[Dan Howard]

The "harrow" formation shouldn't be translated at all. It is pretty obvious where the term comes from and it is a perfect description.

[Jean Henri Chandler]

That is really interesting Pieter, thanks for posting. I never really understood what they meant by coustiler. So the coustiler, who are sometimes described in contemporary texts as 'swordsmen', were actually something more like billmen (glaivemen?) which makes a lot more sense than guys with a sword as a primary weapon.

I would like to point out that the "lance" (helm, gleve etc.) as a unit took on many forms around Europe in the late medieval period. I think some of the TOE for these that we see in French and Burgundian ordinances, particularly those of Charles the Bold, are to some extent experimental. There is also a difference between the 'lance' as an element of the muster (i.e. how many people you are responsible for bringing to the party) and as an actual combat unit.

East of the Rhine the Lance seems to have taken on different forms, but been more oriented toward the latter. Sometimes it was as simple as 3 men, a man at arms, a lighter lancer, and a valet. Others particularly in the Baltic and East of the Elbe more commonly show 5 men: a man at arms, a lancer, two mounted crossbowmen, and a valet. i think the Italian 'lance' was more like that as well. But only in French and Burgundian documents, at least as far as I know, have i seen this mix of cavalry and infantry in the lance.

However! I have sometimes seen references to an armed gentleman traveling on horseback but accompanied by bodyguards or 'trabant' (or 'fußknecht') who are on foot, the latter typically with halberds or crossbows. I've never seen that depicted in a purely military context but it does seem to have been a 'thing'. I think Durer is depicting the arrangement here:



and Hans Wechtlin here

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons...knecht.jpg

Jean

[Pieter B.]

Hello Dan, I suppose we could leave it untranslated but how many people would know what a harrow is of all things? I sure didn't, the first one I saw was in Très Riches Heures du Duc de Berry of all things

[Dan Howard]

[Pieter B.]

Hello Dan.

Thanks for pointing that out. Do you know anything about the percentage of mounted infantry in the armies of the 100 years war too?

[Alexis Bataille]

About armor and penetration, http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Hydrostatic_shock hydrostatic shock can kill you instantly.
And perhaps neural effect can begin at 140 Joules.

[Randall Moffett]

Pieter,
“Randall I really enjoyed our discussion so far.”

I have as well.

“ How about we both just say longbow archers were effective and leave the how (armor penetration or hitting an unarmored part) for now.”

This is more or less where I have arrived after a decade and a half of looking at this.

“ I am just eyeballing casualty rates of some of the famous battles of the 100 years war and it seems the chance per arrow of killing or otherwise inuring someone is relatively low, provided that the archers did indeed fire at the high rate commonly ascribed to them. Perhaps both ways accounted for an equal part of the casualties with the majority of arrows that didn't reach the flesh having some other effect which affected the outcome of the battle.”

Something to consider is that casualties in an army tended to be rather low. Keegan makes the point that just above 5% casualties and most armies break and flee. Of course there are exceptions but think of it this way. Even if you are only losing a few single digit percentages of your troops by archer then you might be well on your way to Keegan’s breaking point. I think the balance of men-at-arms to archer was indeed vital. Even with stakes to help make up for fewer men-at-arms these are nowhere near as useful. Most accounts we do see the two armies engage which to me means the archers were there to weaken the enemy force before it engaged, keep weakening it as it is fighting and once the arrows were gone reinforce the men-at-arms.

“A thing I would like to discuss further is the percentage of contracted archers actually being archers in the modern sense. Mike Loades claims a certain part of those listed as mounted archers on the indentured contracts served as mounted infantry with a role to protect archers and ravage the land. At first I raised an eyebrow but it doesn't seem to far fetched really, perhaps you already know it and can provide me with an answer but if you want to hear my line of thought here it goes:

1: Archer in the medieval and early modern world doesn't have the same meaning it does now. In the 16th century a French mounted archer was essentially a man-at-arms in full armor with a lance riding on an unarmored (but charging) horse.
The French established a parish militia (around 1450-66) called the Franc-archers (free-archers) which contrary to what the name might suggest were armed with not just longbows but also crossbows, glaives/voulges and spears.”

