Ami Pro - About Stephen Darley, Author

Cry “Havoc!”
International Newsletter of Reviews, Commentary, Insights & Information
August 1, 2004
No. 47
THE ENGLISH LONGBOW
The French Connection
The De Re Militari Society
and more...
Cry "Havoc!"
No. 47
This page intentionally left blank.
August 2004
p. 2
Cry "Havoc!"
No. 47
CONTENTS
Let Slip The Dogs of War
David W. Tschanz
4
The English Longbow
Steve Darley
5
This medieval machine gun, made England the dominant military power for two centuries
De Re Militari
Peter M. Konieczny
22
The Society For Medieval Military History - Well Worth The Membership Fees!
The French Connection
M. E. "Ted" O'Bryan
25
An Australian veteran tours the battlefields of France....
Reminder/Special Offer
Cry "Havoc!" is available free to all active duty personnel serving with the Armed
Forces of any nation (OK NOT North Korea).
Subscriptions are sent by e-mail only though in extraordinary circumstances they
will be mailed to APO boxes. Military members will also receive the irregular e-mail
updates that are sent out occasionally.
SO -- if you have a friend or relative in the Armed Forces and think they would like
to receive Cry "Havoc!" please e-mail me at [email protected] or
[email protected]
August 2004
p. 3
Cry "Havoc!"
CRY “HAVOC!”
Editor & Publisher: David W. Tschanz
Senior Contributing Editor: James P.
Werbaneth
Contributing Editors: J. Michael Flynn, TW
Gideon, Janet Phillips, Brian R. Train,
Kenneth W. West
Cry “Havoc!” is published four times a year
by TNT Enterprises. One year membership
subscriptions are $25.00, payable in US
funds. Electronic subscriptions are $10.00.
All checks should be made out to David W.
Tschanz and should be sent to David W.
Tschanz, 7862 W. Irlo Bronson Hwy. #188;
Kissimmee, FL 34747. Outside the United
States please address all correspondence to
David W. Tschanz; Box 8050 Aramco;
Dhahran 31311; Saudi Arabia.
Internet E-Mail: [email protected]
All printed material is sent via first class
mail.
Submissions are welcome. A complete set of
Writer’s Guidelines can be obtained upon
request.
Cry “Havoc!” is the official publication of the
Military History Special Interest Group of
American Mensa, Ltd. Views expressed in Cry
“Havoc!” are solely those of the individual
authors, and not American Mensa, which has
no opinions.. Membership in American Mensa,
Ltd., is not required for subscription. or
submission of materials
An electronic version of Cry
”Havoc!“ is available through
MagWeb at http://www.magweb.com
February 2004
No. 47
LET SLIP THE DOGS OF WAR
This is indeed "Cry 'Havoc!' #47.
And no, its not a mirage of a mistake and the date is
indeed the one that we were supposed to have released it
on -- and yes we are that far behind and yes you will be
caught up with the missing five issues (as well as the 2
for 2006) by June 2006.
What happened to cause this? Far too much
unfortunately. In August 2004 Associate Editor Bob
Miller passed away at the age of 61. I started tearing
apart this issue then to redo it as a tribute to Bob. As it
turned out Bob's death was the first in a series of events,
not all of which were necessarily bad, that triggered a
series of delays. Later that same month my son Karl
called from Korea to announce he had gotten married and
"by the way I re-enlisted [in the US Army.]" My
youngest started boarding school. I was caught up in
three book writing projects. In December another friend
died at 53. Then I noticed mild chest pains walking to
work. This led to a treadmill, a cardiac catheritization and
the discovery of 99% blockages in two of the four main
veins in my heart (and had I arrested I was dead) and a
mad rush across the causeway. So I spent Christmas '04
having two stents put into my heart by a colonel in the
Bahraini Defence Forces. Get the picture?
2005 started off slow -- realize you almost died and
your head takes a while to get on straight again. Once I
got going again (in March), the year turned into a
combination of catch-up time and dealing with other
personal issues I won't go into until we're all caught up
(some of you know what I mean).
So what am I doing about it now? All subscriptions
are extended without need for payment until issue 54. If
you want to contribute some dinero this way that's fine,
but I'd rather have articles. And send me your news as
well!!
I also now realize that with Bob gone, I do need to
look around for an associate editor and "Vice Chairman of
the SIG" if interested, let me know. Until then enjoy -more issues to follow soon.
On the cover: The battle of Crecy
p. 4
Cry "Havoc!"
No. 47
Feature
THE ENGLISH LONGBOW
Medieval Rapid Fire Weapon
Steve Darley
North Haven, Connecticut
I first learned that there were archers in the English army during the Hundred Years War when I happened to
read, The Archer's Tale, a novel about that time period by Bernard Cornwell. I previously thought the longbow was a
weapon used by various outlaws during the Middle Ages, but did not associate it with use in war. My reaction, upon
reading that archers were an important component of a medieval army, was that this could not be an accurate
depiction of the battles that were fought during the Hundred Years War. I soon learned that I was wrong.
The longbow was basically a simple weapon involving a shaft of wood 5 to 6 feet long, preferably yew, with
"nocks" at each end on which to fit a bow string; a bow string, made of either flax or hemp, and soaked in a
protective coating of beeswax; and an arrow, consisting of a thin wood shaft, approximately 30" long, with feathers
and a notch at one end and a sharp metal tip, or arrowhead, at the other end. The arrows were carried either in soft
leather bags or thrust in the belt, but were not carried in quivers.
The arrow is activated by the bowstring, which is strung between the two ends of the curved bow, so that a
cross section of a fully armed bow has the appearance of a "D". As the bowstring is pulled back toward the ear, with
either two or three fingers, the shaft itself is being pushed forward toward the front with the other hand. When the
string is released, its tension creates sufficient spring to initiate the acceleration of the arrow, point first, to a target.
The purpose of this article will be to examine the longbow to see why it was an important weapon and how it
really performed in battle. Because it reached its peak during the Hundred Years War, we will look at how it might
have influenced the outcome of certain battles of that war, and why its use had declined by the middle of the
sixteenth century. We will also take a closer look at six specific aspects of the longbow that would have affected its
performance in battle. We will see that it was not an easy weapon to use effectively and, unlike most other
contemporary weapons, the training time was extensive.
BRIEF HISTORY OF THE BOW
Some believe that use of the bow goes back almost to the beginning of time when our earliest ancestors
invented a very rough version of a bow that could propel a pointed stick through the air. There is certainly historical
evidence to suggest that some type of bow was used so
extensively throughout early history that, by the beginning
of the Middle Ages, it had been adopted by "nearly every
race on earth".
Bows appear to have been used at the Battle of
Hastings in 1066 and in the Crusades, although the lack of
clear written evidence makes some experts doubt the
extensive use or significance of the bow in battle at that time.
A recent historian of the longbow states, "It is impossible to
trace the origins of the longbow, but there is good evidence
that it was in use in South Wales during the second half of
the twelfth century". The evidence is from the writings of
Giraldus Cambrensis, who lived during the twelfth century
and mentions some Welsh towns where the men excelled in
archery and talks about the results of their bow power. He
Egyptian Archer ca. 7500 BCE
claimed to have observed a 4" thick oak door that was fully
August 2004
p. 5
Cry "Havoc!"
No. 47
penetrated by arrows. This report is the beginning of somewhat exaggerated claims that have
been made over the years as to the penetrating force of an arrow shot from a longbow.
Featherstone argues that the medieval English longbow possessed three clear
advantages as a field weapon over other contemporary alternatives. First, because of its
simplicity, it was cheap to produce and easy to maintain; Second, with the right bow and an
experienced archer, its projectile could travel a fairly extensive distance giving it the ability
for long range use in battle, which was a feature that was not shared by any other medieval
weapon except the crossbow; Third, the relative simplicity of its basic operation allowed the
rapid discharge of one arrow after another, a feature the crossbow did not have.
The longbow, which is primarily a bigger version of the more basic and earlier small
bow, seems to be a uniquely English product. King Henry I of England was the earliest royal
proponent of the use of a bow in battle and seems to be the first ruler to recognize its unique
capabilities. He was the first to introduce a method of attack that effectively utilized archers
and their unique weapon. Henry I's endorsement of the longbow helped to raise it to a higher
level of interest for his commanders, who were interested in winning battles, and his battle
strategies using archers were adopted and improved upon by future monarchs.
The rise of the archer's significance in battle allowed the more perceptive commanders
to rain a continuous hail of missiles on the heads of the opposing army, which tended to kill
a lot of men and also tended to drive the other side off the field of battle if it continued for
very long. War then became not only a hand to hand struggle between armed infantry and
cavalry, but also allowed adept commanders to adopt tactics that included feints and flanking movements by various
components of their army by which they tried to gain a strategic advantage for their side.
Crossbow
A word needs to be said about another bow that was probably in use even before the longbow, and was a
competitive weapon in use during the Hundred Years War. The crossbow is a type of mechanical bow that was
operated by a release mechanism. Its use during the Hundred Years War was
primarily associated with trained mercenary units, such as the Genoese and the
Gascons, which were employed by both the French and the English.
The crossbow consists of a small bow that is attached to a length of wood
with a groove in which to place the projectile, and which also serves as a handle
for the archer to hold and aim the bow. The weapon has a bowstring that is held
in place by a trigger release which is then activated to send the arrow toward its
intended target. The crossbow is operated by placing the arrow in the groove,
cocking the bowstring to be held in place by the trigger mechanism and then
using the trigger to release the arrow.
Compared to a longbow, the crossbow has the advantage that once it is
armed and its arrow locked in place, it can be held in place for as long as
necessary with no effort on the part of the archer. Its disadvantages are that it
cannot be armed quickly, it weighs a lot more than a longbow, its operating
mechanism is prone to misfires and it is not very accurate. Most crossbows with
any range or strength had to be armed with the archer putting his foot in a stirrup
at the front of the bow section, which was on the ground, and tugging with all his might to pull the bow string back
to the trigger mechanism. To the extent that a crossbowman was facing the longbow, which had a much more rapid
rate of fire, he was at a clear disadvantage, especially when reloading.
Romancing The Bow
The perception that is prevalent today regarding the medieval longbow is not of an archer as a warrior in battle,
but rather is the archer encompassed in the legend of Robin Hood, the most enduring hero in western cultural
history. To many of us, the image of the outlaw archer Robin Hood is centered on Errol Flynn because of his heroic
actions in his well known movie portrayal. Flynn's Robin Hood stays in our memories as he triumphs over the nasty
sheriff and rides into the sunset with the heroine, Maid Marion.
The romantic notions of this outlaw archer were derived from old Robin Hood legends dating back to the
fourteenth century. Those legends, which were based on various ballads and stories of unknown origin, tell the tales
of Robin Hood and his adventures in Sherwood Forest with his band of outlaws. The old ballads mention Robin
August 2004
p. 6
Cry "Havoc!"
No. 47
Hood killing the king’s deer in Sherwood Forest, becoming an outlaw by killing a king’s forester, establishing his
band of “merry men” in Sherwood Forest, robbing the rich to give to the poor, recruiting specific members of his
followers, interacting in various ways with his nemesis the Sheriff of Nottingham, meeting King Richard who was in
disguise, and wooing and winning Maid Marion. Those old ballads have been modernized and expanded by such
modern authors as Howard Pyle, Henry Gilbert and Louis Rhead. They are, along with Errol Flynn, what we visualize
when someone mentions a longbow or an archer.
Understanding the origins of the Robin Hood legends and determining whether they are fact or fiction is not
the subject for this article. Rather I raise them because the Robin Hood story has contributed significantly to the
image of a Middle Age archer and gave the longbow a romantic aura not connected to other weapons of that time
period. The actual history of the longbow is far more significant.
THE LONGBOW
In order to understand the importance of the longbow in battle, we need to look at some specific aspects of it
that would affect its performance and effectiveness as a weapon. This will help us to understand how the bow was
used to change an outcome in a clash between two opposing armies. I have selected six different aspects of the
operation of a longbow to demonstrate how it actually performed in a battlefield setting.
There is only one medieval text that describes a longbow and an arrow, which is the de Banco Roll of 1298. The
description is from a court case involving the longbow as a murder weapon, and states that the longbow was 5' 7.5"
in height, the bow string was .5" thick and the arrow was 34" long and 1" wide with a broadhead tip. As we shall see,
this description is consistent with what today's experts have concluded about the longbow.
There are no surviving examples of a medieval longbow so we must look to the most comparable example that is
known to us. That example is the 137 bows and 3500 arrows recovered from the Mary Rose, which is a Tudor era
English ship that was sunk in 1545 and then discovered in 1982. The ship turned out to be a treasure trove of Tudor
period weapons, including a unique and extensive collection of archery equipment. Knowing the facts about the
Mary Rose enables us to date the recovered items with some confidence. The longbows and arrows recovered from
the Mary Rose, while not made during the Hundred Years War, do tell provide helpful information about the longbow
and can help us verify information about how it performed.
Height
Although there is some disagreement about the height of the medieval longbow, most experts agree that it was
between five and six feet. As mentioned above, the de Banco longbow was 5' 7.5" long. Various modern day
authorities have declared its height to be "five feet to five feet two inches", "five or six feet in length", "six feet long",
"20 hands" or approximately 5'8" and "seventy inches". The bows recovered from the Mary Rose range from 72.75
inches to seventy five inches long, with an average height of seventy four inches. As a final item of interest, for
many years there was a bow in
Hathersage Church that was known
as Little John's (of Robin Hood fame)
bow that allegedly measured 6 feet 7
inches in height with a draw weight
of 160 pounds.
Draw Weight or Pull of Drawstring
The draw weight of a bow is the
force required to pull the bowstring
to a specified draw length, usually 28
inches, and is calculated in pounds.
The force required to draw the bow is
a function of the size of the bow and
will determine the range and speed of
the arrow. Obviously, a heavier draw
weight means a more powerful bow.
The more powerful the bow the more
effort that is required to draw the
string but the further it can shoot an
arrow.
August 2004
p. 7
Cry "Havoc!"
No. 47
Longbows that are used in competitions today typically have a draw weight of between 60 and 110 pounds. It is
generally believed that the draw weight of a medieval bow was much higher than 110 pounds, with some even
suggesting an average draw weight of 160 to 180 pounds. The first modern bow made to conform to medieval bows
was tested by Saxton Pope and turned out to have a draw weight of 65 pounds, at 28" draw, and was able to shoot an
arrow 225 yards.
The mathematical modeling tests conducted by Prof. P.L.Pratt of the Imperial College of Science and
Technology on five of the Mary Rose bows predicted draw weight results ranging from 115 pounds to 185 pounds.
Pratt also did an actual test on three bows made by Roy King to the general design of the Mary Rose bows and
those bows were projected to be 102 pounds and, in fact, tested at 102.8 pounds. Prof. Pratt used his success at
accurately estimating the draw weight of the test bows to conclude that his estimates about the strength of the Mary
Rose bows were accurate.
Based on the information available today, I believe that the medieval longbow had a draw weight that ranged
between 110 and 140 pounds.
Rate of Fire
Perhaps not surprising, there is some disagreement as to the rate at which an experienced medieval archer could
release his arrows, usually figured as number of arrows per minute. Since there is no known test to determine the rate
of releasing multiple arrows in medieval times, the best that can be done is to look at the experience of the modern
day archers and then make an educated guess. Modern archers are typically able to release between 6 and 10 arrows
per minute but the bows are usually lighter.
Many of those who write about the longbow have provided an opinion as to the ability of medieval archers to
engage in the rapid firing of the bow. One opinion is that "the average English Military Archer could fire 12 to 15
arrows per minute and hit a man sized target at a minimum of 200 yards".Another has opined that, "A good bowman
could release 15 shots in a minute, and any archer who
fell below ten per minute was not considered worthy of
his place in the army".A third claims that a "possible
fifteen or twenty shots under certain circumstances"
could be achieved.
Two modern authorities, Robert Hardy and
Professor Anne Curry, are of the opinion that the
medieval archers could not sustain more than 12 arrows
per minute over a long period of time. Another expert
says that, based on the practical experience of modern
day archers, only 5 or 6 arrows per minute is realistic over
a 10 minute time period.
