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...

This page intentionally left blank.

Cry "Havoc!" No. 47

August 2004 p. 2

CONTENTSLet 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 22The Society For Medieval Military History - Well Worth The Membership Fees!

The French Connection M. E. "Ted" O'Bryan 25An Australian veteran tours the battlefields of France....

Cry "Havoc!" No. 47

August 2004 p. 3

Reminder/Special OfferCry "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-mailupdates that are sent out occasionally.

SO -- if you have a friend or relative in the Armed Forces and think they would liketo receive Cry "Havoc!" please e-mail me at cryhavoc42@yahoo.com ordesertwriter1121@yahoo.com

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 iton -- and yes we are that far behind and yes you will becaught up with the missing five issues (as well as the 2for 2006) by June 2006.

What happened to cause this? Far too muchunfortunately. In August 2004 Associate Editor BobMiller passed away at the age of 61. I started tearingapart this issue then to redo it as a tribute to Bob. As itturned out Bob's death was the first in a series of events,not all of which were necessarily bad, that triggered aseries of delays. Later that same month my son Karlcalled from Korea to announce he had gotten married and"by the way I re-enlisted [in the US Army.]" Myyoungest started boarding school. I was caught up inthree book writing projects. In December another frienddied at 53. Then I noticed mild chest pains walking towork. This led to a treadmill, a cardiac catheritization andthe discovery of 99% blockages in two of the four mainveins in my heart (and had I arrested I was dead) and amad rush across the causeway. So I spent Christmas '04having two stents put into my heart by a colonel in theBahraini Defence Forces. Get the picture?

2005 started off slow -- realize you almost died andyour head takes a while to get on straight again. Once Igot going again (in March), the year turned into acombination of catch-up time and dealing with otherpersonal 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 subscriptionsare extended without need for payment until issue 54. Ifyou want to contribute some dinero this way that's fine,but I'd rather have articles. And send me your news aswell!!

I also now realize that with Bob gone, I do need tolook around for an associate editor and "Vice Chairman ofthe SIG" if interested, let me know. Until then enjoy --more issues to follow soon.

Cry "Havoc!" No. 47

February 2004 p. 4

CRY “HAVOC!”

Editor & Publisher: David W. Tschanz

Senior Contributing Editor: James P.Werbaneth

Contributing Editors: J. Michael Flynn, TWGideon, Janet Phillips, Brian R. Train,Kenneth W. West

Cry “Havoc!” is published four times a yearby TNT Enterprises. One year membershipsubscriptions are $25.00, payable in USfunds. 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 UnitedStates please address all correspondence toDavid W. Tschanz; Box 8050 Aramco;Dhahran 31311; Saudi Arabia.

Internet E-Mail: dtschanz@sahara.com.sa

All printed material is sent via first classmail.

Submissions are welcome. A complete set ofWriter’s Guidelines can be obtained uponrequest.

Cry “Havoc!” is the official publication of theMilitary History Special Interest Group ofAmerican Mensa, Ltd. Views expressed in Cry“Havoc!” are solely those of the individualauthors, and not American Mensa, which hasno opinions.. Membership in American Mensa,Ltd., is not required for subscription. orsubmission of materials

An electronic version of Cry”Havoc!“ is available through

MagWeb at http://www.magweb.com

On the cover: The battle of Crecy

I first learned that there were archers in the English army during the Hundred Years War when I happened toread, The Archer's Tale, a novel about that time period by Bernard Cornwell. I previously thought the longbow was aweapon used by various outlaws during the Middle Ages, but did not associate it with use in war. My reaction, uponreading that archers were an important component of a medieval army, was that this could not be an accuratedepiction 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 aprotective coating of beeswax; and an arrow, consisting of a thin wood shaft, approximately 30" long, with feathersand a notch at one end and a sharp metal tip, or arrowhead, at the other end. The arrows were carried either in softleather 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 across section of a fully armed bow has the appearance of a "D". As the bowstring is pulled back toward the ear, witheither two or three fingers, the shaft itself is being pushed forward toward the front with the other hand. When thestring 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 itreally performed in battle. Because it reached its peak during the Hundred Years War, we will look at how it mighthave influenced the outcome of certain battles of that war, and why its use had declined by the middle of thesixteenth century. We will also take a closer look at six specific aspects of the longbow that would have affected itsperformance in battle. We will see that it was not an easy weapon to use effectively and, unlike most othercontemporary 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 historicalevidence to suggest that some type of bow was used soextensively throughout early history that, by the beginningof the Middle Ages, it had been adopted by "nearly everyrace on earth".

Bows appear to have been used at the Battle ofHastings in 1066 and in the Crusades, although the lack ofclear written evidence makes some experts doubt theextensive use or significance of the bow in battle at that time.A recent historian of the longbow states, "It is impossible totrace the origins of the longbow, but there is good evidencethat it was in use in South Wales during the second half ofthe twelfth century". The evidence is from the writings ofGiraldus Cambrensis, who lived during the twelfth centuryand mentions some Welsh towns where the men excelled inarchery and talks about the results of their bow power. Heclaimed to have observed a 4" thick oak door that was fully

Cry "Havoc!" No. 47

August 2004 p. 5

Feature

THE ENGLISH LONGBOWMedieval Rapid Fire Weapon

Steve DarleyNorth Haven, Connecticut

Egyptian Archer ca. 7500 BCE

penetrated by arrows. This report is the beginning of somewhat exaggerated claims that havebeen 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 clearadvantages as a field weapon over other contemporary alternatives. First, because of itssimplicity, it was cheap to produce and easy to maintain; Second, with the right bow and anexperienced archer, its projectile could travel a fairly extensive distance giving it the abilityfor long range use in battle, which was a feature that was not shared by any other medievalweapon except the crossbow; Third, the relative simplicity of its basic operation allowed therapid 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 smallbow, seems to be a uniquely English product. King Henry I of England was the earliest royalproponent of the use of a bow in battle and seems to be the first ruler to recognize its uniquecapabilities. He was the first to introduce a method of attack that effectively utilized archersand their unique weapon. Henry I's endorsement of the longbow helped to raise it to a higherlevel of interest for his commanders, who were interested in winning battles, and his battlestrategies using archers were adopted and improved upon by future monarchs.

