From the Gesta Henrici Quinti:
Sed Gallorum nobilitas quae plena fronte prius accesserat, ut de prope conjunctionem venerat, vel timore telorum, quorum adversitas eos reptabat per latera et umbracula cassidum, vel ut citius penetrarent nostram fortitudinem ad vexilla, diviserunt se in tres turmas, invadentes bellum nostrum in tribus locis ubi erant vexilla: et in prima mixtione lancearum tam feroci impetus grassati sunt nostros, quod eos fere ad longitudinem lanceae retrocedere compulerunt.
Here is Anne Curry's translation in The Battle of Agincourt Sources and Interpretations:
But the French nobility who had previously advanced in line abreast and all but come to grips with us, either from fear of the missiles which by their very force pierced the sides and visors of their helmets, or in order the sooner to break through our strongest points and reach the standards, divided into three columns, attacking our line of battle at the three places where our standards were. And in the melee of spears which then followed, they hurled themselves against our men in such a fierce charge as to force them to fall back almost a spear's length.
Friday, November 06, 2009
Monday, November 02, 2009
The Numbers at Agincourt II
Having taken a closer look, I don't believe Anne Curry's revisionist numbers for the English, either. If the quotes posted here are correct, she accounts for men invalided home and detached to garrison Harfleur.
The key missing piece is the number that died during the siege from dysentery, what the era knew as "bloody flux". The English administrative records were not set up to record a comprehensive total of deaths by disease during the siege. There is no way to get a reasonably precise number.
What we do know is that the number was high. The English lost a bishop, an earl and three lords. The chronicler Monstrelet believed more than 2,000 died. Less than forty deaths were recorded in the official records, but so much the worse for the official records. They simply were not intended to capture the full death toll of a dysentery epidemic.
Monstrelet's estimate might be high, or low. Given the deaths among the peerage, I wouldn't bet on 2,000 deaths being an overestimate.
If so, the English army at Agincourt was probably closer to the 6,000 of the Gesta Henrici Quinti than the revisionist 9,000 of Anne Curry.
The key missing piece is the number that died during the siege from dysentery, what the era knew as "bloody flux". The English administrative records were not set up to record a comprehensive total of deaths by disease during the siege. There is no way to get a reasonably precise number.
What we do know is that the number was high. The English lost a bishop, an earl and three lords. The chronicler Monstrelet believed more than 2,000 died. Less than forty deaths were recorded in the official records, but so much the worse for the official records. They simply were not intended to capture the full death toll of a dysentery epidemic.
Monstrelet's estimate might be high, or low. Given the deaths among the peerage, I wouldn't bet on 2,000 deaths being an overestimate.
If so, the English army at Agincourt was probably closer to the 6,000 of the Gesta Henrici Quinti than the revisionist 9,000 of Anne Curry.
Sunday, November 01, 2009
The Numbers at Agincourt
Anne Curry has a new revisionist take on the battle, saying the French army was much, much smaller than most historians have believed. Also, that the English army was a bit larger. The change in numbers for the English isn’t as large, so I’ll leave that part of it aside for simplicity.
Here is a forum post covering a lot of her argument.
I am not convinced by her arguments for the French numbers. Let’s start with Berry Herald, who she considers a significant and useful source for the battle, and I think she’s right. Berry was writing years after the battle, and we have no reason to think he was present, but he provides a detailed order of battle of the men-at-arms assigned to a dozen different commanders. 1,200 men at arms are assigned to the mounted wings, 4,800 to the vanguard, and about 3,000 to the main battle. He says the total was 10,000, so that leaves 1,000 for the rear battle.
Most of the sources agree that it didn’t work out as planned, and a significant part of mounted wings were not in position when the English advanced unexpectedly. Presumable they ended up with the rear battle.
But Le Fevre and Waurin were both present at the battle, and they say that the vanguard also had archers, in numbers that work out to one for every two men at arms. In addition, there were crossbowmen equal to a three for every eight archers. The absolute numbers they report are not reliable, but the ratios should be about right.
They add that the main battle had men at arms and archers equal to the vanguard.
We also know that the intent was to raise on archer for every two men at arms for the campaign, and this seems to have been achieved in the noble retinues we have pay records for.
