Crecy

[LoneRider]

Nor did I state it was the longbow exclusively in the original post. I said it was combined arms that did the French in at Crecy and Agincourt and similar battles. Archers and dismounted men at arms wielding halbreds and pikes to unhorse cavalrymen performed as a combined arms force to defeat the French.

 

[Sukerkin]

Aye, that you did LoneRider. I think we just concentrated on the 'bow' side of things because we're talking in the Archery forum .

 

[DocWard]

This is not to say that the bow played no role; at Agincourt, for example, it certainly was a means via which the French were unhorsed as they tried to charge up a muddy slope. But it has been glamourised beyond all measure due to the doughtyness of the men who carried it - they might not have brought the knights down with their bows but they certainly did with their mauls and daggers as they brawled in the quagmire.

I think you may have Agincourt and Crecy confused. Agincourt was fought on a flat field, although it was muddy enough that the few horses used by the French were sinking to their fetlocks. The majority of French knights and men-at-arms were on foot. There was also a bit of a bottleneck, causing the mass of French knights and men-at-arms to come to a near standstill. They were under massed fire from the English longbowmen the entire way, until arrow supplies were depleted. The bowmen then waded into the exhausted and injured French with short swords and daggers. Some sources indicate that many French were too exhuasted to even defend themselves.

 

[Sukerkin]

I'm always ready to learn, good sir but I am not convinced of my own confusion in this instance:

http://www.allthequeensmen.com/agincourt.htm

http://usma-hyw-staffride.blogspot.com/2008/06/day-seven-agincourt-and-crecy.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A446465

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Battle_of_Agincourt

However, I may have been less than clear in my recounting of the environs and made it sound more like Crecy; for that I apologise.

 

[DocWard]

I'm always ready to learn, good sir but I am not convinced of my own confusion in this instance:

http://www.allthequeensmen.com/agincourt.htm

http://usma-hyw-staffride.blogspot.com/2008/06/day-seven-agincourt-and-crecy.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A446465

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Battle_of_Agincourt

However, I may have been less than clear in my recounting of the environs and made it sound more like Crecy; for that I apologise.

I'm always ready to learn as well. I have my minor in history thanks to the Battle of Agincourt. That study was done some years ago, but from what I recall, the French cavalry was essentially split, charging up the sides of the field, while the main force of the knights and men-at-arms lining up in three lines, the first two on foot, with a third mounted to the rear. As I recall, mercenary crossbowmen were behind them.

I could be mistaken on some of the details, so I will have to pull out some of my research to be sure. I didn't get a good sense for the French strategy from the links provided, which I admittedly just scanned because of the lateness of the evening.

Thank you for the input.

 

[Sukerkin]

Always a pleasure to meet a fellow historian. My Masters was in Museum Studies (essentially history and artifact conservation and interpretation) and my previous career was museum curator.

I can't claim the exactness of focus that you can, however, being a military historian 'hobbyist' and am more than ready to yield the field to someone whose thesis was on the battle in question.

 

[DocWard]

Since it was for a minor in history, I don't believe it quite rose to the level of a "thesis." I wasn't required to defend it as one would a doctoral thesis. I was required to give an oral presentation, subject to stiff questioning by my professor, a Ph.D whose expertise was in medieval England and who would occasionally mutter in Middle English.

I believe the most interesting part of the research was reading Gesta Henrici Quinti, or "The Life of Henry the Fifth" translated, of course. The book was hidden in my college's library, and it seemed, surprisingly, that I was the first student in many years to pull it out. There was another contemporary chronicle translated from the French, the name of which escapes me, that was helpful.

It has been some many years since I performed that research, and while it is still a subject that fascinates me, it sounds as though you have quite the ample knowledge base. Don't rely exclusively on my memory, as it is certainly subject to fallibility.

As an aside, if I remember correctly, much of what we know about the longbow and the anatomical effects on lifelong archers is a result of the recovery of the "Mary Rose." For the non-history buffs out there, she was an English warship of Henry VIII's time, which sank during an engagement with the French in the mid 1500s, complete with a complement of archers onboard.

 

[Sukerkin]

Speaking of the Mary Rose, a recent theory has surfaced {yeah, aquatic reference pun attack !} about how she foundered:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...2882/Mary-Rose-sunk-by-French-cannonball.html

That certainly makes a deal of sense to me as I could never quite believe how she had performed so well for all those years and then was lost to foolish overloading and freak winds.

 

[DocWard]

Speaking of the Mary Rose, a recent theory has surfaced {yeah, aquatic reference pun attack !} about how she foundered:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...2882/Mary-Rose-sunk-by-French-cannonball.html

That certainly makes a deal of sense to me as I could never quite believe how she had performed so well for all those years and then was lost to foolish overloading and freak winds.

