| Author |
Message |
|
Kel Rekuta
|
 Posted: Sun 11 Mar, 2012 2:48 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Ralph Grinly wrote: | I've a question for those who claim that the longbow and arrows were relatively useless and had no major bearing on such battles as Crecy and Agincourt..to what ELSE do you contribute the outcome of the battles ? Given that the chroniclers OF THE TIME asserted that archers were a main determiner of the battle ? Were the english armed with some other, secret weapon that no-one noticed ? maybe a platoon or two, armed with AK47's, hidden in the woods  Or..now here's a new theory..the archers went and throttled the french with their bowstrings ? After all..their arrows were useless, weren't they ? |
That's a bit extreme. I haven't read a single such comment in this thread or dozens like it over the years. There is a definite middle ground occupied by many military technology and warfare enthusiasts that does not accept either extreme view. Warbow archery was significant to English military success throughout the HYW but in a specific role in a strategy of combined arms. The invincible warbow is as much a myth as the invincible armour of the man-at-arms.
|
|
   |
 |
|
Kel Rekuta
|
| Posted: Sun 11 Mar, 2012 3:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Randall Moffett wrote: | Kel,
Why do so many people assume the armour of Agincourt was better than Crecy or Poitiers? As far as layers of protection they seem similar and since metallugical quality was largely unchanged for 90% of armour most still being unhardened to any qualitive matter why is this assumed so often? Maybe Falkirk or Stirling armour was largely less developed by Crecy and Poitiers I am not seeing a big difference with Agincourt.
To me the move from COPs was less about effectiveness and more better technologoes for production of iron/steel.
RPM |
Perhaps for the majority of French men-at-arms at Agincourt, especially those that were relegated to the second battle, not much difference from the top armour worn at Crecy. However, the first battle of French advance were chosen from those with more complete harness and probably for their personal status as well, demanding to be in the van. The French very clearly knew they would have to wade through an arrow storm of epic proportions and yet chose to do so relying on their armour. Pavises seemed to be very rare in that assault.
The French at Poiters sent a unit of the heaviest, most covered horse they could find, equipped with large pavises to protect the main battle's flank. English arrows were ineffective until a hedge broken down provided a counterflanking position to shoot the French defensive line in the back. The invincible warbow so vividly imagined by its fans wasn't working until applied to the weak rear armour and bardings of men and horses. That is a salient point conveniently neglected by proponents of the efficacy of the longbow. Even then, the press of English men at arms drove back the main French battle and allowed a mounted charge to blast into the confused French ranks. The warbow as imagined by many as a super weapon should have been able to do that on its own, thus sparing the English Crown the pointless expenditure on significantly more expensive men-at-arms, their upkeep and replacement of costly horses. It did not.
As you are well read on the development of plate harness from its transition to al-whyte "international" style, you might consider:
1 The gaps in coverage between pairs of plate over mail versus the more closely fitted and deeply curved surfaces of al-whtye harness fifty years later. Perhaps only the finest Milanese plate was hardened and probably in a minority of the armour at Agincourt but neither the funerary monument record nor the art of the period suggest the antique form of relatively flat plates of the mid fourteenth century were still in common use in the early fifteenth century. The more select targets available to shoot beyond point blank (within 20 yards) range are much, much fewer in number in late fourteenth and early fifteenth century harness.
2 Henry V frequently complained about the quality of arrows being sent to arm English forces. If non-hardened heads were so readily capable of defeating the common armour it was loosed upon, then why would Henry be so particular that "properly steeled" tips were to be sent?
Man, we need to work together to get more people on the middle ground where the only appropriate answer for arrow versus armour is sometimes.
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Sun 11 Mar, 2012 3:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kel Rekuta wrote: | | Man, we need to work together to get more people on the middle ground where the only appropriate answer for arrow versus armour is sometimes. |
"Sometimes" isn't enough of an answer. Did it occur often enough to influence the outcome of a battle? This is a link to the real reasons why I think the English warbow was effective.
http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=25486
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kel Rekuta
|
| Posted: Sun 11 Mar, 2012 3:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Matt Easton wrote: | | The majority of the French army at Agincourt probably did not have full plate harness, so the longbow can claim a large chunk of the victory without plate penetration even being discussed. It's worth remembering though that a single arrow wound often would not incapacitate, and it does not take long to walk 300 yards. Many men could arrive at the English lines with one or two wounds, or get lucky and be sheltered in the mass of men. Arrows are not musket balls, they do not now down men like firearms. They make a neat hole and stop, like a stab wound. |
I agree for the most part, except that the sources imply that those with the most harness were placed in the first battle and those lesser armed were in the second and third battles. Once the confusion and disaster that the first battle experienced was complete, the lesser quality second battle still chose to assault. Whether this was irrational pride or the expectation that English archers has spent their munitions for the most part - we will never know for sure. The sight of lightly armed men engaging the foremost army France could field would give a distant observer some hope of engagement instead of being turned into a pin cushion, IMHO.
