So how could the French have won Agincourt ?

[Fab]

Well speaking about the value ... of pike-blocks.

Nice points, Wolfgang.

[janner]

By the way I don't know if anyone noticed this when I pointed it out up thread but there were 3,000 English Longbowmen at the Siege of Nueses during the Burgundian wars and they did not have any significant effect (other than getting involved in a riot) or help win the siege.

BD

Crossbows are perhaps better suited to static warfare such as sieges. The weapon can be held in the aim for longer and without undue strain to await the right time to loose the bolt against a fleeting target from a covered position, before popping back to reload or be passed another loaded crossbow by an assistant. Of course, the longbow wins hands down on rates of 'fire' and high trajectory 'fire', which made it the ideal weapon for the field of battle. It may be, therefore, that a siege is not the best way to judge the effectiveness of the English longbowman.

[bigdummy]

Each weapon system has it's own advantages. Longbows are great from long range against exposed positions, and apparently they were actually also useful in sieges, according to the Teutonic Knights and Charles the Bold who both praised the weapon in that context.

The ideal Longbow "situation" is arguably from a prepared position on well-chosen ground, protected by stakes and barriers and supported by heavy infantry... where they can plunge a steady stream of armor-piercing arrows into an advancing enemy who won't be able to get at them very easily. But that is an ideal situation for most weapons! Crossbows were often used the same way, the wagon fort was basically the Eastern version of this. Cover, heavy infantry protection, and fortification. Only in this case it's also mobile.

Mongol / Turkish horse archers do best when they have a lot of room to move around so they can constantly shoot at their enemy from their own maximum range using light flight-arrows like darts, which is almost always (assuming an enemy other than more Mongol / Turkish horse archers) well outside the range of their enemies missile weapons. If their enemy comes close they simply move further away, and keep shooting. When the constant rain of arrows gets to be too much for the enemy and they break, the horse archers move in with the heavier armor-piercing arrows and war-arrows, and then finish with lance, mace, and saber.

Crossbows were preferred by Latin forces in the Baltic I think because of all available missiles they had the longest "direct shot" range, i.e. range at which an individual person could be targeted as opposed to lofted / area shooting, and from what the Teutonic Knights said and what the Tartars recorded as well, they seemed to be very good at killing horses. In the Baltic battlefields were a bit closer-in, because open fields were broken up by forests, rivers, bogs, and lakes. This is also why the Lithuanian systems which were mostly reliant on javelins and darts, were effective against the Mongols particularly on their own turf, because it was closer quarters.

So I think it's kind of a 'paper scissors rock' thing between the weapons. If one system was really that superior groups like the Teutonic Knights and the Black Army of Hungary would have adopted them en-masse, because they had the money to use whatever they liked and hire whomever they wanted.

But that said, I think it's a bit of a cop-out to write off cases where English longbowmen didn't perform outstandingly well and say "well this wasn't an ideal situation", because in warfare you can't count on your enemy being impetuous and stupid. Sometimes they will be, as the French clearly were at Agincourt, Crecy, and Poitiers. But sometimes your enemy doesn't cooperate: the Swiss suddenly charge into your camp from a woodline, the Burghers of Nuess and Koln use crafty strategems and break down your pontoon bridge with a fire boat, the Lithuanians hit and run and lead you into ambushes and deadfalls. A truly superior system will prevail against most types of opponents. A more limited system or "one trick pony" will succumb to disaster in the wrong circumstances as heavy cavalry did in more than one famous occasion. The English longbowmen did neither, they won some, lost some. IMO at any rate.

BD

[Thearos]

Apologies for the drift, but did the Teutonic Knights leave an extensive military literature ? E.g. fencing treatises, tactics, "usable" narrative military history (with "lessons learned" etc) ? [Polybios, for the ancient Greek world, and to a certain extent Thucydides, did this in their historical writing)

I.e. how did the Teutonic knights transmit their military knowledge and culture ?

[bigdummy]

No treatises per se, though we know of one Master from Danzig and one from Silessia, and a few more in the region. I kind of doubt any were associated with the Teutonic Knights but who knows.