To put this question into perspective, an archer
firing 15 arrows per minute would be firing a new arrow
every four seconds. It certainly seems unlikely that
anyone could sustain that rate of fire for ten minutes,
even with a lighter bow. Therefore, I would come down
on the side of a much lower number, more like 6 or 8 arrows per minute.
Even at that rate, with every thousand archers supporting an army, the number of arrows in flight during a sixty
second period could be as many as 8000. The effect of such a hailstorm of arrows on the men of the opposing forces
is overwhelming, particularly the first time it happened. It can certainly be concluded that the rapid fire capability of
the longbow seems daunting, and it is surprising that archers were not more of a factor in some of the medieval
battles than they turned out to be.
Range
The question of the range of the longbow has generated some wildly different views with at least two
authorities claiming that medieval archers regularly reached a maximum range of 400 yards. Two modern day
experienced bowmen have maintained that the effective range for a longbow was between 180 and 200 yards. Captain
George Burnet, Secretary to the Royal Scottish Archers, has observed that the members of the Queen's Body Guard
for Scotland, who use six foot yew bows with a draw weight of 55 to 60 pounds, are attaining a range of between 180
and 200 yards shooting light target arrows. Shakespeare's play Henry IV has the archers' range being 290 yards.
Robert Hardy relates that one of the best known modern archers, Howard Hill, used a 172 pound longbow to reach a
August 2004
p. 8
Cry "Havoc!"
No. 47
range of 391 yards.
In his study of the Mary Rose bows, Professor Pratt estimates that the maximum range of the arrows he
examined were 320 yards for the bodkin and 350 for the lighter type arrow, assuming a 160-175 pound draw weight.
Pratt's study has extensive tables and formulas to support its finding. Good modern day longbow shooters have
some accuracy, and actually engage in competitions, at distances of 100 yards.
Based on the above, I believe that the typical range for archers in battle during the Hundred Years War was 180
to 220 yards.
Importance of Arrow
An arrow's successful flight from the
bow to the target is a function of three
factors combining to determine whether it
would be able to reach its target, as well as
its rate of speed to get there. The three
factors are the spine, weight and length of
the arrow.
In modern archery, the length of the
arrow is typically between 28 and 30 inches
because it is the greatest length that can be
drawn comfortably and safely. From the
arrows recovered from the Mary Rose,
Professor Pratt estimates a 30" draw length.
It is reasonable to assume that the archers who fought in the Hundred Years War used similar sized arrows to those
found in the Mary Rose.
The weight of the arrow is important because the heavier the weight the less initial velocity it has coming out of
the bow. The results of Pratt's study indicate that the longer Mary Rose arrows weigh in at 60 grams and the shorter
arrows were 35 grams. Drawing on all available studies and evidence, Prof. Pratt established a table that considered
factors of draw weight of the bow and weight of the arrow to determine the range of the arrow. The table shows the
with a draw weight of 70 pounds, an arrow weighing 70 grams travels 150 yards, while an arrow weighing 10 grams
would travel 300 yards. Likewise, with a draw weight of 150 pounds, a 70 gram arrow will travel 300 yards and a 10
gram arrow will travel almost 400 yards. The Pratt study clearly supports the conclusion that the lighter the arrow the
further it can travel.
Arrowheads were shaped to fit different purposes: the
bodkin type (left in picture) was an armor piercing head;
the hunting head (4th from left) and the broadhead (2nd,
3rd and 5th from left). The broadhead type was a flesh
piercing arrow and sometimes was smeared with
beeswax, resin or tallow. The barbs on the head would
prevent the arrow being easily withdrawn.
August 2004
Armor Piercing Capabilities
The ability of an arrow fired by a medieval
longbow to pierce armor would have a very
significant influence of the outcome of a battle.
During the Hundred Years War, the only
protection available for a medieval soldier was
either plate or mail armor. However, armor was not
worn by all participants, at least early on in the
war. As the war progressed, plate armor was
improved and it began to be very effective at
stopping arrows.
A 1992 study by Peter Jones offers some
interesting conclusions about the ability of a
medieval arrow to penetrate armor. What the study
found was that mail armor, which was used
extensively in the early phase of the Hundred
Years War, including the Battle of Crecy, could be
penetrated by an arrow. Jones concludes that in
the earlier battles of the Hundred Years War, "the
longbow would have been extremely lethal and
that in later battles, when armor had been further
improved, it would become marginal."
p. 9
Cry "Havoc!"
No. 47
The results of Jones' study, which involved shooting arrows from a longbow into both mail and plate armor,
show that mail armor "offered little resistance to penetration". However, by the time of the Battle of Agincourt, plate
armor had been developed and improved through carbonization and heat treatment and also through refined design
"to a point where arrows were ineffective". The Jones study found no penetration of plate armor at 3" thickness,
minimal penetration of 2" plate causing only minor wounds, and significant enough penetration through a 1" plate to
cause debilitating wounds, such as the loss of arm or leg function. None of the plate armor was penetrated far
enough to cause death.
This study is important because it corrects the misleading impression that has been created by various writers
who have stated that arrows could pierce "the best armour" at close range, and could even do so at a distance of 100
yards. The study also helps to explain why gunpowder helped to achieve the demise of the longbow even though it
had many other qualities that the early firearms lacked.
THE LONGBOW AT WAR
In order to understand how the longbow functioned as a weapon in battle during the Middle Ages, it is helpful
to look at the role it played in some specific battles.
Before The Hundred Years War
The longbow, while best known for its role in the battle of the Hundred Years War, was a formidable weapons
and before that historic conflict.
Battle of Falkirk
The Battle of Falkirk in 1298, has been described as "the first engagement of any real size or importance in
which archers, properly supplemented by cavalry, played a leading part". This battle initiated the efforts of Edward I
to subdue the Scots and their leader, William Wallace (who was played on the screen by Mel Gibson in Braveheart).
The two sides were very unevenly matched in manpower with the English having 2500 cavalry, 10,000 foot soldiers
and an unknown number of archers and Wallace having a lesser number of foot soldiers, a group of archers from the
Ettrick Forest and 500 cavalry.
The English attacked in three columns with their archers dispersed between them. The first column ended up in
a marsh, where the Ettrick archers of Wallace poured arrows into their ranks causing death and chaos. The second
column found firmer ground and then attacked a number of times but was unable to penetrate the Scottish lines.
They did, however, succeed in running off the Ettrick archers. The King, seeing that the first two columns had been
stopped, sent his own archers into the battle and they were able to get within point blank range of the Scottish lines.
August 2004
p. 10
Cry "Havoc!"
No. 47
They proceeded to rain a hail of arrows into the Scottish ranks, which had no armor and, therefore, no protection
from the arrows. This resulted in substantially thinning the Scottish lines.
The battle was won when Edward I attacked with his cavalry into the reduced ranks of the Scottish lines and
proceeded to slaughter most of the remaining Scottish army. Wallace managed to fight his way out of the carnage
and escaped with a handful of his followers. The tide of the battle had been turned by the ability of the English
longbowmen to fire arrows at a rapid pace into the Scottish lines with no contest or exposure and, thereby, to inflict
extensive casualties to their army, which seriously reduced its effectiveness.
Battle of Halidon Hill
Another English king, Edward III, also tried to take the crown of Scotland in 1333 by invading Scotland. In the
resulting Battle of Holidan Hill, the Scottish infantry began by attacking a fixed position of English men-at-arms, who
were supported by archers. The Scottish attack was driven back by the arrows of the archers. In this battle, the
Scottish forces had to go through a marsh and up the slopes of Holidan Hill in order to reach the English army, who
were positioned on top of the hill. All of the way through the marsh and up the hill, the Scots were exposed to a
devastating shower of arrows, which caused havoc in their ranks. By the time they reached the English lines, they
were unable to mount an effective attack.
The English won the battle because they had a fixed position for their dismounted men-at-arms, and because
their foot soldiers were protected by archers who were flanked on each side. The archers were able to pour volley
Kings Ban Football in England to Preserve Archery
Edward III, followed by Richard II, Henry IV and Henry V all passed laws
barring football from England. One of the main reasons for this hard line taken
was the very real fear that the English population were spending far too much
time playing football. This prevented them from practicing archery, a key area
of defence during the 100 years war. Edward III passed the following
proclamation in 1363 banning all sports and enforcing archery practice.