One of the things that Dr Rogers has never satisfactorily commented on is the logistical issue of arrow resupply after the English line advanced two or three hundred yards down the mud bowl that was between the two armies. Valets and camp boys would have to scuttle back and forth from the arrow wagons in their position behind the original line of battle and the new line after the advance. That's a bitch of a run with an arm full of sheaves. How could the archers possibly have not spent their supplies and needed to engage hand to hand with the French? How effective was the arrow storm prior to engagement of the English and French men-at-arms if there were still so many French to deal with in close combat?
Sorry, that is a major sticking point that no one with academic authority seems to comment on. They do love to speculate on armour quality and percentages of coverage, whatever but never on the fact that the English archers seemed to be forced to close engagement by the lack of arrows during the battle. To me, this simple fact speaks volumes about the efficacy of the warbow arrow versus contemporary armour.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clifford Rogers
|
| Posted: Sun 11 Mar, 2012 4:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kel Rekuta wrote: | Dr Rogers,
As a long-time fan of your work, I have read these articles plus Dr Curry's collection of the Agincourt sources. Yet I still remain unconvinced that the penetration of plate at anything beyond point blank range had a significant role in the outcome of that particular battle. Crecy and Poiters were very different battles fought in rather poorer armour and also on radically different ground. They should not be considered equivalent in terms of battlefield conditions. Returning to Agincourt, your earlier work on the efficacy of the longbow gives too much credence to the warbow's killing ability and little enough to its contribution to combined arms. |
Kel,
The early article was a reply to a specific claim that "there is little evidence that the longbowmen...did any more damage than the killing of a few horses and the wounding of even fewer men." So the topic was what the longbow itself could do, not its overall role in the tactical system. However, I have covered that in other places and of course I agree that the longbow rarely won battles by itself. (Sometimes archers did win without the men-at-arms needing to engage, but not against well-armored troops.) When addressing the tactical system overall, I wrote that "The English archers [at various battles including Dupplin Moor, Crecy and Agincourt] could not have won without the men-at-arms, nor the men-at-arms without the archers." ["England's fourteenth-century RMA, p. 28.]
| Kel Rekuta wrote: |
If the massive striking advantage of massed archery could reliably defeat men-at-arms, there would have been little hand to hand fighting for the English men-at-arms, yet the same sources imply they were sorely pressed until the lightly armed archers dove into the fray with whatever weapons were at hand. |
Yes, that's why I have never said "the massive striking advantage of massed archery could reliably defeat men-at-arms"-- in fact, it could not do that unless (as at Agincourt on the wings) you had a lot of archers loosing at relatively few men-at-arms... or if the men-at-arms were mounted. But I did say the archery could, would, and did have a major effect on the battle. I'm not saying the longbow is a _sufficient_ cause of the English victories, I'm saying it's a _necessary_ cause.
But if its arrows couldn't penetrate the armor of most combatants on the battleifeld, the longbow would have been fairly useless; hence longbowmen would have been fairly useless; hence at Agincourt the 1,000 English men-at-arms would have to have overwhelmingly out-fought the 10,000 French men-at-arms with little help. Again, there is no convincing or even reasonable explanation for the consistent battlefield success of outnumbered English armies in the HYW that does not accept the effectiveness of the longbow against armored men, and I don't buy the idea that arrows were effective without being able penetrate armor, including plate. [Note: not necessariliy _all_ the armor; could be just the thinner pieces, though in fact I think up through Agincourt the best archers could penetrate even breastplates of all but the best armor-- which was worn by very few-- with a direct hit at fairly short range, a statement that does not fail to allow for the fact that direct hits were not the norm, or for the possibility that the penetration of the thicker pieces might be shallow]
| Kel Rekuta wrote: |
As nearly every aspect of the ground, command and discipline were mismanaged by the French at Agincourt, it seems clear that the concentrated firepower and rigid discipline of the English expedition were force multiplied by the position chosen by Henry on a very difficult ground for dismounted assault. |
I quite agree. But your statement only makes sense if there is "concentrated firepower" involved, and if arrows could not penetrate plate armor, then the fire would have no power to be multiplied.
| Kel Rekuta wrote: |
Frankly speaking, the steady march through sucking mud while under the abuse of massed archery and the confusion of horses careening through tightly packed ranks did more to defeat the French than how many breastplates or helmets were pierced by arrows.
