The Fog Of War

[Scorpio]

They say that war is organized chaos; so here's a thread for anyone interested in the mysteries of the battlefield. The battle of Agincourt in October 1415
must rank as one of the most notorious battles of the medieval period: A significant difference in the size of the hosts but a result more one sided than an England versus Germany penalty shootout. But beyond the Shakespearean myth, what really accounted for the slaughter?.
Students of the battle usually suggest such factors as the withering effect of around of perhaps 3000 archers armed with the famed longbow, the sheer unwieldy size of the French host, and the peculiar geography of the battlefield it self: a long, narrow field of freshly ploughed earthed. I believe a combination of these factors at key stages of the battle can explain the result, but perhaps people with more knowledge of the event can shed some light.

[Cogidubnus]

Non nobis domine

Maybe the French were suffering an inexplicable shortage of Tennis Balls?

Sorry...I'll just get me coat shall I...

(great idea for a thread though)

Dave

[Scorpio]

Maybe the French were suffering an inexplicable shortage of Tennis Balls?

Sorry...I'll just get me coat shall I...

(great idea for a thread though)

Dave

Not so far from the truth. The Dauphin did send tennis balls to Henry V, and found his adversary had more balls than he did.

[Wickerman]

"We few, we happy few..."

Yes, this great poetical speech is all I know from this period, though I should know more, I admit

As with a number of historical stories, there is the popular version, and the factual version.
I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn there is more to this confrontation than popular tradition admits.

[Phil H]

I believe that one of the recent historians on the battle looked again at the sources and determined that the traditional numbers of men present were hugely exaggerated. I'll check.

John Keegan, the eminent military historian, in his fantastic book "The Face of Battle" also looks in depth at the battle of Agincourt.

In addition, I believe there has been some recent work on "arrow storms" - and the calculation of the sheer volume of iron tipped missiles descending on the advancing French is staggering.

Finally, the mystery and tragedy is added to by the fact that the French had gone through something very very similar at Crecy and Poitiers only a generation or so before.

Phil

[Scorpio]

I believe that one of the recent historians on the battle looked again at the sources and determined that the traditional numbers of men present were hugely exaggerated. I'll check.

John Keegan, the eminent military historian, in his fantastic book "The Face of Battle" also looks in depth at the battle of Agincourt.

In addition, I believe there has been some recent work on "arrow storms" - and the calculation of the sheer volume of iron tipped missiles descending on the advancing French is staggering.

Finally, the mystery and tragedy is added to by the fact that the French had gone through something very very similar at Crecy and Poitiers only a generation or so before.

Phil

The French seemed to be aware of the Longbow's power, but their countermeasures were inadequate: they hoped to run of the archers with 200 hundred or so mounted men at arms. Knight's and men at arms belonged to a higher social strata than humble peasants with bows and they would not accept equality with them on the battlefield.

[Wickerman]

The French seemed to be aware of the Longbow's power, but their countermeasures were inadequate: they hoped to run of the archers with 200 hundred or so mounted men at arms. Knight's and men at arms belonged to a higher social strata than humble peasants with bows and they would not accept equality with them on the battlefield.

That is how I understood it too, that the French aristocratic, lofty, somewhat condescending attitude towards the English bowman led them into the trap. They threw themselves to the wolves, in a manner of speaking.

[Scorpio]

French aristocrats were only interested in fighting their opposites in the English army who occupied only a fraction of the entire English front; this only added to congestion in the French army and left them vulnerable to the counter attack .

[Cogidubnus]

Well they do say that the really devastating power of the English/Welsh Longbowmen wasn't their accuracy, (though at close enough range they could be), but their ability to put so many arrows in the air at once...a skilled man could fire off six arrows in a minute...

Plus of course, didn't I read somewhere the French horsemen were forced to dismount because of the mud and in their heavy armour plod through the same,under heavy fire, and being fairly well exhausted before they reached Henry's men?

All the best

Dave

[Cogidubnus]

Broderie Anglaise

Hi Scorpio

Not so far from the truth. The Dauphin did send tennis balls to Henry V, and found his adversary had more balls than he did.

Well so Shakespeare said, (hence my quip), but he never embroidered did he?

All the best

Dave

[Scorpio]

I don't believe that the French knights were exhausted, but the advance through a muddy field must have been slow and chaotic and reduced the effectiveness of the assault.

[Scorpio]

Well they do say that the really devastating power of the English/Welsh Longbowmen wasn't their accuracy, (though at close enough range they could be), but their ability to put so many arrows in the air at once...a skilled man could fire off six arrows in a minute...

Plus of course, didn't I read somewhere the French horsemen were forced to dismount because of the mud and in their heavy armour plod through the same,under heavy fire, and being fairly well exhausted before they reached Henry's men?

All the best

Dave

I think ten shots per minute was expected from the Archers at Agincourt.
They would have ran out of arrows after 15 to 20 minutes.

[Graham]

According to the actor Robert Hardy (he of All Creatures Great And Small fame, and an acknowledged expert in the use of the longbow in war), a properly trained and practised archer could loose (not 'fire' - a bow is not 'fired') between 10 and 16 arrows a minute. These would be aimed shots, and would be reasonably accurate at ranges up to 300 yards. The type of arrow depended upon the target. Hardy said that at Agincourt the English archers tended to aim for the horses of the French knights and cavalry, as a captured nobleman would be worth a groat or two in ransom. However, the archers also used the deadly 'bodkin' arrow, designed to penetrate plate armour. So if there were 3000 archers at Agincourt, each loosing a average of say 13 arrows a minute, that would equate to 39000 arrows a minute giving the French something to penser about. Devastating, and not seen again until the invention of the machine-gun. By the way, I think it was estimated, from the findings of the wreck of the Mary Rose, that a longbowman had a store of around 120 arrows, so enough for about 10 minutes concentrated shooting.

I did visit the field of Agincourt a few years ago. It's not all that impressive, just a flat expanse of farmland, but the day I was there it was absolutely pi**ing down, and so muddy it was trying to suck my shoes off; so if the mounted pride of France, weighed down as they would be with armour, got stuck in the mud, then no wonder. Some other historian - not Hardy - said that had the weather been dry and sunny at Agincourt, then things might have gone the other way.

[Scorpio]

The English had to fight in the mud also,even if they were mostly archers.

[Graham]

The English had to fight in the mud also,even if they were mostly archers.

Yes, but they held a line and allowed the French to charge at them, which is apparently what the French liked to do, thinking as they did that charging at your enemy was chivalrous and glorious. War-horses did tend to get stuck in the mud - reference Richard III in the famous marsh at Bosworth.

Graham