More thoughts on longbow tactics

[Aetius-last-of-the-Romans]

I am sure that tactically all the vintners would have been consulted as to what the most appropriate formation was for their own formations (now you are being nit-picky) - ideas that medieval armies were led by pure command & control is another Victorian fallacy. These were experienced junior officers and anyway the commanders of various the 'battles' would assess the lay of the land and take advice.

On the harrow or herse - there are many, many period pictures! That is a poor excuse.

But possible the most interesting is a C12th Flemish Psalter illustration of showing a wedge shaped harrow - that aligns the concept of the word herse and the much discussed formation of archers and dismounted men-at-arms at Agincourt etc.
(once I can work out how to add images I'll do just that!)

NB: A harrow with its spikes in line is only doing half its job!

Thanks

[Mark G]

The video does not prove a 3 foot spacing, Patrick, because it does not show the warbow being used.

Again, this is unbelievably basic stuff that you seem incapable of understanding.

Warbow cannot be drawn by arm strength alone, therefore any 'Example' of bows drawn by arm strength is wrong and irrelevant.

[Erpingham]

ideas that medieval armies were led by pure command & control is another Victorian fallacy.

But they weren't some kind of anarchic collective either.  I really doubt that small unit commanders were consulted on formations and tactics.  Experienced officers though, we agree.

One triangular harrow



As Mark has said, harrow pictures are common - I don't think it adds much to produce images of square ones.  But this is a rare example of a triangular one.

We can discuss herse formations if you wish but I suggest we'll not settle the issue - no-one else has.

[Aetius-last-of-the-Romans]

My point is more that you need space to plant stakes and move among them.
If each archer plants a stake in front of him and they are deployed in 'solid' ranks - you end up with lines of stakes which would present a difficulty in moving between them for the archers.

If we follow the idea that a harrow formation was used and that the points of the harrow represent stakes, then you en up with a checkerboard deployment which is looser than a more traditional 2 foot infantry spacing. So allows more room to draw bows etc.

I would argue that if the archers were threatened by cavalry, they retire back to expose a field of planted stakes. Well disciplined and locally led troops would be able to do this almost at the last minute - leaving the charging cavalry with the option to pull up short (and be shot at) or carry on ahead into the stakes.

NB: I am not suggesting that any medieval army was some sort of collective - even the Swiss Cantons and the Hussites appointed tactical army and battlefield commanders - my point is that given a certain task, a veteran vintner would know how best to deploy his men dependent upon the task, the nature of the terrain and the opposition he faced. I doubt that a battle commander would get involved at that level of detail.

Thanks

[Aetius-last-of-the-Romans]

There is also a wedge shaped harrow illustrated in the Duke of Berry's Book of Hours - 1410 AD - the one that shows an archer scarecrow in the background drawing his bow - admittedly on the level - but off to the side 

[Erpingham]

Although we disagree on the tactical flexibility of small unit commanders, we agree on a lot otherwise.

On stakes, I'm not fully convinced of the idea that there was a field of stakes, instead of a band of stakes in front of the position.  This is the only image of stakes in battle I know



It shows the Battle of Nicopolis, so they aren't longbowmen, but the impression is of a band of stakes. But the field of stakes has an appeal.

We should also clarify, for the avoidance of doubt, that the pegs in our upside-down harrow represent men, not stakes.  The term is used by Froissart long before the English were using stakes.

[aligern]

Anthony, I don't think that you and Mark differ materially on the nature of the staked terrain. Field or band is much the same. What there is not, is a tight row or fence of stakes.
Was most amused  by your statement that as the illustration was of Nicopois , 1396 AD that the bows could not be longbows........indeed the likeness of the armies in the picture to the actual forces at Nicopolis is hardly any at all, its full of inagination based on XVth century European kit and cannot be used to tell us about Nicopolis, late XZiVth century or XVth century practice. Unfirtunately t doesn't really tell us how the English laid out stakes, though it is suggestive.
Roy

[Erpingham]

Unfirtunately t doesn't really tell us how the English laid out stakes, though it is suggestive.
Roy

Agreed.  It doesn't prove anything, but it is the only pictoral evidence AFAIK.  There are some burgundian archers seemingly standing behind stakes but they are in a single line so doesn't tell us much.  Also, its not clear they are the archers stakes - a picture in the same sequence showing cavalry lances also has them behind similar stakes.

[Patrick Waterson]

A couple of thoughts on what seems to be emerging in the most recent posts:

1) As per Mark's suggestion, the herce/herse could be a diamond or wedge shape; having a corner as the front might give the formation's component archers greater individual space than a line on the same frontage.  Anyone who still has that marvellous old invention known as graph paper and a pencil might try putting in a wedge's worth of dots to see if this actually works.  If so, it represents a good way of compacting an effective number of archers into a usable frontage.

2) Stakes planted by or for archers would presumably be planted either in a straight line with several rows or in a chevron with several rows.  The latter would presumably be more effective at channelling cavalry away from archer formations if planted ahead of the line or inhibiting the cavalry's progress if the archers fell back through the stakes.

Regarding command, I am inclined to agree with Anthony simply because of my conviction that such coordination is actually quite easy to achieve with one person - er - calling the shots.  In non-major-battle situations (ambush, raid, assault on a small town) I would expect the vintenars and their experience and judgement would have a much more significant input on their subunit's functioning.

[Aetius-last-of-the-Romans]

I think the Nicopolis image is most enlightening - I've never seen it before - thank you for the introduction.

