documentation of armour being defeated by arrows.
Posted: Thu Mar 21, 2002 7:59 pm
One of the arguments against Combat Archery has been that the armour worn by nobles would be proof against arrows, as there is no documentable proof of arrows defeating armour.
I brought this up on the Meridien Combat Archers' List, and these two excellent posts were made:
From: Bill McNutt [mailto:mcnutt@pobox.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 9:40 PM
To: meridian-ca@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [MCA] Re: Noblemen killed by Archers
Those are pretty good, Bri. Let's see what I got for you:
It was spring in 1356 when Edward the III cross the Channel to kick of the
100 Year's war. According to the descriptions of the time :a great army of
soldiers well appointed." Of this host of approximately twelve thousand,
there may have been as many as seven thousand archers.
Edward landed in Normandy and, after a bit of clueless wandering, headed
east, his destination: Calais. Blocked by a French force twice his size at
Rouen (they'd destroyed the bridge) Edward went to Abbeville, where he ran
into a second French army, blocking his passage across the Somme. He had to
engage at the ford or get caught between the two armies. Not a pretty
sight.
He withdrew to a nearby hillside and deployed his forces (stupidly). The
horsemen dismounted and drew up as three divisions of pikemen. At the foot
of the slope, both flanks were made up of additional dismounted men-at-arms.
In the center, with no shields, no pikes, or a pot to piss in, were
somewhere between three and seven thousand archers, each with a sheaf of
about 24 arrows, plus more piled in front of them. The ranks were staggered
to give each archer room to work. On one wing was on a low rise, where
there were some more archers.
The archers took advantage of the wait to dig small holes in front of them
to slow the advance of the French cavalry.
Pinned in by their own wings, the archers had no room for evasive action and
bet everything on the archers ability to stop the French cavalry before they
could be over-run.
In the late afternoon, (August 26, hey, that's War Weekend), a storm hit,
with heavy rain. After the weather cleared, the French crossbowmen advanced
and attached. Their volley fire failed to reach the English lines. Then
the Longbowmen opened up. According to Croissant, "They stepped forward one
pace and let fly their arrows so hotly and thick that is seemed snow." The
crossbowmen were slaughtered. It seems that the longbows had been unstrung
for the storm, and the bowstrings stayed dry. The crossbow strings, unable
to be shielded from the rain, stretched, and robbed the crossbowmen of the
power of their weapons.
The French cavalry rode over their own crossbowmen in a charge, but were
shattered by the arc of arrows the poured from the longbow men. By
nightfall, according to contemporary accounts, "one thousand, five hundred
noblemen dead on the field."
Historians call this the battle of Crecy, and it's a study of fantastic
archery and rotten generaling. Unless you are prepared to claim that those
1500 mounted French knights were all killed by dismounted English nobles and
men-at-arms, I think we have a historical event documenting noble armor
pierced by arrows.
Ten years later, the English were still not using longbows to the best of
their capacity, and the French were still attacking fortified positions with
cavalry at Poiters. The Black Prince was raiding with a small force of
about 7K armored knights, 3K infantry archers (longbows), and about 1K in
irregulars. John of France mustered what some accounts say was 20K men and
pinned the Black Prince down at Poiters. Following the pattern they set
early in the 100 Years war, and would not break until later, the French
again allowed the English almost an entire day to build field
fortifications. They prepared a battleground of thorn hedge, thickets, and
a shallow ditch. Somehow, they managed to provoke the French into rush on
the static position defended by three thousand longbows.
As a broken field isn't the best ground for a cavalry charge, the French
king had a lot of his Knights dismount and had them advance as armored
infantry. Slowed by their armor, they didn't advance quickly enough to suit
King John and he ordered his remaining cavalry to charge. With more than
140 pounds of barding, armor, and weapons, they moved slowly enough for the
archers concealed in the bushed to cut them to pieces. Then the line of
dismounted knights reached point-blank range, and were also cut down.
The French lost about twenty five hundred men. The English loss was
negligible. Unless I grossly misunderstand the type of armor the French
cavalry was wearing, I think that this is a valid example of noble armor
failing to the longbow.
My final effort tonight will be Agincourt, were contemporary accounts
indicate that Henry V met a French force of sixty thousand with a measly six
thousand. Again, the archers were exposed on the front line, with cavalry
on the flanks and a body of dismounted knights to the rear.
After two hours it became clear that the French planned to outwait the
English, who were low on rations. Henry send his bowmen forward to attack
the tightly packed French lines. The longbow men rained hot pointy death on
the French until the English cavalry smashed the front French line. Two
more charges, against the other two French battle lines broke them up
utterly, and then the cavalry withdrew, clearing the field for the archers
to slaughter almost at will. The French left six thousand dead at
Agincourt. The English, almost none.
It was on the strength of these three engagements that the English made
their reputation as bowmen.
