PDA

View Full Version : Good Morning...Revolution in Military Affairs



Okla-homey
8/26/2007, 06:39 AM
August 26, 1346 Battle of Crécy

http://aycu33.webshots.com/image/25072/2002651378155150333_rs.jpg (http://allyoucanupload.webshots.com/v/2002651378155150333)

661 years ago, on this day in 1346, the world was rawked when everyone realized two facts. First, having reached the limit of tolerable armor thickness, the massive number of dead French knights on the battlefield at Crecy in Normandy meant the jig was up for the millenial battlefield superiority of mounted knights versus infantry.

Second, a normally ignorant grubby, profane, stinky common soldier had demonstrated he could kill large numbers of noble, wealthy, perfumed, privileged and educated knights.

At Crecy, during the Hundred Years War, King Edward III's English army annihilated the much larger French force under King Philip VI. The battle, which saw an early use of the deadly longbow by the English, is regarded as one of the most decisive in history.

http://img368.imageshack.us/img368/76/edward20iii20crossing20the20so.jpg
Edward III plundering his way through France

Here's more on why this battle is so noteworthy. Prior to this battle, and for the preceding thousand years or so, a soldier on horseback could usually have his way with a guy on foot. The odds were even higher for the guy on the horse if he wore armor.

By this time, the science and art of armor making was pretty close to being at its peak. Armor makers had to walk a fine line between making the stuff too thin, or so thick that the knight could barely move, much less fight.

Weeks earlier, on July 12, 1346, the English King Edward had landed an invasion force of about 14,000 men on the coast of Normandy. From there, the English army marched northward, plundering the French countryside. Edward lost a lot of guys along the way to sickness, accident, probably even desertion, but he had at least 10,000 left by mid-August.

http://img383.imageshack.us/img383/6863/03a8sw.jpg
Typical 14th c. knights and longbowman...relax, they're "only a model."

Learning of the Englishmen's arrival, King Philip of France rallied an army of 12,000 men, made up of approximately 8,000 mounted French knights and 4,000 mercenary Italian crossbowmen. That should have been more than enough to put the smackdown on Edward, since his force was mostly guys on foot (infantry.)

At Crécy, Edward halted his English army and decided to make Phillip attack him. He set his boys to work making hasty defenses preparing for the French assault. Late in the afternoon of August 26, Philip's army attacked.

http://img368.imageshack.us/img368/2104/battlecrecy0sj.jpg
Period image of the battle. French on left. Note Italian crossbowmen on that side.

The hired Genoese crossbowmen led the assault, but they were soon overwhelmed by Edward's 10,000 longbowmen, who could reload faster and fire much further. The crossbowmen then skedaddled and the French mounted knights attempted to penetrate the English infantry lines.

http://img386.imageshack.us/img386/1531/piccrecy7ge.jpg

In charge after charge, the horses and riders were cut down in the merciless shower of arrows. At nightfall, the French finally withdrew. Nearly a third of their army lay slain on the field, including Philip's brother, Charles II of Alençon,; his allies King John of Bohemia and Louis II of Nevers; and 1,500 other knights and esquires.

http://aycu07.webshots.com/image/25966/2002656081561460359_rs.jpg (http://allyoucanupload.webshots.com/v/2002656081561460359)
The battlefield at Crecy

King Philip himself escaped with a wound. The flower of French nobility lay dead, most looking like big metal pin-cushions full of English arrows. English losses were less than a hundred.

http://img368.imageshack.us/img368/646/crecy4lm.jpg
English Longbowmen

The battle marked the beginning of the end of the mounted knight in European warfare and the rise of England as a world power. From Crécy, Edward marched on to Calais, which surrendered to him in 1347.

http://img368.imageshack.us/img368/3735/crecy017qb.jpg
Battle monument in the French town of Crecy

Today only six longbows survive, none from the "golden age" and sources do not agree on the dimensions. Most give the length as about 70in. which was taller than most men of the era, with a drawing weight of 75-100lbs. The arrows were between 27-36" long.