The King to the Lord-lieutenant of Kent
Greeting:
Whereas the people of our realm, rich and poor
alike, were accustomed formerly in their games to practise archery - whence by God's
help, it is well known that high honour and profit came to our realm, and no small
advantage to ourselves in our warlike enterprises - and that now skill in the use of the
bow having fallen almost wholly into disrepute, our subjects give themselves up to the
throwing of stones and of wood and of iron; and some to handball and football and
hockey; and others to coursing and cock-fights, and even to other unseemly sports less
useful and manly;
Whereby our realm - which God forbid - will soon, it would appear, be void of
archers:
We, wishing that a fitting remedy be found in this matter, do hereby ordain, that in
all places in your country, liberties or no liberties, wheresoever you shall deem fit, a
proclamation be made to this effect:
That every man in the same country, if he be able-bodied, shall, upon holidays,
make use, in his games, of bows and arrows… and so learn and practise
archery.Moreover we ordain that you prohibit under penalty of imprisonment all and
sundry from such stone, wood and iron throwing; handball, football, or hockey;
coursing and cock-fighting, or other such idle games.
Edward the Third 1363
August 2004
p. 11
Cry "Havoc!"
No. 47
after volley of arrows into the attacking ranks, which became easy targets for a counter-attack by the waiting English
men-at-arms. The English used this same battle tactic to fight the French with great success and effectiveness in the
first period of the Hundred Years War. Success at Holidan Hill insured that the English would adopt this same
strategy in future battles.
THE HUNDRED YEARS WAR
The Hundred Years War was actually series of wars between England and France that lasted for about one
hundred years. Most scholars date its beginning from 1337, when King Philippe VI of France proclaimed that the
duchy of Guyenne was forfeited by King Edward III for harboring a person who was viewed by the French King as a
criminal. Edward III responded with a letter of defiance referring to Philippe as the person "who calls himself King of
France", and with the encouragement of a Flemish leader claimed the French crown. The Hundred Years War is
generally thought to have ended when Henry VI's army was defeated at Castillon in 1453, and the English were
expelled from France.
The Hundred Years War can be divided into two distinct periods. The first period was initiated by the invasion
of France by King Edward III in 1339. One of the first significant battles of the English invasion was the Battle of
Crecy in 1346, followed by the Battle of Poitiers ten years later, where the French King was captured. The first period
was concluded with the Treaty of Bretigny in 1360.
The second period of the Hundred Years War began with the invasion of France by King Henry V and his
impressive victory at Agincourt in 1415. The second period also featured the short career of Joan of Arc, the
introduction of gunpowder fired weapons and a string of French victories beginning with Orleans and culminating in
the Battle of Castillon.
In my opinion, the best history of the Hundred Years War is the two volume work by Jonathan Sumption,
who sums up its importance as follows:
This succession of destructive wars, separated by tense intervals of truce and by
dishonest and impermanent treaties of peace, is one of the central events in the history
of England and France, as well as in that of their neighbours who were successively
drawn into it: Scotland, Germany, Italy and Spain. It laid the foundations of France's
national consciousness, even while destroying the prosperity and political preeminence which France had once enjoyed... In England, it brought intense effort and
suffering, a powerful tide of patriotism, great fortune succeeded by bankruptcy,
disintegration and utter defeat.
SOLICITING
Don’t like the opinions, comments or materials covered here? Wish there were more
---------------- (fill in the blank)? How do you solve that problem? Simple — write for Cry “Havoc!”
How do you do that? Simple — go to your favorite typewriter or word processor and write a
review, an article or offer some thoughtful comments on some issue in military affairs, military history
or wargaming. Then send it to us. Your opinion on a variety of things is important both to the success
of Cry “Havoc!” and to what you get out of it.
We are always on the look out and welcome receiving —
Reviews of Books, Movies, Games
Feature Articles ,Travel Pieces, Humor,
Opinion and Commentary
August 2004
p. 12
Cry "Havoc!"
No. 47
Battle of Crecy
Once King Edward III of England formalized his claim to the French throne, he proceeded to support that claim
by invading France and thereby initiating the Hundred Years War. The first major engagement of the ensuing
campaign took place near the French town of Crecy in 1346 and involved a French army of 20,000 to 30,000 men
including 6000 Genoese crossbowmen, and an English army of 12,000 to 13,000, of which 6000 were longbowmen,
each of whom carried 2 sheaves of arrows (48) into battle.
The Osprey publication regarding the Battle of Crecy is subtitled, Triumph of the Longbow to indicate its
conclusion as to the key ingredient in the subsequent defeat of the French army by the English invaders. Crecy was
the first important battle where English longbow archers were successful against a superior force of infantry and
August 2004
p. 13
Cry "Havoc!"
No. 47
cavalry, and where the smaller army won despite repeated attacks by the larger forces.
The English army, using the tactics learned in fighting the Scots, formed their army into three columns with
each of the columns being flanked by archers holding a forward position. The English had the advantage of the
better terrain because they had selected the site and were formed on the higher ground. The French, even though
they had more men, had to attack up a sloping terrain with tired men who had just made a long march. Moreover, a
rainstorm just before the battle made the ground soggy and the Genoese crossbowmen had wet and, therefore, loose
bowstrings.
The crossbowmen led the French charge and were supposed to have been followed by the cavalry. Because of
their wet strings, when the crossbows fired their first volley their bows many could not get enough distance to reach
the English lines. Most that did fire were shooting up the hill and over the head of the English defenders. After the
first round from the crossbows, the longbowmen, who had been able to remove their bow strings during the rain,
began to fire volley after volley of arrows that went unanswered by the French. The longbows were able to disrupt
the reloading of the crossbows and caused significant casualties among the Genoese, forcing them to withdraw.
As the Genoese retreated, the French cavalry charged the English lines through their ranks. This caused
confusion and chaos and the cavalry was driven back. A second cavalry charge was made by the John of
Luxembourg's division, but it was also driven back, primarily by the English archers. During the rest of the afternoon,
the French king ordered thirteen additional cavalry charges against the English lines, each of which was turned back.
Finally, late in the day, the English forces counter-attacked directly against the French king's position and, after very
heavy fighting, forced his army to withdraw from the field. No clear records exist as to the actual battlefield
casualties, but estimates of the French losses range from an exaggerated 20,000 men to what most experts feel is a
more realistic estimate of between 1500 to 2000 men.
The Battle of Crecy proved that the longbow was a superior weapon to the crossbow and that it was primarily
responsible for the outcome of the battle. The English archers delivered a devastating arrow storm that ultimately
forced the Genoese crossbowmen to withdraw and stopped the subsequent French attacks. The longbow's important
role in Crecy also helped the recruitment of archers into the English army, and the English longbowman began to
acquire an elite status in the army.
August 2004
p. 14
Cry "Havoc!"
No. 47
Battle of Poitiers
The second decisive military engagement of the Hundred Years War occurred in 1356 at the Battle of Poitiers,
and involved another invasion of France by another English king, Edward III. One of Edward's armies in France was
under the command of the king's son, Edward of Woodstock, better known as the Black Prince. The Black Prince had
been conducting raiding parties into the heart of France with a 7000 man army. After collecting a substantial amount
of booty as a result of his activities, he wanted to get back to the safety of the English camp in Bordeaux. However,
he was being chased by the larger French army of 20,000 men under King John, and realized that he needed to make a
August 2004
p. 15
Cry "Havoc!"
No. 47
stand. The place he picked to make his stand was south of the Town of Poitiers on high ground surrounded by
marshes, woods and hedges.
The battle began early in the day when the Black Prince moved his booty and supply wagons further away from
his defensive position, which caused the French commander to order an attack. As at Crecy, the archers were at the
front flanks of each division. In some cases, the archers were hidden behind the hedges so that they were not
immediately visible to the attackers. The French cavalry's initial attack was uncoordinated and the archers were able
to turn it back. This was followed by a French attack on foot, which through sheer numbers reached some of the
archers and engaged them in hand to hand combat.
