The Fog Of War

[Phil H]

If the marsh was where Richard ended up. As I'm sure you know, the location of the Bosworth battlefield is now being reviewed!

On the wider poit of archers, they did not need to aim - by firing up, the arrows fell in a deadly rain.

Phil

[Graham]

It so happens that I know the terrain of what is now considered (by Glenn Foard et al at Leicester University) the actual terrain of Bosworth rather well....I think that Richard did end up stuck in a marsh, and that that marsh is located on the east side of Fenn Lane. Drop me a PM some time, maybe?

Re: longbowmen, yes, it was possible that by shooting in an arc that some arrows may have found a target; it is very likely that some archers were thus employed. However, the English longbow was, and still is, an extremely accurate weapon up to around 300 yards in the hands of an expert, and a good archer in the 15th/16th centuries could certainly be reasonably confident in hitting his target at up to such a range. There is much debate regarding the actual accuracy of early musketry, but the current thinking is that even with a firearm such as a smoothbore matchlock the available accuracy, to a reasonably well-trained marksman, was surprisingly high at relatively short range. Long range aimed shots came only with the rifle, and even then only with the introduction of the Minie rifle in the 1850's.

I have actually used a longbow, and I discovered the following:

1] even though I am 6'4" tall and hairy and macho and horrible with it, there is no way I could fully draw a 72" longbow having a draw-weight of even 100lb in order to hold and aim an accurate shot with a 36" clothyard arrow. Further to finds on the Mary Rose, it seems that some longbows of that era possessed draw-weights of up to and over 150lb.

2] I have witnessed experienced longbowmen hit a 'gold' (approx. 8" diameter) aimed at well over 100 yards. Had that 'gold' been a Frenchman on Agincourt field, he'd have been a goner.

There is a story that a mounted knight at a medieval English battle was struck by a clothyard arrow in his armoured thigh; the arrow went through his thigh and also his horse, killing it stone dead, and was lodged in his opposite thigh. How they separated man and horse is not recorded.

Graham

[Damaso Marte]

I am not particularly familiar with the Hundred Years War, but there is a long tradition in European warfare of heavy cavalry proving ineffective against lighter, unmounted, and disciplined troops. Disciplined being the most important word there.

If the sight of a heavily-armored man on horseback charging directly towards you does not cause you to panic or break formation, your odds are actually pretty good.

[Phil H]

On "knights" v infantry: I once talked to a professional re-enactor about this. he had been engaged in some quite large scale (I think TV) re-enactment, being an archer facing a charge by mounted men at arms. He said it was the psychological factors that tend to be forgotten - the moment all the visors came down, the moment the lances were put into rest, the moment the horses went from walk to trot, trot to trot to canter etc. Even when there was minimal risk, he said his mind was telling him to RUN!

On the strength needed to pull a long-bow: Have they not found from bodies dug up at places like Towton that C14th and C15th archers were physically deformed, one arm/shoulder being much more heavily developed than the other?

Phil

[Phil H]

The two recentish books on Agincourt are:

Juliet Barker: "Agincourt: The King + The Campaign + The Battle" (Abacus 2006)

Anne Curry: "Agincourt: A New History" (Tempus 2006) - this is the one that looks again at the numbers involved and is more than a little revisionist. It was highly thought of when published.

Phil

[Steve S]

All the above factors...........

[Scorpio]

On "knights" v infantry: I once talked to a professional re-enactor about this. he had been engaged in some quite large scale (I think TV) re-enactment, being an archer facing a charge by mounted men at arms. He said it was the psychological factors that tend to be forgotten - the moment all the visors came down, the moment the lances were put into rest, the moment the horses went from walk to trot, trot to trot to canter etc. Even when there was minimal risk, he said his mind was telling him to RUN!

On the strength needed to pull a long-bow: Have they not found from bodies dug up at places like Towton that C14th and C15th archers were physically deformed, one arm/shoulder being much more heavily developed than the other?

Phil

Various anti cavalry devices were developed during the middle ages; Robert the Bruce's forces made good use of caltrops: a multi pronged piece of metal cast upon the floor, and shallow ditches. The English used a hedge of stakes thrust into the ground. Incidentally, many of the stakes at Agincourt fell flat due to the waterlogged soil.

[Phil H]

Not sure how your post relates to mine, Scorpio?

Phil

[Scorpio]

This is why the English archers did not run, when approached by French cavalry.

[Mayerling]

Hi Scorpio



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

All the best

Dave

Hi Dave,

I don't think any samples of Master Will's embroidery or sewing exist today. He probably left that to Ann Hathaway and their daughters.

Jeff

[Mayerling]

Hi all,

The problem I have always had about Agincourt is whether it was a real demonstration of Henry V's military abilities or a fluke. The victory led to a break in the fighting, and to Henry's marriage to the daughter of the King of France, and then the birth of their son (who became Henry VI), but Henry won Agincourt in 1415 and was dead by 1422. There was no real military follow up (no "Jena to follow Austerlitz" like Napoleon had), so we have to just accept the result of the campaign Henry V had to the Agincourt victory.

What would have been interesting would have been Henry living until the 1430s and facing Joan of Arc. That would have tested military leadership against military leadership.

