aw a very interesting video on You Tube today which investigated what actually (or at least what they think actually happened) and out forward a very plausible explanation as to how 7,000 English managed to defeat over 20,000 mostly well armoured French knights.
1. The French plan was a good one, but....
Contrary to the accepted version of the battle, there was no massed cavalry charge bogged down in the mud and cut to ribbons by the famed English longbow. The majority of French knights approached the English lines on foot.
The French plan was for the crossbowmen to be in front of the massed French knights (on foot) to shoot at the men-at-arms in the middle of the English line (of which there were c. 1,500). Mounted knights were supposed to sweep the English bowmen from the flanks and leave the knights on foot to finish off the English nobility.
What actually happened was the French knights either ignored or misunderstood the plan.
There was an attempt by some French knights on horse to attack the longbowmen on the flanks of the English line but in actuality very few knights agreed to do this (many preferring to attack their opposite numbers in the middle of the English line where glory (and profit) called (see below) rather than waste their time and effort on bow-armed peasants.
There was no return crossbow fire either. The French crossbowmen could have inflicted some casualties on the English but would have fared badly against their bow armed counterparts who could fire 4x quicker. In reality they were pushed to the rear by the knights eager to close with the English knights
So the French attack was mainly a charge of foot by the majority of French knights towards the middle of the English line.
2. Why charge the middle of the line?
This was still a time of chivalry. There were expected codes of conduct in battle and knights expected to be captured and released on payment of ransom should the battle go against them. A juicy ransom could set up a man-at-arms for life so seeing the English line (with the King of England's and his retinues' banners in the middle of it) the French knights would ignore the peasantry on either side (confident in their arrow-proof armour) and go where the money and glory lay.
This meant that irrespective of terrain, the 20,000 would 'funnel' towards the centre of the English line - setting up a crush of French knights and reducing room for manouvre - in a desire to get to grips with the most lucrative targets - specifically Henry himself!
3. The longbow did NOT win the battle
While the English arrows (with iron bodkin points) could penetrate iron armour (as they did at Crecy and Poitiers) they were useless against steel - the new miracle metal which the vast majority of French knights were clad. The French knights on foot were confident of being protected from English arrows whiich simply bounced off well-made steel.
And why were the arrows made from iron rather than steel? Essentially cost! Making steel was a relatively new process and took time and money to get right. Bowmen knew that the arrows they fired would probably never be seen again once fired so there was no great desire to significantly increase the cost
But their horses were not. On the flanks the English bowmen's volleys brought down many of the horses involved in the flank attack and so the charge petered out. This was crucial for two reasons - it preserved the width of the English line and - as the French knights were converging on the English nobility - freed up the archers to become foot soldiers instead.
Bear in mind that the battle lasted 2 hours...but the arrows were expected to be fully expended in the first 15 minutes of battle. It was the 1 hour and 45 minutes of hand-to-hand combat that decided the outcome. But how could 20,000 lose to 7,000?
4. So why were there over 5,500 archers in the English army?
Again, cost rather than effectiveness was the key. Documents for the period show that archers' pay per day was around half that of men-at-arms. So you could field twice as many archers as men-at-arms for the same cost. Henry V was virtually broke (he had to pawn the Crown Jewels to fund his expedition) so getting more men for his money made sense. And it was to prove the correct decision - but not for their prowess with the bow.
5. The terrain was the main reason for victory
Again, popular belief is that the battlefield was hammed in on both sides by woods funnelling the French. This is not the case. The terrain around Agincourt (or Azincourt as it should be know) has barely changed since 1415. The battlefield is still home to the same 3 villages that were there when Henry V set up camp and the area has nearly always been farmland.
Standing on the battlefield it looks like a wide open plain. It is only when you study a map of the terrain that you see that the sides of the battlefield has significant slopes to each side and that the English were at the narrow part of this high plateau.
As the French men-at-arms were converging through this natural funnel they were squeezed into an area half the width of their starting point. If you've ever been in a crowded area where a lot of people are trying to get in or out through a narrow entrance (like leaving a football ground or a Black Friday when they open the doors) you can see how easy it is to bump into other people, to trip and fall and cause others to trip over you in their turn....
Add to this the soil around Agincourt. We know that it had rained the day before the battle but it is unlikely that (as is commonly believed) the area had been recently ploughed. This takes place in March not October. However the soil in this area of France is not dry and sandy nor clay but a soil that absorbs water really well. Unlike clay (which offers resistance to weight but can be slippery) the Agincourt mud was especially thick and cloying when wet. The French men-at-arms found themselves more than ankle deep in this thick cloying mud and each step was a physical challenge.