A trained archer could shoot 12 arrows a minute, but some sources say that the most skilled archers could fire twice this number. In fact, historians have found period accounts in which leaders expected a trained longbowman to put three arrows into the air before the first one struck the ground. The arrow could wound at 250 yards, kill at 100 yards and penetrate armor at 60 yards.

http://img368.imageshack.us/img368/2503/broadarrow1ec.jpg
The arrows were tipped with steel broadheads because they were practically impossible to remove without doing more damage to tissue.

As an aside, those English longbows were made from a certain kind of wood called "yew." Based on what happened on this day in 1346, for the next three hundred years, the English crown maintained and protected by royal statute several forests of yew trees in order to ensure there would always be a good supply for longbow-making.

http://aycu02.webshots.com/image/27561/2002639022499079067_rs.jpg (http://allyoucanupload.webshots.com/v/2002639022499079067)

Additionally, for the next three hundred years or so, English towns maintained a "butt" (an archaic term for a rudimentary archery range.) Able-bodied men were expected to regularly visit the butt and fire a few dozen arrows at a stump target from a distance of 100 yards or so just to stay in practice. Thus, Englishmen "went to the butt" on a weekly basis.

http://aycu06.webshots.com/image/24205/2002612656132604162_rs.jpg (http://allyoucanupload.webshots.com/v/2002612656132604162)

This practice is important because consistently drawing a 75-100lb. longbow requires conditioning. In fact, skeletons of seasoned English crossbowman recovered from the wreck of a contemporary English ship named Mary Rose which were examined by modern forensic paleontolgists revealed these guys' right chest, shoulder and forearms were markedly more developed than their weak side.

Here in Oklahoma, Indian archers regularly participate in "cornstalk shoots" in which a pile of corn stalks are stacked in a pile as the target similar to the medieval English butt protocol. Then, a line of archers takes it's position about 100 yds uprange. The goal is to elevate and have your arrow plunge into the pile and spear as many stalks as possible.

Each man fires three arrows, all individually marked. After they are fired, a scorer extricates the arrows from the pile of corn stalks assigning points according to the number of cornstalks each arrow penetrates. These points are tallied and at the end of the afternoon, a winning team is announced who amassed the most points.

http://aycu33.webshots.com/image/25512/2006105552576446799_rs.jpg (http://allyoucanupload.webshots.com/v/2006105552576446799)
Cornstalk shoot target

You can observe a cornstalk shoot any third Saturday during dry weather over in Tahlequah. It's run by the Cherokee Nation's Cornstalk Shooting Society. You don't have to be Indian to participate, but you must use a "self" bow. Your correspondent is the token white guy on a team of Creeks from Okmulgee who enjoy doing this stuff.

Finally, ever wonder why Brits often flash the backwards "Peace" sign (palm towards the gesturers face) as a gesture of disdain or derision, rather like our "bird?" Lots of historians believe it literally derives from this battle.

Remember, the English bowman used three fingers on their right hands to "nock" (hold arrow to the bowstring) and shoot. The index and middle finger were essential because it was between those two fingers the arrow's nock was held to the bowstring. Flashing those two fingers to a hated Frenchman for centuries afterwards was a visual reminder of kicking arse at Crecy on August 26. Now, its become more of a general "I'll kick your arse!" gesture.

http://img374.imageshack.us/img374/1720/untitled6wh.png
Churchill flashing the "V" for victory. Note his palm is facing you.

http://img376.imageshack.us/img376/6028/image26ex.gif
Churchill flashing the "F-you buddy!" See the difference?

Have a great weekend folks, its almost time for Sooner football!

http://img387.imageshack.us/img387/7486/insane7zo4rk.jpg

olevetonahill
8/26/2007, 07:31 AM
Greatness Homey
This one brought to mInd a Lot of ?
and answered a lot

Boots On the ground End a lot of this tyoe .

Okla-homey
8/26/2007, 09:00 AM
P.S. There is also a certain amount of anecdotal evidence (the piling of corpses for example) that suggests that many of the French were killed by crushing injuries of the type often seen in crowding disasters at concerts and such. The sheer size of the French force resulted in pressure being exerted upon memebers of the forward edge that either pressed them into the blades of the English infantry or outright crushed them under the feet of their fellows.

The French didn't seem culturally equipped the deal with the lessons of this battle. The repeated this perfomance at Poiters and Agincourt with similarly disasterous results.

