The "Mystery" of Taillebourg 1242 . . .

[stockwellpete]

Source : Jean Chapelot, « La bataille de Taillebourg a-t-elle eu lieu ? », L'Histoire, vol. 350, no 2,‎ 2010, p. 68 -73
(charged online article).
(translation of the title : "Did the battle of Taillebourg happen ?")

I think it did happen, given what we have now from all the other sources mentioned in this thread.

[stockwellpete]

On the wikipedia page for the battle, there is a link to the French wiki page for the Bataille de Taillebourg. I have used Google translate for what it says about the second phase of the battle:



Those details did not make it to the English wiki page!

Thanks Paul. I think this is what I shall use for the basis of my scenario. The English can be on this plateau somewhere in front of Saintes and the French can feed units into the battle over a number of turns. At least we know now where the earlier Verbruggen reference to the men from Tournai fits in now.

[Paul59]

At least we know now where the earlier Verbruggen reference to the men from Tournai fits in now. :wink:

Yes, that little mystery seems to be solved. They were out foraging when they ran into the English army, and the battle developed from there. I did find one further source, a 1902 translation of Joinville's Life of St Louis, the only extra info it provided was that the Count of Boulogne commanded the French reinforcements that tipped the battle in their favour.

[Athos1660]

Source : Jean Chapelot, « La bataille de Taillebourg a-t-elle eu lieu ? », L'Histoire, vol. 350, no 2,‎ 2010, p. 68 -73
(charged online article).
(translation of the title : "Did the battle of Taillebourg happen ?")

I think it did happen, given what we have now from all the other sources mentioned in this thread.

What we, non-Historians, think is of little value when it comes to History. The title of this article hides the question : 'What kind of fight was it ? A big battle ? A skirmish ? A charge ? ... ?' But if you are not interested in one of the main/few current French historians who wrote on this subject, it's your choice. I just posted here to help with solid sources...

[stockwellpete]

What we, non-Historians, think is of little value when it comes to History.

Elitist nonsense.

The title of this article hides the question : 'What kind of fight was it ? A big battle ? A skirmish ? A charge ? ... ?' But if you are not interested in one of the main/few current French historians who wrote on this subject, it's your choice. I just posted here to help with solid sources...

It is not a case of not being interested, but I have enough info now not to have to buy a short online article. Thanks.

Edit: Le Goff does reference Bemont's 1893 article in Annales du Midi 5 about Taillebourg/Saintes 1242-3.

[fogman]

So that gives me quite a reasonable cast of commanders to use. We can see that the French army was composed of soldiers from right across France - Artois, Poitiers, Boulogne, Normandy, Brittany and so on. Presumably these were the arriere bans you mentioned in another post?

No, those must have been from the usual ban and it is too be expected that the king would have been able to summon it from all over. The arriere ban which is a mass levy doesn’t have the logistics to travel far from its immediate area. But regardless, French feudal foot was not known to be of any use on the battlefield. The same goes for the ‘English’ army. Henry complained in his letter about treachery, so one may expect massive desertion which explained his numerical inferioriy.

[stockwellpete]

I did the first play test this afternoon. Some screenshots for you. The first one is a long view of the battlefield, set up as a 48x32 size, showing the terrain between Taillebourg and Saintes. You can see the plateau and vineyards that are mentioned in the sources just in front of Saintes . . .

Screen_00000000.jpg (634.98 KiB) Viewed 2926 times

This shows the situation inside Saintes as the French begin their attack. The contingents are scrambled inside the town so that the English player has to be careful how they deploy from there to the battle line . . .

Screen_00000017.jpg (744.28 KiB) Viewed 2926 times

Whereas the French at Taillebourg are much more relaxed . . .

Screen_00000018.jpg (686.02 KiB) Viewed 2926 times

[stockwellpete]

This at the very start when the Tournai "foragers" clash with De Lusignan soldiers in the vineyards . . .

Screen_00000002.jpg (793.84 KiB) Viewed 2921 times

And this is when the French begin their first assault. The Poitevins are beginning to form up in a second line and soon will be ready to join the attack . . .

Screen_00000001.jpg (668.88 KiB) Viewed 2921 times

De Montfort is under pressure right away as his contingent is "disrupted" by the initial attack . . .