Now, I suppose you could make the case that, since, as far as we know, no
French knights have been disinterred with arrows through their helms, all
those arrows just fell on horses, and the knights were actually killed by
other knights running up with mauls, swords, and maces at close quarters.
But I'm prone to see these three cases as battles wherein nobles wearing the
top of the line armor for the time, against archer of the time, died, and
not in isolated case, but in windrows.
Will
-----Original Message-----
From: broinnfhionn [mailto:broinnfhionn@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 7:48 PM
To: meridian-ca@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [MCA] Re: Noblemen killed by Archers
Another example - earlier:
"Offirid, the son of Edwin, king of Northumbria, was killed by an
arrow, in a battle between the troops of that king and the united
armies of Mercians and Welsh, which was fought about the year 633,
near Hatfield, in Yorkshire." From "The Archer's Guide", by an Old
Toxophilite, 1833.
King James IV was also felled by an arrow through the chest in the
Battle of Flodden Field, 1513.
Another account from the pacification of the Welsh:
"It happened also in a battle, in the time of William de Breusa, as
he himself relates, that a Welshman having directed his arrow at a
horse-soldier who was clad in armour and had his leathern coat under
it, the arrows, besides piercing the man through the hip, struck also
through the saddle. and mortally wounded the horse on which he sat.
Another Welsh soldier, having shot an arrow at a horseman who was
covered with strong armour in the same manner, the shaft penetrated
through his hip, and fixed in the saddle; but what is most remarkable
is, that as the horseman drew his bridle aside to turn round, he
received another arrow in his hip on the opposite side, which,
passing through it, he was firmly fastened to the saddle on both
sides."
Records from the same battle indicate that arrows penetrated over 4"
into oaken doors - the points of which were dug out and saved as
souvenirs. This was during the reign of Henry II of England.
An account of the Battle of Halidownehill, 1402:
"The earl of Douglas, who commanded the Scottish army in that action,
enraged to see his men falling thick around him by showers of arrows,
and trusting to the goodness of his armour, which is reported to have
been three years in making, accompanied by about eighty lords,
knights, and gentlemen, in complete armour, rushed forward and
attacked the English archers sword in hand. But he had soon reason to
repent his temerity. The English arrows were so sharp and strong, and
discharged with so much force, that no armour could repel them. The
earl of Douglas, after receiving five wounds, was made prisoner; and
all his brave companions were either killed or taken."
Incidentally, the low tally of nobles killed by archery at Agincourt
has been attributed to the fact that the English archers expended
their arrows before the French nobility charged.
Still more to come.
Bri.
I brought this up on the Meridien Combat Archers' List, and these two excellent posts were made:
From: Bill McNutt [mailto:mcnutt@pobox.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 9:40 PM
To: meridian-ca@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [MCA] Re: Noblemen killed by Archers
Those are pretty good, Bri. Let's see what I got for you:
It was spring in 1356 when Edward the III cross the Channel to kick of the
100 Year's war. According to the descriptions of the time :a great army of
soldiers well appointed." Of this host of approximately twelve thousand,
there may have been as many as seven thousand archers.
Edward landed in Normandy and, after a bit of clueless wandering, headed
east, his destination: Calais. Blocked by a French force twice his size at
Rouen (they'd destroyed the bridge) Edward went to Abbeville, where he ran
into a second French army, blocking his passage across the Somme. He had to
engage at the ford or get caught between the two armies. Not a pretty
sight.
He withdrew to a nearby hillside and deployed his forces (stupidly). The
horsemen dismounted and drew up as three divisions of pikemen. At the foot
of the slope, both flanks were made up of additional dismounted men-at-arms.
In the center, with no shields, no pikes, or a pot to piss in, were
somewhere between three and seven thousand archers, each with a sheaf of
about 24 arrows, plus more piled in front of them. The ranks were staggered
to give each archer room to work. On one wing was on a low rise, where
there were some more archers.
The archers took advantage of the wait to dig small holes in front of them
to slow the advance of the French cavalry.
Pinned in by their own wings, the archers had no room for evasive action and
bet everything on the archers ability to stop the French cavalry before they
could be over-run.
In the late afternoon, (August 26, hey, that's War Weekend), a storm hit,
with heavy rain. After the weather cleared, the French crossbowmen advanced
and attached. Their volley fire failed to reach the English lines. Then
the Longbowmen opened up. According to Croissant, "They stepped forward one
pace and let fly their arrows so hotly and thick that is seemed snow." The
crossbowmen were slaughtered. It seems that the longbows had been unstrung
for the storm, and the bowstrings stayed dry. The crossbow strings, unable
to be shielded from the rain, stretched, and robbed the crossbowmen of the
power of their weapons.
The French cavalry rode over their own crossbowmen in a charge, but were
shattered by the arc of arrows the poured from the longbow men. By
nightfall, according to contemporary accounts, "one thousand, five hundred
noblemen dead on the field."