But they did leave several volumes of records and chronicles, I listed 3 or 4 of the most prominent ones upthread, but they left about six or seven in total covering their history from the beginning of the Northern Crusades into the 15th Century. With lots of details on things like strategy, logistics, weapons, armor, siege techniques, enemy dispositions, diplomacy, and so on.

BD

[janner]

Each weapon system has it's own advantages. Longbows are great from long range against exposed positions, and apparently they were actually also useful in sieges, according to the Teutonic Knights and Charles the Bold who both praised the weapon in that context.

The ideal Longbow "situation" is arguably from a prepared position on well-chosen ground, protected by stakes and barriers and supported by heavy infantry... where they can plunge a steady stream of armor-piercing arrows into an advancing enemy who won't be able to get at them very easily. But that is an ideal situation for most weapons! Crossbows were often used the same way, the wagon fort was basically the Eastern version of this. Cover, heavy infantry protection, and fortification. Only in this case it's also mobile.

Mongol / Turkish horse archers do best when they have a lot of room to move around so they can constantly shoot at their enemy from their own maximum range using light flight-arrows like darts, which is almost always (assuming an enemy other than more Mongol / Turkish horse archers) well outside the range of their enemies missile weapons. If their enemy comes close they simply move further away, and keep shooting. When the constant rain of arrows gets to be too much for the enemy and they break, the horse archers move in with the heavier armor-piercing arrows and war-arrows, and then finish with lance, mace, and saber.

Crossbows were preferred by Latin forces in the Baltic I think because of all available missiles they had the longest "direct shot" range, i.e. range at which an individual person could be targeted as opposed to lofted / area shooting, and from what the Teutonic Knights said and what the Tartars recorded as well, they seemed to be very good at killing horses. In the Baltic battlefields were a bit closer-in, because open fields were broken up by forests, rivers, bogs, and lakes. This is also why the Lithuanian systems which were mostly reliant on javelins and darts, were effective against the Mongols particularly on their own turf, because it was closer quarters.

So I think it's kind of a 'paper scissors rock' thing between the weapons. If one system was really that superior groups like the Teutonic Knights and the Black Army of Hungary would have adopted them en-masse, because they had the money to use whatever they liked and hire whomever they wanted.

But that said, I think it's a bit of a cop-out to write off cases where English longbowmen didn't perform outstandingly well and say "well this wasn't an ideal situation", because in warfare you can't count on your enemy being impetuous and stupid. Sometimes they will be, as the French clearly were at Agincourt, Crecy, and Poitiers. But sometimes your enemy doesn't cooperate: the Swiss suddenly charge into your camp from a woodline, the Burghers of Nuess and Koln use crafty strategems and break down your pontoon bridge with a fire boat, the Lithuanians hit and run and lead you into ambushes and deadfalls. A truly superior system will prevail against most types of opponents. A more limited system or "one trick pony" will succumb to disaster in the wrong circumstances as heavy cavalry did in more than one famous occasion. The English longbowmen did neither, they won some, lost some. IMO at any rate.

BD

Seems that you missed my, obviously badly made, point BD. The crossbow can be held in the aim for much longer than a bow as it places limited strain on the user. So it is ideal for sniping at fleeting targets. The longbow has a much higher rate of 'fire' so is ideal against mass targets (but also is very accurate) as well as being very suited to plunging 'fire'. Hence most English and French armies had both types of archer, although there was seemingly something special or distinct about to the Anglo-Welsh bowmen that has variously been put down to various degrees to equipment, training and tactical doctrine.

I'm surprised that you decided to read my post as 'a cop-out' rather than confirm my argument and consider it's merits - must have caught you on a bad day

[bigdummy]

The only thing I thought was a "cop out" was the idea that siege warfare wasn't a good test. But I wasn't that excited about it either way. If I come across as hostile please don't read it that way, I didn't have a bad day, I'm just wordy and a little bit pedantic. What is the point of having discussions like this if you aren't going to sweat the details? I'm also hoping that other people reading the thread will be as interested in some of these details as I was. I don't mean to offend.

