Formingny formation

[Andreas Johansson]

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.

Actually, I was just asking if you could confirm if I read the French right. Whether the French is right is a another question.

[Patrick Waterson]

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.

Actually, Patrick ignored the punctuation as it was obviously in error.

I shall be interested to see whether members decide whether Blondel is describing a Crathor-style lineup or the puzzling mix-up resulting from translating according to the strict rules of Latin, which are fine provided the source in question is also using those rules ...

[BTW I shall be unavailable for a while, so enjoy yourselves meantime. ]

[RichT]

The strict rules of Latin are called grammar. It is how Latin expresses meaning - it cannot be separated from the language, it IS the language. For example, English uses word order - "the dog bit the man", "the man bit the dog" - different meanings. Latin doesn't - "canis virum mordet", "virum canis mordet" - the same meaning.

Neither of the two Blondel passages describe a Crathor style line up, not least because Crathor has two bodies of gens de traict, and 'tres' and 'triplex' can't mean 'two', however much one ignores the grammar.

So it comes down to whether people are interested in what the sources actually say, or what they imagine they might have meant to say.

[Erpingham]

I apologise for the excerpt from the Jouvencel, which is a rather tenuous link.  It was the idea of placing MAA at the ends of the lines that was an interesting comparison.  Jean de Beuil (Crathor is his alter ego at this point, while the Jouvencel is based on his younger self) is, of course, describing a French battle formation, albeit one contemporary to Blondel (At the time of Formigny, de Beuil was Admiral of France and in the field in the same campaign, though not at the battle).  As a French army, the proportion of gens de traict would be smaller, so he doesn't have so many to dispose.  Kyriell has a lot more archers than a French commander and bulking his line with them could be important (cf Agincourt, where, according to some interpretations, the English stuck bodies (cunei) of archers among the men-at-arms to bulk the line).

I have another apology to make, this time to Col. Burne.  Burne does discuss Blondel's formation (Agincourt War, p.317), even if he then carries on with out paying it much attention.  He produces the following:

Three wedges of archers in front of a line of men at arms, then a line of archers, then a line of billmen.  The order of these lines must be wrong, in the same way as S&H are wrong.  The wedges reflect Burne's view that the English always used a herse formation and this meant wedges sticking out the front of the line.  This is questioned by more modern writers, mainly on the grounds of lack of evidence.

I've gone a bit mad and drawn a non-scale diagram to illustrate some of the variants.
a) The French translation
b) Patrick's "Crathor" version
c) A H Burne

[RichT]

With the disclaimer that I know nothing about the period or English armies or typical deployments or anything else, and based entirely on the Latin passages quoted, I would say a), the French translation version, is correct.

The two Blondel passages can be reconciled (as the French version has done by the looks of it) by assuming that the archers of the first line are the same as the archers of the three 'towers'. So a triplex acies of which the first line is also in three parts (in order to cause confusion among later generations of historians). Quite simple really.

[Patrick Waterson]

Just a quick drop-in.

It might be an idea to familiarise oneself with some aspects of Mediaeval Latin before drawing conclusions, especially with regard to the sanctity of grammar.

For example:

Various changes occurred in vocabulary, and certain words were mixed into different declensions or conjugations. Many new compound verbs were formed. Some words retained their original structure but drastically changed in meaning: animositas specifically means "wrath" in Medieval Latin while in Classical Latin, it generally referred to "high spirits, excited spirits" of any kind.

Classical Latin used the ablative absolute, but as stated above, in Medieval Latin examples of nominative absolute or accusative absolute may be found. This was a point of difference between the ecclesiastical Latin of the clergy and the "Vulgar Latin" of the laity, which existed alongside it. The educated clergy mostly knew that traditional Latin did not use the nominative or accusative case in such constructions, but only the ablative case. These constructions are observed in the medieval era, but they are changes that developed among the uneducated commoners.

There are many other anomalies; suffice to say that I stand by my original interpretation with one caveat: "extremam aciem" could mean '[each] end of the battleline' or 'the final battleline' - in the former event, the men-at-arms would be on the wings, protecting the archers' flanks, while in the latter case they would be in reserve.  The visual description of their spears 'quivering' (may have meant 'bristling' rather than 'trembling') suggests they were visible and hence on the wings rather than in reserve, Jouvencal-style.

And while Crathor is describing a French deployment, it is not a traditional French deployment (three battles etc.).  This is a new French deployment and guess whom they may have learned it from.

[Erpingham]

And while Crathor is describing a French deployment, it is not a traditional French deployment (three battles etc.).  This is a new French deployment and guess whom they may have learned it from.

But you can relate it to other French military thinking.  Compare it to the Somme Plan pre Agincourt, for example.  The main differences are the formation of a single line (because it is for a smaller force - you only put in a reserve if you have enough men) and the groups of men-at-arms at the ends of the archer bodies.  It is, however, all on foot.  This is probably because unlike Christine de Pizan's plan, the Somme Plan and even the Burgundian 1417 plan, it doesn't envisage offensive action by cavalry wings or flankers.

[RichT]

I stand by my original interpretation

As you wish. I'm sure we can all draw our own conclusions.

[Patrick Waterson]

And while Crathor is describing a French deployment, it is not a traditional French deployment (three battles etc.).  This is a new French deployment and guess whom they may have learned it from.

But you can relate it to other French military thinking.  Compare it to the Somme Plan pre Agincourt, for example.  The main differences are the formation of a single line (because it is for a smaller force - you only put in a reserve if you have enough men) and the groups of men-at-arms at the ends of the archer bodies.  It is, however, all on foot.  This is probably because unlike Christine de Pizan's plan, the Somme Plan and even the Burgundian 1417 plan, it doesn't envisage offensive action by cavalry wings or flankers.

Makes sense.  I was just thinking the development may have owed something to those classic fighters on foot, the Hundred Years War English.

Anyway, I am off again, so you can have some peace.