Tobias Capwell (Wallace Collection) on Agincourt, armour & arrows (exhibition September). Part 2
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 вер 2015
- www.wallacecollection.org/coll...
The Battle of Agincourt 1415
Saturday 12 September, 10am - 4pm
£30 tickets (£15 concessions)
2015 brings the 600th anniversary of the Battle of Agincourt, a pivotal event but much misunderstood. Forget your romantic vision of low-born English archers and aristocratic French knights, the reality is more complex, and much more interesting. Join us for a study day which brings together curators, historians and artists to explore their different perspectives on this singular moment in history: www.wallacecollection.org/coll... - Спорт
Matt, your head is brighter than my future.
+OFOctoberSon I'm sorry to hear that!
AHAHAHAHAH
that's because it's made of polished high carbon steel
Can we just take this opportunity to applaud Matt for managing to say the phrase "long, thick shaft" without subsequently getting *very* phallic?
+Matt L I am constantly very phallic.
+scholagladiatoria That must be hard.
He's used to it at this point.
FNARR FNARRR....SNURK SNURK..KYUK KYUK HOO HOOO!...etc.
As to military archery being a numbers game, this seems also to be reflected by contemporary military view. The historian and diplomat Philippe de Commines of Burgundy, who has seen a lot of English military archery in action (many Englishmen serving as mercenaries of the Dukes of Burgundy) wrote in 1475 that:
"In my opinion archers are the most necessary things in the world for an army, though they should be counted in thousands, for in small numbers they are almost useless."
Indeed . It's an interesting perspective.
I've been studying the use and deployment of light infantry from 1700 through to 1945. Infantry deployed with armour. Armour without infantry is vulnerable because it has limited mobility and limited visibility.
Imagine this.... a group of French men at arms, heavily armoured, tired, very hot, thirsty (anyone who has ever worn armour for more than 30 mins with the visor down knows how bloody miserable it is), claustrophobic, light headed due to lack of O2, in a muddy ploughed field trying to close with English armour. Meanwhile you have these highly mobile, aggressive men hitting you with arrows, dis orientating you, bruising you. Then getting in close and quick with a rondel in the groin or over balancing you and clobbering you with a lead maul. Then dancing away the moment you counter.. too slow.
Unless you have your own light infantry or light horse to counter them they are going to cause chaos and pick off your armour
Now go to 1943 on the Eastern Front. A heavy tank batallion of either side was vulnerable to infantry, if enemy infantry get in close, under your main gun and machine guns, if they have grenades, mines or even molotovs, you are in a lot of trouble.
Woah, Toby's pretty badass.
The world's hardest nerd!
Tobias has a way of making an already interesting subject sound even more interesting!
On the arms and armor of the longbowmen themselves:
The Sire de St Remy, a participant on the English side at the Battle of Agincourt (1415), describes the English archers on that occasion as:
"For the most part without armour except their pourpoints; their stockings rolled down to the knees, and having hatchets (probably mauls) and battle-axes hanging at their waists, or long swords, some barefooted and bareheaded, others with huvettes or capelinas (helmets) of cuir-bouilli, and others of osier, strengthened with a cross-band of iron."
In 1440 James Skidmore’s indenture stated that archers should have:
“good jakks of defence, salades [sallets], swerds [swords] and sheves of xl arwes atte lest.”
In 1449 Jean Chartier described English Mounted Archers as:
“mostly armed with brigandines, leg armour and sallets, of whom the majority at least had good jacks and haubergeons”.
The best description is by Dominic Mancini of King Richard III’s archers in 1483:
“There are hardly any without a sallet and none without bows and arrows…there hangs by the side of each a sword no less long than ours, but thick and heavy as well. The sword is always accompanied by an iron buckler…They do not wear any metal armor on their breast or or any other parts of the body except for the better sort…the common soldiery have more comfortable tunics [jacks] that reach down below the loins and are stuffed with tow or some other soft material.”
