200 yards away.
>
> My calculation makes that about five seconds exposure
> time. It was agreed that a good archer might launch
> two arrows in that time but that the aim would not be
> terribly good.
Obviously neither you nor either of the other two gentlemen has either seen
a charge by horsed cavalry or done much archery.
First of all, horses don't charge over two hundred yards, they canter up
to about a hundred yards away and then charge.
Second, you don't shoot at the guy in the suit of armour, you shoot at a
bloody great mass of people on horses. It's reasonably easy to hit... If
everyone let drive at the same time at the reasonably close range of fifty
yards it's going to bring the front rank down almost as one man. We know
they did this because the French recorded the orders in a phonetic form not
knowing what the words meant
Third, if a horse at the front falls down, a not unlikely event, the
people behind tend to either stop of crash in a reasonably spectacular
manner.
Charge over...
Repeat until out of either horses or arrows...
Vaughan Sanders
It takes a horse approx 40 seconds at the gallop to cross the range of a
longbow, that's approx 8 arrows per man. The stakes were because Henry
had heard from prisoners taken at Corbie that the French were going to
armour the horses. The 1,000 heavy horse that attacked the wing archers
don't appear to have bothered them much.
1,000 wing archers against 500 heavy horse equals 16 arrows per horse
before the knights could get at the archers.
Jamie
Vaughan Sanders
It's the same formation that Edward III used at Crecy,
(woods\/\/\/woods) the archers can't be flanked, even an attack from the
woods can be countered by a simple manoeuvre, this lesson was learnt at
Bannockburn where the archers were formed in straight lines and were
flanked.
Henry even tried to cross the Somme at the same place as Edward III, but
it was staked and heavily guarded, many people think Edward's mounted
archers forced the crossing the first time against the Genoese
crossbows, it being staked when Henry turned up points to cavalry in
Edward's day.
Henry's army had marched 260 miles in 17 days (one day of rest) when
they formed at Agincourt, approx 15 miles a day.
Jamie
Vaughan Sanders
Henry took a blow to the head severing the crown he wore on his helmet,
the Duke of York was crushed to death in the melee.
The first attack consisted of 8,000 of the top nobles on foot and 1,000
heavy horse attacking the archer wings, either by design or force of the
longbows the French foot split into three but still way outnumbered the
three formations of Henry's men-at-arms.
The English formations were pushed back at first but the longbows
hitting them from the flanks ( formation, |\/\/\/| ) allowed the
men-at-arms to regain their position. The French virtually crushed each
other, it would appear that even though the nobles had the best armour
they would not go near the archer wedges.
Jamie
D. Spencer Hines
Hmmmmmmm...
So how did Gans, DeVries and Rogers get it so wrong?
They say two arrows per archer is the best an archer could manage to get
off, as the horses come galloping toward him -- whereas you say he could
loose eight arrows.
Big Difference -- 300%.
DSH
"Vaughan Sanders" <ja...@chalkwell-windsurfing.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in
message news:ddvu6v$hb4$3...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
| "Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
| news:ddu9n3$t5q$1...@reader2.panix.com...
| > I heard a large debate between Cliff Rogers and Kelly
hippo
"William Black" wrote in message
> "hippo" wrote in message
>> Human capacity for something like marching hasn't changed that much since
I know they did, it's just that 20 miles ain't much for foot infantry roads
or not. I had pneumonia and a temperature of 104 F in basic training and
still kept up with full load, rifle, and steel pot. Roman roads were not
metalled for legionary infantry but for their transport and commerce. A
single file with the usual horse baggage train can use a footpath as long as
it has been scouted and folks know where they are going.
Your scouts would have been on the road by sunup, probably mounted, with the
advanced guard following shortly after. Shaving, personal hygiene, hot food
and tea are modern inventions and the Roman fortified camp was a thing of
the past. -the Troll
hippo
"William Black" wrote in message
> "hippo" wrote in message
>> All the archers or everyone? It would be surprising if the great nobles
>> didn't have any personal retinue beyond a few servants. -the Troll
>
> Everyone.
