Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[John Murphy]

Since it came up again recently and I happened to get sidetracked
into it this morning...

This whole question is unfortunately related inextricably to one of
those long-standing old-time debates of history going back at least
to the Victorian era and possibly further.

I have been engaged in reading Jonathan Sumption's monumental 1990
Hundred Years War history volume one "Trial by Battle" for the past
few months. But I came across an even more applicable snippet when I
pulled Matthew Bennett's 1991 "The Development of Battle Tactics in
the Hundred Years War" off my shelf this morning. Bennett produced
the Osprey campaign book on Agincourt in the same year 1991, where
he presents the same theory.

In the article, among his continuing of the Victorian era debate
over deployment of archers amongst dismounted men-at-arms at Crecy
he opts for the seperate deployment on the flanks of the army, but
he notes the other arguments in the debate that parallel the muskets
in a pike and shot regiment (referring to Lloyd's "The Herse of
Archers") or parallel Napoleonic tirailleurs (referring to Viollet-
le-Duc).

These opposing arguments involve archers falling back among the pits
behind or on the flanks of their supporting dismounted men-at-arms
as they were attacked by the French.

The more sedentary approaches are given by Burne's development of
crossing fields of fire in front of each battle (creating hollow
wedges) based on developments first presented in Morris' "The
Archers at Crecy". They also are given by Bradbury, which has been
adapted by both Sumption and Bennett as the most likely, of archers
massed for flanking fire on the flanks of the entire English army.

However in this latter case I believe both modern authors (Sumption
and Bennett) give to some degree indication of more "active" archers
evading, or maintaining range in front of, French as they approach.

Bennett's argument (I have not yet reached this chapter in Sumption
but it is referred to by Bennett) seems more convincing as he
reject's Sumption's use of the wagons to protect the English archers
flanks (these being the "archers all on the flanks of the army"
theories) and argues instead that they used their own mobility and
the cover of the terrain and pits.

One note - Bennett did not, interestingly, author the much more
recent Osprey campaign book on Crecy so I have no idea if his ideas
have changed since 1991. And I may be doing horrible injustice to
him in any event. But it is sticking in my brain he may be a Lance
and Longbow member for some reason so maybe I can ask there.

Finally, when Morris was theorizing over Froissart's description "a
maniere d'une herce" apparently one of the quotes he used was "deux
battailes d'archers a deux costes en la maniere d'un escut" which he
somehow turns into the wedges (Bennett finds this rightly a bit of a
stretch).

I have not taken any French classes in a long time but doesn't
the "en la maniere d'un escut" suggest skirmishable longbowmen
protecting the men-at-arms?

In any event, something happened at Crecy, and in most other
battles. Somehow the French or Scots straggled into the English line
at some point and wound up in at least some cases fighting men-at-
arms despite the fact that they had been shot up by archers who had
not yet learned to use portable stakes.

If the longbowmen couldn't evade, then how else did this possibly
happen?

[Kelly Wilkinson]

John,
Perhaps the longbowmen you speak of maintaining their distance from the
knights as they approached were doing a counter or retirement in the face of the
enemy or more likely they were Li armed Long bow. Warrior certainly accounts for
this in their lists. I would assume the former as this sort of maneuver seems
the most likely.

kelly wilkinson

John <jjmurphy@...> wrote:
Since it came up again recently and I happened to get sidetracked
into it this morning...

This whole question is unfortunately related inextricably to one of
those long-standing old-time debates of history going back at least
to the Victorian era and possibly further.

I have been engaged in reading Jonathan Sumption's monumental 1990
Hundred Years War history volume one "Trial by Battle" for the past
few months. But I came across an even more applicable snippet when I
pulled Matthew Bennett's 1991 "The Development of Battle Tactics in
the Hundred Years War" off my shelf this morning. Bennett produced
the Osprey campaign book on Agincourt in the same year 1991, where
he presents the same theory.

In the article, among his continuing of the Victorian era debate
over deployment of archers amongst dismounted men-at-arms at Crecy
he opts for the seperate deployment on the flanks of the army, but
he notes the other arguments in the debate that parallel the muskets
in a pike and shot regiment (referring to Lloyd's "The Herse of
Archers") or parallel Napoleonic tirailleurs (referring to Viollet-
le-Duc).