You would gain a very clear view of this should you take the occasion to borrow a full harness of the period and have a stroll through a freshly plowed field or even a beach. Sir, I respect your opinion and the enormous amount of work you have done to form it. However, I feel that you are insufficiently informed as the reality of the difficulty the dismounted French faced at Agincourt and therefore wrongly attribute their defeat to an inflated conception of the efficacy of the warbow in that circumstance.
|
Kel,
Respectfully, I think you are disagreeing with what you think I said rather than what I said. Can you offer a quotation that you think shows an "inflated conception of the efficacy of the warbow"?
I think your statement about the careeening horses [caused by arrow-fire, remember], mud and abuse of arrow fire is not far from what I wrote in my Agincorut article, e.g.: "the typical French man-at-arms in the first rank faced a fight that was far from even [when he reached the English line]. He was very likely seriously bruised and battered by arrow-strikes which had not penetrated his armor, and probably also suffering from one or more minor wounds from shafts that had reached flesh. He was physically exhausted by slogging through the mud under fire and by his efforts to resist the thrusts and eddies of crowd-pressure. His feet were still deep in the mud, whereas his opponent’s were likely planted on the relatively solid unplowed ground of the Agincourt-Tramecourt wagon track."
And on the horses: "Imagine the effect on such a densely-packed mass of nearly-blind men when the out-of-control stallions driven back by arrow-fire crashed in among them, as the sources emphasize that some of them did. This would have happened not just once, but probably in several waves, following the volleys of the archers against the cavalry. Each time, after each horse had pushed its way through or been brought down, the men who had been thrown to the ground or pushed aside, even if not trampled by the horses or by their own comrades, would have faced difficult decisions. They knew and accepted as an article of faith that it was of the utmost importance for them to maintain their formation. They would normally look to their banners to see where they should be, but that would require looking up, perhaps raising their visors, and risking death from a descending arrow. The banner-bearers in the areas of impact themselves had to decide: should they halt to allow the restoration of order within their own unit, even though that might put their banner out of line with the others, not to mention increasing the amount of time they would be under fire before reaching the enemy? Or should they press on, hoping that order could be reestablished on the move–even though they knew that just keeping order on the move, much less regaining it once lost, was a difficult task?"
And on the French leadership: "the decisions made by the French leaders before the battle had even begun go a long way towards explaining the outcome. Their choice of battlefield could have been a good one with a different formation; their deployment could have worked well on a different battlefield; but to array their forces in the way they did, on the ground they chose, was little short of idiotic."
However, if my analysis is correct (and I'm pretty sure about this point) the line of dismounted French men-at-arms was wider than the line of the English men-at-arms (who after all were very badly outnumbered). Hence, the French men-at-arms on the flanks were advancing directly towards archers. If the archers were unable to wound them with their arrows, the men-at-arms would have routed the archers-- even with the mud and their exhaustion-- then enveloped the English line, and won the battle.
Clifford J. Rogers
|
|
 |
|
|
R. Kolick
|
| Posted: Sun 11 Mar, 2012 5:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kel Rekuta wrote: |
That's a bit extreme. I haven't read a single such comment in this thread or dozens like it over the years. There is a definite middle ground occupied by many military technology and warfare enthusiasts that does not accept either extreme view. Warbow archery was significant to English military success throughout the HYW but in a specific role in a strategy of combined arms. The invincible warbow is as much a myth as the invincible armour of the man-at-arms. |
1. thier are people saying that the warbow had no significant effect on these battles
2. i agree with you on the idea that "The invincible warbow is as much a myth as the invincible armour of the man-at-arms"
3. yes the highest quality plate armor could delect an armor peircing arrow or in failing that stop the arrow befor it penatrated to a depth that it would injure the guy underneath but this armor would be to expensive to be owened buy any but the richest of men (ie kings, dukes, counts, and other extreamly wealthy lords) the majority of the knights and men-at-arms would be wearing a lower quality armor (maby a flatter plate or it wasnt heat treated to make it stronger)
4. iron arrow heads are not as strong as steel ones (-_-) so if you want a good chance to puch through the strongest armor you need the strongest arrow head so it wont bend or break when it hits the breastplate
5. it was alwase a combinations of the skill of the infatry and killing power of the warbow otherwise king Henry V would be dead or a french captive the highest.estimation ive ever read of the english army is roughly 8500 men all in archers and men at arms the french had at the lowest 30,000 men and the highest ive seen is 100,000 (unlikey)if arrows couldnt punvh through most plate than i dont care how good the english were with a sword they would lose. at best they faced 5:1 odds against them and it only gets worse.
6. the reason there was hand to hand fightting letts face facts the english had to face a lot of angry french people they maby just maby ran out of arrows 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clifford Rogers
|
| Posted: Sun 11 Mar, 2012 5:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kel Rekuta wrote: | | Ralph Grinly wrote: | | I've a question for those who claim that the longbow and arrows were relatively useless and had no major bearing on such battles as Crecy and Agincourt..to what ELSE do you contribute the outcome of the battles ? Given that the chroniclers OF THE TIME asserted that archers were a main determiner of the battle ? Were the english armed with some other, secret weapon that no-one noticed ? maybe a platoon or two, armed with AK47's, hidden in the woods Or..now here's a new theory..the archers went and throttled the french with their bowstrings ? After all..their arrows were useless, weren't they ? |
That's a bit extreme. I haven't read a single such comment in this thread or dozens like it over the years. There is a definite middle ground occupied by many military technology and warfare enthusiasts that does not accept either extreme view. Warbow archery was significant to English military success throughout the HYW but in a specific role in a strategy of combined arms. The invincible warbow is as much a myth as the invincible armour of the man-at-arms. |
Kel,
Dan just wrote a few posts up: "No arrow can punch through plate reliably enough at any range to have any influence over the outcome of a battle." Saying arrows do not have "any influence ove the outcome of a battle" is pretty close to saying they "were relatively useless and had no major bearing on such battles as Crecy and Agincourt."
Cliff
Clifford J. Rogers
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Sun 11 Mar, 2012 5:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Arrows have plenty of bearing over many battles but not because they can compromise armour. The real reasons for the warbow's effectiveness are listed in the other thread.
http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=25486
There is a good list of them and none have anything to do with being able to punch through plate. Almost all of the accounts you have produced fall into point 2 or 3. The exceptions are just that. Occurrences that happen too rarely to have any influence on the outcome of a battle.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kel Rekuta
|
| Posted: Sun 11 Mar, 2012 6:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dr Rogers,
Thank you for your surprisingly swift response and clarification. Perhaps I should have broken my post into sections as not all of it was directed at you. My mistake. Please note that I am very much of the opinion, as you have frequently commented, that massed warbow archery played a role in English victories in the HYW. My objection should be very clearly refined against the concept of arrows reliably killing armoured men-at-arms based on the evidence provided by available sources. Proponents of the warbow as a decisive instrument seize on English victories but fail to appraise and accept its limitations as demonstrated in numerous English defeats in the same period.
In each defeat, we must consider the circumstance of ineffective archery and by that, dismiss the universal efficacy of longbow / warbow archery in the HYW. Certainly your response alters my opinion of your position on the matter.
>>>
snip of a useful visitation of previously published work for the benefit of all reading this thread.
>>>
| Clifford Rogers wrote: |
But if its arrows couldn't penetrate the armor of most combatants on the battleifeld, the longbow would have been fairly useless; hence longbowmen would have been fairly useless; hence at Agincourt the 1,000 English men-at-arms would have to have overwhelmingly out-fought the 10,000 French men-at-arms with little help. Again, there is no convincing or even reasonable explanation for the consistent battlefield success of outnumbered English armies in the HYW that does not accept the effectiveness of the longbow against armored men, and I don't buy the idea that arrows were effective without being able penetrate armor, including plate. [Note: not necessariliy _all_ the armor; could be just the thinner pieces, though in fact I think up through Agincourt the best archers could penetrate even breastplates of all but the best armor-- which was worn by very few-- with a direct hit at fairly short range, a statement that does not fail to allow for the fact that direct hits were not the norm, or for the possibility that the penetration of the thicker pieces might be shallow] |
Certainly. My disagreement is that plate armour penetration happened exceptionally; supporting armour - mail and textile - reliably. I specifically object to the warbow being characterized as reliably defeating the armour it faced throughout the HYW. This is the part that should have been generalized and not directed at you. You have clearly demonstrated a more open mind on the topic in your articles. Other contributors to this thread have not. Again, my error imprecisely composing my previous message.
| Kel Rekuta wrote: |
As nearly every aspect of the ground, command and discipline were mismanaged by the French at Agincourt, it seems clear that the concentrated firepower and rigid discipline of the English expedition were force multiplied by the position chosen by Henry on a very difficult ground for dismounted assault. |
| Clifford Rogers wrote: | | I quite agree. But your statement only makes sense if there is "concentrated firepower" involved, and if arrows could not penetrate plate armor, then the fire would have no power to be multiplied. |
Ah, no. The kinetic energy dissipated against even the best plate is still one hell of a wallop; akin to a horse's kick or a football tackle. Dozens of such strikes, to head or limb will quickly sap the will if not the strength of a man in armour. The natural tendency to flinch from the source of a beating causes a column to crowd together to the point of uselessness.