Now that is interesting! It seems to make quite a bit of sense, given the sum of information available. Who says history is stagnant?

 

[Sukerkin]

Exactly what I was thinking . One of the things I use to love about my old job was that every day involved research on something - fascinating. Just a shame the pay was so appalling .

 

[Kajowaraku]

yes, altho regarding the cheapness, it seems that there were times when it was difficult to obtain the best quality yew in sufficient quantities. Seems like the yew grown in England isn't quite as good as the yew grown in other areas, due to the weather patterns. So sometimes getting it imported in sufficient quantity was difficult, and made them more expensive.


I'd love to hear more about this. I guess I kind of assumed it was obvious that modern assault rifles would have no trouble with midieval plate. If that's not always the case, it'd be interesting to hear about it.

Yew rods, specifically for bowyers, were actually the forced currency for the spanish paying import tax at about that time in history. Don't forget mercantilism is an English invention. As for the v-sigh, it actually dates back to hastings, where the english got vanquished, and afterwards the archers got their drawing fingers cut of to prevent them from taking up arms again. The v-sign was basicly a way of showing combativeness, whilst expressing sentiments "upyoursism". Also the main reason the English won over the superiour force was the same as why the Flemish beat he French in 1302... The French lords were so confident of their superiority they arrived at the battlefield in relatively small groups, and for the most part just rode out to meet those "english peasants" and "show them" . Of course, 50 well armed and trained knights will seriously get in trouble if thousands of archers release a simultanious volley, especially with the longbow (range & stopping power). On top of that, it is highly likely this battle saw the first application of the ribauld ( a type of cannon) in a battle, by the English. Wouldn't have been terribly great versus 35000 french, but at least it would scare the digested onions out of them.

With the flemish the swampy underground and local knowledge of the territory made the difference, but the bow was also employed effectively as a weapon versus heavily armoured knights. Note that the french had to scale a hill with very muddy ground before they could reach the english, so the charges would have been seriously hampered, slowed, and terribly tiring for man and beast. Even if they got near the English, they would have been spent.

Right, i could yap some more about this all, but it's been a while since i studied that specific period in european history, so i might be a bit rusty left and right; so to avoid errors i'll leave it at this.

as fir the armour versus assaultrifle, it is somewhat amazing considering the fact cuirassiers used breastplates to protect against gunfire (much more primitive than assaultrifles) with relatively little success, so eventually the practice of donning plate was abandoned entirely (well, in real battles at least). Taking into consideration what makes the kinetic energy of a bullet on impact we see the following things: the Energy = (Mass of the projectile (in kg) multiplied by the speed to the second power) divided by 2.
Old guns had slower projectiles but with higher mass. Modern assaultrifles fire high velocity rounds, but alot lighter. So technically, since speed is alot more influential on the total energy released on impact, modern weapons ought to be more efficient versus armor. One thing that comes to mind is mass density of steel armour versus lead ammo. Using steel ammo would almost certainly pierce modern armor (let's not start with taking deflection into consideration, that would REALLY take us too far). What makes light AR ammo less effective over range is exactly the lack of mass though. Drag slows the rounds down alot faster, thus making the round loose speed, and since mass is low: penetrationpower will decline rapidly.

anyway, this being said i'll get back to my coffee.

interesting topic btw.

 

[Bikewr]

I know our .223 "patrol rifles" easily walk through the sheet-steel holders for the targets on our range....About 3/16" cold-rolled.

Most medieval plate was quite light; the best was laminated and recent X-rays of some later-period "proof' breastplates indicate a third piece of steel sandwiched between the two outer pieces.
Of course, this stuff was the best available, and could not be afforded by common soldiers. It was also heavier...

Making and shooting replica "warbows" from that period is very popular in the primitive archery community; there's standing threads on the subject on the Primitive Archer bulletin board:

http://www.primitivearcher.com/smf/index.php?PHPSESSID=128ieeafb885to28e7j3mlt5v7&board=19.0

Sort of the high point of archery in warfare; still of great interest.

Replica arrows (fashioned from recovered remnants; they don't hold up well) are generally of birch, a heavy wood for arrows to enhance penetration. Heavy fletching is needed to stabilize the heavy arrow, and is usually tied on. Well-made, they are quite attractive. Naturally, with huge numbers needed for a campaign, I imagine the cottage-industry makers took shortcuts occasionally...
It was said that an English archer "Holds four-and-twenty Frenchmen in his belt"......