4 ms·

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 gettin

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!
austhrow743 6y ago
Is it known why they piled into dense columns and pushed themselves on to spears?
- austincheney 6y ago
  The geography created a dense and inescapable column of a battlefield. The French army was huge so once you started marching forward you couldn't stop because there were people behind you marching forward. Soldiers were literally pushed onto the wooden stakes because of the crowd and many others were either trampled to death or drowned in the mud while being stepped on.
- smogcutter 6y ago
  So while we know from witnesses that this did happen, anything about why is going to involve some conjecture. But from what I recall, there are a few reasons. The English army was arranged in a single line, with large groups of archers alternating with small groups of men at arms. For the men at arms (on both sides), combat was primarily about winning personal glory, secondarily about scoring some loot. The only way to get either is by attacking the enemy men at arms. No personal upside in attacking yeoman archers (other than, uh, maybe winning the battle. Whoops.) So you naturally funnel towards the enemy you want to fight. Remember these guys aren’t marching in formation like Romans or early modern pikemen. It’s a loosely organized mass of individuals. On top of that, the survivors of the cavalry attack on the flanks retreat through the infantry, throwing them into disorder. This also helps condense the infantry as they try to make way for the cavalry. On top of that, getting shot at by clouds of arrows sucks even if realistically you’re not in a lot of danger. Getting out from in front of the archers would feel safer. Plus, even if you’re a smart knight who knows you should be attacking the archers, that doesn’t do you any good unless everyone else comes too. Getting caught our on your own is how you get ganged up on, knocked down into the mud, and stabbed through the visor by some dirt farmer with a dagger. Which is exactly what happened to the guys on the edges of the columns. So you stick with the crowd. Once you’re in the crowd, it becomes packed too tightly for you to change your mind. At the front of the columns, witnesses report the English stepping back at the last moment, causing the leading french to wrong foot their attack and stumble. So it’s chaotic, they haven’t smashed through the English line, but the guys further back have no way of knowing that and keep pressing forwards. As an aside, I didn’t mean to make it sound like the spears were a particularly English thing. Most on both sides would’ve had some kind of polearm. In mass combat a sword is often a backup weapon.
austincheney 6y ago
Something like 6000 soldiers were taken captive and the captives began to outnumber the entirety of English forces, so the English chose to execute them all as a necessary means of security, but really many of the archers were slaughtering them anyways as a means to loot the bodies.
- smogcutter 6y ago
  Yeah I left this episode out bc the post was turning into a novel. Henry was spooked by a raid on the English baggage train, and the prospect of being caught between the prisoners in the rear and a renewed French attack in front. As horrifying as the incident is, Keegan at least finds it unlikely that the prisoners were actually massacred wholesale. When you look at the actual mechanics of how such a thing would work, especially with the rest of the French army still on the field and watching, a slaughter of 6000 prisoners becomes really implausible. For space I won’t quote Keegan’s reasoning, but here’s an excerpt from his conclusion: > “What seems altogether more likely, therefore, is that Henry’s order, rather than bring about the prisoners’ massacre, was intended by its threat to terrorize them into abject inactivity ... Some would have been killed in the process, and quite deliberately, but we need not reckon their number in thousands, perhaps not even in hundreds.”

planetsmashr 6y ago

Interesting and enjoyable comment, thanks for sharing!

austhrow743 6y ago

Is it known why they piled into dense columns and pushed themselves on to spears?

austincheney 6y ago
The geography created a dense and inescapable column of a battlefield. The French army was huge so once you started marching forward you couldn't stop because there were people behind you marching forward. Soldiers were literally pushed onto the wooden stakes because of the crowd and many others were either trampled to death or drowned in the mud while being stepped on.
smogcutter 6y ago
So while we know from witnesses that this did happen, anything about why is going to involve some conjecture. But from what I recall, there are a few reasons. The English army was arranged in a single line, with large groups of archers alternating with small groups of men at arms. For the men at arms (on both sides), combat was primarily about winning personal glory, secondarily about scoring some loot. The only way to get either is by attacking the enemy men at arms. No personal upside in attacking yeoman archers (other than, uh, maybe winning the battle. Whoops.) So you naturally funnel towards the enemy you want to fight. Remember these guys aren’t marching in formation like Romans or early modern pikemen. It’s a loosely organized mass of individuals. On top of that, the survivors of the cavalry attack on the flanks retreat through the infantry, throwing them into disorder. This also helps condense the infantry as they try to make way for the cavalry. On top of that, getting shot at by clouds of arrows sucks even if realistically you’re not in a lot of danger. Getting out from in front of the archers would feel safer. Plus, even if you’re a smart knight who knows you should be attacking the archers, that doesn’t do you any good unless everyone else comes too. Getting caught our on your own is how you get ganged up on, knocked down into the mud, and stabbed through the visor by some dirt farmer with a dagger. Which is exactly what happened to the guys on the edges of the columns. So you stick with the crowd. Once you’re in the crowd, it becomes packed too tightly for you to change your mind. At the front of the columns, witnesses report the English stepping back at the last moment, causing the leading french to wrong foot their attack and stumble. So it’s chaotic, they haven’t smashed through the English line, but the guys further back have no way of knowing that and keep pressing forwards. As an aside, I didn’t mean to make it sound like the spears were a particularly English thing. Most on both sides would’ve had some kind of polearm. In mass combat a sword is often a backup weapon.

austincheney 6y ago

Something like 6000 soldiers were taken captive and the captives began to outnumber the entirety of English forces, so the English chose to execute them all as a necessary means of security, but really many of the archers were slaughtering them anyways as a means to loot the bodies.

smogcutter 6y ago
Yeah I left this episode out bc the post was turning into a novel. Henry was spooked by a raid on the English baggage train, and the prospect of being caught between the prisoners in the rear and a renewed French attack in front. As horrifying as the incident is, Keegan at least finds it unlikely that the prisoners were actually massacred wholesale. When you look at the actual mechanics of how such a thing would work, especially with the rest of the French army still on the field and watching, a slaughter of 6000 prisoners becomes really implausible. For space I won’t quote Keegan’s reasoning, but here’s an excerpt from his conclusion: > “What seems altogether more likely, therefore, is that Henry’s order, rather than bring about the prisoners’ massacre, was intended by its threat to terrorize them into abject inactivity ... Some would have been killed in the process, and quite deliberately, but we need not reckon their number in thousands, perhaps not even in hundreds.”