The Black Prince, realizing that his lines were starting to fall back, sent part of his force to circle around and
attack the French at their rear and flanks. This attack was supported by a group of Gascon archers hidden behind a
ledge, who proceeded to send volley after volley of arrows into the attacking French foot soldiers with devastating
consequences. The second French division, seeing the rain of arrows falling on the first attackers, became
completely demoralized and began to retreat. The Black Prince seized the opportunity to counter-attack with his men
formed into one solid mass of troops, which was supported by another group of archers hidden from view. When the
archers became short of arrows they joined in the attack, and the French army, thinking the archers were the
vanguard of a much larger force, began to give way and retreat back toward the town. The French king and his son
stayed on the battlefield with a small band of followers and were finally captured by the English. The French
casualties were 2500 killed and 2000 captured and the English casualties were assumed to be light, but no records are
available to confirm a count.
Poitiers was not a definitive win by the archers, as was the case at Crecy, but the archers did play a part in the
final outcome and further solidified their important role in protecting the infantry and cavalry from an attack by a
superior numerical force. The French delivered separate and uncoordinated attacks against the strongest part of the
English line, enabling the larger force to be defeated piecemeal by the smaller but better coordinated army.
Battle of Shrewsbury
Although not technically part of the Hundred Years War, the Battle of Shrewsbury in 1403 is included because
it featured two opposing English armies, each utilizing a sizable number of longbow archers. The English king, Henry
IV, is estimated to have had 2000 archers under his command, and the rebel commander, Sir Henry Percy, better
known as "Hotspur", is estimated to have had even more. The Battle of Shrewsbury was a struggle for control of the
throne of England and, in the final analysis, the battle was probably won by King Henry because he had a bigger
army.
This battle is considered a showcase for the archers because both sides used them extensively and because the
casualties on both sides caused by their arrows were thought to be high. When the two armies first came together, a
truce was arranged by the king to see if he could make a deal with
the Percy family, who had once been his devoted followers. Later in
the day, the king, convinced that no deal was possible and that
reinforcements might be on the way, gave the order to advance. The
king's forces began the battle by advancing up a ridge toward
Hotspur's army. Hotspur responded with his archers who poured a
heavy volley of arrows down on the advancing English force to
great effect. A contemporary writer says of this volley, "They fell
upon the King's troops like leaves on the ground in autumn. Every
one struck a mortal man."
Hotspur's archers were able to counteract the significant
difference in numbers until they ran out of arrows. At that point, the
king's forces were able to renew their attack on foot supported by
their archers. The king's army finally succeeded in crushing the
rebels when Hotspur himself was killed, presumably by an arrow,
during the battle. The death of Hotspur was followed by what some
contemporary writers referred to as a "slaughter" of the rebel forces.
The rest of Hotspur's rebel supporters, who were still alive at the
end of the battle, were executed. One historian has speculated that
1600 of 8000 rebel troops were killed during the advance of the
king's army up the slope and that most of them were killed by
arrows.
August 2004
p. 16
Cry "Havoc!"
No. 47
Battle of Agincourt
The Agincourt battle was immortalized
by Shakespeare in his play, Henry V, by
words that he put in the mouth of Henry V, on
the eve of the battle, to motivate his men. In
Shakespeare's words, he exhorts his troops
with a long speech that included the words,
"And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by, From
this day to the ending of the world, But we in
it shall be remembered- We few, we happy
few, we band of brothers". The words of
Shakespeare have seemed to endow
Agincourt with some kind of mystical and
heroic quality, which was easy for the English
to believe because they had been able to
defeat a French army three or four times the
size of their own.
Upon inheriting the English throne in
1415, Henry V was determined to invade
France to claim what he perceived to be his
birthright, the Duchy of Normandy. His
invasion army consisted of 2500 men-at-arms
and 8000 archers. It seems clear that the
disproportionate number of archers in the
English army was a recognition by the king of
the fact that the archers were "their most
fearsome weapon".
The French army, estimated to be 25,000
to 35,000 men, was formed up in three
divisions consisting of both infantry and
cavalry units. After some initial negotiations,
the battle began with the English army
advancing to within 300 yards of the French
lines. At that point, the archers formed up with sharpened wooden stakes buried in the ground around their position
and with the point aimed toward the enemy so that they could resist a cavalry attack. The archers then began firing at
the French causing destruction in their ranks.
In response, the French launched two cavalry attacks, but they were uncoordinated, and due to the devastating
arrow volleys from the archers, behind their line of protection, the attacks were turned back. Unfortunately for the
French, the retreating cavalry were out of control and ran back into the rest of the French lines causing chaos and
confusion all along the lines. The French were finally able to regroup forming into three columns. Two of their
columns, consisting of both foot soldiers and cavalry, attacked the English at two different locations, but both
advanced into a hail storm of English arrows.
By the time the remainder of the French attackers reached the English lines 300 yards away, they were
exhausted and their ranks were so depleted that they could not put up a strong effort. The fighting became very
intense hand to hand fighting with even the archers throwing down their bows and joining in. Slowly, but surely, the
French began to give way and were pushed back, and then started to surrender. The third French column, seeing
what was happening to their comrades, left the field. By the time the battle was over, all of the French leaders were
either killed or captured.
It is clear that, even though the French were poorly led and could not effectively implement their battle strategy,
the English archers were the primary factor that turned the tide of the battle. The archers' ability to discharge volleys
of arrows that wreaked havoc with the French forces, in this instance, more than made up for the odds against the
English because of the disparity in the size of their forces.
Battle of Formigny
The battle of Formigny, fought in 1450, decided the fate of Normandy and was one of the last battles of the
August 2004
p. 17
Cry "Havoc!"
No. 47
Hundred Years War. Archers were used by both sides, and in this battle
the French used cannons in the battle, which they managed to keep out
of the effective range of the English arrows.
Initially the English archers were able to operate behind their line of
sharpened wooden stakes. Their arrow storm was very effective against
the French lines until guns were brought into play. The French guns
were successful in causing death and destruction to the English and,
more particularly, the archers. At some point, the archers, who were no
match for the cannons, became weary of being the target and came out
from behind their line of stakes. This enabled the French to mount an
attack while being supported by the guns, and in turn they were
counter-attacked by the English.
The battle went back and forth, but was finally decided when
French reinforcements under Richemont arrived on the field and helped
to defeat the English. The archers fought bravely, and one party of 500
archers were said to have fought to the last man behind a hedge in the
garden. It is estimate that four fifths of the English army was killed or
wounded in this engagement, which proved to be a major setback to the English attempt to rule France.
After the Hundred Years War
In 1513, James IV of Scotland invaded England while Henry VIII was invading France. The English response to
the Scottish invasion resulted in the Battle of Flodden Field, which was one of the last engagements where archers
played a significant part in the outcome of a
battle. The Scots had the Ettrick forest
archers, known as the "Flowers of the
Forest", as was the case at Falkirk, and the
English had archers from Cheshire and
Lancashire.
The battle started with an exchange of
artillery fire which resulted in an attack by a
Scottish division. The attack was meeting
with success until the English archers began
pouring volleys of arrows into the Scottish
right, driving the Scots back to their original
position. The archers continued their deadly
fire into the Scottish ranks, which were not
protected by armor, killing and maiming
large numbers of the Scots.
The deadly shower of English arrows
forced a retreat, which allowed the English to
turn their attention on the rest of the
Scottish forces. The Scottish king was
subsequently killed by an arrow and the
battle ended as darkness fell on the field.
The battle casualties were 10,000 to 12,000
for the Scots, including the Ettrick archers
who were decimated almost to a man, and
5000 for the English.
Henry VIII demonstrates his skill with the longbow
August 2004
DECLINE OF THE LONGBOW
Because the longbow was such an
effective weapon, one is left to wonder why
its use declined after reaching its peak
during the Hundred Years War. Although
the longbow was used in various battles in
p. 18
Cry "Havoc!"
No. 47
the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, it ceased to be a factor in the outcome of any battles after Flodden Field in
1513. This rapid fire weapon that propels a lethal long range missile suddenly disappears as a battlefield weapon. At
least five factors contributed to the decline of the longbow in a battlefield setting and made it into an obscure
historical footnote.
