Archers v. artillery

[Erpingham]

One or both parties isn't telling the truth... But it does show the risk of accepting medieval figures, even from well-connected eye witnesses, at face value.

This is cool Anthony. I don't know this encounter at all, but when we get two eye-witness literary accounts that obviously conflict, it makes you wonder how often our single literary sources are (unbeknownst to us) giving us similar fiction.

It's a battle which isn't well covered in a modern critical way in English.  Paul Murray Kendall produces an excellently vivid version in his biography of Louis XI (very pro-French) but it is a narrative, not an analysis of sources, geography, contemporary parallel etc etc we might like. 

It's a good one to reflect on sources.  There are at least five eye witness accounts, at least four from people who fought.  Some are immediate. like the letter quoted, while others are from later reflections.  They have their biases as they were on different sides.  Commines account (probably the best known in English) is interesting because he wrote it many years later, long after he left Burgundian employ for the French court.  So you expect a degree of balance.  Yet he still very much identifies with the Burgundian army, albeit rather critically.  Haynin's account is one I'd like to read but its only available in French.  He fought with the Burgundian van and is the one giving the details about the guns.  Haynin gives lots of incidental military detail but I've only found isolated anecdotes thus far in English.  It is out there on the internet, so when I have time, I shall pit my schoolboy French against it

well on Ancmed we had the discussion about whether the battle of Zama actually happened.

Still continuing for late commers and has settled down into a more civilised debate.

[Andreas Johansson]

It's a battle which isn't well covered in a modern critical way in English.  Paul Murray Kendall produces an excellently vivid version in his biography of Louis XI (very pro-French) but it is a narrative, not an analysis of sources, geography, contemporary parallel etc etc we might like. 

In a footnote, Smith & De Vries characterize Kendall's version as "rather fanciful". Still, it is good reading.

[Erpingham]

It's a battle which isn't well covered in a modern critical way in English.  Paul Murray Kendall produces an excellently vivid version in his biography of Louis XI (very pro-French) but it is a narrative, not an analysis of sources, geography, contemporary parallel etc etc we might like. 

In a footnote, Smith & De Vries characterize Kendall's version as "rather fanciful". Still, it is good reading.

Yes, Oman or Delbruck it ain't Filled with incidental detail (like livery colours and badges).  But technical deficiencies limit it (like being unclear when he is quoting or paraphrasing or interpretting his sources, lack of cited footnotes or inline citation).

[Dangun]

It's a good one to reflect on sources.  There are at least five eye witness accounts, at least four from people who fought.  Some are immediate. like the letter quoted, while others are from later reflections.  They have their biases as they were on different sides.

Agreed.

Tangentially related, but in a similar vein, I was tossing up as to whether to write a short note for Slingshot on the four sources for the sack of Chang'an. But they might not conflict enough to be interesting.

[Erpingham]

Well, I've managed to track down versions of Jean de Haynin's account and also Jean-Pierre Panigarola (who wrote two letters about the battle). 

Other than a continued disparity in numbers of losses (combining Panigarola's two narratives, he thought the Burgundians had lost 4,000-5,000 men, including 1600 dead, while the French had lost 200 dead) and a very confused set of activities (it is really hard to make a coherent narrative from the accounts, let alone determine any kind of plan), there is little to report on artillery and archers.  However, it seems attributing all the casualties where the guns were to the guns is to exaggerate their effect.  Archers caused a lot and waves of hand to hand fighting added others.  Panigarola mentions the archers killed a lot of the horses, for example.

[Patrick Waterson]

Tangentially related, but in a similar vein, I was tossing up as to whether to write a short note for Slingshot on the four sources for the sack of Chang'an. But they might not conflict enough to be interesting.

The actual sack and events leading up to it and following it might be, though - and having four sources in reasonable agreement on at least some points while differing in others should make the analysis part interesting.

However, it seems attributing all the casualties where the guns were to the guns is to exaggerate their effect.  Archers caused a lot and waves of hand to hand fighting added others.  Panigarola mentions the archers killed a lot of the horses, for example.

Yes, good points.  One wonders whether anyone Burgundian was hoping to instil a fear of guns in potential opponents, which might (if it had worked) have had the effect of making opponents reluctant to close with gun positions in future, at least from the front.

[Erpingham]

One wonders whether anyone Burgundian was hoping to instil a fear of guns in potential opponents, which might (if it had worked) have had the effect of making opponents reluctant to close with gun positions in future, at least from the front.

As the letter was back to the Burgundian court, it was more likely it was to demonstrate all this expensive new technology was worth the investment

If we look at the career of Charles the Bold, he seems to have concluded massed artillery was a useful tactic, as he regularly uses massed guns hereafter.

[Duncan Head]

Tangentially related, but in a similar vein, I was tossing up as to whether to write a short note for Slingshot on the four sources for the sack of Chang'an. But they might not conflict enough to be interesting.

The 763 sack by the Tibetans, the 880 sack by Huang Zhao, or some other one I've missed?

Either way, I for one would be delighted to read such a note.