1stTimeCaller
8/26/2007, 09:15 AM
any word on if this battle is the source of the term 'pluck yew' ?

fadada1
8/26/2007, 09:27 AM
how i miss the days of plundering the french countryside. it's just not the same anymore.

Harry Beanbag
8/26/2007, 10:56 AM
The French didn't seem culturally equipped the deal with the lessons of this battle. The repeated this perfomance at Poiters and Agincourt with similarly disasterous results.


Yeah, I was going to ask about those. The French really are militarily challenged. :)

SoonerStormchaser
8/26/2007, 10:57 AM
You forgot the third lesson learned:
3. The French aren't too bright when it comes to military affairs.

Okla-homey
8/26/2007, 12:41 PM
You forgot the third lesson learned:
3. The French aren't too bright when it comes to military affairs.

...unless being led by a brilliant Italian artillery officer from the little Mediterreanan island of Corsica.;)

Vaevictis
8/26/2007, 12:46 PM
The Normans seemed to do okay too.

They even managed to subdue Scotland... even the Romans didn't manage that.

Okla-homey
8/26/2007, 12:50 PM
You are correct sir. Normans were bad-a$$es. In a way, perhaps
Crecy was payback for 1066.

However, the Normans who gave the Scots and Picts hell were technically Norsemen. As in viking.

Harry Beanbag
8/26/2007, 12:53 PM
You are correct sir. Normans were bad-a$$es. In a way, perhaps
Crecy was payback for 1066.

However, the Normans who gave the Scots and Picts hell were technically Norsemen. As in viking.


Adrian Peterson is a bad ***. :)

Vaevictis
8/26/2007, 12:56 PM
Yeah, descended of Vikings, but still from France ;)

Although, I suppose that because the subdual of Scotland happened a couple hundred years later, you might argue that it was really the English that did it.

Vaevictis
8/26/2007, 01:01 PM
Really, I just think the French get an overly bad rap for their military defeat in WWII.

People seem to forget that early in the war, everyone got owned by the blitz; the only difference is that the Brits could retreat across the channel, the Russians could retreat into the motherland, and the French... well, they had nowhere to go.

silverwheels
8/26/2007, 01:09 PM
It's just much easier for Americans to make fun of France for WWII while ignoring their military past, which does include aiding us in our revolt against the British Empire and giving us a nice little statue for it.


"OMG lol cheez-eating surendur monkeyz lol lol"

Vaevictis
8/26/2007, 01:14 PM
It's just much easier for Americans to make fun of France for WWII while ignoring their military past, which does include aiding us in our revolt against the British Empire and giving us a nice little statue for it.

OTOH, I think they get far too much credit for this.

Congrats, you helped us to spite your enemies. That doesn't make us friends.

silverwheels
8/26/2007, 01:19 PM
OTOH, I think they get far too much credit for this.

Congrats, you helped us to spite your enemies. That doesn't make us friends.

I agree, but help is help.

Vaevictis
8/26/2007, 01:29 PM
Speaking of retreats:

Homey, how about an article on Dunkirk next time June 4(ish) rolls around?

soonerscuba
8/26/2007, 03:19 PM
It's just much easier for Americans to make fun of France for WWII while ignoring their military past, which does include aiding us in our revolt against the British Empire and giving us a nice little statue for it.


"OMG lol cheez-eating surendur monkeyz lol lol"

And they lost 1.5 million in the resistance, pretty steep casualties for a surrender.

Jerk
8/26/2007, 03:37 PM
And they lost 1.5 million in the resistance, pretty steep casualties for a surrender.
They faired better than the Russians. What were their casualties?

Harry Beanbag
8/26/2007, 04:03 PM
And they lost 1.5 million in the resistance, pretty steep casualties for a surrender.


Link to that? I've never seen that number higher than a couple hundred thousand. Most death casualty estimates that I've seen for France are around 500,000 total (soldiers, civilians, and other).

Okla-homey
8/26/2007, 04:13 PM
Really, I just think the French get an overly bad rap for their military defeat in WWII.

People seem to forget that early in the war, everyone got owned by the blitz; the only difference is that the Brits could retreat across the channel, the Russians could retreat into the motherland, and the French... well, they had nowhere to go.