First, gunpowder fired weapons were too much of an innovation to fade into oblivion. The firing of the musket
or cannon, which caused a flash followed by an extremely loud noise that added to the excitement of a battle, was so
unique at the time that these weapons were quickly initiated into battles and their use became widespread. Early in its
history, gunpowder was referred to as the "devil's distillate" and a recent history of that product concluded that the
effect of it was "quite astounding to the medieval mind". The fact that the longbow could fire more rapidly than a
musket, had an equal or better effective range and was more accurate in hitting its desired target did not deter
gunpowder from becoming dominant because no country wanted to be left out of using a weapon with such
potential..
Second, the longbow was a difficult weapon to master in terms of its rate of fire and its accuracy. The training
period for an apprentice archer was many months and was "intense by any standard". So much so that at least one
English ruler required all able bodied men from the age of seven to be trained on the longbow in order to have a ready
supply of archers that could be used to fight his wars. Once the longbow was introduced, its use and practice was
continually enforced by some form of formal legislative act. Training, in order to be effective, was on-going and
probably seemed endless to the medieval archers.
Moreover, the constant firing of a longbow took a significant physical toll on the archer. One expert has
contended that men who had been archers for a long time "had spines twisted from the force exerted in drawing the
string over and over again, and had no feelings in the fingers used to draw the strings". While a soldier operating a
firearm needed to be trained, he could be made useful to his commander in battle within a few weeks. Archery, on the
other hand, seemed to be a permanent lifetime commitment. The long and arduous task of becoming an archer, as well
as the resulting physical impairments, most likely resulted in discouragement on the part of the young potential
trainees and became an important factor in the longbow's decline.
Third, once an industry began to be built around gunpowder weapons, it became much harder for the longbow
to compete. The steps to manufacture the longbow were much simpler in comparison to the steps required to make a
firearm. The use of gunpowder encouraged manufacturing skills that lent themselves to the development of
specialized trades and those trades, among others, helped to usher in the very early beginning of the industrial
revolution. Not only did gunpowder involve the manufacture of a metal barrel with some additional working
components, it also involved the making of gunpowder itself, which was a very dangerous occupation. The work to
produce a longbow, on the other hand, required fewer trades and was much less complex than the making of a
cannon or a small arms weapon.
Fourth, the longbow won Crecy, Poitiers and Agincourt and some other smaller engagements but the Hundred
August 2004
p. 19
Cry "Havoc!"
No. 47
Years War was actually won by the French through their use of artillery. While the English led the world in the
development of a skilled archery class, the French led the way in the development of artillery and its use in battle.
The significant advantage of the cannon as a siege weapon far outdistanced its predecessor weapons. The cannon
possessed a unique ability to penetrate the medieval fortresses that had been able to rebuff most sieges by invading
armies until the invention of gunpowder and basically changed the emphasis from fortresses to more strategic battle
tactics. The cannon alone most likely provided the impetus to use gunpowder related weapons that finally
overshadowed the longbow.
Fifth, contrary to ever popular mythology, the longbow arrow was not effective at any distance in penetrating
plate armor. Improved plate armor was introduced and extensively used during the course of the Hundred Years War.
When it became clear that plate would stop an arrow, it effectively neutralized the longbow. Once the French army
began using the improved plate armor for its soldiers, they began to win battles because the longbow could only
injure but not kill. With the introduction of a firearm, the equation changed and plate armor did not offer the same
protective capability. The other advantages of a longbow were offset by the ability of the musket to render the armor
useless.
CONCLUSIONS
The ability of the longbow to change the course of events on the battlefield was demonstrated as early as 1298.
For the next 150 years, it was an important and essential item in the arsenal of battlefield weapons, and was crucial in
battle after battle until it began to fade from view. Its primary period was during the Hundred Years War where it
August 2004
p. 20
Cry "Havoc!"
No. 47
really proved itself to be a potent
weapon. Then, almost without notice, it
was replaced by a musket as the weapon
of choice for the average soldier.
It is interesting to note that in the
Battle of Waterloo in 1811, 300 years
after the introduction of gunpowder
weapons, British soldiers were using the
Brown Bess musket that had an effective
range of 50 to 80 yards and that an
experienced soldier could only fire three
times per minute. That accuracy was not
a prominent requirement of a weapon in
war was demonstrated by numerous
examples where a British unit would fire
a volley into an opposing line 50 yards
away that ended up doing very little
damage. A few select British units at
Waterloo used the Baker rifle that had an
effective range of 200 yards but could
only be fired twice in sixty seconds by a
highly trained rifleman. Contrast that to
the longbow, which at the height of its
popularity during the Hundred Years
War had an effective range of 250 yards,
could fire 6 to 8 arrows every minute and
delivered a lethal blow to any target not
wearing armor.
The fact that the longbow
ultimately faded from use does not
detract from its effectiveness as a
weapon during the Hundred Years War.
It was an awesome weapon for its time
that turned the tide of several important battles. The longbow's ability to perform in battle is clear and it earns a
rightful place in history as the only medieval rapid fire weapon.
REFERENCES
Barratt, John. A Storm of English Arrows , Military History 20 (August 2003)
Bartlett, Clive. English Longbowman, 1330-1515 Oxford: Osprey Publishing, 2003
Bennett, Matthew. Agincourt 1415 Oxford: Osprey Publishing, 1991
Bradbury, Jim. The Medieval Archer Suffolk: Boydell Press, 2002
Curry, Anne ed., Agincourt 1415 Gloucestershire: Tempus, 2000
Featherstone, Donald. The Bowmen of England Barnsley: Pen & Sword, 2003
Hardy, Robert Longbow Bois-d'Arc Press, 1993
Harris, P. Valentine The Decline of the Longbow. Journal of the Society of Archer-Antiquaries, 19 (1976)
Jones, Peter N. The Metallography and Relative Effectiveness of Arrowheads and Armor During the Middle
Ages, Materials Characterization. Elsevier Science Publishing, 29:111-117 (1992)
Kaiser, Robert. The Medieval English Longbow, Journal of the Society of Archer-Antiquaries, Vol. 23 (1980).
Kelly, Jack. Gunpowder, Alchemy, Bombards & Pyrotechnics: The History of the Explosive that Changed the
World New York: Basic Books, 2004
Knight, Paul . Henry V and the Conquest of France Oxford: Osprey Publishing, 2000
Nicolle, David Crecy 1346 Oxford: Osprey Publishing, 2000
Rees, Gareth, The Physics of Medieval Archery, Insight, Stortford Archery Club Newsletter, Issues 5 & 6
Summer & Autumn, 1995
Sumption, Jonathan. The Hundred Years War I, Trial by Battle (Philadelphia: Univ. of Pennsylvania Press) 1999
August 2004
p. 21
Cry "Havoc!"
No. 47
Feature
De Re Militari
The Society for Medieval Military History
Peter Michael Konieczny
Toronto, Canada
This article came about after a request to tell the readers of Cry Havoc! about the
academic society I am member of, namely De Re Militari: The Society for Medieval
Military History. But I thought it would also be a good idea to give some background
to our small subgroup of history, and explain why this academic society, originally a
North American group founded in 1991, was created.
Of course, there have always been military historians, starting with Herodotus.
He and other classical writers seemed to have been most interested in the wars that
took place around them. This trend continues to the present day: go into any book
store's history section, and most of the works on the shelves will deal with this military
leader, that battle, or a whole conflict. Judging by this, it would seem that being a
medieval military historian is well-accepted profession.
But the academic world has not been altogether accepting of scholars who study
warfare, and sometimes do not think that military history is worth teaching. There are
two reasons for this. The first is that historians in general are often trying to find new
ways of doing their research and producing new ideas on their topic. When they look
at military history, they judge that military history is old-fashioned, tired and stale. The reason behind this lies in part
because so many books are being published in this field, that some of them are quite poorly written and researched.
In other cases, books such as Charles Oman's The Art of War in the Middle Ages, originally written in 1885, gets kept
being re-released. It would be hard to think that a book on the history of women or medieval Jewish people written in
the nineteenth century would find any acceptance today, yet a lot of people will buy Oman's book and think that it is
an accurate piece of research.