As you noted, the screams and disruption of a stricken comrade falling in front or beside a man with no where else to go but forward is likewise a useful effect of massed archery. Whether every arrow struck home or most careened off a particular armour is off less importance than the effect on the advance. Not enough emphasis is placed on this in current academic discussion of the issue. I read your work specifically because you try to quantify these issues.
Matthew Strickland pointed stated that the penetration issue is not worth further discussion as the polarizing effect of such discussion smothers useful study. (presentation at the ARS conference at the Wallace in 2007) I am pleased to agree.
| Clifford Rogers wrote: |
Kel,
Respectfully, I think you are disagreeing with what you think I said rather than what I said. Can you offer a quotation that you think shows an "inflated conception of the efficacy of the warbow"? |
Again, that should not have been directed at you specifically. I beg your pardon.
>>>
another snip of a useful visitation of previously published work for the benefit of all reading this thread.
>>>
| Clifford Rogers wrote: |
However, if my analysis is correct (and I'm pretty sure about this point) the line of dismounted French men-at-arms was wider than the line of the English men-at-arms (who after all were very badly outnumbered). Hence, the French men-at-arms on the flanks were advancing directly towards archers. If the archers were unable to wound them with their arrows, the men-at-arms would have routed the archers-- even with the mud and their exhaustion-- then enveloped the English line, and won the battle. |
Yes, wound. And abuse, batter, unnerve and disorder; not reliably kill. Even firing at almost point blank range into the flanks of the French column, it was still able to press the English line so badly that archers picked up whatever was at hand and assaulted the French flanks in hand to hand combat. The versatility of English archers was their special value as they could be re-purposed to many tasks that significantly more expensive men-at-arms could not. They were still effective combatants even once the arrow supply was exhausted.
I believe you estimated the English train to be supplied with somewhere near two hundred thousand arrows on that expedition. Five thousand or so archers pounding those arrows even as slowly as a few every minute would quickly exhaust the supply, regardless of how many retainers scuttled back and forth between the line and wagons in the rear. Would the archers have scrabbled to reclaim spent arrows had this not been so? Munition arrow heads were not tightly bound to the shaft and would tend to come off the shaft on impact and deflection. Chancing a sortie to recover dubious quality missiles seems a highly desperate act on the part of archers. And yet the French column continued on to pile themselves upon their own dead to assault the English line.
No, I am sorry Dr Rogers. I cannot buy this idea of reliable penetration of armour. I'll stick with "sometimes."
|
|
|
|
|
Randall Moffett
|
| Posted: Sun 11 Mar, 2012 7:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Kel,
I guess I can follow that in part. I still am not seeing it completly. COPs and the likes do seem more flat, or something like a more 2d than 3d shaping but I am still not sure penetration of the COPs was any easier than with the solid one piece breastplates. Maybe in their ability to not catch the arrows such as the leather or fabric cover and the gaps would do but I'd imagine an arrow hitting at the right angle to slide up the gap would be highly unlikely, and much more likely to lose most of its energy.
I do think that Monstrelet states that the knights in the front line still were using shields at Agincourt so I am not sure this item was largely different between Crecy and Agincourt to affect the outcome. I do not have a copy at hand but my notes on it includes a reference to shields. Though it is given as they had wished more had shields so perhaps a number went without shields.
I also think the ineffectiveness of the archers at Poitiers is also problematic. There are several sections of Baker that seem to argue with itself but I think the flanking action was one of two, perhaps three different areas the archers were employed at. I think largely when the battle starts the archers are hard pressed but they seem to by quite capable later, even those in front. I think the biggest issue is that unlike Crecy where the English had a huge majority of archers Poitiers they had around 33% or less.
I agree with the sometimes by the way. I tend to figure a massive number of arrows failed to penetrate armour but with the volumes of arrows employed still it could have been part of the larger whole of injuries and death to turn the enmey armies.
Anne Curry in her major work on Agincourt, the Sources and Documents includes some great detail on the archers reaching the end of their arrows and joining the fight but I think the contemporary accounts all indicate many more armoured men dying before this point. My feeling at this moment is that they were needed to keep the momentum going.
