Formingny formation

[Erpingham]

As a spin-off from our conversations on the question of artillery and archers, I ended up reading more about the battle of Formingny. 

Robert Blondel, who gives us a clear account of the battle, gives some detail on the English dispositions.  Although Burne ignores most of what he says, placing the English in a single battle with angled enfilades of archers on the flanks, Strickland and Hardy in The Great Warbow relate the detail, translating one of Blondel's two descriptions of the English formation.  This is where the questions start.  In the course of the research on artillery, I read a French translation of Blondel's Latin and it didn't match up to the Great Warbow version.  As we know, my Latin is even worse than my French and so, to help solve this connundrum, I present the two passages of Blondel here and ask for help with a translation

Profecto in tripartitum gradus ordinem apposite pugnatores collocant; anteriorem. docti sagittarii jactu telorum mortiferi, mediam robusti gladiatores gesorum ictu sanguinolenti; armati nobiles lancearum vibramine prevalidi aciem tenent extremam.  180

Profecto acies Anglorum perpulchre construuntur. Triplices enim ordines, ut solidi civitatis muri, hostium invasionem detrudunt. Tres vero turmae sagittariorum, qualibet ex septingentis compositae, duae bellorum extrema et altera medium tenentes, veluti tres turres firmae, hostium aggressionem ne frangat proeliorum ordines in praesidio constructae arcent. 182

The second passage is translated by S&H and this does seem to concur with the French translation.  Essentially, we have three bodies of English archers seven hundred strong, one in the middle, one each side.  These protect the main battle line like towers in a wall.

The first passage S&H interpret as that, behind the archers, the English are drawn up in a "threefold" line, a front rank of men-at-arms, a middle rank of bills and a rear rank of archers.  This would be a very rare example of detailed make up of the ranks of an English mixed infantry formation.

The French translation however has the English in three "batailles", the first of archers, the second billmen (guisarmiers), the third nobles with lances.  My limited Latin suggests that the French are closer and it is easier to reconcile the two (the front line of archers in each account are the same men - S&H have to have them as an additional line, not initially mentioned).  However, I'd be grateful if any of our many Latin speakers could help out with a translation.

Many thanks.

[Patrick Waterson]

Mediaeval Latin is not my strong point, but the second passage seems to agree with the translation.

The first passage required some work with the Perseus online dictionary, and it does not appear to say what people think.  What it seems to say is as follows:


Profecto in tripartitum gradus ordinem apposite pugnatores collocant anteriorem.

Certainly, divided between three positions arranged by the side of the combatants they arranged in the front line

docti sagittarii jactu telorum mortiferi

skilled archers deadly in the shooting of missiles.

In other words, skilled archers were parcelled out in three parts as part of the fighting line.


mediam robusti gladiatores gesorum ictu sanguinolenti

Between them sturdy warriors who shed blood with strokes of [gesorum unknown, probably bills]

armati nobiles lancearum vibramine prevalidi aciem tenent extremam.

Renowned men-at-arms with quivering [of] lances [prevalidi unknown] held the ends of the line of battle.


In essence, what we have is three clumps of archers; between them are billmen; beyond them on the wings are men-at-arms.  There is one line of battle containing everyone.

This both agrees with and amplifies the second description, the one which has not been giving us problems.

[Jim Webster]

I wonder how good the original author's Latin was?   

[Erpingham]

I wonder how good the original author's Latin was?   

Well, he was a tutor to the children of the Duke of Brittany before becoming a member of the royal court and wrote several works in Latin.  That's the best I can get from French wikipedia - English wikipedia doesn't have an entry for him.

Thank you Patrick.  That is quite a dramatic re-interpretation but not implausible from what we know of other formations.  Certainly different from the French interpretation which has three lines or S&H with their three ranks.

Anyone else have a view on the translation?

[Andreas Johansson]

[gesorum unknown, probably bills]

Gen. pl of gesum, variant of gaesum, classically "spear, javelin", from same Celtic source as Gaesati. Given the fluidity of medieval polearm terminology, it seems quite possible bills are meant here (if they were spears, would the author have differentiated them from the nobles' lances?).

[prevalidi unknown]

"Very strong" (classically: praevalidi)

[Patrick Waterson]

Thanks, Andreas.

Prevalidi would appear to agree with armati, making the men-at-arms both very strong and renowned.

I wonder how good the original author's Latin was?   

