Chapter 4

The Hard Knight's Day: The Norman Conquest and Medieval Period

In This Chapter

● The Norman Conquest of England: 1066-1067

● The Scots fight for independence: 1297-1328

● The Hundred Years’ War: 1337-1457

● The Wars of the Roses: 1455-1485

The medieval period (broadly the eleventh to fifteenth centuries) saw plenty of military action both in Britain and involving British (mostly English) armies abroad. At this time, no unified country of Britain existed - the English, Scots, Welsh, and Irish looked after their own affairs and squabbled among themselves as well as with each other.

The year 1066 marked a turning point in the fortunes of the British Isles. Most modern Britons know that in that year William, Duke of Normandy, won a battle near Hastings and had himself crowned King of England. This momentous date is generally considered to introduce the medieval period to Britain, and for most of this period the armoured knight and the castle dominated warfare. But with the introduction of the longbow (and later gunpowder) the influence of the knights began to decline sharply by the fifteenth century.

The battles detailed in this chapter were fought by armies with the following troop types:

Heavy cavalry: that’s knights to you and me. In this period, heavy cavalry was the tank of the battlefield; they could charge through anything and outfight anyone . . . well almost (read on for details!). Knights charged around wearing full chainmail then plate armour (plates of metal), with brightly decorated shields and horse trapping (incorporating heraldic devices).

● Spearmen: the bulk of most armies at this time consisted of spearmen, with some body armour and shields. The Scots went one better and increased the length of their spears to around 3 or 4 metres (known as pikes); these were good for keeping heavy cavalry at bay.

● Archers: English and Welsh armies were fond of archers. Bows could shoot an arrow about 185 metres (200 yards) at this time. Some archers were armed with crossbows, which shot powerful short bolts with great accuracy.

1066: The Disputed Throne

When the English king Edward the Confessor died on 5 January 1066, no fixed procedures were in place to decide who should succeed him on the throne.

The Witan (a supreme council of wise men) had to make the decision, and they had four candidates to choose from:

● Edgar the Aetheling (the closest blood claimant to Edward): A sickly and unpromising fourteen-year-old.

● Harold Godwinson (the most powerful noble in England, a good soldier and a gifted politician): He claimed that Edward had named him his successor on his deathbed, although no witnesses were there.

● William (Duke of Normandy, over the sea in France): He claimed that the pro-Norman Edward had named him as his successor.

● Harald Hardrada (King of Norway): No one took his claim seriously - although he was a powerful warrior king.

The Witan chose Harold Godwinson, who promptly had himself crowned in Westminster Abbey.

Normally, the Archbishop of Canterbury conducted the ceremony of crowning a new king, but as the Pope had not approved Harold’s appointment, the Archbishop of York placed the crown on his head.

Big trouble was now inevitable. William, with the Pope’s blessing, now began assembling a large army and building an invasion fleet with which to claim what he believed to be his rightful inheritance. Harald Hardrada did likewise.

The Battle of Stamford Bridge, 25 September 1066

Harald Hardrada reached England first with an army of over 8000 Norwegians and English supporters of the treacherous Tostig, Harold of England’s estranged brother. Harold marched north from London with his bodyguard of well-armed professional soldiers, known as huscarls, and raised the fyrd (an armed local militia, less powerful than the huscarls) along the way, until he was in command of an army of approximately 7000 men.

At this time the English and Norwegians didn’t make use of heavy cavalry (knights); both armies fought almost exclusively on foot, with massive twohanded axes and spears, and one-handed swords.

The invaders had already defeated an English force under the northern earls Edwin and Morcar and were confidently lounging about in their camp at Stamford Bridge, on the river Derwent, while the surrender of the city of York was negotiated. The sudden approach of Harold’s army on 25 September took them completely by surprise. A group of Norwegians intending to delay the English approach to the bridge was wiped out, but on the bridge itself a single Norwegian, a giant of a man, barred the passage to all comers until he was killed. The English then swarmed across and Harold deployed them in three groups plus a reserve. The Norwegians seem to have been very slow sorting themselves out.

