Jump to content


Photo

Agincourt Force Substitution


  • Please log in to reply
50 replies to this topic

#41 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 53,858 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 11 September 2019 - 0225 AM

By eck, we were advanced back then werent we. :)


  • 0

#42 DougRichards

DougRichards

    Doug Richards

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,116 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Looking at Tamarama Beach, Sydney, Aust
  • Interests:Degree in History and Politics. Interests are Military History, military models,

Posted 11 September 2019 - 0227 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.

 

 

Perhaps we should remember the Battle of Crecy, where the French had 12,000 mounted knights / men-at-arms and 8,000 mercenary crossbowmen.

 

After the crossbowmen were worsted by the English longbow (probably by a higher rate of fire rather than armour penetration as neither the crossbowmen nor the English archers were armoured) the French knights etc charged the English line, through the crossbowmen who were 'retiring'.  In effect the mercenary crossbowmen were simply nasty speedhumps to the charging French armour, probably leading to many fallen horses and unhorsed (violently) armour. 

 

At Argincourt once a percentage of French horses had been killed by arrows they too would have simply been obstacles to following battles of mounted troops, much like the Genoese at Crecy.


  • 0

#43 DougRichards

DougRichards

    Doug Richards

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,116 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Looking at Tamarama Beach, Sydney, Aust
  • Interests:Degree in History and Politics. Interests are Military History, military models,

Posted 11 September 2019 - 0233 AM

By eck, we were advanced back then werent we. :)

 

Cyberpunk on steroids

 

1076156520.jpg


  • 0

#44 DougRichards

DougRichards

    Doug Richards

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,116 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Looking at Tamarama Beach, Sydney, Aust
  • Interests:Degree in History and Politics. Interests are Military History, military models,

Posted 11 September 2019 - 0244 AM

Actually, that leads to another potential force substitution:

 

In 1775 the French were the allies of the Americans.

 

What about Washington and his Continentals in substitute for the Mongols / French at Argincourt?  The idea of muskets v longbows comes back into play, but the Continentals may have been successful in capturing Henry V's airfields.


  • 0

#45 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 53,858 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 11 September 2019 - 0246 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.

 

 

Perhaps we should remember the Battle of Crecy, where the French had 12,000 mounted knights / men-at-arms and 8,000 mercenary crossbowmen.

 

After the crossbowmen were worsted by the English longbow (probably by a higher rate of fire rather than armour penetration as neither the crossbowmen nor the English archers were armoured) the French knights etc charged the English line, through the crossbowmen who were 'retiring'.  In effect the mercenary crossbowmen were simply nasty speedhumps to the charging French armour, probably leading to many fallen horses and unhorsed (violently) armour. 

 

At Argincourt once a percentage of French horses had been killed by arrows they too would have simply been obstacles to following battles of mounted troops, much like the Genoese at Crecy.

 

 

I seem to recall at Crecy the Crossbowmen (Genovese mercenaries maybe) were compelled to advance (for whatever reason) without their shields, which were what they prefered to shelter behind whilst rewinding their crossbows. And when they took the entirely predictable amount of casualties and ran, the French ran them down as traitors. But nobody ever liked Crossbowmen anyway.

 

Yes, I think after the first horses fell, all you are looking at are speedbumps. The English line was already behind stakes, after that the bodies must have just kept piling up making them more and more secure.

 

Ive not read that all those bodies caused a problem at crecy, I think the battlefield was rather more open than at Agincourt. But that isnt to say it didnt happen of course.

 

 

 

By eck, we were advanced back then werent we. :)

 

Cyberpunk on steroids

 

1076156520.jpg

 

 

Ah, I see we have rolled out the prototype for the new 'Tempest' Stealth Fighter. :)


  • 0

#46 DougRichards

DougRichards

    Doug Richards

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,116 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Looking at Tamarama Beach, Sydney, Aust
  • Interests:Degree in History and Politics. Interests are Military History, military models,

Posted 11 September 2019 - 0338 AM

Ah, there is a difference between English English and Australian English after all.

 

English:  Speed bumps

Australian: Speed humps

 

And about those Genoese Cross Bow speed humps: Yes, they were missing their pavises that were back in the French baggage train, but also the French mounted armour hacked at them on the way to the English, which would have produced a number of obstacles for galloping horses.  All very impulsive, it would have been better to let the mercenaries to retire, or order them to the flanks where they could at least have fired into the areas immediately behind the English front. 

 

But it should be remembered that the French included some others of Europe's nobility, such as the blind John of Bohemia, who was killed 'fighting' at Crecy.  A time when the brotherhood of knights across Europe were determined to break the impudent English who included so many peasants in the ranks. 


  • 0

#47 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 53,858 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 11 September 2019 - 0352 AM

Yeah, I really admire Blind King John. He was determined to have a go at all costs. Good for him.

 

I guess this was the beginning of the firepower vs class movement. Although you could argue that had already begun with the death of Richard I at the hands of a Crossbow toting French cook. That will taught him to send his food back I guess. But from that point on, war was about less owning the most expensive swords and armour, than about how many men you could put in the field with the most firepower.

 

Interesting thing, I was looking up the wiki entry to Agincourt, and found that he took 20 horse archers. Which is interesting, you usually find English Archers at Agincourt all refered to as moving by foot. Maybe they ate the horses.

https://en.wikipedia...aron_Hungerford


  • 0

#48 DougRichards

DougRichards

    Doug Richards

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,116 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Looking at Tamarama Beach, Sydney, Aust
  • Interests:Degree in History and Politics. Interests are Military History, military models,

Posted 11 September 2019 - 0829 AM

Well wiki says this:

 

The term mounted archer occurs in medieval English sources to describe a soldier who rode to battle but who dismounted to shoot. 'Horse archer' is the term used more specifically to describe a warrior who shoots from the saddle at the gallop. Another term, 'horseback archery', has crept into modern use. 

 

(A bit like the original 'dragoon' concept?)

 

Then again, maybe the Force Substitution concept was wrong about substitution, and somehow the English managed to get 20 Mongols to fight on their side, via Russ of course.


  • 0

#49 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 53,858 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 11 September 2019 - 0840 AM

Yeah that sounds fair, but look at any account of agincourt, and ive yet to read of any archers riding. I have to question how many had horses in rideable condition after the seige of Hafleur.

 

Yeah, it does sounds a bit like dragoons doesnt it. I dont suppose a longbow would be viable from the saddle anyway.


  • 0

#50 DB

DB

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,267 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hertfordshire, England

Posted 12 September 2019 - 0346 AM

Given the way that the arrows disintegrated when they hit the plate unless through a jupon, I'd expect to see these all over a battlefield and to be unrecoverable at the time. I suppose they would mostly have rusted away, do wouldn't necessarily be a good location reference.
  • 0

#51 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 53,858 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 12 September 2019 - 0352 AM

Arrows have apparently turned up at Towton, but as they say here, its unique soil conditions. Its unclear whether Agincourt or Crecy are as good.

https://www.towton.org.uk/archeology/


  • 0




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users