Historians call this the battle of Crecy, and it's a study of fantastic
archery and rotten generaling. Unless you are prepared to claim that those
1500 mounted French knights were all killed by dismounted English nobles and
men-at-arms, I think we have a historical event documenting noble armor
pierced by arrows.
Ten years later, the English were still not using longbows to the best of
their capacity, and the French were still attacking fortified positions with
cavalry at Poiters. The Black Prince was raiding with a small force of
about 7K armored knights, 3K infantry archers (longbows), and about 1K in
irregulars. John of France mustered what some accounts say was 20K men and
pinned the Black Prince down at Poiters. Following the pattern they set
early in the 100 Years war, and would not break until later, the French
again allowed the English almost an entire day to build field
fortifications. They prepared a battleground of thorn hedge, thickets, and
a shallow ditch. Somehow, they managed to provoke the French into rush on
the static position defended by three thousand longbows.
As a broken field isn't the best ground for a cavalry charge, the French
king had a lot of his Knights dismount and had them advance as armored
infantry. Slowed by their armor, they didn't advance quickly enough to suit
King John and he ordered his remaining cavalry to charge. With more than
140 pounds of barding, armor, and weapons, they moved slowly enough for the
archers concealed in the bushed to cut them to pieces. Then the line of
dismounted knights reached point-blank range, and were also cut down.
The French lost about twenty five hundred men. The English loss was
negligible. Unless I grossly misunderstand the type of armor the French
cavalry was wearing, I think that this is a valid example of noble armor
failing to the longbow.
My final effort tonight will be Agincourt, were contemporary accounts
indicate that Henry V met a French force of sixty thousand with a measly six
thousand. Again, the archers were exposed on the front line, with cavalry
on the flanks and a body of dismounted knights to the rear.
After two hours it became clear that the French planned to outwait the
English, who were low on rations. Henry send his bowmen forward to attack
the tightly packed French lines. The longbow men rained hot pointy death on
the French until the English cavalry smashed the front French line. Two
more charges, against the other two French battle lines broke them up
utterly, and then the cavalry withdrew, clearing the field for the archers
to slaughter almost at will. The French left six thousand dead at
Agincourt. The English, almost none.
It was on the strength of these three engagements that the English made
their reputation as bowmen.
Now, I suppose you could make the case that, since, as far as we know, no
French knights have been disinterred with arrows through their helms, all
those arrows just fell on horses, and the knights were actually killed by
other knights running up with mauls, swords, and maces at close quarters.
But I'm prone to see these three cases as battles wherein nobles wearing the
top of the line armor for the time, against archer of the time, died, and
not in isolated case, but in windrows.
Will
-----Original Message-----
From: broinnfhionn [mailto:broinnfhionn@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 7:48 PM
To: meridian-ca@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [MCA] Re: Noblemen killed by Archers
Another example - earlier:
"Offirid, the son of Edwin, king of Northumbria, was killed by an
arrow, in a battle between the troops of that king and the united
armies of Mercians and Welsh, which was fought about the year 633,
near Hatfield, in Yorkshire." From "The Archer's Guide", by an Old
Toxophilite, 1833.
King James IV was also felled by an arrow through the chest in the
Battle of Flodden Field, 1513.
Another account from the pacification of the Welsh:
"It happened also in a battle, in the time of William de Breusa, as
he himself relates, that a Welshman having directed his arrow at a
horse-soldier who was clad in armour and had his leathern coat under
it, the arrows, besides piercing the man through the hip, struck also
through the saddle. and mortally wounded the horse on which he sat.
Another Welsh soldier, having shot an arrow at a horseman who was
covered with strong armour in the same manner, the shaft penetrated
through his hip, and fixed in the saddle; but what is most remarkable
is, that as the horseman drew his bridle aside to turn round, he
received another arrow in his hip on the opposite side, which,
passing through it, he was firmly fastened to the saddle on both
sides."
Records from the same battle indicate that arrows penetrated over 4"
into oaken doors - the points of which were dug out and saved as
souvenirs. This was during the reign of Henry II of England.
An account of the Battle of Halidownehill, 1402:
"The earl of Douglas, who commanded the Scottish army in that action,
enraged to see his men falling thick around him by showers of arrows,
and trusting to the goodness of his armour, which is reported to have
been three years in making, accompanied by about eighty lords,
knights, and gentlemen, in complete armour, rushed forward and
attacked the English archers sword in hand. But he had soon reason to
repent his temerity. The English arrows were so sharp and strong, and
discharged with so much force, that no armour could repel them. The
earl of Douglas, after receiving five wounds, was made prisoner; and
all his brave companions were either killed or taken."
Incidentally, the low tally of nobles killed by archery at Agincourt
has been attributed to the fact that the English archers expended
their arrows before the French nobility charged.
Still more to come.
Bri.