These opposing arguments involve archers falling back among the pits
behind or on the flanks of their supporting dismounted men-at-arms
as they were attacked by the French.

The more sedentary approaches are given by Burne's development of
crossing fields of fire in front of each battle (creating hollow
wedges) based on developments first presented in Morris' "The
Archers at Crecy". They also are given by Bradbury, which has been
adapted by both Sumption and Bennett as the most likely, of archers
massed for flanking fire on the flanks of the entire English army.

However in this latter case I believe both modern authors (Sumption
and Bennett) give to some degree indication of more "active" archers
evading, or maintaining range in front of, French as they approach.

Bennett's argument (I have not yet reached this chapter in Sumption
but it is referred to by Bennett) seems more convincing as he
reject's Sumption's use of the wagons to protect the English archers
flanks (these being the "archers all on the flanks of the army"
theories) and argues instead that they used their own mobility and
the cover of the terrain and pits.

One note - Bennett did not, interestingly, author the much more
recent Osprey campaign book on Crecy so I have no idea if his ideas
have changed since 1991. And I may be doing horrible injustice to
him in any event. But it is sticking in my brain he may be a Lance
and Longbow member for some reason so maybe I can ask there.

Finally, when Morris was theorizing over Froissart's description "a
maniere d'une herce" apparently one of the quotes he used was "deux
battailes d'archers a deux costes en la maniere d'un escut" which he
somehow turns into the wedges (Bennett finds this rightly a bit of a
stretch).

I have not taken any French classes in a long time but doesn't
the "en la maniere d'un escut" suggest skirmishable longbowmen
protecting the men-at-arms?

In any event, something happened at Crecy, and in most other
battles. Somehow the French or Scots straggled into the English line
at some point and wound up in at least some cases fighting men-at-
arms despite the fact that they had been shot up by archers who had
not yet learned to use portable stakes.

If the longbowmen couldn't evade, then how else did this possibly
happen?



Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[John Murphy]

Perhaps you are correct, however...

First, in warrior longbowmen maintaining range from an enemy
(mounted K in this case) while shooting at them are not retiring or
countering (either would I believe involve making a 180 turn and a
full move as opposed to two manuevers and only moving forty paces
back). I am not sure in Warrior that if you tried to do this you
could either a) actually get a shot off or b) actually avoid the
enemy. Remember, the archery was quite effective in at least some
cases during this phase of the engagements cited (not to say the
decisive factor, but yes effective).

Second, the article quoted makes extensive reference to the activity
and nimbleness of the archers responding as individuals to the
circumstance among field defenses rather being 'automatons' (his
quote). Not an organized prompted retirement or counter by troops
remaining formed in ranks per se.

And the comparisons to pike & shot regiments and Napoleonic
tiralleurs are not suggestive of this either.

There is much discussion about the impact of our 'national
stereotypes' throughout history of stiff-upper lipped Brits standing
in firmly discipled ranks against the shinanegans of their more
excitable 'Frog' foes (or being shot from Americans hanging from
trees, or pick your stereotype of choice). It is a lot to overcome
historically to find out what the reality was.

Finally, while Welsh are able to be LI the bulk of English
longbowmen, to which this article applies, certainly are not.

So, maybe you are correct but I think this is at a minumum something
at least open to being interpreted as skirmishing. And, given that
we can not even agree how the longbowmen deployed relative to the
men-at-arms we certainly do not have the kind of information
available to conclusively support or deny the possibility.

