How did the English win at Agincourt ?

[admin]

On a tangent, though related to the thread, I read yesterday that Marshal Boucicault was pulled wounded from a pile of bodies before being taken prisoner. Does anyone here know what source that is from or any more detail? Boucicault was of course one of the leaders of the unsuccessful cavalry charge at Agincourt.

[janner]

On a tangent, though related to the thread, I read yesterday that Marshal Boucicault was pulled wounded from a pile of bodies before being taken prisoner. Does anyone here know what source that is from or any more detail? Boucicault was of course one of the leaders of the unsuccessful cavalry charge at Agincourt.

I've not come across that one - Matthew Bennett puts him with the dismounted vanguard under the French Constable. I recall that Boucicault's brother, Geoffrey, bishop of Laon, was also present and was captured along with his captain, Jean Brassier. I've often wondered if the brothers fought alongside one another.

[admin]

I've not come across that one - Matthew Bennett puts him with the dismounted vanguard under the French Constable.

Interesting - it is in Matthew Bennett's Osprey book that I saw the reference to him being dragged wounded from a pile of bodies (not something I had seen written before). Of course Osprey books are not generally the most academically rigourous sources....

[janner]

Interesting - it is in Matthew Bennett's Osprey book that I saw the reference to him being dragged wounded from a pile of bodies (not something I had seen written before). Of course Osprey books are not generally the most academically rigourous sources....

I agree with you on most Ospreys, but I think that Matt's is taken quite seriously and was referred to by Anne Curry in her study.

Whilst not a source of new and original thinking (as Matt's Agincourt was), I think that David Nicolle's are good summaries of existing research.

Still, the editors are not keen on footnoting, which reduces their utility somewhat.

[admin]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uy7DT_FTms0

[janner]

cracking Matt - thanks for sharing. Had to restrain myself from the comment board though

[admin]

It's a good documentary with some really interesting info to add to the mix. However, some parts did have me slapping my head and after posting the link on our facebook page I could not resist making some comments. Here is what I said - feel free to disagree! -

Unfortunately Dr David Sim needs to study his sources more. Firstly there is no evidence of the long bodkin being used at this time (the arrowhead recovered from the field was a short bodkin/Type 16) and secondly Henry V released decrees stating that arrowhead must be made of hardened steel. Making Dr David Sim's statements plainly wrong/irrelevant.

And unfortunately the arrow vs. armour test is irrelevant, as they've taken their energy figures from a relatively low draw weight non-warbow, not full drawn, and with a long bodkin head that was not used at the time of Agincourt, not even made of hardened steel!

This is not to say that arrows regularly penetrated plate armour - of course they did not and there is no documentary or archaeological evidence to suggest that. However, this test is hopelessly inaccurate for the reasons stated above and d...ocumentary sources do state that arrow did bypass armour sometimes (in gaps) and did sometimes penetrate thinner plates. Henry V wanted his archers to be equipped with hardened steel arrowheads for a reason; you do not need hardened steel arrowheads unless you plan to penetrate something hard.

[admin]

Here's an example of a documentary which gets a lot of the basic facts correct, but is laden with urban legends, such as the 'medieval armour-penetrating machinegun' (longbow myth), the '8 to 10 arrows a minute' (no historical evidence known) and the 'French threat to remove two fingers from every English archer caught' (no historical evidence and ridiculous - the French would just kill them, not only take their fingers!):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaMMJaQ6tw8

[Motley]

It's a good documentary with some really interesting info to add to the mix. However, some parts did have me slapping my head and after posting the link on our facebook page I could resist making some comments. Here is what I said - feel free to disagree! -

Unfortunately Dr David Sim needs to study his sources more. Firstly there is no evidence of the long bodkin being used at this time (the arrowhead recovered from the field was a short bodkin/Type 16) and secondly Henry V released decrees stating that arrowhead must be made of hardened steel. Making Dr David Sim's statements plainly wrong/irrelevant.

And unfortunately the arrow vs. armour test is irrelevant, as they've taken their energy figures from a relatively low draw weight non-warbow, not full drawn, and with a long bodkin head that was not used at the time of Agincourt, not even made of hardened steel!

This is not to say that arrows regularly penetrated plate armour - of course they did not and there is no documentary or archaeological evidence to suggest that. However, this test is hopelessly inaccurate for the reasons stated above and d...ocumentary sources do state that arrow did bypass armour sometimes (in gaps) and did sometimes penetrate thinner plates. Henry V wanted his archers to be equipped with hardened steel arrowheads for a reason; you do not need hardened steel arrowheads unless you plan to penetrate something hard.

I finally got around to watching this video last night. Thanks for posting it Matt.

I had similar thoughts on the archery tests, the guy they measured off didn't seem to get a full draw and I don't remember seeing any info about the poundage of the bow.

Still I enjoyed it and found it useful, the factor of the mud too I hadn't realised.

[admin]

The mud suction effect on plate is interesting, though of course we know that several hundred (maybe a thousand or more) French men at arms were taken prisoner and executed, so they must have survived the arrows and the mud at least...

[bow-toxo]

The reason for the stakes was to protect the archers against a cavalry attack, which was the antidote for archers. The French had learned by experience that a general mounted attack was disastrous so most fought on foot. Not part of the victory but part of the French casualties was the killing of the French prisoners after the battle.

[admin]

On one hand we know that archers were cut up by cavalry when they did not have time to deploy their stakes - it happened on other occasions and the English archers were not the only ones to deploy stakes in this way - the Turkish archers at Nicopolis in 1393 also used stakes I believe (the French, Burgundian etc men at arms had to remove some of the stakes to continue their attack - on foot).

Now, if we know that archers were sometimes cut up by cavalry, and that archers went to great efforts to protect themselves with stakes against cavalry, then it seems that the French did not dismount most of their 'knights' because of the archers, but rather because of the stakes. Because we know that archers without stakes get cut up by cavalry.

The cavalry at Agincourt were not supposed to charge at the stakes (as they ended up doing), they were supposed to ride around each side of the English army and attack in the flanks and rear. But they couldn't because of the lay of land and woodland.

Based on what happened at Nicopolis though, and other clues, I don't believe the stakes were there to protect only against cavalry - I believe they were there to protect from everything the French had, including the predominant infantry force. A portable pallisade is essentially a similar tactic to the Hussite wagenburg ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laager ) - turning any area of land into a fortification and acting as a force multiplier. This in my mind is the most likely reason why a small number of English men at arms and lightly equipped archers was able to hold off a much larger French force in hand to hand fighting for so long (and regardless of the archery, we know that the hand to hand part of the battle lasted quite some time).

[Dan Howard]

This article might be useful.

Given-Wilson, Chris and Beriac, Francoise. “Edward III’s Prisoners of War: The Battle of Poitiers and its Context.” The English Historical Review, 116.468 (Sep 2001): 802-833.

Gives an outline of the major battles between France and England from Crecy to Agincourt and does a good job trying to estimate the numbers of prisoners taken in each. I can't recall the exact figures but apparently Poitiers had the highest number of prisoners taken.