French knights would find it extremely difficult to walk - never mind charge - in these conditions. Steel foot armour (steel being extremely non-porous) would sink straight down and offer considerable suction resistance when trying to pull it back out again. This would have led to the French men-at-arms becoming stuck, falling over (and having others trip and fall over them in their turn) and quickly becoming exhausted.
As the crush developed (funnelled by terrain and a lust for profit) the French would have presented a long, thin line of men slipping, falling and tired out well before reaching the English men-at-arms who were waiting for them and who didn't have to struggle through mud to get to their enemy....
And the same mud that hindered the French was no hindrance to the lightly armed archers on their flanks. Cloth and leather (being porous) gave nothing like the resistance that steel footwear did. The archers left their bows and set about their noble enemies with knives, bodkins and the same mauls they 'd used to hammer their protective stakes into the ground.
The French nobles found their lightly armed enemies to have no sense of chivalry or honour. The English would simply kill one after the other by either a knife thrust through gaps in the armour of massive hammer blow to chest or head.
Coming in at the flanks, they simply massacred the exhausted French knights as they attempted to extricate themselves from the crush and the mud.
This explains the huge discrepancy in casualties - the English lost a few hundred, the French thousands.
The same was happening on the front line. Because of the crush, the terrain and the actions of the archers on the flanks, the French attack - rather than being an overwhelming rush against a much smaller force - became the opposite. The French in the front line were probably outnumbered when they reached the English men-at-arms (who were certainly fresher than their opposition). This would also explain the high number of prisoners the English nobles took during the battle - hurried to the back of the line to be guarded by their squires and hangers-on.
Later on (with the English thinking the result was still in doubt) Henry ordered these knights murdered in the worry that - should another French attack come, they could rearm and attack the English in the rear. The English men-at-arms refused to carry out the order (more from thoughts of loss of ransom than squeamishness) and so the majority were killed by the archers returning from the flanks.
So there you go! Fairly compelling and many miles away from Shakespeare's version! What do you think?
1. The French plan was a good one, but....
Contrary to the accepted version of the battle, there was no massed cavalry charge bogged down in the mud and cut to ribbons by the famed English longbow. The majority of French knights approached the English lines on foot.
The French plan was for the crossbowmen to be in front of the massed French knights (on foot) to shoot at the men-at-arms in the middle of the English line (of which there were c. 1,500). Mounted knights were supposed to sweep the English bowmen from the flanks and leave the knights on foot to finish off the English nobility.
What actually happened was the French knights either ignored or misunderstood the plan.
There was an attempt by some French knights on horse to attack the longbowmen on the flanks of the English line but in actuality very few knights agreed to do this (many preferring to attack their opposite numbers in the middle of the English line where glory (and profit) called (see below) rather than waste their time and effort on bow-armed peasants.
There was no return crossbow fire either. The French crossbowmen could have inflicted some casualties on the English but would have fared badly against their bow armed counterparts who could fire 4x quicker. In reality they were pushed to the rear by the knights eager to close with the English knights
2. Why charge the middle of the line?
This was still a time of chivalry. There were expected codes of conduct in battle and knights expected to be captured and released on payment of ransom should the battle go against them. A juicy ransom could set up a man-at-arms for life so seeing the English line (with the King of England's and his retinues' banners in the middle of it) the French knights would ignore the peasantry on either side (confident in their arrow-proof armour) and go where the money and glory lay.
This meant that irrespective of terrain, the 20,000 would 'funnel' towards the centre of the English line - setting up a crush of French knights and reducing room for manouvre - in a desire to get to grips with the most lucrative targets - specifically Henry himself!
3. The longbow did NOT win the battle
While the English arrows (with iron bodkin points) could penetrate iron armour (as they did at Crecy and Poitiers) they were useless against steel - the new miracle metal which the vast majority of French knights were clad. The French knights on foot were confident of being protected from English arrows whiich simply bounced off well-made steel.
And why were the arrows made from iron rather than steel? Essentially cost! Making steel was a relatively new process and took time and money to get right. Bowmen knew that the arrows they fired would probably never be seen again once fired so there was no great desire to significantly increase the cost
But their horses were not. On the flanks the English bowmen's volleys brought down many of the horses involved in the flank attack and so the charge petered out. This was crucial for two reasons - it preserved the width of the English line and - as the French knights were converging on the English nobility - freed up the archers to become foot soldiers instead.
Bear in mind that the battle lasted 2 hours...but the arrows were expected to be fully expended in the first 15 minutes of battle. It was the 1 hour and 45 minutes of hand-to-hand combat that decided the outcome. But how could 20,000 lose to 7,000?
4. So why were there over 5,500 archers in the English army?
Again, cost rather than effectiveness was the key. Documents for the period show that archers' pay per day was around half that of men-at-arms. So you could field twice as many archers as men-at-arms for the same cost. Henry V was virtually broke (he had to pawn the Crown Jewels to fund his expedition) so getting more men for his money made sense. And it was to prove the correct decision - but not for their prowess with the bow.
