Skirmishers (archers) in ancient & middle ages warfare question

[Avernite]

The real revolution was in the combined arms that evolved in the 30 years war (i.e. pike and shot) - the combination with Pike (not halberd) tactics and massed firepower.

Wrong war?
So far as I know it's from the Italian wars on that you see Pike and Shot armies. Certainly the armies of the 80 years war were already pike and shot (notably already in the early 1560-1570's battles by William the Silent and his brothers, not only under Maurits).

 

[Easy-Kill]

Wrong war?
So far as I know it's from the Italian wars on that you see Pike and Shot armies. Certainly the armies of the 80 years war were already pike and shot (notably already in the early 1560-1570's battles by William the Silent and his brothers, not only under Maurits).

Probably, I haven't followed the tactics back that far only to the Spanish TercioT andand how they influenced the development of tactics in the English Civil War. Hence my caveat of "Happy to be corrected"

 

[Zinegata]

I really doubt that. Yes, it probably was not as one-sided as the legend it later became would have you believe, but the result still sent shockwaves around Europe.
Battles similiar to Agincourt had happened before, but none of them had this impact.
What else would have made this battle so significant amongst people all over Europe who had no stakes in the war?

Its results were one-sided - even the French did not dispute this. This is evidenced by how the French had records of all the nobles killed in the battle and how the power vacuum gave the English a window to exploit French weakness.

However the battle itself had always been presented in British history as a demonstration of English prowess over the French - one Englishman being worth five Frenchmen and all that usual claptrap - that is looking to be little more than English propaganda which is why the French started winning again later. Conveniently British retellings tend to skip the part after where they start losing.

Unfortunately the British have a very real problem with coming to terms with the fact that their historical establishment tends to just repeat propaganda rather than do real historical work; and spend inordinate amounts of time and money trying to discredit their institutions which do real history.

 

[Zinegata]

The death of so many French nobles. It was significant. The English Archers didnt take them prisoner for ransom because they didnt knew this custom.

At least thats what the English said. It was very helpfull and came close to a decapacitation blow.

The English didn’t take prisoners almost certainly as a matter of policy, not because the archers didn’t understand ransom (they most certainly did).

The King had issued orders to kill prisoners - this was agreed in almost all accounts - as the concern was that the prisoners would be too many for the starving English to guard. It was cold military logic that guided their actions, not ignorance, which many “historians” have been trying to positivize ever since with various tall tales.

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

The English didn’t take prisoners almost certainly as a matter of policy, not because the archers didn’t understand ransom (they most certainly did).

The King had issued orders to kill prisoners - this was agreed in almost all accounts - as the concern was that the prisoners would be too many for the starving English to guard. It was cold military logic that guided their actions, not ignorance, which many “historians” have been trying to positivize ever since with various tall tales.

Maybe maybe not. The thing is those prisoners would have been worth a fortune.

 

[Easy-Kill]

Unfortunately the British have a very real problem with coming to terms with the fact that their historical establishment tends to just repeat propaganda rather than do real historical work; and spend inordinate amounts of time and money trying to discredit their institutions which do real history.

Despite having 30% of the world's highest ranking universities in the topic of history.

Just out of interest, what is the professional qualification and experience that you base your judgement on? You keep claiming how you know better than almost everyone, but you only give an opinion and limited analysis of primary sources.

 

[Barsoom]

The Battle of the Golden Spurs, Morgarten and Crecy came shortly after each other in the first decades of the fourteenth century. Agincourt is a century later, so if any of these is the herald of a new age, Agincourt isn't it. One could make a case that the first three together demonstrate a shift away from cavalry dominance, though noble cavalry was used in pretty much the same way afterwards. In my opinion, they are perhaps the first signs of a coming change but too early to mark a general change.

Infantry victories over noble cavalry occurred throughout the Middle Ages, sometimes with significant political results. In terms of military practice, though, they seem to have remained exceptions until the second half of the fifteenth century. We should search not for a single battle with big political effects but for a change in the composition of armies and the way they fought, not just in one country but across Western Europe. Agincourt didn't lead to a general change. The battles of Grandson and Nancy, or in English history Bosworth, are better candidates.