The French had the manpower, weapons and treasure to beat back the blitz in May 1940. What they lacked was an ability to read the tea leaves that would have informed them a static defense was no longer the way to go. The Maginot Line was a absurdly expensive testament to their lack of foresight.

Expensive in two senses. First, it cost a buttload of francs to build, arm, provision and maintain that big honkin' steel and concrete system of fortifications. That money would have been better spent building a mobile mechanized force capable of meeting threats from whatever their origin. The challenge would have been made easier by the advantage of interior lines and an extensive surface transportation network to speed forces wherever they were needed. Instead, they sat in their concrete bunkers, quite literally eating cheese and drinking wine.

Second, it was expensive in the sense that when the Germans ran around it, they had no defensive secondary to deal with the Kraut linebackers running amok in their backfield.

Now, it would have been one thing of they hadn't seen it coming, but jeeze louise, they had ample warning to expect the Nazi's to rush. That's how they rolled. If the froggies had been paying attention to what happened to Poland, they would not have been caught with their culottes down. The May 1940 blitzkrieg was no sucker punch. It had been well telegraphed had the French general staff bothered to pay attention.

Besides, if we took the time to read Erwin Rommel and Heinz Guderian's books in the 1930's, and began to build combined arms divisions as a result with the whole flippin' Atlantic Ocean to insulate us from Hitler, you would think his next door neighbors would have read them too and taken appropriate steps.

Finally, they threw in the towel rather than see Paris burn. That displays a serious lack of guts. It also reflects a fatal lack of resolve. The danged old ignorant Russians settled in for a knock-down-drag-out after losing over a third of their nation to the Nazis. The sophisticated French were not up to bearing that burden. That makes them wussies in my book. I also imagine they could have hooked a generator up to Napolean's body and kept the lights on by all the spinning that no doubt occured in Le Emperators grave.

Me? No French apologist.

Jerk
8/26/2007, 04:29 PM
France had the world's largest standing army in 1939 and lost their country in 8 weeks.

All of those aggressive French male genes died in the Russian snow, some 100+ years earlier.

(127 years to be exact)

Okla-homey
8/26/2007, 04:45 PM
France had the world's largest standing army in 1939

Most which was thought safely ensconced behind thick reinforced concrete walls. It was literally akin to being on your own 20 yd line and putting all eleven on the line of scrimmage while believing the guys with the ball would run it on every down and wouldn't manage to punch through. Madness.

Jerk
8/26/2007, 05:02 PM
Most which was thought safely ensconced behind thick reinforced concrete walls. It was literally akin to being on your own 20 yd line and putting all eleven on the line of scrimmage while believing the guys with the ball would run it on every down and wouldn't manage to punch through. Madness.

Yeah, I like how the Germans dealt with the maginot line:

"Hanz, zer is a wall inz front of us wif giant cannons!"

"Klaus, just go around it you dumbkoft!"

Vaevictis
8/26/2007, 05:28 PM
The Maginot Line was a absurdly expensive testament to their lack of foresight.

Agreed. However, let's not confuse stupidity with cowardice. Your argument implies the former, not the latter.


Finally, they threw in the towel rather than see Paris burn. That displays a serious lack of guts. It also reflects a fatal lack of resolve. The danged old ignorant Russians settled in for a knock-down-drag-out after losing over a third of their nation to the Nazis.

The Russians also had the advantage of being able to give ground until the German supply line collapsed. The Brits could retreat behind the protection of the channel.

What should the French have done? IIRC, the remains of their mobile force had been evacuated to Britain at Dunkirk, and as you said, the forces at the Maginot Line were useless. Would it have been better to let the Germans run amok, mostly unchallenged, destroying everything in sight?

EDIT: And let's not forget the fact that post-Dunkirk, the British withdrew almost all RAF support over France, essentially ceding air superiority over France to the Germans. Basically, shortly after Dunkirk, the French were done. They had no significant mobile force, and no air power. The Germans could bomb them and outmanuever the French at will.

EDIT 2: And lest we forget, the British surrendered France first. Not that it wasn't the right thing to do. Just sayin'.