To point: on a technical level, I don't think the ability to be held in readiness is that big of a deal actually, or the mechanical spanning either. I think these are two of the more common cliches I see repeated about crossbows. The other is that anyone could use them. The point of confusion is that there were many types of Crossbows. In that essay I linked upthread about the Teutonic Orders use of Crossbows and Horses, they deliniate the many different types of crossbows differentiated in the records of the Order:

Knottelarmbrust (crossbow with a prod made of ordinary solid wood, usually yew which can be spanned by hand or with a belt-hook), steigbügelarmbruste which are stronger composite-prod crossbows which require a stirrup for spanning, and in some cases also a wippe or ziegenfuß (goats foot) to span, the Englischwickler or "English Winder", large siege crossbows spanned by a winch and pully system, and finally the Statchel or 'Stinger', smaller but equally powerful steel-prod or composite prod arbalests, spanned by the "german winder" or cranequin. The latter was the most important tactically, but the simpler knottelarmbrust and steigbügelarmbruste being much cheaper and easier to use were far more common numerically (like ten to one from records I've seen). The statchel was the most expensive weapon, dangerous to span and susceptible to problems from weather (the steel prod ones could snap in very cold weather, the composite prods could come apart if they got wet) but quite effective on the battlefield, and the guys who carried them got double pay, they were the same as handgunners.

From some experiments I've seen done and read about, mechanical spanning doesn't seem to help that much with endurance for shooters especially with the heavier crossbows. You still have to use your strength especially if you are trying to keep up a good rate of shots. The Crossbowmen get worn out pretty fast too, and a longbowman can "wait in ready" just by waiting with an arrow nocked. I think the main advantage of at least the late-medieval crossbows is or was their short-range accuracy - in other words to be more specific, I think a late medieval arbalest has a better direct-shot range than any bow, whereas the bow has a better "area shot" range because arrows can maintain velocity in higher arcs. The velocity from type of short, thick bolts they used to use for warfare tends to drop off suddenly although they did use the weapons in an arc, and they did have the equivalent of flight arrows, special whistling bolts called bremsen (gadfly) which were used at maximum range largely to demoralize the enemy. Probably an idea they got from the Mongols. They could shoot them in a shallow arc, but the maximum range was still much less than either a Longbow or a Recurve.

For sieges or 'sniper' use it also helped that you could support the weapon the way you can with a rifle. But so does the ability to shoot over a wall or a parapet.

BD

[janner]

Sorry to have misunderstood BD.

As you mention, the weight of the crossbow can be supported (like a rifle), whilst the bow cannot. I think that anyone could use a crossbow in the way that anyone can use a rifle - there is a big unwritten 'if' there that encompasses training and physical ability (not to mention the size of the particular crossbow). Of course spanning is tiring, but, unlike the bowman, the same person does not have to span as shoot. As you'll know from your military service, waiting with the weapon made ready but at rest is not the same as in the shoulder at aim - especially when the target is fleeting and partially obscured.

Whilst the trajectory of the bow allowed for indirect 'fire', that didn't help pick off targets in the dead ground behind the obstacle. Bows would certainly have been useful for certain tasks and especially in the assault, but I would not consider them the ideal weapon if the siege settled into a long attrition phase. Interestingly, that was not a feature of siege-craft in my own period of interest (12th Century) as sieges generally only lasted weeks if not days. Hence armies using a mixture of weapon systems - even the French had bowman.

[admin]

By the way I don't know if anyone noticed this when I pointed it out up thread but there were 3,000 English Longbowmen at the Siege of Nueses during the Burgundian wars and they did not have any significant effect (other than getting involved in a riot) or help win the siege.

Source? I can't find any info about this siege. When was it?

[admin]

Crossbows are perhaps better suited to static warfare such as sieges. The weapon can be held in the aim for longer and without undue strain to await the right time to loose the bolt against a fleeting target from a covered position, before popping back to reload or be passed another loaded crossbow by an assistant. Of course, the longbow wins hands down on rates of 'fire' and high trajectory 'fire', which made it the ideal weapon for the field of battle. It may be, therefore, that a siege is not the best way to judge the effectiveness of the English longbowman.