Even when books on military history are quite good, they sometimes fail to show how the issues and ideas they
raise can apply to other fields of study, such as war's impact on culture or religion. It is kind of analogous to the
problems the American and allied forces have in Iraq at present – while the US soldiers were skilled in the military
aspects of the invasion and occupation, they did not possess the knowledge of Iraq's culture and society, which led
to conflict and strengthen the resistance against occupation. In a similar way, military historians often just write
about the battle or campaign, but do not explain how these wars changed other parts of society.
The second major problem for military historians, which one finds mostly in the United States and Germany, is
that military history is associated with militarism, and that many history professors and academics are men and
women who in the early 1970s not only protested against conflicts like the Vietnam War, but also blamed their
nation's eagerness to go to war on those historians that made out previous war to be something noble, honourable
and something to be proud of. One recently published book, Ain't Gonna Study War No More: The Story of
America's Peace Seekers, carries the implication that those who do study armed conflict are warmongers.
There has been a long running debate among military historians about how bad the "state of military history" is.
In many North American universities, which are faced with budget cuts and new demands, they simply do not fulfill a
faculty position when a professor retires. This leaves young military historians with fewer options on where they
can do there teaching and research. On the other hand, classes on military history are always popular with
undergraduates; so many departments will want to have someone on staff to teach these courses.
Everything stated so far can be applied to any period of military history, from ancient to modern. Medieval
military historians face these problems too, which shows in their lack of representation among North American
universities. There are at most a couple dozen professors in the United States and Canada whose primary research is
on medieval warfare. They include the now-retiring Bernard Bachrach, Stephen Morillo (who is the current president
August 2004
p. 22
Cry "Havoc!"
No. 47
of De Re Militari), Kelly DeVries, Clifford Rogers and Richard Abels.
By contrast, the situation for medieval military historians in the British Isles is very different. Their numbers are
much larger, and include men and women who are heads of their departments. Scholars like Andrew Ayton, Anne
Curry, John France, Norman Housley, Helen Nicholson, Michael Prestwich and Matthew Strickland are just a few of
the professors you can find who work on one aspect or another of warfare in the Middle Ages.
How does all this lead to the creation of a society for medieval military historians? First of all, because the few
scholars in North America are spread out over the continent, there was a need for some sort of way for them to
exchange ideas and plan activities like conferences or a book of essays. When De Re Militari was started in 1991, it
was done so at the International Congress for Medieval Studies, an annual conference held at Western Michigan
University. It is the largest gathering of medieval scholars in the world, with typically over two thousand people
attending over a four-day period. Hundreds of sessions are held, with topics such as Anglo-Saxon culture and
fourteenth-century Byzantine monasteries.
The need to have sessions devoted to medieval military history was the reason behind the creation of De Re
Militari. The congress planners had decided that academic associations would be given priority when selecting
these sessions, so if medieval military historians wanted to guarantee their place at this congress, they had to form a
society.
De Re Militari was originally a very loose organization, where the requirements to be a member is that you want
to be one (this is actually still the case). But in the last five years or thereabouts, this society has evolved and
grown, taking on more activities and becoming an international group. At the moment, our membership numbers
over two hundred people, including nearly every major English-speaking scholar in the field of medieval warfare. We
even have members based in far-flung places like Egypt, Iceland and Japan.
The rest of this article will give an overview of the activities of De Re Militari, starting with its original role as an
organizer of sessions at the International Congress for Medieval Studies. Our society gets to hold about four or five
sessions each year, which allows more than a dozen people to make a presentation. Even though each session is
based around a theme, such as Early Medieval Warfare, or the role of technology, one can find a lot of variety
between these presentations. At the 2004 congress we heard presentations on the use of crossbows in England, the
logistics of the Norman conquest of Italy and the paper I gave on battles in thirteenth-century Iceland. The speakers
who give these papers also come from wide range of backgrounds – while many of them are university professors,
one can find graduate students and often scholars outside of the academic field. At one recent congress, for
example, a group of high school students were given the opportunity to discuss how they built a replica of a Roman
ballista, as well as demonstrate how it was fired.
It is also customary that one of the sessions held by De Re Militari is turned over to a single speaker, who is
given about an hour to speak on a particular subject. The 2004 speaker was Richard W. Kaeuper, a professor at the
University of Rochester, who spoke about how medieval literature could be used to study chivalry and the behaviour
of knights. These presentations, which attract between sixty and seventy listeners, often lead to lively debate and
The Journal of Medieval Military History
Volume 3 (2005)
Table of Contents
A Lying Legacy? A Preliminary Discussion of Images of Antiquity and Altered Reality in
Medieval Military History by Richard Abels and Stephen R Morillo
War and Sanctity: Saints' Lives as Sources for Early Medieval Warfare by John France
The 791 Equine Epidemic and its Impact on Charlemagne's Army by Carroll Gillmor
The Role of the Cavalry in Medieval Warfare by J F Verbruggen
Sichelgaita of Salerno: Amazon or Trophy Wife? by Valerie Eads
Castilian Military Reform under the Reign of Alfonso XI (1312-50) by Nicolas Agrait
Ferrante d'Este's Letters as a Source for Military History by Sergio Mantovani
Provisions for the Ostend Militia on the Defense, August 1436 by Kelly DeVries
August 2004
p. 23
Cry "Havoc!"
No. 47
discussion.
De Re Militari also helps to organize and support other conferences and seminars that focus on medieval military
history. For example, our society is supporting a symposium on medieval mercenaries, which will be held at the
University of Wales in July 2005.
Our society has recently started to publish an annual, the Journal of Medieval Military History. Published
with Boydell & Brewer, the second volume of this journal was printed in the spring of 2004. Most major academic
libraries collect this journal, and most of our members also receive a copy if they pay an annual membership fee ($35
US). Like the papers given at our conference sessions, the essays in this journal cover many different topics and
events. One of the journal editors, Kelly DeVries, is also translating articles of the Belgian historian J.F. Verbruggen,
who is regarded as one of the best scholars in the field of medieval warfare.
Our membership shows such high esteem of Professor Verbruggen that in 2002 they named an award after him.
The Verbruggen prize is given out each year for the best book in the field of medieval military history. A
three-member committee is given the task of choosing among dozens of works to find what they believe to be the
most important and original contribution to our field. The first winner was Richard W. Kaeuper, for his book
Chivalry and Violence in Medieval Europe, while last year's recipient was Clifford Rogers, who penned War, Cruel
and Sharp: English Strategy under Edward III, 1327-1360.
The last major role of our society is the website we have developed: http://www.deremilitari.org . I have been
fortunate enough to have started this website in the summer of 2001 and serve as its editor ever since. The website
has two functions: first, we post information about our society and any activities that would be of interest to
medieval historians. This includes promotions for new books and announcements of upcoming conferences.
The second purpose of this website is to develop a set of online resources that can be used for teaching or
for those who are interested in learning about medieval warfare. Thanks to the generous permission of authors and
publishers, we have been able to republish hundreds of articles and primary texts. For example, we have republished
a dozen articles from the journal Nottingham Medieval Studies, while Ashgate Publishing has allowed us to put
online excerpts from their Crusade Texts in Translation series. One thing I wanted to do as the website editor was
form a relationship with the publishers who produce books and journals in the area of medieval studies. These
publishers want their works to be promoted, and our website will assist them in any way possible. In exchange, we
hope that they will give us some free access to some of their content, which we can provide to our readers. I think
we have been very successful in this regard, and these efforts will continue in the future.
We also have a Book Reviews section on our website where our members we have put online over fifty reviews
of works on medieval warfare. Our reviews are often the first assessments done of how good these books are, and
since our reviewers are experts in this field, they are considered important evaluations of the strengths and
weaknesses of these writings.
Overall, I think having a society like De Re Militari has been very positive for the study of medieval military
history. First it allows for historians to easily exchange their ideas and collaborate on projects. Secondly, it gives all
scholars a forum where they can discuss and publish their research, allowing them to show their abilities as well as
helping to dispel myths about what is medieval warfare and broaden the knowledge we have of the Middle Ages.