Quite good for the time, from what I can see (which accords with what Anthony has unearthed about his background); it is just that by his time - and here is the rub - the Latin in use was about as different from classical Latin as current English is from Shakespearian.

Thank you Patrick.  That is quite a dramatic re-interpretation but not implausible from what we know of other formations.  Certainly different from the French interpretation which has three lines or S&H with their three ranks.

It looks as if the word ordinem had everyone misdirected.  In classical Latin ordo means a subunit, rank or file and ordinem is the accusative (meaning something is done to it).  Hitherto it looks as if everyone took it to go with anteriorem and assumed a 'front rank' was meant.  However in the Perseus dictionary ordinem is also derivable from ordino, to arrange, draw up, and ordo is capable of meaning a regular arrangement, a series, a correct order.  Taking it as indicating the overall arrangement instead of as one of several ranks/lines allows the rest of the passage to make eminent and agreeable sense.

Anteriorem (from anterior, opposite of posterior) goes with ordinem but appears to mean 'frontally' or 'to the front' or even 'facing the front' rather than being the 'first' of an implied multiplicity of lines.

[Jim Webster]

that's what I was wondering Patrick, we know Latin evolved during the time of the Empire, and I assume it continued its evolution. Also would the language have taken on a more 'clerical' flavour with a lot of military terms reusing archaic words in a new context?

[Erpingham]

Patrick's translation reminded me if the passage in the Jouvencel where Crathor is explaining the way one should draw up an army to fight on foot.

il est force que leur bataille soit longue; et
par raison doivent mettre la puissance de leurs gens
d'armes ou millieu, et aux esles leurs archiers et
autres gens de traict, s'ilz en ont. Et, pour garder
leurs gens de traict, fault qu ilz aient au bout de
leurs esles quelque nombre de gens d'armes selon
la puissance qu'ilz seront.

It helps to know that esles is Middle French for ailes - wings   Gens de traict are basically "shooters".  So, essentially, the ideal formation has the main body of men at arms in the middle, archers on the wings and at the ends of the wings some men-at-arms to protect the archers.  Crathor will go on to say that, if you've got enough men, have a reserve of men-at-arms.

This makes an interesting comparison to Patrick's translation.

[Andreas Johansson]

that's what I was wondering Patrick, we know Latin evolved during the time of the Empire, and I assume it continued its evolution.

During the Empire, literary Latin was still recognizably a form of the same language as the vernacular, and to some extent underwent normal living language evolution. By the 15C, that hadn't been so for centuries and what evolution was going on was a curious tug-of-war between the tendency of writers to bring in words and constructions from their native languages and period attacks of classicizing purism.

Also would the language have taken on a more 'clerical' flavour with a lot of military terms reusing archaic words in a new context?

Late medieval Latin technical terminology in any field is a curious mixture of classical words put to new uses and more-or-less thoroughly Latinized vernacular words, neither used with much consistency.

[Patrick Waterson]

that's what I was wondering Patrick, we know Latin evolved during the time of the Empire, and I assume it continued its evolution. Also would the language have taken on a more 'clerical' flavour with a lot of military terms reusing archaic words in a new context?

Andreas has answered this rather better than I could, Jim: he knows his stuff.

So, essentially, the ideal formation has the main body of men at arms in the middle, archers on the wings and at the ends of the wings some men-at-arms to protect the archers.  Crathor will go on to say that, if you've got enough men, have a reserve of men-at-arms.

This makes an interesting comparison to Patrick's translation.

Sir Thomas Kyriell was apparently doing things by the book.  And here is the book!

When we find a happy correlation such as this, it makes me think I really did get the translation right - without such independent evidence, there is always some doubt that one has hit upon the essentials.  As Andreas points out, Mediaeval Latin has a number of peculiarities (for the classical Latin user) which can vary with source.  Here we seem to have ended up with a better understanding than previously existed thanks to latching onto the right idea as opposed to the obvious one.

Anyway, the good news is that we seem to have a viable lineup for the English at Formigny.

Tangentially, I wonder if guisarme derives from the usage of gesorum seen here.  Grammatically it makes no sense, but phonetically it seems closer than the traditional candidate, the High German getisarn or 'weeding iron'.

[Andreas Johansson]

Tangentially, I wonder if guisarme derives from the usage of gesorum seen here.

Unlikely. Both Latin gesum, gaesum and any vernacular descendant of it would have been pronounced by Old French speakers with a soft 'g', so it wouldn't sound much like guisarme at all.