>
> The one thing a king on campaign didn't need was people wandering about
> who
> could claim that as someone else was dead they're going home now/going to
> fight for the other lot/want some money to stay.
It makes good sense if the option is available which is wasn't earlier
on. -the Troll
hippo
"Vaughan Sanders" wrote in message
> "hippo" wrote in message
> Henry took a blow to the head severing the crown he wore on his helmet,
> the Duke of York was crushed to death in the melee.
> The first attack consisted of 8,000 of the top nobles on foot and 1,000
> heavy horse attacking the archer wings, either by design or force of the
> longbows the French foot split into three but still way outnumbered the
> three formations of Henry's men-at-arms.
> The English formations were pushed back at first but the longbows
> hitting them from the flanks ( formation, |\/\/\/| ) allowed the
> men-at-arms to regain their position. The French virtually crushed each
> other, it would appear that even though the nobles had the best armour
> they would not go near the archer wedges.
Chuckle, who wants to get killed by a Welsh peasant when you've got
seigniorial rights and a mostly dry castle to look forward to?
A front of 900 men-at-arms is the same as the front for 8000 if the flanks
are restricted. The final result must have looked a lot like Cannae.
As I understand it the heavy horse attacked first in a slipshod piecemeal
operation which was unsupported. -the Troll
hippo
"William Black" wrote in message
> "hippo" wrote in message
>> Henry fought in the ranks of dismounted knights and men-at-arms. It would
>> have been impossible for him to control overall events once the armies
> met.
>
> Defensive armies behind a fixed position and with secure flanks don't need
> a
> lot of orders.
>
> 'Hang on chaps, we're winning' is adequate.
Agreed and what I have been saying. If Henry was personally carving up Frogs
he wouldn't have been in any condition to listen to messages from his other
battles or draft cogent replies. -the Troll
hippo
"Vaughan Sanders" wrote in message
> "hippo" wrote in message
[.]
>> I think Vaughan has it. Unlike most of the maps I have seen of the
> battle,
>> the archers must have been inter-dispersed between the three battles
> of
>> men-at-arms and dismounted knights as well as on the flanks. That's
> the only
>> way the line could have been made to stretch and at the same time
> provide
>> nearby armored muscle to back up the archers. It also solves your
> range
>> problem. The French would have been within range of archers across the
>> front.
> It's the same formation that Edward III used at Crecy,
> (woods\/\/\/woods) the archers can't be flanked, even an attack from the
> woods can be countered by a simple manoeuvre, this lesson was learnt at
> Bannockburn where the archers were formed in straight lines and were
> flanked.
>
> Henry even tried to cross the Somme at the same place as Edward III, but
> it was staked and heavily guarded, many people think Edward's mounted
> archers forced the crossing the first time against the Genoese
> crossbows, it being staked when Henry turned up points to cavalry in
> Edward's day.
>
> Henry's army had marched 260 miles in 17 days (one day of rest) when
> they formed at Agincourt, approx 15 miles a day.
I read there was a forced march of 60 miles in three days in there which is
where I get the number. I think it was the march to reach a ford ahead of
the French.
Troops didn't like fighting in woods. Whole units get lost and there can be
ambushes everywhere. -the Troll
William Black
> I know they did, it's just that 20 miles ain't much for foot infantry
roads
> or not. I had pneumonia and a temperature of 104 F in basic training and
> still kept up with full load, rifle, and steel pot. Roman roads were not
> metalled for legionary infantry but for their transport and commerce. A
> single file with the usual horse baggage train can use a footpath as long
as
> it has been scouted and folks know where they are going.
>
> Your scouts would have been on the road by sunup, probably mounted, with
the
> advanced guard following shortly after. Shaving, personal hygiene, hot
food
> and tea are modern inventions and the Roman fortified camp was a thing of
> the past.
