Jump to content


Photo

Agincourt Force Substitution


  • Please log in to reply
50 replies to this topic

#21 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 54,702 posts

Posted 06 September 2019 - 0538 AM

Nah, the All Blacks is an unfair test, it would just bounce off their bicep's.


  • 0

#22 DougRichards

DougRichards

    Doug Richards

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,184 posts

Posted 06 September 2019 - 0551 AM

Nah, the All Blacks is an unfair test, it would just bounce off their bicep's.

 

You misunderstand: have the All Blacks as part of the mob loosing the arrows at the target.

 

You could of course mix it up with the fast bowlers of the test playing national cricket teams bowling bouncers at the target at a range of 20 metres.  Even a helmet would not stop concussion from a face on hit from a cricket ball at 150k/hr, deafness from the clang would at least be assured.  You could then get fully padded up batsmen take to the target with cricket bats.


  • 0

#23 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 54,702 posts

Posted 06 September 2019 - 0651 AM

With or without sandpaper?

 

Ok, that was mean. Feel free to use me as the longbow target. :)


  • 0

#24 DougRichards

DougRichards

    Doug Richards

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,184 posts

Posted 06 September 2019 - 0755 AM

With or without sandpaper?

 

Ok, that was mean. Feel free to use me as the longbow target. :)

 

Perfectly valid criticism of unsportsmanlike conduct, your comment was not mean.  The action was unnecessary and vile.

 

However punishment has been delivered and examples made, so we can all get on with life.


  • 0

#25 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 54,702 posts

Posted 06 September 2019 - 0945 AM

Sorry Doug. If its worth anything they seem to play a lot better when they dont resort to such methods, they are running the England team ragged last I heard.

 

As for Longbows, I recommend anyone interested in the subject getting the late Thomas Hardy's book on the subject. He wasnt just a great actor, he really pushed the boat out as a historian.


  • 0

#26 Adam Peter

Adam Peter

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,340 posts

Posted 06 September 2019 - 1444 PM

Interesting, but its an effect in isolation. Imagine being in an arrow storm and being hit by 3 or more of those in close succession.

 

I'm not familiar with the archeological results. How many penetrated armor has been unearthed there?

 

On the other hand, Hungarian arrow showers were stopped by armored knights at the battle of Lechfeld (in English)...


  • 0

#27 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 54,702 posts

Posted 07 September 2019 - 0206 AM

Here is the central problem of the Agincourt battle. They have not found where it was fought. They THINK they know where it was fought. The problem is, there is no archeological evidence that proves it. That isnt so surprising of medieval battles. The location of Bosworth field was unknown until very recently, and was only found after metal detection found cannon balls on the site, where upon they were able to triangulate and figure out where the guns where.

 

Agincourt didnt have any guns. It DID have a lot of armour strewn around the battlefield, but unfortunately, even probably, much of that was probably scavenged. We dont even know after the battle tehy didnt salvage most of their arrows. Its unlikely, but possible. Arrows were not easy to make at the time, to the point they had to put a directive out to have each household in England with a goose deliver 2 tailfeathers per goose. Thats a lot of tailfeathers. Im not aware we are even sure of how the bodies were disposed of, whether it was a burial pit or even cremation. Ive got a vague memory of bodies being put in a barn and it set light to, but I cant remember if thats Crecy, Agincourt or some other battle.

 

There is also the problem the French are not keen on Agincourt. They have not exactly gone out their way to discover where the bodies are buried. Attempts about 10 years ago only delivered the location of a drilling site. So, short of finding bodies, short of finding penetrated armour, its going to remain something of supposition.

 

There was some evidence of the effectiveness of the Longbow at Towton I believe (Britains bloodiest battle), the problem there is that few would have been as well armoured as the French knights, so it doesnt prove much.

https://en.wikipedia...attle_of_Towton


  • 0

#28 Adam Peter

Adam Peter

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,340 posts

Posted 07 September 2019 - 1809 PM

Arrows must have been effective, otherwise they would not carry them. Probably they delivered the 0,5% hitting joints/unprotected areas/horses the hard way. I have read  that it was a strain on the logistics of the Hungarian logistic to supply the army with arrows. For example, they calculated that the train of a 500 soldier unit carried 2,500 kg arrows on 30 horses for five days of battles raiding Western Europe - therefore the raiding force must have been small.