The getisarn etymology does not seem to universally accepted, though; Wiktionary sends me to a page offering this:

Étymol. et Hist. 1160-74 gisarme (Wace, Rou, éd. A. J. Holden, III, 885). De l'a. b. frq. *wîsarm, de même sens que le fr., et dont le deuxième élém., correspondant à l'all. Arm « bras », a été pris en fr. pour arme*; l'élém. wîs- correspond prob. à l'all. weisen « guider », v. FEW t. 17, p. 598 b.

Now, my French is rudimentary at best, but near as I can guess it says that the guis- is from a cognate of German weisen "guide, direct"* and the -arme either from Germanic 'arm' or French arme "weapon". Can Anthony confirm?

* In modern German this sounds like "vizen" (long i), but in the twelfth century it'll have been more like "weezen". French /g/ from Germanic /w/ is regular, cf e.g. guerre from a source akin to Modern English 'war'.

[RichT]

Well hang on. What's the punctuation of this passage, if there was any, originally? As transcribed above it's not right ("collocant; anteriorem. docti sagittarii...").

I assume it should be: "pugnatores collocant; anteriorem docti sagittarii...; mediam robusti gladiatores...; armati nobiles... extremam" with anteriorem, mediam, extremam being the three parts of the formation.

And the meaning would be, more or less: "Indeed in three-part position formation they suitably (?) place the warriors; first, trained archers deadly in the shooting of missiles; in the middle, strong fighters shedding blood with blows of spears; noble men at arms outstanding in the shaking of lances hold the final battleline."

So - a line of archers, then billmen (?) then men at arms. Is this the opposite of what S&H say? Either way it's very different from the second passage, but the two can't be made to agree - what would the middle of three bodies of archers be?

The French translation however has the English in three "batailles", the first of archers, the second billmen (guisarmiers), the third nobles with lances.

Yes, that seems to be correct.

And to make an attempt at the second passage (without any attempt at good English):

"Indeed the battleline of the English was well constructed. For triple formations, like strong town walls, fended off the attack of the enemy. Truly three bodies of archers held off, each made up of 700, two holding the ends of the battle and another the middle, like three strong towers, the enemy attack not able to break the formation of the battles formed up in protection."

[Jim Webster]

Well hang on. What's the punctuation of this passage, if there was any, originally? As transcribed above it's not right ("collocant; anteriorem. docti sagittarii...").

I assume it should be: "pugnatores collocant; anteriorem docti sagittarii...; mediam robusti gladiatores...; armati nobiles... extremam" with anteriorem, mediam, extremam being the three parts of the formation.

And the meaning would be, more or less: "Indeed in three-part position formation they suitably (?) place the warriors; first, trained archers deadly in the shooting of missiles; in the middle, strong fighters shedding blood with blows of spears; noble men at arms outstanding in the shaking of lances hold the final battleline."

It does read as if Homer were part of the inspiration for the prose 

[Erpingham]

The correct punctuation and spelling, as given by Stevenson, is

Profecto in tripartitum gradus ordinem apposite pugnatores collocant; anteriorem docti sagittarii jactu telorum mortiferi, mediam robusti gladiatores gesorum ictu sanguinolenti; armati nobiles lancearum vibramine praevalidi aciem tenent extremam.  180

Blondel spelled praevalidi correctly - I didn't spot it when I corrected the guess of the scan (which can't cope with the dipthong).  The error was a random full stop before docti, which may have thrown Patrick off.

It does read as if Homer were part of the inspiration for the prose

Blondel was originally a poet, although he is probably imitating a Latin poetic style, as we don't seem to have evidence of knowledge of Greek.

[Erpingham]

Now, my French is rudimentary at best, but near as I can guess it says that the guis- is from a cognate of German weisen "guide, direct"* and the -arme either from Germanic 'arm' or French arme "weapon". Can Anthony confirm?

Afraid I'm using the same definitions sets as everyone else.  There does seem to be a difference in English and French views of the origin of the word.  Neither etymology is overwhelming convincing.  German wikipedia reckons there is a German variant Gesa but German wiki doesn't have a wiktionary (or, if it does, an entry for Guisarme) to check etymology.

One interesting thing is the first use trail.  French sources say first use was by Wace in 1160s.  Wace was Anglo-Norman so this will be the first English use too but first use in English is 13th century.  German wiki puts first German use in 11th century.  So, a German origin for the weapon, or at least its name, seems plausible.