The rise of the archer's significance in battle allowed the more perceptive commandersto rain a continuous hail of missiles on the heads of the opposing army, which tended to killa lot of men and also tended to drive the other side off the field of battle if it continued forvery 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 variouscomponents of their army by which they tried to gain a strategic advantage for their side.

CrossbowA 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 wasoperated by a release mechanism. Its use during the Hundred Years War wasprimarily associated with trained mercenary units, such as the Genoese and theGascons, which were employed by both the French and the English.

The crossbow consists of a small bow that is attached to a length of woodwith a groove in which to place the projectile, and which also serves as a handlefor the archer to hold and aim the bow. The weapon has a bowstring that is heldin place by a trigger release which is then activated to send the arrow toward itsintended 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 thenusing the trigger to release the arrow.

Compared to a longbow, the crossbow has the advantage that once it isarmed and its arrow locked in place, it can be held in place for as long asnecessary with no effort on the part of the archer. Its disadvantages are that itcannot be armed quickly, it weighs a lot more than a longbow, its operatingmechanism is prone to misfires and it is not very accurate. Most crossbows withany range or strength had to be armed with the archer putting his foot in a stirrupat the front of the bow section, which was on the ground, and tugging with all his might to pull the bow string backto the trigger mechanism. To the extent that a crossbowman was facing the longbow, which had a much more rapidrate of fire, he was at a clear disadvantage, especially when reloading.

Romancing The BowThe 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 culturalhistory. To many of us, the image of the outlaw archer Robin Hood is centered on Errol Flynn because of his heroicactions in his well known movie portrayal. Flynn's Robin Hood stays in our memories as he triumphs over the nastysheriff 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 thefourteenth century. Those legends, which were based on various ballads and stories of unknown origin, tell the talesof Robin Hood and his adventures in Sherwood Forest with his band of outlaws. The old ballads mention Robin

Cry "Havoc!" No. 47

August 2004 p. 6

Hood killing the king’s deer in Sherwood Forest, becoming an outlaw by killing a king’s forester, establishing hisband of “merry men” in Sherwood Forest, robbing the rich to give to the poor, recruiting specific members of hisfollowers, interacting in various ways with his nemesis the Sheriff of Nottingham, meeting King Richard who was indisguise, and wooing and winning Maid Marion. Those old ballads have been modernized and expanded by suchmodern authors as Howard Pyle, Henry Gilbert and Louis Rhead. They are, along with Errol Flynn, what we visualizewhen someone mentions a longbow or an archer.

Understanding the origins of the Robin Hood legends and determining whether they are fact or fiction is notthe subject for this article. Rather I raise them because the Robin Hood story has contributed significantly to theimage of a Middle Age archer and gave the longbow a romantic aura not connected to other weapons of that timeperiod. The actual history of the longbow is far more significant.

THE LONGBOWIn 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 wasused to change an outcome in a clash between two opposing armies. I have selected six different aspects of theoperation 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. Thedescription 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 isknown to us. That example is the 137 bows and 3500 arrows recovered from the Mary Rose, which is a Tudor eraEnglish ship that was sunk in 1545 and then discovered in 1982. The ship turned out to be a treasure trove of Tudorperiod weapons, including a unique and extensive collection of archery equipment. Knowing the facts about theMary Rose enables us to date the recovered items with some confidence. The longbows and arrows recovered fromthe Mary Rose, while not made during the Hundred Years War, do tell provide helpful information about the longbowand can help us verify information about how it performed.

HeightAlthough 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 dayauthorities 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 72.75inches 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 inHathersage Church that was knownas Little John's (of Robin Hood fame)bow that allegedly measured 6 feet 7inches in height with a draw weightof 160 pounds.

Draw Weight or Pull of DrawstringThe draw weight of a bow is the

force required to pull the bowstringto a specified draw length, usually 28inches, and is calculated in pounds.The force required to draw the bow isa function of the size of the bow andwill determine the range and speed ofthe arrow. Obviously, a heavier drawweight means a more powerful bow.The more powerful the bow the moreeffort that is required to draw thestring but the further it can shoot anarrow.

Cry "Havoc!" No. 47

August 2004 p. 7

Longbows that are used in competitions today typically have a draw weight of between 60 and 110 pounds. It isgenerally believed that the draw weight of a medieval bow was much higher than 110 pounds, with some evensuggesting an average draw weight of 160 to 180 pounds. The first modern bow made to conform to medieval bowswas tested by Saxton Pope and turned out to have a draw weight of 65 pounds, at 28" draw, and was able to shoot anarrow 225 yards.

The mathematical modeling tests conducted by Prof. P.L.Pratt of the Imperial College of Science andTechnology 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 andthose bows were projected to be 102 pounds and, in fact, tested at 102.8 pounds. Prof. Pratt used his success ataccurately estimating the draw weight of the test bows to conclude that his estimates about the strength of the MaryRose bows were accurate.

Based on the information available today, I believe that the medieval longbow had a draw weight that rangedbetween 110 and 140 pounds.

Rate of FirePerhaps not surprising, there is some disagreement as to the rate at which an experienced medieval archer couldrelease his arrows, usually figured as number of arrows per minute. Since there is no known test to determine the rateof releasing multiple arrows in medieval times, the best that can be done is to look at the experience of the modernday archers and then make an educated guess. Modern archers are typically able to release between 6 and 10 arrowsper 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 toengage in the rapid firing of the bow. One opinion is that "the average English Military Archer could fire 12 to 15arrows 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 whofell below ten per minute was not considered worthy ofhis place in the army".A third claims that a "possiblefifteen or twenty shots under certain circumstances"could be achieved.

Two modern authorities, Robert Hardy andProfessor Anne Curry, are of the opinion that themedieval archers could not sustain more than 12 arrowsper minute over a long period of time. Another expertsays that, based on the practical experience of modernday archers, only 5 or 6 arrows per minute is realistic overa 10 minute time period.