All true.
A man can march twenty miles a day without too much trouble.
Six thousand can't.
What wasn't there was a professional staff to organise things.
As far as we know there were very few of what we'd call 'staff officers'.
No planning staff, and more to the point no group of people who are there
to make things happen, every officer had a command of some sort.
It's not a huge group of people, only about the size of the fighting
elements of a modern division, but a modern division has a formal staff of
considerable size to make sure everything happens, it has an MP company to
make sure the roads stay clear, it has G3 and G4 staffs to make sure
everyone has the right gear and is in the right place, it has radios and
telephones and, most important of all, experience of doing this stuff on a
regular basis because they train for this sort of stuff.
Henry certainly had some sort of vestigial staff organisation, but on a day
to day basis they made things work as best they could, and it didn't work
terribly well, indeed the problems weren't really worked out until the
seventeenth century, and even then they went back to the old Roman manuals
as a starting point.
Now I'm not saying they couldn't do it, I'm saying that it is possible that
they were all on horses...
William Black
"D. Spencer Hines" <pogue...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5eMMe.449$kb4....@eagle.america.net...
> Subject Line Corrected:
>
> Hmmmmmmm...
>
> So how did Gans, DeVries and Rogers get it so wrong?
>
> They say two arrows per archer is the best an archer could manage to get
> off, as the horses come galloping toward him -- whereas you say he could
> loose eight arrows.
>
> Big Difference -- 300%.
Nice try at spamming it all over the net.
Paul J Gans
Well, we are getting on toward early modern times by Agincourt.
Not quite there yet, but it ain't the 12th century... ;-)
The big thing is that nation-states are now forming and the
rules of the game are changing.
----- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>> hippo wrote:
>[.]
I generally agree.
I can add that the French attack on the archers was half-hearted
because chivalry saw no gain in chevaliers attacking mere peasants.
----- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>Charge over...
What you say is true and was discussed in some detail.
The 200 yards was my mistake. I know better.
And everyone agreed that horses were the primary target
at Crecy.
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>All true.
>Six thousand can't.
I'm not at all sure this is completely true. Look
at Henry's recruiting organization. And he clearly
had engineers with him. And there clearly was a means
of getting food to the soldiers.
I'm not claiming that there was a modern sort of
organization. But armies had been marching around
that region for quite a while and I daresay that
those involved had a good notion as to what was
needed.
The main problem was that there was no method of
*quick* communication. It had to be done by runner,
whether on foot or horseback. Just like at Waterloo...
Edward III marched over much the same route in three
columns spread out over what? sixty miles (IIRC)?
Of course he was up to burning everything he could to
make life as tought as possible for most Normans (a
few had come over to his side). Henry wasn't doing
that and probably kept his men together.
But your basic contention has to be correct. They
marched en masse no faster than the slowest cart.
And we know that the carts were present at Agincourt
since a guard was detailed to guard them.
---- Paul J. Gans
hippo
"William Black" wrote in message
> "hippo" wrote in message
>> I know they did, it's just that 20 miles ain't much for foot infantry
I am well aware of the functions of staffs. The English army had been in the
field for several months with plenty of time to work out routine and chains
of command which did exist.
I repeat, horses can't graze on the march and require feed equal to 2.5% of
body weight each day. They need fodder carried for every night's stop or
they quickly starve to death. If transport was available for fodder but not
for food for the men someone screwed up. There must have been essential
baggage animals. Riding horses would have caused serious logistics
problems. -the Troll
Michilín
This accords with everything I've ever read on the subject.
The Welsh longbow spelled the end of armour. The only reason that
armour did not vanish immediately was because it was a huge investment
that many knights could not bring themselves to abandon.
Murchadh
hippo
> hippo wrote:
I know you are right. Thanks again. -the Troll
hippo
"Paul J Gans" wrote in message
> hippo wrote:
[.]