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, kelly wilkinson
<jwilkinson62@y...> wrote:
> John,
> Perhaps the longbowmen you speak of maintaining their
distance from the knights as they approached were doing a counter or
retirement in the face of the enemy or more likely they were Li
armed Long bow. Warrior certainly accounts for this in their lists.
I would assume the former as this sort of maneuver seems the most
likely.
>
> kelly
wilkinson
>
> John <jjmurphy@s...> wrote:
> Since it came up again recently and I happened to get sidetracked
> into it this morning...
>
> This whole question is unfortunately related inextricably to one
of
> those long-standing old-time debates of history going back at
least
> to the Victorian era and possibly further.
>
> I have been engaged in reading Jonathan Sumption's monumental 1990
> Hundred Years War history volume one "Trial by Battle" for the
past
> few months. But I came across an even more applicable snippet when
I
> pulled Matthew Bennett's 1991 "The Development of Battle Tactics
in
> the Hundred Years War" off my shelf this morning. Bennett produced
> the Osprey campaign book on Agincourt in the same year 1991, where
> he presents the same theory.
>
> In the article, among his continuing of the Victorian era debate
> over deployment of archers amongst dismounted men-at-arms at Crecy
> he opts for the seperate deployment on the flanks of the army, but
> he notes the other arguments in the debate that parallel the
muskets
> in a pike and shot regiment (referring to Lloyd's "The Herse of
> Archers") or parallel Napoleonic tirailleurs (referring to Viollet-
> le-Duc).
>
> These opposing arguments involve archers falling back among the
pits
> behind or on the flanks of their supporting dismounted men-at-arms
> as they were attacked by the French.
>
> The more sedentary approaches are given by Burne's development of
> crossing fields of fire in front of each battle (creating hollow
> wedges) based on developments first presented in Morris' "The
> Archers at Crecy". They also are given by Bradbury, which has been
> adapted by both Sumption and Bennett as the most likely, of
archers
> massed for flanking fire on the flanks of the entire English army.
>
> However in this latter case I believe both modern authors
(Sumption
> and Bennett) give to some degree indication of more "active"
archers
> evading, or maintaining range in front of, French as they approach.
>
> Bennett's argument (I have not yet reached this chapter in
Sumption
> but it is referred to by Bennett) seems more convincing as he
> reject's Sumption's use of the wagons to protect the English
archers
> flanks (these being the "archers all on the flanks of the army"
> theories) and argues instead that they used their own mobility and
> the cover of the terrain and pits.
>
> One note - Bennett did not, interestingly, author the much more
> recent Osprey campaign book on Crecy so I have no idea if his
ideas
> have changed since 1991. And I may be doing horrible injustice to
> him in any event. But it is sticking in my brain he may be a Lance
> and Longbow member for some reason so maybe I can ask there.
>
> Finally, when Morris was theorizing over Froissart's
description "a
> maniere d'une herce" apparently one of the quotes he used
was "deux
> battailes d'archers a deux costes en la maniere d'un escut" which
he
> somehow turns into the wedges (Bennett finds this rightly a bit of
a
> stretch).
>
> I have not taken any French classes in a long time but doesn't
> the "en la maniere d'un escut" suggest skirmishable longbowmen
> protecting the men-at-arms?
>
> In any event, something happened at Crecy, and in most other
> battles. Somehow the French or Scots straggled into the English
line
> at some point and wound up in at least some cases fighting men-at-
> arms despite the fact that they had been shot up by archers who
had
> not yet learned to use portable stakes.
>
> If the longbowmen couldn't evade, then how else did this possibly
> happen?
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Mark Stone]

Quoting "WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com" <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>:

> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2004 02:12:29 -0700 (PDT)
> From: kelly wilkinson <jwilkinson62@...>
> Subject: Re: skirmishing longbowmen evidence
>
> John,
> Perhaps the longbowmen you speak of maintaining their distance from the
> knights as they approached were doing a counter or retirement in the face of
> the enemy or more likely they were Li armed Long bow. Warrior certainly
> accounts for this in their lists. I would assume the former as this sort of
> maneuver seems the most likely.
>
> kelly wilkinson
>
> John <jjmurphy@...> wrote:
>
> I have been engaged in reading Jonathan Sumption's monumental 1990
> Hundred Years War history volume one "Trial by Battle" for the past
> few months. But I came across an even more applicable snippet when I
> pulled Matthew Bennett's 1991 "The Development of Battle Tactics in
> the Hundred Years War" off my shelf this morning. Bennett produced
> the Osprey campaign book on Agincourt in the same year 1991, where
> he presents the same theory.
>
>
> The more sedentary approaches are given by Burne's development of
> crossing fields of fire in front of each battle (creating hollow
> wedges) based on developments first presented in Morris' "The
> Archers at Crecy". They also are given by Bradbury, which has been
> adapted by both Sumption and Bennett as the most likely, of archers
> massed for flanking fire on the flanks of the entire English army.
>
> However in this latter case I believe both modern authors (Sumption
> and Bennett) give to some degree indication of more "active" archers
> evading, or maintaining range in front of, French as they approach.
>