To put this question into perspective, an archerfiring 15 arrows per minute would be firing a new arrowevery four seconds. It certainly seems unlikely thatanyone 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 forcesis overwhelming, particularly the first time it happened. It can certainly be concluded that the rapid fire capability ofthe longbow seems daunting, and it is surprising that archers were not more of a factor in some of the medievalbattles than they turned out to be.

RangeThe 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 dayexperienced bowmen have maintained that the effective range for a longbow was between 180 and 200 yards. CaptainGeorge Burnet, Secretary to the Royal Scottish Archers, has observed that the members of the Queen's Body Guardfor Scotland, who use six foot yew bows with a draw weight of 55 to 60 pounds, are attaining a range of between 180and 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

Cry "Havoc!" No. 47

August 2004 p. 8

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 havesome 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 180to 220 yards.

Importance of ArrowAn arrow's successful flight from the

bow to the target is a function of threefactors combining to determine whether itwould be able to reach its target, as well asits rate of speed to get there. The threefactors are the spine, weight and length ofthe arrow.

In modern archery, the length of thearrow is typically between 28 and 30 inchesbecause it is the greatest length that can bedrawn comfortably and safely. From thearrows 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 thosefound in the Mary Rose.

The weight of the arrow is important because the heavier the weight the less initial velocity it has coming out ofthe bow. The results of Pratt's study indicate that the longer Mary Rose arrows weigh in at 60 grams and the shorterarrows were 35 grams. Drawing on all available studies and evidence, Prof. Pratt established a table that consideredfactors of draw weight of the bow and weight of the arrow to determine the range of the arrow. The table shows thewith a draw weight of 70 pounds, an arrow weighing 70 grams travels 150 yards, while an arrow weighing 10 gramswould travel 300 yards. Likewise, with a draw weight of 150 pounds, a 70 gram arrow will travel 300 yards and a 10gram arrow will travel almost 400 yards. The Pratt study clearly supports the conclusion that the lighter the arrow the

further it can travel.

Armor Piercing CapabilitiesThe ability of an arrow fired by a medieval

longbow to pierce armor would have a verysignificant influence of the outcome of a battle.During the Hundred Years War, the onlyprotection available for a medieval soldier waseither plate or mail armor. However, armor was notworn by all participants, at least early on in thewar. As the war progressed, plate armor wasimproved and it began to be very effective atstopping arrows.

A 1992 study by Peter Jones offers someinteresting conclusions about the ability of amedieval arrow to penetrate armor. What the studyfound was that mail armor, which was usedextensively in the early phase of the HundredYears War, including the Battle of Crecy, could bepenetrated by an arrow. Jones concludes that inthe earlier battles of the Hundred Years War, "thelongbow would have been extremely lethal andthat in later battles, when armor had been furtherimproved, it would become marginal."

Cry "Havoc!" No. 47

August 2004 p. 9

Arrowheads were shaped to fit different purposes: thebodkin 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 fleshpiercing arrow and sometimes was smeared withbeeswax, resin or tallow. The barbs on the head wouldprevent the arrow being easily withdrawn.

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, platearmor 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 tocause debilitating wounds, such as the loss of arm or leg function. None of the plate armor was penetrated farenough to cause death.

This study is important because it corrects the misleading impression that has been created by various writerswho have stated that arrows could pierce "the best armour" at close range, and could even do so at a distance of 100yards. The study also helps to explain why gunpowder helped to achieve the demise of the longbow even though ithad many other qualities that the early firearms lacked.

THE LONGBOW AT WARIn 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 WarThe 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 FalkirkThe 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 Ito 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 soldiersand an unknown number of archers and Wallace having a lesser number of foot soldiers, a group of archers from theEttrick Forest and 500 cavalry.

The English attacked in three columns with their archers dispersed between them. The first column ended up ina marsh, where the Ettrick archers of Wallace poured arrows into their ranks causing death and chaos. The secondcolumn 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 beenstopped, sent his own archers into the battle and they were able to get within point blank range of the Scottish lines.

Cry "Havoc!" No. 47

August 2004 p. 10

They proceeded to rain a hail of arrows into the Scottish ranks, which had no armor and, therefore, no protectionfrom 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 andproceeded to slaughter most of the remaining Scottish army. Wallace managed to fight his way out of the carnageand escaped with a handful of his followers. The tide of the battle had been turned by the ability of the Englishlongbowmen to fire arrows at a rapid pace into the Scottish lines with no contest or exposure and, thereby, to inflictextensive casualties to their army, which seriously reduced its effectiveness.

Battle of Halidon HillAnother 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, whowere supported by archers. The Scottish attack was driven back by the arrows of the archers. In this battle, theScottish forces had to go through a marsh and up the slopes of Holidan Hill in order to reach the English army, whowere positioned on top of the hill. All of the way through the marsh and up the hill, the Scots were exposed to adevastating shower of arrows, which caused havoc in their ranks. By the time they reached the English lines, theywere unable to mount an effective attack.

The English won the battle because they had a fixed position for their dismounted men-at-arms, and becausetheir foot soldiers were protected by archers who were flanked on each side. The archers were able to pour volley

Cry "Havoc!" No. 47

August 2004 p. 11

Kings Ban Football in England to Preserve Archery

Edward III, followed by Richard II, Henry IV and Henry V all passed lawsbarring football from England. One of the main reasons for this hard line takenwas the very real fear that the English population were spending far too muchtime playing football. This prevented them from practicing archery, a key areaof defence during the 100 years war. Edward III passed the followingproclamation 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 pooralike, were accustomed formerly in their games to practise archery - whence by God'shelp, it is well known that high honour and profit came to our realm, and no smalladvantage to ourselves in our warlike enterprises - and that now skill in the use of thebow having fallen almost wholly into disrepute, our subjects give themselves up to thethrowing of stones and of wood and of iron; and some to handball and football andhockey; and others to coursing and cock-fights, and even to other unseemly sports lessuseful and manly;

Whereby our realm - which God forbid - will soon, it would appear, be void ofarchers:

We, wishing that a fitting remedy be found in this matter, do hereby ordain, that inall places in your country, liberties or no liberties, wheresoever you shall deem fit, aproclamation 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 practisearchery.Moreover we ordain that you prohibit under penalty of imprisonment all andsundry from such stone, wood and iron throwing; handball, football, or hockey;coursing and cock-fighting, or other such idle games.

