Posted on

The Day Welsh Peasants destroyed the French Nobility – Agincourt 1415, Where One Weapon Dictated the Outcome

by Ieuan Gale, University of Kent

Most nations have battles that are heralded as defining moments in their history. Taught in schools as important moments in the history of the nation, they often take on a mythical position in their nation’s identity. Whether it be Saratoga or Bunker Hill for Americans, Waterloo for the English or Gallipoli for Australians, the names of these battles have become legendary in their respective nations.

For us Welsh, the battle of Agincourt in 1415 is often considered our legendary battle. Although often considered an English victory, with the victorious Henry V being the King of England, the battle is remembered in Wales with pride. This is in large part due to the role played by the now famous (at least within Wales) Welsh longbowman throughout the course of the battle. The battle still conjures up images today of plucky poor Welshmen battling the imposing and wealthy French. In fact, when advertising for the 2012 Wales-France rugby game during the Six Nations tournament, Agincourt was used extensively in the match’s marketing campaign.

Apart from being a popular and often somewhat fondly remembered moment in Welsh history, the true significance of the battle of Agincourt was the use of the longbow by Henry’s army. It was the key weapon during the battle that allowed Henry’s inferior force to overcome a superior French Army.

By almost all accounts of the battle (as with studying many battles from medieval battles, reports vary wildly over the specifics) it was the archers within Henry’s army that gave him the tactical edge. The tactical value that they provided Henry with was their far superior rate of fire. Although their range was probably shorter than that of a crossbow’s and their power and armour piercing capabilities were certainly far more limited than those of a crossbow, the English longbowmen could fire far more arrows in a far shorter space of time than the French missile troops (Howard, M., War in European History, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2009, p11). Even an average longbowman could aim and fire up to six times as many arrows in the time it took a crossbowman to load and fire just one bolt. It was this incredible volume of firepower that his longbowmen provided that gave Henry’s forces such an advantage over is French counterparts.

Mostly ignored by the French military at the time due to the incredible amount of time it took for an archer to develop the raw strength needed to simply draw a full longbow, or “warbow”, (many archers began practicing as early as 8 years of age) let alone shoot it accurately. Instead the French found the crossbow far more suitable to their needs. The crossbow required considerably less training and was far more cost effective in the eyes of many in Europe, as they favoured large mostly untrained armies. By contrast Henry fielded a small but highly trained and experienced force.

It was therefore this volume of firepower that tipped the balance in Henry’s favour during the battle. Positioning his army carefully, with his archers, which made up the bulk of his army (of his force of around 7-8000 men, perhaps as many as 6000 of Henry’s men were archers, and 500 of those, who according to some were his most elite, were Welsh) positioned on the flanks but also dispersed amongst his men at arms in the centre of his line, Henry’s army held a strong defensive position. This position meant he could not be outflanked and could focus his limited resources in just one direction. If he were to fight in open land his army would surely have been overwhelmed by the numerically far superior French forces.

agin-map

However, with the forests on either side of the field hemming in all the forces and removing any possible French outflanking manoeuvres, the French numbers were negated. Provided Henry could get the French forces to attack him, his defensive position would give him a significant advantage. Once goaded, the French nobles did indeed attack. Due to the terrain and conditions of the battlefield (woods on either side of a recently ploughed field that the French had to cross on a cold wet day) the attacking French forces were funnelled towards the English army.

The recent weather had made the field very difficult to cross, particularly for soldiers as heavily armoured as the French Knights. Heavy rainfall the previous night had reduced the field where the battle would take place to a thick, muddy quagmire. The heavily armoured French Knights sank knee deep in the mud when they tried to cross. This made it extremely difficult to cross the field, with one French monk describing the advancing French troops as, “already being overcome with fatigue even before they advanced against the enemy.” This meant that progress was slow, even for the mounted cavalry.

The excruciatingly long time it took to cross the open field suited the English archers perfectly who could launch volley after volley of arrows at the French forces slowly trudging towards the English line. With there being no cover in the field for the advancing French troops to take cover behind to avoid the incoming fire, and with modern plate armour largely negating the need for Knights to carry shields (Keegan, J., The Face of Battle, Penguin Books, London, 1978, p95), the advancing French troops could do nothing but absorb Henry’s archers’ volleys of arrows.

This storm of arrows caused mayhem amongst the assaulting French forces. Maddened French horses and knights fleeing the hail of incoming missiles, bolted away back through the French forces destroying any cohesion and killing many of their own dismounted comrades. Meanwhile, in a desperate effort to take cover from this constant fire, the dismounted knights did all they could do and bunched together as they approached the English. This lack of organisation meant that the strength of the French attack was lost.

When they finally crashed into the centre of the English line, their immense force thanks to their weight of numbers, threatened to break through. However, the dismounted French knights were so densely bunched together and no longer in any sort of battle lines or fighting formation due to the chaos of the advance. They therefore could not use their weapons effectively and fight as a cohesive force.

The English men at arms subsequently fell upon them with the resulting melee being a bloody and disastrous massacre for the French (Keegan, p83). This led to the eventual rout of the French army which suffered severe casualties, some arguing as many as 5000 dead, while Henry’s forces suffered just 400 losses. Henry’s strong defensive strategy had worked perfectly. He had successfully drawn in the French forces to his well-defended position where he had used all of his forces in a combined effort that made the most of his limited resources to overcome a far superior force.

Without the fire of Henry’s archers his force would mostly likely have been overwhelmed by the attacking French forces, firstly by the usually devastating charge of mounted French knights in full plate armour wielding lances, and then by the subsequent ranks of dismounted knights. Having the space to fight properly without the need to evade incoming fire, these dismounted knights would have most likely made short work of Henry’s more lightly armed and armoured men at arms. The archers’ role was therefore invaluable in enabling Henry’s army, that was exhausted from a long campaign up to that point as well as being vastly outnumbered, to overcome the French forces. Henry’s archers rained down clouds of arrows on the attacking French forces relentlessly, firstly breaking up and blunting the French heavy cavalry charge and then subsequently negating their huge numerical advantage of dismounted troops who’s attack followed.

Agincourt was the latest in a series of instances where English longbowmen proved their worth and for a time, came to dominate European warfare. The battles of Crecy, Poitiers and later Agincourt cemented the English archer as a battle winning weapon that, until the introduction firearms in the late 15th century, led to English military preeminence in Europe. And the Welsh are proud to have played, as we see it, a key role in this!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *