What was the impact of the longbow in science and technology?

I got to answer this right now; I got to present something tomorrow on this.

Please someone answer my question and thank you.

This is not a historical issue. It is a philosophical issue. What we know from the sources was that the English were slowly being beaten down when de Buch put forward his plan. The flank attack relieved the pressure from the French long enough for the English main body to magnify the disruption caused by the flank attack as was planned.

Well, the French mounted attack at the beginning of the battle at Agincourt was sorely undermanned and improperly executed–it should have gone around the English flanks but charged their front instead.

Forests protected the English flanks. The cavalry could not go around.

The Duke of Brabant’s attack was similarly small in scale. So the first proper large-scale attack (as opposed to small-scale probes) in the battle was the English charge, and I don’t know how to interpret this other than by concluding that the English tactics in that battle were actually more offensive than defensive.

This is the problem of relying on a single source. We know the French halted before contact. They formed three wedges coming out of the van. The points were directed at the English and the base in the van. Clearly what Monstrelet was describing was one of these wedges. Once the wedges were formed, the van of 5000 French knights struck the waiting English.

Only if you assume that hand-to-hand combat proceeded in the manner of a confused melee–and it obviously did _not_.

No, I’m assuming the French were a formed unit.

I don’t see any way that the English could have attained the critical momentum, whether in physical or psychological terms, without the numerical boost provided by the longbowmen. (Note that I said the longbowmen added weight and momentum to the men-at-arms’ attack rather than attacking on their own; the English attack wouldn’t have succeeded either if it hadn’t had a nucleus of men-at-arms for the longbowmen to pile up behind.)

This is a problem then. All the chronicles that mention the beginning of the hand-to-hand combat state, including Monstrelet, that it was the French who attacked the waiting English.

Another problem with seeing the longbowmen as “light infantry” is that they weren’t really that light. I’d blame it on the modern fetish for glorifying “peasant” and “light” infantry without regards to the actual social, economic, and political background of warfare in pre-modern times.

To be factually correct this was the modern time. The modern age was invented during the Renaissance that was active in Italy while Agincourt was being fought. Renaissance writers believed they lived in modern times. They studied works from classical times and what was in between was the middle age.

But I understand your objection. Light infantry were named so not so much from their lack armor as for the function they performed in battle. Perhaps I’ll do a posting on light and heavy infantry. In any event, the archers’ clothes were in taters. Some didn’t even have shoes.

If you’ve ever trained to fight in a full harness of plate, you’d realize that heat exhaustion is a risk even in winter–provided you moved vigorously enough not to freeze to death inside your suit of armor.

I’ve been to your excellent site and so you should know about the venting areas that were designed into a suite of plate armor. Closing or opening visors will have little effect as to the risk of heat exhaustion at this time of year. The closing of the visor would have more impact on the vision of the fighter than the risk of heat exhaustion. Plus, there were about 5000 fighters in the French van. They were formed into around 20 ranks. What is to prevent the rear ranks from replacing those who were hot and exhausted?

Last but not least, let’s not forget what is perhaps the longbowmen’s greatest advantage–their ability to operate as mounted infantry.

But that was not the subject of my posting.

Would the flank attack have been so decisive if the English had not also launched the general attack against the French front? I strongly doubt that. Without the major frontal attack, the English probably wouldn’t have been able to seize the initiative so completely from French hands.

“I think this is a misreading for Monstrelet. The first attack was the French mounted attack which Monstrelet calls the van. The cavalry attacked the archers, behind their protection, severely disrupted and drove off this first attack. Afterwards the archers attack those who were wounded and dispatched them.

Then came the second battalion which most historians call the van. It was composed of around 500 knights. The very next action is where Monstrelet states the duke of Brabant and a small number of men attack the English in advance of the second battalion. It is only after this attack that the English begin fighting back.”