RPM
|
|
|
|
|
|
William P
|
| Posted: Sun 11 Mar, 2012 11:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
and, since the archers were in 'wings' flanking the English men at arms, if the french had started engaging the English men at arms before the archers dove into the melee, then this would have resulted in the archers appearing on the FLANKS of the french men at arms, which makes life very difficult for the french since part of the formation is trying to break down the infantry then all of a sudden they find themselves set upon by a swarm of men arms with lead mallets, falchions, rondels and bucklers. as well as hatchets and other miscellaneous weapons, this might have also served to ease the pressure on the English knights, meaning they might not have been worn down quite so quickly by the french press. and would have been able to hold on longer
also, note that while the french would have been battered and tired by trudging through the mud in harness. the archers , having fired , collectively, about 200.000 arrows or so with bows 90+ pound draaw weight, combine the disease and hunger that had been dogging henrys army prior to the battle, the english archers joining the fray were not exactly fresh.
i also tentetively present the idea that should a man in harness fall down in the mud, he'd have a very hard time getting back up again. due to the mud sucking at the plates on the harness.
but at the same time the english executed a sizable number of prisoners, suggesting the english didnt need to kill too many men
another thing to consider
to borrow from the movies for a moment, but this seems to also make sense based on general crowd dynamics,
the scene im borrowing from is the movie king arther, where on the forzen lake, they shoot at the flanks of the men on the shieldwall, this causes the men to suddenly huddle in closer. making the formation more compact.
if the archers are on the wings at agincourt, and partially shooting at the sides of the french formation,
hitting the sides of the french would cause them to instinctively move inwards so as to gain better protection from their comrades, this might cause the french formation to compact itself before closing with the english. this might make it easier for the archers to envelop the french forces when they entered the melee.
this slowly tightening formation might also increase the chances that the next volley of arrows will score more impacts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brian Robson
|
| Posted: Mon 12 Mar, 2012 3:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| William P wrote: |
another thing to consider
to borrow from the movies for a moment, but this seems to also make sense based on general crowd dynamics,
the scene im borrowing from is the movie king arther, where on the forzen lake, they shoot at the flanks of the men on the shieldwall, this causes the men to suddenly huddle in closer. making the formation more compact.
|
I'd like to add something to support this. Having taken part in an agincourt re-enactment as one of the French infantry, I knew the rubber tipped arrrows wouldn't injure me, but definately wasn't keen on taking the hits from them (no full harness here - only textile armour). So my natural instinct (and that of others around me) while facing massed bowfire was to 'cluster' - it was a simple case of trying to put someone between you and the archers.
Probably worth mentinoing I got shot in the side after the french clustered together allowing the archers to shoot more from the flanks.
I know it was only a re-enactment, but I think the psychology was probably similar in that respect.
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Mon 12 Mar, 2012 3:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Sounds like great fun.
|
|
|
|
|
Matt Easton
Location: Surrey, UK. Joined: 30 Jun 2004
Posts: 241
|
| Posted: Mon 12 Mar, 2012 5:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm surprised that people don't mention the wooden stakes more. They seem to have been an incredibly important part of English tactics for a long period of time, and one that the Duke of Burgundy copied. Whilst the general assumption may be that they are primarily an anti-cavalry device, depending on their density they may have caused a considerable obstruction to French infantry as well. Pretecting a fence or wall whilst shooting the enemy in the flanks turns a battle into a siege and I believe may have played a large part at Agincourt.
Something else to bear in mind is that a body of men can traverse 300 yards fairly quickly and for the first 200 of those yard the arrows are coming downwards at helmets - not flat at the front and flanks of the unit. Helmets tend to be the thickest and most deflective peices of armour of course. It seems to me that the really damaging flatter-trajectory shooting would be happening in that last 100 yards before contact.
There are also all sorts of unanswered questions about how the English archers were arranged. Practical experience suggests that they would need to be spread out in a fairly thin line, in order to be able to shoot. Whereas hand-to-hand infantry we know formed into tight blocks. So the 'frontage' of the English army may in fact have been wider that the French.
On the overall effectiveness of archers in warfare at this time - I think it's worth considering that Marshal Boucicaut considered the archers enough of a problem that he seems to have formulated a plan designed primarily at neutralising them with two flanking cavalry charges. That tells us a bunch of things, which could be interpreted in various ways. Presumably he thought that the cavalry would be able to silence the archers (ie. that they would survive the arrow storm), whilst the infantry advanced, but also he presumably thought they need to occupy the English archers whilst the French infantry advanced (ie. the archers were a concern for him). Why he didn't realise that the English would protect their front with wooden stakes is anyone's guess.... but Boucicault didn't have a great track record! (Nicopolis ahem...)
