Hi there

I'm trying to find out something about the English archers present at Agincourt, oct. 1415. What is (firmly) established is, that they were very effective against their French opponent and that the numbers present at the battle togehter with the soft ground proved devastating to the French. That is what you (normally) will read in the books about the battle. What you don't read is, who were the English archers? Where did they come from? Why did they fight for the English king?

...or perhaps I havn't looked in the right book(s)??? That is where YOU come in: Do you know any sources or books that has info about the English archers at Agincourt (or 100yearswar in general)? have consulted both Bradbury's and Hardy's books.

Thanks in advance for your help

Simon

Hi Simon

That's English and WELSH archers Henry V was born in Monmouth which is on the border between England and Wales (I was born in the same county) and his army would have included archers from both countries. Scotland was a separate, independent, nation at the time.

Henry's soldiers were professionals who would have enlisted for pay (and plunder). Their names are sometimes preserved on muster rolls, but that doesn't really tell us much about them. There are a couple of new books on Agincourt mentioned in this Wikipedia article, which might be worth looking at

Agincourt

David

Hi Simon

I recently watched a very interesting documentary on Agincourt and it raised a few interesting theories that the French army's sheer size combined with the weather conditions and topography of the battlefield was more of a deciding factor in the outcome rather than the English longbow as is the popular belief.

This documentary stated that the English longbow was NOT capable of penetrating the French knights armour ( although it was noted that at shorter anges the English archers where capable of targetting the weaker spots such as the arm pit or the groin).

Therefore it was theorised that in the initial French charge, the English archers had concentrated on bringing down the French horses leaving many of the French knights dismounted. It was documented that prior to the battle there had been torrential rain, so the ground quickly became a quagmire resulting in the dismounted knights quickly became bogged down in the cloying mud.

Now the topography of the battlefield came into play , it was shaped like a funnel with the French at the widest part and the English at the narrow end with the English flanks protected by trees on either side.
As further and further waves of the French attempted to join battle, the sheer numbers of men at arms being funneled into the English killing zone where pushed onto the dismounted French knights and into the mud, what started as a battle rapidly became more of a crowd control disaster (It is believed that many of the French died from being crushed or suffocated in the mud as much as by English action), the French front ranks could not retreat as more men pushed from the rear or if they attempted to go forward they faced the devastating fire of the archers or forced onto the still fresh English men at arms.

It is at this point that Henry ordered his army into the attack his men at arms and his much more lightly armoured Archers charged into the exhausted and imobile French (this documentary even did ground pressure tests looking at how much pressure was needed for an armoured boot to be drawn out of the mud compared to the leather and felt boots worn by the English , the results showed a vast difference in how mobile you would be depending on your footwear !!!!!!!!!! )

A very interesting view on the "accepted" theory on the Battle of Agincourt.


Ian

Hi David and Ian

Thanks for your replies.

David: Ofcourse! I knew they came from Wales. Sorry . I've found the muster rolls and some of the names, but what I really am looking for are some sort of source (chronicle, whatever) that tells us who these archer were and why they fought as they did. The way they fought has ofcourse something to do with leadership, tactics and the wish to survive in a very critic situation. I suppose that the long march from Harfleur to Agincourt, the lack of food, the bad weather, the reality that they were on the move in enemy territory and that the enemy were monitoring them must have had some influence on the archers (and the rest of the army for that matter) and eventually the way they fought.
Their ability and craftsmanship as archers must have had an effect on the outcome, but I also believe that the sheer brutality that was unleashed in front of the advancing french must have had the (almost) same effect on the battle as the arrows. The archers really did'nt have any other choice than to stand and fight, and die if that was the price. Facing death, being hungry, sick, wet and in front of a (noble) enemy must have triggerede the archers to fight as they did.
But the chronicle I've read only 'praises' the noblity and not the peasant army, that really won the day for the english king. Or...?

Ian: Yes, the muddy field really had an effect on the battle, but the mud were also present for the advancing english troops and not just for the french. Being forced to run/stagger towards the enemy more than 100 yards must have been exhausting. Interesting about the footwear - should try it out huh?
Its interesting that you mention the fact that the arrows couldn't penetrate armour as one could believe they actually could. The arrows that hit targets were (as you mention) gaps in armour, unprotected piece on the men and horses as well and also to create chaos and panic among the advancing troops. Taking the size of the area (battlefield) in consideration, the mud, some 26.000 men on it and make them fight eachother...good Lord...it must result in chaos.

When I am reading about the battle, I get the notion that the archers has become somewhat mythologized for their effenciency at Agincourt. Am I right?
...
Well guys. Thanks again for your replies. It could be an amazing dio if one did the battle in 1/72.

Cheers

Simon

Bernard Cornwell has written a triology regarding an Archer in the hundred years war, these are novels but his research and battle discriptions are superb the first book is called Harlequin a real good read if you like novels.

I agree John , they are great read and truly portray horrific and grusome up close and personal combat of that era.


Ian

Hi Simon,
As you've mentioned one of the acknowledged experts on the longbow is British actor Robert Hardy (best known in 'All Creatures Great and Small, of all things.) who has written an excellent account of the weapon and tactics.