Both sides fought in a similar manner, forming a shield wall in which shields were locked together while the deadly two-handed war axes, spears, and swords did their work. If a shield wall was broken, the resulting slaughter made defeat inevitable. And that’s precisely what happened at Stamford Bridge.

The Norwegian shield wall broke under English pressure, and the Norwegian army started to collapse. The Norwegians’ ship guard came panting up, hoping to retrieve the day, but were cut to pieces in their turn. During the bloody fighting, Harald Hardrada and Tostig were both killed, along with so many of their men that while their invasion fleet had numbered 300 ships, only 24 were needed to transport the survivors away.

Harold’s troops had little rest after the battle against Harald Hardrada, and his army took plenty of casualties in the hard fighting of the shield wall (see the preceding section). Word quickly arrived that William’s army had landed at Pevensey, on the south coast, on 28 September. Harold reacted quickly. Such was the speed of his march south that it suggests that part, at least, of his army was mounted. On reaching London he would have been well advised to wait until he had received reinforcements before proceeding, but the news was that the Normans were harrying his people in Kent and Sussex and, unwisely, he decided he must go to their assistance immediately. He marched southeast and near Hastings found a good defensive position along a ridge. Here he decided to give battle behind the traditional English shield wall.

The Battle of Hastings, 14 October 1066

On the morning of 14 October the English army consisted of 2000 huscarls and some 5500 fyrd, a total of 7500 infantry. Opposite them was the Norman army, which included 2000 mounted knights and 5000 infantry. Even when their strength is added together, the total of the two armies amounts to no more than the size of a crowd at a lower-division football match on a Saturday afternoon, yet on this day they fought a battle that seemed to be about possession of a kingdom forming only part of a small island, but is now acknowledged to have been one of the most decisive in world history.

For the Normans, the mounted, armoured knight was their battle winner; for the English, the key weapon was the terrible two-handed axe that would cleave a horse’s neck with ease or smash its way through an enemy’s helmet or chainmail armour. Hastings saw the two differing methods clash, but which prevailed - the horseman or the axeman?

The first Norman attacks were thrown back with serious losses. The Breton troops forming William’s left wing broke, but rallied and turned on a portion of the English army that had rashly pursued them, destroying it. At about this time a report that William had been killed brought the Norman army to the verge of disintegration. Only by removing his helmet and galloping along the line was William able to restore order. A series of mounted attacks against the shield wall met incredibly stubborn resistance and failed with mounting losses. Then, a feigned retreat drew out another portion of the English army, which was also destroyed. Yet, despite the thinning of its ranks, the shield wall held.

William tried one last, desperate measure, alternating periods of high-angle fire by his archers with further mounted attacks. Today, we would call this a combination of firepower and shock action. It worked.

After eight hours of savage fighting the shield wall had become so thin that the Norman horsemen were able to batter their way through by sheer weight of numbers. Harold and his brothers Leofwine and Gyrth were killed in the melee around their standards. The English were pushed off the ridge and into the forest behind, but it was a retreat and not a rout. In a ravine subsequently known as the Malfosse, the rallied huscarls trapped and slaughtered to a man a large party of Norman knights who rashly attempted pursuit in the twilight.

The famous story goes that Harold died when an arrow struck him in the eye. Some historians even argue that the Bayeux Tapestry (a lengthy piece of medieval needlework portraying the battle) shows this happening. The truth is that the stitching gives the incorrect impression that the arrow is entering a Saxon’s eye, but there is no suggestion that the man is Harold, whose death is recorded in a nearby section of the tapestry.

Each side is believed to have sustained in excess of 2000 killed. As this was a war of conquest, the losses worried the Normans less than you may expect. After all, when the final share-out happened, that left more land for the surviving nobles.

William takes the crown

After burying his dead, William marched west. Having just fought the toughest battle of his life, his was conscious of the small size of his army and used terror to over-awe any potential opposition, burning and looting his way across southern England. He swung north, crossed the Thames, and near Berkhamsted met the two most senior surviving English nobles, the Earls Edwin and Morcar, accompanied by Edgar the Aetheling. They offered William the crown. Expressing surprise and pleasure, he accepted and his coronation took place on Christmas Day in Westminster Abbey, London. As was their custom when the crown was placed on a new king’s head, the English gave vent to a mighty shout. Nervous, outnumbered and fearing a rising, the Norman soldiers waded into the crowd, killing large numbers, and setting the nearest houses ablaze. Only William’s personal intervention saw order restored.