Schola Gladiatoria - www.swordfightinglondon.com
YouTube: www.youtube.com/user/scholagladiatoria
Antique Swords: www.antique-swords.co.uk/
|
|
 |
|
|
Clifford Rogers
|
| Posted: Mon 12 Mar, 2012 5:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dan Howard wrote: | Arrows have plenty of bearing over many battles but not because they can compromise armour. The real reasons for the warbow's effectiveness are listed in the other thread.
http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=25486
There is a good list of them and none have anything to do with being able to punch through plate. Almost all of the accounts you have produced fall into point 2 or 3. The exceptions are just that. Occurrences that happen too rarely to have any influence on the outcome of a battle. |
Dan,
Your point 2 is that "The whole point of any battle is to take out enemy soldiers. This does not mean that they have to be killed. An arrow through the foot will incapacitate a soldier just as surely as an arrow through the heart. The vast majority of arrow casualties were caused by non-fatal injuries as it has always been since the bow was first used in battle thousands of years ago."
When the target is a man-at-arms of 1415, who can be presumed to be wearing a sabaton (right?), how does he get "an arrow throught the foot" without the arrow punching through plate? Similarly, do you really think Sir John Paston's nephew Henry Fenyingley was "shot through the arms in three or four places" at St. Albans in 1455 without the arrows that did so having punched through plate?
I agree that " The vast majority of arrow casualties were caused by non-fatal injuries." But against fifteenth-century men-at-arms, most (though certainly not all) of those non-fatal injuries would have to penetrate plate armor.
It is the ability of arrows to wound even those with cap-a-pie plate (e.g. virtually every man-at-arms in the wings or first division of the French at Agincourt) that makes the longbow effective in causing the disruption, demoralization, and bunching you mention.
I understand the "hammering" point you and Kel make, but I do not accept that the French men-at-arms would not have pressed through that to rout the archers, as French men-at-arms in the late-fifteenth and early-sixteenth century (when well-hardened armors were more common instead of the small exception) were indeed able to do and did do. [See Monluc]
While it is theoretically possible, I suppose, that (per your point 3) all the wounds and deaths inflicted by the arrows were caused when arrows found gaps, that seems unlikely given how few gaps there were, especially on the surface of a man-at-arms advancing in formation with his head down rather than one fighting hand-to-hand (who might expose armits or whatever). Moreover, contemporary sources give many statements that men-at-arms were in substantial numbers killed as well as wounded by arrows. To add a couple of examples I haven't mentioned already in published works: in 1411 some Armagnac soldiers captured St.-Denis outside Paris. A large force of Parisians tried to drive them out but were badly defeated because the Armagnacs were well armored [bien armes] and the Parisians were not. However, the Duke of Burgundy then arrived with some Englishmen who went to skirmish with the Armagnacs "and killed many of the Armagancs and their horses by the force of their arrows" [tuerent moult des Arminacs et de leurs chvaux par force de trait."] [Bourgeois de Paris, 46].
Thomas Walsingham, describing a battle of 1383, says that English archers "surpassed all others...for they so struck the enemy with their flying arrows that of their armored men no more remained [unharmed? on the field?] than if they had been unarmored... Bodies were perforated, their armor [lorica] notwithstanding; breasts were wounded, the plates [lamina] not resisting; heads were shot through [transfigebantur], the helmets not helping; hands holding lances or shafts were nailed to them, gauntlets being no protection." [St Albans Chronicle, 680]. The targets were Flemings, probably mostly urban militamen with coats-of-plate rather than white harness, but the helmets are still plate and the word "lamina" means specifically plates, not (as the OMT translator has it) mail. OK, Walsingham was not an eye-witness, but he was clearly getting his information from people who were, and if nothing else this shows conclusively that _well-informed people at the time did believe longbow arrows could penetrate plate_.
Given that (1) there are _many_ statements in fourteenth and early-fifteenth century sources saying that many men-at-arms were killed by longbow arrows; (2) the English, using longbowmen, won many battles against superior numbers (and _much_ superior numbers of men-at-arms), and won them crushingly, I find it hard to see how anyone with an open mind can fail to accept that there is at least a _good probability_ that those contemporaries knew what they were talking about and that arrows could penetrate plate.
I think one could make a good case that, on the other hand, the thicker pieces of the better suits could _not_ be penetrated with enough force to do much damage, and that even the thinner pieces of lower-quality armor would deflect or defeat some, maybe even most, arrows. But as well as can be determined, by 1415 only a very small fraction of those in plate armor had really good hardened harness, so arrows still had plenty of power to do a lot of damage when used in very large numbers, as they were.
Clifford J. Rogers
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clifford Rogers
|
| Posted: Mon 12 Mar, 2012 6:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kel Rekuta wrote: | | No, I am sorry Dr Rogers. I cannot buy this idea of reliable penetration of armour. I'll stick with "sometimes." |
Kel,
That is what I am saying too. To quote my earlier post in this thread: "Yes, plate armor provided very good protection even against longbow arrows. Yes, most arrows shot at a man-at-arms would not penetrate his armor, especially the thicker pieces such as the breastplate. But there were a lot of arrows loosed in a battle, and enough of them would penetrate armor to have not just an effect, but a very large effect, on the course of the combat."