 

[Arilou]

I think Agincourts influence comes less from any tactical innovation or anything like that, than the fact that they managed to essentially (and in some cases, literally) decapitate the french nobility. THAT was what turned a great tactical victory into a grand strategic one, at least for the time.

 

[Avernite]

I think Agincourts influence comes less from any tactical innovation or anything like that, than the fact that they managed to essentially (and in some cases, literally) decapitate the french nobility. THAT was what turned a great tactical victory into a grand strategic one, at least for the time.

Nah, they decapitated half the French nobility, which meant the other half (Burgundians, though they lost some bigwigs too) started their bid for dominance.

 

[Barsoom]

Thinking a bit more on British longbows. It seems to me that their effect on political history is bigger than on military history. I'm not an expert and I would love to hear good arguments on both sides, but I think approaching the subject in a more organized, structural way might help. To start off, there's no question that the effect of their activity at Agincourt shaped the course of the Hundred Years War, the political history of France, and (as an effect of the former) the development of a semi-sovereign Burgundian state in the Low Countries.

But regarding military history, as already remarked by a few other posters, no other state developed longbows to anything like the extent England did. Certainly they didn't affect military history to the extent pike infantry did. (I'm using the term pike loosely here.) This means either other states lacked the necessary resources, which England through some accident of geography and social history did possess, or they weren't rated that highly by others. I think the latter is the better explanation or at least a big part of a possible combined explanation. Now, that leaves open the possibility that those other states were mistaken, perhaps locked up in status-driven conceptions of warfare. But the overall success rate of English armies in this period is not that great. Not bad but not exceptional either. They won a fair number of battles but lost a substantial number as well. English possessions were pressured and under attack for much of the Hundred Years War. In the end England lost the war, not only losing its bid for the French throne, but also losing its possessions on the mainland.

This means the best argument for longbow superiority is that France had an advantage in terms of its resource base which should have decided the war much earlier if longbows hadn't allowed England to stay in the fight much longer, and even enabled a couple of real win chances against the odds. I'm not convinced that that's true. Counting English possessions on the mainland, it wasn't that far behind to begin with. France's fractious feudal relations meant its kings could rarely mobilize its resource base effectively. Though England was hampered to some extent by dynastic infighting, once a king established himself he had more authority internally than his French counterpart. The political effects of English victories (huge ransom payments, Burgundian advantage over the Armagnacs) seem to have had much more impact than the military balance. In short, I think a few famous battles had an outsized effect on the course of the war rather than England having a structural military advantage due to its longbows.

 

[Denkt]

Longbows was not Always a successful weapon as shown in the Battle of Patay.

Longbowmen are said to be recognised by their skeletons. Maybe longbows could cause serious injuries or make you worse at other stuff other than drawing the bow which could be disastrous in the civil and even military Life. Longbows are also said to have taken a lifetime to learn but medieval era had as far as I know massive amounts of people who trained for war since Young age.

Longbow type bows was pretty common Before the crossbow. But crossbow even though it was more expensive and more complicated than the bow would phase out the bow.

Crossbow however do have some important advantages:

• Require less training and not as dependent on muscle and don't as far as I know cause deformities and also less energy consuming to use
• Less bulky and thus easier to use in castle and other confined spaces
• More accurate, but that depend on the skill of the user. But a bow draw can only be held for so long
• Bolts are smaller than Arrows which probably make them cheaper or atleast make it easier to transport them
• Possible to make crossbows that are more powerful than any bow as humans have limited strength

Well trained infantry such as the saxon huscarls seemed to cause alot of trouble to pretty much anything even though outnumbered and had fought in a previous battle Before. Well trained ranged Soldiers such as Longbowmen could be defeated quite quickly as in battle of Patay so it may simply have been more effective to focus on a well trained and disciplined infantry instead of ranged soldiers.