>>Archers disposed in wedges between the three battles is the only scenario
That and their historical record of their effectiveness in past battles. If
the French mounted men-at-arms attack had been co-coordinated with their
advance on foot it could have been devastating and a battle winner: French
dismounted attack proceeds with gaps left on both flanks, mounted
men-at-arms move forward slowly fifty yards behind level of foot soldiers.
Crossbowmen behind main attack engage longbowmen on flanks, drawing their
attention and cutting down their numbers. French mounted attack launched
from 50 yards away followed by more French ground troops. French knights
sweep through archers and cave in Henry's flanks. Poof, no more Henry. -the
Troll
hippo
"Michilín" wrote in message
> "D. Spencer Hines" wrote:
> This accords with everything I've ever read on the subject.
>
> The Welsh longbow spelled the end of armour. The only reason that
> armour did not vanish immediately was because it was a huge investment
> that many knights could not bring themselves to abandon.
Nah, there was armored cavalry right up to WWI with the cuirassier and some
lancers. Armor was still useful attacking infantry and lighter cavalry, it
just wasn't the battle winner it had been in earlier times and had to be
used judiciously in combination with other arms just like tanks. -the Troll
D. Spencer Hines
Please be more careful in your attributions.
DSH
"hippo" <hi...@south-sudan.net> wrote in message
news:11g9al9...@corp.supernews.com...
|
| "Michil匤" wrote in message
Andrew Chaplin
and some
| lancers. Armor was still useful attacking infantry and lighter
cavalry, it
| just wasn't the battle winner it had been in earlier times and had
to be
| used judiciously in combination with other arms just like
tanks. -the Troll
Lancers were light, at least in the British Empire, but horse guards,
dragoon guards and early dragoons wore armour. Which countries'
lancers are you thinking of?
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
William Black
"Michilín" <mic...@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:430405bb.895447@news...
> The Welsh longbow spelled the end of armour.
There's no evidence that the longbow (whatever than may be) was invented by
the Welsh.
Jim Bradbury in his book 'The Medieval Archer' goes into all this in some
depth.
David Read
"Andrew Chaplin" <ab.ch...@yourfinger.rogers.com> wrote in message
news:GK6dnUkvpJc...@rogers.com...
> "hippo" <hi...@south-sudan.net> wrote in message
> news:11g9al9...@corp.supernews.com...
> |
> | Nah, there was armored cavalry right up to WWI with the cuirassier
> and some
> | lancers. Armor was still useful attacking infantry and lighter
> cavalry, it
> | just wasn't the battle winner it had been in earlier times and had
> to be
> | used judiciously in combination with other arms just like
> tanks. -the Troll
>
> Lancers were light, at least in the British Empire, but horse guards,
> dragoon guards and early dragoons wore armour. Which countries'
> lancers are you thinking of?
Dragoon regiments of the British army have never worn armour. Neither have
Dragoon Guards, although their forbears, the Regiments of Horse did, but
abandoned them shortly after the War of the Spanish Succession. The Royal
Horse Guards took their old cuirasses to Flanders in 1793, but neither they
nor the two Life Guard regiments wore armour on active service during the
Napoleonic Wars. These three regiments, as the Household Cavalry were
re-equipped with armour in 1821, and have worn it ceremonially, but never in
action, ever since.
Most of the major powers of Europe retained armour for their heavy cavalry
regiments right up until the First World War - French cuirassiers went into
battle with cuirasses in 1914. I don't think that any nation's dragoon
regiments have ever been armoured.
Also many cavalry regiments from various armies, including the British, who
were not nominally lancers were trained in its use and employed it in combat
during the First World War.
--
cheers,
David Read
Vaughan Sanders
"William Black" <ab...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:de0b3l$e2a$1...@news.freedom2surf.net...
>
> "D. Spencer Hines" <pogue...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:5eMMe.449$kb4....@eagle.america.net...