"....and none without bows and arrows..." - Dominic Mancini, Master of Arms at Palazzo de Obvious. I wonder what a (seemingly) Italian gent was doing there.
@@fuzzydunlop7928 Mancini was visiting England on behalf of his employer, an advisor and doctor of Louis XI of France: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominic_Mancini.
He probably meant that the archers never went anywhere without their bows and arrows - by which I'm assuming that he is stating that they are well-trained and disciplined, because carrying these everywhere is kind of a pain in the ass. I can see how slack troops would leave them in barracks or wherever they lived, unless they thought action was imminent - but of course, you never know when shit's about to hit the fan.
I wish I lived close enough to see the exhibit.
This series of videos are amazing. You even managed to speak a little about social mobility.
Can't believe it took a recent video of Dr Capwell reacting to 40k for me to find him. I could listen to these two forever.
Even time itself stopped to listen to this!
An American named Tobias, he was destined to be a History major in college from birth.
Just as all Americans named 'Ezra' are destined to be Civil War reenactors or Mormons. (possibly both)
Make a Toby jug in his image...??
If a video includes Dr. Capwell, I’m watching and “liking”.
Great part two, keep it up.
In general, I really like this format of having you and another expert talk on a subject.
Maybe this could become a thing in future videos?
Tobias seems like such a cool guy. Equipment of the archers were mentioned... Will we be able to see something about that in the future?
John Hawkwood is my direct ancestor I love hearing about him
Watched a ton of your content and just finding this series. Made my day!
these videos with Tobias are awesome! I always like hearing you talk with other experts.
Loving the series Matt, looking forward to part 3!
This video held up well through time
Toby Capwell poking Matt Easton with a livery arrow. This is gold :D someone should make a gif. *hint hint* :D
FANTASTIC!! Thanks Matt.
Great interview/discussion. Glad there are more to come.
What an excellent series. Thanks for making this happen.
I love this kind of talk! Please, more of them!
these videos with Tobias are ace mat, thank you..
Really interesting and educational!
Really happy you are expanding your UA-cam to these kinds of historical interviews :)
Thanks for these videos. These are very interesting things about this famous battle. Can't wait for the next one.
Waiting for the second part of this felt like an eternity... glad it's finally here.
These two videos (part 1 and part 2) have given me very much to imagine and think of. I particularly enjoyed listening to the both of you for so long. You both have knowledge, and know how to spread such a fascinating topic even to the point of speaking of psychological effects of a horde of archers upon knights and men-at-arms. And for this I thank you both for giving all the community your time and devotion to such an hobby and interest.
These talks are so important I'm going to download them so I can share them with new recruits to my Household. We are 14thC archers, but what is being said here is still very relevant.
Your Agincourt talks are excellent.You can't cover every aspect but so far I am delighted with these two and your other talks.
Pity you don't go mainstream as you have a great deal to offer.
It's also good that we can acknowledge our own martial heritage without screaming around trying to pummel someone wearing a dressing gown !
This is a fantastic series! I have enjoyed watching this channel for a long while, even prior to subscribing. Furthermore, I have been a great of Tobias Capwell and his work for many years, so this is a great pleasure to watch. Thank you for doing this.
Matt, this channel is incredible.
These videos have been fantastic, thanks for doing them!
i'm really enjoying this interview, thank you
I like this series; informative, interesting and (relatively) concise.
This series is amazing, thanks for doing it Matt :).
You should put it into a wider series and shop it to UK TV. Love your work.
It still amazes me that we can, quite precisely, depict battles that happened thousands of years ago (The battle against the Egyptians and Hittites at Kadesh is one example.) And we can nail down what happened at the battle of Agincourt to astonishing accuracy. I haven't watched this video yet, but +scholagladiatoria, I know it's going to be a good one.
This series is great!
Excellent Video. Thank you for providing it.
Great series, Matt.
Great stuff Matt, Toby's video with Tod was fascinating.
You guys are great together.
Great interview. Capwell is a very knowledgeable and interesting speaker. Looking forward to the next video.
