Clifford Rogers on Poitiers

[Erpingham]

Clifford Rogers reconstruction of Poitiers

Poitiers is an interesting battle in that we know a lot about it but even basic reconstructions differ widely because key elements like positioning of forces is vague.  It is therefore pretty essential to have a map, which this article doesn't have
Rogers has placed the English position facing north.  The Princes division is on the left of the other divisions, with the van in the centre and the rearguard on the right.  I'll confess it doesn't really work for me, but interesting to see the take of one of the foremost HYW experts.

[Patrick Waterson]

Interesting obiter dictu detail snippets, e.g.

It took only a very short time for Salisbury's archers to rout Clermont's horsemen: one chronicler of the campaign notes that English longbowmen could usually discern the impending defeat of an enemy by the time they had loosed six shafts, which they could do in a single minute.

This gives the potential rule-writer a timing/action/result benchmark for the effects of longbow archery.

I agree the repositioning of the Prince's division (bataille) looks a bit odd.  There does not seem to be any obvious reason for it.

[Erpingham]

Interesting obiter dictu detail snippets, e.g.

It took only a very short time for Salisbury's archers to rout Clermont's horsemen: one chronicler of the campaign notes that English longbowmen could usually discern the impending defeat of an enemy by the time they had loosed six shafts, which they could do in a single minute.

This gives the potential rule-writer a timing/action/result benchmark for the effects of longbow archery.

It's from the Eulogium Historiarum, written in the late 1360s in Malmesbury.  No online translation but here's the Latin, as I seem to be the only one who can't read it :

In antique tempore ad tertiura vel quartum
vel ultimo ad sextum tractum unius sagittae homines
scirent continuo quae pars triumpliaret, sed ibi unus
sagittarius c. emisit cum providentia et adhuc neutra
pars cessit alteri ; non est auditum in bellis nec in
gestis quod aliqua pugna tam diu perseverabat.

The single minute bit has been added.  The writers intention is to show this battle was closely fought and could have gone either way.  I don't think we should take the archers shooting 100 arrows literally.

[Patrick Waterson]

Thanks, Anthony.

He seems to be saying that in olden times men shot three, then four, then ultimately six arrows 'tractum unius', which may be where the one minute comes from.  My familiarity with mediaeval Latin is tangential, so I am not sure exactly what they did with number and case, which seem odd by classical Latin standards.

[Duncan Head]

In antique tempore ad tertiura vel quartum
vel ultimo ad sextum tractum unius sagittae homines
scirent continuo quae pars triumpliaret, sed ibi unus
sagittarius c. emisit cum providentia et adhuc neutra
pars cessit alteri ; non est auditum in bellis nec in
gestis quod aliqua pugna tam diu perseverabat.

Something like:
"In the old days they would know at the third or fourth, or at most the sixth, shot of an arrow which side would be victorious; but here an archer discharged 100 arrows with care and yet neither side yielded to the other; it is  unheard of in war or in gestes that any fight lasted so long."

Not quite sure about the meaning here of "cum providentia"; mediaeval meanings include forethought and preparation (according to DMLBS at http://logeion.uchicago.edu/index.html#providentia) so I assume it may mean something like "with care" - 100 aimed shafts?

The "minute" I presume is added from separate data on the archers' rate of fire.

[Patrick Waterson]

Thanks, Duncan: so the emphasis is that an action would normally be going one way after a few volleys, half a dozen at most, but here it seems the battle was still undecided after 100 shots (or volleys), delivered with aim, care and/or proper procedure and hence effective or supposedly so.

Whether this is as Anthony suggests a figurative number or whether it amounts to the 'basic load' the army carried for each archer, it suggests a lot of arrow work, even if at a 'cyclic rate of fire' these could all have been delivered in 15 minutes or less.  Cyclic rates rarely carry over into battlefield conditions.

The "minute" I presume is added from separate data on the archers' rate of fire.

I think you and Anthony are right about this.

