Agincourt and the use of Stakes

[T13A]

Hi

Do we know if the English archers emplaced their stakes in the first position they took up on the day of the battle? I mean actually dug them into the ground. If they did, then they obviously had to dig them out again before moving forward and re-emplacing them, presumably re-sharpening the pointy bits and all within extreme longbow range of the French.

The reason I am asking is that in my current favourite set of rules, stakes can only be emplaced once.

Now I had assumed that when the English took up their first position, they did indeed emplace their stakes but on checking the three or four books I have on Agincourt they do not specifically mention the stakes being emplaced in the first position taken up.

And while on the subject does anyone know of any other instances in battles in the Hundred Years War where archers emplaced their stakes more than once?

Grateful for any help.

Cheers Paul

[Duncan Head]

We had a debate on Agincourt, movement, and stakes on the dbmmlist a decade or more ago, and my only clear memory is that one of the chronicle sources for the battle said that the English pulled up the stakes and moved them; and one source said that they were left behind in the original position. So, IIRC, the primary sources disagree on what happened.

Ah, here we go: a quote from Anne Curry (Agincourt: A New History, p. 204):

It is interesting, however, that the stakes are mentioned in relatively few accounts. ... Thus Titus Livius has the archers take up their stakes when they move towards the enemy. In his account, however, he has it that all of the English had initially fixed stakes in the ground as a shield against the advancing cavalry. The Pseudo-Elmham says rather that the archers left behind their stakes at the advance.

My own speculative synthesis at the time was that all the archers planted stakes in the first position, but by the time of the advance they knew that the only French cavalry were on the wings. So the archers on the wings pulled up and subsequently re-emplaced their stakes, but those in the centre didn't bother. Purely speculative, as I say.

[Erpingham]

Welcome to the world of Agincourt controversy

I'm on a train at the moment to no chance to check the sources but several sources say they did emplace stakes, then uproot them and re-emplace them.  Others only mention in one position or the other.

There has been considerable doubt cast be some authors on whether, once the stakes were in position, the English would be able to pull them up and reposition them.

Logically though, the stakes were needed for the English plan to work.  So they had to position them in the first position if they intended to fight there.  Likewise in the second position.  The preparation to move took some time.  Henry ordered his baggage to close on the rear of the English line -  a manoueuver not fully completed but signalling preparation time before the move.  The English advance was not fast - it had a pause to keep the line in order.  Having arrived in position, most of the archers could have been put on stake duty and a screen pushed out and down the flanking woods to harass the French, falling back when they showed signs of life.

[Patrick Waterson]

I suppose the question arises from some bright spark imagining that once a stake is in the ground, it is too firmly fixed to remove, and/or that putting stakes in is easier than getting them out.  In my experience with fence-posts, the opposite is true: unless they have settled in for years, more effort is needed to fix them in the ground than to remove them (a few blows with a hammer and a good wiggle generally persuades them out).  Whether this transfers to stakes emplaced on the battlefield I do not know, but suspect this may be the case.

As Anthony points out, at Agincourt stakes were an essential part of the English archers' system, and leaving them behind would not be a decision taken lightly, if at all.  Duncan's idea that the wings moved up (along with their stakes) and the centre did not has a certain appeal.

[aligern]

Isn't it muddy ground? It would make sense for the English to choose a field where stakes could easily be emplaced. As Patrick says disemplacing a fence post is quite easy,nso there would be only a small extra effort required to remove, replace and re sharpen them. Part of the power of a stake is that the enemy impacts the sharp end and thus pushes the stake down and back, so tge fixing into the ground does not have to be rock solid for it to work.
Roy

[Jim Webster]

Isn't it muddy ground? It would make sense for the English to choose a field where stakes could easily be emplaced. As Patrick says disemplacing a fence post is quite easy,nso there would be only a small extra effort required to remove, replace and re sharpen them. Part of the power of a stake is that the enemy impacts the sharp end and thus pushes the stake down and back, so tge fixing into the ground does not have to be rock solid for it to work.
Roy

As somebody who has put in many many fenceposts, rock solid ground is not to be recommended. You'll not get the post so well seated
If the ground is soft enough to walk on without sinking in too much, it'll still put up more resistance to the stake than the horse's chest will

[nikgaukroger]

As somebody who has put in many many fenceposts, rock solid ground is not to be recommended. You'll not get the post so well seated

A problem the English found at one battle IIRC.