Edward the Third 1363

after volley of arrows into the attacking ranks, which became easy targets for a counter-attack by the waiting Englishmen-at-arms. The English used this same battle tactic to fight the French with great success and effectiveness in thefirst period of the Hundred Years War. Success at Holidan Hill insured that the English would adopt this samestrategy in future battles.

THE HUNDRED YEARS WARThe 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 theduchy of Guyenne was forfeited by King Edward III for harboring a person who was viewed by the French King as acriminal. Edward III responded with a letter of defiance referring to Philippe as the person "who calls himself King ofFrance", and with the encouragement of a Flemish leader claimed the French crown. The Hundred Years War isgenerally thought to have ended when Henry VI's army was defeated at Castillon in 1453, and the English wereexpelled from France.

The Hundred Years War can be divided into two distinct periods. The first period was initiated by the invasionof France by King Edward III in 1339. One of the first significant battles of the English invasion was the Battle ofCrecy in 1346, followed by the Battle of Poitiers ten years later, where the French King was captured. The first periodwas 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 hisimpressive victory at Agincourt in 1415. The second period also featured the short career of Joan of Arc, theintroduction of gunpowder fired weapons and a string of French victories beginning with Orleans and culminating inthe 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 pre- eminence 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.

Cry "Havoc!" No. 47

August 2004 p. 12

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 historyor wargaming. Then send it to us. Your opinion on a variety of things is important both to the successof 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

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 ensuingcampaign took place near the French town of Crecy in 1346 and involved a French army of 20,000 to 30,000 menincluding 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 itsconclusion as to the key ingredient in the subsequent defeat of the French army by the English invaders. Crecy wasthe first important battle where English longbow archers were successful against a superior force of infantry and

Cry "Havoc!" No. 47

August 2004 p. 13

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 thebetter terrain because they had selected the site and were formed on the higher ground. The French, even thoughthey had more men, had to attack up a sloping terrain with tired men who had just made a long march. Moreover, arainstorm just before the battle made the ground soggy and the Genoese crossbowmen had wet and, therefore, loosebowstrings.

The crossbowmen led the French charge and were supposed to have been followed by the cavalry. Because oftheir wet strings, when the crossbows fired their first volley their bows many could not get enough distance to reachthe English lines. Most that did fire were shooting up the hill and over the head of the English defenders. After thefirst 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 disruptthe 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 causedconfusion and chaos and the cavalry was driven back. A second cavalry charge was made by the John ofLuxembourg'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 veryheavy fighting, forced his army to withdraw from the field. No clear records exist as to the actual battlefieldcasualties, but estimates of the French losses range from an exaggerated 20,000 men to what most experts feel is amore 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 primarilyresponsible for the outcome of the battle. The English archers delivered a devastating arrow storm that ultimatelyforced the Genoese crossbowmen to withdraw and stopped the subsequent French attacks. The longbow's importantrole in Crecy also helped the recruitment of archers into the English army, and the English longbowman began toacquire an elite status in the army.

Cry "Havoc!" No. 47

August 2004 p. 14

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 wasunder the command of the king's son, Edward of Woodstock, better known as the Black Prince. The Black Prince hadbeen conducting raiding parties into the heart of France with a 7000 man army. After collecting a substantial amountof 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

Cry "Havoc!" No. 47

August 2004 p. 15

stand. The place he picked to make his stand was south of the Town of Poitiers on high ground surrounded bymarshes, woods and hedges.

The battle began early in the day when the Black Prince moved his booty and supply wagons further away fromhis defensive position, which caused the French commander to order an attack. As at Crecy, the archers were at thefront flanks of each division. In some cases, the archers were hidden behind the hedges so that they were notimmediately visible to the attackers. The French cavalry's initial attack was uncoordinated and the archers were ableto turn it back. This was followed by a French attack on foot, which through sheer numbers reached some of thearchers 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 andattack the French at their rear and flanks. This attack was supported by a group of Gascon archers hidden behind aledge, who proceeded to send volley after volley of arrows into the attacking French foot soldiers with devastatingconsequences. The second French division, seeing the rain of arrows falling on the first attackers, becamecompletely demoralized and began to retreat. The Black Prince seized the opportunity to counter-attack with his menformed into one solid mass of troops, which was supported by another group of archers hidden from view. When thearchers became short of arrows they joined in the attack, and the French army, thinking the archers were thevanguard of a much larger force, began to give way and retreat back toward the town. The French king and his sonstayed on the battlefield with a small band of followers and were finally captured by the English. The Frenchcasualties were 2500 killed and 2000 captured and the English casualties were assumed to be light, but no records areavailable 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 thefinal outcome and further solidified their important role in protecting the infantry and cavalry from an attack by asuperior numerical force. The French delivered separate and uncoordinated attacks against the strongest part of theEnglish line, enabling the larger force to be defeated piecemeal by the smaller but better coordinated army.

Battle of ShrewsburyAlthough 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, HenryIV, is estimated to have had 2000 archers under his command, and the rebel commander, Sir Henry Percy, betterknown as "Hotspur", is estimated to have had even more. The Battle of Shrewsbury was a struggle for control of thethrone of England and, in the final analysis, the battle was probably won by King Henry because he had a biggerarmy.

This battle is considered a showcase for the archers because both sides used them extensively and because thecasualties 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 withthe Percy family, who had once been his devoted followers. Later inthe day, the king, convinced that no deal was possible and thatreinforcements might be on the way, gave the order to advance. Theking's forces began the battle by advancing up a ridge towardHotspur's army. Hotspur responded with his archers who poured aheavy volley of arrows down on the advancing English force togreat effect. A contemporary writer says of this volley, "They fellupon the King's troops like leaves on the ground in autumn. Everyone struck a mortal man."

