A new location for Crecy?

[Erpingham]

As reported here :

http://www.medievalists.net/2015/09/29/new-location-for-the-battle-of-crecy-discovered/

There has been some doubt about the whether the traditional location of Crecy is right so here is a new hypothesis.  I think I'll reserve judgement until I've read the full argument but immediately found myself hoping that some degree of archaeological investigation backs this up.

The book containing the evidence looks good, but at £75 it may have to wait while I save up

[Duncan Head]

Did you miss that the £25 paperback is out as well? See http://liverpooluniversitypress.co.uk/products/59853

[Erpingham]

I could swear when I checked Amazon, the paperback wasn't available.  Must take more care.  However, £25 is more in my league

[Patrick Waterson]

Lt Col AH Burne mentions burial pits associated with the traditional site (and, perhaps closer to his heart, period cannonballs found there).  It will be interesting to see how the Livingston/De Vries casebook treats these.

I could swear when I checked Amazon, the paperback wasn't available.

It was not.  Looking at the publication date of the paperback shows why. 

[Erpingham]

  It will be interesting to see how the Livingston/De Vries casebook treats these.

Yes, I already have a shed load of questions but the archaeology is critical.  The current site is bafflingly short of archaeological evidence and is one of its weaknesses, so a better site does need to display more evidence in that regard, as well as meeting needs like the presence of a windmill on the hill and more on the nature of the "massive" ditch, both of which an archaeological survey could reveal

[Duncan Head]

I could swear when I checked Amazon, the paperback wasn't available.

It was not.  Looking at the publication date of the paperback shows why. 

Huh??
30 Sept 2015, the same as the hardback.

[Patrick Waterson]

Yes, I already have a shed load of questions but the archaeology is critical.  The current site is bafflingly short of archaeological evidence and is one of its weaknesses, so a better site does need to display more evidence in that regard, as well as meeting needs like the presence of a windmill on the hill and more on the nature of the "massive" ditch, both of which an archaeological survey could reveal

Apparently, so Lt. Col. Burne tells us, the windmill on the traditional site was demolished by a 'patriotic' Frenchman in revenge for France's diplomatic climbdown over Fashoda.  One wonders what earlier 'patriotic' Frenchmen may have done.

That said, if the new site can come up with the archaeological goods it would pretty much seal the deal.  Otherwise we shall be left pondering possible stretches in interpretation of the new evidence.

I would suggest a two-stage exercise, first looking for what pointers in the sources click for the traditional site, and then doing the same for the new one.  Putting all the source information together should reveal a pattern, and this pattern should suit one site better than the other.  (This is of course easy for someone who does not have to do the hard work of comparison to say ... )

I could swear when I checked Amazon, the paperback wasn't available.

It was not.  Looking at the publication date of the paperback shows why. 

Huh??
30 Sept 2015, the same as the hardback.

Call me Mr Cynic, but is Amazon going to announce the paperback before they have milked the hardback market for at least a month?

[Erpingham]

Apparently, so Lt. Col. Burne tells us, the windmill on the traditional site was demolished by a 'patriotic' Frenchman in revenge for France's diplomatic climbdown over Fashoda.  One wonders what earlier 'patriotic' Frenchmen may have done.

I doubt the demolished mill was the original on the site either, so the historical damage done was none too serious even if the traditional site prevails   What we would be looking for is the foundation for a post mill on the new hill I reckon.  This would not be conclusive (Ayton and Preston note several windmills or foundations around the traditional site, so its possible there are plenty more about) but it would be a good start.

[Patrick Waterson]

Another item would be the burial pits; Burne mentions that "... of the grave-pits dug after the battle, two were still visible in 1844, one on the spot now occupied by the beet factory and the other high up the Vallee aux Clercs where a slight ravine strikes north to Wadicourt."

So we are looking for a windmill with a view, or at least its period-relevant foundations (which essentially means earlier than 1346 as opposed to later than 1346) plus burial pits from the battle (as opposed to the Black Death) plus terrain which makes sense in the context of the battle.

Apparently, so Lt. Col. Burne tells us, the windmill on the traditional site was demolished by a 'patriotic' Frenchman in revenge for France's diplomatic climbdown over Fashoda.  One wonders what earlier 'patriotic' Frenchmen may have done.

I doubt the demolished mill was the original on the site either, so the historical damage done was none too serious even if the traditional site prevails

True, it would presumably have been rebuilt at least once: a quick internet search suggests that the working life of a windmill is about 150 years.  One wonders what the then-current owner thought of the 'patriotic impulse' ...