Jeff

[Phil H]

Shakespeare's domestic skills were just sew sew. Burbage.

I don't think the stakes stopped the English running - my point was that the psychological impact of the charge was great - the response would be there (almost) whatever the defences. I think what stopped them running was that they had no where to run to.

In battles through history, most casualties have been inflicted in the rout stage of a battle, especially if the winning side has cavalry.

The stakes may have toppled over because henry had them pilled up and replanted at least once as he sought to entice the french to charge him.

Not saying that stakes were not useful, simply that they were not relevant (in my view) to my point.

Phil

[Phil H]

The problem I have always had about Agincourt is whether it was a real demonstration of Henry V's military abilities or a fluke.

Not a fluke, I think. Crecy and Poitiers rather point to that. I think, in his archers, he had the medieval military equivalent of the machine gun. The french came on (as the great Duke said) in the same old way.

I think Henry had charisma (undoubted) courage, led from the front (a crucial quality in a leader then) but lacked strategic skill. His predicament at Agincourt was mainly of his own making.

What would have been interesting would have been Henry living until the 1430s and facing Joan of Arc. That would have tested military leadership against military leadership.

Was Joan (Jeanne?) a military leader or an inspirational force? She came along at a time when English leadership had hit a hollow period, maybe Talbot apart.

The French I think suffered from the fact that so many of their experienced leaders (also the councillors of the king and officers of state) fell at Agincourt. Their successors were weak.

Also, politically, Henry might - as King of France had he lived longer (after the death of Charles VI) - have won over the French. The Dauphin was a weak, unpromising character compared to henry's decisiveness. I think too that Henry would have held on to the Burgundian alliance longer, its failure was a main plank in French retrenchment.

Henry would have had himself crowned at Reims almost certainly, depriving Jeanne and Charles of that "coup". The minority government in England, rivalries and the lack of an adult king just when one could have solifified a joint-monarchy were the key failings that gave Jeanne her window.

There is an excellent book about how the dauphin's mother in law - Yolande of Aragon - manipulated events to bring Jeanne to the fore.

Happy to discuss further,

Phil

[Scorpio]

Hi all,

The problem I have always had about Agincourt is whether it was a real demonstration of Henry V's military abilities or a fluke. The victory led to a break in the fighting, and to Henry's marriage to the daughter of the King of France, and then the birth of their son (who became Henry VI), but Henry won Agincourt in 1415 and was dead by 1422. There was no real military follow up (no "Jena to follow Austerlitz" like Napoleon had), so we have to just accept the result of the campaign Henry V had to the Agincourt victory.

What would have been interesting would have been Henry living until the 1430s and facing Joan of Arc. That would have tested military leadership against military leadership.

Jeff

I doubt that Joan would have ever come to prominence if Henry had lived.
If it counts for anything,Henry fought a successful campaign in Wales with meagre resources prior to his invasion of France.

[Mayerling]

The problem I have always had about Agincourt is whether it was a real demonstration of Henry V's military abilities or a fluke.

Not a fluke, I think. Crecy and Poitiers rather point to that. I think, in his archers, he had the medieval military equivalent of the machine gun. The french came on (as the great Duke said) in the same old way.

I think Henry had charisma (undoubted) courage, led from the front (a crucial quality in a leader then) but lacked strategic skill. His predicament at Agincourt was mainly of his own making.

What would have been interesting would have been Henry living until the 1430s and facing Joan of Arc. That would have tested military leadership against military leadership.

Was Joan (Jeanne?) a military leader or an inspirational force? She came along at a time when English leadership had hit a hollow period, maybe Talbot apart.

The French I think suffered from the fact that so many of their experienced leaders (also the councillors of the king and officers of state) fell at Agincourt. Their successors were weak.

Also, politically, Henry might - as King of France had he lived longer (after the death of Charles VI) - have won over the French. The Dauphin was a weak, unpromising character compared to henry's decisiveness. I think too that Henry would have held on to the Burgundian alliance longer, its failure was a main plank in French retrenchment.

Henry would have had himself crowned at Reims almost certainly, depriving Jeanne and Charles of that "coup". The minority government in England, rivalries and the lack of an adult king just when one could have solifified a joint-monarchy were the key failings that gave Jeanne her window.

There is an excellent book about how the dauphin's mother in law - Yolande of Aragon - manipulated events to bring Jeanne to the fore.

Happy to discuss further,

Phil

Hi Phil,

Your comment is sound, except that the time difference matters. Poitiers and Crecy had occurred decades before Agincourt (two generations earlier, in fact) so that if they showed a glaring overconfidence of the French in those battles nobody knew in 1415 if it would reappear at Agincourt. They might assume it, but there would be risks in doing so.

I tend to agree that Henry lacked strategic skills. He proved to be what Napoleon called a "lucky general" (the type Napoleon preferred to a "brilliant" or learned general).

I suppose the same could be said of Joan, but she did galvanize the French military at a point where they were on the verge of collapse. In a sense she could do for the French in 1430-31 what Henry did for the English at Agincourt at 1415. So I still say a confrontation of their armies would have been interesting - zealous patriotism v. zealous religious faith. It would have been curious to say the least.

Thanks Scorpio for mentioning the Welsh campaign.

Jeff