Hotspur's archers were able to counteract the significantdifference in numbers until they ran out of arrows. At that point, theking's forces were able to renew their attack on foot supported bytheir archers. The king's army finally succeeded in crushing therebels when Hotspur himself was killed, presumably by an arrow,during the battle. The death of Hotspur was followed by what somecontemporary writers referred to as a "slaughter" of the rebel forces.The rest of Hotspur's rebel supporters, who were still alive at theend of the battle, were executed. One historian has speculated that1600 of 8000 rebel troops were killed during the advance of theking's army up the slope and that most of them were killed byarrows.

Cry "Havoc!" No. 47

August 2004 p. 16

Battle of AgincourtThe Agincourt battle was immortalized

by Shakespeare in his play, Henry V, bywords that he put in the mouth of Henry V, onthe eve of the battle, to motivate his men. InShakespeare's words, he exhorts his troopswith a long speech that included the words,"And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by, Fromthis day to the ending of the world, But we init shall be remembered- We few, we happyfew, we band of brothers". The words ofShakespeare have seemed to endowAgincourt with some kind of mystical andheroic quality, which was easy for the Englishto believe because they had been able todefeat a French army three or four times thesize of their own.

Upon inheriting the English throne in1415, Henry V was determined to invadeFrance to claim what he perceived to be hisbirthright, the Duchy of Normandy. Hisinvasion army consisted of 2500 men-at-armsand 8000 archers. It seems clear that thedisproportionate number of archers in theEnglish army was a recognition by the king ofthe fact that the archers were "their mostfearsome weapon".

The French army, estimated to be 25,000to 35,000 men, was formed up in threedivisions consisting of both infantry andcavalry units. After some initial negotiations,the battle began with the English armyadvancing 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 positionand with the point aimed toward the enemy so that they could resist a cavalry attack. The archers then began firing atthe French causing destruction in their ranks.

In response, the French launched two cavalry attacks, but they were uncoordinated, and due to the devastatingarrow volleys from the archers, behind their line of protection, the attacks were turned back. Unfortunately for theFrench, the retreating cavalry were out of control and ran back into the rest of the French lines causing chaos andconfusion all along the lines. The French were finally able to regroup forming into three columns. Two of theircolumns, consisting of both foot soldiers and cavalry, attacked the English at two different locations, but bothadvanced into a hail storm of English arrows.

By the time the remainder of the French attackers reached the English lines 300 yards away, they wereexhausted and their ranks were so depleted that they could not put up a strong effort. The fighting became veryintense hand to hand fighting with even the archers throwing down their bows and joining in. Slowly, but surely, theFrench began to give way and were pushed back, and then started to surrender. The third French column, seeingwhat was happening to their comrades, left the field. By the time the battle was over, all of the French leaders wereeither 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 volleysof arrows that wreaked havoc with the French forces, in this instance, more than made up for the odds against theEnglish 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

Cry "Havoc!" No. 47

August 2004 p. 17

Hundred Years War. Archers were used by both sides, and in this battlethe French used cannons in the battle, which they managed to keep outof the effective range of the English arrows.

Initially the English archers were able to operate behind their line ofsharpened wooden stakes. Their arrow storm was very effective againstthe French lines until guns were brought into play. The French gunswere successful in causing death and destruction to the English and,more particularly, the archers. At some point, the archers, who were nomatch for the cannons, became weary of being the target and came outfrom behind their line of stakes. This enabled the French to mount anattack while being supported by the guns, and in turn they werecounter-attacked by the English.

The battle went back and forth, but was finally decided whenFrench reinforcements under Richemont arrived on the field and helpedto defeat the English. The archers fought bravely, and one party of 500archers were said to have fought to the last man behind a hedge in thegarden. It is estimate that four fifths of the English army was killed orwounded in this engagement, which proved to be a major setback to the English attempt to rule France.

After the Hundred Years WarIn 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 archersplayed a significant part in the outcome of abattle. The Scots had the Ettrick forestarchers, known as the "Flowers of theForest", as was the case at Falkirk, and theEnglish had archers from Cheshire andLancashire.

The battle started with an exchange ofartillery fire which resulted in an attack by aScottish division. The attack was meetingwith success until the English archers beganpouring volleys of arrows into the Scottishright, driving the Scots back to their originalposition. The archers continued their deadlyfire into the Scottish ranks, which were notprotected by armor, killing and maiminglarge numbers of the Scots.

The deadly shower of English arrowsforced a retreat, which allowed the English toturn their attention on the rest of theScottish forces. The Scottish king wassubsequently killed by an arrow and thebattle ended as darkness fell on the field.The battle casualties were 10,000 to 12,000for the Scots, including the Ettrick archerswho were decimated almost to a man, and5000 for the English.

DECLINE OF THE LONGBOWBecause the longbow was such an

effective weapon, one is left to wonder whyits use declined after reaching its peakduring the Hundred Years War. Althoughthe longbow was used in various battles in

Cry "Havoc!" No. 47

August 2004 p. 18

Henry VIII demonstrates his skill with the longbow

the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, it ceased to be a factor in the outcome of any battles after Flodden Field in1513. This rapid fire weapon that propels a lethal long range missile suddenly disappears as a battlefield weapon. Atleast five factors contributed to the decline of the longbow in a battlefield setting and made it into an obscurehistorical footnote.

First, gunpowder fired weapons were too much of an innovation to fade into oblivion. The firing of the musketor cannon, which caused a flash followed by an extremely loud noise that added to the excitement of a battle, was sounique at the time that these weapons were quickly initiated into battles and their use became widespread. Early in itshistory, gunpowder was referred to as the "devil's distillate" and a recent history of that product concluded that theeffect of it was "quite astounding to the medieval mind". The fact that the longbow could fire more rapidly than amusket, had an equal or better effective range and was more accurate in hitting its desired target did not detergunpowder from becoming dominant because no country wanted to be left out of using a weapon with suchpotential..

Second, the longbow was a difficult weapon to master in terms of its rate of fire and its accuracy. The trainingperiod for an apprentice archer was many months and was "intense by any standard". So much so that at least oneEnglish ruler required all able bodied men from the age of seven to be trained on the longbow in order to have a readysupply of archers that could be used to fight his wars. Once the longbow was introduced, its use and practice wascontinually enforced by some form of formal legislative act. Training, in order to be effective, was on-going andprobably seemed endless to the medieval archers.