Fighting over Medieval England

England didn’t immediately fall under Norman rule after the Battle of Hastings; the next few years saw some heavy fighting to establish who ruled the roost.

Here’s a summary of what happened next:

● Edwin, Morcar, and Edgar the Aetheling all turned against William because he was handing out too much land to his chums: 1067-1068.

● The sons of the late King Harold arrived with an Irish army: 1068.

● The Kings of Scotland and Denmark supported the English resistance: 1069-1071.

The result was that William had to spend much of the next five years fighting to hang on to what he thought was now his. To start with, he had to put down risings in Kent and the West Country. Then, a major rebellion saw the 3000- strong garrison of York massacred. William responded to this with utter ruthlessness, burning towns, villages, and crops, slaughtering livestock, and killing entire populations in what became known as The Harrying of the North. It was never forgotten under Norman rule, and never forgiven.

One by one, William disposed of his opponents, but even then places remained where the Norman rule meant nothing. These were areas where geography placed the mounted knight or man-at-arms at a disadvantage, namely mountainous terrain, close forest, or swampland: The Normans did not attempt to invade Wales, and they made precious little progress in the Lake District. (But see the later section, ‘Looking north . . . and west’, for what happened later.)

In the marshy fenlands of East Anglia, a brilliant guerrilla leader named Hereward opposed the Normans, snapping up their isolated detachments, ambushing their patrols, strolling about their camps in disguise, and generally making life uncomfortable for them. Hereward became an English folk hero and was called ‘the Wake’ by his countrymen because his watchfulness enabled him to outsmart his opponents at every turn. Despite enormous efforts to catch him, the Normans made no progress at all. As far as recorded history goes, Hereward simply disappears. Some legends suggest that he made his peace with William, others that he was treacherously murdered.

Here a castle, there a castle

If the medieval period conjures up one image, it has to be a castle, introduced by the Normans and built throughout the era. Intended as a noble’s home, a stronghold, and a symbol of the noble’s power over his land and people, castles began popping up all over the place in the years after the Norman invasion, and continued being refined and built throughout the medieval period.

Early (Norman) castles were known as motte and bailey castles; the motte was a man-made, high, flat-topped conical mound on which was built a stockade consisting of tall wooden stakes bound together. This was the principal defensive feature of the castle. The bailey was the surrounding area, ditched and ramparted, which housed the garrison’s living quarters, stables, and storehouses.

Motte and bailey castles were only built as temporary measures. As quickly as possible, the Normans began constructing permanent fortresses in stone. In these, the keep, an enormous tower incorporating living accommodation, a chapel, and storerooms, was the most important feature. The White Tower in the Tower of London is a perfect example. A bailey, consisting of a large, well-defended gatehouse and a series of square towers joined by a high wall named the curtain, was next to be built. The whole was then surrounded by a dry ditch or wet moat, crossed by a drawbridge. Experience revealed that the angles of the square towers were vulnerable to siege catapults, so round towers that provided a deflective surface replaced them.

Castles could be captured by:

● Escalade, which meant climbing long ladders and fighting your way onto the battlements; siege towers did the same, but the defenders could overturn them or set them on fire. Both were unpopular unless your soldiers had a head for heights!

● Mining beneath the defences in order to bring down a tower or section of wall until it collapsed.

● Battering the walls with siege catapults and battering rams in the hope that they would fall down, enabling you to fight your way into the defences.

● Starving the garrison out, which meant a protracted and very boring siege.

● Trickery or treachery, which was more fun and less dangerous.

Castles continued in use throughout the medieval period, although the introduction of gunpowder made them far less powerful. All those tall, straight walls were easy targets for cannon fire, and the rise of gunpowder is dealt with in Chapter 5.