  • 0

#29 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 54,702 posts

Posted 08 September 2019 - 0156 AM

Yeah, that is my way of thinking. Even if they killed the horse, or unsettled it, or disturbed the ground it ran on (has anyone ever since tried to gallop across a field of arrows? I bet they wont like it), then you are disturbing the french charge. Then they are stopped by the spikes placed in the ground. Then they are being engaged at point blank, or being knifed through the visor as they wallow on the ground.  The French command of their forces was not great from the start, I bet after the first arrow volley it went right down the crapper.

 

Yeah, it was a real struggle to make lots of arrows. Which to me points to why they went through such effort, they were perceived to be a useful weapon, and secondly, why they eventually fell out of use compared to a musket. A lot easier to store musket balls than arrows im thinking, even if the powder is somewhat problematic. At least you can store that in bulk.

 

I think 2 things have not been adequately explored. That horses cannot be armoured all round, and will have vulnerable flanks somewhere, throw enough arrows at a target, its going to hit something vital. And secondly, I dont think the armour of this time was as good as supposed. Most of what we have is ceremonial stuff. If someone can demonstrate armour that was actually used in combat, we might have a better idea of what kind of damage it could take. Ive not read of any thus far from this period that really show damage taken on a battlefield. That either means it was impervious, or it wasnt, or they scrapped it when it showed the slightest sign of damage. Its not really leaving a big pool of data showing what armour performance was like I would have thought.

 

If anyone can prove me wrong on the latter point, please let me know. Id be fascinated to see armour with battle damage on it.


  • 0

#30 Adam Peter

Adam Peter

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,340 posts

Posted 08 September 2019 - 0314 AM

Some unfiltered picture from all eras


  • 0

#31 Adam_S

Adam_S

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,352 posts

Posted 08 September 2019 - 0319 AM

In an exchange of arrows, foot archers are better than horse archers. Foot archers can be packed in together more tightly and don't have to worry about dealing with the horse giving a higher rate of fire and better accuracy. The Romans, for example, managed to take on horse archer based armies like the Parthians by taking large amounts of foot archers or slingers and protecting them with heavy infantry.


  • 0

#32 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 54,702 posts

Posted 08 September 2019 - 1305 PM

Some unfiltered picture from all eras


Great find!
  • 0

#33 DougRichards

DougRichards

    Doug Richards

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,184 posts

Posted 08 September 2019 - 1819 PM

 

The cuirass with the pierced nipples is a little 'unusual'.


  • 0

#34 Brian Kennedy

Brian Kennedy

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,387 posts

Posted 08 September 2019 - 1848 PM

Not sure if off-topic or not, but with regards to muskets vs longbows I found this a pretty interesting read -- https://www.reddit.c...ow_and/djpkmcy/.


  • 0

#35 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 54,702 posts

Posted 09 September 2019 - 0209 AM

Yeah, you kind of wonder what Napoleon would have achieved if he had longbows instead of muskets. The problem of course is the capacity to build and maintain that level of longbows in service, which is probably why Longbows firmly belong to the preindustrial world, and musket the post industrial world.

 

We have probably seen this before. I gather the last tea clippers were far faster than steamships. But who wanted them when there was nobody left who knew how to sail a clipper? A steamship might be slower, but its less  variable to the weather, and almost anyone can crew one with appropriate training.

 

It was once said you didnt so much train a Longbowman, as bred one. Judging by how their shoulders seem to have been modified by developing the strength to pull the string back on the truly powerful ones, there is probably some truth in this.