Moreover, the constant firing of a longbow took a significant physical toll on the archer. One expert hascontended that men who had been archers for a long time "had spines twisted from the force exerted in drawing thestring over and over again, and had no feelings in the fingers used to draw the strings". While a soldier operating afirearm needed to be trained, he could be made useful to his commander in battle within a few weeks. Archery, on theother hand, seemed to be a permanent lifetime commitment. The long and arduous task of becoming an archer, as wellas the resulting physical impairments, most likely resulted in discouragement on the part of the young potentialtrainees 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 longbowto compete. The steps to manufacture the longbow were much simpler in comparison to the steps required to make afirearm. The use of gunpowder encouraged manufacturing skills that lent themselves to the development ofspecialized trades and those trades, among others, helped to usher in the very early beginning of the industrialrevolution. Not only did gunpowder involve the manufacture of a metal barrel with some additional workingcomponents, it also involved the making of gunpowder itself, which was a very dangerous occupation. The work toproduce a longbow, on the other hand, required fewer trades and was much less complex than the making of acannon or a small arms weapon.

Fourth, the longbow won Crecy, Poitiers and Agincourt and some other smaller engagements but the Hundred

Cry "Havoc!" No. 47

August 2004 p. 19

Years War was actually won by the French through their use of artillery. While the English led the world in thedevelopment 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 cannonpossessed a unique ability to penetrate the medieval fortresses that had been able to rebuff most sieges by invadingarmies until the invention of gunpowder and basically changed the emphasis from fortresses to more strategic battletactics. The cannon alone most likely provided the impetus to use gunpowder related weapons that finallyovershadowed the longbow.

Fifth, contrary to ever popular mythology, the longbow arrow was not effective at any distance in penetratingplate 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 armybegan using the improved plate armor for its soldiers, they began to win battles because the longbow could onlyinjure but not kill. With the introduction of a firearm, the equation changed and plate armor did not offer the sameprotective capability. The other advantages of a longbow were offset by the ability of the musket to render the armoruseless.

CONCLUSIONSThe 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 inbattle after battle until it began to fade from view. Its primary period was during the Hundred Years War where it

Cry "Havoc!" No. 47

August 2004 p. 20

really proved itself to be a potentweapon. Then, almost without notice, itwas replaced by a musket as the weaponof choice for the average soldier.

It is interesting to note that in theBattle of Waterloo in 1811, 300 yearsafter the introduction of gunpowderweapons, British soldiers were using theBrown Bess musket that had an effectiverange of 50 to 80 yards and that anexperienced soldier could only fire threetimes per minute. That accuracy was nota prominent requirement of a weapon inwar was demonstrated by numerousexamples where a British unit would firea volley into an opposing line 50 yardsaway that ended up doing very littledamage. A few select British units atWaterloo used the Baker rifle that had aneffective range of 200 yards but couldonly be fired twice in sixty seconds by ahighly trained rifleman. Contrast that tothe longbow, which at the height of itspopularity during the Hundred YearsWar had an effective range of 250 yards,could fire 6 to 8 arrows every minute anddelivered a lethal blow to any target notwearing armor.

The fact that the longbowultimately faded from use does notdetract from its effectiveness as aweapon 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 arightful place in history as the only medieval rapid fire weapon.

REFERENCESBarratt, John. A Storm of English Arrows , Military History 20 (August 2003)Bartlett, Clive. English Longbowman, 1330-1515 Oxford: Osprey Publishing, 2003Bennett, Matthew. Agincourt 1415 Oxford: Osprey Publishing, 1991Bradbury, Jim. The Medieval Archer Suffolk: Boydell Press, 2002Curry, Anne ed., Agincourt 1415 Gloucestershire: Tempus, 2000Featherstone, Donald. The Bowmen of England Barnsley: Pen & Sword, 2003Hardy, Robert Longbow Bois-d'Arc Press, 1993Harris, 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, 2004Knight, Paul . Henry V and the Conquest of France Oxford: Osprey Publishing, 2000Nicolle, David Crecy 1346 Oxford: Osprey Publishing, 2000Rees, Gareth, The Physics of Medieval Archery, Insight, Stortford Archery Club Newsletter, Issues 5 & 6

Summer & Autumn, 1995Sumption, Jonathan. The Hundred Years War I, Trial by Battle (Philadelphia: Univ. of Pennsylvania Press) 1999

Cry "Havoc!" No. 47

August 2004 p. 21

This article came about after a request to tell the readers of Cry Havoc! about theacademic society I am member of, namely De Re Militari: The Society for MedievalMilitary History. But I thought it would also be a good idea to give some backgroundto our small subgroup of history, and explain why this academic society, originally aNorth 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 thattook place around them. This trend continues to the present day: go into any bookstore's history section, and most of the works on the shelves will deal with this militaryleader, that battle, or a whole conflict. Judging by this, it would seem that being amedieval military historian is well-accepted profession.

But the academic world has not been altogether accepting of scholars who studywarfare, and sometimes do not think that military history is worth teaching. There aretwo reasons for this. The first is that historians in general are often trying to find newways 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 partbecause 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 keptbeing re-released. It would be hard to think that a book on the history of women or medieval Jewish people written inthe nineteenth century would find any acceptance today, yet a lot of people will buy Oman's book and think that it isan accurate piece of research.