The days of knights

William and his successors governed by means of what has become known as the feudal system, in which the king owned all the land and parcelled it out among his most trusted barons. In return, both they and certain towns paid taxes and provided the king with troops to fight his wars. At the bottom of the pile were the wretched English serfs, who paid their rent in cash, kind, or physical labour - and not only to the barons, but also to the Church. For this they received, in theory at least, legal protection.

The knight was one of the most important elements in the feudal system. Knighthood was the lowest strata of chivalry. Everyone above (barons, earls, dukes, and so on), was automatically a knight, although they had to prove themselves before they received the accolade confirming their status (winning their spurs was the term used to describe this confirmation). Knights were supposed to spend the previous night in a vigil before an altar and swear to uphold the laws of chivalry, which meant living a Christian life as well as protecting women, orphans, and the less fortunate. Some did, but the entire reason for the knight’s existence was to act as a heavy on the king’s behalf, which of course made him a bit of a lout.

When the knight wasn’t training to fight or actually fighting, he and lots of fellow louts got together and fought for fun at tournaments - that event so well loved in Hollywood’s movies. They would joust, that is, knock each other off their horses with lances, or batter each other silly with whalebone swords in a popular event known as the melee, which was a sort of last-man-standing contest. During the melee, the knight’s personal servants, called varlets, would keep a careful eye on their master and, if he got floored, go in at considerable risk to themselves and drag him out.

In real war, the knight’s weapons included the lance, the one-and two-handed sword, the battleaxe, and the dagger. Bishops were allowed to join in, but as priests they were not permitted to shed blood, so they armed themselves with maces, which were useful for knocking holes in heads. For protection, at the time of Hastings, the knight wore a conical helmet and chainmail armour. By degrees, the shape of the helmet changed until finally it incorporated a visor, and steel plates were progressively added until the knight sallied forth wearing a an entire suit of plate armour, so heavy that if he fell over he was unable to rise without assistance. Again, at Hastings the knight also carried a kite-shaped shield for additional protection; in a shortened form, this was used for much of the period, but was dispensed with altogether when good-quality plate armour became universal in the mid-fifteenth century. The knight’s personal coat of arms was displayed on the shield and a cloth sur-coat worn over his armour - a useful means of identifying who was who when all warriors were clad entirely in metal!

Looking north . . . and West

Not everyone - and certainly not those living in Wales, Scotland, and Ireland at the time - felt that William’s conquest had much to do with them. But it did. In due course it was to affect them all, and although at the time it seemed of little interest to anyone who wasn’t directly involved, it actually planted the seed of a nation that would one day become one of the world’s great powers.

The curious thing was that William, now known as the Conqueror, still thought of himself as the Duke of Normandy who also happened to be king of part of an offshore island. The same was true of most of his successors.

Knight-spotting

Today, the effigies of knights in full armour can be found on table tombs in ancient churches and cathedrals across the British Isles. Some seem to lie comfortably. Others have their arms and legs crossed, which means that they died unshriven (without confessing their sins), almost certainly in battle.

True, the Conqueror marched into Scotland in 1072 and compelled the Scottish King, Malcolm Canmore, to do homage to him, but that was simply to show that he was now the biggest kid on the block. He left the Welsh largely alone, although some Normans established themselves in Pembrokeshire, which is still known as ‘Little England beyond Wales’. The Irish, too, were left alone for the next hundred years. Then, in 1170, a tough customer called Strongbow, whose real name was Richard de Clare, Earl of Pembroke, landed with an Anglo-Norman army and began taking over the place.

Not all of the early Norman kings spent much time in England. Even Richard the Lion Heart hardly visited the place at all. They were more concerned with enlarging their dominions in France (William and his successors held land on the continent as well as in England). They even took a fancy to wearing the French crown as well.

During these years most of the wars involving British armies were family squabbles about who was going to sit on the throne next, with a variation provided by barons rebelling against the king of the day for reasons of their own. Battles were organised brawls on a large scale. They added little to military science, although returning Crusaders (who fought in religious wars in the Middle East during the eleventh, twelfth and thirteenth centuries) brought with them a much wider knowledge of fortification.