OK. So lets start with Mike’s idea. First off this is an older idea that has come up before and there are more bits of evidence that lean to a yes. I think Andrew Ayton brings it up in Crecy as a possibility. He indicates that Hobelars largely disappear and likely were merged into mounted archer. Perhaps. But here is the issue. The inventories. Archers in most cases when we have weapons listed are the dominate force, even mounted forces.
There is a mid 15th English retinue that comes up showing more or less balances billmen to archers both mounted and on foot but I do not see that in the few other contemporary accounts with equipment.

Here is another possible concept to put in the mix to make things even more confusing. What if archers were used as both and really were both….

But here is the kicker…. Hobelars do show up all the way into the 15th century toward the end… to me sort of kills the idea they were simply lumped into the group at least in England. I myself lean more toward being used as both.

As to the Franc-Archers they actually go back far earlier in many ways Charles V makes a very similar setup. These largely seem to have been to provide archers and crossbowmen at this time. This makes sense. The French can muster huge armies of men-at-arms as well as urban militia which tended to be better equipped than rural troops with armour, many being crossbowmen. It actually seems the increase in pole weapons coincides with the rise of the Swiss and French monarchy copying them. Especially during their wars with Charles the Bold. So depending on when we are referring to the Franc archer’s yes. But when Charles VII starts them up again it does seem his main focus was archers which makes sense. His companies of Ordinance would be a mixed group much like Charles the Bold would do to provide a balanced force capable of dealing with many situations.

It could be this system would allow for flexibility determined by need. If you need all the archers to act as archers because you have enough support great. If not you can balance them out as needed.


‘2: The French and later the Burgundians introduced a lance based recruitment system built around a man-at-arms with two to three archers and a page. Going by the ratio of longbow archers to man-at-arms it seems this is not a new concept but rather a codification of an already existing recruiting ratio/practice. But who or what is this new addition called a Coutilier? He was mounted, reasonable armored and armored with a voulge/polearm to demilance/spear. While the latter looks like a cavalry weapon the former does not suggesting he is some form of mounted infantry. Now another question this raises if whether this troop type was a new invention or, rather like the rest of the lance recruiting system, a codification of an already existing practice? I believe this Coutilier existed before the lance system named him that and that he was attached to the mounted archer to provide some form of infantry protection when they went about ravaging and burning the countryside.’

Cliff Rogers thinks this is where many of the numbers for Agincourt for example go off as he thinks the servants of the men-at-arms were armed men so should be counted as soldiers. Valet is a pretty ambiguous word. Monstrelet seems to agree though. It makes sense and tactically allows for a force that can adapt to the situation. Remember as well men-at-arms learned to fight on foot and often did so to me thinking other groups could be both fighting on foot at times and mounted seems pretty reasonable.

As Jean and Dan have pointed out the lance varies a great deal across Europe so hard to say. Even in the same place it can vary, Froissart largely states lances as men-at-arms so we are left with a rather unclear situation.

‘3: Froissart refers to the English formation as a harrow which is commonly translated as hedgehog. This could refer to the men-at-arms with cut-down lances and other polearms or the stakes driven in the ground before the longbow archers on the flanks. Another possibility is that a third type of soldier was standing between or behind the longbow archers. Rather than leaving the longbow archers protected only by a line of stakes and their wits they might have had good quality infantry near them, something that might explain the harrow/hedgehog comment.’

Dan’s point is a good one as it creates a few layers of protection for the archers. There is a Burgundian account that indicates that their archers need3e to learn to shoot over their men-at-arms as they would a wall. WE might have two different formations. A longer line setup or a more distinct staggered set up. Burne’s states the herce is actually the fact that some troops come forward on the sides. Herce only sounds simple. It could be that this was a mixed group of men-at-arms and their valets or other armed servants to reinforce them as well.

I honestly think medieval tactics and organization was far more flexible and capable than often assumed. It is very likely to me the servants were armed and employed.

'Thanks for pointing that out. Do you know anything about the percentage of mounted infantry in the armies of the 100 years war too?'

When and which campaigns.

The larger campaigns like Crecy or Agincourt seem to be largely infantry. But if on a Chevauchee then most would be mounted and smaller. Just depends. the men-at-arms to archer ration goes from 1-1 earlier on in the war to 1-3 toward the end of the 14th and higher in the 15th. But in larger campaigns there are far more archer for the English so still depends.

Hope this makes sense. Long night and brain is tired.

RPM

[Pieter B.]

[Pieter B.]

In the featured article on mail armor by Dan Howard he cites these two passages.

[Dan Howard]

[Dan Howard]

[Pieter B.]

