What are you talking about? (teacher gets Agincourt wrong)

[dacdac]

okay, this is a question about the hundred years war with England and France. My social studies teacher said that the reason the English won big early battles such as Agincourt, Poitiers, and Crecy was because of English crossbowmen. She said that the English used crossbows to defeat the French in those battles, and said that a crossbow, then, could fire faster and further than a longbow. Is that complete crap or is she right?

[IPoseTheQuestionYouReturnTheAnswer]

I was under the impression that the French were the ones with the crossbows.

[Whacker]

Your teacher, my good man, to put it politely, is out of her flippin' gourd.

A couple of points.

1. The reason the English won those battles was due to a number of reasons. I can't speak to Crecy or Poiters very well, but I did just get done reading a big book on Agincourt. There were a large number of factors at work there, but to sum them up without grossly oversimplifying:

- The English were lead by outstanding men, and King Henry V was legendary for his power and force of personality, as well as his ability to command and control his kingdom and men. Henry's control over his outnumbered 6 to 1 army was what gave him the edge.

- The French at this time, in terms of the battle, were completely the opposite. The French king was insane, the dauphin was a lilly-waisted pansy, to put it politely. Neither were present for the battle. As such, the battle was not very well planned or lead, which all the French nobility and knighthood wanted to outdo eachother for glory in combat. This lack of leadership and coordination was a direct contributing factor to their loss.

- The fields between both armies had been rained on the night before, and were pretty much a big muddy, thick, clay slurry. Try running through a clay soup sometime and see how easy it is. Now imagine hundreds of horses and soldiers in full armor trying to do this.

- There are other reasons, but these are the main ones that come to mind, and I'm tired. Others can pitch in as well.

2. The English were famous for their longbows, not crossbows. The French used crossbows, very ineffectively, at Agincourt. In fact most of them never fired a shot, and those who did or tried to were cut down by the bowmen.

To put it in perspective, the longbow had an effective range of about 250-300 yards. The specific arrowheads they used, the bodkin, were armor piercing at almost that entire range as well. The amount of force used to draw and shoot these bows was insane, some that were recovered and tested indicated that real longbows back in the day would require upwards of 100-150 lbs of force to draw. Now take into account that it was a proven fact that in order to be considered "fit for service", a bowman had to be able to fire an aimed arrow every 3 seconds.

At Agincourt, Henry had the higher ground, and upwards of 5-6000 archers iirc. Not only this, but the battleground at the time was limited to the recently plowed, wet, soggy field that was flanked on either side by thick woods, creating a narrow corridor that the French could advance through. Putting all these pieces together, one can see how the French were slaughtered en-masse through superior ranged firepower and English tactics. It's also a credit to them that they did learn the lesson and take it to heart, and were able to eventually beat the English off their soil. That however is another story.

Cheers

[hsimoorb]

Yeah, well, it wasn't realy even the archers that did it for the english in those battles. As Whacker already pointed out, there were numerous other causes for the catostrophic defeat of the French, the least of which was the presence of longbowmen on the field. From what I've read about Agincourt in particular, the only thing the longbows did was beat back a wave of Genuesse croxxbowmen(note:french crossbowmen) and after that the french "knights" fought the rest of the battle against the English infantry.

[Whacker]

From what I've read about Agincourt in particular, the only thing the longbows did was beat back a wave of Genuesse croxxbowmen(note:french crossbowmen) and after that the french "knights" fought the rest of the battle against the English infantry.

Not entirely accurate my friend, but getting there. IIRC, the battle formation for the English was a single line, with two groups of the infantry (read: men-at-arms), with 3 groups of archers on both flanks and in the middle. They did indeed have the sharpened stakes to their fronts as protection against cav charges, which they hammered in with big lead mallets.

I don't have the book in front of me, sorry, it's at home, but from my memory:

1. The French sent an initial wave of cavalry at the bowmen the first time they moved forward. Henry had to goad the French into attacking, so he took the risky chance of moving his entire force forward to the higher ground on a hill. In doing so, the archers had to pull out their stakes and re-plant them. The French saw this, and send a reasonable sized force of about 300 mounted knights at the right flank. The English had by far reached their destination and replanted stakes, when they charged. The ensuing "storm of arrows" quite literally blotted out the sun like a cloud they were so thick and fast. Not only did the French charge not even reach the english lines, but they tore up the already muddy field even more, making it that much harder for the rest of the force to get closer.

2. In the resulting actual mass charge by the French mounted and dismounted men-at-arms, they had to slog their way across the field, all the time being fired on by the English archers. The losses here were just incredible. The French did make it to the English line and pushed them back some, but they were already dead tired from getting there in the first place, and more than a few were wounded from the armor piercing arrows, or getting trampled by their compatriots trying to either get TO the english to fight, or to run like hell which more than a few did. The archers ended up actively participating in the ensuing melee as their arrows were spent after the first charge, and they did a pretty damn good job from what I read.

I don't remember when exactly the crossbows were involved. If you can remind me next Tuesday I'll get out the book and double-check my facts.

Cheers!