Well, the French mounted attack at the beginning of the battle at Agincourt was sorely undermanned and improperly executed–it should have gone around the English flanks but charged their front instead. The Duke of Brabant’s attack was similarly small in scale. So the first proper large-scale attack (as opposed to small-scale probes) in the battle was the English charge, and I don’t know how to interpret this other than by concluding that the English tactics in that battle were actually more offensive than defensive.

“As to the advantages of the longbow men engaging in hand-to-hand combat, the only way that light infanatry can engage and beat heavily armored infantry is to swarm them like wolves bringing down a stag. This could only be done after the integrity of the French battalion had been broken. So while the archers certainly caused casualties, they could not have the cause for breaking the French integrity.”

Only if you assume that hand-to-hand combat proceeded in the manner of a confused melee–and it obviously did _not_. You didn’t have to kill the enemy to defeat him in a shock action. If the English charge had sufficient numbers and psychological momentum to significantly disorder the French formation at the point of impact, it would have been able to deal a serious blow to French morale without having to go through a prolonged hand-to-hand slog where the French could have made their advantage in armor and training felt; and I don’t see any way that the English could have attained the critical momentum, whether in physical or psychological terms, without the numerical boost provided by the longbowmen. (Note that I said the longbowmen added weight and momentum to the men-at-arms’ attack rather than attacking on their own; the English attack wouldn’t have succeeded either if it hadn’t had a nucleus of men-at-arms for the longbowmen to pile up behind.)

Another problem with seeing the longbowmen as “light infantry” is that they weren’t really that light. I’d blame it on the modern fetish for glorifying “peasant” and “light” infantry without regards to the actual social, economic, and political background of warfare in pre-modern times. They had plenty of armor–not quite as much as the men-at-arms, of course, but their jacks, brigandine, or mail was enough to put them on a par with troops that other realms would have counted as heavy infantry (say, Low Countries pikemen or French voulgiers) and was definitely far more protective than what most other comparable missile troops wore. The sword and buckler was also a standard part of the longbowmen’s personal equipment, not an occasional addition worn only by the richest men, so the longbowmen were actually expected to be willing and able to engage in hand-to-hand combat if the situation called for it.

The modern proclivity to classify foot troops into “light” and “heavy” infantry can be quite misleading for the late medieval period, and not only for the longbowmen; handgunners, for example, usually fought in the dispersed formation characteristic of light linfantry but they wore fairly heavy armor and were seldom reluctant to get into a hand-to-hand scrap!

“We have a number of block prints and other drawings of the teim showing knights fighting at tournament , on foot, with visors down. This was there own personal protection against accidents.”

Tournaments were fought under a different set of rules, including provisions that emphasized protection of the participants’ life and limb rather than battlefield practices that tried instead to strike a compromise between protection and convenience. If you restrict your search to illustrations of battles and sieges, you’ll often see the men-at-arms fighting on foot with their faces bared by their upraised visors–and I really mean completely-armored men-at-arms, not lighter kinds of infantry that can usually be identified by their lack of complete leg armor.

“Also, Agincourt was fought on the 25th of October. I doubt that the heat would have been much of a factor at this time of year.”

If you’ve ever trained to fight in a full harness of plate, you’d realize that heat exhaustion is a risk even in winter–provided you moved vigorously enough not to freeze to death inside your suit of armor.

Last but not least, let’s not forget what is perhaps the longbowmen’s greatest advantage–their ability to operate as mounted infantry. This aspect alone might have been overwhelmingly more important than any tactical advantages or disadvantages they had because it allowed the English to swell the numbers of their raiding parties while keeping the composition of these parties more in line with the main English armies, which gave them the ability to utilize standard English tactics even in small numbers.

So I still don’t think that the longbowmen are _that_ much overrated. As archers, yes, they probably weren’t the medieval heavy artillery that A.H. Burne makes them out to be, but I will never tire to repeat that the longbowmen were more than just archers. If anything, archery was hardly the most important part of their capabilities.

