5 ms·

At the famous Battle of Agincourt peasants slaughtered thousands of knights. It was a decisive blood bath against a vastly superior force that allowed Henry V’s

At the famous Battle of Agincourt peasants slaughtered thousands of knights. It was a decisive blood bath against a vastly superior force that allowed Henry V’s conquest of France. This is confirmed by eye witness records both French and English.

Forge36 6y ago
Was this the battle historians put a lot of blame on the "steel boots"? Peasants had cloth boots which didn't get stuck into the mud as much so they didn't get as tired.
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  >Was this the battle historians put a lot of blame on the "steel boots"? Among other things. It takes more than shoes to get such a one sided outcome.
  - willcipriano 6y ago
    > It takes more than shoes to get such a one sided outcome. If you make them out of cardboard and try to cross the Carpathian Mountains perhaps not. https://ww1blog.osborneink.com/?p=5961 https://ww1blog.osborneink.com/?p=5961
User23 6y ago
The English peasants were a special lot. England had an archery mandate going back to at least the 13th century so we're not talking about random untrained peasants. Also lots of things went right for the English and wrong for the French at Agincourt.
- nl 6y ago
  > Also lots of things went right for the English and wrong for the French at Agincourt. This is true, but one should note that the Battle of Crécy 70 years earlier had shown the same pattern. (Although of course there were many other battles in the 100 year war where bowmen were not as decisive).
pdonis 6y ago
Most of the English soldiers who killed knights at Agincourt were longbowmen shooting from a distance and protected by both terrain and a line of sharpened stakes that prevented the French cavalry from charging them. That is not the kind of direct confrontation that the article is talking about.
- crooked-v 6y ago
  It was at a distance at first, but towards the end of the battle the longbowmen gradually advanced into point-blank range and then, as they ran out of arrows, switched to whatever melee weapons they had to mob the incapacitated French men-at-arms and knights. Though it's certainly true that the historical English longbowman wasn't the usual 'peasant' stereotype, given that they were generally landowners (rather than tenant farmers) and were actually legally required to take a certain amount of regular practice weekly with the bow.
  - teruakohatu 6y ago
    > English longbowman wasn't the usual 'peasant' stereotype, given that they were generally landowners Can you elaborate. I thought serfdom was still around in 1415 in England.
    - barry-cotter 6y ago
      Serfdom was on its last legs in England by this stage. I believe there were plenty of landowners who practiced the longbow but a majority would have been yeomen who were tenants of big solid farms, not themselves landowners. England was almost the first place to get rid of serfdom and a peasantry both, though the Netherlands may have it beat. Remember we’re on the verge of the Reformation. These are quite urbanized bourgeois societies by the 1400s.
    - jaggederest 6y ago
      As far as I am aware, most longbowmen at the time were yeomen, a sort of middle class between the landed gentry and the serf class, where they owned their land and thus had the free time and energy to practice and hunt with a longbow.
smogcutter 6y ago
Ehhh yes, but this gets complicated and interesting in the details. Have you read Keegan on Agincourt? Short story, the popular version of French knights getting bogged down in the mud and shot to pieces with arrows is mostly false, but the English peasants did play a critical role. Far from being mowed down by longbowmen (although they absolutely would have taken a toll, especially on horses), the French cavalry was turned back by the stakes the archers planted in their positions. The stakes were likely mingled with the archers in a kind of thicket, rather than the fence you see in movies or video games, preventing the french knights from seeing the danger until the archers fell back and it was too late. The French second wave, armored foot, was essentially invulnerable to arrows. But the French piled into dense columns to attack the English men-at-arms (they had no interest in fighting peasant archers, there’s no glory or loot in it). So the front of the column is in big trouble and is being pushed into the English spears by the men behind them, and those in the rear have no idea what’s happening up front so they keep pushing forward. This is how people die at rock concerts or on black friday. Mostly out of ammo at this point, the English archers come out to gang up on stragglers at the edges of the columns. This is the “flank attack” that eye witnesses report. The peasants certainly didn’t charge the flanks of the columns en masse, they would have been slaughtered. But they could definitely pick off those who tried to escape the press out the sides. Without an escape route, the French columns turn into a panicked rout. This is where most of the French losses happen, either stampeded by their own or cut down or captured by the pursuing English knights. The English don’t chase them far, however, because there’s still a second line of French men-at-arms which hasn’t been committed to the battle, and the English have a large number of captives to keep an eye on. In the event, the French don’t renew the attack, and send out their heralds to parley. So yes, the English won a major victory and the peasants played a big role, but the popular version misses the actual mechanics of the battle. “Conquest of France” is also rather strong. Immediately after the battle Henry turned around and went home to London. His later advantage is more down to the long term consequences of the sheer amount of the French aristocracy killed in the battle rather than any immediate gains.
- planetsmashr 6y ago
  Interesting and enjoyable comment, thanks for sharing!
MichaelMoser123 6y ago
longbows had a big role in the battle of Agincourt. It was part of a wider switch from very expensive defensive armor and warriors on expensive horses (that were eating a lot of grain) towards stuff that could kill at a distance. The middle ages isn't one monolithic period, it's quite a complex business. See https://www.britannica.com/technology/military-technology/The-infantry-revolution-c-1200-1500 https://www.britannica.com/technology/military-technology/Th...
C1sc0cat 6y ago
Um the English longbowmen where highly paid professional soldiers or mercenaries not peasants. An English longbowman was paid more in real terms than a Squaddie is today
z3phyr 6y ago
We tend to remember the exceptions out of the countless military engagements that went as planned.