Can't wait for part 3. Cheers from Turkey,
This video is so AWESOME! I want to go to the exhibit but I live in the U.S.
Keep these coming! And more interviews with other curators and prominent historians would be great as well.
You guys gave a really down-to-earth and practical impression of the whole arrows vs armor debate, which I appreciate. I totally agree on your views concerning the studies on this matter, as most have a bias towards the bow and hardly any use cloth protection under the plate anyway. It's amazing how effective armor really was against arrows from such powerful bows.
Excellent show. Hope you do some more and also talk more about the armour that Bowmen had and their weapons other than the longbow.
This curator is really awesome, great idea to make videos with him!
Funny these videos coming out now. A couple of weeks ago I put up my modern made, but rather historically accurate in shape, German plate armour up against a 100 lb longbow firing historically accurate arrows, much like the one you have with Toby here. The bodkin however wasn't iron like those at Crecy and Agincourt, but steel. It was fired at my armour twice at less than 20 feet (we fired at my tassets, something I didn't mind if it was pierced). Both times, the arrow just bounced off leaving little more than a small divot in the armour and some scrapes. Nothing more than that. Now yes, this is modern steel, but still THIN steel and it had no issues at all stopping a longbow and steel bodkin. None at all. And my tassets were very rough, more or less just a flat piece of steel, lightly bent and bucked as I needed them quickly rather than pretty.
+Evil Merlin "against a 100 lb longbow firing historically accurate arrows" - Please people, for the love of God, document your tests. Both by video and the specifics in text. Why not produce useful data for everyone to enjoy or find useful?
+Neutral Fellow I have images of the tasset with the two hit marks on it, and it was recorded on a phone. It was not a scientific study alas. Here is a link to the image of the tasset with the actual arrow used: i.imgur.com/rfNXNUM.jpg
Says whom?
***** There were for sure, but the average seems to fall between 90 and 110.
Not until well into the 16th century.
Thanks, very informative and revises the way I learnt the battle.
Great video. Thanks.
I really enjoy the grail quest series by bernard cornwell. Does a great job fictionalizing the life of an archer. I haven't read Azincourt yet.
Great discussion, might visit the exhibition sometime in October if I get the chance.
But: What about the horses?
Horses were armored too, but a horse is very difficult to fully protect and I imagine that it is quite easy to kill the horse with less arrows from a greater distance than the rider.
And when a horse fell down, the rider was at least momentarily out of action and depending on how close together /after another they were riding and how fast they were going, other horses surely stumbled over their comrade then.
In the first video you explained that the knights bowed their heads because of the arrows.
But if the vision slits are tilted slightly upwards, isn´t it a REALLY bad idea to open them up to arrows coming from the front?
Awesome videos by the way. I learned so much about weapons and armor from your channel, its unbelievable. The only downside is I also know now how little my favourite author knows about medieval combat. (Guys running around in armor constantly, speaking through visors, delivering messages hundrets of miles away in full armor while riding alone).
+tazelator The main French army at Agincourt was on foot, for the very reason that the French realised from battles like Crecy that horses and arrows do not go well together. There was a relatively small cavalry force at Agincourt to try a shock attack, but the main army was on foot.
+scholagladiatoria Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand a prior documentary that Capwell was on (Agincourt: 100 Years War if I recall correctly) mentioned that horses were being shot and that the French Cav went in first after being pissed by the Longbowmen's taunts, and as a result the maddened horses ended up going through the French lines on top of all the other crap they suffered while advancing. The main army was still on foot, the cav were supposed to flank before the English moved up and nullified that.
+Luke Danger The French cavalry was unable to flank the English due to the terrain and the stakes they set up. Some of the horses ran across the the advancing infantry line, but after the rest of the cavalry retreated, the mounted knights dismounted and joined the infantry.
This guy is gold!
Great video, Matt! :D Keep up the good work!
Fascinating!
Very interesting discussion. I learned a lot. Makes me want to visit the exhibition. :)
Great information as always, thank you
Great discussion.