  • 0

#36 wendist

wendist

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 681 posts

Posted 10 September 2019 - 0623 AM


  • 0

#37 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,070 posts

Posted 10 September 2019 - 1000 AM

If Agincourt was on a cleared field or pasture, then any armor pieces left over that would have been lifted by a farmers plow would have been set aside and re-used. Just given the value of iron itself. likely scavengers after the battle would have snagged any arrows left if they had iron on them as well for the same reason. If I were a hard up blacksmith and knew a battle had just taken place near by, I'd be poking around at night looking for any bits of metal I could recover. Iron was a critical resource at the time. 


  • 0

#38 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 54,702 posts

Posted 11 September 2019 - 0137 AM

Suits of armour would have departed, but its likely fragments would remain, not unlike fragments of tanks remain long after the vehicles they were part of departed. I remember watching one documentary on Bosworth, and after pinpointing the battlefield from cannonballs, they did a further study. They were rather astonished to find fragments of a very expensive set of stirrups iirc, containing elements that indicated it either belonged to Richard III, or at least one of his immediate entourage. Remarkably it was even near a part of the battlefield were he was reportedly unhorsed, a piece of boggy ground IIRC.

 

So there should be fragments of the battle turning up, and there just isnt. Which suggests either someone went with a fine tooth comb over the battlefield afterwards, which doesnt seem likely. Or they are perhaps miles away from where the battle was actually fought. This has happened before, traditionally at Hastings, it was believe the Battle occurred at Battle, where the monastery to commemorate the battle was founded. As it turned out, they have never found fragments there, other from the reenactment groups who fight there for the past 50 years. The best indications of a battle are actually found in the town of Battle, some distance away. Medieval chroniclers were not that fussed about setting down where exactly these things happened. Its not like the American Civil war, where due I guess to the rather more favourable condition of maps by the time of the battle, its somewhat easier for modern historians to pinpoint where things might have happened.

 

Id love to walk the real Agincourt, but nobody it seems is that fussed about finding it. Go figure.


  • 0

#39 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 54,702 posts

Posted 11 September 2019 - 0141 AM

 

Its worth remembering, armour back then was very expensive. You are looking at the vast majority of the rich, the commanders, owning a set. But the vast majority of the men at arms, archers, crossbowmen would probably have been lucky to own a helmet. There is a big fixation on the charge of the French cavalry at Agincourt, but it seems unlikely to me they had 20000 armoured knights. Far more likely they had maybe a a thousand max armoured, and maybe (how many it really was) men at arms that didnt have any.

 

I think perhaps we are getting fixated on armour performance, overlooking the majority of people it was fired at didnt have anything like the suit there. It is after all, a lot cheaper to make an arrow than a suit of armour.


  • 0

#40 DougRichards

DougRichards

    Doug Richards

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,184 posts

Posted 11 September 2019 - 0215 AM

Suits of armour would have departed, but its likely fragments would remain, not unlike fragments of tanks remain long after the vehicles they were part of departed. I remember watching one documentary on Bosworth, and after pinpointing the battlefield from cannonballs, they did a further study. They were rather astonished to find fragments of a very expensive set of stirrups iirc, containing elements that indicated it either belonged to Richard III, or at least one of his immediate entourage. Remarkably it was even near a part of the battlefield were he was reportedly unhorsed, a piece of boggy ground IIRC.

 

So there should be fragments of the battle turning up, and there just isnt. Which suggests either someone went with a fine tooth comb over the battlefield afterwards, which doesnt seem likely. Or they are perhaps miles away from where the battle was actually fought. This has happened before, traditionally at Hastings, it was believe the Battle occurred at Battle, where the monastery to commemorate the battle was founded. As it turned out, they have never found fragments there, other from the reenactment groups who fight there for the past 50 years. The best indications of a battle are actually found in the town of Battle, some distance away. Medieval chroniclers were not that fussed about setting down where exactly these things happened. Its not like the American Civil war, where due I guess to the rather more favourable condition of maps by the time of the battle, its somewhat easier for modern historians to pinpoint where things might have happened.

 

Id love to walk the real Agincourt, but nobody it seems is that fussed about finding it. Go figure.

 

Or the Revolutionary War where the location of the captured British airfields has been firmly established.  


  • 0