Cliff
Clifford J. Rogers
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kel Rekuta
|
| Posted: Mon 12 Mar, 2012 6:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Matt Easton wrote: | | Why he didn't realise that the English would protect their front with wooden stakes is anyone's guess.... but Boucicault didn't have a great track record! (Nicopolis ahem...) |
Meh, Boucicault was a punk and the big boys wouldn't listen to him. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kel Rekuta
|
| Posted: Mon 12 Mar, 2012 6:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dan Howard wrote: | | Sounds like great fun. |
There is another one planned for 2015. I plan to be there and do the trudge on the French side. I also plan to be hung over like many of the French must have been after partying all night.
|
|
|
|
|
Randall Moffett
|
| Posted: Mon 12 Mar, 2012 6:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Nicopolis was not Jeans fault in any real way shape or form. Nor was the Disaster at Agincourt. I think his plan was good generally speaking but the young gents with less military experience took the lead.
I thought they did Agincourt every year. I had wanted to go back in 2008 or 2009 but lost my change. Still hoping to make it though. Likely fight on the English side as that is where most of my friends are. Some friends of mine have been on a few occasions and it sounded like a blast.
RPM
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kel Rekuta
|
| Posted: Mon 12 Mar, 2012 6:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Randall Moffett wrote: | Kel,
I guess I can follow that in part. I still am not seeing it completly. COPs and the likes do seem more flat, or something like a more 2d than 3d shaping but I am still not sure penetration of the COPs was any easier than with the solid one piece breastplates. Maybe in their ability to not catch the arrows such as the leather or fabric cover and the gaps would do but I'd imagine an arrow hitting at the right angle to slide up the gap would be highly unlikely, and much more likely to lose most of its energy. |
Randall,
Its not just the shape of the plates. Pairs of plate typically have little overlap at the sides, especially under the arm. Stout mail is absolutely necessary here as these are the best targets with hand weapons. The quality of archers selected for the expedition were capable of hitting such a target at the short range the flanking maneuver allowed at Poiters. Later harness, especially that of the last quarter of the 14thC fitted more closely and its plates articulated under the foundation garment. There simply aren't as many gaps covered only in mail by the end of that century. Even poorer men-at-arms could afford such coverage twenty - thirty years on. There was a booming trade in used harness as you are well aware.
| Randall Moffett wrote: | | I do think that Monstrelet states that the knights in the front line still were using shields at Agincourt so I am not sure this item was largely different between Crecy and Agincourt to affect the outcome. I do not have a copy at hand but my notes on it includes a reference to shields. Though it is given as they had wished more had shields so perhaps a number went without shields. |
News to me. Pavises are notably present at Poitiers but I don't recall them being mentioned in any quantity at Agincourt. I don't have Dr. Curry's "Sources" available to check.
| Randall Moffett wrote: | | I also think the ineffectiveness of the archers at Poitiers is also problematic. There are several sections of Baker that seem to argue with itself but I think the flanking action was one of two, perhaps three different areas the archers were employed at. I think largely when the battle starts the archers are hard pressed but they seem to by quite capable later, even those in front. I think the biggest issue is that unlike Crecy where the English had a huge majority of archers Poitiers they had around 33% or less. |
IIRC, one hedgerow, of many used for cover, was broken down so the archers there could fire point blank into the French defensive line's back and flanks. This is taken to be the turning point in the battle as I understand it.
| Randall Moffett wrote: | I agree with the sometimes by the way. I tend to figure a massive number of arrows failed to penetrate armour but with the volumes of arrows employed still it could have been part of the larger whole of injuries and death to turn the enmey armies.
Anne Curry in her major work on Agincourt, the Sources and Documents includes some great detail on the archers reaching the end of their arrows and joining the fight but I think the contemporary accounts all indicate many more armoured men dying before this point. My feeling at this moment is that they were needed to keep the momentum going.
RPM |
I have read that work and it is the source of much of my skepticism about the accuracy of the Gesta Henrici Quinti. Unfortunately I do not own a copy and so cannot reference as easily as you or Dr Rogers.
My feeling is the English archers were ill, tired and hungry. They knew they were dead meat if the French column took out their men-at-arms. Desperation is a reliable motivator. I suspect there was no need to order them into the fray. None at all.
BTW, thank you both for joining this thread with so much enthusiasm. I've enjoyed it very much.
Kel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a