> > Subject Line Corrected:
> >
> > Hmmmmmmm...
> >
> > So how did Gans, DeVries and Rogers get it so wrong?
> >
> > They say two arrows per archer is the best an archer could manage to
get
> > off, as the horses come galloping toward him -- whereas you say he
could
> > loose eight arrows.
> >
> > Big Difference -- 300%.
>
> Nice try at spamming it all over the net.
>
> --
> William Black
>
The 40 seconds is based on a re-enactment at Crecy, a bit steeper than
Agincourt? - but in dry conditions with no obstacles like dead and
bolting horses.
In the same re-enactment the longbow managed 20 rounds in one minute,
the Genoes crossbow 8 rounds.
Jamie
Madra Dubh
>
> "Michilín" <mic...@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:430405bb.895447@news...
>
>> The Welsh longbow spelled the end of armour.
>
> There's no evidence that the longbow (whatever than may be) was invented
> by
> the Welsh.
<Snip>
The Welsh rise as one to thank you for that...................
Séimí mac Liam
@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
Are they going to sing?
--
Saint Séimí mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99
Tron
"Michilín" <mic...@shaw.ca> skrev i melding
news:430405bb.895447@news...
......
> The Welsh longbow spelled the end of armour. The only reason that
> armour did not vanish immediately was because it was a huge investment
> that many knights could not bring themselves to abandon.
How many welsh archers where there in Europe at the time?
T
William Black
"Tron" <tron...@frisurf.no> wrote in message
news:215Ne.128$Ti5....@news2.e.nsc.no...
Lots and lots, but as far as we know there were virtually none at
Agincourt, unless they were disguised as people from Cheshire, which is
possible...
Cory Bhreckan
> "Madra Dubh" <cca...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in news:Ke4Ne.111257$5N3.6878
> @bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
>
>
>>"William Black" <ab...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:de2e2o$2um$1...@news.freedom2surf.net...
>>
>>>"Michilín" <mic...@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:430405bb.895447
>
> @news...
>
>>>>The Welsh longbow spelled the end of armour.
>>>
>>>There's no evidence that the longbow (whatever than may be) was invented
>>>by
>>>the Welsh.
>>
>><Snip>
>>
>>The Welsh rise as one to thank you for that...................
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> Are they going to sing?
>
No, but if you have a leg of beef around your house you had better lock
it away.
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
> The Welsh longbow spelled the end of armour. The only reason that
> armour did not vanish immediately was because it was a huge
> investment that many knights could not bring themselves to abandon.
The problem with that theory is that armour remained in use until the
Napoleonic era. The earliest recorded date for a Welsh longbow is
1118. Field armour continued to develop until the 1580s when you also
got munitions armour. It was fire arms that did in armour, first
reducing coverage as thicker plates were required 3/4 armour of the
ECW period and then just to a breast plate.
Ken Young
Andrew Chaplin
news:de2gpi$1jg$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
I could have sworn that 18th C. dragoons had cuirasses (I might have
mixed 'em up with Frawg dragons) but I suppose I stand corrected.
Thanks.
Julian Richards
The addition that I would like to add is that it wasn't the lead ball
that beat the steel armour but the crossbow like bolt that was pushed
down the early gun barrels. When fired, the folded copper fins opened
for stability. They had been thought of a retrograde step in firearms
development until tests using reconstructed early firearms at the
Royal Armoury showed that they had a superior armour penetration when
compared to lead ball. Noting us.military.army here, the bolt acted
very much like a sabot round.
--
Julian Richards
medieval "at" richardsuk.f9.co.uk
www.richardsuk.f9.co.uk
Website of "Robot Wars" middleweight "Broadsword IV"
THIS MESSAGE WAS POSTED FROM SOC.HISTORY.MEDIEVAL
hippo
"Andrew Chaplin" wrote in message
> "hippo" wrote in message
> | Nah, there was armored cavalry right up to WWI with the cuirassier
> and some
> | lancers. Armor was still useful attacking infantry and lighter
> cavalry, it
> | just wasn't the battle winner it had been in earlier times and had
> to be
> | used judiciously in combination with other arms just like
> tanks. -the Troll
>
> Lancers were light, at least in the British Empire, but horse guards,
> dragoon guards and early dragoons wore armour. Which countries'
> lancers are you thinking of?