As a way of finishing this small article, I would like to invite anyone
who is interested in medieval military history to join De Re Militari. Our
society welcomes new members, and hopes that being part of it will broaden
your knowledge and interests.
Special thanks to Professor Clifford Rogers for his help with this paper,
especially when talking about the "state of military history". To contact
De Re Militari, please visit our website at www.deremilitari.org or email
us at [email protected]
Peter Michael Konieczny
August 2004
p. 24
Cry "Havoc!"
No. 47
Feature
THE FRENCH CONNECTION
An Australian's Journey Through France
M. E. "Ted" O'Bryan
Launceston, Tasmania, Australia
In April 2004 I had the opportunity to visit Tasmania. As luck would have it the visit coincided with ANZAC Day an Australian tradition that I plan on writing about soon. While there I happened to meet the author of this piece,
a World War II veteran. He expressed an interest in military history, and asked me to look into some units that had
participated in World War I ). He also asked if he could contribute. Tese pages are always open to the reminisces
of veterans, the true treasures we have our the memories of those who lived through the past - DWT.
We left StAlbans about 11.15 am on 5th July 2003 for our proposed tour of the battlefields around Amiens
where my father Martin Owens O'Bryan had fought in 1917 and 1918, travelling by car to the entrance of the
Euro-tunnel near Folkstone. The experience of driving the car on to the tunnel train was new to us all and the 35
minute journey under the sea to Calais was no less exciting. Our daughter Trish drove the car on what was an easy
trip on the auto route to Amiens which we found was quite a large city. In preparation for our tour ,I had obtained
enlarged photo copies of the map of this area at the At Albans library which enabled us to join the Amiens ring road
and travel around it to an eastern suburb where the Formula One hotel was located. It was fairly basic
accommodation and quite reasonable in price. Trish did wonderfully well driving her English car on continental roads
which demands more concentration than usual in order to keep on the
right side of the road!!
The next day we made an early start for Villers Bretonneux which
is only a short distance away and arrived there just in time for Sunday
mass at the village church of Notre-Dame d’ Esperance. The sermon
was in French which went completely over my head although I found
afterwards that the priest was reasonable conversant with English
when we spoke to him He was young and appeared very interested in
where we came from. Mass has the some form wherever one goes in
the world so that the service can be followed. During the sermon my
mind wandered and I suddenly remembered that my father was here 85
years ago and took part in the heroic recapture of the village from the
invader on 24th April 1918. He was quite modest about his
achievements that day but told me of seeing the badly damaged
church the very one in which we sat. According to him he was only
on the outskirts of the gas attack that day, but Oak Lewis who I
interviewed about 10 years ago in Mungindi, said dad was right in the
middle of it! It was an event which affected him all his life. For various
other reasons many of these men never told the whole story of their
terrible experiences.
We then went in search of the Victoria School which with the
help of one or two of the local people we found but due to a break-in
the previous night it was closed. A visit to the most impressive and
well maintained Australian War Memorial followed. Pat took lots of
photographs on what was a beautiful day. We saw the mention of the
soldiers with no known graves including John Patrick O’Bryan 26th
Ted O'Bryan can be reached at
Battalion and that of Oscar Oswald Sutton 15th Battalion. The
obryan @hotkey.net.au
Memorial is on the main road and to the south of the town and is on a
slight hill with a panoramic view sweeping gently away to the east
August 2004
p. 25
Cry "Havoc!"
No. 47
and consisting of golden wheatfields as far as the eye could see. A peaceful scene indeed and no doubt quite
different from that of the 24th May 1918.
On returning to the Victoria School at 2pm as planned we looked over the museum contained within the School
and saw an excellent record of Australia at war , a large photographic display and a extensive range of soldiers
uniforms diaries letters and objects collected from the battlefields. Etienne Denys in charge of the museum and
assistant Melanie Stachowitz met us. I presented them with with some photographs of dad taken in Belgium just
after the war finished. and a copy of his medical record. compiled subsequent to him being wounded at the battle of
Hamel. The School is a large building with an internal quadrangle which serves as a playground for the considerable
number of childern who attend. A sign stretching across one side of the playground reads ; “ NEVER FORGET
AUSTRALIA’The building was a gift from the children of the Australian State of Victoria to those of Villers
Bretonneux as proof of their love and goodwill towards France. Twelve hundred Australian soldiers ,the fathers and
brothers of these Victorian children gave their lives in the battle and are buried near this spot. The plaque continues :
“ May the memory of great sacrifices in a common cause keep France and Australia together for ever in bonds of
freindship and mutual esteem”. Many streets have Australian names such as Rue Victoria and Rue Monash after
Gen. Monash ,the victor of Hamel.
Using the audio tape and book supplied by the museum, we started on the tour of the Hamel battlefield
commencing with the Adelaide cemetery and then on to the village of Hamelet. Next come the communal cemetrey at
Corbie where with some difficulty we found the section where dad’s 15th battalion CO Lt Colonel Terance Patrick Mc
Sharry is buried. He was one of most decorated soldiers of the war and very popular with his men..Lots of photos
and video shots were taken of graves of interest to us.
The next day we continued on the tour once again using the “Hamel” tape. Great success today when our
efforts to locate Harbonniere cemetrey were assisted by the local policeman who led us there in his police car after
earlier help from a tour bus driver! It was very difficult to find anyone in these small villages who were able to speak
English. Here we found the grave of Robert Martin O’Bryan son of my great uncle Andrew O’Bryan and dad’s
cousin. An extensive tour of the Hamel battlefield area was undertaken which included such points of interest as
Vaire and Hamel woods, Hun's Walk, Pear Trench, and the Australian Corps Memorial at Hamel which now stands on
the site of the German Wolfsberg command post all recaptured in a matter of 93 minutes on 4th July ,1918 by the 4th
Division ably assisted by the 49th Battalion and companies of the 131 132 and 133 Regiments Illonois Home Guard
(Chicago) 33 Div.of the American Expeditionary Forces. Col. McSharry went across to meet the Americans resting at
their camp at Corbie a few days before the battle taking with him four other officers and seven Privates. It would seem
that my father was one of the latter. McSharry brought the group across a day or two before the battle in order to
introduce them to the Americans to integrate them with the much depleted companies of the 15th. Dad told me that
he had trained some of them and at the commencement of the battle an American Sgt. was in charge of his
group,which was a part of 7th platoon, “B” Company. This man started to climb out of the trench waving a revolver
around ready to do his own “hop over”! Dad restrained him by grabbing him by the legs.
Just recently in 2005, I made further investigations into my fathers association with the Americans at Hamel
and discovered that most of the 131st’s men came from Chicago at least those mentioned in C.E.W. Bean’s history
of the War of 1914-1918. Anotable mention being that of Lt. Later Capt. Frank Schram of the Amer. Med.Corps
whose men were those attached to my father’s 15th batt. They took him from the battle field after being wounded
shortly after the battle of Hamel commenced at 3 am on 4 July 1918. He told us that after being in Noman’s land for
some time and fortunately for him the German counterattack was weak and soon petered out he was moved to No 47
casualty clearing station where Lt. Schram and the battalion’s medical officer Major B.C. Kennedy were both in
attendance. His foot became so swollen that the boot had to be cut off. The injury continued to worry him after the
war and when driving a car he often took the right shoe or boot off to ease the discomfort. On 6th July he was
conveyed by an American ambulance to the 12th US Gen. hospital in Rouen for treatment for a broken right ankle
The wound was caused by a German stick bomb exploding near his foot. On 9th July he was transferred to the
72nd Australian Hospital also at Rouen and from there to the Austn. 20th Conv.Depot at Tourville. An other
transfer took placewhen he was sent to the 1st Conv. Depot at le Harve. My father because of the injury could not
rejoin the 15th Batt. until 7th Sept. 1918 but went to Paris on leave from 13th to 30th Sept. Lt Schram according to
Bean took copious notes in the field regarding casualties and so these could be available in the regiments’ historical
record . It would also interesting to know if there still exists records of the patients treated by the US medical staff at
Rouen or even photographs taken there. I would be very interested if anyone can assist me with further research into
these events.
August 2004
p. 26