“I say “charge,” because on one side we all know that Poitiers was won because the English counterattacked rather than staying put behind their defenses.”

Actually, according to the chronicler le Baker, captal de Buch with 60 knights and 100 archers hit the flank of the French third attack. It was after this flank attack that the rest of the English moved out of their defensive position to also attack the French.

“I favor a more aggressive interpretation of the English tactics at Agincourt based on Enguerrand de Monstrelet’s account–where the Englishmen, rather than waiting for the French attack, actually advanced and shot at the French until they got frustrated by the lack of French reaction and then launched a massive charge on foot that bowled over the first French battle almost right away.”

I think this is a misreading for Monstrelet. The first attack was the French mounted attack which Monstrelet calls the van. The cavalry attacked the archers, behind their protection, severely disrupted and drove off this first attack. Afterwards the archers attack those who were wounded and dispatched them.

Then came the second battalion which most historians call the van. It was composed of around 500 knights. The very next action is where Monstrelet states the duke of Brabant and a small number of men attack the English in advance of the second battalion. It is only after this attack that the English begin fighting back.

As to the advantages of the longbow men engaging in hand-to-hand combat, the only way that light infanatry can engage and beat heavily armored infantry is to swarm them like wolves bringing down a stag. This could only be done after the integrity of the French battalion had been broken. So while the archers certainly caused casualties, they could not have the cause for breaking the French integrity.

“it forced the men-at-arms to keep their visors down in contrary to the usual practice for fighting on foot, forcing them to risk heat exhaustion rather than take an arrow to the face.”

We have a number of block prints and other drawings of the teim showing knights fighting at tournament , on foot, with visors down. This was there own personal protection against accidents. Also, Agincourt was fought on the 25th of October. I doubt that the heat would have been much of a factor at this time of year.

“So yes, the longbow itself is pretty much overrated in popular history, …”

What I’m suggesting is that the archers are pretty much overrated by academic historians.

But you bring up a good point about French experiments with the longbow. The center of this experiment seems to be Picardy. This might have to do with Picardy and it’s proximity to the Burgundian counties. Burgundian military ethos in the first half of the 15th-century was a bit different that that of France. French men-at-arms had accepted the need to dismount. Burgundian men-at-arms were still having a problem with dismounting. While Burgundians dismounted at Agincourt and Tongres, they had to be threatened with death if they refused to dismount at the battle of Crevant. This is significant because the strength of the longbow, in a secure defensive position, was against mounted men-at-arms. Anyway, this experiment probably didn’t last very long. One hundred years latter, at the battle of Ravenna, Picard infantry were armed with pikes not longbows.

Rich

BTW, following up the last comment in the previous longbows entry, I should also mention one of the indirect effects of the longbow’s use that might have played an important part in putting the French side at a disadvantage during some of the lengthier battles: it forced the men-at-arms to keep their visors down in contrary to the usual practice for fighting on foot, forcing them to risk heat exhaustion rather than take an arrow to the face. The ultimate consequences of this choice would only show themselves up in (again) the shock of hand-to-hand combat, but then were there _any_ Hundred Years’ War battle that was won purely by missile power without any hand-to-hand contact? Of course, whenever the French could field their crossbowmen in sufficient numbers and under sufficiently competent command, the English suffered from the same disadvantage so the effects would cancel each other out somewhat.

So yes, the longbow itself is pretty much overrated in popular history, but the longbowmen aren’t necessarily so because they had more capabilities than just their archery. Otherwise the French would not have bothered to model the “archiers” of their Ordonnance companies on the English longbowmen–although in this case they went too far to the hand-to-hand side and ended up with a bunch of “medium” cavalry rather than the mounted infantry they had envisioned, even if these proved to be fairly effective cavalrymen in the end. The Burgundians also deployed many archers modeled on the English longbowmen in their own version of their Ordonnances–when they didn’t hire English mercenaries outright, that is.