[Kobal2fr]

Yes, it was my impression that Crecy and Agincourt were lost not so much because of the prowess of longbowmen or the strength of the longbows themselves, but a combination of bad weather plus the arrogance and vainglory of the French knights, who each time charged thinking nothing could beat their armor and nothing could stand a cav charge, and tried to get glory and ransom ASAP, without waiting for their footmen and/or crossbows to do their work.

[Reapz]

There has been a lot of discussion about the armor penetrating capabilities of the longbow and whether this weapon won the battle of Agincourt or not. The short version is that the longbow (and crossbow) with a bodkin point certainly penetrated mail armor. As a result throughout the 14th century plate steel armor was introduced throughout Europe and further developed and perfected over the next two centuries. Neither the the longbow nor the crossbow with an iron point could penetrate plate armor. Plate armor was expensive and largely restricted to the nobility at the time of Agincourt. Lots of nobility at Agincourt and many of the French knights were wearing plate armor resistant to the longbow arrows. However their horses were not. In the hail of arrows certainly many of their mounts were killed even if the riders were protected.

According to most recent commentaries the mud and the toplogy of the battlefield were as important as the arrows in killing the French knights. There was a slight narrowing of the field approaching the English position. Many impetuous French seeking glory probably created a a crowd effect pushing many combatants forward into a cramped, bogged, deathtrap where piles of dead and wounded combatants and horses further impeded their advance.

There is a great Discovery Channnel documentary on the battle with a crowd disaster specialist walking the battlefield, physicists firing longbow arrowheads at plate steel, and a discussion of the armaments of the armies.

Of interest:

The Development of Medieval Full Plate Armor in Europe

How does a full plate armour react to a arrow from a longbow

Historical Account of the Battle with map

[Whacker]

How does a full plate armour react to a arrow from a longbow

Good morning. After reading that post, I believe I mis-stated a few facts above. Again I'm sorry I don't have my book in front of me.

I believe the range and which I stated longbow fired bodkin-head arrows penetrated was way over the mark, it's more like a football field length or so.

Second, you're absolutely correct, quite a bit of the damage to the french cav was to their mounts. However it was still documented that a good deal of men-at-arms also were killed by the arrows as well.

And yes, to the article above, I've read more than one book that disagrees with most of the postings in there. Towards the bottom a "felix wang" made a post that's more in-line with what I've read. The amount of energy put into a longbow projectile was just amazing, and it COULD penetrate multiple types of armor, including thick plate. It could even penetrate the thickest helmet armor to a sufficient depth at very close range with the right type of arrowhead and sufficient draw strength. Some of the even heavier crossbows could put more energy into their projectiles as well for better penetration, but the major sacrifice there is reload speed and fire rate.

Cheers!

[Spendius]

Most of the French knights dismounted because of the muddy battlefield. Unmounted knights would go knee deep in the mud, unable to move to face their enemies: the longbowmen (mostly welsh, by the way), would then have kill / captured most of them using their melee weapons.

[econ21]

Most of the French knights dismounted because of the muddy battlefield.

I don't think this is true. I think by that time it was standard practice to dismount before fighting the English. Their archers, stacks and solid men-at-arms[1] would make short work of mounted knights. Dismounted man-at-arms vs dismounted man-at-arms would be a fairer fight. The mystery of Agincourt (to me) is how such a supposedly "fairer fight" was one so spectacularly by the underdog.

[1]Sadly, we don't have those in M2TW - according to Keegan's face of battle, the English men-at-arms cut their lances short (as did the French), making them kind of ultra-well armoured and trained spearmen. Playing English in M2TW, I would die for such a unit.

[Sir SillyDuck]

IIRC, the 'french crossbows' were actually Genoese in the battle of Crechy. There, next to a large number of French (nobility) knights and Men at Arms, the French also fielded a large amount of Genoese Mercenary crossbows.

Crechy was fought over at a hill (near Crechy, doh ), with the English sitting on the high ground. The Genoese crossbowmen were mowed down aswell by the longbows, having a shorter effective range, and forced to walk uphill, firing from a downhill position.

One thing about the crossbows is that when it appeared on the battlefield it was the only bow that could shoot a projectile through armor. This was later equalled by the longbows bodkin arrows, but outclassed by their range.

[Daveybaby]

Youre *all* wrong - the english only won because of the passive AI bug.

[Spendius]

My statement on Azincourt was taken from the French wikipedia.

The first charge was done by mounted knights, subsequent charges done on foot.
As a note, english soldiers wanted to ransom prisonners, but Henry V ordered them to slaughter them all...

About Crecy, the french crossbowmen were indeed genoese mercenaries. They had walked all day, carrying this heavy crossbows, had to left their pavise behind, and it had been a rainy day: nerve (sp?) strings of the crossbows would be loose, while hemp strings of the longbows would just be tighter.
Genoese were forced to retreat, and were charged by French knights as traitors.
Key points in that battle:
- French king Philip VI was an idiot
- Still he ordered to wait for the next day to attack, but troops wouldn't listen
- longbows, and their deadly rate of fire

[kaasbris]

Many impetuous French seeking glory probably created a a crowd effect pushing many combatants forward into a cramped, bogged, deathtrap where piles of dead and wounded combatants and horses further impeded their advance.

