The Hundred Years War-Crecy 1346

[Spiritus Naturae]

My obsession is Medieval History, especially it's military aspects. The Hundred Years War is a prime example of Medieval warfare at its best.

So let's discuss, The battle of Crecy...the first significant land battle of the Hundred Years War pitting the heavily armoured French knights against massive numbers of English longbowmen. Did the outcome of this battle 'seal the deal' for the longbow as the weapon of the Medieval period?

Anyone interested?

Jonathan

[themuzicman]

The beginning of artilery as a viable military weapon, IMHO.

[A-Man]

I thought it was Greek Fire. I'll have to go re-read "Timeline".














:lmbo:

[Spiritus Naturae]

I thought it was Greek Fire. I'll have to go re-read "Timeline".


"Timeline"? :eww:

[A-Man]

Hey, the first half was good.........:huh:

[Spiritus Naturae]

The beginning of artilery as a viable military weapon, IMHO.

Does that say artillery? :eh:

[Spiritus Naturae]

Hey, the first half was good.........:huh:

:lol:

[A-Man]

Yes, it was. Originally from southern Wales, where records of elm bows record its use around 1150. The first battle where it was widely used was the battle of Falkirk in 1298. It was quickly adopted across England as the weapon of choice, and dominated the battlefield until the middle of the sixteenth century. The longbow was regarded as such an important weapon, that at some battles longbowmen formed as much as 85 percent of the fighting force.




"In the hands of the English the bow had become, in the form of the longbow, the most deadly and formidable weapon of its time. Every English boy was trained to use it and was taught to bring every muscle of his body to bear upon it ... The result was that arrows were discharged with great rapidity and accuracy and with such strength that they were effective in the matter of penetration at astonishingly long range."
J.W.Fortescue, Military History

[Spiritus Naturae]

The beginning of artilery as a viable military weapon, IMHO.

The cannon, or bombards, definetely were important but not nearly on the same level as the longbow in this campaign. But, it was a preview of sorts of what was to come in the use of cannon. The French were much more adept than the English at the use of cannon at this point in time.

Jonathan :thumb:

[DunnySaze]

The cannon, or bombards, definetely were important but not nearly on the same level as the longbow in this campaign. But, it was a preview of sorts of what was to come in the use of cannon. The French were much more adept than the English at the use of cannon at this point in time.

Jonathan :thumb:

I would hesitate to call the state of the art of artillary at that time "important", at least not militarily in that it's use could have been decisive. At Crecy (1346) for instance the main use of cannon was to intimidate. The English, according to someone who was there, 'fired off some cannons they had brought to the battle in order to frighten the Genoese (crossbowmen allied to the French)'. The cannon of the time could not be aimed effectively, nor did they have the range of the bow. They later were improved and found more suitable for use in seige warfare. As for bombards, I could find no reference prior to 1364 that mentions them. They may have been at Crecy (or the other definitive battle of that type, Poitiers - 1356), but it's unlikely they had much tactical significance.

Clearly the most important factor in these large battles was that the bowmen could devestate cavalry with clouds of arrows before the horsemen could get close enough to fight back. As long as the archers remained firmly in formation and didn't try to run piecemeal they were more than a match for mounted soldiers. Once the enemy was softened by the archers, the foot soldiers tore into their ranks. The English also had cavalry, but their main task was in rounding up any runaways after first the archers and second the foot soldiers finished with the enemy.

But I believe that although there were a few big battles like this, mostly the English were doing small scale raids on villages and industry and taking on the French armies when they had to.

[Spiritus Naturae]

I would hesitate to call the state of the art of artillary at that time "important", at least not militarily in that it's use could have been decisive. At Crecy (1346) for instance the main use of cannon was to intimidate. The English, according to someone who was there, 'fired off some cannons they had brought to the battle in order to frighten the Genoese (crossbowmen allied to the French)'. The cannon of the time could not be aimed effectively, nor did they have the range of the bow. They later were improved and found more suitable for use in seige warfare. As for bombards, I could find no reference prior to 1364 that mentions them. They may have been at Crecy (or the other definitive battle of that type, Poitiers - 1356), but it's unlikely they had much tactical significance.

Clearly the most important factor in these large battles was that the bowmen could devestate cavalry with clouds of arrows before the horsemen could get close enough to fight back. As long as the archers remained firmly in formation and didn't try to run piecemeal they were more than a match for mounted soldiers. Once the enemy was softened by the archers, the foot soldiers tore into their ranks. The English also had cavalry, but their main task was in rounding up any runaways after first the archers and second the foot soldiers finished with the enemy.

