A new location for Crecy?

[Nick Harbud]

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

I saw a documentary some years ago where investigatirs had used metal detectors to establish the position of the opposing sides at Towton from the remains of arrowheads in the ground.  Has any similar investigation been undertaken at any of the putative Crecy sites?

[Erpingham]

There has been some research at the traditional site, which has delivered very little material.  Some of this has been put down to the fact that the original land surface has in parts been buried (by waste from a sugar beet factory).  The absence is, however, quite noticeable.  But then, there is virtually nothing from the traditional sites of Agincourt or Hastings either.  The amount of debris on a pre-gunpowder battlefield is hard to be sure of.  For example, there have been quite extensive excavations on the known battlefield of Aljubarrotta but little debris.  Others reveal a lot more.  Some of this may relate to how well the site was picked over after the battle, which in turn could have all sorts of factors involved (e.g. state of the ground - muddy, heavy vegetation etc etc)

[Jim Webster]

remember these people were used to preserving food

But on top of what could be got away and saved for eating, I'm pretty sure the wildlife would soon mop up the rest of it.
I've seen a 40kg lamb eaten (mainly) by one buzzard over about a week
Admittedly when it tried to get airborne it was a source of embarrassment to itself and to onlookers but it certainly put the meat away :-)

My guess is that a couple of weeks later there'd be nothing much left other than scattered bones. (Bones scattered over a couple of mile radius, it's ridiculous the distance foxes and others will drag bits of carcass! )

[aligern]

Apparently the big difference is made by the nature of the soil which,mf acid, is going to devour bone, clothing, leather, wood and iron.

[Erpingham]

Just to note the new publication date is 30th. November.

[Erpingham]

I finally got the book and have read the article.  I think my overall impression is that, although the author points up weaknesses in the traditional site, he doesn't fully convince in his argument for the new one.  Most sources that express an opinion do place the battle near or "next to" Crecy.  He interprets many of these to mean the forest of Crecy - a vast expanse of woodland, not the town.  Some of his place of his arguments are quite tenuous. One of the few topographical references, to a place called Westglise, is usually interpreted as Watglise, just north of the traditional battlefield.  Livingstone instead says it is a misunderstanding of the phrase "ouest de l'eglise" and the new battlefield is west of a church!  (actually a priory).  There is a lovely circular argument based on the identification of Labroie, which is usually considered to be Labroye, north of the traditional battlefield.  The author says this should be read as Labraie "the marsh".  There are lots of marshes but it could apply to Sailly-Bray.  If the English army was marching from Sailly-Bray it couldn't reach the traditional battlefield in time for the battle, so therefore the traditional battlefield is wrong.  A lot of his arguments seem to be of "it can be made to fit, therefore it proves" variety.  The field name evidence was discussed in the earlier discussion.  Probably best of these is the identification of the "Mont de Crecy" in a road name.  This is usually identified as a hill near Crecy, so it could be of interest.  Yes, it is an interesting co-incidence that a field is called La Herse but only one mention of a "herse" is made in our sources and this is to "in the manner of" a herse, not to a position.

Looking at the position, Livingstone makes a good point that the French would suddenly come upon the English when marching up the road (if the woods were in the same place).  But if the traditional battlefield is tough for cavalry, the new one is suicidal.  A ninefoot deep ditch runs across the front of the position (I'd guess either a prehistoric earthwork or perhaps a forest boundary - certainly not a field defence).  Wouldn't our sources have made much of this, with the French cavalry having to cross it to get at the English men-at-arms?  The only mention of ditches in the sources is the wagon laager tradition mentions ditches dug to reinforce points in the lager round the back of the army.

There are no reports of grave pits (but then, there are no confirmed ones on the traditional site) and no archaeological finds (ditto on the traditional site)  Finally, as this is getting a bit long, there is is no windmill anywhere near (even if we rejected the traditional one, there were several more around Crecy).

So, I think the new site is worth a metal detector survey, a bit of archaeological fieldwork (what is that ditch and when was it there) and some historical geography (was there a gap in the forest edge there in the middle ages or is it a bit of later clearance?).  Let's await developments.

[Patrick Waterson]

So, I think the new site is worth a metal detector survey, a bit of archaeological fieldwork (what is that ditch and when was it there) and some historical geography (was there a gap in the forest edge there in the middle ages or is it a bit of later clearance?).  Let's await developments.

It does sound as if it will need all the help it can get.