5. The terrain was the main reason for victory
Again, popular belief is that the battlefield was hammed in on both sides by woods funnelling the French. This is not the case. The terrain around Agincourt (or Azincourt as it should be know) has barely changed since 1415. The battlefield is still home to the same 3 villages that were there when Henry V set up camp and the area has nearly always been farmland.
Standing on the battlefield it looks like a wide open plain. It is only when you study a map of the terrain that you see that the sides of the battlefield has significant slopes to each side and that the English were at the narrow part of this high plateau.
As the French men-at-arms were converging through this natural funnel they were squeezed into an area half the width of their starting point. If you've ever been in a crowded area where a lot of people are trying to get in or out through a narrow entrance (like leaving a football ground or a Black Friday when they open the doors) you can see how easy it is to bump into other people, to trip and fall and cause others to trip over you in their turn....
Add to this the soil around Agincourt. We know that it had rained the day before the battle but it is unlikely that (as is commonly believed) the area had been recently ploughed. This takes place in March not October. However the soil in this area of France is not dry and sandy nor clay but a soil that absorbs water really well. Unlike clay (which offers resistance to weight but can be slippery) the Agincourt mud was especially thick and cloying when wet. The French men-at-arms found themselves more than ankle deep in this thick cloying mud and each step was a physical challenge.
French knights would find it extremely difficult to walk - never mind charge - in these conditions. Steel foot armour (steel being extremely non-porous) would sink straight down and offer considerable suction resistance when trying to pull it back out again. This would have led to the French men-at-arms becoming stuck, falling over (and having others trip and fall over them in their turn) and quickly becoming exhausted.
As the crush developed (funnelled by terrain and a lust for profit) the French would have presented a long, thin line of men slipping, falling and tired out well before reaching the English men-at-arms who were waiting for them and who didn't have to struggle through mud to get to their enemy....
And the same mud that hindered the French was no hindrance to the lightly armed archers on their flanks. Cloth and leather (being porous) gave nothing like the resistance that steel footwear did. The archers left their bows and set about their noble enemies with knives, bodkins and the same mauls they 'd used to hammer their protective stakes into the ground.
The French nobles found their lightly armed enemies to have no sense of chivalry or honour. The English would simply kill one after the other by either a knife thrust through gaps in the armour of massive hammer blow to chest or head.
Coming in at the flanks, they simply massacred the exhausted French knights as they attempted to extricate themselves from the crush and the mud.
This explains the huge discrepancy in casualties - the English lost a few hundred, the French thousands.
The same was happening on the front line. Because of the crush, the terrain and the actions of the archers on the flanks, the French attack - rather than being an overwhelming rush against a much smaller force - became the opposite. The French in the front line were probably outnumbered when they reached the English men-at-arms (who were certainly fresher than their opposition). This would also explain the high number of prisoners the English nobles took during the battle - hurried to the back of the line to be guarded by their squires and hangers-on.
Later on (with the English thinking the result was still in doubt) Henry ordered these knights murdered in the worry that - should another French attack come, they could rearm and attack the English in the rear. The English men-at-arms refused to carry out the order (more from thoughts of loss of ransom than squeamishness) and so the majority were killed by the archers returning from the flanks.
So there you go! Fairly compelling and many miles away from Shakespeare's version! What do you think?
3 comments:
Interesting alternative view.
i think my version is fine,
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
Bernard Cornwell used this theory of the battle in his novel Azincourt. The main character is an archer leader in charge of about 100 archers. Sat on the flank his men fire on the approaching French armoured foot but quickly run out of arrows. ( I have read that the English army had 30000-40000 arrows and that the English archers would have expended these in about 10 mins). In the novel the French whilst not suffering large casualties are no the less disturbed by the arrows ( apparently the sound of an iron bodkin bouncing of your head or chest in rapid succession loosens the bowels) and they cluster toward the centre column seeking some form of shelter. This added to the fact that they have walked across the crappy field makes them tired and disoriented but the French are about to crush the English centre. In Deed the Kings brother has been badly injured . At this point the English archers wade into the French. In groups of three they attack individual noblemen. The first chap attacks with a short sword which the knight has to defend but the faster archer ducks out of the way. Meanwhile the second archer ,just behind the first, swing the big mallet onto the head or shoulders of the Frenchie knocking him to the ground and the third then jumps on the helpless chap and puts a knife through his helmet visor and into his brain. This suggestion that the lowest of the English class system may have won the battle of Azincourt is sited by the historians that Cornwell uses as his inspiration, as being the reason why the living conditions and rights of the working man improved back home.
Post a Comment