[Erpingham]

As somebody who has put in many many fenceposts, rock solid ground is not to be recommended. You'll not get the post so well seated

A problem the English found at one battle IIRC.

Supposedly, the ground was too hard at the battle of Verneuil after a dry spell.  Not sure this is based on actual evidence or a speculation why the French cavalry weren't detered by the stakes, though.

Back at Agincourt, the ground was wet - it had been raining for days.  We know that the area in which the battle was fought had been recently ploughed, though it is speculated (based on the ease with which the English traversed it) that the ground around and in front of the initial English position had not been.

[Patrick Waterson]

Diverting slightly to the mechanics of banging in stakes, do we know whether English longbowmen's stakes were essentially smooth cylinders with sharpened ends, so that planting them in the ground required hammer blows which would blunt the upward end, or were stubs of branches left on each side so that the stakes could be hammered in without spoiling the point?

[Jim Webster]

Diverting slightly to the mechanics of banging in stakes, do we know whether English longbowmen's stakes were essentially smooth cylinders with sharpened ends, so that planting them in the ground required hammer blows which would blunt the upward end, or were stubs of branches left on each side so that the stakes could be hammered in without spoiling the point?

I've seen it assumed that the stake had a blunt upper end which was then sharpened once it was hammered in
Moving it would mean you'd end up having to resharpen but in soft ground it wouldn't be too much of a problem

Jim

[Erpingham]

Diverting slightly to the mechanics of banging in stakes, do we know whether English longbowmen's stakes were essentially smooth cylinders with sharpened ends, so that planting them in the ground required hammer blows which would blunt the upward end, or were stubs of branches left on each side so that the stakes could be hammered in without spoiling the point?

It's assumed they were plain poles, as they had to be carried by the archers.  Certainly, later ones were plain poles. 

[Agrippa]

Is it possible that a supply of stakes, exceeding the number of archers, was actually carried in the baggage?

[Erpingham]

Is it possible that a supply of stakes, exceeding the number of archers, was actually carried in the baggage?

Here is the original report, as given in the Gesta Henrici Quinti

...therefore the king gave orders that
each archer should provide himself
with a pole or staff, six feet in length
of sufficient thickness, and sharpened
at each end; directing that whenever
the French should approach to battle
with troops of horse of that sort, each
archer should fix his pole before him
in front and those who were behind
other poles intermediately; one end
being fixed in the ground before
them, the other sloping towards the
enemy higher than a man's waist from
the ground.


The implication is one stake per archer and they carried them with them.  Note "pole or staff" - these were not necessarily as thick as fence posts (indeed, the famous image of Burgundian archers with stakes shows them as quite weedy).

Stakes may have gone in the baggage on later occassions but the baggage train at Agincourt was deliberately stripped back for what was supposed to be a quick dash to Calais.

Incidentally, while chasing the quote, I found this, which is a nice little overview.

[Patrick Waterson]

And in the overview is a picture which shows that getting the stakes in really needs a uniform technique, while sharpening them after insertion appears to be challenging, at least for re-enactors.

The Gesta Henrici Quinti quote (well hunted, Anthony) does confirm that the stakes (at least in this case) were sharpened at both ends before use.  I wonder if using a wooden mallet to drive them into the ground - especially one with a head of a softer wood than the stakes themselves - would have helped to preserve the points.

[T13A]

Hi

Very many thanks for all the thoughtful comments above. With your help I have managed to convince the author of the rules to make stakes movable in the next edition of the rules (To the Strongest!).

Cheers Paul