But I believe that although there were a few big battles like this, mostly the English were doing small scale raids on villages and industry and taking on the French armies when they had to.

Indeed, the use of the word "important" on my part was how you say...stupid? I do see that the few cannon that were used played a slight role in defeating the Genoese. Guns came more to play at the battle of Castillon as used by the French and the ultimate defeat of the English. So the longbow was the weapon of significance at Crecy.


Jonathan

[DunnySaze]

Indeed, the use of the word "important" on my part was how you say...stupid? I do see that the few cannon that were used played a slight role in defeating the Genoese.

The intent was to intimidate, but I could not tell if that strategy was actually successful, although I certainly imagine it would be to someone not familiar with them. Rather like when the first Roman Legions fought against the elephants of Hamilcar (although the importance of elephants in his and especially Hannibal's campaigns is rather over-rated IMO).

Guns came more to play at the battle of Castillon as used by the French and the ultimate defeat of the English. So the longbow was the weapon of significance at Crecy.
Jonathan

Technology marches on, but the archers did prove the day at that battle. One could say much the same thing 1000 years earlier whe the Parthian archers were handing it to the Romans, but they were horse based.

[Snarf]

My obsession is Medieval History, especially it's military aspects. The Hundred Years War is a prime example of Medieval warfare at its best.

So let's discuss, The battle of Crecy...the first significant land battle of the Hundred Years War pitting the heavily armoured French knights against massive numbers of English longbowmen. Did the outcome of this battle 'seal the deal' for the longbow as the weapon of the Medieval period?

Anyone interested?

Jonathan
I would also add the importance of the pike, particularly in the Swiss phalanx.

[Snarf]

The intent was to intimidate, but I could not tell if that strategy was actually successful, although I certainly imagine it would be to someone not familiar with them. Rather like when the first Roman Legions fought against the elephants of Hamilcar (although the importance of elephants in his and especially Hannibal's campaigns is rather over-rated IMO).



Technology marches on, but the archers did prove the day at that battle. One could say much the same thing 1000 years earlier whe the Parthian archers were handing it to the Romans, but they were horse based.

Good point, I once read that the Mongolian archers could fire even further than the English long bowmen. However, entirely horse based armies were never ultimately successful in Europe because of the terrain and the grass, it was difficult for horses of the steppe to find the right kind of food in Europe.

For me, the undoubtedly most successful pregunpowder army was the Macedonian army under Alexander. They took on all kinds of enemies in their home terrain, whether mountains fighters or horse armies of the steppe, or felling big cities, and never lost.

[Durthorin]

For me, the undoubtedly most successful pregunpowder army was the Macedonian army under Alexander. They took on all kinds of enemies in their home terrain, whether mountains fighters or horse armies of the steppe, or felling big cities, and never lost.
First army in history to "use" combined arms as a concept.

[DunnySaze]

Good point, I once read that the Mongolian archers could fire even further than the English long bowmen. However, entirely horse based armies were never ultimately successful in Europe because of the terrain and the grass, it was difficult for horses of the steppe to find the right kind of food in Europe.

Yes, I think that is correct. Horses, unlike cattle which can ruminate, require abundant food of high quality. If you operate under a nomadic horse economy, there's only so long you can stay in an area that is unsuitable.

[HippoCrates]

My obsession is Medieval History, especially it's military aspects. The Hundred Years War is a prime example of Medieval warfare at its best.

If you define "Medieval" as "English History 1066 - c.1500", perhaps.

So let's discuss, The battle of Crecy...the first significant land battle of the Hundred Years War pitting the heavily armoured French knights against massive numbers of English longbowmen. Did the outcome of this battle 'seal the deal' for the longbow as the weapon of the Medieval period?

Anyone interested?

Jonathan

I wouldn't mind discussing it, though I admit I'm not to familiar with the Hundred Years War. The longbow seems to have done a number on the French and the Scots, but I'd really want more datapoints before declaring it the weapon of the Medieval period. Looking at the medieval period as a whole, the armored lancer (ie, knight) made more of an impact than the English longbowman. The successes of the Normans in England and Southern Italy, as well as that of the First Crusade, seem to me stronger arguments than defeats of the Scots and a weak French monarchy.

