The Mediaeval English System

[aligern]

Chaps, it might be worth checking out Froissart's  description of the battle of Otterburn.  IIRC that has the English and scots whacking each other with axes.

Roy

[Erpingham]

Chaps, it might be worth checking out Froissart's  description of the battle of Otterburn.  IIRC that has the English and scots whacking each other with axes.

Roy

Two scenes of Froissart from the Battle of Otterburn featuring axes :

"then the earl Douglas, who was of great heart and high of enterprise, seeing his men recule back, then to recover the place and to shew knightly valour he took his axe in both his hands, and entered so into the press that he made himself way in such wise, that none durst approach near him, and he was so well armed that he bare well off such strokes as he received.
Note: 'No man was so well armed that he did not fear the great strokes which he gave.' Thus he went ever forward like a hardy Hector, willing alone to conquer the field and to discomfit his enemies: but at last he was encountered with three spears all at once, the one strake him on the shoulder, the other on the breast and the stroke glinted down to his belly, and the third strake him in the thigh, and sore hurt with all three strokes, so that he was borne perforce to the earth and after that he could not be again relieved. Some of his knights and squires followed him, but not all, for it was night, and no light but by the shining of the moon. The Englishmen knew well they had borne one down to the earth, but they wist not who it was; for if they had known that it had been the earl Douglas, they had been thereof so joyful and so proud that the victory had been theirs. Nor also the Scots knew not of that adventure till the end of the battle; for if they had known it, they should have been so sore despaired and discouraged that they would have fled away. Thus as the earl Douglas was felled to the earth, he was stricken into the head with an axe, and another stroke through the thigh: the Englishmen passed forth and took no heed of him: they thought none otherwise but that they had slain a man of arms."

Note that Douglas is done to death by three Englishmen with spears, then the body is hacked about with axes, showing the English were using both.

"Then sir Matthew (Redman) strake asunder the spear with his sword; and when sir James Lindsay saw how he had lost his spear, he cast away the truncheon and lighted afoot, and took a little battle-axe that he carried at his back and handled it with his one hand quickly and deliverly, in the which feat Scots be well expert, and then he set at sir Matthew and he defended himself properly. Thus they tourneyed together, one with an axe and the other with a sword, a long season, and no man to let them."



This is a pursuit story - Redman is fleeing the battle and is caught by Lindsay.  Note Froissart's comment the Scots were good with battle-axes (as Bruce had shown at Bannockburn).  The Redman/Lindsay tale is a typically interesting anecdote about capturing prisoners in the pursuit, with the twist that, having released Redman on parole, Lindsay joins a group of knights, thinking in the dark they are Scots, but they are English and he is captured in turn.

[Jim Webster]

There is also the difference between
"took his axe in both his hands" and "took a little battle-axe that he carried at his back and handled it with his one hand quickly and deliverly"

It may well be that the French, being more orientated to fight on horseback, might not have found long handled axes/pole axes too easy to carry. Or it may just be that for the English and Scots, a small axe was a ubiquitous secondary weapon

Jim

[Erpingham]

It may well be that the French, being more orientated to fight on horseback, might not have found long handled axes/pole axes too easy to carry. Or it may just be that for the English and Scots, a small axe was a ubiquitous secondary weapon

Jim

You may be right about long axes - that they wouldn't be carried on horseback but with the baggage, so if you don't have access to your baggage, you don't have a long axe.  Note here Douglas is in camp at the beginning of his tale, while in Lindsay's case, he is in mounted pursuit.  But I'm not sure there is a general principle that the English and Scots favoured poleweapons more than the French - plenty of manuscript pictures show French men-at-arms with various polearms. At Roosebeke Froissart makes a point of saying the French men-at-arms fight dismounted with mauls.  Jean II of France makes his last stand at Poitiers axe in hand.  So I'd suggest both sides carried them, probably in increasing numbers in the late 14th/early 15th century.  What does seem to be very French is shortening of lances for foot combat.  The English, Austrians, Italians don't seem to do this - they just use lances as is (though this may be a preparation time thing).

[Jim Webster]

I must admit that in the back of my mind, I have the suspicion that we are a technical people for whom a technological edge in warfare is important, so we worry about these things.

I suspect that the participants in the battles we are discussion could regard our fascination with technology with the same amused contempt as we regard their belief that God gave the battle to the more righteous

Jim

[aligern]

Ancient sources consistently make a point of weapon difference. That might be because it is a matter of curiosity to them, or it might be that they really felt that it made a difference. However, when we get to Byzantine manuals specifically describing how their spears are too flimsy to resist cataphract charges, but need to have a specially equipped group of menaulatoi to hold them off I am inclined to believe. Similarly , when early Byzantine sources say that Roman bows are more powerful and slower than Sasanians bows I am inclined to believe that we are seeing real tactical choice differences.
Similarly the description of Roman versus Celtic or Macedonian fights contain weapon and armour descriptions that are generalities, but none the less true and one suspects that how you use your sword and its design does make a difference.
I think that for Froissart makes a point about tha English and the Scots that they hack hard at each other and keep on hacking with their pole arms. That suggests that the weapon stands both literally and metaphorically for the severity of their combat.
The troops concerned have a choice about their weaponry and, to an extent, indicate how they are going to fight by that choice. By going for axes the English risk more than by using spears which can keep an opponent at a distance, but they become more deadly. Does this stand symbolically for a more aggressive English attitude to the fighting or is it that in reality they made a more aggressive choice.     