Well, I think Crecy is the crucial battle to consider with respect to
longbowmen. It's the one clear case where we know the longbowmen were more or
less in the open. Yes, they had the advantage of being uphill, but they didn't
have any kind of defensive terrain (Agincourt, Najera) or obstacle (Poitiers,
Agincourt) to deploy behind. So if ever we were going to find "active"
longbowmen, Crecy would be the battle.

The problem is to decipher the historical record between several possible
interpretations:
(1) You'd have to argue that the longbowmen were interspersed with men at arms,
not deployed on the flanks; even on such a major point the historical evidence
isn't clear;
(2) You'd have to distinguish between longbowmen falling back in the face of an
enemy advance (in Warrior terms a counter or retirement) vs. evading away from
an enemy charge; on this matter, I doubt we have clear historical evidence one
way or the other.

So my conclusion is that we have several 100 Years' War battles in which
longbowmen clearly moved over rough terrain and/or obstacles without becoming
disordered, but in which they clearly never engaged in a maneuver that could be
construed as an evade, and we have one battle in which it is possible that they
engaged in an evade, but no conclusive evidence that this is the only or best
interpretation of their actions.

Gaming aside, just as a historian I would conclude that the evade maneuver was
not one that could usefully be attributed to English longbowmen.

By the way, on the matter of stakes (used at Agincourt, and clearly documented
in one or two other places). I'd actually argue for the radical view that their
use was commonplace among archers of the time, so commonplace that it only
occaisionally received explicit mention.

The argument goes something like this: look at the Medieval boar hunt, a common
hunting ritual in which all aspiring knights and their attending retinue were
expected to participate. The classic formation in the boar hunt was to create a
"funnel" of archers behind stakes, thus driving the boar towards the narrow end
of the funnel, and simultaneously weakening the boar with bow fire. The
man-at-arms, or small group of men-at-arms would wait at the narrow end of the
funnel to finish off the boar hand to hand.

Now I think it's no accident that (a) boar-hunting was popular sport among the
nobility, and (b) that this particular formation was used. It would be naive to
assume that boar-hunting served only a recreational purpose in Medieval life.
I'd argue that this was a deliberate part of military training. It demonstrated
the correct way to use archery, while providing practice at the formation. It
also gave men-at-arms real experience of being on the receiving end of a
ferocious charge. If you have repeatedly stood up to several hundred pounds of
charging boar, it becomes a lot easier to deal with standing firm before a
mounted charge.

I don't have my references in front of me, but I'm fairly sure that this
particular style of boar hunt dates back at least to the 13th century, and was
commonplace throughout the entire 100 Years' War Period. I'd argue that archers
with stakes were equally common during this period, probably not only among the
English but amongst the French as well.


-Mark Stone

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Mark,

Do you know of any refrences of Longbowmen skirmishing in any of these
battles referenced, line troopsor otherwise that is?

kelly

kelly

Mark Stone <mark@...> wrote:
Quoting "WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com" <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>:

> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2004 02:12:29 -0700 (PDT)
> From: kelly wilkinson <jwilkinson62@...>
> Subject: Re: skirmishing longbowmen evidence
>
> John,
> Perhaps the longbowmen you speak of maintaining their distance from the
> knights as they approached were doing a counter or retirement in the face of
> the enemy or more likely they were Li armed Long bow. Warrior certainly
> accounts for this in their lists. I would assume the former as this sort of
> maneuver seems the most likely.
>
> kelly wilkinson
>
> John <jjmurphy@...> wrote:
>
> I have been engaged in reading Jonathan Sumption's monumental 1990
> Hundred Years War history volume one "Trial by Battle" for the past
> few months. But I came across an even more applicable snippet when I
> pulled Matthew Bennett's 1991 "The Development of Battle Tactics in
> the Hundred Years War" off my shelf this morning. Bennett produced
> the Osprey campaign book on Agincourt in the same year 1991, where
> he presents the same theory.
>
>
> The more sedentary approaches are given by Burne's development of
> crossing fields of fire in front of each battle (creating hollow
> wedges) based on developments first presented in Morris' "The
> Archers at Crecy". They also are given by Bradbury, which has been
> adapted by both Sumption and Bennett as the most likely, of archers
> massed for flanking fire on the flanks of the entire English army.
>
> However in this latter case I believe both modern authors (Sumption
> and Bennett) give to some degree indication of more "active" archers
> evading, or maintaining range in front of, French as they approach.
>

Well, I think Crecy is the crucial battle to consider with respect to
longbowmen. It's the one clear case where we know the longbowmen were more or
less in the open. Yes, they had the advantage of being uphill, but they didn't
have any kind of defensive terrain (Agincourt, Najera) or obstacle (Poitiers,
Agincourt) to deploy behind. So if ever we were going to find "active"
longbowmen, Crecy would be the battle.

The problem is to decipher the historical record between several possible
interpretations:
(1) You'd have to argue that the longbowmen were interspersed with men at arms,
not deployed on the flanks; even on such a major point the historical evidence
isn't clear;
(2) You'd have to distinguish between longbowmen falling back in the face of an
enemy advance (in Warrior terms a counter or retirement) vs. evading away from
an enemy charge; on this matter, I doubt we have clear historical evidence one
way or the other.

So my conclusion is that we have several 100 Years' War battles in which
longbowmen clearly moved over rough terrain and/or obstacles without becoming
disordered, but in which they clearly never engaged in a maneuver that could be
construed as an evade, and we have one battle in which it is possible that they
engaged in an evade, but no conclusive evidence that this is the only or best
interpretation of their actions.

Gaming aside, just as a historian I would conclude that the evade maneuver was
not one that could usefully be attributed to English longbowmen.

By the way, on the matter of stakes (used at Agincourt, and clearly documented
in one or two other places). I'd actually argue for the radical view that their
use was commonplace among archers of the time, so commonplace that it only
occaisionally received explicit mention.

The argument goes something like this: look at the Medieval boar hunt, a common
hunting ritual in which all aspiring knights and their attending retinue were
expected to participate. The classic formation in the boar hunt was to create a
"funnel" of archers behind stakes, thus driving the boar towards the narrow end
of the funnel, and simultaneously weakening the boar with bow fire. The
man-at-arms, or small group of men-at-arms would wait at the narrow end of the
funnel to finish off the boar hand to hand.

Now I think it's no accident that (a) boar-hunting was popular sport among the
nobility, and (b) that this particular formation was used. It would be naive to
assume that boar-hunting served only a recreational purpose in Medieval life.
I'd argue that this was a deliberate part of military training. It demonstrated
the correct way to use archery, while providing practice at the formation. It
also gave men-at-arms real experience of being on the receiving end of a
ferocious charge. If you have repeatedly stood up to several hundred pounds of
charging boar, it becomes a lot easier to deal with standing firm before a
mounted charge.

I don't have my references in front of me, but I'm fairly sure that this
particular style of boar hunt dates back at least to the 13th century, and was
commonplace throughout the entire 100 Years' War Period. I'd argue that archers
with stakes were equally common during this period, probably not only among the
English but amongst the French as well.


-Mark Stone

Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[John Murphy]

Mark:

While the English did not use stakes at Crecy they _did_ have pits
dug (hazard rather than obstacle). It is in the literary spources -
my understanding is the battlefield has not been excavated although
one of the battlefields in Spain has and the degree of field
defenses found is remarkable. From the beginning of the Hundred
Years War I know they used field defenses of various kinds - one can
see this in descriptions of the battles the French avoided against
English prepared field defenses in the Low Countries prior to Crecy.
Another case of excitable rash Frogs not behaving per their
historical stereotype.