The lack of medieval British military evolution changed when Edward I ascended the throne in 1272. Edward was the warrior king par excellence. He fought the French, he fought the Welsh (and conquered them in his War of 1277), and he led his armies north of the border so often that he became known as the Hammer of the Scots. The most significant development of the time was the introduction of the fearsome longbow into the English armies (see the sidebar ‘The longbow’). During the Hundred Years’ War (see the section ‘Fighting the French: A National Sport’ later in this chapter), the longbow won great battles and made the English archer the most formidable infantryman in Europe.

The longbow

One of the deadliest, and certainly the most democratic, weapon of the Middle Ages, the longbow was made from the wood of specially selected yew trees. It was between five and six feet in length and, unlike other bows, was drawn to the ear and not the chest, thereby generating tremendous power. It had a range in excess of 185 metres (200 yards) and was capable of penetrating an oak door or nailing a knight's leg to his horse.

Originally developed in Wales, English armies first successfully used the longbow against the Scots and then, with spectacular results, against the French. Weekly practice with the longbow became compulsory. Marksmen became capable of putting an arrow through a helmet's visor, although in a general engagement the ability to shoot up to a dozen arrows a minute produced fearsome arrow storms in which several thousand arrows were in the air at once. When plate armour was introduced, special arrows with narrow, well-tempered heads were produced to penetrate it. Only the development of cannon put an end to the archer's domination of the battlefield. So great was the archer's impact on English life that it is evident today in many occupational surnames, such as Bowyer, a man who made bows; Stringer, a maker of bowstrings; Arrowsmith, a blacksmith specialising in the production of arrow heads; Fletcher, a man who added the feathered fights to arrow shafts; and, of course, Archer and Bowman.

And why was it democratic? Because for the first time it enabled the ordinary English soldier to hand out a real beating to a heavily armoured aristocratic opponent, and you can't get much more democratic than that!

The Scottish Wars of Independence

All through the medieval period, Scotland was a separate country from England, with its own rulers and its own law. England, needless to say, wasn’t very keen on this state of affairs and mounted several campaigns to take control in Scotland.

Plenty of Scots didn’t like the idea of being ruled by an English king. Prominent among them was Sir William Wallace, who led a popular rising, with some success, until he was defeated at the Battle of Falkirk in 1298. He was subsequently captured and executed.

Mel Gibson’s movie Braveheart (1995) provided a most imaginative version of William Wallace’s career, complete with a blue face in the imagined style of the ancient Britons (see Chapter 2). In fact Sir William was a knight and therefore a gent in contemporary eyes - and gents simply did not paint their faces blue!

William Wallace’s death did not discourage the Scots. In 1306 another Scottish noble rebelled, named Robert the Bruce. Over a period of years he gradually eliminated the English presence in Scotland until by 1314 it was restricted to the fortresses of Stirling, Dunbar, and Berwick. Edward II assembled an army and set off to raise Robert the Bruce’s siege of Stirling Castle.

No one would describe Edward II as a chip off the old block (his dad was Edward I - see the earlier section ‘Looking north . . . and west’). He was a poor commander and his favourites had far more influence over him than was appropriate. Robert the Bruce, on the other hand, was a canny fighter: in advance of the Battle of Bannockburn, an English knight, Sir Henry de Bohun, spotted Bruce and, hoping to impress his boss, charged at the Scot with his lance. Bruce easily avoided the charge, then brained de Bohun with his bat-tleaxe as he galloped past.

On 14 June Bruce, with some 500 cavalry and 9000 infantry, drew up his army in preparation for an English attack. Edward’s cavalry, about 1000 strong, was advancing ahead of his infantry, and he launched them against the squares of Scottish pikemen. This masked the fire of his own archers and the attack failed. The archers were then moved out onto the right flank, from which they opened a galling fire. Bruce ordered his cavalry to charge them and, unsupported, they were ridden down. The Scottish squares then advanced into the heart of the English infantry, which was disordered by the repulse of its cavalry. On sighting Scottish reinforcements approaching the field, Edward’s army broke and fled. English losses included 22 barons, 68 knights, and about 1000 infantry, plus an uncounted number killed or captured during the pursuit. The Scots lost two knights and approximately 500 infantrymen.