Even when books on military history are quite good, they sometimes fail to show how the issues and ideas theyraise can apply to other fields of study, such as war's impact on culture or religion. It is kind of analogous to theproblems the American and allied forces have in Iraq at present – while the US soldiers were skilled in the militaryaspects of the invasion and occupation, they did not possess the knowledge of Iraq's culture and society, which ledto conflict and strengthen the resistance against occupation. In a similar way, military historians often just writeabout 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, isthat military history is associated with militarism, and that many history professors and academics are men andwomen who in the early 1970s not only protested against conflicts like the Vietnam War, but also blamed theirnation's eagerness to go to war on those historians that made out previous war to be something noble, honourableand something to be proud of. One recently published book, Ain't Gonna Study War No More: The Story ofAmerica'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 afaculty position when a professor retires. This leaves young military historians with fewer options on where theycan do there teaching and research. On the other hand, classes on military history are always popular withundergraduates; 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. Medievalmilitary historians face these problems too, which shows in their lack of representation among North Americanuniversities. There are at most a couple dozen professors in the United States and Canada whose primary research ison medieval warfare. They include the now-retiring Bernard Bachrach, Stephen Morillo (who is the current president

Cry "Havoc!" No. 47

August 2004 p. 22

Feature

De Re MilitariThe Society for Medieval Military History

Peter Michael KoniecznyToronto, Canada

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, AnneCurry, John France, Norman Housley, Helen Nicholson, Michael Prestwich and Matthew Strickland are just a few ofthe 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 fewscholars in North America are spread out over the continent, there was a need for some sort of way for them toexchange ideas and plan activities like conferences or a book of essays. When De Re Militari was started in 1991, itwas done so at the International Congress for Medieval Studies, an annual conference held at Western MichiganUniversity. It is the largest gathering of medieval scholars in the world, with typically over two thousand peopleattending over a four-day period. Hundreds of sessions are held, with topics such as Anglo-Saxon culture andfourteenth-century Byzantine monasteries.

The need to have sessions devoted to medieval military history was the reason behind the creation of De ReMilitari. The congress planners had decided that academic associations would be given priority when selectingthese sessions, so if medieval military historians wanted to guarantee their place at this congress, they had to form asociety.

De Re Militari was originally a very loose organization, where the requirements to be a member is that you wantto be one (this is actually still the case). But in the last five years or thereabouts, this society has evolved andgrown, taking on more activities and becoming an international group. At the moment, our membership numbersover two hundred people, including nearly every major English-speaking scholar in the field of medieval warfare. Weeven 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 anorganizer of sessions at the International Congress for Medieval Studies. Our society gets to hold about four or fivesessions each year, which allows more than a dozen people to make a presentation. Even though each session isbased around a theme, such as Early Medieval Warfare, or the role of technology, one can find a lot of varietybetween these presentations. At the 2004 congress we heard presentations on the use of crossbows in England, thelogistics of the Norman conquest of Italy and the paper I gave on battles in thirteenth-century Iceland. The speakerswho 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, forexample, a group of high school students were given the opportunity to discuss how they built a replica of a Romanballista, 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 isgiven about an hour to speak on a particular subject. The 2004 speaker was Richard W. Kaeuper, a professor at theUniversity of Rochester, who spoke about how medieval literature could be used to study chivalry and the behaviourof knights. These presentations, which attract between sixty and seventy listeners, often lead to lively debate and

Cry "Havoc!" No. 47

August 2004 p. 23

The Journal of Medieval Military HistoryVolume 3 (2005)

Table of ContentsA Lying Legacy? A Preliminary Discussion of Images of Antiquity and Altered Reality inMedieval Military History by Richard Abels and Stephen R MorilloWar and Sanctity: Saints' Lives as Sources for Early Medieval Warfare by John FranceThe 791 Equine Epidemic and its Impact on Charlemagne's Army by Carroll GillmorThe Role of the Cavalry in Medieval Warfare by J F VerbruggenSichelgaita of Salerno: Amazon or Trophy Wife? by Valerie EadsCastilian Military Reform under the Reign of Alfonso XI (1312-50) by Nicolas AgraitFerrante d'Este's Letters as a Source for Military History by Sergio MantovaniProvisions for the Ostend Militia on the Defense, August 1436 by Kelly DeVries

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 theUniversity of Wales in July 2005.

Our society has recently started to publish an annual, the Journal of Medieval Military History. Publishedwith Boydell & Brewer, the second volume of this journal was printed in the spring of 2004. Most major academiclibraries collect this journal, and most of our members also receive a copy if they pay an annual membership fee ($35US). Like the papers given at our conference sessions, the essays in this journal cover many different topics andevents. 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. Athree-member committee is given the task of choosing among dozens of works to find what they believe to be themost important and original contribution to our field. The first winner was Richard W. Kaeuper, for his bookChivalry and Violence in Medieval Europe, while last year's recipient was Clifford Rogers, who penned War, Crueland 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 beenfortunate enough to have started this website in the summer of 2001 and serve as its editor ever since. The websitehas two functions: first, we post information about our society and any activities that would be of interest tomedieval 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 orfor those who are interested in learning about medieval warfare. Thanks to the generous permission of authors andpublishers, we have been able to republish hundreds of articles and primary texts. For example, we have republisheda dozen articles from the journal Nottingham Medieval Studies, while Ashgate Publishing has allowed us to putonline excerpts from their Crusade Texts in Translation series. One thing I wanted to do as the website editor wasform a relationship with the publishers who produce books and journals in the area of medieval studies. Thesepublishers want their works to be promoted, and our website will assist them in any way possible. In exchange, wehope that they will give us some free access to some of their content, which we can provide to our readers. I thinkwe 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 reviewsof works on medieval warfare. Our reviews are often the first assessments done of how good these books are, andsince our reviewers are experts in this field, they are considered important evaluations of the strengths andweaknesses of these writings.

Overall, I think having a society like De Re Militari has been very positive for the study of medieval militaryhistory. First it allows for historians to easily exchange their ideas and collaborate on projects. Secondly, it gives allscholars a forum where they can discuss and publish their research, allowing them to show their abilities as well ashelping 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 anyonewho is interested in medieval military history to join De Re Militari. Oursociety welcomes new members, and hopes that being part of it will broadenyour 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 contactDe Re Militari, please visit our website at www.deremilitari.org or emailus at deremilitari@hotmail.com

Cry "Havoc!" No. 47

August 2004 p. 24

Peter Michael Konieczny

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 hadparticipated in World War I ). He also asked if he could contribute. Tese pages are always open to the reminiscesof 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 Amienswhere my father Martin Owens O'Bryan had fought in 1917 and 1918, travelling by car to the entrance of theEuro-tunnel near Folkstone. The experience of driving the car on to the tunnel train was new to us all and the 35minute journey under the sea to Calais was no less exciting. Our daughter Trish drove the car on what was an easytrip on the auto route to Amiens which we found was quite a large city. In preparation for our tour ,I had obtainedenlarged photo copies of the map of this area at the At Albans library which enabled us to join the Amiens ring roadand travel around it to an eastern suburb where the Formula One hotel was located. It was fairly basicaccommodation and quite reasonable in price. Trish did wonderfully well driving her English car on continental roadswhich demands more concentration than usual in order to keep on theright side of the road!!