Screen_00000003.jpg (879.17 KiB) Viewed 2918 times

[stockwellpete]

The English left is quickly in very serious trouble . . .

Screen_00000008.jpg (657.6 KiB) Viewed 2916 times

Richard of Cornwall leads a charge to relieve the pressure on De Montfort . . .

Screen_00000010.jpg (979.8 KiB) Viewed 2916 times

The first attack of the French is beaten off, both in the centre and on the left . . .

Screen_00000014.jpg (714.03 KiB) Viewed 2914 times

[stockwellpete]

The French have suffered heavy casualties in their first assault and are reduced to long range crossbow shooting in the centre. Two half-hearted attacks on the English flanks are also beaten off . . .

Screen_00000016.jpg (696.58 KiB) Viewed 2907 times

After this, the French decide to withdraw as they cannot take the plateau or the vineyards. They have suffered 31% losses, the English 19%.

[stockwellpete]

It was a very good first play test that has identified a number of issues for me to work on . . .

1) the French army probably needs to be a bit bigger and maybe their sergeants could be "above average" for this scenario (i.e "sergeants with some knights"). The English army was 13,000 strong, the French slightly bigger. Maybe the French could go to 15,000?
2) the Gascon crossbow fire from the plateau was devastating at times, so maybe the ratio of crossbows to spears needs to be adjusted in the Anglo-Gascon army?
3) the English deployment from Saintes was still a bit too straightforward, so that needs improving.

What was good though straight away was . . .
4) the terrain; the plateau and vineyards made realistic targets for the French and Anglo-Gascons to contest.

One other thing I need to research is the relative size of the various French contingents in the French army. The main group is the Poitevins, but there are also soldiers from Artois, Boulogne (being incorporated into Artois at that time), Brittany and Normandy, as well as the foragers from Tournai.

[Paul59]

2) the Gascon crossbow fire from the plateau was devastating at times, so maybe the ratio of crossbows to spears needs to be adjusted in the Anglo-Gascon army?

The wiki page says that the English had just 700 crossbowmen, and 20000 other foot. So that is quite a low ratio of crossbows to other foot.

I have just realised where Taillebourg/Saintes is, western France! I always assumed it was up near the Belgian border, especially with the men from Tournai involved. They were a long way from home, which seems rather strange to me.

[stockwellpete]

I have just realised where Taillebourg/Saintes is, western France! I always assumed it was up near the Belgian border, especially with the men from Tournai involved. They were a long way from home, which seems rather strange to me.

They must have got lost while they were foraging. They were only meant to go to Lille!

[fogman]

Bemont’s article

https://www.persee.fr/doc/anami_0003-43 ... _5_19_3118

No analysis on OOB or critical look at reported numbers (he did say note 2 p.294 : we can’t say whether the numbers are true). But a few magnates that came with Henry III are named (note 4 p 296).

Not sure why some thought he doubted the veracity of the battle.

[Athos1660]

Bemont’s article

https://www.persee.fr/doc/anami_0003-43 ... _5_19_3118

No analysis on OOB or critical look at reported numbers (...)

Not sure why some thought he doubted the veracity of the battle.

Well... because Bémont DOES write it throughout his article when assessing the sources (for example, among so many other things : 'mais où il semble bien qu'il n'y a rien eu." (p. 305) meaning 'where (ie Taillebourg) it seems nothing happened')

According to Bémont, at the very very most, there might have been a small skirmish at Taillebourg (the way Jean Chapelot described it, see above my translation in this thread) : "Si enfin l'on veut qu'il y ait eu un combat à Taillebourg, il faut le réduire aux proportions d'une simple escarmouche et admettre que l'événement capital de la journée a été le mouvement tournant exécuté par l'armée française sous les yeux de l'ennemi impuissant" (p. 305).

Moreover, as "Si enfin l'on veut qu'il y ait eu un combat..." means "if one really wants to say that there was a fight at Taillebourg...", it means that even a simple skirmish is doubtful according to Bémont.

I won't develop any further but please be careful when you read and use an article or a source.

Not sure why some thought (...)

Those 'some' are professional HIstorians, experts who can read French historical articles.

