Agincourt and Formigny: What really were the lessons?

[gloriousbattle]

The English won at Agincourt (also a few others) because the devastating power and range of the English longbow slaughtered the French chivalry.  The French won at Formigny (also a few others) because they now took the technological lead, and devastating power and range of the French artillery slaughtered the English bowmen.

But is all of this really what happened?  My understanding of these battles is that the casualties caused by the missiles in both cases were relatively light.  Two cannons can only accomplish so much, and even a bow with a hundred pound pull has a heck of a time penetrating plate armor at any distance.

Doesn't it seem more likely that what really happened was that the longbow/bombard were just annoying enough to pull the enemy out of position?

My memory of Agincourt, Poitiers and Crecy is a little spotty, and I can't remember which order they fall in, but IIRC, the French charge prepared English positions on horseback in the first one, and in the later ones attempt infantry charges.  Now, despite English historians loving the quote that "the French learned nothing and forgot nothing", it seems unlikely that these warlike men were stupid enough to actually adopt a slower form of advance if lack of speed was what killed them in the first place.

To me it seems more likely that the French simply ran into the old problem of so many cavalry armies, in that they could not dislodge disciplined infantry in a prepared position once they reached it.  Horses are not as stupid as men, and are less likely to throw themselves on bills and halberds.  So, of course, the answer was simple: assault with infantry, which is more likely to accomplish the job, except that now you have the problem of exhausted infantry (heavily armored and having charged over a long distance) assaulting fresh infantry.

In the later battles of the war, I'll grant that the French artillery probably gave an advantage, but only the same trick played on the English in reverse.  They out-range the longbow, but again can't really do more than pinprick the army.  The pinpricking is effective though, in that now it is the English who are drawn out of their strong defenses, not to be shattered by overwhelming French artillery, but to be outmaneuvered and cut up in detail.  This becomes all the more obvious when we realize that the English charge at Formigny is initially successful, even to the point of capturing the French guns, but it leaves them exposed to encirclement by superior numbers, resulting in an ultimate English defeat.

My thoughts, anyway.  I'd enjoy reading yours. 

[Arlequín]

At Formigny the English were threatened from the flank and forced to partly abandon their defensive position and split their firepower. This left part of their army exposed in open country facing a strong cavalry force. They were outmanoeuvred, outnumbered and outclassed.

The Longbow could penetrate plate armour at a considerable distance, but was not the super weapon people think. Armour of the Agincourt period would often have areas exposed at joints and shoulder, plus many men would shed or raise their visors for better visibility. The arrow storm from above at a distance would be nuisance fire with some fatalities and many injuries, but mostly having the effect of funneling the French away from the flanks exposed to the archers (depending on whose account of the battle you read). This caused a lot of confusion and a press of men towards the centre of the formation. If you factor in the sodden ground and slips and trips, it was hardly a cohesive force that walked (not charged) across the fields.

However the English were hardly fresh troops, they were suffering from large numbers of men with dysentery and had force marched across much of Northern France trying to escape the French that were closing in. If anything the French were the fresh troops. Tactically the French plan was sound, a strong battleline supported by wings of cavalry (which had some success, but went for loot instead of rolling up the army). Numbers are misleading though too, many of the French strength would be levies and camp followers who didn't do much other than observe how powerful their masters and betters were. It is likely therefore that the French didn't actually outnumber the English as much as is supposed and poor conditions, as much as the longbow and the stakes sealed their fate.

Lessons?

Formigny - no plan survives contact with the enemy.

Agincourt - never underestimate your opponent or fail to consider the terrain you are fighting over.

[gloriousbattle]

If anything the French were the fresh troops.

Mmm... not so sure about that one.  It is one thing to say that an army is suffering from dysentery and long marches, but that is pretty much true of any army that has been in the field for awhile.

It is very different to compare two men, both of whom might or might not be under the weather, when one has just winded himself by advancing (and I don't think you can call it a walk, we are trying to avoid those arrows, super weapons or not ) across a slippery battlefield in heavy armor.

Again, just my thoughts.

[Arlequín]

The French Army had not been in the field for long (and was still forming) and the English army had covered 250 miles or so in just over two weeks, so I guess calling the English fresh would not be strictly correct. The advance was over a sodden freshly ploughed field with men packed in tight... iirc Ann Curry estimated that the speed of the 'advance' was reduced by about 75%, so describing it as a walk is probably exaggerating its speed. If we believe contemporary chroniclers, the men were packed so tight that they were unable to wield their weapons effectively. I'll accept that the advance took some effort and it is likely to have worn out most of the troops advancing, but even so no more tired than the men facing them, who had themselves advanced to force the battle and then set about re-emplacing the stakes they had set up only a short time before.