The next day we made an early start for Villers Bretonneux whichis only a short distance away and arrived there just in time for Sundaymass at the village church of Notre-Dame d’ Esperance. The sermonwas in French which went completely over my head although I foundafterwards that the priest was reasonable conversant with Englishwhen we spoke to him He was young and appeared very interested inwhere we came from. Mass has the some form wherever one goes inthe world so that the service can be followed. During the sermon mymind wandered and I suddenly remembered that my father was here 85years ago and took part in the heroic recapture of the village from theinvader on 24th April 1918. He was quite modest about hisachievements that day but told me of seeing the badly damagedchurch the very one in which we sat. According to him he was onlyon the outskirts of the gas attack that day, but Oak Lewis who Iinterviewed about 10 years ago in Mungindi, said dad was right in themiddle of it! It was an event which affected him all his life. For variousother reasons many of these men never told the whole story of theirterrible experiences.

We then went in search of the Victoria School which with thehelp of one or two of the local people we found but due to a break-inthe previous night it was closed. A visit to the most impressive andwell maintained Australian War Memorial followed. Pat took lots ofphotographs on what was a beautiful day. We saw the mention of thesoldiers with no known graves including John Patrick O’Bryan 26thBattalion and that of Oscar Oswald Sutton 15th Battalion. TheMemorial is on the main road and to the south of the town and is on aslight hill with a panoramic view sweeping gently away to the east

Cry "Havoc!" No. 47

August 2004 p. 25

Feature

THE FRENCH CONNECTIONAn Australian's Journey Through France

M. E. "Ted" O'BryanLaunceston, Tasmania, Australia

Ted O'Bryan can be reached atobryan @hotkey.net.au

and consisting of golden wheatfields as far as the eye could see. A peaceful scene indeed and no doubt quitedifferent 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 Schooland saw an excellent record of Australia at war , a large photographic display and a extensive range of soldiersuniforms diaries letters and objects collected from the battlefields. Etienne Denys in charge of the museum andassistant Melanie Stachowitz met us. I presented them with with some photographs of dad taken in Belgium justafter the war finished. and a copy of his medical record. compiled subsequent to him being wounded at the battle ofHamel. The School is a large building with an internal quadrangle which serves as a playground for the considerablenumber of childern who attend. A sign stretching across one side of the playground reads ; “ NEVER FORGETAUSTRALIA’The building was a gift from the children of the Australian State of Victoria to those of VillersBretonneux as proof of their love and goodwill towards France. Twelve hundred Australian soldiers ,the fathers andbrothers 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 offreindship and mutual esteem”. Many streets have Australian names such as Rue Victoria and Rue Monash afterGen. Monash ,the victor of Hamel.

Using the audio tape and book supplied by the museum, we started on the tour of the Hamel battlefieldcommencing with the Adelaide cemetery and then on to the village of Hamelet. Next come the communal cemetrey atCorbie where with some difficulty we found the section where dad’s 15th battalion CO Lt Colonel Terance Patrick McSharry is buried. He was one of most decorated soldiers of the war and very popular with his men..Lots of photosand 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 ourefforts to locate Harbonniere cemetrey were assisted by the local policeman who led us there in his police car afterearlier help from a tour bus driver! It was very difficult to find anyone in these small villages who were able to speakEnglish. Here we found the grave of Robert Martin O’Bryan son of my great uncle Andrew O’Bryan and dad’scousin. An extensive tour of the Hamel battlefield area was undertaken which included such points of interest asVaire and Hamel woods, Hun's Walk, Pear Trench, and the Australian Corps Memorial at Hamel which now stands onthe site of the German Wolfsberg command post all recaptured in a matter of 93 minutes on 4th July ,1918 by the 4thDivision 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 attheir camp at Corbie a few days before the battle taking with him four other officers and seven Privates. It would seemthat my father was one of the latter. McSharry brought the group across a day or two before the battle in order tointroduce them to the Americans to integrate them with the much depleted companies of the 15th. Dad told me thathe had trained some of them and at the commencement of the battle an American Sgt. was in charge of hisgroup,which was a part of 7th platoon, “B” Company. This man started to climb out of the trench waving a revolveraround 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 Hameland discovered that most of the 131st’s men came from Chicago at least those mentioned in C.E.W. Bean’s historyof the War of 1914-1918. Anotable mention being that of Lt. Later Capt. Frank Schram of the Amer. Med.Corpswhose men were those attached to my father’s 15th batt. They took him from the battle field after being woundedshortly after the battle of Hamel commenced at 3 am on 4 July 1918. He told us that after being in Noman’s land forsome time and fortunately for him the German counterattack was weak and soon petered out he was moved to No 47casualty clearing station where Lt. Schram and the battalion’s medical officer Major B.C. Kennedy were both inattendance. His foot became so swollen that the boot had to be cut off. The injury continued to worry him after thewar and when driving a car he often took the right shoe or boot off to ease the discomfort. On 6th July he wasconveyed 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 the72nd Australian Hospital also at Rouen and from there to the Austn. 20th Conv.Depot at Tourville. An othertransfer took placewhen he was sent to the 1st Conv. Depot at le Harve. My father because of the injury could notrejoin the 15th Batt. until 7th Sept. 1918 but went to Paris on leave from 13th to 30th Sept. Lt Schram according toBean took copious notes in the field regarding casualties and so these could be available in the regiments’ historicalrecord . It would also interesting to know if there still exists records of the patients treated by the US medical staff atRouen or even photographs taken there. I would be very interested if anyone can assist me with further research intothese events.

Cry "Havoc!" No. 47

August 2004 p. 26