Thorvin's bookshelf has a rundown of useful publications, including Hardy's revised 'The Longbow (A social and Military History)'.

Henry V evidently had a good eye for terrain, since he picked a site that played to the strengths of his army and emphasised the faults of the French. His battle plan relied on his archers to break up the French charge, so a good deal of the success can be put down to them.

As to whether the arrows could penetrate the French armour or not, I believe that the question is still open. The documentary certainly asked some questions about whether or not they could, but relied a little too much on speculation. Which is inevitable i suppose, with the lack of detailed historical data on the performance of archers.

Very true David

Wether or not you where confident in your armours strenght , the sheer site of those volleys raining down on you must have made you feel slightly nervous to put it mildly , I think it was calculated that the English fired 22,000 arrows in the first few minutes of the battle with some archers capable of having three arrows in flight at the same time !!!!!!

Btw did you see the program with Robert Hardy (it may have been the Decicive Weapons series ) where he examined the longbow in detail , the amount of strenght required to pull that drawstring back was quite amazing , those archers must have had arms and shoulders like Arnie :-)




Ian

According to Matthew Bennett ("Agincourt. Triumph against the odds. Osprey Campaign. 2005) the arrow could penetrate armour at 'a close range'. What close range is, I don't know. But the volleys came in various sizes for various purposes. And the sheer numbers of volleys raining down has a desired effect: panic and fear, as Ian mentions. We must also remember, that armour was'nt solid making the wearer incapable of moving around - the French first and second attack at Agincourt were (for the most) done by foot, so the armour should'nt have been too heavy.




I'm glad you say that! I hav'nt found anything myself. Yet...

John: Sounds interesting. Might chek it out. Thanks for the tip.

Jeff: Thanks for the link. There are some interesting titles.

Thanks for your replies, and interest on this subject.

Simon

Like all historical research on events of centuries ago, there are gaps that may never be filled.

There is evidence of different types of arrowheads being used for different purposes, including heads of a similar shape to some current APC or APFSDS anti-tank shells. Reproduction arrowheads With the power of the longbow (given that the drawstring wasn't wet, for example) it would have been possible for a 'bodkin' head to punch through armour well before the wearer of that armour could wield his own weapons.

I dabble in Archery and once had a try of a Long bow built bye traditional methods,now Im six one and seventeen stone and I work out but boy I could barely move the string.the field archer who made it put a shaft into a standard target at about sixty yards,it took two of us to get it out.those things are seriously powerfull.

I've tried it too. Jeepers...

The men were more or less handpicked to serve in the army int he 14th and 15th century - propably before and after that as well - so they would have 1. class soldiers. And yes, fit and strong (healthy) were mandatory for the archers.

Simon

One of the things Battlefield detectives ( as the program was called ) made clear is that the English/ Welsh weren't as outnumbered as allways have been led to believe. It was probly more 2: 1.

Also, a reason for picking bowmen to form Henry's army: he was dirt poor at that time, and bowmen asked less for a fight than knights.

And, geophysics in the area showed a total lack of arrowheads !!!!...

Now, you'd think that if 22.000 arrows were fired in just the first minute or so, some would still be there after allmost 600 years... but no.. they didn't find any.

Found this article while googling about last week, but didn't have time to post it

Longbow

Based on Mary Rose bows, so may not be entirely appropriate for the Agincourt.

The battle of Agincourt, one of my favorite subjects...

The best historical book I have read, and own is St. Crispins Day, forgive me but I don't recall the womans name who wrote it off hand. When I get home I will look. The book, the last I knew was sadly, out of print.

There are many accounts of the battle, but the two constants of all were the terrian and the devistating effect the archers had. I personally have little doubt about the penetration ability of the arrows themselves. There were specific arrow heads that were used that easily penetrated chain mail. As for plate armor, it was more difficult to penetrate the curved surface, and undoubtably many arrows would glance off those surfaces. The truth is it only would take one to get through. The plate armor of the time was equivlent to about our sixteen gauge steel or thinner. A direct shot from an English long bow would pierece that with ease. The draw wait of the average English longbow ranged around 100 -125lbs.

There are many misconceptions about the the battle itself as well as the effectiveness of the longbow. I have been an archer for many years, I have also taken part in many medeval recreations. This is one area that has always interested me since I was a boy. My ancestors fought at the battle of Agincourt. I have been to England, and studied these areas. I am no expert but I certainly have my views. I may not be a scholar, but I have had my field expirences.

My wife and I spent time in England last year where I got to meet up with a man whose hobby was that of an English archer. He was demonstrating at Warick castle. It was one of the most brilliant demonstrations I have witnessed of medeval archery. The man was one of the best archers I have had the pleasure of meeting. The targets he used for his demonstation were extremely small, he used two upright sticks, niether of which were more than a half inch in width at the base. At different distances he could hit each target with great accuracy. He could easily in a minute, fire sixteen arrows accurately, not just a volley aimed over his head, and hit the target. The man had incredible skill.

Paul, the author is Maureen Peters St Crispin's.

Another author who wrote light fiction around the 100 Years Wars was Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, who wrote two novels about the life and times of Nigel Loring. Sir Nigel. Conan-Doyle has quite a bit to say about archery in these books.