 

[Zinegata]

Maybe maybe not. The thing is those prisoners would have been worth a fortune.

That Henry V explicitly ordered the killing of prisoners is pretty much in all of the accounts of the battle at the time. It's really a lot of more recent literature that has been trying to gloss over this fact because of the aforementioned problem the British historical establishment has with not distinguishing between real history and propaganda especially when its the latter that sells books.

 

[Geriander]

The longbow did very well in field battles during the 100 years war and most such battles were English victories. The reason that this wasn’t decisive was that a majority of the war, as was the norm for the time, was sieges. In the end the most decisive development of the war was the siege artilley train.

 

[Zinegata]

The longbow did very well in field battles during the 100 years war and most such battles were English victories. The reason that this wasn’t decisive was that a majority of the war, as was the norm for the time, was sieges. In the end the most decisive development of the war was the siege artilley train.

Yep. Unfortunately English language history is perennially jealous of Hollywood blockbusters which is why they focus so much ink and attention on the Michael Bay moments than provide a broader and more accurate picture of history.

 

[Geriander]

Yep. Unfortunately English language history is perennially jealous of Hollywood blockbusters which is why they focus so much ink and attention on the Michael Bay moments than provide a broader and more accurate picture of history.

Regardless of language, popular historians like to concentrate on dramatic events such as battles and other pivotal moments in history. It sells better than accounts of hundreds of slow grinding sieges.

 

[Denkt]

The longbow did very well in field battles during the 100 years war and most such battles were English victories. The reason that this wasn’t decisive was that a majority of the war, as was the norm for the time, was sieges. In the end the most decisive development of the war was the siege artilley train.

Was not Castles and other fortifications more cost effective than keeping a larger army?

Consider that while fortifications do cost alot to build, the ability for a smaller garrison to keep a larger army at bay would in the end be cost effective and even more pratical. Food, diseases and other things was major issues during that time which limited the ability to wage war.

 

[Geriander]

Was not Castles and other fortifications more cost effective than keeping a larger army?

Consider that while fortifications do cost alot to build, the ability for a smaller garrison to keep a larger army at bay would in the end be cost effective and even more pratical. Food, diseases and other things was major issues during that time which limited the ability to wage war.

Castles tended to pop up without the monarchs interference. In fact it was sometimes an issue to force vassals not to build castles. Getting all those vassals to assemble into one great host was a lot more difficult and presented a monarch with much more risk if the battle was lost. Longbows and crossbows didn't really change this dynamic one way or another. Gunpowder artillery did change this dynamic and force the development of more advanced fortresses that few vassals could afford. This was the great result of the 100 years war from a French and English perspective and it began the end of feudalism in favour of centralized power. While the nature of fortresses changed, they did remain a dominant factor in European warfare up until Napoleon.

 

[Zinegata]

Regardless of language, popular historians like to concentrate on dramatic events such as battles and other pivotal moments in history. It sells better than accounts of hundreds of slow grinding sieges.

There is a focus on dramatic events but no other language has the same fetishism for "decisive" battle. The country that popularized the "X Decisive Battles of History" concept was Victorian England. This was further reinforced by Hanson's ridiculous (but widely believed and lauded) contention that the West was culturally ingrained to seek decisive battle throughout its history (when as you pointed out they resorted to sieges way more than they fought decisive battles).

Indeed, while it not wrong to say that there are those who glorify battle in every nation and culture, it is also equally wrong to say that the English language world doesn't have a particular obsession with it. It is not the culture whose classic military text espouses the belief that the supreme form of generalship is to not fight at all, nor is it the culture which romanticized the deeds of individual swordsmen operating outside of war.

Instead its most famous military text is the uncomplete work of a German - filled with extremely hazy and "open to interpretation" text in its English-language translations that Cold War "analysts" somehow used as justification to fuel an arms race that could result in nuclear war.