Continuing Anglo-Scottish hostilities

Although fighting spluttered on until 1328, Scottish independence had become a fact and the Peace of Northampton duly recognised it. Despite this, a Scottish army invaded England in 1332, only for Edward III to defeat it at the Battle of Halidon Hill the following year. During this, Edward developed the method of covering the flanks of his men-at-arms with archers, tactics that soon result in English infantry being considered the most formidable in Europe. After the battle Edward was content to remain on the defensive as far as Scotland was concerned. Besides, he was more interested in getting on with the Hundred Years’ War (see the next section).

Fighting the French: A National Sport

A trend started in the medieval period that continued on and off until the early nineteenth century - fighting the French. These battles took place on French soil - although at this time, England owned quite a lot of this land anyway.

Although war against France dragged on throughout the medieval period, the most famous series of battles were fought as part of the Hundred Years’ War (1337-1457; yes, it did run for more than 100 years!), a prolonged struggle about who was going to be King of France (as in whether he’d be a Frenchman or an Englishman). The battles featured in this section were all part of that on-going campaign.

Medieval wars against the French weren’t ‘British’ wars as such. The auld alliance between France and Scotland saw the two nations mutually support each other in their wars against England. If the English were fighting in France, the Scots would try to kick up a ruckus to divert English resources northwards, and vice versa.

The Battle of Crecy, 26 August 1346

After raiding into French territory, Edward III, commanding an army consisting of 5500 archers, 1000 Welsh infantry, and 2500 knights and men-at-arms, was retreating towards Flanders, pursued by a much larger army commanded by the French King, Philip IV. Philip had at his disposal no fewer than 6000 professional and mercenary infantry, including a large contingent of Genoese crossbowmen, 10,000 knights and men-at-arms, and about 14,000 feudal militia.

Edward selected a good defensive position at the top of a gentle slope, with his right resting on the village of Crecy-en-Ponthieu and his left on the village of Wadicourt. His divided his army into three divisions, the right commanded by the young Black Prince (Edward’s son), the left by the Earls of Arundel and Northampton, and the reserve, some way to the rear, under his personal orders. The centre of each division consisted of dismounted knights and men-at-arms, flanked by archers echeloned forward so that they could shoot obliquely across the battlefield. This sharing of dangers between the two types of soldier reflected a growing sense of nationality and mutual trust that came to be reflected in civil life. In contrast, continental armies tended to despise their infantry.

Although most of his army was still strung out along many miles of road, Philip decided to attack at once. He ordered his Geneoese crossbowmen forward, but they objected on the grounds that their bowstrings were still wet

from recent rain and needed to dry out. Stung by accusations of cowardice, they advanced towards the ominously silent English line, performing a silly dance that involved whooping and waving of arms. We can only assume these antics were intended to bolster their own morale and convey how superior they felt to their apparently primitive opponents. At 150 yards from the line they loosed their first volley, but because of their slack bowstrings it fell short. The English had no such disadvantage, for when it was raining they kept their bowstrings beneath their helmets and only strung their bows when going into action. Now, while the Genoese were cranking up for a second shot, words of command were heard in the English ranks and suddenly the air filled with hissing death as thousands of arrow shafts slashed into the Genoese, felling them by the score and skewering arms and legs. As the crossbowmen began to withdraw in confusion, the first of the French mounted divisions entered the fray, cutting them down as they charged forward. In return, the Genoese emptied several French saddles with their crossbows, much to the amusement of the English.

Suddenly, the French knights found themselves on a killing ground. Knights and horses went down, hindering those behind. Maddened by pain and uncontrollable, wounded horses lashed out at all around them, causing confusion. Pressing bravely on through the arrow storm, the French ignored the archers, the very men who were causing them grief, and made for the dismounted knights and men-at-arms as alone being worthy of their steel. A furious fight raged until the French were either killed or in retreat.