[Jim Webster]

I'm intrigued by the burial pits.
Just how far did you drag bodies after a battle?

I'd guess that it's probably easier to drag bodies than it is to dig the hole, so you'd go for perhaps the nearest patch of suitable ground and drag the  bodies to that.
After all, you've plenty of horses, tie a rope around half a dozen dead men and the horse could pull them.
Wonder if there was more solemnity with 'ours' as opposed to 'theirs' or whether they tipped the commoners in the same pits

Jim

[Patrick Waterson]

I'm intrigued by the burial pits.
Just how far did you drag bodies after a battle?

I suspect perhaps a bit less than the three-and-a-bit miles between the traditional Crecy site and the new proposed one.

I'd guess that it's probably easier to drag bodies than it is to dig the hole, so you'd go for perhaps the nearest patch of suitable ground and drag the  bodies to that.
After all, you've plenty of horses, tie a rope around half a dozen dead men and the horse could pull them.
Wonder if there was more solemnity with 'ours' as opposed to 'theirs' or whether they tipped the commoners in the same pits

The proximity of the 'Vallee aux Clercs" to the traditional battlefield tempts one to think that at least an official count of the bodies was taken and recorded, probably with a quick check of belts, pockets, etc. as one would not wish them to take unrighteous mammon into the next life , and then the locals were summoned with pick, spade, horse and wagon and told to get on with it.  The pits would presumably be blessed as consecrated ground prior to digging them out or at least before filling them in.

This assumes that the name 'Vallee aux Clercs" dates from around the time of the battle and was not a later - or earlier - attribution.

Conjecturing here, but the few fallen English would perhaps have received separate burial courtesy of their own priests and army: they were a) the winners, b) practically professional soldiers and c) free yeomen, who were apparently more valued than the French commoners.  I am not sure if any sources deal with this aspect, but Englishmen tended to wish to be buried at home if at all possible, and Edward III was a not ungenerous master who might have happily borne the cost of sending the remains, or at least the bones, home.

[Erpingham]

One obvious points are that we don't know the vallee aux clercs gets its name from the battle - it is supposition.  In the same way the new map claims Jarden de Geneve must connect it to Genoese crossbowmen.  While Genevois may be French for Genoese, Geneve is Geneva and is also a girls name, so there are alternatives.

On burying the dead, I suspect a more respectful approach than dragging them several miles roped to a horse.  There are pictures of collecting the battlefield dead and they involve carts or large sacks, presumably of canvas (though canvas wasn't common inland, so getting enough  must have been hard).  Common burial pits were usually dug by local labour and burials supervised by the local clergy.  More important persons might be collected for individual burial, middling persons for group burial in a local church or abbey burial ground.  While the former might be transported some distance (being boiled or embalmed first), the massed dead would be buried very locally simply for practical reasons (speed is of the essense especially in hot weather and you can't tie up your labour and all the local carts and horses for too long).  So, the burial pits at the traditional site are unlikely to connect to a battle at the new site.  But then, we aren't certain they are war graves rather than plague pits.

Another thing that the traditional site has is a suggested area where the horses were buried - the locals had to dispose of probably 1500 dead horses.  Jim can no doubt comment about how easy it is to get horses to drag horse carcasses about.

[Jim Webster]

1500 dead horses?

Bleed what could be bled, frantically dash round looking for salt, smoke what you didn't have salt for, and make a lot of spiced sausage from those which weren't bled properly?


I suspect the army left holding the battlefield would have made big inroads into the dead horse situation

Jim

[Erpingham]

I suspect the army left holding the battlefield would have made big inroads into the dead horse situation

I thought about this and doubtless horse steak featured a lot on the menu (provided it was not a fast day).  But that is a huge number of horses to eat and the date is August - you'll soon lose the use of it.  It is possible that the carcasses were burned - the religious qualms about burning humans didn't apply - so something like Foot and Mouth with great big horse pyres?  Or dig more pits and throw rotting horses in?

[Patrick Waterson]

I suspect the local dogs, swine, etc. plus the usual ravens and wolves would not be too particular about helping themselves to whatever equine parts the humans had left behind.  I do not recall any battle burials (cf. Visby) involving horses, so perhaps Jim's thinking has some basis.

I thought about this and doubtless horse steak featured a lot on the menu (provided it was not a fast day).

Along with horse soup, horse d'oeuvres, horse stew and maybe a weak beer about which it is best not to speculate.  There was a traditional saying in English to denote serious hunger, to wit: "I could eat a horse!"