[Timo Nieminen]

Google Translate gives, for the last sentence:

"And when he was conducting the draw, of course discerned by all, for serious wound or kill vulnerable, or tossed arrow
have pursued armed contunsos unscathed, and aghast in flight."

If "contunsos" is a typo for "contusos", it would be "bruised".

A reasonable translation might be:

"Whenever he was in the draw, his drawing was discerned by all, because the naked were pierced and seriously wounded or the arrows cast against the armoured, without wounding or bruising, sent them fleeing stupefied."

"Stupefied" could mean, physically, "numbed", or mentally, "made stupid", perhaps distractedly afraid. It could even mean "stunned", but then they would be standing/sitting/lying stunned, rather than running away.

A loose translation might be: "He hit and seriously wounded the unarmoured, and, although he didn't wound or bruise the armoured, he hit them and they ran away scared."

It's praising his accuracy, not any unusual strength of his shooting. The unarmoured are wounded, and the armoured are not.

[Pieter B.]

That could be a reasonable explanation but I wonder where the author/translator got "whom his shots stupefied and stunned, even if they did not wound." from. Did the armored people cower and run when they say the other being shot?

[Randall Moffett]

Timo,

'Cumque ipse ad obsi-
dentés traheret*^, tractus ipsius discernebatur ab omnibus,
quia vel percuteret gravi vulnere nudos^, vel jactata sagitta
quos persequebatur armatos sine vulnere contunsos, stupe-
factos in fugam vertebat.'

'"And when he was conducting the draw, of course discerned by all, for serious wound or kill vulnerable, or tossed arrow
have pursued armed contunsos unscathed, and aghast in flight." '

I am not sure that translation works how google has done it. I'd use thrown or cast over tossed here. Jactare is a later term for Iactare which is to cast, hurl or throw but can be tossed but such a odd word here. Stupere- means to stupefy or astound. A quick translation of the end to me seems to indicate that he was indeed stupefying these armoured men with his arrows but we are back to what ever that might mean. But the verb is seeming to tie to the arrows so are the arrows awing the men? Not sure but seems the man would be more likely to awe and arrows to stun. Interesting word choice. Still nothing solid and the active player are the arrows.

To me the last part is interesting as well.-I am curious where Vertere went to. It means to overthrow, destroy or turn around.

An interesting account.

So is it saying, the hurled arrows did not wound the armed men but awe/stupefied them turning them around/overthrowing them in flight?

RPM

[Timo Nieminen]

Google Translate works as a first draft, but in cases like this, only as a first draft.

Vertere is "turn around", and can mean "to retreat". Subvertere is "overthrow, destroy". According to my dictionaries; real-life usage might disagree on occasion.

The armoured men might be disheartened by his accuracy. If he can hit them, he will hit them again, and again, and will hit them in gaps, thin armour, etc.

[Randall Moffett]

Timo,

I suspect it works for both. My two dictionaries both include overthrow or destroy for vertere for the medieval and classical period.

And a quick google pulls more or less the same up.

http://www.latin-dictionary.net/definition/38...rti-versus

I am still not sure. It could mean to awe or some type of psychological impact or still could be physical impact as well. Just not sure we can take the word stupefy for anything more specific.

RPM

[Neil Melville]

I have been fascinated by the whole of this discussion and would now like to put in my tuppence-worth re the Latin text about the effect of Benkin's shooting. The word 'contusos' (I agree 'contunsos' is a misprint) means something stronger than just 'bruised', more like 'pounded' or 'battered' and the sentence says that the enemy were battered even though they were not wounded. The phrase 'in fugam vertere' is a common one, meaning 'put to flight', used by Livy and Tacitus among others, not 'destroy in flight', (for which the ablative case would be needed). I would take it that the enemy were so astonished/stupefied by the force and number of the arrows (Benkin is described as running round the walls shooting from different directions), even though not wounded, that they panicked and fled. Benkin is described as being huge so perhaps he had a particularly powerful bow and very heavy arrows.

Hope this helps a little.
Neil

[Pieter B.]

Both interpretations (physical bruising/pounding scaring them or being mentally overpowered by the sight) could prove useful for interpreting what effect the longbow had on armored soldiers. We should keep in mind that the text is a 12th century one, here Benkin is described as a strong archers but it could reasonable be claimed that such strength was the average of archers from the later period.

[Dan Howard]