 

[Easy-Kill]

There is a focus on dramatic events but no other language has the same fetishism for "decisive" battle. The country that popularized the "X Decisive Battles of History" concept was Victorian England. This was further reinforced by Hanson's ridiculous (but widely believed and lauded) contention that the West was culturally ingrained to seek decisive battle throughout its history (when as you pointed out they resorted to sieges way more than they fought decisive battles).

What are you going on about? If you were to trace the concept of 'decisive' battle in the English Speaking world you would probably come back to the English Civil War. Reaiding the military works which came out of this concept, you will see that the concept of seige warfare which dominated the 30 years war was supplanted in favour of the decisive field battle, and was one of the concepts that formed the New Model Army. General George Monck (one of England's greatest generals*) writes about it extensively in his book 'Observations of Military and Political Affairs'. That is not to say that siege warfare didn't happen, but it formed a relatively minor part and was a major shift in Eurpean

This is the classical pre-modern military text that formed basis of how the English military transitioned from late medieval to the pre-modern fighting machine that conqured 1/4 of the globe. As for 'better not to fight at all' ... after decades of conflict, George Monck after Cromwell's death conquered the entirety of England without fighting a battle, paving the way for the restoration of Charles II.

If the English world has an obsession with glorifying battle, it is probably because the English speaking world has been winning said battles - specifically the decisive ones - for centuries.

 

[Zinegata]

What are you going on about? If you were to trace the concept of 'decisive' battle in the English Speaking world you would probably come back to the English Civil War.

Easy-Kill, again, stop embarrassing yourself with your pointless posturing. I am talking about historiography. Anyone familiar with historiography would know that I am referring to Creasy's Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World.

Stop pretending you know things by babbling random facts that are not actually being discussed. Heck the stuff you are babbling is hugely inaccurate to begin with.

Reaiding the military works which came out of this concept, you will see that the concept of seige warfare which dominated the 30 years war was supplanted in favour of the decisive field battle, and was one of the concepts that formed the New Model Army. General George Monck (one of England's greatest generals*) writes about it extensively in his book 'Observations of Military and Political Affairs'. That is not to say that siege warfare didn't happen, but it formed a relatively minor part and was a major shift in Eurpean

This is the classical pre-modern military text that formed basis of how the English military transitioned from late medieval to the pre-modern fighting machine that conqured 1/4 of the globe. As for 'better not to fight at all' ... after decades of conflict, George Monck after Cromwell's death conquered the entirety of England without fighting a battle, paving the way for the restoration of Charles II.

If the English world has an obsession with glorifying battle, it is probably because the English speaking world has been winning said battles - specifically the decisive ones - for centuries.

No, you have an obsession with trying to "disprove" me because you're terribly insecure and feel the need to prop it up with stories over men killing one another in large numbers. Battle-fascination moreover is in many ways is merely idolization of mass murder and very reflective of the maturity of your arguments.

That your obsession perennially clouds your judgment is evidenced by your bizarre contention that Monck's New Model Army is what caused the British to conquer the globe.

Firstly, pretty much everyone agrees that the British Empire was held together primarily by the Royal Navy, not the army. The troops would not even be able to get to Ireland without the Navy. And while the Royal Navy did generally win some big battles (and lost a lot of them before Trafalgar) its strategy was primarily that of blockade.

Secondly, Monck's army was disbanded after he switched sides. So how exactly was his no longer existing army conquering the world and winning battles. They did not carry most of the New Model Army's traditions over. And indeed your narrative is arguably a gross attempt to steal credit from the Dutch, who had developed the drill and gunnery tactics that characterize European armies decades before the English Civil War.

Thirdly, Britain's colonial empire was hardly built upon British soldiers winning battles. The Battle of Plassey - which the battle-obsessed love to point as the start of British rule in India - was won by an army mostly composed of Sepoy mercenaries; and where part of the opposing army was bribed to switch sides.

In short, far from disproving my point, you're serving as a perfect example of how English-language history does an absolutely awful job of teaching the truth. It just perpetuates myths and sheltered opinions so as to not shatter the self-image of the perennially insecure.