We also know that gros valets were present, but not necessarily listed on the payroll. The original battle plan had them charging in support of the men at arms. Des Ursins suggests they were present in the main battle in addition to the men at arms and archers, and that there were crossbowmen there as well. Le Fevre and Waurin report that some who were struck down in the vanguard and main battle were rescued and led away by their servants. This is only plausible if those servants were no further away than the rear ranks of the same battle.
We don’t know how many valets were well enough equipped to play a useful role as a combatant. Later in the 15th c. it was expected there would be one similarly protected coustilier for every man at arms. A few years earlier, in his campaign against Liege John the Fearless had a bit under 4,000 combatants on his payroll. At the battle of Othee, he reportedly sent 1,000 gros valets in support of a flanking attack by 400-500 men at arms. His pay lists from around this time suggest men at arms were typically about 60% of the men on his army payroll, so a force of 10,000 men at arms might be able to also field at least 4,000 gros valets. And it’s possible that the number was higher, and there were additional gros valets at Othee that were not sent on the mounted attack. That does not seem unreasonable compared to the 1:1 ratio later in the 15th c.
So now we have:
Mounted wings: 1,200 men at arms
Vanguard: 4,800 men at arms, 2,400 archers, 900 crossbowmen, 1,000 gros valets
Main battle: 3,000 men at arms, 2,600 archers, 1,000 crossbowmen, 2,500 gros valets
Rear battle: 1,000 men at arms, 400 gros valets
Total: 20,400 combatants.
It was usual at this time for crossbowmen to be accompanied by pavisers, with about one paviser for every two crossbowmen. If not assumed to be included in the number of crossbowmen this would add another 900 men.
Since making the number of men at arms and archers the same in the vanguard and main battle would give an unusually high number of archers for French army of the period, I have taken La Fevre and Waurin's statement less literally, and that they meant that the total number of fighting men in the vanguard and main battles was about equal.
There would have been addition non-combatant servants. In the 14th c. two servants per man at arms, seems to have been typical. If we assume that only 3,9000 of them were combatant gros valets, that would have added another 14,000 pages and grooms. Of course, more of them might have been armed gros valets, which would keep the army size the same but increase the combatant numbers. Possibly some of the French servants were armed and carried on the payroll as archers, which would have reduced the total army size somewhat.
If we assume that English men at arms each had one yeoman serving as an archer and one page, that would only increase their total force by about 1,500.
This would then be a battle where an eyewitness could reasonable say that the French army was at least three times the size of the English. The chroniclers report that servants were exercising horses on the field before to the battle, and presumably many were assisting their masters prior to the combat, so they would have swelled the number included in a visual estimate of the army size.
There are several problems with Curry’s estimate of 12,000 combatants for the French army at Agincourt. This would imply, based on Berry Herald’s distribution of men at arms and the ratio of other troops reported by eyewitnesses, that the vanguard had 4,000 men at arms and 2,700 missile troops.
This would make the vanguard significantly smaller than the English army, and yet all three eyewitness reports say the reverse was true.
To push most of the missile troops in the vanguard to the rear, the men at arms would need to extend their front to cover about 750 yards. On this frontage, 4,000 men at arms would be only four ranks deep, assuming 27 inches per man. 27 inches per man is within the range of Napoleonic era infantry doctrine, and fits with my experience with efforts to recreate medieval combat.
Four deep is a very shallow formation for a melee infantry unit by pre-gunpowder standards. The classical Greeks and Romans and the early medieval Byzantines all seem to have taken eight ranks as the norm. The English at Agincourt averaged somewhere between 4.5 ranks deep (conventional wisdom of about 6,000 men) and 6.75 (Curry estimate of about 9,000 English combatants.) The English army was mostly archers, and might reasonably accept a shallower formation than a purely melee unit. If four ranks was an effective formation depth for pre-gunpowder melee combat, then the English at Agincourt could have thinned their line even further to create a reserve. They didn’t do so.
Here is a forum post covering a lot of her argument.
I am not convinced by her arguments for the French numbers. Let’s start with Berry Herald, who she considers a significant and useful source for the battle, and I think she’s right. Berry was writing years after the battle, and we have no reason to think he was present, but he provides a detailed order of battle of the men-at-arms assigned to a dozen different commanders. 1,200 men at arms are assigned to the mounted wings, 4,800 to the vanguard, and about 3,000 to the main battle. He says the total was 10,000, so that leaves 1,000 for the rear battle.