Don't get me wrong, the longbow played its part in most of the battles of the HYW, but as armour improved it became steadily less effective in proportion to this. Nevertheless it must have been an effective weapons still, given the lengths the English went to, to ensure they always had a high proportion of them.

[gloriousbattle]

The French Army had not been in the field for long (and was still forming) and the English army had covered 250 miles or so in just over two weeks, so I guess calling the English fresh would not be strictly correct. The advance was over a sodden freshly ploughed field with men packed in tight... iirc Ann Curry estimated that the speed of the 'advance' was reduced by about 75%, so describing it as a walk is probably exaggerating its speed. If we believe contemporary chroniclers, the men were packed so tight that they were unable to wield their weapons effectively. I'll accept that the advance took some effort and it is likely to have worn out most of the troops advancing, but even so no more tired than the men facing them, who had themselves advanced to force the battle and then set about re-emplacing the stakes they had set up only a short time before.

I think that we might just be talking across each other here, and using two definitions of "exhausted."  Remember that even after massive physical exertion, the human body regains something like 80% of its strength after just two minutes of rest; however, those two minutes are critical.  Without them, your strength is much less, and your reactions far slower, and these are two critical factors in a melee style battle of the type that was common in the HYW.  Just not getting your guard up fast enough will be the difference between living another twenty years to tell your grandkids about all this sh**, and your head bouncing down the field.

Don't get me wrong, the longbow played its part in most of the battles of the HYW, but as armour improved it became steadily less effective in proportion to this. Nevertheless it must have been an effective weapons still, given the lengths the English went to, to ensure they always had a high proportion of them.

No doubt.  I just don't think it was the war-winner that it is so often touted as being (after all, the English lost the HYW despite longbows, just like the Germans lost WWII despite King Tigers and Me-262s), but I think we are in agreement on that.

[fastolfrus]

No doubt.  I just don't think it was the war-winner that it is so often touted as being (after all, the English lost the HYW despite longbows, just like the Germans lost WWII despite King Tigers and Me-262s), but I think we are in agreement on that.

The war wasn't won by pitched battles though.
The longbow on its own wasn't a super weapon, but the tactical use of massed lonbows might have been. But only if you can win the war with pitched battles.
In a protracted campaign where sieges are the decider, artillery and crossbows probably have more influence.

[gloriousbattle]

The war wasn't won by pitched battles though.
The longbow on its own wasn't a super weapon, but the tactical use of massed lonbows might have been. But only if you can win the war with pitched battles.
In a protracted campaign where sieges are the decider, artillery and crossbows probably have more influence.

If you want a truly ultimate cause, I'd say it was political.  France of this period had more than enough muscle to push England into the Channel, it just took them getting united to make it happen.

As to the longbow, yes, in it's brief heyday, it was very powerful, but artillery and other gunpowder weapons quickly eclipsed it, even on the field.  YMMV, of course.

[fastolfrus]

YMMV ?

[Arlequín]

The longbow wasn't unique to England (or Wales), what was unique was that practice in its use was required by law and encouraged socially in England, which provided a pool of skilled men. The attraction of 'making your fortune; in France (some actually did achieve this) as a soldier proved sufficient to ensure a steady supply of such men for use. In France on the other hand, commoners were discouraged from bearing arms by law, which resulted in an elite chivalry and  body of commoners who's only talent was ploughing and pig farming.

However a crossbow is a fairly straightforward weapon to use, requiring little training to be effective and a handgun even more so (the wimpiest guy in an army can load a handgun, it takes strength and a lot of practice to draw a longbow). As you can gather, once the incentive to practice is removed (i.e. beginning to lose the war and cash strapped) then your pool of archers is reduced. The increasingly frequent legislation in the 15th century prohibiting football and encouraging archery is a testament to a declining resource.

Certainly France becoming more consolidated was the death knell for the English in France, but so was the lack of an adult King in England, which resulted in bickering amongst the nobility an a series of prestige appointments to the command of the forces in France. That isn't to detract from the effort made by the French however and of course the establishment of a standing army in 1445 was the icing on the cake.

[Captain Blood]

The increasingly frequent legislation in the 15th century prohibiting football and encouraging archery is a testament to a declining resource.

We need to reintroduce that law! 

[gloriousbattle]

YMMV ?

Your Mileage May Vary

In other words, you may have read otherwise, or see things differently.  Sorry for the netspeak.

[Arlequín]

We need to reintroduce that law! 

I'm not sure they actually repealed it to be honest... Imagine someone's face if they received a summons for failing to attend at the practice butts on Sunday. 

I understand that Chester's oft vaunted bye-law relating to shooting Welshmen on the wrong side of the Dee after nightfall is a myth though.