Earlier Uhlans but I looked it up and it appears they were not. -the Troll
hippo
"William Black" wrote in message
> "Michilín" wrote in message
>> The Welsh longbow spelled the end of armour.
>
> There's no evidence that the longbow (whatever than may be) was invented
> by
> the Welsh.
>
> Jim Bradbury in his book 'The Medieval Archer' goes into all this in some
> depth.
No, and plenty of evidence they were not. Self bows of six feet in length
were found in the Danish Iron Age bog deposits. -the Troll
Michilín
wrote:
The last trace of armour, (not counting the move to Kevlar. et al.)
was the gorget hung by a chain round the neck, worn by the Nazi
Military Police, who were nicknamed chain dogs(Kettenhünde) because of
it.
Some of the houses I was brought up in had lots of armour, but very
little of it would have fitted an Agincourt--era knight, most of whom
I understand to have been large, hefty and very fit young men, in
other words, the typical upperclass European of today.
Most of the armour fitted us children perfectly, but no adult. I heard
it said that much of the baronial armour was three-quarter size and
meant only for show, not for anyone's use. In a word, samples of the
armour maker's skills, style, and decor work.
On the other hand, a walk through the Armoury in the Tower of London
which I last took in 1969 revealed armour which was definitely built
for large men. It should still be there.
Murchadh
Michilín
Some English lancers armed with sabres pursued some German light
cavalry armed with lances at the start of WWI near Ypres killing most
of the Germans. A large stone monument commemorates the incident, but
I'm damned if I can remember the name of the town. A major German
railway supply line passes close by and there is still a giant former
German barracks there.
Murchadh
hippo
"Michilín" wrote in message
"hippo" wrote:
>>Nah, there was armored cavalry right up to WWI with the cuirassier and
>>some
>>lancers. Armor was still useful attacking infantry and lighter cavalry, it
>>just wasn't the battle winner it had been in earlier times and had to be
>>used judiciously in combination with other arms just like tanks. -the
>>Troll
>>
>>
> The last trace of armour, (not counting the move to Kevlar. et al.)
> was the gorget hung by a chain round the neck, worn by the Nazi
> Military Police, who were nicknamed chain dogs(Kettenhünde) because of
> it.
>
> Some of the houses I was brought up in had lots of armour, but very
> little of it would have fitted an Agincourt--era knight, most of whom
> I understand to have been large, hefty and very fit young men, in
> other words, the typical upperclass European of today.
>
> Most of the armour fitted us children perfectly, but no adult. I heard
> it said that much of the baronial armour was three-quarter size and
> meant only for show, not for anyone's use. In a word, samples of the
> armour maker's skills, style, and decor work.
>
> On the other hand, a walk through the Armoury in the Tower of London
> which I last took in 1969 revealed armour which was definitely built
> for large men. It should still be there.
Funny thing about that. I went to the museum at Marathon which contains the
armor taken from the tumulus there. The armor actually worn by those killed
in the battle was sized for modern children aged maybe 12. I remember seeing
ancient swords which looked like knives and wondering even then. A bronze
helmet I bought in Greece as a souvenir, and cast from an original, is sized
far too small for a modern adult head. Athens had a democratic army without
a military ruling elite.
On the other side is the Count von Sayn (probably Eberhard I, d. 1180) who
was reputed to have been eight feet tall. I know one of his descendants who
is 6 foot 7.
I think the classes in those days varied greatly in average height both from
diet and natural selection as warriors. Men-at-arms and archers would, on
average, have been smaller than the Barons. -the Troll