Most of the sources agree that it didn’t work out as planned, and a significant part of mounted wings were not in position when the English advanced unexpectedly. Presumable they ended up with the rear battle.
But Le Fevre and Waurin were both present at the battle, and they say that the vanguard also had archers, in numbers that work out to one for every two men at arms. In addition, there were crossbowmen equal to a three for every eight archers. The absolute numbers they report are not reliable, but the ratios should be about right.
They add that the main battle had men at arms and archers equal to the vanguard.
We also know that the intent was to raise on archer for every two men at arms for the campaign, and this seems to have been achieved in the noble retinues we have pay records for.
We also know that gros valets were present, but not necessarily listed on the payroll. The original battle plan had them charging in support of the men at arms. Des Ursins suggests they were present in the main battle in addition to the men at arms and archers, and that there were crossbowmen there as well. Le Fevre and Waurin report that some who were struck down in the vanguard and main battle were rescued and led away by their servants. This is only plausible if those servants were no further away than the rear ranks of the same battle.
We don’t know how many valets were well enough equipped to play a useful role as a combatant. Later in the 15th c. it was expected there would be one similarly protected coustilier for every man at arms. A few years earlier, in his campaign against Liege John the Fearless had a bit under 4,000 combatants on his payroll. At the battle of Othee, he reportedly sent 1,000 gros valets in support of a flanking attack by 400-500 men at arms. His pay lists from around this time suggest men at arms were typically about 60% of the men on his army payroll, so a force of 10,000 men at arms might be able to also field at least 4,000 gros valets. And it’s possible that the number was higher, and there were additional gros valets at Othee that were not sent on the mounted attack. That does not seem unreasonable compared to the 1:1 ratio later in the 15th c.
So now we have:
Mounted wings: 1,200 men at arms
Vanguard: 4,800 men at arms, 2,400 archers, 900 crossbowmen, 1,000 gros valets
Main battle: 3,000 men at arms, 2,600 archers, 1,000 crossbowmen, 2,500 gros valets
Rear battle: 1,000 men at arms, 400 gros valets
Total: 20,400 combatants.
It was usual at this time for crossbowmen to be accompanied by pavisers, with about one paviser for every two crossbowmen. If not assumed to be included in the number of crossbowmen this would add another 900 men.
Since making the number of men at arms and archers the same in the vanguard and main battle would give an unusually high number of archers for French army of the period, I have taken La Fevre and Waurin's statement less literally, and that they meant that the total number of fighting men in the vanguard and main battles was about equal.
There would have been addition non-combatant servants. In the 14th c. two servants per man at arms, seems to have been typical. If we assume that only 3,9000 of them were combatant gros valets, that would have added another 14,000 pages and grooms. Of course, more of them might have been armed gros valets, which would keep the army size the same but increase the combatant numbers. Possibly some of the French servants were armed and carried on the payroll as archers, which would have reduced the total army size somewhat.
If we assume that English men at arms each had one yeoman serving as an archer and one page, that would only increase their total force by about 1,500.
This would then be a battle where an eyewitness could reasonable say that the French army was at least three times the size of the English. The chroniclers report that servants were exercising horses on the field before to the battle, and presumably many were assisting their masters prior to the combat, so they would have swelled the number included in a visual estimate of the army size.
There are several problems with Curry’s estimate of 12,000 combatants for the French army at Agincourt. This would imply, based on Berry Herald’s distribution of men at arms and the ratio of other troops reported by eyewitnesses, that the vanguard had 4,000 men at arms and 2,700 missile troops.
This would make the vanguard significantly smaller than the English army, and yet all three eyewitness reports say the reverse was true.
To push most of the missile troops in the vanguard to the rear, the men at arms would need to extend their front to cover about 750 yards. On this frontage, 4,000 men at arms would be only four ranks deep, assuming 27 inches per man. 27 inches per man is within the range of Napoleonic era infantry doctrine, and fits with my experience with efforts to recreate medieval combat.