Fantastic and informative video. Thank you:)
Going Medieval! That's where I remember him from. That was a good show, should have been a series.
Very interesting series. Thx.
I really like these recent two videos but I would like to say you shouldn't interrupt your guest, especially just to say what they are saying. He is an expert in his field, you have him on the channel for a reason
There's point that I haven't heard or might of miss about the use of longbowmen at Agincourt. It not only succeeded at dismounting the french knight and isolating them from the rest of the common infantry (since they weren't as well armored), but it also might have isolated the french noble from each other.
I remember in one of the video it is mentioned that the knight/noble kept there face down while advancing to avoid receiving an arrow through the slit. I wonder if it might have distort there lines since they couldn't keep proper track of where everyone was. Also, if I remember well, the french chain of command wasn't well made in this battle.
I wonder if it had as consequence that the french knight ended up facing 2 english knight at the same time despite outnumbering overall since he might have inadvertently isolated himself.
Longbow arrows were definitely capable of piercing plate armour with enough residual kinetic energy to do injury to the person wearing it as long as the plate armour wasn't too thick and/or the metal quality wasn't too high. The impression these guys have that longbow arrows stood a very small probability of piercing plate armour and doing injury to the person wearing it comes from tests that use armour made of modern steel that is substantially superior in terms of toughness to what the vast majority of 14th-15th century medieval men-at-arms would have been wearing and that use arrows that are poorly optimised for piercing armour. An arrow optimised for piercing armour would have been very heavy (at least 100 grams, possibly up to 130 grams), had a very heavy steeled, quenched and tempered head, had a shaft made of a tough hardwood like beech, ash or hornbeam, and had a diameter as low as the material strength of the shaft material would permit (maybe something like 10.6-11.5 mm; 12.7 mm diameter arrow shafts are only necessary if the shaft is made of a type of wood with low inherent stiffness like spruce or aspen). An arrow like this shot from a longbow with a draw weight typical of war bows of the period would have been able to pierce more than 3mm of plate made of median quality metal. Only toward the top end of the quality distribution would arrows only be capable of piercing plate less than 2mm thick (assuming stationary, rather than advancing targets).
Great insight, thanks.
Don't make us wait too long for part 3 please :)
The discussion of concentrating arrow barrages in a particular manner on hardened targets reminds me of the Allied method of targeting German Me-262 Schwalbe/Swallow jet fighter-bombers on takeoff and landing. During normal flight operations the Schwalbe was nearly invincible because of its speed. But Allied forces learned to exploit the fleeting moments of weakness in the Nazi jets' flight profile, and concentrated their efforts there.
Great posts!
I don't have anything to ask, or anything particularly insightful to say on these topics, but I feel the need to let you know; these videos are great and I hope there's more like it coming.
Tremendous!
Is Tobias going to show off his personal suit of armour?
+Robert R It's a pity he sold off his "English" suit of armour (although thoroughly understandable why he did so). It goes against so many elements you take for granted in continental armour of the 15th Century, and I thought it looked really good. I'd have loved to see a video of him wearing it.
+KorKhan89 Wait he's that guy? That explains why I recognize him.
+KorKhan89 Why did he sell it? What elements does it go against?
He was offered a lot of money for it is all.
On the subject of arrow volleys and not being to find your footing with certain helmets on, one would think that thousands of arrows stuck into the ground would make the terrain fairly tricky to walk across. Especially if you're wearing a bassinet and can't see your feet, I suspect many an advancing knight would be tripping over arrow shafts. So while launching volleys of arrows at advancing knights in full plate armour might not necessarily kill or even injure them, it will certainly slow them down and tire them out for when they get into melee range.