Of course. Longbows are not remotely siege weapons, they are open field weapons. Guns and crossbows are better geared to either defence or attack of a defence. I'm not even sure why BD is using a siege as an example, as it has no bearing on my statement about the effectiveness of English longbowmen on the battlefield in the 14th to early-15thC.
It may also be of interest to note that during the chevauchee raids of the 14thC and during the long raid of the Crecy campaign, the English forces always aimed to storm settlements with great speed, taking them before they could close and consolodate their position. I seem to remember that in some cases, when they did come up against a well defended position they just carried on around it.

[admin]

The ideal Longbow "situation" is arguably from a prepared position on well-chosen ground, protected by stakes and barriers and supported by heavy infantry... where they can plunge a steady stream of armor-piercing arrows into an advancing enemy who won't be able to get at them very easily. But that is an ideal situation for most weapons! Crossbows were often used the same way, the wagon fort was basically the Eastern version of this.

It is true that shooting for a defence is generally going to take the biggest toll on the enemy, with any missile weapon where the enemy does not have an even more powerful missile weapon (such as artillery). Hence the English tactics fell apart when the French started using lots of field artillery later in the wars.

However, there were many cases when longbows and crossbows met face to face, and every single example I have ever read about went in the favour of the longbow, due to the overwhelming rate of fire. The only advantage a crossbow has is greater armour penetration and more accuracy, which between large bodies of lightly armoured men is totally irrelevant.

[admin]

If one system was really that superior groups like the Teutonic Knights and the Black Army of Hungary would have adopted them en-masse, because they had the money to use whatever they liked and hire whomever they wanted.

No.
Because there were only a finite number of English longbowmen, and those not already fighting for England were fighting for the Burgundians and Italians! Everyone who could hire English longbowmen did!
Other nations could not develop their own longbowmen in the short term, because it took at least a generation of legal enforcement to get archers of that power and expertese - as the Burgundians showed. By the time the Burgundians were trying to do it, artillery had overtaken archery tactics.

[admin]

Thearos, in answer to your earlier question about Boucicault, yes he did develop tactics to oppose an English army. Called by some the 'Somme Plan' I believe, it was located a couple of decades ago in someone's attic! It described a massed infantry advance up the middle, at the same time as two flanking cavalry attacks on the wings to occupy and disturb the archers (and go round the sides of the defences). This could not be used effectively at Agincourt because there were woods and rough ground to either side of the battlefield, preventing flanking by cavalry, and so they were forced to charge up the middle, where they were shot to pieces by arrows. Many of them made it to the English lines, but presumably without their horses. Boucicault was captured and died in England some years later as a prisoner.

[bigdummy]

By the way I don't know if anyone noticed this when I pointed it out up thread but there were 3,000 English Longbowmen at the Siege of Nueses during the Burgundian wars and they did not have any significant effect (other than getting involved in a riot) or help win the siege.

Source? I can't find any info about this siege. When was it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Neuss

BD

[admin]

Thanks, that's interesting.
However, it doesn't really support your side, because it was a siege, it was late-15thC (artillery ahoy) and the archers in question seem to have been used as light infantry for storming the fortification. Still, interesting .

[Wolfgang Ritter]

By the way I don't know if anyone noticed this when I pointed it out up thread but there were 3,000 English Longbowmen at the Siege of Nueses during the Burgundian wars and they did not have any significant effect (other than getting involved in a riot) or help win the siege.

Source? I can't find any info about this siege. When was it?