The battle lasted for five hours and during that time 15 such attacks were mounted on the English position. Between these attacks, the agile Welsh infantry fighting for the English sallied forth to bring down and despatch lumbering unhorsed French knights. At the end of it all, the King of Bohemia (an ally of France), the Counts of Alencon and Blois, all the army’s principal officers, and 1500 members of the French nobility lay dead. Altogether, French and Genoese killed alone came to approximately 10,000. Edward’s losses came to two knights and 100 others killed. Crecy signalled the beginning of the end of the mounted knight’s undisputed domination of the battlefield.

The Battle of Poitiers, 19 September 1356

The French aristocrats thought hard about the reasons for their defeat at Crecy (see the previous section). Could the English archers have been responsible? Such an idea was just not socially acceptable. Surely, they said to each other, it was because the English knights fought on foot. Next time, they reasoned, we’ll do the same, but just as a precaution we’ll wear armour that’s been specially strengthened against arrows, even if it is a lot heavier.

Next time came ten years later, when King John of France, leading an army of 3000 crossbowmen and 17,500 knights and men-at-arms, succeeded in bringing the Black Prince’s army, consisting of 2000 archers and 4000 men-at-arms, to battle four miles south of Poitiers.

The position chosen by the Black Prince (Edward Ill’s son) resembled that at Crecy in some ways in that it lay along the edge of a plateau and possessed secure flanks. For his part, John decided to employ his knights in four dismounted divisions to attack the English position in succession. Flanking fire from the archers shot the first division to tatters. The second also sustained casualties, but reached the English line and was repulsed only with difficulty. On seeing this, most of the third division fled, although some men rallied on the fourth division, which King John commanded in person.

A pause ensued, during which the archers went out to recover as many arrows as possible, but even then their officers’ opinion was that they only had sufficient ammunition for a few minutes’ serious fighting. When it became clear that John was about to launch what he hoped would be the decisive attack with his fourth division, the Black Prince demonstrated his ability as a commander. Using the cover of a hill to screen them from view, he sent a detachment of men-at-arms and archers round to a position on the right from which they could fall on the enemy’s flank and rear. He then had the horses brought forward and ordered his knights and men-at-arms to mount.

The French had now begun to labour up the slope. Once more the arrow storm lashed them. As they began to puff and pant, a signal was received that the flanking party was in position. The Prince immediately ordered everyone, archers included, to make a headlong charge down the hill. A fierce struggle ensued as they smashed into the French, but the latter broke and fled as soon as the flanking party began attacking their rear. Tired, breathless men burdened with heavy armour were easily overtaken by lightly equipped archers, many of whom returned with four, five, or six noble prisoners whom they could ransom for large sums. A good businessman, the Black Prince bought them all at a discount, collecting the full price later. English casualties amounted to over 1000 killed and wounded. The French loss included 2500 killed, rather more wounded, and 2000 taken prisoner, including King John.

The Battle of Agincourt, 25 October 1415

The third of the longbow’s major victories began when a small English army under King Henry V was brought to battle by an army under Charles d’Albret, Constable of France, which outnumbered it fivefold. Henry had 4950 archers and 750 knights and men-at-arms at his disposal, a total of 5700 men. D’Albret could muster 3000 crossbowmen, 7000 mounted and 15,000 dismounted knights and men-at-arms, a total of 25,000 men plus a few guns.

Henry chose his fighting position at the point where the space between two woods narrowed to 850 metres (940 yards). As usual, his dismounted men-at-arms were deployed in blocks with the archers on their flanks. Those archers in the centre of the line formed two wedges, fronted by stakes that were driven into the ground. To the north, d’Albret’s army occupied a frontage of 1000 metres (1200 yards). On each flank was a detachment of mounted knights. The centre consisted of three divisions, the first two composed of dismounted knights and men-at-arms, the third of mounted knights. Somehow, during the deployment, the crossbowmen and guns found themselves behind the first division, where they could give no support whatever.