This is a relly interesting series. I just recently visited French Army museum in Paris and they have a lot of examples of plate that stopped musket balls. I saw one that looked like it stopped 5 shots. Maybe you can talk about it in the future, if you have not been to that museum go so much awesome stuff there I spent whole day and only managed to make it to the Napoleonic wars
Beautiful armor
The thickness/stiffness of the shaft of an arrow is determined by the draw weight of the bow. With modern materials it is obviously possible to create greater stiffness but keeping the thickness about the same. With wood there is little such option. Btw. I'm pretty sure that even these thick arrows were shot ballistically and not just at flat trajactory. Cloud shooting is still a popular archery disciplin in Britain today.
This guy is Ron Swansons brother or something
Good stuff mate keep it up :)
I remember watching a documentary featuring Mike they made the armour and then tried to shoot holes in it. If I remember correctly it was 160 lb draw at 15 yards
very cool video
Yeah I have heard that a lot of long bow shooting was done direct at quite short range. Great vid. Thanks for the upload.
Fantastic video! I think it makes sense that one of the biggest advantages of the longbow was that it allowed you to take your run-of-the-mill light infantry and give them an effective ranged attack.One question though - how does a large group of archers all shoot flat at once? Do they all deploy in a huge line?
And Henry V lived to become king…amazing..able not to get infection, and was able to get that arrow head out and healed..
Henry V - Brothers in Arms - Merry old England.
Could you do a video/videos of the other interesting battles of the hundred years war, such as the battle of Crecy where Genoese crossbowmen fled before they loosed a bolt in the face of the English bowmen or the battle of Verneuil where mounted Milanese knights charged at the English through archer fire and smashed into the English ranks and how the role armour had in this?
I think Agincourt is extremely interesting, but that its discussion branches into that of other battles of the hundreds years war which can be equally interesting.
I love the point you bring up about lances. If a lance can't pierce it, what can? (gunpowder excluded)
Also, as a Total War player it was amusing to hear about the importance of army composition.
In every armour v arrow vid on Utube there is not one single mention of men at arms advancing behind their metal clad Pavis's (shields) which cover from throat to knee.
For example, at the Battle of Poitiers (1356), the French men-at-arms formed a shield wall with which Geoffrey le Baker recounts "protecting their bodies with joined shields, [and] turned their faces away from the missiles. So the archers emptied their quivers in vain"....
Archers probably did shoot arrows at high launch angles at their enemies during this period at least sometimes. This would explain the ancient sport of clout shooting. Shooting arrows at high launch angles at targets a substantial fraction of the maximum arrow shot range away would have been a sensible thing to do, especially against mounted charging knights.
I think the English arrows at Agincourt probably created more of a mele/shock and awe effect, more so than it wounded armored French nights.
Got excited on date of opening, then saw im 7 years to late,6/9/22.
Is there video of Tobias Capwell's arrow tests?
Any action that keeps your enemy’s heads down and arms pinned against them, helps
I’d like to see a discussion about how hand to hand combat was conducted en mass. I’m thinking a riot would be a comparison?
It's mentioned that the archers were well trained in hand-to-hand combat such as sword and buckler use, which makes me wonder how exactly a sword and buckler is used effectively against knights in heavy armor. Isn't it more of a civilian weapon set for use against lightly or unarmored opponents?
So, how many arrows would you guess a random knight got hit by at Agincourt? And how many of them actualy did something? 5% of arrows did wound someone? And a random knight got hit about 50 times? That would be my guess... but only a guess.
Also add in the sound of horses screaming in agony. That is not a sound you can easily ignore.
Maybe the intent was not only to kill but at least cause some kind of wound as even a small scratch would be a source for an infection in These times. I heard a theory on armor which said the reason to wear armor is not only to reduce possible injuries but to prvent any wound at all, same theory also stated arrows were most dedly weapon at times not by instant killing but by causing wound infections which lead to death lateron.
Do we have any descriptions of how men at arms in full plate fought in formation? Would it have been more fluid than say a shield wall?
very nice Videos, highly interesting Information! what I don't like is the Setting: don't you have a more representative room at the wallace for doing such Videos?
Hanging gauntlets on the buckler?
do you have a source for that?
I'm interested!