There is a great Discovery Channnel documentary on the battle with a crowd disaster specialist walking the battlefield, physicists firing longbow arrowheads at plate steel, and a discussion of the armaments of the armies.

I suspect that "great" Discovery Channel (as well as any book written in English by English) use English resources to describe Hundred Years' War.
So, I don't think that's French only to seek glory.

I am just curious why there are no famous victory for French except Jean d'Arc? If possible, I wish I could ask to THAT teacher in question!

[Spendius]

Most of the initial conquests of Edward III were reacquired by Charles V through wits, diplomacy and guerrilla tactics.
A decisive French victory in the 100 years war was the battle of Castillon, in 1453. The english tactics, with lots of missile weapons, was there successfully countered by artillery.
You can also look at the battle of Patay, where 1500 French knights beat 5000 english soldiers.

[monkian]

Whether the longbow won the Battle of Agincourt or not, the longbowmen was massively feared and hated by the French.

If a longbowmen was caught he usually tortured and killed without a thought of ransom.

[Spendius]

I heard all captured bowmen had their index or middle finger cut, so they could no longer use a longbow.
Therefore, they started waving their middle finger at the enemies to taunt them.

[Beefeater]

I suspect that "great" Discovery Channel (as well as any book written in English by English) use English resources to describe Hundred Years' War.
So, I don't think that's French only to seek glory.

I am just curious why there are no famous victory for French except Jean d'Arc? If possible, I wish I could ask to THAT teacher in question!

That's a good question, K. That said, all countries tend to talk up their own military histories. France has got as many famous victories as any other nation, although they tend to get talked down a bit here in the Anglophone sphere. Pace the columnist Woodrow Wyatt, who is alleged to have spelt his surname out to a French hotel receptionist as Waterloo, Ypres, Agincourt, Trafalgar, Trafalgar.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose...

[FrauGloer]

I think another factor at Agincourt that might have killed a fair few French may have been the mud itself. Imagine a French knight in full plate armour being thrown by his horse or a man-at arms stumbling. He won't land on his feet, but on his belly/back. Now imagine having to get up in that knee-deep muck while being weighed down by your armour and possibly trampled by the crowd around you. I'd bet a good deal that many suffocated before they were able to get up. I'm not an expert, of course, but it's my guess...

[Doug-Thompson]

Back to topic: Your teacher is ignorant. Now, how do you point that out and prove it.

I'd go to the school library, find a decent and accurate account of any of those battles, particularly Agincourt. Copy the relevant pages, highlight "longbows" and other relevant words, and leave them anonymously upon her desk.

Unfortunately, this is not an aberration. I have one daughter here in Fayetteville and another living with her mom in a town more than 200 miles away. Both have had history teachers who are late-career coaches waiting for retirement. One daughther's ancient and medieval history class consisted of hearing old war stories from Vietnam for the first 9 weeks. The other just talked about how much he hated then-president Bill Clinton. In my own schooling, I corrected the teacher in front of the whole class when she got the starting YEAR of the Second World War wrong.

[Spendius]

The mud was the major factor of the defeat against the flamish at Courtrai.

If France had only known defeat, why would it still be such a big country ?

[Garnier]

Somethings wrong with teachers these days. They need us gamers to teach history. Or at least military history. Maybe thats an idea for my future career...

[Orda Khan]

Too many people (so called history 'experts') theorise over this and that from their armchairs. Scientific studies are carried out to 'prove' certain theories. It is 'common knowledge' that the horseback archers of the steppe were largely ineffectual against armoured opponents; yet Kassai Lajos was able to penetrate a military helmet using the technology available to the Huns (circa 400AD.)
So much for armchair experts.
The development of first the needle bodkin and later the short bodkin seems a pointless exercise if such technology was useless, why not stick with an ordinary broadhead?
What quality was the 'steel' used in plate armour manufacture circa 1400 AD?
Are we expected to believe that every French Knight or man-at-arms wore the very best armour of the period? And that armour was complete (as in complete protection, no gaps or un-armoured areas)
Surely, there were many factors behind the catastrophic French defeat and quite possibly the main one being the tactics (or lack of) It was a tremendous display of incompetence.
The war bows in the English ranks have been reduced by modern theory to mere annoying 'mosquitos'. I say this is garbage and I maintain they were responsible for many dead opponents.
And that's during the battle itself, not the executions that followed

......Orda

[Daveybaby]

Spot on Orda. If bodkins didnt work why were they being used? More to the point, if the english longbows were useless then why the hell would the english be fielding them (and training them at enormous cost and time) rather than crossbows?

As with everything in life all of the stuff people have mentioned would have contributed - the sort of people who think "the mud was a factor THEREFORE the longbows had no effect" are the source of much of the non-existent 'controversy'.

[Husar]

I think I can agree with Orda, why would the English bother to bring 6000 archers if they were completely ineffective anyway?

[econ21]

OK, I think we have dutifully chastised the errant "social studies" teacher.



I am going to close this thread as some posters have been nudging it towards country bashing, a path that only leads to pain, warning points and the dark side.