The battle began when the archers in the trees on both flanks began sniping at the mounted detachment accompanying the first division. Kicking and plunging in their pain, horses bolted through the dismounted men-at-arms, who were having to tramp across the mud of ploughed fields in plate armour that was even heavier than that worn at Poitiers. Worse still, their original frontage of 1000 metres was now compressed to 850 metres. Such was the crush that some were unable to use their weapons. At close range, marksmen shot many of them through the visor. They struggled bravely on to close with the English men-at-arms. The archers, knowing that their comrades were too few to handle the situation, swarmed out to batter the exhausted French with clubs, swords, and axes. If a knight went down, he was either despatched with a dagger thrust or suffocated when more of his fellows fell on top of him. It was little better than mass butchery, with the arrival of the French second division only adding to the ghastly piles of slain.

It had taken just 30 minutes to destroy two-thirds of d’Albret’s army. Henry sent a herald across to the remaining third division, telling them that they would receive no mercy unless they cleared off promptly. They took his advice. English losses included the Duke of York, smothered in his armour, 400 killed, and about 800 wounded. The French lost 8000 killed, including d’Albret, three dukes, 90 assorted noblemen, and 1560 knights, plus 2000 captured.

The English archers won more victories, but things never went quite so well for them again. France was too big, and its population too large, for the English to hold their gains. Thanks to Joan of Arc in the mid-fifteenth century, the English failed to take Orleans, and as the French sense of nationhood began to grow they began to lose ground. Always comparatively few in number, by the 1450s English archers found themselves outranged by well-handled French guns and their reputation for invincibility ended. Besides, there was now plenty of work for them to do at home - the Wars of the Roses were just about to come into bloom (see the next section).

Roses Are Red, Roses Are White

The Wars of the Roses were fought between two lines of descent stemming from Edward III (for more on this, see Sean Lang’s British History For Dummies, published by Wiley). As might be expected, the wars were about who was going to sit on the throne of England. The Wars of the Roses lasted from 1455 until 1485, although only six weeks’ actual fighting took place in all that time. They have been described as bloody, and so they were to the extent that one bunch of nobles was trying to exterminate another, and their supporters as well. In these circumstances, treachery became a highly prized social skill. Ordinary folk stayed well out of the way if they could.

Table 4-1 shows the most important figures for both sides in the war.

Table 4-1 Who's Who in the Wars of the Roses
Lancaster	York
Henry VI - who lost France and then his sanity.	Richard, Duke of York - killed by Margaret after the Battle of Wakefield.
Henry's wife Margaret of Anjou - who wore the royal trousers in his house.	Edward IV - illegitimate if the story about his dad being a French archer was true!
Henry and Margaret's son Edward, Prince of Wales - who was killed after the battle of Tewksbury.	Edward's sons the Princes in the Tower - who would therefore have had no claim on the throne either.
Henry Tudor - soon to become Henry VII (more on him later).	Richard III, Edward's brother - forever cast by Tudor propagandist Will Shakespeare as the wicked uncle.

Which rose was which? The story is that the original row took place in a rose garden, where those present were required to show their allegiance by plucking a red or white rose. The Lancastrians favoured the red and the Yorkists the white. Never confuse the two if you visit northern England!

The wars produced the bloodiest battle ever to take place on English soil, fought in a blizzard at Towton in Yorkshire on 29 March 1461. Snow blinded the Lancastrian archers, whose arrows fell short. They were collected by the Yorkists, who opened a continuous galling fire that provoked the Lancastrians into attacking in a six-hour melee, which was only decided in favour of the Yorkists when their reinforcements fell on the Lancastrians’ flank. Probable casualty figures are 8000 Yorkists and 10,000 Lancastrians, of whom not less than one-third were killed.

Officially, the last battle of the Wars of the Roses was Bosworth Field (22 August 1485), fought between Richard III and Henry Tudor, the Lancastrian claimant to the throne. Richard, the last native-born Englishman to wear the crown, was killed during the fighting. Henry Tudor (now Henry VII) was of Welsh descent. In outlook he was more a modern than a medieval monarch. To show that he meant business, he quickly passed an act forbidding what was left of the nobility from keeping bodies of armed, uniformed retainers.

The Middle Ages were over. The archer had made the armoured knight obsolete, the gun had done likewise to the archer, and in due course it would see off the castle as well. New weapons would mean new ways of fighting and new types of soldier, too - and Part II shows you just what happened.