Taking another angle, I wonder how much of the English success in the Hundred Year's War was due to the incompetence of the French rather than the superiority of the longbow. In general, the French seem to have given battle when they shouldn't, and to have fought very poorly when they did (lack of coordination, crude tactics).

[Spiritus Naturae]

If you define "Medieval" as "English History 1066 - c.1500", perhaps.



I wouldn't mind discussing it, though I admit I'm not to familiar with the Hundred Years War. The longbow seems to have done a number on the French and the Scots, but I'd really want more datapoints before declaring it the weapon of the Medieval period. Looking at the medieval period as a whole, the armored lancer (ie, knight) made more of an impact than the English longbowman. The successes of the Normans in England and Southern Italy, as well as that of the First Crusade, seem to me stronger arguments than defeats of the Scots and a weak French monarchy.

Taking another angle, I wonder how much of the English success in the Hundred Year's War was due to the incompetence of the French rather than the superiority of the longbow. In general, the French seem to have given battle when they shouldn't, and to have fought very poorly when they did (lack of coordination, crude tactics).

Agreed that a great deal of Englands victories were based on the incompetence and lack of battle prowess on the part of their French counterparts.

My arrogance in regards to the 'English Longbow' maybe personal it seems. I am an "archer" myself, just a hobby of course, but not as much now as it was for me 'back in the day'.

An excellent site for longbow 'factoids':http://www.thebeckoning.com/medieval/longbow/longbow.html

[Rushing Jaws]

Yes, it was. Originally from southern Wales, where records of elm bows record its use around 1150. The first battle where it was widely used was the battle of Falkirk in 1298. It was quickly adopted across England as the weapon of choice, and dominated the battlefield until the middle of the sixteenth century. The longbow was regarded as such an important weapon, that at some battles longbowmen formed as much as 85 percent of the fighting force.




"In the hands of the English the bow had become, in the form of the longbow, the most deadly and formidable weapon of its time. Every English boy was trained to use it and was taught to bring every muscle of his body to bear upon it ... The result was that arrows were discharged with great rapidity and accuracy and with such strength that they were effective in the matter of penetration at astonishingly long range."
J.W.Fortescue, Military History

## A trial about 40 years ago suggested that its range was as far as 600 yards - which is a very good distance indeed. Even if that's halved, it would still be a deadly weapon - especially as it's a weapon that can be used quickly.

On the other hand, it might not be as efficient against plate armour as against chain mail; and during the 14th century, there was a move from reliance upon chain mail (with some plate armour in exposed areas such as the armpit - a very vulnerable spot for a mounted knight fighting a pikeman) to more use of plate armour; until plate armour became common in the 15th century. :cheers: ##

[Didaktylos]

## A trial about 40 years ago suggested that its range was as far as 600 yards - which is a very good distance indeed. Even if that's halved, it would still be a deadly weapon - especially as it's a weapon that can be used quickly.

On the other hand, it might not be as efficient against plate armour as against chain mail; and during the 14th century, there was a move from reliance upon chain mail (with some plate armour in exposed areas such as the armpit - a very vulnerable spot for a mounted knight fighting a pikeman) to more use of plate armour; until plate armour became common in the 15th century. :cheers: ##

I think that it wasn't until the final third of the C19th that firearm performance exceeded that of the longbow in terms of range, accuracy and rate of shooting.

Plate armour could to a very great degree protect its wearer against the longbow shaft, but at a cost. A suit of full plate could weigh up to 40 kg and while it did not restrict freedom of movement quite as much as legend would have it, it was extremely debilitating to wear for long periods and very hot: the highest ranking English fatality at Agincourt, Edward Duke of York, Henry V's cousin, wasn't killed by the French - he collapsed from heat exhaustion.

The main problem in raising a force of longbowmen was the lead time - it took years of training and practice.

[Raptor]

Hey SN,

I found a history site you might like:

http://www.deremilitari.org/resources.htm

It covers a wide variety of topics, including medieval warfare. I used as a source during a "Medieval England" class I took a while back.

[Spiritus Naturae]

Hey SN,

I found a history site you might like:

http://www.deremilitari.org/resources.htm

It covers a wide variety of topics, including medieval warfare. I used as a source during a "Medieval England" class I took a while back.

I've been ignoring the History section it would seem...I just saw this!

Very cool site. I appreciate it, brother. :thumb:

[theologygirl101]

hi i am new but you may email me if you are really nice to me

[Kelp]

Hi there! I made an official welcome thread for you :smile:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=2482699#post2482699