Forge36 6y ago

Was this the battle historians put a lot of blame on the "steel boots"? Peasants had cloth boots which didn't get stuck into the mud as much so they didn't get as tired.

throwaway0a5e 6y ago
>Was this the battle historians put a lot of blame on the "steel boots"? Among other things. It takes more than shoes to get such a one sided outcome.
- willcipriano 6y ago
  > It takes more than shoes to get such a one sided outcome. If you make them out of cardboard and try to cross the Carpathian Mountains perhaps not. https://ww1blog.osborneink.com/?p=5961 https://ww1blog.osborneink.com/?p=5961

User23 6y ago

The English peasants were a special lot. England had an archery mandate going back to at least the 13th century so we're not talking about random untrained peasants. Also lots of things went right for the English and wrong for the French at Agincourt.

nl 6y ago
> Also lots of things went right for the English and wrong for the French at Agincourt. This is true, but one should note that the Battle of Crécy 70 years earlier had shown the same pattern. (Although of course there were many other battles in the 100 year war where bowmen were not as decisive).

pdonis 6y ago

Most of the English soldiers who killed knights at Agincourt were longbowmen shooting from a distance and protected by both terrain and a line of sharpened stakes that prevented the French cavalry from charging them. That is not the kind of direct confrontation that the article is talking about.

crooked-v 6y ago
It was at a distance at first, but towards the end of the battle the longbowmen gradually advanced into point-blank range and then, as they ran out of arrows, switched to whatever melee weapons they had to mob the incapacitated French men-at-arms and knights. Though it's certainly true that the historical English longbowman wasn't the usual 'peasant' stereotype, given that they were generally landowners (rather than tenant farmers) and were actually legally required to take a certain amount of regular practice weekly with the bow.
- teruakohatu 6y ago
  > English longbowman wasn't the usual 'peasant' stereotype, given that they were generally landowners Can you elaborate. I thought serfdom was still around in 1415 in England.
  - barry-cotter 6y ago
    Serfdom was on its last legs in England by this stage. I believe there were plenty of landowners who practiced the longbow but a majority would have been yeomen who were tenants of big solid farms, not themselves landowners. England was almost the first place to get rid of serfdom and a peasantry both, though the Netherlands may have it beat. Remember we’re on the verge of the Reformation. These are quite urbanized bourgeois societies by the 1400s.
  - jaggederest 6y ago
    As far as I am aware, most longbowmen at the time were yeomen, a sort of middle class between the landed gentry and the serf class, where they owned their land and thus had the free time and energy to practice and hunt with a longbow.

smogcutter 6y ago

Ehhh yes, but this gets complicated and interesting in the details. Have you read Keegan on Agincourt? Short story, the popular version of French knights getting bogged down in the mud and shot to pieces with arrows is mostly false, but the English peasants did play a critical role. Far from being mowed down by longbowmen (although they absolutely would have taken a toll, especially on horses), the French cavalry was turned back by the stakes the archers planted in their positions. The stakes were likely mingled with the archers in a kind of thicket, rather than the fence you see in movies or video games, preventing the french knights from seeing the danger until the archers fell back and it was too late. The French second wave, armored foot, was essentially invulnerable to arrows. But the French piled into dense columns to attack the English men-at-arms (they had no interest in fighting peasant archers, there’s no glory or loot in it). So the front of the column is in big trouble and is being pushed into the English spears by the men behind them, and those in the rear have no idea what’s happening up front so they keep pushing forward. This is how people die at rock concerts or on black friday. Mostly out of ammo at this point, the English archers come out to gang up on stragglers at the edges of the columns. This is the “flank attack” that eye witnesses report. The peasants certainly didn’t charge the flanks of the columns en masse, they would have been slaughtered. But they could definitely pick off those who tried to escape the press out the sides. Without an escape route, the French columns turn into a panicked rout. This is where most of the French losses happen, either stampeded by their own or cut down or captured by the pursuing English knights. The English don’t chase them far, however, because there’s still a second line of French men-at-arms which hasn’t been committed to the battle, and the English have a large number of captives to keep an eye on. In the event, the French don’t renew the attack, and send out their heralds to parley. So yes, the English won a major victory and the peasants played a big role, but the popular version misses the actual mechanics of the battle. “Conquest of France” is also rather strong. Immediately after the battle Henry turned around and went home to London. His later advantage is more down to the long term consequences of the sheer amount of the French aristocracy killed in the battle rather than any immediate gains.

planetsmashr 6y ago
Interesting and enjoyable comment, thanks for sharing!

MichaelMoser123 6y ago

longbows had a big role in the battle of Agincourt. It was part of a wider switch from very expensive defensive armor and warriors on expensive horses (that were eating a lot of grain) towards stuff that could kill at a distance. The middle ages isn't one monolithic period, it's quite a complex business. See https://www.britannica.com/technology/military-technology/The-infantry-revolution-c-1200-1500 https://www.britannica.com/technology/military-technology/Th...

C1sc0cat 6y ago

Um the English longbowmen where highly paid professional soldiers or mercenaries not peasants. An English longbowman was paid more in real terms than a Squaddie is today

z3phyr 6y ago

We tend to remember the exceptions out of the countless military engagements that went as planned.