Are you looking for evading longbowmen specifically or just
skirmishing longbowmen? After all, even in Warrior there are many
more uses for skirmishing besides evading. A big one is in skirmish
you can counter back a full move facing the enemy without using a
manuever. This is the only way in Warrior I know of to continue to
shoot effectively while falling back before an advance, as opposed
to retiring or countering formed bodies, and an option available to
English (not Welsh) longbowmen only if they can skirmish.

Gee, that skirmish thing is useful for something besides the -2
missile defense! It might actually _be_ a formation in some cases
which aids shooting.

On stakes... the article I referred to has a great deal to say about
this. The argument is made that they first appeared at Nicopolis,
where the idea was brought back to the English (where Agincourt is
given as their first use). Oddly enough the architect of the French
plan at Agincourt which failed completely to be executed as planned
was one of the crusaders at Nicopolis, so would have seen the stakes
in action, or something like that.

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Mark Stone <mark@d...> wrote:
> Well, I think Crecy is the crucial battle to consider with respect
to
> longbowmen. It's the one clear case where we know the longbowmen
were more or
> less in the open. Yes, they had the advantage of being uphill, but
they didn't
> have any kind of defensive terrain (Agincourt, Najera) or obstacle
(Poitiers,
> Agincourt) to deploy behind. So if ever we were going to
find "active"
> longbowmen, Crecy would be the battle.
>
> The problem is to decipher the historical record between several
possible
> interpretations:
> (1) You'd have to argue that the longbowmen were interspersed with
men at arms,
> not deployed on the flanks; even on such a major point the
historical evidence
> isn't clear;
> (2) You'd have to distinguish between longbowmen falling back in
the face of an
> enemy advance (in Warrior terms a counter or retirement) vs.
evading away from
> an enemy charge; on this matter, I doubt we have clear historical
evidence one
> way or the other.
>
> So my conclusion is that we have several 100 Years' War battles in
which
> longbowmen clearly moved over rough terrain and/or obstacles
without becoming
> disordered, but in which they clearly never engaged in a maneuver
that could be
> construed as an evade, and we have one battle in which it is
possible that they
> engaged in an evade, but no conclusive evidence that this is the
only or best
> interpretation of their actions.
>
> Gaming aside, just as a historian I would conclude that the evade
maneuver was
> not one that could usefully be attributed to English longbowmen.
>
> By the way, on the matter of stakes (used at Agincourt, and
clearly documented
> in one or two other places). I'd actually argue for the radical
view that their
> use was commonplace among archers of the time, so commonplace that
it only
> occaisionally received explicit mention.
>
> The argument goes something like this: look at the Medieval boar
hunt, a common
> hunting ritual in which all aspiring knights and their attending
retinue were
> expected to participate. The classic formation in the boar hunt
was to create a
> "funnel" of archers behind stakes, thus driving the boar towards
the narrow end
> of the funnel, and simultaneously weakening the boar with bow
fire. The
> man-at-arms, or small group of men-at-arms would wait at the
narrow end of the
> funnel to finish off the boar hand to hand.
>
> Now I think it's no accident that (a) boar-hunting was popular
sport among the
> nobility, and (b) that this particular formation was used. It
would be naive to
> assume that boar-hunting served only a recreational purpose in
Medieval life.
> I'd argue that this was a deliberate part of military training. It
demonstrated
> the correct way to use archery, while providing practice at the
formation. It
> also gave men-at-arms real experience of being on the receiving
end of a
> ferocious charge. If you have repeatedly stood up to several
hundred pounds of
> charging boar, it becomes a lot easier to deal with standing firm
before a
> mounted charge.
>
> I don't have my references in front of me, but I'm fairly sure
that this
> particular style of boar hunt dates back at least to the 13th
century, and was
> commonplace throughout the entire 100 Years' War Period. I'd argue
that archers
> with stakes were equally common during this period, probably not
only among the
> English but amongst the French as well.
>
>
> -Mark Stone