The town is called Neuss - BD had a writing error.
This is a summary in english: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Neuss - rather short 'though.
It is a distinctive mark in the history of the burgundian wars; AFAIK the ongoing siege of Neuss - about 11 months - even hindered Charles to support Edward IV. in his plans to invade France 1475, therefore the siege had quite an influence on european history.
Due to the various sources Charles had something like 13.000 to 20.000 soldiers, as usual a mixture of different european origin; Neuss had about 4.000 soldiers, mostly from the count of Hessen; the city's defences were rather new and well-organized, this and the geography were of advantage for Neuss. Charles neither managed to significantly damage the fortification nor starve the defenders; after the usual Habsburg hesitation, the emperor managed to order an army from various milititas from the empire; it took from christmas 1474 to the beginning of may 1475 until they actually set for Neus. Their arrival and some skirmishes around 23. May until early June led to a retreat of the burgundian forces and lastly to a preliminary peace treaty between Charles and the HRE in COlogne. A major setback for Charles plans.

The chronics speak about somewhere around 2.000 english soldiers on Charles side, I don't know if archers or other weaponry, maybe I can look that up.

EDIT: BD was faster and already posted the link....

[bigdummy]

Yes agreed, well put Wolfgang. I think I spelled it right the first time I thought eveyrone was familiar with that siege anyway.

I think it was 3,000 Engish soldiers and they were there for most of the year I believe. He employed English longbowmen through much of the Burgundian wars actually, which was my original point.

One other minor nuance to the whole thing, from my understanding the HRE didn't get heavily involved until very late in the siege, it was the city of Cologne and a couple of other nearby towns which provided most of the support and assistance, to an extent which nearly bankrupted Cologne and cause a certain amount of turmoil in the city in the aftermath of the siege. The towns didn't want to see more cities subjugated by Charles after what he did at Liege and a couple of other places, Cologne knew they could have been next on thee list.

The Emperor was probably somewhat ambivalent I think. He wanted to contain Charles but also saw him as a valuable buffer against the French, and while towns could be an asset, they were also unruly sometimes and seen as a challenge to authority much in the same way that some of the Princes were, only more so since they were commoners. The Holy Roman Emperors tried to ban Stadtbunds and 'Conjurations' several times as far back as the 13th Century, as well as notably in the 14th. He was certainly not a fan of the Swiss Confederation either, though they could be a useful ally in this situation, especially when Charles raised the ante by buying such a huge and high-quality army.

BD

[bigdummy]

If one system was really that superior groups like the Teutonic Knights and the Black Army of Hungary would have adopted them en-masse, because they had the money to use whatever they liked and hire whomever they wanted.

No.
Because there were only a finite number of English longbowmen, and those not already fighting for England were fighting for the Burgundians and Italians! Everyone who could hire English longbowmen did!
Other nations could not develop their own longbowmen in the short term, because it took at least a generation of legal enforcement to get archers of that power and expertese - as the Burgundians showed. By the time the Burgundians were trying to do it, artillery had overtaken archery tactics.

The Hungarian Black Army could have afforded to hire as many Englishmen as they liked, in fact I believe they did have some- they were bankrolled by Venice and the HRE. But they started with a concentration of crossbows and moved increasingly toward firearms as their primary weapons. They also had access to Turkish style recurves and troops trained to use them, incidentally, but preferred the Bohemian style approach of Crossbows and Guns with war-wagons.

BD

[bigdummy]

Thanks, that's interesting.
However, it doesn't really support your side, because it was a siege, it was late-15thC (artillery ahoy) and the archers in question seem to have been used as light infantry for storming the fortification. Still, interesting .

Honestly Matt, I don't have a side. I have an opinion, but it's subject to change on this. Just sharing some of the evidence I used to reach my opinion, I'm always open to see more. I love this stuff.

BD

[bigdummy]

I don't have any recollection of how I got this, but I just noticed on my jump drive that I carry all my research material on, I have a copy of a book entitled

"Expeditions to Prussian and the Holy Land,
Made by Henry Earl of Derby
(afterwords King Henry IV)
in the years 1390-1 and 1392-3
Being
The Accounts kept by his Treasurer during two years
Edited from the originals by
Lucy Toulmin Smith
With introduction, notes, and indices,
printed for the Royal Camden Society M.DCC.XCIV" (1894)

It's a scan so it's all images of an old hardback book. It's 522 pages long!

I'm going to copy this to my Kindle and read it. It will take me a while to get through but I'm sure there will be interesting details. I will share!

BD