A couple of points:
1) there were Burgundian crusaders at Nicoplolis and I'd assume that the mtd archers (war or longbow armed) would have accompanied their men-at-arms (as part of their 'Lance') on the Crusade. And Burgundian archers certainly had stakes - in fact they may have introduced stakes to the English.
So what we are seeing could well be a historical interpretation of a longbow/stake defense system in action.

2) from my reading of the illustration, the stakes are very definitely planted out in a field or band rather than strict rows. They also appear staggered (or that just my wishful thinking) and are also planted in depth, so again this would support the theory that the archers planted their individual stakes in front of their own personal positions - deep back into the formation.

In addition it looks to me that the archers in the picture have indeed 'stepped back' to reveal the stake-field as the enemy cavalry approach. NB: whilst the cavalry do not look like Ottomans they might of course be Serbs. Just a thought.
In fact, if they originally deployed in a more open formation to aid shooting, then when stepping back - ready to receive an enemy, they might well close ranks. I'd suggest that this is where their Vintenars (thank you Patrick) would certainly play an important role.

All supposition of course, but personally I think the illustration proves a lot of points.
Many thanks

Mark

[Patrick Waterson]

Is it possible to establish which side is which in the Nicopolis illustration?

In the lower register, at the left, men with blond, brown and red hair are being given a hard time in front of a potentate dressed unlike the usual depiction of a western king.  Would it be right to assume these are Frankish (western) prisoners of the Turks? To their right, men in western-looking shifts are being man-handled along, seemingly as prisoners.  In each case, the gold-armoured infantry are doing the unpleasantness.

Does this indicate that the men in gold armour who feature so prominently as archers are in fact the Sultan's janissaries?  If so, the picture may be granting us more insight into the dispositions of an Ottoman army's elite archers (and the mass of sipahis behind them) than those of Burgundy.

That said, the ilustrator has westernised their armour, so it is conceivable that he may also have somewhat westernised their techniques.  If so, the stakes may still provide some insights.

[Erpingham]

Is it possible to establish which side is which in the Nicopolis illustration?

As it was the western cavalry who encountered the archers behind the stakes, so I presume the archers are meant to be the Ottomans.  Note they have they have recurved bows.  The rest of their kit looks "Romanised" western style (details are hard to see because of the colour scheme - we might note in passing how the artist has stressed the difference between the two sides by the use of colour).  The illustration is by Jean Colombe and is French c. 1475.

[Erpingham]

I won't quote Mark at length but in response to some points

The origin of longbowmens stakes - I've never heard the idea that the Burgundian archers had stakes first.  A common theory, I think first suggested by Matt Bennett, is that the Nicopolis experience was circulated quite widely in elite circles by the multi-national survivors.  Senior English commanders were involved with the French and Burgundian commanders diplomatically and militarily in the years before Agincourt, so could easily of learned of this tactic then.

Herses - We should be careful with this one.  English herse formations are not often mentioned and when they are it isn't clear what is meant.  Alfred Byrne is responsible for the belief that the English always fought in herses and that herses were wedge shaped (actually a hollow wedge, like a lambda).  Jim Bradbury comprehensively debunked this back in the 1980s, though he concluded that herse meant a defensive hedgehog.  The English continued to use what they called a herse in the sixteenth century, when it was a rectangular formation, wider than it was deep. 

Fields of stakes - I think we are actually largely in agreement.  The question really is whether the archers planted the stakes in a band in front of their position and withdrew behind it, or whether they stood in a field of stakes and only withdrew when attacked.  I don't think we have the evidence to be sure.  There are, incidentally, some who do see the stakes as providing a palisade or fence.  Clifford Rogers is a prominent proponent.

[Jim Webster]

Fields of stakes - I think we are actually largely in agreement.  The question really is whether the archers planted the stakes in a band in front of their position and withdrew behind it, or whether they stood in a field of stakes and only withdrew when attacked.  I don't think we have the evidence to be sure.  There are, incidentally, some who do see the stakes as providing a palisade or fence.  Clifford Rogers is a prominent proponent.

I suppose the advantage of standing within the field of stakes are firstly, the enemy might not be entirely sure you have planted stakes. (Which could be important on the times when you've not had time to  )
Secondly you are that bit nearer the enemy when it comes to bow range

Disadvantages, streaming back through the stakes when you're attacked will lose your archers valuable time shooting at the rapidly closing enemy

[Aetius-last-of-the-Romans]

Looking at the Nicopolis illustration more closely I agree that the archers are probably Turks (Janissary troops most probably).
However, it is an interesting depiction of stakes "in action". It was (I remember) of course the idea that the Burgundian crusaders took the concept of stakes to defend archers from their encounter with the Turkish Jannissaries.

With regards to the use of the herse formation by English troops - I agree that there is no conclusive proof of what it was or how it was used.
Contemporary illustrations of harrows show them as very often tapered squares or triangles (in fact the earlier depictions of harrows in heraldry are all triangular as far as I can find). So there is a logical association between the term and the formation (in my mind at least).

I am not convinced by Jim Bradbury's arguments as they are primarily aimed at de-bunking the theory of triangles/wedges of archers between lines of dismounted men-at-arms, as often illustrated in Oman & the like etc. But in the end as the harrow also is very 'spiky' like a hedgehog, there are plenty of other interpretations.

I am not aware of the Clifford Rogers argument - but the logic of a barricade of stakes makes no real sense to me - having re-enacted with bows and stakes, it is actually quite time consuming to plant stakes and you do need space to do so (swinging the mallets etc.). Deploying them in a barricade would also much more time-consuming than just interspersed among the archers I'd argue and would cause you an issue when needing to advance out from behind them.

But all this is really hypothetical speculation ... but interesting stuff