Roy

[Patrick Waterson]

What does seem to be very French is shortening of lances for foot combat.  The English, Austrians, Italians don't seem to do this - they just use lances as is (though this may be a preparation time thing).

It may also be a doctrinal thing: one recalls descriptions of the White Company using lances held by two men, the additional esquire or varlet providing the necessary additional muscle-power in the absence of a Hellenistic-style counterweight so that shortening was not required.  To me it reflects an apparent English emphasis on fighting as a unit and a traditional French emphasis on fighting as individuals.

As Froissart's description of Douglas' death at Otterburn suggests, the axe was probably reserved for close quarters, with the lance being the weapon of choice for initial contact.  One imagines Douglas would have survived the lance ('spear') wounds, and the only reason he was subsequently 'axed' was because he was not recognised - a Douglas ransom (assuming quarter was an option in this fight) was one of the greatest prizes an English borderer of any rank could hope for.

Patrick

[Erpingham]

One imagines Douglas would have survived the lance ('spear') wounds, and the only reason he was subsequently 'axed' was because he was not recognised - a Douglas ransom (assuming quarter was an option in this fight) was one of the greatest prizes an English borderer of any rank could hope for.

Patrick

I'd think you are right here, although it is just possible that he fell at the wrong moment in the fight - there was a time for prisoner taking and a time for making sure a man stayed down.  Prisoner taking was pretty standard in Anglo-Scottish fights, at least among the gentry.  Sir Thomas Gray wrote his chronicle while a prisoner in Scotland, and his father had also been a prisoner post Bannockburn.  No quarter at Verneuil was an exception.

[Patrick Waterson]

As also illustrated by the Redman-Lindsay incident previously quoted. 

In terms of relative capabilities of the English and French systems, it is instructive to compare the fight at the cliffs of St Andress (1416) with the battle of Formigny in 1450.

http://www.longbow-archers.com/historyformigny.html

Formigny saw an English force successively take on two French forces of roughly comparable size, but Sir Thomas Kyriell found that, having engaged and beaten the first force (Clermont's) and turned to deal with the second (Richemont), Clermont's force managed to rally and re-enter the fray, giving the French the field, the day and before long the whole of Normandy.  The increase in quality and discipline as a result of creating an ordonnance army apparently had a considerable effect on French capabilities: the ability of Clermont's defeated force to rally as Richemont's men were preparing to engage seems to have been crucial in deciding this engagement.  In the good old days, once a French army started retreating it continued retreating.  Not so at Formigny.

One suspects that Talbot (the Earl of Shrewsbury) would not have been so hesitant in the same situation, but would have gone on to finish off Clermont before Richemont could deploy.  It is perhaps interesting to speculate what might have occurred at Formigny and Castillon (1453) had the English commanders been exchanged, with the more forceful Talbot going to Normandy in 1450 and the less enterprising Kyriell going to Gascony in 1452-3.

Patrick

[Erpingham]

One suspects that Talbot (the Earl of Shrewsbury) would not have been so hesitant in the same situation, but would have gone on to finish off Clermont before Richemont could deploy.  It is perhaps interesting to speculate what might have occurred at Formigny and Castillon (1453) had the English commanders been exchanged, with the more forceful Talbot going to Normandy in 1450 and the less enterprising Kyriell going to Gascony in 1452-3.

Patrick

Talbot may not have done much better at Formingny - he didn't have much of a record in set battles.  That said, the French may have approached the fight differently knowing Talbot was in command. Kyriell would probably have avoided disaster at Castillion but I doubt he could have won the campaign - with France able to concentrate her resources against Gascony and England was scrabbling around to put an army together it was only a matter of time.  Even if Talbot had won at Castillion I doubt it would have been decisive, as the internal conflicts in England would have undermined any major strategic initiative and the French would have only suffered a bloody nose, not a knock out blow.

[Patrick Waterson]

That makes eminent sense: given Henry VI on the throne and all that this meant in terms of the Earl of Suffolk throwing away England's possessions and military potential, plus the subsequent coalescence of powerful opposing factions which later undertook the Wars of the Roses, it is hard to see any outcome other than a gradual or not so gradual losing war in France.

Curiously enough, Talbot probably would have been leading at Formigny had not Somerset surrendered Rouen in 1449 just after Talbot had thrown the French out of that town - part of Somerset's surrender 'deal' was that Talbot became a hostage, so was unavailable in 1450.  He does seem to have been held in some dread by the French, especially during and after his campaign of 1441, when he relieved Pontoise and chased a much larger French army (commanded by the King, whom Talbot very nearly caught at Poissy) back to the gates of Paris.

The aftermath of Talbot's brilliant 1441 campaign says much about the way things were going: following Talbot's spectacular relief of Pontoise, Jean Bureau's guns got back to work and soon afterwards the town fell to the French.  Bureau's artillery train changed the equation of how long fortified places could hold out and hence how long the English had to prepare a relieving army.  Cannon were also starting to appear on the battlefield, and would feature significantly at Formigny and particularly Castillon.  While not necessarily decisive, they did have a 'galling' effect on opponents (making them want to charge rather than endure bombardment), hitherto seemingly the sole province of English longbowmen.

One suspects that in the circumstances of the late 1440s the quality and discipline of English troops had also suffered a decline: Kyriell's troops seem to have caused disturbances prior to embarkation from England, which does not seem usual, or at least they caused disturbances on a scale sufficiently unusual for chroniclers to remark upon.  We thus see a likely decline in the quality of English troops at the same time as a very considerable improvement in the quality of French troops.

Still, it was nice while the superiority of the English system lasted.