Four deep is a very shallow formation for a melee infantry unit by pre-gunpowder standards. The classical Greeks and Romans and the early medieval Byzantines all seem to have taken eight ranks as the norm. The English at Agincourt averaged somewhere between 4.5 ranks deep (conventional wisdom of about 6,000 men) and 6.75 (Curry estimate of about 9,000 English combatants.) The English army was mostly archers, and might reasonably accept a shallower formation than a purely melee unit. If four ranks was an effective formation depth for pre-gunpowder melee combat, then the English at Agincourt could have thinned their line even further to create a reserve. They didn’t do so.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
The Augustine Committee and their Report
The Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee led by former Lockheed Martin chief Norm Augustine turned in their final report October 22. They worked hard and had good, smart, dedicated people who did a good job. I don’t know how they were compensated, but it probably wasn’t enough. I’m profoundly grateful for their efforts.
They have some good recommendations. Many may not survive the political process: already representatives from places with major NASA spending are saying that it would be a terrible thing if anything was done that might result in less NASA spending where their constituents live.
And if we do the right thing there will be pain in various places. The Ares I launcher was more plausible when the that project began, but bringing it into operation will now cost a lot for a launcher that will at best fly only a few times: perhaps a dozen, perhaps less. US launchers already flying can carry similar payloads. They have convinced me that Ares I should be canceled. It will harder to convince voters who benefit directly from the survival of the program.
The committee makes a good argument that we will eventually return to our Moon, visit Near Earth Objects like asteroids and comets, the Martian moons Deimos and Phobos, and eventually Mars itself. Our Moon may not be the optimal first destination on the list.
They have some good recommendations. Many may not survive the political process: already representatives from places with major NASA spending are saying that it would be a terrible thing if anything was done that might result in less NASA spending where their constituents live.
And if we do the right thing there will be pain in various places. The Ares I launcher was more plausible when the that project began, but bringing it into operation will now cost a lot for a launcher that will at best fly only a few times: perhaps a dozen, perhaps less. US launchers already flying can carry similar payloads. They have convinced me that Ares I should be canceled. It will harder to convince voters who benefit directly from the survival of the program.
The committee makes a good argument that we will eventually return to our Moon, visit Near Earth Objects like asteroids and comets, the Martian moons Deimos and Phobos, and eventually Mars itself. Our Moon may not be the optimal first destination on the list.
Why Very Long Copyright Durations Are a Bad Idea.
What these guys said.
You might think, as a creator of intellectual content, that I'm in favor of having my copyright last until the Sun is a cold darker cinder. I'm not. There are real costs to us as a Society to keeping content out of the public domain for too long. The free availability of public domain works created when copyright law was more sane is a great boon to me. I love Google Books
Here's my modest proposal. Continue to accept the terms of the Berne Convention, but require individuals to renew every thirty years after original publication to maintain their rights. And allow corporations to do the same, but charge them a fee large enough that they only renew works that still have significant economic value to them. Disney can afford it.
You might think, as a creator of intellectual content, that I'm in favor of having my copyright last until the Sun is a cold darker cinder. I'm not. There are real costs to us as a Society to keeping content out of the public domain for too long. The free availability of public domain works created when copyright law was more sane is a great boon to me. I love Google Books
Here's my modest proposal. Continue to accept the terms of the Berne Convention, but require individuals to renew every thirty years after original publication to maintain their rights. And allow corporations to do the same, but charge them a fee large enough that they only renew works that still have significant economic value to them. Disney can afford it.
Seven Reasons to Date a Medievalist
Unlocked Wordhoard lists compelling reasons to date a medievalist. Including, of course, our superior zombie apocalypse survival skills
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Are We Wimps? Compared to Ancient Athenians?
Provocative anthropologist Peter McAllister says yes.
The evidence for this can only be the failure of the modern trireme reconstruction Olympias to reach the cruising speed implied by classical authors for ancient triremes.
If we knew that Olympias was a perfect reproduction of an ancient trireme, then the argument might be valid. We don't.
Olympias was a plausible first effort at reconstructing an ancient trireme. The men responsible for the reconstruction now believe they can do better, tweaking some key details to give the rowers more room for a longer stroke while still fitting the surviving evidence. This exactly the sort of thing that experimental archaeology can teach us.
Athens employed 30,000 rowers who could all exceed the achievements of modern oarsmen.
The evidence for this can only be the failure of the modern trireme reconstruction Olympias to reach the cruising speed implied by classical authors for ancient triremes.
If we knew that Olympias was a perfect reproduction of an ancient trireme, then the argument might be valid. We don't.
Olympias was a plausible first effort at reconstructing an ancient trireme. The men responsible for the reconstruction now believe they can do better, tweaking some key details to give the rowers more room for a longer stroke while still fitting the surviving evidence. This exactly the sort of thing that experimental archaeology can teach us.