[stockwellpete]

Second play test this morning - another draw after 20 turns, but this time the French were ahead 51-49 and were bound to win as they were beginning to encircle what was left of the Anglo-Gascon army on the plateau.

I had made some changes from the first play test . . .
1) French sergeants were "above average" rather than average. In the default "Skirmish" mode, the army list for the French allows there to be 4/5 knights to every sergeant, but I came across something the other day that said that sergeants became increasingly more numerous in French armies in the 13th and 14thC, often because families could not afford all the trappings of a knight. So the ratio of knights to sergeants in the French army in this scenario is about 1:1, and making them "above average" has closed the skill gap between them a bit compared to the default settings.
2) I made the various French contingents more similar in size and all had infantry contingents. Their army only had a couple of "raw" spearmen though following on from fogman's point about the type of French mobilisation this was.
3) I treated the Boulogne contingent as "Low Countries" and gave them "offensive spears". You may remember that Paul59 indicated that the Boulogne attack was the one that turned the battle.
3) The number of missile units in the Anglo-Gascon army reduced significantly.
4) "Panic" in Saintes increased by quite a bit more.

There are still some issues . . .
a) is the French OOB as accurate as it might be? Are their provinces not represented by contingents that should be? I will put the 2xOOB's that I have later this morning.
b) the Anglo-Gascon army still has too many missile units, 5 at the moment, so that probably needs to go down to 3.
c) I think the ratio of mounted English knights (and sergeants) to dismounted English knights is wrong at about 3:1. I think there might be a case for dismounting all the English knights, maybe except Henry III.
d) who are the leading Gascon knights in this battle?
e) I think the "panic" in Saintes could be extended a bit to the plateau so the English player has decisions about how to deploy there. The English have first turn in the game. There should at least be the possibility of the French gaining an early foothold on the plateau.

[Athos1660]

btw here what Le Goff writes about Taillebourg in his book about Louis IX :

Le 21 juillet, les armées se trouvent en présence de part et d’autre de la Charente pas guéable à cet endroit. Les Français repoussent les Anglais sur le pont de pierre et ceux-ci refluent en toute hâte sur Saintes. Le lendemain, 22 juillet, Louis IX traverse la Charente et la bataille s’engage devant Saintes.

Rough translation :

On 21 July, the two armies are in the presence of each other, each army on one side of the Charente river that was not fordable in this area. The French repelled the English on the stone bridge and the latter hastily fled to Saintes. The next day, on 22 July, Louis IX crossed the Charente and the battle started at Saintes.

[stockwellpete]

Bemont’s article

https://www.persee.fr/doc/anami_0003-43 ... _5_19_3118

But a few magnates that came with Henry III are named (note 4 p 296).

Thanks, that list is helpful and fills in a few blanks from the other sources. So William Longuepee (Longsword) is the previously unnamed Earl of Salisbury; Honfroi de Bohun is Humphrey de Bohun of Hereford and Essex, is presumably the previously unnamed Earl of March. Roger de Quincy and Jean du Plessis are new ones.

[Paul59]

Bemont’s article

https://www.persee.fr/doc/anami_0003-43 ... _5_19_3118

But a few magnates that came with Henry III are named (note 4 p 296).

Thanks, that list is helpful and fills in a few blanks from the other sources. So William Longuepee (Longsword) is the previously unnamed Earl of Salisbury;

Interestingly, this must be the son of William Longsword (Earl of Salisbury) who fought at Bouvines in 1214. The son shared the same name, and died at the Battle of Mansurah during the Seventh Crusade.

Regarding the ratio of knights to sergeants, don't forget that the Knights units themselves contain a large number of sergeants.

[stockwellpete]

Regarding the ratio of knights to sergeants, don't forget that the Knights units themselves contain a large number of sergeants.

Yes, I understand that, but I read this in Osprey's "French Medieval Armies 1000-1300AD" . . .

"By the early 14thC squires outnumbered knights by no less than 10 to 1 in some French armies." (p7)

These are described as professional sergeants with comparable equipment to knights. Also, on that page, it talks about the French king being able to afford a standing army on the border of Normandy in 1202, which included 257 knights and 267 mounted sergeants with 2500 other soldiers, mainly infantry. So between 1200 and 1300 there seems to be quite a big change occuring.