Slitherine

i'm surprised you could conjure up a whole scenario based on a couple of pages from that book. His contention that the milanese cavalry didn't engage because they 'didn't like' arrows is very curious. That's a red flag which would send scurrying for the footnote if there's one. The milanese cavalry was hired specifically to attack archers. The French did not lack heavy cavalry, what they didn't have was milanese armour. A small force of milanese cavalry was operating in a minor campaign in Burgundy the previous year and it was their invulnerability against arrows that prompted the french to recruit on a large scale for the verneuil campaign. it's rather incredible that the milanese would avoid contact.

fogman wrote:i'm surprised you could conjure up a whole scenario based on a couple of pages from that book.

Oh, I am very talented, you know.

His contention that the milanese cavalry didn't engage because they 'didn't like' arrows is very curious. That's a red flag which would send scurrying for the footnote if there's one. The milanese cavalry was hired specifically to attack archers. The French did not lack heavy cavalry, what they didn't have was milanese armour. A small force of milanese cavalry was operating in a minor campaign in Burgundy the previous year and it was their invulnerability against arrows that prompted the french to recruit on a large scale for the verneuil campaign. it's rather incredible that the milanese would avoid contact.

Yes, I am not saying Reid is correct or anything. It is just interesting to me to try and represent different accounts of the same battle. There seems to be quite a bit of continuity in the account of the battle from the 1906 text that I posted and Reid's much more recent version. I don't have access to the journal that the Jones article is published in, which is a bit of a shame - I would be very interested to read it. It seems to be suggesting that at least some of the French/Italian knights burst through the middle of the English position. That sounds a bit unlikely to me but, of course, it is not impossible. The other thing is - would most of the Italian knights have experienced mass longbow fire before? How might it have affected their horses, even though they were armoured?

There are a lot of questions about Verneuil that I don't know the answer to, I must admit.

the Jones' article is actually now the authoritative account of Verneuil. See 'The Hundred Years War, Different Vistas', p. 12, note 34. It is happily previewed on Google books, with a large portion of a very good but debatable article on Agincourt. You may want to track down the book at your local university library:

http://books.google.ca/books?id=rcJW7hy ... &q&f=false

stockwellpete wrote:

fogman wrote:i'm surprised you could conjure up a whole scenario based on a couple of pages from that book.

Oh, I am very talented, you know.

It wasn't a compliment! lol.

fogman wrote:the Jones' article is actually now the authoritative account of Verneuil. See 'The Hundred Years War, Different Vistas', p. 12, note 34. It is happily previewed on Google books, with a large portion of a very good but debatable article on Agincourt. You may want to track down the book at your local university library:

http://books.google.ca/books?id=rcJW7hy ... &q&f=false

Page 12 is not in that preview though. The book costs £100+ on Amazon so I shall just have to remain blissfully ignorant with regards to Jones.

How are you going to keep up with the Joneses then, Pete? I had a similar experience with Tarifa/Rio Salado. There is an article in an online journal of medieval military history that seems to be the most authoritative and recent description and analysis of this battle. But the one issue which contains the article costs $99 US. Even my OCD has its limits.

Personally, I like the idea of several variant versions of the same battle. We can always refrain from playing the ones we don't like and play the versions we do. There's no need for either/or with downloadable, electronic games. Pitting one version after another could eventually produce the best possible version down the road. Thesis<>antithesis= synthesis! Or if the historical vs. playable difference proves irreconcilable, then let the players choose between the two. Or three, or more.

ZeaBed wrote:How are you going to keep up with the Joneses then, Pete? I had a similar experience with Tarifa/Rio Salado. There is an article in an online journal of medieval military history that seems to be the most authoritative and recent description and analysis of this battle. But the one issue which contains the article costs $99 US. Even my OCD has its limits.

Personally, I like the idea of several variant versions of the same battle. We can always refrain from playing the ones we don't like and play the versions we do. There's no need for either/or with downloadable, electronic games. Pitting one version after another could eventually produce the best possible version down the road. Thesis<>antithesis= synthesis! Or if the historical vs. playable difference proves irreconcilable, then let the players choose between the two. Or three, or more.

If the Jones thesis has got "legs", Zeabed, it will eventually appear as the orthodoxy in more popular histories rather than just in academic ones. We will probably be on FOGv4 by then! I will have a look at Juliet Barker's quite recent book on the defeat of England in the 100YW. I am fairly certain it will cover Verneuil in some detail. I think her book is called something like "The Fall of Lancastrian France". I make no claims to be an academic historian - I just try and read as widely as I can on the medieval world, for enjoyment, nothing else.

I agree with you about having a variety of scenarios for certain key battles. It is what makes this hobby fun. My main priority is always to make a good game for the PC so other people have enjoyment - and I will cram as much history in as I possibly can, but sometimes I have to exercise a certain "artistic licence" to balance out a scenario. I have no qualms at all about doing this.

stockwellpete wrote:
If the Jones thesis has got "legs", Zeabed, it will eventually appear as the orthodoxy in more popular histories rather than just in academic ones. We will probably be on FOGv4 by then! I will have a look at Juliet Barker's quite recent book on the defeat of England in the 100YW. I am fairly certain it will cover Verneuil in some detail. I think her book is called something like "The Fall of Lancastrian France". I make no claims to be an academic historian - I just try and read as widely as I can on the medieval world, for enjoyment, nothing else.

the barker's book in question is "conquest: the english kingdom of france 1417-1450." she has exactly 3 paragraphs on the description of the battle of verneuil (p. 79-80). Second paragraph: "The battle began at about four in the afternoon with a devastating charge by the Milanese, who swept the archers before them, drove straight through the army and then, instead of regrouping to strike again from behind, proceeded to pillage the baggage in the wagons." there is the Jones' thesis in popular history for you.

Anyway, I'm not going to debate history with you anymore. It's rather pointless since you lack rigor in your documentation and argumentation.

fogman wrote: Anyway, I'm not going to debate history with you anymore. It's rather pointless since you lack rigor in your documentation and argumentation.

What?! You are such a pleasant boy! Goodness me!

updated.

re-designed for lords of history 3.