Monday, October 19, 2009
Are We Wimps?
Are 21st c. men wimps compared to people "in the ancient past and even in the recent past"?. Peter McAllister, Australian anthropologist, says yes, in his book Manthropology and in this article in The Independent
Steve Muhlberger asks for informed commentary on the article while expressing some skepticism.
I won't say anything about the value of calculating the speed of prehistoric aboriginals from their fossilized trackways, except that it's probably pretty difficult without knowing with some precision how long the legs were of the person that left the footprints.
But this I can speak to:
This is lazy stupidity on multiple levels. A marathon is a foot race, and currently covers a bit more than 26 miles. "One-and-a-half marathons" would be nearly forty miles. At a run.
The Roman legions did not cover distance at a run. They marched. Marching is much less tiring.
That said, I don't know why McAllister thinks legions routinely covered forty miles a day. I'm baffled.
Assuming that McAllister never noticed that the Roman mile is shorter than the English mile only gets you part of the way there. An Iter Iustum, an ordinary day's march on good roads, might cover 15-17 miles.
Vegetius tells us that the Romans trained by marching ten Roman miles out and the same back (about 18 English miles) but they only did it three times a month. It was a conditioning exercise, not a daily routine.
Currently, US infantry on the march carries loads comparable to a Roman legionairy soldier.
Steve Muhlberger asks for informed commentary on the article while expressing some skepticism.
I won't say anything about the value of calculating the speed of prehistoric aboriginals from their fossilized trackways, except that it's probably pretty difficult without knowing with some precision how long the legs were of the person that left the footprints.
But this I can speak to:
Roman legions completed more than one-and-a-half marathons a day carrying more than half their body weight in equipment.
This is lazy stupidity on multiple levels. A marathon is a foot race, and currently covers a bit more than 26 miles. "One-and-a-half marathons" would be nearly forty miles. At a run.
The Roman legions did not cover distance at a run. They marched. Marching is much less tiring.
That said, I don't know why McAllister thinks legions routinely covered forty miles a day. I'm baffled.
Assuming that McAllister never noticed that the Roman mile is shorter than the English mile only gets you part of the way there. An Iter Iustum, an ordinary day's march on good roads, might cover 15-17 miles.
Vegetius tells us that the Romans trained by marching ten Roman miles out and the same back (about 18 English miles) but they only did it three times a month. It was a conditioning exercise, not a daily routine.
According to modern US Army doctrine, the average rate of march for trained infantry under favorable weather conditions is 2-1/2 mph over roads and 1 mph cross country. A normal foot march covers 20 miles per day.
Currently, US infantry on the march carries loads comparable to a Roman legionairy soldier.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
The Gladiatoria Fechtbuch
Medieval German fighting manuals can be frustrating. Typically you either have text without illustrations, or illustrations with minimal text (Talhoffer) or with no text at all (the earliest content in the Codex Wallerstein).
In the mid 15th c. Gladiatoria Fechtbuch , text and image often complement each other. The text explains that you should do thus and so, and the image presents the vital information that your left leg should be forward when you do it.
Hugh Knight has produced a translation of the text of the Gladiatoria Fechtbuch combined with a reproduction of the images. This work is a valuable resource for anyone who wants a better under standing of armored single combat in Germany in the middle of the 15th century.
Thirteen out of the 118 pages deal with unarmored combat, with long dueling shields, bucklers or staves. The rest discuss armored combat.
In the mid 15th c. Gladiatoria Fechtbuch , text and image often complement each other. The text explains that you should do thus and so, and the image presents the vital information that your left leg should be forward when you do it.
Hugh Knight has produced a translation of the text of the Gladiatoria Fechtbuch combined with a reproduction of the images. This work is a valuable resource for anyone who wants a better under standing of armored single combat in Germany in the middle of the 15th century.
Thirteen out of the 118 pages deal with unarmored combat, with long dueling shields, bucklers or staves. The rest discuss armored combat.
Combat with Spear and Targe
Here is a video of combat with Codex Wallerstein style targes and spear at our local SCA fighting practice. I built these for the pas de la Belle Pelerine at Pennsic 2009. I'm very pleased with the way these work: they give good protection for the armpit, shoulder and throat while allowing both hands to wield the spear.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