[Justin Swanton]

In antique tempore ad tertiura vel quartum
vel ultimo ad sextum tractum unius sagittae homines
scirent continuo quae pars triumpliaret, sed ibi unus
sagittarius c. emisit cum providentia et adhuc neutra
pars cessit alteri ; non est auditum in bellis nec in
gestis quod aliqua pugna tam diu perseverabat.

Something like:
"In the old days they would know at the third or fourth, or at most the sixth, shot of an arrow which side would be victorious; but here an archer discharged 100 arrows with care and yet neither side yielded to the other; it is  unheard of in war or in gestes that any fight lasted so long."

Not quite sure about the meaning here of "cum providentia"; mediaeval meanings include forethought and preparation (according to DMLBS at http://logeion.uchicago.edu/index.html#providentia) so I assume it may mean something like "with care" - 100 aimed shafts?

The "minute" I presume is added from separate data on the archers' rate of fire.

Perhaps a little more precisely:

"In the old days they would know at the third or fourth, or at most the sixth, arrow shot by one [archer], which side would be victorious; but here an archer discharged 100 arrows with care and yet neither side yielded to the other; it is unheard of in war or in any recorded deeds that any fight lasted so long."

[Erpingham]

Thanks, Duncan: so the emphasis is that an action would normally be going one way after a few volleys, half a dozen at most, but here it seems the battle was still undecided after 100 shots (or volleys), delivered with aim, care and/or proper procedure and hence effective or supposedly so.

I think so.  It is, I think, very English to look at a battle in terms of arrow use.  We might idly wonder who has told our monkish chronicler this and whether this was a common professional viewpoint.

Whether this is as Anthony suggests a figurative number or whether it amounts to the 'basic load' the army carried for each archer, it suggests a lot of arrow work, even if at a 'cyclic rate of fire' these could all have been delivered in 15 minutes or less.  Cyclic rates rarely carry over into battlefield conditions.

Although 100 arrows per man was recorded in some campaigns (or, more precisely, four sheaves of 24) the archers on this expedition may have had less.  The Black prince had ordered 2000 sheaves from England to top up his stocks but we also know that he had trouble gaining archery supplies.  Although Poitiers turns out to be one of the "Big Four" battles of the HYW, the campaign was not the only, or even main, campaign planned for the year.  Henry of Grosmont was in action in Normandy and Edward III planned a major campaign (probably from Calais).  The royal expedition had supply priority.

We know from the battle itself the English ran short of arrows and were reduced to scavenging them from dead bodies, though this may have been a common practice.  It is also the only battle I'm aware of where a divisional commander (Suffolk) tells his archers not to waste arrows from the early stages. 

[Andreas Johansson]

the "Big Four" battles of the HYW

Just out of curiosity, which would you count as those? Crécy, Poitiers, and Agincourt surely, but which would be the fourth? Sluys? Verneuil? Formigny?

[Erpingham]

the "Big Four" battles of the HYW

Just out of curiosity, which would you count as those? Crécy, Poitiers, and Agincourt surely, but which would be the fourth? Sluys? Verneuil? Formigny?

Verneuil is usually the fourth one.  Sluys as a naval battle doesn't seem to get the same attention, but then large medieval naval battles are a bit dull tactically.  The English lost Formingny, so English historians have been reluctant to see that as a great battle   Actually, I'd love to see a good critical study of Formingny.

[Andreas Johansson]

Actually, I'd love to see a good critical study of Formingny.

Me too. English-language scholarship on the battle appears to be exiguous, and the short accounts of it I've read in various places are disturbingly discordant.

[Patrick Waterson]

Formigny was also quite a small battle, only a few thousand per side and no kings or princes.  The English actually started quite well and had the first French army more or less defeated when the second one turned up and matters went the other way.

[DougM]

Actually, I'd love to see a good critical study of Formingny.

Me too. English-language scholarship on the battle appears to be exiguous, and the short accounts of it I've read in various places are disturbingly discordant.

Funny that. Baugé also seems to get omitted from many of the English language accounts of the conflict.

[Patrick Waterson]

It